SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
new mexico
'Democratic Freedoms' Under Threat as Migrants Charged for Entering Trump Militarized Border Zone
"As presidential overreaches pile up, they underscore the urgent need for Congress and the courts to reassert their roles as checks on executive authority," said two experts at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Apr 30, 2025
At least 28 migrants who crossed into the U.S. over the southern border could face up to a year in detention and $100,000 in fines after being charged Monday not only with "illegal entry" but also with violating "security regulations"—the result of U.S. President Donald Trump's transformation of the border into a 170-mile-long "National Defense Area."
As Common Dreamsreported last month, the White House has pushed to create a "buffer zone" patrolled by U.S. troops along a stretch of the southern border in New Mexico, with soldiers empowered to immediately detain anyone who "trespasses" in the 60-foot-wide area before handing them over to Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
The Washington Postreported that the migrants were apprehended on a route that has been used for years by people entering the U.S., and were accused in court filings of violating "the order issued on April 18, 2025, by the U.S. Army Garrison Fort Huachuca military commander designating the New Mexico National Defense Areas, also known as the Roosevelt Reservation, as both a restricted area and a controlled area under Army Regulation 190-13."
Carlos Ibarra, a court-appointed attorney for the migrants facing charges, told the Post that the government was "piling on" by adding the security violation charge, and said that "if these folks had $100,000, they wouldn't be coming over here."
The arrests came after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made an appearance at the border last week, saying in a video posted on the Pentagon's social media accounts, "This may as well be a military base."
"Any illegal attempting to enter that zone is entering a military base," he said. "You add up the charges of what you can be charged with, misdemeanors and felonies, you could be looking up to 10 years in prison when prosecuted."
Ordinarily people who are charged for crossing the border without authorization have faced a potential six-month jail term and up to $5,000 in fines.
The area was turned into a de facto military base when Trump signed an executive order earlier this month giving the Pentagon jurisdiction over the Roosevelt Reservation, saying in a memo that the southern border "is under attack from a variety of threats" and requires a more direct security role for the U.S. military.
According to the Migration Policy Institute, apprehensions of migrants by U.S. Border Patrol sank to just 7,000 in March, the fewest in at least 25 years.
The memo creating a military installation at the border was designed to give federal troops a "legitimate military reason" to apprehend, search, and detain troops without violating the Posse Comitatus Act and without Trump having to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, the Brennan Center for Justice explained in a blog post on Monday.
The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits federal armed forces from engaging in civilian law enforcement without the approval of Congress. The Insurrection Act provides an exception to that law, as does a loophole in the Posse Comitatus Act called the "military purpose doctrine." Trump's advisers have so far recommended against invoking the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the president to deploy military forces inside the United States to enforce the law in certain situations.
Trump's memo allowing the military to "act as a de facto border police force," wrote Elizabeth Goitein and Joseph Nunn at the Brennan Center, "could have alarming implications for democratic freedoms."
"It continues a pattern of the president stretching his emergency powers past their limits to usurp the role of Congress and bypass legal rights," they wrote. "He has misused a law meant to address economic emergencies to set tariffs on every country in the world. He declared a fake 'energy emergency' to promote fossil fuel production. And he dusted off a centuries-old wartime authority to deport Venezuelan immigrants, without due process, to a Salvadoran prison notorious for human rights violations."
"As presidential overreaches pile up, they underscore the urgent need for Congress and the courts to reassert their roles as checks on executive authority," wrote Goitein and Nunn.
Along with concerns about the legality of Trump's move, Goitein and Nunn noted that troops "are trained to fight and destroy an enemy; they're generally not trained for domestic law enforcement." Empowering them to engage with civilians now could make it easier for the administration to "justify uses of the military in the U.S. interior in the future."
"Asking them to do law enforcement's job creates risks to migrants, U.S. citizens who may inadvertently trespass on federal lands at the border, and the soldiers themselves," they wrote.
Rebecca Sheff, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of New Mexico, wrote last week that Trump's creation of a military installation on public border land "represents a dangerous erosion of the constitutional principle that the military should not be policing civilians."
"By authorizing service members to detain, search, and conduct 'crowd control,' these new authorities undermine our state's values of dignity, respect, and community," said Sheff. "We don't want militarized zones where border residents—including U.S. citizens—face potential prosecution simply for being in the wrong place. This isn't how we want to be in relation with our neighbors. This dangerous expansion of military authorities threatens both our civil liberties and the cultural fabric that makes our borderlands unique."
Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project, also described potential impacts on U.S. citizens who live in border areas.
In addition to endangering migrants who cross the border, Shamsi wrote, Trump's actions "are worsening the conditions under which civilian border communities live."
"Our southern border is home to approximately 19 million people, in addition to the regular business and trade commuters who come across the border every day," wrote Shamsi. "The new policy has serious implications for border residents living under this expanded militarized zone, which includes cities like San Diego, California; Nogales, Arizona; El Paso, Texas and other heavily populated, thriving communities. People in these areas could now face federal prosecution for trespassing if they unintentionally walk or drive onto a designated 'national defense area.'"
Shamsi warned that while Trump has not yet invoked the Insurrection Act, "his administration continues to invest in the theater of war," and called on Congress "to insist on oversight for these expanded actions... and to call for safeguards and transparency to protect border residents from escalating military control over their daily lives."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Moral Crisis for This Nation': Trump Sued Over Access to Gitmo Prisoners Held 'Illegally' Offshore
“Our Constitution does not allow the government to hold people incommunicado, without any ability to speak to counsel or the outside world."
Feb 13, 2025
A coalition of civil liberties and immigrant rights groups have sued the Trump administration for detaining migrants incommunicado at the offshore prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, after they were initially taken into custody in the United States.
The lawsuit—filed Wednesday in federal court by the ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), and ACLU of the District of Columbia—was brought on behalf of several plaintiffs, including the sister of a Venezuelan man being held at the facility. It demands that all those being detained have immediate access to legal assistance.
According to the groups, the administration "has provided virtually no information about immigrants newly detained at Guantánamo, including how long they will be held there, under what authority and conditions, subject to what legal processes, or whether they will have any means of communicating with their families and attorneys."
“Our country must not create a shadow system of indefinite detention, stripping noncitizens of their legal protections simply by transferring them offshore."
After pictures emerged last week of the first batch of prisoners shipped to the island and a large tent city that has been erected at Gitmo since President Donald Trump took office less than four weeks ago, fears over what the administration has in store for the facility have only grown.
On Sunday, a federal judge blocked the transfer of three men, currently held in New Mexico, to the island prison complex, but that order only pertained to those specific individuals. The individuals already transferred to Gitmo have yet to be identified by the administration, according to the right groups, or given access to outside legal assistance.
"By hurrying immigrants off to a remote island cut off from lawyers, family, and the rest of the world, the Trump administration is sending its clearest signal yet that the rule of law means nothing to it. It will now be up to the courts to ensure that immigrants cannot be warehoused on offshore islands," Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a Wednesday statement announcing the lawsuit.
Deepa Alagesan, senior supervising attorney at IRAP, said, "Secretly transferring people from the United States to Guantánamo without access to legal representation or the outside world is not only illegal, it is a moral crisis for this nation."
In an interview with the New York Times published Tuesday, Yajaira Castillo, who lives in Colombia, said she only realized her brother, Luis Alberto Castillo of Venezuela, was among those detained at Gitmo because she spotted him in photos posted on social media by Kristi Noem, the secretary of homeland security, who visited the island Friday.
"My brother is not a criminal," said Castillo. “This is all discrimination and xenophobia, just because he's Venezuelan.”
Eucaris Carolina Gomez Lugo, a plaintiff in the suit filed Wednesday, has a similar story: she only discovered her brother was in detention after photos of him in shackles were spotted.
While the administration has claimed those migrants sent to Gitmo are the "worst of the worst," they have presented no evidence to back up these claims, and the relatives of those who have come forward, like Castillo, say they are completely fraudulent. Castillo shared details and documentation about her brother's asylum claim efforts with the Times.
"Detaining immigrants at Guantánamo Bay without access to legal counsel or basic due process protections is a grave violation of their rights and an alarming abuse of government power," said Rebecca Lightsey, co-executive director of American Gateways. "Our country must not create a shadow system of indefinite detention, stripping noncitizens of their legal protections simply by transferring them offshore."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Small But Important Win': Court Blocks Trump From Sending 3 Immigrants to Guantánamo
"Our clients refuse to be used as pawns in this twisted game of punishment theater," said a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Feb 10, 2025
A federal court late Sunday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from sending three Venezuelan immigrants to Guantánamo Bay, where the U.S. president is planning to jail tens of thousands of people in new detention facilities that critics have likened to concentration camps.
The decision from Judge Kenneth Gonzales of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico came in response to a request for a temporary restraining order filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and other advocacy organizations on behalf of three Venezuelan men currently being held in U.S. immigration detention in New Mexico.
"I fear being taken to Guantánamo because the news is painting it as a black hole," said Abrahan Barrios Morales, one of the petitioners. "I also see that human rights are constantly violated at Guantánamo, so I fear what could happen to me if I get taken there."
Baher Azmy, CCR's legal director, called the judge's decision Sunday a "small but important win for clients otherwise bound to the latest iteration of the legal black hole."
"Will the judge allow the executive branch to smuggle away individuals who have a pending case to a military prison on a remote island where there is no guarantee their rights will be respected or that they will even be able to make a phone call to their lawyers or their loved ones?"
The Trump administration has already moved dozens of people it characterized as Venezuelan gang members from El Paso, Texas to Guantánamo, the site of a notorious U.S. military prison that Amnesty International has described as "a symbol of torture, rendition, and indefinite detention without charge or trial."
The New York Timesnoted over the weekend that the administration "has not released any of their identities, though they are believed to all be men, nor has it said how long they might be held at the island outpost."
"So far, none of the first arrivals have been taken to an emerging tent city that has been set up for migrants," the Times reported. "Instead, they have been housed in the military prison."
According to CCR, its clients "came to the United States seeking asylum, and each passed an initial Credible Fear Interview with U.S. asylum officers by establishing a credible fear of persecution or torture in their home country" of Venezuela.
Jessica Vosburgh, a senior staff attorney at CCR, said in a statement Sunday that "our clients refuse to be used as pawns in this twisted game of punishment theater."
"The question before the court is simple," said Vosburgh. "Will the judge allow the executive branch to smuggle away individuals who have a pending case to a military prison on a remote island where there is no guarantee their rights will be respected or that they will even be able to make a phone call to their lawyers or their loved ones? The answer must be a resounding no."
Rebecca Sheff, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of New Mexico, warned that "transferring immigrants from Otero County to Guantánamo is a blatant attempt to obstruct their legal rights by placing them thousands of miles from their families and attorneys."
"We're outraged that New Mexico and El Paso, against the backdrop of the horrific cruelty of family separation in the first Trump administration, are once again being used as a testing ground for dehumanizing and dangerous immigration policies," Sheff added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular