“Nepotism” barely suffices to describe the special treatment of Onyango Obama by U.S. immigration authorities.
Mr. Obama, 68, the half uncle of President Barack Obama, should have been deported years ago. But his case has been reopened, delaying his departure yet again and potentially enabling him to apply for permanent-resident status.
CNS News reports that the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals has granted Uncle Onyango a rehearing. That's unusual in any case that includes a deportation order — his was issued in 1989 — and especially so when the illegal alien also faces a drunken-driving case, says the executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
In America since 1963, Uncle Onyango was arrested for DUI in Massachusetts in August 2011. That case was continued for one year in March.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement outrageously and unfathomably granted him a stay of deportation to deal with his DUI case — more reason to deport him, not to let him remain — and to seek reopening of his deportation case. The appeals board rehearing compounds that outrage.
The appearance of favoritism is obvious. Uncle Onyango should have been deported long ago and still should be — yesterday.
But then again, Barack Obama's administration isn't exactly tough on illegals in general. Uncle Onyango's deportation case thus is emblematic of a larger outrage — this White House's coddling of illegals, whether motivated by politics or family ties.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.