deportation

Like a teenager armed with their first smartphone, President Trump’s masked immigration enforcers love nothing more than to mug for friendly cameras.

They gladly invite pseudo-filmmakers — some federal government workers, others conservative influencers or pro-Trump reporters — to embed during raids so they can capture every tamale lady agents slam onto the sidewalk, every protester they pelt with pepper balls, every tear gas canister used to clear away pesky activists. From that mayhem comes slickly produced videos that buttress the Trump administration’s claim that everyone involved in the push to boot illegal immigrants from the U.S. is a hero worthy of cinematic love.

But not everything that Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Border Patrol and its sister agencies do shows up in their approved rivers of reels.

Their propagandists aren’t highlighting the story of Jaime Alanís García, a Mexican farmworker who fell 30 feet to his death in Camarillo this summer while trying to escape one of the largest immigration raids in Southern California in decades.

They’re not making videos about 39-year-old Ismael Ayala-Uribe, an Orange County resident who moved to this country from Mexico as a 4-year-old and died in a Victorville hospital in September after spending weeks in ICE custody complaining about his health.

They’re not addressing how ICE raids led to the deaths of Josué Castro Rivera and Carlos Roberto Montoya, Central American nationals run over and killed by highway traffic in Virginia and Monrovia while fleeing in terror. Or what happened to Silverio Villegas González, shot dead in his car as he tried to speed away from two ICE agents in suburban Chicago.

Those men are just some of the 20-plus people who have died in 2025 while caught up in ICE’s machine — the deadliest year for the agency in two decades, per NPR.

Publicly, the Department of Homeland Security has described those incidents as “tragic” while assigning blame to everything but itself. For instance, a Homeland Security official told the Associated Press that Castro Rivera’s death was “a direct result of every politician, activist and reporter who continue to spread propaganda and misinformation about ICE’s mission and ways to avoid detention” — whatever the hell that means.

An ICE spokesperson asked for more time to respond to my request for comment, said “Thank you Sir” when I extended my deadline, then never got back to me. Whatever the response would’ve been, Trump’s deportation Leviathan looks like it’s about to get deadlier.

As reported by my colleagues Andrea Castillo and Rachel Uranga, his administration plans to get rid of more than half of ICE’s field office directors due to grumblings from the White House that the deportations that have swamped large swaths of the United States all year haven’t happened faster and in larger numbers.

Asked for comment, Tricia McLaughlin, Homeland Security assistant secretary for public affairs, described The Times’ questions as “sensationalism” and added “only the media would describe standard agency personnel changes as a ‘massive shakeup.’”

Agents are becoming more brazen as more of them get hired thanks to billions of dollars in new funds. In Oakland, one fired a chemical round into the face of a Christian pastor from just feet away. In Santa Ana, another pulled a gun from his waistband and pointed it at activists who had been trailing him from a distance in their car. In the Chicago area, a woman claimed a group of them fired pepper balls at her car even though her two young children were inside.

La migra knows they can act with impunity because they have the full-throated backing of the White House. Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller crowed on Fox News recently, “To all ICE officers: You have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties.”

That’s not actually true, but when have facts mattered to this presidency if it gets in the way of its apocalyptic goals?

Greg Bovino, El Centro Border Patrol sector chief, center, walks with federal agents near an ICE detention facility in Broadview, Ill.

(Erin Hooley / Associated Press)

Tasked with turning up the terror dial to 11 is Gregory Bovino, a longtime Border Patrol sector chief based out of El Centro, Calif., who started the year with a raid in Kern County so egregious that a federal judge slammed it as agents “walk[ing] up to people with brown skin and say[ing], ‘Give me your papers.’” A federal judge ordered him to check in with her every day for the foreseeable future after the Border Patrol tear-gassed a neighborhood in a Chicago suburb that was about to host its annual Halloween children’s parade (an appeals court has temporarily blocked the move).

Bovino now reports directly to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and is expected to pick most of the ICE field office directors from Customs and Border Protection, the arm of the federal government that the Border Patrol belongs to. It logged 180 immigrant deaths under its purview for the 2023 fiscal year, the last year for which stats are publicly available and the third straight year that the number had increased.

To put someone like Bovino in charge of executing Trump’s deportation plans is like gifting a gas refinery to an arsonist.

He’s constantly trying to channel the conquering ethos of Wild West, complete with a strutting posse of agents — some with cowboy hats — following him everywhere, white horses trailed by American flags for photo ops and constant shout-outs to “Ma and Pa America” when speaking to the media. When asked by a CBS News reporter recently when his self-titled “Mean Green Machine” would end its Chicago campaign — one that has seen armed troops march through downtown and man boats on the Chicago River like they were patrolling Baghdad — Bovino replied, “When all the illegal aliens [self-deport] and/or we arrest ‘em all.”

Such scorched-earth jibber-jabber underlines a deportation policy under which the possibility of death for those it pursues is baked into its foundation. ICE plans to hire dozens of healthcare workers — doctors, nurses, psychiatrists — in anticipation of Trump’s plans to build more detention camps, many slated for inhospitable locations like the so-called Alligator Alcatraz camp in the Florida Everglades. That was announced to the world on social media with an AI-generated image of grinning alligators wearing MAGA caps — as if the White House was salivating at the prospect of desperate people trying to escape only to find certain carnage.

In his CBS News interview, Bovino described the force his team has used in Chicago — where someone was shot and killed, a pastors got hit with pepper balls from high above and the sound of windshields broken by immigration agents looking to snatch someone from their cars is now part of the Windy City’s soundtrack — as “exemplary.” The Border Patrol’s peewee Patton added he felt his guys used “the least amount of force necessary to accomplish the mission. If someone strays into a pepper ball, then that’s on them.”

One shudders to think what Bovino thinks is excessive for la migra. With his powers now radically expanded, we’re about to find out.

PHILADELPHIA — After waiting more than four decades to clear his name in a friend’s 1980 killing, Subramanyam Vedam was set to walk free from a Pennsylvania prison this month.

Vedam and Thomas Kinser were the 19-year-old children of Penn State University faculty. Vedam was the last person seen with Kinser and was twice convicted of killing him, despite a lack of witnesses or motive.

In August, a judge threw out the conviction after Vedam’s lawyers found new ballistics evidence that prosecutors had never disclosed.

As his sister prepared to bring him home on Oct. 3, the thin, white-haired Vedam was instead taken into federal custody over a 1999 deportation order. The 64-year-old, who legally came to the U.S. from India when he was 9 months old, now faces another daunting legal fight.

Amid the Trump administration’s focus on mass deportations, Vedam’s lawyers must persuade an immigration court that a 1980s drug conviction should be outweighed by the years he wrongly spent in prison. For a time, immigration law allowed people who had reformed their lives to seek such waivers. Vedam never pursued it then because of the murder conviction.

“He was someone who’s suffered a profound injustice,” said immigration lawyer Ava Benach. And “those 43 years aren’t a blank slate. He lived a remarkable experience in prison.”

Vedam earned several degrees behind bars, tutored hundreds of fellow inmates and went nearly half a century with just a single infraction, involving rice brought in from the outside.

His lawyers hope immigration judges will consider the totality of his case. The administration, in a brief filed Friday, opposes the effort. So Vedam remains at an 1,800-bed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in central Pennsylvania.

“Criminal illegal aliens are not welcome in the U.S,” a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said in an email about the case.

‘Mr. Vedam, where were you born?’

After his initial conviction was thrown out, Vedam faced an unusual set of questions at his 1988 retrial.

“Mr. Vedam, where were you born?” Centre County Dist. Atty. Ray Gricar asked. “How frequently would you go back to India?

“During your teenage years, did you ever get into meditation?”

Gopal Balachandran, the Penn State Dickinson Law professor who won the reversal, believes the questions were designed to alienate him from the all-white jury, which returned a second guilty verdict.

The Vedams were among the first Indian families in the area known as “Happy Valley,” where his father had come as a postdoctoral fellow in 1956. An older daughter was born in State College, but “Subu,” as he was known, was born when the family was back in India in 1961.

They returned to State College for good before his first birthday and became the family that welcomed new members of the Indian diaspora to town.

“They were fully engaged. My father loved the university. My mother was a librarian, and she helped start the library,” said the sister, Saraswathi Vedam, 68, a midwifery professor in Vancouver, British Columbia.

While she left for college in Massachusetts, Subu became swept up in the counterculture of the late 1970s, growing his hair long and dabbling in drugs while taking classes at Penn State.

One day in December 1980, Vedam asked Kinser for a ride to nearby Lewisburg to buy drugs. Kinser was never seen again, although his van was found outside his apartment. Nine months later, hikers found his body in a wooded area miles away.

Vedam was detained on drug charges while police investigated and was ultimately charged with murder. He was convicted in 1983 and sentenced to life without parole. To resolve the drug case, he pleaded no contest to four counts of selling LSD and a theft charge. The 1988 retrial offered no reprieve from his situation.

Although the defense long questioned the ballistics evidence in the case, the jury, which heard that Vedam had bought a .25-caliber gun from someone, never heard that an FBI report suggested the bullet wound was too small to have been fired from that gun. Balachandran only found that report as he dug into the case in 2023.

After hearings on the issue, a Centre County judge threw out the conviction and the district attorney decided this month to not retry the case.

Trump officials oppose the petition

Benach, the immigration lawyer, often represents clients trying to stay in the U.S. despite an earlier infraction. Still, she finds the Vedam case “truly extraordinary” given the constitutional violations involved.

“Forty-three years of wrongful imprisonment more than makes up for the possession with intent to distribute LSD when he was 20 years old,” she said.

Vedam could spend several more months in custody before the Board of Immigration Appeals decides whether to reopen the case. ICE officials, in a brief Friday, said the clock ran out years ago.

“He has provided no evidence nor argument to show he has been diligent in pursuing his rights as it pertains to his immigration status,” Katherine B. Frisch, an assistant chief counsel, wrote.

Saraswathi Vedam is saddened by the latest delay but said her brother remains patient.

“He, more than anybody else, knows that sometimes things don’t make sense,” she said. “You have to just stay the course and keep hoping that truth and justice and compassion and kindness will win.”

Dale writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Late last month, an immigrant seeking asylum in the U.S. came across social media posts urging her to pay a new fee imposed by the Trump administration before Oct. 1, or else risk her case being dismissed.

Paula, a 40-year-old Los Angeles-area immigrant from Mexico, whose full name The Times is withholding because she fears retribution, applied for asylum in 2021 and her case is now on appeal.

But when Paula tried to pay the $100 annual fee, she couldn’t find an option on the immigration court’s website that accepted fees for pending asylum cases. Afraid of deportation — and with just five hours before the payment deadline — she selected the closest approximation she could find, $110 for an appeal filed before July 7.

She knew it was likely incorrect. Still, she felt it was better to pay for something, rather than nothing at all, as a show of good faith. Unable to come up with the money on such short notice, Paula, who works in a warehouse repairing purses, paid the fee with a credit card.

“I hope that money isn’t wasted,” she said.

That remains unclear because of confusion and misinformation surrounding the rollout of a host of new fees or fee increases for a variety of immigration services. The fees are part of the sweeping budget bill President Trump signed into law in July.

Paula was one of thousands of asylum seekers across the country who panicked after seeing messages on social media urging them to pay the new fee before the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1.

But government messaging about the fees has sometimes been chaotic and contradictory, immigration attorneys say. Some asylum seekers have received notice about the fees, while others have not. Misinformation surged as immigrants scrambled to figure out whether, and how, to pay.

Advocates worry the confusion serves as a way for immigration officials to dismiss more asylum cases, which would render the applicants deportable.

The fees vary. For those seeking asylum, there is a $100 fee for new applications, as well as a yearly fee of $100 for pending applications. The fee for an initial work permit is $550 and work permit renewals can be as much as $795.

Amy Grenier, associate director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Assn., said that not having a clear way to pay a fee might seem like a small government misstep, but the legal consequences are substantial.

For new asylum applications, she said, some immigration judges set a payment deadline of Sept. 30, even though the Executive Office for Immigration Review only updated the payment portal in the last week of September.

“The lack of coherent guidance and structure to pay the fee only compounded the inefficiency of our immigration courts,” Grenier said. “There are very real consequences for asylum-seekers navigating this completely unnecessary bureaucratic mess.”

Two agencies collect the asylum fees: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), under the Department of Homeland Security, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), under the Department of Justice, which operates immigration courts.

Both agencies initially released different instructions regarding the fees, and only USCIS has provided an avenue for payment.

The departments of Homeland Security and Justice didn’t respond to a request for comment. The White House deferred to USCIS.

USCIS spokesman Matthew J. Tragesser said the asylum fee is being implemented consistent with the law.

“The real losers in this are the unscrupulous and incompetent immigration attorneys who exploit their clients and bog down the system with baseless asylum claims,” he said.

The Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP), a national membership organization, sued the Trump administration earlier this month after thousands of members shared their confusion over the new fees, arguing that the federal agencies involved “threaten to deprive asylum seekers of full and fair consideration of their claims.”

The organization also argued the fees shouldn’t apply to people whose cases were pending before Trump signed the budget package into law.

In a U.S. district court filing Monday, Justice Department lawyers defended the fees, saying, “Congress made clear that these new asylum fees were long overdue and necessary to recover the growing costs of adjudicating the millions of pending asylum applications.”

Some of the confusion resulted from contradictory information.

A notice by USCIS in the July 22 Federal Register confused immigrants and legal practitioners alike because of a reference to Sept. 30. Anyone who had applied for asylum as of Oct. 1, 2024, and whose application was still pending by Sept. 30, was instructed to pay a fee. Some thought the notice meant that Sept. 30 was the deadline to pay the yearly asylum fee.

By this month, USCIS clarified on its website that it will “issue personal notices” alerting asylum applicants when their annual fee is due, how to pay it and the consequences for failing to do so.

The agency created a payment portal and began sending out notices Oct. 1, instructing recipients to pay within 30 days.

But many asylum seekers are still waiting to be notified by USCIS, according to ASAP, the advocacy organization. Some have received texts or physical mail telling them to check their USCIS account, while others have resorted to checking their accounts daily.

Meanwhile the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) didn’t add a mechanism for paying the $100 fee for pending asylum cases — the one Paula hoped to pay — until Thursday.

In its Oct. 3 complaint, lawyers for ASAP wrote: “Troublingly, ASAP has received reports that some immigration judges at EOIR are already requiring applicants to have paid the annual asylum fee, and in at least one case even rejected an asylum application and ordered an asylum seeker removed for non-payment of the annual asylum fee, despite the agency providing no way to pay this fee.”

An immigration lawyer in San Diego, who asked not to be named out of fear of retribution, said an immigration judge denied his client’s asylum petition because the client had not paid the new fee, even though there was no way to pay it.

The judge issued an order, which was shared with The Times, that read, “Despite this mandatory requirement, to date the respondents have not filed proof of payment for the annual asylum fee.”

The lawyer called the decision a due process violation. He said he now plans to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, though another fee increase under Trump’s spending package raised that cost from $110 to $1,010. He is litigating the case pro bono.

Justice Department lawyers said Monday that EOIR had eliminated the initial inconsistency by revising its position to reflect that of USCIS and will soon send out official notices to applicants, giving them 30 days to make the payment.

“There was no unreasonable delay here in EOIR’s implementation,” the filing said. “…The record shows several steps were required to finalize EOIR’s process, including coordination with USCIS. Regardless, Plaintiff’s request is now moot.”

Immigrants like Paula, who is a member of ASAP, recently got some reassurance. In a court declaration, EOIR Director Daren Margolin wrote that for anyone who made anticipatory or advance payments for the annual asylum fee, “those payments will be applied to the alien’s owed fees, as appropriate.”

Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist and US resident, appeared before a federal appeals court in Philadelphia as Trump administration lawyers push to deport him. His case, tied to campus activism at Columbia University, has become a test of free speech and political dissent rights.

Oct. 8 (UPI) — Pope Leo XIV reportedly opposed U.S. mass deportation efforts after meeting with El Paso, Texas, Bishop Mark Seitz and members of the Hope Border Institute on Wednesday.

The pope hosted Seitz, institute members and others in Vatican City to discuss the Trump administration’s efforts to deport potentially millions of “migrants” who no longer have legal standing to remain in the United States, according to the Holy See Press Office.

Seitz said the meeting was to enable Pope Leo to see and hear the “stories and fears of our immigrant sisters and brothers from across our country,” USA Today reported.

The meeting included showing a four-minute video of migrants recounting their experiences amid the Trump administration’s efforts to deport those without legal standing to remain in the United States.

“He watched the whole thing, and his eyes at the end were filled with tears,” Dylan Corbett, executive director of the Hope Border Institute, told Politico.

“As the meeting came to an end, he said, ‘You stand with me, and I stand with you, and the church will continue to accompany and stand with migrants.'” Corbett said.

The Vatican has not confirmed that Pope Leo made those comments, but many U.S. Catholic leaders have denounced the Trump administration’s deportation of an estimated 2 million “migrants.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Oct. 1 rejected claims that those being deported are subject to “inhumane treatment” and said the Trump administration is enforcing the nation’s immigration laws.

The Hope Border Institute is an El Paso-based non-profit that says its mission is “pursuing justice at the U.S.-Mexico border.”

While the pope reportedly stands with Seitz and the Hope Border Institute, Vatican City enforces its borders and punishes illegal crossings by fining and imprisoning offenders for between one and four years, according to the Catholic News Agency.

Trump administration continues to send individuals to countries where they have no ties amid mass deportation push.

The United States has sent a second so-called “third-country” deportation flight to the tiny southern African nation of Eswatini, shrugging off human rights concerns.

Eswatini’s government confirmed on Monday it had received ten deportees from the US who were not nationals of the kingdom. That came after five other deportees from the US were sent to Eswatini in July.

The White House confirmed the deportations on Monday, saying the individuals had committed serious crimes.

Neither the US nor Eswatini confirmed the nationalities of the individuals who arrived on Monday. However, US-based immigration lawyer Tin Thanh Nguyen said they included three people from Vietnam, one from the Philippines, and one from Cambodia.

Rights groups have condemned the treatment of the first group of deportees sent to Eswatini — which included individuals from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba , and Yemen — saying they were kept in solitary confinement and not given access to lawyers.

Nguyen said he was representing two of those who arrived on Monday and two others previously sent to Eswatini, but he remained unable to speak with any of them.

“I cannot call them. I cannot email them. I cannot communicate through local counsel because the Eswatini government blocks all attorney access,” he said in a statement provided to Reuters news agency.

Amid its mass deportation push, the Trump administration has increasingly relied on sending deportees to third countries when they cannot legally send them to their homeland.

Rights advocates have challenged the practice, fearing it can leave those expelled stranded in countries where they do not speak the language and may not be afforded due process.

The Trump administration has also sent “third country” deportees to South Sudan, Ghana, and Rwanda.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said the latest group of deportees sent to Eswatini had been convicted of “heinous crimes”, including murder and rape.

“They do not belong in the United States,” Jackson said.

Activists in Eswatini, a small mountain kingdom bordering South Africa, have also condemned the government’s secretive deal with the US. They have launched a legal challenge in hopes of scuttling the agreement.

For its part, the Eswatini department of correctional services has maintained that it is “committed to the humane treatment of all persons in its custody”.

The department said the individuals would be kept in correctional facilities until they could be repatriated to their home countries.

HARRISBURG, Pa. — A federal judge has concluded that the Department of Justice’s prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia on human smuggling charges may be an illegal retaliation after he successfully sued the Trump administration over his deportation to El Salvador.

The case of Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was a construction worker living legally in Maryland when he was wrongly deported to his home country, has become a proxy for the partisan struggle over President Trump’s sweeping immigration crackdown and mass deportation agenda.

U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw late Friday granted a request by lawyers for Abrego Garcia and ordered discovery and an evidentiary hearing in Abrego Garcia’s effort to show that the federal human smuggling case against him in Tennessee is illegally retaliatory.

Crenshaw said Abrego Garcia had shown that there is “some evidence that the prosecution against him may be vindictive.” That evidence included statements by various Trump administration officials and the timeline of the charges being filed.

The departments of Justice and Homeland Security did not immediately respond to inquiries about the case Saturday.

In his 16-page ruling, Crenshaw said many statements by administration officials “raise cause for concern,” but one stood out.

That statement by Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, on a Fox News program after Abrego Garcia was charged in June, seemed to suggest that the Department of Justice charged Abrego Garcia because he won his wrongful-deportation case, Crenshaw wrote.

Blanche’s ”remarkable statements could directly establish that the motivations for Abrego’s criminal charges stem from his exercise of his constitutional and statutory rights” to sue over his deportation “rather than a genuine desire to prosecute him for alleged criminal misconduct,” Crenshaw wrote.

Likewise, Crenshaw noted that the Department of Homeland Security reopened an investigation into Abrego Garcia days after the Supreme Court said in April that the Trump administration must work to bring back Abrego Garcia.

Abrego Garcia was indicted May 21 and charged June 6, the day the U.S. brought him back from a prison in El Salvador. He pleaded not guilty and is now being held in Pennsylvania.

If convicted in the Tennessee case, Abrego Garcia will be deported, federal officials have said. A U.S. immigration judge has denied Abrego Garcia’s bid for asylum, although he can appeal.

Abrego Garcia has an American wife and children and has lived in Maryland for years, but he immigrated to the United States illegally as a teenager.

In 2019, he was arrested by immigration agents. He requested asylum but was not eligible because he had been in the U.S. for more than a year. But the judge ruled he could not be deported to El Salvador, where he faced danger from a gang that targeted his family.

The human smuggling charges in Tennessee stem from a 2022 traffic stop. He was not charged at the time.

Trump administration officials have waged a relentless public relations campaign against Abrego Garcia, repeatedly referring to him as a member of the MS-13 gang, among other things, despite the fact he has not been convicted of any crimes. The government has provided no clear evidence of gang affiliation, and Abrego Garcia denies the allegation.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have denounced the criminal charges and the deportation efforts, saying they are an attempt to punish him for standing up to the administration.

Abrego Garcia contends that, while imprisoned in El Salvador — in a notorious lockup with a documented history of human rights abuses — he suffered beatings, sleep deprivation and psychological torture. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele has denied those allegations.

Levy writes for the Associated Press.

TEHRAN, Iran — The United States will deport hundreds of Iranians back to Iran in the coming weeks, with the first 120 deportees being prepared for a flight in the next day or two, Iran said Tuesday.

The deportation of Iranians, not yet publicly acknowledged by the U.S. government, comes as tensions remain high between the two countries following the American bombings of Iranian nuclear sites in June.

Meanwhile, the United Nations reimposed sanctions on Iran this past week over its nuclear program, putting new pressure on the Islamic Republic’s ailing economy.

The deportations also represent a collision of a top priority of President Trump — targeting illegal immigration — against a decadeslong practice by the U.S. of welcoming Iranian dissidents, exiles and others since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

As many as 400 Iranians would be returning to Iran as part of the deal with the U.S., Iranian state television said, citing Hossein Noushabadi, director-general for parliamentary affairs at Iran’s Foreign Ministry. He said the majority of those people had crossed into the U.S. from Mexico illegally, while some faced other immigration issues.

Noushabadi said the first planeload of Iranians would arrive in a day or two, after stopping over in Qatar on the way. Authorities in Qatar have not confirmed that.

The U.S. State Department referred questions to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not immediately respond. The New York Times first reported the deportations.

In the lead up to and after Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, a large number of Iranians fled to the U.S. In the decades since, the U.S. had been sensitive in allowing those fleeing from Iran over religious, sexual or political persecution to seek residency.

In the 2024 fiscal year, for instance, the U.S. deported only 20 Iranians, according to statistics from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Iran has criticized Washington for hosting dissidents and others in the past. U.S. federal prosecutors have accused Iran of hiring hitmen to target dissidents as well in America.

It’s unclear exactly what has changed now in American policy. However, since returning to the White House, Trump has cracked down on those living in the U.S. illegally.

Noushabadi said that American authorities unilaterally made the decision without consultations with Iran.

But The New York Times said Tuesday, citing anonymous Iranian officials, that the deportations were “the culmination of months of discussions between the two countries.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, as well as President Masoud Pezeshkian, both attended the U.N. General Assembly in New York last week as a last-ditch effort to stop the reimposed sanctions. However, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei boxed in their efforts by describing diplomacy with the U.S. as a “sheer dead end.”

Speaking to state TV in footage aired Tuesday, Araghchi acknowledged that direct communication from Iran went to the U.S. government during the U.N. visit — something he had been careful not to highlight during five rounds of nuclear negotiations with the Americans earlier this year.

“With Americans, both directly and indirectly, messages were exchanged, and eventually, we are relieved that we did whatever it was necessary,” Araghchi said. “It was clear and evident to us after the interpretation the Supreme Leader made that negotiations with Americans is an obvious dead-end.”

Vahdat writes for the Associated Press.

Sept. 27 (UPI) — The superintendent of Des Moines Public Schools in Iowa was apprehended by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on a deportation order and in possession of a loaded gun in a district vehicle.

Ian Andre Roberts, 54, entered from Guyana in 1999 on a student visa and had a final order for removal by an immigration judge in May 2024, ICE said in a news release Friday.

“This suspect was arrested in possession of a loaded weapon in a vehicle provided by Des Moines Public Schools after fleeing federal law enforcement,” Sam Olson, ICE field office director in St. Paul, Minn., said in the release.

“This should be a wake-up call for our communities to the great work that our officers are doing every day to remove public safety threats. How this illegal alien was hired without work authorization, a final order of removal, and a prior weapons charge is beyond comprehension and should alarm the parents of that school district,” he said.

On Friday, ICE officers approached Roberts in the vehicle and, after identifying himself, he sped away, the agency said. His vehicle was found later near a wooded area.

At 8:45 a.m., the Iowa Department of Public Safety said in a news release that the agency received a mutual aid request to assist ICE in finding someone who fled from a traffic stop.

Iowa State Patrol troopers and special agents assisted ICE in finding Roberts, and he was taken into custody. Initially, he was listed as detained at the Pottawattamie County Jail, although the ICE website later removed any mention of a specific detention facility.

In 2021, Roberts pleaded guilty in Erie., Pa. to unlawful possession of a loaded firearm in a vehicle, which is a fifth-degree penalty, according to court records. It is a violation of law for someone without legal status in the United States to possess a firearm and ammunition.

On Friday, he also was in possession of a fixed-blade hunting knife and $3,000 in cash.

Roberts began working for the school district in 2023 after the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners granted Roberts a license to serve in Iowa as a superintendent.

Before coming to Iowa, he had been the superintendent of Middlecreek Township School District in Erie, Pa., since August 2020. Before that, he was chief schools officer for Aspire Public Schools Oakland, Calif., from 2018-2020.

The district said a third-party comprehensive background check was conducted on Roberts, and he was required to verify employment eligibility for all employees. The search found he held educational leadership positions in the U.S. for more than 20 years.

“We do not have all the facts. There is much we do not know,” school board President Jackie Norris said Friday during a news conference. “However, what we do know is Dr. Roberts has been an integral part of our school community since he joined two years ago.”

Later Friday, the district said in a news release that it “has not been formally notified by ICE about this matter, nor have we been able to talk with Dr. Roberts since his detention.”

Weapons are prohibited on school grounds, at school-sponsored events and at school-related activities.

Associate Superintendent Matt Smith will serve as interim superintendent, having previously served as interim superintendent during the 2022-23 school year. The district is the largest in Iowa with more than 30,000 students and nearly 5,000 teachers in more than 60 schools, according to its website.

“Unfortunate situations like today underscore exactly why we must fix our broken immigration system. An individual with a prior weapons charge and an active deportation order should never have been placed in this position of public trust,” Republican U.S. Rep. Zach Nunn, who serves the Des Moines area, posted on X.

U.S. Rep. and Iowa Senate candidate Ashley Hinson wrote on X that “He should be deported immediately. He should have never been anywhere around Iowa kids in the first place!”

Roberts, who was born in Guyana in 1973, competed for the South American nation in the 2000 Sydney Olympics in track and field as an 800-meter runner, coming in next to last in his heat.

“After transitioning from my professional track and field career, I embarked on a mission to transform schools,” he wrote on his LinkedIn Profile. “I’ve been in the trenches as a teacher in Brooklyn, New York, Prince Georges County, Maryland, and Baltimore City, where I earned the honor of being named Teacher of the Year for two consecutive years.

“Throughout my career, my Olympic tenacity has fueled my commitment to achieving excellence in education. I’ve led schools to achieve unprecedented gains in college acceptance/enrollment, increased attendance, and academic achievement.”

He received a doctorate from Trident University in Arizona, masters’ degrees from St. John’s and Georgetown and a bachelor’s from Morgan State. He went to Harvard’s graduate school of education and MIT’s School of Management.

Athens, Greece – Greece has drawn criticism and concern from rights groups and a United Nations office after passing what it considers to be the European Union’s strictest refugee deportation policy earlier this month.

The law was put to use on September 12, when three Turkish citizens were convicted of illegal residence and handed stiff jail sentences. Two men were given two years of imprisonment and fines of 5,000 euros ($5,870), while the third, aged 19, the youngest of the group, was handed a 10-month prison sentence.

Athens plans to test-drive the law through a likely minefield of legal challenges in the coming months. Humanitarian organisations say the measure unfairly includes children and stigmatises refugees and migrants as criminals.

Greek Minister for Migration and Asylum Thanos Plevris told Parliament on September 2 that the law was “the strictest returns policy in the whole EU” and claimed there was “a lot of interest from European countries, especially EU members, to adopt this law as a law that will force an illegal migrant to return”.

Rights groups, which are gearing up to challenge the legislation, say it far outshoots a draft Returns Regulation the European Commission wants to make binding on all member states by June 2026.

The new law has shortened deadlines and raised penalties for unauthorised residence.

For example, rejected asylum applicants will be fitted with ankle monitors and given just two weeks to remove themselves voluntarily. If they do not, they face, like the two Turkish nationals, a 5,000-euro ($5,870) fine and between two and five years of confinement in closed camps.

Children, more than a fifth of arrivals this year, are not exempt. If people wish to appeal, they have to do it in four days.

“We always claim that it’s not legal to put children in detention,” said Federica Toscano from Save the Children. The law is “not aligned with the [UN] Convention on the Rights of the Child”, and is “absolutely challengeable”.

The Greek Ombudsman, an independent authority monitoring public services, also objected to the law’s maximum reprieve of 60 days, down from 120, so children can complete their school year.

The Ombudsman suggested the law sets out to prove the proposition that all undocumented people are criminals.

Ankle monitors, it said, which are not mentioned in the draft Returns Regulation, “deepen the view of migrants as criminals and put their treatment on a par with that reserved for indictees, convicts and prisoners on leave”.

“Refugees are entitled to effective access to international protection without punishment for violating migration policy,” says the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Under the Geneva Convention, “the quest for asylum … is not a criminal offence, but a human right”.

The EU approves about 45 percent of asylum applications on average.

Of the remainder, 90 percent end up staying on European soil because there is no effective policy to return them, say European officials.

“Without a returns policy, no migration policy has any meaning,” said Greece’s then-migration minister, Makis Voridis, presenting the new proposals in Parliament’s European Affairs Committee on May 15.

Irregular entry into the country has been raised to a felony. Anyone arriving without documents can be detained for two years, up from 18 months.

A provision that legalises anyone after seven years of undocumented residence is being abolished.

Greece’s predicament

Plevris has defended the hardened law, arguing that Greece guards external EU borders.

“It’s easy to defend borders when there’s three or four countries people have to cross to get to you. Compare us to other first reception countries,” he said.

Since 2015, Greece has been the arrival point of 46 percent of more than 2.8 million undocumented people entering Europe, according to UNHCR.

Many have moved on to other EU member states, but because of EU rules, rejected asylum seekers or asylum recipients who lose their protected status would be returned to their country of arrival in the EU for deportation.

Greek officials admit they do not expect refugees and migrants to spend five years in detention. The draconian rules, they say, are designed to force them to return voluntarily once they are convicted.

That is because it is legally difficult to deport anyone forcibly.

The law has a second aim – to deter what Greece views as so-called economic migrants travelling to Europe when there are Geneva Convention signatories closer to home.

“It’s a massive programme that costs a lot of money and involves a whole web of private actors. So I think that would be pretty difficult to set up,” said Hope Barker, who works for the Global Strategic Communications Council, a nongovernmental group seeking to influence environmental and migration policy.

Greece’s Union of Administrative Judges objected that the law did not define flight risk, leaving incarceration decisions to the discretion of the police. The law “needs to provide a comprehensive list of criteria, not an indicative one”, it said.

The Council of Bar Associations of Greece also weighed in with objections to tightened deadlines for appeal and the criminalisation of undocumented entry.

“Danger to life and limb vastly outranks whatever law is broken by entering Greece illegally,” it said.

The EU’s guinea pig?

Repeatedly, these bodies pointed out, the new law violates the existing EU Returns Regulation, which dates back to 2008, but observers of EU migration policy say the European Commission is deliberately allowing Greece to push the boundaries.

“Greece has become something of a testing ground for many EU measures, especially on the Greek islands,” Amnesty International’s Olivia Sundberg told Al Jazeera, citing the Closed Controlled Access Centres built to house thousands of asylum seekers.

“In a lot of ways, Greece is a place that has tested things out before they became EU law, and if they worked well, they were carried over into [EU] directives,” she said.

The EU is now looking for ways to implement returns.

“There is this whole push for what they call ‘innovative solutions’,” said Barker. “So one of these is obviously return hubs in third countries, another is getting people to sign up to voluntary returns,” she told Al Jazeera.

Italy has been testing third-country hubs through a deal with Albania, but Italian courts have ordered some of the asylum seekers sent there for processing returned to Italy.

Greece’s law casts a wider net, suggesting returnees should seek protection in any safe country closer to their country of origin.

But Greece’s Ombudsman has objected to this.

Passing the burden “allows a return process to a country the returnee doesn’t come from, or hasn’t passed through and has no connection to, except that it is geographically close to his country of origin. In this case, it’s no longer a ‘returns’ procedure but a ‘displacement’ procedure”, the Ombudsman said.

Some observers say Europe is in danger of falling short of its own human rights charter.

“Migration is becoming a rule of law issue rather than an implementation of law issue,” said Amnesty’s Sundberg.

Others point out that Europe is an ageing continent in need of more workers to sustain its tax base and social security systems in the coming decades.

“How are we going to create an environment of reception of the people we need, when we take this type of measure?” asked Lefteris Papayiannakis, who heads the Greek Council for Refugees, a legal aid charity. “If you can’t attract them, what’s your next move?”

Besides, he said, the measures exude desperation.

“You’re creating an impression now that you’re not in control. But if we compare the situation now with 2015, or the [flight of] Ukrainians in 2022, it’s a completely different situation,” Papayiannakis said.

“How can you justify being up in arms now about a very small number of migrants compared to the number … you’re going to need?”

Sept. 18 (UPI) — A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration’s efforts to deport at least 600 Guatemalan children, rejecting claims by the Department of Homeland Security that the move was an effort to reunite them with their parents.

Judge Timothy Kelly of the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia said in his ruling that the administration’s claim that it was reuniting children with their parents “crumbled like a house of cards” because “there is no evidence before the Court that the parents of these children sought their return to Guatemala.”

Kelly temporarily stopped the administration from transferring, repatriating, removing or otherwise aiding in the transport of any of the 76 Guatemalan migrant children that immigration authorities attempted to deport in the middle of the night during the Labor Day weekend.

Attorneys representing the children said they were notified by federal officials late at night that they were being “repatriated,” the ruling said.

The Trump administration pushed back on Kelly’s ruling

“This judge is blocking efforts to REUNIFY CHILDREN with their families,” Tricia McLaughlin, Department of Homeland Security assistant secretary, said in a statement to NBC News. “Now these children will have to go to shelters. All just to ‘get Trump.’ This is disgraceful and immoral.”

Kelly, appointed by President Donald Trump, referenced a report from the Guatemalan attorney general’s office in response to the administration’s plan to deport more than 600 children to the country. The report said no parents had requested the return of their children.

UK High Court ruled against Eritrean man in case that tested new ‘one in, one out’ migration scheme.

An Eritrean man who has been fighting to stay in the United Kingdom is set to be deported to France after losing a High Court bid to have his removal temporarily blocked.

The 25-year-old Eritrean man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, crossed the English Channel in August and was originally due to be removed on Wednesday under a “one in, one out” pilot scheme agreed between the UK and France in July.

But London’s High Court granted him an interim injunction on Tuesday, preventing his removal, pending a full hearing of his trafficking claim.

The man told the court he fled Eritrea in 2019 because of forced conscription before ultimately making his way to France. In France, he went to Dunkirk, on the English Channel, where he stayed in an encampment known as “the jungle” for about three weeks before travelling to the UK.

The UK’s Home Office opposed the bid to temporarily block the man’s removal and, at a hearing on Thursday, the High Court agreed, saying there was “no serious issue to be tried in this case”.

The judge, Clive Sheldon, said the man gave inconsistent accounts of his allegations of trafficking.

“It was open to [the Home Office] to conclude that his credibility was severely damaged and his account of trafficking could not reasonably be believed,” the judge said.

The man is set to be deported to France on Friday at 6:15am local time (05:15 GMT).

UK puts new plan into action

As the court was ruling against the Eritrean man, the UK interior ministry, the Home Office, was actively testing out its new scheme, deporting a man from India to France. The man, who arrived in the UK on a small boat in August, was sent to France on Thursday on a commercial flight.

This deportation was the first under the partnership between the UK and France, with Prime Minister Keir Starmer saying it provided “proof of concept” that the deal works.

“We need to ramp that up at scale, which was always envisaged under the scheme,” Starmer told reporters at a news conference alongside US President Donald Trump.

Under the “one in, one out” plan between the UK and France, people arriving in the UK would be returned to France, while the UK would accept an equal number of recognised asylum seekers with family ties in the UK.

Downing Street has defended the plan, calling it a “fair and balanced” system designed to reduce irregular migration.

UK charities have condemned the scheme.

The “cruel policy targeting people who come here to seek safety” was a “grim attempt … to appease the racist far-right,” Griff Ferris, of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, told the news agency AFP.

Anti-immigrant sentiment on the rise

While Starmer has made stopping small boat crossings central to his government’s agenda, anti-immigrant sentiment has continued to rise in the UK.

Up to 150,000 people marched through central London over the weekend in a protest organised by far-right activist Tommy Robinson. Four police officers were seriously injured during the protest, with a glass bottle appearing to have smashed against a police horse at one point.

Tens of thousands of migrants have arrived annually on UK shores in recent years. At least 23 people have died so far this year, according to an AFP tally based on official French data.

US immigration judge said prominent pro-Palestine activist withheld information on green card application.

An immigration judge in the United States has ordered that pro-Palestine activist Mahmoud Khalil, who played a leading role in protests last year against Israel’s war on Gaza at the prestigious Columbia University, be deported to Algeria or Syria.

Court documents, revealed on Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), showed that Louisiana immigration Judge Jamee Comans issued the ruling on September 12, accusing Khalil of failing to disclose key information when he applied and secured lawful permanent residency in the US.

Khalil, a native of Syria and an Algerian citizen of Palestinian origin, has previously said he fears being targeted by Israel for his activism if he is deported to either country.

Judge Comans claimed that Khalil did not disclose his ties to the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) and Columbia University Apartheid Divest, an activist group which advocates for an economic boycott of Israel, on his green card application, describing it as a “lack of candor” by the applicant.

“This Court finds that Respondent wilfully misrepresented material fact(s) for the sole purpose of circumventing the immigration process and reducing the likelihood his applications could be denied,” Comans said.

Khalil’s lawyers responded, saying that they intend to appeal the deportation order, and pointed to a federal district court’s order earlier this year prohibiting the government from immediately deporting or detaining Khalil as his federal court case proceeds.

Khalil’s legal team now has 30 days from the day of the deportation ruling, on September 12, to appeal against the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. His lawyers said they expect the appeal process to be swift and their attempt unsuccessful, as noncitizens are “almost never” granted stays of removal.

US immigration agents first arrested Khalil – a former graduate student at Columbia University in New York – on March 8 after showing up at his student apartment building on campus in the city.

The arrest was part of a wider crackdown on pro-Palestine activism on college campuses across the US, which saw several overseas students detained and deported while universities were hit with federal funding cuts by Trump over alleged anti-Semitic activities.

Authorities held Khalil at an immigration detention centre in Louisiana for three months until he was released in June following a ruling by US District Judge Michael Farbiarz that his detention was unconstitutional.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and law enforcement officials had repeatedly portrayed Khalil’s peaceful activism as anti-Jewish and supportive of Hamas, but they failed to provide any evidence backing their allegations.

Farbiarz ruled that the Trump administration was likely violating Khalil’s right to free speech by detaining and attempting to deport him under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which allows the removal of foreign nationals who bear “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.

The White House has been relentless in its attempts to deport Khalil, pivoting more recently to the alleged violations of his green card application.

Khalil’s lawyers expressed concern following the deportation ruling that the “only meaningful impediment” to their client’s deportation was now the “important order prohibiting removal” issued by Judge Farbiarz.

In a statement published by the ACLU on Wednesday, Khalil also accused the Trump administration of using “fascist tactics” to retaliate against him for his “exercise of free speech”.

“When their first effort to deport me was set to fail, they resorted to fabricating baseless and ridiculous allegations in a bid to silence me for speaking out and standing firmly with Palestine, demanding an end to the ongoing genocide [in Gaza],” Khalil said.

Human rights groups say the government risks breaching international law by denying people the right to claim asylum.

A British court has temporarily blocked the deportation of an asylum seeker to France, dealing an early setback to Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s plan to return people who arrive in the United Kingdom on small boats.

The 25-year-old Eritrean man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, crossed the English Channel on August 12 and was due to be removed on Wednesday under a “one in, one out” pilot scheme agreed between the UK and France in July.

But on Tuesday, London’s High Court granted him an interim injunction preventing his removal, pending a full hearing of his trafficking claim.

Judge Clive Sheldon ruled: “I am going to grant a short period of interim relief. The status quo is that the claimant is currently in this country and has not been removed.

“So, I make an order that the claimant should not be removed tomorrow at 9am, but that this matter should come back to this court as soon as is reasonably practical in light of the further representations that the claimant … will make on his trafficking decision.”

“The removal takes place against the backdrop of the recently signed agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the French Republic.

“It seems to me there is a serious issue to be tried with respect to the trafficking claim and whether or not the Secretary of State has carried out her investigatory duties in a lawful manner.”

The case follows a decision by the UK’s National Referral Mechanism (NRM) – which identifies and assesses victims of slavery and human trafficking – asking the man to submit further evidence in relation to his claim.

The ruling is a setback for Prime Minister Starmer, who has made stopping small boat crossings central to his government’s agenda.

His approach has drawn criticism from rights groups, who accuse him of bowing to pressure from the far right following attacks on asylum-seeker accommodation.

The UK-France scheme is also seen by analysts as part of the government’s attempt to blunt the growing support of the anti-immigrant Reform UK party, which has been climbing in opinion polls.

Under the plan, people arriving in Britain would be returned to France, while the UK would accept an equal number of recognised asylum seekers with family ties in Britain.

Downing Street has defended the plan, calling it a “fair and balanced” system designed to reduce irregular migration.

It insisted it expects deportations to begin “imminently”, with the prime minister’s official spokesman saying “for obvious reasons we’re not going to get into a running commentary on operational details before that”.

Human rights groups say the government risks breaching international law by denying people the right to claim asylum in the UK.

A federal judge Saturday said it appeared the Trump administration was making an “end run” around U.S. court orders prohibiting five African immigrants to be deported to their home countries by sending them first to Ghana, which was poised to then relocate them to countries where they could face torture or death.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered the government to detail Saturday night how it was trying to ensure Ghana would not send the immigrants elsewhere in violation of domestic court orders. One of the plaintiffs has already been shipped from Ghana to his native Gambia, where a U.S. court found he could not be sent, Lee Gelernt of the ACLU told Chutkan.

Elianis Perez of the Department of Justice acknowledged that she told Chutkan in court Friday that Ghana had pledged that wouldn’t happen. But she argued that Chutkan had no power to control how another country treats deportees. She noted the Supreme Court this summer ruled the administration could continue sending immigrants to countries they are not from, even if they hadn’t had a chance to raise fears of torture.

Gelernt, however, compared the case to that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man the Trump administration mistakenly deported to El Salvador despite a court order prohibiting it, then argued it couldn’t get him back. After multiple courts directed the administration to “facilitate” his return, Abrego Garcia came back to the U.S., where he is now fighting human-trafficking charges and another Trump administration push to deport him.

“This appears to be a specific plan to make an end run around these obligations,” Chutkan said of the administration shipping the immigrants to Ghana. “What does the government intend to do? And please don’t tell me you don’t have any control over Ghana, because I know that.”

Chutkan later issued an order giving the administration until 9 p.m. Eastern Time to file a declaration detailing how they were trying to ensure the other immigrants weren’t improperly sent to their home countries from Ghana.

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.

The crew had just poured a concrete foundation on a vacant lot in Altadena when I pulled up the other day. Two workers were loading equipment onto trucks and a third was hosing the fresh cement that will sit under a new house.

I asked how things were going, and if there were any problems finding enough workers because of ongoing immigration raids.

“Oh, yeah,” said one worker, shaking his head. “Everybody’s worried.”

The other said that when fresh concrete is poured on a job this big, you need a crew of 10 or more, but that’s been hard to come by.

“We’re still working,” he said. “But as you can see, it’s just going very slowly.”

Eight months after thousands of homes were destroyed by wildfires, Altadena is still a ways off from any major rebuilding, and so is Pacific Palisades. But immigration raids have hammered the California economy, including the construction industry. And the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling this week that green-lights racial profiling has raised new fears that “deportations will deplete the construction workforce,” as the UCLA Anderson Forecast warned us in March.

There was already a labor shortage in the construction industry, in which 25% to 40% of workers are immigrants, by various estimates. As deportations slow construction, and tariffs and trade wars make supplies scarcer and more expensive, the housing shortage becomes an even deeper crisis.

And it’s not just deportations that matter, but the threat of them, says Jerry Nickelsburg, senior economist at the Anderson Forecast. If undocumented people are afraid to show up to install drywall, Nickelsburg told me, it “means you finish homes much more slowly, and that means fewer people are employed.”

Now look, I’m no economist, but it seems to me that after President Trump promised the entire country we were headed for a “golden age” of American prosperity, it might not have been in his best interest to stifle the state with the largest economy in the nation.

Especially when many national economic indicators aren’t exactly rosy, when we have not seen the promised decrease in the price of groceries and consumer goods, and when the labor statistics were so embarrassing he fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and replaced her with another one, only to see more grim jobs numbers a month later.

I had just one economics class in college, but I don’t recall a section on the value of deporting construction workers, car washers, elder-care workers, housekeepers, nannies, gardeners and other people whose only crime — unlike the violent offenders we were allegedly going to round up — is a desire to show up for work.

Now here, let me give you my email address. It’s [email protected].

And why am I telling you that?

Because I know from experience that some of you are frothing, foaming and itching to reach out and tell me that illegal means illegal.

So go ahead and email me if you must, but here’s my response:

We’ve been living a lie for decades.

People come across the border because we want them to. We all but beg them to. And by we, I mean any number of industries — many of them led by conservatives and by Trump supporters — including agribusiness, and hospitality, and construction, and healthcare.

Why do you think so many employers avoid using the federal E-Verify system to weed out undocumented workers? Because they don’t want to admit that many of their employees are undocumented.

In Texas, Republican lawmakers can’t stop demonizing immigrants, and they can’t stop introducing bills by the dozens to mandate wider use of E-Verify. But the most recent one, like all the ones before it, just died.

Why?

Because the tough talk is a lie and there’s no longer any shame in hypocrisy. It’s a climate of corruption in which no one has the integrity to admit what’s clear — that the Texas economy is propped up in part by an undocumented workforce.

At least in California, six Republican lawmakers all but begged Trump in June to ease up on the raids, which were affecting business on farms and construction sites and in restaurants and hotels. Please do some honest work on immigration reform instead, they pleaded, so we can fill our labor needs in a more practical and humane way.

Makes sense, but politically, it doesn’t play as well as TV ads recruiting ICE commandos to storm the streets and arrest tamale vendors, even as the barbarians who ransacked the Capitol and beat up cops enjoy their time as presidentially pardoned patriots.

Small businesses, restaurants and mom and pops are being particularly hard hit, says Maria Salinas, chief executive of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. Those who survived the pandemic were then kneecapped again by the raids.

With the Supreme Court ruling, Salinas told me, “I think there’s a lot of fear that this is going to come back harder than before.”

From a broader economic perspective, the mass deportations make no sense, especially when it’s clear that the vast majority of people targeted are not the violent criminals Trump keeps talking about.

Giovanni Peri, director of the UC Davis Global Migration Center, noted that we’re in the midst of a demographic transformation, much like that of Japan, which is dealing with the challenges of an aging population and restrictive immigration policies.

“We’ll lose almost a million working-age Americans every year in the next decade just because of aging,” Peri told me. “We will have a very large elderly population and that will demand a lot of services in … home healthcare [and other industries], but there will be fewer and fewer workers to do these types of jobs.”

Dowell Myers, a USC demographer, has been studying these trends for years.

“The numbers are simple and easy to read,” Myers said. Each year, the worker-to-retiree ratio decreases, and it will continue to do so. This means we’re headed for a critical shortage of working people who pay into Social Security and Medicare even as the number of retirees balloons.

If we truly wanted to stop immigration, Myers said, we should “send all ICE workers to the border. But if you take people who have been here 10 and 20 years and uproot them, there’s an extreme social cost and also an economic cost.”

At the Pasadena Home Depot, where day laborers still gather despite the risk of raids, three men held out hope for work. Two of them told me they have legal status. “But there’s very little work,” said Gavino Dominguez.

The third one, who said he’s undocumented, left to circle the parking lot and offer his services to contractors.

Umberto Andrade, a general contractor, was loading concrete and other supplies into his truck. He told me he lost one fearful employee for a week, and another for two weeks. They came back because they’re desperate and need to pay their bills.

“The housing shortage in California was already terrible before the fires, and now it’s 10 times worse,” said real estate agent Brock Harris, who represents a developer whose Altadena rebuilding project was temporarily slowed after a visit from ICE agents in June.

With building permits beginning to flow, Harris said, “for these guys to slow down or shut down job sites is more than infuriating. You’re going to see fewer people willing to start a project.”

Most people on a job site have legal status, Harris said, “but if shovels never hit the ground, the costs are being borne by everybody, and it’s slowing the rebuilding of L.A.”

Lots of bumps on the road to the golden age of prosperity.

[email protected]

Attorneys for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in a Friday letter that they intend to send Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the African nation of Eswatini after he expressed a fear of deportation to Uganda.

The letter from ICE to Abrego Garcia’s attorneys was earlier reported by Fox News. It states that his fear of persecution or torture in Uganda is “hard to take seriously, especially given that you have claimed (through your attorneys) that you fear persecution or torture in at least 22 different countries. … Nonetheless, we hereby notify you that your new country of removal is Eswatini.”

Human rights groups have documented violations and abuses in Uganda — as well as in Eswatini, a tiny African kingdom formerly known as Swaziland.

Eswatini’s government spokesperson told the Associated Press on Saturday that it had received no communication regarding Abrego Garcia’s transfer there.

The Salvadoran man lived in Maryland for more than a decade before he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador earlier this year. That set off a series of contentious court battles that have turned his case into a test of the limits of President Trump’s hard-line immigration policies.

Although Abrego Garcia immigrated to the U.S. illegally around 2011 as a teenager, he has an American wife and child. A 2019 immigration court order barred his deportation to his native El Salvador, finding he had a credible fear of threats from gangs there. He was deported anyway in March — in what a government attorney said was an administrative error — and held in the country’s notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, known as CECOT.

Facing a court order, the Trump administration returned him to the U.S. in June only to charge him with human smuggling based on a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee. Though that court case is ongoing, ICE now seeks to deport him again. Abrego Garcia, who denies the charges, is requesting asylum in the United States.

He was denied asylum in 2019 because his request came more than a year after he arrived in the U.S., his attorney Simon Sandoval-Mosenberg has said. Since he was deported and has now reentered the U.S., the attorney said, he is now eligible for asylum.

“If Mr. Abrego Garcia is allowed a fair trial in immigration court, there’s no way he’s not going to prevail on his claim,” he said in an emailed statement.

As part of his asylum claim, Abrego Garcia expressed a fear of deportation to Uganda and “nearly two dozen” other countries, according to an ICE court filing in opposition to reopening his asylum case. That Thursday filing also states that if the case is reopened, the 2019 order barring his deportation to El Salvador would become void and the government would pursue his removal to that country.

Loller writes for the Associated Press.

CAPE TOWN, South Africa — Five men deported by the United States to Eswatini in July have been held in a maximum-security prison in the African nation for seven weeks without charge or explanation and with no access to legal counsel, their lawyers said Tuesday.

They accused the Trump administration’s third-country deportation program of denying their clients due process.

The New York-based Legal Aid Society said that it was representing one of the men, Jamaican national Orville Etoria, and that he had been “inexplicably and illegally” sent to Eswatini when his home country was willing to accept him back.

That contradicted the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which said when it deported the five men with criminal records that they were being sent to Eswatini because their home countries refused to take them. Jamaica’s foreign minister has also said that the Caribbean country didn’t refuse to take back deportees.

Etoria was the first of at least 20 deportees sent by the U.S. to various African nations in the last two months to be identified publicly.

Expanding deportation program

The deportations are part of the Trump administration’s expanding third-country program to send migrants to countries in Africa that they have no ties with to get them off U.S. soil.

Since July, the U.S. has deported migrants to South Sudan, Eswatini and Rwanda, while a fourth African nation, Uganda, says it has agreed to a deal in principle with the U.S. to accept deportees.

Washington has said it wants to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose case has been a flashpoint over President Trump’s hard-line immigration policies, to Uganda after he was wrongly deported to his native El Salvador in March.

Etoria served a 25-year prison sentence and was granted parole in 2021, the Legal Aid Society said, but was now being held in Eswatini’s main maximum-security prison for an undetermined period of time despite completing that sentence.

The U.S. Homeland Security Department said that he was convicted of murder. The agency posted on X in reference to a New York Times report on Etoria, saying that it “will continue enforcing the law at full speed — without apology.”

It didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from the Associated Press.

The Legal Aid Society said that an Eswatini lawyer acting on behalf of all five men being held in prison there has been repeatedly denied access to them by prison officials since they arrived in the tiny southern African nation bordering South Africa in mid-July.

The other four men are citizens of Cuba, Laos, Vietnam and Yemen.

‘Indefinite detention’

A separate lawyer representing the two men from Laos and Vietnam said that his clients also served their criminal sentences in the U.S. and had “been released into the community.”

“Then, without warning and explanation from either the U.S. or Eswatini governments, they were arbitrarily arrested and sent to a country to which they have never ever been,” the lawyer, Tin Thanh Nguyen, said in a statement. “They are now being punished indefinitely for a sentence they already served.”

He said that the U.S. government was “orchestrating secretive third-country transfers with no meaningful legal process, resulting in indefinite detention.”

U.S. Homeland Security said those two men had been convicted of charges including child rape and second-degree murder.

A third lawyer, Alma David, said that she represented the two men from Yemen and Cuba who are also being held in the same prison and denied access to lawyers. She said she had been told by the head of the Eswatini prison that only the U.S. Embassy could grant access to the men.

“Since when does the U.S. Embassy have jurisdiction over Eswatini’s national prisons?” she said in a statement, adding the men weren’t told a reason for their detention, and “no lawyer has been permitted to visit them.” David said all five were being held at U.S. taxpayers’ expense.

Secretive deals

The deportation deals the U.S. has struck in Africa have been secretive, and with countries with questionable rights records.

Authorities in South Sudan have given little information on where eight men sent there in early July are being held or what their fate might be. They were also described by U.S. authorities as dangerous criminals from South Sudan, Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar and Vietnam.

The five men in Eswatini are being held at the Matsapha Correctional Complex. It’s the same prison where Eswatini, which is ruled by a king as Africa’s last absolute monarchy, has imprisoned pro-democracy campaigners amid reports of abuse that includes beatings and the denial of food to inmates.

Eswatini authorities said when the five men arrived that they were being held in solitary confinement.

Another seven migrants were deported by the U.S. to Rwanda in mid-August, Rwandan authorities said. They didn’t say where they are being held or give any information on their identities.

The deportations to Rwanda were kept secret at the time and only announced last week.

Imray writes for the Associated Press.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia ’s request for asylum in the United States is a prudent legal strategy, experts say, because it gives his lawyers better options for fighting the Trump administration’s efforts to deport him.

But it’s also a gamble. Depending on how the courts rule, Abrego Garcia could end up back inside the notorious El Salvador prison where he says he was beaten and psychologically tortured.

“It’s a strategic move,” Memphis-based immigration attorney Andrew Rankin said of the asylum request. “And it can certainly backfire. But it’s something I would do as well if I were representing him.”

Abrego Garcia, 30, became a focus of President Trump’s immigration crackdown when he was wrongfully deported to his native country in March. The administration is trying to deport him again.

Here are some things to know about his case:

‘You can’t win every case’

The administration deported Abrego Garcia to El Salvador because U.S. officials said he was an MS-13 gang member. It’s an allegation that Abrego Garcia denies and for which he wasn’t charged.

His removal to El Salvador violated a U.S. immigration judge’s ruling from 2019 that barred his deportation there. The judge found that Abrego Garcia faced credible threats from a local gang that had extorted from and terrorized his family.

Following a U.S. Supreme Court order, the administration returned him to the United States in June. But it was only to face human smuggling charges, which his lawyers have called preposterous and vindictive.

The administration has said it now intends to deport Abrego Garcia to Uganda. Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff and the main architect of Trump’s immigration policies, told reporters Friday that Garcia has “said he doesn’t want to go back to El Salvador.”

Miller said the administration is “honoring that request by providing him with an alternate place to live.”

In an effort to fight back, Abrego Garcia has notified the U.S. government that he fears being sent to Uganda, which has documented human rights abuses. He said he believes he could be persecuted, tortured or sent from there to El Salvador.

But even if he thwarts deportation to Uganda in immigration court, he probably will face attempts to remove him to another country and then another until the administration succeeds, Rankin said.

“By the law of averages, you can’t win every case,” the lawyer said. “The government has sunk its teeth far into what they’re doing with Kilmar and immigration in general, that it wouldn’t make any sense for them to just give up the fight.”

Taking a risk

Asylum, however, could end the fight.

The request would place the focus solely back on his native El Salvador, where Abrego Garcia has previously shown that he has a credible fear of gang persecution.

But he’s taking a risk by reopening his 2019 immigration case, Rankin said. If he loses the bid for asylum, an immigration judge could remove his protection from being returned to his native country.

That could place him back in the infamous Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECO, in El Salvador. It’s where, Abrego Garcia alleges in a lawsuit, he suffered severe beatings, severe sleep deprivation and psychological torture. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele has denied those allegations.

Abrego Garcia had applied for asylum in 2019. The immigration judge denied his request because it came more than a year after Abrego Garcia had arrived in the U.S. He had fled to Maryland without documentation around 2011.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers will probably argue that he has the right to request asylum now because he has been in the U.S. for less than a year after being wrongfully deported to El Salvador, Rankin said.

If approved, asylum could provide him with a green card and a path to citizenship.

‘Not going to let this go’

Abrego Garcia’s asylum petition would go through the U.S. immigration court system, which is not part of the judiciary but an arm of the Department of Justice and under the Trump administration’s authority.

That’s where the risk comes in.

Abrego Garcia has a team of lawyers fighting for him, unlike many people who are facing deportation. And a federal judge is monitoring his immigration case.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys filed a federal lawsuit in Maryland to ensure he can exercise his constitutional rights to fight against deportation in immigration court.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis cannot rule on whether he gets asylum or is deported, but she said she will ensure his right to due process. His team says he is entitled to immigration court proceedings and appeals, including to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

“Even if he does manage to win asylum, the government is going to appeal,” Rankin said. “They’re not going to let this go. Why would they after they’ve invested months and months into this one guy?”

Rankin noted that if Abrego Garcia remains within the jurisdiction of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that court’s laws would govern his asylum claim. He said that court has been generally positive toward asylum claims and likely would give Abrego Garcia a “fair shake.”

Finley writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Luena Rodriguez-Feo Vileira in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose case has come to encapsulate much of President Trump’s hard-line immigration agenda, wants to seek asylum in the United States, his lawyers told a federal judge Wednesday.

Abrego Garcia, 30, was detained Monday by U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement in Baltimore after leaving a Tennessee jail on Friday. The Trump administration said it intends to deport him to the African country of Uganda.

Administration officials have said he’s part of the dangerous MS-13 gang, an allegation Abrego Garcia denies.

The Salvadoran national’s lawyers are fighting the deportation efforts in court, arguing he has the right to express fear of persecution and torture in Uganda. Abrego Garcia has also told immigration authorities he would prefer to be sent to Costa Rica if he must be removed from the U.S.

A request for asylum in 2019

A U.S. immigration judge denied his request for asylum in 2019 because he applied more than a year after he had fled to the U.S. He left El Salvador at the age of 16, around 2011, to join his brother, who had become a U.S. citizen and was living in Maryland.

Although he was denied asylum, the immigration judge did issue an order shielding Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he faced credible threats of violence from a gang there that had terrorized him and his family. He was granted a form of protection known as “withholding of removal,” which prohibits him from being sent to El Salvador but allows his deportation to another country.

Following the 2019 ruling, Abrego Garcia was released under federal supervision and continued to live with his American wife and children in Maryland. He checked in with ICE each year, received a federal work permit and was working as a sheet metal apprentice earlier this year, his lawyers have said.

But in March, the Trump administration deported Abrego Garcia to a notorious El Salvador prison, alleging he was a member of MS-13.

The allegation stems from a day in 2019 when Abrego Garcia sought work as a day laborer at a Home Depot in Maryland. Authorities had been told by a confidential informant that Abrego Garcia and other men could be identified as members of MS-13 because of their clothing and tattoos. He was detained by police, but Abrego Garcia was never charged — and has repeatedly denied the allegation. He was turned over to ICE and that’s when he applied for asylum for the first time.

Wrongful deportation and return

The Trump administration’s deportation of Abrego Garcia in March violated the immigration judge’s 2019 order barring his removal to El Salvador. Abrego Garcia’s wife sued to bring him back. Facing mounting pressure and a U.S. Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. in June, where he was charged with human smuggling, a federal offense.

Abrego Garcia is accused of taking money to transport people who were in the country illegally. He has pleaded not guilty and asked the judge to dismiss the case, saying it was filed to punish him for challenging his deportation.

The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee. There were nine passengers in the SUV and Abrego Garcia had $1,400 in cash on him. While officers discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling, he was allowed to drive away with only a warning.

A Homeland Security agent testified that he didn’t begin investigating until this April, when the government was facing mounting pressure to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. The trial is set for January.

A federal judge in Tennessee released Abrego Garcia from jail on Friday after ruling that he was not a flight risk or a danger. The Trump administration moved to deport Abrego Garcia again on Monday, alleging he is a danger.

Abrego Garcia then stated his intent to reopen his immigration case in Maryland and to seek asylum again, his lawyers said Wednesday. Asylum, as defined under U.S. law, provides a green card and a path to citizenship. Abrego Garcia can still challenge his deportation to Uganda, or any other country, on grounds that it is unsafe.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers say sending him to Uganda would be punishment for successfully fighting his deportation to El Salvador, refusing to plead guilty to the smuggling charges and for seeking release from jail in Tennessee.

Judge keeps Abrego Garcia in the U.S., for now

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have filed a federal lawsuit to ensure that he can exercise his constitutionally protected right to fight deportation. He is entitled to immigration court proceedings and appeals, his lawyers say.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland, who is overseeing the lawsuit, has ruled that the U.S. government cannot remove Abrego Garcia from the country as the lawsuit plays out.

Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign said the government disagrees with the court’s order not to remove him while the lawsuit is pending but that it will comply.

Xinis will not rule on whether Abrego Garcia receives asylum or is deported, but will determine whether he can exercise his right to contest deportation. His asylum case will be heard by a U.S. immigration judge, who is employed by the Department of Justice under the authority of the Trump administration.

The nation’s immigration courts have become a key focus of Trump’s hard-line immigration enforcement efforts. The president has fired more than 50 immigration judges since he returned to the White House in January.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers have said he’ll be able to appeal immigration court rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Kunzelman and Finley write for the Associated Press. Finley reported from Norfolk, Va. AP writer Elliot Spagat contributed to this report.