Sunday, November 27, 2005

RADICAL ANTI-IMMIGRATION WEBSITE

I discovered this web site through a search for immigration blogs. These are the types of people immigrants are up against! They are not for true freedom. Their true goal is to get immigrants the fuck out of the USA at all costs--and no matter the cost. They don't want any immigrants to have a chance at freedom or a better life. The folks that run this website are sick, twisted individuals at best. Enjoy the discusting read:



The deportation process for illegal aliens and criminal alien residents is designed for failure:
EOIR litigation bureaucracy is the problem, not the solution
The Executive Office for Immigration Review -- a federal agency made up of the U.S. Immigration Court system and its appellate body, the Board of Immigration Appeals -- is the centerpiece of a largely unknown permanent amnesty for illegal aliens and criminal alien residents within the U.S. Department of Justice.
With the complicity of the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, the EOIR litigation bureaucracy forms the hidden piece of the puzzle of institutionalized mass immigration in the federal government.
Deportation of foreign nationals in the United States is largely voluntary.
The lengthy EOIR system of hearings and appeals enables illegal aliens and criminal alien residents to remain in the United States both legally and illegally.
EOIR and the INS enable the vast majority of detained aliens facing deportation to be released back to the streets on an immigration bond or paroled out of federal custody during the EOIR hearing process, giving every non-detained illegal alien and criminal alien the option of disappearing back into the United States regardless of the outcome of their Immigration Court hearings.
The lack of physical security on the land border exposes the EOIR process for the charade that it is -- deported aliens just walk back in.
EOIR makes a federal case out of every illegal alien and criminal alien resident in the United States
After reviewing Immigration Court decisions at the Board of Immigration Appeals (its appellate body) the EOIR system also offers federal circuit appellate court review for the deportation of every illegal alien and every criminal alien resident in the United States.
EOIR hearings and appeals are never really over until the alien wins.
Considering the laundry list of relief from deportation available in Immigration Court, EOIR removal proceedings are really "get to stay" proceedings.
EOIR is a permanent amnesty by stealth.
EOIR routinely grants "green cards" (lawful permanent resident status) to illegal aliens, and allows convicted criminal aliens to remain in the United States.
EOIR simply is not designed for detaining and deporting aliens.
EOIR is the four-letter word of immigration policy
EOIR is entirely unknown in the major media.
EOIR litigation is the livelihood of thousands of immigration lawyers, whose interests are represented by their lobbying group -- the American Immigration Lawyers Association -- AILA.
The country's over 200 EOIR immigration judges earn from $109,587 to $142,500 per year.
EOIR bureaucracy unnecessarily formalizes simple review processes that already are entrusted to lesser-paid federal employees including consular officers, adjudications officers, immigration inspectors, special agents, immigration agents, deportation officers and asylum officers all over the country and the world.
The EOIR bureaucracy must be abolished
The EOIR's redundant functions should be parceled out to federal law enforcement personnel already in the Department of Homeland Security who can do the job of deporting illegal aliens and criminal alien residents.
The EOIR litigation bureaucracy is the antithesis of real homeland security.
As a deportation system, EOIR is designed for failure. But as institutionalized mass immigration, EOIR is a raging success!

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

BUSH PRESSES FOR FREEDOMS

Bush was in China pressing the government for more political freedoms. Now is this a joke or what! Bush pressing for more freedom-- a President who stole an election and wants a Constitutional amendment to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
By saying that China is putting more state control over citizens lives is a joke from this idiot--isn't this is what is he proposing with this amendment?

Thursday, November 03, 2005

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INTERVIEW

My partner and I recently had the great opportunity to take part in an interview with Human Rights Watch on the effects of U.S. Immigration laws on bi-national couples. The interview is going to be used to compile a report which is to be submitted on February 14th, 2006.

We talked for about an hour and a half and told our complete story of how we were forced to leave the United States in order to remain a couple. I was asked how I felt about the way I was treated under immigration rules as a U.S. citizen.

I will give a few examples of things I was told in the U.S. regarding immigration law:
One attorney told me and I quote, "The INS is not your friend. They will lie, cheat, or steal to get you out because that is their job."
My partner's first attorney said that I did not have to worry because it was her that was the one who would be deported.
Even though we were a couple, I would not even be able to contribute anything in her proceeding because I was "insignificant".

Ok so now I will answer the question above. First of all, I would agree that the borders do need to be protected but to be able to lie, cheat, or steal to meet that objective is outrageous. So what happened to "liberty and justice for all?" Well apparently under U.S. immigration law, there is none.

Secondly, the first attorney apparently did not get it that we were a couple. Would he have told that to a heterosexual couple? I doubt it very seriously. Of course I would have to worry because we are a couple and when you truly love someone it is forever.

Finally, this is the real reason same-sex binational couples are persecuted under U.S. immigration law--the U.S. partner is "insignificant". This statement is just too much for words.

So how do you think I answered the question of what I thought about how I was treated under U.S. immigration rules?