Latest news with #UCLACenterforImmigrationLawandPolicy
Miami Herald
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
California lawmakers struggle to find ways to hit back against Trump immigration raids
LOS ANGELES – It has been nearly a month since the Trump administration launched its no-holds-barred immigration enforcement campaign in Southern California, deploying federal forces on raids that have sparked massive protests, prompted ongoing litigation in federal court and triggered a flurry of bills from outraged state lawmakers trying to fight back. And yet - at least so far - nothing seems capable of deterring the White House or forcing a change in tactics. In both Sacramento and Washington, observers said elected officials are coming up with proposals that seem to lack teeth. Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy and former senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in Los Angeles, said stopping the Trump administration from sending masked and unidentified immigration agents to snatch people off the street is proving difficult. "They detain everybody and interrogate them all and then just figure out afterward who's unlawfully present, and that's blatantly illegal," he said. "We can write more laws, but there's already perfectly good laws that say this is unlawful, and they're doing it anyway." A bill announced Monday by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, D-Alhambra, would expand police impersonation laws and require all law enforcement, unless undercover, to wear a name tag or badge number. "While ICE has publicly condemned impersonations, the agency's use of face coverings and lack of consistent, visible identification creates public confusion and makes it difficult for the public to distinguish between authorized law enforcement personnel and dangerous criminals," Renée Pérez's office said in a news release. Another bill, introduced by state Sens. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, and Jesse Arreguín, D-Berkeley, also seeks to ban law enforcement from wearing face coverings. U.S. Representative Laura Friedman, D-Glendale, announced similar legislation Tuesday at the federal level, but the Republican majorities in both congressional houses mean it stands little chance of becoming law. The state bills have a better chance of passage in the Democratic-controlled Legislature, but they still face opposition. The Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, the largest statewide law enforcement union in the country, said banning face coverings could inadvertently put local cops - who are already required to wear badges, nameplates or badge numbers on their uniforms - at risk of losing access to personal protective equipment like face shields and respirators. "Using local law enforcement as a punching bag to grandstand against the federal government should not be an acceptable practice from our state leaders. It is misdirected, misguided, and intolerable," Brian R. Marvel, president of PORAC, said in a statement. Marvel said he doubted California had the authority to regulate the attire of federal officers. Arulanantham disagreed, saying that the state law could stand as long as the mask ban was neutrally applied to all law enforcement, not just federal actors. Other potential measures in the state Legislature, Arulanantham said, could expand on SB 54, the sanctuary policy that limits collaboration between state law enforcement and federal authorities on immigration enforcement. But even those protections are now under assault in the courts. The Trump administration sued the city of L.A. on Monday, arguing its sanctuary policy hampered the federal government's ability to enforce immigration law. "Our City remains committed to standing up for our constitutional rights and the rights of our residents," a spokesperson for the L.A. city attorney said in a statement. "We will defend our ordinance and continue to defend policies that reflect our longstanding values as a welcoming community for all residents." Other bills advancing through the state Legislature include measures that would restrict school officials from allowing immigration enforcement inside the nonpublic areas of schools and prohibit healthcare workers from sharing a patient's immigration status without judicial warrants. Democrats aren't alone in trying to get the White House to back off. A group of state Republican lawmakers authored a letter to Trump, arguing that widespread immigration raids are crippling the economy by taking away workers from key industries. "Unfortunately, the recent ICE workplace raids on farms, at construction sites, and in restaurants and hotels, have led to unintended consequences that are harming the communities we represent and the businesses that employ our constituents," the letter said. The Department of Homeland Security has insisted its agents are busy arresting "criminal illegal aliens" and said it will continue operations despite efforts by "rioters and politicians trying to hinder law enforcement." "As bad faith politicians attempt to demean and vilify our brave law enforcement, we will only double down and ramp up our enforcement actions against the worst of the worst criminals," Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a June 26 news release. Local city and county governments, civil rights groups and even individuals could step in to sue the government and ICE on the grounds that they are infringing upon citizens' constitutional rights and harming the local economy - but no notable cases have been filed. The city of Los Angeles is posturing for a suit and has already approved legal action against ICE, according to a proposal signed by seven members of the City Council. But early struggles in the state's challenge to Trump's deployment of federal troops do not bode well for future litigation. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals swiftly overturned a lower court decision that would've limited Trump's authority, and litigation over whether the troops can be used for immigration enforcement remains ongoing. While the court battle plays out, state Democratic leaders, including Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, say they are working to fast-track some bills through the legislative process. "The Speaker is deeply invested in protecting California's immigrant workers and families in the face of reckless ICE raids and Trump's abuses of power," Rivas' spokesperson Nick Miller said in a statement. Some observers said that, despite the struggles legislation may face in the near term, it may be up to Republicans to change focus from Trump's agenda to things that affect their electorates, said veteran Democratic political strategist Roy Behr. "The Republicans seem more focused on doing whatever Trump wants, but at least these votes force them to show where their loyalties really lie. And you know, maybe one day they will actually start to pay the price for these votes and ultimately feel the pressure to change their minds." Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Los Angeles Times
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
California lawmakers struggle to find ways to hit back against Trump immigration raids
It has been nearly a month since the Trump administration launched its no-holds-barred immigration enforcement campaign in Southern California, deploying federal forces on raids that have sparked massive protests, prompted ongoing litigation in federal court and triggered a flurry of bills from outraged state lawmakers trying to fight back. And yet — at least so far — nothing seems capable of deterring the White House or forcing a change in tactics. In both Sacramento and Washington, observers said elected officials are coming up with proposals that seem to lack teeth. Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy and former senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in Los Angeles, said stopping the Trump administration from sending masked and unidentified immigration agents to snatch people off the street is proving difficult. 'They detain everybody and interrogate them all and then just figure out afterward who's unlawfully present, and that's blatantly illegal,' he said. 'We can write more laws, but there's already perfectly good laws that say this is unlawful, and they're doing it anyway.' A bill announced Monday by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Alhambra) would expand police impersonation laws and require all law enforcement, unless undercover, to wear a name tag or badge number. 'While ICE has publicly condemned impersonations, the agency's use of face coverings and lack of consistent, visible identification creates public confusion and makes it difficult for the public to distinguish between authorized law enforcement personnel and dangerous criminals,' Renée Pérez's office said in a news release. Another bill, introduced by state Sens. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley) also seeks to ban law enforcement from wearing face coverings. U.S. Representative Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) announced similar legislation Tuesday at the federal level, but the Republican majorities in both congressional houses mean it stands little chance of becoming law. The state bills have a better chance of passage in the Democratic-controlled Legislature, but they still face opposition. The Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, the largest statewide law enforcement union in the country, said banning face coverings could inadvertently put local cops — who are already required to wear badges, nameplates or badge numbers on their uniforms — at risk of losing access to personal protective equipment like face shields and respirators. 'Using local law enforcement as a punching bag to grandstand against the federal government should not be an acceptable practice from our state leaders. It is misdirected, misguided, and intolerable,' Brian R. Marvel, president of PORAC, said in a statement. Marvel said he doubted California had the authority to regulate the attire of federal officers. Arulanantham disagreed, saying that the state law could stand as long as the mask ban was neutrally applied to all law enforcement, not just federal actors. Other potential measures in the state Legislature, Arulanantham said, could expand on SB 54, the sanctuary policy that limits collaboration between state law enforcement and federal authorities on immigration enforcement. But even those protections are now under assault in the courts. The Trump administration sued the city of L.A. on Monday, arguing its sanctuary policy hampered the federal government's ability to enforce immigration law. 'Our City remains committed to standing up for our constitutional rights and the rights of our residents,' a spokesperson for the L.A. city attorney said in a statement. 'We will defend our ordinance and continue to defend policies that reflect our longstanding values as a welcoming community for all residents.' Other bills advancing through the state Legislature include measures that would restrict school officials from allowing immigration enforcement inside the nonpublic areas of schools and prohibit healthcare workers from sharing a patient's immigration status without judicial warrants. Democrats aren't alone in trying to get the White House to back off. A group of state Republican lawmakers authored a letter to Trump, arguing that widespread immigration raids are crippling the economy by taking away workers from key industries. 'Unfortunately, the recent ICE workplace raids on farms, at construction sites, and in restaurants and hotels, have led to unintended consequences that are harming the communities we represent and the businesses that employ our constituents,' the letter said. The Department of Homeland Security has insisted its agents are busy arresting 'criminal illegal aliens' and said it will continue operations despite efforts by 'rioters and politicians trying to hinder law enforcement.' 'As bad faith politicians attempt to demean and vilify our brave law enforcement, we will only double down and ramp up our enforcement actions against the worst of the worst criminals,' Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a June 26 news release. Local city and county governments, civil rights groups and even individuals could step in to sue the government and ICE on the grounds that they are infringing upon citizens' constitutional rights and harming the local economy — but no notable cases have been filed. The city of Los Angeles is posturing for a suit and has already approved legal action against ICE, according to a proposal signed by seven members of the City Council. But early struggles in the state's challenge to Trump's deployment of federal troops do not bode well for future litigation. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals swiftly overturned a lower court decision that would've limited Trump's authority, and litigation over whether the troops can be used for immigration enforcement remains ongoing. While the court battle plays out, state Democratic leaders, including Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), say they are working to fast-track some bills through the legislative process. 'The Speaker is deeply invested in protecting California's immigrant workers and families in the face of reckless ICE raids and Trump's abuses of power,' Rivas' spokesperson Nick Miller said in a statement. Some observers said that, despite the struggles legislation may face in the near term, it may be up to Republicans to change focus from Trump's agenda to things that affect their electorates, said veteran Democratic political strategist Roy Behr. 'The Republicans seem more focused on doing whatever Trump wants, but at least these votes force them to show where their loyalties really lie. And you know, maybe one day they will actually start to pay the price for these votes and ultimately feel the pressure to change their minds.'
Miami Herald
09-04-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Federal judge blocks termination of Venezuela TPS: What the ruling means for Venezuelans
A federal judge halted the Trump administration's efforts to end Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, just days before they were scheduled to lose their right to remain and work legally in the U.S. Last month, U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen in San Francisco issued a ruling blocking Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's decision to revoke the work permits and deportation protections for approximately 350,000 Venezuelans. That means the Trump administration's decision in February to terminate TPS for Venezuelans is on hold, pending further hearings in the case. Had Chen not intervened, the TPS beneficiaries, many of them in South Florida, would have lost the right to remain in the U.S. on April 7. Chen's ruling stems from a lawsuit that seven Venezuelan nationals filed in San Francisco, where they argue that the Trump administration's decision is based on political motivations and racial bias. Along with the National TPS Alliance, the Venezuelans want the judge to reinstate an 18-month extension of TPS that the previous Homeland Security secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, put in place days before President Donald Trump took office. Chen said Noem had acted on broad generalizations and stereotypes when she revoked the work permits and deportation protections of about thousands of Venezuelans. 'It is evident that the Secretary made sweeping negative generalizations about Venezuelan TPS beneficiaries,' the judge said in a 78-page order on March 31. 'Acting on the basis of a negative group stereotype and generalizing such stereotype to the entire group is the classic example of racism.' What does the ruling mean? The judge's ruling means that more than 600,000 Venezuelan TPS holders will keep their legal status and work authorization for the time being as the case develops in federal court, pending the final outcome of the case. The decision affects two groups of Venezuelans: Those who would have lost their TPS status in April and a second group of about 260,000 who stand to lose their status in September. If you have a work permit under TPS, what document proves your legal authorization to work? Venezuelans with an Employment Authorization Document that has expired can show an employer both the EAD and a copy of the January 17, 2025, Federal Register Notice extending Venezuela's TPS designation. This will confirm that the work authorization is extended until October 2026. What should you do if an employer still questions your work authorization? If your employer questions your eligibility to work, you can provide them with a letter from the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy, one of the organizations providing counsel to the Venezuelans that sued the Trump administration. In the letter, the attorneys noted that it is illegal for an employer to discriminate with respect to hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee, based upon an individual's citizenship, immigration status, or national origin. It also explains that Venezuelans with Temporary Protected Status are allowed to work. Will the Department of Motor Vehicles and other agencies accept proof of legal status? Florida has resumed processing driver's licenses and state identification cards for eligible Venezuelan nationals after the federal court's decision. Do you need to re-register for TPS under the Jan. 17, 2025, extension? Yes, if you are one of the 350,000 Venezuelans who first registered for TPS under the 2023 Venezuela designation, you must re-register by Sept. 10, 2025, to maintain your TPS status until Oct. 2, 2026. The same applies to the 257,000 Venezuelans who registered in 2021; you also need to re-register by Sept. 10, 2025, to extend your TPS status until October 2, 2026. However, Venezuelan advocates recommend re-registering as soon as possible to avoid any potential disruptions in case an unfavorable ruling halts the registration process. Taking action early helps ensure continued protection amid the uncertainties of the TPS case and the immigration policies of the Trump administration. What happens if I don't re-register? If you don't re-register, your TPS will end Sept. 10, 2025, unless the Department of Homeland Security decides to extend the deadline. What if you entered the U.S. under the Cuban/Haitian/Nicaraguan/Venezuelan humanitarian parole program? Will your application to re-register for TPS be processed? U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has suspended processing TPS re-registration applications for individuals who entered the U.S. under humanitarian parole for Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua and Venezuela, known as CHNV. The Trump administration has moved to revoke the paroles of the half a million people who came to the United States legally through those programs. However, the termination of CHNV is being challenged in a separate lawsuit. Some Venezuelans with TPS entered the U.S. through the CNHV program. If you entered the U.S. under the CHNV program and have TPS under the 2023 Venezuela designation, you must still re-register by Sept. 10, 2025, although your application may not be processed while the court hold remains in effect. Can you travel outside the U.S. while under TPS? TPS holders can apply for travel authorization, which Homeland Security may grant. However, since Trump came into office some people have been detained while re-entering the United States, including TPS holders. It's crucial to consult with a immigration attorney before making any travel plans. Are Venezuelan TPS holders currently at risk of deportation? TPS holders should not be deported or detained by immigration authorities. Their TPS status shields them from removal. However, court documents revealed that in January ICE detained a Venezuelan man with TPS status residing in New York, who was set to be deported to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act in March, a wartime law invoked by the Trump administration. His deportation was halted after his attorney filed challenged it in federal court. Will the government appeal the district court's decision? The Justice Department asked Judge Chen to delay his ruling, but the judge rejected the Trump administration's request. While the administration did not explicitly state it in its motion, its aim appears to be seeking a review of Noem's revocation of TPS by the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the secretary's order, Venezuelans with TPS in the U.S. would be stopped from continuing their lawsuit in San Francisco.
