Canadian dies while in ICE custody in Florida, U.S. agency says
A Canadian citizen died while in custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement earlier this week, the agency says.
Johnny Noviello, 49, died in a detention centre in Florida on Monday, an ICE news release says.
The cause of death is unknown and is under investigation, according to the release.
Despite having Canadian citizenship, Noviello had been in the U.S. since 1988 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1991, the release says.
In 2023, he was convicted of a number of offences — including racketeering and drug trafficking — and had been sentenced to 12 months in prison.
Public court documents from that case state that Noviello had epilepsy which required medication to control his seizures.
ICE agents arrested Noviello in May and he was being detained "pending removal proceedings," the agency's news release said.
Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand posted a statement on social media Thursday saying that the government had been notified of Noivello's death.
"Canadian consular officials are urgently seeking more information from U.S. officials. I offer my sincere condolences to the family," she wrote in a post on X.
Noviello's death comes as ICE agents have been making sweeping arrests across the United States.
Earlier this year, U.S. President Donald Trump issued a raft of executive orders that aim to clamp down on illegal immigration and advance his goal of deporting millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally.
Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff and the main architect of Trump's immigration policies, has pushed ICE to aim for at least 3,000 arrests a day, up from about 650 a day during the first five months of Trump's second term.
WATCH | Canadian woman describes her ICE detainment:
Trump himself has called on ICE officials "to do all in their power to achieve the very important goal of delivering the single largest mass deportation program in history."
The immigration crackdown sparked massive protests in Los Angeles earlier this month. Trump responded to the demonstrations by ordering troops into the city, drawing the ire of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Noviello isn't the only Canadian to have been arrested in the U.S. since the ICE sweeps began.
Jasmine Mooney from B.C. was arrested and held for nearly two weeks after trying to get a work visa renewed. She was released and returned to Canada in mid-March.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
30 minutes ago
- The Hill
SALT Caucus, White House zero in on key agreement in Trump megabill
Moderate House Republicans from high-tax blue states and the Trump administration are zeroing in on an agreement for the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, which has been one of the key hangups dogging the party's 'big, beautiful bill.' Multiple sources familiar with the SALT talks told The Hill that the House members and Trump administration officials are closing in on a plan for SALT, but it must be sold to Senate Republicans before being finalized. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), who has been the lead Senate GOP negotiator on SALT, told The Hill 'There's a tentative deal between the SALT and White House, but not the Senate [which is] still talking through that.' One source familiar with the SALT talks, however, cautioned against saying there is a 'deal' on the table because Senate Republicans — who have been opposed to increasing the deduction cap — still have to sign off on the terms. 'Having learned my lesson with the House language, the Senate needs to have buy in here so I'm waiting to see what their fingerprints look like,' the source said. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who has met with SALT Caucus members in recent days, is scheduled to join Senate Republicans at their lunch on Friday, two sources confirmed to The Hill, a gathering that could include discussion regarding SALT. Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), who did not attend SALT talks at the Treasury Department Thursday afternoon, said he 'heard of a deal' that includes a $40,000 deduction cap — the same number in the House bill — for five years, which would snapback to $10,000 for the next five years 'and then in perpetuity.' LaLota, who has been one of the most vocal SALT Caucus members, said he is opposed to that proposal. 'I'm a hard no on that,' he told reporters, adding that the proposal 'just affirms the very thing I've been against for so long.' It remains unclear if the plan LaLota outlined is the same proposal that the SALT Caucus members and administration are closing in on. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), for his part, on Friday sounded bullish on a SALT breakthrough. 'A lot of progress yesterday,' he told reporters. 'I think we'll get that resolved in a manner that everybody can live with. No one will be delighted about it, but that's kind of the way this works around here.' The news of an impending agreement is a significant development in the long-stalled negotiations over SALT, which had been one of the thorniest issues Republicans have had to deal with. The House bill included a $40,000 deduction cap — quadruple the $10,000 in current law — for individuals making $500,000 or less. Senate Republicans, however, enraged House SALT Caucus members by chopping that down, proposing a $10,000 deduction cap. Since then, the two camps have been engaged in fierce negotiations. In recent days, those talks have largely centered on keeping the $40,000 deduction cap from the House bill intact but changing the $500,000 income threshold and indexing for inflation. The administration, on behalf of Senate Republicans, offered the SALT Caucus a plan on Thursday that had a total value of $200 billion, far less than the $344 billion value in the House bill, according to Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), a key member of the SALT Caucus. Several lawmakers in the group, however, rejected that proposal.
CBS News
30 minutes ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court, in birthright citizenship case, limits judges' use of nationwide injunctions
Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday limited the use of nationwide injunctions, reining in federal judges' ability to issue sweeping orders that have in recent years stymied implementation of policies from Republican and Democratic presidential administrations alike. In a widely anticipated decision stemming from President Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, the high court said that universal orders likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to the federal courts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion for the 6-3 court, with the liberal justices in dissent. The court said it will let the Trump administration partially enforce the president's executive order while proceedings move forward, but "only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief" to plaintiffs who can sue, Barrett wrote. The justices did not address the question of whether Mr. Trump's order was constitutional. "Some say that the universal injunction 'give[s] the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch.' But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them," Barrett wrote. "When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too." The birthright citizenship case The court's ruling came in a trio of emergency appeals by the Trump administration arising out of the president's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, which says that everyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, regardless of their parents' immigration status. The Justice Department had asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of three separate injunctions that blocked implementation of Mr. Trump's policy nationwide while legal challenges brought by 22 states, immigrants' rights groups and seven individuals moved forward. But instead of swiftly deciding whether to grant the Trump administration emergency relief, the Supreme Court held arguments on whether to restrict the use of nationwide, or universal, injunctions, which are judicial orders that prevent the government from enforcing a policy anywhere in the country and against anyone. The court did not consider or rule on the merits of Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship plan, and its decision means that the executive order cannot be enforced against the states, organizations and individuals who challenged its legality. The Trump administration has said agencies have 30 days to issue public guidance about implementation of the policy. The dispute over the president's attempt to unwind birthright citizenship has become intertwined with the administration's battle against nationwide injunctions. These sweeping orders have frustrated both Democratic and Republican presidents seeking to implement their agendas among gridlock in Congress, and the fight over them has been simmering for several years. The Congressional Research Service identified 86 nationwide injunctions that were issued during Mr. Trump's first term and 28 granted while former President Joe Biden was in office. As to the president's second term, the Congressional Research Service found 17 nationwide injunctions were issued during the first 100 days, though the Trump administration estimated last month there have been far more — at least 40 of these orders, and most coming from the same five judicial districts. Some of the justices have suggested in past writings that the Supreme Court would have to clarify whether nationwide injunctions are allowed at all, and members on both ideological sides of the bench have been critical of them. But the orders that blocked Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship executive order landed the issue before the Supreme Court earlier this year, though the administration has railed against them in requests to enforce its transgender military ban, fire thousands of federal probationary workers and move forward with mass layoffs of government employees. The president's executive order on birthright citizenship was one of the first that he signed on his first day back in office and is among several directives that seek to target migrants who are in the U.S. The Trump administration's immigration policies have led to high-profile clashes with the courts — namely Mr. Trump's use of the wartime Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang. While the 14th Amendment has for more than a century been understood to guarantee citizenship to all people born in the U.S., Mr. Trump's order denied birthright citizenship to children born to a mother who is unlawfully present in the U.S. or who is lawfully present on a temporary basis; or whose father is neither a citizen nor lawful permanent resident. The president's order directed federal agencies to stop issuing documents recognizing U.S. citizenship to children born after Feb. 19. More than half-a-dozen lawsuits challenging the measure were filed in courts throughout the country before it took effect, and three federal district courts in Washington, Maryland and Massachusetts each blocked the government from implementing the birthright citizenship order. Federal appeals courts in San Francisco, Boston, and Richmond, Virginia, then refused requests by the Trump administration to partly block the lower court orders. The Justice Department filed emergency appeals of the three decisions with the Supreme Court in mid-March and asked it to limit enforcement of the birthright citizenship order to 28 states and individuals who are not involved in the ongoing cases. The administration said that at a minimum, the Supreme Court should allow agencies to develop and issue public guidance regarding implementation of Mr. Trump's executive order while proceedings continue. Like other requests made to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department took aim at the breadth of the injunctions issued by the district courts, which are nationwide in scope and cover states and individuals who are not involved in the litigation before them. The president and his allies have attacked judges for issuing nationwide injunctions in the slew of legal challenges to Mr. Trump's policies, and even called for some to be impeached. The Justice Department said in a filing that universal injunctions have reached "epidemic" proportions since Mr. Trump returned to the White House in January. "Those injunctions thwart the executive branch's crucial policies on matters ranging from border security, to international relations, to national security, to military readiness," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote. "They repeatedly disrupt the operations of the Executive Branch up to the Cabinet level." But the plaintiffs in the cases challenging the directive urged the Supreme Court to leave the district court orders in place. In a filing with the Supreme Court, officials from 18 states, the District of Columbia and San Francisco called the Trump administration's request "remarkable," as it would allow the government to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship while the legal challenges move forward and render them "deportable on birth and at risk of statelessness. The states argued that the Trump administration seeks to violate binding Supreme Court precedent that recognized birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Majority of Americans disapprove of Trump's second term — what new PA poll shows
A majority of Americans said they disapprove of President Donald Trump's second term — with even some Republicans hitting the president — as immigration remains his strongest policy issue. A new NBC News Decision Desk Poll, conducted along with SurveyMonkey, found that 45% of Americans approve of the way Trump is handling his job as president, while 55% disapprove. Those figures remain unchanged from an NBC News survey in April. Trump's rating differs along party lines. Large turnout at Bucks No Kings protest: 'No Kings' protest outside Bucks County congressman's office draws 1,800 protesters Among Republicans, 89% approve of the president's second term in office, compared to 8% of Democrats and 35% of independents. Approximately 12% of Republicans said they disapprove of the president's job, compared to 92% of Democrats and 65% of independents. Republicans were five percentage points less likely to report that they strongly support the president's administration compared to the survey results from April. Much of that shift came from respondents who said they identify as part of the president's "Make America Great Again," aka MAGA, movement. The latest survey was conducted among 19,410 adults nationwide between May 30 and June 10. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points. Know your rights with ICE: ICE officers are working in Bucks County. Here are your rights if questioned According to Rasmussen Reports national polling, Trump has dropped 1 percentage point to 52% approval rating as of June 16 compared to the previous week. His approval ratings this month have hovered between 50% and 53%. The latest Quantus Insights poll shows Trump's job approval at 48%, roughly the same as earlier this month, versus a 49% disapproval rate which is up 1 percentage point among 1,000 registered voters surveyed. The president is underwater on economic topics, with 42% of voters believing the country is moving in the right direction and Trump is handling the economy well, while 53% disagree on those points. RealClear Polling, which encompasses the average of 15 different pollsters, including all of those mentioned above, shows that Trump's overall favorability is 46.5% with 50.5% who disapprove. These numbers have improved since his lows at the end of April, when it reached a 52.4% disapproval rating and 45.1% favorable approval rating. According to the most recent Civiqs polls, updated as of June 13, Trump's approval ratings remained below water in the Keystone State with 52% disapproving of the president compared with 45% who approve. An additional 4% were "unsure." The ratings are roughly the same as they were as of May 15 when the spread was 52% disapproving and 44% approving of the president. Trump has focused much of his presidency on advancing his immigration agenda, including deporting thousands of migrants to countries such as Colombia, Mexico and El Salvador. During his 2024 campaign, the sweeping deportations became his signature promise to voters. Now, Trump is leading on the issue. According to the survey, 51% of Americans approve Trump's handling of border security and immigration, while 49% disapprove. The latest Quantus Insights survey showed that 52% of 1,000 voters surveyed approve of Trumps immigration actions including deportations, while 46% disapprove. The survey was conducted as Trump sent National Guard troops to quell protests against immigration enforcement in the Los Angeles area against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat. Additional protests against the Trump administration's immigration actions have broken out across the country. On the economy, approximately 45% of Americans reported that "their personal financial situation" is about the same as it was last year, and 34% said it has gotten worse. Approximately 21% said their finances have improved over the last year, results that didn't see a major shift from NBC's survey in April. Jo Ciavaglia of and the Bucks County Courier Times contributed to this story. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Majority disapproves of Trump, but he leads on immigration: new poll
