SUMMARY
As the Republican candidate for the 2016 presidential election, Trump campaigned heavily on an aggressive anti-immigration platform, using racist rhetoric to promote closed borders. In his first term in office, Trump acted on his anti-immigration platform:
December 7, 2015: As A Candidate, Trump Called For A ‘Total And Complete Shutdown Of Muslims Entering The United States. According to the Washington Post, “Donald Trump called Monday for a ‘total and complete shutdown" of the entry of Muslims to the United States ‘until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.’ In a statement released by his campaign Monday afternoon, Trump included recent poll findings that he says show that a sizable segment of the Muslim population has ‘great hatred towards Americans.’” [Washington Post, 12/7/15]
In His Statement, Trump Referenced A Misleading Poll Published By Anti-Muslim Hate Group, Center For Security Policy (CSP). According to Georgetown University’s Bridge Initiative, “The Southern Poverty Law Center considers CSP an anti-Muslim hate group and a ‘conspiracy-oriented mouthpiece for the growing anti-Muslim movement in the United States.’ The Center for American Progress identifies CSP as one of the ‘main organizations fueling the Islamophobia network’ […] Numerous politicians, including now-President Donald Trump, have adopted CSP’s views and policy proposals. As a presidential candidate, Trump praised CSP and cited their misleading poll on American Muslims’ attitudes as justification for his proposal for a ‘total and complete shutdown on Muslims’ in December 2015. The poll, which the Bridge Initiative has debunked, was conducted by a polling firm run by Kellyanne Conway, who worked with CSP frequently before being appointed to work for the Trump campaign and White House.” [The Bridge Initiative – Georgetown University, 6/9/17]
June 16, 2015: Trump Disparaged Mexican Immigrants Calling Them Criminals And Rapists. According to Time, “Donald Trump kicked off his presidential bid more than a year ago with harsh words for Mexico. ‘They are not our friend, believe me,’ he said, before disparaging Mexican immigrants: ‘They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.’” [Time, 8/31/16]
May 16, 2018: Trump: ‘These Aren’t People. These Are Animals.’ According to USA Today, “President Trump used extraordinarily harsh rhetoric to renew his call for stronger immigration laws Wednesday, calling undocumented immigrants ‘animals’ and venting frustration at Mexican officials who he said ‘do nothing’ to help the United States. ‘We have people coming into the country or trying to come in, we're stopping a lot of them, but we're taking people out of the country. You wouldn't believe how bad these people are,’ Trump said. ‘These aren't people. These are animals.’” [USA Today, 5/16/18]
Top Trump Aide Stephen Miller Was The Architect Of The Administration’s Controversial Immigration Policies. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “The emails, which Miller sent to the conservative website Breitbart News in 2015 and 2016, showcase the extremist, anti-immigrant ideology that undergirds the policies he has helped create as an architect of Donald Trump’s presidency. These policies include reportedly setting arrest quotas for undocumented immigrants, an executive order effectively banning immigration from five Muslim-majority countries and a policy of family separation at refugee resettlement facilities that the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General said is causing ‘intense trauma’ in children.” [SPLC, 11/12/19]
SPLC: In The Run-Up To The 2016 Election, White House Senior Policy Adviser Showcased An Extremist And Anti-Immigrant Ideology. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “In the run-up to the 2016 election, White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller promoted white nationalist literature, pushed racist immigration stories and obsessed over the loss of Confederate symbols after Dylann Roof’s murderous rampage, according to leaked emails reviewed by Hatewatch. The emails, which Miller sent to the conservative website Breitbart News in 2015 and 2016, showcase the extremist, anti-immigrant ideology that undergirds the policies he has helped create as an architect of Donald Trump’s presidency.” [SPLC, 11/12/19]
President Trump Signed An Executive Order Banning Entry From Seven Majority Muslim Countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia. According to the CNN, “With just a few quick strokes of the pen, President Donald Trump on Friday banned -- temporarily, for now -- roughly 218 million people from entering the United States. Trump barred citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US for at least the next 90 days by executive order, which a senior White House official said later Friday is likely just a first step toward establishing a broader ban […] Trump banned citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US for at least the next 90 days. The executive order bars all people hailing from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen -- or at least 218 million people, based on 2015 data published by the World Bank -- from entering the United States.” [CNN, 1/29/17]
The Executive Order Included A Provision That Prioritized Refugee Claims Made By ‘Religious Minorities’ From The Seven Countries. According to the Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, “Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” [Executive Order 13769 - Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, 1/27/17]
March 6, 2017: Trump Submitted A New Travel Ban Executive Order Banning People From Six Majority-Muslim Countries. According to the New York Times, “President Trump signed an executive order on Monday blocking citizens of six predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States, the most significant hardening of immigration policy in generations, even with changes intended to blunt legal and political opposition […] The new order continued to impose a 90-day ban on travelers, but it removed Iraq, a redaction requested by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who feared it would hamper coordination to defeat the Islamic State, according to administration officials.” [New York Times, 3/6/17]
The New Executive Order Removed The Provision That Gave Priority To Religious Minorities. According to the New York Times, “It also exempts permanent residents and current visa holders, and drops language offering preferential status to persecuted religious minorities, a provision widely interpreted as favoring other religious groups over Muslims. In addition, it reversed an indefinite ban on refugees from Syria, replacing it with a 120-day freeze that requires review and renewal.” [New York Times, 3/6/17]
The Supreme Court Upheld Trump’s Controversial Travel Ban. According to Axios, “The Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s most recent travel ban today in a 5-4 decision, ruling that it falls within the president’s traditional power to control immigration policy. The big picture: This is the court’s first major ruling on a Trump policy — and it showed. As is the case with so much of his presidency, the justices’ fiercest disagreements over Trump’s policies were wrapped up with disputes about Trump himself. Between the lines: The justices’ competing approaches to this case mirrored the broader partisan divides in electoral politics.” [Axios, 6/26/18]
In Her Dissent, Justice Sotomayor Claimed The Travel Ban Is Still Just The ‘Muslim Ban’
In Her Dissent, Justice Sotomayor Claimed That The Travel Ban Is Still The “Muslim Ban Trump Talked About On The Campaign. According to Axios, “Sotomayor read out loud at length from her dissent — a sign of particularly strong disagreement. She said the travel ban is still the Muslim ban Trump talked about on the campaign trail, but ‘now masquerades behind a façade of national-security concerns,’ and accused the majority of ‘ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens.’”[Axios, 6/26/18]
September 24, 2017: Trump Submitted A Third Set Of Restrictions On Travelers From Eight Countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somali, Syria, Venezuela, And Yemen. According to Politico, “President Donald Trump's controversial travel ban will morph into a new set of restrictions on travelers from an expanded set of countries, U.S. officials announced Sunday night as major parts of the order were close to expiring. The current policy, which denies visas to citizens of six majority Muslim countries, will be replaced by a new set of travel limits on eight countries, including all but one of those on the previous list. The nations facing indefinite travel restrictions under the new policy are Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen, officials said Sunday. Existing visa-holders are exempt, and waivers will remain available for travelers with U.S. ties, although those exemptions appear to be narrowed in the new directive.” 9/24/17]
The Supreme Court Upheld Trump’s Controversial Travel Ban. According to Axios, “The Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s most recent travel ban today in a 5-4 decision, ruling that it falls within the president’s traditional power to control immigration policy. The big picture: This is the court’s first major ruling on a Trump policy — and it showed. As is the case with so much of his presidency, the justices’ fiercest disagreements over Trump’s policies were wrapped up with disputes about Trump himself. Between the lines: The justices’ competing approaches to this case mirrored the broader partisan divides in electoral politics.” [Axios, 6/26/18]
In Her Dissent, Justice Sotomayor Claimed The Travel Ban Is Still Just The ‘Muslim Ban’
In Her Dissent, Justice Sotomayor Claimed That The Travel Ban Is Still The “Muslim Ban Trump Talked About On The Campaign. According to Axios, “Sotomayor read out loud at length from her dissent — a sign of particularly strong disagreement. She said the travel ban is still the Muslim ban Trump talked about on the campaign trail, but ‘now masquerades behind a façade of national-security concerns,’ and accused the majority of ‘ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens.’”[Axios, 6/26/18]
Trump’s Immigration Ban Excluded Countries He Had Business Ties To. According to Bloomberg, “On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Donald Trump’s travel ban, allowing the U.S. to bar or restrict entry by people from five Muslim-majority countries, in addition to North Korea and some government officials in Venezuela. Three countries included in previous versions of the ban—Chad, Sudan and Iraq—have been removed. The list doesn’t include Muslim-majority countries where the Trump Organization has done business or pursued potential deals. Properties include golf courses in the United Arab Emirates and two luxury towers operating in Turkey.” [Bloomberg, 6/26/18]
The Trump Administration Only Gave Waivers To 7,679 People Out Of 72,000 Visa Applicants From The Banned Countries. According to the Washington Post, “Ailing grandmothers, spouses and the toddlers of U.S. citizens are still being blocked from entering the United States under a travel ban that President Trump first imposed within days of taking office, his administration continuing to argue that people from five predominantly Muslim countries pose a national security threat. Since the initial rollout, in early 2017, of what critics and federal judges have branded a ‘Muslim ban,’ the Trump administration has fielded approximately 72,000 visa applications from the citizens of Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria, a U.S. State Department official told members of Congress on Tuesday. Approximately 10 percent of those applicants — 7,679 — have received waivers to enter the United States, according to Edward Ramotowski, deputy assistant secretary for visa services at the department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, who testified during a House judiciary and foreign affairs subcommittee hearing.” [Washington Post, 9/24/19]
The Waiver Program Would Allow Certain Humanitarian Exceptions To The Ban. According to the Washington Post, “The court accepted the administration’s claim that the ban served a national security interest, in part because of its inclusion of a ‘waiver program’ that would allow certain humanitarian exceptions to the ban. Such examples include those seeking urgent medical care or trying to live with close family members who already are in the United States.” [Washington Post, 9/24/19]
January 31, 2020: Trump Added Six Countries To His List Of Countries Under His Travel Ban: Eritrea, Sudan, Tanzania, Kyrgstan, And Myanmar. According to the New York Times, “President Trump on Friday added six countries to his list of nations facing stringent travel restrictions, a move that will virtually block immigration from Africa’s most populous nation, Nigeria, and from Myanmar, where the Muslim minority is fleeing genocide. Beside Nigeria, three other African countries, Eritrea, Sudan and Tanzania, will face varying degrees of restrictions, as will one former Soviet state, Kyrgyzstan. Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslims could also be caught in the crossfire. All six countries have substantial Muslim populations. The total number of countries now on the restricted travel list stands at 13.” [New York Times, 1/31/20]
Under Trump, The U.S. Admitted About 76,200 Refugees As Of October 2019, Compared To 85,000 In Fiscal 2016 Alone. According to the Pew Research, “Overall, the U.S. has admitted about 76,200 refugees so far under the Trump administration (Jan. 20, 2017, to Sept. 30, 2019). By comparison, the U.S. admitted nearly 85,000 refugees in fiscal 2016 alone, the last full fiscal year of the Obama administration.” [Pew Research, 10/7/19]
The Executive Order Suspended The U.S. Refugee Program For Four Months. According to CNN, “Trump also stopped the admission of all refugees to the United States for four months. During that time, Trump's secretary of state will review the application and screening process for refugees to be admitted to the US. The process is already highly rigorous and often takes successful refugee applicants at least two years to be admitted into the United States, but Trump has argued the program could still be exploited by terrorists.”
January 2017: As Part Of His First Immigration Ban Executive Order, Trump Limited The Number Of Immigrants Who Would Eventually Be Admitted. According to the New York Times, “The program will be capped at 50,000 refugees for the 2017 fiscal year, down from the 110,000 ceiling put in place under President Barack Obama. Nearly 30,000 have already been admitted since October, the start of the fiscal year. The order directs the secretary of state and the secretary of Homeland Security to prioritize refugee claims made by persecuted members of religious minorities.” [New York Times, 1/25/17]
September 29, 2017: Trump Signed An Order Cutting Refugee Quota To Lowest Level Since 1980. According to USA Today, “President Trump signed an order Friday lowering the number of refugees allowed into the United States next year to 45,000 — the lowest cap since Congress passed the Refugee Act in 1980. That's a 59% reduction from the ceiling set by President Barack Obama just a year ago, and the largest one-year change in history. And it comes amid a global refugee crisis that international relief groups have called the worst since World War II […] The lower quotas will affect refugees from every corner of the world, but will be most pronounced in the region the State Department calls the Near East and South Asia. That region accounts for 40% of refugees entering the United States, including Syria and Iraq.” [USA Today, 9/29/17]
FY 2018: The Trump Administration Admitted Roughly Only Half Of Their 45,000 Cap. According to NPR, “Just 22,491 refugees were resettled in the U.S. in fiscal year 2018, roughly half the 45,000 cap.” [NPR, 12/27/18]
September 17, 2018: Trump Placed A 30,000 Cap On the Number Of Refugees Allowed Into The Country In 2019. According to Reuters, “U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Monday the United States would cap the number of refugees allowed into the country at 30,000 for fiscal-year 2019, a sharp drop from a limit of 45,000 it set for 2018.‘We proposed resettling up to 30,000 refugees under the new refugee ceiling as well as processing more than 280,000 asylum seekers,’ Pompeo said in an announcement at the State Department, calling the United States ‘the most generous nation in the world when it comes to protection-based immigration.’ ‘This year’s proposed refugee ceiling must be considered in the context of the many other forms of protection and assistance offered by the United States,’ he said.” [Reuters, 9/17/18]
November 2, 2019: Trump Approved A Plan To Cap Refugees At 18,000 In 2020. According to the Associated Press, “President Donald Trump has signed off on a plan that continues a dramatic drop in the number of refugees taken in by the U.S. to no more than 18,000 in fiscal year 2020. When the State Department first announced the plan in September religious and humanitarian groups sharply criticized the administration. In the last full year of the Obama administration, the refugee ceiling was 85,000. This year, the Trump administration set the limit at 30,000. That number was the lowest since the modern resettlement program’s creation in 1980.” [Associated Press, 11/2/19]
Human Rights First: Refugee Caps Are ‘A Shameful Abdication Of Our Humanity.’ According to Reuters, “Refugee advocates quickly condemned the lower cap. ‘Today’s announcement ... is a shameful abdication of our humanity in the face of the worst refugee crisis in history,’ Jennifer Quigley, of Human Rights First, said in a statement.” [Reuters, 9/17/18]
Refugee Specialist At Amnesty International USA: ‘The Trump Administration Is Abandoning This Country’s Promise To Refugees.’ According to Reuters, “Ryan Mace, a refugee specialist at Amnesty International USA, urged Congress to oppose the decision as it finalizes fiscal-year 2019 appropriations. ‘The Trump administration is abandoning this country’s promise to refugees,’ said Mace. ‘Today’s announcement demonstrates another undeniable political attack against people who have been forced to flee their homes.’” [Reuters, 9/17/18]
Jared Kushner, The Grandson Of Refugees Who Fled To America To Escape The Holocaust, Defended Trump’s Move To Limit Refugee Admissions To The Lowest In 40 Years. According to Axios, “White House senior adviser Jared Kushner, the grandson of refugees who fled to America to escape the Holocaust, defended President Trump's decision to slash the number of refugees allowed into the U.S. in an interview with ‘Axios on HBO.’ Driving the news: Kushner told Axios that his family's experience — from ‘the precipice of life and death’ to the West Wing in just two generations — is a reminder of ‘how great this country is.’ But ‘you can’t have all of them come into your country,’ Kushner said of the 68.5 million refugees in the world. When asked whether he supported Trump's move to limit refugee admissions to the lowest level in 40 years, Kushner said the number ‘doesn’t make a difference one way or the another.’ ‘I think the amount of money you can spend to help refugees to resettle in their countries and deal with aid is very impactful,’ he said.” [Axios, 6/2/19]
January 26, 2017: Trump Signed An Executive Order For An ‘Impassable Physical Barrier’ To Be Built Along The U.S. Border With Mexico. According to the BBC, “President Donald Trump has issued an executive order for an ‘impassable physical barrier’ to be built along the US border with Mexico. He also signed an action to strip funds from US cities that are sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants. Mr Trump said in a TV interview with ABC News that Mexico would ‘absolutely, 100%’ reimburse the US for his wall. But Congress would have to approve funding for the structure, which is estimated to cost billions of dollars. Building a 2,000-mile barrier along the Mexican border was one of Mr Trump's key pledges in the election campaign.” [BBC, 1/26/17]
Trump Claimed That The Wall Would Cost Only $10 – 12 Billion. According to the transcript of the Republican Presidential Debate in Houston, “[Trump:] We’re going to make them pay for that wall. Now, the wall is $10 billion to $12 billion, if I do it. If these guys do it, it’ll end up costing $200 billion.” [Transcript of the Republican Presidential Debate in Houston – New York Times, 2/26/16]
February 9, 2017: Internal Report Stated That Trump Border Wall To Cost $21.6 Billion. According to Reuters, “President Donald Trump’s ‘wall’ along the U.S.-Mexico border would be a series of fences and walls that would cost as much as $21.6 billion, and take more than three years to construct, based on a U.S. Department of Homeland Security internal report seen by Reuters on Thursday. The report’s estimated price-tag is much higher than a $12-billion figure cited by Trump in his campaign and estimates as high as $15 billion from Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.” [Reuters, 2/9/17]
January 6, 2017: Trump Stated Mexico Would Pay For ‘Any Money Spent On Building The Great Wall.’ [Twitter, 1/6/17]
January 2, 2019: While Demanding Taxpayer Money For The Wall, Trump Claimed That Mexico Would Pay For The Wall. According to the Washington Post, “Trump wants $5.6 billion for the construction of 200 miles of wall along the Mexican border. Some Republicans have suggested he would be willing to accept a lesser amount, but he tried to dismiss this idea on Wednesday […] The president on Wednesday continued to advance false claims about where the wall money would come from and why it is needed. He said the wall would be paid for by Mexico through savings to the United States under a new North American trade agreement. But the trade agreement has yet to be approved by Congress, and trade experts said such savings are uncertain.” [Washington Post, 1/2/19]
The Mexican Government Made It Clear That It Would Not Pay For The Wall. According to the Hill, “Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto said he told Donald Trump that Mexico would not pay for the Republican nominee's proposed border wall, despite what Trump told the press after their meeting. ‘At the start of the conversation with Donald Trump I made it clear that Mexico will not pay for the wall,’ he wrote on Twitter. ‘From there, the conversation addressed other subjects and developed in a respectful manner.’” [The Hill, 8/32/26]
December 22, 2018: The Federal Government Partially Shutdown After He Did Not Get The $5 Billion In Wall Funding He Wanted. According to CNBC, “President Donald Trump threatened a government shutdown for weeks. He got one when the clock turned to Saturday. Congress missed a Friday midnight deadline to fund nine departments, or about a quarter of the government, and the Senate adjourned for Christmas without voting on a deal to bridge the impasse […] Lawmakers failed to reach a funding agreement as Trump demanded $5 billion for his proposed wall along the border with Mexico. Democrats refused. Then House Republicans dug in, declining to pass a bill to keep the government running into February after the president threatened to veto it Thursday.” [CNBC, 12/22/18]
Trump Threatened Lawmakers With ‘A Long Stay’ Until He Got Funding For The Border. [Twitter, 12/22/18]
After A 35 Day Partial Government Shutdown, Trump Signed A Stopgap Spending Bill To Reopen The Government…Without Funding For His Wall. According to the Hill, “The 35-day partial government shutdown appears on the verge of ending -- for now. President Trump on Friday announced he is agreeing to sign a stopgap spending measure to reopen the government without funding for his proposed border wall. ‘I am very proud to announce today that we have reached a deal to end the shutdown and re-open the federal government,’ Trump said during a speech in the Rose Garden.” [The Hill, 1/25/19]
CBO: The Government Shutdown Cost The U.S. Economy $11 Billion, Including A Permanent $3 Billion Loss. According to CNBC, “The federal government shutdown cost the economy $11 billion, according to a new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, reflecting lost output from federal workers, delayed government spending and reduced demand […] Although most of the damage to the economy will be reversed as federal workers return to their jobs, the CBO estimated $3 billion in economic activity is permanently lost after a quarter of the government was closed for nearly 35 days.” [CNBC, 1/28/19]
Prudential Survey: 62% Of Federal Workers Say They Used Up All Or Most Of Their Savings During The Government Shutdown. According to CNBC, “Federal workers are still recovering from the 35-day partial government shutdown that left many employees furloughed or working without pay. According to a Prudential survey of 350 federal workers, contractors and spouses, 62 percent said they depleted all or most of their savings as a result of the shutdown. Nearly 50 percent said they fell behind on bills, 27 percent said they dipped into their retirement accounts to pay bills or manage their everyday expenses and 23 percent said that during the shutdown they reduced or stopped spending on health and medical expenses for themselves or family members.” [CNBC, 2/15/19]
February 15, 2019: Trump Declared A National Emergency Over Border Security To Prompt Action On The U.S. Border Wall. According to the Wall Street Journal, “President Trump declared a national emergency Friday over border security, bypassing Congress to divert money from elsewhere in the government to pay for additional barriers along the southern border, a move likely to ignite immediate court challenges […] In remarks at the White House, Mr. Trump defended the actions as critical to national security. ‘We’re talking about an invasion of our country,’ he said. At another point, however, he suggested an emergency declaration wasn’t necessary. ‘I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster,’ he said.” [Wall Street Journal, 2/15/19]
Republican Lawmakers Were Critical Of Trump’s Emergency Declaration Stating That It Was ‘Unnecessary’ And ‘Unwise.’ According to the Wall Street Journal, “Republican lawmakers also were critical, saying the president’s plan undermined Congress and set a dangerous precedent if future Democratic presidents sought to declare emergencies over their priorities, such as climate change. ‘Declaring a national emergency is unnecessary, unwise and inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution,’ Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) said Friday. ‘Our founders chose not to create a chief executive with the power to tax the people and spend their money any way he chooses.’” [Wall Street Journal, 2/15/19]
The White House Announced It Would Be Pulling $2.5 Billion From The Department Of Defense, $3.6 Billion From Military Construction Funding, And $600 Million From The Treasury Department To Pay For 234 Miles Of Border Wall. According to the Wall Street Journal, “President Trump’s proposal to move billions of dollars from military spending and drug interdiction to fund the construction of 234 miles of barriers on the southern border sets up two new conflicts: one over where the money is coming from, and one over where it might go. Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said Friday that the White House would be using roughly $2.5 billion in counternarcotics funds from the Defense Department and about $3.6 billion in military construction funding, as well as approximately $600 million from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, to supplement the $1.375 billion appropriated by Congress for border-barrier construction. [Wall Street Journal, 2/15/19]
President Trump Prepared To Divert An Additional $7.2 Billion In Pentagon Funding For Border Wall Construction. According to the Washington Post, “President Trump is preparing to divert an additional $7.2 billion in Pentagon funding for border wall construction this year, five times what Congress authorized him to spend on the project in the 2020 budget, according to internal planning figures obtained by The Washington Post. The Pentagon funds would be extracted, for the second year in a row, from military construction projects and counternarcotics funding. According to the plans, the funding would give the government enough money to complete about 885 miles of new fencing by spring 2022, far more than the 509 miles the administration has slated for the U.S. border with Mexico.” [Washington Post, 1/13/20]
The Defense Department Had Diverted $3.83 Billion From Its Budget As Of February 13, 2020. According to the Washington Post, “The Defense Department said it is diverting $3.83 billion from elsewhere in its budget to build 177 more miles of President Trump’s border barrier, setting in motion a broader White House plan to take some $7.2 billion from the Pentagon budget this year for the project without congressional approval as Trump heads into the election. The Pentagon informed Congress on Thursday of its plans to divert the $3.83 billion from the purchase of aircraft and other equipment and instead use the funds for the construction of border barriers.” [Washington Post, 2/13/20]
If The Trump Administration Diverted $7.2 Billion From The Pentagon In 2020, It Would Bring The Total Amount Of Funds Budgeted For Trump’s Wall To $18.4 Billion. According to the Washington Post, “Despite launching his run for the presidency on a promise to make Mexico pay for the cost of a “border wall,” Trump has struggled to convince lawmakers the project is necessary and useful. If his administration diverts $7.2 billion again this year, it will bring the total amount of funds budgeted for Trump’s wall to $18.4 billion.” [Washington Post, 1/14/20]
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.): Trump’s Move To Divert Funds Is Contrary To Congress’ Constitutional Authority. According to the Washington Post, “Even Republicans who support increased border security have bristled at the questionable way Trump is deriving funds to see through one of his primary campaign promises. Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.), the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, criticized Thursday’s move, emphasizing that Congress has the constitutional responsibility to determine how defense dollars are spent. ‘The re-programming announced today is contrary to Congress’s constitutional authority, and I believe that it requires Congress to take action,’ Thornberry said in a statement.” [Washington Post, 2/13/20]
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) Criticized Diversions Of Budgets ‘Appropriated For Specific Purposes.’ According to the Washington Post, “‘I’m not in favor of diversions of budgets that were appropriated for specific purposes, and I’d rather see specific appropriations for the wall,’ Sen. Mitt Romney, (R-Utah) said Tuesday.” [Washington Post, 1/14/20]
The Trump Administration Sought To Take Over Private Land To Build It’s Long-Promised Border Wall. According to NBC News, “The Trump administration is preparing court filings to begin taking over private land to build its long-promised border wall as early as this week — without confirming how much it will pay landowners first, according to two officials familiar with the process. Jared Kushner is hosting a meeting with military and administration officials at the White House this Friday, where they are expected to discuss the U.S. government taking over private land to build more sections of wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, said two officials.” [NBC News, 11/14/19]
Trump Justice Department Sued U.S. Citizens To Seize Private Property For Border Wall Construction Through Eminent Domain. According to the Associated Press, “Almost no land has been taken so far. But Department of Justice lawyers have filed three lawsuits this month seeking to take property from landowners. On Tuesday, lawyers moved to seize land in one case immediately before a scheduled court hearing in February. The agency says it’s ready to file many more petitions to take private land in the coming weeks. While progress has lagged, the process of taking land under eminent domain is weighted heavily in the government’s favor.” [Associated Press, 12/27/19]
The Government Sued A Texas Roman Catholic Diocese To Gain Access For Its Surveyors. According to the Associated Press, “The government sued the local Roman Catholic diocese late last year to gain access for its surveyors at the site of La Lomita Chapel, which opened in 1865 and was an important site for missionaries who traveled the Rio Grande Valley by horseback. It remains an epicenter of the Rio Grande Valley’s Catholic community, hosting weddings and funerals, as well as an annual Palm Sunday procession that draws 2,000 people. The chapel is a short distance from the Rio Grande. It falls directly into the area where CBP wants to build its ‘enforcement zone.’ The diocese said it opposes a border wall because the barrier violates Catholic teachings and the church’s responsibility to protect migrants, as well as the church’s First Amendment right of religious freedom. A legal group from Georgetown University has joined the diocese in its lawsuit.” [Associated Press, 1/10/19]
Homeowners In Texas Vowed To Defend Their Private Property From Trump Administration. According to the Associated Press, “The federal government has started surveying land along the border in Texas and announced plans to start construction next month. Rather than surrender their land, some property owners are digging in, vowing to reject buyout offers and preparing to fight the administration in court. ‘You could give me a trillion dollars, and I wouldn’t take it,’ said Cavazos, whose land sits along the Rio Grande, the river separating the U.S. and Mexico in Texas. ‘It’s not about money.’”[Associated Press, 1/10/19]
Note: See Child Separation top hit document for information on detention of migrant children.
May 2019: Agents Detained Nearly 133,000 People In One Month At The Mexico Border, The Highest Level Since 2007. According to te Guardian, “The US border patrol’s arrests of migrants at the border with Mexico hit their highest level in more than a decade in May and officials warned they lack money and resources to care for the surge of parents and children entering the country. Agents made 132,887 arrests in May, the first time that detentions have topped 100,000 since April 2007, and the highest monthly total since Donald Trump took office. Of those detained 11,507 were children traveling alone, while 84,542 were family groups.” [Guardian, 6/5/19]
Migrant Detention Conditions Under Trump Were Atrocious
A June 2019 DHS OIG Report Detailed ‘Egregious Violations Of Detention Standards’ At Immigration Detention Facilities. According to the Office of the Inspector General, “Because we observed immediate risks or egregious violations of detention standards at facilities in Adelanto, CA, and Essex County, NJ, including nooses in detainee cells, overly restrictive segregation, inadequate medical care, unreported security incidents, and significant food safety issues, we issued individual reports to ICE after our visits to these two facilities. All four facilities had issues with expired food, which puts detainees at risk for food-borne illnesses. At three facilities, we found that segregation practices violated standards and infringed on detainee rights. Two facilities failed to provide recreation outside detainee housing units. Bathrooms in two facilities’ detainee housing units were dilapidated and moldy. At one facility, detainees were not provided appropriate clothing and hygiene items to ensure they could properly care for themselves.” [Concerns About ICE Detainee Treatment and Care at Four Detention Facilities – DHS OIG, 6/3/19]
In A Separate Inspector General Report, Officials Found ‘Dangerous Overcrowding’ At A Border Patrol Processing Facility In El Paso, Texas. According to the Guardian, “And in a separate inspector general report last week, officials found ‘dangerous overcrowding’ at a border patrol processing facility in El Paso, Texas. In May, inspectors found the processing center, which has a capacity of 125 people, held between 750 and 900 people. A cell meant to hold 12 people held 76 people and another with capacity for 35 held 155, according to the report. Donald Trump has not directly addressed the problems uncovered in US detention facilities.” [The Guardian, 6/7/19]
UN High Commissioner For Human Rights Said She Was ‘Appalled’ By The Conditions Migrants And Refugees Faced In U.S. Detention Facilities. According to the Associated Press, “The United Nations’ human rights chief said Monday she was ‘appalled’ by the conditions migrants and refugees face in U.S. detention facilities, intensifying a challenge to the Trump administration’s immigration policies.United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet said children stopped by border agents should never be held in immigration detention facilities or separated from their families, and detention should not be the norm for adults, either. ‘Any deprivation of liberty of adult migrants and refugees should be a measure of last resort,’ the U.N. commissioner said, appealing for ‘non-custodial alternatives.’ [Associated Press, 7/8/19]
UN High Commissioner’s Comments Came After Trump Stated That Migrants Were ‘Very Happy’ With The Conditions At Border Facilities. According to the Associated Press, “President Donald Trump said Sunday that migrants were coming from ‘unbelievable poverty’ and ‘those are people that are very happy with what’s going on because, relatively speaking, they’re in much better shape right now’ in U.S. custody. He went on to praise the work of the Border Patrol and other law enforcement officers on the U.S.-Mexico border, saying, ‘it’s incredible what they’re doing. They’ve had to become nurses. They’ve had to become janitors.’ The Homeland Security report was the second by the inspector general’s office to blast conditions at temporary detention centers in Texas where migrants are held.” [Associated Press, 7/8/19]
There Were Two Known Incidents Of Possible Coronavirus Infections Tied To The U.S. Immigration Detention System. According to the Guardian, “Doctors are concerned the spread of coronavirus to the US’s prison-like immigration detention centers is inevitable and will hit a system blighted by overcrowding and medical negligence. There are two known incidents of possible coronavirus infections tied to the US immigration detention system, which has detained record numbers of people under Donald Trump.” [The Guardian, 3/11/20]
Physicians Stated That It Was Inevitable That Coronavirus Would Hit Immigration Detention Centers. According to the Guardian, “Dr Ranit Mishori, senior medical adviser at the Physicians for Human Rights advocacy group, said it was inevitable coronavirus hits either a prison or jail, and that it was likely to hit immigration detention centers as well. ‘Looking at what has been happening in immigration detention centers, it doesn’t inspire much confidence in me,’ Mishori said. Any type of detention center is a cauldron for infectious disease because of the crowded conditions and limited access to medical care. Five cases of mumps in immigration detention centers in September 2018 ballooned to nearly 900 cases among staff and detainees by August 2019. In these facilities, it can also be difficult to follow the most basic prevention advice – regular hand washing – because clean water and soap aren’t guaranteed.” [The Guardian, 3/11/20]
Three Children Died In Border Control Custody Due To Flu-Related Complications
Three Children Died In Border Patrol Custody Of The Flu. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Three youths — ages 2, 6 and 16 — died in Border Patrol custody of the flu during the federal fiscal year that ended in September. The deaths came as the number of migrant children and families in federal custody reached a record high.” [Los Angeles Times, 11/19/19]
Immigration Officials Barred Doctors From Giving Flu Shots To Detained Children
U.S. Immigration Authorities Blocked Doctors From Giving Flu Vaccines To Detained Children. According to the Guardian, “US immigration authorities blocked doctors from giving flu vaccines to detained migrant children this week, a move that physicians say will lead to more deaths behind bars. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) refused to grant a group of doctors access to provide vaccines in San Diego on Monday despite at least three recent flu deaths of children in US immigration custody, aged two, six and 16, and growing concerns about health hazards and unsafe conditions for asylum seekers in detention. Licensed physicians arrived at the Chula Vista border patrol station in San Ysidro prepared to operate a free flu clinic for the detained migrants, but CBP would not let them inside, claiming it was not ‘feasible’ to provide the medical care.” [Guardian, 12/10/19]
Physicians Pressured The CBP Stating That ‘More People Will Die Without The [Flu] Vaccine.’ According to the Guardian, “‘More people will die without the vaccine,’ said Dr Hannah Janeway, an emergency medicine physician turned away by CBP. ‘There’s no doubt. They are being locked in cages in cold weather together, without any vaccination, in a year that is supposed to bring a horrible flu epidemic.’ Janeway, a Los Angeles-based doctor who also works with asylum seekers in Tijuana, said CBP had a moral obligation to provide vaccines: ‘Our government, who is creating these conditions and allowing them to persist, is basically saying some people’s lives are worth more than others, and it’s OK for children to die.’ For more than a month, a group of physicians has been urging the US to vaccinate migrants in custody, and in November they formally offered to set up a free pilot clinic. CBP, however, has rejected the proposal by arguing that there are logistical challenges and that because CBP operates short-term detention, a flu clinic is not feasible.” [Guardian, 12/10/19]
September 2019: There Were Mumps Outbreaks In Immigrant Detention Centers, With More Than 900 Detained Immigrants Infected At One Time. According to NPR, “STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Health care professionals in the United States have nearly eliminated the mumps. The risk of contracting that disease is small. It's preventable, after all, but it's different if you are in an immigrant detention center. More than 900 detained immigrants are currently infected. Houston Public Media's Elizabeth Trovall reports. ELIZABETH TROVALL, BYLINE: The recent mumps outbreak began in Texas last October with just five cases in immigration detention centers. Within months, the disease was reported in dozens of facilities nationwide.” [NPR, 9/23/19]
Detention Centers Were High-Risk Settings For The Spread Of Disease. According to NPR, “RICH: We're taking a largely unvaccinated population, concentrating them in a very high-risk setting where the people have active disease, and we're going to see more and more outbreaks. TROVALL: Not only of mumps but also possibly measles. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has given more than 25,000 doses of the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine in affected facilities. But Dr. Rich says that may not be enough. He specializes in infectious diseases in detained populations. Last month alone, 64,000 migrants were taken into custody after crossing the southern border. Most of the migrants come from countries that didn't routinely offer the mumps and measles vaccine until the mid-'90s, decades after the U.S.” [NPR, 9/23/19]
Immigration detention proved dangerous for women’s health and reproductive rights
Pregnant Migrants Stated They Miscarried In Immigration Detention And Didn’t Get The Healthcare They Needed
Five Women Who Were In ICE Detention And CBP Custody While Pregnant Claimed They Were Ignored When They Were Miscarrying. According to Buzzfeed News, “The new ICE directive states that women are not to be held into their third trimester and that ICE is responsible for ‘ensuring pregnant detainees receive appropriate medical care including effectuating transfers to facilities that are able to provide appropriate medical treatment.’ But BuzzFeed News has found evidence that that directive is not being carried out. Instead, women in immigration detention are often denied adequate medical care, even when in dire need of it, are shackled around the stomach while being transported between facilities, and have been physically and psychologically mistreated. In interviews and written affidavits, E and four other women who’ve been in ICE detention and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody while pregnant told of being ignored when they were obviously miscarrying, described their CBP and ICE-contracted jailers as unwilling or unable to respond to medical emergencies, and recounted an incident of physical abuse from CBP officers who knew they were dealing with a pregnant woman. Those descriptions were backed by interviews with five legal aid workers, four medical workers, and two advocates who work with ICE detainees.” [Buzzfeed News, 7/9/18]
Medical Workers And Legal Aid Workers Stated That They Had Seen Cases Of Pregnant Women Not Receiving Or Being Denied Medical Care In More Than Six Different Detention Centers. According to Buzzfeed News, “The incidents were not limited to a single detention center. Three medical workers and five legal aid workers who spoke to BuzzFeed News all said they had seen — and some had documented — cases of pregnant women not receiving or being denied medical care in more than six different detention centers in California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. Manoj Govindaiah, the director of family detention services for the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES), said that the majority of the pregnant women they work with in the ICE-run Karnes family detention center in Texas have told RAICES that ICE staff promised to bring them to off-site medical professionals but never did. Lauren Connell, a pro-bono attorney who also does work at Karnes, confirmed that she has had to fight for some of her pregnant clients to receive the medical care they ask for.” [Buzzfeed News, 7/9/18]
Women Claimed That They Were Shackled In Custody While Pregnant – Prohibited By ICE AND CBP
Pregnant Women Said They Had Been Shackled Around Their Hands, Legs, And Belly While In Custody, An Action Prohibited By ICE And CBP. According to Buzzfeed News, “All of the women said they had been shackled around their hands, legs, and belly while they were in CBP custody, mainly while being transported from the holding centers at the border in California and Arizona (where E was moved to for more than a week after entering in California), and then to Otay Mesa, the privately run longer-term detention facility in San Diego. Shackling in such a manner is standard practice for prisoners in the US while they are being transferred between facilities, but for pregnant women in their second trimester it could cause issues with the pregnancy, medical professionals say. ICE facilities are contracted under three different versions of detention standards of care, depending on when they signed their contracts. Shackling is prohibited by ICE and CBP’s most recent standards-of-care policies as well as by a congressional directive.” [Buzzfeed News, 7/9/18]
The Trump Administration Tried To Stop Undocumented Teens From Getting Abortions
Seven Immigrant Teenagers In Federal Custody Asked The Trump Administration To Let Them Get Abortions But Their Requests Were Denied By Scott Lloyd, Head Of The Office Of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). According to Vice News, “Seven immigrant teenagers in federal custody asked the Trump administration to let them get abortions between March and December 2017, but their requests were personally refused by an official known for his anti-abortion views, documents exclusively obtained by VICE News show. All of the girls were eventually allowed to undergo the procedure, though three of them fought for and won the right in court after filing suit against the Trump administration […] That official, Scott Lloyd, heads the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which oversees the care of all minors who enter the United States without their families and without authorization. Since taking over the office in March, Lloyd has kept close tabs on pregnant girls in the agency’s care, going so far as to personally meet with a girl considering abortion.” [Vice News, 2/28/18]
OOR Continued To Track Pregnancies Even After Court Order Not Interfere With Access To Abortion. According to Vice News, “A Trump administration agency has been tracking migrant minors’ pregnancies and whether they want abortions — despite a court order to not interfere with minors’ access to the procedure, according to documents obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request As far back as October 2017 and as recently as March, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which cares for minors who enter the country without authorization or a guardian, was keeping a spreadsheet of pregnant minors in their custody, which government transparency researcher Russ Kick published late last week. The agency also continued to keep tabs on them after Scott Lloyd — the agency’s then-director and a longtime opponent of abortion — transferred to another role within the Trump administration this past November.” [Vice News, 5/6/19]
ORR Head, Scott Lloyd, Was A Longtime Opponent Of Abortion And Personally Reviewed Every Abortion Request
Lloyd Was A Longtime Opponent Of Abortion. According to Vice News, “Lloyd is a longtime opponent of abortion: He’s worked for anti-abortion organizations and written articles arguing that contraception access leads to increased abortion. In the December deposition, Lloyd said he doesn’t believe unaccompanied immigrant children have a constitutional right to abortion, even though a Washington, D.C., district court ruled that they likely do. Moreover, Lloyd said, he doesn’t consider abortion to be a part of medical reproductive health services, which ORR is legally obligated to provide.” [Vice News, 2/28/18]
Lloyd Personally Reviewed Every Request For An Abortion. According to Vice News, “Lloyd receives a spreadsheet every week containing information on every pregnant teen in ORR’s custody, including the fetus’s gestational age and whether the teen has asked for an abortion. Lloyd says agency policy forbids staff from taking any actions to help a minor in ORR custody get an abortion unless he personally authorizes the procedure.” [Vice News, 2/28/18]
Lloyd Discussed Trying To “Reverse” And Undocumented Teen’s Abortion
Lloyd Discussed Trying To Use A Scientifically Unproven Method To Reverse An Undocumented Teen’s Abortion. According to Vice News, “Scott Lloyd, a longtime crusader against abortion who heads the agency that oversees undocumented minors who enter the country without their parents, spoke with staffers about trying to reverse the abortion of a pregnant teen in their custody, according to a deposition he underwent as part of a lawsuit between the Trump administration and the American Civil Liberties Union […] But there is no credible medical evidence that such a procedure works, and the mainstream medical community worries that using it amounts to experimentation on women.” [Vice News, 1/31/18]
Trump: If Immigrants Are ‘Unhappy’ With Conditions At Detention Centers ‘Just Tell Them Not To Come.’ According to Reuters “President Donald Trump, facing renewed criticism from Democrats and activists over his handling of a migrant crisis on the U.S.- Mexico border, said in a Twitter post on Wednesday that immigrants unhappy with conditions at detention centers should be told ‘not to come’ […] ‘If Illegal Immigrants are unhappy with the conditions in the quickly built or refitted detentions centers, just tell them not to come. All problems solved!’ Trump said on Twitter.” [Reuters, 7/3/19]
Trump Tweeted That ‘Many Of These Illegals (Sic) Aliens Are Living Far Better Now’ [Twitter, 7/3/19]
Trump Tweeted That If Illegal Immigrants ‘Are Unhappy With The Conditions’ They Should Not Come To The U.S. [Twitter, 7/3/19]
September 2017: Trump Ordered An End To The Obama-Era Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals, Which Caused Hundreds Of Thousands Of Young Adults To Be At Risk For Deportation. According to the New York Times, “President Trump on Tuesday ordered an end to the Obama-era program that shields young undocumented immigrants from deportation, calling it an ‘amnesty-first approach’ and urging Congress to pass a replacement before he begins phasing out its protections in six months. As early as March, officials said, some of the 800,000 young adults brought to the United States illegally as children who qualify for the program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, will become eligible for deportation. The five-year-old policy allows them to remain without fear of immediate removal from the country and gives them the right to work legally.” [New York Times, 9/5/17]
Trump Falsely Claimed That ‘Millions Of Americans [Were] Victimized By This Unfair System.’ According to the New York Times, “Mr. Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who announced the change at the Justice Department, both used the aggrieved language of anti-immigrant activists, arguing that those in the country illegally are lawbreakers who hurt native-born Americans by usurping their jobs and pushing down wages. Mr. Trump said in a statement that he was driven by a concern for ‘the millions of Americans victimized by this unfair system.’ Mr. Sessions said the program had ‘denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same illegal aliens to take those jobs.’” [New York Times, 9/5/17]
Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions Stated That The Protections DACA Provided ‘Yielded Terrible Humanitarian Consequences.’ According to NBC, “Meanwhile, Sessions repeatedly referred to DACA as unconstitutional and criticized it as ‘unilateral executive amnesty.’ He said it ‘yielded terrible humanitarian consequences’ and had ‘denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same jobs to go to illegal aliens.’ ‘We are a people of compassion and we are a people of law. But there is nothing compassionate about the failure to enforce immigration laws,’ Sessions said. ‘The compassionate thing is to end the lawlessness, enforce our laws, and, if Congress chooses to make changes to those laws, to do so through the process set forth by our Founders in a way that advances the interest of the nation,’ he continued.” [NBC, 9/5/17]
Politico/Morning Consult Poll: 69 Percent Of 2016 Trump Voters Want To Protect So-Called Dreamers From Deportation. According to Politico, “A majority of Trump voters want to protect so-called Dreamers from deportation, according to a new poll, putting pressure on President Donald Trump to shield immigrants who were brought to the country illegally as children. The same trend holds across all Republicans, according to the findings from the latest POLITICO/Morning Consult poll. In fact, the poll indicates that wide swaths of registered voters support Dreamers regardless of gender, education, income, ethnicity, religion and ideology. That includes 68 percent of Republicans, 71 percent of conservatives and 64 percent of those who approve of the job Trump is doing. Even 69 percent of those who voted for Trump in 2016 — when he vowed to deport Dreamers — say they should be protected.” [Politico, 6/17/20]
More Than Three Out Of Four Registered Voters Say Dreamers Should Be Allowed To Stay In The United States. According to Politico, “Overall, more than three out of four registered voters say Dreamers should be allowed to stay in the United States. That includes 61 percent who say they should be allowed to become citizens if they meet requirements, and 17 percent who say they should be allowed to become legal residents if they meet requirements. Just 12 percent say they should be deported. Ten percent didn’t know or had no opinion.” [Politico, 6/17/20]
June 8, 2020: The Supreme Court Rejected Trump’s Plan To Repeal The Popular Obama-Era Order That Protected The 700,000 Young Immigrants Who Were Brought The United States Illegally As Children. According to the Los Angeles Times, “In a striking rebuke to President Trump, the Supreme Court on Thursday rejected his plan to repeal the popular Obama-era order that protected so-called Dreamers, the approximately 700,000 young immigrants who were brought to this country illegally as children. Led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the court called the decision to cancel the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, arbitrary and not justified. The program allows these young people to register with the government and, if they have a clean criminal record, to obtain a work permit and be assured they will not be deported. At least 27,000 DACA participants are employed as healthcare workers.” [Los Angeles Times, 7/18/20]
The Court Ruled That The Trump Administration Failed To Give An Explanation For Why It Was Repealing A Popular And Widely Lauded Program. According to the Los Angeles Times, “But the chief justice joined with the four liberals on the court to rule that Trump and his administration had failed to give an explanation for why it was repealing a popular and widely lauded program. The justices did not conclude that Trump’s repeal violated the Constitution or exceeded his authority under immigration law. Instead, the majority blocked the action on the grounds that Trump’s team had failed to explain its rationale as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. Adopted in the 1940s in response to the New Deal and the massive growth of government, the act requires officials to explain and justify abrupt changes in regulatory rules. The decision made for an unusually bad week for Trump and conservatives.” [Los Angeles Times, 7/18/20]
The Trump Administration Defied The Supreme Court, And Refused To Accept New DACA Applications. According to NPR, “The Trump administration on Tuesday continued its push to roll back DACA — the program that protects young immigrants brought to the country illegally as children — by refusing to accept new applicants. A number of courts had given those immigrants hope. Last month, the Supreme Court blocked the administration's effort to end the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Then two weeks ago, a court in Maryland told the administration to start accepting new DACA applicants. But the administration is refusing to do that, saying it will reject new applicants while launching a ‘comprehensive review’ of DACA and whether to go forward with a new plan to end the program. I have concluded that the DACA policy, at a minimum, presents serious policy concerns that may warrant its full rescission,’ said Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf in a memo explaining the administration's decision.” [NPR, 7/28/20]
Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf: I Direct DHS Personnel To Take All Appropriate Actions To Reject All Pending And Future Initial Requests For DACA. According to a Memorandum from Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf, “By this memorandum, I am rescinding the 2017 and 2018 memoranda, and making certain immediate changes to the DACA policy to facilitate my thorough consideration of how to address DACA in light of the Supreme Court’s decision. For the reasons outlined below, pending my full reconsideration of the DACA policy, I direct DHS personnel to take all appropriate actions to reject all pending and future initial requests for DACA, to reject all pending and future applications for advance parole absent exceptional circumstances, and to shorten DACA renewals consistent with the parameters established in this memorandum.” [Memorandum from Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf, 7/28/20]
National Immigrant Justice Center: It Is Unconscionable For The Trump Administration To Circumvent The Rulings Of A Federal Court In Order To Thrust Into Uncertainty The Families And Communities Who Rely On DACA. According to NPR, “Immigrant advocates assailed the administration's move, saying it hurts DACA recipients and their families. The program protects recipients from deportation and allows them to work here legally. ‘It is unconscionable for the Trump administration to circumvent the rulings of a federal court in order to once again thrust into uncertainty the families and communities who rely on DACA to stay together and for protection from unjust deportations,’ said Vanessa Esparza-Lopez, an attorney at the National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago.” [NPR, 7/28/20]
Immigrant Advocates Said It Was Clear That The Administration Was Preparing To Rescind The Popular Program If Trump Won Reelection. According to NPR, “Immigrant advocates say it's clear that the administration is preparing to rescind the popular program again but postponing that until after the November election. ‘Trump's announcement today lays the groundwork to kill the DACA program and confirms what we have long said: DACA is on the ballot in November,’ said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles, which helped bring one of the cases the Supreme Court decided last month.” [NPR, 7/28/20]
January 26, 2017: Trump Signed An Executive Order Promising To Withhold Federal Money From Sanctuary Jurisdictions. According to NPR, “On Wednesday, President Trump signed an executive order promising to withhold federal money from what it calls sanctuary jurisdictions. What's not clear is which cities and counties qualify for this punishment, and whether this kind of federal pressure is even legal.While the term ‘sanctuary city’ is popular with activists, it doesn't have a set definition. Even in liberal West Coast cities that have proudly adopted the label, local law enforcement often decides whom to turn over on a case-by-case basis. The executive order leaves it to the secretary of Homeland Security to designate ‘sanctuary jurisdictions,’ apparently based on whether they allow local officials to share people's immigration status with the federal government. A 1996 law prohibits localities from withholding that information, and the Trump administration says sanctuary cities are in clear violation.” [NPR, 1/26/17]
After New York City And Seven States Sued The Justice Department, An Appeals Court Ruled That The DOJ Can Refuse Crime-Fighting Money To Cities And States That Consider Themselves Sanctuaries. According to NBC News, “A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the Justice Department can refuse to give crime-fighting money to cities and states that consider themselves sanctuaries and refuse to share information with federal immigration authorities. The unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was a defeat for New York City and seven states — Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Virginia and Washington. They sued after the Justice Department said in 2017 that it would not award grants from a federal program to local governments that withheld information about undocumented immigrants in their jails.” [NBC News, 2/26/20]
The Court Overturned A Lower Court Ruling That Stopped Trump From Withholding Grant Money Due To Sanctuary Policies. According to Fox News, “The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York last month overturned a lower court ruling that stopped the administration’s 2017 move to withhold grant money from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which dispenses over $250 million a year to state and local criminal justice efforts. The decision conflicts with rulings from other appeals courts across the country concerning sanctuary policies, indicating a Supreme Court review is ultimately likely.” [Fox News, 3/5/20]
March 2020: Trump Said The Federal Government Will Begin Withholding Funds From Sanctuary Cities. According to the Hill,
President Trump on Thursday said his administration will begin withholding funding from self-described sanctuary cities after a federal court ruled last week that it could do so. ‘As per recent Federal Court ruling, the Federal Government will be withholding funds from Sanctuary Cities,’ Trump tweeted. ‘They should change their status and go non-Sanctuary. Do not protect criminals!’” [The Hill, 3/5/20]
ICE Began 24-Hour-A-Day Surveillance Operations Around The Homes And Workplaces Of Undocumented Immigrants. According to the New York Times, “Intensifying its enforcement in so-called sanctuary cities across the country, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has begun 24-hour-a-day surveillance operations around the homes and workplaces of undocumented immigrants. The agency plans to deploy hundreds of additional officers in unmarked cars in the coming weeks to increase arrests in cities where local law enforcement agencies do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.” [New York Times, 3/5/20]
ICE Requested At Least 500 Special Agents Who Normally Conduct Investigations Into Dangerous Criminals To Aid In The Surveillance Efforts. According to the New York Times, “ICE leadership has requested at least 500 special agents who normally conduct long-term investigations into dangerous criminals and traffickers to join the enhanced arrest campaign rolling out in sanctuary cities, according to an internal email reviewed by The New York Times […] The expanded surveillance operations and added manpower are the latest intensification in a conflict between the Trump administration and cities that refuse to help with deportations, including Boston, New York, Detroit, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Atlanta, New Orleans and Newark.” [New York Times, 3/5/20]
ICE Began Using Aggressive Tactics To Arrest Undocumented Immigrants
ICE Began Using Aggressive Tactics To Arrest Undocumented Immigrants. According to the New York Times, “Advocacy groups in New York say they have documented an increasing use of aggressive tactics, including agents brandishing weapons and claiming to be police officers. In one case last month, a 26-year-old Mexican tourist was shot in the face while ICE agents were arresting someone else in Brooklyn. In the Bronx, a local resident on Tuesday took a photo through a peephole of an ICE officer in military-style fatigues carrying an assault rifle on the other side of an apartment door.” [New York Times, 3/5/20]
The Facebook Group ‘I’m 10-15,’ Created In August 2016 Had 9,500 Members Across The Country. According to ProPublica, “Created in August 2016, the Facebook group is called ‘I’m 10-15’ and boasts roughly 9,500 members from across the country. (10-15 is Border Patrol code for ‘aliens in custody.’) The group described itself, in an online introduction, as a forum for ‘funny’ and ‘serious’ discussion about work with the patrol.” [ProPublica, 7/1/19]
CBP Came Under Intense Scrutiny As The Trump Administration Took More Aggressive Measures To Halt The Influx Of Immigrants. According to ProPublica, “Responsible for policing the nation’s southern and northern boundaries, the Border Patrol has come under intense scrutiny as the Trump administration takes new, more aggressive measures to halt the influx of undocumented migrants across the United States-Mexico border. The patrol’s approximately 20,000 agents serve under the broader U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, which has been faulted for allegedly mistreating children and adults in its custody. The agency’s leadership has been in turmoil, with its most recent acting chief, John Sanders, resigning last week.” [ProPublica, 7/1/19]
Member Of Facebook CBP Group: If The Immigrant Dies In Custody ‘Oh Well.’ According to ProPublica, “In one exchange, group members responded with indifference and wisecracks to the post of a news story about a 16-year-old Guatemalan migrant who died in May while in custody at a Border Patrol station in Weslaco, Texas. One member posted a GIF of Elmo with the quote, ‘Oh well.’ Another responded with an image and the words ‘If he dies, he dies.’” [ProPublica, 7/1/19]
Members Of The Facebook Group Referred To Latina Lawmakers As ‘Bitches’ And ‘Hoes.’ According to ProPublica, “One member encouraged Border Patrol agents to hurl a ‘burrito at these bitches.’ Another, apparently a patrol supervisor, wrote, ‘Fuck the hoes.’ ‘There should be no photo ops for these scum buckets,’ posted a third member. Perhaps the most disturbing posts target Ocasio-Cortez. One includes a photo illustration of her engaged in oral sex at an immigrant detention center. Text accompanying the image reads, ‘Lucky Illegal Immigrant Glory Hole Special Starring AOC.’ Another is a photo illustration of a smiling President Donald Trump forcing Ocasio-Cortez’s head toward his crotch. The agent who posted the image commented: ‘That’s right bitches. The masses have spoken and today democracy won.’” [ProPublica, 7/1/19]
Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost Stated That She ‘Didn’t Think Anything Of’ The Controversial Secret CBP Facebook Group Featuring Racist And Sexist Posts. According to the Washington Post, “Then, in testimony Wednesday, Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost acknowledged that she was a member of one of the groups; she had been active since at least last fall, according to images published by the Intercept. She was involved in the group to evaluate ‘how I am representing my workforce,’ she told lawmakers at a hearing about oversight within her agency. Provost sighed deeply. ‘I didn’t think anything of it at the time,’ she told the House Appropriations subcommittee, and said she was unaware of the nature of the posts until ProPublica published a report on July 1. The posts contain caustic remarks about the deaths of migrants, sexually explicit images and xenophobic comments.” [Washington Post, 7/25/19]
Provost Argued That The Facebook Page Did Not Indicative Of Deeper Cultural Problems Within Border Patrol. According to the Washington Post, “She ‘condemned’ the posts in a message to the agency, opened investigations of agents who posted or responded to posts, and gave her passwords to agency oversight officials, who analyzed her online activity and told her that she had logged on to Facebook nine times over the period of a year and that her interactions had been mostly with friends and family members. Yet Provost said the posts at the private group page ‘I’m 10-15,’ after the law enforcement code for ‘aliens in custody,’ were not indicative of cultural rot within Border Patrol. She called offenders “a few bad apples” among about 20,000 agents. The group for current and former agents included about 9,500 members, although other groups exist.” [Washington Post, 7/25/19]
U.S. Customs And Border Protection Investigated 62 Employees And 8 Former Employees For Possible Misconduct For Their Alleged Participation In A Secret Facebook Group. According to the Washington Post, “Sixty-two U.S. Customs and Border Protection employees and eight former workers have come under investigation for possible misconduct for their alleged participation in a secret Facebook group, where members shared racist and sexist memes, cracked jokes about migrant deaths and made derogatory remarks about Latina members of Congress. CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility began an investigation into the posts on July 1, after ProPublica published a story about content posted to the private online forum. The report of offensive immigration-related material being discussed among a group of people tasked with arresting and caring for migrants drew fresh criticism to the agency, which has been under fire in recent months for its treatment of migrants — especially children” [Washington Post, 7/15/19]