Amy Gottlieb is "the associate regional director of the Northeast Region of American Friends Service Committee"

Under this title she is mostly known for defending her husband Ravi Ragbir against deportation. This time in the "Washington Post", Aug. 17:

"A message to ICE: My husband is not an object ‘for removal’"

The Gottlieb/Ragbir couple has traditionally not been open why her husband is to be deported, namely because her husband was convicted b/o a white collar crime (described as wire fraud or mortgage fraud). In this new article she is at least admitting the conviction (probably - I'm sorry to say - because his case is so well-known now that this can't be neglected successfully).

But she is not admitting anything else. She pretends that he is "challenging in court" the conviction - which sounds like it happens just now. This sounds somewhat improbable as he appealed 16 years ago and the appeal was rejected.

The couple's problem is that they are not open about the facts. What did actually happen? Does Ragbir claim that he didn't do what he was convicted for? Or does he claim that what he did was legal?

In the latter case there's a moral question. If it was legal, was it morally justified, too? Who are the other persons involved? Was nobody damaged? Or, if somebody was damaged, did Ragbir and Gottlieb anything to recompense him????

Is this important? I think so, because the actual matter is: How trustworthy is Ragbir nowadays and can he stay in the United States without being a danger to  others?

He is at the moment occupied with showing immigrants how to circumvent immigration law. This seems a noble occupation - but not completely different from circumventing business law. Would he circumvent business law in the future, at the cost of others? We don't know, but we ought to know.

Friends have been busy in trade for more than 200 years and they have always had the reputation to keep up (or even improve) the moral standards in this profession. I understand that most Friends are academicians now, but this must not imply that they accept standards our elders and betters would have been ashamed about!