Connect with us

Economics

Donald Trump cries “invasion” to justify an immigration crackdown

Published

on

AN “INVASION”. On the campaign trail, that’s how Donald Trump described the millions of migrant encounters at the southern border during Joe Biden’s presidency. During his inaugural address the 45th, and now 47th, president echoed the same sentiment, but this time with a note of triumphalism. “For American citizens, January 20th, 2025 is Liberation Day,” he crowed.

The notion that America is being invaded has become the defining theme of Mr Trump’s immigration policy. Hours after his inauguration the president issued ten executive orders on immigration and border enforcement “to repel the disastrous invasion of our country”. This is despite the fact that encounters at the border are the lowest they have been in four years, thanks to increased enforcement by Mexico and asylum restrictions implemented last year. The executive actions generally fall into three categories: the rescission of Mr Biden’s policies and reinstatement of Mr Trump’s first term plans, flashy things meant to project toughness, and more extreme measures that range from probably illegal to flagrantly unconstitutional.

In the first group Mr Trump issued a sweeping order modelled on one from his first term that aims to increase detention, force countries to take back their citizens, enlist local police to help with immigration enforcement and punish sanctuary cities by withholding federal funds, among other things. He intends to bring back Remain in Mexico, a policy introduced in 2019 that forced migrants to wait on the other side of the border while their asylum claims were adjudicated. But because Claudia Sheinbaum, Mexico’s president, has to agree to that—and she has already registered her opposition—the order is more of a signal of intent than an immediate policy change. Mr Trump promised during the campaign to shut down CBP One, a government app set up by the Biden administration that allowed migrants to schedule an appointment to apply for asylum. Migrants waiting for those appointments on the Mexican side of the border found their meetings abruptly cancelled as soon as Mr Trump took the Oath of Office.

During his first term, the number of refugees relocated to America plummeted. This time he has completely suspended all refugee resettlement for at least four months. According to Reuters, soon after Mr Trump was inaugurated nearly 1,700 Afghans who were cleared to be resettled in America had their flights cancelled. Another order increases vetting for migrants and directs agencies to identify countries from which travel should be banned, something that will sound eerily familiar to those who remember the travel ban Mr Trump implemented on mostly Muslim-majority countries almost exactly eight years ago.

Next consider the policies that sound tough but may not change very much. The same order that discontinued CBP One also demands physical border barriers, detention and deportation. That is “just calling for enforcing laws that are already on the books”, says Julia Gelatt of the Migration Policy Institute, a think-tank. Additionally, Mr Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border, which allows the secretary of defence to send troops to help secure the frontier with Mexico. This is hardly unprecedented. George W. Bush (Operation Jump Start) and Barack Obama (Operation Phalanx) did something similar. Federal law limits soldiers’ roles in domestic affairs to non-law enforcement activities such as transportation and logistical support, rather than actually arresting migrants. Mr Trump’s order suggests that he doesn’t plan to cross that line. The national emergency also unlocks construction funds from the Department of Defence for the fortification of the border wall, a move the president also made in 2019.

That leaves the most extreme orders. The new president kickstarted the lengthy process of classifying drug cartels as foreign terrorist organisations by arguing that they “threaten the safety of the American people, the security of the United States, and the stability of the international order in the Western Hemisphere”. Some Republicans have wanted that for more than a decade. The worrisome bit of that order directs top officials to prepare for the possibility that Mr Trump will invoke the Alien Enemies Act. This law is the only piece of the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed in 1798 when America was feuding with France, that was not repealed or allowed to lapse. It permits the president to summarily detain and deport citizens of countries with whom America is at war. It was last invoked to detain Germans, Italians and Japanese during the second world war—hardly a proud moment in American history. Yet America is not at war, and drug gangs are not sovereign nations, even if they do control some territory.

This is where Mr Trump’s talk of an “invasion” becomes more than rhetorical bombast. Framing the cartels as terrorist organisations invading America is meant to legitimise his use of the law—though it is doubtful the courts will see it that way. And because America is being invaded, Mr Trump argues, he can block anyone from crossing the border, in effect suspending asylum until he decides that the invasion is over.

Mr Trump also decided that the meaning of the 14th Amendment to the constitution, which says that “all persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”, is up for debate. He declared that from next month, children born to parents who are neither citizens nor permanent residents would be denied passports. The order applies not only to the children of unauthorised immigrants but also to those of people living in America on work or student visas. To justify this, Mr Trump argues that all foreigners are not in fact “subject to the jurisdiction” of its government. Since the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924, which gave citizenship to Native Americans belonging to sovereign tribes, only foreign diplomats have been considered immune from American law under that clause.

This executive order seems extremely unlikely to survive in the courts. But it could be intensely disruptive for new parents in the meantime. If implemented, in effect American-born children will become illegal “immigrants” on exit from the womb. American birth certificates do not include information on the citizenship of parents, and so it is unclear exactly how Mr Trump expects officials to gather the information necessary to refuse passports. Still, it is exactly what the president promised he would do.

Economics

UK Has a New Prime Minister Without a General Election

Published

on

UK Has a New Prime Minister Without a General Election

On July 20, Andy Burnham has been chosen to be the next Prime Minister in UK. The appointment of a new Prime Minister in the United Kingdom often raises questions from people outside the country, especially when no nationwide election has taken place. Many wonder how a new national leader can assume office without voters casting ballots. The answer lies in the UK’s parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the public but is instead chosen based on who commands the confidence of the House of Commons.

How the UK Selects Its Prime Minister

Unlike presidential systems where citizens vote directly for the head of government, the United Kingdom elects Members of Parliament (MPs) during a general election. The political party that secures a majority of seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government, and that party selects its own leader to serve as Prime Minister.

If the leader resigns, becomes unable to continue, or is replaced by their party, the governing party can choose a new leader without triggering a general election. As long as the new leader is able to maintain the confidence of Parliament, they can immediately become Prime Minister after being formally appointed by the monarch.

Why No Election Was Required

A general election is not automatically required every time the office of Prime Minister changes hands. The governing party retains its parliamentary majority because voters elected MPs rather than an individual Prime Minister. If the ruling party chooses a new leader through its internal leadership process, the government continues to operate without interruption.

This constitutional arrangement provides stability and allows the government to continue functioning during periods of political transition. It also avoids the expense and disruption of holding a nationwide election every time party leadership changes.

The King’s Constitutional Role

After a governing party elects a new leader, the monarch invites that individual to form a government. This constitutional step is largely ceremonial and follows long-established conventions. The King appoints the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons, ensuring continuity of government.

Although the monarch formally appoints the Prime Minister, political power rests with Parliament and the elected representatives of the British people.

Could an Election Still Happen?

Yes. A newly appointed Prime Minister has the authority to request a general election if they believe it is politically advantageous or if they seek a stronger public mandate. Parliament can also reach a point where a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons, potentially leading to an election or the formation of a new government.

In many cases, however, a new Prime Minister continues governing until the next scheduled general election.

What This Means for the UK

The UK’s parliamentary democracy is designed to ensure government continuity while respecting the results of the most recent general election. Leadership changes within the governing party do not automatically alter the composition of Parliament, which is why a new Prime Minister can take office without another nationwide vote.

Understanding this process helps explain why political transitions in the United Kingdom can appear different from those in countries with presidential systems. While the Prime Minister may change, the democratic mandate of Parliament remains in place until voters elect a new House of Commons at the next general election.

Continue Reading

Economics

Global Grid Upgrades Reshape Macro Economics

Published

on

Global grid upgrades reshape macro economics

On July 21, 2026, global economic analysis shifts focus toward a defining structural macroeconomic trend: the massive expansion of public and private capital deployment into high-capacity electrical grid infrastructure. As industrial electrification, automated data center hubs, and renewable energy integration accelerate worldwide, sovereign governments and institutional investors are facing a monumental economic challenge. Updating legacy power grids to meet skyrocketing demand has emerged as a primary driver of long-term capital expenditures and industrial productivity across both developed and emerging market economies.

According to international economic policy updates released this week, grid infrastructure investments are projected to exceed multi-trillion-dollar thresholds over the coming decade. Economic planners caution that without modernized, high-voltage transmission networks, regional manufacturing sectors face severe energy bottlenecks, localized power price volatility, and operational constraints. Consequently, infrastructure spending is rapidly transitioning from passive utility maintenance into a vital component of national economic competitiveness and industrial policy.

The macroeconomic ripple effects of this capital deployment are being felt across global commodity markets and labor networks. High demand for structural industrial inputs—such as copper, aluminum, specialized electrical steel, and high-capacity transformers—has created sustained pricing support for critical material producers. Simultaneously, the specialized technical labor required to manufacture and deploy modern grid hardware is driving wage growth in industrial sectors, adding a complex new layer to central bank disinflation trajectories.

For global policymakers and strategic investors, the economics of energy grid modernization represent a double-edged sword. While massive infrastructure investment boosts short-term gross domestic product (GDP) and strengthens domestic industrial foundations, it requires disciplined fiscal allocation to prevent inflationary crowding-out of private capital. Countries that efficiently streamline grid infrastructure permitting and mobilize private investment will secure lower long-term energy costs, attracting high-tech manufacturing and reinforcing sustainable economic growth.

Continue Reading

Economics

Global Trade Realignment and Supply Chains in 2026

Published

on

Global Trade Realignment and Supply Chains in 2026

The international trade architecture entering the second half of 2026 is undergoing a profound structural pivot. As major sovereign economic blocs adjust to the long-term impact of unilateral tariffs and escalating regional subsidies, traditional globalized supply chains are being rapidly replaced by bilateral trade corridors and regional alliance networks. Data released in late July 2026 highlights a significant divergence: while cross-continental freight volumes between non-aligned partners have cooled, intra-regional trade throughout North America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe has surged to record levels. This shift reflects a broader macroeconomic strategy wherein multinational corporations prioritize geopolitical resilience over pure cost minimization.

The primary economic catalyst behind this regionalization is the proliferation of sector-specific tariffs targeting critical industries, notably battery components, clean energy technology, and advanced semiconductor hardware. In response, global manufacturers have adopted multi-tier sourcing models that distribute production across intermediate partner nations before final assembly. While this strategy successfully bypasses primary import duties, it adds structural layers of logistical complexity and administrative oversight. Economists note that while total output remains robust, aggregate production costs have drifted upward, contributing to persistent baseline inflation across major consumer markets.

Simultaneously, currency settlement patterns within these regional blocs are experiencing a notable transformation. Sovereign central banks and commercial institutions are increasingly utilizing localized currency swap lines and digital clearing mechanisms to settle cross-border trade transactions. This transition reduces direct exposure to foreign exchange volatility and mitigates third-party liquidity constraints, further solidifying regional economic cohesion. However, for developing economies situated outside these primary trading alliances, the tightening of international trade networks presents severe challenges, restricting access to key export markets and foreign direct investment.

For corporate strategists and policy analysts navigating late 2026, success requires a thorough understanding of these emerging trade corridors. Organizations must conduct regular risk assessments of their multi-tier supplier networks, model tariff sensitivities under shifting geopolitical scenarios, and invest in real-time supply chain telemetry. As regional economic blocs strengthen their regulatory borders, supply chain agility and compliance fortitude will distinguish market leaders from vulnerable enterprises in the evolving global economy.

Continue Reading

Trending