Trump's DHS touts massive number of illegal immigrants deported as Dems lash out at ICE
The statistics, from the Center for Immigration Studies, indicate that self-deportations are driving the trend. The federal government has provided financial incentives for illegal immigrants to leave and has run advertisements telling them they can only apply to return if they leave voluntarily.
"In less than 200 days, 1.6 MILLION illegal immigrants have left the United States population," DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement on Thursday. "This is massive. This means safer streets, taxpayer savings, pressure off of schools and hospital services and better job opportunities for Americans. Thank you, President Trump!"
The agency says over 1 million people have opted for self-deportation through the CBP Home app. DHS began offering $1,000 and free travel out of the United States to those seeking to leave the country on their own and who do not have a criminal background outside of their immigration status.
Meanwhile, Washington, D.C., is becoming an example from the Trump administration to sanctuary cities around the country, as Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered that officers cooperate with federal immigration authorities and put Drug Enforcement Administration Administrator Terry Cole in an oversight role of the police force.
"I sent out 33 letters to mayors around this country. I think three or four of them were in California alone. Not surprising. I sent out letters to all of these mayors and to the governors saying, "You must comply.' we want to know what you're doing to comply with our federal government," Bondi said on "Hannity" on Thursday night.
Tensions are high between Democratic leadership and federal law enforcement in sanctuary cities, as there were immigration authorities outside Gov. Gavin Newsom's rally in Los Angeles on Thursday, and at least one arrest was made by U.S. Border Patrol.
"WE WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY WEAK LITTLE DONALD TRUMP, THE CRIMINAL PRESIDENT!" Newsom's office told Fox News Digital in an email.
Some New York City leaders are also making critical comparisons to rebuke the Trump administration's immigration policies.
"When I look at the visuals of ICE agents masked on the street, taking people from their homes, taking people who are rightfully showing up for court. It reminds me of something that some of my ancestors had to go through, which is the KKK," New York City Council Member Nantasha Williams said this week.
Many Democrats have likened ICE agents to Nazis since Trump took office.
"I'm gonna start with the flashing red light — Donald Trump's modern-day Gestapo is scooping folks up off the streets," former vice presidential nominee and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said in May. "They're in unmarked vans, wearing masks, being shipped off to foreign torture dungeons. No chance to mount a defense. Not even a chance to kiss a loved one goodbye. Just grabbed up by masked agents, shoved into those vans, and disappeared."
"I don't know of any police department that routinely wears masks. We know that there are other groups that routinely wear masks. NSC-131 routinely wears masks," Boston Mayor Michelle Wu said in June, referencing a neo-Nazi group.
DHS says that ICE agents are facing a 1,000% increase in assaults since last year.
"We will not and have not let this violence stop us or slow us down. Everyday our law enforcement continues to enforce the law and arrest the most depraved criminals including pedophiles, terrorists, murderers, gang members, and sexual predators," Noem stated earlier this month as ICE seeks to hire thousands of more agents.
President Trump is touting the immigration crackdown, as the administration says the efforts to remove illegal immigrants from the country will lead to less of a strain on public resources.
"We want to stop crime. I think if the Democrats aren't strong on this issue, they won't be able to do it. I think this is a bigger issue than all of the other ridiculous things that like open borders," he said Thursday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
3-Year-Old Girl and a Dog Were Found Dead in a Car. The Child's Mother Claims She Fell into a River at the Time of the Tragedy
Kelly Brown, 40, said she was 'swept away" as she fell into the Penobscot River in Maine NEED TO KNOW A woman has been charged with manslaughter after her 3-year-old daughter and a dog were found dead in her locked vehicle Kelly Brown, 40, allegedly claimed to have fallen into a river in Maine on her way to take out trash when the tragedy occurred The woman's bail has been set at $50,000 A woman has been charged with manslaughter after her 3-year-old daughter and a dog were found dead in her locked vehicle — during a time when she allegedly claimed to have fallen into a river on her way to take out trash. The Penobscot County Sheriff's Office (PSCO) initially discovered the vehicle of 40-year-old Pennsylvania resident Kelly Brown outside a local business in Milford, Maine, on the evening of Aug. 9, according to Maine State Police (MSP). Inside the car, police officers discovered the young girl dead, and they later located the mother "nearby." After calling in help, MSP arrested Brown, and she was booked at the Penobscot County Jail around 5 a.m. local time the following morning. During an appearance at Penobscot Judicial Center on Aug. 11, Brown was formally charged with manslaughter. According to an affidavit and court documents obtained by CBS affiliate WABI, NBC affiliate WCHS and Brown told police that she left her daughter in the car while she was picking up trash in the area, but she fell into the Penobscot River and was 'swept away." A spokesperson for the MSP did not immediately respond to PEOPLE's request for confirmation on Sunday, Aug. 17. Attorney information for Brown was not immediately available. According to court records obtained by WABI, police assert that Brown left her child and a small dog inside the parked car in a Milford Freshies parking lot around 2 a.m. local time on Aug. 9. She briefly returned to the vehicle around 6 a.m., but apparently did not come back again until police and EMS arrived 14 hours later, the outlet said. Brown, her daughter Fiona and their 13-year-old family dog Penelope left Pennsylvania on July 30 for an annual trip to see family in Maine. According to Brown's mother claimed she had been "hallucinating" and posting 'disturbing' videos on Facebook since late July. The mother, the daughter and their pet had been camping alongside rest stops on their way back to their family camp. Brown told authorities that she wanted to teach Fiona about keeping nature "clean." Brown said her daughter and the dog were alive when she last left them in the vehicle. She claimed that she then slipped and fell into the river and was 'fighting to stay above water," according to the affidavit obtained by Police found the child's body "resting, face down, on the driver's side seat very close to the driver's side door," while the dog's head was resting on her foot, the outlet reported. Brown's family later reported her to police, stating that she had been acting odd and claiming she had been seeing spirits, per WABI. The affidavit obtained by alleges that Brown 'began to scream' when she learned of the deaths of her daughter and dog. While Brown, who was covered in scratches and bruises, told police that she fell into the river, surveillance footage allegedly contradicted her claims, according to WABI and WCHS, and her clothes were not wet by the time she returned to the vehicle. 'Kelly Brown's alternative explanation for abandoning her daughter and dog in the locked closed car on a hot August day contradicts the surveillance video and observations of the law enforcement officers when she appeared on the scene and was later interviewed,' the affidavit said, per According to WABI and WCHS, a judge placed Brown's bail at $50,000. Police said they found no other signs of the possible causes of death for the child beyond heat exposure. The Office of Chief Medical Examiner in Augusta then determined the girl's probable cause of death was the result of being left in the car for hours on end, WCHS reported. Attorneys and the judge agreed to meet again on Sept. 26, according to WCHS. Brown's case will then go in front of a grand jury. Read the original article on People
CNN
5 minutes ago
- CNN
Body language expert breaks down Trump-Putin meeting
Body language expert Mary Civiello examines the non-verbal behaviors of President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin before and after their summit in Anchorage, Alaska on Friday.
CNN
5 minutes ago
- CNN
How the Supreme Court could wind up scrapping high-profile precedents in coming months
The Supreme Court's landmark opinion on same-sex marriage isn't the only high-profile precedent the justices will have an opportunity to tinker with – or entirely scrap – when the court reconvenes this fall. From a 1935 opinion that has complicated President Donald Trump's effort to consolidate power to a 2000 decision that deals with prayer at high school football games, the court will soon juggle a series of appeals seeking to overturn prior decisions that critics say are 'outdated,' 'poorly reasoned' or 'egregiously wrong.' While many of those decisions are not as prominent as the court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that gave same-sex couples access to marriage nationwide, some may be more likely to find a receptive audience. Generally, both conservative and liberal justices are reticent to engage in do-overs because it undermines stability in the law. And independent data suggests the high court under Chief Justice John Roberts has been less willing to upend past rulings on average than earlier courts. But the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority hasn't shied from overturning precedent in recent years – notably on abortion but also affirmative action and government regulations. The court's approval in polling has never fully recovered from its 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which established the constitutional right to abortion. Here are some past rulings the court could reconsider in the coming months. Even before Trump was reelected, the Supreme Court's conservatives had put a target on a Roosevelt-era precedent that protects the leaders of independent agencies from being fired by the president for political reasons. The first few months of Trump's second term have only expedited its demise. The 1935 decision, Humphrey's Executor v. US, stands for the idea that Congress may shield the heads of independent federal agencies, like the National Labor Relations Board or the Consumer Product Safety Commission, from being fired by the president without cause. But in recent years, the court has embraced the view that Congress overstepped its authority with those for-cause requirements on the executive branch. Court watchers largely agree 'that Humphrey's Executor is next on the Supreme Court's chopping block, meaning the next case they are slated to reverse,' said Victoria Nourse, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who worked in the Biden administration. In a series of recent emergency orders, the court has allowed Trump – ever eager to remove dissenting voices from power – to fire leaders of independent agencies who were appointed by former President Joe Biden. The court's liberal wing has complained that, following those decisions, the Humphrey's decision is already effectively dead. 'For 90 years, Humphrey's Executor v. United States has stood as a precedent of this court,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote last month. 'Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to overrule or revise existing law.' Through the end of the Supreme Court term that ended in June, the Roberts court overruled precedent an average of 1.5 times each term, according to Lee Epstein, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who oversees the Supreme Court Database. That compares with 2.9 times on average prior to Roberts, dating to 1953. An important outstanding question is which case challenging Humphrey's will make it to the Supreme Court – and when. The high court has already agreed to hear an appeal – possibly this year – that could overturn a 2001 precedent limiting how much political parties can spend in coordination with federal candidates. Democrats warn the appeal, if successful, could 'blow open the cap on the amount of money that donors can funnel to candidates.' In a lawsuit initially filed by then-Senate candidate JD Vance and other Republicans, the challengers describe the 2001 decision upholding the caps – FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee – as an 'aberration' that was 'plainly wrong the day it was decided.' If a majority of the court thinks the precedent controls the case, they wrote in their appeal, 'it should overrule that outdated decision.' Republicans say the caps are hopelessly inconsistent with the Supreme Court's modern campaign finance doctrine and that they have 'harmed our political system by leading donors to send their funds elsewhere,' such as super PACs, which can raise unlimited funds but do not coordinate with candidates. In recent years, the Supreme Court has tended to shoot down campaign finance rules as violating the First Amendment. A recent Supreme Court appeal from Kim Davis, a former county clerk from Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, has raised concerns from some about the court overturning its decade-old Obergefell decision. Davis is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict – plus $260,000 for attorneys' fees – awarded over her move to defy the Supreme Court's decision and decline to issue the licenses. Davis has framed her appeal in religious terms, a strategy that often wins on the conservative court. She described Obergefell as a 'mistake' that 'must be corrected.' 'If ever there was a case of exceptional importance, the first individual in the Republic's history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it,' Davis told the justices in her appeal. Even if there are five justices willing to overturn the decision – and there are plenty of signs there are not – many court watchers believe Davis' appeal is unlikely to be the vehicle for that review. Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, wrote recently that there are 'multiple flaws' with Davis' case. People in the private sector – say, a wedding cake baker or a website developer – likely have a First Amendment right to exercise their objections to same-sex marriage. But, Somin wrote, public employees are a very different matter. 'They are not exercising their own rights,' he wrote, 'but the powers of the state.' Days after returning to the bench in October to begin a new term, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in one of the most significant appeals on its docket. The case centers on Louisiana's fraught congressional districts map and whether the state violated the 14th Amendment when it drew a second majority-Black district. If the court sides with a group of self-described 'non-Black voters,' it could gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Three years ago, a federal court ruled that Louisiana likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When state lawmakers tried to fix that problem by drawing a second majority-minority district, a group of White voters sued. Another court then ruled that the new district was drawn based predominantly on race and thus violated the Constitution. The court heard oral arguments in the case in March. But rather than issuing a decision, it then took the unusual step in June of holding the case for more arguments. Earlier this month, the court ordered more briefing on the question of whether the creation of a majority-minority district to remedy a possible Voting Rights Act violation is constitutional. The case has nationwide implications; if the court rules that lawmakers can't fix violations of the Voting Rights Act by drawing new majority-minority districts, it could make it virtually impossible to enforce the landmark 1965 law when it comes to redistricting. That outcome could effectively overturn a line of Supreme Court precedents dating to its 1986 decision in Thornburg v. Gingles, in which the court ruled that North Carolina had violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters. Just two years ago, the court ordered officials in Alabama to redraw the state's congressional map, upholding a lower court decision that found the state had violated the statute. 'Some opponents of the Voting Rights Act may urge the court to go further and overturn long-standing precedents, but there's absolutely no reason to go there,' said Michael Li, an expert on redistricting and voting rights and a senior counsel in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. The case will not affect the battle raging over redistricting and the effort by Texas Republicans to redraw congressional boundaries to benefit their party. That's because the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 2019 decision that federal courts cannot review partisan gerrymanders. What's at stake in the Louisiana case, instead, is how far lawmakers may go in considering race when they redraw congressional and state legislative boundaries every decade. Air Force Staff Sgt. Cameron Beck was killed in 2021 on Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri when a civilian employee driving a government-issued van turned in front of his motorcycle. When his wife tried to sue the federal government for damages, she was blocked by a 1950 Supreme Court decision that severely limits damages litigation from service members and their families. The pending appeal from Beck's family, which the court will review behind closed doors next month, will give the justices another opportunity to reconsider that widely criticized precedent. The so-called Feres Doctrine generally prohibits service members from suing the government for injuries that arose 'incident to service.' The idea is that members of the military can't sue the government for injuries that occur during wartime or training. But critics say the upshot is that service members have been barred from filing routine tort claims – including for traffic accidents involving government vehicles – that anyone else could file. 'This court should overrule Feres,' Justice Clarence Thomas, a stalwart conservative, wrote earlier this year in a similar case the court declined to hear. 'It has been almost universally condemned by judges and scholars.' Thomas is correct that criticism of the opinion has bridged ideologies. The Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal group, authored a brief in the Beck case arguing that the 'sweeping bar to recovery for servicemembers' adopted by the Feres decision 'is at odds' with what Congress intended. But the federal government, regardless of which party controls the White House, has long rejected those arguments. The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to reject Beck's case, noting that Feres has 'been the law for more than 70 years, and has been repeatedly reaffirmed by this court.' Prominent religious groups are taking aim at a 25-year-old Supreme Court precedent that barred prayer from being broadcast over the public address system before varsity football games at a Texas high school. In that 6-3 decision, the court ruled that a policy permitting the student-led prayer violated the Establishment Clause, a part of the First Amendment that blocks the government from establishing a state religion. But the court's makeup and views on religion have shifted substantially since then, with a series of significant rulings that thinned the wall that once separated church from state. When the justices meet in late September to decide whether to grant new appeals, they will weigh a request to overturn that earlier decision, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. The new case involves a Christian school in Florida that was forbidden by the state athletic association from broadcasting the prayer ahead of a championship game with another religious school. The Supreme Court should overrule Santa Fe 'as out of step with its more recent government-speech precedent,' the school's attorneys told the high court in its appeal. 'Santa Fe,' they said, 'was dubious from the outset.' It is an argument that may find purchase with the court's conservatives, who have increasingly framed state policies that exclude religious actors as discriminatory. In 2022, the high court reinstated a football coach, Joseph Kennedy, who lost his job at a public high school after praying at the 50-yard line after games. Those prayers, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court at the time, amounted to 'a brief, quiet, personal religious observance.' Kennedy submitted a brief in the new case urging the Supreme Court to take up the appeal – and to now let pregame prayers reverberate through the stadium. The school, Kennedy's lawyers wrote, 'has a longstanding tradition of, and deeply held belief in, opening games with a prayer over the stadium loudspeaker.'
