logo
US revokes visas of Mexican band members after cartel leader's face was projected at a concert

US revokes visas of Mexican band members after cartel leader's face was projected at a concert

MEXICO CITY (AP) — The U.S. State Department revoked the visas of members of a Mexican band after they projected the face of a drug cartel boss onto a large screen during a performance in the western state of Jalisco over the weekend.
U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau, who was U.S. ambassador to Mexico during the first Trump administration, said late Tuesday on X that the work and tourism visas of members of Los Alegres del Barranco were revoked.
The visa revocations follow widespread outrage in Mexico over the concert as prosecutors in two states have launched investigations into the projected images, and a larger national reckoning over how to address the rise of a popular musical genre criticized for romanticizing drug cartels.
'I'm a firm believer in freedom of expression, but that doesn't mean that expression should be free of consequences,' Landau wrote on X. 'The last thing we need is a welcome mat for people who extol criminals and terrorists.'
The controversy broke out over the weekend when the face of Nemesio Rubén 'El Mencho' Oseguera layered over flames was projected behind the band, originally hailing from Sinaloa, during the concert. Finger pointing ensued among the band, concert producers and the venue.
Oseguera is the leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, which has been connected to a ranch authorities say was used to train cartel recruits and possibly dispose of bodies in Jalisco, where searchers found human bone fragments, heaps of clothing and shoes.
The Jalisco cartel is among other criminal groups in Mexico that have been designated as foreign terrorist organizations by the Trump administration.
While the image was met by applause during the concert, Jalisco prosecutors quickly announced they were summoning the band to testify in an investigation into whether they were promoting violence, a crime which could result in a penalty of up to six months in prison. The state of Michoacan also announced an investigation into the Los Alegres del Barranco for projecting the same images during a concert in the city of Uruapan.
Jalisco Gov. Pablo Lemus said that the state would ban musical performances that glorify violence, adding that violators would 'face monetary and criminal sanctions.'
'We know that outrage is not enough,' Lemus said. 'Of course it's possible to ban (the music).'
Since, a number of the band's future shows have been cancelled, one town's government saying that the show 'didn't have the municipal permissions needed' to carry out the performance.
The dispute coincides with a larger cultural debate in Mexico as artists like Peso Pluma, Fuerza Regida and Natanael Cano usher in a global renaissance of Mexican regional music, by mixing classic ballads with trap music. In 2023, Peso Pluma beat Taylor Swift out as the most streamed artist on YouTube.
Many of the artists now topping the charts have come under fierce criticism because their lyrics often paint cartel leaders as Robin Hood-esque figures. Others say that the genre, known as 'narco corridos', expresses the harsh realities of many youths across Mexico.
A number of Mexican states have banned public performances of the music in recent years, the most recent being the state of Nayarit in February. Some of the bans have come as famed artists have received death threats from cartels, forcing a number of them to cancel their performances.
Others, including Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum, have sought a less aggressive approach to addressing the genre. Sheinbaum, who has come out against censoring the music, has suggested instead that the Mexican government push forward initiatives that promote Mexican regional music with more socially acceptable lyrics.
The Mexican leader did harden her language on the topic following the Los Alegres del Barranco concert. In her morning news briefing this week, Sheinbaum demanded an investigation into the concert, saying: 'You can't justify violence or criminal groups.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump threatens to cut Musk government contracts amid agenda bill spat
Trump threatens to cut Musk government contracts amid agenda bill spat

UPI

time2 minutes ago

  • UPI

Trump threatens to cut Musk government contracts amid agenda bill spat

Tesla CEO Elon Musk and President Donald Trump hold a press conference in the Oval Office at the White House on Friday as Musk ends his tenure as director of the Department of Government Efficiency. Photo by Francis Chung/UPI | License Photo June 5 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump on Thursday threatened to cut Elon Musk's government contracts through Tesla amid his departure from his role cutting government spending and opposition to Trump's sweeping legislative agenda bill. Trump threatened to end all government contracts with the Musk-founded Tesla in a post on Truth Social and suggested that would be a fast way to reduce government spending. "The easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts," Trump wrote. Tesla share prices declined by more than 14% on Thursday and shed $152 billion in value from the EV maker. Trump on Thursday accused Musk of going "crazy" after the president canceled the federal electric vehicle mandate imposed by the Biden administration. "I took away his EV mandate that forced everyone to buy electric cars that nobody else wanted," Trump said in a Truth Social post on Thursday. "He just went crazy!" Trump said he asked Musk to leave his advisory position with DOGE, although Musk was scheduled to exit the position at the end of May. Musk earlier said Trump would not have won the Nov. 5 election without his help. He contributed an estimated $250 million to Trump's campaign effort. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk said Thursday morning in a post on X. Musk has criticized the proposed "one big, beautiful" federal government budget bill as increasing the nation's debt and negating his work with DOGE. The entrepreneur opposes the spending bill that the House has passed and is before the Senate because it removed tax credits and subsidies for buying EVs, Trump claimed. "I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done that months ago," Trump said in a subsequent Truth Social post on Thursday afternoon. "This is one of the greatest bills ever presented to Congress," he continued. "It's a record cut in expenses, $1.6 trillion dollars, and the biggest tax cut ever given." If the measure is not passed, Trump said it will trigger a 68% tax increase, "and things far worse than that." The president said the "easiest way to save money ... is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts" with Tesla. Later on Thursday, Musk in an X post said it is "time to drop the really big bomb" on the president. Trump "is in the Epstein files," Musk said. "That is the real reason they have not been made public." Musk did not say in what context Trump allegedly appears in the Epstein files, but ended his post with: "Have a nice day, DJT!" He made a subsequent post that asks: "Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?" Trump and Musk often appeared together at high-profile events in the first four months of the administration.

Bloomberg Daybreak: Trump-Musk Feud
Bloomberg Daybreak: Trump-Musk Feud

Bloomberg

time4 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Bloomberg Daybreak: Trump-Musk Feud

On today's podcast: 1) Elon Musk and President Donald Trump engage in a public dispute the traded personal barbs and weighed down Tesla stock and Musk's personal wealth. The dispute began over differences on the GOP tax legislation, with Musk opposing the bill and Trump accusing Musk of being motivated by self-interest. After Tesla shares tanked 14% and Musk's personal wealth dropped by $34 billion, Musk signaled a willingness to cool tensions with Trump, responding to a user's advice to "cool off and take a step back for a couple days" with "Good advice." 2) Tensions appear to be easing between the US and China. President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to further trade talks to resolve disputes over tariffs and rare earth minerals. The two leaders had a 90-minute call, during which Trump acknowledged that the trade relationship with China had gotten "a little off track" but said they are now "in very good shape" with a trade deal. 3) Investors brace for a critical May Jobs Report. Traders are awaiting the key monthly nonfarm payrolls report, which may reinforce expectations that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates at least twice this year.

Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order

Associated Press

time7 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order

BOSTON (AP) — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially.' Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store