More than 27,000 immigrants were informed, this year, that they should leave Portugal. However, only around 800 complied with the voluntary departure notice, according to figures provided by the Minister
The post More than 27,000 immigrants notified to leave Portugal so far this year: only 800 have left appeared first on Portugal Resident.
© Jenn Ackerman for The New York Times
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) was all smiles as she was asked how she is "holding up" amid a federal investigation into her immigration history.
The post Ilhan Omar Smiles, Says She Is ‘Good’ amid Immigration Fraud Investigation appeared first on Breitbart.
On Monday's broadcast of the Fox News Channel's "Special Report," British Ambassador to the U.S. Christian Turner discussed the situation in France and said that "the weight of welfare for aging populations, that's a challenge."
The post U.K. Amb. to U.S. on France: ‘Weight of Welfare’ for Aging, Migration Are Issues appeared first on Breitbart.
© John Locher/Associated Press
On October 23, in the case of Newsom v. Trump, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Donald Trump's June 2025 federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles was likely illegal. This decision has little immediate effect, because the National Guard deployment ended months ago, after the Supreme Court ruled against Trump in a related Illinois case. But it has important implications for judicial review of executive invocation of emergency powers to use the military domestically. Among other things, it emphasizes that such actions are reviewable, and the president should get only limited deference. It also adopts a properly restrictive definition of "rebellion" (which is one of the conditions that might justify federalization of the National Guard).
Trump federalized the Guard in response to anti-ICE protests. The district court ruled his action was illegal and issued an injunction blocking it. But the Ninth Circuit lifted the preliminary injunction, in a decision I criticized at the time.
The relevant statute 10 U.S.C. Section 12406, can only be used to federalize state forces in one of the following situations:
1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States
Last year, the Ninth Circuit ruled (incorrectly, I think) that Trump's action might have been permissible under Subsection 3: a situation where "the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." As the Ninth Circuit acknowledges in their most recent decision, this basis for Trump's actions was undermined by the Supreme Court's December ruling in the related case of Trump v. Illinois, which held that Subsection 3 can only be invoked when the president is authorized to use regular federal military forces to enforce the law, and those forces are inadequate. These circumstances do not apply to the anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles and Chicago.
No one claims that the situation in Los Angeles amounted to an "invasion" by a "foreign nation." Thus, in its most recent decision the Ninth Circuit considered whether Trump's actions were authorized by Subsection 2, which allows federalization of the guard when "there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States."
The majority opinion by Judge Jennifer Sung holds that the determination that there is a "rebellion" is subject to judicial review and can be invalidated " if it "did not reflect a colorable assessment within a range of honest judgment." I think this is overly deferential. For reasons I outlined in an article published last year, there should be little or no deference when the executive invokes extraordinary emergency powers. Still, the Ninth Circuit standard is far from a blank check, and does allow invalidation of executive actions where the claim of rebellion is blatantly wrong - as it was here.
Following the district court, the Ninth Circuit defined "rebellion" as "a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole." This differentiates "rebellion" from smaller-scale violence or other violations of law. I think that definition is largely correct. The court summarizes a wide range of historical evidence supporting it.
The Ninth Circuit also concluded that events in Los Angeles did not even come close to meeting that standard. There were some violations of law by protestors, and some small-scale violence. But no systematic effort to overthrow the government or anything close to it. If anything, both this issue and the definition of "rebellion" are easier calls than the court suggests.
Judge Sung, author of the majority opinion, is a liberal Biden appointee. But her opinion was joined by Judge Eric Miller, a conservative Trump appointee and onetime clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. This suggests the issue here cuts across ideological and jurisprudential lines. Judge Mark Bennett, another Trump appointee, dissented, but mostly on procedural grounds.
Judge Bennett did also take issue with the majority's conclusion that if Trump's federalization of the National Guard exceeded his statutory authority, it also violated the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states or to "the people," those "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution." He argues that the power to call forth the National Guard is delegated to Congress by the Calling Forth Clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress power "[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." This is true enough. But in situations where Congress has not exercised that authority, states retain total control over their militia (of which the National Guard is the principal modern example), and that control is protected by the Tenth Amendment. Indeed, such control over state military forces is a central element of state sovereignty. Overriding it without proper constitutional authority qualifies as unconstitutional "commandeering" of state government forces. As the majority explains:
The federal government—whether the President or Congress—violates the Tenth Amendment by commandeering state personnel to enforce or administer federal law. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 925 (1997) (Under the Tenth Amendment, "the Federal Government may not compel the States to implement, by legislation or executive action, federal regulatory programs."). If, for example, the President commandeered state police to help federal officers enforce federal immigration laws, that would violate the Tenth Amendment….
California National Guard members are state personnel, unless properly federalized… The President purported to convert the Guard into federal personnel by issuing federalization orders. If those federalization orders had been valid, then the President would have deployed federal officers in Los Angeles, and no commandeering of state personnel would have occurred. But because the President lacked authority to federalize the California National Guard, the federalization orders were invalid, and the deployed Guard members remained state personnel….
In other words, because the deployed members of the California National Guard were not properly federalized, they remained the legal equivalent (for Tenth Amendment purposes) of the state police. And because the challenged executive orders compelled those state officers to help federal officers enforce federal law, the orders violated the Tenth Amendment….
The Tenth Amendment protects States against overreach by the "Federal Government," whether "by legislation or executive action." Printz, 521 U.S. at 925, 935. The President cannot command state officials to enforce federal law even if a federal statute would authorize him, under some other circumstances, to call those officials into federal service. If the statute did not authorize the President to federalize the California Guard members here…, then the federalization orders were invalid, the Guard members remained state personnel, and Defendants violated the Tenth Amendment by commandeering those state personnel to administer federal immigration laws.
Exactly so. The majority and dissent consider a number of procedural issues, which I will not try to address. The majority also parses a variety of relevant precedents in detail. I may have more to say about some of them in future writings.
For the moment, this decision has little immediate effect. But it sets an important precedent in favor of judicial review of executive invocation of emergency powers, and on the meaning of "rebellion."
The post Ninth Circuit Rules Trump Illegally Federalized National Guard in Los Angeles appeared first on Reason Magazine.
From deportations without due process to random and discriminatory detentions and searches, the Trump administration's immigration crackdown raised many constitutional concerns. Now, in a lawsuit advancing in federal court, 27 religious organizations say the administration's immigration policies violate another constitutionally protected activity: Americans' right to the free exercise of religion.
Last week, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the religious groups' lawsuit, docketed as Mennonite Church USA v. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), could continue. The lawsuit was brought against the federal government in February 2025, after the Trump administration overturned a longstanding policy that heavily restricted immigration raids around "sensitive sites," including churches, schools, hospitals, daycares, playgrounds, rehab facilities, funerals, and weddings. This policy was most recently outlined in a 2021 memo—dubbed the "Mayorkas Memo" for Alejandro Mayorkas, the DHS secretary at the time—but U.S. immigration enforcement first established the standard in 1993.
After repealing the Mayorkas Memo, the DHS issued a one-page document instructing officers to use "a healthy dose of common sense" when deciding whether to operate at previously protected sites.
Unsurprisingly, religious leaders are concerned about the sudden allowance of federal police into their sacred spaces. In their complaint, each of the 27 faith organizations suing the DHS describes how the risk of immigration enforcement impedes their religious exercise. The Church of the Brethren says a DHS enforcement action would "destroy all sense of peace and safety in what is supposed to be a place of sanctuary for congregants."
The Central Conference of American Rabbis writes that immigration enforcement against a synagogue would induce fears of "the persecution of Jews by government agents before and during the Holocaust."
"We have congregations which have reported members no longer feel comfortable attending services, members who are concerned for their safety, congregations which have had to add costly security measures," Carey McDonald, executive vice president of the Unitarian Universalist Association—one of the 27 plaintiffs—tells Reason.
The fear of police action driving down attendance isn't just a financial problem, McDonald says; it is fundamentally an attack on Unitarian Universalists' (U.U.) beliefs. "A core part of our theology and our practice is to welcome the stranger. To force us to choose between our long-held theological commitment[s] vs. trying to keep our people physically safe…this is a violation of our constitutionally protected rights."
The DHS repealing the Mayorkas Memo isn't the only way immigration police have infringed U.U. religious expression. In August, it was revealed that federal agents had been spying on churches in Minneapolis—even before January's protests against "Operation Metro Surge."
McDonald tells Reason that First Universalist Church of Minneapolis, which had hosted an anti-ICE event led by the Sunrise Movement in December 2025, was one of the targeted churches. "This is direct evidence from the government itself that it is seeking to interfere with our rights to practice our faith. We must assume that this is not an isolated incident."
Indeed, it isn't; the DHS has conducted arrests and surveillance on plenty of other churches across the country. In January 2025, a man in Georgia was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during a church service. By August 2025, Religion News Service recorded "at least 10 instances of apparent immigration enforcement activity conducted by ICE or other federal agents on or immediately near church grounds since [President Donald] Trump's inauguration." In February of this year, CBS News reported that two men in New Jersey were taken away while they were "just about to head inside" a Pentecostal church for their Sunday worship.
Because of these tangible harms, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the 27 plaintiffs have standing, writing, "[the plaintiffs] are directly injured by the government's already-implemented policy of enforcing immigration laws at houses of worship, they likely have met the standard for showing 'imminent' harm," as outlined by the Supreme Court.
The case is now being sent back to the D.C. District Court, which will have to decide on all three of the plaintiffs' legal claims. Two of those claims are about religious freedom: One appeals to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which plaintiffs say must protect the congregations from DHS activity that "substantially burdens" their exercise of religion. The second argument says DHS enforcement violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, which protects religious expression and association. While judicial precedent clarifies that certain compelling state interests can override the clause, the plaintiffs argue there are less intrusive ways to achieve the state's interest in immigration enforcement. The third claim is more procedural, arguing that the department's sudden rescission of the Mayorkas Memo violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not sufficiently considering the impact on religious organizations.
The plaintiffs are first seeking an immediate injunction against all DHS activity around their houses of worship, but the proposed order submitted in 2025 would also re-implement the Mayorkas Memo while litigation is ongoing, overturning the Trump administration's rescission.
Mennonite Church v. DHS is one of four lawsuits challenging the rescission of the Mayorkas Memo by DHS. Two of those lawsuits have resulted in preliminary injunctions, while the third is still pending.
The post Federal Police Don't Belong in Churches appeared first on Reason Magazine.
© Arisa Haboshi for The New York Times
Matteo Salvini has secured another four-year term as the leader of Italy’s League party after winning the leadership election at an extraordinary party congress in Milan. Salvini defeated his challenger, Massimo Garavaglia, by a decisive 465 votes to 146.
During the congress, Salvini sharply criticized internal party dissent, targeting unnamed critics who had pressured local officials to boycott major party rallies, labeling their actions a “betrayal” of the League’s values, writes Il Giornale.
Last week, in the wake of the violent riots in Milan, Salvini had posted on X after an approved security decree: “More troops for Safe Streets, including 500 already in Milan, delayed arrests thanks to cameras, and greater powers for the Armed Forces and Law Enforcement,” he wrote, adding that the government will also seek to enact legislation for “the revocation of citizenship and residence permits for adults who commit crimes, and the impossibility of obtaining citizenship for minors who deal drugs, loot, or vandalize.”
DA STASERA È LEGGE! Più militari per Strade Sicure, di cui 500 già a Milano, arresto in differita grazie alle telecamere e più poteri alle Forze Armate e alle Forze dell’Ordine. E poi avanti, in prospettiva, con la revoca della cittadinanza e del permesso di soggiorno ai maggiorenni che commettono reati e con l’impossibilità di ottenere la cittadinanza per i minorenni che spacciano, saccheggiano o devastano. Chi sbaglia paga. Perché chi devasta una vetrina o aggredisce una commessa non è un rivoluzionario: È UN COGLIONE.
— Matteo Salvini (@matteosalvinimi) October 20, 2026
Looking ahead to upcoming elections, he declared that the party’s focus must remain firmly on “identity, autonomy, and federalism,” asserting that the League would not settle for simply being a minor partner in a center-right coalition.
In his pre-election address, Salvini had also staked out a hardline foreign policy stance, demanding an immediate halt to Italian financial and military aid to Ukraine. He announced that his re-election gives him a direct mandate to challenge the current government coalition on this issue, going as far as to question whether funds sent to Kyiv were being misdirected by corrupt officials close to President Zelensky.
Declaring a firm “No” to a European army, Salvini told those gathered, “We will defend our borders ourselves.”
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni offered her congratulations to Salvini on his reelection. “Let us continue to work together, with responsibility and determination, in the interest of Italy,” she posted to X.
Congratulazioni a @matteosalvinimi per la riconferma alla guida della Lega. A lui e a tutta la comunità del partito i miei auguri di buon lavoro. Continuiamo a lavorare insieme, con responsabilità e determinazione, nell’interesse dell’Italia.
— Giorgia Meloni (@GiorgiaMeloni) October 25, 2026
The post Salvini reelected as head of Lega, sets agenda for Italy’s 2027 elections appeared first on Remix News.
The BBC has pulled material from its Bitesize educational website, used by 1.7 million pupils a week, after it was caught rewarding kids for backing open borders and pushing Left-wing views on migration and Net Zero.
The post BBC Bitesize Pulls Left-Wing Material Pushing Extreme Views on Migration and Net Zero appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
RIYADH – Saudi Arabia’s King Khalid International Airport resumed flight operations after nearly two weeks of disruption caused by Houthi attacks. However, passengers continue to face widespread cancellations, with approximately 57 percent of listed departures cancelled despite the airport’s reopening.
The resumption of flights has brought some relief to stranded travellers, but fresh security threats from Yemen’s Houthi fighters have raised concerns over whether normal operations can be fully restored.
Passengers travelling between Riyadh and destinations including Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan and the United Kingdom have been advised to verify their flight status before heading to the airport.
Flight-information recorded on Sunday morning shows that Riyadh Airport remains severely affected by disruptions, even as authorities gradually restore domestic and international services. 176 departures, which is over 50 percent of listed flights, were cancelled, while several other services remained scheduled to operate.
Although the airport has reopened, flight schedules remain inconsistent across airlines and destinations. The following services were listed as scheduled or cancelled in the October 25 morning flight information.
| Flight Number | Destination | Flight Status |
|---|---|---|
| J9226 | Kuwait City | Scheduled |
| XY70 | Dammam | Scheduled |
| XY251 | Amman | Scheduled |
| F335 | Jizan | Scheduled |
| F3225 | Madinah | Scheduled |
| EK820 | Dubai | Cancelled |
| FZ848 | Dubai | Cancelled |
| SV109 | London Heathrow | Cancelled |
| SV207 | Rome | Cancelled |
| SV1027 | Jeddah | Cancelled |
Passengers should remember that a scheduled flight does not necessarily mean the aircraft has departed. Airlines may change departure times or cancel services at short notice.
Pakistani passengers travelling to or from Saudi Arabia are also being urged to check their reservations, particularly those booked on services connecting Riyadh with Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad. October 25 arrivals information listed Fly Jinnah flight 9P580 from Lahore and flight 9P612 from Karachi as scheduled arrivals at Riyadh Airport.
Riyadh Air’s Islamabad-to-Riyadh flight RX662 was listed among the cancelled services for October 25. Passengers travelling with Pakistan International Airlines, Saudia, Flynas, Fly Jinnah and other carriers should contact their respective airlines to confirm departures, arrivals and any revised travel arrangements.
Flight operations at King Khalid International Airport were severely disrupted following a series of attacks attributed to Yemen’s Houthi fighters during October. Houthis claimed responsibility for a major attack on October 10, which reportedly killed 13 people and injured more than 300 others.
The incident triggered serious security concerns and forced airlines to suspend or adjust several domestic and international services. After approximately two weeks of disruption, airport authorities announced that flights would resume on October 25.
Despite the reopening announcement, Houthi military spokesperson Yahya Saree has warned airlines, airport employees and passengers against using King Khalid International Airport. He described the airport as an unsafe military target and threatened further attacks, raising fears of renewed disruption.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia’s Civil Defense Directorate reported that an emergency alert had been issued to Riyadh residents on Sunday morning, warning them of a potential security threat. The warning has added uncertainty for passengers and airlines planning to resume regular operations.
Travellers should not assume that the reopening of King Khalid International Airport means all domestic and international services have returned to normal. Passengers are advised to keep their booking information available, monitor airline notifications, check terminal assignments and follow Saudi authorities’ official security instructions.
Saudi authorities have begun restoring services, but there is no confirmed timetable for the complete resumption of all scheduled flights. The pace of recovery is likely to depend on security conditions, airline operational decisions and the availability of aircraft and crews.
Saudi Arabia faces Houthi Attacks targeting Riyadh Airport, Dammam, Yanbu Oil Hub, Rabigh Refinery
The post Riyadh Airport Flight Status Today, October 25 as Flights Resume after 2 Weeks appeared first on Daily Pakistan English News.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has released a Spanish-language video advising immigrants on how to respond to encounters with federal immigration agents, explaining their rights and directing residents to city-run assistance hotlines.
RELATED: Trump Backs ICE After Shooting Sparks New York Protests
In the video, posted Friday on Instagram, Mamdani explains that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents cannot enter private spaces without a judicial warrant. He advises residents to ask agents to slide the warrant under the door so they can examine it.
Without a warrant, residents can refuse entry and keep the door closed, he says. The video also addresses encounters in public, reminding immigrants that they have the right to remain silent if stopped by ICE.
Mamdani advises residents to ask agents, “Am I free to go?” If the answer is yes, they can leave calmly. He also urges immigrants to consult a lawyer before signing any documents or making decisions about their immigration cases.
If you encounter ICE, here's what every New Yorker should know. pic.twitter.com/hrjL8JPLyr
— Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@NYCMayor) October 23, 2026
The mayor points viewers to two municipal assistance hotlines and reassures them that they are not alone.
“Another thing: the Constitution gives you the right to protest, and we will protect that right,” Mamdani says. “These are frightening times for many people, but as your mayor, I will fight every day to protect, support and celebrate our communities.”
Since taking office in January, Mamdani has pledged to uphold New York’s sanctuary-city policies, which limit cooperation between municipal authorities and federal immigration enforcement. He has also vowed to protect immigrant residents amid U.S. President Donald Trump’s mass deportation policy during his second term.
© Devin Oktar Yalkin for The New York Times
© Dakota Santiago for The New York Times
© Shelby Tauber for The New York Times
Login