Mexican citizen Maria de Jesús Estrada Juárez was among the hundreds of thousands of people shielded from deportation under an Obama-era program allowing people brought to the U.S. as children to stay in the country if they generally stay out of trouble.

But that changed Feb. 18 when she showed up for an immigration hearing and was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and deported the next day.

“I didn’t get to say goodbye,” the 42-year-old mother said at a news conference Tuesday in Sacramento. “It all happened so fast. This has been one of the most painful experiences of my life.”

Estrada Juárez held hands with her daughter and began to choke up as she recounted those experiences.

“It’s hard to describe what it feels like to lose your mother so suddenly, especially when you believed she was safe,” said Damaris Bello, Estrada Juárez’s 22-year-old daughter. “It was like grieving someone who was still alive.”

The federal government has deported dozens of recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, also known as DACA, during President Donald Trump’s second term, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The events come amid the Trump administration’s reshaping of immigration policy more broadly.

Immigration advocates say Estrada Juárez’s removal highlights the need to offer more permanent protections for DACA recipients, often referred to as “Dreamers.”

The case is a rare example of a judge ordering a person’s return to the United States after being deported, said Talia Inlender, deputy director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law.

“But, perhaps unsurprisingly, it feels like this is happening with more frequency under the current administration which is prioritizing speed and quotas, rather than fairness and process, in facilitating removals,” Inlender said in a statement.

The federal administration said Estrada Juárez was deported because of a 1998 removal order when Estrada Juárez was a teenager, shortly after she arrived in the U.S. She was sent to Mexico at the time but returned to the U.S. weeks later and has had DACA status since 2013. Federal officials reinstated the 1998 order in February after arresting her.

Estrada Juárez spent the next few weeks after being deported with relatives, stressed about being separated from her daughter.

“You can’t enjoy life when the most important part of your life is not there,” she said.

U.S. District Judge Dena Coggins, who was appointed by then-President Joe Biden, issued a temporary restraining order on March 23, giving the federal government seven days to facilitate Estrada Juárez’s return to the U.S. Her deportation was a “flagrant violation” of her DACA protections and infringed upon her due process rights, Coggins wrote.

The Department of Homeland Security has defended the deportation.

“ICE follows all court orders,” a department spokesperson said in a statement. “This is yet another ruling from a Biden-appointed activist judge.”

But Estrada Juárez wasn’t aware of the 1998 order, which her lawyer argues wasn’t final.

“DACA gives you a vested right to not be deported once it’s granted,” said Stacy Tolchin, an immigration attorney based in Pasadena, California. “I really don’t understand what they’re doing.”

Bello, who was reunited with her mother Monday night, said she is recovering from the events and hopes other families don’t have to endure the same thing.

“Having her back home means everything to me,” she said. “It means we can begin to heal, to rebuild and to move forward together as a family.”

The post California woman returns home after the Trump administration deported her to Mexico appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

By Miriam Jordan and Jazmine Ulloa

It was just days into his first term when President Trump issued an order banning the entry of people from several predominantly Muslim countries. An SOS went out to immigration lawyers across New York to head to Kennedy Airport, where arriving passengers were already being detained.

By noon, hundreds of lawyers were interviewing relatives and friends of travelers who were being held, challenging their detention and drafting petitions for their release.

The mobilization that morning in 2017 spawned a network of hundreds of lawyers who are now ready to fight the crackdown on immigrants that Mr. Trump promised to carry out in a second term in office.

After his decisive victory over Kamala Harris, Mr. Trump is expected to name key cabinet choices in the coming days and weeks, including his nominee to lead the Department of Homeland Security.

The Supreme Court upheld a version of the ban on travelers from several predominantly Muslim countries, which the Biden administration eliminated in 2021. But earlier this fall, Mr. Trump said he would “bring back the travel ban.”

During his campaign, Mr. Trump vowed to undertake the largest deportation effort in the nation’s history, though he skirted questions about whether the sweeps would target undocumented immigrants who had long lived in the country, people who had more recently crossed at the southern border or both. About 11 million undocumented people resided in the United States as of 2022, according to the Pew Research Center, with nearly two-thirds having been in the country for at least a decade.

While deporting millions of people would be all but impossible with current enforcement resources, Mr. Trump has said he would consider stationing American troops at the border with Mexico and working with governors to deploy the National Guard into the interior of the country.

In his victory speech early on Wednesday, Mr. Trump said that voters had handed him “an unprecedented and powerful mandate” to pursue his agenda.

Indeed, the immigrant advocacy community will face a very different political landscape when Mr. Trump returns to the White House in January. Voter sentiment has shifted markedly, with far more Americans expressing concerns about immigration and a willingness to support tougher policies.

Unlike in 2016, when he won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote, Mr. Trump won both in this election, the first Republican to prevail in the national vote in two decades, after campaigning on harsh immigration policies. And he will enter office with a Supreme Court that counts three of his first-term nominees among the nine justices.

“We’re going to fix our borders, we’re going to fix everything about our country and we’ve made history for a reason tonight, and the reason is going to be just that,” he said on Wednesday.

Lawyers for immigrants said they have been preparing for months for the possibility of large-scale workplace raids, roundups in immigrant enclaves, new restrictions on asylum, the expansion of detention and the termination of programs temporarily shielding some people from deportation.

“The Trump team might think they are ready,” said Camille Mackler, chief executive of Immigration Arc, who sent an SOS email that brought hundreds of lawyers to Kennedy Airport that day in 2017. “But so are we.”

Becca Heller, founder of the International Refugee Assistance Project, which sued the government over the Muslim ban, said that winning the popular vote was not a license to ignore the law. “He can’t act outside the bounds of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,” she said.

Having battled one Trump administration, she and her allies are ready for a second, Ms. Heller said. “We literally have a blueprint of what they are planning to do, and so we had months and months to figure out how to protect people,” she said.

“Trump has told us what to expect — hate and persecution and concentration camps,” she said, referring to his team’s plans to use military funds to build “vast holding facilities.” “None of us have any illusions about what we are up against this time.”

The new president’s immigration agenda will have battle-tested allies in some of the country’s state capitals. A coalition of Republican attorneys general, led by Ken Paxton of Texas, have systematically challenged the Biden administration on key immigration policies.

The results have been mixed, with some challenges temporarily blocking President Biden’s efforts but others being turned back by the courts. The challenges have kept the fight over immigration in the news and on voters’ minds, and given the Biden administration even more to worry about.

While the states that have been mounting those legal fights are not likely to be challenging the incoming Trump administration, they could play a crucial role in carrying out some of the expected federal efforts on immigration, said Lenni Benson, a professor of immigration law at New York Law School.

After extensive civil rights litigation, Arizona’s attorney general opined in 2016 that sheriffs could enforce “a show-me-your-papers law,” as long as they asked for documents from every person arrested.

Mr. Trump, who made immigration his calling card again this campaign, is expected to issue a spate of executive orders on his first day in office, such as to seal the border and arrest undocumented immigrants, including ones in the interior of the country.

Mr. Trump’s immigration advisers have said that, while criminals would be prioritized in making arrests, no one unlawfully in the country would be spared, a shift from Mr. Biden and other presidents, who focused resources on targeting serious criminals.

Lawsuits are expected to pile up.

“We have spent the last nine months planning for this, and are prepared to go to court as often as necessary, just like the first time,” said Lee Gelernt, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who argued many immigration cases, including one to halt the policy of separating migrant families at the border.

The A.C.L.U. filed many legal challenges against Trump policies during his first administration. It defeated his attempt to include a citizenship question in the 2020 census at the Supreme Court and won a settlement for the families split up at the border. In a full-page ad published in The Times’s print paper on Friday, the organization wrote an open letter to Mr. Trump, saying it planned to defend people’s rights “in the courts, at state legislatures and in the streets.”

Tom Homan, a senior immigration official in the last Trump administration who is expected to return to government, said on CBS’s “60 Minutes” last month that large-scale worksite raids would resume. Such operations, which can lead to the arrest of hundreds of unauthorized workers, are costly and complex, and have not been conducted under Mr. Biden.

Bruna Bouhid-Sollod, senior political director for United We Dream Action, a national group led by youngimmigrant activists, said the organization has been crafting plans for a second Trump presidency.

Those strategies include “know-your-rights” training, letter writing campaigns to encourage elected officials and public art and vigils to show support for undocumented immigrants.

One of the biggest concerns is the fate of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the program known as DACA, which has shielded from deportation and granted work authorization to hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children.

Ms. Bouhid-Sollod said she was among many DACA recipients who joined United We Dream after Mr. Trump’s election in 2016, out of fear that Mr. Trump would kill the program. He tried to, but the Supreme Court kept the program in place in a 5-4 ruling, saying the Trump administration hadn’t followed proper procedures for ending it.

Since then, Texas and several other states have sued to end DACA, and a federal court ruling in their favor is under review by an appeals court that has several Trump-nominated judges and has embraced some of the most aggressive conservative arguments in American law.

And of course, the incoming Trump administration itself could try again to end DACA.

“We are cleareyed about the challenges ahead,” Ms. Bouhid-Sollod said. “That is the big difference between 2016 and 2024.”

Benjamin Johnson, the executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the organization has long been analyzing Mr. Trump’s immigration promises, preparing litigation to challenge policies they believe would violate their clients’ rights to have their cases heard and fairly processed under the law.

In his campaign, Mr. Trump spoke of using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to carry out mass deportations, a law under which people of Japanese descent were held in internment camps during World War II.

Mr. Trump also has said the deportations would be modeled after those under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, whose administration used sweeps, raids and blunt forms of racial profiling in the 1950s to round up and expel mostly Mexican and Mexican American laborers.

“He has threatened to use powers — some that haven’t been used in a century, since World War II — to arrest, detain and imprison people without any judicial review,” Mr. Johnson said, referring to Mr. Trump. “We are going to have to find ways to meet the moment.”

The post Immigration Lawyers Prepare to Battle Trump in Court Again appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

HOUSTON (AP) — While a federal judge on Wednesday declared illegal a revised version of a federal policy that prevents the deportation of hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, he declined to order an immediate end to the program and the protections it offers to recipients.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen agreed with Texas and eight other states suing to stop the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. The judge’s ruling was ultimately expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, sending the program’s fate before the high court for a third time.

“While sympathetic to the predicament of DACA recipients and their families, this Court has expressed its concerns about the legality of the program for some time,” Hanen wrote in his 40-page ruling. “The solution for these deficiencies lies with the legislature, not the executive or judicial branches. Congress, for any number of reasons, has decided not to pass DACA-like legislation … The Executive Branch cannot usurp the power bestowed on Congress by the Constitution – even to fill a void.”

Hanen’s order extended the current injunction that had been in place against DACA, which barred the government from approving any new applications, but left the program intact for existing recipients during the ongoing legal review.

Hanen also declined a request by the states to order the program’s end within two years. Hanen said his order does not require the federal government to take any actions against DACA recipients, who are known as “Dreamers.”

Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, which is representing DACA recipients in the lawsuit, said it will ultimately be up to higher courts, including the Supreme Court, to rule on DACA’s legality and whether Texas proved it had been harmed by the program.

“Judge Hanen has consistently erred in resolving both of these issues, and today’s ruling is more of the same flawed analysis. We look forward to continuing to defend the lawful and much-needed DACA program on review in higher courts,” Saenz said.

The Texas Attorney General’s Office, which represented the states in the lawsuit, and the U.S. Department of Justice, which represented the federal government, didn’t immediately return emails or calls seeking comment.

The states have argued the Obama administration didn’t have the authority to first create the program in 2012 because it circumvented Congress.

In 2021, Hanen had declared the program illegal, ruling it had not been subject to public notice and comment periods required under the federal Administrative Procedures Act.

The Biden administration tried to satisfy Hanen’s concerns with a new version of DACA that took effect in October 2022 and was subject to public comments as part of a formal rule-making process.

But Hanen, who was appointed by then-President George W. Bush in 2002, ruled the updated version of DACA was still illegal as the Biden administration’s new version was essentially the same as the old version, started under the Obama administration. Hanen had previously said DACA was unconstitutional.

Hanen also had previously ruled the states had standing to file their lawsuit because they had been harmed by the program.

The states have claimed they incur hundreds of millions of dollars in health care, education and other costs when immigrants are allowed to remain in the country illegally. The states that sued are Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas and Mississippi.

Those defending the program — the federal government, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the state of New Jersey — had argued the states failed to present evidence that any of the costs they allege they have incurred have been tied to DACA recipients. They also argued Congress has given the Department of Homeland Security the legal authority to set immigration enforcement policies.

There were 578,680 people enrolled in DACA at the end of March, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The program has faced a roller coaster of court challenges over the years.

In 2016, the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 over an expanded DACA and a version of the program for parents of DACA recipients. In 2020, the high court ruled 5-4 that the Trump administration improperly ended DACA, allowing it to stay in place.

In 2022, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld Hanen’s earlier ruling declaring DACA illegal, but sent the case back to him to review changes made to the program by the Biden administration.

President Joe Biden and advocacy groups have called on Congress to pass permanent protections for “ dreamers.” Congress has failed multiple times to pass proposals called the DREAM Act to protect DACA recipients.

“We continue to urge Congress and President Biden to create permanent solutions for all immigrants to ensure none are left in the perilous road DACA has been on for the past decade,” Veronica Garcia, an attorney with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, an advocacy organization, said in a statement.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Federal judge again declares that DACA is illegal with issue likely to be decided by Supreme Court appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Attorneys hoping to save an Obama-era program that prevents the deportation of thousands of people brought into the U.S. as children told a federal appeals court Wednesday that ending the program would cruelly disrupt the lives of thousands who have grown up to become tax-paying, productive drivers of the U.S. economy.

An attorney for the state of Texas, leading an effort to end the Deferred Action for Childhood arrivals program, argued that DACA recipients have cost the state hundreds of millions in health care and other costs.

The dueling views at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans were exchanged as more than 100 DACA supporters held signs, beat drums and chanted outside of the courthouse. They called for preservation of the program that protects more than 600,000 people from deportation, and a path to citizenship for immigrants.

“I am undocumented, and I will speak out today,” said Woojung “Diana” Park, 22, of New York. She said she was brought to the U.S. as a 1-year-old from South Korea. DACA, she said, “is the bare minimum that the U.S. government has offered immigrant communities after decades of fighting for basic human rights.”

A federal judge in Texas last year declared DACA illegal — although he agreed to leave the program intact for those already benefiting from it while his order is appealed.

The U.S. Justice Department defended the program, allied with the state of New Jersey, advocacy organizations such as the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund and a coalition of dozens of powerful corporations — including Amazon, Apple, Google and Microsoft — which argue that DACA recipients are “employees, consumers and job creators.”

Texas, joined by eight other Republican-leaning states, argues that DACA was enacted without going through proper legal and administrative procedures, including public notice and comment periods. Additionally, the states argue that they are harmed financially by allowing immigrants to remain in the country illegally.

DACA proponents argued that the program falls within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s power to prioritize enforcement. “DHS has limited resources,” argued Brian Boynton of the Justice Department. “It’s unable to remove 11 million people in the country. It has to decide who it’s going to target first.”

In court and in briefs, DACA backers have argued that Texas diminished its claims of financial injury by waiting six years to challenge the program. They also said the state ignores evidence that DACA recipients decrease Texas’ costs because many of them hold jobs with health insurance benefits, own homes and pay property taxes that support schools.

In addition, they claimed that Texas hasn’t shown DACA recipients would leave the state if the program were struck down. That point was met with skepticism by Judge James Ho, who noted that in a survey included with New Jersey’s legal arguments, more than 20% of DACA recipients said they were likely to leave if the program were abolished.

Boynton argued that the respondents’ answers were merely speculative and supporters of the program, in briefs, have questioned the methodology of the survey. But Ho again questioned whether the responses should be dismissed.

“This is a question about, literally, your entire life,” Ho told Boynton. “This is a pretty profound question to get wrong.”

Judd Stone, arguing for the state of Texas, said the state has shown that it expends millions of dollars on DACA recipients and that the end of the program would lead to some of those who receive that money leaving the state. “There is no evidence showing that either of those numbers are zero,” Stone said.

In court briefs and in news conferences in New Orleans and South Carolina on Wednesday, DACA supporters pressed the argument that ending DACA would have devastating consequences for immigrants who have only known the United States as their home.

“I’m a father of a 10-year-old, so getting DACA rescinded would put me in limbo of not knowing if I’m going to take my son to his next football game,” Yahel Flores, a DACA recipient and the Carolinas state director of the American Business Immigration Coalition, told reporters on a Zoom call.

In a court brief, DACA supporters said program beneficiaries “are parents of over a quarter-million U.S. citizens, and 70% of DACA recipients have an immediate family member who is a U.S. citizen.”

DACA has faced numerous court challenges since then-President Barack Obama created it by executive order in 2012. Former President Donald Trump moved to end the program. But a U.S. Supreme Court decision determined that he had not done it properly, bringing it back to life and allowing for new applications. That was followed by the Texas-led lawsuit.

Assigned to hear arguments at the 5th Circuit were Chief Judge Priscilla Richman, an appointee of President George W. Bush; and two Trump appointees, Ho and Judge Kurt Engelhardt.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Appeals arguments heard on immigrants brought to US as kids appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Mt. San Jacinto College (MSJC) has partnered with the Perris-based TODEC Legal Center to provide free legal support services to faculty, staff and undocumented students at the college.

The TODEC (Training Occupational Development Educating Communities) Legal Center provides assistance with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program renewals and immigration screenings and consultations. The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the DACA program, which allows undocumented individuals who were brought here as infants or minors to attend colleges and universities and work in this country in order to contribute to their communities. MSJC is fully committed to serving its DACA students and will continue to support their educational goals.

The TODEC partnership will provide students, their families, and the college community with information related to resources specifically for DACA, AB 540, and Dreamers. MSJC and TODEC Legal Center will not violate the HIPAA privacy rule, FERPA, or California State Regulations.

TODEC’s mission is to empower disenfranchised immigrant communities to become economically, socially, educationally, and civically self-sufficient while enhancing individual self-esteem and community health. The overall purpose of TODEC is to ensure equitable access to information, immigration legal services, community education, advocacy, and civic engagement for limited and non-English speaking people, including immigrants and migrant workers throughout the Inland Empire, and Imperial and Inyo counties.

The collaboration between MSJC and TODEC is part of a pilot project led by the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO), the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), and the Foundation for California Community Colleges. Following a competitive process, MSJC was selected as one of 65 California community colleges to receive grant funding to host legal immigration services during this pilot phase. While not every college is a host, students from non-host colleges will be able to access services from host colleges such as MSJC.

For more information, please visit www.msjc.edu/dreamers

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

Search: Immigration Legal Services

The post MSJC Partners with TODEC to Provide Immigration Legal Services appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.