yuna628

The document does not elaborate further unfortunately. I agree that the whole thing is a mess and is completely unnecessary. But this behavior is not unexpected for this current administration.

That's what I figured. Thanks for removing it as I wasn't sure. I hope paraphrasing the contents of the memo is okay, but again feel free to remove if that is needed too. I imagine that is why the document has been reviewed by many news organizations but they aren't being very detailed as to the contents.

I have reviewed the cable which has been leaked. That document states that officers must refuse all immigrant applicants. They may still conduct interviews and are not instructed to cancel them, in order to assess if the applicant may be denied under some other ineligibility. Exceptions to this new determination will be limited in nature. If the officer can find no other reason to refuse them, they are instructed to refuse anyway, while the department basically 'figures out additional vetting regulations'. There is no instruction as to what those are or when they will ever happen. They are instructed to refuse even if the applicant has all proper evidence and can overcome any public charge concerns. Dual nationals that have a passport that is not subject to this 'pause' are allowed to be processed as normal. If the visa has been approved but not yet printed the applicant must be informed that they will be denied. If the applicant's visa has been printed but not left the consular section yet, they must still be refused. Visas that have been issued previously will not be revoked.

One lawyer I spoke to believed this would apply to both spouses and K1s.

The list of countries as follows: The AP article describes it as That of course leaves questions... do K1s get a pass because they are non-immigrant visas with immigrant intent? And I guess spousal visas are dumped in the trash?

HOAs are terrible and one should never move to a place that has one. Might be good to get a general consensus from Ex-Mrs and Mini on what color they think the place should be? Well as someone that has found the dryer broken every few years, my husband has always been able to fix them. If you can look up your make and model and some googling will get you the right idea of what's gone wrong. There will be videos online of how to access the insides. You might also need to do some testing with a multimeter. There's limited amount of parts inside, so when it does break you don't have to always replace it unlike a washer. If it won't turn on at all start with: check the circuit breaker, it seems dumb but you never know. also check the outlet by plugging another item in and seeing if it runs. clean that dryer out completely (the hose, the vent flue, the back panel, the floor around it). when it's full of crud in there, it'll overheat and shut off for your protection. a thermal fuse is gone or the start switch (if you hear a hum but nothing is happening it is not the start switch), could also be the motor. There's only one or two parts that at cost might just be worth purchasing a new unit entirely. We've always gotten OEM parts for ours but so far each repair hasn't been too costly and about an hour of work. Always get new hoses for the new dryer if you decide to replace it.

Up is down and down is up.🙃

What do you do when one officer shouts get out of the car and the other shout to move the car and another points a gun? Again, I'm pretty certain we'd each know what we'd do nor do I think we'd put ourselves in that situation to begin with. But this doesn't seem to be a very bright individual, way over their head. I don't disagree that the officer may have felt his actions reasonable, but I don't know if the evidence supports those feelings. We will only know that in court eventually, long after the screaming on TV stops. I don't know that any of us believe that she was intentionally trying to run him over nor do I think evidence supports this. There is however training, and that training and burden is on officers to not place themselves in front of a vehicle (though they may place themselves at various safer angles) because of various case precedents that have come to court. This is different from situations where an officer is dragged in a window (which is what happened to him previously) or is very clearly and maliciously struck. Officers in the city have been in these situations, and there are many where it hasn't gone favorably for them in court. He may have felt he was going to be struck, but that doesn't mean he was struck. We will certainly know in court. I would like these officers to sometimes handle situations better and be safe while doing so. I would also like protestors to handle themselves better as well, it is clear many are naive and are shocked at results. A small example for you guys. My husband was stopped at a red light yesterday. He observed someone blow through the intersection from the right, high rate of speed, running that red. His light had turned green so he proceeded with the rest of the traffic into the roadway, and had to make the quick decision to slam on the brakes (and of course so did everyone else) when the vehicle which had been behind the light runner, was an undercover cop (put on lights but not sirens) and then barreled into the roadway. He certainly did not want to hit anyone, but the officer made a decision which could have caused a T-bone multi-car accident in order to chase the guy. He could have seriously hurt himself or others. Maybe the officer was not thinking about that at the time, but it was a decision that was risky.

There are several, not the best quality imo. There's been a few media outlets that have analyzed the videos and cannot conclude she struck him. There have also been faked videos, sadly. There are some that have attempted to speed up or slow down the videos to give it whatever 'favored' outcome. I don't feel this gives us clear 100% beyond reasonable doubt in the matter. Some might hedge the line to say the car may have potentially brushed him, if only because he put himself in that scenario against training. But it is not that I am being unsympathetic to the officer, who had been struck by a vehicle in the past and that experience may have weighed his decisions. He may have felt he was going to be run over (why did his colleague give a contrary command for her to move then?) and there may be people that would find his split second conclusion, reasonable. In either case there is still no evidence to suggest that he was injured in any way. He was not crushed, killed, laying on the ground, or had any noticeable injuries. He was not sent to the hospital. He walked away from the scene. I find claims and hyperbole of him being viciously run over a little insulting to those officers, including one that died just this week who were killed in the line of duty from genuinely being struck by a vehicle due to negligence or intent.

Those claims were not correct and it would be helpful if officials could stop making things up. I'm just not seeing anyone struck whatsoever. One officer screams for her to get out of the vehicle another is telling her to move the vehicle. Another points a gun? I know you know what you'd do in that situation, but there's a lot of people that wouldn't know what to do. Of course neither of us would put ourselves in that situation to begin with. But as I said to my husband this morning, people should not think that they can protest, agitate, get themselves into situations or whatever and expect everything to turn out like the Andy Griffith Show. I've seen it happen so many times in the city, and there's a lot of times the officer in question loses the case. The city ends up paying out. Don't know what will happen here. Got to feel for him if he thought she was going to hit him, but I don't see the evidence of it. It's a split decision he made.

Was it justified? Hard to say. I see no evidence that the officer was run over or struck in any way. That does not mean he didn't feel as if he was going to be run over or struck. I don't know if the facts support his feelings however. I do see many things in video that made the situation almost certain to happen, and in fact it will likely happen again. There was some information that this officer had been struck before, and well I'd imagine some PTSD might be at play here. Still, as someone that once lived in an inner city, these sort of situations happened with our PD all the time. Some were justified and some were not - but all were complex cases. Could the family sue? I imagine they will try.

Oh ouch, that's awful. I used EarPlanes on my last flight. They did help some of the pain and hearing loss. The pills and sprays didn't do much unfortunately.

Went shopping early. Wished my favorite old ladies there a Happy New Year. Joined about 40 people in an hour long raid in a MMO. Helped out some newbies that kept dying in said raid. Go back to store to pick up an order, chaos inside. People yelling at the seafood counter because they didn't place an order and expected there to be something in the case still. Made dinner for later (punch, sandwiches, jumbo cocktail shrimp, fruit). Saw numerous idiots on the road today, clearly starting the drinking early. Do some late afternoon cleaning. Finally get my annual "hey get your parts squished uncomfortably by a machine scan read by a doctor after waiting two weeks" report. Husband went for a 6 mile run in 25 degree weather. Comes home exhausted and having allergies flare. (Hey did you know that when you're allergic to spruce, that running when people are burning spruce is not a good idea?) Take Benadryl and gets knocked flat out. Has fireworks shot at house by neighbors, despite it being illegal, and having numerous cops on the street. Cops come over to check things, and give stern warning. They stop after that thankfully. Hear rapid fire guns in distance. Goes to bed at 10pm, despite wanting to see how drunk Anderson and Andy get this year, because I'm tired and don't feel like listening to guns. Wakes at 12:02 hearing the official fireworks. Wakes again at 4am with a severe snow squall warning blaring on phone. Wakes once again at 7am with a happy new years text saying "did I wake you? how do you make sauerkraut?" I give recipe and am told that's not the way they want to make it. Hey the power of the internet is at your fingertips, google it then? Get coffee. 😉

Supposedly, at least here, your name is chosen completely at random. Not sure that anyone really believes that, but there's two things that will make 'the system' take notice of you sooner. Voting and updating your ID/DL at the local DMV. Otherwise, nothing for you to do. It'll either happen or you'll be lucky and it'll never happen.

I don't think I've ever felt the need to put ice-cold feet on my husband's back. Interesting mating ritual? 😉

What happens in jury duty and how long you serve is largely dependent on state requirements, but in general at least here, you fill out a questionnaire, are paid money when you show up, and you will be sitting for a week. Any time in that week you may be called as many times as they like (you are usually required to call a number each day to see if you are required), but in my experience it's only once. It is hard to get out of jury duty in our state and particularly my county. You can only delay it, unless completely exempt. Usually it ends up in a plea deal and you get $30 for several boring hours of sitting. On occasion someone for the county will try and coerce you to donate that money. Sometimes you do get as far as voir dire, and you'll be asked a long list of questions that you may or may not agree with or if you know about the case in question. For me I was called to stand before the judge and the accused and was asked questions regarding the overview of the case, my feelings about guns, property rights, and if I had been a victim of a crime. I was not a candidate, based on my answers to serve on the jury, and was dismissed from service. If you serve your allotted time, you will not be called again for a designated amount of time. Like you, soon after he naturalized, my husband was chosen for jury duty. He was actually quite excited about it, but after sitting for three hours the judge dismissed him for the day. There was then an emergency at the courthouse, so court was cancelled for the rest of the week and so was his term of service. The main thing is to always answer truthfully, make sure you know the rules of what you can and cannot bring inside, and of course certain answers don't usually make you favorable to sit on a jury.

Family came over with the sister's new guy in tow on Christmas Eve, and we tried to get through without as much awkwardness as possible. Gifts are opened that day as is the tradition for us. This year I decided to get my husband a big box filled with foodstuffs from the UK, each one individually wrapped inside. I had told him the heavy box was a PlayStation so much he had actually thought I was nuts enough to spend that much money on one. 😉 What I'd done was get out some art supplies and decorated the cardboard box to give the appearance of a PlayStation and then of course wrapped it. Well he absolutely loved it and I hadn't seen him that happy in a long long time.

Is it even possible to get a stamp in the UK anymore? With E-gates I didn't see a single border official. I assume a lot of countries might be doing that eventually.

Surprised no one has posted about this yet but, the manhunt for the Brown and MIT mass shooter is over. The deceased suspect was a Portuguese national and green card holder. Once came on an F1 back in the day, quit the PhD program and went back home. 2017 was DV winner and moved to the US. May have been familiar with the building at Brown from 25 years ago but had nothing to do with economics. May have known the professor from MIT long ago. Went through a great deal of trouble to accomplish his crimes, but then killed himself. Case was cracked by a homeless savant that lives at the college and followed the killer for days. The affidavit was remarkable at just how detailed a witness he was. The police certainly botched things early on and it's a shame that they did not listen to the witness earlier. DV program now suspended. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/brown-university-suspect-shooting-death-mit-professor-live-updates-rcna249937

I am very sorry for your loss. I am very happy however, at the good outcome for you and your family. It is a terrible shame why this was done to you in the first place, and I'm glad the judge could ultimately cut through the stupidity and make the right call.

I mean, my IV sedation wisdom teeth removal which required removal of bone, was at least $5k back in the day by a very excellent surgeon, so I cannot imagine the cost of something that's complex and in today's prices. I hope the OP's husband has very good dental insurance... because the cost would be staggering otherwise.

I forgot to mention, and the press has finally realized it today, that one passage mentions DNA collection. I'd like to know how the heck that would work, and on what planet are we living that they think anyone is going to submit it for visa free travel? Here's a Yahoo article which of course confuses obtaining a visa to VWP. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-wants-people-submit-dna-212517547.html

You can and should have your wedding and file your paperwork within your 90 day period. It's how it's supposed to be done if you want to be a real stickler for being safe, because I don't know about your experience but the USCIS has made it clear their incompetence can be remarkable sometimes even back in the 'before times'. What used to be accepted isn't anymore clearly. Of course there are some states where doing this makes everything complicated to impossible. In those cases research must be done, and the plans of the couple must be changed aggressively to make it happen. Is it right or fair? No. No it's not. I deeply sympathize. I see what's going on and I'm very cynical at the proverbial blind-eyeing. But there is also a lot of blind-eyeing on the part of immigrants and their families that knew this was coming and how bad it could get. In some of the cases I see things intentionally omitted. In some of the cases they've gotten their spouses into a bad situation out of ignorance. In many of these cases mistakes have been made and naive assumptions in believing things would be okay. No it's not going to be okay anymore. None of this is fair. So assume it will get worse? I think so. I should stop being surprised when I find out people don't get everything done before the expiry..... and yes things happen but... to do it now would not be a good idea. Nothing will change, Congress has absolved any responsibility for years.

He said in his original thread where he feared this would happen that she overstayed before filing AOS, then in his new thread he says they filed on time but that the ''five day overstay'' came after filing. Understandable that he's upset, but he needs to be clear about this. I know things happen but I cannot emphasize enough... this is an issue that may ruin your lives, don't delay, don't hope or cope or assume, don't cut it so close to the wire. Here is one person that got detained.. and really it's just so needless because they still gave them a green card in the end. I believe that lady's case was in the news.

Agreed. I could not imagine asking my family abroad to do this. Questions about what are they looking to do with this information, where is it being stored, security concerns and more... Correct. But now they are applying it to those using the VWP, where DS160 is not needed because it's visa free travel.