|
Immigration law says otherwise.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:51 |
|
|
Thalantos posted:They shouldn't need to prove their marriage regardless The legal benefits of marriage (such as being able to stay in the country beyond the expiration of your work visa in quasi-political asylum, tax breaks, insurance benefits, etc.) are only conferred to legitimate couples. There is good policy reason to restrict such benefits as they would be ripe for abuse. Think of how many barracks marriages there were to get bah. The ones that were legitimate sham marriages could have very well ended up in revocation of the benefits, recoupment of unauthorized pay, and article 15 charges for the servicemember. That is not to say that a marriage without sex or with extra-marital relations is not legitimate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:They shouldn't need to prove their marriage regardless They only need to "prove" their marriage because dude's specifically looking to get citizenship now (or rather was then, 4 years ago). One really wonders why he's taken this long on that particular front, as they'd actually gotten married 10 years ago (as of when that article was written). Normally the process involved is that you establish legal permanent residency, which tends to take about 1-2 years, and then 5 years after that you can start to apply for naturalization as a citizen, a process which in itself usually takes 6 months to a year. So in the end you get citizenship by about 7-9 years after getting married. Perhaps he left the country for long enough early in his marriage that it reset some of the timing involved. Anyway, the dude is still living in Chicago just fine as of this year, 4 years later, so it seems it worked out. FYI: the specific accusation made against him, which was by a lawyer with a grudge, that he was "really" a gay guy who took a beard for citizenship, has been applied to a lot of immigrant husbands regardless of whether they were straight, bi, or actually a gay dude in a sham marriage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
I'm in full agreement that immigration laws are hosed and whatever goes on in someone's bedroom is none of the government's or anyone else's business. I'm just trying to point out why none if this is really about him being bi.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I'm in full agreement that immigration laws are hosed and whatever goes on in someone's bedroom is none of the government's or anyone else's business. I'm just trying to point out why none if this is really about him being bi. yea this is a very not uncommon situation because our immigration laws are real hosed, especially around the marriage stuff, but this has nothing to do with bisexuality. The whole 'that's a beard marriage!!!' thing has been used against immigrants constantly as a tool to try to use the legal system to hurt them. This is an immigration issue more than a specific sexuality one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You're the one claiming that just education is going to cause people to stop having dumb opinions. Frankly if that was true you'd at least have some states with significantly less dumb opinions, because they have the better schools. That's clearly not the case. Nope. I'm not doing that, and I even directly countered that assumption in my follow up post. But I know you get some sort of erotic thrill from putting words into people's mouths and doubling down on what you claimed they said, so here's a freebee: OMG, education is the ONLY THING that can make Everyone love and accept BisexualitY and if you think otherwise you're just a HATER.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
there wolf posted:Nope. I'm not doing that, and I even directly countered that assumption in my follow up post. But I know you get some sort of erotic thrill from putting words into people's mouths and doubling down on what you claimed they said, so here's a freebee: Pretty interesting of you to apparently say that you didn't even claim anything at all? So you just wanted to say some words you didn't believe in? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
How would this situation change if he were gay instead of bi?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:How would this situation change if he were gay instead of bi? If he were actually gay, he couldn't have gotten married in Chicago back in 2001/2002, and so the whole situation wouldn't have been happening then because he couldn't have had the citizenship process going. If he were just gay, the earliest he could have had a legal marriage in Illinois was about 2014, 2 years after that article, and he couldn't be up for consideration for citizenship until about 2019 at the absolute earliest. So basically, the entire situation couldn't occur.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Pretty interesting of you to apparently say that you didn't even claim anything at all? So you just wanted to say some words you didn't believe in? Sorry, dude. I'm not in helping you edge tonight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
there wolf posted:Sorry, dude. I'm not in helping you edge tonight. Maybe you could try having a position on things instead of running away the first time someone actually tries to discuss things with you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Jesus just f*ck already.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Jesus just f*ck already. Yeah, because we're both equally at fault here. I said something, Fishmech grossly misinterpreted it as usual, and now is whining that I won't defend words they shoved into my mouth. You want a change of topic, then make one yourself instead of complaining that people are boring you with their bickering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Maybe the problem is that our concepts of citizenship are arbitrary and based on outdated ideals of society? But that seems like a discussion for another thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
there wolf posted:Yeah, because we're both equally at fault here. I said something, Fishmech grossly misinterpreted it as usual, and now is whining that I won't defend words they shoved into my mouth. there wolf posted:Really? So if we had full, comprehensive sex-ed in schools that covered bisexuals along with other queer identities and issues you don't think it would have a big effect on people understanding and accepting bisexuality within themselves and others? 'Political' doesn't just mean the legal code. It's anything the government has it's hands in and that includes education. This is you saying that education is going to fix the existence of bad opinions on bisexuality et al. Why won't you defend that? If you don't agree with what you wrote, why don't you try writing something you actually agree with? Just teaching people that bisexuality exists is no way to guarantee that people take it seriously, yet getting people to take it seriously is the "poltical" goal you wanted to achieve.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
there wolf posted:Yeah, because we're both equally at fault here. I said something, Fishmech grossly misinterpreted it as usual, and now is whining that I won't defend words they shoved into my mouth. If only there was a way to exit a circular debate with fishmech 🤔
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:If only there was a way to exit a circular debate with fishmech 🤔 I ended it, but I'm real tempted to reengage since you seem so eager to play referee.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
man, i figured at least people here would be less lovely about bisexuality than most of the queer community. guess i was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
there wolf posted:I ended it, but I'm real tempted to reengage since you seem so eager to play referee.  Kanine posted:man, i figured at least people here would be less lovely about bisexuality than most of the queer community. guess i was wrong. Who exactly is being lovely?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Bi people are real and probably also cool, imo
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
Kanine posted:man, i figured at least people here would be less lovely about bisexuality than most of the queer community. guess i was wrong. No one's being lovely to bisexuals. The opinion which I think is correct one is that there's not one specific political issue that applies to bi people only which is kind of true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 11:27
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:No one's being lovely to bisexuals. The opinion which I think is correct one is that there's not one specific political issue that applies to bi people only which is kind of true. People in the thread aren't acknowledging the whole thing about bi/pansexual people being judged for their orientation and how that actually DOES potentially get expressed in violence/harassment and then just shrugging off the actual political goal of having more representation in lgbt education/anti-bullying policies in schools as a potential way to help the problem? That seems kinda lovely to me. Also bisexual women are the victims of sexual violence at a higher rate than most other demographics, which is something that also seems like a political issue to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 12:00
|
|
|
Kanine posted:People in the thread aren't acknowledging the whole thing about bi/pansexual people being judged for their orientation and how that actually DOES potentially get expressed in violence/harassment and then just shrugging off the actual political goal of having more representation in lgbt education/anti-bullying policies in schools as a potential way to help the problem? That seems kinda lovely to me. Again there is not a political issue solely regarding bisexuals that does not also apply to gay people and vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
Kanine posted:Also bisexual women are the victims of sexual violence at a higher rate than most other demographics, which is something that also seems like a political issue to me. That really seems like a thing that could just be unfortunately coincidental to the horrible statistics women have with sexual violence across the board. With how much of a massive issue it is period, the rates among a small minority group kind of naturally turn out super high because as already said it's huge problem for women as a whole, I wouldn't figure it's anything really specific to being bisexual that's not also an issue faced the same by lesbians, I mean considering the things written there are exactly the same kinds of thing lesbians have to deal with, being sexualized up as a thing for men, corrective assault and so on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 12:21
|
|
|
fishmech posted:If he were actually gay, he couldn't have gotten married in Chicago back in 2001/2002, and so the whole situation wouldn't have been happening then because he couldn't have had the citizenship process going. If he were just gay, the earliest he could have had a legal marriage in Illinois was about 2014, 2 years after that article, and he couldn't be up for consideration for citizenship until about 2019 at the absolute earliest. Simply being gay doesn't prevent you from getting married, it's about who you marry - marriages of convenience between gay men and women have happened before. I'm talking more about if only the identity changed - not the actors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Simply being gay doesn't prevent you from getting married, it's about who you marry - marriages of convenience between gay men and women have happened before. I'm talking more about if only the identity changed - not the actors. Oh you're asking if he actually did a sham marriage? That would in fact be grounds for getting booted from the country, or at the least having his citizenship application denied. Since his permanent residence and citizenship applications were both undertaken under pretense of being a valid marriage. It would require him to switch to trying to get permanent residency and citizenship through an alternate method, which in his case would probably need to involve employer sponsorship. Incidentally, if someone does manage to get citizenship under a sham marriage and get caught, they usually don't get that citizenship taken away. But there are other penalties: 8 U.S. Code § 1325 (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. (b) Improper time or place; civil penaltiesAny alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of— (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection. Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed. (c) Marriage fraud Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both. (d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
I used to think being gay or straight was a choice because I assumed everyone was attracted to both men and women by default. #JustBiThings
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:I used to think being gay or straight was a choice because I assumed everyone was attracted to both men and women by default. I never thought that but I do still have the gut response that only being attracted to one gender (rather than to non-genital characteristics that may slant strongly towards one gender) is Kinda Weird. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
It took being drunk on the 4th of July to finally admit to myself that I was attracted to Andrew Garfield. That's how I realized I was bi.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
Apparently a Federal Judge ruled that the ACA's anti-discrimination protections for Transgender people is invalid - because "religious freedom". http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/federal-judge-blocks-obamacare-protections-for-transgender-people_us_58685a53e4b0eb586489cd49
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:And this is a problem from a political or rights based perspective why? That's the social stigma aspect I spoke of earlier. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any political rights or issues. No one is refusing to serve someone because they're bisexual. The issue there is people in same sex relationships. There is no discrete political issue unique to anyone bisexual. Actually I can think of several tangible political rights bisexuals lack that gays enjoy. One major one is asylum seeking. Bisexual refugees from hostile/homophobic countries are rarely accepted. Bisexual immigrants with marriage visas also often have the legitimacy of their marriage questioned and tossed out. http://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10315/8022/Rehaag.bisexuals.pdf edit: beaten... but I have a fancy link! Bodyholes fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
Vulpes Vvardenfell posted:Apparently a Federal Judge ruled that the ACA's anti-discrimination protections for Transgender people is invalid - because "religious freedom". Ugh just ugh. Gonna be a long 4 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
Vulpes Vvardenfell posted:Apparently a Federal Judge ruled that the ACA's anti-discrimination protections for Transgender people is invalid - because "religious freedom". Hollismason posted:Ugh just ugh. Gonna be a long 4 years. That's the Wichita Falls division venue shopping that the Texas government has been pioneering. The only judge there can be relied on to be hostile to LGBT rights. The Texas government contrived a complaint from a school in that jurisdiction to overturn the Title XI bathroom guidance too. Same judge, same reasoning for decisions. Yes, it's going to be a very crappy 4 years
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 07:56
|
|
|
Just once I'd like to see LGBT rights get protected but that exact same argument. By removing LGBT protections you are violating my religious freedom to believe that LGBT folk are human and should be treated with basic dignity, including the right to not die.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 11:12
|
|
|
Krysmphoenix posted:Just once I'd like to see LGBT rights get protected but that exact same argument. By removing LGBT protections you are violating my religious freedom to believe that LGBT folk are human and should be treated with basic dignity, including the right to not die. Does the Church of Satan do that? I know they make that exact argument for anti-abortion crap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
Krysmphoenix posted:Just once I'd like to see LGBT rights get protected but that exact same argument. By removing LGBT protections you are violating my religious freedom to believe that LGBT folk are human and should be treated with basic dignity, including the right to not die. Religious freedoms should end at "you can believe what you want, but you can't do what you want."
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
I don't get all of the articles saying that FADA will likely pass, wouldn't you have to either get rid of the fillibuster or pass it through the reconciliation process? Several Republicans have already said they don't want to get rid of the fillibuster so I don't see that happening at least until 2019 and FADA isn't at all related to the budget. What am I missing here?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I don't get all of the articles saying that FADA will likely pass, wouldn't you have to either get rid of the fillibuster or pass it through the reconciliation process? Several Republicans have already said they don't want to get rid of the fillibuster so I don't see that happening at least until 2019 and FADA isn't at all related to the budget. What am I missing here? You're missing that the GOP controlled senate will nuke the filibuster in a second. And beyond that, almost all the protections of the last few years come from executive orders and SCOTUS decisions, the former of which can be instantly removed. And the latter is only safe as long as RBG is still alive. The second she dies and a new justice is appointed the court, I think you'll see serious challenges to LGBT and women's rights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:You're missing that the GOP controlled senate will nuke the filibuster in a second. And beyond that, almost all the protections of the last few years come from executive orders and SCOTUS decisions, the former of which can be instantly removed. And the latter is only safe as long as RBG is still alive. The second she dies and a new justice is appointed the court, I think you'll see serious challenges to LGBT and women's rights. Willing to  on the bolded part?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:51 |
|
|
So the question is whether the GOP is vindictive enough to cut off their own nose to spite their face?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 17:57
|
|