Connect with us

Politics

Immigrant rights advocates prepare to fight Trump's immigration orders

Published

on

Immigrant rights advocates prepare to fight Trump's immigration orders

A day after President Trump issued 11 executive orders cracking down on illegal immigration, advocates and a coalition of states led by California are preparing for court battles against an administration that appears to have learned from previous legal missteps made during his first term.

Among the many sweeping changes in Trump’s orders were the declaration of a national emergency at the southern border, the revocation of birthright citizenship and the designation of drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.

Immigrants and those who hoped to immigrate to the U.S. are reeling from the news. Thousands of migrants are indefinitely stranded in Mexico after Trump ended use of a phone app and canceled long-standing appointments by asylum seekers for legal entry. Afghan refugees who had been cleared for travel to the United States are now in limbo after Trump paused refugee resettlement. Undocumented immigrants in Chicago and other cities across the country stayed home out of fear of planned immigration raids.

Legal experts said subtle modifications to some of the orders reflected attempts by the Trump administration to beat back legal challenges preemptively.

“Some of this stuff they have done is to try and preempt a lot of the issues that they bumped into last time,” said Amy Fischer, director of the refugee and migrant rights program at Amnesty International USA.

Advertisement

Opponents of Trump’s orders wasted no time in challenging them. A coalition comprising California, 17 other states, the District of Columbia and the city of San Francisco sued the federal government Tuesday over Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, calling it unconstitutional and asking the court to block it from taking effect.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued Monday night over the birthright citizenship order and submitted a legal filing in an ongoing case over the cancellation of appointments for asylum seekers at the border. Nayna Gupta, policy director at the left-leaning American Immigration Council, said the organization is also planning a lawsuit this week against Trump’s use of executive authority to “suspend the entry” of certain immigrants when doing so is deemed to be detrimental to national interests.

The ability to seek asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border is suspended, according to Trump’s order, “until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.”

“Trump’s barrage of executive orders is calculated to create fear, create chaos, induce anxiety and drive our elected officials to capitulate and collaborate in a mass deportation agenda,” said Naureen Shah, deputy director of government affairs at the ACLU. “If we let Trump exert this kind of death grip over our communities now for immigration enforcement, we fear it will embolden Trump to come again and again for our civil rights.”

Longtime critics of illegal immigration hailed the president’s actions. “Thanks to Donald Trump, America’s borders are about to get a lot more secure,” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall) said in a post on X. Issa’s district runs along the border east of San Diego.

Advertisement

Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said in a statement that “nothing exemplifies a new day in America more than President Trump’s unwavering commitment to border security and restoring enforcement of our nation’s laws.”

Some of Trump’s orders are predicated on what opponents contend to be legally dubious claims. Birthright citizenship, for example, is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

“He cannot unilaterally change that,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said Monday night on CNN. “But that’s the conversation — the chaos — he wants to create.”

And in designating drug cartels as terrorist groups, Trump is preparing to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 against them. But utilizing the law would require courts to agree that criminal groups can be considered a nation at war with the United States. The Alien Enemies Act allows the president to arrest, imprison or deport immigrants from a country considered an enemy of the U.S. during wartime.

“Whether this is a war or there’s an invasion is going to be subject to litigation, and there is good law on the side against the president on this,” said Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.

Advertisement

But challenging some of Trump’s policies will be a challenge in itself. Fischer, of Amnesty International, said it’s harder to cleanly pick apart policies that are laid out in executive orders that overlap and rely on one another.

Other aspects of the orders have less conclusive legal precedent. Fischer pointed to the pause on refugee admissions, something Trump did during his first presidency. This time, the executive order calls for a report to be sent within 90 days to the president by immigration officials detailing whether resumption of refugee processing “would be in the interests of the United States.”

Tom Jawetz, a former senior attorney at the Homeland Security Department under the Biden administration, said Trump’s new administration is being both more cautious and more aggressive than last time. The policies he implemented before, such as Remain in Mexico, could be carried out more quickly and possibly more effectively. Under that policy, asylum seekers must stay across the border as their cases are being adjudicated.

But the more “exotic” provisions of some executive orders are largely legally untested, Jawetz said. Trump said during his inaugural address that he would deploy the military to the border region to combat illegal immigration.

“Aligning the mission of the U.S. military to border security, combined with a national emergency declaration and all of this invasion rhetoric, taken to the extreme, could be completely unprecedented and transformative,” Jawetz said.

Advertisement

Trump’s opponents are waiting to see the written policies that emerge from the executive orders. Litigation strategy will come down to how the orders are implemented, Jawetz said.

Some of those policies started trickling out Tuesday. In a news release, the Homeland Security Department announced that acting Secretary Benjamine Huffman had issued a directive ending the broad use of temporary humanitarian programs, which under then-President Biden were expanded to give legal protection to 1.5 million immigrants. Another directive rescinds long-standing guidelines that prevent immigration enforcement in sensitive locations, such as hospitals and churches.

“Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest. The Trump administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense,” the release states.

Times staff writer Rachel Uranga in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Politics

AOC accuses Vance of believing ‘American people should be assassinated in the street’

Published

on

AOC accuses Vance of believing ‘American people should be assassinated in the street’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is leveling a stunning accusation at Vice President JD Vance amid the national furor over this week’s fatal shooting in Minnesota involving an ICE agent.

“I understand that Vice President Vance believes that shooting a young mother of three in the face three times is an acceptable America that he wants to live in, and I do not,” the four-term federal lawmaker from New York and progressive champion argued as she answered questions on Friday on Capitol Hill from Fox News and other news organizations.

Ocasio-Cortez spoke in the wake of Wednesday’s shooting death of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good after she confronted ICE agents from inside her car in Minneapolis.

RENEE NICOLE GOOD PART OF ‘ICE WATCH’ GROUP, DHS SOURCES SAY

Advertisement

Members of law enforcement work the scene following a suspected shooting by an ICE agent during federal operations on January 7, 2026, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

Video of the incident instantly went viral, and while Democrats have heavily criticized the shooting, the Trump administration is vocally defending the actions of the ICE agent.

HEAD HERE FOR LIVE FOX NEWS UPDATES ON THE ICE SHOOTING IN MINNESOTA

Vance, at a White House briefing on Thursday, charged that “this was an attack on federal law enforcement. This was an attack on law and order.”

“That woman was there to interfere with a legitimate law enforcement operation,” the vice president added. “The president stands with ICE, I stand with ICE, we stand with all of our law enforcement officers.”

Advertisement

And Vance claimed Good was “brainwashed” and suggested she was connected to a “broader, left-wing network.”

Federal sources told Fox News on Friday that Good, who was a mother of three, worked as a Minneapolis-based immigration activist serving as a member of “ICE Watch.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Ocasio-Cortez, in responding to Vance’s comments, said, “That is a fundamental difference between Vice President Vance and I. I do not believe that the American people should be assassinated in the street.”

But a spokesperson for the vice president, responding to Ocasio-Cortez’s accusation, told Fox News Digital, “On National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day, AOC made it clear she thinks that radical leftists should be able to mow down ICE officials in broad daylight. She should be ashamed of herself. The Vice President stands with ICE and the brave men and women of law enforcement, and so do the American people.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Contributor: Don’t let the mobs rule

Published

on

Contributor: Don’t let the mobs rule

In Springfield, Ill., in 1838, a young Abraham Lincoln delivered a powerful speech decrying the “ravages of mob law” throughout the land. Lincoln warned, in eerily prescient fashion, that the spread of a then-ascendant “mobocratic spirit” threatened to sever the “attachment of the People” to their fellow countrymen and their nation. Lincoln’s opposition to anarchy of any kind was absolute and clarion: “There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.”

Unfortunately, it seems that every few years, Americans must be reminded anew of Lincoln’s wisdom. This week’s lethal Immigration and Customs Enforcement standoff in the Twin Cities is but the latest instance of a years-long baleful trend.

On Wednesday, a 37-year-old stay-at-home mom, Renee Nicole Good, was fatally shot by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. Her ex-husband said she and her partner encountered ICE agents after dropping off Good’s 6-year-old at school. The federal government has called Good’s encounter “an act of domestic terrorism” and said the agent shot in self-defense.

Suffice it to say Minnesota’s Democratic establishment does not see it this way.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey responded to the deployment of 2,000 immigration agents in the area and the deadly encounter by telling ICE to “get the f— out” of Minnesota, while Gov. Tim Walz called the shooting “totally predictable” and “totally avoidable.” Frey, who was also mayor during the mayhem after George Floyd’s murder by city police in 2020, has lent succor to the anti-ICE provocateurs, seemingly encouraging them to make Good a Floyd-like martyr. As for Walz, he’s right that this tragedy was eminently “avoidable” — but not only for the reasons he thinks. If the Biden-Harris administration hadn’t allowed unvetted immigrants to remain in the country without legal status and if Walz’s administration hadn’t moved too slowly in its investigations of hundreds of Minnesotans — of mixed immigration status — defrauding taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars, ICE never would have embarked on this particular operation.

Advertisement

National Democrats took the rage even further. Following the fateful shooting, the Democratic Party’s official X feed promptly tweeted, without any morsel of nuance, that “ICE shot and killed a woman on camera.” This sort of irresponsible fear-mongering already may have prompted a crazed activist to shoot three detainees at an ICE facility in Dallas last September while targeting officers; similar dehumanizing rhetoric about the National Guard perhaps also played a role in November’s lethal shooting of a soldier in Washington, D.C.

Liberals and open-border activists play with fire when they so casually compare ICE, as Walz previously has, to a “modern-day Gestapo.” The fact is, ICE is not the Gestapo, Donald Trump is not Hitler, and Charlie Kirk was not a goose-stepping brownshirt. To pretend otherwise is to deprive words of meaning and to live in the theater of the absurd.

But as dangerous as this rhetoric is for officers and agents, it is the moral blackmail and “mobocratic spirit” of it all that is even more harmful to the rule of law.

The implicit threat of all “sanctuary” jurisdictions, whose resistance to aiding federal law enforcement smacks of John C. Calhoun-style antebellum “nullification,” is to tell the feds not to operate and enforce federal law in a certain area — or else. The result is crass lawlessness, Mafia-esque shakedown artistry and a fetid neo-confederate stench combined in one dystopian package.

The truth is that swaths of the activist left now engage in these sorts of threats as a matter of course. In 2020, the left’s months-long rioting following the death of Floyd led to upward of $2 billion in insurance claims. In 2021, they threatened the same rioting unless Derek Chauvin, the officer who infamously kneeled on Floyd’s neck, was found guilty of murder (which he was, twice). In 2022, following the unprecedented (and still unsolved) leak of the draft majority opinion in the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court case, abortion-rights activists protested outside many of the right-leaning justices’ homes, perhaps hoping to induce them to change their minds and flip their votes. And now, ICE agents throughout the country face threats of violence — egged on by local Democratic leaders — simply for enforcing federal law.

Advertisement

In “The Godfather,” Luca Brasi referred to this sort of thuggery as making someone an offer that he can’t refuse. We might also think of it as Lincoln’s dreaded “ravages of mob law.”

Regardless, a free republic cannot long endure like this. The rule of law cannot be held hostage to the histrionic temper tantrums of a radical ideological flank. The law must be enforced solemnly, without fear or favor. There can be no overarching blackmail lurking in the background — no Sword of Damocles hovering over the heads of a free people, ready to crash down on us all if a certain select few do not get their way.

The proper recourse for changing immigration law — or any federal law — is to lobby Congress to do so, or to make a case in federal court. The ginned-up martyrdom complex that leads some to take matters into their own hands is a recipe for personal and national ruination. There is nothing good down that road — only death, despair and mobocracy.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. X: @josh_hammer

Advertisement

Insights

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

Viewpoint
This article generally aligns with a Right point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis
Perspectives

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

  • Democrats and activist left are perpetuating a dangerous “mobocratic spirit” similar to the mob law that Lincoln warned against in 1838, which threatens the rule of law and national unity[1]
  • The federal government’s characterization of the incident as self-defense by an ICE agent is appropriate, while local Democratic leaders are irresponsibly encouraging anti-ICE protesters to view Good as a martyr figure like George Floyd[1]
  • Dehumanizing rhetoric comparing ICE to the Gestapo is reckless fear-mongering that has inspired actual violence, including a shooting at an ICE facility in Dallas and the fatal shooting of a National Guard soldier[1]
  • The shooting was “avoidable” not because of ICE’s presence, but because the Biden-Harris administration allowed undocumented immigrants to remain in the country without legal status and state authorities moved too slowly investigating immigrant fraud[1]
  • Sanctuary jurisdictions that resist federal law enforcement represent neo-confederate “nullification” and constitute crass lawlessness and Mafia-style extortion, effectively telling federal agents they cannot enforce the law or face consequences[1]
  • The activist left employs threats of violence as systematic blackmail, evidenced by 2020 riots following Floyd’s death, threats surrounding the Chauvin trial, protests at justices’ homes during the abortion debate, and now threats against ICE agents[1]
  • Changing immigration policy must occur through Congress or federal courts, not through mob rule and “ginned-up martyrdom complexes” that lead to personal and national ruination[1]

Different views on the topic

  • Community members who knew Good rejected characterizations of her as a domestic terrorist, with her mother describing her as “one of the kindest people I’ve ever known,” “extremely compassionate,” and someone “who has taken care of people all her life”[1]
  • Vigil speakers and attendees portrayed Good as peacefully present to watch the situation and protect her neighbors, with an organizer stating “She was peaceful; she did the right thing” and “She died because she loved her neighbors”[1]
  • A speaker identified only as Noah explicitly rejected the federal government’s domestic terrorism characterization, saying Good was present “to watch the terrorists,” not participate in terrorism[1]
  • Neighbors described Good as a loving mother and warm family member who was an award-winning poet and positive community presence, suggesting her presence during the incident reflected civic concern rather than radicalism[1]
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week

Published

on

Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he plans to meet with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado in Washington next week.

During an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Trump was asked if he intends to meet with Machado after the U.S. struck Venezuela and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro.

“Well, I understand she’s coming in next week sometime, and I look forward to saying hello to her,” Trump said.

Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado waves a national flag during a protest called by the opposition on the eve of the presidential inauguration, in Caracas on January 9, 2025. (JUAN BARRETO/AFP via Getty Images)

Advertisement

This will be Trump’s first meeting with Machado, who the U.S. president stated “doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country” to lead.

According to reports, Trump’s refusal to support Machado was linked to her accepting the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, which Trump believed he deserved.

But Trump later told NBC News that while he believed Machado should not have won the award, her acceptance of the prize had “nothing to do with my decision” about the prospect of her leading Venezuela.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending