Oh the irony as Mexican citizens protest immigration into Mexico by Americans and Central Americans.
The Trump administration is finally doing something about China buying land in the United States.
And these bloody judges just keep overstepping their bounds.
The Irony Is Thick
In July 2025, Mexico City witnessed significant protests targeting the influx of American immigrants and tourists, particularly those working remotely as digital nomads. The demonstrations were primarily fueled by rising rents, gentrification, and the displacement of local residents in popular neighborhoods such as Roma and Condesa, which have seen a marked increase in foreign—especially American—residents since around 2020.
Key grievances voiced by protesters include:
- Skyrocketing housing costs attributed to the demand from foreigners, especially Americans, who are often able to pay higher rents than locals.
- Displacement of long-term residents as landlords prioritize short-term rentals and foreign tenants, leading to a loss of community and cultural identity.
- Government policies that have encouraged tourism and attracted digital nomads, notably a 2022 pact between Mexico City officials, Airbnb, and UNESCO, despite local concerns about the consequences for affordable housing.
- Perceived lack of integration by some Americans, with criticism that many do not learn Spanish or adapt to local customs, further increasing tensions.
Protest actions and rhetoric:
- The protests, which began peacefully, escalated in some instances to vandalism, with storefronts smashed, graffiti such as “Gringo Stop stealing home” and “Get out of Mexico,” and direct harassment of foreigners.
- Some demonstrators used strong anti-American language and imagery, including calls for Americans to leave and accusations of “neo-colonialism” or cultural invasion.
- Slogans seen during the protests included “Your new home is an invasion,” “We shouldn’t feel like foreigners in our own land,” and “Expat = gentrifier”.
Official and community responses:
- Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum condemned the xenophobic tone and violence of the protests, emphasizing that Mexico should remain welcoming, but acknowledged the legitimacy of concerns about gentrification and housing affordability.
- Activist groups behind the protests have insisted their movement is not xenophobic, but rather a response to government failures and unchecked market forces that have prioritized foreign capital over local needs.
Broader context:
- These protests mirror similar anti-tourism and anti-gentrification movements in European cities facing mass tourism and housing crises.
- The situation is complicated by the economic ties between the U.S. and Mexico, including remittances sent by Mexicans in the U.S. and the potential diplomatic fallout of stricter visa enforcement.
In summary, the protests in Mexico City are a response to the rapid influx of Americans and other foreigners, which locals blame for unaffordable rents and the erosion of community life. While some protest actions have included xenophobic rhetoric and violence, the underlying issues are rooted in economic inequality, housing policy failures, and the unintended consequences of promoting Mexico City as a destination for remote workers and tourists.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/protests-in-mexico-complain-ab-TkXVABywT5.O2nRZhUIkyQ
It’s About Damn Time
Overview
The Trump administration has launched a comprehensive effort to restrict and ban Chinese nationals and entities from purchasing property—especially farmland—near U.S. military bases. This move is driven by national security concerns, with bipartisan support in Congress and coordination across multiple federal agencies.
Key Developments
- National Farm Security Action Plan:
Announced by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, this plan aims to prohibit Chinese citizens from acquiring U.S. farmland and to safeguard agricultural research from foreign influence, intellectual property theft, and agroterrorism. The initiative is both legislative and executive in nature, involving cooperation with Congress and state governments. - Focus on Military Base Proximity:
The primary concern is the proximity of foreign-owned land to sensitive military installations. There have been notable cases where Chinese firms attempted to purchase land near bases, such as the Fufeng Group’s 2022 acquisition near a North Dakota Air Force base, which triggered widespread alarm and legislative action. - Legislative Measures:
The Senate has overwhelmingly supported measures to ban Chinese and other adversarial entities from owning farmland near military bases. The PASS Act, for example, would prevent entities from China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran from purchasing agricultural land near sensitive sites and empower the Department of Agriculture to refer cases to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) for review. - CFIUS Rule Expansion:
Recent updates have expanded CFIUS’s authority to review and potentially block foreign real estate transactions near a list of about fifty sensitive government sites, with some sites having a review radius of up to 100 miles. This expansion is a direct response to concerns about espionage and surveillance risks posed by foreign ownership near military facilities.
Rationale and National Security Concerns
- Espionage Risks:
The administration’s reasoning centers on the potential for espionage or surveillance activities if Chinese investors, under pressure from their government, gain access to land near military installations. These concerns are heightened by incidents of attempted breaches at military facilities by Chinese nationals, sometimes using drones or posing as tourists. - Scale of Ownership:
Chinese entities currently own a relatively small share of U.S. farmland—about 265,000 to 350,000 acres, which is a fraction of a percent of total U.S. farmland. However, the strategic locations of some of these holdings, rather than their total size, are what drive security concerns.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/trump-admin-china-buying-prope-3PV_fviJTTuw5iK4TctFZQ
This Won’t Work
Judge Orders Government to Continue Funding Planned Parenthood
A federal judge has issued a temporary order requiring the U.S. government to continue funding Planned Parenthood, despite a recent law aimed at cutting off Medicaid reimbursements to organizations that provide abortions.
Key Details
- Temporary Restraining Order (TRO): Judge Indira Talwani granted Planned Parenthood’s request for a TRO, blocking enforcement of a provision in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” that would have ended Medicaid funding for certain organizations, including Planned Parenthood.
- Duration: The order is effective for 14 days, with a hearing scheduled for July 21 to determine if the injunction should be extended.
- Immediate Impact: The ruling means Planned Parenthood will continue to receive Medicaid funds for at least the next two weeks, allowing it to serve patients who rely on these funds for reproductive and sexual health services.
- Legal Arguments: Planned Parenthood argued the law unfairly targets the organization, violates equal protection rights, and constitutes unconstitutional retaliation. The judge found “good cause” to grant immediate relief, though her order did not include a detailed opinion.
- Government Position: The law, signed by President Trump, was intended to prohibit Medicaid funds from going to any entity primarily engaged in family planning and that provides abortions. The administration has not commented publicly on the court order.
What Happens Next?
- The TRO is temporary. The court will hear further arguments on July 21, which could result in a longer-term injunction or allow the funding cutoff to proceed.
- The case raises constitutional questions about Congress’s power over federal spending and the judiciary’s ability to intervene in funding decisions.
This Won’t Work
The Law Restricting Federal Funding for Abortion
The primary law that prohibits the use of federal taxpayer money to fund most abortions is known as the Hyde Amendment.
Key Facts About the Hyde Amendment
- What It Is:
The Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision, first passed in 1976, that bars the use of federal funds for abortion services except in very limited circumstances. - How It Works:
It is not a permanent law but rather a “rider” attached annually to Congressional appropriations bills, especially those funding the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). - Exceptions:
Federal funds may only be used for abortions if: - Scope:
The Hyde Amendment affects Medicaid and other federal programs, meaning millions of people with low incomes who rely on public health insurance cannot use federal funds for abortion except under the exceptions above.
Does Planned Parenthood Commit That Many Abortions?
According to Planned Parenthood’s most recent 2023–2024 Annual Report, abortion services accounted for approximately 4% of all health services provided by the organization during the reporting period. This figure is calculated by dividing the number of abortion procedures (402,230) by the total number of discrete services delivered (9,450,743).
Based on Planned Parenthood’s most recent annual report (2023–2024), the organization performed 402,230 abortions during the reporting period. The minimum estimated revenue from abortion services is calculated by multiplying the lowest reported cost per abortion ($580, typically for medication abortion) by the number of abortions performed. This results in at least $233,293,400 in abortion-related revenue for the year. However, because in-clinic surgical abortions can cost up to $2,000 depending on gestational age, the actual revenue is likely higher. Adjusting for the share of abortions performed at different gestational ages, estimates suggest Planned Parenthood made approximately $247 million from abortion services in 2023–2024
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/judge-rules-government-must-co-7eenoLa1R666lDG50wt__g
Just Funny
Some things:
- Notice the media only talks about WHY he was arrested as an afterthought?
- He’s a permanent resident who doesn’t speak English.
- He’s a criminal and not legal. I doubt he’s a resident. But if he has a green card and has been convicted of a violent crime, we don’t want him anymore.
- Incarceration is not meant to be pleasant.
- For me, if true, this would not be disturbing. His crime is more disturbing.
- I doubt any of this is true.
He’s Got Bigger Problems Than Being Deported
According to the Daily Wire:
Julio César Chávez Jr. was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on Wednesday and is facing deportation to Mexico for overstaying his visa and lying on a green card application.
The arrest came just days after Chávez faced off against boxer and influencer Jake Paul in Anaheim, California. Chávez lost the match.
Chávez, a Mexican citizen, has committed numerous crimes while staying in the United States and has apparent ties to the Sinaloa Cartel, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. He’s facing organized crime charges in Mexico.
“This Sinaloa Cartel affiliate with an active arrest warrant for trafficking guns, ammunition, and explosives was arrested by ICE,” Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement.
McLaughlin noted that Chávez was allowed re-entry into the United States under the Biden administration and emphasized that under President Donald Trump, cartel affiliates will not be allowed to remain in the country.
Homeland Security said in a press release that Chávez is being processed for “expedited removal from the United States.” The boxer has an “active arrest warrant in Mexico for his involvement in organized crime and trafficking firearms, ammunition, and explosives,” the department added.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said on Friday that she hopes Chávez “will be deported and serve the sentence in Mexico.”
