Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

question to houston about INA and disregarding deportation order

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

  • #16
    Glad you mentioned this. Can you believe that under current INA, a person convicted of fraud, indecent conduct, robbery and aggravated assault with intent to kill can apply for a waiver while another, say a student in legal status who simply make a false claim to obtain out-of-campus employment is banned for life? This non-sense is solved by the bills in the Senate. Section 212(a)(6)(C) is waived non-applicable, and yes, the entire title! About time!

    Comment


    • #17
      good question zozo
      It is important to know the answers to those kind of questions because there are so many people that falls under that category and might think that all you are required is to pass the 5year presence inside the U.S threshold, but in reality, there is more into it .

      This question will be answered depending on how the GWP is written..
      -----------------------

      Now, one disturbing thing is that, after reading the OLD "hagel immigration bill", i noticed wordings on the guest worker provision that could cut off millions of immigrants that just broke simple immigration law and ill explain later on another post.

      Now i want to also make it clear that i DO NOT AGREE with putting, breaking simple immigration law(like failing to appear for court hearings) UNDER the same category as, breaking normal law such as: assault,murder, drug-trafficking etc etc etc <--------would you guys agree with that?

      i feel that those 2 categories should be separated, we cant treat someone that broke simple immigration law the same as a person who committed murder.I agree with not allowing people that break the law, but not simple immigration laws.

      What i would suggest is, if you broke some minor immigration law,then you should still be able to apply for GWP, but like i said, your basic criminal record should be clean, and you would have to pay much more then someone that didnt break those immigration law...for exemple, the one that didnt break immigration law would pay 2,000, but someone that ignored deportation order because she/he has little kids that are US citizens, should pay at leat $10,000, plus they will have to leave and re eneter like the 2-5 year group, even if they've been in the US for 20 years, then they will also have to no only get all the way back in line behind the one that are waiting outside the country to get green card, but also behind the ones that didnt break those minor immigration law..also, make them wait 10 years before receiving a green card, then another 10 year to be able to apply for citizenship<---anyone agree with those, i really think it would be unfair to disqualify those group of people

      Comment


      • #18
        Jean, what you're proposing is already built into the bill. Say, if you were ordered removed or proceedings were initiated against you because of an immigration violation you could still apply and that's because Section 9 is waived. Now, if the proceedings were initiated because of criminal conduct, the criminal conduct itself would make you inadmissible regardless of the waiving of section 9.

        Comment


        • #19
          So, if you skipped deportation proceeding or asylum hearings because of fear that FINAL order of deportation might be entered against you, then 10 years late(now) GWP gets enacted/ or lets say current GWP gets enacted, the person would be able to still apply because section 9 is waived??

          I understand what you are saying when you said that "IF" your deportation order/or proceeding was entered against you because of criminal behavior, then you will be and SHOULD be not allow to get in the GWP program.<---we're on the same page on this part.

          Can you link me into wordings that says section 9 will be waived and also, i would like to read whats in section 9 and where in the GWP it says that section 9 would be waived

          Comment


          • #20
            What you mentioned about speeding tickets is not true. Matter of Abreu tells us how regulatory offenses are not CIMT's and only CIMT's or multiple offenses with an aggregate sentence of 5 or more years make a person inadmissible. (There's 212(h) waivers for criminal grounds under INA).
            However, another problem with the Kyl amendment is that is calls for disqualification after 3 misdemeanors. Jaywalking and speeding are misdemenors, so 3 speeding tickets would make you inadmissible in the same way a serious offense like murder would. No wonder why Sen. Durbin wanted the amendment to be clarified.

            Comment


            • #21
              yes, this is why it would be very important for a lot of people to follow closely if the kyl's amendment would be implemented because , if it is implemented, then this would kill the chance of millions from applying and this is kyl's intents, which is very sad..He wants to desperatly cut off as many people as posible...3 misdemeanor could be simple civil offenses like jaywalking etc etc.

              im still looking for the new hagel/martinez entire bill...isnt it suppoe to be online somewhere?..i heard it's a 500+ page document. i guess its not online.

              Comment


              • #22
                Houston,

                With my friend being involved in a marriage that contains domestic violence would she be better off to let him leave the country first and then file against him or file before he leaves and let the judicial system deal with him? She is in fear of her life, not severely, but enough. Now if she does leave the country with him, she is extremely afraid of what he will be able to do. Any recomendations?

                Comment


                • #23
                  The obvious recomendation would be to get law enforcement involved. This is not legal advice but a comment based on common sense. No immigration benefit is worth risking your life for.
                  You should also hire an attorney to help you explore the avenues of relief.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Okay i read the hagel/martinez bill on the website that was provided above and i noticed that it says that all the "specter substitute" provision are included in the hagel bill but did not name them so i would like to take a look at the specter's bill.

                    Does anyone know where i could view the entire specter's bill on the internet..I want to study it and analyze its wordings.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Hey Jean2005: Try this http://www.immigrationforum.org/docu...aryCIRMark.pdf

                      Never mind.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        The link takes you to the Chairman's mark. This is the original Specter Bill. But that bill evolved into the SJC bill, also called the committee bill, the Specter substitute or simply the Specter bill, as amended by the entire committee. That "modified" Specter bill was the bill that was discussed on the Senate's floor.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          This is my simple description of the bills that received some degree of attention during the last week:
                          - H.R. 4437: we all know about this one.
                          - The Frist bill: Similar to H.R. 4437 but a little softer on illegal presence (mostly to quiet down the media avoiding the term "felony").
                          - Specter Bill, Chariman's mark: Very similar to the enforcement provisions of the Frist bill but with a limited GWP.
                          - Committee Bill: The final product of the Senate's Judiciary Committee study of the Specter Bill. This bill included the Kennedy/McCain GWP and the DREAM Act.
                          - Hagel/Martinez amendment: Amended the Specter Bill, more liberal approach to the GWP with a time-sensitive trigger.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Ok thx for the link..After looking over the first draft of the specter's bill, i noticed that this bill DOES indeed EXCLUDE people that skipped immigration hearings,ignored FINAL deportation order, and people that double-crossed- meaning all the mexicans that had been intercepted once trying to cross the border, got deported, but after second try, they were successful<-------the specter's bill does exclude this group from applying.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              This is what the specter's bill says:
                              -------------------------------------------

                              *In addition of a person arriving after the cut off date(january 4 2006), many thousands of others would be INELIGIBLE for a variety of reasons including but not LIMITED to having been ordered removed in he past;not departing after agreeing to depart voluntarily, failure to attend removal hearings,encouraging or aiding in any way another person entering unlawfully, and for other reasons.
                              In addition, there are other grounds that would make individuals not eligible unless they obtained a waiver from DHS.These waiver can be difficult if not impossible to obtain
                              ---------------------------------------

                              so this clears up everything about people that skipped immigration hearings being able or ineligible to apply to any guest worker program.

                              But why would kyl add amendments that states provisions that are already in the specter's bill?? or maybe the hagel/martinez does not have those provisions?

                              the specter bill clearly says felon, deportees etc etc wont be able to apply.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Maybe that's why the bill was amended by the SJC.

                                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