logo
‘Silent and hiding': ICE actions at courthouses creating climate of fear for immigrants, advocates say

‘Silent and hiding': ICE actions at courthouses creating climate of fear for immigrants, advocates say

Boston Globe04-05-2025

'This creates tremendous fear for people in immigrant communities, and not just those who are undocumented,' said Amy Grunder, director of state government affairs for the MIRA Coalition, a Boston-based immigrant and refugee advocacy group.
That's because many immigrant families have some members here legally and others here without authorization, Grunder said. Parents detained at court may have children who are citizens; victims may have undocumented relatives who witnessed a crime, but could be detained if they show up to testify.
'The greatest fear of every parent is the risk of family separation,' Grunder said.
Advertisement
ICE did not return a request for comment.
Under the Trump administration, ICE ended Biden-era restrictions on immigration enforcement
at 'protected areas' such as courthouses that were intended to serve as a buffer between the local criminal justice system and federal immigration policies. Instead, ICE issued a
Advertisement
In one high profile case, an ICE agent arrested a man in the middle of his criminal trial, drawing fury from Boston Municipal Court Judge Mark Summerville. Summerville found the agent in contempt of court after ICE refused to return the defendant to face trial. In late April, Suffolk District Attorney Kevin Hayden said he could not legally charge the federal agent, but criticized ICE for interfering with the local justice system.
ICE's actions have discouraged immigrants from participating in the criminal justice system, according to Jim Borghesani, a spokesman for the Suffolk District Attorney's Office.
'We have had numerous cases where witnesses or victims or family members have told us they fear moving forward on their cases because of their fear of ICE,' Borghesani wrote in an email.
Tanvi Verma,
a Boston-based public defender with the Committee for Public Counsel Services, said she had clients take plea deals because they were so afraid of showing up inside a courthouse, even though any conviction could put them on ICE's radar. And it has sometimes led to bizarre scenarios such as defense attorneys deliberately
'This is a bad scenario for everyone,' said Zachary Cloud, a supervising public defender with CPCS in Roxbury. 'No one walks away from this with a better justice system as a result.'
The effect of those fears extends beyond criminal prosecutions, advocates said. For instance, the specter of courthouse detention is making some immigrant workers afraid to take legal action against abusive employers, said Heloisa Maria Galvão, executive director of the Brazilian Women's Group, a Boston-based nonprofit that advocates for Brazilian immigrants.
Advertisement
Galvão said she knows workers who had their wages stolen but are afraid to file small claims suits against their employer because of ICE enforcement.
'People that have any complaint about violations of workers rights, they are very hesitant to go forward,' Galvão said. 'They prefer to lose the money.'
One undocumented Brazilian worker, a house painter who lives in Allston, told the Globe he was owed $2,600 from an owner who was flipping a property and had not paid him for a recent job. He said he chose to not file a small claims suit, in part because he is worried going to court would put him at risk for detention.
'I'm afraid about that because of everything that is going on right now with the administration,' said the worker, who spoke under the condition of anonymity because of fears of being targeted by immigration authorities. 'I feel like I'm going to give up.'
For 30 years, Galvão's organization has encouraged Brazilian immigrants to advocate for themselves and assert their legal rights, she said. The current climate of fear is undermining that progress.
'It took us all this time to inform, to educate, to empower. To make their voices heard,' Galvão said. 'Now people are just getting silent and hiding, and I don't blame them.'
The Office of Attorney General Andrea Campbell said it does not ask about immigration status when workers file labor complaints, and does not voluntarily share personal information with ICE.
Advertisement
'The federal administration has incited fear, fueled distrust in government and wrongly pushed our law-abiding immigrants into the shadows,' Campbell said in a statement. 'I encourage all workers to know their rights and contact the AG's Office when they believe these rights have been violated.'
Advocates who work in domestic violence cases are particularly concerned, they said: Victims who are immigrants are especially vulnerable as they may be unwilling to report abuse because of their immigration status.
They may wish to call 911 during an assault, but may not want their offender, who is perhaps the co-parent of their children, to be arrested and face the punishment of deportation. They may want to ask a judge for a protection order or to press criminal charges, but fear that doing so could expose them to ICE agents waiting at the courthouse.
Each choice requires victims to make a 'safety risk analysis,' said Amanda Walsh, a deputy director for the Victim Rights Law Center, a Boston-based nonprofit that provides legal services for survivors of domestic violence.
'If I go in to testify, I may never come home. I may never see my kids again,' Walsh said. 'Or are my family also witnesses? Am I not just putting myself at risk of being deported, but my children, my parents, my colleagues, my roommates?'
Those dilemmas
have worsened since Trump's inauguration and can backfire on public safety efforts, especially the work to help those most impacted, said Ren Liu, communications and outreach manager for Jane Doe Inc., a Boston-based domestic violence advocacy organization.
'That is something that is really dangerous because we know that abuse thrives in silence,' Liu said.
Advertisement
Dan Glaun can be reached at

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What to know about inspections of Iran's nuclear program by the IAEA ahead of a key board vote
What to know about inspections of Iran's nuclear program by the IAEA ahead of a key board vote

Hamilton Spectator

time24 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

What to know about inspections of Iran's nuclear program by the IAEA ahead of a key board vote

VIENNA (AP) — Iran's nuclear program remains a top focus for inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, particularly as any possible deal between Tehran and the United States over the program would likely rely on the agency long known as the United Nations' nuclear watchdog. This week, Western nations will push for a measure at the IAEA's Board of Governors censuring Iran over its noncompliance with inspectors, pushing the matter before the U.N. Security Council. Barring any deal with Washington, Iran then could face what's known as 'snapback' — the reimposition of all U.N. sanctions on it originally lifted by Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, if one of its Western parties declares the Islamic Republic is out of compliance with it. All this sets the stage for a renewed confrontation with Iran as the Mideast remains inflamed by Israel's war on Hamas in the Gaza Strip . And the IAEA's work in any case will make the Vienna-based agency a key player. Here's more to know about the IAEA, its inspections of Iran and the deals — and dangers — at play. Atoms for peace The IAEA was created in 1957. The idea for it grew out of a 1953 speech given by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower at the U.N., in which he urged the creation of an agency to monitor the world's nuclear stockpiles to ensure that 'the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life.' Broadly speaking, the agency verifies the reported stockpiles of member nations. Those nations are divided into three categories. The vast majority are nations with so-called 'comprehensive safeguards agreements' with the IAEA, states without nuclear weapons that allow IAE monitoring over all nuclear material and activities. Then there's the 'voluntary offer agreements' with the world's original nuclear weapons states — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the U.S. — typically for civilian sites. Finally, the IAEA has 'item-specific agreements' with India, Israel and Pakistan — nuclear-armed countries that haven't signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. That treaty has countries agree not to build or obtain nuclear weapons. North Korea, which is also nuclear armed, said it has withdrawn from the treaty, though that's disputed by some experts. The collapse of Iran's 2015 nuclear deal Iran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, negotiated under then-President Barack Obama, allowed Iran to enrich uranium to 3.67% — enough to fuel a nuclear power plant but far below the threshold of 90% needed for weapons-grade uranium. It also drastically reduced Iran's stockpile of uranium, limited its use of centrifuges and relied on the IAEA to oversee Tehran's compliance through additional oversight. But President Donald Trump in his first term in 2018 unilaterally withdrew America from the accord , insisting it wasn't tough enough and didn't address Iran's missile program or its support for militant groups in the wider Mideast. That set in motion years of tensions, including attacks at sea and on land . Iran now enriches up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels. It also has enough of a stockpile to build multiple nuclear bombs, should it choose to do so. Iran has long insisted its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but the IAEA, Western intelligence agencies and others say Tehran had an organized weapons program up until 2003. IAEA inspections and Iran Under the 2015 deal, Iran agreed to allow the IAEA even greater access to its nuclear program. That included permanently installing cameras and sensors at nuclear sites. Those cameras, inside of metal housings sprayed with a special blue paint that shows any attempt to tamper with it, took still images of sensitive sites. Other devices, known as online enrichment monitors, measured the uranium enrichment level at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility. The IAEA also regularly sent inspectors into Iranian sites to conduct surveys, sometimes collecting environmental samples with cotton clothes and swabs that would be tested at IAEA labs back in Austria. Others monitor Iranian sites via satellite images. In the years since Trump's 2018 decision, Iran has limited IAEA inspections and stopped the agency from accessing camera footage . It's also removed cameras . At one point, Iran accused an IAEA inspector of testing positive for explosive nitrates , something the agency disputed. The IAEA has engaged in years of negotiations with Iran to restore full access for its inspectors. While Tehran hasn't granted that, it also hasn't entirely thrown inspectors out. Analysts view this as part of Iran's wider strategy to use its nuclear program as a bargaining chip with the West. What happens next Iran and the U.S. have gone through five rounds of negotiations over a possible deal, with talks mediated by the sultanate of Oman . Iran appears poised to reject an American proposal over a deal this week, potentially as soon as Tuesday. Without a deal with the U.S., Iran's long-ailing economy could enter a freefall that could worsen the simmering unrest at home. Israel or the U.S. might carry out long-threatened airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities. Experts fear Tehran in response could decide to fully end its cooperation with the IAEA, abandon the the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and rush toward a bomb. If a deal is reached — or at least a tentative understanding between the two sides — that likely will take the pressure off for an immediate military strike by the U.S. Gulf Arab states, which opposed Obama's negotiations with Iran in 2015, now welcome the talks under Trump. Any agreement would require the IAEA's inspectors to verify Iran's compliance. But Israel, which has struck at Iranian-backed militants across the region, remains a wildcard on what it could do. Last year, it carried out its first military airstrikes on Iran — and has warned it is willing to take action alone to target Tehran's program, like it has in the past in Iraq in 1981 or Syria in 2007. ___ Associated Press writer Stephanie Liechtenstein contributed to this report. ___ The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation . The AP is solely responsible for all content. ___ Additional AP coverage of the nuclear landscape: Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

Why Trump's Deployment Of Military in California Is So Controversial
Why Trump's Deployment Of Military in California Is So Controversial

Bloomberg

time26 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Why Trump's Deployment Of Military in California Is So Controversial

President Donald Trump ordered the California National Guard on June 7 to dispatch at least 2,000 soldiers to the Los Angeles area as thousands of people demonstrating against immigration raids clashed with security forces. After vandalism and violence broke out, the Pentagon escalated the federal response by also mobilizing 700 active-duty Marines. The president said on his Truth Social platform that federal agencies were to take 'all such action necessary' to stop what he called 'migrant riots.' The rare move by a president to mobilize military forces to quell domestic unrest was quickly condemned as unnecessary and counterproductive by local authorities, including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Governor Gavin Newsom.

'Loaded weapon': editors decry Hungary bill targeting media
'Loaded weapon': editors decry Hungary bill targeting media

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

'Loaded weapon': editors decry Hungary bill targeting media

The Hungarian government's decision to delay a vote on a controversial bill which penalises "foreign-funded" media and NGOs does not mean that the danger to freedom of the press is over, top editors warn. The government is still committed to a "campaign to shut down, destroy or discredit certain media outlets, NGOs or people", Peter Uj, editor-in-chief of news site 444, told AFP. Critics say the bill, which they compare to Russia's foreign agent legislation, is the latest attempt by nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orban to tighten his control over the central European country of 9.5 million people since his return to power in 2010. Tens of thousands have protested against the bill in Budapest, with another rally to take place on Tuesday. The European Commission has also called on Hungary to withdraw the draft, while representatives of more than 80 media outlets from 22 countries -- including Britain's The Guardian and France's Liberation -- have slammed it. The bill was introduced last month and a vote was scheduled for this week, but the ruling coalition last week put it off, saying that debate would continue in the autumn and that it wanted to review "substantive comments received" from "serious organisations" other than those protesting. - 'Devious' - The legislation would blacklist organisations that "threaten the sovereignty of Hungary by using foreign funding to influence public life". Any kind of support from non-Hungarian citizens, EU funds, or even advertising revenues from companies based abroad constitutes foreign funding, according to commonly accepted legal interpretations. Blacklisted groups would need permission to receive foreign funds. They would also be barred from receiving donations through a Hungarian income tax contribution scheme, an important source of revenue for non-profits. The legal changes could affect any independent Hungarian media outlets, with 444, internet TV Partizan and news site Telex explicitly targeted. Partizan editor-in-chief Marton Gulyas, 39, described the new bill as "devious". "The law would create economic tools to make it impossible for listed organisations to function," he told AFP. The online channel, which was founded in 2018 and has a staff of 70, was the top beneficiary last year of the income tax contribution scheme, receiving more than one million euros ($1.1 million) from over 35,000 supporters. Gulyas rejected the notion that Partizan is "foreign-funded", stressing that the channel had only applied for EU-based grants in the past two years. "Hungary has been a part of the European Union since 2004. There are no borders or customs, yet this money is now being treated as if there could be some kind of criminality involved," he said. - 'Will not back down' - Telex editor-in-chief Tamas Nemet, 44, said that advertising and reader support make up 92 percent of the outlet's revenue. "But the law would now make those unviable" through various legal hurdles and administrative burdens, according to Nemet. One of Hungary's most popular news sources with a staff of around 100, Telex was established in 2021, after Nemet and his colleagues resigned en masse from the country's then-top news site, over alleged political interference. "We can see quite clearly what those in power want, the weapon is loaded and on the table," he said, adding that the "truth cannot be banned". "We will not back down," he said, vowing to "overcome whatever they come up with to hinder our operations". Orban says the law is needed to fight the alleged spread of foreign interference and disinformation. Uj of 444, along with his colleagues from Telex and Partizan, described the bill as "absurd" and "a political weapon designed to keep independent media in constant fear and to take us out". He decried rules "worded in such a way they are impossible to comply with". The 53-year-old Uj and colleagues set up the news site in 2013. It employs about 35 journalists and has broken several stories, including a child abuse pardon scandal, which last year led to the resignation of then-president Katalin Novak, a key Orban ally. AFP partners with its sister site Lakmusz for fact-checking. ros/jza/gv/bc

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store