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

[fredtoast]

(03-09-2018, 04:44 PM)PhilHos Wrote:  I don't like criminals using loopholes to get away with breaking the law.

It is not a loophole.

We have a very specific law that says the spouses of military employees get to stay here even if they entered the country illegally.

[fredtoast]

(03-09-2018, 03:58 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If you don’t like the laws being enforced then advocate to your congressman you want new laws. 

The law says that the spouses of military employees get to stay here even if they entered the country illegally.

Seems that you are the one who does not want to see the law enforced.

[fredtoast]

(03-09-2018, 04:40 PM)PhilHos Wrote: She didn't know she entered the country illegally until after she was married?

Yes she knew.  And she also knows that the law says she gets to stay even if she entered the country illegally.

[*PhilHos*]

(03-09-2018, 06:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is not a loophole.

We have a very specific law that says the spouses of military employees get to stay here even if they entered the country illegally.

Does this "very specific law" have any wording on if spouses of military employees that entered the country illegally that also had a deportation order PRIOR to the wedding? If not, there's your 'loophole' even though I was speaking in broader terms and not on this specific instance.

[*PhilHos*]

(03-09-2018, 07:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes she knew.  And she also knows that the law says she gets to stay even if she entered the country illegally.

Does no one know what the  means anymore? 

[StLucieBengal]

(03-09-2018, 04:44 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I agree she should be allowed to stay, partially because of the law, but also because she's been married to him for over 20 years. I see that she entered the country illegally and I don't like criminals using loopholes to get away with breaking the law. However, the fact that she's been married to a US soldier for so long combined with the fact that her crime was not a major one and occurred a long time ago, I have no issue with making an exception or doing whatever and allowing her to remain in the country.

Lucie, I understand your concern about the precedence this could set, but it's not like your going to see a rash of illegals marrying Armed Force servicemembers. 

It’s actually a pretty big issue already. Soldiers are using the extra money from the government and the illegals are getting a path to citizenship.

Hence my concern

[GMDino]

(03-09-2018, 07:32 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Does no one know what the  means anymore? 

Eh, I do.  But there are some others that take this stuff personally so I thought I'd better explain it anyway.  

[GMDino]

(03-09-2018, 07:48 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It’s actually a pretty big issue already.   Soldiers are using the extra money from the government and the illegals are getting a path to citizenship.

Hence my concern

[BmorePat87]

(03-09-2018, 07:14 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Does this "very specific law" have any wording on if spouses of military employees that entered the country illegally that also had a deportation order PRIOR to the wedding? If not, there's your 'loophole' even though I was speaking in broader terms and not on this specific instance.

Having read the guidelines, I can say that there is no restriction that says a spouse cannot be eligible for PIP if they have a removal order against them.

It is a case by case thing and not everyone is entitled to it. The argument in this case is that it seems like a pointless reason to refuse to grant it when the whole point is to excuse the illegal immigration in the first place as a means of protecting military families. The DHS did end up agreeing to drop the removal order after this got out to the press.

[BmorePat87]

(03-09-2018, 07:48 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It’s actually a pretty big issue already.   Soldiers are using the extra money from the government and the illegals are getting a path to citizenship.

Hence my concern

Good thing this 10 year old program is case by case and they can choose to not grant it to the newlyweds while instead deciding to grant it to the couple who have been married for nearly 20 years and have children together.


But you've already been told that multiple times. At this point you're just spewing your emotions everywhere.

[*bfine32*]

Although I disagree with the notion that a deportation of should be excused simply because this woman married a Soldier after she had been issued a deportation order, I will say I am gladdened by the support folks in this forum are giving the troops.

[fredtoast]

(03-09-2018, 10:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote:  The argument in this case is that it seems like a pointless reason to refuse to grant it when the whole point is to excuse the illegal immigration in the first place as a means of protecting military families.

Agreed.  Sad to see how many people in this thread wanted to punish a military family just for trying to accomplish exactly what the law was written to do.

Too bad their hatred of "illegals" is greater than their concern for our military families.

[*bfine32*]

(03-12-2018, 01:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Agreed.  Sad to see how many people in this thread wanted to punish a military family just for trying to accomplish exactly what the law was written to do.

Too bad their hatred of "illegals" is greater than their concern for our military families.

Not sure this case is the best example for demonstrating "exactly what the law was written to do". Seems to me this law was more targeted toward the "PX Bride" (a forgien national that a service member marries during a deployment) than protecting someone who entered this country illegally, was facing a deportation order, and then married a service member.

Your words such as "punish" and "hatred" do nothing more than attribute to the call to emotion fallacy used to cloud reasonable decision making.

[BmorePat87]

(03-13-2018, 12:47 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure this case is the best example for demonstrating "exactly what the law was written to do". Seems to me this law was more targeted toward the "PX Bride" (a forgien national that a service member marries during a deployment) than protecting someone who entered this country illegally, was facing a deportation order, and then married a service member.

Your words such as "punish" and "hatred" do nothing more than attribute to the call to emotion fallacy used to cloud reasonable decision making.

According to that Citizenship and Immigration Services memo I posted earlier, it covers both cases. 

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2018, 12:47 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Your words such as "punish" and "hatred" do nothing more than attribute to the call to emotion fallacy used to cloud reasonable decision making.

I use the word "punish" because some two faced people here are trying to act like they support military families at the same time they are supporting ripping this woman away from her family despite there being a law that says she gets to stay.

No honest person would claim that deportation in this case is not s severe punishment.

[*bfine32*]

(03-13-2018, 01:13 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: According to that Citizenship and Immigration Services memo I posted earlier, it covers both cases. 

Guess we'll just have to disagree with the notion (fact) that the "exact" reason for this program is to protect an illegal immigrant who is facing a deportation order.

[*bfine32*]

(03-13-2018, 12:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I use the word "punish" because some two faced people here are trying to act like they support military families at the same time they are supporting ripping this woman away from her family despite there being a law that says she gets to stay.

No honest person would claim that deportation in this case is not s severe punishment.

Of course you would use the word punish, as it has negative connotations, just as you are currently using "two-faced" and earlier used hatred. I'm simply pointing out that those type words aid to the "call to emotion' fallacy. But we all have our own style of discussion,

[BmorePat87]

(03-13-2018, 02:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Guess we'll just have to disagree with the notion (fact) that the "exact" reason for this program is to protect an illegal immigrant who is facing a deportation order.

You don't disagree with me, you disagree with the agency that enforces this policy.

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2018, 02:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But we all have our own style of discussion,

And mine involves being honest while yours involves claiming that ripping this woman away from her family would not be a punishment, and that you would never punish a military family because you support them so much.

You keep using yours and I'll keep using mine.

[*bfine32*]

(03-13-2018, 02:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You don't disagree with me, you disagree with the agency that enforces this policy.

It appears not in this case