Saved articles

You have not yet added any article to your bookmarks!

Browse articles
Newsletter image

Subscribe to the Newsletter

Join 10k+ people to get notified about new posts, news and tips.

Do not worry we don't spam!

GDPR Compliance

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy, and Terms of Service.

The government is enlisting—or coercing—other countries into joining its efforts to purge immigrants from the United States.

The article discusses the US government's controversial tactic of 'border externalization,' which involves using other countries to enforce its immigration restrictions beyond its borders. This strategy, markedly accelerated under the second Trump administration, has seen Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem visiting facilities like the CECOT in El Salvador. The administration appears to be circumventing legal hurdles by relocating migrants, particularly Venezuelans, to facilities like CECOT, often without transparent legal justification. The administration purportedly aims to expedite removal operations, leveraging legal loopholes like the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. The process involves cooperation with other nations like El Salvador, Mexico, and Guatemala, sometimes under controversial bilateral agreements. The administration's strategy reportedly minimizes oversight and accountability, a point underscored in existing and ongoing judicial challenges. Analysts and litigators argue this strategy not only infringes on migrants' rights but also positions the US to sidestep its due process obligations. The article critiques the expedience and legality of these actions and examines international oversight as a potential solution to hold the US accountable.

Bias Analysis

Bias Score:
75/100
Neutral Biased
This news has been analyzed from  6  different sources.
Bias Assessment: The article exhibits a bias by adopting a critical and adversarial tone towards the US government's immigration policy, particularly under the Trump administration. It uses language that frames actions as coercive and unconstitutional without presenting alternative perspectives or the administration's justifications comprehensively. The reliance on sources with specific viewpoints, like immigration activists and critical journalists, without counterbalancing them with proponents of the policy, contributes to the high bias score.

Key Questions About This Article

Think and Consider

Related to this topic: