03-06-2018, 03:07 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?
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.
