Expulsion and Reunion

[OldE]

Bill Maher lays waste to Religion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYW2***FVtU

Fix the link by substituting the * [stars] with x X x [case sensitive, no space between characters] , or go to www.YouTube.com and type in search frame "Bill Maher lays waste to Religion", get the video, click on it and enjoy the clip

[Mike O]

we all have got a speeding ticket why should a family be in two different countries ? I know some of you don't like it be who is the judge but God

[federale86]

Stupid Olde moron, exclusion is for arriving aliens, removal is for aliens in the U.S.

[OldE]

Apologies to the readers for having to reply to the individual above who has historically disrupted and steered off-topic any meaningful discussion of the important and relevant to immigration matter subjects.

To the Moderator: Under the posted forum guidelines you may find it necessary to remove any unrelated to this thread posts and I have absolutely no objections if all distracting , off topic replies are permanently removed.
I will open a separate thread to address the "straw man".

I am reposing below my earlier reply to draw attention of readers back to what this thread is about:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1. Why did this couple apply for LPR benefit?

There is no Federal statute under which the LPR can be granted to this individual.

Just imagine all the noise and headlines with "Obama administration breaks the law and illegally grants LPR status under non-existing statute"

That would not be a prosecutorial discretion, that would be an abuse of federal authority.

This being said, usually I-130 are always approved and, if beneficiary is in US illegally, USCIS doesn't refer it to ICE for removal proceedings. In this case I-130 was denied. I don't know why would't ICE drop this case in light of recent discretionary power granted.
What are the facts of the case?

Anyway, speculations aside, it seems that this couple shares part of responsibility for applying under immediate family preference as a same-s.ex couple when , clearly, there is no such law that would allow them to get the benefit they were seeking. It seems unlikely that deportee would be targeted as high-priority for removal, had they not applied for non-existent benefit to begin with.

It remains to be seen if ICE would actually remove that particular individual.
Regular ICE employees, field officers in charge of executing warrants and arresting illegal aliens, themselves seem to be more concerned with perpetually increased tasks and accompanying freeze on pay more so than with Morton memo or prosecutorial discretion , they publicly decry their own union who makes much ado about Morton while ignoring their actual needs and concerns.
So, let's see how this case will be handled.
But sometimes , if you can pin it on anti-immigrant forces (as you must, in all fairness), what appears like a very sad story can be a blessing in disguize. Therefore, even if deported, each publicized case can help to raise awareness.This couples' future may be sacrificed, but with right amount of publicity and outrage generated by publishing many more similar stories it can help to shoot in the feet those who advocate inhuman treatment of human beings in this country.
Come the voting season and the papers should publish more of stories like that.


2. Regarding the second video:

The laws of this country are not broken, they were REPEALED (!) by 1996 immigration reform law.
There were draconian changes to US INA in the year 1996 and all you need to do is just remove parts of 1996 that are clearly counter productive and against any norms of human rights as known in this country since its' formation.

Make the punishment consistent with the standards held in other proceedings. Even if you say INA is subject to different set of standards than the laws written for Citizens of this country, still, there has to be some measure of proportion in all this.

Anyone, go look at the facts: look how many people murder, steal millions, commit horrible crimes and get sentenced to 5-8 years , which they don't even serve when their sentences get commuted to time served or to half of what was intended (due to "good behavior" or what not).

And here you have individuals who know no other country than US or have deep roots in this country with no criminal records whatsoever and you want to banish them for 10 years for spending an extra year with their family?

What a farcical charade all this is ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[OldE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:

Roflmao.. you just like to listen to your own voice, don't you? Btw when is it you plan on calling me, cuz that's what you were planning on doing, remember? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am a free individual, I live in a Free country and under the laws of US Constitution, not some Taliban-Puritan dictated false maxims, and I always loudly declare that any FREE human being has a choice and can have limitless s.ex with limitless number of adult consenting human beings, and it's none of Taliban-Puritan Mullah-Limbaugh brain-zombies business to tell free human beings what they should or should not do in the privacy of their own adult, free lives.

Of 864 explicitly and salaciously s.exual affairs I have had in the first quarter of 2011 I did not forget to pat my back with approval every single time I landed in a bed with one of those 864 women.

I have spent total of 16,588 minutes on the phone with those illicitly sinful and nymphatically anti-Talibanish and anti-Puritanical women during that same time period.

I didn't count the number of intercourses, mutual m.asturbations and ******s in the same time-period with those women, so can't be certain of exact figure, but I would say it was in the neighborhood of 64,000 (plus/minus 10,000).

Oh, and wasn't it a special fun to funk and know how the Taliban-Puritan-Mullah-Limbaugh folk boil with vicious fury whenever they know of a healthy adult human being having a joy of s.exual intercourse with another consenting adult human being. What an awesome and sinfully salacious s.ex we had!

However, there is NO doubt that I would sooner change my gender and become a monk than contemplate picking up a phone and call you

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I don't need to post any links to your facebook honey, and you know I won't disclose your real identity to the world. No worries. Except maybe to that w.hore of yours, the new lamb page you set up with zero followers. Aww...
If you like..

I've not called you g.a.y disparagingly, only to point out the similarity of your life to the story we're discussing here. What if that was Tian who was deported, would you be so cold and logical, eh?

Here is the link to the story you posted on fb:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...BAO71KKPEC.DTL&tsp=1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please don't be so magnanimous, just go ahead and post it, I am just wondering to see what it is you refer to.

And, please do tell, when are you going to address the pointed questions asked earlier?

After all, this thread is not about me having salacious s.ex with 864 anti-Talibanishly s,exy women while snubbing you, it is about the two very relevant to current immigration impasse stories and here you are, doing nothing but hij.acking the thread to set up straw men arguments for your fellow Taliban-Puritan-Mullah-Limbaugh folk.

Tsk-tsk

[OldE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
Yeah, sigh. It's you honey, g.a.y and with AIDS that I hug. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You aren't too bright, iperson, are you?
You do realize that the people who speak disparagingly about g.a.y people and associate the gender orientation with AIDS are none other than those who scream loudest of all "OH , JESUS, LORD JESUS, THE HELL OF WITCH AMNESTY IS COMING, OH JESUS , OH LORD JESUS, SAVE US FROM WITCHES OF THE SALEM!"
The Taliban-Puritan-Mullah-Limbaugh folk, in short

It is also an extremely well known Taliban-Puritan-Mullah-Limbaugh tactic to accuse of h.omo-s.exuality any opponent in a debate that those brain-zombies can't argue against on merits.

"Hmm! says Taliban-Puritan-Mullah-Limbaugh person, My opponent points that the skies are blue... what do I say to thAt? D.amn it, let me call him g.ay and change the subject, lest everyone see how hopelessly I lose this debate".

This is so banal and overused that I don't know how you Taliban-Puritan fail to come up with some other, more original ways of character assassination.
But then, it would be expecting too much of Mullah-Limbaugh folks to exhibit a shred of creativity, here or elsewhere.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
It's interesting how you react to the story on this board, while posting this on facebook:
"just in case you thought everything was trending in a better direction..." - and the link to the story at sfgate.com, where i saw the story in the first place!
So on facebook you say that the things aren't trending in a better direction (read progress), and here you say that what is a rewording of your own words, you call it setting up straw man !
Now you explain it mister ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I very much wish to know what facebook posting you refer to. Do you mind if I ask you to post a link here so everyone can see what it is that you refer to?

Now that I have exposed your Mullah-Limbaugh Taliban-Puritan nature, you must be infuriated with me, but you have only yourself to blame.

You asked me why do I criticize your posts and I have explained in details and at length the reason, as well as why I think you are setting up a straw man for your fellow Taliban-Puritan-Mullah-Limbaugh folks here.

I have asked you very pointed, logical, relevant questions and suggested that you better answer those plausibly if you wish to refute my assumption that you are here to set up straw man arguments.

What did you reply with instead? More of signature Taliban-Puritan ad hominnems Mullah-Limbaugh style.

Why don't you address the questions asked instead?

Tsk-tsk , Taliban-Puritan-Mullah-Limbaugh tool failed again

[OldE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by unique:
Hi iperson, allow me give you some insight into the mind of Olde. He basically thrives on confrontation. He will never concede, even if blatantly proven wrong. He understands that in a public forum, other readers my or may not have the ability to discern what is true and what is false. Olde is on permanent PMS.

Olde would make a most excellent poker player, but a poor chess player. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just gave very detailed explanation to iperson and answered why I criticize her posts.
Winning a world chess tournament or poker game wasn't the purpose or intention of my reply.

You can ignore it, of course, and try to focus the subject of discussion on me or anything other than what the subject of discussion is, but that will not help to validate or invalidate any of the relevant points made.

[unique]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Mine Gott! I never understand why you criticize my posts as strawmen when you agree with them, that is what i'm certain of. Are you talking to somebody else through me, because I just read what you say and don't think it's written to me. So whoever else this is written to, I'm sorry dude or dudette, I simply voice my own opinions without any agendas or hidden motives. What you read is what you get, and that's the end of it.
Pretty much.
Thank you very much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hi iperson, allow me give you some insight into the mind of Olde. He basically thrives on confrontation. He will never concede, even if blatantly proven wrong. He understands that in a public forum, other readers my or may not have the ability to discern what is true and what is false. Olde is on permanent PMS.

Olde would make a most excellent poker player, but a poor chess player.

[OldE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:


Mine Gott! I never understand why you criticize my posts as strawmen when you agree with them, that is what i'm certain of. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would not criticize your posts if I agreed with what you say.

I'll break it down for the following reasons:

1.
If you are setting up a straw man it will once again remove the rug from underneath you and make it very difficult for you to achieve your goal (which is, if you are indeed a straw man, is to set up one for those in your corner).

2.
If you are not a straw man but sincerely believe in what you post and truly reflect your opinion then it will explain to you why your position is counterproductive and self-defeating.


So, here is the step by step break down:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This story makes me angry for many reasons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is wrong to base your criticism of any outcome on your anger.
You may get angry about things that don't make you happy, but anger per se is not a ground to build your criticism on.

You can only criticize the outcome based on reasonable , logical, acceptable by common sense argument.
Anger does not fall into this category.

Being angry about outcome is one thing, but basing your argument on it is something else.
Not only doesn't it help to win an argument, but you indeed give an ammunition to your opponents who will dismiss your objection as based on emotion, thus irrational and invalid by default.
And thIs is noting less than your opening statement, something that won't miss any attention of whoever reads it.

If you are not intending to set up a straw man argument, then what is your purpose in generating the same effect as if you were?

You will have to answer this question plausibly or you will fail to refute my assumption that you are in fact here for no other purpose than to set up a straw man argument.

If you so not aware of effects of your statements, then why don't you step back, critically assess your own position and come back with better arguments instead of repeating the same purpose-defeating statements from one to another post you make?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
It's a sign of regress for one, not progress, which makes this great country less than what it is and what it should be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a)"Progress" is very broad, vague and arguable term to use. What may appear as progress to some may seem to be its' opposite to others.
Why use broad, vague , arguable and contention generated concept as means of building a support for the case?

b) Of those two links and stories featured above, at least one is about traditional family and about keeping it together, which is none other but Classic and Conservative concept (who among readers will disagree, please come forward!).

As to the first link about same gender married couple, the country in its' entirety is more embracing of the same gender marriages today (as evidenced by laws , Supreme Court rulings and widely circulating policies accepted and implemented throughout the Nation in the past decades) , so if anything, there is no solid augments about this discussion about being an ultimate result of regression in the country.

So , why make it into a progressive vs anything else debate?

Why not go after CONSISTENCY under the color of the law and PROPORTIONATE degree of retribution sought for infractions in range of circumstances in all other kinds of proceedings throughout the country?

Why do you chose to ignore good, winning and difficult to rebut arguments and use instead the ones that are too easy to defeat?

If you do so because you are trying to set up a straw man argument then , obviously, you have failed because I have made it clear how obviously your purported intentions are contradicting to the effect you generate.

If you are just like a very bad pro bono lawyer representing an innocent defendant who, by virtue of incompetence, makes the jury vote against rather than exonerate the advocated, then why don't you just step aside and let those who know how to better do it do it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
It is harsh and cruel punishment, but who cares anymore about human beings, including its own citizens. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some punishments are harsher than others and, technically speaking, deportation or exclusion are not even considered a "punishment" under INA.
And there is no "cruelty" argument to be made, since , per judiciary interpretation, the hardships imposed on separated families is not greater than one endured by ordinary military or civilian contractors who are deployed or employed abroad and do not see their loved onbes for extended periods of time.

So, you argument can be dismissed as irrelevant on two levels, first, removal and exclusion are not punishments under INA , next, there is no element of cruelty [as far as lawful definition of the same], involved.

But it is a valid question to ask ,whenever anyone screams "OH, LORD JESUS,THE HELL OF AMNESTY IS COMING, OH JESUS, SAVE US FROM AMNESTY!!!", where were those voices when Arnie amnestied thousands of convicted felons in CA for lack of resources to keep them locked?
Where are those voices when , if statistics are to be relied upon, the average sentence served for deliberate murder is around 7-8 years behind the bars?
Where are those voices when someone caught stealing millions walks free serving half of given few year sentence, for a "good behavior behind the bars" among the other things?
How come those voices who claim to be vehemently opposed to light treatment of transgressors keep so silent when the subject of AMNESTY and LIGHT TREATMENT are hardened criminals, but suddenly, there is so vocal opposition to let a 40+ years old NON-CRIMINAL mother of a 7 years old child stay united with her family instead of removing and banishing her for 10 years ?
How do you explain that?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
This country is falling apart.
And last but not least, it makes me angry for personal reasons, which you don't have to know, except for one person on this board, and you know who you are. (hugs) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sigh

[Carlotta l-myers]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Carlotta l-myers:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by federale86:
The actual legal term is removal. Not expulsion. You get expelled from school. You get removed from the United States. Get some basic facts straight before you post or comment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Carlotta l-myers]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by federale86:
The actual legal term is removal. Not expulsion. You get expelled from school. You get removed from the United States. Get some basic facts straight before you post or comment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Carlotta l-myers]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldE:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by federale86:
The actual legal term is removal. Not expulsion. You get expelled from school. You get removed from the United States. Get some basic facts straight before you post or comment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proper term would be removal and exclusion, but no matter what you call it, it doesn't change the matter of discussion a bit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[OldE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
This story makes me angry for many reasons. It's a sign of regress for one, not progress, which makes this great country less than what it is and what it should be.
It is harsh and cruel punishment, but who cares anymore about human beings, including its own citizens. This country is falling apart.
And last but not least, it makes me angry for personal reasons, which you don't have to know, except for one person on this board, and you know who you are. (hugs) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every word you type is just load of straw.

This story is not about progress or regress , it's about penalty being disproportionately greater than the cause, and it becomes a farcical charade if you compare it to existing standards in almost any other legal proceedings here.

If you make an argument about importance of holding everyone consistently accountable under the law, you just can't do so with the straight face, because anytime you will advocate shipping a 45 years old mother of a seven year old kid because she overstayed her visa I will press you with : "How come murderers in this country serve an average of 7 years of sentence in prison?(yes,do take your time and study some facts out there!) How come violent criminals and felons are amnestied almost on a quarterly basis (last big story broke up in CA where former Governor Arnie had to let go huge number of felons due to economic crisis and lack of funds to keep them locked), how come those who caught stealing millions of dollars end up with no more than just few years in prison (those also frequently released early for "good behavior" and what not!) and no one screams "THIS IS AMNESTY, O JESUS, MY LORD JESUS, OH JESUS, JESUS!", YET someone with ZERO criminal record can be held in detention for YEARS before deportation and then banned from reuniting with the family for the next 10 years? And if allowed to stay then you call it an AMNESTY?"
Come on, if you gonna advocate it anyway,advocate it but I will not let you insult my intelligence like you wish to. You are just not intelligent enough to pull it off.

this from a Polish visa cheat....

[OldE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by federale86:
The actual legal term is removal. Not expulsion. You get expelled from school. You get removed from the United States. Get some basic facts straight before you post or comment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proper term would be removal and exclusion, but no matter what you call it, it doesn't change the matter of discussion a bit.