Illegal immigrants storm US beaches as Coast Guard battles migrant surge that rose under Biden
Maritime illegal immigration, using boats to enter the U.S. illegally, rose during the Biden administration as a result of the political and economic crises of Haiti and Cuba, according to the Migration Policy Institute. In February 2023, the U.S. Naval Institute said that illegal immigrant interdiction operations were in a "state of emergency" due to societal turmoil in Caribbean countries.
Along the border between the U.S. and Mexico in California, illegal immigrants attempt to cross into America using boats as well.
On July 12, the U.S. Coast Guard interdicted three people who were trying to enter the U.S. illegally by boat and were apprehended at Imperial Beach in San Diego County, California. Two individuals said they were Mexican, while one said they were Turkish.
In January, the U.S. Coast Guard intercepted a boat carrying 21 illegal immigrants that was headed toward San Diego.
Coast Guard officials and Border Protection officials apprehended the illegal immigrants, who were from various countries.
"They don't want anyone to drown and die trying to cross into the U.S. Illegally…"
"Initial interviews revealed that all individuals claimed Mexican nationality, although subsequent checks identified two passengers as Guatemalan and Salvadoran nationals," the Coast Guard wrote in a press release.
California isn't close to the only state having to handle migrant incursions along its shores.
In February, the Coast Guard intercepted 132 Haitians on a boat south of the Florida Keys. The Coast Guard boarded the 30-foot vessel and processed the illegal immigrants before they were repatriated to Haiti, according to officials.
"The Coast Guard will continue to prioritize strengthening our domestic integrity and disrupting attempts to enter the United States illegally by sea," said Coast Guard District Seven enforcement officer Lt. Zane Carter. "We are steadfast in our mission to safeguard America by securing our maritime borders."
Simon Hankinson, senior research fellow in the Border Security and Immigration Center at The Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital that these interdictions create a unique danger for law enforcement authorities.
"Well, I've seen a very different pattern, say, between the U.K. and France versus off the U.S. coast, where it seems to be a variety of, you know, if it's professional smugglers with really fast boats trying to bring people in and drop them off, then that's one thing for the Coast Guard to cope with," Hankinson said. "And if it is people organizing themselves in leaky boats with insufficient engines and overcrowded conditions, then it's a different thing. I think for the Coast Guard, for our law enforcement, that the issue of safety is obviously paramount."
"They don't want anyone to drown and die trying to cross into the U.S. Illegally, even if they're not supposed to do it, but they're also probably worried about people carrying weapons who are trying to smuggle drugs and people in for money," he added.
Hankinson said the U.S. should look at what's happening in the United Kingdom as a case study on what to avoid. The U.K. saw 19,982 cross the English Channel to enter the country in the first six months of 2025, according to Sky News. That figure is up almost 50% compared to the first six months of 2024.
"You know, I was born in England. It's tragic what's happening there," he said. "You have a whole family of Palestinians who were allowed to stay, even though they'd applied under a program for Ukrainians. You know it's a sort of national suicide by generosity."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Academics warn Columbia University deal sets dangerous precedent
Columbia University's $200 million agreement with President Donald Trump's administration marks the end of a months-long showdown, but academics warn it is just the first round of a government "assault" on higher education. Academics from Columbia and beyond have expressed concerns that the deal -- which makes broad-ranging concessions and increases government oversight -- will become the blueprint for how Trump brings other universities to heel. The New York institution was the first to be targeted in Trump's war against elite universities, for what the US president claimed was its failure to tackle anti-Semitism on campus in the wake of pro-Palestinian protests. It was stripped of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding and lost its ability to apply for new research grants. Labs saw vital funding frozen, and dozens of researchers were laid off. But Columbia last week agreed to pay the government $200 million, and an additional $21 million to settle an investigation into anti-Semitism. According to Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, the lack of due process -- with the government slashing funding before carrying out a formal investigation -- left Columbia in an "untenable position." Columbia law professor David Pozen agreed, saying the "manner in which the deal was constructed has been unlawful and coercive from the start" and slamming the agreement as giving "legal form to an extortion scheme." - Federal oversight - The deal goes beyond addressing anti-Semitism and makes concessions on international student admissions, race and ethnicity considerations in admissions and single-sex spaces on campus, among other issues. Columbia also agreed to appoint an independent monitor to implement the deal, share ethnicity admissions data with the government and crack down on campus protests. Many of the provisions "represent significant incursions onto Columbia's autonomy," said Pozen. "What's happened at Columbia is part of a broader authoritarian attack on civil society," he said, pointing to similar pressures on law firms and media organizations to fall in line. According to the law professor, the deal "signals the emergence of a new regulatory regime in which the Trump administration will periodically and unpredictably shake down other schools and demand concessions from them." In the coming weeks, Pozen said he expected the "administration will put a lot of pressure on Harvard and other schools to follow suit." Harvard University has pushed back against the government, filing a lawsuit in a bid to reverse sweeping funding cuts. But Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard, said that "in terms of academic freedom and in terms of democracy, the (Columbia) precedent is devastating." - 'First round' - Education Secretary Linda McMahon said she hoped the Columbia deal would be a "template for other universities around the country." On Wednesday, McMahon announced a deal with Brown University to restore some federal funding and end ongoing investigations after the Ivy League school agreed to end race considerations in admissions and adopt a biological definition of gender. Brown President Christina Paxson admitted "there are other aspects of the agreement that were not part of previous federal reviews of Brown policies" but were "priorities of the federal administration." Harvard is reportedly considering forking out $500 million to settle, according to the New York Times. Others have made smaller concessions to appease the government, with Trump's alma mater the University of Pennsylvania banning transgender women from competing in women's sports, and the University of Virginia's head resigning after scrutiny over its diversity programs. Brendan Cantwell, a professor at Michigan State University who researches the history and governance of higher education, said government interference in universities "has not happened at scale like this, probably ever in American history." While some university staff see striking an agreement as the quickest way to reopen the federal funding spigot, Cantwell warned that concessions such as sharing ethnicity data from admissions could be "weaponized" and provide fodder for future probes. Levitsky agreed, saying: "Extortionists don't stop at the first concession. Extortionists come back for more." "There's a very high likelihood that this is just the first round," he said. Pozen noted that it will be harder for "major research universities to hold the line" compared to smaller colleges which are less reliant on federal funding. But Levitsky still urged Harvard to stand its ground and "fight back," including in the courts. "Fighting an authoritarian regime is costly, but that's what we have to do," he said. "This is an unprecedented assault, and universities need to work together." aks/wd
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'The Trade War Has Lost All Credibility:' Markets Shrug Off Trump's Tariff Blitz On Multiple Countries
As President Donald Trump unveiled a blitz of new tariffs across different countries on Thursday, the markets remained largely unfazed by the move. What Happened: On Thursday, in a post on X, The Kobeissi Letter highlighted the market's muted response to Trump's sweeping new moves on the trade and tariff front. The post notes that Trump 'randomly' increased tariffs on Canada, the largest trading partner of the United States, from 25% to 35%. Followed by a string of new tariffs on others, such as 'Vietnam, Switzerland, South Africa, Taiwan, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, and Venezuela.' Trending: 7,000+ investors have joined Timeplast's mission to eliminate microplastics—now it's your turn to Yet, the market response was underwhelming, with S&P 500 futures 'down a mere 10 points,' which the post attributes almost entirely to 'Amazon's weak earnings results.' It says that in April, when the 'Liberation Day' tariffs were first announced, such a move would have sent the S&P 500 lower by 3% or more. The post says 'the trade war has lost all credibility' in the market, and that it has lost the 'shock effect' that it had a couple of months ago. Why It Matters: This could be seen as a fallout of the 'TACO Trade' meme, or 'Trump Always Chickens Out,' where investors buy equities right after Trump makes a tariff threat, knowing fully well that he will eventually back out. Economist Peter Schiff recently called this 'a classic paradox,' since markets not reacting to Trump's tariffs, because they expect him to 'chicken out,' will eventually lead him to follow through on his threats. 'Investors assume Trump will cancel the August 1 tariffs before they kick in, so stocks aren't selling off,' he says, but since there isn't a dramatic market response to this, 'Trump won't chicken out again.' Read Next: $100k+ in investable assets? Match with a fiduciary advisor for free to learn how you can maximize your retirement and save on taxes – no cost, no obligation. Bezos' Favorite Real Estate Platform Launches A Way To Ride The Ongoing Private Credit Boom Photo courtesy: Shutterstock UNLOCKED: 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? This article 'The Trade War Has Lost All Credibility:' Markets Shrug Off Trump's Tariff Blitz On Multiple Countries originally appeared on
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
FAA planning more helicopter route changes after fatal collision
By David Shepardson WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The Federal Aviation Administration said on Friday it is planning additional helicopter route changes near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport after the January 29 mid-air collision of an American Airlines regional jet and an Army helicopter that killed 67 people. FAA official Nick Fuller said at a National Transportation Safety Board investigative hearing that an agency work group is planning changes on a key helicopter route near Reagan after imposing permanent restrictions on non-essential helicopter operations in March and further restricting where they could operate in June. NTSB officials at the hearing expressed concerns about a "disconnect" between front-line air traffic controllers and agency leaders and raised other questions about FAA actions before the fatal collision, including why earlier reports of close call incidents did not prompt safety improvements. Board members have also raised concerns about the failure of the FAA to turn over documents in a timely fashion during the investigation of the January collision. The NTSB received details on staffing levels at the time of the January 29 crash "after considerable confusion and a series of corrections and updates from the FAA," a board report said. The hearing has run more than 30 hours over three days and raised a series of troubling questions, including about the failure of the primary controller on duty to issue an alert to the American regional jet and the actions of an assistant controller who was supposed to assist the primary controller. "That did not occur and we're trying to understand why. And no one has been able to tell us what the individual was doing during that time," NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy said. Homendy said earlier this week the FAA had ignored warnings about serious safety issues. "Every sign was there that there was a safety risk, and the tower was telling you," Homendy said. "You transferred people out instead of taking ownership over the fact that everybody in FAA in the tower was saying there was a problem ... Fix it. Do better." FAA officials at the hearing vowed to work more collaboratively and address concerns. Senator Tim Kaine on Friday also cited concerns raised by an FAA manager about the volume of flights at the airport before the collision and the decision by Congress last year to add five additional daily flights to Reagan. "Congress must act to reduce dangerous congestion by removing flights into and out of (Reagan National)," Kaine said.
