Why is wanting people to immigrate legally considered being Xenophobic?

[Spiral Mage]

Because the people who say shit like what the OP is asking .. are complete fucking idiots.

Stupidity explains -everything-.

[Darththeo]

I'd consider it advice. (but the same with a lawyer in the long run you hope your lawyer out lawyers the other one and the judge sees it your way.) *but then they even make mistakes hence appeals and such)

*also why I try when I can to find Gov sites when I want stuff related to the government (during this thread I found all kinda of lawyers talking every which way about this subject and all over the place)

Except the site you found wasn't Department of Homeland Security, US CBP or USCIS, but rather Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs. So it isn't a group that enforces those laws it mentioned at all. The Immigration Lawyers I quoted are actually more valid sources.

[Dadwen]

Except the site you found wasn't Department of Homeland Security, US CBP or USCIS, but rather Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs. So it isn't a group that enforces those laws it mentioned at all. The Immigration Lawyers I quoted are actually more valid sources.

https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/about.html
About Us

The Office of Visa Services, in the Consular Affairs Bureau, Department of State provides various functions:

We serve as liaisons with the Department of Homeland Security
We serve as liaisons between the Department of State and U.S. Embassies and Consulates abroad on visa matters
We interpret visa laws and regulations, and act as a point of contact for the public.

[Darththeo]

https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/about.html
About Us

The Office of Visa Services, in the Consular Affairs Bureau, Department of State provides various functions:

We serve as liaisons with the Department of Homeland Security
We serve as liaisons between the Department of State and U.S. Embassies and Consulates abroad on visa matters
We interpret visa laws and regulations, and act as a point of contact for the public.

Thanks for proving my point for me. That is nice of you. Liaison just means they have a close working relationship with DHS.
And they interpret (which FYI, puts them in the same category as the lawyers you don't take as a valid source) not enforce. You quote a general source rather than a specific source and claim it is more credible.

Essentially, you have just admitted you cherry pick.

[Dadwen]

Thanks for proving my point for me. That is nice of you. Liaison just means they have a close working relationship with DHS.
And they interpret (which FYI, puts them in the same category as the lawyers you don't take as a valid source) not enforce. You quote a general source rather than a specific source and claim it is more credible.

Essentially, you have just admitted you cherry pick.

Right just ignore the last line..... it come down to this is there main job where lawyer have to cover many aspects

[Darththeo]

Right just ignore the last line..... it come down to this is there main job where lawyer have to cover many aspects

Why are you lying? I quote immigration lawyers ... lawyers whose jobs are helping people with immigration issues. I am not quoting divorce lawyers.

Thanks for proving my point for me. That is nice of you. Liaison just means they have a close working relationship with DHS.
And they INTERPRET (which FYI, puts them in the same category as the lawyers you don't take as a valid source) not enforce. You quote a general source rather than a specific source and claim it is more credible.

Essentially, you have just admitted you cherry pick.

What line did I ignore again? I didn't address point of contact, because it doesn't need addressing and doesn't change what I put in parentheses.

[Dadwen]

Why are you lying?



What line did I ignore again?

Part about it their job to tell the public the law on visas or you just say they don't know what they are talking about, I'm still inclined to take the government's site over a random lawyer

[Darththeo]

Part about it there job to tell the public the law on visas or you just say they don't know what they are saying, I'm still inclined to take the government's site over a random lawyer

Why are you misrepresenting what I have stated?
You are quoting a group that is no more knowledgeable than the lawyers I cite. This doesn't mean they do not know what they are talking about. I have quoted not just a single group of lawyers, but several. You are choosing to cherry pick the source you are saying is right.

Unlawful presence ALONE isn't against the law. The law states when you are in a state of unlawful presence AND have stayed more than 180 days (about six months) OR have been asked to leave and haven't in 90 days ... this is why your source states it is against the law to do so because it is the simpler generalized version of the law.

[Dadwen]

So I'm supposed to take a bunch of random lawyers advice over the government's website advice. Because that's what you're suggesting

Now you're just trying to reach I don't think anyone's talking about people who have been here for less than 180 days

( this site sucks trying to post on a phone)

[Darththeo]

So I'm supposed to take a bunch of random lawyers advice over the government's website advice. Because that's what you're suggesting

Now you're just trying to reach I don't think anyone's talking about people who haven't been here for less than 180 days

Because you are taking the advice of the site the way you think it says it. You are adding to the context then realizing what it says.

I am not stating the government site is wrong. I am stating you are wrong in your interpretation of what it states. The site you cite is a generalized information site ... they aren't quoting the law. The lawyers I cite are actually speaking about the law itself. Do you not understand the difference?

And I apologize for being unclear in my last post, I am referring to someone unlawfully present for more than 180 days.

[Dadwen]

Because you are taking the advice of the site the way you think it says it. You are adding to the context then realizing what it says.

I am not stating the government site is wrong. I am stating you are wrong in your interpretation of what it states. The site you cite is a generalized information site ... they aren't quoting the law. The lawyers I cite are actually speaking about the law itself. Do you not understand the difference?

And I apologize for being unclear in my last post, I am referring to someone unlawfully present for more than 180 days.

the site seems to be pretty black and white, and seeing as the sites trying to make it simple for the public to understand it seems fairly simple in it saying it's illegal or against immigration laws.

[Darththeo]

the site seems to be pretty black and white, and seeing as the sites trying to make it simple for the public to understand it seems fairly simple in it saying it's illegal or against immigration laws.

It is against labor law in my state not to give a former employee a pink slip after a separation from employment ... unlawful.
It isn't illegal to do so.

Unlawful is still a violation of the law, but it is not a criminal act. In law, illegal acts are actions directly prohibited by the law. Unlawful acts are acts that violate the law but are not expressly forbade. You are using common language to describe in a legal setting. The terms aren't synonyms when talking about law. And generalizations are usually black and white.

If an immigrant intentionally overstays his visa by less than 180 days AND leaves on his own prior to being deported, he legally has not violated the law. The law requires the 180 days to be violated.

[Dadwen]

It is against labor law in my state not to give a former employee a pink slip after a separation from employment ... unlawful.
It isn't illegal to do so.

Unlawful is still a violation of the law, but it is not a criminal act. In law, illegal acts are actions directly prohibited by the law. Unlawful acts are acts that violate the law but are not expressly forbade. You are using common language to describe in a legal setting. The terms aren't synonyms when talking about law. And generalizations are usually black and white.

If an immigrant intentionally overstays his visa by less than 180 days AND leaves on his own prior to being deported, he legally has not violated the law. The law requires the 180 days to be violated.

again I don't think anyone is talking about people under 180 days, (some leeway seems fair) but was said they were subject to arrest (now if they get charged is another thing) but most of the time they don't arrest people that are believed not to have broken any laws.

[Darththeo]

again I don't think anyone is talking about people under 180 days, (some leeway seems fair) but was said they were subject to arrest (now if they get charged is another thing) but most of the time they don't arrest people that are believed not to have broken any laws.

And this is why Endus is correct. Unlawful presence alone isn't a violation of the law on its own. The law states unlawful presence PLUS something else is a violation. Unlawful presence plus illegal entry or unlawful presence AND 180 days of it ... or unlawful presence and in the country after 90 days of being told to leave. It is always unlawful presence plus something else.

You are playing semantics to call him wrong.

[Dadwen]

And this is why Endus is correct. Unlawful presence alone isn't a violation of the law on its own. The law states unlawful presence PLUS something else is a violation. Unlawful presence plus illegal entry or unlawful presence AND 180 days of it ... or unlawful presence and in the country after 90 days of being told to leave. It is always unlawful presence plus something else.

You are playing semantics to call him wrong.

out of status is, again no one is talking about the leeway, under 180 time frame (all you need is a expired visa to be in violation of the law) and if that is not the case it falls under the entries laws. seems your side is playing semantics (being in the US without a valid Visa etc or coming into the country while sneaking or false papers is a volition of immigration law.

[Spunt]

It's only xenophobic to idiot SJWs who think everyone should bend over and accept getting rammed by "oppressed minorities".

[Darththeo]

out of status is, again no one is talking about the leeway, under 180 time frame (all you need is a expired visa to be in violation of the law) and if that is not the case it falls under the entries laws. seems your side is playing semantics (being in the US without a valid Visa etc or coming into the country while sneaking or false papers is a volition of immigration law.

You cherry picked a source. You played the synonym game (which FYI is playing semantics. It is akin to Creationists using common parlance theory to mean science theory.) You are literally projecting. You have misrepresented points and you have outright lied.

And now I can add shifting the goal posts.

[Pangean]

It's only xenophobic to idiot SJWs who think everyone should bend over and accept getting rammed by "oppressed minorities".

Aren't you special!

[Spunt]

Aren't you special!

My caregivers tell me I'm special every time they change my diaper.

[Pangean]

My caregivers tell me I'm special every time they change my diaper.

I bet they do. You may want them to take care of that rash though.