USCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

[Krikit 1,165]

And again.

[ValerieA 350]

In before the lock...

[HannahP 119]

I believe that if you look around the forum, you'll see at least one or two posters who've "beaten" the AWA.

Also, I hope that whoever goes over your case also looks at the details of the conviction versus the general SO label, which can be anything from diddling little kids to drunkenly peeing in public. Common sense in a lot of these cases would go a long way.

[Audy_Rob 26]

It is unconstitutional, because the law passed in 2006, effects everyone who was tried from 2006 back, this is called ex post facto.

Article I , section 9 of the US constituion

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

"

I do not believe that the law is "ex post facto." The proper definition I believe you are looking for is "grandfathering." That is, does this law have a "grandfather clause." Yes, I believe it does. Is a grandfather clause legal. Yes, it is very likely to hold up.

ex post facto simply means after the fact. An example of ex post facto is you walk across a street where it is legal. The next day, the city passes a law now making that street crossing illegal. The city goes back to look at their traffic cameras and sees you crossing the street when and where it WAS legal. But it is not legal now. They cannot arrest you as you crossed the street when it was legal. They cannot arrest you because the next day it became illegal. That is ex post facto.

[A and T 82]

I do not believe that the law is "ex post facto." The proper definition I believe you are looking for is "grandfathering." That is, does this law have a "grandfather clause." Yes, I believe it does. Is a grandfather clause legal. Yes, it is very likely to hold up.

ex post facto simply means after the fact. An example of ex post facto is you walk across a street where it is legal. The next day, the city passes a law now making that street crossing illegal. The city goes back to look at their traffic cameras and sees you crossing the street when and where it WAS legal. But it is not legal now. They cannot arrest you as you crossed the street when it was legal. They cannot arrest you because the next day it became illegal. That is ex post facto.

Right , like if your criminal case happened before the adam walsh act, then they can't create a law that will go back and punish you before the law was created

Its the same, ex post facto.

You can't make a law in 2006, and go back and re punish everyone from before 2006

[payxibka 10,047]

Right , like if your criminal case happened before the adam walsh act, then they can't create a law that will go back and punish you before the law was created

Its the same, ex post facto.

You can't make a law in 2006, and go back and re punish everyone from before 2006

The restriction is prospective and not retroactive... No one who submitted a petition prior to the enactment of the law had there petitions denied because of this law... They did NOT go back and deny petitions that were submitted prior to the enactment of the law.. ie. ex post facto, and thus "punish" petitioners who had previously submitted when the law was not in effect.

Edited February 3, 2010 by payxibka

[Wei&Shu(Joe) 2]

I'd be interested to hear people's rationale for why that 18 year old who has intimate consensual contact with his 17 year old gf should not enjoy the same rights as other USCs.

It would also be interesting to hear whether any of the people denouncing "sex offenders" in general might actually be one of those people who had sex with an underage gf after their own 18th birthday but wasn't prosecuted. Did you report yourself to USCIS when you filed your petition? Will you now send back your fiance/e or wife since you have improperly enjoyed a right that no one who has committed such a heinous act should enjoy?

Just wondering.

[KillerMachineUSMC 0]

you know the best thing for you is just live with ur fiance wherever she at try to migrate there if you really loves your fiance. Im just saying!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Unfortunately the issue of sex offenders is not a black and white issue any longer. We need only look under our bridges or within tent cities to realize that we as a society have gone too far. Yet apparently we are not done. We apparently are willing to charge the under aged for these crimes using the very laws that were meant to protect them.

The US can only hang its head in shame on this subject.

[Married2009 32]

if you are a sex-offender and you are convicted and you apply for a K1 visa the USCIS will deny you! the Adam Walsh Act is clear that you are excluded unless you can prove that you are NOt a threat to your fiancee'! i hope that you can satisfy them if you apply...

any ideas?

The laws are too grey in some situations.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Married2009

[Audy_Rob 26]

Right , like if your criminal case happened before the adam walsh act, then they can't create a law that will go back and punish you before the law was created

Its the same, ex post facto.

You can't make a law in 2006, and go back and re punish everyone from before 2006

No, I understand what you are trying to say, but you are ignoring the most important fact. The law created in 2006 is dealing with people that violated the law before 2006. They have become a "CLASS" that violated a known law on the books at the time they committed a crime.

They are not creating a new law in AWA that makes something illegal. They are only creating a "CLASS" of criminal violators which must be registered and declared and carefully examined for a particular US Government benefit. The AWA "grandfathers" all criminal SOs prior to 2006 into an extra stage of declaration to USCIS/DOS and examination.

I don't see any arrests that will arise to people that were convicted of SOs prior to AWA (2006). The people already committed a known crime on the books. Not an example of "ex post facto."

I apologize to any or all people if this offends you. No offense nor position on the matter is intended. This is simply a clarification of the misstatement that this is an example of an "ex-post facto" law. It is indeed not an ex post facto law.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Audy_Rob

[Old Dominion 26]

AWA or not, this is a democracy and the people of the United States have made it clear that our minor children deserve legal protection against molesters. One technique to protect children, Congress has decided, is to let prospective molesters know that the government will slam various doors in their faces for years to come. State governments have additional restrictions that prevent them from leading normal lives. Until proven otherwise, molesters are thought to be capable of repeating their crimes and many do.

Rightly or wrongly, the people have spoken.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Old Dominion

[zenaxe 22]

if you are a sex-offender and you are convicted and you apply for a K1 visa the USCIS will deny you! the Adam Walsh Act is clear that you are excluded unless you can prove that you are NOt a threat to your fiancee'! i hope that you can satisfy them if you apply...

any ideas?

is anyone interested in bringing a lawsuit against USCIS for this issue?

What would be your grounds for a legal suit? Discrimination? That's laughable. Immigration and citizenship are privileges and not a right, notwithstanding whatever rights you have under your respective country and citizenship there. However, applying for immigration to another country means you have to pass the tests. I'm not convinced people that are convicted for sexual offenses against children would meet the approval of the US government or other governments adjudicating visas.

Again, what would be your grounds for a lawsuit? The government would have a right to decide based on applicants criminal activity and the nature of an offense, whether that person is eligible or not. If your grounds are simply because you or someone is 'discriminated' against because they were convicted of preying on children, then you will very likely learn a whole lot more about immigration law, as well the dealings you had with the criminal code of whatever country dealt with the criminal behaviour.

Insofar as you or to whomever you are referring, not being a threat to your fiance, there may be some level of truth there because a sex offender is a high threat to children and not adults but they seem to pick their female counterparts carefully. Should you have a conviction of this nature and should you have children, I can guarantee you the response you would get from child protective services. This I know. These types of offenses are big obstacles and should be because the nature of the offenses are repulsive and the victims have also been given tremendous obstacles as a result. I want to also add a caveat that offenders are not gender specific and appear on both sides of the male/female equation.

Good luck with your lawsuit. Don't count me in.

[Matt&Cui 0]

I'd be interested to hear people's rationale for why that 18 year old who has intimate consensual contact with his 17 year old gf should not enjoy the same rights as other USCs.

It would also be interesting to hear whether any of the people denouncing "sex offenders" in general might actually be one of those people who had sex with an underage gf after their own 18th birthday but wasn't prosecuted. Did you report yourself to USCIS when you filed your petition? Will you now send back your fiance/e or wife since you have improperly enjoyed a right that no one who has committed such a heinous act should enjoy?

Just wondering.

I am glad my thumbs up caught your ire. I enjoy the part where everyone who sides with less rights for sex offenders are probably one. This was my aggreeance with ones post. As you obviousley know by your OPPINION there are instances where one being labled a sex offender is a little overboard. I am sure that if the OP was one of those instances he should not worry as the LAW and hopfully a objective VO will take this into account.

[Krikit 1,165]

Off topic posts removed. Any further such posts will result in administrative action being taken.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Krikit