Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

adam_demamps_wingman t1_j7twtby wrote

Reply to comment by The_Evanator2 in ‘We are not forgotten’: Formerly deported veterans become U.S. citizens in special San Diego ceremony by ProgressiveSnark2

There were at least three administrations involved—Bush, Obama, Trump. Some of the earliest cases were personnel who joined after 9-11 on the promise of citizenship after service. Apparently, the military failed to explain/gave misinformation and a number of personnel were deported because they never became citizens. Different flavors developed over the years apparently but some of it was from Trump trying to undo Obama’s program.

80

Emotional_Parsnip_69 t1_j7u1azj wrote

There’s a line in our military contracts somewhere that says anything the recruiters say to get you to sign up isn’t necessarily truth. They can promise you the world and it can disappear immediately.

59

Synec113 t1_j7ueaxf wrote

And that folks is why you get everything in writing.

23

Mallee78 t1_j7ug2ev wrote

I mean irl yes, but if you show the military something a recruiter signed ad say they promised this they will laugh your ass back to your bunk

24

Synec113 t1_j7vjh3t wrote

Yeah, that's why you don't do legal stuff yourself (like writing or signing a contract without a lawyer). Contract in writing and isn't being fulfilled? That lawyer is going to cost the military a hell of a lot more than it would if they just gave you what you were promised.

−1

Mallee78 t1_j7vpwto wrote

Also no way in gods green earth would a recruiter entertain a lawyer when talking to a recruit, they would just tell your ass to get out of their office.

8

Synec113 t1_j7zya3k wrote

As is their right. I don't know shit about the military, just how the law works.

1

Mallee78 t1_j7vnkbz wrote

The military will just say the recruiter made a decision without permission and get away Scott free

7

Synec113 t1_j7zy0sa wrote

I don't know how the boilerplate recruiting contacts work, but if the military isn't honoring a contract then a lawsuit can be filed and a federal court can take effective actions. In the end, it's all about the money. Your lawyers job is to make it cheaper for them to capitulate rather than fight - and given that it's always about the bottom line, they will.

2

Mallee78 t1_j800g1k wrote

You severely underestimate the military legal counsel lol

2

[deleted] t1_j7ul1hw wrote

In writing doesn't mean shit to the federal government just look at how bad VA benefits are. It's cheaper to grind the meat and leave it to spoil than take care of the service members who get injured.

17

Synec113 t1_j7vklio wrote

In writing means a hell of a lot, assuming it was done correctly (by a lawyer). Your lawyer is there to make it grossly more expensive and difficult to not fulfill the contract, such that their best/easiest/cheapest option is to capitulate and do what they agreed to.

1

FluffyCatGood t1_j7xvanf wrote

Lol you’re funny. You think the whole military gives a fuck what one lawyer thinks? Just google all the myriad lawsuits against the US military and you’ll get your answer.

Also, in the US the military has more money than god, they will spend your lawyer into the ground.

4

Synec113 t1_j7zz4l8 wrote

You're not wrong, there are a lot of shitty lawyers and superfluous lawsuits. However, any lawyer worth their salt knows they will take the cheapest option, as they always do - in everything. Accountants don't give a fuck about ego, just the bottom line. More money than God doesn't matter when outspending you gains them nothing where as a settlement and gag order makes you go away forever.

1

Jazeboy69 t1_j7ugytg wrote

Lol that’s just paper and ink what makes you think it means anything legally?

3

Synec113 t1_j7vjtn3 wrote

That's why I didn't say 'get an IOU.' Get a lawyer to write and read contracts beforehand, otherwise you're going to get fucked.

1

Emotional_Parsnip_69 t1_j7vt47i wrote

Get a lawyer and go to the recruiting station, see if you get anywhere.

7

Synec113 t1_j7zygo6 wrote

Didn't say that, I said have a lawyer review things before you sign them - not take them as emotional support lol

1

Emotional_Parsnip_69 t1_j801f98 wrote

Either way it doesn’t matter is the point. It’s predatory, and sketchy and they can fully afford to turn people with resources away because ten people without means to hire someone to help them will be in desperate need of something a recruiter can promise them

1

rtb001 t1_j7un0j8 wrote

We can keep these benefits and then quit anytime we want?

Yes. Unless of course, war were declared.

--sirens blaring--

What's that?

War were declared.

22

Combatical t1_j7ulbtx wrote

I'm sorry I'm not following here. Trump was trying to make sure military personnel that weren't citizens were getting deported? Sounds like him I just want to make sure I have another reason to be pissed at his policies.

4

ICanSeeRoundCorners t1_j7umqmb wrote

Most (if not all) of those deported committed crimes. When I first read about this years ago the article highlighted a guy who shot up an occupied (including with children) car and he felt he was unfairly deported.

7

Combatical t1_j7usg9z wrote

Are you saying the people in this article committed crimes?

3

ICanSeeRoundCorners t1_j7uto3d wrote

Largely, yes. The article says the main guy profiled had a felony conviction. Now that could be a wide range of things; in a lot of cases it's drug related but in a fair amount it's violent crimes.

5

Combatical t1_j7uyzfi wrote

Digging around all I can find is this same copy and pasted article. I want to know what he was actually charged with originally. I found some disturbing stuff about a guy with a similar name but I cant be sure its this guy.

5

ICanSeeRoundCorners t1_j7vjqn1 wrote

Yeah I wouldn't say that they all deserve deportation. Drug charges are a pretty frequent source of felony convictions and deportation seems unwarranted in those cases. I'm don't think it's unfair to deny citizenship to those who commit violent crimes though. I have don't know what the guy in the article was originally charged with. I do know when I've seen article in the past that profiled/interviewed a couple of these guys, several of them had committed shootings and or robberies.

1

gandalf_el_brown t1_j7vbzes wrote

Isn't being in the US illegally considered a felony

2

ICanSeeRoundCorners t1_j7vkpsj wrote

I don't know enough to answer for certain. The main guy in this article had a green card though, so he wasn't here illegally, but it was revoked when he was charged or convicted. I imagine most of these guys had similar immigration statuses. I don't think an illegal immigrant can join the military. I'm not an expert though so I might be wrong.

2

vt1032 t1_j7w0x5w wrote

No. Illegal entry can be charged as a misdemeanor (8 usc 1325) but rarely is. Illegal re-entry after a formal removal can be charged as a felony (8 usc 1326) but again that's fairly rare and you more see it used in extreme cases where that wasn't the only crime, or in cases of people who repeatedly get caught doing it.

Administrative grounds of inadmissibility resulting in voluntary returns or final/expedited orders of removal are much more common.

If they were unlawfully present (regardless of entry method, so visa overstays and illegal entry) for more than 6 months or more than a year, and then departed the US, that also triggers administrative grounds of inadmissibility that bar later legal re-entry for certain periods of time, but would not be a felony.

2

vt1032 t1_j7w0q5y wrote

No. Illegal entry can be charged as a misdemeanor (8 usc 1325) but rarely is. Illegal re-entry after a formal removal can be charged as a felony (8 usc 1326) but again that's fairly rare and you more see it used in extreme cases where that wasn't the only crime, or in cases of people who repeatedly get caught doing it.

Mostly administrative grounds of inadmissibility resulting in voluntary returns or final/expedited orders of removal are much more common.

1

adam_demamps_wingman t1_j7v08ni wrote

He banned Muslims entering the country. He separated children we are just now reuniting with their families. Obama had implemented a military employment plan that was tied to citizenship apparently. Trump tried to wash people out then deport them if I understood properly.

6

Combatical t1_j7v32zp wrote

Ahh I see. I couldn't find anything on what the gentleman in the article was originally charged for. Most articles just say the charges were "irrelevant".

Personally I think its important information. I served 10 years with a ton of great guys. A majority of us were people of color and non native born citizens thats important too. A bunch of us were great guys and a bunch of us I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them. But you cant just use a solider and throw them away when you're done.. Oh wait, thats exactly what they do even to native born veterans.

4

sharksnut t1_j87pyra wrote

>Trump tried to wash people out then deport them if I understood properly.

You did not. Read the article. This program existed under Bush 43, the deportations were done during Obama/Biden.

1

sharksnut t1_j87puat wrote

>Trump was trying to make sure military personnel that weren't citizens were getting deported?

Who was President in 2009 again?

1

sharksnut t1_j87pn7d wrote

>a number of personnel were deported because they never became citizens.

All of these men were deported for felony convictions, not because of missed paperwork.

1

sharksnut t1_j87pqgf wrote

>some of it was from Trump trying to undo Obama’s program.

Absolutely false. In fact, most if not all of these deportations were done under Obama (look at the dates).

1