Author Topic: The Immigration Debate  (Read 206 times)

LoriPinkAngel and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline shnozzola

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2819
  • Darwins +206/-2
The Immigration Debate
« on: February 22, 2017, 07:04:53 PM »
I've said before, I'd like to think as a German citizen I would have hidden Jewish people in my attic.

So here are the government laws passed by Germany starting in 1933.  Remember, these were government laws passed, that German citizens had to follow.

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007459

Quote
July 14
De-Naturalization Law revokes the citizenship of naturalized Jews and “undesirables.”

So, its 2017, and we have this statement about deportation priorities:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/02/22/john_kelly_guatemala_deportation_statement_focus_on_criminals.html

The key is d :

                             (d)  Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency;

So any immigrant is out for that reason.  Remember, this is a government law passed, that German American citizens must follow.

So the question for me is, should I hide immigrants in my attic?  Is a law a law a law? How do I want to view "denaturalization" and "misrepresentation"?
Will I open the door to these immigrants that have only broken the one law above, while working in the United States for years?
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 07:06:29 PM by shnozzola »
We have guided missiles and misguided men.  ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline shnozzola

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2819
  • Darwins +206/-2
Re: The Immigration Debate
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2017, 07:22:30 PM »
North America before illegal immigration

We have guided missiles and misguided men.  ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4206
  • Darwins +256/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • I find your lack of hate disturbing.
Re: The Immigration Debate
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2017, 07:24:36 PM »
There is one difference that I would like to point out for clarification.

The people affected by Trumps new EO[1] are not citizens.

They are not having their citizenship revoked. So, how does this compare?
 1. i.e. not law
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 07:29:58 PM by Mr. Blackwell »
When I criticize political parties or candidates, I am not criticizing you. If I criticize you, there will be no doubt in your mind as to what I am saying.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13960
  • Darwins +457/-40
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Immigration Debate
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2017, 07:26:01 PM »
North America before illegal immigration

http://www.snopes.com/america-colonization-map/

Quote
In July 2015, Redditer liminalsoup uploaded the above-displayed chart to the “Imaginary Maps” subreddit under the title “Rough Draft (seeking advice on map for a story i’m writing where Europe never discovered America).”

Rather than showing the state of America prior to European colonization, this image is one author’s idea of what America might look like today if Europeans had never colonized it.
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

Offline shnozzola

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2819
  • Darwins +206/-2
Re: The Immigration Debate
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2017, 07:44:52 PM »
Jay - that is exactly what I am asking myself.  These human beings, some I know that have worked here for years, are legally not citizens according to the law, just as Jews in Germany suddenly became not citizens.  Do I consider the difference important enough to not hide these people?

Adzgari - sorry, I saw snopes and posted anyway, guess there is no map to prove my point.  :-[
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 07:46:57 PM by shnozzola »
We have guided missiles and misguided men.  ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4206
  • Darwins +256/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • I find your lack of hate disturbing.
Re: The Immigration Debate
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2017, 08:04:21 PM »
Jay - that is exactly what I am asking myself.  These human beings, some I know that have worked here for years, are legally not citizens according to the law, just as Jews in Germany suddenly became not citizens.  Do I consider the difference important enough to not hide these people?

That is a tough personal question that only you can answer. I have a brother in law from Burkina Faso who is now a citizen. He is in no danger from Trump's administration. I have a friend from the UK who is now a citizen, he is in no danger. From my understanding, the only people who are in danger are those who chose to circumvent our immigration laws and just sneak in. Do you have any idea how much that irritates people who went through the proper channels to get here legally?

The EO doesn't call for exterminating or indefinitely imprisoning people who have trespassed on our land. All it does is allow border enforcement agents to send them back to their homeland.

The real question I think is, should countries have borders or should we all just be citizens of the world with the same rights from place to place and national sovereignty be damned so that I can go to Australia and be treated like a citizen of Australia the moment I step off the plane or boat.

When I criticize political parties or candidates, I am not criticizing you. If I criticize you, there will be no doubt in your mind as to what I am saying.

Offline shnozzola

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2819
  • Darwins +206/-2
Re: The Immigration Debate
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2017, 08:14:42 PM »
   The guy I'm thinking of came as a student from Africa in the 70s, and during his country's civil war, decided not to go back.  The mistake he has made is, when (what I consider) reasonable US leaders gave people chances to become citizens over these few decades, he was afraid.

   Funny that you mention irritating those that go through proper channels, like my wife and step daughter.  Both are not irritated at our friend, but feel bad for him, and would hide him.   I guess it shows how people's views differ.
We have guided missiles and misguided men.  ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4206
  • Darwins +256/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • I find your lack of hate disturbing.
Re: The Immigration Debate
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2017, 08:25:05 PM »
Well, listen...I would definitely hide a friend if they were in the situation you described. It's hard not to feel compassion for people you know and it gets easier to have empathy for other people in similar situations even if you don't know them personally. Your friend is in a tight spot but I don't think he needs to hide just yet. However, he should definitely be very mindful to obey all traffic laws and not conspire to commit or actually commit any crimes.

Is it too late for him to apply for citizenship or a green card? I mean, if he was afraid before he must be terrified now. Anyway to get him a good lawyer to help out?

When I criticize political parties or candidates, I am not criticizing you. If I criticize you, there will be no doubt in your mind as to what I am saying.

Offline shnozzola

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2819
  • Darwins +206/-2
Re: The Immigration Debate
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2017, 08:42:08 PM »
   Ya, terrified.  He's been scared since 9/11.  He is from Rhodesia, which of course doesn't exist anymore.  We used to kid him as a man w/o a country.  Barely answers his phone now.  Never committed a crime.  Good guy, but not an American citizen.

   My wife knows a lady that came with a visitor visa, maybe 2000, and never left.  She's a nurse.  Frankly, there are many people like this.  Most likely they will be fine, remaining under the radar.  But what a way to live life - and now, Trump, and his promises to the right.  Of course our Florida tomatoes are picked by these types of people.   That's why large scale produce farmers suddenly aren't as happy about the man they voted for.  Like everything, the more you know about issues, the more grey the issues are.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/04/21/nobodies
We have guided missiles and misguided men.  ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 8282
  • Darwins +345/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: The Immigration Debate
« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2017, 09:23:05 PM »
The real question I think is, should countries have borders or should we all just be citizens of the world with the same rights from place to place and national sovereignty be damned so that I can go to Australia and be treated like a citizen of Australia the moment I step off the plane or boat.

Why don't we just do what Jesus would do - throw them out because they didn't follow the rules. I mean, according to a lot of people, this is a Christian nation, so I can't think of a better way to treat people than exactly the way their beloved Jesus would...throw them out and make sure they know they are only welcome if they come through the front door.

Remember, when the people wanted to stone the prostitute to death, Jesus cheered them on.

When everyone was hungry, Jesus laughed at them while stuffing his face with more bread than he could possibly eat.

You know, let's be Christian about this situation.

Fuck the "illegal" immigrants, right?

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4206
  • Darwins +256/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • I find your lack of hate disturbing.
Re: The Immigration Debate
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2017, 11:06:24 PM »
The real question I think is, should countries have borders or should we all just be citizens of the world with the same rights from place to place and national sovereignty be damned so that I can go to Australia and be treated like a citizen of Australia the moment I step off the plane or boat.

Why don't we just do what Jesus would do - throw them out because they didn't follow the rules. I mean, according to a lot of people, this is a Christian nation, so I can't think of a better way to treat people than exactly the way their beloved Jesus would...throw them out and make sure they know they are only welcome if they come through the front door.

Remember, when the people wanted to stone the prostitute to death, Jesus cheered them on.

When everyone was hungry, Jesus laughed at them while stuffing his face with more bread than he could possibly eat.

You know, let's be Christian about this situation.

Fuck the "illegal" immigrants, right?

With all due respect, I was asking a serious question. Many people fear the One World Order. Me? I haven't made up my mind about it. Philosophically I am already there, at least on an interpersonal level. However, I am a law and order sort of person...to an extent. Plus, with the actual corruption we have seen over the years within governments, I'm not so sure a one world government will be all that much better than what we currently have today because power corrupts and absolute power...well, you know. I would love to live in a world where I could live anywhere I chose and not be treated as a second class citizen or worse. What we currently have isn't equitable but I don't know what the solution is.

If America doesn't have the stomach to enforce it's immigration laws then America should abolish those laws. But If America abolishes its immigration laws, then so should every country in the world. 
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 11:08:24 PM by Mr. Blackwell »
When I criticize political parties or candidates, I am not criticizing you. If I criticize you, there will be no doubt in your mind as to what I am saying.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8155
  • Darwins +1056/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Immigration Debate
« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2017, 01:53:34 AM »
I need to point out that the fact that illegal immigrants are not citizens is completely and totally beside the point of this execrable executive order.  The fact is that all people in this country, whether citizens or not, are guaranteed equal protection under the law and due process.  While I am not a constitutional lawyer, I find it extremely doubtful that the President has the authority to simply deport people without letting due process take its course.  Deporting people because of the opinion of an immigration official, or people who have not even been charged with a crime let alone convicted of it, or because of any instance of 'fraud' no matter how minor, constitutes a severe breach of due process in my opinion.

By the way, this doesn't just apply to illegal immigrants, it also applies to legal ones.  For example, someone who came here legally (such as, oh, a refugee) could be deported under these rules.  All it would take is an immigration official deciding that they represent a risk to public or national safety, or else trumping up a criminal charge and then immediately deporting them before they even enter the court system, never mind actually being tried.

This is the second time Trump has signed an executive order which violates Constitutional protections.  Enough is fucking enough!
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4206
  • Darwins +256/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • I find your lack of hate disturbing.
Re: The Immigration Debate
« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2017, 07:14:00 PM »
I need to point out that the fact that illegal immigrants are not citizens is completely and totally beside the point of this execrable executive order.  The fact is that all people in this country, whether citizens or not, are guaranteed equal protection under the law and due process.  While I am not a constitutional lawyer, I find it extremely doubtful that the President has the authority to simply deport people without letting due process take its course.  Deporting people because of the opinion of an immigration official, or people who have not even been charged with a crime let alone convicted of it, or because of any instance of 'fraud' no matter how minor, constitutes a severe breach of due process in my opinion.

By the way, this doesn't just apply to illegal immigrants, it also applies to legal ones.  For example, someone who came here legally (such as, oh, a refugee) could be deported under these rules.  All it would take is an immigration official deciding that they represent a risk to public or national safety, or else trumping up a criminal charge and then immediately deporting them before they even enter the court system, never mind actually being tried.

This is the second time Trump has signed an executive order which violates Constitutional protections.  Enough is fucking enough!

I'm not finding anything that describes the new executive order the way you are describing it. Do you have a link that explains in detail what you are telling me?

When I criticize political parties or candidates, I am not criticizing you. If I criticize you, there will be no doubt in your mind as to what I am saying.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 8282
  • Darwins +345/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: The Immigration Debate
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2017, 07:28:37 PM »
The real question I think is, should countries have borders or should we all just be citizens of the world with the same rights from place to place and national sovereignty be damned so that I can go to Australia and be treated like a citizen of Australia the moment I step off the plane or boat.

Why don't we just do what Jesus would do - throw them out because they didn't follow the rules. I mean, according to a lot of people, this is a Christian nation, so I can't think of a better way to treat people than exactly the way their beloved Jesus would...throw them out and make sure they know they are only welcome if they come through the front door.

Remember, when the people wanted to stone the prostitute to death, Jesus cheered them on.

When everyone was hungry, Jesus laughed at them while stuffing his face with more bread than he could possibly eat.

You know, let's be Christian about this situation.

f**k the "illegal" immigrants, right?

With all due respect, I was asking a serious question. Many people fear the One World Order. Me? I haven't made up my mind about it. Philosophically I am already there, at least on an interpersonal level. However, I am a law and order sort of person...to an extent. Plus, with the actual corruption we have seen over the years within governments, I'm not so sure a one world government will be all that much better than what we currently have today because power corrupts and absolute power...well, you know. I would love to live in a world where I could live anywhere I chose and not be treated as a second class citizen or worse. What we currently have isn't equitable but I don't know what the solution is.

If America doesn't have the stomach to enforce it's immigration laws then America should abolish those laws. But If America abolishes its immigration laws, then so should every country in the world.

I think there's room for laws, and room for empathy and understanding on a case by case basis. What this administration is doing is beyond morally bankrupt.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14913
  • Darwins +1092/-36
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The Immigration Debate
« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2017, 09:42:17 PM »
I am torn

I understand many people are here illegally. But the overwhelming majority of them work really hard for shit wages and are just here for a better life.  They aren't here to mooch off our shitty welfare system. 

I also understand the fact that they are illegal aggravates the shit out of a lot of people.  However, that is also a justification for bigotry for a lot of people.  Like Screwtape Sr.  He was all torqued up over "sickly Mexicans" stealing our jobs.  Yet, Sr is a professional with advanced degrees.  Stealing whose jobs, pop? Not yours.  Not mine. Doing jobs Americans refuse to do, mainly.

And while I am not in favor of amnesty, I am also not in favor of deporting 11 million people who mainly are model Americans. Even if they're not legally Americans.

That would be expensive.  NPR reported DHS requesting at least 15,000 more ICE officers.  They are also going to need holding prisons for tens of thousands illegals.  And if they want to deport them in a timely fashion - and not hold families indefinitely, which costs money - they will need hundreds more judges.  Pricey.

And as Jim Wright points out, deporting 11 million people looks a lot like Nazi Germany, just for the logistics.

As I understand, the EO changes priorities.  Obama prioritized the violent criminals.  Trump has essentially said, "deport anyone you can find."  And ICE cops, being cops, are lazy and will go after any low hanging fruit they can.  Besides, arresting families is much safer and less likely to result in a gunshot wound than arresting violent criminals.  And what we've seen in the last couple of weeks bears that out. ICE has gone after mainly just regular people.

I get the whole illegal thing.  I just don't see it as a big deal or anything warranting priority.  We have much bigger problems. This is just a political ploy.



« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 10:39:23 PM by screwtape »
What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8155
  • Darwins +1056/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Immigration Debate
« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2017, 10:37:21 PM »
@Mr. Blackwell:

I used nothing more than schnozzola's second link in the OP, which contained the following text from the executive order in question:
Quote
In executing faithfully the immigration laws of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall prioritize for removal ... removable aliens who:
(a)  Have been convicted of any criminal offense;
(b)  Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;
(c)  Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;
(d)  Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency;
(e)  Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;
(f)  Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or
(g)  In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.
In short, this executive order allows the deportation of aliens - not simply illegal aliens, but any aliens, including those who came here legally - if they have been charged with a crime, even if the charges have not been resolved; or if someone accuses them of committing a crime, even if charges have not been filed; or if an immigration officer believes them to "pose a risk to public safety or national security".  Given that this is a pretty clear violation of the Constitutional guarantee of due process and equal protection under the law, this is far worse than the original executive order which was stayed by the courts, because it attempts to put the INS above the law by letting them serve as judge, jury, and executioner[1] regarding these aliens.

I don't know about you, or anyone else, but I consider this to be an intolerable and tyrannical act.  Worse, I strongly suspect that like before, Trump let other people write this executive order for him, which means that the President is being used as a stooge for purposes unknown[2].  As far as I'm concerned, this is the writing on the wall.  If we don't start taking this crap seriously in pretty short order, meaning recognizing the danger of stuff like this, it could easily turn into a deathblow against the America we live in.
 1. not literally
 2. though I have my suspicions
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Online Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4264
  • Darwins +425/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: The Immigration Debate
« Reply #16 on: February 23, 2017, 11:11:24 PM »
There are a lot of clauses in that dictate that will allow police to Trump up charges of resisting arrest.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4206
  • Darwins +256/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • I find your lack of hate disturbing.
Re: The Immigration Debate
« Reply #17 on: Today at 03:36:35 PM »
@Mr. Blackwell:

I used nothing more than schnozzola's second link in the OP, which contained the following text from the executive order in question:
Quote
In executing faithfully the immigration laws of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall prioritize for removal ... removable aliens who:
(a)  Have been convicted of any criminal offense;
(b)  Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;
(c)  ;
(d)  Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency;
(e)  Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;
(f)  Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or
(g)  In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.
In short, this executive order allows the deportation of aliens - not simply illegal aliens, but any aliens, including those who came here legally


Are you sure about that?
When I criticize political parties or candidates, I am not criticizing you. If I criticize you, there will be no doubt in your mind as to what I am saying.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13960
  • Darwins +457/-40
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Immigration Debate
« Reply #18 on: Today at 03:44:35 PM »
The key there seems to be the word "removable".  Does an alien person have to be illegal in order to be removable?  What is the legal definition of that?
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

Offline shnozzola

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2819
  • Darwins +206/-2
We have guided missiles and misguided men.  ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4206
  • Darwins +256/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • I find your lack of hate disturbing.
Re: The Immigration Debate
« Reply #20 on: Today at 05:57:44 PM »
The key there seems to be the word "removable".  Does an alien person have to be illegal in order to be removable?  What is the legal definition of that?

Yeah, that's what I'm trying to figure out.
When I criticize political parties or candidates, I am not criticizing you. If I criticize you, there will be no doubt in your mind as to what I am saying.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4206
  • Darwins +256/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • I find your lack of hate disturbing.
Re: The Immigration Debate
« Reply #21 on: Today at 06:07:07 PM »
Quote
Sec. 5.  Enforcement Priorities.  In executing faithfully the immigration laws of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall prioritize for removal those aliens described by the Congress in sections 212(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 235, and 237(a)(2) and (4) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 1225, and 1227(a)(2) and (4)), as well as removable aliens who:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/presidential-executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united

This so called presidential action builds upon long established law. It seems to expand upon the definition of "removable" aliens but the way I read it is, "based upon existing laws governing who is removable, we also authorize these additional criteria."

Which, to me, still doesn't include those who are currently here legally.

*Please do not take this current exercise of understanding as tacit approval of the laws as they currently stand*.
When I criticize political parties or candidates, I am not criticizing you. If I criticize you, there will be no doubt in your mind as to what I am saying.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4206
  • Darwins +256/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • I find your lack of hate disturbing.
Re: The Immigration Debate
« Reply #22 on: Today at 06:44:09 PM »
Just found a very interesting article on NOLO. I don't know when this article was published.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/grounds-deportability-when-legal-us-residents-can-be-removed.html

Quote
Although people who carry nonimmigrant visas or green card holder have the right to be in the United States, such rights depend entirely on them following certain rules and avoiding certain types of legal violations. The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.) sets forth numerous grounds upon which a non-citizen may be deported (removed) back to the person’s country of origin.
Related Products

This article discusses the reasons why a permanent resident who isn’t considered an “arriving alien” (one who left the country and was put into removal proceedings upon return) can be deported. Other things can get an permanent resident “arriving alien” deported. Such persons, even if they are let back into the country, are considered to be seeking readmission to the United States, so any reason for keeping people out of the U.S. in the first place may make them “inadmissible” and deportable. For a discussion of the grounds of inadmissibility, see Inadmissibility: When the U.S. Can Keep You Out.

Only after an immigrant has successfully become a U.S. citizen, is he or she safe from the grounds of deportability. U.S. citizens cannot be removed unless they used fraud to gain their green card or citizenship.

Briefly summarized, a person may be deportable from the U.S. if he or she:

    was inadmissible at time of U.S. entry or of adjustment of status, or violates the terms of his or her visa, green card, or other status. (Permanent residents who have been absent from the United States for fewer than 180 continuous days don’t have to worry about admissibility upon their return except if they have committed certain crimes).
    had conditional permanent resident status (applicable to certain spouses, sons, and daughters of U.S. citizens as well as investor/entrepreneurs, with their spouses, and children) but had this status terminated.
    before, during, or within five years of the date of any U.S. entry, knowingly helped smuggle any other alien trying to enter the United States.
    committed marriage fraud.
    got married less than two years before getting a U.S. green card on that basis, then has the marriage annulled or terminated within the following two years, unless the immigrant can prove that the marriage was not a fraud, meant to evade any provision of the immigration laws.
    is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude that was committed within five years after the date of U.S. admission (or ten years if the person received a green card as a criminal informant) and is punishable by a sentence of at least one year.
    has been convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude at any time after U.S. admission, where the two crimes did not arise out of a single scheme of misconduct.
    has been convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after U.S. admission.
    has been convicted of high-speed flight from an immigration checkpoint.
    fails to register as a sex offender.
    has been convicted of a drug crime (or a conspiracy or attempt to commit one), whether in the U.S. or another country, at any time after U.S. admission. There’s an exception for a single offense involving possession for personal use of 30 grams or less of marijuana.
    is, or at any time after U.S. admission has been, a drug abuser or addict. Notice that no actual court conviction is needed to be deportable under this section. The person’s own confession to drug use, or evidence on a medical report, could be enough.
    has been convicted of illegally buying, selling, possessing, or engaging in other transactions concerning firearms, weapons, or destructive devices, at any time after U.S. admission.
    has been convicted of committing, or conspiring to commit espionage, sabotage, treason, or sedition, if punishable by at least five years in prison.
    has violated the Military Selective Service Act or the Trading With the Enemy Act.
    has violated certain travel and documentation restrictions or imported aliens for immoral purposes.
    has been convicted of domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment, at any time after U.S. admission.
    has violated the portion of a protective order that is meant to stop credible threats of violence, repeated harassment, or bodily injury.
    has committed or conspired to commit human trafficking inside or outside the U.S. or has apparently been a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, or colluder with someone else in severe forms of human trafficking; or is the trafficker’s spouse, son, or daughter who, within the past five years, knowingly received any financial or other benefit from the illicit activity.
    failed to advise the immigration authorities, in writing, of a change of address within ten days of the move, unless the person can prove that such failure was reasonably excusable or not willful.
    has been convicted of providing false information in connection with a requirement to register with immigration authorities or of other violations relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other entry documents.
    has received a final order of deportation for document fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, or related violations.
    falsely represents himself or herself as a U.S. citizen in order to gain any immigration or other benefit. An exception is made if the person’s parents (natural or adoptive) are or were U.S. citizens, the person lived in the United States before age 16, and the person reasonably believed himself or herself to be a U.S. citizen.
    is engaged, or at any time after admission engages in espionage, sabotage, or violations or evasions of any law prohibiting export of goods, technology, or sensitive information, or in any other criminal activity that is a danger to public safety or national security, or acts in opposition to, or attempts to control or overthrow the U.S. government by force, violence, or other unlawful means.
    has engaged in or appears likely to engage in terrorist activity, or has incited terrorist activity, or is a representative a terrorist organization or group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity, or is a member of a terrorist organization (unless the person proves that he had no idea of its terrorist aims), or endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to do so, or has received military-type training from or on behalf a terrorist organization, or is the terrorist’s spouse or child, if the relevant activity took place within the last five years.
    by being present in the U.S., would create potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.
    participated in Nazi persecution, genocide, torture, or extrajudicial killings, severe violations of religious freedom, or recruitment or use of child soldiers.
    within five years after U.S. entry, has become a public charge (dependent on need-based government assistance) for reasons that did not arise after the person’s U.S. entry.
    has voted in violation of any federal, state, or local law. An exception is made for people who, based on parentage, reasonably believed themselves to be U.S. citizens.

Even if the immigration authorities believe that you are deportable, you will not be kicked out of the country right away. In most cases (unless, for example, there is an outstanding order of removal in your file), you have a right to defend your case in immigration court. For some types of deportability, the law may provide a waiver (legal forgiveness) that you can apply for. Definitely get expert help from a lawyer's help if you are facing removal proceedings or believe you may have become deportable

When I criticize political parties or candidates, I am not criticizing you. If I criticize you, there will be no doubt in your mind as to what I am saying.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4206
  • Darwins +256/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • I find your lack of hate disturbing.
Re: The Immigration Debate
« Reply #23 on: Today at 07:09:53 PM »
New Underground Railroad

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/450-churches-prepare-to-act-as-trump-era-underground-railroad-for-undocumented-immigrants/

I hate to be facetious here, Shnozzola, because I don't know exactly where you are personally coming from but I was under the impression that religious institutions were generally considered the cause, not a solution, to the worlds problems.
« Last Edit: Today at 07:12:11 PM by Mr. Blackwell »
When I criticize political parties or candidates, I am not criticizing you. If I criticize you, there will be no doubt in your mind as to what I am saying.

Offline shnozzola

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2819
  • Darwins +206/-2
Re: The Immigration Debate
« Reply #24 on: Today at 07:19:56 PM »
   Yeah, I know what you're saying.  WWGHA isn't quite the place to be posting something a church is doing that I consider to be a good thing.
We have guided missiles and misguided men.  ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.