California must fund legal aid for immigrant children facing deportation
California has long stood as a progressive stalwart in the United States. During the first Trump administration, our communities and elected officials rallied together to put forth a progressive agenda that was equal parts unifying and galvanizing.
However, the state's response to Trump 2.0 may jettison critical opportunities to support the legal protection and due process needs of vulnerable communities and fail to meet the urgency of the moment. This includes failing to rally around populations that are being targeted by the new administration, including unaccompanied immigrant children whose legal support is in jeopardy following devastating funding cuts at the federal level.
The Acacia Center for Justice has developed and supported various programs that ensure unaccompanied children have access to needed legal and social services. In California, we partnered with the state to pilot the Children's Holistic Immigration Representation Project (CHIRP), which provides holistic legal advocacy for unaccompanied children at risk of deportation, with an emphasis on trauma-informed intervention to ensure that unaccompanied minors have legal services and appropriate wrap-around support.
Opinion
Despite the success of the model, it has yet to receive permanent support from the state of California. This means it will run out of funding on June 30.
CHIRP's uncertain future has been exacerbated by the fact that the new federal administration terminated existing funding allocated to support immigrant children in California, leaving thousands of children on their own in the middle of their deportation proceedings. In the wake of this crisis, we hope the California legislature and governor recognize this as an opportunity to exercise critical leadership to protect thousands of children across our communities.
Several offices are meeting the moment to address some of the most pressing challenges our communities face. In February, Assemblymember Mia Bonta, D-Oakland, introduced Assembly Bill 1261, a bill that seeks to codify the right to counsel for unaccompanied children. This bill is an important step in the right direction, but it must be paired with an investment in existing programs serving unaccompanied children like CHIRP.
Without a committed investment, this well-meaning effort will fall far short of accomplishing its goal of protecting vulnerable children forced to face a judicial process on their own.
For years, the California Department of Social Services has invested in programs like CHIRP to develop a patchwork of safety and support and set the groundwork for a right to counsel for unaccompanied children. Ensuring that CHIRP gets the support it deserves is essential to making sure the promise of a right to counsel for children can become a reality. Without funding, that 7-year old boy sitting on the wooden bench in the courtroom, waiting for his case to be called, will have to continue to defend himself in immigration court without an advocate by his side.
Protecting due process for these children presents an important opportunity to showcase leadership and strategic vision that would galvanize an exhausted and disillusioned base working to protect their communities from frightening enforcement efforts. California can draw an important line in the sand about what values we seek to uphold, and how we can stand in solidarity with the most vulnerable members of our state.
Unfortunately, Gov. Gavin Newsom's May Revise failed to include a much-needed increase in funding for immigration legal services. However, the opportunity remains for the legislature to exercise this leadership by ensuring that programs like CHIRP have the funding they need to continue, and that there is a sustainable plan to provide legal support for unaccompanied children and all vulnerable individuals at risk of deportation.
This investment will not only pay off for the state of California and its residents, it will also give California lawmakers and our communities a much needed win.
Shaina Aber is executive director of the Acacia Center for Justice.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
11 minutes ago
- CNN
How Kilmar Abrego Garcia's case became a political flashpoint
Kilmar Abrego Garcia's case started quietly, boiling down to a clerical error that moved him up on a list to land on a deportation flight destined to El Salvador in March. And then a court filing from the Trump Justice Department acknowledging the mistake brought it to the national forefront – culminating in a fraught legal battle and heated political debate. On Friday, the Trump administration announced that Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who had resided in Maryland until he was mistakenly deported to his home country, landed in the United States, and was facing criminal charges. It was an extraordinary development in a case that's come to define the president's hardline immigration policies and a striking about-face from the Trump administration, which had maintained he would not return to the US. At the start of the legal battle, nearly three months ago, both sides agreed that Abrego Garcia's deportation to El Salvador – and subsequent imprisonment in the country's notorious mega-prison – was a mistake. In 2019, an immigration judge granted Abrego Garcia withholding of removal, meaning he couldn't be removed to El Salvador over fear of persecution. A senior Immigration and Customs Enforcement official called his removal an 'administrative error' in a March court declaration, appearing to mark the first time the administration had conceded an error over the controversial flights to El Salvador that resulted in the detention of hundreds of migrants in the CECOT prison. But then, Trump administration officials publicly abandoned that position and called Abrego Garcia 'a terrorist,' because they allege he is a member of MS-13, which the US has designated as a terrorist organization. His attorneys and family maintain that he was not a member of MS-13 and have argued that he is still entitled to due process. Here's how Abrego Garcia's case played out over the last few months. Abrego Garcia, who came to the United States illegally in 2012, first had an encounter with immigration authorities in 2019 after an arrest. At the time, the government similarly argued that Abrego Garcia was a gang member while he made the case that he feared a possible return to El Salvador. The immigration judge presiding over the case sided with Abrego Garcia and ruled that he may not be deported back to El Salvador. Years later, on March 12, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement pulled over Abrego Garcia and arrested him, which came as the Trump administration continued its aggressive crackdown on immigration. Abrego Garcia was then mistakenly put on a deportation flight three days later and sent to CECOT. It took the Trump administration weeks to concede that it mistakenly deported the Maryland father to El Salvador 'because of an administrative error.' But while doing acknowledging the mistake, the administration said in court filings on March 31 that it could not return him because he was in Salvadoran custody. Later that week, Judge Paula Xinis of the US District Court in Maryland ordered the Trump administration to return Abrego Garcia to the US, kicking off a monthslong legal battle in which the Trump administration has argued that courts cannot intervene in the foreign policy decision-making of the United States. In her April 4 order, Xinis gave a deadline of April 7 to bring back Abrego Garcia but the Supreme Court paused the deadline. Days later, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's return but stopped short of requiring the government to return him. In recent weeks, Xinis has accused the Trump administration of repeated stonewalling and intentional noncompliance with its obligation to produce information related to how it has been facilitating Abrego Garcia's return. President Donald Trump, in an interview with ABC News in April, acknowledged that he could secure Abrego Garcia's return, contradicting previous remarks made by him and his his top aides who said the US did not have the ability to return Abrego Garcia because he was in the custody of a foreign government. When asked by ABC's Terry Moran why he can't just pick up the phone and secure Abrego Garcia's return, Trump said: 'And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that. But he is not.' The president went on to accuse Abrego Garcia of being a MS-13 member, pointing to his tattoos, which experts say are not by themselves proof he's a gang member. And just days later, the White House and El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele made clear during an Oval Office meeting that Abrego Garcia would not be returned to the US. Democratic lawmakers have been critical of how the Trump administration handled the Abrego Garcia case and continued to call for him to be brought back. One Democratic senator, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, flew down to El Salvador to meet with his constituent. After initially not being allowed to meet him, Van Hollen had a sit down with Abrego Garcia on April 17 and in a press conference a day later, the senator said Abrego Garcia told him he was traumatized. 'He said he was not afraid of the other prisoners in his immediate cell but that he was traumatized by being at CECOT and fearful of many of the prisoners in other cell blocks who called out to him and taunted him in various ways,' Van Hollen said. Van Hollen added that Abrego Garcia was moved a week earlier from the maximum-security prison to another detention center where 'conditions are better.' The Trump administration slammed the senator's visit, claiming Democrats and the media painted an overly rosy picture of Abrego Garcia. Meanwhile, the administration continued to portray him as a violent and dangerous criminal, releasing previously unshared documents stemming from two interactions Abrego Garcia had with law enforcement and the courts system: a 2019 arrest that didn't lead to charges or a conviction, but did result in his detention by immigration officials, and a 2021 protective order his wife filed against him alleging domestic violence, which she later decided against pursuing further after she said the couple had resolved their issues. Sources told CNN in late April that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had been in touch with Bukele about the detention of Abrego Garcia. A US official told CNN the Trump administration was working closely with El Salvador and asked for Abrego Garcia's return but insisted that Bukele had made clear that he was not returning him to the US. In early May, Tennessee state law enforcement released a video of a November 2022 traffic stop involving Abrego Garcia – an incident that US officials argue supports their claims that Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13 and involved in human trafficking. The video showed Abrego Garcia being stopped for speeding. When asked about other passengers in the car, Abrego Garcia tells the trooper he and the others are workers returning from a construction project in St. Louis, Missouri. When the trooper asked for his documents, Abrego Garcia explains in the video that his driver's license was expired and that he is waiting for immigration documents to renew it. He tells the officer the vehicle, which had a Texas license plate, belonged to his boss. The trooper then searches the car with a police canine. They do not appear to find anything suspicious, according to the video. Abrego Garcia was not detained during the stop and no charges were filed. Nearly three months after he was deported, Abrego Garcia on Friday returned to the US to face federal criminal charges. Abrego Garcia has been indicted on two criminal counts in the Middle District of Tennessee: conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens for financial gain and unlawful transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain. Trump administration officials pointed to the charges as justifying their effort to remove Abrego Garcia from the United States. Meanwhile, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, an attorney for Abrego Garcia, accused the Trump administration of 'playing games' with the legal system and said his client should appear in immigration court, not criminal court. 'The government disappeared Kilmar to a foreign prison in violation of a court order. Now, after months of delay and secrecy, they're bringing him back, not to correct their error but to prosecute him. This shows that they were playing games with the court all along,' Sandoval-Moshenberg said in a statement to CNN. 'Due process means the chance to defend yourself before you're punished, not after. This is an abuse of power, not justice.' Abrego Garcia will be in custody for at least a week, followed by an arraignment and detention hearing, the Associated Press reported.
26 minutes ago
US, Chinese officials to meet in London next week for new round of trade talks
WASHINGTON -- Senior U.S. administration officials will meet with a Chinese delegation on Monday in London for the next round of trade negotiations between Washington and Beijing, President Donald Trump said Friday. The meeting comes after a phone call between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Thursday, which the U.S. president described as a 'very positive' conversation as the two countries attempt to break an impasse over tariffs and global supplies of rare earth minerals. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer will represent the U.S. side in the trade talks. 'The meeting should go very well,' Trump wrote on his social media platform Friday afternoon. Speaking to reporters on Air Force One Friday, Trump said Xi had agreed to restart exports of rare earth minerals and magnets to the U.S. which China had slowed, threatening a range of U.S. manufacturers that relied on the critical materials. The was no immediate confirmation from China. The Thursday conversation between Trump and Xi, who lead the world's two biggest economies, lasted about an hour and a half, according to the U.S. president. The Chinese foreign ministry has said Trump initiated the call. The ministry said Xi asked Trump to 'remove the negative measures' that the U.S. has taken against China. It also said that Trump said 'the U.S. loves to have Chinese students coming to study in America,' although his administration has vowed to revoke some of their visas.
36 minutes ago
X users were glued to the Musk v. Trump blowup. Could this be good for the platform?
The blowup between the president of the United States and the world's richest man has played out on social media in real time, the latest, perhaps ultimate example of how X has become Elon Musk's personal platform, his own reality show where anyone can tune in to watch the mercurial twists and turns of his unpredictable personality. And tune in they did. The feud has birthed countless memes, hot takes and speculation, with some X users bringing out the popcorn emojis while rejoicing that the site has returned to its 'fun' roots — back when it was called Twitter. While it's not yet clear if the feud will have any permanent effects on X's audience size or advertising business, its owner reposted a meme late Thursday suggesting that, at least for now, it was good for getting active users to tune into the platform. CEO Linda Yaccarino agreed. 'X operates as a personality-driven platform, and Musk's high-profile conflicts can fuel engagement at least in the short term,' said Sarah Kreps, director of Cornell University's Tech Policy Institute. 'The platform has leaned into spectacle as a growth strategy, and controversy often drives traffic.' President Donald Trump, of course, posted through the breakup on his own personal platform, Truth Social with three updates targeting Musk directly on Thursday. But Truth Social's audience is just a fraction of X's, and social media experts at this stage don't see it siphoning the former Twitter's user base as a result of the feud. Trump was banned from Twitter in 2021 following the Jan. 6 riots on the Capitol and he returned more than 2.5 years later after Musk reinstated his account. On X, he has nearly 106 million followers — compared with less than 10 million on Truth Social, where he's continued to post following the feud — at least 10 times on Friday. 'It's a niche platform with limited reach outside Trump's core base,' Kreps said. 'That said, if Trump were to fully re-engage there and disengage from X entirely, it could fragment the right-wing audience somewhat. But barring major user migration, X still dominates in political discourse.' Trump hasn't indicated that he'd leave X — and Musk hasn't said he'd consider banning him — but the president has not posted on the site since June 3, although the official White House account has continued to send updates. According to Mobile app analytics firm Sensor Tower, X and Truth Social both saw mobile app usage skyrocket on Thursday as the Musk-Trump blowup played out on the two men's respective social platforms. U.S. mobile app active users on X between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. Eastern were up 54%, while Truth Social saw a fivefold increase. Overall, Sensor Tower estimates that X's audience is about 100 times larger than Truth Social's. On BlueSky, meanwhile, many users seemed to delight in watching the drama unfold on the platform they (mostly) left behind, posting screenshots from X, Truth Social as well as their own share of memes and commentary. But the site, which has welcomed users disillusioned with Musk's politics and policies on X, is unlikely to become a huge draw for Trump die-hards. 'It's too early to measure any long-term shifts in user behavior, but political audiences on X have tended to be resilient, even in the face of controversy,' Kreps said. 'Trump supporters are unlikely to abandon the platform en masse unless there's sustained antagonism or a perceived shift in content moderation policy. Right now, this looks more like a personality clash than an ideological break so user migration feels speculative at this stage.' As for X's advertising business, Emarketer analyst Jasmine Enberg said she doubts the feud will have a material effect. 'Advertisers who were spending small sums on the platform due to Musk's proximity to Trump may rethink their commitments,' she said. 'At the same time, the breakup between Musk and Trump hasn't eliminated the threat of legal or business repercussions given the FTC investigation into the alleged ad boycott, so there's still incentive for those brands to stay.' According to The New York Times, which cited unnamed sources, the Federal Trade Commission is investigating whether roughly a dozen advertising and advocacy groups violated antitrust law by coordinating boycotts among advertisers that didn't want their brands to appear next to hateful or other objectionable content. In the end, Musk 'remains a divisive figure, regardless of his position in the White House,' Enberg said, and any efforts by X to make the platform less divisive — such as a recent program designed to elevate content that people agree on —'can only go so far with brands and consumers if he continues to use X as his own personal megaphone to amplify controversial content.'
