Trump immigration raids snag U.S. citizens, including Native Americans, raising racial profiling fears

American citizens, including citizens of Native tribal nations, have been pulled into the vast immigration operations ordered by President Donald Trump in accordance with his campaign vow to conduct mass deportations since Day 1. Those who are getting caught in Immigrations and Customs Enforcement raids are being targeted because of their race or skin color, according to witnesses. The Navajo Nation Office was flooded with calls from tribal members living off-reservation, with many reporting being questioned about their identity by ICE officers, Native News Online reported. Questioning of Navajo Nation citizens, who are American citizens, by ICE has been problematic enough that Navajo President Buu Nygren took to the airwaves to address it. On tribal radio station KTNN, Nygren said he had received accounts of “negative and sometimes traumatizing” encounters between ICE and Navajo Nation citizens, Native News Online reported. He advised Navajo Nation residents to carry identification, driver’s licenses and their Certificate of Indian Blood. NBC News reached out to ICE regarding the detaining and questioning of Navajo Nation citizens and complaints of racial profiling, and has not yet received a response. One of the employees detained and questioned by ICE at a seafood wholesaler during an immigration raid in Newark, New Jersey, was a U.S. citizen and military veteran. Newark Mayor Ras Baraka denounced the ICE raid, saying the military veteran "suffered the indignity of having the legitimacy of his military documentation questioned.” Regarding the raid, ICE stated they “may encounter U.S. citizens while conducting field work and may request identification to establish an individual’s identity.” The seafood wholesaler's owner, Luis Janota, told WPIX in New York that his warehouse manager, who was also detained, was Puerto Rican. Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory and its residents are U.S. citizens. “It looked to me like they were specifically going after certain kinds of people — not every kind. Because they did not ask me for documentation for my American workers, Portuguese workers or white workers,” Janota told the station. More deportations, worries over 'increased profiling' ICE has stepped up arrests and deportations since Trump took office. While he had said he would prioritize violent criminals, his "border czar," Tom Homan, also said this week that arrests of undocumented immigrants without criminal convictions — which the administration calls collateral arrests — would occur. On Sunday, almost half of the people arrested, 48%, had nonviolent offenses on their record or were people who had not committed any offense. Being in the U.S. without legal status is a civil violation. Entering the country without inspection, between ports of entry or based on false statements — what is considered illegal entry — is a misdemeanor. Re-entering, or attempting to re-enter, is a felony. The criteria for who is arrested and deported will soon be expanded, however. A bill awaiting Trump's signature, the Laken Riley Act, will allow the arrest and detention of people who are not legally in the country and have been charged — they do not have to be convicted — with burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, or crimes that lead to death or serious bodily injury. Recommended Guns in America Man who killed 5 in Texas after a neighbor complained about gunfire gets life in prison U.S. news Boyfriend of suspect in border agent killing accused of murdering California man 3 days earlier “When you don’t have enforcement priorities, everyone is subject to detention,” said Rosanna Eugenio, legal director at the New York Immigration Coalition. “It also creates this situation that leads to increased profiling. How do you tell that someone does not have legal status in this country or is in the process of seeking legal status? You can’t tell that by looking at someone. But it will create conditions where there will be profiling of communities, immigrant communities, and communities of color.” The administration is not relying only on ICE officers to make the arrests. The president ordered personnel in several agencies to assist in arresting and detaining immigrants, and some states and cities also are assisting or have said they are willing to assist. Some arrests have been made in cities where officials support the arrests, but the administration also has been targeting cities whose officials have said their local law enforcement would not assist Trump, On Tuesday morning, several law enforcement agencies made arrests in New York City. The arrests were showcased on social media in posts by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and the Drug Enforcement Agency. The mass deportation efforts may soon run into funding realities. Homan has said Congress will have to pony up more money to pay for Trump's mass deportation pledge and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has said "we don't have the resources." As Trump’s immigration crackdown spread to more cities and towns around the country, immigration advocates were trying to make sure immigrants know what to do if they are caught in the crackdown. “Our best defense in this moment is people knowing their rights. Stay calm, don’t lie. Remain silent. Don’t consent to the search,” said Murad Awadeh, president and CEO of the New York Immigration Coalition. “Do not open the door without a judicial warrant, as well as making sure that it’s signed by a judge.” During the campaign, Trump frequently alluded to mass deportations carried out by Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950s under the label “Operation Wetback,” a racist term used against mostly Mexican immigrants. U.S. citizens of Mexican descent were also expelled from the country during that operation. Trump has said his mass deportations would be larger than Eisenhower's. But there have been more recent arrests and deportations of American citizens: From Oct. 1, 2015, to March 2020, ICE arrested 674 potential U.S. citizens, detained 121 and removed 70, according to a 2021 Government Accountability Office report. The GAO said at the time that ICE had conflicting policies on questioning U.S. citizens and did not track its encounters with U.S. citizens well. The GAO also found that ICE issued detainers — asking a local jurisdiction to hold a suspected undocumented immigrant who had been arrested in another crime — for at least 895 potential U.S. citizens during that period. It eventually canceled about 74% of the detainers. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Trump Officials Revoke Biden’s Extension of Protections for Venezuelans

The Trump administration has revoked an extension of deportation protections that President Joseph R. Biden Jr. had granted to more than 600,000 Venezuelans already in the United States, according to a copy of the decision obtained by The New York Times. On Tuesday, Kristi Noem, the secretary of homeland security, decided to revoke the 18-month extension of what is known as Temporary Protected Status, which is intended to help people in the United States who cannot return safely and immediately to their country because of a natural disaster or an armed conflict. The move is a blow to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants who believed they would not only be protected from deportation but also provided work permits until at least the fall of 2026. Undoing the extension could add to Mr. Trump’s crackdown on not only illegal immigration but also on immigrants whom the Biden administration had authorized to remain in the country. In the past, Mr. Trump has targeted immigrants under Temporary Protected Status, which aids migrants from some of the most unstable countries in the world. Republicans have argued, however, that the measure has strayed far from its original mission of providing temporary shelter from conflict or disaster. During his first administration, Mr. Trump aimed to stop the protections for migrants from several countries, including Haiti, El Salvador and Sudan. Federal courts stymied some of those efforts. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Ms. Noem’s decision finds fault with the move by Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary under Mr. Biden, to extend the protections for Venezuelans in the final month of Mr. Biden’s term. The agency generally must decide at regular intervals whether the protections should be extended before they expire. The notice argued that Mr. Mayorkas made his move too early and said the extension should not remain in effect “given the exceedingly brief period” since it was issued on Jan. 17. A Homeland Security Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, argued that the last-minute extension by the Biden administration appeared to be a way to tie the hands of Trump officials. Venezuelans have poured into the United States in recent years as their country’s economy has collapsed and President Nicolás Maduro’s autocratic government has stifled dissent. Q&A What do you want to know about how The Times is covering the Trump presidency? Our journalists will answer your questions. Ask Us Anything About Our Reporting on the Trump Administration Jan. 28, 2025 Those who initially received Temporary Protected Status in 2021 will maintain their protections through September, while those who obtained it in 2023 will have them until at least April. Ms. Noem now has until Saturday to make a decision on whether to issue her own extension on the group of Venezuelans who received their status in 2023. If the administration does not make a decision by Saturday, the protections will extend for six months automatically, the notice said. Editors’ Picks A Charlie Chaplin Movie Like You’ve Never Seen It Before The Easiest Way to Feel More Organized Why Every Best Actress Nominee Has a Solid Shot at the Oscar Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Immigrant advocates said the cancellation of the Biden administration’s extension would cause confusion and fear among Venezuelans across the United States. “By taking this action, Secretary Noem is throwing over 600,000 into a state of ongoing bureaucratic limbo,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council. “People will no longer have any certainty as to whether they can stay in the country legally through the end of the year.” He said the decision indicated that the Trump administration could also decide not to make its own extension for Venezuelans who received their status in 2023. “If the Trump administration moves to terminate T.P.S. for over 600,000 Venezuelans, it could also have significant impacts on the economy, as nearly all of those with status are working here legally,” he added. When the Biden administration moved to extend the protections this month, it cited “political and economic crises under the inhumane Maduro regime.” The statement said that “these conditions have contributed to high levels of crime and violence, impacting access to food, medicine, health care, water, electricity and fuel.” For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Trump administration may pull money from TSA, Coast Guard to help ICE afford costly deportations

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement is facing a budget shortfall that began before President Donald Trump took office but that could be an obstacle for his promise of mass deportations around the country now that it is the principal agency tasked with carrying out those deportations. Trump administration officials are now considering pulling funding from the Transportation Security Administration to make up for it, according to two sources familiar with the discussions. The administration is also looking at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the Coast Guard as possible areas from which to take money to give ICE. The executive branch is allowed to move money appropriated by Congress from one agency to another within a department, and the Trump administration would not be the first to do so to make up for an ICE budget shortfall. Spokespeople for the Department of Homeland Security, ICE and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. ICE was facing a $230 million budget shortfall even before Trump took office and ramped up deportations, when it averaged around 282 arrests per day. On Sunday, ICE arrested more than 1,200 people, according to a senior DHS official, and senior leaders at ICE have been told the agency must continue to arrest 1,200 to 1,500 people per day. A former and a current DHS official told NBC News that during the Biden administration the average cost to ICE to deport a single person was about $10,500, starting with the arrest through the person’s time in detention and onto a flight back to the person’s home country. A Government Accountability Office report in May found that from 2014 to 2023, DHS — under which ICE, the TSA, CISA and the Coast Guard all fall — had notified Congress that it planned to move a total of $1.8 billion to help parts of ICE that needed more money. Some of that came from other parts of ICE, but most came from other agencies, including the TSA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Coast Guard. Cuts to TSA could be met with backlash if they led to longer lines at airports and impact travelers. Trump has publicly criticized the other agencies apparently contemplated as funding sources. He has gone after CISA for weighing in on what it deemed to be misinformation surrounding the 2020 presidential election. He also abruptly fired the commandant of the Coast Guard upon taking office. Congress must be notified of such transfers, and there are limits on how much can be transferred. For example, according to a 2023 Congressional Research Service report, in fiscal year 2023, up to 5% of any DHS appropriation could be moved elsewhere within DHS, so long as the recipient’s budget as originally set by Congress didn’t increase by more than 10%. In his inaugural address, Trump promised his administration would deport “millions and millions.” If the average cost to deport one person remains the same as during the previous administration, the Trump administration would be looking at spending $10.5 billion to deport just 1 million migrants. Recommended National Security Trump's DOJ firings are designed to deter future investigations, former officials say The average operating budget for all of ICE, which is also responsible for other issues, including customs violations, money laundering, drug trafficking investigations, stopping child exploitation and more, is about $9 billion, the former and current DHS officials said. In fiscal year 2023, during the Biden administration, DHS moved about $400 million to ICE from other parts of DHS. That money would cover the deportations of fewer than 40,000 people. To make up for staffing shortages at ICE, the Trump administration is also leaning on other law enforcement agencies to help ICE agents arrest migrants, including the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Former acting ICE Director P.J. Lechleitner said Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), a part of ICE responsible for investigating human trafficking, drug trafficking and other international crimes with U.S. nexuses, may be strained in an effort to pull HSI agents into arresting and deporting migrants. “HSI will have to refocus their invested equities and pull resources off some of their other core areas,” Lechleitner said. “It’s a zero-sum game.” Julia Ainsley Julia Ainsley is the homeland security correspondent for NBC News and covers the Department of Homeland Security for the NBC News Investigative Unit. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

‘Give us a little time’: Democrats search for a guiding principle against Trump

After a rudderless post-election run, Democrats are suddenly showing some fight against President Donald Trump. Yet unlike the progressive ascendance of eight years ago, it’s not clear who is leading the charge. “I can’t answer that. Give us a little time,” Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told Semafor. “This is brand new.” It’s not clear how much time they’ll get, however, as the fight to define Democrats’ future plays out in real time with unavoidable tests of clout for the party’s disparate wings. There’s a DNC chairmanship election around the corner, Senate Democrats are wrestling with how much resistance to mount to Trump’s Cabinet and House Democrats are gaming out how to use their significant leverage. At this time in 2017, their base was literally marching in the streets and veteran Democrats responded by racing to airports to protest Trump’s travel ban. That’s not happening this time — yet this week’s sweeping Trump pardon of Jan. 6 defendants clearly reawakened the party’s moribund activist impulses. “We’re obviously in a bit of disarray,” one Democratic senator told Semafor. “I don’t think people are really completely sure about what lesson is to be learned in this election.” AD Not only that, but the party is clearly divided over tactics. Many Democrats were willing to accommodate a quick approval of Trump’s nominee to lead the Central Intelligence Agency this week. But Sen. Chris Murphy put a stop to that and made clear he’s not interested in playing nice. “Personally, I don’t want to give Republicans an inch on their claims they care about national security after their pardons,” said Murphy, D-Conn. “My hope is that we’re going to be down on the floor and on TV and back in our states talking about the danger of these pardons.” Ratcliffe was still confirmed Thursday, 74-25, with significant Democratic support. The Democratic split between antagonism and accommodation is playing out in full view among the party’s most prominent members: Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., is striking a collaborative note while voting against Democratic delay efforts, Murphy is embracing aggressive opposition, and others are trying to do both. AD Take Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, among the dozen or so Democrats angling to be in the mix on border security negotiations. Even as he does that, he’s drawing red lines for Trump. “I’m going to stand up against this guy when he does stupid stuff like he did the other day in pardoning these violent criminals,” Kelly told Semafor, referring to Jan. 6 offenders who attacked police officers. “Can I think of a worse decision that a president has made in recent history? I can’t come up with one.” For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Which industries are most vulnerable to Trump's immigration crackdown?

In one of his first acts after returning to the Oval Office this week, President Trump tasked federal agencies with developing ways to potentially ease prices for U.S. consumers. But experts warn that his administration's crackdown on immigration could both drive up inflation as well as hurt a range of businesses by shrinking the nation's workforce. "A reduction in labor supply means upward pressure on wages, which has different sector implications including inflationary pressure, especially for food prices," Stephen Brown, deputy chief North America economist with Capital Economics, told CBS MoneyWatch. David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said labor shortages stemming from the Trump administration's push to remove undocumented immigrants could curtail the production of some products and services. "Ultimately, the main way immigration affects inflation is that if jobs are left open and production is unable to keep up with demand, that's going to lead to higher prices," he said. What sectors depend most on immigrant labor? According to estimates from the nonpartisan Center for Migration Studies of New York and other groups, roughly 8.3 million undocumented immigrants work in the U.S, or just over 5% of the country's workforce. Undocumented immigrants account for about 20% of the agriculture industry's overall workforce, although that figure can rise to roughly half for some speciality farms, according to Capital Economics, which advises large investors. "It's the key sector that comes up time and time again," Brown said, noting that harvesting delicate fruit is more labor-intensive than, for example, growing cereal crops. That means mass deportations could lead to price hikes in the fruit aisle. "The inflationary impact could affect food overall, but particularly fresher fruits, rather than the ingredients in more processed foods," he said. Construction companies, including businesses focused on home renovations and landscaping, have the next highest share of undocumented workers and would also likely face a labor shortage if the government clamps down. "With regard to home improvement projects those prices, they might become unaffordable to the point where people feel they can't do them anymore. And the lack of supply will be a big issue there, too," Brown said. Restaurants and food service businesses, which employ large numbers of undocumented workers, could be at particular risk if deportations flare. A shortage of workers would likely force such enterprises, including millions of small eateries around the U.S., to raise their wages to attract new employees. But that would also lead to hikes in menu prices, potentially driving away customers. "They don't necessarily have the ability to bid up wages, so it might be that those places just shut down because they don't have the labor," Brown said. "Removing large numbers of immigrants would drastically reduce the labor force, which could lead to rising wages, but potentially just higher prices for food, building and repairing homes, hotel stays and more things Americans hope to see lower prices for," added Julia Gelatt, associate director of the U.S. immigration policy program at the Migration Policy Institute. That's because there are some jobs where even higher pay generally fails to attract U.S. born workers, like farming. "Wages might not rise and instead we'd just see a short-term lack of availability of workers for harvesting crops," she said. Bier of the Cato Institute notes that removing undocumented workers could also have a ripple effect on legally employed workers. For example, the construction industry has an estimated 2 million undocumented workers, but their bosses are mostly Americans. "A lot of immigrants do jobs that support jobs held by Americans," he said. "The same thing is true in hospitality. Americans are more likely to be in management and supervisory roles, so if you pull a bunch of workers you're supervising, there will be fewer jobs for those supervisors and you'll see everyone leveling down," Bier added. "The economic effects are going to be much more diffuse than people expect." More from CBS News DHS authorizes federal law enforcement to implement Trump's immigration policies Trump empowers deportation agents to target migrants allowed into U.S. legally Who is in charge of the CDC right now? Nobody knows for sure Trump wants the feds to lower prices for Americans. Can he deliver? Megan Cerullo Megan Cerullo is a New York-based reporter for CBS MoneyWatch covering small business, workplace, health care, consumer spending and personal finance topics. She regularly appears on CBS News 24/7 to discuss her reporting.

Trump’s early actions overwhelm the immigration system

President Donald Trump has already inundated the country’s immigration system with enough changes to create immediate impacts along the border and across American cities. Thousands of migrants trying to gain entry in the United States to seek asylum using the Custom and Border Patrol’s mobile app — set up by the Biden administration to deter migrants from crossing illegally — had their appointments canceled, throwing into limbo many, including those who had been waiting for months. The Biden administration’s website for humanitarian parole for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela went dark. Refugee admissions into the country were indefinitely halted. Immigration authorities can now enter schools, churches and places of worship to conduct arrests, reversing a policy that had long kept those sanctuaries off limits. The new administration fired top immigration court officials. And Trump’s sweeping birthright citizenship order — intended to deny the right to babies born to undocumented immigrants in the United States — immediately sparked legal challenges, as blue-state attorneys general moved quickly to attack an effort they decried as unconstitutional. 00:17 Top Stories from POLITICO Skip Ad The video player is currently playing an ad. The president is still fighting to muscle some of his most aggressive orders, such as ending birthright citizenship, past the courts and Democrats, and he will face steep obstacles in funding and implementing his policies. But unlike four years ago, when he came into the White House with hastily drawn orders, Trump and his allies have used his time out of office to draft a more robust agenda. And the torrent of immigration executive orders has already dramatically altered the country’s treatment of immigrants, as experts and advocates continue to analyze his moves for clues about what might withstand legal muster, what actions have the most teeth and what the president may unleash next. House Republicans introduce bill to end birthright citizenship SharePlay Video “They had stuff ready to go, and they had their ducks lined up better,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director for the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that pushes for less immigration. “In the long run for them, it’s better that they lost in 2020 because they’re not only way more prepared, but the political situation is far more conducive to getting stuff done.” Many policy experts are pointing to one of Trump’s first orders as an example of his administration’s new approach to winning expected court battles that thwarted some of his first-term agenda. On Monday, he directed agencies to identify countries where vetting visitors and visa applicants is considered infeasible and poses a potential threat to national security. It’s the building block to a larger ban on travel from some countries and an example of the White House’s preparation and desire to avoid the courtroom defeat of his 2017 travel ban targeting majority-Muslim nations. It’s also an indication that his early swath of executive orders is just the beginning. “You can see just by the number of actions that have been prepared and signed within 24 hours, how much work and effort behind the scenes has been placed on these executive orders and the lead that immigration has taken,” Doris Meissner, a Migration Policy Institute senior fellow and former commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service under President Bill Clinton, said in a call with reporters. “We’re really seeing a flood-the-zone approach.” It’s no accident that immigration has been so central to Trump’s first days as president, as he works to make good on an issue that has defined his political career. His top officials have stressed that the president’s early actions were crafted to crack down on the border, and that they’re actively discussing additional ways to continue to push his agenda forward. Trump deploys harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric as Election Day nears SharePlay Video The White House did not respond to a request for comment. But his strategy is hardly foolproof, as he will continue to face legal challenges and political hurdles, given he will have to rely on a closely divided Congress to fund and legislate many of his bigger promises. His order intended to end the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship promise by directing federal agencies to withhold citizenship documents to children born to undocumented parents was challenged by the ACLU within hours, followed by a slew of lawsuits from blue states. Trump’s birthright citizenship order also drew questions from Democrats about his willingness to work across the aisle. Trump talked about the importance of legal immigration during Monday remarks, while at the same time challenging birthright citizenship, even for people who have children while in the U.S. on student or work visas, such as H-1B or L-1 visas — a level of sweep that surprised Democrats and advocates preparing for legal challenges. “The Democrats are at the table, but he won’t let us sit down,” said Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.). “We’re in favor of [securing the border]. It would be legal immigration that’s beneficial to our economy, and it also would be a pathway to status for the Dreamers, and if he’s in the driver’s seat, we’re ready to do business. Does he want to or not?” A Border Patrol car is parked along the border wall. Trump's top officials have stressed that the president’s early actions were crafted to crack down on the border, and that they’re actively discussing additional ways to continue to push his agenda forward. | Andres Leighton/AP Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), a leading pro-immigrant voice in the Senate, slammed Trump’s birthright citizenship order. “It was clearly unconstitutional and unlawful, but he wants to continue just a message versus being serious,” he said. “There are some common sense, workable ideas.” MOST READ 1.20.25_DC_ Inauguration_0002.jpg Trump staff ‘furious’ after Musk trashes AI project Kamala Harris provides a big signal about her next move Trump May Come to Regret His Jan. 6 Pardons. Here’s Why. Chip Roy and Donald Trump Are on a Collision Course Newsom plans to crash Trump’s LA wildfire visit Trump’s orders reversing Biden’s immigration policies — from the parole programs to the mobile app to apply for asylum — are among the moves that have carried the most immediate impact. He has also pushed Biden’s most controversial action among liberals — a June crackdown on asylum — even further. Trump, using executive authority, declared an invasion at the border as a justification to suspend all entries, even as border numbers are at their lowest levels since Trump’s last term, in part because of Biden’s crackdown and increased enforcement from Mexico. Trump, invoking Section 4 of the Constitution which requires the U.S. to protect states from foreign invasion, could face legal challenges — potentially clashing with the Immigration and Nationality Act’s guarantee of access to asylum. His actions also previewed the work ahead for the new administration, as they move to end so-called catch and release — the release of migrants into a U.S. community while they await their immigration court hearings — which will require new funding and ways to expand detention space. Trump also directed his agencies to begin the process of reinstating Remain in Mexico, a first-term policy that required asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for their hearings. But it will require the administration to secure an agreement with Mexico first, which may be difficult given Trump’s prior provocations of the neighboring country. Trump’s broadening of the scope of potential immigration raids — announced Tuesday by the Department of Homeland Security — sparked a new round of fears and rumors in immigrant communities across the country. Organizations in major cities had already been preparing migrants for possible raids. But the newest initiative, allowing enforcement officials to enter schools, churches, health care facilities and other sensitive locations, has intensified the fear. Democrats and immigration groups said they planned to watch for potential violations of constitutional rights as Trump looks to take dramatic action to back up his promise of mass deportations. “I can only describe it as a radical paradigm shift,” said Kica Matos, president of the National Immigration Law Center, an immigration advocacy group. “It’s almost like this administration is signaling, ‘Constitution be damned. We intend to carry out the most radical anti-immigrant agenda in this nation’s modern history.’” A number of Trump’s early actions also set the stage for him to use the military in immigration enforcement and border security, another space that may be ripe for legal challenges. Trump’s declaration of a national emergency was designed to justify the use of Department of Defense resources, and the Pentagon will begin deploying hundreds of active duty troops to the border in the days ahead. But he went further than just suggesting the military support construction of a border wall. He signed another order directing the Department of Defense, within 10 days, to form a plan to “to seal the borders and maintain the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and security of the United States by repelling forms of invasion” — giving the military an explicit role in immigration enforcement. There are questions about whether it is legal to use the military to engage in civil immigration enforcement, as current law requires immigration officers to conduct the fast-tracked deportation authority known as “expedited removal.” The moves could also clash with the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1870s law that limits the use of regular federal troops for domestic policing purposes. Beyond potential court challenges, Trump officials have a load of work ahead to deliver on the president’s early asks for assessments and recommendations for how to proceed on a number of policy fronts, including about whether the country’s refugee program can resume. “There’s a lot still left to do,” Krikorian said, adding that many of Trump’s early actions were “more like an instruction or a road map. So we’re going to have to see what the follow through is like.” For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

DOJ orders federally funded legal service providers to stop providing support at immigration courts

The Department of Justice, under new leadership following the inauguration of Donald Trump, has told legal service providers who receive federal funding to stop providing legal orientation and other work intended to support immigrants at immigration courts. In a memo obtained by ABC News, the DOJ ordered all such legal providers on Wednesday to "stop work immediately" in those areas. "This email is to send you notification to stop work immediately pursuant to the Executive Order on the following task orders," the memo said. The programs listed in the memo include the Legal Orientation Program; the Immigration Court Helpdesk; the Family Group Legal Orientation Program; and the Counsel for Children Initiative. MORE: Former top DOJ immigration official says she was removed with no explanation Legal service providers are usually present at immigration courts across the country to help individuals navigate immigration court proceedings and handle legal paperwork. "The suspension of these longstanding programs could leave hundreds of thousands of vulnerable immigrants -- including children and families -- without access to basic legal information and representation," a spokesperson for Acacia Center for Justice told ABC News in a statement. The directive from the DOJ comes a day after ABC News reported that four top officials within the Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review -- the DOJ's office that oversees immigration courts -- were removed from their positions. Kevin Lamarque/Reuters The seal of the U.S. Justice Department is seen on the podium in the Department's headquarters briefing room before a news conference with the Attorney General in Washington, Jan. 24, 2023. Kevin Lamarque/Reuters Experts and advocates told ABC News that, without a lawyer, migrants are left to navigate the different avenues of relief alone, filling out documents in a foreign language and arguing their case before a judge. As ABC News previously reported, DOJ data from 2023 showed that only 56% of unaccompanied minors in immigration courts were represented by counsel, forcing thousands of unaccompanied young migrants to represent themselves before federal immigration judges. One of the programs listed in the DOJ memo --The Counsel for Children Initiative -- provides legal representation to children in immigration court proceedings. The total immigration court backlog of children and adults has surged to a record high of 3.5 million cases. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

USCIS Forms Update Notice

Good afternoon, We recently updated the following USCIS form(s): Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 01/17/2025 10:13 AM EST Edition Date: 01/17/25. Starting Jan. 17, 2025, we will only accept the 01/17/25 edition. You can find the edition date at the bottom of the page on the form and instructions.

If you file Form I-129 on paper by mail, please note that:
• We will accept the 04/01/24 edition of Form I-129 if it is received before Jan. 17, 2025;
• We will reject the 04/01/24 edition of Form I-129 if it is received on or after Jan. 17, 2025; and
• We will only accept the 01/17/25 edition of Form I-129 if it is received on or after Jan. 17, 2025.

Dates are listed in mm/dd/yy format.

If you complete and print this form to mail it, make sure that the form edition date and page numbers are visible at the bottom of all pages and that all pages are from the same form edition. If any of the form’s pages are missing or are from a different form edition, we may reject your form.

If you need help downloading and printing forms, read our instructions.
Form G-1055, Fee Schedule 01/17/2025 09:37 AM EST Edition Date: 01/17/25. You can find the edition date at the bottom of the page of Form G-1055, Fee Schedule. For more information, please visit our Forms Up

DHS Publishes Federal Register Notice Extending Temporary Protected Status for Ukraine

WASHINGTON – The Department of Homeland Security announced on Jan. 10, 2025, the extension of Temporary Protected Status for Ukraine for 18 months, from April 20, 2025, to Oct. 19, 2026, due to armed conflict and extraordinary and temporary conditions in Ukraine that prevent individuals from safely returning. The corresponding Federal Register notice provides information about registering for TPS as a current beneficiary under Ukraine’s extension. After consultation with interagency partners, it was determined that an 18-month extension of TPS is warranted because conditions that support Ukraine’s designation are ongoing. The extension is based on the war with Russia, now in its third year, which has involved large-scale attacks on major cities, resulting in increased civilian casualties, significant infrastructure damage, and widespread humanitarian suffering. The extension of TPS for Ukraine allows approximately 103,700 current beneficiaries to re-register for TPS from Jan. 17, 2025, through March 18, 2025, if they continue to meet TPS eligibility requirements. Current beneficiaries under TPS for Ukraine must re-register in a timely manner during the re-registration period to ensure they maintain TPS and employment authorization. Every individual processed by the Department of Homeland Security goes through rigorous national security and public safety vetting during the original application process and again during re-registration. If any individual is identified as posing a threat, they may be detained, removed, or referred to other federal agencies for further investigation or prosecution as appropriate. Individuals are barred from TPS if they have been convicted of any felony or two misdemeanors. DHS recognizes that not all re-registrants who apply for a new Employment Authorization Document may receive it before their current EAD expires and is automatically extending through April 19, 2026, the validity of EADs previously issued under Ukraine’s TPS designation. As proof of continued employment authorization through April 19, 2026, TPS beneficiaries can show their EAD with the Category A12 or C19 under and a Card Expires date of April 19, 2025, or Oct. 19, 2023. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will continue to process pending applications filed under previous TPS designations for Ukraine. Individuals with a pending Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status, or a related Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, as of Jan. 17, 2025, do not need to file either application again. If USCIS approves a pending Form I-821 or Form I-765 filed under the previous designation of TPS for Ukraine, USCIS will grant the individual TPS through Oct. 19, 2026, and issue an EAD valid through the same date. The Federal Register notice explains eligibility criteria, timelines, and procedures necessary for current beneficiaries to re-register and renew EADs. This extension only applies to individuals already in the United States and who are current beneficiaries of TPS for Ukraine. All irregular migration journeys are extremely dangerous, unforgiving, and often result in loss of life. DHS will continue to enforce U.S. laws and will return noncitizens who do not establish a legal basis to remain in the United States.

General Counsel Abruzzo Issues Memo on Harmonizing the NLRA and EEO Laws

January 16, 2025 Today, NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memo to all field offices on the harmonization of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and federal equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws. The memorandum emphasizes the importance of complying with all requirements of the NLRA and the EEO laws and offers suggestions in certain key areas on how to effectuate compliance and ensure that employees receive full protections under the laws. Specifically, it addresses and provides examples for complying with both bodies of law in three key areas—workplace civility rules, investigative confidentiality policies, and employee speech or conduct in the context of NLRA-protected activity that could potentially implicate federal EEO law. “In workplaces across the country, the NLRA and the EEO laws routinely operate in harmony, often in furtherance of shared goals and with reliance on shared principles. Such harmonization is possible because neither body of law sets forth absolutes in areas of potential overlap. Each leaves space for the other to operate,” said General Counsel Abruzzo. “Regulated parties thus can and must understand and comply with both sets of laws. Importantly, they should not purport to invoke their obligations under one to avoid their responsibilities under the other.”

USCIS Updates Guidance on EB-2 National Interest Waiver Petitions

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is updating its policy guidance to clarify how we evaluate eligibility for the second preference employment-based (EB-2) classification for immigrant petitions filed with a request for a national interest waiver (NIW). In general, an employer files an EB-2 petition using Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, after obtaining a labor certification from the Department of Labor. USCIS, however, can waive the requirement of a job offer, and thus, the labor certification if it is in the interest of the United States. In addition, individuals seeking an NIW may file a petition on their own behalf. A petitioner seeking an NIW must first demonstrate that they qualify for the underlying EB-2 classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. The new guidance explains how, for advanced degree professionals seeking an NIW, we consider whether the occupation in which the petitioner proposes to advance an endeavor is a profession and, if applicable, whether the 5 years of post-bachelor’s experience is in the specialty. The guidance also addresses how, for persons of exceptional ability seeking an NIW, that exceptional ability must relate to the endeavor proposed as part of the NIW request. We determine the relationship of exceptional ability to the proposed endeavor on a case-by-case basis, considering any shared skillsets, knowledge, or expertise. In addition, this new guidance provides information about how we evaluate whether a proposed endeavor has national importance and explains how we evaluate evidence, such as letters of support and business plans, when determining whether a person is well positioned to advance an endeavor. This new guidance builds on a previous Policy Manual update that discussed the unique considerations for persons with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields and entrepreneurs. This guidance, contained in Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 5 of the Policy Manual, is effective immediately and applies to requests pending or filed on or after the publication date. The guidance contained in the Policy Manual is controlling and supersedes any related prior guidance. For more information and filing tips, see Employment-Based Immigration: Second Preference EB-2.

H-1B Final Rule, H-2 Final Rule, and Revised Form I-129 Effective Jan. 17, 2025

The Department of Homeland Security’s H-1B final rule and H-2 final rule take effect on Friday, January 17, 2025, modernizing and improving requirements for the H-1B nonimmigrant and H-2 nonimmigrant visa programs. USCIS will also publish a revised Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (edition date 01/17/25) on Jan. 17, reflecting combined changes associated with the two final rules. As previously announced, the 01/17/25 edition of Form I-129 goes into effect on Jan. 17, with no grace period, because the revised edition is necessary to apply the final rules. The H-1B final rule modernizes the H-1B program by streamlining the approval process, increasing its flexibility to better allow employers to retain talented workers, and improving the integrity and oversight of the program. The H-2 final rule significantly strengthens worker protections by, among other things, imposing new consequences on companies that charge prohibited fees or violate our labor laws, and provides greater flexibility for H-2A and H-2B workers. Both rules were published in the Federal Register on Dec. 18, 2024. Effective Jan. 17, we will reject Form I-129 petitions received using the 04/01/24 edition of Form I-129. If you file Form I-129 on paper by mail, please note that: We will accept the 04/01/24 edition of Form I-129 if it was received before Jan. 17, 2025; We will reject the 04/01/24 edition of Form I-129 if it is received on or after Jan. 17, 2025; and We will only accept the 01/17/25 edition of Form I-129 if it is received on or after Jan. 17, 2025.

Democrats will get amendments to Senate immigration bill, says key Republican

Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) said on Tuesday that there will “absolutely” be amendments to the Senate GOP’s first immigration bill — indication that Republicans will agree to Democratic demands for a more expansive legislative debate. “We are absolutely open to amendments,” Britt said at a summit hosted by POLITICO Playbook. “There [are] absolutely going to be amendments and hopefully a lot of debate.” Her comments come after the Senate overwhelmingly advanced a bill to crack down on illegal immigration known as the Laken Riley Act, named for a Georgia nursing student murdered last year by an undocumented immigrant. The House passed companion legislation last week and Britt introduced a version in the Senate, which cleared another procedural hurdle on Monday night. Several Democrats who voted to advance to debate on the Senate bill, however, conditioned their support on being allowed to vote on certain amendments that could result in changes to the underlying bill, throwing its prospects for final passage into question. Katie Britt: GOP 'open to amendments' on Laken Riley Act SharePlay Video Asked if Republicans could pass the bill without amendments, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told Inside Congress on Monday he was uncertain if enough Democrats would vote to pass the bill if they didn’t get amendment votes. Senate Republicans are expected to discuss amendment votes during their weekly closed-door lunch on Tuesday afternoon. As of Monday night, 15 amendments had already been filed for consideration. In order for any of them to get a vote without eating up days of floor time, all 100 senators will need to agree on a full package. Britt warned on Tuesday the legislation is not meant to be a “comprehensive” immigration bill and questioned if Democrats would offer amendments that “actually strategically improve the bill.” She added, “This is a targeted bill. And we will maintain that.” For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

U.S. v. Patnaik - filed Jan. 14, 2025

Lying on H-1B visa applications therefore remains visa fraud even when the lies were given in response to questions the government can’t legally ask—as long as the misrepresentations could have influenced the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services at the time they were made. U.S. v. Patnaik - filed Jan. 14, 2025 Cite as 2025 S.O.S. 23-10043 Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0125//19-70960.

Godoy-Aguilar v. Garland - filed Jan. 13, 2025

Immigration Law California Penal Code §136.1(c)(1) is a categorical match for the generic federal offense of an aggravated felony relating to obstruction of justice. Godoy-Aguilar v. Garland - filed Jan. 13, 2025 Cite as 2025 S.O.S. 19-70960 Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0125//19-70960.

USCIS Forms Update Notice

Good afternoon, We recently updated the following USCIS form(s): Form I-854, Inter-Agency Alien Witness and Informant Record 12/12/2024 04:18 PM EST Edition Date: 12/12/24. Starting March 13, 2025, we will accept only the 12/12/24 edition. Until then, you can also use the 04/01/24 edition. You can find the edition date at the bottom of the page on the form and instructions. Form I-134, Declaration of Financial Support 12/12/2024 03:46 PM EST Edition Date: 12/12/24. Starting March 13, 2025, we will accept only the 12/12/24 edition. Until then, you can also use the 11/09/23 edition. You can find the edition date at the bottom of the page on the form and instructions. For more information, please visit our Forms Updates page.

Senate advances Laken Riley Act to crack down on illegal immigration in bipartisan vote

WASHINGTON — The Senate voted Thursday to begin debate on the Laken Riley Act, clearing a key hurdle to advance a Republican-led bill aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration that has garnered significant support from Democrats. With a vote of 84-9, the bill easily cleared the 60-vote threshold to advance in the GOP-controlled Senate. But many Democrats have suggested they want to amend the bill, so it’s unclear whether it will get enough support for final passage. “This is an important issue. We should have a debate and amendments,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a floor speech before he voted to proceed with debate. “To remind my colleagues, this is not a vote on the bill itself. It is a motion to proceed, a vote that says we should have a debate and should have amendments.” Some Democrats expressed openness to supporting the legislation as the party recalibrates its outlook on immigration after it was pummeled over the issue politically. In the 2024 election, voters trusted Donald Trump over Kamala Harris to handle immigration by a margin of 9 percentage points, NBC News exit polls found. And voters who cited immigration as a top issue backed Trump over Harris 89% to 9%, according to exit polls. The Laken Riley Act would change federal law to require Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, operating under the Department of Homeland Security, to take custody of people in the country illegally and detain them over theft-related crimes. It would target people who are charged, arrested or convicted for committing acts of “burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting,” according to the bill text. The legislation would also empower state attorneys general to sue the federal government for alleged failures of immigration enforcement “if the State or its residents experience harm, including financial harm in excess of $100.” Some Democrats who represent competitive states or border communities have endorsed the bill outright, including Sens. Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly, of Arizona; John Fetterman, of Pennsylvania; Jon Ossoff, of Georgia; Elissa Slotkin, of Michigan; and Jacky Rosen, of Nevada. “Sen. Ossoff supports the Laken Riley Act and plans to vote for it,” a spokesperson for Ossoff, who is up for re-election in 2026, said Thursday in a statement. The bill, the first of the new Congress that was sworn in last week, was named for Riley, 22, the Georgia nursing school student who was murdered last year by an immigrant in the United States illegally; she would have turned 23 on Friday. It passed the GOP-led House 264-159 this week, with 48 Democrats voting for it. In the Senate, Republicans have 53 seats and — with full attendance — would need at least seven Democrats next week to ensure final passage of the legislation as written. One school of thought among Democrats is that the existing bill is poorly written but can be salvaged with amendments. “I think there’s an opportunity to get on the bill and try to try to amend it to be better,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. “The underlying bill looks like a not well-constructed piece of legislation. But we could potentially make it better.” Recommended Congress Democratic Sen. John Fetterman to meet with Trump A Senate aide said Democrats are considering amending the language to narrow the threshold for what triggers ICE detention of an undocumented person. Currently, it covers anyone who “is charged with, is arrested for, is convicted of, admits having committed, or admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of any burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting offense.” “Getting it to a better place, I think, to make people feel more comfortable that, like, this really is just going to target the people doing bad s--- and not used in a potentially nefarious way,” the aide said, emphasizing that Democrats intend to “engage in a serious way” to improve it, not make “pie in the sky” requests. The Senate Democratic aide said the party has been willing to engage on tougher border laws for a while, saying, “This is where voters continue to move, and good elected officials continue to listen to them.” If the Senate does add amendments to it, the bill would have to go back to the House for final passage. It is not yet clear it would have enough votes to pass if it is not amended. Some pro-immigration advocates are calling on Democrats to strip out the provision to empower state attorneys general to sue the federal government, warning it would be exploited by bad actors. “If they want to prove they’re serious about border security, this ain’t the bill. This is a trap,” said Kerri Talbot, executive director of the advocacy group Immigration Hub and former counsel to Senate Democrats. “All they have to do is read the bill to see it’s unconstitutional, puts long-settled immigrants at risk and enables the Ken Paxtons of the country to target families.” (Paxton is the border-hawk attorney general of Texas.) Ad In addition to the Laken Riley Act, Republicans plan to put several immigration bills on the floor in the House and the Senate in the coming weeks to appease conservatives who want to deal with the border immediately — and to force Democrats to take tough votes. A second Democratic aide said the political dynamic on the issue is changing. “I think for a long time Democrats have let the advocacy groups push them to the left on immigration and border security issues: pushing them to oppose even popular immigration/border security reforms because it could lead to any deportation,” the aide, who spoke about the sensitive topic on condition of anonymity, wrote in a text message. “This past election showed that’s not where a majority of Americans are at, and that Dems need to be clear they are against criminals — even if that means deporting an undocumented immigrant who committed a crime.” Walking off the floor, Fetterman responded to a question about why he thinks more Democrats are jumping on board the Laken Riley Act. For more informration, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Scoop: Trump's 100 executive orders

President-elect Trump and top advisers previewed ambitious plans for 100 executive orders during a meeting with Senate Republicans on Wednesday night, Axios has learned. Why it matters: While Congress debates the next moves on their own aggressive legislative plans, Trump let them know he is ready to roll — especially on immigration. Senators were given previews of some of what they were told would be 100 executive orders, two sources who were in the room told Axios. Stephen Miller, Trump's longtime immigration adviser, dove into how they intend to use executive power to address the border and immigration starting Day 1. It's unclear if all will be technical executive orders, or more broadly executive actions taken by Trump or federal agencies. One big border plan: Reinstating Title 42, according to multiple sources. The pandemic-era public health policy cites concerns about spreading illness to allow for the rapid expulsion of migrants at the border — preventing them from even a shot at asylum. There were millions of Title 42 expulsions from early in the COVID pandemic until President Biden ended the policy in 2023. Other executive actions and plans that Miller outlined included: More aggressively using a part of the Immigration and Nationality Act — 287(g) — which allows some state and local law enforcement to assist in some of the duties of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Building the border wall, constructing soft-sided facilities to hold migrants and implementing other asylum restrictions. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Democrats join with Republicans to take major step toward Senate passage of GOP-led immigration bill

A significant number of Senate Democrats voted with Republicans on Thursday to advance a GOP-led bill to require the detention of undocumented migrants charged with certain crimes – a key step that puts the legislation on the verge of passage. The bill steadily picked up support from Senate Democrats, including from battleground states where President-elect Donald Trump won last fall, after passing out of the House earlier in the week. The vote was 84 to 9. The outcome of the vote comes as Democrats are under pressure to show they will act on immigration in the wake of an election cycle where Republicans attacked the party as weak on the border. In the aftermath of Trump’s win, Democrats from competitive states and districts have said the party must do more to address voter concerns over the issue. Asked by CNN’s Manu Raju if the politics on immigration have shifted for Democrats, Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman said, “I hope for our party, I hope it has shifted,” adding that he wasn’t trying to be critical, but was “following what I think is my truth.” Fetterman also said he thinks there’s enough Democratic support to pass the bill. “If we as a party, as Democrats, we can’t come up with seven or eight votes, then I would describe that as one of the reasons why we lost,” he said. If the bill ultimately passes the Senate, it will hand an early win to Republicans, who chose to bring up the legislation as their first bill of the new Congress now that they control both chambers. The bill would require the detention of undocumented migrants charged with theft or burglary. The legislation is named after a Georgia student who was killed last year while she was out for a run. An undocumented migrant from Venezuela was convicted and sentenced to life without parole in the case that reignited a national debate over immigration and crime. The legislation still faces hurdles ahead and it is uncertain if it will make it across the finish line in the Senate. While some Democrats have said they support the bill outright, others have said they want to make changes to it and are seeking a robust amendment process. One controversial but under-the-radar provision of the legislation would give state attorneys general the authority to sue in federal court over the decisions by federal officials, including immigration judges, to release certain immigrants from detention. They could also sue to force the State Department to impose visa sanctions against countries that refuse to accept nationals that are eligible for deportation. The push from Democrats to amend the bill presents an early leadership test for Senate GOP leader John Thune. Republicans support the bill in its current form and are likely to balk if Democrats push for extensive changes. The Senate GOP majority also has a packed list of agenda items competing for floor time and will not want to drag out deliberations over the bill. But if Democrats are not satisfied with the outcome of their push for amendments, the measure could still stall out and fail to make it to final passage in the chamber. “Democrats want to have a robust debate where we can offer amendments and improve the bill,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said in remarks on the Senate floor ahead of the vote. “This is an important issue. We should have a debate and amendments and that is why I’m voting ‘yes’ on the motion to proceed. To remind my colleagues, this is not a vote on the bill itself. It’s a motion to proceed, a vote that says we should have a debate and should have amendments.” GOP Sen. John Barrasso, the Senate Majority Whip, said in floor remarks, “There are some Democrat senators who say that they support the Laken Riley Act, but they want to weaken it. Well, to be clear, Senate Republicans are not weakening this life-saving legislation. We will not allow that to happen.” Senate Republicans control 53 seats. Typically, that would mean that at least seven Democrats would need to vote with Republicans to hit the 60-vote threshold to advance a bill subject to a filibuster. But incoming West Virginia GOP Sen. Jim Justice, who chose to delay his swearing-in to finish out his term as governor, isn’t expected to take his seat until next week, which meant Republicans needed at least eight Democrats to support the bill for it to move forward. In the end, however, the bill received widespread support from Democrats in Thursday’s procedural vote. The nine “no” votes against advancing the bill were Democratic Sens. Cory Booker, Mazie Hirono, Andy Kim, Ed Markey, Jeff Merkley, Brian Schatz, Tina Smith and Elizabeth Warren and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders. “It’s a time period where people want to show that Trump won and people want to say that they recognize that,” a source close to Democrats told CNN, cautioning that it likely won’t last long because of Trump’s anticipated policies. Senior Biden administration officials have similarly grappled with what, if anything, more can be done to protect certain immigrants residing in the United States, juggling demands from allies and trying to avoid overreaching on an issue that, some political strategists argue, cost Democrats the White House. The House vote to pass the legislation on Tuesday was 264 to 159, with 48 Democrats voting with Republicans in support. This story has been updated with additional developments. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Immigration firebrand takes reins of the Hispanic Caucus

Latino Democrats, under new management for the 119th Congress, are looking to flex their muscle under a razor-thin Republican House majority that could make or break President-elect Trump’s immigration agenda. Last week, Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), known for his immigration advocacy, took the reins of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), a group he says is ready to engage on a host of policy issues but determined to play a central role on immigration. “We’re not just about immigration, but immigration is an emblematic issue that’s joined at the hip to the Latino Caucus. So no matter how much someone tries to say that we’re not connected there, we are. Because nationally it’s seen that way, and because the vast majority of people that are impacted by immigration issues are Hispanic or Latino descent,” Espaillat told The Hill. “So whatever proposal the administration brings forward, I think we will be a key element in the response to that, whether it is educating our community to make sure that they know their rights, providing funding for legal services, combating any practices that may be seen [as] or that are inhumane, creating the ambience and the atmosphere where there could be some agreement, and some things that benefit immigrants, like, for example, Dreamers or even farmworkers or family reunification or TPS [Temporary Protected Status] recipients,” he added. Though CHC chairs all deal intimately with immigration, the group has rarely been led by a member as close to the issue as Espaillat. Outgoing Chair Nanette Díaz Barragán (D-Calif.), who fought Democratic leadership last year over the group’s exclusion from the doomed Senate border deal, made her name on energy, environment and health care issues. Her predecessor, Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.) is an emergency room physician and rural health advocate; Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) is most closely identified with foreign policy, intelligence and diversity and inclusion work; and New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) is best known for her work with elder care and land management. But Espaillat’s fellow Democrats and CHC members have seen him go to the mattresses on immigration. In 2021, he and Reps. Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.) and Lou Correa (D-Calif.) became known as the “three amigos” when they threatened to tank budget talks unless House Democrats included immigration provisions in a reconciliation bill that required no Republican buy-in. The three amigos’ red line irked some Democrats and CHC members, including then-Chair Ruiz, who favored a more conciliatory approach to avoid highlighting a rift between progressives and centrists in the party. At the time, the main ask was to include an update to the registry — a sort of statute of limitations for undocumented immigration — in the budget, a provision that could have allowed millions of immigrants lacking permanent legal status who don’t have criminal records to apply for permanent citizenship. The Senate parliamentarian eventually blocked that move on a technicality, but Espaillat, García and Correa forced House Democrats to take an unprecedented risk on immigration. “We got [then-Speaker Nancy] Pelosi [D-Calif.] to include it,” Espaillat said. “It was tough to get her there, but I think it took us to take a tough stand and to sort of like draw a line in the sand. … You know, we were disappointed that the Senate was not able to carry through on that, but at least our leadership acknowledged it and included it, and so that was a step in the right direction.” But Espaillat, the third foreign-born CHC chair after Ruiz and former Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D-Texas), knows the CHC’s asks and tactics will have to adjust under the new Trump administration. “I mean, registry is sort of like the simple fix, right? And it’s one that will capture a significant number of people. I don’t know if this administration will accept registry,” he said. “I think that there’s a possibility that they can accept some things, and I’m open to have a discussion with them on things that may be practical and achievable.” The range of what’s practical and achievable, Espaillat said, could change over the next two years, as the Trump White House’s deportation proposals begin to hit home with individual communities. “I think, by the way, that the narrative, the opinion of America, will change. I think it will change somewhat rapidly, because the minute a mom — any mom, a white mom, an African American mom, a middle-class mom, even a rich mom — the minute a mom hears a baby, hears a baby crying in the middle of the night, asking for their mother because they’ve been split up, right? I think that that’s going to move America, as it did before,” he said. Though Espaillat hopes to use his personal experience to keep the CHC at the forefront of immigration, he expects the group’s members to take the lead on other key topics. “I think we have a lot of talent in the CHC on different issues, and I think that delegating duties to members on different issues, like, for example, farmworkers, you have Lou Correa, [Rep.] Salud Carbajal [D-Calif.], [Rep. Jim] Costa [D-Calif.], they’re all leaders on farmworkers. [On] housing you have [Rep. Robert] Garcia [D-Calif.] … [Rep.] Gabe Vasquez [D-N.M.], you know, who brings in a different aspect of housing, because it’s like more rural, right? You have [Rep.] Delia Ramirez [D-Ill.], who’s very — on the [Smithsonian] Latino Museum, you have her and other people that have a keen interest on the Latino Museum.” Beyond immigration, the Dominican-born Espaillat is looking to leverage both his personal experience and the group’s collective record to raise the CHC’s profile in foreign policy, particularly as it relates to Latin America and the Caribbean. “I’m aware of the Democratic Alliance, which is Dominican Republic, Costa Rica and Panama and Ecuador, those four countries, somebody like [Rep.] Vicente Gonzalez [D-Texas] has great relationships in Mexico, Guatemala. We were both actually asked by the State Department to be at [Salvadoran President Nayib] Bukele’s swearing-in ceremony, and we went there. Joaquin [Castro] is an overall expert, and we got to take the lead from him, obviously, and see how we strengthen his position,” Espaillat said, also pointing to Guatemala-born Rep. Norma Torres (D-Calif.) as a regional expert. “But I just think that we could be more impactful when it comes to Latin American and Caribbean issues than we are right now.” And the CHC’s focus on the Western Hemisphere could present an opportunity to work with the Trump administration, particularly with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Trump’s nominee to lead the State Department. “Well, you know, even though we may differ on some views regarding Latin America and the Caribbean, yes, I think that presents an opportunity to — the Summit of the Americas will be held this year in the Dominican Republic, in December of this coming year, and that will be a great platform, forum to discuss some things, I think very strongly that the U.S., for a long time, has not had a major initiative in the Americas,” Espaillat said. Espaillat, who opposes one-party systems “whether from the left or the right,” framed that renewed focus on the Western Hemisphere as part of a broader geopolitical goal. “I mean, [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and [Chinese President] Xi Jinping have said that, you know, democracy is weak and that their systems work better. And you know their systems — at least in Russia’s side it has led to a conflict in the Ukraine, and in China, there are also major obstacles and contradictions. So democracy, I think, still works. It requires a little bit more effort, but at the end of the day, you know, it’s one that guarantees a greater number of seats at the table, and I think that’s important and worthwhile fighting for,” he said. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Sen. Mark Kelly is latest Democrat to back GOP immigration bill

Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly will vote for the Laken Riley Act, a spokesperson told POLITICO. He is joining fellow Democratic Sens. John Fetterman (Pa.), Gary Peters (Mich.), Jon Ossoff (Ga.) and Ruben Gallego (Ariz.) in indicating support for the immigration bill. More Democrats are expected to support the measure when it goes to a initial procedural vote on Friday. Eight Democrats will need to join all 52 Republicans in order to advance the bill. "Senator Kelly will vote for the Laken Riley Act and looks forward to working with Republicans and Democrats on it and other solutions to secure the border and fix our broken immigration system," said the spokesperson, Jacob Peters. Lead Art: Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) is the fifth Democrat to back the GOP bill. | Francis Chung/POLITICO Continue on to view the day's latest updates Associate Justice Samuel Alito sits during a group photo at the Supreme Court. 1 day ago Alito confirms phone call with Trump — but says they didn’t discuss Supreme Court cases The phone conversation came one day before Trump’s lawyers asked the high court to halt the president-elect’s sentencing for his hush money conviction on Friday. Josh Gerstein Josh Gerstein 01/08/2025, 10:53pm ET Justice Samuel Alito confirmed he spoke Tuesday with President-elect Donald Trump but insisted the conversation revolved around his former law clerk seeking a job in the incoming Trump administration and did not include mention of any litigation pending at the Supreme Court. The phone conversation, first reported by ABC News, came one day before Trump’s lawyers filed an emergency application asking the justices to halt his sentencing set for Friday on his conviction in the hush money criminal case in New York. The unusual exchange also came in the same week the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over the constitutionality of legislation to force the sale or shutdown of the social media platform TikTok. Trump filed a brief in that case asking the justices to put the law on hold while he tries to make a deal that would avoid shuttering the platform. “William Levi, one of my former law clerks, asked me to take a call from President-elect Trump regarding his qualifications to serve in a government position. I agreed to discuss this matter with President-elect Trump, and he called me yesterday afternoon,” Alito said in a statement released by a court spokesperson Wednesday. “We did not discuss the emergency application he filed today, and indeed, I was not even aware at the time of our conversation that such an application would be filed,” said Alito, an appointee of President George W. Bush. “We also did not discuss any other matter that is pending or might in the future come before the Supreme Court or any past Supreme Court decisions involving the President-elect.” Levi, a former chief counsel to Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), is highly respected in conservative legal circles and has been mentioned as a potential pick for a senior Justice Department post or another prominent legal job in the incoming administration. However, Levi served as a counselor to William Barr staff during his tenure as Trump’s attorney general from 2022 to 2024 and as Barr’s chief of staff for his last ten months in that job. Barr’s relationship with Trump deteriorated due in part to Barr’s refusal to endorse Trump’s unfounded claims of fraud in the 2020 election. Levi and a spokesperson for the Trump transition did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday night. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Dem support of immigration bill latest sign of vanishing Trump resistance

In 2019, at the height of the anti-Trump resistance, several Democrats running for president staked out an unapologetically progressive position on immigration. Asked at a debate if they would support decriminalizing unauthorized border crossings, the vast majority of White House hopefuls on stage raised their hands, making the calculation that the fired-up liberal base was appalled at then-President Donald Trump’s handling of the border and wanted a radically different approach. The Washington Post reported at the time that White House hopeful Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) supported repealing criminal penalties for people crossing the border illegally who were pursuing asylum, and more than five years later, he veered to the center and joined another ambitious group of Democrats as they said they would vote to advance a Republican-led bill that would crack down on illegal immigration. The sharp U-turn is the latest sign of the left’s crumbling resistance movement as the second Trump era dawns on Washington. On Wednesday, eight Senate Democrats — among them many of the party’s rising stars and potential 2028 presidential candidates — said they would move legislation forward to detain undocumented immigrants charged with theft or burglary, enough to open debate in the upper chamber. Dozens of congressional House Democrats, some of whom are rumored to be eyeing higher office, backed the legislation Tuesday. It was a stark shift from Trump’s first term, when his so-called Muslim ban and family separation policy lit a fire under an enraged base, inspiring fiery protests that Democratic senators and House members attended. The street marches are no more, and in the wake of a landslide victory by Trump powered by backlash to President Joe Biden’s management of the border and a general change in public opinion on stemming immigration, a new reality has set in among Democrats: Trumpism is here to stay. And the effort to discredit Trump’s border policies has failed. Donald Trump walks with Paul Perez, president of the National Border Patrol Council. The sharp U-turn on immigration policy is the latest sign of the left’s crumbling resistance movement as the second Trump era dawns on Washington. | Evan Vucci/AP “The reaction in ‘16 was dramatic. You had the Women’s March immediately after the election,” said Mark Longabaugh, a former adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) presidential campaign. “This time, there almost is a level of resignation it seems. And so you haven’t seen much in the way of resistance so far. And, in fact, I think this is a signal that at least Democratic legislators in the Congress perceive a need to move to the center or move to the right on immigration.” Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), the first Democrat in the upper chamber to sponsor the House’s bill, known as the Laken Riley Act, urged his party to back the legislation and consider how voters in his battleground state would see the issue. Trump carried Pennsylvania in November, and Republicans swept down-ballot races there, too, ousting Democratic Sen. Bob Casey, whose name was nearly political royalty in the state. “Pretend that you’re in a parking lot at Walmart in Scranton, and it’s like, ‘Well, I’m going to vote against the bill that allows people to deport people that were charged of crimes or they have a criminal record.’ How do you think that would go over?” Fetterman said. “That’s why we lose if you want to try to make that argument.” During the 2024 campaign, Republican Dave McCormick attacked Casey as weak on the border and sought to tie him to Biden. Once known for his moderate persona, Casey moved to the left in recent years, including by embracing the anti-Trump resistance. Casey rushed to Philadelphia International Airport in January of 2017 to join protesters rallying against the travel ban barring citizens from several predominantly Muslim countries. Last year, Republicans and their allies spent hundreds of millions of dollars on attack ads hammering Democratic candidates on their immigration stances and linking rising crime rates to an increase in illegal migration. On Tuesday, few endangered House Democrats were ready to take another vote that could be weaponized against them in the 2026 midterms. Nearly 50 of them, many from vulnerable districts, voted Tuesday for the Laken Riley Act. Its namesake is a Georgia nursing student who was murdered by an undocumented immigrant from Venezuela. And they will be joined by at least a handful of Senate Democrats, who have already pledged to support or at least advance it. Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), a rising star in his party, was one of the House Democrats who voted for the bill after previously opposing another version of it last year. “No one seems to be reporting that these are two different bills, which is frustrating. Last year’s version included outrageous attacks on the administration, including blaming President Biden for Laken Riley’s murder,” he said. “This version stripped out all of the incendiary language attacking Democrats.” A spokesperson for Hickenlooper, Anthony Rivera-Rodriguez, said that he “does not support the Laken Riley Act in its current form,” but “he’s interested in voting to proceed to the bill to amend it.” He declined to provide more details on how he would change the bill. Another reason for the shift on immigration among Democrats is a broader desire for pragmatism during the next two years of united Republican control and a creeping fatigue that has snuffed out the party’s willingness to push back against a GOP agenda. MOST READ california-wildfires-09864.jpg Trump, Musk unleash on California Democrats over wildfires Can Trump buy Greenland? Technically, yes. Here are his options. Here’s how annexing Canada would change American politics This could be the beginning of the end for fire insurance in California With Bass abroad, even Democrats are slamming LA mayor over wildfires Democrats are still reckoning with their widespread losses last November, a process that has hamstrung their ability to mount an organized resistance movement. And a couple dozen Democratic members were elected on pledges to make meaningful improvements to border security. Their votes on Tuesday make good on that promise, regardless of whether the threat of future Republican attacks motivated their decision. And there’s precedent for that stance. Democrats in the pre-Trump era had supported similar legislation to deport undocumented immigrants with criminal records. Former President Bill Clinton signed a measure that required removal of non-citizens convicted of a long list of felonies while President Barack Obama’s administration deported more than 2.5 million people through immigration orders, the vast majority of whom had criminal records. Other Democratic senators who signaled a willingness to join Fetterman in supporting the bill or at least advancing it for debate included Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) and newly elected Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.). Kelly, Fetterman and Gallego are rumored future presidential contenders. Hickenlooper, Peters and Ossoff are up for reelection in 2026. The majority of the House Democratic caucus voted against the bill. But the 48 who voted yes is an increase from the 37 who voted for the bill when it came up for a vote last March. And the potential for Democratic support in the Senate means it could ultimately become law. The bill targets a specific set of undocumented immigrants accused of certain crimes, and that narrow focus makes it more likely to pick up Democratic votes. But eight years ago, it would have been hard to conceive of so many Democrats bucking their party on a Republican-led immigration bill. “In the past, I couldn’t even get people to say border security. And now you’re here: border security, border security. I think the parties slowly move in that direction,” said Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), who represents a border district in South Texas. “You can be for strong border security and still be respectful.” Nicholas Wu and Daniella Diaz contributed to this report. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

House passes immigration measure named after Laken Riley

House Republicans focused their attention on the border with their first bill of the year, passing legislation named after the slain Georgia student Laken Riley that would require detention of migrants arrested for theft. The legislation cleared the chamber in a 264-159 vote, with 48 Democrats joining all Republicans in support. The Senate is expected to take up the legislation this week. Dubbed the Laken Riley Act, the legislation honors the woman killed by a Venezuelan migrant who was arrested for shoplifting ahead of the attack and paroled in the country. Riley’s birthday would have been Friday, which is the same day the Senate may take up the bill. Tuesday’s vote marked the second time in a year that the House cleared the legislation. Republicans and a small group of Democrats approved the bill in March, but it languished amid opposition in the Democratic-controlled Senate. With Republicans now holding majorities in both chambers, and President-elect Trump set to be sworn in to the White House later this month, GOP lawmakers are making another attempt at moving the measure. “We’ve been very focused on border security; the Laken Riley Act makes it clear, if you’re committing crimes in America against people, it’s not going to be tolerated,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) told reporters Tuesday. “Now with [Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.)] saying he’s gonna bring it up in the Senate as early as this week, we can actually get that bill signed into law.” The bill requires detention of a broad swath of migrants, including those permitted to enter the U.S. to seek asylum, if they have been accused of theft, burglary or shoplifting. Sign up for the Morning Report The latest in politics and policy. Direct to your inbox. Email address By signing up, I agree to the Terms of Use, have reviewed the Privacy Policy, and to receive personalized offers and communications via email, on-site notifications, and targeted advertising using my email address from The Hill, Nexstar Media Inc., and its affiliates But it has sparked concern among immigration advocates because the bill requires detention of immigrants as soon as they are charged or arrested for those crimes — not when prosecutors have secured a conviction. That’s in part a response to Jose Ibarra, sentenced in November to life in prison for killing Riley, who avoided a conviction on shoplifting after being sent to a diversion program. Nonetheless, critics fear migrants would be placed in detention without due process. “This is a radical departure from current law, which since 1996 has generally required mandatory detention only for persons who are criminally convicted or who admit to having committed certain serious crimes. That is, when criminal guilt is certain and established beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. “Under this bill, a person who has lived in the United States for decades, say for most of her life, paid taxes and bought a home, but who is mistakenly arrested for shoplifting would not be free to resume her life, but rather would be detained and deported, even if the chargers are dropped.” Raskin then noted that many Republicans have expressed their own doubts about the legal system when it comes to Trump’s run-ins with the law. “It seems to me passing strange, Mr. Speaker, that our friends are taking this position when they do not even believe the criminal justice system can be trusted when a jury unanimously convicts someone whose had the best legal representation money can buy in the state of New York on 34 different felony criminal counts after an extended criminal trial with all due process protections, including cross-examination and the right to counsel being afforded,” he said. The legislation also allows state attorneys general to sue to enforce the law — a move that comes after courts have largely fought state efforts to intervene in immigration enforcement matters. While the bill is expected to be considered by the GOP-led Senate later this week, it’s unclear whether it has enough support to clear the 60-vote threshold. The legislation, however, does have bipartisan backing in the upper chamber: Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) has signed on as a co-sponsor, and Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) is planning to vote for the measure. House Republicans passed the Laken Riley Act as their first legislative effort of the 119th Congress, a reflection of their focus on immigration and the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border. Those matters were top of mind during the 2024 election, and many analysts saw them as key to GOP victories in the House and Senate. “As promised, we’re starting today with border security. If you polled the populace and the voters, they would tell you that that was the top of the list, and we have a lot to do there to fix it,” Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Tuesday. Republicans also seized on the opportunity to split Democrats on the vote. In March, 37 Democrats joined GOP lawmakers in supporting the legislation. On Tuesday, Johnson said he was eager to see if more would join their ranks after the party’s bruising election losses in November. “When we brought this bill forward last Congress, shockingly, amazingly to me, 170 House Democrats voted against that legislation,” Johnson said. “But as Democrats struggle with their identity now as a party postelection, we’ll find out if they’re still clinging into that open border policy and that mantra, despite the American people roundly rejecting all that in November. We’ll see. This will be a telling vote.” Democratic leadership did not whip for or against the Laken Riley Act, allowing members of the caucus to vote their conscience. The same dynamic is likely to take place in the Senate, with some Democrats backing the legislation and others standing in opposition. Democrats accused Republicans of scapegoating immigrants but also took an unusual debate posture in highlighting a man who was killed by a migrant let into the country during the Trump administration. Multiple studies have found immigrants — including undocumented immigrants — tend to commit crimes at lower rates than native-born residents. Any run-in with law enforcement could spark deportation proceedings or hinder an application for a green card. But Raskin pointed to the hundreds of thousands of migrants who crossed the border under the first Trump administration who were likewise released into the U.S. One of them, he said, killed 19-year-old Adam Luker in a car accident last year. “Why don’t we have a bill named after Adam Luker? Is it because of the inconvenient fact that the undocumented alien who killed him came in under Donald Trump?” he asked. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Trump and Republicans plot radical policy agenda in one ‘big, beautiful bill

Trump and Republicans plot radical policy agenda in one ‘big, beautiful bill’ House speaker says party seeks single piece of legislation covering tax cuts, immigration and military spending Ed Pilkington Mon 6 Jan 2025 06.00 EST Share Donald Trump is working with top Republicans in Congress to devise a single “big, beautiful bill” that will contain all of his major policy ambitions – including a clampdown on immigration, tax cuts, and increased military spending in an attempt to supercharge his radical agenda as he embarks on a second presidency. The plan to pile all of Trump’s main policy goals into one mega-bill, against the wishes of some top congressional Republicans, raises the prospect of months of potentially bruising political in-fighting needed to secure its passage. Though the Republicans hold both chambers of Congress, their margin in the House is the slimmest in almost a century. “I’ll be dealing with the smallest margin in US history for much of the first 100 days,” Mike Johnson, the House speaker, told Fox News’s Sunday Morning Futures, referring to the 119th Congress, which opened on 3 January. The perilous nature of that margin was on full display last Friday when Johnson secured his own re-election as speaker by only one vote. symbol 00:00 03:36 Read More Johnson confirmed to Fox News that the idea of cramming everything into a single bill was prevailing. The alternative proposal is for two separate bills – and is favored by the new Republican majority leader in the US senate, John Thune, and his fellow senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. “At the end of the day, President Trump is going to prefer, as he likes to say, one big, beautiful bill,” Johnson said. “We can put together one big up-and-down vote that can save the country, quite literally, because there are so many elements to it.” For his part, Trump boasted Sunday on social media that members of Congress would work “on Bill that will bring our Country back, and make it greater than ever before”. “Get smart, tough, and send the Bill to my desk to sign as soon as possible,” Trump’s post said to Congress members. The “big, beautiful bill” touted by Johnson would be pushed through the so-called “reconciliation” process, which allows budget-related legislation to be passed by a simple majority of 50 votes in the US Senate rather than the usual 60 votes required under the chamber’s filibuster rule. The process is likely to be fraught, as Democrats will be able to challenge any provision in the gargantuan bill that does not fall under the category of spending or tax policy. Add to that the problem of the Republicans’ slim House majority, and the bill could be a recipe for a congressional fight of epic proportions. “There will be a lot of moving pieces, a lot of things to negotiate, a lot of opinions – we’ll be working long, long hours with whiteboards making sure every Republican is on board,” Johnson said. Unlike the US Senate, where the vice-president has the deciding vote, the House has no tie-breaker. In the short term, the Republicans’ majority is likely to grow even tighter as Trump has tapped two House members, Mike Waltz of Florida and Elise Stefanik of New York, to join his administration. Should the strategy of a solo mega-bill firm up, Johnson indicated that it was likely to contain several politically contested elements. They include extra funding for federal agencies to counter cross-border immigration, extending Trump’s 2017 tax cuts that are due to expire at the end of this year, and what the speaker called “dismantling the ‘deep state’”. Trump’s second term begins on 20 January, after he led the White House from 2017 to 2021. He won November’s presidential election against Kamala Harris after losing the 2020 race to Joe Biden. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

GOP leaders plan votes on first bill to address illegal immigration

Congressional Republicans are moving quickly to take steps to address illegal immigration, bringing up a bill this week that would require the detention of undocumented migrants charged with theft or burglary. The legislation, named the Laken Riley Act after a nursing student who was murdered by an undocumented immigrant, would also grant power to attorneys general to sue the federal government if they can show their states are being harmed through failure to enforce national immigration policies. The House, which passed the bill last Congress with bipartisan support, is expected to vote on the measure tomorrow, according to a senior House Republican aide. The Senate is likely expected to take up the bill for the first time on Friday, a senior Senate Republican aide told POLITICO. The legislation would require 60 votes in the chamber, meaning it would need support from at least eight Democratic senators to pass. Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.), the lead sponsor of the Senate bill, in a statement to POLITICO criticized Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for not bringing up the legislation last Congress. "In stark contrast, Senate Republicans are prioritizing protecting American families from day one of the 119th Congress. We’re ready to make America safe again, and we’re ready for President Trump’s second term," Britt added. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Congress launches early immigration crackdown ahead of Trump inauguration

Hill leaders are setting up the first votes of the 119th Congress this week — on a bill at the center of a heated political debate over illegal immigration. Why it matters: The expected votes in both chambers on the Laken Riley Act make clear Republicans plan to keep hitting the border issue — putting pressure on vulnerable Democrats trying to find their post-election footing. Driving the news: The House will vote Tuesday on the bill, which requires the detention of undocumented immigrants who commit certain nonviolent crimes such as theft, according to a House leadership aide. Senate Majority Leader John Thune began the process to allow a vote on the Senate version of the bill — likely on Friday, a senior Senate GOP aide confirmed. The bill is named after a nursing student who was murdered last year by an undocumented immigrant who had previously been arrested on theft charges. What they're saying: "I am thrilled that we're going to get moving," Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) told us about the bill, which she introduced in the Senate last year. Britt anticipates the bill will get Democratic votes "if they're being honest about what we need to do to protect Americans." What to watch: The bill already passed the House in 2024 with bipartisan support. It will need to pass the House again as it's a new Congress. Expect the bill to pick up Democrats in the Senate — though it's not clear it will be enough to overcome the 60-vote filibuster. Two House Democrats who voted in favor of the bill last year are now in the Senate — Sens. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.). At least one other Trump-state Democrat is expected to vote in favor, according to a source familiar. Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) — Riley's home state senator — is up for reelection in 2026. Ossoff told us he would "carefully consider any legislation that comes to the floor of the Senate." The bottom line: The Democratic support highlights the new reality for the party, which is still reeling from their 2024 losses. Democrats have been forced to move right on the immigration issue in particular, and are already signaling their willingness to work across the aisle on measures to secure the border. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Trump Has Promised to Build More Ships. He May Deport the Workers Who Help Make Them.

Early last year, President-elect Donald Trump promised that when he got back into the Oval Office, he’d authorize the U.S. Navy to build more ships. “It’s very important,” he said, “because it’s jobs, great jobs.” However, the companies that build ships for the government are already having trouble finding enough workers to fill those jobs. And Trump may make it even harder if he follows through on another pledge he’s made: to clamp down on immigration. The president-elect has told his supporters he would impose new limits on the numbers of immigrants allowed into the country and stage the largest mass deportation campaign in history. Meanwhile the shipbuilding industry, which he also says he supports and which has given significant financial support to Republican causes, is struggling to overcome an acute worker shortage. Immigrants have been critical to helping fill the gaps. According to a Navy report from last year, several major shipbuilding programs are years behind schedule, owing largely to a lack of workers. The shortfall is so severe that warship production is down to its lowest level in a quarter century. Shipbuilders and the government have poured millions of dollars into training and recruiting American workers, and, as part of a bipartisan bill just introduced in the Senate, they have proposed to spend even more. Last year the Navy awarded nearly $1 billion in a no-bid contract to a Texas nonprofit to modernize the industry with more advanced technology in a way that will make it more attractive to workers. The nonprofit has already produced splashy TV ads for submarine jobs. One of its goals is to help the submarine industry hire 140,000 new workers in the next 10 years. “We build giants,” one of its ads beckons. “It takes one to build one.” Still, experts say that these robust efforts have so far resulted in nowhere near enough workers for current needs, let alone a workforce large enough to handle expanded production. “We’re trying to get blood from a turnip,” said Shelby Oakley, an analyst at the Government Accountability Office. “The domestic workforce is just not there.” Good journalism makes a difference: Our nonprofit, independent newsroom has one job: to hold the powerful to account. Here’s how our investigations are spurring real world change: Texas lawmakers pushed for new exceptions to the state’s strict abortion ban after we reported on the deaths of pregnant women whose miscarriages went untreated. We’re trying something new. Was it helpful? In the meantime, the industry is relying on immigrants for a range of shipyard duties, with many working jobs similar to those on a construction site, including on cleanup crews and as welders, painters and pipefitters. And executives worry that any future immigration crackdown or restrictions on legal immigration, including limits on asylum or temporary protected status programs, could cause disruptions that would further harm their capacity for production. Ron Wille, the president and chief operating officer of All American Marine in Washington state, said that his company was “clawing” for workers. And Peter Duclos, the president of Gladding-Hearn Shipbuilding in Somerset, Massachusetts, said the current immigration system is “so broken” that he was already having trouble holding onto valuable workers and finding more. There is no publicly available data that shows how much the shipbuilding industry relies on immigrant labor, particularly undocumented immigrant labor. Both Wille and Duclos said that they do not employ undocumented workers, and industry experts say undocumented workers are unlikely to be working on projects requiring security clearances. However, reporting by ProPublica last year found that some shipbuilders with government contracts have used such workers. That reporting focused on a major Louisiana shipyard run by a company called Thoma-Sea, where undocumented immigrants have often been hired through third-party subcontractors. The story reported on a young undocumented Guatemalan immigrant who was helping build an $89 million U.S. government ship for tracking hurricanes. When he died on the job after working at Thoma-Sea for two years, neither the company nor the subcontractor paid death benefits to his partner and young son. ProPublica also reported that executives at Thoma-Sea, which declined to comment, had made tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to Republican candidates. However, if Trump’s last time in office is any guide, the shipbuilding industry wouldn’t be exempted from any future crackdown. One of the final workplace raids under Trump’s first administration was conducted at an even larger shipbuilder in Louisiana called Bollinger. In July 2020, federal immigration agents arrested 19 “unlawfully present foreign nationals” at Bollinger’s Lockport shipyard, according to a story in the Times-Picayune/New Orleans Advocate. Immigration and Customs Enforcement refused to provide information on the raid. According to Bollinger’s website, that yard produces U.S. Coast Guard and Navy patrol boats. Five of the workers arrested were sent to an ICE detention center and 14 were released with pending deportation cases, according to the news report. Bollinger denied any wrongdoing following the raid. Four years later, there’s no evidence in publicly available federal court records that Bollinger executives faced any charges in connection to it. Meanwhile, federal electoral records show that the company’s executives donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republican elected officials last year, including Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, both Republicans from Louisiana. The company did not respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment. President Joe Biden’s administration ended workplace raids like the one at Bollinger, saying that it would instead focus on “unscrupulous employers.” Department of Homeland Security officials did not answer questions or provide data on how many employers had been prosecuted since then. However, Trump’s designated “border czar,” Tom Homan, has signaled that the incoming administration will return to carrying out the raids. When asked how the second Trump administration will increase shipbuilding while limiting immigration, a spokesperson for Trump’s transition team only doubled down on the president-elect’s deportation promises, saying they would focus enforcement on “illegal criminals, drug dealers, and human traffickers.” Immigrants’ Resentment Over New Arrivals Helped Boost Trump’s Popularity With Latino Voters A few days after Trump won the election, a group of undocumented shipyard welders leaving a Hispanic grocery store near the port in Houma, Louisiana, expressed a dim view when asked what they thought lay ahead. One man, who declined to provide his name, broke into a nervous laugh and blurted, “Well, we could be deported.” Another man, a welder from the Mexican state of Coahuila who’d been working in the U.S. for about two years, also declined to give his name but said he worried about losing the life he’d managed to build in this country. “When they grab you,” he said, “they’ll take you, and you’ll have to leave everything behind.” For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.