Working Immigrants

Total DHS, Texas and Federal military: about 30,000. The number of persons crossing the Mexican border between official ports of entry are under 9,000 a month, or about 300 a day. Thus 30,000 staff is deployed to lower this volume and to keep it from rising.  That is, there are 100 military/law enforcement persons per  one person per day crossing the border illegally.

U.S. Army and National Guard: About 10,000. Includes both active-duty Army and National Guard troops serving under federal orders. About 1,500 Army National Guard soldiers from more than 15 states

Texas: about 5,000 Texas Army and Air National Guard. Unknown number of state troopers.

Customs and Border Control: out of a national total of about 20,000 agents,  about 15,000 are on the Mexican border.

On June 6: ICE began to conduct large-scale immigration raids across Los Angeles. Public protests began and spread on June 7.

On June 7: protests turned violent against property, with cars being burnt, and on June 8 highways were blocked before being cleared. Several dozen stores were looted.

On June 7:  Trump issued a memorandum in the evening to federalize the National Guard. The memo did not name specific cities but states that protests “constitute a form of rebellion.” He claimed that violent protests responding to a wave of ICE raids in Los Angeles represented a rebellion against federal authority and posed an ongoing threat to law enforcement officers executing federal immigration laws. He further stated that National Guard deployment was needed to protect both federal agents and federal property from hostile crowds.

He invoked 10 U.S.C. § 12406, ordering at least 2,000 National Guard troops into federal service for 60 days. The order was issued without prior notification to Governor Newsom.  On the night of June 7, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth signed the formal Department of Defense order that same night. The order was addressed to the Adjutant General of the California National Guard “through the Governor,” but Newsom is not informed in advance.

On June 8: 2,000 federally controlled National Guard troops arrive in Los Angeles. The main deployment area was near the Metropolitan Detention Center, the epicenter of ongoing protests. Protests grew to 3,500 people. On June 9, Secretary Hegseth federalized an additional 2,000 National Guard troops, again without consulting the Governor. He also announced the deployment of 700 active-duty U.S. Marines from Camp Pendleton to Los Angeles.

On June 10: LA Mayor Bass imposed an evening and night curfew over a section of the city. The affected area was a one mile square area, including neighborhoods like Chinatown, Little Tokyo, the Fashion District, the Arts District, Skid Row, and the Financial District. As of the night of June 12, about 300 persons were arrested.

On June 12: Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in Newsom v Trump, ruled that President Trump’s decision to federalize the California National Guard was unlawful. The decision in Newsom v. Trump not only halts the deployment of 2,000 Guard members but also challenges the legal foundation of the administration’s crackdown on immigrant communities and protestors in the city.

Judge Charles R. Breyer found justifications for the use of 10 U.S.C. § 12406 legally insufficient. Breyer found that the protests did not constitute an “organized, violent, armed uprising” that could be defined as a rebellion. The judge noted that most protestors were peaceful and that law enforcement, including LAPD and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, consistently reported they had adequate resources and did not request military reinforcement.

As for the administration’s claim that the protests could be construed as rebellion, Breyer warned, “The idea that protesters can so quickly cross the line between protected conduct and ‘rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States’ is untenable and dangerous.”

Breyer also ruled that the administration violated statutory procedure by failing to coordinate with Governor Gavin Newsom before issuing the order to federalize the Guard, as explicitly required under § 12406.  In addition to finding the federalization unlawful, Breyer noted that the deployment appeared to inflame tensions rather than calm them. Evidence presented showed that the Guard’s presence in Los Angeles had aggravated the protestors and triggered larger and more volatile demonstrations.

In granting the restraining order, the court concluded that Governor Newsom and the state of California were likely to prevail on the merits of their claims, which include violations of both statutory authority and the Tenth Amendment. The court ordered that control of the California National Guard be returned immediately to the state.

Later on June 12, a federal appeals court temporarily stayed Judge Breyer’s order.

ICE has expanded its net significantly in the past few weeks, and some Republicans including President Trump (!) are pushing back:

President Trump 6/12/25 on Truth Social: ““Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace.”

Trump in oral remarks 6/12/25: “I put out a statement today about farmers. Our farmers are being hurt badly by…They are very good workers. They’ve worked for 20 years. They’re not citizens but they’ve turned out to be you know great and we’re going to have to do something about that we can’t take farmers and take all their people and send them back because they don’t have maybe what they’re supposed to have maybe not, and you know what’s going to happen and what is happening —  they get rid of some of the people because you know you go into a farm and you look and people don’t they’ve been there for 20-25 years and they’ve worked great and the owner of the farm loves them and everything else and then you’re supposed to throw them out and you know what happens they end up hiring the people the criminals that have come in they’re murderers from prisons and everything else so we’re we’re going to have a an order on that pretty soon we can’t do that to our farmers and leisure to hotels we’re gonna have to use a lot of common sense.”

Trump on Truth Social  613/25: Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace. In many cases the Criminals allowed into our Country by the VERY Stupid Biden Open Borders Policy are applying for those jobs. This is not good. We must protect our Farmers, but get the CRIMINALS OUT OF THE USA. Changes are coming!

Republican Hispanic Caucus letter on 6/11/25 to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) acting Director Todd Lyons: “We strongly agree that convicted criminal aliens—smugglers, murderers, and sex offenders—pose an immediate threat to our homeland security, and we are committed to making sure you have the resources to find, prosecute, and deport them as soon as possible. That said, we are also concerned that your limited resources may be stretched to pursue individuals that do not constitute an immediate threat to public safety,” the members wrote in the letter.

“While we do agree that we are a nation of laws—and that all who crossed our borders illegally are subject to those laws—there are levels of priority that must be considered when it comes to immigration enforcement. Every minute that we spend pursuing an individual with a clean record is a minute less that we dedicate to apprehending terrorists or cartel operatives,” (Go here.)

Home Depot: On Friday June 6 and Saturday June 7 ICE made multiple arrests of workers standing outside Home Depot in Santa Ana, Paramount, Whittier, Huntington Park and other Los Angeles area Home Depot locations.

According to the LA Times, “We saw videos on social media of people being detained really aggressively by what looked to be both masked and armed ICE agents and others that were in full military gear,” said Orange County Supervisor Vincent Sarmiento. The supervisor urged members of the public who might engage in protests to use their “energy positively and peacefully so we don’t change the narrative here and make the victims out to be the villains.” According to Casey Conway of the Orange County Rapid Response Network, immigration enforcement agents were also seen detaining people at a doughnut shop, a warehouse, restaurants, and gyms. The immigration advocacy group operates a hotline and received several calls around 8 a.m. about sweeps. The group sent representatives to several locations to confirm the federal activity, Conway said.”(Go here and here.)

LA area car wash: “Jesús Cruz, who has worked at the car wash for more than a decade and lived in the US for more than 30 years, was among the six men who were arrested over the course of two raids. His wife, Noemi Ciau, told the BBC she was shopping with her daughter when she spotted a social media post about a possible raid. It included a photo of the car wash, so she dropped her daughter at home and raced there. By the time she arrived, however, she was too late. She has not been able to reach her husband since.”You are so used to having a partner there, just to help you out, to be the backbone… now it’s like – how am I going to do it?” she said. “My husband has no criminal background. He’s never gotten a ticket before. We pay our taxes. We’re up to date on everything.” (Go here).

California farms: “Alarm spread through California agricultural centers [on June 10] as panicked workers reported that federal immigration authorities — who had largely refrained from major enforcement action in farming communities in the first months of the Trump administration — were showing up at farm fields and packinghouses from the Central Coast to the San Joaquin Valley. “Today we are seeing an uptick in the chaotic presence of immigration enforcement, particularly the Border Patrol,” said Elizabeth Strater, vice president of the United Farm Workers. “We’re seeing it in multiple areas.” Advocates from numerous immigrant advocacy groups said their phones were lighting up with calls, videos and texts from multiple counties. in Oxnard in Ventura County, organizers responded to multiple calls of federal immigration authorities staging near fields and entering a packinghouse at Boskovich Farms. Hazel Davalos of the group Cause, said there were reports of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents trying to access multiple farms in Oxnard, but that in many cases, they were denied entry. (Go here.)

The apparel industry: “Saraí Ortiz’s father, Jose, worked 18 years for Ambiance Apparel, rising to become a floor manager at the sprawling fast-fashion warehouse in downtown Los Angeles. His tenure ended [June 6], when federal authorities raided the company, arresting Jose Ortiz and more than 40 other immigrant workers as Saraí watched. “You know this is a possibility all your life, but then when it happens, it plays out differently than what you think,” she said Monday, standing in front of the wrought-iron fencing of Ambiance’s parking lot. Ambiance was one of four businesses raided by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Friday, igniting a weekend of civil unrest that has led to the controversial deployment of the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles. It was also the site of the arrest of labor leader David Huerta, who was released Monday on a $50,000 bond. Ortiz was joined at a protest Monday by other families of those detained, making a public plea for help and due process. Many of the wives and children of those taken by ICE — all men — have had little or no contact with their loved ones. Even lawyers have been denied access, they said.” (Go here).

A CBS/YouGov poll on opinions about deportation was conducted between June 4 and June 6. Here are the results. Summary: as long as Trump can maintain the narrative that it is focusing on deporting criminals, it may be able to sustain support by a majority of Americans.  It will likely use the current clashes in Los Angeles as evidence that it is focused on a violent part of the U.S.  The Abrego Garcia criminal case (built essentially on a traffic stop that yielded no proof of smuggling) is part of the effort to sustain the story.

However, to increase the rate of arrests significantly will mean that it will be arresting overtly peaceful persons, in particular men working in hospitality, construction and farming, and at immigration / court venues.  The visible presence of these arrests compromises the narrative.

Deport illegal immigrants: 54% approve, 46% disapprove.  “A lot of this is partisan, and over time, it has become even more so. (Democrats 18% support.) Independents aren’t as supportive of the deportation program as they were a couple of months ago (49% support), leaving the GOP base as she only partisan group with majority backing of the program now. But it has an overwhelming one among Republicans (93% support).”

People who support the goals of deportation (55%) are less supportive of the administration’s approach (44%). 63% say that persons should receive a court hearing before being deported. This suggests that the story being developed of masked teams grabbing people, sending them to detention and presumably flying them out of the country may be softening but not notably eroding support.

Does deportation make U.S. safer: 42% yes, 30% less safe, 27% no change

Who is being deported: 53% dangerous criminals, 47% not dangerous criminals

Trump is trying to deport 49% more people than expected; 41% about what was expected; 10% fewer people than expected.

Impact on economy: making U.S. economy weaker 39%; stronger, 32%;no change, 29%.

More arrests: NBC reports, “Immigration attorneys across the country told NBC News that some of their clients on ATD were asked in a mass text message ICE sent out to show up ahead of schedule for check-ins at ICE offices, only to be arrested when they arrived. An NBC News reporter saw seven people who had come for check-ins at a New York City ICE office Wednesday being led out in cuffs and put into unmarked cars.”

On Friday June 6, according to the LA Times, ” A series of surprise U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement sweeps in downtown Los Angeles on Friday prompted fierce pushback from elected officials and protesters…Chaos erupted in the heart of the Fashion District after federal immigration authorities detained employees inside a clothing wholesaler, and used flash-bang grenades and pepper spray on a crowd protesting the raid around 1:30 p.m.

Larger population in ICE detention: Austin Kocher reports that current ICE detention count has gone over 50,000. Under Biden it averaged roughly 30,000, peaking at 39,000 in 2024.  “This sudden increase reflects the well-documented intensification of interior immigration enforcement across the country as well as the ongoing expansion of immigrant detention centers that started during the Biden administration.”

Administration data shows that almost half due to have a criminal record, and that many that are listed as having one involve traffic violations.  About 90% are housed in private prisons.. The rise in numbers detained is entirely due to actions by ICE, which has doubled the number under detention since January while the number detaine by Customs and Border Control as slightly declined.

287(g) agreements have soared: “Since Trump began his second term in January, ICE has increased 287(g) agreements from 135 in 25 states in December 2024 to 628 in 40 states as of May 28, 2025.” (here.)

Following up on my updated time line on the Abrego Garcia case through June 7:

El Salvadoran Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was legally residing in the United States. He crossed the border illegally in 2011 but received in 2019 a stay of removal due to immigration court finding over his application for asylum, stating likelihood that he would be persecuted by gangs in El Salvador.  An allegation by a police officer in 2019 that Abrego Garcia by virtue of tattoos was a member of the M-13 was not pursued.  He is married, with a child, and lived in the Baltimore area.

On March 12, 2025 he was pulled over driving his car by ICE personnel and taken into custody, being told that his legal status in the U.S. was revoked. On March 15 he was flown with many Venezuelans to El Salvador’s CECO (Terrorism Confinement Center) prison. (A dispute over the legality of this and other March 15 flights is being addressed in D.C. District Court- James Boasberg.)

On March 24 Abrego Garcia’s spouse sued the government in U.S. District Court in Maryland (Judge Paula Xinis) to return Abrego Garcia from El Salvador. (Go here for the March 24 suit and here for The Atlantic article.)

On March 31 The government told Judge Xinis in court that Abrego Garcia’s deportation resulted from an “administrative error,” knowing before his deportation that an immigration court had approved his stay pending an asylum decision.

On April 4 Judge Xinis issued an initial ruling ordering the U.S. government to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return from El Salvador by midnight April 7. She criticized the government’s lack of evidence for its claims and described his deportation as a “grievous error” that violated federal law. “As Defendants acknowledge, they had no legal authority to arrest him, no justification to detain him, and no grounds to send him to El Salvador – let alone deliver him into one of the most dangerous prisons in the Western Hemisphere.” (Go here.)

The Trump administration appealed in the early hours of April 5 Judge Xinis’ order and requested an emergency stay of her decision. Among its arguments, the government said that the court has no power to force the government to retrieve a person in the custody of another country and asserted that Abrego Garcia had a “prominent role” in the M-13 gang. The government was relying solely on the assertion by a police officer in 2019. (Go here.)

Later on April 5 the government removed its attorney, Erez Reuveni, from the case and put him on administrative leave, cutting him off from email contact with the DOJ, criticizing him for displaying doubts about the case and expressing frustration with the failure of the government to respond to his requests for information. (Go here.)

On April 6, Judge Xinis reaffirmed her ruling in a scathing opinion. She rejected the administration’s argument that it lacked jurisdiction or authority to secure Abrego Garcia’s return. She emphasized that his detention in CECOT was “wholly lawless” and “shocks the conscience”. (Go here).

On April 10 the Supreme Court unanimously rules that District Court Judge Xinis can order the government to return Abrego Garcia to the United States. The order requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.  The court ruled that the scope of the term “effectuate” used by Xinis is unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive. The Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.

In 2012, the ICE had issued Policy Directive 11061.1, titled “Facilitating the Return to the United States of Certain Lawfully Removed Aliens.”  The directive does not describe the scope of “facilitating.” It does refer to return travel, which is the basis for the government to say that its obligations for facilitating are only to arrange for return travel..

During April 11 – 14  Judge Xinis amends her order, instructing the administration to “take all available steps to facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return and demands daily updates on their efforts. ​The government stalls, submits de minimis reports, some late, and misrepresents the Supreme Court’s ruling, saying that it has no legal power to acquire another government to return a prisoner under its own control.

On April 14 in a meeting between Presidents Trump and Bukele, Bukele told reporters it was “absurd” to ask if he would return Abrego Garcia. Bukele said, “Are you suggesting I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? How can I return him to the United States, like I smuggle him into the United States? Of course, I’m not going to do it.”

On April 15 Judge Xinis describes and severely criticizes the government’s failure to respond to her and the Supreme Court’s rulings and orders “expedited discovery.” By April 21, the government must respond to up to 15 written questions and provide up to 15 relevant documents. Depositions of four named officials must be completed by April 23. Plaintiffs can request to interview up to two more people if needed. Warning the government, she wrote: “Plaintiffs’ request for expedited discovery focuses on securing compliance with this Court’s amended order at ECF No. 51 and other related directives, and in the face of ongoing refusal to comply, to assist the Court in determining whether contempt proceedings are warranted….Should Defendants fail or refuse to engage in the above-described discovery in good faith, Plaintiffs are free to seek separate sanctions on an expedited basis.”

On April 17, ruling on an appeal by the government to Xinis’ discovery order, Appeals Court Judge Harvie Wilkinson blasts the government: “It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”

On April 18 DHS issues a report saying that Abrego Garcia is a suspected trafficker, based on a incident in 2022: “Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a MS-13 gang member, illegal alien from El Salvador, and suspected human trafficker. The facts reveal he was pulled over with eight individuals in a car on an admitted three-day journey from Texas to Maryland with no luggage…The facts speak for themselves, and they reek of human trafficking. The media’s sympathetic narrative about this criminal illegal gang member has completely fallen apart. We hear far too much about the gang members and criminals’ false sob stories and not enough about their victims.”

On April 24 Border Czar Tom Homan spoke to reporters:  “We are not acting in bad faith. We removed a demonstrable public safety threat, a wife beater, a designated terrorist from the United States. He’s home, a citizen of El Salvador, who had two orders of removal by two separate immigration judges in the past. If he actually gets back, he will be detained again…I don’t think any court can order another nation, a sovereign nation, to take a citizen of its country and return him. I think he’s got plenty of due process (some paraphrased).

On April 24 Judge Xinis, after accusing the government on April 23 of “willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations,” orders a stay until April 30 given confidential discussions between the plaintiffs and the government.

During May: Judge Xinis oversees confidential discussions between plaintiffs and the administration, including discovery. On May 16, she expresses frustration that the administration is dragging out the case.

On May 16 D.C District Judge James E. Boasberg, presiding over the case J.G.G. v. Trump gave the Trump administration one week to identify its efforts to return García, as well as 137 Venezuelan men deported to an El Salvador prison under the wartime Alien Enemies Act.

On May 21 a grand jury at the Nashville Division of the Middle Tennessee Federal District Court indicted Garcia for conspiracy to smuggle persons in the U.S. and conspiracy to smuggle within the U.S. over 1,000 undocumented person, with one hundred separate trips from the southwest (mainly Houston, it appears) to other destinations. The indictment also alleges that Garcia had at least five co-conspirators. Substantially all evidence tying Garcia to smuggling that is held be the prosecution appears to be based on interviews with co-conspirators in American prisons. The indictment mentions no fact directly showing action by Garcia is a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee, which appears to be the reason the case was brought in that state. The Indictment alleges that Garcia is a member of M-13, but does not charge him with any criminal acts associated with M-13. (Go here for the indictment and here for detailed analysis of the case.)

The indictment reportedly led to the resignation of federal prosecutor Ben Schrader, wjo led the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney’s office in Nashville. Schrader reported objected to what he reportedly thought was the political nature of the indictment. (Go here.)

On June 6: Attorney General Pam Bondi announces that Garcia has been returned to the United States from El Salvador and faces criminal charges. She alleges that Garcia was involved in illegal transportation of guns and drugs but no such charges were filed.

On June 7: Garcia appears in court in Nashville.

The Administration is following up on its plans, articulated in this January 20 Executive Order 14161, to deny entry to large groups of persons.

On June 4 the administration announced, “[This] Proclamation fully restricts and limits the entry of nationals from 12 countries found to be deficient with regards to screening and vetting and determined to pose a very high risk to the United States: Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. The Proclamation partially restricts and limits the entry of nationals from 7 countries who also pose a high level of risk to the United States: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.”

In the announcement are explanations why the block is imposed. For instance, here is Sudan’s: “Sudan lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.  According to the Overstay Report, Sudan had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 26.30 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 28.40 percent.”

It’s not clear from the announcement why some countries have “partial” restrictions, nor what partial means. Here is the entry from Venezuela: “Venezuela lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.  Venezuela has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals.  According to the Overstay Report, Venezuela had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 9.83 percent.”

The case of Afghanistan

Here is what the proclamation of June 4 said: “The Taliban, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) group, controls Afghanistan.  Afghanistan lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.  According to the Fiscal Year 2023 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Entry/Exit Overstay Report (“Overstay Report”), Afghanistan had a business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visa overstay rate of 9.70 percent and a student (F), vocational (M), and exchange visitor (J) visa overstay rate of 29.30 percent.”

The problem with this ban is that thousands of Afghans who escape around the time of the withdrawal of American presence are now denied entry. The Executive Order lists exceptions to the total and partial bans. The situation with Afghans is complicated because the administration is also dismantling programs to assist with resettlement.

AfghanEvac has been engaged in assisting Afghans to settle in the U.S. It reports that Executive Order 14169 (issued on January 20 ) cancels crucial financial support for transporting Afghan resettlement. On April 16, the administration cancelled Temporary Protected Status for Afghans in the U.S. under that program.

The June 4 proclamation explicitly exempts from the ban Afghan nationals who have been granted Special Immigrant Visas—typically individuals who supported U.S. military or government operations.  This program continues, with about 40,000 plus Afghan being admitted since the 2021 withdrawal. All other Afghans wishing to enter, regardless of their investment to date in planning, are banned unless they have an active visa.  Here is a checklist of all avenues for Afghan entry into the U.S. and the impact of thr June 4 proclamation.

This is an overview of law applications that I’ve noted before….As Pro Publica notes, “Donald Trump dusts off a long-settled law, reinterprets it and attempts to wield it in unprecedented, far-reaching ways. The courts slam the brakes, saying the president’s creative reimagining is just plain illegal….One problem for Trump, is that courts are increasingly skeptical of Trump’s claims about the supposed emergencies or national-security exigencies that he has claimed as justifications for deploying these seldom-used statutes.”.

A 1798 law to deport persons

Trump’s has invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, last used in the World War II era. The drafters of the law sought to help repel “invasions” or “predatory incursions” perpetrated by rival governments. At the time, a war with France loomed. And for more than two centuries, presidents invoked the law only three times: during the War of 1812 against British subjects, World War I against German immigrants and World War II against nationals of Japan, Germany, Italy and several other countries.

Following the U.S. entry into World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt invoked the Alien Enemies Act to authorize the apprehension, detention, and removal of nationals from enemy countries, including Japan, Germany, and Italy. This led to the internment of thousands of individuals, many of whom were long-term U.S. residents. While the majority of Japanese Americans interned were U.S. citizens detained under Executive Order 9066, the Alien Enemies Act specifically targeted non-citizen nationals of enemy states. The act provided the legal framework for these wartime measures, which have since been widely criticized for violating civil liberties.

During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson invoked the Alien Enemies Act to detain and restrict the movements of nationals from countries with which the U.S. was at war, primarily targeting German and Austro-Hungarian nationals. Many were interned in camps or subjected to surveillance and reporting requirements. The act allowed the government to act swiftly against individuals deemed potential threats due to their nationality, reflecting the heightened suspicion and xenophobia of the era.

On March 14, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Presidential Proclamation 10903, invoking the Act to authorize the apprehension and deportation of Venezuelan nationals aged 14 and older who are members of the criminal organization Tren de Aragua (TdA) and lack U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent residency.

“There is nothing in the AEA that justifies a finding that refugees migrating from Venezuela, or TdA gangsters who infiltrate the migrants, are engaged in an ‘invasion’ or ‘predatory incursion,’” U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled. “They do not seek to occupy territory, to oust American jurisdiction from any territory, or to ravage territory.”

A 1940 registration requirement for immigrants

The Alien Registration Act of 1940, also known as the Smith Act, was enacted before World War II to counter perceived subversive threats. It had two main components: requiring all non-citizen adults in the U.S. to register and be fingerprinted, and criminalizing advocacy of violent overthrow of the government or membership in groups promoting such actions.

During WWII, it supported surveillance of Axis nationals; after the war, it became a tool in prosecuting communists during the Cold War. Notably, in Dennis v. United States (1951), Communist Party leaders were convicted under its provisions. However, later Supreme Court rulings, especially Yates v. United States (1957), limited its scope by protecting abstract political advocacy under the First Amendment. By the 1960s, prosecutions under the Act ceased. While its criminal provisions faded, the registration model resurfaced in later programs like the post-9/11 NSEERS system. The Alien Registration Act was folded into the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Executive Order 14159, titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” was signed by President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025. This order reinstated enforcement of alien registration requirements under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), mandating that all non-citizens aged 14 and older residing in the U.S. for more than 30 days register with the federal government, provide biometric information, and carry proof of registration at all times. Non-compliance could result in civil and criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment.

Pro Publica reports that a magistrate judge in Louisiana dismissed the first charges brought under this reinstated registration requirement. The judge ruled that prosecutors failed to demonstrate that the five defendants were even aware of the registration obligation, noting that the requirement had been “essentially defunct and abandoned for the past 70 years.” The Trump administration is appealing the decision to a district court judge.

Revoking student visas

Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), enacted in 1990, permits the deportation of noncitizens if the Secretary of State determines that their presence or activities in the U.S. could have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.”

This clause has been rarely used. A 1996 case, Massieu v. Reno, challenged its constitutionality, with a district court finding it vague and granting excessive discretion to the executive branch. However, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed this decision on procedural grounds without addressing the constitutional issues. Prior to the current administration, the provision had been applied only 15 times (per Wikipedia).

The provision has been used nearly always in cases that involved serious allegations of terrorism or subversive activities in the targets’ home countries. Secretary of State Rubio has deployed the provision to target campus activists who participated in anti-Israel protests. Rubio’s letter revoking green cards or visas for Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, Rumeysa Ozturk and other people studying in the United States indicated that their conduct had been legal but that their continued presence and activities in the United States nevertheless “would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.”