Tag Archives: Immigration

California judge seeks to prevent immigration arrests inside state courts

FILE PHOTO: Sacramento appeals court justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye gestures during a news conference after being unanimously confirmed to become the state's next chief justice in San Francisco, California August 25, 2010. REUTERS/Robert Galbraith/File Photo

By Alex Dobuzinskis

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – The chief justice of California’s Supreme Court on Thursday asked the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump to prevent immigration agents from arresting undocumented immigrants inside the state’s courthouses.

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said she was gravely troubled by recent reports that federal agents were “stalking undocumented immigrants in our courthouses to make arrests,” in a letter addressed to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly.

“Courthouses should not be used as bait in the necessary enforcement of our country’s immigration law,” Cantil-Sakauye wrote.

Trump has vowed to increase deportations and has widened the net of illegal immigrants prioritized for detention and removal.

“We will review the letter and have no further comment at this time,” Peter Carr, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice, said in an email.

Immigrant rights groups say federal agents have entered courthouses with increased frequency this year, including in California, Massachusetts, Maryland and Texas, said National Immigration Law Center staff attorney Melissa Keaney.

“It’s definitely an issue we’re seeing a tremendous increase in under the new administration,” Keaney said by phone on Thursday.

Reuters could not independently confirm whether there has been an uptick in arrests at courthouses.

Cantil-Sakauye stopped short of questioning the legal right of federal agents to enter courthouses to locate and detain unauthorized immigrants.

Her letter said the presence of immigration agents in California courthouses could undermine “public trust and confidence in our state court system,” which serves “millions of the most vulnerable Californians.”

It could also discourage even legal immigrants from seeking justice, said Cathal Conneely, a spokesman for the Judicial Council of California, a branch of state courts.

Green-card holders, those who are permanent U.S. residents but not citizens, already leery of the justice system because of experiences in their countries of origin could be further dissuaded from entering courthouses, he said.

(Reporting by Alex Dobuzinskis; Editing by Patrick Enright and Leslie Adler)

EU headscarf ban ruling sparks faith group backlash

Women enter a store selling hijabs in the Brussels district of Molenbeek, Belgium, August 14, 2016. REUTERS/Francois Lenoir

By Alastair Macdonald

BRUSSELS (Reuters) – Companies may bar staff from wearing Islamic headscarves and other visible religious symbols under certain conditions, the European Union’s top court ruled on Tuesday, setting off a storm of complaint from rights groups and religious leaders.

In its first ruling on a hot political issue across Europe, the Court of Justice (ECJ) found a Belgian firm which had a rule barring employees who dealt with customers from wearing visible religious and political symbols may not have discriminated against a receptionist dismissed for wearing a headscarf.

The judgment on that and a French case came on the eve of a Dutch election in which Muslim immigration is a key issue and weeks before France votes for a president in a similarly charged campaign. French conservative candidate Francois Fillon hailed the ruling as “an immense relief” that would contribute to “social peace”.

But a campaign group backing the women said the ruling could shut many Muslim women out of the workforce. And European rabbis said the Court had added to rising incidences of hate crime to send a message that “faith communities are no longer welcome”.

The judges in Luxembourg did find that the dismissals of the two women may, depending on the view of national courts, have breached EU laws against religious discrimination. They found in particular that the case of the French software engineer, fired after a customer complaint, may well have been discriminatory.

Reactions, however, focused on the conclusion that services firm G4S in Belgium was entitled to dismiss receptionist Samira Achbita in 2006 if, in pursuit of legitimate business interests, it fairly applied a broad dress code for all customer-facing staff to project an image of political and religious neutrality.

“BACKDOOR TO PREJUDICE”

The Open Society Justice Initiative, a group backed by the philanthropist George Soros, said the ruling “weakens the guarantee of equality” offered by EU non-discrimination laws.

“In many member states, national laws will still recognize that banning religious headscarves at work is discrimination,” policy office Maryam Hmadoun said.

“But in places where national law is weak, this ruling will exclude many Muslim women from the workplace.”

Amnesty International welcomed the ruling on the French case that “employers are not at liberty to pander to the prejudices of their clients”. But, it said, bans on religious symbols to show neutrality opened “a backdoor to precisely such prejudice”.

The president of the Conference of European Rabbis, Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, complained: “This decision sends a signal to all religious groups in Europe”. National court cases across Europe have included questions on the wearing of Christian crosses, Sikh turbans and Jewish skullcaps.

In the Belgian case, the ECJ said: “An internal rule of an undertaking which prohibits the visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign does not constitute direct discrimination.”

It was for Belgian judges to determine whether she may have been a victim of indirect discrimination if the rule put people of a particular faith at a disadvantage. But the rule could still be justified if it was “genuinely pursued in a consistent and systematic manner” to project an “image of neutrality”.

However, in the case of Asma Bougnaoui, dismissed by French software company Micropole, it said it was up to French courts to determine whether there was such a rule. If her dismissal was based only on meeting the particular customer’s preference, it saw “only very limited circumstances” in which a religious symbol could be objectively taken as reason for her not to work.

(Additional reporting by Waverly Colville in Brussels and Sudip Kar-Gupta in Paris; Editing by Catherine Evans)

China rails against U.S. for human rights violations

FILE PHOTO: A U.S. flag is tweaked ahead of a news conference between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing, Wednesday, Jan. 27, 2016. REUTERS/Jacquelyn Martin/Pool

BEIJING (Reuters) – China lashed out at the United States for its “terrible human rights problems” in a report on Thursday, adding to recent international criticism of Washington on issues ranging from violence inflicted on minorities to U.S. immigration policies.

The U.S. State Department’s annual report on rights in nearly 200 countries last week accused China of torture, executions without due process, repression of political rights and persecution of ethnic minorities, among other issues.

In an annual Chinese response to the U.S. report, China’s State Council, or cabinet, said the United States suffered from rampant gun violence and high levels of incarceration.

U.S. airstrikes in Iraq and Syria had caused thousands of civilian deaths, according to the report, which was carried by the state-run Xinhua news agency.

“With the gunshots lingering in people’s ears behind the Statue of Liberty, worsening racial discrimination and the election farce dominated by money politics, the self-proclaimed human rights defender has exposed its human rights ‘myth’ with its own deeds,” the State Council said.

“The United States repeatedly trampled on human rights in other countries and wilfully slaughtered innocent victims,” it said, referring to deaths in U.S. drone strikes.

On Wednesday, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, said U.S. President Donald Trump’s comments about migrants, Mexicans and Muslims were “harmful and fuel xenophobic abuses” and that his immigration policies could lead to breaches of international law.

Trump’s derogatory campaign rhetoric against Muslims and Mexican immigrants won enthusiastic backing from prominent white supremacists who embrace anti-Jewish, anti-black and anti-Muslim ideologies, though the president has disavowed their support.

Human rights have long been a source of tension between the world’s two largest economies, especially since 1989, when the United States imposed sanctions on China after a bloody crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators around Beijing’s Tiananmen Square.

China rejects criticism of its rights record and has pointed to its success at lifting millions out of poverty.

But the ruling Communist Party brooks no political dissent and President Xi Jinping’s administration has seen a sweeping crackdown on rights lawyers and activists.

(Reporting by Michael Martina; Editing by Clarence Fernandez)

Canada not convinced it will see surge in people crossing border

The former border crossing used by refugees as they walk from the United States to enter Canada at Emerson, Manitoba, Canada February 25, 2017. Picture taken Febraury 25. REUTERS/Lyle Stafford

By David Ljunggren

OTTAWA (Reuters) – Canada sees no signs of a coming surge in asylum seekers illegally crossing the border from the United States, a senior government official told reporters on Thursday, even as a steady stream of people continued to walk across the frontier.

Several hundred people, mainly from Africa, have defied winter conditions to enter Canada since Jan. 1. They are fleeing President Donald Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigrants, migrants and refugee agencies say.

A briefing by Canadian officials was the first of its kind and comes as the Liberal government led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau comes under increasing domestic political pressure to deal with the influx.

Trudeau must also ensure the issue does not complicate his relations with Trump.

Security experts predict more will try to come as the snow melts and the weather warms.

But officials told the briefing it was too early to say whether a trend was developing and noted the number involved was still very small compared to the roughly 26,000 people who ask for asylum in Canada on average every year.

“There is no reason to believe that simply changes in weather patterns is going to lead to (an) increase,” said one official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

As dawn broke on Thursday, Reuters photographer Dario Ayala watched the Royal Canadian Mounted Police arrest a group of five – a man, two women and two children – after they scrambled across a ditch near the Quebec town of Hemmingford, on the border with New York state. The people said they came from Syria.

An RCMP officer standing on the Canadian side warned the group they would be detained if they crossed.

“Sorry, sorry, we have no choice,” said the man. Once in Canada, they were detained, and driven off for processing.

Later the same morning, at the same spot, Ayala saw police arrest seven people who said they were from Eritrea.

Reuters could not independently verify nationalities of people crossing the border on Thursday.

Government officials acknowledge an increase in people seeking asylum this year while insisting they have enough resources to cope.

Although no one has yet been charged by the police for illegally crossing the border, all those detained are checked to make sure they do not have convictions for serious crimes.

“We are not releasing anyone we have concerns about,” another official told the briefing.

(Reporting by David Ljunggren; Editing by Bernadette Baum and Chris Reese)

Trudeau defends move to give U.S. agents more powers in Canada

Canada's Prime Minister

OTTAWA (Reuters) – Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Wednesday defended plans to give more powers to U.S. border agents stationed in Canada, saying travelers would at all times be protected by domestic laws.

As part of a 2015 deal between Canada and the United States, Trudeau’s government has introduced draft legislation allowing U.S. border agents based in Canada more leeway to question and search people wishing to enter the United States.

Critics say this increases the chance of abuse at a time when the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump is cracking down on immigrants, prompting dozens of people to cross the border into Canada every week.

“Canadian laws are in place, so there is extra protection when Canadians go through American customs in Canada,” Trudeau told reporters.

U.S. border agents have been working in Canada since the 1950s, pre-clearing would-be visitors and addressing potential security threats. The agents are currently based at eight Canadian airports and under the 2015 deal, the program will be expanded to two more airports as well as Montreal train station.

Travelers who change their minds and decide not to enter the United States are currently allowed to leave. The new law permits U.S. agents to question and if need be strip search people seeking not to enter the United States.

Officials say the new tougher provisions are needed to deter militants probing for weaknesses at U.S.-operated border facilities.

Trudeau is under pressure in Parliament from the left-leaning opposition New Democrats, who say U.S. border guards are already racially profiling Canadians who wish to enter the United States.

“What will the government do to secure clear assurances for Canadians who wish to cross the border? When will the Prime Minister stand up for Canadians … will he stand up to the bully?” asked Jenny Kwan, the party’s spokeswoman for immigration, referring to Trump.

(Reporting by David Ljunggren; Editing by Alistair Bell)

Protests call for U.S. immigrants to stay home from work, school

People protest against Trump's immigration policy

By Joseph Ax and Liza Feria

NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Activists are calling on immigrants to protest President Donald Trump’s tough stance on immigration by staying home from work or school on Thursday, not shopping and not eating out, in an effort to highlight the vital role they play in U.S. society.

“A Day Without Immigrants,” which has been largely driven by word of mouth on social media, arose in response to Trump’s vows to crack down on illegal immigration and his executive order, since suspended by a federal judge, to temporarily block entry to people from seven Muslim-majority countries.

The action follows a series of federal raids last week in which more than 680 people illegally in the country were arrested, raising alarm among immigrant rights’ groups.

“Mr. President, without us and without our contribution this country is paralyzed,” read a poster promoting the protest that was widely shared online.

It is not clear how many people plan to participate in the walkout. With few plans for large-scale rallies, it may be hard to estimate how many ultimately do. But one group that expects to be affected, and is in some cases embracing the cause, is restaurant owners.

Celebrity chef Jose Andres, locked in a legal battle with Trump after backing out of a deal to open a restaurant at the businessman-turned-politician’s new hotel in Washington, said he was supporting the strikers on his staff.

“People that never missed one day of work are telling you they don’t want to work on Thursday,” the Spanish-born Andres said in an interview at his restaurant Oyamel, which will be closed on Thursday. “They want to say: ‘Here we are,’ by not showing up. The least I could do was to say: ‘OK, we stand by you.'”

Dozens of restaurants, which rely heavily on immigrant workers, and other businesses in cities such as Philadelphia, New York, Houston and Raleigh, North Carolina, have vowed to shut their doors on Thursday in solidarity with no-show workers.

In New York, the owners of the Blue Ribbon restaurant chain said they would close several eateries despite the economic impact.

“It’s really a show of support for our staff, and as a team and a family as a whole,” said co-owner Eric Bromberg.

More than a dozen restaurants in Washington were planning to close on Thursday, according to social media.

“You have millions of Latinos, millions of immigrants, that somehow feel under attack,” Andres said. “They feel like they’re being pushed aside. They want to be part of the American dream.”

(Reporting by Joseph Ax; Editing by Scott Malone and Peter Cooney)

Over 680 arrested in U.S. immigration raids; rights groups alarmed

US Immigration officers detaining illegal immigrants

By Julia Edwards Ainsley and Kristina Cooke

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. immigration officers last week arrested more than 680 people in the country illegally, the homeland security chief said on Monday, in a broad enforcement action that alarmed immigrant rights groups.

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said the operations, conducted in at least a dozen states, were routine and consistent with regular operations carried out by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

Immigrant rights advocates said the operations, which they describe as raids, were not business as usual, and were more sweeping than operations conducted during the administration of former Democratic President Barack Obama.

Kelly said in a statement that 75 percent of the immigrants arrested have criminal records, ranging from homicide to driving under the influence of alcohol.

He said the operation also targeted people who have violated immigration laws.

Some had ignored final orders of deportation, according to ICE, the agency responsible for immigrant arrests and deportations.

Obama was criticized for being the “deporter in chief” after he deported over 400,000 people in 2012, more than any president in a single year.

In 2014, Obama’s homeland security chief issued a memo directing agents to focus on deporting a narrow slice of immigrants, namely those who had recently entered the country or committed serious felonies. Immigrants who were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, for example, were treated as lower priorities for deportation.

Republican President Donald Trump promised to deport 2 million to 3 million migrants with criminal records on taking office.

At a news conference with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Monday, Trump said his administration had “really done a great job” in its recent arrests of immigrants.

“We’re actually taking people that are criminals, very, very, hardened criminals in some cases with a tremendous track record of abuse and problems,” Trump said.

ICE said in a statement on Monday that the operations targeted immigrants in the Midwest, Los Angeles, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and San Antonio.

The ICE statistics revealed regional differences in the profiles of the immigrants arrested. Of the 41 people arrested in New York City and surrounding areas, 93 percent had criminal convictions, while 45 percent of the 51 people arrested in the San Antonio, Texas area did.

Among the 190 people arrested in Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina, were 17 people who had no criminal convictions or a prior order to leave the country, according to ICE.

In a Jan. 25 executive order, Trump broadened an Obama-era priority enforcement system for immigrants subject to removal from the United States.

“Now it seems like anyone could be arrested,” said Shiu-Ming Cheer, senior staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center. “The level of fear and anxiety is much higher than I’ve ever seen it.”

(Reporting by Julia Edwards Ainsley and Kristina Cooke; Additional reporting by Emily Stephenson; Editing by Peter Cooney and Lisa Shumaker)

Challenge to Trump travel ban moves forward in two courts

Yemen nationals reunited with family in US

By Dan Levine

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – The most consequential legal challenge to U.S. President Donald Trump’s travel ban will proceed on two tracks in the next few days, including a U.S. appeals court vote that could reveal some judges who disagree with their colleagues on the bench and support the arguments behind the new president’s most controversial executive order.

In a Seattle federal courtroom, the state of Washington will attempt to probe the president’s motive in drafting his Jan. 27 order, while in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, judges will decide whether to reconsider an appeal in that same case decided last week.

Trump’s directive, which he said was necessary to protect the United States from attacks by Islamist militants, barred people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the country for 90 days. Refugees were banned for 120 days, except those from Syria, who were banned indefinitely.

The ban was backed by around half of Americans, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, but triggered protests across the country and caused chaos at some U.S. and overseas airports.

U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle suspended the order after its legality was challenged by Washington state, eliciting a barrage of angry Twitter messages from Trump against the judge and the court system. That ruling was upheld by a three-judge panel at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco last week, raising questions about Trump’s next step.

At a Seattle court hearing on Monday, Robart said he would move forward with discovery in the case, meaning the request and exchange of information pertinent to the case between the opposing parties.

Meanwhile, an unidentified judge on the 9th Circuit last week requested that the court’s 25 full-time judges vote on whether the temporary restraining order imposed on Trump’s travel ban should be reconsidered by an 11-judge panel, known as en banc review. The 9th Circuit asked both sides to file briefs by Thursday.

Since judges appointed by Democrats hold an 18-7 edge on the 9th Circuit, legal experts say it is unlikely a majority will disagree with the court’s earlier ruling and want it reconsidered.

Arthur Hellman, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law who has studied the 9th Circuit, noted that one of the three judges who issued the original ruling was appointed by George W. Bush.

Even if the en banc vote fails, however, judges on the 9th Circuit who disagree with last week’s ruling will be able to publicly express their disagreement in court filings, which could help create a record bolstering Trump’s position.

Meanwhile, the government has signaled that it is considering issuing a new executive order to replace the original one. In that case, it could tell the 9th Circuit later this week that it does not want en banc review, because the case would be moot.

“You would think Jeff Sessions would do whatever he had to do to get this case ended as soon as possible,” Hellman said, referring to the recently appointed U.S. attorney general.

German agency working to clear backlog of 435,000 asylum cases

rejected asylum seeker returns to middle east

BERLIN (Reuters) – Germany’s migration agency hopes to clear a backlog of 435,000 asylum cases within months, the organization’s new director said in an interview with Germany’s Handelsblatt newspaper on Wednesday.

Jutta Cordt, who took over as head of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) this month, told the newspaper her top priorities were to accelerate the processing of asylum applications, deepen integration, and step up deportations of those whose applications were denied.

“We carried over 435,000 cases into the new year and we want to have dealt with those this spring,” the paper quoted Cordt as saying.

She told the paper the agency had received 40 million euros ($42.57 million) in additional funding in 2017 to work on repatriation processing and wanted to start that process sooner.

“If there is virtually no prospect for a migrant to stay here, it makes sense to push for an early repatriation and to encourage that financially,” Cordt told the newspaper.

More than a million migrants from the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere have arrived in Germany since the beginning of 2015, prompting concerns about security and integration. Polls show that migration will be a key issue in September’s national election.

The issue of repatriation – and better identification of refugees – has taken on new urgency after a spate of Islamist attacks carried out by failed asylum seekers, including Anis Amri, the 24-year-old Tunisian man who rammed a truck into a Berlin Christmas market in December, killing 12 people.

Amri, who was shot dead in Italy, had lived in Germany under at least 14 different names, police have said.

Cordt told the Passauer Neue Presse newspaper in a separate interview that local authorities should be taking fingerprints from migrants to better track their identities and avoid multiple asylum applications.

Migrants are currently fingerprinted by police if they cross the German border without a valid passport, then again in a migrant intake center and for a third time when they file an asylum application.

BAMF has said that it has now biometric data on all migrants, but it is not clear how many multiple applications for asylum benefits have been filed.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Alison Williams)

Challenges to Trump’s immigration orders spread to more U.S. states

Massachusetts attorney with several people who don't like trump's immigration ban

(In this Jan. 31 story, in 11th paragraph corrects to show two Iranian plaintiffs are a man and a woman, not two men)

By Scott Malone and Dan Levine

BOSTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s first moves on immigration spread on Tuesday, with three states suing over his executive order banning travel into the United States by citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries.

Massachusetts, New York, Virginia and Washington state joined the legal battle against the travel ban, which the White House deems necessary to improve national security.

The challenges contend the order violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of religious freedom.

San Francisco became the first U.S. city to sue to challenge a Trump directive to withhold federal money from U.S. cities that have adopted sanctuary policies toward undocumented immigrants, which local officials argue help local police by making those immigrants more willing to report crimes.

The legal maneuvers were the latest acts of defiance against executive orders signed by Trump last week that sparked a wave of protests in major U.S. cities, where thousands of people decried the new president’s actions as discriminatory.

Both policies are in line with campaign promises by Republican businessman-turned-politician Trump, who vowed to build a wall on the Mexican border to stop illegal immigration and to take hard-line steps to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States.

The restrictions on the seven Muslim-majority countries and new limits on refugees have won the support of many Americans, with 49 percent of respondents to a Reuters poll conducted Monday and Tuesday saying they agreed with the order, while 41 percent disagreed.

Massachusetts contended the restrictions run afoul of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits religious preference.

“At bottom, what this is about is a violation of the Constitution,” Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey said of the order halting travel by people with passports from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days. The order also barred resettlement of refugees for 120 days and indefinitely banned Syrian refugees.

“It discriminates against people because of their religion, it discriminates against people because of their country of origin,” Healey said at a Boston press conference, flanked by leaders from the tech, healthcare and education sectors who said that the order could limit their ability to attract and retain highly educated workers.

Massachusetts will be backing a lawsuit filed over the weekend in Boston federal court by two Iranian men who teach at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. A federal judge blocked the government from expelling those men from the country and halted enforcement of the order for seven days, following similar but more limited moves in four other states.

The attorneys general of New York and Virginia also said their states were joining similar lawsuits filed in their respective federal courts challenging the ban.

“As we speak, there are students at our colleges and universities who are unable to return to Virginia,” Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring told reporters. “This is not an action I take lightly, but it is one I take with confidence in our legal analysis.”

On Monday, liberal-leaning Washington state became the first U.S. state to have its attorney general initiate a lawsuit against Trump to challenge the travel ban.

Multiple foreign nationals have also filed lawsuits challenging the ban. They included one filed in Colorado on Tuesday by a Libyan college student and two filed in Chicago, including one on behalf of an Iranian father of three children all living in Illinois.

Protests against Trump’s executive action continued on Tuesday in several cities.

A crowd of several thousand demonstrators gathered at the federal courthouse in Minneapolis, chanting “Hey, hey, ho, ho Muslim ban has got to go!” Dozens of protesters chanted the same slogan at Los Angeles International Airport, and more than 400 demonstrators gathered in downtown Miami to protest both the travel ban and Trump’s crackdown on sanctuary cities.

SANCTUARY CHALLENGE

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed suit over Trump’s order threatening to cut funds to cities with sanctuary policies, a move that could stop the flow of billions of dollars to major U.S. population centers including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

“If allowed to be implemented, this executive order would make our communities less safe. It would make our residents less prosperous, and it would split families apart,” Herrera said.

Sanctuary cities adopt policies that limit cooperation, such as refusing to comply with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer requests. Advocates of the policies say that, beyond helping police with crime reporting, they make undocumented immigrants more willing to serve as witnesses if they do not fear that contact with law enforcement will lead to their deportation.

Both the San Francisco and Massachusetts actions contend that Trump’s orders in question violate the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that powers not granted to the federal government should fall to the states.

Michael Hethmon, senior counsel with the conservative Immigration Reform Law Institute in Washington, called the San Francisco lawsuit a “silly political gesture,” noting that prior federal court decisions make clear that the U.S. government “can prohibit a policy that essentially impedes legitimate federal programs.”

(Additional reporting by Mica Rosenberg, Curtis Skinner, Adam Bettcher, Olga Grigoryants, Zachary Fagenson, Alex Dobuzinskis, Timothy McLaughlin, Ian Simpson and Keith Coffman; Editing by Tom Brown and Cynthia Osterman)