How ICE Is Seeking to Ramp Up Deportations Through Courthouse Arrests
A hearing on Tuesday at immigration court in Van Nuys, Calif., was supposed to be routine for a young family from Colombia, the first step in what they hoped would be a successful bid for asylum.
To their surprise, the judge informed the father, Andres Roballo, that the government wished to dismiss his deportation case. Taken aback, Mr. Roballo hesitated, then responded: 'As long as I stay with my family.'
Moments later, as they exited the courtroom into a waiting area, Mr. Roballo was encircled by plainclothes federal agents who ushered him into a side room. Other agents guided his shaken wife, Luisa Bernal, and their toddler toward the elevator.
Outside the courthouse, Ms. Bernal collapsed on a bench. 'They have him, they have him,' she wailed. 'We didn't understand this would happen.'
Mr. Roballo's arrest was part of an aggressive new initiative by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain migrants at immigration courts, the latest escalation by the Trump administration in its all-out effort to ramp up deportations.
Agents have begun arresting migrants immediately after their hearings if they have been ordered deported or their cases have been dismissed, a move that enables their swift removal, according to immigration lawyers and internal documents obtained by The New York Times.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
44 minutes ago
- USA Today
Some Democrats are finally standing up to Trump – even if it gets them arrested
Not all Democrats are afraid to push back against Donald Trump's immigration policy. Some are willing to be detained. In safely blue areas of the country, constituents are asking themselves who has the audacity to stand up to President Donald Trump's extreme immigration agenda. Earlier this week, New York City constituents got their answer. On June 17, New York City comptroller and mayoral candidate Brad Lander was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents while escorting a man out of immigration court in Manhattan. Lander, who repeatedly asked to see a judicial warrant for the man ICE was attempting to detain, was held in custody for four hours. The federal government is still trying to decide whether it will charge him with a crime. 'We're not just showing up for just a few families, or for the strength of our democracy,' Lander told the supporters waiting for him outside the federal courthouse. 'We are showing up for the future of New York City.' While it's unclear that Lander's arrest will make any difference in his chances to be New York City's next mayor, one thing is now certain: He is the kind of person the city and Democrats need in the Trump era. Democrats should be fighting Trump's systematic hate Lander is now a member of an exclusive group of Democratic politicians who have gotten into legal trouble for combating the Trump administration's extreme deportation agenda. These politicians are not doing anything wrong – they are simply trying to stand up for the immigrants who make this country great. Opinion: Trump lied about the LA protests so you wouldn't see what he's really doing The first to face legal repercussions was Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan, who was arrested in April and later indicted for allegedly assisting an undocumented immigrant in escaping arrest. Then in May, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was arrested at an ICE detention center when three members of New Jersey's congressional delegation arrived for an unannounced inspection. Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-New Jersey, who was also arrested that day, was indicted on June 10 for allegedly interfering with immigration officers. Less than a week before Lander's arrest, Sen. Alex Padilla, D-California, was handcuffed and thrown out of a Department of Homeland Security news conference. This defiance is encouraging to see. People who have the privilege of a public platform are putting their careers on the line to stand up for those who are being terrorized by the federal government. These actions, so long as they are peaceful, are how Democrats should be reacting to the Trump administration. We need a mayoral candidate who suits New York Until this moment, Lander had flown under the radar for the duration of the city's mayoral race. Despite his position as the city's top financial officer and an endorsement from a panel of experts with The New York Times, Lander has been polling behind front-runner Andrew Cuomo, a former New York governor, and Zohran Mamdani, a member of the New York State Assembly. Who is Zohran Mamdani? A Democratic socialist is running for NYC mayor. I hope he can rally voters. | Opinion It's not that Lander is a bad candidate – he's experienced and policy-driven, and he has a progressive view of what the city can be. He and Mamdani have cross-endorsed each other in the hopes of besting Cuomo in the ranked-choice voting system. Lander just doesn't have Cuomo's name recognition or Mamdani's charisma. By getting arrested, Lander has shown New Yorkers that someone is willing to stand up for their values of protecting immigrants. We don't have to elect Cuomo, who had to resign in disgrace in 2021 after more than a dozen women accused him of sexual harassment. Nor do we have to elect incumbent Eric Adams, who has welcomed ICE into our city against the wishes of the voters. Lander is showing us that we could have someone who is willing to fight the Trump administration while leading the nation's most populous city. And he's one of several showing Democrats the way forward. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell stands behind doxing ICE agents even after officials said his actions put them in danger
The Democratic mayor of Tennessee's largest city, who has been accused of obstructing federal immigration efforts, defended his office's decision to publicly dox the names of immigration officers. Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell's defense came even after the names of federal immigration officials were removed from a public immigration report detailing a month's worth of immigration-related interactions between local police and federal immigration authorities. Initially, the public report detailed immigration officers' names, but following backlash over the move the names were taken down. 'I wouldn't say it was an endangerment process, I would say they may have some concerns – I'm far more concerned about the overall dynamic we have about unmarked, unidentifiable masked people whisking people into vehicles – i think that's a bigger concern,' O'Connell, who is currently under investigation by GOP House lawmakers for potentially interfering with federal immigration efforts, said during a press conference with reporters. O'Connell did add the move was not 'intentional,' but then quickly followed up that he wouldn't have described what happened as 'doxing' in the first place. 'It's not a process that I would characterize as doxing. It was an unintentional release of names that were already part of a public record,' he told reporters. 'They were already part of a public record by being in Department of Emergency Communication's calls, so I don't think it puts them at additional risk. But it's also not an intention of the executive order under which those names are released.' Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell was accused of obstructing federal immigration efforts. WireImage Fox News Digital reached out to O'Connell's office for comment but did not hear back in time for publication. Larry Adams, an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Assistant Field Office Director, told local Fox affiliate in Nashville WZTV that ICE agents disagree that making their names public is not a risk, noting their faces can easily be matched to photos on social media. 'It has gotten more and more difficult,' Adams said of his job under the new administration's aggressive deportation tactics, during a ride along with WZTV that occurred last week. 'What affects me the most, is we understand the job we are doing, we understand what we sign up for, it's mostly the attacks or threats against our families.' After Tennessee Republican Congressman Rep. Andy Ogles requested the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) investigate the Nashville mayor over allegedly obstructing federal officials, the agency followed through and opened an investigation. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers gathered at the DHS field office in Nashville on May 4, 2025. REUTERS Meanwhile, two congressional committees are also investigating him, including requesting documents related to O'Connell's Executive Order 30, which has required city departments to report federal immigration communications to the city of Nashville's Office of New Americans. In an interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham, Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin remarked at the danger associated with doxing federal immigration officers, noting that the act effectively handed cartels intelligence 'on a silver platter.' 'These are the tip of the spear, these are the people on the front lines trying to make our communities safer,' McLaughlin said. 'So, when Democrats and the media show us who they are, we'll believe them, and it's the fact that they're fighting for people like MS-13 and child rapists to be on American streets.' According to local news outlet, the Tennessee Lookout, McLaughlin has also clapped back at O'Connell's claims that the release of immigration officials' names was a mistake. 'They claimed it was a mistake. There's zero chance it was a mistake, and there will be repercussions,' she said, according to the outlet.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Appeals panel scrutinizes judge's block on Trump National Guard deployment
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) got a frosty reception at a federal appeals court Tuesday afternoon as it scrutinized a lower judge's ruling blocking President Trump's federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles. The three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit appeared inclined to let Trump maintain control of the guardsmen, weighing the scope of the president's discretion in times of conflict and whether the courts have the authority to intervene at all. The judges seemed to believe Supreme Court precedent provides the president with broad authority to declare emergencies that can trigger the ability for him to deploy the troops. 'Those are maybe good arguments for the Supreme Court to reconsider those cases,' Judge Eric Miller, one of Trump appointees on the panel, told California's lawyer. 'But they've told us repeatedly that when there is a case that is directly applicable to an issue, even if we think it's been undercut by later developments…we're supposed to follow the applicable case and leave it to them to overrule it,' Miller added. The judges repeatedly stressed an 1827 Supreme Court decision, Martin v. Mott, that gives the president exclusive authority to decide whether an exigency justifying the use of military power has arisen. Samuel Harbourt, California's attorney, insisted 'it was a very different case.' 'If we were writing on a blank slate, I would tend to agree with you,' Jennifer Sung, an appointee of former President Obama, told him. 'But the problem that I see for you is that Mott seem to be dealing with very similar phrasing about whenever there is an invasion, then the President has discretion, and it seemingly rejected the exact argument that you're making.' Judge Mark Bennett, the other Trump appointee, questioned whether the courts could intervene in the Los Angeles deployment even if there was some limited role for judicial review. 'With the facts here and the language in Martin v. Mott, how can that test be met here?' he asked. Trump deployed the National Guard over a week ago as protests erupted in Los Angeles over the administration's immigration raids, devolving at times into violence. He cited a statute that allows the guard to be federalized when there is a rebellion or when the president can't execute federal law with regular forces. Tuesday's arguments followed a district judge's order directing Trump to return control of California's National Guard to Newsom. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, an appointee of former President Clinton and the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, called Trump's takeover illegal and said it exceeded the scope of the statute. The Justice Department appealed the ruling within minutes of its release, and the 9th Circuit panel granted the government's request to temporarily halt the ruling as its request for a longer pause is considered. Brett Shumate, who represented the government at Tuesday's arguments, said Breyer 'improperly second-guessed' Trump's judgment about the need to call up the guard, interfering with his commander-in-chief powers. 'It upends the military chain of command. It gives state governors veto power over the President's military orders. It puts article three judges on a collision course with the commander in chief. And it endangers lives,' Shumate said. California also argues that regardless of whether the triggering conditions were met, Trump did not follow the statute's mandate to issue his order 'through' the state's governor. California says that requires Newsom to consent, which he did not. But at least some of the judges appeared skeptical of that argument, too. 'It's a very roundabout way, I mean, of imposing a consultation requirement,' said Miller. The appeals court could now rule at any time. Before adjourning, the panel noted Breyer is moving quickly to a Friday hearing on whether to grant a longer injunction. His ruling would moot the current appeal. And if the administration loses, they asked for the deployment to remain intact until they have an opportunity to file an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court. Updated on June 18 at 5:58 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
