Visa overstays get amnesty... They break the law, and then get to stay...

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

I consider him a founding father of France...sort of.

While we're on the topic of illegal immigration... what do you have against Amazon?

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

All fine and dandy - aside from the personal attacks you attempt here.

Pot: "Kettle, you're black."

Kettle: "Pot, you're darker black than I am!"

[thedude6752000 360]

Yes, the I-130 processing times have vastly improved thus removing the conditions required for a K3 visa to be issued. I've said that at least twice before. What that shows, however, is NOT as you would want to make believe that the K3 visa no longer exists. What it shows instead is that I-130 are processed much faster today than they were back then which is what I've been saying all along.

If the hold-up was the I-130 processing at the NVC rather than USCIS as you would claim, then the K3 visa would not have been viable then either as the NVC would have had an approved I-130 and would have had to close the corresponding I-129 accordingly. That's not what happened back in the day. What happened was that the I-129 made it to the NVC way ahead of the I-130. So far ahead, in fact, the I-130 never made it to NVC for K3ers as they would have obtained the K3 visa, brought their spouse here and filed the I-485 to adjust status all while the I-130 was still in processing at USCIS which then married up the yet to be approved I-130 with the much later filed I-485 and processed them in parallel at USCIS entirely.

You can fight it all you want but that's how it worked back in the day. It could not have worked that way if the I-130 processing times were short as you would have us believe. They weren't. Believe me, I've been through it at the time. And taking your own argument and the above, you will see and understand that the I-130 delays were at USCIS - quite possibly with additional delays at NVC as well compared to the status quo.

You are absolutely 100% wrong. USCIS marries the 129-F and the I-130 and will never ship one out before the other. I waited 7 months for mine (approved May 30 this year), and I know of people who filed the I-129F way longer than that. If anything, the I-129F seems to slow the process down even more. And the USCIS as a rule NEVER sends it ahead of the I-130. Karee is not technically correct, the K-3 still "exists" but it's basically a dead person with an obituary in the paper. The K-3 is totally dead, I have seen 1 person in the last year get it and that's because they called up the NVC, after 1 year and 3 months at USCIS, got a high-level supervisor to annotate her package and say that the K-3 was to be processed, not the I-130. The K-3 is dead and bringing it up as a panacea to the terrible wait they put spouses of US citizens through only shows that you are out of touch with the current visa reality. And BTW two years ago they were processing I-130's in less than 5 months, we have King Obama's illegal and unconstitutional DACA nightmare to thank for this.

Okay, so it still exists. You were wrong. Thank you.

His underlying point that it's totally pointless to even bring up the K-3 was 100% correct.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

You are absolutely 100% wrong. USCIS marries the 129-F and the I-130 and will never ship one out before the other. I waited 7 months for mine (approved May 30 this year), and I know of people who filed the I-129F way longer than that. If anything, the I-129F seems to slow the process down even more. And the USCIS as a rule NEVER sends it ahead of the I-130. Karee is not technically correct, the K-3 still "exists" but it's basically a dead person with an obituary in the paper. The K-3 is totally dead, I have seen 1 person in the last year get it and that's because they called up the NVC, after 1 year and 3 months at USCIS, got a high-level supervisor to annotate her package and say that the K-3 was to be processed, not the I-130. The K-3 is dead and bringing it up as a panacea to the terrible wait they put spouses of US citizens through only shows that you are out of touch with the current visa reality. And BTW two years ago they were processing I-130's in less than 5 months, we have King Obama's illegal and unconstitutional DACA nightmare to thank for this.

His underlying point that it's totally pointless to even bring up the K-3 was 100% correct.

5 is more than 7. You are wasting your time. LOL

[rlogan 2,036]

Could not agree with you more.

The freaking back ground checks. The last 5 known addresses and work places, the last country you lived in, police reports from countries you have lived in for over 6 months, and for what? So other people can walk in for free?

Why don't we just open the boarders and eliminate the application process then. I know why not!! Because people like us who actually put money in the government's pocket and go through he!! and hot water to do this right. I bet Washington is laughing at us.

MS-13 gang members are laughing the hardest. How about the physicals they put us through too? They can roll in with the Bubonic Plague and it's "Welcome aboard!" We're a bunch of stupid cattle thinking that all means something, all of these applications, interviews, hardships, etc. - as if it kept MS-13 gangsters out of the USA.

I've heard people saying just that in my years here - boy, I'm sure glad they have this system. Pee down my back some more please and tell me how it's raining. What they put us through! Two years with no social security number. And we applied way early. They lost our file and when they found us told us to commit a felony by changing our entry date. Don't get me started. Two congressional investigations we had to start. Just asinine. Still not through. Taking a break before citizenship because we just don't want more stress of paperwork and ####### they make you do. Just leave us alone for a couple of years for Christ's sake!

[thedude6752000 360]

5 is more than 7. You are wasting your time. LOL

5>7? Good to know everything that people have known about math for the last 3,000 years is wrong.

Just wanted to catch this before you edit it.

[TBoneTX 45,309]

One (early) post removed at the OP's request, along with one quoting it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You are absolutely 100% wrong. USCIS marries the 129-F and the I-130 and will never ship one out before the other. I waited 7 months for mine (approved May 30 this year), and I know of people who filed the I-129F way longer than that. If anything, the I-129F seems to slow the process down even more. And the USCIS as a rule NEVER sends it ahead of the I-130. Karee is not technically correct, the K-3 still "exists" but it's basically a dead person with an obituary in the paper. The K-3 is totally dead, I have seen 1 person in the last year get it and that's because they called up the NVC, after 1 year and 3 months at USCIS, got a high-level supervisor to annotate her package and say that the K-3 was to be processed, not the I-130. The K-3 is dead and bringing it up as a panacea to the terrible wait they put spouses of US citizens through only shows that you are out of touch with the current visa reality. And BTW two years ago they were processing I-130's in less than 5 months, we have King Obama's illegal and unconstitutional DACA nightmare to thank for this.

His underlying point that it's totally pointless to even bring up the K-3 was 100% correct.

His claim was that the K3 no longer exists. That is 100% incorrect and the fact that K3 visas were indeed issued proves that conclusively. Your claim that USCIS will never ship out the I-129 before the I-130 is also 100% incorrect. Were that the case, no K3 visa could ever be issued since we know that the NVC cannot forward the I-129F to the consulate for a beneficiary that is the spouse of a USC if an immigrant visa is available - i.e. if an approved I-130 exists. And yet, they are forwarding those I-129Fs were the I-130 has not yet been approved. That "dead person" as you would call it took 214 breaths in 2013 according to the DOS. Some dead person, eh?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

5>7? Good to know everything that people have known about math for the last 3,000 years is wrong.

Just wanted to catch this before you edit it.

Sorry it was a joke around here. certain posters, that think Obama can do no wrong, do not admit that the national debt has risen more under obama than Bush. 7 vs 5 trillion

Hence 5 is more than 7

All of sudden now, after screaming about the debt under bush for 8 years, it is unimportant.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sorry it was a joke around here. certain posters, that think Obama can do no wrong, do not admit that the national debt has risen more under obama than Bush. 7 vs 5 trillion

Hence 5 is more than 7

All of sudden now, after screaming about the debt under bush for 8 years, it is unimportant.

Of course, nobody has made the claim that 5 > 7. Your claiming that such claim was made doesn't make it so. But I do not want to disturb your alternate reality so, please, do carry on.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Of course, nobody has made the claim that 5 > 7. Your claiming that such claim was made doesn't make it so. But I do not want to disturb your alternate reality so, please, do carry on.

So the debt has risen more under Obamas term, than it did under Bush's 8 years. Yes or No

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So the debt has risen more under Obamas term, than it did under Bush's 8 years. Yes or No

In plain dollar terms, yes. Not sure that that's a statement of any value, though. After all, in plain dollar terms, Mark Zuckerberg would be considered many multiple times as welathy as John D. Rockefeller. Of course, Zuckerberg's wealth in reality is only about a tenth of the wealth that Rockefeller amassed. Odd, ain't it?

Edited July 31, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[JohnR! 5,495]

Nailed it.

In plain dollar terms, yes. Not sure that that's a statement of any value, though. After all, in plain dollar terms, Mark Zuckerberg would be considered many multiple times as welathy as John D. Rockefeller. Of course, Zuckerberg's wealth in reality is only about a tenth of the wealth that Rockefeller amassed. Odd, ain't it?

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Of course, nobody has made the claim that 5 > 7. Your claiming that such claim was made doesn't make it so. But I do not want to disturb your alternate reality so, please, do carry on.

In another thread you said that the debt under Obama was less than under Bush. Hence the reference to 5>7. It's your fault this phrase has been coined.

[Karee 4,190]

Good luck trying to reason with the VJ version of James Carville. People have been trying for years with no luck. He'd argue that sun rises in the west if Obama said so.