MacUK

The clue's in the name, it's a non immigrant visa

What rules are stupid? The ones that say people should use visas for their intended purpose and not as a shortcut. Personally the only stupid rules I can think of are the ones that allow people to abuse those visas without any consequences.

Wasn't being judgemental at all and I apologise if it came across as such. Just trying to make a point for others reading this thread not to be coerced into making false admissions in the future.

It's too late to do anything about it now but I'm constantly astonished when I read about people who claim they were forced to admit to things they didn't do or admit to planning to do things they don't do. How does anyone believe that falsely admitting to planning to do something illegal will ever have a positive outcome? I've been pulled in to secondary and interrogated. They tried to trip me up to get me to admit to doing something wrong. Fortunately though, I wasn't doing anything illegal so I stuck with telling the truth and eventually was allowed to enter. I just don't understand how anyone can believe that lying about doing something illegal is better than telling the truth about doing absolutely nothing illegal.

Lying to immigration is asking for a lot more trouble

You have a tourist visa, that's all that matters, you're good to go. It doesn't matter where you was when you got the visa. Your visa is valid until 2025, you can use it any time you want during that period to ask to enter the USA.

What do you mean by that?

Every one of those 'documents' could be provided by anyone who has a computer and a printer. Documents mean very little. I doubt they have a quota, America likes tourists, tourists bring money. As for depending on their mood, that's possible but it doesn't matter. They can deny you for reason, maybe they think you'll work illegally, maybe they think you'll overstay, maybe they just haven't had their morning coffee yet and feel grumpy, maybe they just don't believe you. No matter what the reason is they can deny you.

I don't want to sound harsh but the embassy doesn't care about your "particular family circumstances". They don't care why people want to go to the USA, they only care about why they'll leave. I applied for a visitor visa so I could be present at my daughters birth, I'd have thought that was a good enough reason. It was refused. The Consular Officer looked heartbroken and told me she truly wished she could approve the visa but my reason for going didn't matter. I couldn't convince that I would come home again so it was rightfully denied.

I have a query which someone here may know the answer to. With the OPs situation it's slightly different from the usual birth tourism threads we see here in that they are not coming from or returning to their own country of citizenship. So my query is, if they do enter the US, have the baby and get the babies passport all within the 6 months allowed on a tourist visa. Will it be straightforward just taking the baby back to Canada? I admit to having very limited knowledge of Canadian immigration laws but as they are only residents of Canada and not citizens will they have to obtain a Canadian visa for the baby as well before they go back?

Much nicer than the British military game where anyone who appears in the media gets "crated", and has to buy everyone who sees them in the media a crate of beer. Seeing as this guy has now been seen all around the world it'd be a very expensive drinks tab!

What documents are there that anyone can show that can't be provided by anyone who has a printer? Documents mean very little, far too easy to forge. And wedding invites mean even less. The embassy doesn't care why you want to go to the U.S., they only care about why you'll leave.

Having friends is one thing, try to think about it the way a complete stranger would see it. Would you be happy if your wife was to have a male friend come stay with her without you there?

Doubtful, seeing as Hitler had already indefinitely postponed all plans to invade Mainland Britain after failing to achieve air and naval superiority. If they had managed to invade then they probably would have been able to sweep through the British ground forces relatively easily (and as an Army veteran that's a tad annoying) but they realised they would never have been able to get a large enough force onto British soil with the Royal Navy controlling the channel and the RAF in control of the skies. You can take solace in the fact that if America hadn't entered the war then most of Europe would be speaking German, without America the Allies would never have been able to liberate Europe.

I went on a Yeoman Warders tour at the Tower of London a couple of years ago and when it came around to the Richard III - Tudor eras the Warder put it simply. "What you have to remember is that Shakespeare wrote his plays with the thought in the back of his mind that he had to keep a redhead happy, so take them with a pinch of salt"