Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Proof of Citizenship, No Proof of Safety

Naturalized citizens fearing ICE's tactics and racial profiling now carry their passports as a shield, questioning what it truly means to "belong" in the United States.

News

An illustration of two people holding legal documents.
llustration by Olivia Abeyta for palabra

Claudia, an immigrant from Chile who lives in suburban Maryland right outside Washington, D.C., watched closely as the Trump administration ramped up its mass deportation campaign during the spring (Claudia, not her real name, asked to be identified by a pseudonym because she is afraid of federal immigration agents).

She went online and watched countless videos of masked, heavily armed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents breaking the car windows of immigrants to wrestle them out of their cars, and detaining people at their workplaces, like restaurants, car washes, and agricultural fields. Many of her friends told her about ICE sweeps in heavily Latino apartment complexes near her home.


While Claudia is a naturalized citizen with full legal status to be in the United States, in April, she started carrying her passport in her car in case ICE agents confronted her. Claudia works for herself, cleaning houses and individual apartments, and has never been in trouble with the law. Still, because she “looks” Latina, with darker features than some fair-skinned Latinos, she believes ICE agents would target her for questioning and even detainment if their paths should cross.

“They (ICE agents) are racial profiling,” Claudia tells palabra. “I feel this about people who are in office trying to make this country white. Every week, something happens to good people who are just trying to work. At this point, I don’t feel safe even with my passport. They’ve picked up citizens. ICE agents are acting with a lot of hate. They don’t care if you show them a passport; they don’t want to see it. They’re using violence against people walking on the street or driving in their cars.”

Asked for a response about the fear experienced by many people who are in the country legally, the ICE press office provided this comment via email:

“In the United States, immigration laws mandate that all non-U.S. citizens carry proof of their authorization to be in the United States. This requirement, rooted in the Immigration and Nationality Act, emphasizes the importance of having immediate access to documentation that verifies one’s right to be in the U.S. Whether you are a visitor, a student, or a permanent resident, understanding and complying with this law is crucial for navigating daily life in the United States without legal complications. Stating that a fear of law enforcement is the main reason for carrying such documents, which are required by law, is like saying the reason you carry a driver’s license on your person while driving a vehicle is because you are afraid of the police. Bottom line: it's the law. What makes someone a target of ICE is if they are illegally in the U.S. — NOT their skin color, race, or ethnicity.”

White House Border Czar Tom Homan said in an interview earlier this year that ICE agents don’t need probable cause to detain people briefly, explaining that an individual’s appearance is reason enough for immigration officers to detain someone.

“People need to understand, ICE officers and Border Patrol do not need probable cause to walk up to somebody, briefly detain them, and question them,” Homan said on “Fox and Friends.” “They just go through their observations, get articulable facts, based on their location, their occupation, their physical appearance, their actions.”

Illustration by Olivia Abeyta for palabra

There are countless examples on YouTube, on X (formerly Twitter), and on TikTok of ICE agents aggressively questioning – and sometimes handcuffing and detaining – people who are in the country legally.

ICE agents have detained U.S. citizens as well as permanent legal residents.

Some examples:

  • In early August, ICE agents conducting a raid at a car wash in Anaheim, Calif., about 26 miles southeast of Los Angeles, tackled and detained U.S. citizen Isaac Domínguez. Domínguez told the local NBC affiliate and KCAL News that he was driving to the car wash when he saw ICE agents and pulled over. “That’s when I got upset because I think to myself, they’re just attacking Hispanic people. They tackled me to the floor and put the cuffs on me, hands behind my back.”

A Department of Homeland Security official released a statement accusing Domínguez of tossing an object at a government law enforcement vehicle and of trying to punch ICE agents who approached him, which he denies. After several hours, authorities released him without any charges.

  • In June, ICE agents in Los Angeles detained U.S. citizen Andrea Vélez. The woman said her mom and sister dropped her off on a downtown street where masked, plainclothes men were “going after” people. One of them grabbed her, and when she tried to tell him she’s a U.S. citizen, he accused her of impeding him. When she asked for his badge number or identification, he responded that she didn’t need to know any of that, she said in an interview with the Los Angeles NBC affiliate.

Vélez said she told other ICE officers she is a U.S. citizen and showed them her real ID, but they didn’t believe her. A report on the news program Democracy Now! showed video of an ICE agent carrying Vélez, who is 4’11. She spent two days in a detention center and had nothing to drink for 24 hours. In a criminal complaint, federal prosecutors alleged Vélez stepped into an agent’s path and extended an arm in an apparent attempt to prevent an ICE agent from catching a man he was chasing. Authorities released her after 48 hours, and prosecutors dropped the charge against her.

  • In April, at the request of federal immigration officials, authorities in Florida held Juan Carlos López-Gómez in a local jail in Leon County, which is in the Florida Panhandle region. Local authorities detained him even after his mother presented his birth certificate and Social Security information to a local judge. Florida Highway Patrol officers, who have been deputized by Gov. Ron DeSantis to conduct immigration enforcement, acted on a request by ICE and took the 20-year-old to jail following a routine traffic stop for speeding - he was a passenger in the car and was coming to Florida from Georgia for work. López-Gómez was born in Georgia.

He was released after the case received widespread media coverage.

ICE’s aggressive tactics have even sparked fear among some non-Hispanic, white immigrants who are in the country legally.

For example, Katia, a white South African immigrant who is a naturalized citizen and lives in Fairfax County, Va., says ICE’s approach prompted her in recent months to always carry her U.S. passport inside her bag. (Katia is not her real name; like Claudia, she asked to be identified by a pseudonym because she fears retaliation from ICE). She worries about how an ICE agent would react if they heard her speak and noticed her South African accent.

Katia, who is in her 50s, works in communications for a social justice organization. She came to the U.S. in the early 1990s and became a naturalized citizen in 1994.

She says that the type of tactics ICE is currently using was common in South Africa, which had an apartheid government at the time she emigrated to the U.S. “It was common practice for (South African) authorities to pull people off the street and ship immigrants off to their home countries. I didn’t think I’d ever see that happen in the U.S.”

When she became a U.S. citizen, “Americans were so lovely to me. People I would tell would give me a hug,” she says. “Randos would congratulate me. It seemed they were touched that I would want to become an American citizen. I don’t feel that way anymore.”

Illustration by Olivia Abeyta for palabra

The Trump administration’s mass deportation program is not the first time the U.S. government has carried out a campaign to expel immigrants on a mass scale.

In 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower launched “Operation Wetback” to send Mexican immigrants, including some who were American citizens, to their native country. Border Patrol officers carried out the program, which lasted several months. At the time, Border Patrol officers claimed that 1.2 million people of Mexican descent were either arrested or left the U.S. on their own, but some researchers believe that number was exaggerated, and that the true number was in the hundreds of thousands.

The federal government at some point will pay a steep price in court for the overzealous tactics of ICE and the Border Patrol, a civil rights attorney says.

"The U.S. government will face significant financial liability in court for ICE’s aggressive tactics, says Cary J. Hansel, a civil rights attorney in Baltimore. Hansel adds that civil lawsuits on behalf of those unlawfully detained by ICE, alleging ICE is violating the 14th Amendment – which grants citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and provides “equal protection under the law” in addition to prohibiting the government from depriving individuals of due process – will lead to large jury verdicts or settlements.

“There will be a tremendous price to pay for this kind of lazy and unconstitutional conduct. In a democracy that values freedom, people should not have to show their papers to prove they belong. This conduct turns the Constitution on its head.”

Ruben Castañeda is a Washington, D.C.-based journalist with more than three decades of experience as a reporter and an editor.

Proof of Citizenship, No Proof of Safety was originally published by Palabra and is republished with permission.


Read More

a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
America’s Human Rights Reports Face A Reckoning Ahead of Feb. 25th
black and white labeled bottle
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

America’s Human Rights Reports Face A Reckoning Ahead of Feb. 25th

The Trump administration has already moved to erase evidence of enslavement and abuse from public records. It has promoted racially charged imagery attacking Michelle and Barack Obama. But the anti-DEI campaign does not stop at symbolic politics or culture-war spectacle. It now threatens one of the United States’ most important accountability tools: the State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

Quiet regulatory changes have begun to hollow out this vital instrument, undermining America’s ability to document abuse, support victims, and hold perpetrators to account. The next reports are due February 25, 2026. Whether they appear on time—and what may be scrubbed or withheld—remains an open question.

Keep ReadingShow less
A child's hand holding an adult's hand.
"Names have meanings and shape our destinies. Research shows that they open doors and get your resume to the right eyes and you to the corner office—or not," writes Professor F. Tazeena Husain.
Getty Images, LaylaBird

Who Are the Trespassers?

Explaining cruelty to a child is difficult, especially when it comes from policy, not chance. My youngest son, just old enough to notice, asks why a boy with a backpack is crying on TV. He wonders why the police grip his father’s hand so tightly, and why the woman behind them is crying so hard she can barely walk.

Unfortunately, I tell him that sometimes people are taken away, even if they have done nothing wrong. Sometimes, rules are enforced in ways that hurt families. He seemingly nods, but I can see he’s unsure. In a child’s world, grown-ups are supposed to keep you safe, and rules are meant to protect you if you follow them. I wish I had always believed that, too.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats’ Demands for ICE Reform Are Too Modest – Here’s a Better List

Protestors block traffic on Broadway as they protest Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at Columbia University on February 05, 2026 in New York City.

Getty Images, Michael M. Santiago

Democrats’ Demands for ICE Reform Are Too Modest – Here’s a Better List

In a perfect world, Democrats would be pushing to defund ICE – the position supported by 76% of their constituents and a plurality of all U.S. adults. But this world is far from perfect.

On February 3, 21 House Democrats voted with Republicans to reopen the government and keep the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funded for two weeks. Democrats allege that unless there are “dramatic changes” at DHS and “real accountability” for immigration enforcement agents, they will block funding when it expires.

Keep ReadingShow less