Interesting News on I601

[Sergi9 110]

Which proves the point yet again: Be careful whom you marry BEFORE marrying.Oh, so you're a mind-reader? If you're that good or accurate, start your own television show, like The Amazing Kreskin. Until then, quit attributing unprovable motives to others. And you still haven't justified (or apologized for) your having dumped on the entire K-1 population of VJ just because someone who's incidentally in that category happens to disagree with your reasoning. We're waiting, please.

I am sorry you stopped by with your "advice" . Whatever your motive... ?

As for your assertion I am "dumping on" the ENTIRE K-1 population ... I don't get that. Certainly there is evidence that some practical folks made a selection of a spouse in a certain way, why get the panties in a wad over that?

It is well documented by the http://www.cis.org/marriagefraud"]Center for Immigration Studies[/url]that some marriages actually are of this nature, what percentage ... who knows?

How can stating a fact be "dumping" ? Or are you mind reading too?

[TBoneTX 42,990]

I am sorry you stopped by with your "advice" . Whatever your motive... ?

Then you shouldn't have expressed your opinions in a freely public thread.

Others here are as free to express their opinions as you are to express yours. In several of your replies, you have seemed to resent that reality.

Not counting the OP, five other posters (respected around here, too) have disagreed with you to greater or lesser extents, and only one seems to have agreed (very sarcastically so). If this ratio holds, you probably can't count on much sympathy or empathy. One would imagine that the disagreement would be much more vehement among the general U.S. public -- and that THAT disagreement would match or exceed the emotionalism with which you have countered the largely restrained, well-reasoned arguments here. Good luck with your project, friend.

[Used to be broken 143]

Then you shouldn't have expressed your opinions in a freely public thread.

Others here are as free to express their opinions as you are to express yours. In several of your replies, you have seemed to resent that reality.

Not counting the OP, five other posters (respected around here, too) have disagreed with you to greater or lesser extents, and only one seems to have agreed (very sarcastically so). If this ratio holds, you probably can't count on much sympathy or empathy. One would imagine that the disagreement would be much more vehement among the general U.S. public -- and that THAT disagreement would match or exceed the emotionalism with which you have countered the largely restrained, well-reasoned arguments here. Good luck with your project, friend.

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I started this Post as Informational as most of my posts in I601 forum are with the exception of those where I post in response to a direct question on I601 or I212 issues. I intended this to inform those interested about a group that appears to be forming a Class Action Lawsuit for US Citizens affected by I601 process.

I don't know how you come to the conclusion that folks veering off to begin a discussion that has nothing to do with the original post can be well reasoned. A well reasoned discussion of this topic might have been the case law regarding the legal standing a US Citizen has in the proposed class action. By that I mean not how they "feel" about it or what they speculate the general consensus is but what the law actually says. As someone pointed out early on Voters don't get involved in Class Action Lawsuits.

I can appreciate Sergi's frustration with the thread. I also do not see where your comment was either helpful or informative to people who are either interested in knowing about this class action or going through the I601 process, unless one considers finger wagging after the fact helpful.

As for "restraint"....maybe people who live in glass houses should not throw stones? In other words the basis for the K petition and the CR1 petition for alien relative is the same; an I130 based on the relationship to a US Citizen spouse or fiance.

Back to topic, the bars do seem excessive and apply only to a fraction of CR1 applicants which is what I believe might be the basis of the class action? It will be interesting to see what legal argument they go with although based on the direction this thread took, I am sure when it does I will not post it here.

[Boiler 43,363]

So what do we know:

1. The site is amateurish. Something I could have put together.

2. I do know a bit more about the issue that whoever put it together.

3. Why do they need money, they do not say.

4. I am not sure exactly how many cases you need to be considered a class action. I just can not imagine they would not have enough on their books without needing to advertise for more.

5. I can think of no legal basis, they do not mention any. There is no mention of the legal team involved, you would expect at least a summary of the basis.

6. Is it a scam, probably not, my guess put together by someone who is just making noise.

[Sergi9 110]

5. I can think of no legal basis, they do not mention any. There is no mention of the legal team involved, you would expect at least a summary of the basis.

His deportation is thus imposed for neglect to obtain a certificate of residence, from which he can only escape by showing his inability to secure it from one of the causes named. That is the punishment

Page 149 U. S. 759

for his neglect, and that, being of an infamous character, can only be imposed after indictment, trial, and conviction. If applied to a citizen, none of the Justices of this Court would hesitate a moment to pronounce it illegal. Had the punishment been a fine, or anything else than of an infamous character, it might have been imposed without indictment; but not so now, unless we hold that a foreigner from a country at peace with us, though domiciled by the consent of our Government, is withdrawn from all the guaranties of due process of law prescribed by the Constitution, when charged with an offense to which the grave punishment designated is affixed.

The punishment is beyond all reason in its severity. It is out of all proportion to the alleged offense. It is cruel and unusual. As to its cruelty, nothing can exceed a forcible deportation from a country of one's residence, and the breaking up of all the relations of friendship, family, and business there contracted. The laborer may be seized at a distance from his home, his family, and his business, and taken before the judge for his condemnation, without permission to visit his home, see his family, or complete any unfinished business. Mr. Madison well pictures its character in his powerful denunciation of the alien law of 1798, in his celebrated report upon the resolutions, from which we have cited, and concludes, as we have seen, that if a banishment of the sort described be not a punishment, and among the severest of punishments, it will be difficult to imagine a doom to which the name can be applied.

"Were it admitted, as is contended, that the 'act concerning aliens' has for its object, not a penal, but a preventive, justice, it would still remain to be proved that it comes within the constitutional power of the Federal Legislature, and, if within its power, that the Legislature has exercised it in a constitutional manner. . . . But it can never be admitted that the removal of aliens, authorized by the act, is to be considered not as punishment for an offense, but as a measure of

Page 149 U. S. 749

precaution and prevention. If the banishment of an alien from a country into which he has been invited as the asylum most auspicious to his happiness -- a country where he may have formed the most tender connections; where he may have invested his entire property, and acquired property of the real and permanent as well as the movable and temporary kind; where he enjoys, under the laws, a greater share of the blessings of personal security and personal liberty than he can elsewhere hope for; . . . if a banishment of this sort be not a punishment, and among the severest of punishments, it would be difficult to imagine a doom to which the name can be applied. And, if it be a punishment, it will remain to be inquired whether it can be constitutionally inflicted, on mere suspicion, by the single will of the executive magistrate, on persons convicted of no personal offense against the laws of the land, nor involved in any offense against the law of nations, charged on the foreign state of which they are members."

Page 149 U. S. 744

Profound and wise were the observations of Mr. Justice Bradley, speaking for the court in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 635:

"Illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches, and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be, 'obsta principiis.'"

The duration of the act was limited to two years, and it has ever since been the subject of universal condemnation. In no other instance, until the law before us was passed, has any public man had the boldness to advocate the deportation of friendly aliens in time of peace. I repeat the statement that in no other instance has the deportation of friendly aliens been advocated as a lawful measure by any department of our Government. And it will surprise most people to learn that any such dangerous and despotic power lies in our Government -- a power which will authorize it to expel at pleasure, in time of peace, the whole body of friendly foreigners of any country domiciled herein by its permission; a power which can be brought into exercise whenever it may suit the pleasure of Congress, and be enforced without regard to the guaranties of the Constitution intended for the protection of the rights of all persons in their liberty and property. Is it possible that Congress can, at its pleasure, in disregard of the guaranties of the Constitution, expel at any time the Irish, German, French, and English who may have taken up their residence here on the invitation of the Government, while we are at peace with the countries from which they came, simply on the ground that they have not been naturalized?

The situation was well described by Senator Sherman in the debate in the senate:

It is true this statute is directed only against the obnoxious Chinese, but, if the power exists, who shall say it will not be exercised tomorrow against other classes and other people? If the guaranties of these amendments can be thus ignored in order to get rid of this distasteful class, what security have others that a like disregard of its provisions may not be resorted to?

In the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 118 U. S. 369, it was said:

"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:"

"Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

"These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws."

I pass, therefore, to the consideration of my third proposition: Section 6 deprives of "life, liberty, and property without due process of law." It imposes punishment without a trial, and punishment cruel and severe. It places the liberty of one individual subject to the unrestrained control of another.

Page 149 U. S. 740

Deportation is punishment. It involves -- first, an arrest, a deprival of liberty, and, second, a removal from home, from family, from business, from property. In 1 Rapalje & Lawrence's Law Dictionary (vol. 1, page 109), "banishment" is thus defined:

"A punishment by forced exile, either for years or for life, inflicted principally upon political offenders; 'transportation' being the word used to express a similar punishment of ordinary criminals."

But it needs no citation of authorities to support the proposition that deportation is punishment. Everyone knows that to be forcibly taken away from home and family and friends and business and property, and sent across the ocean to a distant land, is punishment, and that oftentimes most severe and cruel. Apt and just are the words of one of the framers of this Constitution -- President Madison -- when he says (4 Elliot Debates 555):

"If the banishment of an alien from a country into which he has been invited as the asylum most auspicious to his happiness -- a country where he may have formed the most tender connections; where he may have invested his entire property, and acquired property of the real and permanent, as well as the movable and temporary, kind; where he enjoys, under the laws, a greater share of the blessings of personal security and personal liberty than he can elsewhere hope for; . . . if, moreover, in the execution of the sentence against him, he is to be exposed, not only to the ordinary dangers of the sea, but to the peculiar casualties incident to a crisis of war and of unusual licentiousness on

Page 149 U. S. 741

that element, and possibly to vindictive purposes, which his immigration itself may have provoked -- if a banishment of this sort be not a punishment, and among the severest of punishments, it will be difficult to imagine a doom to which the name can be applied."

But punishment implies a trial: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Due process requires that a man be heard before he is condemned, and both heard and condemned in the due and orderly procedure of a trial, as recognized by the common law from time immemorial. It was said by this Court in Hagar v. Reclamation District, 111 U. S. 701, 111 U. S. 708:

"Undoubtedly, where life and liberty are involved, due process requires that there be a regular course of judicial proceedings, which imply that the party to be affected shall have notice, and an opportunity to be heard."

And by Mr. Justice Bradley, in defining "due process of law" in Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 96 U. S. 107:

"If found to be suitable or admissible in the special case, it will be adjudged to be 'due process of law,' but if found to be arbitrary, oppressive, and unjust, it may be declared to be not 'due process of law.'"

And no person who has once come within the protection of the Constitution can be punished without a trial.

ut here, the Chinese are not arrested and extradited for trial, but arrested and, without a trial, punished by banishment.

Again, it is absolutely within the discretion of the collector to give or refuse a certificate to one who applies therefor. Nowhere is it provided what evidence shall be furnished to the collector, and nowhere is it made mandatory upon him to grant a certificate on the production of such evidence. It cannot

Page 149 U. S. 742

be due process of law to impose punishment on any person for failing to have that in his possession, the possession of which he can obtain only at the arbitrary and unregulated discretion of any official. It will not do to say that the presumption is that the official will act reasonably, and not arbitrarily. When the right to liberty and residence is involved, some other protection than the mere discretion of any official is required.

Well was it said by Mr. Justice Matthews in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins, on page 118 U. S. 369: "When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of Government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power."

As said by this Court, speaking by Mr. Justice Matthews, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 366, 118 U. S. 369:

"When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of Government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. . . . The fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to man the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws."

What once I had occasion to say of the protection afforded by our Government, I repeat:

"It is certainly something in which a citizen of the United States may feel a generous pride that the Government of his country extends protection to all persons within its jurisdiction, and that every blow aimed at any of them, however humble, come from what quarter it may, 'is caught upon the broad shield of our blessed Constitution and our equal laws.'"

Ah Kow v. Nunan, 5 Sawy. 552-563.

I utterly dissent from, and reject, the doctrine expressed in the opinion of the majority that

"Congress, under the power to exclude or expel aliens, might have directed any Chinese laborer found in the United States without a certificate of residence to be removed out of the country by executive officers, without judicial trial or examination, just as it might have authorized such officers absolutely to prevent his entrance into the country."

An arrest in that way, for that purpose, would not be a reasonable seizure of the person, within the meaning of the Fourth Article of the amendments of the Constitution. It would be brutal and oppressive. The

Page 149 U. S. 756

existence of the power thus stated is only consistent with the admission that the Government is one of unlimited and despotic power, so far as aliens domiciled in the country are concerned. According to this theory, Congress might have ordered executive officers to take the Chinese laborers to the ocean, and put them into a boat, and set them adrift, or to take them to the borders of Mexico, and turn them loose there, and in both cases without any means of support. Indeed, it might have sanctioned towards these laborers the most shocking brutality conceivable. I utterly repudiate all such notions, and reply that brutality, inhumanity, and cruelty cannot be made elements in any procedure for the enforcement of the laws of the United States.

[Sergi9 110]

The U.S. Supreme Court has even gone so far as to say that “f any

freedom not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights enjoys a ‘preferred

position’ in the law it is most certainly the family.”2 Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 511 (1977)

There is not a single politician on Capitol Hill that would say they are against family unity. Family,

it seems, is supported by everybody.

The power of the United States government to regulate immigration is not

rooted in any specific text of the Constitution.4 Therefore, “Immigration law

has become an isolated specialty within American law, where normal

constitutional reasoning does not necessarily apply.”5 Congress’s ability to

regulate immigration almost carte blanch gives Congress amazing powers to

effectuate positive or negative change for families hoping to reunify or stay

unified within the United States.

“Although

the plenary power doctrine does not give Congress unlimited power to regulate

aliens [who have already entered], it can result in their exclusion under

conditions which might otherwise be unconstitutional.”8 Thus the framework is

set for family reunification in the United States’ immigration policy.

The INA is full of expressions of legislative concern for the protection and

reunification of families.32 The United States Supreme Court acknowledged the

INA’s legislative history of dedication to family reunification when the Court

noted that the record firmly established that congressional concern was aimed

at “the problem of keeping families of United States citizens and immigrants

united.”33 Other judicial references to the INA have further demonstrated this

congressional concern by noting that the INA has a “humane purpose . . . to

reunite families,”34 and also have declared family reunification as “‘the

foremost policy underlying the granting of preference visas under our

immigration laws.’”35

[Sergi9 110]

http://ijrl.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/3/347.extract

[Sergi9 110]

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to:

1. Declare that Defendants have violated §301 of the Immigration Act of 1990 and applicable regulations by failing to perform to their mandatory duties of timely processing of I601 and I212 applications.

2. Declare that Defendants have unreasonably delayed processing I601/I212 applications;

3. Declare that Defendant's policies and practices violate Plaintiffs' rights to due process;

4. Order Defendants to reduce the processing time for I-601 to 90 days in all four Service Centers and International USCIS offices.

5. Order Defendants to immediately process all named Plaintiffs' I601 applications.

6. Order Defendants to put and keep measures in place to assure that all I-601 continue to be processed within 90 days of filing;

7. Order Defendants to file a report to the Court detailing the specific measures they are taking to accomplish these goals within 30 days from the date of the Court's order;

8. Award the Plaintiffs their attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access for Justice Act, and

9. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just, equitable and proper.

[leahandlucas 15]

I hope that everyone can find answers to what they are looking for..