enforcement

Aug. 6 (UPI) — Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey has signed landmark legislation that provides what she says are the nation’s strongest protections from Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents executing President Donald Trump‘s aggressive immigration crackdown.

At La Colaborativa, a Latina-led nonprofit economic development agency in Chelsea, Mass., Healey signed the PROTECT Act on Wednesday during a press conference while surrounded by immigrants, advocates, members of law enforcement and others.

“This is what makes Massachusetts special: It’s our people. And today, we, the people of Massachusetts, are standing up and fighting back because we know what we need to do,” she said. “We know that what ICE is doing is wrong and it needs to stop.”

The PROTECT Act, which takes immediate effect, is a sweeping bill that limits local cooperation with federal immigration authorities while giving individuals additional legal protections and remedies if detained, deported or victimized by ICE agents.

It specifically prohibits warrantless immigration arrests at sensitive locations, such as courthouses, schools, childcare centers and healthcare facilities, including hospitals; prohibits law enforcement agencies from entering formal partnerships with ICE; and prohibits state and municipal participation in federal immigration enforcement, while preserving state and municipal law enforcement agencies’ authority to investigate and prosecute crimes.

It also permits people to bring claims against government officials for violating constitutional rights and bolsters protections for those held at state or county correctional facilities.

Officials argue that the legislation is necessary to maintain public trust in law enforcement at a time when that trust is being threatened by the aggressive tactics being used by federal immigration enforcement officers.

“Strong public safety requires strong partnerships with the communities we serve,” Public Safety and Security Secretary Gina Kwon said in a statement.

“The Protect Act helps preserve the trust that law enforcement, prosecutors and community organizations rely on to protect victims, investigate crimes and keep neighborhoods safe. When people feel safe, our commonwealth is stronger.”

The PROTECT Act, which originated as as H.5158 and was enacted as H.5620, was introduced Jan. 28, four days after Customs and Border Patrol agents fatally shot Alex Pretti and 21 days after an ICE officer fatally shot Renee Nicole Good, both in Minneapolis, Minn., which was the center of Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Massachusetts House Speaker Ronald Mariano, a Democrat, referenced the killings of Pretti and Good in announcing that the House had passed the legislation in March, saying their deaths, along with the separation of children from their families, were forcing immigrants in Massachusetts to live in fear.

“That’s why this legislation is so important, as it takes steps to ensure that all residents in Massachusetts are treated equally under state law, and to protect our communities through practical, thoughtful measures,” he said in a statement at the time.

Trump and many Republicans have been highly critical of jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, labeling them “sanctuary jurisdictions.” In April 2025, Trump ordered the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to publish a list of jurisdictions that the administration said obstruct federal immigration enforcement and to pursue legal remedies and other enforcement measures to bring them into compliance.

DHS, which oversees ICE, said in a statement Wednesday that “sanctuary politicians must stop putting politics above public safety.”

“When politicians bar local law enforcement from working with DHS, our law enforcement officers have to have a more visible presence so that we can find and apprehend the criminals let out of jails and back into communities,” it said in a statement to WJAR.

Law enforcement in the US state of North Carolina has reported a fatal mass shooting in the city of Prospect Hill.

“Deputies arriving on scene found multiple people who had been shot. One person was transported to Duke University Hospital with a gunshot wound, and there are multiple other fatalities,” the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation said in a statement on Wednesday.

“SBI Crime scene investigators are on scene processing evidence and conducting interviews. There is NO THREAT to the general public.”

More to come…

July 20 (Asia Today) — Japan plans to add about 230 immigration officers during the current fiscal year as it strengthens enforcement against unauthorized residency and employment, according to a Japanese media report Monday.

The Immigration Services Agency plans to recruit more than 200 immigration control officers and examiners, the Yomiuri Shimbun reported.

The government could approve revisions to the relevant enforcement ordinance at a Cabinet meeting as early as the end of July.

Adding personnel on this scale in the middle of a fiscal year, rather than through the regular hiring and budget process, is unusual.

The agency plans to add about 50 immigration control officers responsible for locating and investigating people who remain in Japan without authorization.

Many of the additional officers will be assigned to Ibaraki prefecture, where authorities plan to increase investigations into unauthorized employment.

Japan also plans to add about 180 immigration examiners.

The examiners will investigate employment outside the activities permitted under a person’s visa status and process a growing number of residency applications more quickly while maintaining stricter reviews.

The government also plans to strengthen screening at airports and seaports to identify travelers who may be at risk of overstaying their visas.

Japan had 68,488 unauthorized residents as of Jan. 1, down 6,375, or 8.5%, from 74,863 a year earlier, according to the Immigration Services Agency.

The total included 41,067 men and 27,421 women.

Despite the decline, the government concluded that more enforcement personnel were needed to prevent unauthorized employment and the misuse of residency classifications.

The government is expected to formally announce the staffing increase at a ministerial meeting this week on accepting foreign nationals and establishing an orderly, inclusive society.

An expert panel on immigration policy is also expected to be established by the end of July.

The panel is expected to discuss issues including the appropriate size of Japan’s foreign population and programs to teach foreign residents about Japanese culture and rules of daily life.

The initiative reflects Japan’s effort to accept foreign workers needed by its labor market while strengthening enforcement against unauthorized residency and employment.

South Korea faces similar challenges as its foreign population grows.

South Korea had 357,598 unauthorized foreign residents at the end of 2025, accounting for 12.8% of all foreign nationals staying in the country, according to Justice Ministry statistics cited in the report.

The total included 128,813 registered foreign residents, 226,028 short-term visitors and 2,757 people who had filed domestic residence reports.

South Korea had 2,783,247 foreign residents at the end of 2025, representing 5.44% of the population. The total included 594,047 people with employment-related residency status and 308,838 international students.

South Korea’s unauthorized foreign population was about 5.2 times Japan’s, although direct comparisons are limited because the two countries use different residency categories and statistical standards.

Both countries are relying more heavily on foreign labor as low birthrates and aging populations contribute to worker shortages.

The increase has also placed greater demands on the government agencies responsible for visa reviews, unauthorized employment investigations and settlement education.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260720010006942

Attorneys general in seventeen states are suing California over its landmark single-use plastic law, which went into effect on June 1.

The lawsuit comes after a coalition of environmental groups sued the state over the same law this month, arguing the new final regulations create loopholes so large they gut the law.

The states are led by Nebraska Atty. Gen. Mike Hilgers, and the plaintiffs include the National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors. The coalition is asking the court to block enforcement of the law immediately.

“Once again, California is trying to enact a policy that negatively impacts the rest of the country,” said Hilgers in a news release. “If California goes unchecked, consumers will be forced to pay more for basic necessities.”

The other states in the coalition are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court of Eastern California in Sacramento on Monday.

State Senate Bill 54, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2022. It was considered landmark legislation because it requires plastic and packaging companies to use less single-use plastic and ensure by 2032 that all food packaging is either recyclable or compostable.

Accumulating plastic waste is overwhelming waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.

The intent was not only to reduce single=use plastic, but also to put the onus and cost of dealing with it on packaging producers and manufacturers, not consumers and local governments. It was supposed to incentivize companies to consider the fate of their products and spur innovation in material redesign.

Plastic bottles of dishwashing liquid at Compton’s Market in Sacramento on June 17, 2022.

(Rich Pedroncelli/AP)

According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed during 2023 in California.

The single-use plastic law is what is known as a producer responsibility law. It emphasizes the idea of a “circular economy” in which the producer of a material must consider its fate — making sure it can be reused or recycled, or at least reduced.

In California, all producers of single-use packaging and plastic foodware (plates, knives, spoons, etc.) join a private entity known as a producer responsibility organization. Only one such organization has been approved in California: the Circular Action Alliance.

The states and the National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors say the plastic law discriminates against businesses selling into the state in two ways: by making them change or alter their plastic packaging and by conferring government authority upon the alliance, enabling a private entity to regulate and impose taxes and fees on businesses selling into California.

“California is not entitled to pronounce nationwide policies,” Eric Hoplin, president and chief executive of the wholesalers group, said in a statement. “Because the Act extends California’s regulatory reach far beyond its borders and brings within its sweep conduct wholly unconnected to California, the Act violates principles of federalism, the horizontal separation of powers, and due process.”

In addition, the attorneys general say the law suppresses their free speech by compelling companies to join and fund the speech of an organization with which they may disagree.

Hoplin and his organization filed a similar suit in Oregon in February. Oregon has a comparable single-use plastic law. A federal judge blocked enforcement of that law. A trial begins on July 13.

Heidi Sanborn, executive director and CEO of the National Stewardship Action Council, which advocates for the producer responsibility laws and a more circular economy, said in May that both SB 54 and the Oregon law are public policies that were “passed by legislatures and implemented with government oversight.”

She said the laws create clear and consistent rules so all producers contribute fairly to the cost of recycling and waste management.

Meanwhile, environmental groups are also unhappy.

On June 2, Oceana, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Californians Against Waste Foundation filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court.

They allege that the final regulations for the law, drafted and approved by the state’s waste agency, include exclusions for large categories of plastic packaging that companies could use indefinitely. In addition, they say, the regulations also allow for recycling technologies that pollute, such as chemical recycling, which the law as originally drafted forbids.

“While SB 54 remains a monumental achievement as the nation’s strongest single-use plastic reduction law, some of the final regulations implementing the statute undermine the law’s ambitions,” Christy Leavitt, Oceana’s senior campaign director, said in a statement.

MINNEAPOLIS — A federal judge has blocked an attempt by the Trump administration to subpoena Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and other state officials, calling it an effort to “harass and retaliate against them.”

In a ruling unsealed Monday, U.S. District Judge Patrick Schlitz found the “dominant purpose” of the subpoenas was to “coerce Minnesota officials into assisting the federal government with enforcing civil immigration law and to harass and retaliate against them for failing to do so.”

The subpoenas were served in January as part of an investigation into whether Walz and other officials obstructed or impeded law enforcement during a sweeping immigration operation in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.

The subpoenas, which seek records, were sent to the offices of Walz, Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her and officials in Ramsey and Hennepin counties.

The judge ruled that there appeared to be “extremely weak to nonexistent” connections between the information sought in the subpoenas and any possible criminal violation. The subpoenas seek materials “that largely if not entirely relate to constitutionally protected conduct,” the judge wrote, noting that Minnesota has the legal right not to devote its resources to enforcing federal immigration law.

The Justice Department “is not conducting a criminal investigation,” the judge wrote, “but is instead using the grand jury process for other (unlawful) purposes.”

The evidence that the subpoenas were issued for unlawful reasons is overwhelming, the judge said, arguing that the Justice Department “has struggled — without success — to identify a single plausible investigatory justification” for them.

Walz, in a statement, called the ruling “a victory for the rule of law and our democracy.”

“The U.S. Justice Department is pursuing criminal investigations into the President’s political opponents,” said Walz, the 2024 Democratic nominee for vice president. “This case was just one example of that, but we are seeing daily reminders of this administration’s lawlessness — in Minnesota and around the country. We all must continue to seek justice and uphold the rule of law.”

Ellison said “it should disturb every American that Donald Trump is weaponizing the criminal justice system against people he disagrees with.”

The subpoenas are “a politically motivated retaliation against our city for lawfully standing up to ICE and fighting for our residents,” Her said in a statement, referring to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Frey said the investigation was “never about justice, law, and order, but the absence of it.”

“Subpoenaing political opponents because they spoke on behalf of their constituents violates the core tenets of our democracy and human decency,” he said.

Frey also observed that criticizing government action is not a crime.

“One of the defining strengths of our democracy is the ability to challenge those in power without fear of retribution. Elected officials have both the right and the responsibility to speak honestly about how government decisions affect the people they serve,” he said.

Bauer and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writer Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump signed a bill into law on Wednesday that gives his immigration and deportation agenda a nearly $70 billion boost for the rest of his time in the White House.

The bill provides $38 billion for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and $26 billion for the Border Patrol. An additional $5 billion would cover unforeseen costs, according to the White House.

Trump signed the legislation in the Oval Office a day after House Republicans pushed the measure through by a 214-212 vote over the objections of Democrats. His signature ended a nearly six-month fight over Department of Homeland Security funding that began with shooting deaths of deaths of two U.S. citizens, Alex Pretti and Renee Good, in January during federal immigration enforcement operations in Minneapolis.

Democrats began demanding changes to immigration enforcement after the shootings, creating an impasse — and resulting in the longest agency in history — that ultimately led Republicans to go it alone on the funding.

The agencies will be funded through the next three years. The new law front-loads routine annual funding, ensuring a virtually uninterrupted flow of money as the Trump administration seeks to deport some 1 million people per year.

The legislation had become sidetracked over $1 billion for White House security, including for Trump’s new ballroom, and a $1.8 billion fund to compensate his allies who claim to be victims of political prosecution. Both proposals became politically toxic and were scrapped.

The bill as passed focused exclusively on immigration enforcement, a topic that Republicans have treated as a defining issue between the two major political parties and one the GOP hopes will carry it to victory in November’s midterm elections.

Superville and Binkley write for the Associated Press.