DOHA: The United States signed a peace agreement with the Taliban on Saturday aimed at bringing an end to 18 years of bloodshed in Afghanistan and allowing US troops to return home from America’s longest war.
Under the agreement, the US would draw its forces down to 8,600 from 13,000 in the next 3-4 months, with the remaining US forces withdrawing in 14 months. The complete pullout, however, would depend on the Taliban meeting their commitments to prevent terrorism.
President George W. Bush ordered the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in response to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Some US troops currently serving there had not yet been born when the World Trade Center collapsed on that crisp, sunny morning that changed how Americans see the world.
It only took a few months to topple the Taliban and send Osama bin Laden and top Al-Qaeda militants scrambling across the border into Pakistan, but the war dragged on for years as the United States tried establish a stable, functioning state in one of the least developed countries in the world. The Taliban regrouped, and currently hold sway over half the country.
The US spent more than $750 billion, and on all sides the war cost tens of thousands of lives lost, permanently scarred and indelibly interrupted. But the conflict was also frequently ignored by US politicians and the American public.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attended the ceremony in Qatar, where the Taliban have a political office, but did not sign the agreement. Instead, it was signed by US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and Taliban leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar.
The Taliban harbored bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda network as they plotted, and then celebrated, the hijackings of four airliners that were crashed into lower Manhattan, the Pentagon and a field in western Pennsylvania, killing almost 3,000 people.
Pompeo had privately told a conference of US ambassadors at the State Department this week that he was going only because President Donald Trump had insisted on his participation, according to two people present.
Dozens of Taliban members had earlier held a small victory march in Qatar in which they waved the militant group’s white flags, according to a video shared on Taliban websites. “Today is the day of victory, which has come with the help of Allah,” said Abbas Stanikzai, one of the Taliban’s lead negotiators, who joined the march.
Trump has repeatedly promised to get the US out of its “endless wars” in the Middle East, and the withdrawal of troops could provide a boost as he seeks re-election in a nation weary of involvement in distant conflicts.
Trump has approached the Taliban agreement cautiously, steering clear of the crowing surrounding other major foreign policy actions, such as his talks with North Korea.
Last September, on short notice, he called off what was to be a signing ceremony with the Taliban at Camp David after a series of new Taliban attacks. But he has since been supportive of the talks led by his special envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad.
Under the agreement, the Taliban promise not to let extremists use the country as a staging ground for attacking the US or its allies. But US officials are loath to trust the Taliban to fulfill their obligations.
The prospects for Afghanistan’s future are uncertain. The agreement sets the stage for peace talks involving Afghan factions, which are likely to be complicated. Under the agreement, 5,000 Taliban are to be released from Afghan-run jails, but it’s not known if the Afghan government will do that. There are also questions about whether Taliban fighters loyal to various warlords will be willing to disarm.
It’s not clear what will become of gains made in women’s rights since the toppling of the Taliban, which had repressed women and girls under a strict brand of Sharia law. Women’s rights in Afghanistan had been a top concern of both the Bush and Obama administration, but it remains a deeply conservative country, with women still struggling for basic rights.
There are currently more than 16,500 soldiers serving under the NATO banner, of which 8,000 are American. Germany has the next largest contingent, with 1,300 troops, followed by Britain with 1,100.
In all, 38 NATO countries are contributing forces to Afghanistan. The alliance officially concluded its combat mission in 2014 and now provides training and support to Afghan forces.
The US has a separate contingent of 5,000 troops deployed to carry out counter-terrorism missions and provide air and ground support to Afghan forces when requested.
Since the start of negotiations with the Taliban, the US has stepped up its air assaults on the Taliban as well as a local Islamic State affiliate. Last year the US air force dropped more bombs on Afghanistan than in any year since 2013.
Seven days ago, the Taliban began a seven-day “reduction of violence” period, a prerequisite to the peace deal signing.
“We have seen a significant reduction in violence in Afghanistan over the last days, and therefore we are also very close to the signing of an agreement between the United States and the Taliban,” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Friday in Brussels.
He was in Kabul on Saturday for a separate signing ceremony with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and US Defense Secretary Mark Esper. That signing was intended to show continuing NATO and US support for Afghanistan.
“The road to peace will be long and hard and there will be setbacks, and there is a risk always for spoilers,” Stoltenberg said. “But the thing is, we are committed, the Afghan people are committed to peace, and we will continue to provide support.”
US, Taliban sign deal aimed at ending war in Afghanistan
https://arab.news/c3j4u
US, Taliban sign deal aimed at ending war in Afghanistan
- Under agreement, US will draw down its forces to 8,600 from 13,000 in a few months
- The US-led invasion cost $750 billion and began in 2001 in response to the Sept.11 attacks
NATO learns as Ukraine’s ‘creativity’ changes battlefield
- “What the Ukrainians did in Russia was a Trojan horse,” says NATO streategic commander for transformation
- NATO has adopted new objectives for its defense capabilities to ensure it will be able to repel Russian aggression
BRUSSELS, Belgium: Ukraine’s “creativity,” including its massive “Spider’s web” drone attack deep inside Russia, holds profound lessons for Western militaries, the top NATO commander overseeing battlefield innovation told AFP.
“What the Ukrainians did in Russia was a Trojan horse — and the trojan horse was thousands of years ago,” French Admiral Pierre Vandier, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, said in an interview.
“Today, we see this kind of tactic being reinvented by technical and industrial creativity.”
Vandier said the operation showed how crucial innovation and adaptation were for victory, as modern warfare changes at lightning speed.
“It was a real coup.”
“We are entering a dynamic era where armies must rely on both major planning but also adaptive planning,” the navy commander said.
“We will witness continuous innovation where, week by week, month by month or year by year, we will be able to invent things we hadn’t anticipated.”
Faced with the Russian threat, NATO this week adopted new objectives for its defense capabilities to ensure it will be able to repel Moscow.
But Western intelligence agencies have warned that the Kremlin is reconstituting its forces at a pace far outstripping NATO and could be ready to attack the alliance in as little as four years.
“Time is truly a crucial parameter. We must act quickly,” Vandier said.
The admiral, who previously commanded France’s flagship Charles De Gaulle aircraft carrier, said NATO needed to amass the forces to dissuade any adversary from trying an attack.
“When you say ‘I’m defending myself’, you have the weapons to defend. When you say you deter, you have the weapons to deter,” he said.
“That’s what should prevent war — making the adversary think: “Tomorrow morning, I won’t win.”
NATO countries under pressure from US President Donald Trump are expected to agree a major increase in their defense spending target at a summit in The Hague this month.
That should see a dramatic surge in spending on military hardware.
But if cheap Ukrainian drones can inflict billions of dollars in damage on Russian bombers, is it still worth investing in vastly expensive systems?
“No-one in the military sphere will tell you that we can do without what we’ll call traditional equipment,” Vandier said.
“However, we are certain we need new equipment to complement it.”
Officials say that over 70 percent of battlefield casualties in Ukraine are caused by drones.
But while drones are indispensable in modern warfare, they are not omnipotent.
“Today, you won’t cross the Atlantic with a 10-meter-long (33-foot-long) drone. You won’t easily locate submarines with such tools,” Vandier said.
“If they accompany your large platforms, you’ll be able to achieve much better results at much lower costs.”
The admiral, who works out of NATO’s US base in Norfolk, Virginia, said the major challenge was “integrating new technologies and new combat methods, based on what we’ve witnessed in Ukraine.”
NATO and Ukraine have established a center in Poland designed to help the alliance learn lessons from Russia’s invasion of its neighbor.
Artificial Intelligence and robotics are also increasingly having an impact and are set to help reshape the battlefield.
“All modern armies will have piloted and non-piloted capabilities,” Vandier said.
“It’s much more efficient to deliver ammunition with a ground robot than with a squad of soldiers who could face a 155-millimeter (six-inch) shell.”
This transformation of military capabilities within the alliance, which NATO aims to expand by at least 30 percent over coming years, will come at a significant cost, estimated in hundreds of billions of euros (dollars).
Vandier insisted that while the financial effort was “substantial” it was “fully realistic.”
“Today, we have all the tools. We have the engineering. We have the expertise. We have the technology. So, we need to get started,” he said.
US troops make first detentions in Trump border military zones
- US presidents have long used active-duty and reservist troops on the international boundary in support roles to US Border Patrol such as surveillance and construction
US troops have made their first detentions inside military areas set up on the US-Mexico border as part of the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration, the US Army said.
The unprecedented military areas along 260 miles (418 km) of border in New Mexico and Texas were declared extensions of US Army bases by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, allowing troops to temporarily detain migrants and other civilian trespassers.
Three “illegal aliens” were detained by troops in the New Mexico area near Santa Teresa on June 3, before being handed to US Border Patrol, Army spokesperson Major Geoffrey Carmichael said in an email.
“This marks the first time Department of Defense personnel have recorded a temporary detainment within either National Defense Area,” Carmichael said.
US presidents have long used active-duty and reservist troops on the international boundary in support roles to US Border Patrol such as surveillance and construction.
President Donald Trump took military use a step further by giving troops the right to hold trespassers they catch in the zones until civilian law enforcement assumes custody.
Federal troops can also search people and conduct crowd control measures within the areas, according to the Army.
Designation of the zones as military bases allowed troops to detain migrants without the need for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act. The 1807 law lets a US president deploy federal troops domestically to suppress events like civil disorder.
Prosecution of dozens of migrants caught in the zones has faced setbacks in court after judges in New Mexico and Texas dismissed trespassing charges, and acquitted a Peruvian woman, ruling they did not know they were entering restricted areas.
The primary role of troops in the zones is to detect and track illegal border crossers, with around 390 such detections so far, the Army said.
News of the detentions inside military areas came as Trump deployed state-based National Guard troops to Los Angeles during protests over immigration raids.
Protests intensify in Los Angeles after Trump deploys hundreds of National Guard troops
- California governor accuses Trump of a “complete overreaction” designed to create a spectacle of force
- Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also threatened to deploy active-duty Marines “if violence continues” in the region
LOS ANGELES: Tensions in Los Angeles escalated Sunday as thousands of protesters took to the streets in response to President Donald Trump’s extraordinary deployment of the National Guard, blocking off a major freeway and setting self-driving cars on fire as law enforcement used tear gas, rubber bullets, and flash bangs to control the crowd.
Some police patrolled the streets on horseback while others with riot gear lined up behind Guard troops deployed to protect federal facilities including a detention center where some immigrants were taken in recent days. Police declared an unlawful assembly, and by early evening many people had left. Some protesters who remained grabbed chairs from a nearby public park to form a makeshift barrier between themselves and police and throw objects at them.
It was the third day of demonstrations against Trump’s immigration crackdown in the region, as the arrival of around 300 federal troops spurred anger and fear among some residents. Sunday’s protests in Los Angeles, a city of 4 million people, were centered in several blocks of downtown.
Outside the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles, crowds chanted “shame” and “go home” at members of the National Guard, who stood shoulder to shoulder, carrying long guns and riot shields. After some protesters closely approached the guard members, another set of uniformed officers advanced on the group, shooting smoke-filled canisters into the street.
Minutes later, the Los Angeles Police Department fired rounds of crowd-control munitions to disperse the protesters, who they said were assembled unlawfully. Much of the group then moved to block traffic on the 101 freeway until state patrol officers cleared them from the roadway by late afternoon, while southbound lanes remained shut down.
Flash bangs echoed out every few seconds into the evening as some protesters threw objects down at the roadway and state patrol officers fired back.
Nearby, at least four self-driving Waymo cars were set on fire, sending large plumes of black smoke into the sky and exploding intermittently as the electric vehicles burned. By evening, police had issued an unlawful assembly order shutting down several blocks of downtown Los Angeles.
Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom requested Trump remove the guard members in a letter Sunday afternoon, calling their deployment a “serious breach of state sovereignty.” He was in Los Angeles meeting with local law enforcement and officials. It wasn’t clear if he’d spoken to Trump since Friday.
Their deployment appeared to be the first time in decades that a state’s national guard was activated without a request from its governor, a significant escalation against those who have sought to hinder the administration’s mass deportation efforts.
Mayor Karen Bass echoed Newsom’s comments.
“What we’re seeing in Los Angeles is chaos that is provoked by the administration,” she said in an afternoon press conference. “This is about another agenda, this isn’t about public safety.”
Their admonishments did not deter the administration.
“It’s a bald-faced lie for Newsom to claim there was no problem in Los Angeles before President Trump got involved,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement in response.
Deployment follows days of protest
The arrival of the National Guard followed two days of protests that began Friday in downtown Los Angeles before spreading on Saturday to Paramount, a heavily Latino city south of the city, and neighboring Compton.
Federal agents arrested immigrants in LA’s fashion district, in a Home Depot parking lot and at several other locations on Friday. The next day, they were staging at a Department of Homeland Security office near another Home Depot in Paramount, which drew out protesters who suspected another raid. Federal authorities later said there was no enforcement activity at that Home Depot.
Demonstrators attempted to block Border Patrol vehicles hurling rocks and chunks of cement. In response, agents in riot gear unleashed tear gas, flash-bang explosives and pepper balls.
The weeklong tally of immigrant arrests in the LA area climbed above 100, federal authorities said. Many more were arrested while protesting, including a prominent union leader who was accused of impeding law enforcement.
The protests did not reach the size of past demonstrations that brought the National Guard to Los Angeles, including the Watts and Rodney King riots, and the 2020 protests against police violence, in which Newsom requested the assistance of federal troops.
The last time the National Guard was activated without a governor’s permission was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to protect a civil rights march in Alabama, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
Trump says there will be ‘very strong law and order’
In a directive Saturday, Trump invoked a legal provision allowing him to deploy federal service members when there is ”a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”
He said he had authorized the deployment of 2,000 members of the National Guard.
Trump told reporters as he prepared to board Air Force One in Morristown, New Jersey, Sunday that there were “violent people” in Los Angeles “and they’re not gonna get away with it.”
Asked if he planned to send US troops to Los Angeles, Trump replied: “We’re gonna have troops everywhere. We’re not going to let this happen to our country. We’re not going to let our country be torn apart like it was under Biden.” He didn’t elaborate.
About 500 Marines stationed at Twentynine Palms, about 125 miles (200 kilometers) east of Los Angeles were in a “prepared to deploy status” Sunday afternoon, according to the US Northern Command.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris, who lives in Los Angeles, said the immigration arrests and Guard deployment were designed as part of a “cruel, calculated agenda to spread panic and division.”
She said she supports those “standing up to protect our most fundamental rights and freedoms.”
Defense secretary threatens to deploy active-duty Marines ‘if violence continues’
In a statement Sunday, Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin accused California’s politicians and protesters of “defending heinous illegal alien criminals at the expense of Americans’ safety.”
“Instead of rioting, they should be thanking ICE officers every single day who wake up and make our communities safer,” McLaughlin added.
The troops included members of the California Army National Guard’s 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, according to a social media post from the Department of Defense.
In a signal of the administration’s aggressive approach, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also threatened to deploy active-duty Marines “if violence continues” in the region.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said the order by Trump reflected “a president moving this country rapidly into authoritarianism” and “usurping the powers of the United States Congress.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson, a staunch Trump ally, endorsed the president’s move, doubling down on Republicans’ criticisms of California Democrats.
“Gavin Newsom has shown an inability or an unwillingness to do what is necessary, so the president stepped in,” Johnson said.
US Speaker Mike Johnson downplays Musk’s influence, says Republicans will pass Trump’s tax and budget bill
- “I didn’t go out to craft a piece of legislation to please the richest man in the world,” Johnson said on ABC’s “This Week”
- Musk had called the budget bill an “abomination” that would add to US debts and threaten economic stability
With an uncharacteristically feistiness, Speaker Mike Johnson took clear sides Sunday in President Donald Trump’s breakup with mega-billionaire Elon Musk.
The Republican House leader and staunch Trump ally said Musk’s criticism of the GOP’s massive tax and budget policy bill will not derail the measure, and he downplayed Musk’s influence over the GOP-controlled Congress.
“I didn’t go out to craft a piece of legislation to please the richest man in the world,” Johnson said on ABC’s “This Week.” “What we’re trying to do is help hardworking Americans who are trying to provide for their families and make ends meet,” Johnson insisted.
Johnson said he has exchanged text messages with Musk since the former chief of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency came out against the GOP bill.
Musk called it an “abomination” that would add to US debts and threaten economic stability. He urged voters to flood Capitol Hill with calls to vote against the measure, which is pending in the Senate after clearing the House. His criticism sparked an angry social media back-and-forth with Trump, who told reporters over the weekend that he has no desire to repair his relationship with Musk.
The speaker was dismissive of Musk’s threats to finance opponents — even Democrats — of Republican members who back Trump’s bill.
“We’ve got almost no calls to the offices, any Republican member of Congress,” Johnson said. “And I think that indicates that people are taking a wait and see attitude. Some who may be convinced by some of his arguments, but the rest understand: this is a very exciting piece of legislation.”
Johnson argued that Musk still believes “that our policies are better for human flourishing. They’re better for the US economy. They’re better for everything that he’s involved in with his innovation and job creation and entrepreneurship.”
The speaker and other Republicans, including Trump’s White House budget chief, continued their push back Sunday against forecasts that their tax and budget plans will add to annual deficits and thus balloon a national debt already climbing toward $40 trillion.
Johnson insisted that Musk has bad information, and the speaker disputed the forecasts of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that scores budget legislation. The bill would extend the 2017 Trump tax cuts, cut spending and reduce some other levies but also leave some 10.9 million more people without health insurance and spike deficits by $2.4 trillion over the decade, according to the CBO’s analysis.
The speaker countered with arguments Republicans have made for decades: That lower taxes and spending cuts would spur economic growth that ensure deficits fall. Annual deficits and the overall debt actually climbed during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and during Trump’s first presidency, even after sweeping tax cuts.
Russell Vought, who leads the White House Office of Budget and Management, said on Fox News Sunday that CBO analysts base their models of “artificial baselines.” Because the 2017 tax law set the lower rates to expire, CBO’s cost estimates, Vought argued, presuming a return to the higher rates before that law went into effect.
Vought acknowledged CBO’s charge from Congress is to analyze legislation and current law as it is written. But he said the office could issue additional analyzes, implying it would be friendlier to GOP goals. Asked whether the White House would ask for alternative estimates, Vought again put the burden on CBO, repeating that congressional rules allow the office to publish more analysis.
Other Republicans, meanwhile, approached the Trump-Musk battle cautiously.
“As a former professional fighter, I learned a long time ago, don’t get between two fighters,” said Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
He even compared the two billionaire businessmen to a married couple.
“President Trump is a friend of mine but I don’t need to get, I can have friends that have disagreements,” Mullin said. “My wife and I dearly love each other and every now and then, well actually quite often, sometimes she disagrees with me, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t stay focused on what’s best for our family. Right now, there may be a disagreement but we’re laser focused on what is best for the American people.”
Trump banned citizens of 12 countries from entering the US. Here’s what to know
- The aim is to “protect its citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology
DAKAR, Senegal: President Donald Trump has banned citizens of 12 countries from entering the United States and restricted access for those from seven others, citing national security concerns in resurrecting and expanding a hallmark policy from his first term that will mostly affect people from Africa and the Middle East.
The ban announced Wednesday applies to citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The heightened restrictions apply to people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela who are outside the US and don’t hold a valid visa.
The policy takes effect Monday at 12:01 a.m. and does not have an end date.
Here’s what to know about the new rules:
How Trump justified the ban
Since returning to the White House, Trump has launched an unprecedented campaign of immigration enforcement that has pushed the limits of executive power and clashed with federal judges trying to restrain him.
The travel ban stems from a Jan. 20 executive order Trump issued requiring the Department of State, Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence to compile a report on “hostile attitudes” toward the US
The aim is to “protect its citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes,” the administration said.
In a video posted on social media, Trump tied the new ban to a terrorist attack Sunday in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas. The man charged in the attack is from Egypt, a country that is not on Trump’s restricted list. US officials say he overstayed a tourist visa.
Who is exempt from the ban, Which countries are affected
Trump said nationals of countries included in the ban pose “terrorism-related” and “public-safety” risks, as well as risks of overstaying their visas. He also said some of these countries had “deficient” screening and vetting or have historically refused to take back their citizens.
His findings rely extensively on an annual Homeland Security report about tourists, businesspeople and students who overstay US visas and arrive by air or sea, singling out countries with high percentages of nationals who remain after their visas expired.
“We don’t want them,” Trump said.
The inclusion of Afghanistan angered some supporters who have worked to resettle its people. The ban makes exceptions for Afghans on special immigrant visas, who were generally the people who worked most closely with the US government during the two-decade war there.
The list can be changed, the administration said in a document, if authorities in the designated countries make “material improvements” to their own rules and procedures. New countries can be added “as threats emerge around the world.”
State Department guidance
The State Department instructed US embassies and consulates on Friday not to revoke visas previously issued to people from the 12 countries listed in the ban.
In a cable sent to all US diplomatic missions, the department said “no action should be taken for issued visas which have already left the consular section” and that “no visas issued prior to the effective date should be revoked pursuant to this proclamation.”
However, visa applicants from affected countries whose applications have been approved but have not yet received their visas will be denied, according to the cable, which was signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
And, unless an applicant meets narrow criteria for an exemption to the ban, his or her application will be rejected starting on Monday.
How the ban differs from 2017’s
Early in Trump’s first term, he issued an executive order banning travel to the US by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
It was one of the most chaotic and confusing moments of his young presidency. Travelers from those nations were either barred from getting on flights to the US or detained at US airports after they landed. They included students and faculty, as well as businesspeople, tourists and people visiting friends and family.
The order, often referred to as the “Muslim ban” or the “travel ban,” was retooled amid legal challenges until a version was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018.
That ban affected various categories of travelers and immigrants from Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Libya, plus North Koreans and some Venezuelan government officials and their families.
Reactions to Trump’s order
Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro’s government condemned the travel ban, characterizing it in a statement as a “stigmatization and criminalization campaign” against Venezuelans.
Chad President Mahamat Deby Itno said his country would suspend visas for US citizens in response to the ban.
Aid and refugee resettlement groups also denounced it.
“This policy is not about national security — it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States,” said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America.
But reactions to the ban ran the gamut from anger to guarded relief and support.
In Haiti, radio stations received a flurry of calls Thursday from angry listeners, including many who said they were Haitians living in the US and who accused Trump of being racist, noting that the people of many of the targeted countries are Black.
Haitian-American Elvanize Louis-Juste, who was at the airport Sunday in Newark, New Jersey, awaiting a flight to her home state of Florida, said many Haitians wanting to come to the US are simply seeking to escape violence and unrest in their country.
“I have family in Haiti, so it’s pretty upsetting to see and hear,” Louis-Juste, 23, said of the travel ban. “I don’t think it’s a good thing. I think it’s very upsetting.”
William Lopez, a 75-year-old property investor who arrived from Cuba in 1967, supports the travel ban.
“These are people that come but don’t want to work, they support the Cuban government, they support communism,” Lopez said at a restaurant near Little Havana in Miami. “What the Trump administration is doing is perfectly good.”
