i need some help or idea

[marklovetina 52]

Simply reading up on immigration law is not equivalent to the actual studying and practicing of law and you're being delusional if you think that qualifies you to give credible legal advice. As a member here, you are permitted to give an educated guess or speculation, or simply copy and paste a particular code of immigration law as an answer when another member is asking for other members' advice. They don't come here seeking legal advice that they wouldn't later on verify on their own, or if they do, then they are deeply mistaken. I will continue to provide helpful advice as best I can, and will qualify my statements that I'm not 100% certain as to the actual law, other than copying and pasting it when I find it. Beyond that, nobody here, including yourself can come on here and give credible legal advice with absolute certainty. If you are a fan of law, I'd recommend reading famous landmark cases as they demonstrate how even the legal experts battle law in court, even when astonishingly, the law was plainly written. Imagine that.

[marklovetina 52]

Later on, when the child is an adult, doing things on their own, it may not matter as much (While it is still arguably misrepresentation, an adult might not be held responsible for documentation fraud committed by their parents and elders decades ago). But when the child is living with and under the care of their biological parents, it is very difficult for those biological parents to assert their legal powers as legal parents in any official capacity if they are not listed as biological parents on the birth certificate.

The birth certificate is what establishes the parent child link in the eyes of US (and presumably Philippine) law. Any legal operation in which status or benefit is derived from parent to child or vice-versa through the parent-child relationship depends on that piece of documentation. If it is fraudulent, then any immigration benefit awarded or derived through that relationship becomes suspect, and subject to later revocation should the fraudulent nature of the birth certificate come to light.

When parents mess with their children's foundational identity documents for petty social reasons, it deeply complicates any future interaction between their children and the government. It is a profoundly selfish act. I wouldn't say there is no hope for these children, but certain actions will always be difficult for them. For example, they can pretty much forget about sponsoring their parents later in life. They've been denied documentary proof that their biological parents are actually related to them.

[aaron2020 11,651]

Simply reading up on immigration law is not equivalent to the actual studying and practicing of law and you're being delusional if you think that qualifies you to give credible legal advice. As a member here, you are permitted to give an educated guess or speculation, or simply copy and paste a particular code of immigration law as an answer when another member is asking for other members' advice. They don't come here seeking legal advice that they wouldn't later on verify on their own, or if they do, then they are deeply mistaken. I will continue to provide helpful advice as best I can, and will qualify my statements that I'm not 100% certain as to the actual law, other than copying and pasting it when I find it. Beyond that, nobody here, including yourself can come on here and give credible legal advice with absolute certainty. If you are a fan of law, I'd recommend reading famous landmark cases as they demonstrate how even the legal experts battle law in court, even when astonishingly, the law was plainly written. Imagine that.

Okay. To shut you up. I am a licensed California lawyer. Immigration law is one of my area of focus. I post under a pseudonym. I've enjoyed helping people on Visajourney as a hobby.

The focus of my argument is not on interpreting the law. It has been on the misinformation by people like you who make stuff up and post it. Please go back and read your insults and see how ridiculous it is knowing that I am an immigration lawyer.

I guess I will make this my last post since I don't want to create a lawyer/client relationship based on my posts.

Good luck to everyone.

Edited January 11, 2010 by aaron2020

[marklovetina 52]

Okay. To shut you up. I am a licensed California lawyer. Immigration law is one of my area of focus. I post under a pseudonym. I've enjoyed helping people on Visajourney as a hobby.

The focus of my argument is not on interpreting the law. It has been on the misinformation by people like you who make stuff up and post it. Please go back and read your insults and see how ridiculous it is knowing that I am an immigration lawyer.

I guess I will make this my last post since I don't want to create a lawyer/client relationship based on my posts.

Good luck to everyone.

[Niels Bohr 72]

aaron2020 is really a licensed attorney...he just canceled his account

[marklovetina 52]

aaron2020 is really a licensed attorney...he just canceled his account

too bad... need free advice from an immigration atty. here in vj.. his posts will help....

[HeatDeath 430]

There's a certain wisdom in aaron's advice to not be too confident when giving advice or analysis about areas of law we don't have direct experience with, but I don't think that's what happened here.

He's almost certainly correct in his reading of the law: that adoption for immigration purposes is a complete non-starter unless the child in question is an orphan. But he seems to have taken an especial exception to something Galt wrote, without actually specifying what.

I think he misread something about one of Galt's posts pertaining to adoption, reading into it an absolutely confident assessment of the possibility of adoption that simply wasn't there in the actual written words. I suspect what he objects to most is, ironically, his own supreme confidence, projected erroneously back into what was actually written. His training in law has given him a deserved and well-earned confidence and certainty in matters of law, that he may read into other's posts, even when they never meant to imply such confidence and certainty.

Galt's use of the epithet "nazi" was ill-considered, and Galt probably does owe aaron an apology for that. But aaron was posting in a very high-handed way for no readily apparent reason, and to cancel his account is almost certainly a massive overreaction to what is, lets face it, a basically insignificant little internet argument. I mean, we're all adults here.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There's a certain wisdom in aaron's advice to not be too confident when giving advice or analysis about areas of law we don't have direct experience with, but I don't think that's what happened here.

He's almost certainly correct in his reading of the law: that adoption for immigration purposes is a complete non-starter unless the child in question is an orphan. But he seems to have taken an especial exception to something Galt wrote, without actually specifying what.

I think he misread something about one of Galt's posts pertaining to adoption, reading into it an absolutely confident assessment of the possibility of adoption that simply wasn't there in the actual written words. I suspect what he objects to most is, ironically, his own supreme confidence, projected erroneously back into what was actually written. His training in law has given him a deserved and well-earned confidence and certainty in matters of law, that he may read into other's posts, even when they never meant to imply such confidence and certainty.

Galt's use of the epithet "nazi" was ill-considered, and Galt probably does owe aaron an apology for that. But aaron was posting in a very high-handed way for no readily apparent reason, and to cancel his account is almost certainly a massive overreaction to what is, lets face it, a basically insignificant little internet argument. I mean, we're all adults here.

I used the term "immigration nazi" to refer to about a handful of members that seem to come and go over the years (don't know why that is), who take quite a literal approach to immigration law as if it requires no legal interpretation beyond direct reading of such law, let alone expert analysis and opinion. If that's not Aaron's train of thought, then I apologize for lumping him into that group.

This website provides advice...not legal advice...at least not in the literal sense, since none of us here are immigration attorneys. Some advice here is more accurate than others, and I'll be the first one to submit to another who may have more knowledge, but arguing over the interpretation of law here often is an exercise in futility. You give the best advice you can, but in the end it is up to the member seeking advice to verify the accuracy of such advice.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[Nagishkaw 510]

I used the term "immigration nazi" to refer to about a handful of members that seem to come and go over the years (don't know why that is), who take quite a literal approach to immigration law as if it requires no legal interpretation beyond direct reading of such law, let alone expert analysis and opinion. If that's not Aaron's train of thought, then I apologize for lumping him into that group.

This website provides advice...not legal advice...at least not in the literal sense, since none of us here are immigration attorneys. Some advice here is more accurate than others, and I'll be the first one to submit to another who may have more knowledge, but arguing over the interpretation of law here often is an exercise in futility. You give the best advice you can, but in the end it is up to the member seeking advice to verify the accuracy of such advice.

See what you've done.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

I used the term "immigration nazi" to refer to about a handful of members that seem to come and go over the years (don't know why that is), who take quite a literal approach to immigration law as if it requires no legal interpretation beyond direct reading of such law, let alone expert analysis and opinion. If that's not Aaron's train of thought, then I apologize for lumping him into that group.

This website provides advice...not legal advice...at least not in the literal sense, since none of us here are immigration attorneys. Some advice here is more accurate than others, and I'll be the first one to submit to another who may have more knowledge, but arguing over the interpretation of law here often is an exercise in futility. You give the best advice you can, but in the end it is up to the member seeking advice to verify the accuracy of such advice.

Aaron IS an immigration lawyer. You assume too much. There are several lawyers and those involved with the law that peruse these boards offering advice here and there.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

But aaron was posting in a very high-handed way for no readily apparent reason, and to cancel his account is almost certainly a massive overreaction to what is, lets face it, a basically insignificant little internet argument. I mean, we're all adults here.

His reasoning behind cancelling his account is perfectly sound. After "outing" yourself as a lawyer, people assume that a simple answer to a seemingly simple question constitutes legal advice and may rely on that advice as it is, rather than a proper consultation which discuses the ins and outs of your case, and any other technicalities that must be taken into account.

He is perfectly able to give advice on the LAW and what is legal and what is not (such as with the case law on adoption) but it is when people read the advice and apply it to their own case, without regard to the fact that their case may be more difficult or in fact simpler than the situation he was replying to, that troubles arise.

A lawyer such as him cannot continue to post after being "outed" for the simple reason it opens him up for being hassled with questions, and as stated, people reading more or less into his posts than intended.

It's a shame that he was hassled the way he was by someone who assumes that there is no-one qualified on VJ. I hope it helps people realise though that there are several people well versed in the law on VJ, just as some people who work at USCIS and ICE also read and post on these boards.

I also think it's safe to assume that if someone is posting in a very "high-handed way for no readily apparent reason" that they may know something that you don't know... and if you're NOT a lawyer, then realise that maybe this person is, or has this advice from experience.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Vanessa&Tony

[HeatDeath 430]

Okay. To shut you up. I am a licensed California lawyer. Immigration law is one of my area of focus. I post under a pseudonym. I've enjoyed helping people on Visajourney as a hobby.

The focus of my argument is not on interpreting the law. It has been on the misinformation by people like you who make stuff up and post it. Please go back and read your insults and see how ridiculous it is knowing that I am an immigration lawyer.

I guess I will make this my last post since I don't want to create a lawyer/client relationship based on my posts.

Good luck to everyone.

V&T, Aaron "outed" himself to "shut up" some guy on the internet he had gotten himself into a flamewar with, over something that he THOUGHT Galt said, but that, on examination of the record, Galt never actually said.

Aaron seemed to believe that Galt had stated authoritatively that adoption was definitely a viable altenative for Babykim, and basically flamed him for it. Aaron was, objectively, incorrect. If anything, I was more confident in my statements about adoption then Galt was, and Aaron didn't say boo to me.

Galt, in his own defence, flamed back with "immigration nazi", an ill-considered but somewhat understandable response. Then Aaron had his temper tantrum and outed himself. Not the behavior one expects of a professional who takes helping people here seriously. A real professional, confronted with what he sees as ignorant laymen spreading misinformation, responds in a better way than whipping out his credentials, waving them in everyone's face, and storming off in a huff.

[Krikit 1,163]

BabyKim, do you have the answer to your question now?

[Niels Bohr 72]

Professionals are people too. They have higher tolerances for non-sense. They do break from time to time.

V&T, Aaron "outed" himself to "shut up" some guy on the internet he had gotten himself into a flamewar with, over something that he THOUGHT Galt said, but that, on examination of the record, Galt never actually said.

Aaron seemed to believe that Galt had stated authoritatively that adoption was definitely a viable altenative for Babykim, and basically flamed him for it. Aaron was, objectively, incorrect. If anything, I was more confident in my statements about adoption then Galt was, and Aaron didn't say boo to me.

Galt, in his own defence, flamed back with "immigration nazi", an ill-considered but somewhat understandable response. Then Aaron had his temper tantrum and outed himself. Not the behavior one expects of a professional who takes helping people here seriously. A real professional, confronted with what he sees as ignorant laymen spreading misinformation, responds in a better way than whipping out his credentials, waving them in everyone's face, and storming off in a huff.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I truly feel bad if aaron2020 canceled his membership over the argument we were having. I agree with his premise that knowing a specific code of immigration law is ideal when offering advice. Where I disagree is his notion that anyone giving advice here should first look up or know a specific code before giving any advice. His argument, in effect, and if in fact he was an immigration lawyer, implies that no one here is really qualified to give out advice without being a lawyer, and that is NOT what this immigration site is about.

As for birth certificates in the Philippines. My wife says it is very common that the maternal grandparents are written down as the parents on a birth certificate when a woman gives birth outside of marriage. While aaron2020 argued that it is fraud in all circumstances, his argument isn't sound because the intent to commit fraud is not present, the Philippine government recognizes the birth certificate as legitimate as well as the hospital. And this isn't something so foreign to us here in the U.S., as similar actions were taken in earlier times over the shame of an illegitimate birth. If a married woman has an affair, becomes pregnant and writes the name of her husband as the father of the child, does she commit fraud? The complexities, social norms, and cultural nuances do in fact matter when determining what constitutes as fraud, IMO.

The OP's question is not an uncommon one. There have been Filipino families who brought over family members under similar circumstances. The current laws may make it difficult which is why the OP should consult with an immigration lawyer, in person, and not just go by advice given here, even if it is coming from a lawyer.