Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

question to houston about INA and disregarding deportation order

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • question to houston about INA and disregarding deportation order

    Houston, i know you a little more then me about current immigraion law, and ive been reading immigration law to get a better grasp about this entire immigration debate etc etc because i think it is very interesting...

    One thing about current immigration law that is on the book im kind of confuse about is the law that says that if you ever disregard a judge final order to deport and you decided to stay, then later on tried to get immigration benefit throught immidiate family petition or work petition etc, then you will be denigned because you should have not been in this country...

    Now there is a law on the book that prohibits people that were ordered deported from receiving any immigration benefit, but according to the mccain/kennedy immigration bill, and even the hagel/martinez bill, it seems like there werent any wording that would cut off those specific people from applying.

    im hearing from some expert that if those 2 bills were passed with no amendments that would make sure to cut those people off, people that had been ordered deported would have been able to adjust their status even with a final order to deport.

    Now , is that true..or does it even matter since INA already stops people that had been ordered deported to apply for benefits on the book?

    democrats seems like they wanted people that had been ordered deported to be able to apply, or am i just guessing...also, there are a lot of mexican in this group that were caught by border patrol, finger printed etc etc then turned back to mexico, but on their second try, they succeeded in ducking border patrols..now according to INA all those mexicans that came into contact with border patrols agent are in the system and are all excluded under INA but not on hagel/martinez with no wording that says so???

  • #2
    Houston, i know you a little more then me about current immigraion law, and ive been reading immigration law to get a better grasp about this entire immigration debate etc etc because i think it is very interesting...

    One thing about current immigration law that is on the book im kind of confuse about is the law that says that if you ever disregard a judge final order to deport and you decided to stay, then later on tried to get immigration benefit throught immidiate family petition or work petition etc, then you will be denigned because you should have not been in this country...

    Now there is a law on the book that prohibits people that were ordered deported from receiving any immigration benefit, but according to the mccain/kennedy immigration bill, and even the hagel/martinez bill, it seems like there werent any wording that would cut off those specific people from applying.

    im hearing from some expert that if those 2 bills were passed with no amendments that would make sure to cut those people off, people that had been ordered deported would have been able to adjust their status even with a final order to deport.

    Now , is that true..or does it even matter since INA already stops people that had been ordered deported to apply for benefits on the book?

    democrats seems like they wanted people that had been ordered deported to be able to apply, or am i just guessing...also, there are a lot of mexican in this group that were caught by border patrol, finger printed etc etc then turned back to mexico, but on their second try, they succeeded in ducking border patrols..now according to INA all those mexicans that came into contact with border patrols agent are in the system and are all excluded under INA but not on hagel/martinez with no wording that says so???

    Comment


    • #3
      Now, i have nothing against an immigrants that had been deported by a judge, but because it was too hard to leave his/her family behind, he/she decided to stay..i have no problem letting those people apply to the hagel/kennedy bill under one condition and its that they have a clean criminal records and their fine should be larger, ill say $10,000 and they should also have to leave then re enter, also, instead of waiting 11 years, make it 20 years...would that be fair???

      the reason i bought this up is because there are millions that falls under that specific category and they have been here for 10 20 years, so would that be fair to cut them off completely from any future bill?

      Comment


      • #4
        You have to see the whole picture to understand why this happened.
        The GWP is specifically oriented at illegal workers, most of them entered the U.S. without inspection. A person who does just that is deportable and will be removed. The GWP wouldn't make much sense if those persons who are supposed to be covered are disqualified and removed.
        The bills waive 212(a)(9) to permit aliens who would be ordered removed or are ineligible to receive any benefit to adjust status to that of temporary guest worker. Otherwise, the program wouldn't make much sense.
        Removal can happen for many reasons. Criminal convictions, immigration violations and illegal entry are usually the dominant causes for deportation. Note how the bill does not waive criminal convictions, so a removal under those grounds would be effective. That leaves immigration violations, those are just the type of actions the GWP is supposed to overlook for individuals who qualify.
        Waiving 212(a)(9) is important to any real GWP as conceived by the Senate.

        Note: those who are caught by the BP are also removed, another illegal re-entry would trigger 212(a)(9) as well.

        Comment


        • #5
          okay, now i dont know whats in 212(a)(9), maybe ill need to read it..but what you are saying is that someone that was ordered to leave the country, but decided to stay because he/she find it to hard to leave his/her family behind, and started working etc etc,then GWP passes with no wording that specifically states that she would be cut off from the benefit,..so she would still get a chance to adjust her status even after the a final order to deport was place against her/him 10 years ago, and 212(1)(9) give her some type of waiver???


          Senator kyl amendment was to specifically block those people from applying because he knew shutting those deportees out would kill at least a good 2 million out of the manesty...but i was a little confuse because i thought to myself." why would he move to add those kind of wording in his amendment when current laws on the book prohibit anyone that disobeyed a judge order to deport".

          so my guess was that if this bill passes with no wording that says anything about deportees, then i guess they would be able to apply, if no, then why would kyl waste his time adding those wording or maybe kyl is unaware that there is a law on the book that covers those..


          anyway, i want to research on whether those deportees can ajust under any future GWP and under what exception.

          Comment


          • #6
            Again, you need to understand the situation and know how these provisions work before you can make a desicion to restrict applications under 212(a)(9).
            Removal proceedings start with the infamous NTA or notice to appear. The notice is usually mailed to the alien by mail or certified mail. When the applicant is arrested by border patrol and he or she is not to remain in custody, the alien is served "in person" with the NTA. The NTA is nothing but the order to appear in Court, due process requires that the alien be provided with notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32-33 (1982); Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 154 (1945); Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86, 101 (1903).
            However, the address in the NTA must be a 239(a)(1)(F) address. This means an address where an alien can be "contacted respecting proceedings under section 240". Thousands of aliens do not receive the NTA, many others do not show up or show up late. In a notorious case, an alien who was waiting in line to get to the court house was deported, in absentia, because he simply showed up late.
            Certain aliens may apply for a pre-authorized 212 waiver when their departure will comply with the order of removal under section 240. The statute is clear to extend to all sub-sections of 240. Upon exiting the U.S., the alien may apply for the proper visa along with the waiver to regain entry to the U.S.
            This is one topic covered by 212(a)(9), but there's many others. This section covers issues that many consider to be difficult. For instance, an arriving alien is not considered to be in the U.S., he or she is considered to be seeking admission, therefore they're considered to be "outside" at the time of application for a waiver. "They don't have to leave because they're already out even when they're in"... This is the kind of legal mess created by INA. There's a few internal guidelines that actually contradict each other when it comes to the correct application of 212(a)(9).
            In lieu of all these applicability problem, and in order to make sure the GWP actually works, the bills waive the application of 212(a)(9). These bill compensate by eliminating the waiver for criminal grounds. If a person was or could be deported because of criminal activities, that person would still be removed.

            Comment


            • #7
              Houston- you still did not answer the question- if you dont know the answer to this then just say you dont know, instead of writing a bunch of stuff that is not needed.

              My question was, if kyl's amendment which clearly says that " anyone that had been ignored final deportation order by a judge cant apply" doesnt make the GWP, would those people be able to apply??

              this is the main question and sounds like you dont know the answer to that.

              Reason im so curious about this is because, why would kyl waste time in making sure this amendments makes it in if those people are already bann from current law from applying to any immigration benefits....Maybe if those wordings or amendment are voted down, then you could in fact be ordered deported but still be able to adjust under GWP.

              Comment


              • #8
                The answer is obvious, but the amendment would have to be contained in the statute that regulates the grounds of admissibility.
                If Kyl's amendment is passed as proposed, most people wouldn't be able to apply. If Kyl's amendment is passed in a reworded statute as promoted by Durbin, only those ordered removed wouldn't be able to apply, including those who overstayed the VWP.
                If Kyl's amendment is modified to extend only to the criminal grounds, then that would make the most sense and would serve as a filter to remove the criminal element and not those who desperately need a job.
                NOTE that the courts have ruled that most misrepresentations in order to obtain work are NOT crimes involving moral turpitude (e.g. Beltran-Tirado). That would support the modification of Kyl's amendment.

                Comment


                • #9
                  ok, i appreciate your answer, but you still dancing around the quetion.

                  Im not asking if kyl's words were modified or anyThing, all im asking you is, if this specific amendment DO NOT make it into the bill, would a guy that had been ordered deported be able to still apply.


                  any immigration lawyer on this message board that would give me a simple answer of 'yes" or "no" on whether a person would be able to apply to the GWP even when a judge ordered a "FINAL" order of deportation against her/him IF the kyl's amendment that says deportees cant apply, didnt make it into the GWP bill.

                  simple question..if kyl's amendment dont make it into the bill, would someone that had been ordered deported be able to apply.

                  deportation proceeding is not the same as " final order of deportation, so keep this in mind...im talking about someone that have gone to court, had his/her day with the judge and the judge ordered the person to leave.

                  kyl's amendment is expected to be voted down and people have told me that there is enought vote to keep it away from the bill, so this i why im wondering whether those people that had been ordered deported, be able to apply.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Read the Hagel bill. If the Kyl amendment do not pass then yes, a person with an outstanding order of removal would be able to qualify. The bill specifically mentions that section (9) of 212(a) is not applicable.
                    IMHO this is not bad at all, under the specific wording of the bill only removals based in an immigration violation would be waived. Those related to criminal activities would be effective.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Ok, your last post was a bit more clearer then your previous post, but at the end, you got confusing again.

                      I want to make it clear that my posiTion on this is, people that skipped court hearings or ignored FINAL order of deportation SHOULD ALSO be able to adjust their status under the condition that their final order of deportation wasnt entered against them because of a felony or any violent crimes..crimes like drug trafficking, asault and others, but not a misdimeanor.

                      1) what im saying is, unless your FINAL order of deportation wasnt entered against you because of a crime, then you should be able to apply for the GWP<-----would you agree with this HOUSTON???

                      My reasonning for this is because, there are millions of people that are scheduled for court hearing dates, and because they are afraid of getting deported on the ground of unlawfull presence, they decided to skip the court hearing and continue to work etc etc..

                      there are also the ones that have claimed asylums but decided to skip the asylum hearings then later receives I.N.S mails that orders them to leave the country because they did not show up for their asylum hearings<----those people should be able to also apply for the GWP because their final order of deportation wasnt entered against them because of crimes<--would you agree with this HOUSTON??

                      Final thought, there are millions of mexicans that have crossed the border but border patrol agents intercepted them..then later on, those same groups attempted to cross again and succeeded...the problem is, under current law, this is re-entry after getting deported and current immigration laws criminalizes this behavior...this group consist of maybe a col 2 millions, so my question is, should we not allow those people to apply?...i think they should also be able o benefit from GWP because they didnt get deported because of violent crimes <--------would you agree with this HOUSTON.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        also, houston, can you link me to the new hagel/martinez bill guest worker provision..i want to take a look at it.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Hello Jean2005 and Houston

                          You conversation has struck a few questions in my mind.
                          I have a great friend, who if you have read some of my other postings, I have fallen in love with. Now her soon to be ex-husband is due for a final deportation hearing in August, but he is looking to leave the country in about a month. Before he even goes to trial. Now he has been through the earlier court proceedings and told that this was the final deportation hearing and most likely would suffer deportation.

                          Now if he does leave the country, say next month, will he be allowed to return to the US, give he maintains his current information?

                          Kind of hoping that the answer is NO to this question. Also, if he does leave, can my friend still file for divorce with him from inside the US, and get a reply from him in Spain. Can he deny the divorce in any way? Does she have to wait a certain amount of time to remarry?

                          Another question, If I was to marry her, does this give her parents any rights to remain here as well? Involved in the equation, her 5 year old daughter is a US citizen, does this give us any leverage?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            When the border patrol "intercepts" an alien as you mentioned, the alien is fingerprinted and removed. That is called "expedited removal", same as a deportation.
                            Deportations usually happen for two reasons. Criminal violations or immigration violations, either one would usually result in proceedings.
                            Immigration violations are forgiven under the GWP, but not criminal acts. The bills ignore 212(a)(9) to permit those ordered deported and still working to apply for benefits. But how you separate criminals from those who simply violate immigration law? You do that by eliminating the waiver available under 212(h) related to criminal grounds.
                            The only people that would be permitted to apply are those who violate immigration law, not the criminal code.
                            If you do not waive 212(a)(9) every alien who was removed by border patrol and then re-entered would be inadmissible for life under 212(a)(9)(C).
                            What you assume is correct, if you have an order for removal because of illegal re-entry or any other immigration violation that is not a crime as defined by local statutes or USC then you should be eligible to apply for GWP benefits.
                            Now, do you see why H.R. 4437 was going to make any guest worker program simply inapplicable?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Houston

                              What will happen for people under 212(a)(6)(c)..?

                              Lots of people are under fraud or mis representation catch, What will happen to them?

                              --zo

                              Comment

                              Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                              Home Page

                              Immigration Daily

                              Archives

                              Processing times

                              Immigration forms

                              Discussion board

                              Resources

                              Blogs

                              Twitter feed

                              Immigrant Nation

                              Attorney2Attorney

                              CLE Workshops

                              Immigration books

                              Advertise on ILW

                              EB-5

                              移民日报

                              About ILW.COM

                              Connect to us

                              Questions/Comments

                              SUBSCRIBE

                              Immigration Daily



                              Working...
                              X