Since early June, federal immigration agents have arrested more than two dozen individuals in San Francisco, marking a significant shift in the local enforcement landscape.
These arrests predominantly occur at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) field office located at 630 Sansome St. and the San Francisco immigration court at 100 Montgomery St.
As part of a broader initiative by President Donald Trump’s administration to prioritize immigration enforcement, these detentions are reportedly part of a push to fulfill the president’s campaign promise of mass deportations.
A leading voice amidst this upheaval is Milli Atkinson, the director of the Immigrant Legal Defense Program at the San Francisco Bar Association.
Atkinson manages the Attorney of the Day program, which provides free legal assistance to immigrants facing court hearings.
Additionally, she heads the San Francisco Rapid Response Network, a crucial resource for reporting and verifying ICE activity while offering immigrants necessary legal advice.
According to Atkinson, the landscape of ICE arrests in San Francisco has drastically changed.
“It’s daily that multiple people are detained,” she noted, reflecting on how arrests that were once rare occurrences now appear almost every day.
Many of those detained are sent to facilities beyond the Bay Area, often in Southern California or as far as out-of-state detention centers.
Atkinson emphasized that this situation complicates the ability of detained immigrants to secure legal representation.
When individuals do not have legal counsel, their chances of winning cases in immigration court decline significantly, increasing their vulnerability and anxiety.
In a conversation with Mission Local on July 8, Atkinson shared her insights into the changing dynamics of ICE enforcement, courthouse arrests, and the pivotal role of legal support networks during this time of heightened activity.
In reflecting on her work prior to the current administration, Atkinson described a stark contrast to the present climate.
“These six months have been incredibly intense, and things are moving very, very rapidly in a way that they didn’t in the first administration,” she explained.
Typically, attorneys on-call for the Rapid Response program experienced little engagement, as confirmed ICE arrests were infrequent.
However, by January, the frequency of reports regarding ICE activity rose dramatically.
Atkinson recounted the initial chaos as paranoia gripped the community, leading to an influx of false reports about ICE sightings in various public spaces.
Among concerns voiced were non-existent ICE presence on public transportation, in schools, shopping malls, and even during court proceedings.
The early weeks of January saw Rapid Response dispatchers focusing efforts on providing clarity and helping immigrants understand their rights amidst the widespread panic.
As the weeks progressed, the frequency of arrests ramped up, shifting from once or twice a month to multiple detentions each week.
Now, Atkinson and her team witness daily detentions, sometimes even exceeding ten arrests in a single day at the local ICE area office.
The emotional toll on legal practitioners is evident, with attorneys routinely breaking down after long days.
Atkinson noted, “It’s really challenging now to not be able to give people solid legal advice because you don’t know what changes are coming.” Such uncertainty increases anxiety, leading to a perpetually high-stress environment for both clients and lawyers.
Atkinson recalled that a federal holiday, Juneteenth, which typically might offer an opportunity for respite, instead saw arrests being made, further underscoring the relentless nature of ICE enforcement.
In terms of the locations where arrests are occurring, the primary focus remains on the ICE field office at 630 Sansome St.
Individuals often arrive voluntarily for check-ins related to pending applications, only to find themselves detained when that was previously unthinkable.
Atkinson pointed out that the prior strategy involved a calculated approach, where individuals with pending cases were not detained if they could not be deported.
However, current tactics involve detaining as many individuals as possible, often leading people to abandon their claims out of fear of indefinite detention.
This heightened risk also complicates the search for legal counsel, as many detention facilities are situated in remote locations, making access challenging.
In response to questions regarding the daily number of arrests, Atkinson estimated that anywhere from five to fifteen detainees are reported daily, leaving room for potentially higher figures due to unreported incidents or lack of witnesses.
While many arrests are concentrated at Sansome, Mission Local has documented detentions occurring at other locations, including the immigration court at 100 Montgomery St.
Atkinson noted that, historically, arrest frequency in court settings was low, but recently, they’ve observed an increase, with at least one confirmed arrest occurring daily since last Wednesday.
Additionally, Atkinson highlighted a concerning trend where arrests are now being made at asylum interviews, a practice that has emerged relatively recently.
“Starting July 1, we began seeing arrests following credible-fear and reasonable-fear interviews,” she stated, marking a shift in the treatment of individuals seeking refuge.
Previously, these interviews were conducted in a manner that seemed more sympathetic, but the presence of ICE officers during this vulnerable process raises serious ethical concerns.
When asked about the nature of workplace arrests similar to those reported in Los Angeles, Atkinson described San Francisco’s approach as less aggressive.
ICE’s strategy here tends to focus on targeted arrests of individuals with prior removal orders, often waiting near their homes or workplaces.
While this represents a calculated effort, the volume of arrests occurring in work settings appears confined compared to other areas of the state.
Atkinson elaborated that the ongoing expansions of expedited removal processes are critical to understanding the current enforcement climate.
“Expedited removal is a process where someone does not get to see an immigration judge if they want to apply for asylum,” she remarked regarding this policy that disproportionately affects those seeking protection.
The administration had initially signaled that individuals detained would primarily include those within their first two years in the U.S.
However, more recent cases have indicated the target group includes individuals with pending asylum applications who have lived in the country for more than two years.
Changes in court procedures have resulted in the systematic dismissal of cases, enabling expedited removal procedures that bypass conventional legal protections for many immigrants.
Atkinson confirmed that while she has not yet seen deportations following these new enforcement measures, the situation is evolving quickly as cases progress through the system.
Typically, after an arrest, individuals are taken first to the ICE office at 630 Sansome for processing.
Agents transport people early in the morning to ensure they can complete processing before midday, as transport arrangements take place for transfer.
During processing, individuals undergo fingerprinting, photography, and DNA collection, with supervisors making critical decisions regarding their cases.
Once a decision is made about the next steps, detainees are usually scheduled for relocation to facilities depending on availability.
The nearest detention facilities often lie well outside San Francisco, primarily in the southern regions of California, heightening the challenges stakeholders face in accessing support services.
As she reflected on the changes over recent years in ICE enforcement strategies, Atkinson noted a consistent focus on prioritizing detentions of individuals with criminal histories, a trend that continues to shape the complexities of immigration law.
People’s pasts, even those with minimal infractions, follow them and factor into their immigration cases.
Looking forward, Atkinson remains attached to the evolving strategies necessary to support those affected by these changes in enforcement patterns.
“Our biggest issue right now is figuring out how to help people who go to court,” she stressed, highlighting the need for adaptation in legal representation approaches amid ongoing challenges.
The necessity of virtual appointments and adequate legal representation has never been greater, as is the dissemination of accurate information about rights and procedures for immigrants.
Engaging the community remains central to the Rapid Response Network’s mission to provide legal consultations and accurate advice tailored to individual situations.
The evolution of advocacy remains critical, as misconceptions flourish within immigrant communities based on national narratives surrounding immigration enforcement.
Atkinson’s focus lies in building systems that can adequately address the needs of immigrants while fostering community engagement and support.
While there remains a significant demand for legal assistance, it is evident that the legal landscape continues to shift under the current administration, demanding flexibility and innovation in response efforts.
image source from：missionlocal
