Sex Offender Applying for K1

[ShadMot 1]

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

Yes but if that privilege gets taken away in an unconstitutional manner then rights would have been violated.

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

Agreed. Quite often laws are created and passed that violate constitutional rights. It becomes challenged in state and federal courts and while the Court will eventually rule a law unconstitutional and strike it down, this process can take several years. And in the meantime, the unconstitutional law that should have never existed in the first place, applies and is in full effect until that Court ruling.

Adam Walsh is a relatively new law. There are many constitutional challenges to this law that are currently pending in court. Until those rulings, it's wait and see mode.

[HannahP 119]

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.

Uhh, the first "relations" that my HUSBAND and I had were statutory. (Thank god you're not in charge and he wasn't executed?!) I certainly knew what /I/ was doing -- he was the newbie, actually. At the end of the day, I guess I should be glad that I had family who liked/approved of him, as well as a mother who'd raised eight kids before me...so they never thought of pressing charges!

[daboyz 36]

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.

Wow! I don't fall under any of this, but for someone to come out and actually have your attitude is really scary. In Canada the age of consent is 14. Funny thing, you don't see cars full of child molesters following school buses. Let's take it a step further. People that have an IQ of less than 75 should not be allowed to file a petition. If that was the case, you would be out of luck.

[akdiver 3]

Uhh, the first "relations" that my HUSBAND and I had were statutory...he was the newbie, actually

So, you had been driven around the block a few times. Cool!

In Canada the age of consent is 14.

Damn. I wish I had known that when I was stuck in Baie Comeau for two weeks

Funny thing, you don't see cars full of child molesters following school buses.

That's because when I see a school bus ahead, I take a side road. I hate being stuck behind those things.

Let's take it a step further. People that have an IQ of less than 75 should not be allowed to file a petition. If that was the case, you would be out of luck.

How would you know? And nice personal attack by the way.

Cheers!

AKD

Edited September 18, 2008 by akdiver

[lissa04 3]

I have a question, I have a friend of mine who's spouse is a registered sex offender, he is the US citizen that filed for the I 130 back in 2005, 2006, they were approved for the I130. Can it now be revoked because he committed a crime 17 years ago? When did this law go into effect that if you are a sex offender you can't petiton family members? Holy ####### my best friend is gonna freak out.

Oh god is my friend gonna get deported now?

thanks

[pushbrk 12,290]

I have a question, I have a friend of mine who's spouse is a registered sex offender, he is the US citizen that filed for the I 130 back in 2005, 2006, they were approved for the I130. Can it now be revoked because he committed a crime 17 years ago? When did this law go into effect that if you are a sex offender you can't petiton family members? Holy ####### my best friend is gonna freak out.

Oh god is my friend gonna get deported now?

thanks

For the most part, US laws are not retroactive. Notable exception being Clinton's tax increases.

[payxibka 10,044]

If I remember correctly it was effective July 2006. Regardless of the actual date, the law affected any unapproved petitions as of that date and they all had to be reviewed.

So approved is approved... either they were approved before law enactment or they were reviewed and cleared.

Edited September 19, 2008 by payxibka

[SterlingGirl 1]

I understand that this may not be the most popular take but i have to say this. As a victim of sexual assault, i say denial of immigration benefits is absolutely fair. Each case should be handled carefully though and treated on a case by case basis. This might be a minor case to the person convicted of this problem but you should wonder if it is indeed minor to the other person. A 19 year old having sex with a 16 year old seems wrong to me. IF you do not see it as wrong, then maybe you are not rehabilitated. This may seem harsh to you but that is how i feel as a victim of sexual assault.

Thank you.

[justashooter 430]

Hi - There seems to be much speculation and misinformation here. I am an Adam Walsh Petitioner ! The law is so new even the immigration lawyers do not know how to interpret it. Let's share our experiences and stick to the facts !

I will not give up I have the right as a U.S. citizen to be with my loved one

by commiting a criminal offense that falls into a category subject to special legislation, you have given up that right. you now have a possibility of granted priveledge.

[missingyou_01234 0]

I AM A K1 visa filer and have a sex offense in my past " ten years ago"... We filed last year of july and until now we hear nothing. I hope you can light me up..thank you..

[Rachel555 0]

Hi,i am sorry to read so many cases unresolved because of Adam Walsh Act,i just wanted to share my experience me and my fiance have the same problem we applyed last year in September 2007 for K1,he has a criminal record because he was over 18 and had sex with a girl who was was under the legal age for sex...this happened like 12 years ago,anyway we applied last year in September and they delay us,first they sayed will have an answer in May but in may we got an email from immigration saying they will make more backroundcheck other 6 months and call a number first week of December after this 6 months will pass...in my heart i hope they will not delay more but i read in this topic cases with a couple waiting for like arround 2 years ago...is so sad to see u dont get any kind of answer....they just tell u to call back in few months or weeks tahs what they did to us in the last 8 months (we applied 1 year and 2 months ago).

I just hope our cases will get any kind of answer soon at least we will know what to do or try ..to be with the one we love.

I saw few perons asking if they have criminal record if they should apply.. my personal answer is to Do whatver they need but to Not apply for a family visas in this conditions cause can get years till u get an answer and is just so hard to wait and not know when everything will end.This law is new and they dont know how to handle it it affects this petitions even if is not fair they try to protect us the foreing fiances from them??but they can easily marry without any quetsions with a fiance same nationality...and is so bad this law was voted in so many states and they try to make worse things after all states will addopt it.

i wish you luck and i ll keep writing in case i will find out some progresses in my case

Rachel

[MsZ 6]

But if they did nothing, did not try to make sure that the foreign SO was alerted, then someone would blame the govenment of the US for not protecting them, for allowing potential predators to go outside of the US with promises of green cards, etc. to lure unsuspecting people into a relationship.

You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. But erring on the side of caution is better in this case because the real predators do the kind of damage that you don't just get over.

I do wonder though, how people in these long distance relationships who have spent so little time in real life with their SO can decide that they are indeed trustworthy. I'd never be able to trust someone under these conditions. I have children and this makes it all the more important to be vigilent. With a bazillion guys out there who have never been convicted of anything, let alone a sex crime, choosing someone who was seems pretty risky to me. I'd much rather have someone who has the actual resources to decide if the person is a problem do the investigating than to rely on the person's word.

[venusfire503 54]

I understand that this may not be the most popular take but i have to say this. As a victim of sexual assault, i say denial of immigration benefits is absolutely fair. Each case should be handled carefully though and treated on a case by case basis. This might be a minor case to the person convicted of this problem but you should wonder if it is indeed minor to the other person. A 19 year old having sex with a 16 year old seems wrong to me. IF you do not see it as wrong, then maybe you are not rehabilitated. This may seem harsh to you but that is how i feel as a victim of sexual assault.

Thank you.

I sympathize with those who have been sexually harassed, molested, or assaulted. Unfortunately, I've had some of that myself in the past. However, I don't think it's fair to group CONSENSUAL sex in with crimes that are FORCED upon others (and not JUST minors). I don't think it's unusual for a 19 year old to think it's ok (morally AND legally) to have sex with a willing 16 year old (especially during an ongoing relationship). The laws are different in each state (and change over time), and I'm not sure the OP even knew he was breaking the law back then. No one knows ALL of the laws, and many have incorrect information due to mistaken "common knowledge". I understand why he doesn't think what happened years ago should affect his life now. Honestly, I know I did things at 18 - 20 that I thank God don't affect me now. I'm sure most of the people here can say the same. At my age now, it's easy to look back and think how stupid I was to drink when I was under 21. But I also remember that AT THAT TIME, it didn't seem like there was really anything wrong with it. Most 19 year olds are still, in some ways, children (hence the drinking laws - no offense to any 19 year olds reading this). We all mature over time. Had I been caught when I was young, I would have 'paid the price', learned my lesson, and then moved on with my life. The OP is concerned he might not get that luxury.

Maybe a 19 year old having sex with a 16 year old seems wrong to you, but from what I'm hearing, it's only illegal in certain states (and during certain time periods in history).

Also, remember that the Adam Walsh law was not in effect at the time he was 19. So it seems like retroactive punishment in this case.

[payxibka 10,044]

Also, remember that the Adam Walsh law was not in effect at the time he was 19. So it seems like retroactive punishment in this case.

Adam Walsh Child Protection Act is not retroactive to his offense of 19 years ago... It is about eligibility for a current petition filing.

[bhajishah 4]

Thats why they call it Jail Bait..where do we draw the line??