Very interesting article re immigration - have a look
Dec 3rd 2003, 12:11 am
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Very interesting article re immigration - have a look
"jeffreyhy" <member184@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mrs. L
> How many entries is one likely to make in 90 days, or in 6 months, what
> with wedding and preparing to file AOS and all?
I think you are missing the point of the question. It's not referring to the
time prior to marriage, it's referring to the time after. In other words,
it's saying why can't the K-1 visa be used after filing to adjust status
like the K-3 visa (which has an initial period of a couple of years).
Without looking in detail at the law I suspect this is a question for
congress, not for USCIS since I believe the K-3 is like that because that's
how congress specified it to be - it wasn't a whim of the (then) INS.
Andy.
--
I'm not really here, it's just your warped imagination
news:[email protected]...
> Mrs. L
> How many entries is one likely to make in 90 days, or in 6 months, what
> with wedding and preparing to file AOS and all?
I think you are missing the point of the question. It's not referring to the
time prior to marriage, it's referring to the time after. In other words,
it's saying why can't the K-1 visa be used after filing to adjust status
like the K-3 visa (which has an initial period of a couple of years).
Without looking in detail at the law I suspect this is a question for
congress, not for USCIS since I believe the K-3 is like that because that's
how congress specified it to be - it wasn't a whim of the (then) INS.
Andy.
--
I'm not really here, it's just your warped imagination
Dec 3rd 2003, 12:12 am
#17
Go RedSox!
Joined: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 681
Re: Very interesting article re immigration - have a look
Originally posted by jeffreyhy
Mrs. L
How many entries is one likely to make in 90 days, or in 6 months, what with wedding and preparing to file AOS and all?
Regards, JEff
Mrs. L
How many entries is one likely to make in 90 days, or in 6 months, what with wedding and preparing to file AOS and all?
Regards, JEff
Dec 3rd 2003, 12:41 am
#18
SUPER CRUNCHY BALCONY COW
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,476
Re: Very interesting article re immigration - have a look
Originally posted by Jenney & Mark
In October, this gentleman's wife had business at a trade fair in Guangzhou in southern China, and he decided to accompany her. On their return to LAX, he was informed that his "advance parole" had just expired, was handcuffed, fingerprinted, tossed in jail for 24 hours, and then told that he would be put on the first plane back to Guangzhou. Since his Chinese visa had expired, officials at Guangzhou would presumably put him on the first plane back to LAX, who would put him on the first plane back to Guangzhou, who would put him on the first plane back to LAX, and he would spend the rest of his life at 36,000 feet eating plastic food and watching Adam Sandler movies. Not our problem, said U.S. officials.
In October, this gentleman's wife had business at a trade fair in Guangzhou in southern China, and he decided to accompany her. On their return to LAX, he was informed that his "advance parole" had just expired, was handcuffed, fingerprinted, tossed in jail for 24 hours, and then told that he would be put on the first plane back to Guangzhou. Since his Chinese visa had expired, officials at Guangzhou would presumably put him on the first plane back to LAX, who would put him on the first plane back to Guangzhou, who would put him on the first plane back to LAX, and he would spend the rest of his life at 36,000 feet eating plastic food and watching Adam Sandler movies. Not our problem, said U.S. officials.
When you travel to another country and you get denied entrance, dont they take you back to your home country instead of a third part country??
Thanks for sharing the article with us.. but my brain almost fell out on this one lol.. Immigration law is way too complicated!!, I feel so dumb now!!
Dec 3rd 2003, 1:13 am
#19
Concierge
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,475
Re: Very interesting article re immigration - have a look
Originally posted by MrsLondon
Well, people must do, because lots of people apply for AP. Also, it is not just 90 days, but until you successfully AOS (I believe) which could be quite a long time.
Well, people must do, because lots of people apply for AP. Also, it is not just 90 days, but until you successfully AOS (I believe) which could be quite a long time.
After marriage and filing for AOS you have a different status ... pending.
Rete
Dec 3rd 2003, 1:21 am
#20
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: Very interesting article re immigration - have a look
Originally posted by MrsLondon
Btw anyone know why they don't just make the K1 a multiple entry visa, like the K3, to save all the admin of having to issue APs? The UK Fiance visa used to be single entry (and when my hubby--then fiancé went back to the US before we got married, he had to get another visa and pay all over again!) That wouldn't happen now as they have changed it to multiple entry.
Btw anyone know why they don't just make the K1 a multiple entry visa, like the K3, to save all the admin of having to issue APs? The UK Fiance visa used to be single entry (and when my hubby--then fiancé went back to the US before we got married, he had to get another visa and pay all over again!) That wouldn't happen now as they have changed it to multiple entry.
It is what it is. But to speculate, it appears to me to be consistent with the purpose of the visa -- the K-1 is notionally intended for speed -- entry to get married within 90 days while the K-3 is meant to compenstate for backlogs.
Also, you crank in historical examination of adjustment of status AND assume reasonable processing times -- the system would make sense and NO ONE would get a K-3 because you wouldn't need it.
Dec 3rd 2003, 1:31 am
#21
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: Very interesting article re immigration - have a look
Originally posted by Hypertweeky
When you travel to another country and you get denied entrance, dont they take you back to your home country instead of a third part country??
Thanks for sharing the article with us.. but my brain almost fell out on this one lol.. Immigration law is way too complicated!!, I feel so dumb now!!
When you travel to another country and you get denied entrance, dont they take you back to your home country instead of a third part country??
Thanks for sharing the article with us.. but my brain almost fell out on this one lol.. Immigration law is way too complicated!!, I feel so dumb now!!
Prior to April 1, 1997, an exclusion at the border had to be to the country the person had last traveled from. Now its anywhere DHS damn pleases. However, there are limits to that in that the receiving country must be willing to take him back.
On the deportation end of things, there is the classic Doherty case. Doherty spent a decade in US custody while his case wound through the system, including two trips to the Supremes.
One of the issues in the early part of the case involved which country he was to be deported to. Doherty was dual Irish/UK citizen who had been residing in a part of the UK known as "Maze." From what I understand, it had been intended that Doherty would live in Maze for the rest of his life. However, he left and moved to Boston. At one point, Doherty insisted on being deported to Ireland. However, the US and UK governments were really interested in seeing that Doherty moved back to Maze. While this issue was being fought, the UK and Irish goverments reached an agreement that people like Doherty should live in Maze. Doherty quickly changed his mind and decided he'd rather remain in the U.S.
Dec 3rd 2003, 1:36 am
#22
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,228
Re: Very interesting article re immigration - have a look
I am surprised no one has commented on this article. I guess if you are a WHITE terrorist, the standards are different? Do you think Rep. Rothman would have so much sympathy for a Palestinian terrorist who was in a 'legitimate struggle for Palestinian independence during a civil war'.
And by the way Mr. Dornan, there is no Irish American democracy. Its called American democracy.
And by the way Mr. Dornan, there is no Irish American democracy. Its called American democracy.
Originally posted by Clare & Steven
DEAL ALLOWS AN ACTIVIST TO STAY
Patriot Act threatened deportation
Tuesday, December 02, 2003
BY ANA M. ALAYA AND BRIAN DONOHUE
Star-Ledger Staff
His bid for political asylum rejected, Malachy McAllister was supposed to be on a plane yesterday, deported to his native Ireland.
Immigration officials say he is a terrorist
But a Bergen County congressman brokered an 11th-hour deal with federal officials that will allow the 46-year-old Bergen County man to remain in the United States until an appeals court hears his case.
The decision to delay the deportation of McAllister and his 24-year-old son follows a week of frenzied efforts by Rep. Steve Rothman (D-9th Dist.) and a group of lawmakers who contend new immigration laws designed to keep terrorists out of the United States are being inappropriately applied to McAllister.
"It made no sense, in the name of national security, under the Patriot Act, to force Malachy McAllister and his son to go back to Ireland," Rothman said yesterday afternoon, with McAllister at his side, at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation offices in Newark.
McAllister and his family fled Northern Ireland in 1988 after armed loyalists attacked their home. They moved to Canada before coming to the United States in 1996. McAllister's application for political asylum was denied because he had been convicted in plots to murder officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
However, his wife, Bernadette, and the couple's four children were granted asylum in 2000 by an immigration judge who ruled that they faced a severe threat of persecution if they returned to Belfast. The government appealed, and on Nov. 17 a three-judge panel of the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the ruling.
McAllister was ordered deported and went into hiding before surrendering yesterday. His wife and three of his children were given 20 days to surrender for deportation.
"We are not a threat to national security," McAllister said yesterday after he and his son Mark, 24, emerged from hours of talks with immigration officials. Mark McAllister was supposed to be deported with his father yesterday.
McAllister's attorney, Eamonn Dornan, said it was "a great day for democracy in Irish America and a great day for justice."
The deal to allow McAllister to remain in the United States does not resolve the legal battle that will take place in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, possibly early next year.
A stone mason who has lived in Wallington for the past six years, McAllister was once a member of the Irish National Liberation Army, a left-wing paramilitary organization in Ireland, and in separate plots, planned to kill two Royal Ulster Constabulary officers in Belfast more than two decades ago. One officer was wounded and the second plot did not work out.
McAllister insists he is not a terrorist. Rather, he claims he was involved in a legitimate struggle for Irish independence during a civil war. He was convicted by a British judge in a non-jury trial and served time in jail.
"In those days, the verdict was always against the Catholics in Northern Ireland," he said. "I could stand here today and say I was innocent of the charges, but I was involved in the politics of Northern Ireland."
U.S. Rep. Robert Menendez (D-13th Dist.), who has long supported McAllister and about a dozen other Irish republicans living illegally in the United States, said McAllister's acts should be considered in the context of the conflict in Northern Ireland.
"The United States, particularly under the previous administration, viewed that in pursuit of peace and justice in Northern Ireland, that these individuals were not terrorists but people fighting an occupying force," Menendez said.
Both Rothman, who represents Bergen County, and Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), said McAllister had been tripped up by a provision in the Patriot Act, which was passed in the aftermath of 9/11. That provision, Engel said, calls for the deportation of any foreign national who has been convicted of a crime abroad or in the United States.
"It's coming to light now that there are provisions of the Act that are a bit overzealous and this is one of them," said Engel, whose district in the Bronx includes many Irish-Americans.
Engel also said the Department of Homeland Security appeared to be including Irish convicts as a way of showing it is being evenhanded in carrying out post-9/11 enforcement efforts that have resulted in the deportation of thousands of Middle Eastern and South Asian men.
DEAL ALLOWS AN ACTIVIST TO STAY
Patriot Act threatened deportation
Tuesday, December 02, 2003
BY ANA M. ALAYA AND BRIAN DONOHUE
Star-Ledger Staff
His bid for political asylum rejected, Malachy McAllister was supposed to be on a plane yesterday, deported to his native Ireland.
Immigration officials say he is a terrorist
But a Bergen County congressman brokered an 11th-hour deal with federal officials that will allow the 46-year-old Bergen County man to remain in the United States until an appeals court hears his case.
The decision to delay the deportation of McAllister and his 24-year-old son follows a week of frenzied efforts by Rep. Steve Rothman (D-9th Dist.) and a group of lawmakers who contend new immigration laws designed to keep terrorists out of the United States are being inappropriately applied to McAllister.
"It made no sense, in the name of national security, under the Patriot Act, to force Malachy McAllister and his son to go back to Ireland," Rothman said yesterday afternoon, with McAllister at his side, at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation offices in Newark.
McAllister and his family fled Northern Ireland in 1988 after armed loyalists attacked their home. They moved to Canada before coming to the United States in 1996. McAllister's application for political asylum was denied because he had been convicted in plots to murder officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
However, his wife, Bernadette, and the couple's four children were granted asylum in 2000 by an immigration judge who ruled that they faced a severe threat of persecution if they returned to Belfast. The government appealed, and on Nov. 17 a three-judge panel of the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the ruling.
McAllister was ordered deported and went into hiding before surrendering yesterday. His wife and three of his children were given 20 days to surrender for deportation.
"We are not a threat to national security," McAllister said yesterday after he and his son Mark, 24, emerged from hours of talks with immigration officials. Mark McAllister was supposed to be deported with his father yesterday.
McAllister's attorney, Eamonn Dornan, said it was "a great day for democracy in Irish America and a great day for justice."
The deal to allow McAllister to remain in the United States does not resolve the legal battle that will take place in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, possibly early next year.
A stone mason who has lived in Wallington for the past six years, McAllister was once a member of the Irish National Liberation Army, a left-wing paramilitary organization in Ireland, and in separate plots, planned to kill two Royal Ulster Constabulary officers in Belfast more than two decades ago. One officer was wounded and the second plot did not work out.
McAllister insists he is not a terrorist. Rather, he claims he was involved in a legitimate struggle for Irish independence during a civil war. He was convicted by a British judge in a non-jury trial and served time in jail.
"In those days, the verdict was always against the Catholics in Northern Ireland," he said. "I could stand here today and say I was innocent of the charges, but I was involved in the politics of Northern Ireland."
U.S. Rep. Robert Menendez (D-13th Dist.), who has long supported McAllister and about a dozen other Irish republicans living illegally in the United States, said McAllister's acts should be considered in the context of the conflict in Northern Ireland.
"The United States, particularly under the previous administration, viewed that in pursuit of peace and justice in Northern Ireland, that these individuals were not terrorists but people fighting an occupying force," Menendez said.
Both Rothman, who represents Bergen County, and Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), said McAllister had been tripped up by a provision in the Patriot Act, which was passed in the aftermath of 9/11. That provision, Engel said, calls for the deportation of any foreign national who has been convicted of a crime abroad or in the United States.
"It's coming to light now that there are provisions of the Act that are a bit overzealous and this is one of them," said Engel, whose district in the Bronx includes many Irish-Americans.
Engel also said the Department of Homeland Security appeared to be including Irish convicts as a way of showing it is being evenhanded in carrying out post-9/11 enforcement efforts that have resulted in the deportation of thousands of Middle Eastern and South Asian men.
Dec 3rd 2003, 1:38 am
#23
SUPER CRUNCHY BALCONY COW
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,476
Re: Very interesting article re immigration - have a look
Originally posted by Folinskyinla
Hi:
Prior to April 1, 1997, an exclusion at the border had to be to the country the person had last traveled from. Now its anywhere DHS damn pleases. However, there are limits to that in that the receiving country must be willing to take him back.
On the deportation end of things, there is the classic Doherty case. Doherty spent a decade in US custody while his case wound through the system, including two trips to the Supremes.
One of the issues in the early part of the case involved which country he was to be deported to. Doherty was dual Irish/UK citizen who had been residing in a part of the UK known as "Maze." From what I understand, it had been intended that Doherty would live in Maze for the rest of his life. However, he left and moved to Boston. At one point, Doherty insisted on being deported to Ireland. However, the US and UK governments were really interested in seeing that Doherty moved back to Maze. While this issue was being fought, the UK and Irish goverments reached an agreement that people like Doherty should live in Maze. Doherty quickly changed his mind and decided he'd rather remain in the U.S.
Hi:
Prior to April 1, 1997, an exclusion at the border had to be to the country the person had last traveled from. Now its anywhere DHS damn pleases. However, there are limits to that in that the receiving country must be willing to take him back.
On the deportation end of things, there is the classic Doherty case. Doherty spent a decade in US custody while his case wound through the system, including two trips to the Supremes.
One of the issues in the early part of the case involved which country he was to be deported to. Doherty was dual Irish/UK citizen who had been residing in a part of the UK known as "Maze." From what I understand, it had been intended that Doherty would live in Maze for the rest of his life. However, he left and moved to Boston. At one point, Doherty insisted on being deported to Ireland. However, the US and UK governments were really interested in seeing that Doherty moved back to Maze. While this issue was being fought, the UK and Irish goverments reached an agreement that people like Doherty should live in Maze. Doherty quickly changed his mind and decided he'd rather remain in the U.S.
Yay!! I know one more thing
Why did they call that part of the US "Maze", Where is it at??
Dec 3rd 2003, 1:49 am
#24
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,033
Re: Very interesting article re immigration - have a look
Originally posted by DCMark
I am surprised no one has commented on this article.
I am surprised no one has commented on this article.
Elaine
Dec 3rd 2003, 1:53 am
#25
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Phoenix AZ
Posts: 2,345
Re: Very interesting article re immigration - have a look
Originally posted by HunterGreen
So am I... When I read it, I got a funny feeling about it. I can't pinpoint it or comment on it right now, but I was hoping for comments about it that would help me find what I am looking for... If that makes sense.
Elaine
So am I... When I read it, I got a funny feeling about it. I can't pinpoint it or comment on it right now, but I was hoping for comments about it that would help me find what I am looking for... If that makes sense.
Elaine
Oh, my head. Where's the Tylenol.....
(Just kidding)
Dec 3rd 2003, 1:56 am
#26
Go RedSox!
Joined: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 681
Re: Very interesting article re immigration - have a look
Originally posted by Folinskyinla
Hi
It is what it is. But to speculate, it appears to me to be consistent with the purpose of the visa -- the K-1 is notionally intended for speed -- entry to get married within 90 days while the K-3 is meant to compenstate for backlogs.
Also, you crank in historical examination of adjustment of status AND assume reasonable processing times -- the system would make sense and NO ONE would get a K-3 because you wouldn't need it.
Hi
It is what it is. But to speculate, it appears to me to be consistent with the purpose of the visa -- the K-1 is notionally intended for speed -- entry to get married within 90 days while the K-3 is meant to compenstate for backlogs.
Also, you crank in historical examination of adjustment of status AND assume reasonable processing times -- the system would make sense and NO ONE would get a K-3 because you wouldn't need it.
Dec 3rd 2003, 2:02 am
#27
Go RedSox!
Joined: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 681
Re: Very interesting article re immigration - have a look
Originally posted by Hypertweeky
Oh really? It was very kind of you to explained me that Yay!! I know one more thing
Why did they call that part of the US "Maze", Where is it at??
Oh really? It was very kind of you to explained me that
Yay!! I know one more thingWhy did they call that part of the US "Maze", Where is it at??
I have to agree with others that a terrorist is a terrorist, whether it be Al Queda or IRA. A convicted attempted murderer would not be allowed in the USA as a legal immigrant (like a spouse for eg) so why should he be allowed as an asylum seeker? If he really felt his life was in danger (sounds like this was mainly due to his IRA activities) he could have gone to live in the UK or if he didn't like that option, anywhere in Europe. He did not 'need' to claim asylum anywhere.
Dec 3rd 2003, 2:32 am
#28
Former Blonde
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: In a wibbly-wobbly world of my own
Posts: 1,380
Re: Very interesting article re immigration - have a look
Originally posted by MrsLondon
I believe 'Maze' refers to the Maze (so-called) prison, where a lot of IRA terrorists (either convicted or suspected) were held.
I have to agree with others that a terrorist is a terrorist, whether it be Al Queda or IRA. A convicted attempted murderer would not be allowed in the USA as a legal immigrant (like a spouse for eg) so why should he be allowed as an asylum seeker? If he really felt his life was in danger (sounds like this was mainly due to his IRA activities) he could have gone to live in the UK or if he didn't like that option, anywhere in Europe. He did not 'need' to claim asylum anywhere.
I believe 'Maze' refers to the Maze (so-called) prison, where a lot of IRA terrorists (either convicted or suspected) were held.
I have to agree with others that a terrorist is a terrorist, whether it be Al Queda or IRA. A convicted attempted murderer would not be allowed in the USA as a legal immigrant (like a spouse for eg) so why should he be allowed as an asylum seeker? If he really felt his life was in danger (sounds like this was mainly due to his IRA activities) he could have gone to live in the UK or if he didn't like that option, anywhere in Europe. He did not 'need' to claim asylum anywhere.
If only more people would consider the repercussions of their actions then the world would be a much better place!
Dec 3rd 2003, 2:41 am
#29
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: Very interesting article re immigration - have a look
Originally posted by MrsLondon
Where did I assume 'reasonable' processing times? I said AOS could be 'quite some time.'
Where did I assume 'reasonable' processing times? I said AOS could be 'quite some time.'
I didn't say you had assumed "reasonable" times. The K-3 is proof that processing times are unreasonable.
Notionally speaking, it should take about 3 hours of processing time to handle everything -- the backlogs are from number of cases coupled with mismanagement.
Dec 3rd 2003, 2:55 am
#30
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: Very interesting article re immigration - have a look
Originally posted by MrsLondon
I believe 'Maze' refers to the Maze (so-called) prison, where a lot of IRA terrorists (either convicted or suspected) were held.
I have to agree with others that a terrorist is a terrorist, whether it be Al Queda or IRA. A convicted attempted murderer would not be allowed in the USA as a legal immigrant (like a spouse for eg) so why should he be allowed as an asylum seeker? If he really felt his life was in danger (sounds like this was mainly due to his IRA activities) he could have gone to live in the UK or if he didn't like that option, anywhere in Europe. He did not 'need' to claim asylum anywhere.
I believe 'Maze' refers to the Maze (so-called) prison, where a lot of IRA terrorists (either convicted or suspected) were held.
I have to agree with others that a terrorist is a terrorist, whether it be Al Queda or IRA. A convicted attempted murderer would not be allowed in the USA as a legal immigrant (like a spouse for eg) so why should he be allowed as an asylum seeker? If he really felt his life was in danger (sounds like this was mainly due to his IRA activities) he could have gone to live in the UK or if he didn't like that option, anywhere in Europe. He did not 'need' to claim asylum anywhere.
You are correct on the "Maze". There had been an IRA breakout from the prison.
Doherty's case involved both extradition and deportation. There USED to be a "political offense" exception to the US-UK extradition treaty -- which was negotiated out of the treaty while Doherty's case was pending. Also, Eire and UK reached an extradition treaty while Doherty's case was pending. So this, in part caused lots of the procedural loops in his case.
I have not read McAllister's case -- but I'm sure that the Doherty case law came up therein.
Doherty was a Provo. I note that McAllister was a member of the Irish National Liberation Army. INLA is much more violent than the PIRA.
As an aside, for the first 40 years of its existence, AILA was known as the Association of Immigration & Nationality Lawyers or "AINL". There was a lot of dissatisfaction with this acronym and in 1985/86, there was a plebiscite of the members to change the name. The winner was "Immigration & Nationality Lawyers Association" with second place going to "American Immigration Lawyers Association." As all the new "INLA" stuff was being printed up, someone pointed out the OTHER "INLA" and the nature of their philosphy and actions. The Board of Governors held an emergency meeting and adopted the runner up name -- so "AILA" it is.
Personally, I preferred AINL.
