Latest news with #OperationReturntoSender
San Francisco Chronicle
25-05-2025
- San Francisco Chronicle
Border Patrol is conducting legally dubious raids across California — and bragging about it online
By any reasonable measure, Ernesto Campos Gutierrez is a pillar of his Bakersfield community. A resident of more than two decades, he is a homeowner. He is a business owner. He is an active member of his church. There's no clear reason why he was stopped by an unmarked SUV as he drove to his gardening job on Jan. 8, with a mini trailer containing his equipment in tow. He wasn't speeding, and his license and registration were up to date, according to court documents. More than five months later, there are even fewer answers as to why the encounter turned violent. Campos Gutierrez handed officers his ID, but when they refused to say why he'd been pulled over and demanded his keys, he said no, according to court documents. Agents then forcibly removed his passenger after threatening to shatter his windows with a handheld tool. Then an officer slashed his tires. Campos Gutierrez was arrested, he was told, for 'alien smuggling' — and detained for hours in a facility about 20 minutes away, despite telling officers he was a U.S. citizen. He was far from the only one swept up in Bakersfield that day. Bree Bernwanger, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, represents several of those targeted by what turned out to be a series of coordinated raids. She told me immigration agents ' were sending their roving patrols to agricultural areas, to Home Depot, to places where farmworkers go for breakfast, and they were timing it with their shifts, so they were clearly going after farmworkers and day laborers.' These raids weren't just unusual for their brazenness. They were conducted by a Border Patrol unit hundreds of miles from its typical territory — one that has not just ramped up its activity far from the border but has boasted about legally dubious behavior on social media. Many of the initial reports about the raids assumed Immigration and Customs Enforcement was responsible. It didn't occur to most people that such actions would be carried out by another agency, a sector of Border Patrol based in El Centro, a few miles from the U.S.-Mexico border in Imperial County, more than 300 miles away. In Facebook posts following the Bakersfield raid, which the El Centro sector named Operation Return to Sender, it boasted: 'We are taking it to the bad people and bad things in Bakersfield' and promised 'We are planning operations for other locals (sic) such as Fresno and especially Sacramento.' Since the Bakersfield episode, El Centro agents have descended on more locations far from the southern border, including El Monte and Pomona in Los Angeles County. Its in-person confrontations and its social media presence are now being closely scrutinized. In two separate legal cases over the past month, lawyers have used the agency's posts as evidence of agents' intent to act unlawfully; in both cases, judges intervened to block the Border Patrol's actions. The El Centro section is responsible for 70 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, from the Jacumba Mountains east of San Diego along the rugged desert terrain of Imperial County. Nearly 1,000 agents and 149 support staffers are spread among three stations at El Centro, Calexico and Indio. But the agency is technically allowed to operate within 100 miles of any border — including the ocean, meaning most of California and a vast majority of the U.S. population is subject to its authority. Under Trump, the El Centro Border Patrol sector in particular has seized on this authority, both to sow havoc across California and to antagonize state and local leaders who've tried to protect immigrants in their communities. Like the president himself, the agency's social media imprint is a vortex of insults, boasts and highly produced videos that paint its agents as heroes and the immigrants they encounter as a subhuman invading force. One post includes a photo of a car with its front windshield blown to bits, shards of glass pooled on the driver's seat. It was published the same day many news outlets reported that Elon Musk, in his role leading Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, would be requiring federal employees to send weekly reports laying out five things they'd done that week. The post read: ' #DOGE is really catching on! This illegal alien is listing his accomplishments for this past week: Refused to open window during an immigration inspection; Got his window shattered for an extraction, Arrested by the #PremierSector, Went to jail, Got deported.' People in the comments cheered: 'FAFO,' wrote one, an acronym for the taunt 'f— around and find out,' alongside three laughing emojis. 'FAFO in full effect,' the official El Centro account wrote back, with its own smattering of laughing and smiling emojis. The El Centro sector has at least five people working on producing videos, CalMatters reported in April. Then there's the moniker the El Centro sector has created for itself. In virtually every piece of content coming from the account, the agency refers to itself as the 'Premier Sector,' typically in the third person — but also using #PremierSector, or in photos, where it's stamped across the faces of the people it arrests. It's never a good sign, in my experience, when someone gives themselves a nickname. A spokesman for Border Patrol's El Centro sector declined to answer my questions about its approach, but wrote in a statement that it 'uses its official social media platforms to communicate directly with the American people — reinforcing our mission, highlighting operations, and offering a window into the work of our agents and officers. We actively monitor communications to ensure they reflect agency priorities and public expectations.' ACLU attorneys in their court filings provided an extensive rundown of social media posts by the El Centro Border Patrol sector to show that in its own words, the agency had expressed a clear intention of breaking the law — repeatedly. U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston of Fresno cited those posts in an April 29 order sharply curtailing the agency's practices. The Border Patrol must have 'reasonable suspicion' that a crime or immigration violation has taken place in order to stop someone, under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And, absent a warrant, it cannot arrest someone without evaluating whether they present a flight risk. By constantly posting about agents' intentions to go into communities and arrest as many people as possible, agents showed they 'do not intend to comply with the requirements … but to perform warrantless arrests without probable cause,' Thurston wrote. For now, she has prohibited the agents from using the kind of tactics they deployed in Bakersfield. Bernwanger told me she's been 'floored by the brazenness with which they have operated and talked about their operations' on social media. In a separate case this month, a U.S. district judge in San Diego temporarily blocked the expedited deportations of several men arrested as part of another raid hundreds of miles from El Centro. Agents swarmed a Home Depot parking lot in Pomona, east of Los Angeles, and detained multiple people based solely on the fact that they walked or ran in the other direction when they saw a marked Border Patrol vehicle. In that case, too, an attorney for the men detailed numerous social media posts by the El Centro sector in court documents, arguing they present a pattern of flouting the limits of its authority. One of them was a post on X in which a user asked about the Border Patrol's apparent strategy of 'standing outside gas station stops at (H)ome (D)epots preying on any random person.' Border Patrol Chief Patrol Agent Gregory Bovino responded: 'Undocumented means just that. I recommend returning to the country of origin, obtaining proper documents, and doing it the right way. If not, we will arrest.' U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw wrote that 'the public interest in enforcement of immigration laws, although significant, does not override the public interest in protecting the safeguards of the Constitution.' After Sabraw blocked the expedited deportations and ordered Border Patrol agents to testify in court, the agency abruptly dropped the effort and transferred the case to immigration court. 'The social media posts indicate the sector is operating in a way that doesn't comply with the law. They're basically saying, 'The gloves are off, we're coming after you regardless of the law,' ' said Niels Frenzen, co-director of the USC Immigration Clinic, who is representing three of the men facing deportation after the Pomona raid. It's perhaps not a surprise that an agency emboldened by Trump is mimicking his bombast on social media. The El Centro sector's social media accounts similarly mock and insult anyone it encounters who is not cheering agents on. Ironically, though, those posts are now interfering with Trump's desired endgame of removing thousands of immigrants. A late April Facebook post brags about arresting two legal residents who weren't carrying immigration documents when confronted by officers. One woman responded: 'I'm a US citizen and brown, what should I carry to prove my status?' The El Centro account shot back: 'Is that chip on your shoulder something you always carry?' The Facebook account frequently derides those it arrests as 'fools,' 'Jesse James wannabes' and 'baby faced criminals' and calls one woman 'devoid of motherly instincts.' A photo of a man it describes as a 'foreign fugitive' handcuffed in the back seat of a patrol vehicle, his lips turned down and eyes fixed at the camera, says: 'It's too late to pout … you're on your way OUT!' and 'Making puppy-dog eyes won't save him from answering for his criminal past.' One highly produced 30-second video is set to music and shows agents gripping various weapons in slow motion. 'M-4s up. Stack tight. Move silent. Hit hard!' it says. 'This is a message to all those who break the law. The Premier Sector gives no warnings, just boots, breaches, & warrants with names on them.' Ironically, its lack of warrants figures prominently in both legal cases against the agency. This is not how most government agencies — even those that interface with immigrants — present themselves to the public. Professionalism and upholding American immigration law are not mutually exclusive. Take the clinical way the U.S. Coast Guard described a recent encounter with a boat carrying undocumented immigrants: 'The aliens aboard the 15-foot vessel consisted of four adult males all claiming Mexican nationality. All four aliens were taken into custody by the Coast Guard and transferred to U.S. Border Patrol personnel.' Frenzen said he believes El Centro's approach to social media reflects a desire to create a sense of fear among immigrants so intense that they 'self-deport,' or leave the country voluntarily. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose agency oversees Border Patrol, this week made clear she knows or cares nothing about the fundamental rights protecting people under her purview. 'Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country, and suspend their right to,' she told senators at a hearing Wednesday (she was cut off based on how sideways her answer had already gone). Noem, Trump and eager Border Patrol offices like the El Centro sector are still hoping to deliver their promises of mass deportations. It's why they've cast such a wide net — one that's at times ignored due process and ensnared everyone from gardeners in Bakersfield to student activists in New York. So far, their bombast has worked against them in court. But it's unclear how long that will last. Should they prevail, Californians should prepare for their state to look and operate much differently than most of us are accustomed — or would like.
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's mass deportation campaign dealt setback in California federal court
The Trump administration's mass deportation campaign was dealt a setback in a federal district court in California. U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston issued a preliminary injunction barring U.S. Border Patrol from using stop-and-arrest practices that violate federal law and the U.S. Constitution, according to a media release by the ACLU. The judge's ruling applies to future Border Patrol operations conducted in the Eastern District of California, which stretches inland from Bakersfield to the Oregon border, essentially the entire Central Valley, including the San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys. The preliminary injunction prohibits Border Patrol agents from stopping people without reasonable suspicion that they are noncitizens and in the U.S. in violation of federal immigration law, and from arresting people without a warrant if agents don't have probable cause to believe the person is likely to flee, per the ACLU. Related: Trump's Guantanamo deportations slowed by judge's order The court also ruled that Border Patrol must document all facts and circumstances related to stops and warrantless arrests in the Eastern District and issue guidance to ensure its agents comply with the Fourth Amendment and federal law. 'Today's order affirms the dignity and constitutional rights of all people,' stated Bree Bernwanger, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Northern California. 'Border Patrol must end its illegal stop and arrest practices now.' The ruling stems from United Farm Workers v. Kristi Noem, as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and heads of the U.S. Border Patrol and El Centro Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol. In January, Border Patrol agents from the El Centro Sector traveled to Kern County, where they stopped and arrested people and then transported them 300 miles south to El Centro as part of "Operation Return to Sender." Plaintiffs contend the Operation was 'a nearly weeklong sweep through predominantly Latino areas of Kern County and the surrounding region to stop, detain, and arrest people of color who appeared to be farm workers or day laborers, regardless of their actual immigration status or individual circumstances.' At least 40 long-term Kern County residents remain stranded in Mexico, separated from their families and community, according to the ACLU. In February, the United Farm Workers and five Kern County residents sued the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Border Patrol. The ACLU Foundations of Northern California, Southern California, San Diego & Imperial Counties represent the plaintiffs, and Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP. Public records show a surge in immigration enforcement under Trump: a sharp decline in illegal border crossings, increased immigrant arrests, and a growing number of people in ICE detention. But not 139,000 deportations. "It would have required a massive shift in who is conducting deportations or how deportations are being counted to even begin to get close to the claim of 139,000," said Austin Kocher, a Syracuse University researcher who regularly compiles and analyzes immigration data. The administration hasn't produced government records that would allow for independent scrutiny – a hallmark of accountability in governance. "The administration is either engaging in a highly creative accounting scheme to inflate the perception of deportations or simply pulling these numbers out of thin air," Kocher said. There have been roughly 400 ICE deportation flights since Trump took office, according to Tom Cartwright, who tracks ICE flights daily as a volunteer for Witness at the Border. At roughly 125 people per plane, that's 50,000 people, which squares with ICE's own reporting. 'It seems ICE would have needed to operate around double the number of charter flight deportations by air other than the 400 observed to date," Cartwright said. "I just don't find these numbers plausible unless DHS is including some amorphous estimate for self-deportations. I would love to know." USA TODAY asked the White House and DHS to clarify what is counted in the deportations number. DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin told USA TODAY it includes removals by CBP and is based on "internal data." "We are confident in our numbers," she said. The White House press office was copied on communications with USA TODAY and DHS, but didn't offer a separate response. In past administrations, the bulk of deportations came from people who crossed the border illegally. But apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border have dropped dramatically under Trump, as illegal border crossings have declined, according to CBP data. That's made it challenging for the Trump administration to raise its deportation numbers quickly. Interior enforcement takes more time and resources. It can take as many as half a dozen ICE agents to detain a single person when targeting immigrants in the interior. Still, ICE arrests and detentions have risen, as the Trump administration has deputized other federal agents to conduct immigration enforcement, and CBP customs officers have referred more travelers to ICE for detention and deportation. "They've talked about being transparent about this," said David Bier, director of immigration studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "And certainly they want to note their accomplishments, so what's the problem with giving some more information than just one number with no breakdown or explanation?" It's not clear what the administration is aiming to reach 139,000 deportations, Vaughan said. The administration hasn't detailed what removal categories they're including. "They have a lot to be proud of," Vaughan said of the administration. "There is no need to hide the removal statistics within a basket of other types of enforcement." USA TODAY contributed to this story. This article originally appeared on Visalia Times-Delta: California federal court stymies Trump's mass deportation campaign
Epoch Times
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Judge Bars Border Patrol From Making Warrantless Arrests of Illegal Immigrants in Parts of California
A federal judge in California has barred U.S. Border Patrol agents from arresting suspected illegal immigrants within parts of the state without a warrant or specific evidence that the individual poses a flight risk—while delivering a rebuke to tactics used during a controversial January enforcement sweep. In an April 29 The plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), alleged in their Feb. 26 Under Thurston's order, Border Patrol agents operating in California's Eastern District are now prohibited from making detentions or arrests without first establishing reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence in the country and, for arrests, probable cause that the individual is likely to flee before a warrant can be obtained. 'The evidence before the Court is that Border Patrol agents under DHS authority engaged in conduct that violated well-established constitutional rights,' Thurston wrote in the ruling. The court also restricted the agency's use of 'voluntary departure,' a process by which illegal immigrants agree to leave the United States without a hearing before an immigration judge. Going forward, agents must clearly inform individuals of their rights and obtain genuine, informed consent before initiating such removals. Related Stories 4/29/2025 4/28/2025 The judge further ordered DHS to submit regular reports documenting any warrantless stops or arrests, along with justifications, for the duration of litigation. She also instructed DHS to issue written guidelines clarifying the legal threshold for initiating stops. 'This guidance shall include, among other things, that refusal to answer questions does not, without more, constitute a basis for reasonable suspicion to justify a detentive stop,' she wrote. The case stems from allegations that, beginning in early January 2025, dozens of Border Patrol agents traveled more than 300 miles inland from the U.S.–Mexico border to Bakersfield, targeting predominantly Latino neighborhoods and day laborer gathering spots without individualized suspicion. The plaintiffs described 'Operation Return to Sender' as a sweeping dragnet based on racial and occupational profiling, claiming agents pulled over vehicles, blocked parked cars, conducted warrantless searches, and detained people without evidence of unlawful presence. Once in custody, detainees were allegedly transported to a facility near the border, denied access to attorneys, and pressured into signing 'voluntary departure' forms without understanding the consequences—a process plaintiffs described as 'summary expulsion' that can carry long-term reentry bans. Once in custody, detainees claimed they were transported to a Border Patrol facility near the border, where they were denied access to lawyers and coerced into signing 'voluntary departure' forms under misleading pretenses, which they described as a 'form of summary expulsion.' Attorneys for the Justice Department But the court rejected those arguments, finding that the plaintiffs demonstrated a credible threat of repeated harm. Thurston wrote that the new DHS policy did not eliminate the risk of future violations and 'could be withdrawn or altered in the future' without constraint. The Epoch Times contacted the Justice Department and the ACLU with requests for comment on the ruling.
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Blue state judge attempts to stop Border Patrol from arresting suspected illegal immigrants without warrant
A California judge on Tuesday demanded Border Patrol agents allow people they think are living in the U.S. illegally to stay in the country, unless authorities have a warrant or reason to believe the person may flee before they can get a warrant. U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston ruled on Tuesday that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents in the Eastern District of California cannot stop illegal immigrants without reasonable suspicion, or deport them via "voluntary departure," unless that person is explained their rights and agrees to leave, according to a report from The Associated Press. The decision comes after dozens of people were arrested in January during Border Patrol's "Operation Return to Sender." Ice Touts Record-breaking Immigration Enforcement During Trump's First 100 Days The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem and CBP officials, claiming Border Patrol agents unconstitutionally detained people who looked like farmworkers, regardless of their actual immigration status or "individual circumstances," over the span of a week, according to the report. Nearly 800 Illegal Aliens Arrested In Massive Florida Ice Operation: 'Tidal Wave' Read On The Fox News App Detainees were allegedly taken by bus to the border, held without being able to communicate with family or legal representation, and forced to sign documents that stated they waived their right to see an immigration judge and voluntarily agreed to leave the U.S., the ACLU said. Thurston wrote that the evidence showed Border Patrol agents "engaged in conduct that violated well-established constitutional rights," The AP reported. Judge Orders Trump Administration Restore Ohio State Grad Student's Visa The agency will be required to submit a report showing who is being held and who was arrested, along with the reasoning for both, every 60 days until the lawsuit is resolved. CBP claimed Thurston did not have jurisdiction to make the ruling, but said it wouldn't matter if she did because the agency had already issued new guidance and training to its agents, "detailing exactly when people may be stopped or arrested without warrants, and what rights detainees have after their arrest," according to the report. Thurston alleged the policy could be changed again in the future. The Associated Press contributed to this article source: Blue state judge attempts to stop Border Patrol from arresting suspected illegal immigrants without warrant
Fox News
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Blue state judge attempts to stop Border Patrol from arresting suspected illegal immigrants without warrant
A California judge on Tuesday demanded Border Patrol agents allow people they think are living in the U.S. illegally to stay in the country, unless authorities have a warrant or reason to believe the person may flee before they can get a warrant. U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston ruled on Tuesday that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents in the Eastern District of California cannot stop illegal immigrants without reasonable suspicion, or deport them via "voluntary departure," unless that person is explained their rights and agrees to leave, according to a report from The Associated Press. The decision comes after dozens of people were arrested in January during Border Patrol's "Operation Return to Sender." The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem and CBP officials, claiming Border Patrol agents unconstitutionally detained people who looked like farmworkers, regardless of their actual immigration status or "individual circumstances," over the span of a week, according to the report. Detainees were allegedly taken by bus to the border, held without being able to communicate with family or legal representation, and forced to sign documents that stated they waived their right to see an immigration judge and voluntarily agreed to leave the U.S., the ACLU said. Thurston wrote that the evidence showed Border Patrol agents "engaged in conduct that violated well-established constitutional rights," The AP reported. The agency will be required to submit a report showing who is being held and who was arrested, along with the reasoning for both, every 60 days until the lawsuit is resolved. CBP claimed Thurston did not have jurisdiction to make the ruling, but said it wouldn't matter if she did because the agency had already issued new guidance and training to its agents, "detailing exactly when people may be stopped or arrested without warrants, and what rights detainees have after their arrest," according to the report. Thurston alleged the policy could be changed again in the future.
