Canada To Deport Mexican Woman Who Says She Fears Her Husband, A Police Officer

Paola Ortiz says she still lives in fear of her ex-husband, a federal police officer in Mexico who she says abused her physically and emotionally after they got married.

She tried fleeing once, according to press reports, only to be hunted down by her husband's friends and taken back to him. The reports say he kept her locked in the house for a while before she managed to get away again, eventually flying to Canada with the help of her father.

Ortiz, who arrived in Canada in 2006, applied for political asylum, saying that her husband's position with the Mexican federal police made him immune to prosecution, according to the Montreal Gazette.

Now, Ortiz, 30, is being ordered back to Mexico by Canadian immigration officials, who have refused her request for political asylum. Ortiz is scheduled to be returned to Mexico on Tuesday.

The case has drawn wide attention in Canada, where human rights groups have closely tracked it and advocated on her behalf.

Canadian officials say they refused her request, according to the Montreal Gazette, because there are services in Mexico for victims of domestic violence.

But Ortiz and her supporters, including the human rights group Solidarity Across Borders, counter that in Mexico these services are deficient, and that her ex-husband's interests in Mexico take priority over her own because of his position with the government.

Her lawyer, Stewart Istvanffy, was going to try to have her deportation delayed, according to the newspaper.

A psychiatrist in Canada diagnosed Ortiz with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, she is taking medication for anxiety and depression, the Montreal Gazette reported.

Ortiz remarried in Canada, and has two children who were born there.

Ortiz also is concerned that the quality of medical care her two young children are getting for their medical conditions will be difficult to find in Mexico, according to the newspaper.

Her four-year-old daughter, the newspaper says, is hearing-impaired and needs surgery, and her son, who is two years old, has autism.

Solidarity Across Borders, a human rights group that is supporting Ortiz, condemned the Canadian government's decision.

"By constantly threatening Paola and her family with deportation, the Canadian government is acting as an accomplice to the sexist violence that Paola has endured," the group said on its website. "The government is ignoring. . .its human rights obligations and its obligations towards refugees."

Read more from Fox News Latino and be sure to check out Check out the slideshow here.

Comments

[Vivicca Whitsett]

01:06 PM on 09/19/2011

I think there's more to this than is written. She was able to flee her husband and her country to enter Canada illegally. She was also able to get a divorce, re-marry and have two children. If, during that time she didn't take care of her residency status in Canada, then that's her own fault. One would think as soon as her divorce was finalized, she should have started the citizenship process immediately. The immigration board heard her story and didn't find merit in granting her a move up the ladder to citizenship. She has family she can stay with along with government programs that can help her with her children's medical conditions in her home country. Perhaps her husband will relocate to Mexico with her while she applies for Canadian citizenship.

[Pat Dussault]

11:44 PM on 09/18/2011

Everyone in this thread that's applauding this poor woman's deportation makes me sick. I am Canadian, born and raised, and am absolutely delighted that my taxes help to pay to keep this woman and her children, who are also Canadians, safe. It is absolutely disgusting to put Paola Ortiz and her young children through this nightmare. Shame on everyone who applauds it. You sicken me.

[gmc2me]

03:49 PM on 09/17/2011

Way to go Canada! It's not your problem! We could learn from you!

[Picosa]

03:00 PM on 09/17/2011

I know that most intelligent Americans will side with this woman when they remember what Mexico did for Americans fleeing McCarthyism in the 40s, b/i/g/o/t/s/ will remain blinded by r@cism as usual.

Mexico has garnered praise for five instances in which it has granted asylum and sanctuary to massive waves of political and economic refugees.

• In the 1940s, more than 75,000 Americans, mostly from California and New York, established permanent residence in Mexico, as part of an exodus caused by McCarthyism.
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=083e0b4728d31cd23a57533cf02c46c5

[IllTakeTheRedEye]

07:26 AM on 09/18/2011

You wrote, "In the 1940s, more than 75,000 Americans, mostly from California andNew York, establishe­d permanent residence in Mexico, as part of an exodus caused by McCarthyis­m."

1] The USA was still WW2allied with our Russia ally in 1939through1945, therefore nobody was "McCarthy" running to Mexico from 1939through1945 from theUSA.

2] McCarthy, not a politician or Senator until 1947, did not start speaking out at all about what became known as "McCarthyism" until1950, and that was because theUSSR did its very first NUKE test August29, 1949.

Therefore, nobody moved to Mexico in the1940s because of former Senator JosephMcCarthy.

"Beginning in 1950, McCarthy became the most visible public face of a period in which Cold War tensions fueled fears of widespread Communist subversion.[1] " 
SOURCES: 
> Caute, David (1978). The Great Fear: The Anti-Communist Purge Under Truman and Eisenhower. Simon & Schuster.ISBN 0671226827.
> Fried, Richard M. (1990). Nightmare in Red: The McCarthy Era in Perspective. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504361-8.
Schrecker, Ellen (1998). Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America. Little, Brown. ISBN 0-316-77470-7.

"Joseph McCarthy's involvement...began with a speech he made on Lincoln Day, February 9, 1950, to the Republican Women's Club of Wheeling, West Virginia." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism)

 More Picosa half truth, biased web sites, very much improperly slanted journalism, and in other instances just plain falsehoods. This latest comment of yours is a continuation of that because it is at least 2 or more of these.

[Picosa]

01:50 PM on 09/18/2011

Oh well yeah, and everything these authors wrote about those Americans seeking refuge in Mexico during that era that I read in the 8th grade for a book report and then again in collage was a lie because YOU said so.

A Gathering of Fugitives
http://www.amazon.com/Gathering-Fugitives-Diana-Anhalt/dp/1931122032#_

http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.2979/bridges.16.1.35

Rebecca M. Schreiber,
Cold War Exiles in Mexico: US Dissidents and the Culture of Critical Resistance.
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/screeningthepast/28/cold-war-exiles-in-mexico.html

Just like I stated, b/i/g/o/t/­s/ will remain blinded by r@cism as usual, and that includes the ignoramuses handing out badges. Didn't you guys even make it to the 8th grade?

[IllTakeTheRedEye]

01:03 PM on 09/19/2011

To Picosa

I looked at all 3 of your links, every link you provided supports my comment, nobody went to Mexico in the 1940s due to "McCarthyism" I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO LOOK AT PICOSA's links.

BTW Picosa, you may write about me "b/i/g/o/t/­­s/ will remain blinded by r@cism as usual" but you are the d/u/m/b/a/s/s/ that refused to look at your own links.

McCarthy did not start McCarthism until 1950, which proves your original post to be slanted, biased, false, and beyond incorrect. Which is a reflection on you, because you do not EVER double check much of what you post.

Picosa, people will more and more reject what you post, because you are more and more proving that your name calling of people like me, is done deliberatly to extend falsehoods and slanted half truths to suit some false agenda that you have. Your micro bio is evidence that even you know that you do not live up to Facts or Truth, you know that you are putting out falsehoods and half truths so you try to inculcate others that your comments are Facts, when your comments are loaded with errors, as well your sources and links.

[Viper1st]

11:50 AM on 09/17/2011

This is why, you don't see 11.2 million illegals in Canada

[gmc2me]

03:47 PM on 09/17/2011

Absolutely! They have a real healthcare as well. Too bad it gets so damn cold there!

[Picosa]

02:04 PM on 09/18/2011

That's the result of voting for teapubs.

[ruburnt]

10:10 PM on 09/16/2011

At least Canada follows their own immigration laws....we could learn from them...

[LMPE]

09:07 PM on 09/16/2011

Canada is supposed to be better than this. I would expect it from the US, but our northern neighbor?

[markspence]

02:30 PM on 09/18/2011

You're taking her story at face value?

[LMPE]

02:56 PM on 09/18/2011

Are you immediately going to doubt her story?

[dtairtime]

07:29 PM on 09/16/2011

If that is the standard for staying in Canada I'd bet at least 2 BILLION women on this planet would qualify.

[Maggie K]

03:46 PM on 09/17/2011

So because we can't help 2 billion, we don't help one?

[dtairtime]

05:25 PM on 09/17/2011

I think people need to accept that they can't help everyone and make judgments on whom they should spend precious resources. It is sad but virtually every woman in most Muslim countries is treated horribly. So too in most third world countries - many African nations and some Asian cultures treat women as possessions. The commonality of it is surprising.

I strongly feel we should start at home and first use any and all funding to insure all citizens are free from abusive relationships. Once that is done, if there are any funds left over from the money allocated for such a project then a number should be set for admittance until the funding runs out.

Unless of course people decide to give of their own to support foreigners. I would strongly suggest everyone who feels we need to help people like this woman do so with their own money. It can be as simple as giving her enough funding to escape her husband in her own country. Moving her here of course costs far far more as she would need a job, housing, medical, food, etc and the taxpayers shouldn't be forced to help foreigners before neighbors, friends and relatives. So a person requesting that should also be the one giving more of their own money for such a project.

[markspence]

06:50 PM on 09/18/2011

If she doesn't deserve it.

[IllTakeTheRedEye]

06:42 AM on 09/18/2011

Exactly. Women in North America think that the advances that women have received in Canada and the USA exist worldwide, when those advances do not exist worldwide.

Instead of all of these "Maggie K" types that we have in North America claiming that we should set a precedent by permitting one, which will permit thousands, followed by millions, or billions...those like "Maggie K" and those mentioned in this article should work toward getting her a lawyer in Mexico to stop what has been happening to her, and others like her in Mexico.

These so-called human rights types should be organizing protests in Mexico and exposing this former spouse of Paola Ortiz, as well the culture in the Mexican government to permit this behavior to go unchecked, presuming Paola is telling the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. These so-called human rights types spend more time trying to shame the USA and Canada, than actually pointing the finger where it belongs, Mexico and other countries that permit this culture to continue.

I also love how many stories are at HP like this, anecdotes that have not gone to trial to be verified for complete truth and all the facts. We are just supposed to accept the story the way it was written, when nobody has even attempted to do an audit or fact check of the facts in Mexico as to how precise this story really is. In my life, there are always 2 sides to every story, but with HP you only get 1 side.

[Maggie K]

05:35 PM on 09/18/2011

"Exactly. Women in North America think that the advances that women have received in Canada and the USA exist worldwide, when those advances do not exist worldwide."

Love how you start your post with assumptions RedEye, as I am well aware of the plight of women worldwide. That has nothing to do with this particular case. Permitting one woman does not necessarily set a precedent, as there are many levels of bureaucracy to go through before someone is granted asylum anywhere.

[Maggie K]

05:45 PM on 09/18/2011

Secondly, I think its pretty clear the level of violence and corruption in Mexico would not be affected by "getting her a lawyer", nor would it be affective to "point the finger", it is partly the U.S.A's fault for funding this corruption and not taking an active stance against it. Whether or not you think she is telling the truth is your own issue. I would rather give someone the benefit of the doubt and offer assistance if I am able. Being paranoid and exclusive doesn't change the core issues that lead to these problems to begin with, but showing a little compassion just might.