therockSO

One further quick question on this subject....

If there is no set STANDARD by which immigration thinks you have spent too much time in the US, how are they able to enforce something that has no set standard?

Isn't that like posting a sign on the highway which says "SPEED LIMIT UNDETERMINED", and then pulling you over and giving you a ticket for speeding????

PS - See previous threads from (therock) and (therockso).

Noorah101

That's correct. There is no set standard. It is up to each individual officer, on each individual trip, to determine whether at that particular time, you have spent too much time in the USA.

It's like in your analogy, you're going speeding along and one day one cop says welllll, you've got a clean driving record, there was no one else on the road, the weather is nice, I'll just give you a warning to be careful next time. But next time you do that, another cop says Hey, what do you think you're doing! You've done this before, it's rush hour traffic, and it's drizzling rain! Here's your ticket!

Same "crime" of going too fast, but different cops on different days with different circumstances.

Rene

Bluegrass Lass

Easy. Because they make the rules, and therefore can make the rules whatever they want, unfortunately for us. For all we know, they may use some kind of a guideline/rule of thumb, but I've never seen it published for us to know what it is. I think the consensus on here has been that it is kept vague for intentional reasons.

therockSO

I understand the "theory" behind what you are saying, but isn't there some legal issue there? It's got to be considered UNCONSTITUTIONAL or something like that. If the rules are clear and concise and we broke them, then by all means we have to live by the letter of the law. But, if there are no specific standards to adhere to, then how can we violate a standard that doesn't exisit?

Noorah101

Well, I guess there ARE basic "rules"....spend more time outside the USA than inside. Make sure you have your primary residence outside the USA. Make sure you maintain strong ties to your home country. Make sure you use the correct visa for the intent when you visit. That sort of thing. I mean...it's not really black and white, but as sunflower girl mentioned, it seems they keep the rules vague intentionally, so that the POE officer will have more leeway.

Rene

henryh

Because we are not US citizens and have no rights - or very few rights - under US immigration law. The constitution primarily protects citizens.

Yes, it sucks

crg

The standard is that you have to burden to prove to them that you will visit and depart. They felt that you were residing in the US without authorization. From your other posts, it appears that you probably were. Either you were living in the US, or you were not able to prove that you had a home somewhere else.

You were spending the majority of your time either in the US or working on a ship with no end in sight. That pattern of travel doesn't seem like you were just visiting.

therockSO

Well, there is the little Frueidian slip.....immigration LAW. Either it is law, or it is NOT law.

But, they know EXACTLY which of the 10 thousand forms you have to submit!!!

henryh

The law can say "The CBP officer may refuse you entry if she believes you intend to immigrate, are likely to overstay, or are likely to violate the purpose of 'visitor' status." The law can give a wide range of discretion to the officer since it is down to the officer's opinion.

The law doesn't say exactly that. If you want to know what it actually says, look up the INA. If you want to know what policy is recommended to DHS officers regarding B1/B2 status, look at the FAM. But unless (or even if) you are a qualified attorney you probably won't be able to correctly interpret them. It may look clear cut but in reality it's incredibly subtle. Immigration law is notoriously obscure, even compared to regular law.

Also - they're human, they make mistakes and sometimes they tell you to submit the wrong form!

ian-mstm

Not true. The Constitution protects *everyone* who is on US soil... whether citizens, PRs, visitors, or undocumented aliens. The thing here though, is that you are *not* dealing with Constitutional law when you apply for entry to the US.

You may be entitled to *apply* for admission... but that's where your entitlement ends. Once you ask to be let in, it's entirely up to the officer whether or not to let you in. The analogy... when you knock on someone's door, you must be prepared to be refused entry.

Ian

henryh

How many of the Bill of Rights apply to non-citizens? They certainly don't all apply (e.g. right to bear arms, and the first amendment might be dubious). But some do. Of those that do, are they rights granted by the constitution itself, or by legislation?

crg

The constitution applies to everyone.

Foreign citizens come to the US with their guns to go hunting all the time. A US citizen and an alien are subject to the same searches at the border up to and including the potential for a strip search, and even x-rays. The police need the same warrants to search the homes of citizens and aliens alike.

ian-mstm

All 10 of them apply.


All the Amendments to the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) are granted by the Constitution. Some Amendments expand the rights of US citizens (such as the 26th Amendment) but that's not the same thing as curtailing any rights enjoyed by non-US citizens.

Ian

therockSO

Well, I wont got into all of our details again, but it is an incredibly frustrating situation. Just a person who has time and means to be in the US, but has no intention of ever living here on a permanent basis......just visiting for extended periods of time and traveling extensively. If we had known up front how the visa worked, we would have certainly been more mindful of the time spent in the US. Just thought as long as we left within the 6 month period, all was well. Water under the bridge now

JAMAICA IN 2 WEEKS

henryh

The More You Know!