‘U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Bryan said in his ruling that the agents violated Garrison Gibson’s Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure.
“To arrest him, Respondents forcibly entered Garrison G.’s home without his consent and without a judicial warrant,” he said.’
It is an attempt to not lose European customers that might be tempted to migrate to Europe-based solutions in the current political climate. In the event of a serious trade war (like you suggested) and/or a real war, it gives some assurances; which is smart based on the threats from the current unpredictable and authoritarian U.S. administration.
But it probably started as a way to comply with EU laws more easily, so it works on multiple levels.
How much can we trust this so-called sovereign cloud? That's a sincere question. I can't think of a more American company than Amazon, and I find it hard to believe that it could be completely independent from its American headquarters.
I really hope that Europe will get its act together rather than relying on this half-hearted solution.
They claim the "AWS European Sovereign Cloud represents a physically and logically separate cloud infrastructure, with all components located entirely within the EU" and that it operates entirely under German laws, but I think your skepticism is warranted.
I think Europe should push for its own solutions rather than fuel oligarchy/authoritarianism, if they are serious about their own security and preserving liberal values.
If you think deeply and logically, you will see that those text and even some legal details are just marketing that aims smart people. because in case of war or some serious conflict, they will be obeying the parent company and orders of usa government. see ICJ prosecutors and microsoft, you have real proof live, if you can connect some dots.
Physically separate infrastructure as well as local employees help to some extent. But it is not really sovereign cloud. There is no guarantee that employees would know if some commands are illegal. Plus parent company can fly anyone there if needed.
The BBC piece is about recorded apprehensions/encounters being very low (still “<9,000/month”), not that the “flow” is “largely eliminated.” Encounters aren’t the same thing as total unlawful entries, and “very low” isn’t “eliminated.” https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8wd8938e8o
The ABC/Brookings story is about net migration turning negative in 2025, mostly due to fewer entries. Net migration is not a measure of the unauthorized population, and the article even notes removals in 2025 are only modestly higher than 2024. https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-1st-time-50-years-experienced-n...
"Largely eliminated". I didn't say "completely eliminated". <9,000 per month can be considered "largely eliminated" when the previous flow was often many hundreds of thousands per month. You can see it plainly on the graph.
Yes of course encounters are not total entries. Do you have a better way of estimating?
The net migration is due to several factors. The result of "largely eliminating" the flow of illegal aliens, along with dutiful removal of those in the interior, has made a big dent. There are other factors, including legal immigration, obviously.
There were 12 million (estimated) illegal aliens here in 2007. There are MORE now. No headway has been made.
“Pedantry” isn’t the issue; your claim is doing causal work (“flow eliminated” -> “dent” -> “headway”), so it needs to be stated in a way the data actually supports.
“Many hundreds of thousands per month” isn’t what the Border Patrol encounter series shows. Pew’s analysis of CBP data puts the peak at 249,741 encounters in Dec 2023, and 58,038 in Aug 2024 (a 77% drop). That’s “down sharply,” not “eliminated.”
Also, 58k/month annualizes to ~700k/year. You can argue that’s a big improvement, but calling it “largely eliminated” is rhetorical.
Encounters aren’t total entries, agreed, but that cuts against confidently declaring victory, not in favor of it. If you want “better,” the only “better” conceptually is something like encounters + estimated gotaways, but “gotaways” are themselves estimates and not as consistently published/transparent as encounters. So the honest phrasing is: “recorded encounters are way down.”
“No headway for decades” is false on the standard stock estimates. Pew (and others) show the unauthorized population peaked around 2007 and then declined through 2019 before rising again in the early 2020s. That’s headway, then reversal; not “none for decades.”
It is fair to say: we’re now above 2007 again (Pew estimates ~14M in 2023), so the long-run problem wasn’t solved. But that’s different from “no headway has been made.”
On the ABC/Brookings “negative net migration” point: net migration does not equal unauthorized population, and the article itself notes the change is mostly fewer entries, with removals only modestly higher year over year. So it doesn’t support “dutiful removal has made a big dent” as the main story.
Again, your post is utter pedantry and seemingly wrong.
Why should I care about the number in August 2024? Why are you annualizing the 58k number? I'm referring to the current numbers at the border.
> During Trump's first eight months in office, there have been fewer than 9,000 illegal crossings recorded each month, CBS reported.
249,000 -> 9,000 encounters = flow across the border is "largely eliminated" to any non-pedant.
We have more illegal aliens in the country today than 2007.
2007 -> 2026 = MORE illegal aliens = no headway has been made. It's as simple as that.
Lastly, your link literally confirms what I said:
> The report attributed the shift to combination of the large drop in entries and an increase in enforcement activity leading to removals and voluntary departures.
It's so refreshing to finally have someone at least attempt to tackle this issue (likely the main issues in the 2016 and 2024 elections). I just wish it was more widespread and less theatrical.
You’re mixing metrics and then calling the correction “pedantry.”
Your own cited stat (“<9,000/month”) is Border Patrol apprehensions between ports of entry. CBS is explicit about that, and even gives the recent months: July ~4,600; Aug ~6,300; Sept ~8,400 apprehensions. That’s a major reduction, but it’s not “zero,” and it’s not the same thing as “flow eliminated.”
The 249,000 figure you’re comparing it to is typically cited as “encounters” (often BP apprehensions + OFO inadmissibles at ports). That’s a different series than “BP apprehensions between ports.” Apples-to-oranges comparisons are exactly how people accidentally talk themselves into certainty.
“Do you have a better way of estimating?” Not really, that’s the point. Encounters/apprehensions are the best consistently published measure, but they are not total successful entries, and “gotaways” are estimates with their own uncertainty. So the accurate claim is: recorded apprehensions are way down.
On “no headway”: if the unauthorized population fell from 2007 to 2019 (Pew shows that), that’s literally headway, even if it later reversed and is higher now. What you mean is “no net improvement vs 2007,” which is a different claim.
If you want to say “huge improvement at the border relative to the peak,” totally reasonable. But “flow largely eliminated” + “big dent in illegal-alien stock” is stronger than what these measurements can support.
“Simply incorrect” overstates what your CIS link shows.
Yes, status isn’t always known at arrest, and time-lag/unknown-status classification is a real measurement issue. But that’s not a demonstration that the cited studies are false; it's a methodological dispute about how Texas data should be interpreted.
Even CIS effectively concedes the key limitation: “any crime” conviction rates aren’t meaningful under their own description because identification is biased toward longer prison terms/serious offenses. That means their approach can’t legitimately be used as a general claim that “undocumented commit more crime.”
Constitutional limits don’t depend on innocence. Even if the target is removable, warrantless home entry is still a Fourth Amendment problem absent consent/exigent circumstances. Payton v. New York is the baseline: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/445/573/
“If you’re not an illegal alien you’re fine” isn’t how real enforcement works. Mistaken identity and broad neighborhood sweeps predictably hit citizens/legal residents, especially when decisions are made off appearance/location.
The “crime-rate is higher out of the gate” line is definitional sleight-of-hand. Not all undocumented people violated 8 U.S.C. §1325 (improper entry). Many are overstays, and unlawful presence itself is generally a civil violation, not a criminal conviction category comparable to assault/theft. §1325 text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
You can support immigration enforcement and still insist it be done with judicial warrants/consent and without turning civil status issues into “crime stats” rhetoric.
If officers actually have reasonable suspicion that a specific person violated 18 U.S.C. §111 (assaulting/resisting/impeding federal officers), then a brief Terry-style stop to investigate can be lawful.
But you’re smuggling a lot into “reasonably suspected,” and it doesn’t answer the concern being raised:
Suspicion has to be particularized. “Was in the area,” “was protesting,” “was filming,” “looked like they might interfere,” or “was near someone who did something” isn’t reasonable suspicion of §111 for that individual. The Fourth Amendment requires specific, articulable facts tied to the person detained.
Stop vs. arrest still matters. Even if there’s RS, that supports a brief detention. If you’re talking handcuffs/transport/prolonged detention, you’re usually in probable cause territory.
So yes, §111 can justify enforcement. But it can’t be a magic incantation that turns broad crowd-control or “immigration enforcement” pretext into constitutional detentions.
If you think these detentions are “perfectly fine,” what specific facts are officers using, in practice, to establish §111 reasonable suspicion for the particular people being detained?
Do you mean there's no problem?
The appalling situation in France, Sweden, Great Britain and Belgium with crime, rapes, harassment of local residents and the associated financial losses on benefits is striking. Perhaps the situation is better in Spain - I haven't visited Spain in a long time.
It's a short-term strategy by businesses to try to weather the uncertainties around tariffs without losing customers, but absorbing the losses can't go on indefinitely and they absolutely will be passed on to consumers in the end.
“To arrest him, Respondents forcibly entered Garrison G.’s home without his consent and without a judicial warrant,” he said.’