This is frustrating!

[SunflowerSweet 1,321]

9 minutes ago, zochu said:

I can if I wanted to enter on my tourist visa and adjust my status. 
 

Should I? No. That’s not the correct process. 
 

 

How do you know what I am passionate about by ONE post? 
 

there are many injustices within the Australian migration system too. 
 

you can be frustrated (or jealous) and you can be also be outraged of those injustices too. They are not mutually exclusive. You can be both, at the same time! 

 

And yes, I have not only studied lawyers ethics but I was the top of my class for that subject too. A feeling of frustration (or if you’d like to call it jealousy) does not mean that someone will not do their job ethically. 
 

where did you get your law degree from? 

I would consider frustration a pretty passionate emotion. Your first post definitely seemed passionate. 
 

In about 3 months I will have my JD from the UW of Wisconsin-Madison! I was also a legal assistant at an immigration form for 2 years during my undergrad. Right now I’m a Legal Assistant civil legal assistant. I do a lot of defensive cases, that’s how I know about the malpractice stuff
 

You may want to have a chat with Duke&Marie, by the way. Seems like you aren’t on the same page about which type of visa you had.

Edited February 21, 2020 by MorganandMichael

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

2 minutes ago, MorganandMichael said:

I would consider frustration a pretty passionate emotion. Your first post definitely seemed passionate. 
 

In about 3 months I will have my JD from the UW of Wisconsin-Madison! I was also a legal assistant at an immigration form for 2 years during my undergrad. 
 

You may want to have a chat with Duke&Marie, by the way. Seems like you aren’t on the same page about which type of visa you had.

Wisconsin -- lucky you! No need to sit for the bar. (I still have PTSD from the CA bar exam.) Congrats and best wishes for a successful end of your 3L year.

[SunflowerSweet 1,321]

1 minute ago, elmcitymaven said:

Wisconsin -- lucky you! No need to sit for the bar. (I still have PTSD from the CA bar exam.) Congrats and best wishes for a successful end of your 3L year.

Thank you! It honestly tipped my decision away from a slightly higher ranked law school. Well, that an the fact that I was born and raised here. One of my coworkers graduated from Berkeley last year and she’s told me some horror stories about the CA bar. I’m not sure I’d find the trade off of better weather too unfair though! I have some applications out for jobs in CA, actually! So I may end up dealing with it anyway.

[zochu 255]

7 minutes ago, MorganandMichael said:

I would consider frustration a pretty passionate emotion. Your first post definitely seemed passionate. 
 

In about 3 months I will have my JD from the UW of Wisconsin-Madison! I was also a legal assistant at an immigration form for 2 years during my undergrad. Right now I’m a Legal Assistant civil legal assistant. I do a lot of defensive cases, that’s how I know about the malpractice stuff
 

You may want to have a chat with Duke&Marie, by the way. Seems like you aren’t on the same page about which type of visa you had.

then if you’ve studied law also, even if it’s US law then you will know that you can be frustrated/jealous/passionate and still do your job and be ethical. I work with people in jail, you can be frustrated with them but you can still do your job ethically, without prejudice and within the confinements of the law that your bound by.

 

ive messaged her. 
 

[zochu 255]

7 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Wisconsin -- lucky you! No need to sit for the bar. (I still have PTSD from the CA bar exam.) Congrats and best wishes for a successful end of your 3L year.

I’ve heard the CA bar is the hardest in the US. 

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

2 minutes ago, MorganandMichael said:

Thank you! It honestly tipped my decision away from a slightly higher ranked law school. Well, that an the fact that I was born and raised here. One of my coworkers graduated from Berkeley last year and she’s told me some horror stories about the CA bar. I’m not sure I’d find the trade off of better weather too unfair though! I have some applications out for jobs in CA, actually! So I may end up dealing with it anyway.

It's terrible -- no lie. It's 10 weeks of Barbri hell. If you need to do it, don't try to work and prepare at the same time. I studied 8-10 hours a day, 7 days a week for 10 weeks. It really is just grinding it out and putting in the time.

 

Can't lie -- it was 71F here today and sunny. Just sayin'.  

 

5 minutes ago, zochu said:

I’ve heard the CA bar is the hardest in the US. 

It is its own special circle of hell and damnation. Which is a perfect place for lawyers to be born.

[SalishSea 17,823]

55 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

I think we all need a little gin/whisky/champagne/Ativan timeout here. It is Friday after all.

As we say in the business......aerosolized Ativan for all.....

[SalishSea 17,823]

51 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

By way of explanation, my mini-liquor cabinet is here because my condo was tented for termites the other week.

Sounds like you saved the most important items from your condo ;-)

[SunflowerSweet 1,321]

44 minutes ago, zochu said:

then if you’ve studied law also, even if it’s US law then you will know that you can be frustrated/jealous/passionate and still do your job and be ethical. I work with people in jail, you can be frustrated with them but you can still do your job ethically, without prejudice and within the confinements of the law that your bound by.
 

Yeah, that’s exactly what I was saying I hope you do, so that’s good! My example was for the people who seemed confused as to why letting your beliefs impact the level of service you give to a particular person could be considered malpractice. This shows you understand that just fine.

[geowrian 22,337]

I found it kind of funny that at least one individual who did knowingly come to the US with intent to stay, knowing it was fraud beforehand, posted ITT. I certainly won't name names as I don't want to violate the TOS with what may be perceived as a personal attack. It's just an interesting observation on that individual's/those individual's thoughts.

I will just explicitly say that it was not referring to anybody quoted below...I don't want anybody to think my opinions on these matters is implying something that was never intended, nor for people to assume or guess anybody in particular, or to go OT.

 

(whew...vagueness is a real challenge for me!)

 

11 hours ago, OrihimeandIchigo said:

I just dont see how thats legal in any way to go from tourist visa to AOS. It seems pretty oblivious stupid to me and wouldn't they be unlawfully present waiting for the I-130 to be approved it seems like a dumb idea if you ask me to go that route why do they do that?

Filing for AOS (the I-485, not just the I-130) grants a period of authorized stay. So it would not be an issue to stay until the I-485 is adjudicated, which is what grants the green card upon approval.

 

10 hours ago, Lemonslice said:

I don't care one bit if others did, or are adjusting status. It's currently a perfectly legal pathway offered to those who entered with a non immigrant intent.  My personal opinion is that immediate family reunification should be as easy as possible, and I wish more people could be together in a fast and efficient manner - if that means expanding AOS eligibility, or other inland process, I am all for it.  

15 minutes ago, Orangesapples said:

Then why wouldn't the solution be to make it easier for more people instead of make it's harder for all? I like the Canadian system where you can enter on a tourist visa with an intent to AOS based on marriage. Just because something is then law/rule doesn't make it right. Laws often don't make sense. 

A few thoughts...not directly related to what is quoted, but I needed somewhere to start:

 

1) It is the law today. Regardless of one's personal opinions if it should or should not be the case, that does not justify accepting that it occurs. If it's not permitted, it should have a meaningful and equal consequence for everybody. Focus on changing the law if it's wrong, not letting some people bypass it.

(Note: The bolded section above is key. People who did actually enter w/o immigrant intent is a different set of circumstances than what I believe the majority of the discussion here is about.)

 

2) It promotes a class-like system. From a VWP country? You can be with your relative quickly. Are you pretty well off (more likely to get a B visa)? Come on it - no wait. From a less fortunate country? Don't have a job, or a great job? Well, you'll probably need to wait.

The obvious counter-argument is that's basically what we have today. Many people do just come in and abuse the system in place today. Some countries have extended AP and already take much longer. Some countries have very long waits for an appointment.

They're all good points, but it would exacerbate and legitimize the problem IMO. For me, it's one thing to say "there's effectively a class system in part because because people commit fraud and get away with it", but another to say "there's a class system and the system is working as designed". The goal should be to have a fairer process, not a change that just benefits some people more than others.

 

3) One thought often discussed to address this is to extend a visa to anyone who has an IV number available at the time (PD is current, such as all IRs) allowing them to AOS.

However, this solution may promote marriage fraud. How many K-1 and IV refusals do we see already (of which it is unknown how many are actually fraud)? How many people discovered fraud mid-process? It's not rare by any means, but not the norm either.

If they had the ability to come and AOS right away, what would happen when the fraud was discovered? People committing fraud aren't exactly keen on just going home when their first path to AOS is gone. I would not be surprised if many people would marry solely to get the visa to come into the US and immediately vanish off the map (not even seeing their spouse in the US once).

It's all a nasty circle. It's accepting that more fraud and overstays would occur for a shorter wait. Is that a good idea? It's not such a simple answer IMHO. Numbers matter if it's an effective design or not, and that's a huge unknown.

 

4) One of the reasons why Canada's in-country AOS system can work is due to both 1) how they handle immigration violations, and 2) the number of people violating status to begin with. Essentially, it's not nearly as well tolerated and they have so, so, so many fewer people in the country illegally than the US. Hard numbers are not available, but estimates are dwarfed by that of the US.

In the US, people overstay for decades fine. Some overstay just waiting until they can find a way to immigrate (i.e. via marriage). If they are found, it can take years before they are actually removed. We have large areas where there is very little risk of being caught (sanctuary cities being the obvious implication).

This isn't to suggest any particular action. That's not the point. It's just pointing out that their system works for their circumstances. Applying it to the US is a different beast...so much so that it is reasonable to believe it may not actually work the same way, or how the consequences of it would be considerably different.

 

6 hours ago, MorganandMichael said:

I don't have a certain moral philosophy camp that I'm 100% in, but I've always been partial to utilitarianism/consequentialism. There are a lot of variations to this, but essentially it means I believe that something is moral if it's net good outweighs it's net bad. There are times where this can get a little murky which is why I say I don't commit 100%, but I don't believe this is one of those times.

Scary

 

5 hours ago, MorganandMichael said:

Now your an immigration attorney. Someone pays you for a consultation, tells you they are here on a tourist visa and things got serious with their partner and they want to stay and adjust. You may have your own suspicions about their intent, but you’re and experienced legal professional and you know that they were already judged by a border official and admitted as a tourist. Do you ignore their questions? Do you give them misleading info about getting in trouble for “fraud”, having their AOS denied, etc (fear monger) in an attempt to steer them away from it? Do you question their legitimacy and make accusations? Do you straight up refuse to help them?

The number of immigration attorneys advising about the "90-day rule" and why they need an attorney because of it would certainly imply there is no shortage of bad & misleading immigration advice. 😆

[SunflowerSweet 1,321]

39 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

It's terrible -- no lie. It's 10 weeks of Barbri hell. If you need to do it, don't try to work and prepare at the same time. I studied 8-10 hours a day, 7 days a week for 10 weeks. It really is just grinding it out and putting in the time.

 

Can't lie -- it was 71F here today and sunny. Just sayin'.  

 

The wind chill dipped into the 20 below range here this week

 

Realistically better weather won’t solve all my problems, but I just *know* I’d be a happier person. 

[SunflowerSweet 1,321]

5 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Scary

 

The number of immigration attorneys advising about the "90-day rule" and why they need an attorney because of it would certainly imply there is no shortage of bad & misleading immigration advice. 😆

You'll have to take that up with John Stuart Mill. As I said, it's not something I follow 100%, just seemed relevant in this case. There are plenty of awful examples, a lot of laws put into place for "public safety" that unjustly target a few under the guise of making things safer for the many. I don't think that's the case here though.

 

There was that user recently who posted a link about the 90 day rule. He was also in the camp of scaring off tourist to AOS, even though he did it himself...

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

19 minutes ago, MorganandMichael said:

The wind chill dipped into the 20 below range here this week

 

Realistically better weather won’t solve all my problems, but I just *know* I’d be a happier person. 

My dark heart likes this weather enough, but would be happier in the gloom. (I lived in the UK for a dozen years -- it is writ upon my soul at this point.) We're just putting in our time in SoCal before decamping to the Pacific Northwest.

9 minutes ago, MorganandMichael said:

There was that user recently who posted a link about the 90 day rule. He was also in the camp of scaring off tourist to AOS, even though he did it himself...

I have been around here for approximately 80,000 years, and I recall a user who was a VWP overstay for about 20 years (!) before AOSing. He then proceeded to malign everyone who wanted to AOS from a tourist visa for cheating the system. Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.

[Orangesapples 1,954]

11 minutes ago, geowrian said:

 

 

1) It is the law today. Regardless of one's personal opinions if it should or should not be the case, that does not justify accepting that it occurs. If it's not permitted, it should have a meaningful and equal consequence for everybody. Focus on changing the law if it's wrong, not letting some people bypass it. 

I don't get my guidance on morality based on arbitrary laws and I don't really care if someone else breaks some red tape nonsensical laws. I think it's OK for people to break stupid laws and I don't understand some people's rigidity. 

[DeParaquedasBrasi 228]

3 hours ago, Cryssiekins said:

I would say AOS from non-immigrant should only be allowed within a very narrow scope of circumstances, but simply being LUCKY enough to be admitted in as a non-USC and then just deciding “out of the blue” to stay should be scrapped. 
 

Also, is birthright citizenship still a thing?  I thought that was gone long ago.  

A woman who is in her ninth month of pregnancy can fly into any POE and bluntly say she wants to give birth in America to the CBP as long as she has proof of funds to pay for it and will be allowed to enter. It is completely legal.