Stephanie Iken, Attorney at Law

Title: John Lennon vs. the U.S.A.
Author: Leon Wildes
Publisher: E.P. Dutton
Publication Year: 1987

Page Count: Approximately 350 pages (edition dependent)
Audiobook Length: Approximately 11 hours
ISBN: 978-0525245960

I read John Lennon vs. the USA because my Immigration Law professor recommended it while I was studying abroad in Cambridge. He knew my academic focus and he knew my deep love of the Beatles, especially John Lennon. He suggested the book and asked me to do a small presentation on it for the class.

It turned out to be one of the best books I read that year.

As someone who has loved the Beatles for most of my life, I thought I knew John Lennon’s story. I knew his music and his activism. What I did not fully appreciate was the quiet, grinding legal battle that shaped his life in New York and that constrained his ability to live and work in the country he considered home.

Leon Wildes, Lennon’s immigration attorney, wrote this book to document John Lennon’s immigration battle.

Lennon in New York

When John Lennon and Yoko Ono moved to New York in 1971, John became increasingly active in anti-war organizing and public political protests. His visibility and influence placed him under federal scrutiny during an increasingly hostile election cycle.

In response, the US government tried to deport him. The US government relied on a 1968 British conviction for cannabis possession as the basis for deportation proceedings. Wildes documents how that conviction, long resolved, only gained renewed significance when John’s political activity increased. Reading this through the lens of immigration law, it shows how enforcement decisions often follow political priorities rather than neutral application as we hope.

For a Beatles fan, this part of the story adds necessary context. John’s creativity, activism, and daily life unfolded under years of legal uncertainty. As a lawyer, the process described in the book mirrors what immigrants continue to face today. The system requires prolonged compliance, repeated delay, and endurance. Immigration policy operates through political directives rather than consistent legal standards.

The legal strategy that defined the case

Central to John’s defense was administrative discretion and an internal Immigration and Naturalization Service policy known as “nonpriority status,” which allowed officials to deprioritize deportation cases that did not serve the public interest.

This policy already existed. What Wildes, John’s lawyer, had to do was force the government to explain why John was excluded from that discretion, which was routinely applied in other cases. His argument focused on a lack of consistency and the government’s selective enforcement rather than on John’s celebrity status. From a legal perspective, the strategy is noteworthy because it is not asking for special treatment, he asked for equal treatment.

FBI Surveillance of John and Yoko

Wildes documents federal monitoring of John and Yoko during the pendency of the deportation proceedings. The FBI’s surveillance of John and Yoko was later confirmed through released records, including files obtained through litigation and disclosure requests. They tracked public appearances, political associations, and communications while the immigration case remained unresolved.

At the same time, the administrative process moved slowly and unevenly. Hearings were scheduled months apart. Favorable rulings only happened after appeals. Motions triggered additional review rather than decisions. Each procedural step extended the case further without bringing it to conclusion.

Wildes showed how delay operated within the system. Time became part of the government’s enforcement mechanism and strategy. John and Yoko were required to remain compliant, available, and cautious while waiting for the next hearing or decision. The lack of a clear endpoint shaped their ability to plan work, travel, and family life.

During these years, John and Yoko established a home in New York. They recorded music, participated in public events, and attempted to build stability while the possibility of removal remained unresolved.

Yoko Ono and the Search for Kyoko

Wildes notes that he was unfamiliar with the Beatles when he first met John and Yoko as clients. He met them through the immigration case, and did not know who they were. He described Yoko as highly organized and closely involved in the legal process. She followed the case in detail and participated heavily in strategic decisions. Wildes speaks plainly about her intellect and judgment and treats her as a central figure in managing the case. Given how often people speak negatively of her, I was refreshed to read his positive perspective of her.

Another important piece of their immigration story was that during the same period as they were battling deportation, John and Yoko were searching for Yoko’s daughter, Kyoko Chan Ono Cox, who had been taken by her father during a bitter custody battle. Yoko was searching for her daughter while the immigration proceedings were pending. Yoko was adamant that they needed to remain in the United States to continue searching for Kyoko. Leaving the country would have interrupted their search for her daughter.

Wildes made a deliberate decision to keep John and Yoko’s immigration cases linked together. Their lives and work operated jointly. Litigating their cases together allowed them to remain physically together during the proceedings and supported their continued presence in the country. John and Yoko, through Wildes, argued that government should not separate their proceedings because they functioned as a single artistic and personal unit.

Yoko Ono’s Immigration Status

Yoko Ono was born in Japan and was a Japanese citizen during the early 1970s. She obtained lawful permanent resident status (a green card) in the United States prior to or during the time of the Lennon deportation proceedings. But, because she held permanent residency, she was lawfully entitled to remain in the United States and was not similarly situated to John, who was the direct target of removal.

Despite this, the government’s handling of her case was inconsistent with her lawful status, including efforts to advance proceedings that treated her as removable or procedurally tethered to John’s case without first looking at her resident status. Yoko later naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1978, after the resolution of John’s immigration case.

Resolution without closure

In 1975, John was granted permanent residency in the United States after years of litigation and administrative delay. The grant quietly came directly from the agency rather than a court ruling. In 1976, he received his green card. Again, the decision was issued quietly, without a written explanation addressing the prior proceedings, surveillance, or enforcement posture that had become the norm of the case. Things simply changed overnight.

The same government that had pursued deportation for years withdrew opposition without formal acknowledgment of error. No policy clarification accompanied the outcome. No public statement explained the shift. The case ended through administrative closure rather than adjudication. John and Yoko won.

But, the years preceding that resolution remained unchanged. John had lived under travel restrictions, repeated hearings, and ongoing uncertainty about his ability to remain in the country. Those conditions were never revisited or remedied after residency was granted. The administrative record may have closed, but that period of restriction remained part of John and Yoko’s history. Wildes promised John and Yoko he would write this book to preserve the pain and legal torment that John and Yoko faced while trying to become citizens. I am so grateful that he did.

Reading the Book as a Lawyer and a Beatles Fan

I loved this book because it connects my love of the Beatles with my interest in immigration law. It shows how immigration law can be shaped by politics rather than statutory logic, and that no one really ever has the guts to say so out loud.

My professor recommended the book because it shows how immigration law works in practice. It is not as simple as many people seem to believe it is. This book sharpened my understanding of how complex the immigration system actually is. The process unfolds through layers of filings, interviews, background checks, internal policies, and waiting periods that stretch far beyond what most people expect. Individual outcomes depend on timing, discretion, and agency priorities, seemingly more so than statutory eligibility. The record Wildes lays out shows how even well-documented cases can remain unresolved for years while people attempt to build lives in the United States.

That delay carries real cost. Immigrants navigate uncertainty over their future while complying with the procedural hurdles placed in front of them. They wait through backlogs and arbitrary timelines while remaining compliant, available, and careful. The system places the burden of patience entirely on the applicant. Citizenship becomes something earned through endurance of the legal process rather than qualification.

And to be clear, immigration courts have the personnel and infrastructure to process cases in timely matter. The issue is not that the courts need more staffing or funding. The obstacles come from policy decisions that restrict approvals based on country of origin and impose artificial waiting periods. People who want to live here, work here, and build families here deserve a system that treats their effort with seriousness and respect, not forces them to wait it out, hoping they give up… or die.

Education matters right now. I care deeply about this issue, and I talk about it openly because people facing immigration proceedings deserve support.

If you or someone you know is dealing with deportation proceedings or has questions about immigration, please reach out to me.

Disclaimer:
This post is for informational and educational purposes only and reflects my personal views and experiences. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration law is complex and fact-specific, and outcomes depend on individual circumstances. If you or someone you know is facing immigration proceedings or has questions about immigration status, you are welcome to reach out to me to discuss your situation or to be connected with appropriate resources.