Florida offers Trump ‘alligator Alcatraz' to detain illegal migrants
Illegal migrants could soon be held in a massive new immigration detention centre in Florida, which has been dubbed the 'Alligator Alcatraz.'
The 39-square-mile plot of land — which is surrounded by alligators and pythons — was offered to the Trump administration by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier.
The 'virtually abandoned airport facility' would have the capacity to 'house as many as 1,000 criminal aliens,' Uthmeier said in a video sharing his offer with the White House.
Advertisement
He added that it could be up and running within as little as 30 to 60 days.
3 Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier offered 'alligator Alcatraz' for Trump to use as part of his mass deportation effort.
@AGJamesUthmeier/X
'Florida's been leading on immigration enforcement, supporting the Trump administration and ICE's efforts to detain and deport criminal aliens,' the AG said.
'The government tasked state leaders to identify places for new temporary detention facilities.'
Advertisement
'I think this is the best one. As I call it, alligator Alcatraz,' he added.
3 The plot of land is surrounded by swampland with alligators and pythons.
@AGJamesUthmeier/X
3 The 39-square-mile site has a 10,500-foot runway and is surrounded by the Everglades.
@AGJamesUthmeier/X
Advertisement
The massive plot of land offers an 'efficient, low-cost opportunity to build a temporary detention facility because you don't need to invest that much in the perimeter,' which has alligators and pythons 'waiting' for anyone who escapes, said Uthmeier.
'Alligator alcatraz, we're ready to go,' he declared.
ICE migrant detention centers are currently filled to the brim, holding roughly 53,000 illegal migrants under the Trump administration's latest push, which is beyond what is funded by Congress.
As a result, the agency is burning through its budget at a breakneck pace — with ICE already $1 billion over budget, Axios reported Monday.
Advertisement
Congress funded roughly 41,500 ICE detention beds at a cost of roughly $3.4 billion in fiscal year 2024, according to the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
If Republicans' 'Big Beautiful Bill' passes the Senate, ICE will have $45 billion to expand its capacity to detain illegal migrants, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
The White House has also upped ICE's daily arrest quota from 1,800 to 3,000, which ICE insiders told the Post is shifting the focus away from criminal migrants and tanking agency morale.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
32 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Oil Prices Mixed Amid Middle East Escalation Worries
0019 GMT — Oil prices are mixed in early Asian trade. Energy markets remain on edge amid the likelihood of U.S. joining the Israel-Iran conflict, ANZ Research analysts write in a note. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt read a statement from Trump, saying he would make a decision on potential strikes on Iran within two weeks. Front-month WTI crude oil futures are 1.1% higher at $76.00/bbl; front-month Brent crude oil futures are 2.1% lower at $77.22/bbl.(
Boston Globe
35 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
In crisis with Iran, US military officials focus on Strait of Hormuz
In several days of attacks, Israel has targeted Iranian military sites and state-sponsored entities, as well as high-ranking generals. It has taken out many of Iran's ballistic missiles, though Iran still has hundreds of them, US defense officials said. Advertisement But Israel has steered clear of Iranian naval assets. So while Iran's ability to respond has been severely damaged, it has a robust navy and maintains operatives across the region, where the United States has more than 40,000 troops. Iran also has an array of mines that its navy could lay in the Strait of Hormuz. The narrow 90-mile waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the open ocean is a key shipping route. A quarter of the world's oil and 20 percent of the world's liquefied natural gas passes through it, so mining the choke point would cause gas prices to soar. It could also isolate US minesweepers in the Persian Gulf on one side of the strait. Two defense officials indicated that the Navy was looking to disperse its ships in the gulf so that they would be less vulnerable. A Navy official declined to comment, citing operational security. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. Advertisement Iran has vowed that if attacked by US forces, it would respond forcefully, potentially setting off a cycle of escalation. 'Think about what happened in January 2020 after Trump killed Soleimani and times that by 100,' said Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. Qassem Soleimani, a powerful Iranian general, was killed in a US drone strike in Baghdad during Trump's first administration. Iran then launched the largest-ever ballistic missile barrage at US bases in Iraq, leaving some 110 troops with traumatic brain injuries and unintentionally hitting a Ukrainian passenger jet, killing all 176 people aboard. 'Iran is strategically weaker but operationally still lethal across the region,' Katulis said, 'and Americans still have troops across that part of the world.' Iran has mined the Strait of Hormuz before, including in 1988 during its war with Iraq, when Iran planted 150 mines in the strait. One of the mines struck a US guided missile frigate, the USS Samuel B. Roberts, nearly sinking it. General Joseph Votel, a former leader of US Central Command, and Vice Admiral Kevin M. Donegan, a former commander of US naval forces in the Middle East, each said Wednesday that Iran was capable of mining the strait, which they said could bring international pressure on Israel to end its bombing campaign. But such an action would probably invite a massive US military response and further damage Iran's already crippled economy, Donegan added. Advertisement 'Mining also hurts Iran; they would lose income from oil they sell to China,' he said. 'Now, though, Iranian leadership is much more concerned with regime survival, which will drive their decisions.' Military officials and analysts said missile and drone attacks remained the biggest retaliatory threat to US bases and facilities in the region. 'These would be shorter-range variants, not what they were launching against Israel,' Donegan said. 'That Iranian capability remains intact.' Donegan also expressed concerns about the possibility that the Quds Force, a shadowy arm of Iran's military, could attack US troops. 'Our Arab partners have done well over the years to root most of that out of their countries; however, that Quds Force and militia threat still remains in Iraq and to some extent in Syria and Jordan,' he said. Iranian officials are seeking to remind Trump that, weakened or not, they still can find ways to hurt US troops and interests in the region, said Vali Nasr, an Iran expert and a professor at Johns Hopkins University. Striking Iran, he said, 'gets into such big unknowns.' He added, 'There are a lot of things that could go wrong.' Much is at stake for Iran if it decides to retaliate. 'Many of Iran's options are the strategic equivalent of a suicide bombing,' said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran policy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'They can do enormous damage to others if they mine the Strait of Hormuz, destroy regional oil facilities, and rain a missile barrage against Israel, but they may not survive the blowback.' But Iran can make it hugely expensive and dangerous for the US Navy to have to conduct what would most likely be a weekslong mine-clearing operation in the Strait of Hormuz, according to one former naval officer who was stationed on a minesweeper in the Persian Gulf. He and other Navy officers said that clearing the strait could also put American sailors directly in harm's way. Advertisement Iran is believed to maintain a variety of naval mines. They include small limpet mines containing just a few pounds of explosives that swimmers place directly on a ship's hull and typically detonate after a set amount of time. Iran also has larger moored mines that float just under the water's surface, releasing 100 pounds of explosive force or more when they come in contact with an unsuspecting ship. This article originally appeared in
Boston Globe
36 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trying to satisfy Trump, NATO is running into difficulties
In any case, his influence is certain to loom over the gathering. Advertisement It has already driven an effort by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte to increase military spending by each of the alliance's 32 members to meet a figure suggested by Trump. He has demanded it be raised to 5 percent of each country's gross domestic product, up from the current level of 2 percent. Rutte has proposed widening the definition of military spending to help meet that objective. The new benchmark would include 3.5 percent of GDP on core military spending — weapons, capabilities, troops — and the rest on what NATO calls 'defense and security-related investment, including in infrastructure and resilience.' In the weeks since Rutte's idea gained steam, its details, and shortcomings, have become clearer, according to officials and experts. The timeline to increase spending may be different for everyone, and officials are confused about the requirements. Even if countries do allocate the sums, European and even American defense industries may not be able to absorb the money or deliver in a timely fashion. Advertisement And while NATO countries generally agree it is past time to spend more on security in Europe, where officials believe a militarized Russia might be tempted to test the alliance within years, some nations already struggle to reach the existing target on military spending. They are unlikely to meet Trump's demand soon, if ever. The discussion about Rutte's proposal, experts said, has devolved into a debate over spending billions of dollars to fund an ever-widening range of priorities. 'It is largely a shell game,' said Jeremy Shapiro, a former State Department official and now research director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. 'There is some reality there, because defense spending is increasing across Europe, but more because of Vladimir Putin than Donald Trump.' Trump first demanded the 5 percent figure two weeks before his inauguration, although his ambassador to NATO, Matt Whitaker, insisted recently that the United States was not 'driving the timeline' for allies to spend more on defense. 'The threats are driving the timeline,' he said. 'Europe keeps telling us that Russia is their biggest threat, and we agree, in the Euro-Atlantic it is. And so we need to make sure everybody's investing.' Initially, Trump's ambitions seemed both abstract and implausible: Only 23 NATO members were meeting their spending goals by the end of last year. But Rutte's proposal allows for some spending on what NATO calls 'military-adjacent' projects. In practical terms, that could include investments in advanced technology; rebuilding roads, bridges, and other infrastructure; civic defense; education; improved health services; and aid to Ukraine. Advertisement In effect, the Trump benchmark 'is both real and not real,' said Nathalie Tocci, director of Italy's Institute of International Affairs. 'The real thing is 3.5 percent, which has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with NATO's getting what it judges it needs,' she said. 'The unreal part is the 1.5 percent, the PR move for Trump,' she said. 'Of course infrastructure is important, and diplomacy and education, so lump it all together for Trump. And if the magic figure of 5 percent ensures benign indifference rather than malign hostility, that's all to the good.' The proposal may have helped Rutte balance the president's desires with those of European leaders, but it has also created complications. Defense ministers meeting at NATO headquarters in Brussels this month appeared confused over how the money should be spent, and how soon, and over whether aid to Ukraine could count. 'We have to find a realistic compromise between what is necessary and what is possible, really, to spend,' said Germany's defense minister, Boris Pistorius. Luxembourg's defense minister, Yuriko Backes, was more blunt. 'It will be the capabilities that will keep us safe, not percentages,' she said. 'This is what should be driving our investments, not the other way around.' Luxembourg will reach the current spending threshold — which was set in 2014 to be accomplished in a decade — only this year. Allies are debating how to count the aid to Ukraine. The current plan is to consider it core military spending. But some of the countries nearest to Russia's borders do not want to dilute their domestic defense and want aid to Ukraine categorized as 'related investments.' Advertisement There is also uncertainty about when allies would be expected to meet the higher spending threshold. Rutte initially proposed 2032, but countries on NATO's eastern flank want it to happen sooner. NATO intelligence suggests that, without a credible military deterrent, Russia could mount an effective offensive against the alliance in five years after the Ukraine war ends. 'We don't have time even for seven years,' Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur of Estonia said recently. 'We have to show that we have everything we need to defend our countries.' This article originally appeared in
