Judge Denies Marriage License

[homesick_american 1]

I believe the situation already IS that illegals can marry pretty much everywhere. Certainly here in MN they can. This wasn't the first illegal immigrant to attempt to marry on US soil.

I never for one minute assumed that he was the first.

The point I keep making, and that people keep ignoring in favor of mushy valentines and chocolate huggles, is that this ruling did not occur in a vacuum. This ruling will affect EVERY ILLEGAL IN THAT COURT'S JURISDICTION WHO ATTEMPTS TO MARRY.

Basically it makes it way easier to commit visa fraud. Is there any way that I could make this more clear?

[homesick_american 1]

What's good for the UK is surely good for the USA.

Hell NO.

1) Gun control

2) CCTV surveillance society

3) ID cards

4) DNA database spanning most of the UK population

5) Electronic tagging of asylum seekers

6) Control orders

Thanks but no thanks.

LOL...you don't have to persuade me to leave the UK, mawilson; believe me, I've thought of nothing else for the last three years. I loathe being on CCTV when I'm in public. There are lots of CCTV cameras in the USA too, but this country has 1% of the world's population and 20% of its CCTV cameras. That's too much. WAY too much. The DNA database is what creeps me out the most, though the license plate tracking database sends chills down my spine, too. This country is slowly slipping into an authoritarian abyss and it's terrifying.

However, there are some things that the UK does better than the USA. UK immigration law is easier to understand and their government websites are written more clearly. They process visa applications much more quickly, and I think their laws regarding family immigration are more appropriate than those of the USA in that you cannot even marry a citizen here unless you have a fiance visa; and they do check.

About the electronic tagging of asylum seekers....often when an asylum application is being processed the applicant lives freely in the UK. This creates problems because if the claim is false (which it often is) or the applicant fears he/she will be denied, they'll disappear. Vanish into thin air. The government never sees or hears from them again. They're still here, though. Other countries like the US or Australia detain some or all of their asylum applicants because they are an extremely high flight risk if they're denied. The UK does not. They don't want to put them all in a camp, so electronic tagging was suggested as a means of keeping track of them. I don't think they'll actually be able to do it, since other tagged convicts have demonstrated how ineffectual it is at keeping track of someone.

[homesick_american 1]

I absolutely agree that US immigration law is a minefield. Unfortunately, we found that out the hard way!

I can't help compare our situation to that of an American entering the UK. In the UK the age of the "child" is frozen at the time of application, which makes perfect sense. But, Nooooooooo, not in the USA! They calculate whether a "child" is eligible for a benefit when the Immigration Office get round to adjudicating that "child's" application! In our case the "child" had become an "adult" and he is then told to get out of the country!! Makes no sense at all.

I agree. Just think how much simpler the whole process would be if the age was frozen. Or if they could approve applications as quickly as the UK can!

Anyway, if a foreign national wants to marry whilst in the UK they need to get a “Certificate of Approval” which will only be granted if they have legal status of over 6 months. If coming from overseas for the purpose of marriage then either a fiancé(e) or marriage visa is required. A foreign national can no longer simply enter the UK and decide to get married whilst on the visit without first obtaining a visa from overseas. Makes perfect sense to me!

On that we are in 100% agreement! That is precisely what I had to do to marry my husband, i.e. get a fiancee visa from a UK embassy in the United States before traveling to the UK. Getting it was easy. Entering the country was easy. Getting married was easy. Hell, immigrating to the UK was easy. In fact I had to provide more pieces of identification to put my house on the market with a British estate agent than I did to immigrate to this country. I think the UK should tighten up on some things, i.e. require medicals to try to cut down on the TB outbreaks and screen applicants for HIV and hepatitis. Not perfect, but certainly a million percent easier and less stressful. Credit where it's due!

[Sinergy 3]

More rubber bullets for the protesting illegals!!!

Get the ** out, and apply like the rest!!!

dude, police used excessive force, they gonna get so PWNED, they also attack tv crew, u know TV companies are very fond of that lol

I think not. Illegals have no rights and need to bail out...Over the US line......

so just cuz they're illegals you can beat them down, or be abused? or you can just shoot at them for sh!tz and giggles? and yes, police used excesssive force, it's everywhere now..

I agree, they are illegal, and should not be here, and should not be treated as if they do have rights bc of being illegal, but beating them up??? legal or illegal, they are still human beings and shouldnt be subject to physical abuse.

[Caladan 19]

I believe the situation already IS that illegals can marry pretty much everywhere. Certainly here in MN they can. This wasn't the first illegal immigrant to attempt to marry on US soil.

I never for one minute assumed that he was the first.

The point I keep making, and that people keep ignoring in favor of mushy valentines and chocolate huggles, is that this ruling did not occur in a vacuum. This ruling will affect EVERY ILLEGAL IN THAT COURT'S JURISDICTION WHO ATTEMPTS TO MARRY.

Basically it makes it way easier to commit visa fraud. Is there any way that I could make this more clear?

How does it make it easier to commit visa fraud? Seriously. Spell it out. You keep asserting it, but that doesn't make it true, and no one here is arguing hearts and huggles. Getting married doesn't stop you from being deported. Getting married doesn't mean you automatically get a green card; an EWI or an overstay isn't automatically forgiven. It doesn't automatically make you legal. It's not as if the guy in the article couldn't apply for a fiancé visa (like he will apply for a spousal visa.)

This case has lead to NO special treatment. He's going to go through the same spousal visa process, with a waiver, that everyone else has to do. Let me repeat it: getting married has NOT changed this guy's immigration status or rights. He is still being deported. He will have to file a waiver, and faces a significant ban. His wife could have petitioned for him as a fiancé or as a spouse; their getting married just changes the category she'll file under.

How does it create more visa fraud? It seems to me it only does if you think immigration works like the movie Green Card, but surely you know that's not true, so... whence the fraud?

I think the UK's law is a bad idea and I hope we wouldn't adopt it. It would mean that you couldn't adjust off of an H1-B, or a student visa, which are all common ways legal immigrants come here, meet someone while working or in school, and get married. That just seems like a dumb idea, to make someone go home to get a fiancé visa when they're already here, working, owning property, &c.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

More rubber bullets for the protesting illegals!!!

Get the ** out, and apply like the rest!!!

dude, police used excessive force, they gonna get so PWNED, they also attack tv crew, u know TV companies are very fond of that lol

I think not. Illegals have no rights and need to bail out...Over the US line......

so just cuz they're illegals you can beat them down, or be abused? or you can just shoot at them for sh!tz and giggles? and yes, police used excesssive force, it's everywhere now..

I agree, they are illegal, and should not be here, and should not be treated as if they do have rights bc of being illegal, but beating them up??? legal or illegal, they are still human beings and shouldnt be subject to physical abuse.

i can't agree with their being assaulted either just due to their illegal status.

shocking, i know, to some of our left wing crowd

[athena_ny 1]

I believe the situation already IS that illegals can marry pretty much everywhere. Certainly here in MN they can. This wasn't the first illegal immigrant to attempt to marry on US soil.

I never for one minute assumed that he was the first.

The point I keep making, and that people keep ignoring in favor of mushy valentines and chocolate huggles, is that this ruling did not occur in a vacuum. This ruling will affect EVERY ILLEGAL IN THAT COURT'S JURISDICTION WHO ATTEMPTS TO MARRY.

Basically it makes it way easier to commit visa fraud. Is there any way that I could make this more clear?

How does it make it easier to commit visa fraud? Seriously. Spell it out. You keep asserting it, but that doesn't make it true, and no one here is arguing hearts and huggles. Getting married doesn't stop you from being deported. Getting married doesn't mean you automatically get a green card; an EWI or an overstay isn't automatically forgiven. It doesn't automatically make you legal. It's not as if the guy in the article couldn't apply for a fiancé visa (like he will apply for a spousal visa.)

This case has lead to NO special treatment. He's going to go through the same spousal visa process, with a waiver, that everyone else has to do. Let me repeat it: getting married has NOT changed this guy's immigration status or rights. He is still being deported. He will have to file a waiver, and faces a significant ban. His wife could have petitioned for him as a fiancé or as a spouse; their getting married just changes the category she'll file under.

How does it create more visa fraud? It seems to me it only does if you think immigration works like the movie Green Card, but surely you know that's not true, so... whence the fraud?

I think the UK's law is a bad idea and I hope we wouldn't adopt it. It would mean that you couldn't adjust off of an H1-B, or a student visa, which are all common ways legal immigrants come here, meet someone while working or in school, and get married. That just seems like a dumb idea, to make someone go home to get a fiancé visa when they're already here, working, owning property, &c.

I agree, but through the I-130/I-485, overstay is automatically forgiven. Paperwork has to be filed in order for this to happen, though. Of course.

[Caladan 19]

Only if nothing else is wrong in your background (not always a slam dunk), and you file the paperwork. I just don't see it as a huge risk for fraud for someone who's already here. It's not as though you have a terribly high risk of being deported if you fly under the radar, unfortunately.

[Girona40 0]

"I don't think they'll actually be able to do it, since other tagged convicts have demonstrated how ineffectual it is at keeping track of someone. "

H.A. I had a conversation with my brother's wife about this practice. They DO place tags on asylum seekers, who are then able to live in society whilst their case is being processed. The alternative is for them to remain in "holding centers" which are rapidly becomming overcrowded. The tags they use are not small either - they are large metal cuffs that are placed around the person's ankle. Not the nicest thing, but it does allow UK immigration officials to keep track of where they are. Their cases are usually processed within 6 months anyway, so it isn't a big deal to have to wear one for so short a period, in my opinion, if the end result is the "legal" right to remain in the UK.

[Caladan 19]

Six months of detention or a clunky metal bracelet? Is V running around yet?

[William33 110]

More rubber bullets for the protesting illegals!!!

Get the ** out, and apply like the rest!!!

dude, police used excessive force, they gonna get so PWNED, they also attack tv crew, u know TV companies are very fond of that lol

I think not. Illegals have no rights and need to bail out...Over the US line......

so just cuz they're illegals you can beat them down, or be abused? or you can just shoot at them for sh!tz and giggles? and yes, police used excesssive force, it's everywhere now..

I agree, they are illegal, and should not be here, and should not be treated as if they do have rights bc of being illegal, but beating them up??? legal or illegal, they are still human beings and shouldnt be subject to physical abuse.

No, I am not advocating a beat down on the basis of their illegal status. I am suggesting that LA police used an appropriate level of force, given the unruly crowd.

Edited May 3, 2007 by William33

[pedroh 21]

More rubber bullets for the protesting illegals!!!

Get the ** out, and apply like the rest!!!

dude, police used excessive force, they gonna get so PWNED, they also attack tv crew, u know TV companies are very fond of that lol

I think not. Illegals have no rights and need to bail out...Over the US line......

so just cuz they're illegals you can beat them down, or be abused? or you can just shoot at them for sh!tz and giggles? and yes, police used excesssive force, it's everywhere now..

I agree, they are illegal, and should not be here, and should not be treated as if they do have rights bc of being illegal, but beating them up??? legal or illegal, they are still human beings and shouldnt be subject to physical abuse.

No, I am not advocating a beat down on the basis of their illegal status. I am suggesting that LA police used an appropriate level of force, given the unruly crowd.

did u see how the beat the cameramen with the batons? I can't see cameramen as 'unruly'..

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I say rubber bullets aren't hard enough. Nothing wrong with the real thing.

[Alex+R 0]

I say rubber bullets aren't hard enough. Nothing wrong with the real thing.

[Traviesa 0]

I say rubber bullets aren't hard enough. Nothing wrong with the real thing.

I can ignore a lot of crazy ###### from a lot of crazy people but this...#######???