Quantcast

Wait, What? U.S. Deports 4-Year-Old U.S. Citizen

201103_emilyruiz.jpg
Emily Ruiz (Courtesy of David Sperling)
The hot-button issue of granting citizenship to the children of immigrants that are born in the U.S. has a new poster child. Everybody meet four-year-old Emily Samantha Ruiz, a Long Island girl who was deported to Guatemala by the U.S. on March 11—despite being a totally legal citizen of the United States.

Emily's parents—who are both illegal immigrants from Guatemala—sent their older child to their homeland for the winter in the hopes the warmer climate would alleviate the little girl's asthma. On the 11th she was supposed to come back accompanied by her grandfather, who had a valid work visa to enter the country. But when their flight to JFK was delayed and sent to Dulles, Immigration officials noticed that Emily's grandfather (whose name has not been released) had entered the country illegally in the 90s and detained him (at which point he apparently had a panic attack and was taken to the hospital).

This left Emily in a legal limbo of sorts. For more than a day she was detained in federal custody in Washington while her parents, who speak only a little English, tried to figure out what was going on.

At which point versions of the story vary. Customs officials say they offered Emily's father Leonel Ruiz a chance to either pick up Emily at Dulles or to have the girl return to Guatemala with her grandpa. But if Ruiz had gone to pick up his daughter, he would have run the risk of being detained himself. And anyway, according to him, he was never offered that choice. Instead, he says, an official told him that Emily could either go back to Guatemala or be put into the custody of Virginia—an idea that terrified the Ruiz family.

“We were very worried, and my wife was crying and crying at what was happening,” Ruiz told the Times. Ruiz's lawyer, David Sperling, is now planning on sending a staffer to retrieve the girl in the coming days.

Meanwhile the U.S. is defending its actions saying that the Customs and Border Protection agency "strives to reunite children who are citizens with their parents. If the parents decide not to take custody of their children, the CBP works with other agencies to guard the security and the well-being of these children. That includes handing them over to other families.”

This story breaks as the issue of automatic citizenship for those born on U.S. soil has been much in the news. Last week Arizona came thisclose to pushing a measure that would have brought the issue to the Supreme Court, and other states (like Kansas and California) have flirted with laws to make automatic citizenship harder for children.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

Comments [rss]

  • Dave Francis

    I'm sorry my family comes first and for that I have joined the TEA Party, who will fight these injustices to taxpayers. The child under the Liberal law, interpreted from the US Constitution says she gets instant citizenship. However, the parents stole across the border, illegally with intentions to stay--so they can be deported forthwith. No excuse, no option and no exceptions. The must leave.

  • edgie168

    lol

  • OK. Let's get rid of all the hate and look at it from a rational point of view

    ... let's try to look at it from the point of view of the "illegals"... Seeing that the people who escape and seek refuge here actually NEED it because of crime ridden, war torn, POVERTY stricken countries who wont and can't help their own people.

    Also, for the excuse of "oh, if i were them, i would have applied for citizenship LEGALLY and waited my turn" that probably would never happen. Most "undesirable" countries have extremely limited immigration allowances (meaning people applying for legal citizenship from Guatemala have a smaller chance to immigrate to the US versus people from European countries -- who have almost NO WAIT to get a green card). People from "undesirable" countries have to wait YEARS before even being considered. (i'm talking about 5 to 10 yrs, and that doesn't count being naturalized. My grandparents waited 10 YEARS after being legal TAX PAYING citizens of this country to finally be naturalized american citizens.).

    And even then, do you want to be stuck in a country, waiting for a visa with people threating to kill you just because you have only a little bit more money than them? Because you're college educated? Because you can't find any other job but prostitution? Because you want a better life? (these are a bit random, but you get what i mean)

    Please stop and think before spewing ignorance and acknowledge that "illegals" are also human beings, and that if you were in their situation you would feel differently.

  • Petey

    http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/as...

    See table 4 page 4. over 1/4 of legal permanent residents are from mexico, and over about 2/3s of those are eligible to naturalize. The next largest group is from the philipines, with 1/7 the number here legally.

    I'm not going to go through every country to determine which ones are "poverty stricken" and which ones aren't. Thats for you do decide on whatever method you choose.

  • BoogieDown

    For the record, I'm European (white) and was in the U.S. for five years before I got my green card. My green card was obtained through marriage to a U.S. citizen and I wouldn't have been able to get it otherwise (my workplace doesn't sponsor foreigners for green cards). So, your whole theory about it being so easy for Europeans to get green cards is false. I am also still on "probationary status" for another year, after which I can apply for a 10-year green card. Even then, I still have a loooong way to go before becoming a naturalized citizen.

    All that being said, I feel for people whose futures seem hopeless in their homeland. I've spent a lot of time in really poor countries and can sympathize with the day to day struggle of so many of our fellow human beings. Sadly, like so many posting here, I don't have the answers. All I can ask is that people in this country educate themselves on the variety of issues facing immigrants in the U.S., whether they be here legally or illegally.

  • Guest

    insightful as always, Boogie. i have a very international family, several of whom have dealt with the same green card issues as yourself. it gets even more confusing and emotional when you have children too.

    the answers are far from clear. from prehistory, humans have always migrated toward bountiful resources, today is no different. there needs to be a way to allow people to continue this pattern, but with imaginary national lines of demarcation it has become very difficult...

  • 100

    Crap, actually agree with you on this one.

  • Guest

    dammit, i must be wrong then! :)

    but that's the problem with identity politics. it stops people who actually agree on larger points from reaching consensus. sorry if it got personal.

  • edgie168

    now kiss

  • Guest

    only if you'll join and make it a 3-way, you saucy hunk of man you.

  • Guest

    so what is your solution?

  • Odd this article didn't mention the fact-printed by other media-that daddy has been in the U.S. ( illegally) for FIFTEEN years,yet No English Speak. Why bother? 'Press 'one' for English',food stamps/WIC/Medicaid/Section 8 subsidized housing/free school meal program apps are in Spanish,and toss in free court and hospital translators.

  • 100

    How many languages do you speak? I only speak one myself.

  • 100

    Hmm, as I just wrote if someone uses it occaissionally or rarely it's not a big deal (I'd guess the Democrats you are talking about did that). ("one point or another" is occassionally - hope that doesn't confuse you) But if "illegals" as a noun is the standard term they use, then they're probably racists.

  • 100

    I've noticed that people who use the word "illegals" a noun, for illegal immigrants/people in the US w/o a proper visa, tend to be racists. Not always - but usually. Just sayin'.

  • ktinnyc

    Sweeping generalizations like this really don't help anyone or further the debate. Barack Obama used the term, is he a racist?

  • 100

    As I said, usually racist. If someone uses it occassionally, either by mistake or a short-hand just rarely, then it needn't mean anything. But if that's the most common way they talk about illegal aliens, then yeah, they're probably racist.

    And I think pointing out racism does "help the debate" - it's pointing out where people are coming from. That kind of label, when it's accurate, is a good thing to observe.

  • ktinnyc

    You're not pointing out racism. Look at the debates from the 2008 Democratic debates, I'm pretty certain everyone used the term, "illegal" at one point or the other.

  • Guest

    and those who use "undocumented" seem to want to confuse the issue.

  • 100

    Seeing as how reality is complex, and there is not just one "issue" maybe some confusion is in order. There's more to these people than just their immigration status. I don't go around calling people who speed in cars or cheat on their taxes "illegals." Murderers get one word, but that's a pretty bad thing they did, and we want to emphasize that. If you just want to look at people by their immigration status - then yeah "illegals" makes some sense. And that outlook shows a lack of recognition for the complexity of life.

blog comments powered by Disqus

send a tip

tips@gothamist.com