Sessions rescinds DACA

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

32 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

What is not true?

I would prefer to call both classes illegal.

Okay fine. Now the question is, do you pursue overstays with the same vigor you pursue border crossers?  Why or Why not?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

The law does not look at it that way.  You break the law, you break the law.  I hear that in this forum all the time. From a practical standpoint, overstays are a far outstripping the number of border crossers with roughly a half a million overstays a year. 

I would prefer to call both classes of "illegals" what they are: undocumented.

 

So a person who comes to the US on a K1, gets married within 90 days, but then does not file for AOS... are they deportable?  Have they broken the law?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Okay fine. Now the question is, do you pursue overstays with the same vigor you pursue border crossers?  Why or Why not?

Both are illegal.  Both need to go.  Not sure about your use of the word "vigor".  They get caught, they should be deported.  Trouble is, Obama made it much harder to deport illegals in December 2012.  So that vigor has been severely toned down.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

So a person who comes to the US on a K1, gets married within 90 days, but then does not file for AOS... are they deportable?  Have they broken the law?

 

  They would be out of status I believe, so they could possibly be deported, but there is no law broken, thus no possible criminal charges they could face. 

Edited September 17, 2017 by Steeleballz

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  They would be out of status I believe, so they could possibly be deported, but there is no law broken, thus no possible criminal charges they could face. 

AOS is not a required step.  It can be skipped, and the immigrant can wait two hears and file for ROC.  Technically, they are out of status as you said, but no immigration judge would deport them, and they have broken no laws.  All they did was save some money.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

8 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

AOS is not a required step.  It can be skipped, and the immigrant can wait two hears and file for ROC.  Technically, they are out of status as you said, but no immigration judge would deport them, and they have broken no laws.  All they did was save some money.

 

    Are you sure about that?  If they don't adjust status, what would they be removing conditions from?

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

3 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Both are illegal.  Both need to go.  Not sure about your use of the word "vigor".  They get caught, they should be deported.  Trouble is, Obama made it much harder to deport illegals in December 2012.  So that vigor has been severely toned down.

And yet the Obama admin set new records in deportation, mostly violent criminals but hey who is counting? Violent offender, daca petioner, overstay  its all the same.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Il Mango Dulce

[TBoneTX 45,023]

Both AOS and ROC are required of K-1 entrants.

 

If a K-1 entrant duly married within 90 days of entry but failed to file for AOS and was caught in that status, the unadjusted (maladjusted?) entrant would be called before an immigration judge and be told to adjust.

 

Sidebar:  In answer to my question at the time, a lawyer told me that a duly married K-1 entrant who has filed for AOS but hasn't gotten approval of it is called an "applicant for adjustment" -- or, more concisely, an "adjustment applicant."

 

And we honestly never know when someone's status will be challenged, which is why I never took any chances with Mrs. T-B.:

Not only at airports would "leaving nothing to chance" come in handy.  See penultimate paragraph in above-linked thread.

Edited September 17, 2017 by TBoneTX

[Steeleballz 7,550]

12 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

Both AOS and ROC are required of K-1 entrants.

 

If a K-1 entrant duly married within 90 days of entry but failed to file for AOS and was caught in that status, the unadjusted (maladjusted?) entrant would be called before an immigration judge and be told to adjust.

 

Sidebar:  In answer to my question at the time, a lawyer told me that a duly married K-1 entrant who has filed for AOS but hasn't gotten approval of it is called an "applicant for adjustment" -- or, more concisely, an "adjustment applicant."

 

And we honestly never know when someone's status will be challenged, which is why I never took any chances with Mrs. T-B.:

Not only at airports would "leaving nothing to chance" come in handy.  See penultimate paragraph in above-linked thread.

 

  Perhaps IDWAF is referring to adjusting status after two years of marriage to get the 10 year green card and avoid the need (cost) of removing conditions. It may cost less in immigration fee's, but I'm not convinced it's a cost effective strategy overall, in the long run.

[TBoneTX 45,023]

That would be an awful two years for the immigrant.  I wonder how many marriages would survive that.

The immigrant's status would be "eligible for adjustment," probably.

Edited September 17, 2017 by TBoneTX

[Dashinka 24,372]

7 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Are you sure about that?  If they don't adjust status, what would they be removing conditions from?

Actually they would still AOS, but they can skip the ROC step if they are past two years.  The point is the same as they would save money by skipping a step and they would be in a state of forgivable overstay which is much different than someone who overstays a B1/B2, or other NIV.

[Dashinka 24,372]

6 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

That would be an awful two years for the immigrant.  I wonder how many marriages would survive that.

The immigrant's status would be "eligible for adjustment," probably.

I agree this would not be fun for the immigrant as they would be completely dependent on their USC/LPR spouse.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

11 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Actually they would still AOS, but they can skip the ROC step if they are past two years.  The point is the same as they would save money by skipping a step and they would be in a state of forgivable overstay which is much different than someone who overstays a B1/B2, or other NIV.

 

   State of forgivable overstay is stretching it as far as terminology goes. Strictly speaking, the overstay is "forgiven" after the AOS is adjudicated, not before. Technically it's not even really forgiven, it just becomes irrelevant. 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

10 hours ago, IDWAF said:

AOS is not a required step.  It can be skipped, and the immigrant can wait two hears and file for ROC.  Technically, they are out of status as you said, but no immigration judge would deport them, and they have broken no laws.  All they did was save some money.

They should stay away from border states while not breaking the law

[Dashinka 24,372]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   State of forgivable overstay is stretching it as far as terminology goes. Strictly speaking, the overstay is "forgiven" after the AOS is adjudicated, not before. Technically it's not even really forgiven, it just becomes irrelevant. 

It is a different class as in this case there is no immigration ban incurred.  If one overstays an NIV, they are subject to a lengthy ban and they have no recourse.  If a K1 does not file AOS, yes, technically they are out-of-status, but they in fact have a recourse.  It is different.  Beyond that, I am wondering why this is being debated, is there a large contingent of people that do this?  I am sure there are some as there are stories out there, but I think that dwarfs the numbers of illegals entering illegally or overstaying other NIVs.