The U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House Wednesday passed legislation that greatly expands mandatory detention requirements of immigrants charged and arrested on petty crimes, among other crimes.

In a 263-156 vote, 46 House Democrats voted with Republicans to send the bill, S. 5, to President Donald Trump’s desk to be signed into law. The passage of the measure gave Trump — who campaigned on an immigration crackdown and promised mass deportations — an early victory for a president not even a full week into his second term.

The GOP-led bill is named after 22-year-old Georgia nursing student Laken Riley. The man convicted in her murder was said by immigration officials to have entered the country without proper authorization and was later charged in the United States with shoplifting.

“I am proud the Laken Riley Act will be the very first landmark bill President Trump signs into law, and it is proof that President Trump and the Republican Senate Majority stand ready to come turn promises made into promises kept,” Alabama GOP Sen. Katie Britt, who led the bill, said in a statement.

Many immigration attorneys and advocates have argued the passage of the bill will help fuel Trump’s promise of mass deportations, because it would require mandatory detention of immigrants without the ability for an immigration judge to grant bond.

Additionally, there is no carve-out for immigrant children in the bill, meaning if they are accused or charged with shoplifting, the bill would require them to be detained.

And while the bill aims to target immigrants who are in the country without proper legal authorization, immigration attorneys have argued that some immigrants with legal status could be ensnared as well.  

Another concerning provision pointed to by some Democrats and immigration attorneys is the broad legal standing the bill gives state attorneys general to challenge federal immigration policy and the bond decisions from immigration judges.

That same authority could also force the secretary of state to halt the issuing of visas on the international stage.

There’s also the issue of resources. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement estimated the cost of enforcing the law would be at least $26.9 billion in its first year, according to NPR. The budget for ICE for fiscal year 2024 is about $9 billion.

Twelve Senate Democrats joined with Republicans to pass the bill out of the upper chamber on Monday. The House already passed the bill earlier this month, but because amendments were added to the measure in the Senate, it went back to the House for final passage.

Those Senate Democrats included Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly of Arizona, Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock of Georgia, Gary Peters and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, Jacky Rosen of Nevada and Mark Warner of Virginia.

A majority of those Senate Democrats are up for reelection in 2026 or hail from a battleground state that Trump won in November.

Senators also agreed to attach two amendments to the bill that expand the mandatory detention requirements even further.

One amendment by Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn requires mandatory detention for assault of a law enforcement officer. Another from Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa includes mandatory detention requirements to apply to the serious harm or death of a person. 

President Donald Trump holds up an executive order after signing it during an indoor inauguration parade at Capital One Arena on Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump Wednesday invoked an executive order he signed on his first day in office to send 1,500 military troops to the southern border, despite encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border being the lowest in several years.

“President Trump is sending a very strong message to people around this world – if you are thinking about breaking the laws of the United States of America, you will be returned home. You will be arrested. You will be prosecuted,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters, according to pool reports.

While Leavitt said 1,500 troops would be sent, she did not specify from where or when they would arrive at the border.

The comments by Leavitt followed a flurry of immigration-related orders that Trump signed on his first day in office cracking down on immigration in multiple ways.

One declared a national emergency at the southern border that outlined military support would be deployed “through the provision of appropriate detention space, transportation (including aircraft), and other logistics services in support of civilian-controlled law enforcement operations.”

Other orders, some of which are already facing legal challenges, include the end of asylum and the move to end birthright citizenship for immigrants in the country without authorization, among other stipulations.

It’s not the first time an administration has sent U.S. military to the southern border. The Biden administration did so in 2023 amid high encounters of migrants. In fiscal year 2023, there were about 2.5 million encounters, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data.

Troops largely handle administrative work, rather than law enforcement work, due to the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars the U.S. military from performing civilian law enforcement duties.

However, that could change.

A separate executive order Trump signed Monday directs the secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense to evaluate within 90 days if the Insurrection Act should be invoked, which allows military action to be used in civilian law domestically.

The troops heading to the southern border will be doing so at a relatively quiet time period, as the most recent CBP data in December showed 96,000 encounters, compared to the December of fiscal year 2023, when there were 252,000 encounters. 

 

A immigrant from Venezuela tries in vain to access the CBP One app day a day after the second inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 21, 2025 in Nogales, Mexico. The incoming administration shut down the app, which was created by the Biden administration to allow migrants to schedule appointments to gain entry into the United States. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A day after President Donald Trump signed a slew of immigration-related executive orders, immigration researchers said during a Tuesday briefing they are scrutinizing the legal implications of the White House’s move to end birthright citizenship as well as sweeping directives barring asylum and more.

The ACLU and immigrant rights groups sued the Trump administration in U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire shortly after Trump signed the birthright citizenship order. On Tuesday, 18 state attorneys general also sued over the order, in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Those states include New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.

Additionally, state attorneys general from Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and Washington sued the Trump administration in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle over birthright citizenship, in which people born in the United States are considered citizens — excluding the children of foreign diplomats — even if their parents are not.

Other executive orders Trump signed Monday night declare a national emergency at the southern border, end asylum and reinstate several harsh immigration policies from his first term.

“Executive orders do not change the fact that U.S. law provides for access to asylum … which I think will feature prominently in what I expect to be rapid litigation of these measures,” said Kathleen Bush-Joseph, an attorney at the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank that studies migration and facilitated the press briefing.

Trump order permits enforcement in churches, schools

Additionally, the Trump administration is already issuing new directives for immigration enforcement.

Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Benjamine Huffman issued two directives Monday. One rescinds Biden-era guidelines for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection that limited enforcement in or near so-called “sensitive” areas, such as places of worship, schools, health care facilities, relief centers, and social services centers, among other areas.

“The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense,” DHS said in a statement.

The other directive curtails the use of humanitarian parole and “returns the program to a case-by-case basis.” The Biden administration used that authority for Ukraine, Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

Within hours of Trump taking office, a popular app that migrants used to make appointments with asylum officers, known as CBP One, was shut down, canceling all future appointments. The ACLU has already sued over that as well.

Birthright citizenship

But it was the order on birthright citizenship that immediately attracted multiple legal challenges. 

The executive order states the federal government will not recognize or issue citizenship documentation to any child born after Feb. 19 to parents who are in the country without proper authorization, or if the parent is in the United States on a temporary visa and the other parent is a noncitizen or green card holder.

Birthright citizenship is a right enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and was upheld in a 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case.

There are roughly 5.5 million U.S. children born with at least one parent who is an undocumented immigrant and 1.8 million U.S.-born children with two undocumented parents.

“I think if it wasn’t obvious already, it is just the operational sort of challenge of even making this interpretation live,” said Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow and director of the Migration Policy Institute office at New York University School of Law, at the briefing.

He argued that the executive order would apply to any child born in the U.S. after it’s enacted and would require hospitals to check the documentation of everyone.

“You cannot just limit to people you think may be in the country illegally,” Chishti said. 

Mass deportations

Trump, who campaigned on carrying out mass deportations of people in the country without proper authorization, made little mention of the promise in his inauguration speech and other remarks Monday.

But his executive orders signal that initiative, said Doris Meissner, the director of U.S. immigration policy at the Migration Policy Institute.

“A range of the executive orders that have to do with expedited removal, broadening detention capacity, information-sharing with local law enforcement, all do speak to the issue of the mass deportations initiative,” Meissner said.

But she added that some of the executive orders signed, and a bill that is likely to make its way to Trump’s desk to be signed into law could undercut those efforts by using vast resources and impeding on deportation logistics.

For example, one executive order ends the policy known as “catch and release.” That policy allows migrants who are detained to live in U.S. communities while they await having their asylum cases heard by an immigration judge.

The bill Congress is moving toward final passage, S. 5, would require mandatory detention for immigrants accused of or charged with property crime, injury or death of a U.S. citizen and the assault of a law enforcement official.

“Both require significant detention capacity in order to enforce them,” Meissner said. “So we see impediments, we see constraints, but we’re also likely to see continuing and ongoing threats that generate fear and uncertainty that is already at a heightened level and that will heighten even further.”

A barrier is erected around the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 3, 2025, as law enforcement prepares for the beginning of the 119th Congress and certification of the Electoral College votes. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — On the first day of Donald Trump’s presidency, the U.S. Senate Monday passed a bill that would require the expansion of mass detention for immigrants charged or arrested for property crimes.

In a 64-35 vote, 12 Democrats joined Republicans to send the bill, S. 5, known as the Laken Riley Act, back to the House for final passage due to two amendments that were agreed to by senators.

One amendment from Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn would add the assault of a law enforcement officer as an offense requiring mandatory detention.

Another amendment, from Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, would also require mandatory detention requirements for “any crime that results in death or serious bodily injury to another person.”

When the measure is passed by the House, it’ll likely be one of the first bills signed into law by Trump, an early victory after he ran a presidential campaign promising mass deportations of immigrants in the country without proper legal authorization.

Trump is set to sign 10 executive orders to put in motion his immigration crackdown at the southern border. 

The bill is named after 22-year-old Laken Riley, a nursing student who was murdered by a man who immigration authorities say entered the country illegally and was previously charged with shoplifting.

The measure would not only greatly expand the detention of immigrants arrested or charged with crimes outlined in the measure, but would give state attorneys general broad discretion to challenge federal immigration policy if enacted into law.

Immigration attorneys and experts have warned the measure could have far-reaching ramifications, such as subjecting some migrants — including children and teens — to rapid detention and deportation.

They also argue that the bill would not only affect undocumented people, but would ensnare some immigrants with legal status and have the potential to interfere with the issuing of visas on the international stage.

Migrants from Mexico and Guatemala are apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol officers after crossing a section of border wall into the U.S. on Jan. 4, 2025 in Ruby, Arizona. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — After his inauguration as the 47th president, Donald Trump late Monday signed dozens of executive orders that will begin his immigration crackdown at the southern border.

Trump officials early Monday went into detail on those orders in a call with reporters.

Among the most prominent of the orders Trump signed was a declaration of a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border. 

“What this action does is it deploys armed forces, erect physical barriers by directing (Department of Defense) and (Department of Homeland Security) secretaries to finish the wall along the border, and allows for counter (Unmanned Aircraft System) capabilities near the southern borders,” an incoming Trump official said, speaking on background. “In addition, specifically, it directs the secretary of defense to deploy additional personnel to the border crisis, including members of the armed forces and the National Guard.”

Trump’s pick to carry out his immigration plans, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, completed her confirmation hearing last week and is likely to get a vote in the Senate in the coming days.

Trump’s pick for defense secretary, Fox News personality Pete Hegseth, was grilled by Senate Democrats during his confirmation hearing, but is considered likely to be approved by Republicans when his nomination is brought to the floor.

Emergency order

The national emergency executive order at the southern border also requires, within 90 days, for the DOD and DHS secretaries to submit a joint report to the president “about the conditions at the southern border of the United States and any recommendations regarding additional actions that may be necessary to obtain complete operational control of the southern border, including whether to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807.”

The Insurrection Act of 1807 grants the president the authority to deploy the U.S. military domestically and use it against Americans under certain conditions, such as domestic unrest like civil disorder or rebellion. 

Another executive order ended several forms of legal immigration such as the use of humanitarian parole programs for nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. It also ended the use of the CBP One app that allowed migrants to make appointments with asylum officers. The app was shut down within an hour of Trump’s inauguration.

Noem had noted in her confirmation hearing that on Trump’s first day in office the app would be suspended, but that DHS would maintain the data collected.

Nearly 1 million migrants have used the app to secure appointments, according to CBP data.

Later Monday, the ACLU filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, against the Trump administration’s decision to terminate the CBP One app. 

That same executive order also reinstated policies from the first Trump administration such as the so-called Remain in Mexico policy.

Under that order, asylum seekers were required to remain in Mexico — often in dangerous circumstances — while their asylum cases were pending in the courts, something that can take months or even years.

It also reinstated a ban on so-called “catch and release,” which allows migrants who are detained to live in U.S. communities while they await having their asylum cases heard by an immigration judge.

It also directs the Secretary of DHS to establish contracts in order to “construct, operate, control, or use facilities to detain removable” immigrants.

The military and the border

Additionally, the executive orders will clarify the U.S. military’s role in protecting U.S. territory, the Trump official said.

“What this action does is it assigns the mission to seal our borders and institutes campaign planning requirements for the military,” the official said. “The executive order directs the military to prioritize our borders and territorial integrity and strategic planning for its operations to maintain sovereignty, territory integrity and security of the U.S against all forms of invasion, including unlawful mass migration, narcotic trafficking, human smuggling, attacking and other criminal activities.”

Trump also reinstated an executive order from his first administration, which issued guidance on immigration enforcement policies to focus on removing undocumented immigrants. The Biden administration rescinded that order in 2021.

Asylum, birthright citizenship

Some of the incoming administration’s actions are likely to face immediate legal challenges. Officials said they plan to move to end asylum — something that is in U.S. law — as well as birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed in the 14th Amendment and affirmed in an 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case. 

“The federal government will not recognize automatic birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens born in the United States,” a Trump official said. 

Trump acknowledged that the executive order he signed regarding birthright citizenship might face legal hurdles.

“I think we have good grounds,” Trump said in the Oval Office.

One of the executive orders Trump signed also designates cartel groups as global terrorists.

Another will suspend refugee resettlement operations for at least four months, starting on Jan. 27. The U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement handles unaccompanied minors and helps refugees settle into the U.S. In fiscal year 2024, the office resettled more than 100,000 refugees in the country.

Another executive order will direct the attorney general to pursue capital punishment — the death penalty — for the murder of law enforcement officials and capital crimes committed by people in the country without legal authorization.

However, the White House stated that the Department of Justice intends to seek the death penalty for “illegal migrants who maim and murder Americans.”

“This is about public safety, and this is about the victims of some of the most violent, abusive criminals we’ve seen enter our country in our lifetime,” the Trump official said. “And it ends today.”

People gather for a rally to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in Battery Park on June 15, 2022, in New York City. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A panel of three federal judges Friday upheld a lower court’s decision to strike down the legality of a program that has shielded more than half a million people from deportation who entered the United States as children, but the judges are keeping the program in place ahead of a likely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

It’s unclear how President-elect Donald Trump, who will be sworn in for a second term on Monday, will handle the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. For now, the DACA program will remain, and renewals will continue, according to the ruling.

“Relying on this court’s previous decision, the district court found that Texas still has standing to challenge DACA and held that the Final Rule is substantively unlawful,” according to the ruling. “The court accordingly vacated the Rule, entered a nationwide injunction, and preserved the stay.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the Biden administration’s regulation to codify DACA violates the Immigration and Nationality Act because that act lists out which immigrants are granted legal status and DACA recipients are not included in that.

“In the INA, Congress enacted a ‘comprehensive federal statutory scheme for regulation of immigration and naturalization’ and ‘set the terms and conditions of admission to the country.’ Because it chose not to include DACA recipients in that comprehensive scheme, ‘Congress’s rigorous classification scheme forecloses the contrary scheme in the DACA Memorandum,” according to the ruling.

The panel also limited the ruling to the state of Texas, which spearheaded the lawsuit.

“Because Texas is the only plaintiff that has demonstrated or even attempted to demonstrate an actual injury, and because that injury is fully redressable by a geographically limited injunction, we narrow the scope of injunction to Texas,” according to the ruling.

The panel is also giving the government a chance to appeal.

Trump initially tried to end the program during his first term, but recently said that he’s willing to work with Democrats to strike a deal to allow DACA recipients to remain in the country. Lawmakers have remained skeptical.

The Friday decision means that the more than 500,000 recipients are still allowed to renew their work permits, but no new applicants are allowed to be processed.

“Though Texas has succeeded on the merits, our previous decision to maintain the stay─not to mention the immense reliance interests that DACA has created─guide us to preserve the stay as to the existing applicants,” according to the ruling.

October arguments

The appeals court heard oral arguments in October on behalf of the program from the Justice Department, the state of New Jersey and the immigration rights group Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

They argued on the legality of the Biden administration’s 2021 final rule to codify DACA.

They also argued that the state of Texas, along with eight states that joined the suit against the Biden administration’s final DACA rule, do not have standing.

Those other states challenging DACA include Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas and Mississippi.

The state of Texas argued that DACA harmed the Lone Star state because there is a “pocketbook cost to Texas with regard to education and medical care.”

The three judges are Jerry Edwin Smith, appointed by former President Ronald Reagan; Edith Brown Clement, appointed by former President George W. Bush; and Stephen A. Higginson, appointed by former President Barack Obama.

The 5th Circuit in New Orleans, which typically delivers conservative rulings, covers Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, speaks during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Capitol Hill on Jan. 17, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Eric Thayer/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem told members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Friday that she will be “vigilant and proactive and innovative to protect the homeland” as she carries out President-elect Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

“The challenges in front of us are extremely significant, and we must secure our borders against illegal trafficking and immigration,” Noem, Trump’s nominee for DHS secretary, said in her opening statement. She said she will get rid of a mobile app used by migrants to make appointments with asylum officers to plead their cases that’s been criticized by Republicans.

Noem’s nomination hearing was one of the last before Monday’s Inauguration Day. Most were tame, save for the hearing for the Defense secretary nominee, Fox News personality Pete Hegseth. Most nominees appeared on their way to easy confirmations in the GOP-controlled Senate.

Senators this week held hearings for U.S. attorney general pick Pam Bondi of Florida; Office of Management and Budget nominee Russ Vought; former North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, nominated as Interior secretary; Department of Housing and Urban Development nominee Eric Scott Turner; and Scott Bessent, a hedge fund manager tapped to run the Treasury Department. 

Noem’s hearing was mainly friendly, with Democrats concerned about the U.S.-Canada border, assistance for natural disasters, cybersecurity and domestic terrorism.

The top Democrat on the committee, Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, asked Noem about domestic terrorism and how she would address it, pointing to the recent terrorist attack in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Noem said that the number one threat to the U.S. is immigration at the southern border, but noted that “homegrown terrorism is on the rise.”

Senate Republicans, such as the chair of the committee, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, heavily focused on border security and reimplementation of Trump-era immigration policies, as well as curtailing humanitarian parole and temporary legal immigration programs like Temporary Protected Status.

McCook Lake flooding

Noem said that she would draw on her experience as South Dakota’s governor if she is confirmed as DHS secretary. Some of that includes cybersecurity and the management of natural disasters, such as the recent June flooding in her state that affected McCook Lake property owners.

However, the state of South Dakota received notice that it could be sued by those property owners, who argue their community suffered catastrophic damage as a direct result of flood diversion efforts carried out by state and local officials. Residents said they were not properly warned about the flooding by officials, especially by Noem, who conducted a press conference prior to the flood but then flew out of state for a political fundraiser in Tennessee while the flood was occurring.

Peters, while not mentioning McCook Lake, pointed out DHS is often the first line of defense when it comes to natural disasters.

“The Federal Emergency Management Agency must continue to work hard to address the increasing number of natural disasters affecting our communities as a result of climate change,” Peters said, “from violent storms like hurricanes that brought destruction to states across the South to the devastating wildfires in California and countless other severe storms and flooding events all across our country.”

Congress recently included $100 billion in disaster aid in a stopgap spending bill in December.

Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said he was deeply disappointed with Trump’s response to the fires in California, and noted that during the first Trump administration, requests for disaster aid from Washington state and other blue states were brushed off.

Noem said that under her leadership “at the Department of Homeland Security there will be no political bias to how disaster relief is delivered to the American people.”

Blumenthal asked her if she would follow Trump’s orders to withhold disaster assistance to blue states, noting the $100 billion in funds Congress recently passed. 

Noem said she would not answer a question about a hypothetical scenario.

“It’s more than a hypothetical, with all due respect,” Blumenthal said. “It’s based on experience with President Trump withholding money from Washington state and elsewhere. I need to know from you, will you stand up to the president?”

Noem said that she will “deliver the programs according to the law.”

Resignation, divestment

In Noem’s ethics agreement, she noted she plans to resign as South Dakota’s governor as soon as she’s confirmed as Trump’s DHS secretary, something that could happen as soon as next week.

She added that she plans to divest from a company where she is a manager, Ashwood Strategies LLC.

As part of her financial disclosure to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, Noem said she made almost $140,000 in a book advance for a 2024 memoir where she admitted to shooting and killing her 14-month-old dog, Cricket, due to behavioral issues. The revelation drew bipartisan backlash, but she’s mainly defended it.

She also received about $40,000 for an advance for her first book, published in 2022, “Not My First Rodeo: Lessons from the Heartland.”

As part of the disclosure, she said her husband makes a little over $1 million at his insurance firm. It is noted in the form that he is the sole owner. 

Northern border

Peters also said DHS does not have enough resources at the northern border to facilitate trade. He added that there has been an increase in unauthorized crossings.

Noem said that in addition to focusing on the southern border, her goal is to have the northern border properly staffed, for both trade and security.

Sen. Maggie Hassan, Democrat of New Hampshire, said in her state she has seen an increase in unauthorized crossings.

“There’s real concern in New Hampshire and all along the northern border that we strengthen the border and have the resources we need,” Hassan said. “We also have a really strong economic relationship with our partner, our friends to the north, and a lot of family relationships. We don’t want to impede that flow of economy and people that’s lawful, but we do want to make sure that we have the resources we need.”

She asked if Noem would consider upgrading the equipment at the northern border, along with more staff.

“That’s something I want to work with Congress, with the Senate and the House on, to ensure that the resources are there to meet the challenges at the border,” Noem said.

Biden immigration policies

GOP Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri and James Lankford of Oklahoma said they want DHS to roll back several Biden-era immigration policies, such as the use of the mobile app by migrants and humanitarian parole.

Noem said if she’s confirmed, the shutdown of what’s known as the CBP One app will be one of her first directives, and while the app will be gone, she said DHS will preserve the data. Noem said she doesn’t believe the tool should be used to process asylum seekers into the country.

Trump’s Vice President, Ohio’s J.D. Vance, has also criticized the use of the app, writing on social media that the use of the app is “the most underreported scandal of the Biden admin.”

“They made an application to facilitate illegal immigration,” he said. “It boggles the mind.”

Lankford also asked if construction of the border wall would continue, and Noem said it would.

Hawley asked if Noem would work to reinstate the so-called Remain in Mexico policy, which requires asylum seekers to often stay in dangerous parts of Mexico and wait while their asylum cases are pending, something that can take months or years.

“The president and I have talked extensively about this, and (I) will 100% partner with him to reinstate the Remain in Mexico policy and make sure that it’s in place,” she said.

Noem added that she also wants to increase the number of immigration judges and courts. However, the Department of Justice holds jurisdiction over immigration courts, not DHS.

Ohio freshman GOP Sen. Bernie Moreno asked about Temporary Protected Status, which allows people to remain in the United States and work temporarily if their home country is deemed too dangerous for return due to war, natural disasters or violence. There are roughly 1 million people in the TPS program, which does not provide a pathway to citizenship and typically has to be reauthorized every 18 months or so.

“This program has been abused and manipulated by the Biden administration, and that will no longer be allowed,” Noem said.

There are 17 countries under TPS, such as Ukraine, Afghanistan, Sudan, El Salvador and Venezuela.

The White House this month redesignated TPS for Ukraine, Venezuela, Sudan and El Salvador. Of those redesignations, Noem said she specifically disagreed with the one for Venezuela.

During Trump’s first term, he tried to end the TPS designation for Haiti, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Sudan, but was blocked by the courts in 2018.

Mass deportations

Freshman Democratic Sens. Andy Kim of New Jersey and Ruben Gallego of Arizona, both former House lawmakers, pressed Noem on how she would carry out mass deportations of people in the country without legal status. 

Kim asked what kind of authority border czar Tom Homan would have in immigration policy and if Homan would be giving direct orders to Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

“If he is going to be making decisions, then he should come before this committee as well,” Kim said.

Noem said that she would be working with Homan daily and that “there’s no authorities being planned to be taken away from the department or myself in the role.”

“But it sends some mixed signals,” Kim said. “People in my home state, maybe around the country, when they hear Mr. Homan saying, ‘I’m making the decisions,’ when they hear President-elect Trump say ‘He’s in charge of our border.’”

Gallego asked Noem what her plan was to ensure there is a safe and legal process for agricultural workers, who he said are concerned about what Trump’s mass deportations plans could mean for them.

“You know, talking to my agricultural community, my dairy community, they have concerns that this approach will lead to workforce shortages that will further drive up the costs of everything,” Gallego said.

Noem said that Trump “has been very clear that his priority is going to be deporting criminals, those who have broken our laws and perpetuated violence in our communities.”

She added that his next priority for deportations will be those who have removal orders.

Iowa GOP Sen. Joni Ernst also asked Noem how she plans to detain immigrants, and not allow those who have been charged with a crime to be allowed bond.

“The number one priority of the president is to secure the border and to deport these criminal actors immediately and as soon as possible. They will be the number one priority to make our communities safer and so that we don’t have this kind of situation going forward,” Noem said.

Separately, the U.S. Senate early Friday also voted on a bipartisan basis to move forward with a bill that would greatly expand mass detention of immigrants arrested or charged with a property crime.

The measure was written in response to the murder of a 22-year-old nursing student, Laken Riley, in Georgia. A man from Venezuela who was in the U.S. without proper authorization has been convicted of the crime.

Migrants wait throughout the night on May 10, 2023, in a dust storm at Gate 42, on land between the Rio Grande and the border wall, hoping they will be processed by immigration authorities before the expiration of Title 42. (Photo by Corrie Boudreaux for Source New Mexico)

WASHINGTON — As President-Elect Donald Trump is set to be sworn in for a second term next week, immigration advocates said Thursday they are prepared to combat the incoming president’s campaign promise of enacting mass deportations of undocumented people.

Additionally, those immigration advocacy groups are ready for an onslaught of executive orders and a return of harsh Trump-era immigration policies.

“The terrain that we are facing is dangerous and terrifying,” said Greisa Martínez Rosas, the executive director of United We Dream Action, the political arm of the youth advocacy group. 

That terrain she’s expecting includes the return of the so-called Remain in Mexico policy that required asylum seekers to often remain in dangerous parts of Mexico while their cases were pending, and another health-related policy like Title 42, which allowed the U.S. to expel and bar migrants from claiming asylum due to the 2020 pandemic.

Additionally, she said, she expects the legal fate to be decided for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. Trump tried to end it during his first term, but said recently that he’s open to working with Democrats to create a legal pathway for DACA recipients.

“One, we will remain calm,” Martínez Rosas said. “Two, we will ensure that our communities have the support necessary that they need to be able to navigate such terrible and terrifying moments. Three … where litigation is possible and where our rights are usurped, we will litigate. We are ready for the next four years.”

Immigrant defense coalition

Advocates are prepared to fight back, said Gustavo Torres, the executive director of the grassroots immigrant advocacy group known as CASA.

That includes organizing “Know Your Rights” events to inform immigrant communities of their legal rights when confronted with potential enforcement actions from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the creation of an immigrant defense coalition.

Torres said CASA has held those legal workshops in places where the organization has offices based in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

“We have constructed an immigrant defense coalition of faith communities, businesses, community organizations, donors, elected officials, educators, attorneys and other people, all whom stand ready to act alongside us,” Torres said. “We will not stand by while families are separated and lives are disrupted.”

Deportations team formed

Trump has already tapped his team to craft and carry out those mass deportations plans with border czar Tom Homan and White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller.

Homan was the architect behind one of the harshest Trump-era immigration policies, known as “Zero Tolerance,” that led to the separation of thousands of parents from their children in an effort to deter people from crossing the southern border.

“They are poised to use the immense power of the federal government to force their radical nationalist ideology onto the American people, irrespective of the cost,” said Zachary Mueller, a senior research director for America’s Voice, an immigrant advocacy group.

Mueller said he’s curious how independent South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, Trump’s nominee for secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, will be from Miller and Homan. Noem’s confirmation hearing in the U.S. Senate is set for Friday.

“We have seen in the first Trump administration, in particular … the DHS secretary’s role in facilitating family separation, and what we’ve already heard from Tom Homan and many others, is a willingness not to just reinstate some of the horrific effects of family separation, but to go much further,” he said.

Angelica Salas, the executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, or CHIRLA, said that since November, her organization has held “Know Your Rights” presentations in schools, community centers, apartment groups and places of worship. Additionally, CHIRLA has a hotline for legal services.

“On the other side of the spectrum, dozens of immigration attorneys have been working and taking cases of families and individuals most likely to feel the brunt of Trump’s enforcement apparatus, and collaborating and coordinating with city, county and state officials,” Salas said.

She said they are also continuing to push for Democrats in Congress to not allow for additional funding for DHS to carry out mass detention and deportations.

“What is certain today is that we’re more organized, we’re more prepared, we’re more resilient and united and ready to face the incoming president and his administration,” Salas said.

Eric Scott Turner, nominee for secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, testifies at his confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, on Jan. 16, 2025. (Screenshot from committee webcast)

WASHINGTON — Senators pressed Department of Housing and Urban Development nominee Eric Scott Turner on how he would tackle housing affordability and homelessness during a Thursday confirmation hearing.

“As a country, we’re not building enough housing,” Turner said in his opening statement. “We need millions more homes of all kinds, single family, apartments, condos, duplexes, manufactured housing, you name it, so individuals and families can have a roof over their heads and a place to call home.”

HUD is a roughly $68 billion agency that provides rental assistance, builds and preserves affordable housing, addresses homelessness and enforces the Fair Housing Act that prohibits discrimination in housing.

Turner said his main goal as HUD secretary would be to tackle the housing shortage and to increase the housing supply of affordable homes, as well as end remote work for HUD employees.

The U.S. Office of Government Ethics has not made his public financial disclosure available yet.

During the first Trump administration, Turner worked with then-HUD Secretary Ben Carson on so-called Opportunity Zones, which were part of the 2017 law that provided tax breaks for investors who put money into designated low-income areas, though it was mainly for commercial real estate.

Turner is a former NFL player and served two terms in the Texas Legislature until 2017.

Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen said he is glad that building affordable housing will be a priority for Turner, but raised concerns about Trump’s plans to raise tariffs.

Turner said that he knows keeping the cost of building materials is important, but ultimately tariffs are up to Trump.

“What I want to do is combat anything that raises the cost of housing, be it the cost of construction, be it fees, regulatory burdens,” Turner said. “That’s what I’m focused on.”

Cutbacks in programs

Senate Democrats like Tina Smith of Minnesota, Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada raised concerns about certain HUD programs that incoming President-elect Donald Trump targeted during his first term in office. 

Cortez Masto said Trump tried to limit and cut programs that supported construction of affordable housing.

Trump in a budget request to Congress called for cutting housing programs such as the Community Development Block Grant, which directs funding to local and state governments to rehabilitate and build affordable housing.

She asked Turner if he would take the same approach.

“My goal… is to look at all of the programs within HUD and see what is successful, and what’s not successful,” he said, adding that he would advocate to the president which programs are working. 

Cortez Masto asked if Turner had a position on housing vouchers. He said he’s still learning about them, along with other programs HUD manages.

“One thing I do know is we need to make it less cumbersome, and more efficient in the process, and make it easier for landowners and landlords to work with us instead of putting a lot of bureaucracy and red tape and burden on them,” he said.

Freshman GOP. Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio blamed the shortage of housing on immigrants who entered the country without proper authorization, and asked Turner how he thought they played into homelessness.

Turner cited HUD’s annual homelessness report released in December. In that report, the agency found that a record number of people were experiencing homelessness due to natural disasters, new immigrants arriving in the United States, the end of an eviction moratorium put in place due to the coronavirus pandemic and the end of the expanded child tax credit.

“It noted that illegal migration, you know illegal immigration, has caused a lot of the homelessness in our country,” Turner said. “It’s going to be a great burden on the economy, on housing, on homelessness, on health, in our country.”

Mixed status families

Freshman Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona, said in his state it’s very common to have mixed status families, meaning family members with different immigration and citizenship statuses.

Gallego said during the first Trump administration, HUD tried through a rulemaking process to limit housing assistance to mixed status families. He asked Turner if families with one member who is an undocumented immigrant would be evicted from federal housing.

“We have to take care of American citizens and American families. It’s not only the right thing to do, it’s not what we’re just called to do, it’s the law,” he said. “My job would be to uphold the laws on the books.”

Only U.S. citizens have access to federal housing, and there is no HUD regulation that bars mixed status families from receiving federal assistance. The Biden administration rescinded the rulemaking process in 2021 started during the first Trump administration that tried to make mixed status families ineligible for federal housing assistance.

“I know oftentimes we have to make hard decisions because we do not like to tear up families, but we have an obligation to serve the American people and uphold the laws on the books,” Turner said.

Gallego said when it comes to mixed status families, “these are American people, they’re just in a situation where they’re married to someone who is undocumented.”

“This is why I’m asking specifically, to make sure that you understand that there is a nuance, and all we’re gonna do is create more Americans that are actually going to be homeless if we rush to just (do) evictions,” Gallego said. 

Migrants from Mexico and Guatemala are apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol officers after crossing a section of border wall into the United States on Jan. 4, 2025, in Ruby, Arizona. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate this week is moving to pass a bill that immigration attorneys and experts warn could have far-reaching ramifications, such as swamping federal courts with challenges by state attorneys general and subjecting some migrants — including children and teens — to rapid detention and deportation.

The legislation, the Laken Riley Act, S. 5, would greatly expand detention of immigrants and give state attorneys general broad discretion to challenge federal immigration policy if enacted into law.

Experts are concerned that the bill would aid President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign promise to enact mass deportations by requiring the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to detain a noncitizen on an arrest, charge or conviction of petty theft — a response to the murder of the 22-year-old Georgia nursing student for whom the measure is named.

Laken Riley went out on a run and her roommates became concerned after she did not return home. Jose Antonio Ibarra, a 26-year-old migrant from Venezuela, last month was convicted of her murder and received a life sentence. According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, he allegedly entered the country illegally in 2022 and was charged with shoplifting but was not detained by ICE.

In a presidential election in which immigration was a central theme, the measure has gained bipartisan support, with 48 U.S. House Democrats voting with Republicans for passage. An overwhelming 32 Senate Democrats and one independent sided with Republicans on a procedural vote to move the bill forward.

Senate Democrats have argued that the procedural vote is an opportunity to debate the bill and add amendments, but it’s unclear if Senate Republicans will agree to that process.

The bill’s lead sponsor, Alabama Sen. Katie Britt, said on the Senate floor before the procedural vote that the bill “is necessary as it is straightforward.”

“I want to be very clear, only individuals that would be subject to this bill are criminal illegal aliens,” Britt said. “These individuals crossed our border illegally, and then they committed a crime after getting here. That’s who we’re talking about.”

But immigration attorneys argue that the bill would not only affect undocumented people, but would ensnare some immigrants with legal status, lead to the detainment of children, challenge the release and bond decisions of immigration judges and have the potential to interfere with the issuing of visas on the international stage.

The bill, in its definition of “immigrants who are inadmissible” as those who are affected, is problematic, they say.

“This will fuel mass deportation,” Nithya Nathan-Pineau, a policy attorney and strategist with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, said. 

She said that if someone is detained and they’re not able to defend themselves — because immigrants are not guaranteed a lawyer under U.S. law — they could easily end up with a conviction.

“That conviction may then subject them to deportation,” she said. “It’s designed to funnel people into detention so that they can be deported.”

Heidi Altman, the federal advocacy director at the National Immigration Law Center, said she’s concerned about the bill because there’s a long history of immigrant communities being heavily policed and more likely to have interaction with law enforcement.

“There remain serious racial disparities in policing and arrest in the United States, and so basing immigration detention on a mere arrest, quite clearly and inevitably, imports even more racial disparities from the criminal field system into the immigration system,” she said.

New powers for attorneys general

If it becomes law, the legislation would give broad legal standing for state attorneys general to challenge federal immigration law. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the left-leaning think tank American Immigration Council, said that provision aims to circumvent a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.

In a 2023 case, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas and Louisiana did not have standing to challenge the Biden administration’s priorities for who would be deported.

Additionally, the bill would allow those state attorneys general to question the bond decisions of immigration judges.

U.S.immigration courts are already strained, Altman said, adding that kind of legal power given to attorneys general would undermine the authority of immigration judges “and swamp the federal courts with decisions that have already been made by immigration judges being revisited.”

“You can’t have a functioning judicial system of any kind that can be questioned at any moment and on any individual decision by any state attorney general who has a political ax to grind,” she said.

That kind of authority could impact international diplomacy, Reichlin-Melnick said.

Those state attorneys general could seek a federal court order to compel the U.S. State Department to halt issuing visas to a country that refused to accept nationals who were eligible for deportation, known as recalcitrant countries. Some of those countries include China, Cuba, India and Russia.

“So you could have a single state attorney general and a single federal judge dictating international policy towards other countries around the world, and potentially forcing the secretary of state to impose sweeping visa bans on nationals of entire countries,” Reichlin-Melnick said.

Altman said that kind of authority for a state to halt visas “could potentially be among the most destabilizing in terms of larger government functioning and also foreign relations.”

“There’s concerns with regard to (a) foreign nation’s ability to trust that the federal government actually has any uniform control over visa policy, in addition to the destabilizing impact it would have on the ability of people from any countries targeted to be able to continue traveling to and from the United States for various reasons that are important to trade and the economy, like work visas and students’ visas,” she said.

DACA program

While the bill pushed by Republicans aims to require mandatory detention of immigrants without proper legal authorization who are arrested, charged or convicted of theft, shoplifting or burglary, it could also have an impact on people with a discretionary legal status, such as those with parole or in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, Altman said.

“It’s written right into the (DACA) regulation that the Department of Homeland Security has the discretion and the authority to terminate DACA status at any time on any basis,” she said. “And so if the Laken Riley Act were to be enacted and require the mandatory detention of people with a theft offense, what would likely happen under a Trump administration is that if a DACA recipient was arrested, that they would be taken into custody and DHS would have the authority to concurrently terminate their DACA status.”

Nathan-Pineau added that because the legality of DACA is currently being challenged in the courts, recipients are “at risk, because deferred action could be rescinded at any time.”

Immigrants who hold a green card, typically known as Lawful Permanent Residents, would not fall under the mandatory detention requirement, unless they were considered removable by violating immigration law, Altman said.

For the more than 1 million people with Temporary Protected Status, meaning their country is deemed too dangerous to return to so they are allowed to work and live in the United States, Altman said that “we would argue that TPS recipients could not be subject to (the bill), but as it’s written it’s quite ambiguous.”

Nathan-Pineau raised the issue that the bill does not provide a carve-out for immigrant youth and would subject them to mandatory detention.

“There is no exception for children,” she said.

Nathan-Pineau said that in her work as an immigration lawyer, she’s often represented youth who have been charged with shoplifting groceries. 

“That is one of the most common interactions between my young clients and law enforcement,” she said.

‘Quite extreme in American law’

DHS has broad authority to detain immigrants, Altman said, but “what this bill does is expand a particularly harsh type of detention, which we refer to as mandatory detention, because people detained under this authority cannot even ask for a bond hearing.”

“Their detention is just automatic, and this bill expands that category of detention for people just on the basis of an arrest or a charge, regardless of whether that arrest ever is going to result in a conviction,” she said. “That’s quite extreme in American law.”

Reichlin-Melnick noted that the bill has no time limit to when the petty theft charge applies.

“If you were arrested for theft when you’re 13, and you’re an undocumented immigrant now, you’ve been here for 30 years, and you apply for a Green Card through your spouse, you would be (considered for) mandatory detention,” he said.

Nathan-Pineau said that mandatory detention already applies for immigrants who have “committed pretty significant offenses,” not something that is considered property crime. 

Nathan-Pineau said if the bill were to become law, it would have required a former client of hers to be detained. That client was a mother in an abusive situation, where her abuser refused to give her money for groceries to feed her kids so she shoplifted and was arrested, Nathan-Pineau said.

“Those are the kinds of things that we want people to think about when we’re thinking about property crimes, and we’re thinking about burglary,” she said. “These are the kinds of offenses that could lead to someone being sent to detention for months or years on end.”

Texas National Guard soldiers stand on patrol near the banks of the Rio Grande on April 2, 2024 in El Paso, Texas. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate Monday voted to proceed with consideration of a bill that would impose new mandatory immigration detention requirements for immigrants charged with property crimes and give broad legal standing to state attorneys general.

In an 82-10 vote, a majority of Senate Democrats, 32, and one independent, joined Republicans.

Nine Democrats voted against the bill, S. 5, including Sens. Tina Smith of Minnesota, Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Andy Kim and Cory Booker of New Jersey, Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Brian Schatz and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii. Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders also opposed it.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said on the Senate floor that the bill, named after 22-year-old Georgia nursing student Laken Riley, is “a common sense measure that should be an unquestioned yes for every senator.”

Jose Antonio Ibarra, a 26-year-old migrant from Venezuela, was charged and convicted of Riley’s murder last month. According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Ibarra allegedly entered the country illegally in 2022 and was previously arrested in Georgia on a shoplifting charge and was later released.

“It would be incredibly disappointing if Democrats moved to the bill simply to attempt to load it down with poison pills or unrelated measures,” Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor that Democrats are “gonna ask our Republican colleagues to allow for debate and votes on amendments. I hope my Republican colleagues will allow for it.”

Republicans have crafted the bill to require the U.S. Department of Homeland Security use mandatory detention for an immigrant charged or arrested with local theft, burglary or shoplifting, which, among other things, means they are not allowed to be released on bond.

The bill, which aims to include noncitizens in the country without proper authorization, could also include immigrants with a discretionary legal status such as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA.

Additionally, the bill gives broad legal standing for state attorneys general to challenge federal immigration law, State Department policy on issuing visas and bond decisions from immigration judges.

Last week, 32 Senate Democrats and one independent voted with Republicans on a procedural motion to advance the bill. It’s the same bill that the House passed last year but Schumer never brought the bill to the floor for a vote when Democrats controlled the upper chamber.

The House passed its bill last week, this time gaining more Democratic support, 48 compared to 37 the first time, following an election in which border security was a main theme for President-elect Donald Trump.

Michigan Democratic U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, left, speaks at a press conference hosted by immigrant youth, allies and advocates outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2024. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — With a little over a week before the end of President Joe Biden’s term, his administration extended humanitarian protections for nationals from four countries Friday before President-elect Donald Trump, who has promised an immigration crackdown, returns to the White House.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security extended Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for another 18 months for 103,000 Ukrainians, about 600,000 Venezuelans, and 1,900 Sudanese, which is until October 2026. DHS also extended TPS for 232,000 Salvadorians until September 2026.

Roughly 1 million people have TPS, which allows them to live and work in the U.S. because their home country is deemed too dangerous to return to for reasons including war, environmental disasters or violence. It’s up to an administration to determine whether or not to renew a status. TPS does not lead to a long-term path to citizenship.

Immigration advocates have pushed the Biden administration to extend TPS status before a second Trump administration. The former president has expressed his intent to not only enact mass deportations, but to scale back humanitarian programs.

During Trump’s first term, he tried to end TPS designation for migrants from Haiti, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Sudan, but the courts blocked those attempts in 2018.

Migrants wait throughout the night on May 10, 2023, in a dust storm at Gate 42, on land between the Rio Grande and the border wall, hoping they will be processed by immigration authorities before the expiration of Title 42. (Photo by Corrie Boudreaux for Source NM)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans gained more than enough Democratic support Thursday to advance a bill that would greatly expand immigration detention, following a presidential election in which border security was a main theme for President-elect Donald Trump.

In an 84-9 procedural vote, 32 Senate Democrats and one independent backed the bill, S. 5, sponsored by Alabama’s Katie Britt. With the 60-vote threshold met, the legislation now can advance for debate and a final vote.

The only Democrats who voted against the procedural motion were Sens. Tina Smith of Minnesota, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Andy Kim and Cory Booker of New Jersey, Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Brian Schatz and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, also opposed it.

Hours before the vote, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said that he planned to vote to allow the bill to proceed because Democrats want a debate on the measure and an amendment process.

“This is not a vote on the bill itself,” Schumer said on the Senate floor Thursday. “It’s a motion to proceed, a vote that says we should have a debate and should have amendments.”

Petty crimes targeted

The bill, named after 22-year-old Georgia nursing student Laken Riley, would expand mandatory detention requirements for immigrants — including some with legal status — charged with petty crimes like shoplifting.

María Teresa Kumar, the president and CEO of the civic engagement group Voto Latino, said in a statement that the bill “is a chilling first step toward widespread family separation while dismantling critical protections for due process.”

“The legislation’s broad detention requirements would impact even those legally permitted to enter the United States to seek asylum, subjecting them to immediate incarceration based on accusations of minor offenses such as theft, burglary, or shoplifting,” she said. “Such measures not only undermine due process but also disproportionately target migrants who are already fleeing violence and instability in search of safety.”

The legislation would also give broad legal standing for state attorneys general to challenge federal immigration law and bond decisions of immigration judges.

It would include not only immigrants in the country without documentation, but also those with a discretionary legal status such as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA.

Georgia murder

Riley was out on a run when her roommates became concerned after she did not return home. Jose Antonio Ibarra, a 26-year-old migrant from Venezuela, was charged and convicted of her murder last month. According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Ibarra allegedly entered the country illegally in 2022.

Ibarra was previously arrested on a shoplifting charge and released, so the bill Republicans have pushed for would require the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to detain an immigrant charged or arrested with local theft, burglary or shoplifting.

“Her killer, who came to this country illegally, should have never been in the United States, and once he had been arrested for multiple crimes before committing the most heinous, unimaginable crime, he should have been detained by ICE immediately,” Britt said on the Senate floor.

Trump often spoke of Riley’s murder on the campaign trail and blamed the Biden administration’s immigration policies for her death.

GOP trifecta

The House passed its version of the bill, H.R. 29, on Tuesday, with 48 Democrats joining Republicans. The measure also passed the House on a bipartisan basis last Congress, with 37 Democrats voting with the GOP. It stalled in the Senate, where Democrats maintained a slim majority.

With a Republican-controlled trifecta in Washington after Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, and only seven Senate Democrats needed to break the 60-vote threshold, the bill has a decent chance of becoming law once it gets to a final vote, drawing concern from immigration advocates.

“With just days before Trump’s inauguration and what we know will be an onslaught of more attacks against immigrants, there is no excuse for complicity in the hateful demonization of immigrant communities and violent expansion of the detention and deportation apparatus,” Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, the deputy director of federal advocacy of the largest youth immigrant advocacy group United WeDream Action, said in a statement.

Democratic backers

Democrats, still reeling from the losses of the November election, have shifted toward the right on immigration.

The bill gained votes from senators from swing states that Trump carried, like Arizona freshman Ruben Gallego and Michigan freshman Elissa Slotkin.

“Michiganders have spoken loudly and clearly that they want action to secure our southern border,” Slotkin said in a statement.

She said that while the bill “isn’t perfect,” she’s hopeful for an amendment process.

Gallego and Slotkin both voted for the bill last Congress when they were members of the House.

Both Georgia Democratic Sens. Jon Ossoff — who is up for reelection next year — and Raphael Warnock voted for the procedural motion. 

“I’m voting to begin floor debate on the Laken Riley Act because I believe the people of Georgia want their lawmakers in Washington to address the issues in this legislation,” Warnock said in a statement before Thursday’s vote.

Michigan’s Democratic Sen. Gary Peters, who is also up for reelection next year, also voted for the procedural motion. 

Migrants wait throughout the night May 10, 2023, in a dust storm at Gate 42, on land between the Rio Grande and the border wall. (Photo by Corrie Boudreaux for Source New Mexico)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House passed its first bill of the 119th Congress Tuesday, a measure that increases migrant detention and is named after a Georgia nursing student whose murder President-elect Donald Trump repeatedly tied to the Biden administration’s immigration policies.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson said during a Tuesday press conference that “as promised, we’re starting today with border security.”

“If you polled the populace and the voters, they would tell you that that was the top of the list, and we have a lot to do there to fix it,” the Louisiana Republican said. “It’s an absolute disaster because of what has happened over the last four years, and the Laken Riley Act is a big part of that.”

Riley, 22, was out on a run when her roommates became concerned after she did not return home. Jose Antonio Ibarra, a 26-year-old migrant from Venezuela, was convicted of her murder last month. According to U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, Ibarra allegedly entered the country illegally in 2022.

The bill, H.R. 29, passed 264-159, with 48 Democrats joining Republicans. The measure also passed the House on a bipartisan basis last Congress, with 37 Democrats voting with the GOP.

It stalled in the Senate when then-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, did not bring it to the floor for a vote.

That will likely change now. Republicans who now control the Senate are expected to possibly bring up the bill this week. Alabama’s Sen. Katie Britt is the lead sponsor in that chamber of the companion to the House bill, S. 5.

The Senate version has already gained bipartisan support, with the backing of Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman.

Additionally, Michigan’s Democratic Sen. Gary Peters said he would support the bill if it’s brought to a vote in the Senate.

“We gotta make sure that we’re doing everything we can to secure the border, and keep people safe in our country,” he said in an interview with States Newsroom.

If the bill advances past the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, it’s likely to be signed into law sometime after Trump is inaugurated on Jan. 20. But it’s not yet clear how many Democrats will join Republicans in backing it.

DHS detention, AG lawsuits

Ibarra, the man convicted of Riley’s murder, was previously arrested for driving a scooter without a license and for shoplifting. The bill would require the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to detain any immigrants — even those with legal status — charged with local theft, burglary or shoplifting.

It would also allow the attorney general of a state to bring civil lawsuits against the federal government for violating a detention or removal proceeding “that harms such State or its residents.”

Rep. Mike Collins, who sponsored the bill, represents the district where Riley’s family lives.

“This legislation could have prevented her death,” the Georgia Republican said Tuesday. “We gotta make sure that this doesn’t ever happen again.”

During the debate, Collins read a statement from the Riley family in which they said they support the legislation.

“Laken would have been 23 on January the 10th,” Collins read from the statement. “There is no greater gift that could be given to her or our country than to continue her legacy by saving lives through this bill.”

‘Empty and opportunistic’

Maryland Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin criticized the measure and argued that if it were to become law, it would raise questions about due process because the measure would require immigration detention on the basis of a charge or arrest.

“Their bill today is an empty and opportunistic measure,” Raskin said during Tuesday’s debate.

“This bill would upend 28 years of mandatory immigration detention policy by requiring that any undocumented immigrant arrested for theft, larceny or shoplifting be detained, even if they are never convicted or even charged with a crime.”

Washington Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said the bill does not fix the U.S. immigration system.

“In the process it unfairly sweeps up many more innocent lives with no due process,” she said.

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

U.S. Senate pages carrying the Electoral College certificates in wooden ballot boxes walk through the Capitol rotunda on their way to the U.S. House chamber on Monday, Jan. 6, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers certified President-elect Donald Trump’s win Monday in a smooth process that four years ago was disrupted by a violent mob of Trump supporters bent on stopping Congress from formally declaring President Joe Biden’s 2020 victory.

Vice President Kamala Harris — the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee defeated by Trump — presided over the afternoon joint session. Senators and representatives counted and certified the 312 Electoral College votes for Trump that secured his second term in office, this time accompanied by Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio as his vice president.

“Today was obviously a very important day. It was about what should be the norm and what the American people should be able to take for granted, which is that one of the most important pillars of our democracy is that there will be a peaceful transfer of power,” Harris, who won 226 Electoral College votes, told reporters after lawmakers concluded the ceremony.

The process wrapped up in just under 40 minutes with no objections — a stark contrast to four years ago, when Republicans objected to Arizona and Pennsylvania results, and Trump supporters breached the Capitol, sending lawmakers into hiding for several hours.

Former Vice President Mike Pence said Monday in a statement published on X that he welcomed “the return of order and civility to these historic proceedings.”

“The peaceful transfer of power is the hallmark of our democracy and today, members of both parties in the House and Senate along with the vice president certified the election of our new president and vice president without controversy or objection,” wrote Pence, who in 2021 resisted intense pressure from Trump to stop Congress from certifying the results.

On that day, the rioters chanted “Hang Mike Pence” and erected a makeshift gallows on the west side of the Capitol.

Inside the House chamber

Harris entered the chamber just before 1 p.m. Eastern on Monday, with senators following in line behind her.

Lawmakers read aloud the Electoral College vote totals for each state. Harris stood at the dais as results were reported, including the states she and running mate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz won.

Of the 538 Electoral College votes, at least 270 are needed to win.

Lawmakers on each side of the chamber applauded, and some even stood, when vote totals were announced for their party’s candidate.

Vance, sitting beside GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, applauded during the reading of votes.

Ahead of Monday’s certification, Democratic Reps. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and Jamie Raskin of Maryland sat together chatting near the back of the chamber for several minutes.

Thompson chaired the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Raskin, who was a member of the committee, has spoken out as recently as last week against Trump’s promise to pardon the defendants charged in the attack.

Pardon advocates gather nearby

Blocks away, at a Capitol Hill hotel, a series of speakers called for full pardons for people convicted of participating in the riot.

The group, a collection of far-right social media figures, framed the 2021 riot as a peaceful protest — even as they openly advocated for the pardons of people who committed violence.

“I believe there should be pardons for every single J6er, including the very most violent ones,” said Cara Castronuova, boxer, advocate and reporter for the pro-Trump news site Gateway Pundit.

Security fencing surrounded the Capitol, where an increased police presence monitored the grounds and inside the building.

The U.S. Secret Service led security planning for the day, which was elevated to a “National Special Security Event,” — the first time a count of the Electoral College votes received the designation.

However, pedestrian and vehicle traffic outside the Capitol remained light after roughly 6 inches of snow fell overnight and into the morning.

Staff crossing paths with U.S. Capitol police officers in the hallways and House basement cafe remarked on the attack four years ago and wished the officers a quiet day.

Fake electors, pressure on Pence

In the 64 days between 2020’s presidential election and Congress’ certification of Biden’s win, Trump and his supporters led a campaign to overturn the results.

Trump and his private attorneys schemed to develop slates of fake electors in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Trump also launched a heavy pressure campaign on Pence to thwart Congress’ certification of Biden’s victory and rallied his supporters to march to the Capitol as he led a “Stop the Steal” rally just hours before lawmakers convened on Jan. 6, 2021.

By day’s end, rioters had assaulted over 140 police officers and caused approximately $2.8 million in damage to the Capitol.

The U.S. Justice Department launched its largest-ever investigation following the attack and, as of December, had charged 1,572 defendants.

Over a third of the defendants were charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding law enforcement, and 171 were charged with using a deadly weapon.

Police were ‘punched, tackled, tased and attacked’

Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a statement Monday marking the Justice Department’s years-long investigation “to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy.”

“On this day, four years ago, police officers were brutally assaulted while bravely defending the United States Capitol. They were punched, tackled, tased, and attacked with chemical agents that burned their eyes and skin. Today, I am thinking of the officers who still bear the scars of that day as well as the loved ones of the five officers who lost their lives in the line of duty as a result of what happened to them on January 6, 2021.”

Democratic lawmakers and House Chaplain Margaret Grun Kibben marked the anniversary Monday by holding a moment of prayer on the first floor of the Capitol, where rioters first breached the building four years ago. 

“What was intended to be a historical parliamentary procedure turned quickly into turmoil and frustration and anger and fear,” Kibben said. “We pray now that on this day, four years later, that You would enter into the space in a much different way; in a way that allows for peace and for conversation and for reconciliation.”

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said afterward that pardoning the people who attacked the Capitol four years ago would “set a terrible example for the future in America and for the world that it was okay, it was forgivable to do this.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said the events of Jan. 6, 2021 “will forever live in infamy.”

“A violent mob attacked the Capitol as part of a concerted effort to halt the peaceful transfer of power in the United States of America for the first time in our history,” Jeffries said. “Thanks to the bravery, courage and sacrifice of heroic police officers and the law enforcement community, the effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election was unsuccessful.”

Republicans saw ‘peaceful grandmothers’

House Speaker Mike Johnson released a statement Monday celebrating the vote certification and Trump’s win as the “​​greatest political comeback in American history.” He did not mention the 2021 attack and his office did not respond to requests for comment about it from States Newsroom.

The Louisianan, whose narrow election as speaker on Friday was boosted by a Trump endorsement, was among the Republicans who refused to certify Arizona’s and Pennsylvania’s slates of electors even after the violent mob stormed the Capitol. 

GOP Rep. Mike Collins of Georgia posted on X on Monday that Jan. 6, 2021, amounted to “thousands of peaceful grandmothers gathered in Washington, D.C., to take a self-guided, albeit unauthorized, tour of the U.S. Capitol building.”

“Earlier that day, President Trump held a rally, where supporters walked to the Capitol to peacefully protest the certification of the 2020 election. During this time, some individuals entered the Capitol, took photos, and explored the building before leaving,” Collins wrote. “Since then, hundreds of peaceful protestors have been hunted down, arrested, held in solitary confinement, and treated unjustly.”

On whether Trump should pardon those defendants charged in the Jan. 6 riot, GOP South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham told reporters Monday he believed those who were charged with assaulting law enforcement should be “put in a different category.” But ultimately, Graham said, that decision is up to Trump.

Louisiana’s Cassidy said he couldn’t comment on Trump likely pardoning people convicted of crimes based on their actions on Jan. 6, 2021.

“I mean, it’s a statement without detail, and so it’s hard for me to give thoughts,” Cassidy said, adding he needs to know which people Trump plans to pardon and on what basis. “And so until you see that, it’s hard to have a thought.”

West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican, said she suspected it wasn’t easy for Harris to oversee the certification of her defeat, but said she was glad this year included a peaceful transition of power. 

“Well, I thought it was very orderly,” Capito said. “I thought it was very well handled by the vice president as the president of the Senate — it couldn’t have been easy for her. And I think that the peaceful transfer of power is something that makes us all proud to be Americans.”

Changes after the violent attack

Congress is required by law to convene at 1 p.m. Eastern on the sixth day of January following a presidential election year to certify each state’s slate of electors. The vice president, serving in the role of president of the Senate, presides over the process.

Lawmakers amended the law to clarify the vice president’s role after Trump’s actions toward Pence.

Monday’s certification marked the first time lawmakers used the new law, known as the Electoral Count Act.

The bill, signed into law in 2022, updated an 1887 election law that made it unclear what the vice president’s role was in certifying election results.

The new law, spearheaded by Sen. Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and former Sen. Joe Manchin III, a West Virginia independent, raises the threshold for objections to a state’s electoral votes and clarifies the vice president’s role as purely ceremonial in certifying electoral results.

Previously, only one U.S. House representative and one U.S. senator needed to make an objection to an elector or slate of electors, but under the new law, one-fifth of the members from each chamber need to lodge an objection.

Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, the outgoing chair of the Senate Rules Committee who helped pass the Electoral Count Act out of committee, said in a statement that “no matter your party, we must uphold the right of all Americans to make their voices heard in our free and fair elections.”

Jacob Fischler contributed to this report.

President Joe Biden is joined by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., right,  and Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., during a celebration of their work to appoint a record number of federal judges at the White House on Jan. 2, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden on Thursday said the work his administration did in nominating judges confirmed to the federal bench will help protect the nation’s democratic institutions in the years ahead.

“These judges will be independent, they’ll be fair, and they’ll be impartial,” Biden said. “I never thought I’d be saying this, they’ll uphold the Constitution.”  

Biden nominated more confirmed judicial nominees than President-elect Donald Trump in his first term, although Trump will begin a second term on Jan. 20 and regain the power to shape the federal judiciary.

With Senate control switching from Democrats to Republicans on Friday, it ends the opportunity for any more confirmation votes before Trump’s inauguration.

Of Biden’s 235 confirmed nominees, 187 were seated to district courts, 45 to federal appeals courts, and two to the Court of International Trade.

He named one justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was confirmed by the Senate and is the first Black woman to sit on the high court.

Nearly 100 of Biden’s nominees previously worked as civil rights lawyers or public defenders, according to the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

Additionally, Biden set a record for appointing the most women and more Black, Native American, Latino and Latina, Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander judges than during any other presidency of any length, according to the Leadership Conference.

“For the first time in a long, long time, we have a bench that looks like and represents all of America,” Biden said. “We have a record number of judges with backgrounds and experiences that have long been overlooked in the federal judiciary, like advocates for civil rights, workers’ rights, immigrant rights and so much more.”

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, accompanied Biden for the White House remarks and said confirming judges was the top priority for the committee.

“We are proud of the fact that these nominees have bipartisan support,” Durbin said. “More than 80% of them received bipartisan support.”

Durbin also thanked Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer for his work bringing judicial nominations to the Senate floor for votes.

Durbin said he “nagged (Schumer) and beat up on him and twisted his arm and did everything I could to get our nominees on the calendar, and he came through with flying colors.”

Schumer, a New York Democrat also at the White House for the event, agreed, and said Durbin was “as we say in Brooklyn, ‘a noodge.’”

Schumer said not only were the confirmations historic, but that it would be one of the “most consequential accomplishments” of the Biden administration.

“The good news is that these judges will be a barrier against attacks on our democratic institutions. At the district level, these judges will have the first and often decisive impact on cases involving voting rights in elections and democracy writ large,” Schumer said. “These judges will be the shield that protects our democracy.”

President Joe Biden on Thursday, Dec. 12, 2024, commuted the sentences of roughly 1,500 people and granted pardons for 39 individuals with convictions for nonviolent crimes. (Photo by Caspar Benson/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden Thursday commuted the sentences of roughly 1,500 people who were placed in home confinement during the coronavirus pandemic, and granted pardons for 39 individuals with convictions for nonviolent crimes.

“America was built on the promise of possibility and second chances,” Biden said in a statement. He noted many of the 1,500 were serving long sentences that would be shorter under current laws, policies and practices.

As the Biden administration winds down, it’s the largest single-day grant of clemency in modern day history.

The president added that his administration will continue to review clemency petitions before his term ends on Jan. 20. There are more than 9,400 petitions for clemency that were submitted to the White House, according to recent Department of Justice clemency statistics. 

“As President, I have the great privilege of extending mercy to people who have demonstrated remorse and rehabilitation, restoring opportunity for Americans to participate in daily life and contribute to their communities, and taking steps to remove sentencing disparities for non-violent offenders, especially those convicted of drug offenses,” Biden said.

Those 39 people who received pardons included 67-year-old Michael Gary Pelletier of Augusta, Maine, who pleaded guilty to a nonviolent offense, according to the White House, which provided brief biographies of the pardoned individuals.

After his conviction, Pelletier worked for 20 years at a water treatment facility and volunteered for the HAZMAT team, assisting in hazardous spills and natural disasters. He now grows vegetables for a local soup kitchen and volunteers to support wounded veterans.

Another pardon was granted to Nina Simona Allen of Harvest, Alabama.

Allen, 49, was convicted of a nonviolent offense in her 20s, the White House said. After her conviction, she earned a post-baccalaureate degree and two master’s degrees and now works in the field of education. Additionally, she volunteers at a local soup kitchen and nursing home.

Hunter Biden pardon

The clemency action came after the president gave a full pardon for his son, Hunter Biden, on gun and tax charges and any other offenses, from 2014 until December. The president previously stated he would not pardon his son, but changed his mind because he said his son was constantly targeted by Republicans.

Other clemency actions Biden has taken include commuting sentences of those serving sentences for simple possession and use of marijuana under federal and District of Columbia law and a pardon of former U.S. service members who were convicted under military law of having consensual sex with same-sex partners — a law that is now repealed.  

Additionally, advocates and Democrats have pressed Biden to exert his clemency powers on behalf of the 40 men on federal death row before President-elect Donald Trump returns to the White House. Democrats have pushed for this because Trump expedited 13 executions of people on federal death row in the last six months of his first term.

The co-executive directors of Popular Democracy in Action, a progressive advocacy group, Analilia Mejia and DaMareo Cooper, said in a joint statement that Biden should “not stop now.” 

“Thousands more of our people who have been wronged by an unjust system are still waiting for freedom and compassion,” they said.

Those with nonviolent offenses who were pardoned by the president, according to the White House:

Alabama

Nina Simona Allen

California

Gregory S. Ekman

Colorado

Johnnie Earl Williams

Connecticut

Sherranda Janell Harris

Delaware

Patrice Chante Sellers 

District of Columbia

Norman O’Neal Brown

Florida

Jose Antonio Rodriguez

Illinois

Diana Bazan Villanueva 

Indiana

Emily Good Nelson

Kentucky

Edwin Allen Jones

Louisiana

Trynitha Fulton

Maine

Michael Gary Pelletier

Maryland

Arthur Lawrence Byrd

Minnesota

Kelsie Lynn Becklin

Sarah Jean Carlson

Lashawn Marrvinia Walker 

Nevada

Lora Nicole Wood 

New Mexico

Paul John Garcia

New York

Kimberly Jo Warner 

Ohio

Duran Arthur Brown

Kim Douglas Haman

Jamal Lee King

James Russell Stidd

Oklahoma

Shannan Rae Faulkner

Oregon

Gary Michael Robinson

South Carolina

Denita Nicole Parker

Shawnte Dorothea Williams

Tennessee

James Edgar Yarbrough

Texas

Nathaniel David Reed III 

Mireya Aimee Walmsley

Lashundra Tenneal Wilson

Utah

Stevoni Wells Doyle

Virginia

Brandon Sergio Castroflay

Washington

Rosetta Jean Davis

Terence Anthony Jackson

Russell Thomas Portner

Wisconsin

Jerry Donald Manning

Audrey Diane Simone

Wyoming

Honi Lori Moore

Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto urges the Biden administration to extend protections for Dreamers and immigrants with Temporary Protected Status during a Wednesday, Dec. 11, 2024, press conference. From left to right are Andrea Flores of the immigration advocacy group FWD.us and Sens. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico and Alex Padilla of California. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Jose Cabrera took off work from his landscaping job to join three Latino Democratic senators for a Wednesday press conference urging the Biden administration to renew protected statuses, like his, before the return of President-elect Donald Trump to the White House.

Cabrera, of Montgomery County, Maryland, has lived in the U.S. for more than 30 years, and is protected from deportation and allowed work permits. His home country of El Salvador is deemed too dangerous to return, giving him a designation of Temporary Protected Status, or TPS. 

He and other immigrants living legally in the United States fear if they lose their protected status, they will be swept up as Trump implements his campaign promise of mass deportations.

Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Alex Padilla of California and Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico are pressing the Biden administration to redesignate TPS for nationals from Nicaragua and El Salvador and to also designate TPS for people from Ecuador.

TPS for El Salvador ends in March and TPS for Nicaragua ends in July, after Trump takes office on Jan. 20.

“We know the incoming administration is going to try to implement chaotic immigration policies that tear our families apart,” Cortez Masto said.

The members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus also stressed that the White House should direct the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s immigration agency to speed up renewal applications for those in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program.

“It’s time for this administration to ensure that we can renew their DACA status now, before they come under threat from the Trump administration,” Cortez Masto said.

The White House could not be immediately reached for comment.

Mass deportations threat

The senators stressed that the Biden administration should take action, given Trump’s vow to enact mass deportations, targeting the millions of immigrants without legal status. Deportations could easily include those with TPS if their status is not renewed.

TPS designations can last six, 12 or 18 months before they are renewed and cover more than 1 million immigrants. The status does not offer a pathway to citizenship.

So far, 17 countries have TPS designation and it’s been used in instances like Ukrainians fleeing from Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Andrea Flores, the vice president on immigration policy and campaigns at the immigration advocacy group FWD.us, said that Biden should use TPS to protect those holding the status from the incoming Trump administration.

During the first Trump administration, the former president tried to end TPS for Haiti, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Sudan, but the courts blocked those attempts in 2018.

“Those people will now lose legal status in the next administration. Those people will be subject to mass deportations, and they’ll be returned to a country where they will be guaranteed to be persecuted,” Flores said.

Padilla and Luján stressed that mass deportations would not only harm communities but the U.S. economy. The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing Tuesday on the ramifications of mass deportations at which Republicans indicated they will be moving ahead quickly once Trump takes office.

“Mass deportations will jeopardize the safety and security of millions of mixed-status families, sowing deep (mis)trust and fear in the communities we represent, and without a doubt, destabilize the United States economy,” Luján said.

There are roughly 4 million mixed-status families, meaning family members with different immigration statuses.

Padilla said that those who have TPS and DACA all work in crucial U.S. industries.  

“By taking work authorization for hundreds of thousands of workers away, we’re gutting our own workforce,” he said.

DACA fate

Trump, who tried to end DACA during his first administration, said during a sit-down interview with NBC on Sunday that he would “work with the Democrats on a plan” to keep those recipients in the U.S., but he did not elaborate on any details.

The program is currently waiting for a federal court to decide its legal fate.

Thomas A. Saenz, the president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which along with the state of New Jersey is defending DACA in the courts, said Dreamers should still continue to apply for renewals “and not fear renewing.”

“They should continue to seek renewal even perhaps earlier than they otherwise might to try to extend the period under which they are protected,” he said in an interview with States Newsroom.

Cortez Masto said she is always willing to work to protect Dreamers, but is skeptical about Trump’s comments.

“The last time he said that, and we brought him a bipartisan bill to do something to protect our Dreamers, he killed it,” she said.

Cortez Masto was referring to a 2018 bipartisan deal that Sens. Mike Rounds, Republican of South Dakota, and Angus King, independent of Maine, struck that would have granted DACA recipients a pathway to citizenship, along with funding for a border wall.

‘The government has all of our information’

Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, deputy director of federal advocacy at the immigrant advocacy group United We Dream, said in an interview with States Newsroom that she’s concerned about Immigration and Customs Enforcement having access to information on DACA applicants through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that processes legal immigration paperwork.

“We’re really worried that will just give ICE a list of people that they can go then (and) knock on their doors,” she said. 

Macedo do Nascimento, who is a DACA recipient herself, said her organization is asking the Biden administration to create a firewall between USCIS databases and DHS agencies like ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

“The government has all of our information,” she said. “They could potentially come get us at any point. That’s the worst case scenario.” 

Immigrant farm workers harvest broccoli on March 16, 2006, near the border town of San Luis, south of Yuma, Arizona. (Photo by David McNew/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON —  A top Republican on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee said Tuesday that when President-elect Donald Trump takes office and the GOP takes control of the Senate, lawmakers’ first priority will be to pass a border security package through a complex process known as budget reconciliation.

Trump has promised his base his administration will enact mass deportations of people living in the country illegally. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said at a Judiciary hearing that Senate Republicans will focus on increasing beds at detention centers, hiring Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and purchasing technology for enforcement at the southern border.

“It is our belief that the only way you’ll get control of the border is for deportations to start early,” he said. “If we do not have outflow, the inflow will continue.”

However, a senior fellow at the pro-immigration think tank the American Immigration Council, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, told the panel the endeavor will be expensive.

Carrying out mass deportations of 1 million people would cost about $88 billion a year for arrests, detainment and removal, he said. About 13 million people are living in the United States illegally.

Fixing a broken system

The committee hearing, led by Democrats who control the Senate now but will be in the minority next year, explored the ramifications of the Trump campaign promise of mass deportations.

“Instead of mass deportations, mass accountability,” said the chair of the committee, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois. “Let’s fix our broken immigration system in a way that protects our country and honors our heritage as a nation of immigrants.”

The budget reconciliation process cited by Graham that would be used to pass border security legislation, if successful, would allow Republicans to get around the 60-vote filibuster in the Senate.

Reconciliation is generally used when one party controls the House, Senate and the White House, because it only requires a majority vote in each chamber.

Graham added that Republicans will also prevent those people who were paroled into the country through executive authority from employing another avenue for legal immigration status. The GOP has been critical of programs that allow certain nationals from Haiti, Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela to temporarily work and live in the United States.

“So if you’re here illegally, get ready to leave,” Graham said.

DACA program

One of the hearing witnesses, Foday Turay, is in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which is awaiting a federal court ruling on its legality after the Trump administration tried to end it.

Separately, on Monday, a federal court blocked the implementation of a final rule from the Biden administration to allow DACA recipients to have health care access under the Affordable Care Act. 

About 500,000 people are in the program, which is aimed at protecting children brought into the country without authorization from deportation. It also allows them to obtain work permits.

Turay is an assistant district attorney in the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, and said if he were deported it would devastate his family, as he is the primary income earner in his household.

He said his wife, a U.S. citizen, is the primary caretaker of her mother, a person with disabilities who is undergoing cancer treatments. Additionally, Turay said he would have to leave his son behind if he is deported.

Another witness, Patty Morin of Aberdeen, Maryland, told how her daughter, Rachel, was killed. The suspect, who was charged with first-degree murder and sexual assault, was in the country illegally and had a prior criminal record.

Durbin said Democrats are not opposed to ICE carrying out its duties to deport those with criminal records and stressed that Trump’s plans for mass deportations extend beyond that group and would include people like Turay.

“This man for a living is prosecuting criminals,” Durbin said of Turay. “This other individual is a clear criminal with a record. When we say ‘mass deportation,’ should we consider them the same because they’re both undocumented?”

Graham said when it comes to DACA, “hopefully we can find a solution to that problem.”

Over the weekend, Trump expressed his support for coming to an agreement with Democrats to allow DACA recipients to remain in the country, despite trying to end the program during his first term.

Use of National Guard

Durbin said he is concerned about Trump’s comments about using the National Guard to carry out mass deportations.

One of the witnesses, Randy Manner, a retired major general in the U.S. Army, said he sees problems with using the military for mass deportations.

It could affect military readiness, he said, and the military is not trained in that capacity.

“Immigration enforcement is the responsibility of federal law enforcement agencies,” Manner said.

He added that having soldiers carry out that directive would have a negative impact on morale and recruiting. Manner also said having the U.S. military involved in that kind of political messaging would erode public trust.

Cost of mass deportations

Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar said not only would mass deportations be harmful to communities, but a financial strain as well.

Reichlin-Melnick said industries that would be hit particularly hard by losing employees would include construction, agriculture and hospitality.

Reichlin-Melnick also argued that ICE already focuses on arresting and conducting deportation proceedings for noncitizens with criminal records.

“The overwhelming majority of people who would be the target of a mass deportation campaign do not have criminal records,” he said. “They are people who have been living otherwise law-abiding lives in this country, living, working and, in many cases, paying taxes.”

Tennessee Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn suggested that local law enforcement should be empowered to carry out deportations, even though immigration enforcement is a federal issue.

Art Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for sharply limiting immigration, supported that idea.

“They’re going to be the people who are best able to pull those individuals out of the community,” Arthur said of local law enforcement.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, speaks with reporters inside the U.S. Capitol after returning from a meeting at the White House on Tuesday, Feb. 27, 2024.  (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday tripped and fell after a GOP lunch, sprained his wrist and sustained a small cut on his face, his office said in a statement.

The Kentucky Republican is doing fine, and after receiving medical attention, “has been cleared to resume his schedule,” his office said in the three-sentence statement read to reporters.

McConnell, 82, is a polio survivor, and has tripped in the past.

The incoming Senate GOP leader, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, said that McConnell was “fine” and deferred all other questions to McConnell’s office.