Tag: no-latest

LAS CRUCES, N.M. — At sunrise, when the day’s first golden glow washes over the 29-foot-tall limestone Jesus atop Mount Cristo Rey, Lourdes Castañon feels the presence of the divine. “The rays catch it,” he said, “and, oh man, I think I’m touching the face of God.”

Countless pilgrims from around the world journey to the sacred site just on New Mexico’s side of the southwestern border, but Castañon fears for its future. At the mountain’s base, President Donald Trump wants to build his border wall, and the small Catholic diocese that owns the land is trying to stop it.

The Department of Homeland Security is attempting to use eminent domain to seize 14 acres of desert from the diocese, based in Las Cruces, N.M., so it can raise about 1.5 miles of new wall. The church claims a towering steel barrier would desecrate a holy landmark and violate the religious liberties of those who wish to worship there.

“It will look like a scar on Mother Earth,” said Castañon, 74, a volunteer with the Mount Cristo Rey Restoration Committee, an independent group that works to keep the site clean and accessible.

Homeland Security sued to wrest control of the land from the diocese last month, offering about $180,000 as compensation. The diocese, which had pleaded with the Trump administration to consider alternatives to a wall, countered in court, arguing that the lawsuit flouted the First Amendment and laws to further protect religious freedom.

“The wall is a physical manifestation of this government’s attitude toward migrants,” the diocese said Friday in a legal brief that detailed its arguments and included testimony from local bishops and others. “Nothing could be less Catholic.”

The ongoing federal case is the latest example of opposition to a border wall Trump wants to extend across the entire southern frontier. Since Trump’s first term, aggrieved landowners, environmentalists, and Native American tribes have fought the president’s barrier-building, tying up government lawyers in court.

The Trump administration has claimed broad authority over wall construction, but opponents have secured a few tentative wins, including this year in Texas’ Big Bend National Park, where U.S. Customs and Border Protection had to change plans after a bipartisan outcry.

Now, an administration that holds itself up as a defender of the devout is facing off with Catholics asserting their freedom of religion.

“This is not a battle between the church and the government; it’s a battle between symbols,” said Deacon Jim Winder, the chancellor of the diocese. “One is a 29-foot statue of Christ the King, which is meant to symbolize unity and hope, and the other is a 30-foot iron monstrosity that symbolizes exclusion and division. Our symbol was there first. The wall is an in-your-face insult.”

Customs and Border Protection has acknowledged Mount Cristo Rey’s significance, but the agency has argued that the site is also popular for drug smugglers and human traffickers. The mountain is the only stretch of land in the area not fortified with tall fencing — Cristo Rey was long considered a natural barrier — and the federal government now sees the gap as a security problem.

Part of the new segment will be built on federal land and the rest “will have no adverse impact” on Mount Cristo Rey, the government has said, because it won’t block the trail leading up to the Christ sculpture. Construction will occur several hundred feet below the statue.

“Anyone who spent 30 seconds examining a map of Mount Cristo Rey and the southern border would realize how ludicrous these claims are,” John B. Mennell, an agency spokesperson, said in a statement, referring to the church’s arguments.

Mount Cristo Rey, known also as Sierra de Cristo Rey, near El Paso, Texas, and the suburbs of Mexico’s Ciudad Juárez, saw its first pilgrim in the early 1930s, after a local priest, Father Lourdes Costa, gazed out his window at the distant peak and envisioned a soaring crucifix at its summit.

Costa made the challenging trek and shared his premonition with the Diocese of El Paso, which purchased the land from the state of New Mexico. In the nearly 90 years since the sculpture was completed, hundreds of thousands of faithful have traveled to the top, some on their knees and others barefoot, over rough ground studded with yucca and creosote.

It also attracted those looking to cross into the United States illegally. As migrant apprehensions soared, members of the restoration committee, among the mountain’s most frequent visitors, noticed an uptick in vandalism and crime at the site.

Not all of Mount Cristo Rey’s devotees oppose the wall. Ruben Escandon, whose parents and grandparents preceded him as Cristo Rey caretakers, worried that border-related safety concerns have held the site back from being considered one of the world’s premier Catholic attractions, like the statue of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro.

He is opposed to Trump’s immigration agenda, he said, but the surrounding segments of the border wall are funneling migrants onto his cherished mountain. The barrier needs to be completed, he said.

“It has nothing to do with immigration policies; it has to do with keeping Mount Cristo Rey safe,” said Escandon, a former police officer who specializes in performing cross-border marriages. “Hopefully it will allow the traditional visitor to come without fear.”

But environmental and migrant rights groups say the new wall would disrupt a fragile desert ecosystem and make an already dangerous journey over the border more deadly.

The diocese said it respects the Trump administration’s authority to secure the area. When Border Patrol officials asked in recent years to carve a roadway through Cristo Rey property, the diocese agreed and charged the government nothing. The church has not objected to the agency’s use of sensors and cameras around the mountain.

But a wall is too far, Winder said.

Barrier construction elsewhere has threatened or destroyed other cultural sites, including a 1,000-year-old Native American etching that federal contractors mistakenly bulldozed in Arizona this year. And the blasting involved in building near Cristo Rey could damage the statue, he said.

Lawyers for the Justice Department have been pushing to accelerate the case, filing motions to condemn the property and take possession of it in quick succession. “Time is of the essence,” they argued, because the government has already contracted with construction companies and could be fined if the project is delayed.

“We’re just getting run over,” Winder said.

A Justice Department spokesperson, Natalie Baldassarre, said “the taking is authorized by law” and that it “will not impact activity or use of the shrine.”

Kathryn Brack Morrow, an attorney for the diocese, said the government’s urgency was not justified.

“This is a self-inflicted emergency,” Morrow said. “The diocese has raised weighty religious liberty concerns that warrant deliberate consideration.”

Contractors have already begun working at the base of Cristo Rey. On a recent morning, 15-year-old Fernanda Vazquez hiked up the winding trail with her family and looked down at the ribbon of dirt where the wall may soon be built.

“It just breaks my heart,” she said. “It just doesn’t seem right.”

This article originally appeared in the New York Times.

BOGOTÁ, Colombia — Colombians headed to the polls Sunday in the most polarized election in years, with voters choosing between the country’s governing leftist political movement and a President Donald Trump-endorsed right-wing outsider.

The vote pits Sen. Iván Cepeda, a longtime human rights activist and ally of President Gustavo Petro, the country’s first leftist president, against Abelardo De La Espriella, a former criminal defense lawyer who vows a sweeping crackdown on guerrilla groups and drug-trafficking gangs.

The high-stakes contest has drawn international attention following De La Espriella’s endorsement by Trump, who called Cepeda a “Radical Left Marxist.”

The move marks the latest instance of Trump endorsing right-wing candidates in Latin American elections as the region increasingly shifts toward the right, driven in part by concerns over rising insecurity.

Who are the candidates?

Cepeda, 63, is a senator and well-known advocate for victims of Colombia’s decades-long armed conflict. He was also part of the negotiations that led to Colombia’s landmark 2016 peace deal with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia that was meant to help end that conflict.

Running as the candidate of Petro’s party, he has pledged to preserve many of his policies, including anti-poverty programs, land redistribution efforts, and negotiations with armed groups.

De La Espriella, 47, is a former high-profile criminal defense lawyer and businessperson with no previous political experience and who spent years living in Florida.

Nicknamed “El Tigre,” or “the tiger,” he has campaigned as an antiestablishment outsider, though he has long been close to Colombia’s right-wing political power elites as a lawyer.

Why has the vote spurred controversy in the U. S.?

Some of De La Espriella’s campaign promises echo policies pursued by other Latin American right-wing leaders, such as Nayib Bukele of El Salvador and Javier Milei of Argentina. His platform includes building 10 megaprisons, shrinking the state, and collaborating with the United States to combat drug trafficking.

He has also been known to legally pursue his opponents — including journalists. After he received Trump’s endorsement and the support of some Republican lawmakers, De La Espriella, a naturalized U.S. citizen, began warning that he would go after anyone who challenged him, with the assistance of the United States.

Last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a memo saying that the presence of a progressive activist living in Arizona, Beto Coral, interfered with U.S. foreign policy after the activist criticized De La Espriella. Coral, 40, was detained by U.S. immigration authorities Tuesday, a move decried by Democrats in Congress and by rights groups.

What are voters focused on?

Along with complaints about Petro’s rocky four-year-term, voters cite concerns over crime and extortion and the growing power of armed groups in rural areas.

Violence surged even during the campaign, which saw a presidential hopeful assassinated, two De La Espriella campaign workers killed, and Cepeda’s running mate briefly kidnapped.

Critics say Petro’s flagship “Total Peace” strategy, which sought negotiated settlements with multiple armed groups, allowed those groups to grow stronger during ceasefires.

Humanitarian organizations say violence has reached its highest level since the 2016 peace accord, but Colombia remains far safer than it was during the height of the conflict in the 1980s and 1990s.

While De La Espriella says he will completely abandon peace talks and crush narcotrafficking groups within 90 days, Cepeda has said he will continue his own version of peace negotiations.

The election is also seen as a referendum on Petro’s presidency. Supporters credit his government with expanding social programs, and increasing the political visibility of historically marginalized groups.

But critics say his tenure has been marked not only by deteriorating security, but by a troubled state takeover of the health system and runaway spending that has left Colombia with a public debt that is at pandemic levels.

Why the first round of voting was a surprise

De La Espriella finished first in the opening round with 43.7% of the vote, compared with 40.9% for Cepeda.

The result surprised many analysts. Despite complaints, Petro has maintained approval ratings above 50% and has created a broad coalition of movements that support the left. Cepeda enjoyed a comfortable lead in the polls into last month.

Yet many voters instead turned to De La Espriella, a political newcomer who promised a clean break not only with the left, but with traditional parties and the “same ones as always.”

Since the first round, most polls have shown De La Espriella holding the lead. However, analysts note that the right-wing candidate’s increasingly strident language has worried more middle-of-the-road Colombians, making it harder to predict whom undecided voters will support.

After May’s first round, Petro claimed electoral fraud without evidence, raising concerns that he could refuse to accept the results of Sunday’s election or call for protests.

When are results expected?

Polls were open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. local time. Preliminary results were expected within hours of the polls closing.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

WASHINGTON — For more than a year, the Pentagon has deployed about 9,000 active-duty troops along nearly 2,000 miles of the southwest border to confront migrants, smugglers, and drug cartels.

The troops are still there — at a cost of tens of millions of dollars each week — even though the Trump administration months ago largely achieved its goal of slashing illegal crossings.

The military patrols, working closely with Customs and Border Protection as well as the Mexican military, have pushed Mexican cartels and smugglers into more remote mountainous areas to evade detection.

But threats to U.S. troops are on the rise, U.S. officials say.

Some members of Congress have questioned whether the patrols are the best use of active-duty troops who would otherwise be training for deployments to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, or the Indo-Pacific. Lawmakers and independent analysts have voiced concerns that the border missions will distract from training, drain resources, and undermine readiness.

The mission marked a milestone late last month when its third commander, Maj. Gen. Curtis D. Taylor of the Army’s 1st Armored Division, took control of one of the centerpieces of the Trump administration’s Western Hemisphere security policy.

Challenges abound for the troops involved in the mission, which the military calls Ardent Vanguard.

Cartel activity increased along the border in February after Mexican forces, aided by the CIA, killed a notorious Mexican cartel leader known as El Mencho. Soon after, U.S. service members discovered that their phones had been hacked, and they began receiving threatening messages, congressional officials said.

“I’m very concerned about this operation and the safety of our Marines,” Rep. Sara Jacobs (D., Calif.), who sits on the Armed Services Committee, said at a hearing in March. “Our service members did not sign up for immigration enforcement, and this political stunt is putting their lives at risk.”

While U.S. forces deployed to the southern border use several counterdrone systems, the general in charge of helping defend U.S. territory said that many troops lacked adequate technology for patrols.

“It presents us a different challenge,” Gen. Gregory M. Guillot, head of the military’s Northern Command, said at a security conference in Tampa, Fla., last month. He noted the overall increase in anti-drone technology.

Unlike the drone wars on the battlefields of Ukraine or Iran, there have been no drone attacks on either side of this border conflict and no U.S. casualties, military officials say.

The mission to detect and interdict illegal activity across hundreds of miles of desert and mountainous frontier has also become a high-stakes proving ground for emerging technology, including counter-drone devices, remotely guided sea vessels, and advanced sensors.

Guillot said at a change-of-command ceremony in Arizona last month that the military had for the first time conducted joint patrols with Mexican soldiers using encrypted radios and high-energy lasers to knock down potentially hostile cartel-operated drones.

“My mission is to control the border,” Maj. Gen. David W. Gardner, commander of the 101st Airborne Division, said in a phone interview from Fort Huachuca, Ariz., before handing off the operation to Taylor. “We remain focused on the mission of sealing the border.”

Asked about confronting the drones and other security threats posed by Mexican cartels, Gardner said that U.S. forces had disabled or knocked down drones that the cartels use to find new smuggling routes around the U.S. patrols.

“The illicit actors are finding it more and more difficult to accomplish their objectives,” Gardner said.

Sen. Jack Reed (D., R.I.), the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, expressed concern at a hearing last month that the border mission was siphoning money from important training missions. He said the Army faced a nearly $2 billion budget shortfall largely because the Department of Homeland Security had not reimbursed it for border-support missions.

“I have received concerning reports about the potential for canceling training rotations, grounded flight hours, and reduced Guard and Reserve training resources,” Reed said, referring to the National Guard and Army Reserve. “These are real costs for real units.”

But several commanders and some troops stationed along the border said in interviews — some of them recent — that serving in one of Trump’s highest-priority missions gave them purpose. They are using many of their skills — route planning, mission rehearsals, patrols, and surveillance flights — in the real world against criminal smuggling gangs and Mexican drug cartels, instead of just practicing at their home bases or in exercises, they said.

There is no end in sight for the military mission on the border. The Pentagon said last May that the first four months of the operation cost $525 million. But the department declined to say what the total cost was now.