What an outrage. Thanks for bringing attention to this story.

One thing i don't understand is that after having a child in the U.S. that child would be considered a U.S. citizen and the Daneceks would be eligible under their son's status to gain citizenship. Isn't this 'chain migration' the very way middle eastern, Indian, Chinese, and other, communities get established?

This story reminds me of a Sri Lankan that attended my mom's church. He had come here on a student VISA ten years before..was a contributing member to society, no crime, very,very nce guy who was completely assimilated...but that VISA had expired so he turned himself in (when he heard the INS was looking for him) and was sent back to Sri Lanka where Muslims don't think much of converts to Christianity.

They came here for emergency medical treatment for their now 26 year old son. He fine and they won't leave. They are here ILLEGALLY. So now they're a LEGALLY being deported. Tough.

You pick on the Latinos why? Because they aren't as white as this family? Because these people have been here (illegally) long enough to get jobs, buy a house, and learn the language? You contend that even though you're illegal you can stay here if (a) you speak English well enough, (b) you get a job ,(c) have a kid while you're here, or (d) you're white enough. It's (d) isn't it? They're too much like you to be deported? Otherwise, why would you start this out with a rant against Latinos? There are some definite racial undertones in your post.

The real story here- which you ignore- is that the husband is employed by Hennepin County. It is against the law to hire illegal immigrants- so why and how did he get a job with the County?

Dave S.,

You make a really serious jump of "logic" in your little screedlet above. Actually several, but I'm willing to chalk a few of them up to impaired reading comprehension:

"They came here for emergency medical treatment for their now 26 year old son. He fine and they won't leave. They are here ILLEGALLY. So now they're a LEGALLY being deported. Tough."

Yep. It's legal. Law über alles! But given all the de facto exceptions that happen to our immigration codes, you'd think a rational system would have the ability to make the odd exception. As indeed it might, if Sen. Coleman is successful.

"You pick on the Latinos why?"

I don't - and shame on you (on the off chance you're capable of it) for finding bigotry where there is none (typical as that is among your set). I noted that there are millions of illegals in this country, tolerated and spottily enforced for a variety of reasons, people who don't contribute nearly as much to our society, people who haven't even made cursory attempts to work through the system. Skin color is irrelevant, and wasn't mentioned or, fact is, thought of.

" Because they aren't as white as this family?"

I'm going to let that sentence sit there like the festering little rhetorical turd it is, a monument to your logical ineptitude.

" Because these people have been here (illegally) long enough to get jobs, buy a house, and learn the language? You contend that even though you're illegal you can stay here if (a) you speak English well enough, (b) you get a job ,(c) have a kid while you're here, or (d) you're white enough. It's (d) isn't it?"

Ibid.

"The real story here- which you ignore- is that the husband is employed by Hennepin County. It is against the law to hire illegal immigrants- so why and how did he get a job with the County?"

As I understand it, people on extended medical visas are allowed to get jobs; after all, not everyone that comes here for treatment is well-off.

Someone who knows what they're talking about (as opposed to someone who just plays the race card with all the nuance and grace of a Prussian jazz band), help out here?

Racist! Racist! Mitch is a racist! He hatesssss the Prusssssianssss!

For shame, Mitch. For shame.

I'm just wondering why your heart goes out to this one family of illegals from Europe when there are plenty of equally compelling cases from other parts of the world. Have you been regularly writing about the plight of Asian, African, and American immigrants and maybe I missed it?

Maybe if you didn't introduce a post about Czech illegals like this:

"The US, and the Twin Cities, are awash in immigrants who refuse to assimilate into American culture. Illegals from Mexico..."

I wouldn't think that you were a bit biased against Latinos.

And speaking of jumping to conclusions:

"...(typical as that is among your set)..."

Maybe Monday is just your day to sterotype people.

"Have you been regularly writing about the plight of Asian, African, and American immigrants and maybe I missed it?"

Regularly? I've written about it, yes, especially about refugees.

"Illegals from Mexico..."

Your ellipsis is disingenuous; you cut out a key part, the illegals whose sentiments are actively anti-American, and who wish for the southwest to secede.

That's not a swat at Latinos, that's a swat at Latinos who actively hate this country.

It's a pretty important distinction.

"Maybe Monday is just your day to sterotype people."

And you shake those stereotypes precisely how?

A good friend of mine works at a highly specialized clinic where a very talented doctor can not get his work Visa renewed. As a result he will be returning back to his home country. It's my understanding that we don't have an over supply of doctors in the US.

I agree completely with Mitch, if we are going to enforce the law with a few and turn a blind eye to so many others, can't we at least be a little more selective in our choices?

I should clarify...I not a big fan of subjective government behavior as a rule in any situation. However, the reality is that there are limited resources in the INS and other agencies. I would like to see those resources focused on the issues of greatest importance.

"And you shake those stereotypes precisely how?"

I could care less about how you perceive me. i'm just pointing out your sweeping judgements about "type" based on thin air. You'll probably just edit these comments anyway.

Wow, Dave - does your rectum get chafed from all the stuff you pull out of it?

First accusations of racism. Now you accuse me of editing comments.

I've never edited a comment that wasn't both completely, obviously anonymous (or pseudonymous) AND irredeemably abusive.

So don't flatter yourself, Dave. While your claims are without merit and your disagreement with me is shrill and relies on sophomoric disingenuity, it's not something I'd ever edit. Indeed, I'm happy to let it sit there in all its pungent glory, for the world to see.

The article is clear that until recently the family was given yearly work approvals by INS (or whoever isues the permits) so the county would not neccesarily have known about the denial of a work permit. Regardless. I agree that the reason for the family being here is now void. Sending them home is correct. I live in Washinton, DC and there are thousands probably hundreds of thousands of people here on education visas who are allowed to work a small number of hours aweek. A large number just stop going to school and work full time. They never go home.

Let's talk about racism David.....I know an Irish gentleman who came here legally, worked hard, made a good life for himself and got married. Because the "quota" for Irish immigrants (to get permanent visa status) was so low for the Chicago area (where he lives) he could not get permanent status. Meanwhile, Mexican immgrants who entered the country illegally were given prefferential treatment. The only reason that he finally got his permanent status was because his wife (my sister btw) was friends with Mayor Daley and he managed to pull some strings with INS in Chicago.

Oh - and before you accuse me of having a pro-European bias - I am an American of Mexican decent. The difference is my ancestors came into the country legally and assimilated and worked hard to get ahead. Success can be had, but you have to move forward and not remain in the past (Aztlan). THAT was Mitch's point!

I agree that each of the problems Mitch pointed out with regards to illegal immigration (e.g. lack of assimilation) and that we need to secure our boarders.

That being said, I have a real problem with selective enforcement of the law. The family in question was supposed to be here *temporarily* based on a select set of circumstances that have now changed (e.g. their son is now an adult and his leukemia in remission, Czech Republic no longer oppressive, etc.). Their legal rationale for remaining here simply no longer exists and if they wanted to remain here permanently, they had fifteen years to try to become citizens.

I agree that it is unfortunate that so many people who are here illegally and/or who cause problems will remain. However while Dave S’ smear of racism was certainly undeserved particularly against Mitch, there are quite a few migrant workers who have lived here for years, had children here (who are citizens per our Constitution), and who have built productive lives here without causing problems who could just as easily if not more easily be deported. People like that tend not to have 500 people sign petitions or newspaper reporters do fluff pieces on their plight, which is often worse than what this family is going through.

If you want to enforce the law, then you have to enforce it consistently or as consistently as possible which means that you cannot make an exception just because you like a particular family more than another family. If Senator Coleman wants to help, then perhaps he ought to push for revisiting the rule changes made in the 1996 Anti-terrorism law and returning more discretion to the courts in cases like these. It isn’t however an excuse for bending the rules for a single individual or their family.

No, I agree, Thorley, and my biggest problem IS with the '96 law

I'm not especially favoring one case over another, as much as criticizing a law that allows no discretion (and yet, as a "counterterrorism" law, provides little observable protection against terror)

I agree, IIRC the law in question was passed after the Oklahoma City Bombing and a lot of conservatives including former Minnesota (now North Carolina) talk show host Jason Lewis railed against it for weeks because legislation passed in a crisis should always be suspect. That includes incidentally (although I have found the criticisms of it to be wanting in general) the USA Patriot Act although it had a sunset provision which enabled Congress to revisit the issue latter with somewhat cooler heads.

Just so we’re clear (and I can keep agreeing with Mitch, which is usually a sign I’m on the right track ;) ), I don’t have a big problem with Senator Coleman helping this family to expedite their return to this nation should they be deported. Legislators routinely help their constituents deal with problems with the federal bureaucracy and this isn’t an outrageous thing for a Senator to do IMO. I just hope though that rather than slapping these band-aids on a problem with our immigration system (which both allows in illegal aliens who commit harm while making life more difficult for those who wish to follow the law) which lead to an unequal application of the law, we provide some sort of remedy in the system for these cases, perhaps by providing some discretion to the courts or (my preference) making it easier for those who wish to, to become legal citizens.

Note to Dave S – should he return or still be reading.

When arguing with a conservative, it’s generally best to (a) appeal to their values or basic sense of justice and (b) offer a solution to the problem rather than (c) insulting them with a smear of racism, sexism, whatever.

There’s quite a diversity of thought on the Right as it pertains to immigration and assuming your concern was for the “plight of Asian, African, and American immigrants” rather than just looking for what might have appeared to be a convenient bludgeon, I would suggest a different tact in the future. I have no doubt that one could find plenty of cases of Asian, African, and (I’m assuming you meant) [Latin] American immigrants with equally or more compelling stories that don’t get a story in the Strib.

By all means bring their stories forward and ask that their situation(s) also be included in any serious discussion about reforming the 1996 Counter-terrorism act.

I love immigration discussions! I'm a legal assistant in an immigration law firm and married to a mexican, just to preface this.

I read the article in question before I came across this discussion, so I caught a couple of things there that were startling. They said they were treated badly at the window by the IIO and then by a supervisor. I've seen people get verbally abusive and have never seen the IIO's or the floor supervisor talk about "getting rid of" anybody. They're much more likely to have security remove them from the building than call in deport and have them processed for court.

Also, the article mentions arrests, a beating, if they had an asylum case when they entered, why didn't they file it? They have a son applying for citizenship, how did he obtain his permanent status? Why are they not eligible for that status? Presumably they knew their son was in remission, and probably that he's over 21. This denial and subsequent removal cannot come as a shock. If you are no longer eligible for the status, you know it. If you're here on an F-1 and quit school, you know you're out of status. If you came on a temporary visa to get medical assistance for your kid and he no longer needs the treatment you came in for, or is old enough to seek it out himself, you know your eligibility is at an end.

That being said, the race card people are referring to above, is alive and well in the local office. If you are a white couple going in for a marriage case, you're probably going to get approved, whether you've had criminal convictions or not. If you're african, you'd better hope you're squeaky clean. But the exams officers aren't the ones deporting people.

Deport doesn't go after illegals, illegals are handed over to them. The immigration judges apply the law. That whole selective enforcement argument doesn't wash. Immigration is three blocks from the mall of america, they can go raid MOA any time if they need to fill a quota. They consistently apply the law to anyone that comes accross their path. The problem isn't selective enforcement, it's manpower.

I can't believe I just defended the local office!

Well, then if it isn't their appeal as white Europeans, then tell me: what is it about this family's case that is more compelling than that of other illegals who came here from other places, have lived and worked here for 15 years, speak the language, had one or more children, bought a house, and had family members die here? Why focus on their case out of the thousands in similar circimstances? Why are they entitled to selective enforcement of the law and others are not?

Um, gee, Dave S., could it be that Mitch maybe, possibly, is emphasizing this case because an article about this case ran in his local freakin' newspaper? Because, and this is just a guess here, I tend to think Mitch would probably have raised the same issue had the article been about a Mexican/Indian/Asian/pick-your-ethnicity family. But, no, you jump ahead and cry racism because that's nice and easy, and intellectually lazy as hell.

Come to think of it, I don't know why I'm explaining all of this to you, seeing as how Mitch et. al. have already spelled it out for you in spades in this comment thread. Oh, right, intellectual laziness on your part. That's why.

Why is this still a race discussion? There's no emphasis on race in the article. The whole thing seems to be a comment on the absurdity of the law!

Courtney, thanks for the info. I'd hoped to hear from an expert and...well, you would seem to be one!

I realize that the law can not be selectively enforced. The NARN and I interviewed Tamar Jacoby of the Manhattan Institute last weekend on the show, and large parts of her case (which calls for an "Amnesty" involving a $2,000 fine and back taxes for illegals, in exchange for putting them in the queue for legal permanent residency applications with no other consequences, accompanied by rigid border enforcement) made sense to me; the illegals who are in the US and living as productive citizens (or nearly so) should get a chance to join society, for their good and ours.

Dave: One more try here before I declare you impervious. They are a family that followed the rules; they didn't sneak across the border and spend 15 years dodging the INS. They did most things right - and what did it get them? In line for a ticket back to the Czech Republic. I feel equally (and have written, I believe, on the subject) for the Somali and Lao immigrants who've found themselves in the same or worse situations.

You can keep trying to call me a racist, Dave, but it doesn't work.

Hmmm.

So. They were here in America for 15 years and never bothered to apply for citizenship?

You must be joking. They do not deserve to be here.

If you want to post an opinion about the Danecek's why don't you read about their story on their petition first. You can google their name to find the petition.

This isn't just about the Daneceks. This is about all immigrants and if the Daneceks story can make a difference then kudos to them. I wish them luck and anyone else who is in the same situation.

Discount Pet Meds - Good site for discount pet meds - http://www.discountpetmeds.info

We recommend you to visit excellent genealogy site. qY0ptan0x

We recommend you to visit excellent george washington site. qY0ptan0x