The felony conviction of former President Donald Trump by a New York jury Thursday sent the political world into uncharted territory, with potentially profound implications for the 2024 elections.

Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, was found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a sex scandal in an effort to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. 

The former president is expected to appeal the verdict, but the appeals process is likely to extend beyond the Nov. 5 election, legal experts say. Furthermore, the other three criminal trials Mr. Trump faces – two federal and one in Georgia state court – are not expected to begin before the election, if they take place at all. 

But Thursday’s conviction alone – the first ever of a former or current U.S. president – promises to boost Trump supporters’ belief in his long-standing contention that the legal system is weaponized against him. In the wake of the verdict, Mr. Trump’s fundraising website crashed due to high traffic, according to his campaign. And it adds yet another unique dimension to an American presidential campaign that was already unlike any other in history. 

“A conviction shows that no one is above the law, and Trump’s prediction that he could walk down Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and get away with it isn’t as accurate as he thought,” says Cheryl Bader, a criminal law professor at Fordham University and former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey.

Cheney Orr/Reuters

An officer with the New York Police Department separates supporters of former President Donald Trump and an activist advocating his conviction, during jury deliberations in Mr. Trump's criminal trial, in New York City, May 30, 2024.

Speaking to reporters outside the Manhattan courthouse soon after hearing the verdict, Mr. Trump proclaimed his innocence and called it a “rigged, disgraceful trial.” The “real verdict,” he said, would come on Nov. 5 from the American people. “This is long from over,” he said.

The Biden campaign also was looking ahead to November’s vote. “Today’s verdict does not change the fact that the American people face a simple reality,” campaign communications director Michael Tyler said in a statement. “There is still only one way to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office: at the ballot box.”

How Trump conviction may affect the election

Going forward, just over five months from the Nov. 5 election, the routine will mix with the extraordinary, as the former president – and current presidential candidate – contends with continuing legal matters. 

But the fact is that, for now at least, his political opponents are likely to hammer on his status as a convicted felon. And to be clear, a felony conviction does not preclude Mr. Trump from running for or serving again as president.  

Pre-verdict, most voters were firm in their support for or opposition to Mr. Trump. And most said the verdict, however it went, would not sway their vote, according to an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll released Thursday.  

But in a tight presidential race, his conviction could still prove decisive by swaying even a relative few votes in battleground states. The NPR poll found that among “core Trump voter groups,” some voters would be less likely to vote for Mr. Trump if he were found guilty: small-town residents (17%), white people without college degrees (14%), rural dwellers (11%), and Republicans (10%). 

And over the course of the hush money trial, which began April 15, Mr. Trump has actually gained slightly – more than half a percentage point – in support among voters nationwide over President Joe Biden, according to the RealClearPolitics average of polls. As of May 30, Mr. Trump led President Biden by 1.5 percentage points. 

Julia Nikhinson/AP

Michael Cohen leaves his apartment building on his way to the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse, May 13, 2024, in New York. Mr. Cohen was a key witness in Donald Trump's hush money trial.

Another possibility is that people who had no intention of voting before the verdict may now opt to vote after all – either for or against Mr. Trump. 

Politicizing the judicial system?

How Mr. Biden plays the Trump verdict is another variable that could affect the political dynamic going forward. Until this week, the president and his campaign team have played things low-key, in an effort, they say, to avoid politicizing the trial – notwithstanding the occasional quip from Mr. Biden. 

On Tuesday, that approach was sidelined as the campaign dispatched actor Robert De Niro, an avid Biden supporter and Trump critic, to speak to reporters outside the Manhattan courthouse. The De Niro appearance gave the Trump campaign an opening to claim the Biden campaign had turned the trial into “a campaign event.” 

Some experts worry about the politicization of the judicial system – and what may lie ahead after Mr. Trump’s conviction.

“It opens a Pandora’s box for prosecutors to bring political cases,” says Gregory Germain, a law professor at Syracuse University. “I think Republican jurisdictions will respond accordingly and indict Biden,” Professor Germain says. “It’s not a good development to see our legal system politicized in this way.”

In the just-concluded trial, Mr. Trump was found guilty of falsifying business records with intent to commit or conceal another crime, in connection with a cover-up of hush money payments to a porn actor before the 2016 election. The actor, Stormy Daniels, says she had a sexual encounter with Mr. Trump in 2006, which he denies. 

Mike Blake/Reuters/File

Stormy Daniels, the porn star at the center of the criminal trial against former President Donald Trump, speaks during a 2018 ceremony in her honor in West Hollywood, California.

In determining the “other crime,” the judge gave the jury three choices: tax fraud, violation of federal election law, and violation of New York election law. The jurors did not need to agree on which other crime they believed Mr. Trump intended to commit.

The salacious details of the case, as portrayed in testimony from Ms. Daniels, added to the feeling of spectacle around the trial – and led Trump defenders to suggest the prosecutor was trying to damage Mr. Trump politically, especially with women voters. Ms. Daniels’ testimony was not essential to prosecuting the case, legal analysts note. 

The prime witness for the prosecution was former Trump fixer Michael Cohen, who set up the hush payments. Mr. Cohen came to the proceedings with damaged credibility, having served prison time for fraud and perjury, and emerged from his testimony battered and with a new nickname, thanks to Mr. Trump’s lead lawyer – the “greatest liar of all time,” or GLOAT. 

The former president faces sentencing by Justice Juan Merchan on July 11, ranging from probation to four years in prison. As a first-time offender, Mr. Trump is expected to receive a sentence that’s on the lighter end of the range. If he is sentenced to probation, he would be required to check in regularly with a probation officer. He could also be granted “conditional discharge,” and avoid regular meetings with a probation officer as long as he avoids more legal trouble. 

Note: This story has been updated.

As war closed down Black Sea shipping routes over the summer of 2022, Volodymyr Varbanets did what he says most of his fellow Odesa-region farmers did with their harvests.

“It was hard and expensive to export with the sea routes shut down, so we kept our harvests in the silos,” says the owner of a 540-acre farm where he grows wheat, barley, sunflower, and other crops in the rolling hills outside the port city of Odesa.

But this year, Mr. Varbanets expects to get back to exporting about 70% of his crops to overseas markets – thanks, he says, to the Ukrainian military’s ability to reopen a maritime trade corridor along the country’s Black Sea coastline.

“I don’t know exactly what countries receive my wheat and other crops,” says the director of the 4,200-member Odesa Region Farmers Association. “What I do know,” he adds, standing in a field of thigh-high, undulating wheat, “is that Ukrainian grains are needed to feed the world – just as we have to sell those grains to keep farming.”

Indeed, the return of Ukrainian grains to the global food market is good news not just for the country’s farmers, but also for the many developing countries of the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia that depended on one of the world’s premier breadbaskets for steady food supplies before Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.

As war disrupted the trade routes that transported much of Ukraine’s grain and other food exports, food prices skyrocketed and global food insecurity spread. A multinational grain trade deal eased the food crunch somewhat – until Russia pulled out of the deal in July 2023.

Howard LaFranchi/The Christian Science Monitor

While shipping lanes were threatened, Ukrainian grain farmers had to keep their harvests in silos, like these seen at the Port of Odesa on the Black Sea, May 21, 2024.

But over the past year, Ukraine’s stunning and largely unheralded success in opening up a secure and dependable Black Sea shipping corridor has put the country on track to return its grain exports to nearly prewar levels.

Even though Odesa is vulnerable to the occasional long-range Russian missile attack, Ukraine grain exports in April reached 6.3 million tons, the most for one month since before the war.

Effective use of sea drone

There are a number of explanations for this success, but perhaps chief among them is Ukraine’s development of a plucky but deadly little uncrewed boat, or sea drone, that over recent months has pushed Russia’s formidable navy far from Ukraine’s southern coast – and from key seaports like Odesa.

The sea drones, which look something like small speedboats – and can carry up to 1,000 pounds of explosives – have sunk so many enemy naval vessels that Russia has been forced to withdraw its sea operations to safer waters.

Of the 80 warships Russia assigned to the Black Sea before the invasion, at least a third have been either destroyed or disabled, Ukraine’s military says. Much of that damage has been inflicted by sea drones.

“These drones are like a slingshot in the hands of the Ukrainians as they go up against the Russian Goliath,” says Daniel Fiott, head of the Defence and Statecraft Programme at the Brussels School of Governance. “They can operate day and night and strike their lethal blows with surprise,” he adds, “and we can see the evidence that they are having significant impact on Russian morale.”

Daniyar Sarsenov/Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine/AP/File

A Magura V5 (maritime autonomous guard unmanned robotic apparatus V-type), a Ukrainian multipurpose uncrewed surface boat, or sea drone, is seen in Ukraine.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s repeated sacking and reshuffling of naval chiefs is glaring proof of his frustration over Russia’s loss of Black Sea dominance, Dr. Fiott says. The sting is no doubt sharper, he adds, as it comes at the hands of a country with no navy to speak of.

The homegrown sea drones are not enough to determine the course of the war, which remains primarily a land-based slog along Ukraine’s eastern and northern borders with Russia. But the vessels are playing a critical role in foiling Mr. Putin’s goal of bringing Ukraine’s economy to its knees, many experts and officials say.

“For the Russians, this war is clearly economic. It’s all about destroying Ukraine’s industrial and economic strengths,” says Artem Vashchilenko, coordinator of a business community plan to build a new, diversified economy in Mykolaiv, a former Soviet shipbuilding capital.

“When the war started, Russia’s big naval vessels were an important element in this economic war – they controlled the sea and struck fear in us, and that strangled our economy,” he says. “But these small drones have changed the paradigm of the sea wars,” he adds. “Their message is, ‘Don’t be afraid of the Russians; now it’s their turn to fear us!’”

Ukraine trade corridor

Still, the sea drones are no panacea for Ukraine’s southern coastline. As effective as they may be, they are of no help to Mykolaiv, which sits on an estuary upstream from the Black Sea – and just opposite a spit of land occupied by Russia.

Where the sea drones have proved to be game changers is 80 miles west at the ports in and near Odesa.

SOURCE:

BBC

|

Jacob Turcotte/Staff

“We now have 100 cargo ships a day that want to come and load up with Ukrainian grains and iron ore, a significant increase from just a few months ago,” says Dmytro Barinov, deputy CEO of the Ukrainian Sea Ports Authority in Odesa. “We owe much of that success to the sea drones and some missile strikes that have destroyed so many of the Russian ships that threatened our ports and shipping lanes.”

Displaying a map depicting the steady retreat of Russian war vessels away from Ukraine to safer Black Sea waters south and east, Mr. Barinov smiles. “They’ve even removed their vessels from Crimea,” the Ukrainian peninsula that Russia has occupied since 2014.

The newly dubbed Ukraine trade corridor – which hugs the country’s Black Sea coastline until it reaches the secure waters of adjacent NATO countries – has been a boon to Ukraine’s war-dampened economy, Mr. Barinov says. But he adds that it also provides relief for the world’s hungry people.

“When you remember that half of the World Food Program’s food supplies come from Ukrainian grains, you understand the importance of this trade corridor to people in many parts of the world,” he says.

Howard LaFranchi/The Christian Science Monitor

Dmytro Barinov, deputy CEO of the Ukrainian Sea Ports Authority, in his office in Odesa, May 23, 2024, says Ukraine is once again exporting grains to a hungry world, thanks in part to diminutive but deadly sea drones.

Looking forward, Mr. Barinov says the continued security of the trade corridor will be critical to realizing the next goal for Ukraine’s ports, which is to expand exports beyond the traditional grains and iron ore to other goods including fertilizers, construction materials, and steel products.

“The sea ports are critical to rebuilding Ukraine’s economy,” he says, “and the trade corridor is what will allow the ports to fulfill that purpose.”

Ukraine’s defense industry

Others say the story of the homegrown sea drones has the potential to change the way the world thinks about Ukraine – and to put the country back on the map of the world’s premier defense industries.

During the Soviet era, Ukraine was responsible for about 20% of the USSR’s defense production capability.

“The made-in-Ukraine sea drones are chipping away at the superior depth the Russians thought they had in the Black Sea,” says Dr. Fiott. “That is telling the world that Ukraine has the know-how and the defense industrial base that are capable of doing this,” he adds. “But it is also telling us something about how Ukraine is trying to position itself in the postwar world.”

Analysts say Ukraine’s success likely will be noticed in regions with similar geopolitical tensions.

“We can say that Ukraine is the first country in the world with experience in both developing and deploying this type of drone in real combat circumstances,” says Oleksandr Kovalenko, military and political director for the Informational Resistance Group, a defense think tank based in Kyiv.

“We might find the U.S. buying sea drones from us one day, why not?” he chuckles. “But I think it will be more for U.S. partners like Taiwan, for example, that this technology will be very relevant.”

Dr. Fiott says he imagines Ukraine is thinking big as it contemplates how to capitalize on its successful use of industrial power and knowledge to “punch through the asymmetry” it faced on the Black Sea.

“They are clearly seeing the part this innovative defense industrial base can play as they look toward future NATO and [European Union] accession,” he says. “It positions them as applicants with something very attractive to bring to the table.”

Oleksandr Naselenko and Volodymyr Pecherskyi assisted in reporting this story.

Yara Nardi/Reuters/File

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni attend a press conference after visiting an Italian reception center for migrants.

Their surge in the polls is striking. And with just days until a major Europe-wide election, so is the message of alarm on editorial commentary pages: Far-right parties are on the march!

Yet the more critical shift – and the key to whether far-right policies on issues ranging from immigration to climate change will gain a stronger foothold – is happening on Europe’s political center ground.

Mainstream conservative parties across the 27-nation European Union, which are the European equivalent of America’s pre-Donald Trump Republicans, have increasingly been seeking to ward off the decline in their own support by tacking toward the policy agenda of the far right.

In several EU countries, most recently, this month, in the Netherlands, they’ve gone further. Breaking with a decades-old European consensus against allowing extreme parties a share of national government, they’ve reached agreements to join far-right parties in ruling coalitions.

Now, ahead of next week’s vote for the 720 members of the European Parliament, the question is whether a similar process may play out there, giving far-right parties unprecedented sway over Europe-wide policy choices.

Jean-Francois Badias/AP

European Parliament members attend the last session before European elections in June, when around 400 million EU citizens will elect a new parliament.

If the polls prove right, the main center-right grouping in the parliament, the European People’s Party (EPP), will retain the largest single number of seats.

But it is projected to lose 20 to 30 seats; so is the center-left Socialists and Democrats, the second-largest group.

The two far-right groupings, on the other hand, are expected to be the big winners, gaining as many as 60 seats between them.

That would present the EPP politician in charge of the EU’s executive, Germany’s Ursula von der Leyen, with a stark choice.

To win the parliamentary majority she needs in order to secure a second five-year term, should she rely on the Socialists and Democrats and more left-leaning groups?

Or, replicating the pattern which mainstream conservatives have set in the EU’s national capitals, should she make common cause with the far-right?

So far, Ms. von der Leyen has followed the mainstream conservative playbook, tilting policy toward the far-right parties’ agenda, with the clear aim of at least limiting their electoral gains.

Partnering with Europe’s most influential far-right leader, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, she has championed a tougher policy on immigration. Billions of dollars have been spent on deals with Libya, Egypt, and Lebanon in a bid to keep migrants away from Europe.

The EU has also paused part of its ambitious Green Deal in response to demonstrations by farmers, a protest movement strongly backed by far-right politicians.

She has been brushing aside reporters’ questions about whether she would rule out seeking far-right parliamentary support for a further term of office.

In fact, she’s said she is “working well” with the Italian leader, describing her as “pro-European” and highlighting her support in one critical policy area where a broad EU consensus has so far held: Support for Ukraine.

Ms. Meloni is making no secret about her intention to maximize far-right influence in the next European legislature.

She has said she hopes to bring together the often fractious members of the two main far-right groupings – her own and the bloc to which Europe’s other most prominent far-right figure, Marine Le Pen, belongs. “It’s a tough challenge,” Ms. Meloni said recently, “but I think we can do it.”

Czarek Sokolowski/AP

Farmers and other protesters gather in Warsaw, Poland, to protest the European Union’s climate policies and Poland’s pro-EU government, May 10.

The prospect that Ms. von der Leyen might do a post-election deal with the far right has set off alarm bells among other European parties. If she takes that path, a senior Green politician warned explicitly this week, she would lose his group’s support.

The Greens’ main concern is what will happen to the EU’s climate-change commitments. But other parties, and human-rights groups, have a range of other concerns.

For while far-right parties have fed on a range of voter frustrations – including economic grievances and a sense of abandonment by mainstream politicians – they share a hostility to migrants, religious minorities, and the LGBTQ community, and to the EU’s role in ensuring minority rights and the rule of law.

Few have been as overtly assertive on those fronts as the Dutch populist firebrand Geert Wilders, who has advocated leaving the EU altogether, along with banning the Koran and outlawing mosques.

Earlier this month, he reached agreement with the center-right Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) and two smaller groups to form a parliamentary coalition.

During the election campaign last year, the traditionally moderate VVD hoped that by pledging to tighten immigration rules, it would steal Mr. Wilders’ thunder. In fact, its endorsement of his core argument that migrants were a problem led large numbers of voters to choose Mr. Wilders’ prescription for dealing with them.

His party finished a surprise first in the election, with about 23% of the vote.

On the surface, Mr. Wilders has had to compromise to secure his coalition agreement. He has agreed not to be prime minister, to drop his campaign to leave the EU, and to soften his broadsides against migrants and Muslims.

Still, the agreement does include far tougher immigration and asylum controls. It also lowers the country’s climate change targets.

In the words of an editorial in the French daily Le Monde, the deal has required the VVD in effect to “integrate” Mr. Wilder’s ideas, in the hope that a combination of his newfound legitimacy and “the reality of power” will moderate him.

“That,” the newspaper argued, “is a dangerous gamble.”

There are no crowds of migrants huddled on the southern banks of the Tar River. Nor are there busloads of asylum-seekers emptying into the streets of downtown Greenville.

Geographically, eastern North Carolina is closer to Canada than it is to Mexico. And yet there, like in much of the United States, the southern border has felt closer than normal this year.

Presidential elections typically have pollsters keeping a close eye on economic indicators. This year, however, amid record numbers of migrant encounters at the U.S. southern border, combined with high-profile busing of asylum-seekers to major U.S. cities, immigration and border security have emerged as the most important issue for a majority of U.S. voters. And in eastern North Carolina – a purple region in a purple state – it’s front of mind for local candidates, regardless of political affiliation.

The trend differs substantially south of the border. Mexico is also in an election year, voting for its next president and 20,000 local and national offices on June 2. Despite the growing numbers of asylum-seekers and migrants entering – and increasingly languishing – in Mexico in recent years, the topic of migration barely registers among Mexicans.

“It’s not a big issue – not for society, not for the government in general,” says Gerardo Maldonado, who researches public opinion toward foreigners in Mexico.

The contrast between how immigration is playing in the U.S. and Mexico elections points to each country’s unique history with migration and their expectations of migrant communities. 

Riley Robinson/Staff

Carlis, 8 years old, cuddles up with her father, Jose Antonio, in front of their tent April 15, 2024, in Mexico City. Their family fled Venezuela and is camping in the street outside a Catholic shelter, which is at capacity.

In the U.S., there are historical echoes to some of its most restrictive eras, as the immigration system encapsulates broader concerns around the economy, public safety, and cultural change.

“I don’t think it’s an exaggeration now to say every state is a border state,” says William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Voters “want action.”

“The No. 1 issue”

Nestled in what is known as the Black Belt of the state, North Carolina’s 1st Congressional District has been a stronghold of moderate Democrats for over a century. It’s home to six of the ten poorest counties in the state. There are a few small cities and tens of thousands of acres of cotton, tobacco, soybeans, and other crops.

Karen Norris/Staff

This year, the district will feature one of the most competitive elections in the state. Laurie Buckhout, a retired U.S. Army colonel and the Republican nominee, says there’s one topic she’s hearing about more than any other.

“Everywhere you go, the No. 1 issue is illegal immigration,” she says. “We have laws on the books, but they’re just not being followed.”

Henry Gass/The Christian Science Monitor

Col. Laurie Buckhout is the Republican candidate for the 1st District of North Carolina in the 2024 election. She is hoping to win the toss-up race by focusing her campaign on border security issues.

It’s something she and her Democratic opponent agree on. Since he took office in January last year, Rep. Don Davis has been a vocal supporter of reinforcing the border.

He has co-sponsored a bill allowing for the immediate deportation of migrants who attempt to enter the U.S. fraudulently, unless they fit certain humanitarian exceptions. Last month he was one of only five House Democrats to vote for a border security bill that would have revived Trump-era policies like Remain in Mexico and border wall construction.

He’s visited the border three times to look at how drugs and crime threaten his district, he says. 

U.S. border agencies have reported an increase in the amount of fentanyl seized at the southern border, as well as in the number of detained migrants who are on the terrorist watch list. But the 169 people encountered by the U.S. Border Patrol last fiscal year on the watch list are a tiny fraction of the nearly 2.5 million foreigners encountered that year, and fentanyl is entering the country from all directions – including across the U.S. northern border and through the mail.

This district “may not be [seeing direct] foot traffic, but we’re seeing law enforcement have to engage” with border-related issues, says Representative Davis. “It’s up to all of us to fix the border crisis.”

Courtesy of the Office of Congressman Don Davis

Rep. Don Davis (right) receives a briefing from Nogales Port Director Michael Humphries.

Newcomers in Mexico 

More than 1,500 miles south of Representative Davis’ district, in sprawling Mexico City, several new shelters have opened their doors to the growing population of migrants and asylum-seekers passing through and increasingly staying in Mexico over the past few years.

Mexico City is not a traditional stopping point along migrant routes to the U.S. But U.S. policies like the introduction of the CPB One application and pandemic-era border closures have required people hoping to enter the U.S. to use Mexico as a “waiting room,” according to Father Juan Luis Carbajal, who runs a new shelter in the working-class neighborhood of Iztapalapa.

Tarps and tents cover the sidewalks and edges of narrow residential streets for several blocks around the Casa del Migrante Arcángel Rafael in Iztapalapa, where Mr. Carbajal works. The shelter has been at or beyond capacity since it opened its doors in December 2023, and those who can’t find a space often choose to wait outside for weeks, their well-being officially the responsibility of the municipal government.

It’s been a shock for families and businesses near the shelter to suddenly see people from Venezuela, Haiti, Ecuador, and Nicaragua in the neighborhood looking for work, sleeping in alleyways, and trying to care for their families as they wait for beds to open or an asylum appointment to be confirmed. But despite some grumblings and glimmers of xenophobia, Mr. Carbajal feels the reception has been overwhelmingly positive: Locals regularly drop off food and clothing, or pass through to give free services, such as haircuts.

“I would be tired of people sleeping outside of my front door, too,” says Venezuelan José Antonio, who sits by a small tent with his 8-year-old daughter on a recent evening. They’ve been waiting over a month for open beds in the shelter. “It’s not a good situation for anyone.”  

Riley Robinson/Staff

People walk past tent encampments where asylum-seekers are living, April 15, 2024, in the Iztapalapa district of Mexico City. The nearby Casa del Migrante Archángel Rafael shelter currently houses about 75 people, most of whom have fled Venezuela or Colombia.

Despite the uptick in migrants arriving and spending more time in Mexico, Dr. Maldonado, the researcher, who chairs the international relations department at the Center for Research and Teaching in Economics, says positive attitudes toward foreigners have increased in Mexico since 2014, despite the larger presence of outsiders transiting or remaining in the country.

“Around 70% of the population will tell you that foreigners are a good thing, receiving new ideas and traditions from other countries is a good thing,” he says.

But when asked about specific groups, opinions shift. American, Spanish, Chinese, and Argentinian migrants tend to garner the most approval. There are some groups, such as Guatemalans, who have a long history of migrating to and through Mexico but are seen quite negatively, whether due to stereotypes about where they come from or their levels of education and skills they bring to Mexican society, Dr. Maldonado says.

Foreign-born people legally residing in Mexico make up just 1% of the total population as of 2020, the most recent census. This means that even if there’s a large-scale migrant caravan making its way across the country, or growing clusters of people biding their time in the capital, foreigners barely register within the broader population overall. There isn’t a strong correlation between attitudes toward foreigners and political ideology, experts say. 

So it isn’t an easy topic for political parties to capitalize on like they do in the U.S., where it’s common to link economic challenges and crime to immigration.

“It’s really hard to create a political cost” around the presence of migrants in Mexico, says Gretchen Kuhner, director of the Mexico-based Institute for Women in Migration. “Migrants don’t vote, but they’re also in transit,” so the challenges they might bring to a specific community or state are viewed as temporary.

Earlier this spring, Amri Rafael Garido, a Venezuelan migrant sleeping outside the Archángel Rafael shelter, watches a compatriot cooking a pot of rice with noodles over a wood-fired stove. He laughs when asked about his plans: “We just want to get to the U.S.”

Riley Robinson/Staff

Amri Rafael Garido (right) and Jose Antonio Munoz cook rice and noodles over a campfire on a street neighboring Casa del Migrante Arcángel Rafael shelter April 15, 2024, in Mexico City. Both men are originally from Venezuela and are camping in tents because the shelter is at capacity.

Reacting to changes  

Back in the U.S., Representative Davis isn’t the only Democrat viewing immigration as a serious local issue. But there appears to be a new playbook for candidates in swing districts. 

Earlier this year, Tom Suozzi won a special election in suburban New York pledging to be “tougher” on border issues than other Democrats are.  

This contrasts with previous election cycles, when Democrats campaigned on the promise to reverse harsh, Trump-era immigration policies. But voter attitudes have shifted, and the move toward both parties focusing on the border isn’t surprising – given historical trends, experts say.

Around the turn of the 20th century, U.S. authorities processed an average of 5,000 migrants a day through Ellis Island. But that was also a time when the U.S. adopted some of its most restrictive immigration laws. Congress banned Chinese immigrants wholesale in the 1880s, and in 1921 it enacted the first ever quota on immigration, creating legal pathways that heavily favored northern Europeans.

By 1970, the foreign-born population in the U.S. had dropped to 4.7% from a record 14.8% in 1890. In 1989, with about 8% of the country foreign-born, then-President Ronald Reagan hailed immigration as “one of the most important sources of America’s greatness.”

But as of 2022, the immigrant population was again nearing 14%, and the reaction “is exactly the same as what we saw 100 years ago,” says David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute. “We tend to have strong reactions when things change quickly.”

The irony in eastern North Carolina is that because it is an agricultural region, migrant workers are crucial to the economy. 

The idea that “all politics is local” is increasingly untrue, says Peter Francia, a political scientist at East Carolina University in Greenville, in an email.

“The election issues likely to dominate in eastern North Carolina probably will not look much different from the election issues” dominating in other parts of the country, he says. Border security concerns aren’t “going away.”

Henry Gass/The Christian Science Monitor

Matthew Scully stands outside his restaurant, The Scullery. While illegal immigration has become more of an election issue in the United States, the economy and legal immigration reform are more important to voters in agriculture-heavy eastern North Carolina.

What matters most to Mexican voters 

Mexico has a long tradition of opening its doors to refugees, too. It welcomed populations fleeing the Spanish Civil War, World War II, and brutal dictatorships in Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay. And most Mexican families, regardless of economic class, know someone who has lived or worked in the U.S. at some point, creating a level of cultural understanding around what motivates someone to leave home and seek safety or opportunity elsewhere.

Mexico’s political narrative plays off this, with all three presidential candidates in the debates this spring talking about addressing root causes of migration in other countries as a solution to the influx of human migration in the region.

The political rhetoric of open doors and treating migrants with dignity doesn’t align with policy actions inside Mexico, however, says Alexandra Délano, associate professor of global studies at The New School in New York.  

For more than a decade, analysts have described the U.S. border as moving south to the Mexico-Guatemala border – because of the ongoing pressure the U.S. has exerted on Mexico to stop migrants before they get to the U.S. That’s happening through the militarization of immigration control in Mexico, and through policies that bus migrants south, deter them at checkpoints, and place them in immigration detention centers, like the one that went up in flames with scores of migrants locked inside last year. 

Regardless of who wins the presidency this weekend, Dr. Délano expects the next leader to agree to carry out whatever immigration policy the U.S. demands of them. It’s part of the power imbalance, where Mexico’s economy and security rely heavily on U.S. investment and cooperation.

Those also happen to be the topics that matter most to Mexican voters.

“There’s over 100,000 missing people in Mexico. The list of human rights violations is so long and so atrocious, it’s difficult to get your tragedy on the radar of politicians,” says Ms. Kuhner. Migration “is an issue that no [politician] wants to touch because the pressure from the U.S. is not going to change.”

Immigration and the economy 

Even in North Carolina, some question just how key border security is to voters in the big picture. According to a February poll conducted by Dr. Francia, the top issue in the state is inflation.

“I can’t say I don’t care about” immigration, says David Lawson, a Greenville local, on a recent morning, but it “doesn’t really affect me.”

“Jobs, pay raises, the economy ... inflation,” he says, “who’s going to help with that?”

Across the street, Matthew Scully is working through the morning rush at his restaurant, The Scullery. The coffee house achieved viral fame in 2019 when, on the day of a rally for Donald Trump, it donated the day’s proceeds to an immigrant aid group.

Immigration is “very important to me ... but I wouldn’t put it as No. 1,” says Mr. Scully. 

“As an American, you have to have some sort of empathy for [migrants],” he says. “You also have to have security and safety.” 

Editor's note: This story has been corrected to fix the spelling of Amri Rafael Garido's surname. 

Faisal Bashir /SOPA Images/Sipa USA/AP

A journalist broadcasts live on his mobile phone from an election rally in the run-up to India's current general elections.

Sohit Mishra cut his teeth as a journalist working for New Delhi Television (NDTV), and his decision to quit one of India’s leading news channels was not easy. But he says the “DNA of the channel” changed after its takeover in December 2022 by the Adani Group, a company headed by a close ally of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The final straw was an alleged diktat from the channel’s newly appointed editor-in-chief to “create a ruckus” at a press conference held by Indian opposition leader Rahul Gandhi.

Mr. Gandhi had organized the event to call for a parliamentary probe into allegations of stock manipulation by the Adani Group. But according to a report by Newslaundry, the NDTV editor asked Mr. Mishra – then the channel’s Mumbai bureau chief – to “change the narrative” by asking questions about Mr. Gandhi’s controversies instead. 

Mr. Mishra’s subsequent resignation from NDTV – which has denied the accusations – echoes the experiences of several Indian journalists, including vocal Modi critics, who have been driven out of newsrooms as the government’s influence over mainstream media grows.

Some, however, have found reprieve on YouTube.

The future of the platform as a journalistic outlet is uncertain. The government has drafted laws that would expand its regulatory power, and if Mr. Modi wins a third term in office in India’s national election, which concludes next week, observers say his administration is likely to impose further restrictions on the media. 

But for now, says senior journalist and longtime media observer Pamela Philipose, it’s “not surprising to see people leave mainstream [media] to join YouTube,” as the site offers journalists “a wonderful, very important quality ... independence.”

“They must seize it and make full use of it,” she says.

“This is what journalism is all about”

Government advertisements are a major source of revenue for Indian media houses, but they have also proved to be a cage, says Shyam Meera Singh, a young journalist who was fired by India Today Group – one of the country’s largest media networks – for criticizing the prime minister in posts on X.

Courtesy of Shyam Meera Singh

Journalist Shyam Meera Singh poses in front of the setup where he records his YouTube videos.

Indeed, the Modi government has been accused in the past of pausing government advertisements in retaliation for critical and adverse stories. Mr. Singh says this dynamic forces media organizations to censor their journalists. “You are free to criticize the opposition leaders,” he says. “But the moment you choose to criticize PM Modi or [his Bharatiya Janata Party], you will face trouble.” 

Mr. Singh has since made the jump to YouTube, where he delves into the backgrounds of top news figures for more than 829,000 subscribers. He points to a recent video investigating the rise of Ramdev, a powerful but controversial yoga guru-turned-businessman who owns Patanjali Ayurved – a conglomerate that, as of August 2023, was one of the top TV news advertisers in India.

“No mainstream media channel can make [that kind of video] today,” Mr. Singh says. “Can you imagine the American media not being allowed to speak out against [Donald] Trump or [Elon] Musk?”

For Mr. Mishra, whose channel has grown to over 375,000 subscribers in recent months, YouTube provides the freedom and flexibility to produce thoughtful news. “In mainstream media, especially on television, there is a lot of pro-government bias, sensationalism, running around, and shouting loud,” he says. But on YouTube, he adds, he has time “to analyze things, to do hourlong interviews.”

Last October, Mr. Mishra did a report on women from a remote village in India’s Maharashtra state who had no access to water. A day after the video was posted, the state arranged for water tankers to be sent to the village.

“Within 24 hours, there was an impact,” he says. “This is what journalism is all about.” 

But despite the platform’s advantages, the shift to YouTube is extremely difficult for many journalists. 

Costs of doing business

Mr. Singh says that India has a “very weak crowdfunding culture,” and finding sponsors has been challenging. The revenue YouTube provides based on views is not enough to cover travel, video equipment, and other reporting expenses – necessities that reporters at major TV stations don’t need to worry about.

“While [these networks] have the resources, they aren’t doing their job,” Mr. Mishra says. “If they would have been doing it, there wouldn’t be any need for independent journalism.”

And although the ability to remain independent and politically neutral is a major draw of YouTube, Mr. Singh says the site’s algorithms still incentivize bias. 

“You have to pick the same side to keep your audiences with you,” he says. “If you take pro-left positions, you have to continue doing that blindly; otherwise you risk losing audiences.”

On a platform where views matter the most – especially when it comes to revenue – that’s a risk that most small, independent journalists cannot afford.

Meanwhile, an effort to modernize and streamline the various laws governing India’s broadcasting sector has sparked concerns about overregulation and censorship. The proposed Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023 would extend the government’s regulatory reach to individuals using social media to disseminate news content.

Critics say that the draft allows the government to prohibit broadcasting services on the vague grounds of “public interest,” without adequate guardrails. Ms. Philipose, who researches social media and journalism in India, believes the bill is “designed to finish off independent journalists.”

Its future will be decided by the newly elected lower house of Parliament after India’s polls close next week. Media experts predict that if Mr. Modi and the BJP return to power on June 4, they’ll throw their weight behind the bill, tightening their grip over independent and digital media.

AP

Ahead of elections last February, a man carries ballot boxes to polling stations in Indonesia, the world's third-largest democracy.

In a globe-shifting moment this month, the world’s third-largest democracy officially began the process of joining a “club” of 38 nations that tracks one another’s dedication to good governance and inclusive growth. That was no small choice for Indonesia, a huge Southeast Asian country rife with corruption and trade protectionism but with hopes of becoming an advanced economy in two decades.

President Joko Widodo set up a team to launch reforms necessary for Indonesia to become a member of the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The OECD sets high standards for states in maintaining liberal democracy and free markets.

It also serves as a stamp of approval for foreign investors. With a large, young population, Indonesia needs faster economic growth and a high-tech industry to avoid the “trap” of remaining a middle-income nation. It now joins six other countries – Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Peru, and Romania – wishing to join a body that sets global standards on individual liberty, rule of law, and the protection of human rights.

The OECD describes itself as “a like-minded community” committed to a rules-based international order. Its members represent 80% of global trade and investment. Indonesian officials like to cite reforms in two countries that recently joined the organization: Costa Rica has lowered its budget deficit as a percentage of its economy, while Colombia has reduced foreign bribery by following OECD rules on anti-corruption procedures.

One obstacle looms large for Indonesia, the world’s largest majority-Muslim country. It needs a sign-off from Israel, an OECD member, to join the group. While the two countries had cordial relations before the war in Gaza, Indonesia now strongly backs a Palestinian state. The incoming president, Prabowo Subianto, will need to persuade Indonesia’s powerful Muslim groups that the benefits of OECD membership outweigh its foreign policy on the Middle East.

Joining the OECD – and meeting its 200 policy standards – would help Indonesia hold itself to account for an already-strong democracy but one that needs deep economic reform, especially on corruption. Set up after World War II to help European democracies learn from each other, the OECD is little known but large in influence because of its data collection and policy expertise. Nations ready to make a leap in good governance know where to turn for guidance.