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

[StLucieBengal]

(03-05-2018, 08:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Agreed, there's zero reason to use the emotional argument of "she broke the law and I don't like that" to justify hurting our country. 

If you do not like the laws then call your senator to get on board with the trump plan. Since he is actually trying to lead the change of these laws you so clearly despise.

[fredtoast]

(03-05-2018, 08:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I feel those that are upset about this current state would be just as upset if an exception were made simply because she's the wife of a Soldier.

I don't see anyone asking for an exception.  The law says she gets to stay and work toward a green card.  The government agency that is blocking that is the one who has doisregard for the law.

But the people running that agency are americans so I guess it is alright for then to be slack about the law.

[*bfine32*]

(03-05-2018, 11:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't see anyone asking for an exception.  The law says she gets to stay and work toward a green card.  The government agency that is blocking that is the one who has doisregard for the law.

But the people running that agency are americans so I guess it is alright for then to be slack about the law.

If the law says she can stay then I'd be against anyone breaking the law to deport her. Are you sure there is nothing in this case that prevents PIP from providing her such protections under the law? I thought I read that it doesn't apply because she was facing deportation before the law or even facing deportation before she was married.  

Not sure how constructive your last flippant statement is.

[GMDino]

(03-05-2018, 08:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Could folks address the issue and not attack someone that has an opinion counter to theirs?

Of course very few on this forum understands the dedication that comes with being the spouse of someone that goes through numerous deployments, but the law is the law. What do folks want Trump to do: continue to kick the can down the road or force Congress' hand?

I feel those that are upset about this current state would be just as upset if an exception were made simply because she's the wife of a Soldier.

(03-05-2018, 09:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well stated on all fronts.

(03-05-2018, 10:54 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Great post top to bottom.

(03-05-2018, 08:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I feel those that are upset about this current state would be just as upset if an exception were made simply because she's the wife of a Soldier.

(03-05-2018, 11:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure how constructive your last flippant statement is.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-06-2018, 12:09 AM)GMDino Wrote:

(03-06-2018, 12:09 AM)GMDino Wrote:

Nice double post.  You just lost some of those internet points. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-06-2018, 12:09 AM)GMDino Wrote:

(03-06-2018, 12:09 AM)GMDino Wrote:

Even though you were thorough enough to post it twice, I'm not sure of your point

[GMDino]

(03-06-2018, 12:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:


Nice double post.  You just lost some of those internet points. 

(03-06-2018, 12:16 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Even though you were thorough enough to post it twice, I'm not sure of your point

My sincerest apologies for the error of clicking post too fast and posting twice.  Bleary an affront to group.  I shall take my lashing with a wet noodle when you boys are ready.

"flippant".

[*bfine32*]

(03-06-2018, 12:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:


Nice double post.  You just lost some of those internet points. 

Not so concerned about the double post; I simply have no idea what point he was trying to make. Perhaps he could explain as I don't speak emogicon fluently. 

[BmorePat87]

(03-05-2018, 11:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If the law says she can stay then I'd be against anyone breaking the law to deport her. Are you sure there is nothing in this case that prevents PIP from providing her such protections under the law? I thought I read that it doesn't apply because she was facing deportation before the law or even facing deportation before she was married.  

Not sure how constructive your last flippant statement is.

To ensure a more constructive dialogue, I want to continue off of this post since the part I underlined is what I think is at the crux of this

This is a question for anyone, not just Bfine: Should the law have to specify that the protection can occur even if there's a deportation order or should it just be assumed that this is the intent of the law?


Personal interpretation: the law is meant to protect someone in this situation, and attempting to use a preexisting deportation order seems to be a petty maneuver that ignores the intent of the law. 

Also, should we be making an effort to go after people who are law abiding, tax paying, and other wise productive members of our society and make it harder for them to have legal status simply because of grudges? 

[GMDino]

(03-06-2018, 12:21 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Not so concerned about the double post; I simply have no idea what point he was trying to make. Perhaps he could explain as I don't speak emogicon fluently. 

Sure thing:

You made a very flippant remark about people who would not like the exemption because she was the wife of a soldier.

Then said Fred's statement wasn't needed as it was flippant.

Meanwhile the peanut gallery cheers you on.

Clear?

"flippant"

[*bfine32*]

(03-06-2018, 12:38 AM)GMDino Wrote: Sure thing:

You made a very flippant remark about people who would not like the exemption because she was the wife of a soldier.

Then said Fred's statement wasn't needed as it was flippant.

Meanwhile the peanut gallery cheers you on.

Clear?

"flippant"

Actually my remark was made in earnest and was germane to the issue at hand and others seemed to agree; Fred's had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If you do not see the difference in the 2 remarks then I cannot illustrate it further.

Yes I am clear on your point of view; although, I have no idea of the relevance of continuing to put the word flippant (not showing a serious or respectful attitude) in parentheses. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-06-2018, 12:32 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: To ensure a more constructive dialogue, I want to continue off of this post since the part I underlined is what I think is at the crux of this

This is a question for anyone, not just Bfine: Should the law have to specify that the protection can occur even if there's a deportation order or should it just be assumed that this is the intent of the law?


Personal interpretation: the law is meant to protect someone in this situation, and attempting to use a preexisting deportation order seems to be a petty maneuver that ignores the intent of the law. 

Also, should we be making an effort to go after people who are law abiding, tax paying, and other wise productive members of our society and make it harder for them to have legal status simply because of grudges? 

What we should be doing is passing immigration reform laws and stop having the judicial and executive branches of the government do the job of the legislature. One of my chief complaints with Obama was his propensity to "legislate" from the Oval Office. 

As I read up on the PIP order, I see that it does not applying if someone faced a deportation order prior to the marriage. So I must ask the same question: What would we have POTUS do? Kick the can down the road or force legislature. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-06-2018, 12:32 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: To ensure a more constructive dialogue, I want to continue off of this post since the part I underlined is what I think is at the crux of this

This is a question for anyone, not just Bfine: Should the law have to specify that the protection can occur even if there's a deportation order or should it just be assumed that this is the intent of the law?


Personal interpretation: the law is meant to protect someone in this situation, and attempting to use a preexisting deportation order seems to be a petty maneuver that ignores the intent of the law. 

Also, should we be making an effort to go after people who are law abiding, tax paying, and other wise productive members of our society and make it harder for them to have legal status simply because of grudges? 

Allow me to take a different view, for the sake of discussion.  Would not your proposed interpretation open the system up to abuse by people who will marry a US citizen to take advantage of this interpretation?  Any time you provide a loophole to benefit sincere "victims" of a policy or law you can bet a flood of people will come crashing through the same loophole who have no business doing so.

As to your last point, this is what makes the whole issue suck so much, real people, who have built lives, are affected in often tragic fashion.  The people to blame for it, the politicians from the 70's and 80's, aren't around to clean up the soft serve shit they left on our rug.  Immigration is a complex issue but it really comes down to a simple choice, are we going to have immigration laws or not?  If we choose to have them, then we should be enforcing them, with few exceptions.  If we choose not to have them, then this all becomes a moot point.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-06-2018, 12:32 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: To ensure a more constructive dialogue, I want to continue off of this post since the part I underlined is what I think is at the crux of this

This is a question for anyone, not just Bfine: Should the law have to specify that the protection can occur even if there's a deportation order or should it just be assumed that this is the intent of the law?


Personal interpretation: the law is meant to protect someone in this situation, and attempting to use a preexisting deportation order seems to be a petty maneuver that ignores the intent of the law. 

Also, should we be making an effort to go after people who are law abiding, tax paying, and other wise productive members of our society and make it harder for them to have legal status simply because of grudges? 

If they allowed the protection even when a deportation order was present then that would open up immigration fraud wiu fake marriages. Precisely what USCIS is trying to avoid

Not sure why you think this woman is being gone after. It’s been since 1999. Just because past admins haven’t enforced deportation orders does not mean she is being targeted. She isn’t law abiding. And she could have easily fixed this by self deporting then filing for protection. Where is the grudge? You sound ridiculous when you say this because it’s just not the case.

[Dill]

(03-06-2018, 12:55 AM)bfine32 Wrote: What we should be doing is passing immigration reform laws and stop having the judicial and executive branches of the government do the job of the legislature. One of my chief complaints with Obama was his propensity to "legislate" from the Oval Office.

Propensity or necessity?

[BmorePat87]

(03-06-2018, 03:20 AM)Dill Wrote: Propensity or necessity?

I would argue this is the case. When you have a Congress that refuses to do work, you have to use what tools you're given. If Congress doesn't like it, they can pass a law.

[BmorePat87]

(03-06-2018, 02:22 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Allow me to take a different view, for the sake of discussion.  Would not your proposed interpretation open the system up to abuse by people who will marry a US citizen to take advantage of this interpretation?  Any time you provide a loophole to benefit sincere "victims" of a policy or law you can bet a flood of people will come crashing through the same loophole who have no business doing so.

As to your last point, this is what makes the whole issue suck so much, real people, who have built lives, are affected in often tragic fashion.  The people to blame for it, the politicians from the 70's and 80's, aren't around to clean up the soft serve shit they left on our rug.  Immigration is a complex issue but it really comes down to a simple choice, are we going to have immigration laws or not?  If we choose to have them, then we should be enforcing them, with few exceptions.  If we choose not to have them, then this all becomes a moot point.

I think the system already allows for fraud, but I don't see this as a loophole. If the point is that this law is suppose to give relief to people who are living here illegally, I don't see it as a loophole that it would stop a deportation order.

I don't disagree with the last half of your post, I see this as one of the "few exceptions". Same with those who were kids when brought here. 

[GMDino]

(03-06-2018, 12:50 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually my remark was made in earnest and was germane to the issue at hand and others seemed to agree; Fred's had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If you do not see the difference in the 2 remarks then I cannot illustrate it further.

Yes I am clear on your point of view; although, I have no idea of the relevance of continuing to put the word flippant (not showing a serious or respectful attitude) in parentheses. 

No one in this thread said she shouldn't get special treatment just because her husband was in the service.

It was "flippant" in regard to your perceived belief about "the other side"...of which the only person disagreeing with allowing her to stay was Lucy.  And that was purely for his anti-immigrant stance.

You did not show a "serious or respectful attitude" to those some imaginary people who were not in this thread at all.  Heck I didn't even read a story online saying spouses of service members shouldn't get that exception.

What you said had nothing to add to the ongoing conversation but rather was a "flippant" add on...one which you took Fred to task for as the apparent moral guide of this board.

"Others agreeing" is moot when others disagree, no?  

Thanks!

[BmorePat87]

(03-06-2018, 12:55 AM)bfine32 Wrote: What we should be doing is passing immigration reform laws and stop having the judicial and executive branches of the government do the job of the legislature. One of my chief complaints with Obama was his propensity to "legislate" from the Oval Office. 

As I read up on the PIP order, I see that it does not applying if someone faced a deportation order prior to the marriage. So I must ask the same question: What would we have POTUS do? Kick the can down the road or force legislature. 

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2013/2013-1115_Parole_in_Place_Memo_.pdf

Reading through this memo on it, it doesn't seem like anyone who has a removal order is prevented from being granted a PIP. The only references to removals are a footnote on interpretations on limitations based on multiple entries and a statement that the memo should not be read by anyone facing one as a declaration of a legal right that they have.

It seems like PIP is at the discretion of the Secretary of DHS. They can choose to grant it at will, which means they can choose to dismiss a removal order at any time as well. The legislation basically handed them the power to decide at will, which could be good in combatting fraud.

So if the DHS can decide at will who should receive it, it seems odd that someone who has been married to a service member for nearly two decades with children would be denied when they are eligible as long as the DHS says they're ok with it. This seems like the very people it was designed to help.


Fortunately the updated story states that the DHS, after the initial story dropped, changed their minds and are offering to drop the removal order

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/03/02/breaking-dhs-offers-to-drop-deportation-case-against-wife-of-7th-special-forces-group-vet/


Also, props to General Mattis for working out a deal with DHS protecting all service members. 

[GMDino]

(03-06-2018, 10:06 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2013/2013-1115_Parole_in_Place_Memo_.pdf

Reading through this memo on it, it doesn't seem like anyone who has a removal order is prevented from being granted a PIP. The only references to removals are a footnote on interpretations on limitations based on multiple entries and a statement that the memo should not be read by anyone facing one as a declaration of a legal right that they have.

It seems like PIP is at the discretion of the Secretary of DHS. They can choose to grant it at will, which means they can choose to dismiss a removal order at any time as well. The legislation basically handed them the power to decide at will, which could be good in combatting fraud.

So if the DHS can decide at will who should receive it, it seems odd that someone who has been married to a service member for nearly two decades with children would be denied when they are eligible as long as the DHS says they're ok with it. This seems like the very people it was designed to help.


Fortunately the updated story states that the DHS, after the initial story dropped, changed their minds and are offering to drop the removal order

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/03/02/breaking-dhs-offers-to-drop-deportation-case-against-wife-of-7th-special-forces-group-vet/


Also, props to General Mattis for working out a deal with DHS protecting all service members. 

That's good news...but it shouldn't take sunshine on a bad idea to make it go away.