Family separated by immigration policies

[homesick_american 1]

I find it more appaling how she was tricked to leave the country, the USCIS ows its citizens if not the immigrants to spell out its decision without trickery

I don't see that she was tricked at all. How was she tricked?

She was told "Your K-3 is waiting in Japan, go for the interview!" and when they got her there said "Oh, you now have a ten-year ban on re-entry. Sucker."

That is not the impression I got from the article. My husband has a spouse visa and it was a two-step process. After our I-130 was approved we got a letter saying our 'petition' had been approved as well. I'm willing to bet money that that is the letter she got. That's not trickery; that's them being stupid.

[Fandango 1,439]

The thing that REALLY chaps my hide is that illegal immigrants will protest on how they want health insurance, etc and the gov't does sweet f.a. about it.

[LaL 418]

I find it more appaling how she was tricked to leave the country, the USCIS ows its citizens if not the immigrants to spell out its decision without trickery

I don't see that she was tricked at all. How was she tricked?

She was told "Your K-3 is waiting in Japan, go for the interview!" and when they got her there said "Oh, you now have a ten-year ban on re-entry. Sucker."

That is not the impression I got from the article. My husband has a spouse visa and it was a two-step process. After our I-130 was approved we got a letter saying our 'petition' had been approved as well. I'm willing to bet money that that is the letter she got. That's not trickery; that's them being stupid.

actually what Caladan stated is exactly what they thought. they thought that *approval* NOA was showing them the light at the end of the tunnel... not knowing that 99% show an approval at that stage.

[homesick_american 1]

I find it more appaling how she was tricked to leave the country, the USCIS ows its citizens if not the immigrants to spell out its decision without trickery

I don't see that she was tricked at all. How was she tricked?

She was told "Your K-3 is waiting in Japan, go for the interview!" and when they got her there said "Oh, you now have a ten-year ban on re-entry. Sucker."

That is not the impression I got from the article. My husband has a spouse visa and it was a two-step process. After our I-130 was approved we got a letter saying our 'petition' had been approved as well. I'm willing to bet money that that is the letter she got. That's not trickery; that's them being stupid.

actually what Caladan stated is exactly what they thought. they thought that *approval* NOA was showing them the light at the end of the tunnel... not knowing that 99% show an approval at that stage.

What the hell is NOA?

[ivona 0]

I find it more appaling how she was tricked to leave the country, the USCIS ows its citizens if not the immigrants to spell out its decision without trickery

I don't see that she was tricked at all. How was she tricked?

from the article: "According to Keith, the form letter and conversations with U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) officials led the family to believe receipt of a visa changing Akiko’s immigration status to permanent was a “forgone conclusion.”"

NOA is Notice of Action

[akdiver 3]

The punishment HAS to be harsh, otherwise people will just do what they want and take their chances! Really, if it were say, a $100 fine for getting caught, who on earth would not break the law and try to get away with it. A $100 is nothing!! So, then you make the fine $1000. Is that enough? I'd still chance it. So would a lot of other people. Make the fine $10,000? Is that enough? It's enough to make me no longer willing to chance it, but a lot of other people would. Now let's talk bans. Is 1 year enough? 5? 10?

The punishment has to be enough of a deterrent to be effective.

It's worth pointing out here that the kids are not banned - they're U.S. citizens. They can come any time they want. If this little family chooses to have them live in Japan, that's up to them, but don't pin it on USCIS. And also, and no one seems to be addressing this point, the husband here can always choose to go live with his wife outside the U.S. He has that option. If he doesn't choose it, again, do not pin it on USCIS.

Now, what IS a fair criticism is that all these illegals coming in from Mexico are caught and then released back into Mexico, with no punishment, so they can just try again and again. That is unreasonable. They should at least be tortured or throw in jail for a year. That would at least slow them down. I would sentence them all to jail for 2 years, with no parole, but allow them to earn early release by working in "the fields" for a year, for free. The farmers could then pay the prison system what they would be paying the illegals. It would ensure a steady supply of cheap labour for the farmers, provide some punishment, and help offset the cost of this program.

I would still mine the border too.

Cheers!

AKDiver

Edited April 12, 2007 by akdiver

[ivona 0]

They should at least be tortured or throw in jail for a year. That would at least slow them down. I would sentence them all to jail for 2 years, with no parole, but allow them to earn early release by working in "the fields" for a year, for free. The farmers could then pay the prison system what they would be paying the illegals. It would ensure a steady supply of cheap labour for the farmers, provide some punishment, and help offset the cost of this program.

I would still mine the border too.

Cheers!

AKDiver

How can you finish that statement with cheers! :blink:

[meauxna 15]

(is there a visajourney in 1998? lots of pdfs of info? a nice website?),

The original Fiance Visa discussion group was on Usenet & called alt.visa.us.marriage-based. It started in 1998 (the FAQ here originated there, explaining the layout). Before that, the group met/discussed in alt.visa.us

Back then, there were dozens of user-made websites describing the process in painful detail.

[akdiver 3]

How can you finish that statement with cheers! :blink:

With great ease, I assure you.

Cheers!

AKDiver

[pj1959us 0]

(is there a visajourney in 1998? lots of pdfs of info? a nice website?),

The original Fiance Visa discussion group was on Usenet & called alt.visa.us.marriage-based. It started in 1998 (the FAQ here originated there, explaining the layout). Before that, the group met/discussed in alt.visa.us

Back then, there were dozens of user-made websites describing the process in painful detail.

Whether there was an immigration site back then is moot...there has been a dictionary to define "fiance" and "fiancee" for a very very long time. Maybe I'm just too fed up with "oh poor me" stories, but it is difficult to have much sympathy for those that cause their own problems and then want cheese served with their w(h)ine.

[Caladan 19]

I have sympathy because it's a sucky situation to be in, and I don't find the fact that I'm doing it legally to be a good reason to heap moral opprobrium on someone. I haven't made those mistakes, but I could see how an otherwise honest person would figure either that they were okay because they were marrying the person they had applied for the visa for (i.e., spirit of the law, and 99% of the time, your gut is a good guideline) or that whatever the penalties were, they wouldn't be that big. I would not be at all surprised to find out that he had a lawyer tell him it wasn't a big deal. (How often does that happen with the 'marriage on a tourist visa' question?)

IMO, the real problem is that this wasn't caught at the interview or the border, because it would have been an easy fix. Or if they'd caught up with her earlier. It's hard to tell from the article, but it doesn't seem that she's accrued any penalty except a ban for an overstay, and it would have been a lot easier to remedy that back in 1998 than now.

[akdiver 3]

but I could see how an otherwise honest person would figure either that they were okay because they were marrying the person they had applied for the visa for (i.e., spirit of the law, and 99% of the time, your gut is a good guideline) or that whatever the penalties were, they wouldn't be that big.

This logic is just so flawed!!! The rules on the application CLEARLY STATE the requirements for this visa. It's crystal. Nowhere in there is there even a HINT of "well, you can marry them before you come and that is OK". Any such impression is just pure fantasy.

They knew what they were doing and they deserve to be punished for it. Next case.

Cheers!

sw

[Niels Bohr 72]

Back then, there were dozens of user-made websites describing the process in painful detail.

Didn't know it was painful.

[homesick_american 1]

I find it more appaling how she was tricked to leave the country, the USCIS ows its citizens if not the immigrants to spell out its decision without trickery

I don't see that she was tricked at all. How was she tricked?

from the article: "According to Keith, the form letter and conversations with U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) officials led the family to believe receipt of a visa changing Akiko’s immigration status to permanent was a “forgone conclusion.”"

NOA is Notice of Action

I don't see how they could have interpreted the letter as an approval, and they should know better than to take anything for granted until the visa is in hand.

I'm sorry...they are idiots.

[dionesiamn 0]

Think about it - this couple had to have lied THREE times to immigration officials.

1. When she entered the U.S. (Hawaii) to get married, she would have had to do that with a visitor visa. Had she been honest that she was in the U.S. for her wedding she would not have been allowed.

2. Back in Japan at her interview she did not disclose to the interviewer that she was already married or she would have been denied again!

3. When she ultimately came to the mainland with a fiancee visa in hand - what was she thinking then?

They KNEW not to disclose anything about a wedding. They were just circumventing the system and they knew it. Their only legitimate "mistake" was in planning an expensive wedding without a visa in hand - everything

else they did afterwards was calculated and meant to deceive.

And the government did not trick her. To get a K3 visa you must be in your home country. Those are the rules and they gave them to her straight. Despite what anyone may think the letters that are sent out regarding these matters are form letters just like everyone else gets. In the scheme of immigration this is too small a matter to craft any conspiracy on. And had it been a conspiracy to get her out of the country, I feel assured that NO one at the embassy in Japan told them that the government "tricks people to get them out of the country." No one is risking an embassy job to say that.

You can feel sorry for them, that's okay, but as for me? I'm tired of hearing stories of people using up the time of our government officals when they could be spending more time helping those of you who are doing things

the right way!