Trump tours Florida immigration lockup, jokes about escapees having to run from alligators
Trump said he'd like to see similar centres in 'really, many states' and raised the prospect of also deporting U.S. citizens. He endorsed having Florida National Guard forces serve as immigration judges to ensure migrants are ejected from the country even faster, despite the dubious constitutional implications of doing so.
'Pretty soon, this facility will handle the most menacing migrants, some of the most vicious people on the planet,' Trump said of the Florida site known as 'Alligator Alcatraz.'
He added: 'The only way out, really, is deportation.'
Hundreds of protesters converged outside the site – a remote airstrip with tents and trailers. They waved signs calling for the humane treatment of migrants as well as the protection of the expansive preserve that is home to a few Native American tribes and many endangered animal species.
The White House has delighted in the area's remoteness – about 80 kilometres west of Miami – and the fact that it is teeming with pythons and alligators. It hopes to convey a message to detainees and the rest of the world that repercussions will be severe if the immigration laws of the United States are not followed.
Before arriving, Trump even joked of migrants being held there, 'We're going to teach them how to run away from an alligator if they escape prison.'
'Don't run in a straight line. Run like this,' Trump said, as he moved his hand in a zigzag motion. 'And you know what? Your chances go up about 1%.' Alligator experts suggest it is better to dash in one direction in the rare situation when the reptile gives chase, according to a website run by the University of Florida.
Trump on his tour walked through medical facilities and other parts of the detention centre, then held a lengthy roundtable where Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and assorted state and federal officials, heaped him with praise.
Authorities originally suggested it could house up to 5,000 detainees upon completion, but DeSantis said it would actually hold around 3,000, with some starting to arrive Wednesday.
The centre was built in eight days over 16 km of Everglades. It features more than 200 security cameras, 8,500 metres of barbed wire and 400 security personnel.
Trump dismissed concerns from critics, particularly the argument of the potential impact on a delicate ecosystem. He said there was already an airstrip in the area, which meant authorities won't be 'dropping dirt.'
'Frankly, it's, like, perfect,' Trump said. 'I don't think you're doing anything to the Everglades. You're just enhancing it.'
Other, though, are appalled, including Phyllis Andrews, a retired teacher who drove from Naples, Florida, to protest Trump's visit and called migrants 'fine people.'
'They do not deserve to be incarcerated here,' Andrews said. 'It's terrible that there's a bounty on their head.'
Trump administration sues Los Angeles over immigration enforcement
Some Trump supporters showed up near the detention centre as well, including Enrique Tarrio, a former leader of the Proud Boys whom Trump pardoned for his conviction related to the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol. He suggested Trump won last year's election because voters wanted 'mass deportation' and 'retribution.'
Crackdowns on the U.S.-Mexico border and harsh immigration policies have long been a centrepiece of Trump's political brand for years. During his first term in 2019, Trump denied reports that he floated the idea of building a moat filled with alligators at the southern border.
Trump has more recently suggested that his administration could reopen Alcatraz, the notorious island prison off San Francisco. The White House similarly promoted the political shock value of sending some immigrants awaiting deportation from the U.S. to a detention lockup in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and others to a megaprison in El Salvador.
His administration has vowed that mass deportations are coming, even if some of those notions are impractical. Transforming Alcatraz from a tourist attraction into a prison would be very costly, and Guantánamo Bay is being used less often than administration officials originally envisioned.
Trump also mused Tuesday about deporting dangerous people born in the United States, like ones who 'knife you when you're walking down the street' or who kill people from behind with a baseball bat.
'They're not new to our country. They're old to our country. Many of them were born in our country. I think we ought to get them the hell out of here, too,' Trump said. 'So maybe that'll be the next job that we'll work on together.'
Alluding to his criminal indictments during President Joe Biden's administration, Trump said of the detention facility, 'Biden wanted me here,' using an expletive to describe his predecessor.
David Shribman: U.S. Supreme Court ruling jeopardizes birthright citizenship
Florida plans to offer members of the National Guard to be 'deputized' and assist immigration judges, as a way to loosen another choke point in the country's long-overburdened immigration court system. Guard personnel could provide site security along perimeter and entry control points, but also serve as staff augmentation while being ready to provide other support, officials say.
The detention centre has an estimated annual cost of $450-million, but state officials say at least some of that will be covered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency – which is best known for responding to hurricanes and other natural disasters.
During his tour, Trump greeted around 20 FEMA employees and construction workers and bonded with DeSantis, who once bitterly challenged him for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.
'We have blood that seems to match pretty well,' Trump said of Florida's governor. When DeSantis suggested that members of the Guard could ease immigration judges' workloads, Trump offered, 'He didn't even have to ask me. He has my approval.'
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who was also on the tour, said immigrants arriving to the site could still opt to 'self-deport' and board flights to their home countries rather than being held in it. She said she hoped 'my phone rings off the hook' with other states looking to follow Florida's lead and open similar sites.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Canada News.Net
44 minutes ago
- Canada News.Net
Symbols take centre stage in debates about Canadian nationalism
The recent resurgence of Canadian nationalism is a response to explicit threats made by United States President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly expressed his desire to make Canada the 51st American state. Canadian flag sales have skyrocketed, informal and formal boycotts of American goods are continuing and Canadians are being urged to stay home and spend their vacation dollars domestically. Even in Quebec, pro-Canadian sentiments are evident. Canadian nationalism is back. Yet only a decade ago, the newly elected Justin Trudeau labelled Canada the first "post-national nation" in an interview with The New York Times. In essence, the prime minister suggested, Canada was moving beyond nationalism to some new phase of social identity. Nationalism, like a step in the launch of a spacecraft, would be jettisoned now that it was a vestigial and outdated feature of Canadian society. As we argue in a recently presented paper to be published soon, Canadians are nowhere near either a homogeneous, popularly held identity, nor are they "beyond nationalism" as if it were an outdated hairstyle. Instead, Canadian steps toward a united, widely held nationalism continue to be stymied by both substantial constitutional issues (Quebec, western alienation, Indigenous aspirations to self-determination) but also by battles over banal symbols of national identity. Canadians are, in the words of journalist Ian Brown, "a unity of contradictions." In his influential book, Banal Nationalism, British social science scholar Michael Billig highlighted the role of symbols like stamps, currency and flags to identify barely noticed transmitters of national consciousness. Writing in 1995, at a time of ethnic nationalist resurgence in the former Yugoslavia, Billig contrasted the understated, reserved nationalism of citizens of established states like Canada with the dangerous, passionate expressions of nationalism in the Balkans. This genteel nationalism is barely noticed much of the time, but proposals to alter national symbols arouse debate - like during the great Canadian flag debate of the mid-1960s - and expose deep emotional attachments. Canadians, too, are nationalists. But they're also citizens of a liberal democracy where nationalistic narratives compete to define and unite the nation. Societies evolve and generational change can lead to new symbols reflecting changing values. The historical episodes of discontent pertaining to national symbols show how Canadian society has evolved since its drift away from Britain after the Second World War. During the flag debate, Liberal Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson said Canada needed a new flag that would present a united nation rather than a confusing amalgamation of different people. Conservative Leader John Diefenbaker, on the other hand, argued Canada should be "all Canadian and all British" during the debate, adding that any Canadian who disagreed should "be denounced." The leaders could not agree, with Diefenbaker opting for something like the status quo and Pearson for a complete redesign that would represent all Canadians, regardless of national heritage. In a 1964 La Presse article on the debate, columnist Guy Cormier crudely voiced Quebec's concerns that Pearson's handling of the flag debate was an attempt to "artificially inseminate" his agenda on the province. The Philadelphia Evening Bulletin reported on the debate, declaring that "tinkering with a nation's flag is sort of like playing volleyball with a hornets nest." As Canada became increasingly more multicultural in the 1980s, another symbol became the centre of controversy. A Sikh entering the RCMP wanted to be able to wear a turban instead of the traditional Stetson. Despite government and RCMP support, public opinion was mixed. Racist lapel pins were sold with the message "Keep the RCMP Canadian" as some argued the old uniform should remain and that new recruits should adapt to it. While few Canadians knew much about the design and history of the RCMP uniform, almost all Canadians consider it an iconic representation of Canada. Changes to it represent a threat to some, inclusion for others. Changes to O Canada, the national anthem, have been proposed over the past decades. Recently, a more inclusive version was drafted, changing "in all thy sons command" to "all of us command." Conservative MPs and some television pundits argued the change wasn't necessary and the anthem doesn't belong to a political party. Opponents argued that most people aren't offended by the anthem's lyrics, the anthem wasn't broken and was not in need of fixing. Ultimately, the change was made, with great praise from some and vexation from others. Removing images of the late Terry Fox in 2023 from the Canadian passport, a document few think about until checking its expiry date before a vacation, caused significant uproar. Other images from Canadian history were also removed, but Fox's removal was most notable since he was someone most Canadians consider the embodiment of a Canadian hero. The response to these changes ranged from mild - with those arguing that Canada needs more Terry Fox, not less, - to furious, as some accused Trudeau of being out of touch with Canadians and a "fault finder-in-chief." Far from trivial, these arguments over national symbols reveal how deeply some Canadians are attached to them. The nature of Canadian identity and nationalism will continue to be dated and contested. In that respect, Canadians are no different than the citizens of any other country.
Canada News.Net
44 minutes ago
- Canada News.Net
China ups funding as UN climate body secures 10 percent budget rise
BONN, Germany: Despite widespread belt-tightening across the United Nations, nearly 200 countries agreed this week to increase the budget of the U.N. climate body by 10 percent—a move hailed as a rare show of unity and continued commitment to climate cooperation. The agreement was reached at climate talks in Bonn, Germany, where nations including Japan, Saudi Arabia, Fiji, and others approved a core budget of €81.5 million for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for 2026–2027. The figure represents a 10 percent increase from the current two-year cycle (2024–2025). The core budget is funded through government contributions. While the United States remains the largest donor (22 percent), China's share will rise to 20 percent, up from 15 percent, reflecting its economic growth. The U.S. delegation did not attend the Bonn talks, and much of its past funding has been replaced by Bloomberg Philanthropies, following a halt in support under President Donald Trump. In a statement, UN climate chief Simon Stiell called the budget increase "a clear signal that governments continue to see U.N.-convened climate cooperation as essential, even in difficult times." The increase comes at a moment when other U.N. agencies are facing steep cuts. The U.N. Secretariat is preparing to slash its US$3.7 billion budget by 20 percent, and the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development—with a staff of 400—faces reductions, in contrast to the UNFCCC's more modest staff of 181 funded through its core budget. The UNFCCC plays a key role in organising annual climate negotiations and overseeing the implementation of global pacts like the 2015 Paris Agreement, which seeks to limit global warming. Still, the climate body has grappled with recent financial instability. Delayed payments from major donors, including China and the U.S., forced the cancellation of several events and triggered internal cost-saving measures. The approved increase signals an effort to stabilise operations and maintain momentum as climate action becomes increasingly urgent and geopolitically complex.
CBC
an hour ago
- CBC
New supply management law won't save the system from Trump, experts say
A new law meant to protect supply management might not be enough to shield the system in trade talks with a Trump administration bent on eliminating it, trade experts say. "It's certainly more difficult to strike a deal with the United States now with the passage of this bill that basically forces Canada to negotiate with one hand tied behind its back," said William Pellerin, a trade lawyer and partner at the firm McMillan LLP. "Now that we've removed the digital service tax, dairy and supply management is probably the No. 1 trade irritant that we have with the United States. That remains very much unresolved." When U.S. President Donald Trump briefly paused trade talks with Canada on June 27 over the digital services tax — shortly before Ottawa capitulated by dropping the tax — he zeroed in on Canada's system of supply management. In a social media post, Trump called Canada a "very difficult country to TRADE with, including the fact that they have charged our Farmers as much as 400% Tariffs, for years, on Dairy Products." Canada can charge about 250 per cent tariffs on U.S. dairy imports over a set quota established by the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). The International Dairy Foods Association, which represents the U.S. dairy industry, said in March that the U.S. has never come close to reaching those quotas, though the association also said that's because of other barriers Canada has erected. When Bill C-202 passed through Parliament last month, Bloc Quebecois MPs hailed it as a clear win protecting Quebec farmers from American trade demands. The Bloc's bill, which received royal assent on June 26, prevents the foreign affairs minister from making commitments in trade negotiations to either increase the tariff rate quota or reduce tariffs for imports over a set threshold. Employing the 'royal prerogative' On its face, that rule would prevent Canadian trade negotiators from offering to drop the import barriers that shield dairy and egg producers in Canada from price shocks. But while the law appears to rule out using supply management as a bargaining chip in trade talks with the U.S., it doesn't completely constrain the government. Pellerin said that if Prime Minister Mark Carney is seeking a way around C-202, he might start by looking into conducting the trade talks personally, instead of leaving them to Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand. Carney dismissed the need for the new law during the recent election but vowed to keep supply management off the table in negotiations with the U.S. Pellerin said the government could also address the trade irritant by expanding the number of players who can access dairy quotas beyond "processors." WATCH | PM says scrapping digital services tax is part of negotiations: Scrapping digital service tax is part of U.S. negotiations, Carney says 2 days ago Duration 2:53 Prime Minister Mark Carney said on Monday that scrapping the digital services tax was one part of the bigger trade negotiation with the U.S., though the White House said Carney 'caved' when trade talks were cancelled. Talks have since resumed. "[C-202] doesn't expressly talk about changing or modifying who would be able to access the quota," he said. Expanding access to quota, he said, would likely "lead to companies like grocery stores being able to import U.S. cheeses, and that would probably please the United States to a significant degree." Carleton University associate professor Philippe Lagassé, an expert on Parliament and the Crown, said the new law doesn't extend past something called the "royal prerogative" — the ability of the executive branch of government to carry out certain actions in, for example, the conduct of foreign affairs. That suggests the government isn't constrained by the law, he said. "I have doubts that the royal prerogative has been displaced by the law. There is no specific language binding the Crown and it would appear to run contrary to the wider intent of the [law that it modifies]," he said by email. "That said, if the government believes that the law is binding, then it effectively is. As defenders of the bill insisted, it gives the government leverage in negotiation by giving the impression that Parliament has bound it on this issue." He said a trade treaty requires enabling legislation, so a new bill could remove the supply management constraints. "The bill adds an extra step and some constraints, but doesn't prevent supply management from eventually being removed or weakened," he said. Killing system a non-starter in Canadian politics Trade lawyer Mark Warner, a principal at MAAW Law, said Canada could simply dispense with the law through Parliament if it decides it needs to make concessions to, for example, preserve the auto industry. "The argument for me that the government of Canada sits down with another country, particularly the United States, and says, 'We can't negotiate that because Parliament has passed a bill,' — I have to tell you, I've never met an American trade official or lawyer who would take that seriously," Warner said. "My sense of this is it would just go through Parliament, unless you think other opposition parties would bring down the government over it." While supply management has long been a target for U.S. trade negotiators, the idea of killing it has been a non-starter in Canadian politics for at least as long. Warner said any attempt to do away with it would be swiftly met with litigation, Charter challenges and provinces stepping up to fill a federal void. "The real cost of that sort of thing is political, so if you try to take it away, people are screaming and they're blocking the highways and they are calling you names, and the Bloc is blocking anything through Parliament — you pay a cost that way," he said. But a compromise on supply management might not be that far-fetched. "The system itself won't be dismantled. I don't think that's anywhere near happening in the coming years and even decades," said Pellerin. "But I think that there are changes that could be made, particularly through the trade agreements, including by way of kind of further quotas. Further reduction in the tariffs for outside quota amounts and also in terms of who can actually bring in product." The United States trade representative raised specific concerns about supply management in the spring, citing quota rules established under the CUSMA trade pact that are not being applied as the U.S. expected and ongoing frustration with the pricing of certain types of milk products. Former Canadian diplomat Louise Blais said that if Canada were to "respect the spirit" of CUSMA as the Americans understand it, the problem might actually solve itself.
