MIAMI — Millions of legal immigrants, many of them Hispanic, have faced renewed uncertainty about their future in the U.S. during the first 100 days of the Trump administration, as the government launched an aggressive effort to challenge the legality of their status.

The Trump administration is not only intensifying immigration enforcement against unauthorized immigrants, as promised during his presidential campaign, but has also enacted sweeping measures that are deeply affecting legal immigrants — as many as four million people, according to estimates from the Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank.

The actions are undermining the sense of security even temporary visa holders and green card holders once felt in the United States.

As of July 21, 2024, there were over 660,000 non-citizens with criminal histories in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s national docket, according to a letter the agency sent to Congress last year. Yet despite Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s claim that her department has arrested more than 150,000 immigrants— referring to them as the “worst of the worst” — not all fall into that category. Many are asylum seekers, individuals admitted at the U.S.-Mexico border while seeking refuge, recipients of humanitarian parole, or even people with pending or approved applications for temporary protection from deportation.

The crackdown has disproportionately affected communities in South Florida, home to one of the largest concentrations of Hispanic immigrants in the country.

Venezuelans are among the hardest hit, but not the only ones. Many Cubans, who traditionally qualify for a direct path to permanent recidency and citizenship after just one year in the country, have been left in limbo. For many in the largely Republican-leaning communities, the policies felt like a betrayal. Donald Trump is already facing extensive litigation challenging many of the measures.

Here is a look at what Trump has done so far in the first 100 days of his administration.

Police and immigration laws

One of the administration’s strongest measures emphasizes increased cooperation between local and state police and immigration authorities through agreements known as 287(g), which essentially deputize local officers to carry out certain immigration enforcement functions.

Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act has been on the books 1996 but was largely abandoned in 2012 by the Obama administration following reports of racial profiling and a series of legal challenges. Although it wasn’t revived during President Trump’s first term, his administration relaunched the program in February.

The Florida Highway Patrol became the first law enforcement agency in the nation to enroll in 287(g) under the renewed effort. Since then, several municipalities across Florida have signed on, including about half a dozen in Miami-Dade County — home to cities with high concentrations of foreign-born residents, such as Hialeah, Doral, and Coral Gables, among others.

Local police officers involved in 287(g) agreements must undergo training and operate under federal supervision.

The Trump administration significantly expanded the number of jurisdictions participating in the program. Traditionally, individuals were first arrested on local criminal charges and then screened for immigration violations, a long-standing practice. However, the administration extended the program’s reach by empowering officers trained under the 287(g) model to operate in communities as de facto immigration agents, acting as force multipliers in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Ending the CHNV program

Trump moved to end the humananitarian parole program for Cubans, Nicaraguans, Haitians and Venezuelans —a move affecting 531,690 people. Of those affected, 39.6% are Haitians, 22% Venezuelans, 20.7% Cubans and 17.5% Nicaraguans.

The policy allowed individuals from the four countries to live and work in the United States for two years, provided they had a financial sponsor, purchased their own airfare, and passed health and background checks. The Biden administration launched the program in October 2022 for Venezuelans and expanded it to the other three countries in January 2023. Since then, more than half a million people have arrived in the U.S. through the parole process.

Michelle, a Haitian immigrant, silently wrestles with the loss of her Temporary Protected Status and the difficult decision of whether to stay or self-deport, on Friday, March 28, 2025, in Miami Gardens, Florida. Alexia Fodere for The Miami Herald

In response to Trump’s termination of the program, a federal judge has blocked the administration’s attempt to rescind deportation protections and work permits for the immigrants involved — a significant legal win for the beneficiaries. The ruling preserves the status of Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan and Venezuelan nationals who were admitted under the Biden-era parole program and had sued to remain in the U.S. for the full two-year term initially granted.

Ending TPS for Venezuelans

The Department of Homeland Security rolled back a Biden-era extension of Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans—and just days later, it moved to terminate the designation altogether. The decision put approximately 350,000 current beneficiaries at risk of losing their deportation protections as early as April. An additional 250,000 Venezuelans could be affected in September if DHS does not renew their protections.

A woman holds a Venezuelan flag during a press conference held by the Venezuelan American Caucus and hosted at El Arepazo restaurant on Feb. 3, 2025, in Doral. D.A. Varela dvarela@miamiherald.com

Homeland Security defended the move, stating that the TPS designation was no longer in the national interest and citing “notable improvements” in Venezuela’s economy, public health care, and crime levels—conditions the agency said support the safe return of Venezuelan nationals. The decision marked a sharp reversal: just weeks earlier, the Biden administration had extended TPS by 18 months, citing “extraordinary and temporary conditions” in Venezuela and asserting the policy aligned with U.S. national interests.

On March 31, a federal judge in San Francisco blocked the Trump administration from revoking TPS for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans days before those protections were set to expire. That ruling was upheld by a federal appeals court on April 18, safeguarding the legal status of many Venezuelan immigrants in Florida and beyond. However, DHS has stated on its website that it intends to end Venezuela’s TPS designation as soon as it receives relief from the court order.

Rolling back TPS for Haitians

The administration has moved to roll back —and potentially revoke —TPS for Haitians, mirroring its actions against Venezuelans. The decision has left more than half a million Haitians in limbo, uncertain about their future in the United States as their home country grapples with rampant gang violence, the aftermath of natural disasters, and ongoing political instability.

Jenny Bellus, 22, months old, with her mother Rose Myrlene Elmond, a TPS holder, during a press conference called by the Family Action Network Movement to discuss the roll back of Haiti TPS by President Trump administration affecting thousand of Haitian Families, on Feb. 21, 2025. Pedro Portal pportal@miamiherald.com

Trump officials have argued that the conditions that once justified TPS have either been overstated or have improved enough to warrant ending the program. Although the Department of Homeland Security has not formally announced a complete termination of TPS for Haiti, advocacy groups say it’s likely—and they plan to challenge the rollback in court.

In the meantime, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has said it will apply an expiration date of Aug. 3, 2025, to any pending TPS-related applications submitted under the July 1, 2024, notice. Haitian nationals are now joining Venezuelans in legally challenging the revocation of their TPS protections.

Using Guantanamo to hold migrants

Trump directed the military to retrofit the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to hold up to 30,000 undocumented immigrants. The administration has already sent people there, primarily Venezuelans, accusing many of being alleged members of the dangerous Tren de Aragua gang. Despite the claims, no concrete evidence has been made public to substantiate the alleged connections to the gang. The gang, which was recently designated a foreign terrorist organization, is being targeted for deportation.

The decision to move migrants to Guantanamo has sparked outrage among immigration advocates, community leaders and human-rights experts who say that the move sets up the U.S. government to violate the civil rights of detainees. Several organizations sued to provide detainees with legal access to lawyers. Dozens of Venezuelans who were held at Guantanamo were ultimately deported to Venezuela, but it remains unclear whether more immigration detainees are still being held at the U.S. Navy base.

Federal court battles

Immigration challenges in federal court have become the tip of the spear through which the adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law is being tested. Out of approximately 175 executive actions taken by the administration so far, about 50 have been met with lawsuits filed by multiple plaintiffs. These include class action suits and broader challenges to policy.

In addition to those, there are numerous individual lawsuits contesting various actions by the administration. Three immigration-related cases have already reached the Supreme Court.

Birthright citizenship

Trump signed an executive order aiming to limit birthright citizenship, a constitutional principle that automatically grants U.S. citizenship to all children born on American soil, except those born to foreign diplomats. The move directly challenges the 14th Amendment, which states:“ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Under Trump’s proposed reinterpretation, citizenship would be granted only to children born to U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Children born to undocumented immigrants or to parents in the U.S. on temporary visas would no longer qualify for automatic citizenship.

“If we do not act now, our country will be forever changed,” Trump said.

The executive order sent shock waves through immigrant communities, many of whom have relied on birthright citizenship to secure a future for their children in the United States. Legal experts and immigrant advocates condemned the move, calling it a radical attempt to rewrite the Constitution and alter the nation’s fundamental identity.

In response, 18 states sued the Trump administration, arguing the measure is unconstitutional. The attorneys general of the suing states issued a joint statement:“ This injunction sends a clear message: He is not a king, and he cannot rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen.”

The issue is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court, which announced it will hear arguments on May 15. The high court consolidated three cases related to the order and deferred a decision on a partial stay request until after oral arguments. The upcoming ruling could have sweeping implications for how citizenship is defined in the United States.

Wrongful deportation to El Salvador

The Kilmar Abrego Garcia case involved the wrongful removal of a Salvadoran national who had been granted a withholding of removal to the Central American country by an immigration judge. Despite that protection, the government admitted to mistakenly deporting him to El Salvador. In response, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland ruled that the government must make every effort to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States.

The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the position, reinforcing the obligation of the government to act. However, to date, the administration has not complied and has yet to return Abrego Garcia. As a result, the district court is trying to determine whether the government is making a good-faith effort to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision.

Invoking the Alien Enemies Act

The third case to reach the Supreme Court revolves around the Alien Enemies Act, a 227-year-old wartime law. The law was invoked in March to target Venezuelan nationals in connection with the alleged “invasion” of the U.S. by the Tren de Aragua gang, which was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act on March 15, and on the same day, hundreds of Venezuelans were deported and sent to a mega-prison in El Salvador.

A screengrab from a video obtained from the El Salvador Presidential Press Office shows alleged members of the Venezuelan criminal organization Tren de Aragua, deported by the U.S. government, detained at the Terrorism Confinement Center in Tecoluca, El Salvador, on March 16, 2025. El Salvador Presidential Press Office

The challenge began in federal district court in Washington, D.C., where Judge James Boasberg ruled that the removal of individuals without due process violated the Constitution. Upon review, the Supreme Court made three key determinations. First, it unanimously affirmed that even individuals detained under the Alien Enemies Act are entitled to due process and judicial review. Second, the Court specified that such review must be filed through a habeas corpus petition. Third, it ruled that the petition must be submitted in the district where the individual is physically detained. These rulings significantly narrowed the broader impact of Boasberg’s initial decision.

Following the ruling, additional detainees held under the Alien Enemies Act in Texas filed a similar case in the Southern District of Texas—a jurisdiction often viewed as more favorable to the administration. Still, the federal judge there issued a temporary restraining order, reinforcing that constitutional protections must still be upheld, regardless of venue.

Using points to identify gang members

The Trump administration is using a controversial point-based system to identify and deport Venezuelans suspected of belonging to the Tren de Aragua gang, according to federal court documents. The system, referred to as a “validation guide,” assigns points to various indicators of gang affiliation. Individuals who score eight points or more — on a scale that goes up to 81 — can be deported under the Alien Enemies Act.

Mervin Jose Yamarte Fernandez, 29, is one of the Venezuelans accused by the Trump administration of gang affiliation and sent to El Salvador’s Terrorist Confinement Center. El Salvador Presidential Press Office

The policy targets Venezuelans over the age of 14 who are neither U.S. citizens nor permanent residents.

DHS Secretary Noem has said that Homeland Security has arrested more than 600 alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang—at least a quarter of whom have been deported to El Salvador without a hearing, trial or any other form of due process.

Revoking students visas

The Trump administration has revoked the visas of hundreds of international students nationwide, with dozens affected in Florida as part of a broader crackdown on college campuses.

In Florida, at least 29 student visas have been canceled, including 18 at Florida International University and eight at the University of Florida, though the actual number is likely higher. Students across the country have filed class action lawsuits against Immigration and Customs Enforcement, accusing the agency of illegally changing the status of their visas.

A common factor in many of the cases appears to be interactions with law enforcement—often stemming from minor infractions, such as speeding or parking tickets, as detailed in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in Michigan.

Declaring an emergency at the border

One of the first actions of Trump in his second term was declaring a national emergency at the southwest border, calling the flow of immigrants through Mexico in recent years “a large-scale invasion at an unprecedented level.”

With the emergency declaration came a flood of federal resources, as the U.S. military was mobilized to assist Border Patrol agents. The executive order also makes asylum seekers wait for their court hearings in Mexico, put an end to an app that immigrants could use to schedule appointments with border authorities and mandated that undocumented people be detained “to the fullest extent of the law.”

Suspending asylum at the border

In the executive order declaring a national emergency in the U.S.-Mexico border, Trump announced that his administration would suspend the right to seek asylum as part of a broader effort to clamp down on irregular migration.

“If they want to seek asylum, they can do it from their own countries,” Trump said. “We won’t tolerate those who try to exploit our systems.”

Under U.S. and international law, asylum seekers are entitled to request protection if they can prove they face persecution, harm, or death in their home countries due to their identity, beliefs, or affiliations. The cases can often take years to resolve.

The move triggered widespread backlash. Civil rights organizations and immigration advocates quickly filed lawsuits, arguing that the policy violates established international norms and congressional mandates protecting the right to seek asylum.

Stopping refugee admissions

The Trump administration has suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, which has been in place since 1980. The program, administered in collaboration with the United Nations Refugee Agency and other designated humanitarian organizations, plays a vital role in identifying, screening, and resettling vulnerable populations fleeing persecution, violence, and disaster.

The decision to suspend the program has sparked strong condemnation from humanitarian groups, including the International Rescue Committee (IRC). Founded at the request of Albert Einstein in 1933, the IRC has called the move “inhumane” and “unjust,” warning that it will not only separate families but also deny political dissidents, religious minorities, and the most vulnerable victims of conflict and catastrophe the safety they urgently need.

Using tariffs as leverage

Trump has leveraged tariffs as a diplomatic tool to pressure Latin American countries, including Colombia, into accepting deported migrants. Tensions reached a boiling point when Trump imposed a 50% tariff on Colombian exports after President Gustavo Petro refused to comply with U.S. demands to take deportees. The standoff lasted for six hours before Petro agreed to allow deported Colombians to return on flights arranged by the South American nation.

Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras have also faced similar threats. The administration warned these countries that steep tariffs on imports would be imposed if they refused to accept migrants deported from the U.S.

“If you want to continue trading with the United States, you need to cooperate,” Trump stated during a meeting with Mexican officials.

Targeting unaccompanied minors

The administration suspended a program that provides legal representation to more than 26,000 children — many of whom are as young as a few months old — who arrived though the U.S.-Mexico border without parents or legal guardians. The suspension of the program, which ensures the children receive a fair hearing in immigration courts, has been criticized by several organizations that offer assistance to migrant children. The administration restored the legal representation on Friday.

According to the news agency Reuters, an ICE memo has outlined an unprecedented push to target migrant children who crossed the border illegally as unaccompanied minors.

In March, more than a dozen nonprofit legal organizations filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration to reinstate $200 million in contracts for legal representation and support services for immigrant children who arrived alone or were separated from their families.

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order on April 1, requiring the government to resume legal aid for the thousand of children in immigration court. Despite the order, the government has not complied, putting tens of thousands of children at risk, according to the Justice Action Center, one of the groups challenging Trump’s decision.

©2025 Miami Herald. Visit at miamiherald.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.