“Immigration officers were caught on video celebrating proudly after using chokeholds and a stun gun to arrest two undocumented immigrants in Florida. The owner of the video, an 18-year-old American citizen, was threatened and charged after he refused to delete the footage revealing the harsh tactics used by immigration authorities to meet the Trump administration’s mass deportation goals.
…
The recording continues after the three men are in custody and captures the officers’ candid remarks. A couple of officers can be heard cracking jokes about how one man smells and bragging about the stun gun use. One officer remarks on how “they’re starting to resist more now.” Another responds, “We’re going to end up shooting some of them… because they’re going to start fighting.”
“Just remember, you can smell that [inaudible] with a $30,000 bonus,” one officer says amidst post-arrest celebrations.
After his arrest and six-hour detention at a CBP station, Laynez-Ambrosio told The Guardian he was threatened with charges if he didn’t delete the exposing video. When he refused, he was charged with obstruction without violence for having allegedly interfered with CBP officers’ arrest—a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to a $1,000 fine and one year of incarceration. He was ultimately sentenced to 10 hours of community service and a four-hour anger management course.
…
“The federal government has imposed quotas for the arrest of immigrants,” Laynez-Ambrosio’s attorney, Jack Scarola, told The Guardian. “Any time law enforcement is compelled to work towards a quota, it poses a significant risk to other rights.”
Scarola’s warning appears to be right. The Department of Homeland Security posted on Monday that it will “stop at nothing to hunt [undocumented immigrants] down.” The brutal tactics used by federal officers under the Trump administration, against mostly nonviolent immigrants—including people on their way to work and who pose no threat to public safety—will only serve to degrade constitutional protections and subject more people to the government’s abuse of power.”
“A woman who died of a heart attack in a federal immigration detention facility in South Florida told her son over the phone on the day she died that staff refused to let her see a physician for chest pains, her son told a county investigator.
Marie Ange Blaise, a 44-year-old Haitian national, died on April 25 at the Broward Transitional Center (BTC)—a privately run facility in Pompano Beach, Florida, that contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). A medical examiner’s report obtained by Reason through a public records request concluded that she died of natural causes from cardiovascular disease.”
“Over the past three months, the Trump administration has filed lawsuits against Los Angeles, Illinois, Colorado, New York state, New York City, and other places for the express purpose of forcing them to abolish their “sanctuary city” policies and start aiding the feds in rounding up undocumented immigrants and enforcing federal immigration laws.
But unless the U.S. Supreme Court rapidly overturns several of its own precedents, including a recent one from 2018, all of these cases will be constitutional losers for President Donald Trump. Why? Here is how the late conservative legal hero and long-serving Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once spelled it out.
“The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems,” Scalia wrote for the Court’s majority in Printz v. United States (1997), “nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.”
…
federal agents still retain their own independent authority to enforce federal immigration law inside of sanctuary states and cities, just as federal authorities retain the independent authority to enforce other federal laws in states and cities. The key point under Printz is that it is unconstitutional for the feds to compel local officials to lend them a helping hand in carrying out the enforcement of federal law.”
“Paola Clouatre, the wife of Marine Corps veteran Adrian Clouatre, was released on Monday after two months in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention, with the help of Sen. John Kennedy (R–La.). Cloutare’s arrest is symbolic of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, which has mostly targeted people with no criminal record, despite his claim that he’s deporting the “worst of the worst.”
…
After coming to the United States as a teenager with her mother to seek asylum over a decade ago, the 25-year-old began the green card application process shortly after marrying her husband last year. Clouatre was surprised to discover through the application process that ICE had issued a deportation order against her in 2018, stemming from her estranged mother’s failure to appear at an immigration hearing in California.”
“Hundreds of detainees at a newly opened detention center in the Florida Everglades don’t have underlying criminal records, according to a Miami Herald and Tampa Bay Times investigation published Sunday.
Despite the Trump administration and Florida officials’ claims that the detention center, which they’ve gleefully dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz,” is holding hardened criminals and violent gang members, the Herald and Times obtained a list of roughly 700 detainees being held there. The news outlets found more than 250 people who were listed as having only immigration violations, but no criminal convictions or pending charges in the U.S.”
“Prisoners at Florida’s newly opened immigrant detention center in the Everglades are suffering in squalid conditions and are cut off from legal access, according to attorneys, detainees, family members, and lawmakers.”
“The judge found that many of those swept up in immigration raids were taken to the basement of a federal building in Los Angeles to a room known as “B-18” meant to temporarily house arrestees while they are being processed. Frimpong found that many detainees were held there for hours without access to counsel.”
“As Trump has acknowledged, he is torn between the economic concerns of business owners, including many of his own supporters, and the demands of hardliners like White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. That tension is apparent in the contrast between the administration’s immigration rhetoric, which emphasizes the removal of dangerous criminals, and workplace raids that target peaceful, productive people with strong, longstanding ties to the United States. And it reflects the general public’s mixed attitude toward immigration enforcement, which includes an openness to legal pathways that would allow people in the latter category to remain in the country.
“In 2020–22,” the U.S. Department of Agriculture reports, “32 percent of crop farmworkers were U.S. born, 7 percent were immigrants who had obtained U.S. citizenship, 19 percent were other authorized immigrants (primarily permanent residents or green-card holders), and the remaining 42 percent held no work authorization.” But as Trump tells it, he was not aware of how his deportation campaign might affect U.S. farmers until Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, who attended the Des Moines rally, brought the issue to his attention. “You were the one that brought this whole situation up,” he said to her at the rally. “Brooke Rollins brought it up, and she said, ‘So we have a little problem. The farmers are losing a lot of people.'”
Trump has repeatedly promised to execute “the largest deportation program in American history”—a goal that he reiterated in Des Moines. Yet he sounded surprisingly sympathetic toward at least some of the people affected by that crackdown. “These people…work so hard,” he said. “They bend over all day. We don’t have too many people [who] can do that.” He added that “some of the farmers…cry when they see [immigration raids] happen.” He alluded to “cases where…people have worked for a farmer on a farm for 14, 15 years” and “then they get thrown out, pretty viciously.” His conclusion: “We can’t do it. We’ve got to work with the farmers and people that have hotels and leisure properties.”
If the agricultural sector’s reliance on undocumented workers somehow was news to Trump even after he served as president for four years, he should have been intimately familiar from his own businesses with the potential impact of immigration enforcement on the hospitality industry. In 2023, the American Immigration Council estimated, U.S. hotels and restaurants employed 1.1 million unauthorized workers, 7.6 percent of the total work force.
Trump did not mention construction. But last September, the National Immigration Forum estimated that undocumented workers accounted for “almost a quarter” of employees in that industry.
It was completely predictable, in other words, that a broad crackdown on unauthorized U.S. residents that included workplace raids would have an outsized impact on several kinds of businesses”
…
“a Pew Research Center survey conducted in early June, 54 percent of respondents opposed “more raids where people in the U.S. illegally may be working,” and 65 percent thought “there should be a way for undocumented immigrants to stay in the country legally, if requirements are met.” Despite Trump’s rhetorical emphasis on deporting criminals, 57 percent of respondents anticipated that his immigration policies would have “no impact” on crime or lead to “more crime.” A plurality (46 percent) thought those policies would make the U.S. economy “weaker,” while just 34 percent said they would make it “stronger.””
“Trump administration argues that its policy of arresting, detaining, and deporting international students for expressing anti-Israel opinions “does not exist.” The government’s lawyers also maintain that the supposedly nonexistent policy is perfectly consistent with the First Amendment—a less laughable argument that nevertheless is hard to reconcile with Supreme Court precedent, especially as applied by several lower courts.
President Donald Trump and his underlings, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Department of Homeland Security officials, have made it clear that they are determined to expel students, including legal permanent residents as well as visa holders, who have engaged in protests or other forms of advocacy that the government views as “pro-Hamas” or “anti-Semitic.” Rubio says those activities, even when “otherwise lawful,” justify removal from the United States because they threaten to undermine U.S. foreign policy interests.
The Trump administration claims it is targeting “aid or support” for “designated terrorist groups” and “unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence,” neither of which is constitutionally protected. That defense is hard to take seriously, since the government avers that even writing an anti-Israel op-ed piece or peacefully participating in pro-Palestinian protests falls into those categories.”