- USCIS released new guidance on what it means to be a Public Charge this week. The agency had previously issued a new rule that effectively removed existing regulations on how the agency would adjudicate the question, and advocates have been waiting for this new guidance to understand what new restrictions the administration would be placing on legal immigration. Since 1999, Public Charge had only meant individuals who would be “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence”, but the new guidance expands this to include anyone who depends on any means-tested government benefit. Moreover, the new evaluation is intended to be forward looking, meaning that USCIS officers are now supposed to guess whether or not an individual or any of their family members may be dependent in the future. There is much in this new guidance that MIRA and our allies are still trying to understand, and we will provide educational materials for community members and advocates in the coming days. We will also be hosting webinars on the new guidance with our first one on Thursday August 27th at 9am (register here).
- In a new poll by Politico this week, half of Americans continue to think that the administration’s enforcement efforts are too aggressive, including ¼ of Trump voters. A majority of Americans (56%) see a change in immigration enforcement tactics over the past several months, but it has not changed Americans’ perception of immigration enforcement since the deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in January; 50% of respondents still say that enforcement tactics are too aggressive, which is unchanged since the murders earlier this year. 44% say that the changes in tactics have not improved their level of trust in the administration, and 30% say it makes them less willing to trust the administration on immigration. As the distrust of immigration enforcement spreads, so do the consequences for the administration. The County of San Diego, which has long had a friendly relationship with immigration enforcement, recently ended an agreement with ICE to allow their officers to use country facilities for weapons training. One of the country commissioners who voted to end the agreement argued that, “Federal immigration agents have harmed our communities many different ways here locally and throughout the nation. We just don’t want to be complicit in that.”
- Continuing a months-long saga, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellizon has sued Texas to force the extradition of an ICE officer wanted for a shooting. Chistrian Castro is wanted in Minnesota in connection with the shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis during ICE’s surge in the state in January. Castro had claimed that Sosa-Celis and another man had assaulted the officer, a claim that quickly fell apart as it was revealed that Castro had actually shot Sosa-Celis through a door. Castro was eventually charged by Minnesota authorities with assault and falsely reporting a crime, but those charges came after he had already left the state. Texas authorities arrested Castro in May, but have yet to transfer him to Minnesota to face justice.
- ICE is looking to help shield local law enforcement from accountability where they are cooperating with civil immigration enforcement. The new proposal would subsidize liability insurance for officers who are part of the 287(g) program, which deputizes local law enforcement to service as immigration agents. Over 1,600 local law enforcement agencies across the country have a 287(g) agreement with ICE, including the Massachusetts Department of Corrections. Under this plan, insurance would cover up to $500,000 in financial liabilities that officers might face as a result of misconduct during an immigration arrest.