Toddler held in U.S. reunited with her mother in Venezuela after parents deported
May 14 (UPI) -- A 2-year-old kept in U.S. government custody after her parents were deported was reunited with her mother in Venezuela on Wednesday.
Maikelys Antonella Espinoza Bernal arrived in the morning at Simon Bolivar International Airport near Caracas on a flight from the United States, CNN reported. She was among the group of Venezuelans who returned to the Central American nation.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro posted video on Facebook of the reunion. She is seen being carried by lady Cilia Flores then handed over to the toddler's mother, Yorley Inciarte at the presidential palace in Caracas. The child's grandmother also was on hand.
Yorley Inciarte, 20, was deported on April 25 from the United States, and her partner eventually was sent to a notorious prison on El Salavador on March 30.
Maduro posted on Facebook: "The girl loved by all, miracle has been consumed again. First and foremost, thank God for bringing #Maikelys into her mother's arms. Very soon we will also rescue hisBVenezuela Analysis reported.
Escalona was sent to the CECOT mega-prison in El Salvador. Inciarte was deported without her daughter to Venezuela.
"The child's father, Maiker Espinoza-Escalona is a lieutenant of Tren De Aragua who oversees homicides, drug sales, kidnappings, extortion, sex trafficking and operates a torture house," DHS said in a statement on April 26. "The child's mother, Yorely Escarleth Bernal Inciarte, oversees recruitment of young women for drug smuggling and prostitution."
Inciarte told ABC News last week: "Everything is false. Here I am waiting for the evidence they have because if they are accusing me, it's because they have proof of what they are saying -- but here I am waiting."
In May 2024, the three-member family sought asylum, according to a court document filed by legal advocacy groups.
The mother was held in a detention center for several months in Texas, and her daughter was in custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. She asked for a deportation order so she could be reunited with their child. But it was denied.
"When my partner and my daughter arrive here, the only thing I [will] think about is staying here in my country," Inciarte told ABC News last week. "Because the only one who supported me and fought alongside me was my country, no one else."
In July, he received a deportation order by the Biden administration. The couple had weekly, in-person visits with their daughter between October and March, Espinoza said.
On March 29, Espinoza was sent to a naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The next day he was flown to El Salvador.
Since mid-March, 252 Venezuelan nationals have been expelled under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act based on allegations of gang affiliation. But most of them had no criminal record in the U.S., and the gang accusations were mainly based on profiling, such as tattoos.
Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat, said the Trump administration is paying $15 million to house hundreds of prisoners in El Salvador.
He visited his constituent, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old El Salvadorian national, on April 17.
Hashtags

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


San Francisco Chronicle
31 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Newsom blasts Trump's arrest threat as ‘unmistakable step toward authoritarianism'
President Donald Trump on Monday endorsed the idea of arresting California Gov. Gavin Newsom over the state's resistance to federal immigration enforcement efforts in Los Angeles, intensifying a clash that has already drawn legal challenges and fierce rebukes from Democratic leaders. 'I would do it if I were Tom,' Trump said, referring to Tom Homan, his border czar, who over the weekend suggested that state and local officials, including Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, could face arrest if they interfered with immigration raids. 'I think it's great. Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing,' Trump added. Trump's remarks signal a sharp escalation in the administration's crackdown on sanctuary jurisdictions and a willingness to target political opponents in unprecedented ways. Newsom responded swiftly, calling Trump's words a chilling attack on American democratic norms. 'The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor,' Newsom wrote on X. 'This is a day I hoped I would never see in America. I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' Tensions escalated sharply after Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles following days of civil unrest related to Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. The deployment marked the first time a president has federalized a state's National Guard without the governor's consent since 1965. Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced plans to sue Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, alleging the deployment was unlawful. 'Federalizing the California National Guard is an abuse of the President's authority under the law,' Bonta said at a press conference. 'There is no invasion. There is no rebellion.' Meanwhile, David Huerta, president of SEIU California, was charged with felony conspiracy to impede an officer after his arrest during the L.A. protests. Despite the furor, legal experts note that Homan lacks the authority to arrest elected officials, and his role remains advisory. Still, Trump's rhetoric has raised alarms among critics who view his comments as part of a broader pattern of undermining democratic institutions. 'This is a preview of things to come,' Newsom warned in an interview with Brian Taylor Cohen that he shared on social media. 'This isn't about L.A., per se,' the Democratic governor added. 'It's about us today, it's about you, everyone watching tomorrow. This guy is unhinged. Trump is unhinged right now, and this is just another proof point of that.' At a news conference held by lawmakers in Sacramento to discuss the protests in Los Angeles, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, said Trump's threat to arrest Newsom is a 'direct assault on democracy and an insult to every Californian.'

Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Can the President Activate a State's National Guard?
President Donald Trump's mobilization of the National Guard to quell immigration-related protests in Los Angeles marks a rare—and controversial—exercise of presidential power. Trump's decision to make the deployment against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom is especially unusual. The move marks the first time in 60 years that a President has called up National Guard troops to a state without a request from its governor. Newsom confirmed he didn't ask for the mobilization, saying in a post on X on Sunday that he had formally requested that the Trump Administration rescind what he called an 'unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles county and return them to my command.' The Democratic governor called the move 'a serious breach of state sovereignty,' and told MSNBC that he plans to file a lawsuit against the Administration. The decision to activate the National Guard came as thousands of demonstrators across Los Angeles county over the weekend protested Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids that targeted undocumented immigrants. While the protests had been largely peaceful, some of the demonstrations escalated: Rocks and Molotov cocktails were thrown, cars were vandalized, and law enforcement officials deployed crowd control agents including tear gas, 'flash bang' grenades, and rubber bullets. Read More: Gavin Newsom Says Trump 'Manufactured' Crisis in California, Announces Legal Challenge Over National Guard Order Though National Guard troops are typically controlled by state governors, the President does have the authority to deploy them in certain circumstances, including in response to civil unrest. It's a power that has existed in some form almost as long as the country itself, dating back to 1792, though it has been used only sparingly in the centuries since. The deployment of the National Guard in those instances has usually come at the request of state officials—thought not always. The last time a President mobilized the troops without the governor's consent was in 1965, when then-President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed National Guard troops to Alabama, without a request from the state's governor, in order to protect civil rights activists who were marching from Selma to Montgomery, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Alabama's governor at the time, Democrat George Wallace, didn't want to use state funds to protect the demonstrators. Johnson invoked the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the President to deploy military forces domestically to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or in certain other situations. The Insurrection Act 'is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities,' according to the Brennan Center for Justice. The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in 1992, when then-President George H.W. Bush called up National Guard troops to quell riots in Los Angeles that were sparked by the acquittal of the four white police officers charged in the beating of Rodney King, an unarmed Black man. Then-California Gov. Pete Wilson had requested the federal aid. Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, but he didn't rule out the possibility of doing so in the future. 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection,' Trump said, responding to a reporter's question about whether he was prepared to invoke the law. 'We're not going to let them get away with it.' To mobilize the National Guard troops this weekend, he instead invoked Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which allows for the federal deployment of National Guard forces in limited circumstances, including if 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' The provision states that the President may call the troops 'in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws.' But it also states, 'Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.' The Trump Administration's move sparked controversy, with many Democratic politicians and advocacy organizations blasting the decision. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said in a post on X that deploying National Guard troops 'over the objection of California leaders is an abuse of power and a dangerous escalation.' 'It's what you would see in authoritarian states and it must stop,' she continued. Legal experts also expressed concern over the Trump Administration's actions. 'For the federal government to take over the California National Guard, without the request of the governor, to put down protests is truly chilling,' Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, told the New York Times. Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown University Law Center professor specializing in military justice and national security law, called the move 'alarming' in a post on his website, saying there is a possibility that putting federal authorities on the ground 'will only raise the risk of escalating violence' and that the National Guard's mobilization could be intended as a 'precursor' to justify a more aggressive deployment in the future if it fails. 'The law may well allow President Trump to do what he did Saturday night,' Vladeck wrote. 'But just because something is legal does not mean that it is wise—for the present or future of our Republic.' Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Zelenskyy: US moved '20,000 missiles' to fight drones from Ukraine to the Middle East
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told ABC News' Martha Raddatz that his defense minister told him Friday the U.S. had transferred anti-drone weapons which defended against Russian attacks. Zelenskyy said the U.S. would divert "20,000 missiles" from Ukraine's arsenal to the Middle East, where it appears the U.S. would use them for its own force protection. 'Without the help of the United States, we will have more losses,' Zelenskyy told Raddatz in Kyiv last week. The move comes as Russia ramps up its drone attacks and after Ukraine struck deep inside Russia with its own drones last week, shocking Russia in a clandestine operation. Overnight Sunday, Russia launched 479 drones and 20 missiles into Ukraine in an attack the Ukrainian Air Force called an 'absolute record' for a Russian aerial offensive. The Pentagon declined to confirm the assets were being relocated. The Ukrainian president said the assets were 'not expensive, but [a] special technology' which specifically defended against Shahed drones. The Shaheds are an inexpensive drone originally made by Iran and imported by Moscow. Russia now mass produces them. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the Pentagon authorized a transfer of an anti-drone technology utilized by Ukraine to take down Russian drones. 'We counted on these 20,000 missiles,' Zelesnkyy told Raddatz in their exclusive Friday sit-down. He said that earlier in the day, 'my Minister of Defense told me that United States moved it to the Middle East.'