Latest news with #AmaFrimpong
CBS News
2 days ago
- General
- CBS News
Video shows immigration agents arrest five people near Baltimore Home Depot
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) posted a social media video that shows agents in Baltimore arrest several people outside of a Home Depot. ICE said a tip led them to the shopping center on Eastern Avenue, where five were arrested for allegedly being in the United States illegally. The video, posted on Tuesday, May 27, shows ICE agents jumping out of a pick-up truck at the "big-box home improvement store" before detaining several people. The agents were heard telling them to stay down, show their hands, and be quiet. CASA of Maryland considers legal action CASA of Maryland, an immigration advocacy group, said they were likely outside the Home Depot seeking work. CASA said that if there was any wrongdoing by the officers, the organization would consider legal action. "The law is clear that they must have probable cause to arrest someone," said Ama Frimpong, the legal director at Casa of Maryland. "Here in this case, we have no idea whether or not they do. My understanding is that what they claimed is that someone sent a tip. We don't know what this tip is. We don't know what exactly they are claiming happened." Challenge for due process Since the mistaken deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man who worked in Baltimore and lived in Prince George's County, there has been a growing debate about who is entitled to due process and what violates a person's constitutional rights. "The constitution is clear," Frimpong said. "The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution is clear. Due process is something we are all guaranteed under the Constitution." Abrego Garcia was arrested after leaving his sheet metal apprenticeship job in Baltimore in March, before he was deported and confined in El Salvador. Immigration advocates and Maryland lawmakers have been calling on the Trump administration to return Abrego Garcia. A federal judge and the Supreme Court have ordered the facilitation of Abrego Garcia's return. Community reacts to video A community member told WJZ off-camera that he didn't know the five people arrested near the Baltimore Home Depot, but said that it's a difficult situation. Another man, who owns a business nearby, said these videos create uncertainty in the community, where people are afraid to leave home. Now, he says he is losing customers. WJZ reached out to ICE Baltimore for additional comment but has not yet heard back.
Reuters
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Protesters demand return of man wrongly deported to El Salvador
Dozens of demonstrators rallied outside a Maryland federal courthouse on Friday (May 16) demanding the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a state resident who was deported in error to El Salvador despite a judicial order protecting him from removal. Ama Frimpong, legal director of the immigrant rights group CASA, called it "unlawful and unconstitutional" and said her group will continue fighting until Kilmar is brought home to his family.
CBS News
17-05-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Family pleads for answers on Kilmar Abrego Garcia's detention in El Salvador
Hundreds of people turned out at the US District Court House today to show support for bringing Kilmar Abrego Garcia home. Cameras were not allowed inside the courtroom, but plaintiffs representing Kilmar Abrego Garcia said once again, they are simply seeking answers to three questions: Where is Kilmar Abrego Garcia right now? What has been done to facilitate his return? What plans are in place to facilitate his return? But the government says they are limited in what they can say, citing concerns over threats to national security and diplomatic relations. Earlier this month, the trump administration invoked the state secrets privilege to explain the lack of explanation that has been released so far. WJZ caught up with Ama Frimpong with CASA after the hearing, where she offered her thoughts on what happened inside. "They have no proof. They're not explaining how and why those things should be considered privileged. So, the judge said basically, you're asking me to take your word for it, and that's not how this works," Frimpong said. Attorneys for the government said they have provided information to the plaintiffs to explain those answers, but they "want more". However, Judge Xinis said, according to the affidavit she has received, there is not enough information provided to meet the threshold of the state secrets privilege. She offered them an opportunity to supplement their affidavit and return at a later date, to which the plaintiffs remind the court, "a life is in the balance,"—adding Abrego Garcia is in danger each day he sits in an El Salvador prison. "Do not tell us that he's alive, well, healthy, out on weight…let him talk to his family. Let him talk to his lawyers. Release him from prison and bring him home. That's what we're looking for, that's what justice looks like, and that's what we will continue fighting for," Frimpong added. The court adjourned to the public at about 4:00 p.m. so the attorneys and judge could discuss some sealed information behind closed doors. However, the judge is expected to make a decision early next week.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Challenge from Washington and other states to Trump's order ending birthright citizenship makes way to U.S. Supreme Court (copy)
May 15—The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday in a case that could upend long-standing precedent on who is guaranteed American citizenship under the Constitution. The hearing was more focused on whether federal judges should have the power to temporarily halt federal rules nationwide, a power that has stymied presidential administrations from both parties for decades from implementing policies as legal challenges make their way through the courts. The case offered the first opportunity to hear how the justices may rule on a standing precedent that babies born in the United States are guaranteed citizenship in the country, regardless of their parents' immigration status. "This case is a clear example of what is at stake. The fact that a child who's born in Washington state might be a citizen, but a child born in Mississippi might not be. That's exactly what the 14th Amendment was meant to stop, meant to curb," Ama Frimpong, legal director at CASA, a Maryland-based immigrants' rights group, said during a demonstration ahead of the hearing. "And it's a classic example of why nationwide injunctions are important, so that across the country, rights and protections are guaranteed for everyone." President Donald Trump has sought to end the principle, and signed an executive order on his first day of his second term that claimed a baby born in the country must have at least one parent who is either a citizen or a lawful permanent resident to automatically qualify for birthright citizenship. "If somebody sets a foot, just one foot, you don't need two, on our land, congratulations, you are now a citizen of the United States of America. Yes, we're going to end that, because it's ridiculous," then President-Elect Trump said during a December interview, as he vowed to end birthright citizenship. As he signed the order in the Oval Office, Trump acknowledged to reporters that the order "could be" challenged in the courts. "We think we have good ground, but you could be right," Trump said after a reporter asked about potential legal challenges. "You'll find out. It's ridiculous. We're the only country in the world that does this with birthright, you know, and it's just absolutely ridiculous." Thirty-two other countries — including Mexico and Canada — guarantee unrestricted birthright citizenship, and an additional 32 countries guarantee birthright citizenship with some restrictions. Under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Birthright citizenship dates back more than 150 years, when "our nation had a population of formerly enslaved people who were, in effect, stateless" and has since been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court to include the children of noncitizens, according to Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown. Trump's order was immediately challenged by several groups of states, including Washington, with several federal judges soon issuing nationwide injunctions to block the executive order from taking effect. As he issued a preliminary injunction in February, Seattle-based U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour said, "It has become ever more apparent that to our president the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals." In an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court filed in March, the Trump administration asked the justices to narrow court orders to the people and groups that filed suit, and to find that the states lacked legal standing to bring their challenges. While the hearing did not address the underlying merits of the lawsuits, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that "as far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents." Sotomayor questioned whether the federal government's position would block both the Supreme Court and lower courts from preventing instances in which the executive branch violates court rulings. United States Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court that universal injunctions create far-reaching problems and promote "forum shopping," in which parties file a case in a jurisdiction that is most sympathetic to the arguments. Nationwide injunctions have drastically increased over the past 60 years and have increasingly prevented the past five presidential administrations from implementing policies, Sauer said. The issue, he said, "really exploded" in 2007. On Thursday, Sotomayor said the country has had "universal injunctions in some form since the founding." Jeremy Feigenbaum, the New Jersey solicitor general who argued on behalf of the states, said the federal government's proposal to limit the injunction to either the states or groups who brought the challenge would "require citizenship to vary based on the state in which you're born, or even turn on or off when someone crosses state lines." Feigenbaum said limiting the scope of the injunction would raise "serious and unanswered" questions in the case, "not just for the federal government, but also for the states, and would offend the text and history of the citizenship clause itself." Following the hearing, a coalition of attorneys general — including Brown — issued a joint statement which said it was "proud to stand together to defend birthright citizenship and the rule of law at the U.S. Supreme Court today." The Supreme Court ruled in 1898 in a 6-2 decision that a person born in the United States is a citizen of the United States even if "born of resident aliens." The only exceptions, according to the majority opinion written by Justice Horace Gray, were children born to foreign officials representing foreign nations, babies born on foreign ships, children of Indian tribe members and anyone born to "enemies within and during a hostile occupation of a part of our territory." "The Trump Administration's argument before the Supreme Court today — that the President should be permitted to strip American citizenship from people based solely on the state in which they happen to be born — would upend settled law and settled practice and would produce widespread chaos and disruption," the statement from the attorneys general said. Standing on the steps of the Supreme Court, Brown said "we cannot address a more fundamental issue than the issue the court is beginning to address today and what it means to be an American in the United States." "And all of the precedent is on the side of the state actors here," Brown said. "Time and time again, the Supreme Court has weighed in on this and affirmed that if you were born in the United States, that you are a citizen." Brown said that during the hearing, the justices began to "dissect the absurdity" of the federal government's arguments. "That you would cross the border of my state of Washington, and you would move to Idaho, and you would lose your citizenship," Brown said. "That you would move from any one state that has participated in litigation, and lose your rights and privileges that come with being an American citizen. It's an absurd argument." Brown said overturning the injunction could result in some babies being born stateless. "What do we do with those children? How do we address the problems that they are facing?" Brown said. "So not only do we think that we need to prevail to ensure what it means to be an American, but to protect the rights of all of the children that are born here to not have to deal with the complete lawlessness that might come from this presidential action." It's not clear when the court may issue a ruling on the nationwide injunction. Should the justices rule in the federal government's favor and limit the injunctions, Sauer indicated that there would likely be a ramp-up period before the limitations on birthright citizenship took effect. Were the executive order to take effect, around 150,000 children born every year would no longer qualify for automatic citizenship. Orion Donovan Smith contributed to this report from Washington D.C.
Al Jazeera
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
US Supreme Court grills Trump administration over birthright citizenship
Washington, DC – Justices at the US Supreme Court have questioned lawyers representing the administration of US President Donald Trump and those challenging his effort to end birthright citizenship in the country. The hearing on Thursday represented the first time the top court in the United States has heard a case related to Trump's January 20 order seeking to do away with the more-than-century-old policy, which grants citizenship to nearly all infants born on US soil, regardless of their parents' legal status. It was not immediately clear when the court would issue a ruling in the case, although an outcome could take weeks. It also remained unclear if the justices would address the underlying constitutionality of Trump's order, or if they would only rule on the narrower question of whether lower federal court justices are empowered to block the implementation of the order nationwide. Still, demonstrators and lawmakers who gathered outside of the Washington, DC courthouse said any ruling challenging birthright citizenship would corrode the national fabric of the US. 'We are here at the highest court in the land because a fundamental promise of America is under attack. And we are here to say not on our watch,' Ama Frimpong, the legal director of CASA, told those gathered in protest. 'All persons born in the US are citizens of the US,' Frimpong said. Legal experts have also said a ruling limiting federal courts' ability to order a 'national' or 'universal' injunction to block Trump's executive actions would in and of itself be transformative. 'That question, in a normal sense, would already shake the legal foundation of the country: whether lower courts have the right to order nationwide injunctions,' said Al Jazeera's Heidi Zhou-Castro from outside the courthouse. 'But it's the second question that really people are focused on, and that is if Trump has the power to cancel birthright citizenship for the children born to undocumented immigrants and certain visa holders visiting the US,' she said. 'Now it is up to the justices whether they want to go in either of those directions.' Over two hours of questioning, lawyers for the Trump administration, as well as those representing states and individuals who have challenged Trump's order, addressed matters both of constitutional grandeur and legal minutia. Solicitor General John Sauer began by laying out the Trump administration's broad argument that the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, has been incorrectly interpreted since then. The amendment, Sauer argued, 'guarantees citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors'. Trump also reiterated that position in a Truth Social post ahead of the hearing, saying birthright citizenship makes the US a 'STUPID Country' that incentivises people to visit to have children. Sauer also took aim at the three federal judges who have ruled in favour of separate lawsuits challenging the law's constitutionality. Plaintiffs in those cases include 22 state attorneys general, immigrant rights organisations, and individuals affected by the rule. Sauer argued that the judges' decisions should only apply to the plaintiffs in the cases, and not the entire nation. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether the broader constitutional question could be unpicked from the narrower question of the judges' reach, saying the president's order violates 'by my count, four established Supreme Court precedents'. That included the 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v Wong Kim Ark, which first established that the 14th Amendment applies to immigrants, she said. Other justices questioned the implications of a scenario where the court ruled that the judges could not issue 'national injunctions' in the case, without answering the underlying constitutional question. Legal scholars have noted that this could create a situation where Trump's end to birthright citizenship would not apply to states and individuals who successfully challenged his order in court. That would mean birthright citizenship – at least temporarily – would end in 28 other states if they do launch their own challenges. 'Does every single person that is affected by this EO [executive order] have to bring their own suit?' Justice Elena Kagan questioned. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the Trump administration's argument turns the US justice system into a 'catch me if you can kind of regime'. Under that, 'everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people's rights'.
