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

[Griever]

Glad to see Mattis still has a spine and human decency in him

[StLucieBengal]

Marriage fraud is serious and it’s rampant in the Mlitary to begin with..... which is exactly why this policy is in place. Making an exception even in this case just creates further issues down the road.

They should have deported her then let her file. The law is the law.

[GMDino]

(03-06-2018, 09:47 AM)GMDino Wrote: No one in this thread said she shouldn't get special treatment just because her husband was in the service.

Welp looks like I was wrong.

(03-06-2018, 12:11 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Marriage fraud is serious and it’s rampant in the Mlitary to begin with.....  which is exactly why this policy is in place.    Making an exception even in this case just creates further issues down the road.    

They should have deported her then let her file.   The law is the law.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-06-2018, 09:47 AM)GMDino Wrote: 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!

I am not anti immigrant. I am anti illegal immigrant because I respect and follow our laws.

We are either a nation of la s or we are not.

[BmorePat87]

(03-06-2018, 12:11 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Marriage fraud is serious and it’s rampant in the Mlitary to begin with.....  which is exactly why this policy is in place.    Making an exception even in this case just creates further issues down the road.    

They should have deported her then let her file.   The law is the law.

The law actually says that the DHS can drop removal orders and grant her legal residency. It allows for exceptions to be made in cases like this where it's clear it's not fraud.

Unless you're suggesting that nearly 20 years later it's still a sham marriage and they had kids to bolster the facade. 

[GMDino]

(03-06-2018, 12:31 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I am not anti immigrant.  I am anti illegal immigrant because I respect and follow our laws.  

We are either a nation of la s or we are not.

I'll hang on to this when the law changes and there is a path to citizenship for the illegals to remember your "respect" for our laws.  

[BmorePat87]

(03-06-2018, 12:31 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I am not anti immigrant.  I am anti illegal immigrant because I respect and follow our laws.  

We are either a nation of la s or we are not.

you really need to stop using emotional arguments 

[*bfine32*]

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

Propensity was the correct word. For instance was it necessary to take federal funding away from schools that did not allow children to use restrooms of choice?

***It is not the Executives role to pass laws.




***Disclaimer; This sentence should be taken for its intent  

[*bfine32*]

(03-06-2018, 12:31 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I am not anti immigrant.  I am anti illegal immigrant because I respect and follow our laws.  

We are either a nation of la s or we are not.

This is where I'm at. I'm not sure it is up to the citizenry to decide which laws they choose to follow and/or support.  Unfortunately, the United States is not a Shangri-La; our role as citizens is to vote for those public officials that most mirror our position(s) on subjects.

I have given my opinion on illegal immigration and it pretty much mirrors want POTUS is pushing for. A pathway to citizenship to those contributing members of society that brought here a juveniles (if you knowingly came here illegally; sorry), secure the borders, and pass strict policies for future immigrants (one that does not reward illegal activity).

Too often folks let emotion cloud their judgment.   

[BmorePat87]

(03-06-2018, 12:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Propensity was the correct word. For instance was it necessary to take federal funding away from schools that did not allow children to use restrooms of choice?

***It is not the Executives role to pass laws.




***Disclaimer; This sentence should be taken for its intent  

Executive orders, which have existed since the very first administration, are not laws. They're directives on how to enforce the law. 

So when Obama ruled that Title IX's prohibition of sex based discrimination included bathroom discrimination, he was directing the executive branch on how to executive the law, not creating a new law.

The Courts can subsequently declare that the law cannot be enforced that way or Congress can pass a law clarifying the previous law to prevent it from being enforced that way. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-06-2018, 12:47 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Executive orders, which have existed since the very first administration, are not laws. They're directives on how to enforce the law. 

So when Obama ruled that Title IX's prohibition of sex based discrimination included bathroom discrimination, he was directing the executive branch on how to executive the law, not creating a new law.

The Courts can subsequently declare that the law cannot be enforced that way or Congress can pass a law clarifying the previous law to prevent it from being enforced that way. 

So I was right. It is not POTUS' role to make law.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-06-2018, 12:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'll hang on to this when the law changes and there is a path to citizenship for the illegals to remember your "respect" for our laws.  

If they give citizenship to the illegals then they better cut checks to everyone who paid the fees to immigrate legally. Also can add on a few zeros for the stress and time of waiting as well.

[GMDino]

(03-06-2018, 01:06 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If they give citizenship to the illegals then they better cut checks to everyone who paid the fees to immigrate legally.   Also can add on a few zeros for the stress and time of waiting as well.

So it's about YOU and what you went through not the current illegal imigrants?

[StLucieBengal]

(03-06-2018, 01:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: So it's about YOU and what you went through not the current illegal imigrants?

Not at all. It’s about everyone who followed the laws. They should be respected. Not made out to be fools.

[BmorePat87]

(03-06-2018, 12:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So I was right. It is not POTUS' role to make law.

Yes, but were you attempting to characterize Obama's executive orders as legislating? 

[GMDino]

(03-06-2018, 01:19 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Not at all.   It’s about everyone who followed the laws. They should be respected.  

Sounds like it's about you doing something and then complaining if the rules change later. Because they can change.

(03-06-2018, 01:19 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Not made out to be fools.

And that sound like a very emotional response.

[*bfine32*]

(03-06-2018, 01:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yes, but were you attempting to characterize Obama's executive orders as legislating? 

Yes I was and this is why I included the disclaimer. It has been shown a few times that his and other's EOs were considered over-reach. As an example, many here were unhappy with Trump declaring that bump stocks should be illegal.

My opinion has not changed. Congress needs to legislate, not sit on its hands while the judicial and executive branches go back and forth on checks and balances****


***Disclaimer: bfine is not opposed to checks and balances.

[GMDino]

(03-06-2018, 02:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes I was and this is why I included the disclaimer. It has been shown a few times that his and other's EOs were considered over-reach. As an example, many here were unhappy with Trump declaring that bump stocks should be illegal.

My opinion has not changed. Congress needs to legislate, not sit on its hands while the judicial and executive branches go back and forth on checks and balances****


***Disclaimer: bfine is not opposed to checks and balances.

Did Trump actually create an EO on bumpstocks or just tweet about it?  I don't remember him signing anything.

[*bfine32*]

(03-06-2018, 02:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: Did Trump actually create an EO on bumpstocks or just tweet about it?  I don't remember him signing anything.

From my understanding he directed the DOJ; however, I'm not sure how that modifies the point.

[GMDino]

(03-06-2018, 02:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: From my understanding he directed the DOJ; however, I'm not sure how that modifies the point.

Just my curiosity.

There has been some debate about if Trump's tweets are official presidential statements or can officially reflect policy.  And I don't remember if this was just a thought he threw out there of if there was an actual EO.