American Families United to be featured in the NY Times this Sunday Nov 12

[Randall Emery 0]

My wife and I are one of four couples (US citizens married to somebody from another country) to be profiled. It will be in the Style section.

Randall

http://www.americanfamiliesunited.org

[Kath 0]

interesting articles...

kath

[LaL 418]

I wrote to the author. When are legal immigrants going to get their OWN article without mentioning illegals?

Ms. Navarro,

While I so apreciate the light you have brought to the Immigration debale thousands of us are experiencing, I cannot help but be dissapointed again in the "blending" of topics.

Consequences to previous illegal presence does NOT equate to individuals who have gone the legal route. Couples who have filed their paperwork, paid appropriate fees, waited and waited and STILL have a beaurocratic nightmare should NOT have their stories soiled by talking about illegal consequences in the same article.

I have been dealing with USCIS on behalf of my husband for 921 days now, and are still pending status, which essentially IS no status. We went through a lengthy security clearance for my husband prior to his entry to the US and now again, stuck in namecheck stateside. Redundancy? Yes. Typical? Seems so. But we are not dealing with ANY consequences of having prior illegal status.

Just wanted to point out that the general public knows extremely little about the rigors of this process, and it is grossly unfair to present a sympathetic article on legal immigration when including issues that deal with prior illegal presences.

Thank you,

Laura H

[rebeccajo 14]

I wrote to the author. When are legal immigrants going to get their OWN article without mentioning illegals?

Ms. Navarro,

While I so apreciate the light you have brought to the Immigration debale thousands of us are experiencing, I cannot help but be dissapointed again in the "blending" of topics.

Consequences to previous illegal presence does NOT equate to individuals who have gone the legal route. Couples who have filed their paperwork, paid appropriate fees, waited and waited and STILL have a beaurocratic nightmare should NOT have their stories soiled by talking about illegal consequences in the same article.

I have been dealing with USCIS on behalf of my husband for 921 days now, and are still pending status, which essentially IS no status. We went through a lengthy security clearance for my husband prior to his entry to the US and now again, stuck in namecheck stateside. Redundancy? Yes. Typical? Seems so. But we are not dealing with ANY consequences of having prior illegal status.

Just wanted to point out that the general public knows extremely little about the rigors of this process, and it is grossly unfair to present a sympathetic article on legal immigration when including issues that deal with prior illegal presences.

Thank you,

Laura H

Oooooh. Very nicely said.

[LaL 418]

i re-read it and it seems overly negative. I am tired ya know Bec. I want to thank Randall for the work he has done for all of us. It is so appreciated.

[Randall Emery 0]

i re-read it and it seems overly negative. I am tired ya know Bec. I want to thank Randall for the work he has done for all of us. It is so appreciated.

You're not the first person to have that kind of immediate reaction. I understand the frustration and the feeling branded like a criminal when you gone to such extreme pains to do everything right. I remember an interview on ABC news on April 10th when the caption under my wife's name read "undocumented worker". I was so upset that I called the reporter and left a message along the lines of what you said below.

But, you need to know, it does not take away from the issue. That reporter actually did us (and I mean "us" collectively) a big favor. Following that TV report that upset me, I got a call from a local newspaper reporter that saw it. My wife and I were on front page of the paper the next week. I cut out that article, sent it in to my congressman asking for a meeting, two months later got a personal meeting, and presented drafted legislation. That legislation is making its way through the process. Unfortunately, we're going to taking a step back before we mover forward because my congressman was defeated (ironically largely due to an FBI investigation). But we can work with whoever is in office, and we have a much better chance of getting this addressed with the Democrats in the House of Representatives.

But there is one last thing that you should know: Pastor Harrell has sacrificed for this cause unlike very few others. The amendment that I mentioned above was paid for, by about 20%, from Pastor Harrell selling his car and contributing to the cause. He actually has done more to help anybody stuck in a security check than just about any other person in the country.

Regarding the article itself, there are important things that I think really should have been mentioned: his wife was legally in the country under TPS status when they applied, and the bar is permanent (they can reapply for a waiver after 10 years, but it will probably be denied). Also, it was the threat of interpretting the secuirty check delay as reason for a bar that kept us from travelling, so this issue really is something we want to address.

One thing holding back more stories like yours is that not everybody is willing to tell it. One thing this article gives us is the opportunity for follow up stories in local papers. If you would be willing to talk about your story publicly (and I have to say, people are very supportive of our situation in general), I'd encourge you to sign up on our volunteer directory and document your story in our myspace group. Links to both of these are on our web site:

http://www.americanfamiliesunited.org

Randall

P.S. The New York Times also had a good story just about security checks a little while back, so they have done some coverage on the issue by itself:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/23/nyregion/23citizen.html

[rebeccajo 14]

I'm considering taking our story public. But I don't want to be misquoted and I want the story to be told accurately and without any EWI factor. There's absolutely no point in my going to our local paper as its a disgraceful rag.

I'm really not certain where to look.

[Randall Emery 0]

I'm considering taking our story public. But I don't want to be misquoted and I want the story to be told accurately and without any EWI factor. There's absolutely no point in my going to our local paper as its a disgraceful rag.

I'm really not certain where to look.

A lot of times it takes an event to bring out the press. One possibility would be if we formed a chapter in your area and announced it. Another possibility is to get some advice from advocates in your area. Finally, you know just be being part of the group, an opportunity might come our way. I just got a call from a reporter in South Florida who saw the NY Times story. There is a real value just in coming together.

I would be very surprised if anybody made a mistake like you mentioned in a written article. That has never happened to any of us.

[LaL 418]

I'm considering taking our story public. But I don't want to be misquoted and I want the story to be told accurately and without any EWI factor. There's absolutely no point in my going to our local paper as its a disgraceful rag.

I'm really not certain where to look.

A lot of times it takes an event to bring out the press. One possibility would be if we formed a chapter in your area and announced it. Another possibility is to get some advice from advocates in your area. Finally, you know just be being part of the group, an opportunity might come our way. I just got a call from a reporter in South Florida who saw the NY Times story. There is a real value just in coming together.

I would be very surprised if anybody made a mistake like you mentioned in a written article. That has never happened to any of us.

except when your wife was listed as an undocumented worker! I am in Florida so if they are interested in a "local" I am here!

I have also thought of taking my story to the press, but I anticipate the public sees *Arab* and they will think - "Good, check, recheck and triplecheck!"

I did get a blanket response today from the NY Post that my email was delievered to the author.