want to leave America

[no name 1]

What other things do you know about him? Seeing how he isn't even the one posting the question if I remember correctly.

You can read it yourself - post #1. The OP states several facts about him.

[Caladan 19]

Personally, I don't support illegal immigration. But in the situation described by the OP, its tough. On the one hand, the person is, in fact, illegal. But on the other hand, he was brought here as a child by adults and now has to "pay the price" for that. I'm not sure its up to me to judge whether or not that's fair. The law says he's here illegally and should be deported. Many people do interpret this as a black and white situation. I think there are shades of grey here, but the law doesn't appear to recognize grey.

There was a recent bill that was put forward that would have given legal status to those who were brought here as children if they attended college or joined the arm forces. We had several threads about it and there were those who, like now, thought that any sort of amnesty for illegals regardless of the circumstances is out of the question. I shake my head because I've never seen such emotionally charged stubbornness over an issue where they can't come up with any reasonable argument other than a violation of current immigration laws. My God...how many times have we seen and talked about injustices with current civil and criminal laws, and yet when it comes to immigration laws, some here adhere to them with an insane allegiance, as if there is no room for modifications or circumstances which create an unjust consequence.

If one studies the arguments of the PAC's lobbying Washington for 'amnesty', you'll find those not on the radical fringe acknowledge that illegal entry is a crime and there should be a price to pay for that crime.

What they are generally seeking is a punishment that fits the crime.

I have always found it odd that CURRENT law allows those married to US citizens to overstep many situations that other immigrant categories cannot. Take overstaying a visa for example - particulary a K1. How many times do we see the word 'forgiven' used in post replies when someone asks if they can file for adjustment of status after the K1 expires. No one seems to think there's anything wrong with THAT overstay. Yet if someone who is not married to a USC overstays another visa type, the 'crime' is not forgiven.

Isn't it odd the law allows that?

personally, i'd take 10 that entered under a k-1/k-3 WITH INSPECTION over 1 that enters without inspection.

This guy very well may have, if he came as a child from Bangladesh.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

*sigh*

Julez, here's where I am coming from, anytime I foolishly decide to enter into one of these debates.

I am constantly amazed by the amount of anti-immigrant rhetoric I see on this site. And yes, I regard speaking with disdain about the EWI situation as anti-immigrant. Not because I think anybody deserves 'amnesty', or any of the other things that always get tossed up to those of us who don't speak vehemently against illegal entrants.

I'm a philosopher of sorts and a student of history. When I see the citizens of this nation crying out against a 'class' of people, it makes me really uncomfortable. I see images in my mind of Japanese citizens huddled into 'safe housing' that in reality was nothing more than US concentration camps. I recall people in Germany being asked to produce 'papers' during the Third Reich. I remember how my blood ran cold the first time I heard my husband tell me about standing in line to be frisked by the police whenever he went into town during the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland.

This country is not immigrant friendly right now. The talk in the media may be about illegal entrants, but the rights and very protections our foreign born spouses can be threated by new legislation that is improperly written.

THAT is what worries me and that is why I enter into these debates.

I really believe that each and every one of us who is married to a foreign born individual should think DEEPLY before they speak or develop opinions about a situation that,

Excellent post.

Agreed - my respect sister RJ.

[almaty 19]

man, the season of Jesus birth for the Christians here on this thread..what would jesus do? ....

[athena_ny 1]

Personally, I don't support illegal immigration. But in the situation described by the OP, its tough. On the one hand, the person is, in fact, illegal. But on the other hand, he was brought here as a child by adults and now has to "pay the price" for that. I'm not sure its up to me to judge whether or not that's fair. The law says he's here illegally and should be deported. Many people do interpret this as a black and white situation. I think there are shades of grey here, but the law doesn't appear to recognize grey.

There was a recent bill that was put forward that would have given legal status to those who were brought here as children if they attended college or joined the arm forces. We had several threads about it and there were those who, like now, thought that any sort of amnesty for illegals regardless of the circumstances is out of the question. I shake my head because I've never seen such emotionally charged stubbornness over an issue where they can't come up with any reasonable argument other than a violation of current immigration laws. My God...how many times have we seen and talked about injustices with current civil and criminal laws, and yet when it comes to immigration laws, some here adhere to them with an insane allegiance, as if there is no room for modifications or circumstances which create an unjust consequence.

If one studies the arguments of the PAC's lobbying Washington for 'amnesty', you'll find those not on the radical fringe acknowledge that illegal entry is a crime and there should be a price to pay for that crime.

What they are generally seeking is a punishment that fits the crime.

I have always found it odd that CURRENT law allows those married to US citizens to overstep many situations that other immigrant categories cannot. Take overstaying a visa for example - particulary a K1. How many times do we see the word 'forgiven' used in post replies when someone asks if they can file for adjustment of status after the K1 expires. No one seems to think there's anything wrong with THAT overstay. Yet if someone who is not married to a USC overstays another visa type, the 'crime' is not forgiven.

Isn't it odd the law allows that?

personally, i'd take 10 that entered under a k-1/k-3 WITH INSPECTION over 1 that enters without inspection.

This guy very well may have, if he came as a child from Bangladesh.

[ivona 0]

man, the season of Jesus birth for the Christians here on this thread..what would jesus do? ....

Ask Nessa to pass the pop corn?

[rebeccajo 14]

No Dev, I didn't ask it of anyone here, but I guess we can discuss it if everybody wants to. I only meant to highlight how oddly the current laws are crafted.

I have always found it odd that CURRENT law allows those married to US citizens to overstep many situations that other immigrant categories cannot. Take overstaying a visa for example - particulary a K1. How many times do we see the word 'forgiven' used in post replies when someone asks if they can file for adjustment of status after the K1 expires. No one seems to think there's anything wrong with THAT overstay.

Have you asked anyone here? I bet the answer would be different. we had a thread about it a month or 2 ago....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Personally, I don't support illegal immigration. But in the situation described by the OP, its tough. On the one hand, the person is, in fact, illegal. But on the other hand, he was brought here as a child by adults and now has to "pay the price" for that. I'm not sure its up to me to judge whether or not that's fair. The law says he's here illegally and should be deported. Many people do interpret this as a black and white situation. I think there are shades of grey here, but the law doesn't appear to recognize grey.

There was a recent bill that was put forward that would have given legal status to those who were brought here as children if they attended college or joined the arm forces. We had several threads about it and there were those who, like now, thought that any sort of amnesty for illegals regardless of the circumstances is out of the question. I shake my head because I've never seen such emotionally charged stubbornness over an issue where they can't come up with any reasonable argument other than a violation of current immigration laws. My God...how many times have we seen and talked about injustices with current civil and criminal laws, and yet when it comes to immigration laws, some here adhere to them with an insane allegiance, as if there is no room for modifications or circumstances which create an unjust consequence.

If one studies the arguments of the PAC's lobbying Washington for 'amnesty', you'll find those not on the radical fringe acknowledge that illegal entry is a crime and there should be a price to pay for that crime.

What they are generally seeking is a punishment that fits the crime.

I have always found it odd that CURRENT law allows those married to US citizens to overstep many situations that other immigrant categories cannot. Take overstaying a visa for example - particulary a K1. How many times do we see the word 'forgiven' used in post replies when someone asks if they can file for adjustment of status after the K1 expires. No one seems to think there's anything wrong with THAT overstay. Yet if someone who is not married to a USC overstays another visa type, the 'crime' is not forgiven.

Isn't it odd the law allows that?

Yes. I know my opinion isn't popular here on this point, but I don't think K Visas should have any more legal privileges than other Visas. That said, I think our immigration laws need to be inclusive and not exclusive. We should be a nation that doesn't discriminate against immigrants based on their social status.

[Caladan 19]

Jesus? F*cking Aramaic illegal. Probably a terrorist.

[rebeccajo 14]

Dev,

ALL I was saying is that MY opinion changed after I listened and learned to points of view different than opinions I held at that time.

If trying to study a situation is a flippin' crime, then color me guilty.

ditto

link

Charles, I've bookmarked it believe it or not.

I'm sure you remember we spent a long time waiting for Wes' greencard. 17 months. Because of security checks.

I'll ask you this - is your government doing a good job letting my husband (or any other legal entrant into this country) if it takes them 17 months or longer to check the background of a legal entrant?

You aren't protected from potential criminals just because the US government has waived the magic visa pencil over their passport. There needs to be a background check, it has to be INDEPENDENTLY PERFORMED of a possibly forged police report that is produced at the interview, and it has to be done in a timely manner.

I'm in no way saying you are wrong in showing me that link. I'm just saying legal entry (under the current system) does not necessarily protect US citizens.

Edited December 19, 2007 by rebeccajo

[athena_ny 1]

Personally, I don't support illegal immigration. But in the situation described by the OP, its tough. On the one hand, the person is, in fact, illegal. But on the other hand, he was brought here as a child by adults and now has to "pay the price" for that. I'm not sure its up to me to judge whether or not that's fair. The law says he's here illegally and should be deported. Many people do interpret this as a black and white situation. I think there are shades of grey here, but the law doesn't appear to recognize grey.

There was a recent bill that was put forward that would have given legal status to those who were brought here as children if they attended college or joined the arm forces. We had several threads about it and there were those who, like now, thought that any sort of amnesty for illegals regardless of the circumstances is out of the question. I shake my head because I've never seen such emotionally charged stubbornness over an issue where they can't come up with any reasonable argument other than a violation of current immigration laws. My God...how many times have we seen and talked about injustices with current civil and criminal laws, and yet when it comes to immigration laws, some here adhere to them with an insane allegiance, as if there is no room for modifications or circumstances which create an unjust consequence.

If one studies the arguments of the PAC's lobbying Washington for 'amnesty', you'll find those not on the radical fringe acknowledge that illegal entry is a crime and there should be a price to pay for that crime.

What they are generally seeking is a punishment that fits the crime.

I have always found it odd that CURRENT law allows those married to US citizens to overstep many situations that other immigrant categories cannot. Take overstaying a visa for example - particulary a K1. How many times do we see the word 'forgiven' used in post replies when someone asks if they can file for adjustment of status after the K1 expires. No one seems to think there's anything wrong with THAT overstay. Yet if someone who is not married to a USC overstays another visa type, the 'crime' is not forgiven.

Isn't it odd the law allows that?

Yes. I know my opinion isn't popular here on this point, but I don't think K Visas should have any more legal privileges than other Visas. That said, I think our immigration laws need to be inclusive and not exclusive. We should be a nation that doesn't discriminate against immigrants based on their social status.

Well I agree with all of this. So it may not be popular, but you're not the only one.

[rebeccajo 14]

Personally, I don't support illegal immigration. But in the situation described by the OP, its tough. On the one hand, the person is, in fact, illegal. But on the other hand, he was brought here as a child by adults and now has to "pay the price" for that. I'm not sure its up to me to judge whether or not that's fair. The law says he's here illegally and should be deported. Many people do interpret this as a black and white situation. I think there are shades of grey here, but the law doesn't appear to recognize grey.

There was a recent bill that was put forward that would have given legal status to those who were brought here as children if they attended college or joined the arm forces. We had several threads about it and there were those who, like now, thought that any sort of amnesty for illegals regardless of the circumstances is out of the question. I shake my head because I've never seen such emotionally charged stubbornness over an issue where they can't come up with any reasonable argument other than a violation of current immigration laws. My God...how many times have we seen and talked about injustices with current civil and criminal laws, and yet when it comes to immigration laws, some here adhere to them with an insane allegiance, as if there is no room for modifications or circumstances which create an unjust consequence.

If one studies the arguments of the PAC's lobbying Washington for 'amnesty', you'll find those not on the radical fringe acknowledge that illegal entry is a crime and there should be a price to pay for that crime.

What they are generally seeking is a punishment that fits the crime.

I have always found it odd that CURRENT law allows those married to US citizens to overstep many situations that other immigrant categories cannot. Take overstaying a visa for example - particulary a K1. How many times do we see the word 'forgiven' used in post replies when someone asks if they can file for adjustment of status after the K1 expires. No one seems to think there's anything wrong with THAT overstay. Yet if someone who is not married to a USC overstays another visa type, the 'crime' is not forgiven.

Isn't it odd the law allows that?

personally, i'd take 10 that entered under a k-1/k-3 WITH INSPECTION over 1 that enters without inspection.

This guy very well may have, if he came as a child from Bangladesh.

Asylee?

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

Dev,

ALL I was saying is that MY opinion changed after I listened and learned to points of view different than opinions I held at that time.

If trying to study a situation is a flippin' crime, then color me guilty.

ditto

link

Charles, I've bookmarked it believe it or not.

I'm sure you remember we spent a long time waiting for Wes' greencard. 17 months. Because of security checks.

I'll ask you this - is your government doing a good job letting my husband (or any other legal entrant into this country) if it takes them 17 months or longer to check the background of a legal entrant?

You aren't protected from potential criminals just because the US government has waived the magic visa pencil over their passport. Their has to be a background check, it has to be INDEPENDENTLY PERFORMED of a possibly forged police report that is produced at the interview, and it has to be done in a timely manner.

I'm in no way saying you are wrong in showing me that link. I'm just saying legal entry (under the current system) does not necessarily protect US citizens.

yes i know you have waited a long time, and nessa is running up on 12 months. while i agree that the checks once they are here take far too long, it's kinda moot imo as they are already here should they be planning or doing any mischief after arrival. i know i'm not protected from potential criminals, but i am probably more so than many others

cch carrier!

for as you know i'm quite a believer in 911 not being able to help a person.

[athena_ny 1]

Personally, I don't support illegal immigration. But in the situation described by the OP, its tough. On the one hand, the person is, in fact, illegal. But on the other hand, he was brought here as a child by adults and now has to "pay the price" for that. I'm not sure its up to me to judge whether or not that's fair. The law says he's here illegally and should be deported. Many people do interpret this as a black and white situation. I think there are shades of grey here, but the law doesn't appear to recognize grey.

There was a recent bill that was put forward that would have given legal status to those who were brought here as children if they attended college or joined the arm forces. We had several threads about it and there were those who, like now, thought that any sort of amnesty for illegals regardless of the circumstances is out of the question. I shake my head because I've never seen such emotionally charged stubbornness over an issue where they can't come up with any reasonable argument other than a violation of current immigration laws. My God...how many times have we seen and talked about injustices with current civil and criminal laws, and yet when it comes to immigration laws, some here adhere to them with an insane allegiance, as if there is no room for modifications or circumstances which create an unjust consequence.

If one studies the arguments of the PAC's lobbying Washington for 'amnesty', you'll find those not on the radical fringe acknowledge that illegal entry is a crime and there should be a price to pay for that crime.

What they are generally seeking is a punishment that fits the crime.

I have always found it odd that CURRENT law allows those married to US citizens to overstep many situations that other immigrant categories cannot. Take overstaying a visa for example - particulary a K1. How many times do we see the word 'forgiven' used in post replies when someone asks if they can file for adjustment of status after the K1 expires. No one seems to think there's anything wrong with THAT overstay. Yet if someone who is not married to a USC overstays another visa type, the 'crime' is not forgiven.

Isn't it odd the law allows that?

personally, i'd take 10 that entered under a k-1/k-3 WITH INSPECTION over 1 that enters without inspection.

This guy very well may have, if he came as a child from Bangladesh.

Asylee?

Also possible. I think the point is more than not every undocumented immigrant snuck over the Mexico/US border as people want to believe.

99% of the undocumented immigrants I know came here on a valid visa, WITH inspection.

[Caladan 19]

Personally, I don't support illegal immigration. But in the situation described by the OP, its tough. On the one hand, the person is, in fact, illegal. But on the other hand, he was brought here as a child by adults and now has to "pay the price" for that. I'm not sure its up to me to judge whether or not that's fair. The law says he's here illegally and should be deported. Many people do interpret this as a black and white situation. I think there are shades of grey here, but the law doesn't appear to recognize grey.

There was a recent bill that was put forward that would have given legal status to those who were brought here as children if they attended college or joined the arm forces. We had several threads about it and there were those who, like now, thought that any sort of amnesty for illegals regardless of the circumstances is out of the question. I shake my head because I've never seen such emotionally charged stubbornness over an issue where they can't come up with any reasonable argument other than a violation of current immigration laws. My God...how many times have we seen and talked about injustices with current civil and criminal laws, and yet when it comes to immigration laws, some here adhere to them with an insane allegiance, as if there is no room for modifications or circumstances which create an unjust consequence.

If one studies the arguments of the PAC's lobbying Washington for 'amnesty', you'll find those not on the radical fringe acknowledge that illegal entry is a crime and there should be a price to pay for that crime.

What they are generally seeking is a punishment that fits the crime.

I have always found it odd that CURRENT law allows those married to US citizens to overstep many situations that other immigrant categories cannot. Take overstaying a visa for example - particulary a K1. How many times do we see the word 'forgiven' used in post replies when someone asks if they can file for adjustment of status after the K1 expires. No one seems to think there's anything wrong with THAT overstay. Yet if someone who is not married to a USC overstays another visa type, the 'crime' is not forgiven.

Isn't it odd the law allows that?

personally, i'd take 10 that entered under a k-1/k-3 WITH INSPECTION over 1 that enters without inspection.

This guy very well may have, if he came as a child from Bangladesh.

Asylee?

Any number of possibilities. Asylee applicant whose petition was eventually rejected. Derivative status from a parent's student visa or work visa; if the parent falls out of status, so does the kid. Derivative status from mom's K-1. Any number of things.