More stories

  • 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

  • in

    US supreme court blocks Florida from enforcing anti-immigration law

    The US supreme court maintained on Wednesday a judicial block on a Republican-crafted Florida law that makes it a crime for undocumented immigrants in the United States to enter the state.The justices denied a request by state officials to lift an order by the Florida-based US district judge Kathleen Williams that barred them from carrying out arrests and prosecutions under the law while a legal challenge plays out in lower courts. Williams ruled that Florida’s law conflicted with the federal government’s authority over immigration policy.The law, signed by the Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, in February and backed by the Trump administration, made it a felony for some undocumented migrants to enter Florida, while also imposing pre-trial jail time without bond.“This denial reaffirms a bedrock principle that dates back 150 years: States may not regulate immigration,” said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “It is past time for states to get the message.”After Williams blocked the law, Florida’s attorney general, James Uthmeier, a Republican, and other state officials filed the emergency request on 17 June asking the supreme court to halt the judge’s order. Williams had found that the Florida law was probably unconstitutional for encroaching on the federal government’s exclusive authority over US immigration policy.The state’s request to the justices was backed by America First Legal, a conservative group co-founded by Stephen Miller, a senior aide to Donald Trump and a key architect of the administration’s hardline immigration policies.Florida’s immigration measure, called SB 4-C, was passed by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature and signed into law by DeSantis. It made Florida one of at least seven states to pass such laws in recent years, according to court filings.The American Civil Liberties Union in April sued in federal court to challenge the law, arguing that the state should not be able to “enforce its own state immigration system outside of federal supervision and control”. Williams agreed.The law imposed mandatory minimum sentences for undocumented adult immigrants who are convicted of entering Florida after arriving in the United States without following federal immigration law. Florida officials contend that the state measure complies with – rather than conflicts with – federal law.Sentences for violations begin at nine months’ imprisonment for first offenders and reach up to five years for certain undocumented immigrants in the country who have felony records and enter Florida after having been deported or ordered by a federal judge to be removed from the United States.The state law exempts undocumented immigrants in the country who were given certain authorization by the federal government to remain in the United States. Florida’s immigration crackdown makes no exceptions, however, for those seeking humanitarian protection or with pending applications for immigration relief, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued in federal court to challenge the law.The ACLU filed a class-action suit on behalf of two undocumented immigrants who reside in Florida, an immigration advocacy group called the Florida Immigrant Coalition and the non-profit group Farmworker Association of Florida, whose members include immigrants in the United States illegally who travel in and out of Florida seasonally to harvest crops. Some of the arguments in the lawsuit included claims that it violates the federal “commerce clause”, which bars states from blocking commerce between states.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBacardi Jackson, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, in a statement issued after the challenge was filed said that Florida’s law “is not just unconstitutional – it’s cruel and dangerous”.Williams issued a preliminary injunction in April that barred Florida officials from enforcing the measure.The Atlanta-based 11th US circuit court of appeals in June upheld the judge’s ruling, prompting the Florida officials to make an emergency request to the supreme court.In a filing on 7 July, the state of Florida pointed to a brief filed by the Trump administration in the appeals case, in support of SB 4-C. “That decision is wrong and should be reversed,” administration lawyers wrote at the time.On the same day that Florida’s attorney general filed the state’s supreme court request, Williams found him in civil contempt of court for failing to follow her order to direct all state law enforcement officers not to enforce the immigration measure while it remained blocked by the judge. Williams said that Uthmeier only informed the state law enforcement agencies about her order and later instructed them to arrest people anyway. Williams ordered Uthmeier to provide an update to the court every two weeks on any enforcement of the law.Other states have tried to pass similar laws, including Texas, Oklahoma, Idaho and Iowa, which have attempted to make entering their jurisdictions, while undocumented, a state crime. More

  • in

    US agriculture secretary says Medicaid recipients can replace deported farm workers

    The US agriculture secretary has suggested that increased automation and forcing Medicaid recipients to work could replace the migrant farm workers being swept up in Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign, despite years of evidence and policy failures that those kinds of measures are not substitutes for the immigrant labor force underpinning American agriculture.Speaking at a news conference with Republican governors on Tuesday, Brooke Rollins said the administration would rely on “automation, also some reform within the current governing structure”, and pointed to “34 million able-bodied adults in our Medicaid program” as potential workers.“There’s been a lot of noise in the last few days and a lot of questions about where the president stands and his vision for farm labor,” Rollins said. “There are plenty of workers in America”.Trump signed legislation on Friday creating the first federally mandated work requirements for Medicaid recipients, set to take effect by the end of 2026. Medicaid is a healthcare safety net program that currently covers pregnant women, mothers, young children and the disabled, with 40 states having expanded coverage to working poor families earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level.However, agricultural experts and economists have repeatedly warned that neither automation nor welfare reforms can realistically replace the migrant workforce that dominates American farming.According to USDA data, 42% of US farm workers are undocumented immigrants, and just under 70% are foreign-born.And a March report from the Urban Institute found that most Medicaid recipients are either already working, exempt or face some sort of instability.Previous state-level immigration crackdowns are also evidence of the challenges facing Rollins’s proposed solution. Georgia’s 2011 immigration law resulted in a shortage of more than 5,200 farm workers and projected losses of hundreds of millions of dollars at the time, according to a University of Georgia study. Alabama farmers reported similar struggles, with locals telling the Associated Press in 2011 that American workers lasted about a day at their new farm jobs.While agricultural automation is advancing fast, it still appears to remain years away from replacing manual labor in fruit and vegetable harvesting.Rollins acknowledged the administration must be “strategic” in implementing deportations “so as not to compromise our food supply”, but held that Trump’s promise of a “100% American workforce stands.”Trump himself appeared to soften his stance last week, telling Fox News he was considering exemptions for undocumented farm workers.“What we’re going to do is we’re going to do something for farmers where we can let the farmer sort of be in charge,” he said. More

  • in

    Ice is about to become the biggest police force in the US | Judith Levine

    On Thursday, congressional Republicans passed Trump’s 1,000-page budget, and the president signed it on Saturday. The rich will get obscenely richer. The poor will be hungrier and sicker, work more precarious, and the planet unrelentingly hotter. The symmetry is elegant: cuts to healthcare and food programs average about $120bn each year over the next decade, while the tax cuts will save households earning more than $500,000 about $120bn a year.Trump got what he wanted. But enriching himself and his wealthy friends at the expense of everyone else has long been his life purpose. It was not until he became president, with the Heritage Foundation’s wonks, the deportation czar Stephen Miller, and six loyal supreme courtiers behind him, that he could reshape the US in his own amoral, racist, violence-intoxicated image. In fact, the latter goal may be dearer to him than the former.The night before the Senate vote, JD Vance summed up the administration’s priorities: “Everything else,” including the Congressional Budget Office’s deficit estimates and “the minutiae of the Medicaid policy”, he posted, “is immaterial compared to the ICE money and immigration enforcement provisions”.The vice-president’s indifference to the lives of millions of Americans – particularly to the class of Americans from which this self-described “hillbilly” hails – enflamed the Democrats and the left. But his comment also woke everyone up to another major set of appropriations in the budget. As Leah Greenberg, co-chair of the progressive activist group Indivisible, put it on Twitter/X: “They are just coming right out and saying they want an exponential increase in $$$ so they can build their own personal Gestapo.”The press had been focused on the wealth gap the budget turns into the San Andreas fault. It had been dutifully mentioning increases in funding for the military – to an unprecedented $1.3tn – and “border security”.Set aside for a moment that phrase’s implication, that the US is being invaded – which it isn’t – and it is still not apt. The jurisdiction of the federal police force that this budget will finance promises to stretch far beyond immigration; its ambitions will outstrip even the deportation of every one of the nearly 48 million immigrants in the country, including the three-quarters of them who are citizens, green-card holders or have temporary visas.The colossal buildup of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) will create the largest domestic police force in the US; its resources will be greater than those of every federal surveillance and carceral agency combined; it will employ more agents than the FBI. Ice will be bigger than the military of many countries. When it runs out of brown and Black people to deport, Ice – perhaps under another name – will be left with the authority and capability to surveil, seize and disappear anyone the administration considers undesirable. It is hard to imagine any president dismantling it.Ice will receive $45bn for immigrant detention, to be spent over four years – more than the Obama, Biden and first Trump administrations combined. The agency says it is planning on a total of 100,000 beds. But grants to the states loosely slated for “enforcement” total $16.5bn. If they use the money to build and lease more detention camps, the American Immigration Council estimates, capacity could reach 125,000, just under the population of the federal prisons.Dipping into a pot totaling $170bn, the Department of Homeland Security intends to hire 10,000 new Ice agents, bringing the total to 30,000, as well as 8,500 border patrol agents. For comparison, the FBI has about 23,700 employees, including 10,000 special agents.Like Ice’s budget, DHS’s is fat with redundancies: $12bn to DHS for border security and immigration; $12bn to Customs and Border Protection for hiring, vehicles and technology; $6.2bn for more technology. And then there’s over $45bn to complete the jewel in the king’s crown: Trump’s “beautiful” border wall. That’s on top of approximately $10bn spent during his first term for a project he promised would cost less than $12bn – and be bankrolled by Mexico.To balance the expenses of the hunt, the government will raise revenue from its prey. The cruelty written into the fees seems almost an afterthought. According to the New York Times’s breakdown, for a grant of temporary legal residence, for instance, a refugee pays $500 or $1,000, depending on whether they are fleeing armed conflict or humanitarian crisis. There’s a new $250 fee to apply for a visa for a child who’s been abused, abandoned or neglected by a parent.Immigrants must fork over as much as $1,500 for status adjustments ordered by a judge. And if they are arrested after a judge’s removal order for missing a hearing, they will be charged $5,000. The budget does not specify whether you pay for a downward adjustment to your status or what it costs to be snatched when you do show up at court, which is now regular Ice procedure.Observed as from a Google satellite, the outlines of a wide-ranging, increasingly coherent police state come into focus. The boundaries between federal and local, military operations and civilian law enforcement are smudged. During the anti-Ice protests in Los Angeles, Trump federalized the national guard to put down an uprising that didn’t exist, and an appeals court let him. The marines, restricted by the Posse Comitatus Act from civilian law enforcement, detained a US citizen anyway. To circumvent the prohibition against deploying the military to enforce immigration law, the president declared an “invasion” at the southern border, and the Pentagon took more territory under its control. Last week it added 140 miles of land to the marine air station in Arizona and has announced plans for 250 miles more, in Texas, under the air force’s aegis. Heather Cox Richardson reports that national guard troops have been deployed by Governor Ron DeSantis to “Alligator Alcatraz”, the new immigrant lockup in the Florida Everglades. Two hundred marines have been sent to Florida to back up Ice, and Ice agents will be stationed at marine bases in California, Virginia and Hawaii. The military budget earmarks $1bn for “border security”.A budget is the numerical representation of its makers’ values. So the upward redistribution of wealth that this budget exacerbates and the police state it invests trillions of dollars in are of a piece. What connects them is not just the profit to be made building, leasing and managing the infrastructure. When people lack food, medicine and housing, when public spaces deteriorate and families have little hope of security, much less mobility, rage and crime rise. And when that happens, the police – whether Ice or the marines, local cops or private security officers – will be mobilized to put down dissent and protect the oligarchs’ property from a desperate populace.

    Judith Levine is Brooklyn-based journalist, essayist and author of five books. Her Substack is Today in Fascism More

  • in

    Undocumented builders face unchecked exploitation amid Trump raids: ‘It’s more work, less pay’

    As the Trump administration ramps up its crackdown on immigration, undocumented workers in the construction industry claim raids and arrests have emboldened some contractors to cut pay and increase hours.Rogelio, a tile setter, works for various contractors in the the Tucson, Arizona, region. He is undocumented, and did not provide his full name.When Donald Trump returned to office in January, Rogelio said his employers cut their rates by 30% to 40%. Other laborers told him they had endured similar treatment.“They decreased the pay by piece because they know most of the tile setters don’t have social security numbers, so they take advantage of that. We are in their hands,” Rogelio told the Guardian. “It’s more work, less pay. We have no choice right now.“We’re struggling with bills. We’re struggling with food. We’re struggling with everything because we don’t get enough money to pay whatever we need to pay.”Many of the undocumented immigrants Rogelio knows are only leaving home to work, Rogelio said. “We have a lot of fear,” he told the Guardian. “We look for news in the morning to see if we’re able to go to work or not.”With approximately 2.9 million US construction workers – about 34% of the workforce – foreign-born, construction sector lobbyists have publicly urged the Trump administration to soften their hardline stance on immigration. “While the need for safe and secure borders is paramount, mass deportation is not the answer,” Buddy Hughes, chairperson of the National Association of Home Builders, said in a statement.Advocates for workers rights say some operators in the sector are using Trump’s crackdown to abuse undocumented workers.“Especially in construction, there’re a lot of subcontractors that take advantage of this situation by not paying them the fair wage or not even paying them at all,” said Laura Becerra, movement politics director of the non-profit Workers Defense Project based in Texas.Undocumented workers are unlikely to lodge an official complaint, she added. “Since people don’t want to say anything because they don’t want to be put on the radar, and they’re also getting retaliated against if they do say something.”The administration is pushing ahead with public raids on undocumented immigrant workers. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agency is arresting an increasing number of immigrants without any criminal history, according to a Guardian analysis of federal government data.“It’s an attack,” Becerra said. “It’s taking a toll on families, families that need to make ends meet, that are already suffering from low wages and doing work no one wants to do.”In Tucson, undocumented workers are avoiding freeways, according to Rogelio. “Freeways are one of the worst places to drive right now because of all the police and border patrol and they look for mostly hispanic people to stop,” he said. “We are living day by day and not knowing what’s going to happen tomorrow.”In some areas “there are spots where you can work with no problem,” he said. “But others, there are racist people living there and they don’t want us. They want our work, they want cheap labor, but they don’t want us.“We came here because we want to work and provide for our families. The only reason I’m here, personally, I have two kids who are American citizens. I’m not asking for any benefits from the government.”Reports from across the US suggest undocumented workers are facing unprecedented pressure.Savannah Palmira, director of organizing for the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades district council 5, which covers workers in states around the Pacific north-west, said the threat of raids is making it harder for workers to organize.A roofing company in Washington was raided by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) earlier this year after workers filed safety complaints, Palmira claimed, with the fear of retaliation stemming from that case spreading to other job sites, and leaving workers reluctant to speak out and file complaints against abusive work practices.“What contractors are doing is taking an opportunity to not be held accountable for their bad practices,” said Palmira. “The more and more people are starting to talk about workers getting taken advantage of, Ice is getting called on them. They’re taking a tool away from us to be able to put bad contractors on notice.”In Washington, another undocumented construction worker – who requested to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation – said many of his coworkers were “thinking about going back to their countries” due to the reality of life in the US.“The last company I worked for took advantage of people in every situation,” he said, from dissuading injured workers from getting medical attention to denying overtime and breaks.“They say, you are undocumented, so they will pay you $10 an hour because you have no work permit,” he added. “And if not, they will tell Ice.”“In Washington state, immigrants make up 25% of the trades workforce in construction. With a consistent labor shortage and demand for housing constantly growing, residential construction needs all the skilled workers available,” a spokesperson for the Building Industry Association of Washington said in an email. “We’ve provided our members with guidance on how to legally employ immigrants, including verifying the identity and US employment authorization of all employees. We also generally support improving US Immigration policy to allow responsible and law-abiding undocumented worker a pathway to achieving citizenship.”Arizona Builders Alliance did not respond to multiple requests for comment.On a national level the construction industry has repeatedly warned of the negative impacts of immigration raids on what they claim has already been a severe labor shortage in US construction.Asked about contractors allegedly using the ramp up in immigration enforcement to cut pay and increase workloads, the National Association of Home Builders issued a statement from Hughes, its chairperson, which did not directly address the claims.“With the construction industry facing a deficit of more than 200,000 workers, policymakers must consider that any disruption to the labor force would raise housing costs, limit supply and worsen the nation’s housing affordability crisis,” Hughes said. “To address this pressing national issue, NAHB is urging Congress to support meaningful investments in our nation’s education system to encourage students to pursue careers in the skilled trades.“Policymakers should also support sensible immigration policies that preserve and expand existing temporary work visa programs while also creating new market-based visa programs that will accurately match demand with available labor.” More