Federal lawsuit seeks to stop ICE agents from arresting people at immigration courts
The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Department of Homeland Security, Justice Department and ICE says the arrests of thousands of people at court have stripped them of rights afforded to them under U.S. immigration law and the Fifth Amendment.
The large-scale immigration court arrests that began in May have unleashed fear among asylum-seekers and immigrants. In what has become a familiar scene, a judge will grant a government lawyer's request to dismiss deportation proceedings against an immigrant while ICE officers wait in the hallway to take them into custody.
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, one of the groups that filed the lawsuit, said the Trump administration is 'weaponizing' immigration courts and chilling participation in the legal process.
'People seeking refuge, safety, or relief should not be arrested, detained, and deported without a chance to be heard and given due process,' Perryman said in a statement.
Messages seeking comment from ICE, Homeland Security and the Justice Department were not immediately returned. The Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the courts, declined to comment.
President Donald Trump has pledged to deport the most dangerous criminals in the largest deportation program in American history to protect law-abiding citizens, but government data on the detentions show that the majority of people detained by ICE have no criminal convictions.
The lawsuit represents 12 people who have been arrested at court hearings, along with the Immigrant Advocates Response Collaborative and American Gateways, which provide legal services to people who face potential arrest and deportation when they comply with their immigration proceedings by attending a court hearing.
Some of the immigrants have lived in the United States for years and were separated from family members, some who were U.S. citizens, without notice, the lawsuit said. Others fled persecution in their home countries and requested asylum. But those requests were quashed when the government lawyer dismissed their case.
Priyanka Gandhi-Abriano, interim CEO for Immigrant Advocates Response Collaborative, said the arrests are a deliberate attempt to intimidate people.
'Our friends, neighbors, and families are told to 'do it the right way' — to follow the legal process,' Gandhi-Abriano said in a statement. 'They're doing just that — showing up to court, complying with the law. Despite this, they're being arrested and detained.'
Homeland Security officials have defended the practice, saying the Trump administration is implementing the rule of law after former President Joe Biden's 'catch and release policy that allowed millions of unvetted illegal aliens to be let loose on American streets.'
They said if a person has a credible fear claim, they can continue in the immigration proceedings, but if not claim is found, they'll be subject to swift deportation.
Keren Zwick, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center said, 'We are witnessing an authoritarian takeover of the U.S. immigration court system by the Trump administration.'
The people attending the hearings to seek permission to stay in the U.S., but they're being rounded up and 'abruptly ripped from their families, homes and livelihoods.'
'Meanwhile, the administration is issuing directives telling immigration judges to violate those same immigration laws and strip people of fundamental due process rights,' Zwick said. 'We must continue fighting to overcome the administration's escalating attacks on the U.S. Constitution and rule of law.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Alaska Sen. Murkowski toys with bid for governor, defends vote supporting Trump's tax breaks package
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, speaking with Alaska reporters Monday, toyed with the idea of running for governor and defended her recent high-profile decision to vote in support of President Donald Trump's tax breaks and spending cuts bill. Murkowski, speaking from Anchorage, said 'sure' when asked if she has considered or is considering a run for governor. She later said her response was 'a little bit flippant' because she gets asked that question so often. 'Would I love to come home? I have to tell you, of course I would love to come home,' she said. 'I am not making any decisions about anything, because my responsibility to Alaskans is my job in the Senate right now.' Several Republicans already have announced plans to run in next year's governor's race, including Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom. Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy is not eligible to seek a third consecutive term. Alaska has an open primary system and ranked choice voting in general elections. Murkowski is not up for reelection until 2028. A centrist, Murkowski has become a closely watched figure in a sharply divided Congress. She has at times been at odds with her party in her criticism of Trump and blasted by some GOP voters as a 'Republican in name only.' But her decision to support Trump's signature bill last month also frustrated others in a state where independents comprise the largest number of registered voters. She previously described her decision-making process around the bill as 'agonizing.' On Monday, she said it was clear to her the bill was not only a priority of Trump's but also that it was going to pass, so it became important to her to help make it as advantageous to the state as she could. 'So I did everything within my power — as one lawmaker from Alaska — to try to make sure that the most vulnerable in our state would not be negatively impacted,' she said. 'And I had a hard choice to make, and I think I made the right choice for Alaskans.'
Japan Forward
an hour ago
- Japan Forward
Two Atomic Bombs by America Ended the Asia-Pacific War ー Was There a Third Option?
Every August 6, on the anniversary of the atomic bomb attack against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an argument is remade. It reasons that Harry Truman, president of the United States of America, had two choices to end the Asia-Pacific War. He could force a surrender through the use of nuclear weapons or proceed with an invasion of the Japanese home islands. According to the contention, the option of the atomic bomb attack was the better of the two. It was touted as quicker, with an ultimately lower death toll. This assertion is nonsense, and always has been. There were never two options ー there were three. The third was to do what 99.9% of generals, commanders and statesmen have done throughout the history of warfare: Drop the insistence of unconditional surrender and negotiate. In this year of 2025, the two-option argument is even more nonsensical than usual. There are ongoing wars for which the option of negotiation will inevitably prevail. They include the Israel-Iran War and the war between Russia and Ukraine. Satellite image showing the entrance to a tunnel destroyed in a US airstrike, at a nuclear facility in Isfahan, central Iran, on June 22. (provided by Maxar Technologies, Reuters via Kyodo) Inappropriate Comparisons Curiously, when it comes to Israel-Iran, US President Donald Trump has been doing his best to draw parallels with the Asia-Pacific War and its dual option narrative. On June 17 he announced that he sought the "unconditional surrender" of Iran. In the wake of the US bombing of the Iranian Fordo nuclear facility, he evoked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both the 1945 atomic bombs and his strike on Iran "ended the war," he proclaimed. It is possible that President Trump is trying to pull the rug out from underneath Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu by insisting that the problem of the Iranian nuclear program has been resolved and further military action is not required. A more likely scenario, however, is that he is attempting to magnify the scope of his achievement. In any event, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki parallel is ridiculous. Iran has not been militarily defeated (let alone forced to surrender unconditionally). Moreover, the failure of the US strike against the Iranian nuclear program makes negotiations even more certain. Inevitability of Negotiations Between Russia and Ukraine When it comes to the Russia-Ukraine War, differences between it and the Asia-Pacific War are undeniably stark. There will be no unconditional surrender from either of the combatants. That war has reached a stalemate and will end with a ceasefire, followed by a negotiated agreement. President Trump has famously attempted to effectuate such a deal. Some reports say he suggests allowing the Russians to keep most of what they occupy. Meanwhile, Ukraine gains a measure of security assuredness through the increased presence of American business interests. In particular, that would come within the mining sector. President Trump has portrayed Russian President Vladimir Putin as both reasonable and conciliatory. The initial aim of Putin was to wipe Ukraine off the map but he presently seems content to settle for the eastern regions that he presently holds. It is quite a compromise on the part of Putin, Trump has suggested. Trump has also focused on the loss of life extracted by the war, implying that loss of territory is preferable to continued Ukrainian casualties. The Japan of 1945 was asking for considerably less than President Trump is prepared to concede to the Russians. And far more lives were in the balance. On the eve of the Hiroshima attack, the Japanese were merely seeking to preserve the integrity of the imperial system via assurances that the Emperor would not be put on trial. The Allies were also fully aware of this reality as they had broken the Japanese codes. Yet, the demand for unconditional surrender was maintained. Atomic bombing of Hiroshima (©US Army via Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, HO) The Belligerent Mindset of Unconditional Surrender Unconditional surrender is a rarely exercised option, not a default setting. Having demanded unconditional surrender, a belligerent power does not acquire justification in resorting to war crimes when the price of total victory becomes too steep. Moreover, perceived or real, the war crimes of one's adversary do not legitimize one's own. Many nonetheless claim that the Japanese militarist regime was so abhorrent that the ends justify the means. Even when those means constitute an unconditional surrender obtained via nuclear attack. This is an argument that could perhaps be made by an Asian whose country had been subjected to colonization. When forwarded by a member of the West, as it generally is, a measure of ignorance or hypocrisy is more than often present. There are two ways of interpreting the Asia-Pacific War. The first is as a war between Asia in tandem with the West, against the Japanese aggressor. The second is as an imperial war for control over imperial possessions, conducted by combatants universally devoid of clean hands. Unsurprisingly, the West prefers the first of these scenarios. The second scenario is accurate. In earlier articles for JAPAN Forward, I have suggested that those prepared to justify the nuclear attacks on the basis of their success in comprehensively destroying the culture of Japanese imperialism should also recognize the impact of Japan in bringing down the ethos that buttressed the Western imperial presence in Asia. The Western empires, the British Empire in particular, were sustained by the myth of white supremacy. The ritualized humiliation that the Japanese wrought upon the white imperialists captured in Asia destroyed this myth, and brought forward the timetable for Asian self-determination by a generation at least. A Clean Break with the Past A case could further be made that it was precipitous for Japan to lose its empire at a stroke. Under that perception, it was bad both for the colonized people of Asia and for Japan itself. Asia was not freed by the fall of Japan. Subhas Chandra Bosesits in the distinguished visitor's box of the Japanese parliament listening to Japanese Prime Minister Tojo declare support for Indian Independence, 16th June 1943. (©Netaji Museum and Centre for Studies in Himalayan Languages Society & Culture, Giddha Pahar, Darjeeling district, West Bengal) Following surrender, the Western colonial powers attempted reassert control, often with the assistance of Japanese troops kept at arms. These efforts, however, were ultimately for nought. The carefully crafted myth of white superiority that had allowed so few to control so many was a casualty of the war. Colonial presence within high density Asia could not be reclaimed. The slow and painful colony disbursement that the Western powers endured over the next 30 years was an ordeal that the Japanese might be glad to have avoided. Complimentary Aims Arguments against the demand for unconditional surrender are just as strong. The most compelling can be found in the manner in which the US and Japan coordinated their aims after the Japanese surrender. One of the principal concerns of the Japanese throughout the 1920s and 30s was the direction in which China would ultimately go. Nineteenth-century exploitation by the imperial West had left the Chinese government impotent, leading to its fall in 1912. From 1912 until 1949, China was fractured. Two regimes emerged as potential unifying forces: the right wing Kuomintang (KMT) of Chiang Kai-shek, and the Communist Party under Mao Zedong. A scene from a painting of Chiang Kai-Shek in the Kinmen museum (©Robert D Eldridge) The Japanese were no less adamant than the United States of America that the Communists should not prevail. As with America, they sought to be the voice that a governing rightwing Chinese administration could not ignore. In short, America and Japan had the same fundamental aim when it came to China. They both sought to be the dominant influence over a ruling rightwing regime. Unsurprisingly, after Japan's surrender, the Japanese forces based within China eagerly cooperated with America by acting in the interests of the KMT. In occupied Japan itself, after a brief period, the US concluded that its fundamental aims and those of Japan within Asia were largely complementary. Many lives would have been saved if this reality had been acted upon prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Showa Emperor and General Douglas MacArthur. Japan's postwar constitution was drafted on General MacArthur's orders. Three Options, Not Two Arguments for and against the morality and merit of the atomic attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki exist in abundance and will continue to be advanced for generations to come. However, the US had more than a duality of options. It could have ended the war through negotiation - the manner in which the vast majority of wars are concluded. This is the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima attack. With negotiations inevitable in the Russia-Ukraine War, one hopes that the nonsense of the two-option argument has finally become clear. Moving forward, that debate should be directed towards the legitimate arguments that exist — both for and against those attacks. RELATED: Author: Paul de Vries Find other reviews and articles by the author on Asia Pacific history on JAPAN Forward.
The Province
an hour ago
- The Province
Canada's economy is showing 'resilience' against U.S. tariffs. Why?
Published Aug 04, 2025 • 5 minute read Canadian and American flags fly near the Ambassador Bridge at the Canada-USA border crossing in Windsor, Ont. on Saturday, March 21, 2020. Photo by Rob Gurdebeke / THE CANADIAN PRESS OTTAWA — 'Some resilience' — those were the two words Bank of Canada governor Tiff Macklem used last week to describe how the Canadian economy is holding up under the weight of U.S. tariffs. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by top sports columnists Patrick Johnston, Ben Kuzma, J.J. Abrams and others. Plus, Canucks Report, Sports and Headline News newsletters and events. Unlimited online access to The Province and 15 news sites with one account. The Province ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles and comics, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by top sports columnists Patrick Johnston, Ben Kuzma, J.J. Abrams and others. Plus, Canucks Report, Sports and Headline News newsletters and events. Unlimited online access to The Province and 15 news sites with one account. The Province ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles and comics, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Just a few days later, U.S. President Donald Trump added 35 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods to a running tally that includes hefty duties on steel, aluminum, automobiles and, more recently, semi-finished copper. With tariffs piling up over the past few months, economists say Canada's economy is starting to show cracks — but few signs of collapse. TD Bank economist Marc Ercolao conceded it's a 'bit of surprise' to see the economy holding up against a massive disruption from Canada's largest trading partner. 'Many months ago, ourselves — as well as other economic forecasters — had an outlook for a much weaker Canadian economy. Obviously, that isn't manifesting now,' he said in an interview. 'We are avoiding the worst-case scenario.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. On Thursday, Statistics Canada gave a glimpse at how the economy wrapped up the second quarter of the year when many of those tariffs came into full effect. While the agency sees a couple of small contractions in real gross domestic product by industry in April and May, its flash estimates show the economy rebounding somewhat in June. If those early readings pan out, StatCan said that would be good enough for flat growth overall on the quarter. Some of those results are distorted by volatility _ businesses rushing to get ahead of tariffs boosted activity in the first quarter, and that's giving way to weakness in the second quarter, for example. It's still hard to pinpoint exact impacts tied to tariffs, Ercolao said, but a broad trend is emerging. Essential reading for hockey fans who eat, sleep, Canucks, repeat. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'What we can say over the last six months or so is that economic activity is somewhat flatlining,' he said. Services sectors are holding up relatively well, but Ercolao said export-heavy industries such as manufacturing and transportation are bearing the brunt of the impact. In an attempt to shore up some of that weakness, the federal government has announced various programs to support tariff-affected workers and broader plans to accelerate defence and infrastructure spending. Macklem noted during his press conference Wednesday that business and consumer confidence are still low, but have improved according to the central bank's recent surveys. And while some trade-exposed sectors have faced job losses and the unemployment has generally trended upward to nearly seven per cent, employers elsewhere in the economy continue to expand their payrolls. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'Consumption is still growing,' Macklem said. 'It's growing modestly. It's certainly being restrained by the uncertainty caused by tariffs. But it is growing and we expect that to continue through the third and fourth quarters.' Last week the Bank of Canada kept its policy interest rate unchanged at 2.75 per cent in a third consecutive decision. If the central bank were panicked about the Canadian economy's ability to withstand U.S. tariffs, Ercolao argued it would likely have lowered that rate. The past week's GDP readings were good enough for BMO to raise its outlook for the third quarter into positive territory. Forecasters at the bank now expect Canada will avoid a technical recession this year. BMO chief economist Doug Porter said in a note to clients Friday that Ottawa's personal tax cut at the start of the month and robust demand for domestic travel amid the trade war will boost the economy this quarter, as will 'the less-dire sentiment' around economic forecasts. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Some other forecasters continue to pencil a tariff-induced recession into their outlooks. In the Bank of Canada's monetary policy report released alongside the rate decision, it outlined one scenario for the economy assuming the tariff situation remains largely status quo. Canada avoids a recession in that outcome. Growth in 2025 and 2026 remains overall positive, but half a percentage point lower than it would've been without the weight of tariffs. Macklem told reporters that the Bank of Canada would expect the economy to keep growing even with today's tariffs in place, 'but it'll be on a permanently lower path.' 'Unfortunately, the sad reality is that tariffs mean the economy is going to work less efficiently,' he said. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Porter said in his note that the actual impact of Trump's new 35 per cent tariff on Canada's economy could be less than headline figure suggests. Because of a carve-out for Canadian exports that are compliant with CUSMA, BMO sees the effective U.S. tariff rate at roughly seven per cent under the new duties, less than a percentage point higher than where it stood before Friday. But with CUSMA up for renegotiation in 2026, Porter said that 35 per cent tariff rate could loom as a 'cudgel' over negotiations — taking full effect if the trade agreement expires without a new deal in place. The Bank of Canada published a separate 'escalation' scenario this week that would see the United States remove Canada's CUSMA exemption as it ramps up global tariffs. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Real GDP would drop an extra 1.25 per cent by 2027 in this more severe case; Porter said that this outcome would be 'serious for sure, but far from disastrous.' Ercolao said much of the tariff doom-and-gloom earlier in the year was tied to the speed at which those import duties would be imposed. But the on-again, off-again nature of U.S. trade restrictions to date has given businesses time to adapt to the new way of doing business and constant delays in implementation, he said. 'If we go back to when Trump began his presidency, had he went 100 per cent on his tariff plan right away, we probably would have seen a deep economic contraction just because it would have been so sudden,' Ercolao explained. 'Now we've been afforded that time to at least try to mitigate some of the negative impacts from what these tariffs were expected to do to the Canadian economy.' Read More Vancouver Canucks Vancouver Whitecaps Local News Vancouver Canucks Sports
