Interesting article about a subject which comes up here

[azblk 338]

4 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Proof, sources, anything other than "is it not obvious?"?????

it is obvious to me and anyone capable of critical thinking and not trying to win an argument than when you take something that has been normal/legal and make it more difficult/illegal, it reduces the numbers period.  In this case the people that you think are doing it the "right way" , those who choose  the CR-1 route can not get visas because they got married less than 90 days after entering - is this not reducing legal immigration?  Mind you the ones that choose to AOS can still do it regardless of when they married. This just makes more people chose AOS rather than return home to do CP.

Now I don't know about you but why would some one chose a route that is more difficult when there is an easier route with more safe guards?  Anyway everyone has their own opinions - so you can wish more restrictions and some of us will wish for openness.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

5 minutes ago, azblk said:

it is obvious to me and anyone capable of critical thinking and not trying to win an argument than when you take something that has been normal/legal and make it more difficult/illegal, it reduces the numbers period.  In this case the people that you think are doing it the "right way" , those who choose  the CR-1 route can not get visas because they got married less than 90 days after entering - is this not reducing legal immigration?  Mind you the ones that choose to AOS can still do it regardless of when they married. This just makes more people chose AOS rather than return home to do CP.

Now I don't know about you but why would some one chose a route that is more difficult when there is an easier route with more safe guards?  Anyway everyone has their own opinions - so you can wish more restrictions and some of us will wish for openness.

Well what you think is obvious is obviously a moot point since you have quoted no sources nor brought forward any evidence is fact.

 

 

So you are thus labeled as #Fakenews

[azblk 338]

14 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Well what you think is obvious is obviously a moot point since you have quoted no sources nor brought forward any evidence is fact.

 

 

So you are thus labeled as #Fakenews

well what can i say to that ? its fake news because you don't like my reasoning or because I had no expert sources to cite? Logic seems to be in short supply around here sometimes.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

9 minutes ago, azblk said:

well what can i say to that ? its fake news because you don't like my reasoning or because I had no expert sources to cite? Logic seems to be in short supply around here sometimes.

No, I said it is fake news because you have BROUGHT NO SOURCES NOR ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE to back up your claim.

 

My logic is sound if you want to say something as a statement that you think is fact then bring forward evidence that it is in fact real.

[azblk 338]

21 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

No, I said it is fake news because you have BROUGHT NO SOURCES NOR ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE to back up your claim.

 

My logic is sound if you want to say something as a statement that you think is fact then bring forward evidence that it is in fact real.

Ok I will reword it.

 

In my opinion, The update to the FAM from 30/60/90 to just 90 is another attempt by this administration to reduce legal immigration.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

3 minutes ago, azblk said:

Ok I will reword it.

 

In my opinion, The update to the FAM from 30/60/90 to just 90 is another attempt by this administration to reduce legal immigration.

Thank you

[MyJourney 276]

On 6/4/2018 at 5:31 PM, Cyberfx1024 said:

So what I am reading is that you came here as a B2 tourist vida and then "suddenly" got married and did AOS.

What I am saying is it is none of anyone's business here in this forum or elsewhere why and how people decide to adjust their status while in the US. 

Adjustment of status is legal and your scrutiny is pointless and useless. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 minute ago, MyJourney said:

What I am saying is it is none of anyone's business here in this forum or elsewhere why and how people decide to adjust their status while in the US. 

Adjustment of status is legal and your scrutiny is pointless and useless. 

You should know this is a open forum if you want to come on here seeking advice then don't be surprised that people start asking questions.

[MyJourney 276]

3 hours ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

You should know this is a open forum if you want to come on here seeking advice then don't be surprised that people start asking questions.

Unsolicited fearmongering presented as "advise" is useless and pointless. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

10 minutes ago, MyJourney said:

Unsolicited fearmongering presented as "advise" is useless and pointless. 

How is that fearmongering?

[TBoneTX 45,329]

Folks, please stop the bickering.  Return to the topic.

[NikLR 13,227]

If someone can live with the lie they've told, knowing they've broken the law in a place they're planning to spend their life, that's on them. If they're caught in that lie later, I have zero sympathy.  

 

Yes people spontaneously decide to leave behind everything and AOS.  I completely believe there are plenty of irresponsible people in the world who are more than willing to do this.

 

Yes people also lie at POE.  They plan to stay but they say "Oh I'm visiting."  Suddenly the strain of being apart is too much and we can't be apart (meanwhile they've given notice, sold their things, quit their job etc...)

 

It's inevitably hard for the CBP to distinguish truth from not.  

 

Since the DOS doesn't have a say in visas after they're in someone's passport, the 30/60/90 rule is nothing more than an anecdote for the USCIS IO to use during adjudication and interview.  Should they be able to deny you for intent alone? IMHO yes, but the supreme court has ruled otherwise several times.  But it's helpful to remember they can also take away your green card and your citizenship if you have been found to have falsely acquired it.  

[NikLR 13,227]

FWIW I wish they would ban AOS from non-dual intent visas except for extenuating circumstances.  But the waitlist for every other petition would be so long due to budget cuts it would be ridiculous. 

[azblk 338]

On 6/10/2018 at 9:00 PM, NikLR said:

FWIW I wish they would ban AOS from non-dual intent visas except for extenuating circumstances.  But the waitlist for every other petition would be so long due to budget cuts it would be ridiculous. 

Why would that be? After all every applicant pays for their application. Since you have banned all AOS except from dual track visas then you dont need as many field offices or officers. Less applicants and less cases and resources needed.

[NikLR 13,227]

3 hours ago, azblk said:

Why would that be? After all every applicant pays for their application. Since you have banned all AOS except from dual track visas then you dont need as many field offices or officers. Less applicants and less cases and resources needed.

It's already backlogged.  When the main source of income is also gone, lay offs would be huge.  Field offices would close.  While there would be less applicants, that doesn't mean wait times improve, it generally means they stay the same or increase.  We have more service centers than ever but wait times have only increased exponentially.