By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In October 2025, Maher Tarabishi, the primary caretaker of his son Wael, was detained by ICE during a scheduled check-in. Wael, who suffered from Pompe disease, a rare genetic condition, passed away on January 23rd. The family requested Maher’s release to attend the funeral, but this request was denied by ICE. Homeland Security accused Maher of ties to a terrorist organization, which his family and attorney deny, as Maher had been allowed to stay in the U.S. under supervision due to his son’s medical needs.
Read the original article here
ICE Denies Detainee’s Request to Attend His Son’s Funeral, Attorney Says, and the story breaks the heart.
This story, or rather, this tragedy, lays bare a system that appears utterly devoid of compassion. The reported denial of a father’s request to attend his son’s funeral is a stark indictment of the priorities within Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It’s not just a matter of legal process; it’s a profound human issue that strikes at the core of what it means to be a parent, a caregiver, and a human being. The fact that this man was detained in the first place, knowing the vital role he played in his son’s life, seems like a calculated act of cruelty. It is difficult not to see this as a deliberate infliction of pain.
The comments express a raw, unfiltered emotional response. They use strong language, and the force of their conviction is undeniable. They are not mincing words, and they are expressing outrage. It’s hard to blame them. They are painting a picture of a system that actively inflicts harm, disregards human suffering, and seems more concerned with enforcing its own rules than with the fundamental human right to mourn a loved one. The emotional response is amplified by the fact that the son’s dependency on the father was explicitly known, making the decision even more callous.
The criticism points toward a fundamental lack of humanity. The repeated use of words like “ghouls” and the comparisons to “Nazis” reflect a deep-seated revulsion. The sentiment that “cruelty is the point” isn’t just an accusation; it’s a declaration of despair. It’s a statement about the perceived intent behind such actions – the belief that the system is not merely indifferent to suffering, but actively seeks to cause it.
The context of the man’s legal status adds another layer of complexity. The comments highlight that he was supposedly following the law. If he was in the country legally as a caregiver and regularly checking in with authorities, his detention seems particularly unjust. This is not the caricature of a lawbreaker; it’s the story of a man caught in a bureaucratic vise. The fact that the story is being suppressed on some platforms, as mentioned by one commenter, only fuels the perception of a cover-up and systemic disregard for human rights.
The issue of the son’s death also serves to highlight the perceived consequences. One commenter claims the system effectively killed the son. That is a very serious allegation and suggests a failure of the care system, and the overall injustice of the situation. It suggests that the father’s detention contributed directly to the son’s health issues, and subsequent death.
Furthermore, the comments show the perceived bias of ICE. They feel ICE has no humanity and would not extend the same harsh treatment to rich individuals. This reinforces the image of a system that is not only inhumane but also potentially selective in its application of the law. The sentiment is that those with power are protected, while the vulnerable are victimized.
The responses are scathing and direct, and speak to a widespread disillusionment with the system. They present a clear narrative of outrage and a profound sense of loss, not just for the father, but also for the values of empathy and compassion. It’s a harsh assessment of a system perceived as broken, cruel, and beyond redemption. And it underscores the human cost when bureaucratic procedures are placed above the fundamental right to mourn, to care, and to be a father.