Maybe this is the time for the USSC to put a smack-down on illegal immigration. This is a case to watch...
Posted on 03/22/2006 8:17:49 AM PST by Boston Blackie
WASHINGTON - In a case that could affect hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their families, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today about whether a longtime Utah resident and businessman was illegally deported. There is no question that Humberto Fernandez-Vargas, a 53-year-old Mexican native who made his home in Utah for decades, was in the United States illegally. But the issue before the high court today is whether Fernandez-Vargas, and thousands like him, should have had the right to court hearings before being deported.
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
They applied to him a law retroactive.
He is married to US citizen and has a 16-year-old child with her.
I think deportation was uncalled for, when he voluntarily went to the CIS building to get his papers in order. As a spouse of a US citizen, he qualifies for permanent resident status.""
How can they be applying anything to him retroactively?
He has NEVER been here legally. IF he is really "married" to any US citizan, what paperwork did he show to get a marriage license? Wouldn't he have to state his birthplace (I did), and if he correctly stated he was born out of USA, then wouldn't he have to show a legal green card visa, etc, ?? If he produced forged papers to satisfy the marriage license clerk, then he committed fraud and shouldn't be legally "married" to a US citizen.
If he lied about his status to get "married", and claimed to be born somewhere in the USA, then he committed fraud in that set of actions, also.
IMO, he doesn't belong in the USA, and has proven he will not follow our laws when he kept coming back into the country when he was caught.
If he has produced a child, and is not legally married to the mother, that child has a problem, also.
I'm sure that if you look back at what you were doing in 1969, you would do some things differently. Even in 1982, you were probably making some mistakes.
The bottom line is that President Reagan gave an amnesty to illegal aliens in 1986. There are millions of people who entered illegally and became US citizens after the Reagan amnesty.
This fellow is married to US citizen and has a 16-year-child with her. Destroying an American family is not merciful; his wife and son were about to lose their home until an anonymous donor helped them with some mortgage payments.
Mercy toward the widow and the orphan is a Christian value. Getting all self-righteous about a man who qualifies to become a US legal resident is not.
Instead of deporting him, the immigration authorities should have processed his papers, asked him to pay a fine for his civil violations (entering the US illegally is not a criminal felony), and gave him his papers. That's the way it's done every day with thousands of illegal aliens who don't even have extenuating circumstances.
Why such a hard-nosed approach toward this particular fellow?
ping
When was the last time you were asked for your immigration papers to get married? Do you live in a state with such requirement?
My youngest brother got married last month. The priest just asked him some questions, such as his full name, filled out a form, and mailed it to the county records office. The priest said the marriage license will arrive in the mail. Neither my brother nor my sister-in-law had to produce any documents.
not that I can recall.
These are typical deportation cases where some illegal has been in the country for years on end and now they were caught and are applying for a hardship visa.
Most of the time these types of cases in the media are the lawyer trying to "puff" themselves as over and above the other dime-a-dozen immigration lawyers.
Maybe this is the time for the USSC to put a smack-down on illegal immigration. This is a case to watch...
Hint: Don't marry a man who is committing a crime, because you never know when he'll be caught.
Only on FR!
He's right. How did this guy get to stay for so long? Why wasn't he deported years ago?
It's been winding its way through the courts for a while now. It looks like SCOTUS is hearing arguments today:
No. 04-1376Also see: Arguments Calendar: Session Beginning March 20, 2006Title: Humberto Fernandez-Vargas, Petitioner v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General
Docketed: April 14, 2005 Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Case Nos.: (03-9610)
Decision Date: January 12, 2005
Date Proceedings and Orders
Apr 12 2005 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 16, 2005)
May 11 2005 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including June 15, 2005.
May 31 2005 Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including July 15, 2005.
Jul 15 2005 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 6, 2005.
Sep 6 2005 Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including September 27, 2005.
Sep 27 2005 Brief of respondent Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General filed.
Oct 11 2005 Reply of petitioner Humberto Fernandez-Vargas filed. (Distributed)
Oct 12 2005 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 28, 2005.
Oct 31 2005 Petition GRANTED.
Nov 14 2005 Extension of time within which to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits to and including December 22, 2005.
Nov 14 2005 Extension of time to file respondent's brief on the merits to and including February 2, 2006.
Dec 2 2005 Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Humberto Fernandez-Vargas. (Distributed)
Dec 12 2005 Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.
Dec 22 2005 Brief of petitioner Humberto Fernandez-Vargas filed.
Dec 22 2005 Brief amici curiae of American Immigration Law Foundation, et al. filed.
Jan 23 2006 SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, March 22, 2006.
Jan 23 2006 CIRCULATED.
Jan 31 2006 Extension of time within which to file respondent's brief on the merits to and including February 8, 2006.
Feb 8 2006 Brief of respondent Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General filed. (Distributed)
Feb 13 2006 Record received from U.S.C.A. - Tenth Circuit.
Mar 14 2006 Reply of petitioner Humberto Fernandez-Vargas filed. (Distributed)
[snip]
My foreign-born wife (with my children) and I endured months of separation at severe financial expense so we could get her papers in order before she came to America. I have no sympathy for someone who doesn't bother to do it legally.
They're blaming the separation on the government when they should be blaming him. Or blame his wife for not forcing him to get legal before they married and had a child who would suffer the consequences of his dad's decisions.
Seems like this is a slam-dunk case, the guy hasn't a legal leg to stand on as I see it.
However, remember the New London, Conn. where the SCOTUS ruled the State can force you to sell your land to them and then they can sell it to me, "for the public good."
Thanks for the info and links.
I guess this guy didn't bother to apply for it.
I suggest the system is fixed so neither you nor anyone else has to suffer family separation.
That was prior to Roberts and Alito. I'm hoping they make a difference...
1. The Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA) Amnesty of 1986 - the "one-time only" blanket amnesty for some 2.8 million illegal aliens.
2. Section 245(i) The Amnesty of 1994 - a temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens.
3. Section 245(i) The Extension Amnesty of 1997 - an extension of the rolling amnesty created in 1994.
4. The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) Amnesty of 1997 - an amnesty for nearly one million illegal aliens from Central America.
5. The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act Amnesty (HRIFA) of 1998 - an amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti.
6. The Late Amnesty of 2000 - an amnesty for approximately 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed they should have been amnestied under the 1986 IRCA amnesty.
7. The LIFE Act Amnesty of 2000 - a reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty to an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens.
I want him to be accountable for his actions. I would feel this way even without the separation, simply because we wanted to do it right from the beginning. With a precedent like this, any illegal could become legal just by marrying an American, a new version of anchor babies.
Also, $5,000 is too little a penalty for such blatant long-term violation of the law. Make it $5,000 per year, then we can start talking.
I suggest the system is fixed so neither you nor anyone else has to suffer family separation.
A temporary visa for already-married couples would have been perfect, allowing the family to get the massive paperwork and interviews accomplished in the US (deportation, of course, if residency denied). But that still hinges on the foreigner making an effort to enter the country legally, which this guy never did. He thought he could just walk in an make all of his previous illegal actions go away.
He could always take his family to Mexico with him.
This reminds me of the joke where the guy is on his roof during a flood. With the water rising, a truck, a boat and a helicopter try to rescue him, but he always replies that God will save him. He dies, goes to Heaven, and asks God why he wasn't saved. God replies "I sent you a truck, a boat and a helicopter, what more do you want?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.