Press Clips

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) introduced legislation Thursday that would raise civil fines on illegal aliens who enter or attempt to enter the United States unlawfully or fail to leave after being ordered removed, while also increasing penalties for employers who knowingly hire unauthorized workers.

Scott’s bill, titled the “Illegal Immigration Cost Recovery Act,” is being cosponsored by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT).

The legislation would amend federal immigration law to increase civil financial penalties for three categories covered in the bill text: 1) aliens who “enter or attempt to enter the United States without authorization”; 2) aliens “subject to a final order of removal who fail or refuse to depart from the United States”; and 3) employers that “knowingly hire aliens who are not authorized to work in the United States.”

The bill says that civil penalties for improper entry would rise from the current range of $50 to $250 to a new range of $200 to $1,000. The bill would also raise the civil penalty for failure to depart from $500 to $1,996.

The measure would also increase employer penalties for knowingly hiring unauthorized aliens. For a first offense, the bill would raise the penalty range from $250 to $2,000 to a new range of $1,432 to $11,448. For a second offense, the penalty range would rise from $2,000 to $5,000 to $11,448 to $28,616. For subsequent offenses, the penalty range would increase from $3,000 to $10,000 to $17,172 to $57,238.

The bill would require annual inflation adjustments for the revised civil penalties beginning October 1, 2027, using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. The Secretary of Homeland Security would be required to publish the updated amounts in the Federal Register by December 15 each year, with the adjusted amounts applying to penalties assessed on or after January 1 of the following year.

Scott exclusively told Breitbart News, “Illegal immigration is — in fact — illegal and has consequences. President Trump is working hard to restore law and order, and we in Congress need to do our part to help. Decades of open border policies have created an enormous and unfair cost burden on Americans that needs to be offset to make things right; meanwhile, those that entered our country illegally should face consequences for their actions. This commonsense bill enforces the law and ensures illegal aliens can’t keep ripping off our country and undermining the hardworking Americans who pay taxes and follow the rules.”

Lee said in a statement to Breitbart News, “Americans are footing the bill for illegal immigrants who use public services, benefits, and schools intended for citizens. Law has long required financial penalties for illegal immigrants, but no president other than Donald Trump has stood up for the American people by enforcing them. I’m proud to cosponsor Senator Rick Scott’s Illegal Immigration Cost Recovery Act to double civil financial penalties for illegal immigrants and claw back Americans’ hard-earned money.”

Sheehy stated to Breitbart News: “Illegal immigration has real costs, and Montana taxpayers shouldn’t be stuck footing the bill. This bill strengthens accountability, supports immigration enforcement, and helps ensure the illegal immigrants who break our laws – not American families – bear the consequences.”

A press release provided to Breitbart News described the proposal as “a fiscal measure to transition immigration enforcement toward a self-funding model.” The release said the bill would increase “non-tax revenue collection” and reduce “the reliance on taxpayer dollars” by putting the cost burden of immigration enforcement on violators.

The press release also said the fines were “rarely enforced by DHS prior to President Trump’s first term in office” and were “paused completely under the Biden administration.” It added that ICE resumed issuing failure-to-depart fines on June 13, 2025, and that nearly 10,000 fine notices have been issued since then.

Pro-migration advocates are using the World Cup soccer games in the United States to argue that illegal migrants — and their employers — should get a stand-down in ICE’s enforcement operations.

The campaign is spotlighted by union members working at SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles, who are demanding that ICE ignore illegal migrants, whether they are fans, staff, or merchants.

The administration “thinks we have only criminals here, working, visiting, coming to games, but they’re not,” United Here union member Yolanda Fierro told the Washington Post, adding:

These are hardworking people who take care of their families. We don’t want [ICE] here. We want to feel safe, we can take care of ourselves, and, most of all, we want our guests to feel safe.

Many of the campaign’s activists are paid to stage media events that portray migrants in the most sympathetic way possible. Much of their funding comes from progressive groups who are using migrants to enforce chaotic diversity on Americans’ communities. Many are also supported by business groups that want to maximize the inflow of profit-maximizing consumers, renters, and workers.

But even as the activists slam ICE, agents continue to arrest illegal migrants, criminals, and law–breaking employers.

Some pro-migration groups are using the World Cup as a moral cudgel against the swing-voting Americans who recognize that migration rules also require enforcement.

“What is happening to players and staff and fans coming to the U.S. for the World Cup is representative of the horrors millions of people in the U.S. are experiencing under this regime,” Tanya Greene, the U.S. program director for Human Rights Watch, told the New York Times. “It’s as if the administration wants to keep the world out of the World Cup.”

Some of the activists are just leveraging the additional media outlets to promote their anti-enforcement pitch. “The world’s media is now coming to us,” said Kim Herdman-Shapiro, a pro-migration activist in New Hampshire. She told NHPR.org:

We have to see if we can try and steal a little bit of that limelight … And use it to talk about the not so pleasant aspect of what’s going on in the summer, which is the conditions that detainees are living in and the fear that immigrant communities are living with.

Most of the activists are portraying the illegal migrants as happy soccer fans who are being victimized by ICE predators.

Some migrants “would be very excited to watch the games and to participate, cheer for their teams in the soccer match [but] are afraid,” Renata Bozzetto, deputy director for the Florida Immigrant Coalition, told a sidewalk press conference on June 10.

They are “afraid to go to Fan Fests, afraid to drive to the stadium, afraid to go to the neighborhood hangout place where they could meet other people,” she added.

“My fear is that people end up separated from their families,” Yareliz Mendez-Zamora, a Florida activist with the pro-migration American Friends Service Committee, told Local10.com.

“There has been no commitment around policies that will keep our families and our community safe,” she told WLRN.

“Unfortunately, a lot of people I’ve talked to are scared to leave their own house, especially in big apartment complexes that are known to have ICE presence,” Azael Alvarez, a pro-migration activist with the Latino-focused El Movimiento group in Dallas, told the Washington Post. “It’s already instilled a fear that ‘Oh, they could be out there,'” he added.

But illegal migrants — especially if they are working hard — help shift a vast amount of wealth from ordinary Americans to wealthy investors, mostly by pushing down wages and pushing up rents.

Unsurprisingly, many media outlets are amplifying the activists’ calls for an ICE stand-down. For example, the AFP news service reported on May 26:

“Singing my country’s national anthem in a stadium in front of the whole world is a historic moment that no one would want to miss,” the [Haitian] truck driver in his 40s, who did not wish to give his last name, told AFP.

“But at the same time, I think twice. I don’t want to be arrested by ICE,” he said, referring to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers tasked with arresting and deporting undocumented foreign nationals.

“[Haitian immigrant] Emile’s concerns are shared by many in the immigrant community, who have watched heavily armed, masked ICE officers carry out their often brutal operations in multiple US cities,” the France-based network added.

FIRST ON FOX: The Justice Department sued The Commonwealth of Virginia on Thursday over two new laws the DOJ says would subject masked federal agents to criminal penalties and threaten local ICE cooperation agreements.

“Law enforcement officers risk their lives every day to keep Americans safe, and they do not deserve to be doxed or harassed simply for carrying out their duties,” said acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in comment provided to Fox News Digital on Thursday. “Virginia’s anti-law enforcement policies regulate the federal government and are designed to create risk for our agents. These laws cannot stand.”

The lawsuit, first shared with Fox News Digital, argues Virginia is violating the Constitution by attempting to dictate how federal officers carry out law enforcement operations — including when they can wear masks, what identifying information they must display and whether local agencies can maintain ICE cooperation agreements unless the federal government accepts state-imposed conditions. The DOJ said the laws threaten officer safety, undermine federal immigration enforcement and violate the Supremacy Clause.

At the heart of the suit, are a pair of laws that Democratic Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed, which are set to take effect on July, including: one restricting law enforcement officers, including federal officers, from wearing facial coverings while on duty and requiring them to display identifying information, and another imposing state-mandated conditions on federal immigration enforcement agreements.

The DOJ said federal officers who violate Virginia’s mask and identification law could face a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable under Virginia law by up to 12 months in jail, a fine of up to $2,500, or both.

The lawsuit names Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones and left-wing Fairfax County Commonwealth Attorney Steve Descano — who was previously backed by groups connected to George Soros.

The suit claims Virginia’s mask ban is “blatantly unconstitutional” because it attempts to regulate “what federal officers may and may not wear” while carrying out their duties, exposing agents’ identities and increasing risks to them and their families.

“The Department of Justice will steadfastly protect the privacy and safety of law enforcement from unconstitutional state laws like Virginia’s,” said Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate of the DOJ’s Civil Division in the press release.

DOJ is seeking a court order to block both laws that begin July 1.

Spanberger, Jones and Descano have all moved to counter the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement agenda in Virginia.

In February, Spanberger issued an executive order that rescinded a Youngkin-era order directing state law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts.

“The President told us that we are safer because unaccountable, poorly trained ICE agents are arresting mothers and detaining children. Our broken immigration system is something to be fixed — not an excuse to terrorize our communities,” Spanberger posted on X in response to Trump’s State of the Union.

The suit comes as there have been ongoing protests outside the Delaney Hall immigration detention center in New Jersey where protesters verbally abused ICE agents, obstructed vehicles, allegedly assaulted officers, and made threats leading to multiple arrests.

“Governor Spanberger cannot tell Federal officers how to do their job,” said Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward in the press release. “She certainly cannot prohibit them from ensuring their own safety in conducting Federal law enforcement operations. Our suit today stops those unconstitutional efforts.”

Fox News Digital reached out to the offices of Gov. Spanberger and AG Jones for comment.

Jóvenes del Programa del Consejo de México Americano Mac consiguieron uno de los triunfos más importantes en su corta vida: Titularse. Elileen, Naydalin y Emily son tres de las estudiantes que hoy celebran la obtención de su título académico antes de ingresar a la universidad.

Alcanzar la meta no fue sencillo para los hijos de trabajadores agrícolas, especialmente en un contexto donde el endurecimiento de las políticas migratorias ensombreció los festejos de cada una de ellas.

N+ Univisión estuvo presente en los festejos donde la indumentaria de gala fue parte de cada graduado. Uno de los jóvenes entrevistados fue Eileen Ailyin.

La joven no pudo sostener el llanto porque su padre no estuvo presente en la graduación. Él fue detenido y deportado a Guatemala.

El dolor aumenta cuando es evidente la ausencia de la figura paterna, un vacío con el que muchos de ellos tienen que vivir día a día.

Su madre, María Ramírez, no puede contener la felicidad al reconocer que se siente orgullosa de su hija, pero acepta que no poder festejar en familia es algo que marca este día tan importante para su hija, que nació en Estados Unidos.

“La verdad, estoy un poco desesperada porque mis hijos nacieron acá y ellos quisieran tener un logro, un mejor futuro”, comenta.

Pero el dolor no frena a Eillen Ailyin. Sabe que asistirá a la universidad, por lo que tendrá que trabajar para poder ayudar a su madre con los gastos ante la ausencia de su papá.

“Yo también estoy buscando trabajo, porque tengo que trabajar para mi mamá. También porque ella tiene el peligro de que sea detenida”, explica la joven.

El título que Naydalin no recibió

Mientras muchos asistentes celebraban el logro de sus hijos o familiares, Duglas Gonzales, padre de Naydalin, otra de las jóvenes graduadas, acudió solo a recibir el título de su hija.

Naydalin fue detenida por el ICE y deportada a El Salvador, días antes del día más importante de su vida. Mientras su papá recibía el reconocimiento, la imagen de su hija fue proyectada en la ceremonia.

Al ver la imagen de su hija, Duglas llora mientras reconoce que es uno de los momentos más difíciles de su vida.

“Complicado también porque imagínese, todos andan con su familia y todo y ya uno no, no tuvo la oportunidad de estar con ellas acá”, explica.

Emily, la joven trompetista

Durante la ceremonia del Programa del Consejo de México Americano Mac, Emily Pedraza fue otra más de las jóvenes graduadas. Ella se tituló en la Escuela de Mariachis.

“He estado practicando durante mucho tiempo de mi vida; yo empecé a practicarla cuando tenía cinco años”, menciona.

El sueño de estos jóvenes es convertirse en profesional para recompensar el sacrificio de sus padres.

En la graduación de Emily estuvieron presentes su mamá y su abuelita.

“Me siento muy orgullosa y me dan ganas de llorar de ver, por fin, que ella llegó a su meta”, expresa su madre Celina Tapia.

Una tarde de finales de marzo, un agente del Departamento de Pesca y Vida Silvestre de Florida se acercó a una pareja guatemalteca que paseaba a su perro en un parque de la acomodada comunidad costera de Bonita Springs, en la costa del Golfo. Desde su auto, pidió ver la identificación del esposo y luego les ordenó que se dirigieran hacia la entrada del parque, contó la esposa.

Cuando llegaron al estacionamiento, el oficial arrestó al esposo bajo un cargo falso, dijo su esposa, quien habló con la agencia The Associated Press bajo la condición de anonimato para ella y su esposo, de 48 años, porque no quería arriesgarse a ser detenida también ni poner en riesgo sus casos de asilo pendientes.

“Nos dijo que le estaba poniendo una multa porque el perro lo había mordido, pero eso no era cierto porque el oficial nunca salió del auto”, relató ella. “Empezó a hacer llamadas, lo arrestó y esperó 40 minutos” a que llegaran los oficiales federales del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE) para llevarse a su esposo.

La ofensiva del presidente, Donald Trump, contra la inmigración se ha topado con una feroz resistencia en las ciudades santuario gobernadas por demócratas, donde se prohíbe a la policía colaborar con ICE, los funcionarios electos se han resistido y los ciudadanos han intentado alertar a sus vecinos con silbatos, grabando videos con sus celulares y regañando a los agentes federales enmascarados, a quienes muchos ven como una fuerza invasora.

Pero ese no ha sido el caso en Florida, gobernada por los republicanos, donde 347 agencias estatales y locales se han sumado a la campaña de deportaciones desatando una avalancha de detenciones de inmigrantes.

Entre ellas están departamentos de policía y sheriffs, la Guardia Nacional de Florida y la Patrulla de Carreteras, pero también otras que parecen tan improbables como la Comisión Estatal de Conservación de Pesca y Vida Silvestre y la Lotería de Florida.

El aumento de las detenciones de inmigrantes en Florida durante el segundo mandato de Trump ha pasado casi desapercibido para el público, ya que muchas comienzan como simples controles de tráfico, la población parece apoyar más la iniciativa y las agencias estatales y locales están rechazando rotundamente solicitudes de registros de arrestos y videos de cámaras corporales siguiendo órdenes del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional.

Los arrestos de inmigrantes se triplican

Casi 39,000 inmigrantes fueron arrestados en Florida en 416 días desde el 20 de enero de 2025 —cuando arrancó el segundo mandato de Trump— hasta el 11 de marzo de 2026, el último día del que existen datos disponibles en un recuento facilitado por el Deportation Data Project de la Universidad de California en Berkeley y analizados por AP.

Durante los 416 días anteriores de la Administración de Joe Biden hubo 11,088 detenciones.

En promedio, Florida registró 93 arrestos diarios durante el periodo analizado del mandato de Trump, superado solo por los 239 en Texas, que tiene la frontera más larga con México.

El gobernador republicano, Ron DeSantis, ha liderado los esfuerzos para que Florida colabore con ICE bajo los acuerdos conocidos como 287(g) que conceden poderes para ejercer tareas de inmigración a agencias estatales y federales permitiéndoles interrogar a inmigrantes bajo su custodia y detenerlos para posible deportación. Y están bajo presión para cumplir, según expertos.

“Hay muchos agentes a los que se les ha otorgado autoridad en materia de inmigración y que están buscando gente”, afirmó la abogada de inmigración Vilerka Bilbao, quien representa al menos a 23 clientes detenidos por la policía local en el área de Jacksonville. “Están arrestando a cualquiera: necesitan mostrar las cifras a DeSantis y al Gobierno federal”.

Los oficiales detienen los vehículos por un “pretexto”, como una luz trasera rota o un tinte de vidrios demasiado oscuro, “y luego terminas bajo custodia de ICE”, dijo Bilbao.

Un hijo y su padre son deportados

El 15 de febrero, agentes del sheriff del condado de Lee detuvieron a un guatemalteco de 44 años y a su hijo de 21 en las afueras de Fort Myers.

Se les acercaron en un estacionamiento de una tienda y les dijeron que su placa estaba vencida y les ordenaron que salieran del auto pese a que la matrícula era válida hasta el 25 de marzo, contó la esposa del padre y madre del joven.

La mujer, una guatemalteca de 40 años solicitante de asilo que pidió anonimato para ella y su familia por temor a su seguridad y la de sus tres hijos aún en Florida, relató que su esposo e hijo fueron detenidos y deportados una semana después a Guatemala dejándola con dos hijos menores de edad y una hija que es ciudadana estadounidense.

Aseguró que su esposo e hijo tenían casos pendientes en las cortes de inmigración, pero que igual fueron detenidos.

Su esposo asistió a tres audiencias, pero faltó a una porque era en Miami, a unas 120 millas (193 kilómetros) al sur de Fort Myers, y no tenía dinero para llegar hasta allí, explicó. Su hijo contaba con una licencia de conducir válida y un permiso de trabajo.

El DHS niega que el hombre y su hijo estuvieran legalmente en Estados Unidos, alegando que cruzaron la frontera de forma irregular en 2017 y que tenían una orden definitiva de expulsión desde 2019.

En el caso del hombre que paseaba a su perro, el DHS afirmó que fue detenido porque tenía dos órdenes definitivas de deportación.

Una prueba a la Ley Sunshine

En ambos casos las agencias de Florida que detuvieron a los inmigrantes —la Comisión Estatal de Conservación de Pesca y Vida Silvestre y la oficina del sheriff del condado de Lee— se rehusaron a compartir los reportes de arresto y las imágenes de las cámaras corporales de los agentes con AP, alegando que ICE les pide remitir todas las peticiones sobre detenciones relacionadas a inmigración.

El DHS e ICE también declinaron compartir el material. El DHS dijo en un comunicado: “No vamos a revelar información confidencial relacionada con la aplicación de la ley”.

Una directiva de ICE enviada a las agencias parte de los acuerdos 287 (g) en Florida indica que la “información obtenida o desarrollada” bajo dichos acuerdos está “bajo el control de ICE” y no puede revelarse sin aprobación federal.

La directiva parece violar la Ley Florida Sunshine, aprobada en 1967 y que determina que los récords son públicos a menos que sean específicamente protegidos. La Legislatura conservadora ha incluido ciertas excepciones en años recientes.

No solo pasa en Florida

Aunque Florida está al frente al unirse a la ofensiva contra la inmigración tras abrir en el último año los centros Alligator Alcatraz y Deportation Depot, la participación en el programa 287(g) se ha disparado de 135 acuerdos en 20 estados antes de que empezara el segundo mandato de Trump, a más de 1,700 en 41 estados y territorios.

El DHS anunció incentivos económicos para los cuerpos policiales estatales y locales, incluyendo el reembolso de los salarios. Esto incluye hasta 7,500 dólares para equipos por cada agente que participe en los acuerdos, y hasta 100,000 dólares para que los departamentos de policía adquieran vehículos nuevos.

El gobierno del presidente estadounidense Donald Trump ha identificado más de 15,000 casos de adultos que obtuvieron la custodia de varios niños inmigrantes que ingresan a Estados Unidos sin uno de sus padres, informaron autoridades el jueves, lo que apunta a un posible impulso para procesar a patrocinadores prolíficos de menores.

El Departamento de Justicia destacó casos contra tres ciudadanos guatemaltecos que, según afirma, ponen de relieve los peligros de una verificación inadecuada de los patrocinadores en un programa que busca reunir a los niños con familiares o amigos de la familia después de que ingresan a Estados Unidos. Las autoridades indicaron que investigan a muchos otros llamados “superpatrocinadores” —es decir, aquellos que obtuvieron la custodia de más de tres niños no emparentados— para determinar si acogieron a los menores de manera fraudulenta.

“No aceptaremos medias tintas cuando se trata de asegurar la frontera, proteger vidas estadounidenses y salvar a los niños de la explotación”, dijo a los periodistas el secretario de Justicia interino Todd Blanche.

Obtener la custodia de varios niños migrantes no emparentados no es un delito. Los patrocinadores pueden ser personas atentas y con buenas intenciones, pero el hecho de que altos funcionarios del gobierno los señalen sugiere que las autoridades albergan sospechas sobre ellos y podrían someterlos a un escrutinio más profundo.

Durante el mandato del expresidente Joe Biden, las autoridades intentaron entregar a los niños a patrocinadores adultos elegibles en un plazo de 30 días, reuniendo rápidamente a muchas familias. Pero el enfoque también produjo errores: algunos menores fueron entregados a adultos que los obligaron a trabajar ilegalmente, o a personas que proporcionaron identificaciones y direcciones claramente falsas.

Con Trump, el gobierno endureció las normas destinadas a impedir que traficantes introduzcan ilegalmente a niños en el país, y eso también ha provocado un drástico aumento del tiempo que los menores pasan bajo custodia federal. Hasta mayo, los niños permanecen en esa situación un promedio de 206 días antes de ser liberados, en comparación con un promedio de 37 días cuando Trump asumió el cargo. Al mismo tiempo, el número total de menores bajo custodia ha disminuido de manera constante.

Lograr un equilibrio entre liberar a los niños con patrocinadores verificados y protegerlos del peligro ha provocado un polémico desacuerdo partidista.

Los demócratas “quieren afirmar que los republicanos somos inhumanos de alguna manera porque hacemos cumplir las leyes”, afirmó Blanche tras criticar los procedimientos de verificación bajo el gobierno de Biden. “¿Qué tiene de inhumano cuidar de nuestros niños?”.

Los casos anunciados el jueves incluyen cargos contra una mujer que, según las autoridades, vivía en Estados Unidos ilegalmente, conspiró con otras personas para introducir niños de contrabando a través de la frontera y luego usó identidades falsas para obtener su custodia a cambio de dinero. En otro caso, se acusa a una mujer de afirmar falsamente que era hermana de una adolescente que había ingresado ilegalmente a Estados Unidos en su solicitud para convertirse en su patrocinadora.

The Associated Press solicitó comentarios a los abogados que representan a los acusados en esos casos.

Distintos críticos del gobierno de Trump han expresado su preocupación por los controles de bienestar realizados por agentes de inmigración en escuelas primarias, por el hecho de que tales agentes se presenten y detengan a patrocinadores en reuniones de reunificación con los niños, y por la documentación recientemente exigida que ha creado una “barrera de papeleo” y ha provocado una demanda reciente.

Shaina Aber, directora ejecutiva del Acacia Center for Justice, que proporciona servicios legales para niños migrantes no acompañados bajo contrato con el gobierno, señaló que la administración no ha reconocido el daño que ha causado a los menores al “someterlos a una detención indefinida y erosionando casi cualquier camino para obtener una reparación del daño”

“Si al gobierno le preocupa el bienestar de los menores no acompañados, la respuesta no puede ser arrebatárselos a sus seres queridos, tartar de perjudicar su representación y detenerlos en instalaciones grupales con riesgos bien documentados de aislamiento, abuso y deterioro de la salud mental”, añadió Aber.

Incluso los patrocinadores dispuestos a someterse a los nuevos procedimientos de verificación se han visto obligados a soportar demoras innecesarias.

Un padre de Chicago, ciudadano de Estados Unidos y que tenía un certificado de nacimiento válido de su hijo, tuvo que esperar cinco meses antes de que el gobierno pudiera programar una cita para la toma de huellas dactilares. Durante la espera, su hija pequeña sufrió abuso sexual mientras estaba bajo custodia federal, según alegó una demanda. El gobierno no respondió a reiteradas solicitudes para comentar el caso.

Un informe de The Marshall Project y MS NOW destaca que las cifras se han multiplicado por 10 con respecto de lo que ocurría en la Administración Biden. En total, unos 500 niños pequeños han estado en detención durante el mandato de Trump.

He was the killer of big blond spiders, the fixer of household things, an occasional Santa’s helper. Among his many acts of service, my father volunteered with Chicago’s Christmas Ship, bringing Christmas trees to disadvantaged families in the area.

My father was also a refugee.

Dad was 6 years old when his homeland of Germany attacked Poland and started World War II. My grandmother boarded him on a farm outside Berlin to keep him safe. He remembered running through a field toward the farmhouse as Allied forces strafed it. I always wondered what it must have been like for him, being separated from his mother, who stayed in Berlin, and his father, who was conscripted, and living with strangers far from what was familiar. But he didn’t often recount the past.

Although my father fiercely defended border control, he was outraged by Present Donald Trump’s family separation policies during his first term, which separated more than 5,000 children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border. Since Trump’s return to office in 2025, more than 145,000 children have had a parent detained in deportation campaigns, according to a recent Brookings Institution report.

My father did not stay at the farm. When Allied bombing campaigns intensified, my grandmother worried that the railroad tracks would be obliterated, so she brought my father back to Berlin. In an apartment building there, my father and grandmother would listen for the telltale tap of the Gestapo’s hobnail boots and scurry up stairs to the attic to cross over and come down into another section of the building, where my grandmother’s Catholic friend lived, so they could hide.

That haunting piece of family history resurfaced for me when the “Broadview Six” and others protested outside a suburban immigration detention facility. Chicagoans blew whistles and filmed detainments while immigration agents patrolled neighborhoods with military-grade weapons as part of Operation Midway Blitz.

Once, toward the end of WWII, when my father and grandmother were in an air raid shelter, a few Russian soldiers came in, sat in the middle of the room and started cleaning their rifles. Dad told me: “They would aim the weapon at one of us, but not fire it. They seemed to have fun with it. I thought for sure I was going to die that day.” He was only 12. I heard his words again when I read about federal immigration agents descending from a Black Hawk helicopter, breaking down doors, and zip-tying U.S. citizens and immigrants in Chicago’s South Shore neighborhood last September.

With support from the organization that was the precursor to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, my father and grandmother immigrated to the United States aboard the General Henry Taylor. The ship sailed past the Statue of Liberty into New York Harbor. I imagine my father’s dread and excitement, his sense of loss and hope, as he took his first steps on U.S. soil at age 16.

My father and grandmother were met by an affiliate of the refugee group, who arranged a place for them to sleep and then brought them to Penn Station. They caught a train to Chicago, where my grandmother had some friends, and they were on their own.

If they were seeking safety in the U.S. today, they might need to fly to Mexico as Ukrainians did after Russia’s 2022 invasion. Or they might have to travel on foot across multiple countries, taking only what they could carry; cross the Darién Gap, with its extortioners, traffickers, sexual violators, thieves, flash floods and wild animals; and travel north through Mexico atop a train, eating instant coffee so they wouldn’t fall asleep and roll off. They would arrive at the U.S. border having not bathed in days.

Immigration officials would look at them but not see the people they had been or who they were going to become.

My father and grandmother first settled in Englewood. Dad went to night school to learn English and was attending Englewood High School when he got drafted into the Army. He passed the GED test while completing his military service, earned a bachelor’s degree in business from Northwestern University and built a comfortable middle-class living for himself.

Despite Executive Order 13269, signed by Republican President George W. Bush, which grants expedited citizenship to noncitizens serving honorably in the armed forces, approximately 94,000 noncitizen veterans were at risk of detainment or deportation as of 2024. Over the past year, 248 relatives of former military members have been put into deportation proceedings, 125 former service members have been arrested for immigration violations and 34 former military members have been put into deportation proceedings.

Dad often credited the U.S. for saving his life. He was fiercely proud to be an American, but I am not sure he would recognize his beloved country today.

When the president lets immigration officers operate with expanded authority and limited accountability, threatens to send the military into U.S. cities, strips people of due process and tries to implement indefinite detention without bond hearings, the U.S. resembles the authoritarian country Dad and my grandmother fought so hard to escape.

The life my father built for himself in Chicago would have been impossible in postwar Berlin. In midlife, he taught himself how to sail and eventually served as the commodore of the Burnham Park Yacht Club. He once told me he couldn’t believe someone like him was allowed to belong to a yacht club, let alone lead it.

Dad believed in the promise of the U.S. — that those seeking safety and opportunity would find them here — because he had lived it. That U.S. promise has enabled a pluralistic society that reflects the best of our country’s values: hope and goodwill between peoples, care, concern and understanding. The ruptures in our nation, exemplified by family separation, indefinite detention, mass deportation and an absence of refugee resettlement for most everyone except white South Afrikaners, will destroy the essence of the U.S.

For months, Americans have watched one immigration headline after another flash across their screens. Deportations. Raids. U.S. citizens killed. Protests. Court battles. And now, President Trump has signed a massive $70 billion funding bill for immigration enforcement agencies that’ll last through the end of his presidency.

The question isn’t whether immigration laws should be enforced. Every country has laws, and every administration has a responsibility to uphold them. The question for me is, what are the guardrails?

Critics are calling this legislation a blank check, and that’s because it has little to no parameters on how the money will be spent.

Take something both Republicans and Democrats have broadly supported: body cameras for ICE officers. In an era where police departments across the country have embraced body-worn cameras as a tool for transparency, accountability and public trust, less than 25 percent of ICE’s field workforce is currently equipped with body cameras. That means only about 3,000 out of an estimated 13,000 ICE field agents wear body cameras today.

Yet despite billions in new funding, there’s no requirement in this legislation that ICE officers wear them. Why not? If lawmakers agree body cameras protect officers and civilians alike, why wasn’t that one of the conditions attached to this unprecedented funding package?

And Americans are clearly asking for more oversight. According to the latest NPR/PBS News/Marist poll, 65 percent of Americans say ICE has gone too far in its enforcement efforts.

That’s not a fringe opinion. That’s nearly two-thirds of this country.

Democrats spent months proposing reforms before funding negotiations collapsed. Now, I’ll admit, I wish the government did not shut down to have these conversations, but still some commonsense measures were proposed. Among them: requiring visible identification for agents; body cameras; judicial warrants before entering private property; restrictions on racial profiling; safeguards for detainees; restrictions on arrests at schools, churches, hospitals and courthouses; and protections against the creation of databases tracking people engaged in First Amendment-protected activities.

Speaking of databases that track folks, recent reporting has raised questions about whether immigration officials are collecting and retaining information on protesters and observers who monitor ICE operations. Federal officials deny maintaining a dedicated database of protesters, but documents and lawsuits have fueled concerns about what information is being gathered, how long it’s being stored, and how it could be used in the future. In fact, last week during a congressional hearing, Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin said his department had used facial recognition technology on people gathered outside of Delaney Hall immigration detention center in New Jersey.

Again, whether someone supports or opposes immigration enforcement isn’t really the point. The point is that when government power expands, oversight should certainly expand with it.

Mullin recently floated the idea of pulling Customs and Border Protection officers from international airports in sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. That could create massive disruptions for international travelers and airport operations.

White House border czar Tom Homan was asked about this, but he appears to have a different plan. “This idea of pulling customs agents from major airports — I’m reminded of a line from that movie “Guardians of the Galaxy.” “What’s your goal here? To get everybody to hate you?”

This week on “Fox & Friends,” Homan warned he intends to send “more ICE agents than you’ve ever seen in New York City” after Gov. Kathy Hochul signed legislation creating additional protections against ICE enforcement actions in the state.

And maybe that’s exactly why states like New York are stepping in. When the federal government expands enforcement authority without clearly defining limits, states often attempt to create their own.

MS Now released a new report showing ICE detention of very young children has increased dramatically. Researchers found that on an average day, approximately 25 children age three and younger are now being held in ICE custody. Whether Americans support that policy or not, it’s another example of why many people are asking how this money will be spent and what safeguards will exist.

A government asking for $70 billion and receiving it without meaningful new transparency measures shouldn’t expect the public to simply trust that everything will go according to plan.

The American people — especially the 65 percent of the country who believe ICE has already gone too far — aren’t asking for open borders. They’re asking for oversight.

The Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign has led to a succession of showdowns between states and the federal government over local police’s role in immigration enforcement.

These tensions have been playing out within states as well. Democratic-run cities in Republican-led states have found themselves at odds with their governors and other state officials. And increasingly, Republican sheriffs in Democratic-led states have been publicly fighting with their own state governments.

A new front in this battle has opened in Maryland, a solidly Democratic state with an often frustrated Republican minority. A coalition of 17 elected sheriffs, representing most of Maryland’s counties but less than a third of the state’s population, has sued the state over a new law limiting cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities.

Maryland had already barred local and state law enforcement agencies from signing formal agreements with the federal government that allow officers to assist in immigration enforcement. But with sheriffs and federal immigration authorities still cooperating in less formal ways, Democratic lawmakers crafted more legislation.

The new law, the Community Trust Act, bars local officials from asking people about their immigration status, notifying federal immigration authorities about people being held in local jails or handing people over to federal agents without a judicial warrant.

In their lawsuit, filed last month in federal court in Greenbelt, Md., the sheriffs argue that the law violates the U.S. Constitution and leaves their officers in a legally precarious place, where state and federal law conflict.

“It put us in a completely undesirable and untenable situation,” said Sheriff Jeffrey Gahler of Harford County, northeast of Baltimore.

Legal experts said Maryland was likely on firm ground because the new law does not require local officials to do anything beyond standard enforcement of criminal law. But given the fraught politics of immigration, the confrontation looms larger than the legal arguments.

Since President Trump’s return to the White House, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have made thousands of arrests in Maryland, more than triple the number of arrests during a similar period under the Biden administration. Nearly three-quarters of these arrests were made in the community, at work sites and in residential neighborhoods.

But hundreds came about through cooperation with local law enforcement, according to testimony submitted to the Maryland legislature by the Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit that conducts research on the criminal justice system and supports the new law. In most of those cases, according to the testimony, the person being handed over to ICE had not been convicted of a crime.

“For our clients, that is not an abstract legal problem. It means losing your job, your housing, your family before you have ever been found guilty of anything,” said Stephanie Wolf, director of immigration services for the Maryland Office of the Public Defender.

Sheriffs and immigration activists both agree that cooperation between local officials and federal immigration authorities continued after the state banned formal pacts with ICE. The arrangements are known as 287(g) agreements because of the section of immigration law authorizing them.

“Sheriffs turned around and said, ‘Well, you know, the 287(g) agreements are formal written agreements between us and ICE, so we’re just going to have informal communication,” said Dr. Clarence Lam, the state senator who sponsored the bill.

There are exceptions. Local law enforcement agencies can alert immigration authorities about a person in custody if the person has been convicted of a felony, has had to register as a sex offender or has served at least five years in prison in another state.

The new law’s limits on cooperation are aimed at local jails, not state prisons, which in most states work with ICE routinely. The new law codifies elements of that cooperation, requiring state officials to inform ICE if a person the agency is seeking is going to be released from a state prison.

Still, the sheriffs said that parts of the law, which passed on the last day of the legislative session, were going to create difficulties. Some said they raised concerns in a meeting with Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat.

In a statement, Mr. Moore said the law “advances an important goal,” but presents “implementation challenges that must be addressed through executive action and in next year’s legislative session.”

Some of the sheriffs reiterated a warning that federal officials have made repeatedly in demanding local cooperation — that if ICE can’t pick up people from jails, the agency will end up conducting more operations on the streets.

“We’re going down a road we don’t want to go down,” said Sheriff Joseph Gamble of Talbot County, a politically mixed county on the state’s Eastern Shore.

Senator Lam, a Democrat, dismissed these warnings, saying the Trump administration makes a lot of threats to get what it wants but often does not follow through, or is stopped by the courts.

“I don’t think we should govern as though there was a gun pointed to our head,” he said. “We have to govern based on our values and what we believe is the best thing to do.”

The detainment of two people by immigration agents outside a Baltimore school as preparations were underway for kindergarten and pre-k promotion ceremonies Thursday morning has fueled backlash from school and state officials.

Immigration agents had been pursuing an undocumented immigrant who was accompanied by his family and drove into the parking lot of Commodore John Rodgers Elementary/Middle school, where agents pulled the parents from the car, authorities and witnesses said.

Small children, some holding hands, hurried past the scene in their colorful backpacks during drop-off time as agents in vests with the words “ICE” and “police” on them detained a woman who was in an SUV with a shattered window, video shows. She was then led away with her hands appearing restrained behind her back.

Agents also struggled with a man on the ground and restrained him, according to another video taken by a driver who described children screaming as they watched.

Educators rushed to the SUV of the two people being detained and took two children who were in the backseat into the school to try and protect them, Maryland state Sen. Bill Ferguson said in a video on Facebook, calling the incident “truly unconscionable.”

The children are now in the custody of their aunt, according to the Department of Homeland Security, after their parents were provided an opportunity to contact a relative.

DHS spokesperson Lauren Bis told CNN in a statement that the man, identified as Jesus Acevedo-Sanchez, “refused lawful commands, violently resisted arrest, and used his vehicle to evade law enforcement, dragging an ICE officer in the process.”

He’s facing federal charges for resisting and impeding federal officers, and destruction of government property, according to Bis, who said ICE had previously encountered Acevedo in April. The other individual in the vehicle is facing charges for assaulting a federal officer.

CNN is working to determine whether Acevedo-Sanchez has legal representation.

It was unclear Thursday afternoon whether the family involved in the ICE incident was affiliated with the school in any way, Baltimore City Public Schools spokesperson Sherry Christian said Thursday, before DHS identified Acevedo-Sanchez. CNN reached out for more information.

“ICE leadership coordinated with school officials and the Governor’s Office to ensure the situation was resolved safely and with minimal disruption to the community,” Bis said.

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore called the incident “disturbing” and said his administration had been in touch with Immigration and Customs Enforcement leadership about what unfolded and why it occurred on school grounds.

ICE was “apologetic” to state and school officials about the arrest happening on school grounds, noting that the circumstances led them there, a source familiar with the incident told CNN.

“To be clear: ICE does not target schools, but we will not allow criminals to hide in our nation’s schools and put the safety of children at risk,” Bis said.

**Van driver describes students screaming**

The incident happened around 8 a.m. ET as families were dropping off students and arriving on campus for the end-of-year promotion ceremony, Baltimore City Public Schools spokesperson Sherry Christian said.

Jude Castellanos, who drives for an independent school transportation system, said her minivan was carrying around 10 children ranging from first grade to fifth grade students when the incident was unfolding.

She recorded video of the agents trying to detain the man on the ground while the children looked on, terrified and screaming, she told CNN.

“They were like, ‘oh, they’re gonna arrest us. They’re gonna take us,'” Castellanos said.

Almost immediately, teachers came to the van and escorted the students inside the school, Castellanos said, adding it made the children feel more secure.

Castellanos posted video of the incident and said she received a flurry of calls from parents who were scared to go to the school for the pre-K promotion.

“I’m completely shocked because I’ve seen this in the streets, but I’ve never seen this inside of a parking lot in a school,” she said.

In a letter to the school community, principal Marc Martin said he was “deeply disappointed” that the enforcement activity occurred on school grounds and officials are seeking “clear assurances” that something like that does not occur again.

“While some members of our school community were significantly impacted, students and staff who were not involved remain safe, and we continued with our scheduled activities, despite the disruption,” Martin wrote in the letter.

Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott said in a post on X he reached out to offer assistance to the affected family, the school and “federal authorities to express our anger at this arrest occurring on school grounds.”

“Schools are places where children should feel safe, where parents should be able to drop off their kids without fear, and where educators should be able to focus on teaching — not where federal agents carry out immigration enforcement actions in front of children,” the governor said in a statement.

It’s been a year since federal immigration authorities detained 76 employees at a meatpacking plant in Nebraska’s second-largest worksite immigration raid.

But the effects are still being felt.

South Omaha’s business district has not fully recovered from the negative economic effects of the raid on the Glenn Valley Foods meatpacking company, city officials and community leaders said at a news conference Tuesday.

Following the raid last June, federal authorities had touted the operation as uncovering “massive identity theft,” accusing the immigrant workers of using stolen Social Security numbers to obtain employment.

Yet, a year later, only one woman has been charged with the crimes federal immigration authorities said drew them to the meatpacking plant in the first place. The person pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a year in prison.

“If they’re meant to make our community safer, they’re not doing that,” Roger Garcia, chairman of the Douglas County Board of Commissioners, said at the news conference about the raid and other subsequent immigration actions in Omaha.

Meanwhile, the people who were detained, their families and the broader community are still dealing with the enforcement action’s ripple effects, leaders noted, as they try to mitigate the effect on local businesses. The community leaders encouraged participation in a “Day of Joy” event Wednesday to support the businesses in the predominantly Latino 24th Street corridor.

Two community surveys of the South Omaha business district show that business health and customer traffic remain low.

Forty local business owners surveyed by the Nebraska Hispanic Chamber of Commerce said uncertainty, misinformation about immigration enforcement actions and ingrained fears have affected consumer behavior so dramatically that it’s hurting businesses’ ability to bounce back.

The businesses surveyed include seven restaurants and food trucks, 18 retail establishments, three construction companies and a variety of other storefronts. Three business owners said they’re planning to transition to online operations to stay afloat.

Challenges in workforce retainment have caused six businesses to shut down, said Irma Villezcas, a grocery store owner and chair of the South Omaha Business Association.

The results echo some of the findings from recent nationwide workforce studies on the economic impact of last year’s immigration raids.

A Brookings Institution study found that last year’s immigration enforcement surge across the nation cost 668,000 jobs, and those losses affected both immigrant and U.S.-born workers. Another study from the University of Colorado Boulder found immigration enforcement didn’t expand opportunities for U.S.-born workers and instead reduced employment for some of them.

‘Unlike anything we had ever seen’

Of the 76 people immigration authorities arrested at Glenn Valley Foods, close to 10 self-deported, Garcia told NBC News on Tuesday. Others who were also detained were eventually granted bond and reunited with their families, though many of them are still facing immigration proceedings.

“They have this constant pressure of being tied up in that system that might ultimately lead to deportation eventually,” said Garcia, who is the first Latino commissioner of Douglas County, where Omaha is located.

Garcia’s family was also among those directly affected by the raids. His wife’s aunt was among the meatpacking workers taken into immigration custody.

The woman, a mother of three U.S.-born children, spent a couple of months in detention before she was released on bond. Garcia said his wife’s aunt was granted a temporary work permit — alongside others who had been detained — while they wait for their next immigration court hearing.

Luis Mejía, 20, said he went to work last June at Glenn Valley Foods “thinking it would be a normal day.” The Nebraska native who was raised in South Omaha said everything changed that morning when immigration officers entered their workplace.

As some ran away in fear, Mejía’s immigrant mother hugged him and told him to take care of his younger siblings. Then, she ran with the others.

Meanwhile, immigration officers asked Mejía to show proof of U.S. citizenship.

“I didn’t know how to do that since I’ve never been asked that before. I looked at the officer with confusion and told him I was born here,” Mejía recalled. The officers cleared him to go after looking him up in their system.

A couple of hours after authorities let him go, Mejía received a call from his mother, telling him she had been detained. After that, Mejía didn’t hear from her for a few days while she was in detention.

She was one of the at least 63 workers who were taken to the Lincoln County Detention Center, four hours away.

The situation forced Mejía and his older brother to provide for their two younger siblings while not knowing if they would get to see their mother again.

“What made this raid especially significant was what happened afterward. Many individuals were held for more than 60 hours before being processed. During those 60 hours, families did not know where their loved ones were being held and we legal service providers did not have access to them,” said Roxana Cortes-Mills, legal director at the Center for Immigrant and Refugee Advancement, an immigrant rights organization in Omaha. “It was unlike anything we had ever seen in Nebraska.”

Lina T. Stover, executive director of the Heartland Workers Center, agrees.

“One day a person may have authorization to work and remain with their family, the next day policy changes, processing delays or court decisions can place their future in jeopardy,” she said at the news conference.

Her organization supports workers in the meatpacking, construction, restaurant and cleaning industries. The group, alongside the Center for Immigrant and Refugee Advancement, was crucial in helping the families directly affected by last year’s raid.

Two other people were sentenced in connection with the events surrounding the raid at Glenn Valley Foods. One man who worked at the plant was sentenced to 14 months in prison after being convicted of wielding a box cutter while attempting to resist an immigration arrest. Another worker who protested the raid was sentenced to 22 months in prison for using a rock to assault and impede a federal officer.

“At the end of the day, only like two or three people were prosecuted with any kind of charge,” Garcia said. “It’s just really quite silly that this huge effort led to like two or three prosecutions.”

Even though Omaha police do not cooperate with ICE to enforce immigration, state police do. Garcia said he gets weekly calls informing him of individuals who have been detained by immigration officials.

“Immigration enforcement did not end a year ago,” Cortes-Mills said.

After the one worker from the Glenn Valley Foods raid was charged with identity fraud last year, Elhrick Cerdan, the assistant special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations who led the operation, told NBC News “that number could change.”

The Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Attorney’s Office-District of Nebraska did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the investigation and the workplace raid last year.

U.S. Attorney Lesley Woods said last year that a five-year statute of limitations had expired for much of the Glenn Valley workforce that otherwise would have been similarly charged.

NEW YORK (AP) — Democratic congressional candidate Brad Lander was acquitted Thursday of criminal charges related to his arrest last September at a protest inside a building that houses one of New York City’s immigration courts.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo delivered his verdict exonerating Lander a day after presiding over a one-day trial in Manhattan.

“I find the defendant not guilty,” Ricardo said after reading a lengthy analysis of the evidence and Lander’s testimony. Lander jubilantly hugged his lawyers immediately after the proceeding ended.

Outside the courthouse, Lander, who is challenging U.S. Rep. Dan Goldman in the Democratic primary, said he was moved by the judge’s “thoughtful, thorough review and ruling in this case.”

“I feel genuinely moved by the rule of law,” Lander said, calling it a blessing to live in a country where someone can successfully fight the government when wrongfully charged.

He said he wishes that immigrants facing possible deportation from the U.S. could receive the same access to quality lawyers and the courts that he enjoyed.

Federal prosecutors unsuccessfully argued that Lander obstructed an elevator on the 10th floor of 26 Federal Plaza as he sat in front of it for 20 to 25 minutes on Sept. 18, 2025. Ricardo said the government had failed to show that Lander intended to obstruct the elevators or was uncooperative as members of federal law enforcement gave protesters conflicting instructions.

A spokesperson for prosecutors declined comment Thursday.

A day earlier, Lander had testified in his own defense that he had no intention of disrupting elevator traffic in the lower Manhattan building that houses 40 federal agencies, including the FBI.

Lander, formerly the city’s comptroller and an ally of Mayor Zohran Mamdani, testified that nobody told him to step away from the elevator or said he was obstructing it before his arrest.

Weeks after his arrest, he rejected a deal that would have dismissed the misdemeanor obstruction charge in six months.

The arrest was not the first time that Lander, who ran for mayor last year, has faced jeopardy during an immigration protest. He was arrested in June 2025 at an immigration court in Manhattan after he linked arms with a person authorities were trying to detain, but charges were never filed.

LOS ANGELES — Immigration attorneys and advocates are accusing Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials of retaliating against detainees taking part in hunger strikes over inhumane conditions at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center.

The Immigrant Defenders Law Center officials said a Belizean man they represent, who has helped organize some of the hunger strikes and spoke to three members of Congress about the conditions at the detention center in San Bernardino County, was moved to out-of-state facilities and scheduled to be deported, a violation of a court directive.

The law group said other participants alleged that they’ve been zip-tied, threatened with tear gas and were put in solitary confinement or transferred to other ICE facilities.

They said the transfer of the Belizean man — Kyron Shakeel Swaso — to other facilities is a violation of the California Central District Court’s general order on immigration habeas corpus petitions, which requires ICE to give a two-day notice to the petitioner or their lawyers that they are going to be transferred out of the district.

In an email response to the Los Angeles Times, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said Swaso, who they say has a criminal history, was issued a final order of removal and was transferred to another facility as part of his removal proceedings.

The spokesperson denied there was a hunger strike and said that no one was being abused at the facility, which has been the subject of a federal class-action lawsuit. At least four people have died at the facility.

“The sudden transfer of Mr. Swaso, followed by ICE’s breakneck attempt to deport him and their denial of a hunger strike at Adelanto, raises glaring red flags,” Melissa Shepard, legal services director at the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, said in a statement. “Mr. Swaso has an unequivocal First Amendment right to speak publicly about the conditions of his detention without fear of retaliation. This appears to be yet another deliberate strategy to suppress dissent, force self-deportation, erase suffering, and strip people of their rights before anyone notices.”

Shepard called his transfer “a blatant act of retaliation.”

The hunger and economic strike began May 19, including at the Desert View Annex, a wing of the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, where detainees alleged subpar conditions and inadequate medical care. Detainees also say food rations were reduced, forcing them to buy costly items at the commissary. They said they would stop purchasing items.

A few days later, hundreds of detainees went on a hunger and labor strike at the Delaney Hall in Newark, New Jersey, over moldy food, lack of medical care and allegations that they were forced to perform facility work for little to no pay.

Both facilities are owned and operated by the Geo Group Inc., one of the largest private prison and immigration detention contractors in the country. The company has long faced criticism and scrutiny over its treatment of immigrant detainees and conditions at its facilities.

A spokesperson for Geo Group could not immediately be reached for comment, but they previously told the Times that its services are monitored by ICE and other organizations within the Department of Homeland Security to ensure compliance with federal government detention standards.

“The support services GEO provides include around-the-clock access to medical care, in-person and virtual legal and family visitation, general and legal library access, translation services, dietitian-approved meals, religious and specialty diets, recreational amenities, and opportunities to practice their religious beliefs,” the spokesperson wrote.

Nearly two weeks after the hunger strike began at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, three California members of Congress — Democratic U.S Reps. Judy Chu, Pete Aguilar and Jimmy Gomez — visited the detention centers.

In a phone interview, Gomez said he and others met with three detainees on June 1, and that at least one of them was still on a hunger strike. He said they were handed a petition listing a series of complaints signed by more than 100 detainees. Gomez said those who signed the petition had been on a hunger strike from May 22 to 28.

Gomez said the three detainees complained about the quality of the food and water. They said those who were on hunger strikes were threatened with solitary confinement. Some were denied visitations and phone calls.

“The administrators are saying there’s no hunger strike because the way they see it is if the food is delivered, then they don’t consider that a hunger strike,” he said.

He said some detainees either throw the food away or give it to others. He said further investigation of the facilities is needed and that he plans to return.

“I do believe that some of them were on hunger strikes,” Gomez said. “At the same time, a lot of them could be putting their own lives at risk if they stay on a hunger strike too long.”

Before Sayuri Tsuchitani became an entrepreneur, she spent two decades on her feet: cutting, coloring and styling hair. Hairdresser’s work is physically tough, and Tsuchitani often wondered how she’d manage as she grew older.

When the pandemic shut the Los Angeles salon where she worked, she recognized a chance to make a change: She applied for a loan from the U.S. Small Business Administration, or the SBA, for a business of her own.

“The SBA led me to my success of the American Dream,” said Tsuchitani, who took advantage of a pandemic-era funding program to open a Japanese head spa: a salon offering blood-flow massages, ayurvedic oil treatments and deep scalp cleanses. She launched one location, then two more; hired one worker, then nine more.

But today, the SBA would disqualify Tsuchitani from its loan program because of a new policy. Tsuchitani is a green-card holder, also known as a lawful permanent resident; she moved from Japan 28 years ago. And in March, the U.S. small-business agency, for the first time in its history, stopped approving loans to firms that are not fully owned by U.S. citizens — and only citizens.

‘Unapologetic about it’

The change is part of the quieter side of the Trump administration’s push to discourage immigration. As many agencies have limited how noncitizens can qualify for programs — like housing subsidies or commercial trucking licenses — the SBA moved to do the same. Early announcements said the agency would ferret out “hostile foreign nationals” and “illegal aliens.” But the SBA’s rules had long restricted lending to immigrants, mainly to those living here legally and permanently. And that’s what the SBA cut.

“It was a bit of a shock to the system,” said Eda Henries, who runs a firm that helps small businesses raise and manage funds. “No one even thought for a second that would be on the table. No one expected that it would include legal permanent residents.”

In announcing the policy change, the SBA referred to permanent residents as “foreign nationals.” And the head of the agency, Kelly Loeffler, has argued they shouldn’t benefit from American taxpayer dollars. Though permanent residents pay taxes to the U.S. government just as citizens do.

SBA’s small-business loans “are for American citizens, and we’re unapologetic about it,” Loeffler told Newsmax in March. She has cited an audit last year that found — and stopped — one six-figure loan approved for a business 49% owned by an immigrant without legal status.

In a statement to NPR, agency spokesperson Maggie Clemmons said: “The agency’s rule change will help ensure more American citizens have access to funding previously granted to noncitizens. Across every program, the SBA is ensuring that every taxpayer dollar entrusted to this agency goes to support U.S. job creators and workers.”

Historically, research has found immigrants are much more likely to start businesses than native-born Americans. Of all the people in the country, about 15% are foreign-born, but they run 20% to 25% of businesses, according to U.S. Census data. A new study this month by the nonpartisan National Foundation for American Policy estimates that immigrants and their children have launched two-thirds of the country’s startups valued at more than $1 billion.

The SBA did not respond to NPR’s questions about the potential impact of its policy on future job and business creation in the U.S.

SBA is a core pillar of small business

Of all SBA loans last year, the agency said 4% went to businesses involving permanent residents. It’s a modest share, but transformative for those companies. For small businesses, the SBA is often the first lender, with affordable rates, to take a risk on an entrepreneur.

“I don’t know where our business would be without this,” said Cristina Foanene, whose glass company in Fresno, Calif., has received three SBA loans over a decade. The money allowed the company to expand its showrooms and manufacturing facilities to make windows and doors.

Foanene and her husband moved permanently to the U.S. from Romania 20 years ago as investors, bringing with them hundreds of thousands of dollars to start their business. So far, they’ve hired some 30 people, with more planned. One of their employees recently retired after 19 years with the company.

And it was that first SBA loan that made other investors feel comfortable lending to Foanene’s business, she said.

So where will immigrant entrepreneurs turn for big cash infusions now?

“The alternative — it’s just really scarce,” said Henries, the small-business advisor.

Businesses denied loans mid-deal

Traditional banks often hesitate to deal with small firms. And Henries worries that the new SBA policy will push more business owners toward riskier or predatory lending, including merchant cash advances. Some may not grow their companies, or not start them in the first place.

Similar concerns have some Democrats in Congress trying to reverse the policy. The group — which includes Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Rep. Nydia Velazquez of New York, as ranking members of the Senate and House small-business committees respectively — introduced a bill to restore the eligibility of legal permanent residents for SBA loans.

The impact is already rippling out, said Henries. The private lenders, such as banks, that issue SBA loans now take longer to verify every owner’s citizenship status, she said, and some businesses are left in the lurch.

“I have clients that were in the middle of underwriting — we’re in the process of doing deals with lenders and small business owners,” Henries said. “These are clients that employ dozens of people and generate revenue, and pay taxes. And all of a sudden, the lenders put the brakes on.”

Eight business owners who are legal permanent residents and had received or applied for SBA loans this year declined to speak to NPR on the record, for fear of drawing unwanted attention to their immigration status within the business community.

Foanene is now a citizen and chokes up just thinking about the day she took the oath, calling it one of her proudest moments. She wonders if leaders at the SBA might have a change of heart if they heard more stories like hers.

“It really made me sad,” Foanene said. “If they will understand that there are people that are coming here with honest intention of building a business and creating jobs, then I feel like maybe they will say, ‘Actually it is benefiting our country.'”

RIO GRANDE CITY, Texas (NewsNation) — Mexican drug cartels are continuing to move immigrants illegally across the U.S.-Mexico border daily, growing the growing category of “gotaways” that federal immigration officials acknowledge is among the biggest issues at a time when the Trump administration continues to contend the border is 100% secure.

NewsNation was given exclusive access to a joint Texas Department of Public Safety and U.S. Border Patrol operation in the Border Patrol’s Rio Grande Sector, where “gotaways” continue to evade federal and local law enforcement. Sources tell NewsNation that an average of 48 illegal border crossings occur between ports of entry every day.

Although immigrants crossing the border — often with the assistance of dangerous cartels — are detected by border technology designed to monitor the border — these immigrants often can avoid being captured, adding to the list of more than 10,000 “gotaways” that have entered the United States illegally since October, when the current fiscal year began.

Customs and Border Protection data sent to Congress shows that between 70,000 and 73,000 immigrants known as “gotaways” crossed into the U.S. illegally during fiscal year 2025. Despite those numbers, however, President Donald Trump continues to tell supporters that since he took office, no immigrants have been successful in crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally.

“That’s really hard to believe,” Trump told supporters last week in Wisconsin. “But it’s true.”

This week, Texas DPS troopers were able to successfully capture six immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally by crossing the Rio Grande River — a common passageway between Mexico and Texas. Among the group was a Honduran national who told NewsNation he had been living in Haiti for six years and was working as a welder.

The man said he took a bus to Monterrey, Mexico, where he was connected with cartel operatives who demanded he pay them $10,000 for assistance crossing into the United States. The man accuses cartel members of repeatedly striking him in the head and of threatening to cut off one of his fingers if he did not work for the cartel to pay off what he owed them.

The man told NewsNation that he believes the cartels wanted him to run drugs for them into the United States as part of their long-standing drug trafficking operation.

Others captured by Texas DPS troopers were immigrants from El Salvador, Guatemala and Mexico.

All nine of the illegal immigrants and cartel guides were taken into custody and face federal and possible state charges that make them eligible for deportation if they are convicted.

Trump administration officials continue to blame the Biden administration’s “open border” policy for an influx of immigrants who crossed over the border and into the United States illegally. During those four years, experts say that Mexican cartels were requiring migrants seeking passage into the U.S. to pay between $1,500 and $3,000 for assistance.

But now, with the Trump administration’s pledge to completely close down the border for migrant crossings, the cartels have upped the ante for hopeful border-crossers.

Data released by Congress shows that human trafficking has become a $13 billion annual business for transnational criminal organizations.

“There’s people still trying to cross the border illegally,” Texas DPS Lt. Chris Olivarez told NewsNation. “The cartels are always going to change their tactics and are going to adapt to what we’re doing.”

CBP data reviewed by NewsNation shows that in FY 2025, which includes the three months before Trump took office, the U.S. Border Patrol detected about 394,000 illegal border crossings. Of that number, 323,000 (or 82%) were either apprehended at the border or turned back and returned to Mexico before being caught by federal immigration agents.

That leaves just over 18% — or just more than 70,000 immigrants — who were classified by federal officials as “known gotaways,” meaning they were detected but not caught. The 70,000 gotaways represent a major drop in that category under the Biden administration, down from more than 240,000 in 2024 alone, according to data.

In four years under Biden, Department of Homeland Security officials say that there were more than 2 million gotaways who were part of an estimated 9 million immigrants who entered the United States between 2021 and 2024.

Under the Trump administration, state and local law enforcement agencies like Texas DPS have more authority to enforce federal immigration laws. Previously, Texas officers and troopers could only charge an immigrant with criminal trespassing.

However, under extended authority provided by Texas Senate Bill 4, which looks to prohibit the establishment of “sanctuary cities” and 287 (g) agreements that partner federal and local law enforcement to work together on illegal immigration operations, the border has more coverage to deal with “gotaways”, Olivarez said.

The 2023 Texas Senate Bill, which is considered among the most extreme anti-immigrant laws passed by any state, has been met by legal opposition. Earlier this year, a federal court in Austin approved a preliminary injunction that blocks four key provisions of the bill.

Those charged with human smuggling face a minimum of 10 years in prison and the additional cooperation between DHS and local and state law enforcement, working on the budget, has stiffened those penalties even more.

A DHS spokesperson told NewsNation Tuesday that the Border Patrol has made “historic progress” in securing the border under Trump’s leadership. The agency said that “gotaways” have been reduced by 82% in fiscal year 2026 compared to the same period from a year before.

The rate of “gotaways” has dropped 94%, the agency said, compared to fiscal year 2024 — the final under the Biden administration.

“This significant reduction is a direct result of empowering USBP agents to enforce the law and apply consequences, as well as historic investments in personnel, technology, and infrastructure,” the spokesperson told NewsNation. “As more agents are deployed, additional border barriers are completed, and advanced technology is integrated, we expect these gains to continue and border security to be further strengthened. USBP remains committed to securing the border, disrupting criminal organizations, and ensuring the safety of the American public.

For Olivarez and his troopers on the ground, having the ability to be part of the solution remains part of daily life as more immigrants and smugglers attempt to breach the border that the Trump administration has effectively declared closed for business.

“It’s probably more important now than ever that we are (working together with the federal government,” Olivarez told NewsNation. “Having state and federal law enforcement together, there’s always going to be a consequence.”

(NewsNation) — Nearly 146,000 unaccompanied migrant minors who were, according to the Department of Homeland Security, part of 450,000 kids illegally smuggled across the U.S-Mexico border during the Biden administration have been located since President Donald Trump took office, DHS officials announced Thursday.

Although almost 300,000 minors smuggled across the border remain unaccounted for, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin praised a joint effort between DHS, ICE and the Department of Health and Human Services for finding the migrant minors. Mullin pledged to find those responsible for the human smuggling rings and bring them to justice.

In many cases, those children were abused, assaulted and exploited during the process of being trafficked across the border by criminal sponsors, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said.

Those criminals, working with Mexican drug cartels to move the children across the border, often sponsored multiple migrant children, Blanche said, which required them to lie to U.S. government officials, claiming they were close relatives of the children being trafficked into the country.

Those individuals, known to federal prosecutors as “super sponsors,” often used fraudulent forms of identification and made false claims to government officials to gain custody of the children once they were in the United States.

Blanche announced the indictments of three Guatemalan nationals living in Ohio, who federal prosecutors claimed worked as super sponsors, meaning they were connected to more than three migrant minors trafficked into the U.S.

The three immigrants are allegedly connected to more than a dozen cases of smuggling migrant minors into the U.S., the attorney general said. Federal prosecutors charged Maritza Azucena Cahuec Coc, 38, and her brother Carlos Agustin Cahuec Coc, 33, for their alleged roles in an international migrant smuggling conspiracy between 2020 and 2023.

Juan Tiul Xi, 27, also from Guatemala, pleaded guilty to helping smuggle a child into the United States and submitting a fraudulent sponsorship application, falsely representing that he was the child’s brother, the DOJ announced Thursday.

Blanche said the Department of Justice is currently tracking 15,500 super-sponsor cases connected to hundreds of thousands of migrant minors smuggled into the country between 2021 and 2024,

“I think I’m stating the obvious, but when the government fails to protect our borders, it is the most vulnerable who suffer,” Blanche said in a news conference Thursday.

Biden administration ‘turned a blind eye’: DHS Secretary Mullin

Mullin pinned the blame for the trafficking of migrant minors on the Biden administration. Mullin, who replaced Kristi Noem as DHS Secretary earlier this year, described the cases as “horrific” and said the Biden administration was guilty of “true neglect at best and criminal at worst” in allowing the trafficking of migrant minors to take place.

Mullin accused the Biden administration of “turning a blind eye” to criminal behavior by illegal immigrants.

He also said the previous administration allowed unvetted sponsors to take custody of those minors. He also claimed the Biden administration failed to conduct wellness checks on those children after they were placed in the custody of sponsors.

“President Trump has made it a point to go find these kids,” Mullin said, adding he would “move heaven and hell to go find these kids.”

Pressed for evidence that the Biden administration knowingly allowed migrant minors to be placed into the custody of unvetted sponsors, Blanche says “it can’t be disputed” that senior administration officials knew this was happening.

“There were individuals occupying positions of leadership in this country that knew this was happening and either didn’t care, encouraged it or a little bit of both,” Blanche said, saying he wasn’t indicting anyone in the previous administration, but was instead saying there was an “incredible dereliction of duties at best.”.

Mullin said in many cases, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and its Homeland Security Investigations unit along with Customs and Border Protection, are responsible for locating the missing migrant children. Mullin said DHS is investigating claims the minors were allegedly raped 600-700 times.

He said one-third of girls smuggled into the U.S. were likely sexually assaulted before they reached the southern border.

“I don’t care who you are. I don’t care if you have kids, don’t have kids, I don’t care if you’re a liberal, you’re an Independent, you’re a Democrat, you’re a Republican, if you can’t stand for law enforcement to go find these kids, who are you?” Mullin told reporters.

Mullin alleges many unaccompanied children found in ‘sanctuary’ cities

Mullin claimed most of the unaccompanied minors were being found in “sanctuary” cities, which have remained under constant attack by the Trump administration. Mullin specifically targeted New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani for not allowing federal immigration agents and officers into the city and accused the mayor of harboring and abetting criminals.

Without presenting a definite timeline, White House border czar Tom Homan said this week he would surge ICE officers into New York. Homan blamed New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul for not working with federal officials to allow ICE to go into places like New York.

Hochul has pushed back against those criticisms and said while state officials have worked with federal officials to go after criminals, she has taken certain steps against ICE, which she said has “been trampling on the basic rights of Americans, including here in the state of New York.”

The Office of Refugee Resettlement did not immediately return a request from NewsNation seeking to verify where those located under the Trump administration were located.

Mullin said that the 146,000 children who have been located were found through a series of processes, including standard wellness checks at addresses where minors were sent. In some cases, the children were found to be in good health and with sponsors who are in the United States legally.

In other cases, however, Mullin said minors were found to be in the custody of criminal sponsors who are now facing federal charges. Some of those sponsors were found to be part of labor or sex trafficking rings and Mullin said minors placed in the custody of those individuals have been transferred to legal and vetted sponsors.

What has changed with sponsor vetting under the Trump administration?

Angie Salazar, the acting director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, said the agency was referred an average of more than 300 unaccompanied children per day for four years during the Biden administration. ORR is responsible for the placement and care of those who are placed in the custody of sponsors

Salazar that the placement process should mirror the American foster care system, in which potential foster parents undergo rigorous background checks and vetting. But Salazar said that migrant minors were often placed into the custody of sponsors “who were rarely seen” and sent to addresses which were never visited or verified.

Salazar said that since 2025, ORR has reviewed more than 81,000 addresses that were used repeatedly to place migrant children and where more than 76,000 mandatory safety checks were never conducted. She alleges that in more than 97,000 cases, background checks of sponsors were never run and that in many cases, fingerprinting and other identification verification processes were never followed.

Under the Trump administration, Salazar said that ORR has overhauled its verification systems and has removed loopholes used in the past. She said that DNA testing is now required when a sponsor claims to be a family member of the migrant being placed.

The agency is also verifying financial information and visiting the addresses where children are being sent to ensure the safety of children being placed.

Earlier this year, NewsNation reporting partner Border Report found that hundreds of unaccompanied migrant children continue crossing the border from Mexico, with the highest numbers heading into South Texas since the start of this fiscal year.

Blanche, the acting attorney general, said Thursday that the country is no longer facing a “widespread” issue with unaccompanied minors. However, he said federal issues are dealing with “a crisis” caused by what Trump officials have characterized as an “open border policy” under former President Joe Biden.

“There’s still a tremendous amount of work yet to do,” Blanche said.

Only 3% of individuals detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the first 14 months of the second Trump administration had a violent felony conviction, according to an ABC News analysis of government data.

The findings, based on data tracking the current Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, come after President Donald Trump had pledged to target the “worst of the worst” criminal offenders among the nation’s migrants.

Based on government data analyzed by ABC News as provided by ICE in response to a FOIA requests to the Deportation Data Project and the University of Washington Center for Human Rights, the findings show that immigration enforcement has affected more than 400,000 individuals with no violent criminal history, including parents and spouses of U.S. citizens.

While the 3% figure is consistent with rates seen under the Biden administration, the data shows the Trump administration is not detaining a higher proportion of violent offenders despite a significant overall increase in total detentions.

‘President Trump’s promise’

Under Trump, there has been record high detention population, currently at around 60,000 in federal immigration custody. The most detainees under the previous administration was 39,748 in November 2023, according to a nonprofit data gathering group.

According to the government data, of the 438,537 people detained between Jan. 20, 2025, and March 11, 2026, 13,018 had a violent felony conviction in the United States. The analysis defined “violent felony” as homicide, sexual assault, robbery, or assault.

The data also showed that in the first eight months of 2025, ICE apprehended the parents of approximately 14,450 U.S.-born children. This eight-month figure nearly surpassed the total for all of 2024 and surpassed the yearly totals for both 2022 and 2023.

Of those apprehended during the administration’s first seven months, more than 9,700 children saw at least one parent placed into immigration detention — more than in previous years. Of those detained, parents of more than 7,000 children were eventually deported. Of the more than 4,700 deported parents, 265 had a violent felony conviction. And of the more than 6,400 detained parents, 322 had a violent felony conviction.

In a statement to ABC News, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said, “Since Day One, DHS law enforcement has been delivering on President Trump’s promise to the American people to arrest and deport criminal illegal aliens including murderers, rapists, pedophiles, gang members, and terrorists. This data is being cherry picked by the Deportation Data Project to peddle a false narrative.”

The Deportation Data Project provides minimally processed and unprocessed data supplied to them directly by ICE via FOIA.

“Nearly 70% of ICE arrests are criminal illegal aliens,” the statement went on to say. “We are continuing to go after the worst of the worst — including gang members, pedophiles, and rapists. Many of the individuals that are counted as ‘non-criminals’ are actually terrorists, human rights abusers, gangsters and more; they just don’t have a rap sheet in the U.S.”

“Further, every single one of these individuals committed a crime when they came into this country illegally,” the statement said regarding charges of unlawful entry, which is generally a civil violation, not a criminal offense.

‘Economic consequences’

Andrea Flores, the founder of Securing America’s Promise and a former Department of Homeland Security official, said the policy of mass deportation could lead to a child welfare crisis.

“So many children are losing primary caretakers or going to guardians,” Flores said in a Zoom interview. “We are going to have a class of children who lose their parents under this administration that is bigger than we probably have seen in modern history.”

DHS said in a statement that ICE does not separate families and that “parents are asked if they want to be removed with their children or ICE will place the children with a safe person the parent designates.”

In the first eight months of 2025, ICE also apprehended 4,843 spouses of U.S. citizens. During the first seven months of the term, more than 2,000 of these spouses were deported. Of the more than 2,000 spouses of U.S. citizens deported during the first seven months of the term, 165 had a violent felony conviction.

“We cannot underplay what it means to have even just a spouse go to detention, because what if they are the primary earner in that household?” Flores said. “We’re talking about economic consequences. We’re talking about the emotional costs of not having access to that family member.”

Trump administration officials have said that its crackdown on illegal immigration is primarily targeting dangerous and violent criminals living in the U.S. illegally, but they have also maintained that anyone residing in the country without legal status is subject to removal.

Methodology

ABC News analyzed enforcement trends by merging two primary sources: data provided by ICE via FOIA requests to the Deportation Data Project and ICE data provided to the University of Washington Center for Human Rights. The data provided to the Deportation Data Project includes data from the Department of Homeland Security’s PERSIST database, which shows the full lifecycle of immigration cases from January 2022 through early March 2026.

The data provided to the University of Washington Center for Human Rights includes I-213 records, which are the documents created when immigration officers arrest a noncitizen. These records span from January 2022 through late August 2025.

Publicly available data from ICE and DHS show detention populations and numbers on removals.

Statistics regarding the total number of parents and spouses apprehended were calculated using the University of Washington dataset alone. To determine how many of those individuals were specifically detained or deported, ABC News matched records across both databases using unique identifiers such as the date of arrest, gender, country of citizenship, and birth year.

The analysis focused on a subset of the data where a definitive match could be made between the two sources. The merged dataset allowed ABC News to track the progression of individual cases from the initial arrest through federal custody to identify parents and spouses who were ultimately held in facilities or removed from the country.

ABC News’ estimates for the number of U.S. citizens who had a parent or spouse arrested, detained and deported are likely an undercount. ProPublica, a nonprofit news organization, first reported similar data in March.

ABC News’ analysis of U.S. citizens who had a parent or spouse detained is limited to only individuals for whom arresting agents wrote an I-213 report, which represents the vast majority of individuals arrested by ICE, but is not everyone who has been detained. To perform the analysis, any possible duplicates in the data were not counted.

Flores said these numbers will likely grow.

“We have seen some recent reporting as well that the numbers are going into the tens of thousands in terms of children who have been impacted by a detained parent,” Flores said. “There are 4 million U.S. citizen children in current estimates who have a parent that isn’t documented.”

Welcome to the daily Inside Scoop newsletter. The World Cup is meant to unite fans around the globe in their fervor for soccer, but it’s not an easy task in a polarized world, amid the war with Iran and as U.S. immigration policies are challenged. Plus, we talk with chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel about President Donald Trump’s latest U-turn in the war against Iran. Let’s get into it.

The World Cup is kicking off today to the delight of soccer fanatics around the globe.

But the internationality of the spectacle casts a spotlight on the immigration policies of one of its North American hosts — the United States. President Donald Trump has built his political brand on tightening U.S. borders, and a cornerstone of his time in the White House has been his ramped-up deportation agenda.

Just yesterday, as NBC News reported, a man who was meant to be the first Somali referee to officiate at a World Cup, Omar Artan, was greeted upon his return to Mogadishu with a hero’s welcome, though he won’t partake in the tournament. He said he was detained and questioned for 11 hours before being sent back home from Miami, where the referees’ training base is.

Additionally, as the world prepared for the 39-day, 48-team, 104-match tournament, Iranian state media reported that 15 Iranian officials and the official Iraqi team photographer were denied entry to the United States. An Iraqi player, Aymen Hussein, and other teams also said they have been subjected to intensive and sometimes invasive searches at the border.

Andrew Giuliani, head of the White House World Cup task force, said Artan was denied entry for a “very good reason” without going into specifics. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, a Trump administration official told NBC News that the referee was refused for reasons including “association with suspected members of terror organizations.”

Artan told The New York Times he was questioned about Somalia’s al-Shabab but said he did not know anything about the militant group.

The events in the buildup to one of the highest-profile international sporting events led United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk to call yesterday for the U.S. to reconsider its approach.

“I really hope that there is a massive rethink of how immigration enforcement is respecting human rights and human dignity,” Türk said, “and that especially for the World Cup there is a rethink of the policies that we are unfortunately seeing prevailing especially in the U.S.”

The World Cup is also taking place as Trump sharpens his rhetoric against Iran, threatening the country’s oil and fuel supply anew as the war creeps toward the four-month mark. The escalation in the conflict perhaps seems a strange juxtaposition to the fact that Los Angeles is hosting a match between the Iranian and New Zealand teams next week.

White House spokesman Davis Ingle said in an email to NBC News that Trump was focused on ensuring the World Cup is an “incredible experience for all fans and visitors” and “the safest and most secure in history — and no amount of ridiculous scare tactics driven by liberal activist groups and the left-wing media will change that.”

Trump said he has canceled the strikes on Iran that the U.S. planned for tonight and added that a deal with Iran is expected to be “finalized” soon. It wasn’t the first time he has said an agreement is imminent, and Iran, as of the afternoon, had not confirmed a deal.

The House on Tuesday narrowly passed Republicans’ $70 billion immigration enforcement bill, as the G.O.P. banded together to steer around unified Democratic opposition and send President Trump legislation to fund his deportation crackdown through the end of his term.

The vote was 214 to 212 along party lines, with every Democrat opposed. The action capped a tempestuous and dysfunctional journey to push through the multiyear bill to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection.

Republicans did so using a maneuver that was never supposed to be employed for routine spending, after Democrats refused to fund the agencies unless changes were made following the fatal shooting of two Americans by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis.

Its passage was a major victory for Republican leaders in Congress, who had toiled for weeks to unite their conference around legislation that Mr. Trump had demanded they pass, and that G.O.P. lawmakers were eager to advance ahead of midterm elections in which they are fighting to keep control of the House and Senate.

“We were sent here by the American people who gave President Trump an overwhelming victory,” said Representative Jodey C. Arrington, Republican of Texas and the chairman of the Budget Committee. “Every swing state, the popular vote, the electoral vote, gave us unified Republican leadership in Congress. The No. 1 reason they did that was to restore the rule of law and to put the American people’s safety and security first. And that’s exactly what we’re doing today.”

But what began as a measure that unified Republicans eager to support Mr. Trump’s hard-line immigration stance devolved in recent weeks into a political albatross for the party, putting election-year divisions on display.

G.O.P. lawmakers balked at the president’s demands to include $1 billion in security funds for his ballroom project, and they refused to move ahead with the measure without assurances that no federal money would be used to create a $1.8 billion fund his administration announced to pay people who claim they were victimized by the government.

While the administration said it would not move forward with such a fund, several Senate Republicans voted with Democrats to attach a prohibition or limitations to the bill. But those efforts failed, leaving the measure silent on the matter.

Still, Senate Republican leaders were able to put down the revolt in their ranks and pass the measure early Friday.

And Mr. Johnson quelled a short-lived rebellion of his own on Tuesday, after a clutch of conservative Republicans briefly withheld the votes needed to allow the measure to clear a key procedural hurdle, demanding a vote on a separate sweeping border security bill to crack down on unlawful immigration. They eventually backed down and allowed the measure to move ahead.

Democrats were unanimous in their opposition to the bill, saying they would not lend their votes to fund immigration enforcement tactics they characterized as wildly out of control.

“Donald Trump promised America that he would target violent felons who are here illegally,” Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the Democratic leader, said. “But instead, taxpayer dollars are being used by ICE and his violent mass deportation machine to target and brutalize American citizens — in some cases, killing them.”

Republicans pushed the $70 billion legislation through Congress using a process known as reconciliation, created to allow the majority party to dodge a filibuster and pass bills aimed at tackling federal deficits on a simple majority vote. In doing so, they effectively gave up on the normal, bipartisan appropriations process that has always been used to fund major government agencies.

The circuitous dispute over funding for immigration enforcement began in February, when federal agents in Minneapolis shot and killed the two American citizens during Mr. Trump’s immigration sweeps, and Democrats demanded guardrails to rein in the officers’ tactics and conduct.

Mr. Trump and Republicans refused to yield to a number of Democrats’s demands, including barring immigration officers from wearing masks and requiring them to obtain warrants for searches. Unable to reach a bipartisan agreement to allow a regular spending bill to move forward, Senate Republicans and Democrats struck a deal to fund everything except for the immigration enforcement agencies.

Even then, the deal languished for weeks because conservatives in the House refused to vote for a regular spending bill that did not fund ICE and border patrol. House Republicans passed it only after the White House ordered them to do so.

In the interim, Mr. Trump said he was funding both agencies with money approved by Republicans tucked into the tax law enacted last year, which also passed using reconciliation.

Their use of a process meant to make it easier to do the politically risky work of enacting major budgetary policy to steer around normal appropriations has raised the specter of the maneuver becoming routine whenever lawmakers are unable to come to a consensus on spending.

“They’re using the partisan reconciliation process to pass a budget because they refused to negotiate through the normal appropriations process,” Representative Mary Gay Scanlon, Democrat of Pennsylvania, said. “We asked that ICE and C.B.P. be held to the same standards as every other responsible law enforcement agency in this country. Republicans said ‘no.’ They said no to everything.”

A new federal watchdog report has found severe violations at one of the country’s largest immigration detention centers, including millions of dollars wasted, detainee health endangered, and the destruction or loss of evidence in a detainee death investigation.

The report, produced by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), focuses on Camp East Montana. The facility opened in August 2025 on the grounds of the U.S. Army’s sprawling Fort Bliss military installation in El Paso, Texas. The facility can hold up to 5,000 immigrants.

But the detention center, formerly operated by Acquisition Logistics LLC and since March operated by Amentum Services, has been dogged by problems and has not been running at full capacity. The report found millions of dollars wasted on meals and operations billed at full capacity even when the actual detainee population was far lower.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., one of the lawmakers who requested the report, called it “damning.”

“We now know even more details of how dangerous and irresponsible the Trump Administration’s mass deportation campaign truly is,” Durbin said in a news release. “Excessive use of force, lacking medical and mental health care, and wasted taxpayer dollars are emblematic of this mass deportation scheme.”

In a statement to NPR, the Department of Homeland Security vowed upgrades and improvements to the troubled facility under a new contractor. The agency said “ICE is always looking at ways to improve our detention facilities to ensure we are providing the best care to illegal aliens in our custody.”

Since its inception, Camp East Montana has been mired in controversy.

The detention facility was hastily built in order to meet the detention space needs for President Trump’s crackdown on immigration.

Acquisition Logistics LLC, a small contractor with no prior experience in immigration detention, was awarded a $1.3 billion contract to operate the center.

Since its opening last year, immigration lawyers and immigrant-rights organizations have expressed concerns about the conditions inside the facility.

In a letter to Congress in December, the ACLU included the experiences of 45 detainees who described “repeated instances of coercion” and physical force.

In February, ICE inspectors found 49 violations to detention standards at Camp East Montana, including a failure from staff to “accurately document required checks to prevent significant self-harm and suicide”, and a month later four detainees sued the detention center and described “severe medical neglect.”

At least three people have died while in custody at Camp East Montana.

One of the deaths — detainee Geraldo Lunas Campos — was ruled a homicide by the El Paso County Medical Examiner’s Office.

The GAO report found “the contractor did not provide use of force and death reports to ICE, as required.”

“In addition, evidence associated with the incident was missing or destroyed,” the report said.

Acquisition Logistics LLC did not respond to a request for comment from NPR. Chris Benoit, an attorney representing the family of Lunas Campos, also declined to comment.

DHS replaced Acquisition Logistics’ contract in March. A new, $453 million contract was given to Amentum Services, a company that was working as a subcontractor for Acquisition Logistics at Camp East Montana.

“This new contractor will allow Camp East Montana to continue abiding by the highest detention standards WITH the ability to provide MORE medical care on-site,” DHS said in a statement Wednesday. “This contract also allows more on-site staff and a PRECISE quality assurance surveillance plan. ICE will have even more oversight of the contractors at this facility.”

But that’s not enough for the immigration-rights advocates and lawmakers representing the area.

Congresswoman Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, who has visited the facility, is calling for it to be shut down, the contractor investigated, and the destruction of evidence referred to law enforcement. “Republicans should work with us to redirect these funds to meet the needs of hardworking Americans,” Escobar said in a news release.

DHS pushed back on any idea the facility will shut down, saying in a statement to NPR, “Far from closing, Camp East Montana is upgrading.”

President Trump touted the 2026 FIFA World Cup as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to showcase American exceptionalism and global unity on U.S. soil.

But the feel-good vibes surrounding the world’s biggest sporting event have been dampened by stories of immigration crackdowns and visa restrictions in the run-up to the tournament.

Why it matters: The World Cup is an early test of whether Trump can successfully host a global spectacle while pressing his America First agenda, with the 2028 Olympics looming just two years later.

Zoom out: Visa barriers and broader international concerns are suppressing international demand for World Cup travel, according to the American Hotel & Lodging Association (AHLA).

Across host markets, close to 80% of hotel owners and operators said their bookings were below initial forecasts, per the AHLA. The group said World Cup cities were wrestling with multiple challenges, from a perception abroad that visas would be delayed to increased fuel prices.

Zoom in: A string of travel-related run-ins has fueled criticism of the Trump administration:

Omar Artan, a referee from Somalia, was denied entry at Miami International Airport due to “vetting concerns,” according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. A senior administration official alleged that Artan was linked to terror organizations, but Artan told the New York Times, “I think they have a problem with my country.”

Iraqi striker Aymen Hussein was held and questioned for hours at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport, Reuters reported, citing an Iraqi sporting official.

“During processing, two travelers [with the Iraqi team] underwent additional inspection,” a CBP spokesperson told Axios. One traveler was admitted, but the second — a photographer — was denied entry, also due to “vetting concerns.”

Restrictions on Iranian nationals created a diplomatic quagmire for FIFA. While Iran’s players were granted visas, staff members were reportedly turned away.

Sports reporters have also faced visa restrictions, according to a letter from the International Sports Press Association.

Friction point: Domestic fear of ICE presence at games also threatened to derail stadium service at a Los Angeles-area venue after workers authorized a strike, in part over immigration enforcement concerns.

Operators reached a deal with the workers’ union, but it said they retain “the contractual right to walk off the job” if “federal immigration enforcement threatens worker safety” during a match.

More broadly, immigrant rights groups have warned fans to be on guard for immigration enforcement tied to World Cup matches.

Yes, but: Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told CBS News in a May interview that ICE’s mission was not “to go round up mass individuals,” adding that “we are always looking for the worst of the worst.”

The Trump administration has softened some barriers to entry for the World Cup, including waiving its up to $15,000 visa bonds for certain individuals.

Several DHS components, including ICE and its Homeland Security Investigations team, are coordinating on the massive undertaking of securing the sprawling tournament, which will be played in 11 U.S. cities.

Asked about the complications on Wednesday, FIFA president Gianni Infantino said, “It’s not easy when you have 300,000 accredited people, the majority of which are from outside of the U.S., to process them, to vet them.”

What they’re saying: “President Trump is focused on ensuring that this is not only an incredible experience for all fans and visitors, but … also the safest and most secure in history — and no amount of ridiculous scare tactics driven by liberal activist groups and the left-wing media will change that,” White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement provided to Axios.

Reality check: The political controversy could fade once play gets underway and the focus shifts to the field.

Bottom line: The world will be watching how the Trump administration handles a wave of international footballers and fans.

GENEVA (AP) — The United Nations’ top human rights official called Wednesday for a “massive rethink” of immigration policies especially in the United States around the World Cup.

Issues around “racial profiling, surveillance and immigration enforcement” were cited by U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk even before the 48-nation, 39-day tournament starts Thursday.

Iran’s team was moved from a training camp in Arizona to Mexico, some Iranian officials were denied U.S. entry visas, Africa’s top referee from Somalia was refused entry in Miami and images circulated of a Senegal player being frisked by a security guard on airport tarmac.

“We have seen some of the scenes,” Türk told reporters at a briefing at the U.N.’s human rights agency headquarters.

“I hope that the issues around racial profiling, around surveillance, around immigration enforcement are not going to affect this World Cup in the way that they have already done,” the Austrian lawyer said.

The U.S. is hosting most of the 104 games in a shared project with Canada and Mexico, though it is only the policies of federal agencies under U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration that have drawn criticism.

“I really hope that there is a massive rethink of how immigration enforcement is respecting human rights and human dignity,” Türk said, “and that especially for the World Cup there is a rethink of the policies that we are unfortunately seeing prevailing especially in the U.S. at the moment.”

Türk said global sports should be “where the world comes together in unity and in peace.”

“It is clear that the environment in which mega sport events including the World Cup take place need to provide a dignified and safe environment, for the teams that compete but also for the supporters, for the whole society and frankly for the world,” he said.

Fans from countries like Morocco and Scotland, who spent thousands of dollars on flights, hotels and tickets for the most expensive World Cup ever, have reported having their travel documents denied or revoked just days before they were due to travel.

FIFA’s bidding rules in 2017 for nations wanting to host this World Cup stated visa processing “must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner,” with the caveat it must not “adversely affect the national immigration and security standards.”

In the case of Somali referee Omar Artan, a U.S. official said he was refused admission due to “association with suspected members of terror organizations,” though without specifying details or providing proof.

FIFA was unable to protect the referee it picked for World Cup duty despite its president Gianni Infantino building closer ties to Trump and administration officials in the past 18 months.

FIFA also has aligned itself with UN guiding principles on business and human rights that it pledged should be respected at its tournaments.

Türk highlighted a wider point about the treatment of people worldwide moving between different nations.

“I also hope that the dehumanization of the other, the dehumanization of migrants, the dehumanization of refugees and asylum seekers is put to an end,” he said. “Nobody benefits from divisive and polarizing narratives.”

The headline alarmed many, but the memo itself tells a more nuanced story.

On May 21, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a new policy memorandum — PM-602-0199 — with a title that immediately raised concern across the immigration community: “Adjustment of Status is a Matter of Discretion and Administrative Grace, and an Extraordinary Relief that Permits Applicants to Dispense with the Ordinary Consular Visa Process.”

The agency’s press release declared that USCIS “will grant Adjustment of Status only in extraordinary circumstances.” That framing has understandably caused significant concern for the thousands of families currently in, or preparing to begin, the adjustment of status process inside the United States.

Here is what the memo actually says, what Boundless attorneys make of it, and what it may mean for your case.

Important Update (June 10, 2026)

Early reports from immigration attorneys suggest some USCIS field offices may be scaling back their implementation of the May 21 adjustment of status memo. According to the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), some attorneys report that officers are no longer asking memo-related questions during adjustment of status interviews, while others report receiving approvals in cases where those questions were previously asked. USCIS has not announced any formal changes to the policy, and implementation may vary by field office.

What is adjustment of status?

Adjustment of status (AOS) is the process by which someone already physically present in the United States applies for a green card without having to leave the country to complete consular processing abroad. It is the most common pathway to permanent residence for spouses and close family members of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who are already living in the U.S.

What the New Memo Actually Says

The memo does not introduce new law. Instead, it instructs USCIS officers to remember that AOS has always been a discretionary benefit, not an automatic right, and that officers must carefully weigh all relevant positive and negative factors when adjudicating each application.

Specifically, the memo directs officers to weigh both negative and positive factors about each applicant. The factors that work against an applicant include:

– Violations of U.S. immigration law or the conditions of a prior visa status
– Fraud or false statements made to USCIS or any other government agency
– Behavior that was inconsistent with the purpose of the visa or status you entered on
– Remaining in the U.S. after your authorized stay ended
– Having applied for adjustment of status when consular processing abroad was available to you
– Evidence that you entered the U.S. with the pre-existing intent to apply for a green card, rather than honoring the purpose of your visa

On the other side, the positive factors officers are instructed to weigh include:

– Strong family ties to the United States, especially a U.S. citizen or green card holder spouse or child, particularly when separation would cause significant hardship
– A history of lawful presence and community integration such as consistent employment, tax filings, civic involvement, and letters from community members
– Good moral character, including a clean criminal record, charitable contributions, and professional accomplishments
– Benefit to the United States, such as skills, contributions to the economy, or employer support

One important point from immigration attorneys who have reviewed this guidance: the absence of negative factors is not enough on its own. USCIS has made clear that applicants must affirmatively demonstrate positive equities, meaning you need to show why approval is warranted, not just that there is nothing working against you.

The memo acknowledges possible exceptions, including nonimmigrant visa categories that allow “dual intent” (meaning you can hold a temporary visa while also pursuing a green card) and cases where adjustment of status is the only available pathway to permanent residence. The memo also confirms that officers must issue a written explanation detailing positive and negative factors any time a case is denied on discretionary grounds.

The phrase “only in extraordinary circumstances” that appeared in the USCIS press release does not appear anywhere in the body of the memo itself. That language came from a political statement by an agency official, not from the policy guidance that will govern actual adjudications.

What Boundless Attorneys Are Saying

Our attorneys have reviewed the memo in full, and their consensus is clear: Boundless will continue filing adjustment of status cases.

The headline framing overstates what the memo does. As one of our attorneys explained: “That is not how I personally read the memorandum. The closest statement is in case citations, but even then the citations just state that adjustment of status is discretionary, it’s the noncitizen’s burden of proof, and adjustment should only be granted in meritorious cases.” The political statement issued alongside the memo, in their view, “is not what will control during adjudication.”

Our team does anticipate some real-world effects. The most likely near-term consequence is an uptick in Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) as officers document their discretionary analysis more thoroughly. This could slow processing timelines and require more detailed responses to agency inquiries.

For spouses of U.S. citizens — historically the group that has received the most favorable exercise of USCIS discretion — our attorneys expect that dynamic to continue, particularly for applicants with no arrest record and no prior immigration violations and can demonstrate positive factors for remaining in the U.S. The absence of further implementation guidance means we are watching closely as cases move through adjudication.

One firm takeaway from our legal team: USCIS cannot change the underlying law through a policy memo. Legal challenges are anticipated, and courts will have the final say on how far this memo’s reach extends.

What This Means If You Have a Pending AOS Case

If you have already filed an adjustment of status application, here is what to know right now:

– Continue your case. There is no reason to withdraw a pending application based on this memo alone.
– Expect possible delays. Officers may take longer to adjudicate cases as they document their discretionary reasoning more thoroughly.
– Be prepared for an RFE. Immigration attorneys are already reporting that USCIS officers are issuing Requests for Evidence and asking interview questions about why applicants chose to apply for a green card in the U.S. rather than through a consulate abroad. If you receive an RFE, respond fully and promptly with legal assistance. A well-documented response can directly address the discretionary factors an officer is weighing.
– Prepare for your interview. Officers have reportedly been asking questions such as: Why did you apply for adjustment of status rather than consular processing? Are there any reasons you could not apply abroad? What family ties do you have in your home country? If you have an interview coming up, talk to your attorney about how to address these questions clearly and honestly.
– Gather supporting documents proactively. Even if you have already filed, it is worth compiling evidence that demonstrates your positive ties to the U.S. — things like joint bank statements, lease or mortgage documents, evidence of your U.S. citizen or LPR family members, tax returns, pay stubs, community or employer letters, and evidence of civic involvement. These can strengthen a response to an RFE or support your case at interview.
– Maintain your lawful status. If you are in a valid nonimmigrant status while your AOS is pending, continue to maintain that status and comply with all its conditions. Allowing your nonimmigrant status to lapse while your application is pending increases your risk profile under this new guidance.
– Do not travel internationally without consulting your attorney. Travel while AOS is pending carries risks that may be heightened in the current environment.

If you have an upcoming green card interview

Applicants are already reporting increased scrutiny during green card interviews. If you’re going into an adjustment of status interview, be prepared for variants of the following questions:

– Why are you applying to adjust your status inside the U.S. instead of returning to your home country for consular processing
– Are there any factors that would prevent you from consular processing?
– (if out of status) Why did you choose to remain in the United States after your nonimmigrant status/authorized period of stay expired?
– What family or other ties do you have in your home country?

In cases where answers are not satisfactory, we have examples of applicants who have been asked to re-file from outside of the country by the interviewer. AILA suggests evidence demonstrating positive factors may include, but is not limited to the following:

– Evidence of deep U.S. family ties (U.S. citizen or LPR spouse/children), particularly where separation would cause hardship
– Long-term lawful presence and community integration (employment history, tax records, civic involvement, community letters)
– Evidence of good moral character (no criminal history, charitable contributions, professional accomplishments)
– Demonstrated benefit to the United States (employer sponsorship letters, specialized skills, economic contributions)

What This Means If You Have Not Yet Filed

Our attorneys recommend moving forward with your adjustment of status application if you are eligible. The discretionary standard is not new — it has always existed. Waiting could mean filing under a more uncertain environment if USCIS issues further category-specific guidance, which the memo signals may be coming.

If you are a spouse of a U.S. citizen with no immigration violations or criminal history, and can prove positive factors for remaining in the U.S., your case profile remains one of the strongest for a favorable exercise of discretion.

One meaningful step you can take before filing is to prepare a package of documentation that affirmatively demonstrates why your case warrants approval. Under the new guidance, simply having no negative factors is not enough — USCIS wants to see positive equities clearly laid out. A strong pre-filing package for a family-based applicant might include:

– A personal statement or cover letter explaining your ties to the U.S. and your family circumstances
– Evidence of your relationship with your U.S. citizen or LPR petitioner (photos, shared finances, correspondence)
– Proof of hardship to your U.S. family members if you were required to leave the country
– Tax returns, pay stubs, or employment records showing your history of lawful contribution
– Letters from employers, community organizations, religious institutions, or neighbors attesting to your character and community involvement
– Any evidence of long-term lawful presence in the U.S.

Keep in mind that adjustment of status, even under increased scrutiny, still offers real advantages over consular processing, including the ability to apply for a work permit (EAD) and advance parole while your case is pending. Those benefits are not available if you apply for your immigrant visa abroad.

What Happens If Your Application Is Denied?

If USCIS denies an adjustment of status application on discretionary grounds, that decision cannot be directly appealed. If a denial occurs, the next steps — such as a motion to reopen or reconsider, or pursuing consular processing abroad — are more complicated and costly, which is exactly why presenting the strongest possible case from the start matters more than ever under this new guidance.

If your application is denied and you do not currently have valid nonimmigrant status, USCIS may also initiate removal proceedings. This is a serious consequence that underscores the importance of working with an experienced immigration attorney throughout this process.

A note for families with children

If you have children included as dependents on your adjustment of status application, be aware that a denial can carry additional consequences. Under current USCIS policy, children whose ages are protected under the Child Status Protection Act may lose that protection if an I-485 application is denied and the case is not renewed in removal proceedings. This is a significant issue your attorney should be factoring into your case strategy.

What We Still Don’t Know

USCIS provided no timeline for how or when changes in adjudication practice will be implemented, and offered no guidance on how the memo will be applied to specific populations. The memo itself notes that USCIS may issue further guidance on particular adjustment of status categories, meaning the full picture is not yet clear.

Specifically, we do not yet know:

– Whether USCIS will treat parolees, nonimmigrant visa holders, and dual-intent visa holders differently in practice
– How officers will be trained to implement this memo
– Whether and how litigation will affect the memo’s application

MIAMI (AP) — On a late March afternoon, a Florida Fish and Wildlife officer pulled up to a Guatemalan couple walking their dog in a park in the affluent beachside community of Bonita Springs, along the Gulf Coast. From his car, he asked to see the husband’s identification and then ordered them to head toward the park exit, according to the wife.

When they arrived in the parking lot, the officer arrested the husband on a bogus charge, said his wife, who spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity for her and her 48-year-old husband because she didn’t want to risk being detained as well or put either of their pending asylum cases at risk.

“He told us he was issuing a ticket because the dog had bitten him, but that wasn’t true because the officer never got out of the car,” she said. “He started making calls, arrested him, and waited 40 minutes” for federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to arrive and take her husband away.

Trump’s immigration crackdown has met with fierce resistance in Democratic-led sanctuary cities, where police are forbidden from assisting, elected officials have pushed back and local residents have tried to defend their migrant neighbors by whistling the alarm, recording cellphone videos and berating the masked federal agents viewed by many as an invading force.

That hasn’t been the case in Republican-led Florida, though, where 347 state and local agencies have signed on to take part in the crackdown and unleashed a flood of immigration arrests. Among them are police and sheriff’s departments, the Florida National Guard and the Highway Patrol, but also ones as seemingly unlikely as the state Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and Florida Lottery.

The surge in Florida immigration arrests during Trump’s second term has largely flown under the public’s radar, as many start as run-of-the-mill police traffic stops, the public seems more supportive of the initiative, and participating state and local agencies are roundly rejecting requests for arrest records and body camera video at the behest of the Department of Homeland Security.

Immigration arrests more than triple

Nearly 39,000 immigrants were arrested in Florida in the 416 days beginning Jan. 20, 2025 — the start of President Donald Trump’s second term — through March 11, 2026, the last day for which data was available in a set provided to the University of California, Berkeley’s, Deportation Data Project and analyzed by the AP. During the preceding 416 days of the Biden administration, there were 11,088. On average, Florida recorded 93 daily arrests during that Trump-led period, trailing only the 239 recorded by Texas, which shares the nation’s longest border with Mexico.

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has championed Florida’s push to partner with ICE through so-called 287(g) agreements, which bestow immigration enforcement powers on state and local law enforcement agencies, allowing them to interrogate immigrants in their custody and detain them for possible deportation. And they are under pressure to deliver, experts say.

“There’s a lot of officers who have been deputized, given immigration authority, and they are just looking for people,” said immigration attorney Vilerka Bilbao, who represents at least 23 clients detained by local police in the Jacksonville area. “They are arresting anybody — they need to show the numbers to DeSantis and the federal government.”

Officers stop vehicles for a “pretext reason” — such as a broken taillight or overly dark window tint — “and then you end up in ICE custody,” Bilbao said.

A father and son are deported

On Feb. 15, Lee County sheriff’s deputies detained a 44-year-old Guatemalan man and his 21-year-old son on the outskirts of Fort Myers. They approached the two in a store parking lot, told them their license plate was expired and ordered them out of their car even though its tags were valid until March 25, according to the older man’s wife and younger man’s mother.

The woman, a 40-year-old Guatemalan asylum-seeker who spoke on condition of anonymity for herself and her family over concerns for her safety and the safety of her three kids still with her in Florida, said her husband and adult son were detained and deported to Guatemala a week later, leaving behind her, her two underage sons and her daughter, who is an American citizen.

She said her husband and adult son had pending immigration court cases but were detained anyway. Her husband had attended three immigration court hearings but missed one because it was in Miami, about 120 miles (193 kilometers) south of Fort Myers, and he didn’t have the money to get there, she said. Her son, meanwhile, was seeking asylum, had a valid driver’s license and a work permit.

DHS disputes that the man and his son were legally in the U.S., saying they crossed the border illegally in 2017 and had a final order of removal from 2019.

In the case of the man walking his dog, DHS said he was arrested because he had two final orders of removal.

A test of Florida’s Sunshine Law

In both cases, the Florida agencies that initiated the stops — the Fish and Wildlife Commission and the Lee County Sheriff’s Office — refused to share the arrest reports and body camera footage with the AP, explaining that ICE requires them to forward all inquiries about immigration arrests to it.

ICE and DHS, its parent agency, declined to share the arrest reports and bodycam footage, with DHS explaining in a statement: “We are not going to disclose law enforcement sensitive intelligence.”

An ICE directive sent to the 287(g) partners in Florida states that “information obtained or developed” under the agreements is “under the control of ICE” and cannot be released without federal approval.

The directive appears to violate the long-standing Florida Sunshine Law, which was passed in 1967 and presumes records are public unless specifically protected. The conservative state Legislature, though, has carved out exclusions in recent years.

It’s not just Florida

Although Florida is at the forefront of partnering in the crackdown, opening the “Alligator Alcatraz” and “Deportation Depot” immigration detention centers in the past year, participation in the 287(g) program has skyrocketed, going from 135 agreements in 20 states before Trump’s second term began to more than 1,700 in 41 states and territories.

DHS announced financial incentives for state and local law enforcement agencies, including salary reimbursement. This includes up to $7,500 for equipment for each officer participating in the agreements, and up to $100,000 for agencies to purchase new vehicles.

Florida News
Florida Approves $90 Million Expansion of Immigration Enforcement
By
Rob Garguilo
Jun 10, 2026

Ice Police Law Enforcement – Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Agents
Photo: Douglas Rissing / iStock / Getty Images

FLORIDA – Florida officials have approved a substantial funding package aimed at expanding immigration enforcement operations throughout the state and increasing support for agencies working with federal authorities.

Governor Ron DeSantis and members of the Florida Cabinet voted to authorize approximately $90 million in funding for immigration related initiatives during a recent meeting.

State leaders said the investment will help strengthen coordination between state, local, and federal agencies involved in immigration enforcement activities.

According to officials, the funding will be used for a variety of purposes, including officer training, transportation resources, equipment purchases, detention related expenses, and operational costs associated with immigration enforcement programs.

The money is also expected to support agencies participating in partnerships with federal immigration authorities.

State leaders said the additional funding is intended to help local law enforcement agencies manage the growing costs associated with identifying, processing, and transferring individuals who are subject to immigration enforcement actions.

Officials noted that the resources will be distributed among multiple agencies involved in carrying out those responsibilities.

The approval follows a series of immigration measures adopted by Florida in recent years that expanded cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration agencies.

Supporters of the funding package argue that it provides agencies with the resources necessary to carry out existing laws and maintain public safety.

The funding was approved during a cabinet meeting attended by state officials responsible for overseeing financial, agricultural, and law enforcement matters.

The allocation is expected to be implemented in phases as agencies begin requesting and receiving resources.

Officials have not announced a specific timeline for all expenditures but indicated that funding distribution will begin in the coming months as programs move forward.

Pediatricians and public health care providers on Wednesday said they feared life-threatening consequences for children with critical illnesses who rely on a specialized public health care program as Tennessee moves forward with a directive to verify and report their immigration status.

Letters sent by the Tennessee Department of Health warn parents that children without legal status who opt to continue to receive care through the Children’s Special Services program after June 30 will be reported to the Tennessee Department of Safety’s Centralized Immigration Enforcement Division, which shares data with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

The program, accessed through local public health departments, serves as a last-resort public health insurance program for low-income kids with disabilities, kids on ventilators and kids with life-threatening illnesses, such as cancer, spina bifida, congestive heart disease and terminal illnesses. For decades, the program has served children in Tennessee regardless of immigration status.

“This letter is to inform you that based on our records, due to the current immigration status of your child…if the Children’s Special Services program keeps paying for healthcare after June 30, 2026, the Tennessee Department of Health will share your child’s information to the Tennessee Department of Safety, as required by new law,” reads a template of the letter obtained by the Tennessee Lookout. The letter is signed by John Dunn, interim commissioner of the health department.

The letters will reach at least 90 families in Nashville who rely on the program for healthcare, wheelchairs, in-school support and medications for their child. More families could be affected in the weeks ahead as their files are reviewed, according to Dr. Sanmi Areola, director of the Metro Nashville Public Health Department.

Areola said he and his staff are “concerned and worried” about the impact of the state directive on the vulnerable children they serve.

“There is no way to look at this positively on the health of participants, and obviously broadly on the health of our residents,” Dr. Areola said Wednesday.

“These are some of the kids with the highest health needs, and if they don’t have access to care or if they don’t have access to medications, conceptually no good outcome will come from that.”

Statewide, 4,640 children participated in the program in the 2024 fiscal year at a cost of $2.9 million, according to a state annual report. The Tennessee Department of Health has not publicly disclosed how many of these children may be impacted by new immigration verification requirements.

The state health department has not responded to multiple requests from the Lookout for further details.

In its letter to parents — and in a separate letter sent to healthcare providers — Dunn cited a 2026 state law that requires immigration verification of those seeking public benefits in Tennessee.

The legislation, signed into law by Gov. Bill Lee May 22, requires applicants for public benefits to provide proof of citizenship or legal immigration status only if they are at least 18 years old.

The law also includes language requiring local health departments to “report individuals and all identifying information about such individuals who are not lawfully present” who receive public benefits to the state’s Centralized Immigration Enforcement Bureau. Failure to report comes with criminal penalties for public employees under the new law.

Katie Richards, president and CEO of the faith-based primary healthcare provider, Siloam Health, said the directive forces parents to make an agonizing choice: keeping their children on the program risks making families an immigration enforcement target. Forgoing care to avoid a child’s information being shared with immigration enforcement officials could put their children’s lives at risk.

“You are putting parents in a position where they’re having to deal with unimaginable decisions,” Richards said. “They face the risk of deportation, or risk their children’s lifesaving care.”

Siloam Health, a nonprofit provider of primary healthcare that primarily serves immigrant families, refers between 20 and 50 children each year to the program, Richards said. The children Siloam have referred to the program have included those who require feeding tubes, oxygen, cancer treatments, complex seizure management and wheelchairs due to severe neuromuscular disease, she said.

“For some of these children, loss of life is not a hyperbolic outcome in this scenario,” she said.

Dr. Jill Obremsky, a pediatrician who formerly served as medical director for rural public health clinics at the state health department, said the impact of the Children’s Special Services program has gone beyond life-saving medication therapies, hospital and doctor care.

“Over my 30 years of practicing in different arenas, the coordinated care like Children’s Special Services provides has really changed the trajectory of kids’ lives, allowing them to grow into adults that contribute to a community,” she said.

“This has been a big shock and surprise,” she said.

Staff at the Nashville public health department have been working frantically to find alternatives for families who might be impacted with little advance notice from the state about the new immigration-check directive, said Dr. Morgan McDonald, a pediatrician and internist who serves on the Nashville Board of Health. The options are limited, however. The Children’s Special Services program is a last-resort option for low-income families without Medicaid or private insurance coverage for their children’s healthcare needs.

“I was on the phone with a provider over the last couple days and they were looking for home ventilators for some of these families,” said McDonald, formerly a deputy commissioner at the state health department. “There has not been much of a runway but people have been scrambling to do what they can for these kids.”

McDonald also questioned the health department’s interpretation of new state law as applying to children.

“I don’t think anyone wants this,” she said. “I don’t think this was the intent of the legislature. I mean, the (legislation) clearly says it applies to ‘over 18,'” she said.

Efforts Wednesday to reach the Republican authors of the legislation about their intent were unsuccessful. The legislation’s sponsors — Rep. Dennis Powers of Jacksboro and Sen. Ed Jackson of Jackson — did not respond to inquiries Wednesday. A spokesperson for Gov. Bill Lee did not respond to questions.

McDonald noted the program, which relies on a combination of state dollars and funding from the federal government’s Maternal and Child Health block grant, is also subject to federal rules that do not require children’s immigration status to be verified.

“Tennesseans don’t want this outcome,” she said.

“The state health department doesn’t want this outcome. The legislature, who thought they had exempted kids from this legislation, didn’t want this outcome. These are children, many with significant medical problems, who rely on a program that’s been really the emblem of the Volunteer State for a hundred years and this can be fixed. It needs to be fixed immediately.”

Millions in state funding for immigration enforcement is coming to Southwest Florida law enforcement agencies.

Collier County secured $8.25 million in new immigration enforcement grants Tuesday, June 9, and Lee County received a $9.8 million check in May.

The funding comes from the State Board of Immigration Enforcement, which approved about $87.3 million in grants during its meeting in Tallahassee June 9. The money is part of a $250 million pot created by the Florida Legislature last year to reimburse local agencies assisting federal immigration enforcement.

The board − composed of Gov. Ron DeSantis, Attorney General James Uthmeier, Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia and Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson − approved 17 new subawards totaling nearly $30.3 million and 39 amendments to existing subawards totaling nearly $57 million.

How will Collier County use new funds for immigration enforcement?

The Collier County Sheriff’s Office received $8,250,733.55, the second-largest award in this cycle, behind the Orange County Sheriff’s Office at $10.8 million.

The bulk of Collier’s award, more than $8.1 million, is allocated for equipment, hardware and software.

CCSO received:

– $1.27 million for 50 license plate reader cameras
– $1.18 million for interoperable communications hardware
– $600,000 for two mobile Skywatch towers
– $349,170 for two inmate body scanners
– $84,000 for 700 mattresses for detainees with immigration holds
– $57,479 for a narcotics spectrometer
– $21,000 for six inmate restraint chairs

The agency said the spending is needed to support “mission-critical communications” and maintain safety during “increased immigration transports.”

In a response to The News-Press and Naples Daily News, CCSO spokesperson Karie Partington provided a statement noting the agency’s immigration enforcement efforts.

“The Collier County Sheriff’s Office has the longest standing, largest and most productive 287g partnership with ICE in the nation. Since 2009, we have had multiple inspections yielding favorable findings and acknowledgements of compliance with the laws and requirements of this program. All Florida law enforcement agencies are required, by law, to enforce immigration statutes in our state. President Trump and Governor DeSantis have made clear their support of border security and lawful immigration enforcement. For the past seventeen years, our commitment has been to lawfully identify for removal illegal immigrants that have committed crimes and victimized our residents, businesses and visitors. By maintaining our 287g partnership, we remain dedicated to reducing victimization here in Collier County,” Partington said.

Her statement continued, “Furthermore, our community has expressed overwhelming support for our participation in the 287g program. We meet all training mandates of the Florida Criminal Justice Standards & Training Commission including many topics such as Implicit Bias, Discriminatory Profiling and Crisis Intervention as well as those required by our 287g partnership agreement: Accountability, Cross Cultural Communications, Constitutional Law and more. Our application for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Local Law Enforcement Immigration Grant Program is complete and thorough with narratives that explain and justify each requested item.”

The application states the mattresses are needed to house an “increased inmate population with immigration holds.” CCSO did not respond to questions about whether it expects an increase in detainees or how that would affect capacity at county correctional facilities.

CCSO also did not confirm whether it coordinated with the Collier County government, which funds the jail, regarding the impact of the request on staffing and long-term costs, though the grant request is titled that it was prepared by county commissioners.

According to 287(g) information provided on the CCSO website, “Our deputies in the community do not ask people their immigration status, nor do we as an agency conduct immigration sweeps.” However, CCSO did not respond to follow-up questions on whether its request for $1.2 million in license plate readers for “interdiction” matches its promise that deputies do not conduct immigration sweeps.

Lee County awarded $9.8 million for immigration enforcement

Unlike Collier’s newly approved funding, Lee County’s $9,873,457.69 award was finalized months earlier during the board’s meeting in February.

The Lee County Sheriff’s Office had sought more than $23.6 million, but the board reduced the request by about $13.7 million before approval, largely by scaling back a proposed six-year contract with Axon, an AI body camera company, to two years.

State officials later presented a check to Sheriff Carmine Marceno May 6 in Fort Myers.

LCSO received:

– About $2.17 million for 1,200 protective vests
– $1.06 million for 60 license plate readers
– $1 million for a two-year subscription to the Peregrine AI platform
– $184,959 for four license plate reader trailers
– $158,745 for two mobile surveillance towers

LCSO also leads the state in immigration encounters, with 2,636 reported cases since Aug. 1, 2025, as of Wednesday, June 10.

“Thank you, CFO Ingoglia, for your consistent support of Florida law enforcement. The funding awarded today will bolster the capabilities of my deputies to protect and serve the residents of Lee County,” Marceno said in a statement.

What is the AI platform law enforcement agencies are using?

Several agencies, including Collier, Lee, Sarasota and Osceola counties, received funding for the Peregrine AI platform, which is designed to consolidate law enforcement data from multiple systems into a single interface.

In its grant request, CCSO said its “existing information technology environment is comprised of multiple systems that operate independently, with critical enforcement-relevant data residing in isolated silos and, in many cases, across agencies.” Similarly, LCSO said it “currently operates within a fragmented technology environment composed of multiple legacy and purpose-built systems that function independently of one another.”

Florida’s broader immigration crackdown

The funding comes as Florida continues to expand its investment in immigration enforcement statewide.

Operating the Alligator Alcatraz detention facility costs the state about $1.02 million per day, with total spending surpassing $1 billion in its first year. Florida has sought federal reimbursement for those costs, initially applying for $1.5 billion and later revising that request to $608.4 million, but funding has been slow. The state received its first partial payment of about $58 million from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) May 18, FDEM Director of Communications Stephanie Hartman confirmed to The News-Press & Naples Daily News.

“Enforcing our nation’s immigration laws has led to safer communities. I want to recognize the hard work of our law enforcement partners to remove criminal illegal aliens off our streets and protect our citizens,” CFO Blaise Ingoglia said during a visit to Lee County Sheriff’s Office in Fort Myers May 6. “We will continue to work alongside President Trump and Governor DeSantis to ensure that our law enforcement have the tools and training necessary to remove criminal illegal aliens from our streets.”

Remember those never-ending airport security lines? Turns out they were just as pointless as the federal shutdown that precipitated them.

On Tuesday night, the House finally passed $70 billion to fund Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term. He signed the bill on Wednesday. It’s an anti-climactic ending to a 115-day struggle to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security.

An April 30 compromise ended the partial shutdown but left out funding for immigration enforcement. Republicans turned to what’s called the budget reconciliation process to pass the remaining funding on a party-line vote with a simple majority, rather than needing 60 votes in the Senate.

The longest partial shutdown in history started over valid frustrations with overly aggressive immigration enforcement. But this week, ICE and CBP got three years of cash — and few strings attached.

After months of stonewalling with empty talking points about standing up to Trump and ICE, Democrats won nothing. Unlike the Transportation Security Administration and other DHS agencies, ICE was funded throughout the shutdown thanks to an infusion of resources from last summer’s tax bill.

In terms of reforms, the April agreement to end the shutdown included funding for body cameras, de-escalation training and increased oversight of ICE detention facilities. Those are positive changes, but they closely resembled provisions that were already included in the bipartisan DHS appropriations compromise that most Democrats voted against in January.

Democrats entered the shutdown with leverage to demand more, especially after the deaths of Renée Good and Alex Pretti. But they weren’t willing to budge from their maximalist demands, leaving a variety of additional concessions on the table that Republican negotiators were willing to make.

In March, the White House wrote to Capitol Hill that it was willing to concede on requiring the expanded use of body cameras, visible identification requirements for officers and limits on enforcement in sensitive locations.

The funding ordeal sets a bad precedent for appropriations. Instead of finding a bipartisan compromise to fund controversial agencies, Democrats decided to force Republicans to go it alone. That pushed the GOP to pass three years of clean funding, shielding ICE and CBP from the accountability that comes through the annual appropriations process.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) has said that this creates a precedent that Democrats “may one day come to regret.” Republicans could use the same playbook to hold up funding for their least favorite agencies under Democratic leadership.

Trump started the fight that led to the DHS showdown by misreading his electoral mandate on immigration, but Democrats misplayed their hand in response. Everyone walks away worse off for the experience.

I still remember my citizenship ceremony from 2011. There was a festive spirit among the dozens of us who were about to become the newest Americans, a kind of joy offset only by the anxiety of having to turn in our green cards first. For years, I jealously guarded that little card, which was not only not green but also something I was repeatedly told by authorities to carry with me at all times. They had to pry it from my fingers that day.

At my ceremony, which I wrote about at the time, a representative from the New York City commission on human rights explained to her captive American audience what civil rights protections we had, and the judge who swore us in as citizens encouraged us to exercise our vote, serve on juries, run for office and speak out for our rights. We were each given a pocket constitution. The whole thing was a celebration of democratic values. I entered downtown Brooklyn that day as a resident alien. I left as a newly minted American citizen, equal in the eyes of the law to every other American citizen.

Oh, how quaint that time seems now. Immigrants without all the proper documents are not the only ones the Trump administration has its sights on. Naturalized immigrants are at a greater risk than at any time in recent memory of losing their hard-won citizenship, as the whole idea of citizenship gets put through Trump’s anti-immigration wringer. The Trump administration has been aggressively rattling the saber of denaturalization, a political tactic that incidentally is explored in Project 2025.

And about a year ago, the administration published a memo expanding the categories of people who could be prioritized for denaturalization. Last month, the administration began the process of rescinding US citizenship from 12 people. And this month, Trump’s Department of Justice has filed papers to strip 17 naturalized Americans of their citizenship.

This pace of denaturalization in the United States is unprecedented in our post-civil rights era. The Biden administration initiated only 64 cases of denaturalization over its entire four years in office. In 2008, the Obama administration began something called Operation Janus, a program that seemed set up to target Muslim communities in the United States, but that program hardly netted any denaturalization cases. We can take an even longer view. Between 1990 and 2017, there was a grand total of 305 denaturalization cases filed by the government. And, as one expert told the Washington Post, a number of those cases “involved aging former Nazis”.

Denaturalization, which was used excessively and ideologically up to and including the McCarthy era, has been used sparingly since a 1967 supreme court decision (Afroyim v Rusk) set a high legal bar for denaturalization. Since then, denaturalization has proven to be a difficult and costly undertaking for the government. The institution of citizenship has also been generally revered by successive administrations.

Not so with Donald Trump. The first Trump administration initiated denaturalization proceedings against 168 people. And the current Trump administration is seeking to operate in another stratosphere altogether. In December, internal guidance suggested the administration sought to pursue “100-200 denaturalization cases per month”, according to New York Times reporting.

The problem here is not the idea of denaturalization. There are legitimate and specific reasons why someone might lose US citizenship. The law as it stands does allow for the revocation of citizenship if it was procured by fraud, willful misrepresentation, or concealment of a material fact, among a few other categories. But many of the categories of people now subject to denaturalization, following last year’s memo, “are not grounded in statute and are ripe for political abuse given their breadth”, says the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA).

I couldn’t agree more. Those now subject to denaturalization, according to the memo, include any naturalized citizen the Department of Justice “determines to be sufficiently important to pursue”, any citizen deemed “a threat to national security”, and any citizen with “pending criminal charges”. Those are, needless to say, very capacious categories. And note the pending in the last example. You don’t have to be convicted of anything. Simply criticizing Trump may be enough grounds to lose your citizenship, the AILA warns: “The administration is now turning enforcement into a political weapon that will ensnare people with minor infractions and those who express views critical of the current administration, even if they have not been found guilty of any wrongdoing.”

Surely the vast majority of citizens subject to denaturalization will be immigrants of color to this country, and this too must not be lost on anyone. What else should we expect from an administration that has all but ended refugee resettlement to the US except for white South Africans? What do we expect from an administration that placed Greg Bovino in charge of immigration enforcement? This same Bovino was recently the headliner at an extreme-right “Remigration Summit” in Portugal. Remigration, if you’re not into the lingo, refers to plans for the mass expulsion of non-white immigrants and citizens from western countries. At a D-Day commemoration in France, the US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, used similar language, characterizing Europe as facing an “invasion” of immigrants and claiming that European beaches today “are stormed by different, dangerous ideologies”.

These are small ideas held by small-minded men, but that doesn’t mean that they won’t cause major trouble for too many people. Trump and his administration want us to believe that racial tribalism is our only future, and they’re more than willing to pervert the rule of law to fit their clouded vision.

Forget citizenship. What must really be denaturalized is the belief that human value is connected to the color of one’s skin. The fact that I feel compelled to repeat this basic truism is not just a tragedy. It’s also an indication of how much basic human understanding we’re continuously losing under this administration.

Andrew S. Boutros, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, arguably is the most visible presence of the Trump administration in Chicago. In our previous conversations with him, he has struck us as personally ambitious and professionally aggressive but not overly ideological, a view that others also have expressed. We also found him genuinely concerned about violent crime in Chicago not for political reasons, but as a fulfillment of his sworn duties.

But once Greg Bovino and the U.S. Border Patrol arrived in Chicago with their thuggish tactics, Boutros was destined to become a lightning rod. And lightning struck.

Chicagoans of all political stripes rejected the military-style invasion of the city and they protested these actions, especially at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Broadview. In some cases, such as the ones that have become collectively known as the “Broadview Six” — a piece of political branding designed to evoke comparisons with the “Chicago Seven,” a group of activists who clashed with the authorities during the 1968 Democratic Party Convention — protesters were arrested for, according to prosecutors, allegedly pushing and banging on a vehicle belonging to ICE. They were said to have impeded its free movement, scratching and otherwise damaging the body work. Not exactly heinous political crimes outside of the political context.

It then fell to Boutros’ office to persuade a grand jury that federal prosecutors had a case. Grand juries often rubber-stamp prosecutors’ allegations. But this was different. Chicago was under siege.

A fair reading of the grand jury testimonies released Tuesday by U.S. District Judge April Perry, a Biden appointee and veteran of many prior clashes with the Trump administration, including a ruling that the administration could not deploy the National Guard against protesters in Chicago (a ruling the Supreme Court did not overturn), shows grand jurors being aggressively skeptical of the U.S. attorney’s case against these protesters, a group that included progressive politicians with an interest in maximum publicity. One juror called it “a crock.”

Was this actually a result not of skepticism about the charges themselves but a consequence of those jurors’ fury at the Bovino crew’s actions, not to mention Trump’s many attacks on our city? Or was it genuine skepticism at bringing a rare federal felony case, which would have required proving that the six were engaged in a conspiracy, against what could reasonably be termed run-of-the-mill political protesting that turned violent mostly because it was being reactive to the aggression of the federal authorities themselves?

In other words, was the grand jury in the tank for the protesters and unwilling to look fairly at their actions or was it doing its duty to resist a nakedly politicized prosecution, trumped-up charges designed not to dispense justice but to send a political message? These are not questions often being asked in Chicago media.

In an ideal world, of course, everyone here would be acting based on the facts of the case. As Perry herself told the prosecutorial team on April 21: “Your sole goal is to do justice. Your client is justice itself.”

But things did not work out that way, mostly in our view because of what Bovino and his crew had been doing in the first place.

Boutros clearly suspected that some jurors were allowing their views on Bovino-style immigration enforcement to tarnish their fairness in terms of his office’s specific charges. One can empathize. People took sides. Whether you thought protesters should be prosecuted depended far more on whether or not you were in favor of the manner of immigration enforcement than on what they actually did or did not do.

Of course, Boutros had (and has) bosses in Washington, including the one in the White House, who also saw this prosecution in political terms, at least in terms of its importance. So Boutros, no doubt suspecting political preconceptions at work, addressed the grand jurors himself. And before that, his team had booted out a juror who had said he disagreed with the indictment. All of that led Boutros, and his line prosecutors, into deep trouble.

More than 100 alumni of the office, including well-known former federal prosecutors, published an open letter Monday saying that “the pattern and timing of charging decisions, public rhetoric surrounding the operation, and the extraordinary collapse rate of these prosecutions raise at least the appearance that improper considerations supplanted the office’s historical exercise of prosecutorial discretion free from political influence.”

And, of course, Democratic politicians and many in the media smelled blood in the water. A raft of Democratic politicians called for Boutros’ resignation.

Meanwhile, Boutros’ boss, acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, unequivocally defended him, saying on X, “this Department fully supports U.S. Attorney Boutros and his efforts to combat violent crime, drug trafficking, immigration violations, and fraud, and we look forward to more great work from his office.” Obviously, calls from Democratic politicians for Boutros’ resignation are merely symbolic. He has the administration’s support and was doing their bidding.

Still, all of this was made worse by the subsequent published revelation that Boutros apparently would be overseeing a criminal investigation related to E. Jean Carroll, the former writer who accused Donald Trump of sexual assault and won a substantial civil judgment against him — a prosecution that looks like the president weaponizing the Justice Department to extract personal revenge. How much choice did Boutros have with that gig? We don’t know.

Not everything in the former prosecutors’ letter can fairly be laid at Boutros’ feet. For example, we don’t doubt that many of the resignations mentioned in the letter are a consequence of young lawyers’ not wanting to defend the actions of this administration, especially in regard to immigration enforcement. But the tone was reasoned and much rang true.

We have appreciated much of what Boutros has done to keep our city safer. But Boutros has acknowledged mistakes made in the case involving the Broadview protesters. As he should. His name is on the door and he needs to take full responsibility. He has more work to do to ensure Chicagoans of nonpoliticized justice, even if he is hardly responsible for the climate in which he must operate.

That said, reasonable people can smell politics on all sides here. Two things can be true at once: One can righteously protest and still act in a way that merits prosecution. And Boutros is a whole lot better a federal official than those really responsible for setting up what happened in Broadview.

Still. The prosecution failed. Good. It was both poorly handled and never a strong case.

La Coalición de Illinois por los Derechos de los Inmigrantes calificó de discriminatoria la retención del delantero iraquí Aymen Husain en el aeropuerto de Chicago tras una inspección de casi siete horas. El Servicio de Inmigración también negó el ingreso a un fotógrafo oficial de la delegación. Las autoridades estadounidenses defienden los protocolos de seguridad y afirman que todo el personal deportivo extranjero debe cumplir por ley con las revisiones fronterizas obligatorias.

La última edición de la Encuesta del Centro de Estudios Públicos (CEP), dada a conocer este miércoles, ha revelado que los chilenos, en su mayoría, continúan con una percepción negativa sobre la inmigración. Más de la mitad de los encuestados (55%) apoyó la idea de prohibir toda la inmigración cuando se le consultó cómo debería abordar Chile este fenómeno, lo que supone un aumento de 13 puntos respecto de la medición de octubre de 2023.

El porcentaje contrasta fuertemente con los que están de acuerdo con “permitir libremente toda inmigración”: solo un 14%. De igual modo, uno de cada 10 se ubicó en una zona intermedia entre ambas afirmaciones. Además, el estudio mostró que una mayoría sigue pensando que los migrantes “elevan los índices de criminalidad” en el país: un 67% está de acuerdo con esta idea, un 2% menos que el sondeo anterior.

La radiografía sobre cómo los chilenos observan a los extranjeros ha revelado que un 60% considera que el Gobierno gasta “demasiado dinero ayudando a los inmigrantes”, lo que representa un aumento en comparación con la última vez que el centro de estudios había hecho esta pregunta, en 2003, cuando solo un 44% tenía esta percepción. Sandra Quijada, coordinadora de Opinión Pública del CEP, atribuyó el cambio al aumento de la población extranjera en Chile. “En 2003 no teníamos la cantidad de inmigración que tenemos hoy día”, dijo la investigadora en una rueda de prensa.

Los resultados se conocen en momentos en que el Gobierno de José Antonio Kast impulsa recortes en el gasto público para enfrentar la estrechez fiscal que arrastra Chile desde hace más de una década y en medio de una economía que sigue sin despegar por encima del 4% de crecimiento anual. En paralelo, el presidente, representante de la derecha dura, busca endurecer los controles migratorios, una de las principales promesas de su campaña presidencial. Entre sus medidas figuran la construcción de zanjas en distintos puntos de la frontera con Bolivia y Perú y los frecuentes llamados al retorno voluntario de los más de 336.000 inmigrantes en situación irregular que residen en el país. Durante la campaña, Kast prometió expulsarlos a todos una vez instalado en La Moneda, el 11 de marzo, aunque posteriormente reconoció que aquella afirmación había sido una “metáfora”. Esto provocó el malestar de muchas personas que sintonizaron con los compromisos del conservador durante su carrera para llegar a La Moneda.

Además, el estudio del CEP indica que son más los que opinan que los inmigrantes “les quitan los trabajos a las personas nacidas en Chile”. Los que están de acuerdo con esta afirmación son un 40%, lo que representa un aumento de ocho puntos en comparación con la misma consulta hecha en octubre de 2023. El porcentaje de personas contrarias a esta creencia también bajó del 45% de hace tres años al 38% de hoy. Solo un 36% se inclina por considerar que los inmigrantes son un aporte para la economía de Chile, pues el resto se divide entre estar en desacuerdo (32%) y no fijar una posición (31%).

Florida aprobó más de $87 millones para equipos, cámaras e inteligencia artificial destinados a reforzar operativos migratorios en todo el estado.

HOUSTON – El Departamento de Estado de Estados Unidos empezó a revocar visas de personas que con visa de turistas han venido al país a tener hijos.

Así lo dio a conocer, este miércoles 10 de junio, el Departamento de Estado de EEUU al revelar que empezó una ofensiva contra personas y redes internacionales involucradas en el conocido como “turismo de parto”, una práctica en la que personas extranjeras buscan ingresar al país con visa de visitante con el propósito principal de dar a luz para que sus hijos obtengan ciudadanía estadounidense.

Según la agencia federal, una embajada estadounidense en África Occidental detectó una red sofisticada de más de 100 extranjeros que presuntamente usaban documentos fraudulentos y “gestores” de visas para obtener permisos de viaje.

Las autoridades indicaron que las visas fueron revocadas y que trabajan con autoridades locales para identificar operaciones similares.

En Europa, otra embajada identificó más de 400 casos sospechosos desde 2024. Investigadores vincularon esos casos con al menos seis compañías que, de acuerdo con el Departamento de Estado, asesoraban a solicitantes sobre qué decir durante las entrevistas consulares, coordinaban vivienda en Estados Unidos y organizaban planes de parto.

La agencia también informó que otra embajada en el norte de África revocó más de 100 visas a padres señalados como “turistas de parto”. Funcionarios consulares, en coordinación con agencias de seguridad y mediante análisis de datos y cruce de información habrían identificado varias redes y personas que abusaban del sistema migratorio.

“Una visa estadounidense es un privilegio, no un derecho”, señaló el Departamento de Estado al advertir que continuará tomando medidas para desmantelar estas operaciones y responsabilizar a quienes intenten defraudar el sistema, según la publicación hecha en las redes sociales de la agencia federal.

Qué significa esta medida

Las visas de visitante, como las B-1/B-2, no pueden ser utilizadas cuando el propósito principal del viaje es dar a luz en Estados Unidos para obtener ciudadanía para un menor. Las autoridades consulares pueden negar o revocar visas si determinan que hubo fraude, tergiversación de información o uso indebido del proceso.

El anuncio ocurre en medio de un mayor escrutinio del gobierno federal sobre solicitudes de visas vinculadas a posibles esquemas de turismo de parto. Hasta ahora, el Departamento de Estado no ha identificado públicamente los países específicos donde operaban las redes mencionadas.

A majority of Americans support deporting all illegal immigrants, a recent Harvard-Harris survey revealed.

The survey examined some of the most divisive policies in America, and illegal immigration stood as one of the top. When asked if they support “deporting all immigrants who are here illegally,” most, 56 percent, support it, compared to 44 percent who do not.

Opinions vastly differ along party lines, as 77 percent of Republicans support deporting all illegal immigrants. A majority of independents, 53 percent, agree. However, only 37 percent of Democrats support deporting all illegal immigrants.

The survey also asked respondents if they believe Democrats and Republicans support deporting “violent undocumented immigrants.” Just 55 percent said they believe Democrats are “for” deporting violent illegal aliens, compared to 82 percent who say they believe Republicans desire to do so.

The survey also found that 80 percent support deporting illegal immigrants who “have committed crimes.” There is a majority consensus across the political spectrum, as 71 percent of Democrats, 90 percent of Republicans, and 79 percent of independents support deporting illegals who committed crimes.

Additionally, immigration is tied for third place as a top concern for voters, with affordability and the economy taking the first two spots. This coincides with the fact that President Trump sees the highest approval rating on the issue of immigration, coming in at 49 percent.

The survey was taken May 29-31, 2026, among 1,725 registered voters. It has a +/- 2.4 percent margin of error.

It comes as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) continues to arrest the worst of the worst illegal alien criminals walking free in the country.

Over the weekend, ICE arrested illegal aliens convicted of murder, child abuse, distribution of fentanyl, and more.

Authorities arrested Juan Flores-Chavez, hailing from El Salvador, convicted for murder in Harris County, Texas; Styv Charles, from Haiti, convicted for indecent assault on a child than 13 years old in Bucks County, Pennsylvania; and Victor Alfonso Moreno-Jimenez from Mexico, convicted for “sex abuse against a child – fondling and sexual exploitation of minor – sexual performance” in Baltimore City, Maryland, just to name a few.

“While Americans enjoyed their weekends, ICE law enforcement were arresting murderers, pedophiles, child abusers, and drug traffickers,” DHS Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis said in a statement.

“Instead of thanking ICE law enforcement for removing these monsters, sanctuary politicians continue to side with criminal illegal aliens over American citizens,” she continued. “Under President Trump and Secretary Mullin, we will always put the safety of American citizens first.”

The State Department is dismantling birth tourism networks across Africa and Europe, officials announced on Wednesday.

An estimated 33,000 United States-born children are rewarded birthright American citizenship annually solely because their foreign parents arrived in the United States on a temporary visa, often a tourist visa, before they were born. Decades later, those American-born children can sponsor their parents for green cards.

The birth tourism industry is widespread among Turkish nationals in New York City, Chinese nationals in California, Russian nationals in Florida, and Middle Easterners in Illinois.

State Department officials said in a series of X posts they have just recently brought down in West Africa “a sophisticated birth tourism network of more than 100 foreign nationals using fraudulent documents and visa ‘fixers’ to get themselves visas … to get U.S. citizenship for their children.”

Meanwhile, in North Africa, the agency “revoked over 100 visas for ‘birth tourist’ parents who came to the United States primarily to give birth so their children would get U.S. citizenship,” officials wrote.

In Europe, a single U.S. embassy has uncovered more than 400 suspected cases of birth tourism since 2024, leading investigators to at least six companies that coach Europeans on how best to secure a U.S. temporary visa without revealing that their sole purpose for travel is to deliver their children in America.

“We shut it down, revoked their visas, and permanently banned several fraudsters from traveling to the United States ever again,” officials wrote.

Breitbart News Senior Contributor Peter Schweizer’s latest book, The Invisible Coup: How American Elites and Foreign Powers Use Immigration as a Weapon, exposed that in California alone, there are more than 100 Chinese-owned birth tourism agencies offering services to Chinese nationals to deliver their children in the United States.

In December 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) exposed a massive birth tourism scheme in New York City where more than 100 children born to foreign visitors in the United States were awarded birthright American citizenship.

Likewise, in 2019, the DOJ uncovered a birth tourism scheme among Chinese nationals across California, where some 8,500 U.S.-born children were rewarded birthright American citizenship after their foreign parents arrived in the United States on tourist visas solely to deliver their child.

The Trump administration is planning to expand the E-Verify rule to ensure that groups applying for federal grants do not hire illegal migrant workers.

Proposed new regulations released by the White House Office of Management and Budget would require all federal grant recipients to enroll in E-Verify and to run all hires through the system to continue to qualify to receive their grant money, Bloomberg reported.

The new rules would be a big change for past grant applicants who never had to use E-Verify before.

The addition of E-Verify is part of the White House’s renewed efforts to root out fraud in federal spending and programs. Grant applicants would risk big fines if they don’t follow the new guidance. Fines range from $288 to $2,861 for every faulty I-9 form submitted.

The requirement is not exactly a new thing for federal contractors because many such businesses have had to enroll in the program since 2009. Still, the proposed rules change would expand the requirement to enroll in E-Verify and would encompass grant applicants in fields including healthcare, education, public parks, and childcare service provides.

Bloomberg added that federal contractors with projects totaling more than $150,000 are required to use E-Verify, but there is no threshold stated for grant recipients in the new OMB rules proposal, apparently meaning that all grant applicants, no matter how small, must be ready to enroll in E-Verify and run all hires through the system.

The rules also state that “subrecipients” — or companies working with a grant recipient — would also have to run hires through E-Verify if they get any money through a federal source.

OMB explained that the new E-Verify rules are “intended to strengthen compliance with Federal employment eligibility requirements for individuals performing work under Federal awards.”

While the OMB rules proposal does not specifically mention the president’s immigration policy goals, the E-Verify rules change is most certainly just one more aspect of Trump’s efforts to ramp up immigration enforcement.

With about five months to the midterms, the Republican Party leads Democrats by eight points on the question of which party is more trusted on the issue of immigration.

This is notable for a couple of reasons…

The first is that at this same time during President Trump’s first term (and five months out to the 2018 midterms), Democrats were ahead on this issue by seven points. So that’s a 15-point move towards the GOP (and Trump).

Even more significant is the fact that Trump is taking a much, Much, MUCH harder approach on immigration, and that has resulted in him polling a net 15 points better against the Democrats.

In other words, all this corporate media propaganda over mass deportations and ICE arrests, not to mention all the lies about little kids crying and Maryland Men, and the like, is not working.

We also have a new poll revealing that 56 percent want all illegals deported — all of them.

These numbers were unheard of just a few years ago and have moved in the right direction primarily due to Trump’s leadership and his team’s ability to communicate the truth about how illegal immigration hurts us all.

CNNLOL’s Harry Enten also discovered that it’s not just that Republicans are doing something right, but that “Democrats are doing something wrong.”

What do voters want from Democrats? They want them to moderate. That’s what they want. They want Democrats to move to the center on immigration. Immigration — Dems should move to the center. We’re talking about 59 percent of all voters. But more than that, look at this. There is wide agreement across socioeconomic classes and racial/ethnic classes. Look at this: 51 percent of black voters, 54 percent Latino voters, 59 percent of White college voters, and 67 percent of White non-college voters — all agree they want Democrats to move to the center on immigration. Just 18 percent — just 18 percent — of voters want Democrats to shift to the left on immigration.

Americans think and voters think that Democrats are offering — they are offering an agenda that is too far to the left on immigration. They want them to moderate and move to the center on immigration. And that is true among black voters, Latino voters, white college voters, white non-college. You rarely ever see this quadruple agreement, but you do see this agreement on immigration. Simply put, the voters want Democrats to move to the center. They think that Democrats are too radical when it comes to immigration policy. So that’s the party split as we look at it.

Enten also points out that while Trump’s approval number on immigration might seem low at 42 percent, you have to look at the overall context of that number. Turns out that 42 percent is the highest approval number on immigration for any second-term president during the 21st Century.

“Twenty-first-century presidents’ immigration approval at this point in term two; guess who has the highest approval on immigration?” asks Enten rhetorically. Then he answers: “It’s Donald John Trump, who has the highest approval on immigration: 42 percent. Barack Obama was at just 36 percent. George W. Bush was way down there at 30 percent.”

On top of this is the recent news that the Cook Political Report, which looks at the upcoming U.S. House races one by one, gives the midterm edge to the GOP. A lot can and will happen between now and November, and given gas prices, I’m not hopeful about Republicans holding the House. Still, despite having 97 percent of the media lying about absolutely everything to defeat Trump and Republicans, the facts on the ground are far from demoralizing, and a demoralized Republican base is what the media and Democrats want.

Republicans’ sweeping immigration enforcement and border security package cleared the House on Tuesday, ending a months-long standoff with Democrats over funding President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown agenda.

The $70 billion immigration enforcement measure passed 214-212 over the fierce objections of Democrats, who unanimously voted against the package. Rep. Kevin Kiley, I-Calif., an independent who caucuses with Republicans, also joined Democrats in opposing the measure.

Meanwhile, every GOP lawmaker present voted for the Senate-passed legislation, which funds Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) through fiscal year 2029.

Tuesday’s vote is a major victory for House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who could spare just a handful of defections given Republicans’ fragile majority.

“By funding it for three years, we’ve taken away their ability to cut that funding or to take hostage the funding for the remainder of the Trump administration,” Johnson said following the vote, referring to Democrats. “It was Republicans and Republicans alone who did the responsible thing and funded these critically important agencies at this critical time.”

The measure now heads to Trump’s desk, where he is expected to sign it into law.

The GOP-authored bill, known as the Secure America Act, provides $38 billion for ICE and a $26 billion infusion for the Border Patrol. It would also create a $5 billion funding pool to be controlled by Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin.

Kiley, who recently switched his party affiliation to independent, said he opposed the bill because it lacked reforms to immigration enforcement and bypassed the traditional appropriations process, which requires some buy-in from Democrats.

“The idea that we’re actually going to now weaken one of the few pillars of sanity we have, which is the annual bipartisan appropriations process, and set this precedent that when you don’t reach bipartisan agreement, you can just do an end run around it … that’s hugely problematic to me,” the California lawmaker told reporters.

“The whole reason I became an independent is because I think that extreme partisanship here has completely run amok, and it’s doing real damage to the country,” he added.

Republican leaders argued they were forced to use the partisan budget reconciliation process after Democrats repeatedly blocked Homeland Security funding bills. The legislative tool allowed GOP leadership to steer around Democrats’ opposition and pass the legislation at a simple majority threshold in the upper chamber.

“This is a piece that Democrats have said they don’t want to fund because they want open borders,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said Tuesday. “They have made it crystal clear, the Democrat Party in Washington, that they want to go back to open borders. And we’re not going to do that.”

For months, Democratic lawmakers refused to fund ICE and the Border Patrol unless it was paired with policy reforms. The party’s hardball tactics sparked the longest government shutdown in history, which largely ended after Trump signed a partial DHS bill in April.

Top Democrats initially took a hard turn against new ICE funding beginning in January after two Americans were killed by federal law enforcement officers during the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement surge in Minneapolis.

Their message stayed largely the same heading into Tuesday’s vote.

“Republicans are pouring your hard-earned tax dollars into an agency that has brutalized and terrorized communities and even killed American citizens,” House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., said Tuesday. “Republican leadership likes to talk a lot about common sense, but where is the common sense in giving this federal agency essentially unlimited funds without a single reform in place?”

Though Republicans stayed largely united in the ICE funding fight, some conservative lawmakers argued the spending measure should be paired with policy reforms codifying some of the president’s executive orders.

Reps. Chip Roy, R-Texas, and Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., were among the GOP lawmakers who withheld their support for the package during a procedural test vote earlier on Tuesday. Johnson promised the conservative group a vote on border security legislation in the coming weeks, prompting holdouts to support the measure’s advancement, according to a source familiar with the discussions.

“We had some good conversations about moving the important elements of H.R. 2 sometime here in the next few weeks, hopefully before July 4th,” Roy told reporters, referring to a sweeping Republican-authored immigration and border security bill. “We’re looking forward to getting that done.”

The budget reconciliation bill’s passage comes after congressional Republicans failed to meet a June 1 deadline set by Trump to send the measure to his desk.

The quick timeline fell apart after a cohort of Republicans in both chambers revolted against Trump’s roughly $2 billion “anti-weaponization fund.” Some GOP lawmakers, including moderate Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., have since proposed legislation that would curtail the president’s authority to establish the fund.

De acuerdo con la Oficina del Inspector General del Tesoro, las autoridades migratorias solicitaron las direcciones de 1.2 millones de personas y advierte que eso pone en riesgo los datos de los contribuyentes.

Este no contiene un artículo de texto — es una página de video de Telemundo Houston. Lo único que aparece como contenido es el titular (“EEUU propone citas expeditas a solicitantes de Visas mediante un pago”) y una sola línea de descripción:
El programa estará vigente de julio a diciembre.
Todo lo demás es navegación del sitio, listas de otros videos y pie de página. Si buscas el texto completo de esa noticia, probablemente exista como artículo escrito en otra página de Telemundo o de otra fuente — si lo encuentras y lo pegas, lo limpio igual que los demás.

Tras semanas de contratiempos y retrasos, la Cámara de Representantes —controlada por los republicanos— aprobó el martes, por un estrecho margen, un paquete de aproximadamente 70,000 millones de dólares para financiar a ICE y a la Patrulla Fronteriza hasta el final del mandato del presidente Donald Trump.

La votación se saldó con 214 votos a favor y 212 en contra. El paquete, denominado Secure America Act (Ley para Asegurar a Estados Unidos), fue aprobado por el Senado la semana pasada y ahora pasa al despacho del presidente para su previsible firma.

La aprobación en la Cámara pone fin a meses de tensiones y disputas partidistas en torno a la financiación de las operaciones de control migratorio. En febrero, los demócratas del Senado votaron a favor de paralizar las actividades del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional tras la muerte a tiros de dos ciudadanos estadounidenses, Renee Good y Alex Pretti, durante operativos migratorios realizados el mes anterior en Minneapolis.

Unos 75 días después, el Congreso aprobó un proyecto de ley para poner fin a la paralización del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) —la más larga en la historia de Estados Unidos— y financiar gran parte de esta vasta agencia federal, incluidos la Guardia Costera, la FEMA, la TSA y el Servicio Secreto.

Sin embargo, se eliminaron los fondos para ICE y la Patrulla Fronteriza después de que los republicanos rechazaran las exigencias demócratas de reformar las tácticas de control migratorio, tales como la obligación de que los agentes lleven cámaras corporales y cuenten con órdenes judiciales antes de entrar en viviendas.

Debido a ese estancamiento, Trump recurrió a otras partidas presupuestarias para pagar temporalmente a dichos agentes y oficiales.

La única manera en que Trump y sus aliados en el Congreso podían financiar a ICE y la Patrulla Fronteriza era mediante el proceso de “reconciliación”, un procedimiento presupuestario de vía rápida que permite a los republicanos aprobar leyes con solo 51 votos, eludiendo así a los demócratas y el umbral habitual de 60 votos en el Senado.

El mes pasado, Trump obstaculizó el proceso a última hora al exigir que se incluyera en el paquete un fondo de 1,800 millones de dólares destinado a evitar el “uso indebido” de recursos.

No obstante, los republicanos tanto de la Cámara de Representantes como del Senado se opusieron rotundamente a la idea de posibles indemnizaciones financiadas por los contribuyentes para los participantes en los disturbios del 6 de enero, por lo que los funcionarios de la Administración se vieron obligados a descartar el plan. Los líderes republicanos tuvieron que posponer la votación de reconciliación hasta después del receso del Día de los Caídos debido a la controversia generada.

El viernes, el Senado aprobó por 52 votos a favor y 47 en contra la financiación para las operaciones de control migratorio, y la Cámara de Representantes hizo lo propio. El paquete está diseñado para financiar a ICE y a la Patrulla Fronteriza durante los próximos tres años.

El presidente del Comité de Asignaciones de la Cámara, Tom Cole (republicano por Oklahoma), afirmó que, si bien creía que los demócratas estaban sinceramente indignados por las muertes de Good y Pretti, paralizar las agencias no era la respuesta adecuada.

“Es una forma pésima de trabajar y, sinceramente, me indica que, para los demócratas del Senado, obtener la mayoría es más importante que gobernar el país”, declaró Cole a la prensa antes de la votación. “Esta no es la manera apropiada de expresar esa inquietud. Y, francamente, si alguien ha cometido una falta, debe ser investigado y rendir cuentas”.

Por su parte, el representante Bennie Thompson (demócrata por Mississippi) —quien presidiría el Comité de Seguridad Nacional si los demócratas recuperan la Cámara este otoño— sostuvo que su partido actuó correctamente al exigir cambios en las agresivas tácticas de control migratorio de la Administración Trump.

“Seguimos defendiendo esos principios, independientemente de si nuestros colegas republicanos creen en ellos o no —y es evidente que no lo hacen—”, dijo Thompson en una entrevista. “El ciudadano de a pie considera que esas cosas tienen sentido… pero los republicanos escuchan a Donald Trump, y solo a Donald Trump”.

Miami found itself in the international sports spotlight this week for the World Cup. But not for the reasons the city had hoped.

Immigration officials at Miami International Airport this week denied entry into the country to World Cup referee Omar Abdulkadir Artan from Somalia. He was refused entrance because of unspecified “concerns” about his vetting. Artan will no longer train and officiate at the World Cup.

He has been able to referee games all over the world and was named the best male referee of 2025 by the Confederation of African Football. But the U.S. has concerns — the details of which the Trump administration has not shared.

OK, if the concerns are valid — and perhaps they are — then tell us: What exactly triggered this apparent red flag? We understand the reasons to be vigilant. But what concerns does the U.S. have about an official in the world’s most important sporting event that no other country has identified?

Or were the concerns not about Artan but his country of origin? Somalia is one of dozens of nations Trump has targeted with travel and visa bans. The East Africa nation has been plagued by conflict and Islamic insurgents.

Trump called Somalis “garbage” in December, when he said he was cutting immigration from “Third World countries” following the deadly attack on two National Guard members by an Afghan man in Washington, D.C. The president has made clear his intentions to keep undesirable immigrants — those from Africa, Latin America and Asia — out of the U.S. Meanwhile, he has refashioned the country’s refugee program to admit mostly white South Africans he claims are victims of race-based persecution.

Artan told the New York Times he went through an 11-hour immigration interview before he was denied entry into the U.S. despite holding the “right papers” and “right visa.” He also showed border officials documentation from FIFA and photos from his career as a referee. The officials even searched for him online, he told the Times.

This doesn’t appear to have been an isolated case. Members of the Iranian and South African teams have reported issues obtaining visas, prompting Iran’s team to relocate its base camp from Arizona to Mexico, which is also hosting the World Cup along with the U.S. and Canada. The only player of the Haitian national team who lives in the Caribbean country also had trouble getting a visa but has since entered the U.S., the Herald reported.

The International Sports Press Association has also raised concerns about the denial of entry visas for journalists. In some cases, the U.S. granted single entries to some reporters, “so if their team goes to play in Canada or Mexico and they follow it, they can no longer return to the States,” AIPS President Gianni Merlo told the FIFA media relations director in a June 5 letter.

Miami has positioned itself as a global city with international reach. Now that’s on a collision course with Trump’s immigration agenda. Trump’s bans affect many of the countries whose immigrants helped build the city, such as Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela and others.

The president’s immigration agenda is also more than policy — it creates the perception that the U.S. no longer welcomes people from abroad, no matter how qualified they are. The administration’s $100,000 fee on H-1B work visas, struck down by a federal judge this week, is a clear example of the isolationism and nativism that have swept American politics since Trump’s reelection.

The world has been looking at America’s anti-immigration moves with consternation, and now Miami has been thrown into the mix. This is not the reputation this city has tried to project.

Republicans are constantly saying the United States can’t afford programs that keep our country running – yet when it comes to the whims of President Donald Trump, they’re happy to foot the bill.

In the early hours of June 5, Senate Republicans passed a bill that would allocate $70 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdown. Only one Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, opposed the bill.

In the process, Republicans failed to ban Trump’s $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund or keep the president from building his lavish White House ballroom. They also rejected two amendments from Democrats that would have tackled affordable housing. So when you can’t afford to buy a home, remember that it was all to serve a greater good – making life miserable for immigrants during the rest of Trump’s second term and ensuring the Jan. 6, 2021, rioters get away with all of it.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer summed it up surprisingly well in remarks on the Senate floor.

“Apparently, Republicans think we cannot afford a single penny to help Americans cover the skyrocketing cost of gasoline, of health care, of housing, of food, of energy – you name it – but somehow we can afford to give another $70 billion to Trump’s rogue agencies even though ICE and Border Patrol already have a hundred billion dollars in cash on hand,” Schumer said.

This is the hypocrisy of the Republican Party. Everything is too expensive until Trump boldly declares that he wants his every whim to be fully funded by taxpayer dollars. The everyday needs of working-class Americans – the very people who voted for congressional Republican – do not matter.

Republicans won’t spend on education, but shell out for Trump’s whims

GOP lawmakers are happy to shell out billions of dollars to fight an imaginary war on immigrants coming into the United States, but turn their collective noses up at the idea of helping the American people.

It’s hypocritical. It’s embarrassing. It’s exactly what we’ve come to expect from a spineless party.

The immigration bill amendments aren’t the only way Republicans are neglecting to fund important programs in the United States.

The same day the Senate began voting on the immigration funding bill, Republicans in the House unveiled an appropriations bill for the 2027 fiscal year that included billions of dollars in cuts to the Department of Education. And back in April, the president said it was impossible to fund Medicaid, Medicare and universal day care across the country because of the U.S. war with Iran.

So, ensuring our students have access to the best public education possible is on the back burner, but funding an agency that has killed multiple U.S. citizens and continues to terrorize any person of color in this country is the priority? Republicans don’t see anything wrong with that? Incredible.

The GOP’s economic cruelty is the point

I don’t expect much from the Republican Party. The GOP has expressed its hate of welfare programs and helping everyday Americans since at least the Reagan era. In the past 10 years, it has simply gotten louder.

Republican leaders have made it abundantly clear that they do not care about the most vulnerable people in our country. They only care about keeping their supreme leader – sorry, head of the party – from having nuclear temper tantrums and running them out of office, as Trump has done in Republican primaries across the country in 2026.

Of course, the party of Trump doesn’t think we should have a solid education system, affordable housing or universal health care. To have these things would prove to the country that the government can actually be effective, if it is allowed to be. It would allow people to see that the Democrats might have been right all along: that a social safety net benefits all of us, even if you are not someone directly receiving these benefits.

Come November, I hope voters remember that Trump and Republicans chose to fund a cruel immigration crackdown instead of education, housing, health care and research programs that keep our country on pace with other world powers. I hope they remember that the United States does not have to be this way, with politicians bending the knee to a man whose cruelty knows no limits. A better country is possible. We must demand it.

The State Assembly judiciary committee approved a bill Tuesday that would allow California residents to file lawsuits against federal immigration agents if they can argue the action violates the constitution.

The vote was 9-3 along party lines.

The State Senate approved the bill earlier and it will now move on to the next steps of the legislative process to the appropriations committee before a final vote deadline of Aug. 30.

The bill, called the “No Kings Act” or SB 747, is retroactive. If it passes, it would allow people such as Marvin Godoy Calderon, who was arrested by federal immigration officers at the end of May outside his home in the Sunnyside neighborhood of San Francisco, to sue for constitutional rights violations. Potential plaintiffs could sue for claims like excessive force and wrongful arrest, which are functionally difficult under current law.

Jordan Weiner, the immigration attorney at La Raza Centro Legal in San Francisco who represents Godoy Calderon, said the bill could be an important legal tool for her clients whose constitutional rights are violated. Lawsuits could be filed on behalf of immigrant clients who endure harsh conditions in detention centers where, she said, constitutional rights are often violated by federal officers.

“We welcome this and it’s very timely especially as ICE takes more bold actions,” said Weiner.

Does a law to sue federal officers for violating the constitution already exist?

There is no existing law to sue federal law enforcement for unconstitutional acts, although there are pathways to sue local and state agents.

As such, federal officers have “de facto immunity” for constitutional violations, said California State Senator Scott Wiener, who sponsored the bill.

Wiener worked with nonprofit groups such as Protect Democracy, a self-described “anti-authoritarian” national nonprofit, to draft the legislation.

Since President Donald Trump took office for his second term, there have been countless examples locally and across the country of federal agents arresting or confronting individuals under circumstances that seem to thwart the protections provided in the constitution. One of the most public examples was the fatal shooting of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis.

In the aftermath of the killings, JD Vance, the vice-president, stated that the officers were protected by “qualified immunity.”

But Wiener’s bill argues that these officers are not immune to the constitution and should be held accountable for their actions if they violate it.

“The reality is that we have a fascist regime that is out of control, that is ignoring the U.S. Constitution that is upending the rule of law … this bill is about upholding the rule of law and having accountability when someone violates your constitutional rights,” Wiener said in an interview.

But again, the Department of Homeland Security has stated publicly that their officers have “federal immunity in the conduct of [their] duties.”

“The Department of Justice has made clear that if officials cross that line into obstruction, into criminal conspiracy against the United States or against ICE officers, then they will face justice,” read a social media post from January posted by the Department of Homeland Security.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.

If this bill passes, a legal challenge is likely, as has been the pattern under this administration.

Javier Ramirez, an American citizen who was arrested outside his Los Angeles home last summer by masked and heavily armed agents, spoke during the hearing in Sacramento.

“The streets of my city, once a place of safety and comfort, have become tainted by the actions of those who should protect us,” said Ramirez, speaking to the legislators.

During the hearing in the state assembly on Tuesday, the California Police Chiefs Association spoke in opposition to the current draft of the bill, expressing concern that there was not a clear definition of qualified immunity outlined in the current version of the legislation. But nonetheless, it passed.

Other states such as Colorado, New York and Connecticut have also introduced similar legislation. Wiener said the states are communicating with one another to exchange ideas.

OMAHA — A year has passed since roughly 80 federal and local agents plus a canine unit converged on Omaha’s Glenn Valley Foods and in buses hauled away roughly 75 undocumented workers. It was the biggest immigration raid in Nebraska since 2018.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which invited a national TV crew to film, at the time emphasized the Trump administration’s priority to “protect the nation’s workforce” and hold employers accountable for encouraging illegal immigration.

ICE officials touted a focus on “identifying public safety and national security threats.”

Tuesday, however, a group representing elected officials, service-providers and immigrant advocates held a news conference to collectively say the June 10, 2025 raid and ongoing enforcement tactics have not made their community safer.

“If they’re meant to make our community safer, they’re not doing that,” said Douglas County Board Chair Roger Garcia. “They do the opposite by taking breadwinners away, detaining moms, creating tension.”

He told the Nebraska Examiner that he and others believe drug dealers and violent people should “by all means” face legal consequences.

But seven speakers, including Omaha Mayor John Ewing Jr., reflected on ways the Glenn Valley raid — and, more broadly, President Donald Trump’s evolving and ramped up immigration policies — have impacted immigrant families and the city overall.

Waning commerce

A long burn, merchants said, has been a hit on business activity in South Omaha, an area traditionally known as the landing place of immigrants.

As one response, the group announced an effort, Dia de Alegria, or Day of Joy, that will take place Wednesday to bring attention and business to the South Omaha historic business district. Tours, live music and other activities will be featured. Ewing also proclaimed June “Immigrant Heritage Month.”

Ewing, a Democrat, noted that the Glenn Valley raid took place one day after he was sworn in and he said it became his first challenge as mayor. His election ousted Jean Stothert, a Republican who was seeking her fourth term.

The mayor echoed others in urging federal officials to adopt a “comprehensive and humane immigration policy” that includes a path to legal citizenship for nonviolent migrants.

Of the Tuesday rally-like event at La Plaza de la Raza, Ewing said: “This is about making Omaha the best and most inclusive community we can make it.” He said he wants the city to rebound from “damage” of the ICE enforcement and build hope.

Roxana Cortes-Mills, legal director at the Center for Immigrant and Refugee Advancement, noted that the Glenn Valley raid was rooted in an investigation about alleged stolen or fraudulent identities and Social Security numbers to work. Federal officials have said a March 2025 audit pointed to 107 suspicious documents and triggered the worksite enforcement.

In the end, available public documents showed only one Glenn Valley worker charged and convicted of an identity fraud-related crime.

Some workers self-deported rather than stay in jail or go through further proceedings to try and stay. Others eventually were allowed out on bond to be with families while they build legal cases.

Glenn Valley Foods was never charged criminally. Company executives said they used the federal E-Verify system for hiring.

Uncertainty continues

To Cortes-Mills, the results point to a misuse of limited public funds. She said most of the detainees were accused of civil violations, not criminal or fraudulent activity.

“They didn’t deliver 70-something criminal convictions,” Cortes-Mills said in an interview.

“The result was they startled an entire community and at least for a period of time split apart families that staffed operations in a large packing plant in a city that produces meat for the entire country. And it spread fear.”

Uncertainty continues for migrants, she said, as shifting policies and practices have put people of different legal statuses in fear of removal.

ICE did not respond to a reporter’s request for comment, nor did the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Nebraska, which worked on the Glenn Valley cases. Gov. Jim Pillen’s Office did not respond to a query Tuesday, though last year after the raid he said he backed federal partners and blamed the Biden administration’s past policies for a border crisis.

Pillen later said that he saw a problem at the Glenn Valley operation because of “concentration of folks doing criminal activity of stealing people’s ID — that’s a grave offense.”

Lina Traslaviña Stover, executive director of the Heartland Workers Center, said during the rally that her team witnessed first-hand pain of family separations. She said families continue to be “villainized” and live with fear and instability.

“We saw young people take on responsibilities far beyond their years, becoming providers and caretakers for their households. We watched hardworking Nebraskans live with the fear that a simple drive to work, school or a doctor’s appointment could change everything.”

But there is a resilient effect as well, Stover said. Organizations including hers, the Center for Immigrant and Refugee Advancement, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, continue to help affected families.

Families are creating “safety plans” to protect their children in case a parent was detained, she said. Young people such as Luis Mejia have been motivated to take action.

Caring for siblings

Mejia, 20, was among the speakers. He said on June 10 last year he and his mom went to work thinking it would be a “normal day” until ICE agents entered and he saw some people run.

“My mom hugged me and told me to take care of my younger siblings,” Mejia said.

He eventually was escorted outside after an officer asked him for proof of citizenship and ran his name through a computer. “I was born here, I don’t know what you need from me,” Mejia recalled saying.

Mejia drove around the plant looking for his mom, who was in ICE custody. “Suddenly my (three) siblings and I were without our mom, and I felt responsible for stepping up and taking care of them as my mom was our sole provider.”

For a month, the mother was detained with co-workers at a North Platte jail four hours away. She eventually was released on bond while she fights deportation.

Luis Mejia said he has since gotten involved with Heartland Worker to help other families. He registered to vote and said he will be voting for the first time in November.

Among those clapping for Mejia were state Sens. Margo Juarez and Dunixi Guereca, both of Omaha. Also in the group was former state lawmaker Tony Vargas.

Laura Contreras, board president of the Latino Economic Development Council, encouraged the gathering to support and shop South Omaha businesses during the Day of Joy, which will feature music and activities based at the plaza.

The event is billed as a dedication to transforming hardship into opportunity.

SAN FRANCISCO — The speedy shuttering of the main immigration courthouse in San Francisco affects over 100,000 pending immigration cases, slowing down their consideration and leaving more immigrants in limbo and at risk of deportation.

But it also deals a symbolic blow to a region that has long stood at the vanguard of immigration advocacy.

For decades, the San Francisco immigration court was where immigrants living between California’s Central Valley and central Oregon could make the case for why they shouldn’t be deported. The broad jurisdiction made it one of the busiest immigration courts in the country, hearing thousands of cases a year.

It was also one of the courts most likely to grant an immigrants’ asylum application to stay in the U.S. Its closing comes as the Trump administration seeks to limit pathways for many foreigners to enter or stay in the country.

“It’s part of the message that the Trump administration is sending, that they’re not open to asylum seekers. And one way of doing that is closing the court that has been very generous to asylum seekers,” said Bill Hing, a law and migration studies professor at the University of San Francisco. “It’s sending a message that the progressive cases that have come out of San Francisco are going to end.”

Earlier this year, the Justice Department, which oversees immigration courts, announced it would not be renewing the lease on the building at 100 Montgomery St. — the main courthouse in San Francisco, with 21 courtrooms. The move followed the termination and resignation of nearly all the judges who worked out of that location. The closure, which was supposed to happen at the end of the year but has been accelerated, sends 100,000 cases to the Concord Immigration Court, about an hour away across the San Francisco Bay.

About 17,000 cases will stay at 630 Sansome St. in San Francisco, another, smaller location with just two operating courtrooms.

The DOJ cited cost saving as the reason for the closure. It didn’t respond to a request for comment about concerns that the closure is related to the court’s track record of asylum approvals.

“Reducing the immigration court backlog remains a priority for the agency. Any immigration judge can hear any case at any time throughout the country to assist with caseloads,” Kathryn Mattingly, spokesperson for the Executive Office for Immigration Review, said in a statement. That branch of the DOJ makes up immigration courts.

“As EOIR continues to add new immigration judges, EOIR will continue to make scheduling adjustments to ensure all cases are handled in a timely and lawful manner.”

The San Francisco court, on average, denied asylum about 30% of the time in fiscal year 2025, which is half the national average. Since 2004, more than half of respondents who got a decision were approved for asylum, according to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.

Immigration attorneys worry that the Trump administration’s strategy is not to add more immigration judges to the existing system to fairly decide cases.

Rather, “it’s to make the barriers to having your case heard so high that it becomes almost virtually impossible,” Ghassan Shamieh, an immigration attorney with cases in the closing court, said, speculating about the administration’s reasons. “Changing locations of the physical court is a step to further that agenda.”

San Francisco’s progressive immigration history may have made it a target

Hing, the law professor, remembers practicing in the San Francisco immigration court after he graduated from law school in the 1970s. He said the court was significant to the region due to San Francisco’s own deep history with immigration, from those entering at Angel Island to the Chinese Exclusion Act.

“Chinese exclusion set the groundwork for much of the litigation [in San Francisco] when it came to challenging deportation,” Hing said, adding that for decades downtown firms provided pro bono assistance to asylum seekers and other immigrants. That included firms that specialized in immigration law during peak moments of migration, like the rise in Central American migrants in the 1980s.

“Then you add to that the evolution of nonprofit organizations in the city. And it’s very, very collaborative,” he said.

That strong legal presence resulted in several precedent-setting immigration cases reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. Some of the case law predates the modern-day immigration court system, such as immigration decisions regarding protection from deportation for union leader Harry Bridges, admission of visitors to the U.S. who identify as gay, and battles that laid the groundwork for relief from deportation for Filipino World War II veterans.

More recent cases set some of the legal standards for asylum.

Over time, as the San Francisco immigration court was formally stood up, it gained a reputation for granting more relief from deportation than the national average. Immigration attorneys attribute the high success rate to San Francisco having the second-highest representation rate in the country — meaning more immigrants with cases in the court, about 69%, had lawyers representing them, according to the American Immigration Council. Concord ranks third.

In response to questions about the impact on asylum rates, EOIR spokesperson Kathryn Mattingly said the closure was due to the expiration of the lease of the building and that relocating the court’s work would be “more cost effective.” She did not address criticism about the impact of the closure on immigrants’ access to lawyers, or on their asylum cases.

San Francisco and Concord face the brunt of layoffs, less resources

The Concord Immigration Court, which now must absorb the bulk of cases from the closure, has never been fully staffed.

At the start of the year, the immigration court system nationally had a quarter fewer immigration judges compared to the start of 2025, even as the backlog in cases is 3.5 million.

The shrinking ranks particularly affected the Bay Area in California. San Francisco went from 21 judges to now just two, at a second location in the city; Concord was meant to have 21 judges but now has 4, not counting the supervisor.

The cases are coming to Concord as immigration judges continue to be terminated in that location, as recently as May. The Trump administration has terminated over 130 immigration judges nationally; many others have resigned or retired.

Although the Justice Department has boasted of hiring the most immigration judges in one year, including a record-setting class of more than 80 people in May, only one of those new judges is currently assigned to Concord.

Cases at Concord are currently being scheduled for nameless “visiting judges” — without clarity on if it would be a new judge, one not yet hired, or a judge in another part of the country appearing via video conference.

The lack of an assigned judge means that case could be moved on the schedule again, and attorneys said it can add challenges to fully preparing a case.

In response to questions about staffing, Mattingly said any immigration judge can be assigned to adjudicate cases in any court in the nation, as needed.

“Cases will be timely adjudicated either at the Concord Immigration Court or remotely,” she said. “Reducing the immigration court backlog remains a priority for the agency.”

Jane Lee is an immigration attorney who volunteers as an “attorney of the day,” providing day-of legal assistance to immigrants who come to their hearings without a lawyer.

“The area that this court is going to cover is really large and there’s like thousands of cases and we don’t have the judges,” she said of the court in Concord.

The cases currently scheduled for San Francisco are expected to be heard at Concord starting in December.

Delays mean immigrants in both courts wait longer to know if they can stay

Across the Bay, Shamieh, the immigration attorney, said he has hundreds of cases still pending in the Montgomery San Francisco court, which currently has no judges and no hearings scheduled ahead of its December closure.

“This uncertainty is incredibly scary,” Shamieh said. “Judges had cases going till 2027, 2028.”

Elin, who entered the U.S. from Nicaragua in 2020 and is seeking asylum, has been hit hard by multiple delays.

He has been waiting for his final hearing for several years out of San Francisco. It’s been rescheduled multiple times; one delay came after the judge who was supposed to hear his case was fired.

It’s now slated for 2029, in San Francisco at the closed Montgomery location and with a judge that no longer works there. His case is poised to be among those moved to Concord — a commute of more than an hour; he does not have a car.

“There isn’t a set date and this situation is very stressful – sometimes I am afraid to go outside,” he said in an interview with NPR. He provided only his first name to NPR for fear of reprisals for his pending case. “My brother’s asylum was approved and he just got his green card. So for me, I think this wait time is harmful because I am still in limbo.”

Elin said he has been in the U.S. since late 2020. He has a work permit, pays taxes and believes he could have a good case to stay.

“It is a balance because I do want my case decided and finished — and at the same time, I also want to wait to see if a change in president [by 2029] could be better,” he said.

The volatile schedules are also affecting attorneys. Jordan Weiner, interim executive director of La Raza Centro Legal, said her nonprofit firm has stopped taking new cases because of the unpredictability of the current paused caseload while the transfer to Concord moves forward.

“Even though it’s sort of like a lull, that doesn’t mean we can sign more clients because tomorrow we could get hearing notices for every single client for next week,” Weiner said. “And so we’re not able to take new clients until we know what’s going to be happening with these cases.”

Resources coalesce around Concord, again unifying legal efforts

There’s also signs that San Francisco’s storied immigration defense bar is starting to adjust to the new realities.

When the Concord Immigration Court opened in 2024, advocates foresaw challenges. The building is not very close to public transportation. The courtrooms are located on the top floors of a building that has other offices, and there’s minimal signage and waiting areas.

Nonprofit legal and community organizations quickly jumped in to support the new court — including creating packets with lawyers’ contact information, volunteers to greet people in the lobby and a fund to help cover immigrants’ asylum application fees. Now, there is a coalition of about 100 volunteers who wear bright blue vests and hand out the packets and coordinate with volunteer attorneys.

Legal organizations in San Francisco are seeing the development of those resources in Concord as an opportunity to create a unified legal aid system once more.

Milli Atkinson, director of the Immigrant Legal Defense Program at the Bar Association of San Francisco, manages her own 100 volunteer “attorneys of the day” who provide legal aid to those in immigration court without a lawyer.

Her biggest concern is immigrants, particularly those without lawyers, not knowing they are now supposed to go to a different city. She said this was also an issue in the 2024 transition.

Back then, “if you were confused about when your court [hearing] was or where your court was, there was a little bit of grace given to respondents. A judge would understand if you missed a hearing because you just got a new notice and you were going to all your old hearings and you just didn’t show up to this one,” Atkinson said. Now, she worries that grace won’t be extended this time as the administration looks for ways to issue more orders of deportation for those who miss their hearing.

Mattingly, the EOIR spokesperson, said the agency is issuing new hearing notices to all parties whose cases are reassigned to a new location.

The legal organizations in both cities are beginning to share resources. The San Francisco attorneys of the day are already training in the Concord court and preparing to serve the clients that are moved over, while juggling the two remaining courtrooms at the smaller location in San Francisco.

Still, the closure of the city’s larger courthouse is bittersweet for attorneys like Atkinson who have practiced there for decades.

“Like Ellis Island, like Angel Island, there’s a history of tragic injustice,” Atkinson said. “But there is also a history of moments of people’s lives being changed and people having, for the first time maybe ever, the sense that they’re they’re going to be safe and that there’s a future and hope for them and their family.”

The city of Minneapolis estimates the federal immigration enforcement surge from December 2025 to April 2026 cost the city, residents and businesses $700 million.

The total includes dips in business revenue, lost wages for employees and additional costs to the city budget, such as police overtime. In February, an initial impact assessment placed the surge’s impact closer to $300 million.

Leaders plan to release an updated impact assessment on Wednesday morning. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey will join other city leaders and local businesses to provide a breakdown of Operation Metro Surge’s financial impact on Minneapolis.

During the surge, fear of arrest, detention and deportation spurred many immigrants to stay home from work.

In the wake of the surge, the city created an emergency rental assistance program and a small business resiliency fund.

A report from North Star Policy Action released earlier this month found that Operation Metro Surge caused Minnesota’s hospitality and tourism sectors, which have large immigrant populations, to lose approximately 4,600 jobs and $71 million in lost wages during the first three months of the year.

WASHINGTON—The House passed a Republican-led $70 billion immigration-enforcement bill Tuesday, ending a monthslong stalemate over the slice of federal spending, and funding the contentious operations through the rest of President Trump’s second term.

The bill, which passed 214-212, comes after the Senate narrowly cleared funding for the agencies last week, using a special budget process that allowed Republicans to bypass the 60-vote threshold for most bills.

Congress had approved funding for most of the Department of Homeland Security earlier this year, but Democratic opposition had held up money for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol. Trump is expected to sign the measure into law.

“It’s long overdue,” Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) said about the bill in a Tuesday press conference. “We have to fund border security and immigration enforcement, and it’s sad that Republicans have to do it on our own.”

The bill’s passage will end months of bitter gridlock that began in late January after Democrats refused to fund the Department of Homeland Security following the deaths of two American citizens during immigration enforcement operations in Minnesota. After a record-setting partial shutdown that threatened to disrupt air travel, lawmakers agreed to fund most of the DHS—including airport-security workers and the Coast Guard—and split off the immigration-enforcement portion.

“We believe that taxpayer dollars should be used to make life more affordable for the American people—not give ICE another $70 billion blank check so that they can unleash brutality on American citizens and violently target law-abiding immigrant communities,” said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.).

California Rep. Kevin Kiley—an independent caucusing with Republicans—joined House Democrats in voting against the bill. Kiley expressed concerns about circumventing the normal appropriations process and wanted changes to domestic immigration enforcement enacted.

“I think it’s a very bad precedent,” said Kiley on Tuesday. “This is an area that is sharply polarized right now, where a lot of people are not trustful or have lost some faith in how operations are being carried out.”

Republicans have a narrow majority in the chamber, and three GOP lawmakers and one Democrat weren’t present to vote. Rep. Tim Walberg (R., Mich.) initially voted no—leaving the floor locked in a 213-213 tie—but then switched his vote to yes.

The Senate passed the measure on Friday morning after an all-night vote-a-rama on amendments.

The successful Republican effort came as new tumult emerged on the Hill. Trump recently named Bill Pulte as the acting director of national intelligence, prompting Senate Democrats to say they wouldn’t support an extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That power expires this week.

Democrats and some Republicans have sounded alarms that Pulte, a close Trump ally, could use his perch to target the president’s perceived enemies and politicize the agency.

Iraq’s national soccer team landed at Chicago’s O’Hare airport last week in jubilant spirits to compete in the World Cup for the first time in 40 years.

For Aymen Hussein, among the top players in Iraqi history, his time on soccer’s biggest stage appeared, for a few tense hours, like it might slip away before it had even started. The striker watched his teammates leave for their base camp while immigration officials detained him for questioning. After several hours, the officials cleared Mr. Hussein.

Omar Abdulkadir Artan, a Somali referee, was not as fortunate. Mr. Artan, among a select group of about 50 World Cup referees, was also detained and became another example of how U.S. immigration policy could upend the world’s biggest sporting event.

Immigration officials questioned Mr. Artan, placed him in a holding cell and then deported him.

The two incidents have brought renewed scrutiny on Washington’s immigration and border policies, which have tightened under the Trump administration just as the United States prepares to host the most watched global sporting event.

On the eve of the tournament, immigration issues have emerged as an obstacle to a World Cup that was awarded to North America in 2018 with promises of inclusivity. The event is now being threatened by concerns of restrictive entry into the United States that critics had raised for years and soccer’s governing body, FIFA, had continually played down.

In February, Gianni Infantino, FIFA’s president who describes himself as a friend of President Trump, insisted the entry process would be “smooth.”

“I think it’s important to clarify this, there is a lot of misconception out there. Everyone will be welcome in Canada, Mexico and the United States for the FIFA World Cup,” he said.

But since then various groups connected to the World Cup — from players to fans to media professionals — have found the process anything but smooth.

Scores of journalists, mainly from the Middle East and Africa, have failed to get clearance to cover the World Cup, prompting a complaint to FIFA from a global umbrella body for sports journalists. Fans from Europe to Africa have also been hit with changing rules regarding entry, including a group of ticket holders from the Democratic Republic of Congo, who are now barred because of the outbreak of Ebola and unable to get a refund on their World Cup tickets.

Iran’s fate at the World Cup has been shrouded in uncertainty ever since the United States and Israel began a joint assault on the country at the end of February. Iran’s players were finally issued entry visas for their games in the United States, but more than a dozen team officials and staff members have had their applications rejected.

But it is the case of the Somali referee, Mr. Artan, that has sparked the most intrigue. He had traveled from Turkey to Miami and, according to an interview he gave to The New York Times, was deported back to Turkey. Last year, he was named the best referee in Africa by the region’s governing body for soccer.

For referees, the World Cup is considered the pinnacle moment of a career, as it is for players. Mr. Artan said the “biggest dream of my life” had been snatched away. He said all his paperwork was in order, but American officials decided upon further inspection that allowing Mr. Artan to enter the country would be “inadmissible due to vetting concerns.” Later, Andrew Giuliani, the official who leads the White House’s World Cup task force, went further and accused Mr. Artan of having murky ties.

“There were some very terrible people he was talking to,” Mr. Giuliani told the BBC. “We’re not going to allow a soccer tournament to be the opportunity for terrorists to get into the country, or anybody who is actually talking to them.” A spokeswoman for the task force did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Artan’s native Somalia has particularly been a regular target for the Trump administration. Earlier this year there was a surge in immigration raids in Minnesota, home to the biggest Somali population in the United States, while Mr. Trump has also invoked unflattering language to describe Somalia, which faces severe travel and visa restrictions.

Mr. Artan said the high-profile nature of his case is likely to have a deeper effect back home. Somalis, he said, could feel further disrespected by Washington and think “our passport, our country name, everything is useless,” if even a decorated World Cup referee can be turned away from the United States.

“This is such a shameful decision by the Trump administration,” said Ilhan Omar, a U.S. representative of Somali descent who has frequently tangled with President Trump. “The World Cup is supposed to be an event that transcends divisions and allows people to come together for the love of the sport.”

A White House spokesman said that Mr. Trump is focused on ensuring that the World Cup is “an incredible experience for all fans and visitors,” but also “the safest and most secure in history.”

But some rights groups, which have opposed Washington’s immigration policies, now fear that the World Cup could be anything but an incredible experience.

“What is happening to players and staff and fans coming to the U.S. for the World Cup is representative of the horrors millions of people in the U.S. are experiencing under this regime,” said Tanya Greene, the U.S. program director for Human Rights Watch. “It’s as if the administration wants to keep the world out of the World Cup.”

Iranian fans have faced added disruption.

The country is on the United States sanctions list, meaning its soccer federation has been barred from selling World Cup tickets to its supporters even if they held valid visas. “FIFA is working closely with the Iranian federation to identify compliant solutions that maximize opportunities for Iranian supporters to attend matches,” a FIFA spokesman said.

The security protocol in the United States has led to uncomfortable scenes for some teams. In the past few days, squads from Senegal and Uzbekistan, countries with sizable Muslim contingents, have undergone the type of rigorous security screening that has not been common at previous tournaments. Uzbekistan’s players were surprised to see security officials waiting for them as they stepped off a bus before a tune up game against the Netherlands in New York. The players were subjected to searches with metal detectors. Fabio Cannavaro, the team’s coach, suggested his team had been singled out for special attention because the Dutch team did not face the same searches. “In the end, the check was only for us,” he said.

Former immigration judges who say their firings were discriminatory are pushing courts to rein in the Trump administration’s claims of unfettered power to terminate executive branch employees.

At least eight fired judges, all Biden-era appointees whom the Trump administration declined to retain at the end of their two-year probationary periods, have sued. They say they were given no explanation for their firings and denied recourse by the Justice Department’s Equal Employment Opportunity staff.

The Trump administration, in response, is asserting the power to fire immigration judges for any reason. This comes as President Donald Trump has also moved to reclassify thousands of civil servants as workers without the right to appeal their terminations before an independent board.

“They’re using immigration judges as a test case for stripping federal employees of rights,” said Kevin Owen, a longtime employment lawyer who represents seven of the former immigration judges. Owen expects to file additional suits in the coming weeks.

The DOJ Executive Office for Immigration Review, which encompasses the country’s more than 70 immigration courts, has fired more than 100 judges since January 2025, about half of whom were probationary, according to National Association of Immigration Judges estimates. At the same time, the department hired more than 200 temporary and permanent immigration judges with military backgrounds or prior experience as Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys, according to a Bloomberg Law analysis.

The lawsuits from fired judges could force federal courts to weigh in on the Trump administration’s assertion of the unitary executive theory, which says the president has total control over the executive branch. That position, if left unchecked, will pressure immigration judges to issue rulings to help the administration ramp up deportations, former judges and government lawyers said.

“When you give the administration almost unfettered authority to fire or discipline immigration judges, it makes it very hard for them to be neutral adjudicators,” said Emmett Soper, a former immigration judge who served as counsel to the EOIR director during the Biden administration.

A DOJ spokesperson blamed the Biden administration for offering what they called “de facto amnesty” to immigrants and said the department “is restoring integrity to our immigration system.”

**Discrimination Claims**

The fired probationary judges said in their complaints they received notice they wouldn’t be made permanent judges, citing the attorney general’s authority under Article II of the Constitution, which covers executive power. The judges received positive performance reviews throughout their probationary periods, they said, and in some cases their immediate supervisors recommended they be retained.

While immigration judges, who are DOJ employees and not members of the judicial branch, have previously been dismissed at the end of their probation over performance or misconduct issues, the volume of terminations by the second Trump administration is “unprecedented,” Soper said.

An EOIR spokesperson said the office must take action if a judge shows systematic bias for or against either side.

Female ex-judges claimed they were targeted in part due to their sex. Ex-judges of Cuban, Mexican, Lebanese, and Greek heritage claim they were discriminated against for their ethnicity. Ex-judges over 40 said their age played a role. One ex-judge says he was fired in part because he’s openly gay.

The head of EOIR last year released memos saying the office would rectify past practices of “hostility” toward job applicants of certain backgrounds, and the administration subsequently fired disproportionate numbers of female and minority immigration judges, several of the complaints said.

All eight ex-judges who filed suit also said their firings were partially motivated by their prior advocacy for immigrants or affiliation with the Democratic party.

Owen, a partner at Gilbert Employment Law PC, said the majority of discrimination claims have traditionally been considered by DOJ staff and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, not the courts. But the administration says immigration judges’ equal employment claims can’t be brought via that process because civil-rights protections don’t apply to them.

DOJ attorneys argued in their motion to dismiss fired Cleveland immigration judge Tania Nemer’s suit that she isn’t entitled to relief under the Constitution or the Civil Rights Act because she was “an inferior officer” and “removable at will.”

This position “really upsets a lot of settled expectations about the fairness of the federal government as the employer” and “as an entity serving the taxpayers,” said David Lopez, the EEOC’s general counsel during the Obama administration.

Probationary immigration judges aren’t eligible to seek relief from the Merit Systems Protection Board, which reviews wrongful termination claims.

Two judges fired after their probationary periods have appealed a ruling from two Republican board members affirming the attorney general’s authority to terminate their positions without restrictions.

**Proving Their Case**

The lawsuits, filed in various federal district courts, aim to develop more extensive case law on the Trump administration’s unitary executive argument, Owen said.

Fired judges could find it difficult to prove that protected classes were part of the calculus for their terminations, said Tamara Slater, a shareholder at Alan Lescht and Associates PC who represents clients in civil rights and antidiscrimination litigation.

“That tends to be one of the hardest pieces to prove in discrimination cases: not just that the adverse employment action was taken for a bad reason, but that it was taken for an unlawful reason,” Slater said.

The discovery process in these cases could provide a window into the so-far opaque reasoning behind the mass firings, Owen said.

From the administration’s perspective, the personnel decisions are among a wave of changes at the immigration courts to ensure judges are “fairly and impartially applying” immigration law, said Matt O’Brien, deputy executive director of the conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform.

The administration “has consistently dismissed” judges unwilling or unable to “perform their job functions correctly,” O’Brien said.

But Lopez said the firings, on top of the administration’s recruitment campaign for “deportation judges,” call into question whether the system is intended to be fair “for people whose lives really hang in the balance as they step into immigration court.”

President Trump’s restrictive immigration policies are already impacting this year’s 2026 FIFA World Cup.

At least one referee from Somalia and one Iraqi team staff member were denied entry at U.S. airports in recent days, and dozens of fans from countries such as Morocco have been denied travel visas, despite being ticket holders.

“I view the 2026 World Cup as a massive paradox,” said Jules Boykoff, a professor and the author of Red Card: The 2026 World Cup, Sportswashing and the FIFA Greed Machine. “On one hand, it has more teams than ever participating. On the other hand, because of the policies of the Trump administration, it looks more like a World Cup of exclusion than inclusion.”

Boykoff, who is also a former professional soccer player, told NPR he worries the restrictive immigration policies also will shape the experience of fans in the U.S., who might be anxious about potential tense interactions with immigration agents outside of stadiums.

Boykoff’s concerns echo those of other policy experts and soccer fans who for months have warned about the influence of President Trump’s immigration policies on the tournament.

The White House did not respond to NPR’s request for comment.

In a statement to NPR, Customs and Border Protection said “all travelers seeking entry into the United States, including athletes, coaches, and staff, are subject to CBP inspection and vetting.”

The agency said “admissibility determinations are made on a case-by-case basis using law enforcement, national security, and immigration information available at the time of inspection.”

**Denied entry to the U.S.**

There are 39 countries who are under either a full or partial U.S. travel ban. For 19 of those countries, the State Department has suspended issuing all visas. The Trump administration has said the move is to “ensure that individuals approved for a visa do not endanger national security or public safety.”

Four countries in those lists — Iran, Haiti, Côte d’Ivoire, and Senegal — are expected to play in the World Cup.

On Saturday, decorated FIFA World Cup referee Omar Abdulkadir Artan, of Somalia, was denied entry to the U.S. after landing at the Miami International Airport.

In a statement, CBP said Artan was “determined to be inadmissible due to vetting concerns and was denied entry.” CBP did not say what concerns were.

Andrew Giuliani, the executive director of the White House Task Force for the World Cup, said Tuesday the denial was “for very good reasons,” but he didn’t provide any further explanation.

Artan did not respond to NPR’s request for comment.

Meanwhile, a player for Team Iraq was questioned for hours at Chicago O’Hare International Airport. He was allowed into the U.S., but a photographer for the team was denied entry due to “vetting concerns,” CBP said.

David Niven, a University of Cincinnati professor who teaches a course on sports and politics, told NPR these immigration issues are a self-inflicted wound.

“When you insert politics into the competition, it’s no longer the competition it was,” Niven said. “In some ways (it’s) very tangibly when a referee is missing or a player is delayed.”

The team from Iran — a country at war with the U.S. and Israel — was forced to relocate its lodging to Mexico after the U.S. government said players and staff were banned from staying overnight.

Visas for team members were approved last week, but more than a dozen support staff did not get approval, including Mehdi Taj, the president of the Iranian football federation.

In response to a social media post by U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack, the Iranian Embassy in Turkey said the U.S.’s conduct “violates FIFA regulations and breaches the United States’ host obligations.”

The Iranians also accused the U.S. of “politically biased interference in sport.”

“The U.S. government in practice is depriving Iran’s national team of its right to play in the World Cup under normal conditions and without undue pressure and stress,” the post on X said.

**Fans face travel restrictions**

Fans come from all over the world to attend the World Cup and cheer on their teams. Their chants and songs add to the excitement and vibrancy of the games.

But some fans and policy experts worry this year’s tournament may lose some of that exuberance because of U.S. visa denials.

According to the Moroccan news website Hespress, more than 40 members of multiple Moroccan football team supporter associations have been denied visas to attend the tournament. Many had tickets to the games and hotel bookings.

Gianni Infantino, FIFA’s president, in 2025 pushed against what he called “misconceptions” and said “everyone will be welcome in Canada, Mexico and the United States for the FIFA World Cup next year,” and that the U.S. was committed to a smooth travel process, so fans from all over the world will be welcome.”

But in response to Artan being denied entry to the U.S., a spokesperson for FIFA distanced the organization from the immigration issues. “FIFA is not involved in host country immigration processes, including visa adjudications, and has been informed by authorities that Mr. Artan’s status will not be changed at present,” FIFA said in a statement to NPR. “In line with previous FIFA events, a host government ultimately determines who receives a visa and who is admitted into their country.

Niven called FIFA’s new position “striking.”

“FIFA has raised the surrender flag on this question,” Niven said. “They’ve taken this situation and basically deferred to the United States and said the United States can do as they see fit.”

In the first years after birth, the human brain develops at a remarkable pace. Every second, more than a million new neural connections spring into being, shaping a person’s physical and emotional health for the rest of their life.

Since the Trump administration entered the White House last year, at least 500 babies and toddlers have spent some of that pivotal time in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

ICE has dramatically increased detentions of children aged 3 and under, holding 25 of them in custody on an average day between January 2025 and March of this year, according to a new analysis by The Marshall Project and MS NOW of records obtained by the Deportation Data Project, a group of academics and lawyers who collect and share federal immigration data. That number is 10 times higher than it was in the previous 12 months under former President Joe Biden. Back then, on an average day, fewer than three babies and toddlers were held at facilities across the country.

Parents in ICE detention have complained of substandard conditions that frequently left their young children sick, isolated and regressing in their physical and intellectual development.

ICE did not respond to a request for comment about the dramatic increase in the number of young children in detention; but, in an emailed statement, an agency spokesperson said families with children receive appropriate food, water and medical care. In a separate statement, CoreCivic — the private company that operates the primary ICE facility used to detain families — echoed that its facilities were safe for infants and toddlers.

Marsha Griffin, a pediatrics professor and co-founder of the executive committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Council on Immigrant Child and Family Health, called the period of infancy and toddlerhood “probably the most harmful time of their lives to have them in detention.”

“Our immigration system is breaking children,” she said.

In March, Joani, her husband, and their 2-year-old son, Kaleth, showed up to a check-in appointment with immigration officials in California. Since the family immigrated and sought asylum in 2024, they had never missed a required appointment with immigration officials, according to the family’s lawyer. Nevertheless, that day, ICE took them all into custody.

As the whole family cried, Kaleth’s father was handcuffed and driven away to an adult detention facility in California. Joani and her toddler were taken to the Dilley Immigration Processing Center in Texas, the primary U.S. immigration facility that holds families with children.

At the family’s request, we are identifying Kaleth and Joani by their first names only.

Separated from his father, Kaleth was despondent in the Dilley facility, Joani said in an interview. He repeatedly scooted a tiny table over to a phone that was mounted on the wall, so he could climb up high enough to try to use it. Each time, Joani moved the table away so he wouldn’t fall. Even if he could have reached the phone, contacting his father in another detention center would have been impossible.

Kaleth stopped eating for 12 days. Joani said facility doctors attributed it to depression. When Joani tried to force him to eat, Kaleth vomited. He eventually stopped having bowel movements. Joani watched her son’s face grow gaunt, and his eyes sink into their sockets.

Lori Goodman, the CEO of LEAP, a nonprofit group that supports families with young children in California and has worked with Kaleth’s family, said children his age may express trauma physically, since they have fewer verbal skills.

“He was so distressed that it manifested in his body in not being able to eat or digest,” said Goodman. “The longer a child is in that setting, the more the long-term damage.”

The most recent data available shows many very young children have spent prolonged periods of time in custody. Between Trump’s second inauguration and March of this year, ICE held at least 175 babies and toddlers for longer than a court-mandated time limit of 20 days. A federal judge interpreted 20 days to be the limit for detaining children in a 2015 opinion on the 1997 settlement in Flores v. Reno which governs the treatment of children in immigration detention.

During the last year of the Biden administration, no children aged 3 or younger were held beyond the settlement’s 20-day limit. Biden had ended the practice of family detention in 2021, and the Dilley facility, which had mostly housed families, eventually closed. Trump restarted the practice and reopened Dilley shortly after retaking office.

In a May court filing submitted by ICE as required by the Flores settlement, the agency said it “works to assess cases and discharge minors from custody as promptly as possible.”

Alsu and Azat fled Russia last year, fearing that their opposition to the war in Ukraine would land them in prison and their 1-year-old, Amir, in an orphanage.

The family had braced themselves to spend a few weeks in immigration confinement upon arriving in the United States after crossing the southern border without visas, and presented themselves to authorities at a legal port of entry. But, as their incarceration stretched on, first in California and then at Dilley, they watched their once-lively son withdraw and begin hitting himself in the face.

“We came here to escape prison. We wanted to be free,” Azat said through a translator. “But once we arrived in America, we spent four months in detention.”

Dilley didn’t have many toys for toddlers, Amir’s parents said, and some desperate children resorted to playing with rocks. Even though Alsu and Azat knew it was important to read with him, they couldn’t find books in their native language of Russian. Amir’s speech development slowed. Eventually, he stopped saying anything other than two words: “mom” and “dad”.

Griffin, the pediatrics professor, said it’s imperative for parents to talk to their children to help them develop vocabulary. But the fear and stress of incarceration can cause both parents and children to become quiet.

“They don’t want to talk, and no one’s talking to them, not in a normal way,” said Griffin. She noted that the experience can also damage the parent-child bond, as a child witnesses their parent’s loss of control.

Rahil Briggs, a psychologist at the early-childhood advocacy organization Zero to Three, said these types of developmental setbacks can have a domino effect.

“If we miss this foundational time in early childhood when we see all these wonderful things going on in brain development with memory and learning and executive functioning, then it’s just harder than ever to catch up,” Briggs said. “I can’t learn my ABCs because I’ve got to make sure that I’m safe in this scary situation. And because I haven’t learned my ABCs, now I’m not sure how to do this, and I’m not reading.”

Keeping Amir properly fed was another challenge.

According to Amir’s mother, Alsu, employees at Dilley forced her to wean him off formula, claiming he was too old. The solid food options, Alsu insisted, were not appropriate for a 1-year-old. She described being so desperate to get Amir to eat, that she sucked a spicy pasta sauce off noodles so she could feed them to her son. She and Azat resorted to hiding cereal from the dining hall at breakfast in their socks and hoods for later, so their child wouldn’t go to sleep hungry.

“Every single day, I would break down, hysterical, because my child had gone without proper food,” said Alsu.

After they argued with staff members to get Amir better food, Azat alleges that employees in CoreCivic uniforms woke him up in the middle of the night, threatening to send the parents to separate immigrant confinement centers and Amir to foster care if they didn’t stop complaining.

“As a husband, as a father, I can see the sufferings of my child, I can see how much my wife suffers,” Azat said. “It was horrific for me, because I could do nothing to help them.”

Both Amir’s and Kaleth’s parents said their children suffered fevers and stomach problems during their incarceration at Dilley and that they struggled to get them adequate treatment. Many other parents have reported similar challenges accessing care inside facilities, including waiting for hours in line to get basic, over-the-counter medication.

Elora Mukherjee, a Columbia Law School professor who has represented more than 80 children and parents incarcerated at Dilley over the past year, said that nearly all of her clients in recent months complained about poor medical care.

“Kids at this age also get sick more easily because their immune systems haven’t developed,” Mukherjee said. “Having such young children in a prison setting with hundreds of other kids and parents, it just makes them repeatedly, constantly sick. So they have fevers, they’re coughing, they’re vomiting, they have diarrhea. They are just miserable.”

Amalia and her parents were incarcerated at Dilley when the 1-year-old developed a fever and grew lethargic. Speaking through a translator, her parents said they returned to Dilley’s medical clinic again and again, but were only given Tylenol for her and warned not to complain. When Amalia’s mother, Kheilin Valero Marcano, went back to the clinic after her daughter lost consciousness, she recalled asking clinic employees, “How long are you going to leave her like this? Are you going to let her die?”

According to the family, Amalia eventually spent more than a week in an outside hospital, after her oxygen levels dropped to dangerously low levels. There she was diagnosed with COVID-19, an ear infection, pneumonia, bronchitis, and RSV, a common, but potentially serious, childhood illness that affects the lungs.

According to ICE’s standards, facilities should transfer sick people to an outside hospital if they cannot provide adequate care onsite.

Leecia Welch, a lawyer with Children’s Rights who has visited Dilley more than 10 times, said that babies and toddlers, many too young to receive certain vaccinations, had some of the most troubling medical cases she’d seen, calling the situation “the most gut-wrenching.”

Welch recalled mothers in detention describing how stress and lack of nutritious food made breastfeeding difficult. Marcano said Amalia would cry throughout the night, because she’d tried to nurse and nothing would come out.

Other parents, whose babies drank formula, have stated in court documents that the facility did not provide enough bottled water to hydrate powdered formula, and purchasing additional water at the commissary was, for many, prohibitively expensive. Tap water at the facility, families said, smelled foul and made children sick.

Parents also described difficulties getting children to sleep. The lights in the Dilley facility were kept on all night, and toys that can help kids sleep are prohibited in living areas.

“They can’t go to sleep with a stuffed animal,” said Welch. “They can’t go to sleep with a security blanket, that’s just not allowed.”

Representatives for ICE and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, did not answer specific questions about the sorts of conditions experienced by Kaleth, Amir, or Amalia. In a past social media post, Homeland Security disputed Amalia’s family’s claims and insisted she “immediately received proper medical care.”

Brian Todd, a CoreCivic spokesman, responded in an email that the Dilley facility provides toddlers and babies necessary supplies, including formula, healthy food and clean drinking water.

An ICE spokesperson made similar claims in an emailed statement and noted that the agency “is working rapidly and overtime to remove these aliens from detention centers to their final destination — home.” In a May court filing, an ICE report stated that people are provided with an eye mask when they arrive at Dilley and, following complaints, the facility switched to lower-intensity lighting, though they remain on all night for security purposes. Agency officials also stated in the filings that water quality is monitored, babies under the age of 1 receive bottled water to make formula, and children have access to outdoor play structures, toys, multilingual books, and age-appropriate meals and snacks.

A court filing from lawyers for detained children called ICE’s claims “fanciful.”

ICE released Kaleth and his mother in April, two weeks after their incarceration, and they were later reunited with Kaleth’s father. According to Mukherjee, Kaleth had not eaten solid food the entire time. In the car from the airport, he devoured four packets of applesauce.

Kaleth has since recovered remarkably, said Goodman, the LEAP CEO — a testament to the family’s resilience and the strength of their parental bonds. She’s seen how Kaleth’s mother looks into his eyes, and comforts him when he is distressed.

“That is so powerful at counteracting the abuse that our government is perpetrating,” Goodman said.

Amalia and her family were released in February after spending two months in Dilley.

Amir and his parents were also released, under supervision, in January. The toddler, now 2 years old, is laughing and speaking more, and he has stopped hitting himself. His parents say he seems closer to the happy child he was before ICE imprisoned him.

Even so, it’s too early to tell what the long-term effects of child incarceration will be on the hundreds of babies and toddlers who have gone through ICE detention since Trump re-entered the White House.

“The long-term damage caused by prolonged toxic stress — by essentially abusing these children — we’re going to see those effects. They’re going to impact every child who was there for many, many years to come,” Goodman said. “It’s incalculable the amount of damage that is being done.”

Federal agencies responsible for immigration enforcement are set to receive tens of billions more dollars after Congress voted to fund them not just for the year, but through the rest of President Trump’s term.

The House narrowly voted on Tuesday to direct roughly $70 billion to the Department of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, the second multi-billion dollar infusion of money to the agencies in the last year muscled through by Republicans alone.

The measure passed by a vote of 214 to 212.

The vote marks the end of a 115 day standoff over immigration policy. After federal officers shot and killed two protesters in Minneapolis earlier this year, Democrats refused to back more funding for ICE and Border Patrol, with the goal of forcing changes to immigration enforcement tactics.

But as negotiations fell apart, Republicans moved to circumvent Democrats using a special procedure known as reconciliation to fund the agencies without acquiescing to any of the reforms they were demanding.

In the Senate last week, one Republican joined all Democrats in an unsuccessful attempt to block the measure. The lopsided votes highlighted a Republican caucus continuing to endorse Trump’s immigration agenda as Democrats warn that Congress has ceded its ability to provide oversight by funneling these agencies billions of dollars with few strings attached.

ICE gets more than three times its annual funding

Through this legislation, Congress is giving ICE more than three times its last annual budget. Though technically this funding is meant to cover three years, unlike a traditional annual funding bill, the money comes with few stipulations on how and when it should be spent.

While most annual spending measures provide funds for just that fiscal year, this measure includes lump sums that need to be spent only by the end of fiscal year 2029, including:

– $38 billion for ICE to hire, pay, train and equip its officers and agents. That includes $7 billion for Homeland Security Investigations and $31 billion for immigration enforcement work like hiring more attorneys, supporting local law enforcement who coordinate with ICE and technology like body cameras;
– $22 billion for Border Patrol to pay, train, recruit and equip agents and personnel. That includes $13 billion specifically for immigration enforcement work;
– $5 billion for border security technology and screening, including artificial intelligence;
– $350 million for enforcement in localities that do not coordinate directly with ICE.

Legislation passed in April to fund most of DHS except ICE and Border Patrol did include provisions that would provide funding for the agency to purchase body cameras, stipulate congressional oversight of detention centers and deescalation training for officers and agents.

Lawmakers agreed to separate funding for ICE and Border Patrol as Republicans and Democrats struggled to reach a compromise on reforms even as a record-long DHS shutdown dragged on.

But now ICE and Border Patrol will be funded without the changes Democrats were demanding, including requiring judicial warrants to enter homes and prohibiting officers from wearing masks. The package also lacks reforms with bipartisan support, such as requiring officers to wear body cameras.

Neither measure included funding for internal oversight offices that conduct investigations into detention center conditions; however, the April measure to fund all of the agency included $20 million for the DHS inspector general to specifically conduct oversight of detention facilities.

Not only is this standoff ending without Democrats achieving the reforms they pressed for, the agencies will be insulated from additional pressure through the appropriations process for three years.

More dollars after an unprecedented boost

Both ICE and CBP received a massive influx of funding last year, also passed by Republicans through the budget reconciliation process, that has allowed both agencies to largely continue operating even as Democrats refused to provide them annual funding for the last several months.

ICE’s usual annual budget is about $10 billion. The $75 billion boost last summer made ICE the highest funded federal law enforcement agency and enabled a hiring surge that doubled its ranks in a matter of months.

Former agency leaders, Democrats and even some Republicans have warned that the surge of money limits the ability of Congress to provide oversight when it comes to how that money is spent and how the agency operates.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, was the only Republican to vote against this latest funding measure in the Senate last week. She wrote in a statement that by appropriating funding for three fiscal years instead of the usual one, the measure “weakens the normal budgeting process and sets another precedent for avoiding it when we find ourselves in disagreement.”

“In doing so, it reduces Congress’ ability to apply reasonable checks on immigration policy for the remainder of this administration and into the next,” she wrote.

Other Republicans say they were left with no choice once Democrats decided to withhold funding for these agencies as leverage to extract reforms.

“We’re attempting here to fund ICE and CBP at last year’s operating budget plus inflation, that’s all we’re talking about here,” House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, said shortly before the vote. “This is not a slush fund, it’s regular, normal funding. And we’re going to do it not for one year, but for three years so we don’t end up here again.”

ICE “got a shopping list”

ICE officials have been gearing up for the potential new cash for months.

“Apparently we’re going to get more reconciliation money, so I got a shopping list,” said Matt Elliston, ICE assistant director for law enforcement systems and analysis, speaking on a panel at the Border Security Expo in Arizona last month.

Among the items on his list are wearable headset displays so that officers do not need to be on their phones during an operation and data to help identify where someone targeted for arrest lives.

Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott said absent the reconciliation funds, the agency was struggling to correctly pay its employees and fulfill contracts.

While the agencies welcome the funds, immigration advocates are concerned that funding the agency outside the normal appropriations process means provisions that tell the agency how to do its work are not included.

Heidi Altman, vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Council, said in the past DHS annual funding bills included specific guardrails on the spending including requirements for the agency to report data on who it is detaining and specific treatment of pregnant women in custody.

“It’s very dangerous,” Altman said. “And it means that the agency will move forward with even fewer accountability mechanisms than we’ve seen in the past.”

Altman also raised concerns about the $350 million dedicated to immigration enforcement in areas that are not “qualified cooperating jurisdictions,” meaning a locality that is not a part of programs that allow local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law.

“The DHS secretary has wide discretion to just say these are not sufficiently cooperating with the White House’s mass deportation agenda,” she said. “So it’s concerning in terms of where the money will go.”

Politics of immigration enforcement

After the two killings in Minneapolis, Democrats and a contingent of Republicans in Congress said they wanted to take action to reign in the tactics of federal immigration officers.

For weeks this winter, debate over President Trump’s immigration policy consumed Capitol Hill. But despite the protracted fight over immigration enforcement funding, that discussion has largely subsided.

Republicans criticized Democrats for pushing an unserious list of demands. Democrats criticized Republicans for dismissing attempts at meaningful reform.

A new DHS secretary, Markwayne Mullin, has dialed back some of the aggressive enforcement operations that drew the national spotlight. And other controversies, like the war in Iran, have overtaken the immigration policy debate.

So much so that when Senate Republicans finally moved to approve the $70 billion for ICE and Border Patrol, much of the debate focused on an unrelated fund proposed by the Trump administration to compensate people who claim to have been wrongfully targeted by the government.

Reflecting on what followed after the two deaths in her home state, Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn., says it has been hard for her personally to come to terms with the reality that Democrats were unable to extract the policy changes they demanded.

And meanwhile, Smith says Minnesotans are still dealing with the fallout from the crackdown — like kids who did not return to school or businesses that never reopened — even as public attention shifted away.

“This is the way it goes, Americans have really busy complicated lives, they’re trying to figure out how to pay rent and buy groceries, but what they saw, I don’t think they’re going to forget it,” Smith says. “And that’s what I mean when I say we’ve lost these votes but that doesn’t mean we’ve lost the fight.”

Even if public opinion on Trump’s immigration agenda does help Democrats’ take control of Congress next year, Democrats’ ability to extract changes through the appropriations process will be limited now that the agencies have resources to last until 2029.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A bill to provide nearly $70 billion for immigration enforcement narrowly passed the House on Tuesday and now goes to President Donald Trump for his signature, bolstering the administration’s deportation agenda for the remainder of his time in the White House.

Republicans used their majority to get the bill over the finish line, funding a pair of Homeland Security agencies through the next three years. The bill passed by a vote of 214-212, over the objections of Democrats. Trump is expected to sign it into law on Wednesday.

The White House says the bill will provide $38 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, $26 billion for the Border Patrol and another $5 billion to cover unforeseen costs. It frontloads routine annual funding, ensuring a virtually uninterrupted flow of money as the Trump administration seeks to deport some 1 million people per year.

Speaker Mike Johnson needed near-perfect attendance and unity on his side to complete weeks of action. The legislation got sidetracked over $1 billion for White House security, including for Trump’s new ballroom, and a $1.8 billion fund to compensate his allies who claim they have been unjustly investigated and prosecuted. Those proposals proved politically toxic and were scrapped.

Now, the bill is focused entirely on immigration enforcement, a topic that Republicans have treated as a defining issue between the two major political parties and one they hope will carry them to victory in this year’s midterm elections.

“It’s long overdue,” said Johnson, R-La., of the bill. “We have to fund border security and immigration enforcement, and it’s sad that Republicans have to do it on our own.”

But Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas called it a “slush fund for ICE.”

Funding accelerates Trump’s deportation agenda

The funding comes on top of the nearly $140 billion that the Republican-controlled Congress gave ICE and Customs and Border Protection last year as part of Trump’s tax and spending cuts bill.

Democrats objected to giving the agencies more money without significant changes in the way they operate after the deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis. For example, Democrats insisted that agents remove masks and be required to display their ID badges during enforcement operations and that they get a judicial warrant before entering private property. Instead, the funding will come with virtually no strings attached.

Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said Republicans weren’t focused on the top priorities of the American people and have cut access to Medicaid and nutrition assistance through Trump’s earlier tax and spending cut bill.

“Republicans have now come back for more, to give ICE and Donald Trump’s violent mass deportation machine another $70 billion blank check, with no oversight, no accountability and no guardrails,” Jeffries said.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise countered that Democrats were not adequately supportive of law enforcement.

“Make no mistake, if you’re voting yes, you’re not only voting to secure America’s border, you’re voting to fund law enforcement,” Scalise said. “And if you vote no, you are voting to defund the police.”

Homeland Security faced the longest shutdown in history

The package is the result of a monthslong standoff in Congress after Democrats refused to fund the Department of Homeland Security in the wake of the immigration enforcement actions in Minneapolis and other American cities, leading to the longest shutdown in agency history.

Negotiations had been underway with the White House to alter ICE operations as Democrats were demanding. When those negotiations failed, Republicans turned to a complicated procedural maneuver to get around the filibuster and pass the immigration funding with no Democratic votes.

Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, the chairman of the Budget Committee, said the money would provide “regular, normal funding” that ICE and the Border Patrol would get through the annual budgeting process.

“And we’re going to do it, not for one year, but for three years, so we don’t end up here again.”

The Senate completed its work on the legislation last week during an overnight session on a nearly party-line vote, with Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska the only Republican to oppose it.

Money comes at a pivotal time for Trump’s immigration agenda

The money will come at a pivotal time for the Department of Homeland Security, which is under new leadership after Trump replaced Kristi Noem with new Secretary Markwayne Mullin in March.

While Mullin has vowed to keep the department out of the headlines, the administration is under pressure from anti-immigration advocates to deliver on Trump’s campaign promise of the largest deportation operation in American history.

At the same time, the administration is making it more difficult for certain legal immigrants to remain in the U.S. with Temporary Protective Status or to obtain green cards.

Lawmakers clash over DHS priorities

On the House side, Johnson had little margin for error. Rep. Kevin Kiley, I-Calif., ended up siding with Democrats on the party-line vote.

Leading up to the vote, Democrats portrayed DHS as an agency that has used its new resources to buy private jets for its leadership, warehouse immigrants in deplorable conditions and attack U.S. citizens.

“Republican leadership likes to talk a lot about common sense, but where is the common sense in giving this federal agency essentially unlimited funds without a single reform in place?” asked Rep. Pete Aguilar, chair of the House Democratic Caucus.

Republicans countered that they were fulfilling their duty to safeguard the nation and support the men and women charged with enforcing the law.

“Democrats can say whatever they want, but what it’s about is public safety. What’s it about is keeping Americans safe,” said Rep. Michelle Fischbach, R-Minn.

WASHINGTON — After weeks of setbacks and delays, the Republican-controlled House on Tuesday narrowly passed a roughly $70 billion package to fund ICE and the Border Patrol through the end of President Donald Trump’s term.

The vote was 214-212, with Rep. Kevin Kiley, a California independent who caucuses with Republicans, joining all Democrats in voting no. The package, dubbed the Secure America Act, cleared the Senate last week and now heads to the president’s desk for his expected signature.

The successful House vote ends months of drama and partisan bickering over immigration enforcement funding. In February, Senate Democrats voted to shut down the Department of Homeland Security after the fatal shootings of two American citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, during immigration operations in Minneapolis the previous month.

Some 75 days later, Congress passed a bill to end the DHS shutdown — the longest in U.S. history — and fund much of the sprawling federal agency, including the Coast Guard, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Transportation Security Administration and the Secret Service. But funding for ICE and the Border Patrol was stripped out after Republicans rejected Democratic demands for immigration enforcement reforms, including requiring agents to wear body cameras and to get judicial warrants before entering homes.

Because of that impasse, Trump resorted to using other pots of money to temporarily pay those agents and officers.

The only way Trump and his congressional allies could fund ICE and the Border Patrol was to use the reconciliation process, a fast-track budget procedure that allows Republicans to pass legislation with just 51 votes, bypassing Democrats and the usual 60-vote threshold in the Senate.

Trump threw a last-minute wrench into the process last month by demanding that a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund be inserted into the package. But Republicans in both the House and the Senate revolted against the idea of possible taxpayer-funded payouts to Jan. 6 rioters, and administration officials were forced to scrap the plan. GOP leaders had to punt the reconciliation vote until after the Memorial Day recess due to the upheaval.

On Friday, the Senate voted 52-47 to pass the immigration enforcement funding, and the House followed suit. The package is designed to fund ICE and the Border Patrol for the next three years.

Unlike in the Senate, where Democrats could force votes on amendments as part of the process of bypassing a filibuster, House Republicans were able to keep a tight lid on the process.

“This is good news for everybody except Washington Democrats. They gained absolutely nothing from their reckless crusade to return our country to open borders and unfettered mass migration,” Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said at a news conference after Tuesday’s vote. Republicans, he said, “will always work to ensure that these brave men and women have the resources they need to carry out the responsibilities to protect America’s families and communities.”

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., said that he believed Democrats were genuinely upset by the Good and Pretti killings but that shutting down agencies was not the right response.

“This is a terrible way to do business, and you know, it just tells me, for Senate Democrats, getting the majority is more important than running the country,” Cole told reporters before the vote. “This is not the appropriate way to express that. And frankly, if people have done something wrong, they need to be investigated and held to account.”

But Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who would become chairman of the Homeland Security Committee if Democrats win back the House this fall, said his party was right to demand changes to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement tactics.

“We still stand on those principles, whether our Republican colleagues obviously believe in them or not, which obviously they don’t,” Thompson said in an interview. “The average man or woman on the street says that those things make sense … and Republicans are listening to Donald Trump, and only Donald Trump.”

While the bill’s passage marks the end of the appropriations process for the current fiscal year, there won’t be much time to celebrate. Money for most of the government expires again on Sept. 30, when Congress will have to pass funding or face yet another government shutdown.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the chair of the Budget Committee, praised the House for passing the bill.

“I applaud my House Republican colleagues for their swift passage of the Secure America Act,” he said. “Despite Democrat efforts to shut down ICE and the Border Patrol, Republicans have now fully funded these agencies through President Trump’s entire second term to the tune of nearly $70 billion.”

Un juez federal de los Estados Unidos dictaminó que la administración del presidente Donald Trump actuó de manera ilegal al prohibir que los solicitantes de 39 países afectados por el veto migratorio recibieran resoluciones sobre sus trámites de asilo, permisos de trabajo, tarjetas de residencia (green cards) y ciudadanía. Ante esto, el magistrado ordenó a los funcionarios del gobierno reiniciar de forma inmediata el procesamiento de dichos beneficios.

El juez de distrito principal John McConnell, con sede en Providence, Rhode Island, invalidó las políticas que el Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de los Estados Unidos (USCIS) promulgó a partir de noviembre del año pasado. Estas medidas suspendían la concesión de asilo y la tramitación de beneficios para personas originarias de 39 naciones de África, Asia, América Latina y el Medio Oriente, bajo el argumento gubernamental de mejorar los controles de seguridad y verificación.

La resolución responde a una demanda presentada por una coalición de organizaciones de servicios para inmigrantes y sindicatos. En su fallo, McConnell —quien fue nombrado por el expresidente Barack Obama— afirmó que las políticas de la administración “arrojaron las vidas de innumerables inmigrantes que viven en los Estados Unidos a un limbo legal indeterminado”.

Asimismo, el magistrado enfatizó que el retraso en las adjudicaciones no se debió a ninguna falta cometida por los solicitantes, sino “únicamente a la casualidad de su nacimiento”. Añadió que los afectados habían seguido rigurosamente los procesos legales establecidos por el Congreso, quedando atrapados en una espera de meses debido a la negativa de la agencia para resolver sus casos.

“El estado de derecho tiene que aplicarse a todos por igual y, como es evidente aquí, USCIS no ha ‘seguido la ley’ ni ha ‘hecho las cosas de la manera correcta'”, sentenció McConnell, señalando que la agencia violó las leyes de inmigración y los estatutos administrativos que rigen sus acciones. Hasta el momento, el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) no ha emitido comentarios respecto al fallo.

A Trump administration initiative to impose $100,000 fees on employers seeking visas for skilled foreign workers amounts to an unlawful tax on those companies and must be voided “in its entirety,” a federal judge ruled on Monday.

The decision by Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts nullified one of a series of tactics the Trump administration has used to restrict legal immigration, even in fields in which foreign skilled labor helped address severe shortages.

In a 42-page opinion, Judge Sorokin acknowledged that the policy, imposed in September, appeared to step on Congress’s “exclusive power” to levy taxes under the Constitution. He dismissed claims by the Trump administration that the fee was a “regulatory payment” that would have been within the executive branch’s power to set, not a tax.

“This is mere ipse dixit,” he wrote, meaning offered without evidence. “Defendants offer no definition for what constitutes ‘a regulatory payment,’ cite no cases or statutes employing the term, and advance no reasoned argument explaining how this term encompasses something different than a tax or a penalty.”

Judge Sorokin wrote that the rule was hastily formulated with no formal process or request for public comment, despite what might have been broad opposition to the rule across many industries that have historically relied on the visa program to fill critical needs.

The Trump administration had argued in filings that the H-1B program “has been deliberately exploited to replace, rather than supplement, American workers with lower-paid, lower-skilled labor.” Mr. Trump said the $100,000 fee would incentivize companies to hire more U.S. citizens into high-paying roles.

About 85,000 new visas have been provided annually to hire so-called high-skilled foreign workers at companies through the program’s lottery process. Technology, finance, hospitals and universities have all made ample use of those visas. A variety of companies have said the fee would be prohibitively expensive, in particular for smaller companies and nonprofit groups that rely on hiring workers from abroad.

A coalition of 20 states sued to end the policy in December, arguing it was certain to exacerbate shortages of skilled workers including teachers, academic researchers and medical workers.

“Every day, thousands of people with H-1B visas serve New Yorkers as doctors, teachers and other skilled workers,” Letitia James, the New York attorney general, said in a statement. “Today a court put an end to this administration’s illegal attempt to destroy this critical program and the many jobs it makes possible.”

The ruling came nearly six months after Judge Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee, reached the opposite conclusion in a different case, allowing the administration to move forward with the visa fee. She said the administration had the right to impose the fee because under federal immigration law, Congress had given the president “broad authority to regulate entry into the United States for immigrants and nonimmigrants alike.”

But Judge Sorokin, also an Obama appointee, wrote that the Supreme Court has maintained throughout several cases — including one against Mr. Trump’s tariffs and another regarding penalties under the Affordable Care Act — that the president can only impose a tax or penalty when explicitly authorized by Congress.

The visa change was one of several that have appeared designed to take advantage of pressure points to restrict immigration flows and compel foreigners living in the country legally to leave. It fell hardest on highly educated professionals who had seen the program as a comparatively secure route to life in America.

In March, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced legislation that would waive the fee for foreign health care professionals, a demographic that has disproportionately helped prop up rural and underserved hospitals that have faced staffing shortages. The measure has not been adopted by either chamber.

Federal judges have repeatedly found that Mr. Trump’s efforts to restrict various immigration programs were at odds with federal immigration law as Congress wrote it.

The ruling on Monday came just days after another federal judge similarly voided a policy in which the Trump administration had directed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to freeze applications for work permits and other immigration benefits.

Taylor Rogers, a White House spokeswoman, said that President Trump “has clear legal authority to restrict entry of any class of aliens he determines is not in America’s best interests,” and added that the administration was “confident this order will be reversed on appeal.” Ms. Rogers cited Judge Howell’s ruling from December as a further sign that the decision on Monday was flawed.

The Trump administration on Monday announced it is seeking to revoke the citizenship of 17 U.S. citizens accused of immigration fraud, expanding its unprecedented denaturalization campaign.

Officials said the move represents the largest-ever effort by the U.S. government to use its denaturalization powers, which were rarely invoked before President Trump returned to the White House last year with promises to launch a historic deportation blitz. Between 1990 and 2017, the Justice Department filed an average of just 11 legal complaints per year seeking to denaturalize American citizens, historical figures indicate.

Federal law has long allowed the government to try to denaturalize foreign-born U.S. citizens who officials believe committed fraud to obtain their citizenship, such as by concealing information, like criminal conduct, on their immigration applications. But the process has been historically lengthy, complex and seldom exercised, requiring officials to persuade judges to strip naturalized citizens of their citizenship in civil or criminal proceedings in federal court.

The Trump administration has sought to vastly escalate denaturalization efforts as part of its larger crackdown on illegal and legal immigration. In 2025, the Justice Department broadened the categories of naturalized citizens who should be prioritized for denaturalization. Last month, officials announced a dozen denaturalization cases, at the time the largest such effort in years.

Some of the 17 citizens targeted in the latest denaturalization campaign were convicted of violent or serious crimes, including sex offenses against children. Others were convicted of fraud crimes or accused of committing immigration fraud.

In federal court complaints filed across the country in recent days, Justice Department officials argued that the individuals concealed their criminal activity when they applied for U.S. citizenship or were otherwise ineligible to be naturalized, including because they lacked a “good moral character,” one of the requirements in the naturalization process.

Those targeted in the latest round of denaturalization cases include a Haitian immigrant who allegedly sexually abused his daughter; a man from the former Yugoslavia convicted of sexually abusing a child under the age of 15; an immigrant from Mexico convicted of receiving sexually explicit images of minors; a former Catholic priest born in Colombia accused of child sex abuse; and a Filipino-born man who pleaded guilty to a child sex crime.

The group also includes an Indian immigrant accused of filing fraudulent H-1B visa petitions; the daughter of a Colombian drug trafficker accused of money laundering; a man born in Jamaica convicted of wire fraud; and a Cuban-born woman accused of defrauding a tribal casino. Other naturalized citizens were accused of using false identities.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Justice Department would have “zero tolerance” for abuse of the naturalization process.

“Criminal aliens are lying about their past crimes, including drug dealers, sexual predators, and fraudsters,” Blanche said.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said the Trump administration would “continue to use every lawful avenue to denaturalize and remove aliens.”

“American citizenship is a privilege, and it must be earned honestly. If you come here, break our laws, and lie in your immigration proceedings, you forfeit that privilege,” Mullin said.

The denaturalization process allows the targeted citizens to challenge the government’s filings to try to retain their citizenship. If U.S. citizens are denaturalized, they return to their prior immigration status, typically as permanent U.S. residents, and lose all the legal benefits of American citizenship, including protection from deportation.

A $70 billion immigration enforcement bill cleared a key hurdle in the House Rules Committee Monday night, setting up floor votes on the measure as early as Tuesday.

The panel voted 7-4 to advance the legislation after meeting for more than six hours.

“The motion to report is agreed to,” Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx said.

During the hearing, Democrats forced votes on several failed amendments related to the “anti-weaponization fund” – including one that would prohibit Jan. 6 rioters from receiving federal compensation. Other failed amendment votes were related to the Affordable Care Act tax credits and additional training requirements for immigration enforcement officers.

This comes after Senate Republicans passed the package, known as the “Secure America Act” last Friday.

If all House members are voting and present – which is unlikely – House Speaker Mike Johnson can afford three GOP defections.

“We’ll pass it,” Johnson told reporters Monday.

“I have a very small margin for error, as you know, so we’ll get it through, but we have to fund border enforcement and immigration enforcement, and everybody here knows that, so they’re going to have to put their personal preferences aside to get the job done,” he added.

Johnson said “yeah” when asked if he had concerns about attendance for votes Tuesday due to primary races.

“The primary season is a real challenge for having votes, but the Congress has to do its job. And I’ve told all of our members, you’ve got to do both. You’ve got to be present,” he said.

Asked if the reconciliation votes could get kicked to Wednesday, Johnson said, “I don’t think so.”

Congress has already funded the Department of Homeland Security, excluding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). These agencies were excluded from budget negotiations to end the historic partial government shutdown earlier this year.

Federal immigration authorities barred a Somali soccer referee who was slated to officiate the FIFA World Cup from entering the U.S. over the weekend, Customs and Border Protection said in a statement Monday, citing “vetting concerns.”

A FIFA spokesperson confirmed one of its officials, Omar Abdulkadir Artan, “will be unable to train and officiate at the FIFA World Cup 2026 after he was denied entry into the United States.”

“FIFA is not involved in host country immigration processes, including visa adjudications, and has been informed by authorities that Mr. Artan’s status will not be changed at present,” the spokesperson said. “In line with previous FIFA events, a host government ultimately determines who receives a visa and who is admitted into their country.”

CBP, which oversees customs agents at international airports, said the referee was “determined to be inadmissible due to vetting concerns and was denied entry.” He had arrived at Miami International Airport on Saturday on a flight from Istanbul, and underwent additional inspection, CBP said.

It is unclear why Artan was denied entry, but Somalia is one of 39 countries listed on President Trump’s “travel ban” executive order signed last year, which bars or restricts the entry of foreign nationals on national security grounds. Somalia is among the countries facing a near-total restriction on entry into the U.S., and while that order has exemptions for World Cup athletes and staff, immigration officials retain broad discretion to decide whether to grant or deny someone entry.

CBP said in its statement that it evaluates people seeking to enter the country “on a case-by-case basis using law enforcement, national security, and immigration information available at the time of inspection.”

Ciise Aden Abshir, a senior adviser to Somalia’s Ministry of Youth and Sports and a former national team captain, condemned the decision not to admit Artan. He told Agence France-Presse that Artan is “among Africa’s most respected referees and deserves the support of the entire football community,” and argued the decision “undermines football’s commitment to fairness, merit, and the spirit of fair play.”

Artan has officiated international soccer matches for years, including at the Africa Cup of Nations, and he was named male referee of the year by the Confederation for African Football last year.

The U.S. is hosting the 2026 World Cup, alongside Mexico and Canada. The tournament is set to start Thursday with a match in Mexico City, and will span more than a dozen other venues.

The tournament — which will include teams from 48 countries and scores of foreign tourists — follows a more-than-yearlong effort by the Trump administration to tighten entry into the United States, sparking worries that the games could be impacted.

Amid the war in the Middle East, some Iranian soccer officials still do not have U.S. visas, according to Iranian state television. The team is also facing strict restrictions on when it can enter the U.S. before a match and how long it can stay after the conclusion before returning to its training grounds in Mexico.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers will play a role in security at the World Cup. White House border czar Tom Homan told CBS News last week that ICE’s “primary focus” will be national security, not immigration enforcement.

“In the process of that, if we find a national security issue and it involves an illegal alien, of course we’re going to take action on that,” Homan said. “But the primary focus is: Keep those events safe, keep this nation safe and keep the spectators and the athletes safe.”

The Trump Administration is moving to strip 17 naturalized Americans of their citizenship, building on its denaturalization efforts about a month after announcing plans to do the same for a dozen other naturalized citizens.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the latest action on Monday, accusing the 17 Americans of “serious offenses — including sexual abuse of a minor, wire and bank fraud, and distributing drugs wholesale without a license.” The group includes people from countries including Cuba, Haiti, Colombia, Mexico, and Jamaica, among others.

The DOJ said in its press release that “under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a naturalized U.S. citizen’s citizenship may be revoked, and certificate of naturalization canceled, if the naturalization was illegally procured or procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.”

“When criminal aliens exploit the naturalization process by breaking the law, there are consequences,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement. “Gaining U.S. citizenship is a privilege and under the steadfast leadership of President Trump, this Department of Justice maintains a zero-tolerance policy for the abuse of this process.”

A DOJ memo released last year revealed that the agency planned to prioritize initiating denaturalization proceedings against certain individuals, including those “who pose a potential danger to national security” and those “who committed felonies that were not disclosed during the naturalization process.”

In January, President Donald Trump said that his Administration was looking into stripping certain naturalized Americans of their citizenship, sparking concern among immigration advocates and legal experts. Last month, the DOJ announced that it had filed denaturalization actions against 12 people that it accused of “serious offenses — including providing material support to a terrorist group, committing war crimes, and sexually abusing a minor.”

Historically, cases of denaturalization have been rare. Experts have said that “the law imposes a high bar” for stripping a naturalized American’s citizenship. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “a person is subject to revocation of naturalization if there is deliberate deceit on the part of the person in misrepresenting or failing to disclose a material fact or facts on his or her naturalization application and subsequent examination.”

The DOJ on Monday alleged that the 17 Americans it was filing denaturalization actions against gave false or misleading information to officials during the naturalization process. The DOJ also asserted that the individuals lacked the “good moral character” required to become a naturalized citizen.

Denaturalization cases ramped up during Trump’s first Administration as well, with an average of 42 such cases filed annually — higher than the previous average of 11 annually between 1990 and 2017, according to the National Immigration Forum.

The Administration’s current push to prioritize denaturalization comes amid Trump’s wider efforts to crack down on both legal and illegal immigration. Trump, who campaigned on a mass deportation platform in the 2024 election, has authorized aggressive immigration enforcement operations during his second term, including in Minneapolis, where two people were shot and killed by federal agents at the start of the year.

Gov. Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey on Monday was allowed to visit Delaney Hall, a detention center in Newark that has drawn protests for two weeks after immigrants inside complained about inhumane living conditions.

Ms. Sherrill described the visit as closely controlled and limited, and she said she was not permitted to meet with or speak directly with detainees.

“That is unacceptable,” Ms. Sherrill said in a prepared statement.

Ms. Sherrill, a Democrat, said that she would continue to ask for a more thorough inspection of the center, including a visit by the state’s Department of Health. The New Jersey attorney general has sued the center’s operator, Geo Group, which is one of the largest private prison operators in the United States. The attorney general is asking that state health inspectors be given full access to the facility.

Fights between demonstrators and detention center employees have erupted since last month at the front gates of Delaney Hall, with violent clashes common in the early morning hours. Demonstrators had blocked vehicles trying to leave the center, and in late May, heavily armed federal agents with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency had responded with pepper spray and pepper balls.

In a statement, Markwayne Mullin, the homeland security secretary, said that his department had granted Ms. Sherrill access to the federally run facility despite the fact that she is not a federally elected official. Mr. Mullin said that prisons operated by New Jersey were run more poorly than Delaney Hall.

“Governor Sherrill won’t tell you: New Jersey state prisons face systemic health code violations,” Mr. Mullin said. “I’d encourage Governor Sherrill to focus on her own backyard, and put the safety of her own constituents above illegal aliens.”

During an appearance on “Fox & Friends” on Monday, Tom Homan, President Trump’s top border adviser, criticized the demonstrators and argued that detainees inside Delaney Hall were treated and fed well, contrary to claims that many have made about rotten food and dirty bathrooms.

Mr. Homan also said that federal officials would send more federal agents to New York, vowing to push back against new restrictions approved by Gov. Kathy Hochul against federal immigration operations in the state. The recently passed legislation bars agents from wearing masks during immigration operations, allows agents to be sued for constitutional violations, and prohibits agents from searching “sensitive locations” such as hospitals and schools without a warrant signed by a judge.

Mr. Homan suggested that local officials were endangering the public by refusing to help facilitate the arrests of migrants.

“I made her a promise — you are going to see more ICE agents than you have ever seen in New York City,” Mr. Homan said on “Fox & Friends.” “It’s coming.”

Ms. Hochul said that Mr. Homan’s threat directly contradicted what President Trump had said to her in a room full of fellow governors. Mr. Trump, Ms. Hochul said, had told her that the federal government would not deploy a crackdown where it was not welcome.

“If they come here and go throughout New York State with a surge in ICE, there won’t be a Republican standing in this state,” Ms. Hochul said to a group of reporters. “Americans have had enough with the overreach of ICE.”

Asked about Ms. Hochul’s account of her interaction with Mr. Trump, the White House said, “Any criminal illegal alien living any place in the United States is subject to removal.”

In a social media post on Monday, Mayor Zohran Mamdani criticized Mr. Homan’s threat.

“We will not allow ICE or anyone else to sow fear in our communities,” Mr. Mamdani said. “We will stand proudly with our immigrant neighbors and reject these attacks for what they are: an attempt to divide us.”

Scores of low-income immigrant children living with critical illnesses could soon lose access to life-sustaining medical care after Tennessee officials directed public health departments to verify their immigration status and report to the federal government, according to the Tennessee Justice Center.

The Tennessee Department of Health is targeting Children’s Special Services, a last-resort public health insurance program for kids with disabilities and life-threatening illnesses, such as cancer, spina bifida and terminal diseases.

The state agency last week said it planned to inform families as soon as this week of a new policy requiring immigration status verification as a condition of continuing benefits according to Michele Johnson, executive director of the Tennessee Justice Center.

The program, which relies on a combination of federal and state funding, is administered by local departments of public health across Tennessee. For more than 50 years, it has served children with severe disabilities who need ongoing care and have no other insurance, regardless of immigration status.

In Middle Tennessee, about 100 children without legal immigration status are at risk of losing ongoing medical coverage, according to Metro Department of Public Health officials.

How many children statewide could be impacted isn’t clear. The Tennessee Department of Health did not respond to requests for information or comment.

The program used to assist young people up to age 21. Earlier this year, the state health department directed local public health agencies to disenroll anyone 18 or older.

The Metro Nashville Health Department cut seven young adults from the program, but by last month had found alternatives for them, D’Yuanna Allen-Robb, director of the department’s Maternal Child and Adolescent Health Division said during a May health board meeting. It is unknown how many were impacted statewide.

Children do not have similar alternative safety net services in Tennessee.

The department did not address what Johnson said were unanswered questions about the scope of the immigration status checks. It is unclear whether the state plans to disenroll children whose families cannot provide proof of legal immigration status or report them to immigration officials. The Tennessee Department of Health did not respond to questions seeking clarity.

Either scenario could jeopardize the health and welfare of children with severe medical conditions who, along with their families, could become targets of immigration enforcement.

“It’s a huge threat to life for kids with significant disabilities and for families that can’t afford to support their kids,” Dr. Morgan McDonald, a member of the Metro Nashville Board of Health, said in a meeting on May 14.

Among those impacted is a 10-year-old boy who was born with spina bifida, a congenital disorder that confines him to a wheelchair and requires near-monthly trips to the doctor or emergency room, according to his mother, Gabriella. She asked only to be identified by her first name because she fears the family could be targeted by immigration officials for speaking out — especially given their pending asylum case.

The family arrived in the United States when the boy was 3 years old, and since then they’ve sought medical care for him through the Children’s Special Services program.

Last year, when he temporarily lost coverage for several months — for reasons his mother said she did not understand — a support group of fellow mothers pitched in to buy her in-home supplies. But the experience was agonizing, she said.

“It was horrible then,” Gabriella said. “Now? This leaves us defenseless and adrift.”

Gabriella said she and her husband are just six months away from a final decision on their asylum claim. She worries not only about losing her son’s lifeline to life-sustaining medical care but the consequences for their case if they are reported to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“If we go back to Honduras, he’s not going to make it,” Gabriella said.

“We are afraid. We were afraid before this. I’m afraid all the time. I’m afraid to go outside. I’m afraid they’ll take me without my kid.” She wept as she spoke.

The Department of Health’s decision to require immigration status reporting in the program last week forced a scramble among healthcare advocates, according to Michele Johnson, executive director of the nonprofit Tennessee Justice Center, which advocates for access to healthcare.

Whether the department’s directive requires reporting of immigrants without legal status, disenrollment or both, it “should be immediately rescinded as it is unlawful,” the Tennessee Justice Center said in a letter to the state’s Department of Health Wednesday.

The letter, sent to Mary Katherine Bratton, general counsel for the Tennessee Department of Health, notes that recently enacted Tennessee legislation requiring immigration verification of those seeking public benefits explicitly applies only to those 18 and older.

The directive also conflicts with federal guidance issued last year that limits federal public benefits to people without citizenship status, according to the Justice Center.

The Children’s Special Services program is funded through a Maternal and Child Health Services block grant, which is not included in the federal guidance, the letter said. The 24-page federal guidance, issued in July 2025, includes a list of federally funded programs that the Trump administration now includes in its definition of “federal public benefits” that are unavailable to immigrants without legal status. The Maternal and Child Health Services block grant is not included in the list.

Johnson said the directive from the state leaves families with “no good options.”

“We’re really concerned in this environment that our clients are having to risk their childrens’ lives,” Johnson said.

“If they withdraw from the program, they almost certainly will die without the care they need,” she said. “If they stay on the program, and ICE comes and gets them and their kids, they almost certainly will die because they don’t get the healthcare they need in Alligator Alcatraz or any number of other places.”

Johnson said her organization expected to file a legal challenge to the directive as soon as they find affected families willing to join as plaintiffs. But, she said, it’s challenging because so many people are afraid they will be targeted by federal immigration officials if they join a lawsuit.

A Georgian immigrant who officials said died last week in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody is the 50th person to die in ICE detention during the second Trump administration.

Mamuka Artmeladze, 43, died on June 4 at the Winn Correctional Center in Louisiana, according to an agency notification sent to lawmakers.

In the notification, ICE officials said that Artmeladze was found unresponsive and was transported to a local medical center.

“Despite lifesaving efforts, at approximately 11:22 p.m., an onsite physician at Winn Parish Medical Center pronounced Artmeladze deceased,” ICE said. “His official cause of death is currently pending an autopsy.”

ICE said that Artmeladze was taken into custody in February in New Orleans during an operation “targeting commercial vehicle drivers who posed public safety risks.”

“ICE took him into custody after officials determined he had no lawful status to remain in the United States,” the agency said.

The increase in ICE deaths comes amid scrutiny from lawmakers and immigrant advocates about the conditions at detention centers during the Trump administration’s ongoing immigration crackdown.

According to an ABC News analysis of Immigration and Customs Enforcement data and the number of detainee deaths provided to Congress from ICE, the first 14 months of the second Trump administration represent the most deadly period for the federal detention system in recent years — with the exception of 2020, when the coronavirus pandemic contributed to detention deaths.

Last week, ICE ended a policy that required the agency to report the deaths of former detainees that occurred within 30 days of their release from federal custody.

The policy, issued during the Biden administration, directed the agency to review and report all detainee fatalities, including those that occurred up to a month following release.

Months after an immigration crackdown in suburban Minneapolis, young children are grappling with trauma.

The little girl approached the therapy dog outside the school library, reaching out to touch her fluffy blond coat. Social worker Nicole Herje leaned in.

“How does it feel when you pet Sage?” Herje said.

“I like it,” the girl said. “In Ecuador, I had a dog.”

A few months earlier, this girl and many of her classmates at Valley View Elementary were staying off the streets to avoid the immigration officers flooding their suburban Minneapolis community. Attendance plummeted as families kept their kids from school during the Trump administration’s enforcement surge.

Sage the goldendoodle is not just a cute diversion. She’s part of a broader strategy to address the psychological wounds of children who witnessed arrests, lost relatives to deportation or endured anxious weeks indoors. At least four students at the school were detained and sent hundreds of miles away to a Texas family detention center.

Federal immigration officers made more than 4,000 arrests and shot multiple people, two fatally, before Operation Metro Surge wound down in February, leaving an imprint on the psyches of young children that could haunt them for years, mental health providers say.

Columbia Heights Public Schools, like many other districts, offered virtual learning for children who remained at home during the crackdown, but online schooling ended after spring break, and with many back in class, the staff has been focused on their recovery.

“What we know about trauma is that our bodies hold on to the fear,” Herje said.

That’s why, in the middle of their virtual school day, Herje led kindergartners in a special class on emotions. They shared what made them happy and sad, calm and angry. They talked about missing their classmates and longing to return to school.

“Anyone want to raise your hand and tell us something that makes you feel happy?” Herje asked.

“When I’m happy, I want to go to school when I see my friends,” said one girl.

Herje followed up: What made them sad?

“When my grandma, she go [to] Ecuador,” another girl said.

All had lived through one of the most aggressive immigration crackdowns in history. There were the arrests of tearful and screaming immigrants, captured on video and played on endless loops across social media. In many cases, parents were taken away.

A growing body of research is illuminating the effect of trauma on children, even those too young to understand. Prolonged exposure to a high-stress environment can reshape a baby’s brain, explained Rebecca Parlakian, the senior director of programs at early childhood advocacy group Zero to Three.

“When a child is experiencing sustained and consistent traumatic experiences where they have lost the sense of basic safety, we see that the brain reorganizes itself for survival, which actually translates to structural anatomical changes in the brain,” Parlakian said.

The symptoms of trauma can vary widely depending on the child, their age and what they’ve witnessed or experienced. Robyn Tabibi, a family physician in St. Paul who often works with expectant parents, said she treated a 3-year-old who had lost several relatives to deportation and had to move homes with his mother to avoid being targeted.

“He gradually stopped eating, became listless, refused to play anymore,” Tabibi said. “He’s in this new space, and he is so traumatized.”

The fear that courses through immigrant families — even those here legally — could have profound consequences for a generation of American schoolchildren, experts say.

The Brookings Institution estimates 4.6 million U.S. citizen children live with a parent who is undocumented or has temporary legal status, and more than 200,000 have parents who were detained or deported during this Trump administration.

“Children in mixed-status families often live with chronic anticipatory anxiety that a loved one could be detained or deported,” a group of psychiatrists wrote in a special report for Psychiatric News. “These fears have been shown to lead to school absenteeism, academic disengagement, and heightened emotional distress.”

Valley View staff have identified students who may need extra help. Herje ran group therapy sessions alongside Sage the goldendoodle for these students.

Returning to school is what many really needed. Herje has witnessed joyful reunions between young friends who hadn’t seen each other in person for months.

Herje asked them back then what makes them feel loved. One girl piped up: “When I’m in love, I find my best friend.”

The ghosts of Germany’s past are everywhere these days. In the United States, critics of President Donald Trump have so often compared him to Adolf Hitler that the analogy is by now a rhetorical cliché. Even JD Vance did it — before recanting and becoming vice president. In Germany itself, references to the Weimar Republic, the fragile democracy that preceded Hitler’s rise to power, are a staple of public debate as an unmistakable prelude-to-Hitler warning. In Britain, the cover of the Spectator magazine last fall raised the specter of “Weimar Britain.”

The German interwar period remains the starkest example of a liberal democracy turning into a brutal dictatorship. An impulse to evoke this era in times of crisis is understandable. But the more Western democracies become fixated on the idea that they might be reliving one of history’s darkest chapters, the more they risk failing to address the challenges of the present.

References to Weimar and Nazi Germany are usually intended to warn against political opponents or unwelcome policies. Take podcaster Joe Rogan, who in January likened the tactics of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to those of the Gestapo. Or consider the German left-wing activists who turned up at a conference of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party on Saturday, adding a swastika made out of vegan mince to the breakfast buffet. Such words and gestures are intended to send a clear moral message: This policy or party is reminiscent of the Nazis, and therefore you mustn’t support it.

The problem is that the message doesn’t work. Trump-Hitler comparisons were already popular before 2016 and didn’t deter American voters from making him president twice. (Before Trump, left-wing critics likened President George W. Bush to Hitler; Bush served two terms.) In Britain, conservative Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has been leading in the polls consistently for more than a year despite left-wing opponents describing the party as a “proto-fascist organization” or using similar invective. In Germany, the AfD is now the most popular party, according to all major surveys. Nowhere in the West does the Nazi label kill a political career. A Nazi tattoo did not make Graham Platner a Democratic Party pariah in the run-up to Tuesday’s Democratic Senate primary in Maine.

Warnings of far-right extremism didn’t even work in 1930s Germany; it didn’t even work in Weimar itself, the town that gave the ill-fated republic its name because it was founded there in 1919 after World War I. I have studied the lives of the Weimar townspeople and found ample evidence that many of them knew exactly what they would get if they elected Hitler to power. Many voted for him anyway.

Weimarers saw more of Hitler and his Nazi Party in the 1920s than did almost any other Germans. Hitler visited their town more than 40 times in the interwar period. The first formal Nazi Party rally was held in Weimar in 1926, before the rallies were staged in Nuremberg. The state of Thuringia, of which Weimar was the capital, lifted sanctions on Hitler and the Nazi Party earlier than other German states after his botched coup attempt in Munich in 1923. Weimar became a haven for the movement, a testing ground for Nazi ideas. Weimar knew what Nazism looked like, and still the town became an early stronghold for the movement.

The 1926 Nazi Party rally in Weimar is a point in case. At the time, the party was still tiny. The Nazis were in town for only two days but left a trail of blood. They clashed with police, provoked brawls, tried to burn down the local headquarters of the Social Democrats, attacked public figures and harassed women who wore the modern bob hairstyle. Nazis broke into cars and vandalized buildings. Beatings and knife attacks led to countless injuries.

“In the town there is intense embitterment about the conduct of the swastika troops,” one local newspaper reported afterward. The town council banned future Nazi Party gatherings. The appalling violence was noted in other parts of Germany, with the Berliner Tageblatt newspaper noting that this was “how the National Socialists behave if they are allowed even a little bit of leverage.”

Despite seeing Nazi thuggery firsthand, Weimarers supported the movement in larger-than-average numbers. In 1930, when the Great Depression was hitting Germany hard, the Nazis finished second in the federal elections with 18.3 percent — a huge upturn from 2.6 percent just two years earlier. In Weimar, the Nazis’ support in that 1930 election was 28.2 percent.

Three years later, Hitler came to power. Germany’s economic, political and social upheaval had made vast swaths of the electorate desperate enough to support the Nazis, disregarding years of liberals’ fervent alarms.

There is no evidence from a century ago that warning voters of Nazism had much effect, and there is no evidence today. Voters turn to radical politics in times when they feel centrists aren’t providing effective solutions to the problems they see. Pointing to Germany’s past does nothing to restore lost confidence; only better politics, credible candidates, and tangible improvements to people’s lives and prospects can do that. Of course, there are many lessons to be learned from history, but using the past to try to frighten present-day voters is not the way to do it. Offering hope, not fear, is a better political motivator.

Un juez federal anuló este lunes la cuota de 100,000 dólares que el gobierno de Donald Trump impuso a las nuevas visas H-1B, contradiciendo un fallo anterior de un tribunal federal que había respaldado el aumento.

El gobierno estadounidense anunció la tarifa más alta como una forma de evitar que trabajadores extranjeros ocupen empleos de estadounidenses.

Pero el juez de distrito Leo Sorokin, en Boston, falló a favor de 20 estados demandantes y anuló la política de visas, tras concluir que el poder ejecutivo excedió su autoridad y violó la Ley de Procedimiento Administrativo, que regula cómo las agencias federales elaboran y emiten reglamentos.

“La corte concluye que la política impone un gravamen a las peticiones (de visas) H-1B sin la delegación necesaria por parte del Congreso”, escribió Sorokin.

Las visas H-1B son expedidas para empleos de alta calificación para los que es difícil encontrar trabajadores estadounidenses. Las grandes empresas tecnológicas con amplios recursos son las principales usuarias, y casi tres cuartas partes de las aprobaciones se otorgan a trabajadores de India. Los estados sostuvieron que usar el programa H-1B para cubrir vacantes de médicos y docentes ya era difícil antes de que el gobierno aumentara la cuota.

La mayoría de las solicitudes de visa H-1B cuestan varios miles de dólares, antes de que el aumento anunciado desatara una ola de pánico entre empleadores, estudiantes y trabajadores confundidos en Estados Unidos y en el extranjero, y diera lugar a varias demandas judiciales.

La Cámara de Comercio de Estados Unidos también demandó, en un tribunal federal en Washington, D.C., y ha apelado la denegación de un fallo sumario contra el aumento de la tarifa. Eso dejó la tarifa más alta en vigor, al menos hasta septiembre de 2026, cuando está previsto que expire. El fallo de este lunes también es un fallo sumario, pero en sentido contrario. Otra demanda fue presentada en un tribunal federal en San Francisco, por grupos religiosos y organizaciones laborales, lo que abre la posibilidad de fallos divididos en tres circuitos de tribunales de apelación.

Los estados argumentaron que la política obstaculiza su capacidad para contratar educadores de primaria y secundaria y para dotar de personal a colegios y universidades públicas, además de que frenará la investigación académica y provocará una disminución del personal médico.

“La proclama hace diversas alusiones a objetivos de política económica interna para justificar la tarifa sin precedentes de 100,000 dólares”, escribieron los demandantes en la querella. “Pero la proclama no indica que el presidente haya considerado de algún modo cómo afectaría la tarifa a los estados demandantes y a su capacidad de brindar a sus residentes acceso a educación, atención médica y otras necesidades humanas básicas”.

Un comunicado del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional señaló que la agencia discrepa de “este flagrante activismo judicial que desmantela los históricos esfuerzos del presidente Trump por una reforma migratoria”.

Un segundo detenido ha muerto en menos de dos meses en un centro del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE) en Louisiana, donde un informe de inspección reciente detectó condiciones insalubres, problemas de atención médica y el uso de fuerza excesiva.

Mamuka Artmeladze, de 43 años y originario de Georgia, fue hallado inconsciente el 4 de junio en el Centro Correccional Winn, en Winnfield, Louisiana, según anunció ICE en un comunicado de prensa el domingo. La agencia informó que el personal inició maniobras de reanimación antes de que fuera trasladado en ambulancia a un hospital local, donde un médico certificó su muerte menos de una hora después.

No se dispuso de información adicional sobre las circunstancias del fallecimiento, pero ICE señaló que la causa de la muerte está pendiente de autopsia. Artmeladze había estado detenido durante casi cuatro meses en el centro, gestionado por la Oficina del Sheriff de la parroquia de Winn y la empresa contratista de ICE, LaSalle Corrections.

El centro alberga a más de 1,500 detenidos varones y, al igual que la mayoría de ellos, Artmeladze no tenía antecedentes penales. Artmeladze ingresó ilegalmente al país en una fecha desconocida y la Patrulla Fronteriza le permitió permanecer temporalmente en territorio estadounidense bajo supervisión de ICE tras interceptarlo en septiembre de 2022, indicó la agencia. Fue detenido en Alabama en febrero, después de que ICE determinara que ya no contaba con un estatus legal para permanecer en Estados Unidos.

Es el decimonoveno detenido que fallece bajo custodia de ICE desde el 1 de enero y el segundo en el centro Winn desde el 11 de abril. Un informe del forense obtenido por The Associated Press indica que Alejandro Cabrera Clemente, de 49 años, fue hallado inconsciente durante una inspección de seguridad ese día; el personal intentó reanimarlo, pero falleció tras ser trasladado al mismo hospital al que llevaron a Artmeladze.

El forense dictaminó que Cabrera, originario de México y residente reciente en Tennessee, murió por causas naturales debido a una enfermedad cardiovascular. Según el informe, Cabrera se despertó tosiendo y con dificultad respiratoria unas dos horas y media antes de ser hallado inconsciente, pero dijo encontrarse bien y volvió a dormirse.

Otro informe de ICE sobre la muerte de Cabrera señalaba que otros detenidos alertaron al personal de enfermería cercano al ver que no respondía; al examinarlo, lo encontraron con “caída facial en el lado izquierdo” y la piel descolorida debido a la baja oxigenación sanguínea. Cabrera había recibido tratamiento por hipertensión y otros problemas médicos durante los meses que estuvo detenido, según el documento.

Estas muertes se producen en medio de un creciente escrutinio sobre si los centros de detención de ICE descuidan la atención médica de los detenidos y los obligan a vivir en condiciones inhumanas, acusaciones que ICE niega.

La Oficina del Inspector General del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional publicó la semana pasada un informe en el que se indicaba que una inspección sorpresa en Winn reveló infracciones de las normas relativas a salud y seguridad ambiental, servicio de alimentación, uso de la fuerza, atención médica y otros aspectos.

El informe describía filtraciones de agua por los conductos de ventilación de la cocina, agujeros y aislamiento expuesto en el techo del edificio de admisión, así como alimentos almacenados en congeladores a temperaturas superiores a las permitidas.

El personal médico de Winn no mantenía actualizados los documentos de tratamiento ni los registros de pruebas de laboratorio, lo que podría “repercutir negativamente en la salud y seguridad de los detenidos”, advirtió el informe.

La inspección también detectó infracciones de las políticas sobre el uso de la fuerza; entre ellas, el caso de un agente que aplicó una llave de estrangulamiento prohibida a un detenido y otro que clavó un bolígrafo en el pulgar de un detenido después de que este se negara a retirar la mano de una puerta.

El informe señalaba que ICE aceptó nueve recomendaciones para mejorar las condiciones en Winn y que ya había implementado varias de ellas.

Más de la mitad de los 15 latinoamericanos deportados en abril a la República Democrática del Congo bajo la ampliamente criticada ofensiva del gobierno de Trump contra los migrantes han regresado a sus países de origen, informaron el viernes el Gobierno congoleño y una de sus abogadas.

Jueces de inmigración de Estados Unidos dictaminaron que probablemente enfrentarían persecución en sus países de origen.

El Congo es uno de al menos ocho países africanos con los que Estados Unidos ha alcanzado acuerdos de deportación a terceros países.

Bajo una serie de acuerdos a menudo secretos, el Gobierno de Trump ha deportado a miles de personas a casi dos docenas de países que no son los suyos, según defensores.

Abogados de inmigración denuncian que el Gobierno utiliza las deportaciones a terceros países como un resquicio legal para obligar indirectamente a solicitantes de asilo a regresar a sus países de origen.

Alma David, una abogada radicada en Estados Unidos que representa a uno de los 15 migrantes, indicó que ocho deportados han regresado a sus países de origen en las últimas semanas.

Su clienta, una mujer colombiana que había descrito sus condiciones de detención en una entrevista con The Associated Press, permanece actualmente en el país de África central, precisó.

También sigue en el Congo otra colombiana, Adriana María Quiroz Zapata, pese a que un juez federal ordenó el mes pasado al Gobierno de Trump que la llevara de regreso a Estados Unidos. Fue deportada al Congo aunque ese país se había negado a aceptarla porque no podía atender sus necesidades médicas.

Cuatro peruanos y tres colombianos regresaron a sus países a inicios de esta semana, con ayuda de la Organización Internacional para las Migraciones, explicó David.

Regresaron mediante el programa de Retorno Voluntario Asistido de la OIM, en el que la organización cubre los costos y la logística del viaje para los migrantes que consienten volver a sus países de origen, como alternativa a la deportación forzada.

La abogada sostuvo que tribunales federales de Estados Unidos habían concedido a los migrantes protecciones contra su expulsión a sus países de origen, al determinar que probablemente enfrentarían persecución si regresaban.

“El hecho de que hayan optado por regresar allí de todos modos plantea serias preocupaciones de que se sintieron acorralados porque no se les presentó ninguna alternativa viable”, declaró David.

La OIM ha dicho que los retornos voluntarios asistidos son “estrictamente voluntarios y se basan en un consentimiento libre, previo e informado”.

Un hombre colombiano regresó por su cuenta a su país de origen en los últimos días, comentó David.

“Estos acontecimientos confirman el carácter estrictamente transitorio, temporal y limitado en el tiempo de este mecanismo, tal como se anunció desde su puesta en marcha”, indicó el Gobierno congoleño en el comunicado. “En breve se producirán más salidas como parte de la implementación del acuerdo”.

El anuncio se produce el mismo día en que abogados presentaron un caso contra Guinea Ecuatorial ante el principal organismo de derechos humanos de África, en el que acusan a la nación de obligar a deportados desde Estados Unidos a regresar a sus países de origen en violación de sus derechos.

Mientras Tom Homan anticipa un aumento de agentes migratorios, el alcalde destacó la contribución de los inmigrantes al fútbol, los estadios y las celebraciones del Mundial.

The Department of Justice announced Monday that it is moving to revoke the citizenship of 17 individuals who allegedly obtained naturalization through fraud or deception.

The individuals, from 13 different countries, are accused of serious criminal conduct, including child sexual abuse, narcotics trafficking and large-scale financial fraud.

Nearly all of the individuals reportedly lied during the naturalization process, claiming that they did not commit any crimes the authorities were unaware of, claims that were later found to be untrue or misleading. By making false statements, officials argue that they failed to meet the statutory “good moral character” requirement for U.S. citizenship under federal law.

“Gaining U.S. citizenship is a privilege and under the steadfast leadership of President Trump, this Department of Justice maintains a zero-tolerance policy for the abuse of this process,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement.

“American citizenship is a privilege, and it must be earned honestly. If you come here break our laws, and lie in your immigration proceedings, you forfeit that privilege,” DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin added.

According to the release, the accused individuals are overwhelmingly middle-aged to senior adults, ranging in age from 39 to 69, and originate from 13 countries across the globe.

Nine were from the Caribbean and North America, including Cuba, Haiti, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, Trinidad and Tobago and Mexico. Two were from Colombia in South America. One was from former Yugoslavia in Europe. Three were from Asia, including India, China and the Philippines, and two were from Africa, including Somalia and the Congo.

Officials said many of the applicants were asked under oath whether they had ever committed a crime for which they had not yet been arrested. According to authorities, many of the individuals allegedly provided false statements during their interviews, enabling their applications to be approved.

The most common alleged offense among the accused is child sexual abuse. Six of the 17 individuals — roughly 35% — were identified in connection with child sex crimes, including statutory rape and the receipt of explicit images involving minors.

One notable case involved a Roman Catholic priest who allegedly used his position of trust to groom and abuse a child.

The fraud cases also involved large-scale, multi-million-dollar schemes. One case allegedly involved $54 million in securities and wire fraud. Another centered on $36.7 million in fraudulent claims billed to Blue Cross Blue Shield through fake physical therapy clinics. In a separate case, an individual was accused of using inherited funds tied to a Colombian drug cartel to finance real estate transactions, while another defendant was also accused of stealing millions from a Florida tribal casino.

Several individuals allegedly fabricated their identities in an effort to circumvent the immigration system, the Justice Department said. Four individuals are accused of using false names, misrepresenting marital status to U.S. citizens, or reapplying multiple times under entirely different identities after previous denials.

One woman allegedly adopted a false name after being denied in 1995. Authorities said she was ultimately identified after the government digitized old paper fingerprint records, which linked her current identity to a prior, rejected application.

Republican senators signaled support for imposing consequences on sanctuary cities after Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin floated a proposal to pull Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers from airports in jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

“I think there should be consequences to cities and states that undercut federal law,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News Digital. “I think they should pay a price for what they do. I agree with what he’s doing.”

Mullin has framed the proposal as a response to sanctuary cities that are limiting or refusing cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and disputes over immigration enforcement funding.

The plan has received mounting backlash from Democrats as pulling these agents from blue city airports would halt all international travel into major airports. Without customs agents, passengers and cargo are unable to travel internationally, and would also impact Americans coming back to the United States after travelling overseas.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy also expressed opposition to the idea, emphasizing the need for open travel.

But Mullin still says the idea is on the table and actively being considered.

“I think it’s a choice that those cities make and they’d have to weigh the consequences of it,” Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., said. “If they want to be a sanctuary city, they’ve made that choice and they’re getting a response now from Homeland Security.”

Other GOP senators said they had not yet reviewed the proposal and wanted additional details before weighing in.

“I don’t know about this,” Sen. Josh Hawley, R-MO., said. “Somebody else asked me about that, and I hadn’t seen that from him yet. So I don’t know. I don’t know what to make of that.”

“I need to learn more about it,” Sen. Ashley Moody, R-Fla., said.

“I’m gonna find out what’s going on,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said.

Mullin was grilled last week during a Senate hearing about these threats to pull officers from major city airports, where Democrats referred to the idea as “outrageous” and “insane,” citing the likelihood of chaos and devastating impacts to the economy as a result of the projected high travel rates that would be effectively killed throughout the upcoming summer months.

Fischer was also asked whether the proposal, if implemented, would change how sanctuary cities communicate and cooperate with ICE.

“I have no idea what the cities would do,” Fischer replied. “I would hope that their law enforcement would cooperate with ICE. ICE is federal law enforcement. They’re doing their job. They’re following the law.”

The proposal comes as the U.S. prepares to host millions of international visitors for the World Cup, which is expected to generate some of the highest inbound travel volumes in years.

The Taxpayer Inspector General reported Monday that the use of IRS taxpayer data for immigration enforcement has been inconsistent and unreliable.

The report said that the IRS provided addresses for nearly 47,000 people to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as part of a data-sharing agreement when the Trump administration ramped up its deportation efforts.

It also found that ICE did not meet the safeguarding standards for receiving confidential taxpayer information.

“Our evaluation found that, before releasing address information on individual taxpayers, the IRS developed an automated process to match ICE data to IRS records,” the report reads. “However, the criteria were unable to identify and match the records accurately and consistently.”

ICE and the IRS entered a data-sharing agreement last year with ICE asking for tax information and last known addresses for more than 1.2 million people. The IRS said in February that it improperly shared address data in “less than five percent” of the 47,000 addresses it shared with ICE.

“The IRS stated that it rejected records that did not meet certain conditions,” the report says. “However, the process implemented by the IRS failed to identify all records that should have been rejected.”

ICE’s request for addresses from the IRS is the subject of at least two lawsuits. In November, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia blocked the IRS from sharing any more taxpayer information with the Department of Homeland Security.

The inspector general did not recommend any corrective action.

When George Zoley, the founder of a private company that manages more than 20 federal immigration facilities testified before Congress in 2020, he spoke about how his own immigrant experience shaped his life.

Zoley, the CEO and executive chairman of private prison firm The GEO Group, was born in 1950 in a house with no plumbing or electricity in the remote town of Florina in northwestern Greece, according to a transcript of his testimony at a hearing on ICE contractors’ response to the Covid-19 outbreak.

“Fortunately, in 1953 my family received approval to immigrate to the United States where we traveled by ship landing in New York City and where we were processed through Ellis Island,” Zoley said, referring to the fabled American gateway for more than 12 million immigrants who arrived there for processing between 1892 and 1954.

“My own immigrant story has shaped the core values that have guided my entire life and career, which include the principle of never placing profit above the value of people,” said the CEO of the nation’s largest for-profit jailer of immigrants and ICE’s biggest contractor.

Now, six years after the hearing, GEO Group’s Delaney Hall facility in New Jersey is under scrutiny over allegations of inhumane conditions and mistreatment.

The 1,000-bed Delaney Hall facility is part of a multi-billion-dollar business empire built largely from government contracts for housing detained newcomers pursuing their own dreams. It has become a flashpoint for demonstrations against President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement crackdown – and the site of recent clashes between baton-wielding law enforcement officers and protesters under clouds of tear gas outside its walls.

“(Zoley) would never want for his family (to go through) what I went through in that detention center,” said a South American immigrant who was detained at Delaney Hall last month and asked not to be named for fear of retaliation. “I do not wish that for nobody.”

The conditions at the center show “a complete lack of character on his part and disrespect towards immigrants,” said the man, who is in his 40s, when told by CNN of the CEO’s immigrant experience.

“For him to create and have those types of detention centers, making millions and millions of dollars, it’s very hypocritical,” the immigrant added. “I do not believe that he would put in his son’s plate the food we were served at the detention center.”

A history supporting immigration enforcement

Despite the founder’s history, immigrant detainees at GEO Group facilities do not appear to receive more humane treatment, said Nancy Foner, an immigration historian at Hunter College and author of “From Ellis Island to JFK: New York’s Two Great Waves of Immigration.”

“He’s kind of elevating his own experience and certainly he’s willing to have these detention centers with terrible conditions for immigrants who often are arrested without judicial warrants,” Foner said of Zoley. “It’s terrible. I guess it’s the power of making a lot of money.”

Zoley was 3 when he arrived in New York with his 5-year-old brother, Elias, and their 28-year-old mother, Anastassia, who was listed as a US citizen, according to passenger manifests from the ship Nea Hellas — which had originated from a port outside of Athens. At the time, the Zoleys’ family name was Zolis.

Zoley’s father left Greece in 1951 “to pursue a better life for his family,” according to his 2014 obituary. He was later joined by his family, who “took a 16 day transatlantic voyage” in 1953 to New York.

“We settled in Akron, Ohio, where I learned to speak English and began my education,” the younger Zoley told Congress.

Zoley, who founded The GEO Group in 1984, defended the firm’s work during his testimony before Congress in 2020.

“We don’t manage any shelters or facilities for unaccompanied minors,” he said. “We don’t manage any facilities with chain link fencing in housing areas. We don’t play a role in who is assigned to a facility under our management. We don’t lobby for stricter criminal justice or immigration laws.”

Zoley added, “We respect the right of all persons to have a safe and humane living environment, and our commitment to this right is unwavering.”

In an email to CNN, GEO Group spokesperson Christopher Ferreira said: “We are proud of the role our company has played for 40 years to support the law enforcement mission of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).”

The company’s “support services are monitored by ICE, including by on-site agency personnel, and other organizations within the Department of Homeland Security to ensure compliance with ICE’s detention standards and contract requirements regarding the treatment and services ICE detainees receive,” GEO Group said in a statement released last month in response to criticisms about conditions at Delaney Hall.

Those services, the statement said, “include around-the-clock access to medical care, in-person and virtual legal and family visitation, general and legal library access, translation services, dietician-approved meals, religious and specialty diets, recreational amenities, and opportunities to practice their religious beliefs.”

Federal officials push back against allegations

Still, attorneys for Delaney Hall detainees said their clients have protested over spoiled food, overcrowded conditions that force people to sleep on floors, and a lack of medical care for people with cancer and diabetes, among other problems.

“Delaney Hall is not … one single bad apple,” New Jersey immigration lawyer Selenia Destefani, CEO of the Nova Law Group, told CNN. “There’s many detention facilities around America that are like that.”

The Department of Homeland Security has pushed back against allegations of inhumane living conditions or mistreatment at Delaney Hall.

On Wednesday, a warm and sunny spring day, Maria Hurtado, 23, was blowing bubbles in the direction of her nearly 2-year-old son outside the Delaney Hall facility. Her 24-year-old husband, Marlon Torres, has been held there for three months. After their visits, she said, the boy always leaves in tears.

Torres, who is from Colombia, was arrested by ICE when he appeared for an immigration appointment, his wife said. He was their sole breadwinner. “I felt like the world crashed down on me,” she said.

Hurtado likened the meals at Delaney Hall to “cat food” and said detainees are treated “like animals.” Her husband told her he was served a plate of beans contaminated with worms. It can take as long as a week to see a doctor, Hurtado said her husband told her.

“I want to throw myself in bed and cry all day because I don’t know what to do anymore,” she said. “You feel powerless you can’t do more.”

Detainee calls conditions ‘psychological abuse’

The South American immigrant, who spoke to CNN through a translator, was released from Delaney Hall last month and said he was held with seven other men in a small room with four bunk beds. Outside, there was a single bathroom for the nearly 200 men on the floor. Half of the eight toilets were clogged and unusable, he said. One day, a detainee slipped in the shower and passed out after striking his head. It took 40 minutes for help to arrive, he said.

The air conditioning was always on high, and the men did not have warm blankets. “That’s why a lot of people were often very sick,” the immigrant said.

The food, he said, did not smell fresh. To make matters worse, he also started to get unbearable abdominal pain; his stool was bloody, he said. When he saw a doctor inside the facility about a week later, he was assured that his condition was normal and was told he had to eat. After his release, the immigrant said, he had to have surgery to resolve the condition.

“There is psychological abuse,” he said. “A lot of guards pressure us to sign voluntary deportation papers. The detention center changes people’s lives. Your mental health is gone. God willing, justice will be served.”

During the Trump administration’s push for mass deportations nationwide, nearly 50 ICE detainees have died. More detainees died in custody in 2025 than in any year in at least two decades, CNN has reported.

On Tuesday, New Jersey officials sued GEO Group, asking a court to grant the state health department access to the center, saying in its lawsuit it needs to determine “whether Delaney Hall is currently placing residents – or the public at large – at risk through unsanitary or unsafe health practices.”

DHS called New Jersey’s lawsuit “frivolous” in a statement, saying “Delaney Hall complies with all required state and local laws.”

“ICE is regularly audited and inspected by external agencies,” DHS said, adding that New Jersey health officials inspected the facility’s food service area late last month. New Jersey’s lawsuit also noted this but said it was not given full access to the facility.

The big business of immigration detention

The GEO Group has the highest revenue of any private detention contractor in the United States, the Brennan Center for Justice reported last year. This year it is holding approximately 24,000 ICE detainees, a company record, Zoley told investors in a conference call in February. It is also the industry’s top contributor to political campaigns, according to OpenSecrets.

GEO Group has maintained close ties to officials at DHS, the Washington Post reported, with a former executive of the company being hired last year by the Trump administration to oversee an expansion of ICE detention facilities using $45 billion set aside by Congress last year.

On its website, GEO Group says its ICE facilities provide “high-quality, culturally responsive services in safe, secure, and humane environments that meet the needs of the individuals in the care and custody of federal immigration authorities.”

In February 2025, one month after Trump took office for his second term, GEO Group announced a 15-year contract with ICE to provide security, food services, medical care and legal counsel at its Delaney facility.

“We are continuing to prepare for what we believe is an unprecedented opportunity to help the federal government meet its expanded immigration enforcement priorities,” Zoley said in a company statement.

GEO Group is the nation’s largest ICE contractor and provides more than 40% of the secure beds for the agency, according to the company.

The company reported $2.63 billion in total revenue in 2025, compared to $2.42 billion in 2024. Zoley told investors in February that GEO Group expected to generate up to $520 million in annualized revenues – “making (2025) the most successful year for new business wins in our Company’s history.”

While the company has made a huge payday from immigration enforcement, it has also faced lawsuits over allegations of abuse and mistreatment in private facilities in multiple states.

Then in June 2025, four detainees escaped from Delaney Hall, by “kicking through an interior wall,” Newark Mayor Ras Baraka said in a post on X. The men were recaptured. The escape occurred during detainee protests over conditions at the facility.

Foner, the historian, believes Zoley is “looking, in a way, nostalgically back to his own trajectory but what he’s doing is anti-immigrant.”

“It’s sort of implicitly having a romanticized view of his own past against what he’s willing to do to immigrants today,” she said.

The Ellis Island Honors Society, a nonprofit “founded on the conviction that the diversity of the American people is what makes this nation great,” presented Zoley with an Ellis Island Medal of Honor in 2002.

The award “commemorates the indefatigable spirit of those who immigrated to the United States during the Ellis Island era.” It honors “great ethnic Americans who, through their achievements and contributions, and in the spirit of their ethnic origins, have enriched this country and have become role models for future generations.” Trump was awarded the same medal in 1986.

Vincent Cannato, a history professor at the University of Massachusetts Boston and author of “American Passage: The History of Ellis Island,” called Zoley’s life an American success story.

“There are a lot of people who have entered the country illegally, who are here undocumented over the years,” he said. “We’re struggling with how to deal with them. His company has obviously stepped into this and found a way to make profits off of that. Whether you think it’s ethical or not, I think it’s kind of a personal judgment call.”

Millions of soccer fans are expected to crowd into U.S. stadiums, bars and restaurants to cheer on the 48 nations competing in the World Cup, which will be played on American soil for the first time in 32 years.

But as the tournament kicks off this week, the quadrennial soccer celebration also has emerged as the latest battleground over immigration in the United States and the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda.

More than 2,000 workers at SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles voted Friday to authorize a potential labor stoppage unless they receive assurances that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will not be permitted to conduct deportation operations inside or outside the venue.

Fans from countries that require U.S. travel visas — including those from the four tournament-qualifying nations included on President Donald Trump’s travel ban list — say they are facing unnecessary complications in obtaining the proper paperwork and, in some cases, have given up on trying to watch the games in person.

And some fans who live in the United States remain wary that ICE will carry out arrests at stadiums during the World Cup. Tournament organizers have said federal officers will not be conducting broad immigration sweeps around the matches. But Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has not ruled out enforcement actions involving people suspected of criminal activity, leaving questions about how officers will operate in and around the venues.

The mounting trepidation within immigrant communities in the 11 U.S. host cities reflects the pervasive fear that exists among ethnic groups with the largest number of soccer fans, including Latinos, after more than a year of Trump’s mass deportation campaign. Advocates said the administration’s policies are threatening to dampen enthusiasm and participation from targeted communities as the U.S. plays co-host, along with Mexico and Canada, to an international showcase of the world’s most popular sport.

“We want the World Cup to happen because it’s a meeting of countries across the world, an exchange of cultures, a unifying moment around the beautiful game,” said Rich André, a senior policy adviser at the American Immigration Council. “When you’re shutting out would-be fans who want to come and support their team or just be in the stadium or bars cheering for Brazil or Argentina or another team, something is really lost.”

The Department of Homeland Security has traditionally helped provide security at major sporting events in the U.S., including the Super Bowl. But the World Cup, with matches in the U.S. over 38 days, offers a unique test for Mullin, who became secretary in March and has pledged to restore public confidence in the agency amid a backlash to Trump’s deportation agenda.

A significant majority of Americans — roughly 65 percent — opposes ICE presence at U.S. stadiums, according to a Washington Post-University of Maryland poll conducted in mid-May.

In a video last month, Mullin suggested large crowds could breed criminal activity and said ICE and Homeland Security Investigations would be “out there every day fighting against the counterfeit tickets, human trafficking, drug smuggling.”

On June 1, Mullin joined federal and local officials for a tour of AT&T Stadium in Dallas, where nine matches will take place. He compared the task of securing the World Cup games in the U.S. to planning for 78 Super Bowls in 38 days.

“The first game for the U.S. is June 12 in L.A. We’ll be there,” he told reporters, making no mention of immigration-related operations.

Immigrant rights groups have sought to prepare communities for potential enforcement sweeps during the tournament.

In Dallas, for example, El Movimiento is activating a rapid response network that was established last year during increased ICE enforcement operations in the city. Activists said they are providing know-your-rights training to immigrants in vulnerable neighborhoods and setting up hotlines to track and report ICE activity. They also plan to send legal observers to FIFA-sponsored fan events, said Azael Alvarez, an organizer with the group.

“Unfortunately, a lot of people I’ve talked to are scared to leave their own house, especially in big apartment complexes that are known to have ICE presence,” he said. “It’s already instilled a fear that, ‘Oh, they could be out there,” whenever they set foot outside their homes.

Immigration concerns, along with high ticket prices, have contributed to indications that sales are lagging and the expected financial windfall could fall short. The American Hotel & Lodging Association released a survey last month that found 80 percent of respondents said bookings in the host cities were running below projections. The respondents attributed the sluggishness primarily to U.S. visa restrictions and broader geopolitical concerns.

Under mounting pressure, FIFA, the sport’s international governing body, has avoided criticizing the Trump administration or making blanket statements about the role ICE is expected to play. Some local organizers in the World Cup host cities have sought to reassure the public by emphasizing that federal immigration officers will assist only with general security operations.

In mid-May, a State Department official said the U.S. would suspend the visa bond fees for fans from Senegal and three other nations on the travel ban list that qualified for the World Cup — Haiti, Iran and Ivory Coast. Under the temporary suspension, those fees, ranging from $5,000 to $15,000, would be waived for fans who had purchased tickets by April 15 directly through FIFA and used FIFA Pass, an app aimed at expediting visa processing, according to guidance on the State Department’s website.

But many fans did not buy their tickets that far in advance, in part because the bonds had made it prohibitively expensive to go. That included Aliou Ngom of Senegal. Ngom had requested help paying for his travel from the nation’s Sports and Culture Ministry, which typically provides financial assistance to fans to purchase tickets and travel abroad.

But the ministry denied his request in April, expressing regret that the government could not assist him. An official explained that “recent visa restrictions imposed by the U.S. government — specifically the requirement to post a bond ranging from $5,000 to $15,000 — risk jeopardizing the presence of most of our supporters alongside their National Team.”

Asked about the matter, the Senegalese Embassy said in a statement that the visa fees “are part of broader U.S. immigration policies” and referred questions to the Trump administration.

“I really want to go because since 2012 I have been part of the football world,” said Ngom, who attended the World Cup in Qatar in 2022 and Russia in 2018 and has amassed nearly half a million TikTok followers as “Paco” the Senegal superfan.

Even those who are willing to pay the extra fees for a visa remain fearful that they could be denied entry at U.S. airports, said Marie Christine Lebondo, owner of the Finest, a concierge service in Ivory Coast. Their anxiety stands in contrast to the ease and confidence with which she booked tours for fans traveling to Qatar for the 2022 World Cup.

This year, Lebondo said, clients are worried that “even if you get a visa, you can get to the airport in the U.S. and still get sent back to your country. They are asking me the question: ‘Are you sure I can get in?’ I say, ‘I’m not sure because I’m not working at the airport.'”

Asked to clarify ICE’s role, the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement Friday that the agency would work with federal and local partners “in line with federal law and the U.S. Constitution — as we do with every major sporting event.” The agency added that “international visitors who legally come to the United States for the World Cup have nothing to worry about. What makes someone a target for immigration enforcement is whether or not they are illegally in the U.S. — full stop.”

In Los Angeles, Unite Here Local 11, which represents some 2,000 workers at SoFi Stadium, has threatened a labor strike unless it receives guarantees from stadium food service operator Legends Global and FIFA that ICE will not be permitted to conduct enforcement at the venue.

Workers protested in front of the stadium, drawing support from billionaire Tom Steyer, a Democratic candidate for California governor, who joined them at the demonstration.

Yolanda Fierro, who helps staff luxury suites, said in an interview that the Trump administration “thinks we have only criminals here, working, visiting, coming to games, but they’re not. These are hardworking people who take care of their families. We don’t want [ICE] here. We want to feel safe, we can take care of ourselves, and, most of all, we want our guests to feel safe.”

Democratic city leaders in Houston, another host city, have tangled with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) over $110 million in security grants. Much of the money is intended to help with operations for the seven World Cup games at NRG Stadium, officials said.

Abbott threatened to withhold the grants unless Houston leaders amended a city law that restricted local police from indefinitely detaining migrants.

Facing Abbott’s threat, the Houston City Council voted 13-4 in April to lift that restriction, while keeping in place a separate provision requiring police to report any calls to ICE and document how long immigrants are detained for. Council member Alejandra Salinas, who voted against the amended language, expressed frustration at her colleagues.

Salinas said World Cup organizers promised that ICE will not be conducting immigration enforcement at the stadium, but she remains wary.

“It is incumbent on all of us — the press, the council and the public — to hold them to account,” she said. “It is not fair if the people visiting the country, the people enjoying the games, are being unlawfully or improperly harassed.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — With virtually no strings attached, Congress is on the verge of providing a sizable infusion of cash to the Department of Homeland Security, powering President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda for the remainder of his term in the White House.

The nearly $70 billion package, which cleared the Republican-held Senate in a middle of the night vote and now heads to the House, was declared a “rotten bill” by the Democratic leader and an “ATM for ICE” by pro-immigrant advocates.

But for those aligned with Trump’s campaign promise for the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history, it all but guarantees an uninterrupted flow of money to carry out the administration’s immigration enforcement operations — and comes on top of some $170 billion Congress already approved for the department last summer, as part of Trump’s big tax breaks bill.

“We’re going to continue to arrest people, we’re going to continue to detain people and we’re going to keep deporting people,” Trump border czar Tom Homan told CBS News on Friday.

He hinted at summer sweeps of enforcement actions coming next to New York City.

More money, fewer guardrails

The work of Congress comes at a pivotal time for the Republican president and his party as they face restless voters before the midterm elections. About one in three U.S. adults know someone who has been impacted by Trump’s immigration operations, according to an AP-NORC poll conducted in April. And as America celebrates its 250th anniversary, most say it’s no longer a great place for immigrants.

The funding package from Congress is just a slim dozen-page bill that carries none of the usual guardrails or directives typically demanded in legislation. It turns loose $30 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, and billions for the Border Patrol, and others, prepaying the department’s operations into 2029.

“Their options are limitless in terms of what they can do with this money,” said Vanessa Cardenas, the executive director at America’s Voice, a longtime advocacy organization for immigrants.

“That is such a hard thing to accept as a taxpaying citizen that our dollars are going to this massive, mass deportation machine, while Americans are struggling to meet health care costs, and have access to food and they’re paying so much in gas.”

The administration has sought to shift the debate over its immigration operations, installing new leadership at Homeland Security in the aftermath of violent scenes of immigration enforcement earlier this year and the shooting deaths of Americans Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.

Rather than the dramatic street sweeps, the administration is working behind the scenes on actions that are stripping immigrant groups of their ability to remain in the U.S., by doing away with Temporary Protected Status or making it more difficult to secure green cards.

The so-called Dreamers, young immigrants brought illegally to the U.S. as children, have reported delays in renewing their Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status, exposing them to potential deportation.

But protests on American streets continue, including over detention conditions at the Delaney Hall facility in New Jersey.

At the same time, Homeland Security continues to hire more ICE agents — it’s hosting an employment fair next month in Florida — build more detention facilities and partner with countries around the world to take people who are being deported from the U.S.

In a statement, the department said Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin are “laser focused on ensuring the hardworking men and women” of ICE and Customs and Border Patrol are fully funded. It said the package from Congress “will ensure our critical national security operations continue despite any Democrat attempts to hold our great patriotic employees hostage in the future.”

Power of the purse becomes a blank check

Typically a funding package from Congress would run hundreds pages or more, with a range of specific instructions about how the money can be spent and on what timelines.

Congress, after all, holds the power of the purse, and often uses that constitutional role to put checks on the administration.

But after Democrats refused to fund Homeland Security earlier this year following the violence in Minnesota, Republicans retaliated by using the congressional budget resolution process to muscle the package through on their own, outside the traditional appropriations channels.

It’s the same process both parties have used in the past, most recently on Trump’s 2025 tax cuts bill.

“All this important oversight” that typically comes with the appropriations process “doesn’t happen,” said Bobby Kogan, a former staff member of the Senate Budget Committee who’s now at the Center for American Progress, a think tank.

Overnight, Democrats in the Senate worked to exert that authority, offering amendments to ensure Congress had some say in the process. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, for example, sought to protect “Dreamers” from deportation as their DACA renewals are being delayed. But those efforts all failed.

Deportations not enough, for some

Meanwhile the administration is under enormous pressure to deliver on its promise to boost deportations to some 1 million a year, after the Republican president’s first year numbers fell short.

Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, is a leader of the Mass Deportation Coalition that is pushing the Trump administration to stick to its promises.

“Everyone’s talking about it like ICE is about to get another massive cash injection, and that’s not how I see it at all,” he said. “They’re getting like life-support money.”

“We’re not asking them to keep going,” Howell said. “We’re asking them to start.”

Howell said there’s little chance the Trump administration will be able to reach the president’s deportation goals unless it drops its priority to go after what they call the “worst of the worst.”

His group put out a framework earlier this year that proposes more comprehensive sweeps to arrest immigrants, particularly in the workplace. He also wants to see the Trump administration make it more difficult for immigrants who are in the U.S. to use the banking system, get social services and obtain drivers licenses. Republicans in Congress have offered bills tackling some of those issues.

The administration has been amping up its own rhetoric and recently posted a new website that characterizes immigrants as “aliens” — with outer-space themes — and suggests ways the White House is working to prevent people from staying in the U.S.

The US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, has been accused by historians and rights campaigners of “grotesque stupidity” and desecrating the memory of the soldiers who stormed the beaches of Normandy after he sought to link immigration to the D-day anniversary, saying Europe was facing a different “invasion” of its shores.

Speaking in north-west France on Saturday to mark the 82nd anniversary of the D-day landings, Hegseth seized on the moment marking the wartime liberation of Europe to reiterate the US administration’s longstanding attack on European immigration policies.

“Sadly, today, different European beaches are stormed by different, dangerous ideologies,” Hegseth told those gathered at the American military cemetery in Colleville-sur-Mer.

“Beaches in Spain, Italy, Greece and Bulgaria, boats and men arrive. When will European capitals do something about that invasion, or is it too late? I pray not, and I believe not,” he said.

“The men who fought and died here restored freedom to Europe,” added Hegseth, a former Fox News host. “That freedom must be maintained by this generation of leaders and war fighters, or what they fought for was merely temporary.”

The remarks were swiftly condemned on social media. The English historian, author and television presenter Simon Schama described them as a “special kind of loathsomeness: a blend of historical deafness, grotesque stupidity and comically ludicrous self-importance”.

Schama added: “As if the little people’s rage against immigration somehow is superior to the war against the 3rd Reich and entitles this comic book nobody to lecture the actual heroes.”

From Jerusalem, the Israeli human rights lawyer Daniel Seidemann also weighed in. “This is an obscene desecration of the memories of those who stormed the beaches of Normandy, and especially of those who fell,” he wrote.

Anders Åslund, a Swedish economist and former senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, contrasted the comments with Hegseth’s later remarks on the US standing alongside its allies. “So much nonsense,” he wrote on social media. “‘We stand by our allies!’ No you don’t. You just attacked them. Immigration policies are internal matters.”

Åslund said Hegseth’s comments were particularly “clueless” given his recent decision to skip a key Nato meeting and Donald Trump’s vows to cut the number of troops in Europe. “Doesn’t Hegseth know that the most unreliable ‘ally’ by far is the US?” he said.

Hegseth’s outsized focus on EU migration echoes comments made by other American officials, including Trump, who have consistently sought to criticise the impact of migration on the continent, despite the US having a higher proportion of foreign-born residents than the EU.

Hours before Hegseth’s speech, the US vice-president, JD Vance, also waded into the matter with a social media post that blamed immigration for the killing of Henry Nowak, an 18-year-old British student stabbed in the UK. Nowak’s killer, a British-born Sikh, was convicted of murder and jailed for life with a minimum of 21 years.

On Sunday, the UK justice secretary and deputy prime minister, David Lammy, said he had had an “agreeable” conversation in which he had sought to set the record straight with Vance. “This has got nothing to do with mass migration. This young man was a Brit,” Lammy told Sky News. “Let’s be clear about that. And I said: ‘Look, Mr Vice-president, you’re wrong about this.'”

In the days before Hegseth’s visit to France, the plans had stirred up controversy, with one residents’ association calling for the trip to be cancelled. “This individual promotes values that go against democracy, human rights and peace,” the Langrune en Commun association, which advocates for environmentalism and solidarity among the village’s residents, said in a press release last week.

Speaking to the broadcaster BFMTV, one member of the association cautioned against acting as though everything was normal. “What’s happening with the Trump administration isn’t business as usual. The fact that Pete Hegseth is challenging all the international organisations that emerged from the second world war isn’t business as usual,” said Chantal Richard.

“The words must be spoken, he must be called out for who he is, for the values he represents: colonial, warmongering, racist, far-right values,” she added. “Silence seems to us to be the worst thing we can do on these issues.”

A member of Iraq’s World Cup squad was held for questioning by U.S. immigration officials when he arrived in the country for the tournament on Friday.

According to Reuters, striker Aymen Hussein, the Iraq vice-captain and one of the country’s key players, was held at Chicago’s O’Hare airport for almost seven hours after arriving with his international team-mates and staff members.

Citing a source working for the Iraqi Olympic Committee with close links to the country’s national football team, it was reported that Hussein was questioned by U.S. officials and had his mobile phone inspected before being allowed entry to the country.

Iraq’s team photographer, however, was denied entry to the U.S.

A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) told The Athletic: “On June 5, the Iraqi national team arrived at Chicago O’Hare International Airport from Dubai International Airport.

“During processing, two travellers underwent additional inspection, a routine part of CBP’s inspection process when officers need to verify information or determine admissibility.

“Following inspection, one traveler was admitted to the United States. The second traveller, a photographer and not a player on the team, was determined to be inadmissible and was denied entry due to vetting concerns.

“All travellers seeking entry into the United States, including athletes, coaches, and staff, are subject to CBP inspection and vetting. Admissibility determinations are made on a case-by-case basis using law enforcement, national security, and immigration information available at the time of inspection. CBP officers have the authority to question travelers, conduct inspections, and determine admissibility consistent with U.S. law.”

Iraq play a tournament warm-up game against Venezuela in Bridgeview, Illinois, on Wednesday, ahead of playing their first game of their World Cup campaign against Norway in Foxborough, Massachusetts, on June 16. They are in Group I, alongside France and Senegal.

The Athletic has contacted the Iraq Football Association and FIFA, world football’s governing body, for comment.

Federal officials have quietly begun fast-tracking cases through immigration courts, pushing dozens of additional cases onto the dockets on certain days in an effort to more quickly process asylum and other claims.

The fast-tracking, which is also intended to increase the pace of deportations, started without any formal notification or announcement from the Trump administration, according to immigration lawyers and court officials interviewed by The New York Times. But a surge of cases has been apparent in numerous courts around the country. Some judges have seen their caseloads double and triple, prompting worries that cases are being rushed through, violating due process rights.

At separate courthouses in Annandale and Sterling, Va., in recent days, Times reporters observed long lines and packed dockets. Some immigration judges saw their caseloads more than double, with as many as 100 adults waiting for their cases to be heard. In Annandale, the caseloads have included dozens of unaccompanied minors.

Lines were also evident at a courthouse in downtown Chicago on a recent weekday, with families spilling out of waiting areas and into hallways. Many cases were being processed in small groups, or in several instances with more than two dozen people appearing at once.

And in New Orleans, lawyers saw the number of cases increase to more than 200 on Monday and Tuesday in one courtroom alone. The judges at that courthouse typically take only about 30 to 40 cases per day, lawyers said. The morning dockets were so packed and chaotic that lawyers wishing to observe or monitor the proceedings were not allowed in to watch.

Federal officials say that speeding through cases will help alleviate backlogs that have led some asylum and immigration relief claims to languish for years. The slow pace of the process, they contend, creates incentives for people to enter the United States to file claims that may be weak or invalid.

The Justice Department said in a statement that clearing the court backlog was a top priority for the administration, and that it was hearing the cases fairly and in accordance with the law.

An official with the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which is part of the Justice Department and oversees the immigration court system, said the larger caseloads were a result of the court hiring new immigration judges, and described them as necessary to clear a backlog of upward of 3 million cases this year, according to federal figures.

But immigration lawyers and rights groups counter that the sudden acceleration of the process risks errors, denies immigrants due process and leaves people with little time to find lawyers.

“Everything related to these large dockets or mass dockets is shrouded in such a strange secrecy,” said Gracie Willis, an attorney with the National Immigration Project, a nonprofit that provides legal services for immigrants. “Our confirmation that they were even happening really came from going to the court on Monday and seeing the large lines of people standing outside,” she added, referring to the proceedings she observed in New Orleans.

The surge comes at a time of upheaval for Mr. Trump’s immigration strategy. On Friday, a federal judge rejected the government’s indefinite hold on asylum applications filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and on immigration applications from people from 39 countries who had been unable to obtain green cards and citizenship. The ruling is not expected to have a major impact on immigration courts.

This week, the Supreme Court also declined to review a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requiring the government to take more steps to notify immigrants of their hearing dates if their notices are returned in the mail.

Unlike judges in criminal and civil courts, immigration judges are part of the executive branch, and the Trump administration has taken steps to align them with the president’s pledge to deport record numbers of people. The administration has fired judges seen as insufficiently supportive of the agenda, and has narrowed the factors that qualify people for asylum.

The judges who remain have been under pressure to issue deportation orders and rule against asylum cases, a Times investigation found. The rate of asylum grants is the lowest since 2009, according to data analyzed by The Times.

Typical “master” calendar hearings are already crowded sessions where an immigration judge can handle dozens of cases at a time, all of which can be in different stages. They review claims, consider challenges and schedule court dates for people seeking asylum, humanitarian protections and an array of other forms of legal relief that can temporarily shield immigrants from deportation or set them on the path to legal permanent residency.

Many attorneys have taken to informally calling the new, heavily packed proceedings “mega master” calendar hearings.

In New Orleans, Ms. Willis, the attorney, said the dockets she watched included a mix of people: respondents who were appearing in immigration court for the first time, along with immigrants who had trials already set for 2027 but were called in for minor updates on their cases, such as the verification of their addresses.

Some had received notices of their new court appearances the month before, but others had been called in only two weeks earlier, or even more recently, she said.

Lawyers said that they had observed judges taking in groups of people at a time, despite their different pleadings and cases. In one instance, a judge saw 15 people at once, running through Arabic, Spanish and Creole interpretations, Ms. Willis said.

On Monday and Tuesday, 89 people in one court alone were declared absent, and were therefore deportable, she added. “And that is not because they were ‘the worst of the worst.’ It is because they had a hearing scheduled that they were not able to attend for a variety of reasons,” Ms. Willis said.

In Courtroom 11 in Chicago on May 26, Judge Peter A. Kim addressed a group of more than 20 immigrants, a reporter observed. He told them that they had 20 days to submit their cases in writing, and warned that the next hearing would be their final opportunity to make the case to remain in the United States.

Alex, a maintenance worker from Honduras, and his adult son were among the immigrants who received the warning. Alex spoke to The Times on the condition that only his first name be used, because he fears government retaliation.

He and his son applied for asylum and obtained temporary humanitarian passage into the country in 2023, but the form of relief is set to expire in December, and their asylum petition remains pending.

He said that he worried that the government’s push to quickly close their case would leave them with no relief. “All we can have is hope and faith in God,” he said.

“It is not a bad thing to want to prioritize older cases,” Briana Carlson, an immigration lawyer who represents clients in Sterling, Va., said of the case dockets. “But when we are taking away the power of judges to have individualized hearings, that is problematic.”

In Annandale, immigrants and their children recently filled a courtroom as a judge heard about 60 cases during hearings that stretched more than seven hours last week.

Yuvora Nong, an immigration lawyer in Virginia, showed up to the courthouse for a separate hearing scheduled for his client at 1 p.m. one day. But the judge, Raphael Choi, was still working through the day’s caseload surge, and had 15 cases left to hear by day’s end.

Judge Choi told Mr. Nong that his client’s case would have to be postponed — to May 2027.

On May 29, Maria Martinez, another Annandale lawyer, had clients from El Salvador and Venezuela sitting in her law office for more than eight hours as they waited to go before a judge by video. They had been scheduled to appear around 8:30 a.m., but as the judge toiled through a packed caseload, the wait stretched on.

“Family members had to bring them food because they were too scared to leave the office and miss their hearing,” Ms. Martinez said.

Minutes before the judge’s computer shut down for the day, he bunched the last six cases together, Ms. Martinez said. Speeding through, he did not even have time to check whether her clients were present, she added.

LONDON — Britain’s deputy prime minister said Sunday that he told U.S. Vice President JD Vance he was wrong to blame immigration for the death of a university student who was handcuffed as he lay dying from a stab wound.

David Lammy, who is also the justice minister, said he challenged Vance in what he described as a “robust” phone call on Saturday. Lammy and Vance have struck up a friendship, based on their religious beliefs and family backgrounds, even though they come from different sides of the political spectrum.

“We had an agreeable conversation because we have got a relationship, but I wanted to make him clear that I disagree with some of the facts that he was asserting and to present the facts to him,” Lammy told Sky News.

The call came a day after Vance said in a post on social platform X that there should be “righteous anger” in response to the murder of Henry Nowak, 18, who died in December after being stabbed by Vickrum Digwa in the English city of Southampton.

Digwa, who is Sikh, falsely claimed to police he was the victim of a racist assault by Nowak, who was white. When police officers arrived, they initially treated the wounded man as a suspect before noticing his injury and trying to resuscitate him.

Vance appeared to blame the murder in part on “the mass invasion of migrants, many of whom despise the West and the people who love it.”

Lammy said he wanted to “emphasize a number of things” to Vance, including that the killer was British and is now behind bars.

“This has got nothing to do with mass migration,” Lammy said.

Digwa, 23, was convicted of murder for stabbing Nowak with an 8-inch (21 centimeter) Sikh dagger and sentenced this week to life in prison with a minimum 21-year term.

The case has been seized on by anti-immigration activists and politicians in the U.K. On Tuesday, police in Southampton were pelted with chairs, cans, rocks and flares after a demonstration over Nowak’s death attended by far-right figures and others.

In a statement issued Friday in response to Vance’s comments, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s office criticized people “trying to interfere in our democracy and seeking to stir up division on our streets.”

The Independent Office for Police Conduct, which investigates allegations of police wrongdoing, is probing the actions of police officers on the scene.

The victim’s father, Mark Nowak, has said the case was not about racism or religion, and that he wanted his son’s death to lead to safer streets and not to be used to create “further division, hatred or tension.”

Lammy also said he told Vance “it’s not helpful to tweet in this way, partly because of what the Nowak family have asked for, and reminded him about their desire not to make this an issue of division and hatred, but to make this an issue of common sense.”

The Trump administration is moving to close what it describes as a loophole that allows migrants to remain in the United States while awaiting permanent residency.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced new guidance directing immigration officers to treat the transition from temporary nonimmigrant status to permanent immigrant status under Section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as a process that should generally take place outside the United States.

Under the guidance, individuals seeking lawful permanent residency would typically be required to return to their home country, complete screening procedures and obtain an immigrant visa through the U.S. Department of State before reentering the U.S. as immigrants.

USCIS Director Joseph Edlow emphasized the Trump administration is reinforcing the distinction between temporary entry and permanent residence in a statement to the Caller.

“Under President Trump, USCIS is returning to the original intent of the law and reinforcing the proper distinction between temporary admission and permanent residence. Aliens who come to the United States temporarily and later seek permanent residency should pursue an immigrant visa through the proper channels in their home countries before being admitted as immigrants.”

The document further states that individuals should only be allowed to remain in the United States and complete the adjustment of status process domestically in “extraordinary circumstances,” with vetting conducted by USCIS officers rather than through the standard immigrant visa process abroad. The agency instructs immigration officers to weigh all relevant factors on a case-by-case basis when determining whether someone qualifies for this type of administrative relief.

Under Section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, it states that the status of an individual who was “inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States” may be adjusted to lawful permanent resident status at the attorney general’s discretion, provided the individual applies for adjustment, is “eligible to receive an immigrant visa,” is admissible for permanent residence, and that “an immigrant visa is immediately available” at the time the application is filed.

The administration’s new guidance argues that these provisions should be interpreted more narrowly, emphasizing immigrant visa eligibility and overseas processing rather than allowing applicants already in the United States to complete adjustment of status domestically except in certain circumstances.

USCIS spokesman Zach Kahler said individuals in the United States on temporary status who seek lawful permanent residency should generally complete that process from their home countries.

“We’re returning to the original intent of the law to ensure aliens navigate our nation’s immigration system properly. From now on, an alien who is in the U.S. temporarily and wants a Green Card must return to their home country to apply, except in extraordinary circumstances,” Kahler told the Caller in a statement.

“This policy allows our immigration system to function as the law intended instead of incentivizing loopholes. When aliens apply from their home country, it reduces the need to find and remove those who decide to slip into the shadows and remain in the U.S. illegally after being denied residency,” he continued.

British historian Simon Schama has condemned U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth over his D-Day address while deriding the “little people” who oppose mass migration into Europe.

Marking the 82nd anniversary of the Allied invasion of Normandy in a speech delivered at the American military cemetery in Colleville-sur-Mer, Secretary Hegseth painted a contrast between the “Greatest Generation” which overcame the evils of Nazi Germany, and the modern West, which he warned has, at least in part, become “comfortable” and under the misapprehension that “empty slogans” and “lavish summits” will preserve peace and stability in Europe.

Following the example of other senior Trump administration officials, including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Hegseth took the opportunity of his trip to the old continent to warn its leaders of the perils looming from the mass migration policies imposed on their citizens by politicians.

“Sadly, today, different European beaches are stormed by different dangerous ideologies,” Hegseth said. On the “beaches in Spain and Italy and Greece and Bulgaria, boats and men arrive,” he said. “When will European capitals do something about that invasion? Or is it too late?”

The comments sparked a wave of outrage from the globalist left commentariat across the pond. Among them was popular British historian Sir Simon Schama, who has long advocated for the importation of millions of foreigners, often citing his own Jewish family’s experiences in diaspora as foundational to his thinking.

Responding on social media to Hegseth’s speech, Schama said: “This is a special kind of loathsomeness: a blend of historical deafness, grotesque stupidity, and comically ludicrous self-importance.”

Echoing the infamous “deplorables” comment from failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Schama added: “As if the little people’s rage against immigration somehow is superior to the war against the 3rd Reich and entitles this comic book nobody to lecture the actual heroes.”

Sir Simon has long been critical of anti-migration sentiment, which he has attributed to a “hatred of immigrants”, while largely dismissing the concerns over cultural cohesion and migrant associated crime. He described Brexit as an “unnecessary act of self-harm” that was driven by “detestation” of foreigners, while lauding cosmopolitan London for being more immigrant-friendly than the rest of the country.

Overlooking the downward pressure on the wages of the working class or the billions handed out by the government to migrants every year from the pockets of British taxpayers, Schama has boasted that his life had been personally improved by mass migration, saying last year that it is “such a pleasure that there’s a Persian cafe around the corner from my flat in London.”

The historian has also been a leading critic of President Donald Trump in Britain, claiming that his victory in the 2016 presidential elections would “hearten fascists all over the world,” while noting that “democracy often brings fascists to power.” While Schama has shied away from direct comparisons between Trump and Hitler, he has accused the U.S. President of being an “entertainment fascist”, which he said “may be less sinister but is actually in the end more dangerous.”

The support for mass migration by European elites was criticised this week by Vice President JD Vance, who linked the influx of millions of people from radically disparate backgrounds to the death of 18-year-old student Henry Nowak. Vance said: “He should still be alive today, and he would be if the last few generations of European elites had stood their ground against the politics of self-hatred and the mass invasion of migrants, many of whom despise the West and the people who love it.”

This sparked backlash in London from the left-wing Labour government, with both Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Deputy PM David Lammy accusing Vance of interfering in Britain’s internal affairs, despite both men having previously railed against the American police system in the wake of the death of George Floyd in 2020.

Senate Republicans managed to stitch together a unified front to advance President Donald Trump’s roughly $70 billion immigration enforcement package, but divisions over the president’s agenda were laid bare after a marathon day of votes.

Passage of the budget reconciliation package geared toward funding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol for the next three and a half years closes a long, drawn out chapter in the Senate that began during the longest shutdown in history.

It’s a point that Senate Republicans tried to return to throughout the day, reiterating that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Democrats had forced their hands after refusing to fund immigration operations without a plethora of reforms.

“Democrats would not agree to anything, and eventually they walked away altogether, presumably because they thought that it would serve them better to have an issue for November,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said.

But the day, and preceding weeks, were dominated by a growing rift between Senate Republicans and the Trump administration that threatened to blow up the process altogether.

First, it was the inclusion of $1 billion in funding for security upgrades to Trump’s ballroom, which was later stripped out. Then, it was the Department of Justice’s announcement that a nearly $2 billion “anti-weaponization” fund was being launched to allow people who felt targeted by the government to make a claim from the pot of taxpayer money.

Several Senate Republicans worried that the money could be accessed by Jan. 6, 2021, rioters who were convicted of assaulting police.

Schumer and Democrats leaned into that open wound and spent much of the marathon, “vote-a-rama” vote series trying to spell a permanent end to the fund, despite acting Attorney General Todd Blanche vowing that the administration would no longer pursue it.

“Do we believe that Donald Trump, who has lied to us day in and day out, do we believe that he will be able to resist getting his sticky fingers in the slush fund when it would benefit himself and his family? No way, no way,” Schumer said.

Many of the amendments pushed by Democrats placed Republicans in tough bids for reelection, Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Jon Husted, R-Ohio, and Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, into politically challenging positions.

Republicans tried to kill it, too, causing tensions on the Senate floor to rise.

“It’s not that tense,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said. “I mean, I’ve seen worse. Nobody’s stabbed anybody yet.”

Still, the process nearly came to a grinding halt because of the fund at the start of the marathon vote series when Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., and others wanted to ensure that GOP attempts to end the fund would get a vote, too.

“I just wanted to optimize the chances of success,” Cassidy said of the delay.

Ultimately, despite a dozen Republicans voting for Sen. Thom Tillis’, R-N.C., amendment, and several voting for Cassidy’s, all attempts to thwart future bids to revive the fund failed.

The ballroom also came back into the picture when six Republicans joined Senate Democrats to prevent construction on the colossal structure from going forward without congressional approval.

Then there was an attempt by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to attach the SAVE America Act to the reconciliation package, which met Republican resistance and ultimately failed, too.

The package now heads to the House, where Republicans are expected to pass it by next week.

Familias inmigrantes en Carolina del Sur atraviesan un momento de temor y preocupación tras el operativo migratorio realizado por autoridades estatales y federales en Abbeville, en el condado homónimo, esta semana, en el que fueron detenidas medio centenar de personas en una empresa de fundición de metales por presuntamente violar las leyes migratorias y laborales.

La relación de arrestados es de 48 trabajadores inmigrantes y dos directivos de la empresa Burnstein Von Seelen Precision Casting.

Los testimonios de familiares y allegados de los detenidos demuestran la incertidumbre por la separación familiar. Diana Casique relata a N+ Univision que su madre logró enviarle un mensaje avisándole que el Servicio de Control de Inmigración y Aduanas (ICE) estaba en su trabajo.

“Me siento nerviosa, preocupada por mis hermanos, la situación en la que vamos a estar sin una mamá”, expresó.

Otra detenida es Branda Fabiola Gómez. Su madre cuenta que “la llamé, me contestó y me dijo ‘aquí está migración y nos va a llevar'”, y le pidió que le cuidara a los hijos. Brenda tiene seis hijos y su esposo fue deportado previamente.

“Las tiendas mexicanas están vacías”: los efectos de la redada en Carolina del Sur

Para miembros de la comunidad, el operativo es preocupante. Jaqueline Contreras dice que la redada sembró el miedo en la comunidad. “Las tiendas mexicanas están vacías, los restaurantes mexicanos también, se ven vacíos, entonces podemos ver el miedo en la comunidad”.

Las autoridades informaron que el operativo, denominado “Operación Ghost Story”, se realizó dentro de una investigación sobre documentos falsos.

“Estos arrestos fueron incidentales como parte de una investigación dirigida a personas que estaban robando las identidades de ciudadanos estadounidenses, y utilizándolas para crear documentos ilegales. Ese era el enfoque. Estábamos siguiendo la pista del delito”, informó Alan Wilson, fiscal general de Carolina del Sur.

Según la investigación, los dos altos directivos de la empresa, Christopher Douglas Ramey y Sandy Lynn Willis, fueron arrestados y acusados de contratar inmigrantes indocumentados “facilitando el uso de documentos falsos por inmigrantes indocumentados en la empresa”.

El fiscal Wilson afirmó que estas personas, “de manera consciente e intencional, estaban trabajando con personas indocumentadas para ayudarlas a conseguir empleo; de eso es de lo que se les ha acusado”.

Las consecuencias de utilizar papeles falsos

Según ICE, entre los 48 inmigrantes detenidos hay personas con órdenes de deportación. Las autoridades también dijeron que otras cuatro personas fueron acusadas de fabricar y vender identificaciones falsas, incluyendo tarjetas de Seguro Social, licencias de conducir y documentos migratorios obtenidos mediante robo de identidad.

Un juez anuló este viernes las políticas migratorias del presidente Donald Trump que suspendían las decisiones sobre asilo y otros beneficios para ciudadanos de 39 países.

El juez federal de distrito, John McConnell, dictaminó que estas suspensiones de tramitación eran ilegales.

El fallo ordenó al Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración (USCIS por sus siglas en inglés) reanudar el procesamiento, lo que afectó a casos de asilo, permisos de trabajo y solicitudes de naturalización.

A partir de finales de 2025, USCIS interrumpió la tramitación de diversos beneficios migratorios —incluido el asilo afirmativo— para personas provenientes de 39 países designados. Las restricciones incluían una suspensión total de las admisiones para naciones como Siria, Irán y Yemen, así como restricciones parciales para países como Nigeria y Venezuela.

En un fallo donde cuestionó al gobierno, el juez McConnell Jr. declaró que la política “sumió las vidas de innumerables inmigrantes residentes en Estados Unidos en un limbo jurídico indefinido” y acusó a USCIS de ignorar la ley.

“Al implementar sus políticas migratorias más recientes, el USCIS: se atribuye una autoridad legal y reglamentaria que no posee; toma decisiones sin ofrecer las explicaciones fundamentadas que está obligado a proporcionar; actúa sin tener en cuenta las expectativas legítimas de los solicitantes, algo que debe considerar; y justifica sus acciones alegando pretextos de ‘seguridad nacional’ que ocultan sentimientos antiinmigrantes, los cuales tiene prohibido permitir que influyan en su toma de decisiones”, escribió. “En términos jurídicos, esto significa que las acciones de USCIS son contrarias a la ley, además de arbitrarias y caprichosas”.

Las políticas adoptadas tras el incidente con disparos de la Guardia Nacional el año pasado supusieron que a los inmigrantes de 39 países de África, Asia, América Latina y Oriente Medio se les vetara “categóricamente” la posibilidad de recibir una resolución definitiva sobre sus solicitudes de asilo, permisos de trabajo, tarjetas de residencia permanente (green cards) y ciudadanía, entre otros trámites.

“Este fallo reafirma un principio fundamental: el gobierno federal no puede cerrar vías legales de inmigración ni discriminar a las personas por su lugar de procedencia”, afirmó Skye Perryman, presidenta y directora ejecutiva de Democracy Forward.

“Estas políticas ilegales causaron un daño enorme a familias, trabajadores, solicitantes de asilo y comunidades de todo el país, dejándolos en un limbo y sin posibilidad de trabajar, acceder a protecciones o seguir adelante con sus vidas”.

Lista de países afectados

La lista de países afectados por la orden de Trump es la siguiente:

África: Angola, Benín, Burundi, Chad, Costa de Marfil, República del Congo, Guinea Ecuatorial, Eritrea, Gabón, Gambia, Malaui, Malí, Mauritania, Nigeria, Níger, Senegal, Sierra Leona, Somalia, Sudán, Sudán del Sur, Tanzania, Togo y Zambia.

América: Antigua y Barbuda, Cuba, Dominica, Haití y Venezuela.

Asia y Medio Oriente: Afganistán, Birmania (Myanmar), Irán, Laos, Siria, Turkmenistán, Yemen y Palestina (documentos emitidos por la Autoridad Palestina).

“They walk among us.” The glowing green letters emerge ominously against a dark backdrop. Above them hover the words “aliens” and “declassified,” suggesting the release — long awaited in some corners of the internet — of secret government files concerning extraterrestrials. Slowly, tantalizingly, more text appears: “For 60 years, the U.S. government has kept a closely guarded secret.” Then the big reveal: It’s not the trailer for a horror film; it’s a White House web page, posted last Thursday. And the scary creatures in question aren’t extraterrestrials; they’re the other kind of aliens — the immigrant kind, the kind hunted by ICE.

“Aliens have been walking among us, living in our neighborhoods and interacting with us in our daily lives,” the page announces. “They’ve shopped in the same stores, attended the same classes as our children and lived seemingly normal human existences.” That’s the joke: Human beings are described as nonhuman invaders. Fascism, but make it a troll.

This web page, which invites users to look up the number of immigrants supposedly arrested on charges of criminal activity in American cities and towns, belongs to a subgenre of Trumpian gestures that are menacing and sophomoric at the same time. “Grotesque and terrifying and juvenile” is how Ernesto Verdeja, a genocide-prevention expert at the University of Notre Dame, described it to me. These gestures are hard to write about: The ugliness is undisguised, so what is there to say? And yet, these statements, step by preposterous step, change the world we live in.

With phrases like “They do not belong here” and “Deport them all,” the page struck me as an incitement for Americans to commit acts of violence against immigrants. But Benjamin Valentino, a professor of government at Dartmouth College, thinks that the purpose of the page is not to get Americans to do anything: It’s to get them to do nothing, while the government commits its campaign of cruelty against millions of people just trying to live in peace. “They want a majority of the population to turn their backs,” he said. “That’s all that’s necessary.”

Valentino co-founded the Early Warning Project, which assesses the risk of mass atrocities around the world. To be sure, anti-immigrant violence in the United States does not approach the scale of the atrocities Valentino usually studies. But the dehumanizing language of the sort used by the Trump administration is, he said, “a pretty standard indicator” of risk, a necessary if insufficient condition of mass violence directed at a particular group.

“It’s not that it turns normal people into murderers,” Valentino said. “It’s that it turns them into bystanders.”

To the extent that the Trump administration has pulled back on its violent anti-immigrant campaign, it has done so because nonimmigrants have stepped up — in the courts and, especially, in the streets. The most dramatic confrontations took place this past winter in Minneapolis, but in the months since the federal government ended its occupation of that city, resistance has continued. In Newark, N.J., demonstrators have been protesting the conditions at the Delaney Hall ICE detention facility. At least 63 people have been arrested in the past week alone. In New York City, a relatively new coalition called Hands Off NYC has, since January, trained more than 7,000 volunteers to peacefully resist ICE. The Aliens web page, Valentino thinks, is intended to discourage this kind of activity.

“The key is that you are supposed to see your city with a big red dot over it,” Valentino said, referring to a map on the website, then click to read, supposedly, the number of immigrants who have been charged with crimes. (For example, “Jamestown, N.Y.: 10; larceny, obstructing the police; Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nigeria.”) “And you see the charges — do you want to risk your life for this kind of person?”

When the page went up, the American Immigration Council, a pro-immigration advocacy organization, happened to be hosting a gathering of data experts. Participants thought they saw something interesting. “The page is poorly coded, badly designed and yet weirdly transparent about some things the administration hasn’t been transparent about before,” Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the council, told me. It appeared that the map was based on raw data of ICE arrests — information that the government had mostly kept secret since the beginning of President Trump’s current term. The map is possibly the best document to date of the scale of the ICE campaign, which, it shows, has raged not only in big cities but in small towns, where it’s sometimes less visible.

As is usual for the Trump administration, the figures are decontextualized and misrepresented. In addition to the map, the page contains a supposed tally of “encounters,” a term that has one meaning in 1970s sci-fi and another in Customs and Border Protection-speak, where it typically refers to instances in which immigrants are apprehended. What struck me after spending too much time staring at the page was that it wants you to be afraid of all aliens: the space kind and the “illegal” kind, but also the “legal” kind, foreign-born people who have been living in this country for decades. As for the counter, it’s tracking nothing. The numbers just tick upward at a perfectly steady pace, one every second and a bit.

Underscoring the sophomoric aspect of this astonishing document is the fact that it’s shot through with references to “The X-Files.” I caught only one of them: The last lines say, “The truth is no longer out there. It’s right here. Right now” — a nod to the show’s tag line. Verdeja, the Notre Dame professor, grew up with the show, so he pointed out some other echoes, such as the combination of interplanetary warfare and a deep-state conspiracy. But superimposed on all that pop culture are the white supremacist tropes. The sentences about aliens “walking among us, living in our neighborhoods,” Verdeja said, read to him like invocations of the Great Replacement theory, which has become so familiar as to seem almost mainstream. “It’s similar to the way Jews were talked about in Europe in the 1920s and ’30s,” Verdeja said.

He made the comparison gingerly, wary of falling into an alarmist cliché. But the ideologues of Trump’s immigration policies are taking no such pains. A couple of days after the “Aliens” page was published, Gregory Bovino, the former head of the U.S. Border Patrol who oversaw the federal immigration operation in Minneapolis, traveled to Portugal for a meeting of far-right politicians to discuss “remigration,” a concept that refers to the forcible displacement of millions of people on the basis of their ethnicity in the wake of World War I — what we now call ethnic cleansing.

Driven by the same nativist and xenophobic ideas, the United States adopted the Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924, which ended mass immigration by introducing national-origin quotas designed to favor Northern and Western Europeans and exclude nonwhite immigrants almost entirely. These quotas stayed in place for four decades — until they were repealed just over 60 years ago, which is when the White House page claims the story of the aliens begins.

The point of making historical connections is not to say that any two actions, or any two eras, are exactly alike. Context always changes. But it’s important to see that this web page isn’t just a troll. It didn’t come out of nowhere. Provocations like this are part of an old and terrible story, and it’s still being written today.

A half dozen arrests were made Saturday during demonstrations outside the federal Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles on the one-year anniversary of the start of immigration raids in the city.

The Los Angeles Police Department reported at 1:36 p.m. Saturday that motorists should use caution in the area of Alameda Street between Temple and Aliso streets because demonstrators were blocking at least one lane of traffic and crossing the road between moving vehicles.

The LAPD then reported at 3:57 p.m. that federal authorities were making arrests in the area and that demonstrators were blocking southbound traffic, causing a hazard.

Six arrests were made, LAPD PIO David Cuellar said on Sunday. It was not immediately clear what charges the people who were arrested would face.

The protest came after an event marking one year since a series of immigration raids began in Los Angeles. Mayor Karen Bass attended with leaders of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA). The arrests were unrelated to the event.

“We will always protect our neighbors, and we continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with immigrant families in L.A. and everywhere,” said Bass. “So much of our city’s strength is because of hardworking immigrants — and when the federal government and ICE test our strength, we rise stronger every time.”

The gathering “brought together families directly impacted by immigration enforcement, community advocates and civic leaders to reflect on the human consequences of the raids and honor the resilience of immigrant communities across the region,” according to a press release.

“A year after the cruel immigration surge that shook all Angelenos, our message is clear: Fear did not defeat us, cruelty did not divide us and militarization did not silence us,” said CHIRLA Executive Director Angelica Salas. “We remember, we resist, and we recommit ourselves to the struggle for justice, dignity and the humanity of every Angeleno.”

City News Service sought comment from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which responded by stating, “While Mayor Karen Bass continues to release pedophiles, rapists, gang members and murderers onto the streets, our brave law enforcement will continue to risk their lives to arrest these heinous criminals and make Los Angeles safe again.” The statement included a list of five suspects with criminal records whom the department stated were arrested in Los Angeles.

For more than two weeks, at least 300 detainees at the Delaney Hall immigration detention center have been on a hunger and labor strike. They describe “horrible” conditions at the Newark, New Jersey, facility: spoiled food, inadequate medical care and poor living conditions. Others have alleged physical abuse by guards, including being beaten and pepper-sprayed by a riot squad, causing some detainees to be rushed to the hospital. They’re calling for a meeting with the New Jersey governor, Mikie Sherrill, to urge the immediate release of all detainees from the privately operated 1,000-bed center. As of now, the Department of Homeland Security has partly restored family visitation at the center and released pregnant detainees.

To raise the alarm, protests have persisted outside Delaney, and violent clashes between demonstrators and law enforcement officials have escalated. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have wielded batons and used pepper spray and stun guns against protesters, journalists and a US senator. Federal authorities arrested demonstrators on allegations of assaulting law enforcement officers, and Sherrill deployed the New Jersey state police to the protests, leading to the arrests of more than 60 people in a single night. Meanwhile, ICE officers abruptly transferred Martin Soto, a detainee held in solitary confinement for being a suspected strike leader.

Soto’s story, and that of the hundreds of detainees on strike, fits into a long history of immigrant incarceration – and how detainees resisted – said Jessica Ordaz, a historian and professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado Boulder and the author of The Shadow of El Centro: A History of Migrant Incarceration and Solidarity. Strikes have been reported at other facilities across the country, including in New Mexico and California, where detainees are protesting over water quality, mold and a lack of medical care.

“The conditions we are seeing today have been present for generations,” said Ordaz. “And there have always been protests from inside, but it’s the same narrative and the system of immigration control hasn’t been curtailed.”

The Guardian talked to Ordaz about the conditions at Delaney Hall, the history of hunger and labor strikes at detention centers, and why repression and resistance persist in tandem.

What is your reaction to what you’re seeing at Delaney Hall in Newark?

As a historian of migrant incarceration, it’s maddening because many of the elements we are seeing today – from folks being detained and treated like shit to sometimes being murdered, because of a lack of food or medical supplies, to protest repression – happens decade after decade after decade. The conditions haven’t changed. It’s the same narrative of migrants just being given ibuprofen for major health conditions, for example. The only change is that the system of immigration control has gotten more resources and power and has not been curtailed in any way.

Can you walk me through some of that history? What moments stand out to you as especially egregious and when detainees fought back?

This goes back to when the policing of migration became more institutionalized with the passage of anti-immigrant laws specifically targeting Chinese immigrants along the US-Mexico border in the 1800s. The conditions we’re seeing today, at centers such as Delaney Hall, have been rampant from the mid-1800s.

In my book, I focus on El Centro, which was representative of other centers across the country. It started as a camp for a service processing center in 1945, according to the government. The use of undocumented Mexican labor to build the very prison that would imprison, if not them, their family members, their future generations, is a big part of immigrant incarceration and why strikes began as a tool of resistance. Labor plays such a big role – in order to have this place of incarceration, the federal government felt very comfortable using forced labor.

They would threaten them and say, “We’re not going to give you jobs” or “We’re not going to give you food” or “We’re gonna deport you” or “We’re gonna hurt you physically”. They were basically held captive in the 1940s, and that story continues today, since in some facilities, folks are paid two cents for their labor. There’s a big economic thread, a forced-labor thread, and a racial capitalism thread that has existed at El Centro from the 1940s to the present that is happening across the entire detention system.

Can you say more about the labor component? How has forced labor led to resistance?

Escaping was the earliest form of protest.

In the 40s, they took the predominantly Mexican migrant population into areas along the [southern] border to help with cleanup, land maintenance or to gather materials to bring back to the detention center. That’s where INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] found themselves frustrated, according to the records: of course, people tried to escape, and in a lot of cases, they did so successfully because they were so close to the US-Mexico border. And at that point, a lot of the detainees were repatriating in a way, too.

What kinds of protests followed?

It’s around the 1960s when we see an uptick of sources that talk about protests via petitions and hunger strikes and advocating with lawyers by writing their testimonies as forms of resistance. So there’s a tradition of people becoming aware of the kinds of tactics that are “successful”. This timeline coincides with the kind of uprisings that took place across other kinds of prisons in the US in the 1970s and the civil unrest that took place across other areas of the country as well.

And what is the history of hunger strikes as a resistance tactic?

At El Centro, the Bracero program, which was a labor program set up by the US and Mexican governments to let millions of Mexican men enter the country legally on short-term work contracts, played such a pivotal role because El Centro was one of the processing centers for the program. So a lot of braceros [the historical term for the laborers in the program] were processed into El Centro and worked in the Imperial Valley in agriculture.

From there, food became one of the main grievances that Mexican laborers had because they were essentially fed burritos, which maybe some of us consider a Latinx foodway today, but at the time, a lot of migrants were coming from different states where that was not their traditional food. There was quite a bit of protest. They had to pay for the food, and then the food was the cheapest thing that you could possibly feed someone, to lower costs and increase profit in immigration detention centers.

And what’s still true today is that they are given really low-quality, low-nutrient food, not enough food, or food that’s actively making them sick. Food is often used more as punishment.

How bad do conditions need to get for detainees to stand up and risk their lives by fighting for better conditions and to be released?

It’s always been that bad. It’s mostly a matter of resisting to a level that gets the news of the conditions out to the public. There hasn’t been a period when conditions have been better. This is why sometimes detained people, whether it be migrants or detained people in prisons, turn to suicide or cutting. Ultimately, they’re literally giving up their lives, because they have nothing else to lose. They’re living through hell, and the idea is that if this gets out to the world, maybe the world will pay attention.

Historically, have detainees been able to get their demands met?

There were some tangible changes that were made [at El Centro], but if you’re asking how things have changed 20-30 years later, things have regressed instead of progressed.

Anyone who’s been to the Imperial Valley knows that in the summer, it is utterly hot. And at the time, everyone at El Centro was not allowed to be indoors during the day. At peak heat hours, they were corralled in an outdoor space with no shade. So one of their grievances was: “Can you give us shade? Can you give us time to be indoors because we’re dehydrated?” They did get granted that one thing.

But in the end, some people were deported, transferred or ended up in the hospital with severe wounds. The trauma that causes lasts a lifetime. That was it – that was the success from a tangible perspective.

It sounds like it has taken a lot of different efforts for things to change just marginally. Talk to me about a multi-tactic approach.

It definitely takes a multi-tactic approach. At El Centro, solidarity between the inside and outside was a big part of the story.

There have been so many moments when prisoners, whether they be migrants or not, resist or actively protest or have demands, but the powers that be don’t bend unless they feel like they have to. Usually, what that means is they get a lot of pressure from the outside.

For the prisoners inside, it’s hard to say that they should do this or that since they’re just surviving and resisting in whatever way they can. But for the outside activism, activists have been at this for a very long time. So what’s worked in the past is turning to a new generation of folks. The movement has always needed people to be everywhere: people who are working with politicians, people who are going to do a sit-in in the middle of the freeway to get the attention of the public. Solidarity has been a big part of the strategy, even solidarity between various organizations that might initially have different goals.

We don’t see widespread systemic change immediately, but activism can get one person released, and then another person released, and maybe one less resource for ICE. That all minimizes the carceral state.

Is there a bigger pattern we’re not seeing that history could teach us something about?

Sometimes the focus is so present-focused, which I completely understand. But we have to look at the roots of the situation.

We can take the idea of “abolish ICE”, for example. Well-informed folks call for this all the time. But it seems that people don’t have the understanding that ICE has existed for a very short period. Abolishing ICE doesn’t mean that all of this would be resolved.

Greater contextualization would get us to think about the role of empire. We’ve been treating migrants and immigrants so terribly for so long, and we’ve been policing our borders. So we should be asking: “Why are people coming here?” The US has, for a very long time, been actively involved in recruiting migrants to the US. And it has also caused a lot of displacement around the world, whether it be economic or environmental. We need to get at the roots of why people migrate. That would allow for a deeper conversation of why this continues to happen, why we continue to see stories of repression and resistance inside of detention centers year after year.

California’s population exploded during and immediately after World War II, from 6.9 million in 1940 to 19.9 million in 1970, thanks to waves of migrants from other states drawn to California’s surging economy and the famous postwar baby boom.

California absorbed its 13 million new residents by expanding its public infrastructure of schools, colleges, highways, parks and water systems and by welcoming immense private investment in new housing, new retail complexes, new factories and new office buildings.

Population growth slowed in the 1970s in the aftermath of the baby boom and as an economic evolution, from manufacturing to technology and services, changed the job market. The leading politician of the decade, Gov. Jerry Brown, declared that California had entered “an era of limits” and major infrastructure expansion was no longer needed.

However, the 1980s saw a new population surge, driven by immigration from other countries and a new baby boom. California’s population jumped by 6 million — 5-plus million of them babies — during the decade, a more than 25% gain.

The increase was so large, relative to the nation as a whole, that California was awarded seven new congressional seats after the 1990 census.

Unlike California’s expansive reaction to its postwar population increase, the 1980s boomlet sparked an adverse reaction in the 1990s, including new laws aimed at denying public services to undocumented immigrants and a power struggle within the Sierra Club over immigration’s impact on the environment.

Meanwhile, population growth slowed again, and in this decade virtually halted as immigration and birth rates declined and substantial numbers of people left California, thanks largely to the state’s sky-high living costs.

A recent study by researchers Hans Johnson, Julien LaFortune and Eric McGhee at the Public Policy Institute of California found that the total fertility rate has dropped from 2.21 children per woman in 2007 to 1.48 in 2023, far below what demographers call the “replacement level of 2.1 necessary to keep a population from declining.”

The state lost a congressional seat after the 2020 census and is likely to lose several more after the 2030 census. However, the impacts of California’s population plateau extend far beyond politics.

“A smaller population can offer benefits; it reduces pressure on housing and infrastructure needs,” the researchers wrote, “easing congestion and reducing the need for expansive public works projects.” They also cited potential improvements in the environment and increasing per pupil spending on education as enrollment declines.

“At the same time,” they added, “fewer births — and a smaller population — may bring challenges: they could accelerate K–12 enrollment declines and strain the state’s economic and safety net systems as fewer workers support a larger share of older Californians. Labor shortages could also hinder California’s economic development.”

Those are all valid points and many more potential impacts could be mentioned. But the underlying issue is whether political policies will reflect the new demographic reality.

The post-World War II population explosion manifested itself in a bipartisan effort to do what was needed to make the transition relatively painless. We haven’t seen such political adjustment to changing demographic trends since.

Meanwhile, the state’s population is twice what it was in 1970 and we still depend on what politicians wrought in the post-war era — such things as the State Water Plan and our extensive freeway network.

A stagnant population eases pressure for new infrastructure but we still need to maintain what we have and expand it to meet current needs. However, water projects have languished and we no longer build new highways.

Jerry Brown, who proclaimed the “era of limits” in the 1970s, returned to the governorship in 2011 and declared, “I want to get shit done.”

There’s still much that should be done.

Highlandtown buzzed during the neighborhood’s First Friday Art Walk in November. Locals and non-locals alike flocked to the community’s business corridor on and around Eastern Avenue.

But something has changed in the last six months.

Morale is low, some business owners say, and people are scared. Fridays, once reliable as high-traffic days for business owners, are now “like a ghost town,” said Franchesca Nuñez, owner of Franchesca’s Empanadas Café. “Any other Friday, you would see people just walking around, but, unfortunately, you don’t see that anymore.”

Inflation, tariffs, the slashing of federal agencies and jobs, rising rents and utility bills are putting pressure on the ability of consumers everywhere to spend. But in some neighborhoods, including in East Baltimore, the increase in raids and detainments by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has added a new layer of uncertainty for business owners and their customers.

The impact is being felt hard in Highlandtown and nearby neighborhoods with vibrant Latino and immigrant populations, as well as among numerous immigrant business owners.

Across the nation, fear, anger and protests over the Trump administration’s mass deportation efforts reached new heights starting in January, after ICE agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis.

In April, an ICE pursuit that led agents into the Ovenbird Bakery in Highlandtown shook up staff and patrons. Students, teachers and parents are concerned about the frequent spotting of dark, unmarked vehicles and people in green vests and military gear near the local schools.

Some stores in Highlandtown now have signs in their windows: “ICE IS NOT WELCOME HERE.” In Spanish, “ICE NO ES BIENVENIDO AQUÍ.”

With mounting economic and political pressure, business owners worry that careful neighborhood development over the past 20 years could backslide and speed up gentrification.

Johanna Barrantes, a former small-business project manager at the Southeast Community Development Corporation, said the ICE activity could continue to affect the local economy long after agents leave.

Highlandtown stretches 10 blocks from South Ellwood Street along Patterson Park to the industrial-lined South Haven Street. In 2020, nearly 3,000 people lived there, up 9% from the previous decade, according to Baltimore City’s Department of Planning Policy and Data Analysis Division. The majority-white neighborhood was once predominantly occupied by German, Polish and Italian immigrants, but the Latino population grew 13% between 2010 and 2020.

Highlandtown had long been a thriving shopping district, but by the 1990s, it was grappling with white flight to other city neighborhoods and the suburbs. Commercial vacancy rates reached 30% in 2004, according to the Southeast CDC.

That organization and partners focused on landing tenants for large commercial properties, thinking that smaller storefronts would then fill in.

In 2003, the Creative Alliance moved from Fells Point to renovate the Patterson Theater space. An Enoch Pratt Free Library branch opened in 2007, replacing the demolished Grand Theater. Haussner’s Restaurant, which closed in 1999, was demolished in 2016 to make way for the Highland Haus Apartments.

Amanda Smit-Peters, the Southeast CDC’s Highlandtown Main Street manager, and Barrantes said that Latino and other immigrant business owners have also been integral in turning things around. Their investment has allowed the community to grow “so that now we can all enjoy the benefits of an area that has developed culture, identity and richness,” Barrantes said.

The Southeast CDC’s 2024 Project Restore Highlandtown program matched three businesses — Harp Vision, Bao Di and Highwire Improv — with previously vacant commercial properties.

Harp Vision, the wellness brand owned by April and Tyron Harper, moved from a stall in Lexington Market to South Conkling Street last year. The thriving small-business ecosystem brought them to Highlandtown.

“I saw a lot of small businesses, which I don’t see in the neighborhood where we live,” Harper said. “We can do this if we’re in the right community.”

Highlandtown closed out 2025 with a commercial vacancy rate of around 9.16%, according to the organization’s annual report.

Residential vacancies are down, too, and home values are up. The median sales price in the last 12 months was $350,000, according to Homes.com, up by 15% from the year prior.

ICE’s lingering presence may be causing irreparable damage, some in the neighborhood fear.

“There are some businesses around here that aren’t getting any customers at all,” said Tyron Harper. “Our [foot traffic] has dropped significantly.”

Carlos Urrutia, a barber at Elegance Barbershop on Eastern Avenue, said he is seeing fewer customers. He immigrated to the U.S. three years ago, bringing more than 30 years of hair-cutting experience to Baltimore.

“I have indeed felt, in one way or another, affected by immigration policies,” Urrutia said.

Some people have been detained; others have voluntarily left. Nevertheless, he and others are continuing to seek citizenship or permanent status “so that we may contribute to this country in the most meaningful way possible.”

George Hindoyan, originally from Syria, said his men’s clothing store, Geno’s Menswear on Eastern Avenue, is also experiencing a drop in foot traffic. Business over the last six months is the worst it’s been since he opened there in 1994.

“All the people moved out. There’s nobody left on the street to come shopping anymore,” he said. Hindoyan believes that a lot of his customers, many of whom were Latino, moved out of Baltimore — and potentially out of the country.

Vintage and antique store Rust-N-Shine, on Conkling Street, was packed during the First Friday Art Walk in November. At the event in April, only a few customers were inside, despite better weather after a long, frigid winter.

Ross’s storefront now features the English version of the anti-ICE sign, courtesy of the Baltimore branch of the Party of Socialism and Liberation. The group started organizing in Highlandtown last summer after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, received an infusion of federal funding.

The Party of Socialism and Liberation has hosted volunteer community outreach events in Highlandtown since October. After a brief orientation and training, volunteers take to the streets to educate, advocate and hand out signs and little red cards with scripted instructions for handling ICE encounters.

Businesses in other neighborhoods have posted similar signs barring ICE from their stores.

“The reception has been really positive,” said Rachel Kiefer, organizer with the Party of Socialism and Liberation.

The goal is to spread information about business owners’ rights and how they invoke them if necessary. But “it also has this collateral effect, which we’re really pleased about: that it gives people hope,” she said.

Mayor Brandon Scott and Catalina Rodriguez Lima, director of the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs, made their rounds at local businesses on Eastern Avenue in Highlandtown in March as part of the Scott administration’s “Know Your Rights” public information campaign.

Barrantes and Smit-Peters, who work very closely with businesses in the area, are “deeply worried” about the future of the neighborhood.

“If folks are feeling that they have to make tough decisions about their businesses,” Barrantes said, “that means that our healthy vacancy rate is going to go up a little faster than it would if it were just a regular turnaround for businesses.”

At a Florida Highway Patrol substation in Davie, Gov. DeSantis and other state leaders recently boasted the results of three immigration operations, including one that netted 250 arrests in Broward County.

But a week after the celebratory event, basic facts about the Broward operation — like what days they occurred, where in Broward, as well as the names and records of those arrested — remain unknown, a WLRN review has found.

WLRN raised these questions with the law enforcement agencies involved, Florida Highway Patrol, the Broward Sheriff’s Office and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. None answered them.

It’s representative of the tortuous process to collect reliable information about immigration enforcement in Florida today, according to Thomas Kennedy, a consultant with the Florida Immigration Coalition (FLIC).

“You’re stuck in this sort of loop, that is just infuriating,” Kennedy said.

The immediate impact — and potentially the point, Kennedy contends — is that it’s harder to gather facts about what’s happening.

“When we don’t have good data to discern if racial profiling, if civil rights abuses are happening, we can’t properly, or it makes it difficult for us to, advocate for those that are being harmed by these policies,” he said.

Transparency praise

The Broward press conference on May 29 was announced to the media the morning of, with three-and-a-half hours’ notice.

DeSantis, flanked by law enforcement leaders in his cabinet, said “Operation Sandhill Sentinel, 9.0” focused on “repeat immigration violators and individuals with criminal history.”

The governor listed crimes, like domestic violence and assault, that were “tied to” the people arrested.

DeSantis said South Florida is safer as a result. Dave Kerner, the executive director of Florida Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, praised the governor and his agency’s transparency.

Kerner’s agency oversees the Florida Highway Patrol, which has transformed from a traffic-focused state agency into an engine for immigration enforcement.

That authority stems from a federal program known as 287(g). FHP has embraced it since President Trump returned to the presidency and began a nationwide crackdown on immigrants without legal status. Kerner recently told Fox News that troopers have arrested more than 10,000 undocumented immigrants since early 2025.

“We’re very proud of our work product. We’re very proud of our ability to be transparent about it,” Kerner said at the press conference.

“It’s important as law enforcement officers and as representatives of the government that we communicate with the public about what we do and how we do it,” he said.

Questions unanswered

After the press conference, WLRN reached out with specific questions about the operation — information that was not provided there: What days did it take place? Where in Broward County? How many detained immigrants had criminal records and how many did not?

Kerner’s deputy director of communications, Madison Kessler, responded and linked to the press release — which had no different information — and suggested watching a video of the press conference.

WLRN followed back up, and asked for an interview with a FHP official to explain more about the operation.

Kessler did not respond.

WLRN then called FHP’s public information officer for the Broward region, Lt. Indiana Miranda, twice, and left a voicemail.

The outlet also sent a public records request to FHP, which has not been answered.

The ‘loop’

WLRN went to the Broward Sheriff’s Office, which has historically been against participating in immigration sweeps, to seek information.

Reached by phone, Veda Coleman-Wright — director of the public information office — said that BSO was both required to participate in the operation and could not answer any questions.

WLRN followed up with a public records request, which was denied.

“I need to refer you back to (DHS). The feds have the arrest paperwork. Our folks don’t have a list or copies,” Coleman-Wright wrote in an email.

WLRN emailed DHS. The South Florida spokesperson for U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement, which DHS oversees, is Nestor Yglesias.

Yglesias went on Operation Sandhill Sentinel and told Fox News about it.

Asked by WLRN for an interview about his first-hand account, Yglesias declined.

“FHP was the lead I would refer you to them,” he wrote.

Activist films operation

One of the few places to learn more about FHP’s operations has been the Facebook page of a conservative activist. He has had a front-row seat to these operations and films them for his viewers.

Ben Bergquam is unabashedly pro-Trump and pro-immigration enforcement, riding along on operations with FHP and ICE.

“It’s 6 a.m. We’re here in Broward County. Going out on a joint op in Florida Highway Patrol,” Bergquam said in his video on the operation. “Going to catch some bad guys. Let’s roll.”

In his video, Bergquam interviews an immigration officer, films arrested immigrants on the side of Florida highways being loaded into police cars and shows the faces of the detained in the Davie FHP station where they were processed.

Bergquam admittedly injects his opinion into the encounters, which he said he supports. He blamed the prior presidential administration under President Biden.

“The only reason they’re getting picked up now is because of the operation that ICE is jointly (doing) with state troopers,” he said. “God bless ICE.”

On Friday, WLRN briefly reached Bergquam by phone and asked for an interview about what he saw.

He politely declined and said, for specifics, it would be best to reach out to law enforcement.

The immigration appeals judges long viewed as the last refuge for those fighting to stay in the U.S. are now central to President Donald Trump’s deportation machine.

The Board of Immigration Appeals, composed almost entirely of Trump appointees, has for months issued rulings that upend long-established interpretations of U.S. law, giving judges a manual for detaining and deporting immigrants, according to a draft analysis by University of Georgia law professor Jason Cade obtained by NBC News.

In a little over a year, the board has limited and restricted the criteria allowing an immigrant to stay in the country and, in turn, ordered the detention and removal of many people who could previously work and live in the U.S. while they await decisions on asylum and other requests.

The appeals judges fall under the executive branch, separate from the judiciary, answering to the U.S. attorney general and the president. Like other administrative boards, they set rules and regulations — and sometimes policy — through their decisions and publicly proposed rules.

In the past decade, the board issued roughly 14 to 28 precedent-setting decisions each year that set guidelines for judges to rely on, said Cade, who directs the University of Georgia Law Center’s Community Health Law Partnership, which focuses on immigrants and health.

But Cade noticed a change after Trump took office last year: The number of decisions the board designated as precedent-setting jumped, with 100 such decisions published between Jan. 31, 2025, and April 14, 2026. They followed an “unmistakable pattern,” he said.

“No matter what an immigrant suffered, no matter what Congress intended, no matter what the hearing-level judge found, the answer is removal,” Cade writes in his analysis, which is slated for an August publication in the Yale Law Journal Forum, an online publication of the Yale Law Journal.

The rulings, which have led to mandatory detentions and deportations, applied to people awaiting asylum decisions, children deemed to have been abused, neglected or abandoned in their native countries, and immigrants assisting law enforcement but stuck in a long queue awaiting visas.

Trump’s BIA has limited what evidence and factors it relies on to decide whether immigrants might be persecuted or tortured if they’re returned to their home country. It has also raised the bar for allowing certain immigrants to stay in the country, such as family members who may be caregivers to spouses or disabled children.

The board has made it tougher for immigrants with U.S.-citizen children to show their removal will lead to hardship, including in cases where the children are developmentally delayed or where the immigrant is the main breadwinner.

It has tightened rules for immigration court proceedings, which has resulted in the deportations of more immigrants with open green card, asylum or other immigration applications.

Cade also found that Pam Bondi used her authority as Trump’s attorney general to overturn previous precedent-setting decisions, such as a Biden-era ruling that renewed pathways for asylum claims based on domestic violence and gang persecution.

In only two cases Cade reviewed did the immigrant win the ability to remain in the country. Even so, one of those decisions may be reversed, he said.

In an emailed statement attributed to an unidentified Department of Justice spokesperson, the administration said the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the BIA, “is restoring integrity to the immigration adjudication system.”

The agency said the BIA’s decisions “reflect straightforward interpretations of clear statutory language.”

“Under the leadership of Chief Appellate Immigration Judge Garry Malphrus, the BIA is now recommitted to following the law and fulfilling its core adjudicatory mission,” the DOJ spokesperson said.

The email also said EOIR does not comment on decisions, adding that “the decision speaks for itself.”

Marlon Bayas, an attorney in Newark, New Jersey, said he was shocked when the board refused to reopen an asylum case for his former client and her children.

The woman in the case, known as Matter of Z-R-C-N, had been defrauded by a person she believed to be an attorney but was not, Bayas said. The person she thought was a lawyer had told her his wife was ill and so he could not go with her to her asylum hearing before an immigration judge, who denied her claim and ordered her removed.

Bayas said he thought the BIA would agree to reopen her case because of previous decisions regarding ineffective counsel that were decided favorably for the immigrant.

The woman had a grammar school education in her country, was not proficient in English, and the person she thought was an attorney had been recommended by others in the community. But the judges refused to reopen her case, deciding she should have known the man wasn’t an attorney.

While the woman’s case was pending, her two children had been approved for visas for children who are abused, neglected or abandoned. The visas are known as special immigrant juvenile visas. The mother’s ex-husband in Ecuador had abused the children and the family had fled from him, according to Bayas.

Once juveniles obtain SIJ visas, they can apply for legal permanent residence, but at the time the children were approved, there was a four-year wait for the visa. The BIA did not see that as enough to keep them from being removed from the country, Bayas said.

“What’s the whole point of having [the SIJ visa] if you can’t wait here until a visa becomes available?” Bayas said, noting that’s why Congress created this category of protection in the first place.

The family is challenging the removal order with a new lawyer who is representing them in federal court, Bayas said.

But about 40% of immigrants don’t have attorneys to fight their case in federal judicial court, which is the next opportunity for appeal beyond the BIA. Others don’t go forward for various reasons, making their appeal to the BIA their last chance to avoid removal.

When Trump took office, he slashed the number of judges on the board from 28 to 15 permanent members, removing all those appointed under President Joe Biden.

All but one were appointed by Bondi. Other presidents have shaped the board and immigration courts to further their immigration goals, but “the current administration has gone further, faster, and with less institutional resistance,” Cade said.

An immigration judge has already said Kiara Soward’s husband should be sent back to the pro-Russian country of Georgia, where he was beaten for political activity. His lawyer will try to get that overturned before the BIA.

But Soward, who used her maiden name to protect her husband from retaliation in detention, told NBC News she has doubts about his chances before the board, because “they’re trying to change the definition of asylum here.”

Soward said that in his native country, her husband had attended rallies, advocated to “get equal human rights” and had been targeted by local police, who beat him in a police car and threatened to kill him. His records show he was beaten so badly, he suffered head trauma and was in intensive care, she said.

After he made a statement to the government about the beating, the police visited his home and threatened to kill him if he didn’t retract his statement, said Soward, who is a U.S.-born citizen.

The couple has two young children in the U.S., including one who is autistic. That child has attached himself mostly to her husband, said Soward, who also is pregnant.

Soward said the immigration judge only asked two questions when her husband had his removal hearing.

The judge asked what happened when the police came to his home and what happened at one of the political rallies he attended.

“It was definitely world-shattering to come this far and fight this long, and him not even have a chance to tell his asylum story or fight for his case,” Soward said.

Now, they wait for a hearing before the BIA and hope for the best.

One of the ways the board has been controlling outcomes is by narrowing protections for immigrants who fear persecution, Cade said. The largest cluster of cases he reviewed were such decisions, he said. The BIA did that by closing entire categories of claims before immigration judges considered the individual facts of each claim.

The BIA is also giving those with a criminal history, including in cases involving misdemeanors or wrongful conviction, far less leeway to avoid removal.

The board’s changes and the subsequent stepped-up detentions and deportations reverberate well beyond an immigrant’s individual case.

“Outcomes they shape don’t just affect the noncitizens who are making the claim in immigration court,” Cade said. “It also affects and shapes life outcomes for their U.S.-citizen spouses, for their children and other family members, and community members and friends tied to those cases.”

The Trump administration was on the brink of a major immigration showdown last week in Newark, the first in a blue state since its botched operation in Minneapolis early this year.

By Thursday, the White House had dispatched Tom Homan to meet with state and local officials, just as it did when tensions in Minnesota boiled over. The administration helped secure the Delaney Hall detention site, and the border czar met with local Democrats and state police, claiming later they agreed to most of his demands, including establishing protest zones. Democrats said the Department of Homeland Security fulfilled their ask to restore family visitation to the detention facility.

“We all figured Tom was gonna come out with a compromise solution,” said an administration official, granted anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

Whether the relative calm holds is yet to be seen, but the decision to deploy Homan reflects a playbook the administration is increasingly relying on to respond to heightened unrest. And it underscores the border czar’s enduring influence inside the Trump administration as one of the president’s top aides on immigration policy.

Serving as an adviser to both the president and DHS, the 40-year veteran of immigration enforcement has emerged as a central figure in navigating politically sensitive immigration disputes in blue states. Often sidelined during top-level DHS enforcement strategy discussions during former Secretary Kristi Noem’s tenure, he has become the administration’s preferred envoy for negotiating with Democratic officials when resistance to the president’s immigration agenda intensifies.

People close to the White House note that Homan, who was awarded a presidential rank award for his work as a top immigration official under former President Barack Obama, has street credibility with Democrats in a way other top Trump officials do not. The White House tapped him in Minneapolis to take over the operation after two U.S. citizens were killed by federal agents, and he was also one of the top officials negotiating immigration funding on Capitol Hill, even though the White House and Democrats ultimately failed to reach a deal.

“Where Stephen Miller is tied at the hip to somebody like Trump — so they’re not going to negotiate with Miller — Democrats may be more willing to have some kind of conversations with Homan,” said a Republican close to the White House, granted anonymity to speak about the dynamic.

The administration has shifted its approach to immigration enforcement since the Minneapolis surge earlier this year went awry. DHS has new leadership, officials have moved away from the flashy, high-profile raids that drew national attention and bipartisan criticism and DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin has abandoned many of the controversial Noem-era policies. But the unrest at the Delaney Hall detention facility in Newark underscores that despite that recalibration, opposition to the president’s immigration agenda is still simmering, particularly in Democratic strongholds where local officials and activists remain eager to challenge enforcement actions.

Still, as local officials announced Thursday that they plan to scale back local police presence outside of Delaney Hall, Homan made a public threat to bring in the National Guard, which could further escalate tensions.

“You got to do your public safety job,” Homan said on Fox News. “And if you don’t, President Trump has no problem deploying the National Guard up here.”

Last week, images and videos surfaced showing violent clashes between protesters and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents outside of Delaney Hall, a 1,000-bed, privately run immigration detention facility, amid allegations about poor conditions and a detainee hunger strike. Democratic lawmakers showed up at the facility, criticizing detention conditions and accusing agents of violence against demonstrators. Mullin added more fuel to the fire when he threatened to pull customs staff from Newark Liberty International Airport, a warning that, according to three administration officials granted anonymity to speak candidly, shocked some inside the administration and spurred fears of travel chaos throughout the airline industry.

Homan spent five days on the ground, meeting with Democratic local and state officials, as well as local law enforcement to discuss options for quelling protests. He showed up at Delaney Hall and ate spaghetti with detainees, in a bid to counter allegations of “unsanitary” conditions.

He said this week that he met with Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, the head of police, state troopers and also had several calls with Gov. Mikie Sherrill.

“From the minute I walked in and talked with the mayor and the chief of police, I said ‘we need you to stop traffic to the area … we need you to put protest areas so they can peacefully protest,'” Homan said on Fox. “We need law enforcement to do their public safety job because up until that time, they were not responding to 911 calls from our officers being attacked. So I left that meeting with about 70 percent of what I wanted, but within a couple of hours, we got everything we wanted.”

New Jersey Democrats have also claimed credit for helping defuse the volatile situation. Sherrill sent State Police to anti-ICE protests in Newark in an effort to “lower the temperature” and avoid further federal intervention. Many of these announcements came after Homan arrived in town: a day after he touched down, Sherrill announced a plan to establish protest zones. A curfew was also announced last weekend, which has since been lifted.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson pointed to Homan’s decades of law enforcement experience and “proven track record” in helping deliver on the president’s vow to deport unauthorized immigrants. She said “time and time again he has proven how effective he is at advancing” the president’s agenda across the country, “working with both Democrat and Republican local officials.”

Democrats, including Baraka, are reluctant to give Homan much credit for easing tensions on the White House’s behalf. He acknowledged that Homan advocated for a greater local police presence and in recent days, the State Police and then the Newark Police stepped in to keep protesters away from Delaney Hall. But the Democratic mayor of New Jersey’s largest city rejected the idea that Homan influenced his decisions.

“He asked us to do things that we refused to do,” Baraka said Tuesday during a press conference. “Ultimately, our decisions, us being out front in Delaney Hall, has nothing to do with Tom Homan.”

Homan is a complicated figure for Democrats, still viewed as one of the architects of the Trump administration’s family separation policy and one of the most vocal advocates of the president’s vow to deport millions of unauthorized immigrants. But Trump aides and allies also argue out of anyone, his immigration expertise — and lack of broader political ambitions — best positions him to negotiate with the left.

“I think that for a lot of people, he’s kind of the poster person for the mass deportation agenda. But for him this is not an ideological thing, or a political thing. It’s a mission that shouldn’t be politicized at all. He was respected by people, senior politically appointed people under the Obama administration,” said a second person close to the White House, granted anonymity to speak candidly.

“For him, it’s a very clear cut mission, and there are common sense, operational needs and he feels that he can get people to understand that.”

A federal judge in Rhode Island on Friday blocked a series of Trump administration measures that have prevented federal officials from granting asylum, green cards and other legal immigration benefits to many immigrants in the U.S.

In a 135-page opinion, Chief Judge John McConnell of the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island found the sweeping limits on legal immigration benefits to be arbitrary and capricious, contrary to federal law.

One of the policies McConnell invalidated had halted all legal immigration applications filed by citizens of 39 countries listed on President Trump’s so-called “travel ban” list, which restricts travel from countries whose nationals the administration says are too difficult to properly screen.

The Trump administration adopted the measures late last year on national security grounds, following the shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, D.C. An Afghan man who was brought to the U.S. in 2021 and granted asylum in 2025 has been charged with the shooting.

For months, the pause has largely banned officials at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services from giving out green cards, work permits, American citizenship and other benefits to citizens of the affected countries, many of them in Africa and Asia.

Initially, the policies also included a complete pause on the hundreds of thousands of asylum cases overseen by USCIS, regardless of the applicant’s nationality. In March, USCIS partially lifted the asylum pause, resuming the processing of applications filed by most nationalities, except for citizens of the 39 nations on the “travel ban” list.

In his order, McConnell noted the immigrants affected by the policies he found unlawful “filed the appropriate paperwork, paid the required filing fees, submitted to the requested biometrics collections, and attended the necessary in person interviews.”

“In enacting its latest immigration policies, USCIS: claims statutory and regulatory authority that it does not possess; makes decisions without the reasoned explanations that it must provide; acts without regard for the reliance interests of applicants that it must consider; and justifies its actions with pretextual concerns of ‘national security’ that mask anti-immigrant sentiments that it is forbidden from letting influence its decision-making,” McConnell said.

James Percival, general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, criticized the ruling in a statement to CBS News.

“The Left has been running the same gambit with so called ‘animus’ claims since 2017,” Percival said. “It is sabotage dressed in legal clothing. It goes like this: (1) the admin is racist, (2) therefore a policy I don’t like is motivated by race, (3) therefore it is invalid. They have used it on virtually every Trump era Department of Homeland Security policy.”

A federal judge in Rhode Island on Friday struck down a slate of immigration policies enacted by the Trump administration, writing that the measures had “placed the lives of countless individuals on hold — solely by virtue of their countries of birth.”

In a searing 135-page opinion, Judge John J. McConnell Jr. wrote that actions to lock eligible asylum seekers out of the immigration system and deny others temporary work permits had made it functionally impossible for a broad swath of people to remain in the country. He said the measures were improperly fueled by “anti-immigration sentiments” and contrary to immigration laws.

The policies, enacted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, included a global hold on asylum applications filed with the agency. U.S.C.I.S. also paused decisions on immigration applications filed by people from the 39 countries, largely in Africa and the Middle East, that are subject to the president’s travel ban, halting their ability to obtain green cards and other benefits.

The sweeping measures also touched lawful permanent residents who have lived in the country legally for years but have been effectively unable to be approved for citizenship because decisions on naturalization applications had ground to a halt.

The decision was a major blow to the Trump administration in its growing campaign to not only cut off illegal immigration but tighten legal immigration and pressure noncitizens, including many with legal status, to leave the United States. It effectively forces the government to return to the normal adjudication process and begin resolving more than a million backlogged applications.

James Percival, the general counsel for the Homeland Security Department, the parent agency of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, blamed the decision on “the left” for “sabotage dressed in legal clothing.”

“It goes like this,” he said in an emailed statement. “(1) the admin is racist, (2) therefore a policy I don’t like is motivated by race, (3) therefore it is invalid. They have used it on virtually every Trump-era Department of Homeland Security policy.”

He did not say how the administration planned to respond. But it has generally reacted aggressively to setbacks on its immigration policy in the courts, quickly appealing and sometimes enacting nearly identical substitute measures, prolonging litigation.

The policies at issue were announced in November shortly after the authorities said an Afghan national had shot two National Guard members in Washington. The man, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, has pleaded not guilty.

The freeze resulted in many immigrants inside the United States waiting indefinitely for decisions on their applications, disrupting their ability to legally work and leaving them to question whether they could remain in the country.

“Over six months later, many of those individuals remain without work, without legal status and without any meaningful ability to plan for their futures,” Judge McConnell wrote.

Judge McConnell, an Obama appointee, wrote that the various holds violated the immigration laws governing the responsibilities of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and that the agency had routinely applied the law unequally under the policies. He noted in particular strident claims President Trump made last year after the shooting in Washington, blaming immigrants for a range of social problems, including housing shortages and “urban decay.”

The judge wrote that the burden of the changes fell hardest on people who had followed all the procedures demanded of them, rather than immigrants who entered the country illegally, whom the Trump administration routinely vilifies.

“The court is reminded of a line often repeated in discussions around immigration policy: If people wish to immigrate to the United States, they ought to ‘follow the law’ and ‘do things the right way,'” he wrote. “This case serves as a perfect example of immigrants doing just that.”

Democracy Forward, a legal nonprofit that helped represent the immigration groups and unions behind the lawsuit, celebrated the ruling.

“This ruling reaffirms a basic principle: The federal government cannot shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they come from,” said Skye Perryman, the organization’s president. “These unlawful policies caused enormous harm to families, workers, asylum seekers and communities across the country.”

The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court for the District of Rhode Island, was brought by a constellation of immigration aid groups and labor unions, including the Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island and American Gateways, as well as the Service Employees International Union and the United Auto Workers.

The groups argued that thousands of their clients who depended on institutional support to navigate the immigration system had seen their applications for a range of services indefinitely stalled. They argued that their clients had routinely completed the requisite paperwork, paid fees, submitted to biometric testing and attended immigration interviews, only for their cases to grind to a halt.

Judge McConnell’s order on Friday also struck down a “re-review” policy under which immigrants from countries included on Mr. Trump’s travel ban list who entered the country after 2021 and had already been approved for benefits were subject to re-evaluation. He rejected the government’s claims that interviewing those individuals again or weighing “country-specific facts and circumstances” against them in the process was justified on national security grounds.

“The rule of law has to apply to everyone equally,” he wrote, “and, as evident here, U.S.C.I.S. has neither ‘followed the law’ nor ‘done things the right way.'”

In other cases, judges have found that the Trump administration illegally withheld visas from people coming from countries on the president’s travel ban list. Mr. Trump had described the travel ban as “a permanent pause on Third World migration” in December.

Separate lawsuits are also pending in New York and the District of Columbia challenging the Trump administration’s suspension of visas for people from 75 countries.

Millions of soccer fans are expected to crowd into U.S. stadiums, bars and restaurants to cheer on the 48 nations competing in the World Cup, which will be played on American soil for the first time in 32 years.

But as the tournament kicks off this week, the quadrennial soccer celebration also has emerged as the latest battleground over immigration in the United States and the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda.

More than 2,000 workers at SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles voted Friday to authorize a potential labor stoppage unless they receive assurances that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will not be permitted to conduct deportation operations inside or outside the venue.

Fans from countries that require U.S. travel visas — including those from the four tournament-qualifying nations included on President Donald Trump’s travel ban list — say they are facing unnecessary complications in obtaining the proper paperwork and, in some cases, have given up on trying to watch the games in person.

And some fans who live in the United States remain wary that ICE will carry out arrests at stadiums during the World Cup. Tournament organizers have said federal officers will not be conducting broad immigration sweeps around the matches. But Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has not ruled out enforcement actions involving people suspected of criminal activity, leaving questions about how officers will operate in and around the venues.

The mounting trepidation within immigrant communities in the 11 U.S. host cities reflects the pervasive fear that exists among ethnic groups with the largest number of soccer fans, including Latinos, after more than a year of Trump’s mass deportation campaign. Advocates said the administration’s policies are threatening to dampen enthusiasm and participation from targeted communities as the U.S. plays co-host, along with Mexico and Canada, to an international showcase of the world’s most popular sport.

“We want the World Cup to happen because it’s a meeting of countries across the world, an exchange of cultures, a unifying moment around the beautiful game,” said Rich André, a senior policy adviser at the American Immigration Council. “When you’re shutting out would-be fans who want to come and support their team or just be in the stadium or bars cheering for Brazil or Argentina or another team, something is really lost.”

The Department of Homeland Security has traditionally helped provide security at major sporting events in the U.S., including the Super Bowl. But the World Cup, with matches in the U.S. over 38 days, offers a unique test for Mullin, who became secretary in March and has pledged to restore public confidence in the agency amid a backlash to Trump’s deportation agenda.

A significant majority of Americans — roughly 65 percent — opposes ICE presence at U.S. stadiums, according to a Washington Post-University of Maryland poll conducted in mid-May.

In a video last month, Mullin suggested large crowds could breed criminal activity and said ICE and Homeland Security Investigations would be “out there every day fighting against the counterfeit tickets, human trafficking, drug smuggling.”

On June 1, Mullin joined federal and local officials for a tour of AT&T Stadium in Dallas, where nine matches will take place. He compared the task of securing the World Cup games in the U.S. to planning for 78 Super Bowls in 38 days.

“The first game for the U.S. is June 12 in L.A. We’ll be there,” he told reporters, making no mention of immigration-related operations.

Immigrant rights groups have sought to prepare communities for potential enforcement sweeps during the tournament.

In Dallas, for example, El Movimiento is activating a rapid response network that was established last year during increased ICE enforcement operations in the city. Activists said they are providing know-your-rights training to immigrants in vulnerable neighborhoods and setting up hotlines to track and report ICE activity. They also plan to send legal observers to FIFA-sponsored fan events, said Azael Alvarez, an organizer with the group.

“Unfortunately, a lot of people I’ve talked to are scared to leave their own house, especially in big apartment complexes that are known to have ICE presence,” he said. “It’s already instilled a fear that, ‘Oh, they could be out there,” whenever they set foot outside their homes.

Immigration concerns, along with high ticket prices, have contributed to indications that sales are lagging and the expected financial windfall could fall short. The American Hotel & Lodging Association released a survey last month that found 80 percent of respondents said bookings in the host cities were running below projections. The respondents attributed the sluggishness primarily to U.S. visa restrictions and broader geopolitical concerns.

Under mounting pressure, FIFA, the sport’s international governing body, has avoided criticizing the Trump administration or making blanket statements about the role ICE is expected to play. Some local organizers in the World Cup host cities have sought to reassure the public by emphasizing that federal immigration officers will assist only with general security operations.

In mid-May, a State Department official said the U.S. would suspend the visa bond fees for fans from Senegal and three other nations on the travel ban list that qualified for the World Cup — Haiti, Iran and Ivory Coast. Under the temporary suspension, those fees, ranging from $5,000 to $15,000, would be waived for fans who had purchased tickets by April 15 directly through FIFA and used FIFA Pass, an app aimed at expediting visa processing, according to guidance on the State Department’s website.

But many fans did not buy their tickets that far in advance, in part because the bonds had made it prohibitively expensive to go. That included Aliou Ngom of Senegal. Ngom had requested help paying for his travel from the nation’s Sports and Culture Ministry, which typically provides financial assistance to fans to purchase tickets and travel abroad.

But the ministry denied his request in April, expressing regret that the government could not assist him. An official explained that “recent visa restrictions imposed by the U.S. government — specifically the requirement to post a bond ranging from $5,000 to $15,000 — risk jeopardizing the presence of most of our supporters alongside their National Team.”

Asked about the matter, the Senegalese Embassy said in a statement that the visa fees “are part of broader U.S. immigration policies” and referred questions to the Trump administration.

“I really want to go because since 2012 I have been part of the football world,” said Ngom, who attended the World Cup in Qatar in 2022 and Russia in 2018 and has amassed nearly half a million TikTok followers as “Paco” the Senegal superfan.

Even those who are willing to pay the extra fees for a visa remain fearful that they could be denied entry at U.S. airports, said Marie Christine Lebondo, owner of the Finest, a concierge service in Ivory Coast. Their anxiety stands in contrast to the ease and confidence with which she booked tours for fans traveling to Qatar for the 2022 World Cup.

This year, Lebondo said, clients are worried that “even if you get a visa, you can get to the airport in the U.S. and still get sent back to your country. They are asking me the question: ‘Are you sure I can get in?’ I say, ‘I’m not sure because I’m not working at the airport.'”

Asked to clarify ICE’s role, the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement Friday that the agency would work with federal and local partners “in line with federal law and the U.S. Constitution — as we do with every major sporting event.” The agency added that “international visitors who legally come to the United States for the World Cup have nothing to worry about. What makes someone a target for immigration enforcement is whether or not they are illegally in the U.S. — full stop.”

In Los Angeles, Unite Here Local 11, which represents some 2,000 workers at SoFi Stadium, has threatened a labor strike unless it receives guarantees from stadium food service operator Legends Global and FIFA that ICE will not be permitted to conduct enforcement at the venue.

Workers protested in front of the stadium, drawing support from billionaire Tom Steyer, a Democratic candidate for California governor, who joined them at the demonstration.

Yolanda Fierro, who helps staff luxury suites, said in an interview that the Trump administration “thinks we have only criminals here, working, visiting, coming to games, but they’re not. These are hardworking people who take care of their families. We don’t want [ICE] here. We want to feel safe, we can take care of ourselves, and, most of all, we want our guests to feel safe.”

Democratic city leaders in Houston, another host city, have tangled with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) over $110 million in security grants. Much of the money is intended to help with operations for the seven World Cup games at NRG Stadium, officials said.

Abbott threatened to withhold the grants unless Houston leaders amended a city law that restricted local police from indefinitely detaining migrants.

Facing Abbott’s threat, the Houston City Council voted 13-4 in April to lift that restriction, while keeping in place a separate provision requiring police to report any calls to ICE and document how long immigrants are detained for. Council member Alejandra Salinas, who voted against the amended language, expressed frustration at her colleagues.

Salinas said World Cup organizers promised that ICE will not be conducting immigration enforcement at the stadium, but she remains wary.

“It is incumbent on all of us — the press, the council and the public — to hold them to account,” she said. “It is not fair if the people visiting the country, the people enjoying the games, are being unlawfully or improperly harassed.”

DHS agents Pepper sprayed a peaceful crowd outside the Metropolitan attention center in downtown Los Angeles today. There was no reason for escalation they do this for sport. If you allow your government to abuse human beings that same government will destroy you

3 facts I bet you didn’t know:

1. You are paying $152/day to hold immigrants in detention centers

2. 70% of immigrants in Delaney Hall do not have a criminal record

3. This song dropped last night

I’m Norwegian and I was arrested by ICE at my green card interview in November 2025, San Diego. I came here LEGALLY in 2022 on an F-1 visa and went to college, graduated then got the OPT work visa where I worked and paid taxes to the US.

I married my husband in 2024.

November 2025 I spent 9 days in detention at Otay Mesa Detention Center, where I experienced severe neglect of my medical needs, resulting in long-term physical and mental damages.

I’m type 1 diabetic and my condition was ignored for several days resulting in a blood sugar of 508. I was heading into DKA.
I developed infections requiring antibiotics, but never received them.

I spent 5 days in isolation which was psychological torture.

After getting out I found out my credit card was also stolen by an employee at Otay Mesa Detention Center and used while I was there.

No human should go through what I did, and I will always fight for what’s right.
I will continue to share my story for those who are too scared to speak up, and hopefully there will be repercussions. Please follow along to support and never stop caring for each other!

I was detained with women from Canada, Australia, the UK, Spain, Mexico, Japan, Romania and other countries. None of us have any criminal history.

En una medida destinada a endurecer la política migratoria y priorizar la mano de obra local, el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) ha presentado una propuesta de reglamentación que restringirá significativamente el acceso a las autorizaciones de empleo discrecionales para ciertos grupos de extranjeros en los Estados Unidos.

El plan para una nueva norma presentada esta semana busca modificar las regulaciones actuales para tres categorías principales de no ciudadanos: personas bajo libertad condicional humanitaria o de beneficio público (parole), beneficiarios de acción diferida y aquellos que cuentan con órdenes finales de deportación, pero se encuentran en libertad temporal bajo una orden de supervisión (OSUP).

¿El fin de los permisos automáticos de trabajo bajo supervisión?

Uno de los cambios más drásticos recae sobre los extranjeros con órdenes finales de remoción que actualmente están libres bajo órdenes de supervisión (categoría C-18). Bajo la normativa vigente, el Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración (USCIS) será más estricto a la hora de otorgar estos permisos y la propuesta busca que esto sea revisado más exhaustivamente, ya que la nueva propuesta elimina casi por completo esta elegibilidad, dejando una única y estrecha excepción: solo podrán solicitar el permiso de trabajo aquellos cuya deportación sea materialmente “impracticable” debido a que los países de origen se nieguen a emitir los documentos de viaje necesarios. El DHS argumentó que la práctica anterior desincentivaba el cumplimiento de las órdenes de deportación y retrasaba la salida voluntaria de los migrantes.

Nuevas exigencias: necesidad económica y control

Para las personas bajo parole (categoría c-11) y acción diferida (categoría c-14), el gobierno exigirá de manera obligatoria demostrar una “necesidad económica” real para poder trabajar, un requisito que previamente no se aplicaba de forma homogénea. Además, todos los solicitantes deberán superar un estricto análisis de discrecionalidad.

La propuesta establece un veto prácticamente absoluto para cualquier extranjero involucrado en actividades delictivas. Salvo contadas excepciones de interés público —como colaborar activamente con las fuerzas del orden estadounidenses—, el USCIS negará la autorización de empleo a cualquier solicitante que haya sido arrestado, acusado, procesado o condenado por algún delito, así como a quienes admitan haber cometido crímenes violentos o pertenezcan a pandillas u organizaciones terroristas. Asimismo, la vigencia de estos permisos se limitará a un periodo máximo de un año.

N+ Univision consultó con el abogado experto en inmigración Haim Vásquez, que destaca puntos importantes, como el que esto de momento no cambia absolutamente nada. “El gobierno lo que acaba de hacer es proponer una regla que haría mucho más difícil para ciertos inmigrantes que obtengan ese permiso o renueven un nuevo permiso. Pero ojo, es una propuesta, todavía no es ley. La dirección es clara y lo que viene ahora es un proceso de un periodo de 60 días donde se abrirán a comentarios públicos”.

Obligación de usar “E-Verify”

Otra de las medidas que menciona el documento es que el nuevo proyecto exigirá que los extranjeros que busquen renovar sus permisos de trabajo bajo estas categorías coticen o busquen empleo exclusivamente con empresas inscritas y activas en E-Verify, el sistema electrónico federal de verificación de elegibilidad laboral. Según cifras del DHS, en el año fiscal 2024 el gobierno recibió un total de 978,308 solicitudes de permisos de trabajo discrecionales dentro de las categorías afectadas. La administración actual sostiene que limitar este flujo abrirá vacantes para los ciudadanos estadounidenses y residentes legales, reduciendo el riesgo de desplazamiento laboral.

Próximos pasos y participación pública

Al tratarse de una propuesta de reglamentación, el DHS ha abierto un periodo de 60 días a partir de su publicación oficial en el Registro Federal para que el público pueda enviar sus comentarios y argumentos de manera electrónica a través del portal reglamentario del gobierno.

Haim Vásquez aclara lo que sigue ahora y los posibles escenarios: “Ahora lo que no se sabe es cuánto tiempo después del periodo de 60 días es que el gobierno intentaría implementarlo. Tampoco se sabe inmediatamente cuándo se presentará y, al mismo tiempo, acordémonos: una demanda es solo una demanda hasta que el juez ordene que dé la oportunidad de que continúe. Y después de esos 60 días, el gobierno no tiene un plazo forzoso para aplicar esa ley, o sea, para la modificación”.

Las autoridades migratorias especificaron que las modificaciones solo se aplicarán a las solicitudes iniciales y de renovación que se presenten a partir de la fecha en que la regla final entre en vigor, respetando los permisos que ya se encuentren vigentes hasta su vencimiento.

Un juez federal anuló una serie de políticas de la administración Trump dirigidas a solicitantes de asilo e inmigrantes que buscan beneficios, en un duro fallo judicial emitido el viernes.

El año pasado, la administración suspendió indefinidamente las adjudicaciones de asilo y congeló las solicitudes de inmigración para las personas que quedaban bajo la prohibición de viaje, entre otras medidas, dejando a millones de inmigrantes en Estados Unidos en un limbo legal.

El juez John J. McConnell Jr. reconoció esa incertidumbre en su opinión de 135 páginas.

“(L)as Políticas Impugnadas pusieron en pausa la vida de innumerables personas, únicamente en virtud de sus países de nacimiento”, escribió McConnell, nominado por el expresidente Barack Obama. “Más de seis meses después, muchas de esas personas siguen sin trabajo, sin estatus legal y sin ninguna capacidad significativa para planificar su futuro”.

McConnell pasó luego a arremeter contra lo que describió como “sólidas pruebas de animadversión antiinmigrante”.

“El Gobierno, en la práctica, invita al Tribunal a cerrar los ojos e ignorar las sólidas pruebas de animadversión antiinmigrante que tiene ante sí”, escribió el juez. “Hacerlo requeriría una profunda ingenuidad por parte del Tribunal. Por desgracia para el Gobierno, esa es una invitación que este Tribunal tendrá que declinar”.

El Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de Estados Unidos (USCIS, por sus siglas en inglés) implementó los cambios el año pasado después de que un ciudadano afgano disparara a dos miembros de la Guardia Nacional en Washington, DC. Se ha declarado no culpable.

Skye Perryman, presidenta y directora ejecutiva de Democracy Forward, una organización de defensa, dijo en un comunicado que el fallo “reafirma un principio básico: el gobierno federal no puede cerrar vías legales de inmigración ni discriminar a las personas en función de su lugar de origen”.

“Nos complace que el tribunal reconociera las devastadoras consecuencias humanas de estas políticas. Nuestras comunidades merecen un proceso justo regido por la ley, no una persecución política basada en el miedo y la discriminación”, añadió Perryman.

CNN se ha puesto en contacto con el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional y con USCIS para obtener comentarios.

WASHINGTON — The Senate passed legislation to fund President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement agencies early Friday morning, after weeks of delays and fierce backlash to an unrelated $1.776 billion settlement fund that threatened to derail the bill.

Senators voted 52-47 for the $70 billion legislation to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol for the next three years, through the end of Trump’s term. The final vote came just before 5 a.m., after Republicans narrowly defeated multiple attempts by Democrats and Republicans to add language to the bill that would permanently ban Trump’s settlement fund for political allies who believe they have been politically persecuted.

Republicans cleared a major hurdle overnight when they defeated an amendment proposed by one of their own members, Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, that would have redirected payments from the settlement to members of law enforcement who were injured in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol.

The amendments were a test of party unity that complicated what should have been an easy vote for Republicans who wanted to keep the focus on immigration enforcement in an election year. Instead, they spent almost a full day haggling among themselves over whether to block the settlement fund, even after acting Attorney General Todd Blanche had said earlier this week that it would not go forward.

“This would have been done several hours ago if we weren’t having to deal with some of the issues around the fund,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said shortly before midnight.

Thune himself has criticized the judgement fund, which was part of a settlement that resolves Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns and has angered many of his GOP colleagues. But he has been pushing GOP senators for weeks to keep the bill focused on the funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, which Democrats have blocked since early this year, and to avoid adding new provisions that could complicate its passage in the House.

Still, a group of Republican senators pushed all day and into the night to block the settlement’s payouts through legislation. That effort came after Trump raised new doubts about the settlement’s future Wednesday afternoon — just after the Senate had voted to start debate on the immigration bill — when he told reporters that the settlement is “very important” and said “I don’t know” whether it is dead or on hold. “I’d have to ask the lawyers,” he said.

**Senators push back multiple attempts to ban settlement fund**

The first vote on Thursday morning, a Democratic effort to ban the settlement, was held open for several hours as three senators, including Cassidy, decided whether to support it. The Democratic motion was narrowly defeated when Cassidy eventually voted against it and the two other GOP senators — Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, both of whom are up for reelection this year — voted for it.

The Senate then rejected a second amendment from Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina that would also have banned the settlement fund but moved the money to a separate anti-fraud fund at the Department of Justice. Most Democrats voted against the amendment, guaranteeing its defeat, but more than 10 Republicans supported it.

Tillis said the fund is a political liability for the party. “If Blanche says this is largely inoperative, why not use this moment to codify that? Otherwise, you’re exposing every one of our members who are in cycle to having to deal with this between today and Election Day, and that makes no sense for something that the DOJ says they’re not moving forward with.”

Cassidy’s amendment to compensate the injured police officers was a pointed rebuke, as payouts from Trump’s fund could have potentially gone to Trump supporters who beat police and attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Despite Blanche’s comments, Cassidy said that the fund is still part of an active settlement and “absolutely can be used.”

The Senate rejected several other Democratic efforts to try to block or limit the fund, including amendments to ban payments to Jan. 6 defendants who injured law enforcement officers.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Republicans are now “leaving taxpayers to rely on nothing more than a promise from Donald Trump’s personal fixer. That is not accountability. That is a permission slip.”

**ICE and Border Patrol money has been delayed for months**

Enactment of the roughly $70 billion bill to fund ICE and the Border Patrol would end the blockade by Democrats who demanded policy changes after the fatal shootings of two protesters by federal agents in January. The bill would fund the agencies for three years, through the end of Trump’s term.

Senate Republicans used a complicated procedural maneuver to get around the filibuster and pass the budget legislation with no Democratic votes. But it took weeks to get the bill to the Senate floor as Republicans navigated various obstacles to passage created by Trump and the White House — including a $1 billion proposal for White House security and Trump’s ballroom that they eventually scrapped and the fierce bipartisan backlash to the settlement fund.

Democrats say any funding bill for the Homeland Security Department should place restraints on federal immigration authorities, including better identification for federal officers and more use of judicial warrants, among other asks.

After federal agents shot Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Trump agreed to a Democratic request that the Homeland Security bill be separated from a larger spending measure that became law. But bipartisan negotiations went nowhere, and the department funding lapsed in mid-February with no agreement on changes to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics.

Congress eventually funded the rest of the Homeland Security Department at the end of April with Democratic support, but ICE and Border Patrol has remained without regular funding.

A GOP reconciliation bill for immigration enforcement appeared to be skating on thin ice Thursday night as the House suddenly left town for the week and lawmakers continued to wrangle over a Justice Department “anti-weaponization” fund.

Senate opponents of the nearly $1.8 billion fund — derided by critics as a “slush fund” for President Donald Trump’s loyalists who broke the law — were eager to adopt an amendment to the bill from Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., that would prohibit payments from the fund. They were working with the Senate parliamentarian to see if the amendment could be adopted with a simple-majority vote instead of a 60-vote threshold to make it easier to win approval.

Cassidy told reporters that if an amendment on the fund isn’t adopted, “it’s a possibility” that the bill could die on the Senate floor. He filed a new version of his amendment Thursday night that would restrict payouts from the fund only to those who died or suffered from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, and would appropriate $100 million to the fund for that effort.

But Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he was concerned that if a Justice Department fund amendment were included in the bill, it would be “problematic in the House and, probably, then ultimately getting it signed by the president.”

As if to underscore that concern, House leaders abruptly decided to leave town for the week, abandoning earlier plans to take up the reconciliation bill as soon as Thursday night, whenever the Senate could pass it. But senators continued to plow ahead and were trying to reach a bipartisan agreement on amendment votes that could allow them to complete work on the measure late Thursday night.

‘Republican-led solution’

The bill survived its first key test earlier as the Senate kicked off its amendment “vote-a-rama.” On a 49-50 vote, the Senate rejected a procedural motion by Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., to send the bill back to the Judiciary Committee, a move that would have effectively killed it. Schumer was seeking to use that maneuver to push for a prohibition against the Justice Department fund.

While some Republicans want to prohibit or restrict the fund through legislation, they proved unwilling to derail the entire bill. Still, three Republicans facing reelection this year — Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska — supported Schumer’s motion.

Cassidy, who lost his reelection bid in the primaries in large part thanks to Trump’s opposition, held back his vote on the Schumer motion for most of the roughly three hours the tally was held open before voting against it.

“I want this to be a Republican-led solution,” said retiring Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., a leading GOP critic of the fund, before opposing Schumer’s motion. “I’m not going to move on a Democrat motion.”

But Tillis then offered his own amendment to block the fund by diverting the money to fraud enforcement efforts. That effort, too, was rejected by a lopsided vote of 15-84. Democrats said the Tillis amendment wouldn’t actually prohibit the fund and would likely create a slush fund by another name, under the guise of fraud enforcement.

GOP leaders maneuvered to make adoption of such amendments more difficult when they stripped $1.46 billion in Justice Department funding from the bill. That move meant an amendment on the Justice Department fund would no longer be considered germane to the bill and would require 60 votes to overcome a procedural objection, instead of a simple majority.

With that threshold in place, the Senate disposed of several other amendments from both parties. One amendment, from Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., would have blocked any funding for the White House East Wing modernization project, which features a 90,000-square-foot ballroom, without congressional authorization. A procedural motion defeated that amendment on a 53-46 vote, falling seven votes shy of the 60 required.

Another, from Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., took aim at Trump’s selection of Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte to serve as acting director of national intelligence. The amendment would have banned Senate-confirmed leaders of federal agencies and departments from serving as the DNI at the same time. It fell on a 49-49 vote.

And an amendment from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., would have inserted the language from the so-called SAVE America Act, which would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and photo identification at the polls, among other things. While Trump has pushed to abolish the Senate filibuster to pass that election measure with a simple majority instead of 60 votes, Republicans couldn’t even muster a simple majority for it Thursday night. It fell on a vote of 48-50, with Collins, Tillis, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., siding with Democrats against the proposal.

More amendments on the way

Republicans filed a range of amendments, though those concerning the Justice Department fund were paramount. A second Cassidy amendment would nullify a settlement agreement announced when Trump withdrew his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over his leaked tax returns. That agreement forbids tax audits of the president. And a third amendment would prohibit such settlements in the future.

Other GOP amendments filed include an amendment from Cassidy that would walk back the Trump administration’s newly announced green card policy requiring many applicants to return to their home countries to await a decision; an additional Cassidy amendment that would raise the retirement age for ICE officers with less than 25 years of service to offset the costs of the reconciliation bill; an amendment sought by Murkowski that would permanently exempt seasonal fish processors from the numerical cap on H-2B non-immigrant visas; another Murkowski amendment seeking to provide a fee exemption for naturalization applications filed by certain nationals residing in outlying U.S. possessions; a second amendment by Tillis that would set up a new nonimmigrant visa for mobile entertainment workers like circus performers; and a third Murkowski amendment seeking exemptions for public school employees from nonprocessing-related fees for H-1B visas.

Democrats, meanwhile, planned to put Republicans on the record on a number of other controversial topics through their proposed amendments, though those amendments were likely to be unsuccessful.

“Democrats will force Republicans to vote on Trump’s MAGA slush fund, his lifetime tax exemption, his billion-dollar taxpayer-funded ballroom,” Schumer said on the Senate floor ahead of the vote-a-rama. “Amendment after amendment, vote after vote, Republicans are going to have to answer to the American people on tariffs, on skyrocketing costs, on the disastrous war with Iran, on the violence Trump’s masked agents have unleashed on our streets.”

The filibuster-proof bill is designed to fund immigration enforcement agencies through the rest of Trump’s term. Democrats have opposed that funding without imposing new restrictions on federal immigration agents to curb abuses. While Trump had set a June 1 deadline for passing the bill, GOP leaders were hoping to pass it as early as this week through both chambers, until the House abruptly left town.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans beat back several amendments Thursday as they worked to pass legislation to fund President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement agencies, turning aside a Democratic effort to permanently block Trump from creating a $1.776 billion settlement fund to allies who claim they were persecuted by the government.

But Republicans still faced a gauntlet of amendments before the bill could advance, a test of party unity that could go late into the night. The biggest threat to the bill could be another amendment to ban the settlement fund — this time from Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who lost reelection last month after Trump endorsed his primary opponent.

“I feel optimistic that we’ll get there in the end,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said Thursday evening, while acknowledging he was not sure how the votes would turn out.

Thune has been pushing GOP senators for weeks to keep the bill focused on the funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, which Democrats have blocked since early this year, and to avoid adding new provisions that could complicate its passage.

If an amendment limiting the settlement were to pass, Thune said, it would be “problematic” when they send the bill to the House. It could also mean a White House veto of the immigration spending bill, which has otherwise unified Trump and Republicans.

The last time the Senate abruptly changed a Homeland Security funding package, in March, the House simply refused to accept it and left town.

**Settlement fund roils Senate GOP conference**

Still, the judgment fund, which was part of a settlement that resolves Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns, has angered many Republican senators.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said this week that the fund would not move forward. But Trump, who has been at odds with Senate Republicans in recent weeks, raised new doubts about the settlement’s future Wednesday afternoon — just after the Senate had voted to start debate on the immigration bill — when he told reporters that the settlement is “very important” and said “I don’t know” whether it is dead or on hold. “I’d have to ask the lawyers,” he said.

The Democratic effort to ban the fund, the first vote of the day, was held open for around three hours as Cassidy, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska withheld their votes. In the end, Cassidy voted against the Democratic motion and the two other GOP senators — both of whom are up for reelection this year — voted for it.

Senators defeated a second amendment from Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina that would also ban the settlement fund but would move the money to a separate anti-fraud fund at the Department of Justice. Most Democrats voted against the amendment, guaranteeing its defeat, but more than 10 Republicans supported it.

Tillis said the settlement fund, some of which could potentially go to Trump supporters who beat police and attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, is a political liability for the party. “If Blanche says this is largely inoperative, why not use this moment to codify that? Otherwise, you’re exposing every one of our members who are in cycle to having to deal with this between today and Election Day, and that makes no sense for something that the DOJ says they’re not moving forward with.”

**Amendments will be offered late into the night**

It was unclear how Republicans would vote on additional amendments.

Cassidy, who had been in discussions all day with the Senate parliamentarian, said he still planned to offer an amendment to ban payouts from the settlement. He told reporters he may also offer an amendment to block a separate part of the settlement that would grant Trump and his family immunity from IRS audits.

Several Republican senators said they supported the idea but would have to see the final language before they decide. Sen. John Cornyn, who also lost reelection last month after Trump endorsed his opponent, said he agrees with the “thrust of it” but would wait to see the amendment. Republican Sen. John Curtis said the same.

Thune said it wasn’t yet certain whether the final bill could pass without some sort of prohibition on the settlement. “We’re going to find out soon enough,” he said Thursday evening.

Democrats planned other votes through the night, including on Trump’s tariffs, his war with Iran and his immigration enforcement campaign. “Amendment after amendment, vote after vote, Republicans are going to have to answer to the American people,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said.

**ICE and Border Patrol money has been long fight**

Passage of the roughly $70 billion bill to fund U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol would end the blockade by Democrats who demanded policy changes after the fatal shootings of two protesters by federal agents in January. The bill would fund the agencies for three years, through the end of Trump’s term.

Senate Republicans are using a complicated procedural maneuver to get around the filibuster and pass the budget legislation with no Democratic votes. But it has taken weeks to get the bill to the Senate floor as Republicans navigated various obstacles to passage created by Trump and the White House — including a $1 billion proposal for White House security that they eventually scrapped and the fierce bipartisan backlash to the settlement fund.

Democrats say any funding bill for the Homeland Security Department should place restraints on federal immigration authorities, including better identification for federal officers and more use of judicial warrants, among other asks.

After federal agents shot Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Trump agreed to a Democratic request that the Homeland Security bill be separated from a larger spending measure that became law. But bipartisan negotiations went nowhere, and the department funding lapsed in mid-February with no agreement on changes to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics.

Congress eventually funded the rest of the Homeland Security Department at the end of April with Democratic support. But ICE and Border Patrol remained without regular funding, and Republicans launched a new effort to pass three years of funding for those agencies with no Democratic votes.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is ending a policy that required the agency to report the deaths of former detainees that occurred within 30 days of their release from federal custody.

The policy, issued during the Biden administration, directed the agency to review and report all detainee fatalities, including those that occurred post-release.

The policy reversal by the Trump administration comes amid scrutiny from lawmakers and immigrant advocates over the rising death rate of detained immigrants in federal custody.

“Under this updated policy, when an individual is no longer in ICE custody then ICE will no longer be responsible for monitoring or reviewing deaths that may occur,” a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security told ABC News in a statement. “This is common sense. ICE is not responsible when an individual passes away weeks after leaving their custody.”

There have been 49 deaths in ICE custody since the start of the second Trump administration, according to lawmakers.

According to an ABC News analysis of Immigration and Customs Enforcement data and the number of detainee deaths provided to Congress from ICE, the first 14 months of the second Trump administration represent the most deadly period for the federal detention system in recent years — with the exception of 2020, when the coronavirus pandemic contributed to detention deaths.

On Thursday, the DHS spokesperson told ABC News that ICE “remains committed to transparency regarding detainee deaths.”

The Trump administration moved to further limit legal immigration Thursday with a new proposal that would place more restrictions on who can work legally in the United States and for how long.

In a yet unpublished Federal Register filing, the Department of Homeland Security said it was looking to tighten rules around work authorizations, known as EADs, particularly for those with humanitarian parole and non-DACA deferred status, as well as those facing potential deportation.

In 2024, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services processed 978,308 applications in the affected categories.

“Work authorization has long been one of the primary mechanisms by which the government encourages self-sufficiency, workforce participation, and compliance with immigration requirements,” Adam Klein, a former DHS official and a co-founder at Globali.ai, told Newsweek. “Restricting or making access to work authorization more uncertain does not make people disappear; it often makes them more economically vulnerable and can push individuals toward informal labor markets.”

New Work Permit Rules: What To Know

The filing proposes sweeping restrictions on work permits for certain noncitizens, sharply limiting eligibility, increasing vetting, shortening approval times, and tying renewals to E-Verify employment. The stated goals are to reduce incentives for unauthorized immigration, protect U.S. workers and wages, and ensure immigration laws are strictly enforced.

Under the proposal, DHS would sharply limit eligibility for “discretionary” employment authorization, requiring applicants to prove economic need, pass enhanced background checks, and meet stricter case-by-case criteria. The changes would also reduce the length of many work permits to no more than one year and require renewal applicants to work for employers enrolled in the federal E-Verify system.

One of the most significant shifts would affect immigrants with final removal orders who are currently allowed to stay in the U.S. under supervision. The rule would eliminate work authorization for most of this group, allowing it only in rare cases where DHS determines deportation is not possible because no country will accept the individual.

The proposal also introduces stricter scrutiny of criminal history, stating that arrests, convictions, or evidence of gang or terrorist ties would generally disqualify applicants unless there is a compelling public interest, such as cooperation with law enforcement.

“Americans want fair, firm and compassionate immigration solutions that secure legal immigration and end illegal immigration,” Jennie Murray, President and CEO of the National Immigration Forum, told Newsweek. “Rather than target people who are working legally, Congress and the president should work together to make sure that legal immigration is benefiting all Americans.

Which Immigrants Would Be Affected?

There were 978,308 total EAD applications in FY 2024 across the affected categories: 792,130 parole applications, 153,154 deferred action applications, and 33,024 removal-order applications.

DHS estimates very few people with deportation orders would still be eligible. Only about 322 people per year cannot be deported because no country will accept them, and approximately 167 people are granted CAT (Convention Against Torture) protection annually.

“What makes the proposal significant is its apparent effort to reinforce that these forms of employment authorization are discretionary benefits rather than entitlements,” Klein said. “As with other recent policy changes, that places greater weight on individual officer judgment. Whenever the system moves from objective eligibility criteria toward broader discretion, the identity, training, and institutional culture of the adjudicator become increasingly important.”

Potential Economic Impact

The proposal could have significant economic consequences, with DHS estimating total direct costs ranging from about $9.1 billion to $27.9 billion over a 10-year period. On an annual basis, those impacts are projected to fall between roughly $937 million and $2.9 billion, depending on how the labor market responds.

Much of the cost would come from lost earnings for noncitizens who would no longer be eligible to work, along with increased compliance and administrative burdens tied to biometrics requirements, additional paperwork and employer participation in the E-Verify system.

The agency acknowledges uncertainty about how businesses would adapt, outlining two possible outcomes. In one scenario, displaced workers are replaced by U.S. workers, shifting income within the labor market but limiting broader economic disruption. In another, employers struggle to fill those jobs, leading to lost productivity that could reach billions of dollars annually.

DHS also warns the rule could reduce tax revenues and impose turnover costs on employers, particularly in industries that rely on workers in the affected categories. At the same time, officials frame the policy’s economic benefits as increasing job availability for U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, and reducing government spending associated with enforcing removal orders.

“Threatening the work authorizations of tens of thousands of lawful workers would create and expand challenges for American businesses, communities and our economy,” Murray said. “This rule would further restrict legal immigration and could exacerbate workforce shortages, disrupt economic stability, and hinder growth in sectors heavily reliant on immigrant labor.”

What Happens Next

The policy is not yet in effect and remains subject to a 60-day public comment period before it can be finalized. The period opens June 5.

A senior Justice Department official recently instructed prosecutors nationwide to redouble efforts to pursue criminal charges against noncitizens who have voted, a type of fraud that has animated President Trump’s campaigns but that experts say is exceedingly rare.

During an internal conference call with dozens of prosecutors in regional offices on May 13, Aakash Singh, an associate deputy attorney general, expressed displeasure about what he described as more than 90 open investigations into people who possibly voted in U.S. elections though they are not citizens, according to an official familiar with the discussion who was not authorized to describe it publicly. Those cases, Mr. Singh told the group, were languishing.

Mr. Singh stressed to the prosecutors that the cases were a top priority, urging prosecutors to “get creative” as they worked to bring charges, the official recalled. Mr. Singh added that the acting attorney general was also “crystal clear” about their importance. Immigrants convicted of that type of fraud, Mr. Singh said, should be deported.

Mr. Singh’s reference to roughly 90 open investigations — a tally that has not been publicly reported — provides a rare glimpse at the current scale of the Trump administration’s progress on an issue that has been a high priority. Even smaller than the number of active investigations, experts and a review of records suggest, is the number of noncitizens who have so far been charged with such voting crimes since President Trump took office for a second term.

Some experts saw Mr. Singh’s disclosure as a reflection of how minimal a problem noncitizen voting is. “I see this as a vindication of our current system,” said Benjamin Cover, a law professor at the University of Idaho who specializes in election law and has written about noncitizen voting cases. “Even when you have a very aggressive investigative and prosecutorial effort to go after all the fraud you could possibly find, the number is very small.”

President Trump has repeatedly claimed that Democrats have allowed unauthorized immigrants to enter the United States in order to gain an electoral advantage, and his administration has called for combating election fraud to safeguard the process and build confidence in the electoral system. In recent months, administration officials have intensified efforts to investigate such election fraud cases.

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for its own tally of charged cases. But Matthew Tragesser, a department spokesman, said officials believe that the cases investigators have so far uncovered “represent only a small fraction of the problem.”

Mr. Tragesser said that the department intends to prosecute every case of noncitizen voting supported by evidence. “Election security is essential to the integrity and survival of our constitutional republic,” he said.

Falsely claiming U.S. citizenship on a voter registration form is a felony under federal law. Voting as a noncitizen is a misdemeanor under federal law.

The Justice Department’s call to charge more noncitizen voting cases was issued as the White House has struggled to push legislation that would require all Americans to provide proof of citizenship in person to register to vote. It also comes as the Justice Department is suing several states in an effort to compel them to turn over voter rolls.

Don Palmer, an elections expert at the Heritage Foundation who worked on voting issues at the Justice Department between 2006 and 2008, said the prevalence of noncitizen fraud is hard to gauge. “Our system was not designed to verify citizenship eligibility,” he said. “This is an issue that has crept up as more immigrants who are not citizens have come to the country.”

Early this year, a review of 49.5 million voter registrations provided by several states to the Department of Homeland Security yielded 10,000 records — or .02 percent — flagged for needing further analysis to determine whether the voters were eligible.

Several state election officials have determined that many voters get erroneously flagged as noncitizens in these reviews.

Election officials and experts say a more reliable snapshot of noncitizen voting comes from audits some Republican-run states have performed, which show rates that are extraordinarily small. In 2024, a review by Georgia’s secretary of state found that of the 8.2 million voters on its rolls, 20 lacked citizenship. A similar audit in Tennessee found 42 possible noncitizens in a voting pool of 4.3 million. A more recent review in Utah found 27 noncitizens among more than two million people registered to vote.

Steve Simon, Minnesota’s secretary of state, a Democrat who is among those fighting the Trump administration’s effort to examine Minnesota’s state voter records, said that the incidence of noncitizen voting in the United States is “microscopic” and generally the result of ignorance. “Of all the things that someone would risk deportation for, casting one of tens of millions of ballots for a preferred candidate in a presidential election has to be an extremely low priority,” he said.

Mr. Cover, the law professor, has kept a national database since January 2025 of people charged with voting as noncitizens. His count includes 20 defendants. A separate review by The Times using a commercial legal database found 25 cases, including the ones Mr. Cover has studied.

Among people charged with such violations last year were a Ukrainian woman and her daughter who received green cards in 2023. When confronted by investigators, the mother, Svitlana Demydenko, said she did not realize she was not eligible to vote, according to a criminal complaint. Ms. Demydenko reportedly said she voted “because she wanted to support the country.” Her daughter told investigators she had hoped her vote would “make a difference.”

A lawyer for the two women — who have entered not guilty pleas and are awaiting trial — did not respond to a request for comment.

Last September, prosecutors in Louisiana charged a man with voting as a noncitizen. Within days, a judge dismissed the case after prosecutors disclosed in a filing that “recently obtained information raises a legitimate question” about whether a crime had been committed. Prosecutors did not respond to questions about the case.

One of the first people charged with voting as a noncitizen since Mr. Trump returned to the White House was Akeel Abdul Jamiel, an Iraqi immigrant. A Justice Department news release about the case asserted that he had voted in the 2020 election and described that as “a callous and illegal act” and an “insult to the democratic process.”

A review of the case docket showed no activity since Mr. Jamiel was charged in late April 2025. Tyler J. Toomey, a spokesman for U.S. attorney’s office for the Northern District of New York, said the case was still active but has not advanced because “the defendant has not appeared.”

Mr. Jamiel, who did not respond to requests for comment, filed multiple lawsuits in recent years in which he complained bitterly about illegal immigrants and expressed admiration for Mr. Trump and his border policies.

Eleven-year-old Ederson Galicia Alva had just stepped off the plane and into the Miami airport’s dim hallways when federal agents pulled his mother aside for questioning. Again.

Panic welled up. His excitement at soon being back at recess with his Florida classmates fell away. Would the government take her away again?

This was not his first trauma. In 2018, when he was just 3 years old, Ederson was taken from his mother’s arms at the U.S.-Mexico border under the first Trump administration’s family separation policy and kept apart from her in a government facility for months. They were finally reunited after lawyers intervened. Then, in June of last year, he and his mother were separated a second time, despite legal protections meant to keep them and families like theirs together.

He later joined his mother in Guatemala. After a destitute, torturous 11 months in the indigenous highlands, Ederson’s family was allowed to return to Florida last week, following a federal judge’s order that the government had acted illegally.

Now, eight years after President Donald Trump’s forcible border separations came to an official halt following global outrage, an Associated Press investigation has found that the government has re-separated dozens of children from their families, despite a landmark legal settlement meant to reunify them. Some of their parents have been locked in immigration detention facilities for months, others deported back to their home countries after being taken from their families once again. In some cases, immigration officials conducting interior arrests deported people despite discovering they were legally off limits for removal, according to emails obtained by AP.

“Not only has the government refused to acknowledge the horror of the initial separations during Trump I, but it is now detaining and deporting these same families,” said Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union and lead counsel in the lawsuit that ended the policy. “These children have suffered enough without re-traumatizing them.”

Trump successfully ran for reelection on an anti-immigration platform. Under his second term, the administration has vowed to deport more than 1 million people per year. Federal agents have been plucking people from their communities so swiftly that, according to the Brookings Institution, now the parents of tens of thousands of children have been detained.

This time, family separations often look different from Trump’s first term. In 2018, Ederson and other children at the border were taken from their parents, who were detained separately and overwhelmingly charged criminally with illegal entry. Then, the government was unable to reunite them for months because adults and children’s information was kept in different computer systems. A judge barred the government from separating most families at the border and ordered the government to bring the families back together after the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit. Later, a court settlement banned most family separations to deter immigration until December 2031.

Today, if parents are arrested or deported under the president’s push for mass deportations, they are being made to choose whether to leave their children behind in the United States.

“DHS complies with all court orders, even as radical NGOs shop for the most favorable forum and activist judges seek to thwart our operations,” acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, said in response to AP requests for comment about the government’s policies toward separated families.

Government attorneys have argued in recent court filings that there are no legal restrictions on “the government’s statutory authority to execute orders of removal.” Bis added that enforcing immigration law was “not optional,” and that “every removal of an illegal alien helps restore order and reinforce the rule of law.”

Ederson’s family recently was allowed to return, but their status is still on shaky ground.

**Separated at the border, then again in Florida**

After being taken from his mother, Mirsy Maricela Alva López, and confined to a government shelter in Arizona as a toddler for four and a half months, Ederson barely recognized her once they were reunited, she said. Vivid nightmares haunted him throughout his time in elementary school, where he learned to read in English in classrooms amid lush lawns and palm trees less than 10 miles from Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Winter White House.

Once a federal judge approved a settlement to the class action suit under the Biden administration, Ederson’s family and those like his got legal status to stay in the U.S., with pathways for residency and asylum, and his mother got a work permit. And after months of mental health services to address his ongoing fear that his mother would never return, in early June last year — about five months after the beginning of Trump’s second administration and the president’s resumed anti-immigration push — his therapist finally said he had made so much progress he could put his weekly sessions on pause.

Two weeks later, Alva López was stopped by federal agents as she and co-workers were en route to a landscaping job near Mar-a-Lago. The agents, wearing brown uniforms, never gave a reason for the stop or identified themselves before transferring Alva López to two Florida jails, then to ICE custody in Louisiana, and finally to a plane full of shackled deportees heading to Guatemala City, she said.

“I felt the very same thing I went through the first time,” Alva López said, weeping. “I was living it all over again.”

Alva López was separated from Ederson and his older sister, Briseidy, for a week, and not given the chance to speak with an immigration official about her status or legal protections, said Kelly Kribs, an attorney with the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights, which has supported Alva López’s family’s return to the U.S.

When she finally managed to call Ederson and Briseidy, they couldn’t stop sobbing. Alva López said she asked her sister to buy airplane tickets to send them to Guatemala City. She met them the next day at the airport and traveled with them nine more hours down highways and rutted roads to reach San Martín Cuchumatán, a hamlet in the highlands where the children were born.

The three of them shared a tiny bedroom with a dusty floor with Alva López’s parents and brother in an adobe brick home with a sheet metal roof, nothing like the leafy cul-de-sacs of South Florida. The school, where all lessons are in Spanish, was a mile’s walk, and none of the children in town spoke English, Ederson said.

Instead of clocking in to trim the gardens of West Palm Beach estates, each day Alva López fed the chickens and ducks in a small coop behind the house, washed the family’s laundry by hand and cooked meals on an open fire.

And Ederson was back to waking up at night fearing his future. At Northmore Elementary School, he had been doing well in fifth grade. In Guatemala, he repeated fourth grade, this time in Spanish, and was quizzed on the history and culture of a country he barely knew. His friendships weren’t as close as in West Palm Beach. Sometimes when he felt sad, he watched the school’s online videos to see his old friends.

“We used to play and chat. Sometimes they would help me when I didn’t understand the lesson, and I would help them with math,” he said, fighting back tears. “I have very few friends here.”

Ederson still doesn’t want to talk about the separations, and he can’t stop asking his mother why she went to work that day. But he is clear on one thing: he never wants to be apart from his mother again.

**’Lasting, excruciating harm’**

In late 2017, immigration officials began forcibly separating parents and children at the U.S.-Mexico border, under a policy championed by Stephen Miller, Trump’s then-senior policy advisor who is now White House deputy chief of staff. After advocates got word, the ACLU filed a lawsuit in February 2018 to halt the practice called Ms. L v. U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement, on behalf of a Congolese mother the Trump administration separated from her 7-year-old daughter for four months. It later became a class action suit.

It wasn’t until thousands of families were torn apart that a judge ordered the government to end separations, saying it caused “lasting, excruciating harm.” According to the ACLU’s most recent accounting, the number of separated parents and children, and their impacted family members covered by the settlement is far greater than had been previously reported — over 11,800 — and because the government deported so many people before the practice was banned, the full scope may never be known. The ACLU also provided AP with new information surrounding Ms. L class members who have been detained and deported during the second Trump administration, including that dozens of children were re-separated. Legal filings in the Ms. L case and other immigration attorneys working with separated families also detailed the re-separations of children.

Under a 2023 settlement agreement signed by the Biden administration, Ms. L class members — including separated parents, children and other close relatives — received special legal protections, pathways toward asylum and access to attorneys, work permits and support services. And over eight years, advocates and attorneys have been trying to help the families reunite and recover, traveling to the Guatemala rainforest and remote Honduran villages to inform class members of their rights, and offering them to apply for everything from humanitarian parole to work authorization permits to psychological counseling, benefits meant “to prevent any ongoing harm caused by the initial separation,” according to the settlement.

That changed when Trump began his second term. Support for separated families was never encoded by an act of Congress, and soon it started shrinking.

First, funding for legal services temporarily ended. Instead, the Trump administration said it would charge families $1,000 each to enter or stay in the country. Then, attorneys said, some parents were told to appear for more frequent ICE check-ins, and ordered to wear ankle monitors to record their movements. Many class members lost access to counseling.

By late last year, emails show the government had deported some protected family members even after being told by the ACLU that they were off limits as protected Ms. L class members.

Seven days before Christmas, ACLU attorney Natalie Behr wrote an urgent email to Department of Justice contacts, saying her team had learned that a protected relative was once again in ICE custody.

“We ask that you tell us why we were not notified of this class member’s detention within 24 hours. … this class member should not be removed,” Behr wrote.

A Washington DOJ trial attorney emailed back, saying he would ask ICE. ACLU attorneys followed up.

By the day after Christmas, it was already too late. He had been deported.

The problem is still surfacing. While the government is required by judge’s orders to immediately tell the ACLU when Ms. L class members are detained and to return re-separated families who have been deported, the Trump administration only disclosed in April that it had deported another protected person to Guatemala back in September, court filings show.

The same thing nearly happened to one of Alva López’s neighbors, who was picked up in West Palm Beach a few months after her deportation. The father also had done landscaping near Mar-a-Lago and had been separated at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2017 from his daughter. Under the first Trump administration, he was swiftly returned to Guatemala. As ACLU attorneys and government lawyers hashed out what separated families were due, he came back to Florida in 2021 to reunite with his children, one of whom had been released after spending months in a government detention facility.

In October, the government locked him up, first in Alligator Alcatraz, an immigration detention center in the Florida Everglades, then inside Camp East Montana in Texas, Kribs said.

At Camp East Montana, he was fed moldy food with worms, berated by guards and learned that a fellow detainee died after being mistreated by ICE officials, he said, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of government reprisal. ICE said the detainee died after experiencing “on-site medical distress,” and the El Paso medical examiner’s office later ruled the detainee experienced “asphyxia due to neck and torso compression.” Christmas and New Year’s Eve came and went, and by January he found it hard to keep up his hopes when his children called.

The ACLU filed a motion about Ms. L parents being detained, and the father was released from government detention in April. While he’s grateful to be back home in Florida with his children, he told AP he feels like he is still being tracked through his ankle monitor and the ICE check-ins he’s required to do every two weeks. His children still worry he won’t be there when they get out of school, he said.

Bis said DHS could impose conditions on parole, including electronic monitoring, regular reporting requirements, and even detention.

**’A place where we can all be safe’**

Sinri Baltazar, a mother from Honduras who was first separated from her then-5-year-old daughter in 2018, also was allowed under a judge’s order in April to return to Louisiana with her three children, including her youngest, a U.S. citizen.

It has not been easy. Baltazar, a member of the Afro-indigenous Garifuna community that faces discrimination in Honduras, was deported with her children last year after she said immigration officials told her to sign a document they said would permit her to keep her family together — only if they all left. Back in New Orleans, she said she was grateful her children could seek a better life, but they have been struggling to get by while living with an acquaintance from church.

“The only thing my children say is that they want to be home, in their own house,” Baltazar said. “I’m just trying to get us to a place where we can all be safe, and I hope for that for all the other families.”

As deportations have risen in the last year and a half, attorneys say separated families have become increasingly fearful about filling out government paperwork and many don’t know they can apply for asylum, a key benefit of the settlement that expires in December. The administration also hasn’t said whether it will extend a current, trimmed-back legal services contract for families that ends in August. Another deadline is looming as well: thousands of separated families need to request for any pending removal orders to be cancelled by December, or lose their ability to stay in the U.S. legally.

“There was never enough funding to keep up with the need,” said Anilú Chadwick, an attorney and senior director at the legal nonprofit Together & Free, which she said has supported 15 families that have been re-separated, including Baltazar’s. “Now we have to see if the government awards a new contract, and I gotta say as someone who has been on the clock to find and locate services, that is not enough time even in the best of circumstances.”

For separated families who are waiting for loved ones to be released from detention, or for paperwork to return to the U.S., however, time has been moving at a glacial pace.

Ever since Alva López was deported back to Guatemala nearly a year ago, she checked her phone each morning for word of when she and her children could return. Money started drying up. The children began forgetting their English slang. Briseidy, now 14, worried she would drift away from her American friends. Finally, two weeks ago, there was news: the government would bring her and her children back to Florida on an American Airlines flight, under a judge’s order.

The puppies she had bought Ederson to lighten his mood had died, and there were few friends and relatives to say goodbye to. So she packed up the siblings and their few possessions, their clothes now loose on their frames after losing weight since returning to Todos Santos Cuchumatán.

And finally, in the last week of May, passports and travel documents in hand, the family flew to Miami. Ederson said it felt like a miracle. But soon after landing, immigration officials pulled Alva López in for questioning, taking her photo and fingerprints all over again and re-examining every document she held. Their stay in the U.S. may be short. An immigration official granted her just two weeks’ humanitarian parole.

The government declined to comment specifically on Alva López’s case.

“I still haven’t told the children” about the two weeks’ parole, Alva López said the first day she woke up back in the family’s old neighborhood in West Palm Beach. “They’re going to worry that the same thing will happen again,” she said.

The Trump administration is making it increasingly difficult for people to get out of immigration detention centers. Even if they have no serious criminal records. Immigration lawyers have fought back with Habeas Corpus petitions. But now lawyers say the administration has a new tactic: setting ridiculously high bonds or denying bonds altogether on questionable grounds.

The ACLU and National Immigration Law Center on Thursday filed a legal challenge to a new Tennessee law that makes it a crime for immigrants without legal status to enter or remain in the state.

The federal lawsuit, filed on behalf of two noncitizens who have lived for decades in Tennessee, is seeking class action status in order to represent “hundreds if not thousands of noncitizens…subject to arrest, detention and prosecution,” under the new legislation, set to take effect July 1.

The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the legislation is a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution — a usurpation by Tennessee of immigration enforcement powers reserved for the federal government. The petition also seeks both a preliminary and permanent restraining order stopping state officials from enforcing the law.

“The rule has been clear for well over a century: Immigration enforcement is exclusively a federal power,” read a statement by Hannah Steinberg, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.

“The state’s overreach here is unlawful and inhumane, creating fear and upending lives for families, neighbors, and communities across Tennessee,” the statement said.

The new state law, making illegal immigration a state crime, was enacted as part of Tennessee Republicans’ so-called “Immigration 2026” agenda that grew out of meetings between House Speaker Cameron Sexton and Stephen Miller, a White House advisor who is a key architect of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda.

Tennessee Republicans also enacted legislation that creates new immigration verification requirements for public benefits, requires sheriffs to enter cooperative agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and imposes penalties on truck drivers who don’t speak fluent English.

The legislation being challenged makes it a Class A misdemeanor under state criminal law for noncitizens to intentionally remain in Tennessee more than 90 days after being issued a final deportation order issued by a federal immigration judge. Class A misdemeanors carry a sentence of up to one year in jail and a maximum $2,500 fine.

The legislation also makes it a crime for immigrants without legal status to enter, or attempt to enter, Tennessee, a provision that will not take effect unless the Supreme Court overturns a previous ruling out of Arizona that found states cannot usurp federal immigration law. The provision may also take effect if Congress acts to explicitly allow states to take on immigration enforcement duties.

The lawsuit details the complexities of the U.S. immigration system that provides remedies for noncitizens with a final deportation order: they may be granted humanitarian relief, or legal protections as crime victims. Some individuals with final removal orders may be protected from deportation under the Convention Against Torture. Children, including unaccompanied minors and recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA — a form of relief set aside for individuals who entered the country as children — may continue to remain in the United States.

One plaintiff, identified only as “Lucy” in court filings, is a 58-year-old noncitizen who has lived in Memphis for the past 25 years. Lucy, according to legal filings, was denied asylum and issued a removal order, but has a separate pending claim under the Violence Against Women Act.

“Benjamin,” the other named plaintiff, entered the United States as a young child when his family applied for asylum. The family was denied and Benjamin, now 35, was ordered removed when he was a teen. He has since become a DACA recipient and lives in Memphis.

“A state cannot replace Congress’s immigration scheme with its own,” the lawsuit argues.

The Tennessee law “jettisons (the existing immigration) system, grasping control over removal from the federal government and allowing Tennessee to unilaterally prosecute noncitizens for refusing or failing to depart the state with no federal control or input.”

A year ago, the Trump administration launched a deportation campaign that would leave an indelible mark on L.A. County.

On the morning of June 6, masked federal immigration agents targeted a Home Depot in Westlake, where day laborers were gathered to solicit construction work. About 3 miles east, more masked agents descended on Ambiance Apparel, a fast-fashion warehouse in downtown Los Angeles.

At both locations, Angelenos witnessed workers getting handcuffed and hauled away. For some, those workers were friends, siblings, spouses or parents.

Purportedly meant to remove criminals from the country, federal immigration officials would go on to arrest more than 14,000 people in the greater Los Angeles area in 2025 — the majority of whom had no criminal record, according to an LAist analysis of recent data from the Deportation Data Project.

These detentions, and the ones that followed, ignited sweeping marches and community activism. Met with occasional violent resistance, the federal government deployed active-duty military personnel to the region.

So far, the mass deportation effort has left the following in its wake: In Ladera Heights, a food vendor clung to a tree to avoid being taken by federal agents. When they hauled her away, she was still wearing her work apron. In the San Fernando Valley, a high school senior took his dog for a walk and did not come home. A neighbor said she saw four men in tactical vests standing near unmarked SUVs shortly after the teenager was detained. In Monrovia, a 52-year-old day laborer who worked to support his wife and four daughters died after being struck by an SUV on the freeway. He was attempting to flee a raid at a local Home Depot.

Families who were suddenly left without their breadwinners struggle to pay their rent. Asylum seekers are detained at routine check-ins. A record number of immigrants have died in civil detention. Many U.S. citizens of color now carry their passports to move about town. Federal agents have detained scores of citizens — sometimes for days. And, to date, more than 200,000 children have been separated from their parents.

Trump’s mass deportation effort, first tested in Bakersfield, has been escalated to other cities: This includes Chicago, where federal agents killed Silverio Villegas-González, a 38-year-old single father, and almost killed Marimar Martinez, a Montessori school teaching assistant. Then, in Minneapolis, federal agents shot and killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti. The federal government branded Martinez, Good and Pretti — all U.S. citizens — as “domestic terrorists” and accused them of trying to harm officers.

Eeking out a living in the raids’ aftermath

In downtown L.A.’s once-bustling fashion district, business hasn’t bounced back. LAist spoke with multiple workers in the area. They declined to share their names for fear of reprisal.

Since the raid at Ambiance, “it hasn’t been the same,” said a worker at a nearby shop. She works at a party supply store specializing in piñatas and embroidered graduation stoles. She’s always waiting for the other shoe to drop, she said.

“[One feels] insecure because you never know how the day is going to go,” the worker told LAist.

At Ambiance Apparel, around the block, an employee estimated a massive loss of income for the store, as much as 50%.

That same effect has played out at small businesses all over the county. Neighborhoods that were hit hard by immigration raids — including Boyle Heights, Echo Park and Westlake, along with southeast L.A. cities like Bell, Pico Rivera and South Gate — report less customer traffic and reduced daily sales.

Since last June, the Home Depot in Westlake has been targeted for raids at least four times. Even so, day laborers still mill about the home improvement megastore’s parking lot, soliciting construction work from homeowners and contractors.

One worker, a 39-year-old from Guatemala who declined to give his name, said he witnessed the raid last year but managed to get away. He was frightened, he told LAist, but he still came back to work the next day; he has five children to support, including one studying to become a nurse.

“Ni modo, hay que comer,” he said, noting that people need money to eat. “Siempre hay necesidad.”

The reality, he said, is that he’s defenseless if agents were to show up again. Despite his own situation, he feels for the other workers around him.

“Es muy triste,” he said. “Están luchando por sus hijos, para seguir adelante” — “It’s really sad. They’re fighting for their children, to get ahead.”

Finding strength in community

Beyond the marches last summer, Angelenos continue to find ways to support local immigrant communities. Some have offered to buy groceries for those who struggle to make ends meet or are simply scared to leave their homes. Others have volunteered to give their neighbors rides to school or work. Several regions have organized community patrols to warn about the presence of federal agents.

Activism has not eluded younger generations. At high schools and middle schools across the county, students have walked out of class in protest.

At Olive Vista Middle School in Sylmar, about 100 students left their science, English and math classes earlier this year. To critics who thought they should have stayed inside, 11-year-old Alejandro said: “They don’t understand how much we love our parents.”

Across the U.S., detained immigrants themselves are engaging in activism. From Delaney Hall in New Jersey to Adelanto in California, people inside ICE detention centers have launched hunger strikes to expose conditions they describe as unsafe and inhumane. The Department of Homeland Security insists there are no hunger strikes at these facilities, and that detainees get “three meals a day, medical care, and receive full due process.”

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights has also planned a slew of L.A. events during the months of June and July to draw attention to the raids’ impact on local families — and to the unique challenges faced by certain workers, including car washers and custodians.

“A year after the cruel immigration surge that shook all Angelenos, our message is clear: Fear did not defeat us, cruelty did not divide us, and militarization did not silence us,” said executive director Angelica Salas in an email. “We remember, we resist, and we recommit ourselves to the struggle for justice, dignity and the humanity of every Angeleno.”

The Trump administration’s immigration policies are going to be a drag on the Massachusetts economy, which counts on thousands of new arrivals to the country each year just to maintain the labor force, a new report finds.

Immigrants make up nearly a quarter of the state’s work force and have an outsized role in higher education, universities, hospitals and the life sciences industry, according to a report by Boston Indicators, an arm of the Boston Foundation, and the MassINC Policy Center.

Massachusetts needs at least 60,000 immigrants annually to sustain the labor force at its current size, according to the report. It also counts heavily on international students coming here to study and on workers in the construction field.

“One key headline in Massachusetts and in Greater Boston is that housing supply is limited, and now our construction industry stands at a crossroads,” said Kimberly Goulart, senior research analyst at Boston Indicators, in an interview with WBUR. “How do they meet this demand when their exact workers who need to build these houses are being scared off by the administration?”

Immigrants play essential roles across all sectors, according to the report, from research laboratories and universities to hospitals, construction sites, restaurants, waste management, transportation and small businesses. The Migration Policy Institute estimates about 357,000 workers in the state lack legal status.

And while there’s a lag in the data, the Census Bureau estimates net migration could fall 90% from the July 2024 peak to July this year, the report says.

Nearly one-third of immigrants in the state labor force have a master’s degree or more, compared to about one-fifth of native-born residents.

Foreign-born heads of households in Massachusetts had an estimated $50 billion in spending power in 2024, according to Goulart. Those households also contributed about $7.4 billion in state and local taxes and more than $23 billion in federal taxes, she said.

International students contribute more than $5 billion to the state economy, according to the report.

“This report illustrates in stark terms how policies to shut down or restrict immigration pathways will have significant negative impact for our overall population and labor force in Massachusetts,” said Lee Pelton, chief executive of the Boston Foundation.

About 20,000 working-aged residents leave Massachusetts each year. And 9,000 more people retire than enter the work force each year. Immigration is needed to offset those two losses, the report found.

In addition, Massachusetts has the second lowest native-born birth rate in the country, at 40 births per 1,000 women. Only Vermont is lower.

“Without these newcomers, Massachusetts will face not only slower population growth, but an outright contraction in the number of working-age residents available to support the broader economy,” the report says.

No Boulder County agencies released documents in response to a Republican-led House committee inquiry.

State of play: Wednesday marked the deadline for the Boulder County District Attorney’s Office, sheriff’s office, and Boulder Police Department to respond to a series of record requests from the House Judiciary Committee. The committee said it was “conducting oversight of state and local jurisdictions that endanger American communities through their refusal to cooperate with federal immigration officials.”

The big picture: The back-and-forth highlights growing tension between federal immigration priorities, state and municipal laws that limit how local agencies can participate in immigration enforcement.

The latest: Boulder County DA Michael Dougherty wrote to the committee questioning the legality of the inquiry and cited inaccuracies in its letter. The letter, obtained by Axios Boulder, said many requests could not be fulfilled because Boulder County keeps email communications for only one year. Some of the data the committee wants simply isn’t tracked by the DA’s office.

Yes, but: Dougherty said that while he believes the House Judiciary Committee had no legal standing to make the requests, his office has “nothing to hide.” He added that his office would fulfill the requests if the committee extended its deadline and paid for staff time.

Meanwhile, a letter from Boulder police Chief Stephen Redfearn also obtained by Axios Boulder said the department would seek legal counsel before responding further.

The Boulder County Sheriff’s Office told Axios on Thursday that Sheriff Curtis Johnson also did not release any records, but sent a letter outlining state and federal laws.

Between the lines: All three Boulder County agencies noted that most of what the House committee described as “sanctuary policies” are state laws.

Zoom out: Similar letters were sent to Denver, Philadelphia and Arlington, Virginia — other cities the Trump administration has targeted for refusing to cooperate with ICE.

What we’re watching: How the House Judiciary Committee responds after all three agencies failed to meet its deadline.

Massachusetts will need to attract 64,000 new immigrants each year to avoid widespread economic strain, according to a new report, but current federal immigration policies put the state on track to receive less than half that number.

Immigrants make up about 20% of the state’s population but 24% of the labor force, according to a report from Boston Indicators and MassINC Policy Center released Thursday. Immigrants make up an even greater share of certain key industries, such as health care and construction.

But as Massachusetts deals with low birth rates compared to the rest of the country and many residents moving away due to the high cost of living, incoming immigrants will be an even more important demographic to ensure those industries remain strong, researchers found.

“Immigrants are essential to the economic, cultural and civic life of this commonwealth,” said Lee Pelton, president and CEO of the Boston Foundation, Boston Indicators’ parent organization, at an event Thursday morning. “These stakes are not abstract. They are immediate, they are local and they belong to all of us.”

According to the report, Massachusetts has had the second-highest rate of incoming international migration in recent years.

In 2024, immigrant-led households in the state paid about $7.4 billion in state and local taxes and $23 billion in federal taxes. They added about $50.5 billion in spending power in the local economy. Immigrants make up about 27% of entrepreneurs and 40% of Main Street business owners across the state.

The commonwealth has the second-lowest birth rate in the country, at 40 births per 1,000 women age 15 to 50. Combined with the high rate of residents moving to other states, the overall population would have declined over the past two decades if not for new immigrants. The researchers estimate Massachusetts will lose roughly 9,000 workers a year to an aging population and another 20,000 to outmigration, requiring about 64,000 new international arrivals annually to offset projected losses.

After Trump returned to office, the immigration rate dropped to about 40,200 in 2025, and the report estimated it could drop further to about 29,100 this year.

Certain industries have already been hit hard. About 40% of nursing facility staff are foreign-born, with about 13% of direct care roles currently vacant. About 2,000 of those front-line workers are Haitian recipients of Temporary Protected Status, which the Trump administration has attempted to revoke. In construction, about 30% of workers are foreign-born, and industry representatives described losing employees mid-project and workers becoming reluctant to travel to job sites for fear of ICE. “Even rumors of ICE activity near job sites can cause workers, including workers with legal authorization, to stop showing up,” the report authors wrote.

Trump’s policies have also affected higher education and scientific research. In addition to cuts to federal research funding, the administration imposed a new $100,000 fee on H-1B visa applications — up from around $5,000 previously — which employers use to sponsor highly skilled workers. Researchers found this was a cause for concern particularly in the sciences, with companies likely to send jobs offshore or close altogether rather than hire locally.

A Guatemalan immigrant who needed surgery to remove an ovarian cyst has been released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention in El Paso.

Andrea Pedro Francisco was released Thursday, June 4, from the El Paso Service Processing Center after four months of detention. The 23-year-old Guatemalan immigrant had been detained during ICE’s operations in Minnesota on Feb. 5, a week prior to when she had a surgery scheduled to remove the cyst.

Pedro Francisco expressed surprise in a statement to reporters at her sudden release.

“It was a shock, it surprised me greatly,” Pedro Francisco said. “I was finishing eating when they told me I had to have a meeting. Suddenly ICE told me that today I was going to be released, and I asked them why, where am I going? They told me I was going home. And I was just stunned because … I truly did not know that yesterday I was going to be released. I didn’t know what to do. I thought it was like a joke because I wasn’t expecting it.”

She said that she will now return to her family, friends and her instruments. She is mentally preparing for her pending surgery.

Ruby Powers, Pedro Francisco’s attorney, celebrated her release. She recognized the important work that others played in making the release possible.

“This was never a one person or one place effort,” Powers said in a statement. “It took advocates, legislators, religious leaders, legal teams, and media outlets across Texas, Minnesota, and beyond, all pushing together across state lines and jurisdictions and refusing to let her case be forgotten.”

She acknowledged Pedro Francisco’s strength, saying that “Andrea met every moment of this ordeal with a strength and dignity that humbled everyone around her. She endured pressure that most people will never know, and she never broke. Watching her fight renewed something in all of us.”

Advocates and congressional representatives had called for Pedro Francisco’s release.

Among them was U.S. Rep. Angie Craig, Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party-Prior Lake, Minnesota, who traveled to El Paso on May 4 to meet with Pedro Francisco. She celebrated the young woman’s release after advocating for her immediate release.

“I am beyond happy and relieved to hear that Andrea has been released from ICE custody and will soon be home with her family and friends in Minnesota, where she belongs,” Craig said in a statement. “Andrea’s perseverance and courage in the face of such inhumanity has inspired me — and so many in our community — to continue our work together to hold ICE accountable for (its) cruel and lawless enforcement operations in Minnesota. Her release is proof that when Minnesotans come together to resist this administration, we prevail.”

She also said that Pedro Francisco did not deserve to be detained and denied the medical attention she needed.

Pedro Francisco is an Indigenous Mayan immigrant from the western highlands of Guatemala.

She migrated to the U.S. with her mother in 2016, when she was 16 years old. She has supported her mom and her siblings since arriving in the U.S.

Craig had previously told reporters in El Paso that playing music in the church is Pedro Francisco’s passion and that she has noted that not being able to play has led to a growing depression. Pedro Francisco played the bass and piano in her church.

Pedro Francisco’s case gained national attention over the denial of attention for her medical condition. Amnesty International issued a call for her release on April 10 and Craig said that the El Paso detention facility has received letters calling for her immediate release.

Under a new policy announced by the Trump administration late last month, people in the U.S. who want a green card will have to go back to their home country and apply for it there.

Non-citizens seeking to become permanent residents must now go through consular processing abroad. Green cards will only be issued here under “extraordinary circumstances.”

“This policy allows our immigration system to function as the law intended, instead of incentivizing loopholes,” said a spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

This move is an unwarranted assault on legal immigration that will upend the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who are playing by the rules to obtain lawful permanent residency. It represents a break with longstanding practice and may even be illegal.

Green card applicants include people here on temporary work, student or tourist visas, and the spouses and family members of citizens. People apply for green cards for a variety of reasons, such as getting a job offer or because they have married an American. In 2024, 1.4 million green cards were granted, and most of them went to people inside the U.S. In fact, the majority of green cards issued over the last decade went to people already in the country.

After public backlash, the administration attempted to downplay the impact of the new rule. But its mixed messaging has only led to more confusion.

The new rule may be a logistical nightmare for applicants. Some will have to self-deport to their native countries, then wait months or even years for their green card to be approved — all with no guarantee of being allowed back. This could result in people losing job offers or in lengthy family separations. It will likely add to the backlog in green card applications. None of these outcomes can be accurately described as “fairer and more efficient” (as the Trump administration asserts) than the existing process.

Besides, some people cannot go back to their home countries and apply for a green card at a consulate. People from Russia and Iran cannot do so because the U.S. does not have consular offices in those nations. People from Haiti and Ukraine cannot go home because it is not safe. And people who return to countries subject to the administration’s travel ban and freeze on visa issuances could end up trapped there.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services says that it is merely “returning to the original intent of the law to ensure aliens navigate our nation’s immigration system properly.” This is false. People have been applying for green cards within the U.S. for decades, during both Republican and Democratic administrations.

In 1952, Congress wrote and passed the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which specifically grants people the right to obtain a green card without leaving the country. The law says nothing about this being only for “extraordinary circumstances.”

By offering its own interpretation of existing law, the administration is asserting an authority it does not have. The new green card rule amounts to a de facto change in immigration law, which only Congress can make. On this basis alone, the policy runs afoul of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. But lawsuits against the federal government can take years, and many green card applicants and their families will face confusion and anxiety over their futures in the meantime.

The new green card rule is alarming because it’s part of an escalating attack on legal immigration. It has curtailed grants of asylum, ended temporary grants of deportation relief, and halted refugee admissions. It has restricted work and student visas and slashed green card approval rates. An April analysis from the Cato Institute found that the administration has so far cut legal immigration by numbers 2.5 times greater than its cuts to illegal immigration. How exactly are these actions making the country safer?

True, some people have concerns about foreign workers being given green cards and then displacing U.S. citizens in fields like technology. Yet this is an issue for Congress to debate and decide, not the president alone. While he has broad power over immigration policy, he cannot unilaterally issue a memo that radically transforms legal immigration.

It’s hard to see any sound rationale for this new policy. It will make it harder for businesses, hospitals, and academic institutions to attract top talent to the U.S. It could deter eligible people from applying for a green card. Meanwhile, an Associated Press poll last year found that most Americans believe that legal immigration contributes to U.S. economic growth.

The new green card policy is harmful, illogical and legally problematic. The administration should be supporting lawful immigration, not inventing punitive barriers to entry.

“They walk among us.” The glowing green letters emerge ominously against a dark backdrop. Above them hover the words “aliens” and “declassified,” suggesting the release — long awaited in some corners of the internet — of secret government files concerning extraterrestrials. Slowly, tantalizingly, more text appears: “For 60 years, the U.S. government has kept a closely guarded secret.” Then the big reveal: It’s not the trailer for a horror film; it’s a White House web page, posted last Thursday. And scary creatures in question aren’t extraterrestrials; they’re the other kind of aliens — the immigrant kind, the kind hunted by ICE.

“Aliens have been walking among us, living in our neighborhoods, and interacting with us in our daily lives,” the page announces. “They’ve shopped in the same stores, attended the same classes as our children, and lived seemingly normal human existences.” That’s the joke: Human beings are described as nonhuman invaders. Fascism, but make it a troll.

This web page, which invites users to look up the number of immigrants supposedly arrested on charges of criminal activity in American cities and towns, belongs to a subgenre of Trumpian gestures that are menacing and sophomoric at the same time. “Grotesque and terrifying and juvenile,” is how Ernesto Verdeja, a genocide-prevention expert at the University of Notre Dame, described it to me. These gestures are hard to write about: The ugliness is undisguised, so what is there to say? And yet, these statements, step by preposterous step, change the world we live in.

With phrases like, “They do not belong here” and, “Deport them all,” the page struck me as an incitement for Americans to commit acts of violence against immigrants. But Benjamin Valentino, a professor of government at Dartmouth College, thinks that the purpose of the page is not to get Americans to do anything: It’s to get them to do nothing, while the government commits its campaign of cruelty against millions of people just trying to live in peace. “They want a majority of the population to turn their backs,” he said. “That’s all that’s necessary.”

Valentino co-founded the Early Warning Project, which assesses the risk of mass atrocities around the world. To be sure, anti-immigrant violence in the United States does not approach the scale of the atrocities Valentino usually studies. But the dehumanizing language of the sort used by the Trump administration is, he said, “a pretty standard indicator” of risk, a necessary if insufficient condition of mass violence directed at a particular group.

“It’s not that it turns normal people into murderers,” Valentino said. “It’s that it turns them into bystanders.”

To the extent that the Trump administration has pulled back on its violent anti-immigrant campaign, it has done so because nonimmigrants have stepped up — in the courts and, especially, in the streets. The most dramatic confrontations took place this past winter in Minneapolis, but in the months since the federal government ended its occupation of that city, resistance has continued. In Newark, N.J., demonstrators have been protesting the conditions at the Delaney Hall ICE detention facility. At least 63 people have been arrested in the past week alone. In New York City, a relatively new coalition called Hands Off NYC has, since January, trained more than 7,000 volunteers to peacefully resist ICE. The Aliens web page, Valentino thinks, is intended to discourage this kind of activity.

“The key is that you are supposed to see your city with a big red dot over it,” Valentino said, referring to a map on the website, then click to read, supposedly, the number of immigrants who have been charged with crimes. (For example, “Jamestown, N.Y.: 10; Larceny, Obstructing the Police; Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nigeria.”) “And you see the charges — do you want to risk your life for this kind of person?”

When the page went up, the American Immigration Council, a pro-immigration advocacy organization, happened to be hosting a gathering of data experts. Participants thought they saw something interesting. “The page is poorly coded, badly designed, and yet weirdly transparent about some things the administration hasn’t been transparent about before,” Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the council, told me. It appeared that the map was based on raw data of ICE arrests — information that the government had mostly kept secret since the beginning of President Trump’s current term. The map is possibly the best document to date of the scale of the ICE campaign, which, it shows, has raged not only in big cities but in small towns, where it’s sometimes less visible.

As is usual for the Trump administration, the figures are decontextualized and misrepresented. In addition to the map, the page contains a supposed tally of “encounters,” a term that has one meaning in 1970s sci-fi and another in Customs and Border Protection-speak, where it typically refers to instances in which immigrants are apprehended. What struck me after spending too much time staring at the page was that it wants you to be afraid of all aliens: the space kind and the “illegal” kind, but also the “legal” kind, foreign-born people who have been living in this country for decades. As for the counter, it’s tracking nothing. The numbers just tick upward at a perfectly steady pace, one every second and a bit.

Underscoring the sophomoric aspect of this astonishing document is the fact that it’s shot through with references to “The X-Files.” I caught only one of them: The last lines say, “The truth is no longer out there. It’s right here. Right now” — a nod to the show’s tag line. Ernesto Verdeja, the Notre Dame professor, grew up with the show, so he pointed out some other echoes, such as the combination of interplanetary warfare and a deep-state conspiracy. But superimposed on all that pop culture are the white supremacist tropes. The sentences about aliens “walking among us, living in our neighborhoods,” Verdeja said, read to him like invocations of the Great Replacement theory, which has become so familiar as to seem almost mainstream. “It’s similar to the way Jews were talked about in Europe in the 1920s and ’30s,” Verdeja said.

He made the comparison gingerly, wary of falling into an alarmist cliché. But the ideologues of Trump’s immigration policies are taking no such pains. A couple of days after the “Aliens” page was published, Gregory Bovino, the former head of the U.S. Border Patrol who oversaw the federal immigration operation in Minneapolis, traveled to Portugal for a meeting of far-right politicians to discuss “remigration,” a concept that refers to the forcible displacement of millions of people on the basis of their ethnicity in the wake of World War I — what we now call ethnic cleansing.

Driven by the same nativist and xenophobic ideas, the United States adopted the Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924, which ended mass immigration by introducing national-origin quotas designed to favor Northern and Western Europeans and exclude nonwhite immigrants almost entirely. These quotas stayed in place for four decades — until they were repealed just over 60 years ago, which is when the White House page claims the story of the aliens begins.

The point of making historical connections is not to say that any two actions, or any two eras, are exactly alike. Context always changes. But it’s important to see that this web page isn’t just a troll. It didn’t come out of nowhere. Provocations like this are part of an old and terrible story, and it’s still being written today.

Have you ever fallen? When we were children, we could usually count on a parent coming to comfort us and put us back on our feet. As adults, falling looks quite different. You may lose a job, go through a divorce, face a health crisis, or experience any number of hardships. We still need people around us to help us back up and remind us that things will be okay.

Families are the first support we all lean on when we have a crisis. This is especially true for our immigrant neighbors.

As an evangelical Christian, it is important to me that our immigration policies do everything they reasonably can to keep families together. But it’s not just me. In a recent study, 94% of Protestant pastors said any immigration legislation must protect family unity.

Our community can help us get back on our feet when we’re down. I have experienced this many times. My community rallied around me when I lost my dad, when we had car troubles, and when I lost a job.

We as Christians should be on the lookout for those who have fallen because we believe in the concept of imago Dei. This is the belief that every human being, no matter where they are born or what they have done, bears the image of God. This means that even those we disagree with or fear carry inherent dignity and worth. That is the baseline.

This conviction should shape how Christians think about immigration. If we believe that everyone is made in the image of God, that means we should not dream of name-calling, using dehumanizing language, or spreading false statements about groups of people.

Our church has been involved with immigrant families for decades. During and after the Vietnam War, Elmbrook opened its doors to displaced families and helped many resettle. More recently, we have continued walking alongside immigrant families in our community.

Recently we encountered something deeply troubling in our church ministry. An immigrant family we have come alongside was unable to bring their newborn child with them to the United States due to unavoidable circumstances. For more than three years, we prayed, advocated, made calls and completed paperwork in hopes that the child could finally be reunited with their parents.

After years of following every rule and completing every legal requirement, the parents received notice that his visa was denied. The denial cited a presidential proclamation meant to protect our country from threats to national security.

That was the stated reason for keeping a three-year-old from his parents.

Something is inherently wrong with a system that allows this to happen.

This example is not unusual, and we continue to see stories just as tragic.

I am particularly discouraged to read about a new USCIS memo creating an entirely new process for applying for Lawful Permanent Status (green cards). This new policy would require legally present immigrants applying for green cards to leave the country and be separated from their family again. This could mean that spouses married to a U.S. citizen would need to depart for a time before being able to adjust their status.

We need to see a change. That’s why I encourage my representatives to support our legal pathways of immigration instead of tearing them down. I want those who have followed the proper legal path to not face new burdens. I long for just laws, and I hope you will encourage your representatives as well.

It’s hard for families to remain intact and able to provide support, stability, and care for one another throughout life if they’re separated. I long for a world where we do everything in our power to keep young children with their parents and spouses with each other. We want them to pick each other up when they fall.

No es sorprendente que en la semana que marca el primer aniversario del despliegue de violencia de ICE en Los Ángeles, el 6 de junio de 2025, con redadas que dieron paso a protestas, se reporten huelgas de hambre en centros de detención en al menos cuatro estados, incluyendo Delaney Hall en Newark, New Jersey, donde los detenidos denuncian malos tratos, condiciones insalubres y falta de atención médica adecuada.

Y es que la estrategia de detenciones y deportaciones masivas de Trump es un monstruo de muchas cabezas que se manifiesta de diversas formas y de manera constante.

Lo ocurrido en Los Ángeles ese 6 de junio fue el pistoletazo de salida para el reino de terror de ICE no solo en esa ciudad, sino a través del país.

Bien lo dijo Human Rights Watch en un informe de noviembre de 2025 al afirmar que “la violenta campaña de redadas y detenciones llevada a cabo por el gobierno federal de Estados Unidos durante el verano de 2025 en Los Ángeles sentó las bases para abusos similares y posteriores en ciudades de todo el país”.

Se calcula que en 2025, ICE arrestó a más de 14,000 personas en el área del condado de Los Ángeles, aunque la cifra también suma arrestos en otros condados como Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo y Santa Bárbara.

Fue el ensayo de Trump y de su asesor Stephen Miller, de conducir agresivas redadas con agentes enmascarados violando toda clase de derechos y amparos legales, usando perfiles raciales y haciéndolo en ciudades lideradas por demócratas con total impunidad.

Tras protestas por las acciones de ICE, Trump desplegó 2,000 guardias nacionales y 700 Marines en Los Ángeles sin que se le solicitara ningún tipo de asistencia, solamente para crear una crisis donde no la había. Estas acciones aterrorizaron comunidades, separaron familias, afectaron la economía. Inmigrantes murieron huyendo de los agentes de ICE.

En este contexto los agentes de ICE y de CBP descienden sobre Minneapolis, Minnesota, donde el nuevo año 2026 trajo consigo algunos de los operativos más violentos con detenciones indiscriminadas de ciudadanos y residentes autorizados que culminaron en las muertes de dos ciudadanos estadounidenses, Renee Good y Alex Pretti, a manos de agentes migratorios.

La violencia y la impunidad han sido rechazadas por el público estadounidense y los índices de aprobación de Trump en inmigración descendieron drásticamente, y es cuando se hacen cambios cosméticos en el liderazgo del DHS y sus agencias migratorias, pero la violencia se sigue manifestando de muchas formas.

Ahora se suscitan huelgas de hambre y la administración usa el desarrollo para seguir deshumanizando a los inmigrantes, atacar a quienes los defienden, y seguir violentando el derecho que tienen los legisladores federales de supervisar los que ocurre en cárceles privadas sufragadas con fondos públicos y a las que les llueven denuncias por abusos físicos, sexuales y psicológicos, por condiciones insalubres, alimentos descompuestos y por negar atención médica a detenidos, muchos de los cuales han muerto o se han suicidado en cifras nunca antes vistas.

La campaña de la administración de detener y deportar a inmigrantes que NO son “lo peor de lo peor”, sigue en marcha de diversas formas, ya sean redadas tradicionales, deslegalizando inmigrantes, retrasando la renovación de permisos y lo último, según reportan los medios, son las ‘mega audiencias’ de deportación. “Más de 100 inmigrantes están citados simultáneamente para responder por sus procesos, una táctica sin precedentes que busca elevar el número de deportaciones”, escribió la Agencia EFE.

Obviamente a este gobierno poco le importa la crisis humanitaria que genera su política migratoria. Tampoco le importa el efecto que ha tenido en la economía en momentos en que los estadounidenses ya enfrentan altos costos de alimentos, vivienda y cuidados médicos, entre otros.

Un análisis del Brookings Institution concluyó que la escalada de las medidas de control migratorio “costó 668,000 puestos de trabajo y se estima que entre 51,000 y 297,000 habrían sido ocupados por trabajadores nacidos en Estados Unidos”.

“Las pérdidas se concentraron en sectores con alta presencia de inmigrantes, pero se extendieron mucho más allá de ellos”, agrega el reporte.

Pero el Congreso se apresta a aprobar otros $70,000 millones de dólares para ICE y CBP, además de los $170,000 millones autorizados el año pasado.

Y todo esto ocurre a un mes de que esta nación conmemora los 250 años de su fundación, el 4 de julio, y como en oportunidades previas, ese aniversario se da en medio de situaciones complicadas que nos recuerdan la fragilidad de la democracia que se celebra y de que nos queda mucho camino por recorrer cuando de derechos civiles y humanos se trata.

Bryan José Rojas Galofre, un inmigrante venezolano con solicitud de asilo pendiente y padre de dos hijos estadounidenses, dice que quiso darle una linda luna de miel a su esposa Socorro Zaragosa, quien también es ciudadana, por eso manejaron desde Wisconsin hasta Miami para que ella conociera la playa por primera vez en enero de 2025.

Además, como Zaragosa es simpatizante del presidente Donald Trump, Rojas pensó que el final perfecto del viaje sería pasar unos días en el hotel Trump National Doral. Por eso, cuando escucharon por la radio que el mandatario estaría inaugurando el retiro anual de los legisladores republicanos en ese hotel el 27 de enero (un día antes de su reserva en ese centro turístico, según Rojas), decidieron acercarse para tratar de verlo.

“Fue más por cuestiones del hotel, para sorprenderla a ella por nuestra luna de miel. Y como el presidente estaba ahí, para mí iba a ser solamente saludarlo”, dijo Rojas, de 33 años, en una entrevista con Noticias Telemundo.

Ambos se conocieron en la ciudad de Plover, Wisconsin, y ya tenían cuatro meses de casados cuando decidieron hacer el viaje.

“Tú eres ciudadana, no vas a tener ningún problema”, recuerda Rojas que le dijo a su esposa sobre la idea de ir al hotel para ver a Trump. “Pero, al fin y al cabo, fue una mala decisión y nos llevó a esto”, concluye con desaliento pues el plan se convirtió en una pesadilla porque ese día lo detuvieron en el hotel y estuvo más de tres meses bajo custodia del Servicio de Control de Inmigración y Aduanas (ICE).

Su esposa, Socorro Zaragosa, de 22 años y criada en Wisconsin en una familia simpatizante del actual mandatario estadounidense, lo explica sin rodeos: “Yo soy su fan. Yo creo que Trump es buen presidente”. Pero Zaragosa también dice que esa fidelidad política convive con la decepción que siente por los meses en que su esposo estuvo detenido. “Lo que está haciendo con los migrantes no es justo, lo que le pasó a mi familia no fue justo”, añadió.

Una luna de miel que terminó en un operativo de seguridad

Rojas llegó a Estados Unidos en septiembre de 2021 durante la Administración del expresidente Joe Biden. La Patrulla Fronteriza lo encontró en la frontera y fue puesto en libertad mientras tramitaba su solicitud de asilo. Desde entonces trabajaba en una fábrica de discos de freno en Wisconsin, donde ganaba 29 dólares por hora y fue ascendido a jefe de línea. Se casó con Zaragosa en septiembre de 2024 y empezó a gestionar su regularización por la vía familiar cuando se fueron de luna de miel.

Rojas y Zaragosa decidieron acercarse al hotel ese 27 de enero poco después de las 3:00 pm. Al aproximarse, se toparon con un checkpoint de seguridad para poder acceder a las instalaciones, donde agentes del Servicio Secreto y la policía local del Doral revisaron su auto.

Los agentes encontraron debajo de uno de los asientos una pistola de aire comprimido (también conocida como airsoft gun, que es un arma que dispara proyectiles de plástico y que se usa con fines deportivos y recreativos) que Zaragosa dice que llevaba por seguridad cuando manejaba sola porque tiene una apariencia similar a algunas armas de fuego. Además, se encontró un triturador metálico para marihuana (grinder) en la guantera del lado del pasajero. A las 3:38 pm se produjo el arresto, según documentos legales.

Rojas afirma que, cuando los agentes vieron sus tatuajes (una corona, un dragón chino, y unos signos de dólar que tiene desde joven), lo separaron de su esposa. “Me sacaron del carro, me revisaron los tatuajes, empezaron a preguntar si era de alguna banda, me tomaron fotos y me pusieron en revisión a ver si estaba vinculado al terrorismo”, recordó Rojas. “En ese momento estaba muy alta la noticia del Tren de Aragua”.

Rojas fue acusado con un cargo de posesión de parafernalia de drogas con intención de uso. Él se declaró no culpable y el caso sigue abierto.

El Departamento de Policía de Doral aseguró a Noticias Telemundo que sus oficiales actuaron solo para manejar la infracción penal, “dado que se trataba de un delito estatal”.

“Al principio de esta Administración se enfocaron bastante en los tatuajes y la vinculación con el Tren de Aragua. Esto fue una generalización bastante amplia. Ahí se estaban incluyendo dibujos y diseños que no necesariamente aplicaban con el Tren de Aragua. Estamos hablando de chicos jóvenes que se hicieron tatuajes sin saber ni siquiera lo que significaban, y ahora tienen consecuencias graves bajo esta Administración”, explica Tahimi Rengifo, abogada migratoria de Rojas.

A Rojas lo detuvo la policía local y después quedó bajo custodia de las autoridades migratorias. “Yo me sentía protegido por mi asilo y porque tres meses atrás ya me había casado con mi esposa”, aseguró.

En los días siguientes, el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) lo trasladó al Federal Detention Center, una cárcel en el centro de Miami mientras verificaba si tenía vínculos con pandillas venezolanas. Rojas pasó casi tres meses en el piso 13 de esa prisión, donde dice que temía ser deportado a El Salvador porque muchas personas venezolanas detenidas con él fueron trasladadas a ese país. El 18 de abril, un juez le concedió libertad bajo fianza de $15,000, y luego fue trasladado al centro de detención migratoria de Pompano Beach, mientras su familia pagaba la fianza y buscaba papeles adicionales. Finalmente, fue liberado el 6 de mayo de 2025.

“Las personas tienen el entendimiento de que, una vez ganen su audiencia, van a salir inmediatamente. Lamentablemente no funciona de esa manera, porque es un sistema que, en otras palabras, está roto. Requiere de un montón de personas involucradas para poder decidir cuándo la persona sale”, explica la abogada Rengifo.

Rojas insiste en que sus tatuajes no tienen ninguna relación con el crimen organizado. “Son cuestiones personales. No pertenezco a ninguna banda”, asegura.

Pero, según consta en una queja que presentó en abril de 2026 ante la Oficina de Derechos Civiles y Libertades Civiles del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional, las autoridades lo asociaron con la organización criminal conocida como Tren de Aragua. The New York Times y NPR documentaron en marzo de 2025 que el Gobierno federal usaba un sistema de puntaje en el que los tatuajes valían hasta cuatro puntos de los ocho necesarios para catalogar a alguien como miembro de esa banda, sin embargo, expertos han señalado que el Tren de Aragua no usa tatuajes como distintivo de membresía.

Rojas no fue acusado formalmente de pertenecer al Tren de Aragua en los documentos revisados por Noticias Telemundo. Su defensa afirma que no tiene antecedentes penales en Venezuela ni en Estados Unidos. En sus palabras, el Gobierno y los propios agentes “se dieron cuenta de quién es uno como persona”, afirmó. “Yo vine a este país a trabajar”.

Bernarda Galofre, la madre de Rojas que vive en Wisconsin, resume la situación en una sola frase: “Todo eso afectó a mi hijo en todos los aspectos. Para mí todavía sigue prisionero, porque no puede hacer nada”.

Meses de encierro

En la queja civil, Rojas describió confinamientos de días enteros sin acceso a comunicación en Miami, comida entregada por debajo de la puerta, sin acceso a los servicios básicos apropiados: “Lo que sentía estando preso era demasiado soledad, angustia y desesperación. Es una prisión federal en donde te hacían lockdown durante cuatro o cinco días sin poder hablar con su familia, comiendo por debajo de la puerta sin tener necesidades básicas. Sentí mucho miedo, porque ahí adentro murió una persona. Había peleas”, afirmó.

El Buró Federal de Prisiones no respondió a comentarios específicos sobre el caso de Rojas, pero aseguró que el Centro de Detención Federal de Miami “no ha puesto a los detenidos bajo confinamiento”, sino que experimentó “operaciones modificadas” durante una falla de los elevadores entre abril y julio de 2025. En esas semanas, dijo la agencia, los inmigrantes tuvieron turnos diarios “con acceso a teléfono, recreación, duchas y computadoras”. Según la agencia, las visitas y comunicaciones legales nunca se interrumpieron y los detenidos recibieron atención médica básica y artículos de higiene.

Mientras Rojas estaba detenido, Zaragosa se quedó sola con su primer hijo que solo tenía seis meses. “No pudimos hablar durante un mes a partir de que yo caí preso”, dijo Rojas.

“Yo pensé que ya de ahí mi familia se iba a acabar. Yo pensé que me iba a despertar y que iba a perderlo, iba a quedar sola con mi hijo”, recordó Socorro.

Bernarda Galofre, por su parte, afirma que durante esos meses la familia fue víctima de una estafa. En el desespero por tratar de ayudar a su hijo, contactó a un supuesto abogado por redes sociales que, según ella, resultó ser un impostor. “Él me contestaba todo, me pedía cosas y yo le mandaba los papeles y le mandé como 2,000 dólares. Pero, de repente, ya no supe más de ellos”, aseveró.

Zaragosa dice que tras una infancia difícil soñaba con una familia, pero para mantenerla ahora conduce seis horas diarias para ir y volver de su empleo en limpieza. Gana $700 cada dos semanas para pagar las cuentas, comida, renta. Ahora tienen una bebé de dos meses; al día siguiente de dar a luz tuvo que ir a trabajar porque “no teníamos nada” para ella, narra.

“Esto para mí ha sido muy deprimente”, asegura. Lamenta no pasar más tiempo con sus hijos y, cuando está con ellos, dice, se siente “muy cansada” para disfrutar.

Rojas es ahora un padre a tiempo completo, pero a la pareja le persigue el terror de que lo detengan de nuevo. No sale solo y cuando sale, no se separa de su familia.

Galofre sufre por su hijo, pero también por su nuera y sus nietos. No ha podido conocer a la bebé y lamenta no estar cerca: ella también tiene un proceso migratorio en marcha y teme viajar. “La verdad que duele mucho”, dijo.

Un limbo legal

La liberación de Rojas no significó el fin de sus problemas. Su permiso de trabajo venció durante la detención y no se lo renovaron. Tampoco pudo renovar su licencia de conducir. La casa que habían comprado en Wisconsin está en venta y también tuvieron que vender su coche. Su fondo 401(k) fue utilizado para pagar abogados y la fianza, asegura Rojas. Según la queja que presentó ante el DHS, sus deudas superan los $80,000.

“Estoy en un limbo migratorio que no se lo deseo a nadie. No sé cuántas personas estén así, que hayan pagado un bond (fianza), hayan pasado tiempo de revisión, que no tienen antecedentes, que han sido una persona trabajadora desde que llegaste, has pagado tus taxes (impuestos) y todavía no tienes derecho a una forma de vivir”, dijo Rojas.

Su próxima audiencia de inmigración está fijada para 2028. Ese plazo no es excepcional: según EOIR, los tribunales de inmigración tienen más de 3.38 millones de casos activos y los casos de asilo esperan en promedio más de cuatro años para resolverse.

Noticias Telemundo contactó al Departamento de Seguridad Nacional para solicitar comentarios sobre el caso de Rojas. Un vocero lo describió como “un extranjero ilegal criminal de Venezuela” que fue arrestado por autoridades locales “después de intentar entrar al Trump National en Doral, Florida, con una pistola de balines. Su historial criminal incluye cargos por parafernalia de drogas”.

“Bajo el presidente Trump y el secretario Mullin, los extranjeros ilegales criminales no son bienvenidos en Estados Unidos”, concluyó el portavoz.

Sin embargo, los documentos judiciales cuentan otra versión del caso de Rojas. La moción de fianza presentada ante la Corte de Inmigración de Pompano Beach —firmada por el abogado Johan Gutiérrez y presentada ante el Departamento de Justicia de Estados Unidos— establece que Rojas “nunca ha sido condenado por ningún delito grave, crimen de impacto moral o delito de drogas descalificante, ni en Estados Unidos ni en ningún otro país del mundo”, y que fue detenido “únicamente porque entró al país de manera irregular”.

Rojas rechazó la descripción que el DHS hizo de él. “Ellos me quieren seguir manchando a mí con tal de no darme el permiso de trabajo, negándome mis beneficios del Social Security. Es un atropello hacia mi esposa que es americana y mis dos hijos”, dijo.

Sobre el cargo de parafernalia que menciona el DHS, la defensa señaló que corresponde a una infracción bajo la ley de marihuana de Florida, que los tribunales federales han determinado de manera reiterada que no equivale a un delito de drogas controladas ni activa consecuencias migratorias.

“Este cargo de parafernalia, para términos federales, no es un crimen que lo haga inadmisible o inelegible para un proceso migratorio. Él no es una persona que con este crimen vaya a ser inelegible para el beneficio migratorio que tiene pendiente ante la corte de inmigración”, explica Rengifo.

El juez de inmigración, Scott Alexander, después de revisar todas las pruebas, concedió la fianza el 18 de abril de 2025, lo que implica que no encontró que Rojas representara un peligro para la comunidad ni un riesgo de fuga.

La historia de los Rojas ocurre en el contexto de una Administración que ha declarado abiertamente su intención de desmantelar el sistema de asilo. En septiembre de 2025, el subsecretario de Estado Christopher Landau dijo ante la Asamblea General de la ONU que el sistema “se ha convertido en un enorme vacío legal en nuestras leyes de inmigración”.

La exsecretaria de Seguridad Nacional Kristi Noem ratificó en noviembre de 2025 una norma global de asilo que eleva los estándares de prueba, amplía las causales de rechazo y restringe el acceso a protección. Y Tom Homan, el ‘zar’ de la frontera, ha dicho que harán falta millones de deportaciones y que, aunque las redadas priorizan a personas con antecedentes criminales, nadie “está fuera de la mesa” si vive en el país sin papeles; también ha defendido deportar familias completas para evitar nuevas separaciones y ha anunciado un aumento de los arrestos colaterales en los operativos de ICE.

“Bryan no tenía ningún tipo de récord criminal, no había cometido ningún crimen, tenía un proceso pendiente que bajo cualquier otra Administración anterior no hubiese sido un problema. Pero bajo esta Administración, todos estos pequeños detalles —el tatuaje, el grinder, el arma de balines— combinados se presentaron en una situación que escaló bastante”, asevera Rengifo, la abogada de Rojas.

Zaragosa cuenta que su abuelo le enseñó sobre Trump, pero con lo que han vivido ahora ella cree que las políticas migratorias de la Administración son racistas. “Todos somos personas. Dios nos creó Él mismo”.

A pesar de todo lo que ha vivido, dice que no han cambiado sus sentimientos hacia Trump: “No pienso nada malo sobre el presidente. No fue culpa de él, fue culpa de nosotros”.

“Solo quería verlo y cumplir un sueño”, insiste, “pero queriendo hacer ese sueño se me dañó mi vida. Me dañó mi felicidad”.

Rojas, por su parte, tiene un mensaje para el mandatario: “Yo le diría al señor presidente, y al Gobierno de Estados Unidos que tenga un poco de compasión con las personas que sí están haciendo las cosas bien en este país. Llegué con ganas de trabajar, llegué con ganas de hacer las cosas bien. Tengo mis hijos, tengo mi esposa, pero necesito una ayuda de parte del Gobierno para poder salir adelante con mi familia en este país.”

Una investigación de dos años sobre inmigrantes con documentos de identidad falsos llevó a las autoridades federales a detener a 48 trabajadores en una empresa de fundición de metales de Carolina del Sur y a que seis personas enfrentaran cargos estatales, entre ellos dos altos directivos de la planta, anunciaron las autoridades este jueves.

Decenas de agentes de organismos policiales federales y locales realizaron una redada el miércoles en Burnstein von Seelen Precision Castings, en Abbeville.

Agentes de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE) detuvieron a trabajadores por presuntas violaciones de las leyes de inmigración, y el gerente de la planta y el director de recursos humanos de la empresa fueron arrestados bajo la acusación de haber contratado a sabiendas a inmigrantes que se encontraban ilegalmente en Estados Unidos, contó el fiscal general del estado, Alan Wilson, en una conferencia de prensa.

Los funcionarios de la empresa fueron acusados formalmente por un gran jurado estatal, junto con otras cuatro personas de fabricar y vender identificaciones falsas federales y del estado utilizando información obtenida de robos de identidad.

“Queremos enviar el mensaje de que no se trata de perseguir a personas que intentan alimentar a sus familias”, precisó Wilson. “No se trata de perseguir a empresas o negocios que contratan a inmigrantes ilegales sin saberlo. Se trata de perseguir algo mucho más grande. Ya saben, una conspiración de personas en Carolina del Sur para robar identidades, crear tarjetas de Seguro Social falsas, licencias de conducir falsas y documentos de inmigración falsos”, añadió.

Funcionarios de Burnstein von Seelen no respondieron de inmediato a los mensajes dejados por teléfono y a través de su sitio web.

Se esperaba que los dos directivos de la empresa comparecieran este jueves en el juzgado del condado de Richland, en Columbia, para responder a los cargos de conspiración criminal y fraude de identidad con el fin de obtener empleo. No quedó claro de inmediato si contaban con abogados que pudieran responder a las acusaciones.

Burnstein von Seelen, fundada en 1985, es una empresa dedicada a la fundición de metales que utiliza diferentes aleaciones de cobre, latón y bronce para fabricar una amplia gama de componentes, según su sitio web. Está ubicada en el condado de Abbeville, con una población de alrededor de 25,000 habitantes, en el oeste de Carolina del Sur, no muy lejos de la frontera con Georgia, a unas 90 millas al oeste de Columbia.

Funcionarios de ICE señalaron que estaban revisando el estatus migratorio de los 48 trabajadores detenidos, entre los que, según indicaron, se encontraban personas que habían tenido encuentros previos con ICE y algunas a las que se les había ordenado anteriormente la deportación.

Las autoridades indicaron que la investigación continúa y que es posible que se produzcan más acusaciones y arrestos.

Funcionarios estatales iniciaron la investigación en octubre de 2024. En el momento en que comenzó, quienes estaban encargados de hacer cumplir la ley se sentían frustrados por la falta de esfuerzos federales contra las identificaciones falsas y el robo de identidad bajo la Administración Biden, dijo Wilson. Eso cambió, señaló, cuando el presidente, Donald Trump, asumió el cargo el año pasado, y las autoridades federales se unieron a la investigación estatal, precisó.

La redada del miércoles en la planta no fue representativa de las campañas de deportación masiva de Trump, que han sido objeto de críticas. Las redadas de inmigración en empresas han constituido una parte relativamente pequeña de la campaña de deportación, y los funcionarios estatales desempeñaron un papel destacado en la investigación de Carolina del Sur.

Funcionarios abordaron la investigación de manera similar a las investigaciones sobre drogas, explicó el fiscal Creighton Waters, persiguiendo no solo a las personas que utilizaban la documentación falsa, sino también a quienes la suministraban.

En una publicación en la red social X, el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) confirmó que ha modificado su política sobre la notificación al público y al Congreso de las muertes en centros de detención de ICE.

En lugar de informar sobre las muertes de los detenidos hasta 30 días después de que salgan de custodia (lo que podría incluir largas estancias hospitalarias), la agencia ahora solo notificará de los decesos que se produzcan mientras el detenido siga en custodia.

Como NBC News ha informado anteriormente, el número de muertes en centros de detención de ICE se encuentra en su nivel más alto y un análisis de datos publicado en JAMA muestra que la tasa de mortalidad en los centros de detención también está en su nivel más alto.

La última muerte de un detenido de ICE fue un presunto suicidio y se informó sobre ella el 28 de abril de 2026. Fue la decimoctava muerte en este año calendario.

En su publicación en X, el DHS respondió a la noticia a un reporte de The Washington Post, que fue el primer medio en informar sobre el nuevo cambio en la política.

“En virtud de esta política actualizada, cuando una persona ya no se encuentre bajo custodia de ICE, ICE dejará de ser responsable de supervisar o revisar las muertes que puedan ocurrir. Esto es de sentido común. ICE no es responsable cuando una persona fallece semanas después de salir de su custodia”, indicó ICE en su comunicado.

“ICE mantiene su compromiso con la transparencia respecto a las muertes de detenidos. Esta política actualizada describe los procedimientos para la notificación, revisión y reportaje oportunos de las muertes que ocurran bajo la custodia de ICE, incluyendo la notificación a los familiares más cercanos, los consulados, el Congreso y el público”, precisó el texto.

NBC News ha solicitado a ICE una copia del memorándum y cuántos detenidos liberados al hospital o a otros lugares han fallecido desde que la política fue modificada.

La deportación abarcó un total de 88 hondureños, cinco mexicanos, tres nicaragüenses y tres ecuatorianos. En los primeros cinco meses de este año, más de 19,000 hondureños han sido deportados desde Estados Unidos.

President Donald Trump’s nearly $70 billion immigration enforcement package has entered uncertain waters as the Senate embarks on a marathon of votes that could blow up the legislation.

At the heart of the issue is the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) now-defunct nearly $2 billion “anti-weaponization” fund. It’s another rare instance where both sides of the aisle are frustrated with the administration, and it could spell doom for the broader bill.

That’s because Democrats and Republicans are lining up amendments to ensure the fund is dead, to varying degrees.

Senate Republican leadership is hopeful that they can prevent those amendments from surviving during the newly launched “vote-a-rama,” but success isn’t guaranteed. One positive for the GOP is that every Republican voted for the package in its first procedural hurdle Wednesday afternoon.

“I feel good going into it,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said. “But, you know, you got a lot of conversations with our members [who] understand what’s at stake, how critical it is that we defeat amendments that would be corrosive to the bill or undermine in any way its privilege.”

One issue is that should an amendment targeting the fund pass, it could remove the reconciliation package’s ability to advance with just a simple majority of votes. That would effectively give Democrats a win in killing the package outright.

Whether the amendments will be considered under a simple majority or 60-vote threshold could change the landscape and will ultimately be up to the Senate rules referee to determine whether they comply with the Byrd rule, which undergirds the reconciliation process.

Republicans believed that those add-ons would hit that 60-vote mark, giving them a little bit of breathing room.

“I mean, you never know with 100% accuracy,” Thune said. “There are a lot of creative ways of drafting amendments, but we feel pretty confident that most of those would be at 60.”

The fund, announced last month as part of a settlement between the Trump family and the Internal Revenue Service, received strong pushback from Republicans who feared that without proper guardrails, people convicted of assaulting police officers during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot on Capitol Hill could access the taxpayer funds.

Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., whose main job is to wrangle and twist the arms of wary Republicans to vote for the package, put the primary blame on Senate Democrats as fractures in the GOP simmered.

“The Democrats continue to talk about everything they want to talk about, except actually securing the border and protecting the American people,” Barrasso said. “They’re gonna come with all sorts of things, all in an effort to delay our efforts to support the American people and keep them safe and secure.”

But there are Republicans who will have their own anti-weaponization fund amendments. So far, Sens. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and Bill Cassidy, R-La., two lawmakers who are increasingly prone to break with Trump, have teed up add-ons to address the fund.

There is the option to deal with the fund outside of reconciliation, too.

Cassidy, who Trump successfully just ousted from office, didn’t say which route he would prefer, but wanted “something which just makes it sure that somebody doesn’t change their mind in the White House, it doesn’t come back.”

Tillis contended that there were enough Republicans with concerns over the fund that something needed to be done, but wanted it to be a GOP-led initiative. He’s not picky about whether his amendment gets a shot either.

“I don’t care about my own personal amendment,” Tillis said. “There’s a few out there, as long as one touching on the issue gets there. I’m not gonna slow leadership down. I wouldn’t do anything to make it as corrosive to the underlying bill so that it loses privilege. But we gotta do this.”

Under President Joe Biden, 51 percent of white Americans agreed they were “losing their economic, political, and cultural influence in this country because of the growing population of immigrants,” admits a new study funded by pro-migration advocates.

Roughly 30 percent of white Americans disagreed with the statement, according to a new report describing the study, which is titled “How Fox News viewership increases belief in the anti‑immigrant great replacement theory.”

But the new report hides its own survey data that shows the public alarm over migration has dropped as President Donald Trump has curbed the inflow of migrants, setting the stage for Americans to get higher wages, cheaper housing, new opportunities, and lower crime rates.

The report blames Fox News and a “conspiracy theory” for the widespread rejection of mass migration that was accelerated by President Joe Biden: “Simply put, the more Fox News programming that a white American watches, the more likely they are to adopt the conspiracy theory,” adding:

The great replacement theory is no longer purely on the fringes of society. In our view, this is troubling ….because the conspiracy theory treats immigration as an existential issue — where the stakes are framed as the very preservation of one’s self and country

The report’s progressive authors ignored the civic chaos and the economic damage caused by Biden’s business-backed lawless support for mass illegal migration as they sneered at the ordinary public’s rational opposition to migration:

While there’s plenty of room for disagreement over immigration policy, conspiracy theories make it much harder to find common ground or craft political compromises. What we’ve found is that when prominent media embrace conspiracy theorizing, increased public endorsement of conspiracies will follow.

The report also skewed the surveys by not asking respondents to pick from alternative explanations for the U.S policy of mass migration since 1965. “We were focused on understanding the causes of support for the GRT, we did not offer respondents alternative explanations for immigration into the United States,” Jesse Rhodes, an associate professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who led the survey, told Breitbart News.

“However, it could be an interesting – though quite different – project to investigate how people select explanations for immigration when presented with alternative options,” he added.

The report also ignored the impact of mainstream media outlets, including Breitbart News, and the views of African-American, Latino, and Asian citizens.

The report also hid the many statements from Democrats cheering the demographic change caused by their migration policies, or the evidence of demographic change in the United States.

The underlying study cited in the report was funded by various grants, including grants from the pro-migration Russell Sage Foundation.

The study features surveys conducted in 2024 and 2025, and it suggests President Donald Trump, like-minded GOP politicians, and Fox News are using the “Great Replacement Theory” to explain the massive population shifts since the 1990 immigration bill:

Recent years have witnessed an increase in white Americans’ support for the Great Replacement Theory (GRT), the xenophobic conspiracy theory that posits that political elites are embracing permissive immigration policies to bring in “obedient” voters who will vote for them and who will eventually replace native white citizens.

But the data in the study reveal that public concern about migration dropped after Trump was reelected.

In July and August 2024, 51 percent of white Americans agreed they “are losing their economic, political, and cultural influence in this country because of the growing population of immigrants,” while just 29 percent disagreed.

Forty-one percent agreed that “Immigrants invade and colonize the United States,” while 37 percent disagreed.

The worry declined in 2025, after the election of Trump on a platform to reduce migration.

In a June to July 2025 survey, 46 percent of white Americans agreed that they are “losing their economic, political, and cultural influence,” while just 32 percent disagreed.

Thirty-nine percent agreed with the “invasion” question in 2025, while 45 percent disagreed.

The report also admits:

In our latest poll of 1,000 Americans fielded in March 2026, 36% agreed with the statement: “Native-born Americans are losing their economic, political, and cultural influence in this country because of the growing population of immigrants.”

The report did not credit Trump for reducing public alarm about migration.

Many polls show that the American public wants to deport all migrants and to reduce legalized migration — even as a large swing-voting block is unnerved by the left’s bitter opposition to deportations. Polls in many other countries – Germany, Australia, Ireland, France, the United Kingdom — also show deep public opposition to mass migration amid worries over the rising crime and poverty, homelessness, and wealth gaps that are accelerated by mass migration.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials are clapping back at Democrats, particularly Sens. Andy Kim (D-NJ) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) as well as Gov. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ), for claiming that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities are unsafe and inhumane, arguing that New Jersey prisons are far worse.

For weeks, Sherrill and other Democrats have called for the closure of Delaney Hall, the Newark-based detention facility operated by GEO Group for ICE.

“I’m deeply disturbed by reports of the poor conditions at Delaney Hall. Unsafe, inhumane, and unconstitutional living conditions are completely unacceptable,” Sherrill said in a statement last month. “I have long opposed private detention facilities and advocated against them. I will continue to call for the closure of Delaney Hall because of reports like these.”

This week, in a Senate committee hearing, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin shut down claims that ICE’s facilities like Delaney Hall are worse than state prisons. Mullin said that since Delaney Hall has opened, “not one single health violation has been written.”

“Just recently, the state of New Jersey’s health inspectors went in, they didn’t find one single violation. If you compare it to what the state prison system is, they have three prisons that are in ‘deplorable’ conditions, that’s what the health inspector said,” Mullin told Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT).

“Delayed healthcare is an average of 32 percent delayed within 48 hours,” Mullin said of New Jersey’s prisons. “… health inspectors were just [at Delaney Hall], we had zero health violations, zero.”

On Thursday, DHS officials circulated statistics on New Jersey’s prisons, suggesting that inmates are two times more likely to die in a state prison than in Delaney Hall and that there are twice as many medical staff at Delaney Hall as in the state’s prisons.

From 2018 to 2024, more than 330 inmates have died in New Jersey prisons, including 42 deaths in 2024. This indicates that on average, more than 40 inmates die every year in New Jersey prisons, DHS officials said.

Democrats have also claimed that Delaney Hall detainees are on a hunger strike. A report from the Daily Wire this week found that detainees claiming to be on a hunger strike are eating sushi, Cheetos, Honey Buns, and smoked clams from the facility’s commissary.

The Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced the arrests of 114 illegal migrants over a three-day operation on South Carolina’s highways I-26 and I-85 last month.

The arrests were made during “Operation Safe Drive,” which was conducted in the Palmetto State on May 12, 13, and 14, in cooperation with state and local law enforcement agencies, according to the Columbia Post and Courier.

ICE spokesperson Lindsay Williams rated the arrests as both “criminal” and “administrative” but the exact charges and names of the suspects have not yet been released.

The department also said that the operation resulted in “significant seizures of cocaine and cash,” including 10 kilograms of cocaine worth $200,000.

The drugs and cash seizure came about when officers boarded a commercial bus and found a passenger carrying the contraband.

“In total, the operation resulted in 145 stops and 77 vehicle inspections, removing 22 drivers and vehicles from service,” the paper reported.

South Carolina’s State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) participated in the traffic stops. SLED, along with 44 other state law enforcement agencies, joined the federal government’s 287(g) program in 2025, and they cooperate closely with ICE in its task of enforcing federal immigration laws.

ICE has been conducting numerous highway operations across the country. Last October, the department arrested 91 in Oklahoma along I-40, the following December, ICE arrested 101 dangerous illegal alien truckers on California’s roads, and just last month Florida law enforcement agencies helped ICE arrest nearly 250 illegals along the state’s roadways.

After delays spurred by shock announcements from the Trump administration, Senate Republicans have officially launched their play to fund immigration enforcement.

The upper chamber took the first step in the last leg of the process to advance a roughly $70 billion package to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol after being derailed by the administration’s surprise “anti-weaponization” fund.

It comes after uncertainty over whether acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s testimony under oath that the administration was “not moving forward with the fund” would be enough to satisfy skeptical Republicans.

Republican leaders hope that the unity on display Wednesday afternoon carries through the forthcoming “vote-a-rama,” where Democrats, and some Republicans, are considering several amendments to ensure that the nearly $2 billion fund is dead and never returns.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., acknowledged that there may be some Republicans who weren’t satisfied with Blanche’s testimony, and reiterated that the main goal was to “get the base bill across the finish line.”

“Hopefully, all of our members who have amendment ideas will, as they think through that, and they have the opportunities to have conversations… about their ideas, keep in mind we need to keep the bill together and make sure we’ve got 50 votes for it,” Thune said.

The fund, announced last month as part of a settlement between the Trump family and the Internal Revenue Service, received strong pushback from Republicans who feared that without proper guardrails, people convicted of assaulting police officers during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot on Capitol Hill could access the taxpayer funds.

Republicans who were irate at the fund are still deciding whether they’ll support amendments, and beyond that, whether they will support final passage from the upper chamber.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., wanted a guarantee from leadership that his add-on to permanently kill any attempt at an “anti-weaponization” fund would at least get a vote. And if there’s no language that makes its way into the package that addresses the fund, he said, “It’s going to be hard for me to vote yes.”

“I mean, I think we got to know this is a huge political liability,” Tillis told reporters. “I said it was stupid on stilts a week or two ago.”

Senate Democrats intend to take advantage of any lingering fractures among Republicans with a plethora of amendments on the fund, along with other issues like the war in Iran and affordability.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said, “Whenever we go into a vote-a-rama, Democrats will be ready.”

“Every vote, every amendment we bring to the floor will demonstrate that Democrats are standing up for the American people, and Republicans are selling out to Donald Trump,” Schumer said.

Meanwhile, the “anti-weaponization” fund, along with scrapped funding for security upgrades to President Donald Trump’s ballroom, became a distraction from the reconciliation package’s primary purpose.

Republicans turned to the process after congressional Democrats refused to fund immigration enforcement absent stringent reforms — that dispute led to the longest government shutdown in history.

But the march to fund ICE and Border Patrol has been marred at times by infighting, either within the Senate GOP or with the administration, that has threatened to blow up the exercise.

Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said Republicans were “moving in the right direction,” despite the issues that have cropped up.

“We need to get border security funded, we need to get Immigration and Customs Enforcement funded,” Barrasso said. “And the Democrats continue to stand — and I am sure they will today — stand with illegal immigrant criminals over the safety and security of the American people.”

WASHINGTON (AP) —The Republican-led Senate is moving forward with legislation to fund immigration enforcement agencies after forcing the Trump administration to say it will drop its settlement fund for political allies and stripping a separate proposal for White House security from the bill.

The Senate voted 53-46 on Wednesday to begin debate on the roughly $70 billion bill to fund U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol. The legislation was delayed for weeks as Republican senators navigated various obstacles created by President Donald Trump and the White House, but they are now moving quickly to pass it after paring it back to its original form.

“Right now, the goal is to get the base bill across the finish line,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D.

Still, Republicans will need to find enough votes to beat back multiple amendments that Democrats — and some Republicans — say they will offer to permanently ban Trump’s $1.776 billion settlement fund.

After fierce Republican pushback, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told House lawmakers at a hearing on Tuesday that “we are not moving forward with the fund, period.” But shortly after the Senate voted to move forward with the bill on Wednesday, Trump repeatedly defended the settlement in response to reporters’ questions at the White House.

When asked directly whether the fund is dead or just on hold, Trump responded: “I’d have to ask the lawyers, I don’t know.” “I love it,” Trump said of the settlement. “I think it’s so important.”

Republicans are using a process called budget reconciliation that enables them to pass the legislation without any Democratic votes, but they must first wade through a long series of amendment votes that could pose problems for the bill. That process is expected to start on Thursday.

Republicans said they felt reassured by Blanche’s promises to scrap the fund, which was part of a settlement resolving Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. GOP senators had revolted and left town two weeks ago after the Justice Department announced the payouts, which could potentially go to participants in the violent Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol and other Trump allies.

Democrats say they want it written into the law. “It is only a matter of time before Blanche and Trump go back on their word,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. After Trump’s comments, Schumer posted on X that “this is EXACTLY why” Democrats would be forcing votes to ban it.

Some Republicans also planned to try and put Blanche’s promise in writing. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., has said he will offer an amendment to block any attempt at resurrecting the fund. “We’ve got a sufficient number of Republicans who have been very clear they’ve got concerns there,” said Tillis.

Thune said earlier on Wednesday that Blanche’s comments were “extremely helpful” and that he thought most GOP senators were satisfied. He said he was working with Tillis and others who have discussed amendments as he tries to ensure he has enough votes for a simple majority in the 53-47 Senate. “Keep in mind, we’ve got to keep them all together, make sure we’ve got 50 votes for it,” Thune said.

The legislation was also delayed by the opposition to $1 billion in security funding for the White House, including for Trump’s new ballroom, that was added to the original bill. Democrats and some Republicans questioned using taxpayer money for the massive project in a time of economic hardship for many voters.

As various side issues temporarily derailed the legislation, Republicans have said their top priority is passing the ICE and Border Patrol funding that Democrats have blocked for months in protest of the administration’s immigration enforcement crackdown. But success requires GOP unity in the Senate and the House before it can reach Trump.

Republican House leaders said Wednesday they would like to pass the bill before the end of the week, if the Senate can finish it. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said that House leaders were having internal conversations about it. “We just need to make sure everybody’s there,” Scalise said.

It was unclear how Trump’s comments on the settlement would affect Republicans’ votes on the immigration spending bill. In addition to defending the settlement, he also praised the Jan. 6 defendants who could get payouts, saying they had been subjected to “abuse.”

Even as Republican senators have strongly defended Trump’s agenda, a growing number of them have become frustrated with the president as he ignores what they see as their political needs. The Justice Department announced the settlement fund just as the Senate had planned to move forward on the immigration spending bill, giving Democrats an opportunity to offer amendments that could divide Republicans in an election year. That came just as Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and John Cornyn of Texas both lost reelection bids after Trump endorsed their primary opponents.

Trump also tapped real estate scion Bill Pulte, head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, to serve as acting director of national intelligence on Tuesday, angering both Republicans and Democrats who said Pulte has no clear national security credentials. The appointment has complicated bipartisan negotiations on revising the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, which expires at the end of next week.

At the same time, an increasing number of Republicans are voting against Trump’s war in Iran. The House voted on Wednesday to halt U.S. military action there, following a Senate vote in May to advance its own war powers resolution.

Thune said he wasn’t yet sure whether Republicans would be united on the immigration bill. “We’ll find out,” he told reporters.

Washington — Senate Republicans advanced a package to fund the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration agencies on Wednesday, following a back-and-forth over the Justice Department’s “anti-weaponization” fund that threatened to derail the long-sought funding.

In a 53 to 46 vote, the Senate voted along party lines to proceed to the reconciliation package, setting up a marathon vote series before final passage. The “vote-a-rama” could begin as early as Wednesday evening, but Democrats appeared poised not to allow Republicans to speed up the process, pushing the votes into Thursday.

A revised version of one part of the package released Wednesday also dropped language that would have provided $1 billion in security funding for the Secret Service, including for President Trump’s East Wing renovation, where he plans to build a massive ballroom. That funding faced intense scrutiny from a handful of Republicans, prompting senators to abandon it.

Last month, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary and Homeland Security committees unveiled the initial text of the $72 billion package, which funds immigration agencies through fiscal year 2029.

GOP senators have been seeking assurances from the administration about the fate of the controversial Justice Department fund, which was the subject of a heated meeting with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche two weeks ago. Blanche testified before a House committee on Tuesday that “we are not moving forward with the fund.”

The DOJ program, which aimed to provide taxpayer-funded payouts to individuals who alleged the federal government had been “weaponized” against them, sparked intense pushback on Capitol Hill. And some Republicans continued to express reservations Tuesday that the fund could be resurrected despite Blanche’s assurances.

But Senate Majority Leader John Thune was confident after Blanche’s testimony that Republicans would have the support necessary to proceed to the legislation Wednesday. Thune said that “most of our members feel pretty satisfied” with Blanche’s comments, noting that they occurred during a public hearing under oath, despite Blanche’s refusal to put anything in writing.

“His comments were extremely helpful,” Thune said. “Whether they are enough for some of our members, we’ll find out.”

A handful of Senate Republicans have signaled that they remain skeptical, like Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and John Cornyn of Texas. Cornyn anticipated Tuesday that Blanche’s comments may not be “good enough for some people,” while Tillis indicated that he will offer an amendment on the reconciliation bill to address the fund, arguing that additional action needs to be taken to ensure it’s dead for good.

“I think even DOJ knows that this was a bad idea and what we need to do is provide finality,” Tillis said. “They’ve said that they’ve quiesced the program, then why can’t we just take the step of statutorily eliminating the question, so that a future decision to reopen it is eliminated?”

Underscoring Tillis’ point shortly after the Senate vote, the president declined to say the fund was totally abandoned, telling reporters at the White House that he would “have to ask the lawyers.”

“The weaponization fund, as far as I’m concerned, was a beautiful thing,” he said. “I thought that was the greatest thing, because people like you have abused our people so badly.”

Asked about Tillis’ reservations, and the possibility that he could oppose the package, Thune told reporters “we’ll cross that bridge when we get there.” Thune said “we feel good going into it.”

“We’ve had a lot of conversations with our members and understand what’s at stake and how critical it is that we defeat amendments that would be corrosive to the bill,” the GOP leader said.

Democrats are expected to put forward a number of amendments aimed at the DOJ fund. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer pledged earlier this week that Democrats would launch a coordinated effort to quash it. “No matter what Republicans do, we will force them to vote,” he said.

The movement on reconciliation comes after months of Democrats opposing funding for the immigration enforcement agencies. Republicans have been moving ahead with their plan on their own through the budget reconciliation process, which sidesteps the 60-vote threshold required to advance most legislation.

Markwayne Mullin, the Department of Homeland Security secretary, told lawmakers on Wednesday that his agency would be increasing the training requirements for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to their previous level starting this summer.

The scope of ICE training became a point of contention as the Trump administration hired thousands of new officers over the past year and apparently cut training requirements as a result of the hiring push. A trove of documents released by Senate Democrats earlier this year showed that training hours had dropped by roughly 40 percent as of February, to approximately 336 hours. As of last July, it had been 584 hours.

On Wednesday, Mr. Mullin said that those training requirements were changing.

“We had to rewrite the curriculum. All training starting July 1st will be back up to the regular standards,” he said to the House Homeland Security Committee.

The issue of training for new ICE officers became a flashpoint as the agency became involved in major operations in cities like Minneapolis. The shootings of two American citizens in that city, one of whom was shot by an ICE agent, further inflamed those conversations.

Then, in February, Ryan Schwank, a former ICE attorney who worked at the training academy, publicly criticized the changes.

“For the last five months, I watched ICE dismantle the training program,” Mr. Schwank said in February, at a forum held in Washington by congressional Democrats. “Cutting 240 hours of vital classes from a 584-hour program — classes that teach the Constitution, our legal system, firearms training, the use of force, lawful arrests, proper detention and the limits of officers’ authority.”

Agency officials pushed back and said that hours had in fact not been slashed. “Our officers receive extensive firearm training, are taught de-escalation tactics, and receive Fourth and Fifth Amendment comprehensive instruction,” the agency said at the time.

Gov. Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey said Wednesday that federal immigration officials were continuing to bar her from entering a detention center in Newark, raising “serious questions about what is happening behind its walls.”

Ms. Sherrill noted that she had met Tuesday evening with relatives of migrants being held at the Delaney Hall detention center, which has become a focal point of protest against President Trump’s immigration crackdown. She said that the relatives had shared “heartbreaking reports of unsafe, inhumane and unconstitutional conditions” inside the 1,000-bed jail.

“Detainees have requested to meet with me,” Ms. Sherrill, a Democrat, wrote in a social media post, “and I want to meet with them.”

Ms. Sherrill first attempted to enter the facility on Memorial Day but was turned away. On Tuesday, the state’s attorney general, Jennifer Davenport, filed a lawsuit after state health officials were denied access to the medical unit and several other areas of the facility during an inspection.

Ms. Sherrill’s public rebuke on Wednesday reflected the growing tension between New Jersey’s elected leaders and federal immigration officials as demonstrations outside Delaney Hall have grown increasingly volatile in the last two weeks.

Groups of mainly peaceful protesters have gathered daily outside the detention center since it reopened last year. But the crowds began to grow after detainees initiated what they have described as a hunger and labor strike on May 22 to draw attention to the conditions inside the facility, which is operated by the GEO Group, one of the country’s largest private prison companies.

The situation escalated sharply over Memorial Day weekend.

The authorities deployed tear gas and wielded batons as protesters resisted calls to disperse. Ms. Sherrill made the decision to send in state troopers on horseback and on foot, a tactic that has been sharply criticized by immigrant rights leaders. And the city of Newark temporarily imposed a curfew on the streets nearest Delaney Hall.

On Wednesday evening, a contingent of demonstrators continued to keep vigil on a stretch of Doremus Avenue adjacent to one of the main gates at Delaney Hall. The crowd, numbering about 75, was peaceful, even festive. Some demonstrators bopped their heads to dance music, salsa, punk rock, rap and reggae.

By law, members of Congress are authorized to conduct oversight visits at Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency facilities at will. And tours of Delaney Hall by members of Congress are common.

But other public officials, including governors, must request permission from the nearest ICE field office, according to a February 2025 ICE memo.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, said she had no immediate comment on the governor’s statement.

Earlier on Wednesday, Representative Analilia Mejia, a Democrat who represents New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District, confronted Markwayne Mullin, Mr. Trump’s homeland security secretary, about conditions at Delaney during a committee hearing in Washington.

She said she had met with detainees during inspections who complained about “poor sanitation, spoiled food” and a “lack of medical care.”

“I met detainees who not only were given their medication sporadically, or had their dosages lowered without consultation of their doctors, but I met detainees who were not even made aware of what medication they were given, just handed a bunch of pills,” Ms. Mejia said.

Mr. Mullin defended the care provided at ICE facilities, which he said have more medical staff members than most state prisons. It was a point that Representative Jeff Van Drew, a Republican from New Jersey, also made last week after he toured Delaney Hall.

“I saw good conditions, clean facilities, basic care and a detention center where ICE and D.H.S. are doing a hard job that keeps our communities safe,” Mr. Van Drew said in a statement. “Quite frankly, the conditions I saw today are better than what you see in some nursing homes.”

Ms. Sherrill, a former congresswoman, made her opposition to Mr. Trump the centerpiece of her campaign for governor.

In March, New Jersey became one of the first states to pass a law that bars ICE agents from wearing masks while on duty. (The federal government filed a lawsuit the next month that seeks to block the law from being enforced.) Ms. Sherrill has also sued ICE over a planned detention center in a warehouse in Roxbury, N.J.

MILWAUKEE — A federal judge on Wednesday considered whether to throw out a jury’s guilty verdict against former Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan, who was convicted of felony obstruction for helping an immigrant evade federal officers.

The case was an early test of how the courts would respond to President Donald Trump’s sweeping immigration crackdown.

Dugan had been scheduled to be sentenced Wednesday, but U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman postponed the proceedings indefinitely to instead hear arguments about whether to overturn her conviction.

Adelman did not rule from the bench and did not indicate when he might issue a decision. Dugan and attorneys for both sides left the courtroom without commenting to reporters.

Former judge’s attorney points to a Virginia case

Dugan’s attorney Steven Biskupic argued that her conviction was invalid and should be overturned. He said that was necessary because a federal appeals court in April overturned a key Virginia immigration case that the judge and prosecutors had cited in the Dugan case.

Biskupic argued that based on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturning that ruling, Dugan was improperly convicted, procedurally, under a certain federal law.

“Our primary argument is this was an invalid theory of conviction,” Biskupic said.

In the Virginia case, an immigrant who was in the country illegally was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and later escaped. He was recaptured and indicted on a charge of obstructing a pending immigration proceeding.

The federal appeals court found that the ICE action did not constitute a “pending proceeding,” as is required under the federal obstruction law.

Dugan’s attorneys argue that she should not have been charged because there was no “pending proceeding” against the immigrant in her courtroom being sought by ICE agents, only a warrant filed for his arrest. The filing of a warrant does not constitute a “proceeding” under the law, Biskupic argued.

Prosecutors countered that the facts in the Virginia case are different and don’t apply to Dugan’s. They also argued that other cases support Dugan’s conviction.

“The court should stick with its ruling,” said Richard Frohling, acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

In response to a question from the judge, he contended that the appeals court was wrong to overturn the Virginia case. The judge also quizzed Frohling on what constitutes a proceeding under the law and how long it lasts.

“It could be a couple minutes, it could be a couple years,” Frohling said. “It all depends on the context.”

Dugan’s sentencing was postponed so the court can hear new arguments

Dugan, 67, faces up to five years in prison after a jury convicted her on Dec. 19. But it is unlikely that Dugan would be sentenced to prison. Federal sentencing guidelines generally call for probation for defendants like her who have no criminal history and are convicted of a nonviolent crime.

She resigned from her position as a Milwaukee County circuit judge two weeks after her conviction amid threats of impeachment from Republican state lawmakers. She had been a judge for nine years.

Dugan was present for Wednesday’s arguments but did not speak.

The Trump administration brought the case against Dugan as the president pressed ahead with his sweeping immigration crackdown. Trump’s administration and his allies branded Dugan as an activist judge, while Dugan’s attorneys said she was being unfairly targeted and argued, unsuccessfully, that she was immune from being charged because she was a judge.

Dugan’s case marked the first time that a state judge in Wisconsin went to trial on charges of obstructing immigration agents. She was acquitted of concealing an individual to prevent arrest, a misdemeanor.

Dugan helped an immigrant wanted by ICE agents

On April 18, 2025, immigration officers went to the Milwaukee County courthouse after learning Eduardo Flores-Ruiz had re-entered the country illegally and was scheduled to appear before Dugan for a hearing in a state battery case.

Dugan confronted agents outside her courtroom and directed them to the chief judge’s office because she told them their administrative warrant wasn’t sufficient grounds to arrest Flores-Ruiz.

After the agents left, she led Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out a private jury door. Agents spotted Flores-Ruiz in the corridor, followed him outside and arrested him after a foot chase. A week later, FBI agents arrested Dugan in the courthouse, leading her outside in handcuffs.

Flores-Ruiz was deported in November.

Miami Springs is often described as a quiet suburb of Miami, with some 13,000 residents, tree-lined streets, mid-century homes and small-town charm.

Yet the tiny municipality has emerged as one of Florida’s most active participants in immigration enforcement.

Like many cities and counties in Florida, Miami Springs entered an accord with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement last year known as a 287(g) agreement, in which some of its police officers are deputized to carry out some immigration enforcement actions.

Despite its small size, Miami Springs ranks second among municipal police departments in Miami-Dade County in immigration-related arrests, third in South Florida, and ties for fifth statewide with Melbourne and North Port.

From the time the 287(g) program began in August until May, Miami Springs police documented more immigration-related arrests than both the Miami Police Department and the Miami-Dade Sheriff’s Office, although those agencies recorded a higher overall number of immigration “encounters,” according to the Florida dashboard.

Immigration encounters are not arrests or confirmed immigration violations. They are administrative immigration-related checks that can occur during routine policing, such as when officers are unable to immediately verify a person’s identity while conducting an investigation or when the person’s immigration status is reviewed following an arrest. An encounter does not necessarily result in an arrest, a detention request by ICE or transfer to federal custody.

During the August-May period, Miami Springs recorded 75 immigration-related encounters that resulted in 50 arrests. Of those, 16 were classified as immigration detentions, while the remaining 34 were based on local or state criminal charges.

That share is substantially higher than that of the much larger Miami Police Department, which serves a city of more than 487,000 residents. During the same period, Miami reported 451 immigration-related encounters, but only one resulted in an immigration arrest, Florida records show.

By comparison, Miami Springs’ immigration-arrest rate places it above most large municipalities statewide, according to the data kept by the state. In Miami-Dade, the city of Sunny Isles Beach, with about 22,000 residents, had the highest number of immigration arrests, with 32. In South Florida, Boynton Beach, with more than 83,000 residents, was second in immigration arrests, with 20.

The statewide database is maintained by the state to keep track of law enforcement agencies participating in the 287(g) agreements. Police departments must report each month the number of immigration investigations conducted, resulting arrests, and the total number of officers assigned to the 287(g) program.

The numbers raise a broader question: Why is one of Miami-Dade County’s smallest municipalities generating more immigration-related arrests than many of its larger neighbors — and even many of Florida’s largest cities?

‘A unique corridor’

Miami Springs Police Chief Matthew Castillo insists the answer is not that the city is emphasizing immigration enforcement as much as it is a consequence of geography.

Castillo rejected the idea that his officers are conducting “random sweeps” or standalone immigration enforcement actions. Instead, he said, the immigration detentions are largely tied to criminal activity and arrests along what he described as a “unique corridor” in Miami-Dade County.

Castillo said the Northwest 36th Street corridor — lined with hotels, motels and businesses just north of Miami International Airport — is a focal point of law enforcement activity, accounting for between 40% and 60% of Miami Springs’ monthly calls for service.

“Miami Springs faces unique public safety challenges that are tied to both geography and volume of visitors,” Castillo said.

Miami Springs police officers responding to incidents involving narcotics, fraud, stolen vehicles, fugitives or potential human trafficking often encounter individuals whose immigration status becomes part of the investigation, he said.

The Northwest 36th Street corridor forms an east–west spine connecting Doral, Virginia Gardens, Miami Springs, the perimeter of Miami International Airport and the southern edge of Hialeah. The corridor runs through majority-Hispanic communities with high foreign-born populations, according to U.S. Census data.

Yet none of the municipalities that share the corridor report the same level of immigration-enforcement activity as Miami Springs.

The disparity is particularly striking given the size of neighboring cities. Hialeah, with more than 235,000 residents, reported eight immigration-related encounters but no immigration arrests during the August-May period.

Doral, home to more than 83,000 residents, reported no immigration-related encounters in the same period. The city entered into a 287(g) agreement with ICE in January, but it is unclear whether officers had completed the training required to carry out immigration-enforcement functions. Meanwhile, Virginia Gardens, a village with 2,400 residents, does not participate in the program, so its officers do not conduct immigration enforcement.

Castillo argues that population alone does not explain the city’s numbers.

“What’s important to understand is that these encounters are not random sweeps or local immigration enforcement operations,” Castillo said. “They are overwhelmingly tied to criminal acts and arrests in a very unique corridor of Miami-Dade County.”

But Alana Greer, an attorney and director of the Community Justice Project, a nonprofit legal organization that has opposed 287(g) and local immigration enforcements, disputes Castillo’s explanation.

“There’s nothing about Miami Springs’ geography, its population, or any other factor that should lead its police department to voluntarily become enforcers for ICE,” Greer said. “That’s what they’re doing. The data show a high number not only of encounters, but also immigration arrests.”

Greer said the figures suggest Miami Springs officers are going out of their way to detain people who otherwise would not be held.

“That means police officers are stopping people who have no criminal charges,” she said. “There’s no reason they would otherwise be able to hold them, but they are choosing to take them into custody for civil immigration violations.”

Greer said the responsibility for immigration enforcement in local police agencies ultimately falls on police leadership, arguing that local police chiefs have broad discretion over how their departments implement and prioritize participation in federal immigration enforcement programs.

That discretion could help explain why some cities, including Miami, Hialeah and Doral, report relatively few immigration encounters or, in some cases, no immigration arrests.

“Police chiefs have enormous power in this situation,” she said. “Not only do they make the decision to voluntarily enter into these collaborations, but they also set the culture and tone for whether this type of enforcement is going to be prioritized.”

A shift in policing strategy

Castillo, who became Miami Springs chief in January 2025, signed the 287(g) agreement with ICE three months later.

Castillo said the department adopted a more aggressive enforcement strategy focused on minor offenses and repeat trouble spots since he became the police chief. The approach relies on license plate readers, additional surveillance cameras, targeted patrols and crime data to determine where officers should be deployed.

“Our focus at the Miami Springs Police Department has never been on targeting individuals simply because of their immigration status,” Castillo said. “Every one of these encounters originated from criminal investigations, arrests or proactive policing activity. The immigration component was secondary to the criminal conduct being investigated.”

Since signing the 287(g) agreement, Miami Springs Police Department has received $115,000 from ICE, which was used to purchase two patrol vehicles, Castillo said.

Although he said the immigration enforcement program has not changed day-to-day policing in Miami Springs, Castillo noted that four of the department’s 47 sworn officers have completed ICE-related training, and a designated lieutenant is responsible for overseeing compliance and reporting.

“Our primary mission continues to be public safety and enforcing state law,” he said. “The agreement does not change how officers conduct routine policing in our community.”

What the records show

Between September and February — a period shorter than the span covered by Florida’s statewide dashboard — Miami Springs Police Department records show that immigration enforcement was frequently driven by ICE detainers, also known as ICE holds or I-247 forms, which request that local authorities notify ICE before an individual is released from custody and facilitate the person’s transfer to federal immigration authorities.

Out of 48 documented immigration-related encounters, 29 involved some form of I-247 action. This indicates that in more than half of the cases, individuals encountered by local police were subsequently subject to federal immigration holds or detainer requests following an arrest or stop.

The records suggest that ICE holds were a key link between routine police work and federal immigration enforcement, often leading to individuals being transferred from local custody to ICE.

For Greer, the director of the Community Justice Project, Miami Springs is an outlier not only within Miami-Dade County but across Florida.

“The overwhelming majority of Florida cities are not reporting immigration arrests,” Greer said. “Eighty-six percent of Florida municipalities reported zero immigration arrests.”

Given those numbers, Greer criticized Miami Springs’ approach to immigration enforcement, calling it “a disastrous decision that puts the safety of both city residents and the broader community at risk.”

“It’s incredibly dangerous for local government to get itself involved with civil immigration enforcement,” she added. “It’s not their job. It deteriorates trust in our institutions, tears families apart, and ultimately erodes public safety for no real purpose other than furthering a deportation agenda.”

Many arrests involved homeless

Miami Springs records also show a notable overlap between immigration enforcement and homelessness. Of the 48 individuals involved in immigration encounters during the six-month period, 18 were listed as homeless in police records. Fifteen of those individuals were arrested, and eight were ultimately detained by immigration authorities.

The records also show that Cuban nationals accounted for the highest numbers of immigration encounters, representing 28 of the 48 individuals encountered by Miami Springs police in the six-month period. Others were nationals of Senegal, Honduras, Colombia, Nicaragua, Argentina, Venezuela, Nigeria and Jamaica.

Castillo, the son of a Cuban father and whose wife was born on the island, said he has “personal understanding and empathy for the immigrant community and the sacrifices families make to come to the United States in search of a better life.”

He emphasized that the city’s law enforcement actions are tied to criminal activity, not immigration status. He said his focus is criminal activity and keeping residents safe.

“Every individual arrested under our enforcement efforts was involved in criminal activity, whether through crimes committed in Miami Springs or through an extensive criminal history,” he said. “Our priority remains the safety of our residents, visitors, and the community as a whole, while continuing to treat all people with dignity and respect.”

According to Miami Springs police records, the immigration encounters stemmed from a wide range of alleged offenses, including traffic violations, driver’s license infractions, trespassing, drug-related charges, burglary and resisting an officer.

Changing post to Doral

Castillo is set to leave his current job in mid-June to become the chief of police in Doral, following the resignation of that city’s chief, Edwin Lopez, who is leaving to join the Miami Police Department.

Doral is home to one of the largest Venezuelan communities in the United States. The city includes residents with a range of immigration statuses, including individuals with pending asylum applications and others who previously held Temporary Protected Status, which has been revoked by the Trump administration.

Castillo declined to provide details on whether Doral would expand immigration enforcement under his leadership. He said policing challenges in Miami Springs differ significantly from those in Doral.

“My approach has always been rooted in constitutional policing, accountability, and protecting every member of the community while aggressively addressing criminal behavior,” Castillo said. “Those principles would remain the same in any leadership role I undertake.”

Immigration courts in South Florida appear to be accelerating the scheduling of hearings, a move that is creating fear and uncertainty among many immigrants and their attorneys.

The hearings, known as “master calendar hearings,” are often an immigrant’s first appearance before an immigration judge and can determine the future of their case to remain in the United States.

At the immigration court in downtown Miami, immigrants and attorneys told CBS News Miami they have recently received notices moving their court dates up by months — and in some cases, years.

Rodrigo Sodre, a Brazilian man seeking political asylum, said his hearing had originally been scheduled for later this year but was unexpectedly pushed forward.

“It’s complicated,” Sodre said. When asked if he was scared, he responded: “Yeah… a lot.” He added in Spanish that “They called me here four months earlier.”

Roselyn Ferrer said her aunt’s immigration hearing was originally scheduled for 2028 but was suddenly moved to next week.

“They only told me they are pushing forward cases, but they didn’t say why,” Ferrer said in Spanish outside the downtown Miami immigration court.

Immigration attorney Morella Aguado said the accelerated scheduling is placing enormous pressure on both immigrants and legal teams trying to prepare cases.

“The less time that you have to prepare a case, the more likely that you’re going to lose that case,” Aguado said.

Aguado noted that attorneys are now being forced to ask judges for continuances because they do not have enough time to properly prepare.

“I don’t think that’s smart because doing that is going to make you request a continuance and ask the judge for more time,” she said.

When asked whether the federal government was directing the changes, Aguado explained that the courts themselves are rescheduling the hearings.

“The hearings are being scheduled by the courts; it’s not just the government, but obviously the government is pushing and opposing any continuance that we’re requesting,” she said.

The expedited schedule is also raising fears of detention. Aguado said many immigrants fear not only losing their cases but also being detained during court appearances.

“They’re scared, not only to show up to court because they think they’re going to lose the case, but also to show up to court because they’re afraid they’re going to be detained that day,” Aguado said.

One woman, who asked not to be identified because she fears retaliation, said her hearing was originally scheduled for October 2028. She was recently notified she must now appear before a Miami immigration judge next September.

“Of course I’m scared,” she said in Spanish. She added she was informed another judge would now oversee her case, but was not given a detailed explanation for the sudden change.

CBS News Miami reached out to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the agency within the Department of Justice that oversees immigration courts.

In a statement, the agency said in part: “EOIR prioritizes the timely completion of all cases… and makes scheduling adjustments as needed to ensure cases do not languish… As it continues to add new immigration judges, EOIR will continue to make scheduling adjustments to ensure all cases are handled in a timely and lawful manner.”

HOUSTON — Before there were statistics, there was supper. There were tamales wrapped in family kitchens, Vietnamese pho simmering in strip malls, Nigerian jollof rice served at community gatherings, and generations of immigrants who arrived in Texas carrying recipes, traditions and dreams alongside their luggage.

“All God’s people came to Houston, and they brought their food with them,” Steve Kean, president and CEO of the Greater Houston Partnership, told a packed room gathered at Amegy Bank on May 21.

The line drew smiles, but it also captured the central message of a new report from the American Immigration Council: the people who help feed Texas are the same people bearing the brunt of the Trump Administration’s mass deportation campaign.

Released during the forum From Field to Fork: The Economic Impact of Immigrants on Texas’ Food Industry, the report found that immigrants make up nearly one-quarter of Texas’ food-sector workforce — more than 400,500 workers spread across farms, food-processing plants, warehouses, grocery stores and restaurants.

Together, those industries generated $102.6 billion in economic output in 2024, helping sustain one of the largest food economies in the nation.

The event opened with remarks from David Stevenson, president of Amegy Bank, and J. Michael Treviño of the American Immigration Council.

Chelsie Kramer, the organization’s Texas state organizer, presented the report’s findings before a panel of business and civic leaders, including Steve Kean of the Greater Houston Partnership; Mike Shine of the Greater Houston Chapter of the Texas Restaurant Association; Kelle Kieschnick of the Texas Business Leadership Council; Dr. Anne McBride of the James Beard Foundation; Catarina Bill of the Southern Smoke Foundation; and immigration attorney Jacob M. Monty. Moderating the discussion was AIC Executive Director Jeremy Robbins.

Immigrants account for 22.9% of Texas agricultural workers, 33.8% of food-processing employees and 25.7% of food-service workers. More than 53,000 immigrants work in food processing, while nearly 242,000 work in restaurants and food service. Texas exports $6.5 billion in agricultural commodities annually, and much of that system depends on immigrant labor.

For Houston, where immigrants account for more than one-third of the region’s food-sector workforce — and more than half of all cooks in the metropolitan area — the connection between immigration and food is impossible to ignore. Their labor touches nearly every step of the food supply chain.

According to the report, approximately 233,100 workers in Texas’ food sector are undocumented, representing 14.5% of the industry’s workforce. Already, significant disruptions from heightened immigration enforcement are rippling through food production, processing and distribution systems across the state.

Mike Shine of the Texas Restaurant Association pointed to industry surveys showing that 56% of Texas restaurants report significant losses. For restaurant owners, he said, the issue is no longer simply about lost revenue — it’s about lost workers.

Immigration attorney Jacob M. Monty offered a phrase that resonated throughout the room: “Driving While Undocumented,” or DWU. For many immigrants, he said, something as routine as driving to work can carry the fear that a traffic stop could lead to detention or family separation. Traffic stops are responsible for most immigrant detentions in Texas, now the highest number of any state.

Panelists agreed that changing course requires changing the narrative, making clear how integral immigrants are not just to the economy but also to the culture.

“We need to surface the story of immigrants — the people who feed us,” Kean said.

Anne McBride of the James Beard Foundation, herself a green card holder, noted that many immigrants are increasingly reluctant to speak publicly about their experiences, concerned that visibility could bring unwanted scrutiny to themselves, their families or their businesses.

“Everyone who is safe to be loud really has a responsibility to do it,” McBride said. “It should not just be on the most vulnerable immigrants to be speaking up for themselves, because they are too exposed.”

For now, in the words of AIC director and panel moderator Jeremy Robbins, the narrative is clear: from farmworkers harvesting crops in South Texas to cooks preparing dinner in Houston restaurants, immigrants are not just operating on the edges of Texas’ food economy — they are holding it together.

When President Trump returned to office, his promise to seal the borders and deport millions of immigrants sparked widespread concern that Massachusetts would face an economy-stifling labor shortage.

Considered most vulnerable: sectors with many low-skilled jobs filled by foreign-born workers — including health care, construction, and hospitality — as well as universities, research organizations, and technology companies, which recruit high-skilled employees from overseas.

Sixteen months into the second Trump administration, the crackdown hasn’t led to serious hiring disruptions. But the threat looms, and Massachusetts — where the foreign-born account for a quarter of the labor force — is particularly exposed to restrictive visa and border policies.

“We are seeing really strong early-warning signs,” said Luc Schuster, executive director of Boston Indicators, the research arm of the Boston Foundation, and co-author of a report released Thursday with the MassInc Policy Center on the potential impact of reduced immigration on Massachusetts.

Among the red flags, according to Schuster: Net international migration to Massachusetts fell by more than half in the first six months of Trump 2.0, and Census Bureau projections suggest immigration could decline nearly 90 percent from its 2024 peak by mid-2026. International student enrollment in higher education is down as much as 19 percent nationwide for the current school year. In a survey, more than 40 percent of Massachusetts scientists reported that researchers in their labs had relocated to other countries over the past year as a direct result of Trump administration policies.

The latest: Massachusetts will need roughly 64,000 net new immigrants annually through 2030 just to keep its working-age population stable, according to the report, but is on track for only about 29,000 by the end of this year.

Demographic trends have been going the wrong way in Massachusetts for years: an aging population, the second-lowest birth rate in the country, and an alarming level of outmigration to other states.

The saving grace has been newcomers from abroad. In recent years, the state has seen the second-highest rate of international in-migration in the country, trailing only Florida.

Without the influx, “Massachusetts will face not only slower population growth, but an outright contraction in the number of working-age residents available to support the broader economy,” the report states.

Why it matters: There are essentially two ways to grow an economy: expand the number of workers or boost productivity, which is output per worker.

If the workforce plateaus or shrinks, only productivity gains can make up the difference.

From 2009 through 2014, Massachusetts’ labor force grew faster than the nation’s. But since peaking at 3.952 million in March 2025, the state’s pool of available workers has fallen by more than 64,000, or 1.6 percent, compared with a dip of less than 1 percent from the US peak.

Temporary Protected Status: Immigration is just one driver of the waning labor force, but it may play a bigger role depending on Trump’s actions.

For example, the administration has sought to end Temporary Protected Status for more than 1 million people, though many of its efforts have been delayed by the courts. (TPS lets foreign nationals remain in the US when their home countries are unsafe due to armed conflict, natural disasters, or similar crises.)

Health care: Nearly 37,000 TPS holders reside in Massachusetts, according to Schuster’s report, including roughly 23,000 Haitians.

The Massachusetts Senior Care Association estimates that four in 10 nursing facility workers in the state are foreign-born, including roughly 2,000 frontline workers with Haitian TPS status, and nursing facilities here have job vacancy rates of around 13 percent.

Visas: The administration has cut the number of visas issued to foreigners as it delayed processing, imposed travel bans or restrictions on 19 countries, heightened security vetting, and increased application fees.

Last September, the administration slapped a $100,000 fee on employers applying for H-1B visas for overseas applicants, up from $5,000.

Schuster said the change may discourage companies from recruiting highly skilled workers in fields like life sciences, engineering, health care, and technology, and is especially a burden for startups.

These immigration restrictions, combined with federal funding cuts, amount to a double whammy for the state’s knowledge-based sectors.

Final thought: When Trump was reelected, deeply Democratic Massachusetts braced for an economic body blow.

Many of his most aggressive actions have been stalled by the courts, but they’ve taken a toll nonetheless.

“Across industries, one theme surfaced repeatedly: Fear and uncertainty are functioning as economic disruptors in their own right,” Schuster’s report says.

The damage to the workforce has been limited so far, but there are 961 more days (not that I am counting) until Trump leaves office.