K-2

[pushbrk 13,884]

I agree that listing the child implies nothing but some, if not all Consulates "infer" that the child or children wish to apply for a visa.

I think your last sentence should be modified as follows...

Well, the sentance wouldn't make sense then but, I disagree anyway. Some if not all consulates do infer that children will accompany their K visa parent and act accordingly until informed otherwise.

If you disagree, please provide a counter example.

How about my own... The US Consulate in Kyiv sent out P3 for the fiancee only... no P3 packet for the K-2 child...

Your experience is with China.. so all we have is 1 that does and 1 that doesn't. Even anecdotal evidence on this issue appears to be lacking.... just does not appear to be enough datapoints to support your "if not all". Why not do a poll?

Have at it.

Why me? Why do you deflect when your opinions are challenged?

Who is deflecting? First, you challenge without data and then provide only one data point that could be the exception. It is reasonable for the Consulates to infer the children wish to apply for a visa because there is no standard procedure to indicate otherwise. Why should we conclude the unreasonable exception you point out is any more valid a reason to conclude it is the norm than my assertion?

If you want a survey, do one. I don't give a lot of credence to unscientific surveys. Have at it.

[payxibka 10,048]

I agree that listing the child implies nothing but some, if not all Consulates "infer" that the child or children wish to apply for a visa.

I think your last sentence should be modified as follows...

Well, the sentance wouldn't make sense then but, I disagree anyway. Some if not all consulates do infer that children will accompany their K visa parent and act accordingly until informed otherwise.

If you disagree, please provide a counter example.

How about my own... The US Consulate in Kyiv sent out P3 for the fiancee only... no P3 packet for the K-2 child...

Your experience is with China.. so all we have is 1 that does and 1 that doesn't. Even anecdotal evidence on this issue appears to be lacking.... just does not appear to be enough datapoints to support your "if not all". Why not do a poll?

Have at it.

Why me? Why do you deflect when your opinions are challenged?

Who is deflecting? First, you challenge without data and then provide only one data point that could be the exception. It is reasonable for the Consulates to infer the children wish to apply for a visa because there is no standard procedure to indicate otherwise. Why should we conclude the unreasonable exception you point out is any more valid a reason to conclude it is the norm than my assertion?

If you want a survey, do one. I don't give a lot of credence to unscientific surveys. Have at it.

But unscientific anecdotal evidence you do give credence too...

The way you phrased your statement, I only need one data point to make it innacurate.

You were the one who said "Yes. If they are listed, the Consulate will conclude they are coming and act accordingly, even if they are not."

You opined your WILL with only one data point,... how do you know for sure who is the exception?

The last thing that should happen here is that the OP, based on your reply, will believe that the the consulate will automatically notify him of the K-2 application materials/process. If the OP's consulate was China then it would most likely be so. If it is not, then he should not be so informed.

[pushbrk 13,884]

I agree that listing the child implies nothing but some, if not all Consulates "infer" that the child or children wish to apply for a visa.

I think your last sentence should be modified as follows...

Well, the sentance wouldn't make sense then but, I disagree anyway. Some if not all consulates do infer that children will accompany their K visa parent and act accordingly until informed otherwise.

If you disagree, please provide a counter example.

How about my own... The US Consulate in Kyiv sent out P3 for the fiancee only... no P3 packet for the K-2 child...

Your experience is with China.. so all we have is 1 that does and 1 that doesn't. Even anecdotal evidence on this issue appears to be lacking.... just does not appear to be enough datapoints to support your "if not all". Why not do a poll?

Have at it.

Why me? Why do you deflect when your opinions are challenged?

Who is deflecting? First, you challenge without data and then provide only one data point that could be the exception. It is reasonable for the Consulates to infer the children wish to apply for a visa because there is no standard procedure to indicate otherwise. Why should we conclude the unreasonable exception you point out is any more valid a reason to conclude it is the norm than my assertion?

If you want a survey, do one. I don't give a lot of credence to unscientific surveys. Have at it.

But unscientific anecdotal evidence you do give credence too...

The way you phrased your statement, I only need one data point to make it innacurate.

You were the one who said "Yes. If they are listed, the Consulate will conclude they are coming and act accordingly, even if they are not."

You opined your WILL with only one data point,... how do you know for sure who is the exception?

The last thing that should happen here is that the OP, based on your reply, will believe that the the consulate will automatically notify him of the K-2 application materials/process. If the OP's consulate was China then it would most likely be so. If it is not, then he should not be so informed.

I gave one data point as an example. I also explained the logic.

The forum is for discussion and answers to questions. Instead of arguing with me, why don't you just provide whatever input you think will benefit the OP.

Edited July 16, 2007 by pushbrk

[payxibka 10,048]

I agree that listing the child implies nothing but some, if not all Consulates "infer" that the child or children wish to apply for a visa.

I think your last sentence should be modified as follows...

Well, the sentance wouldn't make sense then but, I disagree anyway. Some if not all consulates do infer that children will accompany their K visa parent and act accordingly until informed otherwise.

If you disagree, please provide a counter example.

How about my own... The US Consulate in Kyiv sent out P3 for the fiancee only... no P3 packet for the K-2 child...

Your experience is with China.. so all we have is 1 that does and 1 that doesn't. Even anecdotal evidence on this issue appears to be lacking.... just does not appear to be enough datapoints to support your "if not all". Why not do a poll?

Have at it.

Why me? Why do you deflect when your opinions are challenged?

Who is deflecting? First, you challenge without data and then provide only one data point that could be the exception. It is reasonable for the Consulates to infer the children wish to apply for a visa because there is no standard procedure to indicate otherwise. Why should we conclude the unreasonable exception you point out is any more valid a reason to conclude it is the norm than my assertion?

If you want a survey, do one. I don't give a lot of credence to unscientific surveys. Have at it.

But unscientific anecdotal evidence you do give credence too...

The way you phrased your statement, I only need one data point to make it innacurate.

You were the one who said "Yes. If they are listed, the Consulate will conclude they are coming and act accordingly, even if they are not."

You opined your WILL with only one data point,... how do you know for sure who is the exception?

The last thing that should happen here is that the OP, based on your reply, will believe that the the consulate will automatically notify him of the K-2 application materials/process. If the OP's consulate was China then it would most likely be so. If it is not, then he should not be so informed.

I gave one data point as an example. I also explained the logic.

The forum is for discussion and answers to questions. Instead of arguing with me, why don't you just provide whatever input you think will benefit the OP.

That is what I am doing... making sure the OP does not believe something, that if accepted it as fact, could potentially be untrue in there situation.

[pushbrk 13,884]

That is what I am doing... making sure the OP does not believe something, that if accepted it as fact, could potentially be untrue in there situation.

Then may I suggest something more like this, next time.

My fiance's Consulate did not send a visa application for her child, so you might want to contact the Consulate and make sure they know your fiance's child wishes to apply for a visa.

I like it better than argument. Perhaps you do too.

[payxibka 10,048]

That is what I am doing... making sure the OP does not believe something, that if accepted it as fact, could potentially be untrue in there situation.

Then may I suggest something more like this, next time.

My fiance's Consulate did not send a visa application for her child, so you might want to contact the Consulate and make sure they know your fiance's child wishes to apply for a visa.

I like it better than argument. Perhaps you do too.

Works for me. If you had followed this suggestion/line of thinking in the beginning then we certainly would have saved some bandwidth...

[pushbrk 13,884]

That is what I am doing... making sure the OP does not believe something, that if accepted it as fact, could potentially be untrue in there situation.

Then may I suggest something more like this, next time.

My fiance's Consulate did not send a visa application for her child, so you might want to contact the Consulate and make sure they know your fiance's child wishes to apply for a visa.

I like it better than argument. Perhaps you do too.

Works for me. If you had followed this suggestion/line of thinking in the beginning then we certainly would have saved some bandwidth...

That works both ways, doesn't it?

[payxibka 10,048]

That is what I am doing... making sure the OP does not believe something, that if accepted it as fact, could potentially be untrue in there situation.

Then may I suggest something more like this, next time.

My fiance's Consulate did not send a visa application for her child, so you might want to contact the Consulate and make sure they know your fiance's child wishes to apply for a visa.

I like it better than argument. Perhaps you do too.

Works for me. If you had followed this suggestion/line of thinking in the beginning then we certainly would have saved some bandwidth...

That works both ways, doesn't it?

See post #5

[Yodrak 7]

Thailand is like Kyiv.

Yodrak

I agree that listing the child implies nothing but some, if not all Consulates "infer" that the child or children wish to apply for a visa.

I think your last sentence should be modified as follows...

Well, the sentance wouldn't make sense then but, I disagree anyway. Some if not all consulates do infer that children will accompany their K visa parent and act accordingly until informed otherwise.

If you disagree, please provide a counter example.

How about my own... The US Consulate in Kyiv sent out P3 for the fiancee only... no P3 packet for the K-2 child...

.....

[Yodrak 7]

pushbrk,

Excellent suggestion. You might want to use it yourself next time, instead of "If they are listed, the Consulate will conclude they are coming and act accordingly, even if they are not."

Yodrak

That is what I am doing... making sure the OP does not believe something, that if accepted it as fact, could potentially be untrue in there situation.

Then may I suggest something more like this, next time.

My fiance's Consulate did not send a visa application for her child, so you might want to contact the Consulate and make sure they know your fiance's child wishes to apply for a visa.

.....

[pushbrk 13,884]

Yes it is an excellent suggestion, in hind sight. I made my initial assertion based on my knowledge and understanding. I was unaware that other Consulates handled derivitive cases differently but fwaguy knew otherwise. Instead of simply saying I was wrong, the suggestion below would have avoided argument. Now that I am armed with additional knowledge, I'll answer the same question differently in the future.

In other words, rather than just arguing that something is not correct, offer what you think is correct and why, instead of simply arguing the original is wrong. Add, rather than detract.

pushbrk,

Excellent suggestion. You might want to use it yourself next time, instead of "If they are listed, the Consulate will conclude they are coming and act accordingly, even if they are not."

Yodrak

That is what I am doing... making sure the OP does not believe something, that if accepted it as fact, could potentially be untrue in there situation.

Then may I suggest something more like this, next time.

My fiance's Consulate did not send a visa application for her child, so you might want to contact the Consulate and make sure they know your fiance's child wishes to apply for a visa.

.....

[payxibka 10,048]

Yes it is an excellent suggestion, in hind sight. I made my initial assertion based on my knowledge and understanding. I was unaware that other Consulates handled derivitive cases differently but fwaguy knew otherwise. Instead of simply saying I was wrong, the suggestion below would have avoided argument. Now that I am armed with additional knowledge, I'll answer the same question differently in the future.

In other words, rather than just arguing that something is not correct, offer what you think is correct and why, instead of simply arguing the original is wrong. Add, rather than detract.

Let me tell you something that you should already know... NOT EVERY CONSULATE IS CHINA!!!

Local procedures vary and sometimes vary greatly... You have been around long enough to know better... I simply told you the same information that ultimately Yodrak said but you refused to believe until so...

[pushbrk 13,884]

Yes it is an excellent suggestion, in hind sight. I made my initial assertion based on my knowledge and understanding. I was unaware that other Consulates handled derivitive cases differently but fwaguy knew otherwise. Instead of simply saying I was wrong, the suggestion below would have avoided argument. Now that I am armed with additional knowledge, I'll answer the same question differently in the future.

In other words, rather than just arguing that something is not correct, offer what you think is correct and why, instead of simply arguing the original is wrong. Add, rather than detract.

Let me tell you something that you should already know... NOT EVERY CONSULATE IS CHINA!!!

Local procedures vary and sometimes vary greatly... You have been around long enough to know better... I simply told you the same information that ultimately Yodrak said but you refused to believe until so...

Nevertheless, I didn't pee in your cornflakes. Please don't pee in mine.

[payxibka 10,048]

Nevertheless, I didn't pee in your cornflakes. Please don't pee in mine.

You didn't pee in mine because you couldn't find fault.

I did because it was obvious

I won't if simply listen to your own advice