Step 2 of my plan to visit - Ties

[no name 1]

I'm just saying, I'm not going to chastise someone for wanting to be with their loved one and doing something about it. If someone has to use the VWP to visit their loved one, then the system is broken anyway and needs to be fixed. That's where the concern should lie, not with the few people who may technically be abusing it, but who are doing it for all the right reasons anyway. People like the OP are not the problem. The real abusers--the criminals--those are the people who are creating the real problems in the system.

Let's just throw customs & immigration rules out the window, eh?

Edited September 21, 2007 by devilette

[mox 298]

I'm just saying, I'm not going to chastise someone for wanting to be with their loved one and doing something about it. If someone has to use the VWP to visit their loved one, then the system is broken anyway and needs to be fixed. That's where the concern should lie, not with the few people who may technically be abusing it, but who are doing it for all the right reasons anyway. People like the OP are not the problem. The real abusers--the criminals--those are the people who are creating the real problems in the system.

Let's just throw customs & immigration rules out the window, eh?

Ah, the old "begging the question" fallacy. Because of course this is the only conclusion that can be drawn from my argument, eh?

[no name 1]

I'm just saying, I'm not going to chastise someone for wanting to be with their loved one and doing something about it. If someone has to use the VWP to visit their loved one, then the system is broken anyway and needs to be fixed. That's where the concern should lie, not with the few people who may technically be abusing it, but who are doing it for all the right reasons anyway. People like the OP are not the problem. The real abusers--the criminals--those are the people who are creating the real problems in the system.

Let's just throw customs & immigration rules out the window, eh?

Ah, the old "begging the question" fallacy. Because of course this is the only conclusion that can be drawn from my argument, eh?

You made the statement - then both Tracy & I questioned it. Care to answer it?

[Krikit 1,164]

To respond to your original question, OP, I would suggest that you bring along copies of your bank statement showing you have sufficient funds to support yourself while in the US. I would also recommend you obtain a letter from whomever you will be staying with stating that they will be financially responsible for you during your stay and will ensure you are transported to the airport within the 90 days allowed on the VWP.

I have highlighted pertinent information from the CBP website:

If visiting the U.S. under the visa waiver program you may not apply for an extension of stay. While in the U.S., you may go to Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean and re-enter the U.S. using the I-94W you were issued when you first arrived in the U.S., although the time you spend there is included in the 90 days allotted for your visit. If you visit other countries such as England or Costa Rica, then return to the U.S., your re-entry will be considered to be a new admission (thereby restarting the 90 day clock), rather than a re-entry from a contiguous country in the course of your initial visit, and the admission inspection may be more strenuous. The Officer inspecting you will want evidence that you intend to go back home to your country of citizenship to live as opposed to returning again and again to the U.S. after visits to other countries.

There are many reasons for a person to be denied entry into the U.S. The most obvious are if a person is suspected of having ties to terrorist or criminal organizations. But there are many more reasons for persons to be excluded from the U.S. Among them are having been found guilty of crimes of moral turpetude (Child molestation, rape, fraud, theft, etc.), having been found guilty of a criminal offense (for instance murder or grand theft), having overstayed a previous visit to the U.S., or if the visitor is suspected of having an infectious disease. In addition, tourist visitors to the U.S. are expected to have sufficient funds to support themselves while here - in order to ensure that they will not attempt to find employment in the U.S., which is a violation of the terms of the tourist visa. Tourist visitors must also be able to demonstrate that they have significant ties to their resident country. This is to ensure that they are not coming to the U.S. with the intent to illegally stay here as an immigrant. In both of these cases, it is up to the visitor to be able to convince a CBP officer of their intention to abide by the terms of their visa. If the visitor does not appear to have the means to support themself while here, any alternative arrangements - such as a sponsor who will be paying all expenses - should be clearly identified and be able to be substantiated by the CBP officer.

[no name 1]

2.) Neither on the CBP homepage, nor on the web page of the US Embassy in Germany, you can find ANY information about a maximum stay of 180 days per year. I know that the "180 day rule" is an indication for residence in a country, at least for tax purposes. However, the US government does not say that there is such a rule for the VWP.

True. But I did find this interesting discussion that basically says it's at the discretion of the CBP.

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=482461

And considering the OP has filed a K1 and has no job or rental contract in the UK + has stayed here 87 days (x2) this year I find it unlikely he would be admitted.

[mox 298]

You made the statement - then both Tracy & I questioned it. Care to answer it?

I said the system is broken. You said "so we should just throw out all the rules?" That's not a question, that's intentionally drawing the wrong conclusion from my argument.

I didn't say the VWP is broken, I said the entire immigration system as a whole is broken. I said I don't have any hard feelings towards someone who uses whatever means is available to them to be with their loved ones. Others have said the OP is abusing the VWP system, and my feeling is that while it might *technically* be an abuse, I think there are much bigger fish to fry than the odd person who just wants to be with their fiance. The large majority of abuses are happening through criminal enterprises. Attacking the OP for abusing the system is like giving somebody a ticket for jaywalking right in front of a crack house.

Edited September 21, 2007 by moxcamel

[TracyTN 237]

You made the statement - then both Tracy & I questioned it. Care to answer it?

I said the system is broken. You said "so we should just throw out all the rules?" That's not a question, that's intentionally drawing the wrong conclusion from my argument.

I didn't say the VWP is broken, I said the entire immigration system as a whole is broken. I said I don't have any hard feelings towards someone who uses whatever means is available to them to be with their loved ones. Others have said the OP is abusing the VWP system, and my feeling is that while it might *technically* be an abuse, I think there are much bigger fish to fry than the odd person who just wants to be with their fiance. The large majority of abuses are happening through criminal enterprises. Attacking the OP for abusing the system is like giving somebody a ticket for jaywalking right in front of a crack house.

I did not understand your point that immigration as a whole is broken - I thought you meant the VWP is broken. I assume dev made the same mistake/inference I did.

For the record, I never attacked the OP for abusing the system. I actually said let him try it, as apparently he has money to burn.

[no name 1]

You made the statement - then both Tracy & I questioned it. Care to answer it?

I said the system is broken. You said "so we should just throw out all the rules?" That's not a question, that's intentionally drawing the wrong conclusion from my argument.

I didn't say the VWP is broken, I said the entire immigration system as a whole is broken. I said I don't have any hard feelings towards someone who uses whatever means is available to them to be with their loved ones. Others have said the OP is abusing the VWP system, and my feeling is that while it might *technically* be an abuse, I think there are much bigger fish to fry than the odd person who just wants to be with their fiance. The large majority of abuses are happening through criminal enterprises. Attacking the OP for abusing the system is like giving somebody a ticket for jaywalking right in front of a crack house.

I'm just saying, I'm not going to chastise someone for wanting to be with their loved one and doing something about it. If someone has to use the VWP to visit their loved one, then the system is broken anyway and needs to be fixed. That's where the concern should lie, not with the few people who may technically be abusing it, but who are doing it for all the right reasons anyway. People like the OP are not the problem. The real abusers--the criminals--those are the people who are creating the real problems in the system.

So an unemployed guy who lives with his parents should be allowed to visit his fiance as much as he likes cuz it's for the 'right reasons' (in your eyes). Maybe he should be getting a job & making $$ for their futures together?

You implied throwing out the rules, and said anyone with a US fiance shouldn't have to face immigration laws.

[mox 298]

So an unemployed guy who lives with his parents should be allowed to visit his fiance as much as he likes cuz it's for the 'right reasons' (in your eyes). Maybe he should be getting a job & making $$ for their futures together?

Maybe that's none of our business.

You implied throwing out the rules, and said anyone with a US fiance shouldn't have to face immigration laws.

You've obviously chosen to twist my words to support an argument that I never made, so whatever. You win.

[no name 1]

You implied throwing out the rules, and said anyone with a US fiance shouldn't have to face immigration laws.

You've obviously chosen to twist my words to support an argument that I never made, so whatever. You win.

Let's try this again.

If someone has to use the VWP to visit their loved one, then the system is broken anyway and needs to be fixed. That's where the concern should lie, not with the few people who may technically be abusing it, but who are doing it for all the right reasons anyway.

The only way someone can enter the country is through Immigration and the CBP - by using the VWP, a visitor/work visa or through asylum (we are not counting illegals here). There is no other way - therefore, with what you have said, the OP should be able to travel freely & with no rules.

[Jack2 0]

I think I will be repeating what moxcamel said; however, I agree with what I think they are trying to say...

The immigration process is broken. (not the VWP) For me to have to wait 4-6 months for the USCIS to process a form that should take two weeks to process is evidence of the bureaucratic backlog and poor leadership within the USCIS organization.

The OP and others (like me and my fiance) wouldn't have to use the VWP if the USCIS processing times were realistic.

[TracyTN 237]

I think I will be repeating what moxcamel said; however, I agree with what I think they are trying to say...

The immigration process is broken. (not the VWP) For me to have to wait 4-6 months for the USCIS to process a form that should take two weeks to process is evidence of the bureaucratic backlog and poor leadership within the USCIS organization.

The OP and others (like me and my fiance) wouldn't have to use the VWP if the USCIS processing times were realistic.

I guess I find that a bit odd. My fiance (now husband) and I wanted to take some time to get to know each other, and part of that (for us) was - at the very least - letting him come here, see where he'd be living, meet his future in laws (and my friends) and just generally learn what life might be like once we uprooted his life and he moved here. It would have been very unusual to us to have met one time in person (me visiting him there) and then applying for the K1. But maybe that's just me.

It was a relief to us that he could just board that plane, nothing but his passport in hand, and have the chance to do that without having to worry about getting any kind of visa to do so.

Unfortunately, some folks here whose fiance/e's are from other countries can't even get tourist visas so they have no chance of coming here and finding out what life in the US is really like.

[no name 1]

I think I will be repeating what moxcamel said; however, I agree with what I think they are trying to say...

The immigration process is broken. (not the VWP) For me to have to wait 4-6 months for the USCIS to process a form that should take two weeks to process is evidence of the bureaucratic backlog and poor leadership within the USCIS organization.

The OP and others (like me and my fiance) wouldn't have to use the VWP if the USCIS processing times were realistic.

So you would rather file, get approved & see America for the first time only when you move here?

[Sinergy 3]

I think I will be repeating what moxcamel said; however, I agree with what I think they are trying to say...

The immigration process is broken. (not the VWP) For me to have to wait 4-6 months for the USCIS to process a form that should take two weeks to process is evidence of the bureaucratic backlog and poor leadership within the USCIS organization.

The OP and others (like me and my fiance) wouldn't have to use the VWP if the USCIS processing times were realistic.

an adjudicator who has 500 peitions a month can NOT possibly do one in 2 weeks. thats a deffinate dream world, a good one, but not one realistic.

[Jack2 0]

I think I will be repeating what moxcamel said; however, I agree with what I think they are trying to say...

The immigration process is broken. (not the VWP) For me to have to wait 4-6 months for the USCIS to process a form that should take two weeks to process is evidence of the bureaucratic backlog and poor leadership within the USCIS organization.

The OP and others (like me and my fiance) wouldn't have to use the VWP if the USCIS processing times were realistic.

I guess I find that a bit odd. My fiance (now husband) and I wanted to take some time to get to know each other, and part of that (for us) was - at the very least - letting him come here, see where he'd be living, meet his future in laws (and my friends) and just generally learn what life might be like once we uprooted his life and he moved here. It would have been very unusual to us to have met one time in person (me visiting him there) and then applying for the K1. But maybe that's just me.

It was a relief to us that he could just board that plane, nothing but his passport in hand, and have the chance to do that without having to worry about getting any kind of visa to do so.

Unfortunately, some folks here whose fiance/e's are from other countries can't even get tourist visas so they have no chance of coming here and finding out what life in the US is really like.

I agree. My fiance' was able to visit the United States on the VWP for 3 weeks before we sent in our I-129F... What I am saying is, that if the process was only one or two months, my fiance' would probably not be coming to visit for 80 days...