Folinskyiinla

"paulgani" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
    > "Matthew Udall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:417148.1032230808@britishexpa-
    > ts.com    ...
    > > What do these lists have in common with an attorney in Texas advising
    > > the world at large to lie to our federal officers at the POE, and
    > > telling them "how" to lie to the federal officers?
    > The point is, YOU are the only one who believes this. The rest of us read
    > the same page, and see no such statements.
Hi:

I'm an immigration attorney practicing in Los Angeles. I've been at
this for nearly 27 years. Like Matt, I, too have problems with the
posting on K1.exit.com on tourist entries. I have read the page in
question. At best, in my opinion, the disclaimers bring the page to
barely on the right side of the line dividing ilegallity and legal
conduct. Matt appears to be of the opinion that it is over the line,
and I, for one find that argument will taken.

Please allow me a non-immigration analogy [bearing in mind that
analogies are slippery at times]: Lets say that a person in need of
some money and goes to a financial advisor. The advisor gives out a
sheet entitled "If you intend to get money by any means necessary
including robbing a liquor store" The first paragraph is a disclaimer
that "we do not recommend robbing liquor stores given the increased
law enforcement activity in our city" and then follows with detailed
methods of how liquor stores are robbed with success.

Criminal defense lawyers note that if any goes to jail for breaking
the law, it should be the client, not her lawyer. As a corollary, a
criminal defense lawyer must always assume that the client is wearing
a wire back into the District Attorney's office. [There have been
cases where criminal conspiracy charges have been brought against
attorneys where the star witness was the attorney's own client who
turned state's evidence].

Bottom line: the offending page reads like "advice" and its advice
that I would never give.

Targaff

[email protected] (MDUdall) wrote in
news:20020915231444.12470.0-
[email protected]:

    >>And yet you managed
    >>to write an entire 9 paragraphs of your reply on this one particular
    >>section.
    > I wrote about freedom of speech

And you should've stopped when you'd finished writing about freedom of
speech, since that was clearly what the whole thing was about. Instead
you took umbrage at a single phrase and blew it out of proportion. Not
that this is particularly surprising, really...

    > And I invite you to also answer the same honest question that I asked
    > Mike. Do you Targaff, think it's proper (legally and morally) to go
    > around advising the world at large (non-U.S. citizens and non-LPR's),
    > with no way to limit the advice to lovesick fiancée couples, that they
    > should lie to our federal officials charged with keeping out those who
    > should be kept out for a variety of reasons, and "how" to lie to these
    > federal officials in order to thwart them from being able to
    > effectively do their jobs. If not, why not? If so, why? Would your
    > answer be the same if written before and after 09/11/01?

Really? Proper, not really; but I don't have any real objections to it
either. At the end of the day, it's a statement of fact that this is the
way things are; not saying it doesn't make it any different.

My answer would be the same regardless of when it was made. Why? Because
I'm not so reactionary as to let that sort of event completely change my
perspective on things. In fact if you'll look elsewhere in this thread,
someone else encapsulated perfectly the viewpoint about getting on with
life rather than letting it "get" you that's apparently prevalent pretty
much anywhere else. You evidently view things differently - but then I
wouldn't expect anything else, really.

    > And I'll add a bonus question for you. Do you see it any differently
    > when it's a licensed attorney advising the world at large to lie to
    > our federal officials vs. a non-attorney doing it?

Eh, call me cynical but twisting the truth is the stock in trade of
attorneys. At the end of the day America doesn't seem to comprehend that
a nation founded on immigration should embrace immigration rather than
turning insular; but I think with the way society is these days you might
as well tell them the blunt truth because as far as genuine immigrants
are concerned, they'd still have had to go through with the same sort of
shit regardless of what the illegal immigration situation is.

It's called paranoid xenophobia. Enjoy it.

--

Targaff

Targaff

Targaff <[email protected]> wrote in
news:Xns928CEEA0968-
[email protected]:

    > Eh, call me cynical but twisting the truth is the stock in trade of
    > attorneys.

Besides, at the end of the day, anyone who can't work out that lying to
achieve something is asking for trouble - regardless of who told them that
it may or may not work - has no-one to blame but themselves. In their own
office, an attorney is essentially free to advise how they want; it might
be wrong, but they're their clients, if they want to screw them over, it's
them it's going to come back to. In that respect, if your issues with ths
are professional, then take them up professionally; thus far, however, it's
been anything but.

--

Targaff

Andy Platt

"FolinskyiInLA" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Please allow me a non-immigration analogy [bearing in mind that
    > analogies are slippery at times]: Lets say that a person in need of
    > some money and goes to a financial advisor. The advisor gives out a
    > sheet entitled "If you intend to get money by any means necessary
    > including robbing a liquor store" The first paragraph is a disclaimer
    > that "we do not recommend robbing liquor stores given the increased
    > law enforcement activity in our city" and then follows with detailed
    > methods of how liquor stores are robbed with success.

That would be one analogy. Another closer one would be this: The government
owes you the money in that shop. If you happen to be visiting that shop
they'll just give you the money but you are not really supposed to visit the
shop just for that purpose and I really don't recommend it. If you do go and
they ask you whether you are just visiting the shop for the money, say no,
buy something and leave. If they don't ask you, the money's yours! Of
course, the correct way is to file form ........

Which analogy you choose probably shows whether you think the advice is
illegal (or bordering on it) or just plain common sense. Of course, I have
and never will recommend somebody to take that approach - that is purely up
to them and when asked for the "safest" way I will recommend a K-1 or I-130
(with or without K-3) or whatever is appropriate. But I think the website
provides a good service for those who are not going to take that answer at
face value.

Andy.

--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.

Ap

I have mixed feelings about information how to adjust from non-
immigration visa ok k1.exit.com but I think you miss something in your
analogy.
"robbing a liquor store" is ALWAYS illegal while ADJUSTING from non-
immigrant visa might be legal in some (if not most) of the cases.


AP

In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] says...
    > Hi:
    > I'm an immigration attorney practicing in Los Angeles. I've been at
    > this for nearly 27 years. Like Matt, I, too have problems with the
    > posting on K1.exit.com on tourist entries. I have read the page in
    > question. At best, in my opinion, the disclaimers bring the page to
    > barely on the right side of the line dividing ilegallity and legal
    > conduct. Matt appears to be of the opinion that it is over the line,
    > and I, for one find that argument will taken.
    > Please allow me a non-immigration analogy [bearing in mind that
    > analogies are slippery at times]: Lets say that a person in need of
    > some money and goes to a financial advisor. The advisor gives out a
    > sheet entitled "If you intend to get money by any means necessary
    > including robbing a liquor store" The first paragraph is a disclaimer
    > that "we do not recommend robbing liquor stores given the increased
    > law enforcement activity in our city" and then follows with detailed
    > methods of how liquor stores are robbed with success.
    > Criminal defense lawyers note that if any goes to jail for breaking
    > the law, it should be the client, not her lawyer. As a corollary, a
    > criminal defense lawyer must always assume that the client is wearing
    > a wire back into the District Attorney's office. [There have been
    > cases where criminal conspiracy charges have been brought against
    > attorneys where the star witness was the attorney's own client who
    > turned state's evidence].
    > Bottom line: the offending page reads like "advice" and its advice
    > that I would never give.

Folinskyiinla

AP wrote in message news:...
    > I have mixed feelings about information how to adjust from non-
    > immigration visa ok k1.exit.com but I think you miss something in your
    > analogy.
    > "robbing a liquor store" is ALWAYS illegal while ADJUSTING from non-
    > immigrant visa might be legal in some (if not most) of the cases.
    > AP
Hi:

Your point is well taken. I did not that analogies can be slippery at
times. So lets change the analogy from robbery.

It is perfectly legal to pay for a six-pack of beer in order to
purchase it from a liquor store.

So, lets say the store is open, you enter, pick up your beer, pay then
leave. No problem [please don't drink and drive -- which I consider
to be a crime involving moral turpitude, although the case law
disagrees with me.]

Change the facts a little: You go to enter, find the door locked,
break through the door, pick up your beer, pay, then leave. Your beer
purchase is no problem, but your mode of entry is.