immigration law

BUENOS AIRES — After a bruising World Cup defeat gave way to what many Argentines saw as a sweeping wave of hatred against their country, Argentine President Javier Milei on Thursday signed an emergency decree empowering the government to deny entry to or expel foreigners who incite discrimination or violence against Argentines because of their nationality.

The measure adds new grounds to Argentina’s immigration law, allowing authorities to bar, deport and revoke visas of people found to have promoted hatred against Argentines in spoken or written statements or who have desecrated national symbols.

“In light of recent displays of hostility toward the Argentine Republic and Argentines, the national government reaffirms that the defense of the nation, its citizens and its symbols is non-negotiable,” the president’s office said. “Anyone who attacks the Argentine Republic is not welcome in our country.”

The move marks a sharp shift for a country that has long prided itself on welcoming immigrants. Argentina’s Constitution explicitly encourages immigration, and for decades the country has offered foreigners broad civil rights and relatively easy access to legal residency, public education and healthcare.

Milei’s office cast the decree as a response to weeks of criticism from celebrities, opposing fans and social media users after controversial refereeing decisions fueled speculation that FIFA had tilted the tournament in favor of the reigning champions and superstar Lionel Messi.

Condemnations of occasionally aggressive Argentine fans and the team’s roughhousing on the pitch soon broadened into attacks on Argentine society as a whole, amplifying long-standing criticism that Argentines view themselves as culturally and economically superior to their Latin American neighbors. Online petitions to expel Argentina from the World Cup drew hundreds of thousands of signatures.

The backlash intensified when Argentina players and staff became involved in a post-match brawl with Spanish opponents after the World Cup final.

FIFA, global soccer’s governing body, on Wednesday opened disciplinary proceedings against the Argentine Football Assn. over the scuffle, as well as over alleged racist abuse and fan misconduct. Players also faced a FIFA investigation into their parading of a banner that asserted Argentina’s claim to the British-controlled Falkland Islands after the team’s semifinal victory over England.

Milei, a close ally of President Trump’s, has described the torrent of criticism as an “anti-Argentina campaign.” He alleged without evidence last week that the left-wing governments of Brazil and Mexico and the U.S. Democratic Party had financed the effort to stigmatize Argentina to discredit his libertarian government.

His accusations and insults triggered a diplomatic crisis with neighbor Brazil, which recalled its ambassador to Argentina last weekend.

Thursday’s decree says the punishments don’t apply to ideological disagreement or political, academic or civic criticism protected under Argentina’s Constitution.

But it leaves unanswered how officials will distinguish protected speech from prohibited hate speech, whether immigration authorities will review foreigners’ social media activity and how aggressively the new powers will be enforced against tourists and longtime residents.

Debre writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a Trump administration appeal and decide if “criminal aliens” may be held indefinitely while they fight deportation.

The case to be heard in the fall could give the administration more power to arrest and hold immigrants, including green card holders, who have criminal records.

The government’s lawyers say immigration laws call for deporting non-citizens with “aggravated felonies” on their records. And in such cases, they say these people may be held for months or even years while their claims are before the immigration courts.

Judges have been split on whether non-citizens fighting deportation have a right to a bond hearing and a chance to go free if they pose no risk to public safety.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled for a pair of green card holders who faced deportation to the Dominican Republic and Jamaica. Both had been convicted of assaults that were characterized as aggravated felonies under the immigration laws.

However, the appeals court said their “prolonged detention” was unconstitutional if they were given no bond hearing and no chance to go free.

They were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, whose lawyers urged the court to turn down the appeal.

“For the first time in this litigation, the government argues that civil detention ‘does not implicate any fundamental rights’ and so the Due Process Clause affords the detained men no protections—substantive or procedural,” they wrote.

In the past, they said the Supreme Court had accepted the “bedrock principle” that detained persons may have a right to seek their release on bond.

One of the two men had left this country and returned to Jamaica, the ACLU lawyers said. But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer urged the court to rule on the issue.

The detained men “have no procedural due-process right to a bond hearing on whether they are a flight risk or danger to the community,” he told the court. “Individualized findings about flight risk and danger are irrelevant” under the immigration laws which called for “mandatory detention based on their aggravated-felony convictions alone.”