this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
52 points (100.0% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7228 readers
333 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 29 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Deport Melania, and the anchor baby. Oh, I forgot, immigration law doesn't apply to Republicans.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 17 points 6 days ago

*rich republicans.

[–] LavenderDay3544@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

immigration law doesn't apply to ~~Republicans~~whites.

[–] trustnoone@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 6 days ago

I see what your saying, but I think people don't realise it actually just doesn't apply to the rich. I think a number of Republicans are going to be shocked to find out that without money they or someone close to them will definitely be in the firing line.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 24 points 6 days ago (3 children)

I don't understand this. As long as I can remember, marrying a US citizen meant you were safe.

[–] BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca 11 points 6 days ago

U.S. District Court Judge J. Campbell Barker, an appointee of President-elect Donald Trump

[–] FarFarAway@startrek.website 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Just a few years ago, im pretty sure you had to get married, they had to go out of country and file the residency paperwork, and then wait until they could be issued a permanent residency. If they stay married and lived in the country for at least 3 years (i think they could spend some time away) , they could file to become a citizen. The residency process took about 6 months.

Biden made it so if the spouse was already in the country, and overstayed thier original travelers / residency / student / whatever visa, or just entered the country illegally, they could apply for the permanent residency without having to leave.

The court reverted it back to the old rules.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I guess I can see the merit in both systems. Like obviously it's more humane to just let them stay, and government bureaucracy rarely works as it should. On the other hand, having a loosey goosey permissive policy seems like it would surely encourage more illegal immigration. But the whole argument against immigration made by the right is so two-faced. They're the ones hiring people without documentation so they can shave operating costs at the cost of human exploitation. I think a better system would be to severely punish employers who hire undocumented workers.

[–] FarFarAway@startrek.website 1 points 6 days ago

I mean, this is just the requirement path for spousal citizenship. Other visas have different requirements. Here, You have an established couple. One person can definitely, legally, gain employment and save money for the process. Yes, it may cost upwards of $10,000 for just the residency. If ones already here illegally, and you've saved up that much, you could probably save a bit more and find a place to stay in another country. If this was during covid, I think the odds of a spousal immigrant staying in a camp on the boarder, are lower than for the people applying for asylum.

Honestly, anyone I've met, with a spouse from another country, has had no problem doing it this way. They meet while the one immigrating still has permanent residence in their home country. They commute and have a long distance relationship. They feel the risk of losing their family is too great, so they do it the right way. It's fair, to think that idea should extend to employers, as well.

[–] Today@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

From what i understand it applies to people who entered illegally - maybe before marriage? Now you're not entitled to a green card unless you leave the country, serve your penance, and reapply.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I guess it closes a loophole, but to my understanding, more Mexicans have been leaving the country than arriving over the last decade. Perhaps that has changed since Biden took over.

[–] LavenderDay3544@lemmy.world -2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Nobody said anything about Mexicans. What do Mexicans have to do with this at all?

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Are you asking me what Mexicans have to do with the illegal immigration issue in the United States?

[–] Today@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (2 children)

They're goading you - trying to get you to call immigrants Mexicans so they can call you racist. Mexican immigrants are the largest group at the southern border, but still well below half of all who enter/attempt to enter there.

[–] LavenderDay3544@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

No. My point was that nobody mentioned Mexicans til he did and the majority of illegal border crossers are South American not Mexican, you royal dunce.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago

Thanks. That's what I suspected.

[–] sparky@lemmy.federate.cc 12 points 6 days ago

This is a shit ruling that punishes American citizens as much as immigrants, by preventing them from legalizing their wives and husbands. What are you supposed to do if you fall in love with someone who happens to be undocumented? Fuck you, I guess?

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 days ago

The judge is illegal

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Why not. Get a jump start on Trumpian anti-immigration policies. Legal, necessary, whatever! Hope people like understaffed places and the inability to hire for the jobs white people don't want to do...

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

That is actually why the deportation maximalists will fail: the bourgeoisie won’t allow it, because they depend on exploiting immigrants in precarious legal status for their cheap, pliant labor.