mexico us border

independent.co.uk
Donald Trump is going to publish a weekly list of crimes committed by immigrants
Donald Trump has ordered his new administration to publish a weekly list of crimes committed by immigrants. The US President’s sweeping new executive order on immigration, which he signed on the fifth day of his presidency, includes a paragraph mandating the Secretary for Homeland Security to “make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens” in the US. The list will also include details of so-called “sanctuary cities” that refuse to hand over immigrant residents for deportation.

Donald Trump is a Nazi. He has assembled a cabinet of Nazis to run his fascist regime. He doesn’t call himself a Nazi, because Nazis never do. From the start “Nazi” was an insult. We all now face a choice in how to respond to this. We can either resist or collaborate. There are no other options. This is a decision we all face, but it is a particularly pertinent choice for the American people, and, crucially, the political establishment in America. Both Republican and Democrat politicians need to choose, are they going to resist or collaborate?

Make your choice now, before people start being rounded up and put in camps, before tanks roll out and bombs start falling. If enough people choose to resist now then the worst can still be avoided.

2

So it turns out that a remarkably large amount of the US-Mexico border is defined by the Rio Grande. Like, Texas’s border with Mexico. 

The river doesn’t provide a meaningful barrier to migration: the Amazon it ain’t. But its existence poses a core problem for Trump’s wall that no one seems to mention: where do you put the border wall in relation to the river?

–you could put it on the US side, as we are legally entitled to do, but then the US effectively cedes the water to Mexico. I imagine farmers and ranchers across Texas might not be enthused by this option.

–we could put it in the middle of the river, on the actual border, and magically divide the water in half … if, you know, you wanted to build a wall in the middle of a river, and thought that hydrodynamics were the same as cutting a piece of cake.

–Trump could build it on the Mexican side of the river, take all the water, and commit an act of war by seizing Mexican territory … if the US didn’t mind being a pariah nation and potentially fighting an honest to god war on the southern boundary of Texas. Again.

This seems like something that ought to be worked out before we start building the wall. It’s not a detail to work out later.

On Jan. 25, President Trump signed an executive order instructing construction to begin on a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Environmentalists and civil rights activists say the proposed wall on the southern border with Mexico is a threat to the environmental rights of the people who live on both sides of the border.

“When you have such beautiful wilderness areas as we have here in Arizona, the idea of putting this large wall that prevents the migration of animals, that scars the earth itself, and especially knowing how ineffectual it is, is something that is just sad,” said Juanita Molina, the executive director of Border Action Network, an organization that advocates for the health and wellness of people who live along the border. “The reality is that border communities are porous by nature.”

Molina, who lives in Benson, Ariz., said the wall could cause flooding and debris build-up on both sides of the border. (Chris Clarke of KCET has reported that a concrete wall “would cause catastrophic flooding in the desert.”) Molina also said there could be legal and ethical consequences if people try to build on the land of the Tohono O'odham Nation, whose reservation straddles the border, and whose leaders have spoken out for years against a border wall. But even if no part of the wall materializes, she said, the rhetoric around it has already caused rifts in her community.

The Environmental Consequences Of A Wall On The U.S.-Mexico Border

Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

“GIANT PICNIC at the border today in Tecate … people eating the same food, sharing the same water, enjoying the same music (half of the band on each side) around the eye of a dreamer … we forgot the wall for a minute … “


Photo via JR

3

When you think of illegal immigration in the U.S., do you picture a border crosser or a visa overstayer? A family or a single person? A farmworker or a waiter?

People living in the U.S. without legal status are frequently invoked in American politics — especially in recent months. But the conversation is often short on facts about the millions of people who fall into this category.

There are, however, outdated beliefs: A Pew Research Center survey in 2015 found that very few Americans are aware of recent changes in immigration patterns.

And, of course, there are stereotypes, which often don’t always match up with reality. Most people in the U.S. illegally have been here for years, for instance, and people working service jobs far outnumber migrant farm labor.

Here’s a look at the actual statistics about people living in the U.S. illegally.

How America’s Idea Of Illegal Immigration Doesn’t Always Match Reality

Charts by Alyson Hurt

8

Think about the avocados you mash for your Super Bowl guacamole, or the fresh tomatoes you enjoy in the winter. There’s a good chance they came from Mexico.

Our southern neighbor is the United States’ leading supplier of fresh produce, providing 70 percent of the fresh vegetables we import and more than 40 percent of our fresh fruit imports. That trade has boomed since NAFTA — the North American Free Trade Agreement — was signed in 1994.

President Trump’s repeated campaign threats to pull out of NAFTA and impose a tax on Mexican imports have caused jitters for Wholesum and other businesses on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border.

Amid Talk Of Tariffs, What Happens To Companies That Straddle The Border?

Photos by Elissa Nadworny/NPR

Donald Trump, in his first phone call with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, implored him to stop saying publicly that Mexico would not pay for the wall Trump wants build on the southwestern U.S. border, according to a transcript of the Jan. 27 call that was published by The Washington Post.

“You cannot say that to the press,” Trump said repeatedly, according to a transcript of the Jan. 27 call. Trump made clear that he realized the funding would have to come from other sources but threatened to cut off contact if Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto continued to make defiant statements.

“You have a very big mark on our back, Mr. President, regarding who pays for the wall,” Pena Nieto said, according to the transcript. “This is what I suggest, Mr. President — let us stop talking about the wall. I have recognized the right of any government to protect its borders as it deems necessary and convenient. But my position has been and will continue to be very firm saying that Mexico cannot pay for that wall.”

Trump responded, “You cannot say that to the press. The press is going to go with that, and I cannot live with that. You cannot say that to the press, because I cannot negotiate under those circumstances.”

One of Trump’s signature campaign promises was to build a wall on the US-Mexico border and “have Mexico pay for the wall.”

“If you are going to say that Mexico is not going to pay for the wall, then I do not want to meet with you guys anymore, because I cannot live with that,” Trump said to Pena Nieto.

The call became particularly acrimonious. “I have had it,” Trump erupted after the two argued about an agreement on refugees. “I have been making these calls all day, and this is the most unpleasant call all day.”

Before ending the call, Trump noted that at least one of his conversations that day had gone far more smoothly. “Putin was a pleasant call,” Trump said, referring to Russian President Vladi­mir Putin.
politico.com
Politico: The US/Mexico border wall funding fight may have been an impetus for Trump's transphobic order banning trans military troops
A congressional fight over sex reassignment surgery threatened funding for his border wall.

Rachel Bade and Josh Dawsey at Politico: 

After a week sparring with his attorney general and steaming over the Russia investigation consuming his agenda, President Donald Trump was closing in on an important win.

House Republicans were planning to pass a spending bill stacked with his campaign promises, including money to build his border wall with Mexico.

But an internal House Republican fight over transgender troops was threatening to blow up the bill. And House GOP insiders feared they might not have the votes to pass the legislation because defense hawks wanted a ban on Pentagon-funded sex reassignment operations — something GOP leaders wouldn’t give them.

They turned to Trump, who didn’t hesitate. In the flash of a tweet, he announced that transgender troops would be banned altogether.

Trump’s sudden decision was, in part, a last-ditch attempt to save a House proposal full of his campaign promises that was on the verge of defeat, numerous congressional and White House sources said.

The president had always planned to scale back policies put in place during the administration of President Barack Obama welcoming such individuals in combat and greenlighting the military to pay for their medical treatment plans. But a behind-the-scenes GOP brawl threatening to tank a Pentagon funding increase and wall construction hastened Trump’s decision.

Numerous House conservatives and defense hawks this week had threatened to derail their own legislation if it did not include a prohibition on Pentagon funding for gender reassignment surgeries, which they deem a waste of taxpayer money. But GOP leaders were caught in a pinch between those demands and those of moderate Republicans who considered the proposal blatantly discriminatory.

“There are several members of the conference who feel this really needs to be addressed,” senior House Appropriations Committee member Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) said Tuesday. “This isn’t about the transgender issue; it’s about the taxpayer dollars going to pay for the surgery out of the defense budget.”

That’s why House lawmakers took the matter to the Trump administration. And when Defense Secretary James Mattis refused to immediately upend the policy, they went straight to the White House. Trump — never one for political correctness — was all too happy to oblige.

“[P]lease be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military,” Trump tweeted Wednesday morning. “Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”

The president’s directive, of course, took the House issue a step beyond paying for gender reassignment surgery and other medical treatment. House Republicans were never debating expelling all transgender troops from the military.

A 70 ft. public installation of a 1-year-old child recently went up in Tecate, MX on the Mexican side of the US/Mexico border. 

The artist Jean René states, “I wonder, is this kid worrying about what will happen? What does he think? At 1-year-old, you don’t see the border or which side is better." 

JR’s work has resonated with many on both sides of the border given this week’s political climate concerning immigration. There is no limit on the human spirit to pursue a dream ✊🏽