Thursday, January 19, 2012

Judge-made law blocks deportation in Calif.

Rogelio Servin entered deportation proceedings in San Francisco earlier this month and came home a legal resident, thanks to a little-used wrinkle in immigration law.

Servin, 32, who lives in Sacramento, Calif., was a boy when he came here from Mexico with his family without documentation. After 20 years worrying about whether he might be deported, he rushed home after the decision to celebrate with his wife, Juana, daughters Diamond and Princess, and Romeo, his baby boy.

Servin's legal team of Daniel Karalash and Janell Clayton argued that Servin, who had a felony conviction stemming from a domestic dispute, had turned his life around and deserved to stay in the country to support his wife and children, all U.S. citizens.

They also made the case that Servin, as a boy, had been "inspected and admitted" at the border, a still-developing concept in immigration law that could help thousands of undocumented immigrants on their paths to citizenship if they weren't stopped at official border crossings when they entered the United States.

Servin's case stems from a 2010 ruling by the federal Board of Immigration Appeals, which found that a woman facing deportation, Graciela Quilantan, had in fact entered the country legally when she crossed the border without documentation in 2001.

Quilantan, the wife of a U.S. citizen, was in a car driven by a U.S. citizen. Because she wasn't trying to sneak across and hadn't been questioned by the immigration officer who waved them into Texas, the court found she had been "inspected and admitted" legally.

"It's hard to speculate how many immigrants this could help because it is judged on a case-by-case basis on how they entered, but there's a vast population that has driven over in a car and entered legally," she said.

Experts are still digesting the ruling and its ramifications.

"This has many of us immigration professors scratching our heads," said Raquel Aldana, a professor at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento.

The case doesn't apply to millions of undocumented immigrants who crossed rivers, mountains and deserts, evading U.S. immigration officials. But about half of all undocumented immigrants either walked or drove through official checkpoints and just weren't stopped and questioned, Aldana said. Some were prepared to make a case for entry; others took their chances that they would be waved through, a more common occurrence before the border inspection process tightened in 1996.

The ruling seems to apply to a narrow subset of undocumented immigrants who are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. The idea is that they shouldn't be deported if immigration officials made a mistake letting them in in the first place, Aldana said.

The 2010 ruling "isn't a silver bullet for undocumented immigrants," said University of California-Davis Law School Dean Kevin Johnson. But under the right circumstances it could tip the balance for some of the thousands of immigrants stuck in deportation proceedings, he said. "We haven't seen a flood of these cases since the 2010 decision," he noted. "The facts of the Servin case are so extraordinary it couldn't happen very often."

There were two parts to the ruling allowing Servin to stay: He was judged to have come in legally because he was "inspected and admitted" and he was awarded his green card because he was his family's sole support.

Homeland Security officials declined to discuss the case or speculate on the impact of the Texas ruling.

But Clayton said she and Karalash have four other clients they think could benefit from the case law.

"It's hard to speculate how many immigrants this could help because it is judged on a case-by-case basis on how they entered, but there's a vast population that has driven over in a car and entered legally," she said.


GALLUP Poll: Majority of Americans Want fewer Foreigners, Immigrants Coming to America

According to a recent Gallup poll a majority of Americans (64%) want to see less foreigners migrate into this country. The poll taken from January 5-8, 2012 show that nearly two out of three Americans are dissatisfied with the level of immigration. Of 17 issues Gallup presented during the polling, the immigration issue came in third place.

According to Gallup, when posting a follow-up question only to those who say they are dissatisfied with the current level of immigration, asking whether the level of immigration should be increased, decreased, or remain the same. The net result is that 42% of all Americans are dissatisfied with the level of immigration and want it decreased—down from 50% four years ago.

Just 6% are dissatisfied and want the level of immigration increased, unchanged from 2008 but slightly higher than in previous years.

It is important to note that Gallup’s question does not distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. [Which is dumb!]



  1. Sure you Australians can buy lettuce for a dollar but you cannot drive an Australian made car or fly an Australian made airplane nor can your economy get even close to the US economy. May be because you do not have %65 foreign born scientist (blacks included) or because you do not have many businesses created by immigrants.
    By the way, 'refugee' is a person fleeing from prosecution. Are you suggesting that only people with education can be admitted as refugees!
    At the end - did you ask the nation of Australian natives wether they would let you stay among them?
    Shut up!

  2. I am leaving your comment up as testimony to the ignorance of the Left

    Yes. We do make cars in Oz. We even export some to the USA, where they are sold as Pontiacs

    Nobody claimed that the Oz economy is the size of the US economy. There are over 10 times more people in the USA so of course the US economy is larger. So what? You make no argument for the relevance of that at all

    Yes. We do have many migrants who start businesses and are prominent in the professions. But they are LEGAL immigrants

    You apparently don't even know the difference between persecution and prosecution

    I could go on but it is clearly you who should shut up