Ras Baraka arrested: Will Newark mayor's Delaney Hall dispute land him in prison? Exploring charges
Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was arrested Friday for allegedly trespassing inside a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in his city, interim US attorney for the District of New Jersey Alina Habba announced. She further added that he 'committed trespass and ignored multiple warnings' from Department of Homeland Security officials.
'He has willingly chosen to disregard the law. That will not stand in this state. He has been taken into custody,' Habba said on X, platform formerly known as Twitter. 'NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW,' she added.
Yes, Baraka could face imprisonment, depending on the charges filed, the severity of the offense, and the outcome of legal proceedings. Trespassing on federal property, especially an ICE facility, can carry significant penalties, particularly if additional charges like obstruction or interference with federal officers are applied. However, prison time is not guaranteed and depends on factors like plea agreements, judicial discretion, and Baraka's lack of prior criminal history.
Based on the claim of trespassing and disregarding HSI warnings, Baraka could face the following charges under federal and New Jersey law:
Criminal Trespass (New Jersey State Law)
Statute: N.J.S.A. 2C:18-3 (Trespass) covers entering or remaining on property without permission after notice to leave.
Trespassing on Federal Property (Federal Law)
Statute: 41 C.F.R. § 102-74.385 and 18 U.S.C. § 930(h) address unauthorized entry onto federal facilities.
Obstruction of a Federal Officer
Statute: 18 U.S.C. § 111 prohibits resisting, opposing, or impeding a federal officer in their duties.
Disorderly Conduct or Inciting a Disturbance
Statute: 41 C.F.R. § 102-74.390 (federal) or N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2 (state) cover creating disturbances or inciting unlawful activity.
In 2018, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler faced no charges after protesting outside an ICE facility. However, in 2020, several activists were charged with trespass and obstruction at ICE facilities in New York, receiving fines or probation rather than prison.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
US judge halts Trump's order to suspend new visa for international students at Harvard
A federal judge late Thursday temporarily blocked a proclamation by President Donald Trump that banned foreign students from entering the US to attend Harvard University read more A federal judge has halted US President Donald Trump's latest move to block international students from coming to Harvard University. On Thursday, the US District Judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order on Trump's decision. The ruling came hours after the university urged the court to step in on an emergency basis to block a proclamation Trump signed a day earlier. Trump's proclamation, issued Wednesday, was the latest attempt by his administration to prevent the nation's oldest and wealthiest college from enrolling a quarter of its students, who accounts for much of Harvard's research and scholarship. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Harvard filed a legal challenge the next day, asking for a judge to block Trump's order and calling it illegal retaliation for Harvard's rejection of White House demands. Harvard said the president was attempting an end-run around a previous court order. A few hours later, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston issued a temporary restraining order against Trump's Wednesday proclamation. Harvard, she said, had demonstrated it would sustain 'immediate and irreparable injury' before she would have an opportunity to hear from the parties in the lawsuit. Burroughs also extended the temporary hold she placed on the administration's previous attempt to end Harvard's enrollment of international students. Last month, the Department of Homeland Security revoked Harvard's certification to host foreign students and issue paperwork to them for their visas, only to have Burroughs block the action temporarily. Trump's order this week invoked a different legal authority. If Trump's measure were to survive this court challenge, it would block thousands of students who are scheduled to come to Harvard's campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts, for the summer and fall terms. 'Harvard's more than 7,000 F-1 and J-1 visa holders — and their dependents — have become pawns in the government's escalating campaign of retaliation,' Harvard wrote Thursday in a court filing. While the court case proceeds, Harvard is making contingency plans so students and visiting scholars can continue their work at the university, President Alan Garber said in a message to the campus and alumni. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'Each of us is part of a truly global university community,' Garber said Thursday. 'We know that the benefits of bringing talented people together from around the world are unique and irreplaceable.' Harvard has attracted a growing number of the brightest minds from around the world, with international enrollment growing from 11% of the student body three decades ago to 26% today. As those students wait to find out if they'll be able to attend the university, some are pursuing other options. Rising international enrollment has made Harvard and other elite colleges uniquely vulnerable to Trump's crackdown on foreign students. Republicans have been seeking to force overhauls of the nation's top colleges, which they see as hotbeds of 'woke' and antisemitic viewpoints. Garber says the university has made changes to combat antisemitism. But Harvard, he said, will not stray from its 'core, legally-protected principles,' even after receiving federal ultimatums. Trump's administration has also taken steps to withhold federal funding from Harvard and other elite colleges that have rejected White House demands related to campus protests, admissions, hiring and more. Harvard's $53 billion endowment allows it to weather the loss of funding for a time, although Garber has warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' to come. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD But cutting off students and visiting scholars could hamstring the university's research and global standing.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Trump Terminates Protected Status Of Nepalese Migrants
The Trump administration has moved to end deportation protections the United States granted to thousands of Nepalese people after a 2015 earthquake devastated the country, according to a government notice posted on Thursday. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in the notice that the administration is terminating temporary protected status for Nepal after a review found the country has largely recovered from the disaster. "There are notable improvements in environmental disaster preparedness and response capacity, as well as substantial reconstruction from the earthquake's destruction such that there is no longer a disruption of living conditions and Nepal is able to handle adequately the return of its nationals," the notice said. The department estimates there are around 12,700 Nepalese with the status, which provides deportation relief and work permits to people already in the U.S. if their home countries experience a natural disaster, armed conflict or other extraordinary event. Of those, approximately 5,500 have lawful permanent residence in the US. The notice said the revocation will take effect 60 days from Friday, giving the approximately 7,000 Nepalese migrants with temporary protected status who aren't permanent residents until August 5, 2025, to leave the country or change their immigration status. After that date, they could face deportation. The Department of Homeland Security and the Nepalese embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Donald Trump, who returned to the presidency in January, has pledged to deport record numbers of migrants in the United States illegally and has moved to strip certain migrants of temporary legal protections, expanding the pool of possible deportees. During his first term from 2017 to 2021, Trump's administration tried to end most enrollment in the temporary protected status program, but was stymied by federal courts. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court let the Trump administration end temporary protected status that was granted to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans in the U.S. by his predecessor Joe Biden. Trump has also sought to end the status for Haitians, Afghans and others.
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
Trump's latest travel ban isn't about national security — it's about national identity and who's allowed to belong
Written by Jonah Blank For more than two decades, larges swathes of American foreign and domestic policy have been organised around terrorism: This spectre was used as the rationale for two major wars, the reorientation of all intelligence agencies, the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, and the weakening of rights of privacy, free speech, and basic legal representation. The proportionality between these responses and the threats actually posed was always tenuous: More than twice as many Americans were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, as in the attacks of 9/11. In the second Trump Administration, however, the US has used the pretext of terrorism in a new way: It is now deployed primarily in the context of immigration. Next week, most visitors from 19 nations will be barred from entering the United States. Counterterrorism is the stated goal, but the real purpose has less to do with national security and is more about national identity. Donald Trump's latest travel prohibition hearkened back to the 'Muslim ban' of his first term, which was struck down by the courts but revived in a more limited way. The current order, like the original 'Muslim ban', bars entry to citizens based solely on nationality rather than any specific risk factors. Its rationale is clearly stated — the title of the proclamation is 'Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats'. This pretext, however, had little to do with the action itself. The nations targeted for complete or partial exclusion are spread across Asia, Africa, the Middle East and South America, and 15 out of the 19 have one thing in common: None of their citizens has ever been involved in any terrorist action in the United States; records are less clear globally, but no citizen of these nations seems to have been involved in terrorist actions against American targets anywhere. The nations that have produced the most dangerous terrorist threats to America are all absent from the list. Saudi Arabia supplied all but four of the 9/11 hijackers, as well as their ringleader, Osama bin Laden; last month, Trump travelled to the Kingdom and gushed over its de facto ruler, saying 'I like him too much.' Neither the other nations whose citizens participated in the hijackings (United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Lebanon), nor the nation that subsequently sheltered Al Qaeda's leadership for a decade (Pakistan) were included in the ban. Of the 12 nations completely banned and seven others slapped with sweeping travel restrictions, only five (Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia) could be considered terrorism concerns, and citizens of these countries already face exclusion or exceptionally close scrutiny. The other 14 nations sanctioned present no such threat: Myanmar, Haiti, Eritrea, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Cuba, Laos, Venezuela, Burundi, Sierra Leone, Togo and Turkmenistan. Since the terrorism rationale is evidently hollow, why single them out? As is the explanation for so much in the Trump administration: Immigration. The proclamation charges these nations with 'historic failure to accept back their removable nationals' who 'pose significant risks of overstaying their visas.' Such allegations may or may not hold up, but they clearly have nothing to do with terrorism. In his remarks, Trump cited a recent attack in Colorado by a man originally from Egypt (not a nation on the banned list), but he then revealed more than he may have intended about the people targeted: 'We don't want them.' This is the difference between the current counterterrorism rationale and that used by Trump's predecessors. If George W Bush, Barack Obama or Joe Biden had used terrorism as the motivation for banning large classes of people, he would have said (and genuinely meant), They're a threat to our security. Trump essentially admits that the threat isn't truly part of the equation. The reason for the exclusion is just that we don't want them. That encapsulates the MAGA obsession with immigration. It's the top of the movement's agenda, and may well have won Trump his second term, but there is remarkably little discussion in America about why immigrants represent a threat. Because they're taking jobs from citizens? Unemployment is low, and many of the jobs taken by immigrants (especially undocumented ones) are poorly-paid agricultural and industrial work that Americans don't want. Because they overwhelm public services? Sometimes, but immigrants contribute far more to America's economy than they draw from it. Because they fuel crime? Immigrants (including those who've come here illegally) have lower crime rates than native-born. The heart of the matter is exactly what Trump said it was: The roughly half of the nation that supports him feels threatened by the demographic changes represented by immigrants from Africa, Asia and Latin America. Do people from Laos or Togo actually represent a terrorist threat? Of course not. And nobody believes that they do. But they need a rationale to give cover to their discomfort. America is in transition from a nation in which a majority of citizens look like Trump to one in which a majority look like — well, like his 2024 election rival Kamala Harris. And most of Trump's supporters are uneasy about this transformation. Many don't like to admit it. Many prefer to believe that the issue really is crime, or inflation, or ever-more-remote connections to the threat of terrorism. But with his latest travel ban, Trump is barely even pretending to maintain this façade. He offers up terrorism as a comforting veil, makes little effort to keep it from slipping. The President and his supporters just don't want them. The writer is the author of Arrow of the Blue-Skinned God: Retracing the Ramayana Through India and Mullahs on the Mainframe: Islam and Modernity Among the Daudi Bohras
