Military

His Wife Was Killed in Afghanistan. Then ICE Showed Up To Deport Him.

He's back in the U.S., though he's not out of the woods yet.

|

An undocumented immigrant and military widower whose wife was killed in Afghanistan in 2010 was deported to Mexico last week by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Jose Arturo Gonzalez Carranza, who has a 12-year-old daughter, is now back in the U.S., though the reversal appears to have been an effort to avoid bad press.

The Arizona Republic was the first outlet to report the story. Gonzalez Carranza, 30, who entered the U.S. illegally in 2004, married Barbara Vieyra in 2007. Vieyra had always wanted to be in U.S. Army, and she joined up in 2008, not long after the birth of their daughter Evelyn, as detailed in a 2018 East Valley Tribune story.

Vieyra became a military police officer and was deployed to Afghanistan. Then, in September 2010, the military vehicle she was in was attacked by insurgents, sustaining improvised explosive device (IED) and rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) damage. Vieyra was killed, leaving her husband and daughter, among other family members, behind.

Gonzalez Carranza, meanwhile, was granted a parole in place exemption, his attorney, Ezequiel Hernandez, told the Republic. According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website, individuals who might otherwise be deported "may be eligible for parole in place in 1-year increments if you are the spouse, widow(er), parent, son or daughter of" a current, former, or deceased member of the military.

Then, on the morning of April 8, while Gonzalez Carranza was driving to work, ICE agents accosted him with their guns drawn. "Put your hands up. Open the door," he recalled them saying. Gonzalez Carranza told the Republic he responded: "Who you guys are? I have rights." It didn't matter. He was taken into custody and eventually deported to Nogales, Mexico.

So why did ICE come for Gonzalez Carranza, despite his parole in place exemption? At this point, there's no clear answer. ICE appears to have refiled its case against him last year, according to Hernandez, even though he has no criminal record. Gonzalez Carranza was supposed to appear in court on December, but didn't because the notice regarding his hearing was sent to an old address.

"We have evidence it went to the wrong address," Hernandez told The Washington Post. "There were little errors throughout this case."

"The government never revoked the [parole-in-place]," he added to CNN. They detained [Carranza] because of the order of removal done due to the court hearing my client did not go to because he did not know. As of today, we do not know why the client was removed."

Even though Gonzalez Carranza didn't show up for his court date, he should not have been deported. Per the Republic:

Hernandez said he filed a motion to reopen Gonzalez Carranza's deportation case. The motion triggered an automatic stay of removal, but ICE deported him anyway, Hernandez said.

[American Civil Liberties Union deputy legal director Cecillia] Wang also said it Gonzalez Carranza should not have been deported if there was a stay of removal. She said, however, it is "not uncommon" for ICE to violate stays of removal.

In any case, Hernandez said that after sending a press release to the media and speaking with the Republic, ICE notified him of their reversal. On Monday afternoon, Gonzalez Carranza was taken back to the U.S.

Arizona Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema may have had something to do with Gonzalez Carranza's return as well. Her "office is in communication with Mr. Carranza's attorney and we will assist the Carranza family in this process," Sinema told CNN.

Gonzalez Carranza isn't out of the woods yet. He needs an immigration judge to reopen the case so he can apply once again for the parole in place exemption. His daughter, meanwhile, who lives with her grandparents, didn't even know her father was deported. "I didn't tell her nothing," Gonzalez Carranza told the Republic. "I don't want to make her feel [worse], her feelings be more frustrated, like I don't have a mom, and now I may never see my dad again."

Gonzalez Carranza's case is certainly sad. Unfortunately, he might not be alone. Last July, the Military Times reported that the Trump administration was rejecting a greater number of veterans' requests for deportation exemptions for their family members:

The data shows that rejections of veteran requests have increased under President Donald Trump, from about a 10 percent rejection rate in fiscal 2016, the last year President Barack Obama was in office, to an almost 20 percent rejection rate through the first nine months of fiscal 2018. Specifically:

In fiscal 2016, the Obama administration denied 140 veteran requests for deportation protection and approved 1,304 requests.

In fiscal 2017, the Trump administration denied 250 veteran requests for deportation protection and approved 1,449 requests.

It's undoubtedly a good thing that Gonzalez Carranza will most likely be able to stay in the U.S. What's unfortunate is that there are many people in similar situations whose cases will not garner national outrage. ICE has a history of mismanagement and allegations of misconduct, and as Reason's Zuri Davis wrote in January, these issues will continue without more oversight.

For more Reason coverage of ICE, click here.

NEXT: How Specific Anti-Libel Injunctions Underprotect Speech

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. People don’t have rights. Borders have rights. People only have duties and obligations.

    Welcome to the new Trump libertarianism.

    1. All Hail the Border! Borders Uber Alles!!!

    2. He’s a criminal.
      Lock him up.
      After he’s served his sentence, DEPORT HIM.

  2. Can you explain the relevance of his wife dying overseas in the military?

    He crossed illegally. He knew he crossed illegally. He has a criminal record — you know, the whole CROSSING ILLEGALLY thing and all.

    Why do many words about an utterly irrelevant piece of trivia outside of the hopes of pulling on heartstrings for this poor widow, whose wife did something remotely respectable while he, well, did not?

    “May be” and “must be” — not synonyms.

    “Even though Gonzalez Carranza didn’t show up for his court date…”>

    Yeah, that seems so superfluous. Courts often smile upon defendants who just NO SHOW HEARINGS ABOUT THEIR CASE.

    If he had a case to make — that date he skipped would be when he makes it. Not after the fact.

    “It’s undoubtedly a good thing that Gonzalez Carranza will most likely be able to stay in the U.S.”>

    I’ll bite — why?

    1. What moral authority do you rely on to authorize some politicians to govern who trespasses some utter stranger’s property?

      That’s what this comes down to. Some utter stranger you don’t like trespasses some invisible line and you take it upon yourself to authorize other utter strangers to steal my tax money to spend enforcing laws I don’t like against people who have done no one any harm.

      What part of stealing my money to enforce your figments of imagination makes you a libertarian?

      1. God damn, you’re such a baby.
        “Me, me, me, my, my, my! Waaaaaah! Thief! Slaver! Waaaah!”
        It’s such an ineffective way of trying to make a point.
        Government does something you disapprove of? Grow up, and make an adult argument against it and what you’d prefer.

        1. Very libertarian of you. Trump? Hillary? Which one triggered you to an authoritarian crybaby minding everybody else’s business?

          1. So, you’re just going to double down.
            You do you, but wouldn’t expect it to work.

            1. Of course he is. He is using a sophist argument like Pedo Jeffy does.

      2. Are you trying to claim some exemption from having the Government spend your tax money on things of which you disapprove? Coz I’d like one too, and my objections may pre-date yours.

        1. Anyone who doesn’t object to the government stealing their money is not a libertarian. Any such fakers posting here are Trumpistas or parodies.

          1. Ok Old Mex. Why are you sockpuppeting?

          2. >> Are you trying to claim some exemption from having the Government spend your tax money on things of which you disapprove?

            I see that you’re new to libertarianism. Welcome. Donuts are in the corner.

            The founding principles of libertarianism assert that taxes should not be collected and spent on things the taxpayer does not approve, with the sole exception to prevent/mitigate coercion. Funding a police force is fine. Funding a police force to seek out and arrest people who have harmed no one is wrong. That’s why the Democratic Party is not libertarian. That’s why the Republican Party is not libertarian. Your feelz do not justify your imposition of taxes on me.

            1. “that taxes should not be collected and spent on things the taxpayer does not approve,”

              Like your open borders pony?

              Oh that’s different.

            2. No, I’m familiar with the argument (as well as the counterargument that points to some difficulties of administering a targeted-tax-contribution system), it was that abcd guy who made it the source or justification for his outrage.

              I am, by now, entirely unmoved by arguments that I am imperfectly libertarian. Thanx for the donuts though.

      3. People who DIE while fighting for our supposed freedoms in the USA… Defending our Government Almighty… Should reasonably be able to assume that the USA Government Almighty should take SOME minimalistically humane and decent steps towards seeing that their offspring are protected from the negative impacts of HAVING FUCKING LOST THEIR LIVES for our supposed freedoms! Things like respecting their marriages and their children… Seeing that their children pay no ridiculous prices for Mom or Dad having paid with her or his life, for our freedoms. Ridiculous prices including things like effectively losing Dad or Mom, ’cause Mom or Dad lost their life defending our Government Almighty… And I would remind you that it is our Government Almighty that defends Our Sacred Borders!!! Would it make any difference to you, if Mom had lost her life while being an ICE agent?
        It seems that some people are so utterly blinded by their hatred of illegal sub-humans, that they have lost ALL semblance of humanity and common sense!

        1. “People who DIE while fighting for our supposed freedoms in the USA… Defending our Government Almighty… Should reasonably be able to assume that the USA Government Almighty should take SOME minimalistically humane and decent steps towards seeing that their offspring are protected from the negative impacts of HAVING FUCKING LOST THEIR LIVES for our supposed freedoms!”

          The CHILD didn’t know anything. The parent who didn’t do shit got deported. That some other adult was brave and all has no bearing on if THIS PARTICULAR PERSON should be here.

          The answer, mind you, is no. He should not be.

          He could’ve made his case…but didn’t want to be bothered to go to court to do so.

          “Would it make any difference to you, if Mom had lost her life while being an ICE agent?”

          No. Why would it matter?

          Nice hyper emotionality there, son.

          1. I served in the USA military. It was a mistake! (Well, maybe not back then, but to do it today, would be a mistake). The USA has become the Evil Empire, and it shits all over its soldiers, alive and dead. And people like you make excuses for the mistreatment of the soldiers and their families.
            In the older days, when the USA had larger doses of decency at least in SOME matters, if you as a USA citizen married someone, your new husband or wife became a USA citizen, few if any questions asked. As the fascist anti-immigrants have taken over now, yet more of our freedoms have been lost.
            Young people, do not enlist!!! USA and people like damikesc will shit all over you, for your service, and you will be defending the Evil Empire!

            1. You’re aware that the guy being deported DID NOT SERVE, RIGHT?

              Stop being such a pathetic cuck, son.

              1. So THIS is how you serve the interests of (and incentivize) USA soldiers? The knowledge that if they die in combat, NO ONE will give a hoot about how their surviving children will be raised? Soldier is dead, who gives a hoot, throw their kids to the wolves…
                Those of us who know a darned thing about sociobiology know that biological parents are USUALLY the best choice for raising kids!
                Also those of us who know a darned thing about practical politics, know that the rulers MUST support those who support them, if they want to last, in power! You gonna throw USA soldiers to the wolves? And ICE agents too? WHO will implement your draconian border policies, when word gets out that you treat soldiers and ICE agents like dog shit?

                1. Tragic. Truly. Tragic.

                  The child is free to follow his illegal dad back to his dad’s home. Sorry if the kid is inconvenienced so badly, but parents making bad decisions is a sad norm in the world. We could put the child in foster care here in the US while catapulting the dad back home if you’d prefer.

                  But, son, you’re too cucked to take seriously. Sorry. My heart is all out of strings to be tugged on here.

                  1. You wouldn’t even make a good dictator if you tried, with these attitudes of yours. You MUST support your supporters! Butt-fucking your supporters is NOT a good way to maintain the support of your supporters!
                    So I am VERY glad to see that if we were to ever implement a dictatorship of Damned-a-sick, Damned-a-sick would VERY rapidly cut himself-herself off from power, by NOT acknowledging this VERY simple and basic rule of politics!

          2. “That some other adult was brave and all has no bearing on if THIS PARTICULAR PERSON should be here.”
            U.S. Law disagrees with you. Which seems strange since you have a such a self righteous air of condemnation to anyone who violates said law. So you are either full of shit or a piece of shit. Nice way to be.

            1. Clearly it does not. You might want to look up “may” as opposed to “shall”

      4. alphabet, given the likelihood that I will have to support them or their progeny — yeah, I have the right to say “Fuck that”

        1. You mean the REDUCED likelihood that you will have to support them compared to natives? That’s right, I forgot, you use Alternative Facts.

          1. …explains why Dems are so upset about Trump sending illegals to their cities. Given that they use so much fewer resources than legal citizens.

            Your own side knows you’re full of shit here.

          2. Valkanis, just stop. What you say is total bullshit and you’re being called on it. No one is buying your lies.

    2. “Can you explain the relevance of his wife dying overseas in the military?”

      Yes, I can.
      It made him eligible for the parole in place designation. Which, in a nation of laws, makes him free from arbitrary arrest and deportation.

      1. It makes him ELIGIBLE.

        Doesn’t make him GUARANTEED TO GET IT.

        You can be eligible and still turned down.

        Nothing arbitrary about the arrest. He was here illegally. He was caught committing a crime. C’est la vie.

        1. He wasn’t caught committing a crime. You are insane.

          1. He was here illegally.

            That, like it or not, is a crime.

            So, yes, he was caught committing a crime.

            Committing the same crime repeatedly does not make it not a crime.

    3. Your sarcastic “Courts often smile upon defendants who just NO SHOW HEARINGS ABOUT THEIR CASE” would be relevant if the government had done it’s job of actually telling him about the case and his obligation to show up in court on that particular day.

      Having failed to provide proper notice as required by law, the decisions made based upon that failure to show are invalid. As Longtobefree points out, we claim that we live in a nation of laws. If that is so, then the government must abide by the rules.

      1. Rossami, while I do think we should ALWAYS take the word of a defense lawyer as being sacrosanct…a tiny bit of proof would be lovely.

        Saying “I have evidence” doesn’t trump producing said evidence.

        1. A fair point. And of course, since you’re making the accusation that he committed a crime, you have proof that he in fact did so, correct?

          Personally, I don’t believe for a minute that we should always trust defense lawyers. Neither do I believe that we should always trust prosecutors. In this case, the law puts the burden of proof for legal notice on the prosecutors.

    4. Why?

      Because Reason is full Open Borders Uber Alles. Nick announced it in the Bannon article.

      “In the 21st century, libertarians are going to have make common cause with the globalists of all parties, with the people whose core value is the right of individuals to move freely around the planet. ”

      Core value: Open Borders Uber Alles

      1. Waitwaitwait…Gillespie thinks “libertarians are going to have to make common cause with the globalistsl”??? Tha fuq?
        Man, I thought he was bad with that nitpicky strawmanning of Jordan Peterson, but this is…does he realize that the globalists have other values, that involve nothing more libertarian than the ever-increasing percentage of the wealth of the world they control?? And NO COMMITMENT TO *ANY* OTHER LIBERTARIAN VALUES??

        Jebus. Libertarianism is thus reduced to a single, overarching, principle: Anyone in the world can come to America to live. I find that an inadequate set of principle (singular). Coz the globalists don’t support any other kind of freedom, or ownership by anyone of anything if it might interfere with their plans to increase their own wealth.

        Not asking for anyone to be paranoid, but has Gillespie read any distopian sci-fi??

  3. So why did ICE come for Gonzalez Carranza, despite his parole in place exemption? At this point, there’s no clear answer.

    Only if we’re being willfully obtuse.

    1. Or object to authoritarian thieves and their supporters.

    2. Seyton is vermin. His article is willfully deceptive throughout.

      “despite his parole in place exemption”
      Check how the information about this exemption is spread throughout the article in suggestive but imprecise ways.

      Chopping down the propaganda and focusing on the facts as given:

      Vieyra was killed, leaving her husband and daughter, among other family members, behind.
      Gonzalez Carranza, meanwhile, was granted a parole in place exemption …
      “may be eligible for parole in place in 1-year increments” …
      “The government never revoked the [parole-in-place] …
      He needs an immigration judge to reopen the case so he can apply once again for the parole in place exemption.

      The reasonable interpretation, impossible to verify from an article willfully trying to obscure the issue, is that Carranza was once granted such a parole, probably around the time his wife died almost a decade ago, his one year increment expired, it was never renewed, and he’s been living illegally in the US (again) ever since.

      He has to go back.

      1. He has to go back.

        Sez you.

        Disband ICE.

  4. Serve your country, make the ultimate sacrifice, and have your spouse get screwed for it. Because evil brown skin.

    1. “brown skin”

      That’s a pretty stupid thing to assume.

      1. It’s pretty realistic.

        1. No, it isn’t. There are many people with hispanic names who are descended from white Europeans. It’s not realistic at all, it’s a stupid assumption.

          1. And I’ll go one further. It’s not just stupid, it’s ignorant of history and overtly racist.

            1. And Tulpa is evil. That’s the other thing to think about.

            2. Your name lens little credence to your silly argument.

              If you really do think hating Mexicans while loving Europeans has nothing to do with skin color, you live in a different world than me.

              1. So, your counter to my argument is nothing.

                “If you really do think hating Mexicans while loving Europeans has nothing to do with skin color, ”

                I don’t fuckwit. If I had, I would have said so. I didn’t.

                Can you read?

              2. And why are you sockpuppeting Old Mex? Did you finally realize everyone thinks you’re a crazy racist joke?

              3. “If you really do think hating Mexicans while loving Europeans”

                Mexicans are Europeans, as much as Americans are. Where do you think Spain IS?

    2. brandybuckracebaiter writes:
      Serve your country, make the ultimate sacrifice, and have your spouse get screwed for it. Because evil brown skin.

      No, the late American’s spouse was deported for being an illegal alien, not as a reward/punishment for her military service and sacrifice almost a decade ago, and not because of “evil brown skin”.

      The only evil skin here is your racebaiting, which is a malignant social cancer.

    3. Oooh Brandybuck makes some stupid progtard knee jerk assumption.

      Racist accusations from a progtard racist.

    1. I knew you would slither in here you vile piece of shit.

    1. Iesus Cristus, this thing has a learning curve!

      — At this point, there’s no clear answer. —

      Oh yes there is: Trumpistas.

  5. Jebus, REASON, no pics of the doe-eyed half-orphan?? I mean, it’s hardly journalism without heartstrings being tugged!

    1. Sad face, therefore destroy America, or I will call you a racist a second time!

  6. Talk about having a bad day…!

  7. Note: Trump has shown how utterly full of shit most open borders oafs are.

    If you think that putting illegals in sanctuary cities is wrong — explain why. Because Democrats don’t seem able to do so. Just that it’s really, really bad to have “hard-working, law-abiding, good decent people” in their cities would create crime and the like.

    The only reason people ACTUALLY support open borders is the fervent belief that they will not have to deal with the repurcussions of it personally.

    1. ^This! Like Trump or not, he pulled the ultimate troll move when he proposed sending illegals to sanctuary cities. Once the celebs and open borders folks started screaming it showed their true colors. Funny how I know less OB folks who live in CA, AZ, NM, and TX than in VT, NH, and other places way the fuck away from the border.

    2. “The only reason people ACTUALLY support open borders is the fervent belief that they will not have to deal with the repurcussions of it personally.”
      Except that that isn’t true at all, and the real is all the reasons they give which aren’t your made up crap. The repercussions you mention don’t exist or are massively exaggerated.

      1. Whence then, their hysterical opposition to having those people ACTUALLY in their cities? You’re not saying the “Sanctuary City” designation is yet another cost-free virtue signal that benefits no one except the person displaying their virtue, are you?

        Coz if you aren’t, I am.

      2. …explain the Dems being upset about Trump’s plan to send illegals to their cities.

        I mean, they should be a God send, no?

  8. Why didn’t he come into this sovereign country legally, and get a Green Card, just as my Canadian mother did when she married my U.S. – G.I. father?

    1. Maybe because these days, unlike the old days, it takes 131 years to get a green card, for at least some would-be immigrants? See https://reason.com/2019/04/16/republican-senators-introduce-bill-to-cut-legal-immigration-in-half/ for details… Search for 131…

      1. “When the law inconveniences me, I don’t have to follow it”

        1. When the Sacred Law is Hitler and the NAZI Party saying that the Jews MUST be gassed, we MUST all obey!!!

          (Otherwise civilized life will fall into chaos and ruin).

          1. “But Hitler!”
            Great argument. Always valid, no?

            1. lol, it’s a double-Godwin!!

          2. Oh well, since Hitler, Jews, or Mazis aren’t involved, he should have followed the law then right?

            SQRLSY, you really are an idiot.

  9. Do we let other criminals escape punishment for their crimes because of tragic circumstances and children? Why should illegal immigration be any different?

    1. Yes, OK, then, well, let the punishment fit the crime! For crossing over a line in the sand w/o a proper permission slip from Government Almighty? A fine of $4.25 sounds about right to me!

      How about you? Keep in mind the below…
      Punish-punish-punish! Personally, I think that punishment should be strictly reserved for only those who cannot otherwise be corrected, and then, “the punishment should fit the crime”. What is needed, and then no more, as far as the severity of the punishment goes. Even criticism is punishment, and it, too, should be carefully rationed.
      What have very varied thinkers through the years said about this?
      “Beware of all those in whom the urge to punish is strong.” – Friedrich Nietzsche
      “Mistrust all those in whom the desire to punish is imperative.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
      “Let he who is without sin, throw the first stone.” – Jesus
      “How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while there is still a beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! First take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” – Jesus

      1. I think coming over here illegally is a military action. And given that he was wearing no uniform, he was thus a spy. The punishment for spying is, of course, execution.

        1. I think coming over here illegally is a military action.

          And you’re wrong. Don’t confuse what you want the law to be with what the law is.

    2. We actually do take those mitigating circumstances into account in the criminal justice system, yes. It isn’t different.

      1. I seriously doubt a robber ever kept their proceeds because their family was poor. The idea that we should be rewarding illegal immigrants in any capacity is absurd.

        1. OK, then, HOW MUCH shall we punish the illegal sub-humans? And HOW MUCH are YOU willing to spend, out of YOUR pocket, to punish them?

          For me, I see it this way…
          If I hire a young (native-born) physically and-or mentally handicapped person to mow my yard or do other simple tasks for me, and I patiently help teach them some job skills while doing so (and paying them), I am generally “socially admired” by most folks. If some asshole lectures me about how, now, I am going to have to be responsible for all of the education, emergency room costs, etc. (beyond the taxes that I already pay) for such a person, the vast, vast majority of common folks will look at such a lecturing asshole, and call him or her an asshole, inwardly if not verbally.

          Now suddenly if I do the same, while also teaching an illegal sub-human about speaking English, and American culture, there’s a HUGE number of assholes who want to lecture me about me now having to play nanny to, and assume all costs for, said illegal sub-human! WTF, what justifies this??!

          1. One is legal and one is not.

            It really isn’t that complex.

            1. Burning Jews in NAZI Germany was legal, and protecting (hiding) Jews from The Authorities was illegal.

              One is legal and one is not.

              It really isn’t that complex.

              1. Dumbfuck, invoking mazis and screaming like the moron you are every time you don’t get your way isn’t an argument and shows what a hysterical, stupid cunt you are.

                1. I didn’t invoke mazis or matzo or meatloaf or anything like that, so you must be the stupid cunt, not me!

                  1. No, it’s you. I’m guilty of a typo. You’re guilty of being a stupid bitchcunt shitbag.

                    One is worse than the other. I’m sure you will fail trying to figure that out.

            2. Seeing as not all laws are just and moral, you can’t point to it being a law as a stand-in for an argument that it is just and moral.

              1. Amen! The law is the law is the LAW, and so MUST be obeyed, is really a pretty senseless argument, in the light of long and nasty, even utterly evil, human history. Not just the Nazis and the mazis (whoever they were), but also,sadly, many, many more.

    3. Because Open Borders Uber Alles!

      Nothing else matters!

  10. People need to thoroughly read the article which states, “may be eligible for parole in place in 1-year increments if you are the spouse, widow(er), parent, son or daughter of” a current, former, or deceased member of the military.”
    The Key Words are “May Be”, which is not “Shall Be.”
    “May Be” means that he could have been granted “eligibility for parole in place”, but it does not mean that he would absolutely be guaranteed it.

    1. You should probably read the part of the article that says he was already granted parole in place.

      1. Does that go with the part where it says “In one-year increments”, meaning expiration unless renewed at the end of the year?? Yeah, I think they’re connected.

        Any way, I don’t care if this one guy gets deported, and and have no special desire that he be jailed.

        He needs some kind of effective lesson in “TAKIN’ CARE OF YOUR SHIT” though. Show up on the date. On time, if it isn’t too racist to suggest that. Because all of this could have been avoided if he’d done that. And where’s all the fuckers taking charitable contributions and running tax-free organizations to “help these poor refugees from places that are absolutely NOT shitholes”? Nobody could help this guy get the paperwork done?

        As usual, such do-gooders work to be seen as doing good, as it’s easier and less messy than actually doing good.

  11. “An undocumented immigrant and military widower whose wife was killed in Afghanistan in 2010 was deported”

    An illegal immigrant was deported. That’s what supposed to happen.

    “It’s undoubtedly a good thing that Gonzalez Carranza will most likely be able to stay in the U.S”

    The invasion of America can never be big enough for Reason. The more illegals, the merrier.

    Note all the weaselly propaganda in the article. “His wife died, then ICE showed up to deport him.” Yeah. Almost a decade later.

    Reason is a sewer.

  12. My father was first generation citizen of the ol’ US of A. While in the Air Force, he met my mother. Yeah, I know. He was a Yank, she was a Bloke, and they had me – a Blank, a Blank American. How many of those do you know?

    Years later, she spent a good year studying for her US citizenship and got it on her second try. After reading several stories like this article, is there a obstacle for everyone to get their citizenship now?

    1. Yes, there IS an obstacle!!!

      Maybe because these days, unlike the old days, it takes 131 years to get a green card, for at least some would-be immigrants? See https://reason.com/2019/04/16/republican-senators-introduce-bill-to-cut-legal-immigration-in-half/ for details… Search for 131…

  13. After they got married, did the guy apply for citizenship? During his time of probation in place, did he apply for citizenship? Did he renew his probation in place annually to keep it valid? If so, during those extensions, did he apply for citizenship?

    1. As a general rule, having been illegally resident in the US is a bar to applying for citizenship, or even legal entry. Depending on how long the illegal residence lasted, it can prohibit the application for anywhere from a couple of years to life.

      Because, you know, we don’t want to encourage people to illegally enter the country to get a jump on citizenship…

  14. Pro-tip: If you don’t want your spouse deported, don’t marry an illegal alien.

    Oh, and as if it needs to be said, if you don’t want your spouse imprisoned, don’t marry a bank robber, either.

  15. Not to side with the Siegfried Line or Anarchy Now sockpuppets, but many grants of relief under immigration law come with a Catch-22 that reverts to a deportation order as soon as a motion to reopen is filed.

  16. What other crimes can you get forgiveness for by being a military widower?

    And how did they get married? Doesn’t the recorder require any identification?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.