Listen to the article
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has successfully deported a Honduran woman convicted of attempting to murder her newborn child after she served eight years in a New York prison, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
Soili Xiomara Aparicio-Santos, 41, who had been living illegally in Centereach, Long Island, was removed from the United States in April. She had originally entered the country without authorization in 2014 during the Obama administration and had a final order of removal against her since that year.
In 2018, Aparicio-Santos was convicted of second-degree attempted murder, first and second-degree attempted assault, and endangering the welfare of a child. According to local reports, she had tried to smother her baby boy with a pillow in 2017. The infant was saved when a family member witnessed the act and alerted police. The child reportedly avoided serious injuries and was subsequently placed in foster care.
Although initially sentenced to 16 years in prison, her sentence was later reduced to 10 years. She ultimately served only eight years before being deported. DHS officials noted that local authorities in Suffolk County cooperated with federal immigration officials by notifying ICE before her release, enabling her arrest and subsequent deportation.
Lauren Bis, acting DHS assistant secretary, praised the cooperation between local and federal authorities in a statement: “Thanks to cooperation by law enforcement and our ICE officers, this barbaric criminal is out of our country.” Bis further criticized the Obama administration for having “released this attempted murderer into our country” and emphasized that “Together, we can make America safe again.”
The case highlights the significant differences in how various New York jurisdictions approach cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Suffolk and Nassau counties, both Republican-controlled areas, have generally maintained cooperative relationships with ICE, in stark contrast to neighboring New York City, which has adopted more restrictive policies regarding immigration enforcement.
Despite this cooperation, Suffolk County is currently contesting a $112 million federal jury verdict that found the county violated constitutional rights by holding inmates past their release dates solely to honor ICE detainer requests. Suffolk Attorney Thomas Dewey has criticized the ruling, calling it “preposterous and unjust.”
ICE had initially lodged an immigration detainer against Aparicio-Santos after her arrest by Suffolk County police for first-degree reckless endangerment in 2017, followed by a second detainer in 2018 while she was serving her sentence.
In its statement, DHS emphasized that seven of the top 10 safest cities in the United States cooperate with ICE, arguing that partnerships between federal immigration enforcement and local law enforcement are “critical to having the resources DHS needs to arrest criminal illegal aliens across the country.”
The agency further warned that when local politicians restrict cooperation with DHS, federal law enforcement must maintain “a more visible presence to find and apprehend the criminals let out of jails and back into communities.”
This case comes amid ongoing national debates about immigration enforcement policies and the relationship between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. While some jurisdictions have enacted sanctuary policies limiting cooperation with ICE, others maintain that such cooperation is essential for public safety.
The successful deportation of Aparicio-Santos represents a case where interagency cooperation functioned as intended, according to federal officials, though the broader legal and political questions surrounding such cooperation continue to be contested throughout the country.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
12 Comments
This is a disturbing case, but the summary raises more questions than answers. Was the reduced sentence appropriate? What factors led to the deportation decision? More transparency around the process would help inform the public discussion.
I agree, more information is needed to fully evaluate this situation. Deportation decisions should be made carefully, balancing public safety, justice, and humanitarian considerations.
This is a deeply disturbing case. Attempted murder of a newborn is an unimaginable act. While deportation may be the appropriate outcome, the details around the reduced sentence and legal process merit closer examination to ensure justice is served.
I agree, the limited information provided raises more questions than answers. A thorough and fair evaluation of all the circumstances is essential for such a serious case.
This is a complex issue with many nuances. While the alleged crime is horrific, the circumstances around immigration status and reduced sentence warrant careful consideration of all factors.
Agreed, there are likely mitigating details not included in the brief summary. The deportation process should balance justice, public safety, and humanitarian concerns.
This is a tragic and complex case. While the alleged crime is abhorrent, the nuances around the legal process and deportation decision require careful consideration to ensure a fair and appropriate outcome.
The alleged crime is horrific, but the details around the reduced sentence and deportation decision warrant further scrutiny. Transparency and a balanced approach are important to uphold justice and public safety.
Attempting to murder a newborn is an unthinkable act. However, the details around this case, such as the reduced sentence, raise questions about the full context. Deportation may be warranted, but the process should be fair and humane.
You make a fair point. Deportation is a serious action, and the system must ensure all angles are properly considered, including any mitigating factors.
Attempted murder of an infant is a horrific crime. While deportation may be justified, the details of this case raise concerns about the fairness and appropriateness of the legal process and outcome. Careful scrutiny is warranted.
You’re right, the limited information provided raises valid questions. Transparency around the decision-making is important, as is ensuring a balanced approach that considers all relevant factors.