OT: Battle Ground Zero: Murrieta: Invasion of America

[svelte]

I’m now leaning away from the ultra sly theory…I’ve been looking at the 2012 Democratic Platform and it contains the following sentence on page 6:

“And to make this country a destination for global talent and ingenuity, we won’t deport deserving young people who are Americans in every way but on paper…”

So Obama was just following through on a campaign promise. Not coming up with a new concept to trap Republicans into making asses of themselves before the midterms.

[all]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
You can no longer regularize status through marriage or other way after a 180 day overstay without serving a ban up to 10 years That means returning to home country to wait out the ban.

There is some flexibility for the consular office to issue a return visa before expiration of the ban but no guarantee. That’s reserved for humanitarian reasons such as children in USA.[/quote]

This if you elect Consular Processing (CP), as opposed to Adjustment of Status (AOS). If you have a proof that you have entered the country legally (usually I-94 form) you can adjust your status without leaving the country, assuming you are otherwise eligible.

If you have entered illegally you do not have the AOS option and you must go through consular processing. This is where I-601(a) waiver might help.

[paramount]

[quote=svelte]
Oh geez. Let me be more clear for you.

Your ANCESTORS were very likely immigrants who were allowed in. But now that you’re here, let’s keep everyone else out, shall we?[/quote]

No, just those who attempt to or have entered illegally.

We no longer have a shortage of human capital.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=all][quote=FlyerInHi]
You can no longer regularize status through marriage or other way after a 180 day overstay without serving a ban up to 10 years That means returning to home country to wait out the ban.

There is some flexibility for the consular office to issue a return visa before expiration of the ban but no guarantee. That’s reserved for humanitarian reasons such as children in USA.[/quote]

This if you elect Consular Processing (CP), as opposed to Adjustment of Status (AOS). If you have a proof that you have entered the country legally (usually I-94 form) you can adjust your status without leaving the country, assuming you are otherwise eligible.

If you have entered illegally you do not have the AOS option and you must go through consular processing. This is where I-601(a) waiver might help.[/quote]

absolutely. I was trying to keep it simple.

but even with an i94, after 180 day overstay, you have to leave the country for a ban of 3 years.
1 year or greater overstay means a ban of 10 years.

I believe the proper term for having an I94 is “processed at a point of entry.” I try to avoid the terms “legal” and “illegal” because they are not precise and only serve to demonize people. “documented” or “undocumented” are better terms.

http://www.jsimmslaw.com/blog/2013/8/7/i-overstayed-my-visa-can-i-return-to-the-us-i-601-waiver

If we’re talking about Latin immigrants with low education, they are not likely to understand any of this. When they hear “ban” or “go back to home country” they get really scared and elect to stay underground.

US immigration law is complicated. For people to claim that those poor kids’ parents from central America are educated enough to figure it all out is ludicrous.

[NotCranky]

[quote=paramount][quote=svelte]
Oh geez. Let me be more clear for you.

Your ANCESTORS were very likely immigrants who were allowed in. But now that you’re here, let’s keep everyone else out, shall we?[/quote]

No, just those who attempt to or have entered illegally.

We no longer have a shortage of human capital.[/quote]

And one day we won’t think of humans in terms of capital.

[all]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
but even with an i94, after 180 day overstay, you have to leave the country for a ban of 3 years.
1 year or greater overstay means a ban of 10 years.
[/quote]

No, you do not. If you have entered the country legally you are eligible for AOS and you do not need to leave the country.

[quote=FlyerInHi]
I try to avoid the terms “legal” and “illegal” because they are not precise and only serve to demonize people.
[/quote]

Legal/illegal is not confusing, unless you want to be confused.
You enter the country legally if you have a valid visa (border crossing card, covered by waiver) using one of the designated points of entry.
Otherwise you entered the country illegally.

If you overstay you are out of status. It is not a crime to overstay, but it comes with civil penalties. So, it does not come with jail time, but it is still not legal, hence it is illegal.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/fiance-marriage-visa-book/chapter11-1.html

[quote=FlyerInHi]US immigration law is complicated. For people to claim that those poor kids’ parents from central America are educated enough to figure it all out is ludicrous.[/quote]

I agree. The current system is designed to benefit politicians, immigration attorneys and various NGOs.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=all][quote=FlyerInHi]
but even with an i94, after 180 day overstay, you have to leave the country for a ban of 3 years.
1 year or greater overstay means a ban of 10 years.
[/quote]

No, you do not. If you have entered the country legally you are eligible for AOS and you do not need to leave the country.

[/quote]

I think you know better than me.

I guess it doesn’t matter how long the overstay is, or when it began.

[FlyerInHi]

I’ve been following news from Europe and, overall, the way Germany is welcoming 800,000 to 1 million refugees this year is in such contrast to the way we dealt with the few thousands of women and children who came here last year. Shame on us!

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/02/europe/europe-migrants-welcome/

[bewildering]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I’ve been following news from Europe and, overall, the way Germany is welcoming 800,000 to 1 million refugees this year is in such contrast to the way we dealt with the few thousands of women and children who came here last year. Shame on us!

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/02/europe/europe-migrants-welcome/%5B/quote%5D

Especially lame of both the UK and the USA. The UK and USA created the fiasco in Iraq, Syria and Libya. Germany opposed both the Iraq war, and the bombing in Libya. Now the Germany are taking in the resulting refugees while the UK and USA are doing nothing. The situation is diabolically unfair on the German taxpayers.

If I were the Germans I would sue the USA and UK for money to cover taking in the refugees.

[Anonymous]

So Germany should take the US and UK to court because of chaos and human suffering caused by war?

Let’s just think about that one for a moment…

[FlyerInHi]

Bewildering, this humanitarian crisis makes one wonder how regime changes instigated by the US were a net positive.

Suing state actors is not unprecedented.
The norms of universal human rights are still evolving. The growing significance of the European Court of Human Rights is an example.

[scaredyclassic]

Proposed intl rule:

You break it you buy it.

[all]

[quote=scaredyclassic]Proposed intl rule:

You break it you buy it.[/quote]

Wasn’t that (break it/own it) what Colin Powell supposedly told George W. Bush re Iraq?

The story of the family of the 3 y.o. child that drowned on Wednesday shows the complexity of the situation and Western response to consequences of their actions. Canada reportedly offered the surviving dad citizenship after denying previous asylum request by the family.

[utcsox]

[quote=bewildering][quote=FlyerInHi]I’ve been following news from Europe and, overall, the way Germany is welcoming 800,000 to 1 million refugees this year is in such contrast to the way we dealt with the few thousands of women and children who came here last year. Shame on us!

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/02/europe/europe-migrants-welcome/%5B/quote%5D

Especially lame of both the UK and the USA. The UK and USA created the fiasco in Iraq, Syria and Libya. Germany opposed both the Iraq war, and the bombing in Libya. Now the Germany are taking in the resulting refugees while the UK and USA are doing nothing. The situation is diabolically unfair on the German taxpayers.

If I were the Germans I would sue the USA and UK for money to cover taking in the refugees.[/quote]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/cameron-announces-that-britain-will-take-in-thousands-of-syrian-refugees/2015/09/04/dbd3d514-52e1-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html

I don’t think it’s fair to lump UK with the U.S. together. Cameron has just committed over $100+ million in aides and accepted thousands more refugees. Meanwhile, in the U.S., we need to focus on cutting government spending to reduce the deficit. Offering foreign aides to these people are not as important as reduce the government spending…

[FlyerInHi]

Though i understand the political reasons, I’m really disappointed Obama has been silent. He should be calling for more aid and taking in more refugees like we did with Vietnam.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6855407

Really lame that the US is not leading on this.
The American press? Lame too. Few ask “what are we doing to help?”

Back the 1990s Germany was the sick man of Europe. It is now a dynamic country. It’s very inspiring that Germany will be welcoming 800,000 refugees in 1 year alone.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/02/5-inspiring-ways-germans-are-supporting-refugees/

[Author]

Posts