Connect with us

Politics

Are ICE agent checks on migrant children to protect them or deport them?

Published

on

Are ICE agent checks on migrant children to protect them or deport them?

When immigration agents recently began conducting welfare checks on youths who had arrived at the border unaccompanied by their parents, advocates grew alarmed, fearing the tactic was a cover to target the minors, their adult sponsors and possibly others for deportations.

Stories of these unannounced visits popped up around the country — agents who attempted to gain access to two elementary schools in Los Angeles; agents who showed up “five deep and armed” at the home of an immigration lawyer’s 19-year-old client in Virginia; agents who interviewed a terrified 16-year-old Honduran girl at her uncle’s house in Washington state.

Department of Homeland Security officials have said the welfare checks are part of an ongoing effort to ensure that unaccompanied children “are safe and not being exploited, abused, and sex trafficked.”

Immigrant advocates say some visits have led to children being forced to leave the country with their deported parents or being removed from their sponsors and placed in federal custody.

Advertisement

Advocates point to the case of a 17-year-old Honduran in Hawaii whose older brother had been detained by federal agents. The boy was transported to a facility for unaccompanied youths in California.

“This is just par for the course for an administration that has staked their claim on making life so incredibly difficult for immigrants at large that they think people will leave and not come to the U.S.,” said Jen Smyers, former chief of staff under the Biden administration for the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is responsible for the care of unaccompanied children.

Fear of the welfare checks “drives people underground, increases exploitation and trafficking,” Smyers said. “And they’re doing it with this perverse narrative by saying that they care about kids. But all they’re doing is wrecking these kids’ lives.”

Those under review by the Trump administration are among the roughly 450,000 children who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border without their parents and were released to sponsors during President Biden’s term.

Children who arrive unaccompanied by a parent are placed in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is under the Department of Health and Human Services. The department is required to screen adult sponsors who volunteer to care for the children, usually their parents or other relatives.

Advertisement

Shortly after President Trump took office, his administration formulated a multi-agency plan to track down unaccompanied children, investigate whether they are being subjected to human trafficking and deport those who are removable. An internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo, obtained by The Times, details the four-phase operation.

The memo indicates that agents should prioritize youths who didn’t show up for an immigration hearing, those whom the government has not been able to contact since they were released to sponsors, those who are considered a threat to public safety and those with deportation orders.

The agency is also looking closely at youths released from federal custody to sponsors who are not blood relatives, including so-called super sponsors who have taken in more than three unaccompanied children.

The sponsorship program has been beset by problems in recent years. The federal government has failed to properly vet some sponsors, according to a federal watchdog report from last year. Thousands of children rapidly released from government shelters were later exploited by major companies.

Last month, a federal grand jury indicted a man on allegations that he lured a 14-year-old girl from Guatemala to the U.S. and falsely claimed she was his sister to gain custody as her sponsor.

Advertisement

About 100 children have been removed from their sponsors this year and returned to federal custody, the Associated Press reported, and 450 cases with complaints have been referred to federal law enforcement.

The review of sponsorships under the Trump administration is being led by two branches of ICE: Enforcement and Removal Operations, or ERO, and Homeland Security Investigations, or HSI.

Along with combating human trafficking, the effort aims to identify possible candidates for deportation. Referring to unaccompanied children as “UAC,” the memo states: “ERO officers should remember they are to enforce final orders of removal, where possible, and HSI will pursue criminal options for UAC who have committed crimes.”

The Homeland Security and Health and Human Services departments did not respond to a request for comment.

Over the last two months, immigration attorneys say, agents have attempted to intimidate minors.

Advertisement

In one instance in California, underage clients answered the door to find agents in casual wear asking about their mother and whether they had a job. Another family reported to their attorney that HSI agents arrived while the minor was at school, yet the agents returned four times in one day looking for the student.

The tactic puts in jeopardy sponsors who lack legal authorization to be in the country or live in mixed-status households, said Karina Ramos, a managing attorney at the Los Angeles-based Immigrant Defenders Law Center.

“It’s definitely going to have a chilling effect on a sponsor, if they know there are going to be immigration officers questioning their status,” she said.

The case of the teenager in Hawaii began April 9 when his older brother was arrested on suspicion of misdemeanor illegal entry, according to someone with knowledge of the case.

The teen had entered the country unaccompanied and was previously in federal custody in Texas. He was released to his older brother’s care in 2023. According to the person with knowledge of the case, when the teen was apprehended last month, agents considered whether they could deport him along with his brother.

Advertisement

After his older brother was apprehended, the 17-year-old was placed in a facility for unaccompanied youths in California. Hawaii has no Office of Refugee Resettlement facilities.

Before he was transported to California, teachers who knew the student attempted to aid his release, according to local advocates and the Honolulu Civil Beat. The teachers carried documents showing his aunt could take custody of him if he was released to her.

Advocates said there are intersecting operations in Hawaii — welfare checks on unaccompanied children and enforcement actions against deportable immigrants. At least four immigrant children in two separate cases were recently removed with their parents, who were targeted for deportation, advocates said.

“Having a parallel directive to remove grown-ups from children is never in the best interest of the child,” said Mary Miller Flowers, director of policy and legislative affairs at the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights. “So it feels like it’s a euphemism for enforcement actions.”

In other parts of the country, young immigrants and their adult sponsors are grappling with what the welfare checks could spell for them.

Advertisement

In Houston, Alexa Sendukas, managing attorney for the Galveston-Houston Immigrant Representation Project, said 21 clients have experienced welfare checks in recent weeks. Those who let agents inside their homes told her that agents walked from room to room, asking questions and taking photos.

In a meeting last week, HSI agents told Sendukas that they had rescued two children from a trafficking situation in the Houston area and found a sponsor who was producing child exploitation material. But she remains skeptical.

“We’ve heard the example of the Hawaii case,” she said, adding that advocates worry that agents doing welfare checks are gathering information they can use in the future. Referring to the ICE memo, she said, “The guidance suggests a multiphase initiative — what does the next phase look like?”

In San Diego, federal agents recently conducted a wellness check at the residence of a girl represented by immigration attorney Ian Seruelo. She is in the process of receiving special immigration juvenile status, he said.

A day after the wellness check, as the girl was visiting her parents, who live at a different location, federal agents stopped them while they were driving to church and detained them for several hours, Seruelo said.

Advertisement

The parents have no criminal record but are undocumented, and their status was probably known to officials, Seruelo said, because they had been in deportation proceedings that were dropped. Neither the girl nor her parents are in custody, he said.

Seruelo said he found the timing of the parents’ detention suspect. “I think they were using the wellness check to get information about the parents,” he said.

Smyers, the former Health and Human Services official, said the public safety and border security justifications noted in the ICE memo about tracking down unaccompanied children are the same justifications used by Stephen Miller, the federal official and mastermind behind the separation of thousands of families at the southern border during President Trump’s first term.

“The American public should be just as galvanized against this as they were to family separation at the border,” she said.

Castillo reported from Washington and Gomez from Los Angeles.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

Published

on

Video: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

new video loaded: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

transcript

transcript

President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

President Trump fired Kristi Noem, his embattled homeland security secretary, on Thursday and announced his plans to replace her with Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.

“The fact that you can’t admit to a mistake which looks like under investigation is going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back. Law enforcement needs to learn from that. You don’t protect them by not looking after the facts.” “Our greatness calls people to us for a chance to prosper, to live how they choose, to become part of something special. Anyone who searches for freedom can always find a home here. But that freedom is a precious thing, and we defend it vigorously. You crossed the border illegally — we’ll find you. Break our laws — we’ll punish you.” “Did you bid out those service contracts?” “Yes they did. They went out to a competitive bid.” “I’m asking you — sorry to interrupt — but the president approved ahead of time you spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently?” “Yes, sir. We went through the legal processes. Did it correctly —” Did the president know you were going to do this?” “Yes.” “I’m more excited about just ready to get started. There’s a lot of work we can do to get the Department of Homeland Security working for the American people.”

Advertisement
President Trump fired Kristi Noem, his embattled homeland security secretary, on Thursday and announced his plans to replace her with Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.

By Jackeline Luna

March 5, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

DOJ continues Biden autopen probe despite former president unlikely to face charges

Published

on

DOJ continues Biden autopen probe despite former president unlikely to face charges

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is continuing its investigation into former President Joe Biden’s use of an autopen in the final months of his administration — focusing on pardons and commutations — though a senior official said Biden is unlikely to face criminal exposure.

A senior DOJ official told Fox News the autopen investigation is ongoing and not closed, adding investigators are reviewing clemency actions taken in the final months of the Biden administration.

The official also pointed out, however, that the use of an autopen by a sitting president is “established law.”

The issue under review is whether the autopen was used in violation of the law, specifically, whether Biden personally approved each name included on pardon and commutation lists.

Advertisement

A framed portrait shows former President Joe Biden’s signature and an autopen along “The Presidential Walk of Fame” outside the Oval Office of the White House.  (Andrew Harnick/Getty Images)

“These types of cases are tough. Executive privilege issues come into play,” the official said.

What is also clear, the official indicated, is that the target of any potential prosecution would not likely be Biden.

“It’s hard to imagine how [Biden] could be criminally liable for pardon power,” the senior DOJ official said.

BIDEN’S AUTOPEN PARDONS DISTURBED DOJ BRASS, DOCS SHOW, RAISING QUESTIONS WHETHER THEY ARE LEGALLY BINDING

Advertisement

The use of the autopen by former President Joe Biden remains under investigation. (AP Photo)

The official noted that one reason the former president would be unlikely to face charges stems from a 2024 Supreme Court ruling that originally involved current President Donald Trump but would also apply to Biden.

“We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office,” the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States in 2024. 

“At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.”

Sources familiar with the matter told Fox News Digital that U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s team continues to review the Biden White House’s reliance on an autopen, contradicting a recent New York Times report that indicated the investigation had been paused.

Advertisement

DOJ SIGNALS IT’S STILL DIGGING INTO BIDEN AUTOPEN USE DESPITE REPORTS PROBE FIZZLED

President Donald Trump has pushed for consequences for former President Joe Biden’s alleged use of the autopen. (Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP Photo)

Trump has pushed for consequences over the autopen controversy, alleging on social media that aides acted unlawfully in its use and raising the prospect of perjury charges against Biden.

Biden has rejected those claims, saying in a statement last year he personally directed the decisions in question.

“Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency,” Biden said. “I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false.”

Advertisement

The House Oversight Committee has homed in on Biden’s clemency actions, including five controversial pardons for family members in the final days of his presidency, citing what it described as a lack of “contemporaneous documentation” confirming that Biden directly ordered the pardons.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The committee asked the DOJ to investigate “all of former President Biden’s executive actions, particularly clemency actions, to assess whether legal action must be taken to void any action that the former president did not, in fact, take himself.”

Fox News Digital’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Related Article

Top Biden officials questioned and criticized how his team issued pardons, used autopen: report
Continue Reading

Politics

Anxiety grows among California Democrats as gubernatorial candidates rebuff calls to drop out

Published

on

Anxiety grows among California Democrats as gubernatorial candidates rebuff calls to drop out

Despite a plea from the head of the California Democratic Party for underperforming candidates to drop out of the governor’s race, all but one of the party’s top hopefuls spurned the request.

Party leaders fear the growing possibility that the crowded field will split the Democratic electorate in the state’s June top-two primary election and result in two Republicans advancing to the November ballot, ensuring a Republican governor being elected for the first time since 2006.

His advice largely unheeded, state party Chairman Rusty Hicks on Thursday said the fate of a Democratic victory now rests squarely on the gubernatorial candidates who flouted him.

“The candidates for Governor now have a chance to showcase a viable path to win,” Hicks said in a statement Thursday.

Eight top Democratic candidates filed the official paperwork to appear on the June ballot after Hicks released a letter on Tuesday urging those “who cannot show meaningful progress towards winning” to drop out. Friday is the deadline to file to appear on the primary election ballot. On March 21, the secretary of state’s office will formally announce who will appear on the June ballot.

Advertisement

“It sounded like someone who has his head in the sand,” former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said of Hicks’ open letter. “[Most] of us filed within 24 hours of getting that letter. It created some press but not much else. It didn’t impact [most] of the candidates and it certainly didn’t impact my candidacy.”

Democratic strategist Elizabeth Ashford said it was appropriate for Hicks and other Democratic leaders to make a public plea as opposed to keeping such discussions solely behind closed doors.

But the response showed the limited power of the modern-day party bosses.

“It’s definitely not Tammany Hall,” said Ashford, referring to the storied Democratic political machine that had a grip on New York City politics for nearly a century. “The party and Rusty are influential and they are helpful and that is their role. I don’t think anyone would be comfortable with outright public strong-arming of specific candidates.”

Ashford, who worked for former Govs. Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with former Vice President Kamala Harris when she served as state attorney general, added that the minimal power of the state GOP is likely a factor in the dynamics of Democrats’ decision to stay in the race. Democratic registered voters outnumber Republicans by almost a 2-to-1 margin in the state, and Democrats control every statewide elected office and hold supermajorities in both chambers of the California Legislature.

Advertisement

“If there were a strong viable opposition that existed, if the Republican Party was actually relevant in California, I think that would sort of force greater unity amongst Democrats,” she said.

Just one of the nine major Democrats did heed the party chair’s message. Ian Calderon, a former Los Angeles-area Assemblyman who consistently polled near the bottom of the field, withdrew from the race and endorsed Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) on Thursday.

Candidates cannot withdraw their name from the ballot once they officially file to run for office, leading to some fears that even if other candidates drop out of the race, a crowded primary ballot could still split California’s liberal votes.

“I’m disappointed most of them will be on the ballot,” said Lorena Gonzalez, the head of the California Federation of Labor Unions, which will announce whether it endorses in the governor’s race on March 16. But “I do still think you can have people drop out of the race or become viable. I think that there are candidates who know viability is a real thing they have to show in coming weeks” before ballots start being mailed to voters.

Jodi Hicks, chief executive and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said she is “still worried” about the prospect of two Republicans winning the top two spots in the June primary, shutting Democrats out of any chance of winning the governor’s office in November.

Advertisement

“I didn’t have any specifics of who I wanted to do what,” she said. “I’m just very, very concerned and the stakes are really high right now and seem to be getting worse by the day.”

Republican candidate Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host, said he is “confident that I’ll be in the top two” along with a Democratic candidate. “I find it very difficult to believe that the Democratic Party will just surrender California and allow two Republicans to be in the top two.”

Hilton made the comments Thursday after a gubernatorial forum in Sacramento hosted by the California Assn. of Realtors focused on housing and homeownership. Villaraigosa, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan and former Rep. Katie Porter also attended. Swalwell, who is currently in Washington, joined the panel virtually.

During the panel, candidates were in broad agreement about the need to reduce barriers and costs in order to build more housing in California, where the median single-family home costs more than $820,000. Many also endorsed proposals to disincentivize private investment firms from buying up homes as well as a $25-billion bond proposed by former Sen. Bob Hertzberg to help first-time homebuyers afford a down payment.

“This really isn’t a debate because we’re agreeing so much with each other,” Hilton said at one point during the event.

Advertisement

That political alignment on one of the most pressing issues facing California may explain why voters are having such a difficult time deciding who to support.

A recent poll of the Public Policy Institute of California found that the five candidates topping the crowded field were within 4 percentage points of one another: Porter, Swalwell, Hilton, Democratic hedge fund founder Tom Steyer and Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. Earlier polls had Hilton and Bianco leading the field, though many voters remained undecided.

Some candidates took issue with Hicks’ push to cull the field, noting that most of the lower-polling candidates he asked to drop out are people of color.

“Our political system is rigged, corrupted by the political elites, the wealthy and well connected,” state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, who is Black and Latino, said in a video posted on social media in response to the open letter. “The California Democratic Party is essentially telling every person of color in the race for Governor to drop out.”

Villaraigosa argued that enough voters remain undecided that it was too early for quality candidates to call it quits.

Advertisement

“Most people don’t even know who’s in the race,” said Villaraigosa. “It’s premature to be thinking about getting out of the race. I certainly am not considering it and I feel no pressure.”

Aside from the opinion polls, other indicators on who may emerge from the pack a candidates are slowly emerging.

Though it wasn’t enough to win the party’s endorsement, Swalwell won support from 24% of delegates at the state Democratic convention last month, the most of any party candidate.

While spending is no guarantee of success, Steyer has donated $47.4 million of his own wealth to his campaign. Mahan, who recently entered the race and is supported by Silicon Valley leaders, has quickly raised millions of dollars, as have two independent expenditures committees backing his bid.

Ashford said part of candidates’ decisions to remain in the race could have been driven by their lengthy political careers, as well as Democrats’ crushing November redistricting victory.

Advertisement

“In several cases, these are people who have won statewide office,” she said. “It’s tough to feel like there may not be a sequel to that.”

Nixon reported from Sacramento and Mehta from Los Angeles.

Continue Reading

Trending