Illegal immigrants storm US beaches as Coast Guard battles migrant surge that rose under Biden
Maritime illegal immigration, using boats to enter the U.S. illegally, rose during the Biden administration as a result of the political and economic crises of Haiti and Cuba, according to the Migration Policy Institute. In February 2023, the U.S. Naval Institute said that illegal immigrant interdiction operations were in a "state of emergency" due to societal turmoil in Caribbean countries.
Along the border between the U.S. and Mexico in California, illegal immigrants attempt to cross into America using boats as well.
On July 12, the U.S. Coast Guard interdicted three people who were trying to enter the U.S. illegally by boat and were apprehended at Imperial Beach in San Diego County, California. Two individuals said they were Mexican, while one said they were Turkish.
In January, the U.S. Coast Guard intercepted a boat carrying 21 illegal immigrants that was headed toward San Diego.
Coast Guard officials and Border Protection officials apprehended the illegal immigrants, who were from various countries.
"They don't want anyone to drown and die trying to cross into the U.S. Illegally…"
"Initial interviews revealed that all individuals claimed Mexican nationality, although subsequent checks identified two passengers as Guatemalan and Salvadoran nationals," the Coast Guard wrote in a press release.
California isn't close to the only state having to handle migrant incursions along its shores.
In February, the Coast Guard intercepted 132 Haitians on a boat south of the Florida Keys. The Coast Guard boarded the 30-foot vessel and processed the illegal immigrants before they were repatriated to Haiti, according to officials.
"The Coast Guard will continue to prioritize strengthening our domestic integrity and disrupting attempts to enter the United States illegally by sea," said Coast Guard District Seven enforcement officer Lt. Zane Carter. "We are steadfast in our mission to safeguard America by securing our maritime borders."
Simon Hankinson, senior research fellow in the Border Security and Immigration Center at The Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital that these interdictions create a unique danger for law enforcement authorities.
"Well, I've seen a very different pattern, say, between the U.K. and France versus off the U.S. coast, where it seems to be a variety of, you know, if it's professional smugglers with really fast boats trying to bring people in and drop them off, then that's one thing for the Coast Guard to cope with," Hankinson said. "And if it is people organizing themselves in leaky boats with insufficient engines and overcrowded conditions, then it's a different thing. I think for the Coast Guard, for our law enforcement, that the issue of safety is obviously paramount."
"They don't want anyone to drown and die trying to cross into the U.S. Illegally, even if they're not supposed to do it, but they're also probably worried about people carrying weapons who are trying to smuggle drugs and people in for money," he added.
Hankinson said the U.S. should look at what's happening in the United Kingdom as a case study on what to avoid. The U.K. saw 19,982 cross the English Channel to enter the country in the first six months of 2025, according to Sky News. That figure is up almost 50% compared to the first six months of 2024.
"You know, I was born in England. It's tragic what's happening there," he said. "You have a whole family of Palestinians who were allowed to stay, even though they'd applied under a program for Ukrainians. You know it's a sort of national suicide by generosity."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Montana woman discovers husband of 21 years didn't pay his taxes — now IRS is after them. What Dave Ramsey says to do
It's one thing for a spouse to keep a minor secret from their partner — it's another thing to hide an $82,000 tax bill. That's the situation Alice in Montana found herself in when she wrote to The Ramsey Show. Her husband of 21 years failed to pay an $82,000 tax bill from 2021. Now, the IRS is coming after their home, and she wants to know if she should take out a second mortgage to cover the bill or sell it. "I feel blindsided and betrayed," she wrote in. Ramsey's response? "What a mess!" Don't miss Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 6 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now Financial infidelity Alice and her husband's finances weren't always smooth, as evidenced by her alluding to a past bankruptcy. However, thanks to a strong 2021 for her husband's real estate business, they wound up owing the IRS $82,000. The money was in the husband's business account, so Alice trusted him to pay them. Instead, he used it to cover other business expenses and a failed side venture without telling her. He also blew off their accountant. Their CPA eventually filed their taxes for them in 2023, sans signatures — an act Ramsey called illegal. 'That's a good way for the CPA to end up in jail,' he quipped. Alice's husband then proceeded to hide IRS notices from her regarding the tax debt. She only found out when she signed for a certificate letter from the IRS saying the agency intends to levy their home for $150,000. Alice turned to Ramsey for guidance: should she buy her husband's share of the house or use a second mortgage to cover the IRS bill? Ramsey assumed that by "buy him out," Alice intended to divorce her husband. After bantering with co-host Rachel Cruze over whether she meant 'bail him' out, Ramsey added that as a nurse, Alice probably had taxes withheld from her paychecks. Now, if Alice and her husband intend to go to marriage counseling, then, between his real estate income and her nursing income, they can pay off the tax debt themselves. But Ramsey added that Alice should sell the house if she's getting a divorce. There was some good news for Alice: she may not be responsible for the taxes in the event of a divorce. "You would file under what's called the innocent spouse provision," he explained. "You were not aware of these taxes; you were not aware of the business activities that created these taxes." Because of this, Ramsey said the IRS shouldn't hold her liable even if her filing status at the time of the debt was married filing jointly. However, he suggested that Alice hire a skilled tax attorney or a knowledgeable CPA to argue her case. Ramsey added that if the house has a lien and is sold, the IRS can only take the money out of the husband's portion if Alice gets approved for innocent spouse relief. But this only works if they get a divorce. Otherwise, Alice and her husband need to work on reestablishing trust. Stay in the know. Join 200,000+ readers and get the best of Moneywise sent straight to your inbox every week for free. How innocent spouse relief works The IRS's innocent spouse relief program is designed to protect people like Alice from liability when their spouses underpay taxes on a joint tax return and they're unaware of it. If you're in a situation like hers, you may be eligible for innocent spouse relief. However, that relief only pertains to taxes on your spouse's income. You cannot claim innocent spouse relief for your income, household employment taxes, business taxes or certain other taxes. You can request innocent spouse relief if: You and your spouse filed a joint tax return Your taxes were underreported in error You did not know about errors on your tax return You reside in a community property state The IRS instructs people to request innocent spouse relief as soon as they become aware that they're on the hook for a tax bill. You must also request innocent spouse relief within two years of receiving a notice from the IRS about a tax bill. The IRS also says that if you didn't sign or consent to file a joint tax return with your spouse, you may be able to limit your responsibility for your spouse's taxes. You can call the number on your tax debt notice to learn more. This situation may apply to Alice, as she stated that their accountant filed their tax return without their signatures or consent. Of course, applying for innocent spouse relief does not guarantee approval. According to Jackson Hewitt Tax Services, in 2021, the IRS received over 26,000 innocent spouse relief requests but only approved about 4,800. Because approval is not guaranteed and there are many nuances involved, it may be best to consult a tax professional with expertise in the area rather than attempt to get relief on your own. What to read next Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it Here are 5 simple ways to grow rich with real estate if you don't want to play landlord. And you can even start with as little as $10 Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you? This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hill
11 minutes ago
- The Hill
US should fix the gender gap in refugee protection
In a recent decision denying asylum to a Salvadoran woman being stalked by gang members, the Board of Immigration Appeals — the highest administrative body for interpreting U.S. immigration law — found that under U.S. law, her claim that Salvadoran women constitute a group of people at risk of persecution was 'overbroad and insufficiently particular to be cognizable.' The foundation of refugee law — both internationally and in the U.S. — is that asylum should be provided to a person with a well-founded fear of being persecuted on any of five grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or 'membership in a particular social group.' This last category is intended to protect people similarly exposed to persecution as the other four groups because of immutable characteristics that cannot be changed or beliefs so fundamental they should not be required to change them. There are precedents in both U.S. and international law for treating women as a 'particular social group.' In Perdomo v. Holder and Mohammed v. Gonzales, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that gender is an 'innate characteristic' that is 'fundamental to [one's] identity.' In two cases, the European Union Court of Justice found that Afghan women, as women, are subject to persecution. But in denying this woman's claim, the Board said, 'If we held that groups defined solely by sex were cognizable, we would essentially create another protected ground under the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] — that of sex — to add to the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.' That, it said, would be a job for Congress. Because 'membership in a particular social group' is so open to interpretation — including very narrow interpretations like the Board's — the challenge to Congress should be raised. What is the logic in saying that individuals should be denied asylum because the persecuted group they are a part of is too large? In a country where any group of people is widely persecuted, it shouldn't matter whether that group is large or small to decide whether one of its members needs protection. All that should matter is the likelihood of the risk that person faces and the severity of the threat to them or of the abuse they have experienced. Of course, being a woman per se is not grounds for asylum, any more than being a member of any race, nationality or religion. But gender should be similarly recognized as a category deserving protection if it is the reason a specific woman is being persecuted. Some women have advanced successful asylum claims by identifying themselves as members of a small, highly specific group. In the landmark Fauzia Kasinga case, a woman fleeing genital mutilation was granted asylum not based on her right not to be persecuted on the basis of her gender, but rather as a member of a particular social group, defined as 'young women who are members of the Tchamba-Kasungu Tribe of northern Togo who have not been subjected to female genital mutilation, as practiced by that tribe, and who oppose the practice.' A more narrowly defined group is hardly conceivable. Often, though, the compulsion to particularize can distort the reality of persecution. Consider women in Afghanistan under the Taliban. All Afghan girls are barred from education beyond the sixth grade. No woman is allowed to attend university and all face severe restrictions on employment. A woman is not allowed to walk outside her home unless accompanied by a male relative, limiting access to public spaces and services, including access to health care. Violations of the hijab dress code and other draconian rules are met with severe punishment. In September 2024, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan said the 'Taliban's institutionalized system of…gender persecution…impacts almost the entire population.' When Congress next looks at U.S. immigration law, it should question why women should have to shoehorn their claims into a narrow understanding of membership of a particular social group and thereby have less consistent or predictable protection than racial, religious, nationality and political groups. In light of the Board of Immigration Appeals' narrow reading of existing law, Congress should amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to add gender as an unequivocally protected ground of the refugee definition standing alongside race, religion, nationality and political opinion.
Fox News
11 minutes ago
- Fox News
MSNBC's Ali Velshi asks host Jen Psaki if she felt 'scared' of Trump, his administration
MSNBC's Ali Velshi questioned fellow colleague Jen Psaki on Friday about whether she felt scared of being targeted by President Trump or the administration.
