From the article, attempts to improve things are blocked:

When President Joe Biden and Harris first took office, Biden rescinded the Trump-era zero-tolerance policy and established a family reunification task force that found that more than 5,000 families were separated under the policy.

More recently, the Biden administration worked with a bipartisan group of senators to craft a comprehensive immigration and border security plan that seemed to have buy-in from both parties on Capitol Hill.

But GOP support for the bill tanked after Trump indicated his disapproval of the plan.

Good catch. I’ve added it to the summary. Thanks.

Wow, thanks for the kind words, @[email protected]. It’s nice to see such positivity on the internet, so keep it up!

deleted by creator

Thanks. I’ve updated the post.

Thanks treefrog!

Appreciate the recognition, Flying Squid. And I’ll try to make it easier for people who skim.

The rescue’s reason:

“LDCRF does not re-home an owner-surrendered dog with its former adopter/owner,” Floyd said in her written statement. “Our mission is to save adoptable and safe-to-the-community dogs from euthanasia.”

Yeah, even Homeland Security acknowledges it too:

“Fundamentally, our system is not equipped to deal with migration as it exists now, not just this year and last year and the year before, but for years preceding us,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in an interview with NBC News. “We have a system that was last modified in 1996. We’re in 2024 now. The world has changed.”

But guess who in Congress don’t want to change that?

The position of Mayorkas and the Biden administration is that these problems can only be meaningfully addressed by a congressional overhaul of the immigration system, such as the one proposed in February in a now defunct bipartisan Senate bill.

“We cannot process these individuals through immigration enforcement proceedings very quickly — it actually takes sometimes more than seven years,” Mayorkas told NBC News. “The proposed bipartisan legislation would reduce that seven-plus-year waiting period to sometimes less than 90 days. That’s transformative.”

These guys:

Now, after a hard-negotiated bipartisan Senate compromise bill has been released, Republicans are either vowing to block it or declaring it “dead on arrival,” in the words of House Speaker Mike Johnson.

Can confirm that Chichén Itzá is now roped off. And Yucatán is now the safest state in Mexico:

Mexico’s lowest-crime region is strengthening its reputation as an oasis of calm in a country roiled by drug killings. Yucatán, the southeastern state known for its Mayan ruins, has a homicide rate more than 90% lower than the national average.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-10/how-did-yucatan-become-mexico-s-safest-state

From the article, it’s likely because they live and work in lower income areas:

He said it’s hard to give one reason why Southeast Asians are feeling the brunt of this hate, but he thinks financial status might play a role. A 2020 report by the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center said that all Southeast Asian ethnic groups have a lower per capita income than the average in the U.S.

“It depends on socioeconomics,” Chen said. “Where these people are living, where they’re commuting, where they’re working. That may be a factor as well.”

What you’re saying tracks with the article as well:

Charlene Harrington, a professor emeritus at the nursing school of the University of California-San Francisco, said: “In their unchecked quest for profits, the nursing home industry has created its own problems by not paying adequate wages and benefits and setting heavy nursing workloads that cause neglect and harm to residents and create an unsatisfactory and stressful work environment.”

I don’t think so. There are other important parts in the article:

For the first time, the annual event will also involve troops from the Australian and French military. Fourteen other countries in Asia and Europe will attend as observers. The exercises will run until May 10.

…

The 2024 exercises are also the first to take place outside of Philippine territorial waters.

“Some of the exercises will take place in the South China Sea in an area outside of the Philippines’ territorial sea. It’s a direct challenge to China’s expansive claims” in the region, Philippine political analyst Richard Heydarian told DW.

He added that some of the exercises this year will also be close to Taiwan.

This year’s exercises have a “dual orientation pushing against China’s aggressive intentions both in the South China Sea but also in Taiwan,” he added.

According to ProPublica, it’s commonly done using Leahy Laws:

The recommendations came from a special committee of State Department officials known as the Israel Leahy Vetting Forum. The panel, made up of Middle East and human rights experts, is named for former Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the chief author of 1997 laws that requires the U.S. to cut off assistance to any foreign military or law enforcement units — from battalions of soldiers to police stations — that are credibly accused of flagrant human rights violations.

…

Over the years, hundreds of foreign units, including from Mexico, Colombia and Cambodia, have been blocked from receiving any new aid. Officials say enforcing the Leahy Laws can be a strong deterrent against human rights abuses.

https://www.propublica.org/article/israel-gaza-blinken-leahy-sanctions-human-rights-violations

Oh you mean the post summary. Yeah, that’s the article’s verbatim linked URL. Check the article’s source and see for yourself.

In any case, thanks for pointing that out. I’ve stripped the tracker link and updated the post summary portion.

Huh? That’s the exact same link as the post’s.

Wow the ads. I assumed everyone was already using some sort of ad blocker.

Archive link: https://archive.ph/7mQ8M

FWIW the most recent analysis I came across from a law professor makes me think the emergence of the “major questions doctrine” is more concerning:

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the US Supreme Court will decide whether to overrule one of its most frequently cited precedents—its 1984 opinion in Chevron v. NRDC. The decision in Loper may change the language that lawyers use in briefs and professors use in class, but is unlikely to significantly affect case outcomes involving interpretation of the statutes that agencies administer. In practice, it’s the court’s new major questions doctrine announced in 2021 that could fundamentally change how agencies operate.

…

I am much more concerned about the court’s 2021 decision to create the “major questions doctrine” and to apply it in four other cases than I am about the effects of a potential reversal of Chevron in Loper. Lower courts are beginning to rely on the major questions doctrine as the basis to overturn scores of agency decisions. That doctrine has potential to make it impossible for any agency to take any significant action.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/courts-new-chevron-analysis-likely-to-follow-one-of-these-paths

No, the case is still pending: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-451