immigrant

The Trump administration is proposing a dramatic overhaul of the once-a-decade U.S. Census head count that could leave out millions of immigrants based on status and key racial and ethnic data, jeopardizing the allocation of resources and the country’s voting map.

The potential changes, announced Wednesday, would exclude undocumented immigrants, asylum seekers and anyone without permanent status. Certain demographic questions from the traditional questionnaire would also be eliminated.

It echoes Trump’s previous idea to add a citizenship question to the 2030 census.

The U.S. Census Bureau, in a post on the Federal Register website, argued “illegal aliens (among others) should not be included in the apportionment count, as they are not true inhabitants, members of the body politic, or persons with a ‘usual residence’ in the United States due to their lack of a sufficient tie and allegiance to the United States.”

The census also “should be colorblind and should not be distorted in any way by questions about immaterial personal characteristics, such as race,” the agency said. It also is considering nixing questions related to people who identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community.

These changes would harm the quality of the data, said Beth Jarosz, a data researcher and vice president of the Association of Public Data Users. She called the proposals “unprecedented.”

“Not counting all of the people who reside here is actually where the real threat is,” Jarosz said. “If you think about all of the ways that census data are used.”

Census figures are traditionally used for an “apportionment count” to determine how many seats each state will have in the U.S. House of Representatives. That count also determines the number of votes in the Electoral College.

“You can imagine if we have undercounts or if we have people counted in the wrong place,” Jarosz said. “Then their political power or their political representation gets diluted.”

Immigrants of every status have historically been counted

Historically, the decennial census has not sought to conduct a full count of people by citizenship status, she added. It may come up in the Census’ periodic American Community Survey.

Getting an accurate count of immigrants of various statuses is useful when assigning resources for public health emergencies or natural or human-made disasters.

“If you don’t have a count of everyone who’s there, you’re not going to have the resources you need,” Jarosz said. “And that puts everybody at risk.”

Why race and ethnicity census data matters

Race-related questions have been on the once-a-decade census since 1790. Starting in 2000, the U.S. census began allowing people to identify by more than one race. A 2015 Pew Research Center study found that multiracial people in the U.S. were growing at a rate three times faster than the general population. By 2020, 33.8 million people in the U.S. identified as being more than one race, according to the census.

Race and ethnicity data is essential for researchers who gauge discrimination, crime rates and wealth gaps in communities of color.

Manjusha Kulkarni is co-founder of Stop AAPI Hate and executive director of AAPI Equity Alliance, two advocacy groups that rely on census counts of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. The proposed changes would have tremendous impact on the populations they serve, she said.

“It also seeks to exclude important demographic data from millions that enables lawmakers, health care providers, public safety officials and community advocates — really anyone who cares about the health, safety and well-being of all Americans — from having the necessary data to keep us safe and healthy,” Kulkarni said via text message.

Dropping race and ethnicity data as well as some immigrants sends a message that these communities don’t matter, she added.

Collecting data for the 2030 Census with all these missing elements would be detrimental, Jarosz said.

“These changes are like trying to land an airplane when you are in thick fog and someone has thrown paint across the front window and your instruments are also not working,” she said.

Tang writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — In a show of defiance to the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigrants, California lawmakers on Monday voted to ban federal immigration agents from being hired for many local and state government jobs and to outlaw electric-shock gloves similar to those that may be distributed to federal officers.

The two bills were among a slate of legislation approved by the Democratic-led state Legislature to thwart certain tactics and tools used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, such as arresting people who appear at courthouses for scheduled immigration hearings.

“We have the fourth largest economy in the world because of our immigrant and undocumented community, and they’re being penalized and targeted by the Trump administration,” said Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez (D-Los Angeles). “This package of immigrant bills that we’ve sent [to the governor] is trying to say that we are here to defend you.”

Gonzalez is the author of a bill to prohibit agents and contractors involved in immigration enforcement from being employed in the future by the state, cities, counties, school districts and other public entities. It was supported by Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) and called the “Get the Feds Out” Act, or “GTFO.”

It would allow an exception for officers who are accepted to a police agency and take the state’s basic police training course, but notes that “suitability shall be determined on a case-by-case basis.”

State Sen. Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach), chair of the Latino Legislative Caucus, said the state “expects its public employees to be moral” and to defend the state and U.S. constitutions.

“Anyone who is participating in the raids have shown that they do not live up to the bar that Californians deserve from their public servants. This bill says that individuals who participated in immigration enforcement activities will be disqualified from holding state, county or local public employment in California” except in certain circumstances, she said.

A separate bill by Assemblymember Isaac G. Bryan (D-Los Angeles) would block police and other law enforcement officers from taking second jobs or working as contractors on federal immigration enforcement.

“If you sign up to protect and serve our communities during the day with a local law enforcement agency, you cannot moonlight with ICE,” Bryan said.

During a June hearing, state Sen. Kelly Seyarto (R-Murrieta) said the bill was “based on anger at an issue” that “a lot of people disagree on,” which Republican lawmakers commonly cited when debating the immigration-related bills.

“It opens up this can of worms of interpretations that are sometimes not based on reality,” he said.

State and federal law enforcement officers will be banned from using electric-shock gloves until 2030, and the state Department of Justice will be required to study their safety, under a bill passed Monday night. The last-minute legislation was introduced last week after a report that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security planned to purchase the gloves for use in immigration enforcement.

The bill “draws a clear line,” said state Sen. Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley): “Public safety technology must be proven safe and accountable before it’s deployed, not after someone is killed or seriously injured.”

Republicans opposed the bill, arguing the gloves could be a safer way to subdue suspects than firearms.

“If electric shock is a better alternative than actually shooting someone, I don’t think we should take it off the table,” said state Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach). “Law enforcement deserves the tools they need to keep us safe.”

Lawmakers on Friday approved legislation to ban federal immigration agents and other law enforcement officers from wearing masks in the state. The measure, Senate Bill 1004, was introduced by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) to fix an earlier law that was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal judge.

Other bills would prohibit arrests of people traveling to or from court, as federal agents have arrested people who show up for immigration hearings; impose a 25% tax on income earned by companies operating immigration detention centers; and allow individuals to file lawsuits against federal agents over alleged civil rights violations such as excessive force, unlawful home searches and interfering with the right to protest.

Critics argued that some bills might not stand up to legal challenges.

“This seems to fit the general pattern that California will bend over backwards to protect people who are in the country illegally, even if it means putting the public at risk,” said Ira Mehlman with the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group that advocates for strict immigration limits.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto bills approved by the Legislature.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested nearly 50,000 people during July, the highest single monthly arrest total during the second Trump administration, according to new figures.

The spike in immigration arrests shows that the administration has continued to advance its mass deportations agenda despite a shift in approach earlier this year from high-profile operations in large American cities that sparked a public outcry to arrests that have garnered less attention but have nonetheless been disruptive.

The July arrest tally of 49,571 marks a 15% jump from 43,021 arrests a month earlier and a 70% increase from 29,241 in February, in the aftermath of the Trump administration’s enforcement surge in Minnesota, according to government data that was provided by ICE to the University of California, Berkeley’s Deportation Data Project and analyzed by the Associated Press.

Immigration arrests the month before Trump entered office hovered a little over 8,000 a figure largely made up of immigrants transferred from city or state jails and prisons and turned over to ICE to remove from the country. During Trump’s first year in office the numbers started climbing as the administration loosened restrictions on where and who ICE could arrest while it also infused the agency with billions of dollars.

By December, the number of arrests jumped to more than 40,177, according to the data, which was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

In the aftermath of two fatal shootings in Minnesota in January that sparked protests and an uproar from Democratic lawmakers, arrests began to fall to nearly 30,000 in February. After remaining stagnant for months, the numbers of people arrested in June jumped to more than 43,000 and then to roughly 49,500 in July.

In his confirmation hearing earlier this year, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin pledged to keep ICE out of the headlines, suggesting that the administration’s immigration crackdown might take a softer approach. But his tenure has been marred by a number of fatal shootings of immigrants in encounters with ICE officers. And the figures show Mullin hasn’t shifted the agency from President Trump’s vision for mass deportations.

Texas and Florida accounted for nearly 20,000 of the July arrests, in a sign of how important those states have become to the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda. Both states have leaned heavily into cooperation agreements with ICE called 287g agreements that allow local and state law enforcement to essentially operate as arms of federal immigration enforcement.

The spike in arrests comes as the agency, infused with billions of dollars last summer by Congress, has also hired 12,000 new deportation officers and investigative agents.

Santana writes for the Associated Press.

A federal judge in New York has vacated a Trump administration policy that suspended the processing of visas from 75 countries, including Afghanistan, Iran, Russia and Somalia, whose nationals the Trump administration deemed likely to require public assistance in the United States.

U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas, an appointee of President Biden, described the policy Friday as “contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio exceeded his authority by issuing the policy, which “runs afoul” of the Immigration and Nationality Act by mandating “the refusal of visas to eligible applicants without any basis in law,” the judge ruled.

Power lies with consular officers, judge says

Vargas said the policy also undermines the congressional requirement that puts consular officers at the forefront of any visa decision.

“Congress imbued these officers with exclusive authority and discretion to determine if an immigrant is eligible for a visa based upon review of specific and detailed criteria set forth in the statute,” she wrote. “The Policy, which categorically prohibits the issuance of immigrant visas based upon the nationality of the applicant, represents a direct abrogation of this statutory scheme.”

The policy was challenged by two nonprofit organizations along with 11 individuals, including six whose family members had been refused visas. The remaining five are outside the country and had filed “employment-based petitions” to come to the United States.

‘This case is about keeping families together,’ advocate says

“We welcome this ruling because, at its heart, this case is about keeping families together,” said Anna Gallagher, the executive director of CLINIC, a national nonprofit that provides training, resources and support to a network of immigration legal service providers and was one of the plaintiffs.

“Catholic social teaching calls us to uphold the dignity of every person and recognize the family as the foundation of society,” she said in a statement. “This decision affirms both those values and the rule of law, allowing families to once again move forward toward reunification.”

Another plaintiff is African Communities Together, a Harlem-based nonprofit. One of its leaders called the ruling “a tremendous victory for the rule of law.”

“This unlawful and racist ban caused immeasurable harm, cruelly keeping families and loved ones apart,” Diana Konate, deputy executive director for policy and advocacy, said in a statement. “Today, we are elated to tell our community members: this ban is no more.”

Trump expands anti-immigration agenda

President Trump has imposed a growing list of immigration and travel bans mostly for people from Africa, Asia and Latin America. The State Department said Saturday that the Trump administration is “protecting the American people by upholding the highest standards of screening and vetting of visa applicants,” and that it would not comment on pending litigation.

At the time the policy was issued, the State Department said it had instructed consular officers to halt immigrant visa applications from the 75 countries in accordance with a broader order in November that tightened rules around potential immigrants who might become “public charges.”

Relying on Council of Economic Advisors data, the State Department said that more than 30% of households with immigrants from these countries received some form of public assistance.

A separate notice sent to all U.S. embassies and consulates said that non-immigrant visa applicants also should be “fully vetted and screened” for the possibility that they might seek public benefits in the United States.

The cable, a copy of which was obtained by the Associated Press, noted several times that the applicant must prove they won’t apply for public benefits while in the U.S., and that consular officers who suspect the applicant might apply should require them to fill out a form proving their financial bona fides.

The ruling is the latest example of the courts upending Trump’s immigration agenda.

In June, a federal judge struck down a Trump administration policy that made it harder for immigrants from dozens of countries to enter and stay in the United States — affecting elements including asylum, work permits, green cards and citizenship applications. That judge said the policy threw countless immigrants’ lives “into indeterminate legal limbo,” and accused the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of ignoring the law.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has largely ended a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients who marry U.S. citizens.

President Trump tried, unsuccessfully, to end DACA during his first term. This week’s action reflects his administration’s ongoing focus on the Obama-era program that shields from deportation hundreds of thousands of immigrants, often referred to as Dreamers, who were brought to the U.S. as children.

“It was inevitable that what Trump was going to do in office this time was to embark on a massive delegalization mission,” said Karen Tumlin, director of the Justice Action Center in Los Angeles. “That’s what this is.”

Tumlin was referring to a ruling by an administrative immigration court that was published Thursday.

The ruling concerns a travel provision afforded to recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the program created in 2012. The provision allowed DACA recipients to travel in ways other people without legal status cannot.

DACA isn’t technically a form of legal status, though its recipients are granted work permits.

For immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally, leaving the country or being deported triggers a penalty — many are banned from coming back into the U.S. for a decade.

Most people who qualify for legal residency, or a green card, have to serve that 10-year ban before they can apply for a green card, which can lead to citizenship.

But DACA recipients, under the travel provision called advance parole, could leave the U.S. for school, work or humanitarian reasons. When they returned through an airport or border, the stain of their original unlawful entry was erased.

With the penalty wiped away, a DACA recipient married to a U.S. citizen or who had another way to obtain legal residency could start that process for a green card without delay.

Thursday’s ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals does away with that benefit.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman Zach Kahler said the decision confirms a “straightforward principle” that departing the U.S. has meaning.

“The immigration laws enacted by Congress impose consequences when someone who has accrued unlawful presence, leaves the country and later seeks admission, including when that departure occurs under advance parole,” he said. “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will ensure that immigration filings are decided based on the laws, regulations, and binding legal precedent that govern each case.”

Immigration attorneys and other advocates quickly convened Thursday to determine how the ruling will affect immigrants.

Tumlin said some DACA recipients can still safely travel with advance parole, while for others — particularly those with deportation orders — it would be too risky to leave. She said DACA recipients should consult with an immigration attorney before traveling.

“For over a decade, I could reassure my clients that traveling on Advance Parole was a safe option,” Shilpa Malik, an immigration lawyer in Florida wrote Thursday on X. “What was once a vital protection is now gone.”

Under the ruling, having the travel document may no longer protect certain DACA recipients when they return from their trips abroad, because leaving could expose them to the years-long ban.

The decision also makes obtaining green cards more difficult. Tumlin said some DACA recipients could qualify for waivers that allow them to avoid the years-long reentry ban, but the waivers are granted under limited circumstances.

The latest federal data show there are 455,000 DACA recipients in the U.S. as of March, with about 126,000 in California.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, 45,447 DACA recipients were approved for advance parole as of Aug. 21, 2017.

About 76,000 DACA recipients had become legal residents as of July 31, 2019, most after marrying a U.S. citizen, according to the research service. It’s unclear how many DACA recipients have obtained advance parole or green cards since then.

Path2Papers, a project at Cornell Law School, analyzed 1,600 consults and estimated that around 60% of DACA recipients would be subject to the 10-year ban.

Republicans have viewed advance parole as an abuse of the immigration system.

The office of Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) blasted the provision, saying in 2017 that “the Obama administration allowed thousands of DACA recipients to exploit an immigration law loophole to obtain green cards.”

Last year, Grassley introduced a bill to guarantee that it would no longer be used by immigrants seeking to adjust their legal status. This week’s ruling essentially accomplishes that goal.

The immigration appeals board’s decision applies to future travel. People who previously traveled and returned to the U.S. won’t be affected and could still adjust their immigration status.

Tumlin said Thursday’s decision is yet another effort to change the goalposts for DACA recipients by an administration that has resorted to ending the program “through death by a thousand cuts.”

The Department of Homeland Security has arrested hundreds of immigrants with DACA, and in a February letter to U.S. senators, then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the agency had deported 86 DACA recipients between Jan. 1 and Nov. 19, 2025.

One of those was Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez, a Sacramento mother who was deported a day after her green card interview. A federal judge later ordered the agency to bring her back to the U.S.