Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, during a panel discussion at the National Conservatism conference in Rome on Tuesday, declared liberalism to be over and said that not a single Muslim immigrant lives in Hungary.
During conference, which was organized by the Edmund Burke Foundation, Orban declared liberalism to be over while adding that a fresh kind government in the form of Christian democracy is needed to replace it, About Hungary reports.
The Hungarian premier highlighted two catastrophic failures of liberal western governments in the recent past: their mishandling of the 2008 global financial crisis and their current mismanagement of the ongoing migrant crisis.
Apropos of the previous item about immigration:
In the 5-4 decision allowing the rule to go into effect, Justice Gorsuch issued a concurring opinion rebuking activist judges and their rush to apply “nationwide injunctions” against Trump administration policies. Edited for easier reading and deleting some case cites
JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, concurring in the grant of stay.
On October 10, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security began a rulemaking process to define the term “public charge,” as it is used in the Nation’s immigration laws.
Approximately 10 months and 266,000 comments later, the agency issued a final rule.
Litigation swiftly followed, with a number of States, organizations, and individual plaintiffs variously alleging that the new definition violates the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the immigration laws themselves. These plaintiffs have urged courts to enjoin the rule’s enforcement not only as it concurring to them, or even to some definable group having something to do with their claimed injury, but as it applies to anyone.
These efforts have met with mixed results.
The Northern District of California ordered the government not to enforce the new rule within a hodge-podge of jurisdictions—California, Oregon, Maine, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.
The Eastern District of Washington entered a similar order, but went much farther geographically, enjoining the government from enforcing its rule globally.
But both of those orders were soon stayed by the Ninth Circuit which, in a 59-page opinion, determined the government was likely to succeed on the merits.
Meanwhile, across the country, the District of Maryland entered its own universal injunction, only to have that one stayed by the Fourth Circuit.
And while all these developments were unfolding on the coasts, the Northern District of Illinois was busy fashioning its own injunction, this one limited to enforcement within the State of Illinois.
If all of this is confusing, don’t worry, because none of it matters much at this point.
Despite the fluid state of things—some interim wins for the government over here, some preliminary relief for plaintiffs over there—we now have an injunction to rule them all: the one before us, in which a single judge in New York enjoined the government from applying the new definition to anyone, without regard to geography or participation in this or any other lawsuit.
The Second Circuit declined to stay this particular universal injunction, and so now, after so many trips up and down and around the judicial map, the government brings its well-rehearsed arguments here.
Today the Court (rightly) grants a stay, allowing the government to pursue (for now) its policy everywhere save Illinois.
But, in light of all that’s come before, it would be delusional to think that one stay today suffices to remedy the problem.
The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them.
Whether framed as injunctions of “nationwide,” “universal,” or “cosmic” scope, these orders share the same basic flaw—they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case.
Equitable remedies, like remedies in general, are meant to redress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff in a particular lawsuit. When a district court orders the government not to enforce a rule against the plaintiffs in the case before it, the court redresses the injury that gives rise to its jurisdiction in the first place.
But when a court goes further than that, ordering the government to take (or not take) some action with respect to those who are strangers to the suit, it is hard to see how the court could still be acting in the judicial role of resolving cases and controversies. Injunctions like these thus raise serious questions about the scope of courts’ equitable powers under Article III………….
It has become increasingly apparent that this Court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice.
As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.
Rather than spending their time methodically developing arguments and evidence in cases limited to the parties at hand, both sides have been forced to rush from one preliminary injunction hearing to another, leaping from one emergency stay application to the next, each with potentially nationwide stakes, and all based on expedited briefing and little opportunity for the adversarial testing of evidence.
This is not normal.
Universal injunctions have little basis in traditional equitable practice. Their use has proliferated only in very recent years.
And they hardly seem an innovation we should rush to embrace. By their nature, universal injunctions tend to force judges into making rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions.
The traditional system of lower courts issuing interlocutory relief limited to the parties at hand may require litigants and courts to tolerate interim uncertainty about a rule’s final fate and proceed more slowly until this Court speaks in a case of its own. But that system encourages multiple judges and multiple circuits to weigh in only after careful deliberation, a process that permits the airing of competing views that aids this Court’s own decision making process.
The rise of nationwide injunctions may just be a sign of our impatient times.
But good judicial decisions are usually tempered by older virtues.
Nor do the costs of nationwide injunctions end there.
There are currently more than 1,000 active and senior district court judges, sitting across 94 judicial districts, and subject to review in 12 regional courts of appeal.
Because plaintiffs generally are not bound by adverse decisions in cases to which they were not a party, there is a nearly boundless opportunity to shop for a friendly forum to secure a win nationwide.
The risk of winning conflicting nationwide injunctions is real too.
And the stakes are asymmetric.
If a single successful challenge is enough to stay the challenged rule across the country, the government’s hope of implementing any new policy could face the long odds of a straight sweep, parlaying a 94- to-0 win in the district courts into a 12-to-0 victory in the courts of appeal.
A single loss and the policy goes on ice— possibly for good, or just as possibly for some indeterminate period of time until another court jumps in to grant a stay.
And all that can repeat, ad infinitum, until either one side gives up or this Court grants certiorari.
What in this gamesmanship and chaos can we be proud of?
I concur in the Court’s decision to issue a stay. But I hope, too, that we might at an appropriate juncture take up some of the underlying equitable and constitutional questions raised by the rise of nationwide injunctions.
In other words, if you’re coming to this country and immigration can tell you’re going to instantly go on welfare because you don’t even have a job lined up, you don’t come in.
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday to approve the Trump administration’s “public charge” rule for new immigrants.
The justices approved the rule by a vote of 5-4 along ideological lines.
[so what else is new?]
“Public charge” has in recent years been defined as a person dependent on cash assistance programs. The Trump administration updated the definition in August 2019 to include people likely to require non-cash government benefits, and sought to implement a policy limiting the number of new immigrants who would require government assistance such as food stamps or Medicaid.
Lower courts have repeatedly blocked the new policy from going into effect. In early January the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals implemented a nationwide injunction against the policy, which Monday’s Supreme Court decision overrules.
“Throughout our history, self-reliance has been a core principle in America,” then-acting director of U.S. Customs and Immigration Services Ken Cuccinelli said at a 2019 press conference regarding the new policy. “The virtues of perseverance, hard work, and self-sufficiency laid the foundation of our nation and have defined generations of immigrants seeking opportunity in the United States.”
Woohoo Paul. Wazzup down there?
American authorities identified and apprehended three Syrian nationals accused of belonging to al-Qaeda in Dallas, Texas, from Colombia, the Colombian news agency RCN reported on Thursday, publishing images of the three individuals’ fake passports.
According to RCN, American law enforcement identified the three individuals as Al Raefee, Tuameh Tuameh, and Al Harari Al Harari. The three are believed to be in U.S. custody, soon to be charged with membership in a terrorist organization. The men appear to have entered Colombia through Venezuela, where they acquired Colombian residency paperwork, a government identification card, and a Colombian passport through an illegal documentation network.
Journalist Luis Carlos Vélez published images of the counterfeit passports on Twitter, noting that the men appeared to have crossed into Colombia through the La Guajira border crossing with Venezuela. Reports have not yet specified how the Syrians entered Venezuela or how long they had spent in the country after leaving Syria. Vélez reportedly stated that the U.S. embassy identified them as al-Qaeda terrorists when they attempted to procure U.S. visas, which does not align with the RCN report that police arrested them in Dallas. The RCN report does not note if Dallas authorities arrested them at the airport, which would suggest the men did receive U.S. visas and got onboard a flight to the country, or if they arrived by other means.
“North Carolina’s Mecklenburg County, that state’s largest, was among the biggest offenders, releasing numerous violent criminals rather than turn them over to federal authorities for removal. Among them was a previously deported Honduran charged with rape and child sex crimes.” — Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Report.
Over 90% of the criminal illegal aliens arrested in 2019 had either criminal convictions or pending charges. The average was four charges per alien.
And yet Democrats insist on putting the well-being of these criminal aliens before the safety of American citizens.
The report also found the number of individuals apprehended or found inadmissible nationwide totaled 1,148,024, an increase of 68 percent over the previous fiscal year. Over one million illegals crossed into the United States in 2019 because the Democratic Party and news media care more about the well-being of lawbreakers with open border policies, sanctuary states and cities, and a deep hatred for President Donald Trump and for the nation’s law enforcement.
More than 90% of illegal immigrants arrested by federal agents in the United States last year had criminal convictions or pending criminal charges, including 56,000 assaults and thousands of sex crimes, robberies, homicides and kidnappings. Many had “extensive criminal histories with multiple convictions,” according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) year-end report.
A federal appeals court allowed the administration to use a certain set of Defense Department funds for the construction of the border wall after a lower court blocked the administration from dipping into them last month.
The ruling marks a victory for President Donald Trump, who has sought to shore up funds for his signature border wall. The money is separate from other funds that the Supreme Court allowed to be used last year.
In a 2-1 ruling, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay of a Texas judge’s order, which the administration had appealed. The case is still ongoing.
The use of Defense Department funds for the President’s border wall has received pushback from numerous groups and states, which have argued the administration circumvented Congress to shore up wall funds.
The latest ruling applies to the military construction funds. Last September, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper authorized diverting $3.6 billion in the construction funds for 11 wall projects on the southern border with Mexico. The Pentagon said at the time that half the money was coming from deferred projects overseas, and the other half was planned for projects in the US.
The ruling doesn’t apply to the use of other funds, including counter-drug and Treasury Forfeiture Funds, that have been designated for wall construction.
Before this policy went into effect, illegal immigrant families knew that if they crossed the border and claimed asylum, they’d effectively get a free pass. Immigration officials would release them into the U.S. within 20 days, on the promise that they would show up for their court date months in the future. Few bother to return. This policy was dubbed “Catch and Release” for a reason.
Now, they must wait in Mexico while immigration judges review their cases.
What “Remain in Mexico” revealed is how few asylum seekers have legitimate claims. In fact, judges granted asylum in less than 1% of the more than 10,000 MPP claims resolved so far, according to TRAC Research Center at Syracuse University.
The impact of this program has been little short of profound.
The number of apprehensions at the southwest border plummeted from 144,000 in May 2019 to just 42,649 in November – the last month for which the government has data. The number of families caught crossing illegally went from 84,486 in May to a mere 9,000 in November.
As the El Paso Times put it, “the policy has proved to be a virtual wall.”
Canada and the U.S are the only 2 ‘developed’ nations that have birthright citizenship, and there are only 28 more in world who also do so.
Close to 400,000 anchor babies were born in the United States in 2019 as an executive order to end birthright citizenship gets kicked down the road for another year by President Donald Trump’s administration.
Analysis conducted by the Center for Immigration Studies revealed in 2018 that about 300,000 U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are born every year. These children, often referred to as “anchor babies,” immediately obtain American citizenship and anchor their illegal or foreign parents in the country.
In addition, about 72,000 anchor babies are born to foreign tourists, foreign visa workers, and foreign students every year — all of whom obtain immediate American citizenship simply for being born within the parameters of the country.
Altogether, about 372,000 anchor babies are estimated to have been born last year despite a commitment by Trump to sign an executive order ending the nation’s “anchor baby policy” that incentivizes pregnant migrant women to cross the U.S.-Mexico border in the hopes of securing American citizenship for their children.
This indicates that there were more anchor babies born in 2019 than births in each of the 50 states except California and Texas. California residents deliver about 455,000 babies a year, while Texans deliver about 379,000 babies a year, just slightly more than the total annual number of anchor babies born.
For example, there were more than 34 times as many anchor babies born nationwide than American children born in the state of Delaware and nearly five times as many anchor babies born nationwide than the American children born in Arizona.
To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled that the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens must be granted automatic American citizenship, and a number of legal scholars dispute the idea.
Many leading conservative scholars argue the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment does not provide mandatory birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens or noncitizens, as these children are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction as that language was understood when the 14th Amendment was ratified.
Chad Wolf, the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), ordered a review of state laws that allow illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses and restrict data sharing with federal immigration authorities.
Wolf on Tuesday ordered all of the components of DHS to conduct a department-wide review of the state laws to determine how they affect their day-to-day operations, according to a memo obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The DHS chief’s directive indicates he is prepared to take aim against the state laws.
“Accordingly, I am instructing each operational component to conduct an assessment of the impact of these laws, so that the Department is prepared to deal with and counter these impacts as we protect the homeland,” Wolf’s memo read.
The memo follows implementation of New York’s “Green Light” law, and passage of a similar bill in New Jersey in December. Both laws not only allow illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses, but also restrict DMV data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security.
In New York, in particular, numerous county clerks have expressed reservation over the fact that illegal aliens can obtain a driver’s license with foreign documentation — arguing that such a policy paves the way for voter fraud, identity theft, and even terrorism. DHS had already voiced its opposition to a provision in the New York law that prohibits Homeland security Investigations, a division of ICE, from accessing DMV information — even if the agency is investigating serious crimes.
“Laws like New York’s greenlight law have dangerous consequences that have far reaches beyond the DMV,” DHS spokeswomen Heather Swift said Tuesday. “These types of laws make it easier for terrorists and criminals to obtain fraudulent documents and also prevent DHS investigators from accessing important records that help take down child pornography and human trafficking rings and combat everything from terrorism to drug smuggling.”
African Americans are taking back jobs that were stolen from them by illegal immigrants. In August, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers swept up 680 illegal immigrants during raids on seven food processing plants in Mississippi. Without the cheap labor, the companies were forced to hire Americans to do the work.
(The New York Times explains)
By the end of the 1960s, black workers predominated on the lines.
It was an important win for African-Americans looking for an alternative to housework in wealthy white homes, or for those who had seen fieldwork dry up in an increasingly mechanized agricultural sector.
“The chicken plant,” Dr. Stuesse [an associate professor of anthropology at the University of North Carolina] quoted a civil rights veteran saying, “replaced the cotton field.”
But as American chicken consumption boomed in the 1980s, manufacturers went in search of “cheaper and more exploitable workers,” Dr. Stuesse wrote, chiefly Latin American immigrants.
At the time, the Koch plant in Morton was owned by a local company, B.C. Rogers Poultry, which organized efforts to recruit Hispanics from the Texas border as early as 1977. Soon, the company was operating a sizable effort it called “The Hispanic Project,” bringing in thousands of workers and housing them in trailers.
And we were told Americans just wouldn’t do the jobs illegal aliens are doing.
The House on Wednesday passed a contentious agricultural bill that would likely put more than a million illegal immigrants on a pathway to legal status as part of what supporters say is a vital modernization of the industry’s workforce — but that immigration hawks blasted as a “large-scale amnesty.”
The Farm Workforce Modernization Act passed 260-165, with support from both Democrats and Republicans. The bill provides a process for undocumented farmworkers to seek a temporary five-and-a-half-year “Certified Agricultural Worker” status if they have worked for approximately six months in the industry in the last two years.
That status can either be renewed indefinitely, or workers (along with their spouses and children) can begin a path to permanent legal status in the form of a green card. That path, according to the legislation, includes background checks and $1,000 fine.
To secure the green card, those who have worked in agriculture for 10 years or more must work for four more years, while those who’ve spent less than a decade in the sector would have to work eight more years. Once workers receive a green card, they are then free to pursue work in fields outside of agriculture.
The bill also streamlines the H-2A agriculture visa program, cutting processing time and costs for visa petitions. And it calls for the Department of Homeland Security to set up a pilot program that would give H-2A workers the ability to change jobs within the sector if they find work within two months…….
The Heritage Foundation described the bill as a “clear cut example of amnesty,” warning that it “threatens the legal immigration system’s legitimacy and incentivizes aliens and farmers to ignore the legal immigration system in the future if it best serves their needs.”
That’s demographics, part of which is a high birthrate for moslems, another part being the number of ‘refugees’ imported by charities run by purportedly well meaning, but crap-for-brains idiots
Sophia still reigns as queen, but Jackson has lost his crown as king.
The parenting website BabyCenter released its annual list of 100 most popular baby names for girls and boys in the United States, and for the 10th year in a row, Sophia is at the top. Liam knocked Jackson out of the No. 1 spot that he had held onto for six years straight.
The online parenting and pregnancy destination compiled the names of babies born to some 600,000 registered U.S. users in 2019 and combined those that sound the same but have different spellings (such as Sophia and Sofia) to create a true measure of popularity. The Social Security Administration also generates a list, pulling from the names of all babies born in the U.S., but the agency treats each unique spelling as a separate name.
Almost all of last year’s top-10 darlings are still favorites this year, with a few exceptions. Revealing a rise in Arabic names, Muhammad and Aaliyah made the top 10 for the first time, replacing Mason and Layla.
Yeah, and I wonder if some enterprising lawyer representing the victims might have a good case to sue the county and Erlich.
Following months of national media coverage over the handling of illegal aliens in his custody, Montgomery County, Maryland, Executive Marc Elrich has somewhat reversed a sanctuary policy he signed into law.
Elrich will allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents the ability to access certain areas of the Montgomery County jail in order to apprehend illegal aliens, according to ABC7 News. A county spokesman confirmed to the local news outlet on Nov. 1 that correctional officers have been ordered to give ICE agents clearance to “identified areas” of the jail to “ensure that transfers are conducted in a safe environment.”
News of the cooperation between Montgomery County and federal immigration authorities comes three months after Elrich signed an executive order that prohibited county officials from working with ICE.
Elrich signed the “The Promoting Community Trust Executive Order” in July, which barred county police from asking an individual about their immigration status and largely prohibited them from cooperating with ICE agents. Montgomery County had already refused to honor ICE detainer requests, and the new order was the latest sanctuary measure enacted by a deep-blue locality revolting against the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration.
However, Elrich’s order soon proved controversial. Authorities arrested numerous illegal aliens in Montgomery County — all of the arrests taking place just weeks after the order was signed — and charged them with rape or other sexual abuse crimes. The string of rape charges shined a national spotlight on the county’s policy toward criminal illegal aliens and its fraught relationship with the agency tasked with removing them.
Michigan State University, commonly referred to as MSU by most of the student body, has quite the overzealous, and quite frankly, moronic club in its midst attempting to create campus legislation that would essentially make anti-ICE liberals feel good while basically accomplishing nothing.
The East Lansing, Michigan university, having been around since 1855, has managed to get so “progressive” that in turn they’ve started to become regressive from a logical standpoint.
The university’s student government recently passed a bill requiring the university to notify them anytime U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are going to be on campus. The irony is, ICE doesn’t really have an obligation to let the university know if they’re arriving in a capacity to fulfill their duties.
When the editors of the NYT start housing refugees in their neighborhoods, I might start taking them seriously. Most now come from a predominately moslem culture that is inimical with U.S. Constitutional principles.
More refugees must be resettled across the United States to fill a “void of cultural diversity” in towns that are made up of a majority of white Americans, a New York Times report states.
As President Trump is set to lower refugee admissions for the third year, keeping his 2o16 campaign promise to significantly reform the program after almost four decades, the New York Times published a report this week detailing how Congolese refugees already living in the U.S. are looking to bring their foreign relatives to the country through the refugee resettlement program.
The New York Times reports:
To supporters like Mr. Engen, the Congolese are filling a void of cultural diversity in a town that is nearly 90 percent white. In the 1980s, Hmong refugees from Laos settled in Missoula. The children of immigrant families are usually the few students of color in city classrooms, while their parents work long hours at businesses eager for the help. [Emphasis added]
The New York Times has previously claimed that “nearly all white” states like New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine pose “an array of problems for new arrivals” to the U.S., as Breitbart News noted.
The left’s enthusiasm for Third World immigrants isn’t only because they vote 8-2 for the Democrats. It’s that Latin American peasants seem uniquely amenable to idiotic socialist schemes.
You probably think it’s beyond silliness for Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to keep promising FREE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL! NO PREMIUMS! NO CO-PAYS! ILLEGAL ALIENS, TOO! EVERYBODY GETS A PONY!
No one could be gullible enough to fall for that.
I refer you to the economic powerhouse that is Latin America.
Based on hundreds of years of indigenous people voting for politicians who made similar promises, Latin America has become the dream factory that it is today. That’s why Tegucigalpa is practically a byword for “technological innovation,” Santiago was the picture of calm sophistication this weekend, and Caracas is the ultimate in modern conveniences.
Perhaps you missed the article in last Saturday’s New York Times on what socialism has done for the water system in Venezuela:
The brick shack on the outskirts of Venezuela’s capital is crowded with tubs, jugs and buckets. The water they hold must last the family of eight for a week — but it’s not enough for frequent washing or flushing, so the kitchen is filled with greasy pots and the house smells of stale urine.
And none of the water is treated, making diarrhea and vomit a regular occurrence.
“We practically live in the bathroom,” said the mother of the family … [Her daughter] sat nearby, pale and listless, recovering from her latest bout of diarrhea just one month away from childbirth.
Democrats: We need some of that Latin American magic!
Twenty years ago, 60 percent of Venezuelans had regular access to safe drinking water. Today, only 30 percent do.
How did this happen?
Answer: Poor Venezuelans voted for it. If we let them in, they’ll vote for it here, too. (Except 20 percent, who will be patriotic Americans, i.e. Republicans.)
That’s great news for Sanders and Warren! But it’s terrible news for the country.
It is illegal to induce an alien to enter or remain in the United States illegally. It has been so for many years under Title 8 United States Code Section 1324, Bringing In or Harboring Certain Aliens. However, a group of Kritarchs have decided to overturn years of precedent and legal usage to declare that the First Amendment protects alien smugglers, corrupt politicians, and those with a personal relationship with an illegal alien to induce and encourage illegal activity.
This is not about a debate concerning whether this prohibition should be in Federal law, but a claim that aiding and abetting a crime is not a crime. Note that the analogy of this crime is also contained in Title 18 USC Section 2 Principals and 18 USC Section 3, Accessory After The Fact. Both are long standing statutes that criminalize not speech, but speech involving itself in a criminal offense. (As when an armed robber says “Hands up”, or a blackmailer says “Pay up!” )
The Supreme Court will decide whether a federal law that makes it a crime to “encourage or induce” someone to enter the country illegally violates the First Amendment.
The 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of AppealsCircus said the law is unconstitutional in December 2018. The justices added the case to the docket for their forthcoming term Friday.
“The provisions here are primarily directed at conduct, not speech,” the government’s petition to the high court reads. “To the extent they even reach speech, they do so only incidentally by prohibiting communications that foster unlawful activity by particular individuals, which have long been understood to be outside the scope of the First Amendment.”
The dispute involves an immigration consultant called Evelyn Sineneng-Smith. Federal prosecutors allege that she offered to enroll illegal aliens in a Department of Labor certification program for nearly $6,000. She allegedly did so knowing that her clients were not qualified, and were therefore guaranteed rejection.
[The Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Encouraging Illegal Immigration Is Protected Speech, by Kevin Daley, The Daily Caller, October 4, 2019]
The three judge panel on the 9th Circuit who made this ruling are Democrat judges. The law doesn’t seem to be part of their legal reasoning, only imposing their will on the nation, a dictatorship of judges, a kritarchy.
MEXICO CITY — Mexican authorities on Saturday thwarted the latest caravan of migrants attempting to head north from southern Mexico with the hope of reaching the United States.
Some 2,000 migrants from various nations — including Central American and African countries, Haiti and Cuba — set off on foot in the predawn hours from the southern Mexican city of Tapachula.
It was the first such caravan since early 2019, as Mexico — under pressure from the Trump administration to curb U.S.-bound migration thorough its territory — has cracked down on Central Americans and others seeking to reach the United States……
The government of President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who took office Dec. 1, has yielded to White House pressure to crack down on northbound migration via Mexican territory. Trump has praised Mexico’s efforts to help implement his hard-line immigration strategy.
Otherwise, the American Dream is at risk for everyone.