migrant

WASHINGTON — When President Trump’s administration last month awarded a contract worth up to $1.2 billion to build and operate what it says will become the nation’s largest immigration detention complex, it didn’t turn to a large government contractor or even a firm that specializes in private prisons.

Instead, it handed the project on a military base to Acquisition Logistics LLC, a small business that has no listed experience running a correction facility and had never won a federal contract worth more than $16 million. The company also lacks a functioning website and lists as its address a modest home in suburban Virginia owned by a 77-year-old retired Navy flight officer.

The mystery over the award only deepened last week as the new facility began to accept its first detainees. The Pentagon has refused to release the contract or explain why it selected Acquisition Logistics over a dozen other bidders to build the massive tent camp at Fort Bliss in west Texas. At least one competitor has filed a complaint.

The secretive — and brisk — contracting process is emblematic, experts said, of the government’s broader rush to fulfill the Republican president’s pledge to arrest and deport an estimated 10 million migrants living in the U.S. without permanent legal status. As part of that push, the government is turning increasingly to the military to handle tasks that had traditionally been left to civilian agencies.

A member of Congress who recently toured the camp said she was concerned that such a small and inexperienced firm had been entrusted to build and run a facility expected to house up to 5,000 migrants.

“It’s far too easy for standards to slip,” said Rep. Veronica Escobar, a Democrat whose district includes Fort Bliss. “Private facilities far too frequently operate with a profit margin in mind as opposed to a governmental facility.”

Attorney Joshua Schnell, who specializes in federal contracting law, said he was troubled that the Trump administration has provided so little information about the facility.

“The lack of transparency about this contract leads to legitimate questions about why the Army would award such a large contract to a company without a website or any other publicly available information demonstrating its ability to perform such a complicated project,” he said.

Ken A. Wagner, the president and CEO of Acquisition Logistics, did not respond to phone messages or emails. No one answered the door at his three-bedroom house listed as his company’s headquarters. Virginia records list Wagner as an owner of the business, though it’s unclear whether he might have partners.

Army declines to release contract

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth approved using Fort Bliss for the new detention center, and the administration has hopes to build more at other bases. A spokesperson for the Army declined to discuss its deal with Acquisition Logistics or reveal details about the camp’s construction, citing the litigation over the company’s qualifications.

The Department of Homeland Security, which includes U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, declined to answer questions about the detention camp it oversees.

Named Camp East Montana for the closest road, the facility is being built in the sand and scrub Chihuahuan Desert, where summertime temperatures can exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit and heat-related deaths are common. The 60-acre site is near the U.S.-Mexico border and the El Paso International Airport, a key hub for deportation flights.

The camp has drawn comparisons to “Alligator Alcatraz,” a $245 million tent complex erected to hold ICE detainees in the Florida Everglades. That facility has been the subject of complaints about unsanitary conditions and lawsuits. A federal judge recently ordered that facility to be shut down.

The vast majority of the roughly 57,000 migrants detained by ICE are housed at private prisons operated by companies like Florida’s Geo Group and Tennessee-based CoreCivic. As those facilities fill up, ICE is also exploring temporary options at military bases in California, New York and Utah.

At Fort Bliss, construction began within days of the Army issuing the contract on July 18. Site work began months earlier, before Congress had passed Trump’s big tax and spending cuts bill, which includes a record $45 billion for immigration enforcement. The Defense Department announcement specified only that the Army was financing the initial $232 million for the first 1,000 beds at the complex.

Three white tents, each about 810 feet long, have been erected, according to satellite imagery examined by the Associated Press. A half dozen smaller buildings surround them.

Setareh Ghandehari, a spokesperson for the advocacy group Detention Watch, said the use of military bases hearkens back to World War II, when Japanese Americans were imprisoned at Army camps including Fort Bliss. She said military facilities are especially prone to abuse and neglect because families and loved ones have difficulty accessing them.

“Conditions at all detention facilities are inherently awful,” Ghandehari said. “But when there’s less access and oversight, it creates the potential for even more abuse.”

Company will be responsible for security

A June 9 solicitation notice for the Fort Bliss project specified the contractor will be responsible for building and operating the detention center, including providing security and medical care. The document also requires strict secrecy, ordering the contractor inform ICE to respond to any calls from members of Congress or the news media.

The bidding was open only to small firms such as Acquisition Logistics, which receives preferential status because it’s classified as a veteran and Hispanic-owned small disadvantaged business.

Though Trump’s administration has fought to ban diversity, equity and inclusion programs, federal contracting rules include set-asides for small businesses owned by women or minorities. For a firm to compete for such contracts, at least 51% of it must be owned by people belonging to a federally designated disadvantaged racial or ethnic group.

One of the losing bidders, Texas-based Gemini Tech Services, filed a protest challenging the award and the Army’s rushed construction timeline with the U.S. Government Accountability Office, Congress’ independent oversight arm that resolves such disputes.

Gemini alleges Acquisition Logistics lacks the experience, staffing and resources to perform the work, according to a person familiar with the complaint who wasn’t authorized to discuss the matter and spoke on the condition of anonymity. Acquisition Logistics’ past jobs include repairing small boats for the Air Force, providing information technology support to the Defense Department and building temporary offices to aid with immigration enforcement, federal records show.

Gemini and its lawyer didn’t respond to messages seeking comment.

A ruling by the GAO on whether to sustain, dismiss or require corrective action is not expected before November. A legal appeal is also pending with a U.S. federal court in Washington.

Schnell, the contracting lawyer, said Acquisitions Logistics may be working with a larger company. Geo Group Inc. and CoreCivic Corp., the nation’s biggest for-profit prison operators, have expressed interest in contracting with the Pentagon to house migrants.

In an earnings call this month, Geo Group CEO George Zoley said his company had teamed up with an established Pentagon contractor. Zoley didn’t name the company, and Geo Group didn’t respond to repeated requests asking with whom it had partnered.

A spokesperson for CoreCivic said it wasn’t partnering with Acquisition Logistics or Gemini.

Biesecker and Goodman write for the Associated Press. Goodman reported from Miami. AP writer Alan Suderman in Richmond, Va., and Morgan Lee in Santa Fe, N.M., contributed to this report.

NIGEL Farage today appeared to row back on his pledge to include women and children in illegal migrant deportations.

The Reform leader said the two groups would be “exempt” from being sent packing for five years – but not “forever”.

2

2

On Tuesday Mr Farage declared that under his mass deportation plan, 600,000 illegal migrants, including females of all ages, would have no right to stay in Britain.

But pushed on the issue again at a press conference in Edinburgh today, he clarified:  “I was very, very clear yesterday in what I said, that deportation of illegal immigrants – we are not even discussing women and children at this stage.

“I didn’t say exempt forever, but at this stage it’s not part of our plan for the next five years.”

It comes as the Taliban confirmed it is “ready and willing” to strike an illegal migrant returns deal with Mr Farage.

A senior official suggested the extremist group would ask for aid to support deported Afghans instead of money.

The official told The Telegraph: “We are ready and willing to receive and embrace whoever he [Nigel Farage] sends us.

“We are prepared to work with anyone who can help end the struggles of Afghan refugees, as we know many of them do not have a good life abroad.

“We will not take money to accept our own people, but we welcome aid to support newcomers, since there are challenges in accommodating and feeding those returning from Iran and Pakistan.

“Afghanistan is home to all Afghans, and the Islamic Emirate is determined to make this country a place where everyone – those already here, those returning, or those being sent back from the West by Mr Farage or anyone else – can live with dignity.”

The Taliban official also suggested it will be easier for Afghanistan to “deal” with Reform than Labour.

He said: “We will have to see what Mr Farage does when or if he becomes prime minister of Britain, but since his views are different, it may be easier to deal with him than with the current ones.

 “We will accept anyone he sends, whether they are legal or illegal refugees in Britain.”

The Taliban are hardline Islamist militants who seized back control of Afghanistan in 2021 after two decades of war.

They enforce brutal Sharia law, with strict rules on women, media and daily life, backed by violence and fear.

Branded terrorists by the West, they’re accused of harbouring extremists and crushing human rights while clinging to power.

Mr Farage yesterday vowed to deport 600,000 illegal migrants in his first term in office – in a crackdown he claims will save taxpayers billions.

The Reform UK boss said the public mood over Channel crossings was “a mix between total despair and rising anger”, warning of a “genuine threat to public order” unless Britain acts fast.

This morning Tory Chairman Kevin Hollinrake confirmed his party would also “potentially” look to strike a returns agreement with the Taliban.

He added that his party’s deportation plan, which was published in May, is “far more comprehensive than the one we’ve seen from Reform, in that it dealt with both legal migration and illegal migration”.

Unveiling a five-year emergency programme, dubbed Operation Restoring Justice, Mr Farage yesterday tore into what he called an “invasion” on Britain’s borders and pledged the boldest deportation plan ever put forward by a UK party.

Speaking at an aircraft hangar in Oxfordshire, Mr Farage declared: “If you come to the UK illegally, you will be detained and deported and never, ever allowed to stay, period. 

“That is our big message from today, and we are the first party to put out plans that could actually make that work.”

Reform’s plan centres on a new Illegal Migration (Mass Deportation) Bill, which would make it the Home Secretary’s legal duty to remove anyone who arrives unlawfully, and strip courts and judges of the power to block flights. 

Britain would quit the European Convention on Human Rights, scrap the Human Rights Act and suspend the Refugee Convention for five years.

Reform would also make re-entry after deportation a crime carrying up to five years in jail, enforce a lifetime ban on returning, and make tearing up ID papers punishable by the same penalty.

Mr Farage said women and children would be detained and removed under the plans, with “phase one” focusing on men and women and unaccompanied minors deported “towards the latter half of that five years”.

He even raised the prospect that children born in Britain to parents who arrived illegally could also be deported, but admitted it would be “complex”. 

He said: “How far back you go with this is the difficulty, and I accept that… I’m not standing here telling you all of this is easy, all of this is straightforward.”

There would also be a six-month “Assisted Voluntary Return Window” with cash incentives to leave before Border Force begins US-style raids. Mr Farage said: “Will Border Force be seeking out people who are here illegally, possibly many of them working in the criminal economy? 

“Yes, it’s what normal countries do all over the world. 

“What sane country would allow undocumented young males to break into its country, to put them up in hotels, they even get dental care? How about that?

“Most people can’t get an NHS dentist. This is not what normal countries do.”

The scheme would also see prefab detention camps built on surplus RAF and MoD land, holding up to 24,000 people within 18 months. 

Inmates would be housed in two-man blocks with food halls and medical suites – and would not be allowed out.

Five deportation flights would take off every day, with RAF planes on standby if charter jets were blocked. 

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was wrongly deported to a notorious El Salvador prison in March due to an “admin error”, has been detained by US immigration authorities again and now faces another potential and immediate deportation by the Trump administration.

MIGRANT protests have broken out across UK cities today, as demonstrators clash with police.

It comes following a landmark ruling on the use of the Epping hotel.

3

3

3

A number of cities will see demonstrations over the weekend, primarily centred on so-called asylum hotels, with an estimated 27 protests expected over the bank holiday weekend.

A protest at Castle Park in Bristol saw mounted police officers clashing with demonstrators.

The demonstration was led by Abolish Asylum System, with anti-racism counter protesters also present.

Another protest in Horley, Surrey saw around 200 anti-immigration protesters draped in St George’s and Union flags.

They were opposed by roughly 50 Stand Up to Racism protesters.

Those on the anti-racism side chanted “say it loud, say it clear, refugees are welcome here”, with signs called for an end to deportations.

They were met with abuse from the anti-immigration group, one of whom yelled through a megaphone “you’re all scum and you should be ashamed” claiming it “wasn’t about racism”.

Police are separating the two groups.

Further protests are taking place outside the New Bridge Hotel in Newcastle.

Anti-immigration could be seen carrying Union Jacks as they faced off against police.

One woman could be seen carrying a sign that reads “fairness isn’t extremism”, with a St George’s flag donned like a cape.

The protests come following a ruling earlier this week on the use of the Bell Hotel in Epping.

Following weeks of protests outside the hotel, the High Court ruled that it must remove migrants staying there.

The Home Office has since launched an appeal against the decision in the hopes of continuing its use as a home for asylum seekers.

STUDENT accommodation, colleges and disused tower blocks may replace migrant hotels as councils continue to revolt.

The move is part of Labour’s pledge to stop using hotels to house migrants by 2029,

4

4

4

However, nearly 200 hotels are still in use, putting up more than 32,000 people, according to recent figures.

Labour said it no longer wants to house migrants on large sites like military bases.

Instead, it is reportedly planning to use sites which are easier to make habitable and not as expensive to refurbish.

According to Dame Angela Eagle, the minister for border security, the plan is to use “medium-sized” sites like “voided tower blocks, old teacher training colleges or old student accommodation”.

This is because the Tories’ plans to use large sites like former military bases and the Bibby Stockholm barge would be too expensive.

She said the effort of tackling “asbestos-filled buildings and poisoned land” would be too pricey.

“I think that there are different, better ways of trying to achieve this kind of service than the ones that we’ve inherited,” she said.

It comes amid an urgent appeal from the Home Office, reportedly looking for 5,000 properties to house 20,000 migrants.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is already facing the humiliation of Labour councils revolting against his government’s loathed migrant hotel policy.

Huge pressure from councils run by every political party could hasten the end of the controversial Home Office policy.

A total of 32,059 asylum seekers were being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of Labour’s first year in Government, up 8 per cent on the same point 12 months ago, Home Office data shows.

But authorities are poised to follow Epping Forest council in Essex after it won a High Court injunction to halt asylum accommodation.

Now, it has been revealed that asylum accommodation contractors working for the Home Office “reached out” to property specialists earlier this month, seeking 5,000 residential units, reports the Telegraph.

Insiders told the outlet that each flat would likely have two bedrooms on average, with space to house four migrants.

ASYLUM SEEKER HOTEL PROTESTS

This Bank Holiday weekend, around 30 migrant hotels are bracing for a wave of protests as campaigners are bolstered by this week’s landmark ruling.

The High Court ordered the removal of migrants from the hotel in Essex, which has become the face of the row over asylum seeker accommodation.

It was the centre of protests after a migrant being housed there was charged with sexually assaulting a teenage girl – which he denies.

Several other demonstrations cropped up around the UK as communities rebelled against the migrant hotels in their area.

It is understood that there is a fresh wave of protests – at least 27 – planned outside of hotels this Bank Holiday weekend.

However anti-racism groups have warned towns and cities could experience the most disruption since last year’s summer riots.

Councils are also pushing back, following the lead of Epping Forest Council, which argued for the hotel to be closed to reduce the threat of “violent protests” and for the safety of those living nearby.

Mr Justice Eyre ruled the owners may have breached planning rules by housing migrants rather than paying customers.

The Home Office argued that granting this application risks “acting as an impetus for further violent protests”.

The High Court ruling threatens Labour’s asylum seeker plans, as more and more councils express an intention to follow suit.

If more councils take action, ministers are unsure where more than 30,000 people in hotel rooms would live.

However Brighton and Hove City Council refused to launch a legal bid, saying it was a “proud city of sanctuary” and will continue to welcome and support asylum seekers.

Jacob Taylor, the local authority’s deputy leader, said “We will not comment on the location of hotels being used by the Home Office to provide temporary accommodation to people seeking asylum.

“I believe to do so in the current climate is irresponsible and risks causing division and unrest in our communities at a time when more than ever we need to bring people together.”

While some county councils will push for the closures, the legal steps to challenge the use of hotels falls to district and borough councils.

The Local ­Government Association called on the Home Office to work “much more closely” with ­authorities on asylum accommodation decisions.

The Home Office is scrambling to find accommodation for up to 138 men housed in the Bell Hotel in Epping before the September 12 deadline to empty it.

Pressed to give details of these contingency options, Minister of State for Security Dan Jarvis said: “With respect, the legal judgment was only handed down yesterday.”

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp has written to Yvette Cooper to demand that those in the Bell Hotel are not moved to apartments, houses in multiple occupation, or social housing which is “much needed for British people”.

When there is not enough housing, the Home Office – which has a legal obligation to provide accommodation to asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute – can move people to alternatives such as hotels and large sites, like former military bases.

Amid hotel protests, campaigners including Rape Crisis and Refuge have warned conversations about violence against women and girls are being “hijacked by an anti-migrant agenda” which they argued fuels divisions and harms survivors.

4

RECORD NUMBERS OF MIGRANTS

It comes after it was revealed that a record number of people claimed asylum in the UK in the last year – with a massive 32,000 currently living in taxpayer-funded hotels.

Home Office data shows that 111,000 people claimed asylum in the year ending June 2025 up 14 per cent on last year.

It is higher than the previous recorded peak of 103,000 which was set in 2002.

The number of people claiming asylum in this country has almost doubled since 2021.

And just under half of all those applying for protection in the UK are granted it at the initial decision stage – 48 per cent.

It is lower than in 2022 when 77 per cent of those applying were given the green light.

Half of all those came via irregular routes – such as on a small boat or in the back of a lorry – while 37 per cent claimed asylum after previously arriving on a valid visa.

In the year up to March, the UK was the fifth biggest recipient of asylum seekers in the UK after Germany, Spain, Italy and France.

The sky-high figures come as the number of migrants being housed in hotels has INCREASED since Labour came into power.

A total of 32,059 asylum seekers were being housed in hotels at the end of Labour’s first year in Government up 8 per cent on the same point 12 months ago.

Around 210 hotels are currently open across the UK despite Labour’s manifesto pledge to end their use.

In the year to June, the top five nationalities of people arriving in Dover were Afghan, Eritrean, Iranian, Syrian and Sudanese.

KAMPALA, Uganda — Uganda has agreed to a deal with the United States to take deported migrants as long as they don’t have criminal records and are not unaccompanied minors, the foreign ministry said Thursday.

The ministry said in a statement that the agreement had been concluded but that terms were still being worked out. It added that Uganda prefers that the migrants sent there be of African nationalities, but did not elaborate on what Uganda might get in return for accepting deportees.

The U.S. Embassy in Uganda declined to comment on what it called “diplomatic negotiations,” but said that diplomats were seeking to uphold President Trump’s “policy of keeping Americans safe.”

The Trump administration has been seeking ways to deter migrants from entering the country illegally and to deport those who already have done so, especially those with criminal records and including those who cannot easily be deported to their home country.

Human rights activists criticized the deportee deal as possibly going against international law.

Henry Okello Oryem, Uganda’s state minister for foreign affairs, on Wednesday had denied that any agreement on deportees had been reached, though he said his government was in discussions about “visas, tariffs, sanctions, and related issues.” He also suggested that his country would draw the line at accepting people associated with criminal groups.

“We are talking about cartels: people who are unwanted in their own countries. How can we integrate them into local communities in Uganda?” he said at the time.

Oryem and other Ugandan government officials declined to comment Thursday.

Opposition lawmaker Muwada Nkunyingi suggested that such a deal with the United States would give the Ugandan government legitimacy ahead of elections, and urged Washington not to turn a blind eye toward what he described as human rights and governance issues in Uganda.

Uganda’s leaders will rush into a deal to “clear their image now that we are heading into the 2026 elections,” Nkunyingi said.

Human rights lawyer Nicholas Opio likened a deportee deal to human trafficking, and said it would leave the status of the deportees unclear. “Are they refugees or prisoners?” he said.

“The proposed deal runs afoul of international law. We are sacrificing human beings for political expediency; in this case because Uganda wants to be in the good books of the United States,” he said. “That I can keep your prisoners if you pay me; how is that different from human trafficking?”

In July, the U.S. deported five men with criminal backgrounds to the southern African kingdom of Eswatini and sent eight more to South Sudan. The men from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Yemen and Vietnam sent to Eswatini are being held in solitary confinement until they can be deported to their home countries, which could take up to a year.

A legal challenge in the U.S had halted the deportation process of the eight men in South Sudan but a Supreme Court ruling eventually cleared the way for them to be sent to South Sudan.

Uganda has had challenges with the U.S. after lawmakers passed an anti-homosexuality bill in 2023 that punishes consensual same-sex conduct with penalties including life imprisonment. Washington threatened consequences and the World Bank withheld some funding.

In May 2024, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Uganda’s parliamentary speaker, her husband and several other officials over corruption and serious abuses of human rights.

MIAMI — For decades, its powerful lighthouse illuminated Miami’s Biscayne Bay, and during the height of the Cold War, what was known as the Freedom Tower stood as a beacon of hope for hundreds of thousands of Cubans fleeing communist rule.

The 14-story Spanish Revival skyscraper was where, from 1962 to 1974, the U.S. State Department welcomed Cuban refugees with medical services, English classes, and comfort kits containing essentials and something wholly exotic to the new arrivals: peanut butter.

After decades of neglect, what was once Miami’s tallest building is getting a well-deserved facelift. Next month, it will reopen as a museum honoring the history of Cuban exiles with immersive, state-of-the-art exhibits that explore the meaning of migration, freedom and homeland.

Ellis Island of the South

The reopening of what’s dubbed the Ellis Island of the South comes at a sensitive moment. Cuban Americans — who dominate politics in Miami — voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump in the last presidential election. But the president’s crackdown on migrants — including Cubans — is increasingly viewed as a betrayal and has left many second-guessing that support. Not surprisingly, recent protests against Trump have gathered outside the tower.

The organizers of the museum, while tiptoeing around the present-day politics, are nonetheless unapologetic in their embrace of the American dream. In Miami, a thriving crossroads where 70% of residents speak Spanish as their first language and more than half are foreign-born, compassion for migrants runs deep.

“It’s cyclical,” said Rene Ramos, who as head archivist of Miami Dade College participated in the $65 million renovation led by the school. “This country has had moments where it clearly saw the value of immigrants and other moments when it did not. What we’re doing here is reminding people what immigrants can accomplish when they’re given the opportunity.”

The iconic building opened in 1925 as the headquarters of the once-acclaimed Miami Daily News, which shuttered decades ago. It was designed in the style of a Moorish bell tower from Seville, Spain, by the New York architectural firm Schultze & Weaver, which was behind some of the most glamorous hotels, theaters and office towers of the era.

It was renamed the Freedom Tower when President John F. Kennedy launched the Cuban Refugee Assistance Program to resettle the streams of middle-class individuals and families fleeing Fidel Castro’s revolution. It’s estimated that nearly 400,000 Cubans relied on services provided at the tower by the U.S. government in coordination with the then-fledgling Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. The total cost of the refugee assistance ran over $730 million by 1971 — almost $6 billion in today’s dollars — a U.S. government report from that year found.

A safe place for refugees

Known to the Spanish-speaking migrants as “El Refugio,” or “The Refuge,” it was a safe place to get vaccines, fill out paperwork and receive financial assistance of around $120 per month. In the Grand Hall, with its giant windows and Corinthian columns, the Pizarra de la Suerte — the Bulletin Board of Good Luck — carried job notices to help the Cubans adjust to their new life, according to a replica of the hall in the museum.

At the time, metropolitan Miami was a tropical tourist town, with fewer than 1 million inhabitants. Most émigrés fanned out across the United States.

“They weren’t staying in Miami because they didn’t want warmth and sunshine. There were no jobs,” said Madeline Pumariega, the president of Miami Dade College, whose own Cuban parents relocated to Amarillo, Texas, after arriving here.

But over time, the exiles would trudge back from the cold and snow to put their unmistakable Cuban stamp on what would become one of America’s most vibrant cultural and economic hubs.

Jorge Malagón, who teaches history at Miami Dade College, was just 5 when he arrived. But he still wells up recalling the hardship of his departure — when Cuban customs officials ripped open his teddy bear looking for contraband jewelry — and arriving in Miami on a “Freedom Flight” paid for by the U.S. government and being immediately shuttled in a school bus from the tarmac to the Freedom Tower.

“The memories never go away,” said Malagón, who recalls being welcomed with a bar of unfamiliar peanut butter and a block of government cheese. “To this day, a grilled cheese sandwich with cheap, Velveeta processed cheese is still comfort food to me.”

The Freedom Tower, a national historic landmark, was long ago overtaken by Miami’s fast-growing steel and glass skyline. Abandoned for years, it was rescued in 1997 by Cuban American businessman Jorge Mas Canosa, a top exile opponent of Castro. He later sold it to a prominent Cuban American family and it was then donated to Miami Dade College.

Even in a dilapidated state, the tower remained a mecca of the Cuban diaspora. In 2003, tens of thousands of salsa fans gathered here to show their respects to Cuban-born singer Celia Cruz. And Secretary of State Marco Rubio, whose parents migrated from Cuba, used it as the backdrop to announce his bid for the U.S. presidency in 2015.

The current restoration was funded by $25 million investment from the state of Florida, with additional funding from Miami Dade College, private donors and federal government grants.

Galleries designed by the same firm behind New York City’s National September 11 Memorial & Museum provide a gripping account of the Cuban American journey to freedom. They include exhibits dedicated to Victims of Communism, the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion that the CIA organized against Castro, and the 14,000 unaccompanied minors sent by their parents as part of the U.S.-led Operation Peter Pan.

Giant media screens project scenes of protest and acts of courage by newer residents of the Magic City fleeing persecution in Venezuela, Haiti and Nicaragua. There’s also a makeshift recording studio for those who passed through the Freedom Tower to add their testimony to an archive of over 300 oral history interviews with exiles, including prominent voices like singer Gloria Estefan.

Emerging from the dark galleries of often traumatic stories of dislocation and exile, the museum’s final stop is a gallery flooded with all the sun, salsa music and pastel hues that make modern-day Miami so beloved.

“Miami and the world would not be what it is today without them,” said Pumariega. “That’s important and so is the contributions that immigrants play in our country, and I think will continue to play beyond this moment.”

Goodman writes for the Associated Press.

A march has begun from the southern Mexican state of Chiapas northward to the central part of the country, in protest of policies that make legal immigration status difficult to achieve.

Wednesday’s march set out from the border city of Tapachula, near Guatemala, and nearly 300 migrants, asylum seekers and supporters took part.

But the demonstration was overshadowed by the arrest one day earlier of one of its leaders, prominent immigration activist Luis Garcia Villagran.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum addressed the arrest in her morning news conference on Wednesday. She alleged that Garcia Villagran had been detained for taking part in human trafficking.

“That is the crime,” she said, adding that Garcia Villagran was “not an activist”.

She added that an arrest warrant had been pending for the activist for years. But it was unclear why his arrest was carried out now.

The nonprofit Pueblo Sin Fronteras, however, disputed Sheinbaum’s characterisation of Garcia Villagran.

“The detention of Luis Villagran, director and human rights defender, is an unacceptable assault,” the nonprofit’s head, Irineo Mujica, wrote in a post to social media.

“Luis Villagrán’s only ‘crime’ is to defend those who have no money or voice, and to tell the truth, which bothers the powerful. Stop criminalising human rights defenders!”

Mujica – who was detained himself in 2019 on similar charges, only to be released – argued that Garcia Villagran’s arrest was a political distraction.

“This is a smokescreen: dirty and corrupt politics to cover up the true networks of corruption,” he said.

Mujica and Garcia Villagran have both been prominent voices in a movement to make legal immigration pathways more accessible.

They have also been among the organisers associated with the trend of the migrant “caravans” that travel from southern Mexico to the United States border in recent years.

Some of those past caravans have involved thousands of people, many of whom banded together for protection against criminal networks, corrupt officials and other threats they may face as they migrate.

Migration northwards, however, has slowed, particularly since US President Donald Trump took office for a second term in January.

Trump quickly attempted to bar asylum claims at the border, a move that has spurred a legal backlash.

Last month, a court blocked his asylum ban on the basis that it created an “alternative immigration system” without deference to Congress’s laws.

But Trump’s policies have nevertheless had a dampening effect on immigration at the border. In June, US Customs and Border Protection recorded only 9,306 “encounters” with migrants and asylum seekers at the country’s southern border – a nearly 93 percent drop compared with the same period last year.

Wednesday’s march had a different objective than those past caravans, though, particularly as migrants and asylum seekers turn away from the US and seek other destinations.

Organisers of the march sought to draw attention to the slow processing time for asylum applications in Mexico and other hurdles to achieving legal immigration status.

It also served as a demonstration against Mexican policies that have sought to keep undocumented migrants and asylum seekers in the south of the country, away from the US border.

The Trump administration has pressured Mexico to crack down on immigration into the US, including through the threat of tariffs.

Garcia Villagran’s arrest in the hours leading up to the march, however, left some migrants and asylum seekers fearful of taking part in the march.

The news agency AFP obtained one message that was circulating among participants that read, “Hide, don’t let yourselves get caught.”

A Catholic priest who took part in Wednesday’s march, Heyman Vazquez, told The Associated Press news agency that Garcia Villagran’s arrest was “unjust”.

He added that the arrest revealed a sense of insecurity in the government over the question of migration. The solution, he explained, would be to make it easier for migrants and asylum seekers to obtain legal status, thereby removing the need for such protests.

LABOUR’s migrant deal with France is already unravelling — as dinghies keep crossing and confusion erupts over how it is meant to work.

Just days after the “one-in, one-out” scheme came into force, footage shared by the Tories shows French warships escorting small boats packed with migrants across the Channel.

3

3

3

Ministers are also at odds how the deal is even meant to work, with conflicting statements on whether deportations can go ahead if migrants lodge human rights claims.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp, filming off Calais, said: “I’m on the Channel today just off Calais to see if the Government’s new deal with France is working. It isn’t.

“There is a boat full of illegal immigrants crossing right in front of me.

“The French warship is escorting it and & making no attempt at all to stop it.”

At the same time, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy sparked fresh confusion by claiming migrants removed under the scheme could still have their human rights claims heard – but in France.

Asked whether human rights claims presented a loophole to the returns deal, she told Sky News: “That’s not the case at all … the deal that we’ve struck will allow people with us to send people back to France who have human rights claims.

“Those claims will be heard in France.

“I know that the Conservative Party has been saying that this is a loophole. It isn’t and we’re really confident about that.”

But the terms of scheme published on Tuesday suggest the opposite.

It states that the UK confirms that at the time of their transfer that person will not have an outstanding human rights claim.

And it also makes clear France will not participate in UK legal proceedings.

The Tories also argue the wording opens the door for lawyers to delay or block removals with last-minute claims.

But Home Office officials insist have they prepared for judicial review challenges against certification of a human rights decisions to be heard by UK courts from France.

Ministers hope the new route –  where migrants in France apply online – will offer a “safe and legal” alternative to the boats.

But those who have already crossed are not eligible, meaning thousands already here won’t be affected.

Only around 50 people a week are expected to be returned under the deal, which would equate to only one in every 17 small boat arrivals.

The new legal route to Britain only applies to people already in France who have not tried to cross illegally.

To qualify, they must apply online and prove they have close family in the UK, come from a country that is likely to get asylum, or are at risk of being trafficked or exploited.

Unaccompanied children, people with criminal records, and anyone who has previously been deported from the UK are banned from applying.

The deal also reveals that Britain is picking up the tab for both directions of travel – paying for the transport of migrants we send back to France and those we bring in legally.

Alp Mehmet from Migration Watch told The Sun: “This Starmer/Macron wheeze has zero chance of working. It won’t discourage migrants, while smugglers will be tempted to pile in even more people into flimsy vessels. It will have the opposite effect to the one intended.”

The deal will remain in force until June 2026 – but the legal route can be paused automatically if France slows down on taking people back.

Despite Labour’s promise to stop the boats, this year is already on track for a record number of arrivals.

More than 25,000 migrants have crossed the Channel in small boats so far in 2025 – up 49 per cent on the same point last year.

Rwanda has confirmed it will accept deported migrants from the United States, as US President Donald Trump continues to push for mass deportation from the North American country.

On Tuesday, a spokesperson for the Rwandan government, Yolande Makolo, acknowledged that the African country had agreed to receive up to 250 deported individuals.

Rwanda is now the third African country, after South Sudan and Eswatini, to strike a deal with the US to accept non-citizen deportees.

“Rwanda has agreed with the United States to accept up to 250 migrants, in part because nearly every Rwandan family has experienced the hardships of displacement, and our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation,” Makolo said in a statement obtained by the Reuters news agency.

But the Trump administration’s efforts to rapidly deport migrants from the US have raised myriad human rights concerns, not least for sending people to “third-party countries” they have no personal connections to.

Some of those countries, including Rwanda, have faced criticisms for their human rights records, leading advocates to fear for the safety of deported migrants.

Other critics, meanwhile, have blasted Trump for using African countries as a “dumping ground” for migrants with criminal records.

In this week’s statement, Makolo appeared to anticipate some of those criticisms, underscoring that Rwanda would have the final say over who could arrive in the country.

“Under the agreement, Rwanda has the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement,” she said.

“Those approved will be provided with workforce training, healthcare, and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade.”

Trump’s mass deportation campaign

In 2024, Trump successfully campaigned for re-election in the US on the premise that he would expel the country’s population of undocumented immigrants, a group estimated to number around 11 million.

But many of those people have been longtime members of their communities, and critics quickly pointed out that Trump lacked the infrastructure needed for such a large-scale deportation effort.

In response, the Trump administration has surged money to immigration-related projects. For example, his “One Big Beautiful Bill”, which was signed into law in July, earmarked $45bn for immigration detention centres, many of which will be run by private contractors.

An additional $4.1bn in the law is devoted to hiring and training more officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), with another $2.1bn set aside for bonuses.

But the Trump administration has made expelling migrants from the country a top priority, prompting legal challenges and backlash to the rapid pace of such deportations.

Critics say deported migrants have been denied their right to due process, with little to no time allotted to challenge their removals.

Then, there are the cases where undocumented migrants have been deported to “third-party countries” where they may not even speak the language.

Within weeks of taking office in January, Trump began deporting citizens of countries like India, China, Iran and Afghanistan to places like Panama, where migrants were imprisoned in a hotel and later a detention camp.

Trump also accused more than 200 men, many of them Venezuelan, of being gang members in order to authorise their expedited removal to El Salvador in March. Lawyers have since cast doubt on Trump’s allegations, arguing that many of their clients were deemed to be gang members based on little more than their tattoos and fashion choices.

El Salvador reportedly received $6m as part of a deal to hold the men in a maximum security prison, the Terrorism Confinement Centre or CECOT, where human rights abuses have been documented.

The men were ultimately released last month as part of a prisoner exchange with Venezuela, but a federal court in the US continues to weigh whether the Trump administration violated a judge’s order by allowing the deportation flights to leave in the first place.

Deportations to Africa

In May, the Trump administration unveiled efforts to start “third-party” deportations to countries in Africa as well, sparking further concerns about human rights.

Initially, Libya was floated as a destination, and migrants were reportedly loaded onto a flight that was prepared to take off when a judge blocked its departure on due process grounds.

The Libyan government later denied reports that it was willing to accept deported, non-citizen migrants from the US.

But the Trump administration proceeded later that month to send eight migrants on a flight to South Sudan, a country the US State Department deems too dangerous for Americans to travel to.

That flight was ultimately diverted to Djibouti, after a judge in Massachusetts ruled that the eight men on board were not given an adequate opportunity to challenge their removals.

Seven of them hailed from Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico and Myanmar. Only one was reportedly from South Sudan.

The Trump administration said all eight had criminal records, calling them “sickos” and “barbaric”. A spokesperson pledged to have them in South Sudan by the US Independence Day holiday on July 4.

The US Supreme Court paved the way for that to happen in late June, when it issued a brief, unsigned order allowing the deportation to South Sudan to proceed. The six conservative members of the bench sided with the Trump administration, while the three left-leaning justices issued a vehement dissent.

They argued that there was no evidence that the Trump administration had ascertained the eight men would not be tortured while in South Sudan’s custody. They also described the deportations as too hasty, depriving the men of their chance to appeal.

“The affected class members lacked any opportunity to research South Sudan, to determine whether they would face risks of torture or death there, or to speak to anyone about their concerns,” the justices wrote, calling the government’s actions “flagrantly unlawful”.

In mid-July, the Trump administration also began deportations to Eswatini, a tiny, landlocked country ruled by an absolute monarchy. It identified the five deported individuals as hailing from Laos, Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba and Yemen.

“This flight took individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back,” administration spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin wrote on social media.

Lawyers for the five men have since reported they were denied access to their clients, who are being held in a maximum-security prison.

Cosying up to Trump?

Little is known so far about the newly announced deportations to Rwanda. It is not yet clear when deportation flights to Rwanda will begin, nor who will be included on the flights.

Reuters, however, reported that Rwanda will be paid for accepting the deportations in the form of a grant. The amount is not yet known.

Rwanda also has set parameters for whom it may accept. No child sex offenders will be allowed among the deportation flights, and the country will only accept deported individuals with no criminal background or whose prison terms are complete.

But the deportation announcement continues a trend of Rwandan authorities seeking closer relations with the Trump administration.

In June, President Trump claimed credit for bringing peace between Rwanda and its neighbour, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

He invited leaders from both countries to attend a ceremony at the White House and sign a peace deal. Critics, however, noted that the deal was vague and did not mention Rwanda’s support for the M23 paramilitary group, which has carried out deadly attacks in the DRC.

The deal also appeared to pave the way for Trump to pursue another one of his priorities: gaining access to valuable minerals in the region, like copper and lithium, that are key to technology development.

In an interview with The Associated Press news agency, Rwandan political analyst Gonzaga Muganwa said that his government’s recent manoeuvres seem to reflect the mantra that “appeasing President Trump pays”.

Muganwa explained that Tuesday’s agreement to accept migrants from the US will strengthen the two countries’ shared bond.

“This agreement enhances Rwanda’s strategic interest of having good relationships with the Trump administration,” he said.

KIGALI, Rwanda — Rwanda on Tuesday became the third African nation to agree to accept deportees from the United States under the Trump administration’s plans to send migrants to countries they have no ties with to get them off American soil.

Rwandan government spokesperson Yolande Makolo told The Associated Press in a statement that the East African country would accept up to 250 deportees from the U.S., with “the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement” under the agreement.

Makolo didn’t provide a timeline for any deportees to arrive in Rwanda or say if they would arrive at once or in several batches. She said details were still being worked out.

The U.S. sent 13 men it described as dangerous criminals who were in the U.S. illegally to South Sudan and Eswatini in Africa last month and has said it is seeking more agreements with African nations. It said those deportees’ home countries refused to take them back.

The U.S. has also deported hundreds of Venezuelans and others to Costa Rica, El Salvador and Panama under President Trump’s plans to expel people who he says entered the U.S. illegally and are “the worst of the worst.”

Rwanda attracted international attention and some outrage when it struck a deal in 2022 with the U.K. to accept migrants who had arrived in the U.K. to seek asylum. Under that proposed deal, their claims would have been processed in Rwanda and, if successful, they would have stayed there.

The contentious agreement was criticized by rights groups and others as being unethical and unworkable and was ultimately scrapped when Britain’s new Labour government took over. Britain’s Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that the deal was unlawful because Rwanda was not a safe third country for migrants.

The Trump administration has come under scrutiny for the African countries it has entered into secretive deals with to take deportees. It sent eight men from South Sudan, Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar and Vietnam to South Sudan in early July after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for their deportations.

They were held for weeks in a converted shipping container at an American military base in Djibouti as the legal battle over their deportations played out. South Sudan, which is tipping toward civil war, has declined to say where the men are being held or what their fate is.

The U.S. also deported five men who are citizens of Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen and Laos to the southern African kingdom of Eswatini, where the government said they will be held in solitary confinement in prison for an undetermined period of time.

A human rights lawyer in Eswatini said the men are being denied access to legal representation there and has taken authorities to court. Eswatini is Africa’s last absolute monarchy, and the king rules over government and political parties are effectively banned.

Both South Sudan and Eswatini have declined to give details of their agreements with the U.S.

Rwanda, a relatively small country of some 15 million people, has long stood out on the continent for its recovery from a genocide that killed over 800,000 people in 1994. It has promoted itself under longtime President Paul Kagame as an example of stability and development, but human rights groups allege there are also deadly crackdowns on any perceived dissent against Kagame, who has been president for 25 years.

Government spokesperson Makolo said the agreement with the U.S. was Rwanda doing its part to help with international migration issues because “our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation.”

“Those approved (for resettlement in Rwanda) will be provided with workforce training, healthcare, and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade,” she said. There were no details about whether Rwanda had received anything in return for taking the deportees.

Gonzaga Muganwa, a Rwandan political analyst, said “appeasing President Trump pays.”

“This agreement enhances Rwanda’s strategic interest of having good relationships with the Trump administration,” he said.

The U.K. government estimated that its failed migration deal with Rwanda cost around $900 million in public money, including approximately $300 million in payments to Rwanda, which said it was not obligated to refund the money when the agreement fell apart.

Ssuuna and Imray write for the Associated Press. Imray reported from Cape Town, South Africa.

Italy has signed a deal with Albania, where it planned to process up to 36,000 asylum seekers per year.

The European Union’s top court has backed Italian judges who questioned a list of “safe countries” drawn up by Rome, as it prepares to deport migrants to detention centres in Albania.

The hard-right government of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni denounced the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) ruling and said it “weakens policies to combat mass illegal immigration”.

Meloni’s plan to outsource migrant processing to a non-EU country and speed up repatriations of failed asylum seekers has been followed closely by others in the bloc.

The costly scheme has been frozen for months by legal challenges.

Italian magistrates have cited the European court’s decision that EU states cannot designate an entire country as “safe” when certain regions are not.

On Friday, in a long-awaited judgement, the Luxembourg-based ECJ said Italy is free to decide which countries are “safe”, but warned that such a designation should meet strict legal standards and allow applicants and courts to access and challenge the supporting evidence.

In its statement, the ECJ said a Rome court had turned to EU judges, citing the impossibility of accessing such information and thus preventing it from “challenging and reviewing the lawfulness of such a presumption of safety”.

The ECJ also said a country might not be classified “safe” if it does not offer adequate protection to its entire population, agreeing with Italian judges that had raised this issue last year.

Meloni and her Albanian counterpart, Edi Rama, had signed a migration deal in November 2023, and last year, Rome opened two centres in Albania, where it planned to process up to 36,000 asylum seekers per year.

The detention facilities have, however, been empty for months, due to the judicial obstacles. Last week, a report found that their construction cost was seven times more than that of an equivalent centre in Italy.

Government’s approach ‘dismantled’?

The European court made its judgement considering a case of two Bangladeshi nationals who were rescued at sea by Italian authorities and taken to Albania, where their asylum claims were rejected based on Italy’s classification of Bangladesh as a “safe” country.

Dario Belluccio, a lawyer who represented one of the Bangladeshi asylum seekers at the ECJ on Friday, said the Albanian migrant camps scheme had been killed off.

“It will not be possible to continue with what the Italian government had envisioned before this decision … Technically, it seems to me that the government’s approach has been completely dismantled,” he told the Reuters news agency.

Meloni’s office complained that the EU judgement allows national judges to dictate policy on migration, “further reduc(ing) the already limited” capacity of parliament and government to take decisions on the matter.

“This is a development that should concern everybody,” it said.

Meanwhile, though the Albanian scheme is stuck in legal limbo, Italy’s overall effort to curb undocumented migration by sea has been successful.

There have been 36,557 such migrant arrivals in the year to date, slightly up from the same period of 2024, but far below the 89,165 recorded over the same time span in 2023.

More than 25,000 people have crossed the Engilsh Channel to the UK in 2025, the highest total this early in the year.

More than 25,000 people have crossed the English Channel into the United Kingdom so far this year, marking the fastest pace of arrivals since records began in 2018 and piling pressure on the UK’s Labour government as anti-immigration sentiment is stoked by the political right wing.

Figures released on Thursday show that nearly 900 refugees and migrants made the crossing in 13 small boats on Wednesday alone, bringing the total number of arrivals in 2025 to 25,436. It’s a perilous journey that has resulted in dozens of deaths over the years.

The milestone is likely to intensify political scrutiny over Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s handling of undocumented migration. His government has pledged tougher action on smuggling networks, with Starmer vowing to “smash the gangs” responsible for transporting people across the Channel.

Opposition politicians have seized on the latest numbers to criticise Labour’s approach.

“Almost 900 people crossed the Channel yesterday, meaning 25,000 people, mainly young men, have crossed the Channel this year. [And] 2025 is the worst year on record so far, and the Labour Government are doing nothing to stop the crossings,” said Conservative Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp.

He added: “Their 17 in, one out deal with France will not even make a dent – it would take 10 years for [Home Secretary] Yvette Cooper to deport the illegal immigrants that have arrived since the start of this year alone under her so-called deal, which still hasn’t started.”

Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron announced “one in, one out” returns of asylum seekers earlier this month. The pilot programme sets out that for every person returned, a different individual would be allowed “to come here via a safe route: controlled and legal, subject to strict security checks and only open to those who have not tried to enter the UK illegally”, Starmer said at the time.

Philp also reiterated his party’s proposal to immediately detain and deport new arrivals, warning that continued legal challenges under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) could force a Conservative government to consider withdrawing from it, a threat they have often made in and around the Brexit years when the party was in government.

Radical right Reform UK leader Nigel Farage echoed those criticisms, writing on social media: “898 illegals crossed the English Channel yesterday. This means more hotels, more costs and more people who should not be here. The public have had ENOUGH!”

A series of violent far-right demonstrations have been held recently outside a hotel housing asylum seekers in Epping, north of London.

Meanwhile, United States President Donald Trump, who campaigned on a hardline anti-immigration platform and has been executing it during his second term with raids and deportations of immigrants,  recently praised the UK government’s efforts, saying it was “doing a fantastic thing” by addressing the issue, though he admitted knowing “nothing about the boats”.

LOBATERA, Venezuela — Carlos Uzcátegui tightly hugged his sobbing wife and stepdaughter on Wednesday as the morning fog in western Venezuela lifted. The family’s first embrace in more than a year finally convinced him that his nightmare inside a prison in El Salvador was over.

Uzcátegui was among the migrants being reunited with loved ones after four months in prison in El Salvador, where the U.S. government transferred them in one of its boldest moves to crack down on immigration.

“Every day, we asked God for the blessing of freeing us from there so that we could be here with family, with my loved ones,” Uzcátegui, 33, said. “Every day, I woke up looking at the bars, wishing I wasn’t there.”

“They beat us, they kicked us. I even have quite a few bruises on my stomach,” he added later showing a mildly bruised left abdomen.

The migrants, some of whom characterized the prison as “hell,” were freed Friday in a prisoner swap between the U.S. and Venezuelan governments, but the latter sequestered them upon arrival to their country.

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and other officials have said many of the immigrants were physically and psychologically tortured during their detention in El Salvador, airing on state television videos of some of the men describing the alleged abuse, including rape, severe beatings and pellet-gun wounds. The narratives are reminiscent of the abuses that Maduro’s government has long been accused of committing against its real or perceived, jailed opponents.

As the men reached their homes, they and their relatives shared deeply emotional moments in which sad tears and happy tears rolled down their cheeks at the same time.

Uzcátegui’s wife, Gabriela Mora, 30, held onto their home’s fence and sobbed as she saw the military vehicle carrying him approach after a 30-plus-hour bus ride to their mining community nestled in Venezuela’s Andean mountains. She had set up gifts and decorations in their living room, including a star-shaped metallic blue balloon with a “Happy Father’s Day” greeting that his stepdaughter had saved since the June holiday.

‘We met a lot of innocent people’

The 252 men ended in El Salvador on March 16 after the administration of President Trump agreed to pay $6 million to the Central American nation to house them in a mega-prison, where human rights groups have documented hundreds of deaths and cases of torture. Trump accused the men of belonging to the violent Tren de Aragua street gang, which originated in Venezuela.

The administration did not provide evidence to back up the accusation. However, several recently deported migrants have said U.S. authorities wrongly judged their tattoos and used them as an excuse to deport them.

Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello on Friday said only seven of the men had pending cases in Venezuela, adding that all the deportees would undergo medical tests and background checks before they could go home.

Arturo Suárez, whose reggaeton songs surfaced on social media after he was sent to El Salvador, arrived at his family’s working-class home in the capital, Caracas, on Tuesday. His sister hugged him after he exited a vehicle of Venezuela’s intelligence service.

“It is hell. We met a lot of innocent people,” Suárez told reporters, referring to the prison he was held in. “To all those who mistreated us, to all those who negotiated with our lives and our freedom, I have one thing to say, and scripture says it well: Vengeance and justice is mine, and you are going to give an account to God the Father.”

The Associated Press could not verify the abuse allegations that Suárez and other migrants narrated in the videos aired by state media.

Atty. Gen. Tarek William Saab on Monday said he had opened an investigation against El Salvador President Nayib Bukele based on the deportees’ allegations. Bukele’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Appointment to seek asylum

The men left El Salvador as part of a prisoner exchange with the U.S., which received 10 citizens and permanent residents whom Maduro’s government had jailed over accusations of plotting to destabilize Venezuela.

Mora said her husband migrated after the coal mine he had long worked at halved his pay and their street food shop went out of business in 2023. Uzcátegui left Lobatera in March 2024 with an acquaintance’s promise to help him find a construction job in Orlando.

On his way north, Uzcátegui crossed the punishing Darien Gap that separates Colombia and Panama, and by mid-April he had reached Mexico City. There, he worked at a public market’s seafood stall until early December, when he was finally granted an appointment through a U.S. government smartphone app to seek asylum at a border crossing.

But Uzcátegui never walked free in the U.S., where authorities regarded his tattoos with suspicion, said Mora. He was sent to a detention center in Texas until he and other Venezuelans were put on the airplanes that landed in El Salvador. Still, she said she does not regret supporting her husband’s decision to migrate.

“It’s the country’s situation that forces one to make these decisions,” she said. “If [economic] conditions here were favorable … it wouldn’t have been necessary for him to leave to be able to fix the house or to provide my daughter with a better education.”

Cano writes for the Associated Press.

ROUBAIX, France — As statements go, it’s a big one.

A towering mural in France of the Statue of Liberty covering her eyes is racking up millions of views online with its swipe at President Trump’s immigration and deportation policies.

Amsterdam-based street artist Judith de Leeuw described her giant work in the northern French town of Roubaix, which has a large immigrant community, as “a quiet reminder of what freedom should be.”

She said “freedom feels out of reach” for migrants and “those pushed to the margins, silenced, or unseen.”

“I painted her covering her eyes because the weight of the world has become too heavy to witness. What was once a shining symbol of liberty now carries the sorrow of lost meaning,” de Leeuw wrote in a July 4 post on Facebook, when Americans were celebrating Independence Day.

Her depiction of the Statue of Liberty, a gift from the French people in the late 1800s, has inspired some sharp criticism.

Rep. Tim Burchett, a Republican lawmaker from Tennessee, wrote in a post on X that the work “disgusts me.” He said he had an uncle who fought and died in France, where U.S. forces saw combat in both World War I and World War II.

In an interview with the Associated Press, de Leeuw was unapologetic.

“I’m not offended to be hated by the Donald Trump movement. I am not sorry. This is the right thing to do,” she said.

The town stood by the work, with its deputy mayor in charge of cultural affairs, Frédéric Lefebvre, telling broadcaster France 3 that “it’s a very strong and powerful political message.”

Since returning to the White House amid anti-immigration sentiment, Trump has launched an unprecedented campaign that has pushed the limits of executive power and clashed with federal judges trying to restrain him. People from various countries have been deported to remote and unrelated places like South Sudan and the small African nation of Eswatini.

Polling by Gallup released last week showed an increasing number of Americans who said immigration is a “good thing” and decreasing support for the type of mass deportations Trump has championed since before he was elected.

The mural in Roubaix is part of an urban street culture festival backed by the town. Roubaix is one of the poorest towns in France. It was economically devastated by the collapse since the 1970s of its once-flourishing textile industry that used to attract migrant workers from elsewhere in Europe, north Africa and beyond.

Plazy writes for the Associated Press. AP journalists Ahmad Seir in Amsterdam and John Leicester in Paris contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON,, July 16 (UPI) — A fiery House Homeland Security Committee hearing Wednesday exposed deep partisan divisions over the role of non-governmental organizations in aiding migrants.

Republicans accused faith-based and humanitarian groups of enabling illegal immigration, while Democrats sharply criticized holding the session as a political stunt that targeted religious freedom.

The hearing marked an escalation in the Republican-led effort to scrutinize the role of non-governmental organizations in federal immigration policy.

GOP lawmakers argued that groups receiving taxpayer dollars are contributing to what they called a historic border crisis by providing services to undocumented migrants who are not being detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Conversely, Democrats vehemently argued that the purpose of the hearing was a politically motivated attempt to discredit humanitarian organizations.

Led by Chairman Michael Guest, R-Miss., the hearing centered on claims that the former Biden administration created the “worst border crisis in history,” and that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, along with other organizations supported by tax dollars, are paying for hotels for immigrants’ stays instead of utilizing detention centers.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., sternly pushed back, accusing the majority of vilifying groups that serve vulnerable populations and abusing congressional power to intimidate those driven by missions to assist immigrants. He also criticized the majority’s witnesses, whom he said represented only one side of the issue.

“Today’s hearing are shameful abuses of congressional power to bully people for how they choose to exercise their religion and help their own name, ” said Thompson, who entered into the record a letter from more than 600 nonprofits opposed to the hearing.

In addition, a staffer showed a chart showing the committee’s Republicans who have voted in favor of NGO funding, including Reps. Clay Higgins, R-La., Michael McCaul, R-Texas, August Pfluger, R-Texas and the committee chairman, Mark Green, R-Tenn.

Thompson criticized Green for not being present at his final full committee hearing. He announced his retirement announcement in June, effective Sunday.

To support their arguments, Republicans invited three witnesses critical of the Biden administration’s immigration approach and the role of non-governmental organizations. Their testimony, at times emotional and combative, prompted sharp responses from Democrats on the panel.

Mike Howell, president of The Oversight Project at the Heritage Foundation, opened with an ardent statement related to violence against ICE officers.

The Oversight Project “works to expose and root out corruption in government, among elected officials, and in our most influential organizations to ensure power resides with the American people,” according to the Heritage Foundation’s website.

“The violence is getting out of control, and it is fueled by demagoguery of politicians, whether it is one of your members telling Axios that there needs to be blood to grab the attention of the public,” Howell said. “Another saying stability is important to prepare for violence, or even a member of this committee being arrested for forcibly impeding or interfering with federal officials.”

Thompson said he interpreted Howell’s statement to be outside of the scope of the hearing, and the issue was put to a vote. The committee decided 9-8 in favor of Howell’s continued testimony.

The other two witnesses were Ali Hopper, founder and president of GUARD Against Trafficking, an organization whose mission is to combat human trafficking, and Julio Rosas, a national correspondent for Blaze Media, a U.S. conservative media company.

Hopper focused on the harms to children within the immigration system and questioned the accountability of nonprofit organizations, while Rosas echoed Republican concerns, arguing that while NGOs aim to help, they may unintentionally worsen situations.

The hearing took an unexpected turn late in the session when Thompson criticized Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for her recent online presence, referencing her controversial personal posts and past statements. He drew a sharp comparison between Noem’s actions and the deportation of vulnerable migrants, including a child with cancer.

Thompson, in a motion, wanted to subpoena Noem given the committee’s broader oversight efforts. Republicans quickly moved to table the motion in a non-debatable vote, which passed by a narrow margin.

Summing up the session, Guest said, “I am offended when people from the other side say we’re not being Christian. we’re not saying that all nonprofits are bad. Many of us support and give money and volunteer.”

“But, this hearing today is focused on those nonprofits which were government funded, which were used by the Biden-Harris administration to continue to move people across the border against the will of the public and without the authorization of Congress.”

CAPE TOWN, South Africa — The United States sent five migrants it describes as “barbaric” criminals to the African nation of Eswatini in an expansion of the Trump administration’s largely secretive third-country deportation program, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said Tuesday.

The U.S. has already deported eight men to another African country, South Sudan, after the Supreme Court lifted restrictions on sending people to countries where they have no ties. The South Sudanese government has declined to say where those men, also described as violent criminals, are after it took custody of them nearly two weeks ago.

In a late-night post on X, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said the five men sent to Eswatini, who are citizens of Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen and Laos, had arrived on a plane, but didn’t say when or where.

She said they were all convicted criminals and “individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back.”

The men “have been terrorizing American communities” but were now “off of American soil,” McLaughlin added.

McLaughlin said they had been convicted of crimes including murder and child rape and one was a “confirmed” gang member. Her social media posts included mug shots of the men and what she said were their criminal records and sentences. They were not named.

It was not clear if the men had been deported from prison or if they were detained in immigration operations, and the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement didn’t immediately respond to requests for clarification.

Four of the five countries where the men are from have historically been resistant to taking back some citizens when they’re deported from the U.S. That issue has been a reoccurring problem for Homeland Security even before the Trump administration. Some countries refuse to take back any of their citizens, while others won’t accept people who have committed crimes in the U.S.

Like in South Sudan, there was no immediate comment from Eswatini authorities over any deal to accept third-country deportees or what would happen to them in that country. Civic groups there raised concerns over the secrecy from a government long accused of clamping down on human rights.

“There has been a notable lack of official communication from the Eswatini government regarding any agreement or understanding with the U.S. to accept these deportees,” Ingiphile Dlamini, a spokesperson for the pro-democracy group SWALIMO, said in a statement sent to The Associated Press.

It wasn’t clear if they were being held in a detention center, what their legal status was or what Eswatini’s plans were for the deported men, he said.

An absolute monarchy

Eswatini, previously called Swaziland, is a country of about 1.2 million people between South Africa and Mozambique. It is one of the world’s last remaining absolute monarchies and the last in Africa. King Mswati III has ruled by decree since 1986.

Political parties are effectively banned and pro-democracy groups have said for years that Mswati III has crushed political dissent, sometimes violently.

Pro-democracy protests erupted in Eswatini in 2021, when dozens were killed, allegedly by security forces. Eswatini authorities have been accused of conducting political assassinations of pro-democracy activists and imprisoning others.

Because Eswatini is a poor country, it “may face significant strain in accommodating and managing individuals with complex backgrounds, particularly those with serious criminal convictions,” Dlamini said.

While the U.S. administration has hailed deportations as a victory for the safety and security of the American people, Dlamini said his organization wanted to know the plans for the five men sent to Eswatini and “any potential risks to the local population.”

U.S. is seeking more deals

The Trump administration has said it is seeking more deals with African nations to take deportees from the U.S. Leaders from some of the five West African nations who met last week with President Trump at the White House said the issue of migration and their countries possibly taking deportees from the U.S. was discussed.

Some nations have pushed back. Nigeria, which wasn’t part of that White House summit, said it has rejected pressure from the U.S. to take deportees who are citizens of other countries.

The U.S. also has sent hundreds of Venezuelans and others to Costa Rica, El Salvador and Panama, but has identified Africa as a continent where it might find more governments willing to strike deportation agreements.

Rwanda’s foreign minister told the AP last month that talks were underway with the U.S. about a potential agreement to host deported migrants. A British government plan announced in 2022 to deport rejected asylum-seekers to Rwanda was ruled illegal by the U.K. Supreme Court last year.

‘Not a dumping ground’

The eight men deported by the U.S. to war-torn South Sudan, where they arrived early this month, previously spent weeks at a U.S. military base in nearby Djibouti, located on the northeast border of Ethiopia, as the case over the legality of sending them there played out.

The deportation flight to Eswatini is the first to a third country since the Supreme Court ruling cleared the way.

The South Sudanese government has not released details of its agreement with the U.S. to take deportees, nor has it said what will happen to the men. A prominent civil society leader there said South Sudan was “not a dumping ground for criminals.”

Analysts say some African nations might be willing to take third-country deportees in return for more favorable terms from the U.S. in negotiations over tariffs, foreign aid and investment, and restrictions on travel visas.

Imray and Gumede write for the Associated Press. Gumede reported from Johannesburg. AP writer Rebecca Santana in Washington contributed to this report.

The United Kingdom and France are close to a new agreement aimed at preventing tens of thousands of migrants from crossing the English Channel from France in small boats, UK media reported on Thursday.

French President Emmanuel Macron arrived in London on Tuesday for a three-day visit, marking the first state visit by a European leader since Britain’s exit from the European Union.

Here is all we know about the “one-in-one-out” migrant deal being discussed during a bilateral summit between Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer in London.

What’s in the deal Macron and Starmer are discussing?

The deal is aimed at deterring migrants from making dangerous trips across the English Channel from France to the UK in small boats. This year so far, more than 20,000 people have undertaken this journey.

At the start of the summit with Macron on Thursday, Starmer said the two must “apply our collective strength and leadership” to the challenges of undocumented migration.

“We all agree that the situation in the Channel cannot go on as it is so we’re bringing new tactics into play and a new intent to tackle illegal migration and break the business model of the criminal gangs.”

Many migrants without visas or permits departing France by sea attempt to cross to the UK in small, inflatable boats. They frequently pay large sums of money to gangs who arrange the boats in northern France. Journeys can be incredibly dangerous and people have died making the crossing.

Under a new agreement, France would agree to take back asylum seekers who have crossed over to the UK and who cannot prove a family connection to the UK. For each migrant France takes back, the UK would grant asylum to one migrant from France who can prove a family connection to the UK.

During the initial stages of the agreement, details of which were reported by French newspaper Le Monde, the UK would initially send about 50 migrants to France per week. Le Monde also reported that the UK would only be able to return 2,600 migrants in a single year.

The UK press quoted a government source on Thursday that plans would be scaled up if the initial scheme is successful.

Who is to blame for the influx of people by boat to the UK?

Both France and the UK have laid the blame on each other.

One of France’s main criticisms of the UK is that it attracts migrants without visas because UK laws are too lenient or not adequately enforced. In his speech to Parliament during his state visit on Tuesday, Macron said that one-third of all migrants arriving in France intend to move on to the UK.

During negotiations with the UK 18 months ago when he was interior minister, Gerald Darmanin, France’s current justice minister, said: “Britain must do something to make itself less attractive and change the rules of their labour market because you can work without papers in the UK,” he said.

The UK disputes this, saying people are drawn to it because of family or diaspora ties, as well as many being able to speak English. Instead, some politicians in the UK have blamed France for not policing its northern shores enough. However, Starmer is also expected to unveil new plans to crack down harder on illegal work in the UK.

France, in turn, says it is making huge efforts to deter migrant departures from northern beaches and to take action against people-smuggling gangs.

Why is this agreement being discussed now?

The deal is being discussed because of the rising number of unauthorised migrants arriving from France to the UK, Peter Walsh, a senior researcher at the Migration Observatory at Oxford University, told Al Jazeera.

Just one year since Starmer’s Labour party won a landslide election, the prime minister’s popularity has tanked in the UK – in large part because of the failure to stop undocumented migration – while support for the far-right, anti-migration Reform UK party has soared.

In particular, Reform’s manifesto pledges to clamp down on migrants coming to the UK in small boats. It states: “Illegal migrants who come to the UK will be detained and deported. And if needed, migrants in small boats will be picked up and taken back to France.”

The Conservative Party, which was in power before Starmer won last year’s general election, pledged to impose a binding cap for legal migration and to deport asylum seekers who arrive by irregular means to Rwanda for processing and potential resettlement. Labour scrapped this plan as soon as it came to power.

As of July 7, immigration and asylum stand as the most significant issue in the UK, at 51 percent, according to polling by YouGov.

According to commentary in UK media, Starmer’s meeting with Macron also holds symbolic significance, as it allows the British PM to show that he has been able to maintain a good relationship with his main European partners since he negotiated a “reset” trade deal with the EU in May.

How many people cross the English Channel in small boats each year?

This year, 21,117 people crossed the English Channel from France to the UK in small boats as of July 6, according to UK government data. This was a 56 percent increase in the number of people crossing in small boats during the same period in 2024.

In the whole of 2024, nearly 37,000 people crossed the English Channel in small boats, bringing the weekly average to about 700 arrivals.

In the past year, 73 people have died trying to cross the English Channel, the highest number recorded in one year so far, according to data by the International Organization for Migration (IOM), an intergovernmental organisation within the United Nations.

Small boat arrivals made up one-third of all asylum applications in 2024, according to an analysis by the Migration Observatory based on statistics from the UK Home Office.

Why do so many people make this risky crossing?

Walsh told Al Jazeera that people take the risk to cross the Channel for a wide range of reasons. “One is the presence of family members, friends, and members of their community already in the UK,” he said.

He explained that because the UK is no longer part of the EU following Brexit, it does not have access to the bloc’s asylum fingerprint database any more. Therefore, British authorities cannot know if people who arrive in small boats have already claimed asylum in an EU country.

“If it did, the UK would be able to dismiss the claims,” he said. “The UK is also no longer a part of the Dublin system that would allow for such asylum claimants to be returned to the EU. Migrants understand this, so view reaching the UK as giving them another chance at securing residence in the UK.”

The Dublin regulation – the framework for the EU’s rules on asylum seekers – establishes the criteria that determine which EU member state is responsible for examining asylum applications submitted by someone who is originally from a third country.

Between 2018 and 2024, 68 percent of asylum applications from migrants who arrived in small boats were granted in the UK. This was higher than the grant rate for asylum applications generally, which was 57 percent for the same duration. This may be another reason people are attracted to the UK, experts say.

What steps have France and the UK taken to stop boats crossing the English Channel?

In March 2023, the UK, under former Conservative PM Rishi Sunak, signed a three-year deal with France, under which the UK agreed to pay France 480 million pounds ($650m) to tighten its border patrols and surveillance.

Under this deal, France agreed to deploy 500 officers and provide a new detention centre in France, which would be operational by the end of 2026. France also agreed to increase funding for stricter enforcement, without specifying the amount of money.

Separately, in June this year, France agreed to come up with a plan to intercept small boats heading to the UK, for the first time, expanding its navy with six patrol boats that will rescue migrants but also intercept them from heading to the UK.

Paris has agreed to do this for boats which are within 300 metres (1,000ft) from the French shore, and has asked the UK for extra funding to fund the police and equipment to enforce these interceptions, according to UK media.

French police have recently taken to damaging the small boats, slashing their rubber frames with knives. The French Interior Ministry told The Associated Press that the police had not been ordered to do this, however.

What are the criticisms of the new deal under discussion?

Since an average of 700 migrants enter the UK by small boat each week, if the UK government sends an average of 50 people back to France per week, that would amount to just one in 14 being returned.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp of the opposition Conservative Party told The Times newspaper: “This deal will mean that 94 percent of illegal migrants crossing the Channel will get to stay. That is pathetic and will not deter anyone. By contrast, the Rwanda deterrent would have seen 100 percent of illegal migrants removed and that would have worked to deter people crossing the Channel. Keir Starmer’s failure continues.”

The plan could potentially face a legal challenge under the UN Refugee Convention, which mandates asylum seekers’ rights to request protection.

French officials are also critical of the deal, cautious it could result in France becoming a “return hub” for migrants that the UK refuses to accept. “We are putting ourselves into the hands of the British without minimal reciprocal elements,” an unnamed French official involved in the talks told Le Monde.

The policy could also provide ammunition against Macron for his right-wing political critics, who may question why he has agreed to take back migrants wanting to live in Britain.

The UK is not subject to the EU’s Dublin regulations, while France is. This makes the status of migrants returning from Britain to France unclear, causing concern among other European nations, who are upset with France for bilaterally negotiating the deal without consulting the EU.

“Why should other Europeans be obliged to take these returns under EU, Dublin rules when they result from French obligation under a bilateral deal with the UK, a non-EU member, that France negotiated without asking us?” The Times quoted an unnamed EU diplomat as saying on Thursday.

A deal is also opposed by the southern European countries of Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta and Spain, who have been receiving unauthorised migrants at an increasing rate, the Financial Times reported. These countries are concerned that if migrants are sent back to France from the UK, they may try to enter southern Europe from France instead.

As the 2000s came to a close, the immigrant population multiplied by more than fivefold in Spain, Italy and Greece, according to a 2016 research article written by scholars from the University of Liege in Belgium.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said on Wednesday during Prime Minister’s Questions in Parliament that the UK must refuse to accept “undocumented males” coming in small boats as part of a deal with France. Farage said Starmer should not bow to an “increasingly arrogant, anti-Brexit French president”. Starmer responded, saying Farage’s approach is to “break everything and claim that’s how you fix things”.

Weighing the viability of an agreement between Paris and London, Walsh said: “A returns deal may have an impact if it affects enough people. We don’t know how many people could plausibly be returned to France under this deal, but there’s a risk that if an insufficiently low share of individuals are returned, then people wishing to reach the UK by small boat may see the risk of return as another risk worth taking – alongside the much greater risk of getting in a small boat.”