Abuse victims advised to not seek residency

[Boiler 45,514]

Is it worth remembering that the USC spouse (batterer or not) is probably AWARE of their spouses illegal status, and as such maybe they are a bit implicit here too? Or was it simply WRONG for USC's to meet and fall in love with them?

Is there ever the most remote possibility that "illegals" are human beings? Or are they just a reason for people to become enraged when they see the term?

It would be more likely for both parties to the marriage to be undocumented.

I have seen posts elsewhere suggesting that in this case one undocuented could get Residency and then Citizenship through VAWA, and having 'reconciled' would be able to get status for the other.

[N400-2011 24]

My opinion: In the other thread, I believe that the woman's intent was implied...she gave the guy the money just before her deportation procedures. He convinced them (immigration) to let her back in. Her intent (to me) seems to be clear - she wanted to migrate to the US - she came back and they were married in Vegas. Again (to me) it would appear that this woman entered into a fraudulent marriage. Unless the OP of that thread returns and lets us know more about the facts of that case, we will spend a lot of time going around in circles. My reaction when I read that thread was that it raised serious flags for me. And, if it did that for me, imagine what immigration will think.

It really is imperative that anyone who goes through domestic violence, illegal or not, thinks about their safety first and gets out from under the control of their abusive spouse or boyfriend. However, I don't think that anyone who enters into a fraud marriage (illegal immigrant or not), and is subsequently abused, should benefit from VAWA. One of the basic requirements for VAWA applicants IS to demonstrate that their marriage was entered into in good faith.

Edited January 8, 2008 by Vawa-2006

[N400-2011 24]

The OP for the other thread just replied...and well...it definitely was a paid for "marriage."

[zqt3344 21]

D&N for PRESIDENT! RIGHT ON! You said a mouth full that was so right and true.

No sympathy from here. This provision of the VWA was never intended to help illegal immigrants anyway. It was intended to help immigrants who immigrate legally and find themselves in a domestic violence situation, after doing everything properly,then have a means and a process to stay here in the US if they choose to do that.

I hate to hear that anyone is treated this way, but illegal immigrants need to take note: Eventually, one by one, none of the usual bleeding heart liberal causes are going to be applied that give you special status. The days when illegal immigrants enjoy the same protection, benefits, and privaleges of legal immigrants are ENDIND. Go back to your home country, and immigrate legally, or run the risk of being packed up, sent home, and banned from returning. Immigrate illegally and get beat up? Tough. Hopefully this becomes part of the chances you take when you choose to break the rules.

The ONLY amnesty that I would support for illegal immigrants, is a clean slate once they self-deport. I do not have any malice towards illegals who wake up, smell the coffee, go home, and start the legal process. Illegal immigrants who are picked up and sent home should and deserve to be banned from returning to this country.

This may not be popular in this forum, but it reflect the feelings of the majority of the country. Enjoying the benefits of a better life requires that the laws and rules be followed and equally applied to everyone. A society of law has both benefits AND responsibilities. What has made illegal immigration so beneficial is that these people enjoy one with no feeling of responsibility towards the other.

[zqt3344 21]

RebeccaJo:

IT is also worth remembering that

A) illegal means illegal, which means the illegal broke the law in the first place which had they followed the law in first place they would not be in the USA illegally.

B) love or no love, illegal is illegal

C) human being or not they are an illegal and lawbreaker, and for example some of the world's worst lawbreakers against humanity for example are Osama Bin Laden, Sadaam Hussien, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, etc and guess what each one of them is a human being as you say. That is beside the point whether they are a human being or not, they broke the law and are illegal.

D) Engraged you say, the only engraged people are those that suggest it is somehow wrong to be engraged when someone willfully and adamantly breaks the laws of the United States of America.

In conclusion, stop trying to justify unjustifiable lawbreaking behavior. And do you think a USC would be treated as kindly or humanly in another country if the USC were to enter another country illegally and to break that country's laws? Hello I think not, well I know not, other countries do not tolerate this nonsense like the USA has now for so long, which as D&N has said those days are over and coming to a close fast. The mass majority of USC are sick and tired of illegal immigration and want it stopped once and for all, which it will be.

Is it worth remembering that the USC spouse (batterer or not) is probably AWARE of their spouses illegal status, and as such maybe they are a bit implicit here too? Or was it simply WRONG for USC's to meet and fall in love with them?

Is there ever the most remote possibility that "illegals" are human beings? Or are they just a reason for people to become enraged when they see the term?

[diadromous mermaid 36]

RebeccaJo:

A) illegal means illegal, which means the illegal broke the law in the first place which had they followed the law in first place they would not be in the USA illegally.

Well, there are a few exceptions. For example, a child that was brought to the USA, as a minor, by his or her parents and is, therefore, an undocumented alien now, is here illegally by virtue of the choices his or her parent(s) made.

Edited January 10, 2008 by diadromous mermaid

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

RebeccaJo:

IT is also worth remembering that

A) illegal means illegal, which means the illegal broke the law in the first place which had they followed the law in first place they would not be in the USA illegally.

B) love or no love, illegal is illegal

C) human being or not they are an illegal and lawbreaker, and for example some of the world's worst lawbreakers against humanity for example are Osama Bin Laden, Sadaam Hussien, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, etc and guess what each one of them is a human being as you say. That is beside the point whether they are a human being or not, they broke the law and are illegal.

D) Engraged you say, the only engraged people are those that suggest it is somehow wrong to be engraged when someone willfully and adamantly breaks the laws of the United States of America.

In conclusion, stop trying to justify unjustifiable lawbreaking behavior. And do you think a USC would be treated as kindly or humanly in another country if the USC were to enter another country illegally and to break that country's laws? Hello I think not, well I know not, other countries do not tolerate this nonsense like the USA has now for so long, which as D&N has said those days are over and coming to a close fast. The mass majority of USC are sick and tired of illegal immigration and want it stopped once and for all, which it will be.

Is it worth remembering that the USC spouse (batterer or not) is probably AWARE of their spouses illegal status, and as such maybe they are a bit implicit here too? Or was it simply WRONG for USC's to meet and fall in love with them?

Is there ever the most remote possibility that "illegals" are human beings? Or are they just a reason for people to become enraged when they see the term?

zqt,

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Clearly you disagree with Rjo and that is OK. We can all disagree however I hope that we can present our disagreements in a rational way without attacking or inflaming each other. Thank you for considering this in the future.

[Bassi and Zainab 1]

My opinion: In the other thread, I believe that the woman's intent was implied...she gave the guy the money just before her deportation procedures. He convinced them (immigration) to let her back in. Her intent (to me) seems to be clear - she wanted to migrate to the US - she came back and they were married in Vegas. Again (to me) it would appear that this woman entered into a fraudulent marriage. Unless the OP of that thread returns and lets us know more about the facts of that case, we will spend a lot of time going around in circles. My reaction when I read that thread was that it raised serious flags for me. And, if it did that for me, imagine what immigration will think.

It really is imperative that anyone who goes through domestic violence, illegal or not, thinks about their safety first and gets out from under the control of their abusive spouse or boyfriend. However, I don't think that anyone who enters into a fraud marriage (illegal immigrant or not), and is subsequently abused, should benefit from VAWA. One of the basic requirements for VAWA applicants IS to demonstrate that their marriage was entered into in good faith.

I agree, because if they entered into a fraudulent marraige then I believe they entered into the country illegally.

[Boiler 45,514]

RebeccaJo:

A) illegal means illegal, which means the illegal broke the law in the first place which had they followed the law in first place they would not be in the USA illegally.

Well, there are a few exceptions. For example, a child that was brought to the USA, as a minor, by his or her parents and is, therefore, an undocumented alien now, is here illegally by virtue of the choices his or her parent(s) made.

Until they reach the age of 18.

[Bassi and Zainab 1]

RebeccaJo:

A) illegal means illegal, which means the illegal broke the law in the first place which had they followed the law in first place they would not be in the USA illegally.

Well, there are a few exceptions. For example, a child that was brought to the USA, as a minor, by his or her parents and is, therefore, an undocumented alien now, is here illegally by virtue of the choices his or her parent(s) made.

Until they reach the age of 18.

We had an incident here in Buffalo last year where the kids were 17 and 18 on a senior trip and didn't even know they were illegal. They crossed into Canada at the falls and couldn't get back in. It was their parents' decision that caused their legal status and it's heartbreaking for them cause what they know as their life was in serious jeopardy. I wonder what happened to them?

[diadromous mermaid 36]

I don't think VAWA should be a remedy because the problem of their immigration status existed before the marraige took place, whether in good faith or not. The abuse is wrong, but if you had an immigration problem because your status was illegal, creating the ability to purposely go into abusive relationships (they are easy to find) to get "amnesty" for your illegal entry is not a good idea. The issue of having entered the country illegally is being blurred by the domestic violence crime. Poor, starving people still go to jail if they steal. Because we feel sorry for them because they were poor and starving, do we change the laws that allow those people to steal?

You've got a point, but usually, if a poor starving person steals (and he can prove he was starving and it's a first offense) he's gonna get to plea and won't do jail time.

Remember - the punishment should always equal the crime.

You don't have a point about 'creating the ability to purposely go into abusive relationships to get amnesty'. That's a stretch by anybody's definition.

If the punishment should "always" equal the crime (which it doesn't in the US, but off off topic), the punishment in the case of the crime of illegal immigration should not be amnesty because of an unfortunate situation in their personal lives.

And I'll add that when I was an advocate in NYC, I had a client whose husband had to do 60 days in jail for stealing meat, potatoes and tomato sauce from a grocery store on the east side. First offense but he still did time. And lost his job in the process. Thus she ended up with me trying find a way to feed her and 4 kids while waiting for some type of emergency assistance from the city. My boss spoke on behalf of her husband before the judge and he got no leniency. So, you can roll the dice.

There is no doubt in my mind that some undocumented aliens could be subjected to abuse by their legal spouse in the manner of using the illegal status as a means of control. We see cases of this with aliens that aren't even illegal, but simply uninformed and unable to secure PR without the cooperation of the USC spouse. Why would it be any less so with an alien over whom a spouse has even more control? I am quite sure this situation exists more than we may know!

It is a moral issue, that, in my opinion can be resolved.

As I see it, it is not that the abused alien should be found ineligible for relief under VAWA (in other words, the alien would not have to remain with an abuser in order to gain PR) but rather whether such alien might have to return to his or her country in order to receive such relief and what options will be available to such alien when he or she attempts to correct the illegal status?

Aliens that are EWI, and marry a USC are indeed required to return to their home country first, before adjustment of status is possible once in the USA. Of course in doing so, if the EWI alien is subject to a bar, the USC spouse can petition to have that bar waived, by demonstrating hardship upon the US partner. For an alien that is being victimised by a USC that they have married in good faith, who is an EWI, if the alien to leave the country in order to rectify the EWI, what USC abuser would petition on their behalf? And if the USC abuser would, could we sanction that an alien be forced to return to his or her abuser in order to find legal status in the USA? In that case, the alien remains subject to a bar, with no possibility of securing re-admission. But what if remaining in their homeland causes yet more hardship? I believe they should be given opportunity to correct their illegal status, and utilise VAWA where possible. If returning to their homeland in order to be eligible for adjustment causes extreme hardship, and VAWA provides additional exceptions to remedy this, I see no reason for VAWA not to include such remedies for battered EWIs.

[Boiler 45,514]

RebeccaJo:

A) illegal means illegal, which means the illegal broke the law in the first place which had they followed the law in first place they would not be in the USA illegally.

Well, there are a few exceptions. For example, a child that was brought to the USA, as a minor, by his or her parents and is, therefore, an undocumented alien now, is here illegally by virtue of the choices his or her parent(s) made.

Until they reach the age of 18.

We had an incident here in Buffalo last year where the kids were 17 and 18 on a senior trip and didn't even know they were illegal. They crossed into Canada at the falls and couldn't get back in. It was their parents' decision that caused their legal status and it's heartbreaking for them cause what they know as their life was in serious jeopardy. I wonder what happened to them?

I saw a similar case, in this case Mexican, he was checked by Canadian Immigration, who refused him entry, sent back to the US side and held, I guess he was not deported as he was never admitted to the US, but whatever he was sent home.

[Boiler 45,514]

I don't think VAWA should be a remedy because the problem of their immigration status existed before the marraige took place, whether in good faith or not. The abuse is wrong, but if you had an immigration problem because your status was illegal, creating the ability to purposely go into abusive relationships (they are easy to find) to get "amnesty" for your illegal entry is not a good idea. The issue of having entered the country illegally is being blurred by the domestic violence crime. Poor, starving people still go to jail if they steal. Because we feel sorry for them because they were poor and starving, do we change the laws that allow those people to steal?

You've got a point, but usually, if a poor starving person steals (and he can prove he was starving and it's a first offense) he's gonna get to plea and won't do jail time.

Remember - the punishment should always equal the crime.

You don't have a point about 'creating the ability to purposely go into abusive relationships to get amnesty'. That's a stretch by anybody's definition.

If the punishment should "always" equal the crime (which it doesn't in the US, but off off topic), the punishment in the case of the crime of illegal immigration should not be amnesty because of an unfortunate situation in their personal lives.

And I'll add that when I was an advocate in NYC, I had a client whose husband had to do 60 days in jail for stealing meat, potatoes and tomato sauce from a grocery store on the east side. First offense but he still did time. And lost his job in the process. Thus she ended up with me trying find a way to feed her and 4 kids while waiting for some type of emergency assistance from the city. My boss spoke on behalf of her husband before the judge and he got no leniency. So, you can roll the dice.

There is no doubt in my mind that some undocumented aliens could be subjected to abuse by their legal spouse in the manner of using the illegal status as a means of control. We see cases of this with aliens that aren't even illegal, but simply uninformed and unable to secure PR without the cooperation of the USC spouse. Why would it be any less so with an alien over whom a spouse has even more control? I am quite sure this situation exists more than we may know!

It is a moral issue, that, in my opinion can be resolved.

As I see it, it is not that the abused alien should be found ineligible for relief under VAWA (in other words, the alien would not have to remain with an abuser in order to gain PR) but rather whether such alien might have to return to his or her country in order to receive such relief and what options will be available to such alien when he or she attempts to correct the illegal status?

Aliens that are EWI, and marry a USC are indeed required to return to their home country first, before adjustment of status is possible once in the USA. Of course in doing so, if the EWI alien is subject to a bar, the USC spouse can petition to have that bar waived, by demonstrating hardship upon the US partner. For an alien that is being victimised by a USC that they have married in good faith, who is an EWI, if the alien to leave the country in order to rectify the EWI, what USC abuser would petition on their behalf? And if the USC abuser would, could we sanction that an alien be forced to return to his or her abuser in order to find legal status in the USA? In that case, the alien remains subject to a bar, with no possibility of securing re-admission. But what if remaining in their homeland causes yet more hardship? I believe they should be given opportunity to correct their illegal status, and utilise VAWA where possible. If returning to their homeland in order to be eligible for adjustment causes extreme hardship, and VAWA provides additional exceptions to remedy this, I see no reason for VAWA not to include such remedies for battered EWIs.

I do not know the numbers but the more common situation would be where both the absued and the abuser are illegals.

And as you say hardhip has to be shown to a USC or PR, not an illegal.It ca be another USC/PR, it does not have to be the abuser.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

I don't think VAWA should be a remedy because the problem of their immigration status existed before the marraige took place, whether in good faith or not. The abuse is wrong, but if you had an immigration problem because your status was illegal, creating the ability to purposely go into abusive relationships (they are easy to find) to get "amnesty" for your illegal entry is not a good idea. The issue of having entered the country illegally is being blurred by the domestic violence crime. Poor, starving people still go to jail if they steal. Because we feel sorry for them because they were poor and starving, do we change the laws that allow those people to steal?

You've got a point, but usually, if a poor starving person steals (and he can prove he was starving and it's a first offense) he's gonna get to plea and won't do jail time.

Remember - the punishment should always equal the crime.

You don't have a point about 'creating the ability to purposely go into abusive relationships to get amnesty'. That's a stretch by anybody's definition.

If the punishment should "always" equal the crime (which it doesn't in the US, but off off topic), the punishment in the case of the crime of illegal immigration should not be amnesty because of an unfortunate situation in their personal lives.

And I'll add that when I was an advocate in NYC, I had a client whose husband had to do 60 days in jail for stealing meat, potatoes and tomato sauce from a grocery store on the east side. First offense but he still did time. And lost his job in the process. Thus she ended up with me trying find a way to feed her and 4 kids while waiting for some type of emergency assistance from the city. My boss spoke on behalf of her husband before the judge and he got no leniency. So, you can roll the dice.

There is no doubt in my mind that some undocumented aliens could be subjected to abuse by their legal spouse in the manner of using the illegal status as a means of control. We see cases of this with aliens that aren't even illegal, but simply uninformed and unable to secure PR without the cooperation of the USC spouse. Why would it be any less so with an alien over whom a spouse has even more control? I am quite sure this situation exists more than we may know!

It is a moral issue, that, in my opinion can be resolved.

As I see it, it is not that the abused alien should be found ineligible for relief under VAWA (in other words, the alien would not have to remain with an abuser in order to gain PR) but rather whether such alien might have to return to his or her country in order to receive such relief and what options will be available to such alien when he or she attempts to correct the illegal status?

Aliens that are EWI, and marry a USC are indeed required to return to their home country first, before adjustment of status is possible once in the USA. Of course in doing so, if the EWI alien is subject to a bar, the USC spouse can petition to have that bar waived, by demonstrating hardship upon the US partner. For an alien that is being victimised by a USC that they have married in good faith, who is an EWI, if the alien to leave the country in order to rectify the EWI, what USC abuser would petition on their behalf? And if the USC abuser would, could we sanction that an alien be forced to return to his or her abuser in order to find legal status in the USA? In that case, the alien remains subject to a bar, with no possibility of securing re-admission. But what if remaining in their homeland causes yet more hardship? I believe they should be given opportunity to correct their illegal status, and utilise VAWA where possible. If returning to their homeland in order to be eligible for adjustment causes extreme hardship, and VAWA provides additional exceptions to remedy this, I see no reason for VAWA not to include such remedies for battered EWIs.

I do not know the numbers but the more common situation would be where both the absued and the abuser are illegals.

And as you say hardhip has to be shown to a USC or PR, not an illegal.It ca be another USC/PR, it does not have to be the abuser.

Herein lies the concern. Chances are, a battered illegal is unlikely to have such a support sytem or individual to turn to and yet he or she (more likely she, unfortunately) might be better suited in the USA than the homeland.

[Boiler 45,514]

Many people might consider themselves better suited in the USA rather than their homeland. Whatever their current circumstances are.

Not sure why that should be the basis of a immigration policy.