Is a "work authorization stamp" needed for K-1s to work pre-EAD?

[rsn 135]

define wrong, please. are you harming someone by working like that?

Oh, I'm sorry. Did I fall asleep last night in the U.S. and wake up this morning in a country that allowed its residents to willfully violate a law as long as they were pretty sure doing so would not harm anyone. I hope not.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

define wrong, please. are you harming someone by working like that?

Oh, I'm sorry. Did I fall asleep last night in the U.S. and wake up this morning in a country that allowed its residents to willfully violate a law as long as they were pretty sure doing so would not harm anyone. I hope not.

I hope so! Let me into this country you've found it sounds like utopia!

Edited October 7, 2009 by lancer1655

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

maybe no card/ no work is a general rule; however, in april 2009, my husband, then fiance, went through an employment agency that accepted the stamp in his passport that he received at POE for employment authorization. maybe this was a flaw on their part, but we had 2 incomes within weeks of his arrival. his EAD came right around the time his stamp expired, so there was no gap in employment.

It was a flaw on thier part. He was working illegally.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Just because the employment agency "accepted" the stamp doesn't mean it was legal!

Technically it was not - fiance(e)s need more than just the stamp in the passport and a SSN to be legally authorized to work.

Think that point's been made enough times already in this thread, but just to be sure...

i fail to see how it was illegal. the man was on the books and paid taxes just like i do.

New rules have since been enforced and whilst I recognise that you are merely posting your experience, posts like these keep giving false hope to those who believe they can come here on a K1 / K3 and get a job straight away.

please quote the sources of the 'new rules' that were put in place since april 27, 2009. also, this forum is a place to post experiences, especially those which are recent and relevant. hope is not false if it exists. additionally, this thread was started for absolutely no reason and can be added to the lengthy list of threads started with the exact same topic, to many of which i added my experience.

finally, in no way did i give ill-advice. i 'merely' offered an experience.

First, there are no new rules. It was a clarification of old rules by a change in the wording of the I-9 form issued by DHS. Refer to the pinned topic at the top of the removal of condition forum on my recent discussion with a USCIS director. You can review the new I-9 form in many places. Google I-9. Read the lists of required documents. Ynless your husband has (had) a green card or EAD you will see he never had the items needed for this form. The OLD form was vague about Item 5 in column A and this is where all the K-1s jumped in and worked and the DHS could do nothing about it until they corrected the error on the form. The K-1 never was a work visa. Incidentally any information from Social Security is noit relevent. SS does not determine who is eligible to work, Their reason for classifying it as a work eligible visa has nothing to do with work and everything to do with default computer programs and untrainable clerks.

It was illegal, not because he didn't pay taxes, I am sure he did. It was illegal because he was not authorized to work.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

so, to sum it up: if there is no risk (virtually) for working w/o authorization when you are going to marry a USC (or already married), then why not work?

Who said there is no risk?????? If he is found to be working illegally by, for instance, ICE he can be deported and banned from the US. Doesn't matter that "he didn't know". also, while USCIS overlooked this in the past while the I-9 form was unclear, it is way too soon to know if they will overlook it now. I met with the director of the VSC Moinday night ang gave him a list of many questions, among them, this topic and asked point blank if they intend to begin enforcing this rule now and penalizing people for working without authorization when it comes time for the AOS.

I await his answers

define wrong, please. are you harming someone by working like that?

Illegal. Against the law.

I do not argue it harms someone. It IS illegal.

[Ellie-and-David 38]

define wrong, please. are you harming someone by working like that?

Yes the employer who you wrong by lying / misrepresenting about having the proper work authorization....because they are legally required to only contract employees who have the correct documentation to work and can get into trouble should you get caught out.

WRONG.

If your working for an employer who pays under the table and your getting paid and not paying taxes then you are wronging all the other people who are having to pay their taxes when you do not.

WRONG.

DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF WRONG.

wrong (rông, rng)

adj.

1. Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.

2.

a. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked.

b. Unfair; unjust.

3. Not required, intended, or wanted: took a wrong turn.

4. Not fitting or suitable; inappropriate or improper: said the wrong thing.

5. Not in accord with established usage, method, or procedure: the wrong way to shuck clams.

6. Not functioning properly; out of order.

7. Unacceptable or undesirable according to social convention.

I could go on to post the adverb definition to......but I think you get the point.

[Mimino 2]

it's good to see that all of you are law abiding citizens 100% of the time

[Chica Yeyé 41]

it's good to see that all of you are law abiding citizens 100% of the time

the not-so-smart comeback....

[Ellie-and-David 38]

it's good to see that all of you are law abiding citizens 100% of the time

OOOOO owwww....it cuts, it burns.

The rules have clearly been explained to you.....your defiance is now born out of some misguided pigheadedness that you can do things another way (the wrong way, illegally) and justify it to yourself.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Ellie-and-David

[Mimino 2]

the not-so-smart comeback....

good thing your post was.

OOOOO owwww....it cuts, it burns.

The rules have clearly been explained to you.....your defiance is now born out of some misguided pigheadedness that you can do things another way (the wrong way, illegally) and justify it to yourself.

ooo. what a speech.

do you know as to why it's illegal? have i ever advocated for "under the table" work? if by working w/o authorization, you still pay taxes, then what's so illegal about it? (oh yeah, dhs goes w/o being reimbursed). even if your employer, hypothetically, does get caught, it was ultimately his/her responsibility to check your documents (not talking about fraudulent id's).

i'd like to see your stance when your financial situation takes over your immigration forum "principles."

[Chica Yeyé 41]

the not-so-smart comeback....

good thing your post was.

OOOOO owwww....it cuts, it burns.

The rules have clearly been explained to you.....your defiance is now born out of some misguided pigheadedness that you can do things another way (the wrong way, illegally) and justify it to yourself.

ooo. what a speech.

do you know as to why it's illegal? have i ever advocated for "under the table" work? if by working w/o authorization, you still pay taxes, then what's so illegal about it? (oh yeah, dhs goes w/o being reimbursed). even if your employer, hypothetically, does get caught, it was ultimately his/her responsibility to check your documents (not talking about fraudulent id's).

i'd like to see your stance when your financial situation takes over your immigration forum "principles."

OK, back to kindergarten. To work in this country legally you need to have proper authorization ---- either you are a USC, you have a work-authorized visa, or you possess a valid EAD. Simple, really. Doing otherwise is breaking the law.

Did you understand that or should I talk in apple-speak?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Lol whats apple speak?

Edited October 8, 2009 by lancer1655

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Lol whats apple speak?

when you explain things to children... "see Johhny, you have 2 apples, and give one to your sister, how many you have left?"

although if someone asked that to my brother he would have said "I have 2 mom, that b1tch will NOT take my apples away"

[Ellie-and-David 38]

the not-so-smart comeback....

good thing your post was.

OOOOO owwww....it cuts, it burns.

The rules have clearly been explained to you.....your defiance is now born out of some misguided pigheadedness that you can do things another way (the wrong way, illegally) and justify it to yourself.

ooo. what a speech.

do you know as to why it's illegal? have i ever advocated for "under the table" work? if by working w/o authorization, you still pay taxes, then what's so illegal about it? (oh yeah, dhs goes w/o being reimbursed). even if your employer, hypothetically, does get caught, it was ultimately his/her responsibility to check your documents (not talking about fraudulent id's).

i'd like to see your stance when your financial situation takes over your immigration forum "principles."

And again with the justification of illegally working.

So if my financial situation is dire can I justify walking into a house where the front door is open and taking a TV (they have like....4!!!) because they obviously have lots of money and they have insurance and can get another one? It doesn't really hurt anyone (their premiums may go up, but they aren't really hurting) why cant I?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Lol whats apple speak?

when you explain things to children... "see Johhny, you have 2 apples, and give one to your sister, how many you have left?"

although if someone asked that to my brother he would have said "I have 2 mom, that b1tch will NOT take my apples away"

Ah I though maybe it has something to do with ipods, lol.