Department of Homeland SecurityDue ProcessFeaturedImmigrationMassachusettsTrump administrationVirginia

13-year-old boy arrested by ICE in Massachusetts, transferred over 500 miles from family

A 13-year-old boy in Massachusetts was detained by local police on Thursday. When his mother arrived to pick him up, she learned that her son had instead been taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody and later transferred to a juvenile facility in Virginia, more than 500 miles away. A federal judge has ordered the boy’s release unless the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) provides grounds for his continued detention.

The boy, whose family is originally from Brazil, was initially arrested by Everett Police Department officers on Thursday evening, according to The Boston Globe. After waiting for an hour and a half to take her son home, Josiele Berto was told her son had instead been transferred into ICE custody, even though the boy and his family have a pending asylum case and are authorized to work legally in the United States, per the Globe.

Andrew Lattarulo, the boy’s immigration attorney who filed a federal habeas corpus petition on the boy’s behalf on Friday, told the Globe he had “never done a bond or a habeas for a kid this young, ever.” United States District Judge Richard G. Stearns ruled the same day that the government must justify the boy’s arrest by the end of Tuesday, or provide a bond hearing no later than Thursday.

Although juvenile records are generally closed to the public for privacy concerns, DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin claimed in an X post that the 13-year-old “posed a public safety threat with an extensive rap sheet including violent assault with a dangerous weapon, battery, breaking and entering, destruction of property,” and that “he was in possession of a firearm and 5-7 inch knife when arrested.”

Of course, such allegations are difficult to confirm given the boy’s age and lack important details like whether the “rap sheet” includes arrests, charges, convictions, or dismissals. Lattarulo said that the family still doesn’t know “what led to the encounter with the police or how ICE got involved,” according to the Globe. Whatever the case, now that the 13-year-old is being held in a detention facility outside of his home state, he will have to find an immigration lawyer who practices in Virginia and will face challenges defending himself against any criminal allegations.

“I believe the child’s constitutional rights are being violated,” Lattarulo told the Globe. “He should have remained in Massachusetts, where he could address any and all allegations within the jurisdiction of his home state, not in a facility hundreds of miles away.”

Berto told the Globe that her son had called her from the Virginia facility, crying. The boy, who recently broke his foot while riding a bike, told his mother that he is sleeping on concrete with an aluminum blanket and has had little to eat. She fears ICE will continue to move her son around the country—potentially to states such as Texas and Louisiana with low asylum and bond approval rates—without telling her. Berto has turned to creating an online fundraiser to help get her son back.

“It doesn’t make any sense for one of my clients, waiting almost two hours for her kid, and only to find out later that ICE agents took him,” Lattarulo told the Globe. “They told her she could pick him up, and then they wouldn’t let her see her kid.”

Amid President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, DHS and ICE have held record-high numbers of immigrant detainees. As of July, more than 600 juveniles were held in ICE custody, leading to an influx of litigation over the extended detention and conditions in which juveniles are being held, and due process violations.

While it remains unclear what will happen to Berto’s 13-year-old son, it is unfortunately clear that the Trump administration seems unbothered by the many rights violations, including those against children, that continue to emerge while attempting mass deportations.

Source link

Related Posts

On April 12, 2021, a Knoxville police officer shot and killed an African American male student in a bathroom at Austin-East High School. The incident caused social unrest, and community members began demanding transparency about the shooting, including the release of the officer’s body camera video. On the evening of April 19, 2021, the Defendant and a group of protestors entered the Knoxville City-County Building during a Knox County Commission meeting. The Defendant activated the siren on a bullhorn and spoke through the bullhorn to demand release of the video. Uniformed police officers quickly escorted her and six other individuals out of the building and arrested them for disrupting the meeting. The court upheld defendants’ conviction for “disrupting a lawful meeting,” defined as “with the intent to prevent [a] gathering, … substantially obstruct[ing] or interfere[ing] with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.” Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that the Defendant posted on Facebook the day before the meeting and the day of the meeting that the protestors were going to “shut down” the meeting. During the meeting, the Defendant used a bullhorn to activate a siren for approximately twenty seconds. Witnesses at trial described the siren as “loud,” “high-pitched,” and “alarming.” Commissioner Jay called for “Officers,” and the Defendant stated through the bullhorn, “Knox County Commission, your meeting is over.” Commissioner Jay tried to bring the meeting back into order by banging his gavel, but the Defendant continued speaking through the bullhorn. Even when officers grabbed her and began escorting her out of the Large Assembly Room, she continued to disrupt the meeting by yelling for the officers to take their hands off her and by repeatedly calling them “murderers.” Commissioner Jay called a ten-minute recess during the incident, telling the jury that it was “virtually impossible” to continue the meeting during the Defendant’s disruption. The Defendant herself testified that the purpose of attending the meeting was to disrupt the Commission’s agenda and to force the Commission to prioritize its discussion on the school shooting. Although the duration of the disruption was about ninety seconds, the jury was able to view multiple videos of the incident and concluded that the Defendant substantially obstructed or interfered with the meeting. The evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Defendant also claimed the statute was “unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute does not state that it includes government meetings,” but the appellate court concluded that she had waived the argument by not raising it adequately below. Sean F. McDermott, Molly T. Martin, and Franklin Ammons, Assistant District Attorneys General, represent the state.

From State v. Every, decided by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals…

1 of 74