Posted on 09/28/2011 9:13:04 AM PDT by SmithL
WASHINGTON – Carlos Martinez Gutierrez got caught smuggling three Mexican children into California. Now, his travails have reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Tuesday, the court agreed to hear Gutierrez's case, which raises questions potentially crucial for other children of illegal immigrants.
If Gutierrez wins, some immigrants may find it easier to avoid removal and stay in the United States.
"The case is significant," Gutierrez's appellate attorney, Stephen Kinnaird, said Tuesday, adding that "you can have possible breakups of families" in certain circumstances.
Gutierrez's attempted alien smuggling through the San Ysidro port of entry in December 2005 does not, by itself, concern the court. Gutierrez's subsequent efforts to avoid being kicked out of the country, however, matter a great deal.
An immigration judge agreed with Gutierrez, a legal permanent resident, that he had lived legally in the United States long enough to deserve another chance after his 2005 arrest. The judge, later supported by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, rejected Department of Homeland Security efforts to remove Gutierrez.
In calculating Gutierrez's legal residency in the United States, the immigration judge and the 9th Circuit included the years he spent with his family before he gained legal status on his own. The Obama administration argues this was too generous. Only Gutierrez's time since he gained independent legal status should count, the administration says.
"The practical consequences of the 9th Circuit's aberrant … rule are significant,"
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Only if they don't take their children with them when we boot their illegal ass out of our country.
If I went to France (or Mexico) and had a baby I would not expect them to declare the child a citizen and let me live there free and pay me to live there if I did not have a job.
I would go home and take my baby with me.
Cease giving them jobs, instate tuition, entitlements and they will leave.
Does not, it is about the time period under which your citizenship can be removed after committing a felony.
Why are they so quick to abandon their families. If family was so important why would they not return to country of origin? What is it about their culture that makes family so unimportant?
Under this reasoning you could not send someone to prison for breaking the law, because it might break up the family, going back to Mexico just means you take your family with you, going to prison not so much, although it does happen.
Well, don't mean to sound hard-hearted here, but families are separated all the time. My dad was in the Navy during WWII, and he went lots of places the rest of us could not go, for security reasons. Every day, on some military base somewhere, someone on active duty has to go somewhere without his or her family, often for long deployments.
There are other reasons, too. But the worst reason to keep a family together is so that they can continue to break the law--as illegals are clearly doing.
The assholes don’t care about breaking up a family when they send a legal citizen to jail. To hell with their children, deport them or send them back with the parents. If they are legal anchors but underage send them with the parents so you don’t break up the family and the anchors can come back when they turn 18, if we haven’t managed to rescind this illegal interpretation of an amendment passed to give former slaves legal status after the civil war.
With the name Mr. K and you had a baby, I bet you could stay wherever you wanted and would be given anything you wanted. :-)
The same thing applies to sharing the wealth. Instead of sharing what others have earned, why not share the WORK and allow the wealth share itself? Social programs would come to an end overnight - and that wouldn't cost us one red cent, either!
Both are a win/win.
Exactly. There are thousands of foreign nationals who willingly leave every year taking their American children with them. They could choose to leave them here but they don’t. There is nothing shameful in beina a citizen of Mexico, Poland, Russia or the Philipines although admitedly they do not enjoy the same living standards we do.
There are two ways for the PerryBots to defend Perry; either they lie or they advocate for liberal causes that would make the average DUmmy proud.
custody follows the parents not the child.
He should be deported for this BS
SCOTUS ping
(Anyone on/off, freepmail me.)
custody follows the parents not the child.
He should be deported for this BS
Trust me: there is lying on both sides of this issue. Perry is neither as good as his staunch supporters say, nor as bad as his detractors claim. People are blinded by their own predispositions, regardless of where the truth lies—all they can see is what they want to see.
I would vote for Perry, or I would vote for Cain, and I might vote for Palin if she ever makes some kind of decision. I would NOT vote for Romney or Paul.
And the funny thing is, I am probably more extreme when it comes to immigration enforcement than most: left to me, I’d pull the military down to our southern border, complete with snipers and land mines. You don’t get much more extreme than that.
You two are unbelievable. This is not a Perry thread.
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.