Perla Treviso of the Texas Tribune reveals a 20,659-case surge in habeas petitions since January 2025 under Trump’s second administration, enforcing mandatory detention for all unlawful entrants—even long-term undocumented immigrants like an Afghan contractor or a Florida woman tied to her U.S. citizen husband’s pending application. Courts mostly grant relief, but the conservative Fifth Circuit upholds detention, risking Supreme Court review. While Mexican nationals face quick returns, others from Venezuela, Iran, or Cuba languish in "third-country removals," like Seco prison in Panama. Critics clash: Democrats demand due process, Republicans insist on immediate deportation, and independents question why past reforms failed amid labor shortages, exposing deep political divides over immigration’s unresolved humanitarian and security tensions. [Automatically generated summary]
Today, a conversation about the state of U.S. democracy.
As the nation marks its 250th anniversary this year, Governors Wes Moore of Maryland, Spencer Cox of Utah, and Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma will talk about finding common ground and solving important problems through civil conversation.
Watch live at 5 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN.
C-SPAN now, our free mobile app, and online at c-span.org.
In a divided media world, one place brings Americans together.
According to a new MAGIT research report, nearly 90 million Americans turn to C-SPAN, and they're almost perfectly balanced: 28% conservative, 27% liberal or progressive, 41% moderate.
Republicans watching Democrats, Democrats watching Republicans, moderates watching all sides.
Because C-SPAN viewers want the facts straight from the source.
No commentary, no agenda, just democracy.
Unfiltered every day on the C-SPAN networks.
Welcome back to Washington Journal.
We're joined now by Perla Treviso.
She is a reporter at the Texas Tribune Investigative Initiative of ProPublica.
Perla, welcome to the program.
Hi, thank you for having me.
So you and your team have been tracking a new wave of habeas petitions filed by immigrants.
Can you first tell us what that means?
What's a habeas petition?
Yeah, so it's basically a court filing in federal court, either by the immigrant himself or their attorney, basically alleging that their detention is illegal, that it's unlawful, that either they're being detained too long or they shouldn't have been detained by immigration officers in the first place.
Now, if a person is here illegally, do they still have those protections of U.S. law?
They do.
For instance, we've have cases where people have been detained more than six months, and there's usually around the limit.
Of course, there's exceptions, but generally about six months.
And they can allege, you know, I haven't even had a bond hearing.
Or there's a case, for instance, of an Afghani who had worked for a construction company that did contract work for the U.S. military and had been in the country, or people with temporary sort of status that is not legal permanent status that can file a habeas petition.
And so you have a ProPublica has a tracker of habeas cases.
It's since January of 2025, there's been 20,659 petitions filed, and then you've got a chart here comparing the different administrations going back to the Obama administration, including the first Trump administration.
There's a dramatic increase.
You can see it visually here.
Can you explain why that's happening?
Yeah, and you know, just quickly based on the last question, habeas are not just used for immigration detention, and our numbers are focusing specifically related to immigration detention and people challenging those.
But habeas can also be used for people being detained in other settings.
But yes, the numbers basically you see that big spike because under the second Trump administration in particular, there's been moves from executive orders to, you know, what legal experts say are different interpretations of the law that basically call for the detention of everyone who enters the country unlawfully.
So before the way that it had been interpreted is that if you recently entered, you know, cross the border, were caught within a certain distance of the border within a certain timeframe, I think about two weeks, that you were subject to mandatory detention.
But let's say you had crossed five years ago and you were detained, you know, five years later somewhere in the interior in Chicago, that you were not considered an arriving alien, for instance, and therefore you were not subject to mandatory detention.
Under the new interpretation under the Trump administration, they're saying that anyone, regardless of how long they've been in the U.S., if you did not enter with a visa or some sort of lawful status, you are subject to mandatory detention.
So that has really led to contributed to the increase of habeas that we're seeing.
And is that policy itself under a legal question?
Are there cases that are looking at that or is that going or is that standing, that new policy?
No, so we've seen the gamut, right?
So I think in individual judges across the country, overwhelming, the majority of them are siding with the immigrants in these cases and saying, either granting bond hearings or basically asking the immigration judge to grant them up on hearing or they're released depending on the request.
We also have pending cases in different circuit courts.
And recently, just a couple of weeks ago or last Friday, the Fifth Circuit was the first one to issue a ruling.
And the Fifth Circuit, which is considered among the more conservative, actually sided with the administration on the bond hearing question, saying that basically it doesn't matter if you had already been in the U.S. for a period of time, you could be subject to mandatory detention.
So I think it would still to be seen what the impact of that is.
We were told that it certainly limits, especially for people detained in states that fall under the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas, where I am.
It definitely makes it harder, but it doesn't end it altogether.
And I think all of the legal experts we talked to think that this is probably going to end up at the Supreme Court.
And here's the headline of what you were talking about.
This is the Associated Press Appeals Court affirms Trump policy of jailing immigrants without bond.
Talk a little bit more about that as far as not having the possibility of bond.
I understand that that was typically reserved for violent criminals or for people with the fear of them fleeing, I guess, or not showing up.
Can you talk a little bit more about why that option was taken away?
Yeah, so I think, you know, as you said, someone would go before an immigration judge and that judge would decide, is this person a security risk?
Is it a flight risk?
And if they felt that that person did not meet that criteria, they would issue a bond for them to continue their immigration case process outside.
I think the administration, especially since coming back into office, the emphasis has been that a lot of people have been, that should have been detained, were not detained.
So for instance, they're saying that they're ending the catch and release under the Biden administration, where people would tend to cross the border generally, would be given a notice to appear before immigration officials at a later point and continue their case.
They would say that a lot of them were not showing up to the court.
I think There are others who dispute that statement, but essentially, you know, they're saying that people should be detained as they go through their process because if they do not qualify for some sort of relief, like asylum, they should then be deported back to their home countries.
And it's a lot easier to do so when someone is detained.
If you'd like to join our conversation about immigration detention, if you've got a question for our guest, you can start calling in now.
Republicans are on 2028-8001, Democrats 202-748-8000, and Independents 202-748-8002.
Perla, what can you tell us about the type of migrants that are being detained?
So, you know, since again, apprehensions, which means arrests at the border, had started to decline in the last few months of President Biden as they had limited requesting asylum at the border.
And you continue to see a very steep decline under the Trump administration.
And so, as you see less detentions of people crossing the border because you have less people crossing, you're starting to see an increase of detentions of people from the interior of the country.
So, we're seeing people who have been in the U.S., generally speaking, for longer periods of time.
I've been in court where there's been people who have been in the U.S. 15, 20 years and have not been able to adjust their status.
Internal government data and independent analysis of publicly available data all show that you're seeing a decrease of people with convictions or violent crimes.
We've seen that in groups of people that we've analyzed as well, including those from the Chicago raid or those who were sent to the Sekot prison in El Salvador, the Venezuelans.
So, generally speaking, you're seeing either people with more ties in the U.S., people with fewer people with violent crimes or convictions, more, you know, whose crime is basically immigration violations.
And this is CBS News that says less than 14% of those arrested by ICE in Trump's first year back in office had violent criminal records.
Documents show.
Is anybody that is detained by ICE end up in detention?
Anybody arrested by ICE end up in a detention facility, or how does that work?
Or are they deported immediately?
Yeah, generally speaking, what we're seeing depends greatly by the nationality.
So, if you're a Mexican national, for example, detained here in El Paso, the odds are that within hours or a couple of days, you might be sent back, walk back across the border.
If you come from countries such as Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, countries that have generally not taken their nationals back, which have been a challenge for previous administrations as well, there are different answers for that.
I think under the Trump administration, you have seen flights to some of these countries which you hadn't seen before, but it's still limited.
So, you have what they're called third country removals, and that means agreements that the U.S. government is making with other countries to take people from other nationalities that they can't send back to their country.
For example, if you're Cuban, you might be sent to Mexico.
I know recently a Venezuelan who was ordered removed and he accepted his removal to Mexico because he couldn't immediately be sent to Venezuela.
You had immigrants who were sent to Panama, to Costa Rica.
There's agreements with South Sudan, with other African countries.
So, we're seeing a combination.
Saw also immigrants being sent to Guantanamo Bay for the first time who were apprehended in the interior or on land borders, not at sea.
So we're seeing a combination of things.
But if they can't deport, we are seeing people who have maybe been in detention five, six months or longer, either as they fight their case or as a U.S. tries to figure out a way to send them back.
And Perla, just to be clear, when they are sent to countries that are not their own country, like if they're sent to South Sudan, for instance, do they go straight to prison or are they released into the country?
I think it varies, and that is one of the concerns that human rights and legal advocates have had, right?
In some cases, it's unknown what happens to the individual.
In some cases, they remain detained.
For example, the group of Venezuelans who was sent to El Salvador was specifically sent to this infamous prison called Seco in Panama and Costa Rica.
When we did our reporting, they were put in sort of detention holding centers, but in one case, it was very isolated and they could not leave the premises.
That has changed since then because a lot of time has passed.
So it varies in Mexico.
I think they're taken to different states in southern Mexico.
And for the most part, they're free to figure out kind of what's next.
And they're not necessarily being put in another detention center.
All right, let's go to callers.
We'll start with A.D. in Louisville, Kentucky.
Democrat, go ahead, A.D.
Yes, I just want to thank you, guests, for the hard work that they're doing.
She's doing.
Thank you for your awareness for letting us know.
I think everybody should deserve an opportunity if they're accused of something to go before a judge.
Let the judge deter, not just this administration.
I want to thank you also, C-SPAN, for the great work you're doing, the defendant work that you're doing.
It's clear and truthful.
Keep up the good work, what you're doing, no matter what someone may think, that's just their opinion.
But we know this administration right now doesn't care anything about the truth, even humanity, or people's quality of life.
All right.
Thank you.
And here's John in New York, Republican.
Good morning, John.
Good morning.
I want to thank C-SPAN for having me, taking my call.
And I want to, God bless the ICE agents.
May God watch over them.
And I'm watching this young lady that you're interviewing.
She's saying about the illegals.
First of all, you come to this country illegally, illegally.
You have no rights.
You have no rights.
I don't know what she's talking about.
They're held in detentions.
What they should be doing is deport them right away.
We wouldn't have this problem.
And we wouldn't have this problem if we have open borders.
So I don't know what she's saying that they have rights if they're held six months.
First of all, they shouldn't be held six months.
They should be deported right away.
Okay?
Look what they're killing American citizens.
They're coming here illegal, spending my tax dollars.
We have laws.
We have to follow laws.
And I don't know what the left is thinking and these people are thinking, protesting ICE.
We have laws we have to follow.
That's the bottom line.
It's not fair to us an American citizen.
My grandparents came from Italy, the right-way trail asylum.
And back then, you had to learn English.
Why We Haven't Fixed Deportations00:03:02
And it's the other thing.
We have one language in America.
It's called English.
So if you come here illegally, you got no rights.
You should get deported.
John, let's get an answer for you.
Go ahead, Perla.
No, I think basically regardless of your status, there's certain constitutional rights that everyone has, including to due process.
And we've seen that in judges' opinions very explicitly, saying that people have a right to due process.
And that's part of the legal argument.
When he said that they should just be deported right away, when they are being held in a detention facility, what are they being held for?
So there's different things, right?
I think there's the logistics part that I was explaining.
There's some countries that are not taking back their nationals, which has presented a challenge for administrations from both parties.
Then there's also the case that some people have pending claims for relief, whether that's asylum or I was talking to a young man from Florida yesterday whose wife is in detention and she's married to a U.S. citizen and they had a pending application to adjust her status through her husband and she's detained.
So there's reasons, right?
They're following a process.
I got to witness people who were showing up to immigration court in El Paso and had a pending case and the judge had given them, the immigration judge had given them a date to come back and then they were detained by ICE agents outside the courthouse and told that they could continue their case from detention.
So I think they're, you know, either the logistics because they're waiting to figure out how to deport them or because they actually have a process to go through and the government is just saying that they can go through that process, but they need to do it from detention.
Hugo in Virginia, online for independence, you're on the air.
Hey, good morning.
Good morning, C-SPAN.
Thank you for taking my call and thanks for all you do as well.
You know, my one question is about basically, I can't figure out why we haven't resolved this issue.
You know, people come here illegally because they, for a whole host of reasons, feel like they've broken law.
And so the question is, how come we haven't been able to fix this?
We need people to do all kinds of jobs and all kinds of work.
And honestly, I think there's been a lot of studies about this idea of replenishment and what countries need to maintain their populations.
And we just, I guess, haven't figured that out.
And I just don't know.
I don't understand why it's not acknowledged.
Just like that gentleman said earlier, his family came from Italy and people's families come from all over the place.
So I don't know if your guest has any comments on that, like why we just haven't figured it out.
Highly Political Divisive Issue00:01:03
And, you know, the last reference I would make is this is Ronald Reagan.
He had this similar decision about what to do.
And, you know, they came to a different kind of approach on this.
And I don't know.
So maybe that's my question.
Go ahead, Pearla.
Yes, I mean, as he said, right, it's been a highly political divisive issue.
You know, Reagan was the last one in the 80s who had the sort of amnesty and allowed a lot of, you know, thousands of people to adjust their status.
In the 90s, we had another big move on immigration under Clinton.
And in that case, it basically also, you know, actually instituted bars keeping people who had been in the country legally and had to return from being able to come back lawfully.
And since then, you had Obama, you had Bush, you had others who have tried to come up with, you know, you continue to hear comprehensive immigration reform, but there's just no consensus.