‘The process was working well': ICE detainees no longer held in Baldwin County Jail
BAY MINETTE, Ala. (WKRG) — The Trump Administration's crackdown on illegal immigration has hit a detour in Baldwin County.
UPDATE: New details on crash that killed Okaloosa County pageant queen
The jail in Bay Minette can no longer house detainees picked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers without local charges. Instead, they have to be driven to Louisiana or Mississippi.
Federal 'Immigration enforcement actions' have ramped up around the country and here at home. In the past month, detainees arrested by ICE agents would be held in Bay Minette at the Baldwin County Jail but not anymore.
'We don't have the ability to provide these things that these people that are illegally in the country are allowed to have, a rec yard,' said Baldwin County Sheriff Anthony Lowery.
The corrections center failed inspections in 2023 and 2024 because of the lack of an exercise yard. So, after two weeks of ICE agents bringing around 100 detainees to Bay Minette, now they go directly to Louisiana or Mississippi.
Florida man arrested after deadly shooting in Escambia County: Sheriff's Office
'Officers aren't investigating cases, they are not out working crime,' said Lowery, 'they are transporting.'
Lowery has been in touch with Alabama's legislative delegation in Washington, D.C.
'They had found out what the cause was. Essentially in 23 or 24, Congress passed a bill that had a rider on there that said that if you failed two consecutive ICE inspections you could no longer house ICE inmates,' said Lowery
It will literally take an act of Congress or an executive order by the President to change that. 'It is adding cost and it's adding time,' added Lowery. 'The process was working well.'
The detainees can only be held for up to 72 hours. They were bused from Bay Minette to Louisiana on Tuesdays and Fridays for a bond hearing.
Pensacola police plan to increase parade security this Mardi Gras season
Now, they go directly to Louisiana for their initial appearance and schedule a deportation hearing in Atlanta that could take up to two years.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
18 minutes ago
- Axios
Scoop: Trump pressed to take hard line with Iran after Israel strikes
A group of pro-Israel members of Congress is urging President Trump to ensure "zero enrichment, zero pathway to a nuclear weapon" in negotiations with Iran, Axios has learned. Why it matters: The lawmakers — including a Republican, Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) — said Israel's strikes against Iranian nuclear sites and other military targets has created a "renewed sense of urgency" on the issue. "This decisive action comes after two months of unsuccessful diplomatic attempts and represents a critical chance to stop the Iranian regime from acquiring a nuclear weapon," they wrote in a letter to Trump first obtained by Axios. The White House did not immediately respond to Axios' Saturday afternoon request for comment on the letter. Driving the news: The letter is led by Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), a staunchly pro- Israel centrist Democrat, and signed by seven other House Democrats, in addition to Bacon. The nine lawmakers noted that the two-month deadline which Trump set in March for reaching a nuclear deal arrived on Thursday — the day Israel launched its strike. They urged him to add "crushing diplomatic pressure ... to Israel's military pressure" by working with European countries to impose "Snapback" sanctions on Iran for being out of compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal. What they're saying: Trump told Axios' Barak Ravid on Friday that he believes Israel's strike improved the chance of reaching a nuclear agreement with Iran. "I couldn't get them to a deal in 60 days. They were close, they should have done it. Maybe now it will happen," he said. But Iran's foreign minister said that nuclear talks planned for Sunday have been cancelled, and Trump said Saturday that the war between Israel and Iran "should end."
The Hill
35 minutes ago
- The Hill
Republicans' stunning flip flops on ‘national emergencies'
In February, President Trump issued executive orders raising tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico. In April, he slapped a 50 percent tariff on countries that the U.S. has a trade deficit with and a minimum 10 percent tariff on all others. The administration claimed that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1997 gives the president the authority to declare a national emergency and take immediate action to protect the country. Illicit trafficking in fentanyl along with threats to border security allegedly justified the tariffs imposed on China, Canada and Mexico. America's large trade deficit was the justification for the 'Liberation Day' tariffs imposed on countries throughout the world. Trump's actions marked the first time the International Emergency Economic Powers Act has been used to increase tariffs. Last month, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court on International Trade (comprised of Reagan, Obama and Trump appointees) declared that Trump had overstepped his authority. The tariffs, the judges noted, were not relevant to reducing fentanyl trafficking or illegal immigration. And since the U.S. has had a trade deficit for each of the last 47 years, it is difficult to argue that it constitutes a national emergency. A few days later, an appeals court allowed the administration to continue to collect tariffs while litigation moves through the courts. In the meantime, the silence from Republican members of Congress — the body which, according to Article I of the Constitution, alone has the authority to raise and spend revenue — is deafening. It is worth noting that before Jan. 20, 2025, many of congressional Republicans endorsed a proposal limiting the president's power to act unilaterally by declaring national emergencies. In 2019, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced the 'Article One Act.' The bill would have terminated all national emergency declarations after 30 days unless both houses of Congress voted to extend them. Calling for 'real action, as opposed to symbolic show votes that don't address the root of the problem,' Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) signed on as a cosponsor. Fifteen senators, including nine Republicans, signed a bipartisan letter urging Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to have the full Senate consider the Article One Act. The aim of the legislation, the letter indicated, 'is simple but fundamental: Congress cannot continue to cede its powers to another branch, regardless of who is president, and which party holds a majority.' Members of Congress 'who are troubled by emergency declarations,' Lee emphasized, 'only have themselves to blame.' Nothing happened. In 2023, Lee reintroduced the Article One Act. 'Law-making by proclamation,' he asserted, 'runs directly counter to the vision of our Founders and undermines the safeguards protecting our freedom. It is high time that Congress reclaimed the legislative power and restored constitutional balance to our system.' Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), as he endorsed the Article One Act in the House, reminded his colleagues that 'the presidency was never meant to have monarchical power over the American people.' The legislation did not get a floor vote in either chamber. Executive orders and national emergency declarations — used all too frequently by Obama, Trump and Biden to bypass Congress — pose a clear and present danger to the system of checks and balances that has served this country well for over 200 years. And the problem of executive overreach is getting worse. In the first 100 days of his second term, Trump has issued executive orders and declared national emergencies at a faster pace than any president in modern history. But Republicans in Congress no longer seem troubled by executive orders based on emergency declarations. In March, Lee introduced a bill that differed dramatically in substance and tone from the Article One Act. The 'Restraining Judicial Insurrectionists Act of 2025' mandated that a three-judge panel review all lower court injunctions against the president and grants of declaratory relief, followed by an expedited appeal to the Supreme Court. 'American government cannot function if the legitimate orders of our commander-in-chief can be overruled at the whim of a single district judge,' Lee declared. In April, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) refused to permit a floor vote to repeal Trump's 'reciprocal tariffs.' Every president, 'no matter the party,' Johnson opined, has 'a broad degree of latitude' over trade. The Senate rejected a similar measure with a 49-49 vote; neither Lee, Grassley nor any other Republican who signed onto the 2019 Article One Act letter supported the legislation. Justice Anthony Kennedy warned in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), the case declaring the line-item veto to be unconstitutional, that the separation of powers is violated and liberty is threatened when spending is 'determined by the executive alone' and the president has the power 'to reward one group and punish another, help one set of taxpayers and hurt another, favor one State and ignore another.' Clearly, many congressional Republicans agree. But if they continue to choose partisan self-interest over principle, voters will have good reason to blame them — and the Trump administration — for the weakening of our democratic institutions. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University.
Bloomberg
41 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Pell Grants Are an Engine of Social Mobility. Don't Cut Them.
To preserve tax cuts for the wealthy, the Republican budget reconciliation proposals moving through Congress cut programs for the neediest in ways that will lead to higher costs for everyone in the long run. The plans include not only cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, but also to Pell Grants, the program that provides federal assistance for higher education. The first Pell Grant was awarded in 1973 and since then has helped millions of low-income students attend college. The grants overwhelmingly go to the poorest households — only 6% of Pell Grant recipients come from families that earn over $60,000 annually. The program's reputation as an engine of social mobility has long given it bipartisan support — but now, the Senate's plan will harm the lowest-income recipients by reducing the eligibility of working students.
