Latest news with #immigrantsRights
The Independent
09-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Trump administration holding immigrants from 26 countries at Guantánamo prison
The Trump administration is now holding undocumented immigrants from 26 nations and six continents, at the notorious Guantánamo Bay naval base and prison in Cuba, as part of its push to rapidly expand U.S. immigration detention and deportation infrastructure. There are 72 immigration detainees at the base, 58 of who are classified as high-risk, officials told CBS News. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the detainees are from Brazil, China, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Liberia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Peru, Romania, Russia, Somalia, St. Kitts-Nevis, the United Kingdom, Venezuela and Vietnam. The facility has previously housed American detainees from the War on Terror, many without trial. It has been home to 663 migrant detainees since February, an official added, well short of the administration's initial 30,000-detainee goal for the facility. In June, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to rapidly deport immigrants to third countries beyond their place of origin, which critics say has allowed the government to send migrants to dangerous, war-torn areas where they risk persecution, including South Sudan. Last month, immigrants' rights advocates sued the administration over its use of the Guantánamo facility, alleging the government had unlawfully moved detainees out of the country when it brought them to the base, which is on land the U.S. says is leased but Cuba insists be returned. A former immigration detainee who was held at Gitmo, as the facility has become known, said he was kept in a dark, windowless prison cell with only a bucket for relieving himself, as he heard screams from other deportees, including threats to commit suicide. 'It's a promise the President campaigned on, that if you invade our nation's borders, if you break our country's laws, and if then you further commit heinous, brutal crimes in the interior of our country ... you are going to be deported from this country, and you may be held at Guantánamo Bay,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in February when asked about the allegations. 'These are criminals we are talking about — don't forget that.' That month, federal officials abruptly emptied out the ranks of immigration detainees held on the naval base, in the midst of a lawsuit from civil rights attorneys demanding access to the facility to offer legal aid to migrants. At the time, the Department of Justice argued those inside Gitmo don't have any rights to attorneys or legal assistance, but said there weren't any detainees inside the facility. The U.S. has pushed to rapidly expand its detention and deportation capacity, including providing immigration and border officials with about $170 billion in unprecedented funding as part of its spending package. It has also enlisted facilities with questionable human rights records, including a Salvadoran mega-prison where detainees say they have been tortured and held for months without communication with their families and lawyers, and Alligator Alcatraz, a facility in the Florida Everglades.
The Guardian
03-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
‘A win for humanity': Trump's asylum ban at US-Mexico border ruled unlawful
A federal court has ruled that Donald Trump's proclamation of an 'invasion' at the US-Mexico border is unlawful, saying that the president had exceeded his authority in suspending the right to apply for asylum at the southern border. As part of his crackdown on immigration, Trump abruptly closed the southern border to tens of thousands of people who had been waiting to cross into the US legally and apply for asylum, signing a proclamation on the day of his inauguration that directed officials to take action to 'repel, repatriate, or remove any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States'. In a ruling on Wednesday, US district judge Randolph Moss ruled in favor of 13 people seeking asylum in the US and three immigrants' rights groups who argued that it was unlawful to declare an invasion and unilaterally ban the right to claim asylum. Moss ruled that nothing in the Immigration and Nationality Act or the US constitution 'grants the president or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the proclamation and implementing guidance'. He also asserted the constitution did not give the president the authority to 'adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted and the regulations that the responsible agencies have promulgated'. The ruling will not take effect immediately; rather Moss has given the Trump administration 14 days to seek emergency relief from the federal appeals court. But if Moss's ruling holds up, the Trump administration would have to renew processing asylum claims at the border. 'This decision is a win for human dignity and the rule of law. It sends a clear message: the government cannot use cruelty as a weapon against people fleeing violence,' said Rochelle Garza, president of the Texas Civil Rights Project – one of several immigrant rights groups that are plaintiffs in the case. 'Today's ruling makes clear three salient points that transcend immigration at the border and speak to who we are as Americans. First, we are a nation of laws. Second, the Trump administration's sweeping invocation of executive branch authority transgresses the bounds established by our constitution and our legislative branch. And third, the judicial branch is what stands between us and anarchy,' said Javier Hidalgo, legal director at the immigrant rights group Raices. 'The Trump administration's prerogative is once again found to be unlawful. It is increasingly clear where the illegality lies, and it is not with the immigrant families upon whom this administration is inflicting unfathomable harm.' People fleeing persecution and danger in their home countries would still be subject to a slew of other measures that have restricted access to legal immigration pathways. But the ruling would require the homeland security department to offer people at the southern border at least some way to seek refuge in the US. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion For now, crossings at the US-Mexico border have dropped sharply since the administration cut off legal pathways to enter and ramped up the active military presence in the region. But many who had journeyed to the border – fleeing extreme violence, authoritarianism and poverty in Central and South America, as well as Africa and Asia – remained stranded on the Mexican side, holding out hope in shelters for migrants. Others have dispersed into Mexico, seeking work or residency there. Advocates have warned that many of the migrants left in the lurch by Trump's abrupt asylum ban have been put in vulnerable and dangerous situations. The plaintiffs in the case challenging Trump's ban had fled persecution in Afghanistan, Ecuador, Cuba, Egypt, Brazil, Turkey and Peru. Some have already been removed from the US. The district court ruling comes after a landmark supreme court decision last week in a case challenging Trump's attempt to unilaterally end the country's longstanding tradition of birthright citizenship. On Friday, the country's highest court ruled to curb the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding the president's policies. But because the case challenging Trump's asylum ban was filed as a class-action lawsuit, it is not affected by the higher court's restriction. Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff and an architect of the Trump administration's immigration policy, on social media criticized the case for trying to 'circumvent' the supreme court ruling, even though the lawsuit had been filed as a class action months ago. He said the ruling created 'a protected global 'class' entitled to admission into the United States'.
The Guardian
02-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Judge blocks Trump's attempt to bar asylum access at US-Mexico border
A federal court has ruled Donald Trump's proclamation of an 'invasion' at the US-Mexico border is unlawful, saying that the president had exceeded his authority in suspending the right apply for asylum at the southern border. As part of his crackdown on immigration, Trump abruptly closed the southern to tens of thousands of people who had been waiting to cross into the US legally and apply for asylum, signing a proclamation on the day of his inauguration that directed officials to take action to 'repel, repatriate, or remove any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States'. In a ruling on Wednesday, US district judge Randolph Moss ruled in favor of 13 people seeking asylum in the US and three immigrants' rights groups who argued that it was unlawful to declare an invasion and unilaterally ban the right to claim asylum. Moss ruled that nothing in the Immigration and Nationality Act or the US constitution 'grants the president or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the proclamation and implementing guidance'. He also asserted the constitution does not give the president the authority to 'adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted and the regulations that the responsible agencies have promulgated'. The ruling will not take effect immediately; rather Moss has given the Trump administration 14 days to seek emergency relief from the federal appeals court. But if Moss's ruling holds up , the Trump administration would have to renew processing asylum claims at the border. People fleeing persecution and danger in their home countries would still be subject to a slew of other measures that have restricted access to legal immigration pathways. But the ruling would require the homeland security department to offer people at the southern border at least some way to seek refuge in the US. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion For now, crossings at the US-Mexico border have dropped sharply since the administration cut off legal pathways to enter and ramped up active military presence in the region. But many who had journeyed to the border – fleeing extreme violence, authoritarianism and poverty in central and south America, as well as Africa and Asia – remained stranded on the Mexican side, holding out hope in shelters for migrants. Others have dispersed into Mexico, seeking work or residency there. Advocates have warned that many of the migrants left in the lurch by Trump's abrupt asylum ban have been put in vulnerable and dangerous situations. The plaintiffs in the case challenging Trump's ban had fled persecution in Afghanistan, Ecuador, Cuba, Egypt, Brazil, Turkey and Peru. Some have already been removed from the US. The district court ruling comes after a landmark supreme court decision last week in a case challenging Trump's attempt to unilaterally end the country's longstanding tradition of birthright citizenship. On Friday, the country's highest court ruled to curb the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding the president's policies. But because the case challenging Trump's asylum ban was filed as a class action lawsuit, it isn't affected by higher court's restriction.
CBS News
02-07-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Federal judge blocks Trump's plan to limit access to asylum at southern border
Washington — A federal judge on Wednesday blocked President Trump's plan to sharply restrict access to the nation's asylum system, a blow to the president's sweeping crackdown on immigration into the United States. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss ruled in favor of 13 individuals seeking asylum in the U.S. and three immigrants' rights groups who argued that a proclamation on immigration signed by Mr. Trump on his first day back in office is unlawful. In his decision, Moss ruled that neither the Immigration and Nationality Act nor the Constitution give the president and administration officials "the sweeping authority" asserted in his proclamation and subsequent guidance implementing the directive. "The court recognizes that the executive branch faces enormous challenges in preventing and deterring unlawful entry into the United States and in adjudicating the overwhelming backlog of asylum claims of those who have entered the country," he wrote. "But the INA, by its terms, provides the sole and exclusive means for removing people already present in the country." Moss said that a pair of provisions of federal immigration law do not provide "the president with the unilateral authority to limit the rights of aliens present in the United States to apply for asylum." He further found that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to "adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted and the regulations that the responsible agencies have promulgated." In addition to finding Mr. Trump's plan to limit access to asylum, the judge granted the plaintiffs' request to certify a class of all people covered by the president's proclamation or its implementation who are or will be in the U.S. The judge postponed the effective date of his class-wide order for 14 days to give the Trump administration time to seek emergency relief from the federal appeals court in Washington. He also put off a decision on whether to certify a class of individuals who were subject to Mr. Trump's new asylum rules and are no longer in the U.S. Since returning to the White House for a second term, Mr. Trump has rolled out a series of plans aimed at targeting migrants in the U.S. His efforts began on the first day of his second term, when Mr. Trump took unilateral action to prevent most migrants crossing the southern border from applying for asylum or withholding of removal, a type of relief that prevents the Department of Homeland Security from deporting a migrant to their home country because of likely persecution. Mr. Trump's proclamation cited an alleged "invasion" at the U.S.-Mexico border and directed administration officials to take action to "repel, repatriate, or remove any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States." The migrants and immigrants' rights groups sued the Trump administration in early February and sought to block enforcement of the president's proclamation, arguing it is "as unlawful as it is unprecedented." Moss, appointed by former President Barack Obama, held a hearing in April to consider their bid to invalidate the plan. In his decision, the judge found that neither the Constitution nor the Immigration and National Act authorize the changes in immigration law that Mr. Trump has sought to make. He wrote that the president "lacks the inherent constitutional authority" to supplant federal statutes governing removals. "To hold otherwise would render much, if not most, of the INA simply optional," Moss wrote. As with his first term, immigration has remained a focal point of the president's second term, and he has undertaken a number of actions that he says are aimed at targeting the purported "invasion" at the southern border. Many aspects of Mr. Trump's immigration agenda have sparked legal battles. Mr. Trump has invoked a 1798 wartime law known as the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants he claims are members of the gang Tren de Aragua and has ended programs put in place by former President Joe Biden that shielded nearly 1 million migrants from the threat of deportation.
CBC
19-06-2025
- Politics
- CBC
What exactly is ICE?
For months now, agents working for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, have been carrying out raids, arresting people on the street, at work and at immigration courthouses. Often they are wearing plain clothes and masks. As U.S. President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown intensifies, so have the instances of arrests and detentions by ICE, sometimes without warrants or due process. Despite mass protests and pushback from opposition politicians and immigrants rights groups, the Trump administration has vowed the arrests will continue as they aim for one million deportations a year. But how, exactly, does ICE operate? How did the agency come to be and how does it compare to immigration enforcement in America's past? To help us dive deep into ICE's history and put it all into context, we're joined by Adam Goodman, an associate professor at the University of Illinois Chicago and the author of The Deportation Machine: America's Long History of Expelling Immigrants.
