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

[*bfine32*]

(03-13-2018, 04:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

How Fred of you to quote one little snippet. We can agree that punishment is a correct phrase in this instance if it as being used as retribution for a wrong. Of course I support military families. 

[StLucieBengal]

(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.

Yup

[BmorePat87]

(03-13-2018, 06:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It appears not in this case 

lol

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2018, 06:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  Of course I support military families. 

But you think this woman should be deported even though there is a law that says spouses of military personnel can stay here even if they entered the country illegally?

If your definition of "support" is opposing a law drafted to support military families I think the military families would tell you that you can keep your "support".

[StLucieBengal]

(03-14-2018, 02:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But you think this woman should be deported even though there is a law that says spouses of military personnel can stay here even if they entered the country illegally?

If your definition of "support" is opposing a law drafted to support military families I think the military families would tell you that you can keep your "support".

It’s not for military men to marry illegals for a green card or to avoid deportation.

[GMDino]

(03-14-2018, 05:02 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It’s not for military men to marry illegals for a green card or to avoid deportation.

Ok, in reference to the other thread would this be bigotry?

Quote:Definition of bigotry

plural bigotries
1: obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices : the state of mind of a [/url]bigot 

• overcoming his own bigotry
  

2: acts or beliefs characteristic of a [url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot]bigot 

• racial bigotry
  

 

• will not tolerate bigotry in our organization
  

Because it assumes some subterfuge to protect an illegal alien.  One that has not been presented.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-14-2018, 05:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: Ok, in reference to the other thread would this be bigotry?



Because it assumes some subterfuge to protect an illegal alien.  One that has not been presented.

Lol ffs.

[GMDino]

(03-14-2018, 05:34 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Lol ffs.

Interesting argument.

[*PhilHos*]

(03-09-2018, 10:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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.

If this is the case, then I see no reason why their case cannot be considered and why she shouldn't be granted what she's asking for.

[*PhilHos*]

(03-14-2018, 05:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: Ok, in reference to the other thread would this be bigotry?



Because it assumes some subterfuge to protect an illegal alien.  One that has not been presented.

No, it's not bigotry. 

[BmorePat87]

(03-14-2018, 05:54 PM)PhilHos Wrote: If this is the case, then I see no reason why their case cannot be considered and why she shouldn't be granted what she's asking for.

They eventually did drop the removal order after the story went out, paving the way for her to get PIP.

[*bfine32*]

(03-14-2018, 06:22 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: They eventually did drop the removal order after the story went out, paving the way for her to get PIP.

If she were eligible for this protection with the deportation order as you and others have said throughout this thread, then one must wonder why they removed it. 

[fredtoast]

(03-14-2018, 06:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If she were eligible for this protection with the deportation order as you and others have said throughout this thread, then one must wonder why they removed it. 

Because it was the right thing to do to fulfill the intent of the law to protect and support military families.

And since that was the case it makes me wonder why you and others here opposed the removal.  Especially since you claim to support military families.

[*bfine32*]

(03-14-2018, 02:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But you think this woman should be deported even though there is a law that says spouses of military personnel can stay here even if they entered the country illegally?

If your definition of "support" is opposing a law drafted to support military families I think the military families would tell you that you can keep your "support".

This case does not meet the spirit of the policy (law as you say) IMO. This marriage had nothing to do with the service of a military member. This female was in this country illegally and had been issued a deportation order, Then she married a service member she meet stateside. 

Whether I think this female should be deported or not has nothing to do with Military Service. You have zero idea what Military families think I should do with my support. It's just your feeble attempt at shame that any 3rd grader and half this forum can see through. 

[BmorePat87]

(03-14-2018, 06:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If she were eligible for this protection with the deportation order as you and others have said throughout this thread, then one must wonder why they removed it. 

If only there was an article explaining this. Preferably one in the original post of the thread. Or a memo from the USCIS that would give us direction so that we didn't have to rely on our feelings. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-14-2018, 06:49 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If only there was an article explaining this. Preferably one in the original post of the thread. Or a memo from the USCIS that would give us direction so that we didn't have to rely on our feelings. 

There is an article explaining it and I have not interjected my feelings, simply my opinion. And my opinion is this policy was not intended to grandfather those that already had a deportation order against them and I have seen nothing counter to that.

But keep trying to make it an "emotional" issue, Fred will be proud. 

[fredtoast]

(03-14-2018, 06:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This case does not meet the spirit of the policy (law as you say) IMO.

Well it did until recently.

"Getting the orders cleared in earlier cases had been fairly procedural, Corona said. That’s changed under President Donald Trump’s administration, which has taken a harder line on immigration and deportation issues."

Anyone who can read the law sees the intent.  Whether or not there was a deportation order in place has nothing to do with the intent of this law.  In fact the deportation order was in place before this law was ever put into effect. 

A law was put in place to protect military families, and everyone complied with the intent of that law for years.  But as soon as Trump comes out against it his followers sell out the military families in order to support Trump.

[fredtoast]

(03-14-2018, 06:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: TAnd my opinion is this policy was not intended to grandfather those that already had a deportation order against them and I have seen nothing counter to that.

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?

[BmorePat87]

(03-14-2018, 06:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There is an article explaining it and I have not interjected my feelings, simply my opinion. And my opinion is this policy was not intended to grandfather those that already had a deportation order against them and I have seen nothing counter to that.

But keep trying to make it an "emotional" issue, Fred will be proud. 

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.

[BmorePat87]

(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?

Dude, when he ignores an official memo from the USCIS on how to enact the policy, you know it's a waste of time.