US races to build migrant tent camps after $45 billion funding boost, WSJ reports
(Reuters) US Immigration and Customs Enforcement is racing to build migrant tent camps nationwide after receiving $45 billion in new funding, aiming to expand detention capacity from 40,000 to 100,000 beds by year-end, The Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday.The agency is prioritising large-scale tent facilities at military bases and ICE jails, including a 5,000-bed site at Fort Bliss in Texas and others in Colorado, Indiana, and New Jersey, the report added, citing documents seen by WSJ."ICE is pursuing all available options to expand bedspace capacity," a senior ICE official told Reuters, adding that the "process does include housing detainees at certain military bases."Top US officials at Homeland Security, including US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, have expressed a preference for detention centers run by Republican states and local governments rather than private prison companies, the report said.The agency declined to confirm the specifics of the plan to expand detention capacity.Noem said last week that she was in talks with five Republican-led states to build other detention sites inspired by the "Alligator Alcatraz" facility in Florida.
"We've had several other states that are actually using Alligator Alcatraz as a model for how they can partner with us," Noem told a press conference in Florida without naming any of the states.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Etihad
11 hours ago
- Al Etihad
Time for international organisations to adapt and change
29 July 2025 01:16 By: OBAID FAISAL ALKAABIThe international organisations and their role in today's world have become a subject of debate, not only in the Global South but also in the western corridors of power. Over the past decade, some western countries have taken the lead in criticising international organisations and blocs with some even opting to withdraw from them, claiming that these bodies no longer serve their interests or align with their policies, with the United States at the forefront during the first and second administrations of President Donald the most recent US decisions in this regard was its withdrawal from UNESCO; it has already left the World Health Organization, the Paris Climate Agreement, and the Human Rights Council. Trump's return to the White House has renewed this trend, as his administration once again reviews America's membership in various United Nations-affiliated bodies. Official justifications for these decisions often centre around claims of bias, lack of independence, poor crisis management, and failure to achieve US interests. The United States contributes significantly more funding to these organisations than many other, more populous countries. The change has gone to the point that a Republican senator introduced a bill in the Senate urging the US to quit the United moves significantly weakened the activity of some organisations and perhaps paralysed others, whether due to funding cuts or by banning their operations in certain from official reasons, Trump is not convinced by the post-World War II global order, which was established by the US and led to the creation of international political and economic institutions, chief among them the United Nations and its agencies. While the multiple US withdrawals from international organisations and treaties may diminish its global role to some extent, Washington views this as a principled rejection of multilateral mechanisms, even as international law is largely dependent on such Trump, the United States adopts a transactional attitude towards global engagement. As such, membership in international organisations is evaluated through a cost-benefit lens, especially in terms of economic cutting costs may be one factor, the more decisive motive remains the 'America First' policy. Accordingly, Washington places little value on organisations that do not align with its inward-focused policies and its preference for domestic over international before Trump came to power, there was another example from the western part of the world. In 2016, the United Kingdom chose to leave the European Union for reasons connected to immigration, economics, and sovereignty. This marked a return of protectionist measures to the global economic scene, culminating in today's widespread tariff hikes, although many believed such practices had been dismantled in the post-World War II transformations take time, there seems to be a shift toward alternative mechanisms that may marginalise international organisations, especially if this western vision is not merely a passing phase tied to certain political figures. Yet, we must also acknowledge the shortcomings of international organisations in the face of global conflicts. Some international organisations' handling of wars and crises has often exposed institutional bias, either embedded within their structures or forced upon them by dominant global powers seeking to legitimise their geopolitical end of World War II ushered in a new era of global governance, where sovereign equality among nations would be enshrined through the United Nations. But it seems that the current US administration wants to reshape the world in a way that advances its own interests and reinforces its dominance and values. It seeks to rewrite the rules on global issues like trade, cyberspace, and emerging technologies. Meanwhile, many countries in the Global South remain disillusioned by the current global system that has yet to fulfill their aspirations. They now call for a multi-polar world order that respects sovereignty and ensures economic and social these diverging global visions, international organisations find themselves at a critical juncture: Will they remain entrenched in the current world order, or will they evolve to become foundational institutions in the coming era as well? The columnist is a staffer at the think-tank firm TRENDS Research & Advisory
Gulf Today
13 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Thai, Cambodian leaders agree to ceasefire after five days of battle
The leaders of Cambodia and Thailand agreed to a ceasefire on Monday effective midnight, in a bid to bring an end to their deadliest conflict in more than a decade after five days of fierce fighting. Amid an international effort to quell the conflict, the Thai and Cambodian leaders held talks in Malaysia hosted by its Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, the current chair of the ASEAN regional bloc, where both sides agreed to halt hostilities and resume direct communications. Anwar said when opening a press conference alongside the Thai and Cambodian leaders that there would be "an immediate and unconditional ceasefire with effect from midnight tonight. This is final." The Southeast Asian neighbours accuse each other of starting the fighting last week, before escalating it with heavy artillery bombardment and Thai air strikes along their 817-km (508-mile) land border. Anwar had proposed ceasefire talks soon after a long-running border dispute erupted into conflict on Thursday, and China and the United States also offered to assist in negotiations. US President Donald Trump called both leaders at the weekend urging them to settle their differences, warning he would not conclude trade deals with them unless they ended the fighting. The tension between Thailand and Cambodia has intensified since the killing of a Cambodian soldier during a brief skirmish late in May. Both sides reinforced border troops amid a full-blown diplomatic crisis that brought Thailand's fragile coalition government to the brink of collapse. "Today we have a very good meeting and very good results... that hope to stop immediately the fighting that has caused many lives lost, injuries and also caused displacement of people," Hun Manet said, expressing appreciation to Trump and to China for its efforts in participating in the process. "We hope that the solutions that Prime Minister Anwar just announced will set a condition for moving forward for our bilateral discussion to return to normalcy of the relationship, and as a foundation for future de-escalation of forces." Acting Thai Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai, who had earlier expressed doubts about Cambodia's sincerity ahead of the negotiations in Malaysia, said Thailand had agreed to ceasefire that would "be carried out successfully in good faith by both sides". Reuters
Dubai Eye
14 hours ago
- Dubai Eye
Defence minister denies India bowed to pressure to end fighting with Pakistan
India's defence minister said on Monday that New Delhi had ended its military conflict with Pakistan in May as it had met all its objectives and had not responded to pressure, rejecting US President Donald Trump's claim that he brokered the truce. Rajnath Singh was speaking at the opening of a discussion in parliament on the April 22 attack in India's Jammu & Kashmir, in which 26 men were killed. The attack led to a fierce, four-day military conflict with Pakistan in May, the worst between the nuclear-armed neighbours in nearly three decades. "India halted its operation because all the political and military objectives studied before and during the conflict had been fully achieved," Singh said. "To suggest that the operation was called off under pressure is baseless and entirely incorrect," he said. Singh's comments came as the Indian Army said that it had killed "three terrorists" in an intense gun battle in Indian Kashmir on Monday. Indian TV channels said the three were suspected to be behind the April attack. Pakistan thanked Trump for brokering the agreement but India said Washington had no hand in it and that New Delhi and Islamabad had agreed between themselves to end the fighting. "At no stage, in any conversation with the United States, was there any linkage with trade and what was going on," Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said, referring to Trump's repeated remarks that he had used the prospect of trade deals between Washington and the two countries as leverage to broker peace. There was also no conversation between Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi between the day of the Kashmir attack when Trump called to convey his sympathy and June 17 when Modi was in Canada for the G-7 summit, Jaishankar told parliament. Indian opposition groups have questioned what they say is the intelligence failure behind the Kashmir attack and the government's inability to capture the assailants - issues they are expected to raise during the parliament discussion. They have also criticised Modi for coming under pressure from Trump and agreeing to end the fighting, along with reports that Indian jets were shot down during the fighting. Pakistan claimed it downed five Indian planes in combat, and India's highest ranking general told Reuters that India suffered initial losses in the air, but declined to give details. The Himalayan region of Kashmir has been at the heart of the hostility between India and Pakistan, both of whom claim the region in full but rule it in part, and have fought two of their three wars over it. India accuses Pakistan of helping separatists in its part of Kashmir, but Pakistan denies this and says it only provides diplomatic and moral support to Kashmiris seeking self-determination.
