Steve_

It needs to be rationalized, it makes no sense that visas for parents are immediately available, but not for the spouse of an LPR. That should be the other way around. And sponsoring in siblings and adult children seems a bit absurd, and even more absurd because by definition they're going to be quite old by the time a visa becomes available. Either get rid of it or make more visas available so it works properly.

Noorah101

Thanks for clarifying.

Rene

Steve_

Oh yeah and all this K-1/K-3/CR-1/IR-1 crap needs to be rationalized as well.

You come in, you get married and you apply for AOS, stuff K-1 visas. (In fact you can already do this, provided you didn't intend to do it). And K-3 could be done away with as well if they could do an immigrant visa quickly enough.

And all of them should be CR-1, because I'm sure you can forge a lot of the stuff that shows you were married outside of the country for more than two years.

So basically instead of four categories there would only be CR-1, or you could enter and do AOS and that would also be conditional in the same way as CR-1.

Noorah101

K-3 is pretty much already done away with. The visa still exists, but I-130's get approved so fast now, that NVC throws out the I-129F and does not process the K-3. They stick to the Immigrant Visa process instead.

Rene

slummymummy

Interesting. "Interview if needed"? If they are suspicious about you for some reason...?

And I think I sort of agree with "stuff K-1 visas". But then the rules for VWP would have to change. Not sure about it though.

I did say before I think VWP - AOS is abused too much. So maybe, either you make it not allowed for everyone, or you make it allowed for everyone. Whether you had the "intent" or not.

Trixie_b

I haven't read all of this thread, but just wanted to chime in on the children bought here by illegal parents. I do think that they should have been resident for a period of time before their 18th birthday and they should have attended full time education for a minimum period (2 or 3 years?)

There should be a time frame where they can choose to become "legal" (before 21st birthday?

Fees waived for this.

However, if they want to become a citizen, I don't think they should have the right to sponsor a blood relative, for example, their parents. They should only be allowed to sponsor a spouse.

Steve_

It's not really about the VWP, Canadians routinely enter as visitors, get married and do AOS, theoretically it's not legal but I've never heard of a Canadian being denied AOS on that basis. Ditto for people on B visas, clearly change of status is legitimate for those people and I'm sure plenty of them get married and do AOS also.

So why is there a K-1 visa at all? How many people actually get denied AOS for not using it? And why should they be denied anyway? Clearly their AOS will be denied if there is some other issue with it and they can enter as a visitor anyway so their presence is not an issue either.

In fact thinking about it I remember talking to a Canadian and the CBP inspector did think she was entering to get married and apply for AOS, so he got all uppity and issued her an I-94 to limit her stay. So she entered, got married, applied for AOS and it was still approved anyway.

The more important issue is making the status conditional to stop bogus marriages, or people conning naive Americans into marrying them so they can stay.

slummymummy

Mmm. And what about people who are already married? They should be able to do AOS too in your opinion, right? So the CR-1 is almost unnecessary too. The good thing about it though is that you can work straight away.

Me and american hubby were living in London and we were thinking about moving to the US but we really weren't sure if we would like it or not. My first thread on here was about whether I should enter on VWP and if I liked it do AOS! Haha. It seemed a bit crazy though and of course people told me it wasn't a good idea. So I got the visa the correct way.

Also, I think maybe VWP should be for 6 months instead of 90 days. A lot of people seem to want to stay for 4 months for example. And it would give more time to get married too!

jeffreyhy

If the fees are to be waived for this category, who will pay? The other people who apply for immigrant benefits (such as yourself?) ? The US taxpayers?

Just curious, since the money has to come from somewhere.

Regards, JEff

jeffreyhy

There is a distinct legal difference between people who are in the USA on the VWP as opposed to a B visa. To use the VWP an alien must give up some of the rights they would otherwise be entitled to. A person who entered the USA using a B visa has an avenue to fight an adverse decision on their application to adjust status, a person who entered using the VWP does not.

Regards, JEff

materialcontroller

Personally I'd do away with the ridiculous moral turpitude rules and only require waivers of criminal ineligibility for obviously extreme cases such as murderers.

slummymummy

The taxpayers have already paid quite a bit for these children as they are entitled to go to school without questions about immigration status asked.

I think it shouldn't be free for them, but it shouldn't be too expensive as these people are usually not rich and some might not even have parents in the country anymore.

And if there is a difference between my "cheap price" and the actual cost, I think the taxpayers should pay. Then hopefully the taxpayers will get that money back when the illegals start working legally and paying taxes.

slummymummy

You read my mind! I was just thinking about that...

I'm pretty sure the moral thing is from the constitution, as it mentions that immigrants can come if they are of a good moral character or something like that. I think minor crimes shouldn't be such a big deal even if it involves stealing or drugs. (Beating someone up is ok though?) And even bigger crimes should maybe be ok if it was say more than 10 years ago.

materialcontroller

If it only applied to immigrants it might be easier to accept. But moral turpitude applies to non-immigrants as well.

I have a criminal record dating back to the early 1990's, no further convictions since then. Yet for a simple tourist visit I still had to pay the full up front cost of a B2 visa and be subjected to the waiting time for adjudication of a waiver of ineligibility. And my first waiver was good for one single entry only. That's an awful lot of hassle and expense for a three week visit to Texas.

Noorah101

.... and therefore shouldn't be required to pay even more to keep the child here.

Rene