Marc and Olga

I had about a 5 word Russian vocabulary when I put feet down in Moscow. I had a hard time sometimes, but it was a trip I will remember with fondness all my life, and not just because I met my SO. Knowing the language would be advantageous, but I never found the language barrier to be too high.

My trip was Spring Break, 2006...I was taking Russian 101 so I had a limited knowledge of Russian, still do but every now and then I pick up a book and try...speaking of which, I may do that tonight! =)

Since I do not know your situation, I can only share my experience...

Do NOT send any money first! Plan a trip to visit her in her town, even in winter!

As I said my trip was spring break...a.k.a. March! melting snow everywhere, it was fun...though cold, coming from the desert!

It was really nice to see her town, her family...not so much how she lived since she took leave during my trip! I've said it before and I'll say it again, IF I could have moved there I would have, in a second! I loved the trip though I am certain the company I kept had alot to do with that

We are looking to buy a house this year and a trip back in 2009!

Olga said her time through wasn't too bad.

Olga and I went on that ride, my first time on it but my second time there

and yes having that song stuck in your head is a little annoying

*singing* It's a small world after all, It's a small world after all, it's a small, small world! Darn this thread!!!!!

*'80's flashback*

Fish heads fish heads, roll-ie poll-ie Fish heads...fish heads eat them up, yum!

I don't like a couple, I voted for the most obvious one....the Senator from Arizona

Fortunately he's not MY Senator!

Not even reading this thread!

where's my doughnut!?

Take the poll...

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1308503

HAHA you just turned me into a repulican as there is a candidate that has my immigration views

A social security number can be extended to non-residents. F-1s, H-1Bs, lots of things.

And under those visas, you ARE a resident, however temporary!

Not according to immigration you aren't. All of those visas are non-immigrant. Whether you're a resident of the state is a separate matter (the two don't always line up nicely.)

perhaps so regarding immigration, but state law regarding residency is usually a bit less restrictive. imo jinky is resident.

and an overseas worker here on an H-1B/J-1 RESIDES here in America. Pays taxes & all that #######.....See previous definition post.

VJ reading comprehension, sheesh. (Not directed at you, BFF)

Reading comprehension yourself. A social security number does not require proof of residency. You can activate your visa, be in the state all of 2 days, have paid no taxes, and get a SSN. It's not dependent on residency (which often takes several months of an address and paying taxes.)

K-1s aren't addressed under the state law; if they were, they likely would be state residents (and thus able to get driver's licenses.) At the CT DMV, a K-1 was treated like a tourist on a 90-day stay. An AOS pending person was counted as a resident, but not a K-1.

How are tourist treated on a 90-day stay?

Olga was able to apply for (and get) a SSN and once she had that, Arizona reluctantly gave her a State issued ID card that expired when her I-94 expired. Her current ID card expires when her conditional Green Card expires.

As I see it people are angry at the migrants because of the govts inability/unwillingness to do diddly squat about the problem. In the meantime you have people living in poverty on the other side of the border who have, for whatever reason decided that their immediate needs supersede considerations of immigration law. That is that reality - regardless of whether you want to wag your finger in the face of a person for being "immoral", or lacking "personal responsibility".

a.k.a. lacking personal responsibilty to find work/feed their family legally.

C. works with a couple Hispanic guys. Mexican originally, but here legally as far as he knows. As I've mentioned before, it's not really a personal responsibility thing, or a greed thing. They're from Mexico, and they hope to go back, but making $1200 a month as an assistant on an oil rig is like making $12,000 back home. There are no jobs back home. It's easy enough to say 'find work legally', but Mexico has 25% underemployment in a poor nation. Working legally probably means watching your family die.

This is not an argument for open borders. But when you say, 'why don't they just work legally' it sounds a little bit like a celebrity wondering why if the Ethiopians are so hungry in the famine, why don't they just go to the grocery store.

Mexico's population doubles every 20 years, perhaps they should have smaller families... I mean if you cannot afford to feed 3 (example) children, prehaps you shouldn't HAVE 3 children. Personal responsibility...

There is a "random" (yet stationary) checkpoint about 30 miles from the border on I-19... there were plans to make an offical check point at mile marker 55 but people complained and the border patrol decided against that. They only check my DL and wave me past, never seen them do more then that in fact, though once when I had past, I noticed a car off to the side by their trailers.

She should have been arrested. It's high time illegal immigrants were cracked down on. It's past time the people who help them are cracked down on. It's time for them to go home, get in line, and wait like we wait for our legal immigrants. Sorry. Illegal is illegal. Even if you are a poor, mistreated hispanic (or from anywhere else). We enjoy police protection because we PAY for it and the costs of providing services to illegal immigrants are run and published. If you are legal, and are asked to prove it, it's no different from a whitebread USC who gets his license run during a traffic stop and has to show there is no reason to hold him. If you are illegal, or support illegal immigration, we're already mad enough and have paid enough and waited enough for doing this legally. <grin> wrong forum.......

Funny there are no stories of "mistreated" LEGAL immigrants?

So what political party supports that view?

Yep, too bad the government and the people don't always see eye to eye.

but then why did your amnesty (comprehensive immigration reform) not pass?

Maybe he thought he had the right to possess 150 pounds of MaryJ...it is the "land of the free"

*smacks self*

That sounds too obvious LOL

One of Olga's friends received her Green Card earlier this year (came as a child of fiancee/spouse, k-2 or k-4) and is engaged to marry a USC early next year.

The question is, will she get another conditional GC, 10 year GC, no change, or other?!

Rivera said that Hispanics have lost faith in the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office and the Tulsa Police Department, despite assurances from those agencies that they don't intend to enforce the law against people who aren't found committing other crimes.

Rivera said he is telling all Hispanics to call the FBI anytime they need police because Tulsa and Tulsa County officers will check the residency status of crime victims and witnesses.

He also said a list of 30 to 33 incidents of illegal racial profiling by Tulsa-area police has been referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for investigation.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.asp...1_1__AUSci58616

I wonder how many of those incidents will be found as ACTUAL racial profiling and how many of from people sitting in their home fighting the new law?

Please note: I did not say that any were not actual, just curious how the investigations of these "incidents" will turn out

Some of the opinions and ideas of what is happening are truly amazing.

I still say, IF he wins the primary...I will vote for him.

Why, who are you voting for in the primary?

Previously I was registered Democrat, as of 2004...independant.

Agreed. I just don't get why people are afraid to look at a general historical context without taking the view that doing so is somehow ideologically dangerous. Of course I suppose the point here is that it is ideologically dangerous - for people who cannot see beyond the ideology.

UUHHH What he said!!

I think the reaction to Paul's statements is merely illustrative of what happens when you question the foundation of a person's world-view - people respond negatively, and viciously. None of what he said is particularly controversial or indeed 'radical', but it says something that people can't have a dicussion on the basis of some obvious truths without adding their own (negative) emotional subtext to the comments.

It says, quite simply, that a good number of people aren't ready or willing to give up a very insular world view. Of course it does explain quite a lot about our interaction with other countries.

I don't think it is just a reactionary response, all the while he is explaining his point of view, what is being flashed on the screen by that particular media outlet? "Blames U.S. for 9/11" of course anyone that bothered to listen to (understand) what he was saying would know that is not what he was saying.

My favorite part was when he was talking about had we stayed focused on the primary objective (OBL) we would not be in the position we are in today.

I still say, IF he wins the primary...I will vote for him.

EDIT: clarification

I wonder if it is possible to marry a person on J1 visa and waive 2 years waiting period?

IF you mean the 2 year green card, I doubt it.

JMHO

Funny how even CNN ridiculed his stance on 9/11 but what he said makes sense.

I'd vote for him...

Fact is, Prop. 200 required showing proper ID to register to vote, such as a State Issued ID card. the ACLU decided that people who (for whatever reason) could not get one ($12 at the MVD, and I believe EVERYONE should have 1!) or a Birth Certificate (should have one of these also, if not, whose fault is that?)

These were NOT special voter ID cards but merely State issuded ID cards.

Under this law, if USCIS screwed up and rejected your spouse's application, as happens from time to time due to a missed appointment letter, you'd have committed a felony for having knowingly harbored an illegal alien.

Oh...come on now. Anybody with some common sense knows darned well what the intent of the law really is and who the law is going after.

Sure, but what the intent is and what the statute are two different things. The statute says 'knowingly harbor illegal', not 'but it's okay if it's your spouse and it was USCIS's fault your petition was rejected' or 'we didn't have the money to file AOS right away' or 'I wanted to make sure she wasn't using me for a greencard first so I delayed filing a year.'

The kid that was just released after serving two years because when he was 17 his 15 year-old girlfriend gave him a ####### probably would have liked the statute to have been revised when the legislature accidentally made blowjobs (but not sex) between underage people a sex crime, not told 'oh, they won't arrest you, just bad people.'

I don't like laws that depend on people saying 'oh, don't worry, they're not really after you, you're not invading the country, you don't look like the sort they'd arrest', because in my experience, tightening up laws leads not to illegals leaving but lots of people posting that they can't get their legal spouse a driver's license, or a bank account, or a social security number, because they can't prove she's here legally because their AOS hasn't processed and no one knows what that K-1 thingy is. The last thing legal immigrants need on top of this are businesses refusing to allow them to rent or stay in the property because they can't prove they're legally here for the term of a lease.

I've personally been through the "process" from one end to the other. My wife just filed for US citizenship last week. My stepdaughter came here to the USA on a K-2 as an 18 year old adult. At no time during the process did I ever not have any proof that they weren't in the USA legally. In due time we got all the necessary Social Security cards, driver's licenses, bank accounts, credit cards, etc., etc. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt to prove it.

I don't see any problem with the Oklahoma law. It never would have caused me or mine any problems if we had to live under it.

It just pisses off the crowd that thinks anybody that sneaks into the USA on an innertube should be able to live, thrive, and survive illegally with impunity in the USA and that they are untouchable. They can ruminate forever thinking of reasons not to do anything about anything because...the sky will fall and the world will end.

At least some folks aren't sitting around with their heads in the sand waiting for another 20 million illegal aliens to invade.

If you read, I think the part of the law restrict illegals from public benefits makes sense. The rest, however, is not something I'm willing to say 'well, it won't bother me and mine, why should I care?' I think it's a bad law that could affect a lot of people who are here legally as immigrants, not to mention relatives of illegals.

By the way -- carrying a driver's license isn't proof of legal presence. It's relatively easy to secure a driver's license if you have proof that you're here legally, but the license doesn't expire if the person goes out of status. (Four million illegals entered legally.) C. got a license that's good for six years based on the NOA for our AOS, not an approval. If we divorce tomorrow and cancel the AOS, he'll have that driver's license for another six years. They are most certainly *not* asking you for citizenship or legal presence when they ask for your driver's license.

When Olga arrived she wanted an ID, so we got her one, her FIRST ID card was good until the I-94 expired, her second one is good until the 2 year green card expires. This, I believe is a different Arizona law.

Any Half Life 2 fans tried the "episode 2" yet?

I'm tempted to buy it

I only played the core game. Thinking about picking up the Orange Box at some point.

I completed Half-life 2 and episode 1...probably should play them again before I play ep. 2 though... UGH!

Arizona has a similar law, which I have mentioned several other times, where those who cannot prove their legal presence in the US are not allowed state funded benefits.

Ain't nothing wrong with that...but I do see something wrong with making it a felony to "provide transportation", employment or (in all likelihood) interact with people whose legal immigration status you haven't ascertained. That creeps me out to no end.

Yeah, Arizona's law isn't that invasive, only denies state funded benefits (i.e. in-state tuition, free ESL classes, food stamps).

What was the intent of this by the OP'er? Another tedious II debate?

Perhap the intent was to point out Oklahoma's new tough law that targets people who are illegally.

at least that's what I get from the TITLE.

###### clever aren't you........... have you actually got anything to add to the debate?

1) What debate?

and

2) Good for oklahoma?

Arizona has a similar law, which I have mentioned several other times, where those who cannot prove their legal presence in the US are not allowed state funded benefits.