Connect with us

Politics

Unlawful border crossings dropped to four-year low in November, new data show

Published

on

Unlawful border crossings dropped to four-year low in November, new data show

Unlawful border crossings along the U.S.-Mexico border have dropped to a four-year low, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, with 46,610 people stopped between ports of entry in November.

The number of illegal crossings that month marked an 18% decrease from the previous month, and the lowest level since July 2020, the agency said.

“Our enhanced enforcement efforts, combined with executive actions and coordination with Mexico and Central American countries in recent months, are having a sustained, meaningful impact,” said Troy A. Miller, the acting head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Between June and November, the Department of Homeland Security removed more than 240,000 people, according to the agency. In fiscal year 2024, the department also removed more than 700,000 from the country, more than any prior year since 2010.

Advertisement

The numbers represent something of a turnaround for the Biden administration, which faced major political backlash for a surge in illegal crossings earlier in Biden’s term. Trump slammed Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for the increases.

Immigration experts attribute the drop in border encounters — people stopped trying to cross in areas between ports of entry — to multiple factors, including what they said is the current administration’s “carrot-and-stick” approach.

Under the Biden administration, officials have encouraged migrants to turn themselves in at ports of entry, launching an app to make appointments as they travel through Mexico. It has also discouraged illegal entries between ports of entry, by making those who attempt to enter the country in that manner ineligible for asylum.

The sharp decrease comes just weeks before President-elect Donald Trump is set to be sworn in, bringing with him an administration that has made cracking down undocumented immigration a top priority. During his campaign, Trump and his top advisors characterized the southern border as out of control and under “invasion,” and promised mass deportations.

In a Time interview, Trump vowed to mobilize the military to help deport millions of undocumented immigrants.

Advertisement

“We have people coming in at levels and at record numbers that we’ve never seen before,” Trump said. “I’ll do what the law allows. And I think in many cases, the sheriffs and law enforcement is going to need help. We’ll also get National Guard. We’ll get National Guard, and we’ll go as far as I’m allowed to go.”

The recent border crossings figures paint a somewhat different picture, however.

Border Patrol agents on the ground have reported a drop in the number of crossings for the last seven months, according to the agency, with a 60% decrease occurring between May and November.

Officials at the Department of Homeland Security have also touted that the number of people processed for removal has doubled in recent months.

The CBP One app allows migrants traveling through Mexico to make appointments at ports of entry, discouraging them from trying to enter the country through deserts in between to avoid U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents, said Michelle Mittelstadt, spokesperson for the Migration Policy Institute.

Advertisement

The administration also issued an order making those who make illegal crossings ineligible for asylum, and encouraged the governments of Mexico, Panama and Costa Rica to increase migration controls in their counties.

“November marked the first time ever that a majority of encounters were migrants arriving at a port of entry rather than being intercepted after crossing the border without authorization — proof that this carrot-and-stick approach was taking effect,” Mittelstadt said.

Despite the decrease in border encounters, the incoming Trump administration has continued to promise an aggressive approach to deportations, and some have threatened sanctuary cities and states with consequences if they stand in the way.

Tom Homan, acting director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the first Trump administration and “border czar” appointee for the second, has called for increased workplace raids.

He told Fox News that cities that refuse to help federal immigration agencies could face criminal charges.

Advertisement

“If you knowingly conceal or harbor an illegal alien from a police officer, it is a felony,” he said.

Marisa Cianciarulo, dean of Irvine’s Western State College of Law and an expert on immigration and refugee law, said recollections of family separations and detentions during the first Trump administration, as well as recent threats of mass deportations, could also be playing a temporary role in discouraging migrants.

“I think we’re seeing a kind of preemptive response to the new administration,” she said. “There’s fear and anxiety, and they’re going to look for other means to support their families.”

Trump’s incoming deputy chief of staff for policy, Stephen Miller, also sent out letters to a number of California officials, cities and counties, warning them of possible consequences if they interfered with immigration enforcement.

In September, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall) and other members of the House Judiciary Committee held a field hearing in San Diego County on the border crisis, inviting mayors of Santee and Chula Vista, law enforcement officials and residents to provide testimony.

Advertisement

In his opening statement, Issa, whose district includes large portions of San Diego County, said that while there are people who legitimately seek asylum and have worked toward entering the country legally, there are millions who have entered the country illegally.

“It is our goal to restore the rule of law and recognize that we can have legal immigration in our country but only if we can control the border, “ he said.

Issa could not immediately be reached for comment.

At the hearing, Santee Mayor John Minto said that the Biden-Harris administration’s approach to border security and immigration was affecting not only the state but San Diego County, which was at the forefront of the issue. He said that between September 2023 and May 2024, San Diego County received up to 154,000 street releases of migrants, many of whom were placed in trolleys and sent to the eastern region of the county.

“These unofficial figures underscore the unprecedented and grave scale of the region’s border crisis,” he said. “The influx of migrants has drained local resources, including overcrowding at local hospitals, prompting San Diego County officials to respond with a coordinated effort involving federal, state and regional support.”

Advertisement

Minto could not immediately be reached for comment.

Earlier this month, San Diego County passed a new policy that would prevent jail officials from cooperating with immigration officials in any way.

The policy went beyond the state’s current law, which allows local jurisdictions to notify immigration officials when someone convicted of certain violent or sexual felonies is set to be released from jail. Under the new policy, San Diego would not provide release dates to federal officials.

The policy has triggered a standoff between county supervisors and the San Diego County Sheriff, who said she would continue to cooperate with federal immigration officials as state law allowed.

California officials anticipate conflict with the new administration. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has called the letters from Miller’s America First Legal a “scare tactic.” Bonta said the state is preparing for legal challenges.

Advertisement

But Cianciarulo warns that punitive policies on migrants tend to have only temporary impacts. If economic and political factors push people out of their home countries, and they’re lured by the prospect of work in the U.S., migrants will eventually take the risk.

“Regardless of how strict the laws are, how punitive, we still come back to the fact that immigration is an economic reality,” Cianciarulo said. “[Migration] is not an emotional type of decision.”

Politics

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

Published

on

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.

The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House. 

The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

Published

on

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.

Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.

“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”

The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.

While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.

Advertisement

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.

And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.

That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.

It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.

That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.

Advertisement

That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is true in the streets of America today.

Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

Published

on

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.

The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.

Advertisement

USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION 

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.

The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022.  (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Advertisement

In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs. 

HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.

‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL

The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud.  (AP Digital Embed)

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”

Advertisement

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending