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.

  • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 小时前

    She’s wasn’t even “in the country legally” she is a fucking natural born citizen. She committed the crime of brownness

    • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      14 小时前

      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”

      • humorlessrepost@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 小时前

        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.

        • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 小时前

          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

        • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          15 小时前

          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

          • curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            13 小时前

            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”.

            • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              13 小时前

              My original comment didn’t say legal resident, it said in the country legally. Citizens in the country are in the country legally

                • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  13 小时前

                  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?

                • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  13 小时前

                  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.

                  • curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    13 小时前

                    Only if you ignore all context.

                    Your numerous replies show you understand this. I’m going to be done chatting with you about this now.

                    Enjoy your day.

        • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          15 小时前

          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

          • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            14 小时前

            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.

    • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      15 小时前

      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.

      • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 小时前

        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.

        • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          15 小时前

          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

          • ianonavy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            14 小时前

            “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.

          • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            14 小时前

            You’re right. Here’s the best image I could find explaining the issue of the semantics here:

            Permanent Residency VS Citizenship Comparison Chart Permanent Residency | Citizenship It means you are allowed to live and work in the country on a permanent basis. | It means you were either born anywhere in the US or within its territories. You are not issued a US passport, but an Alien Registration Card (ARC) by the USCIS. | Citizenship can get you an American passport. You can’t vote, serve on a jury, and work certain government jobs. | You can vote and are eligible for Federal jobs, and you receive protection from deportation. Permanent residency status can be cancelled. | Citizenship cannot be cancelled. DifferenceBetween.net

            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.

            • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              14 小时前

              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.