ICE detains Marine Corps veteran's wife who was still breastfeeding their baby
A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer. (Associated Press Archives)
Marine Corps veteran Adrian Clouatre doesn't know how to tell his children where their mother went after U.S. 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 seeking asylum 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 U.S. Adrian Clouatre said he is 'not a very political person' but believes his wife deserved to live legally in the U.S.
'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 U.S. 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 U.S. is a bad idea,' U.S. 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.'
Adrian Clouatre said the agency's X post does not accurately reflect his wife's situation because she entered the country as a minor with her mother, seeking asylum.
'She was not aware of the removal order, so she was not knowingly defying it,' he said. 'If she had been arrested, she would have been deported long ago, and we would never have met.'
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 U.S. 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
Boston Globe
43 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Threat of Iranian retaliation sparks questions about US terrorism readiness amid Trump immigration crackdown
Nearly half of all agents in the bureau's 25 largest field offices are now devoted to immigration, according to Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The shift has been symbolic, too: When Trump took office, the FBI website listed its top priority as 'Protect the US From Terrorist Attack.' With Kash Patel, a Trump loyalist, now in charge of the bureau, its website now lists 'Crush Violent Crime' as its top priority, with 'Defend the Homeland' second. Advertisement Meanwhile, at the Department of Homeland Security, ProPublica reported this month that Thomas Fugate, a 22-year-old recent college graduate and former Trump campaign worker with no apparent national security experience now In response to the US airstrikes over the weekend, Tehran reportedly sent communications to Washington threatening to activate 'sleeper cells' to carry out terror attacks domestically, and Advertisement Though Iran indicated its reportedly telegraphed 'You've seen under the Trump administration a shift of resources away from counterterrorism … to focus instead on the mass deportations that they've been pursuing, and I do believe that that puts Americans more at risk,' said Representative Seth Magaziner, a Rhode Island Democrat who serves on the House Homeland Security Committee. In response to an inquiry from the Globe, a FBI spokesperson said the bureau 'does not comment on specific operational adjustments or personnel decisions. However, we continuously assess and realign our resources to respond to the most pressing threats to our national security and to ensure the safety of the American people.' DHS declined to comment. Advocates for the administration's aggressive immigration crackdown — which has been defined by high-visibility deportation raids — have argued that it actually supports the counterterrorism mission at hand. Speaking about the Iran strikes on Sunday, Vice President JD Vance argued on NBC News that people in the country illegally might pose a terror threat. Zack Smith, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, pointed to the millions of people in the country who have not been fully vetted by authorities. 'It is more critical than ever for federal law enforcement to find these individuals and to enforce our nation's immigration laws,' said Smith, because 'these individuals were never vetted and law enforcement currently has little, to no, information about them.' Advertisement Federal authorities have not specifically connected how people in the US illegally could fit into Iran's plans. It's also not clear exactly how much staffing power and resources the federal counter-intelligence apparatus has lost to immigration efforts since Trump took office. Beyond the question of refocusing resources, the federal government simply has fewer people at its disposal, thanks to Trump and Elon Musk's workforce cuts. Since the administration offered voluntary buyouts in February, the Department of Justice, which houses the FBI, lost 4,000 employees. There are further plans to eliminate an additional 1,500 FBI positions, In general, however, the federal government has been gradually reducing its focus on counterterrorism after the surge following Sept. 11, but it's not clear the country has become more vulnerable because of Trump's shift in resources, said Alex Plitsas, who leads the counterterrorism project at the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council think tank. 'The terrorists only have to be right once. We have to be right every single time,' he said. 'It becomes a question of knowing what we don't know … that's the tough part of the equation.' The nature of warfare and terrorism has changed dramatically just in the last few years, said Tim Roemer, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana who served on the 9/11 Commission, which produced the definitive report on those terrorist attacks. He argued those changes should require particular vigilance and attention on the part of federal authorities. Advertisement 'Leading up to 9/11, we found the FBI moved substantial resources over time to white-collar crime and some domestic priorities,' Roemer said, even though 'the crumbs were certainly leading us to the belief that terrorism was on the rise. We don't want to make those kinds of mistakes in the future.' According to some experts, Iran's ability to inflict retaliatory pain on the US has evolved significantly. Despite being severely punished by the airstrikes and generally depleted, the Iranian regime is 'continuing to find new ways to land a blow,' said Behnam Ben Taleblu, Iran program director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a think tank that is harshly critical of the Islamic Republic. Notably, in November 2024, US officials announced that they had neutralized an Iranian plot to assassinate Trump during the 2024 campaign. Iranian officials brushed off the charge and blamed Israeli agents for fomenting the claim. For the US, 'the big question is, one wonders how they have adapted to the threat?' Taleblu asked. While not immediately concerned about the balance of federal resources, he argued that more can and should be done. 'Iran is always operating in the background and in periods of crisis, one wonders if their regime is going to respond — naturally, I think assets should be devoted to this target set more,' he said. The Iranian regime has invested particularly heavily in its cyberattack capabilities, which experts continue to regard as a serious threat. From Advertisement The federal government launched the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in 2018 to respond to those kinds of threats. But that agency has The consequences of that loss of expertise could be significant, said Chris Painter, a former cybersecurity official at the White House and State Department under Barack Obama. 'There are certainly good people still at CISA, at the FBI, left in the intelligence community, but there are consequences when you significantly downgrade those activities and you prioritize other things,' he said. Steven A. Cook, a senior fellow for Middle East and Africa Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, said reports of shifts in US resources from counterterrorism to immigration concern him given Iran's global reach in conducting or funding cyber and conventional attacks. 'There's a history of the Iranians doing these kinds of things outside of the Middle East and it seems to me, based on what I read, that we are less prepared than we were as a result of the focus on immigration enforcement,' Cook said. Sam Brodey can be reached at
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
How covering your face became a constitutional matter: Mask debate tests free speech rights
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. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Advertisement 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. Advertisement 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 Senator 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. 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. Advertisement 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. 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. Advertisement 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.' '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 Governor 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 Representative 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.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr and Dr Oz announce insurers' ‘pledge' to reform prior authorization
The US health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr and Dr Mehmet Oz announced a voluntary agreement with insurance companies to change prior authorization practices – where private health insurers require patients to ask for permission before they can receive medical treatment. The majority of Americans get health insurance through a private company, whether through an employer, or a privatization of public health insurance programs, such as Medicare Advantage. Prior authorization is an insurance company practice that is both common and abhorred. There are whole social media accounts devoted to egregious examples of it, campaigns for change built around it, and, in Oz's words, there is 'violence in the streets' over prior authorization – an allusion to the broad daylight killing of an insurance company CEO. Oz said repeatedly in a press conference on Monday that 85% of Americans or their loved ones had experienced a delay or denial of care thanks to prior authorization. Related: Key RFK Jr advisers stand to profit from a new federal health initiative 'The pledge is not a mandate, this is not a bill or rule – this is an opportunity for industry to show itself,' said Oz, who heads the enormous federal health insurance bureaucracy, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS). CMS oversees the health insurance of about 68 million seniors through Medicare and about 71 million low-income and disabled Americans through Medicaid. 'It's a good start,' said Oz, 'and the response has been overwhelming.' Kennedy called the agreement 'momentous' and said it would help make the health system, 'work to make our country healthy again'. The announcement of voluntary measures echoed one made earlier in the year by Kennedy, who announced the administration had an 'understanding' with food companies to phase out synthetic dyes. Food companies later told reporters there was no agreement. Concurrently, Republicans are working to push a bill through Congress that is expected to result in at least 16 million Americans losing health insurance in the next decade. The bill would add red tape to Medicaid and, advocates say, 'punish' states that expanded care to the low-income. With Biblical references and a bullet point chart, Trump administration officials, two Republican members of Congress and even an actor who played a doctor on TV – Eric Dane of Grey's Anatomy – laid out their hopes for insurers to implement this voluntary agreement that they said covered 275 million Americans. Should they do so, insurers would work to standardize the prior authorization approval and deliver decisions faster and near real-time (not over the course of, say, weeks). Additionally, insurers would reduce the number of procedures and drugs subject to prior authorization, honor existing prior authorization approvals in the event a patient switches insurers in the course of care and build a 'public dashboard' of how the industry is doing which would allow 'medical professionals' to review every denial. Notably, insurance companies made a similar pledge to doctors, hospitals and Americans in 2018, during the first Trump administration. In a press release announcing that agreement, insurers pledged to work with doctors and hospitals to 'eliminate' prior authorization for some procedures, 'minimize care delays' and 'protect continuity of care for patients'. By 2022, the American Medical Association (AMA), which signed onto that agreement, was arguing publicly that insurers failed to live up to their end of the bargain. A 2023 survey by the AMA of 1,000 doctors found 7% of physicians had a prior authorization lead to 'a patient's disability or permanent bodily damage, congenital anomaly or birth defect or death'. Trump administration officials did acknowledge that the practice could be egregious and warranted change. 'A vaginal delivery,' often requires prior authorization, said the Trump administration Medicare director Chris Klomp, 'Why is that a question mark in this day and age?' The insurance industry often argues insurers 'target its use' to prevent wasteful testing by doctors. However, prior authorization is known to be incredibly widespread: in 2023, a spokesperson for a lobbying group told FierceHealthcare that 93% of beneficiaries were in plans that required prior authorization for nearly a quarter of services. Beneficiaries of the federal privatization program Medicare Advantage, which allows private health insurers to manage beneficiaries of the public program Medicare (and is widely regarded as more expensive for taxpayers), issued about two prior authorization requests for every one of its 32 million beneficiaries in 2023, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The practice has even spawned cottage industries: a ProPublica investigation found one company contracted by major insurers sold a product called 'the dial' that used an algorithm backed by artificial intelligence to control denial rates. Unlike the federal government, some states have found the nerve to legislate. In just one example, New Jersey required insurers to turn decisions around faster, required peer-to-peer conversations between doctors about the insurers' decision and required insurers to share denial rates and reasons – at least some of which one Republican congressman at the dais said he wanted, but was not in the agreement. 'I will say this being a surgeon: I'm a skeptic, the proof is going to be in the pudding,' said Dr Greg Murphy, a Republican from North Carolina, who added that he would be open to regulations, but questioned whether insurers would abide by the agreement: 'Are they doing something to placate an audience?'
