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

[A and T 82]

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.

It wasn't that long ago when African Americans were slaves, and Women did not have the right to vote. It was the law then , I guess you could say if anyone questioned that back in those days, they would probably be given an answer similar to yours

"the people have spoken"

But, give it time, they will find a new witch hunt, currently they are now destroying childrens lives for sexiting , Thats the latest which hunt, victumless crimes between children

[SunDrop 59]

Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that we are only discussing those people caught in the class of 'sex offender' whose only crime was having sex with their consensual underage partner at the time. Their focus shouldn't be on the USCIS but rather the AWA itself. Just because a criminal act took place, does not mean that all SOs actions were predatory and likely to reoccur. The fact that there is apparently no distinction or leeway within the law, that creates sub-classes according to the offense itself is the issue. I would be happier knowing that someone who unfortunately got caught sleeping with their underage partner had less of a battle than the guy who served time for 2nd degree murder.

However, foolish youths and poor decision making affects more than just those sexually-consenting teens caught and charged. What about the people who traveled to Amsterdam, tried cannabis once, admit to it at their medicals and are denied? They were not breaking the law in the time or place that they committed the 'offense', but they have a waiver battle to fight. Or how about anyone who traveled to Nevada as a young buck and engaged in sexual acts with a prostitute. Perfectly legal in the time and place, but if they admit to it, are they deemed to have broken the law for immigration purposes?

My daughter's 10. We've got her teens ahead of her and in the US as an LPR. I will be talking to her about the implications of 'experimenting' in the not too distant future. I've read the statistics for the number of 11-13 year olds in US public schools who've been offered meth at school. METH for pete's sake! She asked me the other day if people were ever not allowed into America. I told her yes, ones who made silly mistakes when they were younger often end up with a lot of difficulty, and sometimes people who make desperate choices never get in.

It's not fair, but what in this process is actually fair for any of us? 'Beating' AWA is as hard apparently as immigrating from somewhere the western world is currently at war against. That strikes me as even more of an injustice, IMHO. It's not impossible to overcome, but this is a reasonable comparison that demonstrates that the USCIS is applying procedure to its fullest ability to protect all US citizens, both now and in the future.

Edited February 4, 2010 by SunDrop

[Bobby+Umit 161]

Thats the latest which hunt, victumless crimes between children

Beg to differ there....

Parents of dead teen sue over sexting

[A and T 82]

The "discrimination" part I spoke of eariler, is because I was informed that some USCIS workers were posting on VJ, and if they are making biased or negative comments, while also in a job position that requires them to be "un biased" a lawsuit would cause VJ to hand over the information/ip addresses

meaning if you work for USCIS and you posted negative things here, its going to come back you .

[blessings 0]

The "discrimination" part I spoke of eariler, is because I was informed that some USCIS workers were posting on VJ, and if they are making biased or negative comments, while also in a job position that requires them to be "un biased" a lawsuit would cause VJ to hand over the information/ip addresses

meaning if you work for USCIS and you posted negative things here, its going to come back you .

Hi guys,

Does the USCIS sent you notice already about the denial or you just see it in their website? . Please share.. thank you and God bless!

[SunDrop 59]

The "discrimination" part I spoke of eariler, is because I was informed that some USCIS workers were posting on VJ, and if they are making biased or negative comments, while also in a job position that requires them to be "un biased" a lawsuit would cause VJ to hand over the information/ip addresses

meaning if you work for USCIS and you posted negative things here, its going to come back you .

There's a supposition here that the alleged USCIS workers are posting biased and negative comments.

Ya know, sometimes life is about picking your battles. And AWAers are already facing a real uphill struggle, not that you need to be told this.

I only know of 1 poster who publicly states that he is a CBP and generally the information he provides is helpful. There was a USCIS guy who posted the Q&A listed in the guide section, but that's going back a couple of years and more recently Gary and Alla posted a relayed Q&A with a VSC Director. If their input is helpful to the majority of VJers, you aren't going to garner much favour by driving either public or private USCIS staff members away, thus losing this community valuable resources.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Beg to differ there....

Parents of dead teen sue over sexting

That case is non applicable as the teen was 18.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

That case is non applicable as the teen was 18.

I guess you didn't read the rest of the story - one of her tormentors was 16, and had her nude pictures on her phone.

Pretty applicable I would say.

It isn't to hard to imagine other vulnerable teens considering suicide because of this "victimless crime"

[Old Dominion 26]

It wasn't that long ago when African Americans were slaves, and Women did not have the right to vote. It was the law then , I guess you could say if anyone questioned that back in those days, they would probably be given an answer similar to yours

"the people have spoken"

But, give it time, they will find a new witch hunt, currently they are now destroying childrens lives for sexiting , Thats the latest which hunt, victumless crimes between children

You're right. In the case of women and African-Americans, they never had the right to vote -- until they began working publicly to seek fair treatment. Gays and lesbians are still working very hard for fair treatment. Do you suppose RSO's could work publicly and vigorously to get back the fair treatment they once had, with any hope of success?

[VanessaTony 3,567]

Breaking the law is breaking the law. We have an ad in Australia about drink driving with the slogan "only a little bit over? You bloody idiot". I think it's obvious from that that we're saying that over the limit is over the limit. "I was only speeding a little when I lost control and killed that woman", "I had slept for a little bit, I shouldn't have been too tired to drive", "I only stabbed him a little bit". Where do you draw the line?

Whether you want to admit it or not, in the eyes of the law you slept with a minor. How would you have felt if that was your 17 year old daughter and it was some 40 year old man? You were considered an adult, adult is adult. You made the choice, you suffer the consequences. Whether it be jail or fighting to prove you're not a pervert who's a risk to all the other minors out there. Does it suck? Yes it definitely does but it does make me feel a bit better to know there are certain measures in place.

I do feel that it should be judged on the severity of the crime and whether your "victim" stated it was consensual, but there certainly should be MORE questions for people like you than the average person, and I don't feel that it's unfair... Though to be honest, you could have been committing crimes all your life and never been caught and just be caught in the US... it's just you're high-risk, you have been caught, you have a history. Sucks, but you do.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Vanessa&Tony

[A and T 82]

Breaking the law is breaking the law. We have an ad in Australia about drink driving with the slogan "only a little bit over? You bloody idiot". I think it's obvious from that that we're saying that over the limit is over the limit. "I was only speeding a little when I lost control and killed that woman", "I had slept for a little bit, I shouldn't have been too tired to drive", "I only stabbed him a little bit". Where do you draw the line?

Whether you want to admit it or not, in the eyes of the law you slept with a minor. How would you have felt if that was your 17 year old daughter and it was some 40 year old man? You were considered an adult, adult is adult. You made the choice, you suffer the consequences. Whether it be jail or fighting to prove you're not a pervert who's a risk to all the other minors out there. Does it suck? Yes it definitely does but it does make me feel a bit better to know there are certain measures in place.

I do feel that it should be judged on the severity of the crime and whether your "victim" stated it was consensual, but there certainly should be MORE questions for people like you than the average person, and I don't feel that it's unfair... Though to be honest, you could have been committing crimes all your life and never been caught and just be caught in the US... it's just you're high-risk, you have been caught, you have a history. Sucks, but you do.

I find it very intresting on VJ of how the topics get twisted so much from the original post , I really find it hard to fathom all the hate towards adam walsh filers without knowing the full facts .

I guess it makes you guys feel better to put people down.

As for your example I think a 17 and 40 year old here, where I live is legal? Not sure. Also in many countries thats legal, not sure about yours.

Also in the usa , the age of consent veries by state, so someone could be with someone younger in 1 state legally, and in the other be a sex offender. The laws are not across the board

But I love watching you guys troll these posts, keep it up! Also if you aren't from the usa you should have 0 say so about our rules. Worry about the rules in your home country instead

[az110965 252]

Nonversation...

I don't think any of the replies in this thread spoke of hating Adam Walsh filers, I just think that the general consensious is that there's not many people who hold sexual offenders in high regard. Did you really expect a different outcome? I would have found it highly unusual for the majority of comments to be supportive and positive in nature. While it's true that each individual case is different, the social stigma of someone who is a convicted sexual offender is what it is and is not likely to change anytime in the near future.

If I remember the first post, the OP asked if anyone would be interested in a class action lawsuit against the USCIS. Of 41 replies to the OP, none indicated that they wanted any part of a class action. AWA filers are not the only category of petitioner that must be waivered. Since IMBRA many other people have found themselves potentially non-approvable for a k-1.

In one thread the OP basically stated that it wasn't fair because the crime was comitted prior to his petition. EVen someone convicted of 3 DUI offenses prior to their petition basically is in the same boat as a sexual offender and my own personal belief is that an alcohol related offense is not on the same par as a sexual offense.

I'm not passing judgement on anyone or anyone's situation but I don't think he's apt to get much sympathy on a forum that's basically dedicated to family. I'm sure that the OP can find other forums where he will gather support and possibly find others to join in his endeavor of a class action.

Alan

[Old Dominion 26]

I feel the posters are all reminding the OP of the facts of life in the U.S., and that the USCIS is abiding by the law, as it should. Amending or repealing the law is not likely anytime soon, since no member of Congress would be willing to defend such an action to the voters.

[A and T 82]

I feel the posters are all reminding the OP of the facts of life in the U.S., and that the USCIS is abiding by the law, as it should. Amending or repealing the law is not likely anytime soon, since no member of Congress would be willing to defend such an action to the voters.

In all honesty, any posts made as replys that aren't regarding the OP's original topic should be banned. If VJ were to be a forum of any integrety. So when people search they can find answers and not page after page of hate posts

Any mods here?

[az110965 252]

Noversation,

You just made a recommendation that anyone's post not pertaining to the OP's be banned. In reading your posts, you never said you'd join the OP in his quest for a class action... Unless I missed something???

I think the OP has had his question answered...

Alan