logo
Hundreds of migrants arrested after entering military area at NM border

Hundreds of migrants arrested after entering military area at NM border

Yahoo12-05-2025
May 11—Another 209 people were arrested last week in southern New Mexico after entering the newly established New Mexico National Defense Area along the U.S.-Mexico border. Where they end up could soon be decided by the state's chief U.S. Magistrate judge.
Traditionally, individuals would face illegal entry charges, but now they are also subject to additional charges of entering a restricted military area and violating a defense property security regulation as part of the Trump administration's enhanced immigration enforcement. That means up to an additional 18 months of incarceration, if convicted of the two misdemeanors.
"To allow this novel charging theory runs the risk of supporting the Government's attempt to strike a foul blow against undocumented immigrants," wrote assistant federal public defender Amanda Skinner, of the Federal Public Defender's Office in New Mexico, in a filing last week in U.S. District Court in New Mexico.
The U.S. Attorney's Office in New Mexico has contended that it doesn't matter if an individual knew he or she was entering a prohibited military zone, as long as the person understood he or she were crossing illegally into the United States. A USAO spokesperson would not say where the 209 migrants are being detained as they await resolution of their cases.
"Most aliens who enter the District of New Mexico from Mexico through an area that is not a designated port of entry ... and thereby enter the (restricted military area) without authorization — are not 'engaged in apparently innocent conduct,'" federal prosecutors wrote in a May 5 court filing.
Typically, unless there are other charges, those convicted of the misdemeanor of illegal entry without inspection are given time served and deported.
On April 15, the U.S. Department of Interior transferred to the U.S. Army more than 109,651 acres of federal land along the U.S. border in New Mexico, including a 60-foot-wide strip along the Mexican border in Doña Ana, Luna and Hidalgo counties. That enabled the Secretary of the Army to designate the area as the New Mexico National Defense Area and issue a security regulation to formally prohibit any unauthorized entry onto the land.
In the past several weeks, an estimated 300 or so cases have been filed in New Mexico that have also included the trespassing on military property, including 209 such cases in the week that ended Friday, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Skinner wrote in her filing that her agency "immediately" brought to the government's and the court's attention that the additional charges "are unsupported by probable cause." On April 30, the federal public defender asked that all such charges be dismissed, but chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory Wormuth of Las Cruces denied the motion.
A day later, Wormuth filed an order asking both sides to detail what proof would be necessary for a conviction on the two misdemeanor charges related to trespassing on military property.
In her filing Thursday, Skinner included a sworn affidavit from an investigator with her agency who toured the defense area May 7 with the U.S. Border Patrol. Investigator Horlando Lopez stated that he saw signs attached to stakes in the ground on the military land, but wasn't permitted to photograph them or their locations.
The 12-by-18-inch signs warned that the area was restricted military property and that unauthorized entry was prohibited. But the words, in both Spanish and English, were not visible from the border wall, which appeared to be about 20-feet tall, Lopez's affidavit stated. The signs were spaced about 200 to 300 feet apart from each other and seemed to be more than 60 feet away from the border wall, he added. He said he didn't see any lighting in the area.
Lopez wrote that it appeared to him that someone could scale the border wall in the space between two signs, walk straight into the desert and never see a sign.
"Considering the placement of the signs, even if a migrant saw and read a sign, he or she would have already crossed through and exited the military land," Lopez stated.
Skinner wrote that she also toured the area and it was "readily apparent...that the location of the signage is wholly inadequate to inform anyone approaching the alleged military land from either side of the border that they are entering the space prior to entering it."
She asked Wormuth to hold a hearing so attorneys for both sides "may be questioned as to their positions and to develop a complete record on these emerging and important legal issues." Absent proof that defendants willfully violated a military regulation and entered military property with a prohibited purpose or with knowledge the entry was prohibited, "this Court cannot allow the Government to continue to prosecute (the military property-related) charges."
The U.S. Attorney Office says offenders by law don't need to see posted warning signs or know they were violating the no-trespassing edict in order to be found guilty.
"If an illegal alien enters the U.S. from Mexico without going through a designated port of entry and knows that such conduct is unlawful, then he or she has violated the military regulation, even if he or she never saw a sign designating the area as restricted, never knew he or she was entering military property, was unaware the military had restricted entries onto this property, and didn't specifically intend to violate the security regulation," stated the government's filing.
The government, nonetheless, has posted about 199 signs along the 180-mile border with Mexico, and says placement of the signs "in light of the often difficult and unforgiving desert and mountainous terrain" is "conspicuous and appropriate." The federal government "is currently working on installing additional signs," the U.S. Attorney's Office filing added.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Democrat Senator said Alaska summit was ‘great day' for Russia: Putin was ‘absolved of his crimes in front of the world'
Democrat Senator said Alaska summit was ‘great day' for Russia: Putin was ‘absolved of his crimes in front of the world'

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Democrat Senator said Alaska summit was ‘great day' for Russia: Putin was ‘absolved of his crimes in front of the world'

A key senator on the Foreign Relations committee called Donald Trump's Alaska summit with Vladimir Putin a 'disaster' Sunday and blamed the U.S. president for legitimizing his Russian opponent in front of the world. 'It was an embarrassment for the United States. It was a failure. Putin got everything he wanted,' said Chris Murphy, the ranking Democratic member of the Foreign Affairs subcommittee on European security cooperation. Murphy told NBC's Meet the Press that Trump was forced to abandon his main commitment — a call for a ceasefire — during the meeting and was similarly unable to convince Putin to drop demands for Ukraine to cede more territory, something the senator from Connecticut said was 'stunning' to see a U.S. president consider. 'He wanted to be absolved of his war crimes in front of the world. He was invited to the United States — war criminals are not normally invited to the United States of America,' Murphy said. Trump 'walked out of that meeting saying, 'I didn't get a ceasefire. I didn't get a peace deal. And I'm not even considering sanctions,'' the senator continued. 'And so Putin walks away with his photo op, with zero commitments made, and zero consequences. What a great day for Russia.' Murphy's comments to NBC come as two top Trump officials who traveled with the president to Alaska for the summit Friday, Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff, did the rounds on separate Sunday morning programs defending the outcome of the president's meeting with Putin. The optics of the meeting are being endlessly scrutinized in the mainstream press, partly due to the few specifics released so far about what the two men discussed. Among those moments been picked apart by analysts included the arrival of the Russian president, which was preceded by U.S. troops, in uniform, rolling out a red carpet on the tarmac. On Sunday, Witkoff told CNN'S State of the Union that the U.S. secured what he claimed was a 'game-changing' development in the discussions: Putin's willingness to consider accepting a U.S. security agreement protecting the future sovereignty of Ukraine's borders. This was the first time negotiators were able to gain ground on the issue, he explained. 'We were able to win the following concession: That the United States could offer Article 5-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in NATO," he said. Witkoff wouldn't specify whether the security guarantee could lead to what Trump and his followers have long opposed — a promise to directly engage U.S. troops in defense of Ukraine should Russia continue crossing Trump's red lines. Murphy, on Sunday, seemed to imply that such a guarantee would be the bare minimum standard necessary for any peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia. 'That [security guarantee] is an essential element of a peace agreement because any commitment that Vladimir Putin makes to not invade Ukraine again isn't worth the paper that it's written on,' said the senator. 'He's made that commitment many times. So yes, there has to be a guarantee that if Putin were to enter Ukraine after a peace settlement, that there would be some force there, a U.S. force, a U.S.-European force there to defend Ukraine.' He would go on to hammer Trump over reports that Witkoff wouldn't confirm when pressed by CNN's Jake Tapper, which revealed that Trump had signaled his own willingness to accept Russian demands for Ukraine to cede the entire occupied Donbas region as part of a potential agreement. Murphy said that the reported development was 'another sense that Putin is just in charge of these negotiations.' Chris Van Hollen, another Democrat on the Foreign Relations panel, was equally critical of Trump's meeting with the Russian president during an interview with ABC's Martha Raddatz on This Week. Heading into Friday's summit, Trump warned of 'severe consequences' if Russia continued to oppose peace efforts and said that he was working towards an immediate ceasefire. Afterwards, he claimed in a Truth Social post that "It was determined by all [in attendance] that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.' Van Hollen called this news a 'setback' for the U.S.'s European allies and Ukraine, while accusing Trump of being 'flattered' by Putin. 'There's no sugarcoating this. Donald Trump, once again, got played by Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin got the red carpet treatment on American soil. But we got no ceasefire, no imminent meeting between Putin and Zelensky,' said Van Hollen. Jake Sullivan, national security adviser to the Biden administration, agreed. "President Trump's stated goals were very simple, get an immediate ceasefire, and in the absence of a ceasefire, impose what he called severe consequences," Sullivan said. "Well, the summit has come and gone. There is no ceasefire. There are no consequences.' Trump is now scheduled to meet Monday with European leaders including Finnish president Alexander Stubb, German chancellor Friedrich Merz, French president Emmanuel Macron and the UK's Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. Stubb is known for his personal relationship with Trump, and is poised to be on-hand to quell any disputes between Trump and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky, who will also be in attendance. Zelensky is reported to be wholly opposed to any demand to recognize Russian occupation of the Donbas as legitimate.

DC students head back to school amid Trump focus on cleaning up juvenile crime in the district
DC students head back to school amid Trump focus on cleaning up juvenile crime in the district

CNN

time3 hours ago

  • CNN

DC students head back to school amid Trump focus on cleaning up juvenile crime in the district

In southeast Washington, DC, children stood in line Friday to receive new backpacks filled with school supplies, while community organizers passed out free hot dogs and hamburgers to teenagers to celebrate the last few days of summer before. But just a few blocks away, the sight of National Guard trucks cut into the celebration — a reminder that the school year will begin under the shadow of federal troops. 'This is not going to go off well … most middle school kids walk to school by themselves. They're going to have to walk through soldiers and police,' Dara Baldwin, a DC-based activist on the Free DC advisory council, told CNN. 'They're going to be fearful for their lives. … They're either not going to want to go to school, or they're going to react to these people in their space.' President Donald Trump's deployment of federal law enforcement to the nation's capital to combat what he has described as 'roving mobs of wild youth' has ignited fear among parents, activists and youth advocates that Black and Latino teens will face heightened policing as they return to class next week. When Trump announced he was placing the District of Columbia's police department under federal control and deploying National Guard troops, he argued that youth crime in DC demanded urgent intervention. According to a report from the DC Policy Center, the juvenile arrest rate in DC is nearly double the national rate. Data from the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, an independent DC agency that tracks public safety statistics, shows that total juvenile arrests during the first half of 2025 have largely remained consistent with the number in the first half of each year since 2023, when there was an increase after the Covid-19 pandemic. Looking specifically at juvenile arrests for violent offenses, which includes robberies, aggravated assaults and assaults with a deadly weapon, between 2019 and 2020, they dropped from 585 to 347, as did the overall number of arrests in DC during the beginning of the pandemic. That decline was short-lived: The numbers began climbing again in 2022, rising from 466 arrests for violent offenses to 641 in 2023 before dropping again in 2024 to 496, according to the data from the CJCC. Youth advocates cite the city's investment in more resources and programs targeting young people as part of the reason for the drop in arrests for violent offenses. In 2023, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser issued a declaration of a juvenile crime emergency which focused city resources on addressing the issue. This year the DC Council approved stricter juvenile curfews that also give the city's police chief the ability to double down with even stricter emergency short-term curfews. She used those curfews recently around Navy Yard, an area near the Washington Nationals ballpark and the waterfront. 'It's clear that the target is the inner-city youth,' Kelsye Adams, an activist for DC statehood and director of DC Vote, told CNN at a rally outside of the Metropolitan Police Department headquarters on Friday. 'And what I've seen on the news from where the police checkpoints and the neighborhoods that they're going in, they are directly attacking young, Black and brown kids.' The White House says the administrations policies are aimed at making DC safer. 'Washington DC leaders have failed the city's youth – juvenile crime has been a serious concern for residents and local leaders even before President Trump's intervention to Make DC Safe Again,' Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, told CNN in a statement. 'The status quo of ignoring kids committing violent crimes has not worked, it has only exasperated the situation – President Trump is making DC safe again for everyone.' The DC Metropolitan Police Department did not respond to CNN's request for comment. CNN has spoken to more than a dozen DC residents about Trump's crime crackdown and whether it will impact the children in their communities – and some parents say the extra presence could reduce violence. 'I got mixed reactions with that,' Kim Hall, 45, a longtime district resident who has three children in the DC public school system, told CNN at the backpack event in Anacostia. 'To me, it actually makes the street more safe, because a lot of the crime that goes on, especially over there in southwest and southeast, is happening while the kids are going to school or they're coming out of school.' 'If the police is around, there won't be so much of the gun violence,' she added. Anthony Motley, 76, a DC resident who has 10 grandchildren in the school system, told CNN that young people are 'the future, and we need to protect the future. So, whatever we need to do to protect our future, I'm for that.' Others CNN spoke with, including Sharelle Stagg, a DC resident and educator in the public school system, aren't convinced that increased patrols and law enforcement are going to help their children. 'I'm not certain this is the best strategy, especially when you think about just the way that it was rolled out and kind of presented to communities,' Stag said. Tahir Duckett, executive director of the Center for Innovations in Community Safety at Georgetown Law School, agrees that Trump deploying National Guard troops to DC could make violence worse, not better. 'When you have these major shows of force, and you have people who feel like the police aren't actually part of the community, but are more of an occupying force, then you tend to see people not want to cooperate with the police,' he said, which 'can lead to increased crime rates.' Youth advocates also told CNN they are young Black and Brown men will be the most impacted by the larger law enforcement presence. Black children make up more than half of DC's youth population, according to census data. 'I've been brought up into the community where we've seen this often. So it might look different to some other people, but not me, not the community that I come from, and our communities have been targeted for years,' Carlos Wilson, who works with Alliance of Concerned Men, a group that helps inner-city youth and hosted the back to school event in southeast DC, told CNN. He argued that Trump could use the funding for more resources to help young people in this city instead of on an increased law enforcement presence. 'That's what's gonna make it better, more programs, more opportunities for the younger folks. I think that's what's gonna make our community better. Not police presence. We need resources. We need help, not people coming in.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store