In a bold move that marked a major U-turn in immigration policy, the country of Sweden announced plans to offer up to US$34,000 in financial incentives to immigrants who would voluntarily return to their home countries.

This new initiative would kick off in 2026 and was the commitment undertaken by the government of Sweden to reform its migration policy amid ongoing difficulties in integrating newcomers into Swedish society, says a report by South China Morning Post. 
 
The announcement was made by Migration Minister Johan Forssell in a news conference. He termed the move a part of "paradigm shift" in the migration strategy of Sweden. This, according to Forssell, is because the government wants to try to resolve the problem of having so many immigrants and difficulties that have grown more noticeably over the years. 
 
Traditionally, Sweden has come to be viewed as something of a "humanitarian superpower" that has taken in those who have faced conflict and persecution. But the current right-wing government depends upon the support of the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats and takes more measures to force the gates closer.

It will replace the current financial support system offering up to 10,000 kronor-some US$900-per adult and 5,000 kronor-some US$450 per child. Under the new policy, the family cap is 40,000 kronor -some US$3,600. Some say it may stain Sweden's reputation as one of the world's most humanitarian countries, while others say it is the only way to make sure that Sweden will be able to bear the immigration challenge. 
 
On the other hand, the voluntary repatriation incentive-that is, giving the immigrants a chance to go back home with a decent financial cushion-is how the government framed this move. This decision forms part of a more general strategy aimed at reducing bureaucracy in the immigration system and putting greater resources into those already settled. 
 
In the face of such developments, Sweden is going to bring this scheme. Reactions from immigrant groups and human rights activists will be most anticipated well in advance. Many are concerned about the impact it will have on the vulnerable groups who may be forced to go back to their previous homes. However, the government has given the assurance that the program is being introduced as a voluntary one, helping those who wish to return. 
 
This would make further provision for loudness of a new course on Sweden's path, not to mention the sums of money that would serve as inducements for the immigrants to return home. As the country works through this transition, the long-term implications of such actions on its immigration system, social cohesion, and international reputation would be anybody's guess. These next few years are going to be telling indeed regarding what shape that policy really cuts into the future of immigration into Sweden, its position as a destination for refuge and new life.<o:p></o:p>

In a bold move that marked a major U-turn in immigration policy, the country of Sweden announced plans to offer up to US$34,000 in financial incentives to immigrants who would voluntarily return to their home countries.

In a bold move that marked a major U-turn in immigration policy, the country of Sweden announced plans to offer up to US$34,000 in financial incentives to immigrants who would voluntarily return to their home countries. This new initiative would kick off in 2026 and was the commitment undertaken by the government of Sweden to reform its migration policy amid ongoing difficulties in integrating newcomers into Swedish society, says a report by South China Morning Post. The announcement was made by Migration Minister Johan Forssell in a news conference. He termed the move a part of "paradigm shift" in the migration strategy of Sweden. This, according to Forssell, is because the government wants to try to resolve the problem of having so many immigrants and difficulties that have grown more noticeably over the years. Traditionally, Sweden has come to be viewed as something of a "humanitarian superpower" that has taken in those who have faced conflict and persecution. But the current right-wing government depends upon the support of the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats and takes more measures to force the gates closer. It will replace the current financial support system offering up to 10,000 kronor-some US$900-per adult and 5,000 kronor-some US$450 per child. Under the new policy, the family cap is 40,000 kronor -some US$3,600. Some say it may stain Sweden's reputation as one of the world's most humanitarian countries, while others say it is the only way to make sure that Sweden will be able to bear the immigration challenge. On the other hand, the voluntary repatriation incentive-that is, giving the immigrants a chance to go back home with a decent financial cushion-is how the government framed this move. This decision forms part of a more general strategy aimed at reducing bureaucracy in the immigration system and putting greater resources into those already settled. In the face of such developments, Sweden is going to bring this scheme. Reactions from immigrant groups and human rights activists will be most anticipated well in advance. Many are concerned about the impact it will have on the vulnerable groups who may be forced to go back to their previous homes. However, the government has given the assurance that the program is being introduced as a voluntary one, helping those who wish to return. This would make further provision for loudness of a new course on Sweden's path, not to mention the sums of money that would serve as inducements for the immigrants to return home. As the country works through this transition, the long-term implications of such actions on its immigration system, social cohesion, and international reputation would be anybody's guess. These next few years are going to be telling indeed regarding what shape that policy really cuts into the future of immigration into Sweden, its position as a destination for refuge and new life.

Sweden to give as much as US$34,000 to immigrate home in the wake of policy shift on migration

Australia significantly increased the fees for international students, more than doubling it from AUD&nbsp;710 ($473) to AUD 1,600 ($1,068). The latest move, effective from July 1, aims to rein in migration that is at an all-time high which is causing intensive pressure on an already tight housing market.&nbsp;

The latest move by the Anthony Albanese government is bad news for Indian students, who&nbsp;form&nbsp;the second-largest population of international students in Australia.

Continuing to curb migration, the government also announced that visitor visa holders and students with temporary graduate visas will be banned from applying onshore for a student visa&nbsp;effective from July 1.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwiAioy76YWHAxU9TGcHHUT5AJ4QxfQBKAB6BAgREAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/with-visa-free-travel-indians-can-now-tick-kenyas-maasai-mara-off-their-travel-list-670149" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/with-visa-free-travel-indians-can-now-tick-kenyas-maasai-mara-off-their-travel-list-670149&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiAioy76YWHAxU9TGcHHUT5AJ4QxfQBKAB6BAgREAE">With `visa-free` travel, Indians can now add Kenya`s Maasai Mara to their bucket list</a>

"The changes coming into force today will help restore integrity to our international education system, and create a migration system which is fairer, smaller and better able to deliver for Australia," Home Affairs Minister Clare O'Neil said in a statement.

<h2>Australia takes steps to curb migration amid restrained housing market. How Indian students will be affected?</h2>

As per official data, in March, the net immigration rose to 60 per cent to a record 548,800 people in the year up to Sep 3, 2023.&nbsp;

The latest steps will hurt lot&nbsp;of Indian students planning to move to Australia besides those who are on temporary graduate visas.&nbsp;

The Australian government data shows that a significant number of Indian students - about 100,009 in 2022 were enrolled in various Australian institutions. Additionally, 1.22 lakh Indian students were studying in Australia in the Jan-Sep 2023 period.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwiAioy76YWHAxU9TGcHHUT5AJ4QxfQBKAB6BAgKEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/world/explained-indian-students-workers-to-be-affected-by-visa-rules-in-australia-uk-and-canada-heres-why-668656" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/world/explained-indian-students-workers-to-be-affected-by-visa-rules-in-australia-uk-and-canada-heres-why-668656&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiAioy76YWHAxU9TGcHHUT5AJ4QxfQBKAB6BAgKEAE">Explained | How new visa rules in Australia, UK, Canada will adversely affect Indian students, workers</a>

The fee increase makes applying for an Australian student visa more expensive than in other countries like the US and Canada, where fees are approximately $185 and CAD 150 ($110), respectively, reported Reuters.&nbsp;

The government said it is also looking into dealing with all the loopholes in visa rules that earlier allowed foreign students to continuously extend their stay in Australia.&nbsp;

The recent curbs are part of a wider crackdown on immigration by the Australian government. In March, the Australian government tightened the English language requirements for the same reasons. The amount of savings for international students in need of getting a visa was also raised in May to AUD 29,710 ($19,823) from AUD 24,505 ($16,146)- the second such increase in about seven months.&nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwiAioy76YWHAxU9TGcHHUT5AJ4QxfQBKAB6BAgIEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/world/exclusive-uk-visa-policy-revisions-stir-anxiety-wion-speaks-to-indian-students-and-professionals-710941" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/world/exclusive-uk-visa-policy-revisions-stir-anxiety-wion-speaks-to-indian-students-and-professionals-710941&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiAioy76YWHAxU9TGcHHUT5AJ4QxfQBKAB6BAgIEAE">EXCLUSIVE | UK visa policy revisions stir anxiety; WION speaks to Indian students and professionals</a>

A major chunk of the Australian economy relies on international student fees, it remains to be seen how the Australian government will balance out immigration curbs and economic stability.&nbsp;

International education is one of Australia's largest industries and was worth AUD 36.4 billion to the economy in the 2022-2023 financial year.

(With inputs from agencies)

Australia significantly increased the fees for international students, more than doubling it from AUD 710 ($473) to AUD 1,600 ($1,068). The latest move, effective from July 1, aims to rein in migration that is at an all-time high which is causing intensive pressure on an already tight housing market.

Australia significantly increased the fees for international students, more than doubling it from AUD 710 ($473) to AUD 1,600 ($1,068). The latest move, effective from July 1, aims to rein in migration that is at an all-time high which is causing intensive pressure on an already tight housing market. The latest move by the Anthony Albanese government is bad news for Indian students, who form the second-largest population of international students in Australia. Continuing to curb migration, the government also announced that visitor visa holders and students with temporary graduate visas will be banned from applying onshore for a student visa effective from July 1. Also Read | With `visa-free` travel, Indians can now add Kenya`s Maasai Mara to their bucket list "The changes coming into force today will help restore integrity to our international education system, and create a migration system which is fairer, smaller and better able to deliver for Australia," Home Affairs Minister Clare O'Neil said in a statement. Australia takes steps to curb migration amid restrained housing market. How Indian students will be affected? As per official data, in March, the net immigration rose to 60 per cent to a record 548,800 people in the year up to Sep 3, 2023. The latest steps will hurt lot of Indian students planning to move to Australia besides those who are on temporary graduate visas. The Australian government data shows that a significant number of Indian students - about 100,009 in 2022 were enrolled in various Australian institutions. Additionally, 1.22 lakh Indian students were studying in Australia in the Jan-Sep 2023 period. Also Read | Explained | How new visa rules in Australia, UK, Canada will adversely affect Indian students, workers The fee increase makes applying for an Australian student visa more expensive than in other countries like the US and Canada, where fees are approximately $185 and CAD 150 ($110), respectively, reported Reuters. The government said it is also looking into dealing with all the loopholes in visa rules that earlier allowed foreign students to continuously extend their stay in Australia. The recent curbs are part of a wider crackdown on immigration by the Australian government. In March, the Australian government tightened the English language requirements for the same reasons. The amount of savings for international students in need of getting a visa was also raised in May to AUD 29,710 ($19,823) from AUD 24,505 ($16,146)- the second such increase in about seven months. Also Read | EXCLUSIVE | UK visa policy revisions stir anxiety; WION speaks to Indian students and professionals A major chunk of the Australian economy relies on international student fees, it remains to be seen how the Australian government will balance out immigration curbs and economic stability. International education is one of Australia's largest industries and was worth AUD 36.4 billion to the economy in the 2022-2023 financial year. (With inputs from agencies)

Australia doubles foreign student visa fee to curb migration, Indian students likely to be hit

After facing mounting pressure to address record net migration figures, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced a series of stringent measures to curtail the influx of migrants arriving by legal routes. <o:p></o:p>

According to Reuters, the move comes in response to the staggering annual net migration figure of 745,000 in 2022, with concerns raised about the impact on various sectors, including healthcare, and the persistently tight labour market. <o:p></o:p>

Sunak emphasised the need for "radical action" to bring down immigration levels.<o:p></o:p>

Salient measures to reduce migration<o:p></o:p>

The proposed measures include a significant increase in the minimum salary threshold for foreign skilled workers, raising it to £38,700 (approximately $49,000) from the current £26,200 ($33,000). Notably, health and social workers would be exempted from this adjustment. <o:p></o:p>

Home Secretary James Cleverly said that these measures could potentially reduce net migration by 300,000. The government also intends to halt foreign health workers from bringing in family members on their visas, increase the surcharge migrants pay for using the health service by 66 per cent, and elevate the minimum income requirement for family visas.<o:p></o:p>

Impact on businesses and trade unions<o:p></o:p>

While the government asserts that these measures aim to prioritise British workers and prevent immigration from undercutting their salaries, businesses and trade unions have voiced concerns. Critics argue that the reforms could exacerbate labour shortages, particularly in sectors already grappling with recruitment challenges. <o:p></o:p>

The proposed abolition of the shortage occupations list, a vital route for businesses to hire migrant workers in sectors facing severe staff shortages, has sparked further debate. Trade unions, including UNISON, the primary health sector union, warn of a "total disaster" for the health service, predicting that migrants might opt for more welcoming countries.<o:p></o:p>

Challenges and scepticism<o:p></o:p>

Despite the government's intent to address concerns about immigration, scepticism prevails. Some studies suggest that foreign workers have minimal impact on overall wage and employment levels. The acute shortage of candidates to fill vacancies remains a significant challenge for businesses. <o:p></o:p>

Kate Nicholls, the Chief Executive of trade body, UKHospitality, expressed the need for developing an immigration system that caters to business needs and the labour market. The Bank of England acknowledged persistent skills shortages in certain sectors, even as hiring becomes slightly more manageable.<o:p></o:p>

Controversial moves and future outlook<o:p></o:p>

As the UK embarks on this immigration overhaul, controversies loom, particularly regarding the potential fallout for businesses and essential services like healthcare. The government's pledge to review the list of shortage occupations and eliminate the practice of paying migrants less than the going rate for jobs with labour shortages adds another layer to the unfolding reforms. <o:p></o:p>

(With inputs from Reuters)<o:p></o:p>

<iframeamp;muteaccelerometer; autoplay=""></iframeamp;muteaccelerometer;>

After facing mounting pressure to address record net migration figures, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced a series of stringent measures to curtail the influx of migrants arriving by legal routes.

After facing mounting pressure to address record net migration figures, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced a series of stringent measures to curtail the influx of migrants arriving by legal routes. According to Reuters, the move comes in response to the staggering annual net migration figure of 745,000 in 2022, with concerns raised about the impact on various sectors, including healthcare, and the persistently tight labour market. Sunak emphasised the need for "radical action" to bring down immigration levels. Salient measures to reduce migration The proposed measures include a significant increase in the minimum salary threshold for foreign skilled workers, raising it to £38,700 (approximately $49,000) from the current £26,200 ($33,000). Notably, health and social workers would be exempted from this adjustment. Home Secretary James Cleverly said that these measures could potentially reduce net migration by 300,000. The government also intends to halt foreign health workers from bringing in family members on their visas, increase the surcharge migrants pay for using the health service by 66 per cent, and elevate the minimum income requirement for family visas. Impact on businesses and trade unions While the government asserts that these measures aim to prioritise British workers and prevent immigration from undercutting their salaries, businesses and trade unions have voiced concerns. Critics argue that the reforms could exacerbate labour shortages, particularly in sectors already grappling with recruitment challenges. The proposed abolition of the shortage occupations list, a vital route for businesses to hire migrant workers in sectors facing severe staff shortages, has sparked further debate. Trade unions, including UNISON, the primary health sector union, warn of a "total disaster" for the health service, predicting that migrants might opt for more welcoming countries. Challenges and scepticism Despite the government's intent to address concerns about immigration, scepticism prevails. Some studies suggest that foreign workers have minimal impact on overall wage and employment levels. The acute shortage of candidates to fill vacancies remains a significant challenge for businesses. Kate Nicholls, the Chief Executive of trade body, UKHospitality, expressed the need for developing an immigration system that caters to business needs and the labour market. The Bank of England acknowledged persistent skills shortages in certain sectors, even as hiring becomes slightly more manageable. Controversial moves and future outlook As the UK embarks on this immigration overhaul, controversies loom, particularly regarding the potential fallout for businesses and essential services like healthcare. The government's pledge to review the list of shortage occupations and eliminate the practice of paying migrants less than the going rate for jobs with labour shortages adds another layer to the unfolding reforms. (With inputs from Reuters)

UK discloses immigration reforms: Stricter visas aim to curb soaring migration

The US Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against the state of Texas for placing anti-migrant buoys in the Rio Grande river, near the border with Mexico.

The department contends that these large orange buoys obstruct river navigation and lack federal permissions. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has strongly defended the installation of the buoys, arguing that he has the power to protect the state's "sovereign" interests, reported AFP.

Tensions escalate as Abbott accuses President Joe Biden of failing to enforce federal immigration laws, leading to migrants risking their lives in the treacherous waters of the Rio Grande River. The dispute reflects broader issues surrounding border security and the flow of migrants.

<h2>The controversial buoys and razor wire</h2>

Recently, a series of buoys was installed in the Rio Grande River, a popular crossing point for migrants, along with large barriers of razor wire on the shore. However, the Justice Department raises concerns about these measures posing threats to navigation, public safety, and humanitarian aspects. Reports indicate that some migrants have been entangled in the razor wire, requiring rescue operations. Moreover, a leaked memo from the US Customs and Border Protection claims that the state-placed razor wire has impeded their border patrol operations.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/cluster-bombs-for-ukraine-highlight-us-aversion-to-international-treaties-618749">Cluster bombs for Ukraine highlight US aversion to international treaties</a>

<h2>Abbott's defiance and accusations</h2>

Governor Abbott rebuffs the Biden administration's objections and maintains that he has the authority to safeguard Texas' interests by implementing the buoys. In a letter to President Biden, Abbott criticises the administration for not fulfilling its responsibilities to address the flow of migrants across the Mexico border. He emphasises that enforcing federal immigration laws would prevent migrants from risking their lives in the perilous waters of the Rio Grande River.

Also watch |&nbsp;Gun epidemic in US: Five wounded in Houston shooting incident, US cops on lookout for accused

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gun-epidemic-in-us-five-wounded-in-houston-shooting-incident-us-cops-on-lookout-for-accused-618773/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<h2>Justice department's legal action</h2>

Following Governor Abbott's defiant response, the US Justice Department takes legal action by filing a lawsuit in a federal court in Austin, Texas. The suit claims that the barrier violates the US Rivers and Harbors Act, which aims to protect public waterways under the oversight of the Army Corps of Engineers. The department asserts that Texas was required to obtain permission from the Army Corps of Engineers before placing any structure or barrier in the Rio Grande. As a result, they seek a court order to have Abbott remove the barrier.

<h2>Ensuring safety and security</h2>

Jaime Esparza, the federal prosecutor in Austin, underscores the importance of adhering to both domestic and international laws and policies to ensure the safety and security of everyone living, working, and travelling along the river. He says&nbsp;that these laws cannot be ignored.

The dispute between Texas and the US government highlights the complexities of border security and the challenges of handling migrant flows. It remains to be seen how the legal battle will unfold and what impact it will have on the broader issues surrounding immigration and the border region.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

<iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe>

&nbsp;

The US Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against the state of Texas for placing anti-migrant buoys in the Rio Grande river, near the border with Mexico. The department contends that these large orange buoys obstruct river navigation and lack federal permissions.

The US Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against the state of Texas for placing anti-migrant buoys in the Rio Grande river, near the border with Mexico. The department contends that these large orange buoys obstruct river navigation and lack federal permissions. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has strongly defended the installation of the buoys, arguing that he has the power to protect the state's "sovereign" interests, reported AFP. Tensions escalate as Abbott accuses President Joe Biden of failing to enforce federal immigration laws, leading to migrants risking their lives in the treacherous waters of the Rio Grande River. The dispute reflects broader issues surrounding border security and the flow of migrants. The controversial buoys and razor wire Recently, a series of buoys was installed in the Rio Grande River, a popular crossing point for migrants, along with large barriers of razor wire on the shore. However, the Justice Department raises concerns about these measures posing threats to navigation, public safety, and humanitarian aspects. Reports indicate that some migrants have been entangled in the razor wire, requiring rescue operations. Moreover, a leaked memo from the US Customs and Border Protection claims that the state-placed razor wire has impeded their border patrol operations. Also read | Cluster bombs for Ukraine highlight US aversion to international treaties Abbott's defiance and accusations Governor Abbott rebuffs the Biden administration's objections and maintains that he has the authority to safeguard Texas' interests by implementing the buoys. In a letter to President Biden, Abbott criticises the administration for not fulfilling its responsibilities to address the flow of migrants across the Mexico border. He emphasises that enforcing federal immigration laws would prevent migrants from risking their lives in the perilous waters of the Rio Grande River. Also watch | Gun epidemic in US: Five wounded in Houston shooting incident, US cops on lookout for accused Justice department's legal action Following Governor Abbott's defiant response, the US Justice Department takes legal action by filing a lawsuit in a federal court in Austin, Texas. The suit claims that the barrier violates the US Rivers and Harbors Act, which aims to protect public waterways under the oversight of the Army Corps of Engineers. The department asserts that Texas was required to obtain permission from the Army Corps of Engineers before placing any structure or barrier in the Rio Grande. As a result, they seek a court order to have Abbott remove the barrier. Ensuring safety and security Jaime Esparza, the federal prosecutor in Austin, underscores the importance of adhering to both domestic and international laws and policies to ensure the safety and security of everyone living, working, and travelling along the river. He says that these laws cannot be ignored. The dispute between Texas and the US government highlights the complexities of border security and the challenges of handling migrant flows. It remains to be seen how the legal battle will unfold and what impact it will have on the broader issues surrounding immigration and the border region. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

US government sues Texas over anti-migrant floating border barriers

The Biden administration has ended a Trump-era policy requiring asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for hearings in US immigration courts. The move from the Department of Homeland Security came on Monday, hours after a judge overturned a December decree ordering the reinstatement of the so-called 'Remain in Mexico' policy introduced by President Joe Biden's predecessor Donald Trump.

The date of the policy's removal has been in question ever since the Supreme Court decided on June 30 that the Biden administration may stop the policy. Officials from DHS were quiet, claiming that they had to wait for the court to confirm the decision. The Supreme Court certified its ruling last week, AP reported.

According to a statement by DHS, the programme unwound quickly and systematically. There will no longer be any open applications, and those who show up in court won’t be sent back to Mexico when their next hearings are held in the US.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-probes-claims-that-sikh-migrants-turbans-confiscated-at-us-mexico-border-503631">US probes claims that Sikh migrants' turbans confiscated at US-Mexico border</a>

The rules (Migrant Protection Protocols) were in place from the time former President Donald Trump announced the "Remain in Mexico Policy" in January 2019 until Joe Biden cancelled the policy on his first day in office in January 2021.Critics attacked Trump’s approach by saying it exposes migrants to horrific violence in Mexico.

During the first few months of the Biden administration, many individuals were permitted to continue their cases. Almost 5,800 people were affected by the policy between December and June. The majority of people are from Cuba, Colombia, and Venezuela.

Also read<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/joe-biden-gets-green-signal-from-supreme-court-to-end-remain-in-mexico-immigration-policy-493575"> |&nbsp;Joe Biden gets green signal from US Supreme Court to end ‘Remain in Mexico’ immigration policy</a>

There are still a lot of concerns to be answered, whether or not people who applications have been rejected or dismissed will be given another chance or people who have future court dates will be allowed to return to the US sooner. Further details are yet to be announced.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

The Biden administration has ended a Trump-era policy requiring asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for hearings in US immigration courts. The move from the Department of Homeland Security came on Monday, hours after a judge overturned a December decree ordering the reinstatement of the so-called 'Remain in Mexico' policy introduced by President Joe Biden's predecessor Donald Trump.

The Biden administration has ended a Trump-era policy requiring asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for hearings in US immigration courts. The move from the Department of Homeland Security came on Monday, hours after a judge overturned a December decree ordering the reinstatement of the so-called 'Remain in Mexico' policy introduced by President Joe Biden's predecessor Donald Trump. The date of the policy's removal has been in question ever since the Supreme Court decided on June 30 that the Biden administration may stop the policy. Officials from DHS were quiet, claiming that they had to wait for the court to confirm the decision. The Supreme Court certified its ruling last week, AP reported. According to a statement by DHS, the programme unwound quickly and systematically. There will no longer be any open applications, and those who show up in court won’t be sent back to Mexico when their next hearings are held in the US. Also read | US probes claims that Sikh migrants' turbans confiscated at US-Mexico border The rules (Migrant Protection Protocols) were in place from the time former President Donald Trump announced the "Remain in Mexico Policy" in January 2019 until Joe Biden cancelled the policy on his first day in office in January 2021.Critics attacked Trump’s approach by saying it exposes migrants to horrific violence in Mexico. During the first few months of the Biden administration, many individuals were permitted to continue their cases. Almost 5,800 people were affected by the policy between December and June. The majority of people are from Cuba, Colombia, and Venezuela. Also read | Joe Biden gets green signal from US Supreme Court to end ‘Remain in Mexico’ immigration policy There are still a lot of concerns to be answered, whether or not people who applications have been rejected or dismissed will be given another chance or people who have future court dates will be allowed to return to the US sooner. Further details are yet to be announced. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Biden administration ends Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico policy’ on migrants

After a lengthy immigration battle and four years in detention, the Nadesalingam&nbsp;family returned to Biloela city after they were taken from their home by the Australian Border Force.

For four years, Biloela locals protested their detainment and attempted deportation in 2018. Their case had become a leading example of Australia’s harsh treatment of asylum seekers.

The family of 4—Priya, Nades, Kopika and Tharnicaa —were welcomed with cheers of joy as they stepped onto the tarmac in the outback community, as supporters of the Tamil family waved banners and "welcome Home" signs.

As the family walked out of Thangool airport on Friday, Priya dropped to her knees and kissed the ground.

“I am so happy,” The Guardian quoted Priya as saying. “I am starting a new life.”

She said she hoped their arrival would mark a new beginning for her family and daughters.

“I felt like I was flying, I can't describe the moment of landing in Bilo," she said through a translator, according to News Nine.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
They’ve landed <a href="https://twitter.com/9NewsQueensland?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@9NewsQueensland</a> <a href="https://t.co/QsHufVVpi6">pic.twitter.com/QsHufVVpi6</a>
— Natarjsha Kramer (@NatarjshaKramer) <a href="https://twitter.com/NatarjshaKramer/status/1535118305278586880?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 10, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

“Landing here gives me a lot of hope and for my daughters. I hope I can give my girls a better life and better future. Words can't describe what I am feeling,” she said.

The family was moved to Perth last year after their daughter Tharnicaa contracted sepsis. As she required urgent medical attention, three members of the family were granted year-long visas, but were forced to remain in Perth as Tharnicaa was required to remain in detention.

In May, the family was granted bridging visas, allowing them to leave community detention in Perth and return to their home in Biloela. But they were still not guaranteed their asylum status.

Nearly 600,000 people signed Home to Bilo campaigner Angela Fredericks’ Change.org petition in support of the family, and more than 53,000 phone calls and emails were made to Australian politicians from the family’s supporters across the country.

On Saturday, the family will attend Biloela’s multicultural Flourish festival – which is expected to attract 1,000 extra attendees to welcome the family home – before celebrating Tharnicaa’s fifth birthday on Sunday.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

After a lengthy immigration battle and four years in detention, the Nadesalingam family returned to Biloela city after they were taken from their home by the Australian Border Force.

After a lengthy immigration battle and four years in detention, the Nadesalingam family returned to Biloela city after they were taken from their home by the Australian Border Force. For four years, Biloela locals protested their detainment and attempted deportation in 2018. Their case had become a leading example of Australia’s harsh treatment of asylum seekers. The family of 4—Priya, Nades, Kopika and Tharnicaa —were welcomed with cheers of joy as they stepped onto the tarmac in the outback community, as supporters of the Tamil family waved banners and "welcome Home" signs. As the family walked out of Thangool airport on Friday, Priya dropped to her knees and kissed the ground. “I am so happy,” The Guardian quoted Priya as saying. “I am starting a new life.” She said she hoped their arrival would mark a new beginning for her family and daughters. “I felt like I was flying, I can't describe the moment of landing in Bilo," she said through a translator, according to News Nine. They’ve landed @9NewsQueensland pic.twitter.com/QsHufVVpi6 — Natarjsha Kramer (@NatarjshaKramer) June 10, 2022 × “Landing here gives me a lot of hope and for my daughters. I hope I can give my girls a better life and better future. Words can't describe what I am feeling,” she said. The family was moved to Perth last year after their daughter Tharnicaa contracted sepsis. As she required urgent medical attention, three members of the family were granted year-long visas, but were forced to remain in Perth as Tharnicaa was required to remain in detention. In May, the family was granted bridging visas, allowing them to leave community detention in Perth and return to their home in Biloela. But they were still not guaranteed their asylum status. Nearly 600,000 people signed Home to Bilo campaigner Angela Fredericks’ Change.org petition in support of the family, and more than 53,000 phone calls and emails were made to Australian politicians from the family’s supporters across the country. On Saturday, the family will attend Biloela’s multicultural Flourish festival – which is expected to attract 1,000 extra attendees to welcome the family home – before celebrating Tharnicaa’s fifth birthday on Sunday. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

Here to stay: Sri Lankan Tamil asylum seeker family welcomed with tears in Australia after four years

After thorough investigation, the US&nbsp;Government Accountability Office (GAO) has concluded that the appointments of two of the top homeland security officials in the Trump administration were improper.

The appointments of&nbsp;Chad Wolf, acting secretary of homeland security, and Ken Cuccinelli, his deputy, were not done by following the proper protocol, a US watchdog has revealed.&nbsp;

As the GAO can only forward the unbiased information to the Congress&nbsp;and cannot force the executive branch to take action, it referred the issue to the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) inspector general, another watchdog.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/why-us-brokered-west-asia-peace-deal-is-significant-for-donald-trump-320583">Also read:&nbsp;Why US-brokered West Asia peace deal is significant for Donald Trump</a>

After the&nbsp;Senate-confirmed Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in left the post 2019, GAO believes that proper protocols and chain of succession was not followed by the Trump administration, which makes the appointments of Wold and Cuccinelli improper.

The GAO issued a 12-page long decision explaining its accusation on the Trump administration.

However,&nbsp;White House spokesman Judd Deere said the GAO decision was "not only wrong, but laughable" as she believes the DHA has the authority to employ acting secretaries under federal law.

This decision could affect Trump's immigration policy, which are being challenged in a federal court in Maryland on Friday. The hearing is about the new Trump rules that make it harder for asylum seekers to obtain work permits. The US District Judge Paula Xinis said that if the GAO findings were correct, the rules should be invalidated.

After thorough investigation, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has concluded that the appointments of two of the top homeland security officials in the Trump administration were improper.

After thorough investigation, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has concluded that the appointments of two of the top homeland security officials in the Trump administration were improper. The appointments of Chad Wolf, acting secretary of homeland security, and Ken Cuccinelli, his deputy, were not done by following the proper protocol, a US watchdog has revealed. As the GAO can only forward the unbiased information to the Congress and cannot force the executive branch to take action, it referred the issue to the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) inspector general, another watchdog. Also read: Why US-brokered West Asia peace deal is significant for Donald Trump After the Senate-confirmed Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in left the post 2019, GAO believes that proper protocols and chain of succession was not followed by the Trump administration, which makes the appointments of Wold and Cuccinelli improper. The GAO issued a 12-page long decision explaining its accusation on the Trump administration. However, White House spokesman Judd Deere said the GAO decision was "not only wrong, but laughable" as she believes the DHA has the authority to employ acting secretaries under federal law. This decision could affect Trump's immigration policy, which are being challenged in a federal court in Maryland on Friday. The hearing is about the new Trump rules that make it harder for asylum seekers to obtain work permits. The US District Judge Paula Xinis said that if the GAO findings were correct, the rules should be invalidated.

Two homeland security appointments by Trump improper: US government watchdog

Immigration is a hot and contentious topic in the rich Western world. The multiculturalisation of Western societies has generated and bred fear and anger not only giving ammunition to populists of assorted types but also changing the political dynamics and colouration of many of these societies. The thrust of the fear around immigration revolves around identity and jobs. In terms of the former, it is held or believed that the immigrant cohort, its arrival on Western shores will change the nature and complexion of Western societies and that this is not necessarily for the good. This is overlaid by fears of job takeovers by immigrants. While both these fears have some merit, but in the main, they are overblown. It is not just the ‘irrational’ fear of the ‘other’ that informs these fears. It is fundamentally about a given or certain identity being swamped by difference; prosaically but potently about economic uncertainty and thereby insecurity generated by immigration that is, at the risk of repletion, that breeds anger and fear.&nbsp;

All this is well known. But, lost in the immigration and immigrant debate is the nature and breakdown of the immigrant cohort that arrives on Western shores, so to speak. Barring refugee flows, which states usually accept on humanitarian grounds and their commitments to international covenants and agreements, mostly, the immigrant flows into the West comprise the already well off and the privileged. The most egregious of these flows are twofold: skill-based immigration and the one mediated through the university systems of some Western countries. In both instances, it is self-evident that the immigrant cohort is well off and not underprivileged.

Consider the doctors that have become part of the NHS in the UK: they are professionals who have been welcomed into the country, have, more often than not, become citizens; in the process, their life chances and the prospect of the ‘good life’ have considerably improved. Another example worth citing is that of Australia: a country that was perhaps a pioneer in granting permanent residency to students graduating from its university system. Here too, the students in contention were from privileged grounds: it takes a lot of financial wherewithal to enrol and study in Western universities; living expenses are another factor to consider. While some students from underprivileged backgrounds sneaked through these systems by paying the initial outlay of fees and then survived on part-time jobs but in the main the gravamen of the student cohort is from privileged grounds.

Is this a problem? Yes and No.

Yes, because it leaves a vast cohort of underprivileged young people from poor countries in the cold. It is to state the obvious that the public education systems in poorer countries are not great; the provision of public goods like education is shoddy and sub-par and access to even these is uneven. Conditions of poverty are another factor that precludes millions from going to school let alone even think of higher education. This, however, does not and should not mean bias and prejudice toward those who can afford the pastures of the West.

But, if education and immigration are to be a tool for development then the immigration policy that underpins the approach in vogue is flawed. Both can catalyze development not merely through and by remittances but also through human capital formation. There is an extant vast pool of human capital in the world that remains untapped because of poverty and deprivation. This is besides being a utilitarian problem one that is also a moral issue. Why should a place of birth or station in society determine the life chances of a given individual? Should not universal education be an intrinsic good or a global public good?

The answer is yes, but in an ideal world. We live in an imperfect world. Given this can the Western education system and its immigration corollary rise to the occasion? Probably not. The reason is that most Western universities are now for profit. But, it might be argued here that there are scholarships available. The commonsense critique of this is that even to access these scholarships, a person needs resources that he or she might not have. Is this condition irremediable?

Not necessarily. The world’s development institutions must see higher education as a tool of development and progress. They can enter into alliances with Western universities, fund partly and cross-subsidize the education of the deserving poor. This approach might not only redeem these institutions given their political predilections and ideological proclivities that they have been accused of but also constitute a catalytic spur to development. &nbsp;This aid can be tied to returning home. But, if then a given poor student has the skill and gumption, let the global labour markets determine his or her choice of home!

&nbsp; 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Immigration is a hot and contentious topic in the rich Western world. The multiculturalisation of Western societies has generated and bred fear and anger not only giving ammunition to populists of assorted types but also changing the political dynamics and colouration of many of these societies.

Immigration is a hot and contentious topic in the rich Western world. The multiculturalisation of Western societies has generated and bred fear and anger not only giving ammunition to populists of assorted types but also changing the political dynamics and colouration of many of these societies. The thrust of the fear around immigration revolves around identity and jobs. In terms of the former, it is held or believed that the immigrant cohort, its arrival on Western shores will change the nature and complexion of Western societies and that this is not necessarily for the good. This is overlaid by fears of job takeovers by immigrants. While both these fears have some merit, but in the main, they are overblown. It is not just the ‘irrational’ fear of the ‘other’ that informs these fears. It is fundamentally about a given or certain identity being swamped by difference; prosaically but potently about economic uncertainty and thereby insecurity generated by immigration that is, at the risk of repletion, that breeds anger and fear. All this is well known. But, lost in the immigration and immigrant debate is the nature and breakdown of the immigrant cohort that arrives on Western shores, so to speak. Barring refugee flows, which states usually accept on humanitarian grounds and their commitments to international covenants and agreements, mostly, the immigrant flows into the West comprise the already well off and the privileged. The most egregious of these flows are twofold: skill-based immigration and the one mediated through the university systems of some Western countries. In both instances, it is self-evident that the immigrant cohort is well off and not underprivileged. Consider the doctors that have become part of the NHS in the UK: they are professionals who have been welcomed into the country, have, more often than not, become citizens; in the process, their life chances and the prospect of the ‘good life’ have considerably improved. Another example worth citing is that of Australia: a country that was perhaps a pioneer in granting permanent residency to students graduating from its university system. Here too, the students in contention were from privileged grounds: it takes a lot of financial wherewithal to enrol and study in Western universities; living expenses are another factor to consider. While some students from underprivileged backgrounds sneaked through these systems by paying the initial outlay of fees and then survived on part-time jobs but in the main the gravamen of the student cohort is from privileged grounds. Is this a problem? Yes and No. Yes, because it leaves a vast cohort of underprivileged young people from poor countries in the cold. It is to state the obvious that the public education systems in poorer countries are not great; the provision of public goods like education is shoddy and sub-par and access to even these is uneven. Conditions of poverty are another factor that precludes millions from going to school let alone even think of higher education. This, however, does not and should not mean bias and prejudice toward those who can afford the pastures of the West. But, if education and immigration are to be a tool for development then the immigration policy that underpins the approach in vogue is flawed. Both can catalyze development not merely through and by remittances but also through human capital formation. There is an extant vast pool of human capital in the world that remains untapped because of poverty and deprivation. This is besides being a utilitarian problem one that is also a moral issue. Why should a place of birth or station in society determine the life chances of a given individual? Should not universal education be an intrinsic good or a global public good? The answer is yes, but in an ideal world. We live in an imperfect world. Given this can the Western education system and its immigration corollary rise to the occasion? Probably not. The reason is that most Western universities are now for profit. But, it might be argued here that there are scholarships available. The commonsense critique of this is that even to access these scholarships, a person needs resources that he or she might not have. Is this condition irremediable? Not necessarily. The world’s development institutions must see higher education as a tool of development and progress. They can enter into alliances with Western universities, fund partly and cross-subsidize the education of the deserving poor. This approach might not only redeem these institutions given their political predilections and ideological proclivities that they have been accused of but also constitute a catalytic spur to development. This aid can be tied to returning home. But, if then a given poor student has the skill and gumption, let the global labour markets determine his or her choice of home! (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Immigration panic in the western countries revolves around identity and jobs

Bulgaria's defence minister has hit out at "unreasonable" Greek plans to build a camp near their border to shelter asylum seekers amid a migration surge from Turkey.

"The accommodation by the Greek side of illegal migrants near our border is a pre-requisite for building up of additional tensions. This is not good-neighbourly and is unreasonable!" Krasimir Karakachanov posted late Monday on Facebook.

The comments came after Greek migration minister Notis Mitarachi announced over the weekend that Athens wanted to build two closed centres in the northern region of Serres that borders Bulgaria and in the Athens area with 1,000 places.

Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/why-some-eu-countries-are-struggling-to-relocate-migrants-265965">Why some EU countries are struggling to relocate migrants</a>

Greece already struggling to accommodate thousands of asylum-seekers stranded in the country has come under even more pressure since Turkey stopped preventing migrants and asylum seekers from leaving for EU territory.

"The Bulgarian army is on standby, and I guarantee that I won't allow a new migration wave to our country," wrote Karakachanov, the leader of the nationalist VMRO party, a junior coalition partner in the government.

"Bulgaria will not pay other people's bills".

Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/migrants-head-to-greece-as-turkey-opens-floodgates-283547">Migrants head to Greece as Turkey opens floodgates</a>

Bulgaria borders on both Greece and Turkey to the southeast but has so far not seen an influx of asylum seekers.

Conservative prime minister Boyko Borisov recently welcomed what he said was "zero migration" thanks to a barbed-wire fence Bulgaria built on the 259-kilometre (160-mile) border with Turkey and his close ties with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Bulgaria's 493-kilometre border with Greece is guarded by border police and has also has not seen any pressure recently.

In talks with Erdogan last week in Ankara, Borisov proposed undertaking "actions which would contribute to solving the crisis in Syria and stop migration pressure" on the region.

He has long pressed for the setting up of closed security centres for asylum seekers outside the EU, funded by the bloc.

Bulgaria's defence minister has hit out at "unreasonable" Greek plans to build a camp near their border to shelter asylum seekers amid a migration surge from Turkey.

Bulgaria's defence minister has hit out at "unreasonable" Greek plans to build a camp near their border to shelter asylum seekers amid a migration surge from Turkey. "The accommodation by the Greek side of illegal migrants near our border is a pre-requisite for building up of additional tensions. This is not good-neighbourly and is unreasonable!" Krasimir Karakachanov posted late Monday on Facebook. The comments came after Greek migration minister Notis Mitarachi announced over the weekend that Athens wanted to build two closed centres in the northern region of Serres that borders Bulgaria and in the Athens area with 1,000 places. Also Read: Why some EU countries are struggling to relocate migrants Greece already struggling to accommodate thousands of asylum-seekers stranded in the country has come under even more pressure since Turkey stopped preventing migrants and asylum seekers from leaving for EU territory. "The Bulgarian army is on standby, and I guarantee that I won't allow a new migration wave to our country," wrote Karakachanov, the leader of the nationalist VMRO party, a junior coalition partner in the government. "Bulgaria will not pay other people's bills". Also Read: Migrants head to Greece as Turkey opens floodgates Bulgaria borders on both Greece and Turkey to the southeast but has so far not seen an influx of asylum seekers. Conservative prime minister Boyko Borisov recently welcomed what he said was "zero migration" thanks to a barbed-wire fence Bulgaria built on the 259-kilometre (160-mile) border with Turkey and his close ties with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Bulgaria's 493-kilometre border with Greece is guarded by border police and has also has not seen any pressure recently. In talks with Erdogan last week in Ankara, Borisov proposed undertaking "actions which would contribute to solving the crisis in Syria and stop migration pressure" on the region. He has long pressed for the setting up of closed security centres for asylum seekers outside the EU, funded by the bloc.

Bulgaria opposes Greek plans for refugee camp near border

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-nations-states-pledge-more-than-3-billion-for-refugees-asylum-rights-under-threat-269069">United States</a> began flying Mexican deportees deep into Mexico on Thursday, and senior US&nbsp;and Guatemalan officials said Mexicans seeking US&nbsp;refuge might be sent to the Central American nation, in a renewed effort to slash border crossings.

The flight carrying Mexican deportees from Tucson, Arizona, landed in the central city of Guadalajara around midday. One immigration shelter in the city said it had been informed of a likely influx of deportees.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/democrats-have-no-proof-i-want-an-immediate-trial-trump-on-impeachment-proceedings-269248">US&nbsp;President Donald Trump</a> has made clamping down on unlawful migration a top priority of his three-year-old term in office and his 2020 re-election campaign.

Numbers of Central American migrants apprehended at the border fell sharply in the second part of 2019 after Mexico deployed National Guard troops to stem the flow, under pressure from Trump.

With fewer Central Americans at the border, US&nbsp;attention has turned to Mexicans crossing illegally or asking for asylum. Around 150,000 Mexican single adults were apprehended at the border in the fiscal year 2019, sharply down from previous decades but still enough to bother US&nbsp;immigration hawks.

In another sign of the new focus on <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/mexican-businesses-want-clarity-on-details-of-usmca-trade-deal-267698">Mexicans</a>, Acting Deputy US&nbsp;Department of Homeland Security Secretary Ken Cuccinelli said an agreement that lets US&nbsp;immigration officials send asylum seekers to Guatemala to request refuge there instead could also apply to Mexicans and other nationalities.

"As we fully implement the agreement, all populations are being considered, including Mexican nationals," Cuccinelli said on Twitter.

His comments were echoed by Guatemala's Interior Minister Enrique Degenhart, who told Reuters he had analysed whether Mexicans could be included in the programme, which is similar to the "safe third country" arrangement in Europe that outsources asylum to Turkey.

Also Watch:&nbsp;Migrants gather at US-Mexico border for Christmas party

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/migrants-gather-at-us-mexico-border-for-christmas-party-268529/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Degenhart said the idea of including Mexicans had not been implemented so far but could not be ruled out.

"Right now, it is only being used with Central Americans," he said, pointing out that Mexicans were not part of the long-standing pact that allows Central Americans to move freely between each others' countries.

Mexico's foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Cuccinelli and Degenhart's remarks.

Flights

Mexico said it had requested the flights to keep deportees away from dangerous border cities, while a senior DHS official said the flights were in response to rising numbers of Mexican nationals arrested at the US-Mexico border.

Mexicans made up nearly half of all migrants caught between October and December, according to US&nbsp;Customs and Border Protection data.

John Sandweg, a former acting director of US&nbsp;Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the Obama administration, said the programme would help stop Mexican migrants from simply crossing again once they had been deported.

"It's a lot cheaper to just return Mexicans across the border," he said. "But the real benefit is the recidivism rate." A bus ride from Guadalajara to Nogales, a Mexican border city across from the US&nbsp;state of Arizona, can take more than a day.

The flights could be scaled up quickly in the coming weeks, said the DHS official, who was not authorized to speak publicly. The Mexican foreign ministry said the flights would begin on a regular basis in January.

The US&nbsp;official added the return flights may expand beyond Guadalajara, Mexico's second-biggest city, to other parts of Mexico.

Acting ICE Director Matt Albence said in a written statement on Thursday that the interior repatriations would allow Mexican nationals to be returned closer to their homes and discourage future border-crossing attempts.

The flight from Tucson to Guadalajara on Thursday carried approximately 150 Mexican deportees, according to ICE.

The United States has in recent years mainly deported Mexicans to border towns, although in the past it also flew them to cities in the interior.

The United States began flying Mexican deportees deep into Mexico on Thursday, and senior US and Guatemalan officials said Mexicans seeking US refuge might be sent to the Central American nation, in a renewed effort to slash border crossings.

The United States began flying Mexican deportees deep into Mexico on Thursday, and senior US and Guatemalan officials said Mexicans seeking US refuge might be sent to the Central American nation, in a renewed effort to slash border crossings. The flight carrying Mexican deportees from Tucson, Arizona, landed in the central city of Guadalajara around midday. One immigration shelter in the city said it had been informed of a likely influx of deportees. US President Donald Trump has made clamping down on unlawful migration a top priority of his three-year-old term in office and his 2020 re-election campaign. Numbers of Central American migrants apprehended at the border fell sharply in the second part of 2019 after Mexico deployed National Guard troops to stem the flow, under pressure from Trump. With fewer Central Americans at the border, US attention has turned to Mexicans crossing illegally or asking for asylum. Around 150,000 Mexican single adults were apprehended at the border in the fiscal year 2019, sharply down from previous decades but still enough to bother US immigration hawks. In another sign of the new focus on Mexicans, Acting Deputy US Department of Homeland Security Secretary Ken Cuccinelli said an agreement that lets US immigration officials send asylum seekers to Guatemala to request refuge there instead could also apply to Mexicans and other nationalities. "As we fully implement the agreement, all populations are being considered, including Mexican nationals," Cuccinelli said on Twitter. His comments were echoed by Guatemala's Interior Minister Enrique Degenhart, who told Reuters he had analysed whether Mexicans could be included in the programme, which is similar to the "safe third country" arrangement in Europe that outsources asylum to Turkey. Also Watch: Migrants gather at US-Mexico border for Christmas party × Degenhart said the idea of including Mexicans had not been implemented so far but could not be ruled out. "Right now, it is only being used with Central Americans," he said, pointing out that Mexicans were not part of the long-standing pact that allows Central Americans to move freely between each others' countries. Mexico's foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Cuccinelli and Degenhart's remarks. Flights Mexico said it had requested the flights to keep deportees away from dangerous border cities, while a senior DHS official said the flights were in response to rising numbers of Mexican nationals arrested at the US-Mexico border. Mexicans made up nearly half of all migrants caught between October and December, according to US Customs and Border Protection data. John Sandweg, a former acting director of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the Obama administration, said the programme would help stop Mexican migrants from simply crossing again once they had been deported. "It's a lot cheaper to just return Mexicans across the border," he said. "But the real benefit is the recidivism rate." A bus ride from Guadalajara to Nogales, a Mexican border city across from the US state of Arizona, can take more than a day. The flights could be scaled up quickly in the coming weeks, said the DHS official, who was not authorized to speak publicly. The Mexican foreign ministry said the flights would begin on a regular basis in January. The US official added the return flights may expand beyond Guadalajara, Mexico's second-biggest city, to other parts of Mexico. Acting ICE Director Matt Albence said in a written statement on Thursday that the interior repatriations would allow Mexican nationals to be returned closer to their homes and discourage future border-crossing attempts. The flight from Tucson to Guadalajara on Thursday carried approximately 150 Mexican deportees, according to ICE. The United States has in recent years mainly deported Mexicans to border towns, although in the past it also flew them to cities in the interior.

US deports Mexicans far from border, may send others to Guatemala

US President Donald Trump`s administration imposed another <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-president-donald-trump-announces-controversial-asylum-deal-with-guatemala-238748">obstacle for asylum-seekers </a>on Monday, finding that being persecuted based on threats against a family member is usually not enough to be granted asylum in the United States.

Attorney General William Barr issued a ruling that will set the standard for all immigration judges, using the same power his predecessors Jeff Sessions and Matthew Whitaker used to try to narrow the field of people potentially eligible for asylum.

The Trump administration is actively seeking to reduce the number of asylum cases, saying the system is overwhelmed by fraudulent claims. The number of people apprehended at the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-lets-trump-use-disputed-funds-of-25-billion-for-border-wall-238745">US-Mexico border</a> has surged under Trump, with many Central Americans asking for refuge in the United States even though the vast majority of their claims are ultimately denied in court. 
&nbsp; 
Unlike the federal judiciary, US immigration courts fall under Justice Department jurisdiction, and the attorney general can intervene in cases to set national legal precedent. Trump`s attorneys general have been more active than previous administrations in this practice.&nbsp;

As part of a wider effort&nbsp;to clamp down on immigration, the Trump administration has taken a series of measures recently to restrict asylum claims, including by issuing a rule requiring asylum candidates first to seek safe haven in a third country.

A federal judge in San Francisco blocked the new rule last week by issuing a preliminary injunction pending trial. The government on Monday filed a motion asking the judge to suspend the injunction.

In the family ties case, known as "Matter of L-E-A," Barr overruled a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals, finding that the board improperly ruled a Mexican was eligible for asylum protection because the threats against him came about only after a drug cartel first threatened his father.&nbsp;

Asylum law requires that claims be evaluated on a case-by-case basis if they can show their persecution was based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a "particular social group."

An immigration lawyer who represented L-E-A said immigration courts for decades have considered families to be a particular social group, "so suddenly reversing that trend is likely to affect thousands of cases," said Bradley Jenkins, a litigator for Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc.

But Barr`s decision found that virtually every asylum-seeker is a member of a family and that, "There is no evidence that Congress intended the term `particular social group` to cast so wide a net."&nbsp;

Decisions like the one Barr issued Monday can ultimately be appealed to federal appellate courts. In December, a US judge struck down a previous Trump administration decision aimed at denying asylum to victims of gang or domestic violence.&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump`s administration imposed another obstacle for asylum-seekers on Monday, finding that being persecuted based on threats against a family member is usually not enough to be granted asylum in the United States.

US President Donald Trump`s administration imposed another obstacle for asylum-seekers on Monday, finding that being persecuted based on threats against a family member is usually not enough to be granted asylum in the United States. Attorney General William Barr issued a ruling that will set the standard for all immigration judges, using the same power his predecessors Jeff Sessions and Matthew Whitaker used to try to narrow the field of people potentially eligible for asylum. The Trump administration is actively seeking to reduce the number of asylum cases, saying the system is overwhelmed by fraudulent claims. The number of people apprehended at the US-Mexico border has surged under Trump, with many Central Americans asking for refuge in the United States even though the vast majority of their claims are ultimately denied in court. Unlike the federal judiciary, US immigration courts fall under Justice Department jurisdiction, and the attorney general can intervene in cases to set national legal precedent. Trump`s attorneys general have been more active than previous administrations in this practice. As part of a wider effort to clamp down on immigration, the Trump administration has taken a series of measures recently to restrict asylum claims, including by issuing a rule requiring asylum candidates first to seek safe haven in a third country. A federal judge in San Francisco blocked the new rule last week by issuing a preliminary injunction pending trial. The government on Monday filed a motion asking the judge to suspend the injunction. In the family ties case, known as "Matter of L-E-A," Barr overruled a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals, finding that the board improperly ruled a Mexican was eligible for asylum protection because the threats against him came about only after a drug cartel first threatened his father. Asylum law requires that claims be evaluated on a case-by-case basis if they can show their persecution was based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a "particular social group." An immigration lawyer who represented L-E-A said immigration courts for decades have considered families to be a particular social group, "so suddenly reversing that trend is likely to affect thousands of cases," said Bradley Jenkins, a litigator for Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc. But Barr`s decision found that virtually every asylum-seeker is a member of a family and that, "There is no evidence that Congress intended the term `particular social group` to cast so wide a net." Decisions like the one Barr issued Monday can ultimately be appealed to federal appellate courts. In December, a US judge struck down a previous Trump administration decision aimed at denying asylum to victims of gang or domestic violence.

Trump administration enacts another obstacle to asylum cases

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-to-propose-plan-to-make-us-immigration-more-merit-based-219054">&nbsp;President Donald Trump</a> said on Monday that US authorities would begin next week removing <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/new-trump-immigration-plan-may-increase-visas-for-highly-skilled-workers-213463">millions of immigrants</a> who are in the United States illegally.

"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 tweeted, referring to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. "They will be removed as fast as they come in," he said. He did not offer specifics.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Next week ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States. They will be removed as fast as they come in. Mexico, using their strong immigration laws, is doing a very good job of stopping people.......
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1140791400658870274?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 18, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

There are an estimated 12 million immigrants who are in the United States illegally, mainly from Mexico and Central America.

Under a deal reached earlier this month, Mexico has agreed to take Central American immigrants seeking asylum in the United States until their cases are heard in US courts.

The agreement, which included Mexico pledging to deploy National Guard troops to stop Central American immigrants from reaching the US border, averted a Trump threat to hit Mexican imports with tariffs.

Trump also said in the tweet that Guatemala "is getting ready to sign a Safe-Third Agreement."

US Vice President Mike Pence suggested last week that Guatemala could receive asylum seekers from its neighbours as a so-called safe third country.

Details of the plan have not been made public, and Guatemala has not publicly confirmed talks that the US State Department said were taking place in Guatemala on Friday.

US rights group Human Rights First said, however, it was "simply ludicrous" for the United States to assert that Guatemala was capable of protecting refugees when its own citizens are fleeing violence.

Mexico has agreed that if its measures to stem the flow of migrants are unsuccessful, it will discuss signing a safe third country agreement with the United States.&nbsp;

President Donald Trump said on Monday that US authorities would begin next week removing millions of immigrants who are in the United States illegally. "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 tweeted, referring to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

President Donald Trump said on Monday that US authorities would begin next week removing millions of immigrants who are in the United States illegally. "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 tweeted, referring to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. "They will be removed as fast as they come in," he said. He did not offer specifics. Next week ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States. They will be removed as fast as they come in. Mexico, using their strong immigration laws, is doing a very good job of stopping people....... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 18, 2019 × There are an estimated 12 million immigrants who are in the United States illegally, mainly from Mexico and Central America. Under a deal reached earlier this month, Mexico has agreed to take Central American immigrants seeking asylum in the United States until their cases are heard in US courts. The agreement, which included Mexico pledging to deploy National Guard troops to stop Central American immigrants from reaching the US border, averted a Trump threat to hit Mexican imports with tariffs. Trump also said in the tweet that Guatemala "is getting ready to sign a Safe-Third Agreement." US Vice President Mike Pence suggested last week that Guatemala could receive asylum seekers from its neighbours as a so-called safe third country. Details of the plan have not been made public, and Guatemala has not publicly confirmed talks that the US State Department said were taking place in Guatemala on Friday. US rights group Human Rights First said, however, it was "simply ludicrous" for the United States to assert that Guatemala was capable of protecting refugees when its own citizens are fleeing violence. Mexico has agreed that if its measures to stem the flow of migrants are unsuccessful, it will discuss signing a safe third country agreement with the United States.

US will begin removing millions of illegal immigrants, tweets Donald Trump

<a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/world/arctic-nations-to-meet-amid-tensions-over-environment-resources-216342&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwibwv_zw4niAhUMQo8KHfgHB3sQFjAAegQIBhAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw0RSXZzBzr0GYhrP-LBD-3g">Denmark's </a>centre-right prime minister, currently governing with the support of an anti-immigration party, on Tuesday called a general election for June 5, with the left-wing opposition leading opinion polls.

"I want to use all of my strength, my capabilities and my experience to continue to lead Denmark. And I ask Danes to re-elect me in the legislative elections to be held on June 5," Lars Lokke Rasmussen said in parliament.

The latest opinion polls credit the opposition left-wing bloc, headed by the Social Democrats, with 54 per cent of voter support, compared to 46 per cent for Rasmussen and his right-wing bloc.

Rasmussen was required to hold legislative elections at the latest by June 17 when his four-year term ends.

The right-wing has struggled in the polls as Danes clamour for a change and, more importantly, amid an erosion of support for the far-right Danish People's Party.

Its longstanding anti-immigration line has been broadly adopted by most political parties across the board in recent years, including the Social Democrats.

Observers suggest that if the Social Democrats were to emerge as the biggest party, they would likely form a minority government that would cooperate with the right-wing bloc on immigration issues and with the left on other questions.

Denmark's centre-right prime minister, currently governing with the support of an anti-immigration party, on Tuesday called a general election for June 5, with the left-wing opposition leading opinion polls.

Denmark's centre-right prime minister, currently governing with the support of an anti-immigration party, on Tuesday called a general election for June 5, with the left-wing opposition leading opinion polls. "I want to use all of my strength, my capabilities and my experience to continue to lead Denmark. And I ask Danes to re-elect me in the legislative elections to be held on June 5," Lars Lokke Rasmussen said in parliament. The latest opinion polls credit the opposition left-wing bloc, headed by the Social Democrats, with 54 per cent of voter support, compared to 46 per cent for Rasmussen and his right-wing bloc. Rasmussen was required to hold legislative elections at the latest by June 17 when his four-year term ends. The right-wing has struggled in the polls as Danes clamour for a change and, more importantly, amid an erosion of support for the far-right Danish People's Party. Its longstanding anti-immigration line has been broadly adopted by most political parties across the board in recent years, including the Social Democrats. Observers suggest that if the Social Democrats were to emerge as the biggest party, they would likely form a minority government that would cooperate with the right-wing bloc on immigration issues and with the left on other questions.

Denmark PM Rasmussen calls election for June 5, immigration in focus

A merit-based immigration proposal being put together by White House senior adviser Jared Kushner could lead to an increase in US visas for highly skilled workers, sources familiar with the effort said on Wednesday.

Kushner is expected to present the comprehensive plan next week to <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/world/mueller-report-inconclusive-on-trumps-obstruction-of-justice-charge-211626&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjmj9SPq-vhAhUv6XMBHXd2A2wQFjABegQIDhAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw1S0qF8jZvYevvRyNi0-ttv">President Donald Trump</a>, who will decide whether to adopt it as his official position or send it back for changes, the sources said.

The plan does not propose ways to address young people who came to the United States illegally as children who were protected by President Barack Obama in the 2014 programme known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), or those people who have Temporary Protected Status, the sources said.

Democrats, whose support the White House would need to advance any kind of immigration legislation through Congress, have insisted that the DACA recipients be protected.

Kushner has held about 50 listening sessions with conservative groups on immigration, a senior administration official said.

He has been working with White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett and policy adviser Stephen Miller on the plan and the sources said there has been some intense behind-the-scenes jockeying about the plan.

At a Time magazine forum in New York on Tuesday, Kushner said he was working well with Miller, an immigration hawk, on the topic.

The two men are both long-time Trump advisers.

"Stephen and I haven`t had any fights," he said with a smile.

That drew scepticism from immigration advocate Marshall Fitz of the Emerson Collective, who gave Kushner credit for advancing criminal justice reform but said immigration was a dramatically different issue that Miller was dominating at the White House.

"It`s impossible to see how Kushner could navigate an issue this freighted with history and central to the president`s re-election strategy in a way that would actually move the ball forward," Fitz said.

As a White House candidate in 2016 and throughout his presidency, Trump has advocated a hard-line policy on immigration, pushing for a wall to be built on the US-Mexico border and using bruising rhetoric to describe people who have fled Central American countries to enter the United States.

Republicans have largely supported his immigration proposals, but the latest White House plan aims to bring them together on a broader basis.

Some in the US&nbsp;business community has asked that the number of highly skilled visas be raised to attract more employees from abroad for specialised jobs amid a booming US&nbsp;economy.

Trump himself has talked of the need to bring in more skilled workers.

The immigration plan would either leave the number of highly skilled visas each year at the same level or raise it slightly, the sources said.

The overall goal is to reshape the visa programme into a more merit-based system, a key Trump goal. Officials working on the plan have been reviewing the systems used by Canada and Australia as possible models for the Trump effort.

The group has been working on a guest-worker programme as part of the proposal to address the US&nbsp;agriculture community`s need for seasonal labour while not hurting American workers, but nothing has been finalised, the sources said.

Trump has sought to court farmers in key battleground states to boost his chances of re-election in 2020.

The proposal will include recommendations for modernizing ports of entry along the US&nbsp;border to ensure safe trade while preventing illegal activity.

It will also address asylum laws to take account of Trump`s desire to reduce the number of people who overstay their visas, the sources said.

Kushner, who is Trump`s son-in-law, is also the main architect of a Middle East peace proposal that the president is expected to unveil this summer.

His objective on the immigration plan at the very least is to have a document that represents the president`s immigration policy and provide something that Republicans can rally around. 
&nbsp;

A merit-based immigration proposal being put together by White House senior adviser Jared Kushner could lead to an increase in US visas for highly skilled workers, sources familiar with the effort said on Wednesday.

A merit-based immigration proposal being put together by White House senior adviser Jared Kushner could lead to an increase in US visas for highly skilled workers, sources familiar with the effort said on Wednesday. Kushner is expected to present the comprehensive plan next week to President Donald Trump, who will decide whether to adopt it as his official position or send it back for changes, the sources said. The plan does not propose ways to address young people who came to the United States illegally as children who were protected by President Barack Obama in the 2014 programme known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), or those people who have Temporary Protected Status, the sources said. Democrats, whose support the White House would need to advance any kind of immigration legislation through Congress, have insisted that the DACA recipients be protected. Kushner has held about 50 listening sessions with conservative groups on immigration, a senior administration official said. He has been working with White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett and policy adviser Stephen Miller on the plan and the sources said there has been some intense behind-the-scenes jockeying about the plan. At a Time magazine forum in New York on Tuesday, Kushner said he was working well with Miller, an immigration hawk, on the topic. The two men are both long-time Trump advisers. "Stephen and I haven`t had any fights," he said with a smile. That drew scepticism from immigration advocate Marshall Fitz of the Emerson Collective, who gave Kushner credit for advancing criminal justice reform but said immigration was a dramatically different issue that Miller was dominating at the White House. "It`s impossible to see how Kushner could navigate an issue this freighted with history and central to the president`s re-election strategy in a way that would actually move the ball forward," Fitz said. As a White House candidate in 2016 and throughout his presidency, Trump has advocated a hard-line policy on immigration, pushing for a wall to be built on the US-Mexico border and using bruising rhetoric to describe people who have fled Central American countries to enter the United States. Republicans have largely supported his immigration proposals, but the latest White House plan aims to bring them together on a broader basis. Some in the US business community has asked that the number of highly skilled visas be raised to attract more employees from abroad for specialised jobs amid a booming US economy. Trump himself has talked of the need to bring in more skilled workers. The immigration plan would either leave the number of highly skilled visas each year at the same level or raise it slightly, the sources said. The overall goal is to reshape the visa programme into a more merit-based system, a key Trump goal. Officials working on the plan have been reviewing the systems used by Canada and Australia as possible models for the Trump effort. The group has been working on a guest-worker programme as part of the proposal to address the US agriculture community`s need for seasonal labour while not hurting American workers, but nothing has been finalised, the sources said. Trump has sought to court farmers in key battleground states to boost his chances of re-election in 2020. The proposal will include recommendations for modernizing ports of entry along the US border to ensure safe trade while preventing illegal activity. It will also address asylum laws to take account of Trump`s desire to reduce the number of people who overstay their visas, the sources said. Kushner, who is Trump`s son-in-law, is also the main architect of a Middle East peace proposal that the president is expected to unveil this summer. His objective on the immigration plan at the very least is to have a document that represents the president`s immigration policy and provide something that Republicans can rally around.

New Trump immigration plan may increase visas for highly-skilled workers

As Donald Trump cuts off aid to El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala and as Pope Francis, during a visit to Morocco states that physical barriers won’t solve the migration issue, it is perhaps time to probe into the nature of migration, especially into the West, its causes and tease out a potential solution to it.&nbsp;

The reasons behind migration are multiple. The salient of these are economic, political and security ones. Often times, those who migrate seek a better life for themselves and their families. Some flee their respective domiciles or countries of origin to escape persecution, harassment and, at times, there are security reasons for the phenomenon.

The general trend and direction of migration has been toward the West. While economists &nbsp;and their analyses thereof have suggested that, on balance, migration benefits host societies, there has been a reaction in the societies of the West against it. The reasons are, in the main cultural and, to some extent, social. Till the advent of the wave of globalisation that roughly began in the fourth quarter of the 20th century, Western societies were, by and large, homogenous.

Yes, there were waves of migration in the Western world but these were usually intra-western. But, as globalisation gained impetus and momentum, with the concomitant impact on the nation-state, wherein borders became somewhat porous, migration into the West gathered steam. The somewhat homogenous character of Western societies frazzled and the idea and practice of multiculturalism came into being.

This development was complemented by a structural economic shift within the West that, among other things, upended various paradigms, causing a massive churn in labor markets and even capital. One egregious effect was the migration of manufacturing jobs to low wage labor countries like China. In the absence of robust welfare mechanisms say, in a country like the United States, the hollowing out of manufacturing, causes deep angst and issues there. In Europe, because there was a robust welfare state in operation, it was welfare dependency of migrants, among other things, that led to a jaundiced view of migration.

The increase in the quantum of migration also caused a degree of cultural angst in Western societies. The dominant superstructure of these societies felt threatened by the “onslaught” of immigrants who they felt were “ different”. The attendant anxiety begat what is called “ identity politics” and presaged populism in the West. &nbsp;This, in turn, led to the “Othering” of migrants and its corollaries, like Donald Trump’s campaign pledge to build a wall that would keep migrants and refugees away, tightening of borders and immigration policies and the rise of far-right political parties.

 
All said and done though, these stringent measures are neither in the nature of a palliative nor would these deter migration, a phenomenon that is as hoary as history itself. Migrants in and within the West are there to stay and migrant flows, which might gyrate to an ebb and flow will never cease. &nbsp;What then is the solution to the issue?

While there can be no definitive answers to the “ problem” posed by migration, some tentative ones can be posited. Consider the economic aspect first. By and large, most people would like to remain rooted to their locales and places of origin, but economic conditions, sometimes, compel them to move. If, however, these conditions, are significantly and substantially improved and ameliorated, then an incentive to remain “rooted” would be generated. Perhaps the only way that economic growth and development thereof can be generated is through freer trade and its various mechanisms. While it is no panacea to migration but a significant pull to remain and not migrate can ensue.

But, there remains the factor of insecurity and political volatility in places blighted by these which propel migration. To obviate this, global governance institutions like the United Nations and countries of import like the United States need to stay engaged and develop robust conflict resolution paradigms to deal with and resolve conflicts. These policy measures need to be complementary.

Last but not least, the onus also lies on the host societies of the West to actually take a more sanguine view of migrants and migration. People are people: they are the same everywhere. It is cultural configurations that make them “different” and there is nothing organic about identity. Migration, in this sense, causes psychic and other changes in people which makes them, over time, acceptable of the mores and values of host societies.&nbsp;

This is not to suggest that migrants must become clones (or mimic men, in V S Naipaul’s formulation) &nbsp;of the members of their host societies but is a reference to a synthesis of their “original” cultures and identities and that of their host societies. The synthesis in contention would create the much-required template and platform for dialogue between migrants and host societies. It is this dialogue along with allied policy grids that can undercut the “Othering” of migrants, and identity politics thereby leading to societies that are at peace within and without.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.) 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

As Donald Trump cuts off aid to El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala and as Pope Francis, during a visit to Morocco states that physical barriers won’t solve the migration issue, it is perhaps time to probe into the nature of migration, especially into the West, its causes and tease out a potential solution to it.

As Donald Trump cuts off aid to El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala and as Pope Francis, during a visit to Morocco states that physical barriers won’t solve the migration issue, it is perhaps time to probe into the nature of migration, especially into the West, its causes and tease out a potential solution to it. The reasons behind migration are multiple. The salient of these are economic, political and security ones. Often times, those who migrate seek a better life for themselves and their families. Some flee their respective domiciles or countries of origin to escape persecution, harassment and, at times, there are security reasons for the phenomenon. The general trend and direction of migration has been toward the West. While economists and their analyses thereof have suggested that, on balance, migration benefits host societies, there has been a reaction in the societies of the West against it. The reasons are, in the main cultural and, to some extent, social. Till the advent of the wave of globalisation that roughly began in the fourth quarter of the 20th century, Western societies were, by and large, homogenous. Yes, there were waves of migration in the Western world but these were usually intra-western. But, as globalisation gained impetus and momentum, with the concomitant impact on the nation-state, wherein borders became somewhat porous, migration into the West gathered steam. The somewhat homogenous character of Western societies frazzled and the idea and practice of multiculturalism came into being. This development was complemented by a structural economic shift within the West that, among other things, upended various paradigms, causing a massive churn in labor markets and even capital. One egregious effect was the migration of manufacturing jobs to low wage labor countries like China. In the absence of robust welfare mechanisms say, in a country like the United States, the hollowing out of manufacturing, causes deep angst and issues there. In Europe, because there was a robust welfare state in operation, it was welfare dependency of migrants, among other things, that led to a jaundiced view of migration. The increase in the quantum of migration also caused a degree of cultural angst in Western societies. The dominant superstructure of these societies felt threatened by the “onslaught” of immigrants who they felt were “ different”. The attendant anxiety begat what is called “ identity politics” and presaged populism in the West. This, in turn, led to the “Othering” of migrants and its corollaries, like Donald Trump’s campaign pledge to build a wall that would keep migrants and refugees away, tightening of borders and immigration policies and the rise of far-right political parties. All said and done though, these stringent measures are neither in the nature of a palliative nor would these deter migration, a phenomenon that is as hoary as history itself. Migrants in and within the West are there to stay and migrant flows, which might gyrate to an ebb and flow will never cease. What then is the solution to the issue? While there can be no definitive answers to the “ problem” posed by migration, some tentative ones can be posited. Consider the economic aspect first. By and large, most people would like to remain rooted to their locales and places of origin, but economic conditions, sometimes, compel them to move. If, however, these conditions, are significantly and substantially improved and ameliorated, then an incentive to remain “rooted” would be generated. Perhaps the only way that economic growth and development thereof can be generated is through freer trade and its various mechanisms. While it is no panacea to migration but a significant pull to remain and not migrate can ensue. But, there remains the factor of insecurity and political volatility in places blighted by these which propel migration. To obviate this, global governance institutions like the United Nations and countries of import like the United States need to stay engaged and develop robust conflict resolution paradigms to deal with and resolve conflicts. These policy measures need to be complementary. Last but not least, the onus also lies on the host societies of the West to actually take a more sanguine view of migrants and migration. People are people: they are the same everywhere. It is cultural configurations that make them “different” and there is nothing organic about identity. Migration, in this sense, causes psychic and other changes in people which makes them, over time, acceptable of the mores and values of host societies. This is not to suggest that migrants must become clones (or mimic men, in V S Naipaul’s formulation) of the members of their host societies but is a reference to a synthesis of their “original” cultures and identities and that of their host societies. The synthesis in contention would create the much-required template and platform for dialogue between migrants and host societies. It is this dialogue along with allied policy grids that can undercut the “Othering” of migrants, and identity politics thereby leading to societies that are at peace within and without. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Integrated policies and dialogue needed to tackle migration crisis

The Supreme Court dealt President <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-government-shuts-down-at-midnight-as-house-adjourns-with-no-deal-185738">Donald Trump</a>'s attempt to crack down on illegal immigration a blow Friday when it rejected a White House bid to implement his asylum ban on Central Americans.

The high court declined to overturn a block placed by the San Francisco federal appeals court on <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/hours-ahead-of-midnight-deadline-trump-meets-republican-senators-to-thrash-out-wall-funding-dilemma-185729">Trump</a>'s executive order to automatically reject asylum requests from migrants crossing the US border from Mexico.

The court made no comment in its ruling but noted that four of the nine justices were in favour of lifting the lower court's stay and letting Trump enforce the ban, while lawsuits over it go ahead.

The four backing the president were Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

On November 9 Trump signed the order, which aimed at halting the flow of migrants mainly from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador crossing into the United States without authorization.

Many of them request asylum due to pervasive violence and poverty in their home countries.

Trump's order was immediately challenged by rights groups who said it violated international standards and US law on asylum. A lower court placed a stay on enactment, which was then supported by the appeals court.

The loss Friday in the Supreme Court might not make much difference to migrants.&nbsp;

While they can still turn themselves in and request asylum after crossing the border, on Thursday the Trump administration announced that all illegal immigrants will be pushed back into Mexico while their requests are being processed.

The administration hopes the long waiting time for a ruling on asylum applications, and being forced to stay in Mexico, will deter others from making the long trip to the border from their home countries.

The Supreme Court dealt President Donald Trump's attempt to crack down on illegal immigration a blow Friday when it rejected a White House bid to implement his asylum ban on Central Americans.

The Supreme Court dealt President Donald Trump's attempt to crack down on illegal immigration a blow Friday when it rejected a White House bid to implement his asylum ban on Central Americans. The high court declined to overturn a block placed by the San Francisco federal appeals court on Trump's executive order to automatically reject asylum requests from migrants crossing the US border from Mexico. The court made no comment in its ruling but noted that four of the nine justices were in favour of lifting the lower court's stay and letting Trump enforce the ban, while lawsuits over it go ahead. The four backing the president were Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. On November 9 Trump signed the order, which aimed at halting the flow of migrants mainly from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador crossing into the United States without authorization. Many of them request asylum due to pervasive violence and poverty in their home countries. Trump's order was immediately challenged by rights groups who said it violated international standards and US law on asylum. A lower court placed a stay on enactment, which was then supported by the appeals court. The loss Friday in the Supreme Court might not make much difference to migrants. While they can still turn themselves in and request asylum after crossing the border, on Thursday the Trump administration announced that all illegal immigrants will be pushed back into Mexico while their requests are being processed. The administration hopes the long waiting time for a ruling on asylum applications, and being forced to stay in Mexico, will deter others from making the long trip to the border from their home countries.

Supreme Court upholds block on Trump's asylum ban