Illegal Immigration

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Wavers When Asked About Due Process Rights and His Constitutional Duties

      by

      President Trump repeatedly answered “I don’t know” when asked in a TV interview whether every person on American soil was entitled to due process, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.President Trump said in an interview that aired on Sunday that he did not know whether every person on American soil was entitled to due process, despite constitutional guarantees, and complained that adhering to that principle would result in an unmanageable slowdown of his mass deportation program.The revealing exchange, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” was prompted by the interviewer Kristen Welker asking Mr. Trump if he agreed with Secretary of State Marco Rubio that citizens and noncitizens in the United States were entitled to due process.“I don’t know,” Mr. Trump replied. “I’m not, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know.”Ms. Welker reminded the president that the Fifth Amendment says as much.“I don’t know,” Mr. Trump said again. “It seems — it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or two million or three million trials.” Left unmentioned was how anyone could be sure these people were undocumented immigrants, let alone criminals, without hearings.Mr. Trump responded “I don’t know” one more time and referred to his “brilliant lawyers” when Ms. Welker asked whether, as president, he needed to “uphold the Constitution of the United States.”The comments came amid the many legal challenges to the administration’s agenda, especially Mr. Trump’s aggressive deportation campaign, and as top administration officials have begun to question the president’s obligation to provide due process. Mr. Trump has attacked judges, called for their impeachment and ignored a Supreme Court ruling directing his administration to facilitate the return of a migrant, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly sent to a prison for terrorists in El Salvador.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

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Administration Sues Colorado and Denver Over Immigration Policies

      by

      The lawsuit, which names the governor and mayor as defendants, is the latest move by the White House to try to get local governments to cooperate more with its immigration agenda.The Trump administration sued Colorado and Denver on Friday, accusing the state, city and their leaders of impeding federal immigration actions, the latest salvo in the White House’s fight to compel local governments to help carry out deportations.The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Colorado and includes Gov. Jared Polis and Mayor Mike Johnston of Denver as defendants, specifically challenges state and city laws that restrict or prohibit cooperation with federal agencies.One state law prohibits officers from holding someone solely on the basis of a civil immigration detainer, a request that a detainee not be released. Other state laws prevent state and local officials from sharing information with federal immigration authorities and stop local jails from working with the federal government to house people detained for civil immigration violations.The lawsuit also challenges a Denver measure that bans the use of city resources to assist with immigration enforcement, and a 2017 executive order from the mayor that aimed to “establish Denver as a safe and welcoming city for all.”The lawsuit asks the court to rule the laws unconstitutional and prohibit their enforcement.“This is a suit to put an end to those disastrous policies and restore the supremacy of federal immigration law,” the lawsuit said.Many liberal-leaning states and cities have laws that keep local police departments mostly removed from immigration enforcement activity, as a way to build trust with immigrant communities. Democratic officials in several cities say that the policies help immigrants feel comfortable reporting crimes and interacting with health departments and schools.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

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      In Texas Borderland, Trump’s Immigration Push Suffers Its Worst Legal Defeat Yet

      by

      Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. is a Trump nominee with conservative credentials. But he found White House claims about a Venezuelan gang “invasion” went too far.Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., a bespectacled, soft-spoken 56-year-old nominated by President Trump, turned his high-backed leather chair toward a government lawyer at the federal courthouse in Brownsville, Texas, and asked a question. Can the president define what counts as an invasion, then declare that an invasion is happening, and then use a 1798 war powers law to expel the so-called invaders?“Yes,” answered Michael Velchik, a Justice Department lawyer.Judge Rodriguez followed up: Wouldn’t that make Mr. Trump’s powers under the wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, “effectively limitless?”The question hinted at a groundbreaking ruling that Judge Rodriguez issued on Thursday when he found that Mr. Trump was wrong to claim that the activities of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang in the United States, amounted to an “invasion” that justified invoking the wartime law.The decision was the most sweeping ruling issued so far by a federal judge blocking the most aggressive prong of Mr. Trump’s effort, one that was already used to deport nearly 140 Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador on March 15. It comes after a Supreme Court decision in early April that Venezuelan detainees facing potential deportation under the Alien Enemies Act could file lawsuits in the district courts where they were being held.Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. during his Senate confirmation hearing in 2017.C-SPANThe result of the court’s order has been that challenges to a key piece of Mr. Trump’s immigration agenda, which began in Washington, are spreading around the country, filling the dockets of federal judges and drawing tough and skeptical questioning — even from jurists with impeccable conservative credentials.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

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Behind Trump’s Deal to Deport Venezuelans to El Salvador’s Most Feared Prison

      by

      As they addressed reporters inside the Oval Office in mid-April, President Trump and his Salvadoran counterpart appeared to be operating in lock step.The United States had just deported more than 200 migrants to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador, and President Nayib Bukele said his country was eager to take more. He scoffed at a question from a reporter about whether he would release one of the men who a federal judge said had been mistakenly deported.“I mean, we’re not very fond of releasing terrorists into our country,” Mr. Bukele said.But weeks earlier, when the three planes of deportees landed, it was the Salvadoran president who had quietly expressed concerns.As part of the agreement with the Trump administration, Mr. Bukele had agreed to house only what he called “convicted criminals” in the prison. However, many of the Venezuelan men labeled gang members and terrorists by the U.S. government had not been tried in court.Mr. Bukele wanted assurances from the United States that each of those locked up in the prison were members of Tren de Aragua, the transnational gang with roots in Venezuela, according to people familiar with the situation and documents obtained by The New York Times.The matter was urgent, a senior U.S. official warned his colleagues shortly after the deportations, kicking off a scramble to get the Salvadorans whatever evidence they could.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

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      ICE Agents Arrest Migrant Who Climbed Tree to Evade Them

      by

      The hourslong standoff ended when the man, a 29-year-old Guatemalan, surrendered to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in San Antonio.After a roughly eight-hour standoff, ICE agents arrested a man identified as Raul Ical, a 29-year-old from Guatemala. A neighbor urged him not to come down, and an activist told him to not sign anything.Edgar Sandoval/The New York TimesU.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in San Antonio arrested a man said to be an undocumented immigrant after a roughly eight-hour standoff that unfolded on Tuesday in a backyard where he tried to evade arrest by climbing a tree.The man, who immigration officials identified as Raul Ical, a 29-year-old from Guatemala, attracted a large crowd of residents and journalists.“You don’t have to sign anything,” yelled Jose Montoya, an activist with the Party for Socialism and Liberation, a local advocacy group, as Mr. Ical climbed down a ladder that federal agents had placed in the backyard.When Mr. Ical surrendered, looking defeated, he was quickly handcuffed by agents.Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, said the episode was part of the Trump administration’s efforts to combat illegal immigration.“You can run, but you can’t hide,” she said in a statement. “Whether in a tree or harbored in an activist judge’s house, if you are here illegally, ICE will find you, arrest you and you will be deported.”ICE said that deportation officers in San Antonio and state police tried to serve Mr. Ical what the agency described as a “criminal warrant” on Tuesday morning before he left his vehicle and fled on foot. He ran into a backyard and climbed a tree, where he remained for hours, the authorities said.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

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Temporarily Blocks Border Patrol’s Stop-and-Arrest Tactics in California

      by

      Border Patrol agents carried out sweeps in California’s Central Valley. Lawyers argued that people were stopped and arrested based on their skin color.In January, Border Patrol agents conducted sweeps through immigrant communities in California’s Central Valley, arresting nearly 80 individuals the agency said were unlawfully present in the United States.Officials said the operation, named “Return to Sender,” was intended to target undocumented immigrants with serious criminal backgrounds. But lawyers for those arrested argued that the agents had simply rounded up people who appeared to be day laborers and farm workers, regardless of their actual immigration status, without having a legally sound reason to suspect they were in the country illegally.On Tuesday, a federal judge in California issued a preliminary injunction barring Border Patrol agents from stopping individuals without having a reasonable suspicion of illegal presence, as required by the Fourth Amendment.The judge also blocked agents from making warrantless arrests unless they have probable cause to believe the person is likely to flee before a warrant can be obtained.The Trump administration has adopted increasingly aggressive tactics in pursuit of its goal of mass deportations, but has faced pushback from the judiciary. The California ruling marks the latest attempt by courts to rein in enforcement actions that appear to conflict with long-established constitutional and legal protections.Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California noted in her ruling that the government did not “dispute or rebut” the “significant anecdotal evidence” from the plaintiffs regarding Border Patrol’s stop-and-arrest practices.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

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      How California Sanctuary Policies Are Faring Under Pressure From Trump

      by

      State and city officials in California are vowing to uphold protections for immigrants, even as President Trump threatens more action against their jurisdictions.In 1971, Berkeley, Calif., became the first place in the nation to deem itself a sanctuary city, at the time to provide refuge for sailors who protested the Vietnam War.Today, at least 25 cities and counties in California have declared themselves sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants by passing laws that limit how much they will cooperate with federal efforts to deport people.Those policies could soon make California a greater target for the Trump administration as federal officials try to punish governments with sanctuary policies.President Trump is expected to sign an executive order on Monday night directing federal officials to publish a list of all jurisdictions that have declared themselves sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants in the United States. It is unclear how Mr. Trump intends to use the list, but it is possible that he may try to cut funding or take legal action against the governments that are identified.California has long been home to more undocumented immigrants than any other state and currently has about 1.8 million undocumented residents, according to the Pew Research Center. Amid threats of mass deportations during Mr. Trump’s first term, California declared itself a sanctuary state in 2017.Here is how local policies in California are playing out during the second Trump administration:What does it mean to be a sanctuary?Oakland, Sacramento and San Diego are among the California cities that have declared themselves “sanctuaries” for undocumented immigrants.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

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      What to Know About the 3 U.S. Citizen Children Removed to Honduras

      by

      Lawyers say the families wanted the children to remain in the United States. The Trump administration says the mothers requested the children’s removal. The dispute has constitutional stakes.The removal of three children with U.S. citizenship with their families to Honduras last week has prompted alarm that President Trump’s strict immigration enforcement may have crossed “illegal and unconstitutional” lines, as a federal judge in one of the cases put it.Lawyers for the two families involved said the mothers were not given an option to leave their children in the United States before they were deported. But Mr. Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, said the mothers requested the children’s removal.The cases have added to growing concerns that the Trump administration may be violating the Constitution in its increasingly stringent crackdown on immigration, including removing U.S. citizens, a desire that Mr. Trump has expressed in the past but that legal experts say runs against longstanding prohibitions.Here is a look at the cases and what is at stake.What happened?Three children who are U.S. citizens were removed to Honduras last week as part of the deportation of other members of their families.Two of the children, ages 4 and 7, belong to one Honduran family. The mother of those children had an outstanding deportation order and had shown up to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement check-in on Thursday, said Gracie Willis, the raids response coordinator with the National Immigration Project, who is helping the family’s immigration lawyer with the case.The 4-year-old, Ms. Willis said, has cancer. The mother had shown up to the check-in with a lawyer but was quickly thrust into the deportation process. Her lawyer had no meaningful chance to try to stop the deportation in court, Ms. Willis said.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