In theory......

[meauxna 15]

Amen to that Dan+Nikki.

My problem is that with family-based immigration - no, check that - with spouse and fiance based immigration, the difference between entering on B2 or VWP and the K1 is really just a matter of semantics. People who come in on the VWP and marry and then adjust status are documented every bit as fast as if they came in on a K1!

Enter on a waiver: you have 90 days to be here legally.

Enter on a K1: you have - look out! - 90 days to be here legally.

At the end of the 90 day period, regardless of HOW you entered, you better have done something to square yourself with the US government - either you leave the country and go home; ask for an extention; or file to adjust status.

So the difference is?. . . .

And "because that's the law" is sort of the correct answer. Then again, more correctly, when it comes to the true purpose of these laws, the better question is whether the underlying public policy is being served by compliance with the letter of the law. For fiance/spouse visa petitioners, the purposes are murkier. Espcially when the end goal, or one of the main goals -the documentation of a foreign citizen's presence in the country - will be accomplished regardless of the method of entry.

The system is a badly patched together, lumbering giant, that frequently crushes the spirits of those who try to comply. I think it sucks. I know most of us do. I just like to acknowledge its suckiness.

You might be especially interested in researching the history of the K-1, TD--maybe you can make sense of what went wrong.

Want to know what the difference was meant to be? K-1s are vetted outside the US before entry. They have done everything that an Immigrant Visa applicant has done *except* marry their USC petitioner. The K-1 was created when there weren't a lot of international relationships--the world has changed way too quickly.

The K-1 would go thru their visa application & security checks, come to the US, get married and take their marriage certificate down to the local office and have their PR status approved virtually on the spot. THAT is how it should work.

Making K-1s go thru an entire AOS application (except for the I-130, o thank you for small favors!) is a rip off, and I would love to know how it got so sidetracked. The DORA program has proved itself to be a huge success, and yet it has only been expanded to two other offices (it mimics the old K adjustment).

If you want to read more on it, google Folinskyinla on the topic; he has provided a lot of background and explanation and his words would point you to the right sources.

[Fandango 1,439]

and yes LisaD my fiancee does have the right to be here under the VWP. Your also right I dont like waiting. I dont think we should have to when anyone can come to the country legally or not. I think its punishing people who play by the rules, like us. I dont expect everyone to see it like me. I dont expect the government to be effiecient. ( I can dream can't I) I was just commenting on what you said in referance to me. Just wanted to explain myself and where I was coming from.

Her coming here is a privilege, not a right. She could be denied at any time. It is up to Immigration whether or not she is denied entry.

Not exactly probable, but being pedantic to prove a point.

But thank you for your response. I may not agree with you, but I appreciate the effort in replying.

He he, we can agree to disagree.

I believe a the VWP is a right because as long as you met the qualifying conditions and bring what is needed to prove it, your golden. People just dont come prepared if a officer is suspicious you dont met the VWP or have some other issue. Unfortunetly you get those people behind the counter who are pricks and can find a reason to deny anyone. Who could carry all that proof on them at anytime. We all just hope we dont get that person when we get in line.

But you're technically wrong because it it NOT a right. Go do some research.

I went into the UK on the VWP for 6 mos (their limit). I had proof of onward passage (my return ticket), I had verification of my bank account funds (cos that's a long time to stay with no job), I had my health insurance card with a printed list from my company of where I could get covered treatment should I get sick whilst on hols (which shows I'm not there to get the NHS) and many other pieces of evidence.

I was detained for 9 hours and almost deported.

Was it 'MY RIGHT' to be allowed entry into a foreign country? No, it wasn't. If British officials had decided to send me home, there's absolutely nowt I could have done about it.

You seriously need to research the difference between 'rights' and 'privileges'

Edited March 17, 2007 by LisaD

[meauxna 15]

I don't see that we - personally - could be in a much worse legal position if we had married on the VWP.

oops, last word, sorry!

I thought VWP AOS was how we were *supposed* to do it! I'm glad I did my research, but still....

The only reason I threw that idea out was learning about Advance Parole. We couldn't have him unable to travel for even one day. This was before the items I quoted above and all this 'crime in your heart' school of thought. As you've seen, there are plenty of CIS workers and State workers who think that is a legitimate way to immigrate.. especially from a VWP country.

bah. We must've been under a lucky star..

[Fandango 1,439]

The DORA program has proved itself to be a huge success, and yet it has only been expanded to two other offices (it mimics the old K adjustment).

If you want to read more on it, google Folinskyinla on the topic; he has provided a lot of background and explanation and his words would point you to the right sources.

Mo, I'm waiting for it to come to Florida. FLORA has a nice ring to it, no?

[meauxna 15]

The DORA program has proved itself to be a huge success, and yet it has only been expanded to two other offices (it mimics the old K adjustment).

If you want to read more on it, google Folinskyinla on the topic; he has provided a lot of background and explanation and his words would point you to the right sources.

Mo, I'm waiting for it to come to Florida. FLORA has a nice ring to it, no?

haha.. well, since they name 'em for the office, wouldn't you have MORA & the even better TORA?!

FLORA's better tho.. cover the whole state! And speaking of.. Shoot girl, when *are* you going to make an honest man out of this pretend boyfriend? I'm starting to wonder if he isn't a figment... I mean, even TracyTN finally got off the stick! <g>

[Fandango 1,439]

The DORA program has proved itself to be a huge success, and yet it has only been expanded to two other offices (it mimics the old K adjustment).

If you want to read more on it, google Folinskyinla on the topic; he has provided a lot of background and explanation and his words would point you to the right sources.

Mo, I'm waiting for it to come to Florida. FLORA has a nice ring to it, no?

haha.. well, since they name 'em for the office, wouldn't you have MORA & the even better TORA?!

FLORA's better tho.. cover the whole state! And speaking of.. Shoot girl, when *are* you going to make an honest man out of this pretend boyfriend? I'm starting to wonder if he isn't a figment... I mean, even TracyTN finally got off the stick! <g>

LOLZ!!!!!

Funnily enough, I'm finishing it up this weekend! We've got the green light

[rebeccajo 14]

I don't see that we - personally - could be in a much worse legal position if we had married on the VWP.

oops, last word, sorry!

I'd be disappointed if you hadn't joined the discussion......

[MichelleandCraig 1]

Funny enough, when we called the misinformation line to see if Craig could stay longer (he had come over on a 2 week visit and ended up staying 86 days...but this was right at the end of his two-week visit. We didn't find VJ until October of 2004, and this was in July of 2004...but we had done research by then,and knew about the 129-F and were about to file it....) they told us that we could marry right then and there and adjust status too. We considered it for a (very) short time, because we weren't prepared to do it that quickly, but it really did shock us after all we had read about it. As I say, we hadn't found VJ yet and realized the whole "intent" issue yet.

Could we have done it? Yep, and legally too. For those people, I don't think a single thing of it...perfectly fine and, although there might be some added risk...that's yours to take. All *other* things equal, the non USC *should* (def. read that as SHOULD) be allowed to adjust...but if you have obvious intent to come over on VWP and then marry...I don't see how anyone on this board who knows better could possibly advocate that. It really doesn't have squat to do with whether any of us think it's ok morally or not...it's just illegal...and that's against the TOS, actually. Not that some of us (hey, me included, I know) don't violate that here and there from time to time....but...just sayin'. M.

[TimsDaisy 0]

Correct or incorrect, when it comes to this subject area, the distinction between right and privilege is muddled.

Screw my fiance's "rights," we're talking about MY damn rights as a united states citizen to have my man here with me. We're Americans. We're supposed to get what we want. Right. Now. Dammit.

I'm well, well, well aware that he has no rights in this country until he is IN this country in some meaningful way. And though I don't wish it on a soul - that reality will never be obvious to you until you spend 2 hours running through an international airport terminal literally throwing yourself at customs agents and anyone with a badge and crying uncontrolably while trying to figure out where your boyfriend is and what is going on. (Then, for good measure, toss in a few phone calls where ICE agents LITERALLY HANG UP ON YOU after faking that you've reached the right number when you've already talked to that EXACT agent at least twice.) I said at one point when the guy didn't hang up "I'm an American citizen, I have rights!" He was unmoved. But I have a guarantee to the pursuit of happiness - and he's it. So a little help from uncle sam would be nice.

And amen Rebeccajo - if I knew then what I know now, I'd have drugged him and dragged him into the chapel of the bells and married his ### before he even considered buying a return ticket. Per the terms of service, I won't tell anyone here to break the law or start forming intent willy-nilly without knowing the consequences.

But if I ever met a couple who met after the non-USC entered the country on whatever visa, I'd get myself sworn in as a Deputy Civil Marriage Commissioner (something you can do in my state), and marry them myself!

This whole thing is like Angelina Jolie's comments on parenting and adoption, isn't it? (Stay with me, this will make sense.) Adoptive parents have to prove all these things to all these bodies - they'll be responsible, they can provide, they are stable, etc etc. Meanwhile, anyone can get knocked up and raise their own child with no problem. Any two (hetero) Americans can marry pretty much whenever they want - but we have to petition the government. Yikes, right?

And I still think the adjustment from VWP results in the same policy goals being met. On a K1, something could go wrong and you could get bounced from the US, never getting the green card. Same thing from a VWP entry. My point - the government STILL gets a chance to kick you out, either way.

Edited March 17, 2007 by TimsDaisy

[Dan+Nikki 0]

and yes LisaD my fiancee does have the right to be here under the VWP. Your also right I dont like waiting. I dont think we should have to when anyone can come to the country legally or not. I think its punishing people who play by the rules, like us. I dont expect everyone to see it like me. I dont expect the government to be effiecient. ( I can dream can't I) I was just commenting on what you said in referance to me. Just wanted to explain myself and where I was coming from.

Her coming here is a privilege, not a right. She could be denied at any time. It is up to Immigration whether or not she is denied entry.

Not exactly probable, but being pedantic to prove a point.

But thank you for your response. I may not agree with you, but I appreciate the effort in replying.

He he, we can agree to disagree.

I believe a the VWP is a right because as long as you met the qualifying conditions and bring what is needed to prove it, your golden. People just dont come prepared if a officer is suspicious you dont met the VWP or have some other issue. Unfortunetly you get those people behind the counter who are pricks and can find a reason to deny anyone. Who could carry all that proof on them at anytime. We all just hope we dont get that person when we get in line.

But you're technically wrong because it it NOT a right. Go do some research.

I went into the UK on the VWP for 6 mos (their limit). I had proof of onward passage (my return ticket), I had verification of my bank account funds (cos that's a long time to stay with no job), I had my health insurance card with a printed list from my company of where I could get covered treatment should I get sick whilst on hols (which shows I'm not there to get the NHS) and many other pieces of evidence.

I was detained for 9 hours and almost deported.

Was it 'MY RIGHT' to be allowed entry into a foreign country? No, it wasn't. If British officials had decided to send me home, there's absolutely nowt I could have done about it.

You seriously need to research the difference between 'rights' and 'privileges'

That is because a officer has the right to refuse anyone at anytime for any reason. That still means you have the right to come to the USA under the VWP. If you want to pick my post apart that is fine. However my point to begin with is that you can come legally to this country on a VWP and get married. It is legal! If it was not legal people would never be able to adjust status afterwards.

[Fandango 1,439]

Screw my fiance's "rights," we're talking about MY damn rights as a united states citizen to have my man here with me. We're Americans. We're supposed to get what we want. Right. Now. Dammit.

RE: the bit in red. Are you being sarcastic here?

Oh, and it is not your right as a US citizen to have your foreign national fiance brought here. It is your right to petition him.

Only when people start understanding this might they have a little more patience in the process.

[rebeccajo 14]

I tend to be on the side of the camp that believes we have no constitutional rights to bring someone over here.

But I'm also on the side of the camp that believes that if USCIS is going to take my money to process my REQUEST, they need to give me my money's worth. If they want to make this a 'customer' process, then they need to treat me like one - not a beggar.

[Dan+Nikki 0]

I'm also on the side of the camp that believes that if USCIS is going to take my money to process my REQUEST, they need to give me my money's worth. If they want to make this a 'customer' process, then they need to treat me like one - not a beggar.

Thats exactly it. If they are going to run it, then do it right!

Wow what a thread. Fun

I guess as you can tell Im from the camp that thinks it is a right. Things have not always been mircomanaged like this. I dont expect immigration to work like 1819, but I still believe its a right. If its not a right then I think we have given up part of what the constitution was fundamentally written for.

That aside. Im doing the K-1 visa like most people here. I think the process is over the top. Infringes on what I think our rights as a USC should be. Hopefully the governement can find a better way in the future. Until then I'll play the game like everyone else. Unfortunetly it doesnt stop after the K-1 as T&D pointed out so well in a previous post.

Edited March 17, 2007 by Dan+Nikki

[Dan+Nikki 0]

Nikki, you are seriously deluded about the rights of non-USCs and coming to the US tho.

Not Her rights, MY rights to bring her using the VWP as the tool at the time. However maybe your right. I also think that if someone meets the qualifying conditions under the VWP it is their right also. Having lived along the Canadian border for 3 years I can say that the economy and peoples lives would cease to exist there if it wasnt a right for Canadians, and Visa Versa. The border is Fluid and it makes no sense to stop and all of a sudden be forced to do a K-1 Visa. Just to walk into the country and start all over again as if you entered under the VWP. If you needed a visa to get into the country in the first place then fine. You might as well go the K-1 route, but if you didnt need a visa in the first place then whats the year long wait and a whole lot of extra $ for?

Edited March 17, 2007 by Dan+Nikki

[Fandango 1,439]

IT IS NOT A RIGHT! GET IT STRAIGHT! NO FOREIGNER IS ENTITLED TO ENTRY TO THE US.

open house time, gotta go. If it's slow I'll be lurkin on my phone