Catalina “Xóchitl” Santiago, a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipient and longtime immigration activist, was detained by Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents on Sunday at El Paso International Airport as she prepared to board a domestic flight.
Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told Newsweek via email on Wednesday that CBP arrested Santiago, a migrant from Mexico, because of a criminal history that included charges for trespassing and possession of narcotics and drug paraphernalia.
“Illegal aliens who claim to be recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) are not automatically protected from deportations,” McLaughlin said. “DACA does not confer any form of legal status in this country. Any illegal alien who is a DACA recipient may be subject to arrest and deportation for a number of reasons, including if they’ve committed a crime.”
Santiago will remain in ICE custody pending removal proceedings.
Why It Matters
Santiago’s detention has sparked concern among advocates as it highlights the fragility of legal protections for DACA recipients, often known as “Dreamers.” DACA provides work authorization and temporary protection from deportation, but it does not confer legal status.
Recent detentions of DACA recipients—including Santiago’s—raise pressing questions about the program’s limits, particularly under intensified immigration enforcement. The incident comes amid continued debate over the fate of DACA and its beneficiaries, as legal and policy battles play out across the U.S.
President Donald Trump has ordered his administration to remove millions of migrants without legal status to fulfill his campaign pledge of mass deportations, with White House officials like White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller previously referencing a daily goal of at least 3,000 arrests. The claimed quota has been met with legal action.
What To Know
Santiago, a member of the Movimiento Cosecha advocacy group, had reportedly presented a valid DACA work authorization card when taken into custody.
Around 4 a.m. local time on Sunday, she was approached and detained by two agents as she was about to board her flight. Despite presenting her DACA work authorization card, agents took her into custody and transferred her to a federal immigration processing facility in El Paso, according to Border Report.
An ICE official told Newsweek via email that this was not Santiago’s first brush with immigration officials, saying she first entered illegally in May 2005 near the Paso Del Norte Port of Entry in El Paso. On August 31, 2020, she was charged with two drug offenses that remain pending.
Santiago has DACA status, which is set to expire April 29, 2026.
“It’s important to note that DHS officials can take enforcement actions against illegal aliens with criminal records,” the official said. “ICE officials served Santiago with a notice to appear before a Department of Justice immigration judge.”
Her supporters, including Movimiento Cosecha, have mobilized a response through social media and organized a GoFundMe campaign that, as of Wednesday morning, had raised more than $56,700 for Santiago’s legal defense of a goal of $70,000. She has received more than 1,200 donations.
Activists dispute the grounds for her detention, arguing that she has legal protection under DACA and is an integral part of her community after more than a decade of activism. They said Santiago had made “such a profound and powerful impact on so many loved friends and community members from Florida to Texas and beyond,” notably aiding the immigrant community and families in El Paso.
“Now, we need to show up for her,” the GoFundMe page said. “Immigrant communities have been targeted for decades, and the Trump administration is taking these fascist tactics to unprecedented levels. This unexpected and cruel detainment will likely result in high legal fees alongside immeasurable emotional impact on her and her family.
“We are asking for support for her legal funds and post-release care and healing. Please give what you can to ensure that Xotchil has the resources needed to fight for her case, her ability to stay in the U.S. with her family and community, and can take the time needed to recover from this traumatic experience after she is released.”
Newsweek has contacted the page’s organizer, Lagartija del Sol, for comment.
A separate petition on ActionNetwork.org has garnered more than 3,200 signatures calling for her release.
Organizers have scheduled a protest for August 6 at the ICE detention facility in El Paso demanding Santiago’s release, according to KVIA.
What People Are Saying
Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told Newsweek via email on Wednesday: “Illegal aliens can take control of their departure with the CBP Home App. The United States is offering illegal aliens $1,000 and a free flight to self-deport now. We encourage every person here illegally to take advantage of this offer and reserve the chance to come back to the U.S. the right legal way to live the American dream.”
Catalina “Xóchitl” Santiago, in a statement posted on her GoFundMe page by Lagartija del Sol: “I love everyone and thank you so much for walking with me in so many ways, for thinking of my well being and for reminding me of importance of organized struggle and lightening up my spirit.”
What Happens Next
Santiago remains in federal immigration custody as legal proceedings continue. Her supporters are coordinating with her legal team to challenge her removal and demand her release.
The broader legal future for DACA recipients remains uncertain amid ongoing court battles and evolving immigration policies.
Tag Archives: Trump Administration
Raw Story: Tulsi Gabbard under fire after ‘desperate and irresponsible’ move to override CIA
Two former CIA officials are concerned about Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and her eagerness to release top secret information that could compromise sources and methods for agents.
The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Gabbard’s indiscriminate way of releasing classified documents regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election angered many career intelligence experts. Gabbard published the information with minimal redactions.
“Gabbard, with the blessing of President Donald Trump, overrode arguments from the CIA and other intelligence agencies that more of the document should remain classified to obscure U.S. spy agencies’ sources and methods, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity, like others interviewed for this report, because of the matter’s sensitivity,” said the report.
While CIA Director John Ratcliffe has been supportive of the release of information, those who actually work in intelligence have concerns about the release, but also that the characterization of the evidence is false. Gabbard and Trump claimed that their evidence proved that Russia did not hack the 2016 election votes. However, that was never part of the allegations. Russians hacked the Democratic and Republican Party servers and leaked information from the former. Russian-funded content farms generated scores of memes and posts spreading conspiracies about Hillary Clinton while being supportive of Trump.
“Multiple independent reviews, including an exhaustive bipartisan probe by the Senate Intelligence Committee, have found that Putin intervened in part to help Trump,” characterized the Post.
The investigation documents contain multiple references to human sources that detail Putin’s plans. Those sources are among the “most closely guarded secrets,” the report said. “After the report was completed in 2020, it was considered so sensitive that it remained in storage at the CIA rather than on Capitol Hill.”
Larry Pfeiffer, a former senior CIA and White House official, revealed on an episode of the “SpyTalk” podcast that the report had “sources and methods” that “could easily” be “inferred in almost every instance.”
“I don’t know if I’ve seen a document of that sensitivity so lightly redacted,” he said of the release from Gabbard.
The report released went through multiple reviews, but the once-secret document was “circulating” among Trump administration staff. Gabbard was the one who wanted to release as much as possible.
Gabbard “has greater declassification authority than all other intelligence elements and is not required to get their approval prior to release,” said one person familiar with the process when speaking to the Post.
Trump then decided there would be “minimal redactions and no edits,” the person added.
Sen. Mark. Warner (D-VA) called Gabbard’s release of the report “desperate and irresponsible,” and said it threatens some of the Intelligence community’s “most sensitive sources and methods” it uses to spy on Russia and keep Americans safe.
“And in doing so, Director Gabbard is sending a chilling message to our allies and assets around the world: the United States can no longer be trusted to protect the intelligence you share with us,” he warned.
Newsweek: Ron DeSantis responds to judge ordering halt to Alligator Alcatraz
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said operations at an immigration detention center dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz” are “ongoing” after a federal judge on Thursday ordered a two-week halt to construction there while she considers whether it violates environmental laws.
“Operations at Alligator Alcatraz are ongoing and deportations are continuing,” DeSantis wrote in a post on X on Thursday.
Alex Lanfranconi, DeSantis’ communications director, wrote that Thursday’s ruling “will have no impact on immigration enforcement in Florida. Alligator Alcatraz will remain operational, continuing to serve as a force multiplier to enhance deportation efforts.”
Why It Matters
The facility, repurposing the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport in Ochopee, was hastily built two months ago and can hold up to 3,000 detainees in temporary tent structures.
The Trump administration has touted it as representing its hardline stance on immigration enforcement and border security. But critics say it runs afoul of environmental laws and that detainees are forced to endure unsafe, unsanitary and inhumane living conditions.
What To Know
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams ruled the center can continue to operate and hold those detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but temporarily barred any new construction at the center.
Her order bars the installation of any new industrial-style lighting, as well as any paving, filling, excavating or fencing. It also prohibits any other site expansion, including placing or erecting any additional buildings, tents, dormitories or other residential or administrative facilities.
Environmental groups and the Miccosukee Tribe asked Williams to issue a preliminary injunction to halt operations and further construction at the center, arguing the center threatens environmentally sensitive wetlands that are home to protected plants and animals and would reverse billions of dollars’ worth of environmental restoration.
Their lawsuit argued that the detention facility violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to evaluate the environmental impact of major construction projects.
Attorneys for Florida argued during a hearing on Thursday that although the center would be holding federal detainees, the construction and operation are entirely under the state’s purview and that NEPA does not apply.
But attorneys for the environmental groups pushed back, saying the purpose of the facility is for immigration enforcement and that it wouldn’t exist if the federal government did not want a facility to hold detainees.
Williams said the detention facility was, at a minimum, a joint partnership between the state and federal government.
What People Are Saying
Eve Samples, executive director at Friends of the Everglades, said in a statement: “We’re pleased that the judge saw the urgent need to put a pause on additional construction, and we look forward to advancing our ultimate goal of protecting the unique and imperiled Everglades ecosystem from further damage caused by this mass detention facility.”
Talbert Cypress, the chairman of the Miccosukee Tribe, said in a statement posted on social media: “We welcome the court’s decision to pause construction on this deeply concerning project. The detention facility threatens land that is not only environmentally sensitive but sacred to our people. While this order is temporary, it is an important step in asserting our rights and protecting our homeland. The Miccosukee Tribe will continue to stand for our culture, our sovereignty, and the Everglades.”
President Donald Trump said while touring the facility in July: “We’re surrounded by miles of treacherous swampland and the only way out is, really, deportation.”
What’s Next
The temporary restraining order will be in place for the next two weeks while the ongoing preliminary injunction hearing continues.
Meanwhile, a second lawsuit brought by civil rights group says detainees’ rights are being violated. A hearing in that case is scheduled for August 18.

https://www.newsweek.com/ron-desantis-judge-alligator-alcatraz-2110632
Raw Story: Trump said to be getting ‘what he deserves’ as judge he ‘detests’ assigned to Epstein case
A judge hated by Donald Trump was just assigned a major case seeking to get the Trump administration to release files related to Jeffrey Epstein, according to analysts.
Commentator Brian Tyler Cohen published a video over the weekend featuring former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner. The video, called “Trump gets what he DESERVES in court over Epstein,” the two media analysts discuss Trump drawing Judge Chutkan in the Epstein case brought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
In an article called “Judge Detested by Trump Will Oversee Epstein Files Case,” The New Republic recently pointed out Chutkan’s history of upsetting Trump when she presided over his criminal trial in D.C.
Kirschner said he is “sure” that the Trump lawyers are “less than thrilled” that she’s the judge.
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.”
The Intercept: ICE Contractor Locked a Mother and Her Baby in a Hotel Room for Five Days
Valentina Galvis’s case raises questions about the types of facilities being turned into de facto detention centers as the Trump administration ramps up its deportation campaign.
From her room on the third floor of the Sonesta Chicago O’Hare Airport Rosemont hotel, Valentina Galvis could see flight crews and travelers coming and going. Families enjoyed summer dining on the outdoor patio. Friends snapped selfies commemorating their stays. Children fidgeted as they waited for shuttles to deliver them to the nearby airport.
But for Galvis and her seven-month-old son, the hotel was not a vacation — it was a jail. The phone had been removed from the room, and Galvis had no way to contact the outside world. Private guards contracted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement stood watch at all times. She had no idea when she and her son Naythan, who is a U.S. citizen, would ever get to leave.
Galvis and her son were detained at the Sonesta for five days in early June after they were apprehended at the Chicago Immigration Court by federal agents.
“I was sad, confused, and often terrified,” Galvis said. “I wanted to call my husband, my attorney, or anyone at all to let them know where I was.”
In screenshots taken by family members and reviewed by Injustice Watch and The Intercept, Galvis appeared on the ICE locator to be held over 700 miles away in Washington, D.C.
Galvis’s detention at the airport hotel came as federal immigration authorities have rounded up more than 100,000 immigrants nationwide in an effort to meet arrest targets set out by the Trump administration. The spike in immigration arrests has overwhelmed detention centers around the country: Immigrants have been packed into overcrowded holding cells, forced to sleep on floors, and subjected to “unlivable” conditions at a hastily built detention camp in the Florida Everglades.
Though a hotel may seem preferable to these conditions, advocates said Galvis’s detention raises concerns about what types of facilities are being turned into de facto detention centers and how many people are quietly held in Illinois.
Xanat Sobrevilla, who works with Organized Communities Against Deportations, says it’s not the first time she’s heard of an Illinois mother of an infant baby appearing to be in Washington, D.C. — which has no detention center.
“We know we can’t trust the ICE detainee locator,” she said. “People get lost in this system.”
Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., called the false location listing “chilling” and likened the secretive hotel detention to a “kidnapping.”
Illinois and Chicago have some of the nation’s strongest laws aimed at protecting immigrants like Galvis by prohibiting state and local agencies from cooperating with ICE. But her and Naythan’s detention at the Sonesta shows the limits of the state’s efforts to block ICE detention. The federal government can still use commercial facilities like hotel rooms to hold individuals and families in its custody.
“Nothing that the states or local governments can do will stop ICE from carrying out its operations,” said Fred Tsao, senior policy counsel at Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who has backed legislation that defends immigrants in the state, declined to comment.
Ramirez said private companies are violating the spirit of sanctuary legislation — and she called for a state investigation into what happened with Galvis.
“This requires the [Illinois] attorney general to conduct an investigation and to consider what legal action must be taken in the state of Illinois” against the security company that detained Galvis and Naythan as well as the hotel they were confined in, Ramirez said.
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s office did not respond to requests for comment.
In a statement to Injustice Watch, Sonesta, one of the world’s largest hotel chains, asserted it “has no knowledge of any illegal detentions at any hotels in the Sonesta portfolio.”
Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not respond to requests for comment.
ICE Detention by Another Name
Galvis doesn’t remember the name of the company the civilian guards said they worked for. But she recognized a photo of JoAnna Granado, an employee for MVM Inc., a longtime ICE contractor with active contracts to transport children and families and a track record of confining unaccompanied migrant children in office buildings as well as in hotels. Granado confirmed to Injustice Watch and The Intercept that she transported Galvis and her son from the Sonesta O’Hare. MVM did not respond to numerous requests for comment.
Since fiscal year 2020, MVM has entered into contracts worth more than $1.3 billion from ICE — the vast majority of it for the transportation of immigrant children and families.
In 2020, when an attorney for the Texas Civil Rights Project attempted to reach unaccompanied children being held in a McAllen hotel, he was physically turned away. ICE acknowledged MVM was at the hotel in question. The Texas Civil Rights Project and the American Civil Liberties Union sued the Trump administration, and the government ultimately transferred the children out of the hotel.
More recently, attorneys filed suit against MVM last year for enforced disappearance, torture, and child abduction — among other claims — for its role during the first Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy that separated thousands of children from their parents near the border. The company’s effort to get the case dismissed failed.
Calls to the Sonesta O’Hare in June and July after Galvis’s release confirmed that MVM had rooms there.
ICE’s standards for temporary housing allow for the use of hotel suites to hold noncitizens “due to exigent circumstances including travel delays, lack of other bedspace, delay of receipt of travel documents, medical issues, or other unforeseen circumstances.” The standards require ICE or its contractors to explain to the detainee why they are at the hotel and how long they will be there, and to inform the detainee of the right to file a grievance, as well as “unlimited availability of unmonitored telephone calls to family, friends, and legal representatives” and various oversight agencies. Galvis said she wasn’t allowed to make any calls and was never told she was able to file a complaint.
In its statement, Sonesta said that “all guest rooms at the property have a telephone and seating” at the O’Hare hotel.
Two Sonesta O’Hare workers said they were familiar with MVM — one added that the company had a special rate there. (In a phone call with Injustice Watch, Sonesta O’Hare’s general manager, Sandra Wolf, said she was “unaware” of MVM or the confinement of detainees at her hotel.)
Calls to other airport Sonesta hotels suggest that MVM’s detention of immigrants may be more widespread.
When called in June, a front-desk worker at the Sonesta Atlanta Airport South in Georgia said that MVM usually has rooms at the hotel. On a call, an attendant at the Sonesta Select Los Angeles LAX El Segundo immediately recognized the company name and explained that MVM books rooms at a nearby property.
A front-desk agent at the nearby Sonesta Los Angeles Airport LAX acknowledged by phone that MVM regularly has rooms at the hotel. The hotel’s general manager Robert Routh later said he’d never heard of MVM and wasn’t familiar with the practice of holding ICE detainees in his hotel.
In a written statement, Sonesta wrote that it “does not condone illegal behavior of any kind at its hotels, and we endeavor to comply with the law and with law enforcement in the event of any suspected illegal behavior at any property within the Sonesta portfolio.” The company declined to answer questions about whether it has any contractual obligations to MVM or whether MVM received a special rate at its hotels.
Snatched From Immigration Court
Galvis knew before she went to Chicago’s immigration court on Thursday, June 5, from news and social media reports that ICE had been arresting people like her when they had shown up to court for their immigration cases.
But her husband, Camilo, a long-haul truck driver, had been granted asylum in the same court just two weeks earlier. The facts of their cases were almost identical. They had come to the U.S. together in 2022, fleeing far-right paramilitary violence in their native Colombia. Galvis had also survived a brutal assault from the paramilitary group.
So she came to the court at 55 E. Monroe Street with her infant son, Naythan, hoping to walk out without incident.
Instead, as with thousands of other immigrants in recent months, federal prosecutors asked the judge to dismiss her case, ending the asylum process. Plainclothes agents were waiting to detain her the moment she left the courtroom.
The agents shuttled Galvis and Naythan first to a nearby building, where she was fingerprinted and her phone and documents — including Naythan’s U.S. passport and birth certificate — were seized. Mother and son were then taken to an initial hotel where they spent several hours late into Thursday night. She was told that they would be flown to Texas before dawn on Friday — the sole detention center, ICE claimed, that could accommodate families. She was allowed one call to her husband; in a call that lasted a few seconds, she told him she was heading to Texas.
The terror that Naythan might be torn away consumed her thoughts. She could endure detention and deportation alongside her son, Galvis said. Without him, she believed grief alone might kill her.
Around 2:30 a.m., two people dressed in civilian clothing arrived. They said their names were Alejandro and Lori and told Galvis in Spanish that they worked for a private company, though Galvis doesn’t remember which one. They encouraged her to ask any questions about her case to the ICE agents while she still had the chance, because the two of them wouldn’t be able to answer them.
Soon after, they brought Galvis and Naythan to the Sonesta, where they would spend the next five days cut off from the outside world.
They were held in a two-room suite and monitored at all times by one or two civilian guards, sometimes Alejandro and Lori and sometimes others. They were given fast food: Panera Bread, Subway, McDonald’s; Galvis picked out little pieces of vegetables to feed to her son, who was just beginning to eat solid foods.
On Friday, the day after she and Naythan were detained by ICE, Galvis’s attorney William G. McLean III filed a writ of habeas corpus, petitioning for her release. U.S. District Judge Franklin Valderrama soon ordered that the Trump administration “shall not remove Petitioners from the jurisdiction of the United States, nor shall they transfer petitioners to any judicial district outside the State of Illinois” before June 12. Judge Valderrama set an afternoon hearing for Tuesday, June 10, on the matter.
In emails reviewed by Injustice Watch and The Intercept, McLean pleaded with an ICE field officer for days to know his client’s whereabouts. “We do not know where they are located,” he wrote on Saturday. “I feel that it is very important to know that everything is OK,” he wrote the following Monday. ICE didn’t reveal his client’s location.
Galvis, meanwhile, had no idea about her lawyer’s efforts to release her. One day, she was told by one of the civilian guards that she would be deported with her son to Colombia. Other days, she said, she was told they’d be taken to Texas. She continued to fear that her son would be taken from her.
Finally, on the fifth day, Granado and another guard loaded Galvis and Naythan in a car but wouldn’t divulge where they were headed, Galvis said. While the airport was only minutes away, she noticed the navigation system indicated a 40-minute drive. Her heart sank, thinking they were taking her to a new location where her son could be taken from her.
Galvis kept quiet in the car, caressing Naythan and silently praying. As they approached their destination, Granado turned to her, Galvis said.
“I think they’re going to let you go,” Galvis remembered her saying.
Galvis didn’t believe her. But moments later, she was at the Department of Homeland Security’s Intensive Supervision Appearance Program office in Chicago. Agents gave her paperwork, including some of Naythan’s documents, and placed an electronic bracelet monitor on her wrist. Relief overcame her, mixed with uncertainty about what could happen next.
“I was obviously very scared of being deported, but my principal fear was being deported without my baby,” Galvis said. “I don’t think I could have survived that.”
The dismissal in Galvis’s original immigration case is on appeal, and she now has a new asylum case with a new immigration judge in the same court. Galvis has regular online and in-person check-ins. Her next immigration court date is scheduled for January.
Associated Press: Trump executive order gives politicians control over all federal grants, alarming researchers
An executive order signed by President Donald Trump late Thursday aims to give political appointees power over the billions of dollars in grants awarded by federal agencies. Scientists say it threatens to undermine the process that has helped make the U.S. the world leader in research and development.
The order requires all federal agencies, including FEMA, the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, to appoint officials responsible for reviewing federal funding opportunities and grants, so that they “are consistent with agency priorities and the national interest.”
It also requires agencies to make it so that current and future federal grants can be terminated at any time — including during the grant period itself.
Agencies cannot announce new funding opportunities until the new protocols are in place, according to the order.
The Trump administration said these changes are part of an effort to “strengthen oversight” and “streamline agency grantmaking.” Scientists say the order will cripple America’s scientific engine by placing control over federal research funds in the hands of people who are influenced by politics and lack relevant expertise.
“This is taking political control of a once politically neutral mechanism for funding science in the U.S.,” said Joseph Bak-Coleman, a scientist studying group decision-making at the University of Washington.
The changes will delay grant review and approval, slowing “progress for cures and treatments that patients and families across the country urgently need,” said the Association of American Medical Colleges in a statement.
The administration has already terminated thousands of research grants at agencies like the NSF and NIH, including on topics like transgender health, vaccine hesitancy, misinformation and diversity, equity and inclusion.
The order could affect emergency relief grants doled out by FEMA, public safety initiatives funded by the Department of Justice and public health efforts supported by the Centers for Disease Control. Experts say the order is likely to be challenged in court.
Newsweek: Green card applicants’ kids may lose legal status after Trump admin move
Children of H-1B visa holders may now age out of their protected legal status while their parents apply for green cards, under a Trump administration policy change announced Friday.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it was reversing a Biden administration policy that prevented young adults from losing their legal status if a parent’s application was still pending when their children reached age 21.
Why It Matters
Around 200,000 children and young adults could be affected by the change, which comes amid a flurry of alterations at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) to bring policies in line with President Donald Trump’s directives to tighten immigration controls.
What To Know
The USCIS policy change affects those who fall under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), which the administration of former President Joe Biden had allowed in February 2023 to apply to some children as soon as their parents became eligible to apply for a green card.
That meant that even if they “aged out” during the wait for a green card, they would not lose legal status.
On Friday, the Trump administration rolled those extensions back, saying that CSPA protections would once again only apply when a visa becomes available via the Department of State. USCIS said this would create a more consistent approach for those applying for adjustment of status and immigrant visas.
With long wait times for adjustment of status applications, particularly for H-1B and other temporary visa holders, this could now mean that when a dependent child turns 21, they lose their legal status and may have to leave the U.S., even if they have lived in the country for most or all of their lives.
Doug Rand, a DHS official during the Biden administration, said that many of those children would be American to their core, but would now be forced to the back of the line for a green card.
What People Are Saying
USCIS, in a news release: “The Feb. 14, 2023, policy resulted in inconsistent treatment of aliens who applied for adjustment of status in the United States versus aliens outside the United States who applied for an immigrant visa with the Department of State.”
Doug Rand, former DHS official, in a statement shared with Newsweek: “Back in 2023, the team I was part of at USCIS made a sensible policy change to make this situation a little less awful for a few more young people. Basically, the government has a choice about whether certain people who “age out” of their immigration status can still hang on to their parents’ place in line for a green card some day.
“We chose yes. Today, the Trump administration is choosing no.”
What’s Next
The new guidance will apply to requests filed after August 15, with those already in process not affected.
Latin Times: Support for Deporting Noncriminal Immigrants Slips as Public Backs Legal Protections: Poll
67% of respondents to the UMASS poll opposed separating undocumented immigrants from their children during enforcement proceedings
A growing share of Americans support legal protections for undocumented immigrants, while enthusiasm for broad deportations has declined, according to a new poll from the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
The poll found that 63% of respondents favored a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Only 37% supported deporting those without criminal records beyond immigration violations, and just 30% supported deporting undocumented immigrants who work full time and pay taxes.
Support for deporting immigrants with criminal records remains high, though it has softened slightly, dropping from 74% in April to 69% in July, the poll reveals. At the same time, 67% of respondents opposed separating undocumented immigrants from their children during enforcement proceedings, and 54% opposed deporting undocumented immigrants to foreign prisons.
Tatishe Nteta, a political science professor and director of the poll, said the findings suggest the Trump administration “should emphasize the detention and removal of undocumented immigrants with criminal records” if it wants to align with public sentiment.
Despite this stated focus, deportation records published by CBS News on July 16 show that many individuals removed under Trump’s second term did not have violent criminal records.
Between January 1 and June 24, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported approximately 100,000 people, of whom 70,583 were labeled as having criminal convictions. However, the vast majority of these were for traffic or immigration-related offenses. In fact, convictions for violent crimes were relatively rare: 0.58% for homicide, 1.2% for sexual assault, and 0.42% for kidnapping.
The administration has also touted its crackdown on gang-affiliated individuals, but only 3,256 of the deported individuals were identified as known or suspected gang members or terrorists.
In response to questions about enforcement priorities by CBS News, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said ICE has now deported about 140,000 undocumented immigrants since Mr. Trump took office. She also added that 70% of those arrested by ICE were of “illegal aliens with criminal convictions or have pending criminal charges,” but declined to detail the nature of the convictions or criminal charges, or offer further specifics.
Tampa Free Press: California vs. Washington Lawsuit On Federal Power And Protests Heads To Bench Trial
Governor Newsom’s Lawsuit Against President Trump Over National Guard Deployment Heads to Bench Trial
A constitutional battle is set to begin Monday, as a bench trial opens in a federal court case pitting California Governor Gavin Newsom against President Donald Trump. At issue is a question about the balance of power between the states and the federal government: When can a president deploy military forces to a state without the governor’s consent?
The lawsuit stems from a contentious summer in which President Trump ordered the deployment of federalized National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell protests sparked by Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. The demonstrations, which the President characterized as a “breakdown of order,” were deemed by Governor Newsom to be under the control of state forces.
The trial, presided over by Judge Charles R. Breyer, will examine the legality of President Trump’s actions. The administration justified the deployment under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which allows the President to federalize the National Guard in cases of “rebellion” or “invasion.” However, California’s lawsuit argues that no such conditions existed and that the President’s actions constituted an illegal overreach of authority.
This is the first time since the Civil Rights Movement that a president has deployed federal troops without a governor’s request, a point that is central to California’s legal challenge. The state’s case, which previously saw Judge Breyer order the return of the troops to state control, hinges on the argument that President Trump violated both federal code and the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states.
The outcome of this trial is expected to have far-reaching implications, setting a precedent for the extent of presidential authority to intervene in state-level unrest. As the nation watches, the court will weigh the Insurrection Act, which the Trump administration cites as justification, against the Posse Comitatus Act and the principle of state sovereignty.





