U.S. Rep Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL) recently expressing her disapproval over the Trump administration's handling of immigration court cases and asylum seekers.
“I am fully aware, and heartbroken, about the uncertainty now gripping Florida's 27th District because of the recent immigration actions of the Administration. Arrests in immigration courts, including people with I-220A and pending asylum cases, the termination of the CHNV program, which has left thousands exposed to deportation,” said Salazar.
“I remain clear in my position: anyone with a pending asylum case, status-adjustment petition, or similar claim deserves to go through the legal process.”
Rep. Salazar agreed that “the administration must kick out every criminal here illegally,” and “we should keep our focus on them.”
Salazar closes her post detailing a meeting with the Secretary of Homeland Security taking place next week.
“I will meet with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, alongside my colleagues Mario Díaz-Balart and Carlos Giménez, to personally explain the dire situation unfolding in South Florida.”
On May 30, 2025, the Supreme Court authorized the Trump administration's request to revoke immigration parole for more than 530,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela and order them out of the country.
In response, a number of immigration advocacy groups and migrants sued, arguing that federal law did not give DHS Secretary Kristi Noem permission to categorically eliminate humanitarian protections -- only to do so on a case-by-case basis. A federal district court agreed.
Karen Tumlin, a co-counsel for the immigrants, said she fought back tears, as she described the effects of what she said was the largest mass deportation in the nation's history.
"The Trump administration unilaterally and prematurely reneged on that promise, ordering a termination of their lawful status and clawing back their work permits," she said in an interview with NPR.
Despite the federal court’s agreement, the Supreme Court’s decision means the Trump administration can move forward with its policy change even as the litigation continues in lower courts.
