Adam Walsh filers

[Angie Y Shane 2]

Sorry for those who having been waiting for and update on my case. well I filed back in May of 2007. My case is still pending but with much action taken. With my case i have contacted my senators and just recently the ombudsman. Monday i have one appointment scheduled to speak about my case.

The information i have received back is that the Adam Walsh Act in immigration does not have much adjudication information for the immigration officers to abide by when processing cases. I heard this from My local congressman. She was voted number one in immigration related issues last year.

My questions to her were this.

Have you seen any Adam Walsh cases approved? Answer No because the law is so new.

1) What is to expect to come for a person that falls under the Adam Walsh act when filing a immigrant petition.

Answer was it's a very long process. immigration was quick to adopt this new law and did not realize all the back logs it would cause them plus many other things that were not taken into consideration such as citizens certain rights to marry. Before this law many sex offenders were approved without any ,then there foreign spouse needed to be informed of there beneficiary's past.

Also that you will be scheduled a biometrics and also a personal interview at your nearest consulate meaning in your state.

I explained my case with her and it seems very likely my wife will be here just that it will be a long process is what is being repeated by many officials i have spoken with.

I just recently contacted my ombudsman last months with a complaint process and my written statement of my past along with a copy of a letter from My wife stating she was completely aware of my past. This was advised by one immigration officer i spoken with on the phone when transferred to a second level from calling customer service.

I just got back a letter from Home land security stating that they are investigating the issues in my case and work very much with Immigration on helping to guide Immigration through troubled cases etc, etc. I just got this letter last week.

I have been checking my case status these last few days and dates seem to keep changing as for last updated dates. I have not seen this before.

It was mentioned that many people seem to think by just filing a I -130 and not other petition's would help sex offenders. WRONG- They are very much putting these types of people in a fraud unit investigation. They feel you have something to hide or mabe possiable abuse your wife etc. Come forward when you file any K visa's or any petition with a explanation of your past with the original court documents. this will avoid any possiable more delays to come since you will be delayed already because you are a Adam walsh case.

So from all of this I have learn to be completely persistent with these people. If your case is under serious delays, or you are a Adam walsh petition.

[TBoneTX 45,284]

immigration was quick to adopt this new law and did not realize all the backlogs it would cause them plus many other things that were not taken into consideration

"Legislate in haste, cause lasting problems at leisure." Your information will be helpful to others who are in your situation, and interesting to those who aren't. Si, man.

[rebeccajo 14]

immigration was quick to adopt this new law and did not realize all the backlogs it would cause them plus many other things that were not taken into consideration

"Legislate in haste, cause lasting problems at leisure." Your information will be helpful to others who are in your situation, and interesting to those who aren't. Si, man.

I agree the information will be interesting.

I don't agree with 'legislate in haste' as regards to the passage of this law. Law books are laden with hurdles the intending immigrant has to jump in order to 'protect' US citizens from so-called undesirables entering our country. I applaud the US government for taking steps this time around to protect the alien from the unknown.

[TBoneTX 45,284]

I don't agree with 'legislate in haste' as regards to the passage of this law.

The OP's congresswoman indicated otherwise, at least in the sense that "immigration was quick to adopt it" and the rest of the statement.

I applaud the US government for taking steps this time around to protect the alien from the unknown.

It would be of interest to see the citation that gives our government the ability/authority under the U.S. Constitution to make USCs accountable to non-USCs. Also, if our government protects foreigners, why doesn't it do identically for already-USCs... who (if they're of legal age in their state) can marry anyone they want to, without "your papers, Comrade"? Not arguing; just asking.

[payxibka 10,045]

actually if I remember correctly they were not quick to adopt but quite late..... It was the fact that they adopted late that required a very quick (almost immediate) implementation of some significant process changes...

[TBoneTX 45,284]

actually if I remember correctly they were not quick to adopt but quite late..... It was the fact that they adopted late that required a very quick (almost immediate) implementation of some significant process changes...

If your "they" refers to the lawmakers who passed it: if late PASSAGE of the LAW is true (not arguing it, si man), some of the implementation bugs should have been dealt with in advance by the legislative framers. If your "they" refers to those who would eventually implement the passed law, as many changes as possible should have been anticipated and operationally prepared for, to the extent possible. If the legislators took forever to craft the law and then upon its passage made the operational requirements effective "yesterday," it's another example of poor conception. Ill-conceived legislation is ill-conceived legislation (regardless of noble intent) if bugs or backlogs or implementation problems are inadequately considered and minimized ahead of time.

Before we get too much deeper into discussion, perhaps the OP should clarify exactly what is meant by "immigration was quick to adopt" -- does this mean that Congress took forever to craft the law but made it effective immediately upon passage, or does it mean something else? Si, man? Once we know for certain, we can all be sure that we're singing from the same sheet of music.

[payxibka 10,045]

the "they" referred to USCIS/DOS... The effective date of the law was upon signing by the President and it took USCIS/DOS almost 7 mos. to figure out that it had an effect it had on them, and instituted changes almost overnight...

[TBoneTX 45,284]

...it took USCIS/DOS almost 7 mos. to figure out that it had an effect it had on them, and instituted changes almost overnight...

Good grief... why is this totally unsurprising? It would still be interesting to learn of the relevant indisputable constitutional authority that makes USCs accountable in any way to foreigners.

[payxibka 10,045]

...it took USCIS/DOS almost 7 mos. to figure out that it had an effect it had on them, and instituted changes almost overnight...

Good grief... why is this totally unsurprising? It would still be interesting to learn of the relevant indisputable constitutional authority that makes USCs accountable in any way to foreigners.

I guess I don't see how Adam Walsh makes a USC accountable to foreigners

[TBoneTX 45,284]

I guess I don't see how Adam Walsh makes a USC accountable to foreigners

From the original post: "I just recently contacted my ombudsman last months with a complaint process and my written statement of my past along with a copy of a letter from My wife stating she was completely aware of my past." To me, having (by law) to disclose one's past (or anything about one's self) to ANY foreigner is a highly debatable requirement, si man.

This is regardless of whether that foreigner is one's fiance(e) or spouse, and regardless of any extralegal moral obligation to do so BECAUSE that foreigner is one's fiance(e) or spouse. Lest it be misunderstood, I believe in 100% disclosure between fiance(e)s & spouses, but NOT under compulsion of the government. I'm interested in having this discussion focus on the "under compulsion" aspect.

[TBoneTX 45,284]

Addendum, to back up a bit: Perhaps my concern is more about IMBRA overall, itself, and perhaps previous threads have addressed themselves to those questions. If so, I'd appreciate someone directing me to those threads, si man.

Also, to emphasize: I have no objections from a standpoint of courtesy or morality of disclosing information to foreigners, especially in building a "till death do us part" foundation; the issue is purely being required to do so by a government (ours). I would like some constitutional citations that justify said requirement.

Edited December 31, 2008 by TBoneTX

[payxibka 10,045]

Adam Walsh is not about disclosures of past history to an alien, but about the conviction of certain crimes that make a USC ineligible to petition....

Edited December 31, 2008 by payxibka

[Old Dominion 26]

Why is it so offensive to TBoneTx that the government makes sure an overseas fiance or fiancee knows enough about the petitioner to make a rational decision on applying for a visa? The U.S. seems to be littered with foreign brides who had no idea of their mate's real personality and they have had to escape courageously from their marriages just to be safe. The last I knew, Texas has more than its fair share of these victims.

[rebeccajo 14]

Addendum, to back up a bit: Perhaps my concern is more about IMBRA overall, itself, and perhaps previous threads have addressed themselves to those questions. If so, I'd appreciate someone directing me to those threads, si man.

Also, to emphasize: I have no objections from a standpoint of courtesy or morality of disclosing information to foreigners, especially in building a "till death do us part" foundation; the issue is purely being required to do so by a government (ours). I would like some constitutional citations that justify said requirement.

There doesn't need to be any constitutional citation.

It's immigration. The Constitution barely addresses it beyond saying that the US Government can establish rules for naturalization. From thereon, the Supreme Court had to rule that this pretty much meant the US Government could establish whatever rules it sees fit when it comes to the admission of foreign-born individuals.

That being said, I can see some logic with your comments about disclosure inconsistency when it concerns a marriage between two US Citizens. However, there are a couple of startling differences for a battered spouse who is foreign born, not the least of which would be a diminished support network and fewer options should they decide to flee.

[Caladan 19]

I don't agree with 'legislate in haste' as regards to the passage of this law.

The OP's congresswoman indicated otherwise, at least in the sense that "immigration was quick to adopt it" and the rest of the statement.

I applaud the US government for taking steps this time around to protect the alien from the unknown.

It would be of interest to see the citation that gives our government the ability/authority under the U.S. Constitution to make USCs accountable to non-USCs. Also, if our government protects foreigners, why doesn't it do identically for already-USCs... who (if they're of legal age in their state) can marry anyone they want to, without "your papers, Comrade"? Not arguing; just asking.

The issue isn't getting married. The issue is immigration, and there's an obvious reason why USC's shouldn't have to immigrate to the U.S. And the USC isn't accountable to the foreigner, just to the U.S. government.

This isn't the disclosure issue -- that's IMBRA -- but there are good reasons for the disclosure. Because of the unique status of a spousal visa, where eligibility for permanent residency is based on a bona fide, ongoing relationship and the financial ties required, this puts the immigrant in a potentially very bad situation. A new immigrant often has no family ties here, can't work, can't drive, might not even speak the language, and runs the risk of having nowhere to turn. This happens with USCs in abusive relationships, too, but at least they don't have to worry about being deported.

Moreover, the foreigner is likely dependent just on the USCs disclosure for everything she or he knows about him. It's a lot easier to hide a rape conviction when you see the person online and once or twice in person.

And because of the immigration issue, this means it's immediately a legal/diplomatic problem that will cost the taxpayers money. The government isn't worried about whether someone has an abusive marriage or a happy marriage. They're certainly not in the business of providing marriage counseling. But they are concerned about people being here without legal status, or the diplomatic problems that result when some other country's citizen is harmed. And I think in the case of Adam Walsh, the intent of the law is to help crack down on sexual slavery.