An Immigrant's Quandry

[akaoni 0]

So I'm going to try something novel here. Let's try a civil discussion of the following case.

 

I'm wondering how people who generally take an anti-immigration stance view the following story. From CNN.com:

 

JACKSONVILLE, Florida (CNN) -- Eduardo Gonzalez, a petty officer second class with the U.S. Navy, is about to be deployed overseas for a third time. Making his deployment even tougher is the fact his wife may not be around when he comes back.

 

His wife faces deportation to Guatemala -- her home country that she hasn't seen since 1989. He also doesn't know what would happen to his young son, Eduardo Jr., if that happens.

 

"I like being in uniform and serving my country, but if she goes back I'm going to have to give it all up and just get out and take care of my son and get a job," he said.

 

"Defending the country that's trying to kick my family out is a thought that always runs through my mind."

 

Gonzalez, who works on helicopters that bring cargo, supplies and military personnel in and out of Iraq, testified before a House Judiciary Committee panel last month, detailing his situation and urging officials to consider some sort of policy to deal with cases like his, where military members' families could be deported while they're defending their country overseas.

 

"I want to serve my country 100 percent. But with this issue in the back of my mind, I feel I can't do that," he testified on September 6.

 

Now from my perspective, I think it behoves the US government to set up some kind of system to fast-track the immigration process for spouses of immigrants currently enlisted in the military. That could help to bolster recruitment for a military that's already stretched pretty thin. It would also reward the brave service of many immigrants currently enroled in the military. It appears however that some anti-immigrant activists do not share my opinion. Again from the same article:

 

That's just fine, according to Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which lobbies for tougher laws on illegal immigration.

 

"What you're talking about is amnesty for illegal immigrants who have a relative in the armed forces, and that's just outrageous," he said. "What we're talking about here is letting lawbreakers get away with their actions just because they have a relative in the military. ... There's no justification for that kind of policy."

 

Gonzalez said that type of response is unjustified. "I'm trying to make his country better -- my country better -- and it should be her country too."

 

Any geek opinions pro or con?

[Toro 3]

She broke the law. I don't give a crap if she is married to the focking pope.

[phillybear 366]

Simple. The military man gets re-married. This time to someone that is a citizen. His first wife can go screw.

[akaoni 0]

She broke the law. I don't give a crap if she is married to the focking pope.

 

Well, she wasn't really illegal, she came the US under refugee status, and her status was later altered by a series of events. Here's the relevant passage.

 

In Gonzalez's case, his wife, Mildred, came to the United States with her mother in 1989 when she was 5 years old. They were granted political asylum because of their status as war refugees from Guatemala.

 

In September 2000, Mildred's mother applied for legalization and included her daughter in that application. Her mother was granted legal status in July 2004, according to Gonzalez.

 

However, six weeks earlier, Gonzalez and Mildred got married, canceling Mildred's ability to apply for legal status through her mother because she was no longer an unmarried daughter under the age of 21. As a result, her legal status still remains in jeopardy.

[Toro 3]

Well, she wasn't really illegal, she came the US under refugee status, and her status was later altered by a series of events. Here's the relevant passage.

 

Is she here legally now? No. End of story.

[davebg 0]

I am on record as being staunchly anti-illegal immigration. However, in this case, I do not think she should be deported...and it has nothing to do w/the fact that her husband is serving our country. Rather, it has everything to do w/the only part of the article that you decided to omit.

In Gonzalez's case, his wife, Mildred, came to the United States with her mother in 1989 when she was 5 years old. They were granted political asylum because of their status as war refugees from Guatemala.

 

In September 2000, Mildred's mother applied for legalization and included her daughter in that application. Her mother was granted legal status in July 2004, according to Gonzalez.

 

However, six weeks earlier, Gonzalez and Mildred got married, canceling Mildred's ability to apply for legal status through her mother because she was no longer an unmarried daughter under the age of 21. As a result, her legal status still remains in jeopardy.

So, it would seem that she was in the country legally as a result of her refugee status and that she would have been awarded citizenship (like her mother) had she postponed her marriage by 6 weeks.

 

It seems to me that you would have more success trying to argue on her behalf by pointing out these types of bureaucratic fock ups (otherwise known as "facts"), rather than trying to play on peoples' emotions or sense of patriotism or gratitude for what Gonzales has done for this country.

[akaoni 0]

Is she here legally now? No. End of story.

 

No, she is here legally now, because of a judge's stay of deportation, it's her future status which is in jeopardy.

[Toro 3]

No, she is here legally now, because of a judge's stay of deportation, it's her future status which is in jeopardy.

 

Ok, then she stays. If at a later date her status changes, she needs to get the fock out. Any questions?

[davebg 0]

Is she here legally now? No. End of story.

You might want to read the full article b/c akaoni apparently has an aversion to presenting all of the facts...even when those facts support akaoni's position.

A judge in June granted her a one-year extension to remain in the United States. If her legal status does not change by June 8, 2008, she will have 60 days to voluntarily leave the country or face deportation.

Apparently, she is in the country legally at this point...albiet not under permanent or long-term status.

[Strike 6,127]

why don't we wait until this winds it's way through the courts? Seriously, it seems this case is likely to turn out as it should, with her being granted legal status. Did you read the one about the illegal who wanted to go home with a bunch of money he earned here as a dishwasher, and he got busted at the airport? We confiscated his money and are deporting him. Now that's a good one!!!

[cmh6476 1,185]

make all prospective immigrants serve in the armed services in order to gain citizenship

[akaoni 0]

I am on record as being staunchly anti-illegal immigration. However, in this case, I do not think she should be deported...and it has nothing to do w/the fact that her husband is serving our country. Rather, it has everything to do w/the only part of the article that you decided to omit.

So, it would seem that she was in the country legally as a result of her refugee status and that she would have been awarded citizenship (like her mother) had she postponed her marriage by 6 weeks.

 

It seems to me that you would have more success trying to argue on her behalf by pointing out these types of bureaucratic fock ups (otherwise known as "facts"), rather than trying to play on peoples' emotions or sense of patriotism or gratitude for what Gonzales has done for this country.

 

I did quote that later in my discussion with Toro. I was going for a brief summation of the situation because I know nothing turns off geeks like long wordy posts. I provided the link so that people like yourself could look into the story in more depth if they wanted to engage in the discussion. Regardless, it was not my intention to withold information.

 

That said, I agree, the bueraucratic system in the immigration system is terrible. It's overtaxed and innefficient and needs to be revamped. Still, I think there is merit to my argument as well. I think that immigrants who are willing to sacrifice their lives to fight for the US should be entitled to some gratitute. I think allowing their spouses/children to remain in the US is a good idea. It's the least we can do to reward their service. And the fact that a policy like that might encourage more enlistment is a positive for our strapped military as well.

[Toro 3]

That said, I agree, the bueraucratic system in the immigration system is terrible. It's overtaxed and innefficient and needs to be revamped.

 

Then fix the system, don't create loopholes or exceptions.

[wiffleball 4,799]

Two thoughts:

 

 

1) While I'm usually very much against illegals, I think the immediate family of soldiers actively serving in a time of war - especially when this wife is the primary caregiver - should be granted an exception. For all of you who say illegal's illegal, you might want to educate yourself one a little program put in place that fast-tracks non-citizens who serve in the military. We have a number of non-citizens serving right now. I wouldn't suggest deporting them either. At a very minimum, given that we're scraping the barrel for soldiers, you delay any determination as long as the soldier is active duty and his/her spouse is the primary caregiver. I'd say national interest tells us that winning the war is a little more important than letting some chick who's been here for year already stay here a few more.

 

 

2) This particular situation - where she fell between the cracks of poorly written policy calls for a little common sense & human judgement. Regardless of the soldier in this case, she quite literally fell victim to a policy that was poorly written and didn't concieve this particular fact pattern. We generally ultimately grant citizenship to 'fugees. In this case, the policy apparently didn't consider emancipated/adult children of fugee parents. Common sense would tell you that if the Mother was granted citizenship as a fugee, then the daughter should as well. They're both from the same set of circumstances that made them fugees in the first place. In this one particular case, I think a little common sense and human judgement on the part of the INS and any Government employee that can intervene should reign.

 

Does that mean that EVERY chica who makes a border run and seduces a soldier should be granted legal status? Fock no. And that's where Krikorian focks up. It's the age-old "Slippery Slope" canard; Rather than look at the unique facts of this one particular case, he's swung this to the radical extreme - and may end up doing his cause more harm than good. There's a huge difference between someone who is granted legal fugee status and someone who jumps the border illegally.

 

IMHO.

[KSB2424 3,175]

If you fight for the USA then you and your family should get fast access to citizenship. We outsource everything else, why not the military.