Working after arrival: Online job?

[Boiler 43,437]

I don't buy that. Illegals take jobs away from Americans, plain and simple.

That seems very definite, and of course it would be unreasonable to assume every job taken by illegal would not be done by a USC.

But on the otther hand there must be some?

[Teddy B 17,251]

i.e. an alien who is not an LPR or one who does not hold an EAD or is authorized to work by nature of their visa.

Thus a K1 visa holder, not being an LPR, not having the permission to work by virtue of the nature of the visa (e.g. a work based visa) and not yet in possession of an EAD, would be considered an unauthorized alien according to the provision in (h)(3) of Sec. 274A. [8 U.S.C. 1324a].

Sec 274 of the Immigration Act was written specifically to prevent the illegal hiring of aliens INSIDE the US for US jobs. For some reason you refuse to see the difference between someone in the US in an authorized status working remotely from their home country and someone in the US who is not authorized for employment, acquiring employment in the US and taking a job away from a USC. They are completely different.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Teddy B

[Teddy B 17,251]

i.e. an alien who is not an LPR or one who does not hold an EAD or is authorized to work by nature of their visa.

Thus a K1 visa holder, not being an LPR, not having the permission to work by virtue of the nature of the visa (e.g. a work based visa) and not yet in possession of an EAD, would be considered an unauthorized alien according to the provision in (h)(3) of Sec. 274A. [8 U.S.C. 1324a].

I don't know if you've read the article I've linked below which is part of a Congressional study, but it defines unauthorized and illegal aliens pretty well. It also stipulates the employment provisions from section 274 of the INA that you've been citing. Basically an "unauthorized alien" is a person who either entered the country illegally or has overstayed their visa and is out of status. Both are ineligible for work in the US.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41207.pdf

[d3adc0d3 186]

Sec 274 of the Immigration Act was written specifically to prevent the illegal hiring of aliens INSIDE the US for US jobs. For some reason you refuse to see the difference between someone in the US in an authorized status working remotely from their home country and someone in the US who is not authorized for employment, acquiring employment in the US and taking a job away from a USC. They are completely different.

I don't know if you've read the article I've linked below which is part of a Congressional study, but it defines unauthorized and illegal aliens pretty well. It also stipulates the employment provisions from section 274 of the INA that you've been citing. Basically an "unauthorized alien" is a person who either entered the country illegally or has overstayed their visa and is out of status. Both are ineligible for work in the US.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41207.pdf

For some reason you refuse to see the difference between someone in the US in an authorized status working remotely from their home country and someone in the US who is not authorized for employment

To retort to the ambiguous statement in kind of how it was delivered: "For some reason you refuse to see" that the OP is talking about working as a freelancer whilst in the U.S. on a K1 visa, not a full time permanent employee of the company in which she is speaking of, and not whilst still living in her native country. Regardless of whether the company who hired her as an independent contractor is based in the U.S., according to U.S. Labor Laws, she is considered a self-employed person, and in the court of law would be held responsible as if she was a company hiring unauthorized aliens, versus a person due to how "self-employed" is determined.

It also stipulates the employment provisions from section 274 of the INA that you've been citing. Basically an "unauthorized alien" is a person who either entered the country illegally or has overstayed their visa and is out of status. Both are ineligible for work in the US.

Within 90 days of entering in on the K1 one would be out of status, even if filing for the AOS within that 90 day period, they are still out of status until adjusting their status, however due to the nature of the visa, all overstays are forgiven. Thus they would be considered "unauthorized" until receiving the EAD which typically arrives within 2-3 months of filing for said EAD.

I don't know if you've read the article I've linked below which is part of a Congressional study, but it defines unauthorized and illegal aliens pretty well. It also stipulates the employment provisions from section 274 of the INA that you've been citing. Basically an "unauthorized alien" is a person who either entered the country illegally or has overstayed their visa and is out of status. Both are ineligible for work in the US.http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41207.pdf

Wonderful article. Please see the quote below from the article you linked:

Under INA §274A, it is unlawful for an employer to knowingly hire, recruit or refer for a fee, or continue to employ an unauthorized alien.²⁰

²⁰ In this context, “unauthorized alien” refers to those who lack employment authorization. It includes both those without legal status and those with some type of legal status who are not authorized to work in the United States.

A simple ctrl+f of 274A will find you to this location easily, and according to the find function, that is the only place in which this is cited.

Edited November 10, 2014 by d3adc0d3

[d3adc0d3 186]

Also to add to my above post (edit timed out):

The article was a proposal act S.744 (Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act), which has passed senate and is not law, thus the suggestion is simply that - a suggestion:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744

Edited November 10, 2014 by d3adc0d3

[Teddy B 17,251]

Also to add to my above post (edit timed out):

The article was a proposal act S.744 (Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act), which has passed senate and is not law, thus the suggestion is simply that - a suggestion:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744

You go on trying to prove a negative, I've got better things to do.

[d3adc0d3 186]

You go on trying to prove a negative, I've got better things to do.

As far as I was aware this was a debate.

I've quoted laws, directly from the .gov websites, I referenced legal discussions between lawyers, and I referenced quotes in sources you cited in attempt disprove what I've been stating. I've referenced the sources which you linked and pointed that they are a proposal and not a law, with evidence linking, again, to a .gov website.

I don't see how I'm the one being obstinate, so much as debating the validity of your claims with evidence to back my own. I've seen little to none in the way of legal evidence to back your own claims.

Either way have a lovely day.

Edited November 10, 2014 by d3adc0d3

[Teddy B 17,251]

As far as I was aware this was a debate.

I've quoted laws, directly from the .gov websites, I referenced legal discussions between lawyers, and I referenced quotes in sources you cited in attempt disprove what I've been stating. I've referenced the sources which you linked and pointed that they are a proposal and not a law, with evidence linking, again, to a .gov website.

I don't see how I'm the one being obstinate, so much as debating the validity of your claims with evidence to back my own. I've seen little to none in the way of legal evidence to back your own claims.

Either way have a lovely day.

Yes, it was a bit of a debate. But the debate can move no further until you realize the definition of an unauthorized alien, which is why I posted that Congressional study. For whatever reason you insist on lumping an alien who is in the US on authorized stay into the category of an unauthorized/illegal alien. they are two completely different things.

A K-1 alien is in a period of authorized stay for 90 days, they may not have an actual status, but they cannot accrue an overstay until those 90 days are up no matter how you slice it.

If your theory of working remotely in the US as being illegal held water, you would be able to show evidence of such. By evidence I mean case files. Show me people who have been arrested or deported for working remotely while in the US on an authorized stay. Show me the posts here on VJ that make such claims. Your twisting of the term "unauthorized alien" and then posting links to corresponding articles to suit your argument does not fit the bill.

[Boiler 43,437]

All very interesting but illegal working is effectively forgiven when adjusting through marriage.

Certainly seen people post on here who have been refused entry when the suspicion was that they would be working for their foreign employer in the US.

Been some time now but I used to know Canadians who worked from home and would would come to the US for meetings. They were paid by the Canadian subsidiary but worked for the Us operation and were always careful about how they described their US trips.

A lawyer on another board called your status after filing to adjust from K1 as under Colour of Law.

There is a temptation to consider US Immigration Law as concise, logical and complete, it obviously is not.

[Teddy B 17,251]

All very interesting but illegal working is effectively forgiven when adjusting through marriage.

Certainly seen people post on here who have been refused entry when the suspicion was that they would be working for their foreign employer in the US.

Been some time now but I used to know Canadians who worked from home and would would come to the US for meetings. They were paid by the Canadian subsidiary but worked for the Us operation and were always careful about how they described their US trips.

A lawyer on another board called your status after filing to adjust from K1 as under Colour of Law.

There is a temptation to consider US Immigration Law as concise, logical and complete, it obviously is not.

A good point Boiler.

[d3adc0d3 186]

Yes, it was a bit of a debate. But the debate can move no further until you realize the definition of an unauthorized alien, which is why I posted that Congressional study. For whatever reason you insist on lumping an alien who is in the US on authorized stay into the category of an unauthorized/illegal alien. they are two completely different things.

A K-1 alien is in a period of authorized stay for 90 days, they may not have an actual status, but they cannot accrue an overstay until those 90 days are up no matter how you slice it.

If your theory of working remotely in the US as being illegal held water, you would be able to show evidence of such. By evidence I mean case files. Show me people who have been arrested or deported for working remotely while in the US on an authorized stay. Show me the posts here on VJ that make such claims. Your twisting of the term "unauthorized alien" and then posting links to corresponding articles to suit your argument does not fit the bill.

Oh lordy, I'm not "twisting" anything as you so eloquently stated, I am citing laws, and the legal definitions.

In retort, where are those laws expressing it is perfectly legal? You leave the responsible for evidence on me, and when I provide it, you tell me I'm wrong or mistaken, despite the facts that I posted stating otherwise.

You want to prove your point? Hard facts. Otherwise I stand strong with my previous arguments in that it is most definitely illegal for an immigrant who does not have permission to work by either the nature of their visa, LPR status or an EAD to work for ANYONE whilst residing in and immigrating to the US.

Edited November 10, 2014 by d3adc0d3

[d3adc0d3 186]

All very interesting but illegal working is effectively forgiven when adjusting through marriage.

Certainly seen people post on here who have been refused entry when the suspicion was that they would be working for their foreign employer in the US.

Been some time now but I used to know Canadians who worked from home and would would come to the US for meetings. They were paid by the Canadian subsidiary but worked for the Us operation and were always careful about how they described their US trips.

A lawyer on another board called your status after filing to adjust from K1 as under Colour of Law.

There is a temptation to consider US Immigration Law as concise, logical and complete, it obviously is not.

My point was that it was illegal not that it was forgiven, but this is interesting. I guess hubby can take that job after all and AOS AND USCIS won't care.

Personally, I'd rather not take that risk, all it takes is on IO who's pissed off to decide that is one more slice of evidence against a bona fide relationship.

Edited November 10, 2014 by d3adc0d3

[Boiler 43,437]

If you go to I2US the vast majority of the cases involve someone who has been working without sic authorisation and every now and then you see a post asking about whether to declare employment.

The usual response is that nobody has ever had an issue, and pointing out that the assumption would be that they had been working otherwise what were they doing?

[d3adc0d3 186]

If you go to I2US the vast majority of the cases involve someone who has been working without sic authorisation and every now and then you see a post asking about whether to declare employment.

The usual response is that nobody has ever had an issue, and pointing out that the assumption would be that they had been working otherwise what were they doing?

Playing video games and starting a family of course!

[TBoneTX 43,058]

The OP has asked that this thread be closed because it has disintegrated into arguing and is not benefiting anyone.