News
What Arizona's Mexico-born Republican congressman thinks of the border situation
Friday, March 29, 2024 Tucson, Arizona —Juan Ciscomani poses for a portrait at his offices in Tucson, Arizona on Friday, March 29, 2024. CREDIT: Ash Ponders for NPR MEArizona—
Ash Ponders/Ash Ponders for NPR
hide caption
toggle caption
Ash Ponders/Ash Ponders for NPR
Friday, March 29, 2024 Tucson, Arizona —Juan Ciscomani poses for a portrait at his offices in Tucson, Arizona on Friday, March 29, 2024. CREDIT: Ash Ponders for NPR MEArizona—
Ash Ponders/Ash Ponders for NPR
Juan Ciscomani made history in 2022, when he became the first naturalized U.S. citizen born in Mexico to represent Arizona in Congress.
He became a citizen in 2006 after moving to the U.S. with his family when he was 11 years old.
“I’m proud to be an immigrant,” Ciscomani told NPR’s Steve Inskeep during an interview with Morning Edition. “I’m proud of the journey that we traveled, to be here.”
Ciscomani, a Republican, represents Arizona’s 6th Congressional District. His district sits at the border between Mexico and the United States. The border, and the hundreds of thousands of migrants arriving there, many requesting asylum, is a key issue for his district.
Ciscomani said he speaks to people every day who have been frustrated by trying to get some form of legal status in the U.S. that isn’t asylum and how long it takes.
“They’re desperate because of how long it’s taking, ” Ciscomani said. “While the border seems to be or actually is wide open for people to just cross it illegally.”
Here’s what he had to say about Biden’s border policies, his own beliefs about immigration, and why he stands with the Republican policies for fixing the crisis at the border.
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity
Steve Inskeep: When did you become a Republican?
Juan Ciscomani: The moment that I registered to vote at 26, that’s the day that I signed the paperwork to become a Republican. I knew beforehand that I was conservative. I knew my values.
Inskeep: You’re hardly the only Latino Republican there. Lots. But what do you make of the fact that most people of your background vote for Democrats?
Ciscomani: Well, you’re right. It’s a growing number. The first time that I interned on Capitol Hill, there were three Hispanic Republicans in Congress. Now there’s now we have an organization of 18 of us that are Hispanic Republicans in the United States Congress. That number is growing. It should grow even more.
What I’m seeing, though, is an acknowledgement that those policies aren’t working for us. If you think about why people come here, if you ask my parents, it’s like, hey, why did you make the move? They’ll probably give you three main reasons. They’ll say a better job for us, the parents, better education for the kids, and safe streets. That hasn’t been the focus of many in the Democratic Party.
Friday, March 29, 2024 Tucson, Arizona —Juan Ciscomani poses for a portrait at his offices in Tucson, Arizona on Friday, March 29, 2024.
Ash Ponders/Ash Ponders for NPR
hide caption
toggle caption
Ash Ponders/Ash Ponders for NPR
Friday, March 29, 2024 Tucson, Arizona —Juan Ciscomani poses for a portrait at his offices in Tucson, Arizona on Friday, March 29, 2024.
Ash Ponders/Ash Ponders for NPR
Inskeep: Immigration is one of the issues that are on people’s minds in 2024. Do you assume that in your district, immigration policy will be decisive for at least some voters?
I’m not assuming. We know that for a fact. Wherever I go, this is the issue that’s on top of people’s minds. And it wasn’t always the case. Even though we’re a border district, a border state and immigration and border security has always been of interest and a priority for my district, It wasn’t always top. You know, you have other issues. Obviously, the economy, you have education, many other issues that are still important. But with the rise of the crisis and what’s happening, it’s just become a reality for people that are now impacting their daily lives. Issues like street releases of migrants wasn’t something that kept people up at night a few years ago. Now, if you talk to county officials, that is the issue. And having funding for that and and making sure that that we don’t have 1000 releases a day is what keeps them up.
Inskeep: As you probably know, there are a number of Republicans and people on the right who will offer a theory that Democrats are encouraging immigration, including illegal immigration, because they want them to become voters for them someday. Do you believe that?
You know the reasons why the Democrats have allowed this and why Joe Biden has allowed this? I can’t answer that. I wish I could because it’s so mind boggling to me why someone would allow this. Initially, you could think that it’s incompetence, but honestly, that claim can only go so far. You can be this incompetent to not realize what’s happening. This is an election year and even in an election year when President Biden is facing the lowest approval numbers ever and border security and immigration is the number one issue, that issue has failed at the hands of Democrats. He’s still not doing anything about it.
It’s unprecedented what has happened. Even Barack Obama at least pretended to care about border security. We thought President Obama was lagging on the enforcement side until, of course, came Biden. And he showed what really not caring about the border looks like. So the reasons and the theories and the speculations can be out there, but you just got to see where they’re going. They’re going to states where people are leaving those states like, you know, California or Illinois or New York. That’s where the majority of these migrants ended up landing. Which is bad for the communities there, but it’s bad for the country overall.
Inskeep: Trump has even connected immigrants in this country to his election difficulties. He had a theory that he lost the popular vote in 2016 because illegal immigrants voted no evidence of that whatsoever. Is he scapegoating immigrants?
Listen, I’m not going to speculate on the comments of the president or even try to interpret what he meant by those things. My border state is seeing the consequences of that and we need to stop it. The policies that President Trump had three years ago, three and a half years ago, did not cause any of this. Not one legislative law has changed now. Every change that Joe Biden has done, he’s done it through executive order. And those changes have cost where we are today. So what we cannot do is continue to govern this country by executive order. I am glad that President Trump did what he had to do on the border by executive order because he didn’t have the support of Congress to make sure that we supported the border. But he did it by executive order, which we learned is not sustainable because the next president can come in and change everything on day one, which is what Joe Biden did. And cost is the worst crisis in American history on the border.
The audio version of this story was produced by Lilly Quiroz. The digital version was edited by Obed Manuel.
News
Trump Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to Extend Cease-Fire by Three Weeks
President Trump announced a three-week extension of a cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon that had been set to expire in a few days, after hosting a meeting between Israeli and Lebanese diplomats at the White House on Thursday.
Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group that has been attacking Israel from southern Lebanon, did not have representatives at the meeting and did not immediately comment on the announcement. The prime minister of Israel and the president of Lebanon also did not comment.
A successful peace agreement would hinge upon Hezbollah halting attacks, which Lebanon’s government has little power to enforce because it does not control the militia. Lebanon’s military has mostly stayed out of the fighting and is not at war with Israel.
The cease-fire, which was scheduled to end on April 26, would last until May 17 if it takes effect as Mr. Trump described it. Before the cease-fire was brokered last week, nearly 2,300 people were killed in Lebanon and 13 in Israel. Since then, the number of Israeli airstrikes and Hezbollah attacks have been dramatically reduced, though the two sides have continued exchanging fire.
The Lebanese Ambassador to the United States, Nada Hamadeh, credited Mr. Trump for extending the cease-fire, saying that “with your help and support, we can make Lebanon great again.” Mr. Trump replied, “I like that phrase, it’s a good phrase.”
Asked about the potential of a lasting peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon, Mr. Trump said that “I think there’s a great chance. They are friends about the same things and they are enemies on the same things.”
But Lebanon and Israel have periodically been at war since Israel’s founding in 1948. Israel has invaded Lebanon for the fifth time since 1978, incursions that have destabilized the country and the delicate balance of power between Muslim, Christian and Druze communities.
In the hours before the president’s announcement on social media, Israel and Hezbollah were trading attacks in southern Lebanon, testing the existing cease-fire.
Mr. Trump said the meeting at the White House had been attended by high-ranking U.S. officials, including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the U.S. ambassadors to Israel and Lebanon.
Earlier on Thursday, an Israeli strike near the southern Lebanese city of Nabatieh killed three people, according to Lebanon’s health ministry. Hezbollah claimed three separate attacks on Israeli troops who are occupying southern Lebanon, though none were wounded or killed.
Hezbollah set off the latest round of fighting last month by attacking Israel soon after the start of the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign in Iran. Israel responded to Hezbollah’s attacks by launching airstrikes across Lebanon and widening a ground invasion of the country’s south.
News
U.S. soldier charged with suspected Polymarket insider trading over Maduro raid
Smoke rises from Port of La Guaira in Venezuela on Jan. 3, 2026 after U.S. forces seized the country’s president, Nicolas Maduro and his wife.
Jesus Vargas/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Jesus Vargas/Getty Images
Federal prosecutors on Thursday unsealed an indictment against a U.S. Army soldier, accusing him of using his insider knowledge of the clandestine military operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January to reap more than $400,000 in profits on the popular prediction market site Polymarket.
The Justice Department says Gannon Ken Van Dyke, 38, who was stationed at Fort Bragg, in North Carolina, was part of the team that planned and carried out the predawn raid in Caracas earlier this year that resulted in the apprehension of Maduro.
The Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed the actions against Van Dyke, the first time U.S. officials have leveled criminal charges against someone over prediction market wagers.
According to the indictment, Van Dyke now faces counts of wire fraud, commodities fraud, misusing non-public government information and other charges.
Trading under numerous usernames including “Burdensome-Mix,” Van Dyke allegedly traded about $32,000 on the arrest of Maduro, resulting in profits exceeding $400,000.
“Prediction markets are not a haven for using misappropriated confidential or classified information for personal gain,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton for the Southern District of New York. “Those entrusted to safeguard our nation’s secrets have a duty to protect them and our armed service members, and not to use that information for personal financial gain.”
Van Dyke’s defense lawyer is not yet publicly known. Polymarket did not return a request for comment.
The charges against Van Dyke come at a sensitive time for the prediction market industry, which has been growing exponentially, despite calls in Washington and among state leaders for the sites to be reined in.
Van Dyke is the first to be charged in the U.S. for suspected Polymarket insider trading, but Israeli authorities in February arrested several people and charged two on suspicion of using classified information to place bets about military operations in Iran on Polymarket.
News
Senate Adopts GOP Budget, Laying the Groundwork to Fund ICE and Reopen DHS
The Senate early Thursday morning adopted a Republican budget blueprint that would pave the way for a $70 billion increase for immigration enforcement and the eventual reopening of the Department of Homeland Security.
Republicans pushed through the plan on a nearly party-line vote of 50 to 48. It came after an overnight marathon of rapid-fire votes, known as a vote-a-rama, in which the G.O.P. beat back a series of Democratic proposals aimed at addressing the high cost of health care, housing, food and energy. The debate put the two parties’ dueling messages on vivid display six months before the midterm elections.
Republicans, who are using the budget plan to lay the groundwork to eventually push through a filibuster-proof bill providing a multiyear funding stream for President Trump’s immigration crackdown, used the all-night session to highlight their hard-line stance on border security, seeking to portray Democrats as unwilling to safeguard the country.
Democrats tried and failed to add a series of changes aimed at addressing cost-of-living issues, seizing the opportunity to hammer Republicans as out of touch with and unwilling to act on the concerns of everyday Americans.
Here’s what to know about the budget plan and the nocturnal ritual senators engaged in before adopting it.
Republicans are seeking a way around a filibuster on D.H.S. funding.
The budget blueprint is a crucial piece of Republicans’ plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security and end a shutdown that has lasted for more than two months. After Democrats refused to fund immigration enforcement without new restrictions on agents’ tactics and conduct, the G.O.P. struck a deal with them to pass a spending bill that would fund everything but ICE and the Border Patrol. Republicans said they would fund those agencies through a special budget bill that Democrats could not block.
“We can fix this with Republican votes, and we will,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and the Budget Committee chairman. “Every Democrat has opposed money for the Border Patrol and ICE at a time of great peril.”
In resorting to a new budget blueprint, Republicans laid the groundwork to deny Democrats a chance to stop the immigration enforcement funding. But they also submitted themselves to a vote-a-rama, in which any senator can propose unlimited changes to such a measure before it is adopted.
The budget measure now goes to the House, which must adopt it before lawmakers in both chambers can draft the legislation funding immigration enforcement. That bill will provide yet another opportunity for a vote-a-rama even closer to the November election.
Democrats used the moment to hammer Republicans on affordability.
Democrats took to the floor to criticize Republicans for supercharging funding for federal immigration enforcement rather than moving legislation that would address Americans’ concerns over affordability.
“This is what Republicans are fighting for,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the Democratic leader. “To maintain two unchecked rogue agencies that are dreaded in all corners of this country instead of reducing your health care costs, your housing costs, your grocery costs, your gas costs.”
Democrats offered a host of amendments along those lines, all of which were defeated by Republicans — and that was the point. The proposals were meant to put the G.O.P. in a tough political spot, showcasing their opposition to helping Americans afford high living costs. Fewer than a handful of G.O.P. senators crossed party lines to support them.
Republicans blocked Democrats’ proposals to address high living costs.
The G.O.P. thwarted an effort by Mr. Schumer to require that the budget measure lower out-of-pocket health care costs for Americans. Two Republicans who are up for re-election this year, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, voted with Democrats, but the proposal was still defeated.
Republicans also squelched a move by Senator Ben Ray Lujan, Democrat of New Mexico, to create a fund that would lower grocery costs and reverse cuts to food aid programs that Republicans enacted last year. Ms. Collins and Mr. Sullivan again joined Democrats.
Also defeated by the G.O.P.: a proposal by Senator John Hickenlooper, Democrat of Colorado, to address rising consumer prices brought on by Mr. Trump’s tariffs and the war in Iran; one by Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, to require the budget measure to address rising electricity prices, and another by Mr. Markey to create a fund to bring down housing costs.
Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat who is up for re-election in Georgia, also sought to add language requiring the budget plan to address health insurance companies denying or delaying access to care, but that, too was blocked by Republicans.
Republicans sought to amplify their hard-line messages on immigration, voter I.D. and transgender care.
While Republicans had fewer proposals for changes to their own budget plan, they also sought to offer measures that would underscore their aggressive stance on immigration enforcement and dare Democrats to vote against them.
Mr. Graham offered an amendment to allocate funds toward a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the apprehension and deportation of adult immigrants convicted of rape, murder, or sexual abuse of a minor after illegally entering the United States. It passed unanimously.
Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, sought to bar Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion and other services, and criticized the organization for providing transgender care to minors. Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, also attempted to tack on the G.O.P. voter identification bill, known as the SAVE America Act. Both proposals were blocked when Democrats, joined by a few Republicans, voted to strike them as unrelated to the budget plan.
The Republicans who crossed party lines to oppose their own party’s proposals for new voting requirements were Ms. Collins along with Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.
Ms. Collins and Ms. Murkowski also opposed the effort to block payments to Planned Parenthood.
-
Oklahoma1 minute ago
Tornado barrels through Oklahoma, damaging homes and shutting down roads
-
Oregon7 minutes ago
Jets Select Oregon TE Kenyon Sadiq with 16th Overall Pick in 2026 NFL Draft
-
Pennsylvania13 minutes agoDemocrat Josh Shapiro tests political muscle in swing-state Pennsylvania’s midterms
-
Rhode Island19 minutes agoSilver Alert issued for missing man in Cumberland, RI
-
South-Carolina25 minutes agoTwo from South Carolina charged with murder after Massachusetts man found dead in trash can
-
South Dakota31 minutes ago
SD Lottery Millionaire for Life winning numbers for April 23, 2026
-
Tennessee37 minutes agoAlabama Baseball Capitalizes on Free Passes in 12-8 Win Over Tennessee
-
Texas43 minutes agoTexas attorney raises concerns as investigation continues into 2 home explosions on North Side