Transborderwife

Umm not all entered illegally 

You're missing my point entirely.  I'm saying that what if what's being proposed in say the RAISE act was extended to spouses.
 
also overstaying a k1 is no different than overstaying any other non immigrant visa

Major injustice.

File a new AOS.

The person might scold you for not checking it when the opportunity was available to you to stay more ontop of your own case, but no there is no legal obligation or requirement for you to check it.
 
I'm sure you realize the important, though, of checking it going forward now. 

Wrong. AOS must be filed. You can not skip it and then do ROC.....you can't remove conditions if you have none ( AOS=conditional GC) so no ROC
INSTEAD of AOS after 2 years like you suggested.
If your AOS is being dragged on and on and you are married 2 years and then your AOS is approved then you can skip ROC because you will be issued
a 10 year GC. AOS most definitely is a required step !

I'm not sure either. I was just responding to the question about the legality. Overstaying is not illegal regardless, where as entering without inspection is. 
 
  Technically anyone out of status could have the same recourse as the K1 entrant if they likewise marry a USC. As long as we're debating immigration change, maybe the "immunity" inferred by immediate relative USC's should be a subject that is discussed.

I agree this would not be fun for the immigrant as they would be completely dependent on their USC/LPR spouse.

They should stay away from border states while not breaking the law

That would be an awful two years for the immigrant.  I wonder how many marriages would survive that.
The immigrant's status would be "eligible for adjustment," probably.

Both AOS and ROC are required of K-1 entrants.
 
If a K-1 entrant duly married within 90 days of entry but failed to file for AOS and was caught in that status, the unadjusted (maladjusted?) entrant would be called before an immigration judge and be told to adjust.
 
Sidebar:  In answer to my question at the time, a lawyer told me that a duly married K-1 entrant who has filed for AOS but hasn't gotten approval of it is called an "applicant for adjustment" -- or, more concisely, an "adjustment applicant."
 
And we honestly never know when someone's status will be challenged, which is why I never took any chances with Mrs. T-B.:
Not only at airports would "leaving nothing to chance" come in handy.  See penultimate paragraph in above-linked thread.

Are you sure about that?  If they don't adjust status, what would they be removing conditions from?

Okay fine. Now the question is, do you pursue overstays with the same vigor you pursue border crossers?  Why or Why not?

The law does not look at it that way.  You break the law, you break the law.  I hear that in this forum all the time. From a practical standpoint, overstays are a far outstripping the number of border crossers with roughly a half a million overstays a year. 
I would prefer to call both classes of "illegals" what they are: undocumented.
 

What is the difference? 
Overstay and illegal entry both break US immigration law.

I know what you mean.  I am sure there might be a specific situation that might be relevant, but the rules say if you come in on a K1 your only legal way to stay beyond the 90 days is to get married to the USC/LPR that petitioned for said K1.  Otherwise, it is basically a 90 day single entry visitor visa and you have to leave or face deportation if you overstay.

So someone comes on a k1 and something happens they overstay, they should be deported as well?

No, of course not but there are way too many overstays and I simply pointed out that is not a crime according to the law but falls under civil law.
We are not the Stasi here in the States . We don't encourage children to "rat out " their parents, then let them stay and then have the state care for them.
That is just crazy. Maybe you get some satisfaction out of "ratting out a parent" for bringing them here for a better life, to protect them from violence,
to be able to feed them, but I do not share that view. Ever.
 

Be able to get a job, go to school, improve their life, contribute to society.
Obviously there are many reasons why they aren't able to do so in their country or they wouldn't come here.

Nope.  They aren't 

Irma Looks like she won't be visiting us just a passing through.  Thank goodness 

Irma Looks like she won't be visiting us just a passing through.  Thank goodness 

No we don't need open borders, i've never said anything of the sort.
 
I believe you are comparing apples to oranges here Bill. Were said people who were "deported for whatever reason" brought here as children by their parents or other adults or did they enter the country of their volition?
 
Where in DACA does it say the parents are to be deported?

you keep pictures of obama in the gym? 

Irma Looks like she won't be visiting us just a passing through.  Thank goodness