Coming to the US on a visitor visa with intent to immigrate - Is this ok?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I already know the answer to this one but seeing how we're putting up polls for other settled questions, I figure why not this one?

Have at it.

[LaL 418]

can i skew this too?

[diadromous mermaid 36]

Being a devil's advocate, it depends on your definition of "ok" and whether the "intent" was followed.

[LaL 418]

Being a devil's advocate, it depends on your definition of "ok" and whether the "intent" was followed.

yeah because maybe the USC has intent to surprise the immigrant.

[sparkofcreation 0]

Being a devil's advocate, it depends on your definition of "ok" and whether the "intent" was followed.

I don't think it matters if the intent was followed. Fraudulent intent is fraudulent intent, whether or not it's followed through on.

I don't think it's okay either morally *or* legally, but some people may disagree with the morality part.

Edited December 29, 2006 by sparkofcreation

[Savanphil 3]

Wonder what USCIS has to say about this I'm predicting a big fat NO.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

Being a devil's advocate, it depends on your definition of "ok" and whether the "intent" was followed.

I don't think it matters if the intent was followed. Fraudulent intent is fraudulent intent, whether or not it's followed through on.

I don't think it's okay either morally *or* legally, but some people may disagree with the morality part.

Well it really does, because one can have intent, but if it is not acted upon or followed, once here, it is no longer germane to immigration. In other words, it really doesn't matter what thought process was in play upon entry, if he alien later returns to his or her homeland to pursue residency, does it? Essentially, intent only becomes germane if the alien remains and attempts to adjust.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... intent only becomes germane if the alien remains and attempts to adjust.

If a visitor admits his 'intent' to immigrate to a CBP officer at his POE, he will probably be sent home. At that point he has neither remained nor attempted to adjust. He hasn't even entered yet and immigration steps in and kicks him out.

[sparkofcreation 0]

Being a devil's advocate, it depends on your definition of "ok" and whether the "intent" was followed.

I don't think it matters if the intent was followed. Fraudulent intent is fraudulent intent, whether or not it's followed through on.

I don't think it's okay either morally *or* legally, but some people may disagree with the morality part.

Well it really does, because one can have intent, but if it is not acted upon or followed, once here, it is no longer germane to immigration. In other words, it really doesn't matter what thought process was in play upon entry, if he alien later returns to his or her homeland to pursue residency, does it? Essentially, intent only becomes germane if the alien remains and attempts to adjust.

If it's illegal to show up at a border checkpoint and ask to be let in after you've been deported (which it is--Attempted Re-Entry by a Removed Alien), and you can be prosecuted despite the fact that you haven't yet entered the US (which you can), then I would say YES, it does count even if the intent isn't followed through on.

It's the intent at the moment of entry that counts, for exactly the same reason that it *is* okay to enter with the intent *not* to immigrate but end up immigrating anyway. By your logic, adjusting from an F-1 would be wrong, because it's not the intent that counts, but what you do in the end.

Edited December 29, 2006 by sparkofcreation

[diadromous mermaid 36]

Being a devil's advocate, it depends on your definition of "ok" and whether the "intent" was followed.

I don't think it matters if the intent was followed. Fraudulent intent is fraudulent intent, whether or not it's followed through on.

I don't think it's okay either morally *or* legally, but some people may disagree with the morality part.

Well it really does, because one can have intent, but if it is not acted upon or followed, once here, it is no longer germane to immigration. In other words, it really doesn't matter what thought process was in play upon entry, if he alien later returns to his or her homeland to pursue residency, does it? Essentially, intent only becomes germane if the alien remains and attempts to adjust.

If it's illegal to show up at a border checkpoint and ask to be let in after you've been deported (which it is--Attempted Re-Entry by a Removed Alien), and you can be prosecuted despite the fact that you haven't yet entered the US (which you can), then I would say YES, it does count even if the intent isn't followed through on.

It's the intent at the moment of entry that counts, for exactly the same reason that it *is* okay to enter with the intent *not* to immigrate but end up immigrating anyway. By your logic, adjusting from an F-1 would be wrong, because it's not the intent that counts, but what you do in the end.

This appears to me to be a comparison of apples and oranges. In the first case, an alien has been admonshed and given some sort of "sentence" if you will, as a result of a breach of regulation. And as a deportee, he or she has been instructed implicitly that to attempt re-entry prior to a certain number of years is improper and against regulation. The alien in this instance is seeking entry at the POE and is contraverting the directions the immigration court handed down in an earlier hearing. On the other hand, the second instance of entering the country and declaring to the POE agent that one is simply visiting, while having another mindset, the breach of regulation, as it were, would not have been committed until the alien attempts to remain on that visitor's document.

[Alex+R 0]

Yes, I think personally that it's just fine. But that's not what the government thinks. And if you try to do it and you get caught, everything is not going to be "ok." So ultimately I voted that no , it's not ok.

[sparkofcreation 0]

This appears to me to be a comparison of apples and oranges. In the first case, an alien has been admonshed and given some sort of "sentence" if you will, as a result of a breach of regulation. And as a deportee, he or she has been instructed implicitly that to attempt re-entry prior to a certain number of years is improper and against regulation. The alien in this instance is seeking entry at the POE and is contraverting the directions the immigration court handed down in an earlier hearing. On the other hand, the second instance of entering the country and declaring to the POE agent that one is simply visiting, while having another mindset, the breach of regulation, as it were, would not have been committed until the alien attempts to remain on that visitor's document.

And someone who is given the I-94 on the plane has specifically been asked and answered that their intent is solely to be a visitor and to leave the country again. So if they check "No, I do not intend to stay in the US" and hand that card to the official at the POE, they have already lied to an immigration official, which is already unlawful.

If you believe that it's not the intent at POE that matters, but the ultimate actions of the alien, then by your logic it's legal to lie to the officer at the POE (which is what you're doing when you say you're going to leave on X date knowing you plan to stay, so how is that different from lying about anything else?), but unlawful to adjust status from any non-immigrant visa.

Oh and I realize this isn't relevant to the topic and you just mentioned it in passing, but also, after deportation you can't re-enter without written permission from DHS (i.e. a visitor's or other visa), even if your ban has elapsed. A lot of people don't know that and try to come back after the ban ends—and find themselves in criminal court for re-entry without permission (or, as I said, attempted re-entry without permission).

Edited December 30, 2006 by sparkofcreation

[diadromous mermaid 36]

This appears to me to be a comparison of apples and oranges. In the first case, an alien has been admonshed and given some sort of "sentence" if you will, as a result of a breach of regulation. And as a deportee, he or she has been instructed implicitly that to attempt re-entry prior to a certain number of years is improper and against regulation. The alien in this instance is seeking entry at the POE and is contraverting the directions the immigration court handed down in an earlier hearing. On the other hand, the second instance of entering the country and declaring to the POE agent that one is simply visiting, while having another mindset, the breach of regulation, as it were, would not have been committed until the alien attempts to remain on that visitor's document.

And someone who is given the I-94 on the plane has specifically been asked and answered that their intent is solely to be a visitor and to leave the country again. So if they check "No, I do not intend to stay in the US" and hand that card to the official at the POE, they have already lied to an immigration official, which is already unlawful.

If you believe that it's not the intent at POE that matters, but the ultimate actions of the alien, then by your logic it's legal to lie to the officer at the POE (which is what you're doing when you say you're going to leave on X date knowing you plan to stay, so how is that different from lying about anything else?), but unlawful to adjust status from any non-immigrant visa.

Oh and I realize this isn't relevant to the topic and you just mentioned it in passing, but also, after deportation you can't re-enter without written permission from DHS (i.e. a visitor's or other visa), even if your ban has elapsed. A lot of people don't know that and try to come back after the ban ends—and find themselves in criminal court for re-entry without permission (or, as I said, attempted re-entry without permission).

I'm not advocating that lying is acceptable, at all. I guess for me it all boils down to whether preconceived 'intent' and a 'desire' to remain upon entry to the USA on a non-immigrant visa or VWP are actually the same thing or equal. I'm thinking that preconceived intent and the requisite bar or permanent excludability that would result from a finding of visa fraud or misrepresentation would have to be proven and a finding by USCIS or the CBP would be subject to close scrutiny. Were the alien simply to enter the country with a desire to remain and adjust yet doesn't, I am wondering how this standard of preconceived intent would be proven. The BIA handed down a decision that differentiates the two and found that a 'desire" to remain in the USA after a non-immigrant entry was a perfectly acceptable change of intent. Note that it is implied that the desire to remain be subject to adjustment through legal methods.

[Henia 11]

Well as far as I know this is illegal, so my answer would be NO.

[Pam&Mbaye 0]

I already know the answer to this one but seeing how we're putting up polls for other settled questions, I figure why not this one?

Have at it.

No, I want everyone to experience the joy of entering the USA the USCIS way...legal and waiting for an answer ha