Deportation

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares130 Views

      in Elections

      ICE, Shifting Tactics, Detains High School Student at N.Y.C. Courthouse

      by

      The detention of a 20-year-old Venezuelan appears to be the first reported instance of immigration officials apprehending a student in the city this year.When a 20-year-old from Venezuela was arrested last week at an immigration courthouse in New York, it was the first reported instance of a public school student in the city being apprehended by federal officials since the start of President Trump’s second term.It also signaled a shift in strategy by immigration authorities who are intent on expediting deportations.Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers last week began standing inside and outside of immigration courts across the United States in an effort to detain certain migrants who are appearing for scheduled hearings. Immigration lawyers said ICE officers — from San Diego and Los Angeles to Boston and Miami — were targeting migrants shortly after their cases were dismissed by judges. Government lawyers are requesting that the cases be dismissed in order to place the migrants in expedited deportation proceedings.Dylan, the New York student, was arrested on Wednesday in the lobby of a courthouse in Lower Manhattan by ICE officers who showed up at the city’s immigration courts in large numbers. Dylan’s last name was withheld at the request of his family, which fears retaliation from the government.Dylan, 20, was arrested after he showed up to court for what he thought would be a routine hearing.RaizaOn Tuesday, Mayor Eric Adams fended off a barrage of questions about the student’s arrest.Mr. Adams, who oversees a school system serving thousands of immigrant students, sought to distance himself from Dylan’s apprehension, saying that the arrest was a federal issue beyond his purview because it did not happen on school grounds.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares103 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Criticizes Government Inaction in Case of Migrants Held in Djibouti

      by

      Judge Brian E. Murphy had ordered the Trump administration to offer due process to a group of men whom the government was trying to send to South Sudan.A federal judge expressed frustration on Monday night with the government’s failure to give due process to a group of deportees the administration is trying to send to South Sudan but is now holding in Djibouti, as he had mandated last week.“It turns out that having immigration proceedings on another continent is harder and more logistically cumbersome than defendants anticipated,” the judge, Brian E. Murphy of Federal District Court in Massachusetts, wrote in his 17-page order. He added that if giving deportees remote proceedings proved too difficult, the government could still return the men to the United States.Judge Murphy’s earlier order, issued on Wednesday, mandated that six of the eight men be given a “reasonable fear interview,” or a chance to express fear of persecution or torture if they were sent on to South Sudan. At a hearing that day, he found that the government had violated another order that the deportees be given notice in a language they could understand, and at least 15 days to challenge their removal. Instead, the judge found they were given “fewer than 16 hours’ notice.”On Monday night, Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the migrants in the case, confirmed that her team had not been given phone access to them. The Homeland Security Department’s public affairs office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The substance of Judge Murphy’s order was not surprising, as he rejected a motion from the government that he pause one of his earlier orders. But his criticism of the government’s delay in offering due process appeared to reflect his growing frustration in another contentious case in the back-and-forth between the Trump administration and federal courts.The day after Judge Murphy ordered that the migrants remain in U.S. custody, the White House called them “monsters” and the judge “a far-left activist.” Then, on Friday night, Judge Murphy ordered the government to “facilitate” the return from Guatemala of a man known as O.C.G., one of the original plaintiffs in the case.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 188 Shares127 Views

      in Elections

      What to Know About the Deportees the Trump Administration Wants to Send to South Sudan

      by

      Experts say the administration may be trying to shape the behavior of immigrants through fear. The Trump administration is trying to deport a group of eight migrants to South Sudan, a country on the brink of civil war. The men, who are from countries including Vietnam, Cuba and Mexico, are currently believed to be held at an American military base in the East African nation of Djibouti, after a federal judge ordered the administration not to turn them over to the government of South Sudan.U.S. immigration law does, under some circumstances, allow people to be sent to countries that are not their own. But this has been rare under past administrations.The Trump administration is attempting to do something more expansive: potentially sending large groups of people to dangerous places like South Sudan, Libya or a maximum-security prison in El Salvador, with little or no due process, even if their countries of origin are willing to take them back. “The trifecta of being sent to a third country, plus the intended scale, plus the punishment-is-the-point approach — those three things in combination, that feels very new,” said Sarah R. Sherman-Stokes, a professor at Boston University School of Law.The administration’s ultimate goal, experts say, may be to shape the behavior of other immigrants through fear. We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares174 Views

      in Elections

      Mahmoud Khalil Meets Infant Son Before Immigration Hearing

      by

      The activist, who has been detained in Louisiana for two months, was allowed to meet privately with his wife and baby. He is fighting deportation.Mahmoud Khalil met his month-old son for the first time on Thursday morning, hours before an immigration court hearing in which his lawyers will seek to convince a judge that he would be in mortal danger if deported.Trump administration officials were initially reluctant to allow Mr. Khalil, who has been detained in Louisiana for two months, to meet privately with his wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, and the baby, Deen. They said that other detainees were not allowed such visits, and that it would be unsafe to allow Dr. Abdalla and the baby into a secured part of the facility.But after hours of negotiation Wednesday evening the officials relented, paving the way for a family meeting before Mr. Khalil’s immigration hearing Thursday morning.Mr. Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and one of the leading figures in pro-Palestinian protests at the school, was arrested in March and quickly transported to Jena, La. Though he is a legal permanent resident, the Trump administration is seeking to deport him, arguing that his presence in the United States helps spread antisemitism.Students at a Columbia University graduation held photos of Mahmoud Khalil, who had been a student there.Todd Heisler/The New York TimesMr. Khalil’s lawyers have cited instances in which their client has spoken out explicitly against antisemitism; they say his monthslong detention is retaliation for pro-Palestinian speech.Mr. Khalil’s case is playing out in two courtrooms thousands of miles from each other, in Louisiana and Newark.The hearing on Thursday is taking place in immigration court in Jena. The judge there, Jamee Comans, has found that the government has met its burden to deport Mr. Khalil. But Mr. Khalil’s lawyers on Thursday will have a chance to argue that she should nonetheless let him stay, given the danger he might face were he to be deported, likely to Syria or Algeria.“Given the government’s false claims that Mahmoud is antisemitic, and that he is pro-Hamas and that he is a ‘terrorist,’ he is at risk of harm anywhere in the world,” said a lawyer for Mr. Khalil, Johnny Sinodis, at a news conference before the hearing.The lawyers are also seeking to end the proceeding altogether, arguing that Mr. Khalil was arrested without a warrant. In response, administration officials have argued that in March, when Mr. Khalil was arrested, he was attempting to flee, justifying a warrantless arrest. Video footage of the encounter shows no such attempt.Mr. Khalil was the first of several pro-Palestinian protesters to be arrested, setting off concerns about free speech and due process during the second Trump administration.Those concerns are being considered in New Jersey by a federal district judge, Michael E. Farbiarz. While other protesters have been released on bail, Judge Farbiarz has not yet decided whether Mr. Khalil can go free. More

    • 138 Shares110 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Fights to Keep Mahmoud Khalil From Holding His Month-Old Child

      by

      A judge ordered the Trump administration to let Mr. Khalil meet with his wife and infant son before a hearing on his immigration case. It was unclear whether they would be separated by plexiglass.On Wednesday evening, hours before the latest immigration hearing in the case of Mahmoud Khalil, the Trump administration was in the midst of pitched battle to prevent Mr. Khalil from holding his 1-month-old son.Lawyers for Mr. Khalil, a Columbia University graduate who was a leading figure in pro-Palestinian protests on the campus, have been fighting for days to win him what is known as a “contact visit” with his wife and child. Mr. Khalil, who is being detained in Louisiana, has not seen his wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, in person since he was arrested in March, and has never met their son, Deen, who was born on April 21.On Wednesday, a New Jersey judge, Michael E. Farbiarz, ordered the administration to allow Mr. Khalil to hold a single joint meeting with his wife and his lawyers. But it was unclear whether the judge’s order would permit Mr. Khalil to meet his son, given Trump officials’ reluctance to allow such a visit.“Granting Khalil this relief of family visitation would effectively grant him a privilege that no other detainee receives,” Justice Department officials wrote in a court filing on Wednesday. “Allowing Dr. Abdalla and a newborn to attend a legal meeting would turn a legal visitation into a family one.”Their filing also included an affidavit from Brian Acuna, the acting director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office in New Orleans.“Because the facility does not house female detainees or minors, it is unsafe to allow Mr. Khalil’s wife and newborn child into a secured part of the facility,” Mr. Acuna wrote, adding that a contact visit had “never been offered to any other detainee.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares178 Views

      in Elections

      Official Pushed to Rewrite Intelligence So It Could Not Be ‘Used Against’ Trump

      by

      An assessment contradicted a presidential proclamation. A political appointee demanded a redo, then pushed for changes to the new analysis, too.New emails document how a top aide to Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, ordered analysts to edit an assessment with the hope of insulating President Trump and Ms. Gabbard from being attacked for the administration’s claim that Venezuela’s government controls a criminal gang.“We need to do some rewriting” and more analytic work “so this document is not used against the DNI or POTUS,” Joe Kent, the chief of staff to Ms. Gabbard, wrote in an email to a group of intelligence officials on April 3, using shorthand for Ms. Gabbard’s position and for the president of the United States.The New York Times reported last week that Mr. Kent had pushed analysts to redo their assessment, dated Feb. 26, of the relationship between Venezuela’s government and the gang, Tren de Aragua, after it came to light that the assessment contradicted a subsequent claim by Mr. Trump. The disclosure of the precise language of Mr. Kent’s emails has added to the emerging picture of a politicized intervention.The final memo, which is dated April 7 and has since become public, still contradicts a key claim that Mr. Trump made to justify sending people accused of being members of the gang to a notorious Salvadoran prison without due process.Emails on the topic from Mr. Kent, who is also Mr. Trump’s pending nominee to lead the National Counterterrorism Center, have circulated within the intelligence community and were described by people briefed on them. Mr. Kent’s interventions have raised internal alarms about politicizing intelligence analysis.Defenders of Mr. Kent have disputed that his attempted intervention was part of a pressure campaign, arguing he was trying to show more of what the intelligence community knew about the gang.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares167 Views

      in Elections

      Federal Courts Buck Trump Deportation Schemes, Focusing on Due Process Rights

      by

      The Trump administration’s aggressive push to deport migrants has run up against resistance from the judiciary.If there has been a common theme in the federal courts’ response to the fallout from President Trump’s aggressive deportation policies, it is that the White House cannot rush headlong into expelling people by sidestepping the fundamental principle of due process.In case after case, a legal bottom line is emerging: Immigrants should at least be given the opportunity to challenge their deportations, especially as Trump officials have claimed novel and extraordinary powers to remove them.The latest and clearest expression of that view came on Friday evening, when the Supreme Court chided the Trump administration for seeking to provide only a day’s warning to a group of Venezuelan immigrants in Texas it had been trying to deport under the expansive powers of an 18th-century wartime law.“Notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal,” the justices wrote, “surely does not pass muster.”While many questions remain to be answered about Mr. Trump’s deportation plans, many legal scholars have hailed courts’ support of due process. At the same time, they have also expressed concern that such support was needed in the first place.“It’s great that courts are standing up for one of the most basic principles that underlie our constitutional order — that ‘persons’ (not ‘citizens’) are entitled to due process before being deprived of life, liberty, or property,” Michael Klarman, a professor at Harvard Law School, wrote in an email. “It would be even better if the administration would simply cease violating such principles.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Afrikaner Granted Refugee Status by Trump Is Linked to Antisemitic Posts

      by

      The Trump administration has tried to deport foreign-born protesters for what it calls antisemitic speech. On Monday, the administration resettled an Afrikaner who had a track record of it.One of the first white South African refugees to arrive in the United States on Monday appears to have made antisemitic comments on social media — grounds the Trump administration has tried to use to deport foreign-born pro-Palestinian activists and deny immigration requests.The refugee, Charl Kleinhaus, 46, formerly of Limpopo, South Africa, landed in Washington on a chartered jet on Monday with dozens of other Afrikaners, the white ethnic minority that ruled during apartheid. They were given safe haven in the United States by an administration that has made it virtually impossible for any other group to become refugees, including Afghans who helped American forces in their country.“We just packed our bags and left,” Mr. Kleinhaus said after landing, for “safety reasons.”White South Africans say they have been discriminated against, including being denied job opportunities and suffering racial violence, though the specifics of the refugees’ cases are unclear. Mr. Kleinhaus and his family traveled onward from Washington to Buffalo, N.Y.In April 2023, the X account @charlkleinhaus wrote in a now-deleted post that Jews were “untrustworthy” and “a dangerous group” and that “they are not Gods chosen.”The bio in the account sharing Mr. Kleinhaus’s name says it belongs to an Afrikaner. The account also reshared posts praising President Trump and calling for the beating of a U.S. citizen. It also shared a mix of pro- and anti-Israel posts.In October 2023, the account shared a video of Christian worshipers clashing with Israeli police that had been posted on a Facebook account called “Israel is a terrorist state.” @charlkleinhaus captioned the video “Jews attacking Christians!”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More