Green card holder - out of wedlock children

[squareleg 69]

Depends what "big deal" means.

It's certainly not OK, but in this case it is unlikely to have any consequences. Some posters are saying he might lose his GC over this. That is inaccurate, unless of course he was in fact, married, in which case he was not eligible for the visa.

Big Deal - refer the San Bernardino attack where the Pakistani couple misrepresented on the applications and were able to cheat the system. It's big deal because it affects other legitimate applicants and 14-people died.

[Boiler 43,433]

https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-people-of-Pakistan-think-about-live-in-relationships-Also-are-there-any-couples-you-know-who-are-having-a-live-in-relationship-in-Pakistan

[Jojo92122 1,924]

Big Deal - refer the San Bernardino attack where the Pakistani couple misrepresented on the applications and were able to cheat the system. It's big deal because it affects other legitimate applicants and 14-people died.

Refer to the law on the different consequences for material and non-material misrepresentations.

Not every misrepresentation is a big deal. The US Government said so.

[Jojo92122 1,924]

The difference that matters is F2b to F3.

Based on what? The OP stated born out of wedlock. Has he stated otherwise?

F2b has an LPR petitioner. F3 requires a USC petitioner.

You are simply jumping to conclusions.

[Boiler 43,433]

Based on what? The OP stated born out of wedlock. Has he stated otherwise?

F2b has an LPR petitioner. F3 requires a USC petitioner.

You are simply jumping to conclusions.

You are missing the point, and hardly jumping.

Based on what? The OP stated born out of wedlock. Has he stated otherwise?

F2b has an LPR petitioner. F3 requires a USC petitioner.

You are simply jumping to conclusions.

You are missing the point, and hardly jumping.

[Phoen1x 4]

It would be highly insensitive and I humane to joke about it. Not sane person would do that.

I tried to find the BBC Documentary in archives but haven't had luck and enough time to research. But here is the source along with many more article that you will find with simple Google search.

http://m.dw.com/en/illegitimate-newborns-murdered-and-discarded/a-17582853

I understand the inhumane/insensitive nature of this discussion and i do agree.

When i said sources i was referring to this line.

"So technically, no one is unmarried with children."

I was just curious where that came from.

There is no doubt that feticide/infanticide is common in 3rd world countries.

[Jojo92122 1,924]

You are missing the point, and hardly jumping.

You are missing the point, and hardly jumping.

Please quote where the OP has indicated that he was married in Pakistan and admitted that his children were in fact not born out of wedlock. If you can't show it, then you are jumping to conclusions.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Jojo92122

[squareleg 69]

Refer to the law on the different consequences for material and non-material misrepresentations.

Not every misrepresentation is a big deal. The US Government said so.

I consider the misrepresentation in immigration matter a big deal. Especially, when my fellow 14-countrymen died in San Bernardino.

[squareleg 69]

I understand the inhumane/insensitive nature of this discussion and i do agree.

When i said sources i was referring to this line.

"So technically, no one is unmarried with children."

I was just curious where that came from.

There is no doubt that feticide/infanticide is common in 3rd world countries.

We are not discussing other countries but the country where OP is from and that he misrepresented on his application. It is a serious concern for especially citizens like us who just had a horrible week in NYC where again the attacker was trying to falsify documentation to bring his wife from Pakistan. It hurts the legitimate applicants.

[Jojo92122 1,924]

I consider the misrepresentation in immigration matter a big deal. Especially, when my fellow 14-countrymen died in San Bernardino.

Not everyone is a terrorist.

While you consider every misrepresentation a big deal, the US Government does not. When you give advice, stick to the law. Your opinions should not be masqueraded as the law.

You are fear mongering by stated that the OP committed a crime by not listing his children on the DS-260. That's a lie. In no way is that criminal since immigration is a civil matter. You are a liar and you made all that stuff up about this being criminal.

[squareleg 69]

Not everyone is a terrorist.

While you consider every misrepresentation a big deal, the US Government does not. When you give advice, stick to the law. Your opinions should not be masqueraded as the law.

You are fear mongering by stated that the OP committed a crime by not listing his children on the DS-260. That's a lie. In no way is that criminal since immigration is a civil matter. You are a liar and you made all that stuff up about this being criminal.

So according to your legal advice - it is okay to misrepresent as long as the immigrant doesn't turn up to be a terrorist? If he/she does, then....too bad....too late.

[EM_Vandaveer 2,369]

So according to your legal advice - it is okay to misrepresent as long as the immigrant doesn't turn up to be a terrorist? If he/she does, then....too bad....too late.

No, but material misrepresentation and non-material misrepresentation are VERY different matters. We may agree or disagree, but non-material misrepresentation basically has no consequences whatsoever.

Also, hiding the existence of out-of-wedlock children is nowhere near or even comparable to hiding terrorist connections/intentions.

[Jojo92122 1,924]

So according to your legal advice - it is okay to misrepresent as long as the immigrant doesn't turn up to be a terrorist? If he/she does, then....too bad....too late.

Nowhere did I say that making a misrepresentation was okay. Stop making stuff up.

I said that there are different legal consequences for material and non-material misrepresentations. That's the current state of the law. Not the garbage you have posted which is full of lies.

You think the law is about "YOU" and that the law should be what "YOU" think it should be. Well, it's not. The law is not what you posted.

Nowhere have you refute that your statements are not lies and not the current state of the law.

This is not about what "YOU" or "I" think the law should be when giving out information. Stick to the law.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Jojo92122

[squareleg 69]

Nowhere did I say that making a misrepresentation was okay. Stop making stuff up.

I said that there are different legal consequences for material and non-material misrepresentations. That's the current state of the law. Not the garbage you have posted which is full of lies.

You think the law is about "YOU" and that the law should be what "YOU" think it should be. Well, it's not. The law is not what you posted.

Nowhere have you refute that your statements are not lies and not the current state of the law.

This is not about what "YOU" or "I" think the law should be when giving out information. Stick to the law.

So now you are saying, misrepresentation is not okay or not legal?

Yes, law is about ME. By definition, it is the system of rules that I recognize to regulate MY action.

[Jojo92122 1,924]

So now you are saying, misrepresentation is not okay or not legal?

Yes, law is about ME. By definition, it is the system of rules that I recognize to regulate MY action.

1. Misrepresentations are not okay. Is that clear enough?

2. The US Government does not penalize anyone for non-material misrepresentations. You don't seem to understand nor care about the difference between material and non-material misrepresentations, and you lie about it being criminal. Is that clear enough?

3. Okay. You are the law giver. Whatever pops out of your head even when given facts to show that it's wrong is the law. Happy?