
Student arrested by ICE has been released
A high school volleyball player who was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on his way to a practice has been released on bond. Marcelo Gomes da Silva, 18, had been held at a Burlington, Massachusetts detention facility since his arrest Saturday morning, after he was pulled over in a car with his teammates.
The teenager, who was born in Brazil, then appeared in court for a hearing on Thursday, when a judge ruled that he could be released on a $2,000 bond. Attorneys for the government did not make any arguments, according to WCVB. Yet the teenager could still be deported, as those proceedings move forward in the federal court system while his attorneys seek his asylum.
Speaking to reporters following his release, Gomes da Silva shared how he was carpooling to volleyball practice in Milford when he was stopped by police, and told to hand over his license and registration. The officer, the teen said, 'gave no reason to stop me,' but was then informed that he was in the country illegally. The news shocked the teenager, who said he came to the United States when he was just six years old and did not know he was living on a visitor visa and then a student visa that has since lapped.
Gomas da Silva then spent six days at the Burlington ICE facility, sleeping on a cement floor and sharing an open toilet with nearly 40 other adult men. 'I haven't showered in six days. I haven't done anything. The only thing I could do is thank God every day, because that's all I would do, I would pray there,' the high schooler said, noting that he would also preach the Bible to the other migrants. But even that proved to be difficult, as his lawyer says officers initially refused to provide him with a Bible - which Gomes da Silva said was outrageous given that he has recited the Pledge of Allegiance in school every day.
He was also not allowed to watch television or hear the news, as his friends and colleagues rallied for his freedom outside. 'At the end of the day, this is not a good place to be,' Gomes da Silva said of the detention center. 'No one deserves to be held down there. Most people down there are all workers, they all got caught going to work,' he claimed, noting that he served as a translator for many of his fellow detainees because he speaks fluent English, Spanish and Portuguese. 'These people have families, man, like they have kids to go home to - and there's genuine criminals out there that people aren't giving attention to. They're getting good people that don't deserve to be there.'
The teen says he now wants to help those who are still at the facility, noting that his father - who is also facing deportation 'always told me to be humble.' First, though, Gomes da Silva said he is just excited to see his dog and his siblings again as he posted a selfie to Instagram writing: 'Six days no shower. You all mean the world to me. 'Jesus Christ #1,' he added. News of Gomes da Silva's arrest earlier this week set off a frenzy within his community, as community members argued that the high school athlete is innocent. They described him to the Boston Globe as a well-known honors student, ace drummer and varsity volleyball player who sometimes coached the girls' team. 'He hasn't [done] anything wrong. There's not one bad bone in his body that has done anything evil,' his friend Mary Buckley told WCVB. 'Trump said he was going to get rid of immigrants - immigrants that were criminals. Marcelo is the opposite of criminal. He's done nothing wrong. His family has done nothing wrong,' she claimed.
ICE officials have since claimed that they were searching for his father, Joao Paulo Gomes-Pereira, who is wanted for driving over 100mph in a residential zone - but Gomes da Silva's attorneys have called that into question. 'It sounds very targeted, they knew what they were doing - it wasn't like they were just looking for dad, he got confused, it sounds like they were doing some sort of rounds,' attorney Robin Nice told NBC Boston. 'And it also sounds like they followed him from his house to his friend's house, where they blocked him in the driveway,' Gomes da Silva's other attorney Miriam Conrad added. 'So presumably if they were watching the house, they would have seen him come out and they would have known he was an 18-year-old kid with braces on his teeth, not his father. So the whole thing is just very odd.'
Concerned by the reports of the teen's arrest, Democratic Congressmen Seth Moulton and Jake Auchincloss said they returned to their home state 'to try to understand what the hell is going on. 'We support securing our border, we support following the law. But this administration is breaking the law,' Moulton claimed. 'This administration is not keeping us safe by putting 18-year-old honors students in prison.' Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey echoed that sentiment in a statement. 'This has been such a traumatic time for this community and I hope that they find some solace in knowing that the rule of law and due process still prevail,' she said.
'Marcelo never should have been arrested or detained, and it certainly did not make us safer,' she continued. 'It's not OK that students across the state are fearful of going to school or sports practice and that parents have to question whether their children will come home at the end of the day. 'In Massachusetts, we are going to keep speaking out for what's right and supporting one another in our communities,' the governor vowed. Meanwhile, Gomes da Silva has filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court in Boston arguing that the federal government violated his due process rights by arresting him without cause or explanation. DailyMail.com has reached out to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for comment.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Sun
27 minutes ago
- The Sun
Actor Jared Leto denies historical claims of sexual misconduct from nine women
ACTOR Jared Leto has denied historical claims of sexual misconduct. The star, 53, was accused by nine women, including some who were teenagers at the time. But he has rebuffed the Air Mail report in which model Laura La Rue said she was just 16 when the then 36-year-old began messaging her. Describing a visit to his home, she said: 'He was flirting with me. "He'd lean in close, then pull away.' She says he later emerged from a room naked. La Rue said: 'I thought maybe this was just what adult men do.' He is also the frontman to rock band Thirty Seconds To Mars. His representative said: 'Their communications contain nothing sexual or inappropriate and Ms La Rue later applied to work as his personal assistant.' La Rue denied she ever applied for the job. Jared Leto's band Thirty Seconds To Mars perform Closer To The Edge 1


Reuters
29 minutes ago
- Reuters
Explainer: Does U.S. law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?
June 8 - President Donald Trump has deployed National Guard troops to California after two days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids, saying that the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and framing them as a possible 'form of rebellion, opens new tab' against the authority of the U.S. government. California Governor Gavin Newsom on Sunday said he had formally requested that the Trump Administration rescind "its unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles County" and return them to his command. Trump cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the U.S. Armed Forces, in his June 7 order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service. A provision of Title 10 - Section 12406, opens new tab - allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service if the U.S. is invaded, there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' WHAT ARE NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS ALLOWED TO DO UNDER THE LAW CITED IN TRUMP'S ORDER? An 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the U.S. military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Section 12406 does not override that prohibition, but it allows the troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property. For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to assembly, freedom of speech and the press. Experts have said that Trump's decision to have U.S. troops respond to protests is an ominous sign for how far the president is willing to go to repress political speech and activity that he disagrees with or that criticizes his administration's policies. Four legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organizations have cast doubt on Trump's use of Title 10 in response to immigration protests calling it inflammatory and reckless, especially without the support of California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, who has said Trump's actions would only escalate tensions. The protests in California do not rise to the level of 'rebellion' and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said. Title 10 also says "orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States," but legal experts said that language might not be an obstacle. Legislative history suggests that those words were likely meant to reflect the norms of how National Guard troops are typically deployed, rather than giving a governor the option to not comply with a president's decision to deploy troops. California could file a lawsuit, arguing that deployment of National Guard troops was not justified by Title 10 because there was no 'rebellion' or threat to law enforcement. A lawsuit might take months to resolve, and the outcome would be uncertain. Because the protests may be over before a lawsuit is resolved, the decision to sue might be more of a political question than a legal one, experts said. Trump could take a more far-reaching step by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent. Casting protests as an 'insurrection' that requires the deployment of troops against U.S. citizens would be riskier legal territory, one legal expert said, in part because mostly peaceful protests and minor incidents aren't the sort of thing that the Insurrection Act were designed to address. The Insurrection Act has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the U.S. in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the Rodney King trial. But, the last time a president deployed the National Guard in a state without a request from that state's governor was 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama.


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
AP PHOTOS: Portugal beats Spain to win the Nations League
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.