As news of immigration court arrests spread, some migrants weigh self-deporting
A young Venezuelan mother attending a check-in at Dallas' immigration court Monday said her fear right now is that she'll be deported, and her five-year-old son will be left to fend for himself.
"El juez dijo que mi próxima cita en la corte es el primero de octubre de 2025 y que vendré sola. Si ese día me ordenan deportarme, ¿dónde quedará mi hijo, en manos de quién?"
"The judge said my next court date is the first of October 2025, and to come by myself," she said in Spanish. "If that day I'm ordered deported, where will my son stay, in whose hands?"
As she walked into the courtroom on Monday, the woman was stopped by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in plainclothes. He was there as part of an operation to detain two other migrants that morning, not her.
But the experience still left her nervous and validated her growing fear that coming to this country the way she did wasn't worth it.
""Es mejor no venir. Todos esperamos tener mejor suerte, pero no todos podemos venir. Es demasiado complicado".
"It's better not to come," she said. "We all hope for better luck, but we can't all come. It's too complicated."
When her court date arrives in four months, she said she plans to have already self-deported.
The new tactic: Immigration court arrests
Two weeks ago, the Trump administration began carrying out its latest tactic aimed at fast-tracking deportations and clearing the immigration court backlog.
Under the direction of the Department of Homeland Security, ICE attorneys are now dropping cases against some migrants who have arrived in the U.S. in the past two years, removing their temporary protected status, and making them immediately eligible for arrest and deportation. The migrants are then arrested as they leave their hearings and detained for expedited removal from the U.S.
ICE agents in plainclothes arrest a migrant at the Dallas federal courthouse moments after an immigration judge dropped his asylum case.
CBS News Texas
While expedited removals are nothing new, some legal experts said this way of carrying them out is.
"This is really unprecedented that you have this coordination between the immigration court, between the ICE attorneys, between ERO to dismiss these cases for the purpose of putting people in expedited removal procedures and removing them quickly," said immigration attorney Paul Hunker, who formerly served as chief counsel for ICE in Dallas."
Expedited removal has historically been applied to migrants caught near the border, not long after entering the country. But in January, President Donald Trump issued an executive order expanding its scope.
"Constitutionally, it's premised on a procedure for an arriving alien, somebody who just got here and doesn't have ties," Hunker said. "The longer someone's been here, the more ties they have to the country, the better argument they have that the expedited procedure doesn't give them their due process."
Hunker said if he had been asked in his former role if expedited removal should be expanded in this way, he would have said the big problem with this tactic is it applies expedited removal to people that it really wasn't meant to be applied to. He said
"I would say it's a bad idea because there's a significant risk courts are going to say that's illegal to do," Hunker said.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has stated this move is an attempt to reverse the former administration's so-called "catch-and-release" policy that it says allowed "millions of unvetted illegal aliens to be let loose on American streets."
In an emailed statement, a senior DHS spokesperson emailed CBS News Texas:
"Most aliens who illegally entered the United States within the past two years are subject to expedited removals. Biden ignored this legal fact and chose to release millions of illegal aliens, including violent criminals, into the country with a notice to appear before an immigration judge. ICE is now following the law and placing these illegal aliens in expedited removal, as they always should have been."
The statement goes on to say that migrants with valid, credible fear claims will be allowed to continue immigration proceedings.
But as news spreads of these courthouse arrests, immigrant advocates say more migrants will choose to skip their court check-ins, leading to them receiving automatic removal orders.
"Which might be part of why the Trump administration is doing this," Hunker said. "Because once a person has a removal order, it's much easier for ICE to pick them up and remove them."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
9 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Trump Is Having Trouble Prosecuting His Enemies
In November 2017, less than a year into his first term as president, Donald Trump publicly confronted a depressing reality. The traditions of Justice Department independence, he lamented in a radio interview, limited his ability to order an investigation of Hillary Clinton. It was 'the saddest thing,' he said. 'I'm not supposed to be doing the kind of things I would love to be doing, and I am very frustrated by it.' This time around, Trump is not similarly encumbered. During the interregnum between his terms, MAGA's would-be philosophers built out the intellectual architecture for a presidential takeover of the Justice Department. Once Trump was back in office, the new administration set about filling DOJ leadership with loyalists and firing anyone who might object to abuses of power. The president, insistent that he was the victim of persecution by federal law enforcement, now seeks to turn the same apparatus against his enemies. In a representative Truth Social post last month, he shared an AI-generated video of Barack Obama being handcuffed by FBI agents and dragged out of the Oval Office. But Trump's plan to leverage the DOJ for his campaign of revenge is not generating the results he might have hoped for, and not just because Obama remains a free man. The Justice Department has been slow to move forward with the investigations Trump demanded, hemmed in by the constraints of the legal system. Federal prosecutors targeting protesters and Democratic politicians have been dealt embarrassing defeats. American criminal law appears to be a less flexible tool in the hands of an authoritarian than Trump hoped—at least for now. Attorney General Pam Bondi identified herself right away as an enthusiastic participant in the president's personal-retribution project, launching a 'Weaponization Working Group' in February that would examine past investigations of Trump. In recent weeks, the department appears to have moved toward a potential criminal investigation of officials involved in the 2016 probe of Russian election interference. Outside the Justice Department, the Office of Special Counsel has opened an investigation into Jack Smith, the former special counsel who, from 2022 to 2024, oversaw the two federal criminal prosecutions of Trump for potential violations of the Hatch Act, which restricts political activities by government employees. (Despite its name, the Office of Special Counsel is an independent agency with no relationship to Smith's old shop.) Jonathan Chait: Trump's desperate move to quiet the Epstein scandal This is one model of law enforcement as a weapon: specific targeting of preexisting villains. Around the country, meanwhile, federal prosecutors handpicked by Trump are experimenting with another: cracking down on dissent. Anti-ICE protesters, and even Democratic elected officials pushing for oversight of immigration enforcement, have faced criminal charges. Attorney General Robert Jackson famously warned in 1940 that the federal prosecutor 'has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America.' Still, prosecutorial authority has limits. A prosecutor has to find a crime to charge in the first place. If the offense is serious enough, the prosecutor must also be able to persuade a grand jury to issue an indictment. And if the defendant refuses to plead guilty, the prosecutor must persuade a petit jury to convict. These are far from insurmountable barriers; on the contrary, as criminal-justice reformers have long argued, the deck is stacked in favor of the prosecution. But the Trump administration keeps tripping up on them anyway. After June protests against ICE raids in Los Angeles, the office of Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli filed more than 35 felony prosecutions, mostly for alleged assault of federal officers. But the Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg report that prosecutors were unable to persuade a grand jury to indict in several cases, as is required for felony charges. Court records show that in the weeks following the protests, the office moved to dismiss at least eight cases and downgraded another five to misdemeanors. (In one instance, the office charged a case as a felony, dropped it to a misdemeanor, and then recharged it as a felony a month and a half later, this time with an indictment in hand. Prosecutors have secured indictments in at least 12 cases, though two of those were later dismissed and a third indictment originally identified the defendant by the wrong name.) For context, in 2016, the last year for which data are available, the Bureau of Justice Statistics recorded only six refusals by grand juries out of roughly 180,000 cases pursued by federal prosecutors around the country. In more ordinary times, the old saying that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich is not far off. On the opposite coast, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey has dealt with an embarrassment of its own. The office's interim leader, Alina Habba (until recently one of Trump's personal lawyers), filed trespassing charges against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka after he attempted to visit an ICE detention facility in his city. 'NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW,' Habba trumpeted on X. Two weeks later, however, prosecutors moved to dismiss the charges. The magistrate judge handling the case chastened the office over its failure to 'thoughtfully consider the implications of your actions before wielding your immense power.' (Baraka, sitting in the courtroom during the hearing, was overheard commenting afterward, 'Jesus, he tore these people a new asshole.') Bondi, meanwhile, is struggling to respond to the president's demands to prosecute people involved in perpetrating what Trump calls the 'Russia hoax.' The biggest challenge there is that there was no hoax; as both Special Counsel Robert Mueller and a bipartisan Senate intelligence report concluded, Russia really did try to help Trump win the 2016 election. For that matter, even if the Justice Department could somehow identify a crime, any number of legal issues could trip up a prosecution—including the fact that the conduct in question took place almost 10 years ago, well past the typical five-year window for charging an offense. According to The New York Times, the attorney general was caught unawares by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's release of documents from 2016, and displeased about the political pressure from the right to launch an investigation in response. Despite an exciting headline from Fox News—'DOJ Launching Grand Jury Investigation Into Russiagate Conspiracy Allegations'—all Bondi appears to have done is ask prosecutors to possibly present grand jurors with evidence. When a grand jury will actually convene, and indeed whether it ever will, is not clear. Bondi's hedging on Russia hints at a broader awareness within the Justice Department that securing indictments, much less guilty verdicts, may be a problem. In May, Ed Martin, the crusading Trump supporter who is now leading the Justice Department's Weaponization Working Group, suggested that if the department were unable to charge 'bad actors' with crimes, it would settle for naming and shaming them publicly. (This would be a departure from long-running department policy, which holds that 'no legitimate governmental interest' is served by publicly voicing allegations against individuals without an accompanying criminal case.) Similarly, the investigation of Jack Smith might be a tacit admission of how little the administration has to go on here: The harshest penalty that the Office of Special Counsel could demand would be Smith's dismissal from government service, but he has already resigned. Shane Harris: The 'Russia hoax,' revisited These challenges are similar to ones that Trump ran into during his first term. In fact, the FBI's 2016 election-interference investigation was already the subject of an investigation by Special Counsel John Durham, which began in 2019. Despite MAGA hype, Durham's probe was a flop: He brought three criminal cases concerning alleged wrongdoing around the Russia investigation, two of which ended in acquittals by juries. (A third led to a former FBI lawyer being sentenced to probation after pleading guilty to having altered an email.) And a shaky criminal probe into former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, whom Trump had seized on as a symbol of the nefarious 'deep state,' quietly ground to a halt without charges being filed. It's difficult to say exactly what happened in the McCabe case because of strict rules around grand-jury secrecy, but one possibility is that jurors declined to issue an indictment. Still, the jury system will not always act as a defense against abuses. The same day that Baraka's case was dismissed, Habba announced her intent to indict Democratic Representative LaMonica McIver for 'forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers' when attempting to shield Baraka from arrest. A grand jury returned the indictment. McIver has pleaded not guilty, but others might make different calculations: The overwhelming majority of criminal cases end with plea deals, because defendants decide against taking their chances in court. Meanwhile, the Justice Department recently sent out grand-jury subpoenas targeting New York Attorney General Letitia James over investigations by her office into Trump and the National Rifle Association. Fox News reports that another investigation may be under way into Trump's claims of supposed mortgage fraud by James and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff. Even if the harassment of James and Schiff goes nowhere, criminal investigations like these can be a grueling experience for the defendant, especially given the enormous cost of paying for a defense lawyer. A jury is in essence a democratic institution, requiring citizens to exercise their judgment in a model of shared deliberation that is at odds with Trump's autocratic tendencies. In the colonial era, grand juries sometimes refused to indict protesters against the Crown; in the decades before the Civil War, both grand and petit juries nullified prosecutions under the Fugitive Slave Act. Yet although the American jury system can be a powerful tool in the fight for self-government, it has not always been a reliable one. Juries also helped build the foundations of the Jim Crow South by shielding white Southerners from legal accountability for racial terror. So far, the system has held up against Trump's encroachment. But the rapid erosion of democratic life in the United States over the past six months is a reminder of how quickly things can change.
The Intercept
an hour ago
- The Intercept
ICE Deportation Airline Avelo Relies on Blue-State Subsidies. Will Dem Governors Do Anything About It?
Thousands of people around the country have joined a boycott of a passenger airline profiting off President Donald Trump's mass deportation machine. Now, activists are calling on Democratic elected officials to put pressure on Avelo Airlines, the Houston-based low-cost carrier at the center of the controversy, by ending subsidies and airport leases until it cuts off U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They are making headway in places like New Haven, Connecticut, which has forbidden its employees from using city funds on Avelo. Elsewhere, however, activists have received the silent treatment from officials like Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, whom they have asked to cancel Avelo's contract to fly out of the Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport. 'There is such a deep need right now for anybody in power to stand up to Trump in a meaningful way.' Since mid-May when it began flying for ICE Air, Avelo operated 10 percent of the agency's deportation flights, according to aviation researcher Tom Cartwright, and 20 percent of ICE flights overall. (Avelo did not respond to a request for comment.) It's an effort that draws direct inspiration from the Tesla Takedown movement, which belatedly received support from Democratic elected officials after weeks of grassroots anger. Ryan Harvey, an organizer based in Baltimore, say Avelo's role in deportation flights gives Democratic leaders a chance to lead. 'There is such a deep need right now for anybody in power to stand up to Trump in a meaningful way and do something real, do something with a little bit of guts behind it,' said Harvey. 'And this is an easy one, because they can just do it.' Long before Trump began his second term, Immigration and Customs Enforcement relied on contract carriers for deportation charter flights. Until recently, those carriers did not offer regular passenger service. In April, however, Avelo announced that it was adding ICE flights to a roster that had previously consisted mostly of cheap flights between mid-sized cities and vacation destinations. The move was born out of necessity, Avelo claimed. With its passenger business failing to turn a profit, it had to turn to ICE to stay afloat. What happened next may have caught Avelo off-guard. While the airline acknowledged that its move would be controversial, its decision has been received by a full-fledged protest movement involving dozens of protests at airports nationwide, along with calls for consumers to boycott the airline. 'They're a financially strapped company to begin with,' said Matthew Boulay, an organizer with the national Coalition to Stop Avelo. 'They take the ICE contract out of, essentially, desperation. It's blood money. And now they are finding, I think, unexpected resistance and protest.' The concerns center on the conditions on ICE's deportation flights, the rushed process for deportations under Trump, and the final destinations in places like El Salvador. Despite the burgeoning movement, it remains unclear whether the boycott has affected Avelo's bottom line. Seth Miller, an aviation industry analyst and New Hampshire state representative who has been critical of Avelo's work for ICE, said it is hard to piece out the effect of the boycott from the generally dismal economic conditions for low-cost carriers. 'Boycotts are hard to make work and win,' Miller said. 'Even the best of them take time. It remains to be seen how much time Avelo has. There has been relatively public news about their financials being pretty dire, but they haven't collapsed yet.' Read Our Complete Coverage Activists have now launched a second front in their pressure campaign. They are asking politicians to eliminate the subsidies that cities and states dole out to airlines like Avelo to serve smaller markets — unless and until the airline reverses course on its ICE contract. 'It can add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not a million, in value.' Avelo appears to rely more than most on those subsidies, its critics say. By scouring public records, they have discovered a network of direct or indirect subsidies that have included jet fuel tax exemptions in Connecticut, New York, and Delaware; minimum revenue guarantees in places like Daytona Beach, Florida; and money spent on marketing Avelo flights in cities like Wilmington, North Carolina. 'It can add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not a million, in value,' Miller said. 'When you're running on a shoestring, it can make a huge difference.' In places like Delaware, the subsidies have helped return passenger service to airports that lacked it for years. Yet activists say that the moral pitfalls of partnering with Avelo have grown too glaring to ignore. In Connecticut, advocates drew the support of officials such as Attorney General William Tong and have succeeded in blocking an extension of the airline's jet fuel tax exemption. New Haven has also barred public employees from using city funds to fly with Avelo Airlines. Advocates targeting Avelo have found mixed success elsewhere. Delaware Gov. Matt Meyer said in April that he would not fly on Avelo flights personally. Yet the Delaware River and Bay Authority, which operates the Wilmington Airport in Delaware, is in the middle of a $9.8 million expansion meant to attract further flights from Avelo, according to a report last month in the Philadelphia Business Journal. (Meyer and New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, Democrats who each appoint half of the authority's board members, did not respond to requests for comment.) The authority 'neither supports nor opposes Avelo's operations,' its communications director said in a statement. 'The DRBA's role is to administer its public use facility in a lawful, equitable and non-discriminatory manner. More specifically, the DRBA is required to permit operations by any commercial carrier that meets applicable regulatory requirements,' said James Salmon. Salmon said no tax dollars are involved in the authority's spending, which relies on user fees like bridge tolls. The protesters have also faced muted responses in places like North Carolina. 'Most of the electeds have stayed quiet,' said John Herrmann, who's been involved in the Wilmington campaign against the airline as part of the local chapter of the liberal activist group Indivisible. 'We expected more leadership from the Democratic Party to take on Avelo.' Faced with such indifference, the activists and elected officials joining forces to put pressure on Avelo say they are girding for what could be a long battle. 'We expected more leadership from the Democratic Party to take on Avelo.' In Maryland, activists have not found evidence that the state aviation administration subsidizes Avelo. Using a public records request, however, they have unearthed a contract which they say shows that the state can terminate Avelo's right to use BWI for any reason with a 30-day notice. More than 2,000 people have signed a petition asking Moore, the governor who is considered a rising star in the Democratic Party, to do just that. So far, they have not heard back, according to Harvey. A Maryland Aviation Administration spokesperson referred a request for comment to Avelo, while adding that the airline flies 'a handful of weekly commercial flights to two domestic destinations.' In New York, Democratic state Sen. Patricia Fahy introduced legislation that could cut off the fuel tax exemption for Avelo, but it did not receive a vote before the state Legislature adjourned for the year. Unless the Legislature returns for a special session, it could be until January until lawmakers take up consideration of her bill and others again. While it does not appear that Avelo has conducted deportations from Albany or the other airports in the state where it offers passenger flights, Fahy said she will fight to keep her bill on the legislative agenda. 'I go to sleep at night and wake up in the morning thinking what more can I do to call out what really is a travesty on our constitutional rights and the rule of law,' she said. 'Democrats need to do more. I feel that we are slowly getting more support. Or maybe, rapidly getting more support.'
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Your Financial Portfolio Might Be Funding Immigration Prisons
Rats running across sandwich bread. Seventy people in a crowded bunk room without air conditioning with outside temperatures nearing 90 degrees. A woman begging for four and a half months to see a doctor for suspected colon cancer, and still she waits. Another woman finally granted a doctor's visit, only to be sexually assaulted. These are some of the horror stories we heard during our recent visit to ICE detention centers across Louisiana, many of which are run by the notorious GEO Group, a private prison operator. These stories aren't the exception. These facilities, mostly located in remote towns far from legal aid or media scrutiny, are the frontlines of a growing humanitarian crisis. Razor wire is seen. Razor wire is the start of the second Trump administration, the federal government has shuttled more than 40,000 people through immigration detention centers across Louisiana in an effort to make the state the "FedEx" of immigration enforcement, likening people to packages. These detentions have subjected staggering volumes of people to human rights abuses, including the denial of drinkable water, confinement in filthy conditions, withholding of basic medical care, and physical and sexual abuse. Americans across the country have taken to the streets protesting the Trump administration's cruel immigration policies. But opponents of those policies may be unwittingly supporting them. How? Through their investment portfolios. Profit Drives the Immigration Agenda The president's mass deportation agenda relies on an expansive immigration detention network run by for-profit companies, such as The GEO Group. After donating $1 million to the president's election campaign, GEO now expects Trump's cruel policies to boost its annual revenue by $400 million. If you have a retirement account, you may very well be invested in The GEO Group. For many of us, the default option in our retirement accounts is a target date fund, many of which invest in GEO Group and other for-profit prison companies. Among the top investors in GEO Group overall are several common index funds that you may hold. Those investments provide the resources that GEO Group uses to lock up hundreds of thousands of people each year. GEO Group maximizes profits by running virtual indentured labor camps and scrimping on basic health and safety measures, leading to poor medical care, inhumane conditions, and deaths. But these business practices aren't just ethically dubious. They create serious financial risks for investors in the form of costly legal and reputational liabilities. How To Divest From GEO Group—and Others That Profit off Detainees GEO Group—and other private prison operators like CoreCivic—benefit from our 401(k)s and other resources we place into index funds. If you are one of the many people shocked and appalled by our privately driven immigration system, or even if you're simply concerned about serious financial risks inherent in the private prison model, here are a few things you can do to keep your money from being used against your values: —The first thing to do is understand where your money is going. If you have a 401(k), pension or other institutional investment through index funds or similar, you should look closely at where, exactly, your money ends up. Your employer or broker can give you detailed information on which companies make up your investment portfolio. —Once you have a better understanding of your investments, you can make different choices with your money. Contact your financial service firm or brokerage account provider to see if it offers investment options that exclude private prison companies. —The real challenge is that many private prisons—like GEO Group and CoreCivic—are listed on the S&P 500, which includes the largest companies on the U.S. stock market. By investing in index funds that replicate the S&P 500, you are investing in all of the businesses included in it, including private prison companies. Convincing financial products companies to offer products that exclude private prisons will require a large amount of advocacy. In the meantime, investors can consider financial products like the FREE Index (FREEIN), a publicly available index that identifies and tracks companies who lead in fair chance hiring and disrupt the prison industrial complex, without sacrificing returns. Groups such as the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights and Prison Free Funds have also developed campaigns to divest from private prisons, including tools to support individuals to understand what is included in investment portfolios and offer other advocacy steps they can take. The Trump administration's cruel detention network ultimately relies on our financial support. Pulling our money from privatized immigration detention can help save lives, shut these inhumane detention centers down, and even contribute to more sustainable investment returns. Invest your money in ways that don't harm the causes you support. That, too, is using your voice for good. Kerry Kennedy is a human rights activist, lawyer, and president of Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights. Alanah Odoms is the executive director of ACLU of Louisiana. The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
