logo
Homeland Security Email Tells a US Citizen to 'Immediately' Self-Deport

Homeland Security Email Tells a US Citizen to 'Immediately' Self-Deport

WIRED13-04-2025

Apr 12, 2025 9:35 PM An email sent by the Department of Homeland Security instructs people in the US on a temporary legal status to leave the country. But who the email actually applies to—and who actually received it—is far from clear. The front entrance to the US Customs and Border Protection headquarters. Photograph: J.The United States Department of Homeland Security sent an email this week informing people living in the US on a temporary legal status that their "parole" has been revoked and instructed them to leave the country "immediately." However, the email was also addressed to at least one US citizen, an immigration attorney from Massachusetts. And it remains unclear who must abide by the email's instructions—or why the apparent revocation of legal immigration status was delivered via email at all.
The email informs the recipient that 'DHS is now exercising its discretion to terminate your parole,' which it says will go into effect '7 days from the date of this notice.' The email appears to be similar, if not identical, to messages received by users of CBP One, an app developed during the Biden administration that allows non-citizens from certain countries to schedule appointments at US points of entry in an effort to seek asylum. A spokesperson for US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) tells WIRED, however, that the email was sent more broadly.
'CBP has issued notices terminating parole for individuals who do not have lawful status to remain,' says CBP assistant commissioner for public affairs Hilton Beckham. 'This process is not limited to CBP One users and does not currently apply to those paroled under programs such as U4U and OAW.'
U4U refers to Uniting for Ukraine, a program launched under the Biden administration to allow for expedited immigration to the US for Ukrainians fleeing Russia's war against its neighboring country. Former President Joe Biden began OAW, or Operation Allies Welcome, in 2021 following the US military's exit from Afghanistan to allow for the safe resettling of 'vulnerable Afghans, including those who worked alongside us in Afghanistan for the past two decades,' according to DHS.
The email itself does not identify these or any other exemptions, nor does it make clear to whom it applies beyond the recipient. Beckham also confirmed that the email was sent to whatever email address the agency had associated with the intended target, leading to confusion for at least one immigration attorney.
'Some personal news: the Department of Homeland Security has given me, an immigration lawyer born in Newton, Massachusetts, seven days to leave the US,' wrote Nicole Micheroni, a partner at Cameron Micheroni & Silvia LLC, in a post on Bluesky on Friday night. 'Does anyone know if you can get Italian citizenship through great-grandparents?'
Micheroni tells WIRED that she first thought the email was intended for one of her clients, but she quickly noticed that it was only addressed to her.
'I don't feel like I'm actually going to be deported in seven days, but it's concerning that this is the level of care they're using to send these out,' Micheroni says. She adds that it's possible that the DHS email was 'intended for one of my clients or somebody else,' as it's not uncommon for immigrants in the US to list their attorneys as the point of contact
The Trump administration has sought to revoke the parole of some 532,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans who entered the US under a Biden-era humanitarian parole program. While it moved to subject them to expedited deportation effective April 24, on Thursday a federal judge in Boston said she would issue a protective order blocking that attempt. The order may complicate the instructions in the email, which stipulates that it does not apply to people who 'have otherwise obtained a lawful basis to remain' in the US.
CBP's Beckham did not immediately respond to WIRED's questions about whether the court order would impact any recipients of the email.
Attorney Lauren Regan, founder and executive director of the nonprofit Civil Liberties Defense Center, tells WIRED that the lack of clarity about whether the revocation of temporary parole applies to the recipient of the email is likely causing fear and confusion among many immigrants, especially those without access to adequate legal guidance.
'So many people don't have a lawyer, or their lawyer has 6,000 clients,' Regan says, which 'completely overloads' the attorneys who often provide pro bono legal services to immigrants.
'A lot of people that are here on parole status don't know the nuances of immigration law, so they get this email and they don't know if it applies to them,' Micheroni says. 'And most of them assume that it does because everything is really scary for people right now.'
It's also unclear whether the email is related to recent efforts by Elon Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). In an April 10 post on X, DOGE claimed that 'CBP identified a subset of 6.3k individuals paroled into the United States since 2023 on the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center watchlist or with criminal records. These paroles have since been terminated with immediate effect.'
Beckham did not immediately respond to questions about whether the email was intended for these 6,300 individuals, nor did she answer WIRED's questions about how many people received the email.
Then there's the matter of the email being an email at all, Regan says, adding that 'it is absolutely not common' for a change in legal immigration status to arrive via email, which typically happens in person or via certified mail. 'People would think it's a phishing email or something not legitimate,' Regan says. Also, the fact that the email does not appear to have been first posted on a government website added to questions about its authenticity.
'Normally if the government is going to change a practice, they would first do it on their websites,' Regan says, adding, 'but the fact that this was not on the website first and then sent out as a direct communication is very, very unusual.'
Regan also notes that many immigrants do not have email addresses, and therefore couldn't receive the communication in the first place.
Even for Micheroni, a US citizen and immigration attorney, the Trump administration's aggressive immigration enforcement practices have made life less stable. The email only made matters worse.
'I have gotten some serious inquiries from my parents or other family members or friends being like, 'what do I do if you stop answering me or if you disappear? Like, who do you want me to call?'' she says.
'And if people in my life are feeling this way, and this is what I do, I know a lot about it,' Micheroni adds. 'I can't imagine what it's like for people that don't fully understand immigration law.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

"Who cares": Congress' Dems say good riddance to Karine Jean-Pierre
"Who cares": Congress' Dems say good riddance to Karine Jean-Pierre

Axios

time33 minutes ago

  • Axios

"Who cares": Congress' Dems say good riddance to Karine Jean-Pierre

If former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre thought she would set off a five-alarm fire among top Democrats by leaving the party, she is about to be sorely disappointed. Why it matters: Democratic lawmakers who spoke to Axios characterized her personal motives as too transparent to be a knock on the party — and they don't exactly feel like they're losing their best messenger either. "Who cares," exclaimed one House Democrat. "It's easy for paid operatives to leave the party ... until they need something." Said another: "Her explanation for this move is as confusing and disjointed as her answers in her White House press briefings." Jean-Pierre did not respond to a request for comment. Driving the news: Jean-Pierre revealed Wednesday that she is becoming an independent after serving in two Democratic presidential administrations. The announcement coincides with the release of a new book, "Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines." The book's description decries "blind loyalty to a two-party democratic system" and promises to delve into "the three weeks that led to Biden's abandoning his bid for a second term and the betrayal by the Democratic Party that led to his decision." What they're saying: "Other than Sean Spicer ... she was the worst press secretary in American history," a third House Democrat told Axios of Jean-Pierre. "There were rumors that the Biden folks were trying to get rid of her because she's so terrible," the lawmaker said, speculating that she is trying to curry favor with Republicans to avoid a congressional subpoena. "I don't know who wrote her book. We know she couldn't give a press conference without reading every word from her briefing," they added. Zoom in: Jean-Pierre has also been lit up by her former Biden White House colleagues, with one former official telling Axios' Alex Thompson she was "one of the most ineffectual and unprepared people I've ever worked with." "She had meltdowns after any interview that asked about a topic not sent over by producers," the official said. Said another: "The amount of time that was spent coddling [Jean-Pierre] and appeasing her was astronomical compared to our attention on actual matters of substance." Zoom out: The latest Bidenworld infighting comes after the release of a new book from Thompson and CNN's Jake Tapper, " Original Sin," which recounts how Biden's team shielded him from public scrutiny about his age.

Trump announces another travel ban: Which countries are on the list? Who's exempt? How are people reacting?
Trump announces another travel ban: Which countries are on the list? Who's exempt? How are people reacting?

Yahoo

time39 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump announces another travel ban: Which countries are on the list? Who's exempt? How are people reacting?

President Trump announced a sweeping new travel ban on Wednesday, barring citizens of 12 countries from visiting the United States and imposing restrictions on those from seven others. In a video message announcing the ban, Trump cited national security concerns, claiming that foreigners who were not properly vetted posed a terror risk. "We cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen those who seek to enter the United States,' Trump said. The president also cited the recent attack in Boulder, Colo., by a man who allegedly shouted 'Free Palestine' and threw Molotov cocktails into a crowd of people calling for the release of Israeli hostages being held by Hamas. 'The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colo., has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas,' Trump said. 'We don't want them.' The suspect, identified as 45-year-old Mohamed Sabry Soliman, was arrested and charged with a hate crime. According to the Department of Homeland Security, Soliman is from Egypt and had overstayed a tourist visa. Egypt is not among the countries included in Trump's new travel ban. The ban, which is set to go into effect Monday, June 9 at 12:01 a.m. ET, prohibits foreign nationals from the following countries from entering the U.S.: Afghanistan Burma (Myanmar) Chad The Republic of Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Haiti Iran Libya Somalia Sudan Yemen It imposes partial restrictions on foreign nationals from the following countries: Burundi Cuba Laos Sierra Leone Togo Turkmenistan Venezuela There are numerous groups of people who are exempt from Trump's new travel ban. They include: Any lawful permanent resident of the United States Dual citizens, or U.S. citizens who also have citizenship of one of the banned countries Athletes and their coaches traveling to the U.S. for the World Cup, Olympics or other major sporting events determined by the U.S. secretary of state Afghan Special Immigrant Visa holders who worked for the U.S. government or its allies during the war in Afghanistan Children adopted by U.S. citizens Diplomats and foreign government officials or representatives of international organizations and NATO on official visits Foreign national employees of the U.S. government who have served abroad for at least 15 years, their spouses and children Individuals with U.S. family members who apply for visas in connection to their spouses, children or parents Iranians belonging to an ethnic or religious minority who are fleeing prosecution Refugees who were granted asylum or admitted to the U.S. before the ban Those traveling to the United Nations headquarters in New York solely on official business The announcement angered humanitarian groups working to resettle refugees. 'President Trump's new travel ban is discriminatory, racist, and downright cruel,' Amnesty International USA said in a statement posted to X. 'By targeting people based on their nationality, this ban only spreads disinformation and hate.' "This policy is not about national security,' Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America, said in a statement. 'It is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States." 'To include Afghanistan—a nation whose people stood alongside American service members for 20 years—is a moral disgrace,' Shawn VanDiver, president and board chairman of #AfghanEvac, said in a statement. 'It spits in the face of our allies, our veterans, and every value we claim to uphold.' The African Union Commission released a statement expressing concern about 'the potential negative impact' of the ban on educational exchange, commerce and engagement and the 'broader diplomatic relations that have been carefully nurtured over decades.' The commission said it 'respectfully calls upon the U.S. Administration to consider adopting a more consultative approach and to engage in constructive dialogue with the countries concerned.' The new travel ban is similar to the one Trump imposed in January 2017, his first month in office. That ban restricted travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. (Syria and Iraq are not included on the new list.) It went into effect via an executive order with virtually no notice, causing chaos at airports nationwide and prompting numerous legal challenges. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a version of it in 2018. Stephen Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, told the New York Times that the new ban is more likely to withstand legal scrutiny 'They seem to have learned some lessons from the three different rounds of litigation we went through during the first Trump administration,' Vladeck said. 'But a lot will depend upon how it's actually enforced.'

Senate duo seeks to boost security clearance process
Senate duo seeks to boost security clearance process

The Hill

timean hour ago

  • The Hill

Senate duo seeks to boost security clearance process

Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) are unveiling legislation to change the security clearance process after President Trump revoked clearances for high-profile opponents, including former President Biden. Their bill, dubbed the Integrity in Security Clearance Determinations Act, would bar any administration from revoking a clearance for political purposes or over retribution. 'Americans should be able to have confidence that the security clearance process is focused solely on protecting our nation's most sensitive information,' said Warner, the Intelligence Committee's ranking member. 'This bipartisan legislation will make clear that this vital system cannot be weaponized for political retribution.' Collins said in a statement that Americans 'should have the utmost confidence in the integrity of the security clearance process.' 'The security clearance system is critical to protecting our country from harm and safeguarding access to our most classified information,' the Maine Republican said. 'This bipartisan bill would make the current system fairer and more transparent by ensuring that decisions to grant, deny, or revoke clearances are based solely on codified guidelines.' The legislation would also preclude agencies from wielding clearances to punish whistleblowers or to discriminate. In addition, the blueprint also codifies the ability for government employees to appeal clearance revocations or denials and for background on those appeals to be released publicly. The bill was first introduced in 2019. The reintroduction also comes after Biden previously revoked Trump's clearance following the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

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