Thread: .

The rest of the story is right, PintoBean.

I don't know if he thought we would change our minds and NOT want HR4437 just because of one person or what.

But I sure would like to see some legislation pass to put a stop to this madness and then see it enforced.

In my city, they have a problem with teen agers going to Juarez to drink underage. They get killed a dozen a year driving drunk-- sixteen year olds whose parents don't seem to care that their kids are out at two or three AM. Nevertheless, a curfew recently was passed that prohibits them from being anywhere near the two most likely international bridges from 7PM to 6 AM. The law went into effect a week after it was passed.

I can't understand why laws passed by the federal legislature take a year or two or three to go into effect and sometimes another year or two to be enforced. Do you know?

Pinestraw....as one romantic to another, I forgive you.

Just remember, people will try anything to lead you astray, keep you from attaining your goals if they are contrary to their own...as the old expression goes, keep your eyes on the ball at all times.

Pinto Bean

This poster makes a good point for us. If we are to have alternatives to guestworker and amnesty we must be sure we propose a clear vision. Voters must understand penalties that should be imposed and that they are in keeping with other punitive measures. If our penalties and procedures make sense to the majority of the people it will be easier to have them demand those actions from their represenatives this November.

I'm not sure of the answer. I would only answer the poster that personal observation and local economic indicators show me there is a real impact in my community from illegal labor. We should not be detered from strong actions where conduct by illgegals and there employers is continuous and premeditated.

Look folks!

Several people on our boards have already taken quite a bit of time to try and help Randall and his situation. We have been nothing but helpful in both ideas and actual information and assistance.

We can assume one of two things are the case here either 1. Randall's claims are sincere and he does oppose the new legislation in Congress because it would increase hardship on his family or 2. He has another agenda.

Let's assume that what he has told us is accurate.

I've pointed out that the current USCIS system is a nightmare and things as simple as clearance for an American family to adopt an baby in another country has turned into a lengthy and terrible ordeal.

It almost appears our legal immigration services have been downsized and paralyzed while the borders have been opened to illegal aliens.

One thing I do know clearly is that the LEGAL immigration authorities are NOT fond of people that illegally immigrate to the US and then apply for citizenship once here illegally. They prefer that the illegal alien return to their nation of origin and apply from there.

Also, while we can only hope and pray that Randall's situation is not similar to the rampant cases of marriage for asylum. The ALIPAC phone lines ring about once per week with a distraught American male or female that married an illegal alien and once the alien was anchored into US citizenship everything went south! We have a lot of people that are being emotionally exploited and used by illegal aliens to gain US Citizenship. Then there are the fraud rings.

The problem that Randall is describing has all been caused by the fact that his wife is an illegal alien. Even if we assume that she was brought here as a child against her will and this is a case where she is simply falling between the cracks of the law, then there is still a problem.

That problem is that Randall and his wife are willing to work against legislation designed to protect all Americans because of their individual situations.

Randall, I think very few people here are unsympathetic to anyone that is trying to do the right thing and legally immigrate.

However, I think it is wrong for you to work against needed legislation designed to help stop the massive destruction in our nation that is being caused by illegal immigration because of the wrong and illegal choices your wife or your wife's parents made.

When the ALIPAC phone lines ring or the e-mails come in seeking assistance on LEGAL immigration issues, we are always willing to help unless the person is already illegally inside the United States.

W

...

"Out of status" is a USCIS term. I know the terms they use are kind of bizarre. They don't have an "illegal immigrant" category. They do have "entered without inspection," but "out of status" is more general. A tourist who visits and misses their flight home due to bad weather could be "out of status".

RandallE, thank you for clarifying this little bit of legal jargon for us. I don't know about anyone else but I will admit that I did not know that.

Whew! I see that it is a can of worms for you. I imagine that you aren't the only person facing this dilemma. I can't help but think that our illustrious government will make some sort of back door deal to take care of this type of situation in hopes that the people won't discover what has been done.

The lawyer who told you it was OK for her to file eleven days late? I hope someone reported her!

You asked what we think of people who aid and abet those we believe are criminals for being here illegally being branded felons. I feel it is only fair to respond to that question.

See, I live in a border town where people sneak in their relatives every day. At least once a week lately dozens of newly arrived illegal aliens are picked up from local hotel rooms (and it seems to be pretty much the SAME hotels) and deported.

I am dead serious when I prolaim my belief that ALL of those people are criminals. The people who snuck across the border, the coyotes who brought them, and the people who let them stay in hotels. I think that the illegals should be fingerprinted, labeled felons who can never come back to this country again--ever!

I think they coyotes should be locked up for the rest of their lives to make sure they never bring another person across the border.

I think the relatives who bring in their sister's kids to stick in our schools, the relatives who bring in one family member after another illegally to take jobs and make our neighborhoods a nightmare when fifteen people live in a two bedroom house, and the relatives who bring the mamas in to visit just in time to drop another anchor baby should have their citizenship taken away from them and they should be deported right along with the people they brought here. They obvioulsy don't have any intention of being decent, law abiding American citizens.

And I think the hotel owners who close their eyes while their employees rent rooms to groups of people who are obviously illegal aliens then get on the evening news and whine, should have their hotels taken away from them under the RICO Act opon the third offense. If they dont' care enough about their business to watch what is going on, then they don't deserve to have a business at all.

I think the people who hire illegal aliens should also be prosecuted, fined, labeled felons, and put on probation for at least ten years. If they miss just one probation appointment, they should be locked up for at least five years.

In your case, your wife came legally. It sounds as if she is working illegally if her green card was suspended when you got married. I don't think she should be working and I believe she is committing a crime by doing so. If she is running her own business, then she is sort of a wash out in terms of taking jobs from others so she isn't committing that particular crime. You said she pays taxes on her income, which means she has a tax ID. Is that correct? How did she come by a tax ID number? If that was legal, then I guess there is not a problem with her having it. There are literally thousands of foreign nationals who have no intention of every becoming American citizens who own businesses in this country. While I vehemently disagree with this practice, it is legal enough at this time. If your wife came by her tax ID illegally or was supposed to have surrendered it, then it compounds a crime. If you are "employing" your wife illegally by being the front man for the tax number, then you are committing a crime.

Do I think you are a felon or should be labeled one for having a wife here in this country? If she is an illegal alien, then yes. If you are "employing" her in a family business, yes. If she is here legally awaiting paperwork that is in the system and not committing any crimes in the process, then no.

I really don't mean to sound unsympathetic. But we do need to have HR4437 or a similar bill, with hard penalties imposed for non-compliance, passed. Yes it is about 20 years too late, but better late than never.

I sincerely hope you work out your dilemma somehow. If it is a strong marriage, I'm sure you will. If it is just the waiting around that is making you nervous, I guess it would make anyone nervous. But wait you must.

As fouled up as the process is, it is all we have thanks to our sorry legislators who found ways to hire incompetent people to hold up the lines for all but their own pet projects. Nepotism and favoritism is apparently the name of the game these days.

There were two screw ups: the first was with the name check process; the second was that our initial lawyer filed our application 11 days later than it should have been filed, although she said it didn't matter (which is true under the law today, but maybe not in the future). She may have said that in part because my wife had an existing visa that was good until 2005 (although once we got married she couldn't use it anymore).

What kind of visa did your wife have? If she didn't have a K visa you guys may have comitted a fraud.

"Out of status" is a USCIS term.

So is illegal alien.

No amnesty means just that. We can't write a law that is going to tailor to every situation. We also need to have laws that have some teeth.

I'm reading this thread a little late but see it's about illegal aliens who harm American citizens who marry them and/or have children with them.

Here's an interesting link to such one case:

http://www.fraternizing.org/cgi-bin/D.P ... er.a.brita

Rick Brita (real name) has become something of an activist against Massachusetts visitation centers, as a result of his own experience. As a result, he's spoken to a number of people, and he's been able to establish the connection that shows how false accusations of domestic violence generate funds for social worker organizations.

Brita is the father of two children by his estranged girlfriend, who is not an American citizen. His troubles started in 1995, when his girlfriend was being threatened with deportation. Since their two children were American citizens, he wanted the children to stay in the country.

"The only way she could get a green card to stay in the country was to take out a restraining order against me," says Brita. His girlfriend got the help of the South Middlesex Legal Services, a grant-funded group of lawyers whose purpose is to educate women on how to get restraining orders and to provide free legal support. Their clients are instructed to stay away from their husbands in order to be able to collect money. As we'll see below, this arrangement has been extremely lucrative for this legal services firm.

As a result of her completely unsupported accusation, the judge held up any deportation orders, and also ordered that Brita could only see his children at the Visitation Center at 5 Sacramento St. in Cambridge.

Brita has spoken to a number of men who attend the same Visitation Center, and has put together a picture of what attending these is like.

"There's no privacy," says Brita. "Every visit is supervised by a counselor from a battered woman's shelter. She writes down everything you say, and if you raise your voice, she writes down that you're violent. You can't hug your kids without her permission. If you say the wrong thing, she reprimands you in front of your kids. They lecture you on parenting in front of the children. If you ever object, that's part of the validation that you're a violent person. If you tell your child to do something, she'll say to the child, 'You don't have to listen to him. You just have to listen to your mother.'"

According to Brita, the counselors set a number of arbitrary rules, and change them constantly. As an example, he points to a time when he brought a birthday cake for his daughter, having asked permission and set it up with the head of the center well in advance. When he got there, the counselor made a scene and reprimanded him in front of his children for breaking the rules and bringing a cake. His protestations that he had obtained advance permission were useless. "It's like a black man being judged by the Ku Klux Klan," he says.

The charges are steep, and they get steeper as time goes on. For Brita, they started at $20 per visit, and kept increasing up to $120. Even worse, "the visits started out at two hours, then they cut it down to one and one half hours, sometimes less, because they don't have a counselor available." In addition, if a father wants to obtain the notes taken by the counselor during a visit, they charge $25 in "copying fees."

There are a number of other expenses as well. "They can require you to go to counselors, they make you go to a child psychologist. You have to pay for that, in addition to visitation fees, copying fees, child support and alimony. They make you pay thousands of dollars just to have a relationship with your children, all from a false charge of abuse or domestic violence."

With this remark we're beginning to see the nexus between money and false charges of abuse or domestic violence -- each man who is charged -- falsely or not -- is worth thousands of dollars to the social worker community.

Brita says he's investigated how these visitation centers are funded, and indicates that the more charges of abuse -- true or not -- that they can generate, the more money they receive -- and not just from fees paid by fathers.

"These are all private agencies, and they all receive grants from the government and United Way, in addition to the fees they collect from the fathers," he says. He says that the battered women's shelters, visitation centers, psychologists, pediatricians and the DSS (Massachusetts Division of Social Services) all cooperate with each other to keep the money coming in.

"They get a woman to make false allegations of abuse, then they talk to their friends in the DSS and get them to recommend Visitation Centers," he says. "They all make sure that they get paid first. Everyone makes a buck out of this."

Brita has been to trial several times, and brought material witnesses who were able to disprove all of the false charges. "For example, I was able to prove that I was out of the state at the time of several of her claims." Even the Framingham police testified in his favor.

Brita was able finally to get a judge in Marlboro Probate Court to lift the restraining order, and order that he be allowed to visit with his children in his home.

"The lawyers at the South Middlesex Legal Services took immediate action," he said, "and somehow got the whole case reheard in front of judge Sheila McGovern in Cambridge." McGovern, who is in charge of the Middlesex Probate Court in Cambridge, is well known as a militant feminist judge.

When Brita appeared before this judge, his lawyer explained that his girlfriend had never provided even one piece of evidence to back her claims, and that in fact previous court trials had proven him innocent several times. Sheila McGovern just asked his girlfriend, "Are you afraid of this man?" The girlfriend said, "Yes." McGovern reinstated the restraining order that had just been lifted. "I'd rather be safe than sorry. We're on the side of protection."

This clearly illustrates the fact that the collusion that we've previously described between social workers also extends to women judges. We've shown in detail how the Middlesex Court Clinic, headed by Barbara Hauser, has a policy of always siding with the mother against the father, irrespective of any facts.

In fact, the Middlesex Court Clinic is part of the Middlesex Probate Court, headed by Sheila McGovern. This suggests that the policy of always siding with the mother against the father is approved by McGovern, and here we see that the actual policy appears to extend to McGovern herself. Obviously the lawyers at the feminist South Middlesex Legal Services firm knew in advance that McGovern would take jurisdiction away from the Marlboro court that had lifted the restraining order and would reinstate it even with no evidence whatsoever, which is what she did.

Furthermore, the sole effect of McGovern's reinstatement of the order was to force Brita to continue returning to the Visitation Center which is down the street from McGovern's court in Cambridge, and which also works closely with McGovern. As a result of her order, this visitation center would receive thousands more in fees and grants. This shows how all these feminist organizations, -- the Probate Court, the Court Clinic, the feminist legal services firms, the feminist-run visitation centers -- all work together to generate lucrative fees and grants.

According to Brita, "Female judges are taking over the family courts, so that women have total control over the court systems, social services, and the visitation centers. They all cooperate with each for their mutual benefit, so you may think that you're having a dispute with your ex-wife, but you're actually having a dispute with a number of women's activists. There are male judges, but they're older, and they just want to get their pensions, so they go with the flow. So the women have total control of the court system, the DSS and the visitation centers."

This is very lucrative for these women's activist organizations, according to Brita, especially South Middlesex Legal Services firm.

"My girlfriend has cost the state of Massachusetts over $300,000," he says. "She's had three different lawyers representing her against me, and she's had four immigration lawyers, all paid for by the state," he says. "She's picked up and driven to and from court by the South Middlesex Legal Serivces. She's on welfare, and gets free housing, food, and all these other services, all paid for by the government."

He adds that she has a job. "She works every day, and sends all that money back to her relatives in Brazil," he says.

And, as we'll see in chapter 3, tens of thousands of false charges of domestic violence are generated each year in Massachusetts alone. Judging by Brita's research, these false charges are extremely lucrative for all these private feminist agencies, probably generating millions or perhaps tens of millions of dollars per year. This might mean billions of dollars nationwide.

And obviously the most lucrative accusations are the false ones, for a couple of reasons.

A man who is guilty is less likely to fight back, and is probably less likely even to bother to try to see his kids. He won't generate any revenue for these feminist-run organizations.

But a falsely accused man will fight back in court, and will fight to spend time with his kids. For both of these reasons, all of this generates fees, budgets and grants for all the feminist organizations -- the probate court, the court clinic, the visitation centers, the feminist legal services firms, the child psychologists, and so forth.

Even worse, Massachusetts is one of several dozen states where, once a restraining order is issued, all the woman has to do is call the local police and say that she thinks the restraining order has been violated, and the man will automatically be arrested, with no hearing or anything. This is a tool that the feminist organizations can use at will against any man who has done absolutely nothing wrong -- and judging from my interviews with men, it's used quite often.

And it's a sure bet that the feminist organizations are going to win, because they have a policy of always siding with the mother against the father, in accordance with feminist "theory," as we've shown.

As we'll also see, feminists vehemently oppose mandatory arrest for alleged batterers, since a man accused of an actual crime would have Constitutional rights. McGovern didn't actually charge Brita with anything, since then he could have demanded that evidence be presented; instead she simply reinstated a phony restraining order, which was not a criminal charge, but which generated the desired lucrative fees and grants.

Most important, nobody is claiming that restraining orders protect anyone, including the feminists that implement the various policies. As we'll see in chapter 3. research has found no difference in abuse between women with and without restraining orders, and that 96% of women don't even bother to renew restraining orders when they expire after a year.

Sheila McGovern surely knows that, and when she said to Brita, "I'd rather be safe than sorry. We're on the side of protection," with no evidence whatsoever, she was surely aware that there was no evidence against Brita anyway, and the only thing being protected was her own power and budget and the lucrative incomes of her friends in other feminist organizations.

There's an interesting legal wrinkle associated with Brita's girlfriend's strategy. Brita says that she's using the restraining order to prevent him from paying her any child support. Under advice from his lawyer, Brita has tried to get several agencies to accept his child support payments, but they've all refused, including the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR), which normally collects child support payments from fathers through payroll deductions. "Since I'm self-employed [as a home improvement contractor], they refused to take my money," he says.

So, following his lawyer's instructions, he's been placing his child support payments into a bank escrow account. "If she collects the child support, then she can't collect welfare or get subsidized housing," he says, adding that her strategy is force him to pay tens of thousands of dollars in back child support as a lump sum when the children come of age. "I'm trying to find a way to stop that," he says.

Brita faces an additional hardship because he went to court to fight for his rights. The Visitation Center counselors threatened to keep him from seeing his children at all if he took them to court. He did so, and now they've refused to let him see his children since 1999, possibly to intimidate other fathers who might try to fight back.

In addition to getting to know a number of men who are being forced to used Visitation Centers, he's also gotten to know a number of young women who are involved in the domestic violence scene from the women's point of view. On one occasion, he wanted to help a female friend who was applying for subsidized housing by going with her to the housing office in Framingham. With him standing there, she spoke to a social worker. He describes the conversation she had with the social workers as follows:


"There's a two-year wait for subsidized housing. Are you married?"

"Divorced."

"Did your husband abuse you?"

"No."

"Well, there's a two-year wait for subsidized housing, but if your husband has been abusing you, then we can put you into a battered women's shelter for two months, and then put you into subsidized housing. Now let me ask you again: Did your husband abuse you?"

[Hesitating] "Yes."


She was instructed to fill out forms establishing her need for housing and to claim that her husband was abusing her. She was told that she must move into the battered women's shelter for two months in order to qualify for the subsidized housing.

"Women like my friend are golden geese to the agencies," says Brita. "They make a lot of money this way."

These experiences establish a clear nexus between false charges of domestic violence and a great deal of money, and show how these Massachusetts social services organizations may be making millions or even tens of millions of dollars from these false charges.

Brita says, "I've spent the better part of eight years just trying to find out why this happened to me. Before meeting her I've never been accused of anything. I come from a family that's never had a divorce -- my parents' marriage, both my grandparents' marriages are all intact. I don't understand why any of this stuff happened. I have no concept of this."

Brita has some very strong advice for any father who's being forced to see his children at a Visitation Center: "Don't go!"

He says that once you go to the Visitation Center, they'll never let you out. "They document everything you say do," he reminds me. "If you break a rule, or raise your voice, then they can use anything you say as proof that you're a violent person, and they can force you to continue going. But if you don't go, then they have nothing on the record to use against you.

He recommends taking parenting classes or doing some volunteer work with children, and then getting a letter of recommendation saying how good you are with children.

"That way you're in control instead of the counselors at the Visitation Center," he says. "After six months, you can go back to court and show them the letters of recommendation and ask to visit with your children at home. They'll have nothing that they can use against you, so you'll probably win."

Of course, this kind of legal strategy might not work for every man's situation. Before attempting this or any other legal strategy, be sure to check with your attorney first.

Brita says ruefully, "If I'd never gone to the Visitation Center in the first place, none of this would have happened, and my kids would probably be here at home with me right now."

-- Excerpted from "Fraternizing with the Enemy: A book on gender issues for men ... and for women who care about men," by John J. Xenakis, published by 1stBooks.com, 480 pages, to appear in late 2001.

Click Here for a detailed breakdown of taxpayer charges

Click Here for information on Fraternizing With the Enemy

Copyright © 1986-2003 by John J. Xenakis

OMG! Annie! I only read part of this but it is terrible! The poor guy!

I posted on another thread that they should have a course in school to advise people against marrying illegal aliens. This should be an example in the course of what can happen.

How sad-- for the kids as well as the father.

And to give a woman a green card because she turned someone in fraudulently. tsk tsk tsk. Our blind, blind government. Very disturbing.

[quote="noillegalimmigrationannie"My girlfriend has cost the state of Massachusetts over $300,000," he says. "She's had three different lawyers representing her against me, and she's had four immigration lawyers, all paid for by the state," he says. "She's picked up and driven to and from court by the South Middlesex Legal Serivces. She's on welfare, and gets free housing, food, and all these other services, all paid for by the government."

He adds that she has a job. "She works every day, and sends all that money back to her relatives in Brazil," he says. [/quote]

This portion of this long article is telling on how illegal alien women who make false accusations of domestic violence against their US citizen boyfriends/husbands/father's of their children, are also allowed to rake in thousands and thousands of dollars from taxpayer by various welfare and receive the services of free lawyers (both immigration and divorce I believe) provided courtesy of you and me the average American taxpayers.

Hell, I was labeled a defendent in a divorce proceeding that I did not initiate and I wasn't guilty of any major faults - irreconciable differences is a load of crock. The hubby was at fault though by being adulterous and abandoning me and our children. Nobody paid for my attorney. I forked out at least $10,000 over a three year period and never actually saw the inside of a court room. This paid for by being drained out of my IRA account and through racking up a credit card - thus tax penalties and interest that I'm still paying off. The Ex I'm sure spent thousands on his lawyer too. Then there were all other expenses such as dividing a family home into two and so far I've managed to stay off welfare but those days may end soon. And, here in this article I see an illegal alien not only abandon the father of her children, but accuse him of domestic violence too, then rake in about $300,000 from USA taxpayers by various welfare and get a green card too.

All of this and I'm an American citizen, not an illegal alien. If feminists truly help women, where were they and where are they when I need help????? Domestic violence? Well I'm not the victim of that but believe me I suffered severely including physical pain with health issues - both physical and mental - caused by the betrayal and abandonment

Grrrrrh!