ReportWire

Tag: u. s. soil

  • Supreme Court may restrict asylum claims from those arriving at the southern border

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a Trump administration appeal that argues migrants have no right to seek asylum at the southern border.

    Rather, the government says border agents may block asylum seekers from stepping onto U.S. soil and turn away their claims without a hearing.

    The new case seeks to clarify the immigration laws and resolve an issue that has divided past administrations and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Under federal law, migrants who faces persecution in their home countries may apply for asylum and receive a screening hearing if they are “physically present in the United States” or if such a person “arrives in the United States.”

    Since 2016, however, the Obama, Biden and Trump administrations responded to surges at the border by adopting temporary rules which required migrants to wait on the Mexican side before they could apply for asylum.

    But in May, a divided 9th Circuit Court ruled those restrictions were illegal if they prevented migrants from applying for asylum.

    “To ‘arrive’ means ‘to reach a destination,’” wrote Judge Michelle Friedland, citing a dictionary definition. “A person who presents herself to an official at the border has ‘arrived.’”

    She said this interpretation “does not radically expand the right to asylum.” By contrast, the “government’s reading would reflect a radical reconstruction of the right to apply for asylum because it would give the executive branch vast discretion to prevent people from applying by blocking them at the border.”

    “We therefore conclude that a non-citizen stopped by U.S. officials at the border is eligible to apply for asylum,” she wrote.

    The 2-1 decision upheld a federal judge in San Diego who ruled for migrants who had filed a class-action suit and said they were wrongly denied an asylum hearing.

    But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to review and reverse the appellate ruling, noting 15 judges of the 9th Circuit joined dissents that called the decision “radical” and “clearly wrong.”

    In football, a “running back does not ‘arrive in’ the end zone when he is stopped at the one-yard line,” Sauer wrote.

    He said federal immigration law “does not grant aliens throughout the world a right to enter the United States so that they can seek asylum.” From abroad, they may “seek admission as refugees,” he said, but the government may enforce its laws by “blocking illegal immigrants from stepping on U.S. soil.”

    Immigrants rights lawyers advised the court to turn away the appeal because the government is no longer using the “metering” system that required migrants to wait for a hearing.

    Since June 2024, they said, the government has restricted inspections and processing of these noncitizens under a different provision of law that authorizes the president to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of alien” if he believes they would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

    The government also routinely sends back migrants who illegally cross the border.

    But the solicitor general said the asylum provision should be clarified.

    The justices voted to hear the case of Noem vs. Al Otro Lado early next year and decide “whether an alien who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border ‘arrives in the United States’ within the meaning” of federal immigration law.

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • She went to get her green card and now faces deportation. Did the feds trick her?

    [ad_1]

    On Sept. 16, Barbara Gomes Marques May and her husband arrived at the downtown Los Angeles federal immigration building for what they believed would be the final step in Marques May’s process to obtain her green card.

    The interview process had gone smoothly, Tucker May recalled. But toward the end, a federal immigration official she had met with said he needed Marques May to follow him so he could photocopy her passport, he recalled. She and her husband believed the trip would be brief and they would be able to leave.

    Instead, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent arrested Marques May, a 38-year-old Brazilian national who has no criminal record and works as a film director in Los Angeles. She was handcuffed and transferred to the ICE facility in Adelanto in San Bernardino County before being sent to Louisiana. Meanwhile, her husband and her lawyer scrambled to try to stop her deportation.

    On Wednesday, Marques May was scheduled to board a 6 a.m. flight to her home country, but her attorney was able to file a motion to reopen her deportation proceedings and keep her on U.S. soil, at least temporarily. As of Thursday, she had been moved to Arizona and will return to California while her deportation proceedings remain open, her attorney said.

    “It’s very much an ongoing nightmare,” Tucker May said in an interview this week.

    Department of Homeland Security officials did not respond to a request for comment about Marques May’s case.

    According to her attorney, Marcelo Gondim, Marques May arrived in the U.S. in 2018 on a tourist visa. Gondim said she applied for an extension but was denied. She ended up overstaying her visa, he said, and in 2019, the government sent her a notice to appear for a court hearing to begin deportation proceedings.

    But Marques May had moved and had not kept her address up to date with immigration court, and so the letter never reached her, Gondim said. Because she failed to appear, the government issued a removal order against her.

    In April 2025, the couple got married and she began the process to apply for a green card, Gondim said. Under the Biden administration, he said, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services would have notified Marques May that there was a removal order issued for her and directed her on how to get it resolved.

    Overstaying a visa is not considered a criminal offense, and penalties are issued if the person leaves the country. In cases involving married couples, Gondim said, there’s an automatic forgiveness for overstaying a visa, relief that Marques May would’ve been eligible for.

    But the Trump administration has instead used courthouses and Citizenship and Immigration Services offices to engage in mass arrests of migrants attending mandated hearings and appointments. Soon, the USCIS will have expanded powers.

    In September, the Department of Homeland Security issued a new directive that will allow the agency — which administers and oversees immigration applications — to enforce immigration law with “special agents.” The order goes into effect Monday.

    “USCIS will have greater capacity to support DHS efforts by handling investigations from start to finish, instead of referring certain cases to Homeland Security Investigation within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,” the agency said in a statement.

    After Marques May was arrested, May struggled to figure out where federal authorities had sent his wife. Finally, he was able to get in touch with her, and she detailed how, when she was arrested in L.A., she burst into tears, and an ICE agent took a selfie with her, he said.

    During her transfer between detention facilities, she told him, she was subjected to harsh conditions, including how she went without food or water for more than 12 hours and had access to bathrooms with no toilet paper. She was given only bread and water and a couple of times an apple.

    Marques May, who had surgery this year for chronic back problems, was also denied medical treatment for a device she uses to manage her pain, he said. May went public with her arrest more than a week after she was detained, he said, because he had run out of all legal avenues.

    “There is an open disdain being shown by ICE for the basic rule of law for this country,” he said.

    May began posting about her arrest online, garnering hundreds of responses and support. A GoFundMe page had raised more than $50,000 as of Thursday. U.S. Rep. Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park), who counts Marques May as one of her constituents, said she was “doing everything possible to prevent her deportation and I’m demanding that ICE follow the law.”

    “Unfortunately, Barbara’s case is not unique, it reflects a broader pattern under Trump’s immigration policies that are unlawful and cruel,” she posted on X.

    Gondim said he repeatedly tried to stop her from being transferred to facilities outside California, only to find barriers and delays by ICE officials to getting legal documents for her to sign. From Adelanto, she was transferred to Arizona, then Louisiana.

    The government is not doing anything wrong by complying with the removal order, he said, “but they cannot prevent the person from having access to counsel and be able to present their case to file some form of relief [so they] don’t get unjustly deported.”

    To stop Marques May’s imminent deportation, Gondim filed separate motions to reopen her deportation proceedings and terminate her deportation proceedings. Until a judge rules on the case, Gondim said, ICE cannot deport her. He said he’s hopeful that she will end up being released.

    “Since she has already an approved petition from her U.S. citizen husband, and she has a clear path to filing a new [application] and getting her green card,” he said, an immigration court judge will not be interested in pursuing a case against a person who should be approved for permanent residency by law.

    Until then, May said his wife’s first feature film has been put on hold until she can be released. In 2021, Marques May premiered her short film, “Pretas,” at the Culver Theater for the L.A. Brazilian Film Festival. The film centers on Black women and their experiences dealing with racism and carries a message of creating a more anti-racist society.

    “I love Los Angeles so much,” she said in an interview at the time. “I couldn’t be happier. It was a premiere I wasn’t expecting.”

    It was their shared love of films that bonded the couple, who met on a dating app, May said. They spent a lot of their time together watching movies, sharing popcorn and then discussing what worked and didn’t in the films.

    May says he now thinks about all the immigrants who have not committed any crimes but lack the legal resources to avoid deportation.

    “These are human beings that these terrible things are happening to,” he said. “If anybody reads stories like this, if they think this doesn’t apply to them because they’re not married to an immigrant, I beg those people to consider what they think comes next.”

    [ad_2]

    Melissa Gomez

    Source link

  • Predator drones shift from border patrol to protest surveillance

    [ad_1]

    FT. HUACHUCA, Ariz. — When MQ-9 Predator drones flew over anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles this summer, it was the first time they had been dispatched to monitor demonstrations on U.S. soil since 2020, and their use reflects a change in how the government is choosing to deploy the aircraft once reserved for surveilling the border and war zones.

    Previous news reports said the drones sent by the Department of Homeland Security conducted surveillance on the weekend of June 7 over thousands of protesters demonstrating against raids conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Predators flew over Los Angeles for at least four more days, according to tracking experts who identified the flights through air traffic control tower communications and images of a Predator in flight.

    Those amateur sleuths, who monitor flight traffic and identified the first flight, which was confirmed by Customs and Border Protection, shared their findings on social media.

    Defenders of using drones to monitor protests say the aircraft, with their high-tech capabilities, can provide authorities useful and detailed information in real time. Human rights advocates fear the new policy will impinge on civil rights.

    The drones, which fly at around 20,000 feet to conduct surveillance, can beam a live video feed to various government agencies — ICE, the military and more . The MQ designation refers to the drone’s abilities and function. In military parlance, M means multi-use and Q indicates it’s an unmanned aerial vehicle.

    When asked about the additional days of flights over Los Angeles, Homeland Security did not directly address the questions but said the flights were meant to protect police and military.

    “CBP’s Air and Marine Operations (AMO) has provided both Manned and Unmanned aerial support to federal law enforcement partners conducting operations in the Greater Los Angeles area,” the department said in a statement.

    “Both platforms provide an unparalleled ability with Electro-optical/infrared sensors and video downlink capabilities that provide situational awareness and communications support that enhance officer safety,” the statement added.

    Protesters march against immigration crackdowns in Los Angeles on June 10, the same day the Department of Homeland Security on X posted video of protests taken by a drone.

    (Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

    Homeland Security touted information obtained through drones in a post on X, formerly Twitter, on June 10. The post included footage of vehicles on fire and protesters squaring off with law enforcement personnel, apparently to show why it was necessary for the Trump administration to deploy the National Guard in Los Angeles.

    “WATCH: DHS drone footage of LA rioters,” the post read. “This is not calm. This is not peaceful. California politicians must call off their rioting mob.”

    The post was dated June 10, but it was not clear if the video was from a Predator drone.

    Supporters of civil liberties are asking why this equipment, which has been used to drop laser-guided bombs on targets in countries like Afghanistan, is being used for domestic issues.

    The deployment of Predators over protesters is a significant departure from the U.S. government’s policy not to fly the drones over demonstrations, to avoid the perception they are spying on 1st Amendment rights activity, U.S. officials said.

    The last time Homeland Security sent a Predator to fly over protesters, according to U.S. government officials, was in Minneapolis during the 2020 protests against the killing of George Floyd by a police officer later convicted of his murder.

    Five Democrats on the House Oversight Committee called the deployment a “gross abuse of authority” and asked Homeland Security to explain what had occurred.

    At times the drones are requested by law enforcement or other authorities to fly over a region, say, to help monitor forest fires, or to provide surveillance for the Super Bowl, officials said.

    The Predators come equipped with cutting-edge infrared heat sensors and high-definition video cameras, and can track scores of individuals within a 15-nautical-mile radius.

    Two people in chairs look at screens and panels of buttons.

    In a file photo, an unmanned Predator drone is being guided from a flight operations center at Ft. Huachuca in Arizona in 2013.

    (John Moore / Getty Images)

    The drone uses an artificial intelligence program, called Vehicle and Dismount Exploitation Radar, or VaDER, to detect small objects — a human being, a rabbit, even a bird in flight. The infrared sensors can identify heat signatures even inside some buildings.

    In response to the drone flights over Los Angeles, Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles) introduced a bill in July that would restrict Predator drones and other unmanned aircraft from being deployed by the U.S. government over demonstrators.

    “My bill to ban military surveillance drones over our cities puts Trump and his administration in check,” said Gomez. “This is not just about Los Angeles, this affects the entire country. I refuse to allow Trump to use these weapons of war, capable of carrying bombs, as tools for law enforcement against civilians.”

    On Sept. 16, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously approved a resolution endorsing Gomez’s Ban Military Drones Spying on Civilians Act.

    “Los Angeles will not stand by while the federal government turns weapons of war against our residents,” said Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who introduced the resolution. “Spying on people engaged in peaceful protest is unconstitutional, dangerous and a direct attack on democracy.”

    The drones were first brought to the U.S. southern border in 2005 and retrofitted for surveillance operations. Homeland Security deployed the drones to fly the length of the 2,000-mile, U.S.-Mexico border, searching for drug traffickers and groups of undocumented migrants.

    Just an hour south of Tucson lies Ft. Huachuca, one of four MQ-9 drone bases from which the drones deploy along the southern border and into the interior of the U.S.

    As with the MQ-9, military-grade technology often finds its way into the interior of the country, experts say.

    “It is tested in war zones, the border, tested in cities along the border and tested in the interior of the country,” said Dave Maass, director of investigations at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy rights organization. “That tends to be the trajectory we see.”

    With a drop in migrant crossings into the United States, experts anticipate drones will be deployed more often over demonstrations in the coming years.

    “If somebody in the Trump administration decides there’s a need to use drones in the interior over U.S. citizens, resources won’t be an issue,” said Adam Isaacson, who covers national security for the Washington Office of Latin America, a human rights research group. “Because there’s just not that much to monitor at the border.”

    Fisher is a special correspondent. This story was co-published with Puente News Collaborative, a bilingual nonprofit newsroom dedicated to high-quality news and information from the U.S.-Mexico border.

    [ad_2]

    Steve Fisher

    Source link