U.S. citizen arrested under state's new anti-illegal immigrant law, Hispanic advocate says

[natty bumppo 297]

I didn't twist your words. (Hard to do with a direct quote.) I assumed your advice was consistent across scenarios. My mistake.

Hardly a leap. His advice to pedroh's hypothetical ...

"His advice ... "

You stated those words implying more than what I posted ... not me ... direct quote yes ?

I'm sorry. It was a horrible slur upon your character to use the word 'advice' when you imagined advising someone. ??? I don't think I see what you're getting at here.

Last time ... it was a personal opinion (what would I do) ... not advice.

Okay ?

[no name 1]

Also, I'm not so sure how much of a defense it is to say 'Well, I wouldn't marry an illegal because I think that's evidence that they're no good liars who have no respect for the law, but if you don't care about liars, just your happiness, marry away. My opinion no cooties no punchback! ' There's a limit, I think, to what 'just my opinion can cover' and if I were to say "I wouldn't marry a black man because they're all shiftless drug dealers, but if you don't care about drug dealers, just your happiness, you are legally free to marry" or "Some Arabs beat their wives, so I'm never dating an Arab, but if you don't care about being beaten, marry away. It's just my opinion!", or "May-December marriages are gross and abnormal, but if you like gross, marry away! I never said you coudn't" I doubt many of you would be nodding sagely at how wise I was.

I think assuming everyone who has ever fallen out of status or otherwise been illegal is a congenital criminal is a similarly bad position, and saying 'just my opinion' doesn't really cut against the insult to those whose spouses have been illegal. Even the U.S. government doesn't think that being illegal makes you a congenital criminal. If you're illegal in one country, it has no effect at all on whether you'd be let into the U.S. It's just not a crime indicating moral decay.

It was her OPINION, which she clearly stated several times. Why the need to strecth (once again) to make kt fit your argument?

[no name 1]

Geez, Steven. Why don't you just come out and blankly state that you're pro-illegal and give the exchange some balance? One of the reasons that the discussion is often so black and white is because some of us are more committed to what feels good (having compassion for illegals and law-breaking) than doing good (standing up for our country's sovereignty).

I have loads of compassion, but my compassion is reserved for those who respect our borders and our laws. I have no compassion for illegals and would never marry or employ one. I have no compassion for accomodating illegals just because they're already here. I have no compassion for politicians and Latino supremicists who kiss Mexico's azz and try to tell us that we're racist because we're against measures that open the door to voter fraud. I have no compassion for what illegals and their broods have done to destroy our schools systems, even going so far as to import Mexico's curriculum into American schools.

My capacity for compassion for illegals and their supporters was shot by the hypocrisy of our government's agenda to privatize profits from cheap labor while holding out the hat to taxpayers for the costs illegals impose on our social structure. It was shot by illegals and their sychophants marching in my streets, telling me that I need to devalue my citizenship and hand over its privileges to them. It was shot by the underhanded manipulations of politicians putting forth propositions that erode the distinction between legal and legal, sovereignty and capitulation to the New World Order. My compassion was shot by the hypocrisy of a foreign government that shoots to kill at its southern border, yet demands, and gets, leniancy for its trespassers here.

That list is not all inclusive; I could go on. I don't need no stinkin political party to represent my views; Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin. They have both proven to be worthless and ineffective when it comes to the bread and butter issues of the common man. Democracy was never a spectator sport and I have never played it that way. My representatives now know me by name. I've made sure of it. I am heard, and not just on this forum. Fear is what motivates politicians; make sure they feel the fear.

what would you tell him? I love you but we can't get married, because I'd be enabling you. I guess the other people here that married an illegal had that question.. care about 'soverignity' or about my happiness..

Leave, return to your home country and come here the legal way ... otherwise you're an illegal alien who is always at risk of being removed from my life for a long period of time. (every day is a new opportunity to be discovered and deported ... banished from the country). If you can't abide by the laws of my country and do the right things so we can be together ... then there is no respect.

Oh wait ... that would mean .. the person would be just like the rest of us on vj that observe the laws and complete the visa process ... how unfair (sarcasm)

Do you give this advice on the board when someone says 'My wife came here on a tourist visa that is now expired, what do we do to get her a green card?' Because I certainly hope not.

Yet another leap.

Personal opinion does not translate into advice given, does it?

Hardly a leap. His advice to pedroh's hypothetical is 'leave and come back the legal way like I had to do with all of us.' If being illegal is such a horrible, horrible crime, that shows that you lack personal responsibility and all those other things, then why should that not be the advice you give over in the other part of the forum? Overstays are forgiven (showing, by the way, that it's not really that big of a deal to the government. I can't think of any other crime that you can get out of by promising to sleep with a citizen) , but if people honestly believe what they're typing here, then they should be advocating just as passionately for that part of the law to be removed.

it's called personal opinion, not the law. Also tact. Most VJers like to reply to immigration questions with FACT, not opinion.

Can you imagine what would happen in VJers started giving ADVICE based on making character assumptions based on illegality/race/consulate? Oh wait, some of those are covered but not all.....

Edited November 8, 2007 by devilette

[Peikko 1,575]

While of course, it is GEG's prerogative to state her opinions with the advise of like it or lump it (English for take it or leave it), one is left with these somewhat meaningless statements.

I still have no idea how one really lives in the way described, a rigid adherence to a personal code that precludes sympathy for anyone who brakes this code. I imagine though one would certainly have to have a very tight curb on one's emotions.

I also am unclear, as I believe is Caladan, how one separates different levels of 'illegality'. Or maybe, one doesn't. Maybe there are those with a position that anyone who 'overstays' should be sent back 'home' to start again. Maybe this will be clarified.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its been a while but I thought the standing advice on fiance/es with overstay issues (as far as the VJ immigration forums go) is to stay in the country, admit it on your application and work it out from there, as otherwise you incur the automatic 3 year ban.

From a purely selfish perspective I can see why someone wouldn't want to make more trouble for themselves by undermining their own position and putting their life on-hold for many years.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Number 6

[Peikko 1,575]

Of course, anyone in that position might be said to have made a foolish personal choice and should accept this life hold because one must reap what one sows or maybe the USC should rethink their relationship because their prospective spouse has made some highly questionable decisions that would impact on the relationship's future?

Edited November 8, 2007 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Of course, anyone in that position might be said to have made a foolish personal choice and should accept this life hold because one must reap what one sows or maybe the USC should rethink their relationship because their prospective spouse has made some highly questionable decisions that would impact on the relationship's future?

Or it could be that a non-specific personal opinion on a general issue doesn't hold up when it involves a situation faced specific people who we know. At least from what I remember from the old K-1 forums is that there was as much sympathy for people with overstays (usually overstays from years ago) as people who fall afoul of the "Moral Turpitude" laws. You don't see someone being beaten over the head with their drug admission (which going by a ruthless, cynical rationale might be termed another "foolish personal choice") at interview, or a previous conviction for a crime committed many years ago.

I'm not sure I'd like to tell someone to "rethink their life" because their 35-40 Y/O prospective spouse had a burglary conviction, or hard drug problem in their late teens. Would seem to be presumptuous at best.

As long as people are honest about what they did on the application - I (personally) would find it hard (unreasonable would be the better word) to fault anyone for their choices.

[Peikko 1,575]

Maybe one should have a checklist of questions to ask a prospective date. Failure to meet all the requirements would mean no date. This would eliminate the possibility that one might 'fall in love with' someone with a dubious past. Or maybe the checklist should be used after 10 dates? Or maybe at the point when one realises that this person is a prospective spouse?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Maybe one should have a checklist of questions to ask a prospective date. Failure to meet all the requirements would mean no date. This would eliminate the possibility that one might 'fall in love with' someone with a dubious past. Or maybe the checklist should be used after 10 dates? Or maybe at the point when one realises that this person is a prospective spouse?

Hire a firm that specializes in pre-employment background checks and ask them if they'll work on your prospective dates as well. Of course, you'd have to establish an intake process for prospects to request dates and you'd have to integrate the background check into the intake process in a manner that appears seamless to the prospect. Wouldn't wanna spook him, now would we? Assuming that the intake form for requesting a date hasn't spooked him already.

[Peikko 1,575]

Hire a firm that specializes in pre-employment background checks...

Oh come on, now you're just being silly :P

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Hire a firm that specializes in pre-employment background checks...

Oh come on, now you're just being silly :P

I'm a visionary. We are always derided in our lifetimes!

You will see. Pre-date background checks will one day be de rigeur and they will name the process after the troll Himself.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Maybe one should have a checklist of questions to ask a prospective date. Failure to meet all the requirements would mean no date. This would eliminate the possibility that one might 'fall in love with' someone with a dubious past. Or maybe the checklist should be used after 10 dates? Or maybe at the point when one realises that this person is a prospective spouse?

What's funny is that as far as dubious pasts go - you don't need to have actually committed a crime in order to fall afoul of that moral turpitude stuff. There was an interesting rationale a few years ago from one of the then senior members (who I believe was also a practicing lawyer) that a person who was involved with a stoning in Africa or the ME could be approved for a visa while someone who admitted taking drugs at a party would be denied.

I agree it is unrealistic to make those kinds conditions on your relationship before you enter into it - my ethics and morality aren't in lockstep with the govts rather rigid definition of "moral character". Unless something is being deliberately concealed from you by the other person, I'm not sure it would be fair to judge someone on choices made years before I came on the scene.

You deal with the situation you're faced with - if you're on an overstay, you do what you can to comply with the law, but you don't follow it letter for letter to the point where you're severely damaging your interests by doing so. An overstay doesn't automatically make you a criminal - but again if the choice you are faced with is returning home, incurring an automatic immigration and having to wait years to apply for a K1 Vs. applying for AOS in the country you do at least have a choice as to how you proceed with your application. Its far from black and white - and I'd say that unless you're some sort of puritan - most people will interpret the law in their favor (as indeed they do with taxes). Its not like there's only one legal option to deal with a situation.

Hire a firm that specializes in pre-employment background checks and ask them if they'll work on your prospective dates as well. Of course, you'd have to establish an intake process for prospects to request dates and you'd have to integrate the background check into the intake process in a manner that appears seamless to the prospect. Wouldn't wanna spook him, now would we? Assuming that the intake form for requesting a date hasn't spooked him already.

1-888-STALKER.

If the relationship survives that it can survive anything

[no name 1]

Maybe one should have a checklist of questions to ask a prospective date. Failure to meet all the requirements would mean no date. This would eliminate the possibility that one might 'fall in love with' someone with a dubious past. Or maybe the checklist should be used after 10 dates? Or maybe at the point when one realises that this person is a prospective spouse?

You don't have an unspoken checklist in your head when you date someone? It's called choice.

----

And for the record, I could not marry someone who has no regard for law & is illegally here. Speaks to their character, just as GEG said.

*************************NOTE: THIS IS MY OPINION******************************

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Hire a firm that specializes in pre-employment background checks...

Oh come on, now you're just being silly :P

I'm a visionary. We are always derided in our lifetimes!

You will see. Pre-date background checks will one day be de rigeur and they will name the process after the troll Himself.

call it "trolling for dates" maybe?

1-888-STALKER.

If the relationship survives that it can survive anything

it's not love until you have 3 restraining orders to prove it

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Maybe one should have a checklist of questions to ask a prospective date. Failure to meet all the requirements would mean no date. This would eliminate the possibility that one might 'fall in love with' someone with a dubious past. Or maybe the checklist should be used after 10 dates? Or maybe at the point when one realises that this person is a prospective spouse?

You don't have an unspoken checklist in your head when you date someone? It's called choice.

----

And for the record, I could not marry someone who has no regard for law & is illegally here. Speaks to their character, just as GEG said.

*************************NOTE: THIS IS MY OPINION******************************

Of which the preceding post is a criticism. No biggy