Launch of Operation PARRIS Sparks Controversy (Image Credits: Pixabay)
Minnesota – A federal judge stepped in Wednesday to shield thousands of legal refugees from arrest and detention amid a sweeping Department of Homeland Security review program.[1][2]
Launch of Operation PARRIS Sparks Controversy
The Trump administration unveiled Operation PARRIS on January 9 as part of an intensified immigration enforcement effort. The initiative targeted approximately 5,600 refugees in Minnesota who held legal refugee status but had not yet adjusted to permanent resident status.[1][2] Federal agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection deployed in large numbers to conduct re-interviews, background checks, and status reviews.
Critics described the operation as a “fishing expedition” aimed at terminating refugee statuses through coercive tactics. Reports emerged of more than 100 refugees arrested without warrants, often during routine activities, and transferred to detention centers in Texas. None faced criminal charges or immigration violations at the time of arrest.[2] This action unfolded against a backdrop of roughly 3,400 arrests by 3,000 agents over two months in the state, fueling protests and clashes.[1]
Judge Tunheim’s Strong Stance on Refugee Rights
U.S. District Judge John Tunheim issued the temporary restraining order in Minneapolis, prohibiting the government from detaining refugees solely because they lacked green cards. The ruling mandated immediate release of any qualifying individuals in custody and required those held out-of-state to return to Minnesota within five days.[3][1]
Tunheim emphasized the vetted nature of these refugees, who entered the U.S. after fleeing persecution. “Refugees have a legal right to be in the United States, a right to work, a right to live peacefully – and importantly, a right not to be subjected to the terror of being arrested and detained without warrants or cause in their homes or on their way to religious services or to buy groceries,” he wrote in the order.[1][2] He further noted that America risks abandoning its role as a “haven of individual liberties” by instilling fear in its residents.
Legal Challenge and Narrow Scope of the Order
The International Refugee Assistance Project, alongside Advocates for Human Rights, filed the lawsuit challenging the detentions as unlawful under immigration rules and ICE guidelines. Kimberly Grano, a staff attorney at IRAP, welcomed the decision. “For more than two weeks, refugees in Minnesota have been living in terror of being hunted down and disappeared to Texas. This Temporary Restraining Order will immediately put in place desperately-needed guardrails on ICE,” she stated.[1]
- The order bars arrests and detentions of refugees pending green card adjustment.
- USCIS may continue re-inspections and interviews.
- DHS retains authority to enforce immigration laws against permanent residents or others.
- A follow-up hearing is set for February 19.
The ruling preserved ongoing fraud investigations while addressing due process concerns.[3]
Reactions Highlight Broader Tensions
White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller decried the decision on X as “judicial sabotage of democracy.” Advocacy groups hailed it as vital protection for resettled families, many with children, who faced separation and violence.[1] The Justice Department and DHS had not commented publicly as of Thursday.
Protests, including a large “ICE Out” demonstration in sub-zero weather, underscored community opposition to the crackdown. Democrats and rights organizations accused agents of excessive force, while the administration framed the reviews as necessary to address potential fraud from Biden-era admissions.
Key Takeaways
- 5,600 Minnesota refugees targeted for status review under Operation PARRIS.
- Over 100 warrantless arrests reported since January 9.
- TRO ensures releases and bars future detentions without cause.
This decision marks a temporary pause in a high-stakes clash over refugee protections, reminding all of the delicate balance between security and liberty. What do you think about the ruling’s impact on immigration policy? Tell us in the comments.
