justashooter

all the guys on this forum that have been burned a time or two are right behind you.
do what your training tells you to do. your emotions are worthless now.
you do not have to be "the big guy" for someone who treats you like ####### and commits crimes as defined by the statute.
lady justice is blind. she wears a blindfold for a reason. you are making your wife an exception to the Rule Of Law.
level the playing field now. use the law that you are trained to use.
protect yourself, first and foremost. your brother officers will understand, and admire you for having the courage to act.

this is obviously not going to work. don't waste your time with an attempt at couples counseling, but do get yourself some individual counseling if you can. you seem to already know that the relationship is not viable, so buy the ticket (one way), and as soon as she leaves write a letter to USCIS withdrawing your petition and I-864 support affadavit, and change the locks. report your wife's last known whereabouts to USCIS and indicate that she has abandoned your marriage. file for divorce, and have your divorce lawyer publish in local paper rather than serve papers. you don't really want her to know that you are taking action to end your marriage, as this may cause her to try to come home. use abandonment as grounds for the divorce. do it this week.
see your local police immediately to file a report for her violence against you. they have to take the report even if it has been weeks since the violence. with this kind of crime the statute for filing is usually 90 days, 6 months, or a year, depending on the state in which the events took place and the grade of the offenses. if they won't take it, see your local district justice or someone in the county court house to file a criminal complaint against her independently and, in either case, to file for a protection from abuse order that will effectively bar any attempt by her to move back in with you. send a copy of the criminal complaint and PFA to USCIS with photos of the evidence of her abuse. this will put her in the "crimes involving moral turpitude" category and get her deported right quick.
it's tough to be a man in this world if the women you are with are bitches. speaking as a guy who has been thru similar circumstances on a smaller scale with a US born wife years ago, i can tell you that you are not alone. the system will be reluctant to help you, so you will have to help yourself. PM me if you wanna discuss further. you got a friend in this corner, buddy.

this is obviously not going to work. don't waste your time with an attempt at couples counseling, but do get yourself some individual counseling if you can. you seem to already know that the relationship is not viable, so buy the ticket (one way), and as soon as she leaves write a letter to USCIS withdrawing your petition and I-864 support affadavit, and change the locks. report your wife's last known whereabouts to USCIS and indicate that she has abandoned your marriage. file for divorce, and have your divorce lawyer publish in local paper rather than serve papers. you don't really want her to know that you are taking action to end your marriage, as this may cause her to try to come home. use abandonment as grounds for the divorce. do it this week.
see your local police immediately to file a report for her violence against you. they have to take the report even if it has been weeks since the violence. with this kind of crime the statute for filing is usually 90 days, 6 months, or a year, depending on the state in which the events took place and the grade of the offenses. if they won't take it, see your local district justice or someone in the county court house to file a criminal complaint against her independently and, in either case, to file for a protection from abuse order that will effectively bar any attempt by her to move back in with you. send a copy of the criminal complaint and PFA to USCIS with photos of the evidence of her abuse. this will put her in the "crimes involving moral turpitude" category and get her deported right quick.
it's tough to be a man in this world if the women you are with are bitches. speaking as a guy who has been thru similar circumstances on a smaller scale with a US born wife years ago, i can tell you that you are not alone. the system will be reluctant to help you, so you will have to help yourself. PM me if you wanna discuss further. you got a friend in this corner, buddy.

if your wife is savvy, at all, she will understand that she needs to file independently, if not jointly. if i were you, i would have plans for an ambush, and another place to live when that time comes.
if you really wanna stick it to her, go thru the process of filling out the forms, getting all the signatures, and then pretend that you are taking them to the post office. mail an empty envelope to USCIS with return receipt requested so that you can show her the receipt and the card. when you get the return receipt in the mail your deception is nearly equal to hers. then find another place to live, without her, take all the documentation regarding the 751 filing with you, and post copies of her e-mails on the front door. then file for divorce.
it's gonna get ugly, but then, it's already ugly, and she's an ugly woman for deceiving you.

if your wife is savvy, at all, she will understand that she needs to file independently, if not jointly. if i were you, i would have plans for an ambush, and another place to live when that time comes.
if you really wanna stick it to her, go thru the process of filling out the forms, getting all the signatures, and then pretend that you are taking them to the post office. mail an empty envelope to USCIS with return receipt requested so that you can show her the receipt and the card. when you get the return receipt in the mail your deception is nearly equal to hers. then find another place to live, without her, take all the documentation regarding the 751 filing with you, and post copies of her e-mails on the front door. then file for divorce.
it's gonna get ugly, but then, it's already ugly, and she's an ugly woman for deceiving you.

living in china for some years i learned to speak some chinese, but don't get everything, especially as it is a figurative language and quite dialectic, and all i have is mandarin. i understand what the guy must feel like with a constant babel of blather going on in the background during his time home in the evenings. she is obviously not an english first language speaker, and we can assume that he is not fluent in her language for argument's sake. in such a case his home is invaded by strangers whose intent he cannot determine. his wife's intent in the moment also becomes undeterminable. constant exposure to this kind of thing undermines trust in any normal human being, kumbaya-lets all love one another we're all the same bullshit not withstanding.
that being said, the woman talks about the importance of family in her post. perhaps she should consider just exactly how her family is now defined. she married an American, who is not going to be comfortable with an intrusive set of in-laws and brothers and sisters and uncles and aunts sticking their noses into his relationship, his career, his finances, etc. some accomodation is required. perhaps she should devote as much time and energy to him as she does to her skype-mates.
it's rude to speak in anything other than the dominant language in public, and if it must be done it should be done discretely. it is rude to do it in the home in front of those who do not speak the foreign language, unless they are incredibly tolerant and have a very high degree of trust based on years of happy relationship. anything else just creates discomfort and provokes ill-will. english use in international business, of course, is an obvious exception.
your husband may be an insensitive jerk, but let's nto blame him for things that you are doing.

marginal VAWA at best. grounds for divovce? up to you.
being yelled at a few times is not spousal abuse. being asked to provide some document about a car that was bought as marital property is no big deal. he can prolly get a benefit by proving the expense. female TV shows are really negative in their influence on married women, in general. texting used-to-be's is wrong for either of you. don't get me started on the gun stuff. as for skyping with family every night in front of the husband, avoid it. do it in the daytime when he's working. if it has to be done while he is around there should be a limit, especially if the skyping is done in a language the husband does not speak. continuing relationships in front of him that he is left out of is disrespectful.
you knew who he was when you married him, or should have. too many internet marriages on this site based on no real knowledge of the other person. what did you expect?

living in china for some years i learned to speak some chinese, but don't get everything, especially as it is a figurative language and quite dialectic, and all i have is mandarin. i understand what the guy must feel like with a constant babel of blather going on in the background during his time home in the evenings. she is obviously not an english first language speaker, and we can assume that he is not fluent in her language for argument's sake. in such a case his home is invaded by strangers whose intent he cannot determine. his wife's intent in the moment also becomes undeterminable. constant exposure to this kind of thing undermines trust in any normal human being, kumbaya-lets all love one another we're all the same bullshit not withstanding.
that being said, the woman talks about the importance of family in her post. perhaps she should consider just exactly how her family is now defined. she married an American, who is not going to be comfortable with an intrusive set of in-laws and brothers and sisters and uncles and aunts sticking their noses into his relationship, his career, his finances, etc. some accomodation is required. perhaps she should devote as much time and energy to him as she does to her skype-mates.
it's rude to speak in anything other than the dominant language in public, and if it must be done it should be done discretely. it is rude to do it in the home in front of those who do not speak the foreign language, unless they are incredibly tolerant and have a very high degree of trust based on years of happy relationship. anything else just creates discomfort and provokes ill-will. english use in international business, of course, is an obvious exception.
your husband may be an insensitive jerk, but let's nto blame him for things that you are doing.

i should also add: your comment that your children's father agreed that he would allow the children to immigrate with you "once you got your life in America arranged" before you left phils on a B2 visa indicates that you had deliberate and fraudulent intent for the use of the B2. now you are suggesting that you will attempt to use B2 to fraudulently immigrate your children?
you planned to immigrate to USA on a B2, overstayed illegally until you found an American to marry, and now you are asking for help in a community of people that are known to be scrupulous in their adherence to legal process. you are in the wrong forum.

you are asking us how to make an intended fraudulent use of a student visa with the intent to AOS.
this is visa fraud, pure and simple.
you are on the wrong site.
this site is geared toward legal immigration.
i suggest you try over at immigrate2us.net, which is full of fraud.

you are asking us how to make an intended fraudulent use of a student visa with the intent to AOS.
this is visa fraud, pure and simple.
you are on the wrong site.
this site is geared toward legal immigration.
i suggest you try over at immigrate2us.net, which is full of fraud.

marginal VAWA at best. grounds for divovce? up to you.
being yelled at a few times is not spousal abuse. being asked to provide some document about a car that was bought as marital property is no big deal. he can prolly get a benefit by proving the expense. female TV shows are really negative in their influence on married women, in general. texting used-to-be's is wrong for either of you. don't get me started on the gun stuff. as for skyping with family every night in front of the husband, avoid it. do it in the daytime when he's working. if it has to be done while he is around there should be a limit, especially if the skyping is done in a language the husband does not speak. continuing relationships in front of him that he is left out of is disrespectful.
you knew who he was when you married him, or should have. too many internet marriages on this site based on no real knowledge of the other person. what did you expect?

IIRC they EWI. in any case, the "child" became an adult before he entered harvard. he had responsibility the moment he turned 18.
throw him out.

lemme guess. this guy is from africa, north of the equator.
1.) your shrink is making the mistake of using her western education to try to evaluate a person with a different cultural orientation. you, being largely acculturated to western thinking, are doing the same thing. it could be that he was part of a militant group in his home country, but here he has little to no basis, if he tries anything, he is just a common criminal. relax for a moment and focus on healing yourself. YOU are all you should be thinking about right now. he should be left to deal with the consequences of his own actions.
the "law of natural consequences" is about to smack him right in the back of the head, and he might be aware of it at a conscious level, but at a gut level he is still thinking that he is in his home country where corruption reigns, connections speak, and thugs wander the streets with impunity. this perception will all change when he is found by police, tasered and handcuffed by policemen, locked in the back of a car, fingerprinted, photographed, and held in a jail cell until bail is made by his "friends". violation of a PFA is a serious misdemeanor, and this kind of response by law enforcement is standard treatment.
2.) the current occupant of the oval office notwithstanding, connections in a 3rd world country don't mean squat in USA. America is a nation in which rule of law still prevails. if not, our current dictator wouldn't have lasted a day. msot Americans (myself included) respect due process. your ex-husband will experience due process. in the meantime you need to stay out of his way and give him no communication. most people cannot enact aggression unless they feel a connection to their victim. you need to eliminate all connections for your personal safety.
3.) the secretive behaviour is standard practice in a case in which a man is using a woman to arrange fraudulent immigration. it is standard practice for unscrupulous persons whenever they are about to take advantage of someone. your guy is a fish out of water here. he may have been a big fish in a small pond in his home country, but here, he is a small fry who can't even get off the beach. the phone in your mother's name is the only suspicious component of the behaviour, but could have been old habit for a guy who uses dodges and deception as a life skill. hell, i've had aliases and phones that weren't in my name when the need arose. all men know how to do this. YOU NEED TO CLOSE THE ACCOUNT YESTERDAY.
4.) his "friends" are his exit path from your relationship. they are going to support him so that he can float for awhile. he doesn't want to be findable, so naturally will provide you with no information about them. he will not feel safe if you know where he is. he feels guilty at a subconscious level for using you, and is afraid of your "wrath", which seems non-existent to me. he is a scared little boy in a large body, and nothing more. everything he knows in his cognitive schema does not work here unless he is in company of other immigrants from his country. the other 99.99% of USA frightens him terribly.
5.) his horrific temper and enacted and threatened aggression are an indicator of his feeling of powerlesness. have no contact with him, so that he will have no release for this feeling. it will tear him apart day by day. getting out of the relationship is the best thing that could have happened to you in this situation. if you had stayed the abuse would have worsened. until he is deported you need to stay out of his way and give him no communication. most people cannot enact aggression unless they feel a connection to their victim. you need to eliminate all connections for your personal safety.
6.) you need to call USCIS to keep them updated on what you are going through, anyway. the next time you call, ask who you should send a letter to in regard to these concerns. then write out a simple outline with names, dates, events described in 1 or 2 sentences. long handwritten letters do not get read, so type it and keep it simple, and send it where they tell you. US law enforcement operates under a strict protocol. certain offices have authority that others do not, and you don't want to waste tiem or have this lost in the shuffle. telling the truth is a noble thing, and would be good for your soul right now. you need somebody to unburden to, so don't delay
i'm sending you a PM to explain some things. you are welcome to write me back if you need a friend.
general warning on this thread. anybody treats this one disrespectfully will be dealt with harshly.

The key phrase in the 14th Amendment is "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...".
A quick google gave me this link:
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
Original intent of the 14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."
Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).
The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.
Free! Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
Supreme Court decisions
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)
American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.

The key phrase in the 14th Amendment is "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...".
A quick google gave me this link:
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
Original intent of the 14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."
Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).
The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.
Free! Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
Supreme Court decisions
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)
American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.

The key phrase in the 14th Amendment is "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...".
A quick google gave me this link:
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
Original intent of the 14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."
Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).
The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.
Free! Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
Supreme Court decisions
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)
American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.

anybody who spends over a million dollars on legal fees covering up his trail has something to hide.
the contradictions are there, and any reasonable person has to ask the question.

i see that you joined this discussion group on May 30, and that you have no posts other than those in this thread. perhaps you had another user name before this one?

we know that the law is written to apply to spouses, but the truth is, as i said, there is a double standard in enforcement.
even so, your wife just doesn't want to be with you. this is not extreme cruelty.
"if i would come back into the house she would call the cops on me"...
it appears as though you two were not even living together when she sent you e-mail:
"i have a ton of e-mails where my wife threatened me to to seriously hurt me and get me deported and divorce me so that i get deported"
from your report, it looks as though you moved out, one way or another, before any kind of threat was made. relief from immigration statute in such cases is not what VAWA is for. VAWA is for people who were subject to abuse within the confines of the cohabitive relationship, and who left because of the violence in the cohabitation became unendurable.
incidently, persons who have truely been subject to serious psychological and physical abuse are rarely concerned about extraneous things like status. they are too busy trying to figure out what they did to deserve such treatment, and how they can arrange to get back together with the person who was abusing them. if they could only just be a good enough person, or do the right things, or make their spouse happy...the first step in helping a victim of real abuse is convincing them that it's not their fault. this takes a long time, sometimes years. only then can they move on with their lives.
i see no evidence that you have been through this process. this is typical of VAWA cases we see reported here. the victim is always busy pointing the finger at the USC, when a genuine victim of abuse would not be able to do so.

it's called the "violence against women act". what part of that do you not understand?
there is a double standard in USA in regard to spousal violence. that being said, your story as told in the first post wouldn't convince me, and it's only your side.

anybody who spends over a million dollars on legal fees covering up his trail has something to hide.
the contradictions are there, and any reasonable person has to ask the question.

anybody who spends over a million dollars on legal fees covering up his trail has something to hide.
the contradictions are there, and any reasonable person has to ask the question.

anybody who spends over a million dollars on legal fees covering up his trail has something to hide.
the contradictions are there, and any reasonable person has to ask the question.

your perception of the concepts of "art" and "entertainment" are limited by your own schema.
attempting to demonise those without such limitation is puerile, at best.
projecting your own concepts upon their actions is infantile.