#Deportation Defense Attorney

[gjimenezlaw]

Public Charges Rule Withdrawn

On March 9, 2021, consistent with President Biden’s Executive Order, the Department of Justice successfully moved various courts to dismiss all pending appeals defending the new “Public Charge” rule instituted by the former administration. As a result, USCIS announced it would immediately stop applying the Public Charge Final Rule to all pending applications and petitions that would have been subject to the rule.  Indeed, Form I-944 has been withdrawn from the USCIS website.

This is great news for all applicants for legal residency as it will be easier to apply and obtain one’s legal residency.

Main Source:- https://gjimenezlawoffice.com/public-charge-rule-withdrawn/

[immigrationlawyerphiladelphia]

Immigration Lawyer Northeast Philadelphia

Time is critical when you're at risk of Deportation. Let the experienced team at Dizengoff and Yost build your strongest defense!

[edgarfloreslaw]

Immigration Lawyer

Immigration Attorney

Green Card Lawyer

Deportation Lawyer

Immigration Defense Lawyer

Immigration Business Lawyer

https://www.edgarfloreslaw.com

https://reviewthis.biz/edgarfloreslaw

[swagatusa]

The Best Family Immigration Lawyer in Chicago

Looking for the Best Family Immigration Lawyer in Chicago? Our experienced attorneys specialize in family-based immigration services, including spousal visas, green cards, and reunification of families. Get personalized legal advice and support to navigate complex immigration laws. If you have questions or need help with immigration services, contact SwagatUSA, LLC of Chicago. One of our Chicago family immigration attorneys will gladly sit down with you and explain your legal options.

[deadpresidents]

"What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world. To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 millions people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland. He would let red states monitor women's pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn't carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America's founding. He is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn't paying enough for its own defense. He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen."

-- "How Far Would He Go", TIME Magazine's interviews with Donald Trump, April 30, 2024.

I know we're saturated in coverage of Trump and it's easy (and probably better for our mental health) to usually ignore most of the articles when we see them, especially since he's so full of shit and infuriating. But it's also important to recognize that he is going to be the Republican nominee for President and he could absolutely be elected in November, and if you thought his first term was scary and dangerous, you need to understand that in a second term he's going to have people around him that are better prepared and VERY willing to do the crazy shit that he wants to do to this country. They aren't even hiding the fact that they are seeking vengeance against political opponents whom they feel have wronged them, and are ready to fundamentally dismantle the democratic foundations that are barely holding this country together after nearly 250 years.

Just look at what Trump says about the people who he incited to attack the United States Capitol in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election and halt the peaceful transfer of power that has happened every four years since 1789:

"Trump has sought to recast an insurrectionist riot as an act of patriotism. 'I call them the J-6 patriots,' he say. When I ask whether he would consider pardoning every one of them, he says, 'Yes, absolutely.' As Trump faces dozens of felony charges, including for election interference, conspiracy to defraud the United States, willful retention of national-security secrets, and falsifying business records to conceal hush-money payments, he has tried to turn legal peril into a badge of honor."

Oh, and please note that Trump -- a former President of the United States and possible future President of the United States -- said on the record in these interviews with TIME: "There is a definite antiwhite feeling in the country and that can't be allowed either." We are at a point where political leaders are outright saying that in this country again, and it's because of Donald Trump.

So, take the time to recognize that Trump is straight-up telling us the country we're going to be living in if he wins again in November. And understand that your vote matters -- and WHO you vote for matters -- because, as I've been saying for years now, ELECTIONS HAVE FUCKING CONSEQUENCES.

[gonzalezlegalpc]

Employment Visa and Deportation Defense Attorney in Lynn, MA

Seek expert legal counsel at Gonzalez Legal P.C. in Lynn, MA, for your employment visa attorney in Lynn needs and deportation defense attorney in Lynn MA. Their experienced attorneys specialize in handling immigration challenges with professionalism and expertise.

[modernlawyer]

Dallas Deportation Defense Lawyer

At Modern Law, our North Texas family law, business, and immigration attorneys are committed to guide you throughout every step of the legal process. Our attorneys are prepared to carefully analyze and identify legal issues affecting you and your family. For more information, visit: https://mymodernlawyer.com/

[hexyuu]

An Tso Edward Sun, a popular youtuber, threatened to shoot up Bonner Prendergast High School.

He told a classmate that he had plans to shoot up the school on May 1 2018 and the classmate quickly informed the authorities about it.

During the case, Sun’s parents defended their son, saying it was just a joke. Although when investigaton went on, they found 1,600 of ammunition and possession of different weapons in the home of his host family.

The defense attorney of Sun said his cilent had no intentions of committing a school shooting and the items he had on him were just for a Halloween costume contest.

Many different military items and other weapons were found in Sun’s room, his school-issued ipad also showed his search history on how to buy an AK-47 and an AR-15.

He pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to four to 23 months in prison. He also agreed to be deported as part of the plea agreement.

He is free now and uploads occasionally on social media.

[odinsblog]

What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world.

To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland.

He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers.

He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding.

He is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury.

He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense.

He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.

(continue reading)

[urialnathanonwright]

Trump’s War on Sanctuary Cities: A Dangerous Assault on Democracy and Decency

Once again, we find ourselves confronting an administration that has chosen cruelty and authoritarianism over the rule of law and basic human decency. The Trump administration’s latest move, directing federal prosecutors to investigate and potentially criminally charge state and local officials who uphold sanctuary policies, is not just an overreach—it’s a threat to the very fabric of our democracy.

Let’s be clear: this is not about justice, and it is certainly not about safety. It is about intimidation, coercion, and the relentless pursuit of a political agenda built on fear and division. By targeting local officials for doing their jobs—protecting their communities and fostering trust between law enforcement and residents—Trump and his allies are sending a chilling message: dissent will not be tolerated.

This memo, authored by Emil Bove, a former Trump defense attorney, shamelessly invokes the Supremacy Clause to justify stripping states and cities of their autonomy. But the Supremacy Clause does not give the federal government the authority to conscript local officials into its deportation machine. Immigration enforcement is, and always has been, a federal responsibility. Local leaders are not obligated to be accomplices in a mass deportation campaign that undermines public safety and destroys families.

The Trump administration has tried to paint sanctuary cities as lawless zones, but this is a lie. Sanctuary policies do not shield violent criminals—they ensure that immigrants, regardless of status, can report crimes, cooperate with investigations, and contribute to their communities without fear of deportation. When local law enforcement is forced to act as immigration agents, trust erodes, crime goes unreported, and entire neighborhoods are destabilized. This is not hypothetical; it’s a reality that law enforcement professionals have warned about for years.

And what of the legality of these threats? The idea of prosecuting officials for “resisting” federal immigration commands is legally dubious at best and blatantly unconstitutional at worst. The federal government does not have the authority to commandeer state and local officials to carry out its policies. This latest action is a brazen attempt to bully local governments into submission and punish those who dare to defy Trump’s draconian vision for America.

The hypocrisy here is staggering. This is the same administration that claims to champion states’ rights whenever it’s politically convenient—whether it’s opposing federal gun control measures or undermining public health directives during a pandemic. Yet now, when cities and states choose compassion and practicality over fear and division, Trump is suddenly all too eager to trample on their rights.

Let’s not forget the human cost of this authoritarian overreach. Families will be torn apart. Parents will be ripped away from their children. Communities will live in fear. And all for what? To score political points with Trump’s most xenophobic supporters and distract from his failures as a leader.

To those state and local officials standing firm against these threats: you are on the right side of history. Defending your communities, protecting your residents, and refusing to bow to fear is not just your right—it is your duty. The Trump administration may try to silence and intimidate you, but the Constitution is on your side, and so are the millions of Americans who reject this administration’s cruelty and authoritarianism.

This moment demands courage. It demands leadership. And it demands a united front against an administration that is willing to destroy lives and undermine democracy to achieve its aims. We must resist this assault on our values and stand up for the America we aspire to be: a nation that values compassion, justice, and the rule of law.

Donald Trump’s war on sanctuary cities will fail because the American spirit is stronger than his authoritarian ambitions. Together, we will ensure that this dark chapter in our history is remembered not for its cruelty, but for the resilience of those who stood against it.

[eretzyisrael]

by Brandy Shufutinsky

Many in the media have spent the last few days debating the detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and activist who led tension-filled campus protests in the past year that targeted Jewish and Zionist students and faculty. Much of the discussion has been on the First Amendment and free-speech rights. Surprisingly, the elephant in the room has been largely ignored.

After the December 2023 congressional hearings that saw three university presidents grilled over their inaction to protect Jewish American students and faculty from discrimination and harassment on campus, one would think that our collective memory would not have forgotten one of the most jarring lines of the hearing. In response to a question by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), the president of the University of Pennsylvania, Liz Magill, said calling for the genocide of Jews would violate Penn’s harassment policy when “speech turns into conduct.”

It is astonishing that so many people refuse to acknowledge that it is Khalil’s conduct that led to him being taken into custody and facing deportation. His attorneys and supporters tout his role as the lead negotiator for the pro-Hamas crowd that occupied a university building during the 2024 anti-Israel demonstrations. But there is a counter-narrative, largely ignored in the mainstream media, that recognizes that Khalil’s conduct includes handing out pro-Hamas pamphlets calling for the destruction of the United States. 

There are a number of questions one must answer when applying for a green card for permanent residency in the United States. Many of them are related to the security of the United States, including the following:

Do you intend to:

Engage in any activity that violates or evades any law relating to espionage (including spying) or sabotage in the United States?

Engage in any activity whose purpose includes opposing, controlling, or overthrowing the U.S. government by force, violence or other unlawful means while in the United States?

Engage in any activity that could endanger the welfare, safety or security of the United States?

Other questions include:

Have you ever served in, been a member of, assisted (helped), or participated in any armed group (a group that carries weapons), for example: paramilitary unit (a group of people who act like a military group, but are not part of the official military), self-defense unit, vigilante unit, rebel group, or guerilla group?

Have you ever been a member of, or in any way affiliated with, the Communist Party or any totalitarian party (in the United States or abroad)?

On last week’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” the host defended Khalil, stating “I don’t support his point of view, but you know what, if you’re an honest person you have to defend him, if you believe in free speech because that’s what free speech means. I say it all the time when it’s on the other foot, and I can’t change because it’s now this guy. It’s defending the dirtbags you hate.”

Like many, Maher misses the elephant in the room. Khalil engaged in conduct that violated the conditions of his green card. Maher goes on to tout the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) statement on Khalil, “If the government has got anything other than just somebody who is saying things that they don’t like … they need to show it now because, otherwise, the harm to First Amendment freedoms will be serious.”

Maher ends the segment with the following statement, which may be a forewarning of what’s to come if liberal democracies continue to ignore illiberal conduct from those who are in our country by invitation, “ … he hates this country, he hates Western civilization, and I defend to his death his right to say it.”

I fear that we are being led down the path of homicidal empathy by those in power who are not only putting themselves at risk but are gambling the entirety of Western civilization. 

[edgarfloreslaw]

Immigration Lawyer

Immigration Attorney

Green Card Lawyer

Deportation Lawyer

Immigration Defense Lawyer

Immigration Business Lawyer

https://www.edgarfloreslaw.com

https://reviewthis.biz/edgarfloreslaw

[swagatusa]

Experienced Deportation Defense Attorney in Chicago

If you or a family member have received a notice to appear in a deportation case, our experienced deportation defense attorney Chicago is here to help. We specialize in defending individuals facing deportation, offering personalized legal strategies for bond hearings, waivers, cancellation of removal, and appeals. Contact our law office to schedule an initial consultation with a Chicago deportation defense attorney who will gladly review your case and determine what legal strategies may suit your needs.

[mariacallous]

In 1974, the United States Congress passed the Privacy Act in response to public concerns over the US government’s runaway efforts to harness Americans’ personal data. Now Democrats in the US Senate are calling to amend the half-century-old law, citing ongoing attempts by billionaire Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to effectively commit the same offense—collusively collect untold quantities of personal data, drawing upon dozens if not hundreds of government systems.

On Monday, Democratic senators Ron Wyden, Ed Markey, Jeff Merkley, and Chris Van Hollen introduced the Privacy Act Modernization Act of 2025—a direct response, the lawmakers say, to the seizure by DOGE of computer systems containing vast tranches of sensitive personal information—moves that have notably coincided with the firings of hundreds of government officials charged with overseeing that data’s protection. “The seizure of millions of Americans’ sensitive information by Trump, Musk and other MAGA goons is plainly illegal,” Wyden tells WIRED, “but current remedies are too slow and need more teeth.”

The passage of the Privacy Act came in the wake of the McCarthy era—one of the darkest periods in American history, marked by unceasing ideological warfare and a government run amok, obsessed with constructing vast record systems to house files on hundreds of thousands of individuals and organizations. Secret dossiers on private citizens were the primary tool for suppressing free speech, assembly, and opinion, fueling decades’ worth of sedition prosecutions, loyalty oaths, and deportation proceedings. Countless writers, artists, teachers, and attorneys saw their livelihoods destroyed, while civil servants were routinely rounded up and purged as part of the roving inquisitions.

The first privacy law aimed at truly reining in the power of the administrative state, the Privacy Act was passed during the dawn of the microprocessor revolution, amid an emergence of high-speed telecommunications networks and “automated personal data systems.” The explosion in advancements coincided with Cassandra-like fears among ordinary Americans about a rise in unchecked government surveillance through the use of “universal identifiers.”

A wave of such controversies, including Watergate and COINTELPRO, had all but annihilated public trust in the government’s handling of personal data. “The Privacy Act was part of our country’s response to the FBI abusing its access to revealing sensitive records on the American people,” says Wyden. “Our bill defends against new threats to Americans’ privacy and the integrity of federal systems, and ensures individuals can go after the government when officials break the law, including quickly stopping their illegal actions with a court order.”

The bill, first obtained by WIRED last week, would implement several textual changes aimed at strengthening the law—redefining, for instance, common terms such as “record” and “process” to more aptly comport with their usage in the 21st century. It further takes aim at certain exemptions and provisions under the Privacy Act that have faced decades’ worth of criticism by leading privacy and civil liberties experts.

While the Privacy Act generally forbids the disclosure of Americans’ private records except to the “individual to whom the records pertain,” there are currently at least 10 exceptions that apply to this rule. Private records may be disclosed, for example, without consent in the interest of national defense, to determine an individual’s suitability for federal employment, or to “prevent, control, or reduce crime.” But one exception has remained controversial from the very start. Known as “routine use,” it enables government agencies to disclose private records so long as the reason for doing so is “compatible” with the purpose behind their collection.

The arbitrary ways in which the government applies the “routine use” exemption have been drawing criticism since at least 1977, when a blue-ribbon commission established by Congress reported that federal law enforcement agencies were creating “broad-worded routine uses,” while other agencies were engaged in “quid pro quo” arrangements—crafting their own novel “routine uses,” as long as other agencies joined in doing the same.

Nearly a decade later, Congress’ own group of assessors would find that “routine use” had become a “catch-all exemption” to the law.

In an effort to stem the overuse of this exemption, the bill introduced by the Democratic senators includes a new stipulation that, combined with enhanced minimization requirements, would require any “routine use” of private data to be both “appropriate” and “reasonably necessary,” providing a hook for potential plaintiffs in lawsuits against government offenders down the road. Meanwhile, agencies would be required to make publicly known “any purpose” for which a Privacy Act record might actually be employed.

Cody Venzke, a senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, notes that the bill would also hand Americans the right to sue states and municipalities, while expanding the right of action to include violations that could reasonably lead to harms. “Watching the courts and how they’ve handled the whole variety of suits filed under the Privacy Act, it's been frustrating to see them not take the data harms seriously or recognize the potential eventual harms that could come to be,” he says. Another major change, he adds, is that the bill expands who's actually covered under the Privacy Act from merely citizens and legal residents to virtually anyone physically inside the United States—aligning the law more firmly with current federal statutes limiting the reach of the government's most powerful surveillance tools.

In another key provision, the bill further seeks to rein in the government’s use of so-called “computer matching,” a process whereby a person’s private records are cross-referenced across two agencies, helping the government draw new inferences it couldn’t by examining each record alone. This was a loophole that Congress previously acknowledged in 1988, the first time it amended the Privacy Act, requiring agencies to enter into written agreements before engaging in matching, and to calculate how matching might impact an individual’s rights.

The changes imposed under the Democrats’ new bill would merely extend these protections to different record systems held by a single agency. To wit, the Internal Revenue Service has one system that contains records on “erroneous tax refunds,” while another holds data on the “seizure and sale of real property.” These changes would ensure that the restrictions on matching still apply, even though both systems are controlled by the IRS. What’s more, while the restrictions on matching do not currently extend to “statistical projects,” they would under the new text, if the project’s purpose might impact the individuals’ “rights, benefits, or privileges.” Or—in the case of federal employees—result in any “financial, personnel, or disciplinary action.”

The Privacy Act currently imposes rather meager criminal fines (no more than $5,000) against government employees who knowingly disclose Americans’ private records to anyone ineligible to receive them. The Democrats’ bill introduces a fine of up to $250,000, as well as the possibility of imprisonment, for anyone who leaks records “for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm.”

The bill has been endorsed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center and Public Citizen, two civil liberties nonprofits that are both engaged in active litigation against DOGE.

“Over 50 years ago, Congress passed the Privacy Act to protect the public against the exploitation and misuse of their personal information held by the government,” Markey says in a statement. “Today, with Elon Musk and the DOGE team recklessly seeking to access Americans’ sensitive data, it’s time to bring this law into the digital age.”

[gonzalezlegalpc]

Facing Deportation? Here’s How We Can Help.

As a prominent specialist in Deportation Defense in Lynn, we offer tailored expertise in immigration law to support you during this challenging period. Being a cost-effective Deportation Defense Attorney in Lynn, we prioritize quality defense. In such circumstances, seeking guidance from a Deportation Defense Expert in Lynn, Massachusetts, is essential. Find out more in this Blog: https://gonzalezlegaloffice.com/facing-deportation-heres-how-we-can-help/.