Deported because parents came here Illegally

[DARUMA07 25]

';INDEPENDENCE, Mo. — Rigoberto Damain was just 6-years-old when he came to the United States, and has no memory of living or going to school in his native Mexico. But now the 28-year-old father of three American children is facing deportation from the only country he's ever known.

Damain was brought to the U.S. illegally as a child, but his immigration status was revealed during a traffic stop three years ago. On Friday, Damain picked up his final paperwork from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"The order of departure that I basically have to leave the country," said Damain. "Well it's pretty tough, leaving 3 kids and a wife. I mean especially a newborn that's only 5-months-old."

An immigration judge ruled in a 15-page report that Damain should be allowed to stay in the U.S., but the Department of Homeland Security appealed the ruling and won, and Damain will board a bus for Mexico early Saturday morning. On Friday, he worked his final day at the grocery store he worked at for 70 hours a week. Even on his last day in the U.S., he says that he didn't want to burn any bridges.

"They wished me good luck," said Damain.

Immigration attorney Angela Williams says that Damain would have a long road to travel before he would be allowed to stay in the U.S.

"In order to become legal in the U.S. you have to have a petitioner," said Williams. "He's got a brother who's going to soon be a U.S. citizen, but the wait in that category is over 20 years."

Williams says that Damain's best hope for returning to the U.S. won't come until his 8-year-old daughter turns 21, when she can legally petition for her father to return home.

Damain says that he was in the process of buying a house. His American daughters have a hard time understanding why their father has to leave.

"I can't believe after being here 22 years, they're cutting my family in half," said Damain.

http://www.fox4kc.co...,0,299985.story

[MikelanNida 28]

';INDEPENDENCE, Mo. — Rigoberto Damain was just 6-years-old when he came to the United States, and has no memory of living or going to school in his native Mexico. But now the 28-year-old father of three American children is facing deportation from the only country he's ever known.

Damain was brought to the U.S. illegally as a child, but his immigration status was revealed during a traffic stop three years ago. On Friday, Damain picked up his final paperwork from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"The order of departure that I basically have to leave the country," said Damain. "Well it's pretty tough, leaving 3 kids and a wife. I mean especially a newborn that's only 5-months-old."

An immigration judge ruled in a 15-page report that Damain should be allowed to stay in the U.S., but the Department of Homeland Security appealed the ruling and won, and Damain will board a bus for Mexico early Saturday morning. On Friday, he worked his final day at the grocery store he worked at for 70 hours a week. Even on his last day in the U.S., he says that he didn't want to burn any bridges.

"They wished me good luck," said Damain.

Immigration attorney Angela Williams says that Damain would have a long road to travel before he would be allowed to stay in the U.S.

"In order to become legal in the U.S. you have to have a petitioner," said Williams. "He's got a brother who's going to soon be a U.S. citizen, but the wait in that category is over 20 years."

Williams says that Damain's best hope for returning to the U.S. won't come until his 8-year-old daughter turns 21, when she can legally petition for her father to return home.

Damain says that he was in the process of buying a house. His American daughters have a hard time understanding why their father has to leave.

"I can't believe after being here 22 years, they're cutting my family in half," said Damain.

http://www.fox4kc.co...,0,299985.story

this is a sad story, and a frequent one here in texas!

[Brother Hesekiel 2,235]

this is a sad story, and a frequent one here in texas!

The US Government realizes that children have no say in where parents take them. Therefore illegal presence is not recorded until the child becomes an adult. At age 18, however, the argument "because of my parents" doesn't hold water anymore. An adult is responsible for his own actions, including getting married, knowing that deportation can happen at any time, and including making babies, knowing that deportation can happen any time. Had he left the US between his 18th birthday and 179 days following it, he could have entered the US with a CR-1 visa again without any ill effects.

Secondly, nobody is tearing a family apart here. They can choose to continue living together, for a change in his home country.

If he leaves but his wife decides to stay in the US alone, it's not the US Government's fault either.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

I don't know very many teenagers who have enough knowledge of the immigration system to cure their status problems before their 18th birthday.

This is a terribly egregious law. If an alien can PROVE they were brought here by their parents when they were still dependent on those parents, they should be allowed to become legal residents.

[TwoCats 55]

I have some mixed feelings about cases like this.

It seems to me that the guy in the article knew that he was here illegally.

You can't blame him for being brought here as a child, but he did knowingly stay as an adult.

What confuses me is: What is the status of the wife?

They mention his only route back into the country is through his daughter.

This brings me back to a discussion my fiance' and I had about someone in a similar situation.

He knew someone from a game we both play who claimed not to know he was illegal until he tried to get into college.

He was fighting deportation proceedings back to a country he hadn't been to since he was an infant, with no ability to speak the language and no family to turn to. I don't know the end-result of this situation, but I was wondering...

For the sake of discussion, do you think it would/should matter if the person doesn't know they are here illegally?

Do you think it's even possible to live here all your life and /NOT/ know you're here illegally?

I mean, I can remember plenty of times in my school life where I had to provide a SSN and/or birth certificate. Maybe if the parents had forged documents, but still it seems unlikely to me that someone wouldn't have any idea.

[Darnell 8,478]

Interesting his WIFE wasn't mentioned as a possible petitioner. I wonder why?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

For the sake of discussion, do you think it would/should matter if the person doesn't know they are here illegally?

Do you think it's even possible to live here all your life and /NOT/ know you're here illegally?

I think it would be possible for a young person to not realize they are here illegally.

I don't think it's possible to live here all your life and not figure it out eventually.

Interesting his WIFE wasn't mentioned as a possible petitioner. I wonder why?

I do not see a wife referred to in the article.

*oops there it is*

She might be a common law wife?

Edited February 8, 2011 by Rebecca Jo

[Brother Hesekiel 2,235]

For the sake of discussion, do you think it would/should matter if the person doesn't know they are here illegally?

I would challenge you to answer your own question and I'll make it easy for you.

Two guys bang a 12 year-old. The case goes to court.

Both . . . uhhh . . . offenders have different court dates. Offender number 1 pleads guilty. Offender number 2 says he didn't know it was against the law.

Offender number 1 is sentenced to jail for statutory rape. Should offender number 2 be able to go home because of his claimed ignorance of the law?

[TwoCats 55]

I would challenge you to answer your own question and I'll make it easy for you.

Two guys bang a 12 year-old. The case goes to court.

Both . . . uhhh . . . offenders have different court dates. Offender number 1 pleads guilty. Offender number 2 says he didn't know it was against the law.

Offender number 1 is sentenced to jail for statutory rape. Should offender number 2 be able to go home because of his claimed ignorance of the law?

Uh. It actually isn't a question I need answered. Thanks.

I know the legality of the situation.

I only raised it for discussion because that was the point of contention between my fiance' and I when we discussed it. He claimed that since the person he knew had no idea he was illegal, that he should be given some consideration. I argued that (1) It didn't matter if he knew or not, because it was still an illegal presence and (2) because I doubted that he could go through his entire life and NOT know, and that if he did, he was probably using false documents which is another crime in and of itself.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,235]

Two cats,

the scenario I outlined is exactly the same, so the same maxim applies. I asked, should the offender #2 be given extra consideration or leniency because he claimed not having known about the illegality of his actions?

No difference if it's shooting someone, raping someone, running a red light, parking at an expired meter, or being in a country illegally. While the actions are different, the legal framework surrounding those actions is the same.

Now, when determining the punishment for a crime, a judge oftentimes explores the motives of the offender. If those motives warrant consideration, the ruling usually reflects this. But whether guilty or not guilty does not depend on the offender's knowledge of the law, only on his or her actions.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Two cats,

the scenario I outlined is exactly the same, so the same maxim applies. I asked, should the offender #2 be given extra consideration or leniency because he claimed not having known about the illegality of his actions?

No difference if it's shooting someone, raping someone, running a red light, parking at an expired meter, or being in a country illegally. While the actions are different, the legal framework surrounding those actions is the same.

Now, when determining the punishment for a crime, a judge oftentimes explores the motives of the offender. If those motives warrant consideration, the ruling usually reflects this. But whether guilty or not guilty does not depend on the offender's knowledge of the law, only on his or her actions.

Not two cats at all.

First of all you are splitting hairs about whether two rapists should be charged differently.

Now that we have that out of the way, the rapists in your analogy actually committed the crime. They are the ones who attacked the girl.

A baby or a child being carried into the US by someone else is hardly committing a crime on their own.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,235]

Not two cats at all.

First of all you are splitting hairs about whether two rapists should be charged differently.

Now that we have that out of the way, the rapists in your analogy actually committed the crime. They are the ones who attacked the girl.

A baby or a child being carried into the US by someone else is hardly committing a crime on their own.

You are not reading with enough attention.

TwoCats is the user name of the VJ member whose post I responded to.

Secondly, as I already mentioned in my first post, this is not about a baby or a child, as neither babies nor children accrue illegal presence in the US. Illegal presence does not start until the child becomes an adult and then he or she has another 180 days to leave the US without any ill effect.

This is about a 28-year old man, who hardly can blame his parents for the past 10 years of his life. Thus, he did indeed "commit the crime" and he is solely responsible for it. The defense he didn't know has the same impact as somebody who got a parking ticket and tells the judge he didn't know that parking wasn't allowed there or somebody who ran a red light and tells the judge that he didn't know that this wasn't okay or somebody who had sex with a 12-year-old and tells the judge he didn't know that this was against the law.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

You are not reading with enough attention.

TwoCats is the user name of the VJ member whose post I responded to.

Secondly, as I already mentioned in my first post, this is not about a baby or a child, as neither babies nor children accrue illegal presence in the US. Illegal presence does not start until the child becomes an adult and then he or she has another 180 days to leave the US without any ill effect.

This is about a 28-year old man, who hardly can blame his parents for the past 10 years of his life. Thus, he did indeed "commit the crime" and he is solely responsible for it. The defense he didn't know has the same impact as somebody who got a parking ticket and tells the judge he didn't know that parking wasn't allowed there or somebody who ran a red light and tells the judge that he didn't know that this wasn't okay or somebody who had sex with a 12-year-old and tells the judge he didn't know that this was against the law.

So what's your excuse Bob? When you entered the US as an adult and stayed illegally for years? You would deny others who came in innocently through no fault of their own the same opportunity afforded you? When you also had full knowledge of what you were doing?

Hypocrite.

[Boiler 43,451]

There is no mention of a wife, just that he fathered 3 children. No mention of the mother(s).

We know he was driving, so how did he get a license.

We know he was working, how did he get work authorisation.

So many questions so little information.

[TwoCats 55]

There is no mention of a wife, just that he fathered 3 children. No mention of the mother(s).

We know he was driving, so how did he get a license.

We know he was working, how did he get work authorisation.

So many questions so little information.

"The order of departure that I basically have to leave the country," said Damain. "Well it's pretty tough, leaving 3 kids and a wife. I mean especially a newborn that's only 5-months-old."

(Quoted from the article.)

Bowing out from the rest of the discussion, however.

I brought up the similar situation (which was a late-teenager - 18 or 19 y/o) because it was something my fiance' and I had discussed a month or two back. I was well aware of the legalities of the situation, but was asking what people 'think' about the circumstances of that situation vs. this one.

In any case, consider it 'dropped'.