Connect with us

News

The border crossing in this tiny town has been closed because there are too many migrants

Published

on

The border crossing in this tiny town has been closed because there are too many migrants

A tiny town in Arizona is feeling the impact of a record number of migrants crossing the U.S. border, and the limited resources available to both U.S. and Mexican law enforcement to stem the flow.

The Lukeville, Arizona, border crossing, which was used daily by tourists headed to Mexican beaches and family members trading visits, has been closed since Dec. 4.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection closed the Lukeville Port of Entry to redeploy its officers to help agents on the front lines apprehend and process the more than 500 migrants who try to cross the border into the U.S. daily in this remote area. 

On Wednesday, more than 3,000 undocumented migrants crossed in the Tucson sector, which includes Lukeville. On Thursday, NBC News witnessed hundreds of migrants, most of whom turned themselves in to claim asylum, being processed by CBP under tents in the Arizona desert, just off the highway running through Lukeville.

While major commercial trade was not affected by the closure of the port, nearby businesses that depend on the port for their livelihood are losing customers and worry they may soon have to cut staff or close. 

Advertisement

Bernadette Nez, the general manager of the Why Not Travel Store in Why, Arizona, 20 miles north of the crossing, said she used to see over 100 customers a day. Now she’s lucky if 15 people come to the store or buy gas.

“Our sales had dropped down dramatically. Last week we made $5,000, which is what we usually would make in an eight-hour shift,” Nez said. “We had to cut hours for some of the employees as well. If this continues, we’ll have to cut down the days that we are open. That impacts your staff right around the holidays.”

A server in a nearby taco shop spoke with tears in her eyes as she talked about her fears that the store may have to close and she won’t be able to see her mother in Mexico for Christmas. Getting to her mother’s house, normally a 25-minute drive, could take seven hours if she has to use a different crossing, she said, and she’s worried about affording gas and presents.

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, wrote President Joe Biden on Dec. 8, saying that “the federal government must act immediately to solve the unmitigated crisis caused by the Lukeville Port of Entry closure.” She suggested that National Guard members who are currently on federal active duty could be reassigned to help CBP so it would have the manpower to reopen the crossing.

A White House spokesman did not respond to a request for comment on the letter.

Advertisement

On Friday, Hobbs signed an executive order directing the state’s National Guard to the border, saying the federal government’s decision to close the Lukeville port had led to “an unmitigated humanitarian crisis” and “put Arizona’s safety and commerce at risk.”

Immigrants line up at a remote U.S. Border Patrol processing center after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in Lukeville, Ariz., on Dec. 7.John Moore / Getty Images

Mexico and money

Data obtained by NBC News shows that the processing centers in the Tucson sector are over their capacity, at more than 130% full. Many migrants are coming from Mexico, Venezuela and Central America, but many are also coming from outside the Western Hemisphere, like Senegal. 

One reason for the surge along the southwest border is Mexico’s shortage of funds, said one U.S. and one Mexican official. Millions of migrants have been intercepted, arrested, held or deported on their way to the U.S. The funding for the National Institute of Migration (INM), Mexico’s equivalent of CBP, typically runs low at the end of the year, and it is especially low after a year of record border crossings, the two officials said.

For more than five years, Mexico has been absorbing much of the strain of all migration north from Latin America to the U.S. Former President Donald Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, the Covid-19 policy known as Title 42 and more recent asylum restrictions under the Biden administration have all allowed U.S. border officials to push millions of migrants back into Mexico, even if they are not from Mexico.

The decline in funds has contributed to understaffing and a drop in interdiction at the southern border, where northbound migrants enter Mexico. Up north, it has made Mexico less able to accept migrants pushed back across its northern border by the U.S.

Advertisement

Mexico’s INM has 35,000 agents, while the U.S. has 20,000 Border Patrol agents. The U.S. continues to send funding to Mexico to interdict illegal drugs and “irregular” migration, but Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has maintained that Mexico is under no mandate to take migrants back from the U.S. and has been doing so as a matter of cooperation. 

In Lukeville, migrants keep coming, and they often show the effects of a long journey through rugged terrain. One mother told Telemundo she had to carry her daughter through the mountains to keep up with her group. Some migrants in thin jackets huddled together and even built fires by the border wall to keep warm as temperatures plunged to 40 degrees Fahrenheit overnight.

“We knew this was going to be hard. We do it for our families,” a man who recently crossed in Lukeville said. 

Lukeville crossing remains closed, with no date for a reopening. On Dec. 9, another crossing closed near San Diego for the same reasons.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Minneapolis Promises Police Overhaul in Deal With Justice Department

Published

on

Minneapolis Promises Police Overhaul in Deal With Justice Department

The Minneapolis City Council unanimously voted on Monday to overhaul its police department to address a pattern of systemic abuses, as part of an agreement with the Department of Justice.

Lawyers from the Department of Justice and the city, where George Floyd was killed in 2020 by a police officer, have raced in recent weeks to finalize terms of the deal, known as a consent decree, before President-elect Donald J. Trump takes office. The previous Trump administration opposed the use of consent decrees, and the fate of nearly a dozen other federal investigations into American police departments is uncertain.

Under the deal approved on Monday, the Minneapolis department promised to closely track and investigate allegations of police misconduct, rein in the use of force, and improve officer training.

“This agreement reflects what our community has asked for and what we know is necessary: real accountability and meaningful change,” Mayor Jacob Frey of Minneapolis said in a statement.

Federal oversight, the strongest tool available to overhaul police departments with histories of abuse, begins with an exhaustive civil rights investigation and a report of findings. Cities then usually agree to negotiate a consent decree, a court-enforced oversight agreement, in order to avoid a federal lawsuit.

Advertisement

The Minneapolis decree was set in motion in the summer of 2023 after the Department of Justice issued a report accusing the city’s police department of routinely discriminating against Black and Native American residents, of needlessly using deadly force and of violating the First Amendment rights of protesters and journalists. The Minneapolis police union did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

City officials and lawyers from the Justice Department said they intended to present the deal to a federal judge, who will be responsible for overseeing its implementation.

During Mr. Trump’s first term in the White House, the Justice Department rejected such decrees, coming out in opposition to deals in Chicago and Baltimore and refraining from entering new ones. More recently, during a campaign rally last year, Mr. Trump said that in order to crack down on crime, the police should be allowed to be “extraordinarily rough,” and he spoke about the possibility of letting officers loose from constraints during “one really violent day.”

Officials in Minneapolis said they would remain committed to lasting change in the city’s police department, even if the Trump administration were to walk away from federal consent decrees. Several months before the Department of Justice report was issued, the city agreed to a policing overhaul as part of an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights.

Minneapolis set aside $27 million in its 2024 and 2025 budgets to pay for changes in response to the state and federal investigations. The city also paid $27 million to Mr. Floyd’s family in 2021 to settle their wrongful death lawsuit.

Advertisement

Consent decrees were pursued aggressively under President Barack Obama, whose administration entered into 15 of the decrees in a time of a growing public outcry over police abuses.

After Mr. Trump’s administration steered away from such decrees, the Justice Department under the Biden administration sought to bring them back, launching a dozen civil rights investigations into police departments.

But the Biden administration has been slow to bring those efforts to a resolution, in some cases letting years elapse. The Justice Department’s civil rights division has released a flurry of investigative findings in recent weeks, covering cities like Memphis, where the department found excessive force and racial discrimination; Mount Vernon, N.Y., where it found illegal arrests and strip searches; and Oklahoma City, where it found chronic mistreatment of people with behavioral disabilities by the police.

Some cities, like Memphis and Phoenix, which was the subject of an investigation after an extraordinarily high number of shootings by the police, have balked at entering into oversight agreements. The agreements usually call for changes in a number of aspects of a police department’s operations, training, policies and discipline, and can take a decade to complete.

The Biden administration is currently enforcing 15 consent decrees reached under previous administrations, but has completed only one other new one besides Minneapolis, in Louisville, Ky.

Advertisement

Those agreements and the department’s remaining investigations will be handed over to the Trump administration.

Devlin Barrett contributed reporting.

Continue Reading

News

Michael Barr to step down as Federal Reserve’s top Wall Street regulator

Published

on

Michael Barr to step down as Federal Reserve’s top Wall Street regulator

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

Michael Barr is stepping down as Wall Street’s top regulator but will stay on as a governor at the Federal Reserve, the US central bank announced on Monday.

Barr will vacate his role as vice-chair for supervision at the end of February, cutting short a four-year term that began in July 2022. He will remain as a governor until that term is up in January 2032, meaning there will be no new vacancy on the seven-member board of governors.

Barr said in a statement that he was stepping down over concerns that a “risk of a dispute over the position could be a distraction” to the Fed’s goal to safeguard the US financial system.

Advertisement

“In the current environment, I’ve determined that I would be more effective in serving the American people from my role as governor,” he said.

His decision comes just ahead of Donald Trump’s return to the White House. The president-elect has vowed to slash regulations in his second term, and his advisers were reportedly considering demoting Barr, although the transition team had not asked him to resign.

Barr’s move averts a potentially messy battle between Trump and the central bank if the president-elect had sought to force him aside after retaking office. The board’s general counsel believed that Barr would have prevailed if the issue were raised in litigation. His private counsel noted that fighting such a case would have been disruptive for the institution.

“It’s not about the legal merits, it’s about practically what it would mean for the Fed in that period of time,” Barr said in an interview with the Financial Times. “It just made sense to me to get in front of all of that and take myself out of the equation.”

Since Barr is staying on as a Fed governor, Trump will have to select a new vice-chair for supervision from among the current group of governors. They include officials such as Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman, both of who Trump selected for their jobs during his first term as president. Bowman, in particular, has emerged in recent years as a staunch opponent to many of the rule changes proposed by Barr — making her a potential choice for the job by the president-elect.

Advertisement

The Fed on Monday said it would not make any “major rulemakings” until a successor is confirmed by the Senate.

Since Barr assumed the top regulatory role in the US government and pledged to impose more stringent rules on major lenders, the Fed has faced intense legal pressure from banking lobby groups. Some of those groups filed a lawsuit in December against the central bank over its framework for stress tests, which aim to identify vulnerabilities at specific organisations in times of economic or financial strain.

The Fed was already considering what it described as “significant changes” to the stress tests in order to reduce volatility around the results and make the process more transparent. Changes could include amending models that calculate hypothetical losses for banks, averaging results over two years to lessen the risk of large year-on-year swings, and allowing the public to comment on hypothetical scenarios each year before they are finalised.

Last year, Barr was forced to revise his landmark proposal to raise capital requirements on lenders such as JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs. A bipartisan group of US lawmakers, chief executives at the biggest banks and lobbyists had launched a ferocious opposition campaign against the implementation of the so-called Basel III Endgame — the final rules tied to an international effort to shore up the sector in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

In September, Barr unveiled proposals that would have roughly halved the increase in capital requirements to 9 per cent for the largest US banks, versus the 19 per cent initially floated.

Advertisement

Asked about the fate of the Basel rules, Barr said he was “hopeful that the process continues to move forward”.

Republicans cheered Barr’s decision to step down. Tim Scott, the head of the powerful Senate Committee on Banking, which oversees the Fed, said Barr had “failed to meet the responsibilities of his position”.

“I stand ready to work with President Trump to ensure we have responsible financial regulators at the helm,” Scott said in a statement.

Congressman French Hill from Arkansas, who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, said he was “pleased” to hear of Barr’s resignation.

“It’s my preference that his nominee is committed to tailoring bank regulatory policies and implementing a balanced approach to prudential supervision,” he added.

Advertisement

Ian Katz at Capital Alpha Partners said Barr’s resignation set the stage for “lighter touch” oversight from the Fed. Bowman was the “most obvious candidate for the job if she wants it”, he added.

Barr said in his resignation letter to President Joe Biden that it had been an “honour and a privilege to serve as the Federal Reserve board’s vice-chair for supervision, and to work with colleagues to help maintain the stability and strength of the US financial system so that it can meet the needs of American families and businesses”.

Continue Reading

News

‘America’s democracy stood’: Kamala Harris speaks after Congress certifies Trump win – video

Published

on

‘America’s democracy stood’: Kamala Harris speaks after Congress certifies Trump win – video

Kamala Harris said she was simply doing her constitutional duty in presiding over the certification of her presidential election defeat by Donald Trump on Monday. The certification was over quickly after no Democrats rose to object the results from any state – in contrast with four years ago when dozens of Republican lawmakers formally disputed Joe Biden’s victory in key swing states

Continue Reading

Trending