MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Immigrant Girl Will Be Deported Because Adoptive Father Missed Deadline While Serving in Afghanistan

Is this the America you really want to live in?

Courtesy Schreiber FamilyCourtesy Schreiber FamilyHere's the sort of story that should never happen, especially in a country that prides itself on its humanity and openness to newcomers.

In 2013, Army Lt. Col. Patrick Schreiber and his wife put off officially adopting their teenaged daughter, Hyebin, who was born in the Republic of Korea. The reason? He was about to deploy to Afghanistan for a year. When he returned, they put through the paperwork, adopted her, and then started working on her citizenship. But Hyebin had turned 17 in the interim, which is a problem:

The U.S. immigration law cutoff for a foreign-born adopted child to become a naturalized citizen is 16, and on Friday a U.S. District Court in Kansas ruled in favor of U.S. Customs and Immigration Services that there would not be an exception in Hyebin's case. She is allowed to complete her degree in chemical engineering at the University of Kansas, which she will do next year. Then she must return to Korea, Schreiber said Monday.

Here is Schreiber's backstory:

Schreiber served in the military for 27 years, meeting his wife Soo Jin while he was serving as a tank company executive officer and in other positions in Korea with 1st Battalion, 72nd Armor Regiment in the late 1990s. Hyebin was Soo Jin's niece, and when Hyebin's home life became too difficult, Schreiber and his wife took her in as their own daughter.

During his military career, Schreiber jumped with the 82nd Airborne Division into Panama during Operation Just Cause, served in Desert Shield and Desert Storm, deployed to Iraq from 2005 to 2006 and then again from 2007 to 2008. He was sent to Afghanistan from 2010 to 2011 and then again from 2013 to 2014. He retired in 2015 and still works for DoD as a contractor.

Schreiber and his wife are filing an appeal, but he says that if they lose the case, the whole family will move to Korea. "As I tell my daughter, life isn't fair," Schreiber told Military Times, where the above quotes are taken from. "The main thing is to be resilient."

That sort of stoicism is perhaps to be expected from a career military man, but the situation is nuts. Life being unfair is getting cancer in your teens, or struck by lightning, or something like that. This is a matter of policy which is eminently addressable and fixable, as are so many problems in contemporary America (think of education, drug policy, criminal justice, and other areas where bad outcomes are baked into a system that can be reformed).

Although Donald Trump, his administration, and the Republican Party are openly hostile to legal immigration, one hopes that these particular circumstances might breach the wall around their hearts and cause them to rethink not just this case, but others as well.

GallupGallupImmigration policy in the United States has a long and tendentious history shot through with unapologetic racism, which makes it particularly difficult to discuss with any sense of decorum or even basic reality. Trump was barely five minutes into the announcement that he was seeking the presidency when he launched into a reality-challenged attack on Mexicans, as you may recall. Back in the 1920s, "even some of the people fighting racist immigration and citizenship laws were racist." Attempting to get around a ban on immigration for Asian Indians, Bhagat Singh Thind argued in front of the Supreme Court that not only was he a "high caste aryan," but that he was as disgusted by "the aboriginal Indian Mongoloid...as the American regards the Negro" and would never have sex with either (he lost his case, which led to the revocation of citizenship to other Asian Indians).

Ironically, the overtly nativist tone taken by Trump administration members, Republican members of Congress (remember draft-dodging Rep. Steve King of Iowa lamenting that "you can't restore our civlization with somebody else's babies"), and anti-immigration activists is making immigration more popular. Gallup finds that that just 12 percent of voters consider "immigration/illegal immigrants" the most important problem facing the country (29 percent say the real problem is "Dissatisfaction with government/Poor leadership.") In June of this year, the polling service found

A record-high 75% of Americans, including majorities of all party groups, think immigration is a good thing for the U.S.—up slightly from 71% last year. Just 19% of the public considers immigration a bad thing....

Corroborating the data that show Americans believe immigration is good for the country, a separate Gallup trend question shows a record-low number of Americans—29%—saying that immigration into the U.S. should be decreased. A plurality of 39% think immigration into the U.S. should be kept at its present level, while 28% say it should be increased.

Donald Trump just might go down in history as the leader who finally, unambiguously made America pro-immigrant. Here's hoping that turnaround happens in time for Patrick Schrieber, his wife Soo jin, and their daughter Hyebin. What a waste to lose them over an accident of timing.

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.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why didnt he do it way before he was deployed?

    He's a Lt. Col, so he's been in the US Army for at least a decade.

    These sob stories dont work because everyone thought they could ignore the rules of law and the government would continue to not enforce the immigration law.

    Boy, were they wrong!

  • Magnitogorsk||

    It's really unsettling how much glee you seem to take from people's lives being turned upside down for failing to properly navigate government red tape

  • Ship of Theseus||

    LC is just a Republican/Trump lickspittle. He's not interested in less government. He only cares about the "right" government.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Not really any different from a run of the mill Progressive. It's not the size and scope of the government that's the problem for them, just that the right Top. Man. is in charge.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Or the opposite, but whatever floats your word boat.

  • rocks||

    Fuck off, what made the US successful was the concept of a fair set of rules that apply to everyone. That includes 13 adopted girls and their families. They broke the law plain and simply, why should they get an exception? She's been living in the US for 5 years illegally.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    This should be a great special meeting of Libertarians For Bigoted, Cruel, Authoritarian Immigration Policies And Practices.

    To be followed by the regularly scheduled meeting of Libertarians For Tariffs And Protectionism.

    Maybe a bonus gathering of Libertarians For Statist Womb Management and Government Micromanagement Of Ladyparts Clinics?

    Carry on, clingers.

  • rocks||

    Libertarians believe in an equal application of clear fair rules. Not this sob story bullshit.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "Libertarians believe in an equal application of clear fair rules."

    That's great, but in this instance the rules weren't particularly clear. If they were then the couple's attorney wouldn't have been confused by them when he advised the couple they had until the girl turned 18 to apply for citizenship.

    So, again, you can fuck right off.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Maybe you should have the ever living shit kicked out of you repeatedly, you drooling retard.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "She's been living in the US for 5 years illegally."

    No, it's you who should fuck off. The girl was brought to the U.S. legally. She was legally adopted by Lt. Col. Schreiber. She she maintained her resident status and is currently in the United States legally on an F-1 student visa while she's attending the University of Kansas.

    They didn't break the law, they operated on the advice of counsel who mistakenly informed them they had until the girl's 18th birthday to apply for citizenship.

  • vek||

    Well, at the least they should sue the lawyer for fucking up! Maybe they can have a nice little nest egg for moving to Korea.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Magnitogorsk and Thesus are the typical lefty trolls.

    They bash Libertarian positions of Tiny government with less laws but those few laws are enforced on everyone who they apply to. They really want TOP MEN to create more laws to be 'fair and equal' while simultaneously selectively enforcing too many laws to keep track of.

  • Oli||

    To be fair, you're a typical Trump troll. Lefties blindly trust in progressive politicians, you blindly trust in Trump and his kind. Neither is libertarian. In fact, a serious libertarian should be wary of ANY politician.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Oil, that's just your way of deflecting from the merits of LC's argument. And as a lapdog of the progtards you're no one to cast these kinds of aspersions on anyone.

  • retiredfire||

    Nice try, but these rules FAR preceded Trump.
    That we now have an executive branch that will enforce the laws - without fear or favor - is driving the progtards crazy.
    What they want is for the laws to be fluid, with emotional exceptions to be selectively applied.
    That's why they hate the Constitution and the reliance on what the nation was founded on.
    What we have, here, is Gillespie is showing his progtard bona fides.

  • vek||

    YUP.

    Like it or not, Rule Of Law is arguably even more important for maintaining a society, especially a free and just one, than any particular law being good or bad.

    Without rule of law, you have NOTHING.

  • miketol||

    I agree that there is too much red tape in the immigration system. However, a system of selective enforcement is not the solution to it.

  • mlwjr||

    because we should build policy on the outlandish exception cases and not deal with those one off? sounds like a great plan....

  • BambiB||

    Yeah, but this story was cherry-picked to be a tear-jerker and all it really proved was that the LC was a slacker.
    Even while overseas (with nothing much to do in his down time) he could have pushed this through. The military provides free legal counsel and assistance. So this is really a story about being dilatory and negligent. Sure, the outcome sucks, but you snooze, you lose.

    Now lets look at the general case - some piece-of-shit criminal crosses the border illegally to suck up welfare benefits, traffic children in sex slavery or smuggle drugs into the Country. They get caught and are not executed. It costs hard-working Americans their lives, their earnings and their safety through no fault of their own. Now that's a tear-jerker.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "Even while overseas (with nothing much to do in his down time) he could have pushed this through."

    Yeah, because if it's one thing all those guy returning from Afghanistan talk about, it's all that free time they didn't know what to do with.

    "The military provides free legal counsel and assistance." Perhaps, instead of paying for their own attorney like they did, they could have taken those government resources from those soldiers who couldn't afford private counsel, but I guess they're better than that.

    "So this is really a story about being dilatory and negligent." Yes, they were dilatory, but they weren't negligent. However, their attorney was when he advised him they had until the child turned 18 to apply for citizenship.

    " Sure, the outcome sucks, but you snooze, you lose."

    Yes, but in this case, it's the United States who will lose. The DoD is losing a contractor with three decades of military experience and six tours in the Middle East, and the country's scientific community will lose an intelligent woman with a degree in chemical engineering.

    But I guess our loss will be Korea's gain. After all we don't deserve to have these two in America because, as you said, "...you snooze, you lose."

  • vek||

    So, should we just ignore the law every time somebody has a reasonable excuse for why they didn't obery it then?

    Because that's the only other alternative.

    Honestly, the law probably should be changed to allow people up until their 18th birthday. But that's not what it is now... Sooooooo...

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "Now lets look at the general case - some piece-of-shit criminal crosses the border illegally to suck up welfare benefits, traffic children in sex slavery or smuggle drugs into the Country. They get caught and are not executed."

    I hear you.
    I mean is there any bigger tearjerker than the United States Constitution?

  • Ship of Theseus||

    Argle bargle rule of law!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Support getting rid of 75%+ of the government red tape then.

    But you wont.

    You people just want more government and more laws that are enforced to get leverage on people.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'm glad you're finally willing to admit to yourself that you're a statist, LC.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    He didn't.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    My joke was just that he responded to his own post.

  • Paloma||

    The law is the law, except when it's the Affordable Care Act. Then it's taking a courageous stand to not pay the fine for not having insurance.

  • Flinch||

    Given the jump in premiums coupled with higher deductibles, the fine was cheaper for some - we are pretty much paying fee for service anyway, but calibrated on "somebody else" paying for it with the mirage of an insurance card. That makes us all pay too much. I hate this sick joke called the ACA: bring back plain hospitalization insurance, and leave me [and my doctor] the hell alone.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    BUCS is having trouble reading today.

    I hope your brain is okay BUCS.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    A decade? More like 15-20 Plus years.

  • Agammamon||

    Don't listen to him - he makes these pronouncements as if he has any personal knowledge.

    If anything, the article itself tells you he's been in at least 20 years already.

  • DPICM||

    I would actually support leniency in this case. The problem here is that Gillespie isn't just talking about this case. He thinks the rules should be shifted for everybody, many of whom should be deported, based on one story that should merit equitable relief.

    An analogous way to look at this would be arguing that we should do away with murder laws just because one person who killed a cop executing a no knock raid could be convicted as a murderer. Uhh, no. How about we just leave the law as is and make an exception, as we are allowed to do, in the appropriate case.

  • Juice||

    Those two scenarios are clearly not analogous. You can't screw up paperwork in self defense.

  • Flinch||

    Process [deportation hearing] was launched because this officer didn't do his homework. No wonder he couldn't make full bird. In the age of the internet, discovery of requirements cannot be any easier. Given his service, and it preventing his personal appearance [typically required for applications involving a minor on at least one occasion], I see no reason why he can't get relief - it's not the girls fault, because a minor cannot launch their own process.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    That's why they call them "deadlines".

    I brought my fiancee in legally though the immigration system myself, through multiple flaming hoops, and I can't say it was easy, but you don't just blow off a deadline if you're doing something important like immigrating or adopting.

    He can ask for leniency, but if you don't have a deadline in the law, and if you don't do something if it's missed, people just drag their heels forever.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Brett found an import he likes?

    Or maybe American women are too educated and uppity to accept anti-social, disaffected, backward American males.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Or maybe you should buy a gun and shoot yourself in the face.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    When you brought your mail order bride to the U.S. did you two hire an attorney?
    Did you follow his advice, or did you tell him to "go blow" and ignore him?

    Because if you followed the advice of your attorney, the only reason you're wife is stuck here is because he didn't misinform you of the laws, like the attorney this couple hired.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    No, I told you: I read the rules posted online, (They were quite easy to find.) and followed them. Like this guy should have.

    Oh, and FYI: The women view it as more of a "mail order husband" process.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    Yes, and he could have gotten free legal advice at the JAG office. He effed up. To his credit, he acknowledges that and is prepared to deal with the consequences.

    The law in question is not some random, kafkaesque anti-immigrant absurdity. It's a response a a very real immigration fraud strategy in which sponsors "adopt" adults or near-adults for the purpose of gaining them residency/citizenship.

    We are blessed to live in a country where the rule of law is generally respected. The outcome in this case sucks, but would you really prefer to live in a country where the President can, in any case of his choosing, wave his hand at any particular law and say "never mind "? If you're answer to that question isn't "hell no", consider our current President. Still not convinced? Consider our last President.

  • ||

    consider our current President. Still not convinced? Consider our last President

    This is how a knockdown argument looks.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "Why didnt[sic] he do it way before he was deployed?
    He's a Lt. Col, so he's been in the US Army for at least a decade."

    Well, the couple didn't actually bring the girl to the U.S. until late 2012 when she was 15, and their adoption attorney told them they had until Hyebin's 18th birthday to complete the process. He was deployed in early 2013 giving them only a few months to initiate a process they were told they had years to complete.

    These sob stories don't work because the country is full of vile people who decided the couple "thought they could ignore the rules of law," despite being ignorant of how the actual facts demonstrate that didn't happen.
    At least this couple consulted an attorney before making the wrong, call.
    What's your excuse?

  • IceTrey||

    Can't they just sponsor her? Why in this case is chain migration not a viable option?

  • Kivlor||

    She's not a direct relative to either, and I'm betting "took her in as their own daughter" doesn't mean she was legally adopted.

  • IceTrey||

    She's the wife's niece. Anyway the law says that you can sponsor anyone.

  • Kivlor||

    The "chain migration" thing is the family unification idea. Its limited to mom/pop/kids as I recall.

    As far as I know, sponsorship is limited to employer or family. But IANAL

  • Kivlor||

    A quick search hasn't provided anything on being able to support who you want.

    Sponsorship means you agree to take financial responsibility for 10 years an immigrant who is your spouse, child or parent. Sadly this girl appears to be none of the above, so she isn't likely to be eligible for that.

  • vek||

    I think she'd have to sponsor her brother/sister first, and if they could get in, they could then sponsor their soon to be adult daughter... Or something to that effect.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    No, but Hyebin's adoption proceedings resulting in the the state of Kansas issuing her a birth certificate naming Patrick and Soo Jin her father and mother as well as her Department of Defense benefits card listing her as Patrick's daughter both mean she was.

  • Bubba Jones||

    What is the libertarian position on having sympathy for people who choose a career of killing foreigners for profit?

    It's ok so long as it gives us an excuse to accuse Trump of racism?

  • Bubba Jones||

    "During his military career, Schreiber jumped with the 82nd Airborne Division into Panama during Operation Just Cause, served in Desert Shield and Desert Storm, deployed to Iraq from 2005 to 2006 and then again from 2007 to 2008. He was sent to Afghanistan from 2010 to 2011 and then again from 2013 to 2014. He retired in 2015 and still works for DoD as a contractor."

    A literal drug warrior who is now a mercenary.

    But Trump is a racist. Got it.

  • sarcasmic||

    The girl was killing foreigners for a profit?

  • Bubba Jones||

    The daughter was apparently an emancipated minor living in the US. Or a kidnapping victim.

  • The stain on Monica's dress||

    Stop reaching so hard just to do your schtick. There isn't any way to read his post where yours makes sense.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    The sympathy is for the girl, asshole.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    She is going back to South Korea. She will be fine. Its a rich country.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    God, you're an imbecilic asshole.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I didnt know you assholes could speak. I thought only shit came out of you.

  • Juice||

    God, you're an imbecilic asshole.

    Well, he volunteered for the military, so...

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    Yes, she'll take her chemical engineering degree to Korea and her father will take his experience as a chief intelligence officer for the United States Army with him as he relocates there as well.

    What's the big deal, if I've heard about how this country has too many chemical engineers and intelligence officers once, I've heard it a thousand times.

  • TuIpa||

    Of course it is. Who said it waan't imbecile?

    The comment simply pointed out that sarcs well worn schtick didnt work there.

    Can you read? Because you'd see that if you could.

  • sarcasmic||

    The comment asked why someone who kills foreigners deserves sympathy.

    That wasn't talking about the girl.

    Can you read? Because you'd see that if you could.

  • TuIpa||

    "What is the libertarian position on having sympathy for people who choose a career of killing foreigners for profit?"

    So you're saying you read that and the article and thought it applied to the girl.

    No sarc. You reached and it was stupid. Own it.

  • TuIpa||

    What is the libertarian position on having sympathy for people who choose a career of killing foreigners for profit?

  • TuIpa||

    Squirlz

  • TuIpa||

    See, that's the problem with you always schticking, you end up trying way too hard and look stupid when you do it and there isn't even a tenuous connection.

    You'd literally have to be an idiot for your post to make sense to you.

  • Egypt Steve||

    Pretty sure the liberterian position is: anybody doing anything for profit is good. Having sympathy for anyone is for suckers.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I'm not sure who is being snarky or not in this thread. Is there a scorecard somwhere?

  • Paloma||

    As if anyone needed an excuse.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    "What is the libertarian position on having sympathy for people who choose a career of killing foreigners for profit?"

    If they're sufficiently troublesome/annoying for it to be profitable to kill them, I guess the market has spoken.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I can only imagine the turn of events in the White House.

    "Mr. President, Lt. Col. Patrick Schreiber would like you to review his case"

    Trump: "Sure, he sound like a fine upstanding American. I care deeply about our service men and women"

    *Hands Trump a picture of the family*

    Trump: "I thought you said 'Patrick'? Get out of my office."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Because Trump is racist....we get it.

    One of your best jokes.

  • CDRSchafer||

    That was like climbing up a diving board for a kiddie pool.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Other than leftists calling everyone who refuses to bow down to them 'racist' I've never seen the slightest indication from Trump that he is racist at all. Amd this is with the guy bing in national news for well over thirty years.

  • ||

    That's because he's not.

    They just invented that. Charlottesville is totes proof.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    " I've never seen the slightest indication from Trump that he is racist at all."

    I hear you. Other than...
    1)... refusing to rent to black people.
    2)... saying, "Black guys counting my money! I think that the guy is lazy. And it's probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks."
    3)...calling for the death penalty of 5 black and Latino teens he claimed were guilty more than 10 years after DNA exonerated them.
    4)...claiming a judge's Mexican heritage made him unable fairly adjudicate a case.
    5)...claiming 15,000 immigrants from Haiti "all have AIDS."
    6)...claiming that 40,000 Nigerian immigrants all lived him huts back in Africa.
    7)...pushing the lie that the country's first African-American President couldn't have been born in the U.S. for nearly 8 years.
    8)...claiming that despite being the editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review, that same African-American President must have been "a terrible student, terrible."
    9)...making up stories about how that same African-American President was so lazy (see #2) that he didn't do anything but watch cable TV and play golf but then claimed that watching cable tv and playing golf was acceptable for a white president.

    (cont.)

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    10...lied about the rate of black crime in order to fear-monger his base.
    11...ignores the rise in hate crimes perpetrated by whites against blacks.
    12...endorsed a Senate candidate who spoke fondly of slavery and who declared a duly elected African-American member of Congress should not be seated because of his religion.
    13...falsely claimed he had more "Indian blood than actual Native Americans because they didn't look Indian enough for him.
    14...called the Hispanic Miss Universe, "Miss Housekeeping.

    ...I mean other than that, has anyone ever seen or heard Trump do or say anything even remotely racist?

    I think not.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Trump is a Central Park Five-caliber racist.

    It's a large part of what Republicans and authoritarians love about him.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    Yes, because if when you're not rich, white and male, dues process just isn't for you.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Throw yourself in front of a speeding train.

  • ||

    lol.

  • vek||

    Nah, he'd be down for Asians. Everybody knows that Asians make good, productive citizens. :)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    BTW Gillespie, Fuck You for trying to use military stories to garner patriotic sentiment for your open border position.

    You dont give a shit about the Constitution, Rule of Law, military service, or patriotism.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Because Gillespie isn't a Republican.... we get it.

    One of your best jokes.

  • sarcasmic||

    Because if you disagree with some law, you disagree with all law. If you don't like something about government, you don't like anything about government. If you're not a nationalist, then you're not a patriot.

    We get it.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    What would you know about any of this? You're an anarchist.

  • sarcasmic||

    No, it's Nanarchist. Whatever that means.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No, its Minianarchist. Whatever that means.

  • Tuipa||

    Just fuck already

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Wait, I thought we were the same people?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yeah Gillespie is Sarcasmic with a Leo backup.

  • Tuipa||

    "Wait, I thought we were the same people?"

    I don't really care what some idiot told you. I certainly never said that so I can't imagine why you're interrupting the fuckfest to share it with me.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    He's trying to get a three-way started, won't you help a brother out?

  • TuIpa||

    You seem more interested.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I have been in 3 ways with chicks.

    Doing that with Sarcasmic and other wanna be dudes would not be nearly as good.

    Tony's into dudes. Ask him.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Look at these two. Cute.

    Sarcasmic and Leo sitting in a tree,
    k-i-s-s-i-n-g

  • sarcasmic||

    How old are you?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Im too young for you to kiss, pedo.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    ???

  • TuIpa||

    Lc think sarc is Cathy? I dunno.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Im too young for you to kiss, BUCS.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Lc89 being a minor would explain so much.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Baculum, That your not even smarter than a minor?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Baculum, that a minor who forgets more about economic principles on a daily basis than you even knew?

  • Agammamon||

    Neither do you.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Donald Trump just might go down in history as the leader who finally, unambiguously made America pro-immigrant.

    I've been saying this for a while. It's the biggest scandal in human history that Russia hacked the election and installed a Kremlin asset in the White House. But if Drumpf's presidency results in an electorate that embraces the Koch / Reason position on immigration, maybe it will have been worth it.

    #AbolishICE
    #NoBanNoWall
    #OpenBorders

  • CDRSchafer||

    Look, the one person in America who thinks Russian collusion is still relevant. It's over dude.

  • WhatAboutBob||

    OpenBordersDipshit is actually a bot that hasn't had it's software updated yet so it's still stuck on "Russia hacked the election" meme. There's probably a 800 number we can call to get that fixed.

  • Eddy||

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this due to a statute Congress passed? And when did they pass it?

    I ask this because I wonder what relevance President Trump has to the situation. Did he have the statutory authority to allow the adopted daughter to stay, but refused to exercise that authority?

    Now, I have constitutional doubts of a law which admits a foreigner to this country, allows her adoption by American citizens, and then tries to deport her. My grievance here, however, is aimed at Congress. I hold the unfashionable view that Presidents can defy unconstitutional Congressional statutes without waiting for the courts, but I don't think *either* party agrees with me on this, so it's not as if we can single out Trump for blame.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    You're right, Trump really has no role in this. It points more to a broken system in general. What's really so different about her status as a 16 year old or a 17 year old? Not getting paper work in on time is punishable by... deportation?

    I suppose he could pardon her.

  • Eddy||

    But supposedly the immigration laws aren't criminal statutes.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    He just has to use the "national security" angle to allow her to stay.

    Congress is supposed to approve tariffs too.

  • Eddy||

    Heh, good one.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    It points more to a broken system in general.

    This is the crux of the issue, not just with this one isolated case, but with immigration as a whole. The problem is, no one in Congress or the administration has any desire to fix it. Probably because they don't view a system that results in the government having a shitload of power over people as "broken." Just the opposite, they view this as a system that's working exactly as intended.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    Here here!! Thats why I tune all this shit out. No one wants to fix it they just want to signal they are on the right side of the debate depending on which side of the aisle they are on. Fixing it would take time and our Congresscritters are too busy raising money so they can get elected to fix these problems.

  • Dalben||

    1) Because if you allowed adoption of adults you could just have adults pay to be adopted and get legal residency. You could do the same with children, but then you'd be responsible for the child and the real parents would lose parental rights so it's less likely to happen.
    2) Because adult family members don't depend on their parents to live so it's not as necessary for them to live in the same country as their parents.
    3) Because if you're distinguishing adult and child adoptions you need some arbitrary cutoff and Congress chose 17. Perhaps 18 would make more sense, but that's what they picked.

    I'm fine with the idea that the Colonel and his daughter are sympathetic people who the country would benefit from having and they should get some kind of leniency exception for screwing up the paperwork. But it's not some crazy law that exists for no reason. And he could certainly have researched the date and adopted her before left.

    Suppose he didn't leave for Afghanistan, but simply didn't realize the cutoff was 17 and simply waited too long? Should he still get an exemption? Perhaps. But unless you're against any immigration restrictions (as many people legitimately are) the law and enforcement of it aren't unreasonable.

    Hopefully, there's some process where she can go to school and then get her residency/citizenship anyway.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    1) This isn't about adopting adults. The child was adopted when when she was a minor.
    2) He parents pay her tuition and he is listed she receives dependent benefits from his DOD job.
    3) She was adopted when she was still 16, that isn't the issue.
    "he could certainly have researched the date and adopted her before left."
    The deadline for her parents to apply for citizenship (which she couldn't do on her own) was 17, they certainly did research the date through an attorney who misinformed them.

    "Suppose he didn't leave for Afghanistan, but simply didn't realize the cutoff was 17 and simply waited too long? Should he still get an exemption?"

    No he shouldn't, but since she was unable to initiate the process, she shouldn't be held accountable for his mistake.

    "Hopefully, there's some process where she can go to school and then get her residency/citizenship anyway."

    She's currently in the U.S. on a student visa, which will expire once she graduates. After she might be able to get a work visa since the U.S. is in need of chemical engineers, but why should she stay in a country that doesn't want her. I'm sure Korea would love to have her American education.

  • Dalben||

    "In 2013, Army Lt. Col. Patrick Schreiber and his wife put off officially adopting their teenaged daughter, Hyebin, who was born in the Republic of Korea. The reason? He was about to deploy to Afghanistan for a year. When he returned, they put through the paperwork, adopted her, and then started working on her citizenship. But Hyebin had turned 17 in the interim, which is a problem:"

    The article says the problem was she wasn't officially adopted until it was past the deadline. I have no problem believing Reason simply got it wrong if you have a better source

    "No he shouldn't, but since she was unable to initiate the process, she shouldn't be held accountable for his mistake."

    Adult or child she couldn't initiate the process, because it's her parent's decision to adopt her.

    I'm not saying we should want to keep her out of the country - we shouldn't, just that this isn't some crazy draconian law they ran afoul of.

  • vek||

    The theory with the age thing, is that you don't want to let a bunch of people fraudulently adopt people that are turning 18 in 2 weeks just so they can get citizenship. 16 is arbitrary of course, but it's to prevent people getting into the country by just claiming to adopt people that are essentially already adults. I mean they could have set it at 12 if they'd wanted to and been even more restrictive... But the overall logic kinda makes sense. I mean would it make sense for people to be able to adopt 38 year olds as their "children" to get them citizenship?

  • Careless||

    She turned 17 in 2014 or 15. Her application for citizenship would have been denied under Obama. Trump has nothing to do with this, unless there's some kind of citizenship pardon power I've never heard of.

    I really want to know what people want to be done about this. It's a bad situation, but that doesn't mean the government has screwed up

  • Eddy||

    I presume that if Congress caused a problem, Congress can fix the problem. Without, hopefully, screaming "TRUMP!" all the time.

  • Bubba Jones||

    "draft-dodging Rep. Steve King"

    Fuck
    Off
    Slaver

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Fuck off with the immigration stories. This is the last click one of them gets from me.

    If readers/commenters just stop rewarding Reason with the one thing it wants, eyeballs, these articles will end. If they don't, then you'll know Reason is a pay for play shop with some large donor calling the shots.

  • Tuipa||

    ENB answered that already.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    WEB TRAFFIC!

  • Bubba Jones||

    I use Adblock

  • Cynical Asshole||

    This is the last click one of them gets from me.

    Bullshit. You'll be back. You'll all be back! /Nick Gillespie

  • Here for the outrage||

    I can't stop, I'm here for the outrage

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    What will we do without your clicks?

  • vek||

    Yeah, but if I don't click on the link, HOW CAN I EXPRESS MY OUTRAGE AT THE REASON WRITERS?????????

  • Calidissident||

    Sure is interesting how many people here suddenly aren't interested in stories about government red tape fucking over American families.

  • Bubba Jones||

    This isn't a red tape issue.

    This appears to be an issue of trying to adopt an "adult" for the purposes of gaming the immigration system.

    I think it is unreasonable to expect adoptions to be instantaneous and retroactive.

    Equally unreasonable to think I could "adopt" a foreign national adult in order to grant them a visa.

  • Calidissident||

    Raising your teenage niece = "gaming the system?"

    You guys make it clear. The government fucking people over is fine as long as it doesn't happen to you or people like you.

  • John||

    They should have adopted her years before they did. This is on them.

  • Eric Bana||

    I'd rather the rules were easier or an exception granted so this young girl wouldn't be forced out of the US. But that's just me.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    It should be easier than it is to sort this out, but that's pretty much everything to do with government. These people are hardly being persecuted.

  • vek||

    See now, writing a law that has specific situations where exceptions can be made is an option... But in this case the whole point was to avoid people adopting people who were just about to be adults as a way to scam their way into US citizenship.

    So going up until 1 day before the 18th birthday kinda negates the whole point of this part of the law...

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Get rid of a bunch of red tape and deport this chick for her adoptive parents being stupid and not filling out the paperwork.

  • Darr247||

    Don't even let her finish her degree; Kick her out now! Let her go make babies for li'l rocketman.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Wrong Korea. She'll get sent to the one that makes all the cell phones and Hyundais. My niece is a naval officer and just got a promotion and sent over there. She says it's pretty nice.

  • vek||

    Of course it is! Asians know how to have a civilized society. Japan and South Korea are the 2 countries I'd most like to visit in Asia. Japan a lot more than Korea, but Korea would be cool too.

  • Rich||

    This is a matter of policy which is eminently addressable and fixable, as are so many problems in contemporary America (think of education, drug policy, criminal justice, and other areas where bad outcomes are baked into a system that can be reformed).

    Yep. Vote out every incumbent.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Yep. Vote out every incumbent
    Oh yeah. Been screaming that for years.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Here's the sort of story that should never happen, especially in a country that prides itself on its humanity and openness to newcomers.

    What country would that be? /sarc

    In 2013, Army Lt. Col. Patrick Schreiber and his wife put off officially adopting their teenaged daughter, Hyebin, who was born in the Republic of Korea. The reason? He was about to deploy to Afghanistan for a year. When he returned, they put through the paperwork, adopted her, and then started working on her citizenship. But Hyebin had turned 17 in the interim...

    Schreiber served in the military for 27 years, meeting his wife Soo Jin while he was serving as a tank company executive officer and in other positions in Korea with 1st Battalion, 72nd Armor Regiment in the late 1990s. Hyebin was Soo Jin's niece, and when Hyebin's home life became too difficult, Schreiber and his wife took her in as their own daughter.

    So why didn't they officially adopt her sometime between the late 90's and 2013?

    Don't want your "adopted" daughter deported like a thug, don't delay the paperwork like a thug." /sarc

  • CDRSchafer||

    One thing I learned in the military was to navigate a lot of stupid red tape. How this guy hasn't in 27 years I'm not sure, especially when it's this important. This isn't like losing a month's housing allowance or something. Bet there is something about this story that's not being reported.

  • retiredfire||

    Bet there is something about this story that's not being reported.

    Sounds like you've seen other REASON stories.

  • John||

    If she wasn't their adopted child, how did they get her a DEERS card and get her on his military insurance? This whole story makes no sense. Beyond that, if the biggest sob story you come up with is about some doofus who never bothered to adopt his immigrant daughter until she was 17, you really don't have many sob stories.

  • CDRSchafer||

    That is a good question. She was not eligible for TRICARE unless she was in DEERS as his dependent.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Amd the worst case scenario is that she goes back to South Korea for awhile. South Korea is a pretty nice country.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    She was legally adopted in 2014 and Kansas issued birth certificate naming Patrick as Hyebin's father and Soo Jin her mother.
    As the legal daughter of a veteran, she also received a benefits card from the Department of Defense.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "So why didn't they officially adopt her sometime between the late 90's and 2013?"

    I'm guessing it had something to do with the fact she was living in Korea with her biological parents until late 2012 a few months before he was redeployed to Afghanistan in early 2013 coupled with the fact the attorney they hired told them they didn't have to file for citizenship until her 18th birthday.

  • BigT||

    She'll be 18 soon, an adult, so what difference does it make? She can't become a citizen...blame Dad and Mom.
    This is a nothingburger.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    Yes if anything is a "nothingburger" it's American citizenship.

  • Qsl||

    I figured there would be a long line of marriage proposals to make her legal. Hell, wasn't Kansas one of the states where you could marry as low as 13 with parental approval?

    With a chemical engineering degree, it should be easy for her to get sponsorship, I can't imagine this ends with her going back to Korea.

  • DPICM||

    The good news is that even if she does have to go back, at least Kavanaugh won't be able to rape her. Silver linings.

  • Qsl||

    She's a first generation Asian girl. The odds of her slutting around at some underage drinking PAR-TAY is basically nil.

    Unfortunately she is probably too old for Cody Wilson.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    Yes, because that's what good little girls should do, get married.

    "With a chemical engineering degree, it should be easy for her to get sponsorship..."

    Perhaps she was raised not to stay here if her only value to this country is her degree?
    She lived most of her life in Korea, she should take that American Education to a place where they're not threatening to kick her out of.

  • vek||

    Well, actually ALL people should probably try to get married... Finding love and having a stable family life is very good for ones life outcomes, or so says statistics.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This did not work like Gillespie hoped.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Instead of making a real argument for his open borders crap, he publishes garbage stories like this.

  • bacchys||

    I doubt he expected ignorant Trumptards like yourself.to agree.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If you want to get people to support more open immigration laws, I highly recommend arguing it from a best interests perspective.

    Why is open immigration good for average Americans and the economy?

    To some extent, you can convince a certain amount of people to feel so sorry for a mistreated, big-eyed bunny that they'll want to make sacrifices so that no bunnies with big, sad eyes are ever mistreated again. But you won't get enough to support opening up the immigration laws--or that mission would have already been accomplished.

    When I want someone to do a deal with us, I don't sit there and try to think of ways to make them want to make sacrifices on my behalf. I sit down and work out what's in their best interests. Then I figure out how I can help them do that. Then, instead of trying to convince them to make sacrifices for my benefit, I only have to persuade them to do what's in their own best interests--and let me help.

    Once we convince enough Americans that open immigration is in their best interests and in the best interests of the economy, politicians will be falling all over themselves to get out of our way. Until then, trying to make people feel sorry for immigrants just makes things worse.

  • CDRSchafer||

    How is it in our best interests when the majority of people who would flock here would presumably (a) not speak English (b) not be able to support themselves or their family (c) be entitled to a crapload of taxpayer susidies to include free Pre-K through 12 education for their children, medical care (even if just through the emergency room) police, fire protection, etc.

    If we have open borders, how many of the above type of people would move here in one year? Five years? Ten years? And what shitbag political party would they vote for (I think we know)?

  • Here for the outrage||

    Step 1: dismantle the welfare state

    Step 2: Open the border

  • Ken Shultz||

    For Pete's sake, tying citizenship to welfare reeks of communism. The idea that people are entitled to welfare because they're citizens, isn't that what communism is all about?

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    How about you provide an argument based on actual facts rather than your unsupported presumptions.

    "how many of the above type of people would move here in one year?"

    How about 1? I mean I can support that number with as much emperical evidence you've provided to support your claim that it will be....oh wait, you don't have any idea what that number would be, do you.
    No.
    You just know that whatever that number will be, it will be devastating and that, despite the fact that immigration doesn't equal citizenship you just know who all those immigrants who can't vote will vote for?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I don't disagree Ken. If only we could get an intellectually honest debate from both sides.

  • BigT||

    "Once we convince enough Americans that open immigration is in their best interests and in the best interests of the economy, "

    In other words, you need to lie to people and fool them that it's for their own good.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If you don't know that immigration is good for the economy, then we've been neglecting our mission even worse than I thought.

    Suffice it to say that people moving across borders in pursuit of economic goals is a good thing for all the same reasons trade in anything else is a good thing, and restricting welfare isn't a good reason to restrict the free flow of labor, not when most of the problem with welfare is native born Americans anyway.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    You don't understand the difference between "for their own good", and "for the good of the economy taken as a gross number"?

    Here's a clue: Immigration could harm almost everybody to some extent, and be really beneficial to some tiny minority, (This is close to the actual case.) and it would be "for the good of the economy". Just not for most people.

    But what is usually meant by, "for the good of the economy", is that it makes the size of the economy larger, even as it lowers our per capita wealth because the immigrants are poorer on average than native Americans.

    So it's not even as honest as a badly distributed benefit...

  • Ken Shultz||

    If low wage labor were bad for economic growth, over the last 20 years, China would have had the slowest growing economy in the world.

    Low wage labor means single mothers can afford child care so they can get off their asses and go to work rather than sit on their asses and collect welfare.

    Low wage labor means people can afford to hire someone to watch the grandparents and do their lawn care so they don't have to move them into a nursing home and hand the bill to Medicare.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Immigration could harm almost everybody to some extent, and be really beneficial to some tiny minority"

    This is getting it exactly backwards.

    High wage labor is beneficial to small number of people. Consumers make up everybody--and they're the ones who benefit from the low cost of labor.

    You can think of low cost labor like low cost oil. Having more of it available for less is good for the economy generally--even if it's bad for oil workers. In the case of low wage labor, the people who suffer for having to compete with it are generally people who can't compete. They're union employees. They're people with felonies. They're people with substance abuse problems.

    The low wage labor that comes here from Mexico typically can't speak English and has no more than an 8th grade education. Any American who can't compete with that has something seriously wrong with them. Sometimes markets require people to make tough choices about relocating or moving to new industries, but this is as it should be. It's called creative destruction, and it's a big part of what capitalism is all about.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    There you go bringing the Republicans into the discussion for no reason whatsoever.

  • Juice||

    Why is open immigration good for average Americans and the economy?

    Why should it be up to you or the "average American" whether a person moves to somewhere within the boundaries of the so-called United States?

  • Ken Shultz||

    You seem to have missed that this wasn't a rhetorical question. If we want people to support open immigration, then we need to argue that it's in their best interests to do so.

    Maybe I should add that immigration law is set by Congress and within the proper purview of democracy. That is unlike the First Amendment, which starts out, "Congress shall make no law . . ."

  • Juice||

    You seem to have missed that this wasn't a rhetorical question. If we want people to support open immigration, then we need to argue that it's in their best interests to do so.

    If you want to stay on this continent, you'd better explain to me how your presence benefits me.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Again, I believe citizenship means only a few things. It means you can vote. It means you can hold office. It means you can be here.

    That's pretty much it.

    I also believe that citizenship is within the proper purview of democracy--like declaring war. If you want me to support our congress declaring war, you better damn well tell me why it's in the best interests of the American people. I don't want to hear about what it'll do for the Iraqis--unless that's somehow tied to the benefits to the American people.

    It's the same thing with immigration. If congress is setting the rules of naturalization, which includes the right to be within our borders, then persuading the American people to support open immigration will require you to show them why opening the border is in their best interests.

    Again, our rights are outside the purview of democracy. It doesn't matter so much whether respecting people's right to free speech or religion, etc. is popular--the government is and should be compelled to respect those rights anyway. That's why the First Amendment starts with, "Congress shall make no law . . . " Our rights are not a popularity contest.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If you want people to support stopping a war, you better persuade them that doing so is in their best interests, too. Because the way to stop wars is for congress to refuse to authorize them or refuse to continue to fund them. And it's the same thing with immigration. Just because other people should be free to come within our borders doesn't mean anything--if imposing an unpopular immigration policy on the American people is like imposing on them an unpopular war. Taxation is the same way. If we want to get rid of the income tax, we need to persuade people that doing so is in their best interests. Same with spending. Democracy doesn't belong everywhere, but it has it's proper place, and immigration is one of those places.

  • vek||

    The problem is that open borers WOULD NOT be good for most Americans.

    Therein lies the problem. Many people know this, and lefties and dumb libertarians push it anyway.

    Amazingly the vast majority of Americans are in favor of tons of high skilled immigration... Because they know this would be good for them, at least economically.

    I have issued with a ton of even high skilled immigrants coming, because they do still bring their cultures and political values with them... But we've been soaking up 1 million mixed bag legal immigrants (and several hundreds thousand illegals most years) a year for a long time, so I'm pretty sure we could survive a million highly educated ones a year.

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    Here's the sort of story that should never happen, especially in a country that prides itself on its humanity and openness to newcomers.

    Actually we're a country of people who'd like to be left the fuck alone, but unfortunately have an elite class that insists on shoving their humanity and openness to newcomers down our throats sideways.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "Actually we're a country of people who'd like to be left the fuck alone..."

    While you may be the type to stand on your porch all day to scream "Get off my lawn," you don't speak for the nation as a whole.
    This nation. is not the bitter old-man you want it to be.

  • John||

    Donald Trump just might go down in history as the leader who finally, unambiguously made America pro-immigrant. Here's hoping that turnaround happens in time for Patrick Schrieber, his wife Soo jin, and their daughter Hyebin. What a waste to lose them over an accident of timing.

    Just when you think Sullumn has set the new bar for peak stupid at Reason, Nick says "hold my beer".

  • Uncle Jay||

    You would've thought Schreiber would have taken the time and trouble to walk out of a fire fight complete with machine gun fire, hand grenades, and rocket fire to fill out a few sheets of papers.
    But, no.
    He thought fighting for his life and the lives of his men was more important.
    Talk about selfish.

  • CDRSchafer||

    Or he could have taken care of it pre-deployment since it was so important.

  • BigT||

    Who could imagine that a man could be so irresponsible that he'd let his neice's status lapse? Bad dad!

  • WhatAboutBob||

    Is this the America you really want to live in?

    You mean the one where the laws are actually followed? The answer is yes. But for liberals (I'm looking at you Nick) the law should be ignored so we let in more non-Americans.

  • Juice||

    You mean the one where the laws are actually followed?

    Better get your ass to the back of the bus then.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Note to foreign readers: Bob is talking about enforcing the racial segregation laws, the fugitive slave law, the Comstock laws, the felony 5 ban on light beer, and the asset forfeiture laws for plant leaves or seeds. Liberal, as in the dictionary, means for rights and against taxes.

  • Egypt Steve||

    If you voted for Trump, you are objectively in favor of this outcome.

  • Juice||

    Isn't it obvious from the Republican comment section here?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You mean people that don't want open borders?

  • Hank Phillips||

    There used to be a snappy comeback to the FaecesJesus on his open Berlin Wall bullshit, but the Limpertarian Platform commissariat sure put an end to that.

  • BigT||

    Right. No one could have voted based on SCOTUS. No one!

  • Ken Shultz||

    Or maybe you opposed Hillary Clinton for other reasons. She was a crook. She campaigned on a promise to restrict our Second Amendment rights and stack the Court with justices who are hostile to our gun rights.

    There's this thing called a false dichotomy.

  • Echospinner||

    If you are a liberal you could have voted for Jill Stein. A libertarian could have voted for Gary Johnson. If you are a conservative, well there are few real ones left now, Trumpism is not conservatism.

    The two party system is a scam. It won't change because people just don't get it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Don't blame me. I voted for the only candidate that made sense.

    None of the Above.

  • Careless||

    In favor of Obama's administration having rejected her application, as was demanded by law. Ok then.

  • TW||

    Since she turned 17 in 2013/2014, shouldn't that be "if you voted for Obama, you are objectively in favor of this outcome"?

  • vek||

    I voted for GayJay... But after the first little bit of Trump being in office, I wished I'd voted for him. I will next time!

  • TommyInIdaho||

    Isn't this actually the sort of thing one goes to one's Representative for as a constituent service? I know when I needed a passport and was hung up by my unofficial adoption and name change my Rep's office reached out for me.

  • Echospinner||

    We did that when my wife was denied a passport because her citizenship papers were lost after her parents passed away. That was after three years of paperwork and appointments with INS. The staffer went to where they kept the records and solved the problem in one day.

    People here have no idea what dealing with the immigration system is like. They think this guy just didn't fill out a form.

  • Darr247||

    The orange buffoon should invite Lt. Col. Patrick Schreiber and his wife to the white house, where he can have a public ceremony where he kicks Patrick right in the balls, broadcast live during prime time... then he can brag about it being the bravest thing any american president has done in history and how much greater he's made america!
    Then, give them both red maga hats and kick them off the white house grounds.

  • vek||

    Maybe the bravest thing any president has done WHILE IN OFFICE... But let us remember that Andrew Jackson was badass enough to have got in knife duels!

  • mjs_28s||

    Sad, however, the click-bait like headline that gets most readers here is the garbage that CNN, yahoo, huffpo, etc. pull.

    headline:

    "Immigrant Girl Will Be Deported Because Adoptive Father Missed Deadline While Serving in Afghanistan"

    In the article you find out that they decided to put it off until he got back.

    I didn't see where they had a lawyer along the way, which is stupid! An attorney with a specialty in this area would likely have made this situation never occur.

    Either way, all the family's fault, Reason.

    Reason, get your shit together and stop with the emotional appeal click-bait responsibility shedding misleading headlines.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Heck, just paying attention to the rules would have made it not happen, even without an attorney. All the rules ARE online, you can read them for free.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Just get an injunction from Judge Chen in 'Frisco.

  • Agammamon||

    1. Ok, yeah this sucks.

    2. This dude has been in since the late 90's. He's a LT Col. You're not going to tell me that he couldn't find time to fill out the paperwork and send it back while he was deployed. Its not 24/7 fighting there and even as the XO he's got some free time.

    3. In addition, as a LTCOL he can pretty much be guaranteed that he'd be able to get access to legal help in filling out and filing the paperwork.

    4. Its not like he's a Private who might have spotty access to email and have to share access at a public computer.

    Basically, while he shouldn't be in this position - he's in this position because he sat on the paperwork instead of treating it with the seriousness the government demands. Sure, the government shouldn't demand this, but this is the sky we live under.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Everyone else has to deal with government bullshit too. You're pretty much spot on with this one.

  • KWlib||

    Trump is against immigration except for his ex-hooker wife and her chain-immigration parents who are as old as him.

    He is a lying, hypocritical piece of shit and the Republican party who have bought into his ignorant, trailer trash outlook are just as fucked up as he is.

  • Echospinner||

    Don't be so hard on Melania. I am pro-Trump we just elected the wrong one.

    She is the only Trump with any class.

    She is the only one who knows when to shut up and listen

    She is an immigrant herself and got her parents here

    She is smarter than the rest of them put together.

    She has nothing to do with the sleazy family business

    She already has a great slogan, the only one I like. "I Don't Care, Do U?"

  • ||

    She was a hooker?

    Or is that more of that profound progressive thinking at work?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Trump is against immigration except for his ex-hooker wife and her chain-immigration parents who are as old as him.

    He is a lying, hypocritical piece of shit and the Republican party who have bought into his ignorant, trailer trash outlook are just as fucked up as he is."

    So following the rule of law is being against immigration? No.

    The truth is instead that you are a worthless piece of garbage that worships communism and should die. Does that work? Am I now communicating with you on your level douchebag?

  • vek||

    Uhhhh, actually the proposals they have made about immigration reform basically just make it a point system like many other countries have... It would tilt towards highly skilled immigrants, but have nothing to do with what country you're from.

    Sounds like he likes a certain type of immigration, but not just any random asshole from a 3rd world toilet. I can get behind this.

    So piss off.

  • Seamus||

    A private bill in Congress should solve this.

  • Echospinner||

    He is working for the DOD. I am sure that with his experience the South Korean military and defense industry would be happy to offer him a job or any number of countries.

    Frankly if I were him I would start looking, find a better high paying job in a decent country and give the US the third finger salute if this is how we are treating him and his family.

  • jonnysage||

    As I tell my daughter, life isn't fair," Schreiber told Military Times, where the above quotes are taken from. "The main thing is to be resilient."

    Reason should hire this guy and replace that Shakira person. Shakra? Shika?

  • simplybe||

    The law is blind as it should be except when a politician is driving 120 mph blind drunk. Or is a pedophile that is married to Clintons chief of staff. Or a cop robs a man who is having a heart attack. Or when a President's father in law steals 30 million dollar. Then it appears the law is pretty much non existence. But hell no body cares as long as they get to watch their reality shows and have a smartphone.

  • Echospinner||

    Yup which is why many of us are libertarian.

    In this case the law itself is unjust. So these folks yammering about equality are fos.

    If the law is unjust than anyone who can get around it should.

  • simplybe||

    After reading a few of these comments I would I would like to say Nick Gillespie is a hell of a lot more intelligent and politically astute than either of the two idiots most of you voted for in the last Presidential election. I mean some of you brag about voting for a 70+ year old man with the mental maturity of a 3 year old and others of you are constantly whining because you couldn't get one of the most morally bankrupt women on the planet elect. And people wonder why this nation is going to hell in a hand basket.

  • Robert||

    Is this the America you really want to live in?


    Well, it seems to be the American she really wanted to live in. Does that make a strange loop?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    They should have taken care of this a long time ago. Now they're scrambling. Odds are they will arrive at a solution where she doesn't have to leave.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    They've been working on this since 2014.

  • M.L.||

    I have noticed that the primary agenda of Reason seems to be a rather extreme left view on immigration (i.e. open borders), and an absolutist "free trade" view that seems incredibly naive and radical in ideological terms, although thoroughly mainstream in terms of being embraced, at least until recently, by both sides of the same coin being what seemed to be a sort of "uniparty" of the Republican and Democrat establishments. However, I assume this is partly responding to the demand for clicks on these topics, and there is a more respectable level of thought to be found here.

    Anyway, this sounds like a minuscule and obscure point of immigration policy, but nonetheless an instance where some legislative reform would be appropriate. It's just the kind of issue that President Trump would be wiling to address in an immigration reform bill. But, I doubt this guy will actually get deported anyway, so this is mostly a lot of outrage mongering and cultural warriorism.

    Off-Topic, I quite like Reason as a new home for Volokh.

  • Echospinner||

    Yup the "kind of issue that President Trump would be willing to address in an immigration reform bill"

    Love that. Sure he will. He has already addressed immigration. He was elected on that. The position is clear. Murders rapists and shithole countries. If the Lt. Col. and his family are collateral damage we are MAGA.

    I don't care. Do U?

  • Duelles||

    Hmm? It was years ago when we sponsored two kids of our cleaning lady who were both over 17. We had to be responsible for them in terms of work, employment, etc. so they were not a drain on the system. Not a big deal 20 years ago as I recall. It worked well, they ended up owning a business in town and did really well. Isn't sponsorship still viable?

  • GoatOnABoat||

    So the girl turned 17 in 2013/2014 and ran afoul of the law then and now you're blaming Trump? You people are rabid.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    While no one should be blaming Trump here, the girl didn't run "afoul of the law.."

    She is currently in the country legally on a student visa which runs out once she graduates college.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Another alternative would be to deport the lady to North Korea, where she will at least arrive already accustomed to being bullied by a totalitarian bureaucracy.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    So you want to deport her to a country she's never been to?
    Or do all Koreas look alike to you?

  • Harun||

    As someone who has brought over a non-relative foreign child....this story is missing some details.

    If she is truly adopted, then she should have an immigrant visa, which leads to a 10 year green card, and then she can immediately naturalize.

    Why is she on an F-visa then? Because she didn't have an immigrant visa.

    So, she came over on a tourist visa.

    My prediction is Dad didn't want to do paperwork when he was in Korea either.

    or, more charitably, the biological family was dysfunctional and a parent wouldn't sign off on some documents, so they just had her come over on a tourist visa and figured they could fix this later.

  • Harun||

    The paperwork isn't fun. As others have pointed out.

    I am betting that the biological father had some rights, and they couldn't find him or he refused to sign...and then they chose option 2.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    You would lose that bet.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "If she is truly adopted, then she should have an immigrant visa, which leads to a 10 year green card, and then she can immediately naturalize."

    Had she been adopted ten years ago, that would have been the case, but she wasn't brought to the country until she was almost 16 and her adoption wasn't legal until she was just over 17.

    According to INA section 101(b)(1)(E) she wasn't an adopted "child" eligible for automatic naturalization,

    Your prediction is inaccurate and unsupported by the facts.

  • Harun||

    I also don't see why the kid couldn't just naturalize.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    The entire article is about why she can't naturalize. How could you not see it.

  • HANSENWT||

    Unfortunately we are conflating emotion into this and maybe something needs to be looked at but I can't see any reason why that paperwork was delayed. They new the law and waited and now want the law to bend to them. It may be a viable exception request but either that exception exist (precedence) or it don't and the court has the leeway it feels it has. I have a feeling that Trump had nothing to do with the law in 2013 that was flouted. I have a friend who nearly had their wife deported because of his own laziness to doing the paperwork...and he told me that at the time. We were able to get her citizenship and they ended up moving to Japan anyways. But again people need to follow the law and then if that doesn't work it may be unfair....but these people did not follow the law first and it is put into a Judges hands...this is not a national/Trump situation...this is a local situation between them and that jurisdiction and interpretation on laws that are however old. 2013 would be Obama immigration laws....get your fact straight before you write a story. I expect more from Reason.

  • vek||

    1. Weird name for an Asian dude! Must be half German or something?

    2. Sucks, but the law is the law. She's probably exactly the kind of immigrant we want. But they should have obviously known about the legal age limit, and got this shit handled. Soldiers can get emails, phone calls, and send mail back and forth no problem nowadays when deployed. So he could have done this from overseas without issue.

    As for the broader whining from Nick, look at the polls about the TYPE of immigration most people favor... It ain't let anybody who shows up in. Most people want educated immigrants, who speak English already as the basics. I am totally fine with less immigration than we have now, the same as we have now, or maybe even a bit more than we have now... As long as they're skilled immigrants.

    30 years from now when we've automated away another couple dozen million jobs, all the idiots who pushed for endless hordes of uneducated dirt farmers from the 3rd world to move here are sure gonna look fucking stupid.

  • gphx||

    'Trump is such a racist, unfairly criticizing MS13'.
    https://fxn.ws/2QwZmZx

    We know who you are, we know what you're on the side of, and your time is very limited.

  • dpbisme||

    Yes,

    This is the American that I want to live in.

    Laws need to be followed (We call that the rule of Law).

    When it can be ignored or it meaning changed by who ever is in power this week then it means nothing.

    That is the way Kings and Dictators work, their word is the Law.

    This will be fixed by SOMEONE because no one really wants to send this girl home and it was just an honest error.

    BUT that Judge could not fix it and still follow the Rule of Law.

    Now some creative person need to find another Law ort process to help this family.

  • dpbisme||

    Yes,

    This is the American that I want to live in.

    Laws need to be followed (We call that the rule of Law).

    When it can be ignored or it meaning changed by who ever is in power this week then it means nothing.

    That is the way Kings and Dictators work, their word is the Law.

    This will be fixed by SOMEONE because no one really wants to send this girl home and it was just an honest error.

    BUT that Judge could not fix it and still follow the Rule of Law.

    Now some creative person need to find another Law ort process to help this family.

  • Dave Sweeny||

    ...This article demonstrates a remarkable bias. I assume that legal immigration is governed by law(s.) The specific law that governed this case states ...."16 years of age." The court of first instance, or trial court, quite naturally ruled that the law applies. Or did you think the trial judge was free to ignore the written law? What world are you in?
    ...Where there are extenuating circumstances, however, an appeal lies. If the adoptive father is in the military and pleads foreign deployment and active duty as the extenuating circumstances, do you think he won't win on appeal? Would you care to bet money? Clue. Trump loves the military, and this whole article is a waste of someone's rational faculty. Your statistics are also fishy, and you indulge in misrepresentation. The Republican Administration is not opposed to legal immigration, they are opposed to illegal immigration. Print a retraction.

  • ScottK||

    Apparently the rule of law is a thing for some people as long as we're not talking about the emoluments clause.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online