Executive Action to Deploy 1,500 Troops to US-Mexico Border: A Step to Secure Communities

In a decisive move to address the growing concerns over undocumented immigration, an executive action signed by President Donald Trump has authorized the deployment of 1,500 active-duty troops to the US-Mexico border. The measure, detailed in an official post on the White House website, underscores the administration’s focus on securing the southern border and preventing undocumented immigrants from entering the United States.

Purpose of the Deployment

The executive action stresses the critical need to fortify the border against what the administration describes as an “invasion” by undocumented immigrants. The White House statement argues that these individuals impose significant costs on state and local governments, particularly in terms of healthcare, education, and public services. It highlights concerns about the strain placed on communities due to immigration, which the administration claims amounts to “billions of dollars of costs.”

Border as a ‘Number One Priority’

Speaking to the press after signing the order, White House spokesperson Ms. Leavitt reinforced that securing the US-Mexico border remains President Trump’s “number one priority.” She reiterated that the deployment of troops was essential to ensuring the safety and security of American communities, particularly those located near the southern border. Ms. Leavitt also emphasized the ongoing efforts to combat illegal immigration and prevent the potential risks associated with it.

Focus on Border Security and Immigration Control

This move aligns with the Trump administration’s broader stance on immigration control, aiming to curb illegal crossings and enhance the capacity of border officials to handle the surge in migrants. The 1,500 troops, while providing logistical and operational support to the Border Patrol, will also assist in surveillance, infrastructure building, and additional security measures.

Controversy and Support

The decision has already sparked debate across political lines. Supporters of the measure argue that it is a necessary step to protect US sovereignty and safeguard communities from the perceived dangers posed by illegal immigration. They contend that the resources allocated to the border will prevent the influx of undocumented migrants who place an undue burden on American taxpayers.

On the other hand, critics of the action argue that such militarization of the border could escalate tensions, lead to human rights violations, and waste valuable resources. They question whether the deployment of troops is an overreaction to the challenges posed by immigration.

Looking Ahead

As President Trump continues to push for tougher immigration policies, the deployment of 1,500 troops to the US-Mexico border is seen as a crucial part of his administration’s ongoing efforts to curb illegal immigration. This move sets the stage for further measures to tighten border security, with both supporters and critics closely watching the impact of this executive order on the nation’s immigration landscape.

White House Pushes Strong Border Security: “Breaking US Laws Will Lead to Arrest and Prosecution”

The White House has made it clear that any attempt to break the laws of the United States will not be tolerated, as spokesperson Ms. Leavitt reiterated the firm stance of the administration. “If you are thinking about breaking the laws of the United States of America, you will be returned home,” she said, reinforcing President Trump’s tough approach to immigration. “You will be arrested. You will be prosecuted.”

The statement comes in the wake of the president’s latest executive actions, which aim to tighten border security and combat illegal immigration. As part of these efforts, Ms. Leavitt also confirmed that an additional 1,500 active-duty troops would be deployed to the US-Mexico border, boosting the military presence aimed at strengthening enforcement and preventing illegal crossings.

A Flurry of Immigration Decrees

The announcement marks just one of a series of actions signed by the newly inaugurated President Trump, signaling his continued focus on addressing immigration challenges. Over the past week, the administration has rolled out several decrees and executive orders related to border security and immigration control, demonstrating the urgency with which the White House is approaching the issue.

These measures reflect the president’s commitment to his campaign promises of cracking down on illegal immigration and ensuring that US laws are strictly enforced. The deployment of additional troops to the border is part of a broader strategy to enhance the capabilities of US border agencies and provide more resources for tackling illegal crossings.

Impact on Border Communities and Immigration Policy

For communities along the US-Mexico border, these developments mean an increase in military and law enforcement presence aimed at stopping the flow of undocumented migrants. The White House’s message is clear: those who attempt to enter the country illegally will face legal consequences.

While the administration has framed these actions as necessary to safeguard American communities and uphold the rule of law, critics argue that the militarization of the border could lead to tensions, and that resources could be better spent addressing the root causes of immigration, such as poverty and violence in migrant-sending countries.

The Path Ahead for Immigration Reform

As the Trump administration continues to push its tough stance on immigration, it remains to be seen how these new measures will impact the broader immigration landscape in the US. With additional troops heading to the border and a range of executive orders aimed at strengthening border enforcement, the future of US immigration policy is poised for further changes. The administration’s next steps will likely involve further legal actions and potential legislative proposals to tighten the nation’s immigration laws.

Trump Administration Expands Border Security Measures and Touts National Emergency

The Trump administration has unveiled a series of sweeping immigration policies aimed at tightening border security and addressing issues related to birthright citizenship. These new executive actions underscore the administration’s aggressive stance on illegal immigration, declaring it a national emergency and reshaping policies to expedite deportations.

Expedited Removal Policy Expanded Nationwide

One of the key elements of the new measures is the expansion of the expedited removal policy. A notice posted on the Federal Register reveals that this policy, which has traditionally been confined to undocumented migrants detained within 100 miles (160km) of the US-Mexico border, now applies to individuals detained anywhere in the United States.

The change, which took effect on the evening of January 21, 2025, is designed to accelerate immigration enforcement by allowing officers to remove undocumented individuals more quickly. The administration argues that this shift will enhance national security and public safety by facilitating quicker immigration determinations. Additionally, the policy is expected to reduce government costs associated with lengthy detention and legal proceedings.

Birthright Citizenship Under Review

In conjunction with the expedited removal changes, the administration has also moved to reassess the concept of birthright citizenship. President Trump has long expressed concerns over individuals born on US soil to undocumented parents automatically receiving citizenship. The new executive orders signal a potential re-evaluation of this practice, which could have significant implications for the broader immigration system.

The White House has framed these actions as necessary for ensuring the integrity of US immigration laws and protecting the nation from illegal immigration. The administration argues that illegal immigration imposes a significant financial burden on state and local governments, and these measures are critical in reducing those costs.

National Emergency Declaration

Alongside the policy changes, the president has declared illegal immigration at the US-Mexico border a national emergency, a move that further underscores the administration’s determination to address what it sees as a growing crisis. The national emergency declaration is aimed at mobilizing additional resources for border enforcement and facilitating the expedited removal process.

Reactions and Concerns

While the administration’s supporters argue that these measures are necessary to protect US borders and reduce illegal immigration, critics have expressed concerns about the potential for human rights violations and the impact on vulnerable communities. Critics also argue that the expansion of the expedited removal policy could lead to the deportation of individuals who have been in the country for years, disrupting families and communities.

The Road Ahead for Immigration Policy

As the Trump administration moves forward with these changes, the landscape of US immigration policy is set for further transformation. The broad application of expedited removal, the reassessment of birthright citizenship, and the national emergency declaration are all key components of a larger strategy to reshape the country’s immigration system. While these actions may address certain concerns about border security, they are also likely to spark ongoing debates about the balance between national security and human rights.

Trump Administration Expands Immigration Policies, Citing National Security Concerns

The Trump administration’s recent immigration measures are drawing significant attention as they expand the scope of deportation powers and intensify restrictions on refugee admissions. The new policies, which are designed to expedite the removal of undocumented immigrants and curb the flow of migrants into the United States, come amid heightened concerns over national security and resource allocation.

Expansion of Expedited Removal Policy

Under the newly expanded expedited removal policy, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will now have the authority to swiftly address “the large volume of aliens” living in the US illegally. The change aims to facilitate the “prompt removal” of individuals deemed ineligible to remain in the country, particularly those not entitled to relief or protection under US immigration laws.

Traditionally, individuals apprehended in the US without proper documentation were given a notice to appear in immigration court, where they could present their case for asylum. Deportation proceedings could not begin until a judge rendered a decision. The expansion of expedited removal now allows officers to proceed with deportation without the need for court hearings, significantly speeding up the process. The administration argues that this will enhance national security and reduce the financial burden on state and local governments.

Potential Legal Challenges

The expanded policy, which applies not only to the US-Mexico border but also to the US-Canada border and maritime sectors like Florida, is expected to face legal challenges in court. Critics argue that it could infringe upon due process rights and lead to the deportation of individuals without sufficient opportunity to present their cases. The policy change raises concerns about potential human rights violations, particularly for vulnerable migrants seeking asylum.

Trump Cites Immigration Law to Suspend Foreign Entry

In a related move, President Trump has invoked Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows the president to suspend the entry of foreign nationals deemed “detrimental” to the US. This legal provision enables the administration to impose temporary travel bans or restrictions on specific groups, further tightening the nation’s immigration controls. Trump has indicated that the law will be used to prevent individuals who are perceived as posing a threat to national security from entering the US.

Suspension of Refugee Admissions Program

The Trump administration has also taken steps to limit the number of refugees admitted into the US. A separate executive order signed by the president suspends the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), citing concerns over the country’s ability to absorb large numbers of migrants and refugees. According to Trump, the US “lacks the ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees, into its communities in a manner that does not compromise the availability of resources for Americans.”

This suspension reflects a broader shift in US immigration policy, with an emphasis on limiting refugee resettlement and focusing on the nation’s security and economic stability. The move has sparked criticism from humanitarian organizations, which argue that it undermines the US’s long-standing commitment to providing refuge to those fleeing persecution.

Broader Impact and Reactions

The administration’s new policies are likely to have significant consequences for undocumented immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. While supporters argue that these measures are necessary to protect national security and reduce the strain on US resources, opponents warn that they could result in the deportation of vulnerable individuals and disrupt the lives of many families.

The legal and humanitarian implications of these policies will likely continue to unfold in the coming months, as both the courts and the public debate the balance between national security and individual rights.

What Lies Ahead for US Immigration Policy

As President Trump’s immigration policies continue to evolve, it remains to be seen how these latest measures will shape the future of the US immigration system. The expanded expedited removal process, coupled with the suspension of refugee admissions, represents a significant shift in how the US handles immigration and border security. With several legal battles expected to ensue, the long-term impact of these policies on US immigration law and the broader political landscape will be closely watched.

Trump Administration Halts US Refugee Admissions Program, Affecting Thousands of Afghan Nationals

In a significant shift in US immigration policy, the Trump administration has announced a temporary suspension of the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). The executive order states that “further entry into the United States of refugees aligns with the interests of the United States,” effectively halting the program until further notice. This move has been framed as necessary to ensure the safety and resource management of the country, particularly amid the ongoing national security concerns.

Impact on Afghan Refugees

One of the most immediate consequences of this decision has been the cancellation of travel plans for more than 1,600 Afghan nationals who had already been approved for resettlement in the United States. These individuals, many of whom had worked alongside US forces or supported American interests during the Afghanistan war, were expecting to start new lives in the US after years of uncertainty.

The cancellation of their plans has caused widespread concern among refugee advocacy groups. Afghan USRAP Refugees, a group dedicated to supporting these individuals, has written an open letter to President Trump urging him to reconsider the decision. The group expressed frustration over the uncertainty and the emotional toll it is taking on families who had already made plans to rebuild their lives in the United States.

Ongoing Wait for Resettlement

In addition to those affected by the cancellation, over 3,000 Afghan nationals are currently in Albania, waiting for their resettlement process to proceed. These individuals had been relocated to Albania temporarily, pending final approval for entry into the US. The halt to USRAP has left them in limbo, with no clear timeline for when or if they will be able to enter the country.

Many of these Afghan refugees had already faced significant hardships, including the Taliban’s resurgence, which threatened their safety and forced them to flee their homes. For those who have already gone through the US vetting process and were approved to resettle, the suspension has been a devastating setback.

Administration’s Justification

The Trump administration has defended the suspension of the US Refugee Admissions Program, citing the need to prioritize national security and the US’s ability to absorb large numbers of refugees. The president has argued that America is not in a position to take in more refugees without straining resources or compromising the safety of American citizens.

The administration has also emphasized that the US will continue to prioritize the resettlement of refugees who pose no security risk to the country. However, critics of the policy argue that it disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, particularly those who have already been approved for resettlement and are at heightened risk due to their association with the US military and government.

Legal and Humanitarian Concerns

This latest policy change has sparked a wave of criticism from both legal and humanitarian groups. Critics argue that the suspension violates the US’s international obligations to protect refugees and undermines the country’s historical role as a haven for those fleeing persecution. Legal challenges are expected, as many believe the suspension may be in conflict with the Refugee Act of 1980, which sets forth the US’s commitment to offering refuge to those in need.

Furthermore, advocates for Afghan refugees warn that this decision puts thousands of lives at risk. Many of the individuals affected by the suspension face danger from the Taliban and other hostile groups due to their work with the US government.

Looking Forward: Uncertain Future for Afghan Refugees

As the situation continues to evolve, the fate of thousands of Afghan refugees remains uncertain. While the Trump administration has expressed a commitment to ensuring that future refugee admissions align with US interests, the broader implications for refugees and asylum seekers, particularly those from war-torn regions like Afghanistan, are still unfolding.

With legal challenges likely on the horizon and increasing public outcry, the future of US refugee policy will remain a critical issue in the months to come. As it stands, many Afghan families find themselves in a precarious situation, unable to return home and uncertain about their prospects for resettlement in the US.

DHS Rescinds Restrictions on Immigration Officers Entering “Sensitive” Areas, Empowering Law Enforcement

In a major shift from the Biden administration’s immigration policies, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has rescinded existing guidelines that restricted immigration officers from entering “sensitive” areas such as schools, places of worship, and healthcare facilities. The move has drawn significant attention as it empowers U.S. law enforcement agencies like Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to more aggressively enforce immigration laws in these traditionally protected areas.

New DHS Statement

The Department of Homeland Security justified the change by stating that the previous guidelines had hindered law enforcement from doing their jobs. In a statement, a DHS spokesperson explained that the guidelines “thwart” law enforcement efforts and that rescinding them would allow immigration officers to track down “criminal aliens,” including individuals accused of serious crimes such as murder and rape, who have entered the country illegally.

The spokesperson emphasized that the Trump administration’s policies will no longer “tie the hands” of law enforcement, adding that officers will now have the discretion to operate based on their judgment and “common sense” when identifying individuals who have violated immigration laws.

Impact on “Sensitive” Locations

The reversal of this policy is significant, as it means that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers will now be able to enter sensitive locations, including schools, hospitals, and places of worship, to apprehend individuals suspected of being in the country illegally. Previously, these areas had been largely considered off-limits to immigration enforcement to protect vulnerable communities, particularly undocumented immigrants seeking refuge in these spaces.

While the decision is framed as a necessary step to ensure the safety and security of U.S. citizens by targeting criminal elements, it has raised concerns from immigrant rights advocates and civil liberties groups who argue that this could lead to an increased fear among immigrant communities. They worry that people may avoid seeking medical care, education, or legal assistance if they fear the presence of immigration officers in these critical spaces.

Biden Administration’s Approach vs. Trump Administration’s Policy

The Biden administration had issued more restrictive guidelines for immigration enforcement in sensitive locations, prioritizing the protection of vulnerable communities and emphasizing that immigration officers should focus on individuals with serious criminal histories or national security threats. However, the Trump administration’s decision to rescind these protections has sparked a strong reaction from those who argue that the new policies could undermine the trust between immigrant communities and essential public services.

This latest shift in policy reflects broader changes in the Trump administration’s stance on immigration enforcement, with a focus on empowering law enforcement to act more freely and expanding the reach of federal authorities.

Criticism and Concerns from Advocates

Critics of the policy, including immigrant rights groups, have voiced their concerns that this move could lead to the unnecessary detention and deportation of individuals who pose no security risk. They argue that the expansion of ICE and CBP powers into sensitive spaces could further polarize communities and discourage individuals from reporting crimes, seeking medical help, or enrolling their children in school due to fear of deportation.

What Comes Next

The removal of restrictions on immigration enforcement in sensitive areas marks a significant departure from the previous administration’s approach to immigration, raising the stakes in the ongoing debate over how best to balance security concerns with the rights and protections of immigrant populations. It remains to be seen how this policy change will affect both local communities and federal enforcement efforts moving forward.

Courtesy: BBC News

References

• ^ “World Development Indicators: Rural environment and land use”. World Development Indicators, The World Bank. World Bank. Archived from the original on June 17, 2016. Retrieved September 12, 2013.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b “World Population Prospects 2022”. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. Retrieved July 17, 2022.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b “World Population Prospects 2022: Demographic indicators by region, subregion and country, annually for 1950-2100” (XSLX) (“Total Population, as of 1 July (thousands)”). United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. Retrieved July 17, 2022.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b c d “Report for Selected Countries and Subjects”.
• ^ Dressing, David. “Latin America”. Encyclopedia of Latin American History and Culture. v. 5, 390
• ^ Bethell, Leslie (August 1, 2010). “Brazil and ‘Latin America'”. Journal of Latin American Studies. 42 (3): 457–485. doi:10.1017/S0022216X1000088X. ISSN 1469-767X.
• ^ Gistory (September 17, 2015). “Is Brazil Part of Latin America? It’s Not an Easy Question”. Medium. Retrieved July 17, 2024.
• ^ “Latin America” definition Archived September 22, 2022, at the Wayback Machine. Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed May 20, 2022.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b Bilbao, Francisco (June 22, 1856). “Iniciativa de la América. Idea de un Congreso Federal de las Repúblicas” (in Spanish). París. Archived from the original on September 17, 2017. Retrieved July 16, 2017 – via Proyecto Filosofía en español.
• ^ Britton, John A. (2013). Cables, Crises, and the Press: The Geopolitics of the New Information System in the Americas, 1866–1903. UNM Press. pp. 16–18. ISBN 9780826353986.
• ^ Mignolo, Walter (2005). The Idea of Latin America. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 77–80. ISBN 978-1-4051-0086-1.
• ^ Ardao, Arturo (1980). Genesis de la idea y el nombre de América Latina (PDF). Caracas, Venezuela: Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos Rómulo Gallegos. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 27, 2019. Retrieved March 8, 2019.
• ^ Rojas Mix, Miguel (1986). “Bilbao y el hallazgo de América latina: Unión continental, socialista y libertaria…”. Caravelle. Cahiers du monde hispanique et luso-brésilien. 46 (1): 35–47. doi:10.3406/carav.1986.2261. ISSN 0008-0152.
• ^ Gobat, Michel (December 1, 2013). “The Invention of Latin America: A Transnational History of Anti-Imperialism, Democracy, and Race”. The American Historical Review. 118 (5): 1345–1375. doi:10.1093/ahr/118.5.1345. ISSN 0002-8762. S2CID 163918139.
• ^ Edward, Shawcross (February 6, 2018). France, Mexico and informal empire in Latin America, 1820–1867 : equilibrium in the New World. Cham, Switzerland. p. 120. ISBN 9783319704647. OCLC 1022266228.
• ^ Gutierrez, Ramon A. (2016). “What’s in a Name?”. In Gutierrez, Ramon A.; Almaguer, Tomas (eds.). The New Latino Studies Reader: A Twenty-First-Century Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-520-28484-5. OCLC 1043876740. The word latinoamericano emerged in the years following the wars of independence in Spain’s former colonies […] By the late 1850s, californios were writing in newspapers about their membership in América latina (Latin America) and latinoamerica, calling themselves Latinos as the shortened name for their hemispheric membership in la raza latina (the Latin race). Reprinting an 1858 opinion piece by a correspondent in Havana on race relations in the Americas, El Clamor Publico of Los Angeles surmised that ‘two rival races are competing with each other … the Anglo Saxon and the Latin one [la raza latina].’ 
• ^ “América latina o Sudamérica?, por Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, Clarín, 16 de mayo de 2005″. Clarin.com. May 16, 2005. Archived from the original on March 27, 2010. Retrieved April 23, 2013.
• ^ José María Torres Caicedo (September 26, 1856). “Las dos Américas” (in Spanish). Venice. Archived from the original on July 22, 2017. Retrieved April 23, 2013 – via Proyecto Filosofía en español.
• ^ Bilbao, Francisco. “Emancipación del espíritu de América”. Francisco Bilbao Barquín, 1823–1865, Chile. Archived from the original on September 16, 2017. Retrieved July 16, 2017.
• ^ RAE (2005). Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas. Madrid: Santillana Educación. ISBN 8429406239. Archived from the original on April 4, 2010. Retrieved October 15, 2010.
• ^ Rangel, Carlos (1977). The Latin Americans: Their Love-Hate Relationship with the United States. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. pp. 3–5. ISBN 978-0-15-148795-0. Skidmore, Thomas E.; Peter H. Smith (2005). Modern Latin America (6th ed.). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–10. ISBN 978-0-19-517013-9.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b Torres, George (2013). Encyclopedia of Latin American Popular Music. ABC-CLIO. p. xvii. ISBN 9780313087943.
• ^ Butland, Gilbert J. (1960). Latin America: A Regional Geography. New York: John Wiley and Sons. pp. 115–188. ISBN 978-0-470-12658-5.
  Dozer, Donald Marquand (1962). Latin America: An Interpretive History. New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 1–15. ISBN 0-87918-049-8.
  Szulc, Tad (1965). Latin America. New York Times Company. pp. 13–17. ISBN 0-689-10266-6.
  Olien, Michael D. (1973). Latin Americans: Contemporary Peoples and Their Cultural Traditions. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. pp. 1–5. ISBN 978-0-03-086251-9.
  Black, Jan Knippers, ed. (1984). Latin America: Its Problems and Its Promise: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Boulder: Westview Press. pp. 362–378. ISBN 978-0-86531-213-5.
  Burns, E. Bradford (1986). Latin America: A Concise Interpretive History (4th ed.). New York: Prentice-Hall. pp. 224–227. ISBN 978-0-13-524356-5.
  Skidmore, Thomas E.; Peter H. Smith (2005). Modern Latin America (6th ed.). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 351–355. ISBN 978-0-19-517013-9.
• ^ Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings Archived April 17, 2010, at the Wayback Machine, UN Statistics Division. Accessed on line May 23, 2009. (French Archived December 24, 2010, at the Wayback Machine)
• ^ Latin America and the Caribbean Archived May 1, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. The World Bank. Retrieved July 17, 2009.
• ^ “Country Directory. Latin American Network Information Center-University of Texas at Austin”. Lanic.utexas.edu. Archived from the original on March 11, 2014. Retrieved December 9, 2013.
• ^ Mauricio Tenorio-Trillo, Latin America: The Allure and Power of an Idea. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 2017, 1, 3.
• ^ Francisco Bilbao, La América en peligro, Buenos Aires: Impr. de Berheim y Boeno 1862, 14, 23, quoted in Tenorio-Trillo, Latin America, p. 5.
• ^ Gongóra, Alvaro; de la Taille, Alexandrine; Vial, Gonzalo. Jaime Eyzaguirre en su tiempo (in Spanish). Zig-Zag. p. 223.
• ^ “South America, Latin America”. Reflexions. University of Liège. Archived from the original on November 24, 2022. Retrieved November 24, 2022.
• ^ “Language and education in Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao”. ResearchGate. Archived from the original on September 25, 2024. Retrieved December 16, 2024.
• ^ María Alejandra Acosta Garcia; González, Sheridan; Ma. de Lourdes Romero; Reza, Luis; Salinas, Araceli (June 2011). “Three”. Geografía, Quinto Grado [Geography, Fifth Grade] (Second ed.). Mexico City: Secretaría de Educación Pública [Secretariat of Public Education]. pp. 75–83 – via Comisión Nacional de Libros de Texto Gratuitos (CONALITEG).
• ^ Jump up to:^a b Central Intelligence Agency (2023). “The World Factbook – Country Comparisons: Population”. Archived from the original on January 6, 2021. Retrieved June 28, 2023.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b “United Nations Statistics Division – Demographic and Social Statistics”. unstats.un.org. Archived from the original on October 15, 2017. Retrieved July 18, 2021.
• ^ Téléchargement du fichier d’ensemble des populations légales en 2017 Archived October 5, 2020, at the Wayback Machine, INSEE
• ^ Ospina, Jose (October 28, 2018). “Is there a right-wing surge in South America?”. DW. Archived from the original on December 31, 2022. Retrieved December 10, 2018.
• ^ “Conservative Lacalle Pou wins Uruguay presidential election, ending 15 years of leftist rule”. France 24. November 29, 2019. Archived from the original on June 13, 2022. Retrieved June 13, 2022.
• ^ Jordi Zamora. “China’s double-edged trade with Latin America”. September 3, 2011. AFP.
• ^ Casey, Nicholas; Zarate, Andrea (February 13, 2017). “Corruption Scandals With Brazilian Roots Cascade Across Latin America”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on June 13, 2017. Retrieved June 16, 2017.
• ^ Andreoni, Manuela; Londoño, Ernesto; Darlington, Shasta (April 7, 2018). “Ex-President ‘Lula’ of Brazil Surrenders to Serve 12-Year Jail Term”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 7, 2018. Retrieved April 7, 2018.
• ^ “Another former Peruvian president is sent to jail, this time as part of growing corruption scandal”. Los Angeles Times. July 14, 2017. Archived from the original on March 24, 2022. Retrieved July 14, 2017.
• ^ Weiffen, Brigitte (December 1, 2020). “Latin America and COVID-19: Political Rights and Presidential Leadership to the Test”. Democratic Theory. 7 (2): 61–68. doi:10.3167/dt.2020.070208. ISSN 2332-8894. Archived from the original on January 21, 2021. Retrieved January 13, 2021.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b c d Rethinking Education: Towards a global common good? (PDF). UNESCO. 2015. pp. 24, Box 1. ISBN 978-92-3-100088-1. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 13, 2018. Retrieved March 15, 2017.
• ^ Report on World Social Situation 2013: Inequality Matters. United Nations. 2013. ISBN 978-92-1-130322-3. Archived from the original on May 25, 2017. Retrieved June 28, 2017.
• ^ Protección social inclusiva en América Latina. Una mirada integral, un enfoque de derechos [Inclusive social protection in Latin America. An integral look, a focus on rights]. United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (UNECLAC). March 2011. ISBN 9789210545556. Archived from the original on February 1, 2014. Retrieved August 9, 2012.
• ^ Nutini, Hugo; Isaac, Barry (2009). Social Stratification in central Mexico 1500–2000. University of Texas Press. p. 55. There are basically four operational categories that may be termed ethnic or even racial in Mexico today: (1) güero or blanco (white), denoting European and Near East extraction; (2) criollo (creole), meaning light mestizo in this context but actually of varying complexion; (3) mestizo, an imprecise category that includes many phenotypic variations; and (4) indio, also an imprecise category. These are nominal categories, and neither güero/blanco nor criollo is a widely used term (see Nutini 1997: 230). Nevertheless, there is a popular consensus in Mexico today that these four categories represent major sectors of the nation and that they can be arranged into a rough hierarchy: whites and creoles at the top, a vast population of mestizos in the middle, and Indians (perceived as both a racial and an ethnic component) at the bottom.
• ^ Seed, Patricia (1988). To Love, Honor, and Obey in Colonial Mexico: conflicts over Marriage Choice, 1574–1821. Stanford: Stanford University. pp. 21–23. ISBN 0-8047-2159-9.
• ^ Francisco H. Ferreira et al. Inequality in Latin America: Breaking with History?, The World Bank, Washington, D.C., 2004
• ^ Jones, Nicola; Baker, Hayley. “Untangling links between trade, poverty and gender”. ODI Briefing Papers 38, March 2008. Overseas Development Institute (ODI). Archived from the original on July 19, 2009. Retrieved April 15, 2011.
• ^ Baten, Jörg; Mumme, Christina (2010). “Globalization and educational inequality during the 18th to 20th centuries: Latin America in global comparison”. Journal of Iberian and Latin American Economic History. 28 (2): 279–305. doi:10.1017/S021261091000008X. hdl:10016/21558. S2CID 51961447.
• ^ Baten, Jörg (2016). A History of the Global Economy. From 1500 to the Present. Cambridge University Press. p. 148f. ISBN 9781107507180.
• ^ Nations, United. “UNDP HDI 2020”. UNDP. Archived from the original on November 2, 2010. Retrieved December 23, 2020.
• ^ “GDP per Capita Ranking 2015 – Data and Charts”. Knoema. Archived from the original on May 6, 2016. Retrieved May 13, 2016.
• ^ “Human Development Report 2011” (PDF). Table 3: Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Archived from the original (PDF) on May 15, 2012. Retrieved August 8, 2012.
• ^ “Human Development Report 2011” (PDF). Table 5: Multidimensional Poverty Index. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 11, 2012. Retrieved August 8, 2012.
• ^ “ADULT AND YOUTH LITERACY: National, regional and global trends, 1985-2015” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on August 2, 2016. Retrieved January 2, 2016.
• ^ “Geoba.se: Gazetteer – The World – Life Expectancy – Top 100+ By Country (2016)”. Archived from the original on November 20, 2016. Retrieved May 13, 2016.
• ^ “Homicide Statistics 2014”. Murder rate per 100,000 inhabitants. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Archived from the original on February 2, 2017. Retrieved February 2, 2017.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b “Global Rankings”. Vision of Humanity. Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP). July 24, 2020. Archived from the original on June 19, 2019. Retrieved February 26, 2019.
• ^ “socio-economic policies” (PDF). dane.gov.co. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 6, 2016. Retrieved March 2, 2016.
• ^ “Statistic yearbook” (PDF). policica.gob.ni. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 28, 2021. Retrieved January 22, 2021.
• ^ “Life expectancy at birth, total”. The World Bank Group. May 30, 2024. Archived from the original on February 2, 2021. Retrieved June 16, 2024.
• ^ “Life expectancy at birth, male”. The World Bank Group. May 30, 2024. Archived from the original on March 11, 2021. Retrieved June 16, 2024.
• ^ “Life expectancy at birth, female”. The World Bank Group. May 30, 2024. Archived from the original on March 12, 2021. Retrieved June 16, 2024.
• ^ “Global Metro Monitor 2014”. Brookings Institution. January 22, 2015. Archived from the original on January 7, 2019. Retrieved January 22, 2015.
• ^ Andrews, George Reid. 1980. The Afro-Argentines of Buenos Aires, 1800–1900, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press
• ^ Gilberto Freyre. The Masters and the Slaves: A Study in the Development of Brazilian Civilization. Samuel Putnam (trans.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
• ^ Thomas E. Skidmore. Black into White: Race and Nationality in Brazilian Thought. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.
• ^ France Winddance Twine Racism in a Racial Democracy: The Maintenance of White Supremacy in Brazil,(1997) Rutgers University Press
• ^ “Reference for Welsh language in southern Argentina, Welsh immigration to Patagonia”. Bbc.co.uk. July 22, 2008. Archived from the original on March 12, 2011. Retrieved April 23, 2013.
• ^ “The Welsh Immigration to Argentina”. 1stclassargentina.com. Archived from the original on March 19, 2022. Retrieved October 4, 2009.
• ^ “Reference for Welsh language in southern Argentina, Welsh immigration to Patagonia”. Andesceltig.com. September 29, 2009. Archived from the original on September 17, 2017. Retrieved April 23, 2013.
• ^ Meade, Teresa A. (2016). History of Modern Latin America: 1800 to the Present (2nd ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-118-77248-5.
• ^ “Christians”. Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project. December 18, 2012. Archived from the original on December 21, 2012. Retrieved May 13, 2016.
• ^ “CIA – The World Factbook – Field Listing – Religions”. Archived from the original on December 20, 2018. Retrieved March 17, 2009.
• ^ Fraser, Barbara J., In Latin America, Catholics down, church’s credibility up, poll says Archived June 28, 2005, at the Library of Congress Web Archives Catholic News Service June 23, 2005
• ^ “The Global Religious Landscape” (PDF). Pewforum.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 25, 2017. Retrieved May 7, 2020.
• ^ Alec Ryrie, “The World’s Local Religion” History Today (2017) online Archived September 22, 2017, at the Wayback Machine
• ^ Jump up to:^a b “Religion in Latin America, Widespread Change in a Historically Catholic Region”. Pew Research Center. November 13, 2014. Archived from the original on August 21, 2021. Retrieved March 4, 2015.
• ^ Burden, David K. La Idea Salvadora: Immigration and Colonization Politics in Mexico, 1821–1857. University of California, Santa Barbara, 2005.
• ^ Gutmann, Myron P., et al. “The demographic impact of the Mexican Revolution in the United States.” Austin: Population Research Center, University of Texas (2000)
• ^ Young, Julia G. “Cristero Diaspora: Mexican Immigrants, The US Catholic Church, and Mexico’s Cristero War, 1926–29.” The Catholic Historical Review (2012): 271–300.
• ^ Durand, Jorge, and Douglas S. Massey. “Mexican migration to the United States: A critical review.” Latin American Research Review 27.2 (1992): 3–42.
• ^ Sánchez-Albornoz, Nicolás. “The Spanish Exiles in Mexico and Beyond.” Exile and the politics of exclusion in the Americas (2012)
• ^ Adams, Jacqueline. Introduction: Jewish Refugees’ Lives in Latin America after Persecution and Impoverishment in Europe. Comparative Cultural Studies: European and Latin American Perspectives 11: 5–17, 2021
• ^ Wright, Thomas C., and Rody Oñate Zúniga. “Chilean political exile.” Latin American Perspectives 34.4 (2007): 31–49.
• ^ Bermudez, Anastasia. “The “diaspora politics” of Colombian migrants in the UK and Spain.” International Migration 49.3 (2011): 125–143.
• ^ Bertoli, Simone, Jesús Fernández-Huertas Moraga, and Francesc Ortega. “Immigration policies and the Ecuadorian exodus.” The World Bank Economic Review 25.1 (2011): 57–76.
• ^ Pedroza, L.; Palop, P.; Hoffmann, B. (2018). “Emigrant Policies in Latin America and the Caribbean: FLASCO-Chile” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on May 9, 2019. Retrieved May 9, 2019.
• ^ Global Child Nutrition Foundation (GCNF). 2022. School Meal Programs Around the World: Results from the 2021 Global Survey of School Meal Programs Archived January 29, 2023, at the Wayback Machine. GCNF: Seattle.
• ^ Welti, Carlos (2002). “Adolescents in Latin America: Facing the Future with Skepticism”. In Brown, B. (ed.). The World’s Youth: Adolescence in Eight Regions of the Globe ([Online-Ausg.]. ed.). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521006058.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b [BID/EDU Stakeholder Survey 1993/2003, February 8, 2011]
• ^ Latin America the Most Dangerous Region in terms of Violence, archived from the original on October 24, 2012, retrieved August 28, 2013
• ^ “Latin America: Crisis behind bars”. BBC News. November 16, 2005. Archived from the original on September 8, 2017. Retrieved May 7, 2010.
• ^ “Latin America Is the Murder Capital of the World”. The Wall Street Journal. September 20, 2018. Archived from the original on March 23, 2023. Retrieved July 26, 2019.
• ^ “A Year of Violence Sees Brazil’s Murder Rate Hit Record High”. The New York Times. August 10, 2018. Archived from the original on August 16, 2021. Retrieved July 26, 2019.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b “Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people)”. UN Office on Drugs and Crime’s International Homicide Statistics database. Archived from the original on September 22, 2017. Retrieved September 21, 2017.
• ^ “Map: Here are countries with the world’s highest murder rates”. UN Office on Drugs and Crime’s International Homicide Statistics database. June 27, 2016. Archived from the original on February 1, 2017. Retrieved February 1, 2017.
• ^ “Crime Hinders Development, Democracy in Latin America, U.S. Says – US Department of State”. Archived from the original on February 13, 2008.
• ^ Briceno-Leon, R.; Villaveces, A.; Concha-Eastman, A. (2008). “”Understanding the uneven distribution of the incidence of homicide in Latin America””. International Journal of Epidemiology. 37 (4): 751–757. doi:10.1093/ije/dyn153. PMID 18653511. Archived from the original on June 1, 2010. International Journal of Epidemiology
• ^ “Life expectancy and Healthy life expectancy, data by country”. World Health Organization. December 4, 2022.
• ^ Onestini, Maria (February 6, 2011). “Water Quality and Health in Poor Urban Areas of Latin America”. International Journal of Water Resources Development. 27: 219–226. doi:10.1080/07900627.2010.537244. S2CID 154427438 – via Taylor & Francis Online.
• ^ “Chile abortion: Court approves easing total ban”. BBC News. August 21, 2017.
• ^ “Latin America and the Caribbean”. Center for Reproductive Rights. November 8, 2023. Retrieved November 10, 2023.
• ^ “Why we continue to march towards legal abortion in Argentina”. Amnesty International. August 8, 2019. Retrieved October 20, 2023.
• ^ “GAPD – The Global Abortion Policies Database – The Global Abortion Policies Database is designed to strengthen global efforts to eliminate unsafe abortion”. Retrieved October 19, 2023.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e} “HIV and AIDS in Latin America the Caribbean regional overview”. Avert. July 21, 2015. Retrieved November 17, 2019.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b García, Patricia J; Bayer, Angela; Cárcamo, César P (June 2014). “The Changing Face of HIV in Latin America and the Caribbean”. Current HIV/AIDS Reports. 11 (2): 146–157. doi:10.1007/s11904-014-0204-1. ISSN 1548-3568. PMC 4136548. PMID 24824881.
• ^ “Homophobia and HIV”. Avert. July 20, 2015. Retrieved November 17, 2019.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b “Miles to go—closing gaps, breaking barriers, righting injustices”. www.unaids.org. Retrieved November 17, 2019.
• ^ Silva-Santisteban, Alfonso; Eng, Shirley; de la Iglesia, Gabriela; Falistocco, Carlos; Mazin, Rafael (July 17, 2016). “HIV prevention among transgender women in Latin America: implementation, gaps and challenges”. Journal of the International AIDS Society. 19 (3Suppl 2): 20799. doi:10.7448/IAS.19.3.20799. ISSN 1758-2652. PMC 4949309. PMID 27431470.
• ^ “The N-11: More Than an Acronym” (PDF). Appendix II: Projections in Detail. Goldman Sachs Economic Research. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 31, 2010.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b “GDP 2019, some Latin American countries”. IMF WEO Database. Archived from the original on August 3, 2020. Retrieved February 10, 2020.
• ^ “Latin America production in 2020, by FAO”. Archived from the original on November 12, 2016. Retrieved June 18, 2022.
• ^ “South American countries production in 2018, by FAO”. Archived from the original on November 12, 2016. Retrieved December 5, 2020.
• ^ “Conheça os 3 países que desafiam o Brasil nas exportações de frango”. January 22, 2020. Archived from the original on August 14, 2021. Retrieved December 5, 2020.
• ^ “maiores exportadores de carne de frango entre os anos de 2015 e 2019”. May 30, 2019. Archived from the original on June 1, 2019. Retrieved December 5, 2020.
• ^ “IBGE: rebanho de bovinos tinha 218,23 milhões de cabeças em 2016”. September 29, 2017. Archived from the original on May 9, 2021. Retrieved December 5, 2020.
• ^ “Brasil é o 3º maior produtor de leite do mundo, superando o padrão Europeu em alguns municípios”. Archived from the original on September 17, 2020. Retrieved December 5, 2020.
• ^ “principais países produtores de carne suína entre 2017 e a estimativa para 2019”. July 23, 2019. Archived from the original on August 16, 2021. Retrieved December 5, 2020.
• ^ “Argentina production in 2018, by FAO”. Archived from the original on November 12, 2016. Retrieved December 5, 2020.
• ^ “Producción de carne y leche, por FAO”. Archived from the original on October 16, 2020. Retrieved December 5, 2020.
• ^ “mcs2021 /mcs2021-gold.pdf USGS Gold Production Statistics”. Archived from the original on June 15, 2021. Retrieved June 27, 2021.
• ^ “Production statistics of USGS Silver” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on May 15, 2021. Retrieved June 27, 2021.
• ^ “Copper production statistics for the USGS” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on October 9, 2022. Retrieved June 27, 2021.
• ^ “Production statistics of USGS iron ore” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on October 9, 2022. Retrieved June 27, 2021.
• ^ “Zinc production statistics from USGS” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on October 9, 2022. Retrieved June 27, 2021.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b c d “USGS Molybdenum Production Statistics” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on October 9, 2022. Retrieved June 27, 2021.
• ^ “USGS lithium production statistics” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on October 9, 2022. Retrieved June 27, 2021.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b c d “USGS Lead Production Statistics” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on May 15, 2021. Retrieved June 27, 2021.