Miami Herald report on Alligator Alcatraz confirms what we suspected
According to the list, published by the Herald/Times in an urgently needed act of watchdog journalism, more than 250 of the detainees have immigration violations but no criminal convictions or charges in the U.S. Some are asylum seekers. Others arrived under humanitarian parole, or thought they were here with permission awaiting the result of ongoing legal cases.
In other words, the portrayals by President Donald Trump, Gov. Ron DeSantis, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and others that this detention center in the Everglades is a necessary tool for detaining 'vicious' people and 'deranged psychopaths' is a gross overstatement, underscoring the reasons that due process is so important.
No doubt there are some bad characters in the bunch. A third of the detainees on the list, which fluctuates as the population of the detention center changes, have various criminal convictions, the Herald/Times reported, with charges ranging from attempted murder and illegal re-entry to traffic violations. Hundreds of others only have pending charges.
But overall, the idea that more than a third of those being held had no pending U.S. charges or convictions should be chilling to Americans. Just how indiscriminate has the U.S. immigration system become?
Democratic and Republican members of Congress from Florida and state legislators were given a guided tour of the camp on Saturday, after several Democrats were initially turned away during an unannounced visit earlier in the week. Those on the tour came away with varying conclusions on the conditions, ranging from some Democrats characterizing it as an abomination while some Republicans said the air-conditioned facility meets all prison standards.
Conditions aside, the list published by the Herald offers some concrete information on who is being held at the detention center that cuts through the rhetoric surrounding Alligator Alcatraz, which is being run by Florida — the president's home state — and paid for by taxpayers.
As Walter Jara, the nephew of a 56-year-old Nicaraguan man taken to the facility following a traffic stop in Palm Beach County, told the Herald: 'That place is supposedly for the worst criminals in the U.S.' The list indicates that his uncle, Denis Alcides Solis Morales, has immigration violations but makes no mention of convictions or pending criminal charges. Jara said his uncle came to the U.S. legally in 2023 under a humanitarian parole program, and has a pending asylum case.
Are those people so dangerous that they should be housed in a place called Alligator Alcatraz?
DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin insisted to reporters that the absence of a criminal charge in the U.S. doesn't mean migrants have done nothing wrong. She said in a statement that some are 'actually terrorists, human rights abusers, gangsters and more' who 'just don't have a rap sheet in the U.S.' And, she added, 'every single one of these individuals committed a crime when they came into this country illegally.'
Trump was elected promising to deport illegal immigrants who committed crimes. Once in office, he revoked Temporary Protected Status ( TPS) and humanitarian parole from thousands of people from places like Venezuela, Nicaragua and Haiti, effectively creating a whole new class of people without legal status.
According to polls, Americans overwhelmingly support deporting immigrants with violent criminal records. But the Herald/Times findings reveal a broader dragnet at work — one that ensnares farm workers, people stopped for traffic violations and those who simply attend their immigration hearings. In our state, they are being rounded up with the same zeal used for violent offenders.
If we are holding undocumented people in an isolated camp who have no charges or convictions in the U.S., that's a moral and legal failure.
Click here to send the letter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
14 minutes ago
- UPI
Proposed U.S. tariffs could cut Brazil's GDP by as much as 0.8%
July 14 (UPI) -- The 50% tariffs proposed by Donald Trump could cut Brazil's gross domestic product by between 0.3 and 0.8 percentage points in 2025, according to Brazilian economists and consulting firms. The final impact will depend on how Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's administration responds and whether Brazil can redirect its exports. Brazil's annual export loss could range from $12 billion to $17 billion, representing 3.6% to 5% of the country's total exports, according to Rogério Marin, CEO of Tek Trade and president of the Foreign Trade Companies Union of Santa Catarina, in comments to the Brazilian digital outlet Agricultura y Negocios. Marin estimates an annual negative impact on GDP of between 0.6% and 0.8%. According to XP, one of Brazil's major investment and financial services firms, the tariffs could reduce GDP growth by 0.3 percentage points in 2025 and 0.5 percentage points in 2026, with Brazilian exports to the United States projected to fall by $6.5 billion in 2025 and $16.5 billion the following year. Agribusiness firm FGVAgro said in a statement that the proposed 50% tariff would particularly impact the agricultural sector, which accounts for 30% of exports to the U.S. market. "Food exports are estimated to fall by as much as 75%, which could cause a contraction of up to 0.41% in Brazil's GDP. Domestic consumption is also projected to decline by as much as $13 billion," the firm said. Brazil's National Confederation of Industry, or CNI), and other business groups have urged a diplomatic resolution. "A rupture in the relationship with the United States would cause serious harm to our economy," said Ricardo Alban, president of the CNI, who called for "intensifying negotiations to reverse this decision." The American Chamber of Commerce for Brazil, Amcham Brasil, has urged avoiding a trade war, saying it "has no winners." The group argues that the arbitrary imposition of tariffs serves neither side's interests and instead creates uncertainty that discourages investment and economic growth. Brazil maintains a strong trade relationship with the United States, exporting about $41 billion annually, primarily in industrial and agricultural goods. That volume represents roughly 1.7% of Brazil's GDP. "Brazilian industry -- especially manufacturing -- has broken export records to the United States in recent years, underscoring the importance of maintaining a stable trade environment," said Marcos Santos Carena, director of the Business Observer, a consulting firm that operates in Brazil, Colombia and the United States. The announced tariffs could significantly impact several sectors of Brazil's economy. Experts warn that about 40% of the affected exports are manufactured goods with limited potential to be redirected to other markets. The agricultural and agribusiness sectors could be among the hardest hit, as the United States is a key market for products such as coffee and orange juice. One-third of the coffee and half of the orange juice consumed in the United States comes from Brazil, Santos Carena said. Other agricultural exports could also be affected. In the aerospace sector, Embraer -- the Brazilian aircraft manufacturer -- has been identified as one of the companies that could be hit hardest, with sharp declines in its market value. The tariffs could hurt the competitiveness of its exports to the United States. Brazil's steel and aluminum industries are already subject to additional tariffs, and a new 50% levy would make these exports unviable, according to industry representatives. Although the United States accounts for a small share of Brazil's mining exports -- about 4% -- the tariffs could affect sales of gold, natural stones, ornamental rocks, iron ore, kaolin and niobium. Other exports that could be affected include engines and generators, parts for industrial machinery, data processing equipment, measuring instruments, wood and forest products -- such as pulp and fiberboard -- and meat. In a meeting lasting more than four hours at the Palácio da Alvorada on Sunday, Lula convened his cabinet ministers -- including those from finance, industry, agriculture, and foreign affairs -- along with the Central Bank president and Senate leaders to coordinate a response to the tariffs announced by President Donald Trump. Among the agreed measures was the creation of a committee led by Vice President Geraldo Alckmin. The group, which includes business leaders, will bring together affected sectors to develop joint proposals and advise the president before any official announcement. The government pledged to issue a decree by Tuesday outlining legal and technical criteria for triggering countermeasures if the U.S. tariffs take effect Aug. 1, as Trump promised. While officials have not ruled out reciprocal action, Lula's administration said its priority is negotiation, multilateral diplomacy -- through channels such as the World Trade Organization -- and non-tariff solutions.
Washington Post
17 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Voting in Wisconsin's governor's race is a year away, but the ads are starting
MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin's race for governor is hitting the airwaves more than a year before voting begins. Republican candidate Bill Berrien announced the purchase of about $400,000 in cable TV, radio and online ads Monday. The buy comes 13 months before the Aug. 11, 2026, primary. Berrien is the first candidate to purchase ads of any kind in the race.
USA Today
18 minutes ago
- USA Today
English only: Trump clamping down on offering federal services in other languages
Some federal court rulings have found that failing to provide certain services in other languages can be discriminatory. The Trump administration is clamping down on other languages as it formally begins implementing the president's order making English the country's sole official language. Many government agencies have long provided services and documents in other languages, reflecting the United States' longtime reputation as a nation of immigrants. But President Donald Trump upon retaking the White House declared English the nation's official language. Previously, the country had no official language, although English was the guidance issued by Attorney General Pam Bondi on July 14, federal agencies must begin reviewing any "unnecessary multilingual offerings" they currently offer and consider ending them. Trump said making English the official language will improve national unity and encourage immigrants to assimilate, a sentiment echoed by Bondi in her memo. "By prioritizing English as the official language, we strengthen national unity and operational efficiency while providing agencies with practical tools to balance this mandate with mission-critical responsibilities," Bondi wrote to the entire federal government. Bondi said she was suspending the federal government's Limited English Proficiency website service, which historically advised agencies on how to best assist people who don't speak English well. The website also lists multiple instances in which federal officials have secured legally binding agreements with state and local governments to provide options for people who don't speak English. Bondi's memo does not require other agencies to stop providing services in other languages, but orders them to determine "which of their programs, grants, and policies might serve the public at large better if operated exclusively in English." The administration said that within 180 days it will publish a listing of services that will still be offered in other languages. Federal services currently provided in languages other than English include: voting information, emergency warnings and weather forecasts, court proceedings and IRS forms. People seeking to become U.S. citizens are also allowed to skip the English-language portion of the citizenship test or bring an interpreter, under certain circumstances. Some federal court rulings have found that failing to provide certain services in other languages can be discriminatory, but Bondi in her new order said some departments were providing far more than the legally required translations. The federal Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, or national origin, but Trump officials argue previous administrations incorrectly applied the law. "A shared language binds Americans together, transcending different backgrounds to create a common foundation for public discourse, government operations, and civic life, while leaving ample room for the vibrant linguistic diversity that thrives in private and community spheres," Bondi added. "This initiative is not merely a return to tradition but a forward-looking strategy to enhance social and economic integration, offering all residents the opportunity to learn and embrace English as a means of achieving the American dream." A 2024 survey by the Pew Research Center found that 51% of Americans said it was "extremely or very important" for the U.S. to make English its official language. The survey found that nearly 75% of Republicans or Republican-leaning Americans supported making English the official language, compared to just 32% of Democrats or Democrat-leaning voters. The Linguistic Society of America, which opposed making English the official national language, noted that Congress repeatedly over centuries declined to pass proposals making the designation, and pointed out that several states in the 1780s had to translate the proposed Constitution into German and Dutch before ratification because so many people didn't speak English. The Kentucky-based LSA, founded in 1924 to promote the scientific study of langauge, said trying to create national unity through language is ineffective. More than 80% of the world's countries are officially bi- or multilingual, the LSA said. "Furthermore, there is research documenting how imposing a common language can actually generate intense resistance, rather than creating a 'unified and cohesive' society," the LSA said in a position paper. "The intertwined nature of language and race creates a linguistic hierarchy in which the languages and linguistic repertoires of non-White speakers are considered deficient. The imposition of this kind of linguistic hierarchy can only be divisive."
