Hundreds of thousands of Haitian immigrants could lose their legal status as early as Tuesday, subjecting them to deportation after the U.S. Supreme Court last month allowed the Trump administration to proceed with terminating their humanitarian protections.

The incoming loss of Temporary Protected Status for between 330,000 and 350,000 immigrants comes amid the Trump administration’s deportation campaign and continued attacks on TPS recipients who hail from countries deemed too unsafe for return. The State Department highly advises against any visit to Haiti due to kidnappings and violence by gangs.

The Department of Homeland Security has already urged those who are set to lose their TPS to self-deport:

“Temporary protected status is exactly that — TEMPORARY,” DHS said in a Monday social media post. “For those with terminated TPS: it’s closing time. You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.”

Several media reports have indicated that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is planning for aggressive enforcement of Haitian immigrants who lose their legal status, starting with the large population in Springfield, Ohio.

The state’s Republican governor, Mike DeWine, told CBS News on Monday he was not aware of those plans from DHS, and called any enforcement actions against Haitians a “mistake.”

Lower court stay

The exact timing of the loss of status is complicated by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., who has yet to apply the Supreme Court ruling in the case and lift an earlier stay that bars the administration from ending TPS for Haitians. A decision, potentially issuing another stay while the court hears other arguments, is expected this week.

The U.S. Department of Justice has proposed a briefing schedule to continue arguments in the District of Columbia trial court, with the last brief due Nov. 6. Attorneys for Haitians with TPS plan to file a brief by Friday laying out their legal arguments in the wake of the high court’s decision.

Federal judges have paused TPS terminations for nationals from Burma, Ethiopia and South Sudan. Before the second Trump administration began last year, there were roughly 1.3 million immigrants on TPS hailing from 17 countries.

Businesses, families in flux

Immigration advocates and business leaders have criticized the administration’s policy to revoke TPS.

“Most adult TPS holders are active participants in the labor force, working in industries that already face persistent worker shortages,” Rebecca Shi, CEO of American Business Immigration Coalition Action, said in a statement. “Removing these workers doesn’t just upend lives, it weakens industries that are already struggling to meet demand.”

The Haitian Bridge Alliance, which advocates for Haitian TPS holders, said in a statement that the loss of deportation protections will lead to family separation, as many recipients have U.S. citizen children.

“What we could witness will be one of the largest family separation events in modern day history,” the Haitian Bridge Alliance said.

Other avenues closing

Some TPS recipients can apply for another immigration status, such as asylum, though not all can apply or qualify.

For example, noncitizens with TPS due to a natural disaster are unlikely to meet the criteria for asylum, which includes fear of persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion,” according to federal law.

Additionally, the Trump administration issued a rule Tuesday that will allow for asylum officers to immediately send asylum seekers to appear before immigration judges without conducting an interview or including key evidence of the applicant’s credibility, leading to a quick denial and deportation.

The new rule, coupled with the loss of TPS, means that recipients are unlikely to have a strong chance of winning asylum claims.

High court ruling

Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that courts were barred from reviewing if the decision to end TPS designation made by then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem followed the proper procedures.

Even though the case was brought by TPS recipients from Haiti and Syria, the decision could also impact other TPS-related challenges to the Trump administration’s efforts to end the designation.

Following the high court’s ruling, attorneys representing TPS recipients in courts across the country are amending their complaints.

They argue that the termination of TPS status, including work authorization, is a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s 5th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which says the government cannot deprive a person of their “life, liberty or property” without following certain procedures.

Lawyers have also argued that the TPS terminations were based on racial animus rather than because country conditions improved.

They cite President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign statements that falsely accused Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, of eating house pets.

What are your thoughts about Haitians losing their Temporary Protected Status?

Share your opinion in a comment to this story!

Abrazos,

Jack Beavers

Add us a preferred Google source!

Click the button above to add US Border News as a preferred source in your Google News Feed.

When you board a cruise ship leaving the United States, you have to show a U.S. passport, which is electronically scanned. A photo is also taken and provided to U.S. authorities along with the ship’s passenger manifest. On return, you have to pass through U.S. customs. So you’d think the last thing a wanted person would do is book a cruise - but you would be wrong.

At the Galveston Cruise Port, 327 cruise ship passengers were arrested by U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) Officers over a two-year period between 2022 and 2024.

This year, CBP has posted photos to social media of more than 20 arrests this month and last of passengers at Florida cruise ports.

Among those arrested were Martell Murray, whom the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office said “had a warrant (for) a violation of his release conditions for his murder charges …and his cabin mate, Kenderia Burney … (who) had a warrant for violation of probation.”

The pair were among six cruise passengers arrested for outstanding warrants and probation violations by sheriff’s deputies at the Port Canaveral, Florida Cruise Port on July 17, 2026.

Not just cruise passengers run afoul of US authorities. On April 20, 2026, four cruise ship crew members “who admitted to having child sex abuse materials” were arrested at Port Everglades, Florida, and were processed for deportation to their home countries.

Finally, a word to the wise: whether you are passengers or crew and considering trying to sneak contraband aboard a cruise ship - don’t! Your luggage (and you) are highly likely to meet a drug-sniffing dog either employed by the cruise lines or the U.S. government — and their keen noses don’t miss much (as the photos below show).

Are you surprised that people with warrants or contraband would risk passing through security to go on a cruise?

Share your opinion in a comment to this story!

Abrazos,

Jack Beavers

Add us a preferred Google source!

Click the button above to add US Border News as a preferred source in your Google News feed!

(This article was written by Lauren McCauley of The Maine Morning Star, part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization, & is republished by US Border News with permission under a Creative Commons license)

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s employee vetting process is under review as part of the investigation into the fatal shooting in Biddeford, Maine on July 13, White House border czar Tom Homan said Sunday.

In an interview with CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, Homan said if allegations of domestic abuse are true, the officer involved “should not have cleared vetting.”

Host Dana Bash pointed to court documents and allegations by two ex-wives of David Brouillette describing a history of domestic abuse and violence. Though Homeland Security has not officially released the name of the shooter, DHS officials confirmed Brouillette’s involvement with the fatal shooting of 25-year-old Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero to NBC News. Maine Morning Star has not independently verified the connection to the shooting, though one of the ex-wives did recount the abuse allegations.

Court documents show that one of Brouillette’s ex-wives filed several requests for protection from harassment and protection from abuse orders against him, for herself and on behalf of their minor child. Most of those were denied, though a judge did him to temporarily relinquish his firearms. In several requests, she alleged that he showed up at her workplace, was constantly calling and texting her and smashed her phone. In other requests, she said that he threatened her life with his gun, and that he was verbally abusive towards their eldest daughter.

Brouillette has denied these allegations and also filed several requests for protection against his ex-wife, including on behalf of their children.

Investigations and interviews with relatives by the Portland Press Herald, AP, Boston Globe, NBC News and others detail a history of violence.

“When they hire somebody they put them through a vetting process and they look at all that stuff,” Homan said. “I know based on that information, that’s part of the ongoing investigation. Did the vetting process fail? Was that information not available? Did they not know?”

“If this person had that type of history,” he said, “it would have been a vetting issue and it should have been brought to the attention of those who make those decisions.”

In an effort to meet the Trump administration’s deportation goals, DHS launched an aggressive campaign to recruit more enforcement agents, including waiving age limits and promising signing bonuses of up to $50,000. In January the agency announced it had hired more than 12,000 new officers in less than a year.

Homan additionally noted that ICE’s training protocols are also being investigated.

Bash asked about the pause in vehicle-related enforcement stops issued by Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin following the shooting, which President Donald Trump overturned one day later.

“While the pause was in place, you did say it was done for the safety of the officers and whether something could have been done…whether more needed to be looked at,” Bash said, asking Homan how all of that got accomplished during the day-long pause.

Homan said protocols around vehicle-related stops are still being reviewed. However, during the pause he said ICE Acting Director David Venturella “did make some immediate changes,” primarily requiring at least one body camera on the site of all vehicle stops.

“So we have everything on video, so whether the officer does something right or does something wrong… It’s on video,” Homan said.

The lack of body cameras worn by the officers involved in the Biddeford shooting and elsewhere is something the Trump administration and Republicans, including U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, have blamed on Democrats because of the recent partial government shutdown. Earlier this year, Democrats refused to sign on to DHS funding without substantial immigration enforcement reforms, including body camera requirements. However, independent U.S. Sen. Angus King and Senate Democrats said the department had sufficient time and resources to acquire body cameras, pointing to the $175 billion allocated by Congress to the agency in the past year.

“While DHS has previously acknowledged that body-worn cameras promote public trust and increase officer and public safety, accountability, and transparency, the Department has clearly not prioritized acquiring cameras,” the senators wrote in a July 19 letter.

The Maine Attorney General’s Office is separately conducting an investigation into the fatal shooting of the Colombian national and father, who, according to officials, was not the target of the enforcement order. In addition to seeking justice for Guerrero, Biddeford residents have called on their state and city leaders to take stronger action to protect the community, which they say has been threatened by ICE for months.

(This article was originally published by Lauren McCauley of The Maine Morning Star, part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization, and is republished by US Border News with permission.)

What are your thoughts about the DHS vetting standards for those wishing to become ICE Agents?

Share your opinion in a comment to this story!

Abrazos,

Jack Beavers

Add us a preferred Google source!

Click the button above to add US Border News as a preferred source in your Google News feed!

U.S. border security and immigration policy the week of July 19 to July 26, 2026, included a pushback over ICE’s hiring practices, a rollback of green card rules, and an aggressive push to construct new mass-detention centers.

ICE Vetting Under Scrutiny Following Fatal Shootings

• Officer’s History Revealed: Following two separate fatal traffic-stop shootings by ICE agents earlier in July, an investigation revealed that an agent involved in the deadly Maine shooting had a history of domestic violence and mental health issues before being hired.

• Hiring Spree Concerns: External law enforcement experts publicly warned that ICE slashed critical background vetting standards to rapidly recruit and onboard more than 12,000 new officers in less than a year.

• Body Camera Rollout and Review: Responding to intense public backlash and congressional accusations of racial profiling, White House Border Czar Tom Homan confirmed that ICE officially mandated body cameras for all traffic stops. Homan also announced that the agency is actively placing its officer vetting and training procedures under review.

Mass Detention Expansion and “Deportation-Maxing”

• Targeting 14 New Locations: To handle a record-breaking surge of over 60,000 detained migrants, ICE issued bidding proposals to rapidly build or expand detention facilities in 14 locations, including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The agency is pivoting to new construction because its initial $1 billion attempt to convert commercial warehouses into detention spaces remains locked in environmental lawsuits.

• New Arrest Quotas: Internal sources revealed that the administration set a daily target of 2,000 arrests. Homan celebrated the massive influx of funding from Congress, declaring that the agency is operating at full capacity and “deportation-maxing.”

• Bond Evading Tactics: Immigrant defense attorneys warned that ICE is intentionally transferring bond-eligible detainees into the 5th U.S. Circuit jurisdiction (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi), where strict regional court precedents block undocumented individuals from receiving bond hearings.

Final Public Charge Rule Published

• Official Federal Register Entry: On July 20, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officially published its final rule rescinding the 2022 Biden-era public charge regulation.

• Expanded Officer Discretion: Set to take effect on September 18, 2026, the policy change strips away previous restrictions on what types of aid can be penalized. It grants immigration officers nearly unlimited subjective authority to deny green cards to applicants who utilize or are deemed likely to utilize government assistance programs like Medicaid, food stamps, or housing vouchers.

FINALLY, IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:

(Stories covered by US Border News during the past week)

Outcry in New Mexico over Chaco Canyon Protection Rollback

World Heritage Site at Risk

US Senators press immigration agents to have body cameras

Democrats vs DHS

I am committed to delivering a weekly newsletter that is not only educational and insightful but also engaging and easy to digest in five minutes or less.

(How am I doing? Let me know in the comments!)

Abrazos,

Jack Beavers

Add us a preferred Google source!

A supermajority of the U.S. Senate Democratic Caucus has asked Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to deploy body cameras to all federal immigration officers, following deadly shootings of immigrants in Texas and Maine.

In a July 19 letter addressed to Mullin, 38 Senate Democrats and Maine’s Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, requested information about the shootings this month in Houston of 52-year-old Lorenzo Salgado Araujo and in Biddeford, Maine, of 25-year-old Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero.

Neither man was the initial enforcement target when Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers stopped their vehicles, the Department of Homeland Security has said.

“The unnecessary loss of life in these incidents demands immediate, thorough, independent, and transparent investigations (including the full involvement of local and state law enforcement personnel), along with a comprehensive examination of enforcement protocols, training, and operational approaches necessary to prevent such tragedies,” the senators wrote.

The lawmakers pressed Mullin about providing body cameras to immigration officers, pointing out that Congress has allocated $175 billion to the department since last year. From that funding, DHS planned to hire up to 10,000 ICE officers.

“While DHS has previously acknowledged that body-worn cameras promote public trust and increase officer and public safety, accountability, and transparency, the Department has clearly not prioritized acquiring cameras,” the senators wrote.

None of the ICE officers involved in the shootings were wearing body cameras.

“Contrary to recent statements made by the Department and the White House, DHS has had more than sufficient time and funding to procure and deploy a body-worn camera for every officer before the end of 2025,” they wrote.

Enough funding

Congressional Republicans last year used a special legislative maneuver to allocate roughly $175 billion to DHS for immigration enforcement, detainment and deportations, without needing Democratic support.

They used the same move following the shutdown this year to fund $75 billion for ICE and Border Patrol through September of 2029.

Republicans used the maneuver that allows party-line votes after Democrats refused to provide more funding for DHS unless restraints were placed on ICE and Border Patrol officers following the killings of two U.S. citizens — Alex Pretti and Renee Good — by federal immigration agents in Minnesota in January.

Among Democrats’ demands at the time was that immigration officers wear body cameras. Top Trump officials, including then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, said body cameras would be provided to immigration agents.

“The recent tragedies confirm that neither of these commitments were honored,” senators wrote in the letter.

Traffic stops unpaused

White House border czar Tom Homan said over the weekend that ICE officers will wear “at least one body camera” during traffic stops.

Following the two killings this month, DHS instructed immigration officers to pause vehicle stops, but President Donald Trump quickly instructed the department to continue the policy.

During the second Trump administration, federal immigration officers have shot 22 people and killed six, including three U.S. citizens. Most of the shootings stemmed from traffic stops.

In the letter, senators also sought information about DHS’s plan to have an independent investigation into the killings, the vetting process for new immigration officers, the department’s procedures for vehicle stops and any additional oversight and reporting requirements DHS is implementing.

(This article was originally published by Ariana Figueroa of The States DC Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization, and is republished by US Border News with permission.)

What are your thoughts about requiring ICE Agents to wear body cameras?

Share your opinion in a comment to this story!

Abrazos,

Jack Beavers

Add us a preferred Google source!

Click the button above to add US Border News as a preferred source in your Google News feed!

Joey Sanchez, the chair of the All Pueblo Council of Governors, stood outside the U.S. Capitol Wednesday with dozens of tribal leaders and New Mexico’s entire federal delegation to protest a Bureau of Land Management proposal to unwind mining protections around Chaco Culture National Historical Park as just a week remains for the public to weigh in on the plan.

The Bureau of Land Management recently opened a two-week period for the public to comment on a proposal to eliminate or shrink the 10-mile mining protections around Chaco, a spiritually and culturally significant site for many of New Mexico’s pueblos and tribes.

Members of New Mexico’s federal delegation quickly denounced the plan when the comment period opened last week, and many noted that BLM and U.S. Department of the Interior officials had not visited with the Indigenous communities that the decision would impact.

As a chorus of Indigenous leaders and politicians spoke at Wednesday’s event, they urged New Mexicans to submit a public comment on the BLM plan through its online portal.

“Chaco is not a museum…it is a living cultural landscape,” Sanchez said Wednesday. “The pueblos have protected Chaco for thousands of years, and we’re not going to stop today.”

U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) joined Sanchez in Washington, D.C., Wednesday and said that Chaco Canyon “is not for sale.”

New Mexico has already positioned itself as a national leader in oil and gas production, and it’s done so without sacrificing sacred sites, Heinrich, who serves as ranking member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, said.

“We produce far more electrons than we consume and we have never had to sacrifice our most sacred places to do that,” he said. “And we should not do that going forward.”

Each of New Mexico’s U.S. senators and representatives, all Democrats, spoke out against the proposal at Wednesday’s event and said it was an “insult” that the federal government would allow just two weeks for public comment on a plan that could undo years of work to install Chaco’s current protections. In 2025, they proposed legislation that would make those protections permanent.

U.S. Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.) questioned whether it’s necessary to drill any closer to Chaco than what is currently allowed. The BLM’s current proposal lists three options: eliminate the 10-mile buffer zone; cut it in half; or keep it intact.

Chaco sits in northwest New Mexico, near the Navajo Nation and the Four Corners region. About 1,000 years ago, it was the San Juan Basin’s cultural and economic hub, according to the U.S. National Park Service.

“A molecule of gas from Chaco is the same as a molecule of gas outside that 10-mile buffer zone,” Leger Fernández said. “That molecule of gas could be easily, easily developed outside and without disturbing the 4,700…archaeological sites within that 10 miles. If we let the bulldozers of the oil and gas companies destroy any of those 4,700 sites, they can never be reconstructed.”

State leaders push back on BLM plan

State lawmakers have also taken up the fight against the BLM’s plan. Rep. Derrick J. Lente (D-Sandia Pueblo) on Tuesday called on Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and several state agencies to present a unified front against the federal plan.

“Chaco is not a bargaining chip, and it is not an ordinary parcel of federal land. It is the ancestral home of our people and a place of continuing ceremony and prayer,” Lente said in a statement. “As a Pueblo person and as a legislator, I refuse to stay quiet while our tribal sovereignty is ignored and our sacred lands are opened to extraction.”

In a statement to Source NM, a spokesperson for Lujan Grisham wrote that she is “fiercely opposed” to the Trump administration’s proposal and noted that state Cultural Affairs Secretary Debra Garcia y Griego wrote a letter to BLM officials, urging them to keep the current protections in place.

The governor “is working through appropriate channels to push back on this terribly shortsighted and reckless plan, including submitting official administration correspondence in opposition back in April and communicating with New Mexico’s congressional delegation,” Lujan Grisham’s Communications Director Michael Coleman wrote in an email to Source NM. “She encourages Rep. Lente, other members of the New Mexico Legislature and the general public to also submit letters in opposition to help protect Chaco Canyon.”

(This article was originally published by Source New Mexico, part of the States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization, and is republished by US Border News with permission.)

What are your thoughts about protecting the Chaco Culture National Historical Park?

Share your opinion in a comment to this story!

Abrazos,

Jack Beavers

Add us a preferred Google source!

Click the button above to add US Border News as a preferred source in your Google News feed!

During the week of July 12 to July 19, 2026, U.S. immigration and border security developments were defined by extreme volatility surrounding ICE’s street tactics, a major policy flip-flop from the White House, and systemic shifts in federal immigration rules.

Deadly Vehicle Enforcement and Policy Whiplash

• A Second Fatal Shooting: On Monday, July 13, ICE agents in Biddeford, Maine, fatally shot 26-year-old John Sebastian Guerrero inside his car. Mirroring the previous week’s fatal shooting in Houston, DHS acknowledged that Guerrero was not the intended target of the operational warrant.

• Florida Traffic Fatality: On Tuesday, July 14, a third migrant died in St. Augustine, Florida, after fleeing on foot during an ICE vehicle stop and being struck by a tractor-trailer.

• The 24-Hour Policy Ban and Reversal: Prompted by the sudden cluster of deaths and missing body-camera footage, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin issued a directive temporarily suspending all ICE traffic stops on July 14. However, on July 15, President Trump publicly condemned the freeze, declaring it played “right into the criminal’s hands”. The White House immediately overturned the DHS ban, ordering traffic stops to resume.

• Mandatory Body Cameras Mandated: Attempting to quell national protests and congressional demands for independent investigations, Border Czar Tom Homan announced on July 19 that ICE will now require body-cameras during all vehicle stops.

Systemic Enforcement and Corporate Outreach

• 14 Months of “Zero Releases”: On July 16, DHS and CBP jointly celebrated 14 consecutive months of “zero releases” at the southern border, citing a 94% drop in daily border crossings compared to the previous administration.

• Mending Ties with Businesses: As interior enforcement and neighborhood arrest spikes escalated, DHS Secretary Mullin met with major trade groups on July 19 to address corporate panics over losing crucial workforces to mass deportation campaigns.

• Spike in Child Detentions: An internal analysis published on July 16 revealed that the volume of minors held in ICE interior detention facilities has surged to 10 times higher than previous administration baselines, with over 650 children detained in California alone.

Legal Rulings and Rules Changes

• Public Charge Rule Rescinded: On July 16, USCIS finalized a rule officially rescinding the 2022 Biden-era public charge regulation. The shift permits the government to deny visas and green cards more aggressively to individuals deemed likely to rely on taxpayer-funded benefits.

• Visa Policies Stalled: A federal judge temporarily blocked a State Department policy that authorized rapid visa denials or revocations for noncitizens working abroad in social media content moderation and fact-checking.

FINALLY, IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:

(Stories covered by US Border News during the past week)

• Texas floods swamp the “Floating Border Wall”

Rio Grande border barriers break free

• Small Texas County Takes Big Bite of Mexican Cartel Profits

$1 million + seized so far in 2026

• Protests Follow Fatal Maine ICE Shooting

Agents went after wrong man

I am committed to delivering a weekly newsletter that is not only educational and insightful but also engaging and easy to digest in five minutes or less.

(How am I doing? Let me know in the comments!)

Abrazos,

Jack Beavers

Add us a preferred Google source!

More than a hundred buoys installed to prevent illegal crossings of the Rio Grande broke free when the river rose to flood stage following heavy rain across Southwest Texas. Each buoy measures about 15 feet long and 5 feet wide (their weight has not been publicly disclosed), and as floodwaters swiftly propelled them south, this set off alarm bells downstream.

Two International Bridges between Texas and Mexico were temporarily closed due to concerns that the massive buoys could damage bridge columns if they struck them. According to “The Maverick Times News” of Eagle Pass, Texas, a “Mexican news outlet reported a buoy struck a bridge support pillar, with no visible damage observed.”

Authorities further downstream in Laredo said they were prepared to close the six International Bridges there should the buoys (some of which have beached along the Rio Grande shoreline) make it that far.

(UPDATE: The buoys did cause bridge shutdowns in Laredo)

Texas Public Radio reported that “Customs and Border Protection previously said the system was engineered to withstand a 100-year flood. But river experts and environmental advocates warned that sections could detach during extreme flooding and become trapped against bridges or other infrastructure.”

The Department of Homeland Security has issued more than a billion dollars in contracts to fully construct the floating border barrier system, with hundreds more buoys staged ashore along the Rio Grande, awaiting installation. There is no estimate of how much it will cost taxpayers to recover and reinstall the buoys that broke free.

Do you support the installation of this massive barrier system on the Rio Grande?

Share your thoughts in the comments to this article!

Abrazos,

Jack Beavers

Large protests erupted in the small town of Biddeford, Maine, on Monday, July 13, 2026, after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agents fatally shot a 26-year-old Colombian-born man in what appears to be a horrible case of mistaken identity.

A Ring doorbell camera near the shooting scene captured the audio of at least five gunshots fired by the ICE Agents. None of the agents were wearing body cameras, according to Maine Senator Angus King and Congressman Chellie Pingree.

(UPDATE: It has since been reported that Agents DID have body cameras, but did not turn them on).

A video shot by an eyewitness passing by in a car shows ICE Agents alongside a car slowly driving in a circle. Agents eventually stopped the car by ramming it with their vehicle.

Although several video clips have been released showing the scene shortly after the shooting, none have surfaced showing the shooting as it happened.

The New York Times reports that Mia Covino heard the shots and looked out her window to see “two law enforcement agents in plain clothes and green vests in the street, as well as a white car slowly spinning in circles in the intersection. One of the agents was holding onto one of the car’s door handles, Ms. Covino said, “yelling, ‘He tried to run me over.’” The other agent was telling his colleague “to stop, to relax, to calm down.”

A video clip taken shortly after the shooting shows one agent appearing to console a fellow officer.

Daniel Boucher - who stepped outside his home after hearing the gunshots, told the Portland Press Herald that, as he watched the agents pull the driver from the car, he heard the man tell them “I tried to stop,” just before he collapsed.

The identities of those who shot the clips (which have been reposted many times on social media) are difficult to determine, although several reposters have indicated that their clips were released by the Portland Press Herald.

A Press Herald photo clearly shows multiple bullet holes in the windshield of the shooting victim’s car.

WGME-TV said a witness described what happened next: “He was my neighbor,” neighbor Valerie Brinkman said. “And his wife came running out screaming, ‘Mi amor, mi amor!’”

Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey released a statement that federal officials told him the shooting happened “as immigration agents were conducting an enforcement operation related to a final order of removal.” The agents told investigators that the victim “attempted to flee in a vehicle in the direction of the officer” when the shots were fired.

Protesters marched to the entrance to the Biddeford office of US Senator Susan Collins, who voted for a $70 billion package to fund U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol through 2029, and released the following statement:

“The shooting in Biddeford requires a full and impartial investigation of what happened. It is my understanding that the Biddeford police have secured the site and that the FBI is investigating.” -US Senator Susan Collins

Maine Senator Angus King told the Portland Press Herald that he has informed DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin that “we want a full, transparent and open investigation of this matter,’” and the ICE agents “should have been having body cameras two years ago when this whole thing started.”

Senator King also told reporters that Secretary Mullin contacted him later to tell him the man killed by ICE was not the intended target of the arrest warrant they were attempting to serve.

Neighbors and an immigrant rights group have identified the victim as 26-year-old Joan Sebastian Guerrero, originally of Colombia. He leaves behind a young wife and daughter, both of whom were at the scene of his killing.

Amidst all the inconsistencies cited, the Department of Homeland Security released the following statement, many hours after the fatal shooting occurred, which did NOT allege the victim attempted to run over an officer:

“On July 13, 2026, at approximately 7:00 AM ET, ICE was conducting targeted surveillance on the last known address of an illegal alien with a final order of removal. An illegal alien departed the residence in a vehicle. ICE law enforcement attempted to conduct a vehicle stop. The vehicle attempted to flee the scene and, fearing for public safety, an officer discharged his weapon.

The driver of the vehicle was struck, and emergency services were immediately contacted. He passed away from his injuries.

The Biddeford Police Department and FBI responded to the scene. DHS OIG has been notified, and like all discharges of firearms, this will be investigated. This is a developing situation, and we will update the public when more information is available.”

Maine Governor Janet Mills is not buying the DHS accounts. She has posted the following statement via x.com:

“This development makes this tragedy even more disturbing and infuriating, and it underscores the reckless and haphazard manner in which immigration enforcement operations are being conducted in Maine and across the country. This has to end.” -Maine Governor Janet Mills

(Note to our readers: The Portland Press Herald is updating this story in real time outside its paywall as a service to the public. You can access their coverage HERE.

The Press Herald is owned by the non-profit National Trust for Local News and is also a member of the non-profit Maine Trust for Local News. If you wish to support them, donations can be made here).

What should the Department of Homeland Security do to prevent more shootings like this?

Share your opinion in the comments on this article!

Abrazos,

Jack Beavers

Help us recruit more free subscribers to US Border News! This post is public, so feel free to share it.

Share

During the week of July 5 to July 12, 2026, U.S. border security and immigration headlines were marked by a fatal enforcement shooting, a high-stakes legal battle over mandatory detention, and the bureaucratic rollout of recent Supreme Court decisions.

Fatal ICE Shooting Explodes into National View

• Houston Enforcement Escalation: On Tuesday, July 7, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents fatally shot Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a Mexican construction worker who had lived in the U.S. for over 30 years.

• The Fallout: Congressional Democrats and local officials are demanding independent investigations and the release of footage. The incident brought intense public scrutiny to ICE’s massive, largely unpublicized ongoing street-arrest blitz, which has seen daily arrests double across major cities.

• Federal Pushback: Amid the backlash, ICE defended its operations on July 10, highlighting a targeted push against what they termed “the worst of the worst” criminal illegal aliens.

(You can read US Border News coverage of the fallout from the Salgado shooting HERE.)

Legal Tug-of-War Over Mandatory Detention

• Circuit Court Back-and-Forth: On July 7, reports highlighted a sharply divided 2-1 ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down the Trump administration’s mandatory detention policy, stating migrants must receive a bond hearing within 90 days. However, by July 10, the court swiftly agreed to vacate the panel’s decision and to rehear the case en banc in September, leaving the strict mandatory detention policy temporarily in effect.

• Judicial Rebuke in Nevada: A federal judge in Nevada accused ICE of “governmental lawlessness” after finding the agency directly ignored a binding order to release specific immigrants who were held without warrants or bond opportunities under the administration’s detention agenda.

Bureaucratic Rollout of Supreme Court Orders

• TPS Lifelines and Extensions: Following the late-June high court ruling allowing the administration to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS), work permits for thousands of beneficiaries were initially set to expire on July 10. However, federal courts and USCIS have issued limited emergency extensions—such as extending Haitian TPS work authorizations through July 24—while lower district courts determine the official timeline for winding down the programs.

• Refugee Re-vetting Battles: In Minnesota, federal authorities shifted tactics after a judge blocked them from arresting refugees for lacking green cards. Instead, the Department of Homeland Security began issuing rapid-turnaround letters, forcing refugees to undergo aggressive re-vetting interviews with minimal notice and time to find legal counsel.

Regulatory and Oversight Revelations

• FEMA Resources Diverted: A July 10 report compiled by House Democrats revealed that the Trump administration detailed over 100 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) employees to prop up the border enforcement crackdown. This included using emergency personnel to manage a “DHS Volunteer Force” and routing human resource staff to speed up ICE hiring.

• Court Access Clashes: Legal battles intensified over state-level pushback, such as Illinois’s Court Access, Safety and Participation Act, as the administration continued to actively challenge local laws that attempt to ban federal agents from making civil immigration arrests near county courthouses.

• Battle Over Masked ICE Officers: The DOJ said Friday it will not follow Milwaukee’s mask ban on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, calling the law unconstitutional and demanding assurances by July 17 that it will not be enforced.

  Thanks for reading US Border News! This post is public, so feel free to share it.

  Share

FINALLY, IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:

(Stories covered by US Border News during the past week)

• Small Texas County Takes Big Bite of Mexican Cartel Profits

$1 million + seized so far in 2026

• Houston: ICE Killing Sparks Protests & Calls for Transparency

Independent investigation demanded

I am committed to delivering a weekly newsletter that is not only educational and insightful but also engaging and easy to digest in five minutes or less.

(How am I doing? Let me know in the comments!)

Abrazos,

Jack Beavers

Add us a preferred Google source!

A Task Force run by a small South Texas County has become a big problem for the large-scale cartels based in Mexico. So far this year, the Special Agents of the South Texas Specialized Crimes & Narcotics Task Force, operated by Kleberg County Attorney Kira Talip-Sanchez, have seized more than $1.1 million of cartel cash profits being smuggled by “money mules” headed for the Rio Grande border.

To add insult to injury, the South Texas Task Force is funded in large part by the cash it seizes, which means the cartels are (involuntarily) paying the salaries of the agents who arrest their smugglers and confiscate their profits.

Here’s a look at some of their biggest seizures in 2026:

On March 4, 2026, a South Texas Task Force Agent’s K9 took an interest in a “McDonald’s Happy Meal” bag inside a car the agent stopped as it headed south on US 77 in Kleberg County. Instead of burgers and fries, the agent found the “Happy Meal” bag contained $286,202 cash in vacuum-sealed packages.

On May 6, 2026, the driver of another southbound car told the South Texas Task Force Agent who pulled him over that he was headed from Houston to Matamoros, Mexico. That fact, along with other “multiple indicators of criminal activity” observed by the Agent, gave him reasonable suspicion to search the vehicle.

That led to ten vacuum-sealed duct-tape bundles containing $227,398 in U.S. currency being discovered concealed within the car’s rear seat and back wall.

On February 3, 2026, South Texas Task Force Agents conducting enforcement operations under “Operation Stonegarden” and “Operation Lone Star” along Highway 77 stopped a southbound vehicle displaying Mexican license plates.

An interview with the occupants, a mother and son from Matamoros, Mexico, led to a thorough search of their car. The agents’ suspicions were confirmed by the discovery of six bundles containing $165,921 in cash hidden in the dashboard.

Cartel cash isn’t the only contraband the task force targets being smuggled south through their county (and others they have agreements with, allowing them to conduct enforcement activity throughout South Texas).

South Texas Task Force Agents are increasingly arresting gunrunners and seizing small arsenals of high-powered weapons and ammo meant to arm the Mexican cartels. The guns are often discovered to have been reported stolen elsewhere in Texas.

How big of a hit do you think the cartels are taking from these big gun & cash seizures?

Share your opinion in the comments on this article!

Would you like US Border News articles to appear in your Google News feed? Click the button below to designate us as a preferred news source!

ADD USBORDERNEWS TO GOOGLE NEWS!

Abrazos,

Jack Beavers

Help us recruit more free subscribers to US Border News! This post is public, so feel free to share it.

Share

The fatal shooting of an undocumented construction worker in Houston on Tuesday, July 7, 2026, has resulted in large protests and calls for an independent investigation from the President of Mexico, U.S. Congress members, and human rights organizations.

Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, an undocumented construction worker, was driving other migrants to a job site when plainclothes ICE Agents, in unmarked vehicles, tried to force him off the road. He fled and was eventually boxed in by their vehicles, then shot by an agent who said he feared for his life as Salgado continued to attempt to escape in his van.

Harris County District Attorney Sean Teare told a Houston radio host that he questions whether Salgado understood he was being confronted by law enforcement officers instead of carjackers when he was shot. Teare says his office will conduct its own investigation into the shooting with or without the Department of Homeland Security’s cooperation (more on that later).

Houston Mayor John Whitmire (who initially said his city’s police department does not have the authority to independently investigate the incident involving federal officers) has since vowed the department will conduct its own investigation and called upon federal authorities to share their evidence:

“For the Salgado family, life will never be the same. At no fault of theirs, Mr. Salgado was chased by unmarked vehicles. Before he could identify himself and speak as a Houstonian, he was shot and killed. We will use all of our resources to pursue an independent and transparent investigation.” -Houston Mayor John Whitmire

The shooting was tragic on several levels. First, Lorenzo Salgado had lived in the US for 35 years without any known criminal history, working in construction and putting three sons - all US citizens - through college before he was shot.

Second, the New York Times has reported that Salgado was not the person ICE was even looking for when the shooting occurred. His van was mistaken for belonging to someone else illegally present from another country, and when the ICE Agents realized their error, they decided to proceed with what proved to be a high-risk operation anyway.

That fact was amplified by civil rights groups, including LULAC (The League of United Latin American Citizens):

The Washington Post reported that the men in the van with Salgado have given statements to their attorney that Saldana did not drive toward any ICE Agents and that the officers fired into the van while standing to its side and not from the front. They also say Saldana did not ram the officers’ unmarked vehicles.

The editorials in the city’s newspaper (The Houston Chronicle) have been brutal:

The President of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, has demanded criminal investigations into the death of Saldana and 13 other Mexican citizens by ICE.

US Congress members, all of them Democrats (including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer), are requesting independent investigations into Saldana’s death.

Democrats representing Houston in Congress have sent a letter to DHS Secretary Markwayne Miller and Acting ICE Director David Venturella, also demanding an independent investigation.

Democratic candidates - including Texas US Senate Candidate James Talarico and Texas Governor Candidate Gina Hinojosa have echoed those demands.

The growing chorus of demands for an “independent investigation” has followed revelations by Harris County District Attorney Sean Teare that the Department of Homeland Security is investigating the shooting by its own agents and has not allowed Harris County or the Texas Rangers to conduct separate investigations, which he says has been the normal procedure in previous federal “officer-involved” shooting cases in Houston.

Also disturbing: a report by New Republic reporter Greg Sargent that ICE is pressuring eyewitnesses to the shooting (those in the van when Saldana was shot) to self-deport before independent investigators can interview them:

Neither Texas Governor Greg Abbot nor John Cornyn has commented publicly about the shooting.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz released a statement to the Houston Chronicle stating: “This is an active investigation, and I have full confidence that, once it is complete, we will have a full and accurate account of what occurred.”

The day after Salgado was shot, Texas Governor Greg Abbott posted his sympathies on X.com — for the death of his dog.

What are your thoughts about the death of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo?

Share your opinion in a comment to this story!

Abrazos,

Jack Beavers

Add us a preferred Google source!

Click the button above to add US Border News as a preferred source in your Google News feed!

During the week of June 28 to July 4, 2026, U.S. border security and immigration developments were dominated by a massive spike in ICE arrests, rapid border infrastructure advancements, and the immediate fallout from major Supreme Court rulings.

Surge in ICE Enforcement and Arrests

• 10,000 Arrests in Five Days: Reports surfaced that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested roughly 10,000 individuals over a five-day period ending on Tuesday, June 30.

• Longer Officer Training: Beginning in July, ICE officially extended its mandatory training program for new recruits from 42 days to 71 days following public backlash over prior operations.

Acceleration of the “Smart Wall”

• $46 Billion Push: Backed by massive congressional funding, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) rapidly scaled up construction on the U.S.–Mexico border.

• High-Tech Integration: The construction combines 30-foot steel fencing with advanced surveillance technology, including ground sensors, cameras, and automated towers.

• Physical Barriers: Along river stretches in Texas, CBP deployed 12- to 15-foot cylinder buoys to physically block crossings, building at a pace of roughly six miles of wall per week.

Legal and Policy Fallout

• Birthright Citizenship Upheld: In a major setback for the administration, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 30 that President Trump’s executive order attempting to restrict birthright citizenship was unconstitutional.

• Asylum and TPS Limits Implemented: This week marked the immediate implementation of a late-June Supreme Court double-header that allows border agents to physically “meter” and turn away asylum seekers at ports of entry, while severely limiting the ability of migrants to legally challenge the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

• Green Card Restrictions: Under another high court ruling, border agents exercised expanded authority to treat returning lawful permanent residents as “applicants for admission,” subjecting them to tougher scrutiny if they have alleged criminal records.

• Detention Scrutiny Dropped: A newly enacted policy went into effect, ending the requirement for ICE to investigate or report the deaths of former detainees who pass away within 30 days of being released from custody. The agency will now only report deaths that occur physically inside its facilities.

FINALLY, IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:

(Stories covered by US Border News during the past week)

• Wanted Venezuelan Official Obstructs US Rescue Efforts

US GOP lawmakers demand his arrest

• Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship

Major Loss for Trump Immigration Agenda

I am committed to delivering a weekly newsletter that is not only educational and insightful but also engaging and easy to digest in five minutes or less.

(How am I doing? Let me know in the comments!)

Abrazos,

Jack Beavers

Add us a preferred Google source!

Video of a Venezuelan official wanted by the US for “narco-terrorism” obstructing a US Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) Team from reaching earthquake victims has ignited a political firestorm in the US, with lawmakers demanding his arrest. It also threatens to turn an international humanitarian effort into an international incident.

The man at the center of this controversy is Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello. He has been indicted by the US, alongside Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and others, in what US prosecutors say was a “Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy.”

Maduro was captured by US forces in January and is jailed in New York awaiting trial. Cabello has remained at large in Venezuela despite a $25 million reward offered by the US.

That Cabello feels secure enough to openly appear in public, despite the presence of nearly 1,000 members of the US military now in his country in response to the twin earthquakes that have killed more than 2,000 people, and is emboldened enough to confront US rescue workers, is infuriating many in Venezuela and the US.

The rescue worker confronted by Cabello is holding a helmet marked “VA-TF1” indicating he is a member of Virginia USAR Task Force 1. Rescuers from that Task Force have been digging through rubble in La Guaira, Venezuela, for days and have pulled five people (including a baby and a child) out alive so far.

Officers of agencies under Interior Minister Cabello’s command have been seen digging through earthquake rubble for apparently different reasons. The images below are screengrabs from video taken by La Guaira residents who confronted a federal police officer holding many US hundred-dollar bills they believe he removed from the rubble of their neighbors’ homes.

That officer was wearing a CICPC uniform, a national Venezuelan police agency that the US Treasury Department has accused of committing “systematic human rights abuses.”

The video provoked widespread outrage among Venezuelans online, as well as the arrests of four CICPC officers accused of looting. But it is the video of Interior Minister Cabello interfering in rescue efforts that is producing the most blowback.

Senator Rick Scott of Florida (home to the largest Venezuelan population in the United States) issued a statement declaring that “Anyone who gets in the way of (US and international rescue workers), including Diosdado Cabello, will be held accountable and face consequences.”

There is also a growing chorus of US lawmakers calling for Diosdado Cabello to be arrested in Venezuela and brought to the US to face the charges against him:

“It's time for Diosdado Cabello to be extradited from Venezuela to face justice for his crimes.” -US Congressman Mario Díaz-Balart

“While the US increases its presence in Venezuela, we should pick up thug Diosdado Cabello and bring him to justice so he can stop impeding the distribution of aid to those impacted by the earthquake.” -US Congressman Carlos A. Gimenez

However, so far, the Trump Administration has not responded to calls to arrest Cabello, who only days before was at the same table with acting Venezuelan President Delcy Eloína Rodríguez and US military officials discussing earthquake relief operations.

Should the US arrest Diosdado Cabello while we have 1,000 troops in that country?

Share your opinion in a comment to this story!

Abrazos,

Jack Beavers

Add us a preferred Google source!

Click the button above to add US Border News as a preferred source in your Google News feed!

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Donald Trump’s attempt to redefine the constitutional right to birthright citizenship.

In the decision, a majority of the justices upheld the country’s long understanding of automatic citizenship by birth on American soil, regardless of the immigration status of a newborn’s parents. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., found the president’s executive order violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community,” Roberts wrote. “The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”

While six of the justices agreed — Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — that the president’s executive order was unlawful, conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

Only five of the justices agreed that the 14th Amendment extends citizenship to the children of immigrants, with Kavanaugh partially dissenting along with Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch.

Kavanaugh argued that Trump’s executive order did not violate the 14th Amendment, but instead violated federal statute. He added in his dissent that Congress could “enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so.”

The White House did not immediately respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment, but a day before the decision, Trump said in the Oval Office that he would accept the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“It’s up to them, but in terms of for the good of the country, it’d be great if they … didn’t allow it,” Trump, who in a highly unusual move for a president attended the oral arguments on the case, said of birthright citizenship.

After the ruling, the president called on Congress, which is controlled by Republicans, to pass legislation to codify his executive order into law, dismissing the need for a constitutional amendment.

However, a constitutional amendment would be needed, not legislative law, because a majority of the justices still found that any change to birthright citizenship violated the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Utah’s GOP Sen. Mike Lee, who previously clerked for Alito, noted that “we’re going to need a constitutional amendment.”

The opinion is a major blow to Trump, who has sought to redefine who is American as part of his broader immigration agenda.

But it also follows two decisions from the high court that vastly expanded the president’s authority over immigration policy by allowing him to limit asylum seeker claims at the Southern border and strip legal protections for 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians.

Tuesday’s decision is based on one of the first executive orders that the president signed on the first day of his second term. It aimed to deny citizenship to children born to parents who either do not have legal status, or hold temporary legal visas.

Experts warned if the order were to take effect, it could create an entire class of stateless people and cause chaos for hospitals and local governments.

Case brought by expectant parents

The case, Trump v. Barbara, was brought by expectant mothers who feared their children would not be American citizens because of their immigration status.

During oral arguments in April, a majority of the justices seemed skeptical of the Trump administration’s arguments, presented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer.

Before the justices, Sauer argued that the citizenship clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which is the basis for birthright citizenship, was meant to apply to newly freed African American slaves after the Civil War, not to children of immigrants.

Most legal scholars and historians disagree with that interpretation and have argued the Supreme Court in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark already settled the idea that automatic citizenship was granted to children born on U.S. soil.

Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents. When he left California, he was denied entry back into the United States after visiting relatives in China.

Officials at the time argued that because Ark’s parents were Chinese citizens in the United States on temporary visas at the time of his birth, and therefore were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., he was not a citizen.

Ark took the issue to the Supreme Court. In 1898, the high court affirmed that he, along with any child born on U.S. soil, were guaranteed citizenship, and rejected the argument that the 14th Amendment only applied to newly freed African American slaves.

American Civil Liberties Union lead attorney Cecillia Wang, who argued before the justices, said that when the federal government tried to strip Ark of his citizenship, “largely on the same grounds (the Trump administration) raised today,” the Supreme Court at that time rejected those efforts and upheld the 14th Amendment.

“This Court held that the 14th Amendment embodies the English common law rule (that) virtually everyone born on U.S. soil is subject to its jurisdiction and is a citizen,” Wang, who is the daughter of Taiwanese immigrants, said.

Her parents were in the U.S. on student visas when she was born in Oregon, meaning that if Trump’s executive order were in effect at that time, she would have been denied U.S. citizenship.

Roberts agreed that the Supreme Court made the correct decision in 1898 about Ark’s case.

“What the Court held in Wong Kim Ark was simple: the Citizenship Clause incorporated the common law and granted citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States,” he wrote. “Not surprisingly, then, in the 128 years since, we have repeatedly understood the rule of Wong Kim Ark to guarantee citizenship to all children born in the United States and subject to its power.”

“We see no reason to depart from that view today,” he continued.

14th Amendment argument

During April’s oral arguments, Sauer made that case that the phrase in the 14th Amendment “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means that children born to parents without legal status or temporary visitors are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” and are instead subject to the laws of their home country.

The 14th Amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Roberts rejected Sauer’s position, and wrote that the Trump administration’s “[a]rguments for limiting birthright citizenship to those domiciled in the United States fail.”

“Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause,” he wrote. “Under the Constitution, they are citizens at birth.”

The 14th Amendment was passed to rectify the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, in which justices ruled that neither free or enslaved Black people could have citizenship or rights. The amendment was also meant to give African Americans citizenship while also denying citizenship to the mass migration of Chinese laborers not born on U.S. soil.

The “jurisdiction” language in the amendment, tribal scholars have said, was aimed to exempt Indigenous people who resided in Native nations — part of their tribal governments — from birthright citizenship, along with the children born to foreign diplomats.

Congress in 1924 specifically passed the Indian Citizenship Act to grant birthright citizenship to Indigenous people, regardless of their residence in Native nations.

Because of this, tribal scholars have explained the language “subject to the jurisdiction” was never meant to apply to immigrants and their home country, and instead refers to the political alliance of tribes.

Congress reacts

Following Tuesday’s decision, Democrats praised the decision.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, said in a statement that “despite Trump’s best efforts to bully them, the Supreme Court just reaffirmed that if you are born in America, you belong in America.”

“No matter how much President Trump tries to steal citizenship from people that the Constitution has said have earned it and reverse the grand American tradition of welcoming newcomers to our nation, the Supreme Court confirmed today that those born in America are American,” he said.

Chairs of the Congressional Tri-Caucus — the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus — issued a joint statement that the high court’s ruling was a rejection of “Trump’s dangerous and exclusionary vision of America.”

“We are American, we belong here, and we will continue to defend birthright citizenship for generations to come,” said New York Reps. Adriano Espaillat of the CHC; Grace Meng of the CAPAC; and Yvette Clarke of the CBC.

Wang, of the ACLU, who argued the case before the Supreme Court, said in a statement that Tuesday’s decision reaffirmed a core American principle.

“If you are born here, you are a citizen,” she said. “A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat.”

An immigration advocacy group that has also challenged the Trump administration’s efforts to redefine birthright citizenship, We Are CASA, said the decision was a victory for immigrant families.

“The Trump administration’s attempt to deny citizenship to United States-born children, threaten generations of children with legal uncertainty, and overturn more than a century of settled constitutional law has failed,” said Shana Khader, the deputy legal director at We Are CASA.

• (This article was originally published by the DC Bureau of the States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization, and is republished by US Border News with permission.)

Thanks for reading US Border News! This post is public, so feel free to share it.

Share

What are your thoughts about the court’s birthright citizenship ruling?

Share your opinion in a comment to this story!

Abrazos,

Jack Beavers

Add us a preferred Google source!

Click the button above to add US Border News as a preferred source in your Google News feed!

The week of June 21–27, 2026, was marked by monumental U.S. Supreme Court rulings favoring the Trump administration’s strict immigration agenda, alongside major lower-court updates that reshaped deportation boundaries and detention practices across the nation.

Landmark Supreme Court Rulings:

The U.S. Supreme Court issued two highly consequential 6-3 decisions that significantly expanded the federal government’s authority to restrict asylum and deport temporary residents.

• Mullin v. Al Otro Lado (Asylum Metering): The Court ruled that migrants must physically cross into U.S. territory to claim asylum. This allows the government to systematically turn away or restrict asylum-seekers waiting at ports of entry on the Mexican side of the border.

• Mullin v. Doe (TPS Termination): The Court granted the administration full authority to cancel Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations. This decision clears the way to end deportation shields for over 350,000 eligible Haitian and Syrian immigrants living in the U.S.

• Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau (Green Card Re-entry): The Court also ruled 6-3 that border officials do not need “clear and convincing evidence” of a crime involving moral turpitude to deny re-entry to Lawful Permanent Residents (green card holders) returning from abroad; a reasonable belief is sufficient to defer inspection until after a conviction.

Appeals Court Expands Speedy Deportations:

• Nationwide Expedited Removal: On June 23, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision granting the administration’s request to lift a lower-court freeze on its expanded “expedited removal” policy. This ruling allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to rapidly deport undocumented individuals found anywhere in the country—not just near the border—without a hearing before an immigration judge, provided they cannot prove they have lived in the U.S. for more than two years.

Federal Detention & Enforcement Battles:

• The “Applicants for Admission” Fight: On June 26, the administration petitioned the Supreme Court to endorse its strict mass-detention policy. The administration is fighting to classify long-term undocumented residents arrested in recent crackdowns as “applicants for admission,” which subjects them to mandatory federal detention without eligibility for bond hearings.

• Courthouse Arrest Ban: A federal judge in California ordered a nationwide halt on ICE’s practice of arresting migrants inside or directly outside of immigration courts, describing the tactical hallway arrests as “arbitrary and capricious”.

Health-Related Travel Restriction:

• Ebola Entry Ban Extended: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) extended its strict public health entry ban until July 21, 2026. The ban blocks foreign nationals (including green card holders) from entering the U.S. if they have visited the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, or South Sudan within the preceding 21 days.

FINALLY, IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:

(Stories covered by US Border News during the past week)

US Responds to Venezuelan Quakes

Major Test for Trump Administration

Will Supreme Court Uphold Birthright Citizenship?

Ruling expected soon

Haitians & Syrians “Temporary Protected Status” Can Be Removed

Supreme Court decides their fate

Federal Court OK’s Fast-Track Deportations

Win for Trump Administration

I am committed to delivering a weekly newsletter that is not only educational and insightful but also engaging and easy to digest in five minutes or less.

(How am I doing? Let me know in the comments!)

Abrazos,

Jack Beavers

The US Supreme Court could rule on birthright citizenship as early as next week.

US Border News is republishing the following article filed as the court heard arguments on the matter in April, to provide our readers with background on the issues to be decided before the court.

• (This article was written by Ariana Figueroa of the non-profit States Newsroom DC Bureau & is republished by US Border News with permission under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, April 1, 2026, seemed poised to reject the Trump administration’s attempt to redefine the constitutional right to birthright citizenship, and instead uphold the country’s long understanding of citizenship by birth on American soil.

If a majority of Supreme Court justices strikes down President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship for children born to parents without legal status or temporary immigration statuses like visas, it will be the second recent major blow to the president via the high court. Earlier this year, a majority of justices struck down his use of sweeping tariffs.

Trump, who signed the executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship as one of his first acts after his inauguration in 2025, came to the courtroom to hear the oral arguments, a first for a sitting president.

‘Quirky’ administration argument

A majority of the justices during April’s oral arguments were skeptical of Solicitor General D. John Sauer’s arguments that the citizenship clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment was only intended to grant citizenship to the children of newly freed African American slaves, not immigrants.

Chief Justice John Roberts called one of Sauer’s key arguments “quirky,” and questioned how it could be applied to an entire class of immigrants without legal status.

Sauer argued that the children born to parents without legal status or temporary visitors are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” and are instead subject to the laws of their home country. He cited carve outs in birthright citizenship, such as the children born to foreign diplomats.

“You expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens,” Roberts said. “I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples.”

Along with Roberts, the liberal wing of the court and conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett also did not seem swayed by Sauer’s argument.

Gorsuch asked Sauer if, under the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, Native Americans would be considered birthright citizens “under your test.”

“Uh, I think so,” Sauer said.

Indigenous people were granted U.S. citizenship by Congress in 1924, but were not granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment because those children were born to parents who were citizens of tribal governments.

Sauer also contended the 1898 Supreme Court ruling that upheld citizenship based on birth on American soil, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, was wrongly decided.

He argued that the Wong Kim Ark case did not take into consideration “sojourn travelers,” who are temporary visitors in the U.S. and give birth.

Sauer also said the Trump administration was not looking for the justices to overturn that case.

ACLU arguments

Liberal justice Elena Kagan said that Sauer’s argument to the court was an effort to create a “revisionist history” of the Wong Kim Ark case.

“Everyone took Wong Kim Ark to say that, as a result of that, birthright citizenship was the rule,” she said. “And I think everybody has believed that for a long, long time.”

American Civil Liberties Union lead attorney Cecillia Wang said during oral arguments that when the federal government tried to strip Ark of his citizenship, “largely on the same grounds (the Trump administration) raised today,” the Supreme Court rejected those efforts.

“This Court held that the 14th Amendment embodies the English common law rule (that) virtually everyone born on U.S. soil is subject to its jurisdiction and is a citizen,” said Wang, who is the daughter of Taiwanese immigrants.

Her parents were in the U.S. on student visas when she was born in Oregon, meaning that if Trump’s executive order were in effect at that time, she would have been denied U.S. citizenship.

“Ask any American what our citizenship rule is and they’ll tell you, everyone born here is a citizen alike,” Wang said. “That rule was enshrined in the 14th Amendment to put it out of the reach of any government official to destroy.”

Birthright citizenship has been a longstanding core principle in the United States, where nearly any child — regardless of their parents’ immigration status — born on U.S. soil is automatically granted citizenship.

The text of the clause is: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Experts have warned that if the constitutional right to birthright citizenship were struck down, it would effectively create a class of millions of stateless people, leaving them without a country to call home.

If the high court determines that Trump violated the Constitution with his executive order, it would be a major block to the president’s goal in defining who is American, as Trump has aimed to reshape the country’s racial and ethnic makeup through limits to migration and an aggressive immigration campaign of mass deportations.

A decision from the high court on the case, Trump v. Barbara, is likely not going to come until the end of the court term, in late June or early July. If the court decides to uphold the executive order, it would go into effect 30 days after the ruling.

New world, old Constitution

Sauer argued that birthright citizenship should not be applied to children of temporary visitors, such as foreigners who partake in what opponents call “birth tourism.”

Roberts asked Sauer how much of an issue birth tourism is – the idea that foreign visitors specifically travel to the U.S. for the purpose of giving birth and obtaining citizenship for their soon-to-be born children.

“No one knows for sure,” Sauer said, citing media reports that many Chinese tourists travel to the U.S. and give birth.

However, China does not allow its citizens to have dual citizenship.

Roberts seemed skeptical that birth tourism should be considered in Sauer’s legal arguments for the purpose of restricting birthright citizenship. He told Sauer that birth tourism “wasn’t an issue in the 19th century.”

“We’re in a new world now,” Sauer said. “Where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child as a U.S. citizen.”

But Roberts shot back, “Well, it’s a new world, it’s the same Constitution.”

Other countries

Sauer also argued that the U.S. should fall in line with the citizenship laws of other countries.

“Unrestricted birthright citizenship contradicts the practice of the overwhelming majority of modern nations,” he said. “It demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship.”

Kavanaugh questioned why the U.S. should worry about the citizenship requirements of other countries.

“Obviously we try to interpret American law with American precedent based on American history,” Kavanaugh said. “I’m not seeing the relevance as a legal, constitutional interpretive matter necessarily, although I understand it’s a very good point.”

Shortly after oral arguments ended, Trump took to his social media site, Truth Social, where he falsely said the U.S. is the only country to have birthright citizenship. Argentina, Brazil, Canada and Mexico are among several countries that have birthright citizenship.

“We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” he wrote.

Trump left Wednesday’s oral arguments after Sauer was finished presenting his argument to the justices, and about a few minutes into arguments from the ACLU’s Wang, according to White House pool reports. Oral arguments lasted for about two-and-a-half hours.

Earlier decision

This is the second time the Trump administration has brought a birthright citizenship case before the justices.

Last year, after federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Washington state struck down the president’s executive order, the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, but asked the justices to consider the lower courts’ use of universal injunctions, rather than the merits of birthright citizenship.

The justices took up the case, and in a 6-3 vote divided along ideological lines, the use of universal injunctions was curtailed by the conservative wing of the high court.

After the ruling, immigration advocates and the ACLU filed class action suits, which were successful in blocking the birthright citizenship executive order. The suits argued that future children born in the United States without gaining citizenship constituted a nationwide class.

“If you credit the government’s theory, the citizenship of millions of Americans past, present and future could be called into question,” Wang said.

(This article was originally published by the DC Bureau of the States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization, and is republished by US Border News with permission.)

What are your thoughts about birthright citizenship?

Share your opinion in a comment to this story!

Abrazos,

Jack Beavers

Add us a preferred Google source!

Click the button above to add US Border News as a preferred source in your Google News feed!

The Trump Administration is facing tests on several levels as it responds to aid Venezuela following a pair of strong earthquakes that have killed 1,430 people, injured more than 3,200, and left more than 3,000 homeless, according to the Venezuelan government. An unknown, likely large, number of victims have yet to be found in the rubble. The quake has damaged 1,400 buildings, including 13 hospitals.

President Trump has cut 83% of the budget of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which provides US foreign assistance, and has deposed Venezuela’s President (Nicolás Maduro), replacing him with a more compliant leader, while promising better relations in exchange for easing economic sanctions that crippled its economy (despite remarks that the US will "take back" Venezuela’s oil).

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is aggressively responding by rushing aid to that South American country through US Military and Disaster Response assistance.

According to NPR, Rubio promised: "We have a whole-of-government response. It'll be big; it'll be fast; and it'll be effective."

Urban Search & Rescue (USAR) teams from California, Florida & Virginia were dispatched to Venezuela, along with US Military assistance and $150 million in disaster aid, as well as what the department is describing as a “robust, life-saving response to the earthquakes”.

The US Military’s Southern Command says that:

• Two C-17 Globemaster aircraft are delivering Urban Search and Rescue teams

• A C-17 is delivering load-movement equipment to Caracas

• USS Fort Lauderdale (LPD 28) and USS Billings (LCS 15) arrived in the waters near Venezuela
  

• MV-22 Ospreys are transporting an airfield assessment team

• Three U.S. Army CH-47 Chinooks have headed to support critical airlift
  

• Satellite imagery of devastated areas is being provided to disaster relief planners

The US Military’s Southern Command has also deployed a 250-person Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) to the country.

In addition to the US relief efforts, the New York Times reported the following personnel were sent to Venezuela from abroad:

• European Commission: More than 520 emergency responders from France, Czechia, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, Germany, Portugal, and the Netherlands flew to Venezuela. Officials said that 5 million euros would be allocated for relief efforts.

• United Kingdom: A 68-member crew was dispatched to offer assistance. The aid includes drones, seismic listening technology, and cutting tools. Some two million euros were also earmarked for humanitarian aid.

All told, Reuters reports more than 1,600 foreign disaster aid workers have arrived in that country.

Back in the US, the Trump Administration assigned military officers to aid Venezuela:

• The US Army dispatched a Major General to Venezuela after its government formally requested U.S. support following the deadly earthquakes.

Thanks for reading US Border News! This post is public, so feel free to share it.

Share

Should the US do more to aid Venezuela’s recovery from this deadly earthquake?

Share your opinion in a comment to this story!

Abrazos,

Jack Beavers

Add us a preferred Google source!

Click the button above to add US Border News as a preferred source in your Google News Feed.

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling on Thursday, June 25, 2026, allowing the Trump Administration to remove legal protections from hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants in the United States. That paves the way for their deportation. The following article was published by US Border News on Monday and provides background and additional context about today’s ruling:

• (This article was written by Megan Henry for the non-profit Ohio Capital Journal & is republished by US Border News with permission under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.)

The future of Haitians living in Ohio (and across the U.S.) with temporary protected status hangs in the balance of a United States Supreme Court decision that could come as soon as this week or next.

About 330,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians are living in the United States with Temporary Protected Status (TPS), a program that allows people from specific countries in conflict or facing natural disasters the chance to live and work in the United States for a set period of time.

About 30,000 Haitians with temporary status live in central Ohio, and an estimated 12,000 to 15,000 Haitians call Springfield home, with a mixture of temporary protected status, citizenship, and other legal status.

Springfield became a flashpoint in the 2024 Election when Donald Trump and JD Vance spread racist lies about Haitian immigrants there.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to make a decision either by the end of June or early July on whether the Trump administration can end the Temporary Protected Status program for Haitian and Syrian nationals.

Oral arguments for the case were made in April.

“If (TPS is) terminated, they will essentially immediately lose their work authorization in most states, their access to driver’s licenses, and then also protection against deportation, and they could be put in removal proceedings and subject to deportation,” - Emily Brown, director of the Ohio State University law school’s Immigration Clinic.

Attorneys for Haitian TPS holders filed a motion last week asking the U.S. Supreme Court to dismiss the case, saying new evidence has come to light that shows the Trump administration unlawfully attempted to revoke TPS, according to the Springfield News-Sun.

“This new evidence raises profound concerns about the integrity of the process that put our Haitian neighbors at risk,” said Carl Ruby, pastor of Springfield’s Central Christian Church.

Haitians were initially granted temporary protected status after Haiti’s earthquake in 2010 killed 222,570 people.

The Biden administration extended Temporary Protected Status to Haitians in 2021 after the assassination of Haitian President Jovenel Moïse.

Syria was first granted TPS in 2012, and the country continues to experience ongoing armed conflict, terrorist violence, kidnapping, hostage taking, and crime.

Haiti is currently plagued by gang violence and instability, with many fleeing the small Caribbean nation to the United States for their lives. Just last week, a top security official and chief of staff to the nation’s defense minister was kidnapped.

Many of the Haitian refugees in America have no homes to return to in Haiti, and are fearful for their families’ safety if forced to return.

“If TPS goes away, I don’t think most of them want to just get back on a plane and go to Haiti because the violence there is so severe at this point that they think anything is going to be better than going back there,” Brown said.

The U.S. Department of State currently has a Level 4 “Do Not Travel” advisory for Haiti and Syria.

“They’re certainly fearful,” Ruby said.

Haitians can apply for asylum, but the Trump administration put an indefinite freeze on processing all asylum applications at the end of 2025.

“It’s not really a solution for most people,” Brown said.

Viles Dorsainvil, executive director of the Haitian Support Center in Springfield, came to the United States from Haiti in 2020.

“No matter what happens, I would be the last person to leave because so many people in the community are relying on me from both sides — from the Haitian community and from the American community,” said Dorsainvil, who is also a Master’s student at Wright State University.

He sees the U.S. Supreme Court ruling going one of three ways.

The justices could rule in favor of TPS holders, but he said that could still have consequences.

“There might be a possibility for the Trump administration to develop new policies to continue to make the lives of the immigrants miserable, so that they can leave or they can self-deport,” Dorsainvil said.

A decision could come down that gives the Trump administration a certain number of months to end TPS, he said.

“In that period, there will be some disturbance in the community, and folks will still be in limbo,” Dorsainvil said.

If the Supreme Court rules against TPS holders, “there will be some type of humanitarian crisis in the community,” he said.

“The schools will be disturbed, the manufacturers will be disturbed, and the whole economy of Springfield will be impacted,” Dorsainvil said.

Springfield Mayor Rob Rue is “not providing any statements or interviews on the matter at this time,” a spokesperson for the mayor said in an email response to the Capital Journal.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, who was born in Springfield, has spoken several times about how the Haitian people are helping Springfield’s economy.

“I’ve made myself pretty clear in regards to policy on what I think it’s best for Ohio and best for Springfield and these people who are working and helping the economy of Springfield moving forward and doing the things that we like people to do, which is their work,” DeWine said this week.

The DeWines helped support the Becky DeWine School in Haiti, named after their late daughter, but the school had to close due to gang activity in 2024.

Springfield experienced a shrinking population for decades as manufacturing jobs disappeared, but Haitian immigrants have grown Clark County’s workforce by more than 10,000 workers.

Deporting Haitians in Springfield would eliminate roughly $300 million in annual spending from Clark County, with an estimated economic loss projected to exceed $400 million.

Haitians have been making arrangements for power of attorney and custody of their children in case TPS ends, Brown said.

“If TPS does end, everyone expects that ICE will do big raids in Columbus and Springfield and other parts of the country where there are large pockets of Haitians, so you could really see this kind of indiscriminate policing … People are really, really scared about that, and knowing that it could come at any time,” she said.

Ruby said he expects targeted raids from the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Springfield and other cities with a big Haitian population if the Supreme Court rules against TPS holders.

“I think (the Trump administration is) going to rely more on unemployment and trying to get people to self-deport,” Ruby said.

“We think a more likely scenario is we’re going to have a humanitarian crisis with people just out of work and not being able to pay the rent and not being able to buy food.”

To prepare for that possibility, nonprofit agencies in Springfield are trying to anticipate the need for rental assistance and food, Ruby said.

“We’re trying to equip churches to be ready to respond; we are asking churches to provide sanctuary,” he said. He said they are discouraging people from going to immigration check-ins on their own.

TPS for Haitians was set to expire Feb. 3, but U.S. District Court Judge Ana C. Reyes blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to end temporary protected status for Haitians living in the United States.

The Trump administration quickly appealed the decision and lower courts blocked its efforts to end Haiti’s TPS.

“People were so scared leading up to Feb. 3, and I think it’s just the same thing now, but even worse because the Supreme Court, we can’t necessarily depend on them to do the right thing,” Brown said.

At the federal level, the U.S. House voted in April to extend TPS for Haitians through 2029. The bill is now in the U.S. Senate, but the White House said President Donald Trump would veto the bill.

The Trump administration has revoked TPS status for 13 countries — Afghanistan, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Haiti, Honduras, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.

• (This article originally appeared in the Ohio Capital Journal, which is part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.)

What are your thoughts about Haitians & Syrians losing their Temporary Protected Status?

Share your opinion in a comment to this story!

Abrazos,

Jack Beavers

Add us a preferred Google source!

Click the button above to add US Border News as a preferred source in your Google News Feed.

• (This article was written by Ariana Figueroa of the non-profit States Newsroom DC Bureau & is republished by US Border News with permission under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.)

An appeals court on Tuesday cleared the way for the Trump administration to use fast-track deportations within the interior of the country and not just at the Southern border, a key pillar in the president’s mass deportation campaign.

The 2-1 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia means the Department of Homeland Security can continue with an expanded use of expedited removal after lower courts blocked the policy over concerns that immigrants were not receiving due process.

Last year, the Trump administration expanded the use of expedited removal to apply to immigrants in the interior of the United States who cannot prove they have remained in the country for more than two years, greatly expanding the number of migrants affected. Previously, the policy applied only to migrants at the Southern border, rather than those in the interior of the country.

Tuesday’s ruling, by Judge Justin R. Walker, argued that Congress allowed the executive branch to decide when to apply an expedited removal policy to immigrants. President Donald Trump appointed Walker, along with Judge Neomi Rao, who also ruled in favor of the government.

They found in addition that the Trump administration’s policy did not violate the due rights of immigrants. The judges vacated lower court decisions that blocked the Trump policy.

No immigration judge

The expanded policy allows the removal of some immigrants – sometimes within hours – without an appearance before an immigration judge, which is key to the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign.

Judge Robert L. Wilkins disagreed and said he would have kept the lower court’s decision in place that blocked the policy. Former President Barack Obama nominated Wilkins.

In a statement, James Percival, the Department of Homeland Security’s general counsel, praised the appeals court ruling.

“For years, DHS has arbitrarily limited expedited removal to 14 days even though it applies to illegal aliens who entered the country illegally within the last two years,” Percival said. “Today, the DC Circuit vindicated our decision to apply the law as written.”

Due process questions

In December, the Department of Justice argued that due process is not guaranteed for immigrants in a fast-track deportation.

The immigrants’ rights group that sued the Trump administration, Make the Road New York, contended that the expanded policy did not give adequate notice to immigrants and that immigration officials did not provide proper information to an immigrant who may or may not fall under the policy.

Walker wrote that a notice of removal was satisfactory and that an immigration official notifying a migrant if they fall under the policy would be akin to providing them with legal counsel.

“Make the Road’s contrary reasoning would require immigration officers to provide what amounts to legal advice,” Walker wrote. “If due process requires the government to inform individuals of the two-year continuous-presence rule, it presumably also requires informing them of every other basis for contesting expedited removal.”

Wilkins, in his dissent, argued that immigration officials should inquire about how long an immigrant has been in the country before making a decision if expedited removal should be applied.

“A procedure that can result in persons being deported pursuant to the expedited removal statute without even being asked how long they have been in the country might satisfy due process for persons encountered at the border, but it is woefully inadequate for persons encountered in the interior of the country,” Wilkins wrote.

Make the Road New York did not immediately respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.

• (This article was originally published by the DC Bureau of the States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization, and is republished by US Border News with permission.)

What are your thoughts on the Appeals Court ruling?

Share your opinion in a comment to this story!

Abrazos,

Jack Beavers

Add us a preferred Google source!

Click the button above to add US Border News as a preferred source in your Google News Feed.