JayJayH

I'm finally at the end of a long journey. VJ has been an incredible resource through the past 4 years, and so I felt like posting this to help others who may be in the situation I was in, as I was constantly on here looking for information during my own complex "visa journey."
Filed joint ROC petition, while separated, exactly one year ago today. Filed for divorce a month later. Got an ROC interview date in October, but divorce still wasn't final. Requested to reschedule the original interview. Final divorce decree came two days later.
Today, I went with my attorney to the field office, and we waited for about an hour. We were called by one of the immigration officers who apologized for the wait, but he needed to do a background check. 20 minutes later, the officer came back out and called my name. He asked "do you have your final divorce decree?" - Which I did. We then went into the officer's office where he placed me under oath.
I had spent the entire past week going through anything and everything I could find as far as evidence of bona fide marriage. I was very confident that this would "go well" since I remember my entire relationship and marriage in detail. There was nothing he could have asked that would have caught me off guard. I was a bit nervous though since my ex wife and I had never had a joint lease, nor did we have an impressive assortment of joint assets. We had two joint bank accounts, joint health insurance and a joint dental plan. Beyond that, most of the evidence was in the nature of random mailers addressed to the both of us, three years of joint tax return transcripts, and affidavit from a close friend and my own very detailed 12 page statement. Main piece of evidence was a photo album spanning three years of traveling together.
After the officer swore me in, he began asking straightforward questions like "when is your birthday?", "what is your address?" etc. He then started asking me questions about my ex and I's relationship from beginning to end. He was very polite the entire time, yet firm. My ex and I had moved a lot due to the both of us working in seasonal retail jobs, so he asked a lot about dates, exact addresses, how long we'd been at this address, that address and so forth. Eventually, he said "I'm just going to tell you right now, you're approved, but I have to do this just to have it all down in writing." He then asked "did you have joint bank accounts? Joint health insurance?" to which I replied "yes" and grabbed a couple of papers to show him, to which he replied something in the lines of "that's okay, I've seen them in your file." He then said something in the lines of "Your statement was very well written, and you have an incredible amount of pictures. Everything looks okay, I can tell it was real and unfortunately didn't work out. I don't need anything more." He then said something in the lines of "Congratulations, I realize that this has been tough, but we're done. Best of luck to you!" He shook my hand, and showed me and my attorney out.
My ex wife wrote an affidavit, but the officer never asked for it or any other additional evidence. He told me and my attorney that the case would have likely been approved without an interview if we had been divorced when initially filing. SInce we filed jointly, but were separated, CSC had sent it to the field office.
Overall, the main lesson I can share with others here is this: FRONT LOAD YOUR PETITION, and be creative with your evidence if you lack joint assets. My own 12 page statement was extremely detailed, and spanned the entire relationship from first meeting until today. The officer told me straight up that the statement was well-written, detailed and therefore extremely helpful. Also, pictures can be excellent evidence if you do it right. Think quality over quantity. All pictures submitted with the petition clearly showed that they were taken at different locations, during different seasons and many of them were with family members. 15 - 30 pictures from different locations, with clearly distinguishable backgrounds, different holidays and seasons, as opposed to sending 300 selfies and all they show is that you know how to use a camera.
Also, ROC petitions are mostly DIY. However, if your marriage is failing at the time you have to file ROC, I recommend at least consulting with an attorney, especially if you live in California where even simple divorces can take up to a year. Mine was uncontested and still took 10 months, which made the entire case a lot more complex. Overall, the waiver interview was "the easy part." If your marriage was genuine, and your memory is in reasonable shape, you will be fine.
Front load, front load, front load. I cannot stress this enough. I carried a 2 pound stack of papers (anything and everything) with me, and he didn't ask for anything at all.
Thank you everyone on VIsaJourney for all the help and support over the past 4 years.

I'm finally at the end of a long journey. VJ has been an incredible resource through the past 4 years, and so I felt like posting this to help others who may be in the situation I was in, as I was constantly on here looking for information during my own complex "visa journey."
Filed joint ROC petition, while separated, exactly one year ago today. Filed for divorce a month later. Got an ROC interview date in October, but divorce still wasn't final. Requested to reschedule the original interview. Final divorce decree came two days later.
Today, I went with my attorney to the field office, and we waited for about an hour. We were called by one of the immigration officers who apologized for the wait, but he needed to do a background check. 20 minutes later, the officer came back out and called my name. He asked "do you have your final divorce decree?" - Which I did. We then went into the officer's office where he placed me under oath.
I had spent the entire past week going through anything and everything I could find as far as evidence of bona fide marriage. I was very confident that this would "go well" since I remember my entire relationship and marriage in detail. There was nothing he could have asked that would have caught me off guard. I was a bit nervous though since my ex wife and I had never had a joint lease, nor did we have an impressive assortment of joint assets. We had two joint bank accounts, joint health insurance and a joint dental plan. Beyond that, most of the evidence was in the nature of random mailers addressed to the both of us, three years of joint tax return transcripts, and affidavit from a close friend and my own very detailed 12 page statement. Main piece of evidence was a photo album spanning three years of traveling together.
After the officer swore me in, he began asking straightforward questions like "when is your birthday?", "what is your address?" etc. He then started asking me questions about my ex and I's relationship from beginning to end. He was very polite the entire time, yet firm. My ex and I had moved a lot due to the both of us working in seasonal retail jobs, so he asked a lot about dates, exact addresses, how long we'd been at this address, that address and so forth. Eventually, he said "I'm just going to tell you right now, you're approved, but I have to do this just to have it all down in writing." He then asked "did you have joint bank accounts? Joint health insurance?" to which I replied "yes" and grabbed a couple of papers to show him, to which he replied something in the lines of "that's okay, I've seen them in your file." He then said something in the lines of "Your statement was very well written, and you have an incredible amount of pictures. Everything looks okay, I can tell it was real and unfortunately didn't work out. I don't need anything more." He then said something in the lines of "Congratulations, I realize that this has been tough, but we're done. Best of luck to you!" He shook my hand, and showed me and my attorney out.
My ex wife wrote an affidavit, but the officer never asked for it or any other additional evidence. He told me and my attorney that the case would have likely been approved without an interview if we had been divorced when initially filing. SInce we filed jointly, but were separated, CSC had sent it to the field office.
Overall, the main lesson I can share with others here is this: FRONT LOAD YOUR PETITION, and be creative with your evidence if you lack joint assets. My own 12 page statement was extremely detailed, and spanned the entire relationship from first meeting until today. The officer told me straight up that the statement was well-written, detailed and therefore extremely helpful. Also, pictures can be excellent evidence if you do it right. Think quality over quantity. All pictures submitted with the petition clearly showed that they were taken at different locations, during different seasons and many of them were with family members. 15 - 30 pictures from different locations, with clearly distinguishable backgrounds, different holidays and seasons, as opposed to sending 300 selfies and all they show is that you know how to use a camera.
Also, ROC petitions are mostly DIY. However, if your marriage is failing at the time you have to file ROC, I recommend at least consulting with an attorney, especially if you live in California where even simple divorces can take up to a year. Mine was uncontested and still took 10 months, which made the entire case a lot more complex. Overall, the waiver interview was "the easy part." If your marriage was genuine, and your memory is in reasonable shape, you will be fine.
Front load, front load, front load. I cannot stress this enough. I carried a 2 pound stack of papers (anything and everything) with me, and he didn't ask for anything at all.
Thank you everyone on VIsaJourney for all the help and support over the past 4 years.

I'm finally at the end of a long journey. VJ has been an incredible resource through the past 4 years, and so I felt like posting this to help others who may be in the situation I was in, as I was constantly on here looking for information during my own complex "visa journey."
Filed joint ROC petition, while separated, exactly one year ago today. Filed for divorce a month later. Got an ROC interview date in October, but divorce still wasn't final. Requested to reschedule the original interview. Final divorce decree came two days later.
Today, I went with my attorney to the field office, and we waited for about an hour. We were called by one of the immigration officers who apologized for the wait, but he needed to do a background check. 20 minutes later, the officer came back out and called my name. He asked "do you have your final divorce decree?" - Which I did. We then went into the officer's office where he placed me under oath.
I had spent the entire past week going through anything and everything I could find as far as evidence of bona fide marriage. I was very confident that this would "go well" since I remember my entire relationship and marriage in detail. There was nothing he could have asked that would have caught me off guard. I was a bit nervous though since my ex wife and I had never had a joint lease, nor did we have an impressive assortment of joint assets. We had two joint bank accounts, joint health insurance and a joint dental plan. Beyond that, most of the evidence was in the nature of random mailers addressed to the both of us, three years of joint tax return transcripts, and affidavit from a close friend and my own very detailed 12 page statement. Main piece of evidence was a photo album spanning three years of traveling together.
After the officer swore me in, he began asking straightforward questions like "when is your birthday?", "what is your address?" etc. He then started asking me questions about my ex and I's relationship from beginning to end. He was very polite the entire time, yet firm. My ex and I had moved a lot due to the both of us working in seasonal retail jobs, so he asked a lot about dates, exact addresses, how long we'd been at this address, that address and so forth. Eventually, he said "I'm just going to tell you right now, you're approved, but I have to do this just to have it all down in writing." He then asked "did you have joint bank accounts? Joint health insurance?" to which I replied "yes" and grabbed a couple of papers to show him, to which he replied something in the lines of "that's okay, I've seen them in your file." He then said something in the lines of "Your statement was very well written, and you have an incredible amount of pictures. Everything looks okay, I can tell it was real and unfortunately didn't work out. I don't need anything more." He then said something in the lines of "Congratulations, I realize that this has been tough, but we're done. Best of luck to you!" He shook my hand, and showed me and my attorney out.
My ex wife wrote an affidavit, but the officer never asked for it or any other additional evidence. He told me and my attorney that the case would have likely been approved without an interview if we had been divorced when initially filing. SInce we filed jointly, but were separated, CSC had sent it to the field office.
Overall, the main lesson I can share with others here is this: FRONT LOAD YOUR PETITION, and be creative with your evidence if you lack joint assets. My own 12 page statement was extremely detailed, and spanned the entire relationship from first meeting until today. The officer told me straight up that the statement was well-written, detailed and therefore extremely helpful. Also, pictures can be excellent evidence if you do it right. Think quality over quantity. All pictures submitted with the petition clearly showed that they were taken at different locations, during different seasons and many of them were with family members. 15 - 30 pictures from different locations, with clearly distinguishable backgrounds, different holidays and seasons, as opposed to sending 300 selfies and all they show is that you know how to use a camera.
Also, ROC petitions are mostly DIY. However, if your marriage is failing at the time you have to file ROC, I recommend at least consulting with an attorney, especially if you live in California where even simple divorces can take up to a year. Mine was uncontested and still took 10 months, which made the entire case a lot more complex. Overall, the waiver interview was "the easy part." If your marriage was genuine, and your memory is in reasonable shape, you will be fine.
Front load, front load, front load. I cannot stress this enough. I carried a 2 pound stack of papers (anything and everything) with me, and he didn't ask for anything at all.
Thank you everyone on VIsaJourney for all the help and support over the past 4 years.

Congrats!!
 
It's half a decade ago, but I still remember the day my I-130 was approved. It's an amazing feeling. You'll get through the rest as well, and then before you know you it, all this 'immigration stuff' will be a thing of the past.

I don't know why we can't walk and chew gum at the same time anymore. There are good reasons why certain police jurisdictions don't enforce immigration law - For one, they're neither Federal, nor tasked with immigration enforcement. But more importantly, the immigration debate needs a very large dose of reality checking from both sides.
 
1. People who are vehemently opposed to 'sanctuary cities' need to understand that those cities often tend to have a large undocumented population, often making up a sizable percentage of lower-income, crime infested neighborhoods. No amount of strict (civilized) laws will make people voluntarily return to a gang infested city in i.e. Honduras. It is also economically/politically unrealistic to deport even a fraction of the people here currently under the radar. Trump or no Trump, the U.S. will continue to have millions of people living here illegally. You can't have good policing if you don't have community trust. Community trust, in part, comes from citizens feeling like the police is on their side. If people fear deportation, they will be less likely to ask the police for help, report crimes, or cooperate with police investigations.
 
- Unrealistic hardline/no mercy policies typically lead to leftist backlash.
 
2. People who are all gung ho about sanctuary cities need to ask themselves what the point of having an immigration system is, if it cannot be enforced. Particularly, there is no reason why deportable offenses (CIMTs) shouldn't trigger a referral to ICE, if it turns out that the perpetrator is not in the country legally. It would also help soften up immigration hardliners to come up with solutions, rather than slogans such as "we're all immigrants." Those are irrelevant statements, not solutions, and they serve no other purpose than to make people think liberals all want open borders (which is how Trump wins).
 
- Unrealistic utopian policies typically lead to right-wing backlash.

I don't know why we can't walk and chew gum at the same time anymore. There are good reasons why certain police jurisdictions don't enforce immigration law - For one, they're neither Federal, nor tasked with immigration enforcement. But more importantly, the immigration debate needs a very large dose of reality checking from both sides.
 
1. People who are vehemently opposed to 'sanctuary cities' need to understand that those cities often tend to have a large undocumented population, often making up a sizable percentage of lower-income, crime infested neighborhoods. No amount of strict (civilized) laws will make people voluntarily return to a gang infested city in i.e. Honduras. It is also economically/politically unrealistic to deport even a fraction of the people here currently under the radar. Trump or no Trump, the U.S. will continue to have millions of people living here illegally. You can't have good policing if you don't have community trust. Community trust, in part, comes from citizens feeling like the police is on their side. If people fear deportation, they will be less likely to ask the police for help, report crimes, or cooperate with police investigations.
 
- Unrealistic hardline/no mercy policies typically lead to leftist backlash.
 
2. People who are all gung ho about sanctuary cities need to ask themselves what the point of having an immigration system is, if it cannot be enforced. Particularly, there is no reason why deportable offenses (CIMTs) shouldn't trigger a referral to ICE, if it turns out that the perpetrator is not in the country legally. It would also help soften up immigration hardliners to come up with solutions, rather than slogans such as "we're all immigrants." Those are irrelevant statements, not solutions, and they serve no other purpose than to make people think liberals all want open borders (which is how Trump wins).
 
- Unrealistic utopian policies typically lead to right-wing backlash.

I don't know why we can't walk and chew gum at the same time anymore. There are good reasons why certain police jurisdictions don't enforce immigration law - For one, they're neither Federal, nor tasked with immigration enforcement. But more importantly, the immigration debate needs a very large dose of reality checking from both sides.
 
1. People who are vehemently opposed to 'sanctuary cities' need to understand that those cities often tend to have a large undocumented population, often making up a sizable percentage of lower-income, crime infested neighborhoods. No amount of strict (civilized) laws will make people voluntarily return to a gang infested city in i.e. Honduras. It is also economically/politically unrealistic to deport even a fraction of the people here currently under the radar. Trump or no Trump, the U.S. will continue to have millions of people living here illegally. You can't have good policing if you don't have community trust. Community trust, in part, comes from citizens feeling like the police is on their side. If people fear deportation, they will be less likely to ask the police for help, report crimes, or cooperate with police investigations.
 
- Unrealistic hardline/no mercy policies typically lead to leftist backlash.
 
2. People who are all gung ho about sanctuary cities need to ask themselves what the point of having an immigration system is, if it cannot be enforced. Particularly, there is no reason why deportable offenses (CIMTs) shouldn't trigger a referral to ICE, if it turns out that the perpetrator is not in the country legally. It would also help soften up immigration hardliners to come up with solutions, rather than slogans such as "we're all immigrants." Those are irrelevant statements, not solutions, and they serve no other purpose than to make people think liberals all want open borders (which is how Trump wins).
 
- Unrealistic utopian policies typically lead to right-wing backlash.

Congrats!!
 
It's half a decade ago, but I still remember the day my I-130 was approved. It's an amazing feeling. You'll get through the rest as well, and then before you know you it, all this 'immigration stuff' will be a thing of the past.

The section of immigration law he was denied under basically just says that anyone seeking to immigrate without an immigrant visa can't enter the country.
Legally speaking, here's what happened:
Your husband showed up with a valid tourist visa (or ESTA), and asked the CBP to enter the US as a tourist.
CBP said "you are not a tourist."
He can't enter the U.S. on a tourist visa if he is not a tourist, so CBP cancelled his tourist visa.
He was then at a US airport without a visa.
CBP said "you cannot enter without a visa."
He said "ok, nevermind" and left the US. (withdrawal/voluntary departure)
No ban, no waiver needed, because he did nothing illegal.
Had he been removed, it would have gone down like this:
Your husband showed up with a valid tourist visa (or ESTA), and asked the CBP to enter the US as a tourist.
CBP said "you are not a tourist."
He can't enter the U.S. on a tourist visa if he is not a tourist, so CBP cancelled his tourist visa.
He was then at a US airport without a visa.
CBP said "you cannot enter without a visa."
He said "I won't leave."
CBP removed him.

You were denied under section 214(b) of the immigration act.
 
In essence, you're allowed to visit the U.S. on a B-2 visa for up to 180 days at a time if the following is true:
1. You plan to leave within those 180 days.
2. You won't work illegally.
3. You won't study.
4. You won't commit any crimes.
 
It doesn't matter whether you plan to visit Disneyland or your aunt, if the above 4 are true, you are considered a tourist and you will get a B-2 visa. The problem is that 214(b) requires the consular officer to assume that you're intent is to immigrate to the U.S. It leaves it up to you to show that you're not. They are not allowed to authorize a visa unless they're satisfied that you won't overstay, work, study or commit any crimes. That means that the moment you walk into the consulate, the officer interviewing you assumes that you'll get a job in the U.S. and never leave.
 
In your case, overcoming that assumption is harder because you have an American boyfriend. There is nothing illegal in that, but if they have reason to believe you'll get married and file for adjustment of status (which is 100% legal), then they can't admit you because you're not planning to leave within 180 days. Simple as that. Now, if for instance, your career in Singapore is one that would make it completely insane for you to want to leave everything behind and settle in the U.S., then they're going to be less likely to suspect you won't leave.

Think of the life you have in the Philippines/Singapore - Is there anything there that would it completely crazy for any normal person to want to come and stay in the U.S. instead?

I'm finally at the end of a long journey. VJ has been an incredible resource through the past 4 years, and so I felt like posting this to help others who may be in the situation I was in, as I was constantly on here looking for information during my own complex "visa journey."
Filed joint ROC petition, while separated, exactly one year ago today. Filed for divorce a month later. Got an ROC interview date in October, but divorce still wasn't final. Requested to reschedule the original interview. Final divorce decree came two days later.
Today, I went with my attorney to the field office, and we waited for about an hour. We were called by one of the immigration officers who apologized for the wait, but he needed to do a background check. 20 minutes later, the officer came back out and called my name. He asked "do you have your final divorce decree?" - Which I did. We then went into the officer's office where he placed me under oath.
I had spent the entire past week going through anything and everything I could find as far as evidence of bona fide marriage. I was very confident that this would "go well" since I remember my entire relationship and marriage in detail. There was nothing he could have asked that would have caught me off guard. I was a bit nervous though since my ex wife and I had never had a joint lease, nor did we have an impressive assortment of joint assets. We had two joint bank accounts, joint health insurance and a joint dental plan. Beyond that, most of the evidence was in the nature of random mailers addressed to the both of us, three years of joint tax return transcripts, and affidavit from a close friend and my own very detailed 12 page statement. Main piece of evidence was a photo album spanning three years of traveling together.
After the officer swore me in, he began asking straightforward questions like "when is your birthday?", "what is your address?" etc. He then started asking me questions about my ex and I's relationship from beginning to end. He was very polite the entire time, yet firm. My ex and I had moved a lot due to the both of us working in seasonal retail jobs, so he asked a lot about dates, exact addresses, how long we'd been at this address, that address and so forth. Eventually, he said "I'm just going to tell you right now, you're approved, but I have to do this just to have it all down in writing." He then asked "did you have joint bank accounts? Joint health insurance?" to which I replied "yes" and grabbed a couple of papers to show him, to which he replied something in the lines of "that's okay, I've seen them in your file." He then said something in the lines of "Your statement was very well written, and you have an incredible amount of pictures. Everything looks okay, I can tell it was real and unfortunately didn't work out. I don't need anything more." He then said something in the lines of "Congratulations, I realize that this has been tough, but we're done. Best of luck to you!" He shook my hand, and showed me and my attorney out.
My ex wife wrote an affidavit, but the officer never asked for it or any other additional evidence. He told me and my attorney that the case would have likely been approved without an interview if we had been divorced when initially filing. SInce we filed jointly, but were separated, CSC had sent it to the field office.
Overall, the main lesson I can share with others here is this: FRONT LOAD YOUR PETITION, and be creative with your evidence if you lack joint assets. My own 12 page statement was extremely detailed, and spanned the entire relationship from first meeting until today. The officer told me straight up that the statement was well-written, detailed and therefore extremely helpful. Also, pictures can be excellent evidence if you do it right. Think quality over quantity. All pictures submitted with the petition clearly showed that they were taken at different locations, during different seasons and many of them were with family members. 15 - 30 pictures from different locations, with clearly distinguishable backgrounds, different holidays and seasons, as opposed to sending 300 selfies and all they show is that you know how to use a camera.
Also, ROC petitions are mostly DIY. However, if your marriage is failing at the time you have to file ROC, I recommend at least consulting with an attorney, especially if you live in California where even simple divorces can take up to a year. Mine was uncontested and still took 10 months, which made the entire case a lot more complex. Overall, the waiver interview was "the easy part." If your marriage was genuine, and your memory is in reasonable shape, you will be fine.
Front load, front load, front load. I cannot stress this enough. I carried a 2 pound stack of papers (anything and everything) with me, and he didn't ask for anything at all.
Thank you everyone on VIsaJourney for all the help and support over the past 4 years.

Honestly, the only way to end racism is for the mainstream to accept the following:
 
"Black people are bad" = Unacceptable. Period.
"Hispanics are bad" = Unacceptable. Period.
"Asians are bad" = Unacceptable. Period.
"White people are bad" = Unacceptable. Period.
 
The far right does not abide by these rules. White supremacist groups are more than willing to attack people for their skin color, and websites like the Daily Stormer have no problem making that known. That's why they should be condemned, should be ostracized and shamed, and that's why you should be called out as a terrible person if you belong to any of those groups or share their sympathies. If you want a racially pure utopia, then perhaps you should yell at your grandparents for immigrating to a melting pot and leave the rest of us alone.
 
Meanwhile, far leftist media publications have no problems running stories declaring  "The white guy problem", "I don't know what to do with good white people", "10 things white people need to stop doing", and this beauty from Salon - "White men must be stopped: The very future of the planet depends on it" etc. I have not seen a Democrat public official condemn attitudes like this. Anywhere. A common thread is that "white people are not marginalized" in America - And this may be true. But unless this type of prejudiced nonsense is condemned for the trash it is, folks on the left are making a damn good job of convincing white Americans that they are marginalized.
 
Far right = racist trash.
Far left = race baiting trash at best, racist trash at worst.

This is what the far left does not understand about the current topic of race.
 
Neo-Nazis, the KKK, white supremacists groups etc. exist on the far fringes of the far right. They regularly receive swift, public condemnation from virtually every GOP politician. Even Trump's "support" for these groups was mostly an unhinged tirade of "they're disgusting", mixed in with a highly inappropriate "some good people on both sides." Trump's response was amateurish and weak, you can never condemn the KKK too much, but it was a condemnation nonetheless. Not a perfect analogy, but I cannot picture for one second that someone, even in Trump's circles, would ever apologize for tweeting a picture of a black 3-year-old because it triggered some racist nutjob somewhere.
 
What much of the left doesn't seem to understand is that their own talk about race has probably done more damage to race relations than some right-wing fringe group could ever do. Race mongers complaining about the skin color of a 3-year-old in an ACLU shirt used to exist on the fringes of the far left, ignored to death by the mainstream DNC. They are no longer the fringes. This lunatic may not represent a majority of ACLU members, but the fact that she actually received an apology from the ACLU is the type of divisive attitude that got Trump elected president in the first place. Essentially, what the ACLU said was "we understand how a white child can be offensive." What the ACLU's response should have been was "we're not sorry for a 3-year-old's skin color." Period.

I disagree slightly.

B-1/2 visas are short term visas for people intending to visit the U.S. for vacation or short business trips.

F-1 visas, H-1b visas would require the foreign spouse to quit their current job or significantly delay their college degree if they have to return. Adjustment of status should be an option, especially given that it's entirely plausible to meet, date and marry someone while you're here studying or working for half a decade.

Yep^
 
There wouldn't be a need for a K-1 category if B-2s were allowed to enter with intent to stay. If you married a foreigner, but wanted to hold your wedding in your home town, that would be very difficult to do without the K-1, virtually impossible if the foreign fiance(e) is from a high-fraud country. You'd have to convince a consular officer and CBP that you intend to enter, get married, and then leave for the I-130/CR-1 route.
 
I realize everyone's situation is different, but I really cannot think of a good reason why tourists should be eligible to adjust status. If you adjust status from i.e. F-1 or H-1b, that makes complete sense, since you would have entered the country to spend a significant amount of time and even set up temporary domicile in the U.S - most of your belongings and most of your life is already here. That isn't the case if you're here to go to Disneyland or visit your aunt. Filing an I-130/CR-1 while on a B-2 isn't  even that big of a deal. You can stay legally until your 180 days are up, return for your interview and come back on a CR-1. If you overstayed, you're still eligible for an I-601 waiver. This would make it a whole lot easier for family members waiting for an I-130 to visit during that time too, because the presumption of immigrant intent would be easier to overcome.

Really good one from the Center for Immigration Studies: https://cis.org/Report/Hello-I-Love-You-Wont-You-Tell-Me-Your-Name-Inside-Green-Card-Marriage-Phenomenon
 
 
Everyone has to get in line. Family members generally go the I-130 route, and I-130s are the same for all family members. Once the I-130 petition is approved however, is when the difference comes in. While anyone can file a petition, there are only a certain amount of immigrant visas available to apply for each year. This supply of available visas is far lower than the demand for those visas. So you wait. There is no quota for spouses and minor children.
 
Why? Because spouses and minor children are often dependent on you and you share a household. In essence, your wife or 10 year old kid takes priority over someone else's 47 year old brother.

Imagine 100,000 visas were allocated to spouses and minor children annually. You try to bring your wife and 10 year old to the U.S., but 1,000,000 other applications were filed that same year. You'd be looking at a 10 year wait to bring your wife and child to come live with you - Time that the 10 year old could have spent with both parents, in a U.S. school, learning English fluently and creating a network of friends instead of waiting in immigration limbo.

Exactly.  I don't have enough fingers to count how many times people thought I was automatically a USC because I'm married to one.  That I could just move down here.  Heck even my husband's best friend was trying to figure out a way for me to AOS "legally" when my husband's grandmother died.  But the inability to travel just made it not worth it for me, nor the fact that I felt like I'd be lying, and leaving far too abruptly.   For a lot of people that's not a big deal?  I don't get it but apparently it's not a big deal to them to leave their things they've worked hard for, family who loves them, jobs without notice, even their pets, etc behind on a "whim."  I call cowpoo on that!!  It's a huge deal to move to a new country and if it's taken lightly, the relationship won't last.  These people have said their good byes, packed their things, left their jobs....  I'm sure there are some who really don't actually care about that stuff, or don't have family etc... but I don't think that's a majority.  I truly believe MOST AOS from B2 or VWP is on purpose with intent. 
 
But again, the cash cow isn't leaving the stable any time soon. 

But that's the problem isn't it? The majority of our population hasn't got a clue about immigration except when a bunch of talking-heads get them fired up about something they still have no clue about it. I'm not actually convinced the legislators actually know enough to change the law either. They say a lot and then do nothing, and none of the changes they have proposed ever address real issues or fix things for the better of immigration as a whole. They don't care to listen or be convinced.

Great point.
 
Whenever you deny someone equality based on factors they themselves cannot choose, you are empowering them in the long run. "Gay pride" exists as a direct result of oppression of gay people. It is legitimized by perceptions of current oppression of gay people. "Black pride" as a direct result of historic oppression of black Americans. Groups like BLM etc. are legitimized by perceptions of current oppression of black people. White nationalism and "white pride" is flourishing and is to many legitimized by perceptions of oppression of white people.
 
The far left race baiting machine are a bunch of useful idiots to the far right, just as how far right nutjobs are useful idiots to the far left.
This article nailed it: "How anti-white rhetoric is fueling white nationalism."

Honestly, the only way to end racism is for the mainstream to accept the following:
 
"Black people are bad" = Unacceptable. Period.
"Hispanics are bad" = Unacceptable. Period.
"Asians are bad" = Unacceptable. Period.
"White people are bad" = Unacceptable. Period.
 
The far right does not abide by these rules. White supremacist groups are more than willing to attack people for their skin color, and websites like the Daily Stormer have no problem making that known. That's why they should be condemned, should be ostracized and shamed, and that's why you should be called out as a terrible person if you belong to any of those groups or share their sympathies. If you want a racially pure utopia, then perhaps you should yell at your grandparents for immigrating to a melting pot and leave the rest of us alone.
 
Meanwhile, far leftist media publications have no problems running stories declaring  "The white guy problem", "I don't know what to do with good white people", "10 things white people need to stop doing", and this beauty from Salon - "White men must be stopped: The very future of the planet depends on it" etc. I have not seen a Democrat public official condemn attitudes like this. Anywhere. A common thread is that "white people are not marginalized" in America - And this may be true. But unless this type of prejudiced nonsense is condemned for the trash it is, folks on the left are making a damn good job of convincing white Americans that they are marginalized.
 
Far right = racist trash.
Far left = race baiting trash at best, racist trash at worst.

This is what the far left does not understand about the current topic of race.
 
Neo-Nazis, the KKK, white supremacists groups etc. exist on the far fringes of the far right. They regularly receive swift, public condemnation from virtually every GOP politician. Even Trump's "support" for these groups was mostly an unhinged tirade of "they're disgusting", mixed in with a highly inappropriate "some good people on both sides." Trump's response was amateurish and weak, you can never condemn the KKK too much, but it was a condemnation nonetheless. Not a perfect analogy, but I cannot picture for one second that someone, even in Trump's circles, would ever apologize for tweeting a picture of a black 3-year-old because it triggered some racist nutjob somewhere.
 
What much of the left doesn't seem to understand is that their own talk about race has probably done more damage to race relations than some right-wing fringe group could ever do. Race mongers complaining about the skin color of a 3-year-old in an ACLU shirt used to exist on the fringes of the far left, ignored to death by the mainstream DNC. They are no longer the fringes. This lunatic may not represent a majority of ACLU members, but the fact that she actually received an apology from the ACLU is the type of divisive attitude that got Trump elected president in the first place. Essentially, what the ACLU said was "we understand how a white child can be offensive." What the ACLU's response should have been was "we're not sorry for a 3-year-old's skin color." Period.

This whole thing is ridiculous.  It's now seems to racist to even think about the color white.  LOL
 
White should be changed to "colorless" or "color-free" to be less offensive.
 
 

This is what the far left does not understand about the current topic of race.
 
Neo-Nazis, the KKK, white supremacists groups etc. exist on the far fringes of the far right. They regularly receive swift, public condemnation from virtually every GOP politician. Even Trump's "support" for these groups was mostly an unhinged tirade of "they're disgusting", mixed in with a highly inappropriate "some good people on both sides." Trump's response was amateurish and weak, you can never condemn the KKK too much, but it was a condemnation nonetheless. Not a perfect analogy, but I cannot picture for one second that someone, even in Trump's circles, would ever apologize for tweeting a picture of a black 3-year-old because it triggered some racist nutjob somewhere.
 
What much of the left doesn't seem to understand is that their own talk about race has probably done more damage to race relations than some right-wing fringe group could ever do. Race mongers complaining about the skin color of a 3-year-old in an ACLU shirt used to exist on the fringes of the far left, ignored to death by the mainstream DNC. They are no longer the fringes. This lunatic may not represent a majority of ACLU members, but the fact that she actually received an apology from the ACLU is the type of divisive attitude that got Trump elected president in the first place. Essentially, what the ACLU said was "we understand how a white child can be offensive." What the ACLU's response should have been was "we're not sorry for a 3-year-old's skin color." Period.

Honestly, the only way to end racism is for the mainstream to accept the following:
 
"Black people are bad" = Unacceptable. Period.
"Hispanics are bad" = Unacceptable. Period.
"Asians are bad" = Unacceptable. Period.
"White people are bad" = Unacceptable. Period.
 
The far right does not abide by these rules. White supremacist groups are more than willing to attack people for their skin color, and websites like the Daily Stormer have no problem making that known. That's why they should be condemned, should be ostracized and shamed, and that's why you should be called out as a terrible person if you belong to any of those groups or share their sympathies. If you want a racially pure utopia, then perhaps you should yell at your grandparents for immigrating to a melting pot and leave the rest of us alone.
 
Meanwhile, far leftist media publications have no problems running stories declaring  "The white guy problem", "I don't know what to do with good white people", "10 things white people need to stop doing", and this beauty from Salon - "White men must be stopped: The very future of the planet depends on it" etc. I have not seen a Democrat public official condemn attitudes like this. Anywhere. A common thread is that "white people are not marginalized" in America - And this may be true. But unless this type of prejudiced nonsense is condemned for the trash it is, folks on the left are making a damn good job of convincing white Americans that they are marginalized.
 
Far right = racist trash.
Far left = race baiting trash at best, racist trash at worst.

This is what the far left does not understand about the current topic of race.
 
Neo-Nazis, the KKK, white supremacists groups etc. exist on the far fringes of the far right. They regularly receive swift, public condemnation from virtually every GOP politician. Even Trump's "support" for these groups was mostly an unhinged tirade of "they're disgusting", mixed in with a highly inappropriate "some good people on both sides." Trump's response was amateurish and weak, you can never condemn the KKK too much, but it was a condemnation nonetheless. Not a perfect analogy, but I cannot picture for one second that someone, even in Trump's circles, would ever apologize for tweeting a picture of a black 3-year-old because it triggered some racist nutjob somewhere.
 
What much of the left doesn't seem to understand is that their own talk about race has probably done more damage to race relations than some right-wing fringe group could ever do. Race mongers complaining about the skin color of a 3-year-old in an ACLU shirt used to exist on the fringes of the far left, ignored to death by the mainstream DNC. They are no longer the fringes. This lunatic may not represent a majority of ACLU members, but the fact that she actually received an apology from the ACLU is the type of divisive attitude that got Trump elected president in the first place. Essentially, what the ACLU said was "we understand how a white child can be offensive." What the ACLU's response should have been was "we're not sorry for a 3-year-old's skin color." Period.

Yep. You just have to know your audience. "Know your enemy" as Sun Tzu put it.
I used to be a die-hard liberal until the left abandoned liberal values. I used to say some of the things leftist goons say nowadays, but it was always an ironic "put the shoe on the other foot" kind of thing. I was playing devil's advocate, I never actually meant it.
 
That's what puzzles me so much about Trump. The guy obviously has some IQ, otherwise he wouldn't be one of the most successful real estate moguls in the world. He was smart enough to see what almost an entire united liberal establishment was not - That regressive "SJW" ideology and rampant political correctness was pissing off enough people to win an election on.
 
If he had gone into the presidency with a much more reconciliatory tone, made compromises where they could be made and had Ivanka change the password to his Twitter account - His approval ratings would be in the 60s now. If his most ardent supporters are willing to follow him anywhere, imagine the media awkwardness if he had an entire rally in Phoenix chanting "F*** the KKK!" live on CNN.
 
If he keeps up what he's currently doing, he's gambling his entire legacy that the far left pisses people off more than he does. Those probably aren't terrible odds, but it's definitely a huge gamble.