Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Restrictions on Immigrant Marriages in La.

bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 5:28:49 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Please read the excerpt quoted below:

Undocumented workers and even terrorists had newly discovered they could exploit Louisiana"s marriage laws to gain citizenship, legislators claimed, leading to a supposed epidemic of "marriage fraud."

The response? Make it more difficult for immigrants to get married, of course.

So, as of this year, any foreign-born person wanting to get married in Louisiana must produce both an unexpired visa (even though a federal court has ruled that marriage licenses cannot be denied based on immigration status), as well as, somewhat inexplicably, a birth certificate.


[https://www.washingtonpost.com...]

Is this a reasonable course of action to take? Other thoughts? Comments? Reactions?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 5:31:31 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
This is plainly unconstitutional, because it is discrimination based on alienage/national origin, and hostile to due process rights and equality under the law.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 5:32:43 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 5:31:31 AM, YYW wrote:
This is plainly unconstitutional, because it is discrimination based on alienage/national origin, and hostile to due process rights and equality under the law.

Equality under what law? International law?
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 5:33:38 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 5:32:43 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:31:31 AM, YYW wrote:
This is plainly unconstitutional, because it is discrimination based on alienage/national origin, and hostile to due process rights and equality under the law.

Equality under what law? International law?

https://en.wikipedia.org...
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 5:38:31 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 5:32:43 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:31:31 AM, YYW wrote:
This is plainly unconstitutional, because it is discrimination based on alienage/national origin, and hostile to due process rights and equality under the law.

Equality under what law? International law?

American law. What the state of LA is doing is unquestionably unconstitutional, violative of the US Constitution.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 6:13:07 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 5:28:49 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Please read the excerpt quoted below:

Undocumented workers and even terrorists had newly discovered they could exploit Louisiana"s marriage laws to gain citizenship, legislators claimed, leading to a supposed epidemic of "marriage fraud."

The response? Make it more difficult for immigrants to get married, of course.

So, as of this year, any foreign-born person wanting to get married in Louisiana must produce both an unexpired visa (even though a federal court has ruled that marriage licenses cannot be denied based on immigration status), as well as, somewhat inexplicably, a birth certificate.


[https://www.washingtonpost.com...]

Is this a reasonable course of action to take? Other thoughts? Comments? Reactions?

I think that only US citizens should be able to marry in the United States.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 6:14:28 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 5:28:49 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Please read the excerpt quoted below:

Undocumented workers and even terrorists had newly discovered they could exploit Louisiana"s marriage laws to gain citizenship, legislators claimed, leading to a supposed epidemic of "marriage fraud."

The response? Make it more difficult for immigrants to get married, of course.

So, as of this year, any foreign-born person wanting to get married in Louisiana must produce both an unexpired visa (even though a federal court has ruled that marriage licenses cannot be denied based on immigration status), as well as, somewhat inexplicably, a birth certificate.


[https://www.washingtonpost.com...]

Is this a reasonable course of action to take? Other thoughts? Comments? Reactions?

It's stupid to just do it for immigrants. It would make more sense to have it apply to everyone, and to force people to produce either an unexpired visa or a birth certificate. That could really just be classified as a restriction in accepted ID, and would more or less burden everyone equally while barring illegals from marrying, which is, ostensibly, the problem being addressed.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 6:22:15 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 5:38:31 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:32:43 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:31:31 AM, YYW wrote:
This is plainly unconstitutional, because it is discrimination based on alienage/national origin, and hostile to due process rights and equality under the law.

Equality under what law? International law?

American law. What the state of LA is doing is unquestionably unconstitutional, violative of the US Constitution.

Undocumented workers and foreign terrorists don't fall under the jurisdiction of American law.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 12:49:18 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 5:38:31 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:32:43 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:31:31 AM, YYW wrote:
This is plainly unconstitutional, because it is discrimination based on alienage/national origin, and hostile to due process rights and equality under the law.

Equality under what law? International law?

American law. What the state of LA is doing is unquestionably unconstitutional, violative of the US Constitution.

ok but they aren't American's right? they are criminal aliens, why do they get the protections of law abiding citizens? depending on the crime you loose your rights, makes no sense.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 1:26:17 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 12:49:18 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:38:31 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:32:43 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:31:31 AM, YYW wrote:
This is plainly unconstitutional, because it is discrimination based on alienage/national origin, and hostile to due process rights and equality under the law.

Equality under what law? International law?

American law. What the state of LA is doing is unquestionably unconstitutional, violative of the US Constitution.

ok but they aren't American's right? they are criminal aliens, why do they get the protections of law abiding citizens? depending on the crime you loose your rights, makes no sense.

Read my link. Another supreme ct decision wick yo vs us.
Fernyx
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 1:28:02 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 5:28:49 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Please read the excerpt quoted below:

Undocumented workers and even terrorists had newly discovered they could exploit Louisiana"s marriage laws to gain citizenship, legislators claimed, leading to a supposed epidemic of "marriage fraud."

The response? Make it more difficult for immigrants to get married, of course.

So, as of this year, any foreign-born person wanting to get married in Louisiana must produce both an unexpired visa (even though a federal court has ruled that marriage licenses cannot be denied based on immigration status), as well as, somewhat inexplicably, a birth certificate.


[https://www.washingtonpost.com...]

Is this a reasonable course of action to take? Other thoughts? Comments? Reactions?

All it is, is proof that they are legal, which should be applied for everyone.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 1:29:05 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 6:22:15 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Undocumented workers and foreign terrorists don't fall under the jurisdiction of American law.
Incorrect. The U.S. Constitution addresses persons, not citizens.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 1:33:56 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 12:49:18 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
ok but they aren't American's right? they are criminal aliens, why do they get the protections of law abiding citizens? depending on the crime you loose your rights, makes no sense.

The US Constitution protects "all persons" not just "all citizens." The Supreme Court has, I believe, ruled in the past that "persons" is more inclusive than just "citizens," and so anyone in the US is entitled to equal protection under the law.

In other words, the aliens get the protections of law abiding citizens because the Constitution says they do.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 1:42:21 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 6:14:28 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:28:49 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Please read the excerpt quoted below:

Undocumented workers and even terrorists had newly discovered they could exploit Louisiana"s marriage laws to gain citizenship, legislators claimed, leading to a supposed epidemic of "marriage fraud."

The response? Make it more difficult for immigrants to get married, of course.

So, as of this year, any foreign-born person wanting to get married in Louisiana must produce both an unexpired visa (even though a federal court has ruled that marriage licenses cannot be denied based on immigration status), as well as, somewhat inexplicably, a birth certificate.


[https://www.washingtonpost.com...]

Is this a reasonable course of action to take? Other thoughts? Comments? Reactions?

It's stupid to just do it for immigrants. It would make more sense to have it apply to everyone, and to force people to produce either an unexpired visa or a birth certificate. That could really just be classified as a restriction in accepted ID, and would more or less burden everyone equally while barring illegals from marrying, which is, ostensibly, the problem being addressed.

there's an application in my state and you have to provide divorce records and some others as well, marriage is a state contract not a federal one so each state can and has their own guidelines
What documents you'll need: Most states require birth certificates, proof of citizenship and/or residence, and a driver's license or other photo id.
http://weddings.about.com...
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 1:59:44 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 1:26:17 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 12:49:18 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:38:31 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:32:43 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:31:31 AM, YYW wrote:
This is plainly unconstitutional, because it is discrimination based on alienage/national origin, and hostile to due process rights and equality under the law.

Equality under what law? International law?

American law. What the state of LA is doing is unquestionably unconstitutional, violative of the US Constitution.

ok but they aren't American's right? they are criminal aliens, why do they get the protections of law abiding citizens? depending on the crime you loose your rights, makes no sense.

Read my link. Another supreme ct decision wick yo vs us.

right so if whatever state makes laws that apply to all, like i.d. requirements then that should be constitutional, equal protection of the laws. Marriage is a contract after all.
and of course marriage isn't a right, so can criminal aliens own/purchase and carry firearms? hmmmm
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 2:05:06 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 1:59:44 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 1:26:17 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 12:49:18 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:38:31 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:32:43 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:31:31 AM, YYW wrote:
This is plainly unconstitutional, because it is discrimination based on alienage/national origin, and hostile to due process rights and equality under the law.

Equality under what law? International law?

American law. What the state of LA is doing is unquestionably unconstitutional, violative of the US Constitution.

ok but they aren't American's right? they are criminal aliens, why do they get the protections of law abiding citizens? depending on the crime you loose your rights, makes no sense.

Read my link. Another supreme ct decision wick yo vs us.

right so if whatever state makes laws that apply to all, like i.d. requirements then that should be constitutional, equal protection of the laws. Marriage is a contract after all.
and of course marriage isn't a right, so can criminal aliens own/purchase and carry firearms? hmmmm

I know. It sucks. Supreme ct contridicts itself then puts forth ideas like precedence. And I still refuse to say scotus or potus lol
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 2:06:10 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 2:05:06 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 1:59:44 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 1:26:17 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 12:49:18 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:38:31 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:32:43 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:31:31 AM, YYW wrote:
This is plainly unconstitutional, because it is discrimination based on alienage/national origin, and hostile to due process rights and equality under the law.

Equality under what law? International law?

American law. What the state of LA is doing is unquestionably unconstitutional, violative of the US Constitution.

ok but they aren't American's right? they are criminal aliens, why do they get the protections of law abiding citizens? depending on the crime you loose your rights, makes no sense.

Read my link. Another supreme ct decision wick yo vs us.

right so if whatever state makes laws that apply to all, like i.d. requirements then that should be constitutional, equal protection of the laws. Marriage is a contract after all.
and of course marriage isn't a right, so can criminal aliens own/purchase and carry firearms? hmmmm

I know. It sucks. Supreme ct contridicts itself then puts forth ideas like precedence. And I still refuse to say scotus or potus lol

Btw I read the majority decision in yick wo and it tripped over itself!
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 2:09:09 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 2:06:10 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:05:06 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 1:59:44 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 1:26:17 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 12:49:18 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:38:31 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:32:43 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:31:31 AM, YYW wrote:
This is plainly unconstitutional, because it is discrimination based on alienage/national origin, and hostile to due process rights and equality under the law.

Equality under what law? International law?

American law. What the state of LA is doing is unquestionably unconstitutional, violative of the US Constitution.

ok but they aren't American's right? they are criminal aliens, why do they get the protections of law abiding citizens? depending on the crime you loose your rights, makes no sense.

Read my link. Another supreme ct decision wick yo vs us.

right so if whatever state makes laws that apply to all, like i.d. requirements then that should be constitutional, equal protection of the laws. Marriage is a contract after all.
and of course marriage isn't a right, so can criminal aliens own/purchase and carry firearms? hmmmm

I know. It sucks. Supreme ct contridicts itself then puts forth ideas like precedence. And I still refuse to say scotus or potus lol

Btw I read the majority decision in yick wo and it tripped over itself!

sure did, if the law was straight forward and clear I guess we wouldn't need lawyers
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 2:12:25 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 2:09:09 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:06:10 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:05:06 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 1:59:44 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 1:26:17 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 12:49:18 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:38:31 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:32:43 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:31:31 AM, YYW wrote:
This is plainly unconstitutional, because it is discrimination based on alienage/national origin, and hostile to due process rights and equality under the law.

Equality under what law? International law?

American law. What the state of LA is doing is unquestionably unconstitutional, violative of the US Constitution.

ok but they aren't American's right? they are criminal aliens, why do they get the protections of law abiding citizens? depending on the crime you loose your rights, makes no sense.

Read my link. Another supreme ct decision wick yo vs us.

right so if whatever state makes laws that apply to all, like i.d. requirements then that should be constitutional, equal protection of the laws. Marriage is a contract after all.
and of course marriage isn't a right, so can criminal aliens own/purchase and carry firearms? hmmmm

I know. It sucks. Supreme ct contridicts itself then puts forth ideas like precedence. And I still refuse to say scotus or potus lol

Btw I read the majority decision in yick wo and it tripped over itself!

sure did, if the law was straight forward and clear I guess we wouldn't need lawyers

Here's the irony: someone made an interesting point about the constitution covering 'persons' and not just citizens. Let's go back to my point about 'person' and not being a citizen (sovereignty)... there's the real hmmm!

Note: I clearly distinct those who claim sovereignty as vastly different than the sovereign-citizen movement, for all the wiki warriors.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 2:24:41 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 2:12:25 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:09:09 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:06:10 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:05:06 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 1:59:44 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 1:26:17 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 12:49:18 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:38:31 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:32:43 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:31:31 AM, YYW wrote:
This is plainly unconstitutional, because it is discrimination based on alienage/national origin, and hostile to due process rights and equality under the law.

Equality under what law? International law?

American law. What the state of LA is doing is unquestionably unconstitutional, violative of the US Constitution.

ok but they aren't American's right? they are criminal aliens, why do they get the protections of law abiding citizens? depending on the crime you loose your rights, makes no sense.

Read my link. Another supreme ct decision wick yo vs us.

right so if whatever state makes laws that apply to all, like i.d. requirements then that should be constitutional, equal protection of the laws. Marriage is a contract after all.
and of course marriage isn't a right, so can criminal aliens own/purchase and carry firearms? hmmmm

I know. It sucks. Supreme ct contridicts itself then puts forth ideas like precedence. And I still refuse to say scotus or potus lol

Btw I read the majority decision in yick wo and it tripped over itself!

sure did, if the law was straight forward and clear I guess we wouldn't need lawyers

Here's the irony: someone made an interesting point about the constitution covering 'persons' and not just citizens. Let's go back to my point about 'person' and not being a citizen (sovereignty)... there's the real hmmm!

Note: I clearly distinct those who claim sovereignty as vastly different than the sovereign-citizen movement, for all the wiki warriors.

very interesting in deed, so one could renounce citizenship and still enjoy all the benefits of a citizen, not sure were the negative in that would be hhmmm
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 2:31:50 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 5:28:49 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Please read the excerpt quoted below:

Undocumented workers and even terrorists had newly discovered they could exploit Louisiana"s marriage laws to gain citizenship, legislators claimed, leading to a supposed epidemic of "marriage fraud."

The response? Make it more difficult for immigrants to get married, of course.

So, as of this year, any foreign-born person wanting to get married in Louisiana must produce both an unexpired visa (even though a federal court has ruled that marriage licenses cannot be denied based on immigration status), as well as, somewhat inexplicably, a birth certificate.


[https://www.washingtonpost.com...]

Is this a reasonable course of action to take? Other thoughts? Comments? Reactions?

It is, quite honestly retarded. I can understand proof of ID in some shape or form, but the immigration aspect doesn't make any sense at all.

Immigration status doesn't and shouldn't figure into marriage in the US; as anyone who has any knowledge about or understanding of the US immigration system knows that getting married doesn't change your immigration status.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 2:38:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 2:31:50 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:28:49 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Please read the excerpt quoted below:

Undocumented workers and even terrorists had newly discovered they could exploit Louisiana"s marriage laws to gain citizenship, legislators claimed, leading to a supposed epidemic of "marriage fraud."

The response? Make it more difficult for immigrants to get married, of course.

So, as of this year, any foreign-born person wanting to get married in Louisiana must produce both an unexpired visa (even though a federal court has ruled that marriage licenses cannot be denied based on immigration status), as well as, somewhat inexplicably, a birth certificate.


[https://www.washingtonpost.com...]

Is this a reasonable course of action to take? Other thoughts? Comments? Reactions?

It is, quite honestly retarded. I can understand proof of ID in some shape or form, but the immigration aspect doesn't make any sense at all.

Immigration status doesn't and shouldn't figure into marriage in the US; as anyone who has any knowledge about or understanding of the US immigration system knows that getting married doesn't change your immigration status.

immigration is federal, marriage is state, each state can and has different laws and requirements for a marriage licence, since you need a licence it's not a right, what other rights do you need a licence for? none.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 2:52:26 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 2:38:34 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:31:50 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:28:49 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Please read the excerpt quoted below:

Undocumented workers and even terrorists had newly discovered they could exploit Louisiana"s marriage laws to gain citizenship, legislators claimed, leading to a supposed epidemic of "marriage fraud."

The response? Make it more difficult for immigrants to get married, of course.

So, as of this year, any foreign-born person wanting to get married in Louisiana must produce both an unexpired visa (even though a federal court has ruled that marriage licenses cannot be denied based on immigration status), as well as, somewhat inexplicably, a birth certificate.


[https://www.washingtonpost.com...]

Is this a reasonable course of action to take? Other thoughts? Comments? Reactions?

It is, quite honestly retarded. I can understand proof of ID in some shape or form, but the immigration aspect doesn't make any sense at all.

Immigration status doesn't and shouldn't figure into marriage in the US; as anyone who has any knowledge about or understanding of the US immigration system knows that getting married doesn't change your immigration status.

immigration is federal, marriage is state, each state can and has different laws and requirements for a marriage licence, since you need a licence it's not a right, what other rights do you need a licence for? none.

When did I say it was a state, or federal issue. Where did I say it was a right? Why are you responding with an argument that has nothing to do with anything I said.

I will repeat, just in case I stuttered: Getting married has little to do with immigration status, or lack thereof, it won't change your status. It doesn't conferr any benefits as a result of marriage that aren't dependant on immigration status either. Therefore, whether or not the action is legal, or a right is irrelevant: the point is it doesn't make much sense.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 3:20:49 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 2:52:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:38:34 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:31:50 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:28:49 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Please read the excerpt quoted below:

Undocumented workers and even terrorists had newly discovered they could exploit Louisiana"s marriage laws to gain citizenship, legislators claimed, leading to a supposed epidemic of "marriage fraud."

The response? Make it more difficult for immigrants to get married, of course.

So, as of this year, any foreign-born person wanting to get married in Louisiana must produce both an unexpired visa (even though a federal court has ruled that marriage licenses cannot be denied based on immigration status), as well as, somewhat inexplicably, a birth certificate.


[https://www.washingtonpost.com...]

Is this a reasonable course of action to take? Other thoughts? Comments? Reactions?

It is, quite honestly retarded. I can understand proof of ID in some shape or form, but the immigration aspect doesn't make any sense at all.

Immigration status doesn't and shouldn't figure into marriage in the US; as anyone who has any knowledge about or understanding of the US immigration system knows that getting married doesn't change your immigration status.

immigration is federal, marriage is state, each state can and has different laws and requirements for a marriage licence, since you need a licence it's not a right, what other rights do you need a licence for? none.

When did I say it was a state, or federal issue. Where did I say it was a right? Why are you responding with an argument that has nothing to do with anything I said.

I will repeat, just in case I stuttered: Getting married has little to do with immigration status, or lack thereof, it won't change your status. It doesn't conferr any benefits as a result of marriage that aren't dependant on immigration status either. Therefore, whether or not the action is legal, or a right is irrelevant: the point is it doesn't make much sense.

wow liberal think much? I merely stated some facts, never said you said them, only federal law can change immigration status, true? If states require whatever proof or id for marriage then it does in fact have to do with immigration status. You've never heard of people getting married for a "green card" and to make them a permanent resident?(which is a status change) I find your ego and self importance amusing, please continue.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 4:03:12 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 3:20:49 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:52:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:38:34 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:31:50 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:28:49 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Please read the excerpt quoted below:

Undocumented workers and even terrorists had newly discovered they could exploit Louisiana"s marriage laws to gain citizenship, legislators claimed, leading to a supposed epidemic of "marriage fraud."

The response? Make it more difficult for immigrants to get married, of course.

So, as of this year, any foreign-born person wanting to get married in Louisiana must produce both an unexpired visa (even though a federal court has ruled that marriage licenses cannot be denied based on immigration status), as well as, somewhat inexplicably, a birth certificate.


[https://www.washingtonpost.com...]

Is this a reasonable course of action to take? Other thoughts? Comments? Reactions?

It is, quite honestly retarded. I can understand proof of ID in some shape or form, but the immigration aspect doesn't make any sense at all.

Immigration status doesn't and shouldn't figure into marriage in the US; as anyone who has any knowledge about or understanding of the US immigration system knows that getting married doesn't change your immigration status.

immigration is federal, marriage is state, each state can and has different laws and requirements for a marriage licence, since you need a licence it's not a right, what other rights do you need a licence for? none.

When did I say it was a state, or federal issue. Where did I say it was a right? Why are you responding with an argument that has nothing to do with anything I said.

I will repeat, just in case I stuttered: Getting married has little to do with immigration status, or lack thereof, it won't change your status. It doesn't conferr any benefits as a result of marriage that aren't dependant on immigration status either. Therefore, whether or not the action is legal, or a right is irrelevant: the point is it doesn't make much sense.

wow liberal think much? I merely stated some facts, never said you said them, only federal law can change immigration status, true? If states require whatever proof or id for marriage then it does in fact have to do with immigration status. You've never heard of people getting married for a "green card" and to make them a permanent resident?(which is a status change) I find your ego and self importance amusing, please continue.

You stated a number of things that had almost nothing to do with anything I just said.

As I pointed out I my original reply, anyone who knows about the way the US immigration system works knows that getting married doesn't change your status.

To change status, you have to file an AoS, which won't grant you PR, and takes about 12 months to go through; requires you to have legal status already; and gets rejected most of the time if you're not already in the US on a dual intent visa unless you have significant evidence that you didn't plan to marry when you entered the country. In fact, if you don't have legal status, it's almost impossible to use AoS, if you're here on a temporary visa, it's next to impossible to get an AoS, and even if you're in a legitimate long term relationship and get married, follow all the rules and do nothing wrong, it still costs an arm and a leg; and has no gaurentee unless you happen to have recorded every step of your relationship from your first date.

But of course, I'm sure you already knew that...

In reality all that a marriage does, is give you the technical option for the AoS; it doesn't affect the time or the decision, or how it's made in that respect which is based on the relationship and Current status (if in the US); hence why getting married in or out of the US, is largely irrelevant to the immigration decision. Hence: immigration status should be largely irrelevant to whether you can or can't get married.

Of course, for some reason you decided to call me liberal, as if is an insult, or as if spelling out the reasons why it is irrelevant has something to do with political leaning. Indeed, your lack of apparent understanding on how marriage affects immigration just makes you fairly ignorant; your obvious conservatism is just a coincidence.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 4:28:32 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 4:03:12 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/11/2016 3:20:49 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:52:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:38:34 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:31:50 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:28:49 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Please read the excerpt quoted below:

Undocumented workers and even terrorists had newly discovered they could exploit Louisiana"s marriage laws to gain citizenship, legislators claimed, leading to a supposed epidemic of "marriage fraud."

The response? Make it more difficult for immigrants to get married, of course.

So, as of this year, any foreign-born person wanting to get married in Louisiana must produce both an unexpired visa (even though a federal court has ruled that marriage licenses cannot be denied based on immigration status), as well as, somewhat inexplicably, a birth certificate.


[https://www.washingtonpost.com...]

Is this a reasonable course of action to take? Other thoughts? Comments? Reactions?

It is, quite honestly retarded. I can understand proof of ID in some shape or form, but the immigration aspect doesn't make any sense at all.

Immigration status doesn't and shouldn't figure into marriage in the US; as anyone who has any knowledge about or understanding of the US immigration system knows that getting married doesn't change your immigration status.

immigration is federal, marriage is state, each state can and has different laws and requirements for a marriage licence, since you need a licence it's not a right, what other rights do you need a licence for? none.

When did I say it was a state, or federal issue. Where did I say it was a right? Why are you responding with an argument that has nothing to do with anything I said.

I will repeat, just in case I stuttered: Getting married has little to do with immigration status, or lack thereof, it won't change your status. It doesn't conferr any benefits as a result of marriage that aren't dependant on immigration status either. Therefore, whether or not the action is legal, or a right is irrelevant: the point is it doesn't make much sense.

wow liberal think much? I merely stated some facts, never said you said them, only federal law can change immigration status, true? If states require whatever proof or id for marriage then it does in fact have to do with immigration status. You've never heard of people getting married for a "green card" and to make them a permanent resident?(which is a status change) I find your ego and self importance amusing, please continue.

You stated a number of things that had almost nothing to do with anything I just said.

As I pointed out I my original reply, anyone who knows about the way the US immigration system works knows that getting married doesn't change your status.

To change status, you have to file an AoS, which won't grant you PR, and takes about 12 months to go through; requires you to have legal status already; and gets rejected most of the time if you're not already in the US on a dual intent visa unless you have significant evidence that you didn't plan to marry when you entered the country. In fact, if you don't have legal status, it's almost impossible to use AoS, if you're here on a temporary visa, it's next to impossible to get an AoS, and even if you're in a legitimate long term relationship and get married, follow all the rules and do nothing wrong, it still costs an arm and a leg; and has no gaurentee unless you happen to have recorded every step of your relationship from your first date.

But of course, I'm sure you already knew that...

In reality all that a marriage does, is give you the technical option for the AoS; it doesn't affect the time or the decision, or how it's made in that respect which is based on the relationship and Current status (if in the US); hence why getting married in or out of the US, is largely irrelevant to the immigration decision. Hence: immigration status should be largely irrelevant to whether you can or can't get married.

Of course, for some reason you decided to call me liberal, as if is an insult, or as if spelling out the reasons why it is irrelevant has something to do with political leaning. Indeed, your lack of apparent understanding on how marriage affects immigration just makes you fairly ignorant; your obvious conservatism is just a coincidence.

actually I accused you of thinking like one which describes the reason for your reaction, yeah normally when someone acts all butt hurt and emotional, so then marriage can change status based on what you just said, yet first you said it didn't, but now it can, you can go from a status of illegal, to a permanent status by getting married regardless of what paper work and wait time, it can and does happen, it's a loop hole that maybe some states wish to close.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 5:11:32 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 4:28:32 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 4:03:12 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/11/2016 3:20:49 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:52:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:38:34 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:31:50 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/11/2016 5:28:49 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Please read the excerpt quoted below:

Undocumented workers and even terrorists had newly discovered they could exploit Louisiana"s marriage laws to gain citizenship, legislators claimed, leading to a supposed epidemic of "marriage fraud."

The response? Make it more difficult for immigrants to get married, of course.

So, as of this year, any foreign-born person wanting to get married in Louisiana must produce both an unexpired visa (even though a federal court has ruled that marriage licenses cannot be denied based on immigration status), as well as, somewhat inexplicably, a birth certificate.


[https://www.washingtonpost.com...]

Is this a reasonable course of action to take? Other thoughts? Comments? Reactions?

It is, quite honestly retarded. I can understand proof of ID in some shape or form, but the immigration aspect doesn't make any sense at all.

Immigration status doesn't and shouldn't figure into marriage in the US; as anyone who has any knowledge about or understanding of the US immigration system knows that getting married doesn't change your immigration status.

immigration is federal, marriage is state, each state can and has different laws and requirements for a marriage licence, since you need a licence it's not a right, what other rights do you need a licence for? none.

When did I say it was a state, or federal issue. Where did I say it was a right? Why are you responding with an argument that has nothing to do with anything I said.

I will repeat, just in case I stuttered: Getting married has little to do with immigration status, or lack thereof, it won't change your status. It doesn't conferr any benefits as a result of marriage that aren't dependant on immigration status either. Therefore, whether or not the action is legal, or a right is irrelevant: the point is it doesn't make much sense.

wow liberal think much? I merely stated some facts, never said you said them, only federal law can change immigration status, true? If states require whatever proof or id for marriage then it does in fact have to do with immigration status. You've never heard of people getting married for a "green card" and to make them a permanent resident?(which is a status change) I find your ego and self importance amusing, please continue.

You stated a number of things that had almost nothing to do with anything I just said.

As I pointed out I my original reply, anyone who knows about the way the US immigration system works knows that getting married doesn't change your status.

To change status, you have to file an AoS, which won't grant you PR, and takes about 12 months to go through; requires you to have legal status already; and gets rejected most of the time if you're not already in the US on a dual intent visa unless you have significant evidence that you didn't plan to marry when you entered the country. In fact, if you don't have legal status, it's almost impossible to use AoS, if you're here on a temporary visa, it's next to impossible to get an AoS, and even if you're in a legitimate long term relationship and get married, follow all the rules and do nothing wrong, it still costs an arm and a leg; and has no gaurentee unless you happen to have recorded every step of your relationship from your first date.

But of course, I'm sure you already knew that...

In reality all that a marriage does, is give you the technical option for the AoS; it doesn't affect the time or the decision, or how it's made in that respect which is based on the relationship and Current status (if in the US); hence why getting married in or out of the US, is largely irrelevant to the immigration decision. Hence: immigration status should be largely irrelevant to whether you can or can't get married.

Of course, for some reason you decided to call me liberal, as if is an insult, or as if spelling out the reasons why it is irrelevant has something to do with political leaning. Indeed, your lack of apparent understanding on how marriage affects immigration just makes you fairly ignorant; your obvious conservatism is just a coincidence.

actually I accused you of thinking like one which describes the reason for your reaction, yeah normally when someone acts all butt hurt and emotional, so then marriage can change status based on what you just said, yet first you said it didn't, but now it can, you can go from a status of illegal, to a permanent status by getting married regardless of what paper work and wait time, it can and does happen, it's a loop hole that maybe some states wish to close.

Considering my reaction was to point out your reply to me had nothing to do with what I said, which it still doesn't; and to point out that just because your married doesn't mean your status gets adjusted, which it doesn't; and that being married on its own has little to do with being able to adjust your status; which is primarily down to being able to show your status and prove your relationship, it seems your not doing much other than being incoherent and taking issue at me calling you at talking rubbish.

If you can keep a consistent argument, challenge what I'm actually saying, rather than saying a number of irrelevant and unrelated things, trying to call me names, and then trying to agree with everything I said and act as if It was you saying it all along; that would be nice.

Alternatively, you can keep on name calling and ranting incoherently whilst hilariously saying I'm the one who is acting butthurt without any comprehension of irony.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 5:16:43 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
This is probably a technical violation of Federal law, but at the same time this new law, if in practice it only disallows illegal immigrants to marry, then I'm perfectly fine with it.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 5:38:46 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 5:16:43 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
This is probably a technical violation of Federal law, but at the same time this new law, if in practice it only disallows illegal immigrants to marry, then I'm perfectly fine with it.

the only federal part from what I understand is treating everyone the same, so if the state law requires proof of legal residency for that state it should be fine as an example. Now how could the courts be involved in a marriage contract when one or both parties aren't even suppose to be here? What about divorce, custody and child support? When again they should be turned in to immigration and those laws followed. How much of getting married for a green card is a problem probably no one can ever really know, but clearly it's a way to change from illegal to legal, hence a change in status.