in their first tv debate of the general election campaign. hello, i'm caitriona perry. you're very welcome. us presidentjoe biden has announced sweeping new measures aimed at deterring migrants from crossing into the united states from mexico. under the new actions, officials can quickly remove migrants who enter the us illegally without processing their asylum requests. the white house says that will happen once a daily threshold is met and the border is "overwhelmed." in this case, overwhelmed means when the seven—day average for daily crossings hits 2,500 triggering the restriction. that threshold of of 2,500 has already been passed this week — meaning these policies will likely go into effect at midnight on tuesday. the us southern border will reopen to asylum—seekers

only when the average holds at 1,500 over a seven—day period. it will then re open to migrants two weeks after that. the executive action also includes the use of a 1952 law allowing a us president to "suspend the entry" of foreigners if their arrival is "detrimental to the interests" of the country. speaking earlier, president biden blamed republicans in congress for refusing to address the situation at the us—mexico border. so today, i'm moving past republican obstruction and using the executive authorities available to me as president to do what i can on my own to address the border. frankly, i would have preferred to address this issue through bipartisan legislation, because that's the only way to actually get the kind of system we have now that's broken fixed — to hire more border patrol agents, more asylum officers, morejudges — but republicans have left me no choice. president biden is referring there to measures that

were reflected in a bipartisan bill that he supported back in may. but the legislation failed after republicans in the senate rejected it, following opposition from former president donald trump. in the wake of mr biden�*s announcement, many republicans are questioning the timing of his actions. now, understand what is going on here — - this is election—year politics. when he signs this executive order, the only question - anyone should ask is, "why didn't you do i this in 2021? why didn't you do this in 2022? why didn't you do this in 2023? why didn't you do this last i month, or the month before, or the month before? " president biden has faced criticism for the record levels of illegal crossings during his administration. since he took office, more than 6.4 million migrants have been stopped trying to cross into the us illegally. the month of may is on track to see the third consecutive drop in unlawful border crossings, according to our us partner cbs news. border patrol is on pace to apprehend between 110—120,000 migrants in may,

down from nearly a quarter of a million in december of 2023. and, while we heard there the republican opposition from senator cruz to the action, there's also been opposition to president biden�*s action from his own party — including from democratic congresswoman from washington, pramila jayapal, whom i spoke to a short while ago. i'm profoundly disappointed, i don't think this is the right action to take for several reasons. first, seeking asylum is something that we have my my take on this is that i'm profoundly disappointed. i don't think this is the right action to take for several reasons. first, seeking asylum is something that we have to allow in order to be in line with our domestic laws, but also in order to be in line with our international treaty obligations. and what the president's

executive order does today is it caps asylum, it limits it only to people so effectively, this is a shutdown of the border. but i will say this enforcement—only approach has never worked. it has never worked under donald trump, it didn't work under donald trump, and it won't work here. because the reality is that people are seeking asylum from terrible situations in their own countries, and people are also coming to the border because all the other legal pathways have not been expanded. a couple of things just to flesh out a little bit there. when you're talking about the us rights under international law about granting asylum to those in need, do you consider that the us will be in breach of its international humanitarian law requirements now? i humanitarian law requirements now? ~ . , now? i think that there will be a constitutional _ now? i think that there will be a constitutional lawsuit - now? i think that there will be a constitutional lawsuit that i a constitutional lawsuit that the aclu with file —— will file, the last i heard earlier

today, in talking to some of my colleagues with the aclu. so that will be on domestic law. but yes, i think we will be in breach of international treaty organisations responsibilities. so how that part proceeds, i don't know. as you may know, when donald trump did this, the aclu filed a lawsuit, and it was declared unconstitutional, what donald trump did. obviously this is a different executive order so things may be different. but i think we are at serious risk of being in violation of our own laws. many ofthe violation of our own laws. many of the communities _ violation of our own laws. many of the communities along - violation of our own laws. many of the communities along the i of the communities along the border will say that something is needed, that they need help. as you mentioned, the same similar part of law was used previously by us president donald trump— do you think president biden is playing politics here, or is this the type of measure that's needed? i think the president is justly

infuriated and frustrated with the republican party, as am i, as are most democrats, as are most americans. because what is true is that donald trump and the extremist republican party have been using immigrants to drive up fear, xenophobia, and because they think they can win elections. just think of the fact that there was a bill that was drafted — i don't think it was drafted — i don't think it was the answer to everything, but it was a bill drafted by the second most conservative republican in the united states senate. and it got bipartisan support, but donald trump said he didn't wanted to pass because he wanted to keep immigration out there is a political issue. if republicans and democrats _ political issue. if republicans and democrats can't - political issue. if republicans and democrats can't work - and democrats can't work together in congress and haven't been able to on immigration reform for decades, what is the president supposed to do when there is general agreement that some sort of is required?

agreement that some sort of is reuuired? ~ , .,, , required? well, the problem is that the action _ required? well, the problem is that the action he'll— required? well, the problem is that the action he'll take - that the action he'll take won't fix the problem. what we need to do is take back the house, keep the white house, keep the senate, get rid of the filibuster, and pass with a simple majority immigration reforms that are desperately needed. and that has to be the playbook for the next congress. but it hasn't worked for decades now — what gives you hope or faith that it will happen in the nearfuture? well, i think the reality is that people have seen this has been used as a political issue, and that the structural changes that we need, whether it's on voting rights, abortion rights, or immigration reform, cannot happen with republicans. these measures are _ happen with republicans. these measures are likely _ happen with republicans. these measures are likely to - happen with republicans. these measures are likely to have - measures are likely to have quite an impact in mexico — what you think it will mean us—mexico relations? we what you think it will mean us-mexico relations? i've asked the white house _ us-mexico relations? i've asked the white house if _ us-mexico relations? i've asked the white house if we _ us-mexico relations? i've asked the white house if we are - the white house if we are working with mexico, because obviously this will be a huge impact on mexico, and we will have to see what mexico says

and does. i do know that not everybody who comes to the border is from mexico, so there will be people who are probably repatriated to their home countries— in my conversations with the white house, that's what they are telling me. so that means the united states would be chartering flights to take people back to their home countries. i'm not sure how practical this is, how possible this is, and i think we are unfortunately just caving to this is, and i think we are unfortunatelyjust caving to an enforcement only, tough, we are going to be tough on immigration. we will never out republican the republicans, and we will lose some of our base. so i think this is not a step to go. so i think this is not a step to no. ~ ., ., to go. we will have to leave the conversation there - to go. we will have to leave the conversation there for. to go. we will have to leave l the conversation there for the moment. but thanks so much for joining us on bbc news.- joining us on bbc news. thank ou ve joining us on bbc news. thank you very much _ joining us on bbc news. thank you very much for _ joining us on bbc news. thank you very much for having - joining us on bbc news. thank you very much for having me. | local politicians and officials that serve areas near the border were there for that announcement, including bexar county sheriff javier salazar.

he said that he generally supports the measure i asked him earlier how policies from different side of the political spectrum affect the political spectrum affect the border. well, i don't know that it's a republican or democrat issue. this is just all of our issue. is this approach the most perfect one i've ever seen? no, clearly not, but i think it's a good start. i know that the president has already faced some criticism from both sides of the aisle — some think it goes too far, some think it doesn't go far enough. i think it's a good first start. i think we should give it a chance to see how it works, then we will build on it from there. the majority of people who do come to the us across the border do so with relative risks to themselves in search of a better life, as you said yourself a little earlier. but the un today has said that seeking asylum is a fundamental human right, and access to asylum for those in need is paramount. do you consider that the us

could be in breach of humanitarian law in this move, or are you concerned about people who are in need, what might happen to them? well, absolutely i'm concerned about people that are in need. i'm first—generation american in my family. we are a country of immigrants. with that being said, we still have to be mindful of who's cominginto the country and for what reasons. i think if you're coming into the country for the right reasons and you just want to contribute to society, and you want to raise your family in an environment that's different from your home country where there's not much opportunity — and in fact, a lot of danger and possibly even death, i think if you're that type of person thatjust wants to come here and contribute, come on in, we should welcome you with open arms and give you every opportunity to realise the american dream. but also, we need to realise that there are people hidden among them unfortunately that

are bad actors. again, i think that this order is a step in the right direction, keeping out the small number that's undesirable and embracing those that are here for the right reasons. after announcing the executive action, president biden spoke with mexican president andras manuel lopez obrador, and the two agreed to continue collaborating on the flow of migrants. indian prime minister narendra modi has secured an historic third term as the country's leader. despite his win the election proved closer than expected. while mr modi's bjp party has won enough seats to form the next government, he will have to rely on coalition parties that don't share his hindu nationalist agenda. the election was seen by many as a referendum on narendra modi's decade in office and opposition groups, led by the congress party, performed better than forecast. claiming victory, here's what the indian leader had to say. translation: today's victory is the biggest in the world. . this is the biggest democracy in the world,

and this is the victory of this democracy. and this is on india's constitution, a very big win. our south asia correspondent yogite limaye sent this report. a widely expected moment and a historic one. it's only the second time that an incumbent prime minister has won a third term. "it is the winner of our commitment to a developed india," mr modi told his supporters. but it isn't the victory he wanted — winning fewer seats than the last election — it will damage the air of invincibility that has surrounded him and the bjp over the past ten years. perhaps the biggest shock came from here where prime minister narendra modi inaugurated a grand hindu temple injanuary at a site that had been disputed

by hindus and muslims. expected to galvanise hindu voters, but the ruling party was defeated here by a large margin. this is how the opposition congress took in the results, with an almost equal fervour. it's rare to see this kind ofjubilation amid the losing side, but that's because over the past ten years the congress party has suffered humiliating election defeats. and what that has resulted in is a party whose confidence was so low that they didn't believe they could actually launch a proper challenge. so this is a celebration for being significantly back in the game. "long live rahul gandhi," supporters chanted the name of the leader, from india's most prominent political dynasty, but whose capabilities

and future were under question. today will mark a point of resurgence. the country has unanimously said they do not like the rule of under modi's country, so that is a huge message to mr narendra modi. it is a bittersweet victory for the bjp. with the numbers they have got they cannot pass laws unilaterally. they will need to take others on board. some will see this as a win for indian democracy. yogita limaye, bbc news, deli. around the world and across the uk, this is bbc news. let's look at another story making the headlines. a newborn baby girl — found abandoned in east london on a freezing cold night

injanuary — is the third child to be left by the same parents. dna tests established that baby elsa is the sibling of a boy and a girl found in very similar circumstances in 2017 and 2019. our correspondent sanchia berg was given permission to report these details by east london family court. the baby boy, harry, was found in plaistow in september 2017, abandoned shortly after he was born. a newborn girl, roman, came 16 months later, injanuary 2019, in a park close to the roman road after which she was named. and elsa, also newborn, was discovered this year, just a few hundred yards away. the three children are safe — adopted or in care. but their mother has not come froward, despite multiple appeals over nearly seven years by the metropolitan police. judge carol atkinson said babies are very rarely

the police said their investigation continues. you're live with bbc news. hunter biden�*s criminal trial is now under way. thejury heard opening statements from both sides. the us president's son is accused of knowingly lying on a form to buy a gun in delaware. the prosecution described hunter biden as a habitual drug user, using audio excerpts from his autobiography where he talked about his constant hunt for drugs. but the defense argued he was in recovery at the time, so wasn't lying when he said on the application he was not a user of illegal drugs.our correspondent tom bateman sent this report from delaware the first opening statement was from federal prosecutor derek hines, and he set out to portray hunter biden as a self—confessed habitual crack cocaine addict who lied in order to purchase a handgun here in wilmington, delaware in 2018. and what the prosecution alleges is that hunter biden

knowingly misled when he declared he wasn't a drug abuser, when the prosecution says he clearly knew at the time that he was. now mr hines stood before the jury and, at the very start of his statement, made a clear reference to the fact that the person they had to hear these allegations about was the son of the us president, mr hines saying that, "no—one is above the law, it doesn't matter who you are or what your name is." now behind hunter biden for the second day, key members of the biden family in the public benches — among them his stepmother, the first lady, jill biden, who was very close to hunter, in terms of sitting about a metre behind him. and the family talking to each other at various points during the proceedings. next up was mr biden�*s lawyer for the defence, abbe lowell, who set out to say that this case was all about what that form actually said.

and the defence's argument is mr biden, at the time, didn't regard himself as a user of drugs and addicted to illegal drugs, because they said he had been in a rehab clinic in california before that period — so when he ticked that box to say he wasn't a drug user, he meant that honestly. and they are asking for the jury, in that sense, to throw out all of these charges. after that, we've been getting into the first witnesses in the case — the first among those, a special agent for the fbi who was put onto the hunter biden investigation last year. further witnesses are due to be called over the course of the next two weeks. the length of this trial is expected to proceed. as for hunter biden, he denies all three felony counts against him. to the uk — and in the biggest night of the general election campaign so far, prime minister rishi sunak and opposition leader sir keir starmer, have gone head to head in their first tv debate. in often—heated exchanges, the labour leader repeatedly

referred to what he called 1a years of chaos under the conservatives, insisting now was the time for change. for his part, incumbent rishi sunak sought to portray a labour government as a risk to britain's economy and security. the two men clashed when asked by a member of the audience what they would do about the cost of living. of course i know everyone is onlyjust starting to feel the benefits of it. but inflation is back to normal, wages are growing, taxes are now being cut. keir starmer would put all that progress at risk, he would put up everyone's taxes by £2,000. keir starmer. paula, ijust don't know how you feel when you hear a prime minister say, having heard what you're going through, that the plan is working, its all all right. i mean, so many people who are struggling with their bills, and the prime minister just keeps saying... he lives in a different world. and on immigration, rishi sunak defended his policy of sending asylum—seekers to rwanda leading to this exchange.

and we will need to take bold action to bring it down, whether that's legal migration, where we will introduce a new legal cap to guarantee that it'll come down every year, or the boats, which you mentioned. we got the numbers down last year by a third, and now we have a deterrent ready to go. migrants have been detained, the flights will go injuly — but only if i'm your prime ministen _ we need to smash the gangs that are running this vile trade, making a huge amount of money, putting some of the most vulnerable people in boats across the channel and making a fortune. the general election will be held on the 11th ofjuly. currently, the opposition labour party is leading in the polls. let's turn to some other important news around the world. white house national security adviserjake sullivan says they are still waiting on a response from hamas on israel's ceasefire proposal that us presidentjoe biden revealed on friday. he also said cia director, bill burns, will be in doha to talk to qatari mediators about the proposal.

the us house of representatives voted to sanction the international criminal court in response to its prosecutor applying for arrest warrants against israeli officials. the bill is not likely to be taken up in the democratic—controlled senate. president biden strongly criticised the ruling by the court, but said monday he opposes sanctions against it. us presidentjoe biden heads to france on tuesday to commemorate the 80th anniversary of d—day and underscore his commitment to european allies. jake sullivan said president biden will meet ukrainian president volodymyr zelensky to discuss the war in russia. during world war ii, troops from the us, canadian, uk, and francejoined forces and attacked german soldiers on the coast of northern france on the 6th ofjune, 19114. it was the largest naval, air,

and land operation attempted, and started the campaign to liberate nazi—occupied land in europe. the white house says the president's remarks on the trip will centre around the dangers of isolationism and the need to stand up to dictators. d—day veterans from the uk have returned to france to join commemorations marking the 80th anniversary of the normandy landings. bbc'sjohn maguier has more. for many of these veterans, their departure from these shores 80 years ago, all as very young men, was their first venture overseas. cheering excitement and a sense of celebration will, in coming days, turn to commemoration. stan ford survived as his ship was sunk by a mini submarine, but many other members of the crew were killed. as you know, john, i have 32 reasons for going back, and those 32 reasons are the 32 guys that never came home. and i made that promise to myself that every

opportunity, i would go back and pay my respects and honour those guys. as they left portsmouth, their modern—day counterparts flew overhead in a royal air force transport plane and stood to attention, saluting on the deck of the aircraft carrier hms prince of wales — respect between the generations. john dennett has been back to normandy before, but never to the british memorial at ver—sur—mer. it was very emotional, and i'm afraid that will probably be a bit emotional when you get there, to see the actual thing. we will rememberthem. as the ferry approached the french coastline, the engine slowed and the veterans paid tribute.

so, a short, poignant, but highly—symbolic ceremony as a wreath was thrown over the side of the ferry. the idea, to pay tribute to those who died before even reaching the french shores, the beaches they had come here to liberate. and so to france — and two full days of ceremonies and commemorations for those who can tell the story of what happened here 80 years ago first—hand. their number may be dwindling, but their commitment today, as it was then, remains immense. john maguire, bbc news, normandy.

you may remember the extraordinary sight a few weeks ago of horses galloping through central london without their riders. they were military working horses, and five were injured after being spooked by construction work. they have now all recovered. three of the horses injured are back on duty, and are likely to take part in the king's birthday the remaining two injured horses, vida and quaker, are "enjoying a summer holiday" in the countryside. that's it for us for the moment. stay with us here on bbc news. hello there. on tuesday, we had a cold front move southwards across the uk. now, after a cloudy and wet start to the day across northern areas, once that cold front had moved its way through, well, the skies brightened up and we had a mixture of sunshine and these big shower clouds. the other thing that the cold front did was what cold fronts do — it's really dumped the temperature. so, for example, in aberdeen, we started on monday at 21 celsius for the highest temperature.

it was just 15 celsius, though, for tuesday. and those temperatures dropping by 5—6 degrees was quite typical as this colder polar air mass worked its way in. that means the air started from a long way to our north. now, at the moment, we have plenty of showers around, particularly near coastal areas in the north—west. otherwise, some lengthy, clear spells. and it's a chilly start to wednesday morning, with temperatures widely down into single figures, the coldest spots probably down to about one in sheltered areas of scotland. that really is cold for a start to a summer's day. despite the chilly start, though, there will be plenty of sunshine. showers from the word go around these north—western areas, particularly near to the coast. but through the day, as those temperatures rise, the showers become really widespread, particularly across the northern half of the uk and especially in scotland, where, again, we're looking at some hail and thunder. it's going to feel quite chilly, particularly in the brisk winds here. but further south, ok, temperatures below average, but in thejune sun, it should probably feel ok but on the fresh side. now, our weather pattern�*s blocked at the moment. this is a blocking pattern

that's out in the jet stream, out in the atlantic to our south—west. what that's doing is it's forcing this north—westerlyjet stream across the uk, and that continues to pull in cold air, particularly to the northern half of the uk. and because we've got a blocking weather pattern, well, that means the weather doesn't change very much from one day to the next. wednesday, we have loads of showers in the forecast across the northern half of the uk. it's the same thing for thursday. again, with those showers coming in across scotland, there'll be quite a few that turn heavy with some hail and thunder, and it will continue to feel quite chilly here. spot the difference, then, for friday. again, loads more showers, particularly affecting scotland, quite a few for northern ireland, northern england. drier weather further south with some sunny spells. and again, we've got those same kind of temperature contrasts — chilly in the north, temperatures fairly close to average in the south, but feeling ok in thejune sun. and guess what? into the weekend, we don't really see a great deal changing with the weather. you'll have to wait till next week for some changes.

this is bbc news. we'll have the headlines for you at the top of the hour, which is straight after this programme. welcome to hardtalk. i'm sarah montague. of the 252 people kidnapped by hamas from israel

on october the 7th last year, 120 are believed to be in gaza, and of those, 39 are presumed to be dead. there are formal negotiations for their release, but there are also informal conversations by individuals and organisations working behind the scenes. my guest today is the hostage negotiator mickey bergman. he's spent much of the last two decades working behind the scenes, helping to negotiate the release of americans kidnapped or detained abroad, either by criminals, political actors or governments. what difference do such fringe diplomats make? are they a help or a hindrance?