Hundreds of migrants are moving north through Mexico toward the U.S. border five weeks before the midterm elections, prompting Republican claims that some migrants are watching for a change in congressional control even as members of the current caravan cite poverty, violence, family reunification and stalled immigration cases as their reasons for traveling.

By yourNEWS Media Newsroom

Hundreds of migrants are moving north through southern Mexico toward the United States as the Nov. 3 midterm elections approach, fueling a political debate over whether some migrants believe a Democratic victory in Congress could eventually produce more favorable U.S. immigration policies.

The caravan, known as “Fe y Esperanza,” or “Faith and Hope,” left San Pedro Sula, Honduras, on Sept. 20 and crossed into Mexico four days later over the Rodolfo Robles International Bridge at the Guatemala-Chiapas border. Mexican reporting said roughly 200 people initially crossed without intervention by Mexico’s National Migration Institute, or INM.

The contingent grew after reaching Tapachula, where migrants already stranded in southern Mexico joined the group. Estimates varied from roughly 350 to more than 600 people as it continued along Mexico’s Pacific route. The caravan includes people from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Ecuador, Haiti and other countries.

By Sept. 29, the group had reached Huixtla in Chiapas and had not yet entered Oaxaca. Its planned route continues through southern and central Mexico before turning toward the northern states of Nuevo León or Tamaulipas. Many participants have said they hope ultimately to reach the U.S. border, while others say they would remain in Mexico if they can obtain legal status and employment.

Interviews with current caravan members have centered primarily on economic hardship, crime and immigration delays rather than the U.S. congressional elections. José Zelaya, a Honduran traveling with seven relatives, told EFE that the group had no formal leader and was being driven by hunger and necessity. He said he hoped to reach the United States and send money to relatives back home.

Vinicio Obonaga of Ecuador said he joined the caravan after spending two months in Tapachula without receiving a decision on applications for refugee status and a humanitarian visa. A Guatemalan woman said she had initially intended to remain in central Mexico but decided to try to reach the United States after an attempted kidnapping.

Republicans have nevertheless pointed to the timing of the caravan and statements from members of earlier groups as evidence that U.S. electoral politics are being closely watched. Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., wrote on X that migrants were “betting on a Democrat Congress in November.” The Post Millennial similarly characterized the caravan as anticipating a possible Democratic shift in immigration policy.

There is not yet evidence that the current Fe y Esperanza caravan collectively organized around the expectation of a Democratic midterm victory. The migrants interviewed publicly have offered varying personal reasons for traveling, while Republican lawmakers and commentators are drawing a broader political inference from the timing and from statements made by members of previous caravans.

That connection was more explicit in August. Real America’s Voice correspondent Oscar Ramirez posted video from Tapachula in which migrants discussed the U.S. elections, with one man saying migrants were watching whether Democrats could regain control of Congress and describing plans for a caravan that organizers hoped would number between 2,000 and 2,500 people.

The resulting “Sueños sin Fronteras,” or “Dreams Without Borders,” caravan left Tapachula Aug. 20 with more than 600 people. Contemporary reporting described its stated immediate destination as Mexico City, where participants hoped to continue immigration proceedings or find employment.

Some members nevertheless discussed future plans involving the United States. Cuban migrants told EFE they intended to wait until the Trump administration ended before attempting to go to the United States. The Associated Press also reported on a Venezuelan family that planned to remain in Mexico until Trump left office and then reconsider whether to return to the United States.

That caravan never reached the U.S. border. It gradually lost members during the trip through Chiapas and dissolved in Arriaga in early September after the INM offered transportation to Tuxtla Gutiérrez.

The Trump administration says it is monitoring the new caravan and has warned its members against attempting to enter the United States illegally. Border Patrol is coordinating with international partners, and White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis told Newsweek that the caravan “will not be allowed into our country.” The U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa issued a similar warning Sept. 21, telling prospective migrants that U.S. borders are closed to unlawful entry.

White House border czar Tom Homan said in an interview with Laura Ingraham that members attempting unlawful entry would be turned away or detained, prosecuted and deported. He said removal could include transfer to a third country when a migrant’s country of citizenship does not promptly accept the person back.

Those warnings come as unauthorized crossings remain far below the levels recorded during the previous administration. The Department of Homeland Security reported 8,870 Border Patrol apprehensions along the Southwest border in August, 94% below the monthly average during the Biden administration. DHS also reported zero Border Patrol releases at the Southwest border for the 16th consecutive month, although immigration enforcement and release statistics can involve different categories of migrants and processing authorities.

The administration’s immigration campaign has generated criticism beyond the United States. In January, co-presidents of The Left group in the European Parliament called on the European Commission to bar ICE personnel from the European Union during the Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Italy’s Più Europa party staged a demonstration outside the U.S. Embassy in Rome, while Reform UK leader Nigel Farage separately said ICE had gone beyond its limit.

Those criticisms have focused primarily on U.S. enforcement practices. The causes driving migration from Latin America and the Caribbean are broader and differ by country, including violent crime, gang and cartel activity, political instability, corruption, poverty, lack of employment and, in some countries, authoritarian or failed governance.

The United Nations has also challenged aspects of the Trump administration’s detention and deportation policies. On Sept. 7, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk told the Human Rights Council that 23 people had died in U.S. immigration custody during 2026 and called for accountability. He also urged Washington not to return migrants to countries where they faced a risk of irreparable harm, specifically citing Haiti.

The significance of deaths in immigration custody has become heavily disputed. ICE has said detainees receive medical screening and access to medical appointments and emergency care, while journalists and advocacy organizations have raised questions about the adequacy of treatment in individual cases.

Simple comparisons with other populations also require caution. ICE was holding roughly 65,000 to 70,000 people at a time during portions of the period, which can produce a crude annualized mortality estimate far below the 167 deaths per 100,000 recorded in U.S. local jails in 2019. Such rates are not directly comparable without accounting for age, health, duration of detention, population turnover and causes of death.

An Associated Press review of ICE records found 51 deaths in custody from January 2025 through May 2026, including 10 suicides. Depending on the detention-population assumptions used, crude annualized calculations place the suicide rate in the range of approximately 11 to 13 per 100,000, near the U.S. population suicide rate of 13.7 per 100,000.

Similar calculations put overall deaths during that period at roughly 55 to 80 per 100,000 detainees, compared with a 2024 general U.S. death rate of 722.1 per 100,000 and roughly 169 per 100,000 among Americans ages 25 to 44. Those comparisons provide context but do not by themselves establish whether conditions or medical care inside immigration detention were adequate, because the populations and periods being measured differ substantially.

Haiti remains one of the sharpest points of disagreement. Haitians were first granted Temporary Protected Status after the devastating 2010 earthquake, and protections continued through multiple extensions for more than 15 years. The Trump administration argues temporary immigration programs cannot become permanent by default, while the U.N. and immigrant-rights groups contend that continuing violence, political instability and humanitarian conditions make large-scale returns dangerous.

The dispute illustrates the broader difficulty facing immigration policy: crises in some countries can continue for years, while temporary protections can remain in effect long enough that recipients establish families, jobs and communities in the United States. The administration has argued that requiring continued protection whenever difficult conditions persist would effectively prevent the government from ending temporary status for large populations.

Trump addressed that broader conflict during his Sept. 22 appearance at the U.N. General Assembly, where he accused international human-rights institutions of applying different standards to the United States and authoritarian governments. Speaking about religious persecution and immigration, Trump said “the craven hypocrites of the Human Rights Council have little to say about the persecution of Christians… or the crimes of the world’s most repressive regimes, yet they want America to open our borders to gangs and criminals from the world’s most dangerous places,” according to reporting on the address.

For the migrants currently moving through Chiapas, however, the immediate challenge is more practical than political. They still face hundreds of miles of travel through Mexico before reaching the U.S. border, and previous caravans frequently fragmented long before arriving in northern Mexico.

The midterm election has become part of the political narrative surrounding their journey, particularly among Republican lawmakers and because some migrants in earlier groups openly discussed waiting for a change in U.S. political leadership. But public interviews with members of the current Fe y Esperanza caravan show a mixture of motives rather than a single election-driven strategy — including poverty, violence, stalled legal processes, family considerations and the hope of eventually entering the United States.

Original article