Milwaukee County Board makes stand against ICE
Voces de la Frontera gather alongside allies in Milwaukee for a protest on May Day, 2021. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)
The Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution Tuesday opposing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents 'operating outside the limits of the law in and around the Milwaukee County Courthouse Complex,' while also calling on the sheriff to work with the county executive and chief judge of the First Judicial District to 'ensure access to services and safeguard every individual's constitutional right to due process.'
During the board committee meeting Chairwoman Marcelia Nicholson called the resolution, which she authored with Supervisors Caroline Gomez-Tom and Juan Miguel Martinez, both 'reactive' and 'proactive.' The resolution also calls for Milwaukee County residents to be educated on their rights during immigration encounters, such as distributing educational material around the courthouse complex.
'Let me be clear,' Nicholson said, 'everyone regardless of immigration status deserves due process. And that's not a radical idea, that's the Constitution. And yet when federal immigration enforcement takes place in our courthouse complex, it sends families into hiding, deters survivors of violence from seeking protection and discourages tenants from asserting their rights.' Nicholson said that 'it erodes trust in the very systems we are responsible for upholding.'
In early April, the community learned of two ICE arrests in the county courthouse. The Milwaukee County Sheriff's Office said in a press statement that ICE had not given prior notice of one of the arrests and that the sheriff's office was not involved in making the arrests. Days later, the men were identified as Edwin Bustamante-Sierre, 27, and Marco Cruz-Garcia, 24. ICE said that the men had been convicted of violent crimes or were linked to gangs. Online court records show that one of the men, Cruz-Garcia, was arrested the same day he went to family court for a domestic violence-related restraining order, which was dropped that day.
Nicholson said the arrests took place in the 'public hallways of our courthouse and Safety Building.' She added, 'That action didn't just detain individuals, it delivered a message: 'This space may not be safe for people who look a certain way, or speaks a certain language.''
The arrests were widely condemned by local officials and activists. Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley said in a statement that the courthouse 'stands as a cornerstone of justice where residents come to seek information, resources and fair participation in the legal process' and that 'an attack on this safe, community-serving space undermines public trust, breeds fear among citizens and staff and disrupts the due process essential to our courts.'
Milwaukee County Chief Judge Carl Ashley, as well as members of the Board of Supervisors also decried the arrests. Local groups from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin to Voces de la Frontera, and the Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression also blasted ICE for making arrests in the courthouse.
The ACLU highlighted that ICE enforcement often causes immigrant communities to avoid contacting law enforcement, even when they are in danger of becoming crime victims. On April 10, Congresswoman Gwen Moore said in a statement that 'ICE has seemingly front-run Milwaukee's justice system, potentially denying the city justice and potential victims a remedy.' Moore added, 'This Administration's decision to remove sensitive location protections will stir even more fear in our communities, prevent victims of crime from coming forward, and disrupt houses of worship, schools, and hospitals.'
In a joint statement Nicholson, Gomez-Tom, and Miguel Martinez said that the resolution 'puts us on the right side of history and the right side of humanity.' The resolution is 'about helping people … protection process…[and] protecting the promise of what our Courthouse is meant to be – a place of fairness, access, and truth.'
During public testimony on Tuesday, Sup. Willie Johnson Jr. said that he agreed that the arrests 'were an erosion of trust'. Echoing Nicholson's words Johnson said that 'we are stewards of Milwaukee County government, we represent the citizens of this county and we should be respectful of the rights of people to go about their business, be where they need to be, and do what they need to do.'
Sup. Miguel Martinez said 'this is just the first step towards creating more action.' The board is expecting a report back from the sheriff and county executive regarding rules around the courthouse, he said.
'This administration really is descending into 1939 Nazi Germany,' Miguel Martinez continued. 'And I'm not saying that with hyperbole because there's people that are getting deported and people that are citizens, and are not returning. We have people with residency getting their residency stripped away from them. And every single day, it descends into more and more madness.'
He said that it was the responsibility of board members 'as local representatives of our communities, that we make sure that we fight every single day against this unlawful administration, and make sure that we let everybody know that we are here to protect them, and we won't let our country descend into absolute tyrannical madness.'
Sup. Gomez-Tom added that it is the county government's responsibility 'to serve our community, and all inhabitants of our county.' Milwaukee County residents go to the courthouse for many different services besides the justice system, including victim services, child support or obtaining legal documents, 'and everyone should have a right to do so, and to do so in peace,' said Gomez-Tom.
Supervisors Anne O'Connor said that to her knowledge, the Trump administration is the first to pursue immigration arrests in what were once considered 'safe places' such as courthouses or churches.
At a press conference she attended in the days after the arrests, O'Connor said, ICE agents were parked illegally outside and wouldn't identify themselves further. She described the feeling as 'a cloak of anonymity' and said her constituents are concerned about vulnerable communities such as resettled Afghan-U.S. allies, Rohingya, and Congolese communities who get services from nonprofits.
Sup. Patti Logsdon abstained from voting on the resolution's passage, saying her decision 'is not a reflection of indifference or opposition to the values of justice or fairness,' but concern about the legal uncertainty surrounding the passing and implications of this resolution.'
Logsdon asked for legal guidance as to what policies the county has in place already to guide ICE interactions, as well as the legal jeopardy elected officials who support policies that could conflict with federal immigration law may find themselves. Logsdon also questioned whether Milwaukee County could be sued for going against immigration enforcement, who would pay for it and how much it would cost 'in defending and educating undocumented immigrants about their rights.'
Several members of the public also attended the board meeting, expressing support for the resolution, concern for immigrant communities and opposition to Trump administration immigration policies.
Gomez-Tom noted that she is the daughter of Mexican immigrants. 'I know what that chilling effect looks like when someone in your family is at risk…maybe isn't even at risk, but is scared that they could be at risk of being detained, of being questioned,' she said. 'What happens is people get paralyzed.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
DHS wants National Guard to search for and transport unaccompanied migrant children
A Department of Homeland Security request for 21,000 National Guard troops to support "expansive interior immigration enforcement operations" includes a call for troops to search for unaccompanied children in some cases and transport them between states, three sources briefed on the plan tell NBC News. Having National Guard troops perform such tasks, which are not explained in detail in the DHS request, has prompted concern among Democrats in Congress and some military and law enforcement officials. The tasks are laid out in a May 9th Request for Assistance from the Department of Homeland Security to the Pentagon. The document states that, 'this represents the first formal request by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the deployment of National Guard personnel in support of interior immigration enforcement operations.' The request calls for National Guard troops to be used for 'Search and Rescue for UACs [Unaccompanied Alien Children] in remote or hostile terrain,' and 'Intra- and inter-state transport of detainees/ unaccompanied alien children (UACs)," without clearly explaining what that would entail. Most of the troops, about 10,000, would be used for transporting detained individuals, the DHS said. Roughly 2,500 troops would be used for detention support but the document does not specify where. Another 1,000 troops would be assigned to administrative support, such as processing detainees. The request also asks for up to 3,500 troops to 'Attempt to Locate — Fugitives' and to conduct 'surveillance and canvassing missions,' as well as 'night operations and rural interdictions.' It also asks for support for ICE in 'joint task force operations for absconder/fugitive tracking,' according to the three sources familiar with the plans. NPR first reported the details of the DHS request. Democrats in Congress and military and law enforcement officials have expressed concern about the use of National Guard troops to perform what they say are civilian law enforcement duties. One characterized the plan as the Trump administration 'finding a way to get the National Guard into the streets and into American homes,' saying, 'I fear it's going to look like a police state.' A second source said, 'Trump has said he wants to use the National Guard for law enforcement, and the Pentagon and other entities have always said, 'Oh, don't worry, it will never come to that.' But this is it.' Defense officials say the request has not been approved and is being evaluated by Pentagon policy officials, the General Counsel's office, and other Pentagon leadership. The officials say the most likely course of action would be for some parts of the request to be approved and others rejected. But one source briefed on the plans said that Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth is close to approving some elements of the request and considering which state governors to approach first regarding National Guard units. 'We are so much closer to this being real,' said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. DHS is requesting the National Guard troops under Title 32 status, which means they would remain on state active duty under the command of their governor but would be federally funded. Title 32 status generally allows National Guard troops to conduct law enforcement activities without violating the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that bars the use of federal troops in law enforcement operations. A National Guard member who opposes troops performing such tasks told NBC News, 'I plan to leave the National Guard soon over this.' The Pentagon is also being asked by DHS to pay the full cost of deploying the 21,000 National Guard troops. That comes amid growing tension between the Pentagon and DHS over the cost of border and other immigrant-related operations. The DHS request for National Guard troops arrives when the Pentagon is already footing a $23-million-a-month bill to hold as many as 2,500 undocumented immigrants in a military facility in Texas. Defense officials say they are frustrated that the camp is holding far fewer individuals than they were told to expect and they would like a reprieve. The Defense Department is in a contract with the DHS to help support DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, officers who are under pressure from Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to arrest 3,000 undocumented immigrants a day. But it has been slow going for ICE agents, resulting in fewer arrests of undocumented immigrants across the country. That has resulted in many empty beds at facilities like the one in El Paso, owned and operated by the Defense Department. Military officials say the facility has been holding an average of 150 undocumented immigrants each day over the last several weeks — a fraction of its 2,500 beds. On one recent day, they said, the facility housed fewer than 80 people. Pentagon officials are asking to cut the number of beds in the facility from 2,500 to about 1,000, which they say would save $12 million per month. It is not clear if the DHS request for National Guard troops will increase the need for beds in the El Paso facility. The DHS request also comes as the Pentagon is struggling to fund critical projects to support U.S. troops. 'Congress is aware that the department is redirecting funds from existing military construction projects like barracks improvements for lower enlisted personnel and longstanding infrastructure projects elsewhere in the world in favor of southwest border missions,' a Senate aide who spoke on condition of anonymity told NBC News. 'They are pretty frustrated with the way that the department is ordering them to support DHS out of their own pockets for a grossly disproportionate cost compared to what ICE facilities would cost the government,' added the aide, referring to military officials. Last month, the Pentagon notified Congress that it planned to transfer more than $1.74 million in the current DOD budget to the southwest border mission, as step that will take money away from renovating barracks and base facilities. Service member advocacy groups have criticized the move. Rob Evans, the founder of Hots&Cots, where services members can post reviews of barracks, dining areas and other facilities, says he sees evidence daily of barracks with sewage leaks, mold, failing HVAC systems, and more. 'When funding is pulled from this line, troops pay the price in real ways: delayed repairs, worsening conditions, and a growing sense that their well-being comes second to optics and operations,' Evans said. 'Service members deserve clean, safe, and dignified living conditions. They've earned at least that much.' This article was originally published on
an hour ago
The 911 presidency: Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term
WASHINGTON -- Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's leveling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. 'What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,' said Ilya Somin, who is representing five U.S. businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs. Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it. The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump's strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there's growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the U.S. is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address. 'The temptation is clear,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. 'What's remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we're in a different era now.' Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy. 'It's the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit,' Bacon said of Congress' power over trade. 'And I get the emergency powers, but I think it's being abused. When you're trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that's policy, not emergency action.' The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority. 'President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden — wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports. The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces 'an unusual and extraordinary threat' from abroad 'to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.' In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on U.S. soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the U.S. economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion. Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers — including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited — that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice. Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals. Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II. Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump's eventual veto. 'Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges,' said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. 'Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act.' Trump, Yoo said, 'has just elevated it to another level.' Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump's actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy. 'We believe — and we're right — that we are in an emergency,' Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax. 'You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies,' Vance said. 'I'm not talking about toys, plastic toys. I'm talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I'm talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain.' Vance continued, 'These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency.' Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president's emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance. Similar legislation hasn't been introduced since Trump's return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency. 'He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there's oversight and safeguards,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a 'path toward autocracy and suppression.'
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Protesters confront authorities following ICE raids in Los Angeles
Federal immigration operations in Los Angeles were met by protests. ICE declined to discuss the details of its operations.
