633
submitted 3 months ago by Stamau123@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

A 19-year-old college student who was on her way to surprise her family for Thanksgiving break was detained at a Boston airport and later deported despite a federal judge's order blocking her removal, according to her attorney.

Any Lucia Lopez Belloza, who entered the U.S. from Honduras when she was 8 years old, was about to board her flight to Texas last Friday to visit her parents and siblings when airport authorities told her to step aside, her attorney Todd Pomerleau told ABC News.

Lopez Belloza was detained, informed that she had a removal order and then arrested, her attorney said. Hours after her detainment, court documents obtained by ABC News show that a federal judge ordered the government not to remove the 19-year-old from the U.S. and not to transfer her outside of Massachusetts.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] lefthandeddude@lemmy.dbzer0.com 39 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Unlike with most ice agents that can't be identified, a judge can try to find out who arrested this woman by contacting the person running the airport.

The federal judge could order that the person running the airport terminal be detained and provide information to the court about which department of homeland security employees were responsible. If the person refuses to answer, the person could be arrested and held in contempt in a cell until they comply.

The federal judge could then issue an arrest for contempt of court orders for the department of homeland security officers responsible for violating the order and detain whoever deported this woman until she is brought back.

If this judge did this, it would likely be appealed immediately to the supreme court who would side with trump who would oppose it, the homeland security officers would be released, and nothing else would be done.

There is no mechanism to enforce a judicial order that protects immigrants when you have a supreme court that rubber stamps trump immigration policy.

Although this is terrible, probably 55% of the country still supports harsh immigration policies, even policies that lack process and violate judicial orders, if it gets rid of more brown people, and they have elected the most ruthless anti-immigration anti-POC people to get that done. In general, many American conventions of "process" and "rights" have been illusory in nature for a long time: people had rights if they had money, otherwise there was no enforcement mechanism. Many of the most important rights, like a right to a jury trial, can be taken away by giving people a jury trial that is unfair (no meaningful representation, no meaningful investigation, evidence withheld, a jury that only represents a certain segment of society) and even now it is mostly impossible to appeal such sham trials. Now, a person of color, even with meaningful representation, has no rights if they are Latino and they can't prove they were born inside the USA.

Imagine that poor girl's terror. She probably debated whether to stay at home and is so upset she decided to travel.

[-] Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.ca 16 points 3 months ago

Probably the only way is to start anonymously recommending any Republicans/MEGA for deportation. Most people don't live their day to day lives with official papers and passports on them. Just say they are good at faking being American but are actually here illegally from whatever country their ancestors came from. They might not get deported but they might spend some time in ICE detention.

[-] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 months ago

Too bad the court serves the king.

[-] GLOOMSDAY@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago

ITS FAKE Although this is terrible, probably 65% of the country still supports harsh immigration policies, even policies that lack process and violate judicial orders, if it gets rid of more brown people, and they have elected the most ruthless anti-immigration anti-POC people to get that done. In general, many American conventions of “process” and “rights” have been illusory in nature for a long time: people had rights if they had money, otherwise there was no enforcement mechanism. Many of the most important rights, like a right to a jury trial, can be taken away by giving people a jury trial that is unfair (no meaningful representation, no meaningful investigation, evidence withheld, a jury that only represents a certain segment of society) and even now it is mostly impossible to appeal such sham trials. Now, a person of color, even with meaningful representation, has no rights if they are Latino and they can’t prove they were born inside the

[-] GLOOMSDAY@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago
[-] lefthandeddude@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago
[-] GLOOMSDAY@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago
this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2025
633 points (99.4% liked)

News

36160 readers
3536 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS