If you are brave enough and not frightened at the interview by CIS, they will just start the removal (deportation) proceedings during the interview, and you will have some time to prepare for the court hearings, and then you might be granted voluntary departure by IJ (within 90 day), if things go right. If they go wrong, you will be deported instead.
Birth certificate has a wrong birth place
- Thread starter masematn
- Start date
CIS: To be afraid or to be frightened?
Hey, I think I know where your interpretation comes from - it's your (our) first language, isn't it? "Deeper" and "sharper" are both strong enough to be reflected in the dictionaries, but I doubt they are. Can you provide a reference? If not, it remains subconscious explanation, nothing more. My English is poor, so I asked a few people today, my co-workers, four whites (native speakers), six Mexicans (non-native speakers), two Mexicans (native speakers), and one black (native speaker): Is there any difference between "to be afraid" and "to be frightened?" If so, what is it? Does any of these two express a stronger emotion? When would you use any of these two, and when only one? Eight (out of thirteen) said that there is no difference, and they can use both in the same situation. Five said that there is a diffrence, but it is not of a "sharper" or "deeper" nature, but rather a temporal one: one is afraid of something for a longer time, and also does not need this something to be present, while being frightened happens spontaneously and must be caused by something scaring. In Jack Sparrow's language: savvy?
Again, it is not my case - I am far from being brave. I said that I am not afraid, but that does not mean I am brave. The interview cannot frighten me because the worst thing they can do to me and my family is say a few words. And the worst result of these words can be the necessity to leave this country. So what? My family first left its country some two thousand years ago, when Roman soldiers invaded it, and since that time we've been dwelling in exile. It will be just moving on, changing one exile for another. That's why I said that i don't care much, neither does my wife. On the other hand, I can be useful to US, because I like it, and I feel very grateful. It would be plain foolish to let me go and not benefit from the contribution I can make. This is why I do not think CIS will remove me
Your picture is too simplistic. Should I remind, that no matter what IJ orders, I can still appeal his order and stay in the US until a decision is made by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)? There also many technical nuances, such as being a person of good moral character, no criminal history, university petitions, and so on. Or I can prove that removal may result in hardship to my child, who is a citizen of the United States. There are many options, and a good immigration lawyer can be helpful.
A trip to Mitsraim was our own choice. The main reason was famine. And it is documented much better - its story is written in the Tora. The second destruction was the first case of a total exile, the first "removal" so to say...
Which makes your trip to US closer to trip to Mizraim than to trip from Rome.
The problem is 600000 people walking in the desert for 40 years should have left archeological evidences. None of them are found by now.
Maybe THAT sea was not Red Sea? Maybe THAT desert was not THAT desert?
No, it doesn't. I agree that there is some similarity - both my trip to US and the trip to Mitsraim were caused by trying to survive. But it has nothing to do with Rome. What trip are you talking about? If you mean the exile which took place after the destruction of the Second Temple, then it was neither a trip, nor a free choice. If you mean something else, then I just didn't get it. Also, you touched a very complicated question, and I do not have enough education to discuss it.
Why should one need archeology here? Isn't it described clear enough in the Second Book? At least I do not need any evidence above what is written. And thinking in a Gentile way, what evidence could they leave after all? Desert digests everything... The sea was not Red, of course, because "suf" in Hebrew means "reeds," not "red." One of many mistakes made by translators. As for the desert, well, it was a desert, a "midber," and it simply did not have any other names at that time.
I doubt there are any remains. There were many nomadic peoples living in deserts, and where are their traces now? Such folks do not leave traces. And was it this desert or another, does not matter. The main point here is what is written - you either accept it or not. If you do, you do not need any remains, if you don't, remains won't help. Nothing more to discuss here.
How? Not to be killed, not to get sick, not to be unemployed, not to be in poverty. On a more advanced level - survive by securing a decent life for my kids, who are, in a certain sense, my continuation, and a part of myself. I do not know how well you are familiar with today's life in Moscow, but my own experience in this city (where I've lived over thirty years) never let me feel safe. I am not saying that you are guaranteed to survive in US, but the chances are much bigger