Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: .....  (Read 12212 times)

Flatbush

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: .....
« Reply #80 on: February 26, 2012, 05:07:13 PM »

Nothing surprising! The State Department actually CLOSED the US consulate in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico some years back for similar reasons. It investigated allegations that the consulate illegally sold visas to a number of people. It was the 6th busiest US consulate in the world, issuing 117,000 visas. According to Mexican police, they heard rumors that Mexican citizens were being approached by consulate employees with offers to sell visas. They passed the information on to the US government. The most of the documents sold were either tourist visas or border crossing cards. The names of those who bought visas were entered into lookout lists and distributed to law enforcement agencies.

Miguel Partida, a visa officer and a US citizen, was charged with conspiracy to commit visa fraud while working at the consulate. Three Mexicans were charged in the case as well. The defendants were Sergio Genaro Ochoa-Alarcon 31, Benjamin Antonio Ayala-Morales, 34 and Ramon Alberto Torres-Galvin, 34. The men worked as visa clerks at the US consulate. All in custody.

According to the indictment against Partida, agents of the Diplomatic Security Service initiated an investigation the previous year into allegations that Consulate employees were involved in a scheme to provide visas and border crossing cards in exchange for money. Visas were apparently bought for around $1,500 without the required interviews and without a determination that the person was qualified for a visa. The US consulate in Nuevo Laredo issued 100,000 visas, but federal authorities have refused to state how many visas were sold in the alleged scheme. Authorities did say, however, that they believed the scheme was directed by a woman in Mexico named Margarita Martinez Ramirez.


They say the Tijuana consulate is notorious when it comes to this stuff!


Some months ago a Russian couple (young professionals who could have had some kind of future in their own country) moved in the apartment building I live in with my family. They are very open people who do not hesitate to tell one some pretty fine details of their life - so there you have it: they told us they came from Russia on temporary tourist visas that they bought $10,000 a piece from the US Consulate people in their country. They sold their house for some $30,000 and used that money to buy two tourist visas and pay for their travel expenses to the US.

Now I understand that the US is considered to be by many people around the world as the place where their dreams will come true and where they will be able to better themselves (in all meanings of the term). But is that really the case? My question is, how do these people decide to go ahead and sell their house to buy a tourist visa to enter this country - and go underground for years working menial jobs, hoping they will be able to "make it"?! (I have heard it may well take some 5, or even 10 years, for illegal immigrants to get permanent residency (green card) - how much are they supposed to pay for it, I'd guess there is another fee to pay to get it, isn't it?) I mean, you have here a lot of American folks who are having a hard time keeping their houses, having to go thru foreclosures - are you trying to tell me these new immigrants are going to have a better life here, although it may take some 10-15 years?!

Even if they do, it's just not worth the trouble to go that route, taken into account the enormous amount of time to adjust to the new culture and establish themselves economically. To me, it's simply incomprehensible that one would pay $10,000 to buy a visa to enter the country, only to subject oneself to a calvary of pain and suffering to make ends meet for years and years on end!


I understand the visa may cost like $10K - thing is no one would go to the point of selling the house to buy visas - I mean, come on, people are not that stupid to believe they will have it good in America! They're able to distinguish between the inflated America we all see on TV and the real America they've heard from their co-nationals and the like!

c o l o m b u s

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: .....
« Reply #81 on: February 29, 2012, 07:02:41 PM »

[...]

That petition would take years to mature into an actual green card, but we all were optimistic nevertheless; and there you have it - in April, my husband gets that notification letter from the NVC letting him know he had won the D-V lottery. From that point on, we were concerned that the Consular officer would accuse my husband during the interview for misrepresentation because of my hubby having claimed me arbitrarily as his wife on the NVC forms (initially in February when originally applied for, and then again in May) - given the fact that we only got the marriage license 4 months after he made the statements on the NVC forms (August). We remained anxious 'til the day of the interview, April of next year, but the Consular Officer was surprisingly over-friendly towards us, with him granting us the immigrant visas and without inquiring at all as to our marriage timing.

Truth-be-told, we were anxious also because we could not disclose to the Consular officer that the two of us had lived in a neighboring country for some time - my mother-in-law paid a friend of hers for us to be issued two brand-new passports, so that we did not have to show at all the neighboring country's entering visas we had gotten during the years on our old passports. We had been on and off illegally in that country, so we could not get clearances from that country's police for the time period we lived there. This is something that almost all the people who win the American green card lottery do - it's not smth we did to hide some kind of "major crime" committed or anything like that.

We were hearing that those people who admitted to the Consulate that they had been in other countries, besides their home country, were required to submit police clearances from those neighboring countries' authorities, something difficult and time-consuming, since we had also been there illegally - the way such a thing is handled in our native country is to simply pay the municipal employees for a new passport (easily accomplished and for not too much money) and then appear with the new passport before the Consular officer.

We also arranged for (fake) Employment Verification Letters where it was stated by (fake) employers that we had been employed in our home country (having had, thus, lived there all the time), so that it would appear that we had not been outside our home country at any time (to put it differently, we covered gaps in our employment history). These latter two are done regularly by almost all people who win the lottery in our country, and the consulate people themselves know deep down themselves that such things happen all too often.


Incitatus, what you mention in regard to your issue with the lottery application: It was my understanding that the DV "lottery" is as much "lottery" as apple is an orange. The people are selected for specific (political, ethnic, racial, and religious) reasons, and the state dept. is aware that most other cultures and countries have other values of certain moral issues. Little "white" lies are not significant enough to guarantee such a drastic punishment such as, say, "deportation."


You have done quite a few things, no doubt about it, but I'd like to let you know that,

There's a waiver, the Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility, is used by applicants for immigrant visas, non-immigrant fiancé visas, V visas, and adjustment of status to request a waiver of the following grounds of inadmissibility in the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) - should ICE move ahead and try to deport the aliens:

  • Section 212(a)(1)   – health-related grounds;
  • Section 212(a)(2) – criminal and related grounds,
  • Section 212(a)(3)(D) - immigrant membership in a totalitarian party;
  • Section 212(a)(6)(C) – misrepresentation in immigration matters;
  • Section 212(a)(6)(E) - smugglers;
  • Section 212(a)(6)(F) - subject to civil penalty;
  • Section 212(a)(9)(B)   – unlawful presence in the U.S. for at least 180 days, beginning on or after April 1, 1997, followed by departure from the U.S.

I believe I-601 is for those who apply for the green thing, not for those who already have it - or may even have become USCs.

Dhorothea

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Momentum
« Reply #82 on: March 03, 2012, 06:21:12 PM »

Don't be stupid Incitatus - if there have been years and years by now, you're probably okay. I mean, who's gonna look up such a thing at this point in time, when the actual physical files have been destroyed?


sed cena - one may think there's no momentum at this point in time - that the Immigration Service won't reopen the case after so many years - but Incitatus is better off taking the necessary precautions.

The waiver thing, mentioned by the last poster, for example, is worth taking notes on.

Dhorothea

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: "Sins of the Mother"
« Reply #83 on: March 03, 2012, 07:27:00 PM »
Quote
Quote



Kevin Coe, born Frederick Harlan Coe on Feb. 2, 1947, is a convicted rapist from Spokane, Washington, often referred to in the news media as the "South Hill Rapist". He has been in custody since conviction in 1981. Starting on September 15, 2008 the State of Washington held a "civil commitment" trial before a jury wherein it argued that he should be declared a sexually violent predator and confined indefinitely; jury selection began that day, and testimony commenced September 29. As of May, 2008, he is still a suspect in dozens of rapes. His notoriety is due to much more than the fact of his statuses as a suspect and convict. The number of victims he has been suspected of having raped is unusually large; his convictions received an unusual amount of attention from appeals courts; his mother was convicted for hiring a hit man against her son's judge and prosecutor after the initial convictions; and the bizarre relationship between Coe and his mother became the subject of a nonfiction book by the widely read writer on crime, Jack Olsen. "Sins of the Mother" is the title of the movie depicting the story.

In 1981 Coe, a radio announcer by profession, gained regional renown when he was arrested as the suspect in up to 43 rapes which had been perpetrated in Spokane between 1978 and 1981. Many of the rapes involved an extreme level of physical injury to the victims, and the police suspected them to be the work of a single offender, who came to be dubbed the "South Hill rapist". It was suggested that Kevin was mad at his mother for treating him like dirt, and that he was displacing his anger towards her onto his victims, the women he raped and hurt.


Ruth was a total lunatic, overbearing, very protective of Fred - she's rightly portrayed in the movie as the tragico-comical woman she was.


My impression is Ruth just couldn't help it - that's the way she was! She's under the impression she could do whatever she wanted to, manipulate this, manipulate that, no matter who that person was! Couldn't have acted differently with Kevin too!


I have to enter here this other post, too, since the thread it pertains to has been locked down.

Exactly my impression, Any - you can just imagine what kind of unbelievable woman she was - in her mind, arranging contracts even for the judge/prosecutor to be killed was okay, because of the way they handled her son's trial!


bfi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Momentum
« Reply #84 on: March 05, 2012, 03:31:59 PM »

Don't be stupid Incitatus - if there have been years and years by now, you're probably okay. I mean, who's gonna look up such a thing at this point in time, when the actual physical files have been destroyed?


sed cena - one may think there's no momentum at this point in time - that the Immigration Service won't reopen the case after so many years - but Incitatus is better off taking the necessary precautions.

The waiver thing, mentioned by the last poster, for example, is worth taking notes on.


Not really, dhorothea - there's no momentum now that they're USCs even.

To deport them now, first the Immigration has to revoke their US Citizenships. For a naturalized citizen, US citizenship can be revoked only through a judicial action, that is, a suit filed in court. Generally, these suits are filed in a federal district court. Typically, the suit is filed in the district court where you live or reside.

The government must prove its case against you by evidence that is clear, unequivocal, convincing and doesn't leave any doubt that your citizenship should be revoked. If it's successful, your certificate of citizenship will be revoked immediately.

But that's a long (and rare) process - the US citizenship is usually revoked only in extreme cases.

stayover

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: FA v. Privacy: Chelsea Clinton
« Reply #85 on: March 08, 2012, 02:40:15 PM »
Quote
Quote





They also hinted broadly that daughter Chelsea Clinton would be speaking Tuesday evening.


I never get the point of politicians' children addressing crowds such as DNC's - I guess they do it to introduce their children to politics early on!


A curious fact about Chelsea during the White House years of Bill Clinton was that the matter of Chelsea's privacy was debated in the press, and most media outlets concluded that she should be off-limits due to her age. But when Clinton was 13 her appearance became a matter of ridicule for some satirists and commentators, including comments by Rush Limbaugh and the comedy writers of Saturday Night Live.

In 1995, freelance writer Tom Gogola released a tape of songs purportedly recorded by Clinton which commented upon notable people and included lyrics like "let's inhale"; the tape proved to be a hoax. Gogola defended the tape, saying "None of it had to do with being mean to Chelsea. Satire is satire."


No doubt about it, penda, in the States there is a very strong culture of free debate supported and protected by the First Amendment rights.

Tahiri

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Nagarjuna & Buddhist Thought
« Reply #86 on: March 09, 2012, 06:50:40 PM »
Quote
Quote
Quote



Buddha paved the way for Asia's greatest Indian philosopher, who was to be called "The Second Buddha." His name was Nagarjuna, and many modern scholars have found that his philosophy has much in common with Derrida's "deconstruction." He wrote about Emptiness, saying that anything that is Empty is devoid of self-essence. Or in Sanskrit what is called svabhava. The cup seems to exist all by itself, and not to be dependent on, or related to, anything else. But is this a drawing of a cup or of two faces? Or is it a drawing of both, or of neither? Perhaps it is just a two-dimensional series of lines! The important point is that we cannot see both the cup and faces simultaneously. Each image appears to possess svabhava or self-essence. Each image appears to be a self-sufficient, self-existent, discrete image. But they don't possess self-essence! There is an intimate, subtle relationship between the faces and the cup. One cannot exist without the other. They depend on each other.


wtf man - what does this has to do with legal reasoning - maybe I am a bit dense but i just don't see any connection


socall, I don't think the poster you're quoting is "that" serious when saying what he's saying in the first place - you can easily notice his attitude when talking about the whole thing ..


creme caramel, I'm not sure the poster was kinda joking, but I have to tell you this: Nagarjuna is famous among Buddhist thinkers and I think I saw a post drawing a parallel between his way of thinking and Greek philosophers (a tetralemma kind of thing, I believe)

Here it is:


Nagarjuna was an important Buddhist teacher and philosopher. His tetralemma is famous with its logical propositions:

X (affirmation)
non-X (negation)
X and non-X (both)
neither X nor non-X (neither)

Now, the tetralemma is a figure that features prominently in the classical logic of the Greeks. It states that with reference to any a logical proposition X, there are four possibilities

X (affirmation)
¬ X (negation)
X Λ ¬ X both (eqiv.)
¬ (X ∨ ¬ X) (neither)



Flatbush, there are definitely close parallels between existentialism and Buddhism, for instance. Steven W. Laycock, for example, has written a book "Nothingness and Emptiness: A Buddhist Engagement With the Ontology of Jean-Paul Sartre."

This sustained and distinctively Buddhist challenge to the ontology of Jean-Paul Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" resolves, that which has been called, the incoherence implicit in the Sartrean conception of nothingness by opening to a Buddhist vision of emptiness.

Romina

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Practicing Low ...
« Reply #87 on: March 10, 2012, 06:42:25 PM »
Quote
Quote
Quote

Which posts, L Liberti, the ones commenting on the anal thing? These ones?

Quote
Quote
Quote

Freud himself who was to declare to Fliess in a letter dated 16 January 1898, that money did not form the object of an infantile wish which is why, as the well-known saying puts it, money proves incapable of "making one happy" as an adult. Yet, it can nevertheless give the impression of doing so, to the extent that it is capable as we know from Freudian metapsychology of functioning as the unconscious substitute and equivalent for any "object" whatsoever that is invested by the libido of the subject, be this oral, phallic or, especially, anal. [...]

On a material level, faeces represent for children their first possessions of value. Indeed, if children tend at first, roughly between the ages of 2 and 3, to take an auto-erotic pleasure in defecating (the first phase of the anal stage), they subsequently discover, around the age of 3 or 4, that they can obtain a more intense excitation by holding back their stool (the second phase of the anal stage). This is the source of the pleasure adults take in holding onto money, valuable objects or, yet again, time (as shown by the character-traits of avarice and parsimony, as well as the pleasure of hoarding or saving), in accordance with the equation of money and excrement. [...]

[...] In the most extreme case, according to the psycho-analytical argument that is often put forward, an overly active or precocious repression of the child's psychosexual development during the anal stage -- especially at the moment of toilet training -- can lead to the development, in later life, of a veritable obsessional (or, as it was sometimes called, anal) neurosis. Since the pathbreaking work of Oskar Pfister on the psychical structure of classical capitalism and the financial mind, an entire current of thought (Reich, Fromm, etc.) has endeavored to locate within the capitalist system the indices of a collective obsessional neurotic syndrome. Just as the child is under the illusion of the omnipotence of his or her excrements, so the capitalist would tend to believe that his or her money gives him or her the power -- and, above all, the right -- to do whatever he or she so desires.



So basically,

money = * & ^ %
capitalism = anal



Wow - it's unbelievable how much you learn on these boards!


For the sake of truth, there's more to the story, appropriate! When anality becomes a perversion in an individual it can result in a danger to that individual, and as a cultural phenomenon, to humanity. There is a clearly defined link between the anal-sadistic phase of sexuality and cruelty. An "instinct of cruelty" appears in Freud's "Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality," stating that there is an intimate connection between cruelty and the sexual instinct; whether active or passive, it also stems from the drive for mastery. Like mastery, cruelty involves the use of the object simply as a means of satisfaction. Sadism involves a pleasure derived from the object's suffering. The deriving of sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others.

After the introduction of the death drive in 1920, the drive for cruelty gave way to the "destructive drive," understood as an external deflection of the death drive and described as aggressive when directed at objects. If it is taken up by the ego, the ego itself becomes cruel or sadistic. The ego then risks not only losing the object's love but also being subjected to the reprimands of the Superego. This agency, which equates with moral conscience, can demonstrate an extreme cruelty, according to the need for aggression aroused by present/past frustrations. Rebellious by nature towards what is nevertheless the necessary process of civilization, the human being is always able to display a "cruel aggressiveness" if circumstances allow it.

Contempt, indifference towards the object, cruelty, as well as false emblems of masculinity, faceless bureaucracy, violence, torture, the jackboot and the whip. Freud described the psychosexual development of the child, how he progresses from the anal-sadistic phase to the phallic (genital) one, at the end of which the Oedipus complex finds resolution. It is the smashing/destruction, a developmental arrest at the anal-sadistic phase, as opposed to resolution of the Oedipus complex, that characterizes Western culture.



Funny that you mention the "homo-economicus to homo-sexualis" thing


So basically sexual repression is effectuated for economic purposes?



No doubt about it, two feasts, sexual repression comes into play because of the economic factor.


I don't know where the words I put here went ... did the mouse 8  'em? :) ... so what I was sayin' was that the $ thing sure factors in the equation, but it's not that simple, when you look it from a broad er perspective - I mean, you have these Superego things and the like that the quoted posts mention - you can try to look into it a little bit deeper, if that's your thing

garçon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Misrepresentations and Immigration Fraud
« Reply #88 on: March 11, 2012, 10:00:06 PM »

Wow - some great posts related to immigration matters here. My husband and I came to the U.S. on immigrant visas after hubby won the D-V (Diversity Lottery) several years ago. I was not legally married to my husband (had not yet gotten a marriage license) by the time he got the notice he was assigned a visa lottery. Neither did we legally married when he sent the first response to the (NVC) National Visa Center shortly after. We only got legally married in August of that year, 4 months after he listed me as her spouse on the NVC forms. The reason why I did not legally marry to my husband from the very beginning (since I began to live with my-hubby-to-be, in August) and my mother left for the States (September), was that I was counting on my parents who went to the US to get me too there, after my permanent resident mother (she won a D-V Lottery the year before) would have hopefully arranged something for me; although all she's able to do, in actuality, was just petitioning on my behalf in January of next year - she filed the I-130 with INS, immigrant relative petition for an unmarried child 21+


Excuse me - just to make sure I'm getting this right - why did ya have to find a man (the-hubby-to-be) after your parents immigrated to the States?! Why couldn't you stay single and wait that way for the time to come to join your parents?! I would have to go ahead and assume you're from some kind of Muslim country where women are expected to have "their man"! Are you guys afraid there men will harass, rape and kill you, were you to walk alone in the streets?! Hell, you even say you found him in August, just one month before your parents would leave for the US - pardon my French, but wouldn't one be justified to go on a hunch and say that your people arranged for you to engage 'a nobody', somebody very likely beyond your level, just because time dictated that?!

But then again - it's just doesn't add up - from what I know, in these countries, where women are considered to be their man's property, living temporarily with a man as husband and wife is frowned upon and is considered unacceptable. You are flat out saying that that was basically your plan - were your parents to have arranged in some type or form for you to go to the US, you would stop living with him right away to join your parents in the States. Unless you were some kind of SuperGirl who didn't much care about notions and taboos, you'd still be faced with your own country's people who more likely than not would not see your previous arrangement sympathetically. In fact, that's what your hubby might have counted on - that you would not, in actuality, leave him, reason why he tolerated at first when agreeing not to enter into a marriage contract (in the hope, that with the passing of time, he'd get there - the important thing was that he got you in hand, getting a much better deal than he could have ever dreamed of). As for America, little did he care, although he'd eventually get that as well, sooner or later, via you.

I'm kinda perplexed as to what kind of "arrangement" this was, with this "hubby-to-be," as you call him. You are saying it yourself that the petition that your mother filed on your behalf would take years to materialize into a green card - would you continue on the concubinage path with your boyfriend/husband/whatever you choose to call him? Would you have any children with him? I would assume No, since your wait time to immigrate to the US would be even longer. So all these sacrifices (because they are considered to be "sacrifices" in those countries) just to be able to come to the US - and then, when immigrants actually arrive here, they figure it out how wrong they were to have made all those insane decisions, back in their native countries where/when they thought America was the "land of milk and honey"!

Was all that worth it?! Spending years with a man beyond your level, compromising your real marital (and probably) professional life, all these in the name of a dream (America)? Or even worse, ending up with that very man, just like it turned out, when that Cheetah was handed a stupid lottery?!


"Any questions" - listen to me, you b i t c h - you are stupid if you think I only cared to come to the U'S ... I did not mention in my first post that I came to the U'S along with my hubby on B-2 visas a couple of months before we were supposed to go for the green card interviews (that actually changed later, as the b i t c h e s postponed the interviews' dates). We stayed 40 days in the U'S at my parents' apartment. It was when an immigration attorney told us that we would  probably not be able to process the lottery visa from within the U'S, that we left the U'S and went back to our native country to have the lottery visa interview.

Now, if my only intention was to get to this country (U'S), would I have left and go back to my native country together with my husband?! There was no guarantee whatsoever that we'd get the immigrant visas from there (we had those stupid issues that you know) and the B-2 visas we used to enter the U'S were single-entry - so we could not get back to the U'S. And yet, we decided to go back to our native country, no matter what the results of the @ # ! * i n g green card interview would be.

Because we did not want to remain illegally in the U'S like b i t c h e s, after our visitor visas would have expired. We said, we're better off in our native country, being full-right citizens, rather than illegally in the U'S.

I am sorry but your guessing wrong, I loved and I love my husband - I was not left by my parents in his "protective custody," until my visa number would have become current, as you say. We did not much care whether we'd get the lottery visas to reenter this country one more time, or not - were it not like that, we would have not chosen to go back to our native country and process the green card lottery from there. There was probably enough time for our lottery to be processed from within the U'S (although there were slight chances we couldn't process it from here and we had to go back to our native country - but even if we'd not get the m u t h a @ # ! * i g green card because of staying here and not going back, we'd still be here in the U'S, albeit illegally). And yet, we went back - and, of course, not because this immigration attorney held a knife to our necks threatening to cut our throats open were we to decide contrary to what he advised us to do!

So, would you please give some credit where credit's due, Any Questions?!


This woman is unbelievable - I counted four or five times where she's committed fraud and she won't stop calling other people evil - Incitatus, would you please take a look in the mirror?!

And then, come here to tell us how unfair people are, and what b i t c h e s people who tell you the truth are!

A lil' bit of self-reflection wouldn't hurt at all!

It's never too late .. or is it?!

Merci

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: .....
« Reply #89 on: March 12, 2012, 04:06:15 PM »
True, such a long time has gone - I just do not get why Incitatus would be so preoccupied in the first place to come here and post her story!

Wouldn't have gone thru the pains of hearing people talking * & ^ % about her, as they deem appropriate to!

Looks like to me this is a self-created problem - and the more you talk about it, the worse it becomes.

Unless she already has an open case!