American Renaissance

Court Upholds Deportation Order for Couple Trying to Have A Child

AR Articles on Immigration Law Enforcement
Fade to Brown (May 2003)
A Chronicle of Capitulation (Aug. 2002)
Immigration: The Debate Becomes Interesting (Jul. 1995)
Search AmRen.com for Immigration Law Enforcement
More news stories on Immigration Law Enforcement
Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle, January 8, 2008

A federal appeals court upheld a deportation order Monday against a South San Francisco couple who had hoped to gain legal status by having a child, but were forbidden by their Roman Catholic faith to use artificial means of conception.

Peter Fernandez and Martha Katigbak, who emigrated from the Philippines more than 15 years ago, argued that being deported would violate their religious freedom.

The married couple said they were being denied equal treatment under a law that allows illegal residents to seek legalization if their deportation would cause exceptional hardship to a child or other close relative who is a U.S. citizen. The couple said they had been trying to have a child for many years, without success, and were prohibited by their religious beliefs from using in vitro fertilization.

{snip}

The court noted that the couple could have adopted a child and said that their explanation for not adopting — that their immigration status made their lives uncertain — was “not traceable to their religious beliefs.”

Even if they had a child, the court said, they would qualify for protection from deportation only in rare cases of exceptional hardship, such as the child’s serious health problems or special needs in school. That undermines their argument that the immigration law, with its exception for the hardship of a child, is pressuring them to violate their beliefs, the court said.

{snip}

Original article

Email Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

(Posted on January 8, 2008)

     Previous story       Next Story       Post a Comment      Search

Comments

“Even if they had a child, the court said, they would qualify for protection from deportation only in rare cases of exceptional hardship…”

If this is indeed the case, then why is the anchor baby scheme such a booming business for illegal alien mexicans?

an illegal alien is an illegal alien.
These 2 are no different from any other illegal alien.
If 2 face deportation, they all should face deportation.
If you have “protection from deportation only in rare cases…”
even if you have a child, then ALL of the illegal aliens with children should face deportation.

Posted by at 6:44 PM on January 8



I guess this is a hoisted anchor baby. Sorry, the anchor needs to go in the water before the boat is secure.

Posted by Reader-1 at 7:51 PM on January 8


First, the decision validating Arizona’s new illegal immigrant unfriendly legislation after being attacked by hoards of Open Borders/La Raza lobby lawyers and now this the decision…BOTH by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco.

Who’d of thunk it possible?? Is there a new San Francisco street drug that Federal Appellate Court judges are taking??

Posted by Flaxen-headed Strumpet at 8:07 PM on January 8


This twisted logic/defense comes from the field known as “Progessive Constitutionalism”, a field pioneered by U.S. Marxists and “progressives” starting in the 1920’s to cleverly interpret the U.S. Constitution in egalitarian ways… towards realizing the goal of incrementally moving U.S. society towards Socialism. So long as far-left judges hear these twisted arguments, Marxists are able to advance their agenda.

Posted by Marc Robertson at 8:10 PM on January 8


They just wanted an anchor child so they could stay here.

Posted by at 9:34 PM on January 8


So what makes these 2 so special that they warranted the attention and resources of immigration enforcement to investigate and bring deportation proceedings in the first place?

I mean, for christ’s sake, it’s not like we don’t have millions of friggin’ mexican chicken thieves in this country for them to focus on now do we?

That chicken thief arrelano last year. remember her? the one who was hiding out in a church to avoid a deportation order? The only reason she had a deportation order on her was because she committed crimes beyond just entering the US illegally. I think she did some SS fraud or identity theft or something, but the point is, illegal alien hispanics have to commit some crime beyond immigration violations before they draw the attention of immigration enforcement.

Posted by at 10:02 PM on January 8


Having an anchor baby is like hitting the lottery for an illegal. As soon as the baby is born the government starts paying out like a one-armed bandit.

They should have argued that it deprived them of the right to make a living (on welfare).

Posted by Lucas M at 10:22 PM on January 8


Why has this taken 15 freakin’ years?

Posted by GetBackJack at 10:34 PM on January 8


Illegal immigrant caught and deported before concieving an anchor baby - priceless.

I’ll not be shedding a tear in sympathy, my Filipino friends.

Posted by Obscuratus at 10:53 PM on January 8


I wonder what kind of work they have been doing for the last fifteen years.

Posted by Ben D. at 1:02 AM on January 9


Dear Ben D,

What they have those two been doing for the last 15 years, my friend, is laying in bed, trying to make an Anchor Baby…what else are they good for? By the way…I will bet you any money they have been on Welfare all those years too….Any one want to place a bet, out there?

Posted by lydia at 1:22 AM on January 9


10:02 PM on January 8

Remember, the US immigration service is aligned with the NAU hemispheric government merger of US/Mexico/Canada.

That’s why there’s a dual citizen mexican directing USCIS
That’s why the entire immigration bureaucracy is geared towards them. Visit any immigration office. Visit the immigration websites and even call the USCIS customer service line. Central/South American hispanics are clearly the preferred customer.
That’s why central and south american hispanics have to commit some kind of crime beyond immigration violations before they will garner the attention of immigration enforcement with deporation proceedings.

That’s why it shouldn’t surprise you that these 2 asians had deportation proceedings brought against them which would never be brought against a central or south american hispanic illegal alien. I would also be willing to bet that even had such a deportation proceeding been brought against a central or south american hispanic illegal alien, the Federal Court would not have upheld the deportation order as it did in the case of these 2 asians.

That being said, I have no sympathy for these 2 asians, but I clearly see that central and south american hispanics are far and away the more insidious problem when it comes to the immigration invasion and when it comes to the corruption of the US immigration service.

Posted by at 10:49 AM on January 9


Filipinos are the literal Mexicans of Asia.

Posted by Dr. Gutberlet at 11:11 AM on January 9


Some people might mistakenly perceive this ruling as a victory for our side. It isn’t.

I’m currently reading World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War by Max Brooks. In this fantasy about a world-wide plague of the shambling undead come to eat our flesh, our armed forces prioritize their weapons procurement on the basis of RKR, Resource to Kill Ratio. Obviously, they wanted a low RKR, more zombies killed, less resources consumed per kill.

Likewise, we might formulate an RDR, Resouce to Deportation Ratio. If every illegal alien is allowed to appeal his deportation all the way to the Supreme Court before we can kick him out, our RDR will be prohibitively high, and we’ll be overwhelmed by shambling masses of illegal aliens come to eat out our sustenance.

Posted by Gringo_Malo at 11:52 AM on January 9


I think people are missing the point here. Nowhere does it say these two entered illegally. They emigrated from the Phillipines. They were probably here on work visas, or had stood in line waiting for permission to enter legally. The story is not telling us WHY they were deported. It IS telling us there is an obvious double standard working here. Illegals who have a baby get to stay, even though here illegally. Legal immigrants can be deported at any time if they have not achieved the citizenship requirements. Their visas can be revoked for any reason.

If these had been illegal mexicans, they’d have never shown up at court trying to work within the system. They’d have scurried underground or back to Mexico, returning with new false documentation and a new name. Phillipinos are a hell of a lot more law abiding than mexicans. Were it up to me, I’d close the border to all immigration except from select European whites well investigated, and able to contribute to our society, possessing a good education and propsects for a decent job and no likelihood of needing welfare services. Instead, we are looking the other way, while floods of mexicans with third grade educations and criminal records at home invade us, and prey on our services and our communities. And, feeling like we don’t have enough blacks of our own, we are now importing them from every African nation. We get floods of illegal hispanics, and legal blacks. Whites need not apply for immigration. That’s our policy driven by the globalists and socialists running the empire.

Posted by Bill at 1:33 PM on January 9


O.K. that’s two (2) down…..now, only 20,000,000 to go!

Nothing to see hear, move on… move on.

Posted by at 6:54 PM on January 9


Why does any U.S. law apply to anyone who is ‘illegal”?

You’re illegal, you’re gone. Case closed.

Posted by GAonMYmind at 11:09 PM on January 12


Also, let’s not forget the illegals that just got here, yesterday, and are still roaming around. Round ‘em while you can.

We’re doomed if we take every single ‘illegals’ case to court. Those home-fed, ACLU-type workers have all the time and money in the world to pick apart documents to make it okay for the illegals to stay here.

Posted by GAonMYmind at 12:10 AM on January 15



Home      Top      Previous story       Next Story      Search

Post a Comment

Commenting guidelines: We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. Statements of fact and well-considered opinion are welcome, but we will not post comments that include obscenities or insults, whether of groups or individuals. We reserve the right to hold our critics to lower standards.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)