JMH

Hey everybody!

I’m not sure suing would be an effective or timely method, even if it was allowed to be heard in court. My understanding (I’m not a lawyer) is that it would need to be a class action lawsuit though, for it to affect more than one case, and have more than one plaintiff.

The only thing that seems to be effective is getting Senator or Representative help. The only thing that seems to help is getting political attention. The problem is we are all from different states and have different representation. Some are helpful, some want to be helpful but are unreliable, and some don’t care.

My beloved fiancée suggested a flash mob outside the CSC and one of the mass media photos raising awareness, such as “if we get 100,000 likes, the California Service Center will start to approve the 19th of July’s petitions after 6 months of ignoring them”. While it made me smile, I think she is right about uniting through the internet.

So, as we are separated geographically and political pressure is the only thing they respond to, I’ve thought a petition could be useful. I read that there are about 15,000 of us, but I know all my friends and family would sign it also. I think the minimum threshold for a response is 25,000 signatures. I don’t think that would be difficult if we all put it on our Facebook page and asked our friends and family to sign it.

If we already have a petition, I apologize for missing it and will gladly sign it now. We are August CSC filers, and so I don’t watch as closely as I used to. It’s heartbreaking.

The website for making such a petition is here (along with a quick video exlaining): https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/how-why/introduction

Good luck to us all - Jason

Hey Ron!

Yeah, that's good information! I'll be sure to take my laptop as well, go to a internet cafe, and print the email with bar code from there. Once you paid, and had the email with barcode, is there any trouble getting an appointment? I mean, are they limited in slots? I guess I'll be buying a phone there also. I agree, apartments are nicer to have than a hotel room and I'm looking forward to some time in Warsaw. Did you rent the appartment by the week or day? Thanks for all the help Ron!

-Jason

Hey Ron,

We're about to go through the nightmare you just finished. If you have the exact address of the bank I need to pay at, it would be amazing, thanks! Oh, and probably a stupid question, but this bank allowed you to pay for your fiancee's interview. Did they also allow you to pay for her visa there, or did you need to do that at a different bank? Thanks for any advice!

Jason

Nathan&Elana,

You can be sure that you've stopped contributing and lost the debate when you stoop to the level of spell checking comments. The great irony is that his English is actually much better than yours. Anyway, I really do hope you can become a happier person who is capable of more kindness and understanding than you've shown today.

Update your timeline in silence? Really? There must be many more bitter people than I thought. If only there was some place people could go to talk and share their stories. . .like some sort of immigration forum. . . oh wait.

I'm not an expert on this issue, but I think it will be obvious you have a gender, and it's female. I think at your job interview you can just tell them it's a typo (mistake). That's if they notice and ask. They wouldn't issue you an invalid card, and they marked 'U' under sex so they know it was missing information. If they needed that information to make the card valid, they would have waited to issue it to you until they had all the information they needed to make it valid. I don't think a small mistake like this makes the card invalid, but I'm not an expert. It's just my thoughts.

Maybe it means unknown or unidentified. That's all I can think of.

Agreed, we can't reward anybody that knowingly breaks our laws. It's not fair to the honest applicants and encourages the criminal way of getting here (and making our problem larger). Citizenship for the children approved for this program isn't a huge stretch. If a mother illegally crosses the border and has her child on American soil, they're a citizen but she is not. These children approved for this program have shown respect for our laws, and contributed to our society. It's not unreasonable for them to eventually become USCs. This program doesn't do that for them. As we agreed, politics ruined a chance to improve people's lives and fix a large problem.

As for the bussiness being punished for hiring (and exploiting) anybody without the legal recourse fight back, I agree. It's difficult to accomplish this because bussinesses can profit from it, so no solution will come from them. Legal immigrants don't have this problem, and illegal immigrants/aliens are neither voters, or are in a hurry for a system that checks if they are legal to work here. Dangerous and sad, or not, it's how they support themselves here if they are allowed to work here legally, yet.

Honestly, I'm new here and I don't know much about your suggestions. I'm still learning. I will say that I'm applying for a K1, and I wouldn't mind your suggestion of 2 visits and a combined 21 days. I was lucky enough to have 23 days with her on my first visit and can't wait to visit again (even though it's hard for me to get to Belarus). It would cut down on some fraud, but it would also be hard for some couples. Of course, no part of this process was made easy, as I'm learning!

I know I sound cruel and insensitive in my posts sometimes, but I think we can also agree that the children brought here illegally and without choice still don't have any good option available to them. As we read, this option is only available to the best of them (in school or with military service, and without crimes). This program does target the type of people we would benefit from keeping here at least. I don't know a fair, or good way to do it, but I wouldn't mind if they became citizens eventually. I'm just not sure it's fair to give them preference over the other immigrant applicants wanting to serve in our armed forces, or with needed degrees, and no criminal records who want to do it the correct way. I might sound cruel again, but if/when they do become citizens, I don't want them to be able to sponsor the parent who did knowingly break our laws. That would be rewarding criminal activity by an informed adult, in my opinion.

"In Arizona, which passed one of the nation's toughest anti-immigration laws"

This is terrible, intentionally misleading 'journalism' with a political agenda. First, Arizona doesn't write immigration laws. No sate does. The United States government writes and passes immigration laws. Second, the toughest 'anti-immigration law' isn't an 'anti-immigration law'. It's a clarification on an Arizona state law about who can get certain state benifits, and this law existed prior to the presidents actions. Third, the tough 'anit-imigration law' they are actually refering to is something completely different and not mentioned once in this article. I believe, but can't be sure because they don't clarify, that they mean SB1070. That's another topic completely!

Even if Arizona could write it's own immigration laws, and it did so quickly in response to the president's action, it's still not an 'anti-immigration' law. It doesn't stop legal immigration in ANY way. The president himself said this was not a path towards citizenship, and the Gov's actions only clarified what that noncitizens in Arizona will, and have always, been entitled to. Sadly, neither of them did much to help either side, or fix this large problem.

Just being in the state legally doesn't grant every state benefit and I listed a few examples. You repeated your statement though, so I'll give a few more. I'm here legally, and I'm a citizen, and I'm even serving in our military. There are some state (and federal) benefits I can't receive because I earned too much, or I'm not old enough, or I wasn't married. Does it make me angry? Not really. Is it a punishment or form of discrimination? Surely not!

Your specific problem seems to be with driver's licenses and taxing earnings from working here legally. I'll address that now. They are now legally allowed to get jobs, and pay taxes. A driver's license doesn't 'enable', or entitle them to a job. It's a benefit for which they still do not qualify for in the state of Arizona. As has been said before, each state has their own requirements for getting one. It would be illegal discrimination if Arizona refused to recognise another state granting them a driver's license though. That's not what we're doing at all. Also, something I did not know before getting an Arizona driver's license for myself is, they are valid for 50 years! An Arizona driver's license is valid for 50 years! As this program is only for 2 years, can we really issue them that? No, we can't. If we tried to grant them a license for less than our standard 50 year license (say 2 years), I'm thinking that would be called discrimination also. . .

Oh, about this: "The Executive Order was a message from the POTUS to Congress indicating they should put aside their partisanship and work together. If he were pandering he would have exec ordered the entire Dream Act, instead of this temporary and limited measure." It wasn't because he wanted to send a message that he wanted to work together. It was because the Dream Act failed to pass the vote, because it was unpopular! He used a temporary, limited measure because it's all he could get away with because his policy can't pass a real vote.

Absolutely. They should be followed. However, the law is discriminatory,plain and simple. If you don't want illegals working, fine I concur, then also amend the law that makes it illegal to hire these workers instead of exploiting them. People who take advantage of illegals for financial gain are no better than the early settlers who owned slaves.

Arizonans created this problem by utilizing a cheap labor force when it was to their benefit. Now, Arizona wants to cry victim to the very problem that was perpetuated by their greed.

I understand the citizen's perspective. They should also look at the root of the problem. There lies a primary cause to the current situation.

Ummm. . . it was illegal for them to be hired before this. Also, this is not a law (that would require congress/senate approval), it's a executive order giving them more rights than they had before. Our Gov also didn't change anything, she just reminded our state that anybody here illegally doesn't qualify for STATE benafits. It's not discrimination, it's the law and always has been.

Jay-Kay,

I agree that businesses should be punished for knowingly hiring undocumented workers. Some businesses make a lot of money by hiring undocumented workers, so the push for fair reform won't becoming from the businesses! I'm sorry your husband couldn't visit you here. The people doing it the wrong way make it nearly impossible to do it the right way! It's hard to watch! I'm also in agreement that children should not be punished for their parent's crimes.

Just because we didn't always have the immigration laws we have now, doesn't mean the laws we DO have now shouldn't be followed. Do you really not agree that our current laws should be obeyed and enforced?

Oh, and you're wrong when you said "Had this been in effect then, none of us would have been legal" The USA has very generous policy, even today. I was born in the USA, and even if my parents were not here legally (and they are legal, and my grandparents are, ect ect), I would still be a USC by birth! That's a policy hard to beat! You theory that we would be illegal aliens is wrong on every level, in every way, for every period of time. Starting from when there was no policy through today, I would still be a legal USC every single time. My ancestors came from Ireland, legally. Even if they came illegally, I was borne here. So, I think it's safe to stop with your line of 'reasoning'. This false guilt won't change the law.

I’m not Native American. Nor am I an illegal alien. It’s actually quite a coincidence, but just the other day I was collecting all the proof of my citizenship (passport, birth certificate, Arizona driver’s license) for a petition. I’d be happy to send you some of it, if it would help you to not worry about me.

Thanks Que Saudade for pointing out another reason I’m correct. For the illegal aliens, there is NO money to be made here legally. Employment fraud is the least dangerous way they earn money here, trust me, I live it! I’m glad we both understand that.

Denying somebody benefits that they are not entitled to is not a punishment or judgment against them personally, its just our impartial way of handling it! It would be wrong if they were denied benefits for which they qualify. It would be wrong if they were denied because of gender, race, ect ect. This specific ruling applies evenly, and to all people . . . regardless of where they illegally came from. I know that most cases here are from Mexico, and my disapproval of our presidents actions (and approval of my states actions) might incorrectly come across as racist. Thats not the case.

Correct. They were children BROUGHT here. Neither of them are USCs. I'm not blaming the children for being brought here. There is a difference between 'not blaming' and 'rewarding' though. Some of these children are now adults, and must make adult choices. You asked me if I thought they liked this situation? No, I don't think they like their current situation. It is, however, their adult choice to remain here ILLEGALLY!

Sir,

This is my first post here and I don't have any special knowledge of which way would be best for you. However, I am in the Air Force and they are very restrictive about letting people go to Mexico now! We have many people that want to go to Mexico for many reasons (I'm at Davis-Monthan AFB, Tucson AZ), and all were denied, even a family funeral! If you need to visit her or go to Mexico for any reason, do so before you join!! Even if by some miracle you were allowed to go to Mexico, it wouldn't be until after BMT, tech school, and approval from your first duty station. I forget the exact level of approval that's needed, but it's rediculous and takes months!

I would like to know what other people think about getting married before you join though. I looked into the faster processing times for military members myself. My understanding is that it is for deployed or overseas military only. It might be awhile before you get deployed, and there is no sure way of knowing where your first duty station will be (or that it will be overseas). Let me know if you have any other questions and I'll ask some of the people I work with.

Jason