Housing migrants at Guantanamo Bay comes with challenges, national security expert says
Elise Swain/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Wednesday directed the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security to prepare the naval base at Guantanamo Bay to hold up to 30,000 immigrants awaiting deportation from the U.S.
ABC News’ Phil Lipof on Wednesday spoke with Karen Greenberg, director of the Center on National Security at Fordham University School of Law, to discuss the plan for the military base in Cuba.
ABC NEWS: The director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School, Karen Greenberg. Karen, thanks for being with us. We are talking about an American military base on foreign soil. What does that mean for immigrants’ access to due process?
KAREN GREENBERG: OK, so first, it’s not really foreign soil in the United States’ terms — it’s an outpost of the United States. And that’s always been one of the confusing things about Guantanamo.
What it is is a place where, repeatedly, the United States has sought to place individuals without the kinds of protections by law that they have in the United States on the homeland, as we’ve seen with the detention of war on terror detainees. And also, you know, we can talk about the migration center as well, but it is not correct to call it on foreign soil. It is on a U.S. base located in Guantanamo Bay.
ABC NEWS: All right, so you’ve been to that facility where they’d be held at Guantanamo Bay. What challenges will the administration face in trying to implement the plan?
GREENBERG: So one big challenge that they’re going to face is basically the numbers he was throwing around. He threw out 30,000 — I don’t know that they have the capacity for that, but I have never heard that before. At the height that I knew about it, in the old days and the ’90s, I think they held 21,000 at the most.
They’ve held refugees repeatedly. In current context, President Biden talked about using it for migrants as well, but never, and we’re using it now for some intercepted asylum seekers and migrants. But that kind of capacity, that kind of number, hasn’t been thrown around before.
So I’m assuming that will mean they will need to build up some kind of facility, not just for the numbers they’re talking about in terms of migrants, but also for the guards, the health facilities, etc., etc., that we’ll need there.
And just to make a point there, they had to build Guantanamo detention facility, also, you know, for the war on terror detainees. And they did that very rapidly. They did it within 100 days, and built, you know, state-of-the-art maximum security prisons and housing for those who would need to attend to them. So it can be done quickly.
ABC NEWS: As you point out, the base has been used to hold much smaller numbers of immigrants for years. What could some of their experiences tell us about Guantanamo?
GREENBERG: Well, the reports are not good. And I want to say that it’s not just the past reports that are not good. It’s also, there was a report released in September by the International Refugee Assistance Project, which sort of detailed the conditions that migrants are held in currently at Guantanamo, which included unsanitary conditions, mistreatment, not to mention this sort of fuzzy legal status.
So I don’t think that’s projected well in the past, there’s also been in these prior times, in the ’70s and the ’90s also, you know, allegations of, and documents of mistreatment and unsanitary conditions, etc.
ABC NEWS: Certainly a lot to work out moving forward. Karen Greenberg, thank you.
(NEW YORK) — In recent weeks stories have emerged about college students whisked off campuses by immigration agents – targeted for deportation based on their writings or activism – and detained in federal custody despite never being charged with a crime.
While the number of impacted students appears to be small — with Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicating around 300 students were targeted last week — the actions, part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, have sparked fear and questions about the rights these students have, especially free speech.
Experts, immigration attorneys and advocates told ABC News the Trump administration has been using an unprecedented application of immigration law to expedite their removals. The administration, for its part, maintains that it is following the law and has accused some of the students detained of showing support for Hamas and participating in movements that are “creating a ruckus,” Rubio said.
While legal experts have said that noncitizens are generally guaranteed the same free speech as American citizens, the Trump administration has argued that their presence in the United States is a privilege. As their cases move through federal courts, the students challenging their removals have the potential to reshape the law related to free speech and immigration, according to legal experts.
In the meantime, the students caught in the Trump administration’s crosshairs may be detained for months despite never being charged with any crimes because of the massive backlog of cases in U.S. immigration courts.
Here’s what the experts say there is to know about their rights:
What rights do student visa or green card holders have if they are threatened with deportation?
Once the Trump administration attempts to revoke a visa or green card – which grants permanent residency rather than a short-term stay in the US for a specific purpose — students still have the right to an immigration hearing to determine if their deportations are justified, according to Cheryl David, a New York immigration attorney.
“The level of due process that they may be entitled to will depend on what immigration status they have in the United States, and whether or not the Trump administration has a basis for revoking their lawful status in the United States that has any reasonable basis in law or not,” said Elora Mukherjee, a professor at Columbia Law School and director of its Immigrants’ Rights Clinic.
During those removal proceedings, noncitizens have the right to access a lawyer but are not guaranteed one like they would in a criminal court. If they are detained while they await their removal hearing, the noncitizens also have the right to file a habeas petition to challenge their detention.
Even though all the recent students who have had their visas revoked do not have criminal records, the Trump administration has insisted that they be detained while their cases play out, meaning they could spend more than six months behind bars without being charged with any crimes, according to retired Cornell Law School professor Stephen Yale-Loehr.
“The Trump administration has been a lot more aggressive than past administrations on putting people who have not been convicted of crimes into immigration detention,” said Yale-Loehr.
The Trump administration had justified the detentions by arguing that some of the students have supported terrorist activities, pose an ongoing threat to the United States, or threaten the country’s foreign policy interests.
Have past administrations revoked student visas?
The Trump administration’s policy of revoking student visas marks the most aggressive approach in more than two decades, according to immigration attorney Renata Castro.
“Because presidents have direct control over policies on the issuance of student visas by embassies and consulates, they are able to dial up or down the heat when It comes to issuing student visas from individuals of certain countries,” Castro said.
Following the 9/11 terror attacks, the George W. Bush administration implemented stricter immigration and student visas policies based on national security concerns. According to Castro, what makes the Trump administration’s revocations unique is that they are sometimes rooted on the exercise of free speech – a basis that could eventually be challenged in court.
“The government is looking at speech – the exercise of free speech – and using that to dig into perceived immigration violations so that they can revoke student visa,” she said.
What role might colleges and universities have related to deportations?
If a college or university expels a student for their campus activism, the students face a heightened risk of removal because they no longer have the student status required by their visa.
“If the school is not cooperating and they are still going to school, they’re not in violation of their student status,” said David. “Then the government would have to find another way to say that they’re removable from the United States.”
According to Greg Chen of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the Trump administration’s recent crackdown has included more aggressive enforcement action on campuses, where some universities have cooperated with law enforcement.
“I have not seen before the kinds of aggressive tactics ICE is now taking to apprehend students in their dormitories, on campus or near campus for immigration enforcement,” said Chen.
Can a student be deported because they threaten U.S. foreign policy?
In some instances, the Trump administration has invoked a rarely-used law to justify removing noncitizens based on their impact on foreign policy. Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil and Georgetown University fellow Badar Khan Suri were both detained based on the law.
The provision, 8 U.S.C. § 237 (a)(4)(C)(i), allows the removal of noncitizens if their presence in the United States could have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
According to an analysis of past immigration cases conducted by political scientists Graeme Blair and David Hausman, the United States has invoked that law only 14 times in history as a basis for a removal, including only two times since 2000 when it was the sole basis for removal.
“I’ve been doing this for 25 years. I’ve never seen this used,” said Cheryl David, a longtime immigration attorney.
To prove that a noncitizen threatens U.S. foreign policy, Yale-Loehr said the administration will have to submit sworn declarations or evidence to prove the person’s impact on foreign policy.
“If it is this foreign policy ground, you need a statement from the secretary of state saying the magic words, this person’s presence would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences,” he said.
Mukherjee, of Columbia University’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, called the use of the law “unprecedented and unconstitutional” and believes the policy will be shot down by the courts because it is at odds with the First Amendment.
“It’s important for the American public to keep in mind that the First Amendment protects the right to freedom of speech for all people in the United States, regardless of their immigration status. This is long established constitutional law ruled on by the Supreme Court over decades,” she said.
The Trump administration has argued that the invocation of the law is a justified, lawful, and protects US interests.
What basis is the Trump administration using for the removals?
The Trump administration has alleged that some students have supported terrorists as a basis for their removal. To prove that, David said, they will need to demonstrate that they did more than simply practice their free speech.
“Because a person you know necessarily does an op-ed saying we think that Israel is committing genocide, that’s not going to be enough,” David. “But if they are handing out flyers and promoting activities that the government thinks are related to terrorism, then that could be grounds to say they did engage in terrorist activity.”
Authorities are also looking closely at visa applications.
Federal authorities alleged that Columbia graduate student and legal permanent resident Mahmoud Khalil – who was first detained based on his alleged impact on foreign policy — lied on his green card application. Experts said that examining visa applications may become a broader strategy for the Trump administration to justify deportations.
“If you don’t disclose information on a green card application that the government thinks was material to whether or not they would have admitted you to the United States, then they can allege that you committed fraud on that application,” said David.
Can a removal decision be appealed?
Noncitizens generally have the right to challenge an immigration judge’s decision with the Board of Immigration Appeals or in federal court; however, David noted that they might not be able to fully exercise their appeal if they are already in U.S. custody and removed before their appellate rights are exhausted.
“Unless a federal judge saves that deportation, that person is going to be deported from the United States,” David said.
While other presidents – including Barack Obama – have embraced a policy of swift deportations, the Trump administration appears to be testing the limits of the law, experts said.
Does the location where a noncitizen is detained during their immigration proceedings matter?
According to Castro, keeping the students detained while their cases move through the courts could prompt more people to self-deport – a policy the Trump administration has actively encouraged.
“When an individual is kept in detention, it’s almost to break their spirit, because now they don’t have the ability to work. They don’t have access to free legal representation. Their life is falling apart,” she said. “Migrants who self deport are usually the ones who haven’t committed a crime and look at themselves in the mirror and think, ‘I’m being treated like a criminal, even though I’m not one.’”
The process of granting a bond in immigration court is a “marathon” according to Castro that takes at least three weeks, and judges in some jurisdictions infrequently hear habeas cases filed by noncitizens.
In some cases, the Trump administration has relocated noncitizens from the district where they were arrested to ICE holding facilities in other states. The location where they are currently held could be impactful if or when they file a habeas petition in federal court, according to Nicholas Espíritu, deputy legal director at the National Immigration Law Center.
For noncitizens held in the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Basile, Louisiana, they would end up filing their habeas petition in the more conservative Western District of Louisiana and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The move to another state could also complicate their legal representation and make it harder to communicate regularly with lawyers, said Espíritu.
“These individuals are students, and the idea that they are going to have the resources necessary kind of on their own to be able to secure that robust legal protection just demonstrates the way in which the actions taken by the federal government are really seeking to undermine, quite frankly, the ability for these individuals to have their case heard in court,” he said.
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge on Friday will consider issuing a temporary restraining order to block the dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development, the embattled agency that handles foreign aid, disaster relief and international development programs.
Two foreign service unions are suing the federal government as the Trump administration attempts to reduce USAID’s workforce from 14,000 to only 300 employees.
The American Foreign Service Organization and the American Federation of Government Employees filed the lawsuit in D.C. federal court Thursday, alleging that President Donald Trump engaged in a series of “unconstitutional and illegal actions” to systematically destroy USAID.
“These actions have generated a global humanitarian crisis by abruptly halting the crucial work of USAID employees, grantees, and contractors. They have cost thousands of American jobs. And they have imperiled U.S. national security interests,” the lawsuit said.
The plaintiffs said Trump has unilaterally attempted to reduce the agency without congressional authorization, arguing that Congress is the only entity with the authority to dismantle USAID.
The lawsuit reads like a timeline of the last two weeks, laying out each step that formed the groundwork to break USAID, beginning with Trump’s first day in office. Shortly after Trump froze foreign aid via an executive order on his first day, he began to target USAID by ordering his State Department to begin issuing stop work orders, the lawsuit said.
“USAID grantees and contractors reeled as they were — without any notice or process — constrained from carrying out their work alleviating poverty, disease, and humanitarian crises,” the lawsuit said.
Next came the layoffs, the lawsuit alleges, with thousands of contractors and employees of USAID losing their jobs, leading medical clinics, soup kitchens, and refugee assistance programs across the world to be brought “to an immediate halt.”
“The humanitarian consequences of defendants’ actions have already been catastrophic,” the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit alleges the Department of Government Efficiency and Elon Musk — who boasted about “feeding USAID into the woodchipper” — made the final move to gut the agency, locking thousands of employees out of their computers and accessing classified material improperly.
While each step to dismantle the organization differed, the lawsuit alleged that they were unified by one thing: “Not a single one of defendants’ actions to dismantle USAID were taken pursuant to congressional authorization.”
The plaintiffs have asked the court to declare Trump’s actions unlawful and issue an order requiring the Trump administration to “cease actions to shut down USAID’s operations in a manner not authorized by Congress.”
(WASHINGTON) — A USAID directive to destroy classified documents had been “seriously misapprehended,” Trump administration attorneys wrote in a court filing Wednesday in which they insisted that all records were appropriately handled and “did not violate” federal laws dictating the preservation of government documents.
The American Federation of Government Employees, a union that is suing the Trump administration over its cuts to the federal workforce, asked a federal judge late Tuesday to intervene and prevent the agency from “destroying documents with potential pertinence to this litigation” after a senior USAID official issued guidance to USAID staff ordering the destruction of classified records at its Washington, D.C., headquarters as USAID clears out of its office space.
The guidance urged officials to “shred as many documents first” and to “reserve the burn bags for when the shredder becomes unavailable or needs a break,” according to a copy of the message obtained by ABC News.
Justice Department attorneys wrote Wednesday that “trained USAID staff sorted and removed classified documents in order to clear the space formerly occupied by USAID for its new tenant.”
“They were copies of documents from other agencies or derivatively classified documents, where the originally classified document is retained by another government agency and for which there is no need for USAID to retain a copy,” DOJ attorneys wrote.
Trump administration attorneys asserted that “the removed classified documents had nothing to do with” the American Federation of Government Employees’ litigation.
The Trump administration attorneys explained that office space formerly belonging to USAID “is in the process of being decommissioned and prepared for the new tenant,” as ABC News reported Tuesday, and the records needed to be removed from their safes to make room for its new tenants, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Erica Carr, the USAID official who sent the memo ordering the destruction of the documents, wrote in a sworn declaration that “34 employees of USAID, all holding Secret-level or higher clearance, removed outdated and no longer needed derivatively classified documents in classified safes and sensitive compartmentalized information facilities.”
Carr added that most of the records earmarked for destruction remain in burn bags at the agency’s headquarters “where they remain untouched.” She said the documents would not be destroyed until the judge weighs in.
