&w=3840&q=100)
Self-deport or face detention with alligators, pythons: US warns migrants
The facility, located around 80 km west of Miami, sits in an area swarming with pythons and alligators. It has become a key part of the Trump administration's push to step up deportations and deter undocumented migration.
'If you (undocumented immigrants) don't self-deport, you may end up here,' South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem told the New York Post. 'And you may end up here and being processed, deported out of this country, and never get the chance to come back,' she added.
Trump wants similar centres in more states
On July 2, US President Donald Trump toured the detention facility and described it as a possible template for other immigration lockups across the country. Speaking to reporters, Trump said he'd like to see 'similar centres in really, many states,' and also floated the idea of using Florida National Guard members as immigration judges to speed up deportation hearings.
'Pretty soon, this facility will handle the most menacing migrants, some of the most vicious people on the planet,' Trump said.
During the visit, Trump also made a joke about the wildlife around the centre. 'We're going to teach them how to run away from an alligator if they escape prison,' he said, while mimicking a zigzag motion with his hand. 'Don't run in a straight line. Run like this. And you know what? Your chances go up about 1 per cent.'
According to the University of Florida, the better option in the rare event of an alligator chase is simply to run straight and fast in one direction.
While early estimates suggested the site could accommodate 5,000 people, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis clarified that the actual capacity would be closer to 3,000.
Push for voluntary departure via mobile app
As part of the broader crackdown, the Trump administration has repurposed a mobile app once used for scheduling asylum appointments. The app, now called CBP Home, allows undocumented migrants to submit an 'intent to depart'.
US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said the feature offers a chance to leave voluntarily, which could help migrants avoid harsher penalties in the future.
Daily fines for overstaying deportation orders
The Department of Homeland Security has also revived a little-used law from 1996 that penalises individuals who fail to comply with deportation orders.
'If they don't, they will face the consequences. This includes a fine of $998 per day for every day that the illegal alien overstayed their final deportation order,' DHS posted on X on April 11.
The rule had been enforced briefly in 2018 and is now being brought back with the possibility of retroactive application for up to five years.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
21 minutes ago
- India Today
Melania and Einstein visa: Why some Americans want FLOTUS deported
Amid intensified immigration enforcement and the Trump administration's attempt to revoke the citizenship of naturalised Americans, a viral petition on MoveOn – a public policy advocacy group – has ignited a debate. The petition, which has gained significant traction online, seeks the deportation of the First Lady of the United States (FLOTUS), Melania Trump, her parents, and her son, Barron largely symbolic, the petition is a response to what critics call the hypocrisy of Trump's immigration stance — targeting immigrants while his own wife and in-laws benefited from the very system he seeks to from being a progressive public policy advocacy group, MoveOn is also a political action committee formed in 1998. The criticism is focussed on Melania Trump's use of the EB-1 visa, which is also nicknamed the "Einstein visa", typically reserved for individuals with extraordinary abilities in fields like science, arts, or business. Critics are saying that if Trump wants to investigate and deport naturalised citizens for possibly taking advantage of immigration rules, then he shouldn't ignore his own wife's was born in the former Yugoslavia (now Slovenia) and became a US citizen in 2006, according to official government biographies of the First Lady, Fox News reported. She is the first US First Lady who is a naturalised First Lady sponsored her parents, who were also from current-day Slovenia, for green cards and then citizenship after securing her own citizenship, The New York Times reported in the petition was originally created five months ago, it has recently gained renewed traction, according to a report in an Ireland-based newspaper, Irish had 100 signatures a few days ago, but had risen to over 6,000 by the time this report went for CALLS OUT TRUMP 'S IMMIGRATION POLICYThe petition questioned Melania Trump's immigration status and called out Trump's immigration policy."Since Trump wants to deport naturalised citizens, I believe it is only fair that Melania and her parents are on the first boat out. In addition, Melania's anchor baby, Barron, should be forced to leave as well because we know that his mother's mother was born in a different country," the petition petition further added, "That is part of the criteria that Trump is putting into place. Your mother's mother has to have been born in the United States and we know Melania's mother was born elsewhere. If it's good for one, it's good for all! There should be no exceptions! On the first boat or flight out."advertisementThe petition also claimed that such action would help avoid any appearance of bias."It is important that this is done to show that it is not a matter of favouritism. If this is truly about national security, then Melania needs to go," the petition also MAXINE WATERS HAD FIRST CALLED FOR MELANIA'S DEPORTATIONThe petition emerged shortly after Democratic California Representative Maxine Waters, at an anti-DOGE protest in Los Angeles on March 25, called for Trump to look into and possibly deport Melania Trump."When he (Trump) talks about birthright, and he's going to undo the fact that the Constitution allows those who are born here, even if the parents are undocumented, they have a right to stay in America. If he wants to start looking so closely to find those who were born here and their parents were undocumented, maybe he ought to first look at Melania," Fox News quoted Waters as saying."We don't know whether or not her parents were documented. And maybe we better just take a look," she was referencing President Trump's executive order, signed on his first day in office, which aimed to eliminate birthright executive order works to clarify the 14th Amendment and tighten the rules for birthright citizenship, which states, "All persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."CONGRESSWOMAN JASMINE CROCKETT ALSO QUESTIONED MELANIA 'S EINSTEIN VISACommonly dubbed the "Einstein visa", the EB-1A is a US immigration program that offers a path to permanent residency for individuals with extraordinary ability in fields such as science, the arts, education, business, or athletics. Reserved for those who have achieved national or international acclaim, the visa targets top-tier talent at the pinnacle of their Representative Jasmine Crockett raised concerns over how Melania Trump, a former model, secured a visa generally intended for individuals demonstrating "extraordinary ability" in their said when she last checked, the First Lady had none of those accolades under her belt."You're supposed to have some sort of significant achievement, like being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize or a Pulitzer; being an Olympic medallist; or having other sustained extraordinary abilities and success in sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. Last time I checked, the First Lady had none of those accolades under her belt," US-based weekly magazine Newsweek quoted Crockett as saying.- Ends advertisement
India Today
22 minutes ago
- India Today
The thick red line: Why India shouldn't agree with US on agri
July 9, Donald Trump's tariff deadline, is fast approaching. He's expecting a "very big deal". Indian officials camping in Washington, DC, have extended their stay, with External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar rushing to the US capital to meet his counterpart, Marco Rubio. Amid all this diplomatic hustle and heat, New Delhi's goal is clear — secure a favourable interim deal for India before Trump's threatened high tariffs, up to 26%, on Indian exports, kick in. But there's an impasse in the talks. India has a "big red line", on which it will find difficult to negotiate. Team Trump is reportedly seeking concessions from India in the agriculture and dairy sectors. There are big reasons why India shouldn't agree to the US demands on agri and Delhi has dug in its heels, and is determined to safeguard India's domestic agricultural sector, and the dairy domain. Millions of Indians, about 40% of the population, are employed in the sector, even though it's not as heavily subsidised as farming in the US, whose government is driving a hard bargain to ensure American agricultural products don't face steep import tariffs in the US tries to project it as an attempt at creating a level playing field, the situation is heavily tilted in its favour. A mere quid pro quo tariff regime will not address the mismatch created by the US by providing massive subsidies to its farmers vis-a-vis farmers in India. While farmers in the US get over $61,000 in subsidies annually, their counterparts in India get just $282 a India rightly called the agriculture and dairy sectors a "big red line", it, in all likelihood and fairness, shouldn't give in to Trump's demands because doing so could jeopardise the livelihoods of nearly half the country's workforce dependent on agriculture, say the data and could expose the Indian market to heavily subsidised US farm dumping, undermine food security standards, some tied to religious and cultural practices, fear experts and reportedly the Indian government and a think tank."As far as the import of genetically modified (GM) soybean, maize and dairy products from the US is concerned, the government does not seem to be ready for it at all," agricultural expert Om Prakash tells India Today there are risks of cross-pollination from GM crops that could harm India's native seed varieties. There's also the matter of dietary sensitivities and consumer trust, especially in dairy, where feeding cattle animal remains clashes with Indian cultural and religious values."India is protective of its farmers, which is why they have relatively high tariffs compared to anywhere in the world," agricultural trade expert Sharon Bomer Lauritsen told Politoco."They're going to protect their farmers," added the former negotiator of the US Trade ROLE IN EMPLOYMENT: INDIA-US CONTRASTadvertisementFirst, let's look at the numbers. They will highlight how agriculture produces, employment, and their demand and supply vastly differ between India and the US, and why trade negotiations must acknowledge these realities with of 2020, around 196.64 million people were employed in agriculture in India, compared to just 2.11 million in the US. Agriculture accounts for 41% of total employment in India, while in the US, it is merely 1%. At 14.6%, agriculture is one of the biggest components of India's GDP, while it contributes 0.92% to the American it comes to average farm size, the difference is average farm holding in the US is about 180 hectares, while in India, it is just 1.08 in the US also receive significantly more government support, with an average of $61,286 per farmer (2016), compared to $282 per farmer in India (2018–19), according to World Trade Organisation (WTO) data, accessed from Kisan Tak, India Today Digital's sister portal on agriculture, farmer welfare and expert Om Prakash says that India has been constrained by the WTO's discriminatory policies since the Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) came into effect on January 1, 1995. He argues, "India's farm subsidy is significantly lower, even more so when adjusted per farmer, yet the WTO continues to pressure India to reduce it even further".advertisementKisanTak's Prakash ties them directly to the WTO's flawed subsidy accounting WTO's subsidy accounting method is flawed because it doesn't look at how many farmers India has. It just counts the total money given to them. On the other hand, the US, with fewer farmers, gives more money, and each farmer gets a much bigger sum. But in India, where millions of farmers get little help, it looks like India is giving more than it should, even when it's IF INDIA LOWERS TARIFFS ON US FARM AND DAIRY GOODS?To ring-fence its farmers and the agriculture sector, India is forced to charge much higher import tariffs on agricultural products compared to the average, India puts a 39% tax on farm goods coming from other countries. But for the items that are imported the most, the tax goes up to 65%. This shows how strongly India protects its farmers by making imported farm goods more expensive. In contrast, the US keeps its agricultural import taxes lower, with a simple average of just 5% and a trade-weighted rate of 4%, according to data from the New Delhi-based think-tank Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) has warned that reducing import tariffs on subsidised US agricultural products, particularly grains, could harm Indian farmers and destabilise food prices in India. Lowering tariffs could allow cheap, subsidised US grains to flood the Indian market, especially when global prices are would potentially undercut local farmers and disrupt the domestic food supply in staples like frozen shrimp, basmati rice, and spices still lead India's export basket, there's been a notable surge in shipments of processed cereals and other value-added food products. On the import side, India continues to source premium items from the US, with almonds, pistachios, and walnuts making up a significant AAYOG BACKED GM IMPORTS, CONGRESS PROTESTEDA March NITI Aayog discussion paper titled Promoting India-US Agricultural Trade Under the New US Trade Regime highlighted stark productivity gaps between the two noted that "India's average soybean yield has stagnated around "one tonne per hectare", whereas in the US, it is "3.4 tonnes per hectare". Similarly, "maize yields in India are just 3.5 tonnes per hectare," compared to "11.1 tonnes per hectare in the US".advertisementThese differences, the now-withdrawn paper says, show there is "a clear scope for improvement" in India's agricultural paper, whose withdrawal attracted Congress MP Jairam Ramesh's attack on the Centre, argued that beyond strategic trade management, "India must undertake medium-term structural reforms to improve the global competitiveness of its farm sector". These reforms should focus on "bridging the productivity gap with developed nations by embracing appropriate technologies", while also "nudging states to undertake long-pending reforms".It further called for "liberalising private sector participation", enhancing logistics, and developing "competitive value chains" to strengthen India's agricultural exports. The Centre's move to do the same suffered backlash during the farm protests of is the world's biggest buyer of edible oil, and the US has a lot of soyabean oil to export, which comes from genetically modified crops. The NITI Aayog paper said India could allow some imports of this oil to reduce the trade imbalance with the US, without hurting local farmers."Except for cotton, no other GM crop is allowed to be cultivated in India. In such a scenario, the question of importing GM soybean and maize from the US for consumption simply does not arise. In essence, the US-India trade deal poses a trial by fire for the Indian government, to safeguard the interests of farmers, agriculture, and the faith of the country's vegetarian population," Om Prakash tells India Today NITI Aayog paper also said India should try to get better access to the US market for top exports like shrimp, fish, spices, rice, tea, coffee, and rubber. India earns about $5.75 billion every year from farm exports to the US, and this could grow if India negotiates for lower duties or special trade leader Jairam Ramesh, on June 30, pointed out that the NITI Aayog working paper had been withdrawn from the think-tank's website. India Today Digital also could not access it. Ramesh alleged that the paper recommended duty-free import of GM maize and soyabean from the US. He added, "For the Modi sarkar, the interests of Midwestern American farmers and large Multinational Corporation traders are bigger than that of the maize farmers of Bihar and soyabean farmers of MP, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan".Lowering tariffs could also disrupt India's food security."In today's geopolitically unstable world, food security must remain sovereign," GTRI Founder Ajay Srivastava was quoted as saying by news agency Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, in a June interview with the Financial Express, said that New Delhi will not compromise on areas that affect vulnerable domestic said that agricultural and dairy sectors remain "very big red lines" in the HOLDS FIRM ON BAN OVER ANIMAL-FED COW MILK PRODUCTSThen there are dietary, cultural and religious sensitivities that complicate the issue of dairy imports from the US, especially when it comes to genetically modified products or items derived from animals not raised according to the norms of several Indian communities. These concerns are deeply rooted and can't be dismissed as mere trade hurdles, as they touch upon dietary restrictions, traditional practices, and firmly maintains its ban on importing dairy products from cows fed animal-derived feed, according to the USRT's National Trade Estimate (NTE) Report, according to news agency ANI."Imagine eating butter made from the milk of a cow that was fed meat and blood from another cow. India may never allow that," GTRI's Srivastava wouldn't like to compromise with milk and dairy products as they are used in religious rituals are several reasons why the big red line exists when it comes to food imports. Cultural beliefs, employment, the agricultural markets, and concerns over the long-term impact are some of them. GM crops' impact on health and the environment is another concern. These are not just policy preferences but emotional and political red zones trade is deeply sensitive in India too. These developments follow the massive farmer protests in 2020-21 and again in 2024. The policy shift revamping agricultural trade triggered protests and resistance, enough for the Centre to a way forward may be there. Sure, it'll take time, persuasion, trust-building, and change, which could be in favour of one of the two parties. But why not both?- EndsTune InMust Watch
NDTV
30 minutes ago
- NDTV
Can Trump Beat The Second Term Curse That Haunts The White House
Hamilton: While he likes to provoke opponents with the possibility of serving a third term, Donald Trump faces a more immediate historical burden that has plagued so many presidents: the 'second term curse'. Twenty-one US presidents have served second terms, but none has reached the same level of success they achieved in their first. Second term performances have ranged from the lacklustre and uninspiring to the disastrous and deadly. Voter dissatisfaction and frustration, presidential fatigue and a lack of sustainable vision for the future are all explanations. But Trump doesn't quite fit the mould. Only one other president, Grover Cleveland in the late 19th century, has served a second nonconsecutive term, making Trump 2.0 difficult to measure against other second-term leaders. Trump will certainly be hoping history doesn't repeat Cleveland's second-term curse. Shortly after taking office he imposed 50% tariffs, triggering global market volatility that culminated in the ' Panic of 1893 '. At the time, this was the worst depression in US history: 19% unemployment, a run on gold from the US Treasury, a stock market crash and widespread poverty. More than a century on, Trump's ' move fast and break things ' approach in a nonconsecutive second term might appeal to voters demanding action above all else. But he risks being drawn into areas he campaigned against. So far, he has gone from fighting a trade war and a culture war to contemplating a shooting war in the Middle East. His ' big beautiful bill ' will add trillions to the national debt and potentially force poorer voters – including many Republicans – off Medicaid. Whether his radical approach will defy or conform to the second term curse seems very much an open question. No kings The two-term limit was enacted by the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution in 1951. Without a maximum term, it was feared, an authoritarian could try to take control for life – like a king (hence the recent ' No Kings ' protests in the US). George Washington, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson all declined to serve a third term. Jefferson was suspicious of any president who would try to be re-elected a third time, writing: should a President consent to be a candidate for a 3d. election, I trust he would be rejected on this demonstration of ambitious views. There is a myth that after Franklin Delano Roosevelt broke the de facto limit of two terms set by the early presidents, the ghost of George Washington placed a curse on anyone serving more than four years. At best, second-term presidencies have been tepid compared to the achievements in the previous four years. After the second world war, some two-term presidents (Eisenhower, Reagan and Obama) started out strong but faltered after reelection. Eisenhower extricated the US from the Korean War in his first term, but faced domestic backlash and race riots in his second. He had to send 500 paratroopers to escort nine Black high school students in Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce a federal desegregation order. Reagan made significant tax and spending cuts, and saw the Soviet Union crumble in term one. But the Iran-Contra scandal and watered down tax reform defined term two. Obama started strongly, introducing health care reform and uniting the Democratic voter base. After reelection, however, the Democrats lost the House, the Senate, a Supreme Court nomination, and faced scandals over the Snowden security leaks and Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative groups. Truly disastrous examples of second term presidencies include Abraham Lincoln (assassination), Woodrow Wilson (first world war, failure of the League of Nations, a stroke), Richard Nixon (Watergate, impeachment and resignation), and Bill Clinton (Lewinsky scandal and impeachment). Monumental honours It may be too early to predict how Trump will feature in this pantheon of less-than-greatness. But his approval ratings recently hit an all-time low as Americans reacted to the bombing of Iran and deployment of troops in Los Angeles. A recent YouGov poll showed voters giving negative approval ratings for his handling of inflation, jobs, immigration, national security and foreign policy. While there has been plenty of action, it may be the levels of uncertainty, drastic change and market volatility are more extreme than some bargained for. An uncooperative Congress or opposition from the judiciary can be obstacles to successful second terms. But Trump has used executive orders, on the grounds of confronting 'national emergencies', to bypass normal checks and balances. As well, favourable rulings by the Supreme Court have edged closer to expanding the boundaries of executive power. But they have not yet supported Trump's claim from his first term that 'I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as President'. Some supporters say Trump deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. And he was only half joking when he asked if there is room for one more face on Mount Rushmore. But such monumental honours may only amount to speculation unless Trump's radical approach and redefinition of executive power defy the second-term curse.
