ReportWire

Tag: deportation

  • South Korean, Vietnamese nationals among ICE’s latest ‘worst of the worst’ roundup in Los Angeles: DHS

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    More than 5,000 illegal immigrants have been arrested in the Los Angeles area since June, according to the Department of Homeland Security, including some of the “worst of the worst” violent offenders.

    The detainees highlighted by DHS include citizens of Mexico, El Salvador, South Korea, Vietnam, China and Eritrea.

    “DHS law enforcement has made over 5,000 arrests in Los Angeles. That’s more than 5,000 criminal illegal aliens, gang members, child predators, and murderers taken off our streets. Precious lives saved,” DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement.

    Some of the illegal immigrants highlighted by the agency have criminal histories that include violent offenses such as murder, theft and sexual abuse, including against children.

    DHS ARRESTS FIVE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CONVICTED OF SERIOUS CRIMES, INCLUDING MURDER AND CHILD ABUSE

    Diego Fernandez-Martinez (left) and Juan Carlos Marin-Hipolito (right) were arrested by ICE during raids in Los Angeles. (DHS)

    “Families protected. American taxpayers spared the cost of their crimes AND the burden of their benefits. Thank you to our brave law enforcement officers. Make no mistake: if you are here illegally, we will find you, arrest you, and send you back. This is just the beginning,” she continued.

    Diego Fernandez-Martinez, from Mexico, has convictions for carjacking, vehicle theft, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of a controlled substance for sales, robbery and prisoner in possession of a weapon, according to DHS. The agency also said he is a member of the Surenos gang.

    Mexican national Juan Carlos Marin-Hipolito was convicted of murder and sentenced to 50 years to life in prison, DHS said.

    Jaime Sarinana-Rodriguez, also from Mexico, is a registered sex offender convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child and was sentenced to 16 years in prison, according to the agency.

    Mexican woman Martina Zacarias is a convicted sex offender convicted of lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 and was sentenced to eight years in prison, DHS said.

    DHS ARRESTS ‘WORST OF THE WORST’ MIGRANTS IN LA DESPITE RIOTERS, POLS PUSHING BACK

    Jaime Sarinana-Rodriguez and Quoc Dung Pham

    Jaime Sarinana-Rodriguez (left) and Quoc Dung Pham (right) were arrested during ICE raids in Los Angeles. (DHS)

    Edgar Isaac Lopez, also from Mexico, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, child cruelty resulting in injury or death, assault by a prisoner, unlawful display of a fake or fraudulent ID card or permit, and trespassing, according to the department.

    Omar Guzman-Rodriguez, a registered sex offender, has convictions that include burglary, possession of check or money order to defraud, taking vehicle without owner consent, vehicle theft and possession of stolen vehicle, and lewd acts with a child under 14, DHS said. He is also from Mexico.

    Joel Benjamin Reyes, from El Salvador, is a registered sex offender convicted of first-degree rape by forcible compulsion and incest engaged in sexual conduct with a related person, DHS said.

    Yohannes Zerai, from the African country of Eritrea, is a registered sex offender and was convicted of robbery, battery with serious bodily injury, assault to commit rape, sexual penetration with a foreign object with force, assault with a deadly weapon that is not a firearm, petty theft with priors and failure to register as a sex offender, according to DHS.

    Hong Jing and Martina Zacarias

    Hong Jing (left) and Martina Zacarias (right) were both arrested by ICE during immigration raids in Los Angeles. (DHS)

    South Korean national Justin Chung has convictions for murder and shooting at an inhabited dwelling, DHS said, and was sentenced to 75 years in prison.

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    Quoc Dung Pham, from Vietnam, is a registered sex offender convicted of kidnapping, rape with force, sodomy in concert with force, oral copulation in concert with force, robbery and assault with intent to commit rape, possession of a controlled substance, DHS said. He was sentenced to 64 years in prison.

    His brother, Bo Quoc Pham, is a registered sex offender, convicted of rape with force, arm or weapon sex offense, rape in concert with force or violence, oral copulation and was sentenced to 118 years in prison, according to DHS.

    Chinese woman Hong Jing was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, aiding, abetting and engaging in sex trafficking of an individual, as well as racketeering.

    The arrests come amid federal immigration raids that began in June in the Los Angeles area, which also took place at local businesses and sparked weeks of protests against ICE arrests and the Trump administration’s mass deportation efforts.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact-checking claims about Kilmar Abrego Garcia

    [ad_1]

    The Trump administration again detained Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran citizen and Maryland resident whose wrongful deportation case gained national attention at the beginning of the administration’s illegal immigration crackdown.

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detained Abrego Garcia during his Aug. 25 immigration check-in. A Department of Homeland Security press release said Abrego Garcia was being processed for deportation to Uganda, but a district judge ordered him not to be deported until she can hold an evidentiary hearing

    Trump officials defended Abrego Garcia’s detention and deportation by continuing to level accusations against him since wrongly deporting him in March to an El Salvador maximum-security prison. Abrego Garcia had a withholding of removal order that prevented his deportation to his home country. He sued the U.S. government over his mistaken deportation in April and was returned to the U.S. on June 6 to face criminal charges. He was imprisoned in Tennessee, but a judge ordered his release July 23 while he awaits trial.

    In Aug. 25 remarks during an executive order signing, President Donald Trump said of Abrego Garcia, “He beat the hell out of his wife, his wife is afraid to even talk about him. She’s been mauled by this animal. And you know, through a system of liberal courts, you know, he’s doing things. But now we have that under control.”

    U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in the same ceremony, “(Abrego Garcia) will no longer terrorize our country. He’s currently charged with human smuggling, including children.”

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said in an X post, “President Trump is not going to allow this illegal alien, who is an MS-13 gang member, human trafficker, serial domestic abuser, and child predator to terrorize American citizens any longer.” 

    Some of these statements are exaggerated, and others are based on information from dubious informants. Here’s what we know about Abrego Garcia’s history.

    Recent judicial decisions said the government hasn’t proven Abrego Garcia’s gang membership

    Trump and his administration officials have repeatedly said Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13, a gang that originated in Los Angeles and is composed primarily of Salvadoran immigrants and their descendants. Abrego Garcia and his lawyer said he is not an MS-13  member. Federal judges in 2025 have agreed. 

    A federal judge in July described the U.S. government’s “poor attempts to tie Abrego to MS-13,” saying that to conclude Abrego Garcia is a member of or affiliated with MS-13, the court “would have to make so many inferences” that the “conclusion would border on fanciful.”

    Claims of Abrego Garcia’s alleged gang membership date to 2019 when Maryland police took him into custody while he was looking for day labor outside a Home Depot. Officers asked Abrego Garcia if he was a gang member, and he said no. A police informant told law enforcement that Abrego Garcia was an MS-13 gang member, according to a police report known as a “gang field interview sheet.”

    ICE took Abrego Garcia into custody after the arrest and Abrego Garcia sought bond. An immigration judge denied his initial bond request, describing officers’ determination that he was a member of MS-13 as “trustworthy” and “supported by other evidence in the record.”

    Abrego Garcia appealed that ruling, and an appeals board upheld the judge’s decision, saying the judge “appropriately considered allegations of gang affiliation.”

    In April, while Abrego Garcia was imprisoned in El Salvador, two judges said the U.S. government didn’t sufficiently prove Abrego Garcia’s gang membership.

    Trump has falsely said Abrego Garcia has the figures “MS-13” tattooed on his knuckles. 

    “There is no evidence before the Court that Abrego: has markings or tattoos showing gang affiliation; has working relationships with known MS-13 members; ever told any of the witnesses that he is a MS-13 member; or has ever been affiliated with any sort of gang activity,” Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw said in the July decision ordering Abrego Garcia’s release. 

    Grand jury indicted Abrego Garcia for transporting undocumented immigrants across the border

    Noem said Abrego Garcia was involved in human trafficking. That’s inaccurate.

    A grand jury indictment charged Abrego Garcia with one count of conspiracy to transport undocumented immigrants in the U.S. illegally, and one count of unlawful transportation of undocumented people. The May 21 indictment was unsealed June 6. 

    Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty to the charges, which stem from a 2022 traffic stop. U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes reiterated that Abrego Garcia is charged with human smuggling, not human trafficking. Trafficking is a crime against people, regardless of their immigration status or crossing of a border, while smuggling is a crime against a country’s immigration laws.

    The indictment alleges that from 2016 to 2025, Abrego Garcia participated in a criminal conspiracy to bring undocumented immigrants from “countries such as Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Ecuador and elsewhere” who crossed the Mexico border into Texas.

    In some instances, the indictment said, MS-13 members and their associates accompanied Abrego Garcia on trips transporting people illegally in the U.S. from Texas to other U.S. locations. Some of the people he transported were also MS-13 members and associates, the indictment said.

    It alleged that Abrego Garcia and coconspirators “transported children on the floorboards of vehicles.”

    In a 2022 traffic stop, a Tennessee Highway Patrol state trooper found Abrego Garcia driving nine passengers, all Hispanic men, the indictment said. Other government statements said he was driving eight people. 

    At the time, Abrego Garcia was released with a warning for driving with an expired license. 

    Defense attorneys questioned the credentials and motives of unnamed cooperating witnesses — people who provide information to the Justice Department as part of an agreement

    CNN reported that one witness is a two-time felon who had been deported from the U.S. five times, and has again returned illegally, seeking work authorization. Another admitted to human trafficking and is being held with criminal charges.

    Abrego Garcia’s wife filed two protective orders against him over domestic violence

    Abrego Garcia’s wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, a U.S. citizen, filed protective orders against him in 2020 and 2021. In the orders, Vasquez Sura said Abrego Garcia had slapped, punched and bruised her. 

    A few days after filing the 2020 protective order, Vasquez Sura, filed an order rescinding it, citing her son’s birthday and saying Abrego Garcia had agreed to go to counseling. 

    After the 2021 filing, a court ordered Abrego Garcia not to contact, harass or abuse Vasquez Sura. 

    Vasquez Sura has criticized the Trump administration, telling Newsweek that her protective orders are “not a justification for ICE’s action.”

    “After surviving domestic violence in a previous relationship, I acted out of caution following a disagreement with Kilmar by seeking a civil protective order, in case things escalated,” she said. “Things did not escalate, and I decided not to follow through with the civil court process. We were able to work through the situation privately as a family, including by going to counseling.”

    In July, Judge Crenshaw said, “The allegations against Abrego in the protective orders are both serious and concerning.”

    However, he said, the matters had been resolved and “there is no proof offered to suggest that Abrego failed to comply with those orders while they were in place, nor evidence suggesting that Abrego has engaged in similar conduct over the past four years.”

    Bondi’s accusations against Abrego Garcia based on information from coconspirators

    Bondi has floated a connection between Abrego Garcia and other crimes, without filing charges.

    In June 6 remarks, Bondi said, “A coconspirator alleged that the defendant solicited nude photographs and videos of a minor. A coconspirator also alleges the defendant played a role in the murder of a rival gang member’s mother.” 

    These allegations don’t appear on the indictment, but they were mentioned in the government’s motion for detention, which said it learned that Abrego Garcia “solicited nude photographs and videos of a minor, beginning in approximately 2020.” That motion said “no charges against the defendant regarding child pornography have been filed, but it demonstrates the danger the defendant poses to the community not just with respect to alien smuggling,” adding that investigation into that solicitation is ongoing. The government’s motion for detention was denied.

    In court, Abrego Garcia’s lawyers objected to hearsay and at times “multiple tiers of hearsay,” CNN reported, including when a federal agent said he heard that a cooperator heard someone else accusing Abrego Garcia of sexually harassing women.

    PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Kilmar Abrego Garcia taken into ICE custody, facing deportation to Uganda

    [ad_1]

    Washington — Kilmar Abrego Garcia is being processed for deportation to Uganda, the Department of Homeland Security said, after he was taken into custody Monday by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, days after his release from criminal custody.

    Abrego Garcia, a native of El Salvador, was mistakenly deported to his home country in March and held in a notorious Salvadoran prison for months before being returned to the U.S. in June where he was jailed on federal human smuggling charges. A judge ruled that he should be released from detention ahead of a trial set for January.

    Abrego Garcia was freed from pretrial detention last Friday. CBS News reported on Saturday that his attorneys were then sent a court-required notice of his potential deportation to Uganda. He arrived at the ICE facility on Monday morning to check in, speaking in Spanish to supporters who had gathered in a show of support outside of the facility.

    “There was no need for them to take him into ICE detention. He was already on electronic monitoring from the U.S. Marshals Service and basically on house arrest,” his attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg said. “The only reason that they’ve chosen to take him into detention is to punish him. To punish him for exercising his constitutional rights.”

    The Department of Homeland Security claims Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang, which his family denies.

    Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement that ICE had arrested Abrego Garcia and was “processing him for deportation.” DHS said he is “being processed for removal to Uganda.” The U.S. reached an agreement with Uganda to accept some deportees last week.

    “President Trump is not going to allow this illegal alien, who is an MS-13 gang member, human trafficker, serial domestic abuser, and child predator to terrorize American citizens any longer,” Noem said.

    Sandoval-Moshenberg said Abrego Garcia filed a new lawsuit Monday challenging his confinement and deportation to any country “unless and until he had a fair trial in an immigration court.” In a legal filing over the weekend, Abrego Garcia’s lawyers said he was offered a plea deal that included deportation to Costa Rica. His attorneys said they then received a notice of his possible deportation to Uganda. Sandoval-Moshenberg clarified Monday that Abrego Garcia had stated that he was willing to accept refugee status in Costa Rica.

    “The fact that they’re holding Costa Rica as a carrot and using Uganda as a stick to try to coerce him to plead guilty to a crime is such clear evidence that they’re weaponizing the immigration system in a manner that is completely unconstitutional,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said Monday.

    Sandoval-Moshenberg said an ICE officer did not answer when asked about the reason for Abrego Garcia’s detention and would not say which detention center he would be taken to, or commit to providing paperwork.

    Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat who traveled to El Salvador to advocate for the return of Abrego Garcia earlier this year, met with him Sunday. Van Hollen said in a statement that he was glad to “welcome him back to Maryland after what has been a long and torturous nightmare.”

    “The federal courts and public outcry forced the Administration to bring Ábrego García back to Maryland, but Trump’s cronies continue to lie about the facts in his case and they are engaged in a malicious abuse of power as they threaten to deport him to Uganda — to block his chance to defend himself against the new charges they brought,” Van Hollen said. “As I told Kilmar and his wife Jennifer, we will stay in this fight for justice and due process because if his rights are denied, the rights of everyone else are put at risk.”

    An immigration judge ruled in 2019 that Abrego Garcia may not be deported to El Salvador because he feared persecution by local gangs in the Central American country.

    Maryland Gov. Wes Moore advocated for due process for Abrego Garcia on Sunday, saying on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” that “I just simply want a court and a judge to decide what is going to be the future fate of this case and all cases like this, and not simply the president of the United States or the secretary of homeland security who is trying to be judge, juror, prosecutor and executioner inside this case.”

    Rainbow crosswalks in Florida painted over

    Welcome to New Orleans

    Maryland Gov. Wes Moore calls Trump D.C. National Guard deployment “unconstitutional”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US seeks to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Uganda after he refuses plea offer

    [ad_1]

    Immigration officials said they intend to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Uganda, after he declined an offer to be deported to Costa Rica in exchange for remaining in jail and pleading guilty to human smuggling charges, according to a Saturday court filing.The Costa Rica offer came late Thursday, after it was clear that the Salvadoran national would likely be released from a Tennessee jail the following day. Abrego Garcia declined to extend his stay in jail and was released on Friday to await trial in Maryland with his family. Later that day, the Department of Homeland Security notified his attorneys that he would be deported to Uganda and should report to immigration authorities on Monday.His attorneys declined to comment on whether the plea offer had been formally rescinded. The brief they filed only said that Abrego Garcia had declined one part of the offer — to remain in jail — and that his attorneys would “communicate the government’s proposal to Mr. Abrego.”Abrego Garcia’s case became a flashpoint in President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda after he was mistakenly deported in March. Facing a court order, the Trump administration brought him back to the U.S. in June, only to detain him on human smuggling charges.He has pleaded not guilty and has asked the judge to dismiss the case, claiming that it is an attempt to punish him for challenging his deportation to El Salvador. The Saturday filing came as a supplement to that motion to dismiss, stating that the threat to deport him to Uganda is more proof that the prosecution is vindictive.“The government immediately responded to Mr. Abrego’s release with outrage,” the filing reads. “Despite having requested and received assurances from the government of Costa Rica that Mr. Abrego would be accepted there, within minutes of his release from pretrial custody, an ICE representative informed Mr. Abrego’s counsel that the government intended to deport Mr. Abrego to Uganda and ordered him to report to ICE’s Baltimore Field Office Monday morning.”Although Abrego Garcia was deemed eligible for pretrial release, he had remained in jail at the request of his attorneys, who feared the Republican administration could try to immediately deport him again if he were freed. Those fears were somewhat allayed by a recent ruling in a separate case in Maryland, which requires immigration officials to allow Abrego Garcia time to mount a defense.

    Immigration officials said they intend to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Uganda, after he declined an offer to be deported to Costa Rica in exchange for remaining in jail and pleading guilty to human smuggling charges, according to a Saturday court filing.

    The Costa Rica offer came late Thursday, after it was clear that the Salvadoran national would likely be released from a Tennessee jail the following day. Abrego Garcia declined to extend his stay in jail and was released on Friday to await trial in Maryland with his family. Later that day, the Department of Homeland Security notified his attorneys that he would be deported to Uganda and should report to immigration authorities on Monday.

    His attorneys declined to comment on whether the plea offer had been formally rescinded. The brief they filed only said that Abrego Garcia had declined one part of the offer — to remain in jail — and that his attorneys would “communicate the government’s proposal to Mr. Abrego.”

    Abrego Garcia’s case became a flashpoint in President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda after he was mistakenly deported in March. Facing a court order, the Trump administration brought him back to the U.S. in June, only to detain him on human smuggling charges.

    He has pleaded not guilty and has asked the judge to dismiss the case, claiming that it is an attempt to punish him for challenging his deportation to El Salvador. The Saturday filing came as a supplement to that motion to dismiss, stating that the threat to deport him to Uganda is more proof that the prosecution is vindictive.

    “The government immediately responded to Mr. Abrego’s release with outrage,” the filing reads. “Despite having requested and received assurances from the government of Costa Rica that Mr. Abrego would be accepted there, within minutes of his release from pretrial custody, an ICE representative informed Mr. Abrego’s counsel that the government intended to deport Mr. Abrego to Uganda and ordered him to report to ICE’s Baltimore Field Office Monday morning.”

    Although Abrego Garcia was deemed eligible for pretrial release, he had remained in jail at the request of his attorneys, who feared the Republican administration could try to immediately deport him again if he were freed. Those fears were somewhat allayed by a recent ruling in a separate case in Maryland, which requires immigration officials to allow Abrego Garcia time to mount a defense.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • More human-trafficking survivors are seeking visas but face longer waits and risk deportation

    [ad_1]

    The T visa, an underutilized lifeline for immigrant survivors of human trafficking, is experiencing a sharp rise in applications, despite increasing processing times and deportation risks.

    Also known as T nonimmigrant status, the visa allows people who have experienced severe forms of human trafficking to remain in the country for up to four years if they are helpful to law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of their trafficker. Approved applicants can work in the U.S., are eligible for certain state and federal benefits, and can apply for a green card after three years on the visa (or earlier if the criminal case is closed).

    Julie Dahlstrom, founder and director of the Human Trafficking Clinic at Boston University, said increased awareness of the visa and the courts’ expanding definitions of trafficking may have contributed to the increase, along with mounting barriers to other pathways for immigrant relief.

    Congress created the T visa in 2000 as part of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, intending to bolster law enforcement agencies’ capabilities to prosecute human trafficking crimes while offering protections to survivors. The same law also established the U visa, which provides legal status for victims who have suffered substantial abuse as a result of serious crimes including trafficking, domestic violence and sexual assault. U visa applicants must also be willing to assist law enforcement in their investigation of these crimes.

    “Many [applicants] are eligible for the U visa as well, but they’re taking now over 20 years for an individual to get access … so I think that has influenced lawyers and survivors, if they are eligible for the T visa … to go ahead and also file T visa applications,” Dahlstrom said. “Especially under the Trump administration, we’ve seen more barriers to asylum access, special immigrant juvenile status access, so I expect we’ll continue to see that move.”

    USCIS updated the T visa rules in August 2024 with a process called called bona fide determination that gave survivors earlier access to benefits while their application is pending approval. It also granted them deferred action, which places individuals on a lower priority for removal proceedings.

    Erika Gonzalez, training and technical assistance managing attorney from the Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking, explained that although early access to benefits had existed in the federal statute, it was never implemented because applications were processing fast enough to not need it.

    “They have updated the [bona fide determination] process to now have a formal process to engage with, and it does parallel with the sharp increases in filing,” Gonzalez said.

    As T visa applications rose, so too did approvals. Last year, the number of approvals broke 3,000 for the first time though it still fell short of the 5,000 cap.

    Processing times for T visas have also increased, jumping from a median of 5.9 months in 2014 to 19.9 months this fiscal year.

    Denial rates for T visas, meanwhile, have fluctuated.

    “We were seeing increased denial rates under the prior Trump administration and then improved rates under Biden,” Dahlstrom said.

    Denials can leave T visa applicants vulnerable to deportation. In 2018, USCIS began allowing removal proceedings if an application was rejected with a notice to appear (NTA).

    According to a 2022 report co-written by Dahlstrom, which obtained USCIS data through Freedom of Information Act litigation, USCIS issued a total of 236 NTAs to denied T visa applicants from 2019 to 2021. President Biden rescinded this policy with a January 2021 executive order, but last February, USCIS published new guidance once more expanding the circumstances where the agency could issue NTAs.

    These policies, alongside escalated coordination between law enforcement and other agencies, have heightened fear among survivors applying for the T visa, Dahlstrom explained.

    “We are seeing in real time the results of including requirements around law enforcement engagement, especially when there’s greater cooperation with ICE and greater concerns about deportation,” Dahlstrom said. “These programs are being politicized and, in some ways, weaponized if you’re denied and you’re placed in proceedings.”

    Since February’s policy update, at least one person has self-deported after Immigration and Customs Enforcement denied her stay despite her pending T visa application.

    So far in the fiscal year 2025, USCIS has approved 1,035 T-visas and rejected 693, which surpasses the number rejected in each of the last four years.

    “It’s too early to tell what we’re going to see, but if we continue to see these numbers, it’s both going to mean a rise in denials and very few cases adjudicated amidst more and more applications being filed, which is really troubling,” Dahlstrom said. “These are statutorily protected programs, but what they can do is really slow them down, make them ineffective just in the way that they’re processing applications.”

    [ad_2]

    Phi Do

    Source link

  • A mother’s choice: Jail in L.A. or deportation to Mexico with her children

    [ad_1]

    Modesta Matías Aquino was working her regular morning shift — 3 a.m. till noon — at the Glass House Farms in Camarillo, caring for rows of marijuana plants.

    Among her co-workers on the morning of July 10 were two of her daughters, aged 16 and 19.

    “With everything going on, with the raids, there had been rumors that something bad might happen,” Matías recalled.

    About 9 a.m., she said, phalanxes of masked agents in tactical vests sealed off the sprawling compound. Matías and her daughters were among more than 300 undocumented immigrants — including at least 10 minors — who, according to U.S. authorities, were detained at a pair of Glass House sites.

    The raids, like other such operations across the United States, split many so-called “mixed-status” families, those with both U.S.-born citizens — often children — and undocumented relatives, typically one or both parents.

    Matías’ family life is, by any definition, complicated, including seven daughters in all. Her two youngest daughters, aged 2 and 5, are U.S. citizens, born in California. Her 2-year-old grandson —the child of Matías’ 16-year-old daughter — is also a native Californian. So when Matías was held in a federal lockup in downtown Los Angeles, she faced a momentous choice — one that would mark her family for life.

    Matías, 43, could accept removal to Mexico. But that might effectively banish her from returning to the United States, where she had toiled as a field worker for most of the past quarter-century — and where she had deep family ties.

    Alternately, she could fight expulsion in court. But that would leave her in custody, possibly indefinitely.

    “They told me I could be locked up for months, maybe a year, and never see my children,” Matías said, recalling what U.S. agents informed her in Los Angeles. “I just couldn’t endure that.”

    Instead, Matías said, she agreed to return voluntarily to Mexico, but with a caveat: She had to be accompanied by her two youngest daughters and her grandson. After some haggling — federal authorities initially balked at sending U.S. citizen minors to Mexico, Matías said — an agreement was reached. (The Department of Homeland Security didn’t respond to inquiries from The Times.)

    She and four daughters — the two undocumented teenagers who worked at Glass House and the two U.S. citizen youngsters — were soon in a van en route to Tijuana. The U.S.-born grandson was also with them.

    “Go ahead,” an agent told Matías upon letting the family out at the border. “You’re back in your country now.”

    Ailed Lorenzo Matías and her son, Liam Yair, in the family home in Miahuatlán de Porfirio Díaz, have a video chat with the boy’s father, who is in California.

    (Liliana Nieto del Rio / For The Times)

    Back to Yojuela

    The hamlet of Yojuela is home to some 500 people — all of Indigenous Zapotec origins — who reside deep in the Sierra Madre Oriental, in Mexico’s southern Oaxaca state. The area is known for its clay pottery, fired from distinctive reddish earth, and for something else — dispatching its offspring to work in the fields of California, supporting loved ones left behind in a time-tested rite of passage.

    The scripted sequel is the triumphant homecoming of those who moved on but never forsook their roots. These days, however, many return to places like Yojuela broke and embittered, casualties of President Trump’s deportation onslaught.

    Matías and her family showed up last month, just 20 days after she was detained. She had last set foot here seven years earlier.

    “This is is where I was born and reared,” Matías said with both resignation and pride, ushering visitors onto a verdant patch shimmering in the aftermath of recent rains.

    Reaching the ancestral hearth involves a two-hour, uphill drive on a washboard road from the nearest city, and then a short hike — across a stream and up a steep hill, past fields of corn and beans and stands of pine, all to a soundtrack of clucking turkeys and braying donkeys.

    Accompanying Matías were two U.S.-born daughters, Arisbeth, 2, and Keilani, a onetime Oxnard preschooler who turned 5 in Tijuana. Also present were Matías’ 16-year-old daughter, Ailed, and Ailed’s U.S.-born son, Liam Yair, 2.

    I’d like like to go back to California

    — Ailed Lorenzo Matías

    It marked the first time that the native Californians met their extended family, including a platoon of curious cousins.

    Seasoned to the periodic reunion ritual was Cecilia Aquino, mother of Matías and her five siblings— all of whom had made the trek to California. For decades, her adobe dwelling hosted waves of grandchildren and great-grandchildren as sons and daughters went back and forth, entrusting expanding broods to the matriarch.

    Matías and her mother, now 72, embraced, no words needed. Each examined the other closely. Time had taken its melancholic toll.

    “All of my children had to go away and leave their kids with me — there’s no work here,” said Aquino, worn down by years of toil, as she prepared coffee on a kindling-fired stove. “Then they come back. Then they leave again. It’s sad. The children never really get to know their parents. I wish the officials on the other side [of the border] would let them be together.”

    Leaving home

    Matías joined the migrant trail as a teenager, following the harvests — strawberries, celery, broccoli and more — from California to the Pacific Northwest. Through the years, she gave birth to her seven daughters — four in the United States, three in Mexico — as she crisscrossed the border a dozen times.

    “I was always a single mother, always battling on my own for my children,” Matías said. “I earned everything through my own sweat and toil. The fathers of my kids never gave me anything.”

    Her last journey north, in 2018, was the most difficult, as the once-porous international boundary had become a militarized bulwark. She vowed it would be her last crossing. Four years ago, she said, she secured work at Glass House Farms, a major player in the legalized cannabis boom.

    “It was the best job I ever had,” she said.

    There was no back-breaking stooping: Trimmers sat on benches. The pounding sun wasn’t an issue in the temperature-controlled facilities.

    Matías said she rose to become a crew chief, overseeing 240 workers. She said she earned more than $20 an hour, and, with overtime, regularly grossed in excess of $1,000 a week — a unfathomable haul in Oaxaca, where field hands pocket the equivalent of about $10 a day.

    Her plan, she said, was to remain in California until she turned 65, then retire to Yojuela, using savings to open a shop.

    “I never wanted to stay forever in Oxnard,” she said.

    Then came July 10.

    ‘Total chaos’

    “People were running all over the place,” Matías recalled of the raid. “Some tried to hide inside the greenhouses. Others crawled inside the ventilation shafts. It was total chaos.”

    One worker, Jaime Alanis García, 56, died from injuries suffered when he fell from a greenhouse roof, apparently while trying to evade arrest.

    Blocking any escape for herself and her two daughters, Matías said, were los militares — heavily armed U.S. agents in martial getup.

    That evening, Matías said, she spent a sleepless night in detention in downtown Los Angeles. The next day, she accepted a “voluntary return” to Mexico.

    For almost a week, the family stayed in a shelter in Tijuana, awaiting the arrival of her male partner and the boyfriend of her 19-year-old-daughter. Both were also among the of Glass House detainees. The three-day bus ride south included a frenzied, crosstown change of terminals in Mexico City at midnight to catch the last coach for Oaxaca.

    With her remaining savings, Matías purchased an unfinished, cinder-block house on the outskirts of Miahuatlán de Porfirio Díaz, a historic but drab city that hosts a federal prison. It’s about a two-hour drive on a rough track from Yojuela, but offers baseline schooling and job prospects.

    The expulsion to Mexico shattered a family that had attained a modicum — perhaps an illusion — of stability in California.

    Keilani Lorenzo Matías, 5, at the family home in Miahuatlán de Porfirio Díaz.

    Keilani Lorenzo Matías, 5, a U.S.-born daughter of Modesta Matías Aquino, at the family’s new home in Miahuatlán de Porfirio Díaz.

    (Liliana Nieto del Rio / For The Times)

    Like her mother, Ailed Lorenzo Matías, 16, succumbed to the siren call of the border. She was 14 when she and her boyfriend crossed into California. She struggled to climb the fence and descend on the U.S. side, worrying about her baby. She was five months pregnant.

    The other day, Ailed sat in a stairwell of the new home in Miahuatlán, cuddling her son. They were sharing a video call to Oxnard with the boy’s father, who also worked at Glass House. But, in a twist of fate, he was off duty on July 10.

    “I’d like like to go back to California,” the soft-spoken Ailed said. “My son was born there. And that’s where his papá is.”

    Unlike Ailed, her sister, Natalia Lorenzo Matías, 19, has no intention of returning.

    “No, I don’t want to go back,” Natalia said. “You don’t have a real life there. You spend your time working and locked in your house, always afraid that you will be arrested.”

    Her mother is deeply tormented but endeavors to conceal her despair. “I have to be strong for the kids,” Matías said. “When I’m alone, I begin to cry.”

    She says she understands Trump’s point: He wants to deport criminals. But, she asks, why target hardworking immigrants?

    “In all my years in the north,” she said, “I never saw an American working in the fields.”

    Her plan, she says, is to stabilize the family, enroll her 5-year-old in school, find some work — and, then, perhaps in a year or two, set off once more.

    For now, though, Matías says she is concentrated on helping her family adjust to a new way of life — albeit, she hopes, a transitory one, until they get back on the road to California.

    Special correspondents Cecilia Sánchez Vidal and Liliana Nieto del Río contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Patrick J. McDonnell

    Source link

  • The craziest deportation goals

    [ad_1]

    Trump’s campaign promises, coming to fruition: “Until June, deportations had lagged behind immigration arrests and detentions,” reports The New York Times. “By the first week of August, deportations reached nearly 1,500 people per day, according to the latest data, a pace not seen since the Obama administration.”

    So far during President Donald Trump’s second term, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has deported 180,000 people. The administration aims for 1 million this year, but if current numbers hold, it’ll be closer to 400,000. Stephen Miller, the ardent immigration restrictionist who has Trump’s ear, said on Fox News in late May that ICE would set a goal of a “minimum” of 3,000 arrests a day—far more than what it’s currently logging. But that’s beside the point: The administration seems interested in aggressive benchmarks and willing to use whatever tactics to get there, including compromising on apprehending the largest threats and instead going after people who’ve simply overstayed (a civil offense, not a criminal one).

    In fact, it’s looking very possible that the numbers will be juiced in order for these goals to be met, since the Trump administration enjoys its bragging rights. “The Department of Homeland Security says the total number of deportations so far under Mr. Trump is much higher—at 332,000. That figure includes people who are turned around or quickly deported at U.S. borders by Customs and Border Protection,” per the Times. There’s a fair bit of space between 180,000 and 332,000; expect more creative accounting as enforcement actions heat up further.

    Meanwhile, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is pushing for ICE to simply buy its own planes. “ICE uses charter planes to deport immigrants and has done so for years. The agency has typically chartered eight to 14 planes at a time for deportation flights, according to Jason Houser, who served as ICE chief of staff from 2022 to 2023. He said that allowed the Biden administration to deport roughly 15,000 immigrants per month on charter flights,” reports NBC News. To double these numbers, Houser says, you’d need to purchase about 30 planes, at $80–400 million a pop; so purchasing 30 passenger planes could cost anywhere from $2.4 billion to $12 billion. It’s estimated that ICE had chartered a little more than 1,000 flights by the end of July, at $100,000 to $200,000 per flight.

    Case in point: Angel Rodrigo Minguela Palacios, a strawberry delivery guy who had overstayed a tourist visa to escape his native Coahuila, a state in northern Mexico where he’d been the victim of stabbings and kidnappings, had been working for the same company for eight years and raising three kids with his girlfriend of eight years when Border Patrol nabbed him, reports The Los Angeles Times. He had been dropping off strawberries in Los Angeles’ Little Tokyo, outside of where California Gov. Gavin Newsom was holding an event—and where Border Patrol has lately taken to assembling.

    Border Patrol detained him and threw him in the “B-18” federal detention center in downtown L.A., where he’s been since.

    “When asked last week whether the person arrested outside the news conference had a criminal record, a Homeland Security spokesperson said the agency would share a criminal rap sheet when it was available,” reports the L.A. Times. “After four follow-up emails from a reporter, [Spokeswoman Tricia] McLaughlin on Saturday said agents had arrested ‘two illegal aliens’ in the vicinity of Newsom’s news conference—including ‘an alleged Tren de Aragua gang member and narcotics trafficker.’” Reporters asked for clarification as to whether that describes one person or two; then, “when presented with Minguela’s biographical information Monday, the department said he had been arrested because he overstayed his visa—a civil, not criminal, offense.”

    It appears Minguela has no criminal record, and was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. The kicker: When Minguela handed one of the agents arresting him a “Know Your Rights” card he keeps in his wallet, the agent reportedly said, “This is of no use to me.”


    Scenes from New York: Wild. But I do believe it.


    QUICK HITS

    • “SpaceX’s impressive track record, including the construction of the Starlink satellite-internet network and its innovation on reusable rocket technology, has had a deep impact on the space industry and US space policy. It has also made SpaceX among the most highly valued private companies in the world,” reports Bloomberg. But now, Starship—the first fully reusable orbital rocket, which Elon Musk says will be able to bring humans to Mars—is plagued by issues, which Musk is attempting to solve by shuffling around engineering talent internally. “To make Starship work, SpaceX is betting that it can draw resources away from its core rocket program at a time when the company faces weak competition. Some planned launches of SpaceX’s Starlink satellites on Falcon 9 rockets would potentially be pushed from the end of this year to early 2026 because of the surge of Falcon engineers working on Starship, the people familiar with the company’s planning said.”
    • “Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard began a fresh strike Tuesday against national security officials whom President Donald Trump deems political enemies, announcing she had revoked the clearances of 37 people, including several currently serving U.S. intelligence officials,” reports The Washington Post. Many of the officials who had their clearances revoked were involved in the 2016 Russian interference investigations and the Trump impeachment.
    • Really useful chart to help you make sense of how tariffs will raise prices:
    • Relatedly: “Automakers can’t eat the cost of tariffs forever, and September is a convenient time to adjust prices, as the 2026 models begin arriving in showrooms,” reports Axios. Interestingly, “if companies try to offset tariffs on imported cars with higher prices, they’ll need to make adjustments across their portfolio to maintain reasonable gaps between vehicle segments. [General Motors’] entry-level Chevrolet Trax, for example, is imported from South Korea, now subject to a 15% tariff. But if it raised the price of the Trax, it might end up costing about the same as a Chevy Equinox, currently made in Mexico but moving to the U.S. in 2027.” Industrywide, forecasters predict a roughly 6 percent increase in prices next year, best-case scenario.
    • Breaking the law:
    • “A former top City Hall advisor and current campaign confidante to Mayor Eric Adams attempted to give money to a reporter from THE CITY following a campaign event in Harlem Wednesday,” reports The City. “The failed payoff—a wad of cash in a red envelope stuffed inside an opened bag of Herr’s Sour Cream & Onion ripple potato chips—was made by Winnie Greco, a longtime Adams ally who resigned last year from her position as the mayor’s liaison to the Asian community after she was targeted in multiple investigations.”
    • Why elites still worship socialism:

    [ad_2]

    Liz Wolfe

    Source link

  • U.S. strikes deportation deals with Honduras and Uganda

    [ad_1]

    Internal government documents obtained by CBS News show the Trump administration has expanded its campaign to persuade countries around the world to aid its crackdown on illegal immigration by accepting deportations of migrants who are not their own citizens. Camilo Montoya-Galvez explains.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • U.S. strikes deportation deals with Honduras and Uganda, CBS News reports

    [ad_1]

    By Christian Martinez

    (Reuters) -The United States has struck deportation deals with Honduras and Uganda amid a search for additional agreements that would allow the U.S. to deport people living in the country illegally to third-party countries, CBS News reported on Tuesday.

    Citing internal documents, CBS reported that the Trump administration has broadened its search for countries which would accept migrants that are not their citizens.

    (Reporting by Christian Martinez)

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ICE walks back rapid deportation of longtime immigrant without court hearing

    [ad_1]

    The Department of Homeland Security has walked back what lawyers called an illegal attempt to fast-track the deportation of a woman who has lived in the U.S. for nearly 30 years and to expel her without an immigration court hearing, her attorneys said.

    Lawyers for Mirta Amarilis Co Tupul, 38, filed a lawsuit earlier this month to stop her imminent deportation to Guatemala. A U.S. district court judge in Arizona dismissed the case Wednesday after the federal government moved the woman to regular deportation proceedings and agreed in writing not to attempt expedited removal again, her lawyers said.

    The judge had granted an emergency request to temporarily pause the deportation while the case played out in court.

    The case highlighted broader concerns that the Trump administration is stretching immigration law to speed up deportations in its effort to remove as many immigrants as possible.

    Federal law since 1996 holds that immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for fewer than two years can be placed in expedited removal proceedings, which bypass the immigration court process. Longtime immigrants, however, cannot be removed until they’ve had a chance to plead their case before a judge.

    In a sworn declaration, one of Co Tupul’s attorneys wrote that a deportation officer told her the agency had a “new policy” of placing immigrants in expedited removal proceedings after their first contact with immigration authorities.

    “This appears to have been a test case in which the administration attempted to enforce a ‘new policy’ against Ms. Co Tupul,” Eric Lee, one of Co Tupul’s attorneys, said Thursday. “The district court quickly shut down this effort in no uncertain terms. Maybe this has slowed the government’s efforts to expand expedited removal, or maybe the government is waiting for another test case where the non-citizen lacks legal representation.”

    Emails reviewed by The Times showed that Co Tupul’s lawyer provided extensive evidence of her longtime residence. Immigration officials told the lawyer that her client would remain in expedited removal proceedings anyway.

    Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said that after Co Tupul’s lawyers provided documentation verifying she had lived in the U.S. for more than two years, “ICE followed the law and placed her in normal removal proceedings.”

    “Any allegation that DHS is ‘testing out’ a new policy regarding illegal aliens who have been in the country for longer than two years into expedited removal is false,” McLaughlin added.

    Co Tupul, a Phoenix resident, was pulled over as she drove to her job at a laundromat on July 22. She remains detained at Eloy Detention Center, about 65 miles southeast of Phoenix.

    [ad_2]

    Andrea Castillo

    Source link

  • Trump keeps making incendiary statements. His campaign says that won’t change.

    Trump keeps making incendiary statements. His campaign says that won’t change.

    [ad_1]

    By JILL COLVIN and BILL BARROW (Associated Press)

    GREENSBORO, N.C. — He’s argued his four criminal indictments and mug shot bolstered his support among Black voters who see him as a victim of discrimination just like them.

    He’s compared himself to Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who died in an Arctic prison imprisoned by Vladimir Putin, and suggested that he is a political dissident, too.

    And in nearly every public appearance, he repeats falsehoods about the election he lost.

    Candidates on the verge of winning their parties’ nominations generally massage their messaging and moderate positions that may energize hardcore primary voters but are less appealing to a broader audience. In political terms, they “pivot.”

    Not Donald Trump. The former president is instead doubling down on often-incendiary rhetoric that offends wide swaths of voters, seeming to be doing little to rein in his most irascible and oftentimes self-defeating instincts. That’s even as some of his most loyal allies have suggested he shift his focus and tone down rhetoric that risks offending independent voters and people outside his base.

    “Donald Trump is Donald Trump. That’s not going to change,” said senior campaign adviser Chris LaCivita. “Our job is not to remake Donald Trump.”

    LaCivita and other top campaign officials instead say their role is to provide the organization “to amplify and to force project” Trump’s message.

    The campaign, he said, had already assumed a general election posture before voting began, running ads attacking President Joe Biden before the Iowa caucuses. So while Trump is now talking less about his last remaining GOP rival, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, his campaign is focused on building out a general election infrastructure as it turns its focus from early voting states to November battlegrounds.

    That includes efforts to take over the Republican National Committee, with plans to consolidate the party’s and campaign’s fundraising, political operations, communications and research operations. LaCivita is in line to become the RNC’s chief operating officer while retaining his role on the campaign.

    “The campaign’s pivot,” LaCivita said, “is just a realization that we’ve already secured what we need to win. That manifests itself in not only the messaging but the mechanics.” He said to expect “more of the same” after Trump clinches the nomination, which is expected later this month.

    [ad_2]

    The Associated Press

    Source link

  • Opinion: My client Jose was the luckiest man in an unlucky place. He got to go home for the holidays

    Opinion: My client Jose was the luckiest man in an unlucky place. He got to go home for the holidays

    [ad_1]

    The holidays can be a challenging time. It’s an especially challenging time for detainees at the Adelanto Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center.

    This wind-scoured private prison lurks on the western boundary of the Mojave Desert, about 10 miles from Victorville. With a built-in immigration court, it’s something of a one-stop deportation shop.

    Sundays are a busy day here. The waiting room at the Desert View Annex is crowded with families. Parents. Grandparents. More children than you would expect. The visitors are nervous, if not resigned.

    A kindly man with a Sinaloan accent makes small talk with me while we wait.

    “You here to visit family?”

    “No. A client.”

    “Lawyer?”

    “Yes, in a public defender’s office.”

    “You do immigration law?”

    “Not really. I’m here to fix the wrongful conviction that took away my client’s green card and got him put in deportation.”

    He asks for my card. “My son has a conviction like that too. Can you talk to him?”

    The staff here are pleasant, kind. A guard in a blue polo shirt exchanges the IDs of people in the waiting room for visitors’ badges. Another walks us through a series of imposing steel doors to a visiting room. Some Christmas ornaments hang from the ceiling. Clumps of plastic furniture line the periphery. A play area for children sits on the far wall. A dozen men in red and orange jumpsuits greet the arrivals.

    It is palpably sad. All but one or two of these men will be deported; all but one or two of these families will be missing a son or husband or father during the holidays.

    A friendly guard with perfect fake eyelashes places me in a private attorney room. I hand her a stack of papers for my client Jose. Across the reinforced glass, tears well in his eyes as he signs the documents mending the legal errors that landed him here.

    Jose is in his late 50s. Been in the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident since he was 6 months old. His entire family is here. He has five adult children. Six grandchildren. Elderly parents. Owns a small business. Has no contact with his country of his birth.

    In the 1990s, he pleaded guilty to possession of less than a gram of cocaine. His lawyer never asked about his immigration status, nor told him the conviction would result in him losing his green card and being placed in deportation. Not understanding the immigration consequences, he pleaded guilty. He attended some drug classes and when the judge said “case dismissed,” he thought the matter was closed. But a “dismissed” case is still a federal controlled substances conviction.

    Three decades later, Jose was arrested by men in windbreakers and placed in deportation proceedings.

    Last Monday, I was in court for him, and a judge signed an order vacating the conviction because it violated his 5th and 6th Amendment rights. On Tuesday, Jose’s immigration attorney filed a motion to terminate removal proceedings with the judge’s order attached. With no criminal conviction to trigger deportation grounds, Jose made it home to watch his grandkids tear into presents.

    He was the luckiest man in an unlucky place. Had his conviction come from other counties in California, the public defender’s offices in those counties would very likely have refused to take his case, despite having been allocated money to do so.

    In 2021, the California Board of State and Community Corrections created the Public Defense Pilot Program, which provided funds so that public defender’s offices could represent clients under several statutes, including Penal Code §1473.7. This law allows defendants to vacate criminal convictions if newly discovered evidence appears; if the conviction was obtained on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin; or if it’s legally invalid because the person did not understand and appreciate the immigration consequences.

    Although the other statutes in the pilot program also require a public defender’s office to open old cases where, almost always, mistakes of some kind will be found, many defender’s offices resist taking on cases involving immigrants because of workloads or concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

    In my office in Ventura County, I was transferred from felony trials to the immigration unit to help as many eligible people as possible. Although this decision significantly increased the office’s workload, the positive results are tangible. In 2023, we prepared more than 200 §1473.7 cases on behalf of 93 immigrants like Jose.

    If every public defender’s office in the state could make indigent representation under this statute a priority, we would see more justice and many more immigrants, who’ve been unfairly swept up, have an increased opportunity to make it home to their families for the holidays and in the coming year.

    Michael Albers is a senior deputy public defender in the Ventura County Public Defender’s Office.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Albers

    Source link

  • Mexico makes agreement with US to deport migrants from its border cities amid ongoing surge in illegal migration | CNN

    Mexico makes agreement with US to deport migrants from its border cities amid ongoing surge in illegal migration | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Mexico has made an agreement with the United States to deport migrants from its border cities to their home countries and take several actions to deter migrants as part of a new effort to combat the recent surge in border crossings.

    Mexican officials met with US Customs and Border Protection officials on Friday in Ciudad Juárez,, Mexico, which is across the border from El Paso, Texas, following the recent spike in illegal crossings into the US, which temporarily closed an international bridge and paused Mexico’s main cargo train system.

    As part of the agreement, Mexico agreed to “depressurize” its northern cities, which border the El Paso, San Diego and Eagle Pass, Texas, where the mayor has declared a state of emergency. They will also implement more than a dozen actions to prevent migrants from risking their lives by using the railway system to reach the US-Mexico border, according to Mexico’s National Migration Institute.

    The US Department of Defense is ramping up resources at the US-Mexico border, sending at least 800 new active-duty personnel to the border, where 2,500 National Guard members are already servicing, Department of Homeland Security officials announced Wednesday night in a call with reporters.

    The move comes as migrant crossings along the border are rising, surpassing 8,600 over a 24-hour period this week, according to a Department of Homeland Security official. It is up from around 3,500 daily border arrests after the expiration in May of Title 42 triggered new consequences for those who cross the border illegally. There were more than 8,000 apprehensions on Monday.

    The busiest sectors are Del Rio, El Paso, Lower Rio Grande Valley and Tucson; each facing more than 1,000 encounters over the last 24 hours, according to the official. Eagle Pass is in the Del Rio sector.

    Friday’s meeting was attended by Customs and Border Protection’s Acting Commissioner Troy Miller, the commissioner of Mexico’s National Migration Institute, the governor of the Mexican state of Chihuahua, members of Mexico’s national defense and national guard and representatives of Ferromex, a Mexican railroad operator, according to the institute.

    Mexican officials vowed to carry out a series of 15 actions as part of the agreement, some in coordination with Customs and Border Protection and Ferromex, which includes deporting migrants to their home countries by land and air.

    The country said it will carry out negotiations with the governments of Venezuela, Brazil, Nicaragua, Colombia and Cuba to confirm receipt of their citizens deported from the US-Mexico border. It will also allow US border patrol agents to expel migrants through the Ciudad Juárez international bridge, which connects to El Paso.

    Other terms of the agreement include submitting a daily report of the number of migrants on the train system to Customs and Border Protection’s El Paso sector, establishing checkpoints along the Ferromex rail route and conducting interventions on railways and highways, according to Mexico’s National Migration Institute.

    The institute said Mexico had deported more than 788,000 migrants to their home countries from January 1 to September.

    The agreed-upon actions by Mexican officials raise questions about the country doing work typically designated for the US – from the south of the border – to manage the influx of migrants in recent weeks, which have has strained federal resources and overwhelmed already-crowded facilities, CNN previously reported.

    Many who leave their homes for the United States face long and dangerous treks in hopes of finding better, safer lives. Some may flee violence, while others may immigrate for economic opportunities or to reunite with family, experts say. Deteriorating conditions in Latin America exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic also have contributed to the influx of migrants into the US.

    It is likely the number of border crossings will continue to increase, as more Mexican nationals are making plans to come to the US, Ariel Ruiz Soto, a senior policy analyst at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute in Washington, told CNN.

    US government data show more Mexican families coming to the border, likely to seek asylum, Ruiz said. In July 2022, for example, Customs and Border Protection figures indicate 4,000 Mexican family encounters at the border. A year later, the number had more than quadrupled, reaching nearly 22,000.

    “These are the three levers that are in play right now. … And regardless of what the Biden administration does today or tomorrow,” he says, “the people that are on the way already are going to continue, unless something else happens in the region.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal judge again declares Obama-era DACA program unlawful | CNN Politics

    Federal judge again declares Obama-era DACA program unlawful | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal judge in Texas ruled Wednesday that a regulation intended to preserve the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program is unlawful, delivering a major blow to the Biden administration.

    Last year, the administration moved to preserve the program – which protects undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US as children – and released a rule to codify the policy into a federal regulation.

    But in a Wednesday filing, Judge Andrew Hanen, of the Southern District of Texas, maintained that DACA is unlawful and argued the rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act, a law that governs how agencies make regulations. The order doesn’t impact current beneficiaries of the program.

    “To be clear, neither this order nor the accompanying supplemental injunction requires the (Department of Homeland Security) or the Department of Justice to take any immigration, deportation, or criminal action against any DACA recipient, applicant, or any other individual that would otherwise not be taken,” Hanen wrote.

    White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement Wednesday evening that the administration is “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.

    “During this Administration, hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients have been able to live and work lawfully in our country without fear of deportation,” Jean-Pierre wrote. “As we have long maintained, we disagree with the District Court’s conclusion that DACA is unlawful, and will continue to defend this critical policy from legal challenges.”

    Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas condemned the ruling in a statement but affirmed that the department will continue to process renewals for current DACA recipients.

    The Department of Justice declined to comment.

    DACA, created in 2012, was intended to provide temporary reprieve to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children, a group often described as “Dreamers,” and allow them to live and work in the US. Many of them are now adults. There were 578,680 immigrants enrolled in DACA as of the end of March, according to government data.

    The Biden administration released a rule last year to “preserve and fortify” DACA, largely maintaining the criteria for the program. In January, nine Republican-led states asked Hanen to block the rule.

    Hanen’s ruling comes after a federal appeals court largely upheld his previous ruling finding DACA unlawful. That ruling blocked the government from approving new applications for the program but allowed it to continue for current enrollees while the case was litigated. That remains the case today.

    In his Wednesday ruling, Hanen cited the ongoing legal fight over the program and put the onus on Congress.

    “Litigation revolving around the legality of DACA, in one form or another, has existed for nearly a decade. While sympathetic to the predicament of DACA recipients and their families, this Court has expressed its concerns about the legality of the program for some time. The solution for these deficiencies lies with the legislature, not the executive or judicial branches,” Hanen wrote.

    Immigrant advocates have repeatedly urged Congress to provide protections to DACA recipients, but those attempts have fallen short.

    Democrats and Republicans have been sympathetic to the hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US as children, many of whom were under the age of 10. But the give and take between Democrats and Republicans over “Dreamers” has made it difficult to achieve a bipartisan compromise.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court rejects Texas and Louisiana challenge to Biden deportation priorities | CNN Politics

    Supreme Court rejects Texas and Louisiana challenge to Biden deportation priorities | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 ruling on Friday, revived the Biden administration’s immigration guidelines that prioritize which noncitizens to deport, dismissing a challenge from two Republican state attorneys general who argued the policies conflicted with immigration law.

    The court said the states, Texas and Louisiana, did not have the “standing,” or the legal right, to sue in the first place in a decision that will further clarify when a state can challenge a federal policy in court going forward.

    The ruling is a major victory for President Joe Biden and the White House, who have consistently argued the need to prioritize who they detain and deport given limited resources. By ruling against the states, the court tightened the rules concerning when states may challenge federal policies with which they disagree. The Biden administration policy was put on pause by a federal judge nearly two years ago and the Supreme Court declined to lift that hold last year.

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote Friday’s majority opinion in the case.

    “In sum, the states have brought an extraordinarily unusual lawsuit,” Kavanaugh wrote, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “They want a federal court to order the Executive Branch to alter its arrest policies so as to make more arrests. Federal courts have not traditionally entertained that kind of lawsuit; indeed, the States cite no precedent for a lawsuit like this.”

    Kavanaugh said that the executive branch has traditional discretion over whether to take enforcement actions under federal law. He said that if the court were to allow the states to bring the lawsuit at hand, it would “entail expansive judicial direction” of the executive’s arrest policy and would open the door to more lawsuits from states that think the executive is not doing enough to enforce the law in other areas such as drug and gun regulation and obstruction of justice laws.

    “We decline to start the Federal Judiciary down that uncharted path,” Kavanaugh said.

    Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said the administration welcomes the court’s ruling and that his department looks forward to using the immigration guidelines.

    The guidelines “enable DHS to most effectively accomplish its law enforcement mission with the authorities and resources provided by Congress,” Mayorkas said.

    Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, wrote a concurring an opinion that concluded that the states also lacked standing, but for different reasons than the majority opinion. Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

    At the heart of the dispute was a September 2021 memo from Mayorkas that laid out priorities for the apprehension and removal of certain non-citizens, reversing efforts by former President Donald Trump to increase deportations.

    In his memo, Mayorkas stated that there are approximately 11 million undocumented or otherwise removable non-citizens in the country and that the United States does not have the ability to apprehend and seek to remove all of them. As such, the Department of Homeland Security sought to prioritize those who pose a threat to national security, public safety and border security.  

    Kavanaugh’s opinion stressed that the standing doctrine “helps safeguard the Judiciary’s proper – and properly limited – role in our constitutional system.” He said that by ensuring a party has standing to sue, “federal courts prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches.”

    The majority did not address the underlying question of whether the administration had the authority to implement the policy.

    “We take no position on whether the executive branch here is complying with its legal obligations under §1226(c) and §1231(a)(2),” Kavanaugh wrote, referring to the relevant immigration statutes. “We hold only that the federal courts are not the proper forum to resolve this dispute.”

    Kavanaugh pointed out that five presidential administrations have determined that resource constraints necessitated prioritization in making immigration arrests.

    In his sole dissent, Alito wrote that this “sweeping executive power endorsed by today’s decision may at first be warmly received by champions of a strong Presidential power, but if presidents can expand their powers as far as they can manage in a test of strength with Congress, presumably Congress can cut executive power as much as it can manage by wielding the formidable weapons at its disposal.”

    “That is not what the Constitution envisions,” he wrote.

    Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst who filed an amicus brief in the immigration case, noted that Friday’s ruling was the second decision within the last week in which the court “held that red states lacked standing to challenge a federal policy – perhaps a signal of dissatisfaction with how liberally lower courts, especially the Fifth Circuit, have permitted these challenges to go forward.”

    “And it’s the second in the last two years in which it has reversed a nationwide injunction against a Biden immigration policy in a suit brought by Texas,” Vladeck said. “When states are the right plaintiffs to challenge federal policies is also one of the central issues before the court in the challenges to Biden’s student loan program – in which the court is expected to rule next week.”

    Kavanaugh’s opinion emphasized that, in “holding that Texas and Louisiana lack standing, we do not suggest that federal courts may never entertain cases involving the executive branch’s alleged failure to make more arrests or bring more prosecutions.”

    In court, US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar stressed that Congress has never provided the funds to detain everyone, prompting different administrations to consider how to prioritize limited funds. She noted that the executive branch retains the authority to focus its “limited resources” on non-citizens who are higher priorities for removal and warned that if the states were to prevail, it would “scramble” immigration enforcement on the ground, leading to a totally unmanageable landscape. She said the states’ view in the case was a “senseless” way to run an immigration system.

    “I think that that is bad for the executive branch. I think it’s bad for the American public and I think it’s bad for Article Three courts,” she said.  

    The guidelines call for an assessment of the “totality of the facts and circumstances” instead of the development of a bright-line rule. The government lists aggravating factors weighing in favor of an enforcement action, including the gravity of the offense and the use of a firearm, but it also lists mitigating factors that include the age of the immigrant. 

    Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone, representing Texas and Louisiana, argued that the administration lacked the authority to issue the memo because it conflicts with existing federal law. He accused the government of treating immigration law in the area as “discretionary” and not “mandatory” and argued that the executive branch lacks the authority to “disregard” Congress’ instruction.

    “The states prove their standing at trial based on harms well recognized,” Stone said, emphasizing the costs incurred when the government “violates federal law.”

    A district court judge blocked the guidelines nationwide. “Using the words ‘discretion’ and ‘prioritization’ the executive branch claims the authority to suspend statutory mandates,” ruled Judge Drew Tipton, a Trump appointee on the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas. “The law does not sanction this approach.” 

    A federal appeals court declined to issue a stay of the decision, prompting the Biden administration to ask the Supreme Court for emergency relief last July. A 5-4 court ruled against the administration, allowing the lower court’s decision to remain in effect while the legal challenge played out.

    Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined her three liberal colleagues in dissent without providing any explanation for her vote.  

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘A Trump tribute act’: Meet Suella Braverman, the commander-in-chief of Britain’s culture wars | CNN

    ‘A Trump tribute act’: Meet Suella Braverman, the commander-in-chief of Britain’s culture wars | CNN

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    Late last year, after a breakneck ascent of British politics put her in charge of the country’s migration, crime and national security agenda, Suella Braverman revealed her political fantasy.

    “I would love to (see) a front page of The Telegraph with a plane taking off to Rwanda,” the home secretary (interior minister) told that newspaper, referring to her controversial efforts to deport asylum-seekers to the central African nation. “That’s my dream. That’s my obsession.”

    Braverman is no stranger to the front pages. Her self-proclaimed “obsession” with curbing migration – and the loaded and occasionally inflammatory language she uses to address it – has attracted forceful criticism from international agencies, lawyers, rights groups and many of her own colleagues, making her arguably Britain’s most divisive politician.

    But among Conservative Party members and the chief architects of Brexit, she is a star; someone who is prepared to say and do controversial things in pursuit of a singular goal.

    “She’s the cutting edge of the populist, radical right-wing strain in the Conservative Party,” Tim Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary University in London, and the author of books on the party, told CNN.

    “In a way, that allows her to say what some Conservative MPs would think of as the unsayable.”

    Braverman has railed against what she calls an “invasion” of migrants, holding “values which are at odds with our country” – and suggested she would break international law to deport them from Britain.

    And she is an equally furious culture warrior, borrowing rhetoric from the American right when lambasting “woke” culture, transgender rights and climate protesters.

    But Braverman has speedily made herself a central figure in British politics; the assassin of Liz Truss’s premiership and the kingmaker of Rishi Sunak’s, she has made evident her desire to ultimately enter Downing Street as prime minister herself – a prospect that sits uneasily with much of the country’s political establishment.

    Braverman, who evangelizes on the benefits of Brexit and has made migration curbs her political mission, has a backstory that seems to teem with contradictions.

    She is the daughter of migrants, who wants to cut net migration to Britain to the “tens of thousands.” Her parents, both of Indian origin, arrived in the country from Kenya and Mauritius “with very little” in the 1960s.

    She was a practicing lawyer before entering politics, but has displayed an unabashed indifference about whether her flagship migration bill complies with international law.

    And she is an avid Francophile, sometimes speaking in French when meeting her counterpart in Paris, who championed the project to leave the European Union. Braverman says she fell in love with France while studying at the renowned Sorbonne university in Paris, taking advantage of the EU’s Erasmus program that encourages students to spend time in other parts of the continent. Brexit shut the program off to British students.

    Now, she has staked her political reputation on her ability to “Stop the Boats” – an oft-repeated government pledge, borrowed from Australia’s hardline rhetoric towards asylum-seekers, to reduce the growing number of migrants crossing the English Channel on small vessels.

    The number of small boat crossings to the UK has increased in recent years, with many asylum-seekers ending up in limbo in Britain.

    It is a stance that has drawn sharp criticism – including from within the traditional wing of Braverman’s Conservative Party.

    “Braverman has placed far too much emphasis on curbing migration,” said Ben Ramanauskas, an economist and adviser to Truss when the previous prime minister was secretary of state for international trade. “Her priority seems to be attempting to be as cruel as possible.”

    The government’s flagship bill, which was approved by MPs last week but faces scrutiny in the House of Lords, essentially hands the government the right to deport anyone arriving illegally in the United Kingdom. “It’s incredibly dangerous, hostile, cruel, and fundamentally unworkable,” migration policy expert and campaigner Zoe Gardner told CNN.

    And experts say it deliberately misses the point. “Deterrents don’t work… There is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between how brutally we respond to migration, and the numbers of people forced to move,” Gardner said. “We need a functioning asylum system where we process people’s claims, (and) we need to give people safe routes in order to travel.”

    Braverman, however, is steadfast in the face of criticism. The Home Office told CNN in a statement that her bill “will break the business model of the people smuggling gangs and restore fairness to our asylum system. It will ensure anyone arriving via small boat or other dangerous and illegal means will be in scope for detention and swiftly removed.”

    Braverman’s plans have won praise from Europe’s leading populist figures, including Italy’s hardline deputy leader Matteo Salvini and French far-right presidential candidate Eric Zemmour.

    But that is company many in the Conservatives feel uncomfortable keeping.

    “The UK’s ability to play a role internationally is based on our reputation – not because we’re British, but because of what we stand for and what we do,” ex-Prime Minister Theresa May said in a stinging intervention in the House of Commons last month. May added last week that the bill’s removal of modern slavery protections “will consign victims to remaining in slavery.”

    And Sayeeda Warsi, the first Asian chair of the Tory party, has attacked what she described as Braverman’s “racist rhetoric,” after Braverman prompted controversy by singling out British Pakistani men when attacking grooming gangs in the country.

    “Braverman’s own ethnic origin has shielded her from criticism for too long,” Warsi wrote in The Guardian. “Black and brown people can be racist too.” The Home Office told CNN that Braverman “has been clear that all despicable child abusers must be brought to justice. And she will not shy away from telling hard truths, particularly when it comes to the grooming of young women and girls in Britain’s towns who have been failed by authorities over decades.”

    Braverman fronts a newer, more populist streak in the UK’s ruling party – a move that has troubled some of its grandees but has found an audience among voters.

    “The voters that she’s appealing to is the majority of the British public,” said James Johnson, who ran polling in May’s Downing Street operation and later founded the JL Partners pollster. “There is a very significant disconnect between what people on Twitter about immigration, and what people actually think about immigration.

    “Voters do not react to (Braverman’s) language with the same outrage that some people do,” he told CNN. “(They) want their politicians to at least be trying.”

    Polling shows that approval of Braverman’s tough stance on migration significantly outpaces support for the government in general – as well as approval of Braverman herself – with research often indicating that a slim majority of the public supports her plans.

    And those who support her – particularly those in Euroskeptic circles, where she is almost revered – say Braverman speaks to the concerns of modern Britain in a way that her more seasoned critics cannot. “When finally even I wobbled about backing Brexit in name only, Suella stood firm,” prominent Brexit backer Steve Baker said when he supported her leadership campaign last year, praising Braverman’s resolve to defeat May’s Brexit deal and push for a harder-line departure from the EU. “It wouldn’t have happened without her.”

    But research has also shown that the importance of immigration to British voters has receded since the bitter debates of the mid-2010s.

    It appears inevitable that the Tories will seek to make migration a wedge issue at the next election, ensuring Braverman plenty of airtime as the government looks to draw a contrast between itself and the Labour party. But a series of brutal electoral results in local polls on Thursday will further fuel questions about whether that is a winning strategy.

    Braverman resigned from Liz Truss's cabinet for breaking ministerial rules by using a private email address, but returned under Sunak just days later.

    Braverman’s political coming-of-age took place just as the 2016 EU referendum shifted the tectonic plates underneath Westminster, giving younger, Euroskeptic voices like hers an inroad with the public.

    It was Braverman’s role fronting an anti-EU backbench committee that “propelled her to her (current) position, and she knows it,” former Conservative MP Antoinette Sandbach told CNN.

    Today, she takes the populist mantle further than many of her peers on a range of matters far beyond Brexit. Braverman appears to relish “culture war” confrontations with her political enemies like few other frontline politicians; “you almost feel sometimes that she gets a kick out of ‘owning the libs,’” the politics professor Bale told CNN.

    She has taken aim at the “Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati” from the despatch box, and insisted she will “not be hectored by out-of-touch lefties.” In 2019, she said she considers herself engaged in a “battle against cultural Marxism.”

    Braverman’s Home Office recently reportedly backed two pub landlords who refused to remove their minstrel-style children’s toys that are considered a racist relic of the 1970s. And she has criticized police officers for “virtue signaling,” saying in a speech last week that “they shouldn’t be taking the knee.”

    But those battles have left some traditional Tories cold. “The Conservative Party has moved right since I joined, and become much more like the MAGA Republicans” since the dividing line of 2016, said Sandbach, who was expelled from the party by Boris Johnson after trying to avert a no-deal Brexit. She subsequently joined the Liberal Democrats.

    Those who worked alongside Braverman describe her as friendly and personable, and few doubt her ambition.

    As 23-year-old Suella Fernandes, she nearly ran against her own mother to become the Tory candidate in a 2003 by-election, until the elder Fernandes – a Conservative councilor and NHS nurse – persuaded her to pull out.

    Braverman succeeded in becoming an MP in 2015. In a series of tweets that bemoaned her “lamentable hopelessness,” one of her more critical backbenchers, William Wragg, claimed she asked in her first week in Parliament whether she could expense a fine for speeding.

    But her determination to drive towards power has served her well. No politician emerged more triumphant from the psychodrama that has transfixed British politics than Braverman, who started 2022 as attorney general and ended it a household name – having served in three different Cabinets, twice as home secretary.

    An initial departure from frontline politics theoretically came amid scandal (Braverman resigned for breaching ministerial rules by using a private email address), but her scathing parting letter turned her misconduct into a maneuver, essentially pulling the plug on Truss’s shambolic tenure.

    “I have made a mistake; I accept responsibility: I resign,” Braverman wrote, in a thinly veiled attempt to contrast herself with Truss. Six days later she was back in the same post, having aligned herself with Sunak’s successful leadership bid.

    Few doubt Braverman’s long-term ambitions. “You have to interpret everything Suella Braverman does and says in the light of the leadership contest that many people assume will take place if… Sunak were to lose the next election,” Bale said.

    Crucial to that target is her reputation among party members and its more hardline MPs. It is those groups that pick a party leader, and she is met enthusiastically by grassroots Conservatives who tend to reflect the more right-wing, populist traits of the bloc.

    That prospect undoubtedly perturbs some. “There will be many Tory MPs who simply could not stomach her as leader,” Bale added. “I think the lack of support she received in her leadership bid (last year) reflects how she was seen by the party as a whole,” Sandbach said.

    Nevertheless, Braverman is storming up the approval rankings among ordinary Conservative members. In its latest monthly league table of Cabinet ministers, the ConservativeHome website – widely regarded as having its finger on the pulse of the grassroots party – puts Braverman fourth from the top with a net approval rating of 47.8. Only last November, she was sixth from bottom in the site’s regular survey of party members. “The panel seems to have decided that if the Government fails to stop the boats it won’t be for want of the Home Secretary trying,” wrote the website’s editors in April.

    Should Braverman succeed at her next bid for the party leadership, her critics fear another rightwards shift in British politics.

    “Braverman has taken some cues from the US, and also from history,” Gardner said. “She’s recognized that in the current political climate, her way of creating an impact… (is) positioning herself as a Trump tribute act.

    “She’s setting herself up to lead a more extreme, right-wing populist version of the Tory party.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • UK Home Secretary visits Rwanda to discuss controversial deportation scheme | CNN

    UK Home Secretary visits Rwanda to discuss controversial deportation scheme | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    British Home Secretary Suella Braverman arrived in Rwanda on Saturday to discuss a controversial agreement which will see the UK deport asylum seekers deemed to have arrived illegally to the African nation.

    The scheme is mired in legal difficulties – no one has yet been deported – and Braverman’s visit has been criticized as she invited journalists from right-wing titles to accompany her, excluding liberal ones.

    Braverman landed in Rwanda’s capital Kigali where she was greeted by the permanent secretary to Rwanda’s foreign ministry Clementine Mukeka, and the British high commissioner to Rwanda Omar Daair. Later, she visited a housing estate intended to provide accommodation for migrants in the future.

    The trip comes 11 months after the UK government outlined its plan to send thousands of migrants considered to have entered the country illegally to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed.

    The government argues the program is aimed at disrupting people-smuggling networks and deterring migrants from making the dangerous sea journey across the Channel to England from France.

    The plan, which would see the UK pay Rwanda $145 million (£120 million) over the next five years, has faced backlash from NGOs, asylum seekers and a civil service trade union which questioned its legality, leading the government to delay its execution.

    No flights have taken place yet, after the first scheduled flight to Rwanda was stopped at the eleventh hour back in June, due to an intervention by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), followed by months of legal challenges which have since stalled the program.

    Before departing Braverman reaffirmed her commitment to the scheme, saying it would “act as a powerful deterrent against dangerous and illegal journeys,” PA reported.

    But Sonya Sceats, chief executive of the charity Freedom from Torture, told CNN this is “profoundly misguided.”

    “Policies of deterrence do not work when you are trying to target people who are fleeing torture, war and persecution,” Sceats said.

    She added that the decision to invite only government-friendly media on the trip “confirms that they’ve stopped even pretending that they are speaking to the entire country on this issue.”

    The UK government has made stopping migrants arriving in small boats on its shores a top priority.

    The Illegal Migration Bill, which is being debated in Parliament, hands the government the right to deport anyone arriving illegally in the UK. In many cases, there are no safe and legal routes into the UK, meaning many asylum seekers can only arrive illegally.

    Under this bill, people arriving in the UK “won’t be admissible to have their asylum claim assessed even if they are refugees coming from war torn societies,” said Alexander Betts, Director of the University of Oxford Refugee Studies Center.

    Instead, they will face immediate removal either to their country of origin, or a third country, like Rwanda.

    But there are concerns that the proposed legislation is illegal.

    “When you open up the bill, on the first page there’s a big red flag which says: This might be in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights,” Betts told CNN.

    He added that the proposed bill is of “historical significance,” since it amounts to “a liberal, democratic state abandoning the principle of the right to asylum.”

    The United Nations Court of Human Rights has warned that the bill, if enacted, would be a “clear breach” of the Refugee Convention.

    There are also concerns that the bill is unworkable. The Rwandan government has indicated that it can only process 1,000 asylum seekers over the initial five-year period.

    By contrast, 45,755 people are estimated to have arrived in the UK via small boats taken across the English Channel in 2022 alone.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact check: Republicans at CPAC make false claims about Biden, Zelensky, the FBI and children | CNN Politics

    Fact check: Republicans at CPAC make false claims about Biden, Zelensky, the FBI and children | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The Conservative Political Action Conference is underway in Maryland. And the members of Congress, former government officials and conservative personalities who spoke at the conference on Thursday and Friday made false claims about a variety of topics.

    Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio uttered two false claims about President Joe Biden. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia repeated a debunked claim about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama used two inaccurate statistics as he lamented the state of the country. Former Trump White House official Steve Bannon repeated his regular lie about the 2020 election having been stolen from Trump, this time baselesly blaming Fox for Trump’s defeat.

    Rep. Kat Cammack of Florida incorrectly said a former Obama administration official had encouraged people to harass Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina inaccurately claimed Biden had laughed at a grieving mother and inaccurately insinuated that the FBI tipped off the media to its search of former President Donald Trump’s Florida residence. Two other speakers, Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and former Trump administration official Sebastian Gorka, inflated the number of deaths from fentanyl.

    And that’s not all. Here is a fact check of 13 false claims from the conference, which continues on Saturday.

    Marjorie Taylor Greene said the Republican Party has a duty to protect children. Listing supposed threats to children, she said, “Now whether it’s like Zelensky saying he wants our sons and daughters to go die in Ukraine…” Later in her speech, she said, “I will look at a camera and directly tell Zelensky: you’d better leave your hands off of our sons and daughters, because they’re not dying over there.”

    Facts First: Greene’s claim is false. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky didn’t say he wants American sons and daughters to fight or die for Ukraine. The false claim, which was debunked by CNN and others earlier in the week, is based on a viral video that clipped Zelensky’s comments out of context.

    19-second video of Zelensky goes viral. See what was edited out

    In reality, Zelensky predicted at a press conference in late February that if Ukraine loses the war against Russia because it does not receive sufficient support from elsewhere, Russia will proceed to enter North Atlantic Treaty Organization member countries in the Baltics (a region made up of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) that the US will be obligated to send troops to defend. Under the treaty that governs NATO, an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. Ukraine is not a NATO member, and Zelensky didn’t say Americans should fight there.

    Greene is one of the people who shared the out-of-context video on Twitter this week. You can read a full fact-check, with Zelensky’s complete quote, here.

    Right-wing commentator and former Trump White House chief strategist Steve Bannon criticized right-wing cable channel Fox at length for, he argued, being insufficiently supportive of Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. Among other things, Bannon claimed that, on the night of the election in November 2020, “Fox News illegitimately called it for the opposition and not Donald J. Trump, of which our nation has never recovered.” Later, he said Trump is running again after “having it stolen, in broad daylight, of which they [Fox] participate in.”

    Facts First: This is nonsense. On election night in 2020, Fox accurately projected that Biden had won the state of Arizona. This projection did not change the outcome of the election; all of the votes are counted regardless of what media outlets have projected, and the counting showed that Biden won Arizona, and the election, fair and square. The 2020 election was not “stolen” from Trump.

    NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND - MARCH 03: Former White House chief strategist for the Trump Administration Steve Bannon speaks during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort Hotel And Convention Center on March 03, 2023 in National Harbor, Maryland. The annual conservative conference entered its second day of speakers including congressional members, media personalities and members of former President Donald Trump's administration. President Donald Trump will address the event on Saturday.  (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

    Bannon has a harsh message for Fox News at CPAC

    Fox, like other major media outlets, did not project that Biden had won the presidency until four days later. Fox personalities went on to repeatedly promote lies that the election was stolen from Trump – even as they privately dismissed and mocked these false claims, according to court filings from a voting technology company that is suing Fox for defamation.

    Rep. Jim Jordan claimed that Biden, “on day one,” made “three key changes” to immigration policy. Jordan said one of those changes was this: “We’re not going to deport anyone who come.” He proceeded to argue that people knowing “we’re not going to get deported” was a reason they decided to migrate to the US under Biden.

    Facts First: Jordan inaccurately described the 100-day deportation pause that Biden attempted to impose immediately after he took office on January 20, 2021. The policy did not say the US wouldn’t deport “anyone who comes.” It explicitly did not apply to anyone who arrived in the country after the end of October 2020, meaning people who arrived under the Biden administration or in the last months of the Trump administration could still be deported.

    Biden did say during the 2020 Democratic primary that “no one, no one will be deported at all” in his first 100 days as president. But Jordan claimed that this was the policy Biden actually implemented on his first day in office; Biden’s actual first-day policy was considerably narrower.

    Biden’s attempted 100-day pause also did not apply to people who engaged in or were suspected of terrorism or espionage, were seen to pose a national security risk, had waived their right to remain in the US, or whom the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement determined the law required to be removed.

    The pause was supposed to be in effect while the Department of Homeland Security conducted a review of immigration enforcement practices, but it was blocked by a federal judge shortly after it was announced.

    Rep. Ralph Norman strongly suggested the FBI had tipped off the media to its August search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home and resort in Florida for government documents in the former president’s possession – while concealing its subsequent document searches of properties connected to Biden.

    Norman said: “When I saw the raid at Mar-a-Lago – you know, the cameras, the FBI – and compare that to when they found Biden’s, all of the documents he had, where was the media, where was the FBI? They kept it quiet early on, didn’t let it out. The job of the next president is going to be getting rid of the insiders that are undermining this government, and you’ve gotta clean house.”

    Facts First: Norman’s narrative is false. The FBI did not tip off the media to its search of Mar-a-Lago; CNN reported the next day that the search “happened so quietly, so secretly, that it wasn’t caught on camera at all.” Rather, media outlets belatedly sent cameras to Mar-a-Lago because Peter Schorsch, publisher of the website Florida Politics, learned of the search from non-FBI sources and tweeted about it either after it was over or as it was just concluding, and because Trump himself made a public statement less than 20 minutes later confirming that a search had occurred. Schorsch told CNN on Thursday: “I can, unequivocally, state that the FBI was not one of my two sources which alerted me to the raid.”

    Brian Stelter, then CNN’s chief media correspondent, wrote in his article the day after the search: “By the time local TV news cameras showed up outside the club, there was almost nothing to see. Websites used file photos of the Florida resort since there were no dramatic shots of the search.”

    It’s true that the public didn’t find out until late January about the FBI’s November search of Biden’s former think tank office in Washington, which was conducted with the consent of Biden’s legal team. But the belated presence of journalists at Mar-a-Lago on the day of the Trump search in August is not evidence of a double standard.

    And it’s worth noting that media cameras were on the scene when Biden’s beach home in Delaware was searched by the FBI in February. News outlets had set up a media “pool” to make sure any search there was recorded.

    Sen. Tommy Tuberville, a former college and high school football coach, said, “Going into thousands of kids’ homes and talking to parents every year recruiting, half the kids in this country – I’m not talking about race, I’m just talking about – half the kids in this country have one or no parent. And it’s because of the attack on faith. People are losing faith because, for some reason, because the attack [on] God.”

    Facts First: Tuberville’s claim that half of American children don’t have two parents is incorrect. Official figures from the Census Bureau show that, in 2021, about 70% of US children under the age of 18 lived with two parents and about 65% lived with two married parents.

    About 22% of children lived with only a mother, about 5% with only a father, and about 3% with no parent. But the Census Bureau has explained that even children who are listed as living with only one parent may have a second parent; children are listed as living with only one parent if, for example, one parent is deployed overseas with the military or if their divorced parents share custody of them.

    It is true that the percentage of US children living in households with two parents has been declining for decades. Still, Tuberville’s statistic significantly exaggerated the current situation. His spokesperson told CNN on Thursday that the senator was speaking “anecdotally” from his personal experience meeting with families as a football coach.

    Tuberville claimed that today’s children are being “indoctrinated” in schools by “woke” ideology and critical race theory. He then said, “We don’t teach reading, writing and arithmetic anymore. You know, half the kids in this country, when they graduate – think about this: half the kids in this country, when they graduate, can’t read their diploma.”

    Facts First: This is false. While many Americans do struggle with reading, there is no basis for the claim that “half” of high school graduates can’t read a basic document like a diploma. “Mr. Tuberville does not know what he’s talking about at all,” said Patricia Edwards, a Michigan State University professor of language and literacy who is a past president of the International Literacy Association and the Literacy Research Association. Edwards said there is “no evidence” to support Tuberville’s claim. She also said that people who can’t read at all are highly unlikely to finish high school and that “sometimes politicians embellish information.”

    Tuberville could have accurately said that a significant number of American teenagers and adults have reading trouble, though there is no apparent basis for connecting these struggles with supposed “woke” indoctrination. The organization ProLiteracy pointed CNN to 2017 data that found 23% of Americans age 16 to 65 have “low” literacy skills in English. That’s not “half,” as ProLiteracy pointed out, and it includes people who didn’t graduate from high school and people who are able to read basic text but struggle with more complex literacy tasks.

    The Tuberville spokesperson said the senator was speaking informally after having been briefed on other statistics about Americans’ struggles with reading, like a report that half of adults can’t read a book written at an eighth-grade level.

    Rep. Jim Jordan claimed of Biden: “The president of the United States stood in front of Independence Hall, called half the country fascists.”

    Facts First: This is not true. Biden did not denounce even close to “half the country” in this 2022 speech at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. He made clear that he was speaking about a minority of Republicans.

    In the speech, in which he never used the word “fascists,” Biden warned that “MAGA Republicans” like Trump are “extreme,” “do not respect the Constitution” and “do not believe in the rule of law.” But he also emphasized that “not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans.” In other words, he made clear that he was talking about far less than half of Americans.

    Trump earned fewer than 75 million votes in 2020 in a country of more than 258 million adults, so even a hypothetical criticism of every single Trump voter would not amount to criticism of “half the country.”

    Rep. Scott Perry claimed that “average citizens need to just at some point be willing to acknowledge and accept that every single facet of the federal government is weaponized against every single one of us.” Perry said moments later, “The government doesn’t have the right to tell you that you can’t buy a gas stove but that you must buy an electric vehicle.”

    Facts First: This is nonsense. The federal government has not told people that they can’t buy a gas stove or must buy an electric vehicle.

    The Biden administration has tried to encourage and incentivize the adoption of electric vehicles, but it has not tried to forbid the manufacture or purchase of traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines. Biden has set a goal of electric vehicles making up half of all new vehicles sold in the US by 2030.

    There was a January controversy about a Biden appointee to the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, Richard Trumka Jr., saying that gas stoves pose a “hidden hazard,” as they emit air pollutants, and that “any option is on the table. Products that can’t be made safe can be banned.” But the commission as a whole has not shown support for a ban, and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said at a January press briefing: “The president does not support banning gas stoves. And the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is independent, is not banning gas stoves.”

    Rep. Ralph Norman claimed that Biden had just laughed at a mother who lost two sons to fentanyl.

    “I don’t know whether y’all saw, I just saw it this morning: Biden laughing at the mother who had two sons – to die, and he’s basically laughing and saying the fentanyl came from the previous administration. Who cares where it came from? The fact is it’s here,” Norman said.

    Facts First: Norman’s claim is false. Biden did not laugh at the mother who lost her sons to fentanyl, the anti-abortion activist Rebecca Kiessling; in a somber tone, he called her “a poor mother who lost two kids to fentanyl.” Rather, he proceeded to laugh about how Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene had baselessly blamed the Biden administration for the young men’s deaths even though the tragedy happened in mid-2020, during the Trump administration. You can watch the video of Biden’s remarks here.

    Kiessling has demanded an apology from Biden. She is entitled to her criticism of Biden’s remarks and his chuckle – but the video clearly shows Norman was wrong when he claimed Biden was “laughing at the mother.”

    Rep. Kat Cammack told a story about the first hearing of the new Republican-led House select subcommittee on the supposed “weaponization” of the federal government. Cammack claimed she had asked a Democratic witness at this February hearing about his “incredibly vitriolic” Twitter feed in which, she claimed, he not only repeatedly criticized Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh but even went “so far as to encourage people to harass this Supreme Court justice.”

    Facts First: This story is false. The witness Cammack questioned in this February exchange at the subcommittee, former Obama administration deputy assistant attorney general Elliot Williams, did not encourage people to harass Kavanaugh. In fact, it’s not even true that Cammack accused him at the February hearing of having encouraged people to harass Kavanaugh. Rather, at the hearing, she merely claimed that Williams had tweeted numerous critical tweets about Kavanaugh but had been “unusually quiet” on Twitter after an alleged assassination attempt against the justice. Clearly, not tweeting about the incident is not the same thing as encouraging harassment.

    Williams, now a CNN legal analyst (he appeared at the subcommittee hearing in his personal capacity), said in a Thursday email that he had “no idea” what Cammack was looking at on his innocuous Twitter feed. He said: “I used to prosecute violent crimes, and clerked for two federal judges. Any suggestion that I’ve ever encouraged harassment of anyone – and particularly any official of the United States – is insulting and not based in reality.”

    Cammack’s spokesperson responded helpfully on Thursday to CNN’s initial queries about the story Cammack told at CPAC, explaining that she was referring to her February exchange with Williams. But the spokesperson stopped responding after CNN asked if Cammack was accurately describing this exchange with Williams and if they had any evidence of Williams actually having encouraged the harassment of Kavanaugh.

    Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana boasted about the state of the country “when Republicans were in charge.” Among other claims about Trump’s tenure, he said that “in four years,” Republicans “delivered 3.5% unemployment” and “created 8 million new jobs.”

    Facts First: This is inaccurate in two ways. First, the economic numbers for the full “four years” of Trump’s tenure are much worse than these numbers Kennedy cited; Kennedy was actually referring to Trump’s first three years while ignoring the fourth, which was marred by the Covid-19 pandemic. Second, there weren’t “8 million new jobs” created even in Trump’s first three years.

    Kennedy could have correctly said there was a 3.5% unemployment rate after three years of the Trump administration, but not after four. The unemployment rate skyrocketed early in Trump’s fourth year, on account of the pandemic, before coming down again, and it was 6.3% when Trump left office in early 2021. (It fell to 3.4% this January under Biden, better than in any month under Trump.)

    And while the economy added about 6.7 million jobs under Trump before the pandemic-related crash of March and April 2020, that’s not the “8 million jobs” Kennedy claimed – and the economy ended up shedding millions of jobs in Trump’s fourth year. Over the full four years of Trump’s tenure, the economy netted a loss of about 2.7 million jobs.

    Lara Trump, Donald Trump’s daughter-in-law and an adviser to his 2020 campaign, claimed that the last time a CPAC crowd was gathered at this venue in Maryland, in February 2020, “We had the lowest unemployment in American history.” After making other boasts about Donald Trump’s presidency, she said, “But how quickly it all changed.” She added, “Under Joe Biden, America is crumbling.”

    Facts First: Lara Trump’s claim about February 2020 having “the lowest unemployment in American history” is false. The unemployment rate was 3.5% at the time – tied for the lowest since 1969, but not the all-time lowest on record, which was 2.5% in 1953. And while Lara Trump didn’t make an explicit claim about unemployment under Biden, it’s not true that things are worse today on this measure; again, the most recent unemployment rate, 3.4% for January 2023, is better than the rate at the time of CPAC’s 2020 conference or at any other time during Donald Trump’s presidency.

    Multiple speakers at CPAC decried the high number of fentanyl overdose deaths. But some of the speakers inflated that number while attacking Biden’s immigration policy.

    Sebastian Gorka, a former Trump administration official, claimed that “in the last 12 months in America, deaths by fentanyl poisoning totaled 110,000 Americans.” He blamed “Biden’s open border” for these deaths.

    Rep. Scott Perry claimed: “Meanwhile over on this side of the border, where there isn’t anybody, they’re running this fentanyl in; it’s killing 100,000 Americans – over 100,000 Americans – a year.”

    Facts First: It’s not true that there are more than 100,000 fentanyl deaths per year. That is the total number of deaths from all drug overdoses in the US; there were 106,699 such deaths in 2021. But the number of overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids other than methadone, primarily fentanyl, is smaller – 70,601 in 2021.

    Fentanyl-related overdoses are clearly a major problem for the country and by far the biggest single contributor to the broader overdose problem. Nonetheless, claims of “110,000” and “over 100,000” fentanyl deaths per year are significant exaggerations. And while the number of overdose deaths and fentanyl-related deaths increased under Biden in 2021, it was also troubling under Trump in 2020 – 91,799 total overdose deaths and 56,516 for synthetic opioids other than methadone.

    It’s also worth noting that fentanyl is largely smuggled in by US citizens through legal ports of entry rather than by migrants sneaking past other parts of the border. Contrary to frequent Republican claims, the border is not “open”; border officers have seized thousands of pounds of fentanyl under Biden.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • In an epic final, Novak Djokovic wins first title in Australia since his deportation last year | CNN

    In an epic final, Novak Djokovic wins first title in Australia since his deportation last year | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Twelve months after he was deported from the country, Novak Djokovic is back in Australia, winning titles and preparing for the Australian Open.

    Djokovic won his first title in Australia since last year’s deportation, defeating American Sebastian Korda in an epic three-setter final 6-7(8) 7-6(3) 6-4 at the Adelaide International on Sunday.

    Facing a championship point at 5-6 in the second set, it seemed that the Serb would succumb to a shock defeat to the world No. 33.

    He had appeared visibly frustrated after Korda had won the first set, shouting and gesturing at his players’ box.

    “I’d like to thank my team for handling me, tolerating me in the good and bad times today,” Djokovic said afterwards, according to Sky Sports. “I’m sure they didn’t have such a blast with me going back and forth with them, but I appreciate them being here.”

    But the experience of the 21-time grand slam winner showed, and he fought back from championship point to take the second set in a tiebreak and wrap up the title in the third.

    The victory was Djokovic’s 92nd tour-level trophy, equaling Rafael Nadal’s haul for the fourth-most singles titles in the Open Era, behind only Jimmy Connors (109), Roger Federer (103) and Ivan Lendl (94)

    “It’s been an amazing week and you guys made it even more special. For me to be standing here is a gift, definitely,” Djokovic told the crowd afterwards, according to the ATP website. “I gave it all today and throughout the week in order to be able to get my hands on the trophy.

    “The support that I’ve been getting in the past 10 days is something that I don’t think I’ve experienced too many times in my life, so thank you so much [to] everyone for coming out every single match.”

    It provides Djokovic with the perfect platform to launch his Australian Open campaign, where he is seeking to win his 10th title as well as equal the men’s record of grand slam titles, currently set by Nadal at 22.

    The Australian Open begins on January 16 in Melbourne.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A pregnant mom crossed the Rio Grande decades ago to give her unborn child a better life. Now her daughter is becoming a member of Congress | CNN Politics

    A pregnant mom crossed the Rio Grande decades ago to give her unborn child a better life. Now her daughter is becoming a member of Congress | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Delia Ramirez walks toward the microphone determined to make her message heard.

    “It is time – it is past time that we deliver on the promise that we have made to our Dreamers,” she says.

    On a crisp morning in early December, Ramirez is standing steps away from the US Capitol, with its white dome gleaming against the blue sky behind her. This is a rallying cry we’ve heard here time and again – but Ramirez hopes when she says it, the words will carry even more weight. This isn’t merely a talking point from her campaign platform.

    “This,” the Illinois lawmaker says, “is very personal for me.”

    It’s personal because if Congress doesn’t act, Ramirez’s husband could be among hundreds of thousands of people facing possible deportation. And it’s personal because Ramirez herself is about to become a member of Congress.

    She’s called this news conference, flanked by several of her fellow incoming freshmen lawmakers and Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal, a Washington state Democrat, to push for members of Congress to pass several key pieces of legislation while Democrats still control the US House. Among them: the DREAM Act, which would give a possible pathway to citizenship to some 2 million undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children.

    “I am the wife of a DACA recipient. I am the daughter of Guatemalan working immigrants. I know firsthand the challenges and constant fear our families live every single day,” Ramirez tells reporters. “We have to end this.”

    That’s far easier said than done, as decades of debate over immigration reform on Capitol Hill clearly show.

    But Ramirez says no matter how many obstacles pop up in her path, she’ll keep pushing.

    As constant and controversial as conversations around immigration in Washington have become, many lawmakers weighing in don’t have direct personal connections to the issues they’re debating.

    Ramirez, 39, has lived them her entire life.

    Her mom was pregnant with her when she crossed the Rio Grande – a detail Ramirez made a point to include in a candidate bio on her campaign website, which notes that her mom went on to work “multiple low-wage jobs to give her children a fighting chance to escape poverty.”

    Ramirez says over the years some of her political opponents have tried to use details like this from her background against her, accusing her of being in favor of open borders and speaking dismissively about her family during debates. But Ramirez sees her family’s story as a strength that’s helped her connect with voters and better understand the issues that matter to her constituents.

    “I didn’t have to shy away from the fact that I’m working class and my husband’s a DACA recipient, that I’m worried about how I’m going to pay for housing. That is the reality of so many people,” she says. “And I want men and women, young and old, to see me and think, ‘That was my m’hija, That was my daughter.’ Or…’I’m an intern somewhere and I don’t feel seen. But if she could do it, so can I.’”

    Ramirez says the story of her mom’s journey from Guatemala to the United States infused her childhood in Chicago, where Ramirez was born.

    According to the story Ramirez grew up hearing, when her mom crossed the Rio Grande, strong currents nearly swept her away. She’d hidden her pregnancy from others on the journey, but in that moment she called out in desperation, “Help! Help! Save me! Save my daughter!” A man did, Ramirez says, but after that day, her mom never saw him again.

    As she struggled with depression as a teenager, Ramirez says her mom would frequently invoke this part of her past, saying, “I nearly died so that you could be born. Now I have to fight to keep you alive.”

    That struggling teen, Ramirez says, would never have imagined that she’d run a homeless shelter and other successful nonprofits, go on to become a state lawmaker and one day be on the cusp of entering US Congress.

    “But that is the journey, right?” Ramirez says. “Maybe not the Congress part as often as it should be, but the journey of so many people and so many children of immigrants who contribute and do so much for this country.”

    How does her family’s journey shape her view of what’s unfolding now at the border?

    “I am clear that anyone willing to risk dying, starving or even being raped in the long journey through desert, cold and tunnels is crossing because they feel like there is no other solution to their situation. Their migration is the only way they see themselves and loved ones surviving deep poverty and, in some cases, persecution,” Ramirez says.

    “My mother wouldn’t have risked my life or hers had it not been the only option she saw for her unborn child to have a chance at a life and childhood better than hers.”

    As Ramirez shares these and other details from her past with CNN in the Longworth House Office Building one evening in early December, an aide steps in with her phone in hand.

    “It’s time,” he tells her.

    Ramirez is still an Illinois state legislator for a few more weeks, and she needs to vote on a measure that might not pass if she doesn’t.

    She holds the phone in one hand and looks into the camera.

    “Representative Ramirez votes yes,” she says, then hands the phone back to her aide.

    “Done,” she says with a triumphant smile.

    It’s the latest in numerous bills Ramirez has helped pass since her 2018 election to the Illinois General Assembly.

    In that way alone, she knows it will be an adjustment to work as a lawmaker in Washington, where partisan fights often get in the way of passing laws.

    She still remembers the first state bill she sponsored that passed in March 2019 – a measure to expand homelessness prevention programming, a top concern for Ramirez, who previously directed a homeless shelter.

    “It was a very emotional moment,” she says. And the first thing she did after the bill passed, she says, was call her mom and share the news.

    Ramirez in a portrait from her campaign website.

    “I said, ‘Mom, in three months I was able to do more (to prevent homelessness) than I had done in almost 15 years,’” Ramirez recalls.

    Her mom responded that she was proud but reminded Ramirez that her work wasn’t finished.

    “Go hang up, and do more,” she said, according to Ramirez. “And don’t forget where you come from.”

    It’s with that mantra in mind, and with memories of growing up as the daughter of immigrants who worked multiple jobs to support their family in Chicago, that Ramirez is heading to Washington.

    Both her parents are US citizens now, but Ramirez says they’re still struggling to make ends meet.

    “I am the daughter of a woman who at 61 has given so much to this country and is a minimum-wage worker that can’t afford health care, so she’s on Medicaid, and diabetic,” Ramirez says. “I am the daughter of a man who spent 30 years working in an industrial bakery, a union busting company, and the day he retired, he got a frozen pie. He didn’t get a retirement pension and he struggled with Medicare supplemental, covering the cost.”

    Ramirez’s newly redrawn Illinois congressional district is nearly 50% Latino and heavily Democratic, spanning from Chicago’s Northwest side into the suburbs, according to CNN affiliate WLS. She won more than 66% of the vote in the general election, defeating Republican mortgage company executive Justin Burau.

    After Ramirez’s election, her background landed her on many lists of firsts. She will be the first Latina elected to Congress from the Midwest.

    She’s also helped set another record as part of the largest number of Latinos ever in the House of Representatives.

    There’s another notable detail about her background that Ramirez has pointed to regularly in interviews since her election: She has a “mixed-status family.”

    More than 22 million people in the United States live in mixed-status families, according to immigrant advocacy group fwd.us, meaning at least one family member is an undocumented immigrant and others are US citizens, green card holders or other lawful temporary immigrants. But it’s rare to hear a member of Congress use the term to describe themselves.

    Because of her family’s experience, Ramirez knows many of the people who supported her candidacy see her as a voice who will speak out for them, and for so many immigrants who are in the shadows and rarely heard.

    Ramirez married Boris Hernandez in October 2020. They met earlier that year in what she describes as “one of those pandemic loves.”

    Delia Ramirez, left, with her husband, Boris Hernandez, center, and Ramirez's mother.

    She’s best friends with his cousin. Hernandez is originally from the same town in Guatemala as her parents. He came to the United States when he was 14. And for years, like hundreds of thousands of other people, he’s relied on the Obama-era program known as DACA, short for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which granted certain young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children work permits and protection from deportation.

    On her campaign website and social media feeds, Ramirez has shared photos of Hernandez. And she’s invoked her husband’s story in recent speeches and conversations with constituents.

    Hernandez often stood by her side at campaign events. He occasionally took photos, too (he’s a photographer, in addition to also having worked in nonprofits and early childhood development). He accompanied Ramirez as she voted on Election Day, even though he couldn’t cast a ballot.

    Ramirez acknowledges that she’s privileged compared to many loved ones of DACA recipients. She’s a US citizen, and because of that, Hernandez has a pathway to citizenship no matter what Congress decides. But still, she says, they could end up in a precarious position.

    If a federal judge’s ruling ends DACA – something many immigrant rights advocates warn is likely to happen in the next year – and her husband’s paperwork to adjust his immigration status is pending, Ramirez knows she could have a lot more to worry about in addition to her busy schedule as a first-term congresswoman.

    “I’m going to be fighting to keep my husband here,” she says, “and I’m a member of Congress. …. What happens to the other 2 million (undocumented immigrants that the DREAM Act would protect)? What happens to his brother? What happens to my best friend from high school? What happens to all of them who have no pathway, who don’t have a citizen husband or wife or partner?”

    Ramirez says that question keeps her up at night.

    Standing beside Ramirez outside the Capitol on that morning in December, Congressman-elect Robert Garcia of California praises her for bringing the group of freshmen lawmakers together even before they’ve taken office.

    “She’s been leading on issues of immigration, on DACA for Dreamers, to ensure that our country’s taking care of those who really need our help,” Garcia says.

    Helping Dreamers isn’t the only topic on the agenda during this December news conference; Ramirez and the others are also pushing for extensions to the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, and more funding for early childhood education programs.

    In her interview with CNN, Ramirez said her plans to fight for policies that help immigrants extend beyond immigration reform. One key issue she wants to work on while in office: housing, an area that she says is critically important to immigrant families and working-class families in general.

    Ramirez ascends a staircase at the US Capitol on November 18, 2022.

    The progressive policies she champions, she says, would benefit immigrants and US citizens alike. “It’s an ‘and,’” she says, “not an ‘or.’”

    Ramirez’s voice cracks with emotion as the news conference ends and she makes her closing argument.

    “It is time to deliver for our Dreamers,” she says. “It is time for Boris Hernandez to finally have a pathway to citizenship.”

    Ramirez says she feels overwhelmed by gratitude that her constituents have given her this chance to represent them, and a strong sense of urgency to deliver the results she knows so many people desperately need.

    Weeks later, the 117th Congress adjourned without taking most of the steps Ramirez and her fellow incoming freshmen had been pushing for.

    And with the balance of power shifting, she knows the battles to come will be even tougher. But for Ramirez, the words she proudly proclaimed in that first news conference outside the Capitol still hold true. She and other new members of the House Progressive Caucus have only just begun to make their voices heard.

    “We’re rooted,” she says, “and we are ready to help with this fight. … Let’s get to work.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link