What If Mexico Was “White”?

[no name 1]

selfish to turn a blind eye to law breakers. Sometimes I hear they call it abetting, dontcha know?!

as in ... aiding and abetting ?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Dev provided me a very interesting link pertaining to the origins of the U visa, and it's very much part of a concerted effort to protect immigrant women who are victims of violence.

I must admit I'm not all that familiar with the "U" Visa, but I thought there was something in the guides or the visa forums somewhere about how to deal with abusive spouses. I think there have actually been cases of that on VJ, where an abused spouse breaks up from the SO before the 2 year conditional status is up, and is still able to get the 10 year LPR status from an immigration judge, even though the relationship which provided the grounds for the original application is over.

Considering it was the basis of the other thread (that you participated in) I find that disturbing, altho amusing.

Cliff Note version: The U visa is for illegals.

More condescension. Given the mods warnings at the start of this thread - is it really so hard to be civil? Or is that being civil would remove a lot of the fun, and hence the motivation to post?

[no name 1]

Dev provided me a very interesting link pertaining to the origins of the U visa, and it's very much part of a concerted effort to protect immigrant women who are victims of violence.

I must admit I'm not all that familiar with the "U" Visa, but I thought there was something in the guides or the visa forums somewhere about how to deal with abusive spouses. I think there have actually been cases of that on VJ, where an abused spouse breaks up from the SO before the 2 year conditional status is up, and is still able to get the 10 year LPR status from an immigration judge, even though the relationship which provided the grounds for the original application is over.

Considering it was the basis of the other thread (that you participated in) I find that disturbing, altho amusing.

Cliff Note version: The U visa is for illegals.

More condescension. Given the mods warnings at the start of this thread - is it really so hard to be civil? Or is that being civil would remove a lot of the fun, and hence the motivation to post?

Enough with the condescension police bit.

As I stated in that other thread - I read up on something before I debate it - for knowledge & ammunition. I expect others do too. I assumed wrong. Weakens your argument even more if you don't know the basic premise of what the actual thread was about...IMO.

Even PH had no problem asking for clarification/links on some bits.

Edited November 15, 2007 by devilette

[natty bumppo 297]

Dev provided me a very interesting link pertaining to the origins of the U visa, and it's very much part of a concerted effort to protect immigrant women who are victims of violence.

I must admit I'm not all that familiar with the "U" Visa, but I thought there was something in the guides or the visa forums somewhere about how to deal with abusive spouses. I think there have actually been cases of that on VJ, where an abused spouse breaks up from the SO before the 2 year conditional status is up, and is still able to get the 10 year LPR status from an immigration judge, even though the relationship which provided the grounds for the original application is over.

Considering it was the basis of the other thread (that you participated in) I find that disturbing, altho amusing.

Cliff Note version: The U visa is for illegals.

More condescension. Given the mods warnings at the start of this thread - is it really so hard to be civil? Or is that being civil would remove a lot of the fun, and hence the motivation to post?

The U Visa is for illegals ? Wow .... what is so uncivil about that ?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Dev provided me a very interesting link pertaining to the origins of the U visa, and it's very much part of a concerted effort to protect immigrant women who are victims of violence.

I must admit I'm not all that familiar with the "U" Visa, but I thought there was something in the guides or the visa forums somewhere about how to deal with abusive spouses. I think there have actually been cases of that on VJ, where an abused spouse breaks up from the SO before the 2 year conditional status is up, and is still able to get the 10 year LPR status from an immigration judge, even though the relationship which provided the grounds for the original application is over.

Considering it was the basis of the other thread (that you participated in) I find that disturbing, altho amusing.

Cliff Note version: The U visa is for illegals.

More condescension. Given the mods warnings at the start of this thread - is it really so hard to be civil? Or is that being civil would remove a lot of the fun, and hence the motivation to post?

Enough with the condescension police bit.

As I stated in that other thread - I read up on something before I debate it - for knowledge & ammunition. I expect others do too. I assumed wrong. Weakens the argiument even more if you don't know the basic premise of what the actual thread was about, no?

No Dev - I'm specifically asking you to drop the hostile act you insist on putting out towards myself and others. So no - I won't "drop it" just because my reaction to your attitude is inconvenient to your putting it out. If anything weakens an argument its rudeness.

And BTW - I did know what the "basic premise" of that thread was about. I read the article after all - I posted my opinion on it. I pretty sure I didn't pretend to have specific knowledge of the "U" visa, its background and legal applications - nor did I claim to.

[no name 1]

I must admit I'm not all that familiar with the "U" Visa, but I thought there was something in the guides or the visa forums somewhere about how to deal with abusive spouses. I think there have actually been cases of that on VJ, where an abused spouse breaks up from the SO before the 2 year conditional status is up, and is still able to get the 10 year LPR status from an immigration judge, even though the relationship which provided the grounds for the original application is over.

Considering it was the basis of the other thread (that you participated in) I find that disturbing, altho amusing.

Cliff Note version: The U visa is for illegals.

More condescension. Given the mods warnings at the start of this thread - is it really so hard to be civil? Or is that being civil would remove a lot of the fun, and hence the motivation to post?

Enough with the condescension police bit.

As I stated in that other thread - I read up on something before I debate it - for knowledge & ammunition. I expect others do too. I assumed wrong. Weakens the argiument even more if you don't know the basic premise of what the actual thread was about, no?

No Dev - I'm specifically asking you to drop the hostile act you insist on putting out towards myself and others. So no - I won't "drop it" just because my reaction to your attitude is inconvenient to your putting it out. If anything weakens an argument its rudeness.

And BTW - I did know what the "basic premise" of that thread was about. I read the article after all - I posted my opinion on it. I pretty sure I didn't pretend to have specific knowledge of the "U" visa, its background and legal applications - nor did I claim to.

Really?

The first 3 paragraphs state it quite plainly:

OMAHA, Nebraska — A 13-year-old illegal immigrant who fled to his native Mexico amid a sex scandal with his schoolteacher could be eligible to return to the United States under a new visa the U.S. government started granting the week before he disappeared.

The visa helps illegal immigrants who are victims of sex crimes. If the boy, who spent most of his life in Nebraska, qualifies, he could stay legally in the United States for four years and eventually apply for permanent residency. It also would extend temporary residency to his parents and his unmarried siblings under 18, if they applied for it.

"It's a win-win," U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokeswoman Marilu Cabrera said of the so-called "U" visa. "It helps us and law enforcement be able to solve a crime, and it certainly helps the individual who is a victim of a crime."

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Why is it presented as if only whites are racist? "Brown people" can be racist too.

A south Los Angeles Latino street gang targeted African-American gang rivals and other blacks in a campaign of neighborhood "cleansing," federal prosecutors say. Alleged leaders and foot soldiers in the Hispanic gang Florencia 13, also called F13, are being arraigned this week on charges stemming from a pair of federal indictments that allege that the gang kept a tight grip on its turf by shooting members of a rival gang—and sometimes random black civilians. The "most disturbing aspect" of the federal charges was that "innocent citizens … ended up being shot simply because of the color of their skin," U.S. Attorney Thomas O'Brien told reporters in announcing the indictments.

Racial ‘Cleansing’ in L.A.

I'm always amused by charges of Americans' racism toward "poor brown Mexicans". Caucasians rule Mexico and, despite high rates of race mixing within the population, the privileged class remains overwhelmingly Caucasian. They are the ones exporting "poor brown Mexicans", their poverty, illiteracy and poor hygiene into the US; the population that is most ecomonically marginalized in the richest country in Central America.

The irony of this is that "brown Mexicans", thru agreements between the US state Dept and the government of Mexico, are automatically classified as "white" when made legal, no matter how non-white their physicality is. Few, if any, foreign governments have made agreements with the Dept of State that don't change their expatriates from non-white to white on paper. Becoming "white" is a perk of immigration. So, legallize "poor brown Mexicans" and you not only get theoretical Democrat voters, but more white folks in the US. There's enough hypocrisy to go around without invoking charges of racism.

Edited November 15, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I must admit I'm not all that familiar with the "U" Visa, but I thought there was something in the guides or the visa forums somewhere about how to deal with abusive spouses. I think there have actually been cases of that on VJ, where an abused spouse breaks up from the SO before the 2 year conditional status is up, and is still able to get the 10 year LPR status from an immigration judge, even though the relationship which provided the grounds for the original application is over.

Considering it was the basis of the other thread (that you participated in) I find that disturbing, altho amusing.

Cliff Note version: The U visa is for illegals.

More condescension. Given the mods warnings at the start of this thread - is it really so hard to be civil? Or is that being civil would remove a lot of the fun, and hence the motivation to post?

Enough with the condescension police bit.

As I stated in that other thread - I read up on something before I debate it - for knowledge & ammunition. I expect others do too. I assumed wrong. Weakens the argiument even more if you don't know the basic premise of what the actual thread was about, no?

No Dev - I'm specifically asking you to drop the hostile act you insist on putting out towards myself and others. So no - I won't "drop it" just because my reaction to your attitude is inconvenient to your putting it out. If anything weakens an argument its rudeness.

And BTW - I did know what the "basic premise" of that thread was about. I read the article after all - I posted my opinion on it. I pretty sure I didn't pretend to have specific knowledge of the "U" visa, its background and legal applications - nor did I claim to.

Really?

The first 3 paragraphs state it quite plainly:

OMAHA, Nebraska — A 13-year-old illegal immigrant who fled to his native Mexico amid a sex scandal with his schoolteacher could be eligible to return to the United States under a new visa the U.S. government started granting the week before he disappeared.

The visa helps illegal immigrants who are victims of sex crimes. If the boy, who spent most of his life in Nebraska, qualifies, he could stay legally in the United States for four years and eventually apply for permanent residency. It also would extend temporary residency to his parents and his unmarried siblings under 18, if they applied for it.

"It's a win-win," U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokeswoman Marilu Cabrera said of the so-called "U" visa. "It helps us and law enforcement be able to solve a crime, and it certainly helps the individual who is a victim of a crime."

PH read that article too and still had questions.

As I said - I never at any point claimed to have specific detailed knowledge about the "U" visa. In fact - looking through the thread - you were the only person doing that. Kudos to you for the research - but again it has nothing to do with what I posted in the thread, so waving it in my face is really meaningless.

I was concerned with the quibbling over:

i) Whether or not the boy was the victim of a crime.

ii) Whether or not his sexual relationship with the teacher was 'consensual'.

iii) Whether or not he knew what he was doing so he could somehow cynically secure an immigrant benefit.

In fact - the majority of the people who posted in that thread didn't reference the "U" visa specifically either.

Edited November 15, 2007 by Number 6

[natty bumppo 297]

PH read that article too and still had questions.

As I said - I never at any point claimed to have specific detailed knowledge about the "U" visa. In fact - looking through the thread - you were the only person doing that. Kudos to you for the research - but again it has nothing to do with what I posted in the thread, so waving it in my face is really meaningless.

I was concerned with the quibbling over:

i) Whether or not the boy was the victim of a crime.

ii) Whether or not his sexual relationship with the teacher was 'consensual'.

iii) Whether or not he knew what he was doing so he could somehow cynically secure an immigrant benefit.

Speaking for PH ?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

PH read that article too and still had questions.

As I said - I never at any point claimed to have specific detailed knowledge about the "U" visa. In fact - looking through the thread - you were the only person doing that. Kudos to you for the research - but again it has nothing to do with what I posted in the thread, so waving it in my face is really meaningless.

I was concerned with the quibbling over:

i) Whether or not the boy was the victim of a crime.

ii) Whether or not his sexual relationship with the teacher was 'consensual'.

iii) Whether or not he knew what he was doing so he could somehow cynically secure an immigrant benefit.

Speaking for PH ?

Simply referencing comments she made to that effect in the other thread.

[no name 1]

I must admit I'm not all that familiar with the "U" Visa, but I thought there was something in the guides or the visa forums somewhere about how to deal with abusive spouses. I think there have actually been cases of that on VJ, where an abused spouse breaks up from the SO before the 2 year conditional status is up, and is still able to get the 10 year LPR status from an immigration judge, even though the relationship which provided the grounds for the original application is over.

Considering it was the basis of the other thread (that you participated in) I find that disturbing, altho amusing.

Cliff Note version: The U visa is for illegals.

More condescension. Given the mods warnings at the start of this thread - is it really so hard to be civil? Or is that being civil would remove a lot of the fun, and hence the motivation to post?

Enough with the condescension police bit.

As I stated in that other thread - I read up on something before I debate it - for knowledge & ammunition. I expect others do too. I assumed wrong. Weakens the argiument even more if you don't know the basic premise of what the actual thread was about, no?

No Dev - I'm specifically asking you to drop the hostile act you insist on putting out towards myself and others. So no - I won't "drop it" just because my reaction to your attitude is inconvenient to your putting it out. If anything weakens an argument its rudeness.

And BTW - I did know what the "basic premise" of that thread was about. I read the article after all - I posted my opinion on it. I pretty sure I didn't pretend to have specific knowledge of the "U" visa, its background and legal applications - nor did I claim to.

Really?

The first 3 paragraphs state it quite plainly:

OMAHA, Nebraska — A 13-year-old illegal immigrant who fled to his native Mexico amid a sex scandal with his schoolteacher could be eligible to return to the United States under a new visa the U.S. government started granting the week before he disappeared.

The visa helps illegal immigrants who are victims of sex crimes. If the boy, who spent most of his life in Nebraska, qualifies, he could stay legally in the United States for four years and eventually apply for permanent residency. It also would extend temporary residency to his parents and his unmarried siblings under 18, if they applied for it.

"It's a win-win," U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokeswoman Marilu Cabrera said of the so-called "U" visa. "It helps us and law enforcement be able to solve a crime, and it certainly helps the individual who is a victim of a crime."

PH read that article too and still had questions.

As I said - I never at any point claimed to have specific detailed knowledge about the "U" visa. In fact - looking through the thread - you were the only person doing that. Kudos to you for the research - but again it has nothing to do with what I posted in the thread, so waving it in my face is really meaningless.

I was concerned with the quibbling over:

i) Whether or not the boy was the victim of a crime.

ii) Whether or not his sexual relationship with the teacher was 'consensual'.

iii) Whether or not he knew what he was doing so he could somehow cynically secure an immigrant benefit.

In fact - the majority of the people who posted in that thread didn't reference the "U" visa specifically either.

Under your bullets, iii implies you read the post - and therefore knew about the U visa/the benefit he, as an ILLEGAL, would get (ie. the entire reason for the post). Obviously not. Spin it all you want #6, you said it yourself.

[natty bumppo 297]

I must admit I'm not all that familiar with the "U" Visa, but I thought there was something in the guides or the visa forums somewhere about how to deal with abusive spouses. I think there have actually been cases of that on VJ, where an abused spouse breaks up from the SO before the 2 year conditional status is up, and is still able to get the 10 year LPR status from an immigration judge, even though the relationship which provided the grounds for the original application is over.

Considering it was the basis of the other thread (that you participated in) I find that disturbing, altho amusing.

Cliff Note version: The U visa is for illegals.

More condescension. Given the mods warnings at the start of this thread - is it really so hard to be civil? Or is that being civil would remove a lot of the fun, and hence the motivation to post?

Enough with the condescension police bit.

As I stated in that other thread - I read up on something before I debate it - for knowledge & ammunition. I expect others do too. I assumed wrong. Weakens the argiument even more if you don't know the basic premise of what the actual thread was about, no?

No Dev - I'm specifically asking you to drop the hostile act you insist on putting out towards myself and others. So no - I won't "drop it" just because my reaction to your attitude is inconvenient to your putting it out. If anything weakens an argument its rudeness.

And BTW - I did know what the "basic premise" of that thread was about. I read the article after all - I posted my opinion on it. I pretty sure I didn't pretend to have specific knowledge of the "U" visa, its background and legal applications - nor did I claim to.

Really?

The first 3 paragraphs state it quite plainly:

OMAHA, Nebraska — A 13-year-old illegal immigrant who fled to his native Mexico amid a sex scandal with his schoolteacher could be eligible to return to the United States under a new visa the U.S. government started granting the week before he disappeared.

The visa helps illegal immigrants who are victims of sex crimes. If the boy, who spent most of his life in Nebraska, qualifies, he could stay legally in the United States for four years and eventually apply for permanent residency. It also would extend temporary residency to his parents and his unmarried siblings under 18, if they applied for it.

"It's a win-win," U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokeswoman Marilu Cabrera said of the so-called "U" visa. "It helps us and law enforcement be able to solve a crime, and it certainly helps the individual who is a victim of a crime."

PH read that article too and still had questions.

As I said - I never at any point claimed to have specific detailed knowledge about the "U" visa. In fact - looking through the thread - you were the only person doing that. Kudos to you for the research - but again it has nothing to do with what I posted in the thread, so waving it in my face is really meaningless.

I was concerned with the quibbling over:

i) Whether or not the boy was the victim of a crime.

ii) Whether or not his sexual relationship with the teacher was 'consensual'.

iii) Whether or not he knew what he was doing so he could somehow cynically secure an immigrant benefit.

In fact - the majority of the people who posted in that thread didn't reference the "U" visa specifically either.

Under your bullets, iii implies you read the post - and therefore knew about the U visa/the benefit he, as an ILLEGAL, would get (ie. the entire reason for the post). Obviously not. Spin it all you want #6, you said it yourself.

did I hear the word .... uncle ???

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I must admit I'm not all that familiar with the "U" Visa, but I thought there was something in the guides or the visa forums somewhere about how to deal with abusive spouses. I think there have actually been cases of that on VJ, where an abused spouse breaks up from the SO before the 2 year conditional status is up, and is still able to get the 10 year LPR status from an immigration judge, even though the relationship which provided the grounds for the original application is over.

Considering it was the basis of the other thread (that you participated in) I find that disturbing, altho amusing.

Cliff Note version: The U visa is for illegals.

More condescension. Given the mods warnings at the start of this thread - is it really so hard to be civil? Or is that being civil would remove a lot of the fun, and hence the motivation to post?

Enough with the condescension police bit.

As I stated in that other thread - I read up on something before I debate it - for knowledge & ammunition. I expect others do too. I assumed wrong. Weakens the argiument even more if you don't know the basic premise of what the actual thread was about, no?

No Dev - I'm specifically asking you to drop the hostile act you insist on putting out towards myself and others. So no - I won't "drop it" just because my reaction to your attitude is inconvenient to your putting it out. If anything weakens an argument its rudeness.

And BTW - I did know what the "basic premise" of that thread was about. I read the article after all - I posted my opinion on it. I pretty sure I didn't pretend to have specific knowledge of the "U" visa, its background and legal applications - nor did I claim to.

Really?

The first 3 paragraphs state it quite plainly:

OMAHA, Nebraska — A 13-year-old illegal immigrant who fled to his native Mexico amid a sex scandal with his schoolteacher could be eligible to return to the United States under a new visa the U.S. government started granting the week before he disappeared.

The visa helps illegal immigrants who are victims of sex crimes. If the boy, who spent most of his life in Nebraska, qualifies, he could stay legally in the United States for four years and eventually apply for permanent residency. It also would extend temporary residency to his parents and his unmarried siblings under 18, if they applied for it.

"It's a win-win," U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokeswoman Marilu Cabrera said of the so-called "U" visa. "It helps us and law enforcement be able to solve a crime, and it certainly helps the individual who is a victim of a crime."

PH read that article too and still had questions.

As I said - I never at any point claimed to have specific detailed knowledge about the "U" visa. In fact - looking through the thread - you were the only person doing that. Kudos to you for the research - but again it has nothing to do with what I posted in the thread, so waving it in my face is really meaningless.

I was concerned with the quibbling over:

i) Whether or not the boy was the victim of a crime.

ii) Whether or not his sexual relationship with the teacher was 'consensual'.

iii) Whether or not he knew what he was doing so he could somehow cynically secure an immigrant benefit.

In fact - the majority of the people who posted in that thread didn't reference the "U" visa specifically either.

Under your bullets, iii implies you read the post - and therefore knew about the U visa/the benefit he, as an ILLEGAL, would get (ie. the entire reason for the post). Obviously not. Spin it all you want #6, you said it yourself.

No I didn't - so stop baiting.

There was no detailed discussion of the explicit legal application of the "U" visa outside of the quoted articles you added in a couple of posts. The rest of the discussion was carried out in the general terms outlined above.

[Drew and Tik 0]

Most Mexicans are white, it says so on the census.

[natty bumppo 297]

I must admit I'm not all that familiar with the "U" Visa, but I thought there was something in the guides or the visa forums somewhere about how to deal with abusive spouses. I think there have actually been cases of that on VJ, where an abused spouse breaks up from the SO before the 2 year conditional status is up, and is still able to get the 10 year LPR status from an immigration judge, even though the relationship which provided the grounds for the original application is over.

Considering it was the basis of the other thread (that you participated in) I find that disturbing, altho amusing.

Cliff Note version: The U visa is for illegals.

More condescension. Given the mods warnings at the start of this thread - is it really so hard to be civil? Or is that being civil would remove a lot of the fun, and hence the motivation to post?

Enough with the condescension police bit.

As I stated in that other thread - I read up on something before I debate it - for knowledge & ammunition. I expect others do too. I assumed wrong. Weakens the argiument even more if you don't know the basic premise of what the actual thread was about, no?

No Dev - I'm specifically asking you to drop the hostile act you insist on putting out towards myself and others. So no - I won't "drop it" just because my reaction to your attitude is inconvenient to your putting it out. If anything weakens an argument its rudeness.

And BTW - I did know what the "basic premise" of that thread was about. I read the article after all - I posted my opinion on it. I pretty sure I didn't pretend to have specific knowledge of the "U" visa, its background and legal applications - nor did I claim to.

Really?

The first 3 paragraphs state it quite plainly:

OMAHA, Nebraska — A 13-year-old illegal immigrant who fled to his native Mexico amid a sex scandal with his schoolteacher could be eligible to return to the United States under a new visa the U.S. government started granting the week before he disappeared.

The visa helps illegal immigrants who are victims of sex crimes. If the boy, who spent most of his life in Nebraska, qualifies, he could stay legally in the United States for four years and eventually apply for permanent residency. It also would extend temporary residency to his parents and his unmarried siblings under 18, if they applied for it.

"It's a win-win," U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokeswoman Marilu Cabrera said of the so-called "U" visa. "It helps us and law enforcement be able to solve a crime, and it certainly helps the individual who is a victim of a crime."

PH read that article too and still had questions.

As I said - I never at any point claimed to have specific detailed knowledge about the "U" visa. In fact - looking through the thread - you were the only person doing that. Kudos to you for the research - but again it has nothing to do with what I posted in the thread, so waving it in my face is really meaningless.

I was concerned with the quibbling over:

i) Whether or not the boy was the victim of a crime.

ii) Whether or not his sexual relationship with the teacher was 'consensual'.

iii) Whether or not he knew what he was doing so he could somehow cynically secure an immigrant benefit.

In fact - the majority of the people who posted in that thread didn't reference the "U" visa specifically either.

Under your bullets, iii implies you read the post - and therefore knew about the U visa/the benefit he, as an ILLEGAL, would get (ie. the entire reason for the post). Obviously not. Spin it all you want #6, you said it yourself.

No I didn't - so stop baiting.

There was no detailed discussion of the explicit legal application of the "U" visa outside of the quoted articles you added in a couple of posts. The rest of the discussion was carried out in the general terms outlined above.

really ... you didn't research the U Visa ??