Latest news with #USCode
Hindustan Times
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
New Mexico military zone: 82 people charged with trespassing, here's what happened
Federal authorities in New Mexico have charged 82 individuals with unauthorized entry into a newly established military defense zone along the US- Mexico border. This marks a significant escalation in border enforcement efforts. The charges, filed under Title 50 of the US Code, stem from trespassing into a 170-square-mile stretch of land. This was recently designated as part of the Roosevelt Reservation, according to a statement released by the US Attorney's Office for the District of New Mexico. The area in question was previously managed by the Department of the Interior and was then transferred to the Department of Defense. It is now classified as an extension of US Army Garrison Fort Huachuca, as per the statement. ALSO READ | Inside Putin's lavish apartment: Paintings, home church and grand white piano | Watch Officials emphasized the area is under heightened military surveillance, with troops authorized to detain individuals and hand them over to federal agents for prosecution. 'Trespassers into the National Defense Area will be federally prosecuted—no exceptions,' warned US Attorney Ryan Ellison, underscoring a zero-tolerance stand on this issue. According to the news release, Title 50 violations carry penalties of up to one year in prison, separate from any immigration-related charges migrants might face. The move aligns with broader federal efforts to curb illegal crossings through increased military involvement. Meanwhile, a second military zone spanning approximately 53 miles near El Paso, Texas, has been activated as part of Fort Bliss. It extends to the border community of Fort Hancock. The Roosevelt Reservation's transformation into a defense area grants the military authority to conduct patrols and deploy advanced surveillance systems. Federal officials argue the strategy aims to deter unauthorized entries while streamlining prosecutions. Critics, however, raise concerns about militarizing border regions and potential impacts on migrant communities. With both the Fort Huachuca and Fort Bliss zones now operational, the policy signals a new chapter in the intersection of military infrastructure and immigration enforcement along the southern border.
News24
30-04-2025
- Politics
- News24
US threatens '10 years in prison' as new border rules targeting migrants take effect
The US is prosecuting migrants under heightened penalties at the Mexico border. A large area has been declared a military zone. There are about 11 900 soldiers at the southern border. The US has announced its first criminal prosecutions against migrants and asylum seekers accused of crossing into a newly created military zone along the country's border with Mexico. Court filings submitted on Monday - and reviewed by US media the following day - show that approximately 28 people have been charged with "violations of security regulations" for breaching the military zone. That charge, though a misdemeanour, carries the possibility of heightened penalties. The US Code stipulates that violations of security regulations can result in a fine of up to $100 000 for individuals or up to a year in prison - or both. Normally, the consequences for unlawful entry into the US are less severe. READ | 'Simply unacceptable': Lawmakers angry at Trump administration, visit El Salvador to get man freed But as the administration of US President Donald Trump ramps up its crackdown on immigration, critics warn of the growing militarisation of the southern border region neighbouring Mexico. The new charges were made possible by the establishment of the "New Mexico National Defence Area" on 18 April. AFP The Department of Defence ordered that an Army installation called Fort Huachuca be expanded to include 44 374 hectares of federal land, previously held by the Department of the Interior. The transfer is effective for three years and turns a strip of border land adjacent to Mexico into a US military zone, where trespassing carries serious consequences. That military zone notably overlaps with routes that migrants and asylum seekers have taken to enter the US irregularly, without official paperwork. Successive presidential administrations, however, have sought to limit asylum applicants from crossing into the US outside of official ports of entry, despite US and international law that protects the right to flee persecution. AFP The threat of increased penalties has been one of the tools used as deterrence. Last week, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth visited the recently established military zone, where he touted the strip as a new line of defence against what he called an "invasion" of migrants and asylum seekers. "This is Department of Defence property. The National Defence Area, formerly known as the Fort Huachuca annex zone, is federal property. Any illegal attempting to enter that zone is entering a military base - a federal, protected area," Hegseth said. He added: You can be detained. You will be detained. You will be interdicted by US troops and border patrol working together. Since January, the Trump administration has surged the number of US troops stationed at the border, bringing the total to an estimated 11 900 soldiers. During his visit, Hegseth revealed that he also plans to expand military zones at other sites along the US border, to add an extra line of defence against irregular migration. He played up the risks of complex criminal prosecutions and lengthy prison sentences. "If you are an illegal crossing, you will be monitored. You will be detained by US troops. You will be detained temporarily and handed over to Customs and Border Patrol," he said. "If you have cut through a fence or jumped over a fence, that's destruction of government property. If you have attempted to evade, that's evading law enforcement, just like you would any other military base. You add up the charges of what you can be charged with - misdemeanours and felonies - you could be looking at up to 10 years in prison when prosecuted." AFP He added that New Mexico's attorney general "can't wait to prosecute" the first group to cross through the military zone. But groups like the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico have voiced opposition to the new tactic, saying that human rights are at risk when the military is deployed to address civilian offenses. "The expansion of military detention powers in the 'New Mexico National Defence Area' - also known as the 'border buffer zone' - represents a dangerous erosion of the constitutional principle that the military should not be policing civilians," said Rebecca Sheff, a senior staff attorney for the group. Sheff added there could be unintended consequences beyond the government's attempts to restrict irregular migration. "We don't want militarised zones where border residents - including US citizens - face potential prosecution simply for being in the wrong place."
Al Jazeera
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
US begins prosecuting migrants for breaching ‘military zone' near border
The United States has announced its first criminal prosecutions against migrants and asylum seekers accused of crossing into a newly created military zone along the country's border with Mexico. Court filings submitted on Monday — and reviewed by US media the following day — show that approximately 28 people have been charged with 'violations of security regulations' for breaching the military zone. That charge, though a misdemeanour, carries the possibility of heightened penalties. The US Code stipulates that violations of security regulations can result in a fine of up to $100,000 for individuals or up to a year in prison — or both. Normally, the consequences for unlawful entry into the US are less severe. But as the administration of President Donald Trump ramps up its crackdown on immigration, critics warn of the growing militarisation of the southern border region neighbouring Mexico. The new charges were made possible by the establishment of the 'New Mexico National Defence Area' on April 18. The Department of Defence ordered that an Army installation called Fort Huachuca be expanded to include 109,651 acres of federal land, previously held by the Department of the Interior. The transfer is effective for three years and turns a strip of border land adjacent to Mexico into a US military zone, where trespassing carries serious consequences. That military zone notably overlaps with routes that migrants and asylum seekers have taken to enter the US irregularly, without official paperwork. Successive presidential administrations, however, have sought to limit asylum applicants from crossing into the US outside of official ports of entry, despite US and international law that protects the right to flee persecution. The threat of increased penalties has been one of the tools used as deterrence. Last week, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth visited the recently established military zone, where he touted the strip as a new line of defence against what he called an 'invasion' of migrants and asylum seekers. 'This is Department of Defence property. The National Defence Area, formerly known as the Fort Huachuca annex zone, is federal property. Any illegal attempting to enter that zone is entering a military base — a federal, protected area,' Hegseth said. 'You can be detained. You will be detained. You will be interdicted by US troops and border patrol working together.' Since January, the Trump administration has surged the number of US troops stationed at the border, bringing the total to an estimated 11,900 soldiers. During his visit, Hegseth revealed that he also plans to expand military zones at other sites along the US border, to add an extra line of defence against irregular migration. He played up the risks of complex criminal prosecutions and lengthy prison sentences. 'If you are an illegal crossing, you will be monitored. You will be detained by US troops. You will be detained temporarily and handed over to Customs and Border Patrol,' he said. 'If you have cut through a fence or jumped over a fence, that's destruction of government property. If you have attempted to evade, that's evading law enforcement, just like you would any other military base. You add up the charges of what you can be charged with — misdemeanours and felonies — you could be looking at up to 10 years in prison when prosecuted.' He added that New Mexico's attorney general 'can't wait to prosecute' the first group to cross through the military zone. But groups like the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico have voiced opposition to the new tactic, saying that human rights are at risk when the military is deployed to address civilian offenses. 'The expansion of military detention powers in the 'New Mexico National Defence Area' — also known as the 'border buffer zone' — represents a dangerous erosion of the constitutional principle that the military should not be policing civilians,' said Rebecca Sheff, a senior staff attorney for the group. Sheff added there could be unintended consequences beyond the government's attempts to restrict irregular migration. 'We don't want militarized zones where border residents — including U.S. citizens — face potential prosecution simply for being in the wrong place.'
Boston Globe
14-04-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Postal Service is a financial black hole and should be privatized
President Trump has reportedly showed a strong interest in From its inception, the Postal Service was intended to be a public good, not a profit-making entity. Indeed, in 1958, federal law Advertisement At present, the Postal Service is a failing monopoly. Title 39 of the US Code hinders private carriers' ability to compete by . The agency also receives substantial financial aid from taxpayers: $120 billion Despite its federally protected monopoly on letter mail and extensive taxpayer support, major private competitors— UPS (founded in 1907) and FedEx (1971) — have thrived, significantly growing their US parcel and express delivery businesses. In 2022, USPS Advertisement These financial issues are in part due to rules and regulations that Congress and other federal bodies have established for the postal agency. While most private sector mail services use pay-as-you-go systems, Congress requires the Postal Service to The agency One approach short of privatization would be to repeal or reform the most burdensome regulatory restrictions currently imposed on the Postal Service. Eliminating the retiree health benefit prefunding mandate and adopting a traditional pay-as-you-go method would have produced Advertisement These reforms, however, merely make the Postal Service resemble a private business; an even better response is to privatize the agency entirely. Privatization would not only free it from prefunding and six-day delivery requirements that hurt liquidity and raise costs, but it would also remove burdensome regulations like uniform pricing and rigid labor agreements, allowing it to respond to market demands. Without artificial restrictions, the agency could set prices based on actual costs, streamline operations, close inefficient locations, and pursue innovation and new revenue streams such as logistics, financial services, or expanded e-commerce partnerships. Privatization would also open the postal market to full competition, allowing private carriers to compete without barriers such as mailbox monopolies or weight restrictions. A key aspect of this privatization is that it must be complete, or nearly so. Since Britain sold a majority stake in its national postal service, the share price has Ultimately, the debate over privatizing the Postal Service centers on market-based efficiency. Maintaining the status quo imposes a growing financial burden on taxpayers and results in declining service quality. Partial reforms would help, but full privatization offers the most effective path forward. Advertisement
The Guardian
02-04-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
There is no such thing as an ‘illegal immigrant'
On 29 January, the second Trump administration held its first White House press briefing. 'Of the 3,500 arrests Ice has made so far since President Trump came back into office, can you just tell us the numbers?' asked a reporter in the front row. 'How many have a criminal record versus those who are just in the country illegally?' 'All of them,' responded the new White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, making her debut in the briefing room, 'because they illegally broke our nation's laws, and, therefore, they are criminals, as far as this administration goes.' She continued: 'I know the last administration didn't see it that way, so it's a big culture shift in our nation to view someone who breaks our immigration laws as a criminal. But that's exactly what they are.' Leavitt's answer delighted Maga media and went viral in conservative circles, with a fire emoji from a Daily Wire reporter, a bullseye emoji from the Heritage Foundation, and a mic drop emoji from the Republican Study Committee. It was also completely, utterly, totally, wrong. Factually inaccurate. A brazen lie. In the eyes of this administration, immigrants who are undocumented are all 'illegal immigrants' and these 'illegal immigrants', ergo, are all 'criminals'. But, on so many levels, it's just not true. It's a popular myth pushed by the right that needs urgent debunking. First, people are not, are never, illegal. It was the Nobel laureate and former Auschwitz prisoner Elie Wiesel who pointed out how 'no human being is 'illegal'' because it is 'a contradiction in terms. People can be beautiful or less beautiful, they can be just or unjust, but illegal? How can a human being be illegal?' An act can be illegal; people cannot inherently be illegal. Second, the anti-immigrant right has not only gotten the language wrong but the law wrong, too. Under the US criminal code, as the ACLU has noted: 'The act of being present in the United States in violation of the immigration laws is not, standing alone, a crime.' Why? Because illegal entry is considered a misdemeanor not a felony, under 8 US Code § 1325, and is subject to civil, and not criminal, penalties. It is the 'reentry of removed aliens', under 8 US Code § 1326, that is considered a felony and subject to criminal punishment. Meanwhile, almost half of undocumented immigrants in the United States did not even enter the country illegally to begin with; many of them are 'overstays' who arrived with a legal work, student, or travel visa but failed to leave the US, for a multiplicity of reasons, before their visas expired. The inconvenient truth for the anti-immigrant right is that it is not a crime for immigrants simply to be present in the United States without proper documentation. They are not 'illegals'. Don't take my word for it. Or the ACLU's. Take the word – the 5-3 majority ruling! – of the supreme court of the United States. In 2012, in Arizona v United States, the highest court in the land ruled that 'as a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States'. Got that? Not. A. Crime. Third, the anti-immigrant right wants to conflate immigrants, especially of the undocumented variety, with criminals – but the evidence is beyond flimsy. Remember in February when the Trump administration claimed that 'Guantánamo Bay will hold the worst of the worst' migrants? When the homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, insisted that 'criminal alien murderers, rapists, child predators and gangsters' were being shipped to Gitmo? It turned out that around one in three of those migrants 'had no criminal records'. Remember in March when the Trump administration sent nearly 300 immigrants to El Salvador because they were, allegedly, 'illegal foreign terrorists' and 'bad people' who commited the most 'heinous crimes'? Ice officials later admitted in court that 'many' of the people packed off to El Salvador had no criminal records. More and more reports suggest the apparent justification for sending these immigrants to a foreign labor camp was their possession not of criminal records but of … tattoos. On Monday, the Trump administration admitted in a court filing that it had detained a Maryland father with protected legal status and deported him to El Salvador 'because of an administrative error'. It isn't surprising that this far-right nativist administration, its mendacious press secretary, and its Ice thugs have failed to identify actual criminals, whether violent or otherwise, among the many immigrants they have rounded up, detained, and tried to deport in recent weeks. Despite Maga's obsession with immigrant criminals (Laken Riley's killer!), study after study after study after study confirms that higher immigration does not lead to higher crime rates and, in fact, immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than the native-born population. 'Statistically speaking,' the immigration expert Aaron Reichlin-Melnick has observed, 'you're measurably safer living in a town filled with average undocumented immigrants than a town filled with average native-born citizens.' So why can't liberals more broadly, and elected Democrats in particular, say this? And say it loudly and repeatedly? Why can't they reject both the butchering of the English language and the misrepresentation of US criminal law by rejecting the entire 'illegal immigrant' framing of the nativist right? And if not now – when a far-right administration is grabbing innocent people off the streets and sending them to be tortured in a foreign gulag – then when? It's past time for liberals and Democrats to make clear to conservatives and Republicans that the facts don't care about their feelings. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant; undocumented immigrants aren't ipso facto criminals; and higher immigration doesn't lead to higher crime. Mehdi Hasan is a broadcaster and author, and a former host on MSNBC. He is also a Guardian US columnist and the editor-in-chief of Zeteo
