According to a CNN.com article, an American woman wrote to President Obama asking for his help in resolving her husband’s immigration problem. The hubby’s bid for political asylum had been denied a decade ago, and the man has been dodging immigration authorities since then, remaining in the country illegally.
The guy has not been sitting on his laurels in the meantime, however: the couple got married five years ago, and he finished an engineering degree two years ago.
Having entered the U.S. legally myself, with the intent to marry a U.S. citizen, and being therefore familiar with the process, I find it difficult to understand how a guy who managed to get an engineering degree failed to take care of this problem a long time ago. His wife is even a VP at a marketing firm. Surely they had the financial and intellectual resources to determine the best course of action to change his status.
The President isn’t a 911 operator or an immigration attorney. If you get arrested for dodging a deportation order, your lawyer is your first phone call. The President has taken an oath to uphold the laws of this country; should he personally help you find loopholes around them just because you know how to write a letter and lick a stamp?
I don’t agree with how the man was detained, as described by the article in question, but this piece is written with such an obvious slant that I have to wonder what’s being left out.
Mika Salakka is a Finn living in the United States. He is a nursing assistant, a creative writer, a devoted husband, and an observer of the human condition. His interests range from music and literature to psychology, sociology, medicine, technology, and spirituality.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Normally, when something is left out, there’s a reason for it: someone refuses to comment, or that part of the story is in serious doubt. Sometimes, the reporter can only report what’s confirmed and let the reader get informed both by what is and ISN’T there.
This article, however, contains simple errors that make me wonder if it’s not just a case of poor reporting: “…failed in a bid before political asylum…” instead of “a bid FOR political asylum” and “married on 2005″ instead of “married IN 2005.”
If you’re a reporter and you don’t have a grasp on basic expressions, then I definitely then question your ability to put together a legitimate news report.
I wonder if these people seriously expected Obama to wave some magic wand and make the bad stuff just all go away. You admit a crime to the president and expect it to just be swept under the rug? Don’t see that happening.
And if deportation to Cameroon was as terrifying a thought as they seem to indicate, I suspect his brief time in jail and his ankle monitor stint isn’t nearly as bad in the grand scheme of things.
I do wholeheartedly agree with your point about the intellect of these two as described. They certainly seem to have the brain power and, presumably, the money, to have worked this out one way or another through legal channels without having to take the unlikely step of writing to the president.