The detention of a longtime U.S. resident at San Francisco airport shows how fragile constitutional protections have become — even for those who have lived legally in America for decades.

Instead of being greeted by his wife, Victor Varela Avila was met by immigration officers at San Francisco International Airport in California. They pulled him aside, scanned his ID, and took him away.

He was returning from Japan, where he had visited his son — a U.S. Air Force service member stationed overseas. After more than fifty years of faithfully renewing his green card, this father and grandfather was suddenly detained — his most basic rights ignored.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution guarantee due process to all people within U.S. borders. Permanent residents like Avila are entitled to the same fundamental protections as citizens. Yet he was held for weeks without a clear explanation or immediate judicial review, despite half a century of lawful residency. His case shows us what happens when legal protections are treated as optional.

Avila's life in America

Avila first arrived in San Diego, California, from San Luis, Mexico, in 1967, when he was just sixteen. He worked in the fields beside his father, picking produce in the hot California sun. Over time, he built a career as a legal assistant.

He raised four children and became a grandfather of six. His coworkers describe him as compassionate and reliable, someone who “always put others first.” He has been a green card holder his entire adult life, living, working, and raising his family in the only country he calls home.

Old convictions come to light

Immigration officials justified Avila’s detention by citing a 2009 conviction for DUI and misdemeanor drug possession. He served his 90-day sentence, paid his fines, and moved on. For the next sixteen years, there were no further incidents. His green card was renewed multiple times without issue.

Now, that old offense is being dredged up as grounds for removal. To his family, it feels like punishment without purpose.

“He rebuilt his life with compassion and integrity,” his daughter Carina Mejia said. “My dad’s the most caring person. He’s not a threat, as they are making him out to be.”

Uncertain conditions

After being stopped at the airport, Avila was held in an office without a bed for two weeks. Eventually, he was transferred to the Golden State Annex, an immigrant detention center near Bakersfield, California.

It is a five-hour drive from Chula Vista, California, near the U.S.–Mexico border, making family visits exhausting and infrequent. On Father’s Day, Mejia made the trip. She sat across from him at a bare table as he walked into the room in an orange jumpsuit.

“He comes out and you can see his invisible pain,” she said quietly afterward. “He doesn’t belong there.”

Family Shouldering the Burden

At home in Chula Vista, Avila had been the primary caregiver for his wife, who suffers from chronic health conditions, and for his elderly mother. Neither can drive, and both depended fully on him because of that.

That responsibility now falls to Mejia. She balances caregiving with her job as a clinical social worker and the demands of raising her teenage daughter. “No family should be torn apart like this,” she said. “It is very difficult for us to survive without my father being with us. I just want my dad home again.”

A Community stands with him

Friends, colleagues, and relatives have launched a GoFundMe campaign to cover his legal fees, describing him as “a productive member of society, loved by many.” Supporters argue that keeping him locked up for a nonviolent mistake from sixteen years ago is not justice — it is cruelty.

Avila’s final court date is scheduled for October 2025, when a judge will decide whether he can remain in the United States. This legal hearing will affect not just his future, but that of his entire family.

Broader Implications

But Avila’s case is not just about one man or one family. It reveals a deeper problem: even legal permanent residents are not immune from detention and deportation. A single misstep, no matter how distant or minor, can have a large affect on the whole life of legal residents, on their family stability, and on the whole community.

For Avila and his family, it has been a terrible blow. For the rest of us, it poses a fundamental question: if a man who has lived legally in the United States for more than fifty years — a man who raised children who serve this country, who cared for his wife and mother, and who supported his family through honest work — can be treated without regard for his constitutional rights, who is truly safe?

This erosion of basic human rights is unacceptable in any democracy, and especially in the United States. For decades, America styled itself as the “shining city on a hill,” a beacon of hope and freedom. But when legal residents like Avila can be locked away for an old mistake long since addressed, that vision is tarnished, and it is in danger of collapse.

We must demand that the constitutional rights of all are respected. We must raise our voices, and we must use our votes. When the system can so casually take away Avila’s freedom, it threatens the rights of every one of us.

This should never happen.

Mistreatment of a Long-Term US resident by immigration officials!

The recent decision to remove Erika L. McEntarfer, Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), from her position is an extremely irresponsible act that puts the American economy at risk. It is concerning whenever a government puts its thumb on the scale for political purposes. The BLS reports statistics as they are, based on the data it collects. American presidents in the past understood this and did not interfere with these facts. As Janet Yellen, former Treasury Secretary and former Federal Reserve Chair, said, this is "the kind of thing you would expect in a corrupt country."

The Hard Work Behind the Data

The BLS is not run by an individual working on a private spreadsheet. About 40 full-time experts work diligently at the Bureau to issue monthly reports on employment, inflation, and other critical indicators. When a president dismisses the Bureau's Commissioner, it doesn't look good, nor does it change the truth. Such an action can create a crisis of confidence, which brings other major problems.

Unfortunately, the accuracy of the data is already under threat. The BLS budget has been reduced by about 19% in real terms since 2009, according to Axios (a statistical association in America). Additionally, participation in the Bureau's surveys has declined. But there are solutions to these problems: increased investment in the Bureau and a better understanding of the causes of declining participation, to address it effectively. Some critics say the BLS methodology is outdated. But what's needed is additional investment, not political interference, to fix this.

We've Seen This Before

Kevin Hassett, Director of the National Economic Council, recently admitted that the goal is to "put in one of our own people." That should sound every alarm. This is political interference. An important question needs to be answered: Will senior government officials - Bessent, Hassett, and others - set aside the truth for the sake of their own careers?

The Greek government concealed inflation data and budget deficits to meet EU criteria. This resulted in a debt crisis, international bailout, and years of economic crisis. In Argentina, the government falsified inflation figures and gross domestic product (GDP) to hide an economic crisis. As a result, foreign investment declined, interest rates rose sharply, and the peso fell. They are still paying for it.

If tariffs, spending, and supply disruptions are driving inflation, false reports won't stop prices from rising at the store, at the gas station, or in the bond market.

The bond market, in particular, is merciless. If that market loses confidence in the figures published by the BLS, lenders will demand higher interest rates as a result. As Bill Blain, a bond trader in London, wrote in his newsletter 'Blain's Morning Porridge': "August 1, 2025, might be remembered as the day the US bond market died. There was an art to reading US data. It was based on trust. Now that's broken - if you can't trust the data, what else can you believe?"

Jerome Powell

The attacks on Jerome Powell, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, are also dangerous. He is running an independent central bank, and his decisions should be based on data, not political expediency. He cannot be easily removed from his position, but that hasn't stopped the president from putting continuous pressure on him to lower interest rates.

This is not new. Turkey's Erdogan did the same thing, and it created widespread inflation, currency collapse, and economic instability. When loyalty is placed above expertise, disaster always follows.

The Root Problem

Despite his messages, the president's new spending bill (which he himself calls the Big Beautiful Bill) will add another $3.5 trillion to the national debt. Tariffs also carry major risks, including increased inflation rates, and it's not clear what real benefit they provide.

Authoritarianism at the Door?

This is not just about the BLS. A broader perspective needs to be considered: dissent is being punished, human rights are being revoked without due process, and electoral districts are being distorted. If critics are silenced and independent information is blocked, what will stop the next step?

Look at Ortega in Nicaragua: critics forced into exile, citizenship revoked, journalists killed. It starts with small steps. It ends in disaster. Blain imagined a future where a "Ministry of Economic Truth" would issue press releases: "Under the President's leadership, the US economy continues to grow at an unprecedented rate. Payroll data from the Ministry of Truth shows full employment across America." If nothing is done to address this, the same will happen in America. It begins when information is distorted to serve the president.

A Call to Action for Americans

It's uncertain whether the United States will have democracy or authoritarianism in the future. Democracy is a fragile system, and the public needs to be informed about it and participate in it. I hope every American will be ready to defend their system. Write to your elected representatives, participate in awareness campaigns, and support organizations that protect government transparency. Organizations like Project On Government Oversight (POGO) and Open The Government – these are organizations working diligently to protect government transparency and ensure accurate data for citizens. Every citizen will have the opportunity to cast their vote in next year's midterm election, and to elect representatives who will work for them, not for authoritarianism.

Good advice can be found in the West Point Cadets' prayer (training center): "Take the right but difficult choice instead of the wrong but easy one." This principle is not being applied at all by the current US government. If the administration's behavior continues in this way, we are not far from an America we don't recognize.

If the opportunity to stop this foolishness is lost, truth will be lost. If truth is lost, democracy will be lost.

I watched the vice presidential debate between J.D. Vance (Republican) and Tim Walz (Democrat) at the end of September 2024. This debate was in stark contrast to the two presidential debates that preceded it, one between Trump and Biden and another between Trump and Harris. As the world knows, Biden had a bad day in the first presidential debate and had no defense against Trump, who told lie after lie. In the second presidential debate, Harris clearly won, but they were on the offensive one minute and then on the defensive the next, and the people of the country didn't hear much about the topics that mattered most to them. Their attention was more on their public image, and on making little of their opponent. But in the vice presidential debate, the candidates discussed important issues - including abortion, immigration and school shootings. Vance and Walz respected each other, even though they both attacked the others’s presidential candidate. The following are the highlights of the debate, in my opinion.

Health Care

Vance was asked why Trump only had a concept for a new health care plan. Would Vance be able to confirm that Americans would not pay more if they had any pre-existing health conditions. "In fact, they would have health insurance coverage if they had any pre-existing health conditions!" replied Vance. But Trump never declared what he would do in that situation. Vance also declined to discuss the details of Trump's plan, saying it would be boring to discuss a 900-page bill on the debate stage. He also said that Trump supported Obama's plan, the 'Affordable Care Act' (ACA). Walz said Trump promised in 2016 to repeal Obama's plan, and he almost succeeded except that Senator John McCain stood up for it.

Immigration

Vance went on the attack, blaming vice president Kamala Harris for the problems with illegal immigration at the US-Mexico border. He referred to her as 'Border czar'. Walz then criticized former president Trump, saying he blocked a bipartisan bill that would have tackled the same problems, and did it to gain an advantage in his presidential campaign.

Abortion

Vance was battling the odds on this issue and took a cautious approach here. Vance said it would be ideal if each State were able to put its own laws in place regarding abortion. Walz said it is a basic human right, so it is a federal duty to protect that right for everyone in the country, regardless of the country's layout. Vance acknowledged that the Republican Party needs to do a better job of providing fertility treatment and affordable housing. Vance is a smart man and he wanted to attract votes from the people who are currently undecided.

Gun Violence

Vance and Walz agreed that the situation is bad and getting worse when it comes to gun violence, especially in schools. They agreed that the problem needs to be tackled. But they did not agree on an approach to solve the problem. Vance admitted that there were many reasons behind the problem - and in particular mental health problems and drug abuse. Walz didn't agree with that. "Sometimes it's the guns, just the guns!" he said. And "Having a mental health problem doesn't mean you're a violent person."

January 6

It was clear that there was a big divide between Vance and Walz about what happened on January 6, 2021. When they were discussing the uprising and the false claims that Trump claimed to have won the presidential election, Walz asked Vance directly: "Did he (Trump) lose the 2020 election?" "Tim, I'm focused on the future", Vance replied. "That's a damning non-answer!" said Walz. Later, Walz said: “Here we are 4 years later, in the same situation. The winner must be the winner. This has to stop. It's tearing us apart."

Vance's change of heart

Vance was asked why he had a change of heart about Trump. He criticized Trump harshly in 2020 but is very much in favor of him now. Vance blamed the media, saying they misled him with lies about Trump. He said that Trump also made good on his promises to the people of the country as president.

Tiananmen Square

In 2009, Walz said he was in Hong Kong when the Tiananmen Square protests were taking place. But he was in Nebraska at the time. When asked about that, he waffled about it for a long time. When the question was put again, he finally admitted that he had made a mistake.

Conclusion

J.D. Vance is the master of smooth talk. Vance, without a doubt. J.D. Vance had the opportunities that Tim Walz didn't have. As Walz said: “I grew up in a small town – Butte, Nebraska, population 400 – and there were 24 students in my high school class. And not one of them attended Yale.” Walz was trying to say that he was a normal person, unlike Vance. Perhaps it was also a kind of excuse, because Vance was better on the debate stage. But does it matter? The central question is which presidential candidate should be chosen. And on that issue, it is clear that Trump is a danger to America and the world, and that it would be completely wrong to re-elect him as president.

Although J.D. Vance can dazzle people with his smooth speech, talk is cheap. Despite Vance's platitudes, there is no way it would be right to put the convicted criminal, Donald Trump, back in office. That was very clear, when Vance refused to answer the question posed by Walz: “Trump is still saying he didn't lose the election. Did he lose the 2020 election?”

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.