Supreme Court Ruling on Birthright Citizenship: What to Know

The Supreme Court is poised to rule on the future of birthright citizenship, a decision that promises to be its most consequential since the overturning of abortion rights jurisprudence in 2022. The ruling in Trump vs Barbara, which will be announced in the coming days as the Court wraps up its term, touches all the most important themes of Trump’s political career—a hard line on immigration, an expansive view of executive power and a willingness to challenge norms that have guided American public life for decades. Trump is not optimistic about a ruling in his favor after conservative justices sounded skeptical during oral arguments. Nonetheless, with waves of illegal immigration testing the limits of a federal right initially designed to protect freed slaves after the Civil War, the case is also shaping up to be a test of how much the Supreme Court’s six conservative justices will stand up to the president who appointed three of them. What Is the Birthright Citizenship Lawsuit? Moments after taking office for his second term, Trump signed an executive order titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” Trump's executive action seeks to prevent children born on U.S. soil from automatically receiving citizenship if neither parent was an American citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of birth. Read More on Politics Donald Trump Issues Fresh Warning to Iran as JD Vance Begins Talks 7 min read Donald Trump Issues Fresh Warning to Iran as JD Vance Begins Talks ICE Court Arrest Policies ‘Devoid of Rational Explanation’—Judge 4 min read ICE Court Arrest Policies ‘Devoid of Rational Explanation’—Judge Trump Enters a Cage Fight in the Emperor’s New Clothes 10 min read Trump Enters a Cage Fight in the Emperor’s New Clothes Baby Neysel was born to an immigrant family from Guatemala during COVID. Baby Neysel was born to an immigrant family from Guatemala during COVID. | John Moore/Getty Images The concept of birthright citizenship has long been established in the U.S., with Section 1 of the 14th Amendment stating: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The administration argues the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary visa holders. Trump's executive order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship has been blocked by multiple federal courts and has not taken effect. The legal challenges eventually reached the Supreme Court in a case titled Trump v. Barbara, which heard arguments earlier this year. When Will the Supreme Court Rule on Birthright Citizenship? The Supreme Court typically releases its remaining opinions by late June or early July before concluding its term and beginning its summer recess. The court is scheduled to issue opinions on Thursday morning at 10 a.m. EST, though it is not known whether the birthright citizenship case will be among them. The decision is expected by early July, at the latest. What Trump Has Said About Birthright Citizenship Trump has repeatedly argued that birthright citizenship is being abused and should be ended or restricted. In a March 2026 Truth Social post, he wrote that the policy “is not about rich people from China, and the rest of the World, who want their children, and hundreds of thousands more, FOR PAY, to ridiculously become citizens,” he wrote on Truth Social in late March. Around the time the Supreme Court considered the issue, in mid-May, Trump also posted that birthright citizenship “was not meant” for modern immigration and instead applied to “the babies of slaves” following the Civil War, urging the Court to reconsider the practice. Trump has sharply criticized the Supreme Court on social media, predicting the justices will rule against him on birthright citizenship. "A negative ruling on Birthright Citizenship, on top of the recent Supreme Court Tariff catastrophe, is not Economically sustainable for the United States of America!" Trump wrote in a lengthy post on Truth Social in May. In an April post, he said, "If they [the Supreme Court] rule against our Country on Birthright Citizenship, which they probably will, it will be even worse, if that’s possible. It will cost America massive amounts of money but, more importantly, it will cost America its DIGNITY!" Oral Arguments: Key Takeaways Broad skepticism from the bench: Both conservative and liberal justices questioned the Trump administration’s legal reasoning, especially its interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Roberts pushed back sharply: Chief Justice John Roberts challenged the government’s attempt to expand narrow historical exceptions (like diplomats’ children) into a broad rule excluding large groups of immigrants, calling the argument difficult to justify. Conservatives raised doubts too: Justice Neil Gorsuch and other conservatives scrutinized the historical basis and legal sources behind the administration’s argument, signaling discomfort with its reinterpretation of citizenship law. What Experts Think David Franklin expects the Supreme Court to reject the Trump administration’s argument, WTTW reported. He's a law professor at DePaul University and a former law clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who also previously served as Illinois solicitor general. “When I teach constitutional law, I tell my students that there are six building blocks of constitutional law — text, precedent, structure, history, purpose and consequences,” Franklin said. “Without going into detail, on all six of those building blocks, this birthright citizenship executive (order) is a dead-bang loser, and I think even this Supreme Court will see through it.” On the other hand, John Eastman, a law professor and Claremont Institute fellow, argues that Wong Kim Ark (1898), which granted birthright citizenship to children of legal immigrants, does not apply to undocumented immigrants. He contends that the 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted and does not guarantee automatic citizenship for all U.S.-born children. Historical Support for Ending Birthright Citizenship Opponents of birthright citizenship now tend to be Republican, but this wasn’t always the case. There was once bipartisan support for denying citizenship to children of illegal aliens. Democratic Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, who became majority leader, authored the Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993, which carried provisions that would exclude children of illegal immigrants from the provisions of the 14th Amendment. The bill, which was never passed, stated that children of parents who were citizens of another country and were not lawfully admitted to the United States, “shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Reid later apologized for authoring that legislation and said he had not understood the issue. Nearly 30 years later, birthright citizenship had become a non-negotiable plank of the Democratic Party’s platform, as Trump assailed immigrants, legal and illegal, with his rhetoric and policies in his first term. On the right, the question of whether the 14th Amendment’s protections applied to children of illegal immigrants remained a popular question and a fringe legal theory. Conservative lawyer John Eastman made the case in a controversial 2020 Newsweek opinion piece, in which he attacked Kamala Harris's candidacy. “The Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Wong Kim Ark is not to the contrary,“ Eastman wrote of the landmark ruling that is being challenged before the Supreme Court in Barbara. “At issue there was a child born to Chinese immigrants who had become lawful, permanent residents in the United States—'domiciled' was the legally significant word used by the Court,” he said. "But that was the extent of the Court's holding (as opposed to broader language that was dicta, and therefore not binding). Indeed, the Supreme Court has never held that anyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances of the parents, is automatically a U.S. citizen.” Newsweek apologized for running the Eastman piece on Harris. Which Countries Have Birthright Citizenship? Trump has repeatedly falsely stated that the U.S. is the only country to grant birthright citizenship to people born in the country. The U.S. is one of about 30 countries that do, according to the CIA World Factbook. Birthright citizenship is most common in the Americas, though the scope of the right varies by country. Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Belize, Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana and others grant a form of birthright citizenship. Is This Article Fair? Select an option to vote. You can change it anytime. Most European, Asian and African countries follow jus sanguinis, or citizenship based on ancestry, or a combination of ancestry-based and territorial principles. Germany and France, for example, grant citizenship to some children born on their soil if their parents meet certain residency or legal-status requirements. Countries such as Japan, China and Saudi Arabia generally do not grant automatic citizenship solely on the basis of birth within their territory. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

How Trump’s immigration policies hurt legal immigration, data reveals Portrait of Ignacio CalderonIgnacio Calderon USA TODAY

As President Donald Trump’s administration cracks down on people entering the country illegally, new data shows legal pathways for immigration have also taken a dramatic hit. In 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services approved 8.3 million applications compared with the 11.4 million in 2024, a 27% decrease. Employment-based and humanitarian petitions made up the bulk of the change, dropping 26% and 69%, respectively. Green-card-related approvals dropped by 16%. On the other hand, family-based petition approvals were up 8%, and naturalization-related approvals held steady. Experts say the decreases can be long-lasting and can ripple through the U.S. economy. "Immigrants are not just workers; they also create jobs. That's partly because they, like all of us, consume goods and services that create demand for jobs," said Julia Gelatt, the associate director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute. The State Department, which handles visa applications from abroad, has not released its full 2025 data, but the numbers through September show a similar picture. For example, international student visas issued dropped 31% compared with the same time in 2024. Many people come to the United States as students, and some transition to work visas and later into permanent residents with green cards. A decrease in international students today will cascade in the future. "If you cut off that pathway, you could see the impact of that for years to come," Gelatt said. Beyond job- and family-based routes, there’s another pathway for people to enter the country: for humanitarian reasons. In fiscal year 2024, more than 100,000 people were admitted, but during Trump’s second term, the cap was set to 7,500 for fiscal year 2026, the lowest in nearly half a century. So far, however, all but three of those admitted were White South Africans, the nonprofit progressive magazine Mother Jones reported. After the COVID-19 pandemic, almost half of the country’s biggest cities were recording population declines, but by 2024, the trend had started to reverse in most places. Last year, however, marked another slowdown, which experts largely attributed to a decline in international migration. Get the Susan Page newsletter in your inbox. Get the latest story from Susan Page right in your inbox. Delivery: Varies Your Email Read more: Immigration decline is reversing post-COVID population growth in these cities "When the workforce starts to decline, that means less economic growth. That means less things are produced, which means higher costs for consumers," said David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. "It's a real problem for the country that the administration has taken such a hard line, even against legal immigration." Income earned by immigrants, documented and undocumented, also contributes to Social Security, even if most of them won’t collect benefits. The Social Security trust fund, which supports more than 75 million Americans, is projected to dry up in 2032. Trump’s second administration enacted multiple restrictions on legal immigration pathways: Student visas were canceled, the temporary protected status for migrants from countries with dangerous living conditions were cut, a $100,000 fee for H-1B work visas was imposed, and dozens of countries were placed on a travel ban list. Some of the restrictions were partially or fully reversed after public backlash and court challenges. Many of the student visas were reinstated after cancellations sparked more than 100 lawsuits. After the announcement on the H-1B visa fee, companies and their workers were left scrambling on a frantic weekend to get them back to the country. This June, a judge struck down the $100,000 fee. Another judge halted other policies, saying the U.S. government "threw the lives of countless immigrants living in the United States into indeterminate legal limbo" by pausing asylum applications and work permits for people on a list of 39 countries under a travel ban. But even temporary changes could be detrimental, experts say, because they signal to people who want to come here that they might not be welcome. "There's definitely a lot of backtracking," said Jeff Joseph, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "The problem with that is the damage is done. You send out a memo to all your field offices basically saying this is how you exercise discretion, and it's hard to turn that message off." Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump had campaigned on border and immigration control but also had defended the need for foreign workers. Border Patrol encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border continued to drop during Trump’s second term while the number of people on immigration detention rose sharply, particularly for people with no criminal record, according to USA TODAY’s immigration tracker. "I think they did that efficiently and quickly and effectively, but what I don't think people expected or anticipated or voted for, frankly, is the attack on the legal immigration system," Joseph said. An earlier analysis from Bier found that legal immigration declined 2.5 times faster than illegal entries did in the first three quarters of 2024. "An entirely new administration with a new ideology and a new goal for the immigration system is not going to be able to undo all of the concerns that people will have about coming here," Bier said. But beyond public perception, USCIS, the agency that processes petitions for employment authorizations, green card and citizenship applications, has been affected by workforce reductions in early 2025. CBS reported in February 2025 that 50 workers who processed applications were among the layoffs. Through 2025, the application backlog increased, leaving it 48% higher than at the end of former President Joe Biden’s term. The processing times for petitions have also risen across every category. The frontlog, which includes unopened applications, peaked at nearly 250,000 in 2025 – up from zero before the second Trump administration began. "Each of those envelopes also usually contain payment for a processing fee for that application," Gelatt said. "So USCIS wasn't even opening the envelopes to get the money that funds its operations, it just suggests an agency that's not performing as well as it could be performing." Unlike most agencies that rely on taxpayer money, USCIS relies on filing fees for 96% of its budget. "You're setting yourself up for a situation in which people don't want to come to the United States anymore because the U.S. government is unreliable," Bier said. "I think the United States' reputation is really taking a blow here." For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Immigration judges are denying ICE detainees release. Federal judges are stepping in.

Although federal judges have concluded more than 13,000 times in recent months that ICE has illegally detained people without the chance for release, those rulings often only tell half the story. That’s because even when ICE detainees succeed in federal court, their subsequent bond hearings, where their freedom or continued detention is on the line, are run by Trump administration-controlled immigration judges. And those so-called IJs are under increasing pressure from the administration to deny bond in the vast majority of cases. The result has been a flood of new federal court litigation from ICE detainees who say their bond hearings were fundamentally broken, a failure of due process that compounds their illegal detention in the first place. Federal judges — who by law have no power to second-guess the discretionary decisions of Justice Department-run immigration courts — are often simply sidestepping them, ordering the immediate release of people from ICE detention rather than subject them to bond hearings they view as preordained. Increasingly, federal judges are also dissecting immigration court hearings for constitutional infirmities, finding that IJs applied unconstitutional standards, ignored evidence that undercut their conclusions, failed to consider alternatives to detention or made illogical leaps to justify detention without explanation. Though they may not have the power to review an immigration court’s factual conclusions, federal judges say, they can decide whether a hearing was “fundamentally unfair,” particularly if they were the ones who ordered the bond hearing to occur in the first place. Those reviews can result in an order for a new bond hearing or outright release. Immigration court bond hearings, like detention hearings in criminal cases, require judges to consider whether a detainee is a “danger to the community” or is likely to flee rather than attend future proceedings. But unlike in criminal cases — in which the government must persuade courts to detain defendants pretrial — the legal standards for detaining ICE’s targets vary widely across the country. Some federal judges are taking the matter into their own hands, ordering immigration courts to apply the burden of proof to ICE rather than detainees. As part of that process, federal judges are demanding audio recordings of bond hearings, delving into the nuances of immigration court precedents and focusing squarely on whether IJs heeded their orders to place the burden of proof on the government. It’s a dicey dance, and one that has split courts more evenly than the lopsided rebuke of the Trump administration’s mass detention policies. But it’s one that has occurred with more frequency as the Trump administration has squeezed the ability of IJs to order release from detention. A spokesperson for the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees immigration courts and judges, renewed attacks on “rogue [federal] judges” and said the office wouldn’t respond to “baseless ad hominem attacks” on IJs. The Department of Homeland Security, whose attorneys present detention cases to immigration judges, did not answer an inquiry about the rise in federal judges’ rejections, instead sending a boilerplate comment about the availability of lawyers for ICE detainees. But judges have begun rejecting the legitimacy of IJ bond hearings apace. U.S. District Judge Susan Wigenton, a New Jersey-based appointee of George W. Bush, recently upbraided an IJ for refusing to consider evidence submitted by an ICE detainee “too late,” even though it arrived on the correct date — just after the IJ had gone home for the day. “This Court is well-aware of the amount of immigration petitions that have been filed in this District,” Wigenton wrote, “but this does not justify failing to review submitted documents … Accordingly, this Court will order a new bond hearing before a different immigration judge to avoid the appearance of bias.” U.S. District Judge Kyle Dudek, a Trump appointee in Florida, was flabbergasted when an immigration judge refused to hold a bond hearing he had ordered for an ICE detainee — and administration lawyers simply acquiesced. When confronted over the episode, the administration asked for a do-over, saying the acquiescence was a mistake. “It is a masterclass in litigation cynicism,” Dudek wrote. “A federal court is not a testing lab where the Executive branch can pilot a concession to get a case closed, stand by silently while its own administrative process flouts the resulting mandate, and then stroll back in demanding a clean slate. Give me a break.” Dudek ordered the detainee released “because the Government has shown that it cannot follow this Court’s explicit directions and offers zero assurance that it will comply with the statutory process it previously championed.” Judges are more vocally expressing their concerns about the fairness of court-ordered IJ bond hearings writ large. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, a Clinton appointee based in Virginia, recently wrote that “the Immigration Court may have become more politicized under this administration.” Judges keep emphasizing that the immigration judges are not actually members of the judiciary but instead are Executive Branch officials who must follow court orders and consider evidence presented by detainees. In one recent decision, U.S. District Judge Michael Barrett, a George W. Bush appointee based in Ohio, found a bond hearing that resulted in a “flight risk” determination to be “woefully short of constitutional adequacy.” In another, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, an Obama appointee in Massachusetts, noted recently he had overturned four recent rulings by the same immigration judge over constitutional deficiencies. Watch: The Conversation Play Video42:07 Lee Zeldin on rising gas prices, energy dominance and AI data centers Despite the uptick in judges’ rejections of the legitimacy of IJ bond hearings, the courts remain sharply split about how much power they have to intervene. Federal law “does not permit this Court to conduct what amounts to appellate review of the Immigration Judge’s discretionary decision,” one judge recently wrote, echoing similar concessions from other jurists. The right course, they say, is to appeal the IJ order to the “Board of Immigration Appeals,” another Executive Branch-run administrative agency. U.S. District Judge James Simmons, a Biden appointee based in California, ordered a new bond hearing for a Chinese man who was labeled a “danger to the community” because he had driven onto the Camp Pendleton military base without authorization. The man claimed his trespass was inadvertent and the IJ denied bond despite acknowledging that the episode “could be simply a missed turn.” U.S. District Judge Lauren King, a Washington state-based Biden appointee, was flummoxed by an IJ’s decision to label as a flight risk a man who “has lived in the country for 20 years, has owned a home for nine years, has worked the same job for many years, and has four children, including two minor dependents who are U.S. citizens.” The IJ’s decision was based on the man’s 25-year-old decision to enter the country illegally, King said. “Such rationale,” King concluded, “also suggests that any individual who entered the country illegally could be considered a flight risk and denied bond on that ground — but this would effectively transform discretionary detention into de facto mandatory detention.”

ICE cannot be allowed to hide its death count

On June 4, Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced it will no longer investigate or report the deaths of those recently released from detention centers. According to the Department of Homeland Security, this policy update is “common sense.” Although ICE “remains committed to transparency regarding detainee deaths,” the agency is “not responsible when an individual passes away weeks after leaving their custody.” Despite this statement, there are important reasons to be concerned. First, ICE routinely releases people far from their homes without any means to get back. For instance, in 2025, Jesus Ramirez Ramos was detained in Salina, Kansas and transported to a detention center in Michigan. After nine months of confinement, he was given dirty clothes and told that his phone had been lost. If not for a group of activists who support people recently released from detention centers, he would have been stranded with no money and no way to contact his loved ones. Ramos’s case is not unique. According to The Marshall Project, within the first year of President Trump’s second term, the number of people transferred five or more times has more than tripled. The American Friends Service Committee likewise reports that, in many cases, ICE’s online locator tool fails to show where people are being detained or whether they have been transferred. Friends and family are left to wonder where in the country (or in the world) their loved ones have ended up. Second, people have been seriously injured under ICE’s custody. In January, amid Operation Metro Surge, ICE agents dropped off Alberto Castañeda at a Minnesota hospital with broken bones in his face and skull. Officers claimed that Mondragon ran into a brick wall while attempting to escape. Three nurses familiar with the case said that explanation could not possibly account for the extent of his injuries. Sen. Mark Warner knocks 'chaos and confusion' from White House over delayed Clayton nomination Lindsey C. Thomas, a forensic pathologist with more than 30 years of experience, remarked, “I almost think one doesn’t have to be a physician to conclude that a person can’t get skull fractures on both the right and left sides of their head and from front to back by running themselves into a wall.” Mondragon was released two weeks after his arrest. He has no family in Minnesota and, due to his injuries, suffered permanent and significant memory loss. Third, and relatedly, former and current detainees have reported being deprived of medical services and proper nutrition. One person detained in a Colorado ICE facility described being fed “small scoops of beans and corn, a few pieces of lettuce, half a slice of bread and ‘a baby’s spoon-sized serving of something unidentifiable without color.'” In May, Elder Guerra slipped and fell inside New Jersey’s Delaney Hall facility. The other detainees reported that, despite Guerra suffering a seizure, guards did not immediately call an ambulance. A relative told reporters that Guerra’s condition is worsening, and he is starting to lose hearing in his left ear. That facility, operated by the private prison company Geo Group, has faced repeated accusations of neglectful guards, feeding inmates spoiled or rotten food, as well as depriving them access to adequate medical care or even basic hygiene products, including toilet paper, menstruation products or toothpaste. Fourth, and what is ultimately a culmination of the above three points, DHS has left vulnerable people in dangerous situations. In February, Customs and Border Protection officers abandoned Nurul Amin Shah Alam, a nearly blind refugee who didn’t speak English, alone on a cold winter night in New York state — he died a few days later. A state medical examiner ruled it a homicide with the cause of death being “complications of a perforated ulcer precipitated by hypothermia and dehydration.” Similarly in Pittsburgh, medical examiners determined that the March death of Haitian asylum seeker Daphy Michel was a homicide. Michel, who the medical examiner said was “suffering from untreated severe mental health issues and a significant language barrier,” had been arrested by ICE in late February. She was given an ankle monitor and taken to a bus stop 40 miles away in Pittsburgh, where she died of hypothermia days later. Importantly, the policy that the Department of Homeland Security is rescinding was originally instituted in 2021 by the Biden administration, to hold ICE accountable for releasing severely ill detainees — cases precisely like Alam’s and Michel’s. The reality is that ICE has a long track record of abusing detainees. A 2022 survey of 85 clinicians found that of the roughly 1,300 patients they had treated, all of them had experienced adverse health conditions related to their time in detention. This includes patients “with vaccine-preventable conditions acquired in detention,” “whose medication was taken away or denied access to” and “with chronic conditions that worsened during detention.” A 2024 report on preventable deaths in immigration detention centers similarly found that 95 percent of deaths reported by ICE between 2017 and 2021 would have been preventable if adequate medical care had been provided. Ultimately, Homeland Security must be held responsible for its treatment of detainees. Policies requiring ICE to report on deaths, including those occurring after detainees are released, are crucial for ensuring transparency and accountability. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Feds charge 15 people with impeding agents during Minnesota immigration crackdown

AP — Federal prosecutors have charged 15 people with impeding the Trump administration’s massive immigration crackdown in Minnesota earlier this year, accusing them of coordinating efforts to block arrests and deportations as part of a conspiracy against the US government. The monthslong investigation focused on members and associates of “Direct Action Minnesota,” a left-wing coalition of protest groups that played a role in the “surveillance, operational planning and rapid mobilization against law enforcement,” Minnesota US. Attorney Daniel N. Rosen said. Rosen said some of the defendants self-identified as Antifa, an umbrella term referring to a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left — often the far left — but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform. President Donald Trump has labeled it as a domestic terror group. Their actions included “stalking” Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents, throwing blocks of ice at their vehicles and setting up blockades around federal buildings. Rosen declined to say whether any federal agents were injured as a result. “Whether or not they actually, at the end of the day, cause bodily harm is not the measure of whether or not they committed a serious federal crime,” Rosen told reporters. Twelve people were arrested Tuesday, two remain at large and one is already in custody, Rosen added. Information about their attorneys was not immediately available. US Attorney Daniel N. Rosen for the District of Minnesota speaks during a news conference on June 11 in Minneapolis. US Attorney Daniel N. Rosen for the District of Minnesota speaks during a news conference on June 11 in Minneapolis. Alex Kormann/Minnesota Star Tribune/AP The Trump administration’s Operation Metro Surge brought thousands of federal agents to the Twin Cities, setting off mass protests and leading to the fatal shooting of two US citizens. During the surge, convoys of agents in unmarked SUVs traveled through neighborhoods, at times banging down doors, waiting outside schools and demanding residents produce proof of citizenship. A sprawling network of outraged Minnesotans — primarily organized through anonymous neighborhood messaging threads — quickly formed, with ordinary citizens and activists using whistles and car horns to call attention to the masked, heavily armed agents. At the time, border czar Tom Homan indicated federal authorities were probing “the organization and funding of the attacks on ICE.” “They’ll be held accountable,” he said. “Justice is coming.” Last September, Trump signed an order classifying Antifa as a domestic terror organization and directing federal agencies to “investigate, disrupt, and dismantle” its affiliates and funders. Democrats and several First Amendment groups have raised issue with the designation. While the federal government may designate foreign terror groups, there is no formal mechanism to apply the same label to domestic groups. Trump has long invoked the term against a range of political opponents, including peaceful protesters without anarchist-leanings. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

ICE is now funded through end of Trump's term, raising worries about oversight

Federal agencies responsible for immigration enforcement are set to receive tens of billions more dollars after Congress voted to fund them not just for the year, but through the rest of President Trump's term. The House narrowly voted on Tuesday to direct roughly $70 billion to the Department of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, the second multi-billion dollar infusion of money to the agencies in the last year muscled through by Republicans alone. The measure passed by a vote of 214 to 212. Trump signed the bill on Wednesday. The vote marks the end of a 115 day standoff over immigration policy. After federal officers shot and killed two protesters in Minneapolis earlier this year, Democrats refused to back more funding for ICE and Border Patrol, with the goal of forcing changes to immigration enforcement tactics. Sponsor Message But as negotiations fell apart, Republicans moved to circumvent Democrats using a special procedure known as reconciliation to fund the agencies without acquiescing to any of the reforms they were demanding. A view of the U.S. Capitol on June 4, 2026. Politics Senate Republicans pass immigration funding after overnight vote In the Senate last week, one Republican joined all Democrats in an unsuccessful attempt to block the measure. The lopsided votes highlighted a Republican caucus continuing to endorse Trump's immigration agenda as Democrats warn that Congress has ceded its ability to provide oversight by funneling these agencies billions of dollars with few strings attached. ICE gets more than three times its annual funding Through this legislation, Congress is giving ICE more than three times its last annual budget. Though technically this funding is meant to cover three years, unlike a traditional annual funding bill, the money comes with few stipulations on how and when it should be spent. While most annual spending measures provide funds for just that fiscal year, this measure includes lump sums that need to be spent only by the end of fiscal year 2029, including: $38 billion for ICE to hire, pay, train and equip its officers and agents. That includes $7 billion for Homeland Security Investigations and $31 billion for immigration enforcement work like hiring more attorneys, supporting local law enforcement who coordinate with ICE and technology like body cameras; $22 billion for Border Patrol to pay, train, recruit and equip agents and personnel. That includes $13 billion specifically for immigration enforcement work; $5 billion for border security technology and screening, including artificial intelligence; $350 million for enforcement in localities that do not coordinate directly with ICE. Sponsor Message Legislation passed in April to fund most of DHS except ICE and Border Patrol did include provisions that would provide funding for the agency to purchase body cameras, stipulate congressional oversight of detention centers and deescalation training for officers and agents. Lawmakers agreed to separate funding for ICE and Border Patrol as Republicans and Democrats struggled to reach a compromise on reforms even as a record-long DHS shutdown dragged on. But now ICE and Border Patrol will be funded without the changes Democrats were demanding, including requiring judicial warrants to enter homes and prohibiting officers from wearing masks. The package also lacks reforms with bipartisan support, such as requiring officers to wear body cameras. Neither measure included funding for internal oversight offices that conduct investigations into detention center conditions; however, the April measure to fund all of the agency included $20 million for the DHS inspector general to specifically conduct oversight of detention facilities. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents stand near a gate at Delaney Hall, an immigrant detention center in Newark, N.J., in May 2025. Immigration DHS blames funding lapse for shutdown of internal detention oversight Not only is this standoff ending without Democrats achieving the reforms they pressed for, the agencies will be insulated from additional pressure through the appropriations process for three years. More dollars after an unprecedented boost Both ICE and CBP received a massive influx of funding last year, also passed by Republicans through the budget reconciliation process, that has allowed both agencies to largely continue operating even as Democrats refused to provide them annual funding for the last several months. In this photo, two observers holding up smartphones stand in the background as they record two Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Minneapolis on February 5. The Immigration Debate How a $75 billion windfall from Congress has insulated ICE ICE's usual annual budget is about $10 billion. The $75 billion boost last summer made ICE the highest funded federal law enforcement agency and enabled a hiring surge that doubled its ranks in a matter of months. Former agency leaders, Democrats and even some Republicans have warned that the surge of money limits the ability of Congress to provide oversight when it comes to how that money is spent and how the agency operates. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, was the only Republican to vote against this latest funding measure in the Senate last week. She wrote in a statement that by appropriating funding for three fiscal years instead of the usual one, the measure "weakens the normal budgeting process and sets another precedent for avoiding it when we find ourselves in disagreement." Sponsor Message "In doing so, it reduces Congress' ability to apply reasonable checks on immigration policy for the remainder of this administration and into the next," she wrote. Other Republicans say they were left with no choice once Democrats decided to withhold funding for these agencies as leverage to extract reforms. "We're attempting here to fund ICE and CBP at last year's operating budget plus inflation, that's all we're talking about here," House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, said shortly before the vote. "This is not a slush fund, it's regular, normal funding. And we're going to do it not for one year, but for three years so we don't end up here again." ICE "got a shopping list" ICE officials have been gearing up for the potential new cash for months. "Apparently we're going to get more reconciliation money, so I got a shopping list," said Matt Elliston, ICE assistant director for law enforcement systems and analysis, speaking on a panel at the Border Security Expo in Arizona last month. Among the items on his list are wearable headset displays so that officers do not need to be on their phones during an operation and data to help identify where someone targeted for arrest lives. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott said absent the reconciliation funds, the agency was struggling to correctly pay its employees and fulfill contracts. While the agencies welcome the funds, immigration advocates are concerned that funding the agency outside the normal appropriations process means provisions that tell the agency how to do its work are not included. ICE agents confront protesters as they gather outside the federal immigration center at Delaney Hall on June 8, 2026, in Newark, New Jersey. The agency will receive tens of billions in new funding through the end of Trump's term under a GOP bill passed by Congress. ICE agents confront protesters as they gather outside the federal immigration center at Delaney Hall on June 8, 2026, in Newark, New Jersey. The agency will receive tens of billions in new funding through the end of Trump's term under a GOP bill passed by Congress. Spencer Platt/Getty Images Heidi Altman, vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center, said in the past DHS annual funding bills included specific guardrails on the spending including requirements for the agency to report data on who it is detaining and specific treatment of pregnant women in custody. Sponsor Message "It's very dangerous," Altman said. "And it means that the agency will move forward with even fewer accountability mechanisms than we've seen in the past." Altman also raised concerns about the $350 million dedicated to immigration enforcement in areas that are not "qualified cooperating jurisdictions," meaning a locality that is not a part of programs that allow local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law. "The DHS secretary has wide discretion to just say these are not sufficiently cooperating with the White House's mass deportation agenda," she said. "So it's concerning in terms of where the money will go." Politics of immigration enforcement President Trump shakes hands with the newly sworn in Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin in the Oval Office on March 24, 2026. Mullin has dialed back some of the aggressive enforcement operations that drew the national spotlight. President Trump shakes hands with the newly sworn in Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin in the Oval Office on March 24, 2026. Mullin has dialed back some of the aggressive enforcement operations that drew the national spotlight. Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images After the two killings in Minneapolis, Democrats and a contingent of Republicans in Congress said they wanted to take action to reign in the tactics of federal immigration officers. For weeks this winter, debate over President Trump's immigration policy consumed Capitol Hill. But despite the protracted fight over immigration enforcement funding, that discussion has largely subsided. The dome of the U.S. Capitol is framed through a tree on January 25. Snow had accumulated in various nooks of the come. Politics A bipartisan effort to save health subsidies failed. Will ICE reform be different? Republicans criticized Democrats for pushing an unserious list of demands. Democrats criticized Republicans for dismissing attempts at meaningful reform. A new DHS secretary, Markwayne Mullin, has dialed back some of the aggressive enforcement operations that drew the national spotlight. And other controversies, like the war in Iran, have overtaken the immigration policy debate. So much so that when Senate Republicans finally moved to approve the $70 billion for ICE and Border Patrol, much of the debate focused on an unrelated fund proposed by the Trump administration to compensate people who claim to have been wrongfully targeted by the government. Reflecting on what followed after the two deaths in her home state, Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn., says it has been hard for her personally to come to terms with the reality that Democrats were unable to extract the policy changes they demanded. And meanwhile, Smith says Minnesotans are still dealing with the fallout from the crackdown — like kids who did not return to school or businesses that never reopened — even as public attention shifted away. Sponsor Message "This is the way it goes, Americans have really busy complicated lives, they're trying to figure out how to pay rent and buy groceries, but what they saw, I don't think they're going to forget it," Smith says. "And that's what I mean when I say we've lost these votes but that doesn't mean we've lost the fight." Even if public opinion on Trump's immigration agenda does help Democrats' take control of Congress next year, Democrats' ability to extract changes through the appropriations process will be limited now that the agencies have resources to last until 2029. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Largest ICE detention facility wasted millions and put detainees at risk, report finds

WASHINGTON (AP) — Mismanagement at a massive Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Texas created unsafe conditions that contributed to detainee deaths and suffering even as millions of wasted tax dollars enriched contractors, according to a federal report released Tuesday. The Government Accountability Office report documents serious problems at Camp East Montana, a sprawling tent facility at Fort Bliss in El Paso where three detainees have died in little more than six months. Evidence in one of those deaths, of a 55-year-old Cuban migrant who died in January after being held down by guards, was “missing or destroyed,” the report found. ICE rushed to open the camp in August before construction was complete and failed to conduct required oversight to ensure detainees were held in sanitary conditions and receiving adequate medical care, according to the report. The Department of Homeland Security noted that ICE has replaced the contractor running the facility. “This new contractor will allow Camp East Montana to continue abiding by the highest detention standards with the ability to provide more medical care on-site,” said DHS spokesperson Lauren Bis. Related Stories President Donald Trump talks with reporters before boarding Air Force One at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, early Tuesday, June 9, 2026. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein) Trump signs bill giving nearly $70B to his immigration enforcement agenda through end of his term 1 MIN READ 127 Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Air Marshals, patrol around Washington Dulles International Airport, in Chantilly, Va., Tuesday, March 24, 2026. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce,File) House passes $70B bill to fund immigration enforcement for 3 years, sending to Trump 4 MIN READ 341 A sign for the Internal Revenue Service building is pictured in Washington, May 4, 2021. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File) A watchdog report flags security risks in the IRS-ICE taxpayer data-sharing deal 2 MIN READ 39 The GAO’s findings echo past reporting by The Associated Press and other news outlets about dangerous conditions at Camp East Montana, which quickly became the nation’s largest immigration detention facility. But the government report also details previously undisclosed incidents, including that a detainee escaped in October due to what ICE called the contractor’s oversight failure. In January, a security guard lost a loaded firearm inside the facility that was never recovered. The contractor failed to administer skin tests to screen detainees for tuberculosis, relying on a questionnaire instead, the report said. The inadequate screening allowed a detainee with tuberculosis to be housed with the general population, which later suffered an outbreak. GAO is an independent, nonpartisan agency in Congress that investigates how federal funds are spent and evaluates whether programs and policies are operating effectively. The office opened its review into Camp East Montana at the request of Democrats in the House and Senate. Sign up for Morning Wire: Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois called the report’s findings “damning.” “We now know even more details of how dangerous and irresponsible the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign truly is,” said Durbin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, adding that “those detained are experiencing conditions that shock the conscience.” A rush to build led to an inexperienced contractor Facing pressure to increase its detention capacity, the Trump administration routed the contract to build Camp East Montana through the Army to speed construction after ICE twice failed to successfully award one. That resulted in selecting a small, little-known contractor, Acquisition Logistics, for the $1.3 billion deal despite it having no prior experience operating detention facilities and facing what ICE called a “significant learning curve.” The Army — and later ICE after the camp was transferred to the agency — wasted millions of dollars paying for services it did not need because the contract did not account for fluctuations in the detainee population, the report said. The Army blew up to $11.5 million paying for guards, medical services, transportation and meals in the weeks before the camp held detainees. The agencies wasted millions more because it was contracted to pay the cost of meals for the camp’s maximum population of 5,000, even when the number of detainees there dropped to around 1,600, the report said. Facility didn’t initially meet detention standards The facility did not meet ICE detention standards or the contract’s requirements in several ways when it opened, in part because it had not been inspected as required by ICE policy, the report said. The camp lacked security cameras on the perimeter and had other surveillance blind spots that raised the risk of sexual assaults or escapes. The camp could not accommodate detainees using wheelchairs and had no showers compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, resulting in the disabled being held in medical care rooms. The recreation area wasn’t available for several days, and after one yard was opened, it wasn’t enough space to provide required time for detainees. The law library, space to meet with attorneys and a visitation area did not open for weeks, resulting in detainees being deprived of legal resources and contact with family and friends, the report found. The problems persisted as ICE began transporting more detainees there from across the country, the GAO found. While built to house up to 5,000 immigrants for short-term stays, its population has averaged about half of that from October until April, according to ICE’s most recent data. Missing evidence and other problems Detainees held at the facility didn’t receive comprehensive health assessments, which meant that those with chronic conditions received substandard care, the report said. The contractor cleaned the dormitories weekly rather than daily as required, resulting in unsanitary conditions. Some guards offered detainees cookies if they would clean their own rooms. Acquisition Logistics didn’t reply to messages seeking comment. The GAO report says investigations into the January death of Geraldo Lunas Campos were undermined after “evidence associated with the incident was missing or destroyed.” It did not elaborate. Campos died after he was restrained by guards and an outside autopsy report ruled the death a homicide due to asphyxia. The contractor at the facility did not provide use-of-force and death reports to ICE as required, according to the new report. An investigation by ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility into the death is on hold pending a criminal investigation by the FBI. On Jan. 14, Nicaraguan detainee Victor Manuel Diaz, 36, died of suicide after staff put him in a medical holding room instead of suicide-resistant cell and left him unattended for intervals longer than 15 minutes, the report said. Staff could not see into the room because the contractor had failed to install vision panels that had been requested months earlier, it found. “These are huge discrepancies in their failure to prevent suicides,” said Diaz family attorney Randall Kallinen, noting that the report strengthens a potential wrongful death claim he’s considering. “They are part of an entire laundry list of problems at Camp East Montana.” For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Senate passes $70B immigration enforcement bill without limits on Trump settlement fund

WASHINGTON — The Senate passed legislation to fund President Donald Trump's immigration enforcement agencies early Friday morning, after weeks of delays and fierce backlash to an unrelated $1.776 billion settlement fund that threatened to derail the bill. Senators voted 52-47 for the $70 billion legislation to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol for the next three years, through the end of Trump's term. The final vote came just before 5 a.m., after Republicans narrowly defeated multiple attempts by Democrats and Republicans to add language to the bill that would permanently ban Trump's settlement fund for political allies who believe they have been politically persecuted. Sponsor Message Republicans cleared a major hurdle overnight when they defeated an amendment proposed by one of their own members, Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, that would have redirected payments from the settlement to members of law enforcement who were injured in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. The amendments were a test of party unity that complicated what should have been an easy vote for Republicans who wanted to keep the focus on immigration enforcement in an election year. Instead, they spent almost a full day haggling among themselves over whether to block the settlement fund, even after acting Attorney General Todd Blanche had said earlier this week that it would not go forward. "This would have been done several hours ago if we weren't having to deal with some of the issues around the fund," Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said shortly before midnight. Thune himself has criticized the judgement fund, which was part of a settlement that resolves Trump's lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns and has angered many of his GOP colleagues. But he has been pushing GOP senators for weeks to keep the bill focused on the funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, which Democrats have blocked since early this year, and to avoid adding new provisions that could complicate its passage in the House. Sponsor Message Still, a group of Republican senators pushed all day and into the night to block the settlement's payouts through legislation. That effort came after Trump raised new doubts about the settlement's future Wednesday afternoon — just after the Senate had voted to start debate on the immigration bill — when he told reporters that the settlement is "very important" and said "I don't know" whether it is dead or on hold. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., pauses for questions from reporters before votes on the immigration enforcement funding package, at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, June 4, 2026. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., pauses for questions from reporters before votes on the immigration enforcement funding package, at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, June 4, 2026. J. Scott Applewhite/AP "I'd have to ask the lawyers," he said. Senators push back multiple attempts to ban settlement fund The first vote on Thursday morning, a Democratic effort to ban the settlement, was held open for several hours as three senators, including Cassidy, decided whether to support it. The Democratic motion was narrowly defeated when Cassidy eventually voted against it and the two other GOP senators — Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, both of whom are up for reelection this year — voted for it. The Senate then rejected a second amendment from Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina that would also have banned the settlement fund but moved the money to a separate anti-fraud fund at the Department of Justice. Most Democrats voted against the amendment, guaranteeing its defeat, but more than 10 Republicans supported it. Tillis said the fund is a political liability for the party. "If Blanche says this is largely inoperative, why not use this moment to codify that?" Tillis said. "Otherwise, you're exposing every one of our members who are in cycle to having to deal with this between today and Election Day, and that makes no sense for something that the DOJ says they're not moving forward with." Cassidy's amendment to compensate the injured police officers was a pointed rebuke, as payouts from Trump's fund could have potentially gone to Trump supporters who beat police and attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Sponsor Message Despite Blanche's comments, Cassidy said that the fund is still part of an active settlement and "absolutely can be used." The Senate rejected several other Democratic efforts to try to block or limit the fund, including amendments to ban payments to Jan. 6 defendants who injured law enforcement officers. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Republicans are now "leaving taxpayers to rely on nothing more than a promise from Donald Trump's personal fixer. That is not accountability. That is a permission slip." ICE and Border Patrol money has been delayed for months Enactment of the roughly $70 billion bill to fund ICE and the Border Patrol would end the blockade by Democrats who demanded policy changes after the fatal shootings of two protesters by federal agents in January. The bill would fund the agencies for three years, through the end of Trump's term. Senate Republicans used a complicated procedural maneuver to get around the filibuster and pass the budget legislation with no Democratic votes. But it took weeks to get the bill to the Senate floor as Republicans navigated various obstacles to passage created by Trump and the White House — including a $1 billion proposal for White House security and Trump's ballroom that they eventually scrapped and the fierce bipartisan backlash to the settlement fund. Democrats say any funding bill for the Homeland Security Department should place restraints on federal immigration authorities, including better identification for federal officers and more use of judicial warrants, among other asks. After federal agents shot Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Trump agreed to a Democratic request that the Homeland Security bill be separated from a larger spending measure that became law. But bipartisan negotiations went nowhere, and the department funding lapsed in mid-February with no agreement on changes to the Trump administration's immigration enforcement tactics. Sponsor Message Congress eventually funded the rest of the Homeland Security Department at the end of April with Democratic support, but ICE and Border Patrol has remained without regular funding. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Mullin Says ICE Training Going Back to ‘Regular Standards’

Markwayne Mullin, the Department of Homeland Security secretary, told lawmakers on Wednesday that his agency would be increasing the training requirements for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to their previous level starting this summer. The scope of ICE training became a point of contention as the Trump administration hired thousands of new officers over the past year and apparently cut training requirements as a result of the hiring push. A trove of documents released by Senate Democrats earlier this year showed that training hours had dropped by roughly 40 percent as of February, to approximately 336 hours. As of last July, it had been 584 hours. On Wednesday, Mr. Mullin said that those training requirements were changing. “We had to rewrite the curriculum. All training starting July 1st will be back up to the regular standards,” he said to the House Homeland Security Committee. The issue of training for new ICE officers became a flashpoint as the agency became involved in major operations in cities like Minneapolis. The shootings of two American citizens in that city, one of whom was shot by an ICE agent, further inflamed those conversations. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Then, in February, Ryan Schwank, a former ICE attorney who worked at the training academy, publicly criticized the changes. “For the last five months, I watched ICE dismantle the training program,” Mr. Schwank said in February, at a forum held in Washington by congressional Democrats. “Cutting 240 hours of vital classes from a 584-hour program — classes that teach the Constitution, our legal system, firearms training, the use of force, lawful arrests, proper detention and the limits of officers’ authority.” Agency officials pushed back and said that hours had in fact not been slashed. “Our officers receive extensive firearm training, are taught de-escalation tactics, and receive Fourth and Fifth Amendment comprehensive instruction,” the agency said at the time. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Trump's mass deportation campaign takes a toll on college students

For years, researchers and advocates have documented the barriers students from immigrant families face when pursuing higher education. But the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign has introduced new challenges and fears, even for many immigrants who are legally in the United States. Special correspondent Fred de Sam Lazaro reports from Minnesota for our series Rethinking College. Read the Full Transcript Notice: Transcripts are machine and human generated and lightly edited for accuracy. They may contain errors. Geoff Bennett: For years, researchers and advocates have documented the barriers students from immigrant families face in pursuing higher education. But the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign has introduced new challenges and new fears, even for many immigrants who are legally in the U.S. Special correspondent Fred de Sam Lazaro reports now from Minnesota, where federal authorities carried out a sweeping immigration enforcement operation earlier this year. It's part of our series Rethinking College. Fred de Sam Lazaro: As the spring semester wound to a close, the campus of Augsburg University bustled with students. For the small private school in Minneapolis, IT was a far cry from scenes in the Twin Cities just months earlier, when Operation Metro Surge brought thousands of federal agents to Minnesota, part of a massive immigration crackdown. Augsburg sits in the heart of the Cedar-Riverside and Minnesota's Somali population. The school reflects the community, with about 70 percent students of color. Many are immigrants. Paul Pribbenow has been Augsburg's president for 20 years. Paul Pribbenow, President, Augsburg University: Students who have lived through the experience here over the past several months with the Metro Surge, clearly, that trauma has affected them. I can see it in their faces. You can actually see it, especially here at the end of our semester, the weariness, the fatigue, just the stress. Fred de Sam Lazaro: Federal officials detained three Augsburg students, including one on campus in December. Woman: A man armed with a rifle standing outside of a residence hall. Fred de Sam Lazaro: The Department of Homeland Security called the student a -- quote -- "criminal illegal alien with multiple offenses." The "News Hour" independently confirmed an arrest for drunk and careless driving. Ultimately, courts ordered the release of all three Augsburg students, but the effect of the crackdown lingered, with all campus buildings remaining locked. Eva Skipwith is a biology major at Augsburg. Born in Ethiopia, she came to the United States at the age of 1. When ICE activity picked up over the winter, she started taking some classes online. Eva Skipwith, Student, Augsburg University: It's exhausting to have to be on guard all the time, to have to worry about whether or not you're going to be taken from the only home that. Especially students at Augsburg know, like, how much work you put in to get our education. And, like, you hear the whistles, and my thought is, like, oh, my God, all this work that I have put in, if I'm taken, that's gone. What am I left with? Fred de Sam Lazaro: Colleges throughout the Twin Cities area saw impacts from Operation Metro Surge. At Augsburg, requests for temporary leave double this semester. Elsewhere, new student enrollment declined and virtual learning climbed significantly. In a statement to the "News Hour," DHS said: "These students are only afraid because of fearmongering and lies being spread by agitators, sanctuary politicians and the media. Criminals are no longer able to hide in America's schools to avoid arrest." State Rep. Isaac Schultz (R-MN): I think that Metro Surge never needed to happen. Fred de Sam Lazaro: Isaac Schultz is a Republican in the Minnesota House of Representatives. State Rep. Isaac Schultz: Had, as an example, Minneapolis-St. Paul and more specifically the counties around them, had they been more cooperative early on, there would have been no need for Operation Metro Surge. Fred de Sam Lazaro: What were they not doing? State Rep. Isaac Schultz: So, they specifically adopted sanctuary policies which prevented communication and coordination with law enforcement entities at the Department of Homeland Security, with ICE. And because they didn't do that, it made it more difficult to do the job of immigration enforcement. Fred de Sam Lazaro: In recent years, multiple studies have documented the toll of immigration enforcement on college students, especially those from families with mixed immigration status. Researchers have found negative effects on students' ability to focus, their grades, and on enrollment. Corinne Kentor is with the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration. Corinne Kentor: If students are not feeling safe, if they are worried about their families constantly, that has a real impact on their personal well-being, even if they are not the primary subjects of immigration enforcement. Fred de Sam Lazaro: Miguel Perez Espinoza just received an associate's degree in accounting, taking online classes from Southern New Hampshire University. He was born and raised in the Twin Cities, but comes from a mixed-status family. The past several months, he says, have been trying. Miguel Perez Espinoza, Student, Southern New Hampshire University: He just got this collage of a mess where I'm just trying to keep everything together and trying to make sure my family's OK. I had to push off a lot of assignments to take care of them, make sure they're OK, make sure to see where they're at all times. Fred de Sam Lazaro: Perez Espinoza, a corporal in the Army National Guard, put a patrol cap on the dashboard of his father's car, hoping to lower the chance of an encounter with ICE. He also pulled money out of his savings to install cameras outside his parents' home. Miguel Perez Espinoza: I'm trying to balance my education while trying to balance their safety. It was terrifying. Corinne Kentor: Between 2000 and 2023, 84 percent of enrollment growth in U.S. colleges and universities has been driven by first-and second-generation immigrants. We're talking about a really significant population in higher education. And if that population is not able to continue to flourish in higher ed, then college is going to look very different. Fred de Sam Lazaro: In recent years, Kentor has tracked movement around policies that help undocumented students afford college. In 2001, Texas became the first state to offer in-state tuition to undocumented students. By 2024, half of all states adopted similar measures. But, since then, challenges to those policies have mounted. The Trump administration sued nine states, including Minnesota. A federal judge dismissed that lawsuit in March. State Rep. Isaac Schultz: Greetings to each of you. Fred de Sam Lazaro: Last year, Representative Isaac Schultz introduced legislation to bar students without legal status from qualifying for state financial aid. He says, next year, about $3 million will go to some 300 undocumented students. Will it really make that much difference, do you think, or is it the principle that you're fighting for? State Rep. Isaac Schultz: It's both principle and it's the actual idea, right? So for those students who have legal status, they are missing out on $50. That's $50 that is going to someone without legal status. Fred de Sam Lazaro: What do you say to many of these students who will tell you that their parents, whilst not documented, are taxpayers? State Rep. Isaac Schultz: Yes, they're taxpayers, for sure. But at the same time, there is no reason that we should have the same playing field for someone with legal status who is a citizen and has gone through just the basics of supporting the United States. Paul Pribbenow: We're only cutting off our own future. Fred de Sam Lazaro: Augsburg's Paul Pribbenow, who estimates the school is home to dozens of undocumented students, disagrees. Paul Pribbenow: Our first undocumented student who is now an attorney in the United States has gained his citizenship, is married, and is working in an immigrant law center here in the Twin Cities. And, for me, if that's the possibility for what these students are going to give back to this country, then it's worth both our personal institutional resources, but also the support of the state and the federal government to be able to support those students. Fred de Sam Lazaro: For his part, Miguel Perez Espinoza to get his bachelor's degree in the fall. He then hopes to go to the University of Minnesota for his master's. The last several months have only hardened his resolve to finish his education. Miguel Perez Espinoza: I want to be in a position in terms of education and finance where I could take care of my family without having to have that feeling or burdened with it. I love my family to death, and I will -- they sacrificed everything to be here to give me an education, and I will sacrifice what I can for them. Fred de Sam Lazaro: For the "PBS News Hour," I'm Fred de Sam Lazaro in the Twin Cities. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Trump administration plan would allow for quick asylum rejections without interviews, internal documents show

The Trump administration is developing a plan that would allow U.S. immigration officials to quickly reject some asylum applications without interviewing the applicants, according to internal federal government documents obtained by CBS News. The Department of Homeland Security regulation described in the internal documents would be the latest effort by President Trump's White House to tighten access to the U.S. asylum system, which administration officials have claimed is plagued by systematic fraud. Under the regulation, officers at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a branch of DHS, would be empowered to reject asylum applications, without adhering to the traditional practice of interviewing the applicants, if they find the cases were filed a year after their arrival to the U.S. USCIS would place rejected applicants in deportation proceedings before the Justice Department's immigration court system, requiring them to plead their cases to remain in the country in an adversarial setting, the documents say. U.S. immigration law generally disqualifies foreigners from applying for asylum if they do so a year after entering the country. But that provision includes exceptions, such as cases involving a serious medical condition or poor legal counsel. Unaccompanied minors are also not subject to the deadline. The regulation outlined in the internal federal documents would allow USCIS officers to move forward with an asylum case and schedule an interview if they determine the applicants meet one of the exceptions for not filing their application within the 1-year deadline. But the regulation would nonetheless upend USCIS' longstanding policy of interviewing virtually all asylum applicants before making a decision on their claims, allowing for quick rejections of cases where the paper record suggests the applicants did not meet the 1-year deadline. symbol 00:00 02:00 Read More In a statement to CBS News, a USCIS spokesperson said the Trump administration is "considering multiple options" to address a backlog of over a million asylum claims "created by the Biden administration's dangerous open borders policies," including sending "deficient" applications to the immigration courts. "This would allow USCIS to avoid wasting time on asylum applications that it would otherwise refer to immigration proceedings and will allow illegal aliens to have their claims heard by a judge," the USCIS spokesperson added. Conchita Cruz, an immigration lawyer who runs an organization that assists asylum-seekers, expressed concern that the regulation would "wrongfully" place applicants in deportation proceedings without allowing them to explain why they may have filed their application after the 1-year deadline. Cruz, the co-executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, said there are "many reasons" why asylum-seekers may file their applications more than a year after entering the U.S., including because they have been living in the country with a temporary status, like a visa. "The government would be changing the rules on immigrants who have been navigating a complex immigration process, often for many years," she added. U.S. law allows most foreigners on American soil to request asylum, even if they enter the country illegally. But the threshold to win the actual legal protection of asylum is much higher, requiring applicants to show they're fleeing persecution on the basis of their race, religion, nationality, political views or membership in a social group. Those granted asylum are allowed to live in the U.S. permanently, while those whose cases are denied are supposed to be deported. In recent years, a backlog of millions of asylum cases has hindered the federal government's ability to adjudicate applications quickly, a logjam that Republican and Democratic administrations have said encourages economic migrants to use the system to stay and work in the U.S., even though they do not qualify for asylum. USCIS, which oversees asylum cases filed by immigrants in the U.S. legally or who are not facing deportation, had 1.5 million pending asylum applications as of last fall, government figures show. Meanwhile, the Justice Department's immigration courts, which handle deportation cases, had 3.3 million pending claims as of March, 2.3 million of them involving asylum requests. As part of its deportation crackdown, the Trump administration has adopted various measures to restrict asylum and aggressively pursue the deportation of asylum-seekers, mainly those allowed into the U.S. along the southern border under the Biden administration. The administration has brokered "safe third country" deportation agreements with multiple nations across the globe, including ones with questionable human rights records, to send asylum-seekers to countries that are not their own, with instructions to seek refuge there instead of in the U.S. Last year, officials also froze all asylum cases overseen by USCIS, after the suspect in the shooting of two National Guard soldiers in Washington, D.C., was revealed to be an Afghan man who had been granted asylum. After several months, that pause was scaled back, but remains in place for cases filed by citizens of 39 countries listed on Mr. Trump's "travel ban" proclamation. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.