Deportation delayed for St. Mary's graduate

It is always sad when a Dreamer is on the ropes facing deportation.It is my hope that highlighting their story here can aid or benefit them in some way.At the very least,a positive comment in defense of their actions should be posted here.

I hope everything works out for her and us as well. er story is more proof why this cant wait any longer.

For instance, it does not require immigrants to prove how long they have been in the country, something that would be fairly easy to do through school records, said Roy Beck, president of NumbersUSA, an organization that aims to reduce the number of immigrants.


Not true, right????

they need to put in a provison in DREAM ACT specifically barring beneficiaries from being able to sponsor family members. that would satisfy quite a few people who are on the fence.

According to the bill, the alien must be present in the USA for 5 years. DHS requires proof of everything. That statement is incorrect.

that might just do it

That is called creating second class citizens/residence and that is unconstitutional. You need to amend the constitution for that kind of law to be passable.

If you get it passed without amending the constitution first, then when the courts call it unconstitutional you are back to being undocumented and if you do amend it, you are basically creating second class citizens/residences.

From your post, i can guess you either did not know that and blurted something out with your limited knowledge or you knew about it and just simply did not care.


P.S. Have you ever heard of civil right act of 1964?

Unconstitutional.
Good try though.

wrong. ending family based immigration for DREAM ACT is not unconstitutional. in fact, the constitution itself does not address anything remotely related to immigration other then the fact that person who is born in US soil has full right to be bestowed with citizenship.

oh let me ask, how does forbidding a dreamie from sponsoring his/her family member create a second class citizen? oh, do you mean your moms, dads, siblings will remain undocumented and so end up being second class citizens? is that what you're saying?

holy shit, what are we right now? supreme court should be all over this, fact that 12 million people residing in the US illegally and living as second class citizens right now is unconstitutional! omg! but but but...how can they let something so unconstitutional go unresolved for so many years? its unconstitutional!! little babies with citizenship have to part with their mothers who are undocumented. its unconstitutional!! how can this happen? how?

this is not a matter of constitutionality, its a matter of flaws in the immigration system.

rofl. do you even think before you say stuff out?

you accuse someone (who actually happens to have studied immigration policy in law school) about something you have no clue about. LOL

the constitution does not govern immigration. matters concerning immigration have its own set of laws, which started with the Naturalization Act of 1790 that limited citizenship to only white people. since then, US immigration was based on national-origin quotas. then the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 got rid of national-origin quota and replaced with "regional system" where certain number of visas are allocated per hemisphere, with no more than 20,000 per country. however, this act provided unlimited number of visas for family reunification but later imposed numerical quotas to certain categories of family based immigration. thus, the current US immigration has grown largely to be family-based.
current family based immigration system is a product of two centuries of evolution of US immigration policy shaped by triad of socio-ethno-economic affairs, not by interpretation of the constitution. the fact that many people are repulsed about shifting to merit based immigration system thats been suggested is not because its "unconstitutional", but because it strikes nerve to family core values that americans pride in.

learn your history, then talk.



yeah, ive heard of it. i dont know why you bring up random stuff that is totally irrelevant. rofl. civil right act of 1965has no clause that relates to immigration and so a provision that would ban family sponsorship for immigration purposes does not violate any section of civil rights act of 1965 LOL.

while we're on the subject about bringing up random acts, have you ever heard of Child Safety Act of 2005? i guess you can argue that banning Juan from sponsoring his little sister Maria would be unconstitutional and violates the child safety act. LOL.

wrong. learn your history.
good try though.