A New Hampshire real estate attorney and U.S. citizen, Bachir Atallah, says he and his wife were subjected to an hours-long detention at the U.S.-Canada border, handcuffed, interrogated, and forced to surrender private emails—all without explanation.
Atallah, a decade-long American citizen and founder of Bachir Atallah Law, described the ordeal as a shocking violation of his rights, one that left him physically ill and questioning the very country he calls home.
The incident occurred Sunday as Atallah and his wife, Jessica Fakhri, returned from a family trip to Canada, crossing into Vermont.
What should have been a routine reentry turned into a nightmare when U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents allegedly drew their weapons, ordered Atallah from his vehicle, and detained him without justification.
“He asked me, ‘Exit the vehicle right now,’ and he reached for his gun,” Atallah recounted. “I said, ‘OK, I’m exiting the vehicle, keep your gun at your waist.'”
What followed was a harrowing sequence: handcuffs tightened around his wrists, his wife left stranded in the car, and hours spent in freezing detention cells—without shoes, without jackets, without answers.
“They held us in two separate cells, and neither of us had shoes or a jacket. It was freezing,” Atallah said. When he dared to ask why he was being held, agents reportedly shrugged: “We don’t know, it’s the government.”
The situation escalated when CBP agents demanded access to Atallah’s email, a direct threat to attorney-client privilege. Under duress, he says he was forced to sign a statement granting permission—a move that could jeopardize confidential legal communications. “I had to, under duress, give him permission to look through my email, through my privileged information,” Atallah said.
As his blood pressure spiked to dangerous levels—153 over 112—paramedics were called, but Atallah refused further treatment, fearing it would only prolong his detention. Meanwhile, his sister, immigration attorney Celine Atallah, was contacted by CBP. Her warning was stark: “It’s not about the immigrants. It’s coming to us Americans, and it’s going to go after all of us.”
After nearly five hours, the couple was released—but the damage was done. Atallah, who once believed the Trump administration would bring positive change, now says things have only gotten worse. “I really thought things would change after this administration, when we have Mr. Trump in office, things would change for the better,” he said. “Things actually changed to the worse.”
In a related sttory, a U.S. citizen in Massachusetts who works as an immigration attorney received a letter from federal immigration authorities telling her to self-deport.
Nicole Micheroni, the immigration attorney and U.S. citizen born who was raised in Massachusetts, has not heard from the Department of Homeland Security since it told her to leave the country.
Micheroni, a partner at the Massachusetts law firm Cameron Micheroni & Silvia, thought it was meant for one of her clients when she first received the email.
“Do not attempt to remain in the United States — the federal government will find you,” the letter stated.
A second Massachusetts immigration attorney, Carmen Bello, is from the Dominican Republic but has been a U.S. citizen for almost 20 years, also received a letter demanding that she leave the country.
The letter cites an expiration of her parole, but Bello has been a U.S. citizen for nearly 20 years and isn’t under parole.
The two immigration lawyers said the correspondence from DHS is similar to threatening letters received by the attorney’s clients.
The letter’s subject line reads, “Notice of Termination of Parole.” Within the body of the text, the email reiterates that the department is “terminating” their immigration parole status, which doesn’t apply to either of the two lawyers.
CBP, for its part, denies any wrongdoing. Assistant Commissioner Hilton Beckham dismissed Atallah’s account as “blatantly false and sensationalized,” insisting the search was lawful and consensual. Yet the question remains: Why was a real estate attorney, a U.S. citizen with no criminal record, subjected to such treatment?
Atallah is now pursuing legal action, but the implications of this incident stretch far beyond one man’s ordeal. If an American lawyer can be detained without cause, his rights trampled, his privacy invaded—who is safe? As Atallah prepares to travel to Lebanon, he does so with unease, uncertain of what awaits him upon his return.
Micheroni is a graduate of Wellesley College and Temple School of Law who specializes in employment, artist, and family visas. She is licensed to practice law in Massachusetts, a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and is conversational in French.
Nicole also has extensive experience in asylum law, especially as it relates to victims of domestic and sexual violence. In her free time, she enjoys playing the viola with the New Philharmonia Orchestra.
This is not just a story about border security. This is about the erosion of trust, the abuse of power, and the frightening reality that no citizen—no matter how law-abiding—is beyond the reach of unchecked authority. The land of the free? Not if this is how it treats its own.
Reports of U.S. citizens being detained at the border and immigration lawyers receiving self-deportation notices have raised concerns among legal experts and civil rights advocates. These incidents appear to form part of a broader pattern under the Trump administration’s immigration and deportation strategy—one that critics argue is undermining the very concept of American citizenship.
Recent developments include the case of Bachir Atallah, an American attorney who was detained for hours by Customs and Border Protection (CBP), subjected to invasive searches, and held in substandard conditions. Legal observers described the incident as indicative of a growing trend in which citizens are subjected to treatment typically reserved for non-citizens, often without due process.
In a separate incident in Massachusetts, multiple U.S.-born immigration lawyers reportedly received formal notices from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) instructing them to self-deport within seven days. Legal analysts reviewing the cases have stated that the orders do not appear to be the result of clerical error but rather deliberate tests of the limits of executive authority over citizenship.
Compounding these concerns, former President Donald Trump has publicly floated the idea of deporting U.S.-born citizens convicted of crimes to overseas prisons. In a recent public statement, Trump referenced the mega-prison known as CECOT in El Salvador, suggesting it as a potential destination for what he referred to as “homegrown criminals.” His press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, later confirmed that the administration was exploring what she termed a “legal pathway” to enact such deportations.
Human rights organizations have long condemned CECOT for its inhumane conditions, including extreme overcrowding, the use of forced labor, and denial of legal counsel. Legal scholars have warned that the proposed deportation of U.S. citizens to such facilities would not only violate international human rights standards but also multiple provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, and U.S. law prohibits the involuntary removal of citizens without due process. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that citizenship cannot be revoked arbitrarily. Additionally, the Eighth Amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment, a clause that constitutional experts argue would clearly apply in the case of exile to foreign prisons.
Despite these protections, individuals have already been deported to El Salvador based on allegations of gang affiliation, often without adequate hearings or substantive evidence. Advocacy groups point to these precedents as cause for serious concern about the future treatment of naturalized and even native-born citizens.
Legal experts have issued urgent warnings. Ilya Somin of George Mason University described the proposed actions as “obviously illegal and unconstitutional.” Emma Winger of the American Immigration Council noted that “immigration law does not apply to U.S. citizens,” while Anthony Kreis of Georgia State University likened the actions to colonial-era practices of exile without trial. David Bier, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, stated unequivocally that “U.S. citizens may not be deported to imprisonment abroad. There is no authority for that in any U.S. law.”
Civil rights organizations have characterized these developments as indicative of an emerging two-tiered system of citizenship. In such a system, some Americans—particularly those from immigrant backgrounds or minority communities—may find their citizenship treated as conditional, subject to revocation based on political or administrative discretion.
Analysts note a clear progression in policy enforcement. The administration first targeted undocumented immigrants, then legal immigrants, and now appears to be testing its authority over naturalized and native-born citizens. Critics argue that, left unchecked, this trajectory threatens to erode the fundamental guarantees of citizenship in the United States.
The issue has drawn sharp divisions in Congress, where some lawmakers have called for investigations and immediate legislative safeguards. Others have remained silent or expressed support for stronger immigration enforcement without addressing the implications for U.S. citizens.
As questions mount, observers are calling for judicial oversight and public accountability to prevent what many see as a constitutional crisis in the making. Legal scholars, advocacy groups, and former government officials continue to emphasize that without intervention, the legal boundaries protecting citizenship could be further eroded.
The outcome, they warn, may not only affect immigrants or individuals accused of wrongdoing, but could also redefine the meaning of citizenship for all Americans.