mikelincs

This article has just appeared in the Guardian, doesn't seem to be an April Fool spoof either.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...medium=twitter

Something for people to be aware of?

scrubbedexpat099

With the Guardian it is often difficult to spot the difference, I have seen a few comments in the last week wondering if they had published April Fool's stories early.

Often there is significant information left out, particularly suspicious where comments have not been allowed.

nun

This happened in Lowell......FYI birthplace of Jack Kerouac and Bette Davis. It's an example of the authorities prioritizing the deportation of non-residents over the happiness of US families. IMHO immigration policy should seek to keep families together rather than separating them and taking people into custody when they are pursing a route to permanent residence is a cruel policy.

scrubbedexpat099

A quick look suggests they all had Deportation Orders, ie had been through the process and ordered deported by a judge.

civilservant

Little sympathy where someone has previously not been following the law. The trouble with living outside the law is that you no longer have the protection of it.

kimilseung

When did that little bit of draconian demagoguery happen?

civilservant

It's a quote from Truman Capote - which I'm sure you already know.

kimilseung

I didnt actually. My knowledge of Capote extends little beyond the portrayal of him by Toby Jones.

tom169

I agree. They knew the risks... Or at least they do now.

Rete

In the 20 years I've been around most everything, with the exception of a criminal records, is forgiven of the spouse of a USC. Even overstay, working without authorization, use of a fraudulent ss#, etc. Yes, they are all crimes but not ones that they have been charged with prior to their AOS interview.

I'm a USC and I had to get my husband here for marriage and PR status through legal channels. Why is it different for me than for them?

I agree they knew the risks when they came and overstayed, lived, worked, married, had children, etc. So the risk caught up with a few. Marriage to a USC should not be a free pass cancelling out your past criminal behavior. If I were to kill someone but assist my neighbor in a life threatening situation that does negate my crime. So you paid taxes on money you weren't suppose to be earning. The government should pat you on the back and say "good boy"? I should feel for you because you have children? So you had unprotected sexual relations and the result was a child? Why is that a free pass?

scrubbedexpat099

If you had been to Court and ordered deported you would have thought it might have registered.

nun

We should be maximizing happiness, not deporting people that have overstayed a visa and are now trying to get back into compliance. Deportation will separate US families and cause hardship. I would prefer to see a policy that seeks to keep families together rather than splitting them apart.

scrubbedexpat099

People who have gone through the system and its many layers and eventually ended up in Court and were ordered deported, which they ignored.

carcajou

I have no problem with the government deporting overstayers.

I, too, value the cohesion of my family - which is why I make sure our immigration situation is in full compliance with the law.

I don't just say - boy that looks like a lot of paperwork, and I don't feel like going down to the immigration office this morning. Stuff that.

I am a USC and the hoops I have to jump through for my wife to have a Green Card - why is "stuff that" not an option for me too then, if it is for others?

I do understand, "stuff that" is chosen on a few occasions not because of laziness but because someone would otherwise be inadmissable to the country, say because of prior criminal record. If they are inadmissable - they should go. You don't get squatters' rights, and be able to say "stuff that, I'm already here, so you can't make me go."

The thing is, these policies are there to protect both migrant and country. "Stuff that" is not on.

You see the problem. I suggest one reason for the volatile situation of electorates - in the US and Europe - is a lot of people choosing to break their backs trying to do the right thing and getting no reward, while others are saying "stuff that" with no consequence whatsoever. Then the supporters of those saying "stuff that," try to give an ethics lecture to those trying to do the right thing.

Not just with immigration. Also with things like Wall Street executives. They misappropriate millions, but can't be prosecuted because "what kind of message would that be sending to business in this economy?" Yet someone in New York who skips out on a $3 subway fare is having the full majesty of the law brought down on them.

nun

I would argue that a "utilitarian" approach is good in such circumstances. Deporting the non-resident spouse and separating them from their family hurts more innocent people than it punishes guilty ones. Also overstaying a visa is a small infraction. There is little public interest in ripping apart US families...it causes more harm than good. There is the law and then there is the just application of the law and I think ICE is being unjust in such cases.