Wheres all the privileges to be canadian

[rebeccajo 14]

Aside from Canada, are there any other consulates where you have to travel 5000 km to the interview (in my Husband's case)??

Edit: Did I mention he will have a reindeer carrying his tucker bag as he is going on foot?

The fact there are only two places for interviews for such a physically large nation IS ridiculous.

My husband had to fly from Northern Ireland to London TWICE for his medical and his interview. There is no place for residents of NI to interview on the Emerald Isle. While it wasn't 5000 miles, it was an inconvenience nonetheless.

Edited October 21, 2007 by rebeccajo

[trailmix 77]

umm, i travelled 3167km, from Darwin to Sydney, in Australia. (thats air distance), probably closer to 6000kms by road. Sydney is the only consulate in Australia that does K1 interviews,...so your not alone my friend!!

That's still 2000 km short, you might have to detour to Melbourne - not to get too picky but that is only because we live in Calgary, if someone is coming from Vancouver it's over 9,000 km.

I guess my point is, the thing I find most annoying is that we only have one consulate in this entire (huge) country that does interviews for IR1/CR1. Even the woman we were speaking to at the Calgary consulate said she couldn't understand why they don't do interviews here anymore.

As for preferential treatment in terms of actual immigration paperwork - don't want it, don't need it, don't expect it.

There is no consulate in Darwin is there?

Edited October 21, 2007 by trailmix

[Flames9_RN 358]

umm, i travelled 3167km, from Darwin to Sydney, in Australia. (thats air distance), probably closer to 6000kms by road. Sydney is the only consulate in Australia that does K1 interviews,...so your not alone my friend!!

Thats only 1968 miles! A good dog team will have ya there before supper time!!

[trailmix 77]

The fact there are only two places for interviews for such a physically large nation IS ridiculous.

My husband had to fly from Northern Ireland to London TWICE for his medical and his interview. There is no place for residents of NI to interview on the Emerald Isle. While it wasn't 5000 miles, it was an inconvenience nonetheless.

[jodee 30]

no, no consulate in Darwin,.....

[Caladan 19]

Does it smack of entitlement when you use the VWP? You only get that based on your country of origin just by having a passport. If not, why not?

The process wasn't too bad, but it was pretty wasteful considering they learned nothing at the interview that wasn't on the forms. And it's not like it's illegal to adjust status having come in off of another visa, or that coming in off of another visa type means you're exempt from the AOS paperwork. And since that's the case, it doesn't seem all that strange to have a policy of eliminating the K-1 for VWP countries.

[rebeccajo 14]

Does it smack of entitlement when you use the VWP? You only get that based on your country of origin just by having a passport. If not, why not?

The process wasn't too bad, but it was pretty wasteful considering they learned nothing at the interview that wasn't on the forms. And it's not like it's illegal to adjust status having come in off of another visa, or that coming in off of another visa type means you're exempt from the AOS paperwork. And since that's the case, it doesn't seem all that strange to have a policy of eliminating the K-1 for VWP countries.

The VWP is for visiting. Why does that point continue to be ignored?

I honestly don't get how you can advocate elimination of what is essentially an immigrant visa for citizens of certain nations. Yes, that is entitlement. If one chooses to cross over and adjust, that is their choice. That is NOT the same thing as saying "If I choose to apply for a K1 visa, because I am from Canada I should not have to follow the same steps as someone from Timbuktu."

[Caladan 19]

Let me walk you through my logic on this and maybe we can stop with the condescending entitlement argument, mkay?

Because the purpose of the K-1 is first, to provide a path into the country, and second, to provide a path, if the conditions, viz. marriage to the petitioner are fulfilled, for adjustment of status. And it is NOT essentially an immigrant visa. It's essentially a non-immigrant one. If you don't marry within the 90 days, you either have to leave, just like a tourist visa, or on the assumption you've married late, file an I-130 because you are out-of-status on a non-immigrant visa. It's the marriage that does all the work in getting permanent residency. The K-1 just gets you here (useful if you're from a country where you can't get a tourist visa) and gives you 90 days to play with. It's like a tourist visa for a purpose, and doing it means you eliminate one form and maybe get the medical taken care of.

So, given those two conditions, what does making a person from a VWP country (or here on a student visa, etc.) file a K-1 accomplish? Reduction in fraud? On the contrary, the countries are on the VWP list because they are already low fraud, and if someone wanted to come here and stay, they'd just hop on an airplane and stay. No need to swindle an American into a green card. At least not ahead of time.

Protection against disease? We assume the people are fine to visit for a 90-day VWP stay; if they file for AOS they need a medical at which point diseases would be caught. Net protection against disease by making a VWP person go through the K-1 = 0. Protection against terrorists? Again, VWP. If we're not worried about terrorism enough to kill the VWP, it surely doesn't do anything to add a fiance interview of three minutes into the process.

So we can conclude it has nothing to do with keeping undesirables out of the country, when the applicant is from a VWP country. If they just wanted to get in, they'd already be here. And if we are that worried, we should make everyone apply for a tourist visa.

So all that's left is providing a path for adjustment of status. That's useful, like a headache is useful, but it's really easy to replace with an I-130, as people manage it all the time if they're here for other reasons (work, school, spontaneous weddings) and get married. Construing this as wanting privileges based on country of origin is really rather insulting. It has nothing to do with race or language or whether I like Canadians and everything to do with the fact that the country has already decided that this country is a low fraud risk and lets them in for all sorts of purposes, even to get married.

There is an awful lot of redundancy in this process. And if you eliminate redundancy, everyone's processing times go up. How much faster would the immigrant visas in Montreal go if they didn't also have to process K-1s? How much faster would it be at the service centers if they didn't have to approve VWP K-1s.

[rebeccajo 14]

Insulting? Read the original post! Wasn't that about being from a certain country and expecting certain privileges? I don't think I misconstrued anything. Unless my ability to read has failed me.

No matter how you cut it, saying that if someone is from a certain country and wants to LIVE here, i.e. immigrate here - that they should have a shorter process than someone unlucky enough to have been born elsewhere - well that seems patently unfair to me.

I'll grant you there are redundancies aplenty with the system. But 'passing over' certain people because of their birth country ain't gonna happen and should not happen in modern America. Not as long as national security is the supposed focus. While it's true there aren't many Brits or Canadians looking to fraud an American to get in here to better their life, it's also true that the London Tube bombers were British Nationals who could easily have used the VWP. I would prefer to think that if their declared intent were to live in my country that somebody took a few moments to go over their background.

Edited October 21, 2007 by rebeccajo

[Caladan 19]

It's not passing over people based on their birth country, just their ability to qualify for a tourist visa. We don't think it's discrimination there.

And they wouldn't be eligible for a green card any easier than anyone else.

And like I said, if you're worried about national security, then the VWP needs to go. There were, what, 14,000 fiancee visas last year and 64 million visitors? I can't imagine a terrorist eligible for the VWP who would decide that his best route into the country was marriage fraud. Or that a three-minute interview would have stopped him.

I'm not really complaining about our process, because it's been pretty easy. But I look at people going through Montreal and I can totally see why half the lawyers out there just say 'come on over, we'll take care of it later.'

[rebeccajo 14]

Well.........would you be surprised if the VWP were eliminated? I mean, we didn't used to need a passport to visit Canada or Mexico. Now we do - flying or driving.

Look how many come over and marry, and then don't adjust for ages? K-1'ers do the same sometimes, but I'd venture a healthy guess not nearly so many percentage wise.

I'm all for changing the system. But granting privilege to people who want to live here - not visit - is not the way to go.

My whole problem with the system has always been the intent of a person coming to this country. And I don't mean intent to marry. I mean intent to do harm. You know my philosophy has long been 'let them come'. It's starry eyed, I know and will never happen. But I firmly believe that if you want to come to this country, you should be allowed - providing you pass a background check.

Until there is some sort of level playing field like that FOR ALL - then I can't with clear conscience believe in offering ANOTHER pass to citizens of certain countries.

[trailmix 77]

Well.........would you be surprised if the VWP were eliminated? I mean, we didn't used to need a passport to visit Canada or Mexico. Now we do - flying or driving.

Look how many come over and marry, and then don't adjust for ages? K-1'ers do the same sometimes, but I'd venture a healthy guess not nearly so many percentage wise.

I'm all for changing the system. But granting privilege to people who want to live here - not visit - is not the way to go.

My whole problem with the system has always been the intent of a person coming to this country. And I don't mean intent to marry. I mean intent to do harm. You know my philosophy has long been 'let them come'. It's starry eyed, I know and will never happen. But I firmly believe that if you want to come to this country, you should be allowed - providing you pass a background check.

Until there is some sort of level playing field like that FOR ALL - then I can't with clear conscience believe in offering ANOTHER pass to citizens of certain countries.

I agree with you Caladan, what you are saying makes perfect common sense to me. Rebeccajo, I also see your point, it is an uneven playing field and I guess the U.S. wants to give the illusion of A. Security and B. That they aren't playing favorites.

I also hear what the original poster is saying. Until you have been around a while I don't know that you think of the U.S. as that MUCH of a separate country. Most of us grow up crossing the border regularly, what you remember as a child is just some guy saying, "so where are you folks off to today? Well have a nice time" most of us have close relatives who are American and lots of us have family who live in the States.

I would venture to say that he/she didn't realize how stating something like that on VJ would get such a negative response, I also think if a Canadian walked in to their place of work tomorrow and made the same comment no one would even blink.

[TheATeam 0]

Most Canadians have no idea that a visa must be processed for marriage to an American Citizen. I know that I didn't. Why is that? For me, well, we're so close to the US already and have no trouble visiting, as well as the fact that we speak the same language, our school systems are pretty much interchangeable. It may be naive but Canada and the US are very much alike in many ways, except for maybe the government and health care systems. I'm only speaking for myself, but I wouldn't be surprised if these are some of the reasons that Canadians feel that they should be able to bypass the whole K1 visa.

[trailmix 77]

not that a lot of people on here have anything more than a pc touchy feely attitude and don't want negativity or the truth spoken.

I don't think that anyone in this thread so far could be called a liar based on what has been written. If you don't like the way someone has stated something here - that is your perogative.

If some of use choose to be polite to people and perhaps take a moment to try to see where they are coming from I don't think that can be negatively labelled 'PC'.

Your truth is not necessarily someone elses.

[Alan & Sharon 0]

If you peek at your application over the glass at the interview, you will notice the approved stamp already in place. My belief *and it's 9 am with only a few sips of coffee so hold this belief lightly* is:

1. To Piss you off because you had to endure Montreal's roads and try to look calm. *If you still plan on marrying your Spouse to be after the obscenities on this trip you must be in Love*

2. If you don't have a heart attack while in the waiting room, you must be healthy enough to enter the US.

3. The need to make sure everything is filled in properly *spent more time with the nice lady going through the paperwork then the interviewer*

4. To see if you have a good memory *who the *@&$ remembers how many times you entered the US *do we count the daily shopping trips too many to remember.**

5. To let the interviewer practice his low intimidating voice just in case it is needed for more important interviews.

Other then the above mentioned items, I have come to the conclusion, the 3 min interview is just to grab that last 100 $ before the real money needs to change hands.

addendum ..... OTTAWA SENATORS ARE THE BEST NHL TEAM although *gulp* since I'm now in the US specifically North Carolina, shhhh I am supposed to root for the Cains.........

Love you all

Sharon