As it has nationwide, ICE is arresting far more suspected immigration violators this summer than before

ICE arrests in Northern California have surged this summer, a Chronicle analysis of deportation data shows. That’s in keeping with national trends.

The Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), claimed on Friday that they are “cleaning up the streets,” targeting what they continued to call the “WORST OF THE WORST” — including “illegal alien pedophiles, sex offenders, and violent thugs.”

But the numbers tell a more complicated story.

Since the beginning of 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has arrested roughly 2,640 people in its San Francisco “area of responsibility” — a 123% increase compared to the final seven months of the Biden administration. The pace picked up dramatically in June and July.

That area spans a large portion of California, from Kern County northward, and also includes Hawaii, Guam, and Saipan. The Chronicle’s analysis focused only on arrests made within California.

Notably, under the Trump administration, arrests of people without criminal convictions have risen sharply. Many of those taken into custody have only pending criminal charges — or none at all. In June, about 58% of arrests involved individuals with no prior convictions. That figure dipped slightly to 56% in July, but just a few months earlier, the numbers were far lower: In December, before President Donald Trump took office, only 10% of arrests involved people without a criminal conviction.

Among those without a conviction, ICE has arrested a large number of individuals whose only suspected violation is entering the country illegally or overstaying their visa. Although administration officials often call these undocumented immigrants “criminals,” being in the U.S. without legal status is a civil violation, not a crime. 

Arrests of convicted criminals are also up, though not as sharply. Those convictions varied widely — from serious and violent crimes like child sexual assault, homicide, and drug trafficking, to lesser charges such as traffic violations and low-level misdemeanors.

ICE officers raided a home in East Oakland on Tuesday and detained at least six people, including a minor and a person with a severe disability, according to an immigration attorney. In June, Oakland police confirmed to the Chronicle that ICE alerted them of its activity, but ICE did not provide additional details. 

Also, for the first time in the Bay Area, ICE detained two U.S. citizens during a protest on Aug. 8, outside the agency’s San Francisco field office at 630 Sansome St. Aliya Karmali, an Oakland immigration attorney, told Mission Local that she hasn’t seen “ICE arresting [U.S. citizen] protestors in the Bay since entering the legal field nearly 20 years ago.”

The picture is similar nationwide. National data from the Transaction Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University indicates that the number of people detained by ICE — excluding those arrested by Customs and Border Protection — saw a 178% increase between Jan. 26 and July 13. 

Since the beginning of 2025, ICE arrests of people with no criminal convictions has skyrocketed, with a 370% increase from the end of January to mid-July. In June, ICE held more people for immigration violations than for pending charges for the first time — a trend that continued into July.  

Reports indicate that ICE has been targeting workers in mostly Latino neighborhoods and on jobsites — sometimes based on vague tips from people claiming they saw undocumented immigrants, but often with no clear reason at all. It has also arrested thousands of people in public places. 

Though the administration views the increased immigration enforcement as necessary for public safety or border security, many believe the arrests are fueling fear, separating families, disrupting labor markets and local economies, and doing little to actually solve the country’s broader immigration problems.

“It seems like they’re just arresting people they think might be in the country without status and amenable to deportation,” said Julia Gelatt, associate director of the U.S. immigration policy program at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, in a June Reuters story.

ICE arrests of people with no criminal convictions have surged in Northern California

As it has nationwide, ICE is arresting far more suspected immigration violators this summer than before.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/ice-arrests-deport-data-20818148.php

What Trump’s Proposal Could Mean for the 14th Amendment

Former President Trump reignited the debate over birthright citizenship with a proposal that could challenge the 14th Amendment. This video explains what it means and why it matters.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-trump-s-proposal-could-mean-for-the-14th-amendment/vi-AA1HPtzp

The pathetic loser con-man in the White House is trying to dodge a $500,000,000 judgment for civil fraud.

The New York court weighing President Trump’s appeal of a roughly $500 million civil-fraud judgment typically acts swiftly and unanimously, with many of its decisions coming within weeks after hearing arguments.

Trump’s experience stands out as an unusual exception.

A five-justice panel has yet to render a decision nearly a year after taking up the case, leaving him and his business in limbo. Behind the scenes, members of the panel have been divided, and three of them have been writing opinions, according to people familiar with the matter. It couldn’t be determined how they are split. Justices do occasionally shift their positions, and the number of opinions could change, the people said.

A spokesman for the New York state court system said it doesn’t comment on pending litigation. A spokesman for Trump’s legal team said, “It is time for the New York Courts to step in and end this witch hunt once and for all.”

For the New York Appellate Division’s First Department, the Trump matter is among the most high-profile cases in its history, and the outcome could influence future business regulation in the state. For Trump, whose legal entanglements largely faded after his return to the White House, the fraud case is his main private legal headache. At stake isn’t only the half-billion dollar penalty, growing by the day with interest, but the possibility that his sons could be barred from running his family company in the near term. The president asks regularly why the court hasn’t ruled, said people who speak to him.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, sued Trump in 2022, alleging he fraudulently inflated the value of parts of his real-estate empire for financial benefit, primarily lower-interest loans. Justice Arthur Engoron presided over a monthslong civil trial and ruled James proved her case, which relied upon a state statute that grants the attorney general broad authority to investigate “persistent fraud or illegality” in business.

The judge in February 2024 ordered Trump to pay more than $350 million plus interest and imposed an array of other sanctions that restricted the Trump Organization from borrowing money and effectively prohibited Trump’s two eldest sons from running the business for two years. Trump quickly appealed, and the First Department put those restrictions on hold while it considered the case.

The appeals court heard arguments this past September, and some of the judges’ questions appeared favorable to Trump. One wondered whether there should be some “guardrails” on the attorney general’s power. Another questioned the size of the judgment. “The immense penalty in this case is troubling,” said Justice Peter Moulton. A lawyer for James defended it: “There was a lot of fraud.”

Other justices appeared to see James’s lawsuit as within the bounds of the law, despite the Trump lawyers’ arguments that banks didn’t lose money and no victims were harmed. Presiding Justice Dianne Renwick noted the statute refers to “persistent fraud or illegality,” but not harm.

Lengthy waits and disagreeing judges are a common occurrence on some appeals courts. But recent leadership of the First Judicial Department, which reviews thousands of lower-court decisions and motions annually, has emphasized speed.

The First Department typically issues decisions within 30 days, according to a 2024 court report. For each of the past five years, that report said, the court began its new annual session each September with zero pending and undecided appeals.

“Is this normal? No,” said Bill White, a lawyer at appellate consulting firm Counsel Press. “This is something I imagine they are anxious to have on their docket for so long, with everyone’s expectation and the pressure building.”

Alongside that promptness has come unanimity. From 2024 through this July, the court decided roughly 2,900 appeals, according to an analysis of public court data. Only about two dozen of those rulings—or less than .01%—came with a recorded dissent.

If the court upholds the trial judge’s decision, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. would be barred from holding a position as an officer of a New York company for two years. Trump and his company for three years couldn’t apply for loans from financial institutions registered in New York. The losing side can appeal to the state’s highest court.

The wait has cost the company. It is paying a court-appointed monitor, the former federal judge Barbara Jones, whom Trump lawyers previously accused of charging “exorbitant fees” amounting to more than $2.6 million over 14 months. On top of that, Trump has paid more than $2 million in fees on the bond he secured to guarantee the judgment while he appeals, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The panel hearing the Trump appeal includes four judges appointed by Democratic governors and one Republican appointee, David Friedman, who is regarded as among the most conservative of the court’s 21 members. The court’s presiding justice, Renwick, also on the panel, is viewed as a stalwart liberal who has an institutional interest in seeking consensus and guarding the court’s reputation.

Court Split Leaves Trump’s Civil Fraud Appeal Stuck In Slow Lane

The New York court typically moves fast, but it has been nearly a year since it heard Trump’s arguments.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/court-split-leaves-trump-s-civil-fraud-appeal-stuck-in-slow-lane/ar-AA1KIITl

The Ukrainian president is reportedly planning to ditch his military-style sweatshirt for a black jacket to avoid another White House showdown.

All eyes will be on Volodymyr Zelensky when he arrives at the White House on Monday afternoon—if only to see what he’s wearing when he meets President Donald Trump.

Ukraine’s wartime president found himself the target of a pile-on in his last Oval Office visit in February, when Vice President JD Vance accused him of being “disrespectful” to the U.S. by not wearing a suit and tie.

Keen to avoid a repeat, White House officials have reportedly been pressing Zelensky to dress up for Monday’s crucial talks at the White House, where Zelensky and Trump will be joined a slew of major European leaders.

Citing two sources inside the Trump administration, Axios reported Monday that the White House had explicitly asked Ukrainian officials whether Zelensky would be wearing a suit to the Oval Office.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

One source told the outlet that Zelensky would be wearing the same sort of black jacket he wore to meet Trump at the NATO summit in June, rather his usual army-style sweatshirt. “Trump was happy about that,” Axios reported in its newsletter.

Monday’s talks, which come on the heels of Trump’s summit meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, could help bring an end to Europe’s bloodiest conflict since World War II.

But all anyone in MAGAworld seems to have cared about over the past few days is what Zelensky will be wearing when he shakes Trump’s hand.

In a scathing preview of the Oval Office talks, Real America’s Voice host Brian Glenn told viewers on Sunday: “Two questions right now. One: Will we have peace? But two: Will Zelensky wear a suit?”

The channel, which calls itself the “authentic voice and passion of real people all across America,” then played a clip from Zelensky’s infamous visit to the White House earlier this year when Glenn himself sparked a brutal pile-on from the room by criticizing Zelensky for what he was wearing.

Zelensky’s casual battle dress was reminiscent of that worn by previous wartime leaders during visits to the White House, including Britain’s prime minister during WWII, Winston Churchill. But the February meeting descended into acrimony, with Vance leading what many observers considered an ambush of Zelensky.

Zelensky will be joined at the White House by European leaders including Britain’s Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron of France who will try to persuade Trump that the pressure should be on Putin to end the conflict he started in 2022. Casualties are widely reported to be past the million mark after more than three years of attritional fighting.

The Oval Office talks come just days the Alaska summit, at which no real progress appears to have been made—and which some White House officials reportedly left looking ashen-faced.

Trump rolled out the red carpet for Putin, who has largely been ostracized by the international community since his full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. After greeting him like an old friend, Trump let Putin talk first at a post-summit press conference—with no actual questions allowed—and even game him a lift in his armored “Beast” limousine.

It remains clear, however, that Putin is still clinging to his maximalist demands for sovereignty over large parts of Ukraine and subsequent demilitarization.

Trump is expected to greet Zelensky today at 1 p.m. ET, with a series of meetings with other European leaders scheduled throughout the afternoon.

Shallow Trump Pressures Zelensky to Wear a Suit to the White House

The Ukrainian president is reportedly planning to ditch his military-style sweatshirt for a black jacket to avoid another White House showdown.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/shallow-trump-pressures-zelensky-to-wear-a-suit-to-the-white-house

Three members of an Afghan family, including a man who worked for the U.S. military, could be eligible for asylum in Canada. ICE won’t release them.

They trekked through a dozen countries, from Asia to South America, on horseback across the perilous Darien Gap and up through Central America to Mexico.

Members of Afghanistan’s persecuted Shiite Hazara minority, the family — a man who worked for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, his wife and three of their children — spent months in Mexico trying to schedule an appointment with U.S. immigration authorities through the Biden administration’s CBP One app, to no avail.

Eligible for asylum in Canada, stuck in ICE detention

Three members of an Afghan family, including a man who worked for the U.S. military, could be eligible for asylum in Canada. ICE won’t release them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/08/18/canada-afghan-migrants-ice-detention

A federal judge will hear arguments Monday over whether detainees at a temporary immigrant detention center in the Florida Everglades have been denied their legal rights.

In the second of two lawsuits challenging practices at the facility known as “Alligator Alcatraz,” civil rights attorneys are seeking a preliminary injunction to ensure that detainees at the facility have confidential access to their lawyers, which they say hasn’t happened. Florida officials dispute that claim.

The civil rights attorneys also want U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz to identify an immigration court that has jurisdiction over the detention center so that petitions can be filed for the detainees’ bond or release. The attorneys say that hearings for their cases have been routinely canceled in federal Florida immigration courts by judges who say they don’t have jurisdiction over the detainees held in the Everglades.

“The situation at ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ is so anomalous from what is typically granted at other immigration facilities,” Eunice Cho, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, said Thursday during a virtual meeting to prepare for Monday’s hearing in Miami.

But before delving into the core issues of the detainees’ rights, Ruiz has said he wants to hear about whether the lawsuit was filed in the proper jurisdiction in Miami. The state and federal government defendants have argued that even though the isolated airstrip where the facility was built is owned by Miami-Dade County, Florida’s southern district is the wrong venue since the detention center is located in neighboring Collier County, which is in the state’s middle district.

The judge has hinted that some issues may pertain to one district and other issues to the other district, but said he would decide after Monday’s hearing.

“I think we should all be prepared that, before we get into any real argument about preliminary injunctive relief, that we at least spend some time working through the venue issues,” Ruiz said Thursday.

The hearing over legal access comes as another federal judge in Miami considers whether construction and operations at the facility should be halted indefinitely because federal environmental rules weren’t followed. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams on Aug. 7 ordered a 14-day halt on additional construction at the site while witnesses testified at a hearing that wrapped up last week. She has said she plans to issue a ruling before the order expires later this week.

Meanwhile, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced last week that his administration was preparing to open a second immigration detention facility dubbed “Deportation Depot” at a state prison in north Florida. DeSantis justified building the second detention center by saying President Donald Trump’s administration needs the additional capacity to hold and deport more immigrants.

The state of Florida has disputed claims that “Alligator Alcatraz” detainees have been unable to meet with their attorneys. The state’s lawyers said that since July 15, when videoconferencing started at the facility, the state has granted every request for a detainee to meet with an attorney, and in-person meetings started July 28. The first detainees arrived at the beginning of July.

But the civil rights attorneys said that even if lawyers have been scheduled to meet with their clients at the detention center, it hasn’t been in private or confidential, and it is more restrictive than at other immigration detention facilities. They said scheduling delays and an unreasonable advanced notice requirement have hindered their ability to meet with the detainees, thereby violating their constitutional rights.

Civil rights attorneys said officers are going cell-to-cell to pressure detainees into signing voluntary removal orders before they’re allowed to consult their attorneys, and some detainees have been deported even though they didn’t have final removal orders. Along with the spread of a respiratory infection and rainwater flooding their tents, the circumstances have fueled a feeling of desperation among detainees, the attorneys wrote in a court filing.

“One intellectually disabled detainee was told to sign a paper in exchange for a blanket, but was then deported subject to voluntary removal after he signed, without the ability to speak to his counsel,” the filing said.

The judge has promised a quick decision once the hearing is done.

Judge to weigh detainees’ legal rights at ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ in Florida Everglades

A federal judge is considering whether detainees have been denied their legal rights at a temporary immigrant detention center in the Florida Everglades.

https://apnews.com/article/florida-immigration-ice-trump-alligator-alcatraz-2edf0cd03409b3526f34d4d7b33074be

‘Their Boats Are Faster’: Secretary Kristi Noem Reveals Trump Provided Boats Worse Than The Cartels’ To Coast Guard In Senate Hearing

Secretary Kristi Noem revealed that President DOnald Trump provided the Coast Guard with boats that are inadequate, and worse than those owned by the cartels.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/their-boats-are-faster-secretary-kristi-noem-reveals-trump-provided-boats-worse-than-the-cartels-to-coast-guard-in-senate-hearing/vi-AA1KJqVr

They say that the only two certainties in life are death and taxes. The recently passed “Big Beautiful Bill,” however, claims to eliminate one of those — at least for overtime hours.

The budget bill, passed in July, followed up on a key Trump campaign promise to eliminate taxes on overtime pay. Even better: the law is retroactive to the beginning of 2025, giving those who work overtime an additional six months of tax-free wages ahead of all the money the bill will save them going forward.

But the reality may be far less generous than it sounds.

Before you start planning how to spend all that extra cash, be aware that the new law contains several big, not-so-beautiful catches.

Not all overtime pay is tax exempt

In touting the elimination of taxes on overtime pay in the budget bill, the White House claimed that the law “makes good on … President Trump’s cornerstone campaign promises and benefits hardworking Americans where they need it the most — their paychecks.”

And in some ways, it does. The reality, however, is that the “Big Beautiful Bill” only eliminates some tax on overtime pay.

To start, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) noted that the tax break only pertains to a portion of overtime pay, or the “‘half’ of ‘time and a half pay’, required under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.”

For example, if a worker makes $40 an hour, then their time and a half overtime would amount to $60 an hour. Of that $60, only $20 (the “half” part of “time and a half”) remains tax-free.

Additionally, “no tax on overtime” is a federal income-tax change only. State and local income taxes still apply (unless your state separately conforms), and Social Security and Medicare taxes are still withheld on all wages, including overtime.

As well, there’s a cap to how much overtime pay remains tax-exempt: $12,500 per person annually, or $25,000 for people filing together. Earners who make more than $150,000 (or $300,000 combined between two people filing together) are not eligible for tax-free overtime pay.

Another issue, raised by Forbes, is horizontal equity: two people with the same annual pay can end up taxed differently. An hourly worker who logs FLSA overtime can deduct part of that overtime, while a salaried worker putting in the same extra hours gets no break.

Then there are those workers whose overtime pay is dictated by different agreements or laws. The WSJ pointed to airline and railroad workers as examples of those “who often get overtime pay under union contracts and are exempt from FLSA because they are covered by the Railway Labor Act.” These workers generally will not qualify for the deduction on their contract overtime.

They added that “One result is different treatment for similar jobs. An airline jet mechanic wouldn’t get the deduction but an airplane mechanic at a separate maintenance company could.”

The long-term fallout

Beyond the immediate monetary effect, a more broad catch to the new law could make itself known in the long run.

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) raised concerns that the law will incentivize many to work as much overtime as possible to gain the extra income, including evenings and weekends — habits “associated with a range of negative impacts on physical and mental health, well-being, and productivity.”

In addition, those unable to work overtime for personal or health reasons will lose out on the benefits. The EPI called the law “another gimmick that does more harm than good” and suggested that offering workers raises so they don’t have to work the extra hours would prove a better option.

Forbes, meanwhile, labeled the law “a stealth anti-job creation measure” because it lessens the need for employers to hire more workers.

“A 50-hour week for one employee can be replaced by tacking on an additional 10 hours across five separate workers. The overtime deduction thus may boost take-home pay for some, but it does so by encouraging a labor distribution that concentrates hours in the hands of fewer people.”

That said, according to Tax Policy Center estimates, only 9% of American households will actually save money by paying fewer taxes on overtime pay, resulting in an average added windfall of roughly $1400 annually. Most workers will see the benefit at tax time.

And, of course, there’s one final caveat to the “no tax on overtime pay” law: it expires in 2028.

As usual where King Donald is concerned, the joke’s on us!

Trump’s ‘no tax on overtime’ is now US law — but some Americans don’t even qualify. Here’s the catch

Only a fraction of U.S. households will actually benefit.

https://moneywise.com/news/trumps-no-tax-on-overtime-is-now-law-but-some-americans-dont-even-qualify-heres-the-catch