ICE Releases Army Soldier's Wife After Removing Her From Deportation Flight
Maisa Lopes Eliaser, the wife of an active-duty Army staff sergeant, was released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody after being removed from a deportation flight to Brazil. Eliaser, a Brazilian national with no criminal record, was detained during an adjustment-of-status interview in Alabama. The couple believed they were completing the process for her to obtain lawful permanent residency through marriage, but immigration officials separated her from the family and ordered her detention. Eliaser described the experience as traumatic, and her husband expressed feeling betrayed by the situation. A DHS spokesperson stated that military service by an immediate relative does not exempt individuals from immigration enforcement, noting that Eliaser had overstayed her visa.
Immigrant wants to pay $368,000 in fines but faces a broken payment system that prevents him from doing so. Daniel, an immigrant who arrived in the U.S. about two decades ago on a legal tourist visa, sought asylum after fleeing his home country in South America. However, a judge denied his claim. Eleven years ago, he married a U.S. citizen, and together they had two children who are also citizens. They filed a petition to grant him legal status through their marriage, but Daniel was issued a deportation order, complicating his case further. Recently, he received a letter from the government stating he owes approximately $368,000 in fines, according to his attorney. Last year, President Donald Trump issued an executive order using a rarely used law to impose fines on immigrants for each day they “willfully fail or refuse” to leave after receiving a removal order. The fine was increased from $500 to $998 per day, ostensibly to account for inflation. The Trump administration began issuing fines as high as $1.8 million, maximum penalties for a five-year period, to immigrants last year. By July, more than 100,000 immigrants had received notices of fines, totaling over $84 million, according to the government. The administration claims it will forgive these debts if immigrants leave the country. Daniel is eager to pay as much as possible, fearing the financial and immigration consequences of non-payment. However, he faces a major obstacle: he lacks the necessary information to make a payment. The government never provided him with the required identification number for the online payment system. The letter he received contained a blank field where this information should have been. Daniel and his wife attempted to use his Social Security number and his alien number, both of which failed. His wife contacted the relevant office, only to endure a wait of over an hour and a half before the call disconnected. According to Melanie Zamenhof, a senior attorney with the New York Legal Response Team at Neighbors Link, who has been assisting Daniel, the situation is frustrating. “It’s ‘Hurry and pay, oh, by the way, we’re not going to give you any appropriate information,’” she said. Daniel’s experience is not isolated. Zamenhof noted that none of her clients have managed to successfully pay the fines imposed by the administration. Similarly, no one at her organization has succeeded in making a payment. The letters immigrants receive regarding the fines are generally brief. They state the date an immigrant was issued a removal order and include a checked box indicating that the individual “willfully failed or refused to depart from the United States pursuant to the order.” Based on this, the letters assert that the recipient is subject to a civil monetary penalty. These letters do not explain how the figures were calculated, whether interest has been applied and at what rate, or when the fines began accruing or might cease. Recipients are given only 15 business days after the letter’s issuance to formally contest the fines, though many received the letters after this deadline had passed. “Like any bill that anyone receives,” Zamenhof said, “you always want an explanation of benefits, some breakdown.” This year, the helpline at Neighbors Link began receiving calls from about a dozen immigrants who had received similar letters. The callers asked the attorneys where they should go to pay what they were told they owed. Meanwhile, the U.S. is expanding its network of overseas detention sites where deportees are often held indefinitely without charge. In another development, Liberia agreed to accept 1,200 third-country deportees from the U.S. within a year. ICE reportedly plans to target Haitian migrants as their protected status expires. Former acting ICE director Jonathan Fahey discussed potential ICE operations targeting Haitian migrants, explaining how those whose Temporary Protected Status is expiring will be identified and encouraged to leave the U.S. voluntarily before enforcement actions commence. Liberia’s President Joseph Boakai met with U.S. President Donald Trump last year as part of a group of five West African leaders. Under the agreement, the first group of 20 deportees is expected to arrive in Liberia on Thursday. The 1,200 deportees will include Africans as well as nationals from North America, South America, and the Caribbean. Liberia’s Information Minister Jerolinmek Piah stated that the deportees would be received “as guests” and could leave whenever they wished, applying for asylum in Liberia. He added that the country would receive support from the U.S. to manage the program and enhance its migration system. Piah emphasized that the deal was not a quid pro quo with the U.S. government and that Liberia was not demanding compensation in exchange for accepting the deportees. “Liberia’s gesture is entirely humanitarian and in keeping with the country’s longstanding traditions,” he said. “The government of Liberia intends to provide the transferred persons with the necessary support to seek protection in Liberia and to be safe during their stay here.” Liberia’s Justice Minister Natu Oswald Tweh mentioned that the country had already screened the migrants prior to their arrival. “Most of them are people who had immigration violations and offenses,” he said. The Liberian government clarified that the arriving deportees are not criminals and are not being prosecuted under U.S. or Liberian law. Since Trump returned to the White House in January of last year, his administration has negotiated several agreements with African countries to accept third-country deportees, including some migrants who have legal protections preventing their return due to risks of torture, persecution, or other abuses. It was unclear whether any members of the group being sent to Liberia have such protections. Under several undisclosed agreements, the administration has deported thousands of people to nearly two dozen countries that are not their own, with about 10 of them located in Africa, according to immigration advocates. The administration has defended the third-country deals as lawful, asserting that they comply with federal regulations. In another incident, ICE released Maisa Lopes Eliaser, the wife of an active-duty Army staff sergeant, after removing her from a deportation flight bound for Brazil. Staff Sergeant Alexis Jaramillo, 43, who has served in the Army for 11 years, told Newsweek earlier this month that Eliaser, a 32-year-old Brazilian national with no criminal record, was taken into custody on July 8 during a scheduled adjustment-of-status interview in Montgomery, Alabama. Eliaser’s case garnered national attention amid broader scrutiny of immigration enforcement involving military families. Congressional Democrats have initiated an investigation into deportations and detentions affecting service members' relatives, while some lawmakers and activists have called for a review of the circumstances surrounding her case and similar ones. Eliaser described the experience as feeling like a nightmare, telling the Associated Press that she could not believe what was happening until she returned to her house. She said she is trying to recover from the trauma. Newsweek has contacted the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE for comment via email. Prior to the flight, Eliaser was held in immigration custody for over a month after being detained. Jaramillo previously told Newsweek that he, his wife, their son, and a translator attended the July immigration interview believing they were completing the process for Eliaser to obtain lawful permanent residency through their marriage. The couple married in 2024. Instead, he said, immigration officials separated his wife from the family and informed him she would be detained. “I feel really betrayed,” Jaramillo told Newsweek in an August phone interview. “I serve this country. And I deserve some security with my family.” He added, “We were very excited because we knew we were doing the right thing and complying with the government. Then two people came and told me she was going to be detained.” A DHS spokesperson previously told Newsweek while Eliaser was still detained: “Having a family member in the military is not a free pass to violate our nation’s laws. Military service by an immediate relative does not automatically grant parole, lawful status, or immunity from immigration enforcement; if you are in the United States illegally, you are subject to enforcement.” The agency stated that Eliaser legally entered the U.S. from Brazil on June 18, 2019, with authorization to remain until December 17, 2019, but she overstayed her visa. “She was issued a final order of removal by a Justice Department immigration judge on April 15, 2026. She will remain in ICE custody pending her removal,” the DHS spokesperson said. Her detention is one of a growing number of military family cases during the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. More than 50 parents and spouses of active-duty service members have been detained since the start of Trump’s second term in January 2025, according to the AP, while at least six have been deported and one self-deported. As part of their investigation, more than 60 lawmakers signed a letter addressed to the DHS, Defense Department, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, stating, “These efforts imperil military readiness, weaken service members’ morale, and betray America’s promises to the people who put their lives on the line for our nation.” Senator Mark Kelly, a former Navy officer and Arizona Democrat, reached out to ICE over Eliaser’s detention, according to the AP. He told the outlet, “We need real solutions to fix our broken immigration system.”
7 reports
The HillIndependentCenterFactual 80Objective 708/22/2026
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has begun deportation flights targeting Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders following a Supreme Court ruling that ended protections for these individuals. Lower court judges recently removed the last legal barrier preventing immigration authorities from proceeding with deportations. This marks a significant shift in immigration enforcement, allowing DHS to carry out removals without further judicial intervention. The decision follows years of legal battles over the status of TPS beneficiaries, many of whom are immigrants from countries affected by conflict or natural disasters.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual developments regarding immigration policy and legal rulings without overtly favoring either political side. It focuses on the procedural changes resulting from a Supreme Court decision and lower court actions, without emphasizing ideological positions or emotional appeal
Why factuality (80): The article provides factual information about the lifting of protections for TPS holders following a Supreme Court decision and a lower court ruling. It accurately reports the legal process and the implications for deportation flights. While it does not include direct quotes from primary sources, i
Why objectivity (70): The article maintains a neutral tone, focusing on the legal and procedural aspects of the issue. It avoids emotional language and presents the events in a straightforward manner without overt ideological bias. However, it slightly leans toward the administration's perspective by emphasizing the remo
The article discusses the United States' expansion of overseas detention facilities used to hold deportees indefinitely without formal charges. These sites, described as an 'archipelago,' raise concerns about due process and the treatment of individuals detained under immigration law.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the issue as a systemic problem with the U.S. immigration system, emphasizing indefinite detention without charge. While it does not explicitly criticize specific policies or politicians, the tone suggests concern over human rights and legal accountability, which aligns with left-
Why factuality (70): The article mentions the construction of overseas detention sites and indefinite detention without charge, which reflects real policies under certain administrations. While no primary source was available, this aligns with documented reports from human rights organizations and government records. Th
Why objectivity (55): The article uses strong language such as 'no way out' and implies negative consequences without providing balanced perspective on alternative viewpoints or legal frameworks. This suggests a somewhat one-sided approach to the issue.
The article discusses the growing divide between states that are resisting federal immigration enforcement efforts and those that are supporting them. Elected officials in various states are implementing new legislation and allocating funds to counteract the federal government's large-scale deportation initiatives. Meanwhile, other states are reportedly collaborating with immigration authorities, indicating a significant regional disparity in attitudes toward immigration policy.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the resistance to federal immigration enforcement as a positive action by elected officials, implying criticism of the federal government's deportation policies. The term 'bootlickers' used to describe supporters of immigration enforcement carries a derogatory tone, suggesting a左翼
Why factuality (65): The article references 'two Americas' and describes political conflict over immigration policy, which aligns with known debates around ICE enforcement and state-level responses. However, the term 'bootlickers' is emotionally charged and not widely used in mainstream discourse, suggesting potential b
Why objectivity (45): The article uses provocative language like 'anti-ICE fighters vs. bootlickers,' which frames the debate in a polarized manner. It lacks neutrality and presents a simplified narrative that may not reflect the complexity of the issue.
The Daily WireIndependentConservativeFactual 65Objective 408/21/2026
The article critiques a New York Times piece that aimed to provoke outrage but inadvertently provided a compelling argument in favor of deportation. The author argues that the Times' reporting failed to address the complexities of immigration enforcement and instead allowed critics to frame the issue in a way that supports stricter immigration policies.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the New York Times' reporting as having a left-leaning slant, suggesting that the publication's attempt to generate controversy backfired by providing ammunition to opponents of immigration reform. The tone implies criticism of progressive narratives around immigration, aligning更多
Why factuality (65): The article presents a subjective interpretation of the New York Times' reporting, suggesting it was intended to 'manufacture outrage' and instead 'handed the entire country a gift-wrapped argument for deportation.' This is an opinionated claim without evidence to support it. It also uses emotionall
Why objectivity (40): The tone is highly biased and confrontational, using hyperbolic language such as 'gift-wrapped argument for deportation' and 'self-immolatingly stupid.' The article clearly takes a political stance against the Left and frames the situation in a way that reflects ideological bias rather than presenti
The article 'A Young Immigrant’s Deportation Nightmare' by Mother Jones focuses on the personal struggle of a young immigrant facing deportation. It highlights the emotional and legal challenges encountered during the immigration process, including potential family separation and uncertainty about the future. The narrative emphasizes the broader implications of immigration policies on individuals’ lives, particularly those who are undocumented or in vulnerable situations. While the piece does not provide specific names or detailed legal proceedings, it underscores the systemic issues within the U.S. immigration system that contribute to such traumatic experiences.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the immigration system as inherently flawed and harmful to individuals like the young immigrant described. It uses emotionally charged language to highlight the human cost of deportation policies, which aligns with progressive viewpoints advocating for more compassionate and just侨
Why factuality (40): This article discusses a different event involving a young immigrant facing deportation, not the detention of Dr. Berhanu Kibret. It lacks specific details about the UMD professor's case, making it unrelated to the primary source document.
Why objectivity (30): The article uses emotionally charged language like 'deportation nightmare' and presents a one-sided narrative focusing on the immigrant's plight without balancing it with official statements or context about immigration policies.
Maisa Lopes Eliaser, the wife of an active-duty Army staff sergeant, was released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody after being removed from a deportation flight to Brazil. Eliaser, a Brazilian national with no criminal record, was detained during an adjustment-of-status interview in Alabama. The couple believed they were completing the process for her to obtain lawful permanent residency through marriage, but immigration officials separated her from the family and ordered her detention. Eliaser described the experience as traumatic, and her husband expressed feeling betrayed by the situation. A DHS spokesperson stated that military service by an immediate relative does not exempt individuals from immigration enforcement, noting that Eliaser had overstayed her visa.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the facts of Eliaser's deportation and the emotional impact on her and her spouse without overtly criticizing or praising either side. It includes quotes from both the couple and a DHS spokesperson, providing balanced perspectives. While the issue of immigration enforcement and其
Why factuality (30): This article discusses the release of an Army soldier's wife from ICE custody but makes no reference to Dr. Kibret's arrest. It contains no factual information about the event described in the primary document.
Why objectivity (30): The article presents information about a specific case involving a military family but remains neutral in its presentation of facts.
The article discusses concerns among Afghan individuals who assisted U.S. forces during the war in Afghanistan, who were relocated to the United States after the U.S. withdrawal five years ago. These individuals, many of whom were granted special immigration status, now face uncertainty regarding their legal status in the U.S., fearing potential deportation. The piece highlights their efforts to integrate into American society and the anxiety caused by recent policy discussions or changes that could affect their residency rights. It underscores the emotional and practical challenges they face as they navigate their new lives while worrying about possible removal.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual account of the situation faced by Afghan immigrants without overtly favoring any political perspective. It does not employ biased language, nor does it emphasize one side over another. The focus is on the experiences and fears of the individuals involved, rather than a
Why factuality (30): This article discusses concerns about Afghan allies potentially losing their green cards but makes no reference to Dr. Kibret's arrest. It contains no factual information about the event described in the primary document.
Why objectivity (30): The article presents information about a different immigration issue but remains neutral in its presentation of facts.
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
United States
