harry.st

People in the know, like your confidence...

My impression is that unemployment is an earned benefit (ie a kind of insurance) and hence not considered a public charge.

I think they are trying to decide whether you are a quality person.

...why are you bummed? Operate like an American: "business first".

Btw I don't mean to sound like they are perfect - they are not (in fact they twice pissed me off. But overall...).

If you have $$ - Wildes & Weinberg. Used them last year (also had used them 25 years ago, for my green card). They are thorough + very responsive - but not cheap at all (you have to decide whether you prefer to eat well, or sleep well).

Ha! Thanks for posting this (had been looking for a while - and kina disappointed that volokh had not mentioned the issue. Good things come to those who wait, I guess)

This is correct. But it is difficult! In the case of spouse visa, the court will have to - eventually - decide whether to let somebody in, with that person having 2/5/10/20/40 percent probability of being a gang member/terrorist. Where do you draw the line? If you had to draft the law, how would you go about it? (would you exclude, say, close relatives of Bin Laden? (who, incidentally, lived peacefully in NYC - even after 9/11, iirc) In other words, how many US citizens are you willing to piss off, just to be safe? There is always a trade-off, much like with the speed limit.

I would get the passport first, and then fix it later. Esp if I wanted to travel soon.

Well the amicus brief - presumably by trained professionals - made it clear that their colleagues are often both untrained and unprofessional. Here.

They cannot! (sort of). I believe in this case the USC was told that the consular officer, as well as the chain of command that reviewed the decision (7 people in total - whether they were rubber-stamping, I do not know) believed the hubby was in a gang. The USC sent a letter from an "expert" that said that the hubby's tattoos had nothing to do w/ any gang (but as we know, expert advice is often available to those than can pay). What was very illuminating was an amicus brief from some USCIS officers, that mentioned that these decisions are often totally arbitrary, the officers are learning on the job, that incredible and frivolous biases come into play (they had a story where, because the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has some interest in some - big - real estate company, a certain consular officer was rejecting everybody and anybody from Iran who was in the real estate business. Just in case... What kind of explanation can one be offered in these circumstances? - this is pure insanity). However, given the administrative constraints (time, workload etc) the only honest explanation I can think of is "we could not, in the 1/2 hour allotted to the case, convince ourselves that all was kosher". Everything else requires discussion/investigation/... - things there are no resources for (if a new law makes such work compulsory... I can see wait times exploding).

The decision relies on this principle (as well as similar cases before. Basically, a USC cannot bring whoever (s)he fancies in the country, to keep him/her company). To your point, I agree w/ you, of course. Arguably the only way to fix this is via a law. Likely, it will happen, sooner-or-later, as the critical voices have been multiplying. It is tricky, though...

Well, if a US citizen can have life/liberty/... WITH the spouse IN another country, by the same token (s)he can do the same even WITHOUT a spouse (if the constitution is not violated in the first case, it is, similarly, not violated in the second. Basically the citizen can take his life/liberty/... and go to hell). So I think we should start kicking USCs out of the country, too (for cause - ie only the bad guys). What do you think? Shouldn't we? (It would clean up the country - no question about it. As you explained, is it very simple. Are you a lawyer, per chance? I hear Yale is good at constitutional law) -- h PS The decision relies heavily on established precedent, and not in enjoying life/liberty/... abroad (that liberty is affected, there is no question - it is even mentioned in the decision. Sadly, SCOTUS did not follow tonati's line of thought - although it mentioned it, in passing..).

You are more knowledgeable than me, of course, but, if they indeed reside in the same state, but move across USCIS office jurisdictions within said state, and submit AR-11s to that effect, won't that trigger a change of USCIS office, and hence likely incur delays? I think a better idea is to spend those 90 days in the same UCSIS office jurisdiction (ie not simply same state) (of course there may be case law I am not familiar with).

Ha! I did not know I even had a naturalization number! Will check the certificate - thanks a lot!