Fee Changes inviting illegal immigration?

[no name 1]

You cannot cherry pick advice on a public message board.

What else is supposed to be done with it?

Oh, you & your red pen of (selective) correction! Bravo.

I meant you cannot pick what you want to hear only.

You need to research first, then pick what correlates.

And then pick what correlates? Picking what fits your model of research? That IS cherry picking.

It's also a pretty normal human way of processing information, no?

Read my reply again.

Edited July 9, 2007 by devilette

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Do you think the relatively minor offenses in the home country need to be brought up in the process? If they fall below what the FBI would catch? Not sure from the way you phrased the statement.

You obviously don't spend much time in the waiver section - these are brought into the process for everyone except those who adjust from a tourist visa. The reason is the police report.

Closing the loophole would be easy - make it against the law to adjust from a tourist visa or require people to show the correct visa to get married. They already do this in the UK.

[no name 1]

I tell what is different - they won't have to produce a police report and relatively minor offenses in their home country (such as drugs and petty crime) which would normally require a waiver are unlikely to come up in the FBI name clearance.

And yes, I have seen more than one poster in the AOS forum adjusting from tourist status have problems with the question of intent in their interview.

The "adjusting on a tourist visa" is a loophole that really needs to be closed.

And really, the fees are the cheapest thing about this whole process - if you can't afford them, you can't afford to immigrate.

Certainly - marriage is expensive, starting a life in a new country more so - a few hundred or even thousand extra dollars really shouldn't be the tipping point.

I don't know if the "loophole" could ever really be closed completely. Then again, I don't think of it as a "loophole," at least not if "loophole" is taken in its usual more-negative way.

Do you think the relatively minor offenses in the home country need to be brought up in the process? If they fall below what the FBI would catch? Not sure from the way you phrased the statement.

Marriage is cheap. A marriage license costs under $100.

It is a loophole, most definitely. It skirts the entire visa process if one is aware of it & chooses to use it.

What is exactly a 'relatively minor' offense? And according to whom?

[TimsDaisy 0]

Do you think the relatively minor offenses in the home country need to be brought up in the process? If they fall below what the FBI would catch? Not sure from the way you phrased the statement.

You obviously don't spend much time in the waiver section - these are brought into the process for everyone except those who adjust from a tourist visa. The reason is the police report.

Closing the loophole would be easy - make it against the law to adjust from a tourist visa or require people to show the correct visa to get married. They already do this in the UK.

No. I have read plenty there - especially since there was a time when we weren't sure if we'd be worrying about such things or not.

I asked if you thought they *should* be brought up. I know they currently can be and are brought up through police reports.

You think the loophole should be closed as well? Again, I ask, why? Same with my first question in this thread. What effect does AOS from a tourist visa have on any of us?

Big baddies get filtered in the AOS process. If all that's missing is a police report for lesser offenses, is there THAT much harm to US interests if someone adjusts from a tourist visa? (Keeping in mind that even the most stringently applied standards can miss important negative information for people and in fact do miss information all the time. And that terrorists don't seem to be using K visas to get in.)

[TimsDaisy 0]

I tell what is different - they won't have to produce a police report and relatively minor offenses in their home country (such as drugs and petty crime) which would normally require a waiver are unlikely to come up in the FBI name clearance.

And yes, I have seen more than one poster in the AOS forum adjusting from tourist status have problems with the question of intent in their interview.

The "adjusting on a tourist visa" is a loophole that really needs to be closed.

And really, the fees are the cheapest thing about this whole process - if you can't afford them, you can't afford to immigrate.

Certainly - marriage is expensive, starting a life in a new country more so - a few hundred or even thousand extra dollars really shouldn't be the tipping point.

I don't know if the "loophole" could ever really be closed completely. Then again, I don't think of it as a "loophole," at least not if "loophole" is taken in its usual more-negative way.

Do you think the relatively minor offenses in the home country need to be brought up in the process? If they fall below what the FBI would catch? Not sure from the way you phrased the statement.

Marriage is cheap. A marriage license costs under $100.

It is a loophole, most definitely. It skirts the entire visa process if one is aware of it & chooses to use it.

What is exactly a 'relatively minor' offense? And according to whom?

Setting up a life together isn't cheap. There are tax consequence, real estate concerns, moving across oceans, for most people here. I was agreeing with robbinlake - if it's a few hundred/thousand dollars that makes or breaks marriage, then there are probably bigger problems.

As for the loophole and its character, that depends on your views of the underlying law, which you've never answered. You don't have to. But there's not much to discuss if you keep saying "the law is the law" when I'm asking "why do you support the law as currently written" and "what affect does it have on YOU (you being the generic "you") if someone adjusts status after entry on a tourist visa?" - innocently or through calculation.

As for the nature of the offense - I was just using robinlake's terms for the purposes of discussion.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Do you think the relatively minor offenses in the home country need to be brought up in the process? If they fall below what the FBI would catch? Not sure from the way you phrased the statement.

You obviously don't spend much time in the waiver section - these are brought into the process for everyone except those who adjust from a tourist visa. The reason is the police report.

Closing the loophole would be easy - make it against the law to adjust from a tourist visa or require people to show the correct visa to get married. They already do this in the UK.

No. I have read plenty there - especially since there was a time when we weren't sure if we'd be worrying about such things or not.

I asked if you thought they *should* be brought up. I know they currently can be and are brought up through police reports.

You think the loophole should be closed as well? Again, I ask, why? Same with my first question in this thread. What effect does AOS from a tourist visa have on any of us?

Big baddies get filtered in the AOS process. If all that's missing is a police report for lesser offenses, is there THAT much harm to US interests if someone adjusts from a tourist visa? (Keeping in mind that even the most stringently applied standards can miss important negative information for people and in fact do miss information all the time. And that terrorists don't seem to be using K visas to get in.)

There is someone I am thinking of who was denied a K visa for a drug offense. There is another who had to file a waiver for a violent altercation - if they had adjusted from a tourist visa, I doubt there would be a problem as both had previously visited the US as tourists.

[TimsDaisy 0]

Do you think the relatively minor offenses in the home country need to be brought up in the process? If they fall below what the FBI would catch? Not sure from the way you phrased the statement.

You obviously don't spend much time in the waiver section - these are brought into the process for everyone except those who adjust from a tourist visa. The reason is the police report.

Closing the loophole would be easy - make it against the law to adjust from a tourist visa or require people to show the correct visa to get married. They already do this in the UK.

No. I have read plenty there - especially since there was a time when we weren't sure if we'd be worrying about such things or not.

I asked if you thought they *should* be brought up. I know they currently can be and are brought up through police reports.

You think the loophole should be closed as well? Again, I ask, why? Same with my first question in this thread. What effect does AOS from a tourist visa have on any of us?

Big baddies get filtered in the AOS process. If all that's missing is a police report for lesser offenses, is there THAT much harm to US interests if someone adjusts from a tourist visa? (Keeping in mind that even the most stringently applied standards can miss important negative information for people and in fact do miss information all the time. And that terrorists don't seem to be using K visas to get in.)

There is someone I am thinking of who was denied a K visa for a drug offense. There is another who had to file a waiver for a violent altercation - if they had adjusted from a tourist visa, I doubt there would be a problem as both had previously visited the US as tourists.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

It would depend on the individual case.

But if you don't think it is problem is also extremely unjust that someone would be DENIED whilst someone else guilty of something similar could adjust no problem.

One thing about AOS from a tourist visa - you have no right of appeal if denied. Something to bear in mind.

[no name 1]

There is someone I am thinking of who was denied a K visa for a drug offense. There is another who had to file a waiver for a violent altercation - if they had adjusted from a tourist visa, I doubt there would be a problem as both had previously visited the US as tourists.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

violent altercation???? bad thing if they adjusted with no waiver.

[TimsDaisy 0]

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

It would depend on the individual case.

But if you don't think it is problem is also extremely unjust that someone would be DENIED whilst someone else guilty of something similar could adjust no problem.

One thing about AOS from a tourist visa - you have no right of appeal if denied. Something to bear in mind.

Right - but I would tend to think the unfairness lies where the person is denied to begin with, not that someone else made it through while they didn't - if that makes sense.

There is someone I am thinking of who was denied a K visa for a drug offense. There is another who had to file a waiver for a violent altercation - if they had adjusted from a tourist visa, I doubt there would be a problem as both had previously visited the US as tourists.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

violent altercation???? bad thing if they adjusted with no waiver.

that could be a bar fight - who knows the circumstances.

[no name 1]

There is someone I am thinking of who was denied a K visa for a drug offense. There is another who had to file a waiver for a violent altercation - if they had adjusted from a tourist visa, I doubt there would be a problem as both had previously visited the US as tourists.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

violent altercation???? bad thing if they adjusted with no waiver.

that could be a bar fight - who knows the circumstances.

which is no less important or scary......it still speaks of a violent temper.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Well, they were denied because of laws that are in place - maybe it was right, maybe it wasn't. My point is that potential immigrants should all go through the same procedures and the same level of scrutiny.

[athena_ny 1]

The phrase "illegal immigration" is such a fun one to banter about these days in the American political discourse. In the context of most of our immigraiton journeys, however, I think it's basically inapplicable - at least insofar as the scary scary connotations it carries, with images of terrorists or people forging the Rio Grande in the dark of night.

While I certainly don't advocate skirting the laws, I pose an academic question: if someone enters the US on the VWP or any other non-marriage/fiance related visa, marries, and adjusts status, how does it affect you?

They'll still be vetted.

They'll still be paying fees.

They'll still have to report their every move to the government.

If they enter with the "intent" to marry, we here are quick to call it fraud. But how much of the really meat-and-potatoes laws are being violated? If a couple continues to live in the US with one-half illegally present, having failed to adjust status, that's a lot worse, but it's also a totally different situation.

But merely skipping the I-129F part? The separation? The pointlessness of it all? It may be against the letter of the laws, but if status is properly adjusted after married, is the spirit wholly violated as well?

Again, while I don't encourage anyone to skip the I-129F process, I certainly don't fault anyone for doing so. It doesn't affect me or my marriage. It didn't slow down my process.

I tell what is different - they won't have to produce a police report and relatively minor offenses in their home country (such as drugs and petty crime) which would normally require a waiver are unlikely to come up in the FBI name clearance.

And yes, I have seen more than one poster in the AOS forum adjusting from tourist status have problems with the question of intent in their interview.

The "adjusting on a tourist visa" is a loophole that really needs to be closed.

And really, the fees are the cheapest thing about this whole process - if you can't afford them, you can't afford to immigrate.

I don't think adjusting from a tourist visa needs to be done away with - as far as I'm concerned, it's not even a loop hole. It's written into law that it's allowed, it's not something they 'forgot' to put in there allowing people to find a way around the correct process. Sorry, wasn't going to send my husband back to Peru for a K1 or K3 when it's completely legal for him to adjust from here. Maybe the government just needs to try a little harder to make sure there isn't intent on tourist-visa marriages. And the fact one person gets denied and the other doesn't...tough luck?

The question of intent at tourist visa interviews arises generally if the marriage was soon after entering, and there are people who never had to deal with it - and yes, the word is if you're a white couple, the less likely you'll get grilled about intent. I didn't meet my husband until he had been there 3 years. I was 15 when he entered the county. We didn't have to prove anything. There was no intent upon entering, the reason he stayed here was trying to wrap up his dead father's estate and winding up in a lawsuit represented by pokey lawyers, something he was not aware would happen upon entry.

My husband did have to have police reports for any crimes that had been committed. Thankfully there weren't any, but it said right on our interview letter that had he had any, he needed to bring a police report.

Edited July 10, 2007 by meow mix

[no name 1]

My husband did have to have police reports for any crimes that had been committed. Thankfully there weren't any, but it said right on our interview letter that had he had any, he needed to bring a police report.

And if there was a crime, but it was not reported at the interview, what then? Just don't bring a police certificate & hope the US govt doesn't catch it?

Edited July 10, 2007 by devilette

[Sky007 0]

All I can say about that is that I don't agree. Law is supposed to be for and by the people as a social contract protecting the rights of others by limiting the rights of one. However, while I love my country and moved because it made my wife/girlfriend (one country it's wife/this one it's girlfriend), I won't say that my country or countries laws are infalible.

I also don't fault those who follow every letter of the law and won't through rude comments towards those who do or don't. Some laws, when broken, cause little harm. Other laws are actually for the protection of the one and the society and thus I can agree with.

Then, I've never been one to follow blindly anyway...but that's me.

[Other rude or abusive comments above that were directed toward my person I will ignore.]

People don't have to blindly follow the law, but if they get caught for visa fraud, they have no one to blame but themselves. I remember reading a post not too long ago about a woman who was exiled from the country for 10 years because she married while petioning for a K1 visa, then entered the country on the K1 visa. I'm sure alot of the posters on here remember that, it wasn't too long ago. I'm not sure how that turned out.

If you know the law and then choose not to follow it, its on your own head what happens to you. It might just be me, but getting my loved one here safely and legally is worth being apart for several months. It might cost more, but I'll get peace of mind, too. I won't have to worry about keeping my lies straight or worrying that they'll realize what I'm doing.

There are ways to go about changing laws, but I don't think visa fraud is one of them. What people do and how they do it is their own choice, we're just posting how we feel about. That's what we were asked to do. When you ask a question on here you're going to get some comments you really like, and others you really don't. It's just part of the process. In the end what you do is totally up to you. If following the letter of the law isn't high on your priority list, that's fine. Apparently it is to alot of people on this forum, though, which can easily be seen by the number of visa petitions filed for fiance/spouses. These people could have just as easily lied on a non immigrant visa and said they spontaneously decided to get married. They didn't, though, soo the odds are you're going to get alot of people very much against it.

Sorry if you thought we were insulting you, I for one was not. I was simply telling you my thoughts on the situation.

Good luck on whatever you decide to do.

Thanks!

Actually, my decision was made before I joined this forum. We had sent her back about a month ago to get a different visa. (The first visa was just for vacation and so she could visit my family and meet others that she hadn't already.) Her entering on the current visa would not be visa fraud...and officials were asking why we didn't just marry before or while she was here. But she would have had to go whether we did or not--due to other obligations both familial and monetary.

I was curious, especially after I see these new prices.

I already knew about all possible consequences (10 years and possible 3 years in some circumstances)...but it is certainly tempting [especially when there are a lot of illegals here who just come and never have to leave]. In my case, it's doubtful that we would have had any problems via what many are calling a "loophole". But we had already decided not to utilize it before we came to America (as I moved back in June and she went back again in June...I haven't even been a member here that long).

No, you weren't rude...someone else made a direct comment. I never expect opinions to be pretty...especially if asked for.

And Thanks again for your opinion.

In my opinion...I don't think I could fault anyone for trying.