ceadsearc

Now we will get the Republican BS regarding "illegal immigrants". The issue is not and never has been "illegal immigrants" The issue is businesses hiring undocumented workers at lower than minimum wage and avoiding federal and state worker protections in order to save money. That's it. There IS nothing else to the issue. Illegals come here to work for money. Small businesses (and some big businesses) hire them to avoid the labor laws in place in this country. in fact they use illegals to undermine the very laws and regulations that keep workers safe and employed fairly. The benefit outweighs the risk.
When will someone, ANYone punish severely people that hire illegals? When the economic opportunites dry up, the illegals will leave and American employers will be forced to hire Americans and legal immigrants at prevailing wages and benefits.
The Democrats wanted to make them legal and give them a path to citizenship so they can vote for Democrats. Republicans want to keep them underground so they can't complain and can be abused and work cheap for Republicans, but the "problem" will not go away under either party.

Why does refusal to get patted down=arrest and not just a "sorry, you are not getting on the plane then." ??

Good. When we eliminate the demand to be here illegally, then the illegals will stop being abused to line the pockets of people trying to avoid laws to protect workers and slavery will finally be ended.

Fair enough, but the argument that the State is disrespecting the law by adopting a pragmatic approach to real problems is also a false one. I don't think more and more harsh enforcement of laws targeting undocumented migrants is any kind of solution. Seriously, in any other area of life do you get hot under the collar about disrespect of the law aside from undocumented migrants? How often do you see a speeding motorist and wish that US citizen were more respectful of the law and tut tut about the disintegration of society that such a disregard generates? I'm betting you consider a speeding motorist less of a threat than an undocumented migrant, correct?

what 'general disrespect of the law'? (I think yo mean encourages disrespect ) I hear people say this all the time and I am aware that those on the far right promote this view (for obvious reasons, it's not the first time politics has been used to demonize groups in order to further an agenda and it will not be the last) but suggesting that somehow crossing a border without documentation is just the start of a life of criminal activity, very disingenuous. I know some people today regard crossing a border illegally as similar to murder but legally it is nothing of the sort.
Is there a problem with large numbers of undocumented migrants? Absolutely, it's not a good for anyone, not legal residents, citizens or migrants. One solution to this would be to issue more visas for migrant workers from Mexico instead of pretending that they steal jobs that legal citizens would do given the opportunity. By and large that's #######. Is that a great solution? Not really, having an economy that relies on a bedrock of extremely low waged workers is also pretty screwed up, but the solution to that is not to seal up the borders and demonize our next door neighbours.

There is no question to answer. Your question is bred of a total ignorance, either because you are unwilling, or unable to grasp that being a flamboyant extrovert is not determined by one's sexual orientation.

I should add this is typical of the radical right. There are many on the right who are rational and pragmatic and who refuse to get drawn into these types of shenanigans.

The result of these types of measures will be an increase in driving costs for those who are legal and buy insurance. It's one of those reactionary ideas that gets the right's juices rising but actually has no positive outcome on the problems that it's supposed to address and has a negative affect on everyone else. Brilliant.

Some of them are.
Most of them though are just like their ancestors. Afraid of the current waive of migrants. We've hated the Chinese coming over; the Europeans; the Asians. We've even hated your people - that's how we came up skilled worker quotas.

Yes, they can, although I cannot say with any certainty that all can.
I don't see how it aids illegal immigration when a drivers license is NOT used as a means to verify immigration status. What you propose is essentially a national ID. See how much traction that idea gets. Ultimately, there is going to need to be federal legislation to change the rules of ID's. I like the idea of a national ID, I'm just not too keen on the data collection possibilities of one.
Indeed.
The federal government needs to grow a sack and mandate e-verify, plain and simple.

+1
So you think civil rights are a matter of public opinion? Maybe we should vote to take away the right of homophobes, then! All in favor?

If thats the case then you are a criminal because I'm sure you've broken the law at least once.

Lucky, the kids are not criminals and they haven't committed a crime. Your ignorant of the law and you're spreading misinformation in this forum.
For one thing if they committed a crime they would go to court and be charged with one.

Wow, the homophobia is rampant on this forum!!
Here's a newsflash:
Gays are allowed in the military. Gays have BEEN allowed in the military. So long as they served silently. This means there are ALREADY gay people there. They have already been serving. They have already been NOT raping you. They have already been NOT bleeding all over you and killing you of AIDS. (Seriously, I can't believe anyone would even make an argument. Have you ever heard of ONE case of someone getting infected with HIV because someone with HIV got blown up by a roadside bomb beside them? No? Didn't think so.) This allows them to serve openly, and for them to not risk being discharged because they're gay. Again, I repeat: THEY ARE ALREADY THERE. This is not a bill to allow them to join the military. This is a bill to ALLOW THEM TO SERVE OPENLY.
And as for the natural argument - HA! What is natural nowadays? Suggesting that bashing someones head in for saying their gay certainly isn't natural. In fact, it's downright disgusting. I would invite a gay couple to live in my bedroom WITH me before I would invite a homophobe like the ones I see here.
It's funny, though, to watch people get so up in arms about gays in general, especially the ones who try to pretend they really don't have anything against gays. You do, and it's obvious, and one day soon you're going to find yourself on the wrong side of history, just like those who were against desegregation back in the 60s.
(And as for the secret service, I think it would be perfectly fine to require women to register. Take it up with your senator.)

Sad day for America.

Sad day for America.

Sad day for America.

OP got advice from very experienced members, it looks like. He is an overstay on a visa, NOT visa waiver, and he is still in the US. So as long as they get married and file the 130 and 485 to adjust from within the US there is no reason he should get a ban. If he leaves the US, yes, he will get a ban. OP, the advice you received about marrying and filing for AOS is correct. Like everyone else said, though, don't bother with the AP. (We did, because it was free and our lawyer did the paperwork, but it's useless and my husband can't use it because of his overstay.)

OP got advice from very experienced members, it looks like. He is an overstay on a visa, NOT visa waiver, and he is still in the US. So as long as they get married and file the 130 and 485 to adjust from within the US there is no reason he should get a ban. If he leaves the US, yes, he will get a ban. OP, the advice you received about marrying and filing for AOS is correct. Like everyone else said, though, don't bother with the AP. (We did, because it was free and our lawyer did the paperwork, but it's useless and my husband can't use it because of his overstay.)

Ok, I don't know if this is exactly what the lawyers told you or if you're paraphrasing them. There is no "case". This isn't a legal process. There will be no briefs filed, nor hearings in front of a judge. You submit your paperwork to USCIS and you pray. If it's denied then the game ends there.
Your lawyer won't be filing the AOS package at your local USCIS office in San Francisco. It must be sent to the USCIS Chicago Lockbox facility. They will process the package into the system and then distribute the different applications to the regional or local offices that will handle them. Even if your lawyer sends the package using an overnight courier, it's going to sit in a mail basket for about a week. That's how much backlog there is at the Chicago Lockbox facility. Eventually, someone will screen your package to ensure that all of the required documents have been included, that you've used the current version of the forms, and that everything is properly filled out and signed. If it looks good then they'll deposit your check and enter your package into the system. At that point, your application has been "accepted". If there's any obvious problems then they'll send the entire package back to you.
Some months later, your I-485 package is going to arrive at the USCIS field office in San Francisco, and it will be assigned to an immigration officer. The immigration officer is going to look at the date your package was accepted at the Chicago Lockbox and compare that with the date your husband's VWP expired. There are a variety of scenarios that could happen next. Until we hear from a VWP overstay who has recently tried to adjust status through the San Francisco field office, we won't know for certain which scenario is likely.
One possible scenario is that they'll simply deny the AOS immediately, and send you a notice that your husband has a limited amount of time to voluntarily leave the US before they issue a deportation order. This would actually be good news because it means no deportation ban. Another scenario, substantially more dire, is that the denial notice is delivered by an ICE officer who takes your husband into custody after delivering the notice. They could also schedule an interview, deny the AOS at the interview, and either give your husband a limited amount of time to voluntarily depart, or order his deportation and take him into custody. Of course, if any of these things happened then your lawyer would be as outraged about it as you (or at least pretend to be). He'll probably also offer to help you complete the CR1 visa application (the I-130 would probably have been approved, even if the I-485 was denied) and the I-212 waiver application, just as soon as you write another check. The one thing he won't do is offer to appeal the decision because he knows that he can't.
There's also a possibility that the San Francisco field office will actually adjudicate the I-485 just as they normally would. Unless the receipt date on the first Notice Of Action is earlier than the expiration date of your husband's VWP entry, I think the chances of this happening are near zero. The San Francisco office has a pretty clear policy of abiding by decisions of the 9th Circuit Court.
For your own peace of mind - you pin that attorney to the wall! Make them explain to you exactly how they expect to get the I-485 accepted by USCIS before Wednesday, and not simply delivered by then. If they admit that it wont actually be accepted until afterward, you make them explain how they expect to overcome the Momeni decision, and why your case won't be summarily denied by the San Francisco field office. You also make the attorney prove to you that they've filed an AOS petition for a VWP overstay within the past six months, and it was approved at the San Francisco field office. If the attorney can't provide convincing proof that they will succeed then keep your attorney and USCIS fees, and use them to buy your husband a plane ticket back to Portugal on Tuesday.

Our EAD was approved the same day as biometrics and received a week later. BUT we waited 2.5 months for the appointment letter, so everything else was taken care of/approved and we were just waiting on the letter, I guess. So the timeline you were given sounds normal considering your got your letter pretty quickly.