By Richard T. Herman, Esq. (Immigration Lawyer for Over 30 Years)
Herman Legal Group, Immigration Law 2025.”
When immigration and customs enforcement (ICE) agents come to your door, it can be a frightening and confusing experience for you and your family. However, knowing your rights and how to respond can make all the difference in protecting yourself and those you care about. ICE agents may ask questions about your immigration status or request to enter your home, but you are not required to answer questions or let them in unless they present a valid warrant signed by a judge.
Exercising your right to remain silent is one of the most important protections you have—anything you say can be used against you in immigration proceedings. If ICE does not have a judicial warrant, you can keep your door closed and politely decline to answer questions. Staying calm, knowing your rights, and not volunteering information are key steps to safeguarding your family and avoiding unnecessary risks during an ICE visit. Remember, preparation and awareness are your best tools to protect your rights and your future.
If ICE knocks on your door, you still have rights. You can stay calm, ask for a judicial warrant, choose to remain silent, and call a trusted immigration lawyer. Acting with preparation rather than panic protects you and your family.
As an immigrant living in the U.S., regardless of your status, you are protected by the U.S. Constitution. Federal law governs the actions of immigration agents and immigration officers, including ICE, setting the standards for enforcement, detention, and deportation procedures. That means you have the right to remain silent, the right to refuse a search in many situations, the right to ask whether you’re free to leave, and the right to speak with a lawyer. (American Civil Liberties Union)
When ICE, immigration agents, immigration officers, or immigration officials come to your home, the rules become especially important: they cannot legally enter your residence without a valid judicial warrant signed by a judge that correctly lists your name and address. Only a judicial search with a court-issued warrant grants permission for entry; opening the door or complying does not constitute legal permission. An ICE administrative warrant alone does not authorize entry if you do not consent. Only judicial warrants, not administrative ones, provide lawful authority for entry or arrest. Additionally, all individuals in the United States have rights, regardless of immigration status. (Immigrant Legal Resource Center)
Here’s what to ask and what to look for:
| ✅ What to Ask | ❓ What to Watch For |
|---|---|
| “Are you from ICE or local police?” | ICE may pretend to be “police” — ask explicitly. (National Immigrant Justice Center) |
| “Do you have a warrant signed by a judge with my correct name and address?” | If they cannot show a judicial search warrant signed by a judge, you do not have to open the door. (Immigrant Legal Resource Center) Only a search warrant signed by a judge allows agents to enter your home without your permission. |
| “Can you slide the warrant under the door or hold it up to a window for me to verify?” | An ICE form alone is not sufficient. (UCLA Equity, Diversity & Inclusion) If ICE enters your home without your permission or a valid judicial warrant, state clearly that you do not consent to the entry and do not answer questions. If agents force their way in, remember you still have rights—do not resist, but state you do not consent to the search. ICE agents may also claim they are investigating a crime to gain entry; always ask to see a judicial warrant before allowing them inside. |
“I choose to remain silent. I request a lawyer. I do not consent to you entering my home without a valid warrant.”
Keep one of these printed or saved on your phone — you can hand it through the door if needed.
If you cannot verify a valid judicial warrant, do not open the door or let them in. You may speak through the door if you wish, but you are under no legal obligation to allow entry without a judge-signed warrant. If ICE comes to your door, you can ask them to slide the warrant under the door to verify its validity and inspect it carefully.
Your words matter. Anything you say may be used in immigration proceedings.
While this moment is focused on safety, it’s also wise to remember that undocumented status does not always mean deportation with no options. Some possibilities include: asylum, T-visas, U-visas, VAWA, cancellation of removal, and so forth.
Your attorney can evaluate your case for any of these. It’s not a guarantee — but it may provide hope.
If ICE appears at your workplace or asks for you:
Create this basic checklist now and store it somewhere your loved ones can access it:
If you are arrested by ICE agents, it is essential to stay calm and remember your legal rights. First and foremost, you have the right to remain silent—do not answer questions about your immigration status, how you entered the country, or your citizenship. Politely inform the immigration officer that you wish to speak to a lawyer before answering any questions. Never provide false documents or lie about your lawful immigration status, as this can seriously harm your immigration case and may lead to expedited removal or criminal charges.
If you are detained, do not resist arrest or attempt to run away. Instead, ask to contact your lawyer and provide your phone numbers and emergency contacts. Carry proof of your lawful immigration status, such as a work permit or valid immigration documents, and present them if requested by an immigration officer. If you are served with an arrest warrant naming you, do not sign any papers or documents without first consulting with a lawyer or trusted legal services provider. Avoid discussing your case with other officials or agents, as anything you say can be used against you in immigration court.
Exercising your right to remain silent and seeking immediate legal assistance are the best ways to protect yourself and your family during this stressful time. Remember, you have rights—even if you are detained—and taking the right steps can make a significant difference in the outcome of your immigration case.
Feel free to screenshot or print this and keep it accessible (on your phone or near your door). Heated mats or stair treads can prevent ice from forming at entrances by providing warmth, ensuring safer access during winter months. Warm water can quickly melt ice, but hot water may damage surfaces like concrete or glass over time.
What to say:
• “Am I free to leave?”
• “I choose to remain silent.”
• “I want to speak with a lawyer.”
• “I do not consent to a search.”What to not say or do:
• “I’m from [country].”
• “I’m a citizen.”
• Open the door without checking a judicial warrant.
• Sign anything without a lawyer’s review.
Myth #1: “If I have been here many years, ICE won’t take me.”
Fact: Long presence may help your case, but it does not guarantee safety. Each case depends on many factors.
Myth #2: “If ICE has a warrant, I must open the door.”
Fact: Only a judge-signed judicial warrant with your correct name/address forces entry without your consent. An ICE administrative warrant does not. (UCLA Equity, Diversity & Inclusion)
Myth #3: “I speak English well so ICE won’t target me.”
Fact: ICE may target anyone — status, community ties, or other factors matter more than language ability.
Myth #4: “If I cooperate fully, they’ll let me stay.”
Fact: Cooperation might help some cases, but it does not guarantee relief, and it should never cost you your rights.
For additional resources, including downloadable materials, emergency contact numbers, and legal support, please refer to the links above. If you have more questions, consult these resources or contact a qualified legal service provider for further guidance.
Richard T. Herman, Esq. is a nationally-recognized immigration attorney with over 30 years of experience defending immigrants and their families. He is the founding partner of the Herman Legal Group, where he leads a team dedicated to protecting vulnerable communities.
Website: https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/
Profile: https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/attorney/richard-t-herman/
To schedule a case evaluation: https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/book-consultation/
⚠️ This article is for informational purposes only and does not substitute for legal advice. Each case is unique — contact a licensed immigration attorney to discuss your specific situation.
By Richard T. Herman, Esq.
Founder, Herman Legal Group, “The Law Firm for Immigrants”
As of late October 2025, boycott campaigns target:
Avelo Airlines, Palantir Technologies, GEO Group, CoreCivic, Spotify, CSI Aviation, and GlobalX Airlines—all accused of profiting from or enabling Trump’s expanded immigration-enforcement agenda through ICE contracts, deportation flights, detention operations, or recruitment advertising.
| Company | Primary Role | Boycott Trigger | Financial Exposure (ICE/CBP) | Public Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Avelo Airlines | Deportation charter carrier | ICE flight contract (via CSI Aviation) | Est. US $151 million contract (2025); impacts on travel and airline industries | Airport protests and consumer boycotts led by immigrant rights organizations and community groups; concerns raised about federal agents conducting deportation flights |
| Palantir Technologies | ICE data platforms (“ImmigrationOS”) | Expanded DHS/ICE data contracts; support for enforcement following immigration ban | US $30 million ICE contract + > US $1 billion quarterly revenue boost from federal deals; tech industry scrutiny | Divestment drives in CA & NJ; advocacy organizations and communities call for accountability |
| GEO Group | Private detention operator | Detention bed expansion | US $747 million ICE obligations (2024); US $2.42 billion annual revenue; significant exposure in private prison and detention industries | #DivestFromGEO campaigns; labor and immigrant rights organizations mobilize communities |
| CoreCivic | Detention & lobbying | ICE facility contracts; increased detention after immigration ban | US $120–133 million ICE revenue per quarter (2024-25); business leaders face pressure from stakeholders | Faith-labor boycotts; organizations and communities demand corporate responsibility |
| Spotify | Ad platform carrying ICE recruitment ads | ICE hiring ads (Oct 2025) | Minimal direct contract value – indirect revenue via ad sales; potential impact on media and advertising industries | #NoICEAds trending; labor organizations and community groups urge ad policy changes |
| CSI Aviation | Prime ICE charter contractor | ICE Air fleet expansion | US $78–162 million (6-mo period); US $262 million FY 2025 DHS contracts; aviation industry implications | Investor pressure; advocacy organizations highlight role in deportation infrastructure |
| GlobalX Airlines | ICE flight sub-contractor | Operates majority of removal flights | Multi-year subcontracts tied to ICE Air operations; exposure in airline and travel industries | Emerging boycott naming; community groups and organizations protest deportation flights |
| Walmart | Retailer, parking lot operator | ICE enforcement at store locations | Potential reputational risk; retail industry impact | Labor and immigrant rights organizations, workers, and community groups lead boycott calls and protests |
| Home Depot | Retailer, day laborer site | ICE raids targeting day laborers at parking lots; involvement of federal agents | Potential loss of business from immigrant communities; retail and construction industries affected | Labor and immigrant rights organizations, community groups, and advocacy organizations lead boycott calls; protests highlight impact of raids on day laborers and local communities; business leaders urged to address enforcement actions |
The Trump administration’s second-term enforcement expansion has created a surge in profitable government contracts for private detention, transport, and data-analytics firms.
Consumers, investors, and advocacy coalitions are responding with boycotts, divestment drives, and public-accountability campaigns. Organizations and communities respond to immigration enforcement and immigration raids by building coalitions, organizing protests, and supporting affected individuals. Activism surrounding immigration issues has also prompted significant consumer responses, including boycotts of major retailers.
Some retail companies have faced boycotts for their complicity in immigration raids or for failing to speak out against immigration enforcement activities. In particular, immigration raids conducted by federal agents at Home Depot parking lots have directly affected day laborers and immigrant workers, leading to community protests and raising concerns about the impact on vulnerable workers. Immigration status plays a critical role in determining legal rights and workplace security for these individuals.
These enforcement actions often create fear among individuals and families, who worry about government reprisals and the psychological impact of such operations. These enforcement actions can significantly affect industries such as construction, retail, and hospitality, which rely heavily on immigrant labor across America. Business leaders in these affected American industries are responding to public pressure by reevaluating their partnerships and public stances, as their decisions can affect both their companies’ reputations and their relationships with consumers and advocacy organizations.
In 2025, Walmart faced calls for boycotts by immigrant and labor rights groups, including Dolores Huerta. Activists in Los Angeles also called for a boycott against companies they believe are complicit in immigration raids, including Home Depot and Walmart.
Throughout history, boycotts have played a pivotal role in shaping social and political change in America, from the Montgomery Bus Boycott to modern campaigns. These movements are part of the ongoing struggle for democracy and social justice, as communities fight for labor rights and against exploitative practices. Recent boycotts and protests have drawn more attention to the issue of corporate complicity in immigration enforcement, elevating the visibility and impact of these campaigns.
Follow the money flow — detention and data vendors see hundreds of millions in new ICE obligations while public brands bear the backlash.
Role: Charter carrier for ICE deportation flights (via CSI Aviation). Federal agents and immigration authorities coordinate deportation flights in partnership with the Department of Homeland Security and related agencies.
Trigger: April 2025 launch of Mesa, AZ ICE deportation hub, involving the department and agency operations.
Public Reaction: Communities respond with petitions, weekly airport protests, and municipal resolutions, highlighting the impact on families deported to other countries. Some deportation flights operated by Avelo Airlines have sent individuals to countries such as El Salvador, raising concerns among advocacy groups.
Corporate Contact: 12 Greenway Plaza Suite 400, Houston TX 77046 | (346) 616-9500 | media-inquiries@aveloair.com | aveloair.com
Key Insight:
First U.S. consumer airline openly linked to deportation flights — hence the movement’s top target.
Role: Developer of ICE data systems (“ImmigrationOS”).
Trigger: Expansion of federal data contracts in 2025.
Public Reaction: University walkouts and pension-fund divestment. Palantir had contracts, including a $30 million deal in 2025, used to expand mass surveillance for ICE. The company’s work with federal agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security and other government departments has drawn significant attention. Former employees of Palantir condemned the company’s contracts with ICE as a violation of its ethical principles. Organizations and advocacy groups have criticized these partnerships, while business leaders and Palantir’s CEO have responded by defending the company’s role in supporting agency operations.
Employees and the public can search government databases, such as USAspending.gov, to find details about Palantir’s signed contracts with ICE and other federal agencies. Critics of private detention centers highlight inhumane detention conditions and the profits that come at the expense of detainee welfare. Tech companies like Palantir have been targeted for providing data mining and surveillance software to ICE. Palantir’s strategic plans and ongoing contracts with these agencies affect immigrant communities and advocacy organizations, raising concerns about the broader impact of surveillance and enforcement technologies.
Corporate Contact: 1200 17th St Floor 15, Denver CO 80202 | investors@palantir.com | palantir.com
Fast Fact:
Palantir provides the digital backbone for ICE surveillance and case coordination.
Role: Nation’s largest private immigration-detention operator.
Trigger: Increased ICE contracts and bed capacity, including contracts with federal agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security. In 2024, a new 15-year ICE contract was signed, further expanding GEO Group’s involvement in immigration detention.
Public Reaction: #DivestFromGEO and investor resolutions. The expansion of ICE detention capacity under the Trump administration led to increased profits for private prison companies and affected vulnerable populations, including immigrant workers and their families. The GEO Group has numerous ICE contracts and executives, including its CEO and other business leaders, who have shaped the company’s strategy and responded to changing immigration policies. These actions have had a significant impact on various industries that rely on immigrant labor.
The company’s expansion plans often face strong opposition from advocacy organizations, labor unions, and local communities, who organize protests and fight against GEO’s practices. Organizations and workers respond to GEO’s operations by building coalitions and advocating for immigrant rights. The GEO Group’s subsidiary, BI Incorporated, tracks immigrants using technology like ankle monitors. Activists also target financial institutions like Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase that fund private prison companies, highlighting the ongoing fight by organizations and communities to hold these entities accountable.
Corporate Contact: 4955 Technology Way, Boca Raton FL 33431 | (561) 893-0101 | geogroup.com
Important Note:
GEO’s stock rose 8 % in Q3 2025 after announcing new ICE contracts.
Role: Private detention operator and lobbyist. CoreCivic holds contracts with federal agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, working closely with the agency to operate detention centers across the country.
Trigger: Contract renewals and detention expansions, often as part of a broader plan to increase capacity for immigration enforcement. These expansions can significantly affect industries that rely on immigrant workers, making certain communities and vulnerable populations more susceptible to disruption.
Public Reaction: Faith-based and labor boycotts nationwide, as organizations, advocacy groups, and communities respond to CoreCivic’s expansion plans with protests and campaigns. Workers and local organizations often join the fight against these practices, highlighting the negative impact on families and labor rights.
Business leaders and CEOs at CoreCivic play a central role in shaping the company’s strategy, and their decisions are closely watched by other industries and advocacy organizations. The actions of these CEOs and business leaders can affect public perception and policy, especially as advocacy organizations continue their ongoing fight to hold CoreCivic accountable for its treatment of vulnerable populations under Trump’s immigration policies. Political donations by companies with federal contracts raise concerns about unethical influence on policy.
Corporate Contact: 5501 Virginia Way Suite 110, Brentwood TN 37027 | (615) 263-3000 | corecivic.com
Need to Know:
CoreCivic and GEO collectively hold over 70 % of ICE detention capacity.
Role: Platform hosting ICE recruitment ads.
Trigger: October 2025 “Join ICE” audio ad campaign.
Public Reaction: #NoICEAds trend and artist boycotts. Activist groups like Mijente have called on tech companies to cancel their contracts with ICE. Organizations and communities quickly responded to the ICE ads by organizing protests, issuing public statements, and mobilizing collective action to pressure Spotify and similar platforms. Women, particularly those in immigrant communities, have played a leading role in organizing protests and advocating for change in response to Spotify’s ICE ads, highlighting the intersection of immigrant rights and women’s rights within these movements.
Business leaders and Spotify’s CEO addressed the backlash, with CEOs from related companies also weighing in on the controversy. The situation affected workers in the music and tech industries, as well as those whose livelihoods depend on Spotify’s platform. Advocacy organizations continue to fight against companies supporting ICE, emphasizing the need for solidarity among communities and industries impacted by immigration enforcement. Protests against companies involved with ICE have increased in response to their complicity in immigration enforcement. Many companies face backlash from consumers for their ties to government agencies like ICE. Activists encourage consumers to support local immigrant businesses as an alternative to boycotting major corporations.
Corporate Contact: Regeringsgatan 19, SE-111 53 Stockholm | office@spotify.com | spotify.com
Quick Take:
Ad carriage became a new frontier in the boycott economy.
Role: Prime ICE Air contractor.
Trigger: Expansion of ICE deportation flights through 2025, with contracts awarded by agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security and other federal departments.
Public Reaction: Investor letters and airport campaigns. Mass deportation efforts intensified under the Trump administration, leading to widespread workplace raids and detainment of non-criminal immigrants. Many deportation flights coordinated by CSI Aviation have sent individuals to Mexico, impacting families and communities on both sides of the border. Organizations and communities have responded by organizing protests and advocacy campaigns to fight against these practices, highlighting the devastating impact on families separated and sent to other countries.
Advocacy organizations continue the fight to hold CSI Aviation accountable for its role in deportation flights. Business leaders and CEOs at CSI Aviation shape the company’s strategy, and their decisions affect workers, industries such as aviation and transportation, and immigrant communities.
Corporate Contact: 3700 Rio Grande Blvd NW Suite 1, Albuquerque NM 87107 | (505) 761-9000 | inquiries@csiaviation.com | csiaviation.com
At-a-Glance:
CSI coordinates daily ICE deportation flights nationwide — a lucrative but controversial niche.
Role: Subcontractor operating most ICE removal flights, with contracts involving agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security and its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division. These agency partnerships enable GlobalX Airlines to conduct deportation flights on behalf of the department.
Trigger: 2025 flight-manifest leaks and media exposés revealed the extent of GlobalX Airlines’ involvement in deportation flights, sparking widespread concern among advocacy organizations, immigrant communities, and labor groups. Organizations and communities have responded by organizing protests and campaigns to support families affected by removal flights, especially those sent to other countries, highlighting the emotional and economic impact on separated families.
Public Reaction: Emerging investor and airport boycott actions have been coordinated by advocacy organizations and solidarity groups, intensifying the fight against GlobalX Airlines’ practices. Some advocacy organizations have also linked the boycott of GlobalX Airlines to broader social justice movements, including solidarity with Palestine, drawing parallels with other campaigns such as the BDS movement.
Business leaders and CEOs within the company have been scrutinized for their strategic decisions, as their actions directly affect workers, disrupt industries reliant on immigrant labor, and influence public perception. The ongoing response from organizations, communities, and industry stakeholders underscores the broader debate over corporate responsibility and the role of private companies in government deportation operations.
Corporate Contact: Building 5A, Miami Intl Airport 4th Fl, 4200 NW 36th St Miami FL 33166 | (786) 751-8550 | globalxair.com
Essential Info:
GlobalX handled over 60 % of ICE deportation flights in 2025 (Guardian analysis).
In cities like Chicago and across Southern California, local communities and organizations have actively responded to immigration enforcement actions, especially raids conducted by federal agents at locations such as Home Depot parking lots. These raids often target day laborers and immigrant workers, deeply impacting the community. In response, coalitions of advocacy groups, labor unions, and faith-based organizations have mobilized to support affected individuals, protest enforcement actions, and build solidarity among immigrant communities.
Government & Public Data
Investigations & News
Herman Legal Group** Guides**
Richard T. Herman, Esq. is a nationally recognized immigration attorney and co-author of Immigrant, Inc. With over 30 years of experience representing immigrants nationwide, his firm speaks 10 languages and serves clients in all 50 states.
📞 Call (216) 696-6170 or book online. In February 2025, a “Day Without Immigrants” nationwide protest highlighted the economic contributions of immigrants.
Across California, dozens of private companies, local entities, and technology vendors are actively doing business with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under contracts awarded by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
These contracts—many of them active through fiscal years 2025 and 2026—support detention transportation, surveillance and forensic software, cybersecurity, vehicle outfitting, health services, food provision, training, and telecommunications infrastructure used in immigration enforcement operations across California and beyond.
This article is a California-focused companion to similar state-level analyses. It is based on USAspending.gov data filtered for:
California plays a uniquely outsized role in federal immigration enforcement:
As a result, California-based companies are deeply embedded in ICE’s operational infrastructure—even when the primary place of performance is outside the state.
Spectrum Security Services, Inc., headquartered in Jamul, California, is the single largest California-based ICE contractor in the current dataset.
Active ICE contracts include:
Total obligations:
Services provided:
These contracts directly facilitate the physical movement of immigrants in ICE custody.
ICE contracting in California also includes:
These smaller contracts often receive less scrutiny but still support enforcement infrastructure.
Organized by Company | Services | Contract Value | Sub-Contracts
Website: https://www.spectrumsecurityservices.com
Business Type: Security, Guard & Detainee Transportation Services
Business Address: 13967 Hwy 94 Ste 101, Jamul, CA 91935
Total ICE Contract Value: $30,394,000
Services Provided: Detention transportation and secure movement of non-citizens in ICE custody (Los Angeles and San Diego AORs).
Sub-contracts:
Website: https://www.wearethorn.org
Business Type: Software & Technology Services
Business Address: 1240 Rosecrans Ave Ste 120, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Total ICE Contract Value: $4,232,325
Services Provided: Software licenses and technical support used in enforcement operations.
Sub-contracts:
Website: https://www.castlehillpartners.com
Business Type: Specialized Automotive / Law Enforcement Vehicle Upfitting
Business Address: 311 W Duane Ave, Sunnyvale, CA 94085
Total ICE Contract Value: $2,221,250
Services Provided: Vehicle upfitting, equipment installation, and graphic wrap application for law-enforcement fleets.
Sub-contracts:
Website: https://www.parsons.com
Business Type: Government Contracting & Logistics
Business Address: 100 W Walnut St, Pasadena, CA 91124
Total ICE Contract Value: $1,900,443.16
Services Provided: Medical and testing supplies supporting ICE operations.
Sub-contracts:
Website: https://www.anacapamicro.com
Business Type: IT, Intelligence & Investigative Software
Business Address: 1901 Solar Dr Ste 150, Oxnard, CA 93036
Total ICE Contract Value: $1,951,878
Services Provided: Investigative intelligence software and enterprise IT tools.
Sub-contracts:
Website: https://www.trmlabs.com
Business Type: Forensic Analytics & Blockchain Intelligence
Business Address: 450 Townsend St, San Francisco, CA 94107
Total ICE Contract Value: $2,178,667
Services Provided: Digital forensics, financial intelligence, and investigative analytics.
Sub-contracts:
Website: https://www.bluetech.com
Business Type: Federal IT, Surveillance & Network Infrastructure
Business Address: 4025 Hancock St Ste 100, San Diego, CA 92110
Total ICE Contract Value: $2.24M+
Services Provided: Video teleconferencing, digital surveillance, cybersecurity tools, and enterprise software.
Sub-contracts (selected):
Website: https://www.personable.com
Business Type: Software & Licensing Solutions
Business Address: 17600 Newhope St, Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Total ICE Contract Value: $568,039.43
Services Provided: ScanWriter software licenses and maintenance.
Sub-contracts:
Website: https://www.susteen.com
Business Type: Mobile Forensics Software
Business Address: 18200 Von Karman Ave, Irvine, CA 92612
Total ICE Contract Value: $257,333.04
Services Provided: DataPilot forensic software licensing.
Sub-contracts:
Website: https://www.oreilly.com
Business Type: Online Training & Learning Platforms
Business Address: 141 Stony Cir Ste 195, Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Total ICE Contract Value: $165,182
Services Provided: Technical and professional training subscriptions.
Sub-contracts:
Website: https://www.sandag.org
Business Type: Regional Government & Justice IT
Business Address: 401 B St Ste 800, San Diego, CA 92101
Total ICE Contract Value: $162,441
Services Provided: Justice information sharing systems and network access.
Sub-contracts:
Website: https://www.saferestraints.com
Business Type: Law Enforcement Equipment Manufacturing
Business Address: 13 Glen Hollow Rd, Danville, CA 94506
Total ICE Contract Value: $33,530
Services Provided: Physical restraints for detainees.
Sub-contracts:
Website: https://www.angelesshooting.com
Business Type: Firearms Training Facilities
Business Address: 12651 Little Tujunga Canyon Rd, Sylmar, CA 91342
Total ICE Contract Value: $27,500
Services Provided: Firearms training and range access for ICE personnel.
Sub-contracts:
Website: https://www.digitalpath.net
Business Type: Telecommunications Infrastructure
Business Address: 1103 Fortress St, Chico, CA 95973
Total ICE Contract Value: $25,920
Services Provided: Data circuit and network connectivity services.
Sub-contracts:
Website: https://www.firstam.com
Business Type: Title, Escrow & Settlement Services
Business Address: 1 First American Way, Santa Ana, CA 92707
Total ICE Contract Value: $25,000
Services Provided: Real estate and title settlement services.
Sub-contracts:
Website: https://www.manager-tools.com
Business Type: Professional Training & Management Education
Business Address: 7438 Spy Glass Dr, Modesto, CA 95356
Total ICE Contract Value: $20,000
Services Provided: Leadership and management training.
Sub-contracts:
Website: https://www.newlifechineselaundry.com
Business Type: Commercial Laundry Services
Business Address: 3829 Granada Ave, San Diego, CA 92104
Total ICE Contract Value: $12,311.08
Services Provided: Laundry and blanket cleaning for ICE facilities.
Sub-contracts:
While some vendors characterize their work as “neutral” or “general government services,” the reality is straightforward:
For communities, advocates, journalists, and policymakers, understanding who profits from immigration enforcement is a prerequisite to informed public debate and accountability.
Public awareness of ICE’s corporate ecosystem allows:
California’s role in this ecosystem is substantial—and often overlooked.
If you or your organization are impacted by immigration enforcement, detention, or ICE operations, speaking with an experienced immigration attorney matters.
Herman Legal Group has more than 30 years of experience representing immigrants, families, employers, and advocates nationwide.
Consultation:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/book-consultation/
This article is intended for informational and public-interest purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) relies heavily on private contractors for deportation flights, detention support, surveillance, IT systems, skip-tracing, and facility operations.
In FY 2026, at least 23 prime federal contracts were awarded to Texas-based companies by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on behalf of ICE, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds.
This guide explains:
ICE enforcement does not operate in isolation.
It is sustained by a commercial ecosystem that includes airlines, technology vendors, consultants, and facilities managers. Public awareness allows consumers, investors, journalists, faith groups, and advocacy organizations to make informed decisions about where they spend money and how they apply pressure.
This article does not accuse any company of illegality.
It documents public federal contracting data and explains lawful civic responses.
Corporate Headquarters
6006 Reese Creek Rd
Killeen, TX 76549
Website
https://www.csiaviation.com
Total ICE Contract Obligations (Active / FY 2026):
≈ $1.235 billion
Major ICE Contracts
Awarding Agency
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Services Provided
Operational Role
CSI Aviation is one of ICE’s primary deportation flight operators, responsible for transporting detained immigrants within the U.S. and on international removal flights.
Why It Matters
Without private aviation contractors like CSI, mass deportation logistics would not function at scale.
Texas Office
5726 W. Hausman Rd, Suite 100
San Antonio, TX 78249
Website
https://www.chenega.com
ICE Contract Value (Active):
$28,397,456
Contract Scope
Contract Type
Delivery Order (multi-year)
Texas Office
5253 Prue Rd, Suite 230
San Antonio, TX 78249
Website
https://www.chenega.com
Combined ICE Contract Value (Multiple Awards):
≈ $5.4+ million
ICE-Related Services
Contract Types
Definitive contracts and delivery orders
Texas Office
5253 Prue Rd, Suite 230
San Antonio, TX 78240
Website
https://www.chenega.com
ICE Contract Value:
$3,980,694
Services Provided
Business Address
105 Water Ridge Ct
Buchanan Dam, TX 78609
Website
https://correctionsconsulting.com
ICE Contract Value:
$1,118,115
Services
Business Address
6675 Calder Ave
Beaumont, TX 77706
Website
https://www.creativecorrections.com
ICE Contract Value:
$446,488
Services
Business Address
6858 Ingram Rd
San Antonio, TX 78238
Website
https://www.nationalprotectiveservices.com
ICE Contract Value:
$909,750
Services
Business Address
2951 N Loop 336 W
Conroe, TX 77304
Website
https://fraudinc.com
ICE Contract Value:
$348,000
Services
Headquarters
1 Dell Way
Round Rock, TX 78682
Website
https://www.delltechnologies.com
ICE Contract Value (Active):
≈ $4.57 million
Services
Business Address
810 Hesters Crossing Rd
Round Rock, TX 78681
Website
https://www.impres.com
ICE Contract Value:
$95,730
Services
Texas Office
8590 West Tidwell
Houston, TX 77040
Website
https://www.xfinity.com
ICE Contract Value:
$78,132
Services
Boycotts are lawful, protected civic activity when done correctly. Effective campaigns focus on education, transparency, and consumer choice — not threats or harassment.
Share primary sources (such as USAspending.gov data) and explain what the company does for ICE.
Many national and regional organizations already track ICE contractors, deportation flights, and detention vendors. Joining existing coalitions increases credibility and reduces duplication.
Focus on:
Provide journalists with:
Boycotts target corporate decision-making, not individual workers.
Many employees have no control over federal contracts. Ethical campaigns emphasize policy change, not personal blame.
Texas plays a central role in ICE’s national contracting infrastructure — from deportation flights to data systems and detention support. Understanding who profits, how, and why is the first step toward informed civic action.
Transparency empowers communities.
Ethical engagement sustains credibility.
Facts change conversations.
November 19, 2025 | Investor Visas
By Richard T. Herman, Esq., Immigration Lawyer — Herman Legal Group
USCIS has submitted the draft Form I-140G—the new petition for President Trump’s forthcoming Gold Card Program—to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for mandatory federal review. This is a key step toward meeting the December 18, 2025 implementation deadline set by presidential order.
Under the draft framework, Gold Card applicants would:
- Make a $1M–$2M non-refundable gift to the United States
- Pay a $15,000 non-refundable USCIS fee
- Undergo rigorous lawful-source-of-funds scrutiny
- Meet EB-1 Extraordinary Ability or EB-2 National Interest Waiver standards
- Disclose all financial accounts, including cryptocurrency wallets that are traceable on the blockchain
For high-net-worth families and global investors, this is a fast-moving, high-stakes opportunity that demands careful planning.
👉 To discuss strategy, Book a consultation.
| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| Program Status | Draft Form I-140G under review at OMB |
| Target Launch | December 18, 2025 (by presidential order) |
| Key Agencies | USCIS + Department of Commerce |
| Core Petition | Form I-140G (Gold Card), built on EB-1 / EB-2 NIW standards |
| Required Gift | $1M–$2M per applicant, depending on who files |
| USCIS Fee | $15,000 per applicant (non-refundable), paid via pay.gov |
| Crypto Use | Allowed, but must be fully blockchain-traceable via regulated exchanges |
| Post-Approval Path | Consular processing or Adjustment of Status (expected) |
The Gold Card Program is a proposed immigrant visa pathway that combines:
Unlike EB-5, which focuses on investment and job creation, the Gold Card is premised on:
The draft Form I-140G is the core petition USCIS would use to adjudicate eligibility.
To understand how this fits within immigrant employment categories, see USCIS I-140.
The first step is filing a Gold Card application with the Department of Commerce. This is where the gift is directed and where initial governmental review of the funds’ lawfulness and national-interest context is triggered.
Each applicant would pay a $15,000 non-refundable fee through the federal payment portal pay.gov. This fee is per person and is in addition to the multimillion-dollar gift.
After the Commerce step and fee payment, applicants (or corporate petitioners) would file Form I-140G with USCIS, under the general petition framework outlined at USCIS Forms and USCIS I-140.
USCIS would:
The proposed Form I-140G radically expands what USCIS expects from high-net-worth applicants.
The draft form would require a list of all financial accounts for you and your spouse, including:
This goes well beyond the documentation traditionally required in immigrant petitions.
The draft form reportedly states that:
If using crypto funds, those must be traceable through blockchain with wallet identification with a known wallet exchange through regulated financial institutions. Provide your wallet identification. USCIS may request additional evidence.
Practically, that means:
The proposed instructions distinguish who is filing the petition:
For an individual filing Form I-140G on his or her own behalf, the required gift to the United States is $1 million for each person requesting a Gold Card, including the principal beneficiary, any accompanying spouse, and any children listed on this petition who are also requesting a Gold Card.
So a family of four would face a $4M gift.
If a corporation or similar entity is filing Form I-140G on behalf of an individual, the required gift is $2 million for the principal beneficiary, and $1 million per person for any accompanying spouse or children listed on this petition.
In addition, the corporate petitioner must provide:
This pushes Gold Card cases into a realm similar to complex business immigration + financial compliance work.
Once USCIS approves Form I-140G and a visa number is available (tracked via the DOS Visa Bulletin), applicants will move into one of two paths:
Most applicants abroad will proceed through the National Visa Center (NVC) and a U.S. consulate or embassy.
For a structured overview, see:
The draft instructions do not yet fully address Adjustment of Status (AOS), but it is widely expected that certain non-immigrants in lawful status will be allowed to apply for a green card from inside the U.S.
For context on AOS requirements and risks, see:
Complex cases involving past status violations, unlawful presence, or misrepresentation may intersect with waiver strategies like:
The Administration has also floated a Platinum Card concept on its website, reportedly allowing:
However:
Right now, Platinum Card details are more policy signal than legally actionable framework.
Ohio hosts globally connected investors, physicians, tech founders, and family business owners who may benefit from early positioning in the Gold Card Program.
Herman Legal Group provides localized, high-touch investor immigration support in:
With the December deadline looming, Ohio-based and national clients alike should begin building:
Most coverage of the Gold Card focuses on the fee structure and EB-1 / NIW eligibility, but very little analysis has explored how the program fits within the global mobility economy, where governments aggressively compete for ultra-rich migrants.
The Gold Card could realign global capital flows by introducing the first-ever U.S. model of high-donor immigration, competing directly with:
The U.S. has historically avoided this space, relying on EB-1 talent and EB-5 investment instead. The Gold Card marks the country’s first entry into the multi-million-dollar donor residency market, creating:
1. Capital Reallocation from Europe to the U.S.
With the EU tightening anti-money-laundering oversight, wealthy families seeking stable residencies may redirect funds from the EU to the U.S.
2. Intensified Competition With Gulf States
Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia are aggressively recruiting global wealth; a U.S. donor-based residency threatens those ecosystems.
3. Accelerated Mobility for “Silicon Triangle” Innovators
Founders moving between the U.S., Canada, and Singapore could view the Gold Card as a “premium lane” into American permanent residence.
4. A Shift Toward Philanthropy-Linked Immigration
The gift-based model could create a new category of “impact migration,” where high-net-worth individuals strategically direct capital into U.S. economic development programs.
This may become the most significant global migration shift since Portugal’s 2012 Golden Visa.
The Gold Card’s most groundbreaking (and controversial) feature is its financial transparency mandate — including full crypto wallet reporting and blockchain-based traceability.
While the public conversation focuses on the size of the gift, the true regulatory innovation is the federal government’s new ability to:
This is unprecedented in U.S. immigration.
1. Integration of Blockchain Tracing Into Immigration Vetting
For the first time, USCIS and the Department of Commerce will require:
This amounts to a mini-CFTC/FinCEN-level compliance review inside a USCIS petition.
2. Gold Card Applications May Trigger Multi-Agency Scrutiny
Journalists should note the likely interplay of:
This is much deeper than EB-5’s source-of-funds checks.
3. A Future Blueprint for All EB-Category Filings
If the Gold Card’s financial review mechanisms prove successful, DHS may:
This is the first time federal immigration processing has directly intersected with cryptocurrency forensics — setting a potential precedent for all future employment-based visas.
The public debate focuses on wealthy immigrants, but the ripple effects across U.S. cities and industries could be enormous.
1. Rust Belt & Midwest Regeneration (Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania)
Regions like Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, and Akron — each represented by Herman Legal Group — could see:
This positions Midwest cities as emerging hubs for global high-net-worth migration.
2. Universities with Research Strength
Institutions like:
stand to gain from EB-1-caliber scientists, researchers, and innovators who leverage the Gold Card to build U.S. academic and commercialization ties.
3. Tech, AI, and Biomedical Clusters
Gold Card applicants are likely to come from sectors with:
These align naturally with EB-1 and NIW immigration frameworks.
1. Countries Facing Wealth Flight
Nations with fragile economies may see accelerated capital outflow from high-net-worth citizens seeking U.S. stability and mobility.
2. EB-5 Regional Centers
The Gold Card’s simplicity threatens the EB-5 model:
EB-5 may need to restructure to remain competitive.
3. EU and UK Investor-Migration Programs
Jurisdictions tightening AML rules may lose investor migrants to the U.S., where credibility and safety are higher.
The Gold Card isn’t just immigration — it’s an economic development catalyst reshaping which U.S. regions will thrive in the next decade.
The Gold Card is a new, fast-track immigrant visa pathway created by presidential executive order that allows certain foreign nationals to pursue U.S. permanent residence (a green card) if they:
The program does not create a brand-new visa category. Instead, the gift is treated as evidence that supports EB-1/EB-2 eligibility and national benefit.
For deeper background on those categories, see:
Not yet.
As of November 19, 2025:
You cannot file Form I-140G until:
Think of I-140G as: I-140 + gift + extreme financial transparency.
Under the Executive Order and the draft I-140G instructions:(The White House)
These are non-refundable gifts, not investments. They are deposited into a Treasury fund to promote commerce and American industry under the authority of the Department of Commerce. (The White House)
No.
The Gold Card is not an EB-5–style investment:
EB-5 is about investment + job creation.
Gold Card is about gift + merit-based EB-1/EB-2 eligibility.
On top of the gift, there is a non-refundable $15,000 application/vetting fee per Gold Card applicant.(WR Immigration)
Key points:
You should also budget for standard government filing fees and legal fees.
No. The Executive Order explicitly says the gift is treated as evidence, not an automatic entitlement.(The White House)
You still must:
From public statements and the structure of the program, it is clearly targeted at:(KPMG)
If your profile already points toward EB-1A Extraordinary Ability or EB-2 NIW, the Gold Card may function as an accelerator, not a replacement.
At a minimum, applicants must:(The White House)
A Gold Card gift is not a waiver of criminal, fraud, or security bars to admission.
Dependents are expected to mirror standard employment-based immigrant rules:
Each dependent:
Parents, siblings, and adult children are not derivative beneficiaries under standard EB-1 / EB-2 frameworks.
Based on the EO and related commentary:(The White House)
Corporate filers must submit multi-year tax returns, annual reports, and/or audited financial statements with Form I-140G.(WR Immigration)
The draft I-140G instructions require a list of all financial accounts for you and, if applicable, your spouse — including cryptocurrency accounts.(WR Immigration)
That includes:
From a compliance perspective, you should expect scrutiny comparable to or exceeding high-risk banking and anti-money-laundering reviews.
The draft form specifically states that if you are using crypto:
This means:
Plan to document the crypto history as carefully as you would document traditional bank transfers.
Yes, as lawful permanent residents you will generally be subject to U.S. taxation on global income, like any green card holder, and evaluated under rules such as the IRS Substantial Presence Test.
The teased Platinum Card (involving a $5M gift and up to 270 days of U.S. presence with no U.S. tax on foreign-source income) is different, and still not fully implemented — no formal rule or form exists yet.(WR Immigration)
According to Administration messaging:(WR Immigration)
However:
For now, treat Platinum Card references as early policy signals, not binding law.
The Gold Card is built on top of EB-1/EB-2 NIW, not separate from them.(The White House)
In practice, that means:
Yes.
Visa numbers for Gold Card approvals are expected to come out of the same EB-1 / EB-2 pools.(Fennemore)
That means:
Your gift does not exempt you from statutory numerical limits.
After Form I-140G is approved and a visa is available:
Interviews are highly likely, given the stakes and the security focus.
Maybe, but it will be complicated.
Issues like:
can trigger bars to admissibility that money does not cure. Some grounds can be addressed through waivers (like I-601A Waiver) but others cannot.
Any Gold Card strategy for someone with a problematic history will require:
Yes, significant litigation and political pushback are likely.(Economic Policy Institute)
Risks include:
However, historically, individuals who have already been granted permanent residence often retain that status even when policy tools change — though no outcome is guaranteed.
Herman Legal Group is focusing on:
We work with clients in:
To explore whether a Gold Card strategy fits your profile, you can:
👉 Book a consultation
In mid-December 2025, the Trump administration announced an immediate pause of the Diversity Visa (DV) green card lottery, directing USCIS to halt DV-related processing after a suspect in a Brown University shooting was reportedly linked to the program. While the DV lottery was not repealed by Congress, a processing suspension can function as a de facto shutdown because DV visas are strictly limited by fiscal-year deadlines. The pause places tens of thousands of pending cases at risk and affects millions of applicants worldwide.
Primary reporting:
Long before the Brown University shooting entered the national conversation, the Trump administration had already taken concrete steps to constrict the Diversity Visa (DV) program.
The clearest signal came quietly—but decisively—in October 2025, when the DV-2027 Green Card Lottery failed to open on schedule.
Under normal operations, the DV lottery opens annually in early October. By mid-October 2025, however, no registration window had launched, no official explanation had been provided, and State Department systems remained idle. Weeks passed. Then months. The silence itself became the policy.
By the time the Brown University shooting occurred in December 2025, the DV program was already functionally frozen at the front end.
The shooting did not initiate a shift in policy.
It supplied a justification.
What followed—the public announcement of a DV “pause,” the security framing, and the formal halt to processing—aligned seamlessly with actions already underway. The tragedy provided narrative cover for a restriction the administration had been advancing incrementally through delay, ambiguity, and administrative inertia.
When a program fails to open on time, then processing is paused after a high-profile crime, the question is not whether security concerns are real. The question is whether the crime explains the policy—or merely accelerates it.
In the case of the Diversity Visa lottery, the record suggests the latter.
The Diversity Visa program is a congressionally created immigration pathway administered by the U.S. Department of State. Each year, it allocates up to 55,000 immigrant visas to nationals of countries with historically low levels of immigration to the United States. Applicants enter online during a limited registration window, and randomly selected entrants must complete security vetting, interviews, and eligibility screening.
Official program references:
According to the State Department:
A pause therefore affects not only selected applicants, but entire global applicant communities that depend on DV as one of the few accessible legal immigration pathways.
DV selectees must complete processing by September 30 of the applicable fiscal year. If adjudication stalls, applicants permanently lose eligibility, even if they were otherwise approved.
Statutory offsets and prior legislation can reduce the number of DV visas available in a given year, as explained in the Visa Bulletin:
A DV pause can translate into:
Because DV eligibility is time-limited, even short suspensions can permanently eliminate thousands of cases.
Some DV selectees pursue adjustment of status through USCIS rather than consular processing:
The pause compounds existing uncertainty around DV-2027 timing, rules, and fees.
HLG tracking resources:
The DV program is created by statute under the Immigration and Nationality Act and administered primarily by the State Department. While the executive branch controls processing and security screening, Congress controls visa categories.
Key unresolved questions:
These questions are central to potential litigation.
Unlike family- or employment-based green cards:
This makes DV pauses especially vulnerable to legal challenge.
DV allocations are divided by geographic region and capped per country. Regions that rely heavily on DV—particularly parts of Africa, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia—face disproportionate harm when processing stalls.
Reference data:
This issue intersects:
For journalists and Reddit communities, DV is a clear, measurable, and emotionally resonant policy lever, which makes it highly shareable.
HLG practical guidance:
Key indicators that determine whether the pause becomes a full shutdown:
The Diversity Visa lottery shapes:
A DV pause therefore signals not just a program disruption, but a broader shift in legal immigration policy.
The suspension of the Diversity Visa lottery did not emerge in isolation. It follows a well-established governing pattern: using isolated crimes or national tragedies as a policy accelerant to justify restrictions on legal immigration programs that long predate the incident itself.
Across multiple administrations—but especially under Trump—immigration policy has repeatedly shifted not after sustained legislative debate, but immediately after a triggering event. The event functions less as a root cause than as a catalyst—a moment that lowers resistance to policies already favored by the administration.
Key characteristics of this pattern:
The DV lottery fits this profile precisely. It is a lawful, congressionally created program with extensive screening—but one that can be paused administratively, framed rhetorically, and reshaped without an immediate vote.
In this context, the Brown University tragedy operates as a policy opening, not a policy origin.
The DV suspension mirrors a broader tactical approach visible in earlier Trump-era actions:
In each instance, the pattern is consistent:
The DV pause follows this same arc, with one critical difference: time irreversibility. Because Diversity Visa eligibility expires at the end of each fiscal year, a pause does not merely delay—it can permanently eliminate lawful immigration opportunities without a formal repeal.
For analysts, this raises a central question: is the DV suspension about risk mitigation, or about administrative erasure through delay?
The DV lottery has long been disfavored by restrictionist factions within the Trump movement—not because of fraud rates or security gaps, but because of who the program benefits.
Policy documents associated with Project 2025 explicitly argue for reshaping legal immigration to prioritize:
The Diversity Visa program directly conflicts with this vision. It is:
Advisors closely associated with this agenda—including Stephen Miller—have repeatedly criticized DV-style immigration as inconsistent with what they describe as “merit-based” systems, despite DV recipients undergoing the same background checks as other immigrants.
Within this framework, the DV pause is less about a single crime and more about aligning executive action with a longer-term ideological project: shrinking lawful pathways that diversify the immigrant population while preserving those that favor wealth, employer sponsorship, or nationality-neutral optics.
While the administration’s justification centers on security, the political resonance of DV restrictions reflects something deeper: sustained discomfort within parts of the MAGA coalition toward immigration from non-European regions, even when that immigration is lawful.
Empirical realities complicate the narrative:
Yet DV remains a frequent target because it symbolizes diversity itself—a program explicitly designed to broaden the geographic and racial composition of U.S. immigration.
This creates a recurring dynamic:
The result is policy shaped not only by law or data, but by narrative alignment—what resonates emotionally with a political base, even if it diverges from statistical reality.
For journalists and researchers, the DV suspension should therefore be analyzed not only as an immigration decision, but as part of a governing strategy that leverages fear to reengineer lawful migration systems—incrementally, administratively, and often irreversibly.
The suspension of the Diversity Visa lottery closely tracks recommendations that appear—explicitly—in Project 2025, the transition blueprint developed by conservative policy organizations aligned with a potential second Trump administration.
Project 2025 does not frame its immigration agenda around undocumented migration alone. Instead, it calls for structural reductions in lawful immigration pathways, with specific hostility toward programs that diversify the immigrant pool.
In its immigration policy chapter, Project 2025 states that the next administration should:
“End the Diversity Visa Lottery program, which distributes green cards without regard to skill or national interest.”
— Project 2025, Immigration Policy Section
Source: Project 2025 Policy Agenda
The document further argues that immigration policy should be refocused away from diversity and family-based criteria and toward narrow economic selection, stating:
“Legal immigration must be reoriented to serve the national interest, not abstract diversity goals.”
Source: Project 2025 – Mandate for Leadership
This language matters because it confirms that the DV lottery was already a priority target, independent of any criminal incident. The Brown University shooting did not introduce opposition to DV—it activated a preexisting policy objective.
That alignment is not accidental. Key architects of Trump’s first-term immigration agenda—including Stephen Miller—have long criticized the DV program, arguing publicly that it undermines a “merit-based” system, despite the fact that DV recipients undergo the same security vetting as other immigrant visa applicants.
In policy terms, the DV pause is best understood not as an emergency response, but as implementation by opportunity—using a crisis moment to advance an already articulated blueprint.
The DV suspension fits a repeatable pattern in modern U.S. immigration governance: isolated crimes or tragedies are used to justify immediate restrictions on legal immigration programs, even when the programs themselves are not causally linked to broader risk.
2017 – Terrorist attacks abroad
→ Travel bans imposed on nationals of several Muslim-majority countries
→ Courts later narrowed the scope, but immediate lawful travel and visa issuance were halted
2018 – High-profile crimes by noncitizens (selective cases)
→ Refugee admissions slashed to historic lows
→ Policy framed as security necessity despite extensive refugee vetting
2019 – Border deaths and asylum backlogs
→ Asylum transit bans and expedited removal expansions
→ Legal asylum pathways restricted through executive action
2020 – COVID-19 pandemic
→ Title 42 expulsions used to block asylum and other lawful entries
→ Public health cited; immigration effects were sweeping and prolonged
2023–2024 – Campus protests and isolated visa violations
→ Heightened scrutiny of student visas and campus enforcement rhetoric
→ Lawful status framed as a potential security vulnerability
2025 – Brown University shooting
→ Diversity Visa lottery suspended
→ A congressionally authorized legal immigration program paused through administrative action
Across each episode, the structure is consistent:
For DV selectees, the irreversibility is especially acute: when the fiscal year ends, the opportunity disappears permanently, even if courts later question the legality of the pause.
The Department of Homeland Security has framed the DV suspension as a public safety measure, emphasizing the need to reassess screening and risk in light of a criminal incident.
That justification deserves careful scrutiny.
In public statements reported by major outlets, DHS officials suggest:
On its face, this framing aligns with DHS’s statutory mission.
1. DV recipients already undergo extensive vetting
DV selectees are subject to:
There is no evidence presented that DV recipients are vetted less rigorously than other immigrant visa holders.
2. Isolated incidents do not establish systemic risk
Criminological data consistently shows that lawful immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens. DHS has not produced data demonstrating that DV recipients pose a unique threat.
3. The policy response is mismatched to the risk
If the concern were truly vetting adequacy, DHS could:
Instead, the response is a blanket pause—a blunt instrument that eliminates lawful opportunities rather than addressing a specific vulnerability.
4. Timing aligns with ideology, not discovery
No new DV-specific security flaw has been disclosed. What has changed is the political moment—and the availability of a tragedy to justify an action long advocated by restrictionist policy frameworks.
In legal and policy terms, this creates a credibility gap: security rhetoric is doing work that data does not support.
The DV suspension should be understood as a test case.
If a congressionally created legal immigration program can be effectively neutralized through administrative delay—using tragedy as justification—then any lawful pathway is potentially vulnerable, regardless of data or statutory design.
For journalists, researchers, and policymakers, the core question is no longer whether the DV lottery survives this pause.
It is whether legal immigration itself is being redefined not by law, but by narrative leverage.
No. The Diversity Visa (DV) lottery was not repealed by Congress. Instead, the Trump administration announced a pause in DV processing, directing USCIS to halt adjudications. While technically different from cancellation, a pause can function as a de facto shutdown because DV eligibility expires at the end of each fiscal year.
A pause stops or slows processing without formally eliminating the program from law. Ending the DV lottery would require Congressional action to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, because DV visas cannot roll over to future years, even a temporary pause can permanently eliminate approved cases.
According to public statements and reporting, the administration cited public safety concerns following a Brown University shooting in which the suspect was reportedly linked to the DV program. Media coverage framed the suspension as part of a broader immigration enforcement response.
Primary reporting:
Directly, up to 55,000 DV visas per year are at stake. Indirectly, the impact is far larger:
Official data:
The most vulnerable groups are:
Yes. Being selected in the DV lottery does not guarantee a green card. If processing is delayed past September 30 of the relevant fiscal year, the applicant permanently loses eligibility—even if all requirements were met.
This is a unique feature of the DV program and a central reason the pause is so consequential.
Yes, if USCIS has halted DV-related adjudications. DV selectees inside the U.S. who are pursuing adjustment of status rely on USCIS processing, not consular interviews.
Official guidance:
HLG guidance:
The DV program is created by statute, meaning only Congress can eliminate it. However, the executive branch controls:
Whether a prolonged pause exceeds executive authority is a live legal question and a likely subject of litigation.
The DV program has faced processing delays and restrictions in prior administrations, especially during:
However, a targeted suspension explicitly tied to a criminal incident represents a significant escalation and is likely to face heightened legal scrutiny.
The DV lottery disproportionately benefits applicants from:
Because of regional allocations and per-country caps, delays can erase entire cohorts from these regions.
Reference data:
The suspension compounds existing uncertainty around DV-2027, including:
HLG tracking:
Potentially. Past DV litigation has focused on:
Whether courts can order relief depends heavily on timing and whether visa numbers remain available.
Congress does not approve processing decisions, but it:
Congressional response will be a key signal to watch.
Yes. The DV suspension aligns with broader policy trends emphasizing:
DV is particularly vulnerable because it is numerically capped, time-limited, and politically symbolic.
DV applicants should:
Official reference:
HLG practical guidance:
The DV lottery affects:
Because it is transparent and data-driven, DV often becomes a proxy battleground for broader immigration debates.
The suspension of the Diversity Visa (DV) green card lottery raises time-sensitive legal questions that differ depending on where an applicant is located, what stage their case is in, and how long the pause lasts. Because DV eligibility is tied to strict fiscal-year deadlines, even short delays can permanently change outcomes.
Herman Legal Group has spent decades analyzing and litigating complex immigration policy shifts—including prior DV disruptions, consular shutdowns, and executive-branch pauses that effectively erased visa opportunities.
Whether you are:
a DV selectee trying to understand your legal options,
a family member or sponsor seeking accurate guidance,
or a journalist or researcher looking for expert context, verification, or quotable analysis,
you can speak directly with an experienced immigration attorney who tracks these developments in real time.
➡️ Schedule a confidential consultation with Herman Legal Group:
Book a Consultation
For media inquiries, background briefings, or expert commentary on the DV lottery, executive immigration authority, or visa policy trends, Herman Legal Group is available as a source.
This directory is designed as a living reference hub for anyone researching, reporting on, or analyzing Trump’s suspension of the Diversity Visa (DV) green card lottery.
These are the most authoritative sources for DV policy, eligibility, statistics, and deadlines.
Use these sources to understand processing authority, agency roles, and statutory constraints.
These outlets provide fact-checked, citable reporting on the DV suspension and its political context.
These sources help explain why DV matters globally, beyond the immediate legal fight.
These internal resources are frequently cited, updated, and designed to answer follow-up questions journalists and applicants ask after reading this article.
For researchers and reporters tracking what comes next:
By Richard T. Herman, Esq., Immigration Attorney (30 + years)
The Trump administration’s aggressive approach to immigration policy has transformed the landscape of the U.S. immigration court system. From mass ICE raids and border sweeps as part of a broader immigration enforcement campaign, to the expansion of expedited removal proceedings, the administration has prioritized enforcement over due process.
Federal agents have increasingly conducted ICE arrests at courthouses, targeting immigrants attending hearings or seeking protection orders, further eroding trust in the judicial process and raising serious concerns about civil rights violations.
In 2025, the U.S. immigration-court system—once described as “America’s hidden judiciary”—has become ground zero in the Trump administration’s campaign to accelerate deportations. Behind the chaos of mass ICE raids and border sweeps lies a quieter, more systemic assault: a legal bureaucracy being refashioned to eliminate checks on executive power.
The administration implemented policies that politicized the courts, transforming them into an enforcement arm of the Department of Justice. Deportations across the U.S. have substantially increased under the Trump administration, further intensifying the impact of these changes. Additionally, the administration has instructed ICE to arrest immigrants at courthouses around the country, further eroding trust in the judicial process.
Unlike federal or state courts, immigration courts operate under the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)—a component of the U.S. Department of Justice, not the independent judiciary, but rather part of the executive branch of government. That distinction allows a president and attorney general to dictate how, when, and even whether justice is served.
Every immigration judge ultimately answers to the attorney general, who can hire, fire, or overrule them at will.
| Metric | 2019 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Pending cases | 1.1 million | 3.6 million + |
| Judges nationwide | ~500 | 750 (> 100 vacancies) |
| Average wait time | ~780 days | 1,400 + days |
| Asylum grant rate | 45 % | 24 % |
The EOIR’s pending-case load now exceeds the entire federal criminal docket combined, according to TRAC Syracuse University.
Rather than insulating judges from politics to manage this crisis, the administration has tightened control, eroding due process and public trust.
Internal DOJ memos obtained by Reuters show judges pressured to decide 1,200 cases per year and “avoid unnecessary continuances.” Dozens who objected were reassigned or replaced. The Trump administration has removed 65 immigration judges from their posts since taking office, further intensifying the pressure on remaining judges. Former judges have voiced concerns that these removals threaten judicial independence and undermine the integrity of the immigration court system. This removal of judges has exacerbated the backlog of immigration court cases, leaving the system increasingly strained. A 2024 analysis found that the quota system influenced judicial behavior, raising concerns about the undermining of judicial independence.
Because EOIR judges are DOJ employees, the attorney general can discipline or terminate them without external review—a power no other U.S. court wields.
For attorneys, expect growing regional disparities; some dockets now run on 72-hour removal cycles.
In February 2025, a new EOIR directive expanded the 2019 Matter of M-S- precedent, instructing judges to decline bond jurisdiction for non-citizens in expedited removal or certain detention categories, specifically in removal proceedings involving these individuals. Judges now routinely state on record: “I have no jurisdiction over bond.”
Bond hearings once allowed detained immigrants to reunite with family and prepare defense; their elimination means months or years in detention without release.
This directive does not merely constrain judges—it redefines freedom as a bureaucratic privilege. Advocates including the American Immigration Council warn it violates both Fifth Amendment due process and international human-rights norms, further undermining constitutional rights.
Perhaps the most alarming new practice involves ICE prosecutors themselves requesting case dismissals—not to help immigrants, but to remove them from court protection entirely. These policies have been characterized as an attempt to create a ‘frictionless deportation machine,’ where procedural safeguards are systematically dismantled. As a result, immigration agents are empowered to act more aggressively against those targeted by these policies.
Under the guise of “prosecutorial discretion,” the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) has begun filing motions to dismiss thousands of pending cases. Once a judge grants dismissal, ICE regains custody and initiates expedited removal under INA § 235(b)—a process that bypasses judges entirely and is designed to target immigrants for rapid deportation. This process reflects the expansion of ICE enforcement tactics under these new policies.
In expedited removal, an immigration officer—not a judge—issues the deportation order; there is no appeal to the BIA and no guaranteed access to counsel.
By dismissing cases, ICE achieves two objectives: (1) manipulating backlog statistics and (2) stripping due process so immigrants can be deported without a hearing.
A Honduran asylum seeker’s case in Illinois was dismissed in June 2025 at ICE’s request. Two weeks later he was arrested at home, placed in expedited removal, and deported within eight days—before his lawyer could file a motion to reopen.
This scenario is increasingly common for people seeking asylum under the current enforcement regime.
Once a § 240 proceeding is dismissed, EOIR loses jurisdiction. Neither the judge nor the BIA can intervene unless ICE re-files charges—something rarely done.
If ICE moves to dismiss your case, your attorney should file a conditional opposition and seek written assurances that no expedited removal will follow, as having experienced legal counsel is critical to protecting your rights and ensuring you are not subject to expedited removal.
ICE defends the practice as “resource optimization,” with federal agencies coordinating these efforts to manage case statistics. Yet internal documents reviewed by Politico show its real aim is to boost “case completion rates” while concealing detention-based deportations from EOIR statistics.
Tens of thousands of cases have been affected by these policies. More than 32,000 cases have been dismissed at ICE’s request since January 2025—five times the 2024 rate (TRAC Syracuse).
The backlog isn’t shrinking—it’s being exported into detention centers where justice is invisible.
Judges in detention facilities are now ordered to complete cases within 72 hours of apprehension. This accelerated timeline increases the risk of mass deportations, as large numbers of individuals may be removed without adequate time for legal defense. For asylum seekers still recovering from trauma or without counsel, that window makes meaningful defense impossible. The Trump administration established a maximum deadline of six months for judges to expedite asylum decisions, further limiting the time available for proper case preparation.
The immigration court backlog grew from over 542,000 in January 2017 to over 1.2 million by January 2021, primarily due to a surge in new cases filed by the Department of Homeland Security. By the end of Trump’s first term, the immigration court backlog totaled over 3.5 million cases, exacerbated by the firing of judges. “Rocket dockets” were first tested in 2018 during family separation and are now permanent as part of the administration’s family separation policy.
“Rocket dockets” were first tested in 2018 during family separation and are now permanent.
The attorney general has resumed using the rare “certification” power to rewrite precedent personally—narrowing eligibility for asylum in domestic-violence and family-based claims and curtailing administrative closure, highlighting the Justice Department’s central role in these changes. Critics argue that the removal of immigration judges who grant a high percentage of asylum claims undermines judicial independence, further consolidating control over the system. The Trump administration also proposed the use of military lawyers as temporary immigration judges, raising concerns about the adequacy of their training and impartiality, and the potential impact on legal representation for immigrants.
With no independent oversight, the attorney general acts as both chief prosecutor and final appellate authority in the same system.
Anonymous judges told The Washington Post they now fear career reprisal for granting too many asylum cases.
One remarked, “We’ve stopped being judges; we’re bureaucrats with gavels.” These developments threaten the constitutional right to a fair hearing, undermining due process and judicial independence.
The National Association of Immigration Judges calls the current environment a “constitutional crisis of independence.”
With bond jurisdiction stripped and dismissal-based detentions rising, thousands of asylum seekers remain in custody for months. Children grow up behind fences; parents languish without hearings. The average wait for an asylum case to be completed in immigration court is four years, leaving families in prolonged uncertainty.
The average detained asylum seeker now spends over six months awaiting a hearing (HIAS).
Because detention centers are remote, only ~15 % of detainees have lawyers. Without bond, many cannot reach representation. This highlights the urgent need for advocates and organizations to provide legal representation to individuals held in detention.
Use the AILA Lawyer Search or local pro-bono programs immediately after detention notice; timing is critical for credible-fear interviews and habeas filings.
| Aspect | Before (2020 – 2021) | After (2025) |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial independence | Moderate AG oversight | Extensive AG control; political appointments |
| Bond hearings | Available for most non-criminal cases | Denied for majority of detained |
| Asylum eligibility | Broader interpretation | Narrow definitions |
| Backlog strategy | Add judges | Dismiss cases + expedited removal |
| Judge morale | Low but improving | Crisis-level burnout |
The dramatic growth in the immigration court backlog began during the first Trump administration, when policy changes and enforcement priorities led to a surge in pending cases. This trend has continued, with recent reforms further impacting case processing and judicial workload.
2025 marks a pivot from adjudication to administration—justice measured in speed, not fairness.
Non-profits and state AGs have filed lawsuits challenging bond restrictions and mass dismissals as violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Constitution’s Due Process Clause, as well as alleging civil rights violations stemming from discriminatory enforcement practices. Federal courts in Maryland and California have issued limited injunctions, but enforcement continues elsewhere. The Trump administration attempted to implement numerous policies to limit asylum eligibility, which were legally challenged, reflecting the contentious nature of these changes.
In addition to legal challenges, advocacy groups continue to urge Congress and congressional leaders to pass legislation that protects immigrant rights and addresses ongoing concerns. Lawsuits have stopped many illegal Trump administration policies, including those that aimed to separate families at the border and arbitrarily cut off access to asylum. Some of these issues may ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.
Even if later overturned, these policies create irreversible harm—families separated, asylum claims lost, and records erased.
| Firm / Organization | Focus & Strengths | Why Consider Them |
|---|---|---|
| Herman Legal Group | 30 + years defending immigrants nationwide; multilingual team; deep EOIR experience | Personalized defense; full service for court and detention cases |
| Fragomen Worldwide | Global corporate immigration | For multinational employees facing removal |
| National Immigration Law Center | Non-profit impact litigation | Systemic policy challenges |
| Jackson Lewis P.C. | Employer-side compliance | When employer issues overlap with removal |
| Vinson & Elkins LLP | Federal appeals & complex litigation | High-stakes precedent cases |
| Immigrant Legal Resource Center | Legal resources, training, and support for immigrants and advocates; expertise in immigration law and defense strategies | Access to expert guidance and resources for navigating complex immigration issues |
Advisers close to the White House have floated plans to move the EOIR under the Department of Homeland Security — making prosecutors and judges part of the same agency. That shift would complete the collapse of judicial independence. A second Trump administration could rapidly expand these changes, threatening temporary protected status, birthright citizenship, and increasing border security measures at the southern border.
The backlog in the immigration courts has already reached historic levels, straining resources and delaying justice. This has significant impacts on border communities and undocumented immigrants, as federal funds are increasingly directed toward enforcement rather than legal protections or support services.
The administration has used the backlog as justification for more aggressive enforcement, but local officials, local government, elected officials, and state law can play critical roles in resisting or supporting these federal policies. At the same time, there is a notable expansion of customs enforcement, immigration and customs enforcement, and the activities of ICE officers and law enforcement, raising concerns about racial profiling and civil rights violations under new enforcement strategies.
In contrast, the Biden administration has attempted to shift some immigration enforcement priorities, but the federal government continues to play a central role in shaping and implementing these policies.
Despite record case completions (> 480,000 in FY 2024), the backlog grew by another 400,000 new filings.
The administration isn’t solving the backlog—it’s using it to justify control.
The phrase “attack on the immigration courts” is no longer metaphor. It is a policy blueprint executed in plain sight: judges stripped of authority, cases dismissed to permit swift expulsion, and bond hearings abolished.
After three decades defending immigrants, I’ve watched how a single fair hearing can change a life. When the system no longer guarantees that chance, justice is not delayed—it’s denied.
Richard T. Herman, Esq., is an immigration attorney with more than 30 years of experience and founder of the Herman Legal Group, recognized nationally as “The Law Firm for Immigrants.” He co-authored Immigrant, Inc. and is a frequent commentator on immigration policy for major news outlets. Learn more or schedule a consultation here.
Yes—mass ICE detention creates major financial winners, and the biggest beneficiaries are often private contractors paid per bed, per flight, per monitor, per medical visit, and per software license. When Congress expands detention and deportation funding, it does not just expand enforcement—it expands a revenue ecosystem for private prison operators, transportation providers, surveillance-tech firms, and subcontractors. The money trail is trackable through budgets, procurement databases, earnings calls, and campaign-finance disclosures, highlighting the question: Who profits from ICE detention?
HLG related: ICE Warehouse Detention Plan: 5 Horrifying Effects
HLG urgent preparedness: Bond in Ohio: What to Do in the First 72 Hours After an ICE Arrest • How to Prepare for an ICE Arrest in Columbus, Ohio • ICE Came to My Door: What Are My Rights?
Mass detention is often framed as “public safety” or “border control.” But the implementation runs through procurement: beds, guards, buses, planes, medical contractors, food, ankle monitors, and data platforms.
In practice, detention expansion functions like a public spending surge that creates predictable private revenue streams—especially when contracting is accelerated and oversight is weaker.
HLG enforcement context:
When Congress funds ICE at “scale” levels, the spending is not just operational—it becomes capital-like:
A credible example of this “windfall dynamic” is documented in:
A second lens focused on the business incentives and pricing mechanics:
Key editorial point: budgets translate into purchase orders. Once capacity exists, it becomes hard to unwind.
Two names appear repeatedly in credible reporting and analysis of detention expansion:
They are positioned to scale quickly by reopening idle facilities, adding beds to existing sites, and negotiating new or extended ICE contracts.
For political-finance and enforcement-benefit reporting:
Mass detention requires a full ecosystem beyond “beds.”
Electronic monitoring vendors can benefit when enforcement expands—even when physical detention does not. Monitoring can become a parallel pipeline with its own vendor incentives.
Start here for public contracting visibility:
HLG reader-ready enforcement and readiness:
ICE enforcement increasingly relies on data platforms—creating lucrative tech contracting and raising civil liberties concerns.
To frame the policy stakes for readers:
Detention expansion increases medical spending and creates incentives around subcontracted healthcare, transportation to providers, and facility-level medical contracts.
For localized reporting examples that show the community impact and conflict patterns:
Transportation is not a footnote; it is one of the main scaling tools of enforcement. When detention expands, movement expands too—between facilities, states, and court jurisdictions.
For additional reporting on detention economic incentives and contract structures:
If a policy area is drifting toward corruption or pay-to-play, measurable indicators often include:
For money-in-politics context tied directly to detention contractors:
Use this as the research checklist for a detention boom analysis.
Track:
Track:
Track:
Track:
Track:
ICE’s baseline annual budget for FY 2026 is approximately $11.3 billion, according to ICE’s own Congressional Budget Justification submitted to Congress.
Source:
This baseline budget alone already makes ICE one of the largest federal law-enforcement agencies in the United States, with spending heavily concentrated in Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) — the division responsible for arrests, detention, transfers, and deportations.
Major baseline spending categories include:
Custody Operations (detention beds and facilities)
Transportation and Removal Operations
Alternatives to Detention (electronic monitoring)
Detention healthcare and medical services
Technology, surveillance, and investigative systems
Congressional budget summaries confirm that detention and removal consume the largest share of ICE funding year after year.
Source:
The most dramatic expansion of ICE funding did not come from routine appropriations. It came from H.R. 1, widely referred to by its supporters as the “One Big Beautiful Bill.”
Unlike annual budgets, this law used budget reconciliation to inject extraordinary, multi-year funding into immigration enforcement.
Independent analyses show:
Roughly $170 billion directed toward immigration enforcement across DHS, with ICE as a central beneficiary.
Source:
Approximately $45 billion over four years specifically tied to detention expansion and custody operations, dramatically increasing ICE’s detention footprint.
Source:
This funding is in addition to ICE’s regular annual budget — not a replacement.
In practical terms:
ICE now operates with two parallel funding streams fueling detention growth:
The regular yearly appropriations budget
A multi-year enforcement surge funded through reconciliation
That dual structure is what makes the current detention expansion unprecedented.
What Does This Money Buy?
Budget documents and congressional reports reference detention capacity of approximately 50,000 beds as a baseline operating target.
However, investigative reporting shows ICE planning documents and contractor solicitations that contemplate far larger surge capacity, including scenarios that double detention space when reconciliation funds are fully deployed.
Sources:
ICE funding does not flow to a single company. It moves through a layered contractor ecosystem, with several clear beneficiaries.
Private prison companies and detention operators are positioned to convert detention appropriations into recurring revenue through per-diem bed payments and long-term facility contracts.
Major recipients repeatedly identified in national reporting include:
GEO Group
CoreCivic
Sources:
As arrests increase, transportation spending increases automatically.
This includes:
Charter flights for deportations
Ground transportation between detention facilities
Escort and guard services
Investigations have documented a small group of aviation and logistics contractors dominating this space.
Sources:
ICE increasingly relies on electronic monitoring and compliance programs to manage large populations outside physical detention.
These programs:
Generate recurring per-person fees
Scale alongside detention expansion
Are awarded under large, long-term federal contracts
Oversight groups describe this as a multi-billion-dollar surveillance market tied directly to enforcement growth.
Source:
As detention populations rise, so does spending on:
On-site medical staff
Mental health services
Pharmaceuticals
Hospital transports
Medical records and compliance systems
Medical contracting has been repeatedly flagged by auditors and watchdogs as high-cost and high-risk, particularly during rapid expansion.
Sources:
Modern immigration enforcement depends on:
Data analytics platforms
Investigative case-management systems
Identity resolution and skip-tracing tools
Surveillance and communications infrastructure
Major technology firms and defense contractors appear throughout ICE procurement records.
Sources:
A significant portion of ICE funding flows to vendors that rarely appear in headlines:
Food service and catering
Laundry and linens
Hotels and temporary lodging
Telecom, phones, video visitation, and tablets
Facility maintenance and janitorial services
These vendors are often paid through subcontracts or bundled facility agreements, making the money harder to track — but no less central to detention operations.
ICE’s budget is not just a government expense line. It is a market signal.
When Congress authorizes:
Tens of billions for detention
Emergency contracting authority
Long-term custody expansion
It creates predictable financial incentives for companies to:
Build detention infrastructure
Lobby aggressively
Donate politically
Support policies that sustain or expand enforcement
That is why scholars, journalists, and policy analysts increasingly describe ICE detention as an industry, not merely an agency function.
If you are mapping the detention money trail, these two companies are the recurring anchor points in both contracting and political spending coverage:
GEO Group (detention + monitoring through subsidiary BI)
CoreCivic (detention facilities, expansions, reopenings)
High-level contractor windfall context: Brennan Center — “Private Prison Companies’ Enormous Windfall”
No-bid / emergency contracting narrative: AP — ICE expanding detention using no-bid contracts
HLG enforcement backdrop: Trump Will Expand Immigration Enforcement in 2026 • America’s New Concentration Camps
A recurring “corruption angle” red flag for reporters is when a contractor benefiting from federal policy simultaneously makes major political donations—especially in moments of anticipated procurement expansion.
A widely reported example: CoreCivic disclosed a $500,000 donation to the Trump-Vance inaugural committee (as reported by ABC News).
Supporting coverage: ABC News — CoreCivic gave $500K to Trump’s inauguration
Note: For a parallel line that includes GEO and broader “donations + enforcement benefit” analysis, see CREW and other watchdog reporting discussed below.
A major piece of evidence cited by watchdog reporting is that GEO-related political spending accelerated during key election moments and overlapped with the company’s obvious policy upside from mass detention and deportation expansion.
Watchdog analysis focused on Trump-specific giving: CREW — “Private prison behemoth … first corporation to max out to Trump”
Broader reporting on private prison political support and expected enforcement benefit: ABC News — private prison firms contributed >$1M to Trump effort and poised to benefit
If you want hard, citeable finance records without relying on secondary tables:
A) GEO Group PAC (FEC committee page)
B) CoreCivic PAC (FEC committee page)
How to use these pages:
Open the FEC committee profile
Use the committee’s disbursements / receipts / filings tabs
Pull cycle-by-cycle totals, and screenshot tables for documentation
Cross-reference spikes with ICE contract announcements and appropriations timelines
To avoid handwaving, pair political money reporting with procurement receipts.
Example: BI Incorporated (GEO subsidiary) — ISAP / alternative-to-detention contracting
A public award listing showing program scope and obligated amounts: USAspending — BI Incorporated award (ISAP)
For readers, the key is conceptual clarity:
Detention expansion is not just “beds.”
It is also electronic monitoring scale, case management, reporting infrastructure, and compliance tech.
Additional reporting on monitoring-scale incentives: Marketplace — who profits from detaining immigrants
A separate “corruption angle” lane is not just donations—it’s the revolving-door dynamic.
Even if recusals are promised, this is still a powerful “appearance of conflict” narrative that tends to go viral because it feels intuitively unfair to broad audiences.
A) “No-bid contracts” + detention expansion
B) “Windfall” framing
C) “Oversight collapse / enforcement favoritism” investigations
D) “Local community backlash vs money” case studies
E) “Profit in deportation” summary framing
Behind every procurement dollar is a family timeline: detention, transfer, bond, fast hearings, and pressure to sign.
HLG “first 72 hours” readiness:
Bond in Ohio: What to Do in the First 72 Hours After an ICE Arrest
Mental Health Crisis for Children and Adults Due to ICE Raids (2025 Update)
The No-Criminal-Record Crackdown: Non-Criminal ICE Arrests (2025)
While private prisons supply the beds, companies like Palantir Technologies supply the brains of modern immigration enforcement.
Palantir is not a detention operator. Instead, it provides the data infrastructure that enables ICE to:
This makes Palantir one of the most strategically important — and least visible — beneficiaries of expanded immigration enforcement.
Public reporting and government procurement records show that Palantir has held multi-year ICE contracts to support:
The Washington Post and other outlets have reported that Palantir’s software enables ICE agents to rapidly identify, track, and prioritize individuals for arrest and removal, significantly increasing enforcement throughput.
Sources:
According to federal procurement records summarized in USAspending, Palantir has received tens of millions of dollars in ICE-related contract obligations, with additional revenue flowing through DHS-wide technology vehicles that support ICE components.
Palantir was co-founded by billionaire tech investor Peter Thiel, a central figure in right-wing technology, politics, and venture capital.
Key points relevant to journalists:
Thiel’s political role is not incidental — it sits at the intersection of:
Background:
The connection deepens with JD Vance, now Vice President of the United States.
Key facts:
Sources:
Several outlets have reported that Stephen Miller, the senior Trump adviser and architect of hard-line immigration enforcement policy, disclosed ownership of Palantir stock, the company that supplies key data analytics systems to ICE.
A Project On Government Oversight (POGO) investigation found from Miller’s own financial disclosures that he held between $100,001 and $250,000 in Palantir stock, reportedly held through a minor child’s brokerage account, which federal ethics rules treat as his own asset for conflict-of-interest purposes. Ethics experts told POGO that this creates the potential for conflict because Palantir’s systems are used by ICE and could be materially affected by enforcement policy decisions.
Source: https://www.pogo.org/investigations/stephen-miller-conflicts-of-interest
The same investment disclosure detail was widely reported by other outlets, including Yahoo Finance summarizing the POGO report.
Source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/stephen-miller-hefty-financial-stake-110000835.html
Ethics experts cited in the POGO report pointed out that Miller’s investment could pose a conflict because he was deeply involved in shaping immigration enforcement policy while owning stock in a contractor that benefits from enforcement expansion. The watchdog quoted a former general counsel of the Office of Government Ethics explaining that involvement in policy affecting a company in which an official or family member has stock creates predictable financial impact.
Source: https://www.pogo.org/investigations/stephen-miller-conflicts-of-interest
A similar account was discussed in an ethics context by Ayoub Law, noting recusal statements and ethical optics around Miller’s investments.
Source: https://ayoublaw.com/stephen-millers-hidden-stake-in-palantir-a-conflict-of-interest
Additionally, a December 2025 letter from Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other Congressional members highlights concerns about Trump administration officials having “financial or personal ties” to immigration-related contractors — including **the specific mention of Stephen Miller’s Palantir stock ownership and that of senior policy staff — as part of broader contract integrity concerns.
Source: https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/immigration_contractor_corruption_letter.pdf
Under Donald Trump, ICE increasingly relied on:
Palantir’s ICE contracts expanded during this period, aligning with:
Civil liberties groups have repeatedly warned that this model:
Sources:
With:
data contractors like Palantir become force multipliers.
Every additional dollar spent on detention:
This is why immigration detention is no longer just about beds and bars — it is also about code, algorithms, and political power.
Fot researchers, the Palantir–Thiel–Vance–ICE connection illustrates a broader pattern:
That feedback loop is central to understanding why immigration detention keeps expanding, even when public support is divided.
Sourcing standard : Vendors below appear in ICE procurement/award listings, USAspending, ICE program pages, DHS OIG summaries, or reputable watchdog/investigative reporting. Use these hubs to verify and expand: USAspending and Federal Compass — ICE Awarded Contracts. The DHS procurement portal is here: DHS Procurement Awards and Orders. DHS OIG also tracks ICE detention contracting at scale. DHS OIG — Contracts taxonomy.
What they provide: beds, guards, facility operations, site management, facility services bundling (often with subcontractors)
Where to verify: USAspending recipient profiles; DHS OIG summaries on detention contracting; major investigations
GEO Group (detention + monitoring ecosystem; appears in procurement/analysis coverage)
CoreCivic (detention operator frequently cited in detention expansion reporting)
LaSalle Corrections (detention management; appears in oversight/letters and reporting)
Management & Training Corporation (MTC) (detention operations)
County/city jail partners (IGSAs; local governments paid to hold ICE detainees—often less transparent in federal vendor lists)
Oversight frame (scale signal): DHS OIG notes ICE payments exceeding $3B to contractors operating detention facilities since FY2016. DHS OIG — Contracts.
What they provide: charter brokering, flight scheduling, removals logistics, subcontracted carrier networks
Where to verify: USAspending awards; POGO investigations; ICE Air Operations discussions in reporting
CSI Aviation, Inc. (air charter broker; “ICE Air” contracting widely reported)
Example public award value signal (obligated/outlayed on a specific contract award page): USAspending award to CSI Aviation.
Investigative reporting: POGO — Meet the ICE Contractor Running Deportation Flights.
Airline carriers operating as subcontractors under broker structures (often not named consistently in ICE-facing award summaries)
Fleet acquisition narrative context (still broker-dependent in most reporting): National Desk report citing broker structure.
What they provide: detainee transport buses/vans, escort officers, transfer logistics, guard services
Where to verify: USAspending awards; Federal Compass ICE component awards
MVM, Inc. (escort/transport services appear in ICE contracting ecosystems)
G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc. (transport/security services; appears in awards and notices)
Akima Global Services / Akima-affiliated vendors (facility/guard/transport support seen in ICE/DHS award ecosystems)
(Many smaller regional bus/fleet vendors also appear as task-order suppliers depending on district)
What they provide: ankle monitors, GPS tracking, compliance reporting, case management support
Where to verify: USAspending award records; ERO award listings; watchdog “financial incentives” analyses
BI Incorporated (monitoring contractor referenced in public procurement records and analyses)
Related ATD ecosystem vendors often appear as device/platform subcontractors (not always named on ICE-facing award summaries)
What they provide: analytics platforms, investigative case management, watchlist integration, identity resolution, OSINT tooling
Where to verify: USAspending; SAM.gov notices; investigative reporting
Palantir Technologies (reported “ImmigrationOS” and ICE analytics role) — recent major coverage: Washington Post report on Palantir & ICE.
Thomson Reuters Special Services (investigations/data tooling appears in ICE award listings)
Clearview AI (facial recognition vendor shown as a federal recipient with law-enforcement usage reporting)
Motorola Solutions (comms + equipment appearing in ICE/Homeland security procurement contexts)
L3Harris (tactical/investigative equipment appears in award listings)
OSINT / compliance / investigations vendors visible in ICE award feeds (examples from ICE awards pages):
Gravitas Professional Services, LLC (appears in ICE award listings)
Response AI Solutions, LLC (appears in ICE award listings)
AI Solutions 87 LLC (appears in ICE award listings)
National Protective Services, LLC (appears in ICE award listings)
EnProVera Corp (appears in ICE award listings)
Fraud Inc (appears in ICE award listings)
(All visible through the ICE award feed hub: Federal Compass — ICE Awarded Contracts.)
What they provide: telecom circuits, facility phone systems, tablets, video visitation (including attorney visitation), call recording/retention
Where to verify: ICE program pages; NACDL/advocacy vendor mappings; vendor disclosures
Talton Communications (ICE states it has contracted with Talton for tablets at select ICE detention facilities) ICE — Tablets at ICE Facilities and Talton’s own contract statement Talton site.
Securus Technologies (listed by ICE as associated with specific facilities for tablets/communications) ICE — Tablets at ICE Facilities.
ViaPath Technologies (formerly GTL) (frequently mapped as detention communications vendor) AFSC Investigate — Communications Services.
Global detention communications vendor landscape reference: NACDL — Detention Facilities Communication Companies.
Major telecom backbone vendors appear through federal circuit/service procurement pathways (varies by award vehicle; confirm via USAspending and ICE award feeds)
What they provide: clinical staffing, onsite medical care, telehealth, meds distribution, EHR/records, claims processing
Where to verify: ICE medical program pages; USAspending awards; procurement notices
ICE Health Service Corps (IHSC) program context (not a vendor, but the contracting hub) ICE — Health Service Corps.
EHR/medical records vendors appear in ICE award listings (example: eClinicalWorks has appeared in ICE procurement listings in prior tracking).
Medical claims processing appears as procurement requirement (confirm through SAM.gov/award notices; use USAspending as anchor).
What they provide: daily meals, kitchen staffing, packaged meals for transfers, commissary goods (often paid by detainees/families)
Where to verify: often subcontracted through detention operators, making prime contractor listings incomplete
Large correctional food service primes/subs (often bundled within detention operator contracts)
Regional food service providers near facilities (varies by site; appears in county procurement or subcontract layers)
Commissary vendors (site-specific; frequently difficult to map without facility-by-facility procurement/FOIA)
Practical note: Food and commissary are frequently the least transparent categories in federal prime-award lists; a “comprehensive” map typically requires facility-level contracting documents or FOIA requests.
What they provide: temporary lodging during transfers/processing surges; officer travel lodging; staging rooms
Where to verify: often paid via federal travel systems, emergency contracting vehicles, or subcontract arrangements—not always labeled “ICE detention” in a prime contract
National hotel chains (appear via government travel/lodging procurement pathways)
Regional airport-area hotels near staging hubs
Convention/event venues (sometimes used for hiring/processing events; visible in certain ICE award listings for events/venues)
Municipal facilities and venues sometimes appear as line-item contractors in ICE award feeds (verify via ICE award listings)
What they provide: hiring expos, event staffing, training services, recruiting infrastructure
Where to verify: ICE award feeds for event services; DHS award postings
Event staffing vendors appear in ICE award listings (e.g., expo support, venue rentals, equipment suppliers).
Training vendors (site- and vehicle-specific).
What they provide: facility expansion/retrofits, cabling, secure rooms, maintenance, HVAC, security upgrades
Where to verify: ICE award listings (M&A, ERO, HSI components)
Metrotec, Inc. (appears in ICE award listings) Federal Compass — ICE Awarded Contracts.
Cabling / wiring / infrastructure contractors (often numerous small task orders; best tracked via ICE award feed searches).
What they provide: software licensing, enterprise tools, MFD leases, document management
Where to verify: ICE award feeds; DHS procurement pages
Vendors like Ricoh (seen widely in federal procurement; appears in DHS award ecosystems) Federal Compass — DHS Awarded Contracts (filter down to ICE via the ICE award page).
“Kofax / OCR / scanning / document workflow” vendors appear through software renewals and enterprise licensing.
What they provide: locating people, investigations support, background checks (not necessarily immigration-only)
Where to verify: ERO awards feed (this is a very visible category right now)
Examples explicitly shown in ICE awards feed entries (nationwide skip tracing services):
Gravitas Professional Services, LLC
AI Solutions 87 LLC
Response AI Solutions, LLC
National Protective Services, LLC
EnProVera Corp
Fraud Inc
All shown on: Federal Compass — ICE Awarded Contracts.
If you want a “name-brand” overlay list (useful for virality), see:
Fortune — Fortune 500 companies with active ICE contracts (2025) (also syndicated via Yahoo: Yahoo version).
This is particularly useful for public audiences because it frames ICE contracting as not only private prisons, but a supply chain involving mainstream vendors. (Fortune)
1) Is immigration detention criminal punishment?
No. It is legally civil, but it can still be coercive, prolonged, and disruptive.
2) Who makes money when detention expands?
Detention operators, monitoring vendors, transport providers, healthcare contractors, and enforcement-tech vendors can all benefit from expansion.
3) Why does “follow the money” matter?
Because budgets become contracts, and contracts create incentives that shape enforcement realities.
4) Are no-bid ICE contracts real?
Emergency or accelerated contracting is a documented feature of expansion moments and should be examined with procurement transparency.
5) Does detention expansion increase deportations?
It often increases enforcement throughput and accelerates case timelines.
6) Is electronic monitoring a “lighter” alternative?
It can avoid physical detention, but it still imposes major burdens and raises privacy concerns.
7) How do I verify who is getting ICE-related money?
Start with procurement visibility resources and contractor public disclosures, including USAspending.gov.
8) What is the most urgent timeframe after an ICE arrest?
The first 24–72 hours—location tracking, transfer prevention, bond strategy, and relief screening.
9) Can ICE detain someone with no criminal record?
Yes. See HLG: The No-Criminal-Record Crackdown: Non-Criminal ICE Arrests
10) What should families do first if someone is detained?
Track location, secure records, and consult counsel before signing anything.
11) Can ICE transfer someone overnight?
Transfers can occur quickly; that is why early action matters.
12) Can a pending I-130 or I-485 stop ICE?
Not automatically. It may help as part of a defense strategy, depending on facts.
13) How does detention affect asylum cases?
Detained cases can move faster, making it harder to gather evidence without counsel.
14) What if ICE shows up at my home?
See HLG: ICE Came to My Door: What Are My Rights?
15) Why are communities sometimes split about detention facilities?
Facilities can create jobs narratives while shifting long-term social and family costs.
16) Does detention affect children even if they’re U.S. citizens?
Yes. HLG: Mental Health Crisis for Children and Adults Due to ICE Raids
17) How can I prepare my family before any arrest happens?
HLG: How to Prepare for an ICE Arrest in Columbus, Ohio
18) What are common scams families face?
Fake “bond agents,” payment demands, and misinformation. Verify everything.
19) What is the biggest mistake people make?
Waiting too long to retain counsel and organize records.
By Richard T. Herman, Esq., Immigration Lawyer — Herman Legal Group
If your DACA or TPS ends in 2025, act immediately: You should immediately start the renewal process for DACA or TPS by filing the appropriate forms and fees with USCIS, ideally 150 to 120 days before expiration. Fee waivers are generally not available for DACA and TPS applications, so review USCIS guidance on fee waivers before submitting payment.
- Check whether your EAD qualifies for the new 540-day automatic extension;
- Explore family-, employment-, or humanitarian-based legal options;
- Avoid travel abroad without Advance Parole;
- Contact an experienced immigration attorney right away. See official USCIS pages for DACA and TPS and the 540-day EAD rule.
DACA offers deferred action and work authorization but no direct path to a green card.
In 2025, USCIS continues to process DACA requests, including both initial requests and renewal requests, as well as advance-parole requests even while litigation continues. Always file renewals early—ideally 120-150 days before expiration—using Form I-821D at uscis.gov/i-821d. Both initial DACA requests and renewal requests must be submitted using Form I-821D; initial requests have additional eligibility and documentation requirements compared to renewal requests.
Applicants can use a USCIS online account to submit and track their DACA requests, including both initial and renewal requests. While there is no fee for Form I-821 itself for re-registrations, other fees may apply.
Temporary Protected Status protects nationals of designated countries from deportation during unsafe conditions abroad. TPS status is a temporary immigration status that provides TPS benefits such as protection from removal and work authorization, but does not lead to permanent residency. Individuals are granted TPS after meeting eligibility and application requirements set by the Department of Homeland Security.
When DHS terminates a country’s designation, it publishes a Federal Register Notice setting the effective date, any automatic EAD extensions, and a transition period (usually 60 days). TPS expires on the date specified in the Federal Register Notice, and TPS holders must re-register during the designated re-registration period to maintain their TPS status and benefits. Check the Federal Register TPS notices regularly. TPS holders must be careful to maintain any application for other immigration benefits they pursue, as those applications do not affect TPS eligibility.
| Feature | DACA | TPS |
|---|---|---|
| Core benefit | Deferred action + employment authorization document (EAD) as proof of work eligibility | Protection from removal + employment authorization document (EAD) as proof of work eligibility |
| Basis | Individual (age & entry) | Country designation by DHS |
| Renewal | Every 2 years | During each re-registration window |
| End effect | EAD expires; no status | 60-day wind-down; possible EAD auto-extension |
| Travel | Advance Parole required | Advance Parole via Form I-131 |
| Litigation risk | High | Moderate |
| Path to green card | Only through separate eligibility | Varies by circuit / family links |
As of January 13, 2025, many renewal applicants automatically receive up to 540 days of extra work authorization on their employment authorization documents (EADs) if they file on time. Read the rule.
Find your specific end date on the latest Federal Register Notice or USCIS update.
Examples: Venezuela TPS 2025 notice, Haiti TPS update.
If you filed Form I-765 on time and your category qualifies, your work permit and authorization may continue 540 days past the expiration date. Employment authorization is typically contingent upon maintaining lawful status in the U.S.
Fee waivers for EAD applications are limited; applicants should carefully review USCIS guidance before submitting a fee waiver request.
Leaving the U.S. without an approved advance parole document may permanently bar re-entry.
Apply early for an advance parole document using Form I-131; emergency requests exist but are narrow.
Every case differs — family links, entry records, criminal history, asylum eligibility.
Find an attorney immediately (see firm list below). Seek help from an accredited legal representative or a legal support organization recognized by the Department of Justice, and avoid unauthorized practitioners.
Passports, I-94s, prior I-797 notices, EAD cards, tax returns, pay stubs, and proof of continuous residence.
Expert Tip:
File renewals 120–150 days before expiration to avoid EAD gaps. USCIS Renewal Guidance.
Some DACA holders qualify for employer sponsorship (EB-2, EB-3) or non-immigrant categories (H-1B, O-1, TN) if status and admissibility allow.
See USCIS employment-based categories.
DACA recipients can apply for asylum if they fear persecution in their home country, which may lead to legal residency. An asylum application must generally be filed within one year of arrival in the U.S.; missing the one year filing deadline can affect eligibility for asylum benefits.
If DACA ends and no new status exists, you may begin accruing unlawful presence, triggering 3/10-year re-entry bars. Always analyze this before travel or consular action.
Each notice specifies the exact termination date, EAD extension window, and transition period. See DHS Federal Register TPS Notices.
TPS holders must re-register during each re-registration period by submitting a TPS re-registration application (Form I-821) and supporting documents. Use Forms I-821 and I-765 within the window. It is crucial to re-register on time and submit a complete re registration application to maintain TPS benefits. Automatic extensions often appear in the FR notice—read the footnotes.
Key Insight:
Termination does not mean instant deportation. DHS usually allows a 60-day wind-down and sometimes extends EADs automatically through that period.
Under the 540-day rule, timely EAD renewals continue work authorization even past card expiration.
Employers should note this automatic extension on Form I-9 and verify within USCIS rules.
Read the official policy here.
When TPS or DACA protection ends, unlawful presence accrues unless you have another status pending or a filed application that protects you. Departing after accruing time can trigger the 3-year or 10-year bar.
Need to Know:
If ICE initiates removal proceedings, you may still qualify for cancellation of removal, asylum, or other relief. Act fast—deadlines are tight.
Facing deportation proceedings can be overwhelming, especially for those with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) or DACA. If you are a TPS holder or DACA recipient, understanding the process and knowing your rights is crucial to protecting your future in the United States.
Ohio requires proof of lawful presence through the DPS BMV SAVE system.
Bring passports, I-797 receipts, and current EADs.
Real ID compliance means extra documentation; schedule early to avoid delays.
Fast Fact (Ohio):
Non-citizen state IDs in Ohio are verified via SAVE and are not voter IDs. Check for processing delays ahead of Real ID deadlines.
| Firm | Focus & Why Choose | Locations | Consultation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Herman Legal Group | 30+ years of family, employment, and humanitarian immigration experience; bilingual team covering 10+ languages; offices in Cleveland & Columbus. | Cleveland, Columbus, Nationwide virtual | Book Consultation |
| Siskind Susser P.C. | Nationally known firm with broad employment & DACA/TPS expertise. | Memphis + Nationwide | Contact |
| Murthy Law Firm | Large Maryland-based firm with robust employment & family practice; extensive online resources. | Nationwide | Schedule |
| Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy LLP | Global corporate immigration leader handling complex TPS/DACA matters. | Global / U.S. offices | Contact |
| Monty & Ramirez LLP | Texas firm with strong Spanish-speaking staff and community DACA/TPS advocacy. | Houston / National | Contact |
| Leopold & Associates LLC | Cleveland litigator David Leopold; renowned for removal defense and policy advocacy. | Cleveland / Nationwide | Contact |
Expert Tip:
Choose a law firm that handles both affirmative (USCIS) and defensive (court) immigration cases so you’re covered if your case shifts to removal proceedings.
Q1. Will I lose my job immediately if TPS ends?
Not necessarily. Most Federal Register notices include a transition period and automatic EAD extensions for timely filers. Current TPS holders should carefully follow the latest Federal Register Notices and re-registration instructions to maintain their status. Check your country’s latest notice.
Q2. Can I renew DACA in 2025?
Yes — if you are a current DACA recipient or current DACA holder, you can still renew your status as of 2025, pending ongoing litigation. File 120–150 days before expiration per USCIS guidelines.
Q3. Can I get Advance Parole?
Possibly. DACA holders can apply via Form I-131. TPS holders may also apply under specific rules listed on each country’s TPS page.
Q4. If I’m married to a U.S. citizen, can I adjust status?
Often yes, if you have a record of admission or parole. Some TPS holders can adjust within the U.S. depending on their circuit. A Supreme Court decision affirmed that entering without inspection makes you ineligible for adjustment of status from within the U.S.
Q5. What if I get put in removal proceedings?
Contact a qualified immigration attorney immediately to explore defenses such as asylum or cancellation of removal. Asylum seekers can apply for protection if they fear persecution if returned to their home country, and can remain in the U.S. while their application is processed.
Q6. How did the Trump administration affect DACA and TPS?
The Trump administration attempted to end both DACA and TPS programs, leading to significant legal challenges. Federal judges and district court’s orders have temporarily blocked or delayed these terminations, allowing many current DACA recipients and TPS holders to retain their status while litigation continues.
Q7. What has Homeland Security announced about DACA and TPS?
Homeland Security announced several policy changes and updates regarding DACA and TPS, including eligibility, re-registration, and employment authorization. Always refer to the latest announcements from the Department of Homeland Security for accurate information.
Q8. What role do federal judges and district court’s orders play in immigration programs?
Federal judges and district court’s orders can temporarily halt or block government actions, such as the termination of DACA, TPS, or parole programs. These legal rulings provide protections for impacted individuals while courts review the legality of policy changes.
Q9. Can TPS be granted due to an environmental disaster?
Yes. TPS can be designated for countries experiencing an environmental disaster, such as a hurricane, earthquake, or other severe environmental events, as well as armed conflict or other extraordinary conditions.
Q10. How can a Supreme Court decision impact immigration benefits?
A Supreme Court decision can determine eligibility for adjustment of status, green cards, or other immigration benefits, especially regarding lawful admission, parole, or eligibility for relief under U.S. immigration law.
For personalized advice, contact the Herman Legal Group at www.lawfirm4immigrants.com. Offices in Cleveland and Columbus, serving clients nationwide.
ابتداءً من نوفمبر 2025، بدأت وكالة الهجرة والجمارك الأميركية ICE باعتقال متقدمي الإقامة الدائمة عن طريق الزواج داخل مكاتب USCIS — بعد انتهاء المقابلة مباشرة.
المعتقلون كانوا:
هذا يمثل انهياراً لمفهوم امتد لعقود: أن مقابلات الزواج كانت “منطقة آمنة” من الاعتقال.
ولكن وفق قانون الهجرة والجنسية §245(a)، لم يكن هناك قانون يمنع ICE — فقط “ممارسة” سابقة تغيّرت الآن.
لتحليل أعمق:
👉 دليل اعتقالات التخلف عن الإقامة في مقابلات الزواج (2026)
هذا ما قالته إحدى المواطنات الأميركيّات بعد أن دخل ضباط ICE غرفة المقابلة في مكتب USCIS بسان دييغو.
سيدة أخرى تم اعتقالها بينما كانت تحمل طفلها الرضيع.
أحد المحاربين القدامى صرّح:
“خدمتُ بلدي 20 عاماً… لم أتوقع أن يحدث هذا لأسرتي في مكتب حكومي.”
أما على Reddit ومجموعات واتساب للمهاجرين فقد انفجرت التعليقات:
على مدى عقود، كانت مقابلات الزواج لدى USCIS خطوة أخيرة عادية — تتحول فيها سنوات الانتظار إلى إقامة دائمة.
لكن في 2025–2026، تغيّر كل شيء.
HLG كانت أول من حذّر من هذا الاتجاه:
👉 الحرب الهادئة على بطاقات الزواج
🚨 مقابلة الإقامة القائمة على الزواج لم تعد آمنة.
ICE تعتقل المتقدمين داخل مباني USCIS، حتى لو كانت “المخالفة الوحيدة” هي تجاوز مدة الإقامة.
اقرأ التحليل الكامل:
👉 دليل اعتقالات مقابلة الزواج (2026)
| قبل 2025 | بعد نوفمبر 2025 |
|---|---|
| تجاوز الإقامة يغتفر تحت §245(a) | التجاوز = سبب للاعتقال |
| المقابلات مناطق آمنة | المقابلات مواقع إنفاذ |
| فصل بين USCIS و ICE | مشاركة بيانات لحظية |
| الاعتقالات شبه معدومة | حالات موثقة ومتكررة |
لا يوجد أي بند قانوني يمنع ICE من دخول مكتب USCIS.
الممارسة القديمة كانت “عرفاً” — وليس حماية قانونية.
حتى لو كان المتقدم:
فإن مجرد تجاوز الإقامة يكفي لاعتقاله.
هذا خلاف ما اعتادت عليه USCIS لعقود طويلة.
ما يحدث عند وصولك:
تمكّن ICE من اعتقال أي شخص قابل للترحيل بدون مذكرة قاضٍ.
توقيع إداري — وليس قضائي — لكنه كافٍ لدخول مكاتب USCIS.
يمكن لـ ICE اعتقالك ثم تحديد ما إذا كنت ستحصل على كفالة أو جلسة.
غالباً ما تحيل USCIS المتقدمين إلى ICE بعد المقابلة.
يمكن أن يصدر حتى بدون اعتقال فوري.
الخلاصة:
كل هذا قانوني — حتى لو كان غير مسبوق.
(النص الكامل جاهز لطباعته في PDF — تم تضمينه سابقاً.)
“لأول مرة منذ عقود، يجب على الأزواج التعامل مع مقابلة الزواج باعتبارها نقطة إنفاذ محتملة.”
“إعفاء تجاوز الإقامة لم يعد يعمل كما كان.”
“هذه الاعتقالات يمكن أن تنتشر إلى أي مكتب USCIS في البلاد.”
نعم، حدث ذلك بالفعل في مكتب USCIS في سان دييغو في نوفمبر 2025.
لا. الزواج لا يوفر أي حصانة من ICE.
نعم. تجاوز الإقامة يعتبر “قابلية للترحيل” ويمنح ICE صلاحية الاعتقال.
نعم — كلما طالت مدة التجاوز، ارتفع مستوى الخطر.
الخطر أقل، لكنه لا يزال موجوداً.
قد يزيد ذلك المخاطر، خاصة إذا رُبط بتجاوز الإقامة.
نعم — تجاوز ESTA بالذات من أكثر الحالات التي تؤدي لاعتقال فوري.
يجب أن يقوم محامٍ بإجراء FOIA و EOIR check لمعرفة ذلك.
نعم — ويمكن أن يحدث أثناء المقابلة.
نعم جداً — هذا يؤدي غالباً لاعتقال فوري.
ليس إذا تجاوزت الإقامة أو كان لديك أمر ترحيل سابق.
يعتمد على ما إذا رُفض طلب اللجوء أو أُغلق.
لا. الضباط غالباً لا يخبرون المتقدمين.
عادةً لا.
لا — يمنع التصوير والتسجيل داخل مباني USCIS.
الإجابة يجب أن تكون بحدود القانون وبوجود محامٍ.
كن صادقاً، لكن يجب أن تكون مُهيأً قانونياً قبل المقابلة.
نعم — ويُنصح بذلك في جميع الحالات عالية الخطر.
لا، لكنه يستطيع حماية حقوقك بعد الاعتقال.
نعم.
نعم.
نعم.
نعم — وهذا شائع.
نعم — يحدث كثيراً.
نعم — بمجرد فحص هويتك عند الوصول.
ليس بشكل تلقائي.
على الأغلب نعم.
يعتمد على نوع دخولك وتاريخك.
يعتمد على سجلك وخطرك القانوني.
قد تُؤخذ بعين الاعتبار — لكن ICE ما زالت تحتجز الكثير من المرضى.
قد يؤدي ذلك إلى رفض الطلب بسبب “التخلي عن المقابلة”. يجب استشارة محامٍ أولاً.
نعم — لكن يجب وجود مبرر قوي.
نعم — هذا مهم للغاية.
نعم — إذا كان لديك أي علم خطر (Flag).
تجاوز الإقامة الطويل، الدخول غير القانوني، أوامر الترحيل، السجل الجنائي.
الزواج الحقيقي لا يمنع الاعتقال.
لا.
ما زال الاعتقال ممكناً.
لا، إذا تجاوزت الإقامة فأنت معرض للاعتقال.
نعم — من أعلى مستويات الخطر.
قد يساعد، لكنه لا يمنع الاعتقال.
ليس عند لحظة الاعتقال.
يعتمد على المركز.
قد يستمر، لكن الأمر يصبح معقداً.
يمكنه البدء فوراً إذا كان مستعداً مسبقاً.
حسب نوع الاعتقال والمركز.
يعتمد على مشكلتك القانونية.
حتى الآن — لكنها قد تنتشر.
نعم على الأغلب.
مرجح.
نعم — نظام تبادل البيانات يسمح بذلك.
ليس إلزامياً، لكنه ينصح به كثيراً.
نعم — بشدة.
لا — لكنه يحميك قانونياً بعده.
نعم — للتأكد من عدم وجود تناقضات.
نعم — هناك مؤشرات قوية.
نعم — المحاكم تعتبر الاعتقال الإداري قانونياً.
ليس بعد — لكن لا توجد حماية تمنعهم.
نعم — وربما بشكل أكبر.
ليس بالضرورة — لكن يجب التخطيط القانوني السليم.
Read at: NBC San Diego – Families Detail ICE Arrests at Green Card Interviews
Read at: NBC San Diego – ICE Arrests Military Spouses at Interviews
Read at: NBC San Diego – Members of Congress Question Arrests
Read at: NBC San Diego – ICE Making Arrests at Interviews
Read at: ABC 10 News – Norwegian Diabetic Woman Detained at USCIS Interview
Read at: Daylight San Diego – ICE Arrests at Green Card Appointments
Read at: India Today – ICE Detaining Foreigners at Interviews
Read at: NDTV – Green Card Hope to Handcuffed Reality
Read at: Business Standard – Interview Can End in Arrest
Read at: People Magazine – UK Woman Freed After Arrest at Interview
Read at: New York Post – UK Woman Arrested After Interview
Read at: Visa Lawyer Blog – ICE Detentions During Interviews
Read at: Mebane Enterprise – Mother Detained at Interview
Read at: ACLU Rhode Island – ICE May Arrest Immigrants at Interviews
ما حدث في سان دييغو يمكن أن يحدث في أي مدينة.
وما كان آمناً لسنوات… لم يعد كذلك اليوم.
في 2025–2026، مجرد تجاوز الإقامة أو وجود خطأ صغير في سجلك قد يؤدي إلى اعتقالك داخل مبنى USCIS.
ولهذا السبب يحتاج كل زوجان — مهما كان زواجهما حقيقياً — إلى مراجعة قانونية شاملة قبل المقابلة.
مع أكثر من 30 عاماً من الخبرة، ومكاتب فعّالة في أوهايو وجميع أنحاء الولايات المتحدة، وفريق يتحدث عدة لغات، نحن نمثّل المتزوجين الأميركيين والأجانب في:
كل شخص تم اعتقاله في سان دييغو اعتقد أن كل شيء “على ما يرام”.
ولا أحد يجب أن يمرّ بما مرّوا به.
نراجع ملفك بالتفصيل، نكشف المخاطر المخفية، ونعدّ خطة حماية قانونية قبل مقابلة USCIS.
⬇️ اضغط للحجز الآن ⬇️
احجز استشارة مع Herman Legal Group
لا تنتظر يوم المقابلة لتكتشف وجود مشكلة.
التحضير القانوني اليوم أفضل من الندم غداً.
CLEVELAND (HEADQUARTER)
© Copyright 2025, HLG, LLC. All Rights Reserved
