Post New

The married couples filed into a federal building in San Diego last week for green card interviews that they believed would secure their future together in the United States. Half of each pair was American. Stephen Paul came with his British wife and their 4-month-old baby. Audrey Hestmark arrived with her German husband, days before their first wedding anniversary. Jason Cordero accompanied his Mexican wife.

It was supposed to be a celebratory milestone, the final step in the process to obtain U.S. permanent residency. Instead, as each interview with an immigration officer wrapped up, federal agents swooped in, handcuffed the foreign spouse and took him or her away.

“I had to take our baby from my crying wife’s arms,” Mr. Paul, 33, said, recalling the moment that agents said they were arresting his wife, Katie.

Ms. Paul was sent to an immigration detention center with hundreds of other people swept up in the Trump administration’s crackdown. Her husband had to take a leave from his job at the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department to care for their child and try to secure her release.

“It’s insane to have them rip our family apart,” Mr. Paul said. “Whoever is directing this has completely lost touch with their mission to the country.” —New York Times

Instead, as each interview with an immigration officer wrapped up, federal agents swooped in, handcuffed the foreign spouse and took him or her away.

Marco, Dope, Jedi, LM, and Mike approve. Happy Thanksgiving!

As someone who voted Trump, as someone who for decades has wanted immigration enforcement, even assimilation requirements....

I am angered and personally ashamed by how we've gone about doing this.

The Trailer Trash is in charge.

And the opposition: Doesn't want to truly win. They love posting, likes, recs. Outrage. Protests. But big wins? No.

Echota,

NY Times articles are constant "spin."

Plays for emotional sympathy/manufactured outrage.

(That's why many of them are now clearly labeled "Opinion.")

If you read one of these pieces and are "angry" or "outraged," that's deliberate.

You're being manipulated, deliberately.

What's missing?

None of the people being detained claim to be in the United States legally.

They say things to the effect of: "....but my lawyer told me it wasn't a big deal" to be in the country illegally.

How many dozens, hundreds, or thousands of detention cases did the NY Times have to sift through before finding those which they felt would be most sympathetic, most guaranteed to generate manufactured outrage, anger, and engagement?

Not one of these illegals or their family members ever say: "You know, we were careless. We didn't follow the immigration laws to the letter. We thought we would get a 'pass.' On the one hand, we were encouraged to feel this wasn't an issue by our attorney and also by the previous policies of the Biden and Obama administrations. On the other, we knew the person detained was in the country illegally."

Not one of them. Not one of them takes ownership of their own legal responsibilities. Those that do, don't get published by the NY Times.

Suppose ICE started enforcing the laws only against the less-sympathetic cases. The articulate, relatively well spoken, "people just like us" immigrants shouldn't have to abide by the rules because...they're "just like us."

Would that be fair? Would that be equitable? Of course not.

Yet with the situation involving Carolyn Leavitt's brother's baby mama--ProGlibs insist that this situation is some kind of "dunk" on Caroline Leavitt because immigration laws are being equally enforced against her brother's baby mama.

Arresting military spouses that are going through the legal process to get a green card has only one purpose. Legal immigration is being made difficult. Or maybe the people in charge are sadists.

‘I kind of feel betrayed': ICE arrests military spouses at San Diego green card interviews
"As ICE continues to arrest people in San Diego during their green card interviews, the final step in a legal pathway, some of the people taken into custody have been spouses of military members and veterans, including one who said he felt “betrayed” after serving for decades in the U.S. Marine Corps.

ICE has repeatedly said these arrests, which began Nov. 12, are for overstaying visas. But multiple immigration attorneys contend that’s never been an issue before, with an exception in federal law for direct relatives of U.S. citizens, including spouses, who are going through the green card process."
...
“The law clearly allows her to file for a green card through a U.S. citizen spouse,” he said.

“You’ve got to wonder what eight days of detention, what purpose that served. I don’t know,” Menard continued, adding that he’s done these interviews for over 12 years and never before seen an arrest like this.

He and Shasteen both said the women have no criminal history."
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/ice-arrests...

marco100 wrote "None of the people being detained claim to be in the United States legally."

Actually, several say they were following the law, and their lawyers agree. Denying military spouses' legal applications for green cards is bizarre behavior.

I suppose a possible explanation for denying legal applications for green cards is incompetence, ignorance, or just plain stupidity. Or maybe White Supremacy or Christian Nation ideologies are being enforced, with the applicants being rejected for some sort of belief litmus test. Or maybe poor management has offered bonuses for bad behavior. Strange.

"There are various exceptions to a visa overstay that you should be aware of. One exception is a provision in the U.S. law that allows immediate relatives of U.S. citizens to be exempt from the visa overstay. However, this exemption only applies to:
Spouses
Parents
Unmarried children (under the age of 21)

However, in order to be eligible for this exemption and for adjustment of status (meaning they can get a green card in the U.S.), the immediate relative must have a lawful entry into the U.S. If someone entered the country without going through a CBP officer, they will not be able to submit a green card application."
https://www.jlkattorneys.com/faq/are-there-any-exc...

ICE has repeatedly said these arrests, which began Nov. 12, are for overstaying visas.

If they are applying for a green card, they have (had?) a valid visa. Things may have changed since I had to deal with this system, but it's pretty straightforward. You get a fiance (or spousal) visa, bring the person over, and then you have so many days (it was 90, I think) to get married and file the next step of paperwork. As long as you're doing that, you're legal. The next step is conditional permanent resident. We had to go down and file an extension (they didn't have a website in those days, so we had to stand in line for hours downtown) for 1poorlady because BCIS was backed-up (not our fault), and they extended her conditional resident status and working authorization. It was approved shortly after, and she became a permanent resident. Five years later, apply for naturalization.

If someone let their visa/paperwork lapse, then it's really their own fault. I don't agree with the gestapo's behavior, but it's not that difficult to keep yourself legal until you have that naturalization certificate in your hand. Especially when you can do most of it online now.

This conduct really is capricious, serving no real value. I thought they were supposed to be going after the "bad dudes".

Legal immigration is being made difficult. Or maybe the people in charge are sadists.

That was the clear objective, during the previous Trump term. There was a push, then, to eliminate "chain migration", where relatives of legal residents are allowed in. Chain migration is responsible for the vast majority of *legal* immigration.

The message is clear: the regime will take in highly trained, or rich, foreigners, to work and make the US rich richer, but TPTB don't want them bringing their entire tribe in, and staying in the US.

Steve

There was a push, then, to eliminate "chain migration", where relatives of legal residents are allowed in. Chain migration is responsible for the vast majority of *legal* immigration.

Lead by example: send Melania's parents back to the old country.

lizdgal:

False.

The three examples in the article all involved people who overstayed their visas. None of them said they were unaware of the law, none of them said they were unaware that they had overstayed their visas.

They all had "reasons" to overstay their visas, obviously.

If their lawyers had told them not to worry about it, they got bad legal advice.

The NY Times conveniently left out the dates that each person's visa had expired and just how long each had overstayed. Undoubtedly because they had each overstayed a significant amount of time, and actually providing "facts" about the length of the overstays would lessen sympathy for them.

So, important facts were left out to manipulate public opinion.

It seems to work on some people. But not on everyone.

onepoorguy

wants to send Melania's parents back to the old country.

1. Are they still alive?

2. Are they in the United States in violation of immigration law?

Dum dum.

2. Are they in the United States in violation of immigration law?

I was responding to the concept of chain migration. If the right is against it, then they should start with Melania's family, who "chain migrated" here. The point is the right's hypocrisy.

Also, her father is still alive, yes.

“ If they are applying for a green card, they have (had?) a valid visa. Things may have changed since I had to deal with this system, but it's pretty straightforward. You get a fiance (or spousal) visa, bring the person over, and then you have so many days (it was 90, I think) to get married and file the next step of paperwork. As long as you're doing that, you're legal. ”

25 years ago we had the app in for the fiancé visa. It was taking a long time and we’d already been apart for over a year. I consulted a lawyer who told us DO NOT enter on a tourist visa and get married. That’s a big no no. Wait for the fiancé visa or get an H1B.

I wonder if that’s what happened in these cases? Sad to say, a lawyer is absolutely needed.

25 years ago we had the app in for the fiancé visa. It was taking a long time and we’d already been apart for over a year. I consulted a lawyer who told us DO NOT enter on a tourist visa and get married. That’s a big no no. Wait for the fiancé visa or get an H1B.

My wife came here on a tourist visa. The little crik in my throat was diagnosed as cancer, we talked it over, she applied for Adjustment in Status, and we waited for a green card. Under this policy she would at least go into detention for 8-10 days. Then if some joker decided they didn't believe that the cancer made me change my mind because I thought I'd get better medical treatment here, they could ship her back, and I'd follow. I let my wife get and manage the attorney she used by the Filipina network.

Her Tourist Visa lapsed while on Adjustment of Status, the attorney assured us that was OK. There was no green card interview, they mailed her the green card.

Marco thinks this is a game.

I consulted a lawyer who told us DO NOT enter on a tourist visa and get married. That’s a big no no. Wait for the fiancé visa or get an H1B.

Ditto. We were also told that getting a fiance visa is easier than a spousal visa, so wait to get married here. Don't know why, and don't know if that's still the case.

“Her Tourist Visa lapsed while on Adjustment of Status, the attorney assured us that was OK. There was no green card interview, they mailed her the green card.”

Interesting. We did the green card interview. Asked us about our life together and all that.

"There are various exceptions to a visa overstay that you should be aware of. One exception is a provision in the U.S. law that allows immediate relatives of U.S. citizens to be exempt from the visa overstay. However, this exemption only applies to:
Spouses
Parents
Unmarried children (under the age of 21)

However, in order to be eligible for this exemption and for adjustment of status (meaning they can get a green card in the U.S.), the immediate relative must have a lawful entry into the U.S. If someone entered the country without going through a CBP officer, they will not be able to submit a green card application."

---------------


So it seems clear and explicit that an immigrant who enters illegally and then marries a US citizen is NOT eligible for this exemption. How do we know that immigrant spouses seeking a green card exemption entered legally?

but TPTB don't want them bringing their entire tribe in, and staying in the US.

Steve

------------------

Seems reasonable to me. Th US is in charge of who comes in. Being here does not include a right for you to select who in your entire family tree must be allowed in behind you on your invitation. Want to rejoin your family, no problem, nobody is making you stay here. Want your favorite aunt to join you in the USA, tell her to file for her own legal immigration.

Exactly, Adrian C.

None of the three cases highlighted in the NY Times article were present in the United States in accordance with immigration law. None of them had valid visas.

The NY Times, and the poor widdle illegals, were all well aware of that.

That's why the NY Times failed to publish any FACTS such as: What were the dates on their visas? Did they even have visas? If they had visas at one time but those visas expired or lapsed, how long were they in the country illegally?

What were the names of their lawyers who supposedly told them "not to worry about it"?

One of the three did admit to having entered or remained in the country illegally. The other two, nothing.

"FEEL SORRY FOR US. IGNORE THE FACT THAT WE VIOLATED IMMIGRATION LAW."

"WE DID WHAT WE WERE TOLD." (By who?) "WE FOLLOWED THE LAW." Really?

Nope, just a bunch of lies.

Lambo: "I let my wife get and manage the attorney she used the Philipina network..."

Dude--every time you talk about anything your wife does, you always say you "let her" do this or that.

Is she your wife or your mail order slave?

Here's the problem: "The attorney assured us that it's O.K." to remain in the country after visa lapsed while awaiting adjustment of status.

No, it's not "O.K."

There are tons of incompetent/corrupt attorneys immigration and otherwise who will basically tell a client what they think the client wants to hear, in order to avoid losing a client, and the fees that client generates.

These attorneys are never named. The attorney in all these articles is the Pomerleau dude who is obviously connected with someone at the NY Times and is pursuing an agenda with these cases. Pomerleau is not the unnamed "attorney who said it was O.K." Pomerleau never says it's "OK", just that it's unfair for them to be deported. He's a clever guy.

If your immigration lawyer tells you something more accurate and nuanced such as "Well technically it's a violation of immigration law to remain in the country after your visa has expired. If you overstay technically you could be deported and banned from coming back, if the letter of the law is followed strictly. Recent administrations have not been enforcing the immigration laws strictly as you should already be aware of. I can't guarantee you won't be deported before your adjustment of status occurs, as there is a huge backlog. I can't guarantee you will ever be granted an adjustment of status. Now that Trump has been re-elected he is cracking down hard on visa overstays so you better leave for now."

These people are all just liars playing for sympathy. The NY Times took the most sympathetic cases they could find and deliberately failed to supply all relevant facts. I'll bet if the attorneys who told them it was OK to stay were actually interviewed, they probably did NOT tell them it was O.K. to stay, they were told they were taking a risk and were rolling the dice.

These effin' people are liars.

Big Hairy Mike,

We DON'T "know" that the immigrant spouses entered legally because the NY Times conveniently forgot to provide those FACTS for each of the three sympathetic cases they presented in the article.

They did tell us that one of the people was arrested at the green card interview because he admitted to ICE that at some point in the past he had entered the country illegally. The other two cases, no details at all were provided.

Interesting. We did the green card interview. Asked us about our life together and all that.

Yes. We were expecting a green card interview, and got the card in the mail instead. Under the current rules, it's likely she would have been grabbed by ICE and detained for 8 days or more, possibly shipped back to the Philippines.

How do we know that immigrant spouses seeking a green card exemption entered legally?

It's part of the application for adjustment of status Mike. You have to fill it out, answer the questions, and send in original documents where required.

AI Overview

Yes, for most people,legally entering the United States through inspection and admission or parole is a required step to be eligible for adjustment of status to get a green card. This means you must have been processed by a Customs and Border Protection officer, even if you later overstayed a visa. However, there are some exceptions, such as for applicants eligible under INA §245(i) or certain VAWA applicants, who may not have this requirement

Th US is in charge of who comes in. Being here does not include a right for you to select who in your entire family tree must be allowed in behind you on your invitation.

It's 70% of legal immigration Mike, so there's a lot of it and it isn't the enemy. They sponsor a family member.

"Roughly two-thirds to 70% of legal immigration is family-sponsored, or "chain immigration," meaning it is based on family ties rather than skills or employment. Between 1981 and 2016, about 61% of all immigrants admitted to the U.S. were chain migration immigrants."

There are some teachers here from the Philippines on 5 year contracts. One of them already brought her husband and kids here. At the end of five years I'd bet they will all be US citizens.

Here's the problem: "The attorney assured us that it's O.K." to remain in the country after visa lapsed while awaiting adjustment of status.

No, it's not "O.K."

It's been shown earlier in the thread that it's OK. And here it is:

crisper

Yes, after filing Form I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status), your tourist visa (or other non-immigrant status) expiration no longer matters for your legal stay in the U.S. as you are in a period of authorized stay while the application is pending
. You are permitted to remain in the United States until a decision is made on your I-485.

Please stop talking out of your ass.

This means you must have been processed by a Customs and Border Protection officer, - Lambo

------------------

Processed by an overworked CPB agent, under threat of Biden to keep the line moving or else, from a country that keeps no records, does not lend itself to effective vetting.

It's 70% of legal immigration Mike, so there's a lot of it and it isn't the enemy. They sponsor a family member.

"Roughly two-thirds to 70% of legal immigration is family-sponsored, or "chain immigration," meaning it is based on family ties rather than skills or employment. Between 1981 and 2016, about 61% of all immigrants admitted to the U.S. were chain migration immigrants." - Lambo>/I>

-----------------

Wow, The percentage is that high! Maybe the original applicant had some useful skill needed by the USA but that doesn't mean the rest of his family chain has any skills that sustain or improve our economy. Immigration should a merit-based program that gives preference to immigrants based on job training, education, and English proficiency and not so much about their family member who is already here.

Being here does not include a right for you to select who in your entire family tree must be allowed in behind you on your invitation.

Actually, it does. As long as you are a citizen. I don't think permanent residents can do it, just citizens. You have to fill out the proper forms, and pay the fees, and then there is a priority system based on the relation to you (e.g. mother, brother, minor child, adult child, etc). Each has a different "preference". Minor child and parents are higher preferences than siblings, for example.

That is current law. Melania used it to get her parents here over 10 years ago. My MIL is here because of it. My SIL is still in queue because -as 1poorlady's sibling- her preference is a lot lower. Been waiting over 10 years for that one. Could have to wait 10 more.

You are permitted to remain in the United States until a decision is made on your I-485.

Quibble. I may be out of date, but when 1poorlady was doing this process, you had to renew your conditional permanent resident status every two years until your permanent resident status was approved. Linked to this was the working authorization, which our company was fussy about (and rightly so). We had to keep it current until her permanent status was affirmed. We then would have had to affirm her permanent status every 10 years until she became a citizen. But we didn't wait 10 years, so never had to renew that status.

Lambo,

A.I. is often wrong. That disclaimer is on every response A.I. provides.

None of these details were provided in the NY Times article.

If it's so simple, why not?

Maybe these people didn't fill out their I-485's truthfully.

Maybe they didn't fill out their original visa applications truthfully.

You make a lot of assumptions without knowing any/all the relevant facts.

You don't know all the relevant facts because the NY Times chose to withhold them from you.

And, you don't care what the relevant facts are.

Onepoorreasoningguy,

This again is NONSENSE. No one has the "right" to select who is, and who is not, permitted in their families to also immigrate to the United States.

AT MOST, they have the PRIVILEGE (under applicable law) to have close relations APPLY for permission to immigrate.

You ProGlibs are delusional and lie so much. The real problem is you believe your own lies.

Processed by an overworked CPB agent, under threat of Biden to keep the line moving or else, from a country that keeps no records, does not lend itself to effective vetting.

Made up on the spot horseshit.

What that means is you met and presented your documents to CPB when you came in country. Ya know, the normal standing at the counter in the Airport - no grand inquisition, you were processed into the country the normal way by CPB and they looked at your entry documents,checked you on the computer, maybe stamped them and made sure everything was in order. The normal thing that happens at the border, which is no biggee. Got it? Get out of your I'm going to object to everything and make it sound profoundly bad because it isn't.

And which country in the article(s) keeps no records Mike? You are totally unfamiliar with any of these processes, aren't you?

And if you're going to object to someone down the road being overworked and under threat of Biden, you should've voted or been for the money for more of everything regarding the border when Biden and the congressman offered it.

Wow, The percentage is that high! Maybe the original applicant had some useful skill needed by the USA but that doesn't mean the rest of his family chain has any skills that sustain or improve our economy. Immigration should a merit-based program that gives preference to immigrants based on job training, education, and English proficiency and not so much about their family member who is already here.

Only a portion of immigration is based on merit (we need those skills, or knowledge). You may feel it should be limited to that. I don't. If someone has a family overseas and wants to sponsor a family member, I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with a pregnant woman coming over and giving birth here with the aim of establishing birth citizenship and then slowly bringing everyone over.

I don't have a problem with overall annual caps. I've expressed that we cannot take everyone and that's based on finding out that people were flying into Latin America and working their way up to our border.

Among other things, and y'all haven't talked about it, we look for the fake marriage, and the whirlwind marriage where the 80 year old guy marries the 18 year old beauty convinced they're in love. Happens.

Dude--every time you talk about anything your wife does, you always say you "let her" do this or that.

Is she your wife or your mail order slave?

Marco, you did it. I was willing to bet I couldn't talk frankly without you going slimily low. And specifically you, marco, going low. You did it! A new low and you let your self become a slime scumbag again. So marco, you will understand then why I don't talk to you? And that you deserve it for being a low-life slime ball? Adios.

For everyone else - my wife came to me and said she wanted to work with a certain immigration attorney. We were already working with an immigration agency helping her. She was getting all of her documents together and was speaking to people overseas in Tagalog, Cebuano, and Japanese. I helped her as much as I could, but I was going through surgery and radiation treatments. I have to agree to the money. I did. We dropped the agency and let the attorney handle the rest. People can do the Adjustment of Status entirely on their own, without an agency and attorney, but I wasn't functioning well, didn't want the stress, and I wanted her to be less stressed too. Nuff said.

Ploink.

Lamb Chop,

Stop "spewing."

The NY Times article never claimed any of the three people they highlighted were in the country legally.

That's because they weren't at least not at the time of the article. (One of the people got a high profile immigration lawyer to file a lawsuit which was settled.)

Pork Chop,

What you personally believe our immigration policy should or shouldn't be, isn't relevant, except to the extent you can get laws passed to embody your policy desires.

Since that hasn't happened yet, what is relevant is what the law says.

Not what you think it should be in your delusional world.

I do have a problem with a pregnant woman coming over and giving birth here with the aim of establishing birth citizenship and then slowly bringing everyone over.

As do I. There was a series in the LA Times (at least 10 or 15 yrs ago) about Chinese Birth tourism to the Southern California region; homes set up to house the expectant woman with full services until she popped and the newborn was fit to travel back to China with its brand new US passport.
Their system/plan was to send the kid back when it reaches majority and begin the chain migrant process for other family members.

My other gripe is population in general in areas that can't take any more pressure on the limited water supply. Still waiting to hear Felon47 has turned on the 'big beautiful faucet' for the southwest. Clearly Trump and the GrandOldPedos don't give a shit about west coast fish and wildlife.

Pork Chop,

Now you're playing the victim, huh? Typical ProGlib DARVO (deny and reverse victim and offender). Psychopaths do it, narcissists do it. It's a mental disorder.

I quoted what you said: "I let my wife..."

And you've said similar things in your other posts.

It's not my fault you're a passport bro.

Choose your words more carefully next time, say what you mean, don't say things that make you sound like you regard your mail order bride as chattel property, and when called out on your misogyny, don't whine like a little bitch.

You have to fill out the proper forms, and pay the fees, and then there is a priority system based on the relation to you (e.g. mother, brother, minor child, adult child, etc).

What? Mike says we don't want those people who have family values. 😜

Quibble. I may be out of date, but when 1poorlady was doing this process, you had to renew your conditional permanent resident status every two years until your permanent resident status was approved.

My wife says that's for Fiance Visa. She had a 10 year status, not two year. We'd been married 7 years at the time we applied. Ve are not ze same! 🧐 😇

As do I. There was a series in the LA Times (at least 10 or 15 yrs ago) about Chinese Birth tourism to the Southern California

I may have read that series too, along with other articles. And we definitely do have a water problem in Southern California which needs addressing. I like the idea they have of flooding the fields with water during the off season to help replenish the aquifers. I've got a bad feeling that climate change is going to turn Southern California completely arid.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.