Connect with us

News

The Long Goodbye: A California Couple Self-Deports to Mexico

Published

on

The Long Goodbye: A California Couple Self-Deports to Mexico

Enrique Castillejos and his wife stopped at a Winchell’s Donut House. It was part of their after-church routine on Friday nights.

That evening’s sermon had been about finding peace in God in turbulent times, and they felt it spoke directly to them. Enrique, 63, and his wife, Maria Elena Hernandez, 55, were undocumented immigrants. Like millions of others in Southern California, they had been looking over their shoulders as federal agents conducted immigration sweeps.

Advertisement

Freedom, they felt, had become impossible in the land of the free. They had made a decision: Leave America and move back to Mexico.

The process has the sterile, bureaucratic name of self-deportation. For Enrique and Maria Elena, it resembled a long, slow-motion goodbye. It took an emotional, spiritual and logistical toll on everyone around them, including their three children and two grandchildren. They had to decide what to do with their old, beloved dog and their trucking business. They had to suddenly cut ties with their church and their neighbors. Visitors bearing gifts dropped by unannounced.

Advertisement

Maria Elena had suggested to Enrique that he leave for Mexico first, while she waited for her broken foot to heal. “No,” she recalled Enrique telling her. “Together we came and together we go.”

Their decision to go came long before the Trump administration’s crackdown in Minneapolis, and long before federal operations intensified in their own San Bernardino County neighborhood. Returning to Mexico had always been in the cards. But they had wanted to go on their own terms, retiring there someday. The Trump administration’s crackdown had prompted them to make that “someday” now.

The couple’s departure hit the family hard. They watch the news now with conflicting emotions, as Enrique and Maria Elena start their lives over in Mexico and their adult children struggle to carry on without them. None of the couple’s friends or relatives tried to change their minds, and there were few heated debates over the decision. In their community, the federal immigration raids made such an extreme move seem entirely reasonable.

Advertisement

“It’s a mixture of all those feelings — being grateful for knowing that they’re safe, and at the same time, hating that this is the way it has to be,” said Lizbeth Castillejos, 29, the couple’s oldest daughter.

Back at the coffee shop, Maria Elena and Enrique could feel the clock tick. It was Aug. 8. They had just two weeks left. Their nearly 30 years in the United States were coming to an end.

Advertisement

“Ya casi,” Enrique told her: Almost time.

Maria Elena set down her coffee cup. “Ya casi,” she repeated.

Advertisement

Maria Elena had to squeeze her belongings into just a few suitcases. She insisted on taking a little piece of home with her: her curtains.

Some were thin and delicate, others thick to dampen sound. Gold, red, green — a color for every season. They had rented the house in Bloomington, an unincorporated community some 50 miles east of Los Angeles, for more than 10 years. It was semirural, with dirt sidewalks and residents on horseback. Outside, Enrique kept chickens in the backyard. Inside, Maria Elena had her curtains.

To make room in the luggage for them, Maria Elena took out all the socks. Her younger daughter, Helen, 23, a schoolteacher, told her not to worry because they could get new things in Mexico.

Advertisement

Eventually, Maria Elena gave up. Leaving America meant leaving her curtains, too.

It was lunchtime. Maria Elena and Enrique had just sat down at the kitchen table, plates of bistec, white rice, black beans and diced cactus spread out before them.

Advertisement

There was a sudden pounding at the door. For a moment, the conversation grew quiet.

For months, masked immigration agents had seemed to appear everywhere in Southern California, and fear gripped entire communities. Except for doctor’s appointments for her broken foot and strategically timed trips to the market, Maria Elena had stopped leaving the house.

Advertisement

One day, Enrique had called his daughter Lizbeth, who works for a local immigrant rights group. A white sedan was tailing him. He thought it might be ICE.

Nothing had come of it, but it was another sign that life as they knew it in the United States was over.

They were afraid of being picked up by agents, not so much because of the threat of deportation but because of the uncertainty of detention. One goal of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign is to effectively scare people into self-deporting while dangling financial incentives to leave. Enrique and Maria Elena had decided not to accept the administration’s offer of $1,000 and a flight home to migrants who deport themselves because they did not trust the government to honor the arrangement.

Advertisement

Ultimately, there had been no dramatic incident that spurred their departure; they had simply grown weary, day after day, of watching their world shrink to fit only the bounds of their home.

“He said he would go after criminals, and we don’t consider ourselves criminals,” Maria Elena said of the president, adding, “We consider ourselves working people. It turns out, for him, we’re all criminals.”

Advertisement

Although they were living in America illegally, the couple saw no contradiction in that: Undocumented immigrants were part of the fabric of everyday life in Southern California. Over time, it didn’t seem especially risky.

Still, they expressed regret that they had never obtained legal status. In 2006, Maria Elena and her children had joined protests in Los Angeles demanding amnesty for undocumented immigrants. The family had also discussed another pathway: If one of their children joined the military, Maria Elena and Enrique could get the right to stay. Each of their three children had seriously considered signing up when they turned 18. But the couple never wanted their children to set aside their dreams and careers for their parents.

Were immigration agents now at the front door? Responding to the pounding, Enrique and Maria Elena’s son, Joaquin, 26, bolted to open it. It was their close friend, Kiké, dropping by to say hello.

Advertisement

Everyone was anxious about Rex, the family’s scruffy 14-year-old dog. Maria Elena and Enrique had decided to put Rex down before they left. He was ailing, could hardly walk and was in constant pain.

Rex had seen Joaquin and Helen grow from children to adults. One day, when Joaquin was away in college, he learned his parents were giving the dog to a family friend because Rex had been killing chickens in the backyard. Joaquin raced home. He took Rex in himself.

Advertisement

This time, Joaquin was not stepping in to save him. Everyone had agreed that Rex was suffering. Still, saying goodbye to the dog was like saying goodbye to a member of the family. Rex was a “constant,” as Helen put it, and those constants were ending as the family prepared for self-deportation.

“It needs to be done soon,” Helen told her dad over dinner as they discussed when to put down Rex. But she didn’t want it done this soon.

Advertisement

“Right now, there’s too much loss,” she added. “I can’t do both.”

A nervous Enrique stood at the front of the church and clutched the microphone. He was telling the congregation, with Maria Elena standing at his side, that they were leaving for Mexico.

Advertisement

To Enrique, it wasn’t so much the president’s will, but God’s.

He saw self-deportation as an opportunity to spread the word of God to his family back in his hometown of Mapastepec, near the plot of land in rural Chiapas where they had decided to move. He found comfort in Psalms 37, which says that God does not forsake those who believe.

Every Sunday, Enrique carried a composition book with notes on Scripture and a Bible with his name scrawled on the side. Maria Elena brought a tambourine for the hymns. And in the house, Enrique led prayers before meals.

Advertisement

For Maria Elena, leaving the United States was a way for her to come clean with God. For years, the couple said, Enrique had been using another person’s identity — a common but illegal way for undocumented immigrants to get the paperwork they need to work in the country. They said that not long after arriving in the United States, a friend had helped Enrique use the identity of a Honduran who had work authorization. Last year, the Trump administration moved to end that type of work authorization, making it harder for Enrique to keep using that identity.

Guilt weighed on Maria Elena. “We got tired of living in a lie,” she said, adding, “We have to be good before God. You can’t be a child of God and lie with two names.”

Advertisement

She already had a name for the plot of farmland awaiting them in their native Chiapas: Rancho La Promesa de Dios. God’s Promise Ranch.

At the church, a long line formed before them. For half an hour, one by one, congregants gave them tearful hugs.

Advertisement

Michael, 2, bounced around the living room, his brightly colored toys scattered all over the tiled floor. Olivia, 4, was fixated on a cartoon on the television.

Maria Elena was on grandmother duty.

Grandma and Grandpa’s house was where the little ones learned Spanish, and where Enrique cut up fruit to feed them one piece at a time. It was days like these that the grandparents cherished. It was days like these that made Maria Elena cry.

Advertisement

“It’s only when I look at my grandchildren and say to myself, ‘Who is going to take care of them?’”

Enrique grabbed his belongings from the old turquoise Toyota. His longtime friend who had dropped by to say hello that one day, Kiké, was there to pick it up. For Enrique, it meant the old clunker was one less thing he had to get rid of.

Advertisement

Kiké and Enrique had much in common, including their names. Kiké is short for Enrique. The two men are from the same town in Mexico, and they ended up here in the same place in America.

Kiké was sad to see them go, but he, too, was contemplating leaving because of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

Advertisement

“A lot of fellow paisans are wanting to leave,” he said. “It doesn’t look like this thing is going to get resolved. It’s going from bad to worse.”

Each sibling took turns on the mic.

Advertisement

It was Enrique and Maria Elena’s farewell party, at a nearby property. Earlier that day, the family had said goodbye to Rex before putting him down. At the party, a mariachi belted out Christian ballads. Butterflies — a symbol of migration — decorated a towering fruit spread.

Joaquin said he would miss the little things, like stopping by on his lunch break for his mom’s beans.

Helen, the youngest, talked about how there was always mom and dad. When her older siblings had moved out, she had remained. Now, for the first time, the unit of three — Helen, Maria Elena and Enrique — would be apart.

Advertisement

Lizbeth tried to focus on the positive.

She said this was a fresh chapter. Their parents’ legacy in America would live on. Three college-educated children with dignified careers. And two grandchildren, one old enough to express her wish to spend every summer in Chiapas.

Advertisement

On the party invitation cards Lizbeth had sent out weeks earlier, there was nothing that suggested the gravity of self-deportation. The occasion was simply titled “New Beginnings.”

It was Aug. 24. Sixteen days had passed since that stop at the donut shop after church.

Advertisement

At the house in Bloomington, after instant coffee and pan dulce, the family huddled in the living room and bowed their heads. This was the day Maria Elena and Enrique were self-deporting.

“This morning, our father, we’re grateful to you because you have kept us here in this land, in this country for 29 years,” Enrique said. “And we thank you because you never abandoned us.”

Then they squeezed into the van and set course for the two-hour trip to the border crossing in San Diego.

Advertisement

In the blink of an eye, as they crossed into Mexico, 29 years reset to zero. This was the couple’s first time returning to Mexico together. It was their home country, but a sense of wonder seemed to overtake Maria Elena and Enrique. They had entered the United States nearly three decades ago, crossing that same border on foot. They had initially intended to stay for a few years, save up money and return to Mexico, but after they had children, their plans changed.

“Saliendo del sueño Americano y ahora entramos al sueño Mexicano,” Maria Elena told her family in the van: Leaving the American dream and now entering the Mexican dream.

Advertisement

A bright day greeted them in Tijuana as they strolled through downtown. Maria Elena ambled around on a scooter for her broken foot, feeling out of place. Joaquin put his arms around her, trying to cheer her up. They planned to stay at a relative’s house until their flight to Chiapas.

In the months to come, Maria Elena and Enrique would try to adjust to life in Mexico. They would stay with relatives, and make slow progress fixing up a small dwelling on their plot of land. They would find themselves at times overwhelmed and homesick.

Advertisement

But before all of that, on this first bright day in Tijuana, Enrique pulled out his Mexican I.D. and smiled. It might have felt like any other family trip. The political forces and fears that had forced them to leave went unspoken.

After the siblings had dropped off their parents in Mexico and headed back home in the van, they felt a sense of optimism as they waited in the long line at the port of entry. Vendors selling churros, chips and religious ornaments paced between cars.

Advertisement

Joaquin lamented that there was no time for a final Dodgers game with his dad or a family trip to the beach.

Lizbeth assured him there would plenty of memories for them to make in Chiapas.

Helen, the schoolteacher, was anxious to get home and prepare her lesson plan for the week. She read aloud a list her mom had given her. It had all of the things she had forgotten to pack but wanted from home the next time she saw them.

Advertisement

“No. 1,” Helen read aloud in the van, “look for my earrings.”

Hours had passed when a customs agent finally waved them into the United States. Soon, everyone except the driver slipped into a slumber, and the road home was quiet.

Advertisement

They slowly woke up as the car rolled up to the house in Bloomington.

Olivia, 4, realized she was at Grandma and Grandpa’s house. Then, it dawned on her. Grandma and Grandpa were not there. She cried out for them.

Advertisement

The siblings embraced in the middle of the driveway. Their parents had once described what it felt like to leave life behind in America. They said it felt like a kind of death.

Lizbeth, surrounded that night with her loved ones on the driveway of her parents’ empty house, felt the same way, too. She called it grief.

News

Supreme Court financial disclosures reveal how their books add to their income

Published

on

Supreme Court financial disclosures reveal how their books add to their income

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett speaks at the Reagan Library on Sept. 9, 2025, in Simi Valley, Calif. Barrett discussed and signed copies of her new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution.

Mario Tama/Getty Images


hide caption



toggle caption

Advertisement

Mario Tama/Getty Images

Even as the Supreme Court was handing down one legal thunderbolt after another last week, the justices were quietly releasing their annual financial reports. Justice Samuel Alito was the only sitting justice to request an extension, which he has done for 15 years. The disclosures do not give a complete account of the justices’ total income and wealth, but they give insights into their concertgoing, guest professorships and even their involvement in youth sports.

In addition to their salaries, much of the justices’ reported income came from their book deals. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson led the pack earning more than $1.1 million last year for a total of roughly $4 million since her memoir, Lovely One, was published in 2024.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and retired Justice Anthony Kennedy also reported income from published books. Earnings from their books ranged from $849,000 for Barrett, to $300,000 for Gorsuch and $88,000 for Sotomayor, whose books include her 2013 autobiography and five children’s books. Justice Clarence Thomas, who previously earned $1.5 million for his 2007 memoir, listed no publisher payments last year, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of 13 co-authors of a 2016 legal treatise, also received no payments last year. Kavanaugh is said to be working on a memoir but he listed no payments for the anticipated book. Alito does have a book coming out in the fall, but with his financial report still outstanding, there is no data on how much he was paid for the work in 2025.

Advertisement

The only two sitting justices who have not written books are Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan.

Many justices also earned income from teaching at law schools. Roberts reported income from New England Law, located in Boston, and Gorsuch reported teaching income from George Mason University in Virginia. Thomas taught classes at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., and Barrett and Kavanaugh taught at Notre Dame Law School. Barrett graduated from the school and began teaching there 23 years ago; Kavanaugh has family connections to Notre Dame.

Continue Reading

News

Manhattan Building’s Columns Buckled Beneath New Addition, Images Show

Published

on

Manhattan Building’s Columns Buckled Beneath New Addition, Images Show

At least two structural columns buckled and failed in a 37-story office tower in Midtown Manhattan on Tuesday, prompting evacuations of nearby streets and buildings. While city officials asserted that the tower was in no danger of collapsing completely, outside engineers said further failures in the structure could not be ruled out.

A pair of columns that failed completely were part of the tower’s existing structure. A New York Times review of images and videos from inside the building has found that several floors were added atop these columns.

Advertisement

City officials said in a news conference on Tuesday that the building was continuing to move, while they simultaneously assured the city that the building would not suffer “total collapse.” “The way this building is constructed, it’s a steel-frame building,” John Esposito, a chief in the Fire Department in New York, said at the afternoon news conference. “So, it would not be a total collapse. It would be more of a localized collapse.” Still, he said, “that remains our concern, that it’s moved.”

Advertisement

Engineers said that the movement itself was cause for concern. In a properly designed steel building, they said, loads should redistribute quickly to surviving structural supports if columns failed.

Joe DiPompeo, a former president of the Structural Engineering Institute at the American Society of Civil Engineers, said that if the structure had been overloaded, he would expect any movement “to happen very quickly,” rather than gradually.

“Generally when a column buckles, it’s a sudden failure,” Mr. DiPompeo said. He said that a full collapse remained unlikely given the redundancies built into the building codes.

Advertisement

Engineers often refer to the most dangerous possibility as a progressive collapse, a process in which structures near the initial failure become overstressed and also fail, potentially bringing down the building if the sequence continues. While unlikely, it cannot be ruled out, Mr. DiPompeo said.

Footage recorded from inside the building shows at least two structural columns appear to have failed completely, Mr. DiPompeo said. Other nonstructural, interior walls — or at least the metal “studs” that were in place to hold them up — also appear to have deformed.

Advertisement

“The only way that really happens is if the floor above them dropped. It looks like the floor above could have dropped a foot or two, which is obviously not a good situation,” Mr. DiPompeo said.

@fernando40tiktok.commarc via Storyful

Advertisement

Advertisement

Image from @fernando40tiktok.commarc via Storyful

Advertisement

Image from @Bogs4NY via X

Advertisement

The 37-story building is in the process of being converted from office space into residential units. Four new floors and a large vertical portion were added onto the existing building in recent months. The vertical portion consists of a stack of over a dozen new floors cantilevered out over the existing building below.

Engineers said that there was nothing inherently wrong with adding residential floors or the cantilevered section above the columns that failed, as long as the original structure and the modifications had properly accounted for the added weight and wind loads.

“The cantilever alone doesn’t change anything,” Mr. DiPompeo said, but it does put additional load on the columns underneath — a factor that should have been reflected in the design.

Advertisement

Nathan Berman, managing principal and founder of MetroLoft, the developer overseeing the conversion, said on Tuesday that “this incident is nothing more than a typical construction mishap.”

He said two columns near the northwest corner of the tower had bent under the weight of additions to the building above, most likely because those columns had not been properly reinforced, though he said an investigation would determine the cause. The rest of the columns, he said, “picked up the weight.” He estimated the affected floors above the failed columns had sagged by a maximum of four inches.

Advertisement

Mr. Berman said that he expected the problems to be fixed and the project to be completed with, at most, a slight delay.

On Tuesday evening, installation of temporary shoring was set to begin shortly, in order to help stabilize the 20th and 21st floors of the building.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

DOJ warns of criminal charges for state election officials if noncitizens vote

Published

on

DOJ warns of criminal charges for state election officials if noncitizens vote

The Justice Department sent letters warning election officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia that they could face criminal prosecution over noncitizen voting, a spokesperson for the Justice Department confirmed Tuesday.

The letters, signed by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who heads up the department’s Civil Rights Division, give states five days to explain how they will comply with federal voter eligibility laws and how they will maintain “clean voter lists.”

Advertisement

“The Department sent these letters to all 50 states and the District of Columbia, asking for voluntary compliance in a timely manner with their obligations under federal law to ensure only citizens vote in federal elections,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement.

Noncitizen voting in federal elections is extremely rare, but Trump and his administration have falsely portrayed it as a widespread issue.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar and Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson are among those who said they received the letters from the Justice Department.

The letters say state election officers “could be criminally prosecuted for aiding and abetting” noncitizen voting. They further specify that any election officer who knowingly retains noncitizens on a statewide voting registration list or who facilitates noncitizens’ receiving and casting ballots could be subject to criminal liability.

“An intentional act that is aimed at diluting the votes of citizens could also constitute a violation” of federal law, the letters said.

Advertisement

Henderson wrote on social media that the threats constitute “truly bizarre behavior.”

“Got another love letter this morning from the DOJ sprinkled throughout with threats of criminal prosecution,” she wrote. “I’m sure I’m not the only chief election officer of a state who is being targeted for following state and federal laws by resisting DOJ’s demands for private voter data that have thus far been ruled illegal by at least a dozen courts.”

The letters are the latest move in the Justice Department’s campaign to assert more federal control over state elections.

While some states have complied with the administration’s demands that they hand over voter roll data, the Justice Department has sued 30 states and Washington, D.C., for resisting. So far, 11 different federal courts have dismissed the Justice Department’s efforts to seize voter rolls.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending