Immigration

ICE Kept This Citizen and Father of 4 Locked Up for Nearly 2 Years

Levy Jaen is finally home, but only after a court affirmed what he's always known-that he's a U.S. citizen.

|

Chris Dorney/Dreamstime.com

A New York man is finally home after spending almost two years in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. But Levy Jaen only earned his freedom because a court affirmed what he already knew—that he's an American citizen.

For much of his life, Jaen had no reason to doubt his citizenship. The 46-year-old was born in Panama, but his parents moved to New York in the 1950s, and his father eventually became a U.S. citizen. Jaen came to New York in 1988 on a visa and made a life for himself in the U.S., fathering four children, one of whom is autistic.

Technically speaking, Jaen's biological father was a man his mother had an affair with, according to his birth certificate. But his mother and her husband stayed together, and since his siblings were all American citizens, Jaen assumed he was as well, BuzzFeed News reports.

ICE disagreed. After Jaen finished serving time for his second drug conviction in April 2016, the immigration enforcement agency wanted to deport him. While lawyers for both sides battled it out in court, Jaen was held in the Hudson County Correctional Facility in New Jersey.

Jaen's attorneys argued that his real father was the man who raised him and treated him like a son. ICE claimed a biological relationship is necessary in order to pass citizenship from father to son.

"It is really striking for the government to be running around telling marital families that 'no, this isn't really a family,'" Ian Samuel, an attorney for Jaen, tells BuzzFeed. "That offends some of the oldest instincts we have as a civilized people."

For nearly two years, Jaen and his children wondered if he was going to be deported. Finally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled this past April that Jaen could return home. "I felt that weight uplifted from my back. It was the happiest day of my life for me, my kids and my family," he tells BuzzFeed.

Months later, the court explained that children born to married couples are considered legal children of the husband. The biological father doesn't matter. "This presumption," the court wrote in its written opinion, released last week, "has reflected the traditional 'aversion to declaring children illegitimate,' as well as an interest in promoting familial tranquillity through deference to the marital family."

Jaen's case is tragic, but he's not alone. In April, a Los Angeles Times investigation revealed that ICE agents accidentally target American citizens on a regular basis. The agency has been forced to release nearly 1,500 U.S. citizens from custody since 2012.

Reason's Shikha Dalmia detailed the problem in December, revealing that ICE has illegally detained or deported more than 20,000 U.S. citizens over the years:

Jacqueline Stevens, a political scientist at Northwestern University and an expert on deportation law, estimates that in 2010 alone, over 4,000 U.S. citizens were detained or deported as aliens. Between 2003 and 2010, more than 20,000 Americans suffered the same fate. At any given time, Stevens maintains, about 1 percent of the inmates in immigration detention nationwide are American citizens. That figure may sound unbelievable, but in fact it is a conservative estimate.

Immigration hawks say cracking down on those who enter the U.S. illegally helps American citizens. A U.S. citizen detained by ICE might disagree.

NEXT: New York Sets Up First Statewide Panel to Investigate Prosecutorial Misconduct

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. After Jaen finished serving time for his second drug conviction in April 2016,

    But I thought he was just a father?

    the immigration enforcement agency wanted to deport him. While lawyers for both sides battled it out in court, Jaen was held in the Hudson County Correctional Facility in New Jersey.

    He could have gotten out of custody any time he liked by simply agreeing to go back to Panama. He chose to stay in custody. He didn’t have to do that. And his going back to Panama would not have prevented him from pursuing his citizenship claim.

    1. You got a little shoe polish on your tongue there.

      1. You got a brown smelly stain on your lips.

      2. I know, he is a sacred immigrant Jerry. He is almost as sacred as a Muslim or a Tranny. He is special.

    2. John, it’s interesting that your general indifference to human suffering finds an exception for the bullshit complaints of the people complaining about immigration.

      1. I am pretty indifferent to a two time felon with a dubious claim to citizenship complaining that he might have to go back to Panama, yes.

        1. No you’re a fucking dung beetle who is now defending deporting AMERICAN citizens.

          Solely because you can apparently only survive by chewing on Trump’s dingleberries.

          1. He’s not an American citizen.

            A court said he was an American citizen and they were wrong.

          2. No you’re a fucking dung beetle who is now defending deporting AMERICAN citizens.

            Hey – the guy engaged in voluntary economic activity that the government disapproves of. As libertarians, we’re against that. This guy deserves everything he gets.

    3. He could have gotten out of custody any time he liked by simply agreeing to go back to Panama.

      Sure. Easy as pie. Panama is a wonderful place, and it’s nearly certain that his claim wouldn’t have been forgotten or anything. Where is the downside? Why is this guy being such an asshole?

      1. His claim could have been pursued in court just like it was. And Panama isn’t a bad place at all.

        1. And Panama isn’t a bad place at all.

          If Panama isn’t one of the Latin American shitholes that is exporting murderers and rapists, then which ones are?

        2. I wouldn’t mind a holiday in Panama.

    4. Oh no, a drug conviction! Now that’s really bad, how dare he do something to his body the government deems to be a no-no!

  2. For much of his life, Jaen had no reason to doubt his citizenship. The 46-year-old was born in Panama, but his parents moved to New York in the 1950s, and his father eventually became a U.S. citizen. Jaen came to New York in 1988 on a visa and made a life for himself in the U.S., fathering four children, one of whom is autistic.

    Where was the mother born?

    As we know from lying Nazi naturalized US citizens who recently got deported, being the kid of a naturalized parent does not automatically and absolutely make one a US citizen.

    If you are born inside the USA, you are a natural born citizen. If you are born to two US citizens, then you are a US citizen. Any other combination, bases your US citizenship on US law.

    1. Did you miss the part where the court affirmed that he is a citizen?

      1. A court determined his US citizenship, big surprise there.

        I never had that problem, as I was born in the USA.

    2. Where was the mother born?

      I’m not even clear on the immigration status of the father. He had a father who raised him and a daddy that sired him, I assume the former is the one that stayed and became a citizen but the article kinda starts off with the fact that not even Jaen himself seems to know.

      Makes you kinda wonder about Elian Gonzalez Scenario. Had this guy’s biological father (I presume) claimed ownership would Janet Reno have been escorting him back to Panama?

      1. You can expect shady articles about immigration from Reason.

        Reason wants to get people with the narrative not to have their narrative questioned.

      2. Man lives in the US and becomes a US citizen.
        Man marries a foreign national.
        Foreign national becomes pregnant. Biological parentage is not husband, but US Citizen husband raises child as his own.

        This comes down to who is the parent. Established law says that children born into a marriage are assumed to be children of the married partners. ICE did not follow that precedent.

    3. You only need one US citizen parent to be a US citizen.

      1. If the naturalized parent was in the USA fraudulently, that negates your citizenship or puts it in question.

        1. Not even alleged in this case.

      2. Actually, no, it’s not quite that simple. It all depends on how long the citizen parent lived in the US.

        Even though I am a native born US citizen, my son, born in Canada to a Canadian mother, was not a US citizen since I had not lived in the USA for five consecutive years before he was born (my parents left the US when I was about a year old and I did not return to the US until after my son was born).

        1. Incidentally, it was a complete pain in the ass to get Green Cards for my wife (now ex-) and son.

          1. That sucks about the green cards being so difficult.

            After most of the illegals are deported, I support reforming immigration law to make it easier for Americans to get biological children and wives naturalized. It should not be that kind of hassle.

  3. I’m stuck on this–

    Jaen came to New York in 1988 on a visa>/I>

    And this–

    his second drug conviction

    Stuck right there. Thinking. Can’t they find someone who ISN’T a criminal to stand up for?

    There was another one this morningabout some poor guy who got stopped while taking his wife to have their baby. They talked about this fact a lot. He’s not gonna get to see his baby.

    Then they got around to why he was stopped. Seems he’s wanted for murder in his home country. Huh. Whoda thunk? Rite?

    1. “Can’t they find someone who ISN’T a criminal to stand up for?

      That’s not in any way relevant to the determination of his citizenship. Besides, I thought the drug was stupid and should be ended. Or did you just get lost and stumble in here from Breitbart?

      1. “Or did you just get lost and stumble in here from Breitbart? ”

        Um, who the fuck are you guy who I’ve never seen before because he’s an idiot and I’d remember trolling him?

        1. Let’s put it this way.
          You want the simplest, easiest to digest, message to convince people of your argument.
          People are more likely to support absolute freedom of speech, if your argument is about political debate than if it’s about porn. Or Nazis.
          People are more likely to support ending the drug war if your argument is about overreach and people like them suffering than if it’s about the inalienable right to your body.
          People are more likely to support cutting ICE down to size, if your sob story is someone they would stand up for anyway, and not someone who they might not want as a neighbor, because he has a drug conviction or two.
          If you want to change peoples minds, you have to do so gradually, one slightly subversive argument at a time; not by throwing a case at them that makes them want to decide the law based on the outcome they want for that case.
          The thin wedge, not the blunt maul of an ideology they don’t yet subscribe to.

      2. Not talking about HIS citizenship at all.

        Talking about how nearly every one of the people they make a stink about has some issue other than immigration going on. Some quite serious.

        Gotta pay attention, noob.

        The drug war IS stupid. And? You wanna end it? Fight for laws that do so BUT understand that there are laws we all have to live by in the meantime. Undermining the rule of law helps no one.

  4. And this is where we see how many commentators can do math

    1. You mean that April 2016 was still squarely in the Obama campaign and that his release took place under the Trump campaign? Or that ICE has deported 20,000 people since 2012 and Reason didn’t seem to care too much until Jan. 20, 2017?

      1. My bad, 20,000 people since *2003* that Reason didn’t care about until Jan. 20, 2017.

      2. Or you could go through the Reason archives and find a shitload of articles about immigration and deportation and realize that their editorial stance hasn’t really changed in all that time.

        1. Claiming the editorial focus hasn’t changed by pointing at the archives is kind of dumb.

          1. Well, what you said wad pretty dumb, so maybe you’re no judge. mad.casual claimed that Reason “didn’t care about” immigration or deportation until they came down with a case of TDS, but that’s demonstrably false. If you look through the archives, you can see that they had been bitching about it the whole time he claims they hadn’t been.

            1. “Well, what you said wad pretty dumb, ”

              Aww, look who I upset.

              Hey boy, if you think claiming the editorial focus hasn’t changed by pointing at the archives isn’t dumb, that’s your retarded hill to die on.

              1. If you think you’re upsetting anyone by showing everyone how low your IQ is then maybe I should just leave you to it. If anyone tries to stop you, you’ll just get so angry you’ll end up hurting yourself.

                1. Me: the editorial focus had changed

                  You: look at all these articles

                  me: yes, but the content and tone is clesrly different

                  you: look at all these articles

                  me: ok guy, you do you

                  you: WAHHHHHHH!!!!

                  1. me: yes, but the content and tone is clesrly different

                    I missed the part where you said that.

                    1. you also missed the day the word “hyperbole” was defined in school.

                  2. me: yes, but the content and tone is clesrly different

                    You never said that. But if you had, you’d be wrong. The editorial position on immigration and deportation has been the same the whole time.

                    1. I like that you think you can dictate your perception of the articles to me and think that will make me accept it.

                      I disagree with you. The editorial focus has changed. Certain writers have been given more room to act silly, like Dalmia.

                      But go ahead and insist your perception is the only correct one, despite others disagreeing with you.

            2. If you look through the archives, you can see that they had been bitching about it the whole time he claims they hadn’t been.

              Using your link, the first 30 articles span Jan. 1, 2003 to July 1, 2006. So, about an article a month starting at the date range 2003-01-01.

              If I change the date range to 2017-01-20 to today, the first 30 articles span from January to August of the same year. So, using your own methodology, either Reason is publishing ~5X the number of ‘deported’ articles in 2017 as they were in 2003.

              1. That is to say, Reason is publishing ~5X the number of ‘deported’ articles and 5X the number of ‘other’ articles and the absolute amount has still increased while the narrative remained the same or the narrative has shifted or the narrative has shifted.

                Considering that AM/PM links came and went and we went from getting 1 article from Shikha to her standard 3-peat, I’m gonna say the publishing volume hasn’t increased 5-fold.

              2. Thank you for the facts demonstrate the truth of my perception.

                1. I thought Trumpies weren’t allowed to use bad words like “truth” anymore.

      3. You mean that April 2016 was still squarely in the Obama campaign and that his release took place under the Trump campaign?

        The article doesn’t even mention Trump.

        1. Boon: Forget it, he’s rolling.

        2. The article doesn’t even mention Trump.

          The man’s been in prison since 2003 and arguably of questionable citizenship status since ’88 why is it relevant now? Is there a ‘They have biological citizenship don’t deport them’ bill up for a vote in Congress?

          1. Government imprisoning citizens is Libertarian now?

  5. oh crap. didn’t close the tag

  6. “Jaen’s case is tragic, but he’s not alone.”

    No. It’s complicated. He’s arguably not a US Ctizien. If he were, he wouldn’t have needed a visa to enter the country and then stay here.

    “Immigration hawks say cracking down on those who enter the U.S. illegally helps American citizens. A U.S. citizen detained by ICE might disagree.”

    Throwing yourself on someone else’s sword intentionally doesn’t make you a martyr. It just makes you an idiot. There were other options than just staying in custody while the courts figured out what to do with someone who was clearly not a US citizen.

    1. Exactly that Cy.

    2. He would have needed a visa to enter the country if he had a Panamanian but not a US passport at the time.

      1. If you hold citizenship it does not matter what passport you hold, no visa is required

        1. Sure, tell that to customs.

          1. I know this from experience. You know this just because

            1. I’m just talking about the practical reality of making the trip. What’s more likely, that he has proof of his US citizenship, or his Panamanian citizenship? If you think it’s somehow hard to explain why he came in on a visa, that seems ridiculous.

              1. Not sure if it’s ridiculous or a legitimate question. Pretty sure it’s a legitimate question

        2. You need a physical passport to enter the country.
          If he did not have a US passport, he would not have been admitted without a visa. He could have (and it would have been in his interest) obtained the US passport. I don’t know how difficult it would be. It may have taken more time than he had.

          1. You didnt always need a passport to enter the USA.

    3. someone who was clearly not a US citizen

      Except that the court found that he is, in fact, a US citizen.

  7. The Libertarian movement does itself a great disservice when it highlights scumbags like this guy to make a point. Second drug offense combined with questionable parentage and a nebulous claim to citizenship as a result? Really, this is the guy you want people to stick up for.

    Plenty of well meaning and hard working people get screwed by bureaucracies all the time. Please use them as an example.

    Highlighting a scumbag who got over on the legal system just encourages people to change the law to prevent jerks like this guy, and in the process debarring large numbers of other people, from becoming a citizen.

    1. “nebulous claim to citizenship”

      The case against his citizenship would involve recognizing a foreign adulterer’s right to claim paternity over the children he begets by a citizen’s wife.

      Would you want government lawyers going through your family history, trying to deport you because your *real* father, whom you never saw, was a foreign adulterer?

      1. From the Second Circuit opinion:

        ” At the time of Jaen’s birth, his mother, Leticia Rogers Boreland, was married to a man named Jorge Boreland,
        who had been born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1927 and became a naturalized United States citizen in 1961.”

        Period, full stop. I don’t care if Mom slept with the entire Panamanian soccer team, by law Jorge Boreland was the citizen-father of Jaen. The latter is this country’s responsibility, even if he violated the drug laws.

        1. I don’t care if Mom slept with the entire Panamanian soccer team, by law Jorge Boreland was the citizen-father of Jaen.

          Which is horrifying law and forces men to pay for children that are not theirs.

          1. Who should bear the consequences of an unwise marriage – the people who chose to get married, *or*…the whole society?

            1. In light of recent marriage decisions in court?

              Society.

          2. Did he get a DNA test? Not common in 1988

        2. Except no.

          His actual father is the man listed on his birth certificate. Jorge Boreland was not his father, did not adopt him and, based on the fact the Jaen got a visa to come to the US and nothing is mentioned about his half-siblings doing the same, there is no choice but to conclude that the young man who came to the US in 88 knew this all as well.

          1. You nailed it. It’s all about the birth certificate. Women lie on them all the time, but for some reason this woman was honest.

            I guess the court decided that his mother’s husband was his de facto adoptive dad, which is lovely for him but sets an awkward precedent.

            1. It didn’t set any precedent. It followed precedent. The court made that clear.

            2. It’s all about the birth certificate. Women lie on them all the time, but for some reason this woman was honest.

              Yes. Courts should default to the assumption that all women lie on birth certificates unless proven otherwise.

              Of course, now I’m confused as to who we should decide the legal father is. I suppose the legal husband of the woman?

      2. I was born here, so I wouldn’t care.

        1. You got yours, you don’t care about citizenship rights or the integrity of the family?

          1. Actually, I was just answering the question you asked, not the one you thought you asked.

            1. I regret to say I saw your handle and immediately thought of what kind of comeback to make. Your handle is triggering.

              1. Then it’s working.

                I obviously would not care for the fisking of my complicated family history if I had a complicated family history.

                1. For all you know, you do.

                  1. Exactly wrong, very stupid person.

                    I was demonstrably born here, in America, full stop. That makes it very very very uncompliasted, but I can understand that you despise me because I remind people that you’re a kid fucker, and so you rushed to make a comment before you realized it was stupid.

                    1. *uncomplicated

                    2. Just because you were born here doesn’t mean you don’t have a complicated family history.

                    3. for the context of this article it does.

                      god damn bitch, how many times are you going to shit the bed trying to pull a gotcha?

                    4. “complicated family history”

                      Whatever that means Cathy L, the dum-dum.

                    5. Because I’m the first one who used that phrase.

                    6. Then those people are dum-dums too.

                      That never tells the person whom who are talking to what you mean by “complicated”.

                      Being purposely vague wont convince anyone of your position.

        2. What an achievement!

      3. Actually, I don’t actually know if he ever saw the adulterer, that’s irrelevant.

      4. I’m still not clear on this part.

        The man who supposedly raised him did so in New York from the 1950s but Jaen didn’t immigrate until 1988 (on a visa). Somebody’s fudging some numbers to connect some dots that don’t connect here.

        1. Again, I jumped the gun on “never say.” But the court decision establishes that he was born to a woman whose husband was at the time a citizen.

          1. Right, but that’s the man that the article entirely eschews. The article is literally trying to connect dots that don’t connect while ignoring the dots that do. It’s disingenuous at best.

            1. I won’t defend the article’s spin – I checked the 2nd Circuit ruling instead.

      5. He showed up on a visa (US citizens don’t need these). The mother says his father was a US citizen, but he grew up with a non-citizen who wasn’t his father.

        He’s a twice convicted criminal. It’s not like criminals lie about things to favor themselves.

        And oh yeah, this was Panama where any government paperwork is only a $20 bill away.

        His whole story stinks.

        Who wouldn’t question this?

        And again, if you want to make a point, use a sympathetic guy who got nailed by an anonymous admin type. Don’t use a twice convicted drug offender who overstayed a visa.

        1. Only sympathetic people have rights!

          1. FEELZ the constitutional protections.

          2. Of course unsympathetic people have rights, but you’re more likely going to get the general populace to stand up for those rights of the unsympathetic, if the issue before them is someone who is sympathetic, possibly even someone they know, or someone like someone they know.
            It’s a sad commentary on our society, and perhaps all societies, but there it is.

            Far too many people are willing to use the wrong law to punish someone they think is “getting away” with something. You want to convince them with cases that make them think “that sucks, man”, and not “well, he had it coming”.

    2. “scumbags…questionable parentage”

      Lol

  8. “After Jaen finished serving time for his second drug conviction in *April 2016,* the immigration enforcement agency wanted to deport him.”

    Trump can even travel back in time to enforce his evil immigration policies!

    (Reason can reply that they covered immigration abuses under Obama, but I reply that they’ve ramped up the TDS since then)

    “This presumption,” the court wrote in its written opinion, released last week, “has reflected the traditional ‘aversion to declaring children illegitimate,’ as well as an interest in promoting familial tranquillity through deference to the marital family.”

    Like I suspected, the Second Circuit cited the US Supreme Court’s decision in Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989). This was a big culture-war case where the adulterous father of a married woman’s child claimed rights over that child. The Supreme Court upheld the traditional presumption that the husband is the father of his wife’s children.

    But it was a close-run thing. The liberal justices (and White, a “moderate”), dissented, saying that our living, growing, evolving Constitution means an adulterer has constitutional rights of paternity in children he fathers with another man’s wife.

    In light of this post, would Reason be willing to acknowledge that turning the Constitution into an adulterers’-rights charter might have some bad consequences?

    1. Trump can even travel back in time to enforce his evil immigration policies!

      The article doesn’t even mention Trump once.

      1. I didn’t say it did.

    1. “the Left” or one random twitter guy?

      1. Its a bunch of Lefties. This deportation of a nazi guard wrecks the open border narrative …again.

  9. Oh, oh, make sure to mention one of his children is autistic! For extra feelz!

    But then, kind of grudgingly, allude to his second drug conviction.

    Wasn’t born here, came here 30 something years after his parents (well half anyway) came here, on a visa (which a citizen wouldn’t need), presuming that because his half-siblings were born here that he was also a citizen (that needed a visa to come here), fathers four children (one of whom is autistic!).

    Shitsa must be crapping herself over this one.

    1. Oh, oh, make sure to mention one of his children is autistic! For extra feelz!

      This is not more relevant than his drug conviction. (The autistic part, not the having a child part)

  10. Just to reiterate, from the court’s opinion:

    “At the time of Jaen’s birth, his mother, Leticia Rogers Boreland, was married to a man named Jorge Boreland,
    who had been born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1927 and became a naturalized United States citizen in 1961.”

    Period, full stop. He may be a criminal, but he’s a U. S. citizen.

    The fact that this was considered a head-scratching dilemma to be resolved by the courts show that attacking marriage *does* have consequences.

    1. “At the time of Jaen’s birth, his mother, Leticia Rogers Boreland, was married to a man named Jorge Boreland,
      who had been born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1927 and became a naturalized United States citizen in 1961.”

      According to the article, this is the man the attorneys were declaring ‘not his real father’, right?

      1. Again, I’m not a big fan of adulterers’ rights.

        1. Again, I’m not a big fan of adulterers’ rights.

          I’m not exactly either and I’m not exactly hung up on this guys citizenship status or his parents’ citizenship/ethnicities either. As I indicated above I’m thinking about it in a sort of ‘Elian Gonzalez’ custody sense. Somebody raised this person and it wasn’t his biological father and it wasn’t exactly his ‘adoptive’ father. The kid was born to a woman stably married to a US citizen, the article practically strives to conceal that fact. If, for whatever reason, he hadn’t been able to get a Visa in ’88, we would’ve rightly shipped him back to Panama (assuming the Grandparents were still alive or whatever), no? He was born in Panama, raised by Panamanians and lived there most of his life, the same arguments we use for DACA, right?

          At the very least it’s a shitty corner case that worked out bad, could’ve worked out better on both sides, didn’t work out terribly (Neither ICE nor the CIA killed anyone, right?), and ultimately, says nothing about crafting policy.

          1. ICE held a US citizen for two years. That’s pretty bad!
            There was no reason that they could not have released him on appeal. Their detaining him had no benefit to anybody except giving them one more person to charge the taxpayers to house.

            1. He could have agreed to deportation and fought his case from panama or anywhere else but the USA.

      2. this is the man the attorneys were declaring ‘not his real father’, right?

        Which attorneys? His, or ICE’s?

        Also, you’re the only one to say “not his real father” so far, so who knows what that even means.

    2. “At the time of Jaen’s birth, his mother, Leticia Rogers Boreland, was married to a man named Jorge Boreland,
      who had been born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1927 and became a naturalized United States citizen in 1961.”

      If he had verifiable proof he was a US citizen, WTF did he need a Visa to enter the country in 1988? Futhermore, why would he not get all of this cleared up for almost 30 years?!!?

      1. It’s cleared up now.

  11. Was he born here? Nope. Not even in question.
    Was he raised here? Nope. He was 16-18 when he applied for his Visa.
    Was he raised by US citizens? Nope. His adoptive father wouldn’t be a citizen until well after Jaen was an adult.

    So, a hardworking Mexican who can’t point to an American citizen and claim one drop of blood relation has to stand in line while a drug dealer from Panama gets in because somebody who fucked his Mom and let him stay at his house eventually became a citizen? Awesome basis for immigration policy.

    1. “Awesome basis for immigration policy.”

      it makes sense if you start with your goals and work backwards.

    2. “somebody who fucked his Mom and let him stay at his house eventually became a citizen?”

      Let’s quote again that passage from the Court’s opinion, adding one key sentence I left out at first:

      “Jaen was born on May 12, 1972 in Panama. At the time of Jaen’s birth, his mother, Leticia Rogers Boreland, was married to a man named Jorge Boreland, who had been born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1927 and became a naturalized United States citizen in 1961.”

      So…he was born into a family where the husband was *already* an American citizen.

      1. His non-biological father wasn’t a citizen of the US at the time of his birth. His biological father wasn’t nor ever became a US citizen.

        1. Jorge Borland became a US citizen in 1961. Jaen was born in the 70s.

          1. THAN WHY DID HE NEED A VISA TO GET INTO THE COUNTRY!?!?!?

            1. Probably because it was an easier than proving US citizenship before coming.

              1. Visas are temporary. Why not solve the question of US Citizenship as quickly as possible?

                Because the US government has a sketchy history of enforcing immigration law until Trump.

                1. Because the US government has a sketchy history of enforcing immigration law until Trump.

                  You would have to be exceedingly ignorant of the history of immigration law to believe this.

                  1. Exhibit #1: This guy was held for 2 years until his case was adjudicated.

              2. Probably because it was an easier than proving US citizenship before coming.

                Probably because, at the time, defense of his citizenship was virtually non-existent. He was born in Panama, raised in Panama in the custody of his Panamanian grandparents and the only US citizen he could firmly point to wasn’t his father/blood relation.

            2. Maybe he didn’t *need* a visa. Maybe he got a visa because he wasn’t sure if he needed one or not.

              1. I am an american and I often get a US visa in case I need one.

                1. After that, I know I can safely ignore anything you have to say on this subject.

      2. Boreland is the citizen from ’61. I get that. But Boreland is not the one who raised him, no?

        At the very least, I’m crying foul about the absolute shittiest of sub-par reporting. It would be dead simple to say who is biological father is, by name, and who his adoptive father or step father or whomever is, by name, and avoid all confusion about who was a citizen and when and whom they claimed as family and when. Instead, we’ve got a mess that we have to go to the links where the court explains that his biological father is a citizen.

        1. Boreland raised him from age 15 on. Prior to that, he was raised by his grandparents.

        2. Jaen was born on May 12, 1972 in Panama. At the time of Jaen’s birth, his
          mother, Leticia Rogers Boreland, was married to a man named Jorge Boreland,
          who had been born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1927 and became a naturalized
          United States citizen in 1961. Jaen’s Panamanian birth certificate, however, lists
          Liberato Jaen as his father, a man with whom Leticia had an extramarital
          relationship during her marriage to Jorge. Leticia and Jorge were married in
          1952, had seven children together prior to the birth of Jaen (three of whom were
          born in Panama, four of whom were born in the United States), and remained
          married for approximately 47 years until Jorge died in 1999.

          Jaen lived in Panama with his grandparents until he entered the United
          States on a nonimmigrant visa on May 8, 1988 at the age of 15. He was raised as
          the youngest child of the Boreland family and has remained in the United States
          since his 1988 entry.

          From the opinion.

        3. In 1988 there wasn’t nearly the same degree of immigration hysteria. The “show me your papers” attitude would have been considered outrageous even by Republicans. We were way less of a police state.

          1. And illegals were not demanding that Americans cave to foreign demands on immigration rules.

            Immigrants were mostly happy to be in the USA so Americans allowe that.

    3. Nope. He was 16-18 when he applied for his Visa.

      He was 15 when he arrived in the US.

      because somebody who fucked his Mom and let him stay at his house eventually became a citizen

      No, because someone married to his mom was already a US citizen.

      1. He was 15 when he arrived in the US.

        Didn’t ask or state when he arrived in the US. He was born in ’70 and applied for his Visa at 18.

        No, because someone married to his mom was already a US citizen.

        But that’s not the guy he’s (or his attorneys are) pointing to in order to claim citizenship. Or, at the very least, the article goes to absurd lengths to remain uninformative about who’s who.

        1. He wasn’t born in 1970; he was born in 1972. And he arrived on a visa when he was 15.

          And, yes, the man married to his mom is the man that he is pointing to in order to claim citizenship. See the quote above from the opinion.

          1. Maybe he should have made his claim to citizenship before he decided to make crime his career choice. Just a thought.

  12. Maybe if we weren’t chattel, existing for the benefit of an unproductive ruling class, little of this would matter.

  13. Jaen came to New York in 1988 on a visa and made a life for himself in the U.S., fathering four children, one of whom is autistic.

    I’m still not convinced, do you have any pictures of the kids looking utterly adorable? Also, it would help if the mother was handicapped or dead. Thanks in advance.

    1. /sarc in case it wasn’t obvious

    2. He made a life for himself as a successful drug dealer. Or actually, a pretty bad drug dealer who kept getting caught by the cops. But reason is on a roll here.

      1. Any evidence that he’s a dealer?
        He got busted for possession. Usually libertarians think that’s a bullshit charge.

        1. It is a bullshit charge for americans.

  14. “But Levy Jaen only earned his freedom because a court affirmed what he already knew?that he’s an American citizen.

    For much of his life, Jaen had no reason to doubt his citizenship. The 46-year-old was born in Panama, but his parents moved to New York in the 1950s, and his father eventually became a U.S. citizen. Jaen came to New York in 1988 on a visa and made a life for himself in the U.S., fathering four children, one of whom is autistic.

    Technically speaking, Jaen’s biological father was a man his mother had an affair with, according to his birth certificate. But his mother and her husband stayed together, and since his siblings were all American citizens, Jaen assumed he was as well, BuzzFeed News reports.”

    Another Reason article leaving my Spidey sense tingling.

    What was a self presumed American Citizen doing getting a Visa to come to the US?

    Notice the lack of dates and locations for these events.
    When did his mother marry? Where?
    When did her husband get his US citizenship?
    Where was he born?

    You can sniff out Reason’s propaganda by the facts they strangely omit. Something didn’t fit The Narrative.

    1. The guy had two drug convictions. That is the best part of this. Reason acts like he was just minding his own business and one day ICE grabbed him like the NKVD looking for Trotskyites.

      1. The guy had two drug convictions.

        The MONSTER!

        1. He wasn’t very bright if nothing else.

          1. He wasn’t very bright if nothing else

            Probably not, but this is a significant reduction of the scope of his crimes, isn’t it?

            1. It is still a crime. I am all for changing it. But I have a hard time having much sympathy for people who break it. You have to be a fairly serious criminal to get busted for dealing as opposed to using and get busted twice for dealing no less. The guy is a dirtbag. I really don’t give a shit that they sent his sorry ass back to Panama. Find a better poster child.

              1. The guy is a dirtbag. I really don’t give a shit that they sent his sorry ass back to Panama.

                Because even if he is technically a US citizen, he doesn’t *deserve* citizenship, so therefore, deport his ass!

                That’s modern conservatism for you. Liberty is only for those who “deserve” it.

                1. If they pop out of a vagina here, it’s an achievement like no other so of course they deserve it.

                  1. Now you understand the rules. Americans and their popped out kin makes the rules in America.

              2. You have to be a fairly serious criminal to get busted for dealing as opposed to using and get busted twice for dealing no less.

                No. “Fairly serious” criminals get away with it. It tends to be the dumbasses who don’t know what they’re doing who get caught and made examples of.

                I’m guessing you don’t know what the kid was dealing, or any other circumstances whatsoever. You’re just declaring him a scumbag because it makes your position feel justified, but consider that you’re arguing for deportation of an American citizen because you assume he’s a bad person and are willing to take a state agent’s word for it.

                Can you really not think of any ‘unforeseen’ consequences to that attitude?

              3. And we can trust the cops for only arresting the worst of the worst, right?

                He got busted for possession. Where’s evidence he dealt?

                1. its done and hes not a good poster child for tour open border fantasy.

                  Face it, Americans are MAGA.

        2. Its either the rule of law or its not.

          Yeah drug laws are unconstituional. Repeal them. Dont ignore them and then complain when your open borders agenda uses a shitty poster child and Americans reject it.

    2. From the linked article:
      “Jaen’s path to the country is complicated: His parents, who were married in 1952, had moved to New York in the late 1950s and his father later became a citizen. His mother, however, gave birth to him in Panama, where the family was from, and his original birth certificate lists a man his mother had had an affair with as the father.

      Still, his mother stayed with her husband, who considered Jaen his son until his death decades later, his attorneys say. In 1988, at the age of 15, Jaen came to the US on a visa and had lived in New York ever since, going to high school in Queens. He spent his life assuming he was a US citizen, like his siblings.”

      So it appears that Jaen was the son of two Panamanian citizens, born in Panama, and grown up in Panama.

      Why did Jaen’s mother’s husband have a boy he “considered his son” living in Panama away from his father, his mother, and his other siblings?

      If Mom and “Dad” are in the US, who is raising Jaen in Panama? Why is Jaen still in Panama, away from his adoring “Dad”?

      She “stayed with her husband”? Except when she was fucking other men and having their children in Panama. Any other times? When exactly did she come back from Panama?

      Does any of this smell right to you?

      1. Try this on for size as an alternative explanation (where I am filling in lot of blanks in the reporting):

        “Dad” and Mom illegally immigrate to the US. Things aren’t going great, so Mom goes back to Panama. Starts a new life with a new man. Has a son with him.
        “Dad” gets citizenship. Dad is now a ticket to the US. Mom joins “Dad” in the US.
        Naturally she doesn’t bring her son by another man along, as Mom’s new life with new man and his child isn’t a narrative “Dad” is likely to feel warm and fuzzy about. She’s been pining away for “Dad” all these years. Really.
        Now “Dad” dies. With “Dad” out of the way, Jaen comes to the US. He comes on a Visa, because he isn’t a US citizen.
        Son gets arrested on drug charges. Then held by ICE for deportation.
        What to do now? Invent cockamamie story that “Dad” always thought of Jaen as his son, and try to bastard sonny into being a US citizen.

        Which story fits the facts better?

        1. I’m getting to really hate Reason, because they’re consciously lying to us.

          1. And not even really lying for any sort of reasonable or fundamentally libertarian cause.

            “US troops killed 50,000 Iraqis last month!” I could get. It’s a lie and I’d still oppose the lie but decreasing foreign intervention, getting troops out of harms way, etc. makes libertarian sense.

            “Known drug dealers have the right the right to be citizens because they can point to a citizen that would claim them.” What end goal does that achieve except to say you’re OK with drug cartels doing what they did to trash their home countries here? Like it’s a shame that the drug war destroyed Colombia but, to you, it really doesn’t make much of a difference whether it’s Colombia or Iowa.

        2. That is likely the truth.

        3. Which story fits the facts better?

          Well, there’s a “presumption of innocence” version that goes:

          Dad and Mom legally immigrate to US in 1950s and Dad becomes US Citizen.

          Mom has illicit affair in Panama and has a child by the other man, who insists on keeping the child.

          Once Dad is out of picture for whatever reason, the child’s second set of parents, including a legal citizen of the US, say “come live with us, your US Citizen family.”

          A couple of decades later, after dumbass kid gets caught dealing drugs, ICE, actively looking to pump up its deportation numbers, focuses in on this kid and tries to deport him.

          Now, the question being, what sort of justice system do we like to have? One where we presume innocence, or one where we do what you did?

          1. Except that you don’t get a presumption of citizenship in these cases.

            We get it. Libertarians are transnationists who totally reject the nation state and object to deporting anyone for any reason. Just be honest about that instead of jerking everyone off pretending this asshole has a reasonable claim to citizenship. It is just tiresome. We get it. He is a sacred immigrant and is always right. How dare anyone ever criticize him or think he has no right to come here and violate our laws and sit on his ass all day. He is special. the only thing that would make him more special would be if he were a Muslim Tranny.

            1. I think you’re so anti-anti-Trump that you’ll defend him *even if he defends a dubious policy he inherited from Obama.”

              The principle the Obama/Trump administration seeks to defend is this: If you’re born abroad of a foreign mother married to a U. S. citizen, you’re not automatically a citizen – not if they can dig around in your family history and find you were conceived in an adulterous affair your mother had with a foreigner.

              This applies to more than just convicted criminals.

              Imagine the following:

              Jones was born abroad to a foreign woman married to a U. S. citizen. Thinking this entitled him to U. S. citizenship, he applies for a U. S. passport and tries to register to vote. But the State Department and the Board of Elections say: “A patriotic informant tells us that your mother was committing adultery with a foreigner shortly before your birth. Before you can vote or get a U. S. passport, you must take a DNA test.”

              And if it turns out Jones was conceived in adultery, no U. S. citizenship for him – no passport, no voting, maybe deportation depending on the circumstances.

              1. I think you’re so anti-anti-Trump that you’ll defend him *even if he defends a dubious policy he inherited from Obama.”

                Yup, that’s it in a nutshell. It’s all tribal sports to people like John.

              2. Except that I already have a US passport and was born on US soil. This guy never bothered to claim to be a citizen until he got locked up and ICE was going to deport him., So, your horror story isn’t very compelling.

                1. Yes, John, we know. The good people have nothing to fear. It’s only the bad people who have something to hide.

                2. Except that I already have a US passport and was born on US soil.

                  Good for you!

                  Now consider the hypothetical that Eddy just presented to you.

                3. “So, your horror story isn’t very compelling.”

                  Seriously? We can trust the government not to carry out the logical implications of its own positions?

                  Just as civil forfeiture only applies to drug traffickers who sell meth to children.

                  And the straw ban’s criminal provisions won’t actually be invoked.

                  I for one am grateful to the 2nd Circuit – imagine a Jones figure arrested in a foreign country who demands consular access under the consular treaty. The jailer refuses – “your mother was a notorious whore, so under America’s own laws you’re not a citizen of that country, checkmate!”

                  1. Holy crap, it seems even the swinging, hip, with-it 9th circuit agrees with the 2nd Circuit on this.

                    As the 2nd Circuit said, citing the U. S. Supreme Court: “The principle guiding this decision?that a child born into a legal marriage is presumed to be the child of the marriage?is a lasting one, with deep roots in the common law. In each iteration, this presumption has reflected the traditional “aversion to declaring children illegitimate,” as well as an interest in promoting familial tranquillity through deference to the marital family.””

                    By the way, the dissenters in that Supreme Court case were the usual suspects, Brennan, Blackmun, etc. That’s some strange company John is keeping just to maintain his anti-anti-Trump credentials.

              3. The evidence of Cuckoldry was not an unnamed informant, but his BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

                And despite your “everyone is American” bias, it is totally reasonable to say that if neither of your birth parents are US citizens, then you aren’t a US citizen by birth.

                US citizenship comes with responsibilities as well as benefits.

                If Sonny had lived out his life in Panama, should we hit him up for a lifetime of income taxes? Prosecute him for failing to register for the draft? Hang him for treason if he fights in the armed forces of another country against US troops?

                All people ever look at are sad eyes of foreigners wanting to be US citizens, and never what is best for US citizens, or what makes sense for naturalization policy.

                Similar with birthright citizenship.

                It’s just bizarre to claim the right to nationalize the children of foreign visitors born in the US.

                1. “If Sonny had lived out his life in Panama, should we hit him up for a lifetime of income taxes?”

                  Just as much as any citizen should be – that is, not at all.

                  “Prosecute him for failing to register for the draft?”

                  Just as much as any citizen should be – that is, not at all.

                  “Hang him for treason if he fights in the armed forces of another country against US troops?”

                  Yes.

                  1. Citizens are not prosecuted for failing to pay income tax? What country do you live in?

                    Think the US will be happy with reciprocity on the Treason point?

                    1. I used the word “should” to indicate I was describing how things *ought* to be.

                      “Think the US will be happy with reciprocity on the Treason point?”

                      If only there were a way for a foreign citizen to become a U. S. citizen and clear up matters…

                2. “despite your “everyone is American” bias”

                  WTF?

                  Maybe you should take up your quarrel with the common law, whence this presumption of parentage comes.

                  1. And just to be clear, the presumption of parentage is a legal not biological concept – evidence of “cuckoldry” is irrelevant for parentage under this rule, the husband is presumed the father of his wife’s children.

                    1. irrebuttably presumed – as the Supreme Court explained, this is not an evidentiary rule but a rule to protect the family unit.

                    2. It’s a common law rule, but it’s a presumption that the common law rule applies in the case of the immigration law cited.

                      If I’m reading the ruling right, they’re making a de novo claim on this point, and don’t have established case law to back this up.

                      I’d expect this to be appealed by the DOJ.

                      If the ruling is upheld, it allows for “anchor spouses” to go abroad and dub children as American citizens by marrying their pregnant mothers just before birth.

                      Would citizenship be revoked post facto if the marriage is later considered to be a sham marriage?

                    3. “Would citizenship be revoked post facto if the marriage is later considered to be a sham marriage?”

                      Whether one likes it or not, I think immigration law already has provisions against what the government deems sham marriages.

                      There was even a movie about it, Green Card, with Gerard Depardieu.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Card_(film)

            2. Except that you don’t get a presumption of citizenship in these cases.

              I did not say “presumption of citizenship.” I said “presumption of innocence.”

              You and buybuydandavis are sitting here saying “I know nothing about this guy, but I’m going to make up a whole story where he’s an evil lying scumbag who doesn’t deserve to be here.”

              That’s not how the justice system works, which you really oughta know, being a lawyer.

              Just be honest about that instead of jerking everyone off pretending this asshole has a reasonable claim to citizenship.

              The court found him to be a legal citizen. I don’t understand why you keep pretending it didn’t.

              1. I know only the facts given and the general way reality works.

                My version of events is more consistent with both than The Narrative pushed. I don’t claim that I know it is the case.

            3. Libertarians dont want open borders. anarchists, lefties, and open border people do.

          2. I wasn’t acting as a Judge, I was inferring the full story from the limited and manifestly biased information presented.

            Your story still has the problem of explaining what mom was doing fucking and having children in Panama, how BioDad had the power to force her to keep the baby and then take the baby from her, and why CuckoldDad left “his son” to grow up in Panama.

            The bigger picture is that the article here, and the one linked to, leave us without the necessary facts to definitively determine which of these stories is the true one.

            It’s not like these are lengthy and complicated stories. They’re purposefully leaving out the facts.

            1. Your story still has the problem of explaining what mom was doing fucking and having children in Panama

              I’m not sure I see why this is any of your business. Maybe she was on a business trip and was swept off her feet by some Ricardo Montalban type.

              how BioDad had the power to force her to keep the baby and then take the baby from her

              If this all happened in Panama, I’m not sure it seems that incredible. I really don’t know how the paternity laws work there, but I’m also pretty sure abortion isn’t legal there.

              why CuckoldDad left “his son” to grow up in Panama

              His didn’t – CuckoldDad was the one in Panama. CockoldedDad was the one in the US.

              The bigger picture is that the article here, and the one linked to, leave us without the necessary facts to definitively determine which of these stories is the true one.

              Doesn’t seem to be stopping the people who are fully convinced he doesn’t deserve to be in this country and should be deported from leaping gleefully to that conclusion.

              1. “His didn’t – CuckoldDad was the one in Panama. CockoldedDad was the one in the US.”

                True enough. My cuckolding terminology was mistaken. But you didn’t answer the question.

                Why did CuckoldedDad leave “his son” to grow up in Panama?

                My story makes sense.

                Your story involves Mom the international business tycoon and Ricardo Montalban, when you bother to give a story.

                But again, I don’t know what happened. And neither do you. But I can smell an article pushing The Narrative.

                1. Why did CuckoldedDad leave “his son” to grow up in Panama?

                  Why should that matter at all? I thought we were supposed to adjudicate claims of citizenship based on what the law says, not based on the moral rectitude of the actors involved.

                  You want it both ways – you want to say THE LAW’S THE LAW!!! but then, when the law produces a result you don’t like, you want to change the standard to KICK THE BAD PEOPLE OUT.

                  1. It matters about the inferences one reasonably makes from the information given.

                    They say he considered his wife’s son “his son”. Leaving “his son” in Panama away from “his family” for most all of his childhood is somewhat inconsistent with that claim.

                2. My story makes sense.

                  But the reality may involve things you haven’t thought of.

                  But again, I don’t know what happened. And neither do you.

                  And in such cases we presume the innocence of the accused.

                  1. “But the reality may involve things you haven’t thought of.”

                    It’s certain to.

                    But no, people who are not US citizens do not “stand accused” of not being US citizens, and are not entitled to a presumption that they are.

                    1. people who are not US citizens do not “stand accused” of not being US citizens, and are not entitled to a presumption that they are

                      This guy is a US citizen.

                      I don’t understand – was that part of the article written in a color that some people can’t see?

                    2. Hes explained his skepticism to the story over and over.

                    3. He was *ruled* a citizen by the court, in a de novo decision without case law support. We’ll see what the Supremes have to say about his citizenship status.

                      But this shows one of the many problems with having an ocean of illegals in the country.

                      Attempts to process those millions will necessarily entail false alarms on actual US citizens.

                      Now I know you don’t want them processed at all. Just let the US be invaded by Not Americans until it is Not America.

                      But we aren’t up for that. So get your papers in order. Having your papers checked is one of the lovely enrichments brought to you by millions of foreign invaders you want here.

              2. But, Square, you are missing the point here. You see, *good* people don’t have affairs and don’t have complicated family histories. That’s reason enough to deport the guy.

                1. Gotta keep the Nation Pure.

                  1. Pure Americans (black, white, hispanic, asian, eskimo) all right.

        4. Shorter buybuy:

          “I oppose immigration and so I will concoct a story about this person’s case that comports with my worldview, which of course assumes bad motives on the part of immigrants and benign motives on the part of law enforcement”

          1. Shorter Jeff,

            “I will believe anything so long as it supports my narrative.”

            In fairness, I don’t think you are bright enough to do the reasoning necessary to evaluate circumstantial evidence.

            1. Yes of course John. Because this guy is a drug dealer, that means we should be skeptical of his citizenship claims. We should all evaluate evidence like you have!

          2. I concocted a story more consistent with the facts given and people acting in their self interest that is more likely than The Narrative pushed.

            1. You concocted a story that is more consistent with your personal biases.

              people acting in their self interest

              Oh, like ICE agents wanting to pad their deportation numbers? Oh wait, THAT type of self interest never entered into your fantasy of a story. Only the assumed depraved self interest of foreigners.

              1. You dont know governent workers very well.

                They prefer less real work and this guys sounds like real work.

        5. “Dad” and Mom illegally immigrate to the US.

          Why would you assume this?

        6. Now “Dad” dies. With “Dad” out of the way, Jaen comes to the US.

          Except, “Dad” dies in 1999, while Jaen immigrates here in 1988.

          So, story fail.

          1. Not surprising that facts not in evidence in the articles contradict my inferences based on those articles.

            Per court ruling, Sonny comes to the US at age 15, and is raised as CuckoldedDad’s son from that time on.

            Should citizenship be retroactive to birth when some nice US citizen Daddy decides they’re your Daddy and wants to raise you as their own *in your teens*?

            1. Should citizenship be retroactive to birth when some nice US citizen Daddy decides they’re your Daddy and wants to raise you as their own *in your teens*?

              If you adopt from a foreign country, and your adopted child gets busted for smoking pot, should they be deported as a non-citizen?

              1. Not if he’s a US citizen.

                If he’s not, he’d be subject to deportation as would anyone other non-citizen foreigner breaking the law.

                The fact that I favor pot decriminalization doesn’t change that. That pot should be decriminalized shouldn’t cause us to hold our immigration law in abeyance.

                1. If he’s not, he’d be subject to deportation as would anyone other non-citizen foreigner breaking the law.

                  That’s an exceedingly bizarre attitude, at least for a libertarian. State trumps family, I suppose, huh?

                  1. State trumps family, I suppose, huh?

                    “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state!”

                    1. US constitution baby!

                  2. “You can’t enforce the law against him, he has a *family*”

                    This shows how wacky the Left has become. Somehow this is supposed to be a compelling trope.

                    Yes. We believe in enforcing the law against people with families too.

    3. What was a self presumed American Citizen doing getting a Visa to come to the US?

      Because he was born in Panama, the son of a Panamanian man, and raised by his Panamanian Grandparents to the age of 15 when he immigrated.

      It’s bizarre how if we swap out nationality for any other race/creed/religion characteristic there wouldn’t be a question and how, without confining ourselves to the ‘false notions of nationality’, a real and obvious disconnect would occur if we followed the courts decision:

      Born Catholic, the son of a Catholic man and woman, and raised by his Catholic grandparents? Catholic, duh.

      Born black, the son of a black man and a black woman, and raised by his black grandparents? White, by decision of the 2nd Circuit Court based on the fact that the man his mother is married to is white.

      Again, I’m not trying to get the guy deported, just the befuddled and a bit abhorred by the out and out debasement of reason in order to support this cause.

      1. “raised by his Panamanian Grandparents to the age of 15 when he immigrated.”

        Grandparents on his mother’s or father’s side?

        I didn’t see that in either article. It’s so hard to dig facts out of the MSM.

        Do you have a link to the article with all the facts which don’t fit The Narrative?

        I wonder about the sequence of events of Mom going back and forth to Panama, “Dad’s” citizenship, “Dad’s” death, Juniors coming to America, etc.

  15. http://www.latimes.com/nation/…..story.html

    I am surprised reason hasn’t said something about the latest ICE outrage. He was just a peaceful old man!!

    If you are going to pick “dirtbags for 100 Alex” as your hill to die on, go big.

    1. Sure *he* was a Nazi, but I can’t make an accurate value judgement until I know if his mother’s husband, who was not his Dad and whom he only lived with for 3 yrs., was a Nazi?

      1. Lying on the citizenship application is a no no.

  16. “ICE Kept This Citizen and Father of 4 Locked Up for Nearly 2 Years”

    I’m sure the Mormons will be pleased with the newfound societal commitment that law cannot be enforced on parents.

    Oh, that’s right, that only applies if you’re an illegal alien.

    Illegal Aliens First!

  17. So the entire premise of the article is based on a false narrative. Reason waving the fake news clickbait flag just like the rest.

  18. People need to figure out if laws should be followed regardless of the personal opinions of said law or that laws should be followed and our conversation be focused more on changing these laws.

    I can’t tell where any person commenting or any person writing an article stands anymore.

    1. Saying this guy is giving a bullshit story that was only believed because the judge wanted him to be able to stay in the country is not saying the law shouldn’t be followed. It is saying the opposite.

  19. Wait a minute. So any child born to the wife is legally the husband’s child? So if a wife gets pregnant while having an affair. That means the husband, not the biological father is responsible for that child if the couple grts divorced.

    Thats missed up.

    1. That’s not what the court says.
      The court says that illegitimacy should not be declared by the court. The father has the right, not the courts.

    2. It’s established American law, and thereby the very definition of right and proper. Or so I have been assured.

      As I understand it, they are chattel laws. This may be wrong, except it’s how it was explained, so check with the attorneys who are familiar with it. The thinking goes, see, that women might lie about who the baby’s father is, so unmarried women in at least some states are not allowed to name a father for legal purposes at all. Paternity is listed as “unknown” unless a man signs a paternity affidavit. Married women also do not name a father, nor can they. The state inputs the husband automatically, even if they haven’t seen each other for years, since the law assumes the husband is the final responsible party for all marriage chattel. Well, ‘final’ excepting the state itself, of course.

      Yes, this screws men over while trying to keep men from being screwed over, but the best of intentions and all that.

      1. They’re not trying to screw men or unscrew them by presuming husbands are the fathers of their wife’s children, they’re trying to protect the family unit.

        It’s my understanding that the common law, after a divorce from bread and board, presumed the wife’s children to be bastards. So even the old man-hating common law had some wiggle room.

        1. “the old man-hating common law”

          That was sarcastic, by the way.

        2. Yeah – there’s a legal tradition going at least back to Roman times that if a father is willing to accept a child as his own, you don’t question it (in legal terms, anyway).

        3. Oh, I do understand that they’re ‘trying to protect’. Assume that folks have the best of intentions will be right more often than not. I merely question whether this got good results and is logical on its face. Good intentions are of somewhat limited value.

          Men being volunteered for lifelong responsibility because reasons is troubling. As is women not being allowed to say no, that’s not the guy, because more reasons that I am *certain* make sense to somebody somewhere or it wouldn’t have been written into regulation, and yet it does not make sense to me.

          I tell you, the paternity affidavit seems like an all-right idea. Maybe that’s where we should be going here. Let’s assume there’s some valid reason to record everyone’s genealogy and roll with it… maybe birth certificates should be a maternal and paternal affidavit which merely records the adults stating DNA affiliation with this child.

          I know a lot see it as stating responsibility for this child, and that aspect of birth certificates always struck me as a form of ownership papers. But still, affidavits seem more giving-adults-their-adult-choices than arbitrary designation from an all-knowing state. Nomsayin.

          1. The “good intentions” slur should best be directed at the people who are trying to undermine or “modernize” the laws of family relations.

            The old rule presumed bastardy even for marital children after there’d been a divorce from bed and board – though to be sure a divorce from bread and board requires proving fault. But if the wife is shaking up with another man, that qualified as fault.

            So given this, what “good intentioned” new rule are you trying to introduce?

            1. Bear in mind that the people trying to undermine marriage are full to the brim with “good intentions” – they think they’re being hip and modern and rejecting what Artie calls outdated standards of sexual morality.

              1. What a good thing you’re open to the idea that I’m not one of those people, or this conversation would be strained as hell.

            2. I’m not trying to introduce a new rule, and the scare quotes makes this feel like a perjury trap.

              I can neither confirm nor deny the allegations against me. Send any questions to my attorney.

              1. Sorry, sometimes I’ve been known to be sensitive.

                The idea that the presumption of paternity is some fuzzy good-intentions feelz thing got me irritated, I apologize.

                Didn’t mean to over-react.

                1. I could have been more cautious in my phrasing. I didn’t think I had to be, not like with the newer handles, and I got sloppy. Sorry, Eddie.

                  For the record, it’s the lack of choice, and the presumption of state power that I see as inefficient and harmful to individuals – and thereby us all – and this is not necessarily in conflict with your beliefs, I feel. If a man is the head of his family, then the state isn’t. I could make a fine argument that a decline of the nuclear family correlates to a decline in nuclear fathers – exchanged for a nuclear state.

                  But then, I would see the sense in that, wouldn’t I. Lol. We all have our little ways.

                  1. No, I don’t like my first apology and I want another bite at the apple.

                    I like you, and got lazy. I know just a bit more effort gets better results. I knew better than to half-ass it. I’m sorry, Eddie. And thanks.

                    1. No, I still don’t like this apology, send it back and bring me an apology-gram sung by a stripper emerging from a cake.

                      Mmmmm…cake…

                    2. (Just messing with you, the cake is optional, just so long as the stripper is hot)

                    3. Now, what was I saying?

                      Anyway, We cool now?

                    4. We cool.

                      You start singing that Tag Team song though, and I’ll thump you, so I will.

    3. Generally speaking, unless someone takes it to court, the mother’s husband’s will be the legal father. If either the legal-dad or bio-dad bring it to court, then typically the bio-dad will win if the objection is made soon enough.

      That’s how it is in the US, anyway. Don’t really know about Panama-specific family law.

      So in your affair-scenario, the husban would have to make the “this is not my kid” claim in court during the divorce, and if backed up by a DNA test, would sever all legal rights and obligations to the child.

      So yeah, “they’re not really my kid” *is* a defense, but if you don’t make it (as in this case) the default is the legal father remains the husband.

  20. Reason, you have lost all perspective on this issue.

    1. He dealt drugs. Even if it was marijuana, even if the drug laws in this country are absurd and must be repealed, his breaking of those laws proves he’s a bad person. One must always obey the law no matter how ridiculous or unenforceable the law is. Any good libertarian knows this and understands this.

    2. He’s foreign born. I don’t think I need to explain this one. If you’re born outside the US, you’re not libertarian nor is your presence in this country good for libertarian values. Do the right thing and go home.

    3. If there’s a slightest shred of doubt that someone doesn’t belong in the United States, Kick. Him. Out. The more people from outside this country there are on the inside, the less freedom we have. This is an axiomatic fact. Doesn’t matter what kind of foreigner he is, what he believes, what he does, what kind of person he is. His very existence here threatens our freedoms. Freedom is better promoted if people stay in the country of their births.

    1. That’s pretty good parody. Has OBL switched sides?

    2. 1. He probably isn’t a good person.

      2. He probably isn’t good for libertarian values in this country, as the vast majority of foreign born people are not.

      3. He probably should be sent back.

      But 4. The law is the law, so I guess since he has a cuck bitch of a “legal father” who never had the balls to kick his whore mother to the curb, he gets to stay.

      1. Divorce does not excuse a father from the obligation to provide support for any minor children nor does it deprive the child of any legal rights (like citizenship) that he or she might have aquired.

        The only thing that “kick[ing the]… whore mother to the curb” will get the husband who wins an “at fault” adultery divorce case got historically was custody of the children. He was still not relieved of responsibility for the support of any minor children he disowned til the age of majority.

        1. I think in a case like this it is a question of if he had disowned and demanded he have no responsibility for the child right off the bat. If you can prove you are not the father, you can get out of that stuff IF YOU WANT TO. For a cuck who chooses to take on the legal father role, you are right that the kid gets whatever perks, and he is stuck with the obligations. But if he had said “Oh hell no woman! Out, with the bastard, NOW.” he would have skated on those obligations, which is as it should be.

          He didn’t do that. Hence this kid is in the clear.

  21. It would have been nice if the court had directed the State Dept. to issue this Citizen, wrongly persecuted by the Obama Justice Dept., a passport which would document, to all concerned, his citizenship.

  22. The law that a child born into an intact marriage is the child of his mother’s husband is considerably older than the law that a person born in US jurisdiction is a US citizen. This doesn’t really seem like a forgivable error on the part of ICE.

    1. No no no. The common law parentage standard is a plot foisted upon Real Muricans by Cosmotarians and the Deep State to Undermine America! It is known!

      1. Feel free to change the law.

        1. Many of us who read and comment on this blog “feel free” to try to “change the law” that makes it so difficult for otherwise perfectly qualified people to come to and settle in the USA and improve their lives. In fact, that is the point that the Reason contributors and commenters are trying to make – a point which apparently you not only keep missing but one at which you refuse to aim.

          Some of us could not care less about laws that make it possible for people to stay permanently and become citizens since we know that many of the people who want to enter the USA by means not provided for by current immigration law do not, in fact, want to come her to stay but simply want some years of wages higher than they can earn “at home” before they go back.

  23. It’s a pretty bunk law IMO, as far as who ends up legal father in situations like this where it is KNOWN they are not the biological father, but it is what it is. It’s pretty dumb even when one is just talking about native born people here, but the immigration thing does indeed add another layer on top. Still it seems that the law is fairly clear, since it doesn’t have magical carve outs for foreigners. I imagine if he had legally adopted his non son prior to immigration it would have been a non contested issue?

    1. the court explained that children born to married couples are considered legal children of the husband. The biological father doesn’t matter.

      [emphasis mine]

      As noted in other comments above, this is an old legal principle, “considerably older than the law that a person born in US jurisdiction is a US citizen”. While the father of such a child can disown him/her from any inheritance and can use the fact of the adultery that produced the child as grounds in a divorce case he cannot deprive the child of certain legal rights viz: the right to support though the age of majority and the rights and privileges of citizenship as provided for by law.

      I imagine if he had legally adopted his non son[sic – own?] prior to immigration it would have been a non contested issue?

      You can no more “adopt” your own son than you can “divorce” a person to whom you are not married, nor “sell a house” that you do not own. In order to do any of the abovementioned things “legally” you must meet a number of criteria defined by the laws of the place in which you want to do those things.

      1. As I said above, I believe in most parts of the US, in MODERN LAWS that are on the books, if you can prove you are not the father you can deprive them of lots of stuff. Like supporting them until they are 18. I don’t know if there are any laws that specifically cover weird stuff like citizenship, but if you can prove you are not the father by a DNA test you can get out of supporting the child in many, if not all, parts of the USA nowadays. Which is as it should be.

        This guy didn’t do that though, so it’s pretty clear cut according to the letter of the law.

        1. Sorry, but you can’t do that in any common-law jurisdiction if the bitch is your wife. Some casual skank you fucked, OK, but not your wife.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.