Illegal Immigration

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Appeals Court Keeps Block on Texas Migrant Law

      by

      The decision in favor of the federal government left in place a trial court injunction while courts determine whether the measure is legal. A federal appeals court late Tuesday ruled against Texas in its bitter clash with the federal government, deciding that a law allowing the state to arrest and deport migrants could not be implemented while the courts wrestled with the question of whether it is legal.A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which has a reputation for conservative rulings, sided in its 2-to-1 decision with lawyers for the Biden administration who have argued that the law violates the U.S. Constitution and decades of legal precedent.The panel’s 50-page majority opinion left in place an injunction imposed last month by a lower court in Austin, which found that the federal government was likely to succeed in its arguments against the law. The opinion was written by the Fifth Circuit’s chief judge, Priscilla Richman, a nominee of President George W. Bush, and was joined by Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, who was nominated to the bench by President Biden last year.Judge Richman found that Texas’ law conflicted with federal law and with Supreme Court precedent, particularly a 2012 immigration case, Arizona v. United States.“For nearly 150 years, the Supreme Court has held that the power to control immigration — the entry, admission and removal of noncitizens — is exclusively a federal power,” she wrote. “Texas has not shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits,” she said after discussing how various arguments made by the state fell short.It was a setback for Gov. Greg Abbott but not an unexpected one: The governor has said that he anticipated the fight over the law’s constitutionality to eventually reach the Supreme Court. Mr. Abbott has said the law, which allows the state to arrest and deport migrants on its own, is necessary to deal with the record number of migrants crossing into Texas from Mexico. 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 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      A Sweeping New Immigration Law Takes Effect in Texas

      by

      There was no immediate response along the border after the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Texas police to arrest and deport migrants. Officials have not said when enforcement would begin.The most aggressive state-level immigration law in the nation went into effect in Texas on Tuesday after the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily sided with Gov. Greg Abbott in his increasingly bitter confrontation with the Biden administration over border policy.The law makes it a crime for migrants to enter Texas from Mexico without authorization, and creates a process for state courts to order migrants charged with violating the law to return to Mexico, no matter their national origin.The high court ruled that the law could temporarily go into effect while a federal appeals court further considers whether to override a lower-court ruling that found the Texas measure unconstitutional on a variety of grounds.“Huge win,” Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, said in a statement. Mr. Abbott, the governor, sounded a slightly more cautious note about the Supreme Court’s decision, describing it as “a positive development.”The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said that it would hold oral arguments Wednesday morning on whether the lower-court injunction blocking the law should be allowed to stay in effect while the full appeal is underway.The sudden clearance for the law to go into effect appeared to catch Texas officials off guard. As of Tuesday evening, no date had been set for enforcement to begin. Two state officials said that the timing was still being discussed and that arrests could begin within days.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 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Texas’ Immigration Crackdown Recalls Arizona’s Divisive ‘Show Me Your Papers’ Law

      by

      The Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday allowing Texas to arrest and deport migrants resonated deeply in Arizona, which passed its own divisive crackdown against illegal immigration more than a decade ago.Arizona’s effort, which became known as the “show me your papers” law, set off a torrent of fear and anger after it passed in 2010 and jolted the state’s politics in ways that are still reverberating — offering a lesson of what could lie ahead for Texas.The law required immigrants to carry immigration documents, and empowered police and sheriffs’ agencies to investigate and detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. It made undocumented immigrants fearful to drive or leave their homes. It sparked boycotts and angry protests. A political backlash removed the law’s Republican architect from office. Legal challenges gutted major provisions of the law.The measure also galvanized a new generation of Latino activists to organize, register voters and run for office, seeding a political movement that has helped to elect Democrats across Arizona and transform a once-reliable Republican state into a purple political battleground.“It made me realize where I stand in the United States, where my parents stand,” said Valeria Garcia, 21, an undocumented activist who was brought to Arizona from Mexico when she was 4 years old and is now majoring in political science and border studies at Arizona State University. “That was a political awakening.”Immigration lawyers and immigrant children who grew up under the law, Senate Bill 1070, said it carved pervasive fear and uncertainty into Latino communities across Arizona. Some families hurriedly left the state. Some stopped going to work.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

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Mexico Condemns Texas Law, and Says It Will Not Accept Deportations From the State

      by

      Mexico will not accept deportations made by Texas “under any circumstances,” the country’s foreign ministry said on Tuesday in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to allow Texas to arrest migrants who cross into the state without authorization.The ministry condemned the state law, known as Senate Bill 4, saying it would separate families, violate the human rights of migrants and generate “hostile environments” for the more than 10 million people of Mexican origin living in Texas.Mexico’s top diplomat for North America, Roberto Velasco Álvarez, rejected the ruling on the social media on Tuesday, saying that immigration policy was something to be negotiated between federal governments.The Mexican government has severely criticized the measure since last year, and rejected the idea of local or state agencies, rather than federal authorities, detaining and returning migrants and asylum seekers to Mexican territory.“Texas has taken a very combative stance,” said Rafael Fernández de Castro, director of the Center for U.S.-Mexican studies at the University of California, San Diego. “It’s only aggravating the problem because you violently close one part of the border, but others are still open.”A senior Mexican foreign ministry official who was not allowed to speak publicly said that the Supreme Court ruling would not affect existing migration agreements between the two countries.While Mexico has served as the United States’ immigration enforcer, often discouraging migrants from massing at the border, the country has also publicly pushed for two key policies to address the root causes that force people out of their home countries — such as poverty, violence, inequality and climate change — and expand regular pathways for migration.Last week, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico said his administration was proposing that the Biden administration give legal status to at least five million undocumented Mexicans living and working in the United States.He has also called on the United States to suspend sanctions against Venezuela and lift the blockade against Cuba, saying that such measures would reduce migration flows from those countries. And he has called proposals to build walls or close the border as “electoral propaganda.”“Do you think the Americans and Mexicans will approve of this?” Mr. López Obrador said last month. “Companies cannot stand it. Maybe for a day, but not for a week.” More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Expresses Regret for Calling an Undocumented Immigrant ‘an Illegal’

      by

      President Biden expressed regret on Saturday for using the word “illegal” to describe an undocumented immigrant who has been charged in the killing of a 22-year-old nursing student in Georgia, agreeing with his progressive critics that it was an inappropriate term.Mr. Biden used the word during an unscripted colloquy with Republicans during his State of the Union address on Thursday night, and then came under fire from immigration supporters who consider the term dehumanizing. Among those who said he should not have used it were several congressional Democrats.“I shouldn’t have used ‘illegal’; it’s ‘undocumented,’” Mr. Biden said on Saturday in an interview with Jonathan Capehart on MSNBC, during which he addressed his disagreements with former President Donald J. Trump.“And look, when I spoke about the difference between Trump and me, one of the things I talked about in the border was his, the way he talks about ‘vermin,’ the way he talks about these people ‘polluting the blood,’ ” he said, adding, “I talked about what I’m not going to do. What I won’t do. I’m not going to treat any, any, any of these people with disrespect.”He continued: “Look, they built the country. The reason our economy is growing. We have to control the border and more orderly flow, but I don’t share his view at all.”Mr. Capehart asked if that meant he regretted using the word “illegal.”“Yes,” Mr. Biden answered.The president’s reply went further than when he was first asked about the matter by reporters on Friday. He did not explicitly take back the term at that point, noting that the immigrant charged in the murder in Georgia was “technically not supposed to be here.”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

    • 63 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Read the Federal Judge’s Ruling

      by

      Case 6:23-cv-00007 Document 305 Filed on 03/08/24 in TXSD Page 14 of 31

      to emergency medical conditions, including childbirth and labor, to aliens living in the United States. (Id. at 51-52).

      44. In May 2023, HHSC estimated expenditures for Emergency Medicaid services provided to CHNV nationals. The expenditure calculations reflect the sum of paid amounts on Emergency Medicaid claims for services to individuals with a country of origin listed as one of those four countries, regardless of immigration status. The expenditure calculations are as follows: $207,000 in 2019; $141,000 in 2020; $123,000 in 2021; $178,000 in 2022; and $30,000 in 2023 (as of May 5, 2023). (Id. at 52).

      45. CHIP Perinatal provides prenatal care to certain low-income women who do not otherwise qualify for Medicaid. (Id. at 53).

      46. In May 2023, HHSC estimated the cost of Texas CHIP Perinatal services provided to aliens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. The total estimated cost to Texas for these services was approximately $28,000 in 2019; $37,000 in 2020; $64,000 in 2021; $80,000 in 2022; and $51,000 in 2023 (as of May 5, 2023). (Id. at 54). Further, since October 1, 2022, Texas paid an estimate of $47,500 in services for aliens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. (Id.).

      47. While these figures are estimates, the Court finds that through these two programs, Texas will inevitably expend some health care resources on CHNV nationals who enter the United States under the Parole Program.

      2.

      An Increase in CHNV Nationals Entering Texas Would Impose Incarceration Costs on the State.

      48.

      According to a 2022 figure, the average cost of incarcerating an inmate who qualifies for reimbursement under the federal government’s State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (“SCAAP”) in Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”) facilities is $77.49 per day. (Dkt. No. 263 at 35).

      49. From July 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, TDCJ incarcerated 7,058 eligible inmates for a total of 1,984,597 days. Using the 2022 per-day figure, the estimated cost of incarcerating these inmates for that period was $153,786,422. (Id.).

      50. Of that amount, SCAAP reimbursed only $17,364,520. Thus, Texas paid approximately $68.74 per day per criminal alien incarcerated in TDCJ facilities. (Id.).

      51. Texas, via TDCJ, also incurs costs to keep aliens in custody or add them to mandatory parole or supervision programs when those aliens are not detained or removed by federal immigration authorities. (Id. at 36). For example, in Fiscal Year 2022, the average per-day cost of these programs for each inmate not detained or removed is $4.69, which would mean total costs of $9,307,760, based on the most recently completed SCAAP application. (Id. at 36).

      14 More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Address Showed Biden Seeking Tricky Balance on Immigration

      by

      The president used his State of the Union speech to try to demonstrate that he could be tough on the border without demonizing immigrants.Confronting the fraught politics of immigration, President Biden wants to focus attention on the decision by Republicans in Congress, egged on by former President Donald J. Trump, to block a bipartisan deal that would provide an infusion of money for border security and allow the president to close off the border to asylum seekers.On the defensive, Republicans have escalated their longstanding effort to tie migrants to heinous crimes.Both strategies were on full display on Thursday night as Mr. Biden delivered his State of the Union address. He made his case that it is Republicans who are now responsible for the problems at the border, while Republicans portrayed his policies as responsible for the death of Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student from Georgia who was killed in February, allegedly by a Venezuelan migrant.The dynamic has Mr. Biden, who heading into the general election campaign has signaled a harder line on immigration, walking a careful path, as his clash with Republicans on Thursday night demonstrated. He at once promised to bring back “order” at the border while also vowing not to assail migrants in the manner of Mr. Trump and his allies.“I will not demonize immigrants saying they are poison in the blood of our country,” Mr. Biden said in his address before a joint session of Congress, referring to statements by Mr. Trump that have echoes of white supremacy.“Unlike my predecessor, I know who we are as Americans, and we’re the only nation in the world with the heart and soul that draws from old and new,” Mr. Biden said. “Home to Native Americans whose ancestors have been here for thousands of years, home to people from every place on Earth.”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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Donald Trump, Seeking Cash Infusion, Meets With Elon Musk

      by

      It’s not clear whether Mr. Musk will spend any of his billions on the former president’s behalf. If he does, he could erase Mr. Trump’s financial disadvantage in the 2024 race.Donald Trump, who is urgently seeking a cash infusion to aid his presidential campaign, met on Sunday in Palm Beach, Fla., with Elon Musk, one of the world’s richest men, and a few wealthy Republican donors, according to three people briefed on the meeting who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private discussion.Mr. Trump and his team are working to find additional major donors to shore up his finances as he heads into an expected general election against President Biden. Mr. Trump has praised Mr. Musk to allies and hopes to have a one-on-one meeting with the billionaire soon, according to a person who has discussed the matter with Mr. Trump.It’s not yet clear whether Mr. Musk plans to spend any of his fortune on Mr. Trump’s behalf. But his recent social media posts suggest he thinks it’s essential that Mr. Biden be defeated in November — and people who have spoken to Mr. Musk privately confirmed that is indeed his view.With a net worth of around $200 billion, according to Forbes, Mr. Musk could decide to throw his weight behind Mr. Trump and potentially, almost single-handedly, erase what is expected to be Mr. Biden and his allies’ huge financial advantage over the former president.Aides to Mr. Trump did not respond to a request for comment. Mr. Musk did not respond to requests for comment.Mr. Musk has long portrayed himself as independent-minded, and like many business leaders he has donated to candidates from both parties over the years. Unlike other U.S. billionaires, he has not spent heavily on a presidential election, and his donations have been fairly evenly split over the years between Democrats and Republicans. Mr. Musk’s businesses, Tesla and SpaceX, have benefited from federal government contracts and subsidies.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