In November 2001, Fernandez-Vargas, 54, applied for residency based on his marriage to Rita. During a routine interview on his application, immigration authorities arrested him and reinstated a 1982 deportation order. He spent a year in the Utah County Jail and was sent back to Mexico in September 2004.

He settled in Cuauhtemoc, near where he spent his childhood.

Due to the 1982 deportation order, Fernandez-Vargas was not entitled to a court hearing after his arrest. Provo-based immigrant attorney Chris Keen appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals — Fernandez-Vargas' only recourse — but the Denver based panel upheld the order. Keen then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, setting up Wednesday's hearing.

Part of the debate before the court centered on what Congress intended when it passed the law.

Gossett argued it should not apply to undocumented immigrants who arrived before 1976 because Congress removed a "before and after" clause contained in the previous statute.

Assistant Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan countered that the time of the unlawful return to the United States is irrelevant. The law, he said, focuses on deportation, not re-entry.

Furthermore, he argued in court briefs that it doesn't matter that Fernandez-Vargas lived in the United States for 21 years with a U.S. citizen family and a steady job. The law should be applied no differently than if he had crossed the border one day before it took effect.

Scalia said it's difficult to believe federal lawmakers would want to "keep faith" that deported people who re-enter the United States unlawfully could then someday become citizens.

"I find that a very touching attitude for Congress to have," he said sarcastically, drawing laughter from the gallery.

Keen said he was shocked at Scalia's characterization of illegal immigrants. "The hostility was obvious in his questions," he said.

Prior to the 1997 reinstatement statute, longtime unlawful immigrants had some options to remain in the country.

Justice Stephen Breyer said separating a family is "a pretty harsh result of the current law." He concluded it attached new consequences to old behavior.

The Supreme Court ruling will clarify a law that is currently interpreted in different ways across the country. It would ensure that possibly hundreds of thousands would be treated the same regardless of where they live.

If the court decides the law applies to everyone who re-entered unlawfully, there would be no way for them to seek residency status. It would include those subject to persecution in their home countries, those whose families or employees file visa petitions on their behalf and victims of domestic violence.

A ruling in Fernandez-Vargas' favor would not automatically allow him to live in the United States again. He would be only eligible to apply for residency status, a process Gossett called "somewhat of a crap shoot."

The illegal immigration debate will soon heat up on Capitol Hill.

In a press conference Tuesday, President Bush said illegal immigrants, including longtime residents, should not get automatic citizenship as part of a new guest worker program. They should not be able to jump in line ahead of those who have waited legally for citizenship, he said.

---

E-mail: romboy@desnews.com