Category: Nationalism

El Salvador and Trump’s Immigrant Deportation Deal Undermines Human Rights and Legal Protections

El Salvador has entered into a controversial agreement with the Trump administration to house violent criminals and deportees from the United States, a move that raises serious legal and ethical concerns. This unprecedented pact was announced by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio after his meeting with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele. Critics have pointed out that this agreement prioritizes the desires of a repressive U.S. administration over the rights and well-being of individuals, reflecting the Trump administration’s ongoing war on immigrants.

The agreement entails that El Salvador will accept not only its own deportees but also any deportees classified as criminals from other nationalities, establishing a system where the U.S. could send incarcerated individuals to a nation notorious for its harsh treatment of prisoners. While Bukele pitches this as a cost-effective measure that would purportedly be financially beneficial for El Salvador, this approach effectively commodifies human lives, treating deportees as mere resources to be exchanged for governmental payments.

Legal experts have warned that the arrangement may violate fundamental legal principles in the U.S. Constitution, particularly those protecting citizenship rights. According to immigration law specialist Leti Volpp, U.S. citizens cannot be deported without a legal process that guarantees due process, which this plan complicates significantly. The assurance that any individuals sent to El Salvador would receive fair treatment is tenuous at best, given the documented human rights abuses occurring in Salvadoran prisons, which are overcrowded and lack basic sanitary conditions.

Human rights organizations and advocacy groups have condemned the agreement, emphasizing that it embodies a grim underpinning of Trump’s immigration policies—dehumanization and the disregard for international laws regarding the treatment of migrants. These analyses assert that this action not only threatens the well-being of marginalized groups but also exemplifies a broader trend of authoritarianism that has emerged under the Trump administration.

As the administration faces escalating backlash from human rights advocates and legal experts, the implications of this deal stress an alarming transformation of U.S. immigration practices that challenge the very foundations of democracy and humanity. By perpetuating such agreements, Trump and his administration demonstrate a clear inclination towards disturbing international norms and promoting systemic racism against migrants and those seeking refuge from violence.

(h/t: https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/03/americas/el-salvador-migrant-deal-marco-rubio-intl-hnk/index.html)

Trump Threatens Tariffs on Nations Challenging Dollar Dominance

Former President Donald Trump recently issued a striking ultimatum via social media, threatening ten countries with 100% tariffs should they attempt to replace the U.S. dollar as their reserve currency. This declaration showcases not only his authoritarian tendencies but also a dangerous ignorance of international economics. His comments are expected to escalate tensions with countries that are part of the BRICS coalition—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—alongside others looking to establish their economic autonomy.

In his post, Trump declared, “The idea that the BRICS Countries are trying to move away from the Dollar… is OVER.” However, his grasp on international relations remains alarmingly shallow, as evidenced by a previous gaffe where he mistakenly identified Spain as a BRICS member. This staggering lack of knowledge undermines his credibility, especially in discussions that impact global economic structures and alliances.

Moreover, Trump’s threats reflect a broader pattern of aggressive nationalism that seeks to impose U.S. dominance through economic coercion. As he plans to impose additional tariffs on neighboring countries like Mexico and Canada, his actions jeopardize essential diplomatic relationships and undermine cooperative trade practices. This lack of understanding and willingness to engage in constructive dialogue signals a troubling trend of isolationism that threatens both U.S. and global economic stability.

Trump’s threats have not gone unnoticed internationally. According to reports, a Kremlin spokesperson suggested that such economic coercion would inevitably backfire, indicating that the world is increasingly wary of Trump’s unpredictable stance on trade. Furthermore, trade experts note that the dollar’s strength is largely attributed to the current U.S. economic conditions, which are not guaranteed to remain unchanged in the face of such reckless rhetoric.

This recent episode is just another instance highlighting Trump’s futile attempts to maintain an American hegemony that disregards the realities of a multipolar world. His administration’s erratic foreign policy moves represent a clear danger to the principles of diplomacy and international cooperation, ultimately revealing a commitment to authoritarianism that disregards the foundational tenets of democratic governance and productive global engagement.

(h/t: https://www.yahoo.com/news/another-sucker-nation-trump-fires-112635885.html)

Trump Halts All Foreign Aid, Threatening Global Humanitarian Efforts

The US State Department has officially suspended all existing foreign aid and put a halt to new assistance programs according to an internal memo that has been leaked. This unprecedented move follows an executive order signed by Donald Trump, placing a 90-day pause on foreign development assistance for a comprehensive review. The memo indicates that no new funds will be obligated, marking a significant reshaping of US foreign assistance policy.

The impact of this suspension is substantial, as the US is the largest international aid donor, disbursing $68 billion in aid in 2023 alone. The memo outlines that this freeze applies broadly across various aid types, ranging from humanitarian aid to military assistance, with few exceptions such as emergency food aid and military aid for Israel and Egypt. Notably, aid programs essential for global humanitarian initiatives may face immediate cessation, exacerbating suffering in regions already facing crises.

Former officials who served in the State Department have articulated grave concerns about the ramifications of this policy. Josh Paul, who held senior roles in Congressional relations and military aid, underscored that operations such as humanitarian de-mining programs could be abruptly halted, crushing efforts vital for safety and recovery in conflict-affected areas. This move signals a departure from historical American leadership in global humanitarian assistance.

Dave Harden, who has extensive experience with USAID, described the situation as “very significant,” stating that the freeze could impede numerous critical development projects including those focused on water and sanitation. He elucidated that employees from implementing partners would still be compensated, but essential assistance would be delayed or stopped, reflecting the recklessness of the current administration’s approach to foreign aid.

The justification provided in Rubio’s memo highlights a flawed rationale where existing commitments are deemed ineffective without further scrutiny by the newly assigned administration. Given the global humanitarian crises, including the urgent needs following the ceasefire in Gaza and other hunger emergencies worldwide, this drastic pause in aid under Trump’s direction can exacerbate conditions for millions in need, showcasing an alarming trend of isolationism and neglect under Republican leadership.

(h/t: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce9nx5k7lv0o)

Trump’s Threat to Reclaim Panama Canal Reflects Authoritarian Tendencies

Donald Trump has made alarming statements during his recent speech at Turning Point USA’s AmFest 2024 in Phoenix, where he threatened to reclaim the Panama Canal from Panama. This reckless rhetoric stems from his objection to newly imposed fees for ships navigating the canal, which he argues is a form of unfair treatment. Trump’s claims not only distort the historical context of the canal’s transfer to Panama but also reflect a dangerous inclination towards authoritarianism and nationalism.

In his speech, Trump disparaged former President Jimmy Carter, who signed the treaties that led to the U.S. relinquishing control of the canal in 1977. By framing the situation as a theft, Trump is engaging in revisionist history, attempting to rewrite the narrative to fit his agenda. His comments reveal a troubling mindset that prioritizes a false sense of American exceptionalism over respect for international agreements.

Continuing with his aggressive stance, Trump declared, “We’re being ripped off at the Panama Canal, like we’re being ripped off everywhere else.” This rhetoric not only undermines diplomatic relations but also incites a dangerous atmosphere where international norms and treaties are disregarded in favor of Trump’s whims. The Panama Canal, a critical asset for global trade and U.S. military logistics, is not merely a bargaining chip for his political posturing.

Trump’s assertions threaten to reshape U.S. foreign policy into a more isolationist and confrontational approach, aligning with his previous authoritarian tendencies. His willingness to escalate tensions over economic grievances raises concerns about the potential for conflict, reflecting a broader trend of Republican fascism where might is equated with right.

This latest episode underscores the need for vigilance against Trump’s divisive and dangerous rhetoric. His attempts to claim back the Panama Canal are emblematic of a broader authoritarian trend that seeks to dismantle established democratic principles and international cooperation. It is crucial to recognize these actions as not just misguided but as a direct threat to the stability of both American democracy and global order.

(h/t: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-doubles-down-on-his-threat-to-take-back-the-panama-canal-during-wild-tpusa-speech-were-being-ripped-off-everywhere/)

Trump’s Baseless Claims About Immigrants Eating Pets Debunked by Fox Host

Former President Donald Trump engaged in a contentious dialogue with Fox News host Howard Kurtz regarding his unfounded claims about Haitian immigrants allegedly consuming pets in Springfield, Ohio. During the broadcast of Media Buzz, Kurtz pressed Trump on his reluctance to retract these statements, which have been broadly discredited. Kurtz reminded Trump that his assertions about animals being eaten had gained notoriety but were proven false, highlighting the harmful stereotypes perpetuated by such rhetoric.

In a puzzling defense, Trump responded with confusion, stating, “I don’t know if it’s true or not true,” despite the overwhelming evidence contradicting his claims. This denial of accountability illustrates a troubling trend where Trump dismisses factual information, instead insisting on the validity of his narrative. Kurtz, aiming to clarify, reiterated that local officials had debunked Trump’s claims, emphasizing the detrimental impact of spreading misinformation.

Trump’s insistence on the existence of missing geese as a point of argument only further showcased his disregard for factual accuracy. Rather than addressing the evidence presented by Kurtz, Trump deflected responsibility by shifting blame to media outlets, displaying a familiar tactic of evasion. This interaction underscores the former president’s commitment to promoting divisive and false narratives, often rooted in racism.

This incident is not an isolated case; Trump’s rhetoric aligns with extremist views often propagated by alt-right figures, including the promotion of the idea that immigrants threaten American culture. Such statements not only dehumanize minority communities but also echo sentiments expressed by known white supremacists. Trump’s position feeds into a damaging discourse that fosters intolerance and fear regarding immigration.

The exchange ultimately highlights the growing concerns surrounding misinformation and its implications for public discourse. Trump’s unwillingness to acknowledge the truth demonstrates a broader issue of accountability among political leaders. As the 2024 elections approach, the need for accurate representation of immigrant communities becomes increasingly vital in combating harmful stereotypes.

(h/t: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/what-about-the-geese-trump-snipes-at-howard-kurtz-after-fox-host-tells-him-flat-out-that-his-migrant-pet-eating-claims-have-been-debunked/)

Trump’s Controversial Claims About Migrants at Nevada Rally

During a recent rally in Reno, Nevada, former President Donald Trump made alarming claims about migrants crossing into the United States. He asserted that some migrants are equipped with weapons more advanced than those used by U.S. soldiers and suggested that they pose a significant threat to American sovereignty. Trump’s rhetoric implied that these migrants are attempting to ‘conquer’ the country, a characterization that echoes extremist narratives historically used to dehumanize marginalized groups.

Trump’s comments included unfounded claims that migrants are overwhelming hospitals and public schools to the detriment of American citizens. He alleged that there are no available hospital beds for Americans and implied that migrant children are prioritized over local children in schools. These statements are misleading and lack credible evidence, contributing to a narrative that fosters fear and division.

The former president’s remarks also included a call to action for his supporters, promising that under a potential future Trump administration, American citizens would be prioritized over migrants. He framed the situation as a battle for the country’s future, using language that evokes historical parallels with extremist ideologies that aimed to incite fear and justify discrimination.

Trump’s rhetoric has been criticized for its potential to incite violence and normalize hate against immigrant communities. His comparison of migrants to armed adversaries reflects a dangerous trend in political discourse that seeks to vilify and marginalize vulnerable populations. This approach not only distorts the reality of immigration but also undermines the values of inclusivity and compassion.

(h/t: https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trump-vows-to-end-migrants-who-are-trying-to-conquer-u-s/)

Trump approves plan for record low number of refugee admissions

President Trump has approved a plan to reduce the cap for refugee admissions to the country for fiscal 2020 to 18,000, the lowest level on record since the program began more than three decades ago. 

In a statement announcing the move this weekend, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that “the core of the Trump Administration’s foreign policy is a commitment to make decisions based on reality, not wishes, and to drive optimal outcomes based on concrete facts.” 

Pompeo went on to say that “this year’s determination on refugee admissions does just that, even as we sustain our longstanding commitment to help vulnerable populations and our leadership as the world’s most generous nation.” 

The plan, which was announced in late September, has drawn pushback from Democratic lawmakers, including governors who have said they will continue to welcome refugees to their states despite the steep reduction.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) said last month that her state is a “sanctuary state” and that Oregon will continue to “stand with refugees” in light of the executive order issued by the Trump administration, which allows states to turn away refugees. 

“These are people who cannot return home because they fear for their lives and their families. And to make matters worse, the Trump administration wants to slash the number of refugees our country will welcome this coming year to 18,000, the lowest ever on record,” she said then.

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D) said in a letter to Trump last month that his state will continue to accept refugees fleeing violence and added that he was “dismayed” by the administration’s plans to drastically reduce the refugee cap to 18,000 — a significant jump from former President Obama’s proposed cap of 116,000 refugees in 2016.

“To reject refugees outright emboldens the message of those who seek to inspire hatred by saying that we, as Americans, do not have compassion or care for specific groups of people in the world facing persecution or worse,” Wolf wrote in the letter.

According to The New York Times, under the new move by the Trump administration, only 5,000 people who wish to flee their home countries for fear of persecution due to their religion will be allowed admission into the U.S. as part of the refugee program.

Fewer than 2,000 Central Americans will reportedly be allowed admission under the program going forward as well as 4,000 Iraqis who aided the United States military during the Iraq War.

The new cap for Iraqi refugees is reportedly less than half of the 9,829 who were admitted under the Obama administration in fiscal 2014. Under the Trump administration during fiscal 2019, just 153 Iraqi refugees whose applications were given high priority were admitted into the country. 

[The Hill]

Trump admin delays funds for human-trafficking victims that would help non-citizens

 The Trump administration abruptly delayed a $13.5 million grant to house human trafficking victims just five days after saying that “non-citizens” could be served by the program.

The program’s funds, which were approved two years ago by multiple federal agencies, are now in limbo with no indication when money will be distributed and no public explanation for the change.

The money was intended to support housing and supportive services for victims of sex and labor trafficking, including immediate emergency shelter and short-term housing of up to 24 months, according to the notice of funding availability. The money could also be used for providing trafficking victims with furniture, child care services, trauma therapy, cell phones and household items.

The grants were to be dispersed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, in collaboration with the Department of Justice and Health and Human Services. HUD hosted a webinar on August 22 through the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness for organizations interested in applying for the money, which the council described on August 13 as an “unprecedented partnership” between the DOJ and HUD.

On September 4, the funding announcement was updated to “allow recipients [of the funds] to serve non-citizens,” including lawful permanent residents and foreign national victims, the funding notice said.

Five days later, the grant solicitation was cancelled, according to the federal government’s grants.gov website, which currently states: “This Funding Opportunity has been CANCELLED and is NO longer accepting applications.”

A spokesperson for the Justice Department told NBC News the program has been “postponed,” not cancelled and that a separate HUD website describing the grant as “cancelled” is a mistake. DOJ has not explained why, but the agency asked for the funds back from HUD and the spokesperson says DOJ will now run the program itself.

HUD did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, sent a letter to HUD and DOJ on Friday criticizing the administration for abruptly stopping the grant and asked the agencies to explain what had happened. “Survivors of trafficking must have access to safe and affordable housing,” wrote Brown, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. “A decision to postpone these housing and services grants into oblivion will be a decision to waste anti-trafficking resources already on the table.”

[NBC News]

Trump Just Strong-Armed Guatemala Into a “Safe Third Country” Agreement.

The United States and Guatemala have reached a deal that has the potential to end most asylum seekers’ ability to seek protection at the US-Mexico border.

Under an agreement announced Friday afternoon, asylum seekers who travel through Guatemala on their way to the United States would be returned to Guatemala and forced to seek protection there. That would largely block Salvadorans and Hondurans from receiving asylum in the United States, as well as large numbers of asylum seekers from around the world who travel by land to the US border after flying to South America. Instead, only Mexicans and Guatemalans would be able to seek protection at the border.

The agreement would not apply to children who arrive at the border alone and would remain in effect for two years, according to a copy released by the Guatemalan government (in Spanish).

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan said on a press call that he expects the deal, which is known as a safe third country agreement, to take effect in the next few weeks. Earlier this month, Guatemala’s Constitutional Court blocked President Jimmy Morales from unilaterally signing such an agreement. It is still not clear how Morales’ administrations plans to get around that. 

Beyond that it is unclear how Guatemala—which has become the leading sending country of migrants to the United States under Trump—plans to provide refuge for the thousands of asylum seekers who could arrive from El Salvador, Honduras, and elsewhere. As the Washington Post‘s Mexico and Central America bureau chief, Kevin Sieff, pointed out on Twitter, Guatemala doesn’t exactly have much recent experience handling asylum claims.

The deal, if it goes into effect, would be one of Trump’s two most important efforts to undermine the asylum system. The other is the Remain in Mexico program, which is forcing thousands of asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their asylum claims are pending in US immigration courts. Combined, the two policies could block the vast majority of asylum seekers who come to the southern border from entering the United States. People who fly or travel by sea to the United States would still be eligible to apply for asylum. (The problem for asylum seekers, particularly those who aren’t wealthy, is that it is often impossible to get a visa to fly to the United States, which is why people turn to smugglers instead.)

McAleenan said that by requiring people to apply for asylum in Guatemala, the agreement would “increase the integrity of the [asylum] process, keep vulnerable families that are really economic migrants out of the hands of smugglers, and allow us to reach those with asylum claims more expeditiously.”

Morales was supposed to come to the White House on July 15 to sign a safe third country agreement, but the trip was canceled at the last minute in response to the Constitutional Court decision. Trump responded to the Guatemalan court decision this week by threatening to impose tariffs on Guatemala and ban Guatemalans from entering the United States. 

Like Trump, Morales is a former television personality who ran for president in 2015 as a political outsider. Since then, Morales has worked aggressively to undermine a renowned UN-backed anti-corruption commission that has targeted members of his family. His administration also has gone out of its way to please Trump, moving its Israeli embassy to Jerusalem immediately after the United States did. The Trump administration has been largely silent about Morales’ efforts to undermine the rule of law in Guatemala.

[Mother Jones]

Trump vows mass immigration arrests, removals of ‘millions of illegal aliens’ starting next week

President Trump said in a tweet Monday night that U.S. immigration agents are planning to make mass arrests starting “next week,” an apparent reference to a plan in preparation for months that aims to round up thousands of migrant parents and children in a blitz operation across major U.S. cities.

“Next week ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States,” Trump wrote, referring to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “They will be removed as fast as they come in.”

Large-scale ICE enforcement operations are typically kept secret to avoid tipping off targets. In 2018, Trump and other senior officials threatened the mayor of Oakland, Calif., with criminal prosecution for alerting city residents that immigration raids were in the works.

Trump and his senior immigration adviser, Stephen Miller, have been prodding Homeland Security officials to arrest and remove thousands of family members whose deportation orders were expedited by the Justice Department this year as part of a plan known as the “rocket docket.”

In April, acting ICE director Ronald Vitiello and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen were ousted after they hesitated to go forward with the plan, expressing concerns about its preparation, effectiveness and the risk of public outrage from images of migrant children being taken into custody or separated from their families.

Vitiello was replaced at ICE by former FBI and Border Patrol official Mark Morgan, who had impressed the president with statements on cable television in favor of harsh immigration enforcement measures.

In his first two weeks on the job at ICE, Morgan has said publicly that he plans to beef up interior enforcement and go after families with deportation orders, insisting that the rulings must be carried out to uphold the integrity of the country’s legal system.

“Our next challenge is going to be interior enforcement,” Morgan told reporters June 4 in Washington. “We will be going after individuals who have gone through due process and who have received final orders of deportation.

“That will include families,” he said, adding that ICE agents will treat the parents and children they arrest “with compassion and humanity.”

U.S. officials with knowledge of the preparations have said in recent days that the operation was not imminent, and ICE officials said late Monday night that they were not aware that the president planned to divulge their enforcement plans on Twitter.

Executing a large-scale operation of the type under discussion requires hundreds — and perhaps thousands — of U.S. agents and supporting law enforcement personnel, as well as weeks of intelligence gathering and planning to verify addresses and locations of individuals targeted for arrest.

The president’s claim that ICE would be deporting “millions” also was at odds with the reality of the agency’s staffing and budgetary challenges. ICE arrests in the U.S. interior have been declining in recent months because so many agents are busy managing the record surge of migrant families across the southern border with Mexico.

The family arrest plan has been considered even more sensitive than a typical operation because children are involved, and Homeland Security officials retain significant concerns that families will be inadvertently separated by the operation, especially because parents in some households have deportation orders but their children — some of whom are U.S. citizens — might not. Should adults be arrested without their children because they are at school, day care, summer camp or a friend’s house, it is possible parents could be deported while their children are left behind.

Supporters of the plan, including Miller, Morgan and ICE Deputy Director Matthew Albence, have argued forcefully that a dramatic and highly publicized operation of this type will send a message to families that are in defiance of deportation orders and could act as a deterrent.

According to Homeland Security officials, nearly all unauthorized migrants who came to the United States in 2017 in family groups remain present in the country. Some of those families are awaiting adjudication of asylum claims, but administration officials say a growing number are skipping out on court hearings while hoping to live and work in the United States as long as possible.

Publicizing a future law enforcement operation is unheard of at ICE. Trump administration officials blasted Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf last year for warning immigrants about an impending raid, saying she endangered agents’ safety.

“The Oakland mayor’s decision to publicize her suspicions about ICE operations further increased that risk for my officers and alerted criminal aliens — making clear that this reckless decision was based on her political agenda with the very federal laws that ICE is sworn to uphold,” then-ICE Deputy Director Thomas D. Homan said at the time.

Homan later retired, but last week Trump said Homan would return to public service as his “border czar.” On Fox News, Homan later called that announcement “kind of premature” and said he had not decided whether to accept the job.

Schaaf responded late Monday to the president’s tweet teasing the looming ICE roundups.

“If you continue to threaten, target and terrorize families in my community . . . and if we receive credible information . . . you already know what our values are in Oakland — and we will unapologetically stand up for those values,” she wrote.

[Washington Post]

1 2 3 … 8