An investigation from the Texas Observer found that an ICE attorney in Dallas has been running a racist X/Twitter account with the handle @GlomarResponder.
The Observer has identified the operator of “GlomarResponder,” an overtly racist social media account, as ICE Assistant Chief Counsel James Rodden, based on an overwhelming number of biographical details matched through publicly available documents, other social media activity, and courtroom observation. TEXAS OBSERVER
Obviously, an attorney for Immigration and Customs Enforcement representing the Government in immigration removal proceedings saying such overtly racist and xenophobic things raises serious concerns. It does not appear ICE has taken any action as of yet to suspend Assistant Chief Counsel James Rodden or terminate his employment.
Trump’s mass deportations are inhumane and unamerican and it makes sense that people like Rodden support them and are working behind the scenes to to make them happen. There should be no place in the government for the hate and racism that Rodden is preaching on the internet.
On January 28, 2025, Secretary of Homeland Security vacated the January 17, 2025, notice that extended the Temporary Protected Status designation for Venezuela.
President Biden used Temporary Protected Status to provide temporary protection from deportation to approximately a million immigrants from 17 countries that had natural disasters or military conflicts that made it dangerous for people to be deported there. President Trump said he wanted to deport “criminals” but now he is targeting the most vulnerable immigrants in the country, who are here with lawful status.
The Trump administration has revoked immigration protection for more than 600,000 Venezuelans in the United States. President Biden had extended their Temporary Protected Status an additional 18 months but only weeks later, President Trump rescinded that protection.
While the extension has been rescinded, the Homeland Security Secretary now has to make a decision by February as to whether Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) for Venezuelans should be renewed. If the Secretary chooses not to extend TPS for Venezuelans then 300,000 will lose their protected status this April and another 300,000 will lose it in September.
This announcement has people wondering if the Trump administration will next go after the TPS extensions for El Salvador, Ukraine, or the Sudan.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [CIS No. 2803-25] Vacatur of 2025 Temporary Protected Status Decision for Venezuela
AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
ACTION: Notice of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) vacatur.
SUMMARY: Through this notice, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announces that the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) has decided to vacate the January 10, 2025 decision of former Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas regarding TPS for Venezuela. Former Secretary Mayorkas (1) extended the 2023 designation of Venezuela for TPS for 18 months, (2) allowed a consolidation of filing processes such that all eligible Venezuela TPS beneficiaries (whether under the 2021 or 2023 designations) may obtain TPS through the same extension date of October 2, 2026, and (3) extended certain Employment Authorization Documents (EADs ). All of this also had the effect of extending the 2021 designation. This notice vacates Mayorkas’ notice immediately.
DATES: The vacatur is effective immediately.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samantha Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 800-375-5283.
A federal judge said Thursday that President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship was “blatantly unconstitutional” and issued a temporary restraining order to block it. The Judge granted the request by the Washington Attorney General and three other states for an emergency order halting implementation of the policy for the next 14 days while there are more briefings in the legal challenge.
“I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case whether the question presented was as clear.”
The Judge rhetorically asked, “Where were the lawyers” when this executive order was signed. He further states that “it boggles my mind” that a member of the bar would claim this executive order was constitutional. He asked the Attorney General whether he thought the executive order was constitutional and when he answered in the affirmative the Judge said, he did not understand how any member of the bar could believe that, as reported by CNN. He added, “It just boggles my mind.”
The Trump administration is arguing that that clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” allows the president to exclude the children of undocumented immigrants and even children whose parents are lawfully present but lack permanent legal status. The argument doesn’t make sense since people who are in the United States without status are still subject to the jurisdiction thereof. They can be requested and charged with crimes. The only people that would fall into this category would be diplomats who enjoy diplomatic immunity while in the United States, which is why children of diplomats that are born in the United States do not get citizenship unless they relinquish their diplomatic immunity.
This was one of five lawsuits filed already by 22 states only three days into Trump’s second term as president. Trump made a statement from the Whitehouse that they would be challenging today’s decision blocking his executive order.
Read the Judge’s full decision. Read more about this case from CNN or the AP.
Several Bishops from the Catholic church have spoken out against Trump’s executive order. Archbishop Timothy Broglio, president of the USCCB stated:
Some provisions contained in the Executive Orders, such as those focused on the treatment of immigrants and refugees, foreign aid, expansion of the death penalty, and the environment, are deeply troubling and will have negative consequences. No matter who occupies the White House or holds the majority on Capitol Hill, the Church’s teachings remain unchanged.
Later in the letter, he added that “our prayer is one of hope that, as a Nation blessed with many gifts, our actions demonstrate a genuine care for our most vulnerable sisters and brothers, including the unborn, the poor, the elderly and infirm, and migrants and refugees.” According to a Raw Story article.
Effective Jan. 22, 2025, USCIS is waiving any and all requirements that applicants for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident present documentation on their Form I-693, Report of Immigration Medical Examination and Vaccination Record, that they received the COVID-19 vaccination. USCIS will not issue any Request for Evidence or Notice of Intent to Deny related to proving a COVID-19 vaccination. USCIS will not deny any adjustment of status application based on the applicant’s failure to present documentation that they received the COVID-19 vaccination.
USCIS released the above announcement on January 22, 2025, announcing that effective immediately the COVID-19 vaccination requirement will bee waived for anyone applying for adjustment of status to obtain legal permanent residency (a green card) in the United States. Specifically it states that an application will not be denied for the applicant not being vaccinated for COVID-19 nor will they issue a Request for Evidence on cases where the applicant’s Form I-693 Medical Examination indicates they did not receive the vaccine. The other vaccination requirements remain in place and are still required.
Neither the USCIS website nor the Department of State website have been updated with any information regarding whether the COVID-19 vaccination will be waived for visa applicants applying through a US Consulate abroad. The announcement only mentions “adjustment of status” applicants, which are applicants that are applying from inside the United States. Many applicants apply abroad and consular process, which is a separate process that is similar but not the same as adjustment of status.
▶ On January 27, 2020, the Commonwealth of Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. The American Bar Association (ABA) has recognized that the Equal Rights Amendment has cleared all necessary hurdles to be formally added to the Constitution as the 28th Amendment. I agree with the ABA and with leading legal constitutional scholars that the Equal Rights Amendment has become part of our Constitution.
On Friday, January 17, 2025, the President, through the Whitehouse, put out a statement confirming that the Equal Rights Amendment was properly properly ratified and became the 28th Amendment to the US Constitution as of January 27, 2020, noting that The American Bar Association (ABA) has recognized that the Equal Rights Amendment has cleared all necessary hurdles to be added to the US Constitution.
It isn’t often that the Whitehouse puts out a statement from the President confirming that he recognizes one of the Constitution’s Amendments. It usually assumed that the President of the United States recognizes all of the the Amendments to the Constitution , but we live in a Post-Trump era, so we can’t assume anything about the President anymore. In a few days the President of the United States will be a convicted felon with several unresolved criminal matters, including a recent attempted coup d’état.
In response to the statement Vice President elect JD Vance tweeted, “Hey Joe if we’re doing fake shit on the way out can you declare Pete Rose into the Hall of Fame? “
What does it mean in the immigration context if President Trump tries to ignore portions of the Constitution that he does not agree with, particularly when it comes to the issue of Birthright Citizenship which he has promised to end on his first day in office, which is now only three days away?
Where parties were properly served with electronic notice of the briefing schedule, a representative’s failure to diligently monitor the inbox, including the spam folder, of the email address of record does not excuse a party’s failure to comply with briefing deadlines.
In the case Matter of John Arciniegas-Patino, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) considered a motion to reconsider a previous decision. The BIA had previously dismissed the respondents’ appeal for not submitting a brief or explaining the reasons for their appeal. The respondents argued they did not receive notice of the briefing schedule.
The BIA denied the motion to reconsider, stating that the respondents’ counsel was properly served electronically with the briefing schedule. The BIA emphasized that the respondents had constructive notice that their case was electronic and that their counsel should have actively monitored the inbox and spam folder of the email address on record with the EOIR.
The BIA concluded that the respondents’ failure to comply with briefing deadlines was not excused by their representative’s failure to diligently monitor the email inbox.
