Moscow trip report, I have returned.

[Sculpto]

um-mm, speaking of Fraud.....

How many of us Men here on RWD have travelled to Russia on a VISA that wasn't exactly produced for the intended purpose written on it........... Tourist, Business......?
This is what we do for our Women, but is it not fraudulent? Condoned or not by the system, are we not knowingly breaking Russian laws? So, how different is this from bending the K-1 rules to your advantage?

great point Utrobina!  I went on tourist visas.. should have had a personal invitation.. plus.. I did not register either time.. I suspect that is quite common, the tourist visa part that is...

[Admin]

um-mm, speaking of Fraud.....

How many of us Men here on RWD have travelled to Russia on a VISA that wasn't exactly produced for the intended purpose written on it........... Tourist, Business......?
This is what we do for our Women, but is it not fraudulent? Condoned or not by the system, are we not knowingly breaking Russian laws? So, how different is this from bending the K-1 rules to your advantage?

Gotta admit I resonate with Eddy Murphy's crack about "bending a law or two" (Beverly Hills Cop series, IIRC) - AND - if someone were REALLY interested in finding my "Prior Inconsistent Statements" (ref: Federal Rules of Evidence), it would be simple enough to find many of my ancient posts at Brama and PL where I shared a fair amount of my 'law bending.'

Having said that - I find nothing in the current immigration laws (IMBRA notwithstanding) to be patently inequitable. Nothing presented in this topic is persuasive that a fundamental injustice is contained in the current legislation. I hear a lot of emotional appeal for looser restrictions on immigration - but that is not the same as a fundamental injustice.

Many of us would like the bureaucrats to leave us with fewer restrictions so that we have fewer rules to navigate - but that is not the same as a fundamental injustice.

I have not seen a single post in which anyone reviewed the 2006 USCIS document I posted earlier today that contains an historical perspective of US immigrant visa legislation - and found fault with ANYTHING in that document.

At this point it seems far more a matter of people whining about wanting an easier path - but failing to articulate where, if at all, some fundamental breech of equity/justice/freedoms is preventing them from much of anything.

- Dan

PS - UTRO, my comments (above) were not directed at you. They were directed at the entire upstream topic. Sorry if that was not clear - and it probably was not.

[Gylden]

“ Unfair to whom?

It seems there is a misplaced sense of entitlement undergirding this argument. Do you believe an American citizen is entitled to bring a foreign citizen into this country?

Trying to understand WHY, exactly, you feel there is an inequity.

- Dan”

Let's replace “not fair” with “not realistic” and replace “entitlement” with “benefit”. The inequity is in the politics of the matter. Remember those politicians in DC are working for us not the other way around. There are simple and equitable solutions for this problem, just as there was a solution after WW 2 with the War Brides Act. It could be that it is time for those boys in DC to get busy and earn their pay, which they feel they are entitled to.
Just casting into the den here.
 

[Turboguy]

um-mm, speaking of Fraud.....

How many of us Men here on RWD have travelled to Russia on a VISA that wasn't exactly produced for the intended purpose written on it........... Tourist, Business......?

Heck, I went to Russia without a visa one time.  I was smuggled in and out and later on the same trip brought out items that are illegal to remove from Russia,  Historic items, collectable coins, an Icon and a Nazi Pen Knife that had been gifts.

[Kunstkammer]

Actually, I have gotten the proper visa every time. 

I'm in the process of immigrating to Russia (from the United States) - IE becoming a permanent legal resident, it is a much more difficult process.  The bureaucracy is immense and there are different standards for each worker (I'm looking at you Wedding Palace) I must admit being an American citizen with a Slavic surname has helped me though.  Often we are treated better and shown outright favoritism over the countless number of Uzbeks and Kazakhs etc. trying do the same thing, so this makes it easier than it could be.

[Sculpto]

Dan.. how can you state so matter of factly that arbitrary denial is ok?  I know you don't come right out and say it, but you imply it with your post by saying everything is aok.  A week or two ago this topic of arbitrary denial was discussed with two members noting that their MILs were denied visitors visas even though they had all their papers in order.  Are you trying to deny that the system is being abused by the public servants who implement it?

[Admin]

Dan.. how can you state so matter of factly that arbitrary denial is ok?  I know you don't come right out and say it, but you imply it with your post by saying everything is aok.  A week or two ago this topic of arbitrary denial was discussed with two members noting that their MILs were denied visitors visas even though they had all their papers in order.  Are you trying to deny that the system is being abused by the public servants who implement it?

Why do you feel motivated to ascribe a position to me that I never penned?

I have suffered as well from the capricious nature of bureaucratic nonsense of immigration authorities - but as I wrote above, that does not directly equate to a fundamental injustice in the legislation or its intent.

Focus on what I wrote/asked, and address the core issue(s), and maybe there is a worthwhile exchange to be had.

- Dan

[Sculpto]

the law is poorly written and allows for abuse.

[Admin]

the law is poorly written and allows for abuse.

Unless and until you articulate with some specificity what you find "poorly written" - this seems a classic case of Argument by Uninformed Opinion.

- Dan

[Gylden]

Dan,
I don't want to put words in 2012's mouth, but I think he means more along the lines of; the law is either outdated or due to changes in society we could benefit from a new mechanism which would allow for this new development concerning foreign spouses. It is what the meaning of my post was as well. Times change, rules and laws change when there is sufficient logic/support for it.
It seems that by the use of a procedure, which wasn't meant to be used in the manner it is being used, due to changes in society, it would be logical to think it might be a good idea to facilitate these changes.

I don't mean to offend you if you are a politician, with my "DC boys" comment.

[BillyB]

the law is either outdated or due to changes in society we could benefit from a new mechanism which would allow for this new development concerning foreign spouses. It is what the meaning of my post was as well. Times change, rules and laws change when there is sufficient logic/support for it.
It seems that by the use of a procedure, which wasn't meant to be used in the manner it is being used, due to changes in society, it would be logical to think it might be a good idea to facilitate these changes.

It seems only women's activist groups have the power to facilitate changes and recently they've made changes to the k-1 and made more hurdles discouraging men from marrying women overseas. Women's activist groups write the laws for congress to pass. Now a guy can apply for a second k-1 only after 2 years from the first. Someday it may change to 5 or 10 years. Changes made may not always be for the better. Feminists can't have foreign women taking their place.

Just think if women's activist groups in your country lobbied for laws telling men how often they can marry foreign or domestic women? I think it's silly for a person to marry every 2 years but the problem for me is that restrictions are taking away people's rights and if a person wants to marry again within two years after their first marriage and a divorce, they should have that right to marry again a person foreign or domestic without restrictions in this case time.

I seriously doubt anyone anytime soon will create a law that helps improve the success of American men marrying foreign women. Remember the stereotype, we're all losers, desperate, and nutcases so who'd want to help us? I think a trial period is a good idea for people so they won't feel pressure to marry before the 90 days are up on a k-1. Any pressure to marry is not a good thing.

[Gylden]

Yes Billy you have that right, it is not a good idea to try to pressure a marriage, whether it is the K-1 thing or feminists trying to pressure AM to marry AW by making the K-1 process more complicated. Surely the men are not just laying down to die on these issues though??
I have to say I have learned something while living here. I really don't think this legal stuff has to be so complicated.
As a simple example; the town I live in here had a stop sign at an intersection where almost no one came to a complete stop (California rolling stop). There was an article in the newspaper about it and a decision was made to install a yield sign instead. It didn't take a long time to decide and install the sign. What impressed me was that it shows the mentality of the system is to accommodate society, instead of placing a police car at the spot and using it as a source of income.
I can't tell you valuable I think it was to have my wife here on several extended visits, when we were courting and considering marriage, giving her insight into the culture and everyday life. I am sure we would have married anyway, but the comfort level it allowed us made it much easier on the both of us. As I said in another thread, I never even went to Ukraine until after we were married for 4 years.
Americans are very good to figure out the different ways around obstacles as a result, and that has been a quality which has proven itself very usefull to me, so there is a positive side to it too.

[Admin]

Dan,
I don't want to put words in 2012's mouth, but I think he means more along the lines of; the law is either outdated or due to changes in society we could benefit from a new mechanism which would allow for this new development concerning foreign spouses. It is what the meaning of my post was as well. Times change, rules and laws change when there is sufficient logic/support for it.
It seems that by the use of a procedure, which wasn't meant to be used in the manner it is being used, due to changes in society, it would be logical to think it might be a good idea to facilitate these changes.

I don't mean to offend you if you are a politician, with my "DC boys" comment.

>>I don't mean to offend you if you are a politician, with my "DC boys" comment.<<

Whoa! Do I give the impression of being a "politician" ?!? LOL

No worries Gylden. I am not offended in the least.

As for your earlier substitution of terms, I am in far more agreement with you than it may appear. I loathe bureaucracies - almost as much as I loathe arrogant shrill RW agency/forum owners 

The specific issue we are focused on here is rather tricky. It rests on a foundational question of whether or not America citizens should have the freedom to bring a non-citizen to this country on a permanent basis. In fact, we do - given a process is followed. You see, the continuum would run from completely unfettered immigration along the lines of meeting a gal in another US State and bringing her to your home State to live with no interference of any sort from authorities. That is on one side of the continuum. The other side would be an absolute prohibition to bringing a foreign citizen into the country. Probably the closest model to reflect this might be the old USSR at the height of the Cold War. While maybe not 100% "absolute" in restricting this sort of thing - my inexperienced assumption is that it would have been exceptionally difficult for a citizen of the USSR (outside of high-ranking Party officials) to sponsor a foreign citizen to live in the USSR.

Maybe a simplified metaphor would be the current US debate over Open versus Closed Borders. While not quite as stark as the examples I laid out - the same principles are in play.

The current US policy is somewhere in between those two ends of the continuum. That leads us to questions about the policies resulting in restrictions or process - and the relative value of those restrictions/processes. As I mentioned up-thread, I find nothing fundamentally unjust about current immigration policy - IMBRA notwithstanding. In many years of following developments in the area of immigration policy for foreign citizens immigrating to the US for marriage, I recall exceptionally few instances of gross injustice to the American sponsor or the foreign beneficiary. I *do* often hear complaining over the inconvenience and cost - but, to repeat myself, that is NOT the same as a fundamental injustice.

Okey-dokey. Gotta run. I hope this clarifies my position.

- Dan

[LEGAL]

Americans are very good to figure out the different ways around obstacles as a result, and that has been a quality which has proven itself very usefull to me, so there is a positive side to it too.

Gylden I agree 100%. In my line of work I do this on a daily basis. . What state do you live in?

[Gylden]

Legal,
I was living in California, but about ten years ago I chased a rainbow to Norway and here I sit!!
 

[LEGAL]

Gylden Olga and I have not been to Norway yet, maybe this summer. Olga and I would love to visit, I have a couple of friends that loved Norway.

[Gylden]

Legal,
If you come to Norway send me a PM or my e-mail address is on my details.
Where are your friends located?

[Sculpto]

Dan.. why don't you tell me how it is fair the way the immigration laws are written right now.  Sheesh.. we have millions of undocumented immigrants from every country.. people are willing to risk their lives and imprisonment to get in the country.  So, given that situation, please tell me how the laws as currently written are doing anything positive?  Bombers get a visa but a nice young Russian girl can't.  The system isn't working, the laws are poorly written and even more poorly implemented.

[KenC]

Dan.. why don't you tell me how it is fair the way the immigration laws are written right now.  Sheesh.. we have millions of undocumented immigrants from every country.. people are willing to risk their lives and imprisonment to get in the country.  So, given that situation, please tell me how the laws as currently written are doing anything positive?  Bombers get a visa but a nice young Russian girl can't.  The system isn't working, the laws are poorly written and even more poorly implemented.

Typical 2012, Sculpto BS!  Cannot back up his own words so he asks his critic to prove the opposite!
KenC

[Sculpto]

Typical 2012, Sculpto BS!  Cannot back up his own words so he asks his critic to prove the opposite!
KenC

That is exactly what Dan did Ken.. go blow your wind someplace else.  Its obvious to EVERYONE except Dan and apparently you that the immigration laws and system are totally broken.

[KenC]

That is exactly what Dan did Ken.. go blow your wind someplace else.  Its obvious to EVERYONE except Dan and apparently you that the immigration laws and system are totally broken.

Funny, I saw NO response from you to:

Unless and until you articulate with some specificity what you find "poorly written" - this seems a classic case of Argument by Uninformed Opinion.

- Dan

Just more bla bla bla with NO substance.
KenC

[Sculpto]

Funny, I saw NO response from you to:Just more bla bla bla with NO substance.
KenC

Ken.. we have been over this in the illegal immigration thread.. go refresh your obviously impaired memory there.

[BC]

Ken.. we have been over this in the illegal immigration thread.. go refresh your obviously impaired memory there.

Sculpto, when is it going to be more about you than 'them'?

Where are you at nowdays?

[Sculpto]

Sculpto, when is it going to be more about you than 'them'?

Where are you at nowdays?

BC.. the attacks are always about "me".  The USCIS site is available to everyone.  Just try and read through the law on asylum and other aspects of immigration.  It is so complex that most people will not make much of an effort to really understand.  But, the part that really irks me, as I have said before, in particular the pages and pages of law on asylum, is that the way the law is implemented for political purposes is not congruent with the way the law is written. 

Anyway.. to answer your other question.  Visa interview next Thursday.  Barring any unforseens she will be here in 4-5 weeks.

[brave girl]

Anyway.. to answer your other question.  Visa interview next Thursday.  Barring any unforseens she will be here in 4-5 weeks.

I do not understand??

She admitted to me that she had been hospitalized for a psychological disorder, one that would automatically make her ineligible for the fiance visa. 

Is it same crazy woman from 3 months ago or another??    brave girl