Something strange about the State Dept site relavent to the stopage of issuance of new visas
Aug 22nd 2002, 9:21 am
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Something strange about the State Dept site relavent to the stopage of issuance of new visas
[email protected] (Marc Sil) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >INS has nothing to do with visa refusal. You won't get anything from them. As
> >for Consular Officers -- you don't get an "offial notice" in regards to
> >non-immigrant visas such as K -- oral notice is sufficient. You don't get much
> >notice, but some.
> >
> >By the way -- it is your fiance that applied for a visa, not you. Why would YOU
> >get any notice? As I mentioned, its not your problem, it was hers.
> You may be correct, but your statement in in direct conflict with statements by
> three separate VSC staffers, as well as the staffer who deals with immigration at
> my congressman's office.
> As for whose problem this is, it is neither hers or mine, it is indeed both
> of ours.
An immigration lawyer speaks:
I just came from a district/bar liaison meeting here in L.A.. Beleive me that it is
quite possible for 3 VSC staffers and a congressional staffer to be wrong. Hell, I
just got a summary judgement from a District Court today against me where INS had
f***king APPROVED a case and then turned around and unilaterally denied that -- my
argument was you want to do that, put 'em before an immigration judge -- well on to
the court of appeals. I try not to let those bastards at the INS get me down.
By the way, in 1976, Congress changed the law on US Citizen children to bring their
parents in -- they can only do it when they reach 21 years of age. There was MANY
challenges to this change as affecting the rights of US citizens to have their
parents with them here in the US. Every single one of these FAILED.
And IMHO, the child-parent relationship is a hell of lot more important than the
spousal relationship [I'm long married and have two lovely daughters, thank you].
I'm just telling you like it is.
news:<[email protected]>...
> >INS has nothing to do with visa refusal. You won't get anything from them. As
> >for Consular Officers -- you don't get an "offial notice" in regards to
> >non-immigrant visas such as K -- oral notice is sufficient. You don't get much
> >notice, but some.
> >
> >By the way -- it is your fiance that applied for a visa, not you. Why would YOU
> >get any notice? As I mentioned, its not your problem, it was hers.
> You may be correct, but your statement in in direct conflict with statements by
> three separate VSC staffers, as well as the staffer who deals with immigration at
> my congressman's office.
> As for whose problem this is, it is neither hers or mine, it is indeed both
> of ours.
An immigration lawyer speaks:
I just came from a district/bar liaison meeting here in L.A.. Beleive me that it is
quite possible for 3 VSC staffers and a congressional staffer to be wrong. Hell, I
just got a summary judgement from a District Court today against me where INS had
f***king APPROVED a case and then turned around and unilaterally denied that -- my
argument was you want to do that, put 'em before an immigration judge -- well on to
the court of appeals. I try not to let those bastards at the INS get me down.
By the way, in 1976, Congress changed the law on US Citizen children to bring their
parents in -- they can only do it when they reach 21 years of age. There was MANY
challenges to this change as affecting the rights of US citizens to have their
parents with them here in the US. Every single one of these FAILED.
And IMHO, the child-parent relationship is a hell of lot more important than the
spousal relationship [I'm long married and have two lovely daughters, thank you].
I'm just telling you like it is.
Aug 22nd 2002, 9:30 am
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Something strange about the State Dept site relavent to the stopage of issuance of new visas
"paulgani" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "FolinskyiInLA" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:63a991a9.0208211623.2530f9db@posting-
> .google.com ...
> > The Supremes have ruled that border control is a function inherent in the powers
> > of a sovreign and the powers of Congress in that regard are almost totally
> > "unfettered." This is firmly ensconsed in the law.
> On another attorney's site, I find this:
> "In 1882, we had the Chinese Exclusion Acts, which provided for the exclusion of
> persons from China. These laws remained in effect until they were finally repealed
> in 1943! Today, we cannot conceive of a law that specifically excludes people from
> a certain country. The courts would strike down such a law under the equal
> protection clause of the U.S. Constitution."
> Now, I had always concluded that the protections of the U.S. Constitution do not
> apply to aliens seeking to enter/remain in the U.S., and thus, if Congress desired,
> it could pass immigration laws which discriminated against people of a certain
> race, religion, etc... This other attorney seems to imply otherwise.
> What is your opinion?
> Paulgani
Perhaps they would -- but I doubt it. By the way, egual protection analysis is
divided into three types -- suspect class, heightened scrutiny, rational basis.
Generally speaking, if suspect class, government loses, rational basis and the
government wins. However, there are some immigration PROCEDURE cases where the
courts have applied the lenient rational basis test and the Government lost!
The 1996 legislation involves many provisions by which Congress has thrown down the
gauntlet and says we can do anything we damn well please -- and the court cases in
the next six years have been a mixed bag.
Who knows what will happen -- I don't own a crystal ball. All I can do is give the
present state of the law.
news:<[email protected]>...
> "FolinskyiInLA" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:63a991a9.0208211623.2530f9db@posting-
> .google.com ...
> > The Supremes have ruled that border control is a function inherent in the powers
> > of a sovreign and the powers of Congress in that regard are almost totally
> > "unfettered." This is firmly ensconsed in the law.
> On another attorney's site, I find this:
> "In 1882, we had the Chinese Exclusion Acts, which provided for the exclusion of
> persons from China. These laws remained in effect until they were finally repealed
> in 1943! Today, we cannot conceive of a law that specifically excludes people from
> a certain country. The courts would strike down such a law under the equal
> protection clause of the U.S. Constitution."
> Now, I had always concluded that the protections of the U.S. Constitution do not
> apply to aliens seeking to enter/remain in the U.S., and thus, if Congress desired,
> it could pass immigration laws which discriminated against people of a certain
> race, religion, etc... This other attorney seems to imply otherwise.
> What is your opinion?
> Paulgani
Perhaps they would -- but I doubt it. By the way, egual protection analysis is
divided into three types -- suspect class, heightened scrutiny, rational basis.
Generally speaking, if suspect class, government loses, rational basis and the
government wins. However, there are some immigration PROCEDURE cases where the
courts have applied the lenient rational basis test and the Government lost!
The 1996 legislation involves many provisions by which Congress has thrown down the
gauntlet and says we can do anything we damn well please -- and the court cases in
the next six years have been a mixed bag.
Who knows what will happen -- I don't own a crystal ball. All I can do is give the
present state of the law.
