Like with cigarettes, la migra should come with a warning label: Proximity to ICE could be hazardous for your health.
From Los Angeles to Chicago, Portlandand New York, the evidence is ample enough that wherever Trump sends in the immigration agency, people get hurt. And not just protesters and immigrants.
That includes 13 police officers tear-gassed in Chicago earlier this month. And, now, a U.S. marshal.
Federal agents boxed in the Toyota Camry of local TikToker Carlitos Ricardo Parias — better known to his hundreds of thousands of followers as Richard LA. As Parias allegedly tried to rev his way out of the trap, an ICE agent opened fire. One bullet hit the 44-year-old Mexican immigrant — and another ricocheted into the hand of a deputy U.S. marshal.
Neither suffered life-threatening injuries, but it’s easy to imagine that things could have easily turned out worse. Such is the chaos that Trump has caused by unleashing shock troops into U.S. cities.
Rather than take responsibility and apologize for an incident that could’ve easily been lethal, Team Trump went into their default spin mode of blaming everyone but themselves.
Homeland Security assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement that the shooting was “the consequences of conduct and rhetoric by sanctuary politicians and activists who urge illegal aliens to resist arrest.”
Acting U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli chimed in on social media soon after: “I urge California public officials to moderate their rhetoric toward federal law enforcement. Encouraging resistance to federal agents can lead to deadly consequences.” Hours later, he called Times reporter James Queally “an absolute joke, not a journalist” because my colleague noted it’s standard practice by most American law enforcement agencies to not shoot at moving vehicles. One reason is that it increases the chance of so-called friendly fire.
Federal authorities accuse Parias of ramming his car into agents’ vehicles after they boxed him in. He is being charged with assault on a federal officer.
Time, and hopefully, evidence, will show what happened — and very important, what led to what happened.
The Trump administration keeps claiming that the public anger against its immigration actions is making the job more dangerous for la migra and their sister agencies. McLaughlin and her boss, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, keep saying there’s been a 1,000% increase in assaults on immigration agents this year like an incantation. Instead of offering concrete figures, they use the supposed stat as a shield against allegations ICE tactics are going too far and as a weapon to excuse the very brutality ICE claims it doesn’t practice.
Well, even if what they say is true, there’s only one side that’s making the job more dangerous for la migra and others during raids:
La migra.
It turns out that if you send in phalanxes of largely masked federal agents to bully and intimidate people in American cities, Americans tend not to take kindly to it.
Who knew?
Gregory Bovino, center, of U.S. Border Patrol, marches with federal agents to the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles on Aug. 14.
(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)
We’re about to enter the sixth month of Trump’s plan to rid the country of undocumented immigrants. Sycophants are bragging that he’s doing the job, but they’re not caring to look at the mess left in its wake that’s becoming more and more perilous for everyone involved. They insist that those who are executing and planning raids are professionals, but professionals don’t make constant pendejos out of themselves.
Professionals don’t bring squadrons to chase after tamale ladies or day laborers, or stage flashy raids of apartments and parks that accomplish little else than footage for propaganda videos. They don’t go into neighborhoods with intimidation on their mind and ready to rough up anyone who gets in their way.
A ProPublica investigation showed that ICE has detained at least 170 U.S. citizens this year, many whom offered proof that they were in this country legally as la migra cuffed them and hauled them off to detention centers.
Professionals don’t lie like there’s a bonus attached to it — but that’s what Trump’s deportation Leviathan keeps doing. In September, McLaughlin put out a news release arguing that the shooting death of 38-year-old Silverio Villegas González in Chicago by an ICE agent was justified because he was dragged a “significant distance” and suffered serious injuries. Yet body cam footage of local police who showed up to the scene captured the two ICE agents involved in the incident describing their injuries as “nothing major.”
Closer to home, a federal jury in Los Angeles last month acquitted an activist of striking a Border Patrol agent after federal public defender Cuauhtémoc Ortega screened footage that contradicted the government’s case and poked holes in the testimony of Border Patrol staff and supervisors. Last week, ICE agents detained Oxnard activist Leonardo Martinez after a collision between their Jeep and his truck. McLaughlin initially blamed the incident on an “agitator group … engaged in recording and verbal harassment,” but footage first published by L.A. Taco showed that la migra trailed Martinez and then crashed into him twice — not the other way around.
Professionals don’t host social media accounts that regularly spew memes that paint the picture of an American homeland where white makes right and everyone else must be eliminated, like the Department of Homeland Security does. A recent post featured medieval knights wearing chain mail and helmets and wielding longswords as they encircle the slogan “The Enemies are at the Gates” above ICE’s job listing website.
The Trump administration has normalized racism and has turned cruelty into a virtue — then its mouthpieces gasp in mock horror when people resist its officially sanctioned jackbootery.
This evil buffoonery comes straight from a president who reacted to the millions of Americans who protested this weekend at No Kings rallies by posting on social media an AI-generated video of him wearing a crown and dropping feces on his critics from a jet fighter. And yet McLaughlin, Noem and other Trump bobbleheads have the gall to question why politicians decry la migra while regular people follow and film them during raids when not shouting obscenities and taunts at them?
Meanwhile, ICE is currently on a hiring spree thanks to Trump’s Bloated Beastly Bill and and has cut its training program from six months to 48 days, according to The Atlantic. It’s a desperate and potentially reckless recruitment drive.
And if you think rapidly piling more people into a clown car is going to produce less clown-like behavior by ICE on the streets of American cities, boy do I have news for you.
A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily halted a Trump administration plan to reduce disaster relief and anti-terrorism funding for states with so-called sanctuary policies for undocumented immigrants.
U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy granted the temporary restraining order curtailing the cuts at the request of California, 10 other states and the District of Columbia, which argued in a lawsuit Monday that the policy appeared to have illegally cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.
The states said they were first notified of the cuts over the weekend. McElroy made her decision during an emergency hearing on the states’ motion in Rhode Island District Court on Tuesday afternoon.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta cheered the decision as the state’s latest win in pushing back against what he described as a series of unlawful, funding-related power grabs by the Trump administration.
“Over and over, the courts have stopped the Trump Administration’s illegal efforts to tie unrelated grant funding to state policies,” Bonta said. “It’s a little thing called state sovereignty, but given the President’s propensity to violate the Constitution, it’s unsurprising that he’s unfamiliar with it.”
Neither the White House nor the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the funding and notified the states of the cuts, immediately responded to a request for comment Tuesday.
Sanctuary policies are not uniform and the term is imprecise, but it generally refers to policies that bar states and localities — and their local law enforcement agencies — from participating in federal immigration raids or other enforcement initiatives.
The Trump administration and other Republicans have cast such policies as undermining law and order. Democrats and progressives including in California say instead that states and cities have finite public safety resources and that engaging in immigration enforcement serves only to undermine the trust they and their law enforcement agencies need to maintain with the public in order to prevent and solve crime, including in large immigrant communities.
In their lawsuit Monday, the states said the funding being reduced was part of billions in federal dollars annually distributed to the states to “prepare for, protect against, respond to, and recover from catastrophic disasters,” and which administrations of both political parties distributed “evenhandedly” for decades before Trump.
Authorized by Congress after events such as Sept. 11 and Hurricane Katrina, the funding covers the salaries of first responders, testing of state computer networks for cyberattack vulnerabilities, mutual aid compacts between regional partners and emergency responses after disasters, the states said.
Bonta’s office said California was informed over the weekend by Homeland Security officials that it would be receiving $110 million instead of $165 million, a reduction of its budget by about a third. The states’ lawsuit said other blue states saw even more dramatic cuts, with Illinois seeing a 69% reduction and New York receiving a 79% reduction, while red states saw substantial funding increases.
Bonta on Tuesday said the administration’s reshuffling of funds based on state compliance with the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement priorities was illegal and needed to be halted — and restored to previous levels based on risk assessment — in order to keep everyone in the country safe.
“California uses the grant funding at stake in our lawsuit to protect the safety of our communities from acts of terrorism and other disasters — meaning the stakes are quite literally life and death,” he said. “This is not something to play politics with. I’m grateful to the court for seeing the urgency of this dangerous diversion of homeland security funding.”
Homeland Security officials have previously argued that the agency should be able to withhold funding from states that it believes are not upholding or are actively undermining its core mission of defending the nation from threats, including the threat it sees from illegal immigration.
Other judges have also ruled against the administration conditioning disaster and public safety funding on states and localities complying with federal immigration policies.
Joining California in Monday’s lawsuit were Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia.
Sept. 30 (UPI) — The Justice Department on Monday filed a lawsuit against so-called sanctuary policies in Minnesota as the Trump administration tries to have the court compel Democratic-led regions to abide by its immigration policies.
The lawsuit targets the laws of Minnesota, Hennepin County and the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, arguing that not only are they illegal, they effectively shield “criminal offenders” by obstructing federal law enforcement.
“Minnesota officials are jeopardizing the safety of their own citizens by allowing illegal aliens to circumvent the legal process,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement announcing the lawsuit.
“This Department of Justice will continue to bring litigation against any jurisdiction that uses sanctuary policies to defy federal law and undermine law enforcement.”
President Donald Trump, who campaigned on cracking down on immigration, often with the use of incendiary rhetoric and misinformation, has been attempting to conduct mass deportations, and has targeted Democratic-led jurisdictions’ refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities as part of that effort.
In April, he signed an executive order directing Bondi to compile a list of so-called sanctuary jurisdictions for punishment, with a list of 35 regions being made public early last month.
The Justice Department has already filed lawsuits against five states including Minnesota and several cities, including New York City, Los Angeles, Boston and Chicago. However, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit against Illinois, Chicago and other districts in the state in late July, finding the Trump administration “lacked standing” to challenge the laws.
Minnesota is also led by Gov. Tim Walz, a critic of Trump and a rival of the president, having run against him as Kamala Harris’ vice presidential running mate on the Democratic ticket.
The state has been a target of numerous federal actions by the Trump administration, including investigations over its hiring practices. The president declined to call Walz after a man assassinated a state lawmaker and wounded another in mid-June, calling him “whacked out” and “a mess.”
Late last week, Minnesota was one of six states Trump sued to force handover of its voter registration list.
While Walz has yet to make a public statement about the latest lawsuit, Mayor Melvin Carter of Saint Paul said city employees work for those who live there and not Trump.
“We will stand with our immigrant and refugee neighbors no matter how many unconstitutional claims the White House makes,” he said in a statement.
“We’ve proven our resolve in two successful court actions already this year, and we look forward to winning our third legal victory in a row against this embarrassing federal regime.”
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey similarly said they would fight the Trump administration.
“We will not back down. We will fight with every bit of our strength for our immigrant communities. We will stand by our neighbors and we’re going to win in court,” he said in a recorded statement published on X.
“So, let’s just be really clear to everybody: this is not an issue where we will back down. We’re going to win this thing.”
Sept. 5 (UPI) — The U.S. Department of Justice filed suit against the city of Boston, its Mayor Michelle Wu, the Boston Police Department and police commissioner over its so-called sanctuary city laws.
The Justice Department said in a press release Thursday that the practices in the Boston Trust Act, enacted in 2014, “interfere with the federal government’s enforcement of its immigration laws.”
The law allows Boston police to collaborate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement only “on issues of significant public safety, such as human trafficking, child exploitation, drug and weapons trafficking, and cybercrimes, while refraining from involvement in civil immigration enforcement,” the city said.
“The City of Boston and its mayor have been among the worst sanctuary offenders in America — they explicitly enforce policies designed to undermine law enforcement and protect illegal aliens from justice,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “If Boston won’t protect its citizens from illegal alien crime, this Department of Justice will.”
The Department of Justice said Boston’s law allows the “release of dangerous criminals from police custody who would otherwise be subject to removal, including illegal aliens convicted of aggravated assault, burglary, and drug and human trafficking, onto the streets.”
In a statement, Wu vowed to not back down and said the “unconstitutional attack on our city is not a surprise.”
“Boston is a thriving community, the economic and cultural hub of New England, and the safest major city in the country — but this administration is intent on attacking our community to advance their own authoritarian agenda,” she said. “This is our city, and we will vigorously defend our laws and the constitutional rights of cities, which have been repeatedly upheld in courts across the country. We will not yield.”
In July, a federal judge dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Illinois, Cook County and Chicago over sanctuary laws.
On Aug. 13, Bondi sent a letter to Wu warning her that officials who obstruct federal immigration could face criminal charges or civil liability.
Wu responded on Aug. 19, citing the Chicago dismissal.
“Courts have consistently held, as recently as last month, that local public safety laws like the Boston Trust Act are valid exercises of local authority and fully consistent with federal law,” she wrote.
In August, a federal judge extended his preliminary injunction that blocks the Trump administration from withholding funds for 34 sanctuary jurisdictions.
Those cities include Boston, Chicago, Denver and Los Angeles.
Bondi in August published a list of “sanctuary jurisdictions,” which she said “impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design.”
President Trump’s border advisor told reporters Thursday that federal authorities planned to increase immigration raids in Los Angeles and other so-called “sanctuary cities,” with Chicago likely the next target.
“You’re going to see a ramp up of operations in New York; you’re going to see a ramp up of operations continue in L.A., Portland, Seattle, all these sanctuary cities that refuse to work with ICE,” Tom Homan said.
Since June, Southern California has been ground zero of thousands of immigration arrests as well as legal battles over whether the raids violate the U.S. Constitution.
There is no agreed-upon definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities, but the terms generally describe limited cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Homan did not elaborate on specifics about new raids in L.A.
But talking to reporters Thursday morning, he said Immigration and Customs Enforcement is considering using a naval base north of Chicago as its hub when potential enforcement raids take place in that city.
Tom Homan said, “there’s discussions about that, yes,” when asked by reporters outside the White House.
He didn’t provide an exact timeline for the use.
“The planning is still being discussed,” he said. “So, maybe by the end of today.”
Earlier this week, Trump said Chicago would likely be the next city in which he’ll direct a crackdown on crime and, in particular, illegal immigration.
He recently sent 2,000 National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. after having dispatched soldiers, ICE and border patrol agents to Los Angeles since early June. The Department of Homeland Security said that as of Aug. 8, ICE and Border Patrol agents had arrested 2,792 undocumented immigrants in the Los Angeles area.
He also called the City of Broad Shoulders a “mess” and that its residents were “screaming for us to come.” Three days after Trump railed about crime in Chicago, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson released a statement, saying overall crime in the city had dropped by 21.6%, year to date, with homicides falling by 32.3%.
Homan would not commit to how many soldiers and agents would be used in any immigration enforcement.
“We’re not going to tell you how many resources we’re going to send to the city,” he said. “We don’t want the bad guys to know what we’re sending.”
He added, “It will be a large contingent.”
Since a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting federal agents from targeting people solely based on their race, language, vocation or location, the number of arrests in Southern California declined in July.
But raids are continuing, with Home Depot stores becoming a common target in recent weeks.
On Aug. 1, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a Trump administration request to lift the restraining order prohibiting roving raids.
The Trump administration cannot deny funding to Los Angeles and 30 other cities and counties because of “sanctuary” policies that limit their cooperation with federal immigration agencies, a judge ruled late Friday.
The judge issued a preliminary injunction that expands restrictions the court handed down in April that blocked funding cuts to 16 cities and counties, including San Francisco and Santa Clara, after federal officials classified them as “sanctuary jurisdictions.”
U.S. District Judge William Orrick of the federal court in San Francisco ruled then that Trump’s executive order cutting funding was probably unconstitutional and violated the separation of powers doctrine.
Friday’s order added more than a dozen more jurisdictions to the preliminary injunction, including Los Angeles, Alameda County, Berkeley, Baltimore, Boston and Chicago.
Mayor Karen Bass’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In a statement, a spokesperson for the White House said the Trump administration expected to ultimately win in its effort on appeal.
“The government — at all levels — has the duty to protect American citizens from harm,” Abigail Jackson, a spokesperson for the White House, said in a statement. “Sanctuary cities interfere with federal immigration enforcement at the expense and safety and security of American citizens. We look forward to ultimate vindication on the issue.”
The preliminary injunction is the latest chapter in an ongoing effort by the Trump administration to force “sanctuary cities” to assist and commit local resources to federal immigration enforcement efforts.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice published a list of what it determined to be sanctuary jurisdictions, or local entities that have “policies, laws, or regulations that impede enforcement of federal immigration laws.”
“Sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design,” Atty. Gen. Pamela Bondi said in a statement accompanying the published list.
Several cities and counties across the country have adopted sanctuary city policies, but specifics as to what extent they’re willing — or unwilling — to do for federal immigration officials have varied.
The policies typically do not impede federal officials from conducting immigration enforcement activities, but largely keep local jurisdictions from committing resources to the efforts.
The policies also don’t prevent local agencies from enforcing judicial warrants, which are signed by a judge. Cooperation on “detainers” or holds on jailed suspects issued by federal agencies, along with enforcement of civil immigration matters, is typically limited by sanctuary policies.
Federal officials in the suit have so far referred to “sanctuary” jurisdictions as local governments that don’t honor immigration detainer requests, don’t assist with administrative warrants, don’t share immigration status information, or don’t allow local police to assist in immigration enforcement operations.
Orrick noted that the executive orders threatened to withhold all federal funding if the cities and counties in question did not adhere to the Trump administration’s requests.
In the order, the judge referred to the executive order as a “coercive threat” and said it was unconstitutional.
Orrick, who sits on the bench in the Northern District of California, was appointed by former President Obama.
The Trump administration has been ratcheting up efforts to force local jurisdictions to assist in immigration enforcement. The administration has filed lawsuits against cities and counties, vastly increased street operations and immigration detentions, and deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles as it increased immigration operations.
The U.S. Department of Justice in June sued Los Angeles, and local officials, alleging its sanctuary city law is “illegal.”
The suit alleged that the city was looking to “thwart the will of the American people regarding deportations” by enacting sanctuary city policies.
Aug. 23 (UPI) — A federal judge has extended his preliminary injunction that blocks the Trump administration from withholding funds for 34 sanctuary jurisdictions.
The “sanctuary cities” include Boston, Chicago, Denver and Los Angeles.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick, who serves in San Francisco, wrote in the 15-page ruling issued Friday night that the government offered to reason for the opposition to the preliminary injunction except it was “wrong in the first place.”
The judge, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, also blocked the Trump administration from imposing conditions on grants that are “for a variety of critical needs.”
On April 24, he issued a preliminary order that “the Cities and Counties are likely to succeed on the merits “because they were unconstitutional violations of the separation of powers and spending clause doctrines and violated the Fifth Amendment, Tenth Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act.”
His original injunction listed 16 plaintiffs that were mainly jurisdictions in western states, including San Francisco, Portland and San Diego, but on Aug. 5 expanded it to other cities that include Boston, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles.
On Friday, he wrote that the executive orders by President Donald Trump were “coercive threat (and any actions agencies take to realize that threat, or additional Executive Orders the President issues to the same end) is unconstitutional, so I enjoined its effect. I do so against today for the protection of the new parties in this case.”
On the day Trump became president on Jan. 20, he signed an order that sanctuary cities “do not receive access to Federal funds.” The president a few weeks later ordered that federal funding shouldn’t “facilitate the subsidization or promotion of illegal immigration.”
In May, the Department of Homeland Security publicly listed 500 cities, counties and states that hadn’t adhered to the interpretation of immigration laws. That list has since been removed.
Attorney General Palm Biondi also sent letters to jurisdictions last week, threatening them with legal recourse because they have “undermined” and “obstructed” federal forces.
The White House didn’t respond to inquiries from The Hill and CBS News on the latest judge’s order.
Sanctuary cities don’t assist federal personnel, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, from apprehending those in the country illegally.
In those jurisdictions, law enforcement is limited from sharing information about a person’s immigration status and entering jails or courthouses for arrests or interviews with a warrant signed by a judge.
People are also protected from encounters in public places, including schools and healthcare facilities.
The massive spending bill, which was signed into law on July 4, increased funds for enforcement. ICE’s budget grew from $3.5 billion to $48.5 billion.
Deportation raids have increased in cities run by Democrats.
Several lawsuits have been filed, including one last week by 20 states over the DOJ tying crime victim grants to immigration enforcement.
Aug. 6 (UPI) — The Justice Department has published a list of 35 so-called sanctuary jurisdictions as it plans to sue them amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.
“Sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “The Department of Justice will continue bringing litigation against sanctuary jurisdictions and work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to eradicate these harmful policies around the country.”
The list includes 18 cities, 13 states and four counties.
The Justice Department said: “This list is not exhaustive and will be updated as federal authorities gather further information.”
So-called sanctuary policies are those that limit a jurisdiction’s cooperation between local and state law enforcement with federal immigration officers. Proponents argue such policies promote greater trust and cooperation between the local communities and their police, while opponents say they interfere with federal immigration enforcement and prevent immigration agents from doing their job.
President Donald Trump, who campaigned on conducting mass deportations with incendiary rhetoric and misinformation, has sought to crack down on immigration since returning to office. In late April, he signed an executive order directing Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to compile a list of sanctuary jurisdictions for punishment.
Under the executive order, jurisdictions found to be violating immigration federal law may lose federal funding.
The Trump administration has brought lawsuits challenging the sanctuary policies of Chicago, Ill., New York City, N.Y., Los Angeles, Calif., Denver, Colo., and the states of New York and Colorado.
Last month, a judge threw out the Justice Department’s lawsuit filed against Chicago’s sanctuary policies. At the same time, Louisville, Ky., rescinded its sanctuary policies following threats of being sued by the Trump administration.
CHICAGO — A judge in Illinois dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit Friday that sought to disrupt limits Chicago imposes on cooperation between federal immigration agents and local police.
The lawsuit, filed in February, alleged that so-called sanctuary laws in the nation’s third-largest city “thwart” federal efforts to enforce immigration laws.
It argued that local laws run counter to federal laws by restricting “local governments from sharing immigration information with federal law enforcement officials” and preventing immigration agents from identifying “individuals who may be subject to removal.”
Judge Lindsay Jenkins of the Northern District of Illinois granted the defendants’ motion for dismissal.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson said that he was pleased with the decision and that the city is safer when police focus on the needs of Chicagoans.
“This ruling affirms what we have long known: that Chicago’s Welcoming City Ordinance is lawful and supports public safety. The City cannot be compelled to cooperate with the Trump Administration’s reckless and inhumane immigration agenda,” he said in a statement.
Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, welcomed the ruling, saying in a social media post, “Illinois just beat the Trump Administration in federal court.”
The Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security and did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.
The administration has filed a series of lawsuits targeting state or city policies it sees as interfering with immigration enforcement, including those in Los Angeles, New York City, Denver and Rochester, N.Y. It sued four New Jersey cities in May.
Heavily Democratic Chicago has been a sanctuary city for decades and has beefed up its laws several times, including during President Trump’s first term in 2017.
That same year, then-Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, signed more statewide sanctuary protections into law, putting him at odds with his party.
There is no official definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities. The terms generally describe limits on local cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE enforces U.S. immigration laws nationwide but sometimes seeks state and local help.
July 25 (UPI) — The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against New York City, challenging its so-called sanctuary city policies, as the Trump administration continues to crack down on immigration.
The lawsuit was filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York asking it to declare the city’s sanctuary policies in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the constitution, which states that federal laws take precedence over conflicting state laws.
“New York City has released thousands of criminals on the streets to commit violent crimes against law-abiding citizens due to sanctuary city policies, Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.
“If New York City won’t stand up for the safety of its citizens, we will.”
So-called sanctuary cities are those that limit the cooperation of local and state law enforcement with federal immigration officers. The non-profit, nonpartisan American Immigration Council states such policies “promote a greater level of trust and cooperation” between local law enforcement and the communities they police, while opponents say they interfere with federal immigration enforcement and prevent immigration agents from doing their job.
“New York City has long been at the vanguard of interfering with enforcing this country’s immigration laws,” federal prosecutors said in the lawsuit Thursday. “It’s history as a sanctuary city dates back to 1989, and its efforts to thwart federal immigration enforcement have only intensified since.”
New York City Council balked at the lawsuit, calling it a distraction from the fact that “cities with sanctuary laws are safer than those without them.”
“When residents feel comfortable reporting crime and cooperating with local law enforcement, we are all safer, something both Republicans and Democratic mayors of New York City have recognized,” the council said in a statement online.
“It is the Trump administration indiscriminately targeting people at civil court hearings, detaining high school students and separating families that makes our city and nation less safe.”
Sanctuary cities have been a target of Republicans who view them as a hindrance to the rule of law while protecting undocumented migrants, while Democrats see them as protecting immigrant communities and public trust.
On April 28, he signed an executive order threatening federal funding to sanctuary cities and directing the Justice Department and Homeland Security to uncover which policies violate federal law.
The Justice Department has already brought several such lawsuit against so-called sanctuary states and cities, including Los Angeles and the states fo New York, Colorado and Illinois.
The U.S. Department of Justice sued the city of Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass and City Council members Monday, calling L.A.’s sanctuary city law “illegal” and asking that it be blocked from being enforced.
The lawsuit, filed in California’s Central District federal court by the Trump Administration, said the country is “facing a crisis of illegal immigration” and that its efforts to address it “are hindered by Sanctuary Cities such as the City of Los Angeles, which refuse to cooperate or share information, even when requested, with federal immigration authorities.”
Over the last month, immigration agents have descended on Southern California, arresting more than 1,600 immigrants and prompting furious protests in downtown Los Angeles, Paramount and other communities. According to the lawsuit, L.A.’s refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities since June 6 has resulted in “lawlessness, rioting, looting, and vandalism.”
“The situation became so dire that the Federal Government deployed the California National Guard and United States Marines to quell the chaos,” the lawsuit states. “A direct confrontation with federal immigration authorities was the inevitable outcome of the Sanctuary City law.”
Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi called the city’s sanctuary policies “the driving cause of the violence, chaos, and attacks on law enforcement that Americans recently witnessed in Los Angeles.”
“Jurisdictions like Los Angeles that flout federal law by prioritizing illegal aliens over American citizens are undermining law enforcement at every level — it ends under President Trump,” Bondi said in a statement Monday.
Bass did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In recent weeks, she has pushed back against the Trump Administration’s portrayal of L.A. as a city enveloped in violence, saying that immigration agents are the ones sowing chaos, terrorizing families and harming the city’s economy.
“To characterize what is going on in our city as a city of mayhem is just an outright lie,” Bass said earlier this month. “I’m not going to call it an untruth. I’m not going to sugarcoat it. I’m going to call it for what it is, which is a lie.”
L.A.’s sanctuary city law was proposed in early 2023, long before Trump’s election, but finalized in the wake of his victory in November.
Under the ordinance, city employees and city property may not be used to “investigate, cite, arrest, hold, transfer or detain any person” for the purpose of immigration enforcement. An exception is made for law enforcement investigating serious offenses.
The ordinance bars city employees from seeking out information about an individual’s citizenship or immigration status unless it is needed to provide a city service. They also must treat data or information that can be used to trace a person’s citizenship or immigration status as confidential.
In the lawsuit, federal prosecutors allege that the city’s ordinance and other policies intentionally discriminate against the federal government by “treating federal immigration authorities differently than other law enforcement agents,” by restricting access to property and to individual detainees, by prohibiting contractors and sub-contractors from providing information, and by “disfavoring federal criminal laws that the City of Los Angeles has decided not to comply with.”
“The Supremacy Clause prohibits the City of Los Angeles and its officials from singling out the Federal Government for adverse treatment—as the challenged law and policies do—thereby discriminating against the Federal Government,” the lawsuit says. “Accordingly, the law and policies challenged here are invalid and should be enjoined.”
Trump’s Department of Justice contends that L.A.’s Sanctuary City ordinance goes much further than similar laws in other jurisdictions, by “seeking to undermine the Federal Government’s immigration enforcement efforts.”
The lawsuit also cites a June 10 meeting in which council members grilled Police Chief Jim McDonnell about his department’s handling of the immigration raids. During that session, Councilmember Imelda Padilla, who represents a heavily Latino district in the San Fernando Valley, asked McDonnell if the LAPD would consider warning warn council members about impending raids.
“Chief McDonnell correctly identified that request for what it was: ‘obstruction of justice,’” the lawsuit states.
The federal filing comes as the city’s elected officials are weighing their own lawsuit against the Trump administration, one aimed at barring immigration agents from violating the constitutional rights of their constituents.
The City Council is scheduled to meet Tuesday to ask City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto to prioritize “immediate legal action” to protect L.A. residents from being racially profiled or unlawfully searched or detained.
Bass has been outspoken about the harm she says the immigration raids have been inflicting on her city, saying they have torn families apart and created a climate of fear at parks, churches, shopping areas and other locations. The city was peaceful, she said, until federal agents began showing up at Home Depots, parking lots and other locations.
“I want to tell him to stop the raids,” she said earlier this month. “I want to tell him that this is a city of immigrants. I want to tell him that if you want to devastate the economy of the city of Los Angeles, then attack the immigrant population.”
Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.
More laughable errors: Livingston, the first city in the Central Valley to declare itself a sanctuary for immigrants in 2017, isn’t on the list. Yet Santee in San Diego County, so notorious for its racism that people still call it “Klantee,” is.
There’s even Represa. Ever heard of it? Me, neither. Turns out it’s not a city but the name of the post office for two places not exactly known as sanctuaries: Folsom State Prison and California State Prison, Sacramento.
Within hours of his inauguration, Donald Trump signed an executive order tellingly titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” that, among other things, stated that sanctuary jurisdictions should no longer receive federal funds.
But the May 29 list laying out the jurisdictions that are supposedly subject to the penalty was so flawed that it was taken off the Homeland Security website within days. It’s still not back up. The effort seemed cobbled together by someone who typed “sanctuary” and a city’s name into Google and swallowed whatever the AI spat up without even bothering to cross-check with Wikipedia.
Trump’s opponents are already depicting this fiasco as emblematic of an administration that loves to shoot itself in the foot, then put the bloody foot in its mouth. But it’s even worse than that.
The list shows how blinded by fury the Trump administration is about illegal immigration. There is no mistake too big or too small for Trump to forgive, as long as it’s in the name of deportation and border walls. The president’s obsession with tying all of this country’s real and imagined ills to newcomers reminds me of Cato the Elder, the Roman Republic politician famous for allegedly saying “Carthage must be destroyed” at the end of all his speeches, no matter the topic.
That’s why the pushback by politicians against Homeland Security’s big, beautiful boo-boo has been quick — and hilarious.
Huntington Beach Mayor Pat Burns listens to speakers discuss the city’s plan to make Huntington Beach “a non-sanctuary city for illegal immigration” during a City Council meeting in January
(James Carbone)
Huntington Beach Mayor Pat Burns appeared on KCAL News to declare that Surf City’s inclusion was “pure negligence” while holding a small white bust of Donald Trump the way a toddler clings to its blankey.
Vista Mayor John Franklin, meanwhile, was on the city council that voted in 2018 to support the Trump administration’s unsuccessful lawsuit against California’s sanctuary state law. He told ABC 10News San Diego that he thought Vista made the list because “another city in the county that bears a similar name to ours … may have, and I haven’t confirmed it yet, adopted a sanctuary policy.”
Dude, say the city’s name: Chula Vista, a far cooler, muy Latino town closer to the U.S.-Mexico border than Vista is. It’s also on the list and isn’t a sanctuary city, either.
On the other end of the political spectrum, Rep. Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) told the Voice of OC that he recently advised Santa Ana officials to “keep their head low” and not make a big deal about their sanctuary city status — as if hiding under a desk, like a “Scooby Doo” caper, will somehow save the city from the Trump administration’s haphazard hammer.
Immigration, more than any other part of Trump’s agenda, exemplifies the Silicon Valley cliché of moving fast and breaking things. His administration has deported people by mistake and given the middle finger to judges who order them brought back. Trump officials are now shipping immigrants to countries they have no ties to, and shrugging their shoulders. Immigration agents are trying to apprehend people in places long considered off-limits, like schools and places of worship.
And yet, this still isn’t enough for Trump.
Deportation rates are rising, but still not to the levels seen in some years of the Biden and Obama administrations, and not even close to Operation Wetback, the Eisenhower-era program that deported over a million Mexican nationals. Trump’s deportation dream team — Homeland Security head Kristi Noem, border czar Tom Homan and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller — has berated ICE officials for not doing more to comply with Trump’s wishes.
The sanctuary list embodies all of this. Who cares if the wreckage involves human lives, or the Constitution? The sloppiness is the point. The cruelty is the point.
Homeland Security didn’t answer my request to explain the flaws in its sanctuary jurisdiction list and why it was taken down. Instead, a spokesperson emailed a statement saying “the list is being constantly reviewed and can be changed at any time and will be updated regularly.” The decision whether to include a place, the statement said, “is based on the evaluation of numerous factors.”
Except the truth, it seems.
Let’s laugh at the absurd mistakes while we can. Really, how pendejo can you be to think that Huntington Beach is friendly to undocumented immigrants but Santa Ana isn’t? Let’s laugh while we can, because things are going to get much worse before they get better.
Migrants surrender to the U.S. Border Patrol after crossing the border wall from Mexico near Campo, California, about 50 miles from San Diego, in 2024. File photo by Pat Benic/UPI | License Photo
May 25 (UPI) — Federal officials are considering removing undocumented immigrants in California custody as an attempt to undermine the state’s sanctuary law.
“Operation Guardian Angel” is intended to “neutralize” sanctuary state rules, U.S. Atty. Bill Essaylie, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles explained.
The program employs federal resources at county jails and state prisons — the places where federal officials say the sanctuary law impedes the work of immigration agents to take custody.
“These laws effectively render federal immigration detainers meaningless,” Essaylie said. “While California may be presently disregarding detainers, it cannot ignore federal arrest warrants.”
An immigration detainer allows local law enforcement agencies to detain people for up to 48 hours beyond their scheduled release to allow for a transfer to federal custody.
Despite federal efforts to weaken the sanctuary law, local officials have said they will continue to enforce it and protect immigrants whom “Operation Guardian Angel” targets.
“This is just another scare tactic to get us to follow this authoritarian agenda, but it’s not going to work,” Los Angeles City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez said.
Essaylie’s office identifies people with criminal records who have been deported and charges them with a federal crime if they re-enter the United States.
California officials have said they already cooperate with federal agents with regards to undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes.
TRENTON, N.J. — The Trump administration sued four New Jersey cities over their so-called sanctuary city policies aimed at prohibiting police from cooperating with immigration officials, saying the local governments are standing in the way of federal enforcement.
The Justice Department filed the suit Thursday against Newark, Jersey City, Paterson and Hoboken in New Jersey federal court. The lawsuit seeks a judgment against the cities and an injunction to halt them from enacting the so-called sanctuary city policies.
“While states and local governments are free to stand aside as the United States performs this important work, they cannot stand in the way,” the suit says.
It’s the latest case from President Trump’s administration against sanctuary policies. The administration also sued Chicago, Denver, the state of Colorado, and Rochester, N.Y.
There is no official definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities. The terms generally describe limited local cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE enforces U.S. immigration laws nationwide but sometimes seeks state and local help.
Messages seeking comment were left Friday with the affected cities.
Paterson Mayor Andre Sayegh said his city would fight the suit, calling it an “egregious attempt to score political points at Paterson’s expense.”
“We will not be intimidated,” he said in a text message.
Hoboken Mayor Ravi Bhalla said in a statement the city prides itself on its inclusivity.
“The City of Hoboken will vigorously work to defend our rights, have our day in court, and defeat the Trump Administration’s lawlessness. To be clear: we will not back down,” he said.
The mayors of all four cities are Democrats.
New Jersey’s attorney general adopted a statewide Immigrant Trust Directive in 2018, which bars local police from cooperation with federal officials conducting immigration enforcement. The policies adopted by the four cities are similar.
The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court that New Jersey’s statewide policy could stand, but it’s unclear how that court’s order might affect the government’s case against the four cities.
Before our appointment at Osmosis Day Spa Sanctuary, a peaceful retreat off the Bodega Highway in West Sonoma county, a friend and I popped into a nearby gift shop. We told the owner that we were destined to try Osmosis’ storied treatment — a so-called “cedar enzyme bath” — and her eyes widened with excitement.
“You’ll feel like you’re a plant being composted,” she said, adding that the spa’s recycled bath materials lined the path of a neighboring garden.
When we were eventually led into Osmosis’ tidy changing rooms to disrobe, I smelled what she meant before I saw it. A dank, earthy odor hung in the air, as if mounds of fresh pencil shavings had been scattered over a newly excavated farm plot.
FREESTONE, CA — MARCH 29, 2025: A Koi pond at Kyoto-style Meditation Garden. Wellness Editor Alyssa Bereznak in an enzyme cedar bath at the Osmosis Day Spa in Freestone, California on Saturday, March 29, 2025. (Andri Tambunan / For The Times)
It’s the signature scent of a spa whose marquee treatment involves being blanketed up to your neck in a box of steaming compost. Known in Japan as an ion bath, it combines many spa treatments in one: a heated, weighted feeling to relax and soothe the body and a calming aromatherapy to pique the senses. Much like the mud baths of Calistoga, the experience is just as much about a novel brush with natural elements as it is an opportunity for release.
“I like to say that what’s going on in there is a fundamental impulse in biology,” Osmosis owner Michael Stusser said. “All these microorganisms get a chance to talk to each other. They all have infinite wisdom. They all communicate. So there’s this energy going on. There’s a whole flow.”
Share via
Stusser estimates that Osmosis has slung compost onto half a million guests in its 40 years of business. For much of that time, it was the only place in North America where you could consistently book a cedar enzyme bath, currently priced at $155 a person or $127.50 per person for a shared two-person vat. (In May 2023, Tahoe Forest Baths opened in Lake Tahoe and began offering them in partnership with the Japanese company Ohtaka Enzyme Co. Though Santa Monica’s Willow Spa once gave cedar enzyme baths, it has discontinued that service.) Now the creekside 5-acre spa is expanding its offerings, which include sound therapy sessions in zero-gravity loungers, meditation workshops and all-day retreats.
Healdsburg resident Simone Wilson and Wellness Editor Alyssa Bereznak in an enzyme cedar bath at Osmosis Day Spa. The warm, fragrant treatment originated in Japan.
(Andri Tambunan / For The Times)
The smell that permeates Osmosis’ halls is the byproduct of a very intentional process, said Stusser. The enzyme bath concoction is a mix of fragrant Douglas fir and Port Orford cedar (a tree that the native Karok people of northwest California once used to construct sweat lodges) and rice bran, which activates the composting process.
“There’s literally billions of organisms in there feeding on nitrogen and generating heat with their bodies, breaking down carbon,” Stusser said. “That’s what they do.”
The spa’s staff is responsible for keeping the mixture from becoming hygienically dubious both by replacing it and churning it multiple times a day, thus ensuring there’s enough oxygen to keep that activity moving. We observed the process before our personal meeting with the mulch. Our spa attendant for the day, Samundra Sutcliffe, lodged a large pitchfork into the vat shavings and turned it over on top of itself as steam emanated from the pile.
Attendant Samundra Sutcliffe churns the cedar enzyme shavings at Osmosis Day Spa Sanctuary.
(Andri Tambunan / For The Times)
“If it doesn’t get fluffed enough, the material starts to compact and it starts to break down, what’s called anaerobically, which is without oxygen,” said the spa’s general manager, Heather Bishop. “Sometimes we’ll end up with less appealing smells.”
Stusser, 78, has a deep education in biodynamic gardening. He studied Agroecology at University of Santa Cruz under organic gardening and farming pioneer Alan Chadwick, who founded the school’s “French-intensive” garden in 1967. (Stusser went on to film a 1971 documentary, “The Garden,” about the project.) As Stusser got more into the bio-intensive gardening scene, he became enamored with compost.
“I saw the alchemical power of compost to transform not only the soil, but everything that was put into it,” he said. “And I had a secret wish that I never was willing to admit to anyone, which was to be buried in a compost pile.”
Osmosis serves a special enzyme-infused tea before guiding guests to its signature cedar enzyme bath.
(Andri Tambunan / For The Times)
After living on and tending to the land at the Farallones Institute Rural Center (now the Occidental Arts & Ecology Center in Sonoma County), Stusser traveled to Japan in 1981 to become a landscape gardening apprentice. The program, a seven-days-a-week dawn-til-dusk grind, proved to be far too intense, so he quit and went to live in a Zen temple in Obama-shi. There Stusser developed a serious case of sciatica and went on a quest to heal himself. He ended up on the island of Kyushu, where he stumbled upon an enzyme bath center where people of different ages and ailments had come to heal.
“As soon as I saw what was happening, I realized this is actually the same dynamic that exists in compost,” Stusser said. “I said, I’m going to finally get my wish.”
A farmer in southwestern Hokkaido named Noboru Ohtaka came up with the idea for a so-called “ion bath” after stepping on a sawdust enzyme fertilizer he’d developed and noticing it felt pleasant. His company, Ohtaka Enzyme Co. opened its first ion house in Sapporo City in 1964, said company President Seiichi Imai. Seven years later, when the city hosted the Winter Olympics, organizers built enzyme baths for athletes to use in the Olympic village.
“As the facility was continuously featured in newspapers and on television, the concept of the enzyme bath spread across Japan,” Imai shared in an email.
The enzyme bath Stusser tried was consistent with the original practice. It involved undergoing the treatment two times a day for a week, during which he fasted save for an enzyme drink, and received ashiatsu massages (in which a practitioner walks on your back). He said the treatment resolved his sciatica. He also had a spiritual experience.
“I was in the enzyme bath and as part of that experience, like in a millisecond of this vast experience, I saw the whole creation of Osmosis unfold before my mind’s eye in an instant, crystal clear, undeniable, and I knew it was my calling to do this,” he said.
He returned to the U.S. and got to work. On May 21, 1985, he opened Osmosis. At first, he said, it was hard to persuade people to live out the same wish of being composted that he’d held for so many years.
“I could barely give it away in the beginning,” he said. “But once they did it and discovered how much better it made them feel, we have had a lot of people coming for decades.”
As my friend and I sat robe-clad in a tea room staring out at a glass door that opened to a private Zen garden and sipping a hot enzyme herbal tonic with yarrow, red clover and peppermint, I contemplated my imminent encounter with the compost. I’m an avid gardener who has dusted my plants with compost and brewed her own kombucha. But even I felt a trickle of hesitation at being smothered in a bacteria-laden mulch.
Before I could give it a second thought, our attendant, Samundra, led us into a separate room with what looked like an adult sandbox. Two human-sized seats had been carved into the enzyme cedar mix to ensure we had sufficient support as we gazed out onto another private zen garden. We were left alone briefly to settle in and cover ourselves in the mix. When she reentered, she began shoveling it on to both of us until only our heads were visible.
“If you do get too hot, you can always pull out your arms, and I’ll just be coming out to check on you,” she said.
Up close and personal, the musk of the odor dissipated, and I breathed in the grounding spice of the cedar and the energizing citrus notes of the Douglas fir. It felt as though my body was wrapped in a hot compress. I tend to overheat easily in jacuzzis and hot springs but the enzyme bath felt breathable. (I later learned that this is because wood has a lower thermal conductivity than water, and the cedar enzyme mix allows for more aeration.)
As my friend and I began to sweat, Samundra arrived with cold compresses and draped them across our necks. With our arms still buried under the compost, she brought ice-cold waters with straws up to our mouths so we could hydrate — a truly luxurious part of the service.
The allotted 20 minutes went quickly. And when our time was up, she dug us out enough for us to break free. We used special grated mittens to wipe the mixture off of our bodies in the private zen garden, then rinsed off in the shower. My body was warmed from within, my typically tight-and-achy lower back and shoulders, slack and painless. After a trip to a spa I can sometimes feel like I’m on the verge of a nap, but in this case I felt invigorated and present, ready to tour the gardens that awaited outside.
When I later relayed my journey of skepticism to convert to Stusser, he said it was a common one.
“You can’t really explain it to somebody until you’ve done it,” Stusser said. “A lot of people will be very inquisitive on the phone. They go, ‘Well, can you tell me something more about what is it really doing?’ Then they get here and they look at it, and they’re not even sure they want to go in. And then they get in and get a big smile. ‘Oh, this is what it is like.’”
It was true. I had been composted like a plant — and I liked it.
Commentary: Sanctuary policies and activists aren’t endangering lives during ICE raids — ICE is
Like with cigarettes, la migra should come with a warning label: Proximity to ICE could be hazardous for your health.
From Los Angeles to Chicago, Portlandand New York, the evidence is ample enough that wherever Trump sends in the immigration agency, people get hurt. And not just protesters and immigrants.
That includes 13 police officers tear-gassed in Chicago earlier this month. And, now, a U.S. marshal.
Which brings us to what happened in South L.A. on Tuesday.
Federal agents boxed in the Toyota Camry of local TikToker Carlitos Ricardo Parias — better known to his hundreds of thousands of followers as Richard LA. As Parias allegedly tried to rev his way out of the trap, an ICE agent opened fire. One bullet hit the 44-year-old Mexican immigrant — and another ricocheted into the hand of a deputy U.S. marshal.
Neither suffered life-threatening injuries, but it’s easy to imagine that things could have easily turned out worse. Such is the chaos that Trump has caused by unleashing shock troops into U.S. cities.
Rather than take responsibility and apologize for an incident that could’ve easily been lethal, Team Trump went into their default spin mode of blaming everyone but themselves.
Homeland Security assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement that the shooting was “the consequences of conduct and rhetoric by sanctuary politicians and activists who urge illegal aliens to resist arrest.”
Acting U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli chimed in on social media soon after: “I urge California public officials to moderate their rhetoric toward federal law enforcement. Encouraging resistance to federal agents can lead to deadly consequences.” Hours later, he called Times reporter James Queally “an absolute joke, not a journalist” because my colleague noted it’s standard practice by most American law enforcement agencies to not shoot at moving vehicles. One reason is that it increases the chance of so-called friendly fire.
Federal authorities accuse Parias of ramming his car into agents’ vehicles after they boxed him in. He is being charged with assault on a federal officer.
Time, and hopefully, evidence, will show what happened — and very important, what led to what happened.
The Trump administration keeps claiming that the public anger against its immigration actions is making the job more dangerous for la migra and their sister agencies. McLaughlin and her boss, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, keep saying there’s been a 1,000% increase in assaults on immigration agents this year like an incantation. Instead of offering concrete figures, they use the supposed stat as a shield against allegations ICE tactics are going too far and as a weapon to excuse the very brutality ICE claims it doesn’t practice.
Well, even if what they say is true, there’s only one side that’s making the job more dangerous for la migra and others during raids:
La migra.
It turns out that if you send in phalanxes of largely masked federal agents to bully and intimidate people in American cities, Americans tend not to take kindly to it.
Who knew?
Gregory Bovino, center, of U.S. Border Patrol, marches with federal agents to the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles on Aug. 14.
(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)
We’re about to enter the sixth month of Trump’s plan to rid the country of undocumented immigrants. Sycophants are bragging that he’s doing the job, but they’re not caring to look at the mess left in its wake that’s becoming more and more perilous for everyone involved. They insist that those who are executing and planning raids are professionals, but professionals don’t make constant pendejos out of themselves.
Professionals don’t bring squadrons to chase after tamale ladies or day laborers, or stage flashy raids of apartments and parks that accomplish little else than footage for propaganda videos. They don’t go into neighborhoods with intimidation on their mind and ready to rough up anyone who gets in their way.
A ProPublica investigation showed that ICE has detained at least 170 U.S. citizens this year, many whom offered proof that they were in this country legally as la migra cuffed them and hauled them off to detention centers.
Professionals don’t lie like there’s a bonus attached to it — but that’s what Trump’s deportation Leviathan keeps doing. In September, McLaughlin put out a news release arguing that the shooting death of 38-year-old Silverio Villegas González in Chicago by an ICE agent was justified because he was dragged a “significant distance” and suffered serious injuries. Yet body cam footage of local police who showed up to the scene captured the two ICE agents involved in the incident describing their injuries as “nothing major.”
Closer to home, a federal jury in Los Angeles last month acquitted an activist of striking a Border Patrol agent after federal public defender Cuauhtémoc Ortega screened footage that contradicted the government’s case and poked holes in the testimony of Border Patrol staff and supervisors. Last week, ICE agents detained Oxnard activist Leonardo Martinez after a collision between their Jeep and his truck. McLaughlin initially blamed the incident on an “agitator group … engaged in recording and verbal harassment,” but footage first published by L.A. Taco showed that la migra trailed Martinez and then crashed into him twice — not the other way around.
Professionals don’t host social media accounts that regularly spew memes that paint the picture of an American homeland where white makes right and everyone else must be eliminated, like the Department of Homeland Security does. A recent post featured medieval knights wearing chain mail and helmets and wielding longswords as they encircle the slogan “The Enemies are at the Gates” above ICE’s job listing website.
The Trump administration has normalized racism and has turned cruelty into a virtue — then its mouthpieces gasp in mock horror when people resist its officially sanctioned jackbootery.
This evil buffoonery comes straight from a president who reacted to the millions of Americans who protested this weekend at No Kings rallies by posting on social media an AI-generated video of him wearing a crown and dropping feces on his critics from a jet fighter. And yet McLaughlin, Noem and other Trump bobbleheads have the gall to question why politicians decry la migra while regular people follow and film them during raids when not shouting obscenities and taunts at them?
As I’ve written before, there’s never a nice way to conduct an immigration raid but there’s always a better way. Or at least a way that’s not dripping with malevolence.
Meanwhile, ICE is currently on a hiring spree thanks to Trump’s Bloated Beastly Bill and and has cut its training program from six months to 48 days, according to The Atlantic. It’s a desperate and potentially reckless recruitment drive.
And if you think rapidly piling more people into a clown car is going to produce less clown-like behavior by ICE on the streets of American cities, boy do I have news for you.
Source link
Judge halts Trump administration cuts to disaster aid for ‘sanctuary’ states
A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily halted a Trump administration plan to reduce disaster relief and anti-terrorism funding for states with so-called sanctuary policies for undocumented immigrants.
U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy granted the temporary restraining order curtailing the cuts at the request of California, 10 other states and the District of Columbia, which argued in a lawsuit Monday that the policy appeared to have illegally cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.
The states said they were first notified of the cuts over the weekend. McElroy made her decision during an emergency hearing on the states’ motion in Rhode Island District Court on Tuesday afternoon.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta cheered the decision as the state’s latest win in pushing back against what he described as a series of unlawful, funding-related power grabs by the Trump administration.
“Over and over, the courts have stopped the Trump Administration’s illegal efforts to tie unrelated grant funding to state policies,” Bonta said. “It’s a little thing called state sovereignty, but given the President’s propensity to violate the Constitution, it’s unsurprising that he’s unfamiliar with it.”
Neither the White House nor the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the funding and notified the states of the cuts, immediately responded to a request for comment Tuesday.
Sanctuary policies are not uniform and the term is imprecise, but it generally refers to policies that bar states and localities — and their local law enforcement agencies — from participating in federal immigration raids or other enforcement initiatives.
The Trump administration and other Republicans have cast such policies as undermining law and order. Democrats and progressives including in California say instead that states and cities have finite public safety resources and that engaging in immigration enforcement serves only to undermine the trust they and their law enforcement agencies need to maintain with the public in order to prevent and solve crime, including in large immigrant communities.
In their lawsuit Monday, the states said the funding being reduced was part of billions in federal dollars annually distributed to the states to “prepare for, protect against, respond to, and recover from catastrophic disasters,” and which administrations of both political parties distributed “evenhandedly” for decades before Trump.
Authorized by Congress after events such as Sept. 11 and Hurricane Katrina, the funding covers the salaries of first responders, testing of state computer networks for cyberattack vulnerabilities, mutual aid compacts between regional partners and emergency responses after disasters, the states said.
Bonta’s office said California was informed over the weekend by Homeland Security officials that it would be receiving $110 million instead of $165 million, a reduction of its budget by about a third. The states’ lawsuit said other blue states saw even more dramatic cuts, with Illinois seeing a 69% reduction and New York receiving a 79% reduction, while red states saw substantial funding increases.
Bonta on Tuesday said the administration’s reshuffling of funds based on state compliance with the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement priorities was illegal and needed to be halted — and restored to previous levels based on risk assessment — in order to keep everyone in the country safe.
“California uses the grant funding at stake in our lawsuit to protect the safety of our communities from acts of terrorism and other disasters — meaning the stakes are quite literally life and death,” he said. “This is not something to play politics with. I’m grateful to the court for seeing the urgency of this dangerous diversion of homeland security funding.”
Homeland Security officials have previously argued that the agency should be able to withhold funding from states that it believes are not upholding or are actively undermining its core mission of defending the nation from threats, including the threat it sees from illegal immigration.
Other judges have also ruled against the administration conditioning disaster and public safety funding on states and localities complying with federal immigration policies.
Joining California in Monday’s lawsuit were Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia.
Source link
DOJ challenges Minnesota’s ‘sanctuary’ policies in court
Sept. 30 (UPI) — The Justice Department on Monday filed a lawsuit against so-called sanctuary policies in Minnesota as the Trump administration tries to have the court compel Democratic-led regions to abide by its immigration policies.
The lawsuit targets the laws of Minnesota, Hennepin County and the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, arguing that not only are they illegal, they effectively shield “criminal offenders” by obstructing federal law enforcement.
“Minnesota officials are jeopardizing the safety of their own citizens by allowing illegal aliens to circumvent the legal process,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement announcing the lawsuit.
“This Department of Justice will continue to bring litigation against any jurisdiction that uses sanctuary policies to defy federal law and undermine law enforcement.”
President Donald Trump, who campaigned on cracking down on immigration, often with the use of incendiary rhetoric and misinformation, has been attempting to conduct mass deportations, and has targeted Democratic-led jurisdictions’ refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities as part of that effort.
In April, he signed an executive order directing Bondi to compile a list of so-called sanctuary jurisdictions for punishment, with a list of 35 regions being made public early last month.
The Justice Department has already filed lawsuits against five states including Minnesota and several cities, including New York City, Los Angeles, Boston and Chicago. However, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit against Illinois, Chicago and other districts in the state in late July, finding the Trump administration “lacked standing” to challenge the laws.
Minnesota is also led by Gov. Tim Walz, a critic of Trump and a rival of the president, having run against him as Kamala Harris’ vice presidential running mate on the Democratic ticket.
The state has been a target of numerous federal actions by the Trump administration, including investigations over its hiring practices. The president declined to call Walz after a man assassinated a state lawmaker and wounded another in mid-June, calling him “whacked out” and “a mess.”
Late last week, Minnesota was one of six states Trump sued to force handover of its voter registration list.
While Walz has yet to make a public statement about the latest lawsuit, Mayor Melvin Carter of Saint Paul said city employees work for those who live there and not Trump.
“We will stand with our immigrant and refugee neighbors no matter how many unconstitutional claims the White House makes,” he said in a statement.
“We’ve proven our resolve in two successful court actions already this year, and we look forward to winning our third legal victory in a row against this embarrassing federal regime.”
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey similarly said they would fight the Trump administration.
“We will not back down. We will fight with every bit of our strength for our immigrant communities. We will stand by our neighbors and we’re going to win in court,” he said in a recorded statement published on X.
“So, let’s just be really clear to everybody: this is not an issue where we will back down. We’re going to win this thing.”
Source link
DOJ sues Boston for sanctuary laws; mayor says city ‘will not yield’
Sept. 5 (UPI) — The U.S. Department of Justice filed suit against the city of Boston, its Mayor Michelle Wu, the Boston Police Department and police commissioner over its so-called sanctuary city laws.
The Justice Department said in a press release Thursday that the practices in the Boston Trust Act, enacted in 2014, “interfere with the federal government’s enforcement of its immigration laws.”
The law allows Boston police to collaborate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement only “on issues of significant public safety, such as human trafficking, child exploitation, drug and weapons trafficking, and cybercrimes, while refraining from involvement in civil immigration enforcement,” the city said.
“The City of Boston and its mayor have been among the worst sanctuary offenders in America — they explicitly enforce policies designed to undermine law enforcement and protect illegal aliens from justice,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “If Boston won’t protect its citizens from illegal alien crime, this Department of Justice will.”
The Department of Justice said Boston’s law allows the “release of dangerous criminals from police custody who would otherwise be subject to removal, including illegal aliens convicted of aggravated assault, burglary, and drug and human trafficking, onto the streets.”
In a statement, Wu vowed to not back down and said the “unconstitutional attack on our city is not a surprise.”
“Boston is a thriving community, the economic and cultural hub of New England, and the safest major city in the country — but this administration is intent on attacking our community to advance their own authoritarian agenda,” she said. “This is our city, and we will vigorously defend our laws and the constitutional rights of cities, which have been repeatedly upheld in courts across the country. We will not yield.”
The Justice Department has filed similar suits against Los Angeles and New York City.
In July, a federal judge dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Illinois, Cook County and Chicago over sanctuary laws.
On Aug. 13, Bondi sent a letter to Wu warning her that officials who obstruct federal immigration could face criminal charges or civil liability.
Wu responded on Aug. 19, citing the Chicago dismissal.
“Courts have consistently held, as recently as last month, that local public safety laws like the Boston Trust Act are valid exercises of local authority and fully consistent with federal law,” she wrote.
In August, a federal judge extended his preliminary injunction that blocks the Trump administration from withholding funds for 34 sanctuary jurisdictions.
Those cities include Boston, Chicago, Denver and Los Angeles.
Bondi in August published a list of “sanctuary jurisdictions,” which she said “impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design.”
Source link
ICE will ‘ramp up’ immigration raids in L.A., other ‘sanctuary cities,’ border advisor says
President Trump’s border advisor told reporters Thursday that federal authorities planned to increase immigration raids in Los Angeles and other so-called “sanctuary cities,” with Chicago likely the next target.
“You’re going to see a ramp up of operations in New York; you’re going to see a ramp up of operations continue in L.A., Portland, Seattle, all these sanctuary cities that refuse to work with ICE,” Tom Homan said.
Since June, Southern California has been ground zero of thousands of immigration arrests as well as legal battles over whether the raids violate the U.S. Constitution.
There is no agreed-upon definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities, but the terms generally describe limited cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Homan did not elaborate on specifics about new raids in L.A.
But talking to reporters Thursday morning, he said Immigration and Customs Enforcement is considering using a naval base north of Chicago as its hub when potential enforcement raids take place in that city.
Tom Homan said, “there’s discussions about that, yes,” when asked by reporters outside the White House.
He didn’t provide an exact timeline for the use.
“The planning is still being discussed,” he said. “So, maybe by the end of today.”
Earlier this week, Trump said Chicago would likely be the next city in which he’ll direct a crackdown on crime and, in particular, illegal immigration.
He recently sent 2,000 National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. after having dispatched soldiers, ICE and border patrol agents to Los Angeles since early June. The Department of Homeland Security said that as of Aug. 8, ICE and Border Patrol agents had arrested 2,792 undocumented immigrants in the Los Angeles area.
“I think Chicago will be… next,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday.
He also called the City of Broad Shoulders a “mess” and that its residents were “screaming for us to come.” Three days after Trump railed about crime in Chicago, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson released a statement, saying overall crime in the city had dropped by 21.6%, year to date, with homicides falling by 32.3%.
Homan would not commit to how many soldiers and agents would be used in any immigration enforcement.
“We’re not going to tell you how many resources we’re going to send to the city,” he said. “We don’t want the bad guys to know what we’re sending.”
He added, “It will be a large contingent.”
Since a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting federal agents from targeting people solely based on their race, language, vocation or location, the number of arrests in Southern California declined in July.
But raids are continuing, with Home Depot stores becoming a common target in recent weeks.
On Aug. 1, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a Trump administration request to lift the restraining order prohibiting roving raids.
Source link
Judge rules Trump can’t deny funds to L.A., other ‘sanctuary’ cities
The Trump administration cannot deny funding to Los Angeles and 30 other cities and counties because of “sanctuary” policies that limit their cooperation with federal immigration agencies, a judge ruled late Friday.
The judge issued a preliminary injunction that expands restrictions the court handed down in April that blocked funding cuts to 16 cities and counties, including San Francisco and Santa Clara, after federal officials classified them as “sanctuary jurisdictions.”
U.S. District Judge William Orrick of the federal court in San Francisco ruled then that Trump’s executive order cutting funding was probably unconstitutional and violated the separation of powers doctrine.
Friday’s order added more than a dozen more jurisdictions to the preliminary injunction, including Los Angeles, Alameda County, Berkeley, Baltimore, Boston and Chicago.
Mayor Karen Bass’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In a statement, a spokesperson for the White House said the Trump administration expected to ultimately win in its effort on appeal.
“The government — at all levels — has the duty to protect American citizens from harm,” Abigail Jackson, a spokesperson for the White House, said in a statement. “Sanctuary cities interfere with federal immigration enforcement at the expense and safety and security of American citizens. We look forward to ultimate vindication on the issue.”
The preliminary injunction is the latest chapter in an ongoing effort by the Trump administration to force “sanctuary cities” to assist and commit local resources to federal immigration enforcement efforts.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice published a list of what it determined to be sanctuary jurisdictions, or local entities that have “policies, laws, or regulations that impede enforcement of federal immigration laws.”
“Sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design,” Atty. Gen. Pamela Bondi said in a statement accompanying the published list.
Several cities and counties across the country have adopted sanctuary city policies, but specifics as to what extent they’re willing — or unwilling — to do for federal immigration officials have varied.
The policies typically do not impede federal officials from conducting immigration enforcement activities, but largely keep local jurisdictions from committing resources to the efforts.
The policies also don’t prevent local agencies from enforcing judicial warrants, which are signed by a judge. Cooperation on “detainers” or holds on jailed suspects issued by federal agencies, along with enforcement of civil immigration matters, is typically limited by sanctuary policies.
Federal officials in the suit have so far referred to “sanctuary” jurisdictions as local governments that don’t honor immigration detainer requests, don’t assist with administrative warrants, don’t share immigration status information, or don’t allow local police to assist in immigration enforcement operations.
Orrick noted that the executive orders threatened to withhold all federal funding if the cities and counties in question did not adhere to the Trump administration’s requests.
In the order, the judge referred to the executive order as a “coercive threat” and said it was unconstitutional.
Orrick, who sits on the bench in the Northern District of California, was appointed by former President Obama.
The Trump administration has been ratcheting up efforts to force local jurisdictions to assist in immigration enforcement. The administration has filed lawsuits against cities and counties, vastly increased street operations and immigration detentions, and deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles as it increased immigration operations.
The U.S. Department of Justice in June sued Los Angeles, and local officials, alleging its sanctuary city law is “illegal.”
The suit alleged that the city was looking to “thwart the will of the American people regarding deportations” by enacting sanctuary city policies.
Source link
Judge extends block of halting funds to sanctuary cities, counties
Aug. 23 (UPI) — A federal judge has extended his preliminary injunction that blocks the Trump administration from withholding funds for 34 sanctuary jurisdictions.
The “sanctuary cities” include Boston, Chicago, Denver and Los Angeles.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick, who serves in San Francisco, wrote in the 15-page ruling issued Friday night that the government offered to reason for the opposition to the preliminary injunction except it was “wrong in the first place.”
The judge, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, also blocked the Trump administration from imposing conditions on grants that are “for a variety of critical needs.”
On April 24, he issued a preliminary order that “the Cities and Counties are likely to succeed on the merits “because they were unconstitutional violations of the separation of powers and spending clause doctrines and violated the Fifth Amendment, Tenth Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act.”
His original injunction listed 16 plaintiffs that were mainly jurisdictions in western states, including San Francisco, Portland and San Diego, but on Aug. 5 expanded it to other cities that include Boston, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles.
On Friday, he wrote that the executive orders by President Donald Trump were “coercive threat (and any actions agencies take to realize that threat, or additional Executive Orders the President issues to the same end) is unconstitutional, so I enjoined its effect. I do so against today for the protection of the new parties in this case.”
On the day Trump became president on Jan. 20, he signed an order that sanctuary cities “do not receive access to Federal funds.” The president a few weeks later ordered that federal funding shouldn’t “facilitate the subsidization or promotion of illegal immigration.”
In May, the Department of Homeland Security publicly listed 500 cities, counties and states that hadn’t adhered to the interpretation of immigration laws. That list has since been removed.
Attorney General Palm Biondi also sent letters to jurisdictions last week, threatening them with legal recourse because they have “undermined” and “obstructed” federal forces.
The White House didn’t respond to inquiries from The Hill and CBS News on the latest judge’s order.
Sanctuary cities don’t assist federal personnel, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, from apprehending those in the country illegally.
In those jurisdictions, law enforcement is limited from sharing information about a person’s immigration status and entering jails or courthouses for arrests or interviews with a warrant signed by a judge.
People are also protected from encounters in public places, including schools and healthcare facilities.
The massive spending bill, which was signed into law on July 4, increased funds for enforcement. ICE’s budget grew from $3.5 billion to $48.5 billion.
Deportation raids have increased in cities run by Democrats.
Several lawsuits have been filed, including one last week by 20 states over the DOJ tying crime victim grants to immigration enforcement.
Source link
Justice Department publishes list of 35 ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions
Aug. 6 (UPI) — The Justice Department has published a list of 35 so-called sanctuary jurisdictions as it plans to sue them amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.
“Sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “The Department of Justice will continue bringing litigation against sanctuary jurisdictions and work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to eradicate these harmful policies around the country.”
The list includes 18 cities, 13 states and four counties.
The Justice Department said: “This list is not exhaustive and will be updated as federal authorities gather further information.”
So-called sanctuary policies are those that limit a jurisdiction’s cooperation between local and state law enforcement with federal immigration officers. Proponents argue such policies promote greater trust and cooperation between the local communities and their police, while opponents say they interfere with federal immigration enforcement and prevent immigration agents from doing their job.
President Donald Trump, who campaigned on conducting mass deportations with incendiary rhetoric and misinformation, has sought to crack down on immigration since returning to office. In late April, he signed an executive order directing Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to compile a list of sanctuary jurisdictions for punishment.
Under the executive order, jurisdictions found to be violating immigration federal law may lose federal funding.
The Trump administration has brought lawsuits challenging the sanctuary policies of Chicago, Ill., New York City, N.Y., Los Angeles, Calif., Denver, Colo., and the states of New York and Colorado.
Last month, a judge threw out the Justice Department’s lawsuit filed against Chicago’s sanctuary policies. At the same time, Louisville, Ky., rescinded its sanctuary policies following threats of being sued by the Trump administration.
Source link
Judge dismisses Trump administration lawsuit against Chicago ‘sanctuary’ laws
CHICAGO — A judge in Illinois dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit Friday that sought to disrupt limits Chicago imposes on cooperation between federal immigration agents and local police.
The lawsuit, filed in February, alleged that so-called sanctuary laws in the nation’s third-largest city “thwart” federal efforts to enforce immigration laws.
It argued that local laws run counter to federal laws by restricting “local governments from sharing immigration information with federal law enforcement officials” and preventing immigration agents from identifying “individuals who may be subject to removal.”
Judge Lindsay Jenkins of the Northern District of Illinois granted the defendants’ motion for dismissal.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson said that he was pleased with the decision and that the city is safer when police focus on the needs of Chicagoans.
“This ruling affirms what we have long known: that Chicago’s Welcoming City Ordinance is lawful and supports public safety. The City cannot be compelled to cooperate with the Trump Administration’s reckless and inhumane immigration agenda,” he said in a statement.
Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, welcomed the ruling, saying in a social media post, “Illinois just beat the Trump Administration in federal court.”
The Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security and did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.
The administration has filed a series of lawsuits targeting state or city policies it sees as interfering with immigration enforcement, including those in Los Angeles, New York City, Denver and Rochester, N.Y. It sued four New Jersey cities in May.
Heavily Democratic Chicago has been a sanctuary city for decades and has beefed up its laws several times, including during President Trump’s first term in 2017.
That same year, then-Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, signed more statewide sanctuary protections into law, putting him at odds with his party.
There is no official definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities. The terms generally describe limits on local cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE enforces U.S. immigration laws nationwide but sometimes seeks state and local help.
Source link
DOJ sues NYC over sanctuary city policies
July 25 (UPI) — The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against New York City, challenging its so-called sanctuary city policies, as the Trump administration continues to crack down on immigration.
The lawsuit was filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York asking it to declare the city’s sanctuary policies in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the constitution, which states that federal laws take precedence over conflicting state laws.
“New York City has released thousands of criminals on the streets to commit violent crimes against law-abiding citizens due to sanctuary city policies, Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.
“If New York City won’t stand up for the safety of its citizens, we will.”
So-called sanctuary cities are those that limit the cooperation of local and state law enforcement with federal immigration officers. The non-profit, nonpartisan American Immigration Council states such policies “promote a greater level of trust and cooperation” between local law enforcement and the communities they police, while opponents say they interfere with federal immigration enforcement and prevent immigration agents from doing their job.
“New York City has long been at the vanguard of interfering with enforcing this country’s immigration laws,” federal prosecutors said in the lawsuit Thursday. “It’s history as a sanctuary city dates back to 1989, and its efforts to thwart federal immigration enforcement have only intensified since.”
New York City Council balked at the lawsuit, calling it a distraction from the fact that “cities with sanctuary laws are safer than those without them.”
“When residents feel comfortable reporting crime and cooperating with local law enforcement, we are all safer, something both Republicans and Democratic mayors of New York City have recognized,” the council said in a statement online.
“It is the Trump administration indiscriminately targeting people at civil court hearings, detaining high school students and separating families that makes our city and nation less safe.”
Sanctuary cities have been a target of Republicans who view them as a hindrance to the rule of law while protecting undocumented migrants, while Democrats see them as protecting immigrant communities and public trust.
There are dozens of sanctuary cities and regions throughout the United States, And President Donald Trump has sought to reduce that number.
On April 28, he signed an executive order threatening federal funding to sanctuary cities and directing the Justice Department and Homeland Security to uncover which policies violate federal law.
The Justice Department has already brought several such lawsuit against so-called sanctuary states and cities, including Los Angeles and the states fo New York, Colorado and Illinois.
Source link
Trump Administration sues Mayor Karen Bass, City Council over sanctuary policy
The U.S. Department of Justice sued the city of Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass and City Council members Monday, calling L.A.’s sanctuary city law “illegal” and asking that it be blocked from being enforced.
The lawsuit, filed in California’s Central District federal court by the Trump Administration, said the country is “facing a crisis of illegal immigration” and that its efforts to address it “are hindered by Sanctuary Cities such as the City of Los Angeles, which refuse to cooperate or share information, even when requested, with federal immigration authorities.”
Over the last month, immigration agents have descended on Southern California, arresting more than 1,600 immigrants and prompting furious protests in downtown Los Angeles, Paramount and other communities. According to the lawsuit, L.A.’s refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities since June 6 has resulted in “lawlessness, rioting, looting, and vandalism.”
“The situation became so dire that the Federal Government deployed the California National Guard and United States Marines to quell the chaos,” the lawsuit states. “A direct confrontation with federal immigration authorities was the inevitable outcome of the Sanctuary City law.”
Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi called the city’s sanctuary policies “the driving cause of the violence, chaos, and attacks on law enforcement that Americans recently witnessed in Los Angeles.”
“Jurisdictions like Los Angeles that flout federal law by prioritizing illegal aliens over American citizens are undermining law enforcement at every level — it ends under President Trump,” Bondi said in a statement Monday.
Bass did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In recent weeks, she has pushed back against the Trump Administration’s portrayal of L.A. as a city enveloped in violence, saying that immigration agents are the ones sowing chaos, terrorizing families and harming the city’s economy.
“To characterize what is going on in our city as a city of mayhem is just an outright lie,” Bass said earlier this month. “I’m not going to call it an untruth. I’m not going to sugarcoat it. I’m going to call it for what it is, which is a lie.”
L.A.’s sanctuary city law was proposed in early 2023, long before Trump’s election, but finalized in the wake of his victory in November.
Under the ordinance, city employees and city property may not be used to “investigate, cite, arrest, hold, transfer or detain any person” for the purpose of immigration enforcement. An exception is made for law enforcement investigating serious offenses.
The ordinance bars city employees from seeking out information about an individual’s citizenship or immigration status unless it is needed to provide a city service. They also must treat data or information that can be used to trace a person’s citizenship or immigration status as confidential.
In the lawsuit, federal prosecutors allege that the city’s ordinance and other policies intentionally discriminate against the federal government by “treating federal immigration authorities differently than other law enforcement agents,” by restricting access to property and to individual detainees, by prohibiting contractors and sub-contractors from providing information, and by “disfavoring federal criminal laws that the City of Los Angeles has decided not to comply with.”
“The Supremacy Clause prohibits the City of Los Angeles and its officials from singling out the Federal Government for adverse treatment—as the challenged law and policies do—thereby discriminating against the Federal Government,” the lawsuit says. “Accordingly, the law and policies challenged here are invalid and should be enjoined.”
Trump’s Department of Justice contends that L.A.’s Sanctuary City ordinance goes much further than similar laws in other jurisdictions, by “seeking to undermine the Federal Government’s immigration enforcement efforts.”
The lawsuit also cites a June 10 meeting in which council members grilled Police Chief Jim McDonnell about his department’s handling of the immigration raids. During that session, Councilmember Imelda Padilla, who represents a heavily Latino district in the San Fernando Valley, asked McDonnell if the LAPD would consider warning warn council members about impending raids.
“Chief McDonnell correctly identified that request for what it was: ‘obstruction of justice,’” the lawsuit states.
The federal filing comes as the city’s elected officials are weighing their own lawsuit against the Trump administration, one aimed at barring immigration agents from violating the constitutional rights of their constituents.
The City Council is scheduled to meet Tuesday to ask City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto to prioritize “immediate legal action” to protect L.A. residents from being racially profiled or unlawfully searched or detained.
Bass has been outspoken about the harm she says the immigration raids have been inflicting on her city, saying they have torn families apart and created a climate of fear at parks, churches, shopping areas and other locations. The city was peaceful, she said, until federal agents began showing up at Home Depots, parking lots and other locations.
“I want to tell him to stop the raids,” she said earlier this month. “I want to tell him that this is a city of immigrants. I want to tell him that if you want to devastate the economy of the city of Los Angeles, then attack the immigrant population.”
Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.
Source link
Sloppiness of Homeland Security’s ‘sanctuary city’ list is the point
The Department of Homeland Security’s “sanctuary jurisdiction list” has more holes than the plot for the latest “Mission Impossible” film.
All you need to know about its accuracy is how my native Orange County fared.
The only O.C. city on the list is Huntington Beach — you know, the ‘burb with an all-Republican council that’s suing California for being a sanctuary state, declared itself a “non-sanctuary” community in January and and plans to place a plaque outside the city’s main library with an acrostic “MAGA” message.
Missing from the list? Santa Ana, long synonymous with undocumented immigrants, which declared itself a sanctuary city all the way back in 2016 and has a deportation defense fund for residents.
More laughable errors: Livingston, the first city in the Central Valley to declare itself a sanctuary for immigrants in 2017, isn’t on the list. Yet Santee in San Diego County, so notorious for its racism that people still call it “Klantee,” is.
There’s even Represa. Ever heard of it? Me, neither. Turns out it’s not a city but the name of the post office for two places not exactly known as sanctuaries: Folsom State Prison and California State Prison, Sacramento.
Within hours of his inauguration, Donald Trump signed an executive order tellingly titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” that, among other things, stated that sanctuary jurisdictions should no longer receive federal funds.
But the May 29 list laying out the jurisdictions that are supposedly subject to the penalty was so flawed that it was taken off the Homeland Security website within days. It’s still not back up. The effort seemed cobbled together by someone who typed “sanctuary” and a city’s name into Google and swallowed whatever the AI spat up without even bothering to cross-check with Wikipedia.
Trump’s opponents are already depicting this fiasco as emblematic of an administration that loves to shoot itself in the foot, then put the bloody foot in its mouth. But it’s even worse than that.
The list shows how blinded by fury the Trump administration is about illegal immigration. There is no mistake too big or too small for Trump to forgive, as long as it’s in the name of deportation and border walls. The president’s obsession with tying all of this country’s real and imagined ills to newcomers reminds me of Cato the Elder, the Roman Republic politician famous for allegedly saying “Carthage must be destroyed” at the end of all his speeches, no matter the topic.
That’s why the pushback by politicians against Homeland Security’s big, beautiful boo-boo has been quick — and hilarious.
Huntington Beach Mayor Pat Burns listens to speakers discuss the city’s plan to make Huntington Beach “a non-sanctuary city for illegal immigration” during a City Council meeting in January
(James Carbone)
Huntington Beach Mayor Pat Burns appeared on KCAL News to declare that Surf City’s inclusion was “pure negligence” while holding a small white bust of Donald Trump the way a toddler clings to its blankey.
Vista Mayor John Franklin, meanwhile, was on the city council that voted in 2018 to support the Trump administration’s unsuccessful lawsuit against California’s sanctuary state law. He told ABC 10News San Diego that he thought Vista made the list because “another city in the county that bears a similar name to ours … may have, and I haven’t confirmed it yet, adopted a sanctuary policy.”
Dude, say the city’s name: Chula Vista, a far cooler, muy Latino town closer to the U.S.-Mexico border than Vista is. It’s also on the list and isn’t a sanctuary city, either.
On the other end of the political spectrum, Rep. Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) told the Voice of OC that he recently advised Santa Ana officials to “keep their head low” and not make a big deal about their sanctuary city status — as if hiding under a desk, like a “Scooby Doo” caper, will somehow save the city from the Trump administration’s haphazard hammer.
Immigration, more than any other part of Trump’s agenda, exemplifies the Silicon Valley cliché of moving fast and breaking things. His administration has deported people by mistake and given the middle finger to judges who order them brought back. Trump officials are now shipping immigrants to countries they have no ties to, and shrugging their shoulders. Immigration agents are trying to apprehend people in places long considered off-limits, like schools and places of worship.
And yet, this still isn’t enough for Trump.
Deportation rates are rising, but still not to the levels seen in some years of the Biden and Obama administrations, and not even close to Operation Wetback, the Eisenhower-era program that deported over a million Mexican nationals. Trump’s deportation dream team — Homeland Security head Kristi Noem, border czar Tom Homan and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller — has berated ICE officials for not doing more to comply with Trump’s wishes.
The sanctuary list embodies all of this. Who cares if the wreckage involves human lives, or the Constitution? The sloppiness is the point. The cruelty is the point.
Homeland Security didn’t answer my request to explain the flaws in its sanctuary jurisdiction list and why it was taken down. Instead, a spokesperson emailed a statement saying “the list is being constantly reviewed and can be changed at any time and will be updated regularly.” The decision whether to include a place, the statement said, “is based on the evaluation of numerous factors.”
Except the truth, it seems.
Let’s laugh at the absurd mistakes while we can. Really, how pendejo can you be to think that Huntington Beach is friendly to undocumented immigrants but Santa Ana isn’t? Let’s laugh while we can, because things are going to get much worse before they get better.
Source link
California pushes back on federal rule challenging sanctuary state law
May 25 (UPI) — Federal officials are considering removing undocumented immigrants in California custody as an attempt to undermine the state’s sanctuary law.
“Operation Guardian Angel” is intended to “neutralize” sanctuary state rules, U.S. Atty. Bill Essaylie, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles explained.
The program employs federal resources at county jails and state prisons — the places where federal officials say the sanctuary law impedes the work of immigration agents to take custody.
“These laws effectively render federal immigration detainers meaningless,” Essaylie said. “While California may be presently disregarding detainers, it cannot ignore federal arrest warrants.”
An immigration detainer allows local law enforcement agencies to detain people for up to 48 hours beyond their scheduled release to allow for a transfer to federal custody.
Despite federal efforts to weaken the sanctuary law, local officials have said they will continue to enforce it and protect immigrants whom “Operation Guardian Angel” targets.
“This is just another scare tactic to get us to follow this authoritarian agenda, but it’s not going to work,” Los Angeles City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez said.
Essaylie’s office identifies people with criminal records who have been deported and charges them with a federal crime if they re-enter the United States.
California officials have said they already cooperate with federal agents with regards to undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes.
Source link
Trump administration sues 4 New Jersey cities over ‘sanctuary’ policies
TRENTON, N.J. — The Trump administration sued four New Jersey cities over their so-called sanctuary city policies aimed at prohibiting police from cooperating with immigration officials, saying the local governments are standing in the way of federal enforcement.
The Justice Department filed the suit Thursday against Newark, Jersey City, Paterson and Hoboken in New Jersey federal court. The lawsuit seeks a judgment against the cities and an injunction to halt them from enacting the so-called sanctuary city policies.
“While states and local governments are free to stand aside as the United States performs this important work, they cannot stand in the way,” the suit says.
It’s the latest case from President Trump’s administration against sanctuary policies. The administration also sued Chicago, Denver, the state of Colorado, and Rochester, N.Y.
There is no official definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities. The terms generally describe limited local cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE enforces U.S. immigration laws nationwide but sometimes seeks state and local help.
Messages seeking comment were left Friday with the affected cities.
Paterson Mayor Andre Sayegh said his city would fight the suit, calling it an “egregious attempt to score political points at Paterson’s expense.”
“We will not be intimidated,” he said in a text message.
Hoboken Mayor Ravi Bhalla said in a statement the city prides itself on its inclusivity.
“The City of Hoboken will vigorously work to defend our rights, have our day in court, and defeat the Trump Administration’s lawlessness. To be clear: we will not back down,” he said.
The mayors of all four cities are Democrats.
New Jersey’s attorney general adopted a statewide Immigrant Trust Directive in 2018, which bars local police from cooperation with federal officials conducting immigration enforcement. The policies adopted by the four cities are similar.
The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court that New Jersey’s statewide policy could stand, but it’s unclear how that court’s order might affect the government’s case against the four cities.
Catalini writes for the Associated Press.
Source link
What it’s like to do an enzyme cedar bath at Osmosis Day Spa Sanctuary
Before our appointment at Osmosis Day Spa Sanctuary, a peaceful retreat off the Bodega Highway in West Sonoma county, a friend and I popped into a nearby gift shop. We told the owner that we were destined to try Osmosis’ storied treatment — a so-called “cedar enzyme bath” — and her eyes widened with excitement.
“You’ll feel like you’re a plant being composted,” she said, adding that the spa’s recycled bath materials lined the path of a neighboring garden.
When we were eventually led into Osmosis’ tidy changing rooms to disrobe, I smelled what she meant before I saw it. A dank, earthy odor hung in the air, as if mounds of fresh pencil shavings had been scattered over a newly excavated farm plot.
FREESTONE, CA — MARCH 29, 2025: A Koi pond at Kyoto-style Meditation Garden. Wellness Editor Alyssa Bereznak in an enzyme cedar bath at the Osmosis Day Spa in Freestone, California on Saturday, March 29, 2025. (Andri Tambunan / For The Times)
It’s the signature scent of a spa whose marquee treatment involves being blanketed up to your neck in a box of steaming compost. Known in Japan as an ion bath, it combines many spa treatments in one: a heated, weighted feeling to relax and soothe the body and a calming aromatherapy to pique the senses. Much like the mud baths of Calistoga, the experience is just as much about a novel brush with natural elements as it is an opportunity for release.
“I like to say that what’s going on in there is a fundamental impulse in biology,” Osmosis owner Michael Stusser said. “All these microorganisms get a chance to talk to each other. They all have infinite wisdom. They all communicate. So there’s this energy going on. There’s a whole flow.”
Share via
Stusser estimates that Osmosis has slung compost onto half a million guests in its 40 years of business. For much of that time, it was the only place in North America where you could consistently book a cedar enzyme bath, currently priced at $155 a person or $127.50 per person for a shared two-person vat. (In May 2023, Tahoe Forest Baths opened in Lake Tahoe and began offering them in partnership with the Japanese company Ohtaka Enzyme Co. Though Santa Monica’s Willow Spa once gave cedar enzyme baths, it has discontinued that service.) Now the creekside 5-acre spa is expanding its offerings, which include sound therapy sessions in zero-gravity loungers, meditation workshops and all-day retreats.
Healdsburg resident Simone Wilson and Wellness Editor Alyssa Bereznak in an enzyme cedar bath at Osmosis Day Spa. The warm, fragrant treatment originated in Japan.
(Andri Tambunan / For The Times)
The smell that permeates Osmosis’ halls is the byproduct of a very intentional process, said Stusser. The enzyme bath concoction is a mix of fragrant Douglas fir and Port Orford cedar (a tree that the native Karok people of northwest California once used to construct sweat lodges) and rice bran, which activates the composting process.
“There’s literally billions of organisms in there feeding on nitrogen and generating heat with their bodies, breaking down carbon,” Stusser said. “That’s what they do.”
The spa’s staff is responsible for keeping the mixture from becoming hygienically dubious both by replacing it and churning it multiple times a day, thus ensuring there’s enough oxygen to keep that activity moving. We observed the process before our personal meeting with the mulch. Our spa attendant for the day, Samundra Sutcliffe, lodged a large pitchfork into the vat shavings and turned it over on top of itself as steam emanated from the pile.
Attendant Samundra Sutcliffe churns the cedar enzyme shavings at Osmosis Day Spa Sanctuary.
(Andri Tambunan / For The Times)
“If it doesn’t get fluffed enough, the material starts to compact and it starts to break down, what’s called anaerobically, which is without oxygen,” said the spa’s general manager, Heather Bishop. “Sometimes we’ll end up with less appealing smells.”
Stusser, 78, has a deep education in biodynamic gardening. He studied Agroecology at University of Santa Cruz under organic gardening and farming pioneer Alan Chadwick, who founded the school’s “French-intensive” garden in 1967. (Stusser went on to film a 1971 documentary, “The Garden,” about the project.) As Stusser got more into the bio-intensive gardening scene, he became enamored with compost.
“I saw the alchemical power of compost to transform not only the soil, but everything that was put into it,” he said. “And I had a secret wish that I never was willing to admit to anyone, which was to be buried in a compost pile.”
Osmosis serves a special enzyme-infused tea before guiding guests to its signature cedar enzyme bath.
(Andri Tambunan / For The Times)
After living on and tending to the land at the Farallones Institute Rural Center (now the Occidental Arts & Ecology Center in Sonoma County), Stusser traveled to Japan in 1981 to become a landscape gardening apprentice. The program, a seven-days-a-week dawn-til-dusk grind, proved to be far too intense, so he quit and went to live in a Zen temple in Obama-shi. There Stusser developed a serious case of sciatica and went on a quest to heal himself. He ended up on the island of Kyushu, where he stumbled upon an enzyme bath center where people of different ages and ailments had come to heal.
“As soon as I saw what was happening, I realized this is actually the same dynamic that exists in compost,” Stusser said. “I said, I’m going to finally get my wish.”
A farmer in southwestern Hokkaido named Noboru Ohtaka came up with the idea for a so-called “ion bath” after stepping on a sawdust enzyme fertilizer he’d developed and noticing it felt pleasant. His company, Ohtaka Enzyme Co. opened its first ion house in Sapporo City in 1964, said company President Seiichi Imai. Seven years later, when the city hosted the Winter Olympics, organizers built enzyme baths for athletes to use in the Olympic village.
“As the facility was continuously featured in newspapers and on television, the concept of the enzyme bath spread across Japan,” Imai shared in an email.
The enzyme bath Stusser tried was consistent with the original practice. It involved undergoing the treatment two times a day for a week, during which he fasted save for an enzyme drink, and received ashiatsu massages (in which a practitioner walks on your back). He said the treatment resolved his sciatica. He also had a spiritual experience.
“I was in the enzyme bath and as part of that experience, like in a millisecond of this vast experience, I saw the whole creation of Osmosis unfold before my mind’s eye in an instant, crystal clear, undeniable, and I knew it was my calling to do this,” he said.
He returned to the U.S. and got to work. On May 21, 1985, he opened Osmosis. At first, he said, it was hard to persuade people to live out the same wish of being composted that he’d held for so many years.
“I could barely give it away in the beginning,” he said. “But once they did it and discovered how much better it made them feel, we have had a lot of people coming for decades.”
As my friend and I sat robe-clad in a tea room staring out at a glass door that opened to a private Zen garden and sipping a hot enzyme herbal tonic with yarrow, red clover and peppermint, I contemplated my imminent encounter with the compost. I’m an avid gardener who has dusted my plants with compost and brewed her own kombucha. But even I felt a trickle of hesitation at being smothered in a bacteria-laden mulch.
Before I could give it a second thought, our attendant, Samundra, led us into a separate room with what looked like an adult sandbox. Two human-sized seats had been carved into the enzyme cedar mix to ensure we had sufficient support as we gazed out onto another private zen garden. We were left alone briefly to settle in and cover ourselves in the mix. When she reentered, she began shoveling it on to both of us until only our heads were visible.
“If you do get too hot, you can always pull out your arms, and I’ll just be coming out to check on you,” she said.
Up close and personal, the musk of the odor dissipated, and I breathed in the grounding spice of the cedar and the energizing citrus notes of the Douglas fir. It felt as though my body was wrapped in a hot compress. I tend to overheat easily in jacuzzis and hot springs but the enzyme bath felt breathable. (I later learned that this is because wood has a lower thermal conductivity than water, and the cedar enzyme mix allows for more aeration.)
As my friend and I began to sweat, Samundra arrived with cold compresses and draped them across our necks. With our arms still buried under the compost, she brought ice-cold waters with straws up to our mouths so we could hydrate — a truly luxurious part of the service.
The allotted 20 minutes went quickly. And when our time was up, she dug us out enough for us to break free. We used special grated mittens to wipe the mixture off of our bodies in the private zen garden, then rinsed off in the shower. My body was warmed from within, my typically tight-and-achy lower back and shoulders, slack and painless. After a trip to a spa I can sometimes feel like I’m on the verge of a nap, but in this case I felt invigorated and present, ready to tour the gardens that awaited outside.
When I later relayed my journey of skepticism to convert to Stusser, he said it was a common one.
“You can’t really explain it to somebody until you’ve done it,” Stusser said. “A lot of people will be very inquisitive on the phone. They go, ‘Well, can you tell me something more about what is it really doing?’ Then they get here and they look at it, and they’re not even sure they want to go in. And then they get in and get a big smile. ‘Oh, this is what it is like.’”
It was true. I had been composted like a plant — and I liked it.
Source link