Authorities Want Illegal Immigrant Father Deported

http://blogwonks.com/2008/07/02/auth...ther-deported/

Ned Holstein, MD, MS and Glenn Sacks

Authorities Want Illegal Immigrant Father Deported
July 2, 2008 at 7:49 am

The media frequently devotes much attention to mothers who are separated
from their children by deportation actions. The treatment is usually highly
sympathetic to the mothers. When fathers are deported away from their
children, little attention is paid. Even when the media covers the issue,
there is little handwringing, as evidenced in a recent straight-facts story
from the Los Angeles Times--Custody case of Long Beach boy complicates
deportation of illegal immigrant (6/30/08) (which can be found at the end of
this article -- Dusty).

The story details the case of Michael Campo, a 10-year-old Los Angeles boy
whose father Carlos Alvarado is an illegal immigrant. Alvarado is fighting
deportation proceedings, saying that he should be allowed to stay in the
U.S. because of his son. According to the Times:

Alvarado sneaked across the Mexican border in 1991. He and Marla Campo met
about five years later and she gave birth to Michael in October 1997. After
a few years, the couple separated. In 2003, Campo disappeared with Michael.
Alvarado called police, who tracked her down...the couple returned to court
and the judge gave the parents joint legal custody...Michael spends every
weekend with his father. Alvarado pays child support and pays for Michael's
health insurance.

Alvarado's trial in immigration court took place in June 2005. The judge
ruled that he could stay in the U.S...The government attorney appealed the
case, saying in court papers that 'this separation is no different than if
[Alvarado] relocated to another state in the U.S.'"

Read the full article here. A few points:

1) The government attorney's argument in favor of deporting the
father--"this separation is no different than if [Alvarado] relocated to
another state in the U.S."--is ludicrous. Forcing Carlos Alvarado to move
back to Mexico will drive a huge wedge between him and his son, and the
relationship might be lost altogether. Consider:

Carlos Alvarado will be unable to visit his son in the United States

Alvarado is dependent upon the child being sent by the custodial mom to
visit him in Mexico. She may not do this--she already kept the child away
from his father in the past, and may well do so again. Though the exes are
getting along well right now, that could change. We also can't help noticing
that the mother gave the child her last name, not his father's. Moreover she
is already saying she doesn't feel safe sending him to a border town in
Mexico.

Carlos Alvarado will have far less income available to him to spend on
visiting his son, communicating with him, buying him gifts, etc.

2) There are many exceptions made in immigration cases. The most notable one
is for women who claim to be victims of domestic violence. The Violence
Against Women Act provides allegedly battered immigrant women a way to
become US residents. For example, women in deportation proceedings can claim
domestic violence and get a "cancellation of removal" and obtain residency.

We have mixed emotions about this VAWA provision. We certainly favor aiding
battered women, but we know from family court how frequently false claims
are made in order to gain advantages. Regardless, if we can make an
exception to immigration laws for allegedly battered wives, we should also
be able to make exceptions to protect a 10-year-old boy from losing his
father.

3) Let's look at it from another angle. First, let's disregard the human
factor. Second, let's assume that illegal immigrants really are harmful to
the US--a debatable assertion, but let's use it for the purposes of this
argument. Looking at this case only in light of dollars and cents, the
father still should be allowed to stay in the US. Why? Consider:

a) The boy is a U.S. citizen--whatever problems he encounters or creates,
the US will have to deal with them. The boy is far less likely to become
involved in crime or drugs, drop out of school or become a burden to society
if he has a dad in his life than if he doesn't. All of those cost the
taxpayer money--allowing Alvarado to stay would probably save taxpayers
money in the long run.

b) The father pays child support and also pays for the boy's health
insurance. If he's deported, both will cease, and the taxpayers will likely
end up footing the bill.

4) If Alvarado is deported, he might also face child support enforcement
action. He would have to get a downward modification of his child support
based on his new, lower earnings in Mexico, which isn't easy to do for
anybody, much less a low-income man living in Mexico. Arrearages will mount.
Even if he finds legal ways to return to the US to see his child, marry, or
work, he will be subject to arrest for child support arrearages. It is even
possible that an extradition treaty with Mexico exists such that he will be
arrested and brought to the US for child support arrearages.

Any way you look at this, everyone is better off if this hardworking and
devoted dad is allowed to stay in the US -- the child, the mom, the dad,
his employer, and the US taxpayer.

----------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...823,full.story

Custody case of Long Beach boy complicates deportation of illegal immigrant

The case is a clash between rulings by a California family court judge and a
federal immigration court. Such cases may grow.
By Anna Gorman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 30, 2008
On Friday nights, Michael Campo throws his clothes and homework into his
backpack and waits at his mom's Long Beach apartment for the phone to ring.
When it does, 10-year-old Michael runs downstairs and jumps into his dad's
car.

Thus begins the weekly ritual familiar to millions of American children in
split families who bounce back and forth between mother and father.

But Michael's situation has an added wrinkle that threatens to derail the
custody agreement and his weekends with Dad: Carlos Alvarado is an illegal
immigrant involved in deportation proceedings.

Alvarado's case raises complex questions that will increasingly face both
state and federal judges: What happens when immigration law and family law
conflict? When a parent is here illegally, does a federal deportation order
automatically trump a state custody order? Should child custody issues be
considered in immigration cases?

A Los Angeles immigration judge ruled that Alvarado could stay in the
country, determining that he wouldn't be able to continue his family
court-ordered visitation and child support payments if deported.

Because Alvarado shares custody of his U.S.-citizen son with the boy's
mother, the judge wrote, he doesn't have the option of taking the child home
to Mexico.

A higher court overruled that decision and sent the case back to the judge.
Alvarado is scheduled to return to immigration court this summer.

"I could lose everything, and above all, the right to be with my son," said
Alvarado, 36, who lives in Lakewood.

The Executive Office of Immigration Review, which oversees immigration
courts nationwide, said it does not track cases involving split families.

Alvarado's attorney, Alan Diamante, said there are no published court
decisions for immigration judges to follow when immigration and family law
intersect.

"They definitely need to give guidance on these cases," he said.

Former Los Angeles immigration judge Bruce J. Einhorn said the state family
court and the federal immigration court are completely different systems,
run by two different governments.

"What you really have is an occasional train wreck waiting to happen," he
said. "You have two systems speeding along and, when they meet, it's usually
a head-on collision."

A custody fight

Carlos Alvarado sneaked across the Mexican border in 1991. He and Marla
Campo met about five years later and she gave birth to Michael in October
1997. After a few years, the couple separated.

In family court, the judge gave Campo custody of Michael. Under the order,
the boy would visit his father one evening during the week and two weekends
each month.

In 2003, Campo disappeared with Michael. Alvarado called police, who tracked
her down. She said she was angry at Alvarado for not helping her
financially.

"It got ugly," said Campo, a nurse's assistant and legal permanent resident
from Belize.

The couple returned to court and the judge modified the order to give the
parents joint legal custody. Though the custody order designated two
weekends a month for Alvarado, Michael spends every weekend with his father.

The judge also set a child support payment of $276 a month. Alvarado, who
has a work permit and has been with the same plastering company for 13
years, also pays for Michael's health insurance.

Alvarado landed in immigration court after violating probation on prior
convictions of driving under the influence and driving on a suspended
license. County jail officials referred him to immigration authorities.

Alvarado's trial in immigration court took place in June 2005. Judge
Christine E. Stancill ruled that he could stay in the U.S., saying that if
Alvarado were deported, communication and visits with Michael would appear
to be an "impossibility."

Stancill noted that in other cases, an undocumented parent may take the
entire family home to his native country if deported.

"The compelling difference in this case is that the family would not be
returning intact to Mexico but rather the respondent's relationship with his
7-year-old son would be permanently severed," she wrote in the decision.

She added: "The emphasis on the emotional well-being of the child is well
founded in our child custody laws, and to go even further would be contrary
to the spirit of our immigration laws."

The government attorney appealed the case, saying in court papers that "this
separation is no different than if [Alvarado] relocated to another state in
the U.S."

In February 2007, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued its decision
overturning the ruling.

The board determined that the effect of Alvarado's visitation with Michael
was not enough to meet the required standard for him to stay in the country.
The board noted that Alvarado said he would live in the border town of
Mexicali if deported, which "would not require a lengthy journey for the
respondent's children to visit him."

But it would rely on the willingness of Michael's mother to allow her young
son to travel south of the border.

Campo, 32, also has three children from another relationship. She and
Alvarado now get along and communicate regularly about their son. Campo said
she doesn't want Alvarado to be deported, and she doesn't want her son
leaving the country.

"I've heard a lot of things about Mexico," she said. "I just don't feel safe
sending him there."

Alvarado has two other U.S.-born sons -- ages 2 and 4 -- with his current
girlfriend, an illegal immigrant from Brazil. If Alvarado is deported, his
girlfriend said, she and the two boys would go with him to Mexico.

Alvarado said he feels caught between two conflicting courts. If he is
deported, he said, he won't be able to afford the child support payment and
will be in violation of a state court order. But if he is ordered deported
and stays, then he will be in violation of a federal court order.

"One way or another, it's a risk for me," he said.

Possible options

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider, who has been
presiding over family law cases for nearly three decades, couldn't comment
about Alvarado's situation but said deportation cases shouldn't be treated
differently from traditional cases in which a parent moves away.

A parent could ask a judge to order cross-border visitation. A judge could
also alter a child support order after a deportation. If the parent already
had been deported, he probably would need to send a family law attorney in
his place to court proceedings, Schnider said.

"Just because somebody is forcing you to move away, it still ends up the
same for the child," he said. "There is really no reason why a child
shouldn't be able to visit their parent wherever they live."

Making the visitation work, however, could be expensive and complicated,
Schnider said. And a judge would consider any potential concerns about
whether the deported parent would return the child after a visit.

Schnider said parents fighting for custody of their children often try to
make immigration status a factor, but he takes it into account only if it
"reflects on the risk of flight from the country with the child."

Einhorn, the retired immigration judge, said there is no formal mechanism
for state and federal court judges to communicate about cases or possible
outcomes. An immigration judge has no authority to alter a custody order, he
said, but an immigration case may have a profound effect on a parent's
custodial status.

"This has been a challenge to the courts for as long as I remember," he
said. "One court doesn't know necessarily what the other court is doing,
like the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing. It's one of those
challenges that we have yet to meet."

Pasadena attorney Colin Greene, who practices both immigration and family
law, said he thinks the number of cases such as Alvarado's probably will
increase with stepped-up immigration enforcement.

"You deport more people, you are going to have more people with family law
court problems," he said. "You are going to see a lot more international
custody and visitation orders. It is going to be an issue that judges are
going to have to deal with more and more."

"Dusty" wrote in

Former Los Angeles immigration judge Bruce J. Einhorn said the state
family court and the federal immigration court are completely different
systems, run by two different governments.

"What you really have is an occasional train wreck waiting to happen," he
said. "You have two systems speeding along and, when they meet, it's
usually a head-on collision."

LOL, I was a legal immigrant until immigration pulled my green card due to
arrearages!

So you have one court telling you that it's illegal to earn money and
another court saying you must pay money which is in the Neighborhood of
$70,000 dollars now.

When I was legally working, my wages were garnished about $800/mth which
left me with $700 to live on.

I'm not too worried, this whole country is going down the toilet anyways!
LOL
There's people out their in a lot worse situations who will lose everything
in this coming Depression.

Like to see the courts demand that men still work to pay C$ when the jobs
are not there and most are living in Rail cars. Congratulations America,
you have finally achieved independence from freedom.

Future generations can thank you for ****ing away what past generations had
given their lives for.

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
http://blogwonks.com/2008/07/02/auth...ther-deported/

Any way you look at this, everyone is better off if this hardworking and
devoted dad is allowed to stay in the US -- the child, the mom, the dad,
his employer, and the US taxpayer.

I disagree with this conclusion. If the presence of money being provided
and exchanged were a reason to not enforce our laws, then lots of people
could buy their way out of being prosecuted for breaking the law. Why have
immigration laws if we never intend to enforce them?

I'm an avid advocate of enforcing our immigrations laws and knock off all
the exceptions on top of exceptions that are built on sob stories like this
one where the situation pulls on your heart strings. The L.A. Times is
notorious for producing these types of emotional stories regarding illegal
immigrants to advance their pro-illegal alien agenda.

One fact the article leaves out is the father could, after deportation,
apply for legal immigration and return to the U.S. with legal status.

"Bob W" wrote in

One fact the article leaves out is the father could, after deportation,
apply for legal immigration and return to the U.S. with legal status.

Yes, once his automatic 10 year band expires, then he can start applying for
a immigration visa but doubt he has anything that qualifies him for any of
the various visa categories.

Most applications are on a 7 year wait once they are approved!

"DB" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in

One fact the article leaves out is the father could, after deportation,
apply for legal immigration and return to the U.S. with legal status.

Yes, once his automatic 10 year band expires, then he can start applying
for a immigration visa but doubt he has anything that qualifies him for
any of the various visa categories.

Most applications are on a 7 year wait once they are approved!

The U.S. Congress set up our legal immigration laws the way they did for a
reason. Illegal immigrants are breaking those laws and thumbing their noses
at the U.S. rule of law. They are substituting their own personal will for
the will of the people approved by our elected representatives.

Non-citizens from inside or outside the U.S. do not have any legitimate
authority to decide what our laws should be. My position is to deport all
of them regardless of their sob stories.

It is bad enough we have allowed pregnant women to illegally enter the U.S.
and have their kids here making the children U.S. citizens. I say deport
the illegal moms and deport the illegal dads but let the kids stay, if the
parents so choose, to enjoy their U.S. citizenship without their parents.
And I say let the "dual citizenship" children decide for themselves which
country's citizenship they opt for when they reach the age of majority.

"Bob W" wrote in

Non-citizens from inside or outside the U.S. do not have any legitimate
authority to decide what our laws should be. My position is to deport all
of them regardless of their sob stories.

I support that position too!

I would add that any baby not born of a legal resident does not qualify for
automatic US citizenship.

Why can't that be changed in the law?

"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in

One fact the article leaves out is the father could, after deportation,
apply for legal immigration and return to the U.S. with legal status.

Yes, once his automatic 10 year band expires, then he can start applying
for a immigration visa but doubt he has anything that qualifies him for
any of the various visa categories.

Most applications are on a 7 year wait once they are approved!

The U.S. Congress set up our legal immigration laws the way they did for a
reason. Illegal immigrants are breaking those laws and thumbing their
noses at the U.S. rule of law. They are substituting their own personal
will for the will of the people approved by our elected representatives.

Non-citizens from inside or outside the U.S. do not have any legitimate
authority to decide what our laws should be. My position is to deport all
of them regardless of their sob stories.

It is bad enough we have allowed pregnant women to illegally enter the
U.S. and have their kids here making the children U.S. citizens. I say
deport the illegal moms and deport the illegal dads but let the kids stay,
if the parents so choose, to enjoy their U.S. citizenship without their
parents. And I say let the "dual citizenship" children decide for
themselves which country's citizenship they opt for when they reach the
age of majority.

Something the article doesn't mention.. whither or not the mother of the kid
is also an illegal.

Hmmmm, if she is, the thing would smack of a double-standard being applied.
It would be interesting to find out if she is or is not.

"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in

One fact the article leaves out is the father could, after deportation,
apply for legal immigration and return to the U.S. with legal status.

Yes, once his automatic 10 year band expires, then he can start applying
for a immigration visa but doubt he has anything that qualifies him for
any of the various visa categories.

Most applications are on a 7 year wait once they are approved!

The U.S. Congress set up our legal immigration laws the way they did for a
reason. Illegal immigrants are breaking those laws and thumbing their
noses at the U.S. rule of law. They are substituting their own personal
will for the will of the people approved by our elected representatives.

Non-citizens from inside or outside the U.S. do not have any legitimate
authority to decide what our laws should be. My position is to deport all
of them regardless of their sob stories.

It is bad enough we have allowed pregnant women to illegally enter the
U.S. and have their kids here making the children U.S. citizens. I say
deport the illegal moms and deport the illegal dads but let the kids stay,
if the parents so choose, to enjoy their U.S. citizenship without their
parents. And I say let the "dual citizenship" children decide for
themselves which country's citizenship they opt for when they reach the
age of majority.

I agree wholeheartedly Bob. Birthright citzenship from illegals needs to go.
If Congress would do away with that. and impose severe punishment on
businesses that employ illegals, I think that would just about solve the
problem. Do away with the reasons they come, and they'll stop coming.