According to RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) VAWA facilitates immigration fraud in 8 ways:
1.Provides free legal services to persons who merely claim abuse
2.Broadens the definition of “extreme cruelty”
3.Eliminates traditional standards of proof
4.Removes the “substantial connection” requirement
5.Bans all evidence by the alleged abuser, even if it shows fraud or illegal behavior
6.Educates persons on how to take advantage of these VAWA provisions
7.Overrides deportation hearings
8.Provides a loophole for persons in the midst of deportation
Upon further exploration from my post: http://larrydunbar.com/2012/01/12/recall-wasco-county-district-attorney-eric-nisley/.
I should make it clear that I am not a fan of Haven. I believe it is the agency that allowed a member, who I now call an ex-member, of our family here in The Dalles to use as an attention-getting device (perhaps cheap trick would be more accurate), when we were most vulnerable, the death of my wife’s niece.
I also believe it was number 1 and number 2 on the list that enabled the ex-member of our family to carryout her “cheap trick” (Tempo, Venkatesh Rao, 2011).
But that is the point. A “cheap trick” “…provides and answer to this question [“What’s going on, and what should I do?”], in the form of a key organizing insight that motivates the action in the rest of the deep story…” and every deep story coming into Haven is a “cheap trick”.
But every insight into a story that comes by the form of a “cheap trick” is flawed, “since it is based on the excluding [of] some part of reality as noise” Noise is something that you have to exclude from a conversation, if you are going to hear all of the conversation intact.
Therefore, the logic of an agency such as Haven is flawed to begin with, and the only way to handle the people seeking its services is through un-conditional love.
In other words, the agency has to “1.Provides free legal services to persons who merely claim abuse” because the people merely claiming abuse, maybe as wrong about their situation, as those who are being abused. The people merely claiming abuse may be being abuse, after all it (Haven) is their “cheap trick”, so what do they (the people who are merely claiming abuse) know? And are they (the people who are merely claiming abuse) even able to “think” their story, all the way through, even if they did know the difference in abuse, between abuse and merely claiming abuse?
The same thing goes for the second point listed: “2.Broadens the definition of “extreme cruelty””. In today’s America the people’s emotions are on edge. I see examples of this positioning of emotions everyday. I am not sure anyone in America would know where the boundary is between cruel and extremely cruel, if there is one.
I have to wonder if the people, who wrote this posting referenced, know the boundaries of cruelty and abuse, I don’t envy them if they do?
Perhaps they should throw a few stones, and create their own “cheap” tricks, to draw attention to what they are really after, as I am still not sure.