“In one recent raid in Montebello, Border Patrol agents—masked and driving an unmarked SUV—descended on a parking lot and detained a local man.
“One agent soon twisted Jason Brian Gavidia’s arm and pressed him against a black metal fence outside the lot where he runs an auto body shop,” according to The New York Times. “Another officer then asked him an unusual question…’What hospital were you born at?’…He did not know the hospital’s name. ‘I was born here,’ he shouted at the agent, adding, ‘I’m an American, bro!'” I don’t know about you, but I couldn’t instantly tell you the name of the hospital where I was born.
The agents ultimately released him, but confiscated his driver’s license. There’s a lot wrong with this picture. In a constitutional republic, armed officers should not be wearing face masks as if they are members of some third-world paramilitary organization. There’s no reason for that unless they are behaving in a manner that skirts the boundaries of the law.
Civilian policing is the norm in free countries for obvious reasons. If you’re walking down the street and a gang of masked, armed men jumps out of an unmarked vehicle and abducts you, how do you know they’re legitimate officers and not bandits or kidnappers?”
…
“A number of Trump-voting business owners and farmers who have had ICE agents whisk away part of their work force have made similar points. Same with people who have had family members deported—sometimes after they were “disappeared” in broad daylight, with no notification to loved ones. They didn’t expect their workers and loved ones to get nabbed. Frankly, they are among the least sympathetic opponents of the raids. They voted for these policies—and only seem upset now that it’s affecting them and not just other people.
The end result of these sweeps: All Americans—and especially those with darker skin—need to always carry our papers. The Fourth Amendment is clear: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Then again, the administration isn’t keen on the due-process concept either, which simply requires the government to prove its case before it sends you to a gulag in El Salvador.”
“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.”
“During the hearings Friday, Moss repeatedly lamented the uncertainty left by the Supreme Court’s rulings on the issue and said the public was left to “read the tea leaves” in the high court’s decisions.
“I don’t know what to make of what the Supreme Court did because that is one of the downsides of the emergency docket,” the judge said. “We just don’t know which of those arguments the Supreme Court found convincing in ordering the relief it ordered.””
“Seven of the men have no ties to South Sudan, but the administration wants to send them there as part of an effort to expel people to so-called third countries when U.S. law bars them from being sent to their home countries or when their home countries will not accept them.
“They’re now subject to imminent deportation to war torn South Sudan, a place where they have no ties and where it is possible, if not probable, that they will be arrested and detained upon arrival,” said Trina Realmuto, an attorney for the men. “This ruling is condoning lawlessness.””
“Trump managed to garner 48% of the Latino vote compared to Harris’ 51% share and significantly jumped past the 36% clip that he got during in the 2020 presidential election.”
…
“47% of naturalized citizens of all ethnic backgrounds voted for Trump in 2024, compared with 38% in 2020. In that same voting bloc 51% voted for Harris in 2024, a notable drop from the 59% who voted for Joe Biden in 2020.”
“The megabill, which the president signed into law Friday, offers an unprecedented infusion of cash into the country’s immigration enforcement apparatus, but even Trump border czar Tom Homan acknowledges the administration has a great deal of work ahead, especially when it comes to fulfilling Trump’s pledge to hire 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.
“Look, this isn’t easy. Ten thousand ICE officers? Never happened before,” Homan told POLITICO on Friday. “But I’ll say this: It’s about time … with more money, we can do more.”
…
With the new money, the Trump administration will focus on constructing more of the border wall and barriers, while beefing up technology that will allow agents to communicate with each other in cellular and radio dead zones, Homan said.
The administration will also move quickly to grow detention capacity, working with contractors to bring vacant prisons and facilities back online and build up soft-sided facilities like Florida did with “Alligator Alcatraz.”
…
The administration has also been fielding contractor pitches on technology and other solutions to improve its targeting efforts — finding undocumented immigrants inside the country. Homan said the administration will also work with contractors to ramp up transportation and removal flights, while also potentially using them to fill jobs that don’t require a badge or a gun.
…
Sandweg estimated deploying 10,000 new officers would take at least three years, and if the administration wants to get this done before Trump’s term ends, “you’re going to have to really push it to the limits in order to get them operational in this administration.”
That has him concerned that vetting standards could be lowered for speed, he said.
…
The domestic policy bill also includes over $1 billion for the immigration court system to hire more judges and staff, but it’s unclear how quickly the administration can build out the courts, and whether it can move at a rate that can keep up with an increased pace of ICE arrests — or if the effort will ultimately result in longer detention time.”