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.
Send this to everyone who says people have nothing to worry about if they’re in the country legally
Send them this too: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-873a45bc58de9e92773f554bf5bba9a0
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
So if someone asked you if she was a legal resident, you’d say no?
Are you high or something?
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
A legal resident and a citizen, in the context of immigration, are entirely different things.
It does actually imply she is an immigrant.
Saying “legal resident” implies “green card holder”, not “citizen”.
My original comment didn’t say legal resident, it said in the country legally. Citizens in the country are in the country legally
Your second comment did, and the first has the same implication.
Take the L. You are incorrect.
How is it incorrect to say citizens are there legally?
I wasn’t solely referring to her, I was talking in general about people who are in the country legally. To you that doesn’t include citizens?
It doesn’t have the same implication, not to me. I explained that I’m literal minded because I’m autistic. It’s legal for her to be in the country, she’s in the country legally. Not hard to understand. She’s either there legally or not there legally.
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
“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.
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.
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.