WTC Widow May be deported

October 9, 2001 9:40 AM

WTC Widow May be deported A British widow who was married to a victim of the terrorist attack may be deported. Their children will be allowed to stay.
posted by goneill (62 comments total)

I sent this to my friend in Senator Clinton's office. Hopefully they can do something, and quick.

Damn bureaucrats.
posted by jennak at 9:47 AM on October 9, 2001

(Correction -- she's a NJ resident. I called Torricelli's office and faxed them the article.)
posted by jennak at 9:59 AM on October 9, 2001

Damn you MetaFiltrians are a resourceful/wonderful lot.
posted by Jongo at 10:02 AM on October 9, 2001

For New York residents:

Email Clinton

Email Schumer
posted by QrysDonnell at 10:02 AM on October 9, 2001

I'm sure US deportation laws will be relaxed to allow her to stay.
posted by explodingfist at 10:03 AM on October 9, 2001

I'd expect that we should all e-mail all our Senators/Reps from every state so that they'll know that we all support her citizenship. (Possibly citizenship for anyone in a similar siutation).
posted by QrysDonnell at 10:03 AM on October 9, 2001

Maybe someone on MeFi can marry her if all else fails. This is the saddest damn thing I have heard in a while.
posted by jasonshellen at 10:07 AM on October 9, 2001

Somebody should tip CNN---that'd work a lot faster, I bet. Yo, CNN guy who reads MetaFilter! Do you do a regular search here on CNN? If so, come and get it!
posted by realjanetkagan at 10:08 AM on October 9, 2001

Charming, we have countless illegal immigrants that are plotting to attack the United States according to the justice department and we're kicking out the victims.
posted by shagoth at 10:12 AM on October 9, 2001

As much as sympathize with her, I love this over-reaction:

Chatham's police chief George Kurzenknabe has even promised that he "will barricade the house" if immigration officials dare to approach with a deportation warrant, while the chief of the suburb's volunteer fire brigade has offered to "sit on the porch with a rifle".

A police barricade and fire brigade with rifles. Gotta love them local police and fire brigade. Of course, how stupid can the INS be? Hope someone loses their job over this: none of this 'just doing our job' crap on this one.
posted by Rastafari at 10:15 AM on October 9, 2001

Polite question: What about a similar wife who had her husband killed in a robbery on September 11th?

Do we make an exception for her?
posted by Dagobert at 10:15 AM on October 9, 2001

How ironic that the NIS machine that failed to deport the terrorist extending their visas would so quickly and efficiently deport a woman widowed from 9.11 tragedy.
posted by sexymofo at 10:17 AM on October 9, 2001

Maybe someone on MeFi can marry her if all else fails.

Yes. Now there's a reasoned response to this situation. Will all the single guys please line up?
posted by Rastafari at 10:17 AM on October 9, 2001

"Polite question: What about a similar wife who had her husband killed in a robbery on September 11th?"

Yeah, Dagobert, I think we should. Didn't it used to be that if you married a US citizen, you automatically became one yourself? When did that change?
posted by realjanetkagan at 10:21 AM on October 9, 2001

Somebody should tip CNN

I've sent this to the Associated Press.
posted by swift at 10:23 AM on October 9, 2001

Dagobert: I think that everyone believes that these deaths were different, and that everything possible should be done to assist the victims' families and loved ones. The IRS has said that it would be lenient with people/companies who are missing documents due to the Tragedy come April. The INS should be similarly flexible.
posted by goneill at 10:25 AM on October 9, 2001

realjanetkagan - I think the article suggests that her late husband was a British citizen who was working in the US on a work permit sponsored byhis employers(who were also sponsoring his green card application). His Green card application was held up because he changed employers.

It still seems a bit draconian, particularly considering the circumstances, and the political relationship between the US and the UK at the moment.
posted by Grangousier at 10:33 AM on October 9, 2001

Whatever you do, don't call any representatives offices.
posted by revbrian at 10:36 AM on October 9, 2001

If nothing else, this woman now has children who are US citizens. She should be allowed to stay, if only to not traumatize the children anymore than they already have been because of their father's murder.

If she was a widow with no children, I could see us being more reasonable with her being deported.

ALSO, what's the deal with the IRS raking it in hand over fist on this one? Who makes the rules here?
posted by schlaager at 10:38 AM on October 9, 2001

Didn't it used to be that if you married a US citizen, you automatically became one yourself?

Not sure if that's ever been the situation, but it certainly isn't the situation now. To become a US permanent resident (not citizen, but permitted to stay and work indefinitely) by following the appropriate INS application procedures for you circumstances, takes about 2 to 3 years. To become a citizen takes a further 3 to 6 years past that (lower end of that scale for marriage based applications).

That's assuming you qualify in the first place and that you have no complicating factors such as a criminal record, children by a previous marriage included in your application, etc.

As far as the case linked to is concerned, this woman should get herself a good immigration lawyer. Its amazing how fast the INS can move when the right buttons are pressed, compared to their usual glacial progress.
posted by normy at 10:45 AM on October 9, 2001

As far as the tax problem goes, she should consult an attorney about having the children receive the life insurance money. Since they are US citizens, they won't get the 60% penalty.

But, yeah, I'd marry her to let her stay. Don't live anywhere near New York (don't want to), don't want any of her money.
posted by yesster at 10:49 AM on October 9, 2001

Did anyone else read this?

"Survivors have told me that Paul made it to the 74th floor, where the lifts were still working. There, with a friend, he helped get women and people in wheelchairs into the lifts, holding back himself and other men. He insisted that women and children get to safety first: Paul did the right thing, and this is the reward for his family."

As in, he physicaly held that guy back? Who knows he would have been able to sqeeze in. Perhaps if he haddn't held him back this anonomous guy would still be alive. Are women's lives more imporntant then mens?

Well, who knows. But I found that passage a little desturbing
posted by delmoi at 11:06 AM on October 9, 2001

In my experience, the INS isn't very fast or that helpful (although the Consulate in Auckland, NZ was). If this woman isn't going to be deported, some official will probably have to get involved.

I waited for almost a year to get my visa to even enter the States again, and because the woman at Immigration in L.A. was having a bad day, I can't work until I'm married and my green card arrives. So this means that I gave up my job, my life, left my family and friends because I feel in love with an American, and now I have to be unemployed for months and months because some lady was in a bad mood.
posted by animoller at 11:18 AM on October 9, 2001

This passage was disturbing to me:

He had started to evacuate the tower before the second aircraft had struck and was told by security guards that there was no threat to their offices and to return to work.
posted by yesster at 11:18 AM on October 9, 2001

Ani, thank goodness you guys started the visa progress before you and Ben get married. Most people aren't aware that the INS creates more red tape for couple who apply after marriage.
posted by jennak at 11:27 AM on October 9, 2001

Delmoi:

Are women's lives more imporntant then mens?

A great deal of us think so. "Women and children first" is one of the fundamentals of my worldview.
posted by Irontom at 11:36 AM on October 9, 2001

Exactly. Years even.
posted by animoller at 11:37 AM on October 9, 2001

A great deal of us think so. "Women and children first" is one of the fundamentals of my worldview.

Indeed, Delmoi, some of us can be rather Klingon in our our personal definitions of "honor" and comportment thereof.

Not holding a lot of doors for the ladies, are you D?
posted by UncleFes at 11:53 AM on October 9, 2001

Not holding a lot of doors for the ladies, are you D?

No need to insult demloi for being an egalitarian. I happen to think that helping the disabled, elderly and children is noble. However, a healthy women does not necessarily need my help.

I agree with you delmoi. If I was in that situation, and somebody was holding up my escape for no other reason than his outdated principles, I would be pretty pissed off. If you want to save a women in your place, hey, it's your life, but you don't get to make that decision for others.

That being said, what the INS is doing here is absolutely indefensible. I've called my Senators and Representative here in Massachusetts, and I hope other MeFi'ers will act on this women's behalf somehow.
posted by thewittyname at 12:28 PM on October 9, 2001

More info: this article, though, gives me the impression that the INS won't really do anything to deport her unless she gets in trouble herself. Of course if she leaves the country she can't come back in, but that's beside the point.

Tell you the truth, I won't be surprised if Congress deals with this somehow, they generally have in the past (primarily because they're the ones that make the laws that create most of these screw-ups).
posted by PeteyStock at 12:32 PM on October 9, 2001

She'll be allowed to stay. This is not a big deal.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:08 PM on October 9, 2001

I am usually the first person saying there are too many bureaucrats and too many laws. That being said, I agree with the INS on this case. Once the government starts making "special" or "extenuating" circumstances for given persons, other people would want those exceptions. My sense is, if one does not have a US passport, legal visa, or proof of citizenship if under, what is it? 14 years of age?, then that person should be deported. The USA is about life and liberty and all, but it has recently become an easy target for those persons who wish to stay here instead of elsewhere and will do anything to stay. Why she didn't get a visa and chose to be a dependent on her husband, I haven't a clue.
posted by ari at 2:20 PM on October 9, 2001

Ari, her children are American citizens because they were born in this country -- a right provided by the Constitution.

If they are entitled to live here, then she should be entitled to stay to provide for them -- especially since her husband died in WTC. If he is deserving of the "Defense of Freedom" medal, isn't his wife deserving of a temporary visa?

It's not so much the law I'm upset about -- I'm peeved at how the INS has chosen to go about enforcing it. In light of the incident, they could have given her a 60 day window or something. How insensitive.
posted by jennak at 2:33 PM on October 9, 2001

Why she didn't get a visa and chose to be a dependent on her husband, I haven't a clue.

She wouldn't have been given one.
posted by normy at 2:34 PM on October 9, 2001

"She'll be allowed to stay. This is not a big deal."....."the INS won't really do anything to deport her unless she gets in trouble herself. "

It is a big deal. She'll only get 40% of her husband's life insurance. And 0% of his Social Security.
posted by jennak at 2:39 PM on October 9, 2001

Why she didn't get a visa and chose to be a dependent on her husband, I haven't a clue.

Well, you're right about the "haven't a clue" bit, at least.
posted by holgate at 2:42 PM on October 9, 2001

Jennak, to qualify for the "Defense of Freedom" medal you had to be in the employ of the Government.
posted by DBAPaul at 3:09 PM on October 9, 2001

It is a big deal. She'll only get 40% of her husband's life insurance. And 0% of his Social Security.

Please explain.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:18 PM on October 9, 2001

Which part? She doesn't get most of his life insurance and she doesn't receive a dime of his social security because she's now labeled an "illegal immigrant." (Was in the articles.)

Whoops about the Defense of Freedom medal.
posted by jennak at 3:52 PM on October 9, 2001

"Once the government starts making "special" or "extenuating" circumstances for given persons, other people would want those exceptions."

Right on. They should send the corpses and corpse peices of all those foreign bastards, and ship em back to whereever they came from. It's bad enough these for people take out jobs, now they're taking up precious space in our graveyards? Unacceptable. After all, if you aren't a citizen of the united states, it's not like you're really a person or anything.
posted by Doug at 3:53 PM on October 9, 2001

jennak -- it's not because she's "now an illegal immigrant", it's because "she has no status as either a citizen or official Green Card immigrant." This implies that the rule exists for anyone who doesn't have a green card of their own. While it must be difficult for her, I wonder why our sense of indignation should be any more than for the plight of any other foreign national caught between the rules.
posted by dness2 at 4:04 PM on October 9, 2001

Dness2 -- because a) they were in the process of receiving their Green Cards b) because the family was residing here in the States and her young children are American c) because we owe it to her to help her through this terrible tragedy.

I think there are (and should be) exceptions to every rule. Those widowed by the WTC tragedy should be given a temporary visa and any "immigrant tax" against life insurance policies should be waived.

In this case, I think Mrs. Gilbey's Green Card paperwork should be expedited.
posted by jennak at 4:26 PM on October 9, 2001

After all, if you aren't a citizen of the united states, it's not like you're really a person or anything.

No, it's more like, "If you aren't a citizen of the US, it's not like you're entitled to the benefits of being a citizen of the US." But that's not nearly so snappy, I'll admit.
posted by kindall at 4:38 PM on October 9, 2001

By the way, Dness2 -- I used to work with this kind of stuff. I cried myself to sleep after a woman was unable to get her daughter back into the US (on a visa) days before the daughter's 18th birthday. The daughter was being held over in an airport in [foreign country] and once she turned 18, there would be nothing that could be done. Instead of celebrating her daughter's birthday, the mother ending up mourning the loss of her daughter.

You have to fight the fights that are in front of you, instead of deciding you won't fight any of them if you can't fight them all.
posted by jennak at 4:39 PM on October 9, 2001

Come on, Kindall, I think throwing a widow and her children out of their home less than a month after her husband was murdered is doing more than just not giving her the benefits of an American citizen. I wouldn't do that to someone I hate. I think an except should certainly be made in this case
posted by Doug at 5:12 PM on October 9, 2001

Hmmm. My point was that this woman seems to already have quite a few personal cheerleaders in her corner if the story is true and I hesitate to get all worked up about a situation that seems to be working itself out anyway. If I read the story correctly, she was in the US eight years and still doesn't have her green card? It sounds to me like they were procrastinating and got tripped up, as sudden death tends to do. That's rough, but considering in this situation there is a huge fund to help out survivors (I would think the Red Cross would cover the deficit) and there is huge public sympathy, she'll be fine. I would be much more up-in-arms for widow(er)s of foreign nationals killed in hate-related retaliation since Sept. 11. After all, their loss is just as great, but the wheels of support don't extend to them.
Seems to me the fights that are more hidden, not the ones in front of you, are a better focus of your obviously bountiful empathy.
posted by dness2 at 5:20 PM on October 9, 2001

If I read the story correctly, she was in the US eight years and still doesn't have her green card? It sounds to me like they were procrastinating and got tripped up, as sudden death tends to do.

You didn't read the story correctly -- once her husband came here, he changed jobs, which meant that because of the incredibly inefficient and frequently bungled bureaucracy of the INS, his green card application (and hers, by extension) was tossed out and the process had to be started all over again.

Regardless, this woman's children cannot be deported. They are American citizens. What is the INS to do - put the kids in foster care because they're deporting her mother who has committed absolutely no crime? The very concept is obscene on its face.
posted by Dreama at 5:38 PM on October 9, 2001

let's add:

d) the INS backlog on processing "adjustment of status" applications is frankly the sort of thing you'd associate with a bureaucracy like India's.

If you get married to a US citizen on a K-1 visa, you're recommended to apply for adjustment of status as soon as possible after the wedding, because it takes (on average) a year to get it processed; in some cases, you don't go through "conditional permanent residency" because it takes longer than the two years' probation; similarly, adjusting status from a H1-B often takes longer than the three-year term of the visa itself, which means that such economic scavengers as Linus Torvalds may have to leave the US while the paperwork is filed, re-filed, barcoded, lost, retrieved, re-barcoded and perhaps even looked at.
posted by holgate at 5:40 PM on October 9, 2001

once her husband came here, he changed jobs,

yes, after a year. That leaves seven or so unaccounted for.

put the kids in foster care because they're deporting her mother

what do they do with other people who give birth here and then have their visas expire? I have no idea. I imagine that this situation is not incredibly unusual and I imagine that the children usually accompany their parents back until they can choose their citizenship.
posted by dness2 at 5:56 PM on October 9, 2001

Regardless, this woman's children cannot be deported.

I don't think anyone said that. I think what some people were saying is that it's hard for them to continue to live in the US if they're mom is deported and their father dead.

yes, after a year. That leaves seven or so unaccounted for.

It's not easy or quick to get a permanent visa. Also, please note that the delay was "because the immigration service office in Newark, New Jersey, lost a sheaf of papers" pertaining to their case, and they hired an immigration lawyer as a result to guide them throught the red tape.
posted by jennak at 6:03 PM on October 9, 2001

yes, after a year. That leaves seven or so unaccounted for.

Yes, and do you have any clue how long the backlog of processing is? My stepson and his wife have been in limbo for longer than two years, and they're in much the same situation. (She's a citizen, as is the child, he is not, etc.) They've been given absolutely no timeframe for the completion of his green card application. None.

I imagine that the children usually accompany their parents back until they can choose their citizenship.

An American citizen, regardless of age, cannot be compelled to leave the country. Consequently, the options are either allow the mother to stay, or remove the children from her custody. I'd really hate to be the INS bureaumoron who says that these American citizens, left fatherless because of the terrorist are either going to be deprived of their remaining parent or their right to remain in their nation of birth and citizenship.
posted by Dreama at 6:11 PM on October 9, 2001

It's not easy or quick to get a permanent visa

Yes, I know that well. However I am also reading between the lines and noting they don't mention much about their trials and tribulations trying to get the visa. They didn't find out about the lost papers until after Sept 11. And I didn't read anything about an immigration lawyer. To my mind this reads like a story that is already being spun to portray her as sympathetically as possible. So be it; under the circumstances it's understandable. But she already has the bending-the-rules mechanisms working in her favor. I don't see it as a great "obscene" insult against her.

Find someone who didn't have any life insurance policy, or a pleasant country to be exported back to, or a neighborhood that mobilizes as effectively as this woman's, and then I think it's worth losing sleep over. I'm sure there are at least a couple from the custodial or restaurant staff. It's ironic though, that those stories, the still-worth-worrying-about stories, aren't likely to make the papers.
posted by dness2 at 6:24 PM on October 9, 2001

If I was in that situation, and somebody was holding up my escape for no other reason than his outdated principles, I would be pretty pissed off.

More usefully, I would deck him.

I love the implication in this thread that all must move heaven and earth to save this poor woman from the unspeakable horror of being sent back (home) to Britain. I mean, the food may not be the greatest, but it's not like it's AFGHANISTAN or something!
posted by rushmc at 7:37 PM on October 9, 2001

Come on, Kindall, I think throwing a widow and her children out of their home

The United States is not her home. She is a guest here until she becomes a US citizen. She is a British citizen and England is her home.

I'm not saying she should be sent back either. But let's not confuse the issue by saying she is not "being treated like a person" or that she is being "kicked out of her home." She is being treated like what she is -- an illegal alien.

I'm sure this has happened hundreds of times in the past -- someone here on a work visa with their family is killed, the family is sent back. Why is it any different now?
posted by kindall at 8:01 PM on October 9, 2001

kindall: The United States is not her home.

What about their kids who have known no other home?
posted by vbfg at 8:48 PM on October 9, 2001

Why is it any different now?

Well, they'd followed the rules, filled in the forms, and the INS lost them. That's obvious negligence on the INS's part, but since the agency's virtually a law unto itself, there's not much legal recourse. (Remember, dear Americans, that we aspiring immigrants have to learn the intricate, often idiotic workings of your immigration service, and you don't. Be thankful. And one of the rules of INS Club is that you don't try to hurry the process once the forms are sent in, because that normally just adds another year's wait.)

You've got a head-on collision between a bureacratic process that makes a sloth look lively, and a series of unprecedented events that transformed the woman and her children's life in a matter of hours.

Judging from the reports, the widow's husband was most likely on a L-1 visa, which runs for 5 or 7 years depending on job description, and was probably 7 years in this case.(The wife had L-2 status.) So it wasn't procrastination, so much as making the obvious transition to permanent residence.

Anyway, I suspect that this will be handled by the consulate and in Congress. The initial soundings from the top brass were that exceptions would be made for cases like this; it's just that it probably takes the usual few months to filter down into the thick skulls of the local officials. (Alternatively, Fidel Castro could bestow Cuban citizenship upon her, which would give her the automatic right to a Green Card. Spot the irony.)

She is being treated like what she is -- an illegal alien.

Bzzt. Wrong. Being "out of status" doesn't make you an illegal alien unless you make no attempt to get back in status as soon as possible.
posted by holgate at 8:54 PM on October 9, 2001

On the bright side, holgate, I reckon that after coping with...

I-129F Petition for Alien Fiance(e)
G-325A Biographic Information -- 2 required. One is filled out and signed by you, the other is filled out and signed by the fiance(e).
A copy of your birth certificate, passport, or Certificate of Naturalization (you have to prove you are a US Citizen).
A photo of yourself, described in the instructions for the I-129F (or the M-378 Color Photo Spec), with your name printed on the back of the photo.
A photo of your fiance(e), described in the instructions for the I-129F (or the M-378 Color Photo Spec), with the fiance(e)s name printed on the back of the photo.
A copy of the divorce decree, if you were previously married.
A copy of the death certificate if your marriage ended due to the death of your spouse.
A copy of the divorce decree, if your fiance(e) was previously married.
A copy of the death certificate if your fiance(e)'s marriage ended due to the death of their spouse.
Evidence that the US Citizen and foreign fiance(e) have met personally in the last two years (see "FAQ Note about evidence" below).
Statement of intent (see "FAQ Note about evidence" below).
A check or money order for the required fee.
OF-169 or UK/85 -- This is your main set of instructions. It is also a checklist of items required for the interview.
OF-167 -- information sheet about financial responsibility. You may also receive an I-134 Affidavit of Support form.
OF-230 Part 1 -- biographical data sheet.
OF-156 -- Non-Immigrant visa application form
OF-156K -- Non-Immigrant fiance(e) visa application
You may, at this time, receive OF-157, medical exam information, and a list of required immunizations.
DSL-1083 -- An information sheet about police certificates, military records and more.
I-485 Application To Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status
I-765 Application for Employment Authorization. You will apply as category (c)(9), "adjustment applicant".
I-864 Affidavit of Support
G-325A Biographic Information
Form 9003 - Additional Questions (a form used for the Internal Revenue Service. If you don't get this form in your package, don't worry about it)
WR-702, WR-703 or I-468 - Data Collection for Alien Documentation, Identification & Telecommunications System (ADIT). (If you don't get one of these forms in your package, don't worry about it. These are "office specific" forms which may not be used at your local office)
A copy of form I-94, Nonimmigrant Arrival Departure Record (this was put in your passport when you arrived)
I-131 Application For Travel Document (for traveling outside the US during the application period, known as "advance parole")(also see question 6.7)
A copy of the marriage certificate
A copy of your birth certificate. (bring an extra when you move, or two or three if you can). You need a translated copy if it is not in English.
A copy of the fiance(e) petition approval notice (I-797 Notice of Action)
2 photos - the 3/4 face view - like you have done before (this for the I-485....but more pictures, fingerprint card, signature card, etc may be required for I-765 and I-131, so read the instructions)
1. Beneficiaries passport and I-94
2. current personal ID for both parties
3. copies of the birth certificates of any children born to us. ( I hope they mean as a result of this union )
4. copies of federal,and state income tax returns for each year, or portion thereof, during which petitioner and beneficiary have been married.
5. copies of lease or mortgage contracts showing joint occupancy.
6. evidence of any joint bank accounts, charge accounts etc.
7. copies of any life insurance and/or health insurance policies of petitioner and beneficiary
8. copies of wills and/or power of attorneys
9. Statements from petitioners and/or beneficiaries employer(s) preferable on company stationary, Indicating the marital status claimed, dependants claimed and whom to notify in case of emergency.
10. sworn statements from at least two persons, attesting to the length of time petitioner and beneficiary have been residing together in Marital Union.
11. Any other evidence which would tend to establish the existance of a bona fide marital relationship.
You *must* include a copy of your I-551 green card as initial evidence.
The I-797 approval notice from the original I-129F petition.
Copies of the passport with the K1 visa and the I-551 approval stamp.
Bank statements showing both names.
Insurance policies showing the spouse as beneficiary.
Tax returns filed jointly.
Loan payment papers showing both names.
Utility bills addressed to both of you.
Copies of tickets, boarding passes showing you traveled together (if you traveled).
Birth certificates of any children born to you.
Affidavits from people who know you and can attest to your marriage (like it or not, this is major evidence).
Any other sort of common, ordinary correspondence addressed to either or both of you at the same address.

...the naturalization exam should be an easy A.
posted by normy at 9:16 PM on October 9, 2001

Man, how long do you have to live somewhere before it's considered your home? I've only been in my current apartment for 3 years. I consider it my home. Silly me.
posted by Doug at 9:36 PM on October 9, 2001

Maybe I shouldn't talk. I'm not even an American citizen yet. I'm still a Canadian citizen; not that I'm not applying for citizenship. Not that the application process has been drawn out over four years for me purely because of bureaucratic slipups. Not that I've been scheduled to take the citizenship test since 1998, and have purchased multiple plane tickets to do so, only to receive a letter from the INS weeks before the scheduled test date informing me that the test has been indefinitely postponed. Not that I haven't liven in the United states for over thrice as long as I've lived in Canada.

But geez, how can people be so insensitive? These are people. Talking heads all over the place are commenting on the astounding manner in which Americans are banding together and showing this tasteful, united front, but reactions like kindall's completely mar that thought. Many of us really don't have that much of a regard for our fellow man, do we?

She is being treated like what she is -- an illegal alien.

What an amazing way to demonize her, introduce the incontrovertible fact that she's an illegal alien. As if she came here stowed away in a cargo hold.

I'm sure this has happened hundreds of times in the past.

In the process of filing an application for a green card, a woman's husband is killed, and the government immediately seizes his life insurance and her home, booting her back to her country of origin? If this does happen every day, then we need to find whatever arcane bureaucratic excrement is causing it and eliminate that. To our knowledge, she has not done anything wrong. Sure, the article portrays her in a sympathetic light, but let's give someone the benefit of the doubt, shall we? I mean, good Lord, we have more than good reason to believe that she's done nothing wrong in this situation, yet some of us are willing to make this poor widow's life more of a hell than it already is because she has the audacity to share our soil. As if we have any more claim to it than the rather tenuous one of being born on it.
posted by grrarrgh00 at 10:43 PM on October 9, 2001

Do we even know that she WANTS to remain in the U.S.? If she was here because of her husband's job, well, that reason is gone. She might well want to return to the more familiar environment in which she grew up, where she probably has a stronger support network of family and friends.

Really, this unspoken assumption that "Of course, she wants to be an American...why wouldn't she, given the chance???" must be grossly offensive to all non-Americans reading this thread.
posted by rushmc at 6:04 AM on October 10, 2001

It states that she wishes to stay in the U.S.
posted by sixdifferentways at 8:41 AM on October 10, 2001

INS: Victims' Families May Stay Foreign nationals who lost relatives in the Sept. 11 attacks, including a British woman whose immigration status was uncertain after the presumed death of her husband, will not face deportation, federal officials said Wednesday.
posted by Carol Anne at 11:33 AM on October 11, 2001