"Lopez has been in the country for 16 years, and his children were born in the U.S., the Plain Dealer reported." "These are the darkest times I've ever seen as an attorney. When the best and the brightest that we have to offer are taken from their homes and sent away," Leopold told reporters. "The law is so broken." https://www.yahoo.com/gma/ohio-fath...on-mexico-171004765--abc-news-topstories.html Personally, I just can't see it. With thousands of illegally-present gang members prowling the streets, about whom little seems to be done, govt exports a hard-working, honest man. Can't leaders make decisions based on individual circumstances? Sick and wrong. Frank
Short answer no, as the law doesn't provide for that possibility. That is the entire problem with our current immigration policy. Most "illegals" arrived legally and then let their visas, etc. expire. People get married and think they are now legal, when the law says not. If they get caught or turn themselves in, they are required to exit the country for 5~10 years, prior to applying and obtaining another visa... even if married, etc. It doesn't say that in the article, but I think he will likely be required to stay out until 2027.
When I hear stories like that, I ask myself what would likely be done with an American who was living illegally in whatever country the person is being deported to, and the chances are that an American in a foreign country illegally would not have been allowed to work, to marry, and to raise a family in that country at all, let alone being allowed to continue after an encounter with the country's immigration officials. Americans are not allowed to work in Mexico and, if discovered, their fate would be something harsher than deportation.
The company would be severely penalized and the worker would be deported. That's why the companies won't allow non Mexicans on the premises without a work visa. That includes salepersons that may only be onsite for 1 day. At least that was the way it was 10~20 years ago, when I worked there.
@Harry Havens (bold) I don't buy that, Harry. So long as the "lawmakers" can insert, sidestep, convolute, and otherwise bend the "laws" to suit their whim, we must all know deep down that they can do whatever the hell they want to.... (almost). How many laws do you suppose are on the books concerning illegals? As many as pertaining to firearms, > 40,000 Laws? Does anyone even know? Do we need ever-more laws? Frank
Perhaps you are right. We should somehow allow immigration judges to ignore their sworn duty to uphold the laws created by the lawmakers and create their own methods and rules for handling each and every case before them, based on their own sentiments. What a wonderful world that would be.
Have to agree with this remark, and it's sarcastic I know. Bottom Line: If a person is illegally in the U.S., they are illegally here.
Back to this specific case. The law does not allow for amnesty to this individual. It is terrible that someone in his circumstances of being a taxpaying member of society with children should be deported after being here 16 years. Should he have been here 16 years, or deported 15 3/4 years ago? To ignore all of this and grant him amnesty is not something a court should be deciding. That belongs to the lawmakers or the President via executive order. Yet, the mere mention of amnesty, sets off alarm bells to a large portion of the public, which makes it a political liability for many lawmakers.
Exceptions can be made...it just happened to this little baby. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4709122/US-expert-fails-Charlie-s-doctors-reconsider.html
Reading further though, it's still up to the court I think even if he holds an American passport. My opinion on this is to just let the dr try to save him, if it fails he won't be any worse off then pulling life support. It should also be done pro bono so people can't complain that it's costing the taxpayer. I'm sure this specialist is wealthy enough and it would give him experience in this never done surgery. If it's a success the family can go back to the UK for the care that's probably needed in a hospital after the baby can travel. Health care is free there so it wouldn't be an issue like it is here. Ok...I'm done going off topic for now.
1. Congress has not passed anything yet. The proposed amendment https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3190/text has passed out of the committee, but must still be passed by by the house as part of the Appropriations bill and then on to the Senate. 2. The bill simply moves the parents and the child to the top of the list for filing for a permanent green card, which is not really permanent as it must be renewed periodically. However all this is not a guarantee of acceptance, as it does require legal entry, which refers back to your previous comment about the UK court.
@Harry Havens What you're saying, then, is that the "Law" is a harsh taskmaster which must always and forever be used verbatim, no room for any "gray area", no matter the dubiousness or inequality of it's effects. I don't buy that either. For example, consider the gray area ever-present regarding citations for exceeding the speed limit. I believe it is I-44 in Oklahoma where speed limit signs state "No Tolerance". That simply cannot hold up in a court of law, because tolerances are inherent in the devices used to indicate vehicle speed. The cops know better than to issue citations for 71 mph in a 70 mph speed limit area, because the driver's speedometer might very well have been indicating 67, or 68, a not-unusual discrepancy given the tolerances involved all around. Frank
1. The judges in state traffic courts have more leniency within the boundaries of the relevant state laws to recognize the potential for mistakes, detection devices, etc. . Being illegaly in the country cannot be considered an accident or flaw in detection devices AND falls within federal jurisdiction. 2. Someone being in the country illegally for 16 years should not be compared to a few MPH over the speed limit. How about 160mph in a 35mph zone, while running multiple red lights, etc. Besides, you are comparing state laws and regulations to federal laws and regulations. A lot of federal laws have mandatory sentencing quidelines. 3. The federal law stipulates anyone caught with a certain amount of marijuana must serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years. If that person flees the jurisdiction, changes their name, gets a job, pays taxes, gets married and has 4 children and 16 years later, is recognized... guess what? He will serve that 5 years, plus a bunch more for fleeing prosecution, etc. EVEN if caught in Colorado.
@Harry Havens I am fully aware of all of your points, but think you fail in your zealous belief in "The Law" to see that the gray area I posed for consideration was for illustrative purposes, not to be compared to ridiculously extended comparisons with it. "Three Strikes" law has ridiculously placed relatively minor offenders in prison FOR LIFE. Do you like that law also? Frank
Does that fit your definition of "ridiculously extended comparisons? The difference between you and I seems to be that I believe inadequate or inappropriate laws should be changed through legislation, while you seem to be proposing they be ignored altogether, based on some subjective "feelings" about a particular case.