L.A. Times: L.A. teen is moved to ICE detention center out of state without parents’ knowledge

Benjamin Guerrero-Cruz’s family was stunned and heartbroken when the 18-year-old was grabbed by immigration agents while walking his dog in Van Nuys just days before he was set to start his senior year at Reseda Charter High School.

This week, his family was caught off-guard once again when they learned that Immigration and Customs Enforcement had transferred him to Arizona without notifying any relatives, according to the office of U.S. Rep. Luz Rivas (D-North Hollywood), which spoke to his family and reviewed ICE detention records.

Guerrero-Cruz was moved out of the Adelanto Detention Facility in San Bernardino County late Monday night and taken to a holding facility in Arizona in the middle of the desert, according to the congresswoman’s office.

On Tuesday night, he was scheduled to be transferred to Louisiana, a major hub for deportation flights, but at the last minute he was taken off the plane and sent back to Adelanto, where he is currently being held.

“Benjamin and his family deserve answers behind ICE’s inconsistent and chaotic decision-making process, including why Benjamin was initially transferred to Arizona, why he was slated to be transferred to Louisiana afterward, and why his family wasn’t notified of his whereabouts by ICE throughout this process,” Rivas said in a statement.

On Tuesday, Rivas introduced a bill that would require ICE to notify an immediate family member of a detainee within 24 hours of a detainee’s transfer. Currently, ICE is required to notify a family member only in the case of a detainee’s death.

“Benjamin’s story of being detained and sent across state lines without warning or notification is like many other detainees in Los Angeles and across the country,” Rivas said. “Many immigrant families in my district do not know the whereabouts of their loved ones after they are detained by ICE.”

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The agency previously stated that Guerrero-Cruz was awaiting deportation to Chile after overstaying his visa, which required him to depart the United States on March 15, 2023.

Guerrero-Cruz was arrested Aug. 8 and held in downtown L.A. for a week, during which time he was briefly taken on an unexplained trip to a detention center in Santa Ana before being transferred to Adelanto on Aug. 15, according to a former teacher who visited him in custody.

His experience of being pingponged around different facilities is common among those being detained in what the Trump administration is billing as the largest deportation effort in American history.

This trend is also reflected in ICE’s flight data. The agency conducted 2,022 domestic transfer flights from May through July — representing a 90% increase from the same period last year, according to a widely cited database of flights created by immigrant rights advocate Tom Cartwright.

Cartwright posited in his July report that this uptick could be related to a “need to optimize bed space as detention numbers have ballooned from 39,152 on 29 December to 56,945 on 26 July.”

Jorge-Mario Cabrera, spokesperson for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights L.A., called the Trump administration’s detention policies cruel, saying it appears that they are detaining people for as long as possible and “moving them from place to place for no reason other than because they can.”

“The fact that these dumbfounding transfers in the middle of the night cause chaos, confusion, and minimizes access to legal representation does not seem to bother them one bit,” he said in a statement.

Susham M. Modi, an immigration attorney based in Houston, said he had witnessed an uptick in the frequency of transfers among those recently detained by ICE.

“[Detainees are] also being often transferred to where there’s less lawyers,” he said. “I’ve seen consults where they’ve been transferred to Oklahoma, where it is very hard to find an attorney that might do, for example, federal court litigation.”

Although families can use ICE’s Online Detainee Locator to search for loved ones, it isn’t always up to date, and some families do not know how to use it, Modi said. When detainees are transferred, they often can’t make outgoing calls from the detention facility until someone has deposited money into their account — another hurdle for keeping family members updated on their whereabouts, he added.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-08-28/l-a-teen-nabbed-on-street-by-ice-transferred-out-of-state-without-parents-knowledge

Law & Crime: Judge shreds Trump admin for ‘nonsensical’ bid to terminate 28-year policy that protects immigrant children in federal custody

A federal judge in California has shot down an attempt by the Trump administration to scrub away the government’s 28-year-old Flores Settlement Agreement, which calls for court-mandated oversight on the treatment of immigrant children in federal custody.

U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee issued a 20-page order on Friday, keeping the 1997 agreement in place as Justice Department lawyers “fail to identify any new facts or law” that warrant its termination “at this time,” according to the Barack Obama appointee.

The administration had previously tried terminating the Flores agreement in 2019 at the end of Donald Trump‘s first term, but was unsuccessful then, too. Gee reportedly called a hearing last week on the matter “deja vu” as the government tried propping up similar arguments.

“The court remains unconvinced,” Gee wrote in Friday’s order. “There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law.”

Under the Flores Settlement Agreement, immigrant children must be held at “state-licensed” facilities — treated properly and humanely — before being released into the custody of family members or guardians “as expeditiously as possible,” per Gee’s order. The settlement is named after Jenny Lisette Flores, a 15-year-old detainee who sparked a class-action lawsuit to be filed in 1985.

The Trump administration recently argued that the Flores agreement was no longer needed because Congress had approved legislation to help deal with the issues the settlement addressed. It also claimed that government agencies had implemented practices and standards to ensure youths were being treated properly.

“The legal basis for the agreement has withered away,” DOJ lawyers argued in a May 22 motion for relief. “Congress enacted legislation protecting UACs [unaccompanied alien children], and the agencies promulgated detailed standards and regulations implementing that legislation and the terms of the FSA,” the lawyers said, blasting the agreement as an “intrusive regime” that has “ossified” federal immigration policy.

“The legal and policy landscape has also changed beyond recognition,” they added.

Gee noted Friday how she had heard this all before.

“These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical,” the judge blasted.

“Incredulously, defendants posit that DHS need not promulgate regulations containing an expeditious release provision because ‘this Court has interpreted [expeditious release] to apply to accompanied children,'” Gee explained. “But ‘the FSA was intended to provide for prompt release of unaccompanied children.’ This is plainly incorrect and ignores the rulings of at least three separate courts.”

Gee concluded her order by saying it was ultimately the Trump administration that “continues to bind itself to the FSA by failing to fulfill its side of the parties’ bargain.”

Lawyers for immigrant children named in the class action complaint that spurred all this have said Trump’s second term has seen similar violations of the Flores agreement that have been alleged in the past.

“In CBP facilities across the country, including in cases documented by class counsel in New York, Maine, Illinois, Ohio, Arizona, Texas, and California, plaintiffs report being held for days and sometimes weeks in restrictive, traumatic conditions,” the lawyers said in a June 17 motion to enforce the FSA. One parent, whose allegations were included in the motion, described how they and their child were held at a facility where “the rooms have hard walls, like cement, and there is a window facing the hall but you cannot go out or see the sun,” per the motion.

“We are never allowed to go out,” the parent said. “The children keep telling us, ‘This is not America.’ They feel imprisoned and confused. They are seeing the sun for the first time in this interview room. They both ran to the window and stared out, and my son asked, ‘Is that America?'”

The plaintiffs’ lawyers accused the Trump administration of wanting to be released from the settlement “not because they have complied with and will continue to observe its fundamental principles, but because they want the flexibility to treat children however they wish,” according to the June motion.

DOJ officials did not respond to Law&Crime’s requests for comment Sunday.

Daily Beast: U.S. Citizen: I Was Seized by ICE and Held for Days Without Water

Andrea Velez spent two days in a Los Angeles detention center despite telling ICE officers that she is a U.S. citizen.

An American citizen has told how she was held by ICE for 48 hours, claiming she was denied water despite proving her legal status.

Andrea Velez, 32, had just arrived at work in Downtown Los Angeles on June 24 when agents grabbed her and forced her into a car.

Velez told NBC4 News Los Angeles that an immigration raid was going on when she was slammed to the ground. Velez, a graduate of Cal Poly Pomona, who works in fashion was taken into custody while her mother, Margarita Flores, screamed at agents to stop.

“She’s a U.S. citizen,” Velez’s mother, an immigrant from Mexico, said through tears. “They’re taking her. Help her, someone.”

Velez said she was sitting in a detention center and was given nothing to drink for 24 hours. In total she spent two days in detention. She said that the ordeal has left her unable to physically return to work.

“I’m taking things day by day,” she told the station.

The incident had been notorious from the beginning. LAPD officers were called to the scene because it was reported as a “kidnapping” but did not intervene when it became clear it was an ICE action—even though it was against a U.S. citizen, ABC& Los Angeles previously reported.

Velez was charged with assaulting a federal officer while he was attempting to arrest a suspect. A federal criminal complaint alleged that the agent was chasing after a man but Velez stepped into the agent’s path and extended her arm “in an apparent effort to prevent him from apprehending the male subject he was chasing.” The complaint added that her arm hit the agent in the face.

The incident had been notorious from the beginning. LAPD officers were called to the scene because it was reported as a “kidnapping” but did not intervene when it became clear it was an ICE action—even though it was against a U.S. citizen, ABC& Los Angeles previously reported.

Velez was charged with assaulting a federal officer while he was attempting to arrest a suspect. A federal criminal complaint alleged that the agent was chasing after a man but Velez stepped into the agent’s path and extended her arm “in an apparent effort to prevent him from apprehending the male subject he was chasing.” The complaint added that her arm hit the agent in the face.

Velez denied wrongdoing. She said that during the incident, someone grabbed her and slammed her to the ground. She tried to tell the agent, who was in plainclothes, that she was an American citizen. But he told her she was “interfering” and he was going to arrest her.

“That’s when I asked him to show me his ID, his badge number,” she said. “I asked him if he had a warrant, and he said I didn’t need to know any of that.”

Velez said she repeatedly told ICE officers she was a U.S. citizen. When she was taken into a Los Angeles detention center, she gave officers her driver’s license and health insurance card to prove her citizenship status. She was still locked behind bars.

Velez’s family was unaware of her whereabouts for more than a day until lawyers for the family tracked her down.

Later, the Department of Justice (DOJ) dismissed her case without prejudice, meaning it could be reopened if prosecutors decide to.

Velez’s attorneys told NBC Los Angeles that they are exploring legal moves against the federal government.

Between 2015 and 2020, ICE erroneously deported at least 70 U.S. citizens, arrested 674 and detained 121. It is unclear how many have been mistakenly taken amid the Trump administration’s mass campaign to deport 1 million immigrants per year.

In January, U.S. citizen Julio Noriega was looking for work in Chicago when he was swept up in the mass raids. In May, Georgia college student Ximena Arias-Cristobal was detained after police pulled over the wrong car during a traffic stop. In June, a deputy U.S. marshal was detained in Arizona because he “fit the general description of a subject being sought by ICE.” That same month, a Ph.D. student named Job Garcia was tackled and thrown to the ground by ICE for recording a raid in Los Angeles.

A recent lawsuit claims that at least three American-born children have been removed from the country. The sudden banishment includes a 4-year-old boy with stage-four kidney cancer who was receiving critical, life-saving medical treatment in the United States. He was shipped from Louisiana to Honduras in April.

The Daily Beast has reached out to ICE for comment.

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told the Daily Beast: “FALSE. ICE provided Andrea Velez with water, food, sanitary products, and she was given restroom breaks as needed. The media needs to stop peddling lies and smears that have led to a 1000% increase in assaults against our brave ICE officers.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-citizen-andrea-velez-i-was-seized-by-ice-and-held-for-days-without-water

Washington Post: Pentagon plan would create military ‘reaction force’ for civil unrest

Documents reviewed by The Post detail a prospective National Guard mission that, if adopted, would require hundreds of troops to be ready around-the-clock.

The Trump administration is evaluating plans that would establish a “Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force” composed of hundreds of National Guard troops tasked with rapidly deploying into American cities facing protests or other unrest, according to internal Pentagon documents reviewed by The Washington Post.

The plan calls for 600 troops to be on standby at all times so they can deploy in as little as one hour, the documents say. They would be split into two groups of 300 and stationed at military bases in Alabama and Arizona, with purview of regions east and west of the Mississippi River, respectively.

Cost projections outlined in the documents indicate that such a mission, if the proposal is adopted, could stretch into the hundreds of millions of dollars should military aircraft and aircrews also be required to be ready around-the-clock. Troop transport via commercial airlines would be less expensive, the documents say.

The proposal, which has not been previously reported, represents another potential expansion of President Donald Trump’s willingness to employ the armed forces on American soil. It relies on a section of the U.S. Code that allows the commander in chief to circumvent limitations on the military’s use within the United States.

The documents, marked “predecisional,” are comprehensive and contain extensive discussion about the potential societal implications of establishing such a program. They were compiled by National Guard officials and bear time stamps as recent as late July and early August. Fiscal 2027 is the earliest this program could be created and funded through the Pentagon’s traditional budgetary process, the documents say, leaving unclear whether the initiative could begin sooner through an alternative funding source.

It is also unclear whether the proposal has been shared with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

“The Department of Defense is a planning organization and routinely reviews how the department would respond to a variety of contingencies across the globe,” Kingsley Wilson, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said in a statement. “We will not discuss these plans through leaked documents, pre-decisional or otherwise.”

The National Guard Bureau did not respond to a request for comment.

While most National Guard commands have fast-response teams for use within their home states, the proposal under evaluation by the Trump administration would entail moving troops from one state to another.

The National Guard tested the concept ahead of the 2020 election, putting 600 troops on alert in Arizona and Alabama as the country braced for possible political violence. The test followed months of unrest in cities across the country, prompted by the police murder of George Floyd, that spurred National Guard deployments in numerous locations. Trump, then nearing the end of his first term, sought to employ active-duty combat troops while Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and other Pentagon officials urged him to rely instead on the Guard, which is trained to address civil disturbances.

Trump has summoned the military for domestic purposes like few of his predecessors have. He did so most recently Monday, authorizing the mobilization of 800 D.C. National Guard troops to bolster enhanced law enforcement activity in Washington that he said is necessary to address violent crime. Data maintained by the D.C. police shows such incidents are in decline; the city’s mayor called the move “unsettling and unprecedented.”

Earlier this year, over the objections of California’s governor and other Democrats, Trump dispatched more than 5,000 National Guard members and active-duty Marines to the Los Angeles area under a rarely used authority permitting the military’s use for quelling insurrection. Administration officials said the mission was necessary to protect federal personnel and property amid protests denouncing Trump’s immigration policies. His critics called the deployment unnecessary and a gross overreach. Before long, many of the troops involved were doing unrelated support work, including a raid on a marijuana farm more than 100 miles away.

The Trump administration also has dispatched thousands of troops to the southern border in a dramatic show of force meant to discourage illegal migration.

National Guard troops can be mobilized for federal missions inside the United States under two main authorities. The first, Title 10, puts troops under the president’s direction, where they can support law enforcement activity but not perform arrests or investigations.

The other, Title 32, is a federal-state status where troops are controlled by their state governor but federally funded. It allows more latitude to participate in law enforcement missions. National Guard troops from other states arrived in D.C. under such circumstances during racial justice protests in 2020.

The proposal being evaluated now would allow the president to mobilize troops and put them on Title 32 orders in a state experiencing unrest. The documents detailing the plan acknowledge the potential for political friction should that state’s governor refuse to work with the Pentagon.

Some legal scholars expressed apprehension about the proposal.

The Trump administration is relying on a shaky legal theory that the president can act broadly to protect federal property and functions, said Joseph Nunn, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice who specializes in legal issues germane to the U.S. military’s domestic activities.

“You don’t want to normalize routine military participation in law enforcement,” he said. “You don’t want to normalize routine domestic deployment.”

The strategy is further complicated by the fact that National Guard members from one state cannot operate in another state without permission, Nunn said. He also warned that any quick-reaction force established for civil-unrest missions risks lowering the threshold for deploying National Guard troops into American cities.

“When you have this tool waiting at your fingertips, you’re going to want to use it,” Nunn said. “It actually makes it more likely that you’re going to see domestic deployments — because why else have a task force?”

The proposal represents a major departure in how the National Guard traditionally has been used, said Lindsay P. Cohn, an associate professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. While it is not unusual for National Guard units to be deployed for domestic emergencies within their states, including for civil disturbances, this “is really strange because essentially nothing is happening,” she said.

“Crime is going down. We don’t have major protests or civil disturbances. There is no significant resistance from states” to federal immigration policies, she said. “There is very little evidence anything big is likely to happen soon,” said Cohn, who stressed she was speaking in her personal capacity and not reflecting her employer’s views.

Moreover, Cohn said, the proposal risks diverting National Guard resources that may be needed to respond to natural disasters or other emergencies.

The proposal envisions a rotation of service members from Army and Air Force National Guard units based in multiple states. Those include Alabama, Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Tennessee, the documents say.

Carter Elliott, a spokesperson for Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D), said governors and National Guard leaders are best suited to decide how to support law enforcement during emergencies. “There is a well-established procedure that exists to request additional assistance during times of need,” Elliott said, “and the Trump administration is blatantly and dangerously ignoring that precedent.”

One action memo contained in the documents, dated July 22, recommends that Army military police and Air Force security forces receive additional training for the mission. The document indicates it was prepared for Hegseth by Elbridge Colby, the Defense Department’s undersecretary for policy.

The 300 troops in each of the two headquarters locations would be outfitted with weapons and riot gear, the documents say. The first 100 would be ready to move within an hour, with the second and third waves ready within two and 12 hours’ notice, the documents note, or all immediately deployed when placed on high alert.

The quick-reaction teams would be on task for 90 days, the documents said, “to limit burnout.”

The documents also show robust internal discussions that, with unusual candor, detail the possible negative repercussions if the plan were enacted. For instance, such short-notice missions could “significantly impact volunteerism,” the documents say, which would adversely affect the military’s ability to retain personnel. Guard members, families and civilian employers “feel the significant impacts of short notice activations,” the documents said.

The documents highlight several other concerns, including:

• Reduced Availability for Other Missions: State-Level Readiness: States may have fewer Guard members available for local emergencies (e.g., wildfires, hurricanes).

• Strain on Personnel and Equipment: Frequent domestic deployments can lead to personnel fatigue (stress, burnout, employer conflicts) and accelerated wear and tear on equipment, particularly systems not designed for prolonged civil support missions.

• Training Disruptions: Erosion of Core Capabilities: Extensive domestic deployments can disrupt scheduled training, hinder skill maintenance and divert units from their primary military mission sets, ultimately impacting overall combat readiness.

• Budgetary and Logistical Strains: Sustained operations can stretch budgets, requiring emergency funding or impacting other planned activities.

• Public and Political Impact: National Guard support for DHS raises potential political sensitivities, questions regarding the appropriate civil-military balance and legal considerations related to their role as a nonpartisan force.

National Guard planning documents reviewed by The Post

Officials also have expressed some worry that deploying troops too quickly could make for a haphazard situation as state and local governments scramble to coordinate their arrival, the documents show.

One individual cited in the documents rejected the notion that military aviation should be the primary mode of transportation, emphasizing the significant burden of daily aircraft inspections and placing aircrews on constant standby. The solution, this official proposed, was to contract with Southwest Airlines or American Airlines through their Phoenix and Atlanta operations, the documents say.

“The support (hotels, meals, etc.) required will fall onto the general economy in large and thriving cities of the United States,” this official argued. Moreover, bypassing military aircraft would allow for deploying personnel to travel “in a more subdued status” that might avoid adding to tensions in their “destination city.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/08/12/national-guard-civil-unrest

NBC News: U.S. citizen detained by ICE in L.A. says she wasn’t given water for 24 hours

Andrea Velez was charged with assaulting a federal officer while he was attempting to arrest a suspect. The DOJ later dismissed her case.

A U.S. citizen who was detained by immigration agents and accused of obstructing an arrest before her case was ultimately dismissed said she is still traumatized by what happened.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detained Andrea Velez in downtown Los Angeles on June 24. She was charged with assaulting a federal officer while he was attempting to arrest a suspect.

The Justice Department dismissed her case without prejudice. It did not immediately reply to a request for comment Tuesday.

Velez, a production coordinator for a shoe company, recalled seeing federal agents when her mother and sister dropped her off at work.

“It was like a scene,” she told NBC Los Angeles. “They were just ready to attack and chase.”

Velez said someone grabbed her and slammed her to the ground. She said that she tried to tell the agent, who was in plainclothes, that she was a citizen but that he told her she “was interfering with what he was doing, so he was going to arrest me.”

“That’s when I asked him to show me his ID, his badge number,” she said. “I asked him if he had a warrant, and he said I didn’t need to know any of that.”

A federal criminal complaint alleged that an agent was chasing a man and that Velez stepped into the agent’s path and extended her arm “in an apparent effort to prevent him from apprehending the male subject he was chasing.”

The complaint said Velez’s arm hit the agent in the face.

Velez said she denied any wrongdoing and insisted she was a U.S. citizen. She was taken to a detention center in downtown Los Angeles, where she gave officers her driver’s license and her health insurance card, but she was still booked into jail, she said.

She said she spent two days in the detention center, where she had nothing to drink for 24 hours.

Velez said that the ordeal traumatized her and that she has not been able to physically return to work.

“I’m taking things day by day,” she told NBC Los Angeles.

Her attorneys told the station that they are exploring legal options against the federal government.

Her story echoes those of others who have said they were wrongfully detained by immigration agents under President Donald Trump’s push for mass deportations.

Job Garcia, a Ph.D. student and photographer, said he was immigration agents tackled him and threw him to the ground for recording a raid at a Home Depot in Los Angeles. He was held for more than 24 hours before his release. In July, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said it was seeking $1 million in damages, alleging that Garcia was assaulted and falsely imprisoned.

In June, a deputy U.S. marshal was briefly detained in the lobby of a federal building in Tucson, Arizona, because he “fit the general description of a subject being sought by ICE,” the U.S. Marshals Service said in a statement.

And in May, Georgia college student Ximena Arias-Cristobal was granted bond after she was detained by immigration agents after local police pulled over the wrong car during a traffic stop.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/rcna224493

Investigate West: Accused of racism and retaliation, this Idaho sheriff is now working with ICE

Former employees say Sheriff Larry Kendrick made racist jokes at work and was demeaning to women


This is a lengthy article that illustrates type the quality of bigoted & abusive local law enforcement agencies that are signing up as ICE partners. Click one of the links below to read the article.


https://www.investigatewest.org/accused-of-racism-and-retaliation-this-idaho-sheriff-is-now-working-with-ice

Newsweek: Justice Department Issues Birthright Citizenship Update

The U.S. Department of Justice has released an update confirming that it plans to ask the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump‘s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.

The announcement was disclosed in a joint status report filed Wednesday, August 6, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Why It Matters

The Justice Department’s plan to seek a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship—entitled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”—marks a critical juncture in the national debate over immigration and constitutional rights.

Signed on January 20, 2025, it directs the federal government to deny citizenship documents to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary immigrant parents.

At stake is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to guarantee citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil. A ruling in favor of the order could reshape federal authority over citizenship, impact millions of U.S.-born children, and redefine the limits of executive power—making this one of the most consequential legal battles in recent memory.

What To Know

On February 6, 2025, the district court in Seattle issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of President Trump’s executive order.

The case under review, State of Washington v. Trump, was just one of several ongoing legal challenges in which lower courts have largely rejected the administration’s legal theory. District courts in Maryland (February 5), New Hampshire (February 10), and Massachusetts (February 13), have each upheld that the order conflicted with constitutional protections and halted its enforcement in their respective jurisdictions.

One of those judges, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who sits on the federal bench in Boston, granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, affirming that the constitutional guarantee of citizenship applies broadly, and finding the policy to be, “unconstitutional and contrary to a federal statute.”

The government appealed the ruling and sought partial stays from the district court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court denied a partial stay, the Ninth Circuit requested further briefing and, on July 23, upheld the injunction.

The new update came in a joint status report filed August 6, 2025, in which the DOJ stated that Solicitor General D. John Sauer intends to file a petition “expeditiously” for certiorari—a legal term that refers to the process by which a higher court (most commonly the U.S. Supreme Court), agrees to review a lower court’s decision—in order to place the case before the Court during its next term, which begins in October.

This means the Justice Department has now formally indicated it will seek a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order; though it has not yet chosen which specific case—or combination of ongoing cases—it will use as the basis for its appeal.

The parties plan to update the court further once those appellate steps are finalized.

Fourteenth Amendment At Stake

Since the adoption of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states: “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.” Courts have consistently upheld this principle for more than a century, most notably in the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

However, the Trump administration argues that the amendment should not apply to children of parents who lack permanent legal status, a position that has been repeatedly rejected by lower courts.

What People Are Saying

President Trump, during an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, December 8, 2024, said: “Do you know if somebody sets a foot—just a foot, one foot, you don’t need two—on our land, ‘Congratulations you are now a citizen of the United States of America,’ … Yes, we’re going to end that, because it’s ridiculous.” Adding: “…we’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people, but we have to end it. … We’re the only country that has it, you know.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters in June 2025: “Birthright citizenship will be decided in October, in the next session by the Supreme Court.”

DOJ attorneys wrote in the filing: “In light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, Defendants represent that the Solicitor General plans to seek certiorari expeditiously to enable the Supreme Court to settle the lawfulness of the Citizenship Order next Term.”

Jessica Levinson, constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, said: “You can’t ‘executive order’ your way out of the Constitution. If you want to end birthright citizenship, you need to amend the Constitution, not issue an executive order.”

What Happens Next

The Justice Department must decide which case or combination of cases it will use to challenge lower court rulings and bring the birthright citizenship issue before the Supreme Court. Once it makes that decision, the DOJ will file a petition for certiorari.

The Court is not required to accept every petition, but because this involves a major constitutional question, it is likely to grant review. If that happens, the Court could hear arguments in 2026 and issue a ruling by June of that year.

For now, the Justice Department and attorneys representing plaintiff states—including Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—have agreed to submit another update once the appellate process is clarified or if further proceedings in the district court are required. Until then, the order remains unenforceable, lower court rulings blocking Trump’s executive order remain in effect, and current birthright citizenship protections continue to apply.


What part of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is so hard to understand? Only a Totally Retarded Dumb-Assed Idiot (TRDAI) could miss the meaning of it:

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unfortunately there seems to be no shortage of TRDAIs in the Trump regime. 🙁


https://www.newsweek.com/justice-department-issues-birthright-citizenship-update-2110176

NBC News: Immigration raid fears trigger Latino student absences, as experts warn of consequences

Chronic absenteeism affects children’s health and outcomes, as well as classmates and school resources, experts say, as some districts try to stem families’ fears of going to school.

As the new school year approaches, the typical worries of getting supplies and organizing schedules are compounded for families of mixed immigration status: wondering whether or not to send their children to class due to fears of an immigration raid at the school.

“I’ve heard so many people ask what to do, whether to take them or not, because of all these fears,” Oreana, a mother of four children enrolled in schools in Phoenix, Arizona, told Noticias Telemundo.

The fact that places like churches and schools are no longer considered “sensitive” spaces from immigration enforcement actions “causes a lot of fear,” the Venezuelan woman said.

Up until late January, when President Donald Trump took office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s operations had been restricted in churches, schools and hospitals.

The Trump administration has defended its decision to allow immigration raids in formerly sensitive locations, such as schools. “ICE does not typically conduct immigration enforcement activities at schools or school buses,” the agency told NBC News in March, adding that an immigration action near a school would be from a “case-by-case determination.”

But fear of possible immigration raids in schools isn’t just coming from parents. This past weekend, the Los Angeles Teachers Union held a protest to demand that the district do more to protect students from immigrant families.

Last semester, uneasiness following immigration raids resulted in more students missing school, according to Thomas S. Dee, a specialist in the School of Education at Stanford University.

Dee published an analysis in June whose results indicate that “recent raids coincided with a 22 percent increase in daily student absences” in California’s Central Valley, an agricultural area that’s home to many immigrant farmworkers.

The school absences were especially notable among preschool and elementary students, he noted, an age when parents are more likely to take them to school.

“We saw, when the raids began, a sharp increase in student absences that was very distinctive from the typical patterns we’d see across the school year,” Dee said in an interview with Noticias Telemundo, “and in particular relative to those baselines that we’d seen in prior years.”

What the numbers show

Beyond California, states like Washington state and Illinois have seen similar situations in some school districts.

In the suburbs of Seattle, the impact is notorious in the Highline district, which operates nearly 30 schools. There, data shows that chronic absenteeism — missing more than 10% of a class period — rose to 48% for the school year that ended in July, reversing gains the district had made over the previous two years in reducing K-12 absentee rates.

In Chicago, high school educators also reported 20% lower attendance compared to the previous year.

But Hispanic K-12 students were already likely to accumulate more absences before Trump’s second term. Some factors include going to work at an earlier age to support the family, health-related reasons or having to care for a family member during school hours.

In Illinois, Hispanic students had the second-highest chronic absenteeism rate throughout 2024, at 33%, compared to 26% across all demographic groups, according to data from the State Board of Education. Noticias Telemundo contacted the board and Illinois districts to obtain updated data through June 2025, but didn’t receive a response.

The current situation adds to disruptions to schooling that have been taking place since the Covid-19 pandemic, which resulted in widespread academic delays.

“We’re in an environment where we’ve seen historic losses in student achievement, sustained increases in chronic absenteeism, as well as a notable increase in the mental health challenges that youth are facing,” Dee said. “And so I see these immigration raids as only adding to the already considerable challenges of academic recovery that schools are currently facing.”

Fewer resources, more anxiety

Being absent several times during a school year has a considerable impact on a student’s education.

“Such extensive absences lead not only to poor academic performance; they often lead to students dropping out of school. And the impact of dropping out of high school is profound,” the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) stated via email.

The association highlighted that earnings for those who don’t graduate from high school are considerably lower than for those who do.

The impact, experts have said, goes beyond the classroom.

“Attending school regularly is one of the most powerful predictors of long term health, well-being and success,” Josh Sharfstein of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and director of the Bloomberg American Health Initiative, said at a conference in mid-June.

This is because absences can affect children’s emotional and intellectual development, as well as their education. For example, they can trigger anxiety disorders that further harm children’s well-being and further encourage school absences.

Several associations have launched a campaign calling for school absences to be considered a public health problem.

“When multiple students in a classroom are chronically absent, the churn in the classroom affects everyone, even peers who had good attendance. It makes it harder for teachers to teach and set classroom norms, as well as for students to connect with each other,” said Hedy Chang, executive director of the Attendance Works group, which is leading a campaign launched in June.

Chronic absenteeism due to fears of immigration raids can have a knock-on economic effect, according to Dee.

“This also has financial implications for school districts,” he said. California is one of a handful of states that bases aid, in part, on average daily attendance, according to Dee, so when fewer kids show, that means fewer resources.

“I would expect that to have pejorative economic consequences for these communities as well as for the financial viability of the school districts serving them,” Dee said.

In many districts, repeated offenses related to absenteeism can also lead to youth being sent to truancy court. There, penalties can range from paying fines to serving time in juvenile detention.

Latino, Black and Indigenous youth in the U.S. are already more frequently referred to truancy court than non-Hispanic white students, in part because the former demographic groups’ absences are more likely to be recorded as “unjustified or unexcused,” research shows.

Preventive strategies

In response to long-standing concerns about truancy, there are strategies to combat absenteeism.

“There are many steps districts, schools, families and community partners can take to improve attendance,” said Chang, of Attendance Works.

At a Connecticut school where attendance fell early in the year due to fears of immigration raids, truancy was successfully curbed toward the end of the semester with measures such as directly contacting families and developing contingency plans.

These strategies include reaching out to community leaders, such as local church figures or food bank workers, who have contact with certain families to help encourage them to continue sending their children to school.

Another strategy that school principals belonging to NASSP say has helped is maintaining close contact with students — for example, calling their families’ homes to check on them.

Experts hope that these kinds of measures can help address the issue of absences in students of mixed immigration status who are afraid of potential immigration raids.

“In some districts, we’ve heard from students who can’t attend classes regularly right now for reasons like fear of raids, and they’ve been offered virtual learning,” Dee said. “I think educators need to be more aware of the challenges their students are currently facing due to these issues.”

For now, with protests like the one the teachers’ union held in Los Angeles, additional options are being explored, such as a districtwide campaign to educate parents about the importance of sharing an emergency contact with school administrators in case a parent is deported while the child is at school.

In the Highline school district in Washington state, communications manager Tove Tupper said in an email they’re “committed to protecting the rights and dignity of all students, families, and staff” and ensure all students “have a right to a public education, as protected by law,” regardless of citizenship or immigration status.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/fear-immigration-raids-latino-student-absences-school-ice-rcna223093

LA Times: California took center stage in ICE raids, but other states saw more immigration arrests

Ever since federal immigration raids ramped up across California, triggering fierce protests that prompted President Trump to deploy troops to Los Angeles, the state has emerged as the symbolic battleground of the administration’s deportation campaign.

But even as arrests soared, California was not the epicenter of Trump’s anti-immigrant project.

In the first five months of Trump’s second term, California lagged behind the staunchly red states of Texas and Florida in the total arrests. According to a Los Angeles Times analysis of federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement data from the Deportation Data Project, Texas reported 26,341 arrests — nearly a quarter of all ICE arrests nationally — followed by 12,982 in Florida and 8,460 in California.

Even in June, when masked federal immigration agents swept through L.A., jumping out of vehicles to snatch people from bus stops, car washes and parking lots, California saw 3,391 undocumented immigrants arrested — more than Florida, but still only about half as many as Texas.

When factoring in population, California drops to 27th in the nation, with 217 arrests per million residents — about a quarter of Texas’ 864 arrests per million and less than half of a whole slew of states including Florida, Arkansas, Utah, Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Georgia, Virginia and Nevada.

The data, released after a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the government, excludes arrests made after June 26 and lacks identifying state details in 5% of cases. Nevertheless, it provides the most detailed look yet of national ICE operations.

Immigration experts say it is not surprising that California — home to the largest number of undocumented immigrants in the nation and the birthplace of the Chicano movement — lags behind Republican states in the total number of arrests or arrests as a percentage of the population.

“The numbers are secondary to the performative politics of the moment,” said Austin Kocher, a geographer and research assistant professor at Syracuse University who specializes in immigration enforcement.

Part of the reason Republican-dominated states have higher arrest numbers — particularly when measured against population — is they have a longer history of working directly with ICE, and a stronger interest in collaboration. In red states from Texas to Mississippi, local law enforcement officers routinely cooperate with federal agents, either by taking on ICE duties through so-called 287(g) agreements or by identifying undocumented immigrants who are incarcerated and letting ICE into their jails and prisons.

Indeed, data show that just 7% of ICE arrests made this year in California were made through the Criminal Alien Program, an initiative that requests that local law enforcement identify undocumented immigrants in federal, state and local prisons and jails.

That’s significantly lower than the 55% of arrests in Texas and 46% in Florida made through prisons or jails. And other conservative states with smaller populations relied on the program even more heavily: 75% of ICE arrests in Alabama and 71% in Indiana took place via prisons and jails.

“State cooperation has been an important buffer in ICE arrests and ICE operations in general for years,” said Ariel Ruiz Soto, a Sacramento-based senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. “We’ve seen that states are not only willing to cooperate with ICE, but are proactively now establishing 287(g) agreements with their local law enforcement, are naturally going to cast a wider net of enforcement in the boundaries of that state.”

While California considers only some criminal offenses, such as serious felonies, significant enough to share information with ICE; Texas and Florida are more likely to report offenses that may not be as severe, such as minor traffic infractions.

Still, even if fewer people were arrested in California than other states, it also witnessed one of the most dramatic increases in arrests in the country.

California ranked 30th in ICE arrests per million in February. By June, the state had climbed to 10th place.

ICE arrested around 8,460 immigrants across California between Jan. 20 and June 26, a 212% increase compared with the five months before Trump took office. That contrasts with a 159% increase nationally for the same period.

Much of ICE’s activity in California was hyper-focused on Greater Los Angeles: About 60% of ICE arrests in the state took place in the seven counties in and around L.A. during Trump’s first five months in office. The number of arrests in the Los Angeles area soared from 463 in January to 2,185 in June — a 372% spike, second only to New York’s 432% increase.

Even if California is not seeing the largest numbers of arrests, experts say, the dramatic increase in captures stands out from other places because of the lack of official cooperation and public hostility toward immigration agents.

“A smaller increase in a place that has very little cooperation is, in a way, more significant than seeing an increase in areas that have lots and lots of cooperation,” Kocher said.

ICE agents, Kocher said, have to work much harder to arrest immigrants in places like L.A. or California that define themselves as “sanctuary” jurisdictions and limit their cooperation with federal immigration agents.

“They really had to go out of their way,” he said.

Trump administration officials have long argued that sanctuary jurisdictions give them no choice but to round up people on the streets.

Not long after Trump won the 2024 election and the L.A. City Council voted unanimously to block any city resources from being used for immigration enforcement, incoming border enforcement advisor Tom Homan threatened an onslaught.

“If I’ve got to send twice as many officers to L.A. because we’re not getting any assistance, then that’s what we’re going to do,” Homan told Newsmax.

With limited cooperation from California jails, ICE agents went out into communities, rounding up people they suspected of being undocumented on street corners and at factories and farms.

That shift in tactics meant that immigrants with criminal convictions no longer made up the bulk of California ICE arrests. While about 66% of immigrants arrested in the first four months of the year had criminal convictions, that percentage fell to 30% in June.

The sweeping nature of the arrests drew immediate criticism as racial profiling and spawned robust community condemnation.

Some immigration experts and community activists cite the organized resistance in L.A. as another reason the numbers of ICE arrests were lower in California than in Texas and even lower than dozens of states by percentage of population.

“The reason is the resistance, organized resistance: the people who literally went to war with them in Paramount, in Compton, in Bell and Huntington Park,” said Ron Gochez, a member of Unión del Barrio Los Angeles, an independent political group that patrols neighborhoods to alert residents of immigration sweeps.

“They’ve been chased out in the different neighborhoods where we organize,” he said. “We’ve been able to mobilize the community to surround the agents when they come to kidnap people.”

In L.A., activists patrolled the streets from 5 a.m. until 11 p.m., seven days a week, Gochez said. They faced off with ICE agents in Home Depot parking lots and at warehouses and farms.

“We were doing everything that we could to try to keep up with the intensity of the military assault,” Gochez said. “The resistance was strong. … We’ve been able, on numerous occasions, to successfully defend the communities and drive them out of our community.”

The protests prompted Trump to deploy the National Guard and Marines in June, with the stated purpose of protecting federal buildings and personnel. But the administration’s ability to ratchet up arrests hit a roadblock on July 11. That’s when a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking immigration agents in Southern and Central California from targeting people based on race, language, vocation or location without reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. illegally.

That decision was upheld last week by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But on Thursday, the Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court to lift the temporary ban on its patrols, arguing that it “threatens to upend immigration officials’ ability to enforce the immigration laws in the Central District of California by hanging the prospect of contempt over every investigative stop.”

The order led to a significant drop in arrests across Los Angeles last month. But this week, federal agents carried out a series of raids at Home Depots from Westlake to Van Nuys.

Trump administration officials have indicated that the July ruling and arrest slowdown do not signal a permanent change in tactics.

“Sanctuary cities are going to get exactly what they don’t want: more agents in the communities and more work site enforcement,” Homan told reporters two weeks after the court blocked roving patrols. “Why is that? Because they won’t let one agent arrest one bad guy in the jail.”

U.S. Border Patrol Sector Chief Gregory Bovino, who has been leading operations in California, posted a fast-moving video on X that spliced L.A. Mayor Karen Bass telling reporters that “this experiment that was practiced on the city of Los Angeles failed” with video showing him grinning. Then, as a frenetic drum and bass mix kicked in, federal agents jump out of a van and chase people.

“When you’re faced with opposition to law and order, what do you do?” Bovino wrote. “Improvise, adapt, and overcome!”

Clearly, the Trump administration is willing to expend significant resources to make California a political battleground and test case, Ruiz Soto said. The question is, at what economic and political cost?

“If they really wanted to scale up and ramp up their deportations,” Ruiz Soto said, “they could go to other places, do it more more safely, more quickly and more efficiently.”

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-08-10/california-was-center-stage-in-ice-raids-but-texas-and-florida-each-saw-more-immigration-arrests

San Francisco Chronicle: ICE is holding people in its S.F. office for days. Advocates say there are no beds, private toilets

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials handcuffed Jorge Willy Valera Chuquillanqui as he walked out of his court hearing in San Francisco recently and placed him in an eighth-floor cell at a downtown field office with no bed. He spent the next four days there with six other detainees before being sent to Fresno and eventually to a larger facility in Arizona.

“It was hell,” the 47-year-old Peruvian man said. His meals were granola bars and bean-and-cheese burritos, and at one point had to be transferred to a hospital after he started feeling pain related to a stroke he suffered a year ago.

“I’ve never experienced something like this, not even in my own country,” Valera said.

As President Donald Trump’s mass deportation efforts ramp up and immigration authorities strive to meet an arrest quota of 3,000 people per day, detention centers continue to fill up, leading to overcrowding in some cases. As of July 27, just under 57,000 people were being held at detention centers compared to just under 40,000 people in January, according to TRAC Immigration, a data gathering nonprofit organization. 

Immigration attorneys say that as a result, they’ve seen an increase in ICE holding people at its 25 field offices across the country for extended periods of time – raising concerns that the facilities are ill-equipped for people to sleep in, and lack medical care for those who need it and privacy to use the bathroom. 

The situation has prompted legal action from immigration advocates across the country. In the Bay Area, lawyers have raised concerns about the conditions of the offices as holding centers and are looking into taking legal action. 

Until recently, ICE limited detentions in field offices such as that at 630 Sansome St. to 12 hours “absent exceptional circumstances,” but increased that to 72 hours earlier this year after Trump ordered mass deportations.  

ICE said in a statement to the Chronicle that there are occasions where detainees might need to stay at the San Francisco field office “longer than anticipated,” but that these instances are rare. 

“All detainees in ICE custody are provided ample food, regular access to phones, legal representation, as well as medical care,” the agency said. “The ICE field office in San Francisco is intended to hold aliens while they are going through the intake process. Afterwards, they are moved to a longer-term detention facility.” 

ICE did not respond to questions about what kind of medical staff the agency has at its San Francisco facility, its only field office in the Bay Area. The second nearest field office is in Sacramento. Other field offices in the state are located in Los Angeles, San Diego and other parts of Southern California.

In a memorandum filed in court in June, ICE said that the agency increased its detention limit at field offices to 72 hours to meet the demands of increased enforcement. ICE stated that increased enforcement efforts have strained the agency’s efforts to find and coordinate transfers to available beds, and that it is no longer permitted to release people. 

“To accommodate appropriately housing the increased number of detainees while ensuring their safety and security and avoid violation of holding facility standards and requirements, this waiver allows for aliens to be housed in a holding facility for up to, but not exceeding, 72 hours, absent exceptional circumstances,” the memorandum states. 

After the passage of Trump’s policy legislation, ICE’s annual budget increased from $8 billion to about $28 billion – allowing the agency to hire more enforcement officers and double its detention space. While there are no detention centers in the Bay Area, ICE is poised to convert a 2,560-bed facility in California City (Kern County) into a holding facility. Immigrant advocates are worried that FCI Dublin, a former women’s prison that closed after a sexual abuse scandal, could be used as a detention center, but a spokesperson for the Bureau of Prisons told the Chronicle there are no plans to reopen the prison. 

Meanwhile, some immigrant advocacy groups are starting to take action against ICE for using its field offices as holding facilities. 

In Baltimore, an immigrant advocacy group filed a federal class action lawsuit in May on behalf of two women who were held at ICE’s field offices in “cage-like” holding cells for multiple days. A judge denied the group’s request for a temporary restraining order, but attorneys said they intend to try again. 

“They have no beds, a lot of them have no showers, they are not equipped to provide medical care or really provide food because it’s not designed to be a long-term facility,” said Amelia Dagen, a senior attorney at Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit that filed the​​ lawsuit. 

“We have heard this is not exclusive to Baltimore and is happening quite a bit in other field offices. This is an ongoing issue unfortunately because with arrest quotas being what they are… everyone is a priority,” Dagen added. 

Jordan Wells, a senior staff attorney at Lawyer’s Committee For Civil Rights in San Francisco, said he and other attorneys are examining the Maryland case. Wells has filed habeas petitions on behalf of two people who were initially held at Sansome Street. A judge ordered the temporary release of one of his clients and a court hearing is scheduled for later this month for the second person, who has since been transported to a detention center in Bakersfield.

A separate class action lawsuit seeking a temporary restraining order against the Department of Homeland Security to stop raids in Los Angeles said that ICE is holding people in a short-term processing center in the city and a basement for days – describing the conditions of the “dungeon-like facilities” as “deplorable and unconstitutional.” A judge granted the temporary restraining order last week. 

Immigrant advocates have criticized ICE for detaining more people than they have room for, saying that their strategy is devastating communities. 

“If there is bed space ICE will fill it, and that means more terror for local communities,” said Jessica Yamane Moraga, an immigration attorney at Pangea Legal Services, which provides services to immigrants. 

It remains unclear exactly how many people have been held at ICE’s San Francisco field office. 

Moraga said she saw six people held at the San Francisco ICE field office for at least three days. She represented a 27-year-old Colombian woman from San Jose who was detained at the office for nearly four days. 

When ICE arrests people in the Bay Area, they typically are taken to the San Francisco field office for processing and then transferred to a detention center, usually in Southern California. However, as beds fill up, many people are starting to be transferred to centers out of state. 

Earlier this year, ICE started detaining people leaving their court hearings. Moraga said that when people are detained on Thursday or Friday by ICE at 630 Sansome St., which has three courtrooms and a processing center, authorities are sometimes unable to find a long-term detention facility to transport people to until after the weekend. 

“ICE is deciding to use the blunt instrument of detention to turn away people who have lawful claims,” Moraga said.

Lawyers, legal advocates and migrants reported substandard conditions at ICE’s field offices.

Three days after  Valera, the Peruvian migrant, was detained, Ujwala Murthy, a law student and summer intern at nonprofit Pangea Legal Services, visited him at the ICE field office.  

As she was preparing to leave, she heard a loud pounding. She said she saw multiple women, apparently in detention, banging on the glass window of a door behind the front desk. A security guard came. One of the women reported that somebody was overheating. That day, it was hotter inside the field office than outdoors, she said.

Security personnel unlocked the door and Murthy said she saw a woman in a white track suit step out flushed and sweating, looking distressed. The woman was given a bottle of water and led out of Murthy’s sight.

“It made me upset,” she said. “It was very dehumanizing.”

At Valera’s asylum hearing before he was unexpectedly detained on July 25, an ICE attorney had tried to dismiss his case, part of a new Trump tactic to speed up deportations. The judge declined and continued the case to October to give Valera time to respond. But minutes after exiting the courtroom, ICE officers seized him. 

In his cell at the ICE field office, he started feeling pain in the left half of his body that was paralyzed from a stroke a year ago, according to a habeas petition his attorney filed. He said he urged ICE to get him medical care and was eventually transported to San Francisco General Hospital, but returned to custody at the field office a day later. 

 Valera, who crossed the border in December 2022 after fleeing his home in Peru where he received death threats from an organized criminal group, was eventually transported to Fresno and then Arizona to be held in detention. He was released last month after a judge granted him a temporary restraining order.

“I’m going to ask my lawyer to help me go to therapy,” he said, “because I am traumatized.” 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ice-is-holding-people-in-its-s-f-office-for-days-advocates-say-there-are-no-beds-private-toilets/ar-AA1K9wQ1