Wife of 7th Special Forces Group vet faces deportation under tighter immigration rule

[StLucieBengal]

(03-14-2018, 07:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How about the fact that these cases were routinely cleared before Trump became President?  Doesn't that say something about the way the authorities interpreted the intent of the law?

By administrations who refused to enforce immigration laws.

[*bfine32*]

(03-15-2018, 09:11 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No doubt you ignoring a memo from the agency who manages this and focusing on your beliefs is not emotional. 


Much like the Ben Carson thread, it seems like me actually looking at the documentation provided to the public via the pertinent agencies to and departments to draw logical conclusions means nothing when someone really, really believes the opposite just because they really, really think so.

Was that the memo you posted earlier that said granting parole was discretionary and doesn't erase any previous periods of unlawfulness? Perhaps like defying a deportation order prior to marrying the Military member?

I just want to make sure I am basing my "emotional" beliefs on the same memo that you are posting your analytical memo.

Now if someone where to dismiss the deportation order, then it may apply............Hey, wait a minute......

I have given my stance and it is not based in emotion, because if it was, I'd back the Soldier and his family in this case without exploring the merits of it. No one is "ignoring" a memo maybe, just maybe the memo is not the smoking gun you find it to be and is ambiguous in nature.
I have 0 idea what Ben Carson has to do with this.   

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2018, 02:33 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: By administrations who refused to enforce immigration laws.

The 5.3 million people deported during the Obama administration call bullshit.

[BmorePat87]

(03-15-2018, 06:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Was that the memo you posted earlier that said granting parole was discretionary and doesn't erase any previous periods of unlawfulness? Perhaps like defying a deportation order prior to marrying the Military member?

I just want to make sure I am basing my "emotional" beliefs on the same memo that you are posting your analytical memo.

Now if someone where to dismiss the deportation order, then it may apply............Hey, wait a minute......



I have given my stance and it is not based in emotion, because if it was, I'd back the Soldier and his family in this case without exploring the merits of it. No one is "ignoring" a memo maybe, just maybe the memo is not the smoking gun you find it to be and is ambiguous in nature. 

The argument was made that someone with a removal order is not eligible, which is false. Nothing in their internal memo on how to implement the policy suggested people with removal orders were barred, something that is backed up by the article mentioning the fact that it occurred in the past. 

Quote:I have 0 idea what Ben Carson has to do with this.   

Just a pattern of documentation from government agencies correcting false assumptions. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-15-2018, 07:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The argument was made that someone with a removal order is not eligible, which is false. Nothing in their internal memo on how to implement the policy suggested people with removal orders were barred, something that is backed up by the article mentioning the fact that it occurred in the past. 

Even the part that stated that it does not erase any previous periods of unlawfulness? That equals "nothing"?

I get you've made your bed an go with things like "ignore" and "emotional" when folks that can read can plainly see neither is the case. 


I must say I'm still lost on the Ben Carson reference? Are you attempting to construct an Ad hominem argument? 

[GMDino]

(03-15-2018, 07:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I must say I'm still lost on the Ben Carson reference? Are you attempting to construct an Ad hominem argument? 

He explained why he mentioned it....twice.

Don't "quibble".

[StLucieBengal]

(03-15-2018, 06:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The 5.3 million people deported during the Obama administration call bullshit.

You mean the catch and release deportations? Both he and bush used those fake numbers. I don’t remember any deportation forces running through the country.

[BmorePat87]

(03-15-2018, 07:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Even the part that stated that it does not erase any previous periods of unlawfulness? That equals "nothing"?

I get you've made your bed an go with things like "ignore" and "emotional" when folks that can read can plainly see neither is the case. 


I must say I'm still lost on the Ben Carson reference? Are you attempting to construct an Ad hominem argument? 

Why stop there? Keep quoting it.

Quote:Parole does not erase any periods of prior unlawful status. Thus, an alien who entered without inspection will remain ineligible for adjustment, even after a grant of parole, unless he or she is an immediate relative or falls within one of the other designated exemptions.

Not only was your line in reference to PERMANENT status (not Parole in Place which is just year to year) but it also specifically says that a spouse is eligible despite that.


With regards to Ben Carson, I guess you're feigning ignorance now so I realize my point was effectively made. 

[BmorePat87]

(03-15-2018, 08:19 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You mean the catch and release deportations?  Both he and bush used those fake numbers.   I don’t remember any deportation forces running through the country.

He's probably referring to true deportations, which occurred at their highest level in history under Obama. Bush and Clinton used catch and release. Obama didn't because data shows that recidivism is lower with formal deportations than with the easier catch and releases. 

[StLucieBengal]

(03-15-2018, 08:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He's probably referring to true deportations, which occurred at their highest level in history under Obama. Bush and Clinton used catch and release. Obama didn't because data shows that recidivism is lower with formal deportations than with the easier catch and releases. 

Interior removals are what counts. And the numbers were low for Obama.

[*bfine32*]

(03-15-2018, 08:24 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Why stop there? Keep quoting it.



Not only was your line in reference to PERMANENT status (not Parole in Place which is just year to year) but it also specifically says that a spouse is eligible despite that.


With regards to Ben Carson, I guess you're feigning ignorance now so I realize my point was effectively made. 

I usual consider periods the end of a sentence; so that's why I stopped there, as that sentence explained exactly what I was saying. The follow on sentence, even the part with real big letters doesn't change nor amend that sentence; as it talks about situations after parole. But you roll with "nothing" pointed how she could be barred from the program.

I truly must admit I'm lost on the Ben Carson reference. So I'm not feigning ignorance; as I see no purpose that feigning ignorance would serve.

WTS, there comes a time when it's best to wash one's hands of a debate; especially when it looks like it's trending personal. I chose now. You can consider your point "effectively made"

[*bfine32*]

(03-15-2018, 08:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: He explained why he mentioned it....twice.

Don't "quibble".

Okey Dokey. 

[BmorePat87]

(03-15-2018, 08:31 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Interior removals are what counts.   And the numbers were low for Obama.

His voluntary returns were much lower. His formal deportations were higher. 

That's why recidivism dropped nearly in half. 

[BmorePat87]

(03-15-2018, 08:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I usual consider periods the end of a sentence; so that's why I stopped there, as that sentence explained exactly what I was saying. The follow on sentence, even the part with real big letters doesn't change nor amend that sentence; as it talks about situations after parole. But you roll with "nothing" pointed how she could be barred from the program.

You usually stop reading things half way through once you find something you like and then ignore the rest? Seems silly, but ok.


Still, none of that really explains why you referenced a line regarding permanently adjusting status when attempting to argue that removal orders prevent granting parole in place. If anything, you just demonstrated that one can potentially have been granted the temporary parole in place while still maintaining the removal order.

You know that PIP isn't a permanent status change, right?


I guess you've made your bed?