Can a pregnant fiancée be granted a k1visa?

[no name 1]

Some people never learn....

[Yodrak 7]

fwaguy,

I explained what I meant by 'many' in the context of my post - "it means enough to be a noticeable phenomenon." It seems that many people either missed that bit of information or didn't want the facts to interfere with what they preferred to believe.

I agree with you that no matter what word I used the reaction would be the same. So I wonder why the stark contrast in the reaction to what has been posted in this thread. Women who keep a boyfriend on the side and get pregant by him while they're waiting to get a visa to go to the USA and marry their fiance are so much more socially acceptable than ex-prostitutes that it's not an insult to be labeled such a woman?

Whoa!

Yodrak

garya,

I didn't say "all" either, not in this thread nor in the other thread.

.....

Yodrak

True Yodrak eventhough you did not say "all", but you did say "many" and the American Heritage dictionary defines many as a large indefinite number: majority.

I suspect that regardless of the word all, most or many, the resulting firestorm would not have been any different.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Yodrak

[no name 1]

fwaguy,

I explained what I meant by 'many' in the context of my post - "it means enough to be a noticeable phenomenon."

I agree with you that no matter what word I used the reaction would be the same. So I wonder why the stark contrast in the reaction to what has been posted in this thread. Women who keep a boyfriend on the side and get pregant by him while they're waiting to get a visa to go to the USA and marry their fiance are so much more socially acceptable than ex-prostitutes that it's not an insult to be labeled such a woman?

Whoa!

Yodrak

garya,

I didn't say "all" either, not in this thread nor in the other thread.

.....

Yodrak

True Yodrak eventhough you did not say "all", but you did say "many" and the American Heritage dictionary defines many as a large indefinite number: majority.

I suspect that regardless of the word all, most or many, the resulting firestorm would not have been any different.

No one labelled the OP's cousin.

You did label PI K visa seekers.

Edit: We have no idea if the OP's cousin's fiance was recently in the PIs or not so let's stop jumping to comculsions.

Edited August 14, 2007 by devilette

[smoke20 0]

yordak: the problem people were having w/ that other thread is you never admitted the comment was questionable. we all read what your post said. "many" was the word you used. if you would have showed a little bit of grief or understanding that it may have been offensive...."maybe i worded that wrong"..."didn't mean to offend" would have cooled peoples fire. but, you didn't you went into defense mode. telling everyone the difference between all-many-most. & you're doing it again today.

just admit it: you made a questionable comment in the heat of the moment, nothing wrong with it. we all do it.

I'm sticking with this response.

Following is the winning entry from an annual contest calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term.

.

This year's term: Political Correctness.

.

And the winning definition is:

"Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a ####### by the clean end."

the following is from dictionary.com:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source

smug - 1. contentedly confident of one's ability, superiority, or correctness; complacent.

this is from encarta: smug (adj)

Synonyms: self-satisfied, superior, self-righteous, arrogant, conceited, full of yourself, haughty, complacent, self-assured

Antonym: humble

[Yodrak 7]

smoke,

I don't believe the comment I made was questionable. Nor was it made in the heat of the moment - there was no 'heat' at the point in the thread where the comment was made. Mister Fancypants' historical summary of the issue, provided by his Fillipina wife, demonstrates that there is a valid basis for the comment. As well as put the proper perspective on the issue, which other posters did not.

So, you're OK with putting forth the proposition that many Fillipinas keep boyfriends on the side, and some get pregnant by them, while waiting to immigrate to the USA and marry their fiances, but you're not OK with putting forth the proposition that many Fillipinas who are ex-prostitutes hook up with foreign men to emigrate? Being associated with the former is OK, while being associated with the latter is not?

Interesting.

Yodrak

yordak: the problem people were having w/ that other thread is you never admitted the comment was questionable. we all read what your post said. "many" was the word you used. if you would have showed a little bit of grief or understanding that it may have been offensive...."maybe i worded that wrong"..."didn't mean to offend" would have cooled peoples fire. but, you didn't you went into defense mode. telling everyone the difference between all-many-most. & you're doing it again today.

just admit it: you made a questionable comment in the heat of the moment, nothing wrong with it. we all do it.

[no name 1]

smoke,

I don't believe the comment I made was questionable. Nor was it made in the heat of the moment - there was no 'heat' at the point in the thread where the comment was made. Mister Fancypants' historical summary of the issue, provided by his Fillipina wife, demonstrates that there is a valid basis for the comment. As well as put the proper perspective on the issue, which other posters did not.

So, you're OK with putting forth the proposition that many Fillipinas keep boyfriends on the side, and some get pregnant by them, while waiting to immigrate to the USA and marry their fiances, but you're not OK with putting forth the proposition that many Fillipinas who are ex-prostitutes hook up with foreign men to emigrate? Being associated with the former is OK, while being associated with the latter is not?

Interesting.

Yodrak

One Filipina + one blanket statement does not give 'perspective'.

Edited August 14, 2007 by devilette

[payxibka 10,045]

smoke,

I don't believe the comment I made was questionable. Nor was it made in the heat of the moment - there was no 'heat' at the point in the thread where the comment was made. Mister Fancypants' historical summary of the issue, provided by his Fillipina wife, demonstrates that there is a valid basis for the comment. As well as put the proper perspective on the issue, which other posters did not.

I think if you re-read Steven's post he says that there may have been at one time a basis for that comment but that basis is long gone (Subic Bay ceased operating in November 1992).

[Yodrak 7]

devilette,

No one labelled the OP's cousin.

True

You did label PI K visa seekers.

And someone else also labeled PI K visa seekers:

"Manila COs know that its not unusual for fiancees to have secret boyfriends, and some arrive in the US pregnant by the boyfriend."

Edit: We have no idea if the OP's cousin's fiance was recently in the PIs or not so let's stop jumping to comculsions.

No one is making any comment about the OP's cousin herself. Someone has pointed out an issue that is of concern to consular officers in Manilla, because it is a phenomenon that occurs in the Philippines.

Yodrak

[smoke20 0]

smoke,

I don't believe the comment I made was questionable. Nor was it made in the heat of the moment - there was no 'heat' at the point in the thread where the comment was made. Mister Fancypants' historical summary of the issue, provided by his Fillipina wife, demonstrates that there is a valid basis for the comment. As well as put the proper perspective on the issue, which other posters did not.

So, you're OK with putting forth the proposition that many Fillipinas keep boyfriends on the side, and some get pregnant by them, while waiting to immigrate to the USA and marry their fiances, but you're not OK with putting forth the proposition that many Fillipinas who are ex-prostitutes hook up with foreign men to emigrate? Being associated with the former is OK, while being associated with the latter is not?

Interesting.

Yodrak

yordak: the problem people were having w/ that other thread is you never admitted the comment was questionable. we all read what your post said. "many" was the word you used. if you would have showed a little bit of grief or understanding that it may have been offensive...."maybe i worded that wrong"..."didn't mean to offend" would have cooled peoples fire. but, you didn't you went into defense mode. telling everyone the difference between all-many-most. & you're doing it again today.

just admit it: you made a questionable comment in the heat of the moment, nothing wrong with it. we all do it.

no, i'm not ok w/ either. YOU brought up the thread from the other day. i explained my stance & others opinion.

like it or not: you are a mod....you are held to a higher standard. but, it seems you feel being a mod gives you the ok to say whatever you feel like saying. I DO NOT.

Edited August 14, 2007 by smoke20

[Yodrak 7]

fwaguy,

Yes, the nightlife industry may no longer be what it once was when the military bases were there, but it still exists, fueled by tourists. And if you re-read Steven's post you will see that he said as much. Wikipedia identifies Angeles City as one of the top sex tourist destinations in the world.

Yodrak

smoke,

I don't believe the comment I made was questionable. Nor was it made in the heat of the moment - there was no 'heat' at the point in the thread where the comment was made. Mister Fancypants' historical summary of the issue, provided by his Fillipina wife, demonstrates that there is a valid basis for the comment. As well as put the proper perspective on the issue, which other posters did not.

I think if you re-read Steven's post he says that there may have been at one time a basis for that comment but that basis is long gone (Subic Bay ceased operating in November 1992).

[no name 1]

And someone else also labeled PI K visa seekers:

"Manila COs know that its not unusual for fiancees to have secret boyfriends, and some arrive in the US pregnant by the boyfriend."

Nowhere in that statement does it say MANY.

I think there's other posts in here that should be of more concern than mine. I didn't post any deifnitions, did I?

[pushbrk 12,882]

fwaguy,

I explained what I meant by 'many' in the context of my post - "it means enough to be a noticeable phenomenon."

I agree with you that no matter what word I used the reaction would be the same. So I wonder why the stark contrast in the reaction to what has been posted in this thread. Women who keep a boyfriend on the side and get pregant by him while they're waiting to get a visa to go to the USA and marry their fiance are so much more socially acceptable than ex-prostitutes that it's not an insult to be labeled such a woman?

Whoa!

Yodrak

garya,

I didn't say "all" either, not in this thread nor in the other thread.

.....

Yodrak

True Yodrak eventhough you did not say "all", but you did say "many" and the American Heritage dictionary defines many as a large indefinite number: majority.

I suspect that regardless of the word all, most or many, the resulting firestorm would not have been any different.

No one labelled the OP's cousin.

You did label PI K visa seekers.

Edit: We have no idea if the OP's cousin's fiance was recently in the PIs or not so let's stop jumping to comculsions.

No one labeled PI visa seekers either. An accurate term was used to describe a subset of female PI visa seekers and then others became offended by the use of the accurate terminology

Back to the visa subject, getting pregnant by one's boyfriend while going through the visa process as a fiance of another man is not grounds for visa denial, as long as the fiance knows and accepts the circumstances.

Being a former prostitute may be grounds for visa denial.

Both sets of circumstances are common enough in the PI that the number of visa seekers in those circumstances can accurately be described as "many". This is not exclusive to the PI but that's the instant relevant context.

These facts can exist without knowledge of them or attention being called to them, resulting in insult to even the people who fit in those subsets, much less others who don't or are fiances of those who don't.

[no name 1]

No one labeled PI visa seekers either. An accurate term was used to describe a subset of female PI visa seekers and then others became offended by the use of the accurate terminology

Back to the visa subject, getting pregnant by one's boyfriend while going through the visa process as a fiance of another man is not grounds for visa denial, as long as the fiance knows and accepts the circumstances.

Being a former prostitute may be grounds for visa denial.

Both sets of circumstances are common enough in the PI that the number of visa seekers in those circumstances can accurately be described as "many". This is not exclusive to the PI but that's the instant relevant context.

Links?

[Yodrak 7]

smoke,

no, i'm not ok w/ either.

But you haven't voiced any objection to it, no "#######"?

.....

like it or not: you are a mod....you are held to a higher standard. but, it seems you feel being a mod gives you the ok to say whatever you feel like saying. I DO NOT.

I am a VJ member, and I do have the right to express my opinions (within the bounds of the TOS) the same as any other VJ member.

Yodrak

[pushbrk 12,882]

And someone else also labeled PI K visa seekers:

"Manila COs know that its not unusual for fiancees to have secret boyfriends, and some arrive in the US pregnant by the boyfriend."

Nowhere in that statement does it say MANY.

I think there's other posts in here that should be of more concern than mine. I didn't post any deifnitions, did I?

"Many" is a four letter word but it is not a dirty word. This reminds me of the guy who was censured for using the accurate term "niggardly" (meaning stingy) because others, ignorant of the meaning, were offended. Those people would be extremely uncomfortable listening to a conversation in Mandarin.

If something is common among PI visa seekers then since the full set constitutes a great many people, then any common subset includes "many" people, including the subset of angelic darlings.

Edited August 14, 2007 by pushbrk