As we as an integral part of the American people prepare to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the proclamation of our independence from the British crown, many ask if the rights enshrined in the constitution remain in force.

This question is articulated because at this moment we have the case of the Colombian citizen and immigrant Franklin Humberto Coral Garrido—known on social networks as Beto Coral.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio recommended his expulsion from the US for his opposition to the candidacy for President of Colombia of Abelardo De La Espriella, an ultra-conservative politician fully supported by President Donald Trump.

As a result of the recommendation of the Secretary, on June 16, Beto Coral was arrested by ICE agents in the City of Phoenix, Arizona, and since then he has remained in the custody of the immigration authorities.

A careful analysis of the circumstances of Beto Coral's arrest and incarceration by ICE indicates that federal authorities are violating his constitutional right to free expression.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees freedom of expression to every person residing within the country and its territories.

The freedom of free expression has been interpreted and defined by constitutional law experts, constitutional lawyers, judges, and even by the nation's Supreme Court of Justice as the right of everyone to express opinions, ideas and beliefs without censorship or retaliation by the government.

Thus, when on January 20 of last year, President Donald Trump raised his right hand and literally recited and swore an oath to give everything to preserve, protect, and uphold the Constitution, his solemn action only highlighted an obligation that all citizens and residents of this great nation are obliged to fulfill.

So that no one has the slightest doubt about the previous and important statement, let us review the sacred oath that the 47th President of the United States assumed in the most absolute freedom, and with full conscience. Verbatim, his oath read: “I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and that, to the best of my ability, I will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

From the above, it is more than clear that whoever violates any of the constitutional rights incurs a very serious violation of the supreme law of the nation.

When a member of the Ku Klux Klan suppresses a citizen's right to free expression because he or she belongs to a non-Anglo-Saxon race, any reasonable person would support the proper authorities sanctioning the offender.

More so when the person who violates any of the rights enshrined in the constitution is a lawyer, and is also a politician who, in the same way as the President did, swore to protect and defend our constitution, it is the obligation of those of us who believe in the constitutional order to demand that the offender be punished, which in the case of Mr. Humberto Coral Garrido (Beto Coral) is Marco Rubio.

Marco Rubio is not only a lawyer but the nation's Secretary of State and National Security Advisor. Prior to assuming such high positions within the Trump Administration, he served for around a decade as a Federal Senator for the State of Florida, and in his political career he was elected majority leader of the House of Representatives of his state.

How should we assess that an acting Secretary of State, such as Marco Rubio, has ignored his constitutional obligations, and has recommended the expulsion from the United States of a Colombian citizen for his opposition to the candidacy for President of Colombia of Abelardo De La Espriella, an ultra-conservative politician promoted by President Donald Trump?

It is ironic that while Beto Coral languished in a detention center for undocumented immigrants, the presidential election was held in Colombia, and the Candidate of President Trump and Secretary Rubio triumphed.

However, it was Marco Rubio's recommendation for Beto's expulsion that practically constituted an order for his arrest and deportation.

Beyond how serious it is that an immigrant, who has not committed any crime, except exercising his right to free expression, is arrested and imprisoned, what is actually much more serious is the affront that is committed by the authority to the constitutional rights of all residents of the United States.

On this date when we are celebrating the 250th anniversary of the Proclamation of Independence, we have to ask the essential question, is the right to free expression still valid?

Because if constitutional rights are no longer going to be enforced by the authorities at all levels of Government, then it is everyone's obligation to accept that we are fully entering a period in our history where rights are recognized by the state selectively, and when the opinions of citizens do not agree with the policies of the highest authorities, they can use all their power to suppress the rights guaranteed to citizens by the constitution.

At the constitutional level, what is at stake in the case of Mr. Beto Coral is whether, as stated in the proclamation of independence, and in the charter of rights that emanate from there, the guarantee of the construction of a “more perfect union” is found in our constitutional rights. And in this case in the full right to free expression.

If Beto Coral is deported because we do nothing to prevent it, all the people of this powerful country lose.

Let us demand that what the constitution mandates be done, full respect by the highest authorities for the right to free expression. And consequently immediate freedom for Beto Coral.

Juan José Gutiérrez is a member of the Autonomous Social Committee (CASA-HGT) and the Executive Director of the Full Rights for Immigrants Coalition.