Tag Archives: Illegal Immigration

Driver due in court in Texas for deaths of nine smuggled in truck

Police officers work on a crime scene after eight people believed to be illegal immigrants being smuggled into the United States were found dead inside a sweltering 18-wheeler trailer parked behind a Walmart store in San Antonio, Texas, U.S. July 23, 2017.

By Jim Forsyth

SAN ANTONIO (Reuters) – The driver of a truck in which at least eight men were found dead alongside dozens suffering in sweltering conditions in San Antonio, Texas was expected to appear in court on Monday, over what authorities called a case of ruthless human trafficking.

Thirty people, many in critical condition and suffering from heat stoke and exhaustion, were taken out of the vehicle parked outside a Walmart store that lacked air-conditioning or water supply, San Antonio Fire Chief Charles Hood said. A ninth man died later at a hospital.

Outside temperatures topped 100 degrees F (37.8 C).

Another person found in a wooded area nearby was being treated, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas said. All the dead were adult males.

“All were victims of ruthless human smugglers indifferent to the well-being of their fragile cargo,” said San Antonio-based U.S. Attorney Richard Durbin Jr.

“These people were helpless in the hands of their transporters. Imagine their suffering, trapped in a stifling trailer.”

The truck’s driver, named by the U.S. Attorney’s Office as James Mathew Bradley Jr., 60, of Clearwater, Florida, was arrested, with a criminal complaint set to be filed in federal court in San Antonio on Monday.

Bradley is expected to have an initial court appearance soon after, the U.S. attorney said.

Several agencies have launched investigations into the case.

The dead men, who have not yet been identified, were discovered after officials were led to the trailer by a man who asked a Walmart employee for water.

San Antonio is about 150 miles (240 km) north of the Mexico border.

Mexico’s government said it deplored the deaths and that it had asked the authorities for an exhaustive investigation.

In a statement, it said its consul general in San Antonio was working to identify the victims’ nationalities and, if necessary, repatriate their remains to Mexico.

 

U.S. STEPS UP RAIDS

Raids on suspected illegal immigrants have increased across the United States in recent months, after President Donald Trump vowed to crack down on entrants without authorization or overstaying their visas.

In Texas alone, federal immigration agents arrested 123 illegal immigrants with criminal records in an eight-day operation ending last week.

The San Antonio deaths come more than a decade after what is considered the worst immigrant smuggling case in U.S. history, when 70 people were found stuffed into an 18-wheeler. Nineteen died in the incident in Victoria, Texas, about 100 miles (160 km) southeast of San Antonio, in May 2003.

San Antonio Police Chief William McManus said other suspects fled the scene as police arrived. Video showed “there were a number of vehicles that came and picked up other people who were in that trailer,” he said.

Twenty people were airlifted to hospitals in conditions ranging from critical to very critical, Hood said. Eight more are listed in less serious condition.

McManus said those in the truck, whose origins were unclear, ranged from school-age juveniles to adults in their 30s. He said the Department of Homeland Security had joined the investigation.

Experts have been warning that tougher immigration policies could make it harder to stop human trafficking. Measures tightening international borders encourage would-be migrants to turn to smugglers, while fear of deportation deters whistle-blowing, they said.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials defended the use of tough methods to fight human smuggling.

“So long as I lead ICE, there will be an unwavering commitment to use law enforcement assets to put an end to these practices,” the agency’s acting director, Thomas Homan, said in a statement.

The Border Patrol has regularly reported finding suspected immigrants in trucks along the U.S. border with Mexico.

This month, 72 Latin Americans were found in a trailer in Laredo. In June, 44 people were found in the back of a vehicle in the same Texas city, which lies directly across the Rio Grande from Mexico.

San Antonio has a policy of not inquiring about the immigration status of people who come into contact with city officials or police.

It was among several cities in Texas that filed a federal lawsuit last month to block a state law set to take effect in September that would force them to cooperate closely with immigration agents.

“San Antonio will not turn its back on any man, woman, or child in need,” Mayor Ron Nirenberg said in a statement responding to the truck deaths.

(Corrects headline, paras 1 and 2 to show that eight bodies were found in truck, not nine; a ninth man died later at a hospital.)

 

(Additional reporting by Barbara Goldberg in New York); Editing by Chris Michaud and Clarence Fernandez)

 

Exclusive: U.S. immigration raids to target teenaged suspected gang members

FILE PHOTO: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Assistant Field Office Director Jorge Field (R), 53, and Field Office Director David Marin arrest a man in San Clemente, California, U.S., May 11, 2017. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson/File Photo

By Julia Edwards Ainsley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. immigration agents are planning nationwide raids next week to arrest, among others, teenagers who entered the country without guardians and are suspected gang members, in a widening of President Donald Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigrants.

The raids are set to begin on Sunday and continue through Wednesday, according to an internal memo seen by Reuters. The teenagers targeted will be 16- and 17-years-old.

The raids represent a sharp departure from practices during the presidency of Barack Obama. Under Obama, minors could be targeted for deportation if they had been convicted of crimes, but were not arrested simply for suspected gang activity or membership.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in a statement that a person can be identified as a gang member if they meet two or more criteria, including having gang tattoos, frequenting an area notorious for gangs and wearing gang apparel.

The agency said it does not comment on plans for future law enforcement operations, but that it focuses on individuals who pose a threat to national security and public safety.

The memo instructing field offices to prepare for the raids was dated June 30. A Department of Homeland Security official speaking on background confirmed on Friday the raids were still scheduled to take place, though ICE could still change its plans.

Trump, who campaigned on the promise of tough immigration enforcement, has made deporting gang members, especially those belonging to the El Salvador-based Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, a top priority.

“You have a gang called MS-13. They don’t like to shoot people. They like to cut people. They do things that nobody can believe,” Trump said at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa last month. In a May speech, the president promised the gang would be “gone from our streets very soon, believe me.”

‘THIS IS TROUBLING’

Although children can be deported like adults, U.S. immigration law considers minors arriving at the border without a parent or guardian particularly vulnerable and gives them additional protections.

Minors apprehended entering the country without a guardian are placed in custody arrangements by U.S. Health and Human Services, often with a family member living in the United States.

Law enforcement agencies maintain databases of individuals suspected of having gang affiliations, but the lists have come under fire from civil rights groups.

Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles, said the databases often contain inaccurate information.

“This is troubling on several levels,” Hincapie said. “For one, the gang databases in places like California are rife with errors. We have seen babies labeled as potential gang members.”

Immigration lawyer David Leopold of Ulmer & Berne said innocent children could be swept up in the raids.

“In many cases, children don’t freely decide to join a gang. They are threatened by older gang members and forced to get a gang tattoo if they live in a certain neighborhood,” he said.

The raids planned for next week will also target parents who crossed the border illegally with their children and have been ordered deported by a judge, and immigrants who entered the country as children without guardians and have since turned 18, according to the memo.

The document directs field offices to identify people in their areas that meet the criteria.

The Obama administration targeted those two groups in 2016 raids that sought to deter a surge of illegal border crossings by families and minors that began in 2014.

Obama, however, directed immigration agents to prioritize for deportation only those who had committed serious crimes or had recently entered the country.

(Reporting by Julia Edwards Ainsley; Editing by Sue Horton and Ross Colvin)

Judge refuses to remove block on Trump sanctuary city order

U.S. President Donald Trump attends a "Made in America" event on pharmaceutical glass manufacturing at the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, U.S., July 20, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

By Dan Levine

(Reuters) – A U.S. judge on Thursday refused to revisit a court order that blocks President Donald Trump’s administration from carrying out a policy designed to threaten the granting of federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick III in San Francisco ruled that a recent memo from the Justice Department that appeared to narrow the scope of Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities did not remove the need for a court-ordered injunction.

Orrick wrote that the memo is not binding and the attorney general can revoke it at any time.

A Justice Department spokeswoman could not immediately be reached for comment.

Trump issued the order in January, shortly after he was inaugurated, directing that funding be slashed to all jurisdictions that refuse to comply with a statute that requires local governments to share information with U.S. immigration authorities.

Sanctuary cities generally offer safe harbor to illegal immigrants and often do not use municipal funds or resources to enforce federal immigration laws. Dozens of local governments and cities, including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, have joined the growing “sanctuary” movement.

The Trump administration contends that local authorities endanger public safety when they decline to hand over for deportation illegal immigrants arrested for crimes.

After Trump issued the sanctuary cities executive order, California’s Santa Clara County – which includes the city of San Jose and several smaller Silicon Valley communities – sued, saying it was unconstitutional. San Francisco filed a similar lawsuit.

In a ruling in April, Orrick said Trump’s order targeted broad categories of federal funding for sanctuary governments and that plaintiffs challenging the order were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional.

The Justice Department asked Orrick to revisit that ruling, after Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo which said the only funds the government intended to withhold were certain grants tied to law enforcement programs.

Orrick voiced skepticism at a hearing earlier this month.

(Reporting by Dan Levine; Editing by Leslie Adler)

U.S. judge unlikely to remove block on Trump sanctuary city order

U.S. President Donald Trump salutes on the South Lawn of the White House upon his return to Washington, U.S., from the G20 Summit in Hamburg, July 8, 2017. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

By Dan Levine

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – A U.S. judge on Wednesday said he was “very much inclined” to maintain a court order that blocks President Donald Trump’s administration from carrying out a policy designed to threaten federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities.

At a hearing in San Francisco federal court, U.S. District Judge William Orrick III said a recent memo from the Justice Department that appeared to narrow the scope of Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities did not remove the need for an injunction.

Trump issued the order in January directing that funding be slashed to all jurisdictions that refuse to comply with a statute that requires local governments to share information with immigration authorities.

Sanctuary cities generally offer safe harbor to illegal immigrants and often do not use municipal funds or resources to enforce of federal immigration laws. Dozens of local governments and cities, including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, have joined the growing “sanctuary” movement.

The Trump administration contends that local authorities endanger public safety when they decline to hand over for deportation illegal immigrants arrested for crimes.

The Republican president’s moves to crack down on immigration have galvanized legal advocacy groups, along with Democratic city and state governments, to oppose them in court.

After Trump issued the sanctuary cities executive order earlier this year, Santa Clara County – which includes the city of San Jose and several smaller Silicon Valley communities – sued, saying it was unconstitutional. San Francisco filed a similar lawsuit.

In a ruling in April, Orrick said Trump’s order targeted broad categories of federal funding for sanctuary governments and that plaintiffs challenging the order were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions then issued a memo which formally endorsed a narrower interpretation of Trump’s order, saying that the only funds the government intended to withhold were certain grants tied to law enforcement programs.

In court on Wednesday, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate said the Sessions memo meant less than a million dollars were now at risk for Santa Clara County and San Francisco, so the injunction was no longer needed.

But Orrick said an injunction was still necessary because Trump could always order Sessions to issue new, broader guidance.

“The attorney general still has the ability to change that memo,” Orrick said.

The judge said he would also likely reject a Justice Department request to dismiss other claims by Santa Clara and San Francisco.

(Reporting by Dan Levine; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Sweden intensifies crackdown on illegal immigrants

A general view of the migration agency detention center in Marsta, Sweden, June 20, 2017. Picture taken June 20, 2017. REUTERS/Johan Ahlander

By Johan Ahlander and Mansoor Yosufzai

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) – Sweden has intensified its crackdown on illegal immigrants after a failed asylum-seeker killed five people in Stockholm, but the move has raised concerns that more migrants will be driven underground to join a shadowy underclass.

In the past months, police have staged wider sweeps on workplaces to check papers, netting undocumented workers, sending a warning to employers and sparking heated debate in a nation that has been traditionally tolerant to migrants.

In May, police carried out their biggest raid so far when dozens of officers swooped on a constructions site in Stockholm. Nine were caught and sent to detention centers, while another 40 escaped by scrambling onto scaffolding and across roof tops.

Swedish authorities had already started to tighten up on illegal immigrants, but police stepped up their activities after Uzbek construction worker Rakhmat Akilov drove into Stockholm shoppers in April.

“We have an unlimited amount of work,” said Jerk Wiberg, who leads the Stockholm police unit in charge of domestic border controls. A 22-year veteran who has caught thousands of illegal immigrants, Wiberg led the raid at the construction site in May.

After Akilov became another militant in Europe to use a truck as a weapon, Prime Minister Stefan Lofven made it clear that “no means no” for those whose asylum bids are rejected. Akilov, whose lawyer said he had admitted to committing the crime, had been in hiding after his asylum request was denied.

The Migration Agency estimated 10,000 asylum-seekers a year will choose to disappear rather than be deported. Up to 50,000 undocumented immigrants already work in hotels, transport, construction and restaurants, the agency said last year.

Migration Minister Morgan Johansson said that a “dual labor market … where a growing group lives on the outside of society and remains in Sweden” after having been denied residency was unacceptable.

“It also increases the risk of them being exploited. We cannot have it that way,” he said, adding: “One way is to go after the employers … (using) expanded workplace checks.”

While cheap migrant labor is welcomed by some small businesses, government officials and economists worry that the shadow economy undercuts Sweden’s economic model, whose generous welfare provisions and high wages are built on high rates of productivity and one of the world’s heaviest tax regimes.

ANTI-IMMIGRANT PARTY

Tough measures against immigrants go against the grain for many in Sweden, a country of 10 million which once called itself “a humanitarian superpower” that generously welcomed migrants fleeing conflict in the Middle East and Africa.

But attitudes appear to be changing and a 2017 study by Gothenburg University showed 52 percent favored taking fewer refugees into the country with 24 percent opposed. Two years ago 40 percent backed reducing refugee numbers with 37 opposed.

The anti-immigration Sweden Democrats are now the second biggest party in polls with support of around a fifth of Swedes.

The Social Democrats, the country’s biggest party in every election since 1917 and leader of the governing coalition with the Greens, has been forced to balance its traditional left-wing credentials with the need to enforce immigration laws.

Despite political support for the crackdown and tougher rules on immigration, police struggle to enforce deportations. Between January and April police deported just under 600 people, a third fewer than in the same period last year.

Some of those caught were freed because detention centers were full, while others cannot be deported as they don’t have passports to prove their country of origin or their home countries refuse to take them.

The government never discloses how many are held in detention centers, saying there are about 360 beds and deportees are normally repatriated within three weeks. The government has told the migration agency to add another 100 beds.

An extra 800 million crowns ($95 million) has been added to the police budget this year to bolster the clampdown, but senior officers say this is not enough.

WIDENING THE NET

In 2016, police made about 1,100 unannounced workplace checks, almost three times more than in 2015, and caught 232 illegal immigrants. A further increase is expected in 2017 as the net widens. Illegal immigrants are also detained through checks at transport hubs, on vehicles or after committing crime.

Deportations made up a small fraction of the 20,000 rejected asylum seekers who left Sweden last year.

“We have been able to increase the number of people who leave Sweden substantially. But we’re listening to the police and we have paved the way for more resources and wider powers,” Johansson said in an interview, adding:

“We will have to increase that number further.”

Expanded police powers include workplace checks without concrete suspicion of a crime, to be allowed from next year, with sharply higher fines for employing illegal immigrants.

Immigrants themselves have been unnerved. When police burst into a pizzeria in the southern city of Malmo where Ehsanulla Kajfar, a 38-year-old Afghan refugee, was working in May he said he thought they were looking for “terrorists or drug dealers”.

He was surprised to be handcuffed and placed in the back seat of a police vehicle as tax officials scrutinized the restaurant’s employee ledger. He was told his papers were not in order and was taken to a detention center.

“Sweden used to be a nice country, even when I was living underground,” he told Reuters. “Now although I have a residence permit from Italy and I am registered at the tax agency in Sweden, I’m still locked in a detention center.”

IMMIGRANTS FEARFUL

Nicaraguan Hugo Eduardo Somarriba Quintero, 37, said he was wrongly detained in the big raid in Stockholm in May due to an error by authorities and then released. Migration Agency records confirmed the details of his case.

“But I’ve lost my job – the company where I was working was dropped from the construction site (because of irregularities in not checking work papers properly). Now I am looking for work and there is no job for me,” he tearfully told Reuters, adding:

“Before there was a lot of tolerance for migrants. Now the laws are harder.”

Muhammad, a 22-year old Afghan who declined to give his family name, has been in hiding for three years in Malmo since his asylum application was rejected.

He has moved three times this year and never stays in a place longer than three months. All his belongings are packed in a suitcase and two plastic bags if he needs to leave in a hurry.

Muhammad relies on food stamps from the church and leftover food from restaurants and grocery stores.

He has learned to avoid the city center when there is an increase in policing and gets help from other immigrants and volunteers who work for asylum-seekers’ rights. They warn each other of police checks and raids through text messages.

“Last time the police made a push to find immigrants, my friend stayed inside for 15 to 20 days,” Muhammad said. “But I can’t stay inside all the time, its too depressing.”

(Reporting by Johan Ahlander and Mansoor Yosufzai, additional reporting by Alister Doyle, editing by Peter Millership)

Cities dubbed immigrant ‘sanctuaries’ hit back on Trump funding threat

Immigrant supporters protest during the Los Angeles City Council ad hoc committee on immigration meeting in Los Angeles, California, U.S., March 30, 2017. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson

By Mica Rosenberg and Jonathan Allen

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The Department of Justice is reviewing letters from 10 local jurisdictions that said they are in compliance with U.S. immigration law, to determine whether to cut federal funding, officials said Thursday, heating up a dispute between so-called sanctuary cities and President Donald Trump’s administration.

In April, the department had asked a handful of states and cities to document by June 30 their compliance with a statute that says local governments cannot prevent their employees from sharing information with U.S. immigration officials.

The Trump administration has said jurisdictions that do not fully cooperate are shielding “criminal illegal aliens,” and has promised to crack down on cities that do not comply. The sanctuary jurisdictions say they are following the law and do not want to spend local resources on immigration enforcement.

“It is not enough to assert compliance, the jurisdictions must actually be in compliance,” U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement on Thursday. He said the 10 jurisdictions had written in with “alleged compliance information” and that the government would “examine these claims carefully.”

Sessions’ statement said “some of these jurisdictions have boldly asserted they will not comply with requests from federal immigration authorities.” If the government finds the cities are violating the statute, known as Section 1373, it could decide to cut federal funds.

In the letters seen by Reuters, the jurisdictions say they are following the law even though some do not honor all “detainer” requests sent by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE.) A “detainer” asks local authorities to hold people in jail up to 48 hours beyond when they are set to be released so immigration officials can take them into custody.

Many of the letters noted that compliance with detainer requests is voluntary and is not required under the statute. The jurisdictions targeted are the states of California and Connecticut, Chicago and Cook County in Illinois, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Las Vegas, Miami, Milwaukee and New York.

At least one of the jurisdictions – Nevada’s Clark County, which is dominated by Las Vegas – has a long-standing formal agreement with ICE in which local police officers help with federal immigration enforcement.

New York City said it complies with detainer requests for people who have been convicted of certain “violent or serious” crimes, so long as the request is accompanied by a judicial warrant. Like other cities, New York said its priority is creating trust between immigrant communities and local police to encourage residents, even if they are living in the country illegally, to report crimes.

Mitchell Landrieu, the Mayor of New Orleans made a similar argument in a letter to Sessions. He said the administration has erroneously characterized sanctuary cities as havens for Central American gangs. Landrieu said an audit of gangs in New Orleans did not find a single Latino-dominated group.

“Undocumented people who commit violent crimes must face the criminal and immigration legal systems of this country. But that does not mean that all people are illegal immigrants that are part of violent gangs,” Landrieu wrote.

Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele called the Justice Department’s statement on Thursday “inflammatory.”

The county is at risk of losing more than $6 million in revenue if the Justice Department follows through, a June 28 letter from its lawyers said. It said Milwaukee would “avail itself of all legal options available” to “protect its grant funding.”

Trump’s executive order early in his presidency pledging to cut funding to sanctuary cities has been challenged in the courts. In April, a federal judge in San Francisco said in a case brought by Santa Clara county that cities were likely to succeed in proving Trump’s order unconstitutional.

The California county wrote in a court filing on Thursday that top administration officials have repeatedly stated that federal funding should be tied to local willingness to honor ICE detainer requests.

(Reporting by Mica Rosenberg and Jonathan Allen in New York; additional reporting by Dan Levine in San Francisco; editing by Grant McCool)

House cracks down on illegal immigrants with bills backed by Trump

U.S. President Donald Trump (L) meets with immigration crime victims at the White House in Washington, U.S., June 28, 2017. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

By Steve Holland and Amanda Becker

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Bills backed by U.S. President Donald Trump to crack down on illegal immigrants passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday, drawing criticism from immigration activists and others who called them a threat to civil liberties.

The House voted 228-195 to pass the “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act” that would withhold some federal grants to so-called “sanctuary city” jurisdictions that do not comply with certain federal immigration laws.By a vote of 257-167, the chamber also passed “Kate’s law” to increase penalties for illegal immigrants who return to the United States. It is named for Kate Steinle, who was shot dead in San Francisco in 2015. An illegal immigrant who had been deported five times was charged with her murder.

“I applaud the House for passing two crucial measures to save and protect American lives,” Trump said in a statement. “These were bills I campaigned on and that are vital to our public safety and national security.”

Both bills will need approval from the Senate to become law. Trump’s Republicans control both chambers. But Democrats assailed the measures as fear-mongering.

“Although people who illegally re-enter the country do so to reunite with their families, or to flee violence or persecution, this bill considers them all dangerous criminals who deserve lengthy prison sentences,” Democratic Representative Jerrold Nadler said during debate on “Kate’s Law.”

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump demanded action against sanctuary cities, which provide some protection for illegal immigrants under laws that limit how much cooperation local police may have with federal immigration authorities.

The “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act” prohibits sanctuary cities from adopting policies that restrict police officers from asking individuals about their immigration status or the immigration status of others.

Under the laws, illegal immigrants would face mandatory detention for past convictions of an expanded number of offenses, such as driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

On Wednesday, Trump promoted both bills at the White House with speeches by parents of young people slain by people who live in, or immigrated to, the United States illegally.

(Reporting By Steve Holland and Amanda Becker; Editing by Grant McCool, Howard Goller and Diane Craft)

In Texas legislature, tempers flare over immigration crackdown

By Alex Dobuzinskis

(Reuters) – Tensions between Republicans and Democrats boiled over on the floor of the Texas Legislature on Monday as protesters filled the gallery on the last day of the session to denounce a new law cracking down on cities giving sanctuary to illegal immigrants.

With the state House of Representatives in Austin preparing to adjourn, a bystander’s video showed one lawmaker appearing to shove a colleague as about a dozen others rushed together in an angry clutch before tempers cooled and the two sides separated.

Afterward, one of the legislators at the center of the confrontation said in a statement on Facebook that he was physically assaulted by a Democratic colleague while a second Democrat threatened his life.

Republican Matt Rinaldi’s statement said this occurred after he told Democratic lawmakers that he had tipped off federal agents about defiant protesters who were holding signs declaring their illegal immigration status.

Rinaldi did not immediately return calls or emails seeking further comment.

The incident highlights the raw emotions stirred by Republican efforts to put Texas in line with the priority that President Donald Trump has given to combating illegal immigration. Democrats, mostly representing urban centers that have defied federal policy, have condemned the crackdown.

Texas, which has an estimated 1.5 million illegal immigrants and the longest border with Mexico of any U.S. state, has been at the forefront of the immigration debate.

A bill, which both chambers of the Republican-dominated legislature approved on party-line votes and Governor Greg Abbott signed into law on May 7, aims to punish local authorities who fail to honor requests to turn over suspected illegal immigrants to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

It also allows police to ask people about their immigration status during a lawful detention, even for minor infractions like jay-walking.

Democrats have warned that the Texas law could lead to unconstitutional racial profiling. Civil rights groups have promised to fight it in court.

(Reporting by Alex Dobuzinskis in Los Angeles, Editing by Frank McGurty and Dan Grebler)

U.S. immigration arrests up nearly 40 percent under Trump

President Donald Trump gestures as he addresses the graduating class of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy during commencement ceremonies in New London, Connecticut, U.S. May 17, 2017. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

By Mica Rosenberg

NEW YORK (Reuters) – U.S. arrests of suspected illegal immigrants rose by nearly 40 percent in the first 100 days of Donald Trump’s presidency, following executive orders that broadened the scope of who could be targeted for immigration violations, according to government data released on Wednesday.

The acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Thomas Homan said that arrests by his agency jumped to 41,318 between January 22 of this year and the end of April, up from 30,028 arrests in roughly the same period last year.

Of those arrested almost two-thirds had criminal convictions. But there was also a significant jump – of more than 150 percent – in the number of immigrants not convicted of further crimes arrested by ICE: 10,800 since the beginning of the year compared to 4,200 non-criminal arrests in the same period in 2016.

That increase is a result of recent guidance given by Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly to implement Trump’s executive orders on interior immigration enforcement and border security signed on Jan. 25, just days after the Republican president took office.

“Those that enter the country illegally, they do violate the law, that is a criminal act,” Homan said on the call, while emphasizing that immigrants who pose a threat to national security or have criminal records are still a priority for the agency.

He said ICE will continue to target people who have been issued a final order of removal by an immigration judge even if they have not committed another crime.

“When a federal judge makes a decision and issues an order that order needs to mean something,” Homan said. “If we don’t take action on those orders, then we are just spinning our wheels.”

While President Barack Obama was also criticized for deporting a large number of immigrants, most of them were recent border crossers apprehended entering the country illegally.

Deportations under Trump have actually fallen by 12 percent compared to the same period under Obama, Homan said, as more people arrested in the interior typically have more complicated cases that can get slowed down in the backlogged immigration court system.

The number of people caught crossing the border with Mexico is down significantly since the begin of the year, according to data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Immigration advocates and some cities with large immigrant populations have raised concerns about the stepped up enforcement in the interior of the country.

On Wednesday, state attorneys general from New York, California, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington state and Washington D.C., issued a report laying out why they have chosen to limit local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration agents.

A section of one of the president’s executive orders aimed to cut off federal funding to so-called “sanctuary cities,” was been blocked by a federal judge in California.

(Reporting by Mica Rosenberg and Julia Edwards Ainsely; Editing by Alistair Bell)

In travel ban case, U.S. judges focus on discrimination, Trump’s powers

People protest U.S. President Donald Trump's travel ban outside of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Seattle, Washington, U.S. May 15, 2017. REUTERS/David Ryder

By Tom James

SEATTLE (Reuters) – U.S. appeals court judges on Monday questioned the lawyer defending President Donald Trump’s temporary travel ban about whether it discriminates against Muslims and pressed challengers to explain why the court should not defer to Trump’s presidential powers to set the policy.

The three-judge 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel was the second court in a week to review Trump’s directive banning people entering the United States from six Muslim-majority countries.

Opponents – including the state of Hawaii and civil rights groups – say that both Trump’s first ban and later revised ban discriminate against Muslims. The government argues that the text of the order does not mention any specific religion and is needed to protect the country against attacks.

In addressing the Justice Department at the hearing in Seattle, 9th Circuit Judge Richard Paez pointed out that many of Trump’s statements about Muslims came “during the midst of a highly contentious (election) campaign.” He asked if that should be taken into account when deciding how much weight they should be given in reviewing the travel ban’s constitutionality.

Neal Katyal, an attorney for Hawaii which is opposing the ban, said the evidence goes beyond Trump’s campaign statements.

“The government has not engaged in mass, dragnet exclusions in the past 50 years,” Katyal said. “This is something new and unusual in which you’re saying this whole class of people, some of whom are dangerous, we can ban them all.”

The Justice Department argues Trump issued his order solely to protect national security.

Outside the Seattle courtroom a group of protesters gathered carrying signs with slogans including, “The ban is still racist” and “No ban, no wall.”

Paez asked if an executive order detaining Japanese-Americans during the World War Two would pass muster under the government’s current logic.

Acting U.S. Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, said that the order from the 1940s, which is now viewed as a low point in U.S. civil rights history, would not be constitutional.

If Trump’s executive order was the same as the one involving Japanese-Americans, Wall said: “I wouldn’t be standing here, and the U.S. would not be defending it.”

Judge Michael Daly Hawkins asked challengers to Trump’s ban about the wide latitude held by U.S. presidents to decide who can enter the country.

“Why shouldn’t we be deferential to what the president says?” Hawkins said.

“That is the million dollar question,” said Katyal. A reasonable person would see Trump’s statements as evidence of discriminatory intent, Katyal said.

In Washington, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said at a news briefing that the executive order is “fully lawful and will be upheld. We believe that.”

The panel, made up entirely of judges appointed by Democratic former President Bill Clinton, reviewed a Hawaii judge’s ruling that blocked parts of the Republican president’s revised travel order.

LIKELY TO GO TO SUPREME COURT

The March order was Trump’s second effort to craft travel restrictions. The first, issued on Jan. 27, led to chaos and protests at airports before it was blocked by courts. The second order was intended to overcome the legal problems posed by the original ban, but it was also suspended by judges before it could take effect on March 16.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii blocked 90-day entry restrictions on people from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, as well as part of the order that suspended entry of refugee applicants for 120 days.

As part of that ruling, Watson cited Trump’s campaign statements on Muslims as evidence that his executive order was discriminatory. The 9th Circuit previously blocked Trump’s first executive order.

Last week the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia reviewed a Maryland judge’s ruling that blocked the 90-day entry restrictions. That court is largely made up of Democrats, and the judges’ questioning appeared to break along partisan lines. A ruling has not yet been released.

Trump’s attempt to limit travel was one of his first major acts in office. The fate of the ban is one indication of whether the Republican can carry out his promises to be tough on immigration and national security.

The U.S. Supreme Court is likely to be the ultimate decider, but the high court is not expected to take up the issue for several months.

(Additional reporting by Roberta Rampton in Washington)