An undocumented Honduran woman convicted of attempting to kill her newborn on Long Island has been deported after serving time in state prison, a move federal authorities say was possible because local law enforcement cooperated with immigration agents. The case highlights tensions over detainer policies, sentence reductions in state court, and the ongoing debate about public safety and local-federal partnerships. Officials argued the removal shows why jurisdictions that work with federal immigration enforcement can more effectively take dangerous criminals out of communities.
The woman, identified as Soili Xiomara Aparicio-Santos, entered the United States in 2014 and carried a final order of removal dating back to that year. Local prosecutors convicted her in 2018 of second-degree attempted murder, multiple counts of attempted assault, and endangering the welfare of a child after an incident involving her newborn. She was deported from New York in April after federal immigration agents took custody following her state sentence.
Originally handed a 16-year term for the attack on her infant, her state jail time was cut to 10 years and she ultimately served eight before being transferred to federal custody. Federal authorities say they were able to act because local officials notified immigration agents before her release, and ICE had already lodged immigration detainers while she was behind bars. That coordination, officials maintain, is exactly what keeps dangerous people from returning to neighborhoods too soon.
According to local reporting, the attack occurred in 2017 when Aparicio-Santos smothered her newborn with a pillow and a family member intervened and called police. The baby survived the attack and was later placed in foster care, authorities said. Her case drew attention not only for the violent nature of the crime but for how immigration status and criminal justice outcomes intersect when local policy choices are at stake.
DHS leadership praised the arrest and removal and pointed to the role of local cooperation in making it possible. “Thanks to cooperation by law enforcement and our ICE officers, this barbaric criminal is out of our country,” the agency quoted a senior official as saying. That language underscores a clear Republican argument: when cities and counties work with federal partners, public safety improves.
“This monster attempted to KILL her own child the day he was born,” the same DHS statement said, reflecting the blunt tone officials used to describe the underlying crime. The statement also criticized past policies, with officials noting the suspect originally entered the country under the Obama administration and had a long-standing removal order. For many conservatives, the case is a concrete example of why the federal immigration system and local law enforcement must remain aligned.
The DHS statement made an explicit appeal for continued local and state cooperation, saying the department “need(s) cooperation from state and local politicians to get criminals like this out of our country,” and ending with, “Together, we can make America safe again.” That appeal is part policy argument, part political message, aimed at persuading jurisdictions to honor detainers and work with ICE. It also reflects the broader Republican talking point that law enforcement partnerships are essential to keeping communities secure.
Suffolk and Nassau counties on Long Island have generally worked with federal immigration authorities, a stance officials contrast with larger city jurisdictions that limit cooperation. Suffolk County now faces a legal battle related to detainers after a jury awarded damages tied to holding inmates past release dates to satisfy immigration holds. Suffolk Attorney Thomas Dewey blasted the ruling, calling it, “The jury’s preposterous and unjust damages award cannot stand.”
Federal officials note that many of the nation’s safest cities do cooperate with ICE, using that statistic to bolster their argument that partnerships between local police and immigration agents matter for public safety. They argue that when local political leaders block law enforcement from working with DHS, officers must spend more time and resources to find and apprehend those released back into communities. That tension between civil liberties concerns and aggressive immigration enforcement continues to fuel sharp policy debates at the local level.
