03-06-2018, 02:22 AM
(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.
