By John Q. Hosedrinker 
After 25 days in ICE custody, Dulce Consuelo Díaz Morales, a Maryland woman, has been released and reunited with her family despite claims from her attorneys that she is a US citizen. ICE had disputed these claims, asserting she is a Mexican citizen who entered the US unlawfully. The legal team maintains she was born in the US and provided supporting documentation, though the government has not dismissed the case. While the government claims she is an illegal alien, Díaz Morales holds dual citizenship with Mexico and is applying for a US passport, as she prepares to check-in with immigration officials alongside her legal team.
Read the original article here
Maryland woman who says she is US citizen finally released from ICE custody. Let’s break this down. The news that a Maryland woman, Dulce Consuelo Díaz Morales, has been released from ICE custody is definitely a headline that grabs your attention. It’s a story that touches on some very sensitive issues, particularly when it comes to immigration, citizenship, and the power of government agencies. The initial headline itself, “Maryland woman who says she is US citizen…” is a bit jarring, isn’t it? It implies a certain degree of doubt, as if her citizenship is in question, despite the fact that she and her legal team provided records to support her claim. It’s almost as if the article is presenting a manufactured uncertainty, even though all evidence suggests she is a U.S. citizen.
Dulce Consuelo Díaz Morales and her legal team maintain she was born in the US and possess records supporting that claim. Now, let’s consider what this entails. ICE, on the other hand, disputed this, claiming she was a Mexican citizen who entered the US unlawfully. This immediately sets up a conflict. The key point is that Ms. Morales had documentation, which is supposed to be the definitive proof, but was seemingly ignored. The fact that ICE was seemingly ignoring this documentation is the starting point of the whole issue. It makes you wonder what the point of having documentation to prove citizenship is, if it can be disregarded or questioned based on assumptions.
ICE’s evidence to support this claim is dubious. The article makes a crucial observation: What kind of evidence did ICE have to support their claim? The suspicion is that it was either non-existent, lazy, or perhaps even fabricated. If this is true, then this raises questions about the motivations of ICE and whether the legal and ethical boundaries are being observed.
“Who says she is…” The article highlights an essential point – the article’s phrasing. Why use the phrase “who says she is?” when the evidence, her birth certificate, says she IS a US citizen? This wording, rather than “US Citizen imprisoned by ICE”, seems to present an unnecessary doubt.
Americans are supposed to be the most litigation happy people on the Planet, how is ice not buried under an avalanche of lawsuits? This prompts you to think. The situation with Ms. Morales is clearly traumatizing and has caused her a loss of income and emotional distress. What’s going on?
That is the definition of taxation without representation, which was the basis of the revolutionary war. The use of Congressionally appropriated funds for ICE’s budget is concerning. If ICE is overstepping its bounds or acting improperly, then the source of their funding is put into question.
So tell me again how “reasonable suspicion” is satisfied when they are presented with a US birth certificate. ICE’s power to detain individuals relies on the concept of “reasonable suspicion,” but this requirement seems to be ignored. If ICE is presented with a birth certificate and doesn’t accept that as proof, then their legal basis to detain someone becomes shaky.
She was released explicitly because ICE couldn’t even maintain a semi-plausible lie questioning her citizenship enough to justify holding her. This is the crucial point. The fact that ICE eventually released Ms. Morales suggests that their case against her was weak. They had to release her.
What kind of dumbass, “unbiased means pretending the lying side might not be lying,” appeasement headline is “woman who says she’s a citizen?!” This is the headline that is being criticized. The choice of words makes a difference.
This headline is trash. The article highlights how the initial headline doesn’t accurately reflect the situation.
“Maryland Woman Who Was Proven A US Citizen Finally Released.” This is the kind of headline the article suggests.
How long was she in custody? The article raises questions about the details. What was the exact duration of her detention? The length of time she was detained needs to be highlighted.
“Her birth certificate… the hospital where she was born; the state she was born in.” The article calls attention to the importance of the evidence. There is a lot of proof of her citizenship.
Our US Supreme Court has created this debacle in our government. Another core observation. The article references the role of the Supreme Court and its implications on immigration stops and its impact.
“US citizen who was illegally detained by ICE.” The title is important. The use of “illegally detained” is very accurate.
This guy had real id, and a TSA number. they aren’t checking their own records. Then there’s the story of Jose “Joey” Martinez, who, despite having documentation and other forms of identification, was still detained.
Bullshit title shouldn’t include “says she”. The issue in the Martinez case is similar to Ms. Morales, and highlights a failure to properly verify information.
She should sue. The situation with Ms. Morales and Mr. Martinez calls for legal action. They were detained when they shouldn’t have been, causing trauma and loss.
If US born citizens and native americans have difficulty proving citizenship then they shouldn’t have people rounding up immigrants and kicking them out until they have a sure fire way to avoid even talking or annoying actual citizens. The article also touches on wider concerns.