There’s an image that’s stayed with me for weeks: A sea of people holding up “Mass Deportation Now” signs at the Republican National Convention.
Since then, I’ve been plagued with nightmares of mass raids by the military and police across the country. I see millions of families being torn apart, including families with citizen children. And I see DACA recipients — like me — carried away from the only life we’ve ever known.
Mass deportation wasn’t just a rallying cry at the GOP convention. It’s a key plank of Project 2025, a radical document written by white nationalists listing conservative policy priorities for the next administration.
And it would be a disaster — not just for immigrants, but for our whole country.
I moved to the United States when I was six. Until my teenage years, I didn’t know I was undocumented — I only knew I was from the Philippines. I grew up in Chicago with my twin brother. Our parents worked hard, volunteered at my elementary school, and ensured we always had food on the table. They raised us to do well and be good people.
But when my twin and I learned that we were undocumented, we realized that living our dreams was going to be complicated — on top of the lasting fear of being deported.
Everything changed right before I entered high school in 2012: The Obama administration announced the Deferred Actions for Childhood Arrivals policy, or DACA. The program was designed to protect young people like my twin and me who arrived in the U.S. at a young age with limited or no knowledge of our life before. We’re two of the 600,000 DACA recipients today.
DACA opened many doors for us. It’s allowed us to drive, attend college, and have jobs. And we’re temporarily exempt from deportation, a status we have to renew every two years.
DACA helped me set my sights high on my studies and career. Although I couldn’t apply for federal aid, with DACA I became eligible for a program called QuestBridge that granted me a full-ride scholarship to college. Today I work in public policy in the nation’s capital, with dreams of furthering my career through graduate school.
Imagine your friends, neighbors, colleagues, peers, and caretakers being dragged away from their homes. For me, it would mean being forced back to the Philippines, a place I haven’t seen in two decades. My partner, my friends, my work — all I’ve ever known is here, in the country I call home.
This country would suffer, too.
An estimated 11 million undocumented people live here. We’re doctors, chefs, librarians, construction workers, lawyers, drivers, scientists, and business owners. We fill labor shortages and help keep inflation down. We contribute nearly $100 billion each year to federal, state, and local taxes.
Fear-mongering politicians want you to believe we’re criminals, or that we’re voting illegally. But again and again, studies find that immigrants commit many fewer crimes than U.S.-born Americans. And though some of us have been long-time residents of this country, we cannot vote in state or federal elections.
Despite all the divisive rhetoric, the American people agree with immigration advocates: Our country needs to offer immigrants a path to legalization and citizenship. According to a Gallup poll last year, 68 percent of Americans support this.
My dark dreams of mass deportations are, thankfully, just nightmares for now. And my dreams of a secure future for my family and all people in this country outweigh my fears. We must do everything possible to keep all families together.
Alliyah Lusuegro is the Outreach Coordinator for the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.
ICE’s stated enforcement goals with publicly available data, highlights the agency’s increasingly militarized presence in urban neighborhoods, and documents the erosion of due process protections.
by Van Abbott
A budget tells a story. It reveals priorities, exposes intentions, and signals how power will be used. The newly expanded budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement tells a story that should alarm anyone who values fiscal integrity, constitutional limits, and democratic accountability.
In fiscal year 2024, ICE operated on a budget of roughly 10 billion dollars. Under the 2025 “Big Beautiful Bill,” the agency retained that base while receiving an additional 75 billion dollars in multiyear enforcement funding, available over approximately four years. Even if those supplemental funds are spread evenly, ICE now commands effective spending power of about 29 billion dollars annually. This is not an incremental increase. It is a structural transformation. An agency once described as a targeted enforcement body now wields resources approaching those of a national security institution, with little explanation and even less oversight.
The administration insists this surge in funding is about deportation. The observable outcomes suggest otherwise.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, a forced deportation costs approximately 18,000 dollars per person. By contrast, self deportation through the CBP Home app, including airfare, processing, and a cash stipend, costs about 5,100 dollars.
United States citizens are detained and required to prove their citizenship. Detainees report harsh and degrading treatment.
Using limited and unaudited publicly available data, ICE appears to have conducted roughly 300,000 to 330,000 formal forced removals over the past twelve months. In the final Biden administration fiscal year, ICE conducted approximately 271,000 forced removals. Even using the highest current estimate of 330,000, the increase amounts to about 59,000 removals, or roughly 22 percent.
Given the intensity of MAGA rhetoric and the extraordinary budgetary expansion directed at illegal immigration, one would expect a far greater increase in deportations during the first year of Trump’s return to office. That has not occurred.
This disparity raises a fundamental question. Are taxpayers funding effective immigration enforcement, or underwriting a vastly expanded apparatus whose mission now extends far beyond its original purpose? When spending multiplies while outcomes stagnate, and budgets swell while transparency shrinks, skepticism is not partisan. It is prudent.
What makes this moment especially troubling is how ICE now operates inside American cities. In Minneapolis and other urban centers, the agency has effectively occupied neighborhoods through sustained deployments, visible patrols, coordinated raids, and multiple deadly shootings. These actions resemble federal policing campaigns more than immigration enforcement. Streets are saturated with armed agents. Communities report a constant presence. The message is unmistakable. This is not about processing cases. It is about asserting control.
Alongside this urban expansion has come a collapse of constitutional safeguards. Masked agents conduct operations without visible identification. Homes are entered without warrants. Traffic stops occur without clear cause or authority. United States citizens are detained and required to prove their citizenship. Detainees report harsh and degrading treatment. To date, there is no public record of ICE officers being meaningfully disciplined for these actions. Authority expands. Accountability disappears. Due process erodes.
These are not isolated incidents. They reflect an institutional posture increasingly untethered from the rule of law. When agents conceal their identities, bypass judicial oversight, and face no consequences, the result is not enforcement but intimidation. The Constitution does not yield to expediency. Rights do not evaporate because an agency is well funded.
$85 billion dollars and no answers is not merely a budgeting problem.
The human cost is substantial. Raids executed with overwhelming force to apprehend nonviolent individuals traumatize families and destabilize neighborhoods. Faulty intelligence leads to mistaken targets, emotional harm, and property damage that is rarely reimbursed. Children watch parents taken away. Citizens discover that documentation offers no protection when an unaccountable force decides otherwise. Fear becomes routine. Trust becomes impossible.
The budget surge demands a more candid interpretation. A force that is lavishly funded, lightly supervised, and aggressively deployed within cities begins to resemble a national police force rather than an immigration service. It arrests without warrants, detains without explanation, and occupies neighborhoods without consent. It answers upward to executive authority, not outward to the public.
Three questions deserve direct answers. What problem justified a nearly threefold increase in annual spending power? Why do expenditures so dramatically exceed measurable outcomes? Who benefits from an enforcement body that grows more powerful as it grows less accountable?
Democracies rarely fail all at once. They erode through normalized excess, tolerated abuse, and unchecked authority. When budgets explode, rights contract, and accountability vanishes, the warning signs are unmistakable. Eighty five billion dollars and no answers is not merely a budgeting problem. It is a governance crisis.
About the author ~
Van Abbott is a long time resident of Alaska and California. He has held financial management positions in government and private organizations in California, Kansas, and Alaska. He is retired and writes Op-Eds as a hobby. He served in the Peace Corps in the late sixties. You can find more of his commentaries and comments on life in America on Substack.
More Editorial Viewpoints
TAGS: newly expanded budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement tells a story, one would expect a far greater increase in deportations, how ICE now operates inside American cities, agents conceal their identities, bypass judicial oversight, and face no consequences
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, agents are using aggressive and sometimes violent methods to make arrests in its mass deportation campaign.
As Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, agents continued to use aggressive and sometimes violent methods to make arrests in its mass deportation campaign, including breaking down doors in Minneapolis homes, a bombshell report from the Associated Press on Jan. 21, 2026, said that an internal ICE memo – acquired via a whistleblower – asserted that immigration officers could enter a home without a judge’s warrant. That policy, the report said, constituted “a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches.”
Those limits have long been found in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Politics editor Naomi Schalit interviewed Dickinson College President John E. Jones III, a former federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate in 2002, for a primer on the Fourth Amendment, and what the changes in the ICE memo mean.
Okay, I’m going to read the Fourth Amendment – and then you’re going to explain it to us, please! Here goes:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Can you help us understand what that means?
Since the beginning of the republic, it has been uncontested that in order to invade someone’s home, you need to have a warrant that was considered, and signed off on, by a judicial officer. This mandate is right within the Fourth Amendment; it is a core protection.
In addition to that, through jurisprudence that has evolved since the adoption of the Fourth Amendment, it is settled law that it applies to everyone. That would include noncitizens as well.
What I see in this directive that ICE put out, apparently quite some time ago and somewhat secretly, is something that, to my mind, turns the Fourth Amendment on its head.
What does the Fourth Amendment aim to protect someone from?
In the context of the ICE search, it means that a person’s home, as they say, really is their castle. Historically, it was meant to remedy something that was true in England, where the colonists came from, which was that the king or those empowered by the king could invade people’s homes at will. The Fourth Amendment was meant to establish a sort of zone of privacy for people, so that their papers, their property, their persons would be safe from intrusion without cause.
So it’s essentially a protection against abuse of the government’s power.
That’s precisely what it is.
Has the accepted interpretation of the Fourth Amendment changed over the centuries?
It hasn’t. But Fourth Amendment law has evolved because the framers, for example, didn’t envision that there would be cellphones. They couldn’t understand or anticipate that there would be things like cellphones and electronic surveillance. All those modalities have come into the sphere of Fourth Amendment protection. The law has evolved in a way that actually has made Fourth Amendment protections greater and more wide-ranging, simply because of technology and other developments such as the use of automobiles and other means of transportation. So there are greater protected zones of privacy than just a person’s home.
ICE says it only needs an administrative warrant, not a judicial warrant, to enter a home and arrest someone. Can you briefly describe the difference and what it means in this situation?
It’s absolutely central to the question here. In this context, an administrative warrant is nothing more than the folks at ICE headquarters writing something up and directing their agents to go arrest somebody. That’s all. It’s a piece of paper that says ‘We want you arrested because we said so.’ At bottom that’s what an administrative warrant is, and of course it hasn’t been approved by a judge.
This authorized use of administrative warrants to circumvent the Fourth Amendment flies in the face of their limited use prior to the ICE directive.
A judicially approved warrant, on the other hand, has by definition been reviewed by a judge. In this case, it would be either a U.S. magistrate judge or U.S. district judge. That means that it would have to be supported by probable cause to enter someone’s residence to arrest them.
So the key distinction is that there’s a neutral arbiter. In this case, a federal judge who evaluates whether or not there’s sufficient cause to – as is stated clearly in the Fourth Amendment – be empowered to enter someone’s home. An administrative warrant has no such protection. It is not much more than a piece of paper generated in a self-serving way by ICE, free of review to substantiate what is stated in it.
ICE agents continued raids in Minnesota on Jan. 18, 2026, pulling a man who was wearing only underwear and a blanket out of a house in St. Paul.
Have there been other kinds of situations, historically, where the government has successfully proposed working around the Fourth Amendment?
There are a few, such as consent searches and exigent circumstances where someone is in danger or evidence is about to be destroyed. But generally it’s really the opposite and cases point to greater protections. For example, in the 1960s the Supreme Court had to confront warrantless wiretapping; it was very difficult for judges in that age who were not tech-savvy to apply the Fourth Amendment to this technology, and they struggled to find a remedy when there was no actual intrusion into a structure. In the end, the court found that intrusion was not necessary and that people’s expectation of privacy included their phone conversations. This of course has been extended to various other means of technology including GPS tracking and cellphone use generally.
What’s the direction this could go in at this point?
What I fear here – and I think ICE probably knows this – is that more often than not, a person who may not have legal standing to be in the country, notwithstanding the fact that there was a Fourth Amendment violation by ICE, may ultimately be out of luck. You could say that the arrest was illegal, and you go back to square one, but at the same time you’ve apprehended the person. So I’m struggling to figure out how you remedy this.
Most Americans still tell pollsters immigration is good for their communities and reject cruel deportations, especially those that separate families, target people without criminal records, or penalize people who came here as young children.
byEmily Rodiguez OtherWords
In the 19 years my uncle has worked in the healthcare industry, he’s only missed one day — the day his mother, my grandmother, passed away. He would then help plan a funeral he couldn’t attend.
Photo provided
If you live in his small town in Utah, you know my uncle. He’s the big man you see on a bike riding all over town. He’s part of the kitchen staff at a care facility and a friend to the other workers and patients. He’s the man who has the bus schedule memorized and can get you anywhere.
He’s also the man who was forced to miss his mother’s funeral in his home country. His immigration status requires him to apply for travel authorization, which can take months and puts him at risk of being denied reentry. Unfortunately, it just wasn’t possible for him to make it.
While it’s characterized as temporary, over 200,000 TPS holders have lived here for more than two decades.
Stories like these are all too common. And they could soon get worse.
My uncle has what’s called Temporary Protected Status, or TPS. TPS was created by Congress in 1990 to provide work authorization and protection from deportation to individuals from designated countries enduring armed conflict or environmental disasters.
Over a million people rely on the program. While it’s characterized as temporary, over 200,000 TPS holders have lived here for more than two decades. They’ve established lives here, yet live with the fear that it could be taken away at any moment.
Unfortunately, that moment has arrived.
President Trump and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem have made it clear that they’re coming for TPS. The administration has carelessly terminated or rescinded the legal status of hundreds of thousands of TPS holders, needlessly uprooting their lives.
These deported TPS holders are now expected to navigate poverty, instability, violence, and other unsafe conditions in countries many haven’t lived in for decades. Many struggle to reintegrate after their return, and are often targeted by local criminal groups.
While the administration slanders TPS holders as criminals, an overwhelming amount of research shows that immigrants actually make our communities safer. They have a nearly 95 percent employment rate and generate over $1.3 billion in federal taxes, contributing to programs like Social Security and Medicare. With a high rate of entrepreneurship, they generate a spending power of more than $8 billion.
Their positive impact is undeniable. Yet instead of providing a pathway to citizenship, the Trump administration is systematically phasing out TPS and imposing significant financial hardship on TPS holders and their communities.
I urge you to defend the rights of your neighbors.
In addition to deeply slashing programs like SNAP to fund tax benefits for the wealthy, Trump and the GOP’s “Big Beautiful Bill” also adds exorbitant new fees for immigrants with TPS, asylum seekers, and migrants on humanitarian parole. The new law increases initial application fees for TPS holders from $50 to $500 and adds a non-waivable $550 fee for work authorization for first-time applicants — along with a new annual renewal fee of at least $275.
My uncle has already paid thousands of dollars in renewal fees during his 20 years as a TPS recipient, saving the money needed from his $16 an hour job to continue to work and provide for his family. Because my uncle loves this country, he’ll pay these predatory fees.
But he shouldn’t have to — and neither should anyone else on TPS. Our communities are better because TPS holders are here. Their livelihoods are in jeopardy unless Congress provides them a pathway to citizenship.
The American Dream and Promise Act would provide TPS holders — along with DACA recipients and other undocumented youth — a pathway to citizenship, along with the permanent relief and stability they and their families deserve.
As the niece of one of the one million-plus TPS holders, I urge you to defend the rights of your neighbors. Now is the time to protect what makes our communities so great.
Emily Rodiguez, a native of Utah, is a recent college graduate who’s pursuing a career in public policy. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.
"The idea that the U.S. government is absolutely flouting our constitutional right to due process is terrifying, ..."
by Judith Ruiz-Branch Illinois News Connection
CHICAGO - An Illinois law professor is weighing in on what she called a "very public and open test of due process" for immigrants being deported from the United States without court hearings.
On Wednesday, a U.S. district judge denied the Justice Department's request to further delay the wrongful deportation case of a Maryland man, Kilmar Obrego Garcia, who was sent to a prison in El Salvador. Both a U.S. District Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have ordered the Trump administration to "facilitate" his return.
Victoria Carmona, clinical professor of immigration law, Chicago-Kent College of Law, said regardless of citizenship status, the lack of due process for one person is a crisis for everyone.
"The idea that the U.S. government is absolutely flouting our constitutional right to due process is terrifying, because if they're going to do it for one person, this is the test case," Carmona explained. "This is to see what can the government get away with and start pushing the odometer further and further away from due process. And it should be scary to everyone."
The government now has until May 5 to report any efforts it is making to comply with the court orders. In the meantime, Gov. JB Pritzker said Illinois is looking into ways to cut any state financial ties to Salvadoran companies in protest of that government's imprisonment of hundreds of deportees taken from the U.S. without court hearings.
Obrego Garcia already had a set of protections which said he could not return to his native country of El Salvador for fear of government persecution. The Justice Department said deporting him was an administrative error, although the Trump administration insists he is affiliated with a gang.
Carmona pointed out both countries' leaders are making the case more difficult to resolve.
"From El Salvador's perspective, I'm sure they're upset because their citizen had essentially claimed protections and saying that the El Salvadoran government would harm him if he returned," Carmona observed. "But this idea that the U.S. has no position to facilitate his return is an absolute lie."
Whatever happens to Obrego Garcia, Carmona added the unprecedented nature of the executive branch ignoring judicial orders has set the U.S. up for a constitutional crisis.
"At this point, I think Congress should be looking at impeachment," Carmona contended. "If Trump is going to clearly violate the Supreme Court orders, the resolution is impeachment."
Garcia noted it is a misconception most immigrants speak Spanish. She has heard many other languages, from Arabic to Creole to Mandarin.
Photo: Saúl Bucio/Unsplash
by Judith Ruiz-Branch Illinois News Connection
CHICAGO - As the Trump administration's deportation efforts continue, more people find themselves in immigration court.
Immigration law is complicated, and most immigrants who navigate the court system do so by themselves.
Kelly Garcia, a reporter for Injustice Watch who covers immigration courts in Chicago, said the lack of legal representation and language barriers add to the complexity. Garcia noted almost no one she has encountered in the Chicago court speaks English, yet all the signs and case sheets are in English. Many show up late or miss their hearings because of it.
"If you miss your court hearing, the judge can order your removal," Garcia pointed out. "These barriers have very serious consequences for people - and it's very sad, honestly. It's very sad to witness that."
Garcia noted it is a misconception most immigrants speak Spanish. She has heard many other languages, from Arabic to Creole to Mandarin and said most people do not know they need to request a court interpreter in advance of their hearing or risk having their case delayed. Those who show up late or not at all could be immediately removed from the country.
Research shows those with legal representation fare better in court. But people in immigration court do not have the right to an attorney if they cannot afford one. The burden of proof, to show they were charged incorrectly or request temporary relief through asylum, falls on them.
Groups like the National Immigrant Justice Center and Legal Aid Chicago are on-site to help address some gaps. As the daughter of an immigrant, Garcia emphasized she can relate to the range of emotions she sees in court.
"It just feels very personal to me, because I know how it impacted my mom," Garcia recounted. "I know how hard and difficult that was for her and I also recognize that it's only gotten harder for a lot of people, especially for people who have migrated [from] very dangerous conditions, here."
Garcia added she has seen many people come to the U.S. for reasons beyond their control. She said her time covering the immigration court has prompted her to work on creating an "explainer" story to help answer the many questions she hears from defendants every day.
President Trump has made it clear that he’s dead set on attacking our immigrant friends, families, and neighbors — and that the only people he’ll protect are his loyalists and billionaires.
Since day one, Trump has launched a blatantly hateful agenda against immigrants. He’s issued executive orders that would unlawfully shut down asylum at the U.S. southern border, use the military to separate families, and make it easier to detain and deport migrants — including detaining them at the notorious Guantanamo Bay prison.
Undocumented people contributed $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022 — just one tax year, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
These attacks come at an enormous cost to the entire country. The American Immigration Council estimates that mass deportations will cost $88 billion per year over the course of a decade.
There are already 40,000 people locked up in detention centers — and Trump’s detention expansion plan would triple that capacity. Republicans in the Houseand Senate are proposing plans of an eye-popping $175 billion or more to detain and deport undocumented people.
Nor are these the only costs. Undocumented people contributed $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022 — just one tax year, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. That’s nearly $100 billion in lost revenue a year that everyone else would end up having to cover.
But these attacks aren’t going unopposed. People are showing up for their immigrant neighbors and loved ones, making clear they simply won’t accept the nightmare of mass deportations and detentions.
The groups United We Dream, CASA, Make the Road States, and Action Lab recently pledged to build “a strong and sustainable movement to defend ourselves and our neighbors.” With their #CommunitiesNotCages campaign, Detention Watch Network is working with local communities to protest ICE actions and shut down detention centers.
And the list goes on.
On February 1, thousands of people blocked a highway in Los Angeles to protest against ICE raids. Just two days later, many gathered in solidarity for a Day Without Immigrants. On this day, students stayed home from school, employees didn’t show up to work, and over 250 businesses closed nationwide to show how important immigrants are to everyone’s day-to-day lives.
Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union and other major legal organizations sued the administration for seeking to shut down asylum at the border — on the grounds that it’s a violation of long-time international and domestic law.
Finally, my fellow immigrants and I are also standing our ground. We’re stating the facts: Immigration is good for our country, our economy, and our culture — something 68 percent of Americans agree with. And we’re here to stay.
Immigrants are essential to this country. We bring opportunity and possibility to the United States. And not only do we contribute as students and professionals, business owners, and essential workers — we’re also human beings trying to live good and successful lives like anyone else. We’re a part of the American story.
Now and more than ever, we’ll continue to show up for each other — and we hope you will, too. Our lives and families depend on it.
Alliyah Lusuegro is the Outreach Coordinator for the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.
Leaked ICE data shows that 73 percent of people booked into ICE detention this fiscal year have no criminal convictions. Honoring the dignity of immigrants, including those without legal status, is an act of resistance.
byTerry Hansen Guest Commentary
Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan has been convicted by a federal jury of felony obstruction for directing Eduardo Flores‑Ruiz, an undocumented immigrant, toward a back exit when she learned Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were waiting in the building. If the conviction is upheld, Dugan faces up to five years in prison.
The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign issued a coalition statement asserting that the conviction sets "a dangerous precedent," and that "This case was never about one individual. It was about whether people can still walk into a courthouse without fear and trust the justice system to protect them."
Notably, leaked ICE data analyzed by the Cato Institute show that 73 percent of people booked into ICE detention this fiscal year have no criminal convictions, nearly half lack even pending charges, and only 5 percent have violent convictions—contradicting claims of targeting “the worst of the worst.”
Legal scholar Samera Esmeir coined the term "juridical humanity," meaning the way law defines who counts as human. Esmeir describes the history of juridical humanity as a "tale about loss," including "the loss of the human to modern law, when the law laid claim to a monopoly over the power to declare the presence of the human."
Applied to Trump-era immigration policy and cases like Judge Dugan’s, it captures how people are rendered “human” only to the extent that they fit a legal status the state recognizes and values.
Current immigration practices embody this concept: threats of denaturalization against “disloyal” citizens and mass deportations to El Salvador’s CECOT mega-prison—often ignoring due process or torture allegations—relegate migrants to a downgraded humanity.
Law doesn’t just close borders; it manufactures lesser humans.
Congress’ failure to pass immigration reform helps entrench juridical humanity by freezing an outdated legal system and forcing battles over humanity into executive and judicial discretion, instead of democratic lawmaking.
Comprehensive reform has stalled for over two decades, leaving millions in precarious or “liminal” status—the undocumented, Dreamers (DACA), people with Temporary Protected Status, and long-term residents—whose basic life conditions depend on fragile, reversible policies rather than secure legal personhood.
In juridical humanity terms, Congress keeps in place a hierarchy where some people are fully recognized humans (citizens), while others are only partially recognized and can be detained, deported, or excluded with fewer protections because their legal status is unresolved or deliberately kept temporary.
Significantly, this past February, the White House posted a dehumanizing video on X of shackled and downcast detainees boarding airplanes, accompanied by the sounds of jangling chains and the revving of airplane engines. The post was titled "ASMR: Illegal Alien Deportation Flight."
ASMR (autonomous sensory meridian response) videos use visuals and sound to create a relaxing, tingling sensation that helps viewers de-stress. Elon Musk, then head of the Department of Government Efficiency, retweeted the post, writing “Haha wow,” along with emojis of a troll and a medal.
While the ideological façade of Trump's immigration policies is the protection of U.S. citizens, its goals clearly include humiliation and cruelty.
The Declaration of Independence is prominently displayed behind President Trump’s Oval Office desk. Its ideals proclaim that "all men are created equal” and “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” and that governments are "instituted" only “to secure” these pre-existing rights—not to grant or revoke them.
Honoring the dignity of immigrants, including those without legal status, is an act of resistance, an attempt to reclaim humanity from a restrictive, legally imposed form.
If appellate courts overturn Dugan's conviction, they will keep open a small, vital space where the law can still be forced, by both judges and movements, to acknowledge a humanity it did not create and has no legitimate authority to erase.
Terry Hansen is a retired educator who writes frequently about climate change and on human rights. He lives in Grafton, WIsconsin.
More Editorial Viewpoints
TAGS: US immigration system is outdated, Milwaukee County judge convicted of felony obstruction, people are only human if they have legal status, the law dehumanizes people who don't belong
The Supreme Court ruling in the 1982 case Plyler v. Doe determined all children in the U.S. have the right to a public education, regardless of immigration status.
Photo: CDC/Unsplash
A court case in 1982 established that states can not discriminate against undocumented children based on their immigration status, guaranteeing them the same educational opportunities as their peers. Recognizing that children have no control over their parents' immigration status and attempting to break a cycle of poverty, the court ruled that children should not be penalized for their legal status.
by Judith Ruiz-Branch Illinois News Connection
CHICAGO - The Trump administration has made it clear it will cut funding from schools continuing diversity, equity and inclusion programs and with record levels of Immigration and Customs Enforcement funding for detention and deportation in the new federal budget, more school districts are quietly rethinking their policies.
Barbara Marler, an independent education consultant and adviser with over 40 years of experience, is working with school districts to help them rephrase DEI-related language so it will not be flagged in automated searches. She explained her goal is to help shield their work and emphasizes the unprecedented nature of her efforts.
"ESL and bilingual, as a field, has always had some level of controversy," Marler acknowledged. "But this is at a whole 'nother level that I've never seen before."
The Trump administration has called DEI policies "dangerous and demeaning." Marler noted school district leaders tell her the current pressures they face feel insurmountable. So far, she has worked with two districts in Illinois on strategies and expects more will follow since the passage of the new federal budget bill last week.
Alejandra Vazquez Baur, a fellow at the Century Foundation and cofounder and director of the National Newcomer Network, said immigrant justice organizations operating in 'red' states have long been aware of the risks and have adapted their language to continue their work discreetly. She added now, even groups in blue states like Illinois, which once operated more openly, are facing increased pressure to avoid being targeted.
"It's scary, because many people who enter into this work do this because they themselves are immigrants, and/or they have undocumented family members or employees that they fear are at risk should the administration come after them, or should they lose funding and not be able to pay their employees," Vazquez Baur outlined.
The Supreme Court ruling in the 1982 case Plyler v. Doe determined all children in the U.S. have the right to a public education, regardless of immigration status. But Vazquez Baur stressed she is concerned about the chilling effect the current administration is having on such basic rights and freedoms. She warned jeopardizing the rights of immigrant students can lead to the erosion of rights for all.
"Many organizations have to back down as they consider all of their circumstances," Vazquez Baur added. "But for those places that have the ability to do so, those organizations and districts should dig deeper, because we cannot be silent in the face of these attacks."
Raoul has seen some success in the more than a dozen lawsuits against the Trump administration.
by Ben Szalinski Capitol News Illinois
SPRINGFIELD - Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and 19 other Democratic attorneys general filed a pair of lawsuits Tuesday against Trump administration policies designed to block federal funding to states that don’t carry out U.S. immigration enforcement.
According to the lawsuits, recently enacted policies at the U.S. departments of Homeland Security and Transportation illegally tie grant funding for items such as natural disaster recovery and road construction to whether the state participates in federal immigration enforcement. The attorneys general say the goal of the policies is to illegally force states to carry out federal immigration responsibilities.
“This FEMA and transportation funding has nothing to do with immigration,” Raoul said during a news conference. “However, it has everything to do with the safety of our residents after natural disasters and as they travel our roads, railways and in the sky.”
Under the 2017 TRUST Act signed by Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner, Illinois law enforcement is prohibited from arresting and, in most cases, detaining a person based solely on their immigration status or assisting immigration officials. State law does not protect people in Illinois from deportation, and federal officers can still make arrests and deport people in Illinois.
The federal policy is illegal, according to the attorneys general, because Congress controls spending and executive branch agencies cannot withhold appropriations allocated by Congress. Furthermore, they argue the states cannot be coerced into enforcing federal immigration laws.
President Donald Trump has signed executive orders designed to cut off federal funding to “sanctuary” states like Illinois. The U.S. Department of Justice also sued Illinois in February over the TRUST Act.
“The administration seeks to jeopardize readiness for disasters and safe roads to try to force Illinois law enforcement officers to shift their focus away from addressing serious crime in our communities in order to instead do the federal government’s job of civil immigration enforcement,” Raoul said.
Billions of dollars of federal funding could be at risk for Illinois, Raoul said. This includes $122 million Illinois received last year for disaster recovery, $2 billion for highways, $60 million for counterterrorism, and $24 million to protect nonprofits from attacks by extremists.
Raoul has seen some success in the more than a dozen lawsuits against the Trump administration
“At a time when the disaster relief and transportation needs of this country are significant, we deserve to know our federal agencies are focused on the welfare of all of us,” Raoul said.
The lawsuits come a week after DHS Secretary Kristi Noem visited Illinois to criticize the state’s “sanctuary” policies.
“This governor has bragged about Illinois being a firewall against President Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda, and it is very clear that he is violating the constitution of the United States because it is a federal law that the federal government set and enforce immigration policies,” Noem said.
Raoul also argued the federal government has never before allocated funding based on whether a state agrees with the president’s political agenda.
No states have lost funding so far as a result of these policies, but it’s “imminent,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said. He did not say why the lawsuits were filed in Rhode Island federal court, which is where Democratic attorneys general have filed many other lawsuits against the Trump administration.
Raoul has seen some success in the more than a dozen lawsuits against the Trump administration his office is involved in. A federal judge in New York last week issued a preliminary injunction blocking a U.S. Department of Education effort to cut off some federal funding to states, giving Illinois access to $77 million.
Illinois has also joined other lawsuits to prevent the Department of Education from being dismantled, ensure the state continues to have access to various types of federal funding, and prevent the federal government from limiting birthright citizenship among others.
The cases appear to be straining his offices’ resources, however, as Raoul is asking state lawmakers to increase funding for his office by $15 million this year to hire more attorneys.
Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.
New Illinois law protects people attending court, making them “privileged from civil arrest inside state courthouses and within a 1,000-foot buffer zone outside of the buildings.
by Brenden Moore Capitol News Illinois SPRINGFIELD - Christening it as part of a “nation-leading” response to aggressive federal immigration raids, Gov. JB Pritzker signed legislation Tuesday allowing Illinois residents to sue immigration agents who arrest them in or near courthouses or if they believe their constitutional rights were violated.
The new law — which lawmakers have acknowledged is likely to face a legal challenge — also requires public colleges and universities, hospitals and child care facilities to set up policies for dealing with immigration enforcement and mostly prohibits them from disclosing the immigration status of students, patients, parents and children.
“Together, we're sending a message to Donald Trump, to Kristi Noem, to Gregory Bovino and anyone else seeking to terrorize our people: Your divisiveness and your brutality are not welcome here,” Pritzker said, surrounded by state lawmakers and immigrant rights advocates in Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood.
“We know that this new set of laws can't mitigate all of the harm, but it gives us new protective tools and is a symbol of our shared action against those terrorizing, our communities and our state,” Pritzker said.
Response to ‘Midway Blitz’
The Democrat-led state legislature passed the bill in late October during the height of the federal immigration enforcement campaign known as “Operation Midway Blitz.”
Our rights follow us into the courthouse, onto campus, to the hospital and when taking our kids to day care
The Department of Homeland Security said the operation, which launched in September and wound down last month, resulted in the arrest of more than 3,000 immigrants who were living in Chicago and its suburbs without legal permission.
Though federal officials claimed they were targeting the “worst of the worst,” DHS data indicates that most arrested had no prior criminal convictions or pending charges.
The raids often led to violent confrontations between masked federal agents and protestors during various operations in the city and suburbs, including near an Immigration and Customs Enforcement processing facility in suburban Broadview. Many of these skirmishes resulted in the deployment of tear gas and other chemical agents.
Bovino and about 200 Border Patrol agents under his command left Chicago for southern states last month, though they could be back fourfold this March, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.
Photo: CNI/Illinois Answers Project/Janelle O’Dea
Jose Jeronimo Guardian, 48, was detained for deportation in the Clinton County Courthouse on Monday, October 27, 2025, in Carlyle, as his daughter watched. The men who arrested Guardian declined to identify themselves and took him out of the courthouse in handcuffs. Guardian is undocumented and was attempting to go to a Spanish-language traffic court for charges unrelated to his immigration status.
Senate President Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, said the law “sends the message that if you abuse your authority, there are consequences.”
“Our rights follow us into the courthouse, onto campus, to the hospital and when taking our kids to day care,” Harmon said. “No one gets to take them away. We are providing the victims of this chaotic federal assault a clear, legal path to go after their abusers and hold them accountable.”
With Pritzker’s signature, all people attending court are considered “privileged from civil arrest” inside state courthouses and within a 1,000-foot buffer zone outside of the buildings.
Illinois Republicans have criticized the provision, arguing that it would have unintended consequences for state and local law enforcement.
Though there had long been a de facto understanding that such facilities were off-limits for immigration enforcement, they have increasingly been the site of apprehensions over the past year. Those who violate the act could be liable for statutory damages of $10,000.
It gives people arrested under those circumstances the right to sue the agents who detained them.
Criticisms and potential challenge
The law also allows residents to sue immigration agents for violating their constitutional right to due process and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
They would be able to collect punitive damages that can increase if the agents are wearing masks, concealing their identities, failing to wear body cameras or using a vehicle with a non-Illinois or obscured license plate.
Illinois Republicans have criticized the provision, arguing that it would have unintended consequences for state and local law enforcement. It also likely invites a legal challenge from the Trump Administration on the grounds that it violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.
DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLauglin told Capitol News Illinois in an emailed statement that Pritzker “must be unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution.”
“By signing this law, Pritzker violated the supremacy clause, his oath he took as governor to ‘support the Constitution of the United States’ — which itself falls under the oaths clause of the Constitution,” McLaughlin said. “We hope the headlines, social media likes, and fundraising emails he did this for are worth it!”
Harmon acknowledged in October that the law would likely be challenged, though Pritzker — one of Trump’s most pugnacious critics and seen as a potential 2028 Democratic candidate for president — said Tuesday that he believed it to be “in good shape.”
“Whenever you enact something that is tough, that is about protecting people, there are going to be people out there who attack it,” Pritzker said. “No doubt they have the ability to go to court about it. But I believe this is not just a good law, but a great law.”
Day cares, colleges and hospitals
The law requires all general acute care hospitals to implement a policy for interactions with law enforcement by Jan. 1. All other hospitals need a plan in place by March 1.
The law also prohibits day care centers from sharing the immigration status of children or parents unless required by law.
Illinois colleges and universities will need to have procedures in place for approving requests from law enforcement agents attempting to enter campus by the new year.
The law also prohibits day care centers from sharing the immigration status of children or parents unless required by law. It also requires the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services and Illinois Department of Early Childhood to provide “know your rights” materials and preparedness plans to families on their websites.
Day cares will also need to adopt plans for interacting with law enforcement agents and notifying parents if agents request a child’s information.
State Rep. Norma Hernandez, D-Melrose Park, said that the fatal shooting of unarmed father and Mexican immigrant Silverio Villegas González in September by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer after dropping off his two young sons at school and day care in the Chicago area “reminds us why this law matters so deeply.”
“His death was not an isolated tragedy,” Hernandez said. “It is a painful reminder that without strong protections, everyday life becomes a place of danger, and that is where we are right now.”
In addition to the law, Pritzker signed an executive order in October creating the Illinois Accountability Commission, which has been tasked with producing a public record of alleged abuses perpetrated by federal agents during “Operation Midway Blitz.”
It will also examine the impact of such conduct on Illinois residents and communities and offer recommendations for accountability and reform.
“His death was not an isolated tragedy,” Hernandez said. “It is a painful reminder that without strong protections, everyday life becomes a place of danger, and that is where we are right now.”
In addition to the law, Pritzker signed an executive order in October creating the Illinois Accountability Commission, which has been tasked with producing a public record of alleged abuses perpetrated by federal agents during “Operation Midway Blitz.”
It will also examine the impact of such conduct on Illinois residents and communities and offer recommendations for accountability and reform.
More on Illinois politics
Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.
TAGS: Illinois send message to Donald Trump, New law prohibits university and hospitals from telling ICE immigration status, Illinois courthouse bill passed in October, 3,000 immigrants without status arrested in Illinois, Law gives people the right to sue customs agents
by Alliyah Lusuegro
