theparliamentnews.com

The United States has entered another chapter in its evolving immigration landscape. A recent memo from the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) confirmed that immigration applications from nationals of 19 countries have been temporarily paused. This move, announced under the Trump administration, has already generated debate across political, humanitarian, and legal circles.

While the decision aligns with previous travel restrictions imposed earlier in the year, it marks a significant escalation in how the administration aims to regulate who enters and ultimately settles in the US. Notably, Indian nationals are not part of the affected group.

Why the Freeze Was Announced

The pause follows a high-profile incident in Washington DC, where an Afghan national—who had received asylum during Trump’s earlier presidency—was involved in a violent attack targeting national guards.
In the aftermath, the administration emphasized the need for enhanced vetting before granting immigration benefits.

According to USCIS, delaying applications was a necessary tradeoff for what they described as “maximum possible screening.” While this move is framed as a security measure, critics argue it may disproportionately burden individuals from low-income or conflict-torn nations who already face lengthy immigration timelines.

Who Is Affected?

The pause applies to both green card and citizenship applications filed by people from the 19 nations listed under restrictive travel categories. These include:

Iran, Sudan, Eritrea, Haiti, Somalia, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and several others already facing travel limitations.

Reports estimate that over 1.4 million applicants could be impacted by the freeze.

Indian nationals, however, will not experience any changes under this directive.

A Continuation of Earlier Restrictions

In June, the administration had already blocked or restricted entry from 19 nations through a presidential proclamation. These included Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and partial restrictions for countries such as Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, and Togo.

This new USCIS memo extends the practical effects of those limitations into the adjudication process itself. Even those already in the United States, legally present and awaiting permanent residency or citizenship, will face delays.

Political Framing and Heated Rhetoric

The decision has been accompanied by strong language from various administration officials.
The Department of Homeland Security emphasized that citizenship must be reserved for “the best of the best.”
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem publicly called for a complete ban on what she described as nations “flooding our country” with people who pose societal risks.

Such statements reveal not only the administration’s stance on immigration but also the tone of public messaging heading into a politically charged period.

This temporary pause may be the beginning of broader structural changes to the US immigration system. While the memo itself frames the move as a security-driven measure, it signals deeper shifts toward restrictiveness under the Trump administration’s current term.

The true impact will be felt by families awaiting reunification, asylum seekers hoping for stability, and long-term residents aspiring to citizenship. With more than a million applicants stuck in limbo, the policy’s humanitarian and geopolitical implications will continue to unfold in the months ahead.

The Parliament has approved the Central Excise (Amendment) Bill, 2025, an important financial adjustment aimed at revising excise duties on tobacco and related products. The move restores the Centre’s authority to adjust levies on cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco, hookah tobacco, zarda, scented tobacco, and substitutes, ensuring tax incidence remains steady as the compensation cess mechanism winds down.

Although the subject may seem technical, the Bill carries significant implications for public health, state revenues, and long-term agricultural planning.

Why the Amendment Was Needed

The Central Excise Act, 1944 empowers the government to levy excise duties on domestically produced goods. After the introduction of GST, compensation cess was used to tax harmful products like tobacco. With that cess period ending, an amendment was required to maintain the existing tax burden without creating a revenue vacuum.

By revising duty rates upward on various forms of tobacco, the Bill ensures the overall tax incidence remains consistent with previous levels, even as the cess reverts to the Centre and transitions into excise duty.

Government’s Clarification: “No New Tax”

Replying to the debate, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman emphasised that the changes do not impose a new tax or create an additional burden beyond what already existed before GST. She noted that:

• Excise duty on tobacco predates GST and is simply being reinstated in structure.
• Compensation cess rates on tobacco have remained unchanged since July 2017.
• Historically, tobacco duties increased annually before GST’s introduction, largely for public health reasons.

She reminded the House that India’s current tax incidence on cigarettes amounts to roughly 53 percent of the retail price—still below the levels recommended by global health bodies for discouraging consumption.

Health, Revenue, and Agricultural Shifts

The Minister also highlighted efforts to reduce tobacco cultivation, pointing to initiatives under the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana. Between 2018 and 2021–22, more than 1.12 lakh acres shifted from tobacco to alternate crops across ten major tobacco-growing states. She reiterated that states will continue receiving their 41 percent share from central tax devolution, ensuring revenue stability.

Debate Highlights: Concerns and Perspectives

Several MPs across party lines weighed in during the discussion:

Public Health and Youth Protection

Dr. D. Purandeswari (BJP) underscored the alarming toll of tobacco use in India, with an estimated 1.35 million deaths annually from illnesses linked to smoking or chewing tobacco. She argued that maintaining high prices and stable taxation is essential to discouraging youth addiction and protecting vulnerable groups.

Economic Costs and Alternatives

Karti P. Chidambaram (Congress) pointed out that tobacco imposes nearly two lakh crore rupees of economic loss each year. He questioned whether price hikes alone can reduce consumption, warning that people may turn to cheaper or unregulated alternatives. He called for a holistic strategy, including rehabilitation for those employed in the tobacco industry.

Impact on Farmers

Naresh Chandra Uttam Patel (SP) urged that the Bill be referred to a Standing Committee, arguing that the changes could affect tobacco growers who depend on the crop for livelihood stability.

Representatives from NCP (SCP), Trinamool Congress, TDP, Shiv Sena, CPI(ML), and other parties offered varied perspectives, reflecting the complexity of balancing health, revenue, and agricultural needs.

After extended discussion, the House adjourned for the day.

What Comes Next?

With the Bill passed in the Lok Sabha, the next steps involve implementation, recalibration of duty structures, and communication to industry stakeholders. The transition will be closely watched by public health advocates, state governments, and farmers’ groups alike.