Rete

Even with the new article there are far too many questions that are not answered.

1. Is the husband a USC? Does he have a US Passport?

2. How did they enter the US without the family having appropriate visas?

3. The wife says USCIS says her husband is not American and then she goes on to say they don't recognize the marriage certificate from Scotland.

If hubby has a US Passport how can USCIS say he is not an American. It would appear that they are a selfish lot. You start your own business where you won't have benefits and then, not once, but twice get your wife pregnant when you don't have healthcare? You don't know the laws, rules, regulations of the government you are soliciting benefits from and are upset because your wife does not qualify for medicaid just because you are a US Citizen and pay taxes?

Go out and get a job, old man. Work for someone where you will have healthcare benefits. Work two jobs if you have to in order to pay your bills. Sounds like another idiot who thinks the US is the land of plenty and that money is there just for the picking.

Okachickima

The article doesn't say that Stuart is not an American citizen but that Immigration supposedly told her "she is not married to an American citizen". All that is necessary is that the marriage be legal where it took place. The article is so poorly written that anything is possible, but considering the fact that Stuart's children are his by some other woman I suspect that there was a prior marriage by one or the other that has not been terminated legally.

mellybrown

no actually i really dont know what it is!!

I wasnt being mean!!!

meauxna

Maybe the marriage certificate needs translating?

anotherlimey

That won't stop us speculating.

I hear he has five arms and US Immigration aren't sure if he's from Mexico or Mars.

anotherlimey

Or maybe it says Scotland on it and the immigration officials think that's a county in England, and therefore they want an "English" marriage certificate.

fatbrit

Away an bile yer heid ya numpty,ye dinnae ken whit yer talkin aboot.

farmerwife

Yeah, the reporting was on a level with the National Enquirer

MsElui

effectivly the babies blood and the mothers blood are clashing. If mommies blood wins - baby dies, hence need for shots to try and stop mummies blood winning. (happens when baby takes after fathers negative blood type AND its different to mothers positive blood type. Often doesnty cause much harm to a first child between the two - BUT can cause big issues for the subsequent children as the mother developes antibodies (i think).

Bob

maybe it had been battered and deep fat fried?

md95065

You do realize, I hope, that many of the "journalists" who work on rags like the "National Enquirer" are ex-pat Brits who learned their trade on the UK tabloids

As for the Scottish Sunday Mail, while I suppose that it isn't quite as bad as the Sunday Post, that isn't saying much ...

AmerLisa

It better be!

Folinskyinla

Hi:

I'm a lawyer, not a doctor. But do you have the Rh factor straight. My blood type is A-. My father is + as was my older brother. Back in the day, there were no interuterine blood testing of the child. I am given to understand that the docs were very concerned about the health of Mom and I. Everyone breathed a sigh of relief when I was born with - blood, sound and healthy

MsElui

i could be totally wrong. Its not an issue that your blood type is different to your dads - as you could well have inherited your mothers type. I believe the issue occurs when dad is negative and the baby is too - BUT the mum is positive. Dont think it matters if it happens the other way round.

Folinskyinla

Hi Rete:

I willing to bet that the reporter didn't ask to see the paperwork. A long time ago I was on a press "truth squad" of the local bar association. There was an article in the Los Angeles Times about an Immigration Judge refusing to reopen a case to allow a Yugoslavian Muslim to apply for asylum during the days of "ethnic cleansing." The members of our committee noted the timing and also the practices of the immigration judge in question. I spoke to the reporter and asked if he had seen the paperwork -- he admitted that he had not and simply relied on the alien and his attorney. He was outraged that the judge wouldn't talk to him! Without arguing the point, I simply noted that asylum is secret to protect the alien, so they were being cautious. But I simply noted that given the timing and the judge in question, it was quite likely that the judge begged him in the first go around to file for asylum and he stubbornly refused. He then changed his mind and sought to reopen.

It turned out that I called it exactly -- he was still outraged that government wouldn't disclose to him. He was going to write it up when the Northridge Earthquake intervened.

My feeling about the denial is that the I-864 was deficient and/or they gave incorrect documents.