marrying on visa waiver
Mar 14th 2003, 7:14 pm
#46
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 303
Wow I wish I could compose my replies so eloquently, nice work!
Mar 14th 2003, 7:29 pm
#47
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2001
Location: Ohio
Posts: 659
Originally posted by Rete
And pray tell how does one explain the presence of people such as Lisa and Steve who although Steve claims not to have entered the US with the express purpose of marrying Ms. Lisa but did anyway and stayed and successfully adjusted status and is now applying for naturalization. And how can I explain why two INS employees very forthrightly advised a friend of mine to just enter the US, marry and adjust. They did and they had not a whit of a problem.
Because damn it all, I'm finding it very difficult to not jump in when the soothsayers are casting forecasts of gloom and doom and sprinklering Scarlett A's around like M&M's on an Easter Sunday Bunny Basket.
Most sincerely,
Rita a/k/a Rete a/k/a The Woman with the Big Stick
And pray tell how does one explain the presence of people such as Lisa and Steve who although Steve claims not to have entered the US with the express purpose of marrying Ms. Lisa but did anyway and stayed and successfully adjusted status and is now applying for naturalization. And how can I explain why two INS employees very forthrightly advised a friend of mine to just enter the US, marry and adjust. They did and they had not a whit of a problem.
Because damn it all, I'm finding it very difficult to not jump in when the soothsayers are casting forecasts of gloom and doom and sprinklering Scarlett A's around like M&M's on an Easter Sunday Bunny Basket.
Most sincerely,
Rita a/k/a Rete a/k/a The Woman with the Big Stick
Once we popped in here and were raked over the coals, we felt we'd made a bad decision. The hour drive up to Cleveland was horrid, I was sobbing the whole way. A time that should have been happy instead was filled with terror and fear for us due to the ignorance of others. Granted the NG was in it's infancy then, and we've all learned much since. But to see the same type of scare tactics and yes the scarlet letters pinned to some chests upsets me.
Telling someone to commit fraud, yes that is wrong I agree, we all agree with that. But giving bad information is just as wrong.
Ahhhhh I feel better now.
Mar 14th 2003, 7:44 pm
#48
Concierge
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,410
Lisa
And I will publicly admit that I was one of those that cruified you as well. Why? Because it was as you said, thought to be a no-no back then and I spouted what I had "learned" incorrectly.
Today I know better because of your actions and the posts of Mr. Udall that the issue is not the legality of marrying and adjusting but the legality of intent.
My apologies for having added to your worries at that time.
Rita
And I will publicly admit that I was one of those that cruified you as well. Why? Because it was as you said, thought to be a no-no back then and I spouted what I had "learned" incorrectly.
Today I know better because of your actions and the posts of Mr. Udall that the issue is not the legality of marrying and adjusting but the legality of intent.
My apologies for having added to your worries at that time.
Rita
Originally posted by stevelisaw
Tell you what, we did have so many people blast us when we first came to this board (oldies will remember) for marrying the way we did. They had us both so terrified he'd be deported that before our interview. We had as I've said followed the advice of an attorney who NEVER once said Steve was taking a chance of deportation.
Once we popped in here and were raked over the coals, we felt we'd made a bad decision. The hour drive up to Cleveland was horrid, I was sobbing the whole way. A time that should have been happy instead was filled with terror and fear for us due to the ignorance of others. Granted the NG was in it's infancy then, and we've all learned much since. But to see the same type of scare tactics and yes the scarlet letters pinned to some chests upsets me.
Telling someone to commit fraud, yes that is wrong I agree, we all agree with that. But giving bad information is just as wrong.
Ahhhhh I feel better now.
Tell you what, we did have so many people blast us when we first came to this board (oldies will remember) for marrying the way we did. They had us both so terrified he'd be deported that before our interview. We had as I've said followed the advice of an attorney who NEVER once said Steve was taking a chance of deportation.
Once we popped in here and were raked over the coals, we felt we'd made a bad decision. The hour drive up to Cleveland was horrid, I was sobbing the whole way. A time that should have been happy instead was filled with terror and fear for us due to the ignorance of others. Granted the NG was in it's infancy then, and we've all learned much since. But to see the same type of scare tactics and yes the scarlet letters pinned to some chests upsets me.
Telling someone to commit fraud, yes that is wrong I agree, we all agree with that. But giving bad information is just as wrong.
Ahhhhh I feel better now.
Mar 14th 2003, 7:45 pm
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
To the original poster:
As a good friend of mine once said, opinions are like ****holes - we all have one!
But this is your life ... no one else's.
I hope the heated debate here has helped you think about some of the questions you should be asking before making any decision. I hope it's flagged up that the very least you need to be is well informed. And then, of course, you will have to take responsibility for whatever decision you make.
I guess everyone here is sincere in their belief that their particular take on all this is the 'right' one. Why else would the discussion get so heated? But though we can debate what you decide and the results of that decision to our hearts' content, only you and your fiance will have to live with those results.
To my way of thinking, since there is an accepted legal way the INS asks you to go about this thing, it has to be the safest and the wisest route, if not, perhaps, the quickest. If the rules said I wasn't ever allowed to be with my fiance I doubt very much whether I'd have felt obligated to abide by them. But though being made to wait seemed unfair and was a royal pain in the neck at times, it wasn't enough to make me want to break the rules. It doesn't mean I think the rules are right or fair. Just that what I saw as breaking them didn't seem right, for me, either.
I think intending to marry and entering without admitting that is illegal and a risk - that risk being one of not being allowed in if your immigrant intent is suspected. The legal question seems open to a number of interpretations and I ain't no lawyer. But everything said here seemsl, as far as I can see, to stem from honestly held opinions which therefore deserve to be heard with respect.
I wish you and your fiance all the very best as you sieve through all the fact and feeling here and come to your own honestly held opinion. No doubt you'll be back in the future, having jumped one way or the other, joining the debate for the benefit of future enquirers
Regards
-=-
Scarlett
Long live Descartes: "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it!"
As a good friend of mine once said, opinions are like ****holes - we all have one!
But this is your life ... no one else's.
I hope the heated debate here has helped you think about some of the questions you should be asking before making any decision. I hope it's flagged up that the very least you need to be is well informed. And then, of course, you will have to take responsibility for whatever decision you make.
I guess everyone here is sincere in their belief that their particular take on all this is the 'right' one. Why else would the discussion get so heated? But though we can debate what you decide and the results of that decision to our hearts' content, only you and your fiance will have to live with those results.
To my way of thinking, since there is an accepted legal way the INS asks you to go about this thing, it has to be the safest and the wisest route, if not, perhaps, the quickest. If the rules said I wasn't ever allowed to be with my fiance I doubt very much whether I'd have felt obligated to abide by them. But though being made to wait seemed unfair and was a royal pain in the neck at times, it wasn't enough to make me want to break the rules. It doesn't mean I think the rules are right or fair. Just that what I saw as breaking them didn't seem right, for me, either.
I think intending to marry and entering without admitting that is illegal and a risk - that risk being one of not being allowed in if your immigrant intent is suspected. The legal question seems open to a number of interpretations and I ain't no lawyer. But everything said here seemsl, as far as I can see, to stem from honestly held opinions which therefore deserve to be heard with respect.
I wish you and your fiance all the very best as you sieve through all the fact and feeling here and come to your own honestly held opinion. No doubt you'll be back in the future, having jumped one way or the other, joining the debate for the benefit of future enquirers
Regards
-=-
Scarlett
Long live Descartes: "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it!"
Last edited by ScarlettHill; Mar 14th 2003 at 8:10 pm.
Mar 14th 2003, 8:06 pm
#50
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2001
Location: Ohio
Posts: 659
Originally posted by Rete
Lisa
And I will publicly admit that I was one of those that cruified you as well. Why? Because it was as you said, thought to be a no-no back then and I spouted what I had "learned" incorrectly.
Today I know better because of your actions and the posts of Mr. Udall that the issue is not the legality of marrying and adjusting but the legality of intent.
My apologies for having added to your worries at that time.
Rita
Lisa
And I will publicly admit that I was one of those that cruified you as well. Why? Because it was as you said, thought to be a no-no back then and I spouted what I had "learned" incorrectly.
Today I know better because of your actions and the posts of Mr. Udall that the issue is not the legality of marrying and adjusting but the legality of intent.
My apologies for having added to your worries at that time.
Rita
Mar 14th 2003, 8:33 pm
#51
Banned
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,933
Originally posted by stevelisaw
Though no apology needed Rita, I thank you for it. Over the past 4+ years I think we have both gained quite a bit of knowlege and tolerance.
Though no apology needed Rita, I thank you for it. Over the past 4+ years I think we have both gained quite a bit of knowlege and tolerance.
And gained more than a "bit" of knowledge. Robclews and all you other people out there note..... we have each had our differences with the group and with each other. But the wonderful thing is, we are still friends. Hugs to you Rete and Lisa.... I love you both.
Mar 14th 2003, 8:38 pm
#52
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: UK Citizen Now In Baltimore County USA
Posts: 906
Originally posted by Ranjini
How we have all matured And gained more than a "bit" of knowledge. Robclews and all you other people out there note..... we have each had our differences with the group and with each other. But the wonderful thing is, we are still friends. Hugs to you Rete and Lisa.... I love you both.
How we have all matured
And gained more than a "bit" of knowledge. Robclews and all you other people out there note..... we have each had our differences with the group and with each other. But the wonderful thing is, we are still friends. Hugs to you Rete and Lisa.... I love you both.
Regards,
rob
Mar 14th 2003, 8:47 pm
#53
Forum Regular
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: leigh manchester
Posts: 58
i posted the same question a few weeks ago......want to be with my partner...can't hang around growing old why she is out in america growing old too.....it ain't fair...and i agree totally with jeff.........get to your partner legally....waiver free is legal....then do it from there......sort out the mess from there.......bleeding ridiculous doing it all thousands of miles apart...........when i suggested this i was abused by most people on here.
myself .
i am going to get married in the uk to my usc fiance......then she wants me to go back over with her on `waiver free' to the usa while she sends off my petition.....totally legal.......anyway...copied and pasted this info off the official INS site(or whatever it's called now)
the INS definition of SPOUSE is Husband or Wife
Information for Citizens
If you are a U.S. citizen, your spouse is considered an immediate relative and is immediately eligible for an immigrant visa if your petition is approved.
Generally, if your spouse is in the U.S. (through a lawful admission or parole) at the time you file the Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, your spouse may file a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or to Adjust Status at the same time. For more information, your spouse should refer to How Do I Become a Lawful Permanent Resident While In the United States? If he or she is outside the U.S., your spouse will need to go to the nearest U.S. consulate to apply for an immigrant visa.
myself .
i am going to get married in the uk to my usc fiance......then she wants me to go back over with her on `waiver free' to the usa while she sends off my petition.....totally legal.......anyway...copied and pasted this info off the official INS site(or whatever it's called now)
the INS definition of SPOUSE is Husband or Wife
Information for Citizens
If you are a U.S. citizen, your spouse is considered an immediate relative and is immediately eligible for an immigrant visa if your petition is approved.
Generally, if your spouse is in the U.S. (through a lawful admission or parole) at the time you file the Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, your spouse may file a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or to Adjust Status at the same time. For more information, your spouse should refer to How Do I Become a Lawful Permanent Resident While In the United States? If he or she is outside the U.S., your spouse will need to go to the nearest U.S. consulate to apply for an immigrant visa.
Last edited by tiddi; Mar 14th 2003 at 9:05 pm.
Mar 14th 2003, 9:09 pm
#54
Banned
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,933
Originally posted by robclews
Lol, does that apply to Mat Udall, come now open those loving arms, great him into the fold.
Regards,
rob
Lol, does that apply to Mat Udall, come now open those loving arms, great him into the fold.
Regards,
rob
Now that's a tough one.....
Mar 14th 2003, 9:30 pm
#55
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 536
I have seen this subject discussed here so many times and have, up till now refrained from joining what seems to be a dialogue of the deaf. Rete, your expertise and knowledge has been invaluable to many on this NG but I have to part company with you in judging this issue. It is NOT complicated. Entering on a visa waiver with the intent to marry is illegal. How difficult is that to understand? It may be difficult to PROVE, but that is not the same thing.
I have considerable sympathy for those who have expressed opposition to those who act this way. It is not because I am arrogant, condescending or holier than thou; it is because if the citizens of any democratic country start to pick and choose the laws which should be obeyed, and break those that are inconvenient, they are digging away at the very foundations of a democratic society. That may seem a little weighty in relation to the subject under discussion, but successful societies (note: not perfect societies, as they dont exist) have a number of things in common. One of those is the existence of a judicial sytem independent of the State and the Church which seeks to protect the person and property of the citizens.
If you dont like or approve of a particular law, then seek to
change it. If the majority agree with you, it will be changed: if not.....it wont.
I hold this view, not because of jealousy that others have managed to be with their partners far more quickly than I ( that also apples to all those lucky enough to go through Vermont, after all!...lol), but because over the course of the last 60 years, I have seen what happens to societies that where the law becomes disregarded . There is an issue of principle here, and I recommend those who disagree to read Thomas More's speech in "A Man for All Seasons".....roughly "if you break down the protective walls of the law there will be such a storm as will sweep us all from the land".
The rule of law matters.
I have considerable sympathy for those who have expressed opposition to those who act this way. It is not because I am arrogant, condescending or holier than thou; it is because if the citizens of any democratic country start to pick and choose the laws which should be obeyed, and break those that are inconvenient, they are digging away at the very foundations of a democratic society. That may seem a little weighty in relation to the subject under discussion, but successful societies (note: not perfect societies, as they dont exist) have a number of things in common. One of those is the existence of a judicial sytem independent of the State and the Church which seeks to protect the person and property of the citizens.
If you dont like or approve of a particular law, then seek to
change it. If the majority agree with you, it will be changed: if not.....it wont.
I hold this view, not because of jealousy that others have managed to be with their partners far more quickly than I ( that also apples to all those lucky enough to go through Vermont, after all!...lol), but because over the course of the last 60 years, I have seen what happens to societies that where the law becomes disregarded . There is an issue of principle here, and I recommend those who disagree to read Thomas More's speech in "A Man for All Seasons".....roughly "if you break down the protective walls of the law there will be such a storm as will sweep us all from the land".
The rule of law matters.
Mar 14th 2003, 10:10 pm
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: marrying on visa waiver
All
I would like to commend you all on the response to my question.
However, I can only see that it has put a couple of you on the outer
with each other which I can assure you was not my intent.
Rob, you seem to have a fairly good handle on the way you believe the
situation at hand to be and for your comments I am grateful. I would
like to point out though, that my intent is not to marry my boyfriend
but in fact to try to establish a union between the two of us in order
to unfold hopefully to the union of marriage and when that happens I
can assure you that as a survivalistic type of person, I WILL do what
it takes to be with him. I think Jeff put it beautifully when he said
he speaks from the heart and I believe that judicial and government
systems have no place in the affairs of the heart.
I will take all of your comments together with the reality picture and
not make a move one way or another until I believe it is what is right
for all concerned.
If that means waiting for a period of time so be it but if like Jeff
says I grow old in the process and achieve nothing by it then I will
be looking for the "other" option/s of the unforgivable "fraudulent
way".
We all wake up at some time or other in our lives and even Oprah and
Jerry Springer try to encourage freedom of speech and expression so I
am sure that if we really thought about this we could band together
and realign and inn fact rewrite the processes so that people who are
REALLY IN LOVE and WANT TO GET MARRIED and just want to live in each
others company for the rest of their lives, but come from different
countries, then we should instead of going around in forum and getting
nowhere.
If I could I would try but as you can see I am new in the "LINE" so
maybe one of you could start it off.
Mystee
[email protected] (mystee) wrote in message news:...
> Im a little confused, i have no idea what a DCF is?, and do you mean
> that we marry in sydney and then file paperwork?.. so its illegal to
> enter the us on the visa waiver program with the intent to immigrate,
> but what if i was there soley to work out our relationship and during
> those 90 days we on the spur of the moment decided to marry..What is
> the ruling with that??,
> thanks
> mystee
>
> L D Jones wrote in message news:...
> > mystee wrote:
> > >
> > > hi everyone,
> > > I was wondering if anyone knows if it is possible to marry on the visa
> > > waiver program, im from Australia and my b/f lives in the U.S.A. Is it
> > > possible for me to enter on the waiver program for 90 days and during
> > > that time marry and change my status..
> >
> > It is illegal to enter the US on the visa waiver program with the intent
> > to immigrate
> >
> > Consider marriage and direct consular filing (DCF) in Sydney. I'm not
> > certain but your then husband may not need to be resident in Australia
> > to do DCF. Contact the consulate for more information.
I would like to commend you all on the response to my question.
However, I can only see that it has put a couple of you on the outer
with each other which I can assure you was not my intent.
Rob, you seem to have a fairly good handle on the way you believe the
situation at hand to be and for your comments I am grateful. I would
like to point out though, that my intent is not to marry my boyfriend
but in fact to try to establish a union between the two of us in order
to unfold hopefully to the union of marriage and when that happens I
can assure you that as a survivalistic type of person, I WILL do what
it takes to be with him. I think Jeff put it beautifully when he said
he speaks from the heart and I believe that judicial and government
systems have no place in the affairs of the heart.
I will take all of your comments together with the reality picture and
not make a move one way or another until I believe it is what is right
for all concerned.
If that means waiting for a period of time so be it but if like Jeff
says I grow old in the process and achieve nothing by it then I will
be looking for the "other" option/s of the unforgivable "fraudulent
way".
We all wake up at some time or other in our lives and even Oprah and
Jerry Springer try to encourage freedom of speech and expression so I
am sure that if we really thought about this we could band together
and realign and inn fact rewrite the processes so that people who are
REALLY IN LOVE and WANT TO GET MARRIED and just want to live in each
others company for the rest of their lives, but come from different
countries, then we should instead of going around in forum and getting
nowhere.
If I could I would try but as you can see I am new in the "LINE" so
maybe one of you could start it off.
Mystee
[email protected] (mystee) wrote in message news:...
> Im a little confused, i have no idea what a DCF is?, and do you mean
> that we marry in sydney and then file paperwork?.. so its illegal to
> enter the us on the visa waiver program with the intent to immigrate,
> but what if i was there soley to work out our relationship and during
> those 90 days we on the spur of the moment decided to marry..What is
> the ruling with that??,
> thanks
> mystee
>
> L D Jones wrote in message news:...
> > mystee wrote:
> > >
> > > hi everyone,
> > > I was wondering if anyone knows if it is possible to marry on the visa
> > > waiver program, im from Australia and my b/f lives in the U.S.A. Is it
> > > possible for me to enter on the waiver program for 90 days and during
> > > that time marry and change my status..
> >
> > It is illegal to enter the US on the visa waiver program with the intent
> > to immigrate
> >
> > Consider marriage and direct consular filing (DCF) in Sydney. I'm not
> > certain but your then husband may not need to be resident in Australia
> > to do DCF. Contact the consulate for more information.
Mar 14th 2003, 10:20 pm
#57
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2001
Location: Ohio
Posts: 659
Originally posted by Ranjini
How we have all matured And gained more than a "bit" of knowledge. Robclews and all you other people out there note..... we have each had our differences with the group and with each other. But the wonderful thing is, we are still friends. Hugs to you Rete and Lisa.... I love you both.
How we have all matured
And gained more than a "bit" of knowledge. Robclews and all you other people out there note..... we have each had our differences with the group and with each other. But the wonderful thing is, we are still friends. Hugs to you Rete and Lisa.... I love you both.
Huggers to Rete as well.
Mar 14th 2003, 10:43 pm
#58
Concierge
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,410
Originally posted by abba48uk
I have seen this subject discussed here so many times and have, up till now refrained from joining what seems to be a dialogue of the deaf. Rete, your expertise and knowledge has been invaluable to many on this NG but I have to part company with you in judging this issue. It is NOT complicated. Entering on a visa waiver with the intent to marry is illegal. How difficult is that to understand? It may be difficult to PROVE, but that is not the same thing.
I have seen this subject discussed here so many times and have, up till now refrained from joining what seems to be a dialogue of the deaf. Rete, your expertise and knowledge has been invaluable to many on this NG but I have to part company with you in judging this issue. It is NOT complicated. Entering on a visa waiver with the intent to marry is illegal. How difficult is that to understand? It may be difficult to PROVE, but that is not the same thing.
I am American. I may not speak English with the same nuances that you do or your compariots but I do read, write and comprehend the English language.
I did not say it was legal in this post to enter with intent to marry. Why do you say that I did? If you took any inferrence in my post to this, then you were incorrect.
Rete
Mar 15th 2003, 12:27 am
#59
Pagan Sex God
Joined: May 2002
Location: Living in Oblivion
Posts: 3,668
Originally posted by JeffB I am not implying fraud or breaking the law, just talking about options that are available that are already there.
Yes, yes you are. If they happened to come into the country then went 'lets get married' on the spur of the moment that is fine. But Mystee has specifically asked if they can enter then marry - by default this is premeditated and they can't do it, legally. You have now advised someone to commit fraud.
You woke up in America this morning so you can air your opinions - yes but with this freedom comes the responsibility of freedom. You can say what you want but you can't go into a crowded cinema and shout 'fire' - this is an abuse of your freedoms. Just like advising someone to break the law.
You are irresponsible, not only that your a complete asshole - Rob disagrees with you and try to character assasinate him, grow up.
Rob your right, Jeff your completly wrong
Patrick
Mar 15th 2003, 12:29 am
#60
Forum Regular
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 130
Originally posted by stevelisaw
We didn't know anything but before marrying we contacted an attorney (didn't know about this forum back in the fall of '98).
I sort of get the feeling you thought you could just "get away with it" ...sorry if I'm wrong.
We didn't know anything but before marrying we contacted an attorney (didn't know about this forum back in the fall of '98).
I sort of get the feeling you thought you could just "get away with it" ...sorry if I'm wrong.
My husband and I did the same thing when we thought about getting married on his visa waiver. We'd never heard of this group before then, but I had a nagging, gutt feeling that I should contact a lawyer before we do anything that would get us in trouble later. We actually applied for a marriage license before we got married, only to find that we had to wait 3 days before we could get married. Thank God for those 3 days of waiting, because in that time we both came to our senses, picked up a telephone and consulted with an attorny who advised us against marrying on the Visa Waiver. He told us that my husband (boyfriend at the time) should return home to Norway and I should file for a K-1 as soon as possible, which I did and I'm glad I went that route instead of doing it the way we started to. It saved us from a world full of heartaches and headaches.
T.R.