Immigration attorneys file complaint about ICE raids in NM
Mar. 17—SANTA FE — Earlier this month, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested 48 undocumented immigrants in New Mexico. Immigrant rights advocates and attorneys still don't know the names or locations of those individuals.
A coalition of advocacy groups held a news conference Monday morning at the Capitol to announce a complaint the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico filed with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security over the weekend regarding the arrests and lack of information.
They also urged state legislators to pass two immigration-related bills, one that would end civil immigration detainment in New Mexico, House Bill 9, and another barring the use of state resources for the enforcement of federal immigration arrests or detainment, Senate Bill 250.
ICE, along with other federal agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in early March held a weeklong "enhanced enforcement operation" in Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Roswell, resulting in the arrests of 48 immigrants in the country unlawfully, 20 of whom had criminal charges or convictions, according to ICE.
On March 16, ACLU-NM interim executive director Leon Howard and senior staff attorney Rebecca Sheff filed a complaint, which the ACLU shared with the Journal, about the operation to the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman, both of which are under the purview of DHS.
The complaint included four requests: an investigation into the 48 arrests; ensuring the physical and psychological well-being of the arrested individuals; ensuring the arrested individuals are not retaliated against as a result of the complaint; and pursuing accountability for all involved personnel and contractors.
"We don't know what's happened to these four dozen New Mexicans. They've effectively disappeared," Sheff said at the news conference.
She said advocacy organizations — ACLU-NM, Somos un Pueblo Unido and New Mexico Immigrant Law Center — haven't encountered the unnamed 48 individuals in the ICE detention facilities in New Mexico and are unsure if the arrested immigrants are still in the U.S. She said DHS hadn't notified ACLU that it had received the complaint, as the complaint requested, as of Monday morning.
Twenty-one of the arrested individuals have final orders of removal, according to ICE.
"These arrests exemplify the type of criminals living among us and highlight ICE's commitment to our agency's primary mission — protect public safety," said Mary De Anda-Ybarra, enforcement and removal operations field office director in El Paso, in a statement on March 12.
ICE didn't immediately respond to an inquiry from the Journal asking for the names and detainment locations of the arrested individuals or, alternatively, a reason for the anonymity.
Meanwhile, legislative efforts related to immigration rights are inching along in the Roundhouse. But with less than a week left in the session, time is running out to get bills to the governor's desk.
House Bill 9, the Immigrant Safety Act, is waiting for a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee and has already passed the House. Senate Bill 250, prohibiting state agencies from using resources to enforce federal immigration laws, is sitting on the Senate calendar and still needs to pass the House of Representatives.
Despite the looming Saturday session deadline, advocates noted that there's still time.
"People in our community are gone," said Marcela Díaz, founding executive director of Somos un Pueblo Unido. "Workers are gone. Family members are gone. Neighbors are gone. ... We have to be more bold in protecting our communities."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
37 minutes ago
- CNBC
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to L.A. protests
President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after Minneapolis police officers killed George Floyd. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors who refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who, under normal circumstances, would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to "address the lawlessness" in California, the Democratic governor said the move was "purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions." Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. The National Guard is a hybrid entity serving state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to "execute the laws of the United States," with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes "shall be issued through the governors of the States." It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could use force while filling that "protection" role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. "There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves," Vladeck wrote. The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for various emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreement of the governors of the responding states. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after Minneapolis police officers killed George Floyd. Many of the governors agreed to send troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis — an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked "only in the most urgent and dire of situations." Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, "I'm not waiting." Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on "The Charlie Kirk Show," in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized "if violence continues."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
ICE Mistakenly Detains U.S. Marshal in Arizona
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers were left red-faced in Arizona after detaining a man who 'fit the general description of a subject being sought by ICE'—before quickly releasing him when they worked out who he was. After stopping the man in the lobby of a federal building that houses Tucson's immigration court, officers realized the case of mistaken identity and let him go with no arrest made. That's because the man in question is a U.S. Marshal. 'A Deputy U.S. Marshal who fit the general description of a subject being sought by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) was briefly detained at a federal building in Tucson after entering the lobby of the building,' the U.S. Marshals Service said in a statement. 'The Deputy U.S. Marshal's identity was quickly confirmed by other law enforcement officers, and he exited the building without incident.' The agency did not state when the incident happened or provide any further details. U.S. Marshals are law enforcement officers who carry out a range of tasks in service to the U.S. federal judiciary and act as the enforcement arm of the federal court system. U.S. Marshals are stationed in Tucson's federal buildings, where they provide security services. ICE agents have been under pressure to ramp up their deportation efforts by the Trump administration. Last week, ICE boasted that they had detained a 'record' 2,200 people in a single day, but White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller sees room for much improvement with those numbers. In May, Miller and Homeland Security boss Kristi Noem reportedly instructed officers to begin making 3,000 arrests per day or risk losing their jobs. According to a report released at that time, Miller apparently urged agents to 'turn the creative knob up to 11' by grabbing bystanders off the street and detaining people without a warrant in order to meet their quotas. ICE acting director Todd Lyons said in April that he wanted deportations run 'like a business,' aiming to replicate the vast capabilities of Amazon by becoming 'Prime, but with human beings.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
US Rep. Keating demands answers from ICE after roundups on Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket
U.S. Rep. Bill Keating is demanding answers from federal officials about the specifics of last month's roundup of immigrants on Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket and Plymouth by agents of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Officers with ICE and other federal agencies detained about 40 individuals and arrested 12 on Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket on May 27. On May 30, ICE agents conducted a sweep in Plymouth. All three areas are in Keating's Ninth Congressional District. Keating is uphappy over the information blackout by federal agencies over those caught up in the ICE detentions. 'The lack of transparency — the failure to notify local law enforcement, the failure to release any concrete information about the detentions, the decision to use unmarked vehicles, plain clothed officers and masks — is making our communities less safe,' Keating wrote in a June 2 letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, acting director of ICE Todd Lyons and FBI Director Kash Patel. No information has been given on the specific number or identities of those detained or arrested. Keating wants a full list of detainees and any criminal charges against them. According to reports from two police departments and the Town of Plymouth, ICE did not provide prior notice that its agents would be in those areas for enforcement action, Keating wrote. In his letter, Keating said his constituents are concerned that the ICE enforcement actions were not targeted, but focused on pulling over commercial vehicles. The actions have left communities scared and fearful for their safety, regardless of immigration status, he wrote. In his letter, Keating seeks answers by June 6 to nearly 20 questions, among them: What methods ICE and federal agents used to determine which vehicles to pull over? What steps agents used to determine the legal status of occupants in vehicle stopped? What protocols are in place to prevent wrongful detentions? How many vehicles were stopped? Were any individuals detained in these actions the target of a warrant or detainer order? Federal officials defended the detainments, saying the "enforcement action" is about public safety. At a June 2 press conference in Boston, acting ICE Director Lyons said 1,500 criminal and illegal aliens have been arrested in Massachusetts since May 1 during what he called Operation Patriot. Leah B. Foley, United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, said those arrested violated immigration laws and some went on to commit crimes. Patricia H. Hyde, field office director for ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations in Boston, said 1,461 criminal alien offenders were arrested in May in Massachusetts. Of those, 790 had 'significant criminality,' including allegations of rape, murder, drug trafficking, sexual, child and spousal abuse. No further details were given. Hyde criticized the actions of some state and local agencies who did not notify ICE when undocumented immigrants were arrested or brought to state courts on charges. She cited an example of an immigrant who had been deported from the country four times, who racked up three OUI charges when in the country and was released without ICE being notified. 'When state and local jurisdictions don't cooperate with ICE and let bad actors back into the community, that is sanctuary,' she said. The state was identified as a 'sanctuary jurisdiction' by the Trump administration in late May. It was included on a list of places published by the Department of Homeland Security that are allegedly 'deliberately obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws.' That list has subsequently been removed from the DHS website. A Massachusetts Trial Court policy on interactions with ICE says court personnel shall not initiate communication with ICE officers or employees unless a defendant is brought into state court on a special writ of habeas corpus, called an ICE Habe. 'Court leaders in the Executive Office of the Trial Court developed the policy in accordance with the Supreme Judicial Court decision in Lunn v. Commonwealthand Massachusetts law,' wrote court spokesperson Erika Gully-Santiago in a June 3 email. In that decision, the court concluded that court officers lack the authority '...to arrest an individual pursuant to a request contained in a Federal civil immigration detainer to hold that individual for up to two days after he or she would otherwise be entitled to release from State custody; further, this court declined to adopt, as a matter of Massachusetts law, the theory of inherent authority to carry out such detainer requests as a basis for authorizing civil immigration arrests...' The Trial Court declined a request for an interview. Denise Coffey writes about business, tourism and issues impacting the Cape's residents and visitors. Contact her at dcoffey@ . Thanks to our subscribers, who help make this coverage possible. If you are not a subscriber, please consider supporting quality local journalism with a Cape Cod Times subscription. Here are our subscription plans. This article originally appeared on Cape Cod Times: Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard ICE arrests: Keating calls for answers
