sciencenerd

Teach tolerance. Why not?

Children would take lessons on issues affecting gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people, with schools granted discretion about what age to start the lessons.
The law was passed by the state's senate and is likely to pass the assembly easily, which is also controlled by the Democrats, before being signed by Governor Jerry Brown.
The legislation, sponsored by Democrat Mark Leno of San Francisco, passed on a 23-14 party line vote.
"We are second-class citizens and children are listening," he said. "When they see their teachers don't step up to the plate when their classmate is being harassed literally to death, they are listening and they get the message that there is something wrong with those people."
Republican state Senator Doug La Malfa opposed the bill saying: "I'm deeply troubled kids would have to contemplate at a very, very early age, when many of us are teaching abstinence ... what is sexuality."
California law already requires schools to cover the contributions to the state and nation of women, African Americans, Mexican Americans, entrepreneurs, Asian Americans, European Americans, American Indians and labour activists. The new bill will also add the disabled to the list.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8454857/California-set-to-teach-gay-history-and-rights-in-schools.html

How about "the OP's child?" "The child that was born to a non-citizen?" "The son/daughter of the poster?" "In this case, the OP having a child could prove advantageous?" "The poster may find that there are solutions involving their child?"
Plenty of ways to describe the situation and give advice without using the "anchor baby" term.

San Diego,
you are out of line, big time.
First of all, the O.P. is not a felon. She entered the US legally with the same visa you bought for your Russian mail order bride; it just didn't work out between the two lovebirds, which is something that can happen to anybody, yourself included. She is also not guilty of a crime, which is why she could not be prosecuted even if Stalin himself where the Attorney General of the United States.
Secondly, many illegal immigrants pay into SS just like you and I as the money is directly deducted from the paycheck; the difference is, however, that the SSA can keep that money without ever having to give any of it back. So if you get money from the SSA, it's partly because illegal immigrants contributed to it.
So for your next vacation I suggest Chernobyl. When you stand in front of the glowing reactor, get rid of your deeply rooted hatred by screaming as loudly and as long as you like. It will make you feel better.

Always tell the truth - it could screw you seriously if they find out you weren't truthful. Working without authorization is forgiven with AOS for immediate relatives, so it won't keep you from being approved. Good luck.

Medicaid is not affected by racial status...

Today I received an email update that my CARD has been ordered for PRODUCTION. It was a long journey but has finally come to an end.
Thank you and good luck to everyone

Did you apply for AP? If so (and you're not adjusting status from an overstay), I believe you can use that until you get the green card. I wouldn't count on having the greencard before you go, though. And I wouldn't leave the country without it, but I do know there have been some folks on VJ who have done just that and then had someone check their mail and send them the greencard overseas so they had it to enter the US. That would make me really uneasy because there's so much that can go wrong, but it is possible.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with those abhorrent practices, and attempting to lump them in there is absurd, discriminatory, and blatantly stupid.

The issue with the VWP is all about the overstay. If you didn't overstay, you shouldn't have a problem. That's why it was so important that you filed during those 90 days and not after. Congrats and good luck!

Agreed.
The whole point of this website is to help each other based on our personal experiences. We told you the facts, and some people added an emotional component based on their experiences. Why discount that? If it doesn't apply to you, then ignore it, but don't shoot it down.

Two points.
One, your cultural paranoia directed at people who are not of European descent comes out loud and clear in this post. I won't call you racist because I think you are actually just skeered of the unfamiliar.
Two, do you really think non-Europeans were just "sprinkled in" prior to the 60s? Take a look at this PDF (safe for work) and tell me if you still believe that. Or could it be that you are perfectly ok with non-Europeans in your midst but only as long as they arrive in chains and not as free men?

The lottery systems is about providing balance to the US population. To be a qualifying country your country must be underrepresented in the US population. To qualify you must also have an education. These are for the most part also countries that aren't part of the VWP so they don't have free access to the US to shop for a green card granting spouse. Nigeria isn't on the list of terrorist countries. That was a brief passing right after the undie bomber. I can bet that people that enter the borders on other visa types are as a whole less educated. If they applied the same standard to family visas , a lot of us would be in trouble. Attacking the visa lottery is just a poorly hidden attempt to promote a more white immigrant population.

I agree too, but the overall impact of the lottery system on immigration is minimal.
It's like saying the biggest thing we can do to fix the deficit is cut funding for the national water polo team.

You need to apply for a B2 - it seems likely you'd get approved if you are enrolled in school and can prove you're just coming to the US for a week as part of your studies. If you go with the VWP, you are essentially affirming that you have never overstayed before. Even if they don't catch it this time, it could cause trouble in the future. It may be considered misrepresentation since by using the VWP, you are representing yourself as someone who has never overstayed. This could keep you from being able to get future visas and/or permanent residency if life takes you that way. You are not eligible for VWP, simple as that. You're still not eligible even if you successfully travel on it - that is just an error on their part. You are the one responsible for following the rules and this could cause serious problems down the road. You didn't overstay long enough to get a ban, so just apply for the visa. Good luck.

Mr. Thai,
yes, you are correct, you have a problem, and it's a big one.
See, the B1/B2 is a non-immigrant visa. Not only have you been inspected, but you have been pulled into what is known as "secondary" inspection. The fact that you have such documents with you on a vacation indicates immigration intend. You were specifically asks about this and you . . . uhhh . . . lied when telling CBP that you felt insecure leaving those documents at home.
I am absolutely sure that CBP entered your statement, and that's what that is, into the computer under your file. The way I understand your post, you now got married and are planing to adjust status. If you do that, you will be denied based on material misrepresentation. It carries a lifetime ban from the United States.
If I were you, I would return to Vietnam and take the CR-1 route. Seriously.

There's a lot of problems for the OP in trying to AOS from being a visitor, but it's not true that there's no appeals process. There is no appeals process for people who entered on the VWP, which does not apply to Canadians. Visitors from Canada or visitors with a visa (B1/B2) can appeal denied applications. This is at least how our lawyer explained it to us.

Protect the country? From who? The underwear bomber, the shoe bomber, the Times Square bomber, the Oregon Christmas tree bomber, and the September 11 terrorists? You mean those guys, all of whom came here on legal visas? But a law abiding hard working Russian lady who met the love of her life in New York? Let's check her out and keep her and her fiance separated for months and months on end while we welcome all of these terrorists with arms open and eyes closed.
This is how the government "protects" us? Funny, I don't feel protected. Instead, I feel trampled upon, put out and violated. If this is "protection", no thanks, I don't need any.
To the OP: Check out this thread: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/291889-shout-out-loud-or-it-will-get-much-worse/
We are preparing a letter to send to the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives so when the Director of USCIS appears before them in about two months or so, looking for his annual appropriation, he can be held accountable for his abject failure to run USCIS in a competent manner. The more of us who send the letter to our Congress Members, the more attention it will get.

Where do you draw the line? Can my emergency room doctor refuse to treat right wing nuts? How about the bad guy that shoots cops and is wounded himself? What about homosexual aids patients? Shouldn't society be able to say tough, if you choose to have certain occupations you leave your prejudices and religious biases at the door? But I know this is a difficult area, it would seem not to be reasonable to require active participation in an act of abortion for instance. But does the pharmacist have the right to refuse to dispense this medication or contraceptives? Should the convenience store clerk get to refuse to sell the customer condoms? Tough questions.

It's difficult to say. The Administrative Appeals Board of USCIS has not been consistent about this. Here are some examples.
http://www.uscis.gov/err/A2%20-%20Certification%20of%20Cuban%20Adjustment/Decisions_Issued_in_2006/May232006_01A2caa.pdf
In the above case, the Cuban came to the US on a K1 visa, married his USC petitioner, but did not adjust status based on the marriage. After more than a year in the US, the Cuban applied for adjustment of status based on the CAA. The field office director initially denied the application, citing section 245(d) which doesn't permit USCIS to adjust a K1's status based on anything other than marriage to the K1 petitioner. The AAO said that 245(d) only applied to K1's who were adjusting status under subsection (a), which is immediate relative of a US citizen. They determined this didn't apply to someone adjusting under section 1 of the CAA. They overturned the director's decision, and approved the adjustment of status.
On the other hand...
http://www.uscis.gov/err/A2%20-%20Certification%20of%20Cuban%20Adjustment/Decisions_Issued_in_2009/Apr062009_01A2caa.pdf
In the above case, an alien from the Dominican Republic came to the US on a K1 visa, married the US petitioner, got a conditional green card, and subsequently divorced the USC 15 years later. She never filed an I-751 to remove conditions on her green card. Consequently, her status was terminated in 1996.
Now, it gets really complicated...
She remarried to an alien that entered illegally, and her new husband had adjusted status supposedly based on the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relieve Act (NACARA). The applicant's attorney said this isn't true - the NACARA didn't exist in 1993 when the girl's new husband initially adjusted status, and that USCIS was basing their accusation on an erroneously printed green card. They claimed her new husband DID adjust status based on the CAA.
The AAO determined it didn't matter whether he adjusted based on NACARA or the CAA - the fact is that he was ELIGIBLE to adjust under the CAA, and that made HER eligible to adjust as his wife.
Here's the kicker...
The AAO rejected the director's decision that she was ineligible to adjust based on the CAA, but instead of approving her AOS they sent it back to the field office for readjudication. Why? Because she originally entered on a K1, and never received unconditional permanent residence based on that original marriage. They suggested in a not too subtle manner that the field office director reconsider her eligibility in light of the K1 restrictions in section 245(d) of the INA. In other words, they were basically saying that the field office director was right to deny her, but he used the wrong reason.
This second case was from April of last year, so they haven't firmly resolved whether the CAA overrides the K1 entry in every possible circumstance. My guess is that it probably depends on the immigration officer because adjustment under the CAA is still discretionary. If they deny because of the K1 entry then you could always cite the first case above as a precedent in your appeal.

That's a good point on the location of the marriage. +1
As to the rest, you clearly know a lot more about these issues than I do, and I generally accede to your judgement.
One cause for some optimism I see is that the example you gave with two FTM people trying to convince USCIS that they were a hetero couple may be misapplied. Those two people were the same physical gender before their respective operations, and after their respective operations, and were trying to convince USCIS that they were two different physical genders, which was clearly not that case, hence the "having it both ways" objection. The OP and his fiancee are two separate physical genders at the moment, and if they can convince USCIS that they are willing to remain two separate physical genders indefinitely, they should be legally eligible for the visa and AOS. They will virtually certainly get interviews, hard ones, all the way through. The OP presenting as male would definitely make the interviews easier, but shouldn't be legally necessary.
But yeah, they've got a serious uphill fight if they try to do this, and it will be a test case all the way through. Fighting test cases is never fun.

to you for calling out the member's sexist comment. Of course, there are plenty of us, female petitioners, who bring their fiances/husbands over. It is not always a male petitioner... Also, there are plenty of us who did not meet our loved ones online, but in person.
The OP's post should be a cautionary tale for us all. It is of extreme importance to have a good amount of money saved up for the process. Rather than worrying about wedding expenses, wedding party, dress, flowers, etc. the first priority should be having enough money to pay for the immigration fees. Who cares if the couple only gets married in the courthouse wearing no special clothing and with no party afterwards? The priority should always be to cross the "Ts" and dot the "Is" of the immigration process. It is too dangerous to not follow procedure...
Best wishes to everyone!

It's ingrained sexism, and I have commented about your sexist comments before. You say you have "long said the man should have" blah blah which shows that in your mind you picture men bringing over their wives and not the other way around. You assumed the OP was a man petitioning his wife, and you were wrong. Women are not a commodity.
Sure, men petition their wives a lot. Hey, probably half of the time!
Edit: I don't expect to change your mind and I fully expect you to reply and say "hey, I'm not sexist" blah blah. I won't respond further.

-1
Why is it only men that "bring over" "wifey." Not everyone here is a man who looks for wives in foreign countries online, and plenty of women are the sponsor for their husband's immigration.

This is a difficult situation because you will need to present as male and keep your documentation as male until this is over. If you are seen legally as female by the state you live in, you will have a same-sex marriage and your hopes to live with your partner in the states will be over. If you are willing and able to present as a straight couple to go through this process, you should be successful. If you present as a same-sex couple, but say that legally you are still male so you want to be considered an opposite-sex couple for this purpose, you will likely run into major problems. This is obviously a huge sacrifice to make to be with your partner legally in the states, but only you can decide if it's a sacrifice you are able to make. If deferring your medical transition is not possible, there will be no way for you to immigrate to the states, unfortunately. Good luck. www.immigrationequality.org is a good resource