Latest news with #U.S.ImmigrationCustomsandEnforcement
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Rümeysa Öztürk chose grace over bitterness. What we can learn
Rümeysa Öztürk could have said a lot of things when she got off the plane at Logan Airport last Saturday night, freed after 45 days in custody at a Louisiana detention center. She could have ripped the masked U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement agents who snatched her off the street in Somerville in March as she was on her way to break her Ramadan fast. She didn't. She could have excoriated the Trump administration for stripping her of her visa and putting her into a legal purgatory that endangered her health and tested her resolve. She didn't. She could have confirmed the Trump White House's worst fears and offered some full-throated support for the murderous terrorists who call themselves Hamas. She didn't. Instead, the soft-spoken, 30-year-old Tufts University graduate student from Turkey stepped to the microphone and just said: 'America is the greatest democracy in the world.' 'And I believe in those values that we share. I have faith in the American system of justice,' she continued. Those few sentences were a powerful reminder that sometimes it takes someone who's not from here to see us as we should see ourselves. A quick refresher: Öztürk was one of four students who wrote an op-ed in the campus newspaper, The Tufts Daily, last year criticizing the university's response to student activists who were demanding that the university 'acknowledge the Palestinian genocide,' disclose its investments and divest from companies with ties to Israel. A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said in March, without providing evidence, that investigations found that Öztürk engaged in activities in support of Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist group. She was never charged with criminal wrongdoing, leaving only the slender pretext of the commentary piece she co-authored. And last week, a federal judge ordered her released while her case makes its way through the courts. You don't have to like, or even agree, with Öztürk to be troubled by the circumstances of her arrest and detention. 'She never should have been detained for one day, let alone 45,' Jessie Rossman, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts, said after Öztürk was released. 'It's a violence to rip someone from home, their community ... for nothing but their beliefs.' There's growing agreement that the rule of law is under assault. And if that were just coming from the current White House's critics — and it is, make no mistake — that would be one thing. But it's not. Half of all respondents to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released earlier this month said they saw more overreach from President Donald Trump than they did from the courts. Only 3 in 10 respondents to the poll said federal judges have too much power, according to the poll. The survey is one of several recent tests of public opinion that have shown public anxiety over Trump's actions. A Pew Research Center poll found that about half of U.S. adults say Trump is setting too much policy by executive order, while about 3 in 10 say he's doing about the right amount. A separate CNN-SSRS poll found that 46 percent of Americans have 'a lot' or 'some' confidence in Trump's ability to use the power of the presidency responsibly, which is down from 54 percent in December. The findings indicate a rising sense of panic among Democrats as Trump takes aggressive actions to implement his agenda. Republicans were less troubled, according to the poll. According to the AP-NORC poll, the share of U.S. adults who say the president has too much power in the way the U.S. government operates has jumped significantly since last year, when Democrat Joe Biden was in his final year in office. It has risen from 32 percent in a March 2024 AP-NORC poll. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, meanwhile, has defended the administration's tactics, arguing that visas are a privilege, not a right, and instituted a 'one-strike' policy for students and all temporary visa holders, according to Forbes. You would be hard-pressed to find anyone who disagrees with removing dangerous criminals from the country, as the White House has sought to do with its mass deportation program. But when due process protections are sidestepped — a right afforded to citizen and non-citizen alike — the potential for abuse and error multiplies. Such was the case with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who remains in prison in Central America, despite a U.S. Supreme Court order to return him to the United States. If you cover the criminal justice system long enough, two separate and distinct patterns quickly emerge. The first is that we are far more cavalier with the rights of those we don't know than we are with our own. Someone else is accused of a crime? Lock 'em up and throw away the key. The heck with the niceties of a trial or due process. And maybe even off with their heads. You're accused of a crime? There will be no stone unturned, no defense untested, no expense spared as you proclaim your innocence to anyone willing (or not) to listen. The second is that being arrested, charged, and processed through the criminal justice system is physically, psychologically, and emotionally draining for the accused and the victim alike. It is the great equalizer, hitting the powerful and vulnerable. And it spits them out, vastly diminished, at the other end. You can argue that this is as it should be. And justice indeed has elements of punishment and retribution about it. But it also has elements of mercy and rehabilitation about it as well. So before we put someone through that process, who may or may not be guilty — and our system, citizen or not, is premised on the assumption that they are innocent — we need to make sure that we dot every 'I' and cross every 'T.' That's due process. And it's in the U.S. Constitution. It's not a suggestion. It's not something we do if we have the time or the luxury. And it's for everyone. No matter who they are, what they believe, or where they come from. Because right now, it's the accused. Next time, it could be you. Rümeysa Öztürk could have condemned the judicial system last weekend. Instead, she reaffirmed it. 'I have faith in the American system of justice,' she said, seeing us as we badly need to see ourselves again. Associated Press reports are included in this story. 'What About Us?': Native leaders say time's up on broken promises | John L. Micek Broken brokers' fees: Mass. lawmakers try again for a fix | Bay State Briefing A hospital that fights antisemitism? This Israeli doctor wants to make it happen | John L. Micek Read the original article on MassLive.
Indianapolis Star
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita faces new complaint - from a Republican senator
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita is facing another disciplinary complaint, this time filed by a state senator who says he made a "blatantly false" claim about her on a podcast this week. Republican Sen. Liz Brown of Fort Wayne said she filed an official grievance with the Indiana Supreme Court's disciplinary commission after Rokita said Brown told him she has a family member who's an unlawful resident. But Brown's office says Brown does not have a family member in the United States illegally. Should the disciplinary commission decide to file a misconduct charge and launch an investigation, that would be Rokita's third since he took office. What Rokita said and why he says he said it The flap began on April 30 when Rokita appeared on a podcast called The Burning Truth with South Bend radio host Casey Hendrickson. Rokita said Brown told him that the reason she did not hold a hearing for a key immigration bill this session was because she had a family member who was an unlawful resident. Rokita and even members of Indiana's Congressional delegation supported House Bill 1531, which would have enabled the governor to withhold funding from local governments that do not comply with U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement officials in their efforts to detain immigrants. Brown, who chairs the Senate judiciary committee, declined to hold a hearing on the bill before the deadline, effectively killing it. At the time and now, she said she was hearing many concerns from Hoosiers about how this bill would be enforced. In a statement to IndyStar on May 2, a spokesperson for Brown said an industry leader told her they'd have to violate federal law in order to comply with this bill ― and there was not enough time this session to iron out the problems with this bill. On the podcast this week, Rokita said Brown killed the bill because she had a "personal grudge against the language," adding "she's got a family member who's an illegal alien." "She can hold up the wishes of the entire state, but there's that," he said. Brown's office said that Rokita's comments had no grounding in reality. "This claim by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita is blatantly false, and is meant to be misleading to Indiana constituents to make them think that Senator Brown has a personal conflict in performing her duties as Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee," spokesperson Paige Gehlhausen wrote. "These public erroneous statements are made in an attempt to hurt the credibility and transparency needed and expected in the Indiana state legislative process." In a statement to IndyStar after Brown filed her complaint, Rokita said Brown had told him her reasons were "very personal" and that she cited a "family member that was unsuccessful getting citizenship." "Either Liz provided inaccurate or unclear information to me and others in the past, or she is backtracking now," Rokita said. Addressing the complaint she filed, Rokita said, "Liz can get in line." "This is also another example of weaponization of the Indiana court system to attempt to silence me and the people of this state who are tired of sending representatives to Indianapolis who don't really represent them," he said. Rokita has faced disciplinary action before. The court in 2023 ruled that Rokita engaged in attorney misconduct when he called Indianapolis Dr. Caitlin Bernard an 'abortion activist acting as a doctor — with a history of failing to report" on Fox News. After that ruling, when Rokita issued a press release that the commission thought contradicted his sworn affadavit, the commission filed an ethics complaint. Rokita sought to get the complaint dismissed, but was unsuccessful last week.
Fox News
11-04-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Pennsylvania man charged with threatening Trump, ICE agents, other officials
A Pennsylvania man has been charged with making threats against President Donald Trump, other U.S. officials and U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) officials, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Shawn Monper, 32, lives in Butler, Pennsylvania, where the president was shot during a campaign rally last July. "I want to applaud the outstanding and courageous investigative work of the FBI and the Butler Township Police Department, who thankfully identified and apprehended this individual before he could carry out his threats against President Trump's life and the lives of other innocent Americans," said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. "Rest assured that whenever and wherever threats of assassination or mass violence occur, this Department of Justice will find, arrest, and prosecute the suspect to the fullest extent of the law and seek the maximum appropriate punishment." This is a breaking story. Check back for updates.
New York Times
07-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
This Isn't Immigration Enforcement. It's Political Theater.
Federal law enforcement under President Trump is engaged in dangerous political theater, with high-profile arrests of non-citizen students, workers and parents set up to score political points more than to protect national security. It is not impossible for the United States to have a humane immigration system focused on public safety that provides for the growth of the nation and local communities. I've seen those possibilities through my work in military intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland defense and cyberoperations and as the chief of staff at U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement during the Biden administration. Border security and interior immigration are linked but separate challenges. In towns within the United States, there is an effective way to do interior immigration enforcement and protect our national security without undue emphasis on undocumented immigrants who do not have criminal convictions. Right now, the government is burning thousands of federal law enforcement hours on operations that privilege political objectives over public safety, attacking constitutional protections like due process and free speech as they do. If this administration doesn't correct course, it will lock the country into a future of weaker enforcement, lowered trust in public safety officials and greater risk to Americans' collective safety. This is not the first administration to fail at this task. President Barack Obama leaned on broken enforcement policies, using deportation as a deterrent while unsuccessfully trying to reform the broader immigration enterprise. President Trump's first administration implemented zero-tolerance policies that separated families, sought to end protections for children who arrived in this country as minors, prioritized draconian deterrence measures and relied on emergency public health restrictions, like Title 42. The Biden White House then continued to use emergency public health restrictions as a crutch to address a problem that needed a much more expansive solution. As each successive administration relied more on executive power to manage the system, Congress did not pass structured, long-term immigration reform. But this moment is worse. The new Trump White House is finding ever more cruel, even brutal, methods to publicly target some of the most vulnerable people in this country. While Americans are distracted by sensational videos of anti-migrant enforcement actions from the Trump administration on social media, the real threats grow. The homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, recently announced that federal agents arrested roughly 20,000 undocumented people across the country in February. That doesn't mean 20,000 national security threats were removed from the United States. On average, the United States can deport only about 7,000 to 9,000 people monthly by plane, and detention centers were at maximum capacity. So what happened to the 13,000 other migrants who were arrested? The only rational law enforcement step would be to process and then release them. That means law enforcement's time, energy and focus were wasted on a political stunt. And real people suffered. Every ICE agent dispatched to detain a noncriminal farmworker, construction laborer or college student — many, if not most, of whom have legal standing to work and study in our communities — is an ICE agent not investigating fentanyl networks, cyberattacks, human trafficking or transnational gangs. Those are the actual bad actors who threaten American safety and sovereignty. Last month, the Department of Homeland Security removed a Maryland father to El Salvador that it had no ground to deport, and despite well-documented threats against his life from local gangs. ICE arrested and continues to hold in detention a Tufts University student with no criminal record — another case that lacks any public safety rationale. These cases send a message that law enforcement is a prop, not a protector. The machinery of federal law enforcement is powerful. That's what makes it so dangerous when misused by political opportunists. ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection have greater authority than most Americans realize. They can detain people without a warrant, conduct searches without probable cause and deport people without criminal charges. These powers demand discipline, not spectacle. They exist to respond urgently to serious threats, prevent cross-border crime and detain individuals who pose risks when time or circumstances don't allow for traditional criminal justice processes. They do not exist to target migrant grandmothers from Guatemala, unaccompanied children fleeing gang violence, Haitian families seeking asylum from political collapse, Palestinian and Indian students who attended U.S. universities under lawful visas, or Mexican and Salvadoran families working and raising U.S. citizen children while trapped in immigration backlogs. Over the past two decades, the United States has invested heavily in a sophisticated vetting infrastructure. It can flag threats based on identities, travel histories and behavioral patterns. It's built to catch real bad actors before they can do harm. But instead of using its tools to protect children from abuse or disrupt transnational money laundering operations, they are being used to track down individuals with no criminal convictions, people who are providing our nation the benefits of their hope and hard work. When ICE and C.B.P. are used in this manner, their mission is compromised. Career agents are sidelined. Morale drops. Recruitment suffers. When communities see federal law enforcement used to punish rather than to protect, they stop cooperating. Law enforcement loses tips, and witnesses. Local partners hesitate to share information. That's how dangerous actors slip through. The real bad actors are getting smarter and faster. Mexican cartels use tunnels and ultralight aircraft to move narcotics. Cybercriminals attack hospitals and rural infrastructure. International smuggling operations launder profits through cryptocurrency. That means the best solution for public safety is not mass deportations — it's giving undocumented immigrants who have been in the United States for a long time the opportunity to come forward, pay a fine and gain legal status. This country needs law enforcement that goes after genuine threats, not just easy targets, and immigration enforcement that reflects who we are: a nation built by immigrants and secured by law. Law enforcement agents know how to do it. They built the tools. But if the current administration keeps misusing them, the people who intend to harm us will succeed.
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
California couple deported after 35 years in the US. Three daughters stunned
Two undocumented immigrants with no criminal history after coming to America and three U.S.-born children have been deported after 35 years living in California. Gladys Gonzales, 55, and Nelson Gonzalez, 59, from Laguna Niguel in the hills south of Los Angeles, were arrested during one of their routine check-ins with U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) on February 21 and detained for three and a half weeks before finally arriving in their native Colombia on March 18. In a post on GoFundMe, the couple's three adult daughters — who are reportedly all U.S. citizens — said their parents never broke the law after arriving in the U.S. or missed an appointment with immigration authorities. Remaining in the U.S. without authorization is a civil infraction, not a crime, whereas crossing the border without authorization is a criminal misdemeanor. "This sudden occurrence has left us in shock," wrote the daughters. "For nearly four decades, they have built a life here — raising three daughters, giving back to their community, and recently welcoming their first grandchild. "Now, they are being treated as criminals, held in detention centers, and facing deportation. This cruel and unjust situation has shattered our family emotionally and financially. "Every day they remain detained is another stolen from their family, community, and their home." A spokesperson for ICE confirmed the details of the case to The Independent, including that the couple had no criminal history. The agency said that both people had entered the country in November 1989 near San Ysidro, California, and had ultimately "exhausted all legal options to remain in the U.S." The case was first reported by The Orange County Register. It appears to be yet another example of the Trump administration's sweeping crackdown on immigration, which has reportedly targeted not only violent criminals but permanent residents, backpackers, visiting academics, asylum seekers, pro-Palestinian activists with green cards, and undocumented immigrants with no criminal record. Officials have invoked an 18th-century wartime law to deport hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador without standard legal procedures, apparently in defiance of a court order, the judge in the case has indicated Gladys and Nelson Gonzalez came to the U.S. during a period of sustained violence and terrorism in Colombia, as the government fought a two-front war against drug cartels and left-wing guerillas. According to ICE, Nelson Gonzalez filed for asylum in 1992 but his case was closed in 1998 after he "failed to attend an interview.' The agency said that both Gonzalezes agreed to leave the country voluntarily in 2000, but then sought a legal way to remain through various courts and appeals processes over the next 21 years, until finally "exhaust[ing] all legal options" in August 2021. ICE declined to say whether and on what basis the Gonzalezes were permitted to stay after that. But historically, many undocumented immigrants subject to deportation have been allowed to remain as long as they meet certain conditions and check in regularly with ICE. This can be due to humanitarian reasons, health reasons, or simply being a low priority for removal.
