Las tácticas de la administración Trump “desalientan a las personas a asistir a los tribunales o a sentirse seguras en ellos, donde la gente simplemente busca acceder al proceso que les corresponde”, dijo Bobby Hodgson, subdirector legal de New York Civil Liberties Union.

Agentes de inmigración frente al edificio 26 Federal Plaza en junio. (Ayman Siam/Office of NYC Comptroller)

Este artículo se publicó originalmente en inglés el 6 de agosto. Traducido por Daniel Parra. Read the English version here.

Varias organizaciones neoyorquinas demandaron al Departamento de Seguridad Nacional, a la Oficina Ejecutiva de Revisión de Casos de Inmigración y al Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE por sus siglas en inglés) para detener los arrestos de inmigrantes que se presentan a las citas rutinarias y obligatorias en los tribunales de migración.

La New York Civil Liberties Union, la Unión Americana de Libertades Civiles (ACLU por sus siglas en inglés), Make the Road New York y Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP presentaron una demanda el viernes en nombre de The Door y African Communities Together, dos organizaciones locales sin ánimo de lucro que prestan servicios a neoyorquinos e inmigrantes.

Los demandantes afirman que tanto la reciente política de arrestos de ICE, que ahora permite a los agentes detener a personas después de sus audiencias, como la política de desestimación de casos de la Oficina Ejecutiva de Revisión de Casos de Inmigración, que permite a los abogados del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS por sus siglas en inglés) solicitar la desestimación de casos en el tribunal sin una moción por escrito, son injustas y caprichosas.

La demanda pretende revocar estas políticas en virtud de la Administrative Procedure Act (Ley de Procedimiento Administrativo), una ley federal que rige la forma en que las agencias crean y aplican reglamentos.

Las tácticas de la administración Trump “desalientan a las personas a asistir a los tribunales o a sentirse seguras en ellos, donde la gente simplemente busca acceder al proceso que les corresponde”, dijo Bobby Hodgson, subdirector legal de New York Civil Liberties Union.

Antes de que se pusieran en marcha estas medidas la administración Trump impulsó más detenciones de inmigrantes sin estatus legal, pero los funcionarios no alcanzaban las cifras que esperaban. 

Sin embargo, las detenciones aumentaron significativamente a partir de mayo cuando se implementaron estas medidas. Ese mismo mes, Stephen Miller, el principal asesor de inmigración del presidente, y Kristi Noem, la secretaria del DHS, presionaron a los funcionarios de inmigración para que aumentaran las detenciones a 3.000 personas por día.

De los 2.365 inmigrantes detenidos en Nueva York desde enero, más de la mitad no tenían antecedentes penales ni condenas, según un análisis del New York Times de datos obtenidos por el Deportation Data Project. Aproximadamente la mitad de esos arrestos fueron personas detenidas en tribunales de migración.

“La posibilidad de que las fuerzas del orden detengan a delincuentes ilegales en los tribunales es de sentido común”, dijo sin identificarse un portavoz de la oficina de prensa del DHS a City Limits, haciendo eco de las palabras que ya había usado anteriormente la subsecretaria Tricia McLaughlin. La Oficina Ejecutiva de Revisión de Inmigración remitió las preguntas al DHS y declinó hacer más comentarios.

La demanda describe cómo los miembros de dos organizaciones, The Door y African Communities Together, se han visto afectados por los arrestos y detenciones.

Por ejemplo, The Door trabaja con jóvenes menores de 24 años, algunos de los cuales son inmigrantes en busca de ayuda legal, como el asilo o el estatus de Joven Inmigrante Especial (SIJS por sus siglas en inglés). Este estatus está disponible para personas menores de 21 años que no estén casadas y vivan actualmente en los Estados Unidos, entre otros requisitos.

Para evitar a los agentes de ICE en tribunales, los defensores y abogados han sugerido que la gente pida comparecer virtualmente.

Según la demanda, uno de los clientes de The Door presentó una petición para comparecer virtualmente. Sin embargo, el tribunal rechazó su petición y tuvo que comparecer en persona ante el tribunal, donde fue arrestado. 

El joven de 21 años se encuentra actualmente recluido en el Centro de Detención Metropolitano de Brooklyn, que  enfrenta críticas por sus “condiciones peligrosas e inhumanas”.

El jueves por la mañana, a los congresistas Adriano Espaillat, Nydia Velázquez y Dan Goldman —quienes presentaron una demanda contra ICE la semana pasada por habérseles prohibido el acceso a las zonas de detención de ICE— se les negó la entrada al centro de Brooklyn durante una visita de supervisión.

The Door teme que la petición SIJS del joven se pierda si es deportado y no han podido hablar con él desde su detención en junio.

“Vemos el miedo de nuestros miembros de una forma que no habíamos visto en el pasado”, dijo Beth Baltimore, subdirectora de servicios jurídicos para The Door.

Baltimore explicó que de todas las peticiones de comparecencia virtual que han presentado en nombre de clientes en los últimos dos meses, sólo un par han sido aprobadas.

“Mucha gente está perdiendo el acceso a la asesoría que podría proporcionarse en Nueva York y perdiendo el acceso a los servicios de The Door”, dijo Baltimore sobre los jóvenes, incluidos los jóvenes inmigrantes, que acceden a los servicios a través de la organización. “No pueden venir a nuestro centro de salud, no pueden venir a nuestra programación artística, ni a comer y cenar todos los días”, agregó.

Para ponerse en contacto con los reporteros de esta noticia, escriba a Daniel@citylimits.org. Para ponerse en contacto con la editora, escriba a Jeanmarie@citylimits.org.

The post Grupos de Nueva York demandan arrestos de ICE en tribunales de migración appeared first on City Limits.

By MIKE SCHNEIDER, Associated Press

President Donald Trump on Thursday instructed the Commerce Department to have the Census Bureau start work on a new census that would exclude immigrants who are in the United States illegally from the head count which determines political power and federal spending.

The census will be based on “modern day facts and figures and, importantly, using the results and information gained from the Presidential Election of 2024,” the Republican president said on his social media platform.

Experts said it was unclear what exactly Trump was calling for, whether it was changes to the 2030 census or a mid-decade census, and, if so, whether it would be used for a mid-decade apportionment, which is the process of divvying up congressional seats among the states based on the population count.

Here’s some answers to questions Thursday’s post raises:

Can Trump do this?

It would be extremely difficult to conduct a mid-decade census, if not impossible, according to experts.

Any changes in conducting a U.S. census would require alterations to the Census Act and approval from Congress, which has oversight responsibilities, and there likely would be a fierce fight.

The federal law governing the census permits a mid-decade head count for things like distributing federal funding, but it can’t be used for apportionment or redistricting and must be done in a year ending in 5. Additionally, the 14th Amendment says that “the whole number of persons in each state” are to be counted for the numbers used for apportionment, and the Census Bureau has interpreted that to mean anybody residing in the United States regardless of legal status. Federal courts have repeatedly supported that interpretation, though the Supreme Court has blocked recent efforts to change that on procedural rather than legal grounds.

“He cannot unilaterally order a new census. The census is governed by law, not to mention the Constitution,” said Terri Ann Lowenthal, a former congressional staffer who consults on census issues.

Then there is the question of logistics. The once-a-decade census is the biggest non-military undertaking by the federal government, utilizing a temporary workforce of hundreds of thousands of census takers. It can take as much as 10 years of planning.

“This isn’t something that you can do overnight,” said New York Law professor Jeffrey Wice, a census and redistricting expert. “To get all the pieces put together, it would be such a tremendous challenge, if not impossible.”

Related Articles

Trump to nominate top economic aide Stephen Miran to Federal Reserve board

Trump orders federal regulators to probe alleged bank discrimination against conservatives

Trump orders colleges to prove they don’t consider race in admissions

Trump opens the door for private equity and crypto as 401(k) retirement plan options

US pauses most visa applications from Zimbabwe in another restriction on travelers from Africa

Has this ever been done before?

A mid-decade census has never been conducted before.

In the 1970s, there was interest in developing data from the middle of the decade for more accurate and continuous information about American life, and a mid-decade census was considered. But the funding from Congress never came through, said Margo Anderson, a professor emerita at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee who has written extensively on the history of the census.

Decades later, those wishes for continuous data would develop into the American Community Survey, the annual survey of American life based on responses from 3.5 million households.

In his first term, President Donald Trump, a Republican, unsuccessfully tried to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census form and signed orders which would have excluded people in the U.S. illegally from the apportionment figures and mandate the collection of citizenship data through administrative records.

The attempt was blocked by the Supreme Court, and both orders were rescinded when Democratic President Joe Biden arrived at the White House in January 2021, before the 2020 census figures were released by Census Bureau.

Any attempt at a repeat would guarantee legal challenges.

“The census isn’t just a head count. It is meant to reflect America as it is – not as some would prefer it to be — and determines how critical resources are allocated,” ACLU Voting Rights project director Sophia Lin Lakin said in a statement. “Nobody should be erased from it. We won’t hesitate to go back to court to protect representation for all communities.”

What is a census used for?

Besides being used to divvy up congressional seats among the states and redraw political districts, the numbers derived from the once-a-decade census are used to guide the distribution of $2.8 trillion in annual government spending.

The federal funding is distributed to state and local governments, nonprofits, businesses and households, paying for health care, education, school lunch programs, child care, food assistance programs and highway construction, among other things.

Why is Trump doing this?

A Republican redistricting expert had written that using citizen voting-age population instead of the total population for the purpose of redrawing congressional and legislative districts could be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.

Critics believe the writings of Republican redistricting expert Tom Hofeller inspired the first Trump administration’s attempt at restricting the apportionment count and guided legislation introduced this year by Republican lawmakers to add a citizenship question to the 2030 census questionnaire. Trump has been open about his intent to increase the number of Republican seats in Congress and maintain the GOP majority in next year’s midterm elections.

Even though redistricting typically occurs once every 10 years following the census, Trump is pressuring Republicans in Texas to redistrict again, claiming they are “entitled” to five additional Republican seats. Trump’s team is also engaged in similar redistricting discussions in other GOP-controlled states, including Missouri and Indiana.

Some critics see the effort as part of Trump’s wider effort to control the federal statistical system, which has been considered the world’s gold standard.

Last Friday, Trump fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Erika McEntarfer, after standard revisions to the monthly jobs report showed that employers added 258,000 fewer jobs than previously reported in May and June. The revisions suggested that hiring has severely weakened under Trump, undermining his claims of an economic boom.

“Trump is basically destroying the federal statistical system,” Anderson said. “He wants numbers that support his political accomplishments, such as he sees them.”

Follow Mike Schneider on the social platform Bluesky: @mikeysid.bsky.social

By CHRISTOPHER RUGABER and JOSH BOAK, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Thursday he will nominate a top economic adviser to the Federal Reserve’s board of governors for four months, temporarily filling a vacancy while continuing his search for a longer-term appointment.

Related Articles

Judge orders temporary halt to construction at Florida’s ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ detention center

EPA cancels $7 billion Biden-era grant program to boost solar energy

Texas Democrats plead for donations to extend their walkout and block Trump’s redistricting plan

Their deportation proceedings were closed for years. Trump officials are reviving them

Beauty queen accuses Rep. Cory Mills of threatening to release her nude videos

Trump said he has named Stephen Miran, the chair of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, to fill a seat vacated by governor Adriana Kugler, a Biden appointee who is stepping down Friday. Miran, if approved by the Senate, will serve until January 31, 2026.

The appointment is Trump’s first opportunity to exert more control over the Fed, one of the few remaining independent federal agencies. Trump has relentlessly criticized the current chair, Jerome Powell, for keping short-term interest rates unchanged.

Miran has been a major defender of Trump’s income tax cuts and tariff hikes, arguing that the combination will generate enough economic growth to reduce budget deficits. He also has played down the risk of Trump’s tariffs generating higher inflation, a major source of concern for Powell.

By KEN SWEET, Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order mandating a probe into whether banks have discriminated against conservatives and certain industries like gun manufacturers and cryptocurrency companies, invoking the vast powers to go after entities that the Republican president alleges have discriminated against him and his allies.

The executive order deals with an issue known as “debanking,” which is when banks close accounts of individuals or declines to go into business with certain industries. Trump has accused JPMorgan and Bank of America of debanking him and his companies in the past, something both banks have denied.

Trump ordered federal bank regulators to make sure banks do not discriminate against individuals or companies for their political or religious beliefs. He also ordered bank regulators to probe when banks may have allegedly discriminated and refer the cases to the Department of Justice.

The move could open banks to potential civil or criminal investigations, fines or punishments.

Related Articles

Judge orders temporary halt to construction at Florida’s ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ detention center

EPA cancels $7 billion Biden-era grant program to boost solar energy

Texas Democrats plead for donations to extend their walkout and block Trump’s redistricting plan

Their deportation proceedings were closed for years. Trump officials are reviving them

Beauty queen accuses Rep. Cory Mills of threatening to release her nude videos

When Trump and his party discuss debanking, they typically refer to banks closing the accounts of a person or company when they no longer want to do business with them. Banks usually say they close accounts or deny loans because the person or business is deemed too risky. The banking industry has long argued that it has a constitutional right to choose whom they go into business with, if it does not violate laws like the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

Th act, which was part of several pieces of legislation signed during the Civil Rights Movement, bans banks from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, sex and other protected statuses.

Another type of debanking is when government regulators tell banks to avoid doing business with industries or individuals. Democratic President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice told banks to avoid doing business with “high risk” industries, which included payday lenders and firearms manufacturers.

This type of government-directed debanking is also known as reputational risk, where the historic reputation of an industry prompts banks to be more careful about banking and lending. Historic examples include entities who did business in high-risk countries, did business largely in cash or were repeatedly flagged by bank regulators.

Conservatives have argued that reputational risk has become an umbrella term that allows banks to discriminate. The banking industry insists it does not actively debank and does not target specific industries or individuals. Banks have already been removing any mention of reputational risk from their policies and procedures, particularly since Trump returned to the White House.

“We don’t close accounts for political reasons, and we agree with President Trump that regulatory change is desperately needed,” said a spokeswoman for JPMorgan Chase.

The Obama administration’s government-directed debanking has been a rallying cry for conservatives. It’s one reason why the cryptocurrency industry backed Trump in 2024. While the Biden administration did not explicitly force banks to debank the crypto industry, Democratic President Joe Biden’s bank regulators did express some public concern about it, a move that was read by banks as a reason to steer away from crypto. That phrasing by the Biden administration was often referred to as “Operation Choke Point 2.0” by Trump and his allies.

Republicans have introduced legislation to cut down on alleged acts of debanking as well. Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, chair of the Senate Banking Committee, has introduced legislation that would require bank regulators to no longer consider reputational risk as a factor in how they measure a bank’s health and risk profile.