JayJayH

being a pacifist isn't about being ignorant to the violent reality of the world. it's about choosing peace even if that means you die at the hands of someone else. honestly, pacifism is ultimately the only way we'll get out of any of this. but war is forever.

Pacifism would have done absolutely nothing to stop the German blitzkrieg or the Japanese conquest of Asia and the Pacific.

Likewise, pacifism would do absolutely zero to stop the expanse of ISIS' caliphate.

So then you could argue that the rise of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan or even ISIS would have not happened had it not been for war in the first place. The only way pacifism works in practice is if everyone's in on it - Which is not going to happen.

This is going to sound extremely cheesy/corny, but it's true: The only way we'll get out of "it" is for liberal democracies (NATO + allies) to have far, far, far superior firepower. Hence why the post-Soviet era has statistically been the most peaceful and prosperous era in human history.

While a quarter million people have died in Syria, the Cold War era wars saw death tolls in the millions. The WW1 and WW2 eras saw death tolls in the tens of millions. Before that, all bets were off, and death tolls were only limited to weapons technology.

One of the PLPs main worries will be that Labours vote will crumble to Ukip under Corbyn, who wont produce enough racist mugs and mouse mats to reassure everybody. And, to be fair, it must be galling to a party that invaded Iraq, rendered Libyans to be tortured by Gaddafi and detained asylum seekers with Dickensian cruelty to lose voters on the race issue.

I

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/05/tory-leadership-election-x-factor-choosing-antichrist-brexit-frankie-boyle

Well said. Though I don't think it's race issues as much as it is cultural issues.

Few people will change their vote because a Pakistani family moved in next door.

On the other hand, UKIP gains seats in parliament when the UK institutes special sharia-based family courts.

http://www.matribunal.com/why-MAT.php

The underlying reason behind a "race vote" or rather, populist vote, isn't "brown people everywhere!" Most don't really care. Very few people are opposed to high rates of kids being adopted, whereas high rates of immigration is always an issue with many voters.

The underlying perception is destruction and/or marginalization of the historically dominant culture.

wow..awesome. so $160 all in all and interview then plane ticket..great.. thank you.

That's it, no issuance fee.

$160 application fee.

https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/visit/visitor.html

Some great replies here, thanks. Also one I wondered about, if on my permanent return to the US / her VWP visit, if we could go through the same immigration line together, her English is ok but she could get easily stymied and if I can be with her I'd rather do that.

I always went in the same line with my ex wife. I can't remember if we were in the USC line or visitor line though. Just ask. Either way, you'll be able to go together.

Not daily. They execute people in batches. Because they're so religious and holy and other entertainment is illegal it's very exciting to bring the family to the square to watch heads being lopped off. Good times.

So we're at war with ISIS, but King Abdullah marches for free speech under the "Je Suis Charlie" banner. I don't really get it.

What bad, really, could come out of telling Saudi Arabia "Until you stop executing people for homosexuality and wizardry, forget you."

?

Yes, Saudi is a pretty messed up country. Of course, I have met more than a couple Americans who believe America should bring back public executions. You know, to discourage crime and all that good stuff.

I always find it "amusing" when I see outraged people on Facebook calling for public hangings. Especially when they're the same people calling for carpet bombings of ISIS.

I have no problem ridiculing ISIS, Hezbollah, Saudi Arabia, but I do have problem with people going around saying, or implying that because ISIS are bad, therefore the entire Muslim religion is somehow not to be trusted. Your need to label everyone on the left as somehow being unable to criticize the above, is completely off the mark.

ISIS not doing it to prevent Liberals from launching attacks against the GOP, but to try and drive a wedge between white Americans and minorities, or in matter of fact, to help exploit pre-existing fear of people who aren't white. Good job for falling for what ISIS is trying to do.

I'm not saying the entire religion. There are plenty of secular Muslims and Muslim organizations whom I greatly respect and admire - Particularly the Quilliam Foundation.

I think there is a fine line between saying the entire religion is not to be trusted, and recognizing that there is a global jihadist insurgency hellbent on waging war against the west. I also don't think it's far fetched, from a secular liberal's perspective, to recognize that Islamism is a dangerous ideology that springs from religious orthodoxy - A phenomenon which is so widespread in the Islamic world that it could best be compared to Europe in the Middle Ages.

As the Iraqi atheist (now in the U.S. on asylum) Faisal Saeed Al Mutar put it: "Being atheist in Iraq is like being the only sober person in a car filled with drunk people, and you're not allowed to drive."

No, if they wanted to pit Americans against each other, they would keep doing what they're doing. Have one side blame "all Muslims" and the other side blame "racists" and "gun laws." They specifically say "don't use guns" and "don't attack minorities" because Americans will blame "racism and their government instead of us."

Cry me a river. Enjoy your crusade and a Happy July 4th!

Not crying, just pointing out the obvious.

I love Ella Fitzgerald! Happy 4th

Aloha!

"On July 4, as Americans celebrate the birthday of their nation, it feels a bit like the two major parties are celebrating different holidays for two different nations. Many of Donald Trump’s supporters equate the shrinking Christian majority with the real America. Many of Hillary Clinton’s supporters on the left have no room in their political alliance for non-Hispanic white Christians, particularly those in the working class."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/a-new-american-melting-pot-214011

Really? Only if one had a poor internet connection. Thiel? Deflection? Nvm...Reddit readers unite!

Throw in Buzzfeed and their "21 questions people have for people" and "Why people are ___ist/phobic" pieces.

Though I have yet to see any other publication be as blatant as " people are still a disgrace."

Insert "black", "Latino", "Asian" or "indigenous" instead of "white" and Gawker would have been done a long, long time before Hulk Hogan.

It didn't say, that's why we got a lawyer to find out.

You need an experienced immigration attorney, stat. You need one who is experienced in dealing with family and waiver cases.

Problem here is that if he received a 10 year bar for a drug charge beyond MJ, this could be a de facto lifetime bar.

There is a misconception regarding bars - That they're a period in which a person can't enter the U.S., but wait it out, and all is fine. That's not true. The bar is a period in which a person cannot apply for a visa. After the 10 year bar, he will be free to apply for a visa, but whether or not he'll get it is a different question entirely.

I am sorry for your situation, but this is how U.S. immigration law currently works, and I have not seen any proposal from neither Democrats nor Republicans to change the laws regarding drug possession or gang activity. I understand that subjectively, California is his home. Laws however, don't care about subjective feelings, but rather objective reality. He is a Mexican citizen who entered the U.S. without authorization to do so, and was sent back to Mexico.

I would consult with at least half a dozen immigration attorneys. Start at www.aila.org and www.immigrate2us.net

Best of luck.

If I'm understanding this correctly, you're visiting the UK and you want to know if you'll have any trouble with British immigration because your wife is applying to immigrate to the US? Of course not. I mean, they'll ask you what you're planning to do in the UK, but that has nothing to do with the American immigration process. They won't know whether you're in the process or not.

This ^

That's a good point too. If British immigration starts asking you questions, I'd actually recommend you bring your copy of the I-130.

Filing a petition for your British spouse to immigrate to the U.S. doesn't exactly show intent to leave the U.S.

You'd have to search far and wide to find a publication more clearly racist than Gawker.

Hello All, I'm new here.

Me and my wife (in the UK) want to immigrate to Minnesota from the UK and we would want to work and live there permanently. Neither one of us are from the states or have jobs out there (yet). We can afford to buy a house at the moment.

My question is, what Visa would we be best to apply for (if any)? I heard getting sponsored is quite hard (but not impossible). What would be the best way to get a Visa to work and live in the States permanently?

Unless either of you have an advanced degree in a specialized field, your best option may be to study in the U.S. If you graduate from an accredited 4-year university, you can live and work in the U.S. for up to 12 months after graduation (17 months if the degree is in a STEM field). This is called Optional Practical Training (OPT). OPT can work as a bridge between a student visa and work visa (H-1b) as employers are more likely to spend thousands of dollars to sponsor you if they already know you and you already have a history with them. H-1b visas are not permanent, but are renewable in 5 year increments.

Be advised that on an F-1 student visa, you can only work 20 hours per week, and any employment has to be on-campus only.

There is a green card lottery, but if you were born in a country that has sent 50,000+ immigrants to the U.S. in the past 5 years, you cannot apply. The UK falls under this category (Northern Ireland is still eligible). If either of you were born outside the UK (or in Northern Ireland) you might be eligible.

Generally beyond this, the only ways of legally immigrating to the U.S. permanently is through skilled employment or being sponsored by an immediate relative (child over 21, parent, sibling or spouse).

There are visas for people with "extraordinary abilities", victims of "heinous crimes" and the option of getting the U.S. Congress to sponsor and pass a private bill just for you, but those options tend to be out of the question for most people.

Just to clarify - I just bought a ticket today mind you:

I, the US Citizen, will be sending out my wife's I-130 packet at the start of next week. I plan to go visit her in August; will I have a hard time going to visit once we start the process? Is there anything I should take with me? or is it more so my wife that will have to have the proof that she is going back to the UK if she decides to come visit me here in the US?

I just want to make sure because I do want to fly over and get turned away and vice versa.

Thanks!

There is a wealth of knowledge in those pages however it is hard to tell if any of it has changed over the years. What I have been told is that scrutiny continues to get more strict.

Whether the scrutiny has gotten stricter since 2012 or not, I can't answer. But from personal experience, this really isn't a problem.

My ex wife filed an I-130 in February of 2012. I entered the U.S. three times on ESTA between the initial filing and my CR-1 interview. Twice for two-week visits and once for a six-week visit. Some takeaways:

- No message will pop up on CBP's screen saying "I-130 in progress. Deny." In fact, the first time I entered (a few weeks before NOA2), the CBP officer only asked me if I knew "people here" to which I replied a truthful but generic "yes." This was at EWR.

- Entering with your spouse isn't necessarily a metaphorical immigration death sentence either. I entered with my ex and her grandmother once after a cruise, and the officer asked how we were related, whether we had filed paperwork and when I was going back to Norway. No problem. This was at YVR pre-clearance.

- The last time I entered was 2 months before my interview, after NOA2, while the case was at NVC. I entered with my ex, and the officer asked straight out "are you planning to do your interview there, or will you adjust status here?" I told the officer I was waiting for my interview to come up in a couple of months, and the officer stamped my passport. This was at LAX.

It is my experience that if everything makes sense to the CBP officer, you have nothing really to worry about. Don't volunteer information unless asked, and give truthful answers if and when asked. Ultimately, you are allowed to visit while waiting for an immigrant visa, you're just not allowed to visit if you intend to stay. Their job is not to prevent legitimate visitors from entering, but rather prevent people from trying to immigrate on non-immigrant visas.

He has permesso di songiorno, but he is not an Italian Citizen

Italian citizens can travel under the VWP, residents cannot (unless they're a citizen of another VWP country).

There is no need for an I-134 or any affidavit of support. Those don't pertain to tourist visas. There is no need for nor benefit to having a relative in the U.S. when applying for a tourist visa. The U.S. doesn't really care whether or not tourists have relatives here. Whether he's coming to the U.S. for a country music festival or to visit his sister is irrelevant to the visa itself, as long as his purpose for traveling is to visit. He applies for a tourist visa on his own merits, plain and simple. If you want to support him financially, it would be more helpful to transfer some money into his savings account or something to that effect.

I thought Saudi Arabia already killed people on the daily for more or less ridiculous religious reasons?

hi im from the philippines and i am currently holding a 10 yrs tourist multiple visa from the usa and im planning to travel to the usa on october. my question is can i marry a gay guy while in the usa ans returned to my home country and file for another visa ie spouse or partner visa something like that

The short answer is "yes."

There is no law preventing you from marrying a U.S. citizen or LPR while on vacation in the U.S. The only thing you can't do legally is enter the U.S. as a tourist with intentions to stay in the U.S. If you visit the U.S. on a tourist visa, get married, go home and then file the I-130 for a CR-1 (spousal) visa, you're doing everything by the books. There is no such thing as a "partner visa." You do not need to have lived with your fiance/spouse to qualify for the K-1 or CR-1 visa.

The requirements for K-1 visa:

1. You are single (not married).

2. You have met your fiance in person at least once within the last two years.

3. You plan to marry your fiance in good faith within 90 days of arrival in the U.S.

The requirements for CR-1 visa:

1. You are legally married by U.S. federal law.

2. The marriage was not entered into for the sole purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit.

Note that:

1. K-1 fiance visa would be quicker - And 'safer.'

2. You may be denied entry into the U.S. if the CBP officer at the airport has reason to believe you won't leave the U.S. after your visit - For example, if the CBP believes you plan to get married in the U.S. and then file paperwork to adjust status while in the U.S. If you're getting married to a U.S. citizen while in the U.S. on vacation, the CBP will by default be inclined to wonder if you plan to leave.

I sent in the whole packet. The form we filled out quickly on her last night here. Just didn't know if a typo would stall the whole process of if they are forgiving on this??

Depends entirely on the typo.

Misspelled your name? Likely RFE. Wrong birthday? Likely RFE. Misspelled a street name on the G325A? Probably not a big deal.

Honestly though, if you do get an RFE, it won't stall you more than a couple of weeks if you reply promptly.

What is your solution? Continue to aid friendly dictators, in the hope they will reform their ways? Maybe we should nuke all the countries that we don't like? I have heard more than a few peace loving Christian Americans suggest such a response. Funnily, the same people call Muslims extremists. Maybe we could force all Muslims to wear a babge, so we can identify who they are? How about forced re-education for anyone who might possibly poss a threat? How does Americas continued support of the likes of Saudi Arabia fit into your grand plan?

Robert Fisk one of few Western journalists actually paying attention, and not going around throwing meaningless labels on people, has suggested a solution.

Sometimes a 'strongman' is better than the alternative. I'd hate to see what would become of Saudi Arabia if the al-Saud family collapsed. That being said, frankly, I think the only Middle Eastern countries we should support are the few emerging, secular, actual democracies in the region - Tunisia.. Any others? Turkey pre-Erdogan perhaps. The likes of Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf etc. we should stay far away from - (This is how liberals could easily convert conservatives to the cause of shifting away from fossil fuels btw.)

I never said we give Muslims a badge. I don't call "Muslims" extremists. I stand with secular Muslims who are working every day to reform their religion. I simply think liberals should treat Islam the same way they treat any other religion. If there was a global network of organized Christian groups, numbering in the millions, waging holy war to instill Old Testament law upon the Earth - You think liberals would take it seriously? Or do you think the left in the west might argue that guns and orthodox Jews were the underlying issues?

I'm fully aware than not all Muslims are extremists. But I think we have different versions of what we call extreme. I generally think of anyone who believe death is the appropriate sentence for homosexuality, apostasy, adultery, blasphemy etc. is a religious extremist. They exist in America. They form majorities of the population in large swathes of the Middle East and South Asia.

We've been sold this meme of Islamophobia to cover anyone who insults or criticizes Islam. From a liberal's perspective, I really don't get this. I think insulting and ridiculing Islam is a good thing. I think insulting and ridiculing Answers in Genesis and the Westboro Baptist Church is a good thing. The catholic church didn't stop burning people at the stake because the great thinkers of the enlightenment were scared to offend the religion. Islam is in dire need of a secular reformation, and what's holding it back in the west is this strange alliance between conservative clerics and far left liberals both refusing to accept this.

When Al Qaida has to instruct its holy warriors to use bombs instead of guns, and to only attack white Americans, so as to not give liberals the ammo to launch their rage at the GOP.. I'd say the denial on the far left has reached ridiculous levels.

Oh this is so scary :/ I honestly wish I could just go back in time and changed my answer to that statement.

I am assuming that if it were to come up in the interview, the visa is automatically denied, as I would be inadmissible due to material misrepresentation.

What happens then? I've been doing some research and read about a waver that could be filed. Do i get time to submit that waiver? I know that its not a guarantee to get approved, as it relied on hardship to the U.S. Citizen.

I've spoken to my husband about it, and he's not opposed to moving to Mexico with me, but I know it will be a challenge for him because he hasn't finished college and doesn't speak spanish.

I suppose at this point its just a matter of waiting and seeing what happens, and being completely honest in the interview :/

A material misrepresentation means a misrepresentation that would have altered the decision.

For example; a married person presenting himself to be single to get a K-1 visa.

Would knowing that your parents were illegally in the US have altered the decision to grant you a non-immigrant student visa? I don't think anyone can answer that.

Being married to a USC and adjusting status gives you a leg up in adjusting status. Personally, I don't think you have a problem with this strong tie.

Best of luck.

Aaron2020 gave you an excellent answer. A misrepresentation is any misleading or untruthful statement. What makes the misrepresentation material is if it could have impacted the decision of whether or not to grant you an immigration benefit. Having parents living in the U.S. illegally isn't necessarily an automatic denial of an F-1 visa. You are not held responsible for your parents' actions. However, it could certainly raise questions, as the interviewing officer's main objective is to (1) establish that you're going to go to school full-time, and (2) leave the U.S. upon completion of your studies. If I was an interviewing officer, I'd be concerned regarding #2 since your parents are living in the U.S. illegally.

The most accurate answer anyone can give you on this forum is that it may become an issue. They will certainly have access to your F-1 application. Whether (1) someone will catch it, and if so (2) whether it will be determined to be willful material misrepresentation - That's anyone's guess really.

I know that doesn't make your stomach churn any less, but if you were to be denied based on material misrepresentation, that won't be the end of it. It would certainly be time to lawyer up, but it wouldn't be the end of everything. As the immediate relative of a U.S. citizen, you would be eligible for an I-601 waiver. These waivers exist to protect U.S. citizens (not the foreigner) from extreme hardships in the even that their immediate relative is prevented from living in the U.S. These are lawyer territory, but by no means impossible. Usually they are determined by weighting the extent of hardship suffered by the U.S. citizen against the severity of the violation committed. In your case, this would be far from insurmountable.

based on what i have learnt on this forum

Immigration-wise, it is wrong to not be upfront about your past.

JUSTINCASE and HFM181818 can re-affirm this

There is a fine line between being 'up front', and volunteering information. Nowhere are you required to volunteer more information than you are asked. However, if specifically asked, always tell the truth.

In this event, if the interviewing officer never asks, there is no need to volunteer information. If you are not asked, you are not lying.

If however, the interviewing officer asks, it's a different story.

You can use a complete copy with all forms, schedules, attachments, W-2s and/or 1099s, OR an IRS transcript. Either is acceptable, as it states in the I-864 instructions.

KayDeeCee speaks the truth.

Better to just order an IRS tax return transcript. Up to you.

Order here: https://sa.www4.irs.gov/irfof-tra/start.do;jsessionid=VqIauI-ND7sVRB+MJHXiBTKQ

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Like when SJWs constantly search for new things to be racist/sexist/bigot?

What are the chances for same sex couple

The exact same as for a heterosexual couple.

As another poster mentioned, it's more polite to start your own thread.

As another poster mentioned, having given birth to kids may or may not put into question your sexual orientation and thus the bona fide nature of the the marriage.

I guess for anyone who actually pays attention, they probably aren't really comfortable with using a broad brush to paint an entire religion as the enemy. ISIS/ISIL has, and continues to murder Muslims and it is Muslims who are fighting ISIS.

I agree. But focusing entirely on the (nothing to do with) Islamic State and pretending they're the only (nothing to do with) Islamic terrorist group out there helps no one except for virtue signaling liberals - Particularly, it doesn't help the millions of secular Muslims who are persecuted every day for trying to reform the religion.

It's like people heard Donald Trump say "ban Muslim immigration" once and then decided that any time Islamism is called out for the medieval ideology that it is, it's "Islamophobia."

In addition to ISIS, radical (nothing to do with) Islamists supporters of Al Qaida, Jabath al-Nusra, the Taliban, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyaf, Jemaah (nothing to do with)Islamiyyah, Ansar al-(nothing to do with)Islam, Hesbollah, Hamas etc. etc. etc. kill more Muslims than anyone. Not to mention the governments of the Gulf Countries, the (nothing to do with) Islamic Republic of Iran, the (nothing to do with) Islamic Republic of Pakistan, (nothing to do with) Islamic Saudi Arabia etc. etc. etc.

I'm in no way saying that all Muslims are represented by the (nothing to do with) Islamic State or its leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi - who has a PHD in (nothing to do with) Islamic studies from the (nothing to do with) Islamic University of Baghdad.

One of my favorite writers and journalists is a Muslim reformist - Maajid Nawaz. It's not a coincidence that the term "regressive left" was coined by a secular, western Muslim. Later popularized by ex-Muslims like Sarah Haider when western liberals began calling her a racist bigot after speaking out against apostasy laws in Islamic culture.

PS. If you think I'm being unfair to Muslims, just know that I chuckle just as much when I see a woman in a hijab, as I do when I see a Mormon woman in a white robe, or Amish in a Victorian dress. Only laughing at hijabis makes me "racist" though

So basically the article says he should have used explosives.

Yes, as Al Qaida argues, using guns makes liberals in the West fixated on blaming gun laws rather than Islamism the ideology behind it.

That's an interesting take. Completely askew with reality of course, but interesting none the less.

It's not exactly news that the populist right in Europe has seen a tremendous rise in support over the past two decades. It's also not far-fetched to suggest that Donald Trump has more in common with European populism than traditional American conservatism, and that the populist right's base is largely working-class (traditional Labor/Democrat voters)