Really doing their best to kill morale right before starting a land war in Asia
438
ATastyBagel15 hr ago
+105
I mean, it is one of the classic blunders. Right next to going in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line.
105
Gumsk11 hr ago
+14
Hahahahahaha, *gasp*, hahahahaha, *thud*
14
Tangocan9 hr ago
+1
[ Removed by Listnook ]
1
Odd-Syllabub-36428 hr ago
+1
Go home GI your own government is sending ICE agents to abduct your wives GI
1
theHoundLivessss8 hr ago
+1
Incredible. Thank you, I needed that.
1
shwarma_heaven16 hr ago
+270
Wait. She is married to a US citizen (a soldier, no less). How does that not qualify for a stay in deportation, as she is almost guaranteed citizenship (just ask Melanoma)?
270
Kolbin8tor16 hr ago
+354
The cruelty is the point
354
rahkinto16 hr ago
+84
They think when people hear the stories, they won't believe them no matter how cruel they are.
84
spiritbearr15 hr ago
+47
A solid 30% of Americans don't
47
shwarma_heaven15 hr ago
+17
30% of Iraq *loved* Saddam... 30% send to be a pretty consistent number. You only need 1/3rd of the country to be ardent supporters...
17
APeacefulWarrior13 hr ago
+12
In fairness, Saddam's Iraq wasn't exactly a hellhole. Baghdad was one of the most advanced cities in the region, and it was a secular state that managed to mostly maintain the peace between various religious populations. Civil rights were better than their neighbors in some ways as well, like fewer restrictions on women compared to the more conservative Islamic states.
I could easily see an Iraqi thinking that Saddam was a "better the devil we know" sort of situation. He was a bad man who did very bad things - not defending him - but things definitely could have been worse.
12
rahkinto15 hr ago
+3
I'm not surprised. This is a tactic I remember reading about, I can't put my finger on where it was, but it proved to be effective then too
3
vt103216 hr ago
+43
She is definitely not guaranteed citizenship. Quite the opposite in fact. Because she entered illegally, she is inadmissible as someone present without admission or parole. There are very few ways to fix that besides leaving, waiting out the 10 year bar if applicable, and then applying from outside the US. Marriage does not "cure" inadmissibilty under this ground. One of the very few ways she potentially could get past this would be parole in place for relatives of service members and it appears from the article that this is exactly what she was trying to do, and was at the interview for. However, that is far from guaranteed to be approved. It's complicated and without seeing her actual records it's hard to say what she would or wouldn't qualify for. There is nothing simple about immigration law and how it actually works is never even remotely as simple as people want it to be.
Just skimming the article, it appears that the immigration judge in her removal hearing previously issued her a final order of removal, but then also ordered withholding of removal to El Salvador (meaning that she can't be removed to El Salvador, but not preventing her removal to other countries that will accept her). Technically speaking, because she has a final order of removal, that greatly complicates being approved for parole in place, and creates a presumption of ineligibility. It's not an impossibility but it's an improbability, particularly in this environment where the government is unlikely to play along or exercise favorable discretion.
43
shwarma_heaven16 hr ago
+46
I know people that were here illegally, and we're still granted citizenship after they married. (Like Melanoma)
I know a second (or third) cousin who did it.
46
vt103215 hr ago
+20
Again it depends on a whole bunch of factors. "Illegally" can mean a lot of different things. Did they overstay a visa or hop the border? Both are "here illegally" but someone who overstayed a visa is probably not inadmissible, meaning they could adjust status in the US as an immediate relative without having to jump through any additional hoops. If they came across the border illegally, it's not impossible to adjust in the US, but there are a very limited number of pathways and most have strings attached (ie. Parole in place requires you to be a relative of a service member, I192 waivers for U or T nonimmigrants, VAWA, I601A requiring a departure but waiving the 3/10 year bar, advance parole, etc.). It can be done but it's not simple and it's far from guaranteed. If you have other grounds of inadmissibilty, such as the permanent bar from multiple unlawful entries, it only gets more complicated.
20
shwarma_heaven15 hr ago
-9
She hopped the border. She was here years, worked jobs, the whole nine. Crossed illegally many times. Come to think of it, she married a veteran.
-9
vt103215 hr ago
+13
And how did she get it? What pathway did she use? Unless she omitted her true immigration history on her applications and interviews (i.e. committed fraud) there's very few pathways available to someone who made multiple illegal entries as they would likely be subject to a permanent bar on admissibility under INA 212(a)(9)(C).
13
shwarma_heaven15 hr ago
-6
Look, she is very representative of illegal immigrant stats (of which visa overstays make the great majority). She was here illegal, crossed illegally many times, but she was likely a better "citizen" than many actual citizens. A good mom, a hard worker, and I don't think she ever got so much as a parking ticket for as long as I knew her.
That being said, I HIGHLY doubt she told them she lived here illegally for years while she was applying for citizenship. I highly doubt ANY of the illegal immigrants that eventually got citizenship admitted to being her illegally (just like Melanoma).
-6
vt10329 hr ago
+4
To be clear I'm not making a commentary on whether your relative, or the individual in the article are good, bad or otherwise. My point was that with either of their backgrounds it would be very difficult to get their citizenship through marriage. Based on what you describe, if your relative crossed illegally many times and then was able to get her citizenship, it would seem that she pulled that off only by virtue of not getting caught, both on the entries and on not disclosing them, and my guess would be that she did all of this many years ago (like 80's-90s), before border surveillance improved and before certain laws changed, tightening admissibility. The only other possibility I can think of is if she got her green card back in the mid to late 80's when the Reagan administration had several one time amnesty programs like legalization and the special agricultural worker program, but those programs ended many years ago, and I honestly don't know much about them or how one qualified for them.
I'm not getting the melanoma reference. Is that supposed to be Melania? If that's the case, again you're comparing apples to hand grenades. Not the same situation at all. Regardless of subsequent overstay (if she even did, I don't know much about her or her background), an initial lawful entry changes the whole equation. Even if you came in on a visitors visa and overstayed by 20 years, because you had that initial lawful entry, you can generally proceed straight to marriage based adjustment because you likely wouldn't have any applicable grounds of inadmissibilty.
4
superpj15 hr ago
+14
Just look over on r/uscis, there’s a bunch of people every week that openly talk about over staying tourist visas intentionally or entering illegally in general then getting approve years later for an adjustment of status and green card.
14
RevolutionaryGain8239 hr ago
+1
This is good analysis. It’s funny that there are hundreds of comments a day on here about a topic (US immigration is 1 example but there’s loads more) but 90% of the commenters obviously have virtually no idea what they’re talking about and just recycle the same lines to get upvotes
1
Herkfixer15 hr ago
+8
Thats just not even true. If they marry a military member they can apply for, and are almost guaranteed to receive "parole in place" that allows them to "go through the process" and they dont need to wait or leave the country.
8
hesathomes12 hr ago
+8
Not generally after a final order of removal.
8
vt10329 hr ago
+2
The final order of removal is what complicates it. They likely would need to convince ICE to file a joint motion to reopen and terminate the removal proceedings. If she just had the unlawful entry and nothing else, I would agree, it generally isn't that complicated. However, even then, it is completely discretionary, it's not a sure thing.
2
ahazred8vt14 hr ago
+6
Because she has already been convicted of a Federal misdemeanor which already made her deportable before she got married. A Federal conviction takes priority over anything like marrying a US citizen.
6
MesqTex15 hr ago
+3
She is, military spouses that are working toward citizenship are usually given a quicker pathway to citizenship.
https://www.uscis.gov/military/citizenship-for-military-family-members#:~:text=Overseas%20Naturalization%20for%20Spouses%20of,you%20file%20your%20naturalization%20application.
Here’s a summarized version of the link:
Military spouses seeking U.S. citizenship can utilize expedited naturalization under INA § 319(b) or overseas naturalization via INA § 319(e) (8 U.S.C. § 1443a). These provisions waive traditional residency/physical presence requirements if accompanying a service member on official orders. Key requirements include being a lawful permanent resident, in marital union, and of good moral character.
3
Several-Squash987115 hr ago
-1
Non of that matters. They don't care about any of the legal mumbo-jumbo.
-1
jd3marco15 hr ago
-3
Gotta check the ol’ skin color chart ( as seen in Family Guy).
-3
MilkImpressive146011 hr ago
"Melanoma" made my day! I haven't heard it before, thx.
0
BiBoFieTo16 hr ago
+144
> In a statement, DHS said Rivera Ortega is a
criminal illegal alien from El Salvador convicted of the "federal offense" of illegally entering the US.
Notice how they always use the word "alien" to dehumanize people.
She's a normal person that's accused of not having the right paperwork to live in the US.
144
ThePenguinVA16 hr ago
-39
Alien means foreign. This term has been in use for a century in this context.
-39
Standard-Image-882614 hr ago
+43
yeah but that doesn't make it not dehumanizing
43
Fortestingporpoises14 hr ago
+27
The N word has also been in use for quite some time.
27
c10h15nrush16 hr ago
-41
Though it’s sucks. That’s the legal term used for official purposes in most countries. I don’t think law books have an alternate
-41
Fubarp15 hr ago
+40
Yes they use the term.
Foreign national.
40
c10h15nrush15 hr ago
+2
Apparently it’s a broad term. Yeah it sucks.
2
Saltire_Blue10 hr ago
+4
Not American
I’ve genuinely never heard it used anywhere else but the US
Most nations that I’m aware of use the term Foreign National
4
kadylady1416 hr ago
+44
Being white south African would totally have helped her chances.
44
BusyHands_15 hr ago
+19
Remember this when y'all agree to die in some bullshit war.
They don't give a f*** about you before, during or after.
19
Luckydog128 hr ago
+1
This is a fantastic way to get people to stop going to immigration appointments.
1
Odd-Syllabub-36428 hr ago
+1
Go home GI, the United States is sending ICE after your defenseless wives GI
1
msr42day16 hr ago
+13
How diversive and unconscionable of admin47 to sieze someone while following the conditions of their tenancy in the US. If there is a law that gets in admin47's way, they blow right past it and keep on going knowing they are causing misery for an innocent until the courts catch-up to the particular case.
13
Mike-SBA15 hr ago
+4
She must be a drug smuggler or dealer, right ? ICE doesn’t arrest anyone else, according to Trump ! She has an appointment and they prevent her from continuing her application? Classic MAGS overreach !
4
PeaceLovess16 hr ago
+2
When doing things the legal way don’t matter anymore to the party of FaMiLy VaLuEs
2
Desi_MCU_Nerd14 hr ago
+1
Leopards ate my face or something, & even if he learns from this - why does it always only have to be a personal tragedy for you to give a shit?
1
quarter_cask9 hr ago
+1
What about that Epstein's russian agent? Melania something...
1
Odd-Syllabub-36428 hr ago
+1
When will they defund these f****** idiots already
1
Easy_Bite685812 hr ago
+1
Everyone is going poor while the rich buy all the assets. As long as people are c**** and assets are expensive, the rich will use the poor to acquire assets. This is the basis of war. If you want to stop the war, tax the rich.
1
Phronias13 hr ago
+1
Always putting their citizens first.
1
quantumloop00115 hr ago
Isn’t this the beginning part of an action movie?
0
Poundaflesh13 hr ago
What a bunch of cowards! Going after soccer moms instead of criminals.
0
willstr113 hr ago
+2
Of course they won't go after criminals, they are cowards and criminals might fight back. Its much easier for them to kidnap and traffic harmless women and children to serve their pedophile master
2
3dios13 hr ago
That's the county he decided to die for and I'm Mexican American
0
getstoopid-AT13 hr ago
Guess she must be a dangerous criminal then, right?
58 Comments