Adjusting via B2 visa....should the law be changed?

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM030209.html#M302_9_4

 

     (U) Inconsistent Conduct Within 90 Days of Entry:

As elmcity said,

 

Simply say "oh we changed our mind" or "we decided yesterday, we are so happy!"

 

We have two systems for people to marry in the US and stay. The K-1 and a B2 with "spontaneous" marriage and adjustment.

 

Seems silly and redundant. Just combine them into one or the other.

[bcking 3,157]

To clarify -

 

I'm assuming we are talking about a document saying you don't INTEND to marry. Intent is non-binding.

 

If they signed saying they WOULD NOT marry then that would be different.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

4 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Here's the thing: you can lack intent at the border and still change your mind once you cross it, even if you were asked about it at entry and signed a form saying you had no intent. At risk of hopelessly violating the TOS for non-English outside the regionals, ex post facto mens rea ain't a thing.

 

Personally, I really don't care. Maybe I'm just so far away from all of it now but it seems bizarre to be hung up on whether someone else takes advantage of a perfectly legal route which for whatever reason wasn't available for logistical or moral (!) reasons. I chalk this up to a big old "meh" in terms of immigration priorities.

 

   I guess that's how I feel too. Of course you can't stop someone who really knows what to do and is set on gaming the system with the B2. And if all those people were going on to become cocaine traffickers then yeah I could see a problem. People are making up fraud numbers in their head and wanting to rewrite immigration law based on imagination. It is strange to me. Maybe you're right, the farther you get away from the process, you start to see how insignificant this is.

 

  Hate to say though really, but you can't stop everyone who abuses the K1 either, or any other visa. If that's all it's about, people shouldn't be surprised when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

  

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   I guess that's how I feel too. Of course you can't stop someone who really knows what to do and is set on gaming the system with the B2. And if all those people were going on to become cocaine traffickers then yeah I could see a problem. People are making up fraud numbers in their head and wanting to rewrite immigration law based on imagination. It is strange to me. Maybe you're right, the farther you get away from the process, you start to see how insignificant this is.

 

  Hate to say though really, but you can't stop everyone who abuses the K1 either, or any other visa. If that's all it's about, people shouldn't be surprised when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

  

I don't see it as an abuse issue, more a redundancy issue and unequal treatment issue.

 

No reason to have two systems for coming to America, marrying, and adjusting status. Either let everyone do it on a visitor Visa, and require everyone go through a "waiting process" outside of the country. Seems silly to have a loophole for some people to use, but also have another system in place.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

To clarify -

 

I'm assuming we are talking about a document saying you don't INTEND to marry. Intent is non-binding.

 

If they signed saying they WOULD NOT marry then that would be different.

 

    I'm saying they could use a 90 day procedural rule. Before you say it, no that wouldn't stop people from getting married on day 91. 

 

    I'm not sure that a procedural rule would work really, given the "immunity" that immediate relatives get. Maybe that is part of the issue too. If immediate relatives were treated the same as everyone else, we wouldn't be having this discussion. 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

I don't see it as an abuse issue, more a redundancy issue and unequal treatment issue.

 

No reason to have two systems for coming to America, marrying, and adjusting status. Either let everyone do it on a visitor Visa, and require everyone go through a "waiting process" outside of the country. Seems silly to have a loophole for some people to use, but also have another system in place.

"more a redundancy issue and unequal treatment issue"  So like 80% of what the government does:Redundant, unequal or inefficient.  The poster boy of the level of overlap that government aspires to is the immigration system that touches these Agencies :

 

 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

• The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is the agency that determines immigration benefits. 
• The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deals with immigration enforcement issues within the United States.
• The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) handles immigration screening at the U.S. Border.

Department of State (DOS)
Department of Labor (DOL)
Selective Service
Social Security Administration
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

 

Did I miss any?  

Edited March 26, 2018 by Il Mango Dulce

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

I don't see it as an abuse issue, more a redundancy issue and unequal treatment issue.

 

No reason to have two systems for coming to America, marrying, and adjusting status. Either let everyone do it on a visitor Visa, and require everyone go through a "waiting process" outside of the country. Seems silly to have a loophole for some people to use, but also have another system in place.

 

    Adjustment of status is a process for anyone switching from non-immigrant to immigrant status within the USA. It's not a loophole. Sometimes people get married on a B2. That avenue then becomes legally available. It was not something that was overlooked. 

 

   Marriage is not central to the process. Parents can also adjust status on a B2. 

 

   

[Crazy Cat 39,803]

5 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

It's not a loophole.

It is a loophole which allows many people to violate the law......

[bcking 3,157]

10 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Adjustment of status is a process for anyone switching from non-immigrant to immigrant status within the USA. It's not a loophole. Sometimes people get married on a B2. That avenue then becomes legally available. It was not something that was overlooked. 

 

   Marriage is not central to the process. Parents can also adjust status on a B2. 

 

   

If you can marry in a B2 why do we need K-1? Let's get rid of that system then.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, missileman said:

It is a loophole which allows many people to violate the law......

 

    Are you saying congress forgot about this when writing the law? Come on! A loophole means taking advantage of something not intended. It is intended that people can adjust status from B2 if eligible. 

 

    Seems your beef is that you don't like the law, and you find it personally unfair. 

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

If you can marry in a B2 why do we need K-1? Let's get rid of that system then.

 

  If you marry on a B2 you are not eligible for K1. K1 is for fiancee's.

[Crazy Cat 39,803]

Rank these order from most frequent to least frequent:

 

1.  People who legally enter the US via a B2 or ESTA without intent to marry, but suddenly make such a huge decision to marry and stay for AOS.

2.  People who enter the US via a B2 or ESTA with intent to marry their fiance and stay for AOS.

3.  People who enter the US via a B2 with the intent to find a willing spouse, stay and AOS.

 

I say: 2,3,1

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Are you saying congress forgot about this when writing the law? Come on! A loophole means taking advantage of something not intended. It is intended that people can adjust status from B2 if eligible. 

 

    Seems your beef is that you don't like the law, and you find it personally unfair. 

 

  If you marry on a B2 you are not eligible for K1. K1 is for fiancee's.

You don't need a K-1 if you are a fiance.

 

Just show up on a B-2, say you don't intend to marry and neglect to mention you are engaged and then marry "spontaneously". 

 

Seems like a much quicker system.

Edited March 26, 2018 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

8 minutes ago, bcking said:

If you can marry in a B2 why do we need K-1? Let's get rid of that system then.

Because a lot of the people coming on k-1s do not qualify for a b2

[Crazy Cat 39,803]

5 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Are you saying congress forgot about this when writing the law? Come on! A loophole means taking advantage of something not intended. It is intended that people can adjust status from B2 if eligible. 

 

Are you saying Congress meant to allow people to enter the US with intent to violate US law? I think most who marry on a B2 and stay to adjust enter with intent.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

You don't need a K-1 if you are a fiance.

 

Just show up on a B-2, say you don't intend to marry and neglect to mention you are engaged and then marry "spontaneously". 

 

Seems like a much quicker system.

 

  What is your suggestion then?

 

  You can't stop people from getting married. You are not going to change adjustment of status, and contrary to the OP's suggestion, I really don't see a legal way of forcing a spouse of a USC to leave the country that would hold up in court.