PantomimeGoose

Knowing what you were getting into doesn't help a great deal when your options are basically immigrate, emigrate, or commute to your family. Why should having gone through something one way, for lack of alternatives, mean that that is the best and only way for everyone in the future?

It's an 800 word blurb: not exactly the place for nuance. If anyone on here is inclined to write a less simplistic or deceptive petition for immigration reform, I will happily sign it.

S Folinsky

I'm still missing something. How is the US government requiring separation from family for half a year. How is the US government imposing a higher income requirement in order to marry?

PantomimeGoose

Apologies, my previous reply to you was longer, but part of the text got stuck in the 'quote' part of the thread under your original comments. If you can't see it there, I'll reiterate it.

celticgrid

Or accuracy?

There's a difference between "nuance" and factual data. Others have pointed out specifics. Sorry, but any debate you try and have is totally undermined by the inaccuracies in your proposal.

zerlesen

I also think it's unconstitutional that a US citizen can't choose to employ whoever they want, instead of being subject to the ("sometimes humiliating") requirement that they justify their business to a government agency.

scrubbedexpat099

There is a strong argument that income tax is unconstitutional, a much bigger issue.

And what about Obamacare?

fatbrit

I'm well into the idea behind your petition -- it just needed more focus before you put it up there. My own suggestion would be to campaign for a limit on the government's adjudication of benefits across the board. I'd go for 30 days for completing an niv application, and 90 days for an iv. And I'd extend it to other federal benefits, too.

No highfalutin claims to the Constitution are necessary. If we claim to live in the #1 country in the world, we really can't have a 3rd-world bureaucracy.

PantomimeGoose

Businesses are public, collective institutions, while marriages are private and personal? Employing whoever you want (for example minors, illegal immigrants) is not a customary right that some businesses have and other businesses don't? A private citizen generally can choose who they want to employ, provided it is not in violation of labor laws.

If you're talking about affirmative action you might have a legitimate argument: why make it a mockery?

S Folinsky

I reread the prior posts in this thread. Again, I do not see how the US procedures mandate the separation of families in the normal immigration process.

PantomimeGoose

Well, individuals are required to go back to their country of origin to apply. It is not ostensibly illegal for them to visit during this time, but the burden of proof that they intend not to stay is on the foreign spouse whenever they cross the border. The decision to admit them is at the discretion of the border agent. As a result, many people are turned away because the border agent suspected they intended to stay permanently (this is a very subjective decision). Many more fear to risk it, especially if they do not have evidence of strong ties to their home country (if for example they are unemployed or living with parents).

Even if they are admitted, the border agent has the power to cap their tourist visa to the date on the return ticket. Even if they are admitted, their tourist visa may run out, leaving months to go in the process when it is mandated that they can not visit further. So while the government does not forbid seeing your spouse in many instances, it may effectively prevent it via other policies, much like Jim Crow laws frequently prevented African Americans from voting, though it was not forbidden to them. Having visitation rights to your spouse is not really the same as cohabitating with them.

This is to say nothing of those who can not easily get a tourist visa to the US, and in effect are prevented from seeing their families.

scrubbedexpat099

Labour Laws I do not recollect being in the Constitution.

And if I want to employ a French housekeeper I can not.

ian-mstm

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.


It is not illegal at all... so why try to obfuscate the meaning by using the adjective "ostensibly"?


That burden is true for all visitors to the US... so there is no undue burden on the foreign spouse.


Again, that's true for all visitors to the US... so there is no undue burden on the foreign spouse.


True... but that's his job. The officer's duty is to keep people out of the US unless they fall into one of several, very narrowly-defined exceptions.


True... but that is their choice.


True... and that's the officer's discretion.



Oh FFS... why is it always the foreign spouse in the equation who is the one who has to travel? The couple can always see each other... if, for example, the USC spouse travels to the foreign spouse's country, or if they both meet in a 3rd country.


Sorry, but that's just crapola... as is most of what you've written. The US is not responsible for the whims of a USC who happens to marry someone from a foreign country. That is their choice - and, as with so many things, they need to deal with the situation that they themselves create. If they don't like it, that's just TFB. That was their choice.

Ian

scrubbedexpat099

You assume that the USC can not travel?

And this is a different issue, Congress yet again both requires tourists to meet the non immigrant requirement and also does not actively police those who do not so leaving the PoE and Consulates with little room for manoeuvre.

S Folinsky

Perhaps, I had practiced immigration law for too long. However, I think the insularity I feel is also present with the minions of the Dark Forces and their supporters.

Separation of spouses is a factor in hardship determinations in various wavier application and in what is called non-resident cancellation of removal. It was a factor in the prior "suspension of deportation" remedy. Accordingly, there is a fairly well developed body of law on it. It is standard analysis to make the determination twice -- hardship if citizen remains in the US and hardship if the citizen departs the US.

Furthermore, "mere" separation is not considered to be hardship by itself.

In light of the foregoing, clarification from OP will be greatly appreciated.

Michelmas

Where is this mandated? If memory serves, there is no restriction on the amount of time you have to leave between departing the US and re-entering. While it may behoove the visitor to leave as much time out of the country as was spent in it between visits, I see no where that this is "mandated"...