Tag Archives: Immigrants

House Republicans unveiled two articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over his failure to secure the border

Razor-Wire-Texas

Important Takeaways:

  • ‘Is this going to turn into a civil war?’ Texas’ Lt. Gov. slams Biden for failing to stop ‘invasion’ of migrants and calls them a ‘cartel army’ – as he’s asked if WAR could break out between Texas National Guard and Border Patrol
  • Texas Lt Gov Dan Patrick warns the White House not to ‘confront’ National Guard
  • Maria Bartiromo also raised the prospect of ‘civil war’ if the stand-off escalates
  • The deputy to Texas governor Gregg Abbott has insisted his state has the right to defend America as he was challenged over whether its stand-off with the White House could plunge the country into civil war.
  • Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick urged Joe Biden to de-escalate the stand-off between federal immigration officers and the Texas National Guard facing an ‘invasion’ of migrants crossing the southern border.
  • The two sides are battling in the courts over the state’s recent seizure of Shelby Park near Eagle Pass, the removal of razor wire erected by Texas, and the placement of buoys in the Rio Grande.
  • But US Border Patrol said last week there are currently ‘no plans’ to dismantle the razor wire.
  • It came as House Republicans unveiled two articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over his failure to secure the border.
  • Mayorkas has been accused of ‘willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law’ as hundreds of migrants continue to flood into the US every day.

Read the original article by clicking here.

Open Borders Policies led to more than 10% surge in U.S. illegal immigrant population

2 Timothy 3:1 But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come.

Important Takeaways:

  1. Illegal immigrant population soars to 11.6 million
  2. As a result, the foreign-born population in the nation, which includes legal and illegal immigrants, is 47 million, or 14.3% of the total population, the highest in 112 years.
  3. The 47 million foreign-born residents (legal and illegal) in the country in April of 2022 is the largest number ever recorded in any U.S. government survey or decennial census.
  4. Since 2000, the total foreign-born population has grown by 50%; it’s doubled since 1990, tripled since 1980, and quintupled since 1970.

Read the original article by clicking here.

New York set to become largest U.S. city to enable non-citizen voting

By Peter Szekely

NEW YORK (Reuters) – New York City was poised on Thursday to become the largest U.S. city to allow non-citizen immigrants who are in the country legally to vote in municipal elections.

The City Council was set to enact a measure that would enable more than 800,000 permanent U.S. residents, or green-card holders, and other legally documented non-citizens to take part in elections for city leaders, including the mayor. Non-citizen residents would not be allowed to vote in state or federal elections.

The bill, which was sponsored by Council Member Ydanis Rodriguez and has the support of Speaker Corey Johnson, would require immigrant voters to have lived in the city for at least 30 days. It has the support of a veto-proof majority of the 51-member council.

Mayor Bill de Blasio on Wednesday reiterated that he has “mixed feelings” about the measure, saying there are “outstanding legal questions” about whether the city has the authority to enact such a measure.

“But I respect the City Council,” de Blasio told a reporter at a briefing. “My assumption is I’m just going to respect whatever they do.”

A report last year by the mayor’s office estimated that nearly 10% of the city’s 8.8 million residents were green-card holders or other immigrants with legal status.

At least 14 U.S. cities, including San Francisco, already allow non-citizens to vote in their municipal elections.

Supporters of the bill say it would enfranchise a huge bloc of legal residents who currently have no say over the taxes they pay, the schools their children attend or the other services they rely on.

The bill is opposed by the tiny Republican minority on the council, who say it would dilute the voting power of citizen voters and discourage immigrants from becoming citizens.

Council Minority Leader Joe Borelli the measure would make voting requirements in the city more lax than the home countries of many immigrants, and would enable them to vote in elections in both countries.

“If the champions of this bill really care about our democracy, they would encourage immigrants to strive toward American citizenship — not cheapen it by giving away the store,” Borelli said in an opinion piece in the New York Post last month.

(Reporting by Peter Szekely in New York; Editing by Aurora Ellis)

U.S. Supreme Court blocks permanent residency for some immigrants

By Andrew Chung

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to let immigrants who have been permitted to stay in the United States on humanitarian grounds apply to become permanent residents if they entered the country illegally, siding with President Joe Biden’s administration.

The justices, acting in an appeal by a married couple from El Salvador who were granted so-called Temporary Protected Status, unanimously upheld a lower court ruling that barred their applications for permanent residency, also known as a green card, because of their unlawful entry.

The case could affect thousands of immigrants, many of whom have lived in the United States for years. Biden, who has sought to reverse many of his Republican predecessor Donald Trump’s hardline immigration policies, had opposed the immigrants in this case, placing the president at odds with immigration advocacy groups and some of his fellow Democrats.

A federal law called the Immigration and Nationality Act generally requires that people seeking to become permanent residents have been “inspected and admitted” into the United States. At issue in the case was whether a grant of Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which gives the recipient “lawful status,” satisfies those requirements.

Writing for the court, liberal Justice Elena Kagan said that “because a grant of TPS does not come with a ticket of admission, it does not eliminate the disqualifying effect of an unlawful entry.”

Foreign nationals can be granted Temporary Protected Status if a humanitarian crisis in their home country, such as a natural disaster or armed conflict, would make their return unsafe. There are about 400,000 people in the United States with protected status, which prevents deportation and lets them work legally.

The case involves Jose Sanchez and Sonia Gonzalez, who live in New Jersey and have four children.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

U.S. Supreme Court doubts ‘green cards’ for some protected migrants

By Andrew Chung

(Reuters) – U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared reluctant to let people who have been allowed to stay in the United States on humanitarian grounds apply to become permanent residents if they entered the country illegally.

The justices heard arguments in an appeal by a married couple from El Salvador who were granted so-called Temporary Protected Status of a lower court ruling that barred their applications for permanent residency, also known as a green card, because of their unlawful entry.

The case could affect thousands of immigrants, many of whom have lived in the United States for years. President Joe Biden’s administration opposes the immigrants in the case. The dispute puts Biden, who has sought to reverse many of his Republican predecessor Donald Trump’s hardline immigration policies, at odds with immigration advocacy groups and some of his fellow Democrats.

A federal law called the Immigration and Nationality Act generally requires that people seeking to become permanent residents have been “inspected and admitted” into the United States. At issue in the case is whether a grant of Temporary Protected Status, which gives the recipient “lawful status,” satisfies those requirements.

Some justices suggested it might be a stretch to interpret the law as deeming the plaintiffs “admitted.”

“They clearly were not admitted at the borders, so is that a fiction, is it metaphysical, what is it? I don’t know,” conservative Justice Clarence Thomas asked.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan also cast doubt on whether the law broadly considers people who the government categorizes as “non-immigrants,” including those with Temporary Protected Status, as having been legally admitted.

Some justices suggested that the law’s meaning is not so clear cut.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Justice Department lawyer Michael Huston, “If you’re asking us to find the better reading of the statute, we should go by its terms: Those people have been admitted.”

Foreign nationals can be granted Temporary Protected Status if a humanitarian crisis in their home country, such as a natural disaster or armed conflict, would make their return unsafe. There are about 400,000 people in the United States with protected status, which prevents deportation and let them work legally.

The case involves Jose Sanchez and Sonia Gonzalez, who live in New Jersey. They have four children, the youngest of whom was born in the United States.

The couple twice entered the country illegally: in 1997 and 1998. After a series of earthquakes in 2001, the United States designated El Salvador as covered under the Temporary Protected Status program. The couple received protection under the program that same year. U.S. officials rejected their 2014 applications for green cards because they had not been lawfully admitted.

They sued in federal court, saying that those with lawful status, including Temporary Protected Status recipients, are deemed to have been lawfully admitted, and may apply for permanent residency. Last year, the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the couple.

Besides El Salvador, 10 other countries have such designations: Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham)

U.S. judge blocks deportation freeze in swift setback for Biden

By Ted Hesson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A federal judge in Texas on Tuesday temporarily blocked a move by new U.S. President Joe Biden to halt the deportation of many immigrants for a 100-day period, a swift legal setback for his ambitious immigration agenda.

U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton, an appointee of former President Donald Trump in the Southern District of Texas, issued a temporary restraining order that blocks the policy nationwide for 14 days following a legal challenge by Texas.

The Biden administration is expected to appeal the ruling, which halts the deportation freeze while both parties submit briefs on the matter.

Biden promised on the campaign trail to enact a 100-day moratorium on deportations if elected, a proposal that contrasted sharply with the immigration crackdown promoted by Trump, a Republican.

After Biden took office on Wednesday, the top official at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a memo that ordered a pause on many deportations to enable the department to better deal with “operational challenges” at the U.S.-Mexico border during the pandemic.

In a complaint filed on Friday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the state would face irreparable harm if the deportation freeze was allowed to go into effect. Paxton, a Republican, said it would increase education and healthcare costs as more immigrants remained in Texas illegally.

Paxton also said it went against the terms of an enforcement agreement Texas brokered with the Trump administration less than two weeks before Biden took office.

Tipton said in the order on Tuesday that Texas had “a substantial likelihood of success” on at least two of its claims, including that the deportation freeze violated a federal immigration law stating that authorities “shall remove” immigrants with final deportation orders within 90 days.

The judge also found it likely that Texas would succeed on its claim that the Biden administration “arbitrarily and capriciously departed from its previous policy without sufficient explanation” when it issued the moratorium.

Paxton praised the ruling in a statement, saying a deportation moratorium would “endanger Texans and undermine federal law.”

Approximately 1.2 million immigrants in the United States have final orders of removal, a spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) told Reuters.

As of Jan. 16, ICE was holding around 6,000 detainees with final deportation orders, the spokeswoman said.

The number of detained migrants has dropped sharply during the pandemic, falling by roughly two-thirds.

Kate Huddleston, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, which filed a brief in support of the Biden administration, criticized the Texas lawsuit in a statement after the ruling.

“The administration’s pause on deportations is not only lawful but necessary to ensure that families are not separated and people are not returned to danger needlessly while the new administration reviews past actions,” she said.

(Reporting by Ted Hesson in Washington; Additional reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York and Kristina Cooke in Los Angeles; Editing by Ross Colvin, Franklin Paul, Mark Heinrich and Marguerita Choy)

U.S. judge hears lawsuit targeting deportation protections for ‘Dreamer’ immigrants

By Mimi Dwyer and Ted Hesson

(Reuters) – A Texas-led coalition of nine states will urge a federal judge on Tuesday to invalidate a program that grants hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the United States as children the right to live and work in the country.

The states have argued that the program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), was not created lawfully by former President Barack Obama in 2012.

The case could upend the lives of the nearly 650,000 immigrants who are beneficiaries of the program, which protects them from deportation, allows them to work, grants access to driver’s licenses, and in some cases improves access to financial aid for education.

The DACA program has withstood a number of challenges since its creation, including a move by Republican President Donald Trump in 2017 to end it.

The Supreme Court did not rule on the overarching legality of the DACA program. A ruling on the challenge brought by Texas and the other states, which is being heard by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, could address that question.

(Reporting by Mimi Dwyer in Los Angeles and Ted Hesson in Washington; Editing by Bill Berkrot)

U.S. immigration raids that targeted 2,100 people snared 35: NY Times

FILE PHOTO: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees watch from a window as activists hold the "Shutdown ICE" rally in Washington, U.S., July 16, 2019. REUTERS/Michael A. McCoy

(Reuters) – A scant 35 people were taken into custody during a long-threatened U.S. series of raids that targeted more than 2,100 immigrants who had been ordered deported, the New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing federal figures.

President Donald Trump described the raids over the July 13 weekend, dubbed “Operation Border Resolve,” as “very successful” even though much of the activity was not visible to the public.

The raids, originally scheduled for June for a dozen major U.S. cities, were highly publicized, likely prompting many who believed they were targeted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to leave their homes or hide, the Times reported.

As word spread about the possible ICE raids, immigration rights groups circulated “know your rights” materials in immigrant communities and on social media while local activists advised people not to answer the door to agents without a warrant and not to talk or sign any documents without a lawyer present.

Trump signaled the impending enforcement in a June tweet, saying officials would soon “begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States.”

Facing a re-election battle next year, Trump has wanted to show his supporters that he is delivering on campaign promises to crack down on illegal immigration, a signature policy objective of his administration.

He has pushed Guatemala, Mexico and other countries in the region to act as buffer zones and take in asylum seekers who would otherwise go to the United States.

Trump said on Twitter on Tuesday that he is now considering a “ban,” tariffs and remittance fees after Guatemala decided to not move forward with a safe-third-country agreement that would have required the Central American nation to take in more asylum seekers.

It was not immediately clear what policies he was referring to. The White House and the Guatemalan government did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

(Reporting by Brendan O’Brien in Chicago; Editing by Scott Malone and Steve Orlofsky)

In losing legal battles over census, Trump may win political war

T-shirts are displayed at a community activists and local government leaders event to mark the one-year-out launch of the 2020 Census efforts in Boston, Massachusetts, U.S., April 1, 2019. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

By Tom Hals

(Reuters) – The Trump administration has few realistic options to get a citizenship question onto next year’s census, but by keeping the issue in the public eye it could still trigger an undercount of residents in Democratic-leaning areas, legal and political experts told Reuters.

Constant media coverage linking citizenship and census forms could scare undocumented immigrants away from responding and rally U.S. President Donald Trump’s base to participate, they said. That, in turn, would help redraw voting districts across the country in favor of his Republican party, encouraging the president to pursue a legal battle that he has little chance of winning.

The latest parlay came on Sunday evening, when the U.S. Department of Justice installed a new team of lawyers to handle the last iterations of litigation that has been going on for more than a year.

“Even if the question is (taken) off, if people are tweeting as if it may be a real possibility, it continues to raise fears and depress the count,” said Thomas Wolf, a lawyer who focuses on census issues at the Brennan Center for Justice.

The U.S. Constitution requires the government to count all residents – whatever their legal status – every 10 years. The information collected becomes the basis for voting maps and distributing some $800 billion in federal funds each year.

It is illegal for the Census Bureau to share information about individuals with law enforcement or immigration authorities. But the idea of asking residents about citizenship status has nonetheless stoked fears that the survey would become a tool for the Trump administration’s hardline immigration policies.

The president and his allies have said it is important to know about citizenship status, and characterized the question as something that should not draw controversy.

“So important for our Country that the very simple and basic ‘Are you a Citizen of the United States?’ question be allowed to be asked in the 2020 Census,” the president tweeted on July 4.

A Reuters poll earlier this year also showed 66% of Americans support its inclusion.

But demographers, advocacy groups, corporations and even the Census Bureau’s own staff have said the citizenship question threatens to undermine the survey.

Communities with high immigrant and Latino populations could have low response rates. Researchers have estimated that more than 4 million people out of a total U.S. population of some 330 million may not participate.

That would benefit non-Hispanic whites, a core part of Trump’s support, and help Republicans gain seats in Congress and state legislatures, critics have said.

The question seemed dead in June, when the Supreme Court blocked it, saying the administration had given a “contrived” rationale for its inclusion.

However, the high court left open the possibility that the administration could offer a plausible rationale. Department of Justice lawyers said on Friday that they were exploring other explanations. Trump also said he may try to force it into the survey through an executive order.

Legal experts immediately slapped down the ideas. It will be hard to convince justices that a new explanation is not also contrived, and an executive order would not override the Supreme Court decision or undo other court orders blocking the citizenship question, they said.

“There is nothing talismanic about an executive order,” said a statement from Thomas Saenz, the president and general counsel of MALDEF, a Latino rights group pursuing one of the cases against the administration. “Our government is not a dictatorship.”

Trump also said on Friday that although census forms are already being printed, the government could later produce “an addendum.”

It is not clear how that might work, but census experts said it would be an unprecedented disruption to a process that has been in motion for years.

“Any suggestion that on a moment’s notice the Census Bureau could add an extra piece of paper with an additional question to a census that it has been planning literally for a decade demonstrates a breathtaking ignorance of what it takes to pull off a census,” said Terri Ann Lowenthal, a census consultant.

An addendum would also likely be challenged in courts for running afoul of various administrative laws.

On Friday, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/motion-amend to prevent the citizenship question from being added.

In the meantime, attention surrounding the legal debacle may already be hurting the census and helping Trump achieve his goals, said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

“The longer he has this conversation, the worse it is for an accurate census count,” she said.

(Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware; Additional reporting by Lawrence Hurley in Washington; Editing by Lauren Tara LaCapra and Rosalba O’Brien)

Supreme Court conservatives sympathetic toward Trump census citizenship query

Advertisements for 2020 Census Jobs are posted at a restaurant in Concord, New Hampshire, U.S., February 18, 2019. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

By Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared sympathetic toward a bid by President Donald Trump’s administration to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, a plan opponents have called a Republican effort to deter immigrants from taking part in the population count.

During an extended, 80-minute argument session, the court’s liberal justices voiced skepticism over the need for the question to enforce a federal voting rights law – the administration’s stated justification.

Lower courts have blocked the question, ruling that the administration violated federal law and the U.S. Constitution in seeking to include it on the census form.

The court has a 5-4 conservative majority, and conservative justices signaled support toward the administration’s stance.

Chief Justice John Roberts challenged New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood, whose state sued the administration over the plan to add the question, saying citizenship is critical information for enforcing the Voting Rights Act.

A ruling is due by the end of June.

The case comes in a pair of lawsuits by a group of states and localities led by New York state, and a coalition of immigrant rights groups challenging the legality of the question. The census forms are due to be printed in the coming months.

The official population count, as determined by the census, is used to allot seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and distribute some $800 billion in federal funds.

Opponents have said inclusion of the question would cause a sizeable undercount by frightening immigrant households and Latinos from filling out the census, fearful that the information would be shared with law enforcement. This would cost Democratic-leaning areas electoral representation in Congress and federal aid, benefiting Republican-leaning parts of the country, they said.

Trump, a Republican, has pursued hardline immigration policies. His administration said the citizenship question would yield better data to enforce the Voting Rights Act, which protects eligible voters from discrimination.

The Supreme Court, with includes Trump’s conservative appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, has handed the Republican president victories on some major policies, including last year allowing his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries.

Business groups and corporations such as Lyft, Inc, Box, Inc, Levi Strauss & Co and Uber Technologies Inc also opposed the citizenship question, saying it would compromise census data that they use to make decisions including where to put new locations and how to market products.

Manhattan-based U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman on Jan. 15 ruled that the Commerce Department’s decision to add the question violated a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act. Federal judges in Maryland and California also prohibited the question’s inclusion in subsequent rulings, saying it would violate the Constitution’s mandate to enumerate the population every 10 years.

In November, when the Supreme Court allowed the trial before Furman to proceed, three of the court’s conservative justices – Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – said they would have blocked it, indicating they may be sympathetic to the administration’s legal arguments.

Furman found that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, whose department includes the Census Bureau, concealed his true motives for his March 2018 decision to add the question.

The Census Bureau itself estimated that households corresponding to 6.5 million people would not respond to the census if the citizenship question is asked, leading to less accurate citizenship data.

Citizenship has not been asked of all households since the 1950 census. It has featured since then on questionnaires sent to a smaller subset of the population. While only U.S. citizens can vote, non-citizens comprise an estimated 7 percent of the population.

 

(Reporting by Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)