AP: Melania Trump was an undocumented working model in '96

[GMDino]

But it is okay...she was pretty and not taking jobs away from ugly Americans.   


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/04/melania-trump-undocumented-work/93321114/

Quote:Corrections & Clarifications: An earlier version of this report misstated Melania Trump's arrival date from Slovenia.

Melania Trump, the wife of the Republican nominee Donald Trump, was paid for 10 modeling jobs in the United States in 1996 before obtaining the necessary documents to legally work in the country, The Associated Press reported Friday.

The report, which AP says is based on accounting ledgers, contracts and other related documents, comes one day after Melania Trump delivered her first speech in the campaign since the Republican National Convention. In the speech, she addressed her journey to becoming a U.S. citizen and how, "as a young entrepreneur, I wanted to follow my dream to a place where freedom and opportunity were in abundance."
Why Western Australia deserves a top spot on your travel bucket list[/url]
Melania Trump arrived in the U.S. from Slovenia on Aug. 27, 1996, on a B1/B2 visitor visa and earned $20,056 for 10 modeling jobs before she obtained her H-1B work visa on Oct. 18, 1996, according to AP.

"The documents examined by the AP indicate that the modeling assignments would have been outside the bounds of her visa," AP reports.

She received her green card in March 2001 and became a citizen in 2006 after marrying Donald Trump in 2005.

Politico raised questions about Melania Trump's immigration story in August after The New York Post ran racy photos of the former model the paper said were taken in the U.S. in 1995. Politico pointed out that would have been before she became a citizen and the Trump campaign responded by releasing a letter from an attorney that outlined her immigration process.

"I am pleased to enclose a letter from my immigration attorney which states that, with 100% certainty, I correctly went through the legal process when arriving in the USA," Melania Trump tweeted at the time, with an image of the letter from Michael J. Wildes, the lawyer, attached.
[url=https://twitter.com/MELANIATRUMP/status/776050512772886529/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw]
Twitter | @melaniatrump
MELANIA TRUMP on Twitter

Politico ended up issuing a correction on its story because it turned out the photos were taken in 1997, not 1995. But, in refuting that report, Wildes provided the dates of Melania Trump's arrival and when she obtained her work visa. AP then focused its investigation on the weeks between those two dates.

Donald Trump has made cracking down on illegal immigration a cornerstone of his presidential campaign and he wants to expand the use of the government's E-verify system to determine if employees are authorized to work in the U.S.

I'm sure President Trump will round up and kick out all the illegal models!  

[BmorePat87]

no amnesty

[GMDino]

(11-05-2016, 11:15 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: no amnesty

What about missionary?  

[Dill]

(11-05-2016, 11:08 AM)GMDino Wrote: But it is okay...she was pretty and not taking jobs away from ugly Americans.   

I would say she is ok now. but not a 10 anymore and not getting any younger.

Trump may want to replace her sometime during the first year.  Use the VISA scandal to have her
deported.  Anyway, you don't want some one in the Trump White House pushing an Anti-Cyber-bulling campaign.

POTUS will have his choice of super models.  

[Belsnickel]

Why is this cropping up again? This was revealed months ago. I guess some people thought they've give it a second go in case anyone cared this time.

Not that I'm saying it should be dismissed, only that Trump supporters didn't care last time, and they likely won't now.

[HarleyDog]

Good lord!

[*bfine32*]

Just when you thought the left could not get anymore desperate, they come up with this (again).

I think the fact that it found its way to this forum and has found support speaks volumes.

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2016, 07:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not that I'm saying it should be dismissed, only that Trump supporters didn't care last time, and they likely won't now.

Are  you saying Hill's should care? Was she in this country illegally?

[Belsnickel]

(11-05-2016, 08:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Are  you saying Hill's should care? Was she in this country illegally?

I'm saying what I said. Trump supporters didn't care the first time, and won't care this time.

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2016, 08:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm saying what I said. Trump supporters didn't care the first time, and won't care this time.

It's ok if you do not answer the question asked. We should all be forthright here.

[Belsnickel]

(11-05-2016, 08:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's ok if you do not answer the question asked. We should all be forthright here.

You asked if I was saying Hills should care, which I wasn't. The second question, don't know, which is why I ignored it.

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2016, 08:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You asked if I was saying Hills should care, which I wasn't. The second question, don't know, which is why I ignored it.

Yep, it was just to get clarification to your statement, when you made a distinction of which voters didn't care instead of saying voters didn't care  

I as simply asking did the other side care or in your opinion should they care But you roll with "I said what I said" without expounding on your comments. That's being forthright. 

[Belsnickel]

(11-05-2016, 08:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep, it was just to get clarification to your statement, when you made a distinction of which voters didn't care instead of saying voters didn't care  

I as simply asking did the other side care or in your opinion should they care But you roll with "I said what I said" without expounding on your comments. That's being forthright. 

Well, when I see someone saying "are you saying..." followed by something I didn't say, I don't like to expound because of the frequency with which straw man is used around here. It was answering your question, because if asked if I was saying that, and I wasn't. If you had said "in your opinion, should Clinton supporters care?" then you would have received an answer tot hat question. But that wasn't what was asked.

For the record, policy is what people should care about. Both Clinton and Trump are horrible choices with shady pasts, but one of them will be the next POTUS and people should vote based on the policies they agree with. So neither side should care about this.

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2016, 08:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, when I see someone saying "are you saying..." followed by something I didn't say, I don't like to expound because of the frequency with which straw man is used around here. It was answering your question, because if asked if I was saying that, and I wasn't. If you had said "in your opinion, should Clinton supporters care?" then you would have received an answer tot hat question. But that wasn't what was asked.

For the record, policy is what people should care about. Both Clinton and Trump are horrible choices with shady pasts, but one of them will be the next POTUS and people should vote based on the policies they agree with. So neither side should care about this.

Bold is exactly what I asked. Given I left out "In your opinion" but that is implied when asking "are you saying?" This is known as: asking the implication of your statement. Nothing more that avoiding the "straw man". 

I understand why you took the coy "I said what I said" route while making the distinction of who didn't care. The things work better when we are earnest in our replies. 

But allow me to light a candle instead of cursing the darkness, by providing examples:

Example 1:
Closed-minded voter: " Hillary and her crew are into demonic worship"

bfine: "Hillary voters do not care"

Independent thinker": "Are you saying Trump's should care?"

bfine: "Hell no, it is stupid and both sides should dismiss it  as silly"

Example 2:
Closed-minded voter: " Tgey are relooking Hill's emails because they showed up on Weiner's laptop"


bfine: "Hillary voters did not care the first time, so I doubt they care this time"

Independent thinker": "Are you saying Trump's should care?"

bfine: "Of course they should, it is possibly a matter of National Security"


So as you can see actually responding to an "are you saying" query can add clarity; as opposed to the profound "I said what I said"

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-05-2016, 08:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just when you thought the left could not get anymore desperate, they come up with this (again).

I think the fact that it found its way to this forum and has found support speaks volumes.

Have you heard the latest from the right?  Killary is a witch. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-05-2016, 09:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Bold is exactly what I asked. Given I left out "In your opinion" but that is implied when asking "are you saying?" This is known as: asking the implication of your statement. Nothing more that avoiding the "straw man". 

I understand why you took the coy "I said what I said" route while making the distinction of who didn't care. The things work better when we are earnest in our replies. 

But allow me to light a candle instead of cursing the darkness, by providing examples:

Example 1:
Closed-minded voter: " Hillary and her crew are into demonic worship"

bfine: "Hillary voters do not care"

Independent thinker": "Are you saying Trump's should care?"

bfine: "Hell no, it is stupid and both sides should dismiss it  as silly"

Example 2:
Closed-minded voter: " Tgey are relooking Hill's emails because they showed up on Weiner's laptop"


bfine: "Hillary voters did not care the first time, so I doubt they care this time"

Independent thinker": "Are you saying Trump's should care?"

bfine: "Of course they should, it is possibly a matter of National Security"


So as you can see actually responding to an "are you saying" query can add clarity; as opposed to the profound "I said what I said"

Matt answered your question. You won't even answer questions. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2016, 09:25 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Have you heard the latest from the right?  Killary is a witch. 

I have and used it as an illustration of silliness in my tutorial to Matt. 

[Vas Deferens]

(11-05-2016, 09:25 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Have you heard the latest from the right?  Killary is a witch. 

Wait. Did that find its way to this forum?  Speaks volumes.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-05-2016, 09:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have and used it as an illustration of silliness in my tutorial to Matt. 

Silly or desperate?

Accusations of witchcraft combined with a retraction of a false story in less than 24 hours. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2016, 09:33 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Wait. Did that find its way to this forum?  Speaks volumes.  

I think it would only speak volumes to those that support it. I have zero issue saying it is silly. What's your opinion of the OP?