"Illegal" status of Army Spouses Often Leads to Snags

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It doesn't matter; civil or criminal, they are the laws of our land and when he took his oath he swore to defend them not to violate them with reckless abandon.

Again the he/she you are referring to broke no laws.

(and by the way, jaywalking is a civil infraction to give you some perspective)

Edited May 10, 2010 by Sousuke

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

Again the he/she you are referring to broke no laws.

(and by the way, jaywalking is a civil infraction to give you some perspective)

So now you equate illegal immigration to jaywalking?

The wife violated US Immigration Laws.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

So now you equate illegal immigration to jaywalking?

The wife violated US Immigration Laws.

We are having a circular argument here. All I can say is that the service member broke no laws, and I personally feel that the laws should be changed to give more leeway to service personal who want their family's to remain in the US.

I can't help that being in the US without a legal status is not a "worse" infraction than it is. If you feel so strongly about it, perhaps you should call your congressman and have him push for the criminalization of being without legal status.

At the moment the wife is not a criminal.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Sousuke

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

We are having a circular argument here. All I can say is that the service member broke no laws, and I personally feel that the laws should be changed to give more leeway to service personal who want their family's to remain in the US.

....

At the moment the wife is not a criminal.

First, I never called the wife a criminal. I merely stated that US Service Men & Women are not outside the laws they swore to defend.

Second, I fail to see how your inability to change my position on this subject makes this a Circular Argument.

"Circular argument: A sentence or argument that restates rather than proves. Thus, it goes in a circle: 'President Reagan was a great communicator because he had the knack of talking effectively to the people.' The terms in the beginning of the sentence (great communicator) and the end of the sentence (talking effectively) are interchangeable"

This in fact isn't even an argument but rather a discussion that appears to be going nowhere because both sides have their opinion on the subject and neither has presented their position in a manner which convinces the other side to change theirs.

^{BTW, I do believe that Ronald Reagan was a Great Communicator because he was able to persuade those of differing opinions to back his play to the extent that he effectively won the cold war without firing a single shot in anger but that is another topic all together!}

Edited May 10, 2010 by Bob 4 Anna

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

First, I never called the wife a criminal. I merely stated that US Service Men & Women are not outside the laws they swore to defend.

Second, I fail to see how your inability to my position on this subject makes this a Circular Argument.

"Circular argument: A sentence or argument that restates rather than proves. Thus, it goes in a circle: 'President Reagan was a great communicator because he had the knack of talking effectively to the people.' The terms in the beginning of the sentence (great communicator) and the end of the sentence (talking effectively) are interchangeable"

This in fact isn't even an argument but rather a discussion that appears to be going nowhere because both sides have their opinion on the subject and neither has presented their position in a manner which convinces the other side to change theirs.

^{BTW, I do believe that Ronald Reagan was a Great Communicator because he was able to persuade those of differing opinions to back his play to the extent that he effectively won the cold war without firing a single shot in anger but that is another topic all together!}

You continue to state the service member should uphold all laws and I continue to remind you that the service member broke no laws. A few service members wanting a change to the laws doesn't contradict that they should uphold all laws. I'm sure if the wife went into deportation hearings the service member will continue to do his job...

By your own definition this is a circular "discussion".

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

You continue to state the service member should uphold all laws and I continue to remind you that the service member broke no laws. A few service members wanting a change to the laws doesn't contradict that they should uphold all laws. I'm sure if the wife went into deportation hearings the service member will continue to do his job...

By your own definition this is a circular "discussion".

Actually if he upheld all laws then he would send his wife back to her home country as she is here in violation of US Immigration Laws.

Anyone wanting to change a law doesn't contradict them uphold or abiding by said law but at the same time it doesn't excuse them breaking the law either. I feel confident in my ability to drive my car at speeds of up to 110 MPH on the open highway and believe that speed limits as low as 45 MPH in some of these areas should be changed, that doesn't give me free reign to ignore the posted speed limits (which by the way are also civil not criminal).

I do appreciate your "circular discussion" comment as a shining example of how you won't accept not being right about something.

There is nothing circular about this discussion, I state something, you make an attempt to disprove it and I clarify (or expand upon) the original statement. If I were merely restating the same thing over & over again then you might be close to right here. A circular discussion would be more like:

Me: Am

You: Am Not

Me: Am Too

You: Am Not

Me: Am Too

See that's a circle, ended right back where it started (and actually never got out of the loop).

We've been more along the lines of Point/Counterpoint and the discussion has stayed on track while utilizing different points. Example:

My point: Servicemen should be held to the same laws they swore to defend.

Your counterpoint: Servicemen deserve XYZ because they get crappy pay.

My counterpoint: My Dad (28 yr veteran) did just fine on E-6 pay.

Your counterpoint: Just because he "got by" doesn't mean he did fine.

My counterpoint: He actually raised 5 kids, owed a few homes & was able to buy new cars.

Your counterpoint: None, you changed the subject...

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I get your side of it, trust me. Under normal circumstances I would agree with you. However, I feel that service person's service to our country should allow them to apply for a special waiver for their family.

I'm neither right nor wrong as are you.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

I get your side of it, trust me. Under normal circumstances I would agree with you. However, I feel that service person's service to our country should allow them to apply for a special waiver for their family.

I'm neither right nor wrong as are you.

So we actually agree (mostly) that members of our Armed Forces should receive special consideration. We just draw the line in different places.

I would agree to any "waiver" or benefit that is directly related to the Service Member's normal service obligations. I just don't think being hesitant to deploy overseas because their spouse technically qualifies as that could easily be extended to Carte Blanche for anything that would make then hesitant to deploy overseas.

A good example that doesn't involve any Law being broken is pregnancy. Should all soldiers who have pregnant wives be exempt from serving in a Combat Zone? As noble as the ideal sounds it is impractical. When they sign-up they know the risk that they could be deployed to locations where his family can't follow, it goes with the job so to speak.

One exemption I do agree with is the "Last Son" clause that bars deployment of all male brothers to Combat Zones at the same time (I believe it also bars deploying the last surviving son). It makes sense that no family should have to chance sacrificing an entire generation when there are other soldiers who can be deployed.

BTW, I think I've said about all there is to say on this subject as my position couldn't be any clearer.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Bob 4 Anna

[Darnell 8,478]

The Tenebros’ immigration troubles began with a moonstruck romance..

Sorry, no pity on this one.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

So we actually agree (mostly) that members of our Armed Forces should receive special consideration. We just draw the line in different places.

I would agree to any "waiver" or benefit that is directly related to the Service Member's normal service obligations. I just don't think being hesitant to deploy overseas because their spouse technically qualifies as that could easily be extended to Carte Blanche for anything that would make then hesitant to deploy overseas.

A good example that doesn't involve any Law being broken is pregnancy. Should all soldiers who have pregnant wives be exempt from serving in a Combat Zone? As noble as the ideal sounds it is impractical. When they sign-up they know the risk that they could be deployed to locations where his family can't follow, it goes with the job so to speak.

One exemption I do agree with is the "Last Son" clause that bars deployment of all male brothers to Combat Zones at the same time (I believe it also bars deploying the last surviving son). It makes sense that no family should have to chance sacrificing an entire generation when there are other soldiers who can be deployed.

BTW, I think I've said about all there is to say on this subject as my position couldn't be any clearer.

In this case, though, I suspect these service members actually want to be deployed and the waiver would help them do that, otherwise (assuming they've already been deployed overseas" they might request a stateside deployment, and then when they've fulfilled their obligation, leave the military...when in fact they want a career in the military and they want to be overseas (based on the opinion of the Lt.)

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

In this case, though, I suspect these service members actually want to be deployed and the waiver would help them do that, otherwise (assuming they've already been deployed overseas" they might request a stateside deployment, and then when they've fulfilled their obligation, leave the military...when in fact they want a career in the military and they want to be overseas (based on the opinion of the Lt.)

Ironically, the Lt. can't protect her any more while he's here than he could from overseas.

Honestly the ban she faces is waiverable, she just has to trigger the ban to apply for the hardship waiver.

If she returns the the Philippines and and they apply for the waiver and are denied then I'd say they are in a better position to ask for consideration. I would be more agreeable to understanding he wants to provide his young daughter the benefits of his nation but can't reasonably do that without his wife here to care for her as he serves overseas.

As noble as any calling can be, I'd always choose my family over a career.