meauxna

http://oregonlive.com/search/index.s...oregonian?lcps

Portland judge approves deporting S. African widow
The woman wasn't married long enough before her husband died to qualify to stay in the U.S..
Saturday, July 31, 2004
ASHBEL S. GREEN

A Portland federal judge on Friday refused to block immigration officials from deporting the widow of an American citizen to her native South Africa.

U.S. District Judge Owen M. Panner ruled that Carla Arabella Freeman of Portland did not have the right to remain in the United States because she had been married less than two years when her husband, Robert, died in a car wreck in 2002.

Panner wrote that immigration officials had reasonably interpreted that the two-year rule was firm.

Brent W. Renison, Freeman's attorney, said deporting his client was inhumane.

"This is not what a civilized country does," said Renison, who works for Portland's Tonkon Torp firm.

Panner ordered immigration officials to wait 30 days before deporting Freeman, giving Renison time to decide whether to appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. If he does, he can ask the 9th Circuit to prevent immigration officials from deporting her pending her appeals.

Immigration officials declined to comment on the ruling Friday.

Although Freeman's case is unusual, the two-year rule has caught up other widows. Renison said immigration attorneys have dug up at least 25 similar cases across the nation.

Immigration officials in Georgia are seeking to deport Olga Bota, a 38-year-old Romanian citizen whose American husband died from stomach cancer in 2000. Bota has a 4-year-old daughter who is a U.S. citizen, according to Cherie Elizabeth Patronis, the Atlanta attorney representing her.

Edna Semelfort, a native of the Philippines, married a U.S. citizen last year after the couple had two children. She was pregnant with their third child when he died of a heart attack earlier this year, according to Alan Freedman, the Silver Spring, Md., attorney who is representing her.

Rubi Dobrenz, who lives in Mount Vernon, Wash., faces deportation to her native Peru because her husband committed suicide shortly after their marriage in early 2000, according to Bart Stroupe, her Seattle attorney.

Renison said he is not aware of any federal court that has sided against immigration officials seeking to deport foreign nationals whose marriages lasted less than two years.

In at least one similar case, only an act of Congress prevented the deportation of the widow of a U.S. citizen. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., co-sponsored a bill passed by Congress in 2000 that allowed Suchada Kwong, a native of Thailand, to become a permanent U.S. resident. Kwong faced deportation after her American husband was killed in a car wreck in Clark County, Wash., in 1996.

Renison said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, has introduced a bill to replace the two-year-rule with a standard that says the marriage must be entered in good faith. Renison said there is little chance the bill will be taken up this year, but immigration lawyers involved in the 25 cases around the country will be lobbying their congressional representatives during the summer recess.

Ashbel "Tony" Green: 503-221-8202; [email protected]

Andrew DeFaria

meauxna wrote:

    > ]http://oregonlive.com/search/index.s...1275587263070-
    > xml?oregonian?lcps[/url]
    > Portland judge approves deporting S. African widow The woman wasn't
    > married long enough before her husband died to qualify to stay in the
    > U.S..

Seems pretty clear to me that the as it stands now says that such
immigrants must leave. They've lost their sponsor. Should we allow them
to remain based on what? Pure pitty?

I'd say that if they can document that they would not be a drain on US
taxpayers and/or get another sponsor and that the marriage was indeed
entered into under good faith then they should be allowed to stay.
However if they have no sponsor and no reasonable means to provide for
themselves (and any family - e.g. kids) then they would probably become
an immediate drain on USCs as they get assistance.

Call me cold but if you ain't been here that long and haven't really
settled in then I don't think the unfortunate event of losing a loved
one should grant you special privileges at USC expense.
--
If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic.

lpdiver

What is so special about two years. Why not make it forty years? Yes it is the law and a poor one in my opinion. Also, what of the US citizen children? Should they be put in the situation and probably a lower status in life because their US parent died?

Antony

Andrew DeFaria

lpdiver wrote:

    > What is so special about two years. Why not make it forty years?

Because that'd be way too long!

    > Yes it is the law and a poor one in my opinion.

Why?

    > Also, what of the US citizen children?

I would think that the US citizen children are not deportable.

    > Should they be put in the situation

Ah... cause they were born into this situation! Nobody's "putting them
into this situation".

    > and probably a lower status in life because their US parent died?

Death of a parent rarely makes life better for a child. The situation
described (USC and foreign spouse are her in the US for < 2 years - USC
dies) is a tragic one to start with. Nobody's gonna come out a winner.
Question is what to do with the foreigner who lost their sponger.
--
Consciousness: that annoying time between naps.

inquisitive40

Your answers are VERY cold.
If someone has come here out of love and their spouse dies, why should they be deported? They have started a whole life here, their life in their home country ended when they moved here, there probably is nothing for this person to go back to their country for (depending on their age) and they will be faced with starting a new live again without the help and support of their deceased spouse.

Death of a spouse really should not be a deportable situation, just my two cents.
Patrick

crg

Maybe the law has another purpose.

If they could beat the two year requirement due to death of the petitioner then that could be a motive for a CR1 to have the petitioner killed. If 6 months in, the marriage is going badly and the non-US spouse is getting deperate to stay in the US they could see no other choice.

lpdiver

In that circumstance they just file for divorce and claim spousal abuse.


TP

Rete

Why did their life in their home county end when they moved here? That is not true for the majority of foreigners married to USC. My husband could easily return to Canada to continue his life. You could return to Ireland. Most people still have family and friends in their own country.

Rete

meauxna

Hmm, "the majority"? I don't know...
We were discussing this a few days ago (before the story appeared). I already knew that my DAH had cut ties with the UK before we met and when we 'sold up' in Greece last summer, that was the end of his ties abroad. I've made sure to leave detailed instruction on what he would need to do re: removing conditions and applying for natz should something happen to me. This *is* his home now and if he was voted off the island, I can't imagine what/where he would go.

I guess he could always move in with my sister; she needs a good handyman

Rete

Yes I think majority. After all because you have tied up ends in your own country does not mean you can't go back and reopen them. After all you started a new life once, you can reopen an old time again. Of course you won't have the old job, the old home, but you will still have the ability to put your life back together again, albeit in a difference way if you chose.

If I left to live in Canada, there would be nothing to stop me from returning to the US and living in the West instead of the East.

Rete

lpdiver

But should you have to...assuming you had a bona fide marriage. In my case my widow would have to leave and my daughtrer would be faced with staying alon in the usa or moving to Colombia. and what is so special about two years?

ant toe knee

Andrew DeFaria

lpdiver wrote:

    > In that circumstance they just file for divorce and claim spousal abuse.

And if they could not prove spousal abuse? (Or are you saying that all
is needed is an allegation?)

--
Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?

Andrew DeFaria

meauxna wrote:

    > I already knew that my DAH had cut ties with the UK

Really? What do you mean by "cut ties"?

    > before we met and when we 'sold up' in Greece last summer,

And what is "sold up"?

    > that was the end of his ties abroad. I've made sure to leave detailed
    > instruction on what he would need to do re: removing conditions and
    > applying for natz should something happen to me. This *is* his home
    > now and if he was voted off the island, I can't imagine what/where he
    > would go.

There is nothing stopping him from returning to the UK and living. Would
it be easy? No? Would it be easy here? Well no? You just had a loved one
die! However unsponsored what happens if he falls flat on his face here
and then applies for welfare, etc?


--
My friend has a baby. I'm writing down all the noises he makes so later
I can ask him what he meant.

Andrew DeFaria

inquisitive40 wrote:

    > Your answers are VERY cold.

Sorry you feel that way. You're viewpoint seems based purely on emotions
and as such highly illogical.

    > If someone has come here out of love and their spouse dies, why should
    > they be deported?

I can as easily ask you why should they be allowed to stay? The law
seems clear already. So if we are to make an exception or change to the
law I would expect you to have a more compelling argument!

    > They have started a whole life here,

Hardly! They've been here for less than 2 years. They've been in their
home country the rest of their entire life. Weighing the two I'd say
they have more of a life outside the US than inside the US.

    > their life in their home country ended when they moved here,

Nonsense! What stops them from returning home? They have more friends
and family there than here. They often know the language and culture
better. If they are skilled then often the skills do not translate 1 for
1 here while they already translate 1 for 1 back in their old home. How
exactly is their life more here than there in under 2 years of living here?

    > there probably is nothing for this person to go back to their country
    > for (depending on their age) and they will be faced with starting a
    > new live again without the help and support of their deceased spouse.

Whether they stay or go they don't have the "help and support of their
deceased spouse"! Such an emotional ploy holds no water here. Their
deceased spouse will not magically appear if we allow them to stay. And
why would they have "nothing" to go back to? What of their family?
Friends? No it's more for those foreigner who have managed to escape
their miserable existence back home that want to, at all costs, stay
here. Others from countries that are not as destitute have no problems
returning and do without fuss. I just don't think that "at all costs"
should include stuff from my wallet! YMMV.

    > Death of a spouse really should not be a deportable situation,

Why not? Stated differently, why should we exempt such people from the
requirements of sponsorship like all the other foreigners? I agree with
you that death of a spouse is a terrible thing - but it does not allow
you to reach into my pocket to provide financial assistance for such
misfortune. Not that I would not help out but that decision is mine -
not yours!

I'd be OK with allowing such people to stay if they can pick up
sufficient sponsorship until they are suited to providing for themselves
and are unlikely to become a burden and strain on government assistance
thus raising taxes for other citizens who did not participate in the
decision to allow this person to enter the US.

--
Did you ever notice when you blow in a dog's face he gets mad at you?
But when you take him in a car he sticks his head out the window.

lpdiver

It all comes down to representation...look at OJ. It happens a lot more than the 25 current cases of death.


TP