jeffreyhy

Matt,

I think that if the criminal act is serious enough to warrant Government housing, the Government should be able to deport the alien on the grounds of his criminal conviction, rather than house them.

What crimes, if any, are deportable?

Regards, JEff

Matthew Udall

I believe what happens is they are made to do their time in U.S. prison, and upon fulfillment of that punishment there is a hold placed on them for the USCIS (or whomever) to come get them for removal.

It wouldn't be much of a punishment if an immigrant were just sent home without serving their sentence.

jeffreyhy

I thought prison was for rehabilitation, not punishment. Oh well.

Seriously, if one purpose of imprisonment is to protect our society from the perp, sending him packing with a big flag on his CIS file should accomplish the same thing at lower cost. Don't we make conceptually similar trade-offs in giving little fish reduced sentences if they provide information or testimony about bigger fish?

What about arrangements with other countries to have their citizens serve their sentence at home? I believe that exists in reverse, does it not, where we might be able to get a US citizen released from a hell-hole prison in some other country if we promise to make him serve out his sentence in one of our more humane prisons?

Just some random thoughts....

Regards, JEff

Matthew Udall

So they say. Since I'm not involved with removal defense cases, I'm not very up on these particular issues. Perhaps someone else with more experience on these issues will have more to say.

Andrew Defaria

bob austin wrote:

    > DCMark is a troll Andrew, don't waste your time replying

Please do not tell me who is a troll nor what to do with my time.

Thank you.

--
You know how it is when you're walking up the stairs, and you get to the
top, and you think there's one more step? I'm like that all the time.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Its the ICE-men who do the deed.

They do "IHP" hearings in some of the jails so that ICE can remove them upon completion of their sentence.

Did an IHP last year in Lompoc -- lovely drive -- I make sure I wear my hush puppies when entering a jail and leave the cell phone in the car. [I also couldn't take the Palm in either which made setting a future hearing a bitch -- we set the hearing with the idea I might be back in 20 minutes to request another date, but I digress].

The client in question is the derivative beneficiary of an FB-3 petition about 3 or 4 years from coming current.

He was clearly and unequivocally deportable -- for conviction of a CIMT. So he would be able to apply for a 212(h) waiver when the time came.

However, former INS charged him as an aggravated felon -- which he was not. No 212(h) waiver for ag fels.

I explained to the court that he was removable, no doubt about it, but not AS CHARGED and would INS please amend the charging NTA? I explained that the whole idea of the exercise was to have the door back padlocked shut rather than welded shut and bricked over. After three hearings we get an order deporting him as having been convicted of a CIMT.

The day he completes his sentence, INS takes him into custody and deports him the next day -- we even provided the plane ticket.

The upshot, acting in total disregard of the court, they deported him as an aggravated felon any ways. I'm tearing my hair out in fixing this.

ELo

Thanks for your other response to my posting. I know I'm a bit testy about this. I just think people need to consider the spouses in my case, as well. I think it's simplistic to just call it vindictive. Trust me, I wish my marriage had just "failed."

And I know I'm not alone. I've found the other court cases.

I think it is important to move on with my life -- and boy is it hard. But I think I also need to be honest about what happened to me.

Thanks for the suggestion about contacting a battered women's shelter. I contacted one for counselling and legal advice when I fled my house.

ELo

Don't sweat it ...

And you're right, it does occur between US/US couples, as well. Luckily, I'm not rich enough to be a target ...

Andrew Defaria

jeffreyhy wrote:

    > Go back and read the whole affidavit carefully. The immigrant can sue
    > the sponsor directly, at the sponsor's expense, for a level of support
    > up to the 125% of poverty level.

I was told it was only for public, means tested benefits. Perhaps the
people that has told me were wrong.

    > Exactly. (And it's permanently depart the US, I believe. Remember, the
    > I-864 becomes effective when the immigrant obtains Permanent Resident
    > status, at which point the immigrant can go and return pretty much as
    > they please.)

I wonder, how is one to know when one permanently departs the US?
Nothing is really permanent as nobody can tell the future. There must be
some test employed I would guess.

    > That's one way to look at it. The way the government looks at it, if a
    > USC wants to bring a foreigner into the country to live with them as
    > their spouse, then it's that USC's responsibility to insure that said
    > immigrant does not sponge off the rest of us until said immigrant
    > demonstrates that they are contributing to society. (or leaves
    > permanently or dies)

Ah yes, sponging of the rest of us is a right of USCs only I supposed
    :-( . Seriously, however, why shouldn't it be the foreigner's
responsibility?!? We wouldn't want to put responsibility onto the actual
responsible party not would we! That would make way too much sense!

I can understand them expecting and deserving of some support for some
time period but I believe that everybody has a responsibility to be
self-sufficient (barring medical impossibilities) and that no man should
be forced into giving up his life for the sake of another. But hey
that's just me...

    > I agree with the government, despite the fact that I'm one of those
    > who's on the hook.

I believe in placing responsibility directly on the people who are
responsible.
--
I intend to live forever - so far, so good

Andrew Defaria

Folinskyinla wrote:

    > Lets posit a situation: Mr. Citizen marries Ms. Alien and she
    > immigrates. In the process, Mr. C does the I-864 on behalf of Ms. A.
    > Six years later, Ms. A runs into her high school flame [whose wife
    > just died] and the sparks are reignited between Ms. A and Mr. HSF. Mr.
    > C and Ms. A get divorced.

IMHO, he's on the hook at the divorce, no? BTW wouldn't she be Mrs. C.
Never mind ;-)

    > Ms. A is so dreamy over her new romance, she is not as careful as she
    > should be in crossing the street and doesn't see the speeding car that
    > hits her. Since the car is driven by Mr Illegal, he was unable to get
    > a California driver's license and therefore obtain the concominitant
    > auto insurance policy.
    > Ms. A is severly injured, has no medical insuarance, unable to work
    > and goes to the hospital for major treatment.
    > Mr. C is on the hook.

Again, I'm pretty sure Mr. C. was on "the hook" when they divorced,
however, it is also possible that Ms. A. naturalized (I believe it can
be done in < 6 years). In any event, and regardless of what the law
actually states, my personal feelings are that Ms. A. should be a
responsible, adjusted, adult. IOW she should be in the same pickle (and
correspondingly Mr. C. should be in the same pickle) if the exact same
situation happened but Ms. A. was a USC. Again this is my opinion.

--
What do people in China call their good plates?

Andrew Defaria

Matthew Udall wrote:

    > What do you think? Should the sponsor have to reimburse the government
    > for the costs associated with housing the criminal the sponsor just
    > had to bring in? (I vote no :-).

I vote no too. Besides, isn't the alien removable for commission of
certain crimes?

--
If you can read this I can hit my brakes and sue you.

Andrew Defaria

Matthew Udall wrote:

    > I believe what happens is they are made to do their time in U.S.
    > prison, and upon fulfillment of that punishment there is a hold placed
    > on them for the USCIS (or whomever) to come get them for removal.
    > It wouldn't be much of a punishment if an immigrant were just sent
    > home without serving their sentence.

My understanding is that if they are convicted of an aggravated felony
then the BICE comes and picks them up before the end of their sentence
and puts them into removal proceedings.

--
Why is "abbreviation" such a long word?

Andrew Defaria

Folinskyinla wrote:

    > Its the ICE-men who do the deed.

Gives new meaning to "The ice man cometh" I guess (just had to say that).

--
I'd explain it to you, but your brain would explode.

lpdiver

Yes I have considered it. I sat down with her before the beginning of this odessy and asked point blank have you...

Ever been a prostitute

Ever had any dealings with the police

And so forth. I explained to her in detail what my expectations were and asked her about hers. I also explained my expectations in case of divorce. I did not get a prenup. Is she playing me...time will tell. But she is similar in age as myself. Also she was not in a rush as several of her coworkers were done real dirty by Americans. If a green card or some other finances was her motivation she sure is taking her sweet time about it all.

jeffreyhy

Andrew,

Yes, perhaps what you were told was wrong. And now you've been told differently, which may also be wrong. So perhaps you should read the affidavit yourself.

So do I. And the USC who brought the foreign spouse to the US is one of the people who is directly responsible.

Regards, JEff