Oh, and since I really need to stop apologizing for hijacking this thread only to allow mister nyx and I to hijack it even more, I’ll just end this bullshit here and let this moron’s posts speak for themselves. I’ve exposed you as much as I see a need to. If anyone else wants me to clarify anything, I’ll respond to them, but I’m done dealing with Smoke 'em Out directly.
Smot Poker, if you want to continue this, pit me. I couldn’t stop you even if I wanted to. I would pit you, but I really don’t give enough of a shit at this point to do so.
I take it you’re asking me to stop quoting anything you say?
So I have to go back and quote my own posts in this very thread? Uh, if I do that, what is to stop you from ignoring them a second time, as you did the first time? And then what’s to stop you from deciding that I was lying then as I obviously am now about being gay? As I have – in your mind – apparently lied about in thread after thread here at the Dope. How will trying yet again to demonstrate the fact that I am gay accomplish anything? Why the fuck should I even care that some guy who is trying to argue that I’m not really gay in order to discredit me isn’t “convinced” yet?
This is another one of those creepy moments in which you are obsessed with details of my personal life and are demanding proof in a weird and inappropriate way. I mean, I could post a picture of me with a cock in my mouth and, judging from your previous behavior, you’d be demanding some sort of proof that it was actually me.
You’re a weird creepy little fucker, dude. I doubt this will happen, but I can vaguely hope for your sake that you stop and reconsider yourself.
Well, shit. This has become a personal thread. Anyway, I’m pretty confident that the PVRA changes the law, so that resident aliens who are victims of domestic abuse have no recourse that does not involve them getting deported. This is because the abusing spouse can withdraw sponsorship, which is what allowed the abused spouse to live here legally. Ostensibly, this closes a loophole in immigration law in which a woman somehow manipulates her husband into slamming her head against the bathroom floor until her nose breaks, and then obtains citizenship. Or something. Perhaps bricker can explain it further.
I’m not a lawyer, but my girlfriend was once a resident alien and a victim of domestic violence. I could ask her, but bringing it up generally leads to her drinking more than she should, and bringing out her “evil twin.” I think I’d rather have bricker explain it.
I don’t know the other features of the law well enough to argue them, although all the stuff about “false accusations” sounds really alarming, because normal laws don’t have special rules in them about how to handle “false accusations” of, say, burglary, or murder.
This one point on its own is enough for me to have a pretty clear idea about the PVRA and it’s enough to make the law really upsetting. I’m truly glad your girlfriend got out of the circumstance she was in.
I noticed similar questions earlier in the thread that I don’t think were answered.
The first thing to point out is that this isn’t a controversy over some new law - the VAWA has been in effect for years and the “controversial” bit has been in there. So what the PVRA would do, most significantly, is not be the Violence Against Women Act. It’s a replacement; a “fix.” The problem with the VAWA you can mostly glean from the name; there are some men’s rights groups who are complaining essentially that the current law discriminates against men because it assumes all abusers are men and all victims are women.
(Editorial comment: that is wrong and stupid and they’re wrong and they are stupid. Men are protected.)
But they figured, I suppose, why only have the one objection if you’re going to try to make political hay out of a longstanding and successful piece of bipartisan legislation. So the immigration aspect: there is a thing called a U-visa. This is a temporary visa for victims of certain serious crimes who help with the prosecution of the criminal; after a certain amount of time on temporary status a victim can petition for permanent residency. Through VAWA there is additionally a process for a victim to self-petition for a green card immediately. The PVRA, as I understand it, would take away the permanent option with respect to the U-visa, leaving only the temporary visa, and restrict the latter option, the self-petition, by requiring certain evidentiary procedures where in addition to performing interviews to determine whether the allegations of abuse are credible, investigators will try to sniff out immigration fraud, and this process will include an interview of the alleged abuser. If any evidence of fraud is discovered, or if it’s simply the case that insufficient evidence is found to support the allegations of abuse – hold onto your fucking hat here – the result will be the self-petitioner’s removal.
It’s a marching beat you’ve all heard before. They’re only interested, of course, in addressing some very serious concerns they have about immigration fraud and gender discrimination. The actual real-world effect is that the people most likely to be in need of protection against violence will see a dramatic decrease in that protection, because with all the difficulties that attend being a victim of abuse as it stands, why would anybody voluntarily throw a very serious chance of deportation onto the pile when it’s probably an I-said you-said kind of situation, but that isn’t their intent.
To be honest, I would rather not unpack this. When my girlfriend says that her nose is “como una negrita,” rather than the long, proud Indian nose she was born with, I would rather work around the subject. I’ve danced enough Cumbias to understand what she’s talking about. I always felt that we are the product of the beatings we’ve taken. I never considered that someone could beat you until it changed what you thought of yourself. I would rather think that what you are is immutable.
I can think of some posters who are opposed to gay rights. I cannot think of many posters who are opposed to gay rights. I’d say this message board is pretty damned gay friendly. If you’re so inclined there’s an IMHO poll right now about gay marriage. Last I checked there were 11 people opposed and 257 people in favor.
See, the thing is, I generally agree with your position on SAVE. I strongly disagree with eroding one of the very few protections that exist for immigrants. But you had to go and talk shit not only about the people who disagree with you, but about every member on this message board. If we’re all so goddamn stupid and unelightened, why waste your time?
Technically, we are a pro-arrest state. That is, the legislature has indicated that an arrest should be made following a domestic violence report, but officers have discretion as to whether to actually arrest anyone. In practice, of course, it means we’re a mandatory arrest state.
Mandatory arrest sounds like broad-brush justice, but when it began studies showed it saves lives. Further it is mandatory arrest, not mandatory prosecution. I would like to see more modern studies as to its effectiveness.
Some jurisdictions have also adopted mandatory-prosecution policies, although that varies by community much more than mandatory arrest.
More recent research (pdf) still supports mandatory arrest, but it’s more complicated. There are some indications that it decreases reporting, that it disempowers victims, and/or that it has increased the frequency of dual arrest. None of these findings are conclusive, though, I don’t think.
