Folinskyinla rumination on "10 foot pole"
Feb 16th 2005, 1:22 am
#61
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Folinskyinla rumination on "10 foot pole"
Hypertweeky wrote:
>>Between Iran and USA, I'm not sure if it's as much because of abuse of
>>the system, as it is simply the political climate between the two
>>countries for the past 25 years. :(
>>Rene
>
>
> I can't imagine how hard that must have been on you and Sadegh, it blows
> that the US and Iran can't get along, I heard on the news this morning
> that Bush has sent spyes to Iran to find out if they have weapons of
> mass destruction:scared:
>
Spies in Iran? Where were they when all that talk of WMD in Iraq was
going on? Maybe we only have spies who speak Farsi but not Arabic :)
>>Between Iran and USA, I'm not sure if it's as much because of abuse of
>>the system, as it is simply the political climate between the two
>>countries for the past 25 years. :(
>>Rene
>
>
> I can't imagine how hard that must have been on you and Sadegh, it blows
> that the US and Iran can't get along, I heard on the news this morning
> that Bush has sent spyes to Iran to find out if they have weapons of
> mass destruction:scared:
>
Spies in Iran? Where were they when all that talk of WMD in Iraq was
going on? Maybe we only have spies who speak Farsi but not Arabic :)
Feb 16th 2005, 1:23 am
#62
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Boston MA
Posts: 79
Re: Folinskyinla rumination on "10 foot pole"
Originally Posted by Folinskyinla
Hi:
On the racial end of things, US immigration law WAS quite racist with the Chinese being among the first groups to be adversely affected and as time went on, the effects extended to other areas such as Southern and Eastern Europe.
However, the racial aspects of the immigration laws started to abate in 1943 when China was the first country to be removed from the "Asiatic Exclusion Zone". The overt racism was eliminated by the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act [which we still operate under, albeit in a highly amended form].
President Truman vetoed the 1952 Act and it was passed over his veto. Truman objected to the 1952 Act because it retained quotas based upon historical immigration which was governed by the former express racist provisions of prior law.
However, in 1965, the old national quota system was abolished as of July 1, 1968. [The government fiscal year used to end on June 30th rather than September 30th.] Since that time, all countries in the Eastern Hemisphere are treated the same. This had the effect of drastically increasing immigration quotas for Asia and decreasing them for Europe. That is why most Aisian immigrants to the US have come since 1968. [And causing the cultural clash between "FOB" and "ABC", a subject in itself]. By 1979, all countries were treated equally [eastern and western hemisphere].
On the racial end of things, US immigration law WAS quite racist with the Chinese being among the first groups to be adversely affected and as time went on, the effects extended to other areas such as Southern and Eastern Europe.
However, the racial aspects of the immigration laws started to abate in 1943 when China was the first country to be removed from the "Asiatic Exclusion Zone". The overt racism was eliminated by the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act [which we still operate under, albeit in a highly amended form].
President Truman vetoed the 1952 Act and it was passed over his veto. Truman objected to the 1952 Act because it retained quotas based upon historical immigration which was governed by the former express racist provisions of prior law.
However, in 1965, the old national quota system was abolished as of July 1, 1968. [The government fiscal year used to end on June 30th rather than September 30th.] Since that time, all countries in the Eastern Hemisphere are treated the same. This had the effect of drastically increasing immigration quotas for Asia and decreasing them for Europe. That is why most Aisian immigrants to the US have come since 1968. [And causing the cultural clash between "FOB" and "ABC", a subject in itself]. By 1979, all countries were treated equally [eastern and western hemisphere].
Thank you!
Interesting information, especially about Truman.
Question: If the law is fair today (which I believe), then why is it that on the executive staff side, that they have so many more people working to handle visas in countries that have a lower application number? I mean, why is it that only 1 consulate in all of China processes K,CR,PR,and other green card type visas, but in India, they have 2, and in other nations, much smaller than both, they have many? Why is it that the total wait time from some nations (mostly either non-caucasian, formerly communist, or poor, or some combination of all of these factors) is so much longer than others? If there is no longer a legal basis for this, then why does it occur? Or is there some legal basis, but one which exists in a different set of laws?
Thanks for your help!
Feb 16th 2005, 1:25 am
#63
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Boston MA
Posts: 79
Re: Folinskyinla rumination on "10 foot pole"
Originally Posted by andrea874
Overstaying is a completely different issue from adjusting from a non immigrant visa.
And yet, it seems that if a VWP person is not even yet married, or is just married and adjusting, that there are 10' pole techniques to be allowed to stay?
To me, this does not seem consistant. However, I am likely just confused about the status of how this works. So please, if someone can help correct me on this, I will feel very grateful (and less confused!).
Feb 16th 2005, 1:26 am
#64
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: Folinskyinla rumination on "10 foot pole"
Originally Posted by lele
A fair point.
However, China has asked the US to enter the process, and it was turned down by the US. This has happened many times. The ROK has also asked to join the VWP and has been rejected. Hence, it is now a political decision that I have seen. Hence, since I feel it is unfair, I need to approach this from a political perspective, to attempt to make a political change.
In terms of the law, you are absolutely right. I feel that the laws are not fair in this respect, but I do agree with your interpretation of the law.
How come you can travel to the ROK for 30 days w/o needing a visa, but for a citizen of the ROK to come to the US, they not only need a visa, but have a tough time getting one? Again, a political decision made by our government, on our behalf. I just am trying to point these out, since it frustrates me to see that people from VWP nations (which are all wealthy, at least today) have such an easier time, and in addition, sometimes do not face additional laws meant to restrict their ability to file for the same K1 that we are currently filing for.
I know that some of this is codified in the laws. However, these laws have been constructed due to politics, and ultimately due to decisions which I would like to work to change.
In terms of the laws, is there anything that we can do about the unequal treatment? Is it actually legal to treat a K1 applicant differently, based on their country of origin, or is this in the current realm of administrative perogative?
Thanks!
However, China has asked the US to enter the process, and it was turned down by the US. This has happened many times. The ROK has also asked to join the VWP and has been rejected. Hence, it is now a political decision that I have seen. Hence, since I feel it is unfair, I need to approach this from a political perspective, to attempt to make a political change.
In terms of the law, you are absolutely right. I feel that the laws are not fair in this respect, but I do agree with your interpretation of the law.
How come you can travel to the ROK for 30 days w/o needing a visa, but for a citizen of the ROK to come to the US, they not only need a visa, but have a tough time getting one? Again, a political decision made by our government, on our behalf. I just am trying to point these out, since it frustrates me to see that people from VWP nations (which are all wealthy, at least today) have such an easier time, and in addition, sometimes do not face additional laws meant to restrict their ability to file for the same K1 that we are currently filing for.
I know that some of this is codified in the laws. However, these laws have been constructed due to politics, and ultimately due to decisions which I would like to work to change.
In terms of the laws, is there anything that we can do about the unequal treatment? Is it actually legal to treat a K1 applicant differently, based on their country of origin, or is this in the current realm of administrative perogative?
Thanks!
Please forgive me for chuckling. I'm one lawyer in a 7-lawyer office where I am "of-counsel." I am the only "pai-yin", with one Filipino-American and five Korean-American lawyers. The vast majority of our immigration practice with the ROK and it would approach 100% if wasn't for my personal clientele. I just passed on your question to our senior Korean-American [she is six months older than I am and we are both 20-30 years older than the other five attorneys]. [My children used to be jealous that Dad would take all these trips to Korea, not realizing the trans-Pacific business trips are quite draining].
Shall I say that she laughed out loud? She wondered why the ROK even bothers to ask every year other than for political reasons. Their refusal rate at 82 Sejong-Ro is about 20% or way over the refusal rate to qualify for VWT classification. However, she did feel that the 20% refusal rate was not justified, it should be closer to 50% and that the US is bowing to political pressure to grant more visas than should otherwise be granted.
You'll have to forgive me, but immigration lawyers sometimes tend to take strange views from "living" IN the "system."
Feb 16th 2005, 1:34 am
#65
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Boston MA
Posts: 79
Re: Folinskyinla rumination on "10 foot pole"
Originally Posted by Folinskyinla
Hi:
Shall I say that she laughed out loud? She wondered why the ROK even bothers to ask every year other than for political reasons. Their refusal rate at 82 Sejong-Ro is about 20% or way over the refusal rate to qualify for VWT classification. However, she did feel that the 20% refusal rate was not justified, it should be closer to 50% and that the US is bowing to political pressure to grant more visas than should otherwise be granted.
You'll have to forgive me, but immigration lawyers sometimes tend to take strange views from "living" IN the "system."
Shall I say that she laughed out loud? She wondered why the ROK even bothers to ask every year other than for political reasons. Their refusal rate at 82 Sejong-Ro is about 20% or way over the refusal rate to qualify for VWT classification. However, she did feel that the 20% refusal rate was not justified, it should be closer to 50% and that the US is bowing to political pressure to grant more visas than should otherwise be granted.
You'll have to forgive me, but immigration lawyers sometimes tend to take strange views from "living" IN the "system."
But, your story makes sense to me! Wow, I never realized that the US could grant so many excess visas to people from Korea, for political consideration, and at the same time, piss off China so much by granting so many visas to people with taiwan travel documents, and to flat-out deny so many visas from qualified people in the mainland portion of china.
This is all so confusing to me...
So, do you think that there is a hope that in the future, an applicant from China for a K1 could be treated similarly to those from a wealthier nation, so that others will not have to suffer so much as we have had to?
Feb 16th 2005, 2:06 am
#66
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: Folinskyinla rumination on "10 foot pole"
Originally Posted by lele
Thank you!
Interesting information, especially about Truman.
Question: If the law is fair today (which I believe), then why is it that on the executive staff side, that they have so many more people working to handle visas in countries that have a lower application number? I mean, why is it that only 1 consulate in all of China processes K,CR,PR,and other green card type visas, but in India, they have 2, and in other nations, much smaller than both, they have many? Why is it that the total wait time from some nations (mostly either non-caucasian, formerly communist, or poor, or some combination of all of these factors) is so much longer than others? If there is no longer a legal basis for this, then why does it occur? Or is there some legal basis, but one which exists in a different set of laws?
Thanks for your help!
Interesting information, especially about Truman.
Question: If the law is fair today (which I believe), then why is it that on the executive staff side, that they have so many more people working to handle visas in countries that have a lower application number? I mean, why is it that only 1 consulate in all of China processes K,CR,PR,and other green card type visas, but in India, they have 2, and in other nations, much smaller than both, they have many? Why is it that the total wait time from some nations (mostly either non-caucasian, formerly communist, or poor, or some combination of all of these factors) is so much longer than others? If there is no longer a legal basis for this, then why does it occur? Or is there some legal basis, but one which exists in a different set of laws?
Thanks for your help!
Interesting question. In my 30 years of doing this, I have noted that the number of consulates doing "IV" ["Immigrant Visas"] has been steadily decreasing. The current list of visa issuing posts can be found at http://travel.state.gov/visa/recipro...uing_posts.htm
The most common pattern for IV issuance is that a country will have either ONE or NO IV issuing post. For example, Mexico has EIGHT visa issuing posts, but the only one handling immigrant visas in in Juarez which is on the border with the US. In Canada, which has seven posts, only Montreal handles Immigrant Visas and only MTRL and Vancouver do K's. I used to handle IV applications in Vancouver, Mexico, DF and Guadaljara, but not in many years. Many of the FSR's have no IV issuing post at all. People in Belraus have to go to go outside, I believe to Warsaw.
You are correct that there are exceptions -- which are in four countries. In Austrialia 3 of 4 posts handle IV's and in Japan 2 of 3. Isarel is 2 for 2 but that is because of politics, Israel is the only country on the planet where the US Embassy is located away from the capital city. The post in Jerusalem is a separate "Consulate General" and serves the disputed terretories and Gaza. As you note, India is UNIQUE -- all four of the diplomatic posts handle immigrant visas although Calcutta has limited services.
Why the exceptions for Australia, Japan and India -- don't have a clue.
Feb 16th 2005, 2:45 am
#67
Concierge
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,406
Re: Folinskyinla rumination on "10 foot pole"
Originally Posted by lele
I do not think this!
I think that ideally, there would be no need for visas for anyone to come to live, work, play, or enjoy the US.
I think that ideally, there would be no need for visas for anyone to come to live, work, play, or enjoy the US.
However, since we rely on visas under the current set of laws, I would want to force everyone who did not enter on a K1, K3, CR, IV, or other visa which leads to a Green Card, to have to leave and file for an appropriate visa.
You have not touched on those visaholders who are here with a D/S stamp in their passport. They virtually have free rein in the US and can't be held accountable for their absue and misuse of their original visas until they are before an immigration judge or immigration officer.
Even citizens of first world nations require an appropriate visa to live and work in the US. And yes, they are denied as well if they don't fulfill the requirements of the visa they are applying for.
I just want to be consistant here. Painful? Yes. Fair? Yes. Not a good solution? Yes. Better than what we have now? Yes.
Consistency would be that the person filing whatever petition has the same amount of wait time as the next. No longer, no less. Consistency is that the rules are applied uniformly at the district offices stateside and the US Consulates worldwide.
If you want consistency then in the diversity lottery Canadians and citizens of the UK should be given the opportunity to apply as well. They are not and have not been for years nor will they be for years to come.
Feb 16th 2005, 2:54 am
#68
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Boston MA
Posts: 79
Re: Folinskyinla rumination on "10 foot pole"
Originally Posted by Rete
If you want consistency then in the diversity lottery Canadians and citizens of the UK should be given the opportunity to apply as well. They are not and have not been for years nor will they be for years to come.
Feb 16th 2005, 2:57 am
#69
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: SFO
Posts: 871
Re: Folinskyinla rumination on "10 foot pole"
Wow so many posts in just a few hours. Anyhow I wanted to comment further on why I support the idea of making it so that you cannot adjust status on VWP/tourist visa "etc." By "etc." I did indeed mean all other non-immigrant visas (excepting the dual-intent ones such as H1-B and L-1B, since they are *dual*-intent).
You all have brought up good points about people here on longer-term visas such as student visas, who may, for example, meet their future spouse here and get married and want to adjust. IMHO, we should make it possible for these folks to apply for K visas while they're here, but the condition is that they have to maintain another legal status (such as keeping up their student status) while waiting.
I like having a clearer division between immigrant and non-immigrant visas because I think it will solve the problem of the US suspecting everyone as an intending immigrant. If we make it so that you cannot possibly adjust status on a non-immigrant visa, it will make the granting of those non-immigrant visas a little bit easier. For example, let's say you are from Poland and you wish to study in the US. To complicate matters, let's say you have a boyfriend in the US. Under the current system, if you disclose that fact, your student visa will very likely be denied, which leaves you with two non-options: to lie and say you don't have a USC boyfriend, or to tell the truth and probably be denied because they think you will end up marrying and immigrating. We are, a little bit, forcing people to be not entirely truthful.
I would also want add enforcement of immigration laws with regard to overstay and unauthorized employment. Does anyone else find it strange that we forgive these transgressions of the law when you get married to a USC? It seems to me that we are encouraging people to break the law. It also encourages people to find a USC to marry to "fix" their immigration issues.
Most of all, IMO the laws should be equitable and less vague. If adjustment on VWP is allowed, then just make it completely legal and take away that "intent" thing. Or go the other way and make it so that you can't adjust on VWP at all.
P.S. for those of you still reading - in case you were curious, we did not do K1 or K3 or VWP. My husband was here on an L-1B, which is dual-intent.
You all have brought up good points about people here on longer-term visas such as student visas, who may, for example, meet their future spouse here and get married and want to adjust. IMHO, we should make it possible for these folks to apply for K visas while they're here, but the condition is that they have to maintain another legal status (such as keeping up their student status) while waiting.
I like having a clearer division between immigrant and non-immigrant visas because I think it will solve the problem of the US suspecting everyone as an intending immigrant. If we make it so that you cannot possibly adjust status on a non-immigrant visa, it will make the granting of those non-immigrant visas a little bit easier. For example, let's say you are from Poland and you wish to study in the US. To complicate matters, let's say you have a boyfriend in the US. Under the current system, if you disclose that fact, your student visa will very likely be denied, which leaves you with two non-options: to lie and say you don't have a USC boyfriend, or to tell the truth and probably be denied because they think you will end up marrying and immigrating. We are, a little bit, forcing people to be not entirely truthful.
I would also want add enforcement of immigration laws with regard to overstay and unauthorized employment. Does anyone else find it strange that we forgive these transgressions of the law when you get married to a USC? It seems to me that we are encouraging people to break the law. It also encourages people to find a USC to marry to "fix" their immigration issues.
Most of all, IMO the laws should be equitable and less vague. If adjustment on VWP is allowed, then just make it completely legal and take away that "intent" thing. Or go the other way and make it so that you can't adjust on VWP at all.
P.S. for those of you still reading - in case you were curious, we did not do K1 or K3 or VWP. My husband was here on an L-1B, which is dual-intent.
Originally Posted by andrea874
This was regarding my comment that if they took away the "loophole" with VWP and tourist visas they would have to disallowe adjusting from any other visa. Well, where do you draw the line? Do people with temporary work visas have to go home too, and get a K1/K3? What about people with H1Bs or other work visas? The fact is that people do legitimately come to the US for other reasons, and end up getting married and staying. The last thing on my mind when I came to the US was getting married and staying here. Sure, its a method that is probably abused by some, but if you close that loophole, you're putting thousands of people through additional unneccessary steps, and realistically probably increasing the wait time for K1/K3's as there would be that many more people needing to apply for them. It does suck that K1/K3 visas are a pain to get. The fact that people get bitter that others can adjust because of different circumstances doesn't make sense. This isnt meant as a personal attack on anyone whatsoever... much love...
Feb 16th 2005, 2:57 am
#70
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Boston MA
Posts: 79
Re: Folinskyinla rumination on "10 foot pole"
Originally Posted by Rete
You have not touched on those visaholders who are here with a D/S stamp in their passport.
Feb 16th 2005, 2:58 am
#71
Concierge
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,406
Re: Folinskyinla rumination on "10 foot pole"
Originally Posted by lele
I agree with you, they should be. As should Chinese (who are also barred from entering into the Diversity Lottery). The DV should offer everyone an equal chance. That sounds fair. This should include British, Canadian, and Chinese citizens.
The reason these countries are not included is because of the large number of immigrants yearly from each of them.
Wondering why you have not chosen to live in China with your fiancee after your marriage? From others who have used this site over the years, apparently migrating to China is much easier.
Rete
Feb 16th 2005, 2:59 am
#72
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Boston MA
Posts: 79
Re: Folinskyinla rumination on "10 foot pole"
Originally Posted by hcj1440
(excepting the dual-intent ones such as H1-B and L-1B, since they are *dual*-intent).
What is an L-1B? I know of H-1B. Is it similar?
Feb 16th 2005, 3:04 am
#73
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Boston MA
Posts: 79
Re: Folinskyinla rumination on "10 foot pole"
Originally Posted by Rete
The reason these countries are not included is because of the large number of immigrants yearly from each of them.
Wondering why you have not chosen to live in China with your fiancee after your marriage? From others who have used this site over the years, apparently migrating to China is much easier.
Rete
Wondering why you have not chosen to live in China with your fiancee after your marriage? From others who have used this site over the years, apparently migrating to China is much easier.
Rete
Rete,
You ask a *great* question.
Actually, we are considering living in China in the future. However, until I am finished with my graduate school, we thought that it would not be worth the move. However, as soon as I am done, we are open to staying in the US, to moving to a neutral 3rd country, or going to China. We are pretty much open to staying anywhere, other than Japan or the region including taiwan and fujian provinces (since the latter region is likely not safe for the near future, and because the Japanese I have met have exhibited extreme prejudice towards me upon learning of my Chinese bride to be very soon).
For us, living together, and perusing our dreams of learning and contributing are far more important than where we live.
There are *many* americans who seem to move to china for spouses. I wonder how many are willing to leave the US for the relative comfort of 1st world nations, such as other members of the VWP? Is that common?
ps. if you want to read more about my story and all of the rationales for the above, I have posted ad-nauesum about them at www.candleforlove.com (the chinese family/marriage immigration specific website)
Feb 16th 2005, 3:09 am
#74
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Boston MA
Posts: 79
Re: Folinskyinla rumination on "10 foot pole"
Originally Posted by Rete
I agree the Chinese have been discriminated against for a century or more in immigration issues. But then so have other countries over the last two centuries.
Consistency would be that the person filing whatever petition has the same amount of wait time as the next. No longer, no less. Consistency is that the rules are applied uniformly at the district offices stateside and the US Consulates worldwide.
Consistency would be that the person filing whatever petition has the same amount of wait time as the next. No longer, no less. Consistency is that the rules are applied uniformly at the district offices stateside and the US Consulates worldwide.
I like this proposed solution. The wait times should be made more standardized. This is not too hard to do: in countries where they are currently more than 1/2 stdev below the mean wait time, staff are transfered out into countries where they are above the mean. This process is continued, until a rough equilbrium is found. If it is required to hold some petitions for 4-5 months in some nations, fine. It seems like, just with the current staff that exists, that a wait time of 4-5 months across the board should be easy to reach, and that it could likely be decreased more with other efficiencies.
But, then one would also have to include making sure that the criteria are made uniform.
For example, when applying for a B in China to come to the US, usually one must show a far larger burden than when a person in France applied for a B visa (at least from the 1 person in France that I talked with about this). I think that making rules more uniform, and comparing results can also see whether or not the rejection rate is high in a country because of legitimate reasons, or as many w/ friends and family in China believe, because the visa officer is having a bad hair day, or woke up on the wrong side of the bed, etc.
Feb 16th 2005, 3:17 am
#75
BE Site Lead
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: MA, USA
Posts: 92,172
Re: Folinskyinla rumination on "10 foot pole"
Originally Posted by Rete
Wondering why you have not chosen to live in China with your fiancee after your marriage? From others who have used this site over the years, apparently migrating to China is much easier.