There’s the attorney-client privilege and the confidence of priest and penitent, but apparently no such expectation of privacy between the president and U.S. citizens. Such was learned the hardest possible way by Caroline Jamieson, who recently penned a personal letter to President Obama pleading for intervention after exhausting legal options available to her husband, a Cameroonian immigrant facing imminent deportation.
The letter’s federal response, however, didn’t come on presidential letterhead, or even as a form letter. Instead, two Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials showed up outside the couple’s New York apartment, arresting Jamieson’s husband Hervé as he left for the gym. The officers explained their presence owed to Caroline’s letter, and held Hervé, chained and shackled, in a New Jersey jail for felons for over two weeks until he was finally released last Thursday.
Formerly political fans of President Obama, the couple are reported to have begun having second thoughts. Perhaps they should have tried email instead.
June 22nd, 2010 | 6:08 pm
“immanent deportation”?
No authority on earth could help with that. Heh.
June 22nd, 2010 | 6:37 pm
WHO GAVE THE IMMIGRATION AUTORITIES THE LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT?
I can write and you can write to whomever you wish. BUT if the correspondence is ‘hijacked’ by unscruplous people who break the law themselves by opening up others letters then they should be sent to prision too!
There is one law for one side and another law for the others! So if people are breaking so called “law” then who’s law are they breaking anyways?
LAW this LAW that. Every so many minutes there is a new “LAW” being crafted for someone who wants to grind their own axe. Who is one to believe. How can one keep up with all these new laws that are being manufactured?
June 22nd, 2010 | 8:01 pm
Being in any country without documentation (comeing to a country illegally is a crime just like any othr crime, and this msut be recongnized and strong action taken for our secuirty and safety of ALL American citizens,) is illegal. These are crimes. common knowledge, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
June 22nd, 2010 | 10:04 pm
A pretty inexcusable episode to be sure. What apparently happened is the White House mailroom read the letter, recognized it was a complaint about immigration procedures and then forwarded it on to the New York ICE field office for further action. But ICE — rather than address the woman’s actual complaint — instead handed it off to enforcement agents. This is a violation of federal regulations and the relevant ICE official who made this decision should be disciplined.
It is not true that the man in this case was an “illegal immigrant.” The issue is that he came to the U.S. and applied for refugee status and his application got held up for years. In the meantime, he met an American woman and married her.
As the husband of an American citizen, he has the right to a spousal visa absent any criminal background or any other such disqualifying fact. The problem is the U.S. wants him to leave the country, apply for the visa in Cameroon and then wait months until the visa is granted before coming back to the U.S. He seems to have legitimate fear of going back to his home country.
So the whole issue boils down to bureaucratic nonsense and incompetence. I always tell people that if you think the DMV is bad, you should try dealing with American immigration authorities.
June 23rd, 2010 | 4:03 am
It is interesting to note the prejudice and vitriol in the majority of comments on the CNN website. Many of the correspondents have found both the man and his American wife guilty before seeing any evidence. thank goodness for a more measured response on this board. I hope later posters will not prove me wrong.
June 23rd, 2010 | 6:08 am
What is the story here? That when you write to the President of the United States, a branch of the US Government, and inform it of a crime, that it will not respond as it should and enforce the law?
June 23rd, 2010 | 9:41 am
What is the story here? That when you write to the President of the United States, a branch of the US Government, and inform it of a crime, that it will not respond as it should and enforce the law?
That certainly is not the lesson as no crime was committed or even alleged here. If you read my earlier comment or the actual article, you will come to realize this.
June 23rd, 2010 | 9:41 pm
Respect for the rule of law should be a primary factor in determining if a prospective immigrant gains entry in the US.
Takoulo was here in the US without a visa when he applied for asylum and to stop deportation procedures. He was denied asylum, and ordered deported.
His application wasn’t “held up.” The application for asylum was made in January 2006, and he was denied by the court in March 2006. Not only did he apply for asylum, but also to cease deportation proceedings. He was denied that request, also. Since he did not voluntarily comply, he disregarded a court’s legal order. This is the crime I mentioned.
So. Why didn’t he just apply for a visa in 2005 based on marriage? (It would seem to be a more direct route, as asylum is a high standard to hurdle… wouldn’t you agree?) This question is what the court is now trying to determine, and reasonably raises suspicion. Which is why he wears an ankle bracelet.
June 24th, 2010 | 2:06 am
John, where are you getting your information from? The CNN article states Takoulo “failed in a bid before political asylum almost a decade ago, and a judge issued a deportation order after they were married.” Almost a decade ago is 2000 or 2001.
Again, the article states he applied for a green card in 2005 after getting married based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen. However, as the article states and any immigration attorney will confirm, an application for a green card will not be accepted once a deportation order is issued — which happened in this case before he got the chance to get his green card. The deportation order was issued in his earlier failed bid for asylum, not in connection with any violation of the law on his part.
Please point to the exact federal law Takalou violated if you are so sure that he committed a crime. Immigration proceedings are generally civil and administrative in nature rather than criminal — an exception is illegal entry or filing fraudulent documentation, neither of which are alleged in this case as far as I can tell.
Moreover, Takalou has been released and his deportation has been stayed pending further proceedings. If the deportation order is finally lifted — as it should be — Takalou will be issued a green card and have permanent residency, just like every other foreign spouse of a U.S. citizen.
June 24th, 2010 | 3:33 am
A New York Times article confirms that Takalou originally arrived in the U.S. on a business visa before applying for asylum. Again, where is this information coming from that he did not have a visa or that he waited until 2006 to apply for asylum?
June 24th, 2010 | 6:44 am
Mark,
So that we do not drag this out, the actual decision is in the pacer system here:
pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/051835.U.pdf
You may be able to google it if you cannot access the federal database w/o a subscription. I agree with much of what you say, but it doesn’t apply in this case. Note violation of title 8, section 1325, improper entry by an alien, is indeed a crime, not civil law. Also note the application is Takoulo vs. Gonzales, then US Attorney.
I suspect, along with ICE, that most likely the marriage is motivated by citizenship, given what we know. Perhaps it is true that he will be issued a green card after all is said and done, but surely you agree, after reviewing the actual documents, and the law you have rightly requested, that there are grounds to be suspicious.
I respect your intelligence and passion on this, but like most of what passes for news, there is much more than meets the eye. I believe the story is meant to encourage people to be suspicious of authority in general, and to fear our immigration services and law enforcement agencies in particular, in the service of ultimately achieving a political result- a very liberal immigration policy.
June 24th, 2010 | 10:11 am
Thanks for the link, John. Note that this decision was a federal court decision on Takoulo’s appeal. Immigration cases begin with actual immigration officers then go to administrative judges on appeal and then finally wind up in federal district court. The fact that this appeal was lodged in 2006 does not mean that was when Takoulo’s original petition for asylum was filed — the news articles are likely correct that it was filed much earlier.
There are not any additional facts in the decision so I see no reason yet to doubt the facts as reported.
Note that as Takoulo’s original entry into the U.S. was on a business visa, he cannot be assumed to be guilty of illegal entry.
If his marriage is a sham, by all means deport him. But he ought to have his day in court to show the marriage is not a sham. And he does not get that as long as he has a pending deportation order hanging over his head. So I say lift the order and let him argue his case for staying in the U.S. legally.
My position is that the government should not be forcibly separating married couples without a good reason. Call it “family values” if you want.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact