Judge upholds ruling on refugee detainments during immigration fraud crackdown
Judge blocks arrests of new refugees in US
A judge has blocked the Trump administration's efforts to detain newly arrived refugees in Minnesota. FOX 9's Paul Blume has the latest.
(FOX 9) - A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction surrounding protections for newly arrived refugees during an immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota.
Operation PARRIS upheld
What we know:
In January, Judge John Tunheim barred the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from arresting and detaining thousands of refugees who are living and working in Minnesota while awaiting their green cards.
DHS launched Operation PARRIS specifically targeting refugees, arguing they needed to be re-screened for potential immigration fraud.
However, Tunheim ultimately ruled that the refugees targeted by immigration enforcement officials had undergone extensive background checks and were approved by federal agencies to lawfully enter and work in the U.S., and thus the operation's actions were unlawful.
The Trump administration argued that Minnesota is a focal point in the battle against immigration fraud — and that Operation PARRIS is focused on rescreening the refugees previously admitted into the country.
Customs and immigration officials have estimated there are about 5,600 newly arrived refugees in Minnesota who have not yet received their green cards.
Operation PARRIS lawsuit: Judge hears DOJ, refugee arguments
Federal immigration authorities are reexamining refugee cases as part of Operation PARRIS, which the Department of Homeland Security says is part of a broader strategy to implement enhanced screening standards. FOX 9's Karen Scullin has the latest details on a hearing where a judge heard arguments from the International Refugee Assistance Project and the Department of Justice.
Dig deeper:
A 66-page ruling released on Friday by Tunheim again validated the injunction ruling, saying in part:
"The Court will not allow federal authorities to use a new and erroneous statutory interpretation to terrorize refugees who immigrated to this country under the promise that they would be welcomed and allowed to live in peace, far from the persecution they fled."
The ruling goes on to question the motives behind Operation Parris, stating, "The Government’s actions in this case beg the question: Why? Why would our Government adopt a policy under which refugees — who have been thoroughly vetted, lawfully admitted to the United States, and resettled in communities with Government support — are subject to arrest and detention the moment that one year has passed since their lawful arrival?
"Why subject them to warrantless arrests, place them in shackles, and transport them to distant detention facilities — facilities whose conditions likely resemble the refugee camps that precede adjustment to lawful permanent resident status? The Government suggests that they are looking for terrorists, but there is not a shred of evidence in the record that they seek to pose serious national security risks."
You can read the full ruling below: