There was an error in my wife's green card application that many people (including myself and our lawyer) should have caught. Our lawyer promised us that during the final interview this could be trivially corrected on the spot. Despite many smiles and laughs during the interview it's clear the interviewer didn't approve of how my current wife and I met (it involved a divorce) and so he decided that he couldn't possibly correct the error during the interview, and that while we passed, we would need to wait nearly a year for the correction.
While this was frustrating the interviewer could have just as easily decided, at his discretion, that our marriage was not "real" (despite the fact that the reason for his objection was ample evidence that it was quite real), so it was a pain we had to suffer. I've spent enough time working with petty bureaucrats to know it's better to accept whatever means they try to prove their own power than to fight it.
Like the interpretation of the situation seems to hinge on that, because if we didn’t know that it was usually fixed on the spot, then it could very well just be protocol to go through a correction process that takes awhile (for other dumb reasons but not because someone was wronging you personally).
The right way to fix this is to type out the questions you want to correct into a document (called an errata sheet) with the corrected answers and to hand that to the visa officer with your ID at the start of the interview. The reason you want to do this is you want a paper record that you volunteered this information. Anything verbal can be argued that you only revealed such information when confronted and that's a problem.
So I don't know what your issue was. Errors with a divorce could be as serious as you weren't free to marry because at the time you got married your divorce wasn't finalized and that invalidates your entire petition and there's no correcting that.
Another big one is USCIS not believing your divorce is real. this happens if you get divorced in certain countries (eg Ghana, Nigeria) where apparently fradulent divorce decrees are a real problem.
When this happens, you're present without a visa, but it's not illegal. You're on a "stay authorized by the attorney general".
I'm not sure if that has changed, but the " authorized stay" thing is the defense to being present without a visa.
It does make a lot of paperwork more difficult, like getting a drivers license, when as you can't prove status.
If you get married as an F1 student, it's completely fine (and encouraged) to continue your studies under your F1 visa while your I130 and I485 are pending.
There are differences here if you're marrying a US citizen vs a green card holder. If you marry a green card holder, you must maintain your status until you adjust status with your I485. If you marry a US citizen, being out of status is forgiven.
If you discontinue your studies, USCIS (particularly under this administration) might try and argue you obtained your student visa fraudulently to deny your marriage petition. The best thing you can do is complete your studies and then, if applicable, obtain OPT to further maintain status.
Any marriage where the immigrant spouse is out of status will be treated with more scrutiny by USCIS.
There are two things that I'm not sure about:
– Is the distinction between studying (regardless of status), vs. being in status vs. having a visa? Because the three are different: you can enter as a student and study, and have your F-1 expire, and still maintain status per SEVIS.
– IANAL, but you get an EAD upon petitioning for an AOS – does that prevent you from applying for OPT?
For example, if you get sponsored by an employer for a green card and you marry a US citizen, you might ask which green card should you pursue? The answer is both. This is fine and encouraged.
This also comes up with people who apply for asylum. This can take years to adjudicate. What if they get married to a US citizen in the meantime? Generally, the advice is to maintain your asylum application AND apply for your marriage-based green card.
This doesn't just apply to green cards either. If you work on an H1B, it's completely fine to apply for a green card (through employment and/or marriage) at the same time. Some will point out that the H1B is a so-called dual intent visa that doesn't preclude immigrant intent but that's not really what that means because you can adjust status to a green card on a non-immigrant intent visa too.
"Immigrant intent" here really means if a consulate will issue you the visa overseas and if CBP will let you into the country if you've shown immigrant intent (which usually means filing an I130 or similar). Once someone files an I130 for you, you'll not be granted a student or visitor's visa from outside the US and if you have either, you might be denied entry at the border. Because those aren't dual intent visas.
A red flag for USCIS for visa fraud is applying for an F1 visa, coming to the US, stopping studying and getting married. To them it looks like you committed immigration fraud just to come to the US.
That's why I say you should continue your studies (and also not get married in the first few months upon entering the US on a student visa).
So there's really no studying out of status per se. If you continue your studies, your F1 is still valid. When you get your EAD or green card, you can study with that and terminate your F1 status.
If you fall out of status on an F1 for a certain period of time it might be difficult or even impossible to resume student status to study at the same or another institution. I'm honestly not familiar with the rules around this.
But you're just not really going to be studying in the US without any status.
You both:
1. Can't leave the country because of immigration laws.
2. Have to leave the country because of immigration laws.
It's still possible to through an adjustment of status but the hoops around not leaving the country are much more awkward.
Because permanent immigration is not the intent of a TN visa, it's a loophole.
1. You do what's called consular processing out of the country;
2. You adjust status in the country; and
3. A fiance visa (K1). I'm going to ignore this.
For (1), your US citizen or green card holder spouse will wil an I130 visa petition to show that you're legally married. USCIS will confirm that you are legally married (including both of you being free to marry) and then it gets sent to NVC (National Visa Center) and you get documentarily qualified. This whole thing can take 6-9 months. It can take substantially longer if there are certain risk factors as far as USCIS is concerned for fraud. Large age gap, certain countries of origins (particularly the Phillipines), etc.
Once you are documentarily qualified, the foreign spouse will apply for an interview at a foreign consulate. This used to be anywhere but as per a recent rule change by this administration, now has to be the country of origin, meaning if you're Canadian you have to do it in Canada not the UK or Italy or whatever.
This may not seem like a big deal but the wait in some countries can be years long, just for the interview.
While this is all pending, you likely will be unable to visit the US because you've shown immigreant intent so you'll be denied ESTA or a visitor's visa most likely. Or, if you have a visitor's visa, you may be denied entry at the border.
For a standard case, this whole thing will take about 2 years. There are a whole bunch of steps like biometrics, police checks, etc and there are cases where you may need waivers of inadmissibility (eg if you have a 3 year bar or have a felony conviction). Those waivers can add years.
For (2), the process differs if you're marrying a green card holder or a US citizen.
If you have a marry a green card holder, they file an I130 petition and you'll get a priority date. There is a quota for these green cards. When your priority date becomes current, you the file an I485 for your spouse. Your immigrant spouse must've remained in status for this entire time up to and including when the I485 is approved. Because of the quota, this can take years and people will often become US citizens before the process is complete.
There is no quota for immediate relatives of US citizens (including spouses, parents and children under 18). If you marry a US citizen, you generally file the I130 and I485 concurrently. You can optionally also apply for advance parole, which will allow you to travel (more on that below), and an EAD, which will allow you to work until you get your green card. At this time people often get their green cards before their EADs so many don't even apply for them currently.
So, traveling. If you have a pending I485 and you leave the US you have in the eyes of USCIS abandoned that I485. You are now out of the country and most likely will be barred from re-entering the US, forcing you to consular process. You might be able to return if you have an immigrant intent visa like an H1B but it's generally recommended not to travel at all while you have a pending I485 application if you can possibly avoid it.
If you marry a US citizen, being out of status and working without authorization are both forgiven. This isn't the case for a marriage to a green card holder I believe. But if you marry a green card holder and while your application is pending they become a US citizen (as often happens), then the US citizen rules apply anyway.
So, if you are on a TN visa and have a pending I130 and I485, you have two choices:
1. You can leave the country and go back to Canada. This will abandon your I485 (but not the I130) and will force you to consular process. You'll be gone for 1-2 years most likely and likely unable to visit. This is the safest option however but obviously most people don't want to be separate from their spouse for so long, understanbly; or
2. You accept that you will be out of status and you stay. Any overstay of less than 6 months generally isn't an issue although working unauthorized is if, for some reason, your marriage petition is withdrawn or denied. If you overstay 6-12 months, you have an automatic 3 year bar on returning should you leave. If you overstay more than 1 year, it's a 10 year bar.
In the current administration, I think there are zero marriage petitions that should be done yourself. You should have a lawyer. Any decent lawyer who will be able to lay out the options as I've described.
Assuming your case is fairly straightforward and you've already filed the I130 and I485, I'd generally suggest people just accept the overstay and adjust in the US although I can certainly understand the "cleaner" (but longer) approach of choosing consular processing instead, particularly if you are still in status and don't have any automatic bar due to a 6+ month overstay.
There is a law saying that if you leave the country you abandon your green card application.
Combined with losing his visa and having to leave the country, this just means that the law says if you lose your visa, you lose your green card application too.
But you can always legally leave the country forever.
People are being forced to leave.
What do immigration attorneys recommend in this scenario?
I don’t get the catch-22, time’s up & you leave
Happens to H1Bs all the time
The whole thing just further exemplifies the "cruelty is the point" ideal.
For those countries (especially India) the wait can be more than a decade.
Moving to a points based immigration system without country of birth consideration may one day happen.
Depending on what contributes to points it would encourage better English language abilities and skill sets from immigrants (eg winners being China and India, losers being Mexico)
Anything, honestly, to end the need for informal lawyering that even immigrants with straightforward situations still have to do.
(In more ordinary circumstances it's merely arbitrary and unjust.)
I agree it was arbitrary and unjust. I deserved to be a citizen.
It is true that it is probably better in the US if you're privileged, but then again it's good everywhere if you're privileged. The difference is in the quality of life of the average person.
All these things can be said about most countries you'd want to live in nowadays.
But a lot of countries like Canada, EU nations and other developed countries (and even in developing nations like India) have free or affordable healthcare systems.
So, at least from a healthcare metric, most of these nations trump USA (pun intended, since Trump scrapped or crippled Obamacare, which itself wasn't a full-fledged solution to the healthcare crisis prevalent in USA).
I've lived in many states, the differences are minor.
This is exactly the justification for all the anti-immigration policies, the idea that immigrants from foreign countries have extended the mess that is in their home countries to the United States, and the only way to prevent it is to prevent those people from having the right to settle permanently in the United States.
> "this doesn't happen to people like us".
Up until now wasn't this the case that generally white collar workers would only face issues in very narrow set of conditions? And even now, are all irregular migrants experience the same worsening prospects?
One year of a kafkaesque process to make $500k/year instead of 70k Euros is a trade worth it to tons of people to make the go at it. And that’s for stable corporate jobs, it gets even more favorable if you want to start a company.
b) English language as a first class language. For example, while there are many job offers promising English only requirement, in reality a significant part of these unofficially presume you will speak local language at proficient level in the team, and hiring process filters for that.
c) EU countries have a lot of their own bureaucracy hell regarding immigration. For example I'm now on a Blue Card status in EU, that's a high skilled immigration program. I need to renew my card for the next 1 to 3 year period, I've started process in Sep 2025 and best case scenario will get card around next winter 26/27. Worst case scenario, add half a year more to that. If I want to get a passport, originally I had to dance through these hoops for at minimum 9 years. Just recently it increased to 11 year. And right now there is a law proposal in the parliament, increasing this term to minimum 17 years (among other inane requirements). If that passes, they may increase it even more in the future, making all immigrants live on the flimsy status for decades. USA at least makes the process faster, even if unpredictable.
tl;dr - EU is nice, just like USA is nice in it's own way, but in both countries immigrants have to put up with a lot of legal BS.
People would rather align with wealth and power and pretend they are part of the club than align with the other schmucks like them.
He was open to doing at least a few years over there; he’d enjoyed his exchange during university back in the 90s.
I was the one who said no, having seen the hell my colleagues married to Germans and other western Europeans were going through with US immigration.
Instead, I got a German residence permit without much fuss, and converted to a permanent one (Green Card equivalent) at a renewal when the clerk pointed out I was past the minimum time needed on my renewable one and encouraged me to apply.
Everyone complains about German bureaucracy, and I did have to bring in a fair bit of paperwork, but they do a prep appointment where they give you a list of exactly what they want to see from you specifically when you file your application.
Find the specific issues and fix them.
Counter Anecdote: My wife won the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, aka Green Card lottery. Came here with close to nothing and not speaking more than a sentence or two of English.
If I were an immigrant, or someone wanting to immigrate to the US, I would consider it carefully.
Mirror, mirror on the wall...
(As you've already concluded, don't bother...)
US residents who rarely leave their borders likely won't understand why this is.
Why can't they just do what their visa REQUIRES by law?
The reality is most applications are deemed fraudulent. We had to do the life trivia interview--separate us, ask the same questions, compare the answers. Talking with my wife later I found some flaws in their questions (things like "what does she usually wear at night" vs "what did you wear last night"--oops, we had stayed over at my parent's place the night before, she wore more than usual) but even then I could see how their attitude changed--apparently most "couples" bomb that interview. (And he would not accept that the question about brand of TV, I said she will say she doesn't know. He didn't believe that was possible--the TV predated the relationship, this was from when TVs started being just the tube with a minimum of frame, thus the name was small. It would have surprised me if she knew.)
The article is very light on details, but implies all of these spouses travelled to the US on a visa waiver (or similar) and then applied for a green card. Entering the US on most visas includes the assertion that you have no intent to immigrate. If you happen to already be in the US when you fall in love, get married, and apply to stay, that's when you're allowed to overstay during your pending application.
As far as I can tell from the article, it appears all of these people committed immigration fraud by entering on non-immigrant visas with clear intent to immigrate. Given that they're almost certainly upstanding people who intended to do the right thing, I think they could safely be asked to leave and apply correctly without the forceful detention, but they are technically in the wrong. What they did is specifically something I knew not to do and went through great pains to avoid.
The immigration processes for legitimate foreign spouses are Kafkaesque and absolutely need to be overhauled. It shouldn't be easier to come in illegally than through legitimate marriage. But in the meantime, people also can't circumvent the existing laws and then act flabbergasted when called on it.
I really do feel terrible for these couples caught up in it, especially since it seems their lawyers misled them.
The only options are to be lucky enough to have decided to get married and immigrate after you were already in the US, or to do the application from overseas.
I can see why people were tempted to cut corners, especially given past tolerance…
It's an inhumane system, but as someone heavily impacted by US immigration policy, I'd much prefer they enforce the laws evenly and then fix them where they're broken rather than disadvantaging everyone going through the legal process while those that cheat get to jump ahead.
So, we filed the spousal petition with USCIS overseas. It was a lot of paperwork, interviews for her, and some process delays. Eventually she got her immigrant visa issued. Upon arrival in the US on that visa, it was endorsed to reflect immigration status.
This was about fifteen years ago, and as I recall the process delays were pretty much as advertised at the time. We were able to time our filing so that the visa was issued around when she would be ready to relocate.
Most of the time we spent apart was due to our conflicting career opportunities and obligations. I think the petition could have been pipelined better if I'd been willing to stick with my expat job until she also wrapped up her work there.
That is incredibly optimistic to believe that any legislation reforming immigration will be passed in the next decade.
There is a reason ICE was neutralized until now. Life is short. We don't have time for congress to play politics while Americans and their spouses suffer. Let people live their lives.
It's not even a law that results in the years-long wait; it's just because the system is clogged up with other junk and understaffed. As other's have mentioned; there's no formal waiting for citizen spouses—it's supposed to be immediate—it's just that they don't even get to look at your application for years.
I’ve found that people tend to respond as you have until the laws impact themselves or their friends. Then it’s very much a case of - I didn’t think this applied to us…
It really feels like a slap in the face to the people who do the "right thing" to allow others to be allowed in freely not following the law.
Fix the issues first.
Edit: And now browsing the latest on this thread, it seems all the commenters here who have actually filed petitions agree—the law should be enforced evenly.
Immigration reform will happen, but regardless no queue cutting.
Which is one of the reasons that the pre-trump executive orders that granted leniency and amnesty at times were all terrible terrible things to do. We really have a problem in this country where we've decided that the laws suck, but we don't want to do the hard part of changing the law, so we just decide to ignore it. Until at some point someone comes along and decides to enforce the law and now a whole bunch of people who were acting on the de facto state of the law now have to deal with the consequences of the de jure state of the law.
Immigration is a place we've done this a lot, but things like the status of marijuana across the country is also predicated on this sort of arbitrary non-enforcement of the law. Obviously the states are not obligated to enforce federal law, but the feds absolutely can. The feds could raid every marijuana dispensary in the country and take them all down with barely a hiccup, at least from a legality standpoint. Yet they don't because we have decided to arbitrarily not enforce the law, even if we haven't changed the law.
I had really hoped after Trump's first term, we would have seen a real awakening to the amount of things that are allowed only because we don't actually enforce the laws that are on the books, and a real push to both fix the laws and roll back the abuses of executive power like this. But we didn't seem to learn that lesson, and sadly it doesn't look like that lesson is going to be learned this time either.
This is not a realistic scenario, but does seem to present the argument, that Federal law and the power to enforce it is inherently and legally superior to individual State laws?
> fix the laws and roll back the abuses of executive power
Perhaps we could start with the federal law that made marijuana a Schedule One controlled substance: so that ordinary residents of responsible and responsive states would not have to rely on "arbitrary non-enforcement of the law" in order to get their smoke on.
Think about it! Every one of those citizen-puffers are in violation of federal law! Send in the troops!
The argument seems to be that federal laws overrule states', and that underlying idea justifies sending military forces into cities, because, you know, federal laws are being violated, everywhere, like, all the time, man.
Sheesh.
That's the current state of US law yes. That's why California needs explicit permission from the federal government to have more restrictive air quality laws than the federal standards. It's also quite literally baked into the constitution:
>This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in >Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the >Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the >Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or >Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Subsequent rulings and case law have largely established that the states and their law enforcement agencies are not inherently bound to enforce federal law, but that is a very grey area with lots of edge cases, and can change substantially depending on the "incorporation" status of the underlying constitutional basis for the law. This is why the drinking age is controlled by highway funding rather than direct legislative imposition, but it's also why the feds can and will send the military in to ensure your schools are integrated. The interplay between the supremacy clause and the 9th and 10th amendments is a very complex part of the legal system but this has been the state of the country for a very long time.
> Perhaps we could start with the federal law that made marijuana a Schedule One controlled substance
You'll get no argument from me on this front. Especially since there is a federally legal synthetic form of THC that is actively prescribed by doctors for cancer patients. It's called Dronabinol and it's a Schedule III substance. Yes you're reading that right. Psychoactive THC can be obtained via prescription in the US from any pharmacy and that synthetic version is a lower control level than xanax. And all of this in the face of the fact that the plant source of the THC is a Schedule I substance which in theory is supposed to mean there is no known or accepted medical use for the substance. Which seems like a lie.
> The argument seems to be that federal laws overrule states', and that underlying idea justifies sending military forces into cities, because, you know, federal laws are being violated, everywhere, like, all the time, man.
It's not "the argument", it's the actual law of the land. The fact that the feds can't send in the military is that we explicitly disallow the use of military forces for domestic law enforcement. But that restriction doesn't apply to non-military federal LEOs and even with the military, it's a grey area (see aforementioned use of the National Guard to enforce racial integration). And it's one of the reasons why we should have been concerned about the ever expanding federal powers in general and executive powers LOOONG before Trump had ever considered running the first time. It's part of what makes "legislating" via the courts so dangerous, and what makes the impulse some people seem to have to respond to the Trump administration by way of things like court packing and other attempts to simultaneously empower the federal government without also empowering Trump a dangerous impulse.
Well done. Peter Thiel is proud of you.
For example, one of the requirements for naturalization is "good moral chracter". Well, what does that mean? Up until this year, that's simply been the absence of any disqualifying criteria, such as unpaid taxes, unpaid child support, most felony convictions, etc. This administration has reinterpreted "good moral chracter" to be affirmative, something you need to provide proof of, rather than the absence of anything negative. This is arguably illegal.
Anyway, back to this article, one example here is from San Diego. This article doesn't mention it but there was a leaked memo where USCIS and ICE are trialling a new process in the San Diego field office of having the interviewing visa officer call in ICE to detain applicants in cases they never did before.
For context, overstaying a visa isn't a crime (unless you get deported then do it again, basically). It's a civil infraction. There are lots of immigration benefits you can't get if you're out of status however but marriage to a US citizen is an exception. Visa overstays and unauthorized work are generally forgiven in those cases, by law. So such people were never detained because their overstays were forgiven so what's the point?
There are also people who did not enter through a regular port of entry. Legally, this is called "entering without inspection". This includes people who sneak across the border. It also includes a bunch of people who were infants or children at the time so never made a choice. This was the basis for the DACA ("Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals") program under Obama. There are people who are now adults who have lived here since they were a few months old who have never known anywhere else. Deporting them to a country they've never known is cruel and unusual.
So another thing this administration has done has created a policy whereby all those who entered without inspection can be detained and should be denied bond.
Here's a partial list of other sins of the administration just off the top of my head:
1. Most visibly, the ICEstapo raids;
2. Skin color can now be used as a factor for an immigration stop thanks to an "emergency" ruling by this Supreme Court, granting a petition by the government. Location can be another factor so it's now completely legal to do an immigration stop on someone who looks Hispanic in the vicinity of a Home Depot, for example.
3. Ended TPS ("Temporary Protected Status") for a bunch of countries, putting refugees and asylum seekers out of status;
3. Immigration judges, unlike Federal judges, are not ARticle 3 judges (by the Constitution). ARticle 3 judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate and cannot be fired. They have to be impeached. Immigration judges are simply employees of the executive branch. This administration has started firing immigreation judges if they approve too many cases;
4. People such as Kilmer Abrego Garcia were deported to El Salvador, a country he feared returning to, in defiance of a Federal court order blocking his deportation to El Salvador. When taken there he was put in a maximum security prison (ie CECOT);
5. The government then for the longest time refused to fix their error, including openly defying Federal judges;
6. Revoking the lawful permanent residence status of Mahmoud Khalil for hurting Israel's feelings by saying factually accurate things about Israel's war crimes and organizing peaceful protests at Columbia;
7. Black bagging detainees and moving them interstate before their families know so a local judge can't block their detention and order them released. In fact, they take them to the jurisdictions of friendly judges in places like Louisiana. This is the ultimate in judge shopping;
8. For visa applicants outside the US, this administration has begun forcing people to go to the consulate in their home country rather than the country they live in. This puts in limbo people who come from countries with which the US currently has no consulate. This is an intentional delay tactic as a person may study or work in the UK but be a citizen of Ghana or Nigeria where there is a 2-4 year wait for a visa interview. This is intentional.
9. Arbitrarily decided that humanitarian parolees under Biden were "illegally" paroled into the US and are now seeking to detain and deport these people;
10. Deporting people to so-called third countries ie not to that person's country of origin or even a country they might otherwise choose under voluntary departure;
I'm sure there's more. It's a shame only the ICEstapo raids really get any media attention.
How else will Republicons lie and manufacture an excuse to behave self-righteously and make some people suffer since certain scapegoats are no longer acceptable except in the Nick Fuentes / mass shooter crowd?
However from a moral standpoint I find the infant child separation abhorrent and think that we should generally defer to American citizen spouses as a pretty good indicator that we should show some mercy in enforcement. Moreover, the law should be changed that foreign spouses without criminal records and not taking public benefit ought to be allowed to stay and work honestly. Make it easy.
So you are in this limbo state where you are given some kind of status while the application is pending and you absolutely can’t leave the country.
But that’s not the issue here nor why people are being detained.
People came to the US with intend to marry and apply for a green card on non immigrant visa. For instance British citizens on a visa waiver can just show up and get married. That’s legal.
But it turns into immigration fraud if you always intended to apply for a green card afterwards.
What you are supposed to do is apply for a K1 fiancé visa which takes another year.
It was a choice to design it this way, and a poor choice. We should demand better. Since when have Americans become so spineless?
I really dont get this view.
Like you could substitute detention with a 1 dollar a day fine, or community service. Why does the punishment for this particular crime, have to be detention. Why is it worse than making your local council mad for not taking out the bins. The severity of the punishment is just ludicrous compared to the crime of participating in a community, and the US isnt the only place with this brainrot.
The community isn't harmed by an overstay as it is with say, shooting people or stabbing people. In fact it seems widely recognised that these people contribute in the net positive.
It also seems like there's an overwhelming consensus that its easier to sort out immigration issues from inside the target country, outside of detention with access to legal representation.
Right, but immigration detention isnt that.
>Same as if somebody enters your house and you don't want them there, you don't ask for a dollar a day or to clean up the dishes, do you? You ask them to leave and call police if they refuse.
The house analogy is really weird and does not at all fit the realities of a nation.
>This is where detention comes into play: people who don't want to leave the country need to be detained before forcibly transported outside the country's border, maybe in the future, when we invent instant teleportation, we will be able to just send them home without detention but the current realities do not allow for that.
They dont need to be detained. Theres no process that cant be completed before deportation without detention. It is arbitrary punishment. Your own tortured analogy of the house, does not detain prisoners in the basement while awaiting court in the I don't know Laundry to see if their marriage to someone in the master bedroom is valid. Theres no reason someone cant live working in the living room? (who comes up with these terrible seppoisms?) and sleeping in their room that they can somehow afford to pay for in your house somehow while the laundry judge rules on their case before taking them to the roof airport?
Feeling a bit like the house thing is forced to come to some predetermined conclusion but its not as obvious as made out nor is it any good.
Anyway to blow that whole thing open I looked at the silly seppo website and:
"Most aliens ICE arrests are detained and eventually removed. In some cases, these people remain in ICE detention for months while they wait for a final decision from an immigration judge."
https://www.ice.gov/self-deportation
Theres nothing wrong with:
> Complete legal process while living in situ > If determination is, deportation, fine X and escort person to airport/border.
You would probably spend less money giving people 2 further weeks to deal with their affairs beforehand but w/e not required.
Detention, especially before trial, being a necessary component is a ghost that lives entirely in your head that you can evict at any time.
What you wrote only makes a faint sense in assumption that detention is given as a punishment for immigration violations as same as prison term. This does not happen in reality, detention is a necessary part of removing an alien who has no right to be in the country and not some kind of punishment, which you could serve and come out as a legal alien.
>there would be still a detention to move him or her from the place where they were found to the bus or plane.
Whats wrong with a court order and a plane ticket? Other than nothing at all. (The usual response from the border brainrot is that either they need to be prevented from escaping, which they could have done earlier instead of choosing to remain a part of society. Then when that ones knocked down its as a "Deterrent" which is where we wrap back around to this being a punishment)
>What you wrote only makes a faint sense in assumption that detention is given as a punishment for immigration violations as same as prison term.
No I have not made that mistake at all.
>detention is a necessary part of removing an alien
Nope. No reason for it at all.
>which you could serve and come out as a legal alien.
Never said that at all. Just that theres no reason for someone to go into arbitrary detention before attending court/airport/border when they pose no risk to society. To do otherwise is a punishment.
With immigration, the issue that needs fixing is your presence in a country.
Look, I respect people who actually believe in free movement globally but most people claiming there's something wrong here don't believe in open borders.
Again, though, there's a catch-22. Wait times until you're even notified about your interview appointment date are long and unpredictable.
Fraudulent entry can only happen on entry. If they had no intent to be married on entry, then there's no fraud on entry, and therefore it doesn't apply.
And it is definitely possible to have entered without an intent to marry. The day the woman I married entered the US she did not know of my existence. We met here.
Is it because only immigrants and their families are subjected to an unfair legal system, so it doesn't seem to be your concern? In a democracy, the actions of a government are collective. We all bear responsibility for injustice and a corresponding responsibility to pursue a more just system.
Unfortunately it doesn't stop them from having strong opinions about them.
The yanks all got confused, like I was making up a problem. And would not stop pretending like there are no border issues even after I presented multiple instances as evidence. Like if you can drive your car to the store and back there must also not be issues at the airport.
I feel like US media must isolate people severely. Whereas, countries that do business with the US, are kept keenly aware of the dangers.
Like beloved childrens authors https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/28/in-tha...
Or meme havers
https://hyperallergic.com/us-agencies-say-they-have-no-recor...
The advice is generally, that if you absolutely have to go to the US, that you start a fresh email account, and take an empty/clean phone signed in with your fresh email account through border security, then load a backup to your phone once through.
Now I wrote this and even I am not sure if what I wrote is fully correct. I know it is correct for at least one scenario but I anal and I am sure there are scenarios where what I said is not just false but dangerously bad advice.
Again. I'm sorry for these people. But the law is easy to follow
And did they violate the Visa? Don’t break the law.
