NYC woman’s request to Obama leads to her arrest

[Jeffersons Ghost]

NYC woman’s request to Obama leads to arrest

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Last Updated: 1:39 PM, June 19, 2010

A woman who wrote President Barack Obama, asking for help resolving her husband’s immigration problem got a response she didn’t expect: Federal agents turned up at her New York City home and took her husband to jail.

Officials tell The New York Times that Caroline Jamieson’s letter to the president was mistakenly forwarded to an immigration fugitive unit. After the newspaper inquired about the case, the man, Herve Fonkou Takoulo, was released.

Takoulo is an engineer from Cameroon. He came to the U.S. legally, but was ordered to leave when a judge rejected his application for political asylum. Now he has a second green card application pending based on his 2005 marriage to Jamieson. Still, the deportation order remains in effect.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/nyc_woman_request_to_obama_leads_KR6DGawVZPZf8GO0ArOlPI#ixzz0rLGwffoC

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. Not to be arbitrary, and I do feel sorry for his plight, but is the president

supposed to intervene in every individual immigration case? I hope this is resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned.

[William Z. Foster]

2. no

Just in every case where wealthy representatives from corporations have a problem.

Besides this is not an "individual immigration case." This is case of a person trying in desperation to communicate with elected officials, who was then turned over to the cops. Yeah that is an issue the president ought to know about and act on. Hell yes.

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. How is this not "an individual case"? The article implies that "his" wife's letter

lead to "his" arrest. We do have immigration laws, do we not? I'm not opposed to his being allowed to stay, just that I don't think the administration should set this precedent. Let the INS take care of this, as they would any other case.

[William Z. Foster]

8. you missed my point

I did not say that the President should intervene in an immigration case. I don't think that is what the story is about.

We did have the Fugitive Slave act, as well. But had an escaped slave written to President Lincoln, should that letter have been forwarded to the authorities and used to capture and return the person to bondage?

We have laws about that sort of behavior by those in power, as well, and I think the laws government those acting in official capacity are the most important ones to enforce.

"Let the INS take care of this, as they would any other case??" How do you feel about the Constitution? It is rendered inoperative by ICE "taking care of this, as they would any other case." Should not that law - the supreme law of the land - be obeyed by armed agents of the state? Or is that issue too petty for the President to worry about?

[Tarheel_Dem]

16. We do have other branches of government you know. We don't

know if this family contacted their reps in Congress, or their Senators before writing a letter to the executive branch. This really shouldn't be a story AFAIC.

[William Z. Foster]

23. exactly!

That is my point. You illustrated it perfectly. Those in power and authority are to be given every benefit of the doubt, while those not in power carry the burden of proof and are to be viewed with suspicion. "the law is the law" when it comes to you and I, but that does not apply to the wealthy and powerful. Exactly. That is the problem, and that is why this is a story.

[Tarheel_Dem]

27. Do we know the finances of the couple involved? Your theme seems to be

that you hold people of wealth in contempt. You certainly have a right to dislike whomever you choose, but not all "wealthy and powerful" people are jerks, and they certainly don't demand to be treated differently. While every citizen has the right to address their concerns to the executive, perhaps they should start with the folks who represent them before the executive. Every government agency is a bureaucratic nightmare, and I don't envy the position this guy finds himself in, but that's the process, and has been since government came in to existence.

[William Z. Foster]

33. not at all

I don't hold "people of wealth" in contempt, I hold economic inequality in contempt. Don't you? "People of wealth" - that is funny. You inadvertently evoked some unfortunate imagery there - "people of breeding" and "people of culture" and "people of refinement" and "gentlemen of leisure." No one ever says "people of poverty" or "people of brick laying" or "the gentlemen of hard physical labor."

Rather then "people of wealth" how about we use some of FDR's phrases - "privileged princes of thee new economic dynasties" and "this new industrial dictatorship" and "the new economic royalty" and "the royalists of the economic order?"

He went on to say this about the "people of wealth" -

"For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness."

I guess you would have had a big problem with FDR - he sure seems to not "like" and to "hold in contempt" wealthy people - far more than anything I said would ever suggest.

Who said that all wealthy and powerful people are jerks? Who cares if they were? "Being treated differently" is the whole point of accumulating wealth, by the way. We all know that because every aspect of our lives is oriented around that face. Money is the measure of social status - "being treated differently" - it buys justice, it grants freedom, and it makes the Bill of Rights real for those holding wealth.

No, wealthy people don't demand that they be treated better - they don't need to demand it. The rest of us do, though.

"But that is the process" could be used as cover for just about anything. Come to think of it, it is.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

3. I don't think he is supposed to intervene here either

[Fumesucker]

4. My father wrote to Eisenhower once when Customs was hassling him bigtime..

Surprisingly, it got them off his back..

[4lbs]

5. Well, for one thing, it's the Rupert Murdoch owned New York Post.

You know, the same paper that published the cartoon of two policemen shooting a monkey last year that caused all the outrage?

Leaving that aside, I don't see how it could be remotely linked to being President Obama's fault. He didn't even get the letter since it was mistakenly forwarded by some (likely) low-level staffer to the immigration unit.

[Bluebear]

9. Here, a New York Times link to make you feel better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/nyregion/19immig.html?src=me

[USArmyParatrooper]

57. Totally Misleading

The implication is that President Obama - since he's that bored with so little else to deal with, personally opened this letter and sent the FBI after him.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/nyregion/19immig.html?src=me
Officials said they were investigating how the letter — one of thousands routinely referred to the agency by the White House to gather information for a reply — had been improperly used by the agency’s “fugitive operations” unit to find and arrest Mr. Takoulo, who has an engineering degree and no criminal record.

While Mr. Takoulo is still subject to the deportation order, immigration officials acknowledged that their actions in the case seemed to violate their standard practice of not using letters seeking help from elected officials as investigative leads. The handling of the case also conflicted with the Obama administration’s stated policy of arresting deportable immigrants only if they have criminal records.

[Bluebear]

61. I didn't assume Obama opened the letter at all, why would you?

[Bluebear]

68. ?

[William Z. Foster]

65. don't be silly

You have to be hyper-sensitive to this to think Obama is being blamed for anything or attacked.

No one here expected Obama to personally intervene. I don't even think Obama has anything to do with the story.

Yes!! This does conflict with the administration's stated policy of arresting deportable immigrants only if they have criminal records. That is one of the problems here. That is the story.

[Bluebear]

10. Or a Peruvian link . . . the story is all over Latin America

http://www.larepublica.pe/internacionales/19/06/2010/solicitud-de-mujer-obama-conduce-detencion-de-inmigrante

[William Z. Foster]

11. ah, I missed that

I didn't get that this would be seen as an "attack on Obama."

That explains the reaction.

[underpants]

19. (Getting the truth in the New York Post has been as) difficult as finding a good hamburger in Albani

http://toptenlog.blogspot.com/2008/09/top-ten-paul-newman-quotes.html

[Bluebear]

20. Here ya go, couple hundred other sources for you

http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=Caroline+Jamieson

or HuffPo....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/19/herve-fonkou-takoulo-arre_n_618444.html

[Mojeoux]

21. So the NY Post reported the story, but it was the NY times that came to his defense.

That says a lot right there.

[katandmoon]

7. Letters to the WH and Congress are routinely forwarded to the govt. agency with jurisdiction.

If the info in this article about the guy's situation is correct, I don't see why this is news.

[William Z. Foster]

12. total information awareness

We should all be recruited as snitches, and we can all keep a watch on each other and forward any information to the proper (policing) authorities.

It is all routine. No news here.

[boston bean]

15. it's almost not even worth it to bother.

you aren't allowed to voice the principles you have believed in prior to Obama.

[Bluebear]

17. "This isn't Obama's fault!!!!1"

Keerist, nobody even said it was, the fact was that the woman wrote TO Obama and this was the result due to some idiot staffer.

Any sympathy for the family's plight? Nooooooooooooo just "How could this be Obama's fault?????"

Simply pathetic, it's like nobody else matters anymore.

[Tarheel_Dem]

18. "you aren't allowed to voice the principles you have believed in prior to Obama."

I thought he just did. Do you feel his right to post on a privately held message board have been infringed upon? It is a discussion board. He seems to be discussing, quite intelligently. You? Not so much.

[boston bean]

24. For many here, that is the outcome they desire

no posting about the principles you had pre-Obama because it is taken as a slight or insult to Obama.

Well, I don't know what that says about me. But I certainly have a good idea about what it means from those trying to shut down conversation.

[Tarheel_Dem]

25. No individual poster can "shut down conversation". Skinner has given us

tools to avoid those who we choose not to engage, and I use them liberally (no pun intended). Your response was nothing more than snark, and had nothing to do with the topic at hand. The issue was not DU tendencies, it was about immigration. Any thoughts on that topic?

[boston bean]

28. Oh......

I didn't mean that Skinner was prohibiting conversation.

I meant the overall response to something that would have been an outrage pre-obama is met with replies that seem to be extremely defensive of Obama. I was responding to a posters reply which pretty much said the same thing.

Do I think Obama had the man arrested no. But this type of action reeks of authoritarianism. Whether it is or not, doesn't really matter imho. The appearance of it should give pause, no? And I believe it would have to many prior to Obama. Not all, but many.

Yeah, I think it sucks that the woman who wrote for help ended getting shafted from the people she asked for help from.

[Tarheel_Dem]

31. I think that most of DU would feel empathy for this couple. However,

I'm not sure that there would have been blanket outrage at the government's actions, "prior to Obama", as you state. Some people are just outraged, because it's their norm. Others just simply don't trust the government, no matter who's in charge. And then there are the chronic complainers for whom nothing is ever good enough.

Sadly, you speak as though the entire board should be feeling exactly as you're feeling, or it has somehow lost it's way. Wouldn't that be the "lockstep" you obviously deplore? There would be nothing to discuss, if we all agreed, right? I think your implication was pretty clear, and the original snark was uncalled for.

[boston bean]

32. Not quite, I was supporting a duer who I think might be on the same wavelength as I am.

Is there something wrong with that?

Is this not a discussion board? You and I agree on that, I believe.

I do however think you barging in and accusing me of lockstep is one way of trying to get me to shut the fuck up.

I was reaffirming a posters feelings. Letting him know that I got where it was that he was coming from.

It's not that big of a deal really and doesn't mean all you think it does.

[Tarheel_Dem]

37. Are these not your words?

Edited on Sat Jun-19-10 07:19 PM by boston bean
"it's almost not even worth it to bother. you aren't allowed to voice the principles you have believed in prior to Obama."

Who doesn't "allow" you to voice your principles? The admins are the only ones who can disallow anything here. You weren't merely "reaffirming a posters feelings", you were taking a dump on people who disagree with you & the poster in question. Call it what you like, "barging in"? :rofl: It's a discussion board, right?

We're so often reminded by the administration's constant critics that groupthink is a bad thing, but you seem awfully touchy that someone had the affrontery to take a slightly different view than yours. And I suspect that since the president was named in the headline, some of us felt that it was meant to elicit more anti Obama sentiment. It works everytime on DU.

[boston bean]

67. I've explained it to you quite a few times. Take it or leave it.

If you are not happy with numerous, courteous explanations of my "words", which was an explanation of a feeling, it is no longer my responsibility to explain it to you further. I can't make you get it, nor do I wish to.

No hard feelings, really, Buddy!

[William Z. Foster]

41. ROFL

Are those the categories for people who happen to disagree with you about the use of government authority?

"Some people are just outraged, because it's their norm."

"Others just simply don't trust the government, no matter who's in charge."

"The chronic complainers for whom nothing is ever good enough."

No one is saying that everyone here should feel exactly the same way.

However, a group of Democrats routinely siding with the authorities over the accused, and defending and apologizing for privatization and regressive taxation and corporate bail outs and trickle down economics and Union-busting and arguing against public education is most definitely a group of Democrats that has "somehow lost it's way" - seriously lost its way.

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. That's the price of a big tent. Not all Dems feel the way you do, and it sounds like

that's a good thing.

[William Z. Foster]

48. that is not a "big tent"

Interesting you would say this, because this "big tent" idea is always used as an excuse to give equal weight to a very small minority of people within the party who differ very little from the Republicans in terms of political stance. It is used as a way to legitimatize and propagate ideas that are at odds with the fundamental principles of the political left. But "big tent" is never applied when it comes to the so-called "radicals." The tent is never big enough to include them other than on a "too bad, you have nowhere else to go" basis.

That is right, not everyone who calls themselves a Democrat" does "feel" the way I do. What difference does that make? Debate the ideas, then. This is yet another retreat - rather than defending your point of view - which I do not believe you can do - you instead invoke this "big tent" argument. Defend your point of view. The fact that you cannot does not mean that I am trying to make a "small tent." I just like to know what sorts of critters are under the big top and what their intentions are.

I am also acting what sort of tent this is. Obviously not everyone is welcome. Republicans - those who call themselves so - are not, "Naderites" are not. Yet people who express the same points of view as Republicans do on dozens of issues are welcome apparently, so long as they call themselves "Democrats," while people who express points of view that agree with Nader, even if they vote Democratic, not so much. So I don't think the issue is "big tent" or not. I think the issue is who we are, and what the tent is going to be about. You have some ideas. Defend and support those, and I will do the same with my ideas.

Interesting.

[Tarheel_Dem]

53. If you can get 'em elected. Go for it. And FWIW, Nader is an egotistical psychopath.

I can't think of anyone with whom I disagree more. You'd be hardput to get him elected, and even more hardput to get any of his ideas through the legislative process. I'm all for electing more progressive Dems, but the price of chairmanships depends on having a majority, and that majority comes with Democrats who may not agree with you on every issue.

[depakid]

55. Now there was a profoundly telling statement if there ever was one

I can't think of anyone (Nader) with whom I disagree more- and "I'm all for electing progressive Democrats."

One of those statements is patently false. And I suspect discerning readers know which one.

[William Z. Foster]

59. here is the thing, though

If the Democrats in power and with the big mouths - you and I for example - stood unambiguously with the working class the way Republicans stand unambiguously with the wealthy few, we would have a much bigger tent, and more importantly that tent would include 70% of the general public. That is the big tent we should be thinking about.

We include a few conservatives in Democratic clothing, and let them dominate us, at the expense of losing 20-30% of the working class people. Bad trade off. That is a small tent, not a big tent.

"Electing more progressive Dems" won't be possible and will not accomplish anything. That is the approach we have been taking for the last 40 years, and it has failed. We need fighters, not people who "believe" the right things. I will take one Dean over a hundred Kuciniches, even though my politics are probably closer to those of Dennis. We need to know where we stand - with the working class people - not to keep beating working class people over the head about our beliefs. We need a stronger message, not ways to get the existing message out. All of that comes from us, because social and political change is not driven by partisan electoral politics nor by politicians. Elections tell us where we have been, not where we are going. Politicians go where we tell them - force them - to go. Elections are an effect, not a cause of political change. Outside pressure from independent groups is what is needed, that is what has driven all change throughout history - the only thing that ever has or ever can.

[William Z. Foster]

29. sure they can

Distraction, diversion, creating an uproar, negative recommendations - there are quite a few ways available to people for shutting down conversation.

The OP is not about immigration.

[Tarheel_Dem]

34. "Distraction"; "Diversion". You mean like turning this discussion into

a debate about rich vs. poor? Perhaps you should tell the family who wrote to the president that this is not about immigration.:shrug:

[William Z. Foster]

38. my, my

I "turned it into" a discussion about the proper role of those in power and authority.

I can assure you that "the family who wrote to the president that this" does not think it is "about immigration." They think it is about being arrested.

[Tarheel_Dem]

39. Arrested for what? What does this arrest stem from? What was the letter for? (nt)

[William Z. Foster]

42. you retreat

You retreat onto a smaller and smaller patch of ground, yet keep fighting.

I say that the nature of the alleged offense is of secondary concern and not the main point of the article, and you reply "what was the arrest for?" Huh?

What if the woman had written to the President saying "my husband is having a hard time kicking a drug habit, do you have any advice" and the cops showed up and arrested her husband for possession. Would that article then be "about drugs?"

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. Is the gentleman in question not an illegal immigrant at this point?

Isn't that what the whole letter to the president was about? Wasn't the wife asking for special handling of her husband's immigration status? If he were in the country legally, he wouldn't be behind bars, and we wouldn't be discussing this. I still don't see how you veered off into a tirade about "wealthy people".

[William Z. Foster]

52. well, maybe

Yes, there is an immigration angle to the story. I still think it is secondary. Status offenses are particularly odious because they invite abuse. That is the part of this story that relates to immigration - immigration enforcement inevitably leads to all sorts of abuses by the authorities. When a person can be deemed to be a criminal merely by "being" something - until and unless they can prove that they are not this thing - due process and the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus are dead.

Wealth inequality is relevant to any and all discussions about politics and the law. It is the dominating and driving factor in everything.

[katandmoon]

26. Have you ever worked for the federal goverrnment? I have.

That's why I know the forwarding of this letter was absolutely routine, and that it was forwarded by the WH correspondence office, whose mission is merely to forward letters to what it believes is the most appropriate federal agencies for response, not to evaluate the potential consequences of forwarding those letters. If the guy was under a deportation order it was just unfortunate for him, but again I don't see why this is news.

[William Z. Foster]

30. I didn't say it wasn't routine

Nor did I say there was necessarily any fault with the WH correspondence office.

What does having worked for the government have to do with anything? I never worked for an oil corporation, eiothe4r, but I will continue to criticize what they are doing.

"Just unfortunate for him." OK.

[boston bean]

35. Maybe she was asking the President for Honorary Citizenship.

That is the Presidents authority. Yet only 7 people have been granted it, per wiki.

Do I think it likely, hell no, but it could have right? Just like it could have been sent to another Department prior as the other poster states.

But that poster provides no links to back up that assertion. Just some prior experience from working in government. And it could be likely, I'm justy sayin.

So who knows what happened at this point. It could be just as likely that she was asking the President for Honorary Citizenship and there would be no need to send it off to another Department.

[treestar]

13. If he is married to a United States citizen, can't he stay and get a

green card?

But Obama cannot just overturn laws because people send him letters. If the law is that he is deported, then the President can't just change that. Like with his aunt, who he said would be deported if that was the order!

[William Z. Foster]

22. unbelievable

Did any one say, or imply or suggest that they were demanding that Obama "just overturn laws because people send him letters?"

However, since you raised this irrelevant issue in order to discredit people here...

How come the executive branch can do any damned thing it feels like when it comes to harming every day people, but is completely powerless when it comes to helping every day people? How come the executive branch can do any damned thing it feels like when it comes to helping wealthy people, but is completely powerless when it comes to stopping wealthy people from harming us? There is such an enormous and obvious contradiction there, and one that is praised and defended here daily .

[treestar]

66. Is there any proof of all this?

But it would be wrong for the POTUS to just let this guy stay if the law requires his deportation. And Obama said that law would apply to his aunt, too!

You're unbelievable, so quit calling others that. Just trying to create drama and flaming.

The law is the law. This guy will have it applied to him. Since he's married to a citizen of the US he can probably stay.

[jp11]

14. She didn't get arrested, her husband did.

[William Z. Foster]

36. and who said otherwise?

"Woman's request to leads to arrest" is how the headline reads.

That is accurate.

[tammywammy]

45. The OP title

"NYC woman’s request to Obama leads to her arrest"

[hileeopnyn8d]

47. The title of this thread says otherwise

The thread title above says - "NYC woman’s request to Obama leads to her arrest."

Another day, another notch in the disinformation campaign at DU.

[William Z. Foster]

49. oh, yes!

So it does. I missed that. The poster misquoted the story headline and inserted the word "her."

I stand corrected.

[Bluebear]

64. Yes, it couldn't be the poster mistook who was arrested. She's leading a whole "campaign"

:rofl:

[William Z. Foster]

50. right you are

My apologies. I went right to the article and didn't notice that the OP's title misquotes the headline from the article.

[moriah]

40. That's why it's better to write your representative....

... in those cases, than write the federal government directly.

When my now-ex husband's green card didn't show up like it was supposed to and he was worried about his status, I wrote my senator. His green card was in our mailbox in two weeks.

[Tarheel_Dem]

46. Sounds reasonable to me. I think this could have been handled so much better...

had the family taken this directly to their representative. They now run the risk that the husband will still be deported, and the anti-immigrant nuts will make this a showcase for their bigotry.

[William Z. Foster]

51. agreed

That I agree with, Tarheel_Dem.

[Tarheel_Dem]

54. I knew we could get there.

:fistbump:

[William Z. Foster]

56. oh yeah

I blame some sort of Tar Heel - Spartan rivalry thing.

Thanks for being a good sport about it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

58. LOL. You too. (nt)

[USArmyParatrooper]

60. TeaParty Ghost, your thread title is a lie

The woman wasn't arrested, her husband was and was later released.

Also your implication is a lie. Obama didn't personally open this letter and send the FBI after her husband. The letter was mistakenly sent to the agency's fugitive unit.

[Bluebear]

62. Pathetic. The OP never implied Obama "personally opened the letter". Whatever.

[William Z. Foster]

63. a mistake I think

I missed it originally.

You can take the word "Obama" out of the article and nothing about it changes. It is not an "attack on Obama."

[Scurrilous]

69. Kick

:kick: