Illegal Immigration

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Biden’s Rating Dips on Gaza, and Marvel Drops Actor

      by

      The New York Times Audio app is home to journalism and storytelling, and provides news, depth and serendipity. If you haven’t already, download it here — available to Times news subscribers on iOS — and sign up for our weekly newsletter.The Headlines brings you the biggest stories of the day from the Times journalists who are covering them, all in about five minutes.President Biden during a broadcast from the Oval Office after visiting Israel in October, following the breakout of the war against Hamas.Tom Brenner for The New York TimesOn Today’s Episode:Poll Finds Wide Disapproval of Biden on Gaza, by Jonathan Weisman, Ruth Igielnik and Alyce McFaddenCompanies divert ships from Red Sea route, by Andrés R. MartínezAbbott Signs Law Allowing Texas to Arrest Migrants, Setting Up Federal Showdown, by J. David GoodmanMarvel Will Part Ways With Jonathan Majors After Guilty Verdict, by Jonah Bromwich, Erin Nolan and Nicole SperlingAfter Weeks of Warnings, Iceland Volcano Erupts in Plumes of Fire, by Egill Bjarnason and Claire MosesJessica Metzger and More

    • 75 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      2023 in Photos: A Weary World

      by

      Herzliya, Israel, Oct. 14. Friends and relatives of Maya Regev, 21, and her brother Itay Regev, 18, watching a news segment about the Israelis kidnapped by Hamas. The siblings, who were later released, had attended the Tribe of Nova festival, where gunmen massacred hundreds of young people and abducted others. Tamir Kalifa for The New York Times More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Why Biden Should Make an Immigration Deal With Republicans

      by

      Over the last few months, the incredulous question — How can Donald Trump possibly be leading the polls; there must be some mistake — has given way to the clear reality: Something in American life would need to change for Joe Biden to be favored for re-election in November 2024.The good news for Biden is that it’s easy to imagine developments that would help his re-election bid. Notwithstanding a fashionable liberal despair about how bad vibes are deceiving Americans about the state of the economy, there’s plenty of room for improvements — in inflation-adjusted wages, interest rates, the stock market — that could sweeten the country’s economic mood. (Just sustaining the economic trajectory of the last few months through next summer would almost certainly boost Biden’s approval ratings.)The looming Trump trials, meanwhile, promise to refocus the country’s persuadable voters on what they dislike about the former president; that, too, has to be worth something in the swing states where Biden is currently struggling.In both those cases, though, the president doesn’t have much control over events. No major economic package is likely to pass Congress, and whatever influence you think his White House did or didn’t exert over Trump’s indictments, Biden staffers won’t be supervising jury selection.There is an issue that’s hurting Biden, however, where the Republican Party is (officially, at least) quite open to working with the president, provided that he’s willing to break with his own party’s interest groups: the security of the southern border, where Border Patrol apprehensions remain stubbornly high even as the president’s approval ratings on immigration sit about 30 points underwater.There is a commonplace interpretation of the immigration debate that treats the unpopularity of an uncontrolled border primarily as an optics problem: People are happy enough to have immigrants in their own communities, but they see border disorder on their television screens and it makes them fearful about government incompetence. Sometimes this interpretation comes packaged with the suggestion that the people who worry most about immigration are rural voters who rarely see a migrant in real life, as opposed to liberal urbanites who both experience and appreciate diversity.The last year or so of blue-city immigration anxiety has revealed the limits of this interpretation: Place enough stress on New York or Chicago, and you will get demands for immigration control in even the most liberal parts of the country.But really, there’s never been good reason to think that immigration anxiety only manifests itself telescopically, among people whose main exposure to the trend is alarmist Fox News chyrons.Consider a new paper from Ernesto Tiburcio and Kara Ross Camarena, respectively a Tufts University economics Ph.D and a Defense Department analyst, which uses Mexican-government ID data to track the flow of Mexican migrants into counties in the United States, and finds that exposure to immigrants increases conservatism among natives. As the migrant flow goes up, so does the vote for Republicans in House elections: “A mean inflow of migrants (0.4 percent of the county population) boosts the Republican Party vote share in midterm House elections by 3.9 percentage points.” And the inflow also shifts local policy rightward, reducing public spending and shifting money toward law enforcement as opposed to education.This suggests that a pro-immigration liberalism inevitably faces a balancing act: High rates of immigration make native voters more conservative, so a policy that’s too radically open is a good way to elect politicians who prefer the border closed.You can see this pattern in U.S. politics writ large. The foreign-born population in the United States climbed through the Obama presidency, to 44 million from 38 million, and as a share of the overall population it was nearing the highs of the late 19th and early 20th century — a fact that almost certainly helped Donald Trump ride anti-immigration sentiment to the Republican nomination and the presidency.Then under Trump there was some stabilization — the foreign-born population was about the same just before Covid-19 hit as it had been in 2016 — which probably help defuse the issue for Democrats, increase American sympathy for migrants, and make Biden’s victory possible. But since 2020 the numbers are rising sharply once again, and the estimated foreign-born share of the American population now exceeds the highs of the last great age of immigration. Which, again unsurprisingly, has pushed some number of Biden voters back toward Trump.Border control in an age of easy global movement is not a simple policy problem, even for conservative governments. But policy does matter, and while the measures that the White House is reportedly floating as potential concessions to Republicans — raising the standard for asylum claims, fast-tracking deportation procedures — aren’t quite a pledge to finish the border wall (maybe that’s next summer’s pivot), they should have some effect on the flow of migrants north.Which makes them a distinctive sort of policy concession: A “sacrifice” that this White House has every political reason to offer, because Biden’s re-election becomes more likely if Republicans accept.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads. More

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      To Beat Trump, Nikki Haley Is Trying to Speak to All Sides of a Fractured G.O.P.

      by

      Her campaign will test what political strategists and observers of her rise in politics have said is among her greatest political skills: an ability to massage her message to the moment.To beat former President Donald J. Trump in the coming months, Nikki Haley, his former ambassador to the United Nations, must stitch together a coalition of Republicans: Mr. Trump’s most faithful supporters, voters who like his policies but who have grown weary of him personally, and the smaller but still vocal contingent who abhor him entirely.It’s a challenge that will test what political strategists and those who have observed Ms. Haley’s ascent from her first underdog win in South Carolina have said is among her greatest skills as a candidate: an ability to calibrate her message to the moment.Since announcing her bid in February, she has campaigned much like an old guard Republican: hawkish on foreign policy, supportive of legal immigration reform and staunchly in favor of the international alliances that Mr. Trump questioned during his administration. She has also sounded a lot like the former president, whose “America First” rhetoric she echoed while serving as one of his diplomats, with aggressive calls to send the U.S. military into Mexico and remarks about the need to rid schools and the military of perceived left-wing influences on hot-button cultural issues like race and transgender rights.Other than how she has navigated Mr. Trump himself, perhaps no issue best exemplifies Ms. Haley’s approach than abortion. She backed harsh restrictions on the procedure as governor of South Carolina and has called herself “unapologetically pro-life” on the trail, but she has struck a flexible tone as her party has flailed in countering the electoral backlash the conservative majority on the Supreme Court triggered when it overturned Roe v. Wade. Her appeals for “consensus” have been among the most common reasons cited for her upward climb in the polls in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.Ryan Williams, a Republican strategist and a former aide to Mitt Romney who has known Ms. Haley since she was a state lawmaker first running for governor, said she “has always been a pragmatic conservative.” “She is comfortable in her own skin, and she is going to win or lose based on her own values and beliefs,” he said. Still, the difficulty for her, as for all the candidates attempting to emerge as a Trump alternative, is that “what a conservative is has been redefined by Trump himself,” he said.Mr. Trump’s lead over the field is dominant nationally and in every early state polled, and it remains uncertain that Ms. Haley could peel away enough of his faithful, no matter her approach, to come out on top. And what has so far propelled her could also become a liability, should she alienate one or more faction. Her rivals, including Mr. Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, have sought to portray her as insufficiently conservative and as someone who panders to Democrats. Jaime Harrison, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, labeled her a “snake oil salesman” who “will say whatever she needs to say to get power.”Her campaign officials and surrogates argue her politics have stayed the same, with the country and the world changing around her. “Nikki has always been a tough, anti-establishment conservative,” said Olivia Perez-Cubas, a spokeswoman for Ms. Haley.Ms. Haley’s attempt to thread the needle on abortion is already being tested, as she has faced skepticism from Iowa’s evangelical community, a critical voting bloc. Addressing a conservative Christian audience in Iowa, Ms. Haley said she would have signed a ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy as governor.Democrats seized on Ms. Haley’s remarks as proof that, despite her tone, she is no moderate on the issue. The influential evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats, who previously indicated that clear-cut abortion opposition would be the driving factor for his support, went on to endorse Mr. DeSantis. But just days earlier, Ms. Haley had received a seemingly impromptu endorsement from Marlys Popma, the former head of the state Republican Party and one of Iowa’s most prominent anti-abortion activists — who indicated she was comfortable with Ms. Haley’s stance.Here are four other issues on which Ms. Haley has shifted, evolved or otherwise tempered her positions.Immigration and refugeesMs. Haley first rose in politics on the deep red wave of the Tea Party — and its anti-immigrant sentiment. As governor, she signed some of the harshest immigration laws in the country in 2011, requiring law enforcement officers to ask certain people’s immigration status and businesses to verify that their workers were in the country legally.But Ms. Haley, the daughter of Indian immigrants, largely refrained from using dehumanizing language against immigrants and stuck to the consistent message that immigration was critical to the nation, as long as it was done legally. Still, two pivotal events prompted her to take a sharp turn on the issue: the deadly terror attack in Paris in 2015, and the rise of Mr. Trump.After the attack, Ms. Haley, who was then governor, went from supporting the efforts of faith groups to resettle refugees in South Carolina to aggressively fighting the Obama administration on the admission of Syrians fleeing violence, citing concerns over the vetting process.Before Mr. Trump’s election in 2016, she called his proposal to bar Muslims from traveling to the United States “absolutely un-American.” As Mr. Trump’s U.N. ambassador, she defended his order to temporarily block all refugees and people from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the U. S., as well as his decision to cut American funding to Palestinian refugees.On the trail, she has expressed support for expediting legal immigration avenues, for aiding escape from persecution and for improving the ways people can migrate, calling for a system based on merit and business needs, rather than quotas. But with a higher and more consistent frequency, she echoes Mr. Trump. She has promised to build a wall, send immigrants back and reinstitute some of Mr. Trump’s harshest immigration and asylum policies.Tough talk on ChinaMs. Haley seizes every opportunity to flex her foreign policy credentials and has stood out among her rivals for her steadfast support of Israel and Ukraine.A trickier spot has been her hawkish stance on China. Ms. Haley’s stump speeches are laden with warnings that China is outpacing the United States in shipbuilding, hacking American infrastructure and developing “neuro-strike weapons,” which she says can be used to “disrupt brain activity” of military commanders and civilians.But as governor of South Carolina, she lauded and welcomed Chinese companies that wanted to contribute to the state’s economy, helping those entities expand or open new operations. Those moves have opened her to attacks from Mr. DeSantis and other opponents, and she and Mr. DeSantis have lobbed false or misleading claims involving China at each other in recent weeks as the race for second place has tightened.Explaining her position on the campaign trail, Ms. Haley has argued that her administration’s investments in Chinese companies accounted for a fraction of the jobs and projects spurred during her tenure, and that she had not been aware of the dangers China posed until she became U.N. ambassador. The threat of China has also evolved, she adds.“There is not another governor in this race that hasn’t worked to recruit Chinese companies,” she said last month at a chapel in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “Every governor has done the same thing, just like every one of you has Chinese products in your home.”Identity politicsFew moments have defined Ms. Haley more in the public view than when she signed legislation to take down the Confederate battle flag at the South Carolina State House, after a white supremacist shot and killed nine Black parishioners in Charleston in 2015, including a state senator. On the trail, she powerfully recalls the experience, casting herself as a new generational leader capable of bridging divides.But the feat also captures her calibration: As she ran for election in 2010 and then re-election in 2014, she rejected talk of removing the flag, a thorny issue in a state where Confederate heritage groups were a major political force. After the 2015 attack rattled South Carolina, Ms. Haley seized on the newfound political will among state lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.Ms. Haley has also wielded her own identity to significant effect. Much as she invokes her high heels to point out that she is the only woman in the race, she has used her family background to call for staunch immigration measures and her election as the first woman of color to lead South Carolina to argue that America is neither “rotten” nor “racist.”Fighting the conservative cultural battles that have animated the G.O.P. base in recent years has not been central to her presidential campaign, but Ms. Haley has echoed Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Trump in some of her language criticizing gender and racial diversity initiatives in boardrooms and classrooms. Her stump speech incorporates nods to the growing wave of anti-trans legislation, and her call to end “gender pronoun classes in the military” remains one of her most reliable applause lines on the trail. At her education policy rollout in September, she joined a conservative political group known for promoting book bans, another cause adopted by many on the far right.But as new polling has shown that the battle against “wokeness” has lost some of its political potency, her more recent remarks about education have tended to focus on support for school choice programs, which allow public money to be directed to private and religious schools, and tackling children’s low test scores in core subjects like reading and math.Donald J. TrumpIn the 2024 race, perhaps Ms. Haley’s most careful approach has been toward Mr. Trump, whose support among Republicans remains significant.Not long after the assault on the U.S. Capitol, Ms. Haley said Mr. Trump had “lost any sort of political viability.” But she later went on to say that the party needed the former president and suggested that she would not jump into the 2024 presidential race if Mr. Trump decided to run. She then became the first to challenge him for the nomination — a move the Trump campaign highlighted in an email to supporters as one of her “flip flops” in the 2024 race.In a January interview with the Fox News host Bret Baier, Ms. Haley explained her change of heart, saying conditions at the border, inflation and crime, and the country’s approach to foreign policy had worsened since she initially indicated she would stay out of the running. “I think we need a young generation to come in to step up and really start fixing things,” she said.On the trail, she has alternated between criticism and praise of Mr. Trump. On the one hand, she has lauded him for his border policies. At the first presidential debates in August, she was among six candidates who raised their hands to indicate they would support the former president as their party’s nominee, even if he were convicted of a felony. But she also has called Mr. Trump “thin-skinned and easily distracted” — among her sharpest critiques — and more recently has been describing him as a force of “drama and chaos” that the country cannot afford. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Rishi Sunak’s Dilemma: When to Hold an Election He Looks Poised to Lose

      by

      Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is 20 percentage points behind in opinion polls. But history suggests the timing of a vote might make a difference.No question in British politics will be more regularly asked, and reliably brushed aside, over the next few months than when Prime Minister Rishi Sunak plans to call the country’s next general election.He must do so by January 2025. The conventional wisdom is that with his Conservative Party trailing the opposition Labour Party by 20 percentage points in the polls, Mr. Sunak will wait as long as he can. Given the fact that Britons do not like electioneering around Christmas or in the dead of winter, that would suggest a vote next fall.But some of Mr. Sunak’s colleagues last week pushed for an earlier timetable. Having lost a critical legal ruling on his flagship immigration policy, the prime minister came under pressure from the right of his party to go to the polls in the spring if the House of Lords blocks the government’s efforts to revamp legislation to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda.Turning the election into a referendum on immigration might deflect attention from the economic woes plaguing Britain. But that assumes voters could be persuaded to swing to the Conservatives out of a fear of asylum seekers crossing the English Channel in small boats, rather than blaming the party for a stagnant economy, a cost-of-living crisis and hollowed out public services.Britain’s Supreme Court last week struck down the policy of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda as unlawful. But Mr. Sunak has vowed to keep the matter alive by negotiating a new treaty with the East African country that would include a legally binding commitment not to remove migrants sent there by Britain — one of the court’s objections.Mr. Sunak also pledged emergency legislation that would declare Rwanda a safe country for asylum seekers. It remains unclear whether that would survive legal challenges and in the House of Lords, the unelected upper chamber of Parliament that has the right to review the legislation and could block it (though its appetite for a full-scale clash with the government was not clear.)“I know the British people will want this new law to pass so we can get flights off to Rwanda,” Mr. Sunak told reporters last week. “Whether it’s the House of Lords or the Labour Party standing in our way, I will take them on because I want to get this thing done and I want to stop the boats.”Asylum seekers disembark from a lifeboat in Dungeness, England, after being picked up at sea while crossing the English Channel.Henry Nicholls/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesPolitical analysts say immigration remains a resonant issue in England’s north and Midlands, where support for the Conservatives in 2019 gave the party a landslide general election victory. Those voters, many of whom traditionally supported the Labour Party, were drawn to the Tory slogan, “Get Brexit done.”“Immigration is now the top priority for 2019 Conservative Party voters, above even the cost-of-living crisis and the dire state of the country’s National Health Service,” said Matthew Goodwin, a professor of politics at the University of Kent, who has written about populism and identity politics.“This means, in short, that Rishi Sunak has no way of winning the next election unless he connects with these voters by reducing immigration and regaining control of the country’s borders,” he said. “Yet both of those things currently look unlikely.”Far from accelerating the date of an election, Professor Goodwin argued that the salience of immigration would pressure Mr. Sunak to delay a vote. It will take months to surmount the legal problems with the existing policy, the professor said, let alone begin one-way flights to Rwanda.Other experts are more skeptical that an immigration-dominated election would play to the advantage of the Tories. Most voters view the party negatively on immigration, said Sophie Stowers, a researcher at the U.K. in a Changing Europe, a think tank in London. The number of people crossing the channel has remained stubbornly high since Mr. Sunak became prime minister, while legal migration has soared.“To me, it seems counterintuitive to bring attention to an issue where you have a poor image with the public,” Ms. Stowers said.The question is whether the Conservatives would do even worse if the election were decided on the economy, which matters more than migration to voters at large, according to opinion polls. Mr. Sunak did achieve one of his key economic goals last week, halving the rate of inflation. But he has yet to achieve the other two: reviving growth and reducing public debt.Clothing for sale in London last month. Mr. Sunak did achieve one of his key economic goals last week, halving the rate of inflation.Hannah Mckay/ReutersIt’s not yet clear that the economic news will improve between the spring and fall, analysts said. While inflation has cooled, the lingering effect of higher interest rates — propelled upward by Liz Truss’s market-shaking tax policies last year — is still cascading through the economy in the form of higher home mortgage rates.Historically, many successful prime ministers, including Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, called elections earlier than they needed, rather than risk becoming the victim of unforeseen events. They usually opted for the summer months, when the weather — and the public mood — is typically better, although Boris Johnson successfully broke that pattern with his victory in December 2019.Mr. Sunak’s room for maneuver is limited. One option would be holding the vote in May 2024 to coincide with local elections, or in June. Another possibility would be October or November, which would coincide with elections in the United States. But the possibility of a victory by Donald J. Trump could have an unpredictable effect, potentially pushing some British voters to a more centrist option. As a last resort, Mr. Sunak could hold off until Jan. 28, 2025.Some of Mr. Sunak’s predecessors paid a high price for miscalculating the timing of elections. Despite speculation that he would call an election in 1978, the Labour Party prime minister James Callaghan delayed voting until the following year. Labor unrest escalated into what became known as the “winter of discontent,” sweeping Mrs. Thatcher to victory in 1979.Margaret Thatcher, campaigning in 1979, won election as prime minister after the Labour Party incumbent, James Callaghan, decided not to call an election the previous year.Press Association, via Associated PressGordon Brown, another Labour prime minister, had been expected to capitalize on his early popularity by calling an election soon after taking over from Tony Blair in 2007. Instead, he delayed, ultimately losing power in 2010.Theresa May made the opposite decision, calling an early election in 2017 in which she lost her majority, though probably more because of her unpopular agenda and poor campaign skills than bad timing.“Once the election is underway, everything is on the table,” said Peter Kellner, a polling expert. “You lose control of the agenda.”Trying to build an election campaign around the issue of small boats bringing migrants is likely to fail, Mr. Kellner added, suggesting Mr. Sunak will only call an early vote if he calculates he has a realistic prospect of keeping his job.“If, at the point when you have to make a decision, you have no chance of winning, then you might as well wait,” he said, “because maybe there is a five percent chance of winning in six months, and a five percent chance is better than no chance.” More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Donald Trump Endorsed by Greg Abbott at Texas Border Event

      by

      Gov. Greg Abbott threw his support behind the former president in the Republican presidential primary at an event near the southern border.Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas endorsed former President Donald J. Trump on Sunday in an appearance near the southern border, echoing Mr. Trump’s talk about an existential crisis of illegal immigration.“I’m here to tell you that there is no way, no way that America can continue under the leadership of Joe Biden as our president,” Mr. Abbott said in Edinburg, Texas, after he and Mr. Trump greeted Border Patrol agents. “We need a president who’s going to secure the border. We need a president who’s going to restore law and order in the United States of America.”Mr. Abbott, a three-term governor with a strongly conservative record, castigated President Biden for reversing Trump-era policies that had expedited deportations and required asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while awaiting hearings, and claimed that Mr. Biden was facilitating terrorism.Mr. Abbott has taken extraordinary measures on border crossings during the Biden administration — including putting razor wire along the border and buoys in the Rio Grande — that have injured many migrants. Under his administration, Texas has also bused tens of thousands of newly arrived migrants around the country, frequently to big cities run by Democrats.His aggressive policies align him closely with Mr. Trump, whose plans if elected to a second term include detaining undocumented immigrants in camps, relying on a form of expulsion that doesn’t involve due process hearings, and deputizing local police officers and National Guard troops from Republican-led states to carry out immigration raids.Mr. Trump took to the microphone after the endorsement and gave an unusually short speech: just 10 minutes long, compared with his 75-minute address in Iowa on Saturday and nearly two hours in New Hampshire last weekend. Mr. Trump’s appearance at the border did not bear resemblance to his typical campaign events this year, and it was not widely open to supporters.“We’re going to make the governor’s job very easy,” he said, suggesting that his immigration policies would remove the need for Mr. Abbott to handle the issue and claiming falsely that Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris had never visited the border.“Our country is going to hell,” he added, before returning to familiar territory of demonizing his political opponents: “We have some people that either they don’t care, they’re not very smart or they hate our country, and nobody really knows the answer.”Both this weekend and last, he had railed at length against President Biden and vowed vengeance upon his opponents, whom he described as “vermin” who posed a greater threat to the country than any outside force — rhetoric reminiscent of fascist dictators like Hitler and Mussolini.Mr. Trump has received endorsements from a number of Republican governors in addition to Mr. Abbott, including Sarah Huckabee Sanders of Arkansas, Henry McMaster of South Carolina and Kristi Noem of South Dakota.However, he did not secure the endorsement of Gov. Kim Reynolds, Iowa’s popular governor, who is instead backing Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      How Trump and His Allies Plan to Wield Power in 2025

      by

      Donald J. Trump and his allies are already laying the groundwork for a possible second Trump presidency, forging plans for an even more extreme agenda than his first term.Former President Donald J. Trump declared in the first rally of his 2024 presidential campaign: “I am your retribution.” He later vowed to use the Justice Department to go after his political adversaries, starting with President Biden and his family.Beneath these public threats is a series of plans by Mr. Trump and his allies that would upend core elements of American governance, democracy, foreign policy and the rule of law if he regained the White House.Some of these themes trace back to the final period of Mr. Trump’s term in office. By that stage, his key advisers had learned how to more effectively wield power and Mr. Trump had fired officials who resisted some of his impulses and replaced them with loyalists. Then he lost the 2020 election and was cast out of power.Since leaving office, Mr. Trump’s advisers and allies at a network of well-funded groups have advanced policies, created lists of potential personnel and started shaping new legal scaffolding — laying the groundwork for a second Trump presidency they hope will commence on Jan. 20, 2025.In a vague statement, two top officials on Mr. Trump’s campaign have sought to distance his campaign team from some of the plans being developed by Mr. Trump’s outside allies, groups led by former senior Trump administration officials who remain in direct contact with him. The statement called news reports about the campaign’s personnel and policy intentions “purely speculative and theoretical.”The plans described here generally derive from what Mr. Trump has trumpeted on the campaign trail, what has appeared on his campaign website and interviews with Trump advisers, including one who spoke with The New York Times at the request of the campaign.Trump wants to use the Justice Department to take vengeance on his political adversaries.If he wins another term, Mr. Trump has said he would use the Justice Department to have his adversaries investigated and charged with crimes, including saying in June that he would appoint “a real special prosecutor to go after” President Biden and his family. He later declared in an interview with Univision that he could, if someone challenged him politically, have that person indicted.Allies of Mr. Trump have also been developing an intellectual blueprint to cast aside the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department investigatory independence from White House political direction.Foreshadowing such a move, Mr. Trump had already violated norms in his 2016 campaign by promising to “lock up” his opponent, Hillary Clinton, over her use of a private email server. While president, he repeatedly told aides he wanted the Justice Department to indict his political enemies, including officials he had fired such as James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director. The Justice Department opened various such investigations but did not bring charges — infuriating Mr. Trump and leading to a split in 2020 with his attorney general, William P. Barr.He intends to carry out an extreme immigration crackdown.Mr. Trump is planning an assault on immigration on a scale unseen in modern American history. Millions of undocumented immigrants would be barred from the country or uprooted from it years or even decades after settling here.Bolstered by agents reassigned from other federal law enforcement agencies and state police and the National Guard, officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement would carry out sweeping raids aimed at deporting millions of people each year. Military funds would be used to erect sprawling camps to hold undocumented detainees. A public-health emergency law would be invoked to shut down asylum requests by people arriving at the border. And the government would try to end birthright citizenship for babies born on U.S. soil to undocumented parents.Trump has plans to use U.S. military force closer to home.While in office, Mr. Trump mused about using the military to attack drug cartels in Mexico, an idea that would violate international law unless Mexico consented. That idea has since taken on broader Republican backing, and Mr. Trump intends to make the idea a reality if he returns to the Oval Office.While the Posse Comitatus Act generally makes it illegal to use federal troops for domestic law enforcement purposes, another law called the Insurrection Act creates an exception. Mr. Trump wanted to invoke the Insurrection Act to use troops to crack down on protesters after the 2020 police killing of George Floyd, but was thwarted, and the idea remains salient among his advisers. Among other things, his top immigration adviser has said they would invoke the Insurrection Act at the southern border to use soldiers to intercept and detain undocumented migrants.Trump and his allies want greater control over the federal bureaucracy and work force.Mr. Trump and his backers want to increase presidential power over federal agencies, centralizing greater control over the entire machinery of government in the White House.They have adopted a maximalist version of the so-called unitary executive theory, which says the president can directly command the entire federal bureaucracy and that it is unconstitutional for Congress to create pockets of independent decision-making authority.As part of that plan, Mr. Trump also intends to revive an effort from the end of his presidency to alter civil-service rules that protect career government professionals, enabling him to fire tens of thousands of federal workers and replace them with loyalists. After Congress failed to enact legislation to block such a change, the Biden administration is developing a regulation to essentially Trump-proof the federal work force. However, since that is merely an executive action, the next Republican president could simply undo it the same way.Trump allies want lawyers who will not restrain him.Politically appointed lawyers sometimes frustrated Mr. Trump’s desires by raising legal objections to his and his top advisers’ ideas. This dynamic has led to a quiet split on the right, as Trump loyalists have come to view the typical Federalist Society lawyer — essentially a mainstream Republican conservative — with disdain.In a potential new term, Mr. Trump’s allies are planning to systematically install more aggressive and ideologically aligned legal gatekeepers who will be more likely to bless contentious actions. Mr. Trump and his 2024 campaign declined to answer a series of detailed questions about what limits, if any, he would recognize on his powers across a range of war, secrecy and law enforcement matters — many raised by his first term — in a New York Times 2024 presidential candidate survey. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Donald Trump en campaña: estas son sus propuestas migratorias

      by

      El expresidente Donald Trump está planeando una expansión extrema de sus medidas represivas contra la migración aplicadas durante su primer mandato si logra regresar al poder en 2025, incluida la preparación de redadas a gran escala de personas que viven en Estados Unidos sin permiso legal y concentrarlas en campamentos cada vez más extensos mientras esperan a ser expulsados.Estos planes restringirían en gran medida tanto la inmigración legal como la ilegal de muchas maneras.Trump quiere revivir las políticas fronterizas de su primer periodo, entre ellas la prohibición del ingreso de personas de ciertas naciones con mayoría musulmana y la reinstauración de una política de la era de la COVID-19 de rechazar solicitudes de asilo, aunque en esta oportunidad basaría el rechazo en aseveraciones de que los migrantes portan otras enfermedades infecciosas como tuberculosis.Trump planea desalojar del país a inmigrantes que habitan aquí sin permiso legal y deportar a millones de personas cada año.Para ayudar a acelerar las deportaciones masivas, Trump está preparando una gran ampliación de una forma de remoción que no requiere de audiencias con el debido proceso. Para ayudar al Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE, por su sigla en inglés) a llevar a cabo redadas masivas, Trump planea reasignar otros agentes federales y sumar a la tarea a policías municipales y efectivos de la Guardia Nacional aportados voluntariamente por los estados gobernados por republicanos.Para aliviar la presión sobre los centros de detención del ICE, Trump desea construir campamentos enormes para detener personas mientras sus casos son procesados y esperan sus vuelos de deportación. Además, con el fin de sortear cualquier negativa del Congreso para apropiarse de los recursos necesarios, Trump redirigiría dinero del presupuesto del ejército, como lo hizo en su primer mandato para invertir más dinero en el muro fronterizo del que el Congreso había autorizado.“Trump desatará el vasto arsenal de poderes federales para implementar la represión migratoria más espectacular”, dijo Stephen Miller, el exasesor de Trump en la Casa Blanca, quien fue el principal arquitecto de sus esfuerzos de control fronterizo.Cooper Neill para The New York TimesEn una referencia pública a sus planes, Trump le dijo a una multitud en Iowa en septiembre: “Siguiendo el modelo de Eisenhower, llevaremos a cabo la operación de deportación nacional más grande en la historia de Estados Unidos”. La referencia en cuestión fue una campaña de 1954 para arrestar y expulsar a inmigrantes mexicanos que recibió su nombre de un insulto étnico: “Operación Espalda Mojada”.La gran cantidad de planes para 2025 de Trump equivale a un ataque a la migración a una escala nunca antes vista en la historia estadounidense moderna. Millones de migrantes que viven en Estados Unidos sin permiso legal tendrían prohibida la entrada al país o serían desarraigados después de años o incluso décadas de haberse establecido aquí.Tal escala de expulsiones planeadas generaría retos logísticos, financieros y diplomáticos y sería impugnada de manera enérgica en los tribunales. Sin embargo, no hay duda de la magnitud y ambición del cambio que Trump está contemplando.En una segunda presidencia de Trump, se cancelarían las visas de los estudiantes extranjeros que hayan participado en manifestaciones en contra de Israel o propalestinas. Los funcionarios consulares estadounidenses en el extranjero recibirían instrucciones de profundizar la revisión ideológica de los solicitantes de visa para bloquear a personas que el gobierno de Trump considere que tienen actitudes indeseables. A las personas con un estatus de protección temporal porque provienen de ciertos países considerados inseguros, lo que les permite vivir y trabajar legalmente en Estados Unidos, se les revocaría ese estatus.De forma similar, muchas personas a quienes se les ha permitido residir en el país temporalmente por razones humanitarias también perderían ese estatus y tendrían que abandonar el país, incluyendo a decenas de miles de afganos desalojados durante la toma del poder de los talibanes en 2021 a quienes se les permitió ingresar a Estados Unidos. Los afganos que poseen visas especiales concedidas a personas que ayudaron a las fuerzas estadounidenses serían investigados de nuevo para verificar que de verdad colaboraron.Además, Trump intentaría poner fin a la ciudadanía por nacimiento para los bebés nacidos en Estados Unidos de padres que viven en el país sin permiso legal mediante la proclamación de que esa política será la nueva posición del gobierno y la instrucción a las agencias de dejar de emitir documentos que comprueben la ciudadanía de esos bebés, como tarjetas de Seguridad Social y pasaportes. La legitimidad legal de esa política, como casi todos los planes de Trump, seguramente terminará debatiéndose en la Corte Suprema.En entrevistas con The New York Times, varios asesores de Trump dieron la descripción más amplia y detallada hasta la fecha de la agenda migratoria del expresidente para un posible segundo mandato. En particular, la campaña de Trump delegó las preguntas para este artículo a Stephen Miller, un arquitecto de las políticas migratorias del primer periodo de Trump que se mantiene cercano al exmandatario y que muy probablemente tendría un cargo importante en su segundo periodo.Miller afirmó en una entrevista que tocó múltiples temas que todos los pasos que los asesores de Trump se están preparando para dar se basan en estatutos existentes; aunque es posible que el equipo de Trump intente renovar las leyes de inmigración, el plan fue elaborado para no necesitar nueva legislación sustantiva. Además, aunque Miller reconoce que surgirían demandas para impugnar casi cada una de las medidas, describió la intimidante variedad de tácticas del equipo de Trump como un “ataque veloz” diseñado para abrumar a los abogados de derechos de los migrantes.“Cualquier activista que dude en lo más mínimo de la determinación del presidente Trump está cometiendo un error drástico: Trump desatará el vasto arsenal de poderes federales para implementar la represión migratoria más espectacular”, dijo Miller, quien agregó: “Los activistas legales de la inmigración no entenderán lo que estará pasando”.Todd Schulte, presidente de FWD.us, un grupo de defensa de la inmigración y la justicia penal que combatió repetidas veces al gobierno de Trump, dijo que los planes del equipo de Trump se basaban en una “demagogia xenófoba” que atrae a su base política más radical.“Los estadounidenses deben entender que estas propuestas políticas son parte de una agenda autoritaria, a menudo ilegal, que destrozaría casi todos los aspectos de la vida estadounidense: hundiría la economía y violaría los derechos civiles básicos de millones de inmigrantes y estadounidenses nativos por igual”, dijo Schulte.‘Envenenando la sangre’Migrantes se congregan frente al Hotel Roosevelt en Manhattan en agosto, esperando ser procesados.Jeenah Moon para The New York TimesDesde que Trump dejó el cargo, el ambiente político en lo referente a la inmigración se ha movido en su dirección. Ahora es más capaz de aprovechar ese entorno si es reelecto de lo que lo era cuando ganó la elección como un candidato recién llegado a la política.El retroceso de la pandemia de COVID-19 y la reanudación del flujo de los viajes han contribuido a generar una crisis migratoria global, con millones de venezolanos y centroamericanos que huyen de la convulsión en sus países y africanos que llegan a naciones latinoamericanas antes de continuar su viaje hacia el norte. A causa de las cifras récord de inmigrantes en la frontera sur y en ciudades como Nueva York y Chicago, los votantes están frustrados e incluso algunos demócratas piden medidas más duras contra los inmigrantes y presionan a la Casa Blanca para que maneje mejor la crisis.Trump y sus asesores han visto la oportunidad y ahora saben mejor cómo aprovecharla. Los asistentes en los que Trump confió en los caóticos primeros días de su primer mandato a veces estaban en desacuerdo y les faltaba experiencia acerca de cómo manipular las palancas del poder federal. Hacia el final de su primer mandato, los funcionarios del gabinete y los abogados que intentaron frenar algunas de sus acciones —como su secretario de Seguridad Nacional y jefe de personal John Kelly— habían sido despedidos y quienes permanecieron con él habían aprendido mucho.En un segundo mandato, Trump planea instalar un equipo que no lo restringirá.Desde que gran parte de la represión a la migración del primer mandato de Trump enfrentó problemas para avanzar en los tribunales, el entorno legal se ha inclinado a su favor: sus cuatro años de nombramientos judiciales dejaron tribunales federales de apelación y una Corte Suprema mucho más conservadores que los tribunales que escucharon las impugnaciones a las políticas de su primer mandato.La lucha contra la Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA, por su sigla en inglés) es un ejemplo de ello.DACA es un programa de la era de Obama que protege de la deportación y concede permisos de trabajo a personas que ingresaron a Estados Unidos de forma ilegal cuando eran niños. Trump trató de ponerle fin, pero la Corte Suprema lo bloqueó por motivos procesales en junio de 2020.Miller indicó que Trump intentaría de nuevo acabar con DACA. Además, la mayoría cinco a cuatro en la Corte Suprema que bloqueó el último intento ya no existe: algunos meses después del fallo sobre DACA, la magistrada Ruth Bader Ginsburg falleció y Trump la remplazó con un sexto miembro conservador, la magistrada Amy Coney Barrett.La retórica de Trump se ha mantenido bien sincronizada con su agenda cada vez más extrema en materia de inmigración.Su avivamiento del miedo y la ira hacia los inmigrantes —presionando por un muro fronterizo y llamando “violadores” a los mexicanos— impulsó su toma del poder del Partido Republicano en 2016. Como presidente, reflexionó en privado sobre la posibilidad de desarrollar una frontera militarizada como la de Israel, preguntó si los migrantes que cruzaban la frontera podrían recibir disparos en las piernas y apoyó un muro fronterizo propuesto rematado con púas desgarrantes y pintado de negro para quemar la piel de los migrantes.Mientras ha hecho campaña para la tercera nominación presidencial consecutiva del partido, su tono antiinmigrante no ha hecho más que volverse más duro. En una entrevista reciente con un sitio web de derecha, Trump afirmó, sin pruebas, que los líderes extranjeros estaban vaciando deliberadamente sus “manicomios” para enviar a los pacientes a través de la frontera sur de Estados Unidos como migrantes. Dijo que los inmigrantes estaban “envenenando la sangre de nuestro país”. En un mitin el miércoles en Florida, los comparó con el asesino en serie y caníbal ficticio Hannibal Lecter, diciendo: “Eso es lo que está entrando a nuestro país en este momento”.De manera similar, Trump había prometido llevar a cabo deportaciones masivas cuando se postuló para el cargo en 2016, pero el gobierno solo logró varios cientos de miles de deportaciones por año bajo su presidencia, a la par de otros gobiernos recientes. Si tienen otra oportunidad, Trump y su equipo están decididos a alcanzar cifras anuales de millones.Mantener fuera a la genteMigrantes esperan ser escoltados por agentes de la Patrulla Fronteriza a un área de procesamiento, en septiembre. El avivamiento del miedo y la ira hacia los inmigrantes causado por Trump impulsó su toma del poder del Partido Republicano en 2016. Mark Abramson para The New York TimesEl plan migratorio de Trump es continuar donde se quedó e ir mucho más lejos. No solo reviviría algunas de las políticas que fueron calificadas de draconianas durante su presidencia, muchas de las cuales eliminó la Casa Blanca de Joe Biden, sino que también las ampliaría y las haría más estrictas.Un ejemplo se centra en expandir las políticas del primer periodo dirigidas a mantener a personas extranjeras fuera del país. Trump planea suspender el programa de refugiados y volver a prohibir de manera categórica el ingreso de visitantes de países problemáticos poniendo de nuevo en marcha una versión de su prohibición a los viajes desde varios países principalmente de mayoría musulmana, lo que el presidente Biden calificó de discriminatorio y canceló en su primer día en el cargo.Miller señaló que Trump también utilizaría diplomacia coercitiva para inducir a otros países a colaborar, incluso haciendo de la cooperación una condición para cualquier otro compromiso bilateral. Por ejemplo, un segundo gobierno de Trump buscaría restablecer un acuerdo con México para que los solicitantes de asilo permanezcan en ese país mientras sus peticiones son procesadas (no hay certeza de que México lo acepte; un tribunal mexicano ha precisado que ese trato viola los derechos humanos).Trump también intentaría revivir los acuerdos de “tercer país seguro” con varios países de Centroamérica y establecer acuerdos similares en África, Asia y Sudamérica. En virtud de esos acuerdos, los países aceptan recibir a posibles solicitantes de asilo de otras naciones específicas y permitirles solicitar asilo ahí.Aunque estos acuerdos tradicionalmente solo han cubierto a los inmigrantes que pasaron previamente por un tercer país, la ley federal no exige ese límite y un segundo gobierno de Trump buscaría hacer esos acuerdos sin él, en parte como un disuasivo para los inmigrantes que hacen lo que el equipo de Trump considera solicitudes de asilo ilegítimas.Miller añadió que, al mismo tiempo, los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades de Estados Unidos (CDC, por su sigla en inglés) invocarían la ley de poderes de emergencia de salud pública conocida como Título 42 para rehusarse de nuevo a escuchar cualquier petición de asilo de personas que lleguen a la frontera sur. El gobierno de Trump había discutido internamente esa idea a principios del mandato de Trump, pero algunos secretarios del gabinete se opusieron con el argumento de que no había una emergencia de salud pública que la justificara legalmente. Al final, el gobierno la implementó durante la pandemia de coronavirus.Tras afirmar que desde entonces la idea ha ganado aceptación en la práctica —Biden inicialmente mantuvo la política— Miller aseguró que Trump invocaría el Título 42 y daría como razones “cepas graves de influenza, tuberculosis, sarna, otras enfermedades respiratorias como el virus respiratorio sincitial y más, o simplemente el problema general de que la migración masiva es una amenaza para la salud pública que trae una variedad de enfermedades transmisibles”.Trump y sus asistentes aún no han dicho si reimplementarían uno de los elementos disuasorios más polémicos a la inmigración no autorizada que impulsó como presidente: separar a los niños de sus padres, lo que provocó traumas entre los inmigrantes y dificultades para reunir a las familias. Cuando se le presionó, Trump se negó en repetidas ocasiones a descartar revivir la política. Después de muestras de indignación por la práctica, Trump le puso fin en 2018 y, más tarde, un juez impidió que el gobierno volviera a ponerla en efecto.Deportaciones masivasAgentes federales de inmigración concentrados para una operación de arresto en mayo en Pompano Beach, Florida.Saul Martinez para The New York TimesPoco después de que Trump anunció su campaña presidencial para 2024 en noviembre pasado, se reunió con Tom Homan, quien dirigió el ICE durante el primer año y medio del gobierno de Trump y fue uno de los primeros en proponer la separación de familias para disuadir a los inmigrantes.En una entrevista, Homan recordó que en esa reunión “aceptó regresar” para un segundo mandato y afirmó que “ayudaría a organizar y dirigir la operación de deportación más grande jamás vista en este país”.La visión de los asesores de Trump de deportaciones masivas abruptas llevaría a una convulsión social y económica, lo que perturbaría el mercado de la vivienda e industrias importantes como la agricultura y el sector de servicios.Miller presentó tal perturbación desde una perspectiva favorable.“La deportación masiva será una alteración del mercado laboral celebrada por los trabajadores estadounidenses, a quienes ahora se les ofrecerán salarios más altos con mejores beneficios para ocupar estos puestos de trabajo”, dijo. “Los estadounidenses también celebrarán el hecho de que las leyes de nuestra nación ahora se aplican por igual y que un grupo selecto ya no está mágicamente exento”.Un paso planeado para superar los obstáculos legales y logísticos sería incrementar de manera significativa una forma de deportaciones rápidas conocida como “remoción acelerada”. Esta les niega a los migrantes que viven en el país sin un permiso legal las audiencias habituales y la oportunidad de presentar apelaciones, las cuales pueden tardar meses o años (en especial cuando las personas no están en custodia) y han llevado a un atraso enorme en el procesamiento de los casos. Una ley de 1996 señala que las personas pueden ser sujetas a la remoción acelerada hasta dos años después de su llegada, pero, hasta el momento, el poder ejecutivo la ha usado con mayor cautela expulsando enseguida a personas descubiertas cerca de la frontera poco después de haber cruzado.El gobierno de Trump intentó ampliar el uso de la remoción acelerada, pero un tribunal la bloqueó y después el equipo de Biden canceló la ampliación. No se sabe si la Corte Suprema determinará que es constitucional utilizar la ley contra personas que han vivido durante un periodo significativo en Estados Unidos y expresan temor de persecución si son enviados a su país natal.Trump también ha mencionado que invocaría una ley arcaica, la Ley de Enemigos Extranjeros de 1798, para expulsar a sospechosos de ser miembros de los cárteles de droga y pandillas criminales sin debido proceso. La ley permite deportaciones sumarias de personas provenientes de países con los que Estados Unidos está en guerra, que han invadido Estados Unidos o que han participado en “incursiones predatorias”.Tom Homan, quien dirigió el ICE durante el primer año y medio del gobierno de Trump, afirmó que le dijo al expresidente que “ayudaría a organizar y dirigir la operación de deportación más grande jamás vista en este país”.Rebecca Noble para The New York TimesLa Corte Suprema ha permitido usos en el pasado de esa ley en tiempos de guerra. Sin embargo, su redacción parece requerir un vínculo con las acciones de un gobierno extranjero, así que no se sabe si los magistrados estarían de acuerdo en que un presidente la estire para que abarque la actividad de los cárteles de la droga.De manera más general, Miller manifestó que un nuevo gobierno de Trump pasaría de la práctica del ICE de arrestar a personas específicas a llevar a cabo redadas en lugares de trabajo y otros lugares públicos destinadas a arrestar de una sola vez a grandes cantidades de inmigrantes que viven en el país sin permiso legal.Miller comentó que para hacer que el proceso de encontrar y deportar a los inmigrantes que ya viven en del país sin permiso legal sea “radicalmente más rápido y eficiente”, el equipo de Trump incluiría a “los tipos correctos de abogados y de formuladores de políticas” dispuestos a llevar a cabo tales ideas.Además, debido a la magnitud de los arrestos y deportaciones que se contemplan, planean construir “enormes instalaciones de detención que funcionarían como centros de preparación” para inmigrantes mientras avanzan sus casos y esperan ser trasladados en avión a otros países.Miller declaró que es posible que los nuevos campamentos se construyan “en terrenos abiertos en Texas cerca de la frontera”.Relató que el ejército los construiría bajo la autoridad y control del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional. Aunque advirtió que aún no había planos específicos, dijo que los campamentos luicirían profesionales y similares a otras instalaciones para migrantes que se han construido cerca de la frontera.Estos campos también podrían permitirle al gobierno incrementar el ritmo y el volumen de las deportaciones de personas indocumentadas que han vivido en Estados Unidos durante años y por lo tanto no están sujetas a la expulsión por la vía rápida. Si realizar un esfuerzo a largo plazo para obtener un permiso para permanecer en el país significara permanecer encerrados mientras tanto, algunos podrían darse por vencidos y aceptar de forma voluntaria la expulsión sin pasar por el proceso completo.El uso de estos campamentos, dijo Miller, probablemente se centraría más en adultos solteros porque el gobierno no puede retener a niños de forma indefinida bajo una orden judicial de larga data conocida como el acuerdo Flores. Por lo tanto, cualquier familia llevada a las instalaciones tendría que entrar y salir más rápidamente, dijo.El gobierno de Trump intentó revocar el acuerdo Flores, pero la Corte Suprema no resolvió el asunto antes de que terminara el mandato de Trump. Miller afirmó que el equipo de Trump lo intentaría de nuevo.Miller añadió que para incrementar el número de agentes disponibles para las redadas del ICE, funcionarios de otras agencias federales del orden serían reasignados temporalmente y efectivos de la Guardia Nacional estatal y policías locales, al menos de estados liderados por republicanos dispuestos a hacerlo, serían sumados a los esfuerzos de control de la inmigración.Si bien una ley conocida como Ley Posse Comitatus generalmente prohíbe el uso de las fuerzas armadas con fines de mantenimiento del orden público, otra ley llamada Ley de Insurrección crea una excepción. Miller aseguró que Trump invocaría la Ley de Insurrección en la frontera, lo que permitiría el uso de tropas federales para detener a los inmigrantes.“En resumen”, concluyó Miller, “el presidente Trump hará lo que sea necesario”.Zolan Kanno-Youngs More