A request

[TracyTN 237]

I really like when someone quotes the laws, it is very clear then. Even the experienced people here have posted incorrect information.

I definitely agree with you!!!!

I think ALL of us can (or should) admit to having posted incorrect information before. I know I have, which is why (as I said earlier) I make a conscious effort to revisit the thread where I can see if I have been corrected, or if I got a fact/nuance wrong. That will help me to be sure I get it right next time around.

I didn't start this thread to point fingers at any person or 'group' (newbies vs. oldsters) - I started it because I think we ALL need to take a second and think about what and how we post (meaning being more cognizant of 'drive by posting', etc and so on). Its good to remember that the answer you post may well directly impact someone's life - and surely we want that impact to be positive rather than negative.

If that wasn't clear in what I've said here, then I need to learn some new communications skills.

[StillThePrettiest 3]

it was clear

your communication's pretty up to the mark as far as I'm concerned

[~*Maria*~ 1]

very clear

[rebeccajo 14]

And often those who don't understand the details and how the system works post links to laws that are not relevant to the issue.

And you think you understand the details of how the system works well enough that you don't need to post links for arguments that you cannot support with law?

I was hoping we could all play nice so maybe the thread could be pinned to help new members.

[kitkat1 5]

And often those who don't understand the details and how the system works post links to laws that are not relevant to the issue.

And you think you understand the details of how the system works well enough that you don't need to post links for arguments that you cannot support with law?

I was hoping we could all play nice so maybe the thread could be pinned to help new members.

No bother RJ. PatientlyWaiting is confused about the requirements for a K1 to get a SS card vs. the requirements for a K1 to work. Apparently he thinks that by posting links to the SSA information, he has proven his point. But sadly, not true.

[Dr_LHA 3]

The trouble with quoting the law, is that we're not lawyers. I've read and re-read sections of the INA trying to understand them. The fact is that as I'm not a lawyer I'm just not used to the weird language that they use in laws. Its too easy for someone to misinterpret legalese, which is why I'm against posting this stuff really.

I mean, how many flame wars have we had with people who we know are wrong, but the just keep responding by throwing random links to legal documents in our faces, as if that proves a point. Kitkat's example of PatientlyWaiting's recent post being a good example, but by no means the worst.

I remember a particular case where someone who claimed to be a law student decided that the INA said it was perfectly OK for them to come into the USA as a tourist, get married, go on their honeymoon abroad, then return on as a tourist and file AOS because they were Canadian and Canadians didn't need visas! They had the legal text to prove it too! (all misinterpreted of course).

Sometimes "lay" experience is better than trying to interpret the law, because unless you're qualified to do so, you'll most likely misinterpret it. People spend their entire lives debating how laws should be interpreted, what we have is direct experience of how USCIS actually interprets the law. That is more important IMHO than the text of the law itself.

[kitkat1 5]

The trouble with quoting the law, is that we're not lawyers. I've read and re-read sections of the INA trying to understand them. The fact is that as I'm not a lawyer I'm just not used to the weird language that they use in laws. Its too easy for someone to misinterpret legalese, which is why I'm against posting this stuff really.

I mean, how many flame wars have we had with people who we know are wrong, but the just keep responding by throwing random links to legal documents in our faces, as if that proves a point. Kitkat's example of PatientlyWaiting's recent post being a good example, but by no means the worst.

I remember a particular case where someone who claimed to be a law student decided that the INA said it was perfectly OK for them to come into the USA as a tourist, get married, go on their honeymoon abroad, then return on as a tourist and file AOS because they were Canadian and Canadians didn't need visas! They had the legal text to prove it too! (all misinterpreted of course).

Sometimes "lay" experience is better than trying to interpret the law, because unless you're qualified to do so, you'll most likely misinterpret it. People spend their entire lives debating how laws should be interpreted, what we have is direct experience of how USCIS actually interprets the law. That is more important IMHO than the text of the law itself.

[Yodrak 7]

Dr_LHA,

Very true. At our level we need to stick with the USCIS and DOS interpretations of the law as given in their instructions, guidelines, and manuals. If we run into problems there and it's necessary to go back to the underlying law to resolve the issues that's what lawyers are for.

Yodrak

The trouble with quoting the law, is that we're not lawyers. ....

[Sheriff Uling 3]

...Sometimes "lay" experience is better than trying to interpret the law, because unless you're qualified to do so, you'll most likely misinterpret it. People spend their entire lives debating how laws should be interpreted, what we have is direct experience of how USCIS actually interprets the law. That is more important IMHO than the text of the law itself.

Very true!

As previously stated, this is not a legal site for immigration policy nor is intended as such and users/members should research the information provided. However, this site provides users/members the means to discuss and share information concerning the immigration process or other topics as desired. Visajourney.com is not intended as legal counsel nor is a subsitute for legal representation. Unfortunately, I doubt if many new members or users will read this thread. What a pity!

Cheers!!!

Sheriff Uling

p.s. Besides the TOS, is there a VJ Charter or Mission Statement?

[Dr_LHA 3]

p.s. Besides the TOS, is there a VJ Charter or Mission Statement?

Perhaps what is on the VJ home page?

http://visajourney.com/forums/index.php?act=home

[Sheriff Uling 3]

From VJ Home Page:

Our goal is to educate and provide general information regarding family and marriage based immigration (K1, K3, DCF, etc) for a spouse, fiance, parent(s) or other close relatives to reunite and bring together families. If you are new to the site please take a look at some of our site's great features such as the Guides, FAQ's, Forums, Gallery, Example Forms and more. We provide you with a great array of general information useful in filing your I-129f, I-130, I-134, I-485 and other USCIS and immigration forms. We encourage all members to seek a qualified immigration attorney as this site is no substitute for the valuable help and advice a good attorney can provide! Please also be familiar with the Terms of Service (TOS) before using this site.

Once again, we welcome you and encourage you to become a member of our growing community! Share your experiences and relax here knowing you are not alone! Make sure that you also take the time to add your information to our Immigration Timeline section! -The Visajourney Family

I would say this is self explanatory whereas new members would know to follow-up on any information gathered from this site...

Cheers!!!

Sheriff Uling

[Pinay Wife 47]

I was hoping we could all play nice so maybe the thread could be pinned to help new members.

Only saw this post today. I must have come through as aggressive in my post. I assure you that I'm not. If I have offended anyone, my apologies. I finally understood the EAD requirements after reading bszoom's analogy. Even a lawyer could not have explained it better.

Not meaning to hijack this thread but I have a question regarding this scenario: (I will also post this in the "Can K1 work thread)

Situation: K1 with SSN can do manicure and pedicure. Her friends and neighbors come to her house and pay her to do their mani/pedi. She makes $80/day doing this kind of stuff. The friends/neighbors are not employers but clients so there is no employer-employee relationship there. K1 wants to report her income to IRS to help with AOS as petitioner hardly meets poverty guideline.

Question: Is she violating her K1 status by working without EAD? Remember, she is self-employed.

Thank you.

Edited August 12, 2007 by PatientlyWaiting

[meauxna 15]

I know this is likely to go over like a lead balloon, but...

if you see an immigration question posted here and your reply to said question is a 'guess' - PLEASE refrain from hitting the 'add reply' button. If you absolutely MUST post something in response, please post a few words of encouragement to the OP, and feel confident that someone knowledgeable about that particular topic will happen along and give the correct answer.

I know this is a peer to peer information sharing service where everyone is encouraged to post their experiences. VJ is obviously NOT a legal information site and all info here should be checked by the recipient of said information. It is ultimately up to the person posing the question to weigh the advice they were given, do their own research, and act according to their own conscience.

At the same time, the amount of bad advice and misinformation lately seems to be getting worse (IMHO). People will post something that is blatantly wrong, then never come back to the thread to see that they were corrected - so what happens? They continue to post that misinformation anytime the question is asked. Its a vicious cycle that can all be rectified if the responder replies only when they are confident in the voracity of their answer.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Funny isn't it, the timely advice that was posted AGES ago?!

Seems more useful than ever now, Tracy.

Here's another very timely thread of yours; check out some of the comments! (seems like troll calling and newbie bashing is the sport of the day over here now) Calling out trolls, suddenly not allowed?

[Ban Hammer 13,255]

I know this is likely to go over like a lead balloon, but...

if you see an immigration question posted here and your reply to said question is a 'guess' - PLEASE refrain from hitting the 'add reply' button. If you absolutely MUST post something in response, please post a few words of encouragement to the OP, and feel confident that someone knowledgeable about that particular topic will happen along and give the correct answer.

I know this is a peer to peer information sharing service where everyone is encouraged to post their experiences. VJ is obviously NOT a legal information site and all info here should be checked by the recipient of said information. It is ultimately up to the person posing the question to weigh the advice they were given, do their own research, and act according to their own conscience.

At the same time, the amount of bad advice and misinformation lately seems to be getting worse (IMHO). People will post something that is blatantly wrong, then never come back to the thread to see that they were corrected - so what happens? They continue to post that misinformation anytime the question is asked. Its a vicious cycle that can all be rectified if the responder replies only when they are confident in the voracity of their answer.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Funny isn't it, the timely advice that was posted AGES ago?!

Seems more useful than ever now, Tracy.

Here's another very timely thread of yours; check out some of the comments! (seems like troll calling and newbie bashing is the sport of the day over here now) Calling out trolls, suddenly not allowed?

yay she's back! :dance: :dance: :dance:

[daboyz 36]

I know this is likely to go over like a lead balloon, but...

if you see an immigration question posted here and your reply to said question is a 'guess' - PLEASE refrain from hitting the 'add reply' button. If you absolutely MUST post something in response, please post a few words of encouragement to the OP, and feel confident that someone knowledgeable about that particular topic will happen along and give the correct answer.

I know this is a peer to peer information sharing service where everyone is encouraged to post their experiences. VJ is obviously NOT a legal information site and all info here should be checked by the recipient of said information. It is ultimately up to the person posing the question to weigh the advice they were given, do their own research, and act according to their own conscience.

At the same time, the amount of bad advice and misinformation lately seems to be getting worse (IMHO). People will post something that is blatantly wrong, then never come back to the thread to see that they were corrected - so what happens? They continue to post that misinformation anytime the question is asked. Its a vicious cycle that can all be rectified if the responder replies only when they are confident in the voracity of their answer.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Funny isn't it, the timely advice that was posted AGES ago?!

Seems more useful than ever now, Tracy.

Here's another very timely thread of yours; check out some of the comments! (seems like troll calling and newbie bashing is the sport of the day over here now) Calling out trolls, suddenly not allowed?

I am trying to get a grasp of the constant bashing of "noobs" We were all new to this process at the beginning. Almost seems the equivalent of anti immigrant sentiment. The attitude of "I was here first and everyone that follows me should be treated like $hit"