logo
As Trump raises deportation quotas, advocates fear an expanding ‘dragnet'

As Trump raises deportation quotas, advocates fear an expanding ‘dragnet'

Al Jazeera3 days ago

Washington, DC – There were shackles at her wrists. Her waist. Her ankles.
The memory of being bound still haunts 19-year-old Ximena Arias Cristobal even after her release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody.
Nearly a month after her arrest, the Georgia college student said she is still grappling with how her life has been transformed. One day in early May, she was pulled over for a minor traffic stop: turning right on a red light. The next thing she knew, she was in a detention centre, facing a court date for her deportation.
'That experience is something I'll never forget. It left a mark on me, emotionally and mentally,' Arias Cristobal said during a news conference on Tuesday, recounting her time at the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia.
'What hurts more,' she added, 'is knowing that millions of others have gone through and are still going through the same kind of pain'.
Rights advocates say her story has become emblematic of a 'dragnet' deportation policy in the United States, one that targets immigrants of all backgrounds, regardless of whether they have a criminal record.
President Donald Trump had campaigned for a second term on the pledge that he would expel 'criminals' who were in the country 'illegally'.
But as he ramps up his 'mass deportation' campaign from the White House, critics say immigration agents are targeting immigrants from a variety of backgrounds — no matter how little risk they pose.
'The quotas that they are pushing for [are] creating this situation on the ground where ICE is literally just trying to go after anybody that they can catch,' said Vanessa Cardenas, the executive director of America's Voice, an immigration advocacy group.
She explained that young, undocumented immigrants, known as Dreamers, are among the most vulnerable populations.
'In the dragnet, we're getting long-established, deeply rooted Dreamers and other folks that have been in the United States for a long time,' Cardenas explained.
An avid runner who studies finance and economics at Dalton State College, Arias Cristobal is one of the 3.6 million people known as Dreamers. Many were sent to the US as children, sometimes accompanied by family members, others alone.
For decades, the US government has struggled with how to handle those young, undocumented arrivals to the country.
In 2012, then-President Barack Obama announced a new executive policy, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). It provided temporary protection from deportation for younger immigrants who had lived in the US since June 2007.
About 530,000 Dreamers are protected by their DACA status. But Gaby Pacheco, the leader of the immigration group TheDream.US, said that number represents a small proportion of the total population of young immigrants facing possible deportation.
Some arrived after the cut-off date of June 15, 2007, while others have been unable to apply: Processing for new applications has been paused in recent years. Legal challenges over DACA also continue to wind their way through the federal court system.
'Sadly, in recent months multiple Dream.US scholars and alumni have either been arrested, detained and even deported,' Pacheco said.
She noted that 90 percent of the Dreamers that her organisation is supporting during their first year of higher education have no protections under DACA or other programmes.
All told, she said, the last few months have revealed a 'painful truth': that 'Dreamers are under attack'.
But advocates like Pacheco warn that the first months of the Trump administration may be only a harbinger of what is to come.
Last week, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller informed ICE agents that the Trump administration had increased its daily quota for immigration arrests, from 1,000 per day to 3,000.
The current draft of Trump's budget legislation — known as the One Big Beautiful Bill — would also surge an estimated $150bn in government funds towards deportation and other immigration-related activities. The bill narrowly passed the House of Representatives and is likely to be taken up in the Senate in the coming weeks.
Both actions could mean a significant scale-up in immigration enforcement, even as advocates argue that Trump's portrayal of the US as a country overrun with foreign criminals is starkly out of step with reality.
Studies have repeatedly shown that undocumented immigrants commit fewer crimes — including violent crimes — than US-born citizens.
Available data also calls into question Trump's claims that there are large numbers of undocumented criminal offenders in the country.
The rate of arrests and deportations has remained more or less the same as when Trump's predecessor, former President Joe Biden, was in office, according to a report by the TRAC research project.
From January 26 to May 3, during the first four months of Trump's second term, his administration made an average of 778 immigration arrests per day. That is just 2 percent higher than the average during the final months of Biden's presidency, which numbered about 759.
The number of daily removals or deportations under Trump was actually 1 percentage point lower than Biden's daily rate.
All told, Pacheco and Cardenas warned that the pressure to increase arrests and deportations could lead to increasingly desperate tactics.
The administration has already rolled back a policy prohibiting immigration enforcement in sensitive areas, like churches and schools. It has also sought to use a 1798 wartime law to swiftly deport alleged gang members without due process, and revoked temporary protections that allowed some foreign nationals to remain in the country legally.
In an effort to increase immigration arrests, the Trump administration has also pressured local officials to coordinate with ICE. Drawing on section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the administration has even delegated certain immigration powers to local law enforcement, including the right to make immigration arrests and screen people for deportation.
In one instance in early May, the Tennessee Highway Patrol coordinated with ICE in a sweep of traffic stops that led to nearly 100 immigration arrests. Another large-scale operation in Massachusetts in early June saw ICE make 1,500 arrests.
Swept up in that mass arrest was Marcelo Gomes Da Silva, an 18-year-old high school student on his way to volleyball practice. His arrest sparked protest and condemnation in Gomes Da Silva's hometown of Milford, Massachusetts.
Cardenas pointed to those demonstrations, as well as the outpouring of support for Arias Cristobal, as evidence of a growing rejection of Trump's immigration policies.
'I think we are going to see more and more pushback from Americans,' she said.
'Having said that, it is my belief that this administration has all the intention to implement their plans… And if Congress gives them more money, they're going to go after our communities.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US Supreme Court grants DOGE access to sensitive Social Security data
US Supreme Court grants DOGE access to sensitive Social Security data

Al Jazeera

time3 hours ago

  • Al Jazeera

US Supreme Court grants DOGE access to sensitive Social Security data

The United States Supreme Court has sided with the administration of President Donald Trump in two cases about government records — and who should have access to them. On Friday, the six-member conservative majority overturned a lower court's ruling that limited the kinds of data that Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) could access through the Social Security Administration (SSA). In a separate case, the majority also decided that DOGE was not required to turn over records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a government transparency law. In both cases, the Supreme Court's three left-leaning justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan — opposed the majority's decision. DOGE has been at the forefront of Trump's campaign to reimagine the federal government and cut down on bureaucratic 'bloat'. Unveiled on November 13, just eight days after Trump's re-election, DOGE was designed to 'dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies'. At first, it was unclear how DOGE would interact with the executive branch: whether it would be an advisory panel, a new department or a nongovernmental entity. But on January 20, when Trump was sworn in for his second term, he announced that the existing US Digital Service — a technology initiative founded by former President Barack Obama — would be reorganised to create DOGE. The government efficiency panel has since led a wide-scale overhaul of the federal government, implementing mass layoffs and seeking to shutter entities like the US Agency for International Development (USAID). It also advertised cost-savings it had achieved or alleged fraud it had uncovered, though many of those claims have been contradicted or questioned by journalists and experts. In addition, DOGE's sweeping changes to the federal government made it the subject of criticism and concern, particularly as it sought greater access to sensitive data and systems. Up until last week, DOGE was led by Elon Musk, a billionaire and tech entrepreneur who had been a prominent backer of Trump's re-election bid. Musk and Trump, however, have had a public rupture following the end of the billionaire's tenure as a 'special government employee' in the White House. That falling-out has left DOGE's future uncertain. One of DOGE's controversial initiatives has been its push to access Social Security data, in the name of rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. Early in Trump's second term, both the president and Musk repeated misleading claims that Social Security payments were being made to millions of people listed as 150 years old or older. But fact-checkers quickly refuted that allegation. Instead, they pointed out that the Social Security Administration has implemented a code to automatically stop payments to anyone listed as alive and more than 115 years old. They also pointed out that the COBOL programming language flags incomplete entries in the Social Security system with birthdates set back 150 years, possibly prompting the Trump administration's confusion. Less than 1 percent of Social Security payments are made erroneously, according to a 2024 inspector general report. Still, Trump officials criticised the Social Security Administration, with Musk dubbing it 'the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time' and calling for its elimination. In March, US District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander blocked DOGE from having unfettered access to Social Security data, citing the sensitive nature of such information. Social Security numbers, for instance, are key to verifying a person's identity in the US, and the release of such numbers could endanger individual privacy. Lipton Hollander ruled that DOGE had 'never identified or articulated even a single reason for which the DOGE Team needs unlimited access to SSA's entire record systems'. She questioned why DOGE had not sought a 'more tailored' approach. 'Instead, the government simply repeats its incantation of a need to modernize the system and uncover fraud,' she wrote in her ruling. 'Its method of doing so is tantamount to hitting a fly with a sledgehammer.' The judge's ruling, however, did allow DOGE to view anonymised data, without personally identifying information. The Trump administration, nevertheless, appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that Judge Lipton Hollander had exceeded her authority in blocking DOGE's access. The Supreme Court granted its emergency petition on Friday, lifting Lipton Hollander's temporary restrictions on the data in an unsigned decision. But Justice Brown Jackson issued a blistering dissent (PDF), suggesting that the Supreme Court was willing to break norms to assist a presidency that was unwilling to let legal challenges play out in lower courts. 'Once again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them,' Brown Jackson wrote. She argued that the Trump administration had not established that any 'irreparable harm' would occur if DOGE were temporarily blocked from accessing Social Security data. But by granting the Trump administration's emergency petition, she said the court was 'jettisoning careful judicial decision-making and creating grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process'. The second Supreme Court decision on Friday concerned whether DOGE itself had to surrender documents under federal transparency laws. The question was raised as part of a lawsuit brought by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a government watchdog group. It argued that DOGE's sweeping powers suggested it should be subject to laws like FOIA, just like any other executive agency. But CREW also alleged that the ambiguity surrounding DOGE's structures had kept it insulated from outside probes. 'While publicly available information indicates that DOGE is subject to FOIA, the lack of clarity on DOGE's authority leaves that an open question,' CREW said in a statement. The watchdog group sought to compel DOGE to provide information about its inner workings. While a US district judge had sided with CREW's request for records in April, the Supreme Court on Friday paused that lower court's decision (PDF). It sent the case back to a court of appeals for further consideration, with instructions that the April order be narrowed. 'Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity's ability to persuade,' the Supreme Court's conservative majority ruled. It also said that the courts needed to exercise 'deference and restraint' regarding 'internal' executive communications.

Deported man Kilmar Abrego Garcia returned to US to face charges
Deported man Kilmar Abrego Garcia returned to US to face charges

Al Jazeera

time5 hours ago

  • Al Jazeera

Deported man Kilmar Abrego Garcia returned to US to face charges

A man the Donald Trump administration mistakenly deported to El Salvador has been brought back to the United States, where authorities say he will face criminal charges. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, 29, a Salvadoran immigrant who had lived nearly half his life in Maryland before he was deported in March, faces charges of transporting undocumented migrants inside the US, according to recently unsealed court records. US Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Friday that Abrego Garcia was returned to the US to 'face justice'. The indictment against him was filed on May 21, more than two months after he was deported in spite of a court order barring his removal. The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop by the Tennessee Highway Patrol, which suspected Abrego Garcia of human trafficking but ultimately issued only a warning for an expired driver's license, according to a Department of Homeland Security report. Bondi, speaking at a news conference, said a grand jury had 'found that over the past nine years, Abrego Garcia has played a significant role in an alien smuggling ring'. She said Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele agreed to return Abrego Garcia to the US after American officials presented his government with an arrest warrant. Abrego Garcia had been sent to El Salvador as part of a Trump scheme to move undocumented migrants it accuses of being gang members, to prison in the Central American country without due process. Bukele said in a social media post that his government works with the Trump administration and 'of course' would not refuse a request to return 'a gang member' to the US. Al Jazeera's Rosiland Jordan, reporting from Washington, DC, said Abrego Garcia could face up to 10 years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted. But 'that does not deal with the ongoing matter of whether or not he should be deported', she added. 'That's a separate legal matter.' Abrego Garcia will have the chance to enter a plea in court and contest the charges at trial. If he is convicted, he would be deported to El Salvador after serving his sentence, Bondi said. In a statement, Abrego Garcia's lawyer, Andrew Rossman, said it would now be up to the US judicial system to ensure he received due process. 'Today's action proves what we've known all along – that the administration had the ability to bring him back and just refused to do so,' said Rossman, a partner at law firm Quinn Emanuel. Abrego Garcia's deportation defied an immigration judge's 2019 order granting him protection from being sent back to El Salvador, where it found he was likely to be persecuted by gangs if returned, court records show. Trump critics pointed to the erroneous deportation as an example of the excesses of the Republican president's aggressive approach to stepping up deportations. Officials countered by alleging that Abrego Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang. His lawyers have denied that he was a gang member and said he had not been convicted of any crime. Abrego Garcia's case has become a flash point for escalating tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary, which has ruled against a number of Trump's policies. The US Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, with liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying the government had cited no basis for what she called his 'warrantless arrest'. US District Judge Paula Xinis also opened a probe into what, if anything, the Trump administration did to secure his return, after his lawyers accused officials of stonewalling their requests for information.

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