New York City public school student detained by ICE at asylum hearing
A Bronx high school student from Venezuela was detained by federal immigration officials last week following a court appearance for his asylum case.
It's the first known case of a New York City public school student being arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
NYC public school student subject to expedited removal, feds say
Dylan, a 20-year-old Ellis Prep High School student, showed up at federal immigration court in Lower Manhattan on May 21 for a hearing on his request for asylum, and was then arrested.
He has no criminal record.
His attorney said he entered the country legally under policies then in effect under the Biden administration.
"Dylan entered the United States with permission to seek asylum, and his detention robs him of the opportunity to seek that relief with the full protections offered to him under the law," said a spokesperson for the New York Legal Assistance Group.
ICE disputes that, saying in a statement that Dylan is "an illegal alien from Venezuela who illegally entered the U.S. more than one year ago. Under the Biden administration, he was encountered at the border and released into the country."
In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security said Dylan is subject to expedited removal.
Mayor Adams declines to get involved in student's deportation case
Mayor Eric Adams is declining to get involved in Dylan's case.
"I just wondered if, given your relationship with Tom Homan, if you might be able to talk to him to review this case," CBS News New York political reporter Marcia Kramer asked.
"Well, we have to be extremely careful because the New York City Council laws, I'm limited on what coordination I can do, and so sometimes there's a blessing and it's a curse. We don't know what happened at that hearing," Adams said.
Reporter Michael Elsen-Rooney, with our media partners at Chalkbeat, spoke with Dylan's mom, who told him she's also worried because Dylan has been sick with stomach problems.
"She said ... he's told her that he hasn't received medical treatment so far. He's been moved to four different detention centers, at least, in the past five or six days," Elsen-Rooney said.
Some students at Ellis Prep are also upset.
"It's scary because I'm an immigrant," one student said.
"I think it's difficult. It's very scary," another student said.
Adams said students should feel safe going to school.
"I want to be extremely clear -- that did not happen in the school. We don't coordinate with ICE on civil enforcement. So, you know what we know," he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
15 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: Juneteenth Goes Uncelebrated by White House as President Grouses About Holidays
A federal appeals court on Thursday cleared the way for President Trump to keep using the National Guard to respond to immigration protests in Los Angeles, declaring that a judge in San Francisco erred last week when he ordered Mr. Trump to return control of the troops to Gov. Gavin Newsom of California. In a unanimous, 38-page ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the conditions in Los Angeles were sufficient for Mr. Trump to decide that he needed to take federal control of California's National Guard and deploy it to ensure that federal immigration laws would be enforced. A lower-court judge had concluded that the protests were not severe enough for Mr. Trump to use a rarely-triggered law to federalize the National Guard over Mr. Newsom's objections. But the panel, which included two appointees of Mr. Trump and one of former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., disagreed with the lower court. 'Affording appropriate deference to the president's determination, we conclude that he likely acted within his authority in federalizing the National Guard,' the court wrote, in an unsigned opinion on behalf of the entire panel. The ruling was not a surprise. During a 65-minute hearing on Tuesday, the panel's questions and statements had telegraphed that all three judges — Mark J. Bennett, Eric D. Miller and Jennifer Sung — were inclined to let Mr. Trump keep controlling the Guard for now, while litigation continues to play out over California's challenge to his move. Mr. Trump praised the decision, saying in a Truth Social post late Thursday that it supported his argument for using the National Guard 'all over the United States' if local law enforcement can't 'get the job done.' Mr. Newsom, in a response on Thursday, focused on how the appeals court had rejected the Trump administration's argument that a president's decision to federalize the National Guard could not be reviewed by a judge. 'The president is not a king and is not above the law,' Mr. Newsom said in a statement. 'We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.' The Trump administration had urged the appeals court to find that the judiciary could not review Mr. Trump's decision to take control of a state's National Guard under the statute he invoked, which sets conditions like if there is a rebellion against governmental authority that impedes the enforcement of federal law. The appeals court declined to go that far. Supreme Court precedent 'does not compel us to accept the federal government's position that the president could federalize the National Guard based on no evidence whatsoever, and that courts would be unable to review a decision that was obviously absurd or made in bad faith,' the appeals court wrote. But, the judges said, the violent actions of some protesters in Los Angeles had hindered immigration enforcement, and that was sufficient for the judiciary to defer to Mr. Trump's decision to invoke the call-up statute. The appeals court also rejected the state's contention that the call-up order was illegal because Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, sent the directive to a general in charge of the National Guard, even though the statute says any such edict must go 'through' the governor. The court said the general was Governor Newsom's agent, and that was good enough. 'Even if there were a procedural violation, that would not justify the scope of relief provided by the district court's' order stripping Mr. Trump of control of the guard, the ruling added. The state could choose to ask the full appeals court to rehear the matter, or it could directly ask the Supreme Court to intervene. But the state might also just move on from the current part of the dispute, since the ruling on Thursday pertains to a short-lived temporary restraining order that will soon be obsolete anyway. Either way, litigation in the case is set to return on Friday to the San Francisco courtroom of a Federal District Court judge, Charles Breyer, for a hearing. He is weighing whether to issue a more durable preliminary injunction restricting what Mr. Trump can do with some 4,000 National Guard troops or 700 active-duty Marines his administration has also deployed into the city. Judge Breyer's temporary restraining order concerned only the National Guard and whether it was lawful for Mr. Trump to mobilize them under federal control. At the hearing on Friday, he is also set to address a state request to limit troops under federal control to guarding federal buildings, and to bar them from accompanying Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on the workplace raids that sparked the protests. That request centers on a 19th-century law, the Posse Comitatus Act, that generally makes it illegal to use the military for domestic law enforcement. The Trump administration has argued that the troops are not themselves performing law enforcement tasks, but rather are protecting civilian agents who are trying to arrest undocumented migrants. Mr. Hegseth suggested that he might not obey a ruling from the lower court, telling senators on the Armed Services Committee on Wednesday that he doesn't 'believe district courts should be setting national security policy.' Conditions in Los Angeles have calmed significantly over the past week, and Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles announced on Tuesday that she was ending the downtown curfew, a week after it had first been imposed. She said local law enforcement efforts have been 'largely successful' at reimposing order. California officials have said from the beginning that local and state police could handle the protesters, and that Mr. Trump's decision to send in federal troops only inflamed matters. But speaking with reporters outside the White House on Wednesday, Mr. Trump said he felt empowered to send troops anywhere violent protests erupt. 'We did a great job. We quelled that thing,' the president said of the demonstrations in Los Angeles. 'And the fact that we are even there thinking about going in, they won't bother with it anymore. They'll go someplace else. But we'll be there, too. We'll be wherever they go.' Greg Jaffe contributed reporting.
Washington Post
21 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Diddy trial updates: Ex-assistant Brendan Paul set to testify in Sean Combs's case
Prosecutors plan to call one of their final witnesses in Sean 'Diddy' Combs's federal racketeering and sex trafficking trial on Friday: a former assistant to the music producer who has been granted immunity for testimony that could shed light on the operations of Combs's inner circle. For more than a month, the jury has been hearing from Combs's former employees and ex-girlfriends, as well as federal agents and other witnesses for the prosecution. The government argues the Bad Boy Records founder used his wealth, companies and vast influence in the music and media industries, as well blackmail, threats and violence, to force or coerce women into days-long sex performances with other men while he filmed and masturbated. Prosecutors have also argued that Combs and a small group of trusted employees committed and covered up a range of other crimes, including arson, kidnapping and narcotics distribution.
Bloomberg
21 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
The Case for an ‘Anti-Abundance' Agenda
Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson's new book, Abundance: How We Build a Better Future is a rare thing: a serious book on public policy that has also launched a movement. Senior Democratic politicians have taken to name-checking the book (and progressive activists to denouncing it). Abundance clubs have formed in cities across blue America. I think the argument is sound as far as it goes (though lots of other people such as Brink Lindsey, Steven Teles, Marc Andreessen and Philip K. Howard have been making a similar case for years). Progressive politicians have got in the way of progress by privileging interest groups over the common good and following procedure over achieving goals. The result is a shortage of desirable goods such as housing or infrastructure. What Klein and Thompson say about the United States is even more true of the United Kingdom, where the average house price is eight-and-a-bit times the median income compared with five-and-a-bit times in the US.
