Latest news with #immigrationRights
New York Times
09-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Supreme Court Won't Revive Aggressive Florida Immigration Law
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to revive an aggressive Florida immigration law that had been blocked by lower courts. The law would let state officials prosecute unauthorized migrants who enter the state. The court's one-sentence order gave no reasons, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications. There were no noted dissents. The law, adopted by Florida lawmakers this year, created two new crimes. The first, entering the state after eluding federal authorities, called for a mandatory nine-month misdemeanor sentence for a first offense and escalating felony sentences for later ones. The second crime, re-entering the state after having been deported, is a felony. The law requires people arrested on suspicion of violating either provision to be jailed without bond while their cases proceed. Two migrants and immigrations rights groups quickly challenged the law, saying it interfered with the federal government's power to set immigration policy and to conduct foreign affairs. Judge Kathleen M. Williams, of the Federal District Court in Miami, temporarily blocked enforcement of the law. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
14-06-2025
- Yahoo
Kilmar Abrego Garcia enters not guilty pleas while federal judge defers decision on his release
Supporters of Kilmar Abrego Garcia protest outside the Fred D. Thompson Federal Courthouse in Nashville on June 13 before Abrego Garcia's arraignment on federal charges. (Photo: John Partipilo/Tennessee Lookout) NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose wrongful deportation to an El Salvador prison sparked national debate over Trump administration immigration crackdowns, entered not guilty pleas on Friday to two federal human smuggling charges. Dressed in an orange jumpsuit and seated next to attorneys with the federal public defender's office, Abrego Garcia spoke only once, through a translator. 'I understand,' he said in response to the judge's reading of the charges. The charges against Abrego Garcia, 29, are 'conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens for financial gain' and 'unlawful transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain.' Friday's hearing, in a downtown Nashville federal courtroom, turned primarily on the question of whether Abrego Garcia may be denied the opportunity to be released from jail pending trial. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes said she would take the matter under advisement. She said she will issue a written ruling on the prosecution's motion to keep Abrego Garcia detained 'sooner rather than later.' Advocacy organizations warn 'we are all Kilmar'; pledge to fight for immigrant rights The criminal charges stem from a federal investigation opened into a 2022 Tennessee traffic stop. Abrego Garcia was pulled over for speeding with nine Hispanic men in the back of a Chevrolet Suburban. Abrego Garcia was not arrested or charged in the incident. But a recent Department of Homeland Security investigation opened into the three-year-old stop gave rise to the charges he now faces, testimony in court Friday revealed. The investigation relied on cooperating witnesses, analysis of license plate readers to track Abrego Garcia's movements and a review of the Tennessee traffic stop evidence. Acting U.S. Attorney Rob McGuire alleged that Abrego Garcia was a danger to the community and a member of the MS-13 gang who, for nine years, engaged in an illegal smuggling operation that included transporting children, gang members and guns. Abrego Garcia has not been charged with gun crimes or crimes involving child victims. Attorneys for Abrego Garcia said the government's case should be looked at through a 'lens of suspicion and skepticism' and questioned why it took three years to bring. Federal prosecutors in Nashville ask judge to keep Abrego Garcia detained until trial 'The United States government from D.C. to Tennessee has exaggerated' allegations against Abrego Garcia, said Dumaka Shabazz, one of Abrego Garcia's public defenders. 'This is a house of cards built on the unverified credibility of unreliable corroborators,' he said. 'The only reason they're calling him dangerous now is to justify denying him due process and subjecting him to cruel and inhuman punishment they have to cover up,' said Shabazz, referencing Abrego Garcia's imprisonment for nearly three months in a notorious Salvadoran prison. McGuire countered that the charges against Abrego Garcia arose from following the facts. 'Since I've learned about this case, all I've tried to do is the right thing,' he said. 'The facts are I didn't … whip up witnesses and tell them to commit perjury.' 'I understand there are strong feelings about this case on both sides,' he said. The day-long hearing focused on the government's arguments to detain Abrego Garcia until trial. Evidence that minors were present, and potentially placed at risk during Abrego Garcia's alleged illegal acts could trigger legal justification for detaining Abrego Garcia and prosecutors presented allegations involving the safety of minors. Abrego Garcia has not been charged with crimes related to minor victims. Kilmar Abrego Garcia's wife shares message ahead of hearing: 'Continue fighting … God is with us' But prosecutors said a Department of Homeland Security investigation into the circumstances behind the 2022 traffic stop uncovered evidence that Abrego Garcia transported minor children, including his own, in part to provide cover for his allegedly illegal activities. Abrego Garcia, McGuire alleged, acted as the driver in a human smuggling operation that involved transporting migrants already in the country illegally to different points around the nation over a nine-year period. McGuire cited a witness who said that Abrego Garcia engaged in sexual, but not physical, exchanges with her several years ago when she was a teen and referenced a list of passengers the Tennessee Highway Patrol obtained during the 2022 traffic stop. One of the passengers listed his age as 15. 'Migrant transportation is inherently dangerous,' McGuire said. 'The defendant transported his own children in an unsafe manner.' McGuire argued that Abrego Garcia is a flight risk, and that his newfound notoriety could give him access to resources provided by those opposed to Trump administration immigration policies. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes, who presided over the case, called the flight risk argument largely 'academic.' Kilmar Abrego Garcia arraignment in Nashville Immigration officials have already placed a hold on Abrego Garcia, giving them the authority to take immediate custody should he be released from jail, she noted. The sole witness at Friday's hearing was Peter Joseph, a Department of Homeland Security special agent who said he was first assigned to investigate Abrego Garcia on April 28, three years after the Tennessee traffic stop. By then, Abrego Garcia was incarcerated inside the Center for Terrorism Confinement prison in El Salvador. The Supreme Court had, on April 10, ordered the federal government to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return to the United States. Joseph testified that he had reviewed License Plate Reader software in multiple states that contradicted Abrego Garcia's statements about his movements to troopers at the time of the Tennessee traffic stop. He also testified that five confidential witnesses, including co-conspirators in the alleged years-long human smuggling operation, had implicated Abrego Garcia in the scheme. Richard Tennant, another of Abrego Garcia's defense attorneys, noted that some of the cooperating witnesses have their own liberty at stake. Three of the witnesses entered cooperation deals that could aid their ongoing criminal and immigration cases. Four of the five witnesses are from the same family, testimony revealed. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Fox News
28-05-2025
- General
- Fox News
Government's crackdown on Mahmoud Khalil's pro-Palestinian free speech threatens First Amendment protections
For over two months, the government has been targeting international students and scholars for arrest, detention and deportation based on their political views. Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder and prominent advocate for Palestinian rights at Columbia University, was the first of these. He was taken from his home and detained 1,500 miles away from his family. He has been in detention since early March and was forced to miss the birth of his first child, solely because of his political beliefs. He isn't the only one. Other students and scholars, like Rumeysa Ozturk, Mohsen Mahdawi, and Dr. Badar Khan Suri, have been arrested and detained, despite having committed no crime and having valid immigration status. This attempt by the government to suppress dissenting opinions is unconstitutional, and if it succeeds in court, it sets a troubling precedent that will impact all of us, citizens and noncitizens alike. But the First Amendment exists precisely to stop the government from punishing people for their political views. To justify this brazen attack on free speech, the government is citing the Immigration and Nationality Act's "Foreign Policy Ground." The law states that a noncitizen is deportable if the Secretary of State believes their "presence or activities" in the country would have "potentially serious foreign policy consequences for the United States." But it explicitly prohibits deportation because of someone's views and associations, except in extreme cases such as those involving high-level foreign officials, and Congress made clear that "this authority would be used sparingly and not merely because there is a likelihood that an alien will make critical remarks about the United States or its policies." This law is almost never invoked. In its court filings, the government has identified only five previous instances in which it has been used to remove noncitizens over the past three decades. In all that time, the law has never been cited to detain or deport anyone for their political beliefs – until it was used against Khalil. Since then, the government has used it to argue that it has unlimited discretion to detain and deport any noncitizen whom the government considers a foreign policy risk for any reason – and that the courts are powerless to review its decisions, even if they violate the First Amendment. In Khalil's case, and several others, the only evidence the government has cited in support of its foreign policy claims is constitutionally protected speech about Israel and Palestine. According to Deputy DHS Secretary Troy Edgar, Khalil was targeted for "put[ting] himself in the middle of the process of basically pro-Palestinian activity." When asked if "any criticism of the Israeli government," "any criticism of the United States," "any criticism of the government" or "protesting" are deportable offenses, Mr. Edgar did not provide a direct answer. Instead, he stated if Mr. Khalil admitted an intention to "go and protest" when he had initially applied for a student visa, "we would have never let him into the country." Similarly, Ozturk's student visa was targeted because government officials didn't like the op-ed she co-wrote in the Tufts University student newspaper. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said this kind of advocacy was "creating a ruckus" that justified her removal from the country. And so, after her visa was secretly revoked, she was snatched off the streets of Somerville, Mass., by masked, plainclothes ICE agents, transported across multiple states overnight, and thrown into a detention facility in Louisiana – where she remained for six weeks until another court ordered her release. The government has tried to undermine the Constitution in these cases by arguing that the First Amendment does not apply to noncitizens, but that's just wrong. The Supreme Court recognized 80 years ago that "freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country." That freedom protects all of us – citizens and noncitizens alike – from government officials who would abuse their power to suppress criticism. Fortunately, the federal courts are beginning to stand up to these flagrant First Amendment violations. Mohsen Mahdawi, Rumeysa Ozturk, and Badar Khan Suri have all been released on bail while their cases proceed. As the federal court in Mahdawi's case recognized when it ordered his release, it is "extraordinary" that "[l]egal residents—not charged with crimes or misconduct—are being arrested and threatened with deportation for stating their views on the political issues of the day." However, Mahmoud Khalil is still being held in Louisiana, far away from his wife and newborn son, as his request for release remains pending. Regardless of what you think about Israel or Palestine, we should all defend our First Amendment right to free speech. Because if freedom of speech means anything, it means the government can't arrest you, detain you for weeks or months on end, and remove you from the country just because it doesn't like what you have to say.
