Connect with us

International

Keys to the anti-immigrant law of Texas and states that follow its example

The Texas SB-4 law, considered one of the most drastic anti-immigrant measures in the history of the United States along with the SB-1070 of Arizona of 2010, has raised the tension in the border area of the United States and Mexico and has inspired other states of Republican governments to follow in its footsteps.

In the midst of the complicated legal battle between the state and federal governments, which prevented this measure from entering into force on March 5, uncertainty grows among undocumented immigrants, and also legal immigrants, because it lends itself to racial discrimination.

The measure, promoted by the governor of Texas, Republican Greg Abbott, makes it a misdemeanor that a foreigner “enters or attempts to enter the state from a foreign nation” irregularly. The detained migrant will be accused of a misdemeanor, which carries a penalty of up to six months in prison.

If the offender is a repeat offender, the offense becomes a serious crime, punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

The law allows the state Justice (different from immigration judges) to order the expulsion of the foreigner without legal process. A judge could withdraw the charges if the migrant agrees to return to Mexico.

Advertisement
20251204_amnistia_mh_728x90
previous arrow
next arrow

SB-4 also prohibits any local policy that restricts police officers from questioning a person’s immigration status, even during routine arrests such as at traffic stops, which are promoted in the so-called “immigrant sanctuaries.”

The measure requires local authorities to allocate resources such as prison space, agents and funds to implement the law.

The initiative prohibits the police from arresting immigrants in public or private schools, churches and other places of worship, and medical centers. However, it does not mention university campuses.

-Iowa: The House of Representatives of that state approved a bill on Tuesday. It would allow the police to arrest certain undocumented immigrants and order them to leave the country.

Undocumented immigrants could face up to two years in prison if they enter, attempt to enter or are found in Iowa, after they were denied entry to the United States or had been deported.

Advertisement
20251204_amnistia_mh_728x90
previous arrow
next arrow

The measure is addressed to the desk of Governor Kim Reynolds, who has given her support to the legislation.

– New Hampshire: The Senate of that state approved at the beginning of the month a bill that allows the police to file charges of invasion of private property against people suspected of having illegally entered the United States from Canada. The initiative is currently being discussed in the House of Representatives of that state.

– Tennessee: Last Friday, lawmakers from the Lower House of Tennessee approved a bill that requires police officers to report to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that they have come across an undocumented person.

– Georgia, Florida, Louisiana and North Carolina: The legislatures of these states have approved or are discussing bills similar to Texan law. They impose harsh sanctions on the undocumented under the argument that they must act to contain the arrival of migrants.

– Arizona: The governor of that state, Democrat Katie Hobbs, has a measure on her table, dubbed the Arizona Invasion Law. It would criminalize immigrants by authorizing police departments to arrest and arrest foreigners who cross the border illegally.

Advertisement
20251204_amnistia_mh_728x90
previous arrow
next arrow

This project, promoted by the Republicans and expected to veto Hobbs, would also grant immunity to the police and their departments from any legal action against them due to possible incidents that occurred while the law is being applied.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
20251204_amnistia_mh_300x250

International

WMO predicts 55% chance of weakened La Niña impacting global weather this winter

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) reported on Thursday that there is a 55% chance that the La Niña phenomenon, typically associated with cooler temperatures, will affect global weather between December and February, though in a weakened form.

In its update released Thursday, the WMO clarified that while La Niña is usually linked to a temporary drop in average global temperatures, some regions could still experience warmer-than-normal conditions.

As 2026 progresses, the WMO expects the planet to shift toward neutral conditions, neither influenced by La Niña nor by its opposite, El Niño, which is associated with increased temperatures. The likelihood of neutral conditions is expected to rise to 75% between February and April, according to the agency’s regular bulletin on these phenomena.

La Niña occurs due to cooling of the central and eastern Pacific Ocean waters and is also linked to changes in tropical atmospheric circulation, including wind and rainfall patterns. The opposite phenomenon, El Niño, has not been observed by experts since 2024, which currently remains the warmest year on record.

Continue Reading

International

Spain’s PSOE summons Mark Zuckerberg over alleged mass surveillance on Android users

The Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) requested on Wednesday that the Congress of Deputies summon Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, to explain the alleged mass surveillance of Facebook and Instagram users via Android devices without consent.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez had previously indicated that his party would demand answers from the tech company’s executives for allegedly tracking the web activity of millions of people in Spain and across Europe without authorization. Meta responded in a statement to EFE, saying it is willing to “cooperate constructively with authorities on this matter.”

In addition to Zuckerberg, the PSOE has also requested the appearance of Javier Oliván, Meta’s Chief Operating Officer, and José Luis Zimmermann, Director of Public Affairs for Spain and Portugal. The socialists expect them to appear before the Congress’ Committee on Economy, Trade, and Digital Transformation, alongside independent experts.

The investigation is based on findings from European academic institutions such as IMDEA Networks (Spain), the Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium), and Radboud University (Netherlands). These studies revealed that Meta implemented a hidden mechanism to track users’ browsing activities through its apps—even in incognito mode or when using virtual private networks (VPNs).

“In Spain, the law is above any algorithm or tech giant, and those who violate our rights will face consequences,” warned Prime Minister Sánchez.

Advertisement
20251204_amnistia_mh_728x90
previous arrow
next arrow

According to the technical report, the system reportedly operated for nearly a year and allowed web activity to be directly linked to users’ personal profiles on Facebook and Instagram. The PSOE described these practices as “silent espionage without any explicit consent.”

If confirmed, Meta would have violated key European Union regulations, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the ePrivacy Directive, the Digital Services Act (DSA), and the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The tech giant is already facing class-action lawsuits in Germany, the United States, and Canada for similar cases.

Continue Reading

International

New York Times sues Pentagon over new press restrictions, citing First Amendment violations

The New York Times announced on Thursday that it has filed a lawsuit against the Pentagon over new restrictions imposed on the press when reporting on the U.S. military.

The newspaper stated on its website that the Pentagon’s policy is “exactly the type of restrictive scheme on freedom of speech and the press” that the Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit Court have recognized as violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment protects fundamental rights such as freedom of the press and expression.

On October 16, the deadline to accept the new rules, major U.S. media outlets—including journalists with more than thirty years of experience as Pentagon correspondents—returned their credentials in protest.

The lawsuit, filed by the NYT in the U.S. District Court in Washington, argues that the purpose of the policy is “to shut the doors of the Pentagon—areas that have historically been open to the press—to news organizations, like the plaintiffs, that investigate and report without fear or favoritism on the department’s actions and leadership.”

The newspaper is requesting that the court issue an injunction preventing the Pentagon from enforcing the press policy, along with a declaration that the provisions restricting First Amendment rights are unlawful.

Advertisement
20251204_amnistia_mh_728x90
previous arrow
next arrow

The NYT noted that Pentagon officials have said that access to military facilities is a privilege subject to regulation, and that the new guidelines aim “to prevent leaks that could harm operational security and national safety.”

This past Tuesday, during the first press briefing held by the Pentagon since restricting access for most accredited national and international media following near-universal rejection of the new rules, influencers, bloggers, and reporters from so-called “new media” occupied the press room.

Several of the newly accredited journalists, such as Lance Johnston of the right-wing organization Fearless Media, boasted on social media that the desks “now belonged” to them—desks that had been used for decades by representatives of outlets like The Washington Post, The New York Times, and CNN.

Continue Reading

Trending

Central News