Inquisitr: ‘Had to Sleep on the Floor’—Honduran Woman Detained by ICE During Routine Check-In Describes ‘Inhumane’ Conditions in U.S. Custody

There were no beds and very little food for 30 women.

A Honduran woman, Gladis Yolanda Chavez Pineda, was detained by ICE when she went in for her immigration check-in last month. She did not know that going for a normal immigration check would land her up in inhumane conditions at the Broadview processing center.

She spent 4 days in the center and then transferred to the Kentucky correctional facility. Chavez Pineda who’s also an organizer with the Organized Communities Against Deportations revealed the details about her stay. She was among the 30 women who were held there. They did not have blankets, beds, or enough food.

They did not even know what was going to happen to them next, or where they would be taken next. She was arrested on June 4 along with ten other immigrants arrested that day by ICE in the South Loop.

She noted that she got a text message that asked her to report for the immigration check-in at the Michigan Intensive Supervision Appearance Program office. This way they can monitor those with deportation status change while not taking them into custody.

The moment she arrived there, she was escorted by the ICE agents regarding her new deportation orders. Despite showing the paperwork along with her two attorneys, she was arrested. She has been living in the US for ten years now, and her case is still pending. For now, she has a temporary stay of removal by the appeals council.

She argued that if she applied for her case legally, she should not get detained. She has the work permit, social security number and pays taxes. She was detained for a month in the Grayson County Jail.

There she had to stay with twenty women, and there were just ten beds for them to share. The conditions were harsh with bright light, loud noises, and no access to medical care. They could not sleep or feel safe.

The nights she spent there, she was worried about her three kids; she never wanted them to experience this. Even when she was deported on July 13, she was in handcuffs and ankle-chained till she reached Honduras.

Washington Post: Trump officials accused of defying 1 in 3 judges who ruled against him

A comprehensive analysis of hundreds of lawsuits against Trump policies shows dozens of examples of defiance, delay and dishonesty, which experts say pose an unprecedented threat to the U.S. legal system.

President Donald Trump and his appointees have been accused of flouting courts in a third of the more than 160 lawsuits against the administration in which a judge has issued a substantive ruling, a Washington Post analysis has found, suggesting widespread noncompliance with America’s legal system.

Plaintiffs say Justice Department lawyers and the agencies they represent are snubbing rulings, providing false information, failing to turn over evidence, quietly working around court orders and inventing pretexts to carry out actions that have been blocked.

Judges appointed by presidents of both parties have often agreed. None have taken punitive action to try to force compliance, however, allowing the administration’s defiance of orders to go on for weeks or even months in some instances.

Outside legal analysts say courts typically are slow to begin contempt proceedings for noncompliance, especially while their rulings are under appeal. Judges also are likely to be concerned, analysts say, that the U.S. Marshals Service — whose director is appointed by the president — might not serve subpoenas or take recalcitrant government officials into custody if ordered to by the courts.

The allegations against the administration are crystallized in a whistleblower complaint filed to Congress late last month that accused Justice officials of ignoring court orders in immigration cases, presenting legal arguments with no basis in the law and misrepresenting facts. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor also chided the administration, writing that Trump officials had “openly flouted” a judge’s order not to deport migrants to a country where they did not have citizenship.

The Post examined 337 lawsuits filed against the administration since Trump returned to the White House and began a rapid-fire effort to reshape government programs and policy. As of mid-July, courts had ruled against the administration in 165 of the lawsuits. The Post found that the administration is accused of defying or frustrating court oversight in 57 of those cases — almost 35 percent.

Legal experts said the pattern of conduct is unprecedented for any presidential administration and threatens to undermine the judiciary’s role as a check on an executive branch asserting vast powers that test the boundaries of the law and Constitution. Immigration cases have emerged as the biggest flash point, but the administration has also repeatedly been accused of failing to comply in lawsuits involving cuts to federal funding and the workforce.

Trump officials deny defying court orders, even as they accuse those who have issued them of “judicial tyranny.” When the Supreme Court in June restricted the circumstances under which presidential policies could be halted nationwide while they are challenged in court, Trump hailed the ruling as halting a “colossal abuse of power.”

“We’ve seen a handful of radical left judges try to overrule the rightful powers of the president,” Trump said, falsely portraying the judges who have ruled against him as being solely Democrats.

His point was echoed Monday by White House spokesman Harrison Fields, who attacked judges who have ruled against the president as “leftist” and said the president’s attorneys “are working tirelessly to comply” with rulings. “If not for the leadership of the Supreme Court, the Judicial Branch would collapse into a kangaroo court,” Fields said in a statement.

Retired federal judge and former Watergate special prosecutor Paul Michel compared the situation to the summer of 1974, when the Supreme Court ordered President Richard M. Nixon to turn over Oval Office recordings as part of the Watergate investigation. Nixon initially refused, prompting fears of a constitutional crisis, but ultimately complied.

“The current challenge is even bigger and more complicated because it involves hundreds of actions, not one subpoena for a set of tapes,” Michel said. “We’re in new territory.”

Deportations and Defiance

Questions about whether the administration is defying judges have bubbled since early in Trump’s second term, when the Supreme Court said Trump must allow millions in already allocated foreign aid to flow. The questions intensified in several immigration cases, including high-profile showdowns over the wrongful deportation of an undocumented immigrant who came to the United States as a teenager and was raising a family in Maryland.

The Supreme Court ordered the government to “facilitate” Kilmar Abrego García’s return after officials admitted deporting him to a notorious prison in his native El Salvador despite a court order forbidding his removal to that country. Abrego remained there for almost two months, with the administration saying there was little it could do because he was under control of a foreign power.

In June, he was brought back to the United States in federal custody after prosecutors secured a grand jury indictment against him for human smuggling, based in large part on the testimony of a three-time felon who got leniency in exchange for cooperation. And recent filings in the case reveal that El Salvador told the United Nations that the U.S. retained control over prisoners sent there.

“Defendants have failed to respond in good faith, and their refusal to do so can only be viewed as willful and intentional noncompliance.” U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, on the government declining to identify officials involved in Kilmar Abrego García’s deportation.

Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, one of Abrego’s lawyers, said the events prove the administration was “playing games with the court all along.”

Aziz Huq, a University of Chicago law professor, said the case is “the sharpest example of a pattern that’s observed across many of the cases that we’ve seen being filed against the Trump administration, in which orders that come from lower courts are either being slow-walked or not being complied with in good faith.”

In another legal clash, Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg found Trump officials engaged in “willful disregard” of his order to turn around deportation flights to El Salvador in mid-March after he issued a temporary restraining order against removing migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, which in the past had been used only in wartime.

A whistleblower complaint filed by fired Justice Department attorney Erez Reuveni alleges that Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove told staffers before the flights that a judge might try to block them — and that it might be necessary to tell a court “f— you” and ignore the order.

Bove, who has since been nominated by Trump for an appellate judgeship and is awaiting Senate confirmation, denies the allegations.

In May, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, a Trump appointee, opined that the government had “utterly disregarded” her order to facilitate the return of a Venezuelan man who was also wrongfully deported to El Salvador. Like Boasberg, who was appointed by Obama, she is exploring contempt proceedings.

Another federal judge found Trump officials violated his court order by attempting to send deportees to South Sudan without due process. In a fourth case, authorities deported a man shortly after an appeals court ruled he should remain in the U.S. while his immigration case played out. Trump officials said the removal was an error but have yet to return him.

One of the most glaring examples of noncompliance involves a program to provide legal representation to minors who arrived at the border alone, often fearing for their safety after fleeing countries racked by gang violence.

In April, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, a Biden appointee, ordered the Trump administration to fund the program. The government delayed almost four weeks and moved to cancel a contract the judge had ordered restarted. While the money was held up, a 17-year-old was sent back to Honduras before he could meet with a lawyer.

Attorneys told the court that the teen probably could have won a reprieve with a simple legal filing. Alvaro Huerta, an attorney representing the plaintiffs in a suit over the funding cuts, said other minors might have suffered the same fate.

“Had they been complying with the temporary restraining order, this child would have been represented,” Huerta said.

Gaslighting the Court:

Another problematic case involves the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency created after the 2008 financial crisis to police unfair, abusive or deceptive practices by financial institutions.

A judge halted the administration’s plans to fire almost all CFPB employees, ruling the effort was unlawful. An appeals court said workers could be let go only if the bureau performed an “individualized” or “particularized” assessment. Four business days later, the Trump administration reported that it had carried out a “particularized assessment” of more than 1,400 employees — and began an even bigger round of layoffs.

CFPB employees said in court filings that the process was a sham directed by Elon Musk’s U.S. DOGE Service. Employees said counsel for the White House Office of Management and Budget told them to brush off the court’s required particularized assessment and simply meet the layoff quota.

“All that mattered was the numbers,” said one declaration submitted to U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee.

Jackson halted the new firings, accusing the Trump administration of “dressing” its cuts in “new clothes.”

“There is reason to believe that the defendants … are thumbing their nose at both this Court and the Court of Appeals.” U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson on the government’s attempt to carry out firings at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau despite a court order blocking the move.

David Super, a Georgetown law professor, said the government has used the same legal maneuver in a number of cases. “They put out a directive that gets challenged,” Super said. “Then they do the same thing that the directive set out to do but say it’s on some other legal basis.”

He pointed to January, when OMB issued a memo freezing all federal grants and loans. Affected groups won an injunction. The White House quickly announced it was rescinding the memo but keeping the freeze in place.

Justice Department attorneys argued in legal filings that the government’s action rendered the injunction moot, but the judge said it appeared it had been done “simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts.”

“It appears that OMB sought to overcome a judicially imposed obstacle without actually ceasing the challenged conduct. The court can think of few things more disingenuous.” U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan on the Trump administration arguing a court order blocking a freeze on federal grants was moot because it had rescinded a memo.

In another case, a judge blocked the administration from ending federal funds for programs that promote “gender ideology,” or the idea that someone might identify with a gender other than their birth sex, while the effort was challenged in court. The National Institutes of Health nevertheless slashed a grant for a doctor at Seattle Children’s Hospital who was developing a health education tool for transgender youth.

The plaintiffs complained it was a violation of the court order, but the NIH said the grant was being cut under a different authority. Whistleblowers came forward with documents showing that the administration had apparently carried out the cuts under the executive order that was at the center of the court case.

U.S. District Judge Lauren King, a Biden appointee, said the documents “have raised substantial questions” about whether the government violated her preliminary injunction and ordered officials to produce documents. The government eventually reinstated the grant.

In a different case, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, was unsparing in her decision to place a hold on the Trump’s administration’s ban on transgender people serving in the military, saying the order was “soaked in animus.”

Then the government issued a new policy targeting troops who have symptoms of “gender dysphoria,” the term for people who feel a mismatch between their gender identity and birth sex, and asked Reyes to dissolve her order.

Reyes was stunned. Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had made repeated public statements describing the policy as a ban on transgender troops. Hegseth had recently posted on X: “Pentagon says transgender troops are disqualified from service without an exemption.”

“I am not going to abide by government officials saying one thing to the public — what they really mean to the public — and coming in here to the court and telling me something different, like I’m an idiot,” the judge told the government’s lawyer. “The court is not going to be gaslit.”

Courts have traditionally assumed public officials, and the Justice Department in particular, are acting honestly, lawfully and in good faith. Since Trump returned to the White House, however, judges have increasingly questioned whether government lawyers are meeting that standard.

“The pattern of stuff we have … I haven’t seen before,” said Andrew C. McCarthy, a columnist for the conservative National Review and a former federal prosecutor. “The rules of the road are supposed to be you can tell a judge, ‘I can’t answer that for constitutional reasons,’ or you can tell the judge the truth.”

A Struggle for Accountability

While many judges have concluded that the Trump administration has defied court orders, only Boasberg has actively moved toward sanctioning the administration for its conduct. And he did so only after saying he had given the government “ample opportunity” to address its failure to return the deportation flights to El Salvador.

“The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it.” U.S. District Chief Judge James E. Boasberg, when moving to sanction the Trump administration.

The contempt proceedings he began were paused by an appeals court panel without explanation three months ago. The two judges who voted for the administrative stay were Trump appointees.

On Friday, the Trump administration brokered a deal with El Salvador and Venezuela to send the Venezuelan deportees at the heart of Boasberg’s case back to their homeland, further removing them from the reach of U.S. courts.

A contempt finding would allow the judge to impose fines, jail time or additional sanctions on officials to compel compliance.

In three other cases, judges have denied motions to hold Trump officials in contempt, but reiterated that the government must comply with a decision, or ordered the administration to turn over documents to determine whether it had violated a ruling. Judges are considering contempt proceedings in other cases as well.

Most lawsuits against the administration have been filed in federal court districts with a heavy concentration of judges appointed by Democratic presidents. The vast majority of judges who have found the administration defied court orders were appointed by Democrats, but judges selected by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have also found that officials failed to comply with orders. Most notably, at least two Trump picks have raised questions about whether officials have met their obligations to courts.

Legal experts said the slow pace of efforts to enforce court orders is not surprising. The judicial system moves methodically, and judges typically ratchet up efforts to gain compliance in small increments. They said there is also probably another factor at work that makes it especially difficult to hold the administration to account.

“The courts can’t enforce their own rulings — that has to be done by the executive branch,” said Michel, the former judge and Watergate special prosecutor.

He was referring to U.S. Marshals, the executive branch law enforcement personnel who carry out court orders related to contempt proceedings, whether that is serving subpoenas or arresting officials whom a judge has ordered jailed for not complying.

Former judges and other legal experts said judges might be calculating that a confrontation over contempt proceedings could result in the administration ordering marshals to defy the courts. That type of standoff could significantly undermine the authority of judges.

The Supreme Court’s June decision to scale back the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, and the administration’s success at persuading the justices to overturn about a dozen temporary blocks on its agenda in recent months, might only embolden Trump officials to defy lower courts, several legal experts said.

Sotomayor echoed that concern in a recent dissent when she accused the high court of “rewarding lawlessness” by allowing Trump officials to deport migrants to countries that are not their homelands. The conservative majority gave the green light, she noted, after Trump officials twice carried out deportations despite lower court orders blocking the moves.

“This is not the first time the court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last,” Sotomayor wrote. “Yet each time this court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law.”

Two months after a federal court temporarily blocked Trump’s freeze on billions in congressionally approved foreign aid, an attorney for relief organizations said the government had taken “literally zero steps to allocate this money.”

Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, has ordered the administration to explain what it is doing to comply with the order. Trump officials have said they will eventually release the funds, but aid groups worry the administration is simply trying to delay until the allocations expire in the fall.

Meanwhile, about 66,000 tons of food aid is in danger of rotting in warehouses, AIDS cases are forecast to spike in Africa and the government projected the cuts would result in 200,000 more cases of paralysis caused by polio each year. Already, children are dying unnecessarily in Sudan.

Such situations have prompted some former judges to do something most generally do not — speak out. More than two dozen retired judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents have formed the Article III Coalition to push back on attacks and misinformation about the courts.

Robert J. Cindrich, who helped found the group, said the country is not yet in a constitutional crisis but that the strain on the courts is immense. Citing the administration’s response to orders, as well as its attacks on judges and law firms, Cindrich said, “The judiciary is being put under siege.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/21/trump-court-orders-defy-noncompliance-marshals-judges

Human Rights Watch: “You Feel Like Your Life is Over”

Abusive Practices at Three Florida Immigration Detention Centers Since January 2025

Among the flurry of immigration-related executive orders marking the second presidential administration of Donald Trump is Executive Order 14159, establishing the policy of detaining individuals apprehended on suspicion of violating immigration laws for the duration of their removal proceedings “to the extent permitted by law.” President Trump’s call for mass deportations was matched by a surge in immigration detention nationally. In line with this policy, Trump issued dozens of other immigration-related executive orders and executive actions and signed into law the Laken Riley Act as part of a broader rollback of immigrants’ rights in the United States.

Within a month of the inauguration, the number of people detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) began increasing. Throughout 2024, an average of 37,500 people were detained in immigration detention in the US per day.[1] As of June 20, 2025, on any given day, over 56,000 people were in detention across the country, 40 percent more than in June 2024, and the highest detention population in the history of US immigration detention. As of June 15, immigration detention numbers were at an average of 56,400 per day, and nearly 72 percent of individuals detained had no criminal history.

Between January and June 2025, thousands were held in immigration detention at the Krome North Service Processing Center (Krome), the Broward Transitional Center (BTC), and the Federal Detention Center (FDC), in Florida, under conditions that flagrantly violate international human rights standards and the United States government’s own immigration detention standards. By March, the number of people in immigration detention at Krome had increased 249 percent from the levels before the January inauguration. At times in March, the facility detained more than three times its operational capacity of inmates. As of June 20, 2025, the number of people in immigration detention at the three facilities was at 111 percent from the levels before the inauguration.

The change was qualitative as well as quantitative. Detainees in three Florida facilities told Human Rights Watch that ICE detention officers and private contractor guards treated them in a degrading and dehumanizing manner. Some were detained shackled for prolonged periods on buses without food, water, or functioning toilets; there was extreme overcrowding in freezing holding cells where detainees were forced to sleep on cold concrete floors under constant fluorescent lighting; and many were denied access to basic hygiene and medical care.

Five years ago, in April 2020, Human Rights Watch, together with the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Justice Center, reported on conditions in immigration detention under the first Trump administration. Human Rights Watch, along with other governmental and nongovernmental expert and oversight bodies, have carried out numerous investigations of immigration detention conditions in the United States. This report reveals that while the second Trump administration is using similar abusive practices, their impacts are exacerbated due to severe overcrowding caused by new state and local policies, including in Florida, where this report is focused. While these latest findings in Florida inform some of the policy recommendations in this report, the recommendations are also grounded in these years of investigations and findings.

This report finds that staff at the three detention facilities researchers examined subjected detained individuals to dangerously substandard medical care, overcrowding, abusive treatment, and restrictions on access to legal and psychosocial support. Officers denied detainees critical medication and detained some incommunicado in solitary confinement as an apparent punishment for seeking mental health care. Facility officers returned some detainees to detention directly from hospital stays with no follow-up treatment. They detained others in solitary confinement or transferred them without notice, disrupting legal representation. They forced them to sleep on cold concrete floors without bedding and gave them food which was sometimes substandard, and in many instances ignored their medical requirements. Some officers treated detainees in dehumanizing ways.

These findings match those of an April 2025 submission by Americans for Immigrant Justice (AIJ) to the United Nations Human Rights Council, which documented severe and systemic human rights violations at Krome. Combined with years of investigations by Human Rights Watch and other independent experts and groups in the US, they paint a picture of an immigration detention system that degrades, intimidates, and punishes immigrants.

The report is based on interviews with eleven currently and recently detained individuals, some of which took place at Krome and BTC; family members of seven detainees; and 14 immigration lawyers, as well as data analysis. Two of the facilities, Krome and BTC, are operated by private contractors under ICE oversight. On May 20, 2025 and again on June 11, 2025, Human Rights Watch sent letters to the heads of all three prison facilities, the acting director of ICE, the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the heads of the two companies managing Krome and BTC, with a summary of our findings and questions. At the time of publication, Human Rights Watch had only received one response from Akima Global Services, LLC (Akima), the company that runs Krome, stating “we cannot comment publicly on the specifics of our engagement.”

One woman described arriving at Krome–a facility that typically only holds men–late at night on January 28. Officers then confined her for days with dozens of other women without bedding or privacy, in a cell normally used only during incarceration intake procedures. “There was only one toilet, and it was covered in feces,” she said. “We begged the officers to let us clean it, but they just said sarcastically, ‘Housekeeping will come soon.’ No one ever came.”

A man recalled the frigid conditions in the intake cell where he was detained: “They turned up the air conditioning… You could not fall asleep because it was so cold. I thought I was going to experience hypothermia.”

This report documents serious violations of medical standards. Detention facility staff routinely denied individuals with diabetes, asthma, kidney conditions, and chronic pain their prescribed medications and access to doctors. In one case at Krome, a woman with gallstones began vomiting and lost consciousness after being denied care for several days. Officers returned her to the same cell after emergency surgery to remove her gallbladder—still without medication.

It is concerning that women were held for intake processing that could take days or even weeks at a facility primarily and historically used to detain men. Officers at Krome used the facility’s role as a men’s detention center to justify denying women held there access to medical care and appropriate sanitation conditions.

Authorities transferred a man with chronic illnesses from FDC to BTC without the prescription medication he needed daily, despite his having repeatedly reminded staff of his medical record. After he collapsed and was hospitalized, his family discovered he had been registered at the hospital under a false name. He was returned to detention in shackles.

This substandard medical care may have been linked to two deaths, one at Krome and one at BTC.

Staff were dismissive or abusive even when detainees were undergoing a visibly obvious medical crisis. For example, staff ignored a detained immigrant who began coughing blood in a crowded holding cell for hours. In that case, unrest ensued, and a Disturbance Control Team stormed the cell, forcing the men in it to lie face down on the wet, dirty floor while officers zip-tied their hands behind their backs. A detainee said he heard an officer order the cell’s CCTV camera feed to be turned off. Another detainee said a team member slapped him while shouting, “Shut the f*ck up.”

During another incident, officers made men eat while shackled with their hands behind their backs after forcing the group to wait hours for lunch: “We had to bend over and eat off the chairs with our mouths, like dogs,” one man said.

Women and men alike reported that seeking help—especially mental health support—could lead to punishment and retaliation. At BTC, authorities put detainees who complained of emotional distress in solitary confinement for weeks, creating a chilling effect. One woman said: “If you ask for help, they isolate you. If you cry, they might take you away for two weeks. So, people stay silent.”

With the exclusion of trips to a prison library at Krome, and painting sessions at BTC, authorities provided no educational or vocational activities whatsoever.

Lockdowns—during which staff denied detained people access to medical staff and basic recreation—were sometimes imposed only because the facility was short-staffed. Staff denied individuals access to medical staff and the ability to go outdoors at all, sometimes for days at a time. Detention center lockdowns, transfers without notice, and limited phone privileges have disrupted people’s ability to communicate with their families and their lawyers, hindering their ability to prepare their cases and exacerbating ongoing mental health concerns.

The treatment of detainees by staff at the three detention facilities appears to be in clear violation of ICE’s own standards, including the 2011 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) governing Krome and BTC, and the 2019 National Detention Standards (NDS) governing the detention of immigrants at FDC. Conditions in the centers also violated US obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and key standards articulated under the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Mandela Rules).

The Trump administration’s one-track immigration policy, singularly focused on mass deportations will continue to send more people into immigration detention facilities that do not have the capacity to hold them and will only worsen the conditions described in this report.

There is a growing number of agreements—223—between Florida’s local law enforcement and ICE related to detention and/or deportation of immigrants that come to the attention of, or are in custody of local law enforcement, but are non-citizens. These are known as 287(g) agreements, authorized by Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). These agreements, combined with Florida’s state-level policies regarding immigration enforcement, and the broad application of federal mandatory detention policies, have led to a dramatic increase in arrests and detentions. Florida has, by large measure, the highest proportion of law enforcement agencies enrolled in the program of any state. Over 76 percent of Florida’s agencies have signed an agreement. In the next ranked state, Wyoming, only 11 percent of agencies have signed up.[2]

Under a January 2025 national law, the Laken Riley Act, an immigrant charged with any one of a broad range of criminal offenses, including theft and shoplifting, is subject to mandatory detention by ICE.

Other actions taken since January 2025 at the national level include designating some immigrants as “enemy aliens” and deporting them to incommunicado detention and abusive conditions in El Salvador; removing migrants and asylum seekers to countries like Panama and Costa Rica, of which they are not nationals, while denying them any opportunity to claim asylum; targeting birthright citizenship; expanding the use of rapid-fire “expedited removal” procedures (allowing the entry of removal orders without procedural guarantees such as the right to counsel, to appear before a judge, to present evidence, or to appeal); terminating parole and temporary protected status for people from various countries with widespread human rights violations, such as Venezuela, Haiti, and Afghanistan; and ending refugee admissions entirely except for South Africans of Afrikaner ethnicity or other racial minorities, under a policy “justified” by fear of future persecution.

Layered on top of all of this is the Trump administration’s decision to rescind the “sensitive locations” memo that previously protected immigrants from enforcement actions when at schools, medical clinics, churches and courts, putting even more people at risk of detention.

One person interviewed for this report was detained after attending a scheduled appointment with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and another was detained while at an appointment with ICE. An activist who provides support to immigrants outside the ICE office in Miramar, Florida every Wednesday said people are increasingly skipping their appointments out of fear they will be arrested on the spot. “I’ve seen cars gathering dust in the parking lot,” she said, “because people went inside for an appointment and never came out.”

The result of all of these federal and state developments is an increasing climate of fear in which immigrants—many with no criminal conviction—avoid police, immigration appointments, and even hospitals, places of worship, and schools for fear of being detained and deported. Avoiding these institutions and services has a profound effect on daily life and potentially on the prospects of that individual and their family members for the future. Putting people in a position that they are too fearful to seek needed medical care and practice their religion is a violation of basic human rights.

A man from Colombia, detained while he was at someone else’s home and detained for 63 days but never accused of any crime, said:

We want to be in the United States. It seems like a great country to us. It seems like a country of many opportunities but from the bottom of my heart, I tell you that all of this has been poorly handled through a campaign of hate… You see it inside immigration detention—the guards treat you like garbage. Even if they speak Spanish, they pretend not to understand. It’s like psychological abuse… you feel like your life is over.

To address the abuses documented in this report, Human Rights Watch calls on the United States government to end the use of 287(g) agreements that entwine local law enforcement and immigration enforcement and in doing so erode community trust and public safety.

ICE, its contractors, and local governments should use immigration detention only as a last resort and increase rights-respecting case management programs, such as alternatives to detention. ICE and its contractors should also end the use of solitary confinement and ensure timely medical and mental health care. To ensure that conditions for detained immigrants comply with the United States’ own standards, staff in detention facilities should be trained in human rights and trauma-informed care. Facilities should adopt policies that guarantee access to legal counsel, and that prioritize safety, dignity, and due process for all individuals in custody. Detention facilities should also meet international and national standards, and independent oversight is urgently needed to investigate abuses and enforce accountability.

https://www.hrw.org/report/2025/07/21/you-feel-like-your-life-is-over/abusive-practices-at-three-florida-immigration

Kansas City Star: ‘Not on Our Watch’: ICE Announces Major Arrests

ICE has reportedly arrested a suspected MS-13 gang member in Omaha, Nebraska, who is wanted for multiple murders in El Salvador. In addition, another suspected gang member was detained for ordering serious crimes such as murder and drug trafficking. ICE arrests are expected to further surge following a funding boost from $2 billion to $45 billion annually.

Wow! Pugsley Homan caught whole two real criminals. I’m impressed. Not!

[Todd] Lyons stated, “Our ICE officers and agents are protecting your neighborhoods, even when you don’t know the threat is there, so either support them, or get out of the way.”

Like hell you are. Your masked Gestapo thugs are terrorizing our neighborhoods, not protecting them.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/not-on-our-watch-ice-announces-major-arrests/ss-AA1ITaQn

Newsweek: Economic Warning as More Than Half-Million People Could Leave US This Year

The U.S. could see hundreds of thousands leave the country this year thanks to President Donald Trump‘s immigration agenda, but experts believe his aggressive campaign of deportations and entry limitations could shrink the foreign-born labor force to the detriment of the economy.

In a paper recently published by the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute (AEI), researchers estimated that U.S. net migration could end up between a negative 525,000 and 115,000 this year, which they said reflects “a dramatic decrease in inflows and somewhat higher outflows.” This compares to nearly 1.3 million in 2024, according to Macrotrends, and 330,000 in 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic brought global travel to an abrupt standstill.

If their lower-end forecasts prove correct, it would represent the first time the U.S. has seen negative net migration in decades.

Given much of the American labor force consists of foreign-born workers—19.2 percent, per the Department of Labor—and immigrants also make up a significant share of the spending market, such a decline could put downward pressure on the labor force and consumer spending and reduce GDP this year by up to 0.4 percent.

This echoes the findings of another paper, published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas last week that estimates the decline in immigration could mean a 0.75 percent to 1.0 percent hit to GDP growth this year.

“The drop in migrant inflows, and the drop in the foreign-born population more broadly, will have adverse effects on growth in the U.S. labor force, which will spill over into almost every sector of the economy,” Madeline Zavodny, one of the authors of Dallas Fed paper, told Newsweek.

This is exacerbated by the country’s low birth rate—already a source of economic unease—which is leading to a shrinking share of the population in the “working-age” bracket.

“The U.S. population is aging,” Zavodny said, “and we rely on new immigrants to help fuel growth in the labor force and key sectors, from agriculture to construction to health care.”

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson, in response to some of these fears, told Newsweek: “President Trump’s agenda to deport criminal illegal aliens will improve Americans’ quality of life across the board. American resources, funded by American taxpayers, will no longer be stretched thin and abused by illegals.”

“President Trump is ushering in America’s golden age and growing our economy with American workers,” she added.

Bullshit!!!

Giovanni Peri, a labor economist and professor at the University of California, Davis, said that the jobs impact of a sustained decline in net inflows will be felt the strongest in lower-skilled areas such as construction, agriculture, hospitality and personal services, and roles where American-born workers are unlikely to offset declining migrant inflows. As a consequence, he told Newsweek, prices in these sectors will likely increase.

Stan Veuger, senior fellow in economic policy studies at AEI and one of the authors of the working paper, similarly said that the agriculture, leisure and construction sectors will be hit hardest by the drop in labor supply. He added that, on the demand side, a drop in foreign-born workers will impact real estate, as well as the retail and utilities sectors, the most.

“Large firms may be able to attract some more workers to replace them, usually paying higher wages,” Peri said, “while smaller firms will be more at risk of staying in business as they have smaller productivity and margins.”

Zavodny also said that small businesses will suffer the most—given these traditionally struggle to access temporary worker programs such as H-2A and H-2B visas—but that large employers will be affected too, and that “everyone will lose part of their customer base.”

The American Immigration Council estimates that the country’s foreign-born population possesses about $1.7 trillion in spending power—of which $299 billion comes from undocumented immigrants—and paid $167 billion in rent in 2023.

As outlined in AEI’s paper, lower spending will reduce business revenues, prompting layoffs and putting another form of pressure on the labor market besides the declining workforce.

Despite the potential economic fallout, Trump shows no signs of relenting on his campaign promises regarding immigration, with deportations in full swing and the president having recently signed the GOP reconciliation bill that frees up about $150 billion to help enforce that part of his agenda.

“I would hope so, though I am not optimistic,” said AEI’s Stan Veuger, when asked whether the impact on economic growth could prompt a reconsideration of the administration’s stance.

“I think the people driving immigration policy in the White House do not care about the economic [or humanitarian] impact of their immigration policies.”

Giovanni Peri, a labor economist and professor at the University of California, Davis, said that the jobs impact of a sustained decline in net inflows will be felt the strongest in lower-skilled areas such as construction, agriculture, hospitality and personal services, and roles where American-born workers are unlikely to offset declining migrant inflows. As a consequence, he told Newsweek, prices in these sectors will likely increase.

Stan Veuger, senior fellow in economic policy studies at AEI and one of the authors of the working paper, similarly said that the agriculture, leisure and construction sectors will be hit hardest by the drop in labor supply. He added that, on the demand side, a drop in foreign-born workers will impact real estate, as well as the retail and utilities sectors, the most.

“Large firms may be able to attract some more workers to replace them, usually paying higher wages,” Peri said, “while smaller firms will be more at risk of staying in business as they have smaller productivity and margins.”

Zavodny also said that small businesses will suffer the most—given these traditionally struggle to access temporary worker programs such as H-2A and H-2B visas—but that large employers will be affected too, and that “everyone will lose part of their customer base.”

The American Immigration Council estimates that the country’s foreign-born population possesses about $1.7 trillion in spending power—of which $299 billion comes from undocumented immigrants—and paid $167 billion in rent in 2023.

As outlined in AEI’s paper, lower spending will reduce business revenues, prompting layoffs and putting another form of pressure on the labor market besides the declining workforce.

Despite the potential economic fallout, Trump shows no signs of relenting on his campaign promises regarding immigration, with deportations in full swing and the president having recently signed the GOP reconciliation bill that frees up about $150 billion to help enforce that part of his agenda.

“I would hope so, though I am not optimistic,” said AEI’s Stan Veuger, when asked whether the impact on economic growth could prompt a reconsideration of the administration’s stance.

“I think the people driving immigration policy in the White House do not care about the economic [or humanitarian] impact of their immigration policies.”

https://www.newsweek.com/economic-warning-half-million-leave-us-2100225

Salon: Stephen Miller can’t make America white. LA is paying for his impotent rage

Mass deportations were never going to work, so Trump and Miller resort to authoritarian theater

Donald Trump loves authoritarian theater, but let’s not forget that Stephen Miller is also to blame for the violence and chaos in Los Angeles. Last week, the right-wing Washington Examiner reported that Trump’s deputy chief of staff called a meeting with the top officials at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to “eviscerate” them for falling far short of the ridiculous goal he set of 3,000 deportations a day. In their desperation to keep Miller happy, ICE has already been targeting legal immigrants for deportation, mostly because they’re easy to find, due to having registered with the government. ICE agents stake out immigration hearings for people with refugee status and round up people here with work or student visas for minor offenses like speeding tickets, all to get the numbers up. But these actions were not enough for Miller.

“Why aren’t you at Home Depot? Why aren’t you at 7-Eleven?” he reportedly screamed at ICE officials. One ICE leader protested that the agency’s lead, Tom Homan, said they’re supposed to be going after criminals, not people who are just working everyday jobs. Miller reportedly hit the ceiling, furious that arrests aren’t widespread and indiscriminate. Trump has repeatedly implied he was only targeting criminals, but as Charles Davis reported at Salon, that conflicts with his promise of “mass deportations.” Undocumented immigrants commit crimes at far lower rates than native-born Americans. The expansive efforts to find and arrest immigrants in California, which kicked off the protests, appear to be a direct reaction to Miller’s orders to grab as many people as possible, regardless of innocence. 

But Miller doesn’t seem to care about crime. Or, perhaps he thinks having darker skin should be a crime. For Miller, the goal of “mass deportations” has never been about law and order, but about the fantasy of a white America. His desire to deport his way to racial homogeneity has always been not only deeply immoral, but pretty much impossible. His impotence shouldn’t breed complacency, however. As the violence in Los Angeles shows, petty rage can lead to all manner of evils. 

The term “white nationalist” is often used interchangeably with “white supremacist,” but it has a specific meaning. White supremacists think the government should enshrine white people as a privileged class over all others. White nationalists, however, want America to be mostly, if not entirely, white — a goal that cannot be accomplished without mass violence. That Miller appears to lean more into the white nationalist camp is well known. In 2019, the Southern Poverty Law Center reviewed a pile of leaked emails Miller had sent to media allies that illustrated his obsession with white-ifying America. He repeatedly denounced legal immigration of non-white people and endorsed the idea that racial diversity is a threat to white people. He longed for a return to pre-1965 laws that banned most non-white immigrants from moving to America.

“Trump’s mass deportation project is actually a demographic engineering project,” Adam Serwer of the Atlantic explained on a recent Bulwark podcast, pointing to the administration’s expulsion of legal refugees of color while making exceptions to the “no refugee” policy for white South Africans. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau defended the exception by claiming that “they can be assimilated easily into our country.”

But it’s clear this language is code for “white.” By any good-faith definition of the word, thousands of non-white people targeted for deportation have also assimilated. They have jobs. They get married. They have kids. They are part of their communities. 

Sure enough, a sea of MAGA influencers have responded to the Los Angeles protests like parrots trained quite suddenly to say “ban third world immigration.” 

Charlie Kirk from Turning Point USA followed up by praising Steve Sailer, a white supremacist who peddles debunked “race science” falsely claiming skin color and ethnicity controls IQ. The Groypers, a Hitler-praising group that doesn’t even pretend not to be racist, was ecstatic to see MAGA leaders edge closer to openly admitting to being white nationalists. 

Miller’s whites-only dreams aren’t going to happen, though it’s unclear if he’s delusional enough to think otherwise. White non-Hispanic Americans are 58% of the population, according to the Census. That means nearly 143 million Americans — most of whom are citizens— fall outside the strict parameters of what white nationalists like Miller would see as “white people.” Even if the Trump administration met its unlikely goal of deporting 11 million people, this would still be a racially diverse country by any measure. And it’s becoming more diverse: the non-white population is younger and having more children. 

If it feels gross to treat human beings like a math problem, that’s because it is. But that’s what we’re dealing with: an administration, led by a would-be strongman and his little deputy, that can’t engineer American demographics, no matter how hard they might try. MAGA Republicans flip out when liberals correctly point out that diversity is America’s strength. But what really makes them crazy is knowing, deep down, that diversity is America’s inevitability. 

This impotent rage factor is important for understanding what’s happening in Los Angeles. Trump and Miller can’t achieve their whites-only dreams, so they’re lashing out violently at communities, like in southern California, that remind them of their powerlessness in this department. 

Make no mistake: the Trump administration is the instigator here, and not just because they sent ICE in to start nabbing people willy-nilly. As Judd Legum of Popular Information carefully detailed on Monday, the violence began because Trump called the National Guard. Before that, the protests had been relatively small and contained. The Los Angeles Police Department released a statement commending the protesters for their cooperation and peacefulness, which led to a demonstration “without incident.” 

Trump started the chaos by sending in the National Guard. He wants violent visuals for right-wing media to run on a constant loop to serve his authoritarian agenda. When the protesters in Los Angeles didn’t give Trump the imagery he wanted, he deliberately escalated and lied about the reasons. Now he is celebrating his victory because of the violence he unleashed. He’s not subtle, and it’s a failure of the media every time they report on the “violence” without noting that Trump was the instigator.  

Small, weak men can cause a lot of damage. No one should be complacent about either the violence in Los Angeles or the thousands of lives being destroyed by these deportation schemes. But it’s also important to not be cowed by Trump and Miller’s theater, which they put on in no small part to conceal the myriad ways they will never be as all-powerful as they promised their supporters they would be. Understanding this can help people find the courage needed to fight back, because the best shot that MAGA has at winning is if their opponents give up the struggle. Already the administration’s overreach is creating a backlash: 

https://www.salon.com/2025/06/11/stephen-miller-cant-make-america-white-la-is-paying-for-his-impotent-rage

Reuters: ICE may deport migrants to countries other than their own with just six hours notice, memo says

U.S. immigration officials may deport migrants to countries other than their home nations with as little as six hours’ notice, a top Trump administration official said in a memo, offering a preview of how deportations could ramp up.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will generally wait at least 24 hours to deport someone after informing them of their removal to a so-called “third country,” according to a memo dated Wednesday, July 9, from the agency’s acting director, Todd Lyons.

ICE could remove them, however, to a so-called “third country” with as little as six hours’ notice “in exigent circumstances,” said the memo, as long as the person has been provided the chance to speak with an attorney.

The memo states that migrants could be sent to nations that have pledged not to persecute or torture them “without the need for further procedures.”

The new ICE policy suggests President Donald Trump’s administration could move quickly to send migrants to countries around the world.

The Supreme Court in June lifted a lower court’s order limiting such deportations without a screening for fear of persecution in the destination country.

Following the high court’s ruling and a subsequent order from the justices, the Trump administration sent eight migrants from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Sudan and Vietnam to South Sudan.

The administration last week pressed officials from five African nations – Liberia, Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania and Gabon – to accept deportees from elsewhere, Reuters reported.

The Washington Post first reported the new ICE memo.

The administration argues the third country deportations help swiftly remove migrants who should not be in the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

Advocates have criticized the deportations as dangerous and cruel, since people could be sent to countries where they could face violence, have no ties and do not speak the language.

Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for a group of migrants pursuing a class action lawsuit against such rapid third-county deportations at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said the policy “falls far short of providing the statutory and due process protections that the law requires.”

Third-country deportations have been done in the past, but the tool could be more frequently used as Trump tries to ramp up deportations to record levels.

During Trump’s 2017-2021 presidency, his administration deported small numbers of people from El Salvador and Honduras to Guatemala.

Former President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration struck a deal with Mexico to take thousands of migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, since it was difficult to deport migrants to those nations.

The new ICE memo was filed as evidence in a lawsuit over the wrongful deportation of Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ice-may-deport-migrants-countries-other-than-their-own-with-just-six-hours-2025-07-13

El Pais: Support for immigration reaches historic high in US despite Trump crusade

Gallup poll shows 79% of Americans favor immigrants, a significant increase from a year earlier and a high point in a nearly 25-year trend

About 8-in-10 Americans, 79%, say immigration is “a good thing” for the country today, up sharply from 64% a year ago and a high point in a nearly 25-year trend. In contrast, only two in 10 U.S. adults say immigration is a bad thing, down from 32% last year.

https://english.elpais.com/usa/2025-07-13/support-for-immigration-reaches-historic-high-in-us-despite-trump-crusade.html

Mediaite: ‘Bring It!’ Trump Border Czar Tom Homan Unleashes on Heckler at TPUSA Event: ‘You’re Such a Badass, Meet Me Off Stage!’

Great job on the part of a protestor who “owned” Tom “Pugsley” Homan by getting in his face with a fake picture portraying him as a MS-13 member, faked in the same manner that his corrupt subordinates and White House cronies had tried to frame Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

Well done, guy!!!!

Trump border czar Tom Homan ripped into a heckler on Saturday during remarks to the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit, saying the man doesn’t have “the balls” to serve his country among other things, in a video that went viral on social media.

Homan spoke at TPUSA’s event on Saturday about the immigration and enforcement policies of President Donald Trump and the administration, praising the courage of ICE agents in enforcing immigration laws, deriding criticism from Democrats, and expressing anger over repeated acts of violence against law enforcement carrying out the administration’s massive round-ups and deportations.

As he was speaking to the crowd, a voice shouted out asking Homan if he belongs to the ultra-violent drug gang MS-13.

The man who was shouting was holding a poster-sized manipulated image depicting Homan with an MS-13 tattoo on his knuckles, a clear reference to the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

The heckler was dressed in MAGA gear, apparently using the MAGA gear as cover to get past security and into a position where he could make his protest.

Homan responded forcefully, to the delight of the crowd, and a clip of the moment went viral from several different accounts on X.

“Are you an MS-13 member? It says so–” the heckler shouted, getting drowned out by the crowd before the rest of the reference to the image he was holding could be heard.

“That’s okay! That’s okay!” Homan said. “I’ve got a question for you. Why don’t you come up here and hand me that picture? Bring it! Bring it! U-S-A! U-S-A!”

The crowd joined in on the chanting, and after a few seconds Homan continued.

“This guy wouldn’t know what it’s like to serve this nation. This guy ain’t got the balls to be an ICE Officer. He hasn’t got the balls to be a Border Patrol Agent,” Homan said as the crowd continued to cheer. “This guy lives in his mother’s basement – the only thing that surprises me, you don’t have purple hair and a nose ring. Get out of here, you loser!”

After another pause as the man was being escorted out by security, Homan added: “And you’re such a badass, meet me off stage in 13 minutes and 50 seconds. I guarantee you, he sits down to pee. Guaranteed.”

Homan remarked on sanctuary cities, saying they’ve told him he’s not welcome there but he goes anyway. He then addressed the heckler again.

“Assholes like this guy think they’re going to vilify men and women of ICE, that they’re gonna intimidate or scare us,” he said. “I’m not going anywheres, either is the men and woman of ICE. We’re gonna do the job that President Trump gave us to do.”

Did clueless Pugsley Homan have any idea how badly he was “owned” in that exchange?

LA Times: Abcarian: Do you believe that deported farmworkers will be replaced by Medicaid recipients?

You know, it’s not just the large language models of AI that are hallucinating.

The Trump administration is promoting the idea that if it deports all the undocumented farmworkers who plant and pick our crops, the labor gaps will be filled by able-bodied adults currently sitting around the house playing video games and mooching off taxpayers for their publicly funded healthcare.

This is absurdity masquerading as arithmetic.

The other day, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced that, contrary to Trump’s own recent statements, the administration is not planning to back off mass deportations of agricultural workers.

“The mass deportations continue, but in a strategic way, and we move the workforce towards automation and 100 percent American participation,” she said during an event at U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters. “With 34 million people, able-bodied adults on Medicaid, we should be able to do that fairly quickly.”

That figure is grossly misleading, and a thinly veiled effort to vilify Medicaid — Medi-Cal in California — recipients as idle, which, overwhelmingly, they are not. The number of able-bodied Americans on Medicaid who might be able to pick our lettuce and apricots or who might be able to harvest our watermelons and strawberries is closer to 5 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

But whether the number is 34 million or 5 million, it’s a fantasy to believe that Americans will do the jobs currently filled by migrant farmworkers.

“Not gonna happen,” said Manuel Cunha, head of the Nisei Farmers League, a grower support organization founded 54 years ago in response to the United Farm Workers labor movement.

In the 1990s, Cunha was involved in a disastrous attempt to get adults off welfare and into the California farming workforce. Growers coordinated with the state’s Employment Development Department, arrangements were made for child care and transportation. And yet, as Cunha told the U.S. Senate’s immigration subcommittee in 1999, only three people showed up to work in the fields. “There was no interest on the part of welfare individuals to work in agriculture.”

And there is no reason to think that would be any different today.

Farm work requires skill and physical tenacity that comes from years of experience. You don’t just plop someone into a peach orchard and tell them to go prune a tree. Or let them loose on a strawberry field and expect them to come back the next day. In 2013, my colleague Hector Becerra decided to experience farm labor for himself, and arranged to spend a day picking strawberries in Santa Maria.

The experience sounded, frankly, hellish. He worked alongside three dozen Mexican migrants “bent at an almost 90-degree angle, using two hands to pack strawberries into plastic containers that they pushed along on ungainly one-wheeled carts.”

He could not keep up with the other pickers, and by lunchtime, Hector wrote, he was sore and exhausted. He lasted little more than seven hours, and then “surrendered.”

Many of California’s thousands of migrant farmworkers have been here for decades. They cannot easily be replaced. “They are skilled laborers and their families are part of our small rural communities,” Cunha told me. “My farmers deserve a workforce that can do the job. Provide them with a work authorization card.”

It was only a few years ago, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Cunha recalled, that the country heaped praise on farmworkers. “Everybody said they were the most essential front-line workers. Every worker put their life on the line to feed the world, and today we can’t give them a little piece of paper to be here legally?”

Rollins’ claim that growers are moving “toward automation” is as preposterous as assuming native-born Americans will take to the fields.

“As far as automation,” a San Joaquin Valley grower told me, “there is no automation.” He did not want me to use his name because he’s afraid of calling attention to his fields, where workers are currently harvesting.

“If I could replace those 20 people with machines,” he said, “I would.”

But melons, strawberries and tree fruit are delicate. (“If you look at an apricot the wrong way, it will turn brown,” Cunha joked.)

Farmers can use machines to harvest produce like tomatoes that are destined for a cannery, for example. But when it comes to fresh fruit and vegetables, the grower told me, “The American consumer wants perfect fruit and there is no machine that can harvest like human hands can.”

We are at this pathetic moment because President Trump’s brand of authoritarianism is incompatible with good faith efforts to find a workable solution to our dysfunctional immigration system.

When it comes to agriculture, hospitality and construction, we need immigrant workers, most of whom are from Mexico. Our economy cannot function without them. In my view, the raids happening at California farms and Home Depot parking lots are a form of state-sponsored terrorism, aimed at instilling fear and panic in hard-working communities. They have no bearing on Trump’s campaign promise to deport violent criminals.

In May, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers, including Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San José), offered a new version of the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, a comprehensive immigration and labor bill that would offer a path to legalization for some farmworkers, reform and expand the current H-2A guest worker program, allocate funds to improve farmworker housing and require employers to use E-verify for all workers. Similar bills were passed by the House in 2019 and 2021 but died in the Senate at the hands of hard-line immigration critics. This time, Lofgren has said that the Senate will have to take it up first, as her fellow Californian, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Elk Grove), who chairs the House’s Immigration Subcommittee, does not support it. Don’t hold your breath.

In Trump’s world, there is no appetite for real immigration solutions. As many have noted, the president and his supporters are reveling in the violent theater of it all — the images of masked, armed men terrorizing people in the streets and fields. They see no downside to the cruelty.

Maybe they will reconsider when crops rot in the fields, hotel rooms stay dirty and construction sites are stilled. One day, the bill for this folly will come due.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2025-07-13/deportation-farmworkers-medicaid-brooke-rollins