ForumTitleContentMemberSexCountryDate/Time
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

It is unconstitutional, because the law passed in 2006, effects everyone who was tried from 2006 back, this is called ex post facto.

Article I , section 9 of the US constituion



No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
"

But was passed anyway, this means all judges that are sworn in , that raise their hand and swear to follow the constitiuion, are clearly not following it and should be removed.

As they are up holding an ex post facto law.


The Supreme Court may disagree with you.

However, not all laws with ex post facto effects have been found to be unconstitutional. One current U.S. law that has an ex post facto effect is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. This law, which imposes new registration requirements on convicted sex offenders, gives the United States Attorney General the authority to apply the law retroactively. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Doe (2003) that forcing sex offenders to register their whereabouts at regular intervals and the posting of personal information about them on the Internet does not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, because compulsory registration of offenders who completed their sentences before new laws requiring compliance went into effect does not constitute any kind of punishment.


payxibkaMaleUkraine2010-02-03 12:40:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

if you are a sex-offender and you are convicted and you apply for a K1 visa the USCIS will deny you! the Adam Walsh Act is clear that you are excluded unless you can prove that you are NOt a threat to your fiancee'! i hope that you can satisfy them if you apply...

any ideas?

is anyone interested in bringing a lawsuit against USCIS for this issue?




The USCIS is simply following a law (Adam Walsh Act) that was passed by Congress and signed by the President... The USCIS would not be the appropriate party to sue here but the US government.

Adam Walsh Act is well known and has been effective for several years now (2006?). If it was something unconstitutional, I would have thought the ACLU would have been after this already.

So, no I am not interested in bringing a lawsuit... good luck

Edited by payxibka, 03 February 2010 - 07:53 AM.

payxibkaMaleUkraine2010-02-03 07:52:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...
Breaking the law is breaking the law. We have an ad in Australia about drink driving with the slogan "only a little bit over? You bloody idiot". I think it's obvious from that that we're saying that over the limit is over the limit. "I was only speeding a little when I lost control and killed that woman", "I had slept for a little bit, I shouldn't have been too tired to drive", "I only stabbed him a little bit". Where do you draw the line?

Whether you want to admit it or not, in the eyes of the law you slept with a minor. How would you have felt if that was your 17 year old daughter and it was some 40 year old man? You were considered an adult, adult is adult. You made the choice, you suffer the consequences. Whether it be jail or fighting to prove you're not a pervert who's a risk to all the other minors out there. Does it suck? Yes it definitely does but it does make me feel a bit better to know there are certain measures in place.

I do feel that it should be judged on the severity of the crime and whether your "victim" stated it was consensual, but there certainly should be MORE questions for people like you than the average person, and I don't feel that it's unfair... Though to be honest, you could have been committing crimes all your life and never been caught and just be caught in the US... it's just you're high-risk, you have been caught, you have a history. Sucks, but you do.

Edited by Vanessa&Tony, 06 February 2010 - 04:01 AM.

VanessaTonyFemaleAustralia2010-02-06 03:59:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...
I won't address your homophobia, your tin foil hat tendencies, nor that you write more like a sock puppet than a newbie. I do take offence at you correcting my grammar when it was perfectly correct. I was referring to the poor spelling, punctuation and grammar in post #65, which are indubitably appalling.

Lest you take umbrage with my own use of "what" (as in "the dude at the Anacreontic Society what wrote the tune"), I assure you it was done in good fun. Perhaps the usage is more common in the UK than in the US, but it was used for comedic effect.

I demand satisfaction! :star:
the mavenFemaleUnited Kingdom2010-02-09 15:10:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...
And indeed the poem as written was not even known initially as "The Star-Spangled Banner" but "The Defence of Fort McHenry."

Let's call it a joint project between FSK and the dude at the Anacreontic Society what wrote the tune.

PS -- I'm a bigot when it comes to truly appalling spelling, grammar, punctuation and general typographical hygiene, prime examples of which may be noted above this post.

Edited by elmcitymaven, 08 February 2010 - 05:26 PM.

the mavenFemaleUnited Kingdom2010-02-08 17:24:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...
Well, I have won the pompus award today on VJ, but I shall defer on providing lyrics, mostly because I am busy making the world safe for capitalism and eatin' bonbons.
the mavenFemaleUnited Kingdom2010-02-08 15:42:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...
Aaah, but Francis Scott Key only wrote the words to "The Star-Spangled Banner." The tune is actually an 18th century British drinking song, "To Anacreon in Heaven." This little nugget of useless knowledge gives me no end of pleasure, because I am rather fond of drinking songs, and drinking as well.

And yes, I am just as smug a little know-it-all as you think. :D
the mavenFemaleUnited Kingdom2010-02-08 15:36:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

That case is non applicable as the teen was 18.



I guess you didn't read the rest of the story - one of her tormentors was 16, and had her nude pictures on her phone.

Pretty applicable I would say.

It isn't to hard to imagine other vulnerable teens considering suicide because of this "victimless crime"


:ot2:
Bobby+UmitMaleTurkey2010-02-05 09:57:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

Thats the latest which hunt, victumless crimes between children


Beg to differ there....

Parents of dead teen sue over sexting
Bobby+UmitMaleTurkey2010-02-04 18:16:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

if you are a sex-offender and you are convicted and you apply for a K1 visa the USCIS will deny you! the Adam Walsh Act is clear that you are excluded unless you can prove that you are NOt a threat to your fiancee'! i hope that you can satisfy them if you apply...

any ideas?

is anyone interested in bringing a lawsuit against USCIS for this issue?



Sex Offender also means you are not going to be a threat to any children that the family may have, not just the fiance(e).
baron555MaleRussia2010-02-03 08:08:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

In all honesty, any posts made as replys that aren't regarding the OP's original topic should be banned. If VJ were to be a forum of any integrety. So when people search they can find answers and not page after page of hate posts

Any mods here?



You clearly do not understand the vibe of this VJ website. In all kindness and good intent, I recommend that you do more lurking and LESS posting for now. :whistle:

Edited by Hopp, 08 February 2010 - 12:38 AM.

SuperDuper!Male02010-02-08 00:38:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...
In before the lock...


:pop:
ValerieAFemaleCanada2010-02-03 13:49:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

Obviously, the AWA is going so far!
The real criminal, they will violate the law by any way regardless whatever enforcement on them. The SORNA derived from AWA is a great waste of fund, which should used for cracking down on those real criminal but focuse on the routine. It is a shame!


You are making a common mistake, assuming that SORNA & AWA are really about protecting children. The fact is that they are not. Neither is the Center for Missing & Exploited Children. It's really just politicians who have found an easy way to get voters behind them.

AWA & SORNA are both reactionary after the child has already been abused. Find one part of either that works towards prevention.

The Registries tell parents to be on the look-out for the stranger pervert hiding down the block but it's a fact that more than 90% of sex offenses against children are committed by "insiders" who are either family members, considered to be close trusted friends of the family or in some other position of trust within the child's life such as teacher or babysitter.

The Registry gives parents a false sense of security so they are more likely to let their guard down. While keeping an eye on the guy down the street who has never had any contact with their child they are overlooking the all of the adults in their child's life on a daily basis.
Bob 4 AnnaMalePhilippines2010-03-09 09:22:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

I haven't followed this from the beginning, but I will suit the person who suits the government over this issue! I want my family to be protected!!!!!

Who's with me???

Anyone who honestly believes that far-reaching, ill-funded overly-broad federal laws can protect their family better than parent(s) who take the time & effort to be active and involved in the lives of their children will find that the protection they seek will never happen.

If you want to protect your children from Sex Offenses then as a parent you must know every adult in their life & have a working knowledge of most of the children they associate with.

The SO Registry may contain over half a million entries but it only lists previous caught offenders which studies show have the lowest average re-offense rate of all criminal offenders (less than 10%). Studies also show that over 90% of Sex Offense arrests are a previously unknown offender. What does this mean to you the parent:

Your Government is spending huge amounts of money tracking less than 10% of the Sex Offenders in the US and ironically the greater than 90% they aren't tracking are the ones who are most likely to be actively committing Sex Offenses.

So you may feel safer knowing that the guy in the next neighborhood was arrested for skinny dipping (yep in many states that lands you on the list) you are still letting Uncle Charlie spend "Quality Time" with your child and don't even know how to spot a predator grooming their next victim. BTW, a vast majority of Offenders are know to their victims either as family members or a close trusted friend of the family.

KEEP YOUR EYES OPEN AND PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN... Parents are the first & last line of defense for our children.

Edited by Bob 4 Anna, 11 February 2010 - 01:30 PM.

Bob 4 AnnaMalePhilippines2010-02-11 13:28:00
IMBRA Special TopicsObtener recibo de pago para la visa
I believe the upper forms are English only...


I have translated your post:

Hi, I'm here again to request emergency assistance. My appointment is on October 21 and so farI could get my receipt for the visa, now with the change recently made in September I get itelectronically and then went to pay the bank, I've tried several times and I failed. Someone tell me how to do it. Deeply appreciate your prompt response, I'm really desperate.




I don't see why you posted this here though.
Bob 4 AnnaMalePhilippines2011-10-14 13:08:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

Anyone who honestly believes that far-reaching, ill-funded overly-broad federal laws can protect their family better than parent(s) who take the time & effort to be active and involved in the lives of their children will find that the protection they seek will never happen.

If you want to protect your children from Sex Offenses then as a parent you must know every adult in their life & have a working knowledge of most of the children they associate with.

The SO Registry may contain over half a million entries but it only lists previous caught offenders which studies show have the lowest average re-offense rate of all criminal offenders (less than 10%). Studies also show that over 90% of Sex Offense arrests are a previously unknown offender. What does this mean to you the parent:

Your Government is spending huge amounts of money tracking less than 10% of the Sex Offenders in the US and ironically the greater than 90% they aren't tracking are the ones who are most likely to be actively committing Sex Offenses.

So you may feel safer knowing that the guy in the next neighborhood was arrested for skinny dipping (yep in many states that lands you on the list) you are still letting Uncle Charlie spend "Quality Time" with your child and don't even know how to spot a predator grooming their next victim. BTW, a vast majority of Offenders are know to their victims either as family members or a close trusted friend of the family.

KEEP YOUR EYES OPEN AND PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN... Parents are the first & last line of defense for our children.


My hat goes off to you.
v333kMale02010-02-11 13:42:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

is anyone interested in bringing a lawsuit against USCIS for this issue?


I haven't followed this from the beginning, but I will suit the person who suits the government over this issue! I want my family to be protected!!!!!

Who's with me???

Edited by v333k, 08 February 2010 - 05:36 PM.

v333kMale02010-02-08 17:35:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

if you are a sex-offender and you are convicted and you apply for a K1 visa the USCIS will deny you! the Adam Walsh Act is clear that you are excluded unless you can prove that you are NOt a threat to your fiancee'! i hope that you can satisfy them if you apply...

any ideas?

is anyone interested in bringing a lawsuit against USCIS for this issue?


Any Ideas?

Yeah, if you or your sex offender friend(s) don't like the law, tuff shi*!
sjr09MalePhilippines2010-02-02 23:45:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...
it's hard to feel pity for sex offenders, these are adults that should know right from wrong but decide to choose the wrong way..
Hell0W0rldMaleChina2010-02-02 22:24:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...
if you break the law you should loose some rights... good luck suing the American Government
Hell0W0rldMaleChina2010-02-02 22:15:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

I read every post in this thread because I enjoyed the bantering. I found some posts are written quite well with intelligence and more than a bit of insight. While other ones, uh.....well.... tended to be written by those who might have better luck not trying to argue with folks much smarter than themselves (I think you know who you are). I must say that I have to go with the one post above as my favorite. I'm just sayin'


Oh and by the way has anyone else noticed that the original poster SEEMS to wear his status as a "Sex Offender" as a badge by creating a profile with the name s.o. and then posting a question with regard to the issue?


As for my stand on the issue.... Look, sure there are some of those who get screwed by the laws the way they are written. Sure there are those out there who have gotten caught skinny dipping or knockin' boots with their 17yo girlfriend while they're 19yo or something. But don't you think that if that were the case with the original poster and our buddy nonabilitytoconverse that they would be raring to fight against it long before they ever have to deal with this privilege being taken away? I mean that's like me getting my identity stolen and then getting angry with the mortgage company about it only when I get turned down for a house having known the whole time. My fight would have long ago been with the credit bureaus.

Now of course if I was just a bad credit risk, than I might tend to get angry at the mortgage company for not giving me a break and having rules against loaning people like me money. You see what I'm saying?

I just don't think this is the setting that a wrongly stigmatized sex offender would choose to conduct poll to find support in his efforts to be treated as an equal. So in my book that puts him and his staunchest defenders in the groups of people I don't take a likin' to.... thieves, child molesters and men who beat or rape women or defend those who do (to include lawyers).

For those of you who are, or choose to fight for those who are, wrongly stigmatized by the law...More power to you, but this isn't the place nor is USCIS the agency to take that fight to. I do wish you good luck however....

Tech-Mo


Exactly: "I just don't think this is the setting that a wrongly stigmatized sex offender would choose to conduct poll to find support in his efforts to be treated as an equal. So in my book that puts him and his staunchest defenders in the groups of people I don't take a likin' to.... thieves, child molesters and men who beat or rape women or defend those who do (to include lawyers)."
Old DominionMaleZambia2010-03-29 18:00:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...
I agree - USCIS should be more forthcoming and it isn't even trying. They are saddled with a congressional action that needed to be more specific. As to suing, since there is no "right" for a USC to bring someone to the US, no rights are being violated by the terrible delays.
Old DominionMaleZambia2010-03-08 17:36:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...
The OP's general temperament suggests only that he thinks he didn't really commit any kind of crime, as it was consensual. Am I right?
Old DominionMaleZambia2010-02-08 17:56:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...
I feel the posters are all reminding the OP of the facts of life in the U.S., and that the USCIS is abiding by the law, as it should. Amending or repealing the law is not likely anytime soon, since no member of Congress would be willing to defend such an action to the voters.
Old DominionMaleZambia2010-02-06 21:30:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

It wasn't that long ago when African Americans were slaves, and Women did not have the right to vote. It was the law then , I guess you could say if anyone questioned that back in those days, they would probably be given an answer similar to yours

"the people have spoken"

But, give it time, they will find a new witch hunt, currently they are now destroying childrens lives for sexiting , Thats the latest which hunt, victumless crimes between children


You're right. In the case of women and African-Americans, they never had the right to vote -- until they began working publicly to seek fair treatment. Gays and lesbians are still working very hard for fair treatment. Do you suppose RSO's could work publicly and vigorously to get back the fair treatment they once had, with any hope of success?
Old DominionMaleZambia2010-02-05 22:16:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...
AWA or not, this is a democracy and the people of the United States have made it clear that our minor children deserve legal protection against molesters. One technique to protect children, Congress has decided, is to let prospective molesters know that the government will slam various doors in their faces for years to come. State governments have additional restrictions that prevent them from leading normal lives. Until proven otherwise, molesters are thought to be capable of repeating their crimes and many do.

Rightly or wrongly, the people have spoken.

Edited by Old Dominion, 03 February 2010 - 10:04 PM.

Old DominionMaleZambia2010-02-03 22:03:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...
Sounds like FSK was the lyricist.
English MuffinFemaleEngland2010-02-08 16:07:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

And yes, I am just as smug a little know-it-all as you think. :D

But I still love you. :luv:
English MuffinFemaleEngland2010-02-08 15:38:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

LOL - don't suppose you've got the full 'lyrics' for 'To Anacreon in Heaven'?


LOL
VisaJourneyLadyNot TellingIreland2010-02-08 15:40:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

Well, I have won the pompus award today on VJ, but I shall defer on providing lyrics, mostly because I am busy making the world safe for capitalism and eatin' bonbons.


Sounds like a plan... get the gal more bonbons!
SunDropFemaleUnited Kingdom2010-02-08 15:52:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

Aaah, but Francis Scott Key only wrote the words to "The Star-Spangled Banner." The tune is actually an 18th century British drinking song, "To Anacreon in Heaven." This little nugget of useless knowledge gives me no end of pleasure, because I am rather fond of drinking songs, and drinking as well.

And yes, I am just as smug a little know-it-all as you think. :D


LOL - don't suppose you've got the full 'lyrics' for 'To Anacreon in Heaven'?
SunDropFemaleUnited Kingdom2010-02-08 15:39:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

SunDrop-

1) "be" is encouraged in certain sentences ie: "would probably "be" the proper place (just an arbitrary example I thought of).
2) Opinion (with 2 i's) is completely voluntary - when you take your Citizenship test they will confirm this!


Ahhh, thanks.

I didn't think the citizenship test left room for opinion :D And I've yet to find a USC by birth who can tell me who wrote the Star Spangled Banner...
SunDropFemaleUnited Kingdom2010-02-08 14:26:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

SunDrop,
Really good insight in your post. Diverse opinions are what founded this country and thank God we have the right of freedom of speech.

Personally, I think the USA will be a better place when you're a USC and have the right to vote. Keep posting - you're right on the mark with your posts I've read.

Alan

P.S. When you become a USC you have to spell favour "favor"... :)


Aww, thank you! And yup, no more "u"s for me :D I was told by a total stranger during a recent trip, teasingly I think (!), I don't speak the right kind of English to go to a particular store someone was suggesting to me :blink: Where the heck does he think the 'right' kind of English came from? lol...

Voice your opinon to the Queen of England , would probably the proper place


Hey Alan? Will I need to drop the word "be" from my sentences, if following the word "probably"? What about spelling opinion with 2 "i"s?

Too bad we don't have the AWA, nor do we often charge statutory rape if it's 2 consenting (but underage) teenagers. And too bad the Queen doesn't pass laws...
SunDropFemaleUnited Kingdom2010-02-08 04:25:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

In all honesty, any posts made as replys that aren't regarding the OP's original topic should be banned. If VJ were to be a forum of any integrety. So when people search they can find answers and not page after page of hate posts

Any mods here?


Where are the hate posts? A global mod removed those that were in violation of the ToS. Any community, whether online or in the physical world, should support open discussion and debate.

It strikes me, between this post of yours and your other one stating that anyone who is not a USC shouldn't comment, that you're more interested in only reading posts that support AWA affected petitioners. How many of the non-USC posters will be USCs, with a vote, in a mere 3 years give or take.

Taking this kind of dismissive attitude, while being a vocal advocate of more leniency towards AWAers, could serve only to push on-the-fencers in the opposite direction. If I ever have the opportunity to vote in favour of reclassifying the AWA into some kind of 'severity of offense' grouping, I would. But basically being told that I have no right to opinion or comment leaves a bad taste in my mouth, if it is a common voice of those who would fall into that less severe category. It smacks of arrogance and a disregard for personal responsibility for the situation in which they find themselves. Doesn't make me particularly sympathetic towards them.

*shrugs* Not that you care, right?
SunDropFemaleUnited Kingdom2010-02-06 22:35:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

The "discrimination" part I spoke of eariler, is because I was informed that some USCIS workers were posting on VJ, and if they are making biased or negative comments, while also in a job position that requires them to be "un biased" a lawsuit would cause VJ to hand over the information/ip addresses

meaning if you work for USCIS and you posted negative things here, its going to come back you .


There's a supposition here that the alleged USCIS workers are posting biased and negative comments.

Ya know, sometimes life is about picking your battles. And AWAers are already facing a real uphill struggle, not that you need to be told this.

I only know of 1 poster who publicly states that he is a CBP and generally the information he provides is helpful. There was a USCIS guy who posted the Q&A listed in the guide section, but that's going back a couple of years and more recently Gary and Alla posted a relayed Q&A with a VSC Director. If their input is helpful to the majority of VJers, you aren't going to garner much favour by driving either public or private USCIS staff members away, thus losing this community valuable resources.
SunDropFemaleUnited Kingdom2010-02-04 19:55:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...
Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that we are only discussing those people caught in the class of 'sex offender' whose only crime was having sex with their consensual underage partner at the time. Their focus shouldn't be on the USCIS but rather the AWA itself. Just because a criminal act took place, does not mean that all SOs actions were predatory and likely to reoccur. The fact that there is apparently no distinction or leeway within the law, that creates sub-classes according to the offense itself is the issue. I would be happier knowing that someone who unfortunately got caught sleeping with their underage partner had less of a battle than the guy who served time for 2nd degree murder.

However, foolish youths and poor decision making affects more than just those sexually-consenting teens caught and charged. What about the people who traveled to Amsterdam, tried cannabis once, admit to it at their medicals and are denied? They were not breaking the law in the time or place that they committed the 'offense', but they have a waiver battle to fight. Or how about anyone who traveled to Nevada as a young buck and engaged in sexual acts with a prostitute. Perfectly legal in the time and place, but if they admit to it, are they deemed to have broken the law for immigration purposes?

My daughter's 10. We've got her teens ahead of her and in the US as an LPR. I will be talking to her about the implications of 'experimenting' in the not too distant future. I've read the statistics for the number of 11-13 year olds in US public schools who've been offered meth at school. METH for pete's sake! She asked me the other day if people were ever not allowed into America. I told her yes, ones who made silly mistakes when they were younger often end up with a lot of difficulty, and sometimes people who make desperate choices never get in.

It's not fair, but what in this process is actually fair for any of us? 'Beating' AWA is as hard apparently as immigrating from somewhere the western world is currently at war against. That strikes me as even more of an injustice, IMHO. It's not impossible to overcome, but this is a reasonable comparison that demonstrates that the USCIS is applying procedure to its fullest ability to protect all US citizens, both now and in the future.

Edited by SunDrop, 04 February 2010 - 05:56 PM.

SunDropFemaleUnited Kingdom2010-02-04 17:55:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

Right , like if your criminal case happened before the adam walsh act, then they can't create a law that will go back and punish you before the law was created

Its the same, ex post facto.

You can't make a law in 2006, and go back and re punish everyone from before 2006

No, I understand what you are trying to say, but you are ignoring the most important fact. The law created in 2006 is dealing with people that violated the law before 2006. They have become a "CLASS" that violated a known law on the books at the time they committed a crime.

They are not creating a new law in AWA that makes something illegal. They are only creating a "CLASS" of criminal violators which must be registered and declared and carefully examined for a particular US Government benefit. The AWA "grandfathers" all criminal SOs prior to 2006 into an extra stage of declaration to USCIS/DOS and examination.

I don't see any arrests that will arise to people that were convicted of SOs prior to AWA (2006). The people already committed a known crime on the books. Not an example of "ex post facto."

I apologize to any or all people if this offends you. No offense nor position on the matter is intended. This is simply a clarification of the misstatement that this is an example of an "ex-post facto" law. It is indeed not an ex post facto law.

Edited by Audy_Rob, 03 February 2010 - 09:52 PM.

Audy_RobMaleThailand2010-02-03 21:50:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

It is unconstitutional, because the law passed in 2006, effects everyone who was tried from 2006 back, this is called ex post facto.

Article I , section 9 of the US constituion

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
"

I do not believe that the law is "ex post facto." The proper definition I believe you are looking for is "grandfathering." That is, does this law have a "grandfather clause." Yes, I believe it does. Is a grandfather clause legal. Yes, it is very likely to hold up.

ex post facto simply means after the fact. An example of ex post facto is you walk across a street where it is legal. The next day, the city passes a law now making that street crossing illegal. The city goes back to look at their traffic cameras and sees you crossing the street when and where it WAS legal. But it is not legal now. They cannot arrest you as you crossed the street when it was legal. They cannot arrest you because the next day it became illegal. That is ex post facto.
Audy_RobMaleThailand2010-02-03 16:25:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...
Some people just don't deserve the same rights as the rest of us.
Kayla*MathewFemaleCanada2010-02-02 23:15:00
IMBRA Special TopicsUSCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...
Old Dominion -
It's really unknown what the OP's thought process was in his post, except he said that all AWA filers will be denied by the USCIS. While it's apt to be an uphill approval, we have seen in several posts in different threads that certain AWA filers have been granted waivers and ultimately have been approved for their petitions.

In 68 responses to the OP's original thread, I believe one person expressed interest in the OP's recommendation of a class action against the USCIS. Regardless of the OP's intent, the USCIS did not enact this law - the US Congress did. The USCIS merely enforces the laws provided to them.

It's been an interesting debate on this thread.

Alan
az110965MaleCosta Rica2010-02-08 18:51:00