Latest news with #CenterforImmigrationLawandPolicy
Los Angeles Times
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Can the courts stop Trump's mass immigration arrests around L.A.? Here is what we know
There have been numerous legal challenges to President Trump's immigration sweeps across California that have led to at least 3,000 arrests. But one lawsuit has the potential to dramatically alter the policy. A coalition of civil rights groups and private attorneys sued the federal government, challenging the cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens swept up in chaotic arrests that have sparked widespread protests since early June. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, an appointee of President Biden, temporarily blocked federal agents in the Southland from using racial profiling to carry out immigration arrests after she found sufficient evidence that agents were using race, a person's job or their location, and their language to form 'reasonable suspicion' — the legal standard needed to detain an individual. Frimpong ruled that using race, ethnicity, language, accent, location or employment as a pretext for immigration enforcement is forbidden by the 4th Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The order covers Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. The judge also ordered that all those in custody at a downtown detention facility known as B-18 must be given 24-hour access to lawyers and a confidential phone line. On Monday, the administration asked a federal appeals court to stay the judge's order blocking the roving patrols, allowing it to resume raids across the seven California counties. 'It is untenable for a district judge to single-handedly 'restructure the operations' of federal immigration enforcement,' the appeal argued. 'This judicial takeover cannot be allowed to stand.' Legal experts say it's hard to say just how successful the federal government will be in getting a stay on the temporary order, given the current political climate. 'This is different from a lot of the other kinds of Trump litigation because the law is so clear in the fact finding by the district court,' said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. 'So if you follow basic legal principles, this is a very weak case for the government on appeal, but it's so hard to predict what will happen because everything is so ideological.' In the past, legal scholars say, it would be extremely uncommon for an appeals court to weigh in on such an order. But recent events suggest it's not out of the realm of possibility. Courts have backed Trump's immigration policies in other cases. It's not an easy case for the government, said Ahilan Arulanantham, professor of practice and co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law. 'I think one thing which makes this case maybe a little bit harder for the government than some of the other shadow docket cases is it really does affect citizens in an important way,' he said. 'Obviously the immigration agent doesn't know in advance when they come up to somebody whether they're a citizen or a noncitizen or if they're lawfully present or not.' The Frimpong ruling is now on appeal. The plaintiffs argued in their complaint that immigration agents cornered brown-skinned people in Home Depot parking lots, at car washes and at bus stops across Southern California in a show of force without establishing reasonable suspicion that they had violated immigration laws. They allege agents didn't identify themselves, as required under federal law, and made unlawful arrests without warrants. Government lawyers argued in their motion that 'ethnicity can be a factor supporting reasonable suspicion in appropriate circumstances — for instance, if agents are acting on a tip that identifies that ethnicity — even if it would not be relevant in other circumstances,' lawyers stated in their motion. Attorneys said in the motion that speaking Spanish, being at a particular location or one's job 'can contribute to reasonable suspicion in at least some circumstances.' Government lawyers said Frimpong's injunction was a first step to placing immigration enforcement under judicial monitorship and was 'indefensible on every level.' They asked the higher court to pause the order while the appeal is heard. The government is also appealing another injunction imposed by a federal judge in the Eastern District of California after Border Patrol agents stopped and arrested dozens of farmworkers and laborers — including a U.S. citizen — during a days-long operation in the Central Valley in January. That case is likely to be heard later this year.
Miami Herald
18-06-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
Will employers be targeted for hiring undocumented workers?
Federal authorities have arrested hundreds of potentially undocumented immigrants in Los Angeles this month, targeting day laborers at a Home Depot, factory workers at a downtown apparel company and cleaners at car washes across the city. But the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents aren't going after the business owners who may have illegally hired these workers. President Trump's crackdown on immigration has spared small and large U.S. employers that rely on thousands of undocumented employees, even though hiring undocumented workers can be a criminal offense. "There are some instances of criminal prosecutions of people for knowingly hiring unauthorized workers, but it is extremely rare," said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law. "There's not an appetite for that kind of enforcement." Instead, the recent raids have affected rank and file workers, most of whom were detained suddenly and face deportation. Here's what experts say about whom ICE targets and why: Who relies on undocumented labor? Laborers without legal authorization to live and work in the U.S. make up a significant portion of the workforce, especially in industries such as agriculture and hospitality, said Jean Reisz, co-director of the USC Gould School of Law Immigration Clinic. At least half of California's 900,000 farmworkers are thought to be undocumented, The Los Angeles Times reported last year. The state is home to more immigrants than anywhere else in the country, a portion of which don't have documentation, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. "The U.S. has always relied on immigrant labor, and has always relied on undocumented immigrant labor," Reisz said. "That's just a reality, and when you have these big enforcement actions, there's always going to be some tension." Last week, Trump acknowledged on his social media platform Truth Social that his immigration policies were harming farmers, hotels and restaurants. Shortly after, he temporarily paused raids on those businesses in a likely effort to keep company leaders in his corner. Targeting the employers themselves, some of whom Trump relies on for support, would be counterproductive to his agenda, Reisz said. "If the administration were to say they're going to come down on every business owner who has hired someone in violation of U.S. law, I think that would politically be a bad decision," she said. What consequences could employers face? Although it's not regularly enforced, a 1986 federal law made it a crime to knowingly hire someone without authorization to work in the country. Before that, a stipulation known as the Texas Proviso created a loophole that gave a pass to employers to hire noncitizens. Violating the Immigration Reform and Control Act could mean fines and even incarceration, depending on the number of violations, Arulanantham said. But violators are rarely prosecuted. "There's a very long history of immigration enforcement agents not pursuing employers for hiring undocumented people, but very aggressively pursuing the undocumented people themselves," Arulanantham said. "Most employers get zero consequence, not even a minor criminal conviction." While it's unlawful to work in the U.S. without documentation, doing so isn't a criminal offense. "Civil consequences can be far more severe than criminal consequences," Arulanantham said. "Especially if you're being deported after you've lived here for a long time and you're going to be separated from your family." "Even if the law were actually enforced against these employers, it still wouldn't give them consequences that are as draconian and harsh as the consequences that flow to the workers," he said. How can employers tell who's authorized to work in the U.S.? Previous reporting by The Los Angeles Times suggests that many businesses in California turn a blind eye when it comes to signing on undocumented workers. A federal program called E-Verify makes it easy for employers to validate the status of potential hires and ensure they aren't unknowingly employing someone without proper authorization. But the program is widely underused, especially in California, where only about 16% of employers are enrolled. Participation in the program is voluntary for everyone except federal contractors and other businesses that receive money from the government, Reisz said. The program is largely ignored because many companies are dependent on undocumented laborers and don't want to be forced to reject their services. Employers told The Los Angeles Times last year that requiring the use of E-Verify would devastate their businesses, unless other overhauls to immigration policy allowed them access to more workers. Why aren't employers facing consequences? Historically, it's been in the country's best economic interest to allow undocumented labor, experts say. There are not enough workers to fill all the jobs a healthy, growing U.S. economy generates, especially in low-wage industries. Workers who fear deportation are less likely to organize to demand better conditions or wages, said Arulanantham. It wouldn't make sense for Trump to arrest the business owners he wants as allies, Reisz said, and wouldn't align with his stance on immigration. "It doesn't fit the narrative to penalize employers," Reisz said. "The narrative surrounding immigration enforcement under the Trump administration is that there are dangerous criminals coming across the border and taking our jobs." Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Los Angeles Times
18-06-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Will employers be targeted for hiring undocumented workers?
Federal authorities have arrested hundreds of potentially undocumented immigrants in Los Angeles this month, targeting day laborers at a Home Depot, factory workers at a downtown apparel company and cleaners at car washes across the city. But the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents aren't going after the business owners who may have illegally hired these workers. President Trump's crackdown on immigration has spared small and large U.S. employers that rely on thousands of undocumented employees, even though hiring undocumented workers can be a criminal offense. 'There are some instances of criminal prosecutions of people for knowingly hiring unauthorized workers, but it is extremely rare,' said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law. 'There's not an appetite for that kind of enforcement.' Instead, the recent raids have affected rank and file workers, most of whom were detained suddenly and face deportation. Here's what experts say about whom ICE targets and why: Laborers without legal authorization to live and work in the U.S. make up a significant portion of the workforce, especially in industries such as agriculture and hospitality, said Jean Reisz, co-director of the USC Gould School of Law Immigration Clinic. At least half of California's 900,000 farmworkers are thought to be undocumented, The Times reported last year. The state is home to more immigrants than anywhere else in the country, a portion of which don't have documentation, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. 'The U.S. has always relied on immigrant labor, and has always relied on undocumented immigrant labor,' Reisz said. 'That's just a reality, and when you have these big enforcement actions, there's always going to be some tension.' Last week, Trump acknowledged on his social media platform Truth Social that his immigration policies were harming farmers, hotels and restaurants. Shortly after, he temporarily paused raids on those businesses in a likely effort to keep company leaders in his corner. Targeting the employers themselves, some of whom Trump relies on for support, would be counterproductive to his agenda, Reisz said. 'If the administration were to say they're going to come down on every business owner who has hired someone in violation of U.S. law, I think that would politically be a bad decision,' she said. Although it's not regularly enforced, a 1986 federal law made it a crime to knowingly hire someone without authorization to work in the country. Before that, a stipulation known as the Texas Proviso created a loophole that gave a pass to employers to hire noncitizens. Violating the Immigration Reform and Control Act could mean fines and even incarceration, depending on the number of violations, Arulanantham said. But violators are rarely prosecuted. 'There's a very long history of immigration enforcement agents not pursuing employers for hiring undocumented people, but very aggressively pursuing the undocumented people themselves,' Arulanantham said. 'Most employers get zero consequence, not even a minor criminal conviction.' While it's unlawful to work in the U.S. without documentation, doing so isn't a criminal offense. 'Civil consequences can be far more severe than criminal consequences,' Arulanantham said. 'Especially if you're being deported after you've lived here for a long time and you're going to be separated from your family.' 'Even if the law were actually enforced against these employers, it still wouldn't give them consequences that are as draconian and harsh as the consequences that flow to the workers,' he said. Previous reporting by The Times suggests that many businesses in California turn a blind eye when it comes to signing on undocumented workers. A federal program called E-Verify makes it easy for employers to validate the status of potential hires and ensure they aren't unknowingly employing someone without proper authorization. But the program is widely underused, especially in California, where only about 16% of employers are enrolled. Participation in the program is voluntary for everyone except federal contractors and other businesses that receive money from the government, Reisz said. The program is largely ignored because many companies are dependent on undocumented laborers and don't want to be forced to reject their services. Employers told The Times last year that requiring the use of E-Verify would devastate their businesses, unless other overhauls to immigration policy allowed them access to more workers. Historically, it's been in the country's best economic interest to allow undocumented labor, experts say. There are not enough workers to fill all the jobs a healthy, growing U.S. economy generates, especially in low-wage industries. Workers who fear deportation are less likely to organize to demand better conditions or wages, said Arulanantham. It wouldn't make sense for Trump to arrest the business owners he wants as allies, Reisz said, and wouldn't align with his stance on immigration. 'It doesn't fit the narrative to penalize employers,' Reisz said. 'The narrative surrounding immigration enforcement under the Trump administration is that there are dangerous criminals coming across the border and taking our jobs.'
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's new travel ban leaves narrow openings for challengers
The Trump administration's travel ban presents a complex case for immigration advocates who have challenged previous efforts by President Trump to close the U.S. to certain foreigners. Trump needed multiple bites at the apple during his first term before the Supreme Court upheld the third version of his so-called Muslim ban in 2018. His latest version is more sweeping, targeting 19 countries instead of seven. It's also more narrow in the exceptions that would allow people to skirt the new restrictions. Trump's Supreme Court-approved travel ban was finally able to win over the courts with the argument it was needed on national security grounds. But his latest travel ban also points to visa overstay rates as a rationale for blocking citizens from U.S. travel. That addition is something that could provide an opening to legal challenges, said experts interviewed by The Hill. 'The rationales that are given in the order go far beyond national security-related justifications,' said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy (CILP) at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. He noted that when the Supreme Court upheld Trump's first travel ban, 'they were focused almost exclusively on national security-related justifications.' 'These are justifications that are not in any way national security related. They're just immigration policy rationales. … That's definitely an area of potential legal vulnerability.' Trump's travel ban places full restrictions on citizens from 12 countries: Afghanistan, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also places partial restrictions on seven other countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. For some countries, the Trump administration's latest ban cites faulty 'screening and vetting measures' inhibiting U.S. Embassy staff from reviewing visa candidates. But the executive order repeatedly references countries' visa overstay rates — the percentage at which a country's citizens remain in the U.S. beyond the time period allowed under their visa. 'It's just collective punishment. None of the people who are banned under this proclamation are banned for anything that they did wrong, or any actual individual suspicion that they will do something wrong,' said Adam Bates, a counsel at the International Refugee Assistance Project. 'It's just this kind of collective punishment. 'We don't trust your country. We don't trust your government. We don't trust you based on no other reason than where you were born — not because of anything you did or have done or will do.'' Raha Wala, vice president for strategy and partnerships for the National Immigration Law Center, said those inconsistencies will likely factor in the lawsuit. 'One of the real legal defects of this new, expanded ban is that it's completely arbitrary. You know, folks from Canada have one of the highest visa overstay rates, but they're not on this ban list,' he said. In issuing the new ban, the administration highlighted an Egyptian man arrested in an attack on demonstrators in Boulder, Colo., calling for the release of hostages held by Hamas. The man, Mohamed Soliman, filed for asylum shortly after arrival but overstayed his initial visa. Yet the administration did not include Egypt on its travel ban, which Wala argued shows it is an 'arbitrary and capricious, expanded ban' designed to 'ban or restrict individuals from countries that President Trump, perhaps personally, just doesn't like.' He added that the ban would disproportionately hit 'lots of countries of Black folk, brown folk, Asian folk and Latino folk.' Trump has defended the exclusion of Egypt. 'Egypt has been a country that we deal with very closely. They have things under control. The countries that we have don't have things under control,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office earlier this month. Arulanantham said litigation will likely include a review of visa overstay rates for countries not included in the ban. 'I think it's highly problematic to assume that, 'Oh, because some people from Burundi overstay, therefore we should assume that the others will and ban them all.' It's obviously highly problematic from a moral perspective. It's discriminatory. But if you're going to take that kind of approach that you have to ask the question like, 'OK, well, are these really outlying countries?'' he asked. Trump has already moved to lift protections on citizens from a number of the countries on the travel ban list, such as Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela. Former President Biden designated Temporary Protected Status (TPS) — protections from deportation — for migrants from Afghanistan, Venezuela and Haiti. He also started a parole program that granted entry for two years and work permits to citizens from Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela and Nicaragua if they could secure a U.S.-based financial sponsor. Trump has since scrapped the parole program while terminating TPS for countries now included in the travel ban. Those moves have been challenged in court. In stripping TPS, Trump has argued Afghans, Haitians and Venezuelans no longer merit the temporary refuge the protections give for those fleeing civil unrest or natural disasters. All three countries are currently roiling from various political controversies and are facing severe food insecurity. 'For the purposes of terminating TPS, Afghanistan is a safe, stable, secure country. And for the purpose of banning Afghans from getting visas, Afghanistan is a terrorist-run failed state,' Bates said. 'They're self-contradicting.' State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott defended the ban as a national security measure as well as 'broader action from this administration on a whole host of visa issues.' 'This is a national security imperative,' he said during a briefing earlier this month. 'Do we have the ability to vet people coming in, and this, again, has been that priority from the beginning of this administration. Can we say with confidence that people coming to the United States have been properly vetted? Is there essential authority in these countries that can confirm that? Can we trust what they're telling us?' While immigration advocates felt confident the new travel ban was discriminatory, they hedged on whether any challenge would be successful in court. 'It's certainly possible, it's very possible, the Supreme Court upholds this,' Arulanantham said, noting that such a move would have 'very dramatic impacts on immigrant communities' and separate families. Wala also expressed some doubts. 'I don't want to oversell the case, so to speak,' he said. 'Are we super confident this particular Supreme Court is going to come down the right side of this one? Well, not necessarily, because they upheld what we viewed and still view to be a very unconstitutional ban the prior time.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
12-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump's new travel ban leaves narrow openings for challengers
The Trump administration's travel ban presents a complex case for immigration advocates who have challenged previous efforts by President Trump to close the U.S. to certain foreigners. Trump needed multiple bites at the apple during his first term before the Supreme Court upheld the third version of his so-called Muslim ban in 2018. His latest version is more sweeping, targeting 19 countries instead of seven. It's also more narrow in the exceptions that would allow people to skirt the new restrictions. Trump's Supreme Court-approved travel ban was finally able to win over the courts with the argument it was needed on national security grounds. But his latest travel ban also points to visa overstay rates as a rationale for blocking citizens from U.S. travel. That addition is something that could provide an opening to legal challenges, said experts interviewed by The Hill. 'The rationales that are given in the order go far beyond national security-related justifications,' said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy (CILP) at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. He noted that when the Supreme Court upheld Trump's first travel ban, 'they were focused almost exclusively on national security-related justifications.' 'These are justifications that are not in any way national security related. They're just immigration policy rationales. … That's definitely an area of potential legal vulnerability.' Trump's travel ban places full restrictions on citizens from 12 countries: Afghanistan, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also places partial restrictions on seven other countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. For some countries, the Trump administration's latest ban cites faulty 'screening and vetting measures' inhibiting U.S. Embassy staff from reviewing visa candidates. But the executive order repeatedly references countries' visa overstay rates — the percentage at which a country's citizens remain in the U.S. beyond the time period allowed under their visa. 'It's just collective punishment. None of the people who are banned under this proclamation are banned for anything that they did wrong, or any actual individual suspicion that they will do something wrong,' said Adam Bates, a counsel at the International Refugee Assistance Project. 'It's just this kind of collective punishment. 'We don't trust your country. We don't trust your government. We don't trust you based on no other reason than where you were born — not because of anything you did or have done or will do.'' Raha Wala, vice president for strategy and partnerships for the National Immigration Law Center, said those inconsistencies will likely factor in the lawsuit. 'One of the real legal defects of this new, expanded ban is that it's completely arbitrary. You know, folks from Canada have one of the highest visa overstay rates, but they're not on this ban list,' he said. In issuing the new ban, the administration highlighted an Egyptian man arrested in an attack on demonstrators in Boulder, Colo., calling for the release of hostages held by Hamas. The man, Mohamed Soliman, filed for asylum shortly after arrival but overstayed his initial visa. Yet the administration did not include Egypt on its travel ban, which Wala argued shows it is an 'arbitrary and capricious, expanded ban' designed to 'ban or restrict individuals from countries that President Trump, perhaps personally, just doesn't like.' He added that the ban would disproportionately hit 'lots of countries of Black folk, brown folk, Asian folk and Latino folk.' Trump has defended the exclusion of Egypt. 'Egypt has been a country that we deal with very closely. They have things under control. The countries that we have don't have things under control,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office earlier this month. Arulanantham said litigation will likely include a review of visa overstay rates for countries not included in the ban. 'I think it's highly problematic to assume that, 'Oh, because some people from Burundi overstay, therefore we should assume that the others will and ban them all.' It's obviously highly problematic from a moral perspective. It's discriminatory. But if you're going to take that kind of approach that you have to ask the question like, 'OK, well, are these really outlying countries?'' he asked. Trump has already moved to lift protections on citizens from a number of the countries on the travel ban list, such as Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela. Former President Biden designated Temporary Protected Status (TPS) — protections from deportation — for migrants from Afghanistan, Venezuela and Haiti. He also started a parole program that granted entry for two years and work permits to citizens from Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela and Nicaragua if they could secure a U.S.-based financial sponsor. Trump has since scrapped the parole program while terminating TPS for countries now included in the travel ban. Those moves have been challenged in court. In stripping TPS, Trump has argued Afghans, Haitians and Venezuelans no longer merit the temporary refuge the protections give for those fleeing civil unrest or natural disasters. All three countries are currently roiling from various political controversies and are facing severe food insecurity. 'For the purposes of terminating TPS, Afghanistan is a safe, stable, secure country. And for the purpose of banning Afghans from getting visas, Afghanistan is a terrorist-run failed state,' Bates said. 'They're self-contradicting.' State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott defended the ban as a national security measure as well as 'broader action from this administration on a whole host of visa issues.' 'This is a national security imperative,' he said during a briefing earlier this month. 'Do we have the ability to vet people coming in, and this, again, has been that priority from the beginning of this administration. Can we say with confidence that people coming to the United States have been properly vetted? Is there essential authority in these countries that can confirm that? Can we trust what they're telling us?' While immigration advocates felt confident the new travel ban was discriminatory, they hedged on whether any challenge would be successful in court. 'It's certainly possible, it's very possible, the Supreme Court upholds this,' Arulanantham said, noting that such a move would have 'very dramatic impacts on immigrant communities' and separate families. Wala also expressed some doubts. 'I don't want to oversell the case, so to speak,' he said. 'Are we super confident this particular Supreme Court is going to come down the right side of this one? Well, not necessarily, because they upheld what we viewed and still view to be a very unconstitutional ban the prior time.'
