Bush Administration trying to deport an LPR after he was pronounced 'not guilty' by a jury of his peers...

[BJZags 17]

This is a ludicrous situation to find yourself in after living here for 20 years.

Perhaps this is true. BUT, it could have possibly been avoided by becoming a citizen, and having the additional rights secured to a citizen.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not talking strictly in regards to this case - but I think you do have to wonder what basis some of these decisions are made on.

I'm not sure I like the idea that my immigration benefits could be stripped based on innuendo and false rumour.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

You are entitled to rights as a citizen. If you are a not a citizen you are a guest.

Guests can be asked to leave at any time, for any reason, without explanation.

Do you let people stay in your home that you decide maybe should not be there? Do you have to give them a reason for asking them to leave?

The answer is know NO! You tell them to leave, thats it! No discussion!

America is our home! US citizens have all the rights of the Constitution, non-citizens do not. It is really not any more complicated then that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You are entitled to rights as a citizen. If you are a not a citizen you are a guest.

Guests can be asked to leave at any time, for any reason, without explanation.

Do you let people stay in your home that you decide maybe should not be there? Do you have to give them a reason for asking them to leave?

The answer is know NO! You tell them to leave, thats it! No discussion!

America is our home! US citizens have all the rights of the Constitution, non-citizens do not. It is really not any more complicated then that.

Nice analogy - but if you live here for 20 years, its your home too.

As I say - I don't think its unreasonable to wonder basis these arbitrary deportation proceedings are made on. On some level I'm guessing you're assuming some level of guilt or involvement on the part of the guy - but would you feel the same way if it was your wife they were talking about?

How wide is their discretion to make these decisions?

[mawilson 2,133]

You are entitled to rights as a citizen. If you are a not a citizen you are a guest.

Permanent residents are not guests, hence the word "permanent".

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You are entitled to rights as a citizen. If you are a not a citizen you are a guest.

Permanent residents are not guests, hence the word "permanent".

Exactly. LPR's are not guests.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You are entitled to rights as a citizen. If you are a not a citizen you are a guest.

Permanent residents are not guests, hence the word "permanent".

Exactly. LPR's are not guests.

A guest would be someone here on a visa-waiver, or a temporary work/school visa.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Honestly, if you have never experienced holding a green card for 20 years or more you cannot experience what it is like.

I still got the same rights as citizens even before I got naturalized. You cannot hit these people the same way you hit criminals. Not the same thing.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Citizens are citizens. That is why I highlighted all rights. You have rights just not the right to stay if they deem you a threat or dangerous.

There was case of a lady here in Oregon that was married to a US citizen, she had two children here, owned a house and had been here for 22 years I think. She was from Norway, I think. But she never became a citizen. She was arrested for growing 6 marijuana plants. Manufacture of a controlled substance. She was deported I am pretty sure.

I know a lady from Thailand that came to Portland in 1982 or 1983. She is married to a friend of mine. They own a house together, but she was caught distributing some Meth and they filed charges but then didn't pursue the complaint. Then they presented a secret indictment to the grand jury. She was convicted and sentenced to 60 months in Oregon State Women's Prison. She will get out after serving about 33 months I think at which time they are going to deport her back to Thailand. She has not lived in Thailand for more then 20 years. All of her family lives here including her 5 children. She was never allowed citizenship because of drunk driving convictions when she first came here. And now they refuse to give it to her.

I know this is a little different than the guy that was found not guilty, but she is still a guest, even after 20+ years of living here. And now she will have to go back to a country that she has been to in over 20 years, she has no family left there, and she is getting close to 50 years old with no hope for a job or a place to live.

I do not feel sorry for her either. She made her own bed and must lie in it. As everyone should.

If I moved to England and started criticizing the government and doing subversive things to their country they should have every right to send me home. Until you are a citizen and take the pledge you should not have the right to think you may do "whatever" without the consequences of your actions coming back on you.

"Honestly, if you have never experienced holding a green card for 20 years or more you cannot experience what it is like.

I still got the same rights as citizens even before I got naturalized. You cannot hit these people the same way you hit criminals. Not the same thing."

You just thought you had the same rights, In actuality there were a few rights that were withheld from you. If you had pushed up against them you would have found out which ones.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Is "Subversive" the new catchphrase of the week?

Every instance you've highlighted above is in regard to an actual crime that was committed. There's nothing "subversive" about any of those (criminal) examples. The term "subversive" is correctly used in relation to political or other activism in specific relation to certain outlawed political groups.

More than that - as a taxpayer, there's nothing wrong with criticising the government. Is "free speech" another one of those rights that's only applicable to citizens?

I don't think its unreasonable to wonder on what basis of discretion the decision is made that a person be deported when they've been acquitted of a crime. Does the particulars of the criminal case factor into it at all - or is the association sufficient for a person to lose their immigration benefits?

Edited March 3, 2008 by Number 6

[Niels Bohr 72]

I love how there's a 'semi-know-it-all' and a 'true-know-it-all' bash heads in forums like these. Most of the US population are average fellows who are truely ill-informed.

[Cassie 8]

You are entitled to rights as a citizen. If you are a not a citizen you are a guest.

try telling my husband that I am merely a guest!

[mawilson 2,133]

If I moved to England and started criticizing the government and doing subversive things to their country they should have every right to send me home. Until you are a citizen and take the pledge you should not have the right to think you may do "whatever" without the consequences of your actions coming back on you.

Really? You think it's ok to deport non-citizens for criticizing the government?

What happened to free speech?

[Dan J 277]

I wonder how Don Joy would feel if this situation were a bit closer to home. How would you feel if your wife (once she becomes a PR) was charged under the Patriot Act, cleared, but then still deported back home?

[mawilson 2,133]

I wonder how Don Joy would feel if this situation were a bit closer to home. How would you feel if your wife (once she becomes a PR) was charged under the Patriot Act, cleared, but then still deported back home?

His wife is innocent, therefore can never be accused of anything like that.