Why My Texas Town Took Action Against Flock Cameras

posted in: All news | 0

Just a few months ago, the smart home device company Ring paid millions of dollars to run a seemingly innocuous Super Bowl advertisement about finding lost dogs. Using the app’s now-defunct “Search Party” function, the ad showed how users could share a picture of their lost dog with Ring, which would access customer camera feeds and use artificial intelligence to locate their pet. Ring’s marketing team probably thought the ad would be heartwarming and well received. Instead, they almost immediately faced backlash from viewers concerned about the wide-reaching implications of home surveillance and data-sharing with police. 

That renewed suspicion isn’t limited to doorbells and home security cameras. For years, people of all political persuasions have debated the constitutionality of the indiscriminate use of surveillance tools in the name of stopping crime, whether it be red light cameras, phone location tracking, or, increasingly, automated license plate readers (ALPRs). 

ALPRs are cameras that capture and store license plate information in a database, which can then be accessed by law enforcement. With coverage in 49 states across a network of over 90,000 cameras, Flock Safety is one of the most prolific ALPR companies in the country. Flock not only provides the equipment but also the software and database that law enforcement agencies can run license plates against. Each time a law enforcement agency runs a search, it should be logged and tagged with the reason for the search, but the company’s lax policies mean that doesn’t always happen. 

Recent investigative reporting has found all kinds of dubious justifications unrelated to crime prevention, from No Kings protest attendance to out-of-state travel by a Texas woman seeking abortion care and immigration enforcement. Here in Texas, our state police were early adopters of Flock and other surveillance technology for immigration enforcement purposes as part of Texas’s abusive, deadly, and now-defunct mass deportation apparatus, Operation Lone Star.

Recent reporting has also revealed troubling lapses in data security after a number of police departments revealed their logs, publicly identifying millions of surveillance targets. You can check to see if you are one of them at HaveIBeenFlocked.com, a website Flock has fervently tried to take down. After months of bad publicity, many Flock customers decided they’d had enough. Even Ring chose to end its Flock partnership after the disastrous, out-of-touch Super Bowl ad. 

Last June, my colleagues and I on the San Marcos City Council did the same, voting to let our Flock contract lapse in December 2025. So why did we make that decision, and how were we able to overcome the pushback in the name of public safety?

While the world witnessed mass immigration sweeps and blatant law enforcement collaboration with ICE in large cities throughout 2025, the situation in San Marcos was different but still not entirely insulated from the national landscape of horror. My community was afraid that the violence we saw on our screens could soon be replicated here. The council decided to be proactive and look for tangible ways to deprive the mass deportation machine of the local infrastructure on which it so heavily relies. 

Nothing happens on our city council without first hearing from the community. When we started probing the contract renewal, we heard from both supporters and opponents. The supporters shared our concerns about the indiscriminate collection of personal data that could be accessed by law enforcement nationwide, Flock’s shoddy business practices, the erosion of probable cause and due process, and, of course, Flock’s collaboration with ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 

We also heard from our local police department with concerns about how they would keep residents and businesses safe without Flock. Flock was viewed as just one tool in the department’s toolbox, and they asked us to trust that they would protect our data, when even the company could not provide those guarantees. However, the community’s concern was not just with the local departments’ use of the Flock system but more broadly with Flock’s historically poor management of the data with which it is entrusted. 

It should go without saying that everyone wants our community to be a safe place to build a life. We carefully considered all of this feedback on the council and ultimately decided to end the contract. Critically, Flock had been in the news for months, receiving almost exclusively bad press thanks to the dogged efforts of investigative journalists across the country. That coverage and other communities’ persistent fight against Flock turned what our critics falsely called hyperbole into reality. Responding to the horrors already taking place with this software allowed us to reframe the issue around our residents’ due process and privacy rights, speaking to concerns beyond Flock’s collaboration with ICE or the potential misuse of the system. 

In short, our motivations may have varied, but the council ultimately coalesced around a belief that renewing the Flock contract was not in our city’s best interest. 

It’s difficult to condense all of the work done by our community into a few hundred words without making it sound easier than it was. The pro-Flock crowd was relentless and had heavy backing from local law enforcement and their advocacy groups. It took significant work to combat bad faith criticism and overcome how normalized state surveillance has become in this country. But terminating our Flock contract was possible, and other local governments can do it too.

The best advice I can give other local officials is to listen to the material concerns underpinning your opposition. While I consistently invoke the label of “surveillance tech” to describe Flock, that wasn’t initially how it was viewed by the San Marcos community or the council. We began by looking at the concept of “safety.” What is it that makes someone feel safe? Most communities can identify what that means for them, whether it’s investing tax dollars in healthcare, food security, stable jobs, or economic development. When our neighbors don’t experience these types of safety, that’s a policy decision. The more we made the case that investing in surveillance tech like Flock diverts resources from what actually makes our community safer, the more folks with hesitations and even outright opposition came around. 

Ultimately, the chaos and horror of mass deportation in our country cannot be done without the help of local, county, and state governments alike. Local elected officials must use every tool and pull every lever available to us to protect our communities. We must learn from each other and lean on each other as partners and experts to defend our constituents’ rights.  

We are the leaders who can either build or dismantle the networks that ICE and CBP need to terrorize our communities. We are the ones who can reframe public safety around meeting our neighbors’ needs. The fight against Flock is hopefully the catalyst for a larger rejection of surveillance technology. We must demand more from our government, and that starts by demanding more from your city and county leaders. 

Amanda Rodriguez currently serves on the San Marcos City Council in Place 6.

The post Why My Texas Town Took Action Against Flock Cameras appeared first on The Texas Observer.

Reckoning with History: What Should Become of the Cesar Chavez National Monument?

posted in: All news | 0

For decades, March 31 was marked with civil rights marches, school commemorations, and community celebrations honoring Cesar Chavez and the labor leader’s championing of better working conditions for farmworkers. In California and Texas, his birthday was a state holiday.

But when The New York Times published its investigation earlier this year on how Chavez groomed and sexually abused two girls and raped civil rights icon Dolores Huerta, the news ripped through the very spaces that had long organized to keep Chavez’s memory alive. Since then, a public reckoning has taken shape with communities revisiting Chavez’s legacy and grappling with how to disentangle him from the history of the broader farmworker movement and the ongoing fight for Latino equality in the United States.

That reckoning includes a proposal by U.S. Senator John Cornyn to abolish the César E. Chávez National Monument in California, which became the first national monument associated with contemporary Latino history when it was established in 2012. The monument comprises the United Farm Workers union’s former headquarters and compound, known as La Paz—in the Tehachapi Mountains northeast of Los Angeles—where Chavez’s abuse took place. 

Sehila Mota Casper, executive director of Latinos in Heritage Conservation, is among the signatories of a joint letter opposing the proposal, citing concerns it would undermine federal recognition of the broader legacy of the farmworker movement. The Texas Observer spoke with Mota Casper in late April about what it means to approach this moment through a community-centered lens and how historic preservation can involve reexamining what was once considered settled history.

TO: In the aftermath of the revelations about Cesar Chavez’s abuse, we’ve seen institutions and communities act quickly. Cities moved to rename streets. Murals disappeared overnight in some places. Is there harm that can come from this sort of action if it’s done too quickly, even if the intent is accountability? 

The harm can be whenever we react too quickly, and that’s really what I saw throughout the U.S. … instead of allowing the community to come together, give community time to process, and come up with a community solution. 

We saw a lot of individuals from a top-down level beginning to make decisions for community rather than engaging them in this. The reason why I say that is because the farmworker movement was about hundreds and thousands of individuals. Whenever you narrow it down and when there are individuals that are still assigning one movement to one man, then that’s where that can be detrimental.

With the proposal by John Cornyn to abolish the Cesar Chavez Monument in California, is the risk that you would lose not only the monument and its designation but also how the farmworker movement is recognized at the federal level?

That’s right.

We had just had a directive from our state governor trying to remove the Cesar Chavez Day, and then Cornyn came out with this bill to not only remove and cancel the Cesar Chavez Monument but to eliminate all of the federal land [associated with the monument]. 

What we saw was like a knee-jerk reaction responding to this … when in fact this history doesn’t belong to anyone other than farmworkers, their descendants, and Latinos. 

What does accountability on this front look like when it is defined by community and not elected officials? 

This decision really requires that we think about history not in a reactionary way but that we’re very intentional in the way we’re approaching a story, a narrative, especially in real time as it’s unfolding. Myself, as a historian, I know that narratives change over time. It is very common that these narratives change over time. It’s also very common that news and information comes up. Because of that, we have to be able to then reinterpret this history, reinterpret this story, or in this case reinterpret the monument. 

I think accountability means that those that are in leadership positions or positions of power step aside and recognize this is much greater than their positions. This is about people. This is about their parents, their children. It’s about Latino history, Asian Pacific Islander history, farmworker and labor history, and because of that we know that the decision needs to go up from community. And that would be justice because then each community would be able to say, “We don’t want to celebrate the Cesar Chavez Day. Instead, let’s have the national or state Farmworker Day.”

We see murals that are compilations of storytelling in a small community and Cesar Chavez could be one small face in this overall story of the Latinos within that community, but that doesn’t mean that we just need to whitewash the entire mural. Whenever you have a decision like that, you’re literally wiping out all of this history, all these decades of individual contributions and movement and erasing it just because we’re then assigning it to one person.

There’s a lot of pain here. There’s the harm done to Dolores Huerta and the other women who came forward. There are people who had pictures of Cesar Chavez up in their home or folks whose activism was informed or inspired by the work of Chavez, Huerta, and the farmworker movement. How do you make space for that pain in that process? 

When we think about the narrative around these histories, especially around the Chavez national monument park, that decision should come from the individuals that were directly harmed. That decision should come from women, from individuals that used to live at La Paz. 

We have to have the correct individuals at the table that are helping lead these conversations. It should be taken out of politics and supported by individuals that are trauma-informed, that are trained in these practices and that are also historians and preservationists like myself, where we’ve worked with difficult histories. … Maybe it’s a situation where we find another location. Maybe it’s a situation where we keep that location because that’s what community wants, but we remove this from being a hero-focused story.

There’s long been an underrepresentation of Latinos in the accountings of our history. Latinos have also been kept at the margins of who has the authority and the power to shape how we remember. Add on to that, the ongoing debates about history can even be taught in this country. What has to change structurally to avoid repeating these patterns? 

I grew up in a time here in Texas where we did not have the farmworker movement in our history books.

Having these foundational things like an educational exposure to these types of histories along with having these truthful conversations within the public narrative of saying, “Are we going to be truthful in our storytelling or are we going to continue glossing over this?”—those are the types of things that educate us as a community, educate us as people, and allow us then to evolve.

Dolores Huerta in Austin on October 9, 2018 (Gus Bova)

We run a lot of potential risk of repeating patterns. If we had not brought this up, we would not be talking so much about the safety of women in the farmlands or within a male-dominated field. We wouldn’t be talking so much and reacting so quickly about sexual assaults on children if this didn’t surface. Immediately, we saw Latinos begin to break that pattern. 

In this case, in real time, we recognized what was occurring and in doing so and speaking out and having a really strong voice, we were ensuring that we’re not going to repeat these patterns, that we’re talking about it, and that we’re forcing ourselves to create solutions around it. 

What have you felt is missing from the conversation about how to handle Chavez’s legacy and the legacy of the broader farmworker movement? 

I believe that the biggest thing that’s missing is community voice. I’m really happy that this is getting so much national dialogue. It deserves that. But we also need to be speaking with farmworkers—United Farm Workers and the farmers that are working out in the fields,  individuals that are second- and third-generation farmworkers.

Within historic preservation and within the realms of academia and history, I’m seeing a primary focus on Chavez rather than beginning to really think about what an equitable solution model could look like—one where women of color are put forward in this narrative and one where farmworkers and the other civil rights [activists are put forward]. 

I’m beginning to think about how can we, in a sensitive manner, be able to move forward and lead by example on how future generations can actually confront such situations and be able to retell a narrative that needs to be retold.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

The post Reckoning with History: What Should Become of the Cesar Chavez National Monument? appeared first on The Texas Observer.

Ken Paxton’s Glass House

posted in: All news | 0

Ken Paxton wants you to join him on his high horse. 

Since announcing his run for the U.S. Senate seat held by four-term incumbent Senator John Cornyn last April, Paxton has held two roles: Texas Attorney General and firebrand candidate. Using the official trappings of the powerful AG’s office, Paxton has spent the past year broadcasting strong, overtly political messages to Texans. Among them: You should be scared, and you should be disgusted. (You should also be impressed by all that he’s doing to protect you from all of it.) 

In a rigorous journalistic endeavor, the Texas Observer looked at every single press release Paxton’s office has put out from April 2025 through April 2026. We wanted to see how he was using his official AG communications—those presumably tailored to influence the media narrative, with bombastic quotes packaged for reporters to reprint—as his Senate campaign grew more contentious and voters indicated they needed more convincing. These press releases have helped serve as useful chum to throw out to his party base as he, first, navigated a three-way primary that included Congressman Wesley Hunt, and now, a ruthless runoff with Cornyn that will come to a head later this month. These communiqués have also helped create a constant stream of free media, which is especially helpful given his struggles to fundraise for expensive ad buys(while Cornyn has a massive money machine).  

With the guidance of a rhetoric expert, and stubbornly without the use of artificial intelligence implements, we analyzed hundreds of these documents, paying special attention to word choice, the impetus behind each missive, and who, if anybody, was the target of his vitriol. 

The AG’s office sent out nearly 300 press releases in the past year, and the overwhelming majority were negative in tone, even those lauding his office’s “major victories” in court. In these announcements—a mixture of bombthrowing office PR and turn-of-the-screw legal and investigative updates—he used strong language, replete with moralizing and name calling. 

His favorite targets were companies he accused of having unethical business practices or ties to China, immigrants, and trans people. His most fervent month was August 2025, when Texas House Democrats broke quorum for two weeks to forestall a vote on a Trump-ordered congressional redistricting map and Paxton’s office sent out 37 releases. The following month, Paxton sent out one of his longest releases, which was a laundry list of his accomplishments securing “victory after victory” in the AG’s office. His second most prolific month was February of this year—during which he sent 34 press releases—the month ahead of the heated March primary contest.  

He seems particularly proud of his expansive use of consumer protection law. He’s come after Kellogg’s and other cereal companies for using artificial dyes. He helped “protect our kids” by forcing Colgate-Palmolive and Procter & Gamble to agree to depict smaller dabs of toothpaste on their packaging, lest children be tempted to use more fluoride than necessary. He publicly investigated fast-fashion retailer Shein and athleisure brand Lululemon over concerns about the safety of their materials (and in the case of the former, sued them over ties to China). 

Ahead of the runoff on May 26, Paxton’s office sent significantly more releases this April (23) than it did last April (16). That month, he highlighted in particular his efforts to enhance consumer protections, to combat “viewpoint suppression,” and to attack immigration from multiple angles.

Texas is one of five states with “resign-to-run” laws, which force some officials to give up their current seat before they can run for a new one. But in Texas, this applies mostly to local offices like county judges, district attorneys, and sheriffs. The law acknowledges the threat that someone could leverage their current office to aid their campaign for a new one.

But the Texas Attorney General—and all other state offices—is notably not required to give up their seat when running for another office. So, under the Seal of the State of Texas, Paxton is free to take swings at his opponents. 

He has used the powers of his office to directly target Cornyn, undoing some of the legal frameworks that the former AG enacted when he was in office from 1999 to 2002. In January, Paxton issued a sprawling legal opinion overruling Cornyn’s 1999 opinion that gave room for demographics to be considered in higher education. Paxton’s opinion took aim at the broader framework of DEI. In a press release after this action, he accused Cornyn of “mudd[ying] the waters.” 

The following month, Paxton withdrew a 2001 opinion by Cornyn that made room for noncitizens to get licences by not requiring they have a social security number. Paxton accused Cornyn of making decisions that “put Texans last by rolling out the red carpet for the invasion of our State.” 

Paxton has made himself a household name in Texas as one of the most MAGA-aligned Republicans. But he’s perhaps most infamous for surviving numerous scandals and legal challenges over his two-decade career in state politics. He was AG for less than a year before he was indicted on securities fraud charges in 2015. He was reported to the FBI by his own employees for alleged bribery and abuse of office in 2020. (He illegally fired those whistleblowers.) He was then impeached by the Texas House of Representatives in 2023, but was ultimately acquitted when the matter reached the Senate. In 2025, his wife, State Senator Angela Paxton, filed for divorce on “biblical grounds” after years of her husband’s admitted infidelity. 

When he’s the defendant, he’s quick to dismiss the allegations. Such claims are merely attempts, he’s said, at “sabotage” and “bogus witch hunts” that ignored “the rule of law, the Constitution, and innocent until proven guilty.”

But as Texas attorney general, he doesn’t hesitate to throw stones relying on the same judicial processes he often claims are compromised. In the past year of press releases, he has threatened 15 times to use the “full force of the law”—against immigrants, Democrats, and China, among others. 

“If you mess with Texas, I will come after you,” he warned tech companies suspected of being affiliated with the Chinese government in a press release last November. 

He calls companies “unethical” for “lin[ing] their own pockets” and pursuing profit at the expense of taxpayers. (Paxton himself has been accused of unethically profiting while in office). 

Paxton’s hypocrisy is well-documented. He’s one of the loudest proponents for requiring schools to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms. He opened up investigations into several school districts he accuses of not following the law, sending out eight press releases in the past year referring to the commandments as the foundation of the country’s “legal and moral heritage” and “ethical foundation.” Yet he’s famously eschewed Number 7 multiple times (thou shalt not commit adultery). 

Paxton’s official office communications can be formulaic at times—“Attorney General Ken Paxton Slams Radical _____”, “Attorney General Ken Paxton Secures Victory Against _____”—but the language is anything but dry. He decries a “cabal of abortion-loving radicals,” as well as the “jet-setting runaway” Democrats whom he accused of taking “Beto Bribes” from “repeat loser Beto O’Rourke” when they broke quorum.

Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo, he says, is a “champagne socialist.” Pro-immigration activists are “criminal-loving,” and Gavin Newsom can say all he wants from his perch atop the “failed state of California.” Texans are at the mercy of “Antifa-like groups,” “drug-ridden vagrants,” and “pixel pedophiles.” 

His use of trigger words, or terms that are meant to evoke a strong emotional reaction, are particularly telling in these documents. In the span of a year, Paxton used thousands of negative trigger words in his official communications. His favorite by a wide margin: “radical” (108 times). He also accused many of “deceit” (52 times), of “schemes” (34 times), of being “woke” (20 times). 

Matthew Montgomery, assistant professor of American politics at Texas Christian University, said Paxton has a track record of pushing the boundaries of what people expect to hear from an elected official. He said it’s largely been helpful for him to have such a bully pulpit. “It’s just a matter of motivating people to get out there and vote,” Montgomery said. “So if you can scare people or make them hopeful, it might get them to the polls. And using these kinds of words and language is something that does have a demonstrable effect on the public.”

He leaned on stigmatizing, moralizing, and at times outdated language, calling those he disagrees with “demented,” “lunatics,” “wicked,” “vile,” and “deranged.” He calls political adversaries “losers” and refers to immigrants mostly as “aliens” or simply “illegals.” 

In January, he announced that 50 “illegal aliens” had been rounded up in Houston raids. “My message to the illegal aliens who’ve invaded our country and are now detained is simple: Adios!” he wrote.

In these releases, he consistently referred to transgender women as “mentally ill men” and accused the “radical left” of being “obsessed with crushing the dreams of so many girls by allowing men to compete against women in sports.” 

These rhetorical choices all hew closely to President Donald Trump’s own personal lexicon. Trump is one of the few people consistently positively referenced in these releases, along with Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy and “national hero Charlie Kirk.” 

We analyzed the trigger words with positive connotations as well. He vowed frequently to “protect” Texas and its laws (63 times) and called for “accountability” 59 times. His third favorite word was “victory.” 

These strategies—of using extreme language and posturing—have worked for Paxton so far, but it’s difficult to tell how voters will respond to his rhetoric in the primary runoff, or—if he beats Cornyn—against the famously mild-mannered, scripture-quoting Democrat James Talarico in November. 

The AG’s office did not reply to the Observer’s request for comment on its rhetorical practices.

The post Ken Paxton’s Glass House appeared first on The Texas Observer.

‘What Kind of Life Is This?’: Five Desperate Cubans Weigh Their Odds in Texas

posted in: All news | 0

It’s 3 a.m. in Austin and Rodríguez is still awake, the glow of his phone illuminating his face in the darkness. He refreshes the page again. A painting job appears—$150 for a day’s work. His finger hovers over the screen for just a second. Too long. By the time he taps, it’s already gone.

He’s been doing this for months now, ever since President Donald Trump canceled his work permit. Before that, he’d installed speakers at a Tesla facility north of town for 12 hours a day. And before that, he’d served drinks at a nightclub downtown, worked construction, and hauled furniture. 

These days, he takes whatever he can find, whenever he can find it, hoping someone will accept his expired documents. His American girlfriend helps when she can, but her brothers won’t even look at him. “Your boyfriend isn’t welcome until he gets his papers,” he said they told her.

Rodríguez, who asked to be identified only by his last name for fear of retaliation, is one of an estimated 125,000 Cubans now living in Texas. He is part of a wave who fled the island over the past five years, seeking safety. Instead, they found a U.S. immigration system that opens doors, then slams them shut: work permits canceled overnight and bureaucratic delays stretching for years.

The flow of Cubans to the United States became a flood after July 11, 2021, when thousands took to the streets demanding freedom. More than 850,000 arrived here from 2022 to September 2024. To manage the influx, the Biden administration created a humanitarian parole process in January 2023, allowing Cubans and others to apply online for legal entry and work permits while awaiting immigration court dates. Then, under Trump’s second administration, humanitarian parole programs were ended, stripping those permits and legal protections from more than half a million people.

The changes created shock waves, particularly among people who historically had benefited from the Cuban Adjustment Act—a Cold War-era policy created in the aftermath of the Cuban Revolution that promised many a relatively swift path to permanent residency after a year. Now, technicalities in that law and changes in U.S. policy have disqualified many new arrivals—even some with U.S. citizen relatives. Applicants are required to prove that they entered the country “properly.” They cannot have a prior deportation order or any criminal or immigration court record.

They’re effectively undocumented, and Trump’s ICE is on the hunt.

Here, five recent Cuban immigrants to Texas tell their stories. All agreed to speak on the condition of partial anonymity, fearing deportation or persecution for speaking out. The interviews were conducted in Spanish; quotes are translated. Some details in these accounts could not be independently verified, including expenses or interactions that occurred before the migrants reached the United States. These accounts are based on consistent testimony across interviews, documents migrants provided, and public records.

Rodríguez desperately searches job websites. Morales hides with her children. A 26-year-old who goes by the nickname “El Cubano” watches how the world moves without him. Ayala, a singer, keeps her voice warm on weekends, hoping for a future. None know if they’ll be able to stay or will be forced to leave. Meanwhile, Fernández, already deported, attempts to rebuild his life thousands of miles away in yet another country.

Back home in Cuba, others are waiting—and calculating whether it’s worth trying to follow them.

I. Nothing to Do in Austin

Back in Havana, Rodríguez sold beers at an Old Town bar to earn the $1,500 he needed to flee. 

The official bar drink prices were high, so he bought beer on the side for 25 pesos and resold it to tourists for 150 until he made enough for an airplane ticket to Nicaragua. Using advice posted by other migrants on a Cuban WhatsApp group, he traveled, walking most of the 1,800 miles to the Texas-Mexico border.

Along the way, he met a woman from Kenya who spoke no Spanish. Rodríguez knew English, so he translated and helped her navigate checkpoints and negotiate with drivers for a month of the journey. In return, she covered expenses. By the time they reached southern Mexico, he estimates she’d spent over $2,000 to help him—a stranger’s generosity in a landscape of exploitation.

Rodríguez spent eight months in Nuevo Laredo, waiting for an appointment scheduled through CBP One, an app the Biden administration launched in January 2023 to help process asylum applications. 

Two years later, on Trump’s first day back in office, the administration announced it would end CBP One’s appointment system. The app was later repurposed and replaced with CBP Home, a platform designed to facilitate self‑deportation reporting. 

While Rodríguez waited in limbo, a cousin in Florida offered to sponsor him for humanitarian parole. When approval arrived several months later, he finally crossed the border. 

Upon arrival in Austin in July 2023, he had no money, no contacts, and nowhere to stay. Within a month, he found work. Moving jobs, construction, bartending. Then came the car plant, each job a step toward stability. For nearly two years, he had a work permit, a driver’s license, a steady job, and a girlfriend.

Then, under Trump’s orders, the Department of Homeland Security ended humanitarian parole programs that had allowed more than 500,000 immigrants to live and temporarily work in the United States—upending the lives of as many as 110,000 Cubans, 211,000 Haitians, 93,000 Nicaraguans, and 117,000 Venezuelans. Several organizations sued, buying Rodríguez and others a few more days. But, on May 30, the Supreme Court authorized the government to continue cancellations. Two weeks later, the notification went out: His status would be terminated.

That’s when everything fell apart for Rodríguez and many other immigrants living in the United States. Benefits granted under the parole program—such as driver’s licenses and work permits—were canceled for many, though some were able to stay or reapply under other programs, explained Pedro López, an immigration attorney based in Dallas, in an interview.

Now Rodríguez lives off dwindling savings. He has driven for Uber (by using someone else’s account to whom he pays “rent”), sometimes facing hostility even from other immigrants. One passenger, who described himself as Mexican, said Cubans “think they are hot shit” because they’ve long had an easier path to getting papers—even though the Cuban Adjustment Act never applied to all Cubans and many are now under active threat of arrest and deportation. 

His mother sends what she can from Cuba. But he sees himself as independent: He’s a 34-year-old who crossed four countries alone to get here. His late-night job searches continue, but now they’re just one piece of a larger uncertainty.

Recently, a police officer pulled him over while he was working. Rodríguez took a deep breath, rolled down the window, and placed both hands on the wheel. He’d prepared for this moment—he was dressed low-key, nothing that screamed “recent immigrant.” When the officer asked for documents, Rodríguez handed over his driver’s license without a word. An Uber customer, who sat in the back seat, spoke up: “Brother, leave him alone. He’s working. He hasn’t done anything.” The cop returned his license and walked away. Rodríguez rolled up the window, exhaled.

Rodríguez got lucky. Even though his driver’s license was unexpired, his immigration status could have put him in potential jeopardy. Trump’s decision to end parole programs meant that his license could have been listed as subject to cancellation in government databases. Any traffic violation could have been the first step to his removal.

“If they stop you even for some kind of traffic ticket, that can turn into a deportation case if you don’t have the right papers,” López said. The Cuban Adjustment Act specifies that Cubans who were “legally admitted or under parole in the United States and physically present for at least one year” can apply for permanent residency, but Cubans who entered under Biden-era parole policies now find themselves in a dangerous limbo.

Rodríguez applied in July 2024 and still hasn’t received a response. Processing times can vary from several months to more than a year, according to immigration attorney Florence Otaigbe, who works with Cubans and other immigrants at her practice in New Jersey. 

Wait times depend on the capacity of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which issued a policy memorandum in December pausing benefit requests submitted by nationals of 19 countries Trump has designated “high risk,” including Cuba. The memo also mandates a review of previously approved cases from the past five years. According to the Niskanen Center, the number of Cubans with applications for adjustment of status that had been delayed more than six months increased 140 percent from October 2024 to October 2025.

By themselves, pending applications like Rodríguez’s are flimsy shields, Otaigbe said. “If someone no longer has valid parole and no other status, then they are out of status,” she said. “Applying for adjustment … does not change anything.”

II. Software Engineer at a Dallas Taqueria

Morales spent the five years before she left Havana creating management software. She studied computer engineering, and she’d served as a university professor and worked in software production before founding her own business. Her husband set up a body shop. They owned a house, and she ran her company with a friend. Their life seemed on track, until Cuba fell apart. 

Then, she left it all to make tacos in Dallas. 

Before, she knew little about tacos. The 38-year-old—who has a degree from Cuba’s University of Informatic Sciences, the country’s top institution in her field—learned to adapt to the fast pace of a taqueria, the constant flow of orders, and the American expectations of speed and efficiency. She had to do whatever she could as an immigrant mom with two kids.

In Cuba, she’d feared for her children and fled for their future. What worried her most was “the lack of teachers in schools and the degradation of its culture, morals, principles.” Her oldest son, 8, had started saying Qué bolá, pura—a slang greeting to his mother—because that’s how his teacher spoke. At home, Morales and her husband tried to teach proper Spanish, literature, and manners: the old-fashioned education they’d received. But since everyone spoke street slang at school, the boy felt as though they also should do so at home.

Morales’ father had already lived in the United States for 10 years and had become a citizen. She figured her children would have a better future here. Otherwise, she’d probably still be in Cuba, “perhaps as a prisoner,” she said. As a busy working mom, she didn’t participate in the massive anti-government protests of July 2021, but she didn’t keep her mouth shut either. She’d always felt the revolution was a facade. 

Her father applied for parole for her and the children in 2023—their path to come to the United States—and it was approved in April 2024. Morales thought the humanitarian parole she and her children had received meant safety and an orderly path to legal residency. But that didn’t turn out to be true.

After long shifts at the taqueria, Morales cleaned schools. Her husband had remained back in Havana, and her children cried every day. Her 4-year-old would say: “Mommy, take me to Cuba to see daddy.” They once visited a local park; the girl found it pretty, but her mind wandered. “Can we go down to sit on the beach? Because you know on the other side of the sea is my daddy.”

Morales initially saw signs of hope. The children attended a bilingual school and almost completely mastered English. Here, she figured, they could become academics or entrepreneurs and not meet her professional fate: Her mechanic husband always earned more in Cuba than she did as an engineer.

With her parole, Morales obtained a driver’s license and a work permit—though without a professional license, she couldn’t work in her field. Then, boom. In March 2025, the program ended. They fired everyone in her legal situation from the taco place. 

She started cleaning houses. Sometimes she worked at a beauty salon, receiving cash to help out or wash a client’s hair. She got so scared that she stopped driving, left her rental, and began to hide with the kids. She’s seen more of ICE in the media than on the streets, “but it’s instilled terror in the community.”

She applied for residency under the Cuban Adjustment Act in June 2025, but as of early 2026, she hadn’t yet received the crucial fingerprint appointment needed to pass a background check. 

When Morales realized she had only $43 left, she tried to donate blood and plasma. The first time, she felt nervous and ashamed. Her hands were shaking. She extended her arm, and the nurse stuck in the needle. When they gave her the money, she “didn’t know whether to buy food or pay a bill.” As she recalled this during an interview, she tried to laugh, but nothing came out. 

“Right now, I need any income, however small,” she said. She donated twice. They paid her $100 each time. “Sometimes I’d end up exhausted,” she said. “I’ve felt tremors, nausea, and weakness. I really wasn’t prepared to do it with the nutrition I had. Frankly, if I did eat the way I should, what they pay me barely would cover meals.”

Returning, however, is not an option. Her husband wasn’t approved by U.S. officials when the rest of his family got permission for parole, but he still wants out, and Cuba seems to be crumbling. The economy is in free fall, and there’s so much fear. She doesn’t want her children to go hungry, walk barefoot, or be forced into military service. She faces problems in the United States, but at least her kids have shoes.

For now, they’re effectively undocumented, and Trump’s ICE is on the hunt. So they hide.

III. Invisible in El Paso

“El Cubano” spends his time at home. He paces. He listens to music, studies English, walks a couple of blocks so he doesn’t rust, scrolls Facebook. He doesn’t work because he can’t. His 60-year-old father leaves every morning while he sleeps. He often feels like a parasite.

Now 26 years old, he crossed the Mexico-U.S. border with his parents in October 2024. But he was separated from them and locked in a tiny cell, nicknamed la hielera because Border Patrol keeps the air so cold it feels like an icebox. El Cubano—the rather literal moniker given him by his traveling companions—lost track of time, moving around in his thin shirt to attempt to keep warm. 

On the fourth day, he suffered a panic attack: difficulty breathing, tachycardia, fainting. He was wheeled out to an ambulance and injected with something that left him dazed. He was hospitalized, then released the next day without any documents. Officially, El Cubano didn’t seem to exist here.

He took a taxi and met up with his parents, who’d already been released. He visited government offices and attorneys, but without papers, no one offered assistance. He finally found a help center that assisted him with obtaining his immigration file—based on an A-Number, the code that identifies him in the U.S. immigration system. When the file arrived, he discovered he already had a deportation order.

That removal order had been issued in his absence without his knowledge.

Otaigbe explained the predicament. “A regular deportation order is one someone receives after being ordered to leave by a judge,” she said. Those can be issued “in absentia” if an immigrant misses court, but El Cubano’s situation is different: He was processed under what’s called “expedited removal, which can happen at the border or in other instances, without an opportunity to appear in court.” 


Advertisement

Because of the order, one attorney told him his case was too complex to take. Another explained his best option was to apply for asylum, the status often sought by refugees from the rest of Latin America. That’s the route he decided on, and he eventually found a lawyer to take the case. The Observer requested an interview with his attorney, but he declined via email.

El Cubano used to dream of being a trucker. He likes the road at night and the feeling of being alone. Plus, truckers make good money. He once hoped to start his own trucking firm in Texas. Now that sounds ridiculous. He can’t even get a dishwashing job. He wakes up late—because why get up early? He doesn’t drive. He doesn’t contribute. Some days, he doesn’t get up at all. His parents take care of him as if he were still a child. Nobody hires him. He feels like an observer of his own life. When he does go out, he sees the world moving and feels paralyzed. 

At first, he worried constantly about being deported. Now, nothing seems to matter. “What kind of life is this?” he asks. “I’m unemployed and all the time locked up in the house.” He sometimes feels his life has no purpose. 

IV. The Soprano in Houston

Ayala, 26, is petite and slim, with tattoos, facial piercings, and a powerful voice. She was only 12 when a music teacher in her hometown in eastern Cuba first noticed that she kept hitting higher and higher notes without stopping—a feat usually attainable only by a trained lyric soprano.

Her parents enrolled her in voice, piano, and violin lessons. Soon she performed in theaters, plazas, and galas and appeared on television. At 14, she took on “Damisela Encantadora,” the classic waltz that Cuban composer Ernesto Lecuona created for the actress and operatic soprano Esther Borja, which demands elegance, long phrasing, and rhythm that few vocal artists can achieve. At 18, she entered the Higher Institute of Art in Holguín, her province, where only a handful of others could compete with her range. But she never graduated. 

Her father had already left for the United States, where he was briefly detained and then released with a federal form called an I-220A—to await an immigration hearing without legal status or a work permit. Like others released this way, he had to check in with ICE regularly. (Under Trump’s second administration, formerly routine check-ins have become increasingly dangerous: Starting in March 2025, ICE began detaining Cubans with I-220As at appointments, even some who had been compliant for years.)

Her father was unable to sponsor Ayala himself, so her aunt, a U.S. citizen living in Houston, petitioned for her to come under humanitarian parole in 2022.

She arrived in Texas that year. Her first job was at a Subway, stacking ham and cheese on bread. Later, she joined a golf ball factory, then worked at a pharmaceutical company as a pill-packer before returning to the golf ball factory. She wants to sing and knows of opportunities in the city: auditions and festivals. But her time is consumed by survival. The only thing she’s managed to do is join an amateur choir, with whom she practices on weekends.

Still, her biggest problem isn’t that she can’t perform onstage or that she spends nights packing golf balls. It’s that her father was swept up in Trump’s immigration dragnet. 

People admitted with I-220As cannot typically apply for permanent residency under the Cuban Adjustment Act, as López told the Observer. Their options are generally limited to applying for asylum or pursuing family petitions if they are related to a citizen or permanent resident. 

Ayala’s father lived and worked in Houston without incident until ICE detained him in November 2025.

She could barely communicate with her dad during his time in immigrant detention. They spoke only briefly by phone, long enough for her to know he was alive. She lacked money for a lawyer. Then, in December, he called from Cuba, and that’s how she learned they’d sent him back. It was as if both their lives had begun again. 

Back on the island, he’s looking for work and trying to adapt, though poverty has worsened. He hasn’t been able to do much for himself. He hasn’t wanted to talk. He’s depressed.

But Ayala still wants to stay. She works from 3 p.m. until midnight, feeling like a machine, and she prays that her fate won’t get tangled up like her father’s did.

On weekends, she attends choir practice. She keeps her voice warm. Just in case. She feels small in the United States, yet she also feels energized and wonders: What else could I do?

V. Ten Years Is a Lifetime

As of 2020, Fernández had been reporting regularly to the immigration office at 126 North Point Drive in north Houston for three-and-a-half years. The routine was simple: Type his name and A-Number into a machine, sign a form, obtain his next appointment date, and leave.

Fernández, now 29, arrived in Houston in 2011 as an adolescent through a family petition, and he quickly obtained his green card. But days after he turned 19, police found about 2 ounces of marijuana in his possession during a traffic stop. He completed probation, records show, and his misdemeanor charge was dismissed in 2018.

But two parallel court systems exist in the United States: criminal and immigration. And Fernández didn’t know that even with a green card an arrest can trigger deportation. Without knowing the risks, Fernández traveled to Cuba in 2019 to visit family. When he returned on January 4, 2020, immigration officers stopped him at the airport. That unauthorized trip became the trigger for a removal case.

Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996, immigrants arrested for crimes of so-called moral turpitude—including misdemeanor drug possession—can be subject to deportation. But, historically, ICE has exercised prosecutorial discretion, often not prioritizing removal of people with older offenses—or whose charges were dismissed—and who were otherwise compliant.

Trump began his first term as president by vowing to increase deportations beyond levels achieved by President Barack Obama. He ended attempts to normalize relations with Cuba, but Cuba rarely accepted deportees during Trump’s first administration, so officials essentially converted Fernández’s legal residency into a deferred deportation order. In mid-2020, he was released from detention on the condition that he report regularly. He obtained a driver’s license and a work permit. He worked selling cameras and doing photo shoots on weekends, dreaming of opening his own studio.

Trump was 10 months into his second term as president when Fernández arrived for another check-in on October 3, 2025. The office seemed eerily empty to him. He typed his information into the machine as usual. Instead of receiving his next appointment, he recalls an officer telling him: “You’re going to be detained. We’re going to deport you.”

Within 30 minutes, ICE agents had handcuffed him and taken him to the Joe Corley Processing Center in Conroe—the same facility where he’d been held in 2020. After 27 days, Cuba again refused to accept him. This time, there would be no release home—ICE offered Mexico instead. Fernández signed the papers. They shackled him and put him on a prison bus. After a three-day journey through Texas and Mexico, authorities dropped him in Chiapas, near the Guatemala border, with only the clothes he was wearing.

ICE data reveals that Fernández’s removal reflects a broader trend: The pool of immigrants targeted for deportation has widened dramatically to include more people without any criminal convictions at all.

According to The Marshall Project, people with no criminal convictions accounted for two-thirds of the more than 120,000 deportations carried out between January and May 2025. Syracuse University researcher Austin Kocher, who analyzes ICE statistics through the Deportation Data Project, confirmed this trend: 92 percent of the growth in ICE detention over a period from September 21 to January was driven by immigrants with no criminal convictions. 

Now in exile, Fernández has been writing to photography studios, trying to rebuild. His parents care for his dog in Houston, and his friends at the camera store sometimes send funds to help him. His girlfriend remains behind; they’re attempting a long-distance relationship.

Technically, Fernández, like some other long-term former permanent residents who were deported, can apply for a waiver to return in 10 years. But to him, 10 years is a lifetime. 

“If I’m going to spend 10 years here, building my life, why would I want to go there and start all over again from zero?” 

Editor’s Note: Portions of the stories reported here were presented at the Instituto Prensa y Sociedad’s annual Latin American Conference of Investigative Journalism in 2025.

The post ‘What Kind of Life Is This?’: Five Desperate Cubans Weigh Their Odds in Texas appeared first on The Texas Observer.