ICE immigration article study with Chat GPT

https://dornsife.usc.edu/eri/publications/immigrant-inclusion-and-racial-justice-reports/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

 The article is saying that ICE immigration arrests involving people from Asian and Pacific Island countries in California rose very sharply in 2025, and that many of those arrested did not have a criminal record. I checked the underlying USC Equity Research Institute data, and the main numbers quoted in the article match USC’s published analysis.

What happened?

According to USC, ICE arrests in California increased substantially from 2024 to 2025:https://www.immigrantdataca.org/data-hub/data-snapshots/aapi-ice-arrests-2025?utm_source=chatgpt.com

• Overall California ICE arrests: increased 386%
• AAPI arrests: increased 1,109%
• AAPI-related arrests went from about 4% of California ICE arrests to 11%, or roughly 1 out of every 10 arrests.

A 1,109% increase does not mean 1,109% of Asian immigrants were arrested. It means the number of arrests was roughly 12 times the previous year's level.

For example, if there had been 100 arrests before, a 1,109% increase would mean approximately 1,209 arrests afterward.

Who is included in "AAPI"?

This is important. The study isn't identifying whether someone is an "Asian American" based on race. Researchers classified records using the person's country of citizenship in ICE data.

Their AAPI category includes countries such as Burma/Myanmar, China, India, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Philippines, Thailand, Korea, Japan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Pacific Island countries, among others.

So, for example, people with Burmese/Myanmar citizenship are included in the Southeast Asian category in this analysis.

The part about criminal records

One of the most significant findings reported in the article is that 56% of the AAPI Californians arrested by ICE had no criminal record, compared with 19% in 2024.

USC's broader analysis similarly says enforcement increasingly included people without criminal records, as well as increases involving women and children.

But "no criminal record" does not automatically mean the person had legal immigration status. Criminal status and immigration status are different things.

For example, someone can have no criminal convictions but still be subject to immigration enforcement because of an immigration-status issue, a removal order, visa overstay, or another immigration-law situation.

Does this mean ICE can arrest Asian-American U.S. citizens?

This is where the headline can be confusing.

The USC data are based on ICE records and categorize people according to citizenship country. The researchers specifically caution that their dataset represents arrest events rather than necessarily unique individuals—someone arrested more than once can appear more than once. They also note that California is identified by the location of apprehension, which doesn't necessarily mean the person lived in California.

Therefore, I would not interpret "Asian Americans arrested" as meaning ordinary U.S. citizens of Asian ancestry are generally subject to ICE deportation. The underlying analysis concerns immigration enforcement and people recorded with citizenship in Asian or Pacific Island countries.

Another important limitation

The article says nearly 3,000 AAPI individuals were arrested, but USC's methodology makes an important distinction: the underlying records are arrest records, not necessarily 3,000 unique people.

Also, the USC dataset covers ICE records from January 2024 through March 2026 and contains missing location information for some records. So these statistics should be understood as an analysis of the available ICE data—not a perfect count of every immigration enforcement action.

In simple terms: the story isn't saying that ICE suddenly started arresting Asian people simply because they're Asian. It's saying that during the expansion of immigration enforcement in 2025, ICE arrests involving immigrants from Asian/Pacific countries in California increased much faster than ICE arrests overall, and a surprisingly large share of those arrested had no criminal record.

For Burmese/Myanmar people living in California, the important point is that the risk from ICE depends much more on immigration status and individual case history than on being Burmese.

The USC study specifically places Burma (Myanmar) in its Southeast Asian category. It found that ICE arrests involving people with citizenship from Asian/Pacific countries in California increased 1,109% from 2024 to 2025, and 56% of AAPI arrests involved people recorded as having no criminal record.

Here is how I would think about the different statuses:

Status	General ICE/deportation risk	Important point
🇺🇸 U.S. citizen	🟢 Very low	A U.S. citizen generally cannot be deported
🟩 Green-card holder	🟢/🟡 Usually low	Permanent residence provides strong protection, but certain criminal convictions, fraud, abandonment of residence, or other immigration issues can create removal problems
🛂 Valid visa/status (F-1, H-1B, etc.)	🟢/🟡 Usually low	Must continue following the requirements of that status
📝 Pending asylum case	🟡 Depends on case	A pending asylum application is different from having asylum already granted; underlying immigration status and removal proceedings matter
🪪 Work permit/EAD	🟡 Depends	An EAD gives employment authorization; the card itself is not permanent immigration status
🇲🇲 TPS	🟡 Depends on current designation/case	TPS is temporary protection and is separate from asylum, permanent residence, etc.
⚠️ Final removal/deportation order	🔴 Higher	ICE enforcement risk can be substantially greater
⚠️ No lawful status/visa overstay	🔴 Higher	No criminal record is required for immigration enforcement

One particularly important distinction is "no criminal record" ≠ "cannot be arrested by ICE." Immigration violations are generally civil immigration matters. That helps explain how the study could find that 56% of AAPI arrests involved people with no criminal record.

For asylum seekers from Myanmar, USCIS itself distinguishes a person's underlying immigration status from an asylum application. For example, USCIS's Burma guidance explains that someone applying for asylum may separately have student status, visitor status, an overstay, or no status. So two Burmese people who both say "my asylum case is pending" can have quite different legal situations.

Also, having a work permit based on a pending asylum application does not mean the asylum case has been approved. The EAD authorizes employment; it isn't equivalent to a green card or granted asylum.

A simple example

Suppose three Burmese people live in California:

Person A: became a naturalized U.S. citizen.
→ Ordinary ICE immigration enforcement generally isn't something that should result in deportation.

Person B: has a green card and no relevant criminal/immigration problems.
→ Generally much more secure, although permanent residents remain noncitizens.

Person C: entered the U.S., applied for asylum, has an EAD, but the asylum application is still pending.
→ The situation is more complicated. The person should know exactly whether they also have another lawful status, whether they're in immigration-court proceedings, and whether any removal order exists.

That's why I wouldn't tell a Burmese person "ICE arrests increased 1,109%, so you are in danger." The statistic describes the increase in arrest events, not an individual's probability of being arrested. The study also cautions that its records aren't necessarily unique people and that California represents the location of apprehension, not necessarily residence.

 For someone with a pending asylum application in 2026, there are several important distinctions—especially given the increased ICE enforcement described in the article.

1. Pending asylum does NOT mean asylum has been granted

If you filed Form I-589 and USCIS or an immigration court has not made a final decision, you are an asylum applicant.

You are not yet an asylee.

USCIS's current I-589 instructions specifically say that simply filing for asylum does not itself give employment authorization.

Also, a pending asylum application is not automatically the same thing as having a separate lawful immigration status. For example:

Someone entered on an F-1 student visa → later applied for asylum → F-1 status eventually ended → asylum remains pending.

The asylum application can still be pending even though the person's original nonimmigrant status has ended. This distinction becomes important when assessing immigration-enforcement risk.

2. Can you legally remain while asylum is pending?

Generally, DHS cannot simply treat a still-pending asylum claim as though it has already been denied. The government must process the asylum/removal case under the applicable procedures.

There are two common situations.

Affirmative asylum: You applied with USCIS and are not currently in immigration court. If USCIS does not grant the application, depending on your circumstances USCIS can refer the case to immigration court, where an immigration judge can consider the asylum claim.

Defensive asylum: You are already in removal proceedings and your asylum application is being considered by an immigration judge. You must attend your hearings and comply with court requirements.

Those are substantially different situations.

3. What about your work permit?

Under the currently published USCIS instructions, an asylum applicant generally may submit a (c)(8) EAD application after 150 days of a properly pending asylum application, and employment authorization cannot be granted based on the pending asylum application until the applicable 180-day period has been reached. Applicant-caused delays generally don't count toward the clock.

There was an important 2026 proposed rule that would make asylum-based EAD requirements considerably stricter, including a proposed 365-day waiting period. But the February 2026 Federal Register item describes this as a proposed rule, so it should not be confused with the currently published 150/180-day framework.

If you already have a valid asylum-based EAD, pay close attention to its expiration date and renewal requirements.

4. Can ICE arrest someone whose asylum case is pending?

This is the part that requires more nuance than simply saying "yes" or "no."

Having an I-589 pending doesn't provide the same immigration status as a green card or granted asylum. Whether ICE can detain someone and what happens afterward depends on the person's immigration history and procedural posture—for example, how they entered, whether they have another lawful status, whether they're already in removal proceedings, whether there is an existing removal order, and other factors.

But an ICE encounter does not automatically mean a pending asylum claim disappears or that the person can simply be deported without the applicable immigration procedures.

That's also why the Sacramento Bee statistic that many arrested people had "no criminal record" matters. Immigration enforcement and criminal prosecution are different systems. Someone doesn't necessarily need a criminal conviction to face immigration enforcement.

5. A particularly important situation

Suppose someone from Myanmar:

• entered the United States lawfully,
• applied for asylum,
• has a pending I-589,
• has a valid (c)(8) work permit,
• has no criminal history,
• has no final removal order, and
• attends every required USCIS interview/court hearing.

That situation is quite different from someone who has a final removal order but later filed something attempting to reopen or challenge the case.

So I wouldn't use the article's 1,109% increase to conclude that a person with a normal pending asylum case is automatically at high risk of deportation. The individual case posture matters much more.

6. There is also a new asylum fee issue in 2026

This is worth knowing.

EOIR currently says that an asylum application pending for one year or more on or after October 1, 2025 can be subject to an Annual Asylum Fee (AAF). For cases before EOIR, the current listed annual fee is $102, and EOIR says another fee can become due for each additional 365 days the application remains pending. Don't ignore notices concerning that fee.

If you have a work permit (EAD) because your asylum application is pending, that is generally called a (c)(8) EAD. 

It means USCIS or the immigration court has not yet made a final decision on your asylum case, but you have authorization to work while it remains pending.

USCIS's current Form I-589 instructions state something especially important: while your asylum case is pending, you are permitted to remain in the United States.

If your situation looks like this

Suppose you:

• filed Form I-589 for asylum;
• received your asylum receipt;
• have a valid EAD/work permit under category C08;
• are still waiting for an asylum interview or decision;
• have not received an asylum denial;
• have no final deportation/removal order; and
• have no serious criminal issues.

Then your situation is fundamentally a pending asylum case, not a completed deportation case.

Your work permit is evidence that USCIS authorized you to work based on that pending asylum application. USCIS specifically recognizes category (c)(8) as employment authorization based on a pending asylum application.

But the work permit is not the same as asylum approval

This distinction is important:

Pending asylum + C08 work permit
→ You are an asylum applicant.

Asylum approved
→ You become an asylee.

After asylum is granted and you meet the requirements
→ You may eventually apply to become a lawful permanent resident (green-card holder). USCIS says an asylee generally needs at least one year of physical presence after being granted asylum to qualify for adjustment under the asylee provisions.

So, if your card says C08, don't describe yourself as an "asylee" yet. A more accurate description is "asylum applicant with a pending asylum case and employment authorization."

What if USCIS doesn't approve the asylum application?

For an affirmative USCIS case, USCIS's instructions say that if asylum isn't granted and the person appears removable or inadmissible, the asylum office can refer the asylum application to immigration court, where the case can be considered in removal proceedings.

That's different from someone already having a final removal order.

And if an immigration judge eventually denies asylum, the EAD rules become more complicated. USCIS currently says that a C08 EAD generally terminates 30 days after an immigration judge's denial unless a timely BIA appeal is filed; with a timely BIA appeal, employment authorization can continue while the asylum application is under BIA review, subject to the applicable rules.

Regarding the ICE article you showed me

Having pending asylum + a valid work permit does not make you equivalent to someone who has a final deportation order.

At the same time, the work permit itself is not a green card and is not proof that asylum has been approved. That's why the article's statement that ICE arrested people with "no criminal record" shouldn't be interpreted as meaning that everyone with a pending asylum application and work permit will be arrested.

For someone with a pending asylum case, the most useful thing is to know exactly where the case is pending.

 Before it was part of the United States, Alaska belonged to the Russian Empire. By the 1860s, however, Russia was eager to sell the territory. The country had been weakened by the Crimean War, and Alaska’s remote location made it difficult to defend and maintain.

 So in 1867, the United States agreed to purchase the frozen expanse for $7.2 million (roughly $162 million today) — or just 2 cents per acre for a territory that is more than double the size of Texas. Secretary of State William H. Seward negotiated the deal; he had long supported American expansion, envisioning a nation whose borders might stretch from the tropics to the polar circle. A handful of critics, most notably the New-York Tribune, questioned the value of the icy land and popularized mocking the deal as “Seward’s Folly.”  In hindsight, of course, the deal was less folly than it was foresight. Alaska proved rich in natural resources including timber, gold, and oil, and geographically it was valuable to U.S. trade and national security — benefits that came to far outweigh its modest purchase price.

Vocabulary

• supported American expansion = အမေရိကန်၏ နယ်မြေချဲ့ထွင်ရေးကို ထောက်ခံခဲ့သည်
• envisioning = မျှော်မှန်းခဲ့သည် / စိတ်ကူးပုံဖော်ခဲ့သည်
• borders = နယ်နိမိတ်
• the tropics = အပူပိုင်းဒေသ
• the polar circle = မြောက်ဝင်ရိုးစွန်းစက်ဝိုင်း (Arctic Circle)
• deal = သဘောတူညီမှု / အရောင်းအဝယ် / စာချုပ် (depending on context)
• folly = မိုက်မဲမှု၊ အမြော်အမြင်မရှိမှု
• foresight = အမြော်အမြင်၊ အနာဂတ်ကို ကြိုတင်မျှော်မြင်နိုင်မှု

Are you ready to help make a lasting impact in the lives of local students?

How do we make it easier for them to receive support before they reach a crisis?

 How do we make it easier for them to receive support before they reach a crisis?

 July 30, 2026 copy fromhttps://mykp.kp.org/en/news/ncal/cannabis-use-during-pregnancy-linked-to-cardiovascular-disease.html ( for learning purpose) 

Cannabis use during pregnancy linked to cardiovascular disease

A recent Kaiser Permanente study suggests -

a higher risk of later hypertension and coronary heart disease for moms.

Pregnant people who used cannabis before or during early pregnancy had a higher risk of developing high blood pressure and coronary heart disease in later years, according to an analysis of nearly 350,000 Kaiser Permanente Northern California pregnancies.

The study, published in JACC: 

Advances, is consistent with other research suggesting a link between cannabis use and cardiovascular health risks.

Kelly Young Wolff, PhD, MPH

“This study cannot prove that cannabis caused these outcomes, but the association remained after we accounted for important cardiovascular risk factors, including nicotine and alcohol use,” said lead author Kelly Young-Wolff, PhD, MPH, a research scientist with the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research (DOR).

The researchers were able to examine this question because Kaiser Permanente Northern California routinely screens patients for cannabis use as part of prenatal care.

The study used screening data collected from 2011 through 2023 and followed patients’ cardiovascular outcomes through 2023, for up to 13 years after pregnancy. Overall, 12% of patients reported cannabis use before pregnancy, and 7% reported cannabis use during early pregnancy (considered the first 8 to 10 weeks).

Compared with patients who did not use cannabis, those who used cannabis before or during early pregnancy had a 35% higher risk of developing hypertension and a 47% higher risk of coronary heart disease in the years after pregnancy. Coronary heart disease includes heart attack, angina (a type of chest pain), and coronary artery disease.

The researchers did not find an increased risk of arrhythmia (abnormal heartbeat), stroke, or blood clots among patients who used cannabis before or during early pregnancy.

The analysis accounted for other risk factors for cardiovascular disease, including self-reported nicotine use, documented tobacco smoking, and nicotine replacement therapy prescriptions. Overall, close to 9% of patients in the study used nicotine. Among the patients who used cannabis, 27% also used nicotine. The increased risk of hypertension and coronary heart disease was seen in both pregnant patients who did or did not use nicotine.

The findings offer information physicians can use when counseling pregnant patients, said co-author Jamal S. Rana, MD, a cardiologist at the Kaiser Permanente Oakland Medical Center and DOR adjunct investigator.

“There’s not enough awareness about cannabis posing health risks in pregnancy, and this study adds a new dimension to our prevention efforts,” Dr. Rana said.

Other research has suggested that THC, the main psychoactive compound in cannabis, can cause inflammation of the endothelial lining of heart arteries, Dr. Rana said.

Young-Wolff said the topic warrants further research.

“The large cohort and universal prenatal screening give us unusually strong data,” she said. “But we still need studies that can look at mode of use, frequency, product potency, and changes in cannabis use over time.”

More Kaiser Permanente Northern California research about pregnancy and cannabis use

• Cannabis retailers, advice, and safety
• Smoking cannabis during pregnancy
• Pregnant patients, doctors, and cannabis

Teddy bears can make health care warm and fuzzy 

copy from https://mykp.kp.org/en/news/ncal/teddy-bears-can-make-health-care-warm-and-fuzzy.html

for learning purpose

 Kavin Desai, MD, monitors the heart of a teddy bear “patient” at the Oakland event.

Building trust in the community

At the clinic, children move from table to table with their toys. Each “patient” goes through a different part of a checkup, just like a real doctor’s visit.

At one station, a toy might have its heartbeat listened to. At another, it might get a pretend shot or a bandage. Some toys even need “surgery,” where volunteers stitch up small tears.

Instead of using complicated medical terms, the clinic uses simple, fun language to help kids understand what is happening. Children can “treat” their toys while learning simple health habits, such as drinking water, staying active, and eating healthy foods.

“It was all designed at the level that kids could understand,” said Dr. Moore.

Kaiser Permanente teams in Oakland were inspired by the Hayward Teddy Bear Clinic. The Oakland clinic will be part of the “Bless the Block” community event, which brings health screenings, school supplies, and other free resources and services to hundreds of families.

Nailah Thompson, DO, an internal medicine physician at Kaiser Permanente Oakland, who is helping lead the upcoming event, said she’s glad to see the return of these clinics.

“It’s powerful to see physicians out in the community, always committed to the whole community,” Dr. Thompson said.

TAGS

Community health Child and teen health

Uber Record your rides for shared peace of mind

 Record your rides for shared peace of mind

We’ve heard from riders that they feel more confident knowing a trip is recorded. It sets a professional tone and encourages respectful behavior for everyone in the car.*

Set it up

 

 

 

Your Record My Ride questions, answered:

How does recording work?

Your phone works like a built-in dashcam— no extra cost, setup or hardware needed

When does recording start and stop?

Recording only happens during trips, so off-trip conversations are never recorded.

Will my phone calls be recorded?

No. Recording pauses automatically if you receive a call, so personal conversations are never captured.

Is Uber listening as the recording is happening?

Nope, the recording is encrypted and Uber cannot listen to or watch the recording unless it is attached to a safety report.

Do riders know I’m recording?

Yes, riders are notified before the trip starts when recording is on, which can help encourage more positive interactions.