Migration

Sudan was teetering on the edge of crisis long before open war erupted in April 2023. Decades of authoritarian rule under Omar al-Bashir resulted in a fragile economy, fragmented security forces, and entrenched paramilitary structures.

Following the coup that overthrew al-Bashir in 2019, a fragile civilian-military transitional arrangement failed to unite competing factions. Political instability, localised rebellions, and a simmering rivalry between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) – the successor to the Popular Defence Forces, government-backed militia known as the Janjaweed who committed war crimes in Darfur in the early 2000s – escalated into full-blown conflict.

By mid-2023, Sudan was effectively split into contested zones, with major urban centres, such as Khartoum and Omdurman, transformed into battlefields, and millions of civilians displaced internally or forced across borders as refugees.

Although geographically removed, the European Union played a consequential role in these developments. For nearly a decade, it pursued a strategy of “externalising” migration control, directing aid, training, and equipment to African states ostensibly to reduce irregular migration towards Europe.

In Sudan, this approach produced unintended and devastating consequences that the EU is yet to be held accountable for. Funding initially justified under “migration management” and “capacity building” intersected with opaque arms flows, Gulf intermediaries, and weak oversight. European money and materiel, intended to stabilise populations and impose border forces to buffer the migratory ambitions of Africans, may have indirectly reinforced the very actors now perpetrating war crimes in Sudan.

Between 2014 and 2018, the EU channelled more than 200 million euros ($232m at the current exchange rate) into Sudan via the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF) and the Better Migration Management (BMM) initiative.

These programmes formally aimed to strengthen migration control, border security and anti-trafficking enforcement. In reality, they entrenched cooperation between the EU and Sudan’s security structures, including units that effectively merged into the RSF.

As early as 2017, the Enough Project, an advocacy group focused on conflict, corruption and human rights, published a report titled Border Control from Hell, warning that “the gravest concern about the EU’s new partnership with Sudan is that the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), one of the most abusive paramilitary groups in the country, stands to benefit from EU funding” and that “the equipment that enables identification and registration of migrants will also reinforce the surveillance capabilities of a Sudanese government that has violently suppressed Sudanese citizens for the past 28 years”.

Two years later, the EU had to suspend several migration-control activities in Sudan because there was a risk that resources could be “diverted for repressive aims”, according to an EU official document cited by German news outlet Deutsche Welle.

And yet, a factsheet titled What the EU really does in Sudan, published on the bloc’s website in 2018, claimed: “The EU does not provide any financial support to the Government of Sudan … The Rapid Support Forces of the Sudanese military do not benefit directly or indirectly from EU funding.”

All this raises an important question: If the EU knew of the risk of diversion, why did it still invest hundreds of millions into a context where control over the end use of training, equipment and funds was manifestly weak?

What is worse is that the EU’s role was not limited to supplying funds that could be misappropriated. It also provided weapons, albeit indirectly.

As the conflict deepened, investigators started uncovering foreign-manufactured weapons and ammunition circulating widely among the RSF and the SAF. Verified imagery, open-source analysis and serial number tracing have revealed European-manufactured systems on Sudan’s battlefields. In November 2024, Amnesty International released an investigation disclosing that Nimr Ajban armoured personnel carriers (APCs) were equipped with French-made Galix defensive systems. Amnesty’s analysts verified images and videos from multiple Sudanese locations and concluded that, if deployed in Darfur, their use would breach the longstanding United Nations arms embargo on the region.

In April, investigations by France24 and the Reuters news agency traced 81mm mortar shells found in an RSF convoy in North Darfur back to Bulgaria. The markings on this ammunition matched mortar bombs manufactured by a Bulgarian firm and exported legally to the United Arab Emirates in 2019. The Bulgarian government had not authorised the re-export of the shells from the UAE to Sudan.

In October, The Guardian reported that British military equipment, including small-arms target systems and engines for APCs, had been used by the RSF in Sudan, and they may have been supplied by the UAE.

Taken together, these findings illustrate a pattern: European-made arms and weapons systems, legally exported to third countries, have subsequently been diverted into Sudan’s conflict, despite embargoes and supposed safeguards.

Although the UAE denies it plays any role in the conflict, its position as an intermediary hub for re-exported weaponry has been repeatedly documented. Still, European suppliers, bound by end-user agreements and export-control frameworks, share responsibility for ensuring compliance.

Under the United Kingdom and EU regulations, governments must deny or revoke licences when there is a clear risk of diversion to conflict zones or human rights abusers. The use of European-made arms and weapons systems in Sudan, therefore, demands a rigorous reassessment of post-shipment monitoring and enforcement.

Despite this, European and British governments have continued to issue new export licences to potential violators, including the UAE. Recent reporting by Middle East Eye shows that the UK approved roughly $227m in military exports to the UAE between April and June this year, even after being informed that Emirati-supplied equipment had reached the RSF.

European countries are by far not an exception in failing to ensure that their weapons are not diverted to war zones under embargo.

My own country, South Africa, has also faced criticism over the lack of control over its arms shipments. In the mid-2010s, the National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC) faced international and domestic scrutiny after South African-manufactured weapons and ammunition were reportedly used by Saudi and Emirati forces in Yemen.

As a result, in 2019, the NCACC delayed or withheld export approvals, especially for “the most lethal” items, amid disputes over updated inspection clauses and human rights concerns. The South African authorities demanded that they be granted access to facilities in importer countries to ensure compliance with the end-user agreement – something the UAE and Saudi Arabia, along with several other countries, refused to provide. By 2022, previously withheld consignments were eventually cleared under renegotiated terms.

Today, evidence suggests that South African weapons may have been diverted to Sudan as well. Investigators and open-source analysts claim to have identified munitions consistent with South African manufacture in Sudan.

The South African case illustrates that even when there is political will to ensure compliance with the end-user agreements for arms sales, enforcement can be challenging. And yet, it is a necessary and crucial part of peacebuilding efforts.

If democratic governments wish to reclaim credibility, end-use monitoring must be enforceable, not a bureaucratic concession. The NCACC in Pretoria and export control authorities in Brussels, Sofia, Paris and London must publish transparent audits of past licences, investigate credible diversion cases, and suspend new approvals where risk remains unmitigated.

In parallel, the EU must ensure migration management funding cannot be coopted by armed actors.

Without such measures, Europe’s migration policy and South Africa’s defence trade risk complicity in a grim paradox: initiatives justified in the name of security that foster insecurity.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

Pause on visas and halting of asylum applications comes after shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, DC.

The US State Department has announced it is “immediately” pausing issuing visas for individuals travelling on Afghan passports to protect “public safety”, as President Donald Trump administration’s immigration crackdown intensifies in the wake of a deadly attack on two National Guard members.

The announcement on Friday came as United States immigration authorities said they are also halting decisions on all asylum applications for the foreseeable future.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed in a post on X on Friday that the State Department had “paused visa issuance for ALL individuals traveling on Afghan passports”.

The move comes after authorities named Afghan national Rahmanaullah Lakanwal as the main suspect in Wednesday’s shooting in Washington, DC, which killed one National Guard member and left another in critical condition.

“The United States has no higher priority than protecting our nation and our people,” Rubio said.

President Trump’s State Department has paused visa issuance for ALL individuals traveling on Afghan passports. 

The United States has no higher priority than protecting our nation and our people. https://t.co/HuR1Lj7F9t

— Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) November 28, 2025

Lakanwal is alleged to have ambushed West Virginia National Guard members Sarah Beckstrom and Andrew Wolfe in an unprovoked attack as they patrolled near the White House.

On Thursday evening, the Trump administration confirmed that 20-year-old Beckstrom had died from her injuries, while 24-year-old Wolfe remains in critical condition.

The CIA confirmed this week that Lakanwal had worked for the spy agency in Afghanistan before emigrating to the US shortly after the withdrawal of Western forces from the country in 2021.

The office of US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro, announced on Friday that the charges against Lakanwal had been upgraded to first-degree murder, along with two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed.

In a separate announcement on Friday, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) director Joseph Edlow said the agency had also paused all asylum decisions in the interest of the “safety of the American people”.

“USCIS has halted all asylum decisions until we can ensure that every alien is vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible,” Edlow said in a post on X.

A day earlier, Edlow said he had ordered “a full-scale, rigorous re-examination of every green card for every alien from every country of concern” at the direction of Trump.

The moves are the latest in a series of escalating restrictions imposed on immigration into the US at Trump’s urging.

Trump, who called the deadly Washington, DC, shooting a “terrorist attack”, has on several occasions over recent days attacked former President Joe Biden’s administration’s immigration policies, including the granting of visas to Afghan nationals who worked with US forces in Afghanistan.

Lakanwal came to the US under a Biden-era programme known as “Operation Allies Welcome”, following the US withdrawal in 2021.

In a post on his Truth Social platform on Thursday, Trump ordered authorities to re-examine all green card applications from 19 “countries of concern”, before saying he planned to suspend immigration from “all Third World countries”.

He did not define the term “Third World”, but the phrase is often used as a shorthand for developing countries in the Global South.

Trump also said that he would “remove anyone who is not a net asset to the United States, or is incapable of loving our Country”.

“[I will] denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquillity, and deport any foreign national who is a public charge, security risk, or non-compatible with Western civilization,” he said.

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has already taken aggressive measures to restrict immigration, announcing in October his administration would accept only 7,500 refugees in 2026 – the lowest number since 1980.

The announcement comes as undocumented people flee neighbouring Chile in anticipation of an immigration crackdown.

Peruvian President Jose Jeri has announced on social media that he will declare a state of emergency on the border with Chile, sparking concerns of a humanitarian crisis.

Jeri’s statement on Friday comes just more than two weeks before a presidential run-off takes place in Chile.

Leading far-right candidate Jose Antonio Kast is facing leftist Jeannette Jara on December 14, and he has pledged to detain and expel migrants who are in Chile without documentation if he wins.

The campaign pledges have led to a surge in crossings into Peru, mostly by Venezuelans who long sought opportunity in Chile amid economic woes at home.

Jeri is himself a far-right leader. Formerly the head of Peru’s Congress, he succeeded his impeached predecessor, Dina Boluarte, in October.

He confirmed media speculation of the state of emergency in a brief post on the social media platform X.

“We ARE going to declare a state of emergency at the border with Chile to generate tranquility before the risk of migrants entering without authorisation,” Jeri wrote.

He further added that the influx could “threaten the public safety” of Peru’s population of about 34 million.

At least 100 people were at the border seeking to enter Peru on Friday, Peruvian police General Arturo Valverde told local television station Canal N.

Peruvian media have for days broadcast images of families seeking to cross the border from Chile.

This came shortly after candidate Kast filmed a campaign video at the border, warning undocumented people to leave before the country’s December 14 election.

Chile’s current left-wing president, Gabriel Boric, is limited by law to one four-year term at a time, though non-consecutive re-election bids are allowed.

The new president will be sworn in on March 11, 2026. Kast is considered the frontrunner going into December’s vote.

“You have 111 days to leave Chile voluntarily,” Kast said in his campaign video, referring to the inauguration.

“If not, we will stop you, we will detain you, we will expel you. You will leave with only the clothes on your back.”

Earlier this week, Peruvian President Jeri also visited the border and declared he would surge troops to the area.

About 330,000 undocumented people are estimated to live in Chile. It was not immediately clear how many had crossed into Peru in recent days.

Chilean Minister of Security Luis Cordero has criticised Kast’s campaign tactics, telling reporters that “rhetoric sometimes has consequences”.

“People cannot be used as a means to create controversy for the elections,” he said.

“Our main purpose is to prevent a humanitarian crisis.”

United States President Donald Trump has sharply escalated his crackdown on immigration with an announcement of a “permanent pause” on migration from “all Third World Countries” late on Thursday.

The president’s remarks came a day after two National Guard members were shot – one of whom has since died from her injuries – in Washington, DC, on Wednesday. An Afghan national has been named as the primary suspect.

“I will permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the US system to fully recover, terminate all of the millions of Biden illegal admissions,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform.

He did not specify what “third world” means and did not name any countries. But the phrase “third world” generally refers to Global South countries that are economically still developing or economically disadvantaged.

He also said “anyone who is not a net asset to the United States, or is incapable of loving our Country”, will be removed from the US.

Trump added that all federal benefits and subsidies to “noncitizens” will end, and he will “denaturalise migrants who undermine domestic tranquillity, and deport any foreign national who is a public charge, security risk, or non-compatible with Western civilisation”.

Earlier this year, Trump announced a ban on visas for citizens of 12 countries and restrictions for citizens of seven more. He has also introduced other restrictions on travel to the US throughout the year.

Here’s what we know.

What has the Trump administration said?

After Rahmanaullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national, was arrested and named as the suspect in the shooting of the National Guard members on Wednesday, Trump called the shooting “an act of terror”.

In an address to the media on Wednesday night, he said: “We must now re-examine every single alien who has entered our country from Afghanistan under Biden.”

Early on Thursday, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced an indefinite immediate suspension “of all immigration requests relating to Afghan nationals”.

Effective immediately, processing of all immigration requests relating to Afghan nationals is stopped indefinitely pending further review of security and vetting protocols.

The protection and safety of our homeland and of the American people remains our singular focus and…

— USCIS (@USCIS) November 27, 2025

USCIS Director Joseph Edlow then added on X that, “at the direction” of the president, he had ordered “a full-scale, rigorous re-examination of every green card for every alien from every country of concern”.

“The protection of this country and of the American people remains paramount, and the American people will not bear the cost of the prior administration’s reckless resettlement policies,” Edlow said.

Edlow’s office told US media that the countries for which citizens with green cards will be reviewed would be those on the Trump administration’s June travel ban list.

In June, to “protect the United States from foreign terrorists and other National security and public safety threats”, the Trump administration announced that foreign nationals from 19 countries would face a full travel ban or partial restrictions.

Countries with a full ban in place are Afghanistan, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Those with a partial ban in place – some temporary visas are still allowed – are Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.

At the direction of @POTUS, I have directed a full scale, rigorous reexamination of every Green Card for every alien from every country of concern.

— USCIS Director Joseph B. Edlow (@USCISJoe) November 27, 2025

On Thursday night, Trump said on Truth Social he would introduce a “permanent pause” on immigration from all “Third World Countries”.

What does a ‘permanent pause’ in immigration mean?

It is unclear.

“In ordinary English, ‘permanent pause’ sounds final, but under immigration law, the term has no defined meaning,” Abhishek Saxena, a New Delhi-based advocate practising in the Supreme Court of India who also handles international immigration consultations, told Al Jazeera.

“Practically, ‘permanent pause’ typically means an open-ended restriction with no stated end date, but not a legally irreversible condition,” he added.

According to the US Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the president may suspend the entry of immigrants for a fixed period, indefinitely or until the president modifies or lifts the proclamation. This can, however, be challenged. “If any indefinite pause is violating laws passed by US Congress, then such ban or pause can be challenged in a court,” said Saxena.

Roberto Forin, acting director of the Geneva-based Mixed Migration Centre (MMC), said the Trump administration’s vagueness over who these policies apply to and what he means by “permanently pause” or “Third World” is intentional.

“Keeping it undefined allows the administration to indiscriminately intimidate migrant communities in the US and around the world, while giving itself the prerogative to use this ban as another tool in its transactional approach to foreign policy,” Forin told Al Jazeera.

“I would expect the ban to disproportionately affect poorer countries, while sparing those that can offer something in exchange, such as natural resources or other strategic benefits,” he said.

“The objective of such announcements is to signal toughness, shift the narrative, instil fear and dehumanise migrants – regardless of the practical implementation and eventual legal outcomes,” he added.

How will people from such countries who are already living in the US be affected?

It is unclear how people from those countries will be affected until the names of the countries are listed and the immigration measure is implemented.

However, an August report by the Washington, DC-based American Immigration Council concluded that people from the 12 countries on Trump’s June 2025 full travel ban list will “not be able to see family members living abroad”.

“Under the June order, existing visas cannot be revoked, but those who need to leave the United States and renew their visas after they expire could be subjected to the ban instead of being allowed to return,” the report said.

Saxena said a restrictive immigration policy can indirectly affect people in the US in several other ways as well.

“Firstly, it will lead to increased scrutiny of pending applications. USCIS may subject applications from nationals of the affected countries to added background checks, longer security screening, or temporary holds,” he said.

“Secondly, history shows that when a country is placed under heightened security review, [visa] processing times frequently increase,” he noted.

“Lastly, although the government cannot revoke existing residency statuses arbitrarily, it may audit past immigration filings for fraud, misrepresentation, security concerns, or ineligibility under existing statutes,” he added.

Saxena said Trump’s announcement that he will pause immigration from “Third World Countries” would also likely prevent spouses, children, and parents who are abroad from entering the US until the proclamation is lifted.

“This creates long-distance separations, delays in family-based immigration petitions and interruption of family reunification programmes,” he said.

“However, people already inside the US cannot be separated from their families merely because a country is listed in a proclamation. Family-unity principles under the Constitution and the INA apply once a person is inside US territory,” he added.

What if you have a green card?

On Thursday, the Trump administration told journalists that it intends to re-examine all green cards held by people from the countries on the June 2025 travel ban list. However, it is not clear how the process will work or whether green cards could be revoked or even cancelled.

A green card is a US immigration document which allows an immigrant to permanently reside and work in the country.

US immigration judges have the power to revoke green cards and to deport people from the country if there are serious grounds, such as being found guilty of grievous crimes like murder or rape.

The government can also deport an immigrant on these grounds, including if they consider the person “a threat to public safety or if the person violates their visa”.

However, according to Saxena, the government “has no legal authority to revoke green cards without following due process. Any revocation must follow strict statutory procedures and satisfy due-process requirements.”

Last year, the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency detained pro-Palestine activist Mahmoud Khalil on the “basis of his speech” while he was protesting against Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza at Columbia University. Khalil was a permanent US resident at the time, but ICE accused him of omitting information on his green card application.

In September, a US immigration judge ordered that Khalil should be deported to Algeria or Syria, but this has not yet happened.

What other steps has Trump taken this year to restrict immigration?

Besides green card re-examinations and announcing travel bans on citizens of some specific countries, Trump also froze refugee admissions shortly after he resumed office in January.

“The United States lacks the ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees, into its communities in a manner that does not compromise the availability of resources for Americans, that protects their safety and security, and that ensures the appropriate assimilation of refugees,” the White House said in a statement in January.

Then, at the end of October, the Trump administration announced the lowest refugee admission cap in the country’s history, limiting entry to just 7,500 people for the fiscal year 2026.

On November 25, according to a memo seen by the Reuters news agency, the Trump administration ordered a review of all refugees allowed into the country under the previous Joe Biden administration, and recommended that their permanent residency applications be paused.

According to the memo, which was reportedly signed by USCIS chief Eldow, the status and applications of about 233,000 refugees who entered the US between January 20, 2021 and February 20, 2025, would be reviewed. The memo cited Trump’s January order on freezing refugee admissions due to national security as a reason.

The US has also cut foreign aid for refugees in host countries.

The Trump administration has also targeted skilled migrant workers in an effort to protect US citizens’ jobs. In September, it increased the application fee for H-1B visas to $100,000 per application. The visa is used by companies in the US hiring overseas workers.

In October, the US Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for the visa application fee rise, claiming it could harm businesses. The case is pending in the Washington, DC district court.

What does this mean for refugees generally?

“Taken together, these measures, especially if they trigger a ‘race to the bottom’ among governments, could have devastating consequences globally, including in countries already ravaged by conflict and violence,” Forin said.

“We see this happening in Europe as well, from the system the UK has tried to establish to outsource asylum procedures to Rwanda, to the centres Italy tried to set up in Albania, and none of these have worked, because they were blocked by courts at every step.”

“Unfortunately, they have all contributed to the dehumanisation of refugees and migrants, depicting them simply as a threat or a burden, rather than as human beings in need of protection or deserving of a chance at a better future,” Forin added.

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — President Trump says he wants to “permanently pause migration” from poorer nations and is promising to seek to expel millions of immigrants from the United States by revoking their legal status.

Trump is blaming immigrants for problems from crime to housing shortages as part of what he calls “social dysfunction” in America and demanding “REVERSE MIGRATION.”

His most severe social media post against immigration since returning to the Oval Office in January came after the shooting Wednesday of two National Guard members who were patrolling the streets of the nation’s capital under his orders. One died and the other is in critical condition.

A 29-year-old Afghan national who worked with the CIA during the Afghanistan war is facing charges. The suspect came to the U.S. as part of a program after U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan to resettle those who had helped American troops.

Trump’s threat to stop immigration would be a serious blow to a nation that has long defined itself as welcoming immigrants.

Since Wednesday’s shooting near the White House, administration officials have pledged to reexamine millions of legal immigrants, building on a 10-month campaign to reduce the immigrant population. In a lengthy social media post late Thursday, the Republican president asserted that millions of people born outside the U.S. and now living in the country bore a large share of the blame for America’s societal ills.

“Only REVERSE MIGRATION can fully cure this situation,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform. “Other than that, HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL, except those that hate, steal, murder, and destroy everything that America stands for — You won’t be here for long!”

Trump was elected on a promise to crack down on illegal migration, and raids and deportations undertaken by his administration have disrupted communities across the country. Construction sites and schools have been frequent targets. The prospect of more deportations could be economically dangerous as America’s foreign-born workers account for nearly 31 million jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The president said on Truth Social that “most” foreign-born U.S. residents “are on welfare, from failed nations, or from prisons, mental institutions, gangs, or drug cartels” as he blamed them for crime across the country that is predominantly committed by U.S. citizens.

There are roughly 50 million foreign-born residents in the U.S., and multiple studies have found that immigrants are generally less likely to commit crimes than are people who were born in the country.

The perception that immigration breeds crime “continues to falter under the weight of the evidence,” according to a review of academic literature last year in the Annual Review of Criminology.

“With few exceptions, studies conducted at both the aggregate and individual levels demonstrate that high concentrations of immigrants are not associated with increased levels of crime and delinquency across neighborhoods and cities in the United States,” it said.

A study by economists initially released in 2023 found immigrants are 60% less likely to be incarcerated than people born in the U.S. Immigrants have been imprisoned at lower rates for 150 years, the study found, adding to past research undermining Trump’s claims.

Trump seemed to have little interest in a policy debate in his post, which the White House, on its own rapid response social media account, called “one of the most important messages ever released by President Trump.”

He pledged to “terminate” millions of admissions to the country made during the term of his predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden. He also wants to end federal benefits and subsidies for those who are not U.S. citizens, denaturalize people “who undermine domestic tranquility” and deport foreign nationals deemed “non-compatible with Western Civilization.”

Trump claimed immigrants from Somalia were “completely taking over the once great State of Minnesota” as he used a dated slur for intellectually disabled people to demean that state’s governor, Tim Walz, the Democratic vice presidential nominee last year.

On Wednesday night, Trump called for the reinvestigation of all Afghan refugees who had entered under the Biden administration. On Thursday, the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Joseph Edlow, said the agency would take additional steps to screen people from 19 “high-risk” countries “to the maximum degree possible.”

Edlow did not name the countries. But in June, the administration banned travel to the U.S. by citizens of 12 countries and restricted access from seven others, citing national security concerns.

The shooting of the two National Guard members appeared to trigger Trump’s anger over immigrants, yet he did not specifically refer to the event in his social media post.

The suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, is accused of driving across the country to the District of Columbia and shooting two West Virginia National Guard members, Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, and Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24. Beckstrom died Thursday; Wolfe is in critical condition.

Lakanwal, currently in custody, was also shot and had wounds that were not believed to be life-threatening.

Trump was asked by a reporter Thursday if he blamed the shootings on all Afghans who came to the U.S.

“No, but we’ve had a lot of problems with Afghans,” the president said.

Boak writes for the Associated Press.

Green card applications from ‘countries of concern’ will be reviewed after Afghan national named as suspect in shooting of National Guard members.

United States President Donald Trump said he plans to suspend immigration from “all Third World countries”, the day after an Afghan national was named as a suspect in the shooting of two members of the National Guard in Washington, DC.

Trump’s announcement marks the latest in a series of escalating restrictions on immigration to the US, after he earlier ordered the US government to re-examine all green card applications from 19 “countries of concern”, in the wake of the Washington, DC, shooting.

“I will permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the US system to fully recover, terminate all of the millions of Biden illegal admissions,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform on Thursday.

While he did not define the term “Third World,” the phrase usually refers to developing countries in the Global South.

Trump also said that he will “remove anyone who is not a net asset to the United States, or is incapable of loving our Country”.

He added that all federal benefits and subsidies to “noncitizens” will end, and he will “denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquillity, and deport any foreign national who is a public charge, security risk, or non-compatible with Western civilization”.

US Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Joseph Edlow said earlier on Thursday that, “at the direction” of President Trump, he had ordered “a full-scale, rigorous re-examination of every green card for every alien from every country of concern”.

“The protection of this country and of the American people remains paramount, and the American people will not bear the cost of the prior administration’s reckless resettlement policies,” Edlow said.

Edlow did not elaborate on which countries’ applicants would be reviewed, but his office directed The Associated Press (AP) news agency to a June 4 presidential proclamation restricting citizens of 19 countries from entering the US. The list includes Afghanistan, Haiti, Iran, Myanmar, Venezuela and Yemen.

Citizenship and Immigration Services had earlier announced that it would indefinitely suspend all Afghan immigration requests “pending further review of security and vetting protocols”.

The restrictions on immigrants in the US come as Jeanine Pirro, US attorney for the District of Columbia in Washington, DC, identified the suspect in the shooting of the National Guard members as Rahmanaullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national who previously worked with US forces in Afghanistan.

Lakanwal came to the US under a programme known as “Operation Allies Welcome” following the US withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, according to Pirro. She said federal authorities, including the FBI, would be reviewing his immigration history and the vetting process.

The Trump administration has already taken aggressive measures to restrict immigration to the US. In October, it announced it would accept only 7,500 refugees in 2026 – the lowest number since 1980.

The US government is also in the midst of a major review of recent US refugee arrivals, according to a memo signed by Edlow and obtained by the AP on Monday.

The memo orders the review of the approximately 200,000 refugees admitted to the US under the administration of President Joe Biden, according to the AP.

It also suspends green card applications from refugees who came to the US during that period.

Immigration rights advocates says the new policy aims to ‘bully some of the most vulnerable’ people in US society.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has confirmed that it will retroactively vet refugees who have already been admitted into the country, prompting concern from immigrant rights groups.

“Corrective action is now being taken to ensure those who are present in the United States deserve to be here,” Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement on Tuesday.

The Associated Press and Reuters news agencies had reported on Monday that they obtained a government memorandum ordering a review of more than 230,000 refugees who were legally resettled in the country under former President Joe Biden.

The memo, signed by US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Joseph Edlow, said that refugees who are found to have failed to meet the standards for resettlement would have their legal status revoked.

“Given these concerns, USCIS has determined that a comprehensive review and a re-interview of all refugees admitted from January 20, 2021, to February 20, 2025, is warranted,” the memo stated.

“When appropriate, USCIS will also review and re-interview refugees admitted outside this timeframe.”

In 2024, the US admitted more than 100,000 refugees. The leading countries of origin for refugees were the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Afghanistan, Venezuela and Syria.

Unlike asylum seekers who apply for protections once they arrive in the US, refugees apply for legal status while they are outside of the country.

They are allowed to enter the US with the presumption that they will be longterm residents, safe from persecution in their home countries.

Refugee admission also offers a path to US citizenship, with newcomers able to apply for a legal permanent residency one year after arrival in the country.

Applicants for refugee admission undergo multiple levels of screening and interviews. That process often starts with a third party – usually the United Nations – referring them to the US refugee admissions programme.

Then, US immigration authorities rigorously vet the applicants, who must show they faced persecution for their race, religion, nationality, political beliefs or membership in a particular social group.

Sharif Aly, the president of the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), said refugees are the most highly vetted immigrants in the country.

“This order is one more in a long line of efforts to bully some of the most vulnerable members of our communities, by threatening their lawful status, rendering them vulnerable to the egregious conduct of immigration enforcement agencies, and putting them through an onerous and potentially re-traumatizing process,” Aly said in a statement.

Mark Hetfield, president of the humanitarian organisation HIAS, called the Trump administration’s move “unnecessary, cruel and wasteful”. His group assists new refugees in the US.

“Refugees have already been more vetted than any other group of immigrants,” Hetfield told Reuters.

Trump drastically reduced refugee admission during his first term and all but gutted the programme after his return to the White House in January.

The second Trump administration set a historic low of ​7,500 as the refugee admission cap for next year.

The president also ordered the programme to “primarily” resettle white South Africans, whom he says are facing discrimination by their government.

Overall, Trump has pushed to restrict new arrivals to the US and crack down on noncitizens in the country.

Nine of the top 10 mega-cities are in Asia, with Bangladesh’s Dhaka projected to be the world’s largest city by 2050.

A new United Nations report has found that Indonesia’s capital Jakarta is the world’s largest city with 41.9 million people living there, followed by Dhaka in Bangladesh, which is home to 36.6 million.

A low-lying coastal city located in the west of the densely populated island of Java, Jakarta rose from second place to replace Tokyo, which had been named the world’s largest city in the UN’s most recent assessment published back in 2000.

The Japanese capital’s relatively steady population of 33.4 million saw it fall to third place behind Bangladesh’s densely populated capital, Dhaka, which jumped to second place from ninth and is now projected to become the world’s largest city by 2050.

The World Urbanization Prospects 2025 report from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs also found that the number of megacities – urban areas with more than 10 million inhabitants – has increased to 33, four times more than the eight megacities that existed worldwide in 1975.

Asia is home to 19 of the world’s 33 megacities, and nine out of the top 10. In addition to Jakarta, Dhaka and Tokyo, the other Asian cities in the top 10 are: New Delhi, India (30.2 million); Shanghai, China (29.6 million); Guangzhou, China (27.6 million); Manila, Philippines (24.7 million); Kolkata, India (22.5 million); and Seoul, South Korea (22.5 million).

With a population of 32 million people, Egypt’s Cairo is the only city in the top 10 that is outside Asia, according to the UN.

Sao Paulo in Brazil, with 18.9 million people, is the largest city in the Americas, while Lagos in Nigeria also grew rapidly, making it the largest city in sub-Saharan Africa.

Still growing

Dhaka’s rapid growth has partly been driven by people from rural areas moving to the capital, searching for opportunities or fleeing hometowns due to problems including flooding and rising sea levels, made worse by climate change.

Jakarta is also facing problems due to rising sea levels. It is estimated that up to one quarter of the city could be under water by 2050.

The problem is so serious that Indonesia’s government is building a new purpose-built capital city in Nusantara in Borneo island’s East Kalimantan province. Yet while the city’s officials and parliamentary buildings will have a new home, the UN estimates that 10 million more people will be living in Jakarta by 2050.

The city’s growing population will also have to contend with concerns over inequality and affordability, which saw thousands of people take to the streets of the Indonesian city earlier this year, reflecting rising anger over the conditions of low-income workers, including app-based motorcycle ride-share and delivery riders.

Meanwhile, according to the UN report, Iran’s capital Tehran, which is facing water rations because it is close to running out of water, currently has a population of nine million people.

The new assessment also saw changes as the UN adopted new measures to try to address inconsistencies in how different countries defined urbanisation.

The UN also said that in most cases its report reflected the size of individual cities, rather than two cities that have grown together, with a small number of exceptions.

The new definition defined a city as a “contiguous agglomeration” of one-kilometre-square grid cells with a density of at least 1,500 inhabitants per square kilometre and a total population of at least 50,000.

Kateryna Golizdra has been dealing with uncertainty about her legal status in the United States for six months. She hopes to endure another six months as she waits for the Trump administration to make decisions regarding a humanitarian program that allowed around 260,000 Ukrainians, displaced by the war, to live and work in the U. S. When her legal status expired in May, Golizdra became at risk of deportation, lost her job as a manager at the Ritz-Carlton that paid over $50,000, and lost her health insurance for a liver condition. She can no longer send financial support to her mother who lives in Germany.

As of March 31, nearly 200,000 Ukrainians faced similar risks due to processing delays in renewing their legal status caused by the Trump administration. The humanitarian program, which started in April 2022, was meant to offer short-term refuge to Ukrainians but is only a small part of the larger refugee crisis, with 5.9 million Ukrainian refugees globally. Golizdra is left unsure of when, or if, her legal status will be renewed, which creates a sense of ongoing anxiety about her future.

During interviews with various Ukrainian individuals affected by the temporary loss of their work permits, many shared stories of struggling financially. They reported dipping into their savings, seeking community assistance, and going into debt while they wait for updates. Some are afraid of being arrested by immigration authorities, prompting them to stay indoors or even leave the U. S. for safer locations in Canada, Europe, or South America. Returning to Ukraine is not an option for Golizdra, as her home was destroyed during the conflict.

The Trump administration halted processing applications for the humanitarian program in January, citing security concerns stemming from a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. While the program was not completely canceled, and a federal judge ordered officials to resume processing, only a tiny fraction of renewal applications have been processed since then. Additionally, a new spending package increased fees for humanitarian applications, adding to the burdens faced by these displaced individuals.

U. S. Representative Mike Quigley noted that his office has received numerous requests for help from Ukrainians in similar situations, with fears of deportation looming large for those whose applications are incomplete. Anne Smith, from the Ukraine Immigration Task Force, reported an uptick in calls from families worrying about detained relatives. This has led to chaotic interactions, with some being arrested while working or out in public.

Some Ukrainians have decided to leave the U. S. to avoid the risk of detention. Yevhenii Padafa, a software engineer, sought to renew his status but faced delays that left him without legal standing. Worrying about future complications, he tried to “self deport” using a government app that promised assistance for those voluntarily leaving the country. However, he encountered obstacles that made it difficult to relocate to a safer country. Instead, he ended up traveling to Argentina, which offers a humanitarian program, despite feeling financially strained upon arrival. He expressed the grim reality of preferring to be homeless in a foreign country rather than return to Ukraine, which is fraught with danger.

With information from Reuters

Tunis, Tunisia – Night had just about fallen in Halq al-Wadi, also known as La Goulette, a balmy coastal suburb of Tunis, when the Virgin Mary emerged from the local church, Saint-Augustin and Saint Fidele, into a packed square.

Carried on the shoulders of a dozen churchgoers, the statue of the Virgin was greeted with cheers, ululations and a passionately waved Tunisian flag.

Hundreds of people – Tunisians, Europeans, and sub-Saharan Africans – had gathered for the annual procession of Our Lady of Trapani.

Many of those participating in the procession, and the Catholic Mass that came beforehand, were from sub-Saharan Africa.

“It’s the Holy Virgin who has brought us all here today,” Isaac Lusafu, originally from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, told Al Jazeera. “Today the Virgin Mary has united us all”.

In a large, packed square just beyond the church gates, the statue moved in a circle as people prayed and sang hymns. It was all under the watchful eye of a mural of Claudia Cardinale, the renowned Italian actress born in La Goulette, a reminder of the distant past when the district was home to thousands of Europeans.

A melting pot

The Catholic feast of Our Lady of Trapani was brought to La Goulette in the late 1800s by Sicilian immigrants, in the days when the port town was a hub for poor southern European fishermen in search of a better life.

Immigration to Tunisia from Sicily peaked in the early 20th century. Nearly all of the fishermen, along with their families and descendants, have now returned to European shores, but the statue of the Virgin remained – and, every year on August 15, it is carried in procession out of the church.

“It’s a unique event,” Hatem Bourial, a Tunisian journalist and radio presenter, told Al Jazeera.

He went on to describe how, in the procession’s heyday in the early 20th century, native Tunisians, Muslims and Jews alike, would join Tunisian-Sicilian Catholics in carrying the statue of the Virgin Mary from the church down to the sea.

There, participants would ask Mary to bless the fishermen’s boats. Many residents would shout “Long live the Virgin of Trapani!”, Bourial said, while others threw their chechia, a traditional red cap worn in the Maghreb, in the air.

As well as its religious significance – for Catholics, August 15 marks the day that Mary was taken up into heaven – the feast also coincides with the Italian mid-August holiday of Ferragosto, which traditionally signals the high point of the summer.

Silvia Finzi, born in Tunis in the 1950s to Italian parents, described how, after the statue had been brought down to the sea, many of La Goulette’s residents would declare that the worst of the punishingly hot Tunisian summer was over.

“Once the Virgin had been taken down to the water, it was as if the sea had changed”, Finzi, a professor of Italian at the University of Tunis, told Al Jazeera.

“People would say ‘the sea has changed, the summer’s over’, and you wouldn’t need to go swimming to cool down any more”.

European exodus

The first European immigrants began to arrive in La Goulette in the early 19th century. Their numbers rapidly increased after 1881, when Tunisia became a French protectorate. At its height in the early 1900s, the number of Italian immigrants – who were largely Sicilians – across the whole of Tunisia is estimated to have been more than 100,000.

In the decade after 1956, when Tunisia gained its independence from France, the vast majority of its European residents left the country, as the new government pivoted towards nationalism.

In 1964, the Vatican signed an agreement with Tunisia, transferring control of the majority of the country’s churches – now largely empty – to the government for use as public buildings. The agreement also put an end to all public Christian celebrations, including the procession in La Goulette.

For more than half a century, August 15 was marked only with a Mass inside the church building, and the statue of Our Lady of Trapani remained immobile in its niche. The date remained important for La Goulette’s much-reduced Catholic population, but it largely ceased to be an important event for the wider community.

Nostalgia

In 2017, the Catholic Church received permission to restart the procession, initially just inside the church compound. This year, when Al Jazeera visited, the procession left the church property but only travelled as far as the square outside.

Many attendees were young Tunisian Muslims, with little connection to La Goulette’s historic Sicilian population.

A major reason for this is undoubtedly the high status accorded to the Virgin Mary in Islam – an entire chapter of the Quran is dedicated to her.

Other participants seemed to be drawn by a feeling of nostalgia for La Goulette’s multiethnic, multireligious past.

“I love the procession”, Rania, 26, told Al Jazeera. “Lots of people have forgotten about it now, but European immigration is such an important part of Tunisia’s history”.

Rania, a student, told Al Jazeera of her love for the 1996 film, Un ete a La Goulette (A Summer in La Goulette).

Featuring dialogue in three languages, and evocative shots of sunlit courtyards and shimmering beaches, the film is an ode to La Goulette’s past.

Directed by the renowned Tunisian filmmaker Ferid Boughedir, it follows the lives of three teenage girls – Gigi, a Sicilian, Meriem, a Muslim, and Tina, a Jew – over the course of a summer in the 1960s.

The film ends, however, on a bleak note, with the outbreak of the 1967 War between Israel and several Arab states, and the subsequent departure of almost all of Tunisia’s remaining Jewish and European residents.

New migrations

As Tunisia’s European population declined, the country has seen an influx of new migrant communities from sub-Saharan Africa.

The majority of these new migrants, who number in the tens of thousands, hail from Francophone West Africa. Many come to Tunisia in search of work; others hope to find passage across the Mediterranean to Europe.

Many of the sub-Saharan migrants – who face widespread discrimination in Tunisia – are Christian, and as a result, they now make up the vast majority of Tunisia’s churchgoing population.

This fact is reflected in a mural in the church in La Goulette, inspired by the feast of Our Lady of Trapani. Painted in 2017, it depicts the Virgin Mary sheltering a group of people – Tunisians, Sicilians and sub-Saharan Africans – under her mantle.

The air around the Virgin in the mural is full of passports. The church’s priest, Father Narcisse, who hails from Chad, told Al Jazeera that these represent the documents that immigrants throw into the sea while making the journey from North Africa to Europe in the hope of evading deportation.

The mural highlights the fact that the Madonna of Trapani, once considered the protector of Sicilian fishermen, is today called upon by immigrants of far more varied backgrounds.

“This celebration, in its original form, marked the deep bonds between the two shores of the Mediterranean,” Archbishop of Tunis Nicolas Lhernould told Al Jazeera. “Today, it brings together a more diverse group – Tunisians, Africans, Europeans; locals, migrants, and tourists.”

“Mary herself was a migrant,” Archbishop Lhernould said, referring to the New Testament story which narrates Mary’s flight, together with the child Jesus and her husband Joseph, from Palestine to Egypt.

From a Christian perspective, he suggested, “we are all migrants, just passing through, citizens of a kingdom which is not of this world”.

The spirit of La Goulette

La Goulette was once home to ‘Little Sicily’, an area characterised by its clusters of Italian-style apartment buildings. The vast majority of these structures – modest buildings built by the newly-arrived fishermen – have been torn down and replaced, and little more than the church remains to testify to the area’s once significant Sicilian presence.

As of 2019, there were only 800 Italians descended from the original immigrant community left in the whole of Tunisia.

“There are so few of us left”, said Rita Strazzera, who was born in Tunis to Sicilian parents. The Tunisian-Sicilian community meets very rarely, she explained, with some members coming together for the celebration on the 15th August, and holding occasional meetings in a small bookshop opposite the church.

Still, the spirit of Little Sicily has not entirely vanished. Traces of the old La Goulette linger – in memory, in film, and, Strazzera told Al Jazeera, in other, more surprising ways as well.

“Every year, on All Saints’ Day, I go to the graveyard”, said Strazzera, referring to the annual celebration when Catholics remember their deceased loved ones.

“And there are Tunisians there, Muslims, people who maybe had a Sicilian parent, or a Sicilian grandparent, and have come to visit their graves, because they know it’s what Catholics do.”

“There have been lots of mixed marriages”, Strazzera added, “and so, every year, there are more of them visiting the graves. When I see them, it’s like a reminder that Little Sicily is still with us.”

More than 130 people suspected of being in the United States illegally have been detained in Charlotte, North Carolina, authorities said, as President Donald Trump’s nationwide deportation push intensifies. The raids took place over just two days.

Here is what we know:

What happened in Charlotte?

Federal agents swept into Charlotte, North Carolina, on Saturday, escalating Trump’s widening immigration crackdown and turning the city into the latest focal point for large-scale arrests in Democratic-led areas. Charlotte is a Democratic-leaning city of about 950,000 people and a financial services hub.

Officers were seen outside churches, around apartment complexes, and along busy shopping corridors as the operation unfolded.

“We are increasing the presence of DHS law enforcement in Charlotte to keep Americans safe and remove threats to public safety,” Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said on Saturday.

According to Homeland Security officials, 44 of the detainees have criminal records, including two described as gang members. The alleged offences include driving while intoxicated, assault, trespassing, larceny and hit-and-run. One arrested person, according to the commander leading the raids, is a registered sex offender.

President Trump and Secretary Noem will not back down from their mission to make America safe again.

North Carolina sanctuary politicians are protecting the nearly 1,400 criminal illegal aliens in Charlotte’s jails by REFUSING to turn them over to ICE, ultimately releasing these… pic.twitter.com/rM2kt3gLuB

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) November 17, 2025

What exactly is Operation Charlotte’s Web?

The DHS has labelled the raids Operation Charlotte’s Web, playing on the title of the famous children’s book, which is not about North Carolina.

The book, Charlotte’s Web, follows a pig named Wilbur and his friendship with a spider named Charlotte. When Wilbur is in danger of being killed, Charlotte writes messages in her web to try to save him.

But in Charlotte, the city, the web is not a saviour — it is the dragnet to catch immigrants.

“Wherever the wind takes us. High, low. Near, far. East, west. North, south. We take to the breeze, we go as we please,” Gregory Bovino, the DHS commander leading the raids, said on X on Saturday, quoting from the iconic book.

“This time, the breeze hit Charlotte like a storm. From border towns to the Queen City, our agents go where the mission calls.”

‘Wherever the wind takes us. High, low. Near, far. East, west. North, south. We take to the breeze, we go as we please.’ — Charlotte’s Web

This time, the breeze hit Charlotte like a storm. From border towns to the Queen City, our agents go where the mission calls.#DHS #CBP… pic.twitter.com/de0nqHn3vR

— Commander Op At Large CA Gregory K. Bovino (@CMDROpAtLargeCA) November 16, 2025

Yet the DHS decision to use a popular children’s book title for a campaign that is expected to break up several families has also faced criticism, including from the granddaughter of EB White, the author of Charlotte’s Web.

“He believed in the rule of law and due process,” Martha White said in a statement, referring to her grandfather. “He certainly didn’t believe in masked men, in unmarked cars, raiding people’s homes and workplaces without IDs or summons.”

What is driving the immigration raid?

Officials insist the surge is aimed at tackling crime, arguing — as the Trump administration has in other cities that have been targeted in similar raids — that local authorities have failed to ensure law and order.

However, local leaders have objected to the raids and pointed to police data, which shows that crime has been declining.

According to data released by the city, crime has dropped 8 percent from last year, with violent crimes down 20 percent.

However, Charlotte nevertheless grabbed national and global attention this summer when Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska was fatally stabbed on a light-rail train, in an attack captured on video. The suspect is a US citizen, but the Trump administration repeatedly emphasised that he had been arrested more than a dozen times before.

The DHS also said the Charlotte raids happened because local officials did not honour nearly 1,400 requests to hold people for up to 48 hours after their release, which would have allowed immigration agents to take them into custody.

“I made it clear that I do not want to stop ICE from doing their job, but I do want them to do it safely, responsibly, and with proper coordination by notifying our agency ahead of time,” Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden said in a statement, referring to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a part of the DHS that has been leading anti-immigrant raids in multiple urban areas across the country. Charlotte falls in Mecklenburg County.

Tensions remain high. “Democrats at all levels are choosing to protect criminal illegals over North Carolina citizens,” state Republican chairman Jason Simmons said on Monday, even though ICE agents have also arrested several visa holders and permanent residents — all living legally in the US — during the raids.

Who is Gregory Bovino?

Gregory Bovino is a senior US Border Patrol official who has become a central figure in Trump’s aggressive immigration crackdowns in big cities. He has led the high-profile enforcement campaign in Chicago since September and has also been involved in operations in Los Angeles and now Charlotte.

Bovino has frequently served as the public face of these efforts — holding press briefings, giving interviews, and promoting arrest numbers as signs of success.

His approach has drawn controversy. Civil rights groups, local officials, and legal experts have criticised tactics used under his command, including aggressive arrests, the use of chemical agents against detainees, and the use of Border Patrol troops far from the US border. Several operations have faced legal challenges, and judges as well as local leaders have questioned whether federal agents are acting within their jurisdiction.

Regarding the use of chemical agents, Bovino told The Associated Press news agency that using chemical agents is “far less lethal” than what his agents encounter. “We use the least amount of force necessary to effect the arrest,” he said. “If I had more CS gas, I would have deployed it.” CS gas is a tear gas commonly used by federal agents.

What do we know about the communities affected?

Local reporting shows that Charlotte’s immigrant neighbourhoods felt the impact immediately. The Charlotte Observer described how a baker, Manuel “Manolo” Betancur, shut down his bakery on Saturday afternoon — the first closure in its 28-year history — after learning that Border Patrol agents had arrived in the city.

He said he has no idea when he will reopen.

“The amount of fear that we have right now is no good,” Betancur said, outside Manolo’s Bakery on Central Avenue, a major hub for the city’s immigrant community.

“It’s not worth it to take that risk,” he said. “We need to protect our families and [prevent] family separation.”

The bakery was not the only one. Businesses along Central Avenue shut their doors as masked federal agents conducted arrests, prompting anger and anxiety in the community.

Pisco Peruvian Gastrolounge posted on Saturday that it would be temporarily closing. “We cannot wait for the moment we can safely welcome you back and continue sharing our culture, our food, and our vibes,” the restaurant shared on Instagram.

What’s next?

Federal immigration officials are preparing to widen their activities in North Carolina, with Raleigh expected to be included in the enforcement effort as soon as Tuesday, the city’s mayor said.

Raleigh Mayor Janet Cowell noted on Monday that she had received no details about how large the operation would be or how long it might last, and immigration authorities have yet to make any public statements.

“I ask Raleigh to remember our values and maintain peace and respect through any upcoming challenges,” Cowell said in a statement.

Raleigh, with a population of more than 460,000, is North Carolina’s second-largest city after Charlotte, and is part of a region known as the Research Triangle that is home to several leading universities, including Duke and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The possible expansion of immigration raids comes as nationwide detention figures reach historic levels. ICE held 59,762 people in custody as of September 21, 2025, according to TRAC Reports, a nonpartisan data-gathering platform. This is the highest number of ICE arrests ever recorded. Roughly 71.5 percent of those detained had no criminal conviction, and many of those with convictions had only minor offences, such as traffic violations.

British officials say they’re enforcing tougher policies for asylum seekers, including ending refugees’ automatic right to settle permanently in the UK. As Al Jazeera’s Rory Challands explains, the overhaul comes as polls show growing concerns about immigration.

Chile’s presidential election is heading to a run-off in December, in a showdown between leftist former Labour Minister Jeannette Jara and far-right leader Jose Antonio Kast.

With about 83 percent of ballots counted on Sunday, Jara led with 26.71 percent, followed by Kast on 24.12 percent, according to the electoral authority, Servel.

President Gabriel Boric, in a statement from the presidential office in Santiago, recognised Jara and Kast as the front-runners headed to the second round on December 14. He also congratulated both candidates, calling it a “spectacular day of democracy”.

Eight candidates appeared on Sunday’s ballot, but would have needed to get 50 percent plus one vote to win the election outright.

Despite leading in the first round, Jara, 51, faces an uphill battle in which her rivals are throwing support around Kast, founder of the far-right Republican Party.

Sunday’s election was dominated by growing public anxiety over surging murders, kidnappings and extortion in what has long been one of Latin America’s safest countries.

Jara, a minister under Boric, has promised to hire more police, lift banking secrecy to tackle organised crime and tackle cost-of-living issues.

Kast, 59, has pledged to build walls, fences and trenches along Chile’s border with Bolivia to keep out migrants and asylum seekers from poorer countries to the north, such as Venezuela.

Conservative candidates back Kast

Speaking from Santiago after Boric’s statement, Jara thanked supporters and urged Chileans not to let fears over rising crime drive them into the arms of the far right in the run-off.

“Don’t let fear harden your hearts,” the politician said, insisting that the answer to crime was not to “come up with ideas, each more radical than the next” and hide behind bulletproof glass.

The comments were a dig at Kast’s draconian campaign security measures.

For his part, Kast, in his address to supporters, called for unity and promised to “rebuild” Chile after four years of centre-left rule, which he termed “maybe the worst government in Chile’s democratic history”.

Maverick economist Franco Parisi caused surprise by finishing third on 19.42 percent, ahead of ultra-right lawmaker Johannes Kaiser on 13.93 percent, and former conservative mayor Evelyn Matthei on 12.70 percent.

Parisi refrained from backing either Jara or Kast in the run-off, saying that they both needed to go look for new voters “on the street”.

The next-closest contender, Kaiser, conceded defeat and announced his endorsement of Kast, while Matthei, another conservative who won about 13 percent of votes, quickly followed suit, citing the “absolutely uncontrolled arrival” of migrants and claiming Chile needed a “sharp change of direction”.

Al Jazeera’s Lucia Newman, reporting from Santiago, said supporters at Kast’s headquarters were euphoric.

“There seems to be confidence that even though he came in second place by a slim margin, he will be the first to cross the finish line in the run-off next month. These people say that it is time for a deep change in this country,” Newman said. “They say the main problems are crime, delinquency, a slow and stagnant economy and also just the fact that there has been the same people governing this country for too long, and say that it’s time for a major overhaul.”

Law-and-order issues

The dominance of law-and-order issues in Sunday’s election has marked a drastic change from the wave of left-wing optimism and hopes of drafting a new constitution that brought Gabriel Boric, who isn’t allowed to run for re-election, to power.

The rising crime has been widely attributed to foreign criminal groups, coinciding with a doubling of Chile’s migrant population since 2017. Migrants now make up 8.8 percent of the country’s residents.

Wall-to-wall news coverage of crime has led to a clamour among voters for a “mano dura” or iron fist.

Rodrigo Arellano, an analyst at Chile’s University for Development, called the results “very bad news” for Jara and said it seemed “unlikely” she could win the December 14 run-off.

“Not only is her vote count low, but the combined total of the opposition candidates is almost more than double hers,” he told the AFP news agency, blaming anti-incumbent and anticommunist sentiment.

Jara’s candidacy is considered historic in contemporary Chilean politics, in part because of her working-class background and in part because she represents the Communist Party, which has not seen such broad support since Chile’s return to democracy.

Jara, who led an effort to reduce the work week from 45 hours to 40, has campaigned on affordability, pledging to increase Chile’s minimum wage and make housing more affordable. She has also made efforts to distance herself from Boric’s administration, even hinting at a possible break from her Communist Party if elected president.

Kast, frequently compared to United States President Donald Trump, founded Chile’s Republican Party in 2019 and is widely credited for bringing extreme right positions to the national stage. He lost to Boric in the 2021 presidential election.

He has repeatedly denied reports that his father was a supporter of the Nazi party, describing him instead as a forced conscript in the German army.

Voter turnout on Sunday was significantly higher than in the previous 2021 presidential election, as voting was mandatory for all 15.7 million registered voters.

Chileans also voted for members of the Chamber of Deputies and Senate on the same day.

The governing leftist coalition currently has a minority in both chambers, and right-wing majorities in both could set the stage for Congress and the presidency to be controlled by the right for the first time since the end of the Augusto Pinochet dictatorship in 1990.

The election is being closely watched as a gauge of the broader fortunes of South America’s left, which has recently suffered setbacks in countries like Argentina and Bolivia.

Last month, a centre-right president was elected in neighbouring Bolivia after 20 years of socialist rule. Right-wing candidates look likely to win presidential elections in Colombia and Peru next year, while the left-wing President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is predicted to face a close battle to retain his office in Brazil despite ex-president Jair Bolsonaro’s sentencing for leading a failed coup.

The plans, inspired by Denmark’s approach, aim to slash irregular immigration and counter the UK’s far right.

The United Kingdom has announced a drastic reduction in the protections for asylum seekers and refugees under a new plan aimed at slashing irregular immigration and countering the far right.

The measures, modelled on Denmark’s strict asylum system, were announced late on Saturday as Prime Minister Keir Starmer comes under pressure from surging popularity for the anti-immigrant Reform UK party.

“I’ll end UK’s golden ticket for asylum seekers,” Interior Minister Shabana Mahmood declared in a statement, with the Home Office, as her ministry is known, calling the new proposals the “largest overhaul of asylum policy in modern times”.

Mahmood is due to lay out the policy in parliament on Monday.

Meanwhile, the head of the UK’s Refugee Council warned the government that the measures would not deter people from trying to reach the country and urged a rethink.

“They should ensure that refugees who work hard and contribute to Britain can build secure, settled lives and give back to their communities,” Enver Solomon said.

Currently, people get refugee status for five years, after which they can apply for indefinite leave to remain and eventually, citizenship.

Mahmood’s ministry says it would cut the length of refugee status to 30 months. That protection will be “regularly reviewed”, and refugees will be forced to return to their home countries once they are deemed safe, it added.

The ministry also said it intended to make those refugees who were granted asylum wait 20 years before applying to be allowed to live in the UK long-term.

Asylum claims record high

Asylum claims in Britain are at a record high. Polls suggest immigration has overtaken the economy as voters’ top concern.

Some 109,343 people claimed asylum in the UK in the year ending March 2025, a 17 percent rise on the previous year and 6 percent above the 2002 peak of 103,081.

The Home Office said the reforms would make it less attractive for irregular migrants and refugees to come to the UK and make it easier to remove those already in the country.

A statutory legal duty to provide support to asylum seekers, introduced in a 2005 law, would also be revoked, the ministry said. That means housing and weekly financial allowances would no longer be guaranteed for asylum seekers.

It would be “discretionary”, meaning the government could deny assistance to any asylum seeker who could work or support themselves, or those who committed crimes.

Starmer, elected last year, is under pressure to stop migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats from France, something that also troubled his Conservative predecessors.

More than 39,000 people, many fleeing conflict, have arrived this year following such dangerous journeys – more than for the whole of 2024 but lower than the record set in 2022.

The crossings are helping raise the popularity of Reform, led by firebrand Nigel Farage, which has led Labour by double-digit margins in opinion polls for most of this year.

More than 100 British charities wrote to Mahmood, urging her to “end the scapegoating of migrants and performative policies that only cause harm”, saying such steps are prompting racism and violence.

In an interview—with Fox News on November 11, 2025—US President Donald Trump defended the H1B Visa, saying that the US needed foreigners with special skills and talents that US workers did not possess.

Said Trump

“You don’t have certain talents… And people have to learn, you can’t take people off an unemployment line and say, I’m going to put you into a factory. We’re going to make missiles.” 

In September 2025, the Trump administration had announced a massive hike in H-1B visa application fees. The revised fees for the H-1B Visa were fixed at $100,000. This decision had caused a lot of concern within several Information Technology (IT) companies and also among IT professionals already working in the US (Indian professionals account for 70% of H-1B visas issued in 2024).

 Later, some clarifications were made by the Trump administration. The first was that this was a one-time visa fee that needed to be paid only by new applicants, and the second was that those already on F-1 or L1 visas would not need to pay this fee (this new fee was applicable only to applicants who were based outside of the United States). While these clarifications were important, the decision to raise the H-1B application fees had already created an atmosphere of uncertainty.

In the same interview with Fox News, the US president also said that while he did not want international students, they were essential for the US economy. Said Trump:

“We take in trillions of dollars from students. You know, the students pay more than double when they come in from most foreign countries. I want to see our school system thrive… It’s not that I want them, but I view it as a business.”

International Students in the US

International students make a significant contribution towards the US economy and also help in creating jobs in the US. In 2023-2024 there were well over 1.5 million international students, and they contributed over $40 billion to the US economy. A significant percentage of international students were from China and India (in 2024, India accounted for well over 1/4th of the total international student community). August 2025 witnessed a significant dip in the inflow of international students into the US, and this is likely to cause a significant dent to the US economy, according to estimates. Certain top US universities also witnessed significant budget cuts and layoffs.

Trump, while speaking at the White House earlier this month, also said that he is keen to welcome 600,000 Chinese students to the US.

Several international students, especially from India, have begun to look at alternatives to the US. There has been a rise in the number of Indian students going to Germany, Finland, and the UAE.

Reaction to Trump’s comments

Both comments of Trump—pertaining to H1B visas as well as international students—are likely to annoy the MAGA camp within the Republican party. Steve Bannon, a former aide of Trump, while criticizing the US President’s statements, said:

“This is Davos in a red tie! Telling American engineers and factory workers we lack talent? Then flooding campuses with CCP-linked students? It’s a gut-punch to every voter who bled for this movement. Wake up, Mr. President—this isn’t MAGA; it’s Chamber of Commerce betrayal.”

Significantly, in an interview with Fox TV, Nalin Haley, the son of Nikki Haley—former US Ambassador to the United Nations (UN)—had criticized H1B visas and said that US workers were suffering because of the same.

Trump’s statements reiterate the point that while not just the US — but other countries in the Anglosphere have legitimate concerns vis-à-vis illegal immigration — it is important to have a nuanced approach towards immigration issues and not view the issue from simplistic binaries. It remains to be seen if the US president sticks to this current stand.

Agents from ICE, Customs and Border Protection, and Department of Homeland Security have been deployed as part of Trump’s latest anti-immigration operation.

United States federal officials have confirmed that an immigration crackdown – the latest by President Donald Trump’s administration – is under way in North Carolina’s largest city, Charlotte, as agents were seen making arrests in multiple locations.

“Americans should be able to live without fear of violent criminal illegal aliens hurting them, their families, or their neighbors,” Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement on Saturday, according to The Associated Press news agency.  “We are surging DHS [Department of Homeland Security] law enforcement to Charlotte to ensure Americans are safe and public safety threats are removed.”

Local officials, including Charlotte Mayor Vi Lyles, criticised such actions, saying in a statement they “are causing unnecessary fear and uncertainty”.

“We want people in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County to know we stand with all residents who simply want to go about their lives,” said the statement, which was also signed by County Commissioner Mark Jerrell and Stephanie Sneed of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg education board.

Charlotte is a racially diverse city of more than 900,000 residents, including more than 150,000 who are foreign-born, according to local officials.

The federal government hadn’t previously announced the push. But Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden said earlier this week that two federal officials had told him that customs agents would be arriving soon.

Paola Garcia, a spokesperson with Camino – a bilingual nonprofit serving families in Charlotte – said she and her colleagues have observed an increase in Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents pulling people over since Friday.

“Basically, what we’re seeing is that there have been lots of people being pulled over,” Garcia said. “I even saw a few people being pulled over on the way to work yesterday, and then just from community members seeing an increase in ICE and Border Patrol agents in the city of Charlotte.”

Local organisations responded by holding trainings, trying to inform immigrants of their rights, and considering peaceful protests.

Trump’s administration has defended federal enforcement crackdowns in cities like Los Angeles and Chicago as necessary for fighting crime and enforcing immigration laws.

Trump’s drive to deport millions of immigrants has prompted allegations of rights abuses and myriad lawsuits.

But Governor Josh Stein, a Democrat with a Republican-majority legislature, said Friday that the vast majority of those detained in these operations have no criminal convictions, and some are American citizens.

He urged people to record any “inappropriate behavior” they see and notify local law enforcement about it.

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department had emphasised ahead of time that it isn’t involved in federal immigration enforcement.

United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer has sought to distance himself from an unofficial briefing to the media by unnamed “allies” that he intends to fight off a leadership contest which, they say, could come just 18 months into his premiership.

On Tuesday evening, unnamed sources were cited in The Guardian newspaper saying Health Secretary Wes Streeting has gathered significant backing to supplant Starmer.

But on Wednesday morning, Streeting denied this, telling journalists that he was “not challenging the prime minister”.

“I’m not doing any of the things some silly briefer said overnight,” he stated.

Asked if those responsible for the briefing should be sacked, Streeting said, “Yes. But he’s [Starmer] got to find them first, and I wouldn’t expect him to waste loads of time on this.”

“There are people around the prime minister who do not follow his model and style of leadership,” he said.

In response to the ensuing media storm, Starmer, whose premiership since last year has been marred by poor polling, told reporters in north Wales on Thursday that briefings against ministers are “completely unacceptable”.

“I have been talking to my team today. I have been assured that no briefing against ministers was done from Number 10, but I have made it clear that I find it absolutely unacceptable,” he said.

The current internal party strife has shone a light on the prime minister’s standing as leader of the Labour Party.

In its most recent poll on Tuesday, pollster YouGov said of 4,989 people polled, only 27 percent thought he should continue as Labour Party leader.

Here’s what we know about the rumours of a leadership plot:

What are the rumours about a leadership challenge?

On Tuesday evening, unnamed senior Starmer aides told The Guardian newspaper that any attempt to remove the prime minister would be “reckless” and “dangerous”. According to the aides, deposing Starmer so early in his term as prime minister would undermine financial markets and reverberate on the stock market, the party and its international relationships.

“The party would not recover for a generation,” one of the unnamed sources told The Guardian.

Number 10 sources also told The Guardian they are concerned about rumours that Streeting could be planning a “coup” and is just one of several Labour ministers who are “on manoeuvres” to take the leadership if the opportunity arises. However, none of them were likely to move against the prime minister right now.

They said the most likely moment for a leadership challenge would be after the autumn budget – the government’s tax-and-spending review, due in parliament on November 26 – if higher taxes are announced, or after May elections next year if the Labour party performs poorly.

“Keir will not stand aside at this point, for Wes or anybody else,” one source told The Guardian.

On Friday, the UK’s Financial Times cited an unnamed minister who claimed that support for the health secretary was growing following the news of the unsanctioned “briefing”.

Streeting was not the only name mentioned as a potential leadership contender. Both Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood and Energy Secretary and a former leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband were named as possible contenders, the sources said.

Who briefed the press?

The British press is speculating that the unofficial briefing may have been organised by Starmer’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, as a tactic designed to put off any ministers thinking about challenging him.

McSweeney, who has been widely credited with helping Starmer to win the July 2024 election, is now facing calls to resign from unnamed members of parliament, according to reports.

However, Starmer appeared not to support such a move on Thursday when he reiterated that he “of course” has complete confidence in his chief of staff.

What do opposition parties say?

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch was quick to respond, accusing Starmer of losing control of his party during Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s Question Time.

Badenoch called Starmer a “weak prime minister at war with his own cabinet”.

“Two weeks before the budget, isn’t it the case that this prime minister has lost control of government, he’s lost control of his party and lost the trust of the British people,” she said.

Earlier in the debate, Badenoch referred to an interview Streeting gave to the BBC in which he accused Downing Street of having a “toxic culture”, and asked Starmer if his minister was correct.

“Any attack on any member of my cabinet is completely unacceptable,” Starmer said in response.

Meanwhile, the far-right Reform UK party’s head of policy, Zia Yusuf, wrote on X on Thursday that the “terrifying thing about the coup against Starmer is that Labour members will choose his replacement”.

“Their favourite Labour minister is Ed Miliband. Some of the most unhinged people in the country will choose the next Prime Minister,” he added.

Reform’s popularity has risen hugely in the UK since last year’s election.

How does the autumn budget fit into this, and how is Labour polling?

The briefing came just two weeks before Starmer and his chancellor of the exchequer, Rachel Reeves, announce the autumn budget on November 26.

The budget, which outlines the government’s tax-and-spending plans for the next year, has been the subject of intense speculation in recent weeks, as it was widely expected to break one of Labour’s main election pledges: not to increase income taxes.

However, the Financial Times reported on Friday morning that Reeves is now ruling out any rise in income tax amid concerns that it could seriously anger voters and backbench legislators.

Why else is Starmer losing popularity in the UK?

Since winning the election in 2024, the prime minister has received backlash from across the political spectrum, including from Labour voters, over several issues.

According to a YouGov poll in September, if an election were to be called now, the far-right Reform UK would win, leaving the Labour Party as the second-largest party and the former governing party, the Conservatives, in third place.

Here are some of the main areas of domestic policy which are causing the popularity of Starmer’s Labour Party to wane.

Migration

The opposition Reform UK party has risen in popularity largely on the back of its calls for stricter migrant control. The key issue is the rapid rise in the numbers of people arriving in small boats across the English Channel from France, particularly in the past year.

In September, Starmer struck a “one-in-one-out” migrant exchange deal with France in an effort to deter people from attempting the Channel crossing. Under the deal, France will accept the return of asylum seekers who crossed to the UK but cannot prove a family connection to the UK.

For each migrant France takes back, the UK will grant asylum to one person who has arrived from France through official channels and who can prove they have family connections in the UK.

But only a handful of migrants have been deported under the scheme so far. Furthermore, on Monday, the Home Office reported that a second migrant had re-entered the UK after being deported to France.

Rise of the far-right

Starmer has faced criticism for his lukewarm response to the rising number of far-right protests across the country.

In September, at least 11,000 people joined a “Unite the Kingdom” march, displaying the St George flag in London.

While Starmer denounced violence against police officers during the protests and argued that the US was “built on diversity”, the antifascist group, Hope Not Hate, and several MPs have urged the government to take stronger action against the rise of far-right groups.

Critics also say Starmer has not done enough to appeal to people who support Reform, or to address their concerns about migration.

Accidental prison releases

In a major blunder, HMP Wandsworth prison in London wrongly released two offenders in early November, including an Algerian sex offender.

Both men were eventually returned to prison but, in the case of the Algerian offender, only after the man handed himself in. Conservative Party shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said the mistake revealed “the incompetence of this government”.

Economy

Starmer has been grappling with a low-growth economy since the start of his term in government.

According to new figures from the Office for National Statistics on Thursday, between July and September, the UK’s gross domestic product (GDP) increased by just 0.1 percent in comparison with growth of 0.3 percent between April and July.

Meanwhile, inflation remained stuck at 3.8 percent in September 2025 – unchanged from July and August. This is the highest it has been since the start of 2024.

Malaysian search and rescue teams discovered five more bodies off the coast of Langkawi Monday after a boat packed with mostly refugees from Myanmar capsized. Police and maritime officials say 21 bodies have been recovered so far.

The United Kingdom’s government is considering an amendment to immigration rules modelled on Denmark’s controversial policy amid pressure from the far-right groups, who have attacked the Labour government over the rising number of refugees and migrants crossing into the country.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood last month dispatched officials to study the workings of the Danish immigration and asylum system, widely considered the toughest in Europe. The officials are reportedly looking to review the British immigration rules on family reunion and limit refugees to a temporary stay.

The Labour government led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer has been under immense pressure amid growing public opposition to immigration and the surge in the popularity of the far-right Reform UK, which has centred its campaign around the issue of immigration.

So, what’s in Denmark’s immigration laws, and why is the centre-left Labour government adopting laws on asylum and border controls championed by the right wing?

What are Denmark’s immigration laws?

Over the last two decades in Europe, Denmark has led the way in implementing increasingly restrictive policies in its immigration and asylum system, with top leaders aiming for “zero asylum seekers” arriving in the country.

First, Denmark has made family reunions tougher, keeping the bar of conditions comparatively higher than it is in allied countries. Those who live in estates designated as “parallel societies”, where more than 50 percent of residents are from so-called “non-Western” backgrounds, are barred from being granted family reunion. This has been decried by rights groups as racist for refugees’ ethnic profiling.

In Denmark, a refugee with residency rights must meet several criteria for their partner to join them in the country. Both must be age 24 or older, the partner in Denmark must not have claimed benefits for three years, and both partners need to pass a Danish language test.

Permanent residency is possible only after eight years under very strict criteria, including full-time employment.

Christian Albrekt Larsen, a professor in the Political Science department of Aalborg University in Denmark, told Al Jazeera that successive Danish governments’ restrictive policies on “immigration and integration have turned [it] into a consensus position – meaning the ‘need’ for radical anti-immigration parties has been reduced”.

Noting that “there is not one single Danish ‘model’”, but that the evolution has been a process of adjustments since 1998, Larsen said, “In general, Denmark’s ‘effectiveness’ lies in being seen as less attractive than its close neighbours, [including] Germany, Sweden, and Norway.”

Copenhagen is more likely to give asylum to those who have been targeted by a foreign regime, while those fleeing conflicts are increasingly limited in remaining in the country temporarily.

However, Denmark decides which country is safe on its own. For example, in 2022, the Danish government did not renew permits for more than 1,200 refugees from Syria because it judged Damascus to be safe for refugees to return to.

In 2021, Denmark also passed laws allowing it to process asylum seekers outside of Europe, like negotiating with Rwanda, though putting this into practice has been controversial and challenging.

Denmark has reduced the number of successful asylum claims to a 40-year low, except in 2020, amid the coronavirus pandemic’s travel restrictions.

How do these differ from the UK’s current immigration laws?

The UK allows individuals to claim asylum if they prove they are unsafe in their home countries. Refugee status is granted if an individual is at risk of persecution under the United Nations’ 1951 Refugee Convention. Refugees are usually granted five years of leave to remain, with the option to apply for permanent settlement afterward.

Most migrants and refugees can apply for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) after five years, followed by eligibility for citizenship one year later. Requirements include English proficiency and passing the “Life in the UK” test.

The UK system currently does not impose an age limit beyond 18, but requires a minimum annual income of 29,000 British pounds ($38,161), and is subject to a rise pending a review, for sponsoring partners.

Asylum seekers are excluded from mainstream welfare and receive a meagre weekly allowance. However, once granted protection, they access the same benefits as British nationals.

The UK under the previous Conservative government passed controversial legislation to enable deportation to Rwanda, but the policy has not yet been implemented due to ongoing legal challenges.

Before September this year, the UK Home Office allowed spouses, partners, and dependents under 18 to come to the UK without fulfilling the income and English-language tests that apply to other migrants. That is currently suspended, pending the drafting of new rules.

Why is the Labour government changing the UK’s immigration laws?

Facing heat from the opposition over the rising arrivals of migrants and refugees by boats, Prime Minister Starmer in May proposed a draft paper on immigration, calling it a move towards a “controlled, selective and fair” system.

As part of the proposal, the standard waiting time for migrants and refugees for permanent settlement would be doubled to 10 years, and English language requirements would be tightened.

The Labour Party, which advocated for a more open migration model, has been on the back foot over the issue of immigration.

From January through July of this year, more than 25,000 people crossed the English Channel into the UK.

The opposition has seized on this issue.

Nigel Farage, the leader of the Reform UK party, has accused Labour of being soft on immigration. Farage has pledged to scrap indefinite leave to remain – a proposal Starmer has dubbed as “racist” and “immoral”.

Successive British governments have tried unsuccessfully to reduce net migration, which is the number of people coming to the UK, minus the number leaving. Net migration climbed to a record 906,000 in June 2023. It stood at 728,000 last year.

Starmer’s administration has framed the new immigration rules as a “clean break” from a system they see as overreliant on low-paid overseas labour.

A survey released by Ipsos last month revealed that immigration continues to be seen as the biggest issue facing the country, with 51 percent of Britons mentioning it as a concern. That is more than the economy (35 percent) or healthcare (26 percent).

However, at the same time, a YouGov poll found only 26 percent of people said immigration and asylum was one of the three most important issues facing their community.

Concern about immigration is a “manufactured panic”, a report published by the Best for Britain campaign group noted.

The group’s director of policy and research, Tom Brufatto, said that “the data clearly demonstrates that media exposure and political discourse are fanning the flames of anti-immigration sentiment in the UK, causing the government to lose support both to its right and left flank simultaneously.”

Is there opposition to the change within the Labour Party?

The left-leaning leaders of the Labour Party have condemned the “far-right”, “racist” approach of the British government’s moves to adapt the Danish model.

Labour MPs urged Home Secretary Mahmood to dial down her plans for a Danish-style overhaul of the immigration and asylum system.

Nadia Whittome, Labour MP for Nottingham East, told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme that she thinks that “this is a dead end – morally, politically and electorally”.

“I think these are policies of the far right,” she said. “I don’t think anyone wants to see a Labour government flirting with them.”

Whittome argued that it would be a “dangerous path” to take and that some of the Danish policies, especially those around “parallel societies”, were “undeniably racist”.

Clive Lewis, the MP for Norwich South, said: “Denmark’s Social Democrats have gone down what I would call a hardcore approach to immigration.

“They’ve adopted many of the talking points of what we would call the far right,” Lewis said. “Labour does need to win back some Reform-leaning voters, but you can’t do that at the cost of losing progressive votes.”

Meanwhile, members of Parliament from the traditional “Red Wall” constituencies, where the Reform UK party has a support base, are receptive to Mahmood’s plans.

The fissures grew more apparent after Lucy Powell, who won the Labour deputy leadership contest last month, challenged Starmer to soften his stance on immigration.

“Division and hate are on the rise,” Powell said last month. “Discontent and disillusionment are widespread. We have this one big chance to show that progressive mainstream politics really can change people’s lives for the better.”

How do immigration laws vary across Europe?

European countries differ widely in how they manage immigration. Some are major destinations for large absolute numbers of migrants and refugees, while others have adopted restrictive legal measures or strong integration policies.

In 2023, the largest absolute numbers of immigrants entering European Union countries were recorded in Germany and Spain, over 1.2 million each, followed by Italy and France, according to the EU’s latest Migration and Asylum report.

These four countries together accounted for more than half of all non-EU immigration to the EU.

EU member states operate within EU migration and asylum rules, and Schengen zone rules where applicable, and are bound by international obligations such as the UN Refugee Convention. But individual states apply national legislation that interprets those obligations, and in recent years, public sentiment has turned against immigration amid a cost-of-living crisis.

YouGov polling conducted in Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden found that respondents believe immigration over the past decade has been too high. In Britain, 70 percent of those surveyed said that immigration rates have been too high, according to the survey released in February.

On the other hand, countries like Hungary, Poland, and Austria, in addition to Denmark, have formed immigration policies focused on building border fences and restrictive family reunification rules, alongside expedited deportations and limits on access to social benefits.

Austrian and German ministers have referenced the Danish model as a source of inspiration for their own domestic policies.

Several EU states have also tried a version of externalising asylum processes, including Italy with Albania, Denmark with Rwanda, Greece with Turkiye, Spain with Morocco, and Malta with Libya and Tunisia.

Rights groups have criticised the EU for immigration policies that focus on border control and for policies to transfer refugees to third countries.