home

Misplaced Priorities

By TChris, Section Social Justice
Posted on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 01:21:31 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Do immigration authorities have nothing better to do than this?

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is seeking to deport a 38-year-old Rochester Hills woman who fled Colombia 22 years ago. Returning to Colombia would endanger Rosa Rodriguez, a mortgage service representative, and her 6-year-old U.S.-born daughter. Government lawyers should drop these senseless proceedings.

The case against Rodriguez is flimsy. Immigration officials say she married under false pretenses 16 years ago to become a permanent U.S. resident. No agents testified about the accusations in immigration court. Conversely, the couple, along with nine witnesses called by Rodriguez's lawyer, William Dance, said the marriage was valid.

This is a woman who works, pays taxes, and raises her daughter (an American citizen by birth). Why is ICE wasting its limited resources on her?

< Iraq Hangs 13 Who Aided Insurgency | Feingold to Hold Live Web Chat >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Misplaced Priorities | 27 comments (27 topical)
    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#1)
    by roy on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 01:40:56 PM EST
    There is a more detailed, more skeptical writeup here.

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 02:43:49 PM EST
    Who is the government to tell us if a marriage is "genuine"?
    "The record is virtually devoid of any evidence of a shared life together"
    Guess that rules out truckers. Who, you know, have to drive all around the country and don't get to see their families much. Oh, and what about, oh, I don't know, THE TROOPS WHO ARE SERVING THEIR THIRD TOUR IN IRAQ? Some of them got married just before they shipped off, and they've gotten little more than an odd week or two with their families. Are those marriages "false" as well?

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 02:44:12 PM EST
    TChris continues to be baffled by the "illegal" part of "illegal alien".

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 03:03:33 PM EST
    As you continue to be baffled by the Left part of Talk Left as well as the Political and Refugee parts of Political Refugee and the Human and Decency parts of Human Decency.

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 03:12:42 PM EST
    I'm not baffled by "human decency". There are immigration laws (not very well enforced to be sure, but they exist). Apparently, TChris wants to decide which laws need to be enforced, and when they need to be enforced. btw, a person who snuck across the border is not a refugee. If they fled from El Salvador/Nicaragua/Honduras in the 80's, Cuba pretty much anytime since 1959, or Columbia anytime since the late 70s, sure. Mexico? Not so much.

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#6)
    by Sailor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 03:17:20 PM EST
    If for no other reason than limited resources the gov't shouldn't be expending them attacking this woman. And so much for the myth of 'anchor babies.' Also, she has a job, pays taxes, is a good citizen.
    Rodriguez and Collier disputed the charges in Detroit immigration court and no agents were called to testify about the accusations.
    Isn't a judge supposed to go by the best evidence available? IOW, if a witness is available, use the witness over a deposition or 'record.'
    "The record is virtually devoid of any evidence of a shared life together,"
    WTF does that even mean?

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#7)
    by Sailor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 03:25:22 PM EST
    How do you 'sneak' across the border from Columbia to here?

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#8)
    by jen on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 03:30:03 PM EST
    Sailor, He didn't read either article.

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 03:45:21 PM EST
    a shame that we deport on a meritable woman and not concentrate on questionable characters.

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#10)
    by desertswine on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 03:47:34 PM EST
    Surely, this Rodriguez woman and her child must indeed be a grave threat to national security.

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 03:51:24 PM EST
    This basically sounds like a burden of proof case where the immigration judges is really stretching to favor the government position. When you have a marriage licenses, haven't divorced, present witnesses that say that your marriage is bona fide, and no one testifies to the contrary in court, the claim that the government has met its burden of proof that the marriage is a sham (or that the woman has failed to meet her burden of proof that the marriage is bona fide, it is hard to tell the procedural stance of the case and who has a burden of proof in this case from the news stories) sounds pretty weak. Moreover, since apparently all the evidence against the marriage was hearsay, the woman didn't even have a chance to cross-examine to witnesses against her to determine the basis or weaknesses in their statements, or effectively challenge their credibility. Either way, one doesn't have to show that your marriage is made in heaven beyond a reasonable doubt. You simply have to show that the marriage is not entered into as a sham. (The record, by the way, is a term of art, it means the sum total of evidence and legal documents present in a case that is available for an appellate court to review, and isn't limited to written documents). Of course, as the title of the post makes clear, the issue here isn't so much an issue of judicial bad judgment, it is one of governmental priorities. It is one thing to devote scarce immigration enforcement resources to deporting criminals (illegal immigration per se, by the way, is not necessarily or even usually a crime, just as other civil offenses like speeding and not paying your credit card bill are illegal but not crimes), or maintain integrity of borders, or people whom you have some evidence might be connected to terrorism, or who have few connections to the United States. It is another to devote resources to devote resources to deporting someone who is on the face of the matter, legally married, employed, a parent of a U.S. citizens, and generally not making a problem in life who has been in the U.S. for a couple of decades, and to try to dig below the formalities upon which everyone has relied for a long period of time, with little evidence about something that happend decades ago. Who benefits from that?

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 04:52:11 PM EST
    Having a brother who used to be in the INS, this sounds personal to me. Somehow, someway, she pissed somebody off in the INS big-time.

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#13)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 05:18:16 PM EST
    I'm not baffled by "human decency". Bullsh*t. Tell me, is she hurting anyone? No. Would deporting her hurt someone? Yes. That seems a pretty decent calculus for human decency, as opposed to yours, which boils down to "f*ck 'em."

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 05:21:51 PM EST
    I'm not baffled by "human decency". There are immigration laws (not very well enforced to be sure, but they exist). Apparently, TChris wants to decide which laws need to be enforced, and when they need to be enforced. btw, a person who snuck across the border is not a refugee. If they fled from El Salvador/Nicaragua/Honduras in the 80's, Cuba pretty much anytime since 1959, or Columbia anytime since the late 70s, sure. Mexico? Not so much.
    Yes, there are immigration laws, and you clearly are completely ignorant of them. Eligibility for asylum is not based on the general political situation in one's home country. People who "sneek across the border" are eligible for asylum if they are unable or unwilling to return to their home country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution due to their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in particular social group. Just because there is no widespread civil unrest in Mexico does not mean that no one is persecuted there.

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 06:06:31 PM EST
    For an immigrant, it's not so easy to become "legal" -- even if you've married someone and created a real and decent life in the U.S. It's shameful that the U.S. govt is pursuing people like this just to show who's 'right.' We need more people like this woman as citizens, and should be working hard to make that easier. I hope that when there is a Democratic administration in power, that it will be more possible to facilitate legal immigration.

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#16)
    by Mike on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 06:19:56 PM EST
    Slightly off topic, but it appears that a tougher illegal immigration policy leads to more illegal immigration and a growth in illegal aliens! Plus I heard a poll on the radio today of Californian's. It was roughly fifty fifty for and against illegal immigration.

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 06:26:36 PM EST
    James Robertson, did you read the article? She did not sneak over the border from Mexico. She came from Columbia after the 1970s, as a dependent of someone else who was a refugee from there.
    Rodriguez, the daughter of an attorney, came to the United States in 1984, when she was 16. Her parents sent her here to escape the violence of Colombia.
    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 07:43:25 PM EST
    Posted by sarcastic unnamed one March 9, 2006 05:52 PM
    Having a brother who used to be in the INS, this sounds personal to me. Somehow, someway, she pissed somebody off in the INS big-time.
    And having made spaghetti as a kid and caught your pathetic excuse for an act once or twice I know when someones just throwin' somethin' at the wall and prayin' it sticks. The case against Rodriguez is flimsy. Immigration officials say she married under false pretenses 16 years ago to become a permanent U.S. resident. No agents testified about the accusations in immigration court. Conversely, the couple, along with nine witnesses called by Rodriguez's lawyer, William Dance, said the marriage was valid. Cubans are not the only Political Refugees who speak Spanish. East Germans used to sneak into Italy from the former Yugoslavia because it was easier. That did not make them Yugoslavian. She came through Mexico. She didn't come from Mexico. Reading is Fundamental.

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 08:12:00 PM EST
    Everyone's heard about "guest" worker programs, right? Once all those "guests" arrive, aren't people like TChris - and all the other supporters of illegal immigration - going to oppose deporting our "guests" if they won't go home? So, when someone supports "guest" or "temporary" worker schemes, aren't they basically lying to you? They know our "guests" will never go home. It's because of people like TChris that are only option is just to enforce the current immigration laws now, rather than trying to change the laws to match what corrupt businesses and pro-illegal immigration "liberals" want.

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 09:07:57 PM EST
    Legal immigrants and their families (including their American families) are going to get caught in the new legislation passed by the House and wending its way through the Senate. randallemery's diary over at the Daily Kos has linked to both.

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 09:08:13 PM EST
    In 1990, she married Andre Collier of Detroit, who asked the government to allow her to become a permanent resident. Nothing happened.
    That is flimsy journalism. The probable reason why nothing happened is because the couple never followed through on the paperwork. The process is long and tedious. My wife, for example, only recently attained "permanent residence" status, and we've been married for four years now. That being said, I have sympathy for the woman and her child.

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 07:27:48 AM EST
    March 9, 2006 10:08 PM In 1990, she married Andre Collier of Detroit, who asked the government to allow her to become a permanent resident. Nothing happened.
    That is flimsy journalism. The probable reason why nothing happened is because the couple never followed through on the paperwork. The process is long and tedious. My wife, for example, only recently attained "permanent residence" status, and we've been married for four years now. That being said, I have sympathy for the woman and her child.
    That paperwork is the issue is sheer supposition on your part. That 1990 is longer than 4 years ago is hardly supposition though.

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 07:33:41 AM EST
    Gee, where would we be without the likes of big media blarney to call into question the motivations of anyone who chooses to actually think for themselves. That sort of meritorious public service and competence usually gets one a medal from shrub so let me be the first to congratulate ya, Mr Big.

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#24)
    by swingvote on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 08:46:03 AM EST
    Now this actually makes the prosecution of Marc Emery seem like a reasonable use of the government's time. Not that it is, mind you, but it's better than this. Can't they waste their time chasing people who actually mean us harm?

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 09:18:31 AM EST
    lagringa writes:
    Just because there is no widespread civil unrest in Mexico does not mean that no one is persecuted there.
    So by this I guess you mean there is NO measurement, so anyone can come in based on a simple claim. I think the INS is wrong in the case of the woman in the post, but statements such as yours do not help the "open borders" cause. Keep it up.

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 10:37:05 AM EST
    That paperwork is the issue is sheer supposition on your part. That 1990 is longer than 4 years ago is hardly supposition though.
    What else am I to suppose given the lack of facts in the story? If the answer is "Nothing", then we really have nothing to talk about. About your second point--are you supposing that they didn't get married merely for the purposes of citizenship and that they filed all the correct paperwork.

    Re: Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 05:24:24 PM EST
    Posted by JimakaPPJ So by this I guess you mean there is NO measurement, so anyone can come in based on a simple claim. I think the INS is wrong in the case of the woman in the post, but statements such as yours do not help the "open borders" cause. Keep it up.
    What do you mean by "NO measurement"? I stated what the legal standard is. If someone can prove that they will suffer death, torture, or other severe persecution if they return to their home country, they should be allowed to stay. This is recognized by international law (the Torture Convention, among others), U.S. laws, and anyone with any sense of decency. Even as a "closed borders" advocate, I would think you would be willing to make an exception for asylum cases.

    Misplaced Priorities | 27 comments (27 topical)