ICE detains Marine Corps veteran's wife who was still breastfeeding their child
BATON ROUGE: Marine Corps veteran Adrian Clouatre doesn't know how to tell his children where their mother went after US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detained her last month.
When his nearly 2-year-old son Noah asks for his mother before bed, Clouatre just tells him, 'Mama will be back soon.' When his 3-month-old, breastfeeding daughter Lyn is hungry, he gives her a bottle of baby formula instead. He's worried how his newborn will bond with her mother absent skin-to-skin contact.
His wife, Paola, is one of tens of thousands of people in custody and facing deportation as the Trump administration pushes for immigration officers to arrest 3,000 people a day.
Even as Marine Corps recruiters promote enlistment as protection for families lacking legal status, directives for strict immigrant enforcement have cast away practices of deference previously afforded to military families, immigration law experts say. The federal agency tasked with helping military family members gain legal status now refers them for deportation, government memos show.
To visit his wife, Adrian Clouatre has to make an eight-hour round trip from their home in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to a rural ICE detention center in Monroe. Clouatre, who qualifies as a service-disabled veteran, goes every chance he can get.
Paola Clouatre, a 25-year-old Mexican national whose mother brought her into the country illegally more than a decade ago, met Adrian Clouatre, 26, at a southern California nightclub during the final months of his five years of military service in 2022. Within a year, they had tattooed each other's names on their arms.
After they married in 2024, Paola Clouatre sought a green card to legally live and work in the US Adrian Clouatre said he is 'not a very political person' but believes his wife deserved to live legally in the US
'I'm all for 'get the criminals out of the country,' right?' he said. 'But the people that are here working hard, especially the ones married to Americans — I mean, that's always been a way to secure a green card.'
Detained at a green card meeting
The process to apply for Paola Clouatre's green card went smoothly at first, but eventually she learned ICE had issued an order for her deportation in 2018 after her mother failed to appear at an immigration hearing.
Clouatre and her mother had been estranged for years — Clouatre cycled out of homeless shelters as a teenager — and up until a couple of months ago, Clouatre had 'no idea' about her mother's missed hearing or the deportation order, her husband said.
Adrian Clouatre recalled that a US Citizenship and Immigration Services staffer asked about the deportation order during a May 27 appointment as part of her green card application. After Paola Clouatre explained that she was trying to reopen her case, the staffer asked her and her husband to wait in the lobby for paperwork regarding a follow-up appointment, which her husband said he believed was a 'ploy.'
Soon, officers arrived and handcuffed Paola Clouatre, who handed her wedding ring to her husband for safekeeping.
Adrian Clouatre, eyes welling with tears, said he and his wife had tried to 'do the right thing' and that he felt ICE officers should have more discretion over arrests, though he understood they were trying to do their jobs.
'It's just a hell of a way to treat a veteran,' said Carey Holliday, a former immigration judge who is now representing the couple. 'You take their wives and send them back to Mexico?'
The Clouatres filed a motion for a California-based immigration judge to reopen the case on Paola's deportation order and are waiting to hear back, Holliday said.
Less discretion for military families
Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in an emailed statement that Paola Clouatre 'is in the country illegally' and that the administration is 'not going to ignore the rule of law.'
'Ignoring an Immigration Judge's order to leave the US is a bad idea,' US Citizenship and Immigration Services said in a June 9 post on X which appeared to refer to Clouatre's case. The agency added that the government 'has a long memory and no tolerance for defiance when it comes to making America safe again.'
Prior to the Trump administration's push to drive up deportations, USCIS provided much more discretion for veterans seeking legal status for a family member, said Holliday and Margaret Stock, a military immigration law expert.
In a Feb. 28 memo, the agency said it 'will no longer exempt' from deportation people in groups that had received more grace in the past. This includes the families of military personnel or veterans, Stock said. As of June 12, the agency said it has referred upward of 26,000 cases to ICE for deportation.
USCIS still offers a program allowing family members of military personnel who illegally entered the US to remain in the country as they apply for a green card. But there no longer appears to be room for leeway, such as giving a veteran's spouse like Paola Clouatre the opportunity to halt her active deportation order without facing arrest, Stock said.
But numerous Marine Corps recruiters have continued to post ads on social media, geared toward Latinos, promoting enlistment as a way to gain 'protection from deportation' for family members.
'I think it's bad for them to be advertising that people are going to get immigration benefits when it appears that the administration is no longer offering these immigration benefits,' Stock said. 'It sends the wrong message to the recruits.'
Marine Corps spokesperson Master Sgt. Tyler Hlavac told The Associated Press that recruiters have now been informed they are 'not the proper authority' to 'imply that the Marine Corps can secure immigration relief for applicants or their families.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
6 Reported Dead and 2 Missing After a Boat Capsizes on Lake Tahoe in California
Six people were confirmed dead, and two others were missing after a boat capsized on Lake Tahoe in California during a powerful weekend thunderstorm that whipped up high waves, officials said. The US Coast Guard and the El Dorado County Sheriff's Office responded Saturday afternoon to D.L. Bliss State Park following reports of 10 people in the water, officials said. Two people were rescued and taken to a hospital. Winds of about 30 knots and swells of up to 8 feet (2.5 meters) were reported around the time the 27-foot (8-meter) gold Chris-Craft vessel flipped over near the lake's southwest edge, Coast Guard officials said. Rescue workers and divers searched the area Saturday evening and resumed their search Sunday morning before the Coast Guard suspended its search. Video obtained by KCRA-TV showed moored boats at a nearby marina crashing into one another amid strong gusts. The extent of the damage wasn't immediately known Sunday.
Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
How Covering Your Face Became a Constitutional Matter: Mask Debate Tests Free Speech Rights
Many of the protesters who flooded the streets of Los Angeles to oppose President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown wore masks or other face coverings–drawing scorn from him. 'Masks will not be allowed to be worn at protests,' Trump posted on his social media platform, adding that mask-wearing protesters should be arrested. Protesters and their supporters argue Trump's comments and repeated calls by the Republican president's allies to ban masks at protests are an attempt to stifle popular dissent. They also note a double standard at play: In Los Angeles and elsewhere, protesters were at times confronted by officers who had their faces covered. And some US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have worn masks while carrying out high-profile raids in Los Angeles and other cities. All of which begs the question: Can something that covers your mouth protect free speech? Protesters say the answer is an emphatic 'yes.' Several legal experts say it's only a matter of time before the issue returns to the courts. 'What do these people have to hide and why?' Trump's post calling for a ban on masks came after immigration raids sparked protests, which included some reports of vandalism and violence toward police. 'What do these people have to hide and why?' he asked on Truth Social on June 8. The next day, Trump raged against the anti-ICE protests, calling for the arrest of people in face masks. It's not a new idea. Legal experts and First Amendment advocates warn of a rising number of laws banning masks being wielded against protesters and their impacts on people's right to protest and privacy amid mounting surveillance. The legal question became even more complicated when Democratic lawmakers in California introduced legislation aiming to stop federal agents and local police officers from wearing face masks. That came amid concerns ICE agents were attempting to hide their identities and avoid accountability for potential misconduct. 'The recent federal operations in California have created an environment of profound terror,' state Sen. Scott Wiener said in a press release. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the California bill 'despicable.' 'While ICE officers are being assaulted by rioters and having rocks and Molotov cocktails thrown at them, a sanctuary politician is trying to outlaw officers wearing masks to protect themselves from being doxed and targeted by known and suspected terrorist sympathizers,' McLaughlin said in a statement. State restrictions on mask-wearing. At least 18 states and Washington, D.C. have laws that restrict masks and other face coverings, said Elly Page, senior legal adviser with the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law. Since October 2023, at least 16 bills have been introduced in eight states and Congress to restrict masks at protests, the center says. The laws aren't just remnants of the coronavirus pandemic. Many date back to the 1940s and '50s, when many states passed anti-mask laws as a response to the Ku Klux Klan, whose members hid their identities while terrorizing victims. Amid protests against the war in Gaza and Trump's immigration policies, Page said there have been attempts to revive these rarely used laws to target protesters. Page also raised concerns about the laws being enforced inconsistently and only against movements the federal government doesn't like. In May, North Carolina Senate Republicans passed a plan to repeal a pandemic-era law that allowed the wearing of masks in public for health reasons–a move spurred in part by demonstrations against the war in Gaza, where some protesters wore masks. The suburban New York county of Nassau passed legislation in August to ban wearing masks in public. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, last month sent a letter to the state's public universities stating protesters could be charged with a felony under the state's anti-mask law. Administrators at the University of North Carolina have warned protesters that wearing masks violates the state's anti-mask law, and University of Florida students arrested during a protest were charged with wearing masks in public. An unresolved First Amendment question. People may want to cover their faces while protesting for a variety of reasons, including to protect their health, for religious reasons, to avoid government retaliation, to prevent surveillance and doxing, or to protect themselves from tear gas, said Tim Zick, law professor at William and Mary Law School. 'Protecting protesters' ability to wear masks is part of protecting our First Amendment right to peacefully protest,' Zick said. Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor, said the federal government and Republican state lawmakers assert that the laws are intended not to restrict speech, but to restrict unlawful conduct that people would be more likely to engage in if they can wear masks and that would make it more difficult for law enforcement to investigate if people are wearing masks. Conversely, he said First Amendment advocates oppose such laws because they deter people from protesting if they fear retaliation. Stone said the issue is an unresolved First Amendment question that has yet to be addressed by the US Supreme Court, but the court has made clear that there is a right to anonymity protected by the First Amendment. 'Few of these laws have been challenged in court,' Stone said. 'And lower-court decisions on mask bans are mixed, though several courts have struck down broader anti-mask laws for criminalizing peaceful expression.' Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said the right to speak anonymously has deep roots in the nation's founding, including when anonymous pamphlets criticizing British rule circulated in the colonies. Federal agents wearing masks. The right to speak anonymously allows Americans to express dissenting or unpopular opinions without exposing themselves to retaliation or harassment from the government, Terr said. First Amendment advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers have called the masks an attempt by ICE agents to escape accountability and intimidate immigrants. During a June 12 congressional hearing, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, criticized ICE agents wearing masks during raids, saying: 'Don't wear masks. Identify who you are.' Viral videos appeared to show residents of Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts confronting federal agents, asking them to identify themselves and explain why they were wearing masks. US Rep. Bill Keating, a Democrat who represents Cape Cod, decried the decision to use unmarked vehicles, plain-clothed officers, and masks in a June 2 letter to federal officials. Republican federal officials, meanwhile, have maintained that masks protect agents from doxing. 'I'm sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks, but I'm not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line and their family on the line because people don't like what immigration enforcement is,' ICE acting Director Todd Lyons said.
Al Arabiya
4 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
NATO Leaders Are Set to Agree a Historic Defense Spending Pledge, But the Hike Won't Apply to All
NATO leaders are expected to agree this week that member countries should spend 5 percent of their gross domestic product on defense–except the new and much-vaunted investment pledge will not apply to all of them. Spain has reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from the 5 percent of GDP spending target, while President Donald Trump said the figure shouldn't apply to the US, only its allies. In announcing Spain's decision Sunday, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the spending pledge language in NATO's final summit communiqué–a one-page text of perhaps half a dozen paragraphs–would no longer refer to 'all allies.' It raises questions about what demands could be insisted on from other members of the alliance, like Belgium, Canada, France, and Italy, that also would struggle to hike security spending by billions of dollars. On Friday, Trump insisted the US has carried its allies for years and now they must step up. 'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain.' Trump also branded Canada a 'low payer.' NATO's new spending goals. The 5 percent goal is made up of two parts. The allies would agree to hike pure defense spending to 3.5 percent of GDP, up from the current target of at least 2 percent, which 22 of the 32 countries have achieved. Money spent to arm Ukraine also would count. A further 1.5 percent would include upgrading roads, bridges, ports, and airfields so armies can better deploy, establishing measures to counter cyber and hybrid attacks, and preparing societies for future conflict. The second spending basket is easy for most nations, including Spain. Much can be included. But the 3.5 percent on core spending is a massive challenge. Last year, Spain spent 1.28 percent of GDP on its military budget, according to NATO estimates, making it the alliance's lowest spender. Sánchez said Spain would be able to respect its commitments to NATO by spending 2.1 percent of GDP on defense needs. Spain also is among Europe's smallest suppliers of arms and ammunition to Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute, which tracks such support. It's estimated to have sent about 800,000 euros (920,000) worth of military aid since Russia invaded in 2022. Beyond Spain's economic challenges, Sánchez has other problems. He relies on small parties to govern, and corruption scandals have ensnared his inner circle and family members. He is under growing pressure to call an early election. Why the spending increase is needed. There are solid reasons for ramping up spending. The Europeans believe Russia's war on Ukraine poses an existential threat to them. Moscow has been blamed for a major rise in sabotage, cyberattacks, and GPS jamming incidents. European leaders are girding their citizens for the possibility of more. The alliance's plans for defending Europe and North America against a Russian attack require investments of at least 3 percent, NATO experts have said. All 32 allies have endorsed these. Each country has been assigned capability targets to play its part. Spanish Foreign Minister José Albares said Monday that the debate must be 'not a raw percentage but around capabilities.' He said Spain can reach the capabilities that have been fixed by the organization with 2.1 percent. Countries much closer to Russia–Belarus and Ukraine–all have agreed to reach the target, as well as nearby Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands, which is hosting the two-day summit starting Tuesday. The Netherlands estimates NATO's defense plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5 percent to core defense spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros (18 billion to 22 billion). Setting a deadline. It's not enough to agree to spend more money. Many allies haven't yet hit an earlier 2 percent target that they agreed to in 2014 after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. So an incentive is required. The date of 2032 has been floated as a deadline. That is far shorter than previous NATO targets, but military planners estimate Russian forces could be capable of launching an attack on an ally within five to 10 years. The US insists it cannot be an open-ended pledge, and a decade is too long. Still, Italy says it wants 10 years to hit the 5 percent target. The possibility of stretching that period to 2035 also has been on the table for debate among NATO envoys. An official review of progress could also be conducted in 2029, NATO diplomats have said.
