Dulce Consuelo Diaz Morales was arrested on Sunday. ICE won’t release her despite extensive documentation of her citizenship, her attorneys told HuffPost.
A Maryland woman has spent days in immigration detention despite being a U.S. citizen with a valid birth certificate and other documentation — documents ICE claims aren’t authentic, her attorneys told HuffPost Thursday.
Dulce Consuelo Diaz Morales, 22, was born in Maryland and spent time in Mexico before coming back to the United States, Victoria Slatton, one of the attorneys working on her case, told HuffPost in a phone call Thursday. Slatton has worked to draw attention to Diaz Morales’ case, including in several TikTok videos.
Shirley Elvirita, Diaz Morales’ 17-year-old sister, told HuffPost over the phone Thursday night that she, her sister and their father were doing laundry in Baltimore on Sunday, and afterwards, the sisters went to pick up some Taco Bell. After getting back on the road, Shirley recalled, they were surrounded by several vehicles filled with law enforcement personnel, who pulled them over. Officers ignored Shirley’s questions and took her sister “forcefully” into one of the vans. They told Shirley they would let her go – but not her sister.
Most Hispanics voted for this.
Almost half of Hispanics voted for this!Send this to everyone who says people have nothing to worry about if they’re in the country legally
She’s wasn’t even “in the country legally” she is a fucking natural born citizen. She committed the crime of brownness
So if asked “was she in the country legally” you’d answer “no, because she was a citizen”? That makes zero sense to my autistic brain. I’d answer “yes, because she was a citizen”
If someone asked you to describe your immigration status, would you say “I’m in the country legally” if you were born there?
Subtext exists, and is pretty important to recognize when it’s used for propaganda.
I understand you weren’t using it that way on purpose.
I’d actually probably freeze up because I have trouble answering questions with false assumptions, the assumption here being I’m an immigrant. If someone asked “are you in the country legally”, I’d say yes and potentially not even realize they think I’m an immigrant
The subtext works both ways, though. The question is malformed in my example because it implies an incorrect fact, and you rightly bristle at it because of that. But the statement “she’s here legally” is similarly implying a subtly different question that isn’t being asked, and then answering that question instead of the real one. So it made me bristle in the same way. And it’s a technique that’s often used intentionally to dishonestly reframe conversations, especially around contentious topics. The hostile responses seem to be incorrectly (but unfortunately reasonably these days) assuming this intent.
Unfortunately, the question was raised by ICE about whether the woman was in the country legally or not. It shouldn’t have been in question, but it was. ICE detained her claiming she was in the country illegally, thereby raising the question was she there illegally or legally and the answer is she was in the country legally because she was a citizen. I just didn’t think I needed to specify her being a citizen, I thought all that mattered to the discussion was whether her presence was legal or illegal.
With my autism, receiving a reply that said “she wasn’t in the country legally” because she was a citizen was genuinely confusing. Are citizens not to be classified as legally present when ICE asks if they’re legally present or not?
So if someone asked you if she was a legal resident, you’d say no?
Removed by mod
I’m autistic. I mean exactly what I say. I didn’t think stating the fact that she was in the country legally somehow implied she was an immigrant. Besides, my point was that in general people who are there legally are being detained unjustly, that applies to all legal residents, both immigrants and citizens
No, I just have a problem with being contradicted when I’m right. Was she in the country? Yes. Was it legal for her to be in the country? Yes. How was she not “in the country legally”? I never said she was from elsewhere
I was agreeing with and elevating the point you were making by stating that beyond being here legally, it is impossible for her to be here illegally because she was born here. Jesus fucking Christ why do you need to split every single hair!? And you can edit a comment when you come up with something else to say, you can quit replying twice and three times.
A person who is physically present in the country is either there legally or illegally. It seems you object to my phrasing because, as a natural born citizen, there shouldn’t have been a need to distinguish if she was there legally or not. But sadly it was in question, shouldn’t have been but was.
Yes, natural born citizens are legal residents
No they are not. “Legal resident” is a specific legal classification different from “citizen.” You are confusing the dictionary definition of words with legal definitions.
But it was legal for her to be in the country. Citizens are in the country legally.
How can she not be called a legal resident? She is a resident and it is legal for her to be
You’re right. Here’s the best image I could find explaining the issue of the semantics here:
Are both residents and citizens legal residents? Sure. In the context of immigration law the citizen would probably only be described as such unless the context made it clear someone was using more of the dictionary definition than the legal definition as the parent commenter alluded to.
That chart doesn’t include “Naturalized Citizenship.” A naturalized citizen (for example, Arnold Schwarzenegger or Melania Trump) was born elsewhere but has been vetted and tested and taken an oath to become a citizen. They can vote, and serve on a jury, and work a federal job, and be Governor of California, but they can’t be President.
And now Trump is trying to revoke the citizenship of all the ones he doesn’t like. He’s also trying to revoke the birthright citizenship of the children of immigrants.
“Legal resident” is an open compound word spelled with a space, not an adjective modifying a noun. An elementary school at the top of a hill is not a “high school” even though it is high and also a school. This is because “high school” is a word that means specifically secondary school (in North America at least), which excludes primary/elementary schools. Likewise in the United States, a “legal resident” refers to a non-citizen lawful permanent resident, not just any person who resides in a country legally.
Hey, FreshParsnip, I’d just like to point out that JoeBigelow wasn’t really contradicting your original comment (the one I’m replying to) but rather they were amplifying it. Their point was to emphasize the racism of ICE against her “crime of brownness.”
Not only was she “in the country legally,” she also has the further rights and responsibilities of being a citizen. For instance, she can vote for for President. Beyond that, being a birthright citizen, she can run for the office and BE President.
A “legal resident,” according to federal statutes, is defined as a person who has met certain legal requirements and received papers entitling them to live here, but cannot legally vote, or serve on a jury, or some other rights reserved for citizens.
JoeBigelow could definitely have used better syntax, or stuck a “just” in there after “even”.
And your original point, about ICE being a danger to everyone regardless of how many rights they’re supposed to have, is perfect. They’re fascist thugs.
But your anger is misdirected. Save it for the real enemy.
And now you should minimize Joe’s comment, because that thread is actively painful to read. This is a fine summary and all you want to know about that comment chain.
Throwing US citizens in jail for days seems to be considered by Brett Kavanaugh as brief questioning where the individuals “may promptly go free after making clear to the immigration officers that they are U. S. citizens or otherwise legally in the United States”. And this sort of stuff doesn’t happen according to Kristi Noem.
“I kept shouting at them that she was from here, but they wouldn’t listen to me,” the younger sister recalled. Shirley said the stop and her sister’s arrest seemed like racial discrimination: “I showed them our identifications, and they didn’t pay me any attention, they went straight to my sister because she’s darker than me.”
This is what you voted for protest-non-voters.
I disagree. This is what protest-non-voters failed to vote against.
Saying that they voted for this is implying that it is what they wanted. It is not the same thing as not carefully considering the potential outcomes. I agree that they bear some responsibility for what’s happening because of their failure to engage in the best course of action to prevent it. I do also think it is very much an inaccurate statement to say that it is what they voted for.
Put simply, intent matters. It doesn’t matter if the material outcome is the same.
something tells me dulce consuela diaz morales wouldn’t give a shit about their intents.
trust me, the history books will not care about anyone’s intents either, just the material outcome they enabled.
You’re folding yourself into pretzels trying to reword this.
I’m not rewording anything. I’m stating a disagreement with your wording which I think implies intent where there may be none.
Sigh. Since you really need it: You’re twisting yourself into pretzels trying to get out of the message.
And what you think is implied (in both instances) is not.
Hey man, dont judge me, i had to make absolutely no impact on a situation halfway across the world while making my own country much worse.
I think youll find i did a great job.
/s
DNC shot themselves in the face, no one liked the former VP. We could have Bernie Sanders and win by a landslide if the DNC didn’t put him under the bus
This is like blaming a school shooting victim for being in the hallway instead of in their classroom.
Yeah, it would’ve helped. Yeah, they should’ve been where they’re supposed to be. None of that is the real issue, and it’s insulting to bring it up in the context of the shooting.
And I think we’re back to: See article and this is what you voted for protest-non-voters.
You see i did vote blue so this doesnt include me, but logically, you could make the exact opposite argument. This is what the DNC wanted by not courting people who clearly defined what it would have taken to get their vote. I dont agree with the protest voters actions, but i do agree with their principles.
So you’re happy with trump being potus and think he’s better than Harris would have been?
Removed by mod
I’m just informing protest-non-voters what they voted for.
Removed by mod
See? You’re on “responsiblity”, while I am informing. So, cheers.
Removed by mod
Can I inform you that you’re acting like an asshole and nobody is going to listen to what you have to say if you deliver it that way?
Removed by mod
What do you mean by this? Innocent of what?
Removed by mod
Everything in society is dependent on people doing what they are supposed to, to serve whatever role their place in that system is. When they can freely not do that, they do whatever they want, and then we stop having society because nobody serves the roles that are needed to have one. Then the authoritarians get annoyed people aren’t doing whats needed for them to have a society to be in control of and start beating everyone into compliance. And they have to keep doing that because their system is shit and nobody wants it that way but them.
If they eat Taco Bell they must definitely be real Americans.
Those inbred fucks wouldn’t know a fake one
There is only one acceptable state of an ice agent.
Reminds me of China IL when Pony gets stuck in Mexico, crazy the voice actress went on to make the Barbie movie
