More stories

  • in

    Trump administration seeks to end bond hearings for immigrants without legal status

    The Trump administration is reportedly seeking to bar millions of immigrants who allegedly arrived in the US without legal status from receiving a bond hearing as they try to fight their deportations in court.The new policy would apply during removal proceedings, which can take years, for millions of immigrants who entered the country from Mexico in recent decades, according to a report from the Washington Post, which reviewed documents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice).Such immigrants had previously been allowed to request a bond hearing before an immigration judge, but Todd Lyons, Ice’s acting director, stated in a memo reviewed by the Post that the homeland security and justice departments had “revisited [their] legal position on detention and release authorities”. The departments determined that such immigrants “may not be released from Ice custody”, Lyons reportedly wrote in the memo.That new restriction, which is expected to face legal challenges, was issued on 8 July shortly after the Republican-controlled Congress provided Ice $45bn over the next four years to detain immigrants for civil deportation proceedings.“To be clear, [Ice’s] position here is laughable and is being rejected by immigration judges all over the US, and will soon be dismissed by actual federal court judges in habeas proceedings,” Charles Kuck, an immigration attorney and Emory University law professor, wrote on X in a post that alluded to challenges against one’s detention.In response to the Guardian’s request for comment on the reported new policy, an Ice spokesperson said: “The recent guidance closes a loophole to our nation’s security based on an inaccurate interpretation of the statute. It is aligned with the nation’s longstanding immigration law. All aliens seeking to enter our country in an unlawful manner or for illicit purposes shall be treated equally under the law, while still receiving due process.”The policy change would mark the latest significant departure for Ice, which during Joe Biden’s presidency provided a guide on how immigrants who are detained can post bond.“Judges see a lot of people every day,” the guide stated. “You can make your testimony stand out by speaking sincerely. Think about a story that will show the judge how much your family needs you. Explain to the judge why your detention hurts your family very much.“We hope that this guide provides you with helpful information when preparing for your bond hearing. We wish you the best of luck with your case!”The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for reducing immigration, defended the new reported policy.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Detention is absolutely the best way to approach this, if you can do it,” Mark Krikorian, executive director for the Center for Immigration Studies, told the Post. “It costs a lot of money, obviously.“You’re pretty much guaranteed to be able to remove the person, if there’s a negative finding, if … [they’re] in detention.”The Trump administration had already worked to limit which immigrants can post bond. Previously, people arrested after they had entered the US and placed in regular removal proceedings were eligible for a bond hearing, according to the National Immigration Project, a non-profit whose attorneys have defended immigrants facing deportation.But in May, the federal Board of Immigration Appeals issued a ruling stating that such people were subject to mandatory detention, meaning that Ice could jail them during removal proceedings and not provide them an opportunity to appear before an immigration judge and get a bond set. More

  • in

    US court blocks Trump administration from revoking Afghans’ protected status

    A US appeals court has for now blocked the Trump administration from removing the temporary protective status of thousands of Afghans in the United States, court documents showed on Monday.An administrative stay on the termination of temporary protected status for Afghans will remain until 21 July, the US court of appeals for the fourth circuit said in an order granting a request from immigration advocacy organization Casa.The group had filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Homeland Security to challenge the terminations of the temporary protected status for Afghans and Cameroonians announced by the Trump administration in April.Casa had filed for an emergency motion for a stay on Monday, when the protected status for Afghans was scheduled to be terminated. The protected status for Cameroonians is set to end on 4 August, according to the court document.The DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In April when the Trump administration terminated temporary deportation protections for thousands of Afghans and Cameroonians, the department had said conditions in Afghanistan and Cameroon no longer merited the protected status.The Trump administration has until 1159pm ET on Wednesday to respond.The US evacuated more than 82,000 Afghans from Afghanistan after Taliban’s takeover in 2021, including more than 70,000 who entered the US with temporary “parole”, which allowed legal entry for a period of two years. More

  • in

    Mahmoud Khalil files $20m claim against Trump administration for false imprisonment

    Lawyers for Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate and Palestinian activist who was detained by the Trump administration for months, have filed a claim for $20m in damages against the administration, alleging Khalil was falsely imprisoned, maliciously prosecuted and smeared as an antisemite as the government sought to deport him over his prominent role in campus protests.The filing – a precursor to a lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act – names the Department of Homeland Security, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the state department.Khalil, 30, was released from US immigration detention last month after having been held for more than three months over his activism against Israel’s war on Gaza. He has become the most high-profile of the students who have been arrested by the Trump administration for their pro-Palestinian activism.Upon his release, Khalil told reporters: “Although justice prevailed, it’s very long overdue and this shouldn’t have taken three months. I leave some incredible men behind me, over 1,000 people behind me, in a place where they shouldn’t have been.”Asked by the Guardian to respond to allegations made by the Trump administration, which has fought for months to keep him detained, that his pro-Palestinian organizing constituted a national security threat, he said:“Trump and his administration, they chose the wrong person for this. That doesn’t mean there is a right person for this. There is no right person who should be detained for actually protesting a genocide.”Khalil told reporters he was looking forward to returning home to spend time with his infant son, who was born while he was detained. “I can actually hug him,” Khalil said.Khalil’s arrest was widely decried as a dangerous escalation in the Trump administration’s campaign against speech protected by the US constitution’s first amendment. Khalil has not been charged with a crime, and his deportation case is still continuing in immigration court.Trump administration officials had accused Khalil of antisemitism and of pro-Hamas advocacy, although they didn’t provide evidence at any point during his arrest or detention.In an emailed statement to the Associated Press, Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, called Khalil’s claim for $20m “absurd”, and accused him of “hateful behavior and rhetoric” that threatened Jewish students.Khalil told the AP that the goal of his legal claim is to send a message that he will not be intimidated into silence.“They are abusing their power because they think they are untouchable,” Khalil said. “Unless they feel there is some sort of accountability, it will continue to go unchecked.”Khalil said he plans to share any settlement money with others targeted in Trump’s “failed” effort to suppress pro-Palestinian speech. In lieu of a settlement, he would also accept an official apology and changes to the administration’s deportation policies. More

  • in

    DoJ whistleblower provides emails backing claim Emil Bove defied courts over deportations

    Erez Reuveni, a former justice department attorney who was dismissed from his post, has provided text messages to the Senate judiciary committee supporting his whistleblower complaint involving Emil Bove, a top department official who is currently being considered for a seat on the federal bench.Reuveni’s initial complaint, filed last month, included the explosive allegation that Bove had told justice department lawyers that they “would need to consider telling the courts ‘fuck you’ and ignore any such court order” blocking efforts to remove immigrants to El Salvador.The text messages Reuveni provided to the Senate judiciary committee include Reuveni and his boss, August Flentje, referencing Bove’s comments, according to Bloomberg Law.“Guess we are about to say fuck you to the court” – “Super,” Reuveni texted a colleague, according to Bloomberg.The colleague replied: “Well Pamela Jo Bondi is” and “Not you.”A former New York City-based federal prosecutor, Bove was hired by Donald Trump to defend him against the four state and federal indictments he faced before winning re-election last year. He then appointed Bove as acting justice department deputy attorney general in his first weeks back in the White House, during which time Bove fired prosecutors who brought charges against January 6 rioters and requested a list of FBI agents who worked on the cases.During a hearing before the Senate judiciary committee last month, Bove denied that he had ever instructed justice department attorneys to defy a court order.“I have never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order,” he said.But the messages released by Reuveni suggest that justice department lawyers were, at the very least, aware of the possibility they might have to ignore judicial orders.One of the newly disclosed emails shows that Bove gave the OK to deplane flights on foreign soil that were carrying immigration detainees from the US, despite an order from US district judge James Boasberg to turn the planes around. According to the email, Bove gave the legal advice that it was OK to deplane the detainees because the planes had left US airspace before Boasberg’s written order had been filed on the court docket. Before issuing his written order, Boasberg had issued an oral order from the bench.View image in fullscreen“At this point why don’t we just submit an emoji of a middle finger as our filing,” Reuveni wrote in one 19 March message. “A picayune middle finger.” “So stupid,” his boss wrote back. The messages provide an unusual and remarkable level of insight into how justice department lawyers knew they were defying court orders.Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, responded to the issue on X on Thursday.“We support legitimate whistleblowers, but this disgruntled employee is not a whistleblower – he’s a leaker asserting false claims seeking five minutes of fame, conveniently timed just before a confirmation hearing and a committee vote,” she wrote. “As Mr Bove testified and as the Department has made clear, there was no court order to defy, as we successfully argued to the DC Circuit when seeking a stay, when they stayed Judge Boasberg’s lawless order. And no one was ever asked to defy a court order.“This is another instance of misinformation being spread to serve a narrative that does not align with the facts. This ‘whistleblower’ signed 3 briefs defending DOJ’s position in this matter and his subsequent revisionist account arose only after he was fired because he violated his ethical duties to the department.”Chris Stein contributed reporting More

  • in

    California bishop excuses weekly mass obligation amid immigration raids

    Alberto Rojas, the San Bernardino bishop who leads more than 1.5 million Catholics in southern California, has formally excused parishioners from their weekly obligation to attend mass following immigration detentions on two parish properties in the diocese.The dispensation is a move usually reserved for extenuating circumstances, such as the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. But Rojas says it is necessary because of the fear of being apprehended and possibly deported that has gripped communities, including Catholic churches.“There is a real fear gripping many in our parish communities that if they venture out into any kind of public setting they will be arrested by immigration officers,” said Rojas in a statement on Wednesday.“Sadly, that includes attending Mass. The recent apprehension of individuals at two of our Catholic parishes has only intensified that fear. I want our immigrant communities to know that their Church stands with them and walks with them through this trying time.”Save for a serious reason, Catholics are obligated by their faith to attend mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation. In May, the diocese of Nashville in Tennessee issued a similar statement following immigration enforcement actions in the area, excusing those who were fearful of attending mass from their holy obligation, though it was not named as a formal dispensation.Rojas is an immigrant himself. He was born and raised in Aguascalientes, Mexico. He has been consistent in his support of immigrants and said when he assumed this role that it would be one of his top priorities.Last month, as federal agents made arrests and the federal government deployed the national guard to maintain order amid protests in Los Angeles, Rojas issued a statement calling out federal agents entering parish properties and “seizing several people”, creating an environment of fear, confusion and anxiety.“It is not of the Gospel of Jesus Christ – which guides us in all that we do,” he said. “I ask all political leaders and decision-makers to please reconsider these tactics immediately in favor of an approach that respects human rights and human dignity and builds toward a more lasting, comprehensive reform of our immigration system.”The diocese, which was created in 1978, serves more than 1.5 million Catholics in Riverside county, which is 52.5% Latino and San Bernardino county, which is 56.4% Latino, according to the 2020 US census.Members of local parishes who are in the US without documents have made positive contributions to their communities “with no other issues than their legal status”, the bishop said.“Most of them are here because they wanted to save their families; they had no other option. I believe that they would love to be legalized, but who can help them?”Rojas said he knows these people would be in church but for the threat to their safety and their family unity.“With all the worry and anxiety that they are feeling I wanted to take away, for a time, the burden they may be feeling from not being able to fulfill this commitment to which our Catholic faithful are called,” Rojas said.Pastor Omar Coronado with Inland Congregations United for Change, a faith-based non-profit serving Riverside and San Bernardino counties, called the bishop’s decree “an extraordinary act of moral courage and pastoral care”.At a time when so many families are living in fear and uncertainty, the Bishop’s voice offers not just protection but hope,” he said in a statement. “We’re deeply grateful for his leadership in reminding us that faith is not meant to hide behind walls, but to stand with the vulnerable.”The diocese of San Bernardino is the nation’s fifth-largest Catholic diocese and second-largest in California next to the archdiocese of Los Angeles, which is the largest in the country with about 5 million members. Neither the Los Angeles archdiocese nor the neighboring diocese of Orange, which serves about 1.3 million Catholics, has issued similar dispensations.A spokesperson for the diocese of Orange said they have in recent weeks taken steps to support the immigrant community, including asking priests to bring communion and celebrate mass in the homes of those who are fearful of going outside. The diocese has also shared protocols with parishes and Catholic schools to help them prepare and respond properly to the presence of immigration officials on church or school grounds, he said. In addition, the diocese is also coordinating efforts to have priests and deacons accompany and spiritually support people at immigration court hearings.Parishes under the archdiocese of Los Angeles are also continuing to “provide outreach to families and individuals that have been impacted”, a spokesperson for the archdiocese said. More

  • in

    New Hampshire judge blocks Trump’s birthright citizenship order

    Donald Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship suffered a courtroom defeat on Thursday as a federal judge in New Hampshire blocked the controversial executive order nationwide and certified a sweeping class-action lawsuit that could protect tens of thousands of children.Ruling from the bench on Thursday, Judge Joseph LaPlante announced his decision after an hour-long hearing and said a written order would follow. The judge, an appointee of George W Bush, said a written order would follow later in the day, with a seven-day stay to allow for appeal.The decision is a test case following a recent supreme court ruling that restricted nationwide injunctions, in effect making class-action lawsuits the primary remaining method for district court judges to halt policy implementation across large areas of the country. It delivers a legal blow to the administration’s hardline immigration agenda and ramps up a constitutional dispute that has continued through the first six months of Trump’s second term.The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents and their infants. It is among numerous cases challenging Trump’s January order denying citizenship to those born to undocumented parents living in the US or temporarily. The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and others.“Tens of thousands of babies and their parents may be exposed to the order’s myriad harms in just weeks and need an injunction now,” lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote in court documents filed on Tuesday.At issue is the US constitution’s 14th amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The Trump administration argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” allows the US to deny citizenship to babies born to undocumented women in the country illegally, seeking to overturn the established practice that people born in the United States automatically receive citizenship, irrespective of their parents’ immigration circumstances.“Prior misimpressions of the citizenship clause have created a perverse incentive for illegal immigration that has negatively impacted this country’s sovereignty, national security, and economic stability,” government lawyers wrote in the New Hampshire case.LaPlante, who had issued a narrow injunction in a similar case, said while he did not consider the government’s arguments frivolous, he found them unpersuasive. He said his decision to issue an injunction was “not a close call” and that deprivation of US citizenship clearly amounted to irreparable harm.Several federal judges had issued nationwide injunctions stopping Trump’s order from taking effect, but the US supreme court limited those injunctions in a 27 June ruling that gave lower courts 30 days to act. With that time frame in mind, opponents of the change quickly returned to court to try to block it.In a Washington state case before the ninth US circuit court of appeals, the judges have asked the parties to write briefs explaining the effect of the supreme court’s ruling. Washington and the other states in that lawsuit have asked the appeals court to return the case to the lower court judge.As in New Hampshire, a plaintiff in Maryland seeks to organize a class-action lawsuit that includes every person who would be affected by the order. The judge set a Wednesday deadline for written legal arguments as she considers the request for another nationwide injunction from Casa, a non-profit immigrant rights organization.Ama Frimpong, the legal director at Casa, said the group has been stressing to its members and clients that it is not time to panic.“No one has to move states right this instant,” she said. “There’s different avenues through which we are all fighting, again, to make sure that this executive order never actually sees the light of day.”The New Hampshire plaintiffs, referred to only by pseudonyms, include a woman from Honduras who has a pending asylum application and is due to give birth to her fourth child in October. She told the court the family came to the US after being targeted by gangs.“I do not want my child to live in fear and hiding. I do not want my child to be a target for immigration enforcement,” she wrote. “I fear our family could be at risk of separation.”Another plaintiff, a man from Brazil, has lived with his wife in Florida for five years. Their first child was born in March, and they are in the process of applying for lawful permanent status based on family ties – his wife’s father is a US citizen.“My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States,” he wrote. More

  • in

    Bhutan tried to erase us. Now, Trump’s America is helping | Lok Darjee

    In mid-March 2025, I sat quietly in the back of a small, crowded room at the Asian Refugees United center in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, surrounded by members of the Bhutanese diaspora. The silence was heavy, thick with fear and uncertainty. This modest office, once a vibrant hub for refugee youth, cultural celebrations, and literary competitions, had become an impromptu crisis center, where community leaders scrambled to make sense of the Trump administration’s escalatingimmigration crackdown on Bhutanese refugees across the country.Robin Gurung, the organization’s executive director, briefly outlined our legal rights. Another organizer then read aloud the names of those detained, awaiting deportation – or worse, already deported to Bhutan, the very country that once expelled them.As their names echoed through the room, an elderly man, a former student activist who had protested Bhutan’s repressive monarchy decades ago, stood. His voice trembled as he asked: “Where are we supposed to go?”This question of belonging has haunted my entire life. I was born stateless in a refugee camp in eastern Nepal after Bhutan forcibly expelled more than 100,000 Nepali-speaking Bhutanese citizens in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Our language was banned, our citizenship revoked, and our books burned in an ethnic cleansing campaign Bhutan still denies. Nepal refused us citizenship, asserting children born behind barbed wire weren’t its responsibility. Even now, Bhutan maintains its pristine global image, recently praised by 60 Minutes for “zero-carbon cities”, with no mention of the atrocities that cleared land for these “mindfulness cities”.My childhood unfolded behind fences and military checkpoints, in a hut occasionally set on fire by local mobs who viewed refugees as threats to their livelihood. I was a child no country wanted. For years, I lived in limbo – stateless, invisible, expendable. I believed I had finally found a home in 2011, when, after rigorous vetting, my family was resettled in a small town in Idaho.Since then, I’ve navigated the complexities of belonging as a former refugee turned new American. My work at the non-profit Refugee Civic Action now focuses on empowering former refugees through civic education and engagement, echoing Frederick Douglass’s belief that voting rights carry an obligation to build an inclusive democracy for “unborn and unnumbered generations”.Yet no moment revealed the fragility of American citizenship more starkly than the first 100 days of Donald Trump’s presidency. What unfolded was not merely a shift in policy, but the emergence of a constitutional crisis – one in which due process, equal protection, and the rule of law became contingent upon a person’s immigration status, background or national origin. Refugee communities, legal immigrants and even naturalized citizens suddenly found their rights precarious and their sense of belonging under threat.This crisis, while alarming, is hardly unprecedented. It echoes America’s historical pattern – visible in the failure of Reconstruction after the American civil war, when the nation struggled over defining citizenship, often through violence and exclusion. It is the same logic that incarcerated Japanese Americans during the second world war, denied Black Americans civil rights for generations, and justified the surveillance of Muslim communities after September 11. Today, cloaked in the language of national security, that same impulse returns, driven by politics intent on reshaping US identity through exclusion rather than constitutional principles.For my Bhutanese community, these recent crackdowns on legal residents have felt like a haunting repetition of history. Trauma we thought we had left behind in Bhutan now replays in Harrisburg, Cincinnati, Rochester and so many other towns, including relatively quiet suburbs of Boise, Idaho. Ice raids targeting legally resettled Bhutanese refugees have rekindled deep, collective fear. More than two dozen refugees have been deported back to Bhutan, the very country that violently expelled us. While some deportees had minor offenses from years ago, their punishments – exile to a regime that once tortured them – are grotesquely disproportionate. Raids have reopened wounds we spent decades healing. These are legal residents, thoroughly vetted through one of the world’s strictest refugee resettlement programs. Yet their deportation has shattered the fragile sense of safety we once believed America guaranteed.America is not Bhutan; their histories, cultures and institutions differ profoundly. Yet I see troubling echoes emerging here. In Bhutan, exclusion began subtly with slogans promoting national unity – “One nation, one language, one people” – initially appearing patriotic, even benign. Soon, our Nepali language was banned, books burned and cultural practices outlawed. Families like mine were categorized arbitrarily to divide and destabilize. People were disappeared, tortured and jailed. Citizenship became conditional, a prize easily revoked. I see shadows of this pattern now emerging in the US as the president erodes checks and balances, attacks public institutions, and scapegoats vulnerable immigrant communities.But when it comes to Bhutanese refugees, Democratic leaders have remained troublingly silent.While Pennsylvania’s senator John Fetterman and governor Josh Shapiro have acknowledged the concerns of Bhutanese refugees through public statements and tweets, their engagement has fallen short. What’s needed now is not just words, but action: oversight, hearings and direct intervention. Democrats must speak up for the likes of Santosh Darji, a Bhutanese refugee quietly deported to a regime that once tried to erase him. Failing to do so risks eroding public trust in the party’s moral commitments.The Republican party, once a vocal supporter of refugee resettlement, has largely aligned itself with Trumpism – a politics rooted in fear, exclusion and racial hierarchy. During Trump’s first term, a few Republican governors resisted efforts to suspend refugee admissions by calling for more legal refugees. Today, that resistance is utterly gone; no single Republican governor resists nor demands that the president reverse his decision on refugee admission. The party that once embraced Ronald Reagan and George Bush can no longer credibly claim their legacies. Those presidents, whatever their flaws, understood that America’s greatness was built on its openness to refugees and immigrants.The Trump administration’s actions aren’t merely cruel; they may violate international law. Deporting refugees back to the country that ethnically cleansed them breaches the principle of non-refoulement – enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention – which prohibits returning refugees to countries where their lives or freedoms are threatened. Now, some deportees find themselves stateless once again, rejected by Bhutan, detained by Nepal police and trapped in legal limbo.America’s moral and constitutional credibility hinges on defending not just those who command headlines or electoral power but precisely those who do not. If legal refugees can be quietly deported to countries from which they fled persecution, America’s claim as a beacon of freedom is dangerously hollow. The haunting question “Where are we supposed to go?” must be answered by American institutions, unequivocally affirming that due process and human dignity apply universally.

    Lok Darjee is a former refugee, columnist and founder of Refugee Civic Action, who writes on immigration, identity and democracy More