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was pulled over driving his car by ICE personnel and taken into custody, being told that his legal status in the U.S. was revoked.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).

 

 

The Trump Administration may be aligned with what in effect is a civilian militia-type group, Betar, to identify international students to deport. Timothy Snyder writes how autocratic aspirants use private armies in extra-legal ways to further their cause. Betar might be likened to Proud Boys, an organization it has reportedly praised.

Secretary of State Rubio said that some 300 student visas have or are being cancelled: ““We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visa,” Rubio said, referring to student protesters. “I hope at some point we run out because we have gotten rid of all of them, but we’re looking every day for these lunatics that are tearing things up.”

Cancellations of visas are apace with no visibility except mostly through campus – related media. Stanford, University of Massachusetts / Amherst. Arizona State University and Colorado University have reported revocations, without any notice or explanation to university officials or any other public announcement.

Reports of a pro-Isreal group Betar providing names of persons they wish deported to ICE – here and here are articles published about Betar.

@Clashreport: Zionist organization Betar is compiling lists of foreign students in the U.S. who have supported Hamas or joined anti-Israel protests, aiming for their deportation under Trump’s proposed policies. Betar uses facial recognition and database technology to identify individuals involved in what it calls “antisemitic protests.” The list includes about 30 students from countries like Jordan, Syria, and the UK, attending universities such as Columbia, UCLA, and Carnegie Mellon. Here is an article about how Betar is working to deport students.

Betar itself says it is working towards deporting persons. Here are tweets from @Betar_USA: We told you we have been working on deportations and will continue to do so. Expect naturalized citizens to start being picked up within the month. You heard it here first. Those who support jihad and intifada and originate in terrorist states will be sent back to those lands.

The Anti-Defamation League in February labeled Betar as an extremist group. In its profile of the group it says it “openly embraces Islamophobia and harasses Muslims online and in person. The group has indicated that they would like to work with the Proud Boys, a far-right extremist group with a history of antisemitism and Islamophobia, to “counter Islamic jihadis.”

On April 3, the League, noting a “disturbing pattern,” called for the Administration to show more respect for law in its deportation of students.  In a press release, “[Anti-Defamation League CEO] Jonathan Greenblatt is asking the Trump administration for greater transparency as it pursues further deportations, arguing that standing up for Jewish students does not require trampling on the rights of others.”

Canary Mission is another group which labels people they don’t like as anti-semitic.

Here is a summary of the TPS program’s risks of termination and how Florida has responded.

When the first Trump administration took office, there were over a dozen Temporary Protected Status programs in place. (Go here for a decription of TPS.) The administration almost immediately began to terminate some. These terminations were blocked by courts. However, in 2020 a Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the administration’s decision to terminate for about 300,000 individuals (Ramos v. Nielsen).

The Biden administration canceled the termination and expanded TPS. Towards the end of the Biden administration, there were 864,000 TPS beneficiaries in the United States, from 16 countries. Some 344,000 of them were Venezuelans.  However, another 100,000 Venezuelans were in application for TPS status. (These figures leave out humanitarian parole numbers, which are about 117,000 for Venezuelans. These protections were terminated on Marfh 25.)

On January 28, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem terminated Venezuelan TPS status. Protections were set to end on April 7.  (Here is DHS’s entry in the Federal Register.) This termination and that for Haitians was appealed.

Termination’s impact would be most intensely felt in Florida, which hosts a relative high share of TPS persons, especially Venezuelans.  Immediately after Noem’s public announcement, on January 29,  three Florida representatives  (Diaz-Balart, Giménez and Salazar) released a joint statement in solidarity with the Venezuelan community, emphasizing the need for humane treatment and legal protections for those fleeing the Maduro regime.

On March 31, in National TPS Alliance v. Noem, et al., U.S. District Judge Edward Chen issued a nationwide injunction blocking the termination of Venezuela’s TPS designation. (Go here and here.) The ruling stated that DHS’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, and likely motivated by unconstitutional bias. Protections were extended while litigation continued. Chen ordered the continuation of TPS protections until April 2, 2026.  The extension was applauded by Diaz-Balart, Giménez and Salazar.  On April 3, Chen open up the opportunity for other TPS groups to be protected until litigation is completed. Had termination been in effect, many of the impacted persons would probably have applied for asylum.

Secretary NOEM brought up Tren de Aragua in justifying the termination of TPS for Venezuelans.

Judge Chen wrote in his 78 page decision, “[T]he Secretary’s rationale is entirely lacking in evidentiary support. For example, there is no evidence that Venezuelan TPS holders are members of the TdA gang, have connections to the gang, and/or commit crimes. Venezuelan TPS holders have lower rates of criminality than the general population. Generalization of criminality to the Venezuelan TPS population as a whole is baseless and smacks of racism predicated on generalized false stereotypes….Acting on the basis of a negative group stereotype and generalizing such stereotype to the entire group is the classic example of racism.”

The Palm Beach Post ran profiles of Venezuelan individuals in the Palm Beach area who are TPS persons.  for example, “In Venezuela, Alexandra was a teacher, a graphic designer and a political activist. She said the Venezuelan government targeted her last year due to her involvement with the opposition party and police officers raided home, taking her computer and documents from her desk….Alexandra began working at Chick-fil-A. Six months later, she returned to teaching, working at a daycare from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. In the evening, she attends English classes. On weekends, she takes classes to become a middle school teacher.”

The threat of deportation of TPS persons has caused a high level of anxiety about the threat of ICE arrests independently of TPS.   Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw has said there will no “immigration sweeps” in county.  Bradshaw said at an event with Hispanic community leaders, ”If you’re in your house, in your business, in the field, we’re not going after you. No,no, no, that is not going to happen. Please, please, please tell your neighbors don’t panic about this. I promise you that is not going to happen.”

The ACLU is challenging the constitutionality of the Trump Administration’s application of the Alien Enemies Act. Its submission on April 1 regarding Trump v J.G.G. along with all other submissions is here. Below is a summary of the ACLU’s submission (with help by ChatGPT):

The submission identifies the core legal issue as whether the government can deprive individuals of liberty based solely on their national origin without individual assessment, stating that “such blanket detention policies are constitutionally suspect and legally indefensible under modern principles of due process and equal protection.”

The ACLU critiques the government’s authority to detain non-citizens designated as “alien enemies” under the Alien Enemy Act of 1798. It raises constitutional and legal objections to detention based solely on nationality, arguing that such actions lack individualized suspicion or due process. It compares contemporary use of this authority to historical examples, particularly the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Fifth Amendment: The ACLU argues that the Alien Enemy Act permits detention without trial or individualized determination, which in their view contravenes the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The submission states that this kind of detention “without notice, without a hearing, and without any opportunity to contest the basis for the detention” deprives individuals of liberty in a manner not permitted under the Constitution. “The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from depriving any person of liberty without due process of law—including non-citizens physically present in the United States.” The ACLU emphasizes that due process protections under the Fifth Amendment apply to “persons,” not just citizens, and therefore extend to non-citizens, including those lawfully or unlawfully present in the country.

In summary regarding the 5^th Amendment: (1) the Amendment requires a case-by-case determination before depriving someone of liberty. (2) Non-citizens are protected — Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). (3) Judicial oversight Is constitutionally required. “The Constitution does not permit the executive to circumvent due process simply by labeling individuals as alien enemies.” (4)  “National origin is not a proxy for dangerousness” — detaining individuals based solely on their citizenship in an enemy state is incompatible with the Fifth Amendment’s due process protections.

Mass detention of Japanese during WW 2: The ACLU says the internment of Japanese Americans as a “stark historical warning” about the consequences of using national origin as a proxy for dangerousness. It highlights that entire populations were deprived of liberty not because of individual behavior or evidence, but solely because of their ancestry. “The government relied on ancestry and national origin—not individualized suspicion—as a basis for mass internment.” The legal and factual foundations of the Japanese internment have been formally repudiated. It cites Korematsu v. United States (1944), the Supreme Court case that upheld the internment, and references the Court’s later statement in Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018), that Korematsu was “gravely wrong the day it was decided”. “The same flawed logic that justified Japanese internment—reliance on broad assumptions rather than individual assessments—underpins the Alien Enemy Act’s categorical detention authority.”

G.W. Bush era cases: The submission draws on Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944), in which the Supreme Court held that the government could not detain a concededly loyal citizen, and it references Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), for the proposition that even during wartime, U.S. citizens are entitled to notice and an opportunity to rebut the government’s claims. The ACLU contends that similar procedural protections should apply to non-citizens detained under the Alien Enemy Act.

The submission also cites Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), which affirmed the constitutional right of non-citizens held at Guantanamo Bay to seek habeas corpus relief. It uses that decision to support its argument that courts must retain a role in reviewing the legality of executive detention: “Judicial abdication in times of crisis has historically led to some of the darkest chapters in American civil liberties.”

International treaty: It notes that detention based on nationality alone may violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other human rights norms, stating that “arbitrary detention on the basis of nationality contravenes international standards that the United States has agreed to uphold.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966 and entered into force in 1976. It is one of the foundational documents in international human rights law, alongside the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United States signed the ICCPR in 1977 and ratified it in 1992.

 

A core element in the Trump administration’s attack on immigrants is its intent to deport persons without adequate judicial review. On March 15th, it invoked the rarely used Alien Enemies Act to deport several 100 persons to El Salvadorean prisons. On Monday, the last day of March, the government responded to a demand by the lawyers that their client be returned from El Salvador. Also, the government on Friday, March 28, reached out to the Supreme Court to support its use of the Alien Enemies Act.

Before getting into these two cases, it’s worth noting what the Trump administration is trying to do. It is using deportations as an opening to taking legal action against any kind of person in a way that evades judicial review. The arbitrariness of it is the feature it prizes. It is also trying impose on American politics and law the idea that we are in a state of social chaos amounting to war.

The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia

An El Salvadoran, Abrego Garcia was living in New Jersey with his family and had legal permission to be in the United States. He has an asylum application in process.  The government used a accusation made in 2019 without merit that he was a member of the M-13 gang. He was one of the several hundred persons flown by ICE to El Salvador on March 15. The next day, his wife identified him by his tattoos in a photo taken of prisoners.  A suit in his behalf was brought before Maryland federal district court, Judge Paula Xinis. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers argue that the government is responsible for bringing him back.

On March 31, in a submission to Judge Xinis, the government admitted that although ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador because of an administrative error. It told the judge that the court lack jurisdiction because the person is outside the country. It said that Abrego Garcia’s claims must be brought via habeas corpus, which requires U.S. custody. It also argue that the requested relief, for instance, from the threat of torture—having the U.S. government pressure El Salvador to return Garcia—is speculative and not redressable by the court.

(Here is the Atlantic article. Here is the government’s submission to the court.

The government appeals to the Supreme court over the Alien Enemies Act: ”Irregular warfare.”

On Friday, March 28, the government appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the decision by judge James Boasberg’s United States District Court for the District of Columbia to stay the government’s application of the alien enemies act. Here is a summary of its argument:

The government argues that the district court’s injunction interferes with core presidential powers. It contends that judicial review under the AEA is limited to habeas corpus petitions filed in the detainee’s place of confinement, which the plaintiffs bypassed by pursuing claims under the Administrative Procedure Act  in Washington, D.C. The government insists the President lawfully invoked the AEA after finding that Tren de Aragua, acting with Venezuela’s Maduro regime, had infiltrated the U.S. to wage “irregular warfare.”

The government contends that Tren de Aragua (TdA) has engaged in a broad campaign of criminal violence—including murder, kidnapping, extortion, drug trafficking, and arms violations—both within and beyond U.S. borders. It  describes Tren de Aragua as having “infiltrated” U.S. communities through illegal migration and operates in coordination with Maduro’s Cartel de los Soles, using narcotics to “flood” the U.S. as a weapon. The administration asserts that this convergence of transnational crime and political direction by a foreign government constitutes a modern form of warfare—covert, decentralized, and intended to sow chaos rather than achieve conventional military aims.

Go here for the submission.

 

 

 

Here are four national-scope organizations advocating for the rights of immigrants, including those under threat of deportation. They offer a mix of legal representation, training of attorneys, analysis of government policy and legislative proposals. Some arrange for pro bono assignments by attorneys in other legal fields.

Human Rights First. Founded in 1978, advised on drafting of the 1980 Refugee Act. A major concern is advocating for the asylum program in the United States. Arranges for pro bono representation of asylum candidates. Critiques government policies that affect the asylum program in the United States.

Immigration Legal Resource Center (ILRC).  Founded in 1979. Extensive program of publications and training on immigration law, such as this on the 287(g) program.  Created a “red card” for persons to keep in their pocket in the event of an arrest.

National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC). Arose out of a Chicago community organization, it took its current name and went national in 1995. Facilitates legal representation of immigrants, analyzing government policy, for instance this March 2025 analysis of Congressional budget for immigrant law enforcement.

National Immigration Litigation Alliance (NILA). Focuses on litigation in federal court. Issues advisories. Here is a detailed advisory for attorneys addressing expedited removal cases, published 2/7/25.  NILA has a program to serve as co-counsels in cases in order to coach the attorney bringing the case to federal court.

 

 

Thomas Homan, U.S. Border Czar, March 24. @RealTomHoman

I made a promise at CPAC that I was going to Boston after reading about numerous illegal alien child rapists walking the streets of Boston and Massachusetts. ICE had to find and arrest these illegal alien rapists because Massachusetts and Boston are sanctuaries that refuse to cooperate with ICE. They would rather release these animals back into the community rather than honor ICE detainers or notify ICE when they are scheduled to be released.  Mayor Wu later testified that I was lying. Well, I traveled to Boston last Tuesday, as promised, and we kicked off a five day operation with ICE, FBI, ATF, DEA, US Marshals and DSS. These incredible men and women arrested a total of 370

Illegal aliens in Boston and surrounding areas.  A majority of the 370 being significant criminals. These arrests included 6 foreign fugitives, including four who were wanted for murder or to serve a criminal sentence for murder, along with drug traffickers, child sexual predators and numerous other violent public safety threats.  These officers and agents made the neighborhoods of Boston and Massachusetts much safer.  They risked their own safety by arresting these criminals on the street, rather than a jail. Governor Healy and Mayor Wu should be ashamed of supporting sanctuary policies.  Releasing public safety threats back into the public, rather than working with ICE at the jails, puts the public at great risk. President Trump’s “all of government effort” to arrest and remove the WORST FiRST is making our communities safer every day.  President Trump is a Game Changer who is keeping his promises to the American people. Much more to do, but it will be done!

Stephen Miller, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and United States Homeland Security Advisor. March 29 @stephenM

The fundamental error in how immigration is being discussed in the courts and media is pretending that what happened to us over the last four years is a routine civil enforcement matter. NO. We were invaded and occupied. Entire neighborhoods were conquered. Entire towns were subjugated. Our treasury was in the plundered. Our democracy was torn apart piece by piece. A national referendum was held on whether to surrender to the invasion or repel it. America voted for liberation. If every foreign trespasser gets to have their own federal trial prior to removal then there is no liberation. There is no restoration. The invasion will be made complete. Article 4 Section 4 requires the president to halt any invasion and no district court can override that mandate. For the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The invading armies and foreign trespassers will be expelled. The cartels will be smashed. Liberation will be achieved.

New Orleans Shared Parishes Mobilizing Resistance to ICE Enforcement

Presentation by Dr. Sue Weishar, Parish Volunteer and Chairperson of El Pueblo Mississippi; former Policy and Research Fellow, Jesuit Social Research Institute, Loyola University, New Orleans, LA.  Center for Migration Studies, March 13 2025 (edited transcript).

A shared parish is one that offers liturgies and services in multiple languages and cultural contexts. Nationally, about 30% of U.S. parishes fit this category, often serving both English- and Spanish-speaking communities. Given the recent escalation of deportation efforts, our response has had to evolve rapidly.

Who is Organizing These Efforts? The newly formed social justice committees at these two parishes are leading the initiative. These committees, created within the past year, include both Latino and Anglo parishioners and operate bilingually. The pastors of both parishes are deeply involved and supportive, as they are closely connected with their immigrant parishioners. As the coordinator, I bring experience from teaching ESL at both parishes, allowing me to bridge connections between immigrant and Anglo members.

Why Are We Doing This? Our actions are rooted in faith. As Christians, we believe in the unity of the Body of Christ: when one part suffers, all suffer. The current aggressive enforcement actions are dehumanizing and violate the dignity of our immigrant sisters and brothers. This situation mirrors past injustices, such as child separation at the border, which the American public successfully resisted. We believe that, as citizens of a democracy, we have the power to stop these abuses.

Our Action Plan Our immediate focus is on education, protection, and solidarity. We have conducted “Know Your Rights” workshops in partnership with Loyola Law School, led by Professor Hiroko Kusuda and retired law professor Bill Quigley. These workshops ensure that immigrant parishioners understand their rights, reducing ICE’s ability to exploit fear and misinformation.

Beyond education, we are developing safety and solidarity plans for three key scenarios:

1. ICE Entering the Church During Spanish Mass
   • A protocol has been established involving the priest, ushers, and a parish response team.
   • The priest will act as the spokesperson, instructing the congregation to remain calm and asserting their legal rights.
   • A Solidarity Rapid Response Team, consisting of documented parishioners, will arrive with rosaries, signs, and cell phones to document events and alert the media.
2. ICE Waiting Outside the Church
   • A protocol similar to the above, with an emphasis on safely escorting parishioners to their vehicles.
   • Community members may patrol the surrounding area during Spanish Mass to ensure safety.
   • If ICE presence is detected, the Solidarity Rapid Response Team will gather outside the church peacefully.
3. ICE Conducting Enforcement at Homes or Workplaces
   • A dedicated hotline is being set up for parishioners to report ICE actions.
   • A contracted bilingual operator will verify the caller’s connection to the parish and then activate a response team.
   • The team will arrive to provide prayerful, visible solidarity, notify media outlets, and ensure any legal support needed.

Future Plans Once our safety plans are fully operational, we will shift our focus toward advocacy. This includes:

• Expanding our solidarity networks by inviting Anglo parishioners from other churches to join.
• Helping additional shared parishes develop response plans.
• Exploring legal support options for immediate response to ICE detentions, including securing attorneys and bond funding.
• Engaging with legislators to oppose mass deportations and support humane immigration policies.

Conclusion Inspired by Pope Francis, we are committed to keeping our hearts open, forging bonds of unity, and advocating for justice. Together, through faith and action, we can resist the injustices targeting our immigrant brothers and sisters. Amen.