Petition to include K1 filers as exemption from travel bans

[geowrian 22,337]

18 minutes ago, Manu8915 said:

And another thing, my fiancé is a Law Student, he found that the petition has a logic ratio.

What is a logic ratio?

(Legit not trying to nitpick...I honestly do not know what was meant by this sentence. Google shows nothing of the term either.)

Edited June 21, 2020 by geowrian

[OrihimeandIchigo 216]

Just now, JBF said:

I’m not trying to categorize fiances that way, I’m not trying to get any equal right as someone else said, and I’m not trying to waste my time. Considering how everyone, and obviously those with the spousal, are absolutely experts when it comes to K1s, it would be amazing if you could’ve provided constructive suggestions other than criticism. Someone did, most didn’t. Those with the spousal are simply not okay with the fact that fiancés are not immediate family, but could be considered as such eventually, as the DS states. And if you want to disagree, reread the thread. 

I'm not going to bother arguing with you, your valued to your opinion. You have to realize your petition your going to bat for is has wording issues. Your HURTING your cause because of your PRIDE over your defending this first petition. Know matter how you FEEL fiancees in the terms of the LAW are not immediate relatives and shouldn't be classified as such under US immigration and the US law. Your having a emotion response to this forums topic and you should just listen to what there saying. Stop letting your pride hurt your well intended cause. JUST petition against the EO ban and you wont be alienating HOW MANY people who would love to sign your NEW REWORDED petition to help love ones be together. 

 

Put your pride down and think of your cause. There's a BUNCH of members on this forum and your missing a great opportunity for them to join your cause to help you and many have said if you reword it they will help you. Best of Luck again I hope you make a new petition. 

[MaruMaru 76]

4 minutes ago, geowrian said:

What is a logic ratio?

(Legit not trying to nitpick...I honestly do not know what was meant by this sentance. Google shows nothing of the term either.)

Sorry, my english is not perfect and the rush got me wrong. He basically found substantially logic and rational our request. In the DS160 we have to provide a US immediate relative and the fiancé is one of the choices.

But, again, we do not want to make the K1 visa an equivalent of the Spouse process. We just want them - Consulates & Co - to recognise that being the K1 a family oriented visa...we should get exempted by the current travel ban.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Manu8915

[JBF 116]

2 minutes ago, OrihimeandIchigo said:

I'm not going to bother arguing with you, your valued to your opinion. You have to realize your petition your going to bat for is has wording issues. Your HURTING your cause because of your PRIDE over your defending this first petition. Know matter how you FEEL fiancees in the terms of the LAW are not immediate relatives and shouldn't be classified as such under US immigration and the US law. Your having a emotion response to this forums topic and you should just listen to what there saying. Stop letting your pride hurt your well intended cause. JUST petition against the EO ban and you wont be alienating HOW MANY people who would love to sign your NEW REWORDED petition to help love ones be together. 

 

Put your pride down and think of your cause. There's a BUNCH of members on this forum and your missing a great opportunity for them to join your cause to help you and many have said if you reword it they will help you. Best of Luck again I hope you make a new petition. 

This is not MY petition, first of all. It will be modified, by not by me, I haven’t created it. And yes, another petition can be created. But obviously no had suggested the person who has created the petition in the first place how, the only thing that people (with the spousal, again) have been able to say is that they don’t agree as we’re trying to categorize something, which is not what the petition is doing, obviously. And by the way, I don’t have any type of emotional response, the petition is not my concern. My problem is how people try to state something that is not being categorized, anyway. 

[Ela G. 389]

19 minutes ago, OrihimeandIchigo said:

But you are, your trying to categorize Fiancees as "immediate relatives" and immediate relatives are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. And for right reasons people disagree and they are allowed to voice that opinion on this forum and to tell them not to is against the rules of the forum. JUST. GO. MAKE. A. NEW. PETITION. Lordy

May I suggest you focus on your own case and move on? If you’re not going to help I don’t see why you’re here. Sure you’re free to give opinions (because that’s what they are, not even close to being facts) and whatnot but may I also suggest you have a glass of wine -or two- on this fine sunday?  

[MaruMaru 76]

5 minutes ago, OrihimeandIchigo said:

I'm not going to bother arguing with you, your valued to your opinion. You have to realize your petition your going to bat for is has wording issues. Your HURTING your cause because of your PRIDE over your defending this first petition. Know matter how you FEEL fiancees in the terms of the LAW are not immediate relatives and shouldn't be classified as such under US immigration and the US law. Your having a emotion response to this forums topic and you should just listen to what there saying. Stop letting your pride hurt your well intended cause. JUST petition against the EO ban and you wont be alienating HOW MANY people who would love to sign your NEW REWORDED petition to help love ones be together. 

 

Put your pride down and think of your cause. There's a BUNCH of members on this forum and your missing a great opportunity for them to join your cause to help you and many have said if you reword it they will help you. Best of Luck again I hope you make a new petition. 

I didn't create the petition as I would not probably have enough English proficiency to make one - and this can tell you about my big pride lol - 

If you think that it must be reworded, yes, I can accept this critic. What I do not understand is the haughtiness that sometimes seems to circulate in this thread.

[Quarknase 1,072]

1 hour ago, Manu8915 said:

I didn't create the petition as I would not probably have enough English proficiency to make one - and this can tell you about my big pride lol - 

If you think that it must be reworded, yes, I can accept this critic. What I do not understand is the haughtiness that sometimes seems to circulate in this thread.

The valid critic by others was formulated logically and trying to explain why this petition is highly likely to be thrown out, because of the invalid point it makes. Wording such as “immediate family member” in relation to a K1 makes the petition weak since all laws state otherwise. You are defending a thought process that is understood and acknowledged by everyone else (after all K1 is dual intent), but there was an attempt to HELP by pointing out the weakness. The petition can literally be responded to (if filed) with a sentence like “A fiancé is not considered immediate family under [insert law here]” - and that would be disappointing after thousands of signatures were collected, wouldn’t it?

Everyone here stated that they would happily sign a petition that requests K1 to be excempt. 

[JBF 116]

3 minutes ago, Quarknase said:

The valid critic by others was formulated logically and trying to explain why this petition is highly likely to be thrown out, because of the invalid point it makes. Wording such as “immediate family member” in relation to a K1 makes the petition weak since all laws state otherwise. You are defending a thought process that is understood and acknowledged by everyone else (after all K1 is dual intent), but there was an attempt to HELP by pointing out the weakness. The petition can literally be responded to (if filed) with a sentence like “A fiancé is not considered immediate family under [insert law here]” - and that would be disappointing after thousands of signatures were collected, wouldn’t it?

Everyone here stated that they would happily sign a petition that requests K1 to be excempt. 

That’s the request indeed, and the petition simply points out how fiancés are considered that way in certain circumstances, in my opinion. But it can and it will be modified, if that’s the problem that some have. But as I already said, the DS is released by the government, and states something specifically. You can read it again, if you need to. No one is trying to categorize fiancés, but simply make them be considered. 

[MaruMaru 76]

7 minutes ago, Quarknase said:

The valid critic by others was formulated logically and trying to explain why this petition is highly likely to be thrown out, because of the invalid point it makes. Wording such as “immediate family member” in relation to a K1 makes the petition weak since all laws state otherwise. You are defending a thought process that is understood and acknowledged by everyone else (after all K1 is dual intent), but there was an attempt to HELP by pointing out the weakness. The petition can literally be responded to (if filed) with a sentence like “A fiancé is not considered immediate family under [insert law here]” - and that would be disappointing after thousands of signatures were collected, wouldn’t it?

Everyone here stated that they would happily sign a petition that requests K1 to be excempt. 

Sure you can point out something that for you is not exactly right. But I don't see any lawyers around here so your opinion count like mine.

And seriously as a K1 beneficiary I don't really need your signatures guys nor you to understand what we are getting through. 
And I don't  really think that if the person edit the petition you would really sign it anyway so...

Why does this person have to edit and modify something that for K1s is very meaningful right now just because other people with completely different situations advised her on these changes(?)
It's okay, we can do what we are trying to without your support. We asked for the support of other K1 applicants actually

[Quarknase 1,072]

5 minutes ago, Manu8915 said:

Sure you can point out something that for you is not exactly right. But I don't see any lawyers around here so your opinion count like mine.

And seriously as a K1 beneficiary I don't really need your signatures guys nor you to understand what we are getting through. 
And I don't  really think that if the person edit the petition you would really sign it anyway so...

Why does this person have to edit and modify something that for K1s is very meaningful right now just because other people with completely different situations advised her on these changes(?)
It's okay, we can do what we are trying to without your support. We asked for the support of other K1 applicants actually

Pretty short sighted considering the amount of people you want to exclude from signing, but of course whatever you wish  Generally I think the common understanding in this forum is a bit more “we’re all in this together” regardless of a specific visa category. You’ve received very valuable recommendations from some of the most experienced and valued members in the forum (look at ratings if you care) and everyone meant well. I wish you all the best!

[JBF 116]

5 minutes ago, Quarknase said:

Pretty short sighted considering the amount of people you want to exclude from signing, but of course whatever you wish  Generally I think the common understanding in this forum is a bit more “we’re all in this together” regardless of a specific visa category. You’ve received very valuable recommendations from some of the most experienced and valued members in the forum (look at ratings if you care) and everyone meant well. I wish you all the best!

The petition will not reach the needed number, and even in that case the process is always long and not guaranteed. But it was something, definitely better than nothing. In the comments that have been posted I don’t see any kind of positive attitude, quite the opposite, except for very few. And then again, only from individuals that are not even doing the K1. I wonder why, but I already know the answer. 

Edited June 21, 2020 by JBF

[MaruMaru 76]

16 minutes ago, Quarknase said:

Pretty short sighted considering the amount of people you want to exclude from signing, but of course whatever you wish  Generally I think the common understanding in this forum is a bit more “we’re all in this together” regardless of a specific visa category. You’ve received very valuable recommendations from some of the most experienced and valued members in the forum (look at ratings if you care) and everyone meant well. I wish you all the best!

One thing is to help people  another one is trying to tear them down. I feel that everyone her is playing the role of "who knows more and better". Your post is friendly and I would have loved to have had people like you here....but it looks to me the opposite. I have always been a big fan of the spouses and their rights...it seems not mutual 

[E&W 146]

If so many people are getting confused by the wording of a petition and if so many people can interpret it in different ways the logical conclusion is that the petition is worded poorly and needs to be changed to achieve the intended goal. I doubt any official will come to the visa journey website to seek an explanation of what the petition wants to achieve and what the signees thought they were signing. They will just read it, see that it’s not clear and deny it.

Edited June 21, 2020 by E&W

[Crazy Cat 41,181]

5 hours ago, JBF said:

And again, the petition can be modified.

Changing a petition nullifies all existing signatures, does it not?  Anyway, it would have been better, imo,  just to petition that K-1 visa holders be excluded from any travel bans.  I certainly would agree with that.  I have seen no posts in this thread which argue that K-1 visa holders should be subject to the travel restrictions. The problem, in my opinion, is that the existing petition equates the wording on the form with actual immigration law regarding the definition of immediate relatives.  That creates a false argument which weakens the credibility of the entire document.....just my opinion.......good luck to everyone in this journey.

[JBF 116]

1 hour ago, Lucky Cat said:

Changing a petition nullifies all existing signatures, does it not?  Anyway, it would have been better, imo,  just to petition that K-1 visa holders be excluded from any travel bans.  I certainly would agree with that.  I have seen no posts in this thread which argue that K-1 visa holders should be subject to the travel restrictions. The problem, in my opinion, is that the existing petition equates the wording on the form with actual immigration law regarding the definition of immediate relatives.  That creates a false argument which weakens the credibility of the entire document.....just my opinion.......good luck to everyone in this journey.

This could be another version, before posting it if a few people would want to could say what they think, in order to avoid confusion and disagreements as it happened in the first petition. Is it clear enough? 
 

“Considering the hardships family members, and fiancés included, have been enduring during the last months due to Covid-19, this petition is aimed at asking that K1 visa applicants are recognized as exceptions in the bans that restrict traveling to the US, such as proclamation 9984, to reunite with their loved ones already in the country. 
Albeit the current law does not recognize fiancés as "immediate family members", this petition asks consideration for those people who are waiting to be officially recognized as such.
This exception would foster values that are at the core of the family foundation and impact positively thousands of future families.”