Sex Offender Applying for K1

[ShadMot 1]

Sec. 111-5-C: Consensual sexual conduct is not listed as a sex offense if the victim was at least 13

and the offender is not more than 4 years older than the victim.

Wouldn't that preclude you from having major issues with immigration? Sorry if I'm not getting it, but it states in the AWA that your situation is not listed as a sex offense.

And come on, who can have an issue with a 16 and a 19 year old getting it on? It suddenly becomes ok when they are 18 and 21? w/e

Would it? That'd be great if my offense would be excluded from AWA. But even if I am, I'm guessing I would have major delay in my application while they go over my record to determine whether AWA applies or not.

[Ray and Geraldyn 0]

Unfortunately since the AWA is only 2 years old, most Petitioners dealing with it are either still caught in the middle looking for answers, choosing not to say anything about it or just plain gave up Either way all 3 suck

I do agree that the AWA has its purpose, to protect children and that is great. But...there is also a unconstitutional side to it. It is like being sentenced twice for the same crime...and what is up with telling you who you can marry? Ohhhh we can marry the woman down the street or in the next state....but not from another country....BULL S**T We need to fight for our rights back and I for one am not sure how or where to start.

Here is a link about some people fighting back against the AWA...... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080816/ap_on_...l.GAzLzmNNvzwcF

P.S. If there is someone out there that has had the AWA apply to them and have gotten their spouse here with them

[pushbrk 12,222]

Unfortunately since the AWA is only 2 years old, most Petitioners dealing with it are either still caught in the middle looking for answers, choosing not to say anything about it or just plain gave up Either way all 3 suck

I do agree that the AWA has its purpose, to protect children and that is great. But...there is also a unconstitutional side to it. It is like being sentenced twice for the same crime...and what is up with telling you who you can marry? Ohhhh we can marry the woman down the street or in the next state....but not from another country....BULL S**T We need to fight for our rights back and I for one am not sure how or where to start.

Here is a link about some people fighting back against the AWA...... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080816/ap_on_...l.GAzLzmNNvzwcF

P.S. If there is someone out there that has had the AWA apply to them and have gotten their spouse here with them

To clarify the issue, you can marry someone from another country. The issue is one of having them immigrate to the US.

[Ray and Geraldyn 0]

Unfortunately since the AWA is only 2 years old, most Petitioners dealing with it are either still caught in the middle looking for answers, choosing not to say anything about it or just plain gave up Either way all 3 suck

I do agree that the AWA has its purpose, to protect children and that is great. But...there is also a unconstitutional side to it. It is like being sentenced twice for the same crime...and what is up with telling you who you can marry? Ohhhh we can marry the woman down the street or in the next state....but not from another country....BULL S**T We need to fight for our rights back and I for one am not sure how or where to start.

Here is a link about some people fighting back against the AWA...... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080816/ap_on_...l.GAzLzmNNvzwcF

P.S. If there is someone out there that has had the AWA apply to them and have gotten their spouse here with them

To clarify the issue, you can marry someone from another country. The issue is one of having them immigrate to the US.

Yes 'pushbrk' you are correct and I should have chose my wording a little different. The point I was trying to get a crossed was protecting the children is great, but the AWA should have been looked at more closely before being put into place. What does POSSIBLY preventing a spouse from immigrating to the US do for anyone? If a person, man or woman is going to do wrong....they are going to do it no matter what! Can the law be changed? Better yet would the government even consider it? I'm not embarrassed to admit not knowing the answers to this!

[pushbrk 12,222]

Unfortunately since the AWA is only 2 years old, most Petitioners dealing with it are either still caught in the middle looking for answers, choosing not to say anything about it or just plain gave up Either way all 3 suck

I do agree that the AWA has its purpose, to protect children and that is great. But...there is also a unconstitutional side to it. It is like being sentenced twice for the same crime...and what is up with telling you who you can marry? Ohhhh we can marry the woman down the street or in the next state....but not from another country....BULL S**T We need to fight for our rights back and I for one am not sure how or where to start.

Here is a link about some people fighting back against the AWA...... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080816/ap_on_...l.GAzLzmNNvzwcF

P.S. If there is someone out there that has had the AWA apply to them and have gotten their spouse here with them

To clarify the issue, you can marry someone from another country. The issue is one of having them immigrate to the US.

Yes 'pushbrk' you are correct and I should have chose my wording a little different. The point I was trying to get a crossed was protecting the children is great, but the AWA should have been looked at more closely before being put into place. What does POSSIBLY preventing a spouse from immigrating to the US do for anyone? If a person, man or woman is going to do wrong....they are going to do it no matter what! Can the law be changed? Better yet would the government even consider it? I'm not embarrassed to admit not knowing the answers to this!

Your point is well taken. I clarified because people tend to have a habit of expanding the impact of laws in such a way that ignores the choices they have, like in this case, marrying and living in the foreign country or "can't leave the US until AP is secured" when the issue is returning to the US. Or the ultimate "I had no choice" when the truth is simply, "I didn't like the choices available to me." or worse, "My choices were limited based on the consequence of earlier choices I regret."

As we go through the immigration process with a fiance or spouse, it is critical to see things as they really are, as much as is possible.

[ShadMot 1]

I just can't imagine that the AWA will stay the way it currently is. There's so many constitutional challenges to AWA. Here are some of the current challenges to AWA:

http://www.oncefallen.com/AdamWalshAct.html

The section barring sex offenders from applying for family based petitions is labeled "IMMIGRATION LAW REFORMS TO PREVENT SEX OFFENDERS FROM ABUSING CHILDREN". It applies to applying a petition for mother, father, grandparents, brother, sister, or spouse. To any petition where no children would even be involved. Does denying a sex offender from applying a petition for his mother prevent sex offenders from abusing children? Such a law shouldn't be able to withstand constitutional scrutiny. Another question would be is this law a punishment for sex offenders? If so, then it would violate the Ex Post Facto Law.

AWA being a relatively new law. it can take a few years for the court system to go through and make rulings on constitutional validity that chip away at the law. But ultimately I see the restrictions on family based petitions being struck down eventually.

[EmmaLee 0]

Shadmot *** Yours definitely sounds like a case where this law should not apply, I believe I am in the same category ! How can we find out if some case law exists? Do you think if we call our Congressman or reps they can give us some idea of our chances?

I am dedicated to this cause and willing to fight Let's get the ball rolling ! I will commit to contacting my Congressman this week and will report back to the group. Anyone else want to do some specific research and report back with facts and NOT speculation? The laws may vary from state to state, we should keep that in mind

-----------------------

I applaud your willingness to research the law in this area. Based on a short glance at the memo (via a link in one of these postings that delivered the document in .pdf), however, the law specifically applies to just such a case as is being discussed here. In addition, because a K-1, etc. visas are granted by the federal government, the law in this area comes from federal statutes and state law does not apply (this is why, despite campaign promises of potential governors, states cannot declare their own immigration policies). However, different circuit courts will interpret things differently and that will make a difference.

Having no background in the AWA but reading the other posts, if the law is indeed so new, there is not likely to be any settled caselaw available on the topic (and to be clear, the caselaw will interpret the applicable statute(s), but that interpretation may differ from circuit to circuit). That notwithstanding, one of the best ways for you to conduct such research (short of paying for an attorney to do it for you) is to stop by the library at a nearby law school (a regular library is unlikely to case reporters) and attempt to persuade the librarian to give you a crash course in legal research (not recommended, for the reason forthcoming). Even better, if you know a law student, ask them if they would mind spending an hour researching the law pertaining to your case, as they will have the training necessary (and equally important, the free password) to perform a search on Westlaw or Lexis as well as the ability to help you analyze and analogize and distinguish the case from your own situation.

Finally, I don't mean to rain on your parade, but calling your congressman outright is unlikely to produce any results. They receive many calls, emails and letters each month and all are screened by interns, secretaries, etc. In addition, without any background on your case as well as a lack of direct power to do anything about it, your congressman could no more tell you the predicted outcome than a soothsayer.

Truly, your best bet is to retain a reputable attorney. Though this will be very expensive and the outcome not guaranteed, your likelihood of a favorable outcome is much higher than the odds of a "do-it-yourself" job.

Good luck.

[akdiver 3]

When I was 19 years old, I had a 16 year old girlfriend and was charged with having sex with a minor. I know the general public's perception of a sex offender is a child molester or rapist but I am neither. And it bugs me to no end that I somehow ended up being grouped in this category. I was a teenager with a teenage girlfriend that happened to be a little younger than me. I was given a 6 month jail sentence for this. I am 25 years old now and have not committed any crime since nor do I ever plan to. I have met a wonderful woman overseas and wish to be with her but due to the Adam Walsch Act I'm wondering if I would be able to get a K1 Visa. Or if I have any chance to bring her over at all. I really wish to be with this woman but am scared that I might not be able to. Any advice or information would greatly be appreciated.

Were I in charge of the law, you would have been executed. Adults are not supposed to have sex with children. Period.

[Chuckles 0]

When I was 19 years old, I had a 16 year old girlfriend and was charged with having sex with a minor. I know the general public's perception of a sex offender is a child molester or rapist but I am neither. And it bugs me to no end that I somehow ended up being grouped in this category. I was a teenager with a teenage girlfriend that happened to be a little younger than me. I was given a 6 month jail sentence for this. I am 25 years old now and have not committed any crime since nor do I ever plan to. I have met a wonderful woman overseas and wish to be with her but due to the Adam Walsch Act I'm wondering if I would be able to get a K1 Visa. Or if I have any chance to bring her over at all. I really wish to be with this woman but am scared that I might not be able to. Any advice or information would greatly be appreciated.

Were I in charge of the law, you would have been executed. Adults are not supposed to have sex with children. Period.

What if I were 18 years and one day old, and my 'rape victim' was 17 years and 355 days old?

[William33 110]

Personal opinion and moral judgements are not what the OP asked for. Stay on topic with immigration advice or just stay out of it.

Edited September 4, 2008 by William33

[akdiver 3]

What if I were 18 years and one day old, and my 'rape victim' was 17 years and 355 days old?

You can play that game all the way back to birth. If 17/355 is OK, then what about 17/354? 353? What about 16/364? 15/364? How far do you go? At some point, you have to say enough is enough and draw an arbitrary line (or draw no line at all). The law is the law. Violate it at your own peril. Personally, I dunno why USCIS (or Congress) permits sex offenders to have family-based immigration petition privileges at all. Edited September 4, 2008 by akdiver

[ShadMot 1]

Were I in charge of the law, you would have been executed.

Good thing then that the vast majority of people have some level of common sense then aye.

What if I were 18 years and one day old, and my 'rape victim' was 17 years and 355 days old?

You can play that game all the way back to birth. If 17/355 is OK, then what about 17/354? 353? What about 16/364? 15/364? How far do you go?

According to the Adam Walsh Act, the line is draw at within 4 years of age. So under Adam Walsh, I wouldn't be a sex offender at all. Also in my neighboring state and in many states, no law would have been broken since most US states set the age of consent at 16 whereas in my state it's 18. Many states have laws that if the age gap is under 3 or 5 years, it isn't an offense at all. My state doesn't and even a 1 day age difference is arrestable here. So who has the correct line? The Adam Walsh Act? My state? Your state?

And I'm sure you had no interest and no attempt of having sex until you turned 18. And I'm sure the minute you turned 18, you completely and fully lost interest in all 17 year olds. 17 year old having sex with a 17 year old breaks the law too you know and is arrestable as well. But I guess more people to execute for you apparently.

At some point, you have to say enough is enough and draw an arbitrary line (or draw no line at all). The law is the law. Violate it at your own peril.

Age of consent in my state is 18 while the average age of first sexual intercourse is 16. So according to you, over half the population in my state should be punished and executed. And when and if you ever have a kid of your own and he/she happens to be 18 and having sex with a 17 year old, I'm sure you will march right down to the police station and demand your kid be arrested for breaking the law and recommend an execution to the judge.

Personally, I dunno why USCIS (or Congress) permits sex offenders to have family-based immigration petition privileges at all.

Maybe because everybody, including sex offenders, has rights.

[payxibka 10,044]

Personally, I dunno why USCIS (or Congress) permits sex offenders to have family-based immigration petition privileges at all.

Maybe because everybody, including sex offenders, has rights.

Unfortunately you need a different defense as immigration is not an inalienable right but a mere privilege our government bestows upon its citizens....

[pushbrk 12,222]

Personally, I dunno why USCIS (or Congress) permits sex offenders to have family-based immigration petition privileges at all.

Maybe because everybody, including sex offenders, has rights.

Unfortunately you need a different defense as immigration is not an inalienable right but a mere privilege our government bestows upon its citizens....

Right, family immigration is a privilege, not a right.

The need to draw lines is why we have both laws and judges.

Edited September 7, 2008 by pushbrk

[ShadMot 1]

Unfortunately you need a different defense as immigration is not an inalienable right but a mere privilege our government bestows upon its citizens....

Ah but if that privilege gets taken away to a certain segment of the population, it would need to be done so in a way that wouldn't violate the basic fundamentals of both federal and state constitutions. To do otherwise, would violate rights.