Katesuiter1

Originally posted by mountain dew
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...6_apart29m.html


I'm curious. Do you work as a newspaper advertiser?

Kate.

Mountain Dew

Originally posted by katesuiter1
    > I'm curious. Do you
work as a newspaper advertiser?
    >
    > Kate.



Monday, March
29, 2004 - Page updated at 12:00 A.M.

Immigration rule divides Portland
couple

By Lornet Turnbull
Seattle Times staff reporter


FAMILY
PHOTO
Cheryl and Rogelio Gallegos married in 1999, but Rogelio is back
in Mexico, banned for life from the United States.


E-mail this
article

Print this article

Search archive




Every other
day or so, Cheryl Gallegos and her husband talk by telephone � he from
his parents' home in Michoacan, Mexico, she from the Portland-area house
they shared for four years.
They are painful conversations about missed
holidays and missed milestones, and inevitably about the immigration
tangle that may keep the couple apart for the next 10 years � or
possibly longer.

Last year, a judge in Portland ordered Rogelio
Gallegos, 32, permanently banished from the United States, citing a little-
used clause in immigration law that bars immigrants who entered the
country illegally from ever attempting legal immigration.

The ban is
for a lifetime, although the law permits reconsideration after 10 years.


Approved by Congress in 1996 as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act, the measure was not widely applied to
cases until immigration officials in Portland began using it about four
years ago, attorneys say. While not uniformly enforced, it is beginning
to be applied in Seattle and other immigration courts across the
country.

Nationwide, 482 people have been ordered removed under the
law.

"It's hard to talk about the reality of 10 years," Cheryl
Gallegos said. "Each time Rogelio and I talk, he's always curious: Have
I talked to any lawyers? He's sad and depressed.

"Would I like to be
able to hold my husband every night, to talk to him every day when I
come home from work?" the 42-year-old asked. "I'd love nothing more in
this world. But it has to be right. It has to be legal. I won't live my
life in hiding."

The section of the law that bars Rogelio Gallegos
from the U.S. affects illegal immigrants seeking permanent residency
through petition by a U.S. citizen or a permanent-resident relative. It
disproportionately affects Mexican nationals because of their access to
U.S. borders.

An estimated 10 million people live in this country
illegally � the majority from Mexico and Central America.

Attorneys
throughout the Northwest say they won't even file permanent-residency
paperwork for clients whose circumstances could potentially trigger the
bans.




"Isn't it ironic? Had none of these people left the
country, there would have been no penalty," said Stephen Manning, an
immigration attorney in Portland.

"Until there's a change in the law,
in the interpretation of the law, I encourage clients to remain in the
shadows."

Ill-advised crossing dashes hopes

That's the way Rogelio
Gallegos lived for 13 years.

He entered the U.S. illegally when he was
19, making his way to Portland and working odd jobs. He and Cheryl dated
for four years after meeting at a restaurant where both worked. The
couple married in June 1999.

"Before we were married, I didn't know
anything about immigration law," she said. "But I knew his legal status.
We called attorneys to figure out how this could work. I was surprised
it wasn't easier."

Their Seattle attorney, Michael Johnson-Ortiz,
advised Rogelio Gallegos to return to Mexico, petition the U.S.
Consulate there for permanent residency, and wait while his paperwork
was processed.

The separation, the couple learned, could take up to a
year.

It was their only option. In September 2000, Gallegos left the
U.S. to begin the long legal journey back.

Meanwhile, on Dec. 21 that
year, President Clinton extended the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act
(LIFE). It allowed illegal immigrants with a sponsor � either an
employer or an immediate family member who was a legal resident or U.S.
citizen � to apply for legal residency without leaving the country.


The law was intended to benefit immigrants who otherwise qualified for
legal residency but who were in the country illegally. They were
required to apply before April 30, 2001, pay a $1,000 fine, and to have
been in the country on Dec. 21.

Cheryl Gallegos said her husband,
following their attorney's suggestion, returned to the U.S. on Jan. 18,
2001, thinking he could take advantage of this new law.

For the second
time in his life, he crossed the U.S. border illegally.

What the
couple didn't know, and what their attorney didn't tell them, is that by
twice entering the U.S. illegally, Rogelio Gallegos violated the then-4-year-
old clause in the immigration law that could bar him from the U.S.
permanently.

Under the clause, people in the U.S. unlawfully for more
than 180 days are barred from returning for three years unless granted a
waiver. Waivers are given to those with special circumstances, such as a
spouse or parent who would suffer extreme hardship if the pardon is not
granted.

For those who have been in the country illegally more than a
year, the bar stretches to 10 years � again unless waived.

But the
monster of all bars is imposed on those who have been in the country
unlawfully for more than one year, leave and then re-enter illegally a
second time, as Gallegos did.

"That's it," said Manning. "You are
permanently ineligible. There is no waiver. The law says that after 10
years you can ask for permission to apply to come back. Hardship on
family would be considered at that time. But it would be impossible to
demonstrate hardship to a family after a 10-year separation."

The
Gallegoses filed a malpractice suit against Johnson-Ortiz, who has since
left the country.

"Sending (Gallegos) to Mexico was not a bad piece of
advice," Manning said. "At the time, no one could have foreseen what
(Clinton) was going to do. What was really, really bad was encouraging
him to break the law and return to the country."

Because Gallegos
wasn't in the U.S. on Dec. 21, 2000, he didn't qualify for legal
residency under the LIFE Act anyway. Had he stayed in Mexico and
followed through on the petition process, he would have been subject to
the 10-year ban but might have been able to get a waiver because of his
family ties.

Neha Chandola, legal director for the Northwest Immigrant
Rights Project, said that while the agency has not yet encountered the
problem, "I won't file for someone who faces a permanent bar.

"The
whole point is to unify families and keep them together. To insert
something like this into the law tears families apart."

The
Gallegoses' current attorney, Philip Smith, said he has had clients move
to Mexico so they could be together.

Trying to do the right thing


Cheryl Gallegos said she and her husband had been hopeful when he
returned from Mexico in January 2001 and all his paperwork was
successfully transferred to the Portland immigration office.

For the
first time, he requested and was granted a legal work permit. He was
given a Social Security number.

"We felt like everything was good,"
Cheryl Gallegos said.

They were granted a March 2002 appointment
before an immigration officer.

"This was to be the end of 3½ years of
preparing and paying fees and filling out application forms," she said.
"This was the day it was all going to come together. All we'd ever done
was try to do the right thing."

But at that meeting, Rogelio Gallegos'
two illegal entries into the country came hurtling back at him.

And at
a hearing in immigration court in August 2003, he was ordered out of the
country. He asked for voluntary deportation and was given 120 days to
leave.

In the months since his departure, the family has been consumed
with trying to make the situation right.

Although the Gallegoses have
no children together, with three children from a previous marriage �
including a 15-year-old still living at home � Cheryl Gallegos said
she doesn't have the option of moving to Mexico.

"As far as we are
both concerned, this is his home," she said. "He's hopeful somehow, some
way, something will happen."

Recently, several immigration attorneys
and families caught in the same trap as the Gallegoses went to
Washington, D.C., to lobby members of the Oregon congressional
delegation on a bill that would change the law.

Among them was a U.S.
citizen whose husband is facing permanent banishment because he returned
to Mexico after his father had been murdered. Another had returned home
to visit his gravely ill mother before she died.

"I don't think
(lawmakers) understand the severity of it," Cheryl Gallegos said of the
law. "It's punishment that doesn't fit the crime."

She and her husband
talk by telephone every other day now.

"He missed Christmas, New
Year's, Valentine's. His own birthday. We pass the phone around to the
grandkids."

All born since the Gallegoses married, the grandchildren
are devastated by "Papa Roli's" absence, Cheryl Gallegos said. "They
still ask for him. They don't understand."

She said he has
contemplated coming back to the U.S. illegally.

Across the country,
some 400,000 immigrants remain in hiding in the U.S. despite having been
ordered out.

"I want him to come home legally," Cheryl Gallegos said.
"I want us to live a legal, upright life. I believe we have that right.


"He's going to respect the law. And if the law says he can't be here,
he won't be here."

Lornet Turnbull: 206-464-2420


Copyright © 2004
The Seattle Times Company

Hypertweeky

Originally posted by katesuiter1
    > I'm curious. Do you
work as a newspaper advertiser?
    >
    > Kate.


LOL Kate
    :D:D