Canadian mother reportedly detained in the U.S. as Trump-voting husband feels 'totally blindsided'
Cynthia Olivera's green card interview was on June 13 in California. As she went into the interview room, her husband, Francisco Olivera waited outside. 'We feel totally blindsided. I want my vote back,' Francisco told KGTV after Cynthia was detained.
Francisco is a U.S. citizen and self-identified Trump voter. The U.S. president's promises to deport dangerous criminals appealed to the couple but they didn't think Cynthia's lack of legal U.S. status would be a problem — no criminal charges were found under Cynthia's name by KGTV. 'The U.S. is my country,' Cynthia told KGTV from an immigration detention centre in El Paso, Texas. 'That's where I met my husband. That's where I went to high school, junior high, elementary. That's where I had my kids,' she continued.
The 45-year-old was born in Canada and taken to the U.S. by her parents when she was 10 years old. In 1999, when Cynthia was 19 years old, U.S. border officials determined she was living in the country without a legal status and an order was obtained to deport her.
After being removed, Cynthia returned within a few months to the U.S. by driving to San Diego from Mexico, The Guardian reports. 'They didn't ask me for my citizenship – they didn't do nothing. They just waved me in,' Cynthia told KGTV.
For the next 25 years, Cynthia is reported to have worked in Los Angeles where she paid her taxes and provided for her family. She has three children who were born in the U.S. As she navigated the onerous task of obtaining a green card, she was granted a permit by the Biden administration in 2024 that allowed her to work legally in the U.S.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration in an emailed statement referred to Cynthia as an 'illegal alien from Canada,' The Guardian reports.
In a statement to Newsweek, the spokesperson said Cynthia was 'previously deported and chose to ignore our law and again illegally entered the country.' The statement further noted that 're-entering the U.S. without permission after being deported is a felony, and it said Olivera would remain in Ice's custody pending removal to Canada,' Newsweek reports.
Cynthia reportedly told officials that the couple can pay for her to fly to Canada, where she would live with a cousin in Mississauga, Ontario. 'Despite offering to pay for her own flight back to Canada and waive her rights to a bond hearing, she remains locked up at an ICE detention facility in El Paso, Texas,' reads a petition on change.org.
The Canadian government told KGTV that it is aware of Cynthia's case but cannot intervene because 'every country or territory decides who can enter or exit through its borders,' Guardian reports.
U.K. singer arrested in U.S. after being denied entry into Canada. She overstayed her visa by 26 years
Canadian man detained by ICE dies in custody in Miami
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
2 minutes ago
- Newsweek
EB-5 Visas, Gold Card Face Potential Surge in Demand: What to Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. With the future of birthright citizenship under threat, immigration experts say any move to curtail the long-standing constitutional principle could lead to an increase in demand for legal residency programs like the EB-5 visa and President Donald Trump's proposed gold card visa. Why It Matters Birthright citizenship, grounded in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, currently grants automatic citizenship to anyone born on American soil, regardless of parental immigration status. This doctrine, known as jus soli, has long made the U.S. a hub for so-called "birth tourism," where foreign nationals enter the country, often on tourist visas, with the intent of giving birth, thereby securing American citizenship for their child. What To Know A person holds a smartphone displaying the website for registering interest in the new gold card visa on June 12, 2025, in Shanghai, China. U.S. A person holds a smartphone displaying the website for registering interest in the new gold card visa on June 12, 2025, in Shanghai, China. U.S. VCG via AP However, with rising political momentum among the Trump administration to limit or eliminate this right for children of undocumented parents, industry leaders say wealthy international families will look for new legal avenues to secure their children's future in the U.S. The constitutional guarantee of citizenship for anyone born on U.S. soil originates from the 14th Amendment and was upheld by the Supreme Court in the pivotal 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In this decision, the Court determined that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was entitled to U.S. citizenship, setting a lasting precedent that has shaped immigration law ever since. The Constitution states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Ali Jahangiri, head of the EB5 Lending Alliance, told Newsweek, "Removing or restricting birthright citizenship would close a loophole used by many foreign nationals and shift demand toward investment-based and merit-based immigration pathways like EB-5 and Gold Cards, which provide more secure, legal, and long-term immigration solutions for wealthy families looking to secure a future for their children in the U.S." The EB5 program, which grants green cards to foreign nationals who invest a minimum of $800,000 in a U.S. business that creates at least 10 jobs, offers a direct path to permanent residency for the investor, their spouse, and children under 21. With birthright citizenship at risk, legal immigration channels for wealthy immigrants could become more viable. In February, the president proposed a gold card program that would offer U.S. residency to individuals who invest $5 million in the country. A key aspect of the proposed "Trump Card" visa is its territorial taxation model, which would tax recipients only on income earned within the United States—exempting them from U.S. taxes on their worldwide income. The program would target high-net-worth individuals, offering long-term legal residency in exchange for significant economic contributions to the U.S. "If the U.S. were to introduce a program like this, families who would have considered birth tourism might instead pursue a gold card for legal residency and a longer-term path to citizenship," Jahangiri said. However, not everyone is sold on the idea of a gold card, warning that it may face significant political and practical hurdles. "There does not appear to be broad or coordinated support within Congress for the program, even among Republicans, due to concerns relating to the viability of the program and its optics," Morgan Bailey, a partner at Mayer Brown and former senior official at the Department of Homeland Security, told Newsweek. "For example, many other countries that have implemented similar wealth-based immigration programs have ultimately rolled them back due to concerns relating to national security, money laundering, and limited long-term economic benefits, as well as criticism that citizenship or permanent residency could be purchased," she added. Meanwhile, a judge in New Hampshire on Thursday blocked Trump's order ending birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants from taking effect across the United States, using a class action ruling just weeks after the Supreme Court limited nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA without resolving the underlying constitutional question. What People Are Saying Ali Jahangiri, head of the EB5 Lending Alliance, told Newsweek: "If such changes were implemented, it would eliminate or greatly reduce the incentive for birth tourism as a path to U.S. citizenship for the next generation. This shift would likely drive increased interest in formal, legal immigration channels that provide clearer and more secure pathways to citizenship or permanent residency." Morgan Bailey, a partner at Mayer Brown and former senior official at the Department of Homeland Security, told Newsweek: "If the Trump Gold Card were to be implemented before the 2026 midterm elections, several key steps would need to take place. In the absence of Congressional backing, the Administration would likely attempt to roll out the program via executive action or regulatory rulemaking. While these pathways could raise legal questions, it is important to understand that such a program could move forward quickly. Under this Administration, we have already seen extraordinary policy shifts implemented, sometimes with legal risks, but also with considerable political impact such as the attempt to end birthright citizenship, the termination of certain country specific programs such as Temporary Protected Status and humanitarian parole programs, and the reshaping of various internal immigration procedures that would have previously been considered politically implausible." What Happens Next While any formal rollback of birthright citizenship will continue to face legal and political hurdles, the mere discussion of its removal is already prompting experts to prepare for a new wave of interest from wealthy individuals seeking secure and lawful alternatives.
New York Times
2 minutes ago
- New York Times
What if Everything We Know About Sacagawea Is Wrong?
In a conference room in the middle of the Great Plains, 50 people gathered to correct what they saw as a grave error in the historical record. It was July 16, 2015, on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota, not too far upstream from the camp on the Missouri River where Meriwether Lewis and William Clark first met Sacagawea, the teenage girl who would accompany them to the Pacific Ocean and back. The story of that journey has been told many times: in the journals that Lewis and Clark kept; in more than a century of academic histories; and in countless more fanciful works that have turned the expedition, and Sacagawea's supposed role as guide to the Americans, into one of the country's foundational myths. The people in the conference room, members of three closely related tribes, the Mandans, the Hidatsas and the Arikaras, thought basically all of it was nonsense. Jerome Dancing Bull, a Hidatsa elder, took the microphone first. The day was warm enough that someone had propped the door open to the outside; the sun was blindingly bright, the prairie a labrador's scruff in the distance. 'They got it all wrong!' he told the people in the room, referring to the bare-bones, truncated life sketched out for Sacagawea by Lewis and Clark and the historians who followed them. In that telling, Sacagawea was born a member of the Shoshone tribe in present-day Idaho, was kidnapped by the Hidatsa as a child, spent most of 1805 and 1806 with the expedition and died in 1812, while she was still in her 20s. The Hidatsas insist that she was a member of their tribe all along and died more than 50 years later, in 1869. And not of old age, either: She was shot to death. History has always been a process; it has also long attracted partisans who insist that its judgments should be frozen in time. In March, the Trump administration released an executive order with the title 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,' which condemned the 'widespread effort to rewrite history' and called for 'solemn and uplifting public monuments.' It was a timeworn complaint turned into a wanton threat: Mess with our national symbols, and we'll pull your funding. Sacagawea long ago left the realm of the apolitical dead. Over the years, she has been pressed into service as an avatar of patient humility or assertive feminism, of American expansionism or Indigenous rights, of Jeffersonian derring-do or native wisdom. Her face is on U.S. currency, her name has been affixed to a caldera on Venus and there are statues of her spread throughout the nation, each incarnation seeming to pull her further out of context. The Trump administration has said it wants to include a sculpture of her in a planned National Garden of American Heroes, effectively claiming her as an honorary citizen — though to the federal government at the time, she was closer to being an alien enemy. 'The Hidatsas' portrait of Sacagawea is both richer and more ambiguous than the one found in standard histories.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
2 minutes ago
- New York Times
I Hate, Therefore I Am
I said a good word about Elon Musk not long ago. It was at a party. I'd had some punch. (Two cups. Maybe two and a half?) I think it was something about Starlink. I'm not sure. I'd just read Walter Isaacson's affable Musk biography. My interlocutor, a genial fellow professor, looked at me as if I'd kicked his dog. Why? Because we (good people, Whole Foods shoppers, composting mavens, pronouns respecters) don't like Elon. In fact, we hate him. Truly, we do. We once aspired to drive a Tesla, but no more. Everything about him is bad. I find hate to be virtually omnipresent in the current culture. Libs hate conservatives, and conservatives hate 'em right back. People hate politicians, the elite, MAGA hats (and their wearers), social media (though they cannot stay away from it). Some hate the rich. Some despise immigrants. People hate the media. They hate corporations. They hate capitalism. They hate woke and cancel culture. They hate globalism and globalists. They hate this president. There is love out there to be sure — for Beyoncé, for Pedro Pascal and, yes, even for this president, but hate trumps love by a mile now, or so it seems to me. Why should this be true? Descartes had a famous dictum about the constitutive powers of the thinking self: I think therefore I am. Could it be that, today, I hate, therefore I am? What if who and what we hate is who we are now? Why might hate be constructive — crucially constructive — of identity at this particular point in time? And why should possessing identity matter so much to us? The traditional sources of stable selfhood have been significantly depleted over time. We live in an age of skepticism, often corrosive skepticism, about our institutions and their good intentions. Perhaps we are not wrong to do so. To speak personally, the revelations about priestly child molesting sent me to a level of antipathy to the Catholic Church (in which I grew up) that stays with me still. Many others have had similar experiences — about bank bailouts or Covid school closures or President Joe Biden's reported mental acuity. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
