Latest news with #AbigailJackson
New York Post
a day ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Most Americans OK with Trump migrant policies — except deportations to foreign jails and without court hearing: poll
WASHINGTON — President Trump's immigration policies remain broadly popular with Americans, though a majority now oppose efforts to deport migrants to jails in other nations or without court hearings, a new poll shows. The Wall Street Journal survey released Monday found that 58% of US registered voters don't support the administration's so-called 'third country' removals to prisons. The same percentage of voters also disapprove of deportations occurring without a US immigration hearing or an appearance before a judge, the poll found. Advertisement Still, 62% back Trump's larger push to remove migrants who entered the US illegally, it said. 5 President Trump's immigration policies remain broadly popular with Americans, according to a new poll. @PressSec/X 'President Trump was elected based on his promise to close the border and deport criminal illegal aliens,' White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement about the survey. Advertisement 'Just over six months into his administration, the border is the most secure it's ever been in history and deportations are ramping up — it's no surprise that Americans overwhelmingly approve of the President's successful efforts. 'And despite lies from the fake news, every single illegal alien receives due process prior to deportation,' she said. 'The Trump Administration will continue carrying out the largest mass deportation operation in history, and communicating our wins directly to the American people so they don't have to sift through the mainstream media lies about our efforts.' 5 Nearly 40% of all voters surveyed said deportations should occur without an immigration hearing of some kind. Reuters Advertisement Critics of Trump's approach have claimed it is akin to 'disappearing' the migrants — in a reference to Soviet-era tactics against dissidents — without due process. At least 60% of independents view current US immigration policies as going 'too far,' the Journal poll showed, while 90% of Republicans are in favor of them. Meanwhile, 90% of Democrats said the policies had crossed a line. 5 Critics of Trump's approach have claimed it is akin to 'disappearing' the migrants — in a reference to Soviet-era tactics against dissidents — without due process. REUTERS Nearly 40% of all voters surveyed said deportations should occur without an immigration hearing of some kind. Advertisement The Trump administration has faced legal challenges for rounding up more than 250 alleged migrant gangbangers and flying them to a notorious Salvadoran mega-prison in March, as well as for deporting others convicted of armed robbery, drug trafficking, sex assault and murder to South Sudan. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a purported MS-13 gang member, was among the deportees famously sent to El Salvador's Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT) prison — despite an immigration judge having determined in 2019 he couldn't be sent to the Central American nation because of the risk of retaliation from a rival gang, Barrio 18. 5 About 700,000 migrants with known criminal charges are living in the US, according to Trump's border czar Tom Homan. AP The US Supreme Court eventually ruled that the administration had wrongfully deported Abrego Garcia. He was returned to the US in June and charged with trafficking thousands of illegal immigrants into the country. In June, the high court did permit Trump officials to remove convicted criminal migrants to third countries with limited notice. Lawyers for the convicted migrants tried in two jurisdictions to halt the flight to South Sudan, arguing their deportation would violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against 'cruel and unusual' punishments. 5 The White House touted 140,000 deportations in the administration's first 100 days. Getty Images Trump admin officials said the eight men committed crimes so 'monstrous and barbaric' that no other country would take them. Advertisement They had already been given final removal orders or failed to appeal their deportation order after their convictions, a DHS source previously told The Post. The White House touted 140,000 deportations in the administration's first 100 days — and border czar Tom Homan has said a recent funding boost from Congress could lead to as many as 1.2 million removals by year's end. About 700,000 migrants with known criminal charges are living in the US, according to Homan. The Journal polled 1,500 registered voters between July 15 and 20 through phone, cellphone and online surveys. The margin of error was plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's birthright citizenship order is unconstitutional, appeals court says
A federal appeals court said Wednesday that President Trump's executive order curtailing birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. The policy, which has been the subject of a complicated monthslong legal back-and-forth, is currently on hold. But Wednesday's decision appears to mark the first time that an appellate court has weighed in on the merits of Mr. Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship for many children of undocumented immigrants by executive order. A panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit wrote that Mr. Trump's order is "invalid because it contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment's grant of citizenship to 'all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'" White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement to CBS News: "The Ninth Circuit misinterpreted the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment. We look forward to being vindicated on appeal." On the first day of Mr. Trump's second term, he signed an executive order that said people born in the United States should not automatically get citizenship if one parent is undocumented and the other isn't a citizen or green-card holder, or if both parents are in the U.S. on temporary visas. The order directed federal agencies to stop issuing citizenship documents within 30 days to people who fall into those categories. The order drew a flurry of lawsuits, as most legal experts have said the 14th Amendment — which was ratified in 1868 — automatically offers citizenship to virtually everybody born within the U.S., regardless of their parents' immigration status, with extremely narrow exceptions. The Trump administration argues the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment does not apply to people whose parents are in the country illegally or temporarily — citing a clause that says citizenship is granted to those who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Those parents do not necessarily have "allegiance" to the country, the government argues, so they therefore aren't "subject to the jurisdiction." The 9th Circuit disagreed. It wrote Wednesday that a plain reading of the 14th Amendment suggests that citizenship was meant to be granted to anybody who is "subject to the laws and authority of the United States." "The Defendants' proposed interpretation of the Citizenship Clause relies on a network of inferences that are unmoored from the accepted legal principles of 1868," the judges wrote. "Perhaps the Executive Branch, recognizing that it could not change the Constitution, phrased its Executive Order in terms of a strained and novel interpretation of the Constitution," the opinion said. The issue reached the 9th Circuit after a lower court in Washington state blocked the birthright citizenship executive order in February, responding to a lawsuit from several Democratic states. The Trump administration in March appealed that ruling. It reasserted its arguments about who the 14th Amendment applies to, called the ruling "vastly overbroad" and argued the states did not have standing to sue over the order. On Wednesday, the 9th Circuit said the states did have the right to sue, pointing to the risk that states would be financially harmed by a federal policy that narrows who qualifies for citizenship. The appellate judges also upheld the district court's finding that the states are likely to succeed in showing the order violates the Constitution. The 9th Circuit's ruling was written by Clinton-appointed Judge Ronald Gould, and joined by Obama-appointed Judge Michael Daly Hawkins. A third member of the panel — Judge Patrick Bumatay, appointed by Mr. Trump in his first term — dissented in part, writing that the states don't have standing and adding "it's premature to address the merits of the citizenship question or the scope of the injunction." Supreme Court hasn't weighed in on merits of birthright citizenship — yet The birthright citizenship issue reached the Supreme Court earlier this year, but not in a case involving the merits of the Trump administration's policy. Instead, the Supreme Court weighed in on whether the district courts that issued nationwide blocks against Mr. Trump's executive order were exceeding the scope of their power — a perennial topic of debate in legal circles that has frustrated presidents of both parties. The high court's ruling last month limited the use of nationwide injunctions. In a 6-3 decision, it granted a request by the administration to narrow the injunctions against the birthright citizenship order, but "only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief." That doesn't mean the birthright citizenship order will take effect. Shortly after the ruling, a New Hampshire court paused the executive order nationwide in a lawsuit that was brought as a class action, after the Supreme Court's decision left the door open to that option. The Supreme Court also did not directly address whether states can still sue over the order. In the case that the 9th Circuit ruled on Wednesday, the government has argued that courts can just block the birthright citizenship order for residents of the states that sued, rather than issuing a nationwide injunction. But the states argue that would provide them with incomplete relief because people move from state to state. Bryan Kohberger sentenced to life in prison for murders of Idaho students Trump reacts to DOJ reaching out to Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyer on Jeffrey Epstein files Ozzy Osbourne, heavy metal pioneer, dies at age 76
The Independent
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Trump goes on FEMA spending binge announcing several states will receive federal funding months after disasters
President Donald Trump announced that four states, which experienced disasters over the last six months, would receive funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency – despite previously threatening to eliminate the federal agency. Taking to Truth Social Tuesday, the president announced he would unlock millions in federal funding for Indiana, which experienced deadly tornadoes in March; Michigan, which experienced ice storms in March; Kentucky, which experienced flooding and tornadoes in April and May; and West Virginia, which experienced flooding and tornadoes in June. The announcement arrives after the president has signaled his desire to phase out FEMA and the administration has been scrutinized for its response to the devastating floods in Texas that killed more than 130 people. Trump has reportedly indicated he wants to return disaster response to the states by removing FEMA as the lead in response. Instead, the president hopes to make local and state officials the primary leaders while using FEMA as financial support. In January, Trump claimed FEMA had not been productive for years and pushed responsibility onto the states for handling disaster response. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson previously said in a statement that 'federal assistance was always intended to supplement state actions, not replace those actions.' 'FEMA's outsized role created a bloated bureaucracy that disincentivized state investment in their own resilience,' Jackson said. However, since then, the president has softened his stance, reportedly backing away from language that indicated he was going to shut down the decades-old agency. While the funding is slightly delayed, state leaders expressed gratitude for it. 'I'm glad to have received word from President Trump committing federal funds to help Northern Michigan communities impacted by the historic ice storm damage earlier this year,' Governor Gretchen Whitmer said on X. 'We have more details to gather, but I'm grateful for this response to my requests of the White House.' Northern Michigan experienced deadly ice storms in March that left at least six people dead. Homes and infrastructure also experienced damage due to the heavy ice. Trump, who said it was his honor to approve federal funds for the state, and would give $50 million to assist in recovery. Indiana Governor Mike Braun thanked Trump for his approval of $15.1 million in funding, which will go toward assisting recovery after a string of tornadoes hit the state in March. In announcing the state's funding, Trump also reminded people that he won 'BIG' in the state in the 2016, 2020 and 2024 presidential elections. Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear wrote on X that he was 'grateful' to the president and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem for providing a total of $56 million in disaster response. At least seven people died in April after the state experienced devastating flooding. At least 31 people died in May after deadly tornadoes swept across the state as well. 'This support is essential to helping these communities rebuild, and I am grateful to the president and @SecNoem. I also told @POTUS that the @FEMA team members on the ground are doing great work supporting Kentuckians. We will provide more details soon,' Beshear wrote. Patrick Morrisey, the governor of West Virginia, praised Trump and the administration for 'providing us with another tool to help these communities make a full recovery.' Trump said he would provide $11.7 million in federal funding to support recovery after heavy rains brought flooding in June. At least nine people died as a result of the floods.
Axios
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Trump admin to appeal order barring race-based immigration arrests alleged in LA area
The White House says it plans to appeal a federal order requiring the Trump administration to stop immigration arrests without probable cause after a suit alleged it targeted California residents based on race, language and work. The big picture: Residents of Latino descent have been stopped, detained or asked to prove citizenship in communities throughout the U.S. amid President Trump's push for mass deportations. What they're saying: White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement emailed to Axios on Saturday: "No federal judge has the authority to dictate immigration policy – that authority rests with Congress and the President. "Enforcement operations require careful planning and execution; skills far beyond the purview or jurisdiction of any judge. We expect this gross overstep of judicial authority to be corrected on appeal." Driving the news: U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong concluded in an order on Friday that those who brought the suit were likely to prove "the federal government is indeed conducting roving patrols without reasonable suspicion and denying access to lawyers". The judge ordered Homeland Security to craft guidance to determine "reasonable suspicion" and provide accused residents access to counsel on holidays, weekends and weekdays. State of play: The suit was brought by five workers and advocacy groups Los Angeles Worker Center Network, United Farm Workers (UFW) and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. Teresa Romero, the UFW president, celebrated the judge's decision in a statement on Friday. "Farm workers rise before dawn to feed this country—there is no labor more dignified," Romero said. "No one should be targeted, profiled, or terrorized for being brown and working hard." Catch up quick: Immigration raids in Latino communities in southern California and beyond have led to mass protests in several U.S. cities. Trump deployed about 4,000 National Guard members and hundreds of Marines to the Los Angeles area in an effort to stem the growing unrest last month. Tricia McLaughlin, a Homeland Security spokesperson, said in a statement emailed to Axios on Saturday: "A district judge is undermining the will of the American people." She went on to say "brave men and women" are removing "truly the worst of the worst from Golden State communities."
Reuters
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Fate of US disaster relief agency FEMA still being discussed
July 11 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration has no immediate plans to abolish the Federal Emergency Management Agency amid ongoing discussions about the disaster relief agency's future, the Washington Post reported. No official action was being taken to wind down FEMA and changes in the agency would probably amount to a "rebranding" that would emphasize state leaders' roles in disaster response, the newspaper reported, opens new tab, citing a senior White House official. Trump, who took office in January vowing to gut or abolish FEMA, was visiting Texas on Friday to see the aftermath of flash floods that swept through parts of the Texas Hill Country and killed at least 120, with more than 160 people unaccounted for. Trump has frequently said he wanted states to have primary responsibility for responding to disasters. When asked by a reporter on Sunday whether he still planned to phase out FEMA following the Texas floods, Trump responded that it was a topic "we can talk about later". "The president's FEMA Review Council, comprised of top experts in their field, will recommend to the president how FEMA may be reformed in ways that best serve the national interest, including how America responds to and recovers from disasters such that the federal role remains supplemental and appropriate to the scale of disaster,' Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said in an email to Reuters. Speaking at the FEMA review council on Wednesday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem called for FEMA to be eliminated in its current form, saying states and local authorities should take the lead in emergency management. Trump signed a disaster declaration for Texas on Sunday to unlock federal aid for those affected. "The president immediately delivered the dollars, Texas already has that money in their hands, and Governor [Greg] Abbott is the lead decision-maker when it comes to the Texas floods,' the White House official told the Washington Post. "You should expect this structure, that has quietly taken place, to continue," the official added, according to the newspaper. The Texas floods, the first major deadly disaster since Trump took office in January, were a stark reminder of the extent to which states lean on the agency during a crisis.
