Ant McPartlin and Declan Donnelly made a glum appearance as they emerged from a hotel after Britain’s Got Talent auditions were cancelled. Show boss Simon Cowell made the decision to halt the audition process following the news that Liam Payne had tragically died aged 31. “Simon Cowell has postponed today’s Britain’s Got Talent auditions in…
The highly anticipated Smile 2 movie is generating buzz among horror fans eager to experience the next chapter in this chilling franchise. As the sequel to the unexpected hit of 2022, audiences are curious about where and when they can watch this spine-tingling continuation. The film promises to deliver more of the unnerving smiles and psychological terror that made the original a standout success.
➤➤ Watch Now ✅➤➤ Smile 2 (2024) Free online
For those looking to catch Smile 2, there are several viewing options to consider. This article will cover the theatrical release details, streaming platforms that may carry the film, rental and purchase possibilities, and where to watch the original Smile movie for a refresher. We’ll provide all the information you need to plan your viewing experience for this highly anticipated horror sequel.
Theatrical Release Details
Release dates
Horror fans eagerly awaiting the next installment of the chilling Smile franchise can mark their calendars for October 18, 2024. This release date places Smile 2 approximately two years after its predecessor, which premiered on September 30, 2022. The sequel is set to follow in the footsteps of the original by having a theatrical release, giving audiences the chance to experience the terror on the big screen.
The decision to launch Smile 2 in mid-October is a strategic move, positioning it at the heart of the spooky season. This timing is likely to capitalize on the Halloween spirit when audiences are particularly drawn to horror films. While the original Smile debuted in late September, the slight shift to October for the sequel might prove beneficial in capturing the peak horror-viewing audience.
Box office expectations
The box office expectations for Smile 2 are high, given the unexpected success of its predecessor. The original Smile was a standout success story in the post-Covid era of cinema, opening with an impressive USD 22.60 million and going on to earn USD 105.90 million domestically and USD 217.40 million worldwide. This performance was particularly noteworthy as the film was initially slated for a streaming release before being shifted to theaters after successful test screenings.
Current projections for Smile 2 suggest a strong opening weekend, with estimates pointing towards high-teens millions. Some tracking has indicated potential for over USD 20 million, although this will depend on various factors, including the turnout of Latino and Hispanic moviegoers. The sequel has a budget of USD 28 million, which is considered modest for a major studio horror release.
The film’s performance may be influenced by the current market conditions. Unlike its predecessor, which benefited from a relatively sparse release schedule in the fall of 2022, Smile 2 faces more competition. However, it has secured premium large format (PLF) screens across its 3,500-theater count, which could boost its box office numbers.
Comparison to first Smile movie
Comparing Smile 2 to the original presents an interesting challenge. Horror sequels often struggle to recapture the magic of their predecessors, especially when the original was a sleeper hit. However, Smile 2 has several factors working in its favor.
The return of writer/director Parker Finn suggests a continuation of the style and themes that made the first film successful. Additionally, the sequel has received positive early reviews, with an 86% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 36 reviews at the time of this writing.
One notable difference is the target audience. While the original Smile had broad appeal, early indicators suggest that Smile 2 is skewing towards females under 25. This demographic shift could impact the film’s performance compared to its predecessor.
The success of Smile 2 could pave the way for further sequels, potentially establishing a new horror franchise centered around the grinning and ghoulish otherworldly entity introduced in the first film. As the movie industry continues to recover from the impacts of the pandemic, the performance of Smile 2 will be closely watched as an indicator of the health of the horror genre and theatrical releases in general.
Streaming Platforms
Paramount+
For those eager to stream Smile 2, Paramount+ is likely to be the first platform to offer the film. As a Paramount Pictures production, the sequel is expected to follow in the footsteps of its predecessor, which became available on Paramount+ on November 15, 2022. This streaming service has a solid track record for handling releases, making it possible to predict when Smile 2 might appear on the platform.
Paramount typically waits around 50 days after a movie’s theatrical release before making it available for streaming. Based on this pattern, Smile 2 is likely to be released on Paramount+ in December 2024, with an early December release being more probable than a late one. This timeline gives horror enthusiasts something to look forward to after the theatrical run.
Other potential streaming services
While Paramount+ is the most likely initial streaming home for Smile 2, other platforms may eventually offer the film as well. The original Smile is currently available on both Paramount+ and Hulu, suggesting that Hulu could be a potential secondary streaming option for the sequel in the future.
For those who prefer to rent or purchase digital copies, services like Prime Video, Apple TV+, and Spectrum might offer Smile 2 for a fee. The original Smile can be rented from these platforms for $3.99, while digital purchases are available on Prime Video and Apple TV+ for $7.99. Similar options may become available for the sequel after its initial streaming release.
It’s worth noting that Smile 2 is not expected to be available on Netflix or included with an Amazon Prime subscription, at least not in the immediate future. However, it may eventually be offered as a paid digital release on Prime Video.
Expected streaming release timeline
The streaming release timeline for Smile 2 can be estimated based on the pattern set by its predecessor and other similar releases. The original Smile hit theaters in September 2022, became available on Video on Demand (VOD) in November, and was released on DVD, Blu-ray, and 4K UHD in December of the same year.
Following this timeline, viewers can expect a similar rollout for Smile 2. After its theatrical debut on October 18, 2024, the film may become available for digital rental and purchase around December 2024 or January 2025. The streaming release on Paramount+ is likely to coincide with or shortly follow the VOD release.
For those who can’t wait for the streaming release, the theatrical experience remains the earliest option to watch Smile 2. The film is set to be shown in approximately 3,500 theaters, including premium large format (PLF) screens, providing an immersive viewing experience for horror fans.
While waiting for Smile 2 to become available for streaming, fans can revisit the original Smile on Paramount+ or Hulu to refresh their memory of the chilling story that started it all.
Rental and Purchase Options
Digital rental platforms
For those who prefer to watch movies from the comfort of their homes, digital rental platforms will likely offer Smile 2 after its theatrical run. While specific details are not yet confirmed, we can make educated guesses based on the release pattern of the original Smile and other Paramount Pictures films.
Popular digital rental services such as Prime Video, Apple TV+, and Spectrum are expected to make Smile 2 available for rent. If the sequel follows a similar pattern to its predecessor, viewers might be able to rent it for around USD 3.99. This affordable option allows fans to enjoy the movie without committing to a purchase or subscription.
Purchase options
In addition to rental options, Smile 2 is likely to be available for purchase on various digital platforms. Prime Video and Apple TV+ are among the services that may offer the movie for digital ownership. Based on the pricing of the original Smile, we can anticipate that Smile 2 might be available for purchase at around USD 7.99.
For those who prefer physical copies, Smile 2 is expected to have a 4K Blu-ray, Blu-ray, and DVD release. These formats offer the highest quality viewing experience and are perfect for collectors or those who want to add the film to their horror movie library.
Estimated availability dates
While exact dates have not been announced, we can estimate the availability of Smile 2 on various platforms based on typical release patterns:
Theatrical Release: Confirmed for October 18, 2024, in the USA and UK.
Digital Rental and Purchase: Paramount typically waits about one month after a film’s theatrical debut before making it available on major PVOD (Premium Video on Demand) platforms. This suggests that Smile 2 could have a digital release date in late November 2024.
Streaming on Paramount+: Based on the studio’s previous releases, Smile 2 may arrive on Paramount+ in February or March 2025. This would allow for about a month of exclusivity in theaters before a more cost-effective viewing option becomes available.
Physical Media: The 4K Blu-ray, Blu-ray, and DVD releases are expected sometime in 2025, possibly during the holiday season if following a similar timeline to the original Smile.
It’s worth noting that these are estimated dates, and the actual release schedule may vary. Paramount might adjust the timeline based on the film’s performance in theaters or other market factors.
For those eager to watch Smile 2 as soon as possible, the theatrical release remains the earliest option. However, patient viewers will have multiple choices for home viewing in the months following the cinema debut. Keep an eye on official announcements from Paramount Pictures for confirmed dates and availability across different platforms.
Where to Watch the Original Smile
For those who want to revisit the original Smile movie or catch up before watching the sequel, there are several options available. The 2022 hit horror film has made its way to various streaming platforms and is also available for rental and purchase.
Streaming platforms for Smile (2022)
The original Smile is currently streaming on both Hulu and Paramount+. Subscribers to these services can easily access the film by logging into their accounts and searching for it on the homepage.
Hulu offers a 30-day free trial for new users, which is an excellent opportunity to watch Smile without any cost. After the trial period, plans start at USD 9.99 per month. Hulu also provides a bundle option that includes Disney+ and ESPN+, all with ads, for USD 16.99 per month.
Paramount+, being the home platform for Paramount Pictures films, also streams Smile. New users can take advantage of a 7-day free trial to watch the movie at no cost. After the trial, a Paramount+ subscription begins at USD 7.99 per month.
Both streaming services offer additional benefits beyond just access to Smile. Hulu provides a vast library of shows and movies, including Hulu Originals and current episodes of popular TV series. The platform also allows up to six separate profiles per household, ensuring personalized recommendations for each viewer. Paramount+ offers a similar range of content, with a focus on Paramount productions.
Rental and purchase options for Smile (2022)
For those who prefer not to subscribe to a streaming service, there are rental and purchase options available. Amazon offers Smile for rent at USD 3.99, which is an affordable way to watch the movie without a long-term commitment.
If you’d like to own a digital copy of Smile, you can purchase and download it from Amazon for USD 7.99. This option allows you to watch the film as many times as you want without worrying about subscription fees or rental periods.
It’s worth noting that when renting, you typically have 30 days to start watching the movie and 48 hours to finish once you’ve begun. This flexibility allows you to rent the film in advance and watch it at your convenience within the given timeframe.
By exploring these various options to watch the original Smile, viewers can prepare themselves for the upcoming sequel. Whether through a streaming subscription, a free trial, or a one-time rental or purchase, there are multiple ways to experience the chilling story that started it all before diving into Smile 2.
Conclusion
The arrival of Smile 2 in theaters on October 18, 2024, gives horror fans plenty to look forward to. With its theatrical release, followed by digital rentals and purchases, and eventual streaming on Paramount+, viewers have multiple options to catch this chilling sequel. The movie’s performance at the box office and its reception among critics and audiences will likely shape its release timeline across different platforms.
For those eager to dive into the world of Smile, revisiting the original film is a great way to prepare. Whether through streaming services like Hulu and Paramount+ or by renting or buying the movie, there are numerous ways to experience the terror that started it all. As the release date for Smile 2 draws closer, fans can gear up for another round of spine-tingling scares and unsettling grins.
We may receive a commission on purchases made from links.
Embassy Pictures
Demi Moore moved around a lot in her childhood, and her life wasn’t wholly rosy. As she’s described it, Moore frequently relocated around the U.S., struggling with her mother and her stepfathers, and often finding herself malnourished. When she was 16, Moore dropped out of high school and took a job as a receptionist at 20th Century Fox. She signed a modest modeling contract and was making ends meet. Her next door neighbor was, it turned out, Nastassja Kinski, and the German actor encouraged Moore to take acting classes. She continued to model while working her way into films, making her debut in the 1981 movie “Choices.” The following year, Moore appeared in the 3-D monster movie “Parasite.”
These were the first two steps in a career that experienced a massive upward trajectory. By 1984, Moore was already playing lead characters in major studio productions. She became an adjunct of the Brat Pack, appearing in films like “St. Elmo’s Fire,” “Wisdom,” and “About Last Night.” In 1987, she famously married fellow superstar Bruce Willis, and the pair were often considered one of Hollywood’s best power couples.
Something Moore never got to do early in her career, however, was appear in Don Coscarelli’s well-liked cult fantasy film “The Beastmaster.” The film, thanks to immensely heavy rotation on cable TV, has become deeply beloved by a generation of fans, all of them fond of Coscarelli’s wild ideas, as well as the lead performance by the hunky Marc Singer and the lovely Tanya Roberts as the Beastmaster’s love interest, Kiri. An oft-repeated joke: there was a time when HBO stood for “Hey, ‘Beastmaster’s’ On.”
As it so happens, Kiri was initially offered to Moore. As Coscarelli related in his memoir “True Indie: Life and Death in Filmmaking by Phantasm and Bubba Ho-tep director Don Coscarelli,” he had every intention of casting Moore … only for her to lose the part when the film’s executive producer declared her voice was too low.
The Beastmaster
MGM/UA
It should be noted that Don Coscarelly, likely for legal reasons, was not allowed to refer to the above-mentioned executive producer by name. Throughout his memoir, he only ever refers to this person as “Commercial Director” or merely “CD.” We at /Film are under no similar litigious restrictions, so we’re free to tell you that it was Sylvio Tabet, the producer of films like “Dead Ringers” and “The Cotton Club.”
Coscarelli recalled the casting process for “The Beastmaster,” as well as the time crunch he encountered. Shooting was scheduled to begin soon and he hadn’t yet found his female lead. Luckily, he wrote, “one of our assistants suggested we meet an 18-year-old aspiring actress he knew who was married to a rocker friend of his.” Moore didn’t have much experience at the time, but Coscarelli loved her. “She was terrific,” he wrote, “I was hooked and wanted her for the role.” More than anything, Coscarelli was impressed by Moore’s famously “smoky” voice.
There was one final step, however. He needed approval from Tabet. Then everything went south. Coscarelli continued:
“We quickly scheduled a callback so we could get the Commercial Director’s approval. Demi came back and gave another reading for him, which was even better than the first. I looked over to [co-writer] Paul [Pepperman] and he shot me an approving nod. Bingo! Then, after some rumination and worry bead clacking, the CD weighed in and made his decision known that we would not cast this young woman. He told us that he had consulted with experts, and was told her voice was too deep and low to be picked up by the microphones and recorded. Paul and I just sat there dumbfounded.”
Tabet’s claim that low voices like Moore’s cannot be picked up by microphones is, of course, total hogwash. He was either mistaken or making up a weird lie to reject Moore and get another actor involved.
‘No Klaus Kinski and no Demi Moore’
MGM/UA
Moore’s rejection wasn’t the only casting frustration Coscarelli had with “The Beastmaster.” It seems that he had also written the role of the film’s villain, Maax, specifically for the infamously gonzo German ultra-thespian Klaus Kinski. The actor, by weird coincidence, was the father of Moore’s old neighbor Nastassja. However, the role of Maax ended up going to Rip Torn after Kinski asked for too much money.
Coscarelli was also frustrated that Tanya Roberts was cast in the role of Kiri. At the time, Roberts was best known for her role on “Charlie’s Angels,” a notoriously shallow, sexed-up spy show that he hated. Coscarelli recalls traveling to the casting offices to meet with Roberts and being less than impressed. As he put it:
“When we arrived we learned that her name was Tanya Roberts. What? The Tanya Roberts from the cheesy television series ‘Charlie’s Angels?’ You had to be kidding. None of the Angels were considered great actresses, and Tanya’s reviews when she debuted as the newest Charlie’s Angel were not the best.”
But the executive producer fell in love with Roberts, so Coscarelli was stuck. Luckily, he recalled Roberts being incredibly kind. Still, he was miffed. “No Klaus Kinski and no Demi Moore. As for me, I had no choice but to deal with it,” Coscarelli wrote. Moore did “Parasite” instead, and Coscarelli moved on to “Phantasm II” a few years later. Most recently, Moore appeared in the amazing horror freakout “The Substance,” although Coscarelli hasn’t directed a film since 2012’s “John Dies at the End.”
News of One Direction star Liam Payne’s death has rocked the world, with the singer-songwriter tragically falling to his death from a hotel balcony in Argentina. The 31-year-old shot to global superstardom as part of the five-piece boyband One Direction, formed on reality TV show The X Factor in 2010. Alongside Payne, the band included…
U.S. federal prosecutors are stepping up their pursuit of suspects who use artificial intelligence tools to manipulate or create child sex abuse images, as law enforcement fears the technology could spur a flood of illicit material. The U.S. Justice Department has brought two criminal cases this year against defendants accused of using generative AI systems,…
PayToMe.co Expands AI-driven Vision at Money20/20 USA, Advancing Innovation in Cross-Border Payments – Technology Today – EIN Presswire
On the cusp of the 2024 presidential election, immigration and U.S. border security are among the top issues of concern for American voters. Former President Donald Trump and his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, are worlds apart on whether immigration is good or bad for the United States, but they do agree on one thing: the southern border has been in crisis, and the broken U.S. asylum system is to blame. In 2022, the number of unauthorized border crossings reached a peak of 2.2 million, overwhelming not only border communities from Texas to California but also major cities such as New York, which received tens of thousands of new migrants with only limited support from the federal government. Images of disorder in border towns and of families being held in horrific conditions, as well as the increased presence of new arrivals lacking housing or work permits in U.S. cities, escalated public concern about the visible disarray of the U.S. immigration system. Even though the numbers of unauthorized crossings at the southern border are down in 2024, the sense of crisis has persisted across the country.Although the challenges have become more acute since the COVID-19 pandemic, the border has been in a state of crisis for most of the last decade. When confronted with increases in unauthorized migration, the federal government has often failed to manage the safe and orderly arrival of unauthorized migrants at the U.S.-Mexican border, leading to major operational challenges and political discord. With the vulnerabilities of the country’s outdated immigration system on full display, much of the American public, as well as U.S. allies and adversaries, question the United States’ ability to manage its borders.The last time the U.S. Congress weighed in on the question of whom the country should welcome was in 1990, when it passed legislation to increase the number of people who could immigrate to the United States. In the 34 years since then, advances in technology, an evolving labor market, the aging of the U.S. population, climate change, and political and humanitarian crises in the Western Hemisphere have driven more people to leave their homes, despite the fact that there are few safe legal pathways for those with a humanitarian or other urgent need to come to the United States. Today, the United States is relying on an immigration system designed for a different country at a different time.In the absence of reforms that would have allowed the United States to adjust to the profound changes that have taken place since 1990 by making it easier to legally immigrate, migrants have increasingly resorted to utilizing smuggling networks and claiming asylum at the U.S.-Mexican border in order to enter the country. The U.S. asylum system was crafted to offer a limited form of protection for people fleeing persecution. But with almost no other legal avenues by which to enter the United States, it has become the only option for migrants who have been displaced for a broad array of reasons.Without Congressional action to address the true source of the resulting border crises—the United States’ outdated asylum and immigration laws—administrations from both parties have addressed the problem unilaterally, carving out exceptions to current asylum law to turn people away without screening them for protection claims. Republicans promise to seal the border by blocking all asylum seekers with no exceptions, whereas Democrats want to limit asylum to people who seek advance permission to enter at a port of entry, forcing people to wait in Mexico regardless of the threats they may be facing.But the focus on blocking migrants from filing asylum claims distorts the debate over immigration and limits the universe of policy solutions; the overwhelmed asylum system is not the cause of the border crisis but rather a consequence of the United States’ failure to develop a coherent response to global shifts in irregular migration. Since 2010, mounting instability in the Western Hemisphere has displaced up to 25 million people, including eight million from Venezuela alone. The United States has responded by rolling back its commitment to territorial asylum and outsourcing more of its immigration responsibilities to other countries. But these efforts have done little to stop the unauthorized movement of people to the United States or to restore the public’s trust in Washington’s ability to control the border.Moreover, years of chaos at the border have amplified xenophobia at a time when the U.S. economy needs immigrants more than ever. Around 55 percent of Americans now support curbing immigration to the United States—the highest proportion since the months following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Meanwhile, the United States is showing the first signs of population decline, and demographers have determined that without additional immigration, the country’s working-age population will continue to shrink, as will the U.S. economy. But to advance the immigration reforms that are critical for economic growth, such as updating family and employment-based visa systems and creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, American policymakers must properly address the public’s concerns about the border and the failures of the current U.S. immigration regime.To bring the border crisis narrative under control, U.S. policymakers must first acknowledge that immigration policy is both a foreign and domestic issue and that policies that stabilize people in transit are as important as the policies that govern borders. Washington must also acknowledge that sustainably reducing unauthorized migration at the southern border cannot be achieved solely by tightening asylum rules, because every asylum restriction put in place in the last ten years has given way to higher unauthorized border crossings over time. The U.S. needs a new legal regime that does not merely react once people have reached the border, but one that holistically addresses the incentives and lack of alternative safe routes that draw people to the border in the first place.With both the demand for and the number of immigrants set to remain extraordinarily high, the only way to reduce unauthorized migration is to expand protections and regional employment opportunities for displaced people in the Western Hemisphere, make legal immigration easier by increasing pathways for entry into the United States, modernizing infrastructure at the border, and better integrating immigrants once they have arrived. Only this kind of multi-pronged immigration strategy will help the country move away from the failed approach of the past decade.ASYLUM IS NOT ALL-OR-NOTHINGUp to now, the United States has leaned on an outdated asylum system to manage irregular migration. But the system is collapsing under its own weight. Under current law, when migrants make unauthorized border crossings into the United States, they can claim that they have a fear of facing persecution if they return to their country of origin and file an asylum claim as a defense in their removal proceedings in immigration court. This process, known as defensive asylum, can take years to resolve: the backlog has grown from 100,000 cases in 2014 to one million cases in 2024 as more people have claimed asylum without a corresponding increase in resources or personnel to efficiently adjudicate these cases. After years waiting in legal limbo, the majority of migrants, many of whom represent themselves in highly complicated legal proceedings without a lawyer, have their claims denied or dismissed. This protracted process hurts the people most in need of humanitarian protection, making it more and more difficult to preserve evidence of their persecution or to respond to shifts in asylum eligibility rules across administrations.The absence of alternative avenues, however, has pushed many migrants to attempt to enter the United States via the asylum system, even if it entails a dangerous journey with an uncertain outcome and even if they do not meet the criteria for asylum as traditionally understood. For the millions of displaced people who may not meet the high legal threshold for protection and lack other accessible legal paths, seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexican border could be the only way to enter the United States to find work or to reunite with family.The U.S. asylum system was not designed to handle this influx of hemispheric migration or to adjudicate hundreds of thousands of claims every month—it was designed to be an emergency protection option for people fleeing persecution. As a result, U.S. facilities, personnel, and procedures at the border are primarily equipped to quickly turn back migrants from a contiguous country that will accept their returned citizens, not to screen people from noncontiguous countries for potential asylum claims. Without the proper infrastructure to process non-Mexican nationals, immigrants have been released from custody into the United States with almost no coordination between the federal government and the communities receiving them, and a limited system in place to manage the timely and fair removal of people who are not eligible for humanitarian protection.For now, the United States has mostly given up on trying to make asylum work at one of the largest land borders in the world. A bipartisan Senate proposal drafted earlier this year aimed to speed up the process, but still failed to address the underlying problem, by preserving asylum as the only legal option for most immigrants. (The agreement was ultimately shelved after Trump put pressure on Republicans to block the bill.) The jockeying has obscured a basic truth: U.S. policymakers don’t need to either expand or abandon the country’s commitment to defensive asylum—they just need to stop thinking of it as the primary avenue for processing would-be migrants to the United States.FROM CRISIS TO CRISISEfforts by the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations to address the border crisis have inadequately addressed the drivers of migration, as well as inherent flaws in the U.S. asylum system and the country’s outdated border infrastructure. When faced with a border emergency, Washington has generally responded by combining asylum restrictions with temporary diplomatic agreements with other countries to arrest, detain, and deport migrants before they reach the United States. This approach has not only had serious human rights consequences for migrants—exposing them to kidnapping, sexual assault, and death—but has also failed to stop the decades-long upward trend in arrivals, achieving short-term reductions at best.The first of these modern border crises occurred in 2014. At the time, I was serving as a policy adviser in the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Families and unaccompanied children from Central America, displaced after years of criminal violence, political turmoil, and natural disasters, arrived at the southern border and claimed asylum in record numbers. Seeking to deter further migration, President Barack Obama expanded family detention, requiring parents and their children, often infants or toddlers, to remain in detention for weeks, during their initial asylum screenings. On the diplomatic front, the administration also worked with Mexico to increase its deportation efforts, leading to a decrease in the number of migrants encountered at the border. But even though this combined domestic and foreign policy response appeared to have some initial success, irregular migration was once again on the rise by 2016.As president, Trump pursued an extreme approach to irregular migration. His administration’s signature asylum restrictions relied on penalizing migrants for failing to seek humanitarian protection in other countries that in fact did not have functioning asylum systems. One policy required asylum seekers to live in Mexico until their hearing dates, trapping over 60,000 people in some of the most dangerous cities in the world. Trump also pursued the most extreme act of deterrence: intentionally separating children from their parents with no effort to ever reunite them. Additionally, when the COVID-19 pandemic struck in 2020, Trump invoked Title 42, a public health law, to allow DHS to expel migrants back to Mexico or their countries of origin without screening them for humanitarian protection.But even such restrictive measures as the use of Title 42, which President Joe Biden kept in place for the first two years of his presidency, failed to achieve a reduction in irregular migration. The U.S. government expelled 2.8 million migrants under Title 42; once the policy was lifted in May 2023, Biden attempted to replicate Trump’s ban on asylum seekers who failed to seek protection along the migratory route. Still, this policy failed as a deterrent, and by December 2023, unauthorized encounters at the border peaked at 300,000 people in one month—the highest number recorded since U.S. Customs and Border Protection started tracking this data in 2000.Under pressure from both Democrats and Republicans, Biden enacted further restrictions on asylum access this year, limiting defensive asylum to a lottery system operated through the phone app CBP One. This policy has the same fatal flaw as every previous asylum restriction: it is entirely reliant on Mexico’s ability to arrest and detain migrants before they reach U.S. borders. In the first six months of 2024 alone, Mexico apprehended over 700,000 migrants, three times the number from the year before, but it lacks the capacity to deport them. Reports from Mexico show that this enforcement push has had severe human consequences, with migrants subjected to criminal violence as they are transported from northern to southern Mexico to prevent them from reaching the U.S. border. The current reduction in unauthorized migration continues to hinge on another country’s ability—and willingness—to hold hundreds of thousands of people back by any means necessary.THE MIGRATION CARDPast administrations have largely treated border management as a domestic political issue, but the border crisis undermines the United States’ national sovereignty, safety, and standing in the world. Authoritarian governments routinely weaponize migration for political ends, with autocrats transporting large groups of migrants to another nation’s border or to specific communities to sow disarray and fuel right-wing sentiment—a tactic that has also been adopted by some Republican governors in the United States.Given the United States’ inability to manage the processing of migrants at its borders or to manage their orderly resettlement in the country, American politics and society are uniquely vulnerable to weaponized migration. The images of chaos at the southern border communicate to U.S. adversaries that irregular migrants can trigger a widespread and enduring domestic crisis and exacerbate ethnic and racial tensions. Authoritarian leaders have taken notice: President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, for instance, has said that he wants to provoke the United States by allowing migrants from Africa and Asia to fly into his country and then make their way toward the U.S. border, creating new migration trends that could be used as a bargaining chip to extract concessions from Washington.Outsourcing the U.S. immigration system to states such as Mexico likewise creates vulnerabilities for national security and gives other countries additional leverage over the United States. Although passing the buck on enforcement may be a tempting political fix at a time when American voters want less chaos at the border and lawmakers are unlikely to pass legislation, it is not a viable long-term solution to what is fundamentally a U.S. problem. Regional cooperation is necessary to manage our border, but relying on countries such as Mexico to manage the flow of migrants without creating adequate channels and infrastructure in the United States empowers other governments to set off the next U.S. border crisis.Moreover, countries throughout Latin America and the Caribbean have failed to adjust to these irregular migration trends, with many allowing large numbers of migrants to pass through on their way to the United States without building out their own legal avenues, asylum systems, and immigration enforcement systems in response. Some countries have even benefited financially from the growth of smuggling networks, which reduces their incentive to control their borders. The United States can only expect to be able to persuade other countries of the benefits of modernizing their immigration systems once it has reclaimed the power to manage its own land borders.HELPING MIGRANTS TO HELP OURSELVESPolicy innovations under the Biden administration suggest a potential path forward. Under Biden, the United States has put in place new legal avenues for migrants from countries including Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela that require a potential migrant to find a U.S.-based sponsor. After vetting, the migrant is allowed to purchase a ticket to fly into a designated U.S. airport and legally work and live in the United States for two years. Per DHS’s own data, this model has reduced unauthorized border crossings of migrants from these countries by 99 percent—a stunning result. U.S. policymakers should build on the success of this approach by creating other new avenues for entry that meet the country’s labor needs, help people reunite with family members, and protect migrants who may not legally qualify as refugees but are still unable to return home.U.S. authorities could also make the asylum system more orderly by reforming CBP One, the mobile app that allows migrants to enter a lottery in order to receive an appointment to enter the United States at an official port of entry, rather than make an unauthorized crossing. Right now, CBP One operates as a decompression mechanism, doling out daily appointments, enrolling people in removal proceedings once they enter the country, and adding them to the back of the immigration court backlog. If use of the app led to a timely screening by an asylum officer, rather than a months-long wait in Mexico, it could help prioritize access to the U.S. land border to people with humanitarian protection claims and, over time, discourage the widespread perception among potential migrants that traveling to Mexico and waiting for an appointment will guarantee entry into the United States. This can be done by increasing the availability of daily appointments and assigning asylum officers to assess the merits of asylum claims raised at ports of entry.Beyond improving border procedures, Washington’s response to increased migration must aim to incentivize regional governments, the private sector, and civil society groups to expand both legal status and employment opportunities for people who are internally displaced or already on the move, rather than relying solely on foreign aid to address the root causes of migration before people decide to leave. Studies have found that rather than deterring irregular migration, U.S. efforts to increase economic stability for would-be migrants have given them the resources to depart, especially in cases where political conditions in their countries make it impossible for them to stay. Moreover, the United States must use targeted financial investments to help governments throughout the region to build their own strong asylum systems and immigration systems to manage their borders.The United States should also prioritize the expansion of legal alternatives that make traveling to the U.S.-Mexican border an option of last resort. The Biden administration has taken a step in this direction by creating Safe Mobility Offices in Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Guatemala. These offices seek to redirect potential migrants toward legal pathways, both in the United States and other receiving countries. SMOs are a blueprint of what a modernized system could look like, but they will only work if additional legal routes to entry are made available; otherwise, people will continue to turn to smuggling networks to make their way to the southern border.To prevent future waves of irregular migration from destabilizing U.S. politics, the United States also needs a federal coordination system that can match new arrivals, specifically those who arrive without sponsors or family ties, with communities that have the capacity to host them. Historically, many migrants—including my family, which entered the United States in the 1920s along with other Mexican immigrants responding to the need for laborers in Arizona—benefited from the existence of diaspora communities that ensured that migrants had housing and a social network upon arrival. In addition to increasing sponsorship opportunities for individuals—and even state governments who want to recruit immigrants—the federal government must take greater responsibility for managing the integration of the asylum seekers it admits at the border through federal relocation programs that place migrants in communities with both available housing and jobs that cannot be filled by U.S. workers.Finally, the United States cannot secure the border if it lacks the infrastructure to safely and quickly process migrants, no matter where they arrive. Relying solely on existing infrastructure diverts resources from other pressing security needs. Building new ports of entry and modern asylum processing centers would help to both ensure the country’s security and guarantee the safe screening of people seeking access to the U.S. immigration system.Regardless of who takes office in January, Washington must craft a fresh strategy for the modern era of global migration. As U.S. policymakers imagine a future response to the border, they can opt to replicate the current failed framework or embrace a new one, scaling up policies that have proved more effective at preventing irregular migration than stopgap asylum restrictions. Doing so would allow the United States to harness the benefits of migration, control its borders, uphold its values as a country of refuge, and create better outcomes for Americans and immigrants alike. ANDREA R. FLORES is Vice President of Immigration Policy and Campaigns at FWD.us. She served as an immigration policy adviser in the Obama and Biden administrations and for the U.S. Senate. More By Andrea R. Flores More: Central America & Caribbean North America Mexico United States South America Geopolitics Foreign Aid Labor Human Rights Public Opinion Refugees & Migration U.S. Foreign Policy U.S. Politics Donald Trump Kamala Harris Immigration
The e-commerce company’s corporate agreements follow the news that Google also plans to go nuclear with its data centres.
Amazon has signed three agreements on developing nuclear energy projects in order to meet data centre energy demand.
Under these agreements, the e-commerce giant will support the construction of several new small modular reactors (SMRs), which will be built by Energy Northwest, a consortium of state public utilities in Washington.
The tech giant also signed an agreement in Virginia with utility company Dominion Energy, with a view to develop an SMR project near Dominion’s existing nuclear power station.
Amazon is also investing in X-energy, a nuclear reactor and fuel start-up. The company’s nuclear reactor design will be used in the Energy Northwest project.
According to Amazon, the Energy Northwest SMRs are expected to generate “roughly 320 MW of capacity for the first phase of the project” with the option to increase this to 960 MW in total – enough to power 770,000 homes in the US. Meanwhile, the agreement with Dominion is expected to bring at least 300 MW of power to the region.
Matt Garman, CEO of Amazon Web Services, said the agreements will encourage the construction of new nuclear technologies.
“Nuclear is a safe source of carbon-free energy that can help power our operations and meet the growing demands of our customers, while helping us progress toward our climate pledge commitment to be net-zero carbon across our operations by 2040,” he said.
Amazon’s agreements follow similar plans from other tech giants, which are also betting on nuclear energy to address the demands of data centres and the AI boom.
This week, Google announced a corporate agreement to purchase nuclear energy from SMRs, which will be developed by Kairos Power in a bid to “accelerate the clean energy transition across the US”.
Additionally, Microsoft struck a deal last month that will see the reopening of Three Mile Island, a power plant in Pennsylvania and the site of the worst nuclear accident in the US.
While nuclear power is often heralded as being clean and efficient, it is also associated with major global disasters, including Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Along with safety concerns, nuclear power also faces practical issues such as cost and time. Amazon said its projects will help meet energy needs “beginning in the early 2030s”. While it is betting on SMRs along with Google, no SMRs are in operation yet in the US.
And while nuclear power is a low-carbon source of energy, it still requires finite materials such as uranium, meaning it is not a renewable resource. It also produces long-lasting radioactive waste that can be damaging to human health and the environment.
Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.
EA 18-G Growler Navy Jet Fighter. Via Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The fate of two U.S. Navy pilots remained a mystery Wednesday, a day after their fighter jet crashed during a routine training flight and search-and-rescue crews reported finding no sign of them in the rugged landscape of northeast Washington.
Wreckage of the EA-18G Growler jet was located Wednesday afternoon but the search continues for the two-person crew, military officials said in an update on Wednesday. The crash site is a mountainside east of Mount Rainier, officials said.
“Responders are facing mountainous terrain, cloudy weather, and low visibility as the search is ongoing,” Navy officials said in an earlier statement Wednesday afternoon.
The jet, from Electronic Attack Squadron 130, crashed at about 3:23 p.m. on Tuesday about 30 miles west of Yakima on the eastern side of Mount Rainier, according to the Navy.
The jet crashed after launching a training flight from Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, officials said.
An MH-60S helicopter crew was immediately launched to search for the missing airmen and wreckage, officials said. Additional rescue units from the U.S. Navy Fleet Reconnaissance Squadron One, Patrol Squadron, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island Search and Rescue and the U.S. Army 4-6 Air Calvary Squadron from Joint Base Luis-McChord in Washington were also involved in the search, officials said.
The cause of the crash is under investigation, according to the statement.
The Growler aircraft, which according to the Navy is worth about $67 million, is “the most advanced technology in airborne Electronic Attack and stands as the Navy’s first line of defense in hostile environments.”
The 130 squadron adopted the nickname “Zappers” when it was commissioned as the Carrier Early Warning Squadron 13 in 1959, the military said.
The squadron was most recently deployed to the Southern Red Sea, where it carried out seven pre-planned strikes against Houthi-controlled areas in Yemen, according to a statement.
The Zappers also carried out some 700 combat missions ” to degrade the Houthi capability to threaten innocent shipping,” according to a press release announcing the squadron’s return to Washington in July.
Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
Big Tech from Tulsa, Oklahoma: Kristina Veltri, CEO of ICON XR Studios, Named Among Top 100 Innovators & Entrepreneurs – Technology Today – EIN Presswire