« Column: Getting serious about energy policy | Main | Adam Smith on CSR »

An immigration story

06 Aug 2008 09:50 am

A friend sends me this, which I urge you to read in full (the point of the story is in the details).

Ex-UI researcher faces deportation

Katarzyna Dziewanowska grew up in the "gray communist life" of Poland. But it was in America where she found a truly nightmarish experience with a bureaucracy. After nearly 14 years as a researcher at the University of Idaho, Dziewanowska has been denied permanent residency by U.S. immigration officials, who say she worked without authorization for eight months. She did that, she and her attorneys say, on the advice of the UI, and she quit working for a time when the university advised her to do so.

But her appeals have fallen on deaf ears with immigration officials. She'd like to take the case before an immigration judge, but that could take months or years. In the meantime, she can't work and has no legal residency status. Because it is a family application, her husband - a UI researcher studying a promising treatment of retroviruses - can no longer receive grants. Her son can't apply for a free-tuition program through his employer.

"She has no legal status," said Michael Cherasia, her former attorney. "She's not able to legally work. Certainly she can't continue to do her research. (Agents) could come to her door any morning, arrest her, detain her and ship her out of the country."

As I say, read the whole thing. Look at what she was researching. Look at her standing in her field. Look at why she now faces deportation.

One thing to say, no doubt, is that Dziewanowska broke the rules. By their lights, the authorities did nothing improper. Also, it seems odd to me that she and more particularly her employer did not see fit to hire a lawyer until it was too late. This is America. You do nothing without a lawyer. But this does not subtract much from the insane disproportion of the outcome--from her point of view, from her family's, and not least from that of the US. What made me groan out loud was the meaningless glitch that ordained it: an application was rejected twice because a photo was not up to specification, in the second case because of glare on a lens of her glasses. From this, the rest followed. Two "rejections", no appeal, life squashed. You have a problem with that?

Comments (23)

This is infuriating. It is no wonder we Americans living abroad face so many hurdles that we didn't formerly face from the bureaucracies in the countries where we live. Americans used to be respected abroad and treated with deference, especially in Europe (for good reason); but now we are the number-one target for official immigration hassles. There is nothing a petty Eurocrat loves more than making us pompous Americans jump through hoops.

Of course, this new official skepticism of us is nothing but retribution for these increasingly common, petty traps that the U.S. sets for their citizens when they try to reside in our country and contribute to it. The U.S. needs to wake up and adjust its antiquated rules and procedures to the fact that it's 2008, not 1945.

Why on earth is our government hellbent on destroying all the good will America has earned in this world throughout its history? And why is a Republican administration, which should have been about small goverment, building such a preposterously invasive, counterproductive and inhumane culture of bureaucracy?

Someone should be held accountable for this, by name. Maybe we should ask Condoleeza Rice what she thinks about this episode transpiring on her watch.

Science, research know no borders. Dziewanowska, her husband, son and any other offspring can continue their work in their native Poland. Indeed, Poland, no longer the "grey communist" country of decades past, is a tourist mecca, and a truly European country with opportunities comparable to any country in the world. Poland would doubtless welcome expatriates with the training, language skills, diverse experience and connections that the Dziewanowska's benefitted from during their stay in the U.S. A change of address will have no credible impact on her standing in the field. One cannot responsibly state that the negative consequences of her family returning to their native Poland will offset the positive aspects and contributions this family can make to their native country.

Perhaps she'll need to find other research to pursue, as this is commonly the case with researchers, there is no appreciable loss, and her husband and son might need some time to wean themselves from their dependence on American tax payers contributions to their research grants and higher education, but there are no other impediments to this family enjoying continued success and prosperity in their native land.

Like it or not, Dziewanowska failed, for whatever reason, to abide by our rules. By this account, seemingly she did so with knowledge of the consequences. The United States is the most fair and open of all countries as regards good faith efforts to legally immigrate Our rules, if exceptions to those rules become commonplace, would no longer be laws, but merely loosely enforced guidelines.

Seriously, the "glare from the glasses: is nothing more than a red herring to deflect that Dziewanowska worked and resided in this country without authorization for eight months. That self acknowledged fact I would suggest, is the primary cause of her present quandry. The whole glasses/glare situation could have and should have been corrected immediately when it was brought to her attention.

Obviously bureaucratically minded people will have nothing of value to say about this (cf. above, "she broke our rules", etc.). All this shows is that the United States lacks common sense, both on the governmental level and on the level of individual citizens, who choose to hide behind "rules" to defend or explain nonsense. The utter lack of BS-detectors is only one of many reasons why I left the US, thereby not actively contributing to my "home country's" (again, cf. above) development.

It only takes one year outside the fishbowl to see that the whole place is mad.

Our applications were rejected for the same reason - we had taken and printed the photos ourselves- so we were sent to a hole in the wall photo booth around the corner to someone who could have been the brother of the security guard where they produced new photos for us instantly (and charged us over the odds). They were accepted.
Good lesson in enterprise and the market.

Poland, no longer the "grey communist" country of decades past, is a tourist mecca, and a truly European country with opportunities comparable to any country in the world.

Ed Weirdness: And that's exactly the point. These days there exist numerous, highest level professional opportunities in myriad fields all over the world. It is America that is harmed most by her insane immigration policies, because it isn't necessary for highly skilled international workers put up with Washington's bullshit. They can go elsewhere.

Get it?

Ed Weirdness, your response represents all that I see wrong with conservative Americans today. You don't really understand the immigrant experience (the emotional aspect of it) so you just think you can make these ridiculous blanket statements about "fairness" but you really don't understand what you're talking about. You have no clue why these people left (I mean, really, you don't -- you think you have it all figured out but until you experience something like this you'll never know what it feels like to leave your homeland behind) and then to be FORCED to go back home when you thought you were playing by the rules? It's a lot more complicated than your oversimplified American idea of "abiding by the rules."

About the research grants: it's not like they were abused -- you make it sound like they stole money from hardworking Americans. They did research with the research grants. Do you really care about the immigration status of the person who finds the cure for cancer or some other kind of disease?

And please, these people may not be "legal" but they (Dzidzianowska and many others) work very hard and have no doubt contributed to the American economy in many ways. They still pay taxes for food and other goods. They still have to pay taxes on their earnings. They're still paying taxes on property. They're really no different from me or you except they don't have as many (or any?) advantages as we do because they are deemed "illegal."

This is a much more complicated issue than you or I deciding what's "right." The reality is that immigration -- leaving your old homeland or your adopted new one -- is a tough decision to make and having someone force you to do something and to leave someplace you call home is much more difficult to do than you realize.

Thanks for reading.

Ed Weirdness,

If you think it's desirable that researchers should be sent back home to Eastern Europe, you don't have any idea what's best for America. One of the reasons America led the world in innovation was that it attracted the best scientific minds from around the world. There are plenty of other countries that would love to be the world's leading destination for scientific researchers, and they'll get the benefits that go along with that.

I didn't advocate for anyone to be forced to return to their country. I merely observed that, not following the rules can and should get you in trouble. Indeed the entire objective of laws and pinishments is to establish sufficient incentives for following the law and playing by the rules.

I further opined that "cutting anyone slack" simply because of their position or skills undermines our immigration laws and the sense of justice. The fact that this woman had been in our country for 14 years, and hadn't managed to get around to "applying for citizenship" says more about her intentions than it does my "unreasonable" expectations that, in the course of 14 years, she, her husband or their son, might have found time to follow the rules.

Further, I still contend that returning to Poland, if that is the ultimate result of events, will not be the end of anyone's life, their career, or their standing in the field. As for the assertion that many countries would love to be the leading destination for scientific research, I would note that all nations have this opportunity, but it is only the United States that is daft enough to spend tax dollars on grants that are renewed over and over again, for research that never seems to go anywhere, or produce any beneficial result. To paraphrase the Ghostbusters when forced to leave their cushy positions in academe "I've been in the private sector, they expect results".

What this seems to boil down to, is that after 14 years, and an abundance of opportunity to get things right, or apply for citizenship, this researcher got caught, but doesn't want to accept the consequences.

Sorry if I've upset anyone, but it seems unfair to let "researchers" slide, while the laws are applied fully to others.

It's not just petitioners for immigration. You can be a naturalized US citizen for 15 years and still have to live in fear of a knock on your door in the wee hours of the morning. Immigration can try to de-naturalize you using the same sort of logic as in the case above: any minor "flaw" they can find in your petition for immigration, which they never noticed or mentioned when you petitioned for naturalization ages ago (and therefore probably invented); pretending that you're still a petitioner for immigration by deciding that you match the physical description of some such person (although their own files indicate that you're a citizen and therefore couldn't be petitioning for immigration); more and more. Outrageous! Immigration lawyers universally agree on one thing: once you're a citizen, that's it. Immigration must leave you alone. But that's not what they actually do.

I'd take this whole story with a grain of salt given her lawyer's statement quoted above. First, she most certainly cannot be seized by immigration agents and shipped out of the country. Any deportation requires a series of legal proceedings that usually takes years. Second, I've never heard of agents detaining anyone who legally entered the U.S. simply because their permanent residency application was rejected - ICE rarely ever even detains someone who came into the country illegaly in the first place. Given that her lawyer's quote is total nonsense, I have to question how accurate the rest of the story is.

I know Kasia and am familiar with her story. I would like to make a point of clarification. When Kasia submitted the original photo, she submitted a profile shot as was the then current requirements. By the time the immigration folks got around to processing her file the photo requirements had changed to require a full face photo not a profile. Again, when she filed her application the requirement was for a profile — the confusion over the full face photo requirement only came AFTER her paperwork was filed — something Kasia had no control over. The problem with the glare in her glasses is because her glasses are EXTREMELY thick due to a serious car accident. She submitted two sets of photos one without the glasses and one with. They were both rejected as the requirement is that if you wear glasses you must wear them for the photo. She is was placed in a position that there was no way she could meet the requirements. Her eye doctor even provided documentation that due to her current glasses prescription there was no way to take a photo by current INS standards that would not show glare in her glasses. The point is Kasia did everything she could to meet the INS requirements. It was during this time when the "great glasses" discussion was going on and she had been told that her special case was under consideration that the confusion over her work status occurred. One side was saying because of her circumstances she was free to work — the other reading the rules as strictly as possible said no — but only after she had been given to go ahead to work while her case was under consideration. She thought in good faith she was following the rules.

The fact that this woman had been in our country for 14 years, and hadn't managed to get around to "applying for citizenship" says more about her intentions than it does my "unreasonable" expectations that, in the course of 14 years, she, her husband or their son, might have found time to follow the rules.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any part of the story that says she wanted citizenship the minute she arrived here. The article DOES say that she worked in a few other countries doing research, so it is possible her original intention was to stay in the U.S. as long as her research project lasted, but decided to apply for citizenship a few years ago.

I almost spit on the screen when I read this little nugget: "though immigration officials have said that as a university professor, Dziewanowska should be able to follow the laws." And yet, neither she, nor the university could figure them out enough to follow them even if they wanted to. Doesn't that tell them something?

Dziewanowska made two mistakes. 1.) She trusted UI more than she should have. I'm sure they did their best, but obviously their best wasn't good enough. Many insulated academics have made the mistake of thinking that their universities will handle things for them, and that might have been true at one time, but no more.

Which leads me to her second mistake - both she and the university, tried to deal with and follow the "rules." By that, I mean they really tried to wrap their brains around this bureaucratic idiocy, and, being somewhat normal people, failed miserably.

I have had personal experience with the "glare on the eyeglasses" issue. It happened when I got my last passport. It did not involve getting a note from my doctor. That would be feeding the monster, and ultimately does no good. The solution was actually pretty easy, and relied on the fact that all you have to do is make it LOOK like you are following the rules so they can cover their asses. Remember, most bureaucrats have gone totally insane from their jobs, and have no interest in what is real, just what LOOKS real.

The fact that this woman had been in our country for 14 years, and hadn't managed to get around to "applying for citizenship" says more about her intentions than it does my "unreasonable" expectations that, in the course of 14 years, she, her husband or their son, might have found time to follow the rules.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any part of the story that says she wanted citizenship the minute she arrived here. The article DOES say that she worked in a few other countries doing research, so it is possible her original intention was to stay in the U.S. as long as her research project lasted, but decided to apply for citizenship a few years ago.

I almost spit on the screen when I read this little nugget: "though immigration officials have said that as a university professor, Dziewanowska should be able to follow the laws." And yet, neither she, nor the university could figure them out enough to follow them even if they wanted to. Doesn't that tell them something?

Dziewanowska made two mistakes. 1.) She trusted UI more than she should have. I'm sure they did their best, but obviously their best wasn't good enough. Many insulated academics have made the mistake of thinking that their universities will handle things for them, and that might have been true at one time, but no more.

Which leads me to her second mistake - both she and the university, tried to deal with and follow the "rules." By that, I mean they really tried to wrap their brains around this bureaucratic idiocy, and, being somewhat normal people, failed miserably.

I have had personal experience with the "glare on the eyeglasses" issue. It happened when I got my last passport. It did not involve getting a note from my doctor. That would be feeding the monster, and ultimately does no good. The solution was actually pretty easy, and relied on the fact that all you have to do is make it LOOK like you are following the rules so they can cover their asses. Remember, most bureaucrats have gone totally insane from their jobs, and have no interest in what is real, just what LOOKS real.

Ed, the first time I read your response, I thought it was a somewhat witty parody. You were serious?!

Have you ever read Catch 22? Have you read anything by Kafka? Doing so would be a good start. Then you should travel a little bit, preferably on your own and somewhere where you don't speak the language. Then get back to us.

Hmmmmm.

1. I am a hardline fiscal conservative.

2. I was born in Seoul, South Korea.

3. I am now a naturalized American citizen.

4. Thus I am a first generation immigrant.

5. Thus I have experienced, in *spades*, how it is to immigrate into America.

6. American immigration laws are very very specific. Her employer had no business putting their needs ahead of her need to follow the law.

But the onus was/is on her to follow the law and not her employer. If your employer tells you to break the law and you do so, you're the one that goes to jail. Or is, in this case, deported.

7. If she was a maid I doubt there'd be this much outrage.

8. The legal immigration laws are outdated and byzantine. Which is why you MUST hire an immigration lawyer to have the best chance at success.

9. With both spouses working as highly paid researchers, I assume, hiring a lawyer shouldn't have been much of a problem. Particularly if they could do so through the University.

10. You break the law, you face the consequences. Some times it's painful. Some times it's ugly.

Too frigging bad.

Hmmmm.

@ ntab2

"There are plenty of other countries that would love to be the world's leading destination for scientific researchers, and they'll get the benefits that go along with that."

Sorry but you simply do not understand how things work.

R&D happens all over the world. But when it comes time to actually implement it or build the resulting products that decision rarely has anything to do with where the research took place.

Remember? Global economy?

Here in the US the federal and state governments routinely spend hundreds of billions of dollars on research. But a lot of the resulting products still get made in China.

Soooooooo. How does that R&D in the US, paid for by US taxpayers, translate into jobs here in the US? Happenstance.

So there really isn't any sort of direct connection. I assure you that if this researcher went back to Poland and discovered the cure for cancer, our pharmaceutical companies would make that drug just the same as anybody else.

Hmmmm.

@ Anna

"Ed Weirdness, your response represents all that I see wrong with conservative Americans today. You don't really understand the immigrant experience (the emotional aspect of it) so you just think you can make these ridiculous blanket statements about "fairness" but you really don't understand what you're talking about."

Frankly, as an immigrant myself, I think your response is based on fantasy and projection.

This isn't the 1900's, Ellis Island isn't active and these people certainly don't qualify as "poor" or "huddled masses".

Hmmmmm.

@ Tim

"Have you ever read Catch 22?"

You mean where Yossarian stands in formation naked? How does that have anything to do with this?

I remind you that "Catch-22" is **fiction**.

It may, at times, seem to resemble real life. But it isn't.

" Have you read anything by Kafka? Doing so would be a good start."

WTF?

"Then you should travel a little bit, preferably on your own and somewhere where you don't speak the language. Then get back to us."

You mean like Burma? Zimbabwe? The Ivory Coast? Libya? North Korea? Iran? China? Tibet? The West Bank? Gaza? Syria?

What the hell does "travel a little bit" have anything to do with this?

My advice to you sir is that perhaps you should see a doctor for your condition.

Yes, same with me.

I can't believe you guys are missing the whole point. The point of the story is not Mrs Dziewanowska. The point of the story is ordinary man's fight against bureaucracy. Be it U.S. or European or Burmese or Zimbabwean.

Mrs Dziewanowska is only a prime example of what simple-mindedness in bureaucratic way of thin... errr... doing things can cause. It doesn't matter that she is a top scientist. I don't like to think that her life, because she is a top scientist, is valued more than life of any other human being. Accordingly, I don't think that her being a top scientist should matter in any discussion of her case.

What matters here is that she followed the rules. And even though she followed all the rules she was told that she didn't follow them and was denied residency.

This is a story of bureaucratic mind (if such a thing actually exists) destroying lives of ordinary people only because it refuses to think.

As I wrote, the fact that Mrs Dziewanowska can find a job in almost any university in the world doesn't matter much. It's the fact that she and her husband, being the age they are, probably didn't have the intention of moving anywhere else in the near future. In the last decade they have settled to live in U.S. It wouldn't be a problem for them to move if they wanted to do that. But, apparently, they don't want to. And even in spite of following all the rules that the environment where they want to live was asking of them, they might be forced to go and completely change their lives. All because of a bureaucratic glitch. A little bit unfair, don't you think?

"The fact that this woman had been in our country for 14 years, and hadn't managed to get around to "applying for citizenship" says more about her intentions than it does my "unreasonable" expectations that, in the course of 14 years, she, her husband or their son, might have found time to follow the rules."

Why do Americans assume that anyone who comes here can simply apply for citizenship? I am an E2 investor with a small business. I employ 8 US citizens, pay taxes etc. etc. I could be here for 114 years and, under current legislation, may not apply for citizenship. If I want to retire, sell my business or become too ill to run it, I must leave. My teenage children (honor students) must leave when they reach 21.

Why do think America has such a huge illegal immigration problem? Because immigrating legally is almost impossible thanks to the bungling of successive administrations. If those who invest here and create employment can't stay, what hope for anyone else?

I find odd the notion that it is hypocritical to put up more fuss that a researcher is deported, as opposed to an unskilled laborer or someone with no employment prospects at all. Why should that be? Why should the U.S. not have an especial interest in attracting and retaining very highly skilled workers?

I'm Australian and was a highly skilled potential immigrant to the US.

I attended an Ivy League school and got a prestigious job after graduation. Paid lots of taxes, volunteered for charity, threw lots of big parties that fed lots of Americans. I always assumed I'd stay in the States as it used to be the cliche that Australia had "tall poppy" syndrome (the tallest poppy in the field gets chopped off) and all our high achievers would leave the country.

After a few years of dealing with the Kafkaesque idiots in the immigration system, and watching other friends struggle to rearrange their lives and jump through bureaucratic hoops with erratic success, I started to question whether it was worth it.

Now I'm back in Australia, very happy to be welcome, working, and contributing to this sane, equitable society. I suspect a lot of other international high achievers have started making similar decisions.

That's the real point of Dziewanowska's not unusual story. The US has prospered during this century in large part due to the fruits of "brain drain" from other, poorer countries. That's going to change.

You guys should not think of yourselves as doing me a favour by letting me live in the US. Rather, you should try to think about how to make the US more competitive in the international market for human talent.


Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.