In a case that drew Congressional attention this year in Illinois, Marin Turcinovic, an immigrant from Croatia, was twice denied citizenship because he did not show up at the immigration office to be fingerprinted. As his lawyer explained to no avail, Mr. Turcinovic was a quadriplegic, dependent on a ventilator and unable to leave his home.

Mr. Turcinovic died in April 2004 without becoming a citizen, creating an immigration crisis for his French widow, Corina, who had taken care of him.

The plight of immigrant widows and widowers is discussed in Episode 353 of the public radio show This American Life, entitled The Audacity of Government. The second segment of that show, entitled “This American Wife,” uncovers a strange practice within the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. If a foreign national marries a U.S. citizen and schedules an interview for a green card, but the U.S. citizen dies before the interview takes place, the foreign national is scheduled for deportation with no appeal—even if the couple has children who are U.S. citizens. Courts have repeatedly declared this practice illegal, but this has not altered the Government’s behavior. The 20-min. segment features interviews with a lawyer representing 130+ people who are trapped in this situation.

Does this reflect anxiety over the need to protect our borders? Perhaps. But the first segment of that This American Life episode, entitled “The Prez vs. The Commish,” discusses the Administration’s interference with the operations of the US/Canadian International Boundary Commission. In the interest of monitoring the borders, the Commission barred construction of structures within X feet of the border. The Administration concluded that the need to monitor our borders must give way to a more fundamental need – private property rights – and has therefore basically abrogated the 100-yr-old treaty. Go figure.

Hm. First, none of the cases cited have so far resulted in an actual deportation. So to make the thread title and your statement above accurate you’ll have to either change them to “… are being threatened with deportation ….” or add some cites of actual deportations and show that this has increased over previous years.

Robert is also correct in that while some of these cases should have been handled better, misrepresenting information about marriage or a previous criminal record is good reason to raise suspicion. Remember that the burden for knowing and following the law is on the immigrant, not on the U.S. government.

The article says:

Unfortunately, this is another example of the how the heavy hand of government bureaucracy and the overall “war on terror” climate inevitably leads to more “collateral damage” in the form of ensnaring innocent bystanders more than it helps in catching the real bad guys.

An assertion for which the author offers exactly no evidence. Such as, for example, a comparison of how many “innocent bystanders” have been affected vs. how many bad guys have actually been caught, plus an estimate of how many bad guys have been deterred from trying to enter the U.S. illegally in the first place. Then there’s the issue of what the definition of “innocent bystander” is. Considering a man who conceals a conviction for domestic violence as an “innocent bystander” is a novel position for this blog.

No system will be perfect, but I am inclined to agree that legal immigrants, those who go through the system, should be given a bit more slack and a bit more understanding.

On a side note dealing with illegal immigration, I found it very amusing that they caught Cesar Laurean in mexico because he spoke spanish poorly and that prompted a backround check. HOW DARE THEY!