In January, the federal government charged Roberto Orozco-Ramirez, a 42-year-old father of four and auto mechanic, with illegal reentry into the U.S., a felony. 

While Orozco-Ramirez has lived for more than a decade in Froid, a town of 195 people in northeast Montana, he’s legally a citizen of Mexico. Court documents allege that he was removed from the United States by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in 2009.

Orozco-Ramirez’s arrest has shaken the tiny, conservative town of Froid, where some residents have shown support for him through protests, meal trains, donations, and by driving hundreds of miles to attend his court hearings in Great Falls. It’s also captured the attention of people far beyond Montana. Orozco-Ramirez has been held in the Cascade County Detention Center since Jan. 27. The primary concern of his neighbors and family is deportation.

As the story has played out, we found ourselves wanting to know more about the illegal reentry charge. What exactly does it mean, how common is it, and what does it have to do with deportation? And what might it mean for Orozco-Ramirez and his family if he is convicted in the coming months? Montana Free Press spoke with seven criminal defense and immigration lawyers to find out. 

Illegal reentry is a criminal charge accusing a person of returning to the U.S. after having previously been removed from the country. While illegal entry into the U.S. is typically treated as a misdemeanor, illegal reentry is a felony, meaning the penalties and consequences are more severe.

“[Illegal reentry] is more harsh,” said Josh Kolsrud, a criminal defense attorney in Arizona who previously served as a federal prosecutor. “It is more aggravated to have an official, like an immigration judge, order you to be excluded from the country and then you come back, as opposed to just a first-time entrant who’s never been ordered out.”

Illegal reentry is one of the most common federal criminal charges in the country. In some years it’s prosecuted more often than illegal entry. In 2024, more people in the U.S. were sentenced for immigration-related offenses — including illegal entry and reentry — than for fraud, sexual abuse and firearm charges combined, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. In Montana, from 2015 to 2024, 99 people were sentenced for immigration-related offenses. 

President Donald Trump has made mass deportation a cornerstone of his administration’s agenda, and in 2025 criminal immigration prosecutions have increased, according to the Transactional Record Access Clearinghouse. 

A person found guilty of illegal reentry can face up to two years of imprisonment, $250,000 in fines and one year of supervised release, though jail time and fines can vary depending on the specifics of a case and a defendant’s criminal history. 

Illegal reentry is easy to prove and hard to fight, lawyers told MTFP. Prosecutors can point to documents detailing a person’s past removal from the U.S. and then show evidence that the person was found in the U.S. without permission to return. 

Lawyers defending people accused of illegal reentry have a few options. A judge can dismiss charges if an individual can prove that they are a legal citizen. Attorneys can also challenge their client’s initial removal from the U.S. and argue that the person’s constitutional rights were violated during the deportation process. Some lawyers have argued that the illegal reentry charge was created for discriminatory purposes and disproportionately affects people from Latin America.

But challenging illegal reentry on any of those fronts is difficult. Nate Crowley, a California-based defense lawyer whose firm handles illegal reentry cases, said people charged with illegal reentry often plead guilty to receive a lesser sentence. In 2024, 97% of people charged with immigration-related offenses in the U.S. pleaded guilty, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

At a court hearing in Great Falls on Feb. 9, Orozco-Ramirez pleaded not guilty to his illegal reentry charge. 

Regardless of whether Orozco-Ramirez is found guilty or not guilty of illegal reentry, immigration lawyers told MTFP, he will likely still have to contend with severe consequences of his arrest, including deportation.

Immigration courts operate separately from criminal courts, and lawyers say the two systems don’t exactly work together, though they often overlap. The consequences Orozco-Ramirez could face are outlined in a 1996 law passed under President Bill Clinton that significantly tightened U.S. immigration policies, adding harsher penalties for people entering the U.S. illegally. The law also established expedited removal processes that allow the Department of Homeland Security to deport some people without an immigration hearing.

Randall Caudle, an immigration attorney for a Missoula-based law firm, said federal immigration agencies track criminal cases like Orozco-Ramirez’s. So even if Orozco-Ramirez serves prison time for the criminal illegal reentry charge, immigration officers could detain and deport him upon his release without a hearing. 

During Orozco-Ramirez’s Feb. 9 arraignment hearing in Great Falls, a lawyer representing the federal government argued that Orozco-Ramirez should remain in jail rather than be released, calling him a “flight risk.” Some Froid residents, who drove seven hours one-way to pack the courtroom, shook their heads in disbelief, and many were confused when Orozco-Ramirez’s public defender chose not to argue for his release. 

According to Caudle, if Orozco-Ramirez had been released from jail while his court case continued, federal immigration agents “could just pick him up and remove him” from the U.S. — a penalty made possible through the Clinton-era law. It happens often enough to inform some lawyers’ strategies in criminal court, Caudle said. 

“If we have someone arrested for something and they don’t have legal status, or they have immigration issues, often we’ll tell their family, ‘Don’t bail them out,’” Caudle said. “Because as soon as you bail them out, ICE is going to pick them up and remove them.”

The 1996 law also states that a person who illegally reenters the U.S. after having been removed once is subject to a “permanent bar” from ever accessing immigration benefits, including a Green Card. 

Orozco-Ramirez’s 19-year-old son, Roberto Orozco Lazcano, who is a U.S. citizen, said he is waiting to turn 21 to file a petition to sponsor his father’s lawful permanent residence in the U.S. A permanent bar would make Orozco-Ramirez ineligible for that kind of petition, Caudle said. 

“Technically, after 10 years of being outside the country again, you can file for a waiver of the permanent bar, but that’s almost never granted,” he said. 

The post A Froid mechanic was charged with illegal reentry. Here’s what that means. appeared first on Montana Free Press.

Montana attorney general Austin Knudsen announced last week that he is investigating the city of Helena after local officials approved a resolution in late January directing police to avoid assisting federal immigration enforcement, a hallmark of so-called sanctuary-city policies that restrict local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration officials. 

Knudsen’s announcement tees up potential legal clashes between state and municipal governments over immigration policies, and could influence whether other localities in Montana adopt similar policies. It also raises questions about what local immigration enforcement policies across the state currently are. 

A report from the Migration Policy Institute estimated that in 2023, the latest year for which estimates are available, Montana was home to about 6,000 unauthorized residents, representing the lowest per capita population of undocumented immigrants of any state.

According to a 2009 Congressional Research Service report, historical authority for state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration law has been limited to certain criminal provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. That changed when Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which substantially modified U.S. immigration law, including establishment of the 287(g) program, which allows for voluntary partnerships with federal immigration authorities that let local officers perform certain federal functions.

After President Donald Trump took office in 2025, his administration began aggressively expanding the number of 287(g) agreements with local police departments. Congress allocated $75 billion to Immigration and Customs Enforcement over four years through the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” tripling ICE funding over the prior fiscal year and giving it the largest budget of any federal law enforcement agency. 

Montana Free Press reached out to law enforcement and elected officials across the state to learn about their policies. We found that each jurisdiction handles immigration enforcement a bit differently, but all agreed that the roles played by local law enforcement are limited. Only Helena has a city resolution specifying local law enforcement’s role in enforcing immigration law. 

Helena: Resolved that police will work with ICE only under a court order 

Republican Attorney General Knudsen said his office is reviewing whether Helena’s Jan. 26 resolution violates House Bill 200, a law signed by Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte that prohibits state and local governments from adopting policies that restrict cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The law requires local governments to share immigration-status information with federal agents and to comply with lawful requests from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, including certain detention requests.

Knudsen said Helena’s policy appears to conflict with the state law, and warned the city could face financial penalties of $10,000 for every five days of noncompliance, in addition to the potential loss of state grant funding. As of Feb. 18, Knudsen has not yet filed a civil action against the city alleging noncompliance.

Helena’s resolution — a formal statement of city policy directing how municipal resources may be used — states that city police will avoid committing resources to federal immigration enforcement and will not enter into a 287(g) agreement. The policy also prohibits the city from disclosing a resident’s place of birth, immigration status or national origin unless required by law or court order.

In a Feb. 11 statement, city officials said the resolution was legally vetted prior to approval and complies with applicable state and federal law. City representatives declined to comment further, citing the pending investigation. 

In January, Helena Police Chief Brett Petty withdrew from the Missouri River Drug Task Force over the task force’s cooperation with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, telling Helena city commissioners, “ I decided to, for Helena PD, to temporarily withdraw from MRDTF because I want to make sure and keep our focus here for Helena PD [on] the policing and the drug activity.” East Helena, a separate municipality, said it will continue to be part of the MRDTF, which also includes law enforcement from Lewis and Clark, Gallatin, Park, Meagher, Madison, Broadwater, and Sweet Grass counties. The East Helena Police Department has not responded to MTFP’s request for additional comment.

Great Falls: Local law enforcement doesn’t have jurisdiction on immigration 

In Great Falls, citizens have recently urged the City Commission to act in response to ICE activity, with some public commenters calling for a resolution to bar local law enforcement from cooperating with the federal agency, as Helena’s resolution does. In a phone interview with MTFP, Mayor Cory Reeves said the city has no plans to consider such a resolution. In an email shared with MTFP, the Great Falls Police Department referred to Montana Code 2-1-601 through 605, the 2021 statute that prohibits restricting municipal cooperation with federal immigration authorities for “lawful purposes.” 

Cascade County, which contains Great Falls, was listed in 2025 as having a “pending” 287(g) agreement with ICE, but does not appear on ICE’s public list of 287(g) partners. The 287(g) agreement allows local officials to conduct immigration enforcement action, as long as local law enforcement officers “receive appropriate training and function under the supervision of ICE.” 

In a phone interview with MTFP, Cascade County Sheriff Jesse Slaughter said that, regarding immigration law, local law enforcement personnel don’t “have jurisdiction, our role is rather limited.” Slaughter said the sheriff’s office works with federal immigration authorities only when addressing criminal matters within the county’s authority. 

Missoula: Local police don’t enforce federal immigration law 

Missoula Mayor Andrea Davis and Police Chief Michael Colyer recently posted an online explanation of the city’s policies, stating that local officers do not ask about immigration status during routine public interactions and do not enforce federal immigration law. City Council member Kristen Jordan said in an interview with MTFP last week that she is drafting a resolution she believes would affirm local independence from federal immigration enforcement and codify existing police practices, including a provision that the city will not enter into a 287(g) agreement allowing local police to enforce federal immigration law, and plans to submit it this week. Jordan said she believes Helena’s resolution “doesn’t violate HB 200” and described Knudsen’s investigation as “yet another attempt to take away local control.” 

Bozeman: Immigration enforcement is not a local police duty

Bozeman police chief Jim Veltkamp told MTFP in a phone interview last week that his department’s focus is on public safety and investigating crimes, and that immigration enforcement is not “something that falls within our duties, at all.” Veltkamp also noted that the city of Bozeman does not have a 287(g) agreement with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. According to ICE’s list of 287(g) participants, Gallatin County does participate in a 287(g) under the “Warrant Service Officer” model, a limited cooperation agreement that allows specially trained local officers to serve ICE administrative warrants for people already in local custody, but not carry out broader immigration enforcement in the community. 

Local limits, federal responsibility

While officials in Billings, Butte-Silver Bow and Kalispell have not responded to MTFP requests for comment, ICE’s public list of 287(g) agreements indicates they do not participate in the 287(g) program. That list shows that the sheriff’s office in Flathead County, which includes Kalispell, does participate in the program under the “Warrant Service Officer” model. Yellowstone County, which contains Billings, has no agreement with ICE at all. 

Matt Hudson, JoVonne Wagner, and Katie Fairbanks contributed reporting.

The post Where Montana cities stand on ICE and immigration enforcement appeared first on Montana Free Press.

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen said he will investigate the city of Helena for stating that it will not assist U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. 

Knudsen and fellow Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte announced the investigation Wednesday at a joint press conference at the Capitol. Gianforte suggested that Helena appears to have violated a 2021 Montana law banning cities from giving refuge to illegal immigrants. The governor indirectly acknowledged the January killings of two U.S. citizens by ICE agents in Minnesota as preceding a Jan. 26 Helena City Commission resolution to avoid assisting ICE.

“These tragedies, no matter how unfortunate, do not give local government the right to ignore laws that have been passed by the state of Montana,” Gianforte said. “In 2021 I signed House Bill 200. This legislation explicitly bans sanctuary cities in the state of Montana. Under this law, no state or local government can enact policies that refuse cooperation with federal immigration authorities.”

The Helena resolution directs city police officers to “avoid” assisting federal authorities with immigration enforcement. Local immigration advocates had for months urged the city to enact the policy. As Montana Free Press previously reported, public testimony about the resolution lasted three hours before the City Commission voted 4-1 to pass the resolution. Hundreds of people filled the commission room and three overflow rooms during public comment.

Specifically, the resolution orders the Helena Police Department not to sign a partnership agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The agreement is known as a 287(g) agreement. Police are to ask ICE agents to remain unmasked and to identify themselves unless doing so would hamper federal work. 

The resolution prohibits the city of Helena from disclosing any resident’s place of birth, immigration status or national origin unless ordered by a court.

“This is clearly the City Commission of Helena thumbing its nose to the Montana Legislature,” Knudsen said. “The city of Helena does not make state law. I encourage it to retain counsel, get a lobbyist, come up here to the Capitol during the ’27 legislative session and take its best shot at changing the law. In the meantime, we will enforce state law as passed by the Montana Legislature and signed by the governor.”

The January resolution wasn’t Helena’s first directive to police about ICE interaction. A previous police policy instructed officers not to stop, investigate, detain or arrest anyone based on suspicion of violating federal immigration law.

Also in January, the Helena Police Department announced its withdrawal from the regional Missouri River Drug Task Force after the task force — which continues to include East Helena — decided to collaborate with U.S. Border Patrol agents. 

Helena Police Chief Brett Petty said at the time, “ This is not to say that we will never be a part of MRDTF ever again, but I think the best way to do this right now is not enter into that agreement and bring a brief pause to it and see how this actually plays out here locally in Helena.” 

The city of Helena’s public information officer, Amanda Opitz, issued a statement Wednesday afternoon saying the city is aware of the investigation announcement, but has not received official notice from the governor or attorney general’s office about the issue. The city says its resolution was legally vetted. 

“The resolution was drafted with careful consideration of applicable local, state and federal law, and the City believes the resolution is consistent with those legal requirements,” the release states. “The City remains committed to upholding all applicable federal and state laws.”

Helena’s codification of immigration enforcement policy was kick-started after the detainment of city resident Christopher Martinez Marvan last summer. County law enforcement and HPD officers assisted federal agents with Marvan’s arrest.

Since then, community members and immigration advocates have organized, petitioned and rallied in protest of federal immigration presence in the city.

Knudsen said Helena is the only Montana city he is currently concerned with. 

“To our knowledge, there’s not any other City Council in Montana who has formally taken action like this, formalized a policy statement,” Knudsen said. “There has been some concern about Missoula, but I’ve done some cursory investigation myself, and they haven’t adopted any kind of resolution or formalized policy as City Council. So at this point, we’re just looking at Helena.” 

City of Missoula communications director Ginny Merriam told MTFP the city does not have a resolution on the topic and “has never been and [is] not now a sanctuary city.” The city has made its role in immigration enforcement “extremely clear” in recent weeks, including a post on the home page of its website, Merriam said. Mayor Andrea Davis and Police Chief Michael Colyer outlined the city’s approach during a Missoula City Council meeting Jan. 26, stating that city police do not ask for proof of immigration status when interacting with the public and do not have a role in enforcing immigration status. 

Thousands of Montanans have engaged in public protests after federal agents killed U.S. citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti during January encounters with ICE in Minneapolis. Businesses across Montana have also closed shop for days of protest. In Billings, Great Falls and Missoula, members of the public have asked cities to set policies about working with  federal agents on immigration matters. The state law cited by Knudsen Wednesday prohibits state and local governments from adopting policies that restrict sharing or maintaining information about a person’s citizenship or immigration status. The law states that governments must comply with lawful requests from the Department of Homeland Security, and must honor lawful immigration detention requests. 

The law carries a $10,000 penalty against cities for every five days of noncompliance. Knudsen said Helena’s penalty would amount to $30,000 as of Wednesday. The law also says local governments can be denied state grants and lose priority status for state-funded infrastructure projects for noncompliance. Knudsen specifically named project funding from the Montana Coal Board as support that Helena could be denied. The law allows for a waiver of all penalties if a local government complies with the law at least 14 days after the attorney general files a civil action against the community. 

“The same section of state law empowers my office to file a civil action in Lewis and Clark County District Court, which I suspect we will end up doing,” Knudsen said.

JoVonne Wagner and Katie Fairbanks contributed reporting. 

This story was updated Feb. 11, 2026, to include comment from the city of Helena. 

The post Gianforte, Knudsen announce state investigation of city of Helena over noncooperation with federal immigration agents appeared first on Montana Free Press.

A federal judge on Jan. 26 ruled that a lawsuit filed by two Montana State University students whose visas were temporarily revoked last year under the Trump administration’s “student criminal alien initiative” can proceed.

The students, who are from Turkey and Iran, are referred to as John Roe and Jane Doe in the lawsuit they filed last year. One was pursuing a master’s degree in microbiology and the other was working toward a doctorate in physics and electrical engineering when MSU discovered during a routine review of international student records that their F-1 visas had been revoked. 

Shortly after that discovery, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on behalf of the students, arguing that their visas should be restored because they were in “full compliance” with their visas’ terms and the federal government failed to provide the students or their school with “any meaningful explanation” for their visas’ termination.

Days after the lawsuit’s filing, Dana Christensen, a federal district court judge in Missoula, blocked the Department of Homeland Security from revoking the visas. DHS asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit in September, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims were moot because their visas had been reinstated and DHS had changed its policies. The students opposed the motion, maintaining that “there is no assurance that [the federal government] will not once again unlawfully and arbitrarily” revoke the students’ visas in the future.

In a 15-page order issued on Jan. 26, Christensen sided with the plaintiffs, writing that “it is simply not clear what DHS’ new policy is, and consequently, whether that new policy fully addresses the issues presented in this case.” Christensen also agreed with the plaintiffs that it is not clear that “the challenged conduct will not recur.”

Alex Rate, an attorney for ACLU, told the Helena Independent Record that the judge’s order will allow the plaintiffs to depose immigration officials about their actions.

The Doe v. Noem lawsuit is one of at least 65 lawsuits filed against the federal government last year in response to its move to “quietly and unexpectedly” terminate international students’ visas, according to reporting by Inside Higher Ed. Judges assigned to those cases blocked the revocations in more than half of them, Inside Higher Ed found in its April report.

Disclosure: MSU president Brock Tessman is married to former MTFP deputy director and current part-time MTFP contractor Kristin Tessman. MTFP business staff do not have input into editorial coverage.

The post Judge says lawsuit brought by two MSU students who had visas revoked can proceed  appeared first on Montana Free Press.

This story was updated on Jan. 28 at 7:09 p.m. to reflect new developments. 

Community members first noticed the Border Patrol cars in early January.

Though Froid — a tiny town in northeast Montana — is just 50 miles from the U.S.-Canada border, Border Patrol cars are not a common sight outside of the occasional gas station stop. About two weeks ago, however, residents told Montana Free Press that the number of Border Patrol vehicles increased. Two cars were stationed outside a local auto repair shop and one near the shop owner’s house, they said.

It didn’t take long for word to spread in the small community of about 195 people that the federal immigration agents were watching 42-year-old Roberto Orozco-Ramirez. The father of four, who is technically a citizen of Mexico, has lived in Froid with his family for more than a decade, long enough that the local auto repair shop, Orozco Diesel, bears his name. 

Orozco-Ramirez, his wife and their four sons are fixtures in the small community. His sons are active in school sports, and Orozco-Ramirez coached baseball Little League teams in his spare time. He built an auto shop where community members say he went above and beyond for customers. Though Orozco-Ramirez worked long hours, Froid residents say, he made time for school and community events, often showing up in his work clothes. 

As of this week — following a sequence of events that is forcing a deeply red town to confront their own complicated beliefs on immigration — it’s unclear if he will be in the United States much longer. 

On Sunday, Border Patrol arrested Orozco-Ramirez and he was transported to Roosevelt County Jail, about 67 miles from his house. The U.S. government charged him with illegal reentry into the country and threatening a federal officer, criminal charges that could ultimately result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, imprisonment or deportation. On Wednesday afternoon, he appeared in federal court in Great Falls. A U.S. Department of Justice lawyer wearing a black suit advocated for Orozco-Ramirez to remain in detention, calling him “dangerous.” Several of the dozen or so Froid residents, who had driven seven hours to show their support for their neighbor, shook their heads.

A public defender rebutted this, referencing a previous statement by the local sheriff stating he “posed no danger to the community.” Court documents say Orozco-Ramirez has no criminal history.

Ultimately, federal Judge John Johnston set a preliminary hearing, where a judge will determine if there is enough evidence for the case to proceed, for Feb. 5 and a detention hearing, to determine whether he should be released on bail throughout his case, on Feb. 9. He will remain in detention until then. 

Exiting the courtroom after the hearing, Orozco-Ramirez’s son, Roberto Orozco Lazcano, 18, hugged his two younger brothers. Neighbors embraced, wiping tears from their eyes. “It’s nonsense,” Brittney Nordlund, who works in Froid Public Schools, said of the allegation that Orozco-Ramirez is “dangerous.”

“They’re lying,” Rachel Sundheim, another Froid resident, said through tears. “He is the role model we want in our community.”

Their decision to travel nearly 400 miles — one way — to the hearing, which lasted all of eight minutes, was just the latest of many community efforts to show their support for their  neighbor. Though the vast majority of Orozco-Ramirez’s neighbors voted for President Donald Trump, who has made vows to deport “illegal aliens” a centerpiece of his administration, the town has rallied to support him — since his arrest they have demonstrated their outrage at Border Patrol through protests, letters to lawmakers, public Facebook posts and now their presence in the courtroom. 

“The community responded more than I ever thought,” said Orozco Lazcano, a freshman at Williston State College in North Dakota, who returned to Froid last week when his dad called and said Border Patrol was staged outside his business. “They’re giving us help I didn’t know we needed.” 

WHO IS ROBERTO OROZCO-RAMIREZ?

Most people in Froid work in agriculture, producing wheat, alfalfa and barley and raising cattle. Others work in the school, post office, bank, or oil fields. Liz Melbourne, who graduated from Froid Public Schools and whose kids now attend school there, described the 0.6 square mile town as a “storybook” community and called the recent incident with Orozco-Ramirez — one of just 11 or so Hispanic residents according to Census data — “eye-opening.”

“I think it pretty much rocked everybody’s world to see something like this,” said Melbourne. On Sunday, just before she learned that Border Patrol agents had taken Orozco-Ramirez away, Melbourne stood for five hours with a handful of protesters on the side of the road near Orozco-Ramirez’s business.

Melbourne, who doesn’t describe herself as Republican or Democrat, said she understood Trump’s immigration policy to be about arresting and deporting people who were living in the U.S. illegally and who had also committed crimes. That’s one reason why Orozco-Ramirez’s detainment came as a shock. 

“They weren’t criminals,” she said. “Roberto is a father, he opened his own business. He has a great family. They’re just model citizens.”

The other shock, for Melbourne and her neighbors, was that Trump’s national immigration crackdown had extended beyond big cities, like Chicago and Minneapolis, and infiltrated her small town. 

“That’s my fear,” she said. “It’s that I’m living in a small town and now this is in my backyard.”

To resident Laurie Young, Orozco-Ramirez and his family embodied the American dream. 

“When they moved here, they never asked for anything,” she told MTFP in an interview Monday, choking back tears. “They bought a home, put their kids in school, they built that business from the ground up. They just worked their butts off. … When I think of people coming to the U.S. for a better life, I just can’t imagine any family doing more than he has.”

Orozco-Ramirez’s diesel shop in Froid provided crucial services to community members who would otherwise have to drive an hour to Williston, North Dakota, for repairs. Keith Nordlund, a technician at a local power plant who attended the hearing with his wife Brittney, said Orozco-Ramirez once worked through the night, and in cold winter temperatures, to repair a school bus that had lost heat. 

“He did it for the school,” Nordlund said. “He did it for the kids to ensure they’d have a safe ride. He’s always looking out for everybody else. He’s doing what he can to help anybody and everybody.”

Nordlund, who’s been in touch with Orozco-Ramirez’s family, said it was obvious that Border Patrol was targeting them over the past month. Orozco-Ramirez’s children, who range in age from second grade to college, told him they couldn’t leave their house without being pulled over.

“Anytime they took off driving, Border Patrol would wait until they’re a ways away, pull them over, check the vehicle, make sure there was nobody else inside of it and then just send them on their way,” he said, adding that Orozco-Ramirez’s children were born in the U.S. and are American citizens. “They would follow them to and from school. It got so bad, all of the kids are no longer in school.” 

In a school of 81 students from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade, Young said, those  absences felt “loud.” 

Young, another community member, confirmed that Border Patrol was often parked one block from school. “We have three streets in town. There was no avoiding them!” she said

“The kids don’t know what to do for their friends,” she said, adding that her son is friends with Orozco-Ramirez’s son. “And it’s so hard to explain to them. How do you explain that this is the culture of our country right now? There’s no good way.”

Representatives for Border Patrol did not respond to a request for comment on how they interacted with Orozco-Ramirez’s children. 

WHAT HAPPENED?

According to court filings, in March and July, two of Orozco-Ramirez’s brothers were apprehended by Border Patrol in Scobey and Bainville, two other small towns in northeast Montana. Orozco-Ramirez was then identified by Border Patrol agents in the area who believed he was in the U.S. illegally. The complaint alleges that Orozco-Ramirez “was removed” from the U.S. in 2009 by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

On Jan. 15, wearing plain clothes and driving in unmarked vehicles, according to the complaint, Border Patrol agents knocked on the door of Orozco Diesel. Orozco-Ramirez was suspicious of the officers and refused to let them into the building, according to court documents. Border patrol agents also accuse him of yelling threats at them as they left the area and throwing a two-by-six piece of lumber in their direction as they drove away. 

Young was not present at the time of the arrest. But the neighbor was sympathetic of a desire to throw something and yell at plain-clothed agents driving in unmarked vehicles.“ They tried to force their way in. Came back with rifles. If anyone showed up to our door in regular clothes, I would do the same thing,” she said.

On Sunday, the Roosevelt County Sheriff’s Office announced in a Facebook post that a man, later confirmed to be Orozco-Ramirez, had surrendered to local law enforcement after Border Patrol agents were staged near a business in Froid. 

“It’s important to note that the man and his family have been productive members of the community and have had no negative interactions with local law enforcement since they moved here over a decade ago,” the Facebook post reads. “The man posed no danger to the community at any point during this incident.”

The complaint states that there is no record within the Department of Homeland Security that he applied for permission to re-enter the United States after he was removed from the U.S. by ICE in 2009. The complaint also states Orozco-Ramirez “was identified as a Surenos gang member when initially encountered in Logan, Utah.” Representatives for Border Patrol did not respond to questions about how the agency made that determination or what allegedly happened in Utah. Border Patrol made similar gang allegations in three other Montana cases in 2025 that defense attorneys disputed and judges later dismissed.

Alex Rate, legal director of ACLU Montana, said that references to gang affiliation can lack credibility. 

“We have seen that this administration has trumped up allegations of criminal behavior or gang participation in order to justify the detention and removal of an individual who otherwise had no gang affiliation or criminal history,” he said. “It’s been weaponized in a way that’s particularly harmful to immigrants and immigrant communities.”

Froid residents said they were stunned by the gang accusation. 

“That may work in a big city where people don’t know each other,” Young said. “That won’t work here.” 

The penalty for illegal re-entry in the U.S. is up to two years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine, and the penalty for threatening a federal officer is up to six years imprisonment with a $250,000 fine. Either conviction could lead to deportation.

COMMUNITY ACTION AND CONCERN

Just before Orozco-Ramirez was detained Sunday, a handful of Froid community members stood on the side of the road near Orozco Diesel holding signs in support of his family. Passersby honked and waved in support. One flashed a middle finger, according to Melbourne, who attended the protest. 

And hours after the Roosevelt County Sheriff’s Facebook post went up that evening, Froid residents began circulating a digital flyer, showing photos of Orozco-Ramirez and his family, reading “STAND WITH THE OROZCO’S” in big, block letters. Others encouraged people to write and call members of Montana’s delegation expressing concern. Some people, Nordlund said, collected donations to cover Orozco-Ramirez’s legal fees; others organized a meal train for his family. Young asked people to share personal statements and photos showing Orozco-Ramirez’s community involvement, should they be helpful to the family in court. 

A sample email template addressing Montana elected officials that’s circulating among Froid residents describes Orozco-Ramirez as “a respected and deeply rooted member of the community” and encourages Montana lawmakers to review his case. It also asks leaders for guidance “in determining whether any lawful pathways may exist that could allow Mr. Orozco Ramirez to pursue legal status.” Nordlund, whose son is friends with Orozco-Ramirez’s son, said he sent the email to Gov. Greg Gianforte and Sens. Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy.

Attending the hearing on Wednesday was the next logical step. Some neighbors carpooled in large SUVs. Orozco-Ramirez’s sons drove together, leaving their terrified mother and second-grade brother back in Froid. Kate Eby, a nurse in Great Falls who had never met Orozco-Ramirez, was amongst their midst. She said she heard about the hearing in Great Falls from a coworker who lived in Froid. She made sure to attend and show her support.

“It’s easy to look at Minneapolis and say it’s far away, and that doesn’t happen here,” she said. “But it does. And it’s not the same. Compared to big cities, we’re lacking resources. We’re lacking numbers. But to have community in Montana, the boundaries have to be a little bit bigger. I wanted the family to know we’re here.”

When people are taken by law enforcement, transferred to facilities and deported, she said, it’s hard to know where they end up.

“Paying attention like this keeps people safe,” she said. 

Nordlund, who expressed his support for Orozco-Ramirez on Facebook, said he’s mostly heard from people who want to help but has also received some criticism.

“They said, ‘I can’t believe you’re helping them. I can’t believe you’re doing this,’” he told MTFP. “I said, ‘You know what? Up until six months ago, I didn’t know Roberto was illegal. And he is my friend. His status doesn’t change that I am his friend.’ Do I agree with him being here illegally? No, I actually don’t. But all I can try to do is help him become legal.” 

The post When Border Patrol arrested a beloved mechanic in Froid, Montana, neighbors were forced to reckon with national immigration policy appeared first on Montana Free Press.

BOZEMAN — Thousands of Montanans around the state held protests Sunday and Monday in the wake of Alex Pretti’s killing by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis on Jan. 24 and in response to the Trump administration’s immigration policies writ large.

Hundreds gathered in front of the Gallatin County Courthouse on Sunday afternoon. In Missoula, a crowd of more than 1,000 people, enough to span the 325-yard Beartracks Bridge, rallied according to some reports. There were also two events in Billings on Sunday, and another set for Helena Monday night.
As Montanans took to the streets, Montana’s congressional delegation indicated support for an investigation into Pretti’s killing, but sidestepped questions Monday about the Second Amendment right of Pretti, who had a permitted, holstered handgun. All four politicians have campaigned as defenders of gun rights.

Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse who worked for Veterans Affairs, was shot and killed by federal officers Saturday morning in an act that has roiled the country. While Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has defended DHS agents’ actions, describing the DHS officer who shot Pretti as “fearing for his life and the lives of his fellow officers around him,” that account — and the federal government’s denial of state investigators’ access to the crime scene — has come under sharp criticism as a proliferation of videos taken by onlookers indicate that federal officers had already sprayed chemical irritant into Pretti’s eyes, pinned him to the ground and seized the firearm he was authorized to carry before shooting him up to 10 times.

Bozeman residents who participated in the “emergency protest” carried cardboard signs painted with phrases such as “abolish ICE,” “ICE murders” and “Democracy doesn’t fear protest dictators do.” One protester carried an upside-down flag — a sign of a nation in distress — marked with the words “failed state,” while others referenced the killing of Renee Good, another Minnesota resident, by ICE earlier this month, an event that spurred as many as 600 Missoulians to gather on Jan. 11, along with other rallies statewide.

A handful of Bozeman police officers monitored Bozeman’s protest, which was organized by Montana State University students and featured chants of “no justice, no peace, no ICE in our streets.” Bozeman Police Department Deputy Chief Joseph Swanson described Bozeman’s protest as a “very peaceful and orderly event” in an email to MTFP.

Protesters at the Bozeman event criticized Montana’s all-Republican federal delegation for supporting Trump’s immigration policies. 

Montana Free Press requested interviews with all four members of Montana’s Republican delegation about the federal government’s role in Pretti’s death. No interviews were provided. Specifically, MTFP asked whether Pretti’s Second Amendment rights were recognized by federal agents and what type of accountability federal agencies should anticipate in the wake of this month’s fatal shootings by federal officers. 

Though DHS has claimed Pretti approached agents holding a gun, video verified by news outlets shows he was carrying a phone in his hands and that agents yelled that he had a gun only after he was pinned down. Pretti had a valid firearms permit, and open carry is allowed under Minnesota law with that permit. 

The offices of U.S. Sens. Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy and U.S. Rep. Troy Downing submitted comments from the lawmakers in response to MTFP inquiries. Rep. Ryan Zinke was on a congressional trip out of the country, according to a spokesperson.

Downing, Daines and Sheehy expressed support for an investigation in their responses to MTFP and described Pretti’s death as a “tragedy.”

“Sadly, this tragedy was avoidable. Assaults against Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officers across the country are up 1,300% and are being fueled by caustic rhetoric designed to provoke altercations, not avoid them,” Downing said. “I stand with our men and women in uniform who work tirelessly to keep our communities safe and support ongoing efforts to facilitate a complete investigation of the incident in question.”

Like Montana’s other statewide elected officials, Downing has been a vocal advocate for the Second Amendment and concealed carry laws. Last year, Downing co-sponsored the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2025, which would allow someone who has been authorized to carry a concealed weapon in one state the clearance to do so in another state with a concealed carry law.

“It is heartbreaking to see another avoidable tragedy unfold in Minnesota,” Sheehy said in a statement. “We as Americans must bridge our differences without violence. As is standard with any fatal law enforcement encounter, there will be a full investigation. I strongly urge [Minnesota Gov.] Tim Walz and [Minneapolis] Mayor [Jacob] Frey to cooperate with ICE so we can avoid future tragedies and facilitate safe and orderly enforcement of our immigration laws. Brave law enforcement officers put themselves in harm’s way each day to keep our streets safe, and they deserve our respect and support.”

In a short statement, Daines described the event as a “tragedy that should be fully investigated” before transitioning to his continued support of Trump and his hope that it won’t stall ongoing federal budget negotiations. Some Democrats in D.C. have vowed not to support a federal funding bill that includes $64 billion for the Department of Homeland Security in the wake of this month’s events. If enough Senate Democrats continue to oppose the bill, much of the federal government could be forced into a shutdown by the end of the week. 

“I am glad President Trump is directly engaged in the situation and sent Border Czar Tom Homan to Minneapolis. We must continue to support law enforcement and fund the government in order to avoid a shutdown this week,” Daines said.

Zinke’s staff advised MTFP that he was out of the country and unable to respond Monday to questions about Pretti’s killing. However, in a conversation with MTFP on Jan. 20, Zinke emphasized his support for a House-passed spending bill that includes $20 million of funding for body cameras for immigration officials and $2 million for officer training on de-escalation as part of a larger package that cuts $1.3 billion from Customs and Border Patrol and maintains ICE’s budget at $10 billion. If enough lawmakers continue to protest funding for DHS and ICE, the House bill Zinke voted for could falter amid Senate Democrats’ resistance to funding federal agencies implementing Trump’s immigration agenda.

Montana Democratic Party Chair Shannon O’Brien issued an unsolicited statement Sunday describing Pretti’s killing as an event that has “outraged and horrified” Montana Democrats. “Our hearts go out to Pretti’s family, friends and all those mourning this tragic loss,” O’Brien said. “The repeated violence committed by this administration is unacceptable and needs to stop now. Get ICE and their inexperienced agents off the streets before more lives are needlessly lost.”

The Montana Republican Party made no public statement and didn’t mention the shooting on its digital platforms.

On Thursday, state Sen. Cora Neumann, D-Bozeman, will be joined by six other Democratic state lawmakers in a “day of solidarity” with Minnesota lawmakers tied to a hearing of the Minnesota Select Subcommittee on Federal Impacts. 

In a phone conversation with MTFP on Monday evening, Neumann said she organized the trip to Minnesota, which will also feature participation by other Montana lawmakers appearing virtually, to counter Trump’s “divide and conquer” strategy. 

“State legislators have not come together like this as a group of states to push back since Trump was elected, and I thought now’s the time to show up in person,” she said. “There is consensus at a national level — across Democrats and Republicans — that it’s not OK to have masked, unidentified agents in our cities and towns and rural areas terrorizing our population. Enough is enough. This was, for me, the final straw. It may not be happening here, but if it’s happening in Minnesota and other places as well, there’s no reason it can’t happen here.”

Helena residents are organizing events and calls for action this week. On Monday night, Indivisible Helena is organizing an event “to mourn another tragic death and take action.” The organization, which is part of a larger national effort to “protect our democracy” and “resist the fascist agenda,”is pushing the Helena City Commission to adopt a resolution that would prevent the city from working with ICE to arrest and remove unauthorized immigrants. The group is also pushing the city to adopt policies that would require ICE agents to de-mask and prohibit racial profiling — an issue that came to the forefront in the apparent mistaken identity arrest of Christopher Martinez Marvan by Helena police officers last year.

Additionally, a Helena High School student is planning an “anti-ICE, student-led peaceful walkout” on Jan. 29.

The post Montanans protest ICE, Trump’s immigration policies appeared first on Montana Free Press.

In 2015, Dakota Wheeler and his mother were booked on a flight from Salt Lake City to London Heathrow, a couple of hours’ drive from their home in Birmingham, England. They were supposed to return after staying two months in Great Falls.

Wheeler, who was 15 at the time, never got on that flight. Neither did his mother, Lisa Anderson, who said she was told that if she left the country, it could scuttle her ability to return and get resident status later on. Instead, she said, she stayed in the country and married an American man she’d known online for a few years.

“They said you’re getting married,” Anderson told Montana Free Press Wednesday. “And I said, ‘Huh? I’m flying out tomorrow.'”

Court documents say that while the new husband originally applied for green cards on behalf of both Wheeler and Anderson, only Anderson received lawful permanent status in 2022.

Wheeler never received resident status. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement alleges that he overstayed a visa waiver that expired in 2015, and an order of removal is pending against him.

Now 26, Wheeler is engaged to a woman who is expecting their child in the spring. He’s fighting his deportation order in court.

U.S. Homeland Security Investigations agents arrested Wheeler on Nov. 5, 2025 — 11 years to the day after he arrived in the U.S. from England. The arrest happened at The Rainbow senior living home, where Wheeler worked in downtown Great Falls. He’d been a kitchen worker there for eight years. Immigration agents responded to “several tips” about Wheeler’s status before arresting him, according to documents filed in U.S. District Court.

During a hearing Wednesday in that court, attorneys debated whether a judge’s order preventing Wheeler’s removal from Montana — a next step in his potential deportation — by ICE could remain in place.

Wheeler’s attorney argued that because Wheeler came to the United States with his mother as a 15-year-old, it wasn’t up to him whether he stayed or left. 

Wheeler and his mother entered the United States through the visa waiver program, which allows tourists or business visitors to stay for 90 days without requiring a visa.

“The visa waiver program, as applied to a minor, is punishing a minor for a situation that the minor has no control over,” Wheeler’s attorney, Nathan Ellis, said during the hearing Wednesday.

While the United States waives a visa requirement in the program, the travelers also waive their rights “to contest, other than on the basis of an application for asylum, any action for removal of any alien,” according to U.S. code. Wheeler has not made an asylum claim.

Arguing on behalf of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Wednesday, Assistant U.S. Attorney John Newman said that Wheeler came to the country under these waiver rules and that they should be applied to him no matter his age.

“The VWP (visa waiver program) entrant has benefited from the visa waiver program,” Newman said. “So, having received the benefit, that person is subject to the strictures of the waiver program.”

Newman also argued that the federal district court of Montana isn’t the right jurisdiction for a judge to restrain ICE from carrying out Wheeler’s removal. He said that case law requires it to be handled in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

U.S. District Judge Brian Morris heard the arguments Wednesday after issuing an order in November that blocked ICE from carrying out Wheeler’s removal, at least temporarily. Morris’ questions during the hearing emphasized that, although a minor, Wheeler was under his mother’s care when he signed up for the visa waiver program.

“Why didn’t the mother have the authority to execute the waiver on his behalf?” Morris asked.

Ellis argued that given the seriousness of the rights given up through waiver, there should be a “higher standard of protection” for minors. In a court brief, he wrote that Wheeler didn’t understand those rights at the time.

“There is no evidence that Dakota, at age 15, had the capacity to understand the complex legal consequences of the VWP waiver, which purports to waive all rights to contest removal, except through asylum,” Ellis wrote. “Likewise, there is no evidence that Dakota had any say in the matter.”

Questions about how Wheeler remained in Great Falls for so long seem to revolve around one place: The Rainbow senior living home, where Wheeler held a kitchen job for eight years despite his nonresident status.

“There was no I-9 on him,” Dena Schoolcraft, the former executive director at The Rainbow, told MTFP Wednesday. “He was always paid through a petty-cash account.”

An I-9 is an employment verification form that confirms an employee’s citizenship or legal status, allowing them to receive taxed wages.

Schoolcraft said that the CEO of the senior living center’s management company approved all payments, including the allegedly under-the-table payments to Wheeler. The Rainbow is operated by New Jersey-based Texoma Management, and its CEO is Charles Pinter.

Reached on Wednesday, Pinter said Wheeler faced an “unfortunate situation” but that he knew little about it. Asked how someone with Wheeler’s status could work for so long at The Rainbow, Pinter blamed a manager who recently departed, though he didn’t name the person.

“There was a manager, the main person who took care of it; she did the hiring and accepting,” Pinter said. “She no longer works for the company.”

Schoolcraft said she didn’t like the payment setup with Wheeler and was fired by Pinter in September.

No matter who approved payments to Wheeler, he remained employed at The Rainbow until his arrest on Nov. 5. Anderson, Wheeler’s mother, worked at The Rainbow before gaining lawful resident status in 2022 and continues to work there today.

Paige McAtee, Wheeler’s fiancée, said she met Wheeler while working as a caregiver at The Rainbow. They started dating early this year. Arrest records filed by ICE quote Wheeler as saying, “I have a wife and kids,” though he wasn’t yet married, and McAtee’s 2-year-old daughter isn’t Wheeler’s.

But, McAtee told MTFP, Wheeler has been a father to her daughter.

“She isn’t biologically his, but he’s been to her first birthday party and to her second birthday party,” McAtee said. “She calls him dad. That’s her dad.”

Now they’re expecting a child together next spring. She said they considered hiring an attorney about getting resident status, but the consultation was $350 and the hourly rates afterward were nearly as much. They decided to save up, she said.

McAtee described Wheeler as a good father and a reliable employee at The Rainbow over his eight years working there.

“He didn’t miss a single day, unless we went to my OB appointments,” she said.

Judge Morris didn’t issue a ruling from the bench but promised a decision soon. Wheeler has been in the Cascade County Detention Center since his Nov. 5 arrest.

The post Court hears arguments for British man who arrived in U.S. as a teen, faces deportation as an adult appeared first on Montana Free Press.

HELENA — Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen has signed the state on to a lawsuit against the Biden administration over its January directive to largely suspend deportations of noncitizens except in cases that pose a threat to national security. 

The updated lawsuit, to which the state of Arizona was the original plaintiff, was filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for Arizona. It was first reported in an article published by Fox News and was later announced by the Montana Department of Justice in a press release issued Tuesday afternoon. 

The complaint alleges that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in substantively revising its immigration protocol in January, violated agreements between the federal government and the states of Montana and Arizona that were signed in the final days of the Trump administration. In those agreements, copies of which were included in court filings, DHS said that the states are “directly and concretely affected” by changes to federal immigration policy, and agreed to notify and receive input about changes to enforcement before new policies are enacted. Montana’s agreement was signed by Gov. Gianforte, Attorney General Knudsen and DHS Acting Deputy Secretary Kenneth Cuccinelli on Jan. 11. 

Later that month, the administration of President Biden issued a memo directing federal agencies to temporarily pause deportations in most cases, so as to direct the “limited resources” of DHS to conduct fair and efficient processing of immigration and asylum cases and comply with safety precautions related to COVID-19. The new policy does not apply to anyone found to have participated in suspected terrorism or espionage, or considered to pose a threat to national security. 

In explaining their case for a preliminary injunction against the federal policy, the attorneys general for Montana and Arizona argued that each state would be impacted by the recent directive in a number of ways, including the potential overloading of detention facilities and the related release of individuals into local communities, as well as the overall use of public services by noncitizens.

“Montana is required to stretch its scarce resources even further when DHS fails to carry out its statutory duty to deport aliens as required by law,” the complaint states. “This includes resources expended by Montana’s law enforcement community to combat drug trafficking, drug-related crime, and drug use.”

Knudsen has long raised concerns about lax security along the U.S.-Mexico border contributing to the spread of illegal drugs in Montana. In the complaint, Knudsen argued that the state is also “forced to expend resources on education, healthcare, public assistance, and general government services” for the fewer than 5,000 undocumented immigrants estimated to live in Montana, citing 2016 figures published by the Pew Research Center. In the press release announcing the lawsuit, Knudsen further explained his motivation for involving Montana in the case. 

“Meth trafficked into Montana by Mexican drug cartels has wracked our state. The problem will only be made worse if the Biden administration continues to allow criminals to stay in the country,” Knudsen’s statement said. “Enforcing our immigration laws and helping to keep Americans safe is one of the federal government’s most important functions. The Biden administration is failing its basic responsibility to Americans.”

The potential impact of Biden’s change in deportation policy on Montana, as opposed to states that border Mexico or have large federal detention centers, will be debated in court proceedings. 

“We do not have any long-term holding facilities for immigrant detainees,” said Shahid Haque, president of the Border Crossing Law Firm in Helena and a former immigration law professor at the University of Montana. “When ICE arrests someone in Montana, they are moved within days to a federal detention facility in Tacoma, Washington or Las Vegas, Nevada. If anyone was released from custody, it would be in those states.”

Haque also disputed that drug trafficking in Montana can be connected to newly arrived immigrants, adding that someone accused of such a crime “would have to stand for trial in state court before being turned over to immigration for deportation. Since drug trafficking is an aggravated felony, the person would remain an enforcement priority for ICE, and it would be unlikely that they would release the person.”

A hearing for the case has yet to be scheduled.

The post Montana joins deportation lawsuit against Biden administration appeared first on Montana Free Press.