Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Obama's Illegal Alien Uncle

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • O'Sullivan Bere
    replied
    Re: Obama's Illegal Alien Uncle

    Originally posted by soot View Post
    Gottcha. Thanks for the explanation.
    You're welcome.

    Leave a comment:


  • O'Sullivan Bere
    replied
    Re: Obama's Illegal Alien Uncle

    Originally posted by C-B-M View Post
    Actually, that's not the case. There was a relatively recent furor over the expose of workers in welfare offices counseling people posing as illegal aliens and so forth how to game the system to get benefits. It happened this year, I'll find it if you want.

    I've also dealt with government agencies. They're quite good at enforcing the law if they want to, I agree. They're also, I assure you, quite good at following technicalities to ignore parts of the law they want to ignore.
    I was meaning to refer to driver's licence agencies. The ones I've dealt with are pretty tough on applying their laws, and that's also because they are often constructed with little or no flexibility in how to apply them. I'm not as familiar with those outside the Mid-Atlantic area, but around this area where I am, they're pretty merciless and they don't have the flexibility to show much if any discretion even if they would like to do so given what they must do.

    What you're also presumably referring to is the issue of fraud and the presence of corrupt employees, although if you have that link I'd like to see it to determine if it was lawful or unlawful advice given. That's a different matter than what I meant to suggest, namely honest employees performing their duties. Such employees exist on the public and private capacities and are criminals.

    The new laws on banning illegal immigrants from getting licenced on the state level come with more problems than they are worth IMO insofar as an effective measure on illegal immigration and serve to harm the public moreso than assist them, e.g. the now massive number of unlicenced and uninsured illegal immigrant drivers on the road and its consequences. One reason amongst many is precisely the problem of public corruption. A criminal market has already arisen for illegally issued licences as well as 'breeder documents,' namely official-looking passports, forms, stamps, visas, cards and IDs with false data, to help illegal immigrants obtain licenses. That temptation and incentive to corruption has spread to some government employees, public notaries and others who are tempted by its lucrative offerings. Private criminals provide these incentives to public employees as well as produce their own breeder documents and other fake licences. Even for honest employees, the endless varying forms of foreign and domestic documents are difficult for state government and private employees to validate authenticity. Many fake documents are even 'scannable' including fake driver's licences, never mind real ones issued based due to corrupt and fraudulent acts. Around my area, a college student can easily get a scannable fake driver's licence for entering bars when under 21 years of age for around $30 and such fake licences are just as easily sold to illegal immigrants where a cop or bar bouncer would swipe them and get a reading that it's valid.
    Last edited by O'Sullivan Bere; 08-31-2011, 02:00 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • soot
    replied
    Re: Obama's Illegal Alien Uncle

    Originally posted by O'Sullivan Bere View Post
    Edited for brevity: Immigration law, however, does not concern itself and is not bound by how each state classifies its offences.
    Gottcha. Thanks for the explanation.

    Leave a comment:


  • O'Sullivan Bere
    replied
    Re: Obama's Illegal Alien Uncle

    Originally posted by soot View Post
    Is that the case in Mass?

    I know that in NJ DUI is charged as a motor vehicle violation, not a crime, and that even if it were charged under the criminal code there's a distinction made between a "disorderly persons" offence (violations for which the maximum jail time penalty is less than 6 months) and "crimes" (violations for which jail time maximum excedes 6 months).

    If this had occured in NJ Mr. Obama would not have commited a crime nor would he have a criminal record as a result.

    Is Mass different?
    Almost all states treat DUI as a criminal offence. NJ is one of the extreme minority that do not. You are correct as to how NJ classifies DUI. Referred to as DWI in NJ, they classify DWI as a traffic offence under its Title 39 Vehicle Code rather than a criminal offence, and such offences are deemed a 'quasi-criminal' in nature. That's why a DWI offence in NJ is not placed on their criminal raps sheets or appear on the NCIC national database relating to criminal offences. They are, however, permanently recorded on NJ driver's licence abstracts and can be located on the National Driver Registry compilation for traffic offences and/or home state driving records of out-of-state DUI offenders convicted in NJ pursuant to the Driver's Licence Compact that most states have enacted.

    Immigration law, however, does not concern itself and is not bound by how each state classifies its offences. Immigration law is a species of federal law, and they create their own statutes describing the kinds of conduct they deem serious enough to warrant exclusion and/or removal from the US.

    The main two ways a person becomes a mandatory removable situation is when someone commits offences falling into what are deemed 'aggravated felonies' and/or 'crimes involving moral turpitude' (CIMT). Federal law contains definitions and scopes of how these kinds of offences warrant exclusion from and/or removal from the US.

    Aggravated felony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Grounds for Deportation: Moral Turpitude - Lawyers.com
    Moral turpitude - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Speaking generally keeping in mind the routine ways DUI statutes are constructed, the SCOTUS held that a simple 'normal' DUI charge does not meet those criteria:

    Leocal v. Ashcroft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It's about applying the federal statutes languages to each case set of facts. That can and often does lead to situations where someone gets deported over less serious facts in a state or person's point of view whilst more serious ones in their view do not. It's also become a really big deal in criminal law practice and court procedures.

    Leave a comment:


  • CSA
    replied
    Re: Obama's Illegal Alien Uncle

    This has nothing to do with the president btw, and I dont hold it against him we all have some shitty family members.

    Leave a comment:


  • soot
    replied
    Re: Obama's Illegal Alien Uncle

    Originally posted by O'Sullivan Bere View Post
    If convicted--and DUI cases are very hard to beat on the merits--he would be a convicted criminal and an illegally present individual. Even though DUI is not a mandatory deportable offence, he's still charged with a criminal offence and illegally present. It's the present practice to focus on deporting people like him.
    Is that the case in Mass?

    I know that in NJ DUI is charged as a motor vehicle violation, not a crime, and that even if it were charged under the criminal code there's a distinction made between a "disorderly persons" offence (violations for which the maximum jail time penalty is less than 6 months) and "crimes" (violations for which jail time maximum excedes 6 months).

    If this had occured in NJ Mr. Obama would not have commited a crime nor would he have a criminal record as a result.

    Is Mass different?

    Leave a comment:


  • C-B-M
    replied
    Re: Obama's Illegal Alien Uncle

    Actually, that's not the case. There was a relatively recent furor over the expose of workers in welfare offices counseling people posing as illegal aliens and so forth how to game the system to get benefits. It happened this year, I'll find it if you want.

    I've also dealt with government agencies. They're quite good at enforcing the law if they want to, I agree. They're also, I assure you, quite good at following technicalities to ignore parts of the law they want to ignore.

    Leave a comment:


  • O'Sullivan Bere
    replied
    Re: Obama's Illegal Alien Uncle

    Originally posted by C-B-M View Post
    And I'm sure that state agencies ask the question in the manner they do so that the loophole may be taken. It's intentional.
    That's too sceptical IMO. I deal with such agencies all the time...if it's the law, then it's the law and they'll follow it. It's just that they choose manners of reliance depending on others who don't have fullproof methods in place. SS numbers are one of them given past practices and even some loopholes now. The feds issue those numbers and are responsible for them insofar as purging people who no longer should have them. I'm not a big fan of accepting driver's licences as proof of lawful residency standing alone for reasons like that. 'Enhanced driver's licences' (EDLs) that allow passport-free land border travel between the US, Canada and Mexico are more reliable, e.g.,

    http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/broch/C159.pdf
    Last edited by O'Sullivan Bere; 08-30-2011, 02:59 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • C-B-M
    replied
    Re: Obama's Illegal Alien Uncle

    And I'm sure that state agencies ask the question in the manner they do so that the loophole may be taken. It's intentional.

    Leave a comment:


  • O'Sullivan Bere
    replied
    Re: Obama's Illegal Alien Uncle

    Originally posted by CSA View Post
    He seems to have a license and a social security card for the past 19 years meaning he lied on government documents which ask if he is a citizen. Would this not be a felony?
    I'm going on general assumptions here because I don't have the specifics of his case, but without specifics, I can definitely say not necessarily so, and probably less likely so given how long he's been in the US.

    The trend of states enacting laws or policies requiring their licensing agencies to require proof of lawful status is a new trend within the past few years. This arrest happened in MA and from what I've read about him, he's lived in MA for a very long time. MA now asks for proof of lawful residency as follows when I looked at their driver's licence agency forms online:

    For most transactions, including license conversions, applicants over the age of 18 must present three forms of ID which include:
    • Proof of date of birth • Proof of signature • Proof of Massachusetts residency Applicants under 18 years of age must only provide proof of date of birth. The parent/guardian must sign the certification on the back of this application.

    IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
    You must also produce your social security number (SSN) that the RMV can verify with the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) as having been issued to you. If you do not have an SSN, an acceptable written denial notice not more than 60 days old, from the Social Security Administration (SSA) is required. You must also provide proof of an acceptable visa status, an I-94, and a current non-U.S. Passport.
    http://www.mass.gov/rmv/forms/21042.pdf

    And they will also do so if you try to renew your licence online:

    Social Security Information:*
    Social Security Number (SSN):
    - -
    I do not have an SSN

    If you do not have an SSN, please enter
    your non-U.S. passport number:

    If you do not have an SSN, you will be required to present the following at your Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) branch visit:

    Denial Notice issued by the Social Security Administration that is no more than 30 days old

    Valid non-U.S. Passport with proof of visa status and I-94
    https://secure.rmv.state.ma.us/Prest...formation.aspx

    But given how long he's been here, presumably he first received his driver's licence back when such things weren't asked at all. Moreover, illegal immigrants were far more easily able to get Social Security Numbers like anyone else awhile back, especially ones that are restricted to 'not valid for employment.'

    With these things in mind, I presume he received a Social Security number like other illegal immigrants back when he could do so, and he's simply been using his validly issued SS number since then for answering questions like that on such forms, all of which answering truthfully if you read such questions. He might have received one if he filed for asylum back then but only later was rejected.

    Many state licensing agencies ask the question as MA does, using the SS number as verification for their purposes. If an illegal immigrant who has been here for many years already has a valid SS number from previous times when they could get one, they can slip through and are able to keep renewing their driver's licences if the questions aren't tailored correctly. That's a loophole problem with reliance on SS numbers rather than asking direct questions when it comes to long time illegal residents.

    Leave a comment:


  • CSA
    replied
    Re: Obama's Illegal Alien Uncle

    Originally posted by O'Sullivan Bere View Post
    He should be removed IMO. The half-uncle might, however, be granted an asylum stay on the same grounds that the aunt was permitted to stay by an immigration court along the same grounds the article cites: "Onyango made headlines last year when she won the right to stay in the United States after an earlier deportation order. She came to the U.S. from Kenya in 2000 and was denied asylum by an immigration judge in 2004." That's up to the court, though, and his situation as opposed to hers just got more complicated by the arrest.

    As the article correctly states, an ICE detainer is usually issued to anyone in custody with pending criminal charges who is illegally present and/or has a deportable offence charged against them. If the person is illegally present or the person is convicted of a deportable offence, standard practice is to turn the person over to ICE once the charges are resolved pursuant to the detainer.

    DUI, standing alone, is not a mandatory deportable offence in the US. It can be deportable if aggravating circumstances exists, such as driving without a licence when DUI, someone is injured or killed, etc. That said, he's still here committing offences and he's presumably illegally here. The article states the following: "In a court document, ICE said he had an earlier deportation or removal order."

    The article also states the following accurately: "The president's administration announced this month that it would allow many illegal immigrants facing deportation the chance to stay in the U.S. and apply for work permits and would focus on removing convicted criminals and people who might be national security or public safety threats." (bolding added). If convicted--and DUI cases are very hard to beat on the merits--he would be a convicted criminal and an illegally present individual. Even though DUI is not a mandatory deportable offence, he's still charged with a criminal offence and illegally present. It's the present practice to focus on deporting people like him.

    As for his relationship with Obama, I highly doubt the White House will get involved with this case just as it didn't with the aunt. The person is only a half-brother of his absent father and he has little or no relationship with his paternal side relatives and they don't with him. Moreover, it's contradictory to his own policy. It's also very bad politics to get involved in a case with these facts. It's also improper to misuse his office to unduly interfere with the legal process. Anything he would do, if anything, would and could be no different than a relative would or could do in a private setting for an arrested friend or relative.
    He seems to have a license and a social security card for the past 19 years meaning he lied on government documents which ask if he is a citizen. Would this not be a felony?

    Leave a comment:


  • C-B-M
    replied
    Re: Obama's Illegal Alien Uncle

    That's unsurprising, given that he also had an illegal alien aunt, Aunt Zeituni, who famously declared that the United States had an "obligation" to make her a citizen. Her quote, as reported on ABC, was "if I come as an immigrant, you have the obligation to make me a citizen." She was a "public health advocate," which matches Obama's "community organizer" background.

    Obama's Aunt Zeituni Onyango Says US Is Obligated to Make Her Citizen - ABC News

    A family of douchebags all around.

    Leave a comment:


  • O'Sullivan Bere
    replied
    Re: Obama's Illegal Alien Uncle

    Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
    ooops....Obama's uncle was arrested for a DUI and it was discovered he's an llegal alien. oooops.

    The Associated Press: Obama uncle held in US by immigration officials

    So does he need a path to legal immigration or should he get a ride out of the country?
    He should be removed IMO. The half-uncle might, however, be granted an asylum stay on the same grounds that the aunt was permitted to stay by an immigration court along the same grounds the article cites: "Onyango made headlines last year when she won the right to stay in the United States after an earlier deportation order. She came to the U.S. from Kenya in 2000 and was denied asylum by an immigration judge in 2004." That's up to the court, though, and his situation as opposed to hers just got more complicated by the arrest.

    As the article correctly states, an ICE detainer is usually issued to anyone in custody with pending criminal charges who is illegally present and/or has a deportable offence charged against them. If the person is illegally present or the person is convicted of a deportable offence, standard practice is to turn the person over to ICE once the charges are resolved pursuant to the detainer.

    DUI, standing alone, is not a mandatory deportable offence in the US. It can be deportable if aggravating circumstances exists, such as driving without a licence when DUI, someone is injured or killed, etc. That said, he's still here committing offences and he's presumably illegally here. The article states the following: "In a court document, ICE said he had an earlier deportation or removal order."

    The article also states the following accurately: "The president's administration announced this month that it would allow many illegal immigrants facing deportation the chance to stay in the U.S. and apply for work permits and would focus on removing convicted criminals and people who might be national security or public safety threats." (bolding added). If convicted--and DUI cases are very hard to beat on the merits--he would be a convicted criminal and an illegally present individual. Even though DUI is not a mandatory deportable offence, he's still charged with a criminal offence and illegally present. It's the present practice to focus on deporting people like him.

    As for his relationship with Obama, I highly doubt the White House will get involved with this case just as it didn't with the aunt. The person is only a half-brother of his absent father and he has little or no relationship with his paternal side relatives and they don't with him. Moreover, it's contradictory to his own policy. It's also very bad politics to get involved in a case with these facts. It's also improper to misuse his office to unduly interfere with the legal process. Anything he would do, if anything, would and could be no different than a relative would or could do in a private setting for an arrested friend or relative.
    Last edited by O'Sullivan Bere; 08-29-2011, 08:55 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JDJarvis
    started a topic Obama's Illegal Alien Uncle

    Obama's Illegal Alien Uncle

    ooops....Obama's uncle was arrested for a DUI and it was discovered he's an llegal alien. oooops.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...5215452f441fc2

    So does he need a path to legal immigration or should he get a ride out of the country?
Working...
X