fascinating123

3 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Define violence 

The use of physical force.

On ‎2‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 3:23 PM, OriZ said:

Problem is cigarettes hurt more than just themselves. I don't accept the argument from many libertarians AT ALL comparing cigarettes to other things politicians try to tax or ban. I am all for getting rid of them.

And to what lengths are you willing to go to get rid of them? Are you willing to use violence to do so? I smoke cigars (I understand cigars are not part of this bill), are you willing to use violence against me to stop me from doing so? Or to stop cigar companies from selling to me?

There are things I don't like. But I'm not willing to use violence to stop anyone from doing them.

5 hours ago, klems10024 said:

Random question but is everyone planning on filing for citizenship? I see that some of you have already filed their N400 or will do it soon. 

Personally I don't think I'm going to do it, mostly for tax reasons if I move out of the US (I'm not planning on staying here forever, as I find the quality of life in Europe far superior but I need to be here at least for another few years ). 

My wife is because her Yemeni citizenship is useless. The tax situation if we ever live overseas is far outweighed by the benefit of traveling with minimum hassle. 

47 minutes ago, USS_Voyager said:

They only care about the trips she took since she became a permanent resident. It you filed based on the 3 year rule, then it's 3 years. Ignore any trips before becoming LPR.

Ok. I think my wife had watched a few informational videos online (I think put out by USCIS) and was worried they'd ask her about trips outside the US and she didn't want to make it look like she was hiding anything. Thanks for your help.

My wife is getting ready to file for naturalization, but we're a little stumped on the travel history section. My wife first came to the US on a Diplomatic A visa in 2004, which was adjusted to F1 student visa in 2009. In 2010 she returned to Yemen and stayed there until July 2015. Since then she has not ever left the country. She became a resident in April 2016 and she is filing on the 3 year rule.

The way we filled it out, we said she had one trip outside the US, beginning in 2010 ending in 2015. Total days for that trip and then the total days in the past 5 years (even though we are filing on the basis of 3 years). Underneath she wrote that she has not been outside the US since becoming a permanent resident.

Is this the right way to go? Any experience here?

Still no update on our end. Given the focus on enhanced screening (whatever your opinion of that may be) and where my wife is from, we fully expect that an interview will be conducted and thus any approval will be farther in the future.

My wife will be filing the N400 for naturalization in the next few days however. We've looked at the pluses and minuses of doing so prior to the I751 being approved, but my wife thinks it's better to just get it over with. So we'll keep everyone updated as things move along.

So is it the consensus here that applying N400 delays I751 processing? My wife and I have discussed it, but she's ready to just apply for Naturalization and get it over with. We will see.

23 hours ago, -Shana- said:

Interesting, though I'm still not worried about filing for ROC during I-751 because of this experience. I hate to say it, but where beneficiaries are from makes a difference to what type of interview they receive. Makes me so sad to type that. I can totally understand people being concerned due to their circumstance and the prejudices they face already and that's why they want to wait. 

 

My husband and I have no loans/mortgages together. No kids either because we don't want children. It's just how our lives have ended up, we rent because we haven't found a city that's made us feel we want to buy a house and we've been careful/lucky enough to not need a loan. Not to say we're well off, we have no savings since we're both freelancers! Our financial situation gave our green card IO cause for concern due to the fact we have personal bank accounts as well as joint bank accounts. It's a matter of independence, we like to have our own money for personal purchases so we don't have to constantly ask each other for permission to buy something.

 

Despite that, I think even under intense grilling we'll be fine, we're in a genuine relationship and we've known each other for 16 years. Still...it would still suck to get such rough treatment! My window opens next week, if we can afford to I think I'll go ahead and apply for citizenship. 

That's really what makes me worry. My wife is from a travel ban country, so I'm worried there will be even more scrutiny than usual. We have joint accounts, life insurance, own a home (with a corresponding mortgage) together, etc., so our evidence is pretty solid. But, having any degree of risk is worrying.  

From the memorandum: "Cases involving fraud or national security concerns must be referred to the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate according to local procedures."

Fraud is obvious, but national security is interesting. Do we know if it's specific or general? My wife's country of citizenship is on the travel ban list, does that mean there will be an interview?

From the memorandum: "Cases involving fraud or national security concerns must be referred to the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate according to local procedures."

Fraud I understand. The "national security" part I'm curious about. Do we know if this regarding specific national security concerns, or general ones? My wife's country of citizenship is on the travel ban list. Does this mean we're getting another interview?

On ‎10‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 4:09 PM, redstripe54 said:

Does anybody know what is the inaccurate information USCIS is talking about regarding the extension forms for I-751, lifting conditions?  See below for their notice: 

My wife received her letter on Saturday. I checked and compared it to the original 18 month letter. As far as I could tell (and granted we were getting ready to attend my brother's wedding so I didn't exactly do a lab test or anything) there was no difference.

2 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

Just so you are aware, many applications for naturalization are taking close to a year at present and in some cases longer (uscis average across all FOs is currently 10.3 months),  so it may also be a while before your wife becomes a citizen.

Yeah I realize this. It is what it is. I'm just preparing for what might happen down the line.

My wife is a current Green Card Holder with a pending I-751. She intends on applying for citizenship once she is eligible. That said, her mother (my mother-in-law) is currently living with us and has a pending asylum case (which I'm sure will take quite some time to be resolved). So my question: once a citizen, can my wife petition for her mother to get permanent residence while her mother is still in the US?

I tried looking this up but couldn't find anything.

So my wife locked herself out of her online account to check for any updates (don't ask me how). And the email it sends to have your account unlocked is a dead link. What does she do? Should we create a new account?

My wife received her 18th month extension letter on 8/11.

19 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

I know that we are not talking about Europe, but I am using them as an example of what happens when you have no control over who you are letting in. And I am not watching the news as I am too busy to even be near a TV at the moment. This is based on common sense thinking (cause and effect).

 

I am not arguing with you that the ban arbitrarily bans innocent people as well. But your logic about what type of traveler who is more likely to commit a violent crime was flawed. 

 

I know that I mentioned earlier that I was in favor of checking each individual more thoroughly before receiving a visa (100% to social media etc). Like someone before me mentioned: how can we achieve this if the countries they are coming from are not willing to co-operate? 

If it were up to me, you'd have a thorough interview process for all visas for all countries and if you can't find anything negative you let them in. Anything else ends up going down the rabbit hole of us all living in padded cells with robot overlords feeding us cups of mush so we can spend cradle to grave in safety. 

There's an element of risk in life that I'm willing to accept for freedom. I'm afraid I might be alone here though. Which is fine, I don't intend to live here forever. 

40 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

No, not really. It used to be hard to hide but now it's not because of the way, for example, ISIS is recruiting people. They somehow manage to convince completely unlikely people to join them which makes it hard for US intelligence. If you're in the top yes, it's hard. But those people are not going to sacrifice themselves for "their cause".

 

Coming and going without issue has no bearing on any indications of whether or not someone is going to commit violent acts. 

 

The bad is about safety as they want to control who comes in. Just look at Europe, they have let everyone in and for a while, they had attack after attack. At one point it was almost weekly. 

We're not talking about Europe's system, which is far different. The US already controls who comes and goes quite tightly, despite what your nightly news tells you. 

What the ban does is make it so that with rare exception, people from these countries cannot enter the US even for reasonable, innocent purposes. Not because of processing times,or RFEs, or anything that everyone goes through. 

Again, the US government already can deny a visa for any reason. They didn't need a ban. 

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

How would you institute a ban on a specific individual if the country they are from is unwilling or unable to cooperate with necessary background information of the individuals?

First off, it's nonsense to think we don't have assets and resources in these countries. It's very hard to hide from US intelligence radar if you're truly part of a multinational terrorist organization. 

Further, you have past data you can use as well. My wife for example had previously been in the US on both an A visa (her father worked as cultural attache in DC) and in a F1 student visa. No history of overstays. That doesn't fit the profile of someone coming to commit violent acts. Same with people with histories of coming to other countries and leaving without incident. 

This ban was not about safety. The US government already has a wide latitude to deny visas. 

44 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

While I try to reduce the taxes I owe, I also understand they are necessary.  I'd prefer to not have to pave my own roads or build my own schools.

 

I don't grow my own food nor did I build my car or my home, yet those things weren't done by the state. You could still have your roads and schools. They'd be done much better too.

11 minutes ago, Rob and Cheryl said:

My spouse? An immigrant from Canada.

Which I take it, is not part of the ban. In other words, you're not impacted in any way, no skin in the game here.

16 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

Who stole your tax dollars? Did you report this to the IRS?

I unfortunately opened an off topic theme, but in short: all taxation is theft. I don't expect that to be popular opinion here or anywhere though. If desired, we can discuss in a more appropriate venue.

5 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

Nope.  But even without a ban, we faced almost 2 years of separation.  She was prohibited from visiting the US during the process.  I was able to visit her country, but only once.

 

The three options you listed, we considered.  As does everyone in the process.  That's all I was saying.  Had I desired a spouse from a banned country. I would probably have gone with a) or c), but most likely c), since LD relationships are not easy to sustain.

First off, I don't think the process should be as onerous as it is. But, there is a difference between knowing that there is in fact an end on the horizon, and not knowing that there is at all, perhaps ever. As Thomas Sowell put it "there's nothing as permanent as a temporary government program". Asking people to be ok with the ban is an undue imposition.

Sure, long distance is tough, but I've known people who make it work. Whether due to work assignments, medical school, etc. They make it work because they know at some point they'll be together. There's a difference between circumstance and unnecessary government red tape or policy. The ban isn't needed.

So, in short, I don't support the ban. I don't care if that makes me anti-American because I don't support the president. I don't and I didn't support the last one. Nor any for a long time.  

6 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

It's a rocky road, immigration.  Even the smoothest of journeys experience speed bumps.  If members of a country are banned from coming here, then the two options are not to get involved with someone from the banned country, otherwise be willing to relocate there.

 

People do the latter even with countries not on a banned list. 

 

I'd be more willing to relocate there if my stolen tax dollars weren't being used to bomb it to kingdom come.

The solution could be, of course, to not have blanket bans, but case by case bans of specific people. And certainly not to claim that banning my SO from the country is supposed to be for my well being. Because it's not.

1 hour ago, Satisfied said:

Oh, you mean like every one of us here who has undergone the process?  

I take it your spouse is from one of these countries? Which one?

27 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

I think we also need to remember that our biggest terrorist threat is not coming from outside our country... They were born here. What are we going to do about that?

Your answer may be different, but what I do is recognize that we live in a risky world. There are steps one can take to lead a safer life, but there's never going to be 100% safety. Far worse to give ever-increasing power to a government that will certainly use it for mischief at some point (while occasionally using it in benevolent ways) than to take a small risk that someone may use freedom for ill (and conversely most will use for good).

Again, though. I understand not all agree.

1 minute ago, Satisfied said:

Truly sorry for how this negatively affects your family.  As is often the case, a few bad people ruin it for the masses of good folk who don’t deserve it.  It seems unfair I know, but think how hard it must be to weed out the bad/dangerous folk from all the good ones.  It’s a tough job, I am sure, and I am sure that unless the ban is 100%, even then some riffraff will get thru.  Consider how much simpler it is to be an illegal/criminal when crossing borders.  Put up a good front and cover story, arrive on foreign soil, then disappear, never to be seen again until they decide to cause mayhem.  But those who come here legally and with no harmful intent, they are the ones who really suffer due to the intense scrutiny required.  It sux.

Well, I care more about protecting the innocent than catching the guilty. There are a lot of bad policies we could pursue if all we cared about was safety. Had this ban been in place in 2015, I'd have been forced to  a) leave the US to live in Yemen (or some potential country that my wife and I could both live in), b) put our lives on hold for several years, or c) move on and go our separate ways. And let me tell you, none of these options would have pleased me and I would not be sympathetic to anyone's justification of them.

For the record, I do not mean this to be an appeal to emotion. Rather, a simple recognition that policies have real consequences for real people, not abstract ones. They must be taken into account before stating the benefits (if any). This goes for every policy, not just immigration related ones. Far too often we implore officials to "do something" without thinking it through.