A police officer began following him and directed him into the store’s parking lot. One patrol car soon became two, then four.

To the officers, Preciado believes, her father’s appearance made him a target. He had slicked-back black hair, brown skin, tattoos and a commanding presence. Music by War played loudly from his lowrider. Police searched the car, but found nothing illegal. Her father and two friends who had identification were allowed to leave. Two others who did not have identification were detained.

That experience, Preciado says, has taken on new meaning as federal immigration enforcement has expanded in California and across the country. With Border Patrol agents joining Immigration and Customs Enforcement in mobile patrol operations, she sees echoes of the same racial profiling her father faced decades ago.

For Preciado, a Cal State Fullerton student studying communications with a concentration in journalism, the current climate has also narrowed the emotional distance between her life and her father’s.

Her father, the oldest of five children, grew up carrying adult responsibilities early. His father was incarcerated, and his mother worked in an appliance store to support the family. He helped care for his younger siblings and often felt like an outsider.

When Preciado asked him what parts of himself he felt others judged most, he pointed to his clothes, his skin color and his tattoos. Even now, as an adult, he told her, he still feels as though people are watching him.

Hearing those memories, Preciado said, was painful. To her, her father has always been a source of guidance and steadiness. But she also saw how years of judgment shaped the way he viewed himself.

When she was preparing to graduate from high school, she wanted him there to celebrate with her. He hesitated at the thought of stepping onto campus, worried that his appearance might somehow affect how others saw her.

He told her he did not want to get in the way of her opportunities.

To Preciado, that fear showed how deeply he had absorbed the assumptions others made about him. The world, she wrote, often reduced him to an image: a man defined by tattoos, brown skin and stereotypes. But to her, he was a devoted father, a hardworking brother and a husband — never an obstacle to her success.

She said her father wanted to separate his past from her identity so it would not limit her dreams. As his daughter, she refused to let that bond be severed.

Now, she said, his concerns have shifted from his own treatment to her safety.

He has warned her to pay close attention to her surroundings. Because her complexion is darker than that of her siblings and because she resembles him, he believes she may be more vulnerable to bias and the kinds of experiences he endured. He has urged her to be careful about where she goes and to go only when necessary.

For Preciado, immigration raids have made skin color a central concern for another generation of Latino families.

A 2021 Pew Research Center study found that 57% of Latino adults said skin color affects their daily experiences at least a great deal, while 62% said darker skin makes it harder for Latinos to get ahead in the United States.

The debate over immigration enforcement intensified after Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, wrote that stops connected to immigration policing may be considered valid when based on certain factors. He cited the number of undocumented immigrants in the Los Angeles area, the presence of day laborers gathering at specific locations, and common jobs such as landscaping, agriculture and construction. Many legal experts have argued that the opinion effectively gives immigration agents broader room to select people for questioning based on race or appearance.

In September, the Department of Homeland Security said 2 million undocumented immigrants had left the United States, including 1.6 million described by the agency as having “voluntarily self-deported” and more than 400,000 deportations.

Preciado argues that as Latino men continue to be demonized, daughters and family members must challenge the narratives imposed on them.

She points to earlier moments of Latino and Chicano organizing in California as evidence that collective action has reshaped public life before. In 1968, about 15,000 students took part in the East Los Angeles walkouts to protest unequal treatment and discouragement of Mexican American students in schools. In the 1970s, the Brown Berets helped lead the Chicano Moratorium against the disproportionate drafting of Mexican Americans during the Vietnam War. In the 1990s, immigrant rights advocates fought against Proposition 187, California’s anti-immigrant ballot measure that was later overturned.

Those victories, Preciado wrote, came from people joining together across generations. They also reflect a lesson she said her father taught her: even in hardship, pain can become a form of light, and from that light a path forward can begin to appear.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Immigration Raids Put Skin Color Front and Center for a New Generation of California Latinos appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The policy memo, issued shortly before Memorial Day, appeared to mark a major shift in how the federal government handles “adjustment of status,” the process that allows eligible immigrants in the U.S. to apply for lawful permanent residency without leaving the country. The directive suggested that many temporary visa holders and people with humanitarian permission to be in the U.S. would have to return to their home countries and wait there for green card approval, except in “extraordinary” circumstances.

That language alarmed immigrant families, attorneys and employers, because it departed from a practice that has been in place for decades. Days later, however, the administration began to soften its description of the policy. The Department of Homeland Security told The New York Times that the directive was not a blanket rule and that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officers have long had discretion in deciding such cases.

Immigration attorneys said the mixed messaging has done little to ease concern.

“That is damage control,” said Patrick Kolasinski, an immigration attorney based in Modesto. He said the administration appeared to be responding both to public criticism and to the likelihood of lawsuits, adding that changing the policy in the manner outlined by the memo would be “completely illegal.”

A DHS spokesperson, speaking anonymously to The New York Times, said people who may face greater scrutiny include those who have overstayed visas and applicants from countries whose citizens are considered more likely to rely on public benefits. DHS did not answer CalMatters’ questions about the apparent shift in how the policy was being described.

Legal experts say the directive fits a broader pattern by the Trump administration of tightening rules even for immigrants attempting to follow legal channels. Employers, including many in the technology industry, have criticized the move, warning it could disrupt business operations and push skilled workers out of the country.

The policy is expected to face legal challenges. In the meantime, attorneys say many applicants are unsure whether they should attend scheduled interviews, whether pending applications are at risk, and whether leaving the country could separate them from their families for years.

The people most likely to be affected include relatives of U.S. citizens, laid-off technology workers, international students and mixed-status families. The issue is especially significant in California, where 112,100 people obtained permanent residency through adjustment of status in 2023 — more than in any other state and nearly one-fifth of all such cases nationwide.

Family-based immigration makes up the largest share of green card cases. DHS data show that about 64% of new permanent residents in 2023 received green cards through a family relationship with a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

A central unanswered question is whether the Trump administration intends to apply the new interpretation to people whose applications are already pending. Lynn Damiano Pearson, director of legal strategy at the National Immigration Law Center, said immigration lawyers have already seen USCIS officers ask applicants why they are seeking permanent residency from inside the United States and whether anything prevents them from applying through a U.S. consulate abroad.

Those questions, she said, appear to come directly from the new memo and suggest the administration may be preparing to apply the policy to existing applicants.

DHS did not answer CalMatters’ question about whether pending cases would be affected. In a written statement, the department said the policy “will have no significant impact on high-skilled applicants and trained professionals who followed the law.” The spokesperson declined to be identified.

Adjustment of status was created by Congress in 1952 and has been used under Democratic and Republican administrations for more than seven decades. More than 500,000 people use the process each year. The Trump administration memo reframes the process as something that should be granted only in exceptional cases.

Jeff Joseph, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, called the memo “wrong,” “reprehensible” and “illegal,” and said he was confident it would end up in court.

Nina Sheridan, a spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta, said the state is watching closely.

“The Trump administration continues its campaign against legal immigration, putting up barriers and pushing out immigrants who are trying to follow the established process to obtain permanent residency,” Sheridan said. “We are monitoring the administration’s next steps with its latest attempt to ignore existing laws and policies, and we are evaluating our options.”

DHS told CalMatters the memo restates long-standing law and policy that it said were ignored by the Biden administration.

Attorneys say one of the greatest fears among applicants is that the policy could turn routine immigration appointments into removal risks. Many people seeking green cards have remained in the U.S. with government authorization while their cases moved through the system, sometimes waiting years because of backlogs. In some cases, their original visas expired while their adjustment applications were pending.

Lawyers worry the administration could use that against applicants, deny them at interviews and then move quickly to initiate deportation proceedings. Immigration attorneys have also pointed to recent cases in which people were detained during routine immigration appointments and held for months.

Damiano Pearson said it is too early to know how often that could happen under the new policy, but attorneys cannot rule out the possibility of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detaining people after interviews.

For many applicants, leaving the U.S. to complete the process at a consulate is not a simple matter. Consular processing can involve long waits, and State Department backlogs can stretch for months or years.

“This is not a matter of buying a plane ticket and waiting a little longer,” said Ben Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “For many people, consular processing is not realistic or safe, and for others it could mean months or years of separation from their U.S. citizen spouses, children, employers and communities.”

Visa processing has been suspended entirely in more than 70 countries. Immigrants who have overstayed visas could also face three- or 10-year bars from reentering the United States if they leave and try to apply from abroad.

Damiano Pearson said the memo does not make clear whether those consequences will be considered, adding that the uncertainty has caused fear among people who believed they were on a lawful path to permanent residency.

Kolasinski said some of his clients have green card interviews scheduled and are anxious about what could happen when they appear before immigration officers.

“You go in and you have no idea what type of officer you are going to encounter or what rules they believe they are operating under,” he said.

His advice to clients with upcoming interviews is direct: do not go alone.

“At this point, nobody should do anything immigration-related without a lawyer present,” Kolasinski said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Five Things to Know About the Trump Administration’s New Green Card Policy appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The shift marks a major departure from the explosive growth that defined California after World War II. The state’s population rose from 6.9 million in 1940 to 19.9 million in 1970, fueled by people moving in from other states for jobs and by the postwar baby boom.

To accommodate that surge, California built much of the public infrastructure residents still rely on today: schools, colleges, highways, parks and water systems. Private development followed with large-scale investment in housing, shopping centers, factories and office buildings.

Growth began to slow in the 1970s as the baby boom faded and the state’s economy shifted away from manufacturing and toward technology and service industries. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown described the period as an “era of limits,” arguing that the state no longer needed the same level of major infrastructure expansion.

But the slowdown did not last. In the 1980s, California saw another sharp increase in population, driven by international immigration and a new wave of births. The state added roughly 6 million people during that decade, more than 5 million of them babies, increasing its population by more than 25%.

That growth was large enough, compared with the rest of the nation, that California gained seven additional seats in Congress after the 1990 census.

The political response to the 1980s growth differed sharply from the postwar era. In the 1990s, California saw a backlash over immigration, including laws aimed at denying public services to undocumented immigrants. Environmental groups also wrestled with internal disputes over the effect of immigration-driven growth on land use and natural resources.

Today, California is facing a very different demographic moment. Immigration has slowed, birth rates have fallen and many residents have moved away, with high housing and living costs widely cited as major reasons.

A recent study by Public Policy Institute of California researchers Hans Johnson, Julien LaFortune and Eric McGhee found that California’s total fertility rate dropped from 2.21 children per woman in 2007 to 1.48 in 2023. That is well below the 2.1 level demographers consider necessary for a population to replace itself over time.

The slowdown has already affected California’s political representation. The state lost a congressional seat after the 2020 census and could lose more after the 2030 count if current trends continue.

But the consequences go beyond politics. A smaller or stagnant population could ease pressure on housing demand, traffic congestion and the need for large new public works projects, the PPIC researchers noted. Declining school enrollment could also allow more money to be spent per student.

At the same time, fewer births could speed up enrollment declines in K-12 schools and create added pressure on the economy and safety-net programs as a smaller workforce supports a growing population of older Californians. Labor shortages could also limit future economic growth.

For Southern California and the Inland Empire, where daily life is closely tied to freeway congestion, housing affordability, school enrollment and water supply, the demographic shift raises practical questions about what the state should build, repair and prioritize.

California’s population is now about twice what it was in 1970, yet the state still depends heavily on infrastructure developed in the postwar era, including the State Water Plan and the freeway system that connects communities across the region.

A flat population may reduce the need for some new construction, but it does not eliminate the need to maintain and modernize existing systems. Water projects have stalled for years, and the state has largely moved away from building new highways, even as many existing systems face heavy demand.

Brown, who first spoke of limits in the 1970s, returned to the governor’s office in 2011 promising to get major projects done. California’s new demographic reality may lessen some pressures, but it also leaves state leaders with unresolved decisions about infrastructure, public services and how to support a changing population.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Population Growth Stalls as Immigration and Birth Rates Decline appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The confusion stems from a May memo issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that appeared to instruct many temporary visa holders living in the United States to leave the country and wait abroad while their green card applications were processed. That would mark a sharp departure from long-standing federal practice, which generally allows eligible immigrants already in the country to apply for permanent residency through a process known as adjustment of status without leaving the U.S.

More than 500,000 people nationwide apply for green cards each year through adjustment of status while already living in the country. California accounted for nearly one in five green cards issued in the United States in 2023, underscoring the potential impact of any major policy shift on residents, businesses and families here.

Employers, especially in the technology sector, warned that requiring workers to depart while awaiting permanent residency could disrupt operations and push skilled employees to leave. Immigration advocates also said the change could affect relatives of U.S. citizens, mixed-status families and international students seeking to remain in the country legally.

After criticism from the public and immigration attorneys, the administration walked back the memo, saying it was not intended as a sweeping rule for all applicants. But federal officials have not clearly explained how the policy would be applied, who might be required to leave the country, or whether people with pending applications could be affected.

In a written statement to CalMatters, the Department of Homeland Security said the policy “will have no noticeable impact on highly qualified applicants and skilled professionals who have followed the law.”

Immigration attorneys say the lack of clarity has already caused anxiety among people waiting for green cards and among employers who depend on foreign-born workers.

Patrick Kolasinski, an immigration attorney based in Modesto, said the attempted policy shift has added to a broader sense of unpredictability in the immigration system. He argued that changing the rule in that manner would be unlawful and said immigrants can no longer count on a consistent process.

For California families and workers navigating the permanent residency process, the uncertainty has left many waiting for clearer guidance from the federal government before making life and career decisions that could be affected by the new rules.

Original source: CalMatters

The post New Green Card Rules Leave Californians Searching for Answers appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Issued shortly before Memorial Day, the policy memo from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services appeared to sharply limit a long-used process known as adjustment of status, which allows eligible immigrants already living in the United States to apply for lawful permanent residency without leaving the country. The directive said such approvals should be granted only in “extraordinary” circumstances, raising fears that many applicants could be required to return to their home countries and wait for their cases to be processed through U.S. consulates abroad.

Days later, after widespread concern from immigration lawyers and affected communities, the Department of Homeland Security sought to play down the scope of the change. The department told The New York Times the policy was not a blanket rule and said USCIS officers have always had discretion in deciding adjustment applications.

But attorneys said the memo has already created uncertainty for people who believed they were following the rules.

“That’s a CYA,” said Patrick Kolasinski, a Modesto-based immigration attorney, arguing that the administration appeared to be responding to public backlash and trying to reduce the risk of litigation. He said changing the policy in this manner is “completely illegal.”

The Department of Homeland Security did not answer CalMatters’ questions about whether it had reversed course after the memo’s release. An unnamed department spokesperson told The New York Times that people who overstay visas and applicants from countries whose citizens are considered high users of public assistance could be among those most affected.

The directive could have major implications in California, including Southern California and the Inland Empire, where many families include U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, visa holders and immigrants with pending cases. In 2023, 112,100 Californians received green cards through adjustment of status, representing nearly one in five such approvals nationwide, according to federal data.

The groups potentially affected include relatives of U.S. citizens, mixed-status families, international students, laid-off tech workers and other temporary visa holders already living in the country. Family-based applicants make up the largest share of new green card recipients; in 2023, about 64% of green cards went to people qualifying through a family relationship with a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, according to DHS.

A key unanswered question is whether the new approach will be applied to people who already have applications pending. Lynn Damiano Pearson, director of legal strategy at the National Immigration Law Center, said some immigration attorneys have reported that USCIS officers recently asked applicants why they were seeking green cards from inside the United States and whether anything would prevent them from applying from their home countries instead.

“People are being questioned about consular processing in a way that seems to flow directly from this new memo,” Damiano Pearson told CalMatters, adding that advocates fear the administration may try to apply the policy retroactively.

DHS did not directly answer whether pending applications would be affected. In a written statement, the department said the policy “will have no noticeable impact on highly qualified applicants and skilled professionals who have followed the law.” The spokesperson declined to be identified.

Adjustment of status has existed since Congress created it in 1952, and it has been used by Democratic and Republican administrations for more than seven decades. More than 500,000 people use the process each year. The new memo characterizes that pathway as exceptional rather than routine.

Jeff Joseph, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said he expects the policy to be challenged in court.

“This memo is wrong. It’s reprehensible. It’s illegal,” Joseph said. “I’m 100% sure that it’s going to be litigated.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office also indicated it is watching the issue closely.

“The Trump administration continues to wage a campaign against legal immigration, putting up barriers and pushing out immigrants who are trying to follow the established process to obtain permanent residence,” said Nina Sheridan, a spokesperson for Bonta. “We’re monitoring where the administration goes next with its latest attempt to flout longstanding law and policy, and we are evaluating our options.”

DHS told CalMatters the memo “restates longstanding law and policy” that it said had been “disregarded by the Biden Administration.”

Immigration lawyers said one major concern is that some applicants allowed their original visas to expire while waiting for green card interviews, which can take years because of federal backlogs. In many cases, they were permitted to remain in the country while their applications were pending. Attorneys now worry that those same applicants could be denied and placed in removal proceedings.

Advocates also fear some people could be detained during or after routine immigration appointments. Last year, some immigrants were taken into custody at scheduled appointments and held for months. Damiano Pearson said it is too early to know how frequently that could happen under the new policy but said attorneys cannot rule out the possibility.

Forcing applicants to complete the process overseas could create additional hardships. Consular processing is often slow, and in some countries visa processing has been stopped entirely. The State Department has halted visa processing in more than 70 countries.

For people who have overstayed visas, leaving the United States can trigger automatic bars that prevent them from returning for three to 10 years. Attorneys said it remains unclear whether USCIS officers would consider those consequences when deciding whether applicants must leave the country.

“This is not about buying a plane ticket and waiting a little bit longer,” said Ben Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “For many people, consulate processing is not realistic or safe, and for others it can mean months or years of separation from U.S. citizen spouses, children, employers, and communities.”

The uncertainty has left attorneys scrambling to advise clients with upcoming interviews.

Kolasinski said some of his clients are frightened because they do not know how individual officers will interpret the memo.

“You walk in, and you have no idea what kind of officer you’re going to get and what they’re operating under,” he said.

His advice to applicants with scheduled immigration interviews is to bring legal representation.

“Nobody should be doing anything with immigration these days without a lawyer present,” Kolasinski said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post What to Know About the Trump Administration’s New Green Card Policy appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

    The demonstration was organized by the People’s Collective for Environmental Justice alongside several regional groups, including the Warehouse Workers Resource Center, Inland Empire Labor Institute, Inland Empire Labor Council and the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice. Participants gathered at Feldheym Public Library before beginning the march around 1:30 p.m.

    Marchers moved through the downtown area, making stops near San Bernardino City Hall and the city’s Immigration Field Office before converging at the intersection of E Street and Rialto Avenue. Protesters temporarily blocked traffic while chanting, holding signs and listening to speakers during the afternoon rally.

    May Day, also recognized internationally as International Workers’ Day, traces its roots back to labor demonstrations connected to the 1886 Haymarket affair in Chicago and the push for an eight-hour workday. In recent years, May Day events throughout the United States have increasingly tied together issues involving labor rights, immigration reform, affordable living and public safety concerns.

    San Bernardino resident Ron Alvarado, who is currently running for the city’s First Ward council seat, said he attended the march to advocate for stronger labor protections and community-centered development projects.

    “I’m here because I want to stand for the community, for public sector jobs, for living wage jobs and for community benefit agreements,” Alvarado said during the event.

    Alvarado said local leaders need to focus more on keeping tax revenue and economic opportunities within San Bernardino neighborhoods. He added that developers should be required to create agreements that directly benefit residents through better wages and job opportunities.

    Ontario resident Andrea Galvan said the event highlighted how closely labor issues, environmental concerns and immigration policies are connected throughout the region.

    “I’m here today to be part of this movement of labor groups, immigrant rights groups and environmental justice groups that have come together across the Inland Empire to fight for our communities,” Galvan said. “All of these issues are connected.”

    Galvan said residents deserve cleaner air, safer neighborhoods and fair treatment for workers while also ensuring immigrant families feel welcomed and protected.

    Fontana resident Luz Perez, who is also running for city council in Fontana, said immigration enforcement actions have created fear for many local families and negatively impacted small businesses.

    “It has really affected our communities, especially our small businesses,” Perez said. “People are afraid to come out, and families are living in fear.”

    Perez said demonstrators were urging leaders to end immigration raids and expand protections for immigrant communities throughout the Inland Empire.

    Even as temperatures climbed throughout the afternoon, marchers from communities including San Bernardino, Fontana and Ontario continued walking through downtown streets while carrying banners and chanting in support of workers and immigrant families.

    Organizers said the turnout reflected the Inland Empire’s growing labor and community activism movement, particularly in a region heavily impacted by warehouse industry growth, air quality concerns and immigration-related issues.

    For many attendees, the demonstration served as both a show of solidarity and a call for broader investment in working-class communities, safer neighborhoods and stronger protections for immigrant residents across the region.

The post Nearly 1,000 Join May Day March in San Bernardino Demanding Worker and Immigrant Protections appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The debate, broadcast on CNN, was one of their last chances to pitch themselves to voters and stand out from the pack in their primary election bids to succeed Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who terms out in January. Mail voting is already underway, and voters have until June 2 to cast their ballots. The top-two vote getters will advance to the general election in November, regardless of party.

Though California hasn’t had a Republican governor in more than a decade, the specter hangs over the race as the field is still crowded with less than a month to go.

Candidates who took part in the debate include Democrats Xavier Becerra, a former health secretary for the Biden administration; Katie Porter, a former congresswoman; Tom Steyer, a billionaire climate activist; Matt Mahan, the mayor of San Jose; and Antonio Villaraigosa, the former mayor of Los Angeles; as well as Republicans Steve Hilton, a conservative commentator; and Chad Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff.

Here’s how they responded on some of the key issues:

Universal healthcare

The candidates sparred over whether they’d eliminate private health insurance in favor of a state-run system, an idea that has failed repeatedly in Sacramento.

Porter, who backs a government-run healthcare system, pressed Becerra on his stance since he’s wavered on the issue recently.

“Do you support CalCare — California having its own state-run, single-payer system, yes or no?” Porter asked.

Becerra gave a vague answer.

“The most important thing about having a Medicare for All plan is that it includes everyone,” he said. “What we have to do is get to the point where we are covering everyone with something like Medicare for All.”

Mahan, who opposes a state-run system, later chimed in and said Becerra “was unable to clearly answer the most important question on healthcare.”

Becerra contested: “I did answer that question.”

Steyer joined Porter in saying he’d support it, while Bianco, Hilton, and Villaraigosa said it wasn’t practical or would cost too much.

When the debate turned to healthcare access for immigrants, the candidates were divided.

Steyer, Porter and Becerra said they supported state-funded healthcare coverage for low-income immigrants without legal status, which Newsom passed then pared back. Bianco called the policy “ridiculous.”

Immigration

Other arguments about immigration fell largely along party lines.

The Democrats sharply rebuked the Trump administration’s immigration raids.

Steyer said the state should prosecute federal agents and immigration enforcement leaders who racially profile or use violence against Californians. Mahan said business owners in San Jose have lost customers because many immigrants are afraid to leave their house.

But Bianco said he supported Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions, saying agents were enforcing the law and working to deport people he referred to as “criminals” in the country illegally.

Hilton, who’s from England, pointed out that he was the only immigrant on stage. The candidates shouldn’t conflate legal and illegal immigration, he said.

“Although it is the federal government’s responsibility to determine and implement immigration policy, I think it’s important that all the laws are peacefully enforced,” Hilton said. “As governor, I would make sure that we work with the federal government to enforce our laws.”

President Donald Trump

The Democrats each emphasized they would fight Trump on immigration policy in particular.

Neither Hilton, whom Trump has endorsed, nor Bianco, invoked him much except to say that Democrats unfairly blame him for the state’s woes.

Becerra mentioned Trump the most, noting he sued the administration many times while serving as state attorney general from 2017 to 2021, when he was appointed health secretary under then-President Joe Biden.

“I’m going to repeat Donald Trump as often as I have because he’s the menace,” Becerra declared.

When Villaraigosa pressed Hilton to acknowledge Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, Hilton refused to answer.

“Endlessly going on about Donald Trump doesn’t serve the needs of the struggling families and small businesses,” Hilton said.

Mahan sought to find middle ground. He said Becerra was wrong to blame high gas prices solely on Trump, but also noted that San Jose has sued the Trump administration over immigration policy. He said it was disqualifying for the Republican candidates to support Trump’s “cruel and ineffective policies.”

Porter, meanwhile, put it simply: “Donald Trump sucks.”

Gas tax and proposed billionaires tax

Steyer was the only candidate on stage to say he’d vote for a proposed billionaires tax expected to appear before voters in November. The one-time tax proposal aims to backfill funding cuts signed into law by Trump that reduced healthcare access for low-income people.

Porter also supports some increased taxes on California’s ultrawealthy but called the proposed tax a temporary fix to a long-term problem.

Meanwhile Mahan said he would suspend the gas tax because it unfairly burdens working families.

Hilton would make people’s first $100,000 free of income tax.

Mahan and Steyer said they’d tax artificial intelligence companies and use the money to support workers, for example through workforce development training.

“The answer is to tax these companies, not to regulate them to the point that they simply go to other places,” Mahan said.

The post California governor candidates clash on taxes, Trump and healthcare in lively debate appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

    The report focuses on immigration detainers, which are requests made by ICE asking local law enforcement agencies to notify federal officials before releasing a deportable immigrant from custody. Detainers also request that inmates be held for up to 48 additional hours so ICE agents have time to take them into federal custody.

    Data compiled for 2025 shows Riverside County transferred 158 out of 1,380 inmates with immigration detainers into ICE custody, amounting to an 11.4% transfer rate. San Bernardino County transferred 180 out of 1,674 detainees, or 10.8%. Both counties ranked above the statewide average of 8.49%, according to the analysis.

    By comparison, Los Angeles County transferred 4.6% of inmates with immigration detainers, while Orange County transferred 7.6%. Across California, 2,077 inmates out of 24,438 people flagged with immigration detainers were ultimately transferred to ICE custody during 2025.

    The findings were assembled by Keith Maben, a sophomore at Claremont McKenna College and head of the Immigration Task Force at the Mgrublian Center for Human Rights. Maben said Riverside and San Bernardino counties stood out because their transfer rates were noticeably higher than California’s average.

    “San Bernardino and Riverside County were on the higher end of enforcement data,” Maben said. “Both of them had results where about 10 to 12% of these detainees actually resulted in people going into ICE custody.”

    Maben noted that while the percentage differences may appear small on paper, the contrast becomes clearer when compared to counties such as Santa Clara County, where less than 1% of detainees with immigration detainers were transferred to ICE.

    The report also found a pattern between transfer rates and political leanings across California counties. Counties with more conservative voter bases and sheriffs tended to report higher levels of cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

    Among the counties with the highest transfer percentages were Imperial County at 33.7%, Kings County at 29.1%, Santa Barbara County at 24.9%, Tuolumne County at 24.3%, and Del Norte County at 22.2%. Riverside County ranked 12th statewide, while San Bernardino County ranked 13th.

    Maben said his research examined how sheriff’s departments interpret California’s Senate Bill 54, also known as the California Values Act, which limits cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities.

    Through public records requests, the Mgrublian Center obtained documents outlining agreements between Riverside County and federal agencies, including a 2020 memorandum with Homeland Security Investigations and a 2024 agreement with U.S. Border Patrol tied to drug smuggling investigations.

    “We found a very strong effect where California sheriffs who tended to cooperate with the federal government or have memorandums of understanding also tended to have higher enforcement data,” Maben said.

    One document highlighted in the report was Riverside County’s 2018 ICE Detainer Eligibility Worksheet, which lists 30 serious or violent felonies that may justify notifying ICE before an inmate’s release.

    Immigrant rights advocates say the numbers are troubling, though not unexpected. Eddie Torres, policy director for the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, pointed to the presence of the Adelanto ICE Processing Center and the nearby Desert View Annex as a possible reason the Inland Empire sees higher transfer rates.

    “When you have a detention center near you, it makes sense you’d have a higher rate of transfers because it makes logistical sense,” Torres said.

    The Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice is part of the Shut Down Adelanto Coalition, a group of organizations pushing to close the Adelanto detention facilities operated by GEO Group. Torres said advocates came close to shutting the facilities down in 2023 before federal officials renewed the contract for another five years.

    The discussion around immigration transfers has also become tied to California’s broader political debate over immigration enforcement. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, who is currently running for governor, has publicly advocated for stronger cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration agencies. His campaign platform calls for ending policies such as SB 54 and allowing local law enforcement to work more closely with federal immigration officials in criminal cases involving undocumented immigrants.

    In response to questions about the report, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department spokesperson Lt. Deirdre Vickers said the department follows California law and does not exercise discretion beyond the legal requirements outlined in SB 54.

    “The Riverside Sheriff’s Office complies with the law,” Vickers said in a written statement. “First, the Sheriff’s Office receives a request for transfers from ICE. The Sheriff’s Office then determines the inmates who meet the requirements under SB 54. Of those inmates, ICE determines which inmates are transferred into their custody.”

    The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department disputed portions of the data used in the report. Department officials said they received 1,423 ICE notifications in 2025 rather than the 1,674 cited in the analysis, and said only 47 inmates were transferred to ICE custody instead of 180.

    Maben acknowledged that some of the data may be imperfect because it was reconstructed through federal public records requests and not reported directly by ICE.

    “I think it’s important to take this data with a grain of salt,” Maben said. “It tells us something, but it’s not going to inform the whole story.”

    ICE also questioned the accuracy of the Deportation Data Project, which supplied much of the information used in the analysis. In a statement, the agency said its internal systems do not support the project’s numbers and that ICE could not verify the completeness or accuracy of the outside data.

    San Bernardino County Sheriff Shannon Dicus argued that restrictions created by SB 54 have shifted immigration enforcement away from county jails and into public spaces. Dicus said allowing transfers to occur inside secure jail facilities would reduce risks to both officers and the public.

    “Those in-custody transfers provided a more predictable, secure, and efficient process for law enforcement and reduced risk to the public,” Dicus said in a written statement. “Current law prohibits that level of coordination.”

    Los Angeles County officials said their department requires a federal judicial warrant signed by a judge before an inmate can be transferred to ICE custody, in accordance with county policy and California law. Orange County Sheriff Don Barnes also stated publicly that ICE ultimately decides whether to pick up inmates with detainers after their jail commitments end.

    Meanwhile, immigrant rights advocates believe immigration enforcement activity will continue increasing throughout 2026 as the federal government expands detention operations nationwide. Torres said advocacy groups are increasingly concerned about what they describe as more tactical immigration enforcement operations occurring in courthouses and other public settings.

    Maben’s full report for the Mgrublian Center for Human Rights is expected to be released in the coming weeks.

The post Inland Empire Sheriffs Transfer Detainees to ICE at Higher Rates Than State Averagec appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Advocates say the agency began transferring immigrant detainees to the McFarland facility last week.

The facility, called Central Valley Annex, brings the total number of active detention centers in California to eight, up from six at the beginning of 2025. They are all operated by private companies and they have a total capacity of nearly 10,000 beds. 

Both of the detention centers that opened since President Donald Trump took office had been used as private prisons until California’s incarcerated population fell to a level that allowed the Newsom administration to end those contracts.

The latest figures show an average of about 5,337 people are being held in California immigration detention facilities, according to DetentionReports.com. That number is up 72% from the average daily population of about 3,104 individuals being held in California in April 2025. 

This newest facility is part of a cluster of detention centers in Kern County, which includes the Golden State Annex in McFarland. It is unclear if GEO obtained conditional use permits or business licenses from the city of McFarland to start detaining immigrants at Central Valley Annex.

Advocates for detained immigrants said they did not have an opportunity to raise their concerns at public hearings before ICE began using the new site.

“We don’t want another ICE detention center in California, or anywhere else for that matter,” said anti-ICE detention advocate Edwin Carmona-Cruz about the new Central Valley Annex.  

The Central Valley Annex is adjacent to Geo Group’s Golden State Annex, which is holding an average daily population of 565 people.

Until 2020, GEO Group operated a cluster of private prisons in McFarland for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The writing was on the wall for their closure as private prisons because Gov. Gavin Newsom had committed to ending those contracts. 

California Democrats in 2019 tried to stop GEO Group from turning the sites into immigrant detention facilities by passing a law to prohibit that use. 

ICE signed a 15-year contract worth $1.5 billion with GEO for two McFarland sites and one in Bakersfield just weeks before the law went into effect. In 2023, a federal court found the state law unconstitutional, ruling it infringed on federal authority to enforce immigration law. 

In 2020, the McFarland mayor resigned because the city’s planning commission deadlocked on GEO’s proposal to convert two of its sites there into immigration detention facilities. Then-Mayor Manuel Cantu Jr. told the Desert Sun the day after the vote that the small city relies on the approximately $2 million annually that GEO pays in property taxes and utility fees to provide vital municipal services like water, sewer and public safety. 

The private prison company appealed, though, and eventually was able to move forward in 2020 with opening Golden State Annex for its work with ICE. 

GEO told the planning commission in 2020 that opening both the Golden State and Central Valley annexes would bring the town $511,000 annually in mitigation payments, along with well-paying jobs. 

California state law requires a city or county to provide a 180-day notice and hold public hearings before approving or allowing the reuse of a facility for immigration detention.

The city clerk and city manager of McFarland, a small agricultural town with a population of about 15,000, did not immediately respond to phone calls and questions from CalMatters. 

Jason Sweeney, a spokesperson for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said the facility opened “under an existing intergovernmental services agreement” that “has been in place for several years.” He said the Central Valley Annex began housing detainees within the last two weeks and that the agency would add the new site to its bi-weekly reports.

California’s newest detention centers

Last year, CoreCivic, another private prison operator, opened a 2,560-bed immigrant detention center in California City, in eastern Kern County, on the site of another shuttered state prison. It’s the largest ICE detention center in the state. The company began detaining immigrants there in late August 2025 without acquiring necessary paperwork from California City, contributing to legal and community opposition. 

According to GEO Group’s website, the newly activated Central Valley Annex facility is accredited by the American Correctional Association and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care. It previously housed detainees from the U.S. Marshals Service. 

ICE did not immediately respond to a question about whether the facility is now holding both U.S. Marshal and immigrant detainees. 

The unprecedented growth in people being held in ICE detention centers nationwide has been fueled by an influx of $45 billion delivered through the spending law Trump signed last year that he referred to as the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” The Trump administration is aiming to hold more than 100,000 immigrant detainees on any given day as part of his massive deportation campaign. When he took office in 2025, ICE was holding an average of about 40,000 people per day. 

State oversight of conditions inside

Carmona-Cruz, the co-executive director of the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, said people being sent to Central Valley Annex “are at risk of the same terrible abuses and inhumane conditions that people in the ICE detention center next door have faced for years.” 

For years, detainees at the Mesa Verde and Golden State Annex facilities — the others under the same contract as Central Valley Annex — have alleged abuse and dangerous conditions, including medical neglect, being paid only $1 a day for labor, being held in solitary confinement after reporting sexual abuse and inadequate food. 

In response to some of those previous allegations, Chris V. Ferreira, the spokesman for GEO Group, has previously told CalMatters that his company “strongly disagrees with these baseless allegations, which are part of a long-standing, politically motivated, and radical campaign to abolish ICE and end federal immigration detention by attacking the federal government’s immigration facility contractors.” He did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this story. 

“The people being sent there are our community members, neighbors, family members,” Carmona-Cruz  said. “ICE and GEO Group are incapable of meeting the human needs of the people they detain. ICE detention is not only unjust and unnecessary — it is deadly. Nearly 50 people have died in ICE detention since Trump took office again, and it’s only getting worse.” 

Last year,  the California Attorney General’s Office released a report raising concerns about health care inside ICE facilities. At that time, there were only six detention centers operating in the state. 

The post ICE quietly opens another detention center in a former California prison appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The SBA limited access to its loans to U.S. citizens and nationals only starting in March, and expanded that policy to SBA-backed loans beginning in April. On top of that, any business that’s even partly owned by a permanent legal resident with a green card is no longer eligible for the loans.

California — which has the most small businesses and the largest immigrant population in the nation — could be most affected. SBA loans have been important to immigrant entrepreneurs because they typically are low-interest and available to those without an established credit history. The agency has also backed loans by private funders, providing a government guarantee for people banks may deem riskier. Now, all those loans are off the table for owners and would-be owners of restaurants, bake shops, law practices, medical clinics, taxi medallions, nail salons and more who hold green cards.

Small business owners are responsible for 99% of net new jobs in the state, according to the California Office of the Small Business Advocate. Immigrant entrepreneurs make up 40% of the state’s business community and generated $28.4 billion in income in 2023, according to GO-Biz, the governor’s office of business and economic development.

Small Business Majority, a national business advocacy group, wrote to the SBA in mid-March, urging the federal agency to reconsider the changes. The letter, signed by dozens of state and national groups and chambers of commerce, called the new policies “a misguided approach that ignores critical economic data underscoring the job creating power of the immigrant community.”

The SBA has a limited lending capacity, said Maggie Clemmons, a spokesperson for the agency. “The agency’s rule change will help ensure more American citizens have access to funding previously granted to noncitizens,” she said in an email.

The SBA approved 3,358 loans for small businesses owned partly by a lawful permanent resident in fiscal year 2025, largely during the Biden administration, Clemmons said. That represented 4% of the 85,000 loans approved by the agency. In California, the changes could affect about 220,000 small business owners who hold green cards, said Carolina Martinez, chief executive of CAMEO Network, a national association of organizations that support small businesses.

“The most important thing for us is to really understand that this SBA decision… is really bad for the American economy,” Martinez said.

Pursuing the American Dream

Cristina Foanene, a Romanian immigrant who arrived in the United States 20 years ago, was a green-card holder when she obtained an SBA loan in 2018 that allowed her and her husband to buy a building and expand their glass company, MCS Glass, in Fresno. They now have 30 employees.

“The loan gave us an opportunity to create more jobs, to have an even greater impact in our community,” Foanene said. Their goal is to manufacture more products and create more positions, she added.

She said she doesn’t know where the business would be today without the SBA loans they received over the years. They just signed their third loan last month, Foanene said, their first as American citizens.

She called herself loyal to this country and said she’s sad that others like her may not have the same opportunities to pursue the American Dream by securing SBA loans while “respecting the laws.”

“It literally breaks my heart,” Foanene said. “There are so many good people with good intentions. I feel it’s unfair.”

Other entrepreneurs or independent contractors also lose a possible safety net that SBA loans once provided.

“During the pandemic, these loans were crucial to people’s survival,” said Dung Nguyen, program and organizing director for California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative, an organization that advocates for Vietnamese immigrants, many of whom work in the nail-salon industry. The group signed the Small Business Majority’s letter to the SBA.

Nguyen said the nail-salon workers and owners who took out those loans during the pandemic are still paying them back.

‘A new kind of status’

Kenia Zamarripa, spokesperson for the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, which also signed the letter to the SBA, said this latest policy change is another example of how immigrants are more vulnerable as federal funds for other programs have been taken away. Her group and others are pushing for immigration reform that includes a standardized path to citizenship, she said.

“This is a community that’s doing things the right way, looking for a legal path,” she said. “It’s like you’re punishing them for doing the right thing.”

The SBA changes push green-card holders to “informality,” Zamarripa said. “What’s next? What other resources will be taken away? How else will immigrants continue to be targeted?”

Others echo that concern.

“This dialog is really challenging our concept of what undocumented means,” said Gabriela Alemán, a spokesperson for Mission Asset Fund, a San Francisco organization that supports and lends to small business owners. “These are community members that are now being pushed into a new kind of status.”

Mission Asset Fund’s lending circles — modeled after the Mexican community-based lending practice called tandas — can provide up to $2,500 in loans to small business owners. The group just got its California lenders’ license and will eventually be able to provide larger loans, Alemán said.

But it will be tough for groups like it to fill the gap left by the SBA’s new policies for permanent legal residents who may want to start or grow their businesses.

“There are not any other options at this scale (that the SBA provides),” said Brian Kennedy Jr., entrepreneur ecosystem director at AmPac Business Capital, a Los Angeles-area community development financial institution and SBA partner. “We’re talking about $35,000 up to $30 million.”

What’s next

Many small business owners already use — and may increasingly rely on — community development financial institutions and other lenders whose mission is to help people with limited options, credit histories and savings. They could also turn to the state for help. State-funded options include a small business loan guarantee program through its IBank, and programs through the treasurer’s office that reduces risks to lenders by pledging state funds as collateral, or contributing to loan-loss reserves.

Microenterprise Collaborative of Inland Southern California works with lenders, technical assistance providers and community partners to help small business owners in Inland Southern California.

Pamela Deans, the group’s executive director, said the SBA’s policy change will alter how the organization refers entrepreneurs to sources of capital. Rather than pointing them to “a relatively straightforward” SBA process, she said the group will have to inform them of a more fragmented set of options and warn them about predatory lending.

“Many of these would‑be owners will have a much harder time piecing together enough safe, affordable capital to lease a space, buy equipment or cover early working capital — so the taquería, the child care business, the trucking startup may never open in the first place,” Deans said.

Bianca Blomquist, California director for Small Business Majority, also is concerned about small business owners turning to unscrupulous lenders. She said her group found out recently that an owner of a child care business in downtown L.A. took out a $10,000 loan at what she thought was 13% interest. It was actually closer to 250%.

Other advocates are hoping philanthropy and impact investors will step up and make more capital available to small lenders.

“Women, entrepreneurs, immigrants and communities of color always have had to think outside the typical paths,” said Leticia Landa, executive director of La Cocina, a small business incubator in San Francisco. “I do hope, especially in California, that we’re going to come up with something.”

The post Big change for California small businesses: No more SBA loans for non-citizens appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.