Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Utah's evil adoption laws (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  20  21  22   
Author Topic: Utah's evil adoption laws
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
The tribal rule is a good one, allow blood relatives the right of first refusal.

I'm fine with that, so long as said relatives sign in blood that if they change their kind or are found unfit that they are on the hook for child support.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fathers shouldn't have to prove anything at all beyond perhaps a DNA test to have custody of their child if the mother puts the child up for adoption. The father automatically gets custody and retains custody in the same way as if the mother had died. She loses all of her rights to the child, except the right to pay child support the same way a father would have to. If the father is unfit in some way then it will show up in the same way that the government finds out in any other single parent family. That's the way it should be. And if you aren't willing to put every single mother through the same parental fitness tests as you are these fathers suing for child custody then your tests are unlawful according to the 14th Amendment, as is this entire evil enterprise in fact. Utah may have met the due process clause but they violate the equal protection clause in no uncertain terms.

Let's illustrate with a hypothetical. The pregnant mother gets into an accident and goes into a coma for a year. A healthy child is born and given into the custody of the biological father who then places the child up for adoption. The mother wakes up when the child is a few months old and seeks custody. The state won't even tell her if the child lived or died and makes it illegal for her to gain custody of her child. That's state sponsored kidnapping, plain and simple. Like I said, pure evil, through and though.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Correct me if I'm wrong, Pete, but I think one thing you're trying to say is that any person who wants to be a parent has to demonstrate some commitment to that idea before it's a good idea (on the part of society) to let that happen.

In the case of a woman giving birth, the commitment to the idea is de facto demonstrated by gestation and parturition - Trial By Ordeal, if you will.

A person married to a woman giving birth is presumed to have demonstrated similar commitment by getting and staying married to the pregnant woman.

Any person or couple who wants to adopt must go through a process that includes convincing interested third parties (and sometimes the biological mother +/- father) of their commitment.

So why should an unmarried biological father be the exception society makes to this rule? Maybe he shouldn't - which doesn't mean the baby should be automatically adopted to an unrelated other person or couple, but does mean that it is probably sensible to require some kind of demonstration of commitment to parenthood, at least to the same extent that the putative adoptive parents need.

That's the argument as I understand it, anyways. I see pluses and minuses on both sides, but keeping as many kids as possible out of the foster system and with parents who are committed to them is a great goal that we probably all share.

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
But just because it's financially hard for the mother NOT to give the child up for adoption doesn't seem to speak to the child's best interests.

You are obviously WRONG!

Think about it. Are you really going to assert that abortion is at worst neutral to the child's interests? Because if you throw out this "evil" law complely, that's what you are forcing women to do on pain of 18 years of child support to the man they rejected as lover and husband.

It's interesting how your portrayal of the mother in this scenario flipped from someone doing her damnedest to serve the best interests of the child to someone who will be damned if she pays child support to its father.

Do you think women will be swayed into abortion? It hadn't occurred to me that it would be very likely.

Although I don't weigh the interests of an early term fetus the same as the interests of a neonate, or even close to the same, it would be a shame to prevent children from being born who would otherwise have a set of eager parents. But I wouldn't argue that the mother doesn't have the right to terminate an early term pregnancy, for any reason including to avoid child support.

I'm not sure how to do the calculus to connect the interests of the fetus to the interests of the child it may become and the interests of related parties at both times.

I've certainly taken another point of view on some related issues. The typical Men's Rights Activist point of view with regard to compulsory child support when the mother retains custody repulses me. I think the interests of the child clearly trump the injustice fathers feel if they think they got tricked into getting someone pregnant and had no choices from that point forward. I feel similarly about men who think they should have a right to prevent an abortion of their offspring.

It occurred to me that you might have some personal connection to an adoption that was facilitated by an unwed mother. It's certainly not that unusual. I'm only once removed from such an instance myself. The father in that case agreed to the adoption, but with much regret and pain.

If the injustice to the father of an adoption he doesn't agree to is only avoided by an abortion that wouldn't otherwise happen, then I don't think the world is a better place as a result. I'm just not sure that's really likely to be the dilemma.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" t's interesting how your portrayal of the mother in this scenario flipped from someone doing her damnedest to serve the best interests of the child to someone who will be damned if she pays child support to its father."

Damned if she puts herself into a situation where her ex lover can pull her into court and have her sent to jail for not having enough money that year. While he raises her child.

You've reduced her situation to mere stinginess, and that's strangely inhumane of you. I would expect more common sense and sympathy.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks OT for responding to what I actually said. Yes, that's exactly my position. Horton the elephant. Parenthood equals investment. And the putative adopted parents are more invested that a mere sperm donor, ergo have a greater right as well as capacity to raise the child.

I see others here eager to inflict on a woman the life destroying event of a 18 year child support obligation as sort of an affirmative apartheid revenge for all the men so inflicted, without regard for the fact that the baby is getting screwed out of a better adoptive situation.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Do you think women will be swayed into abortion? It hadn't occurred to me that it would be very likely"

Inasmuch as an abortion occurs when a pregnant woman commits suicide, yes I think it would be very likely.

In the AA program I know a lot of women who are paying child support to the ex and suffer through that monthly contact and obligation, aggravating the pain of not being with their kids. I'm a man in the same situation, so you'd think I'd take the man's side, but I'm telling you that these women cut off from their neonate (who gestated inside them) are going through something worse. Especially when the custodial dad is an SoB.

OT, the investment of the married dad isn't just my presumption. Wasn't a man that coined the phrase "we're pregnant." [Smile] . No a married dad isn't as invested in the neonate as mom as a rule, but he is invested.

I'm just asking for proof of investment beyond sperm plus curiosity.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cherry, if blowing your load puts you into comas, I'd consider that an investment in making your baby. But you should still see a doctor about that.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
Fathers shouldn't have to prove anything at all beyond perhaps a DNA test to have custody of their child if the mother puts the child up for adoption. The father automatically gets custody and retains custody in the same way as if the mother had died. She loses all of her rights to the child, except the right to pay child support the same way a father would have to. If the father is unfit in some way then it will show up in the same way that the government finds out in any other single parent family. That's the way it should be. And if you aren't willing to put every single mother through the same parental fitness tests as you are these fathers suing for child custody then your tests are unlawful according to the 14th Amendment, as is this entire evil enterprise in fact. Utah may have met the due process clause but they violate the equal protection clause in no uncertain terms."

.

Don't you ever see All Sharp ton in the mirror? Your whole argument is affirmative apartheid, based on ****ing over single moms to compensate for historical injustices for single dads. Equal protection, shmeequal protection, and **** the equities of this situation and the best interests of the child. You fail Solomon's test and demand we carve babies in two in the name of equality. You want to penalize the woman for trying to give her baby a mom and a dad, and you wonder why Kate is giggling over your useful shoulder.

"
Let's illustrate with a hypothetical. The pregnant mother gets into an accident and goes into a coma for a year. A healthy child is born and given into the custody of the biological father who then places the child up for adoption. The mother wakes up when the child is a few months old and seeks custody. The state won't even tell her if the child lived or died and makes it illegal for her to gain custody of her child. That's state sponsored kidnapping, plain and simple. Like I said, pure evil, through and though"


Oh, Cherry, Quentin Tarentino called. He wants his script back. Honestly couldn't you do better than Kill Bill 2 for a relevant hypothetical? You compare a nine month coma with a baby growing inside a woman to a dude that jizzes inside a stranger, in terms of investment in the child's life?

As for kidnapping, your use of that word is less idiotic than your foxed up blood libel against the LDS church, but since you still have not backed off that big fat lie, your use of the word just reminds me of your gullibility, irresponsibility, and inability to ever admit you are wrong.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In response to scifi's question of my connection to adoption, no. But you are right that I take this issue very personally. Because I am a real father who is deeply invested in my children's lives, and it offrnds me mightily to see lefties and foolish rightwads collaborating to reduce fatherhood to the mere act of jizzing. Putting the final nail in the coffin for the meaning of marriage and real fatherhood.

My genetic relationship to my boys is the LEAST of my connections to them. But according to cherry my sperm were all that matters towards making me their father. I find that a profoundly evil argument, or would if I thought that Cherry had actually thought it through.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Oh please. If the father is abusive then PROVE IT IN COURT IF HE WANTS THE CHILD.

How do you propose that be done without exposing the abused to the abuser, with all of the escalation of abuse and implicit control issues that arise from doing so. While good for general civil and criminal complaints, our traditional court model fails in pathological ways when it comes to dealing with abuse cases
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
[QUOTE]I do think that we have a fundamental right to raise our children. Do you disagree with this?

That point isn't under contention. What is at debate is whether biological contribution is sufficient or even really relevant at all for establishing who gets to make the claim of "our"

Our public support system should make child support irrelevant. With any individual penalty only being involved where intentional, malicious abuse of some sort can be clearly shown.

If a person wants a child, they should have the upfront responsibility of establishing the groundwork for it. If your partner is in such disagreement with you over the quality and nature of your relationship to feel the need to conceal a child from you and put it up for adoption, that serves as a pretty good sign that that groundwork is not in place anyway and maybe should first focus on building a better relationship with a more trying foundation.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
[QUOTE]I do think that we have a fundamental right to raise our children. Do you disagree with this?

That point isn't under contention. What is at debate is whether biological contribution is sufficient or even really relevant at all for establishing who gets to make the claim of "our". ....

If a person wants a child, they should have the upfront responsibility of establishing the groundwork for it. If your partner is in such disagreement with you over the quality and nature of your relationship to feel the need to conceal a child from you and put it up for adoption, that serves as a pretty good sign that that groundwork is not in place anyway and maybe should first focus on building a better relationship with a more trying foundation.

Exactly! You've put your finger on it.

I'd add that the woman, after forgoing abortion, and gestating the child 9 months, and manifesting willingness to give the child up for adoption, has earned tremendous credibility as far as demonstrating her involvement in the child's life and power to make decisions on behalf of that child. It should require some show on the unmarried biodad's part to overcome that.
More than a mere sperm douche 9 months before.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Oh please. If the father is abusive then PROVE IT IN COURT IF HE WANTS THE CHILD.

How do you propose that be done without exposing the abused to the abuser, with all of the escalation of abuse and implicit control issues that arise from doing so. While good for general civil and criminal complaints, our traditional court model fails in pathological ways when it comes to dealing with abuse cases
No it's not different.

The objections you raised could be raised to never allow an accused abuser the right to face his/her accuser, and it's total rubbish.

In our legal system someone is presumed INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of law.

The family law court system is one area that is trying to do an end-run around this, not only with this absurdity from Utah, but other perversions of due process such as zero-notification protection orders, etc.

A father has the right to his child, and if he is a loving caring person who is capable of caring for his children and is trying to demonstrate that the court has no business allowing a spiteful mother to throw the child away to total strangers. If you are going to argue that it's too much of a hardship to expect mothers to prove that their boyfriends are abusive, then I am going to respond that that's crap and that hardship is nothing in the face of a father who wants his kids losing them forever. When you balance that, the mother having to use our legal system (just like everyone else when accusing someone of a crime) becomes a minor inconvenience when faced with stripping away a father's child for the rest of his life.

[ February 15, 2014, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
[QUOTE]I do think that we have a fundamental right to raise our children. Do you disagree with this?

That point isn't under contention. What is at debate is whether biological contribution is sufficient or even really relevant at all for establishing who gets to make the claim of "our"

Our public support system should make child support irrelevant. With any individual penalty only being involved where intentional, malicious abuse of some sort can be clearly shown.

If a person wants a child, they should have the upfront responsibility of establishing the groundwork for it. If your partner is in such disagreement with you over the quality and nature of your relationship to feel the need to conceal a child from you and put it up for adoption, that serves as a pretty good sign that that groundwork is not in place anyway and maybe should first focus on building a better relationship with a more trying foundation.

Ridiculous. You could plan to marry a woman, she could say yes, you could conceive then she could change her mind. Or she could divorce prior to the birth.

Besides, I'm not a fan of state-recognized marriage anyway, marriage should be a private relationship among parties, and I'd rather get the state out of the marriage business altogether.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
". Ridiculous. You could plan to marry a woman, she could say yes, you could conceive then she could change her mind. Or she could divorce prior to the birth "

If you'd bothered to read the law you are critiquing, you'd see that divorce would not cut off a married dad's rights. As for your other hypo, that's just a demonstration of irresponsibility.

As for you not supporting state sanctioned marriage, if you had any grasp of the law involved you'd understand how that statement makes you a total statist. Marriage is largely a bill of privacy against state intrusion.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have a good grasp of the law in the way it matters most, as it is applied on the streets, not theoretically discussed in ivory towers...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
I have a huge grasp of law in the way it matters most, as it is applied on the streets, not theoretically discussed-about in ivory towers...

You don't grasp much if you think my practicing criminal law and defending fathers and mothers from having their kids taken away from them in Las Vegas family court is "ivory tower" stuff.

Or do you just assume that any experience I have must be ivory tower just because I know how to correctly use a semicolon?

I'm telling you, your crying about this Utah law suggests you don't know jack about how dependency law is handles in your own state of Washington. I could tell you stories ...

[ February 15, 2014, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
if you had any grasp of the law involved you'd understand how that statement makes you a total statist.
Just responding to that absurd statement.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For the record, domestic law is applied in the courtrooms, not in the streets.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
if you had any grasp of the law involved you'd understand how that statement makes you a total statist.
Just responding to that absurd statement.
A true statement offends so you retaliate with a statement you know to be false?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know nothing of the sort. It wasn't a true statement, and my response wasn't false. Government marriage is the true invasion into privacy, along with the things it's paired with.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
". Government marriage is the true invasion into privacy, along with the things it's paired with."

That whole dogmatic repitition as a substitute for evidence, did you learn that from [name of Ornerian withheld]?

Want to articulate what "things" you are referring to?

[ February 15, 2014, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I saw what you originally wrote, then your edit, then your third iteration. Very amusing.

Can you think of other ways government intrudes into people's family and personal lives based on the registration of their marriage with the DOL?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
I saw what you originally wrote, then your edit, then your third iteration. Very amusing.


I presume you reported on all three iterations, so OM can be equally amused. You going to answer the question or just throw up a smokescreen again?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
I saw what you originally wrote, then your edit, then your third iteration. Very amusing.


I presume you reported on all three iterations, so OM can be equally amused. You going to answer the question or just throw up a smokescreen again?
You'd be mistaken then. You cannot think of any ways the government intrudes on people's families and personal lives by the mere filing of their marriage certificate?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course I can. And they are all insignificant compared to anti govt protections such as spousal communication privilege.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Those "protections" are fake, they wouldn't even need to exist if a whole host of other government intrusions weren't in place. Giant, bloated government is not a natural state of the earth, it is quite baffling to see why so many people seem to think we need to go to elaborate lengths to codify protections against it when it is easier simply to remove the parts of government which originally intrude.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Shows what you know. In for years of crim defense I had at least six cases where marriage made the difference between freedom vs jail, or deportation, PR being able to emigrate and live with one's kids. And in this very thread you started, marriage would have solved those poor boys' problems. Think,man.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Name what you think is a protection?

The protection you think would be present here is more easily dealt with by removing the government power that causes the problem in the first place.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Alreasy did, Seneca.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Of course I can. And they are all insignificant compared to anti govt protections such as spousal communication privilege.

That one got one of my clients a really sweet plea bargain deal when he married his girlfriend.

Another obvious one is ability to immigrate more easily to be with one's kids.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course if you don't think it's a govt intrusion for the state to tell my client he can't stay in the USA with his 3 kids and their mother, there's no reasoning with you.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually I happen to think marrying in order to immigrate to the US is a big problem. There's a big business industry behind it. Not every case is financially motivated that way, but many are.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes. That happens. But I'm talking about someone on a temporary visa that gets in a relationship with and has kids with an American while in America, and becomes a father figure for her kids before that relationship started. His temporary visa expires. Whether they married or not makes a difference as to the govt's intrusion into the family's life and astto whether five kids get to grow up with their mom and dad. Which you say that you care about.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not a fan of birthing trips or birthing vacations or birthing "extended stays," for either fathers or mothers. Guess I'd have to think more about that specific type of situation.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I never dealt with that.

My clients were men who had temporary worker cards, formed relationships with American women in America, had multiple children.ThEN their worker card was running out and they applied to renew. No laws have been broken. No loopholes exploited. Why are you afraid to commit?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If someone is not an American citizen then that's different, they don't have the same Constitutional protections.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What the hell does that have to do with the fact that marriage prevents a government intrusion? My clients' wives were American citizens and certainly their ability to keep their men and the fathers of their children were affected by their marriage status.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
People who are citizens should be free from government intrusion into their lives. Making an argument about how marriage helps aliens get their foot in the door seems to have little to do with this discussion. The government has a vested interest in preventing aliens from being here illegally.
http://www.yementimes.com/en/1657/report/2089/Yemenis-seeking-American-citizenship-pay-exorbitant-dowries-in-lucrative-marriages-of-convenience.htm

[ February 15, 2014, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
People who are citizens should be free from government intrusion into their lives.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
My clients' wives WERE American citizens and certainly their ability to keep THEIR men and the fathers of their children were affected by their marriage status.

Need to take more time to read? Did you not grasp the part about the wives and kids being American Citizens? Or that marriage protects THEIR lives as well? What is causing this mental slip? I am taking about the rights of American citizens, the wives and children. How many times do we need to address this until you catch on?

[ February 15, 2014, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  20  21  22   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1