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
u.s.-mexico border
'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 Dreams reported 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 Post reported 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
Trump Scheme Would Turn US Border Into Sprawling Military Base as Loophole to Detain Migrants
One journalist warned the proposal would create vast "buffer zone" in which "no normal U.S. laws apply."
Mar 20, 2025
The Trump administration is considering plans to create a "buffer zone" controlled by the Pentagon along a large portion of the southern border—a move that would enable U.S. troops to immediately detain anyone who crossed the border into the militarized area, treating them as trespassers on a military base.
As The Washington Post reported, the White House has been evaluating the plan for several weeks as it pushes a crackdown on immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border, where more than 10,000 service members are now involved in border security.
Under the proposal, the Pentagon would assume control of a 60-foot-deep strip of the border in New Mexico, lying within the Roosevelt Reservation, which President Theodore Roosevelt set aside for border security in 1907. The land is typically under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Interior Department.
The militarized buffer zone could eventually stretch all the way across Arizona to California, according to the Post.
Journalist Harris Meyer said the satellite military base would serve as "an internal Gitmo," referring to the military detention camp, "where no normal U.S. laws apply."
If migrants—or U.S. civilians—were apprehended at the base, service members would be able to detain them indefinitely until law enforcement or immigration officials arrived.
The Trump administration has so far enlisted Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to detain undocumented immigrants at the border, avoiding violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits active-duty service members from participating in law enforcement work.
The plan, said Adam Isacson of the Washington Office on Latin America, "would be the first [U.S. military] mission that would put soldiers out front, in direct contact with civilians/migrants, on U.S. soil."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Groups Sue Over Trump's 'Flagrantly Illegal' Shutdown of Asylum at Border
"The immigration laws do not give the president autocratic power to override Congress and brazenly violate U.S. treaty obligations related to the protection of refugees," said one advocate.
Feb 03, 2025
Accusing U.S. President Donald Trump of using "racist conspiracy theories" and lies about refugees to block people from exercising their right to seek asylum in the United States, several advocacy groups filed a federal lawsuit on Monday to block the Republican president's recent proclamation aimed at shutting down the asylum process at the southern border.
Disregarding the fact that the right to seek asylum has been part of U.S. law for more than four decades, the president quickly said after taking office last month that he was suspending the asylum process at the U.S.-Mexico border until the "invasion at the southern border has ceased."
The move left "no avenue open for people to seek asylum, even if they present themselves at a port of entry," said the groups, including the Texas Civil Rights Project, the National Immigrant Justice Center, and the ACLU.
Migrants who had traveled across Central America and Mexico in hopes of seeking asylum found soon after Trump's inauguration that their appointments with U.S. Customs and Border Protection had been canceled, leading to scenes of desperation at the border.
"This is the latest flagrantly illegal attempt by the executive branch to end humanitarian protection at the U.S.-Mexico border," said Richard Caldarone, senior litigation attorney at the National Immigrant Justice Center. "The immigration laws do not give the president autocratic power to override Congress and brazenly violate U.S. treaty obligations related to the protection of refugees. This latest attempt to do so will make thousands of people vulnerable to persecution, torture, and death, and we will not stop fighting until all those who require protection have the opportunity guaranteed by U.S. law to seek asylum in this country."
"Just as he did in his first term, the president is attempting to rewrite our laws by executive fiat and impose an illegal policy of mass expulsions."
Melissa Crow, director of litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, warned that Trump cannot use the "lie" of an invasion by "families, children, and adults seeking safety" at the border to circumvent U.S. laws.
"Just as he did in his first term, the president is attempting to rewrite our laws by executive fiat and impose an illegal policy of mass expulsions," said Crow.
The asylum proclamation is just one of the anti-immigration actions Trump has taken in his first weeks in office. He declared an end to birthright citizenship—and was quickly challenged in court by rights groups and Democratic state attorneys general, with a judge ruling that the order was "blatantly unconstitutional"—and has directed Immigration and Customs Enforcement to round up thousands of undocumented immigrants, roughly half of whom didn't have a criminal record.
"Once again, the Trump administration wants to eliminate the ability of families to seek safety in our country in the form of asylum, a legal pathway," said Jennifer Babaie, director of advocacy and legal services of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center. "Regardless of any person's individual beliefs on immigration, any government attempt to blatantly violate our laws is a serious issue impacting all communities across the country. Spreading falsehoods about an 'invasion' at our border only fuels fear, aiming to dismantle the entire asylum process and weaponize our immigration laws."
Rochelle Garza, president of the Texas Civil Rights Project, said the suspension of asylum was "extreme, unjust, and a disservice to families seeking safety at our southern border."
"Denying migrants and displaced individuals from the opportunity to find safety undermines our nation's values and creates additional strain on our already burdened border communities," said Garza. "Our lawsuit underscores the unlawful nature of this policy and emphasizes the need to protect asylum seekers' rights. The U.S. should lead by example in implementing fair immigration practices and treating the most vulnerable with dignity."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Impact of Trump Immigration Crackdown Is Swift as Advocates Vow to Fight Back
The president signaled an end to birthright citizenship and a prompt start to deportation raids as migrants at the southern border were barred from entering the U.S.
Jan 20, 2025
President Donald Trump had barely finished his inauguration speech Monday when his anti-immigration agenda's human impact became clear, with families at the U.S.-Mexico border learning their existing appointments with Customs and Border Protection had been cancelled after waiting months to speak with officials about applying for asylum.
Arelis R. Hernández of The Washington Post was among the journalists who shared the stories of devastated migrants on Monday, posting a video of one person who had been determined to enter the U.S. through a port of entry.
"Existing appointments are no longer valid," read a message on the CBP One app that was launched by the Biden administration, following Trump's inauguration speech in which he detailed several anti-immigration executive orders that he planned to sign immediately.
The app was rendered inoperable after Trump pledged to declare a "national emergency at the southern border" and said that "all illegal entry will immediately be halted," with administration officials beginning "the process of returning millions and millions of criminal aliens back to the places from which they came"—a reference to Trump's mass deportation plan that was a signature theme of his election campaign.
Ahead of Trump's inauguration, Pope Francis was among the faith leaders who condemned his anti-immigration agenda, saying he was praying that under the second Trump administration, Americans "will prosper and always strive to build a more just society, where there is no room for hatred, discrimination, or exclusion."
If Trump moves forward with his mass deportation plan, said the pope, "this will be a disgrace."
"That's not how things are resolved," said Pope Francis.
Trump's "border czar," Thomas Homan, who previously served as acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), attempted to backtrack on Saturday regarding details of an administration plan to launch immigration raids across Chicago just after Inauguration Day.
"ICE will start arresting public safety threats and national security threats on day one," Homan told the Post. "This is nationwide thing. We're not sweeping neighborhoods. We have a targeted enforcement plan."
But other incoming Trump officials, including Homan, have previously said that any of the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are in the United States could be targeted as the administration begins enforcement immediately.
Homan said in December that—contrary to the hope expressed by Pope Francis ahead of the inaugural speech—the administration is planning to "set up a phone line for members of the public to alert immigration authorities to undocumented people in their communities."
Chris Thomas, an attorney with the law firm Holland & Hart, who has represented people and businesses swept up in immigration raids, told Forbes that the Trump administration is likely to target workplaces without providing any notice to business owners as a way of generating publicity.
"When the government encourages [informing authorities about undocumented people], we've seen people turning in ex-boyfriends, ex-girlfriends, business competitors, and neighbors they don't like," Thomas told Forbes.
Trump said Monday that he plans to promptly end birthright citizenship via executive order, reinterpreting the 14th Amendment and excluding from its protections U.S.-born babies whose parents were born outside the country. Legal scholars have signaled such a move would be challenged in court.
Vanessa Cárdenas, executive director of the immigrant rights group America's Voice, noted that Trump's "radical plan for mass deportations is not what the American people want, especially when they learn the details and see it unfold," citing polls from CNN and Fox News.
"Scores of business leaders in key industries are fearful that mass deportation will gut entire sectors of our economy and public schools are taking the dramatic step of preparing their classrooms and parking lots for raids by federal agents," said Cárdenas. "Much like we saw during his family separation policy, we expect backlash from Americans upon witnessing the harms of Trump's second-term immigration agenda, including on the American economy and our core values."
Ronnate Asirwatham, director of government relations for NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, said Trump's speech indicated that "in the coming days we will see an onslaught of executive orders, proclamations, and legislation that will attempt to criminalize our neighbors, family members, and friends."
"We will not let our community be divided in this way," said Asirwatham. "From doctors to grocery store workers, if our neighbors are ripped from our communities, we will be grieving their loss, absence, gifts, and contributions to our community and country. We refuse to stay silent as the state unnecessarily targets people, all the while pursuing policies that benefit only the ultrawealthy."
Joan F. Neal, interm executive director of NETWORK, said the group will "shed light on these heinous policies and hold our government accountable, with a vision of an inclusive, pluralistic democracy that welcomes those fleeing persecution, keeps families together, and supports an economy for all so that we can build a more just future."
"We will not remain silent," said Neal, "while our neighbors are harmed by cruel and vicious treatment."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Court Orders Transfer of Migrant Children From 'Profoundly Inhumane' Open-Air Sites
"But it remains a tragedy that a court had to direct the government to do what basic human decency and the law clearly require," said one advocate.
Apr 05, 2024
Migrant rights defenders on Thursday cheered a federal court ruling ordering U.S. Customs and Border Protection to stop holding undocumented minors in squalid open-air detention sites in Southern California and to transfer all children held in such locations to "safe and sanitary" spaces.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) contended that people held in the open-air detention sites (OADS) are not yet in U.S. custody. However, Judge Dolly Gee of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles issued a 12-page ruling that found migrant children are entitled to protection under the Flores Settlement Agreement, which
established national minimum standards for the treatment of detained minors.
"There are minimum standards that must be followed if CBP will be detaining families, children, and other people."
Gee found that CBP violated the 1997 agreement by detaining children in unsafe and unsanitary conditions, failing to properly feed them, and taking too long to process them at seven sites near San Diego and Jacumba Hot Springs. Migrants detained in these OADS have waited as long as five days before being transfered to indoor lockups.
"The court's decision to recognize CBP's custody of children in open-air detention sites is a crucial step towards ensuring accountability and protection for vulnerable migrants," said Lilian Serrano, director of Southern Border Communities Coalition, a case plaintiff.
"There are minimum standards that must be followed if CBP will be detaining families, children, and other people," Serrano added. "We are pleased to see the federal court acknowledge this fundamental truth. Now we expect the agency to comply with the court's order immediately."
As the number of migrants entering the United States without authorization has surged during President Joe Biden's tenure, U.S. border authorities have forced migrants—including people legally seeking asylum—into OADS, where they face what case plaintiff National Center for Youth Law (NCYL) called "profoundly inhumane conditions."
NCYL said migrant children are "forced to take shelter from harsh rain and wind in porta-potties, burn toxic brush and garbage to stay warm, and survive on nothing more than a granola bar and a bottle of water each day."
Neha Desai, NCYL's senior director of immigration, called Gee's ruling "a tremendous victory for children at open-air detention sites."
"But it remains a tragedy that a court had to direct the government to do what basic human decency and the law clearly require," Desai added. "We expect CBP to comply with the court's order swiftly, and we remain committed to holding CBP accountable for meeting the most rudimentary needs of children in their legal custody, including food, shelter, and basic medical care."
A 2023 report on conditions at the Jacumba Hot Springs site published by the U.S. Immigration Policy Center (USIPC) at the University of California San Diego found that all of the migrants held at the site said border agents did not give them enough food and over half said they did not get enough water for the day. All migrants interviewed also said they were deprived of adequate sanitation like toilets and proper shelter and shade structures.
Another report published last year revealed a "shocking pattern" of abuse of migrants and some American citizens perpetrated by Department of Homeland Security personnel at the U.S.-Mexico border in recent years under both the Trump and Biden administrations.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Border Deal Fails in Senate, Faith Groups Lead Charge for 'Just and Humane' Policy
"The cruelty at the border needs to stop," said one advocate.
Feb 07, 2024
As the U.S. Senate voted down a $118 billion bipartisan national security bill Wednesday, more than 800 faith groups and leaders called on lawmakers to completely reconsider legislation regarding the border and "pursue effective, fair, and compassionate alternatives" to the bill "that respect the sacred dignity of all people."
House Republican leaders had indicated that they would not support the legislation, claiming it would prolong a so-called "border catastrophe the president has created," while immigrant rights groups have warned that Democrats' decision to include severely weakened protections in the bill would be a "death sentence" for thousands of people seeking refuge in the United States.
Led by the Interfaith Immigration Coalition, 662 faith leaders and 155 faith-based organizations said the federal government must consider "just and humane solutions, like those offered by our faith communities" in the coalition's "priorities for [fiscal year 2024] funding legislation."
"While we recognize the need to improve the humanitarian protection system, we firmly reject the proposed measures," said the coalition, which includes Faith in Action, Hope Border Institute, and Jewish Women International. "This legislation would exacerbate the humanitarian and operational challenges at the border, place obstacles that severely restrict the right to seek protection, undermine the right to due process in immigration proceedings, and expand immigrant detention, deportations, and the militarization of the border to unprecedented levels."
The bipartisan bill included provisions that would allow President Joe Biden to effectively shut down the border if crossings by undocumented immigrants reach a certain threshold, expand capacity to detain migrants, restrict screening standards for people claiming asylum, and expede the asylum process—making it harder for refugees to seek legal counsel.
After the bill failed, the Senate moved to take up a foreign aid package that excluded border provisions, giving lawmakers a potential opportunity to reshape a border security bill.
"The cruelty at the border needs to stop. The provisions outlined in the appropriations bill, purporting to automatically shut down the border and expel individuals seeking safety, are not only a failed attempt to secure the border but are also a catalyst for increased chaos on both the U.S. and Mexican sides," said Dylan Corbett, executive director of Hope Border Institute, ahead of Wednesday's first vote. "Any policy that fails to acknowledge the complex realities of migration and prioritizes enforcement over compassion is fundamentally flawed. We call on policymakers to reject these harmful provisions and instead work towards comprehensive solutions that honor our nation's commitment to human dignity and justice."
The coalition pointed to its legislative priorities that would ensure: "safety and dignity for asylum-seekers" by recognizing that refugees have a right under international and domestic law to seek safety in the U.S.; international assistance to reduce forced migration of people affected by climate catastrophe, violence, and poverty; and refugee protection.
Specific proposals from the coalition include:
- Increasing funding and oversight of the immigration Shelter and Service Program, for which the White House requested $1.4 billion in grants for 2024;
- Funding the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for employment authorization and other application processing, backlog reduction, and integration, for which the White House requested $755 million;
- Sufficiently funding Customs and Border Protection to process asylum claims at ports of entry;
- Eliminating regulatory barriers like the "180-day asylum clock" that restricts asylum-seekers from applying for work authorization;
- Funding bilateral assistance to Latin American and Caribbean countries, the International Disaster Assistance Account, and the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Account; and
- Funding the Office of Refugee Resettlement and its programs for unaccompanied children.
"As Congress turns to funding the federal government, now is the time for Congress to invest in refugee protection and resettlement and an asylum system that is humane and orderly," said the coalition in its statement on funding priorities last year. "The budget provides a key opportunity to make sound investments that increase collective capacity, adequately meet needs, and enhance coordination at all levels."
The coalition noted that the border deal in the bipartisan package had included some protections for families who migrate to the U.S. and permanent protections for Afghans, unaccompanied children, and Ukrainians fleeing war.
"However, exchanging protections for some immigrant populations at the expense of others would ultimately harm the very people this legislation purports to protect," wrote the groups and leaders.
Susan Krehbiel, associate for migration accompaniment ministries at Presbyterian Disaster Assistance, denounced the White House and senators for supporting a provision that would have shut down asylum services at the border once crossings by undocumented immigrants surpassed 5,000 people per day over a five-day average.
"When thousands of people come to you seeking protection from danger, the moral response is not to slam the door in their faces," said Krehbiel. "There are 110 million forcibly displaced people globally, but the leaders of one of the richest countries in the world believe that taking in 5,000 asylum-seekers per day is too many. The U.S. is failing to fulfill its responsibility to accept people seeking safety from violence and persecution."
"Policymakers need to stop pretending that asylum-seekers will just disappear if they turn a blind eye," she added. "Policies of deterrence haven't worked in the past and won't work now. We urge Congress to invest in border policies that actually work on the ground and to receive families seeking asylum with justice and kindness."
As the faith leaders called for a "fair and compassionate vision for migration management," one progressive lawmaker, Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), spoke to The Intercept's Ryan Grim about "what the progressive vision truly is when it comes to immigration policy."
"There is not the flagship, all-progressive bill here in the Congress," Casar acknowledged. "There are things that we fight for, many of which are agreed to by a vast majority of the American people, like the Dream and Promise Act to give Dreamers legal status in this country. And we have bills like the registry bill that would just change a date in immigration law, that would ultimately give legal status to millions and millions of people."
"We need a broader progressive vision that actually recognizes that the working class is not just in the United States but is across the hemisphere and one that lifts up those working-class people across the United States and Latin America," he continued. "One that says, we don't want to push people out of their home country, you should be able to have a right to stay in your home country if that's where you want to stay. You should have a right to come across the border and work and lift up your economic situation."
Ahead of the Senate vote on Wednesday, Anika Forrest, legislative director for domestic policy for the Friends Committee on National Legislation, said the right to asylum must not be used as "a bargaining chip for military funding."
"Any policy that fails to safeguard respite, protection, and peace for communities fleeing violence and persecution promises tragedy and turmoil," said Forrest. "U.S. political leaders insist on chaotic and cruel policies that function as impenetrable walls and abandon asylum-seekers. Migration management as well as humane, safe, and orderly processing at the border deserve effective and modern solutions."
"Neither" was accomplished by the Senate bill, she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Justice Department Threatens to Sue Texas Over Anti-Migrant Law
"I'm relieved to see the DOJ heed our calls to act," said Rep. Joaquin Castro. "This law is unconstitutional, racist, and dangerous."
Dec 28, 2023
The Biden administration on Thursday warned it will sue Texas unless Republican Gov. Greg Abbott backs down on enforcing an anti-migrant law the U.S. Justice Department says is unconstitutional.
Earlier this month, Abbott signed a pair of bills: S.B. 3, which allocates over $1.5 billion for "border security" measures including barriers meant to stop migrants from crossing the Rio Grande from Mexico into Texas, and S.B. 4, which empowers local and state authorities to arrest and expel undocumented immigrants.
"Congress has established a comprehensive scheme governing entry and removal of noncitizens," U.S. Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton said in the letter to Abbott. "S.B. 4 effectively creates a separate state immigration scheme by imposing criminal penalties for violations of federal provisions on lawful entry and reentry into the United States... and therefore intrudes into a field that is occupied by the federal government and preempted."
The Department of Justice (DOJ) gave Texas until January 3 to announce it won't enforce S.B. 4. If the state does not comply, the agency said it will "pursue all appropriate legal remedies to ensure that Texas does not interfere with the functions of the federal government."
Abbott blasted the DOJ letter in a social media post contending that "the Biden administration not only refuses to enforce current U.S. immigration laws, they now want to stop Texas from enforcing laws against illegal immigration."
"Biden is destroying America," the governor claimed.
But migrant advocates welcomed the move, with U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) warning that "if S.B. 4 goes into effect, Latino families across Texas will be harassed and hurt for looking like immigrants."
"I'm relieved to see the DOJ heed our calls to act," the congressman added. "This law is unconstitutional, racist, and dangerous."
Another House Democrat from Texas, Rep. Greg Casar, said in a statement that "asking local police to hunt down Texans who look like immigrants doesn't make us safer: In fact, it takes police away from investigating real crime."
"The federal government must block this unconstitutional anti-immigrant policy before it takes effect," he added.
As The New York Times reported:
The legal threat came a day after Secretary of State Antony Blinken and other top American officials met with Mexico's president, Manuel López Obrador, to discuss ways to slow illegal crossings, which have overwhelmed U.S. border towns...
The DOJ's threat is one of several challenges to the Texas law. This month, El Paso County and two immigrant rights groups, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Texas Civil Rights Project, filed a lawsuit in an effort to halt the measure, echoing the Justice Department's argument that immigration laws could be enforced only by federal agents.
For months, advocacy groups have implored the Biden administration to "take decisive action to condemn" and "cease involvement" in Operation Lone Star, Abbott's deadly anti-migrant campaign.
Earlier this month, a federal appellate panel ordered Texas to remove the Rio Grande buoy barrier placed in the river to block people from crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.
Keep ReadingShow Less
100+ Groups Urge Biden to Cancel 'Baffling and Cruel' Border Wall Waivers
The signers of a letter to the U.S. president "underscore the profound and irreparable harms border walls have inflicted on border communities and wildlife."
Oct 16, 2023
More than 100 advocacy groups on Monday urged the Biden administration to rescind its waiver of more than two dozen environmental laws in order fast-track construction of the separation wall along the U.S.-Mexico border championed by former President Donald Trump.
In a letter to President Joe Biden and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, the groups—which include the Center for Biological Diversity, the ACLU, Sierra Club, Earthjustice, the Wilderness Society, GreenLatinos, Defenders of Wildlife, the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, United We Dream, and others—implore the administration to heed "our call to restore legal protections for clean air, clean water, Indigenous graves, and endangered species" by rescinding waivers to 26 environmental laws.
"Border communities, wildlife, and Indigenous nations deserve the same rights and protections as everyone else in America."
On October 5, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) filed a "notice of determination" under Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act, a law signed by then-President Bill Clinton in 1996. According to the DHS filing, Mayorkas has determined that "it is necessary to waive certain laws, regulations, and other legal requirements in order to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads in the vicinity of the international land border in Starr County, Texas."
As Common Dreams reported earlier this month, the 26 laws include the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
"Secretary Mayorkas' decision to cast aside these critical protections to rush the construction of a wall that you admit 'does not work,' but that you are undertaking because the administration claims it is compelled to uphold appropriations law, suggests either serious confusion or troubling hypocrisy," the groups' letter states. "We would like to believe that you are sincere in wanting to uphold the rule of all laws for all people in the United States, including the millions who call the border region home."
The letters' signers "underscore the profound and irreparable harms border walls have inflicted on border communities and wildlife."
"Just last month, the U.S. Government Accountability Office released a damning report detailing the severe damage border wall construction caused to wildlife, public lands, and Indigenous sacred sites and burial grounds along the U.S.-Mexico border, aided and enabled by the waivers of dozens of laws to rush construction," the letter notes.
Laiken Jordahl, Southwest conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement that "border communities, wildlife, and Indigenous nations deserve the same rights and protections as everyone else in America."
"It's baffling and cruel that the administration plans to ignore these vital laws to build a destructive wall that the president admits is useless," he continued.
"Federal officials have falsely claimed they had no choice but to waive protections for border communities and wildlife, but this terrible decision was theirs alone and they have the power to undo it," Jordahl added. "They can stop bulldozers from descending on Starr County and protect some of the best wildlife habitat left in south Texas."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Coalition Implores Biden to Act as Abbott's 'Campaign of Cruelty' Separates Families
"We urge the Biden administration to immediately reunite separated families and launch an investigation into Texas' Operation Lone Star," said #WelcomeWithDignity's campaign manager.
Aug 07, 2023
The #WelcomeWithDignity campaign for asylum rights on Monday condemned what it called Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's "unconscionable" decision to "repeat one of the most horrific and cruel practices of the Trump administration" by separating migrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border.
The Houston Chronicle reported last week that officials from the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) have separated at least 26 families by arresting fathers on trespassing charges and transferring relatives including small children to U.S. Border Patrol custody.
DPS spokesman Travis Considine confirmed that "there have been instances in which DPS has arrested male migrants" traveling with their families, but that "children and mothers were never separated" as they were turned over to Border Patrol agents.
"With Texas troopers separating families at the border, the world can now see that Governor Abbott's cruelty knows no bounds."
"We were already shocked and appalled by the razor wire and buoy barriers, denial of water, and pushbacks of children into the river," #WelcomeWithDignity campaign manager Melina Roche said in a statement, referring to the floating border barrier installed in the Rio Grande near Eagle Pass and reports that Texas state troopers have been ordered to push migrant children back into the river and deny asylum-seekers water amid a deadly heatwave.
"With Texas troopers separating families at the border, the world can now see that Governor Abbott's cruelty knows no bounds," Roche added. "The governor will continue to punish families for seeking safety unless the federal government intervenes. We urge the Biden administration to immediately reunite separated families and launch an investigation into Texas' Operation Lone Star."
The #WelcomeWithDignity coalition said its members are "appalled" that the Biden administration "hasn't put a stop to Gov. Abbott's campaign of cruelty."
While Biden has ended some of the more egregious human rights violations perpetrated against migrants during former President Donald Trump's tenure, his administration has come under fire for
continuing and expanding Trump-era policies like Title 42—a public health order that both presidents invoked to deport around two million asylum-seekers under the pretext of the Covid-19 pandemic—and new asylum restrictions to replace Title 42 after its expiration in May. Last month, a federal court blocked Biden's new policy.
Kristin Etter, an attorney and special project director at Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, called Abbott's policy "nothing short of state-sanctioned family separation."
Danilo Zack, acting director of policy and advocacy at Church World Service, said that "child-parent separation has profound and devastating consequences, and these actions recall the appalling scenes of the Trump-era zero-tolerance policy."
Zack was referring to Trump's internationally condemned crackdown on undocumented migrants including people legally seeking asylum, during which around 4,000 children were seized from their families and sent to locations around the country. With recordkeeping of the minors' identities and locations "patchwork at best," according to the Department of Homeland Security, nearly 1 in 4 of the separated children were yet to be reunited with their relatives as of earlier this year.
As public outrage mounted in the face of stories like a breastfeeding baby being torn away from her mother and a father driven to suicide after being separated from his wife and child, the Trump administration reluctantly rolled back the policy in June 2018.
Experts said family separation deeply traumatized parents and children, who were often told by U.S. officials that they would never see each other again. Some may indeed never be reunited. Numerous children were given to U.S. families, who sometimes petition for permanent custody.
"During the Trump administration's zero-tolerance policy, I witnessed how family separation inflicts lasting trauma on the parents and children who were cruelly torn apart," Katharina Obser, director of the Migrant Rights and Justice program at the Women's Refugee Commission, said in a
statement Monday.
"It is unconscionable that this horrific practice is added onto a long list of cruel practices already taking place under Gov. Abbott's Operation Lone Star—including using razor wire and large buoys to block the Rio Grande shore," Obser added. "When people are fleeing to save their lives, attempts at deterrence only place vulnerable people in more danger and anguish, rather than stop their need to seek safety."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Discovery of Bodies in Rio Grande Barrier Spotlights Abbott's 'Barbaric' Border Policy
Rep. Joaquin Castro accused Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott of "knowingly trying to injure, maim, and kill migrants seeking asylum in the United States with razor wire and drowning devices."
Aug 03, 2023
Congressman Joaquin Castro on Thursday led condemnation of what he called Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's "barbaric" border policies after two bodies were found stuck in the buoy barrier placed in the Rio Grande on the U.S.-Mexican border.
Mexican officials said the deceased—one of whom is reportedly a child—were found about three miles from each other on Wednesday near Eagle Pass. According to KUT in Austin, the recovery of the two bodies was led by the migrant protection group Grupos Beta, a service of Mexico's National Migration Institute.
"You don't stop migration by setting death traps"
Sister Isabel Turcios of Casa Dignidad (Dignity House), a migrant shelter across what Mexicans call the Río Bravo in Piedras Negras, told The Dallas Morning News that the second body found was of a Honduran child. Local television reports showed a grieving mother who said she is from Honduras.
"Abbott's buoys are like a trap set for migrants," said Turcios. "This is a terrorizing situation. You don't stop migration by setting death traps... You treat humans like human beings, not like animals."
Castro (D-Texas) accused Abbott—who in June announced the installation of the barrier to deter migrants from attempting what was already a life-threatening river crossing—of "knowingly trying to injure, maim, and kill migrants seeking asylum in the United States with razor wire and drowning devices."
Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw said that "preliminary information suggests" that one of the victims "drowned upstream from the marine barrier and floated into the buoys" and that "there are personnel posted at the marine barrier at all times in case any migrants try to cross."
According to KUT:
The area around Eagle Pass where the buoys have been installed is a hot spot for border crossings and an already dangerous part of the Rio Grande to cross. There have been 89 deaths and 249 water rescues since 2018, according to an affidavit from the U.S. Border Patrol chief.
Echoing Castro, Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) tweeted: "What Abbott is doing at the border is barbaric. This is a grave violation of human rights. Migrants deserve to be treated with human dignity."
Former Democratic congressman Beto O'Rourke asked, "How many more people will die before our federal government acts?"
Steven Monacelli, a special investigative correspondent for the Texas Observer, said it "seems like this was an inevitable consequence, if not the underlying reason for putting up the buoy barrier in the first place."
Last week, the U.S. Justice Department sued Texas and Abbott, arguing that "this floating barrier poses threats to navigation and public safety and presents humanitarian concerns" and citing "diplomatic protests by Mexico."
The office of Mexican Foreign Secretary Alicia Bárcena—who last month filed a formal complaint over the barrier—issued a statement reiterating "the position of the government of Mexico that the placement of wire buoys by the Texas authorities is a violation of our sovereignty."
"We express our concern about the impact on the human rights and personal safety of migrants that these state policies will have, which run counter to the close collaboration between our country and the federal government of the United States," the ministry added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy