4 ms·

>this is a textbook case of someone playing the system, including overstaying on a tourist visa several times Sure, but what civilized nation requires someone

>this is a textbook case of someone playing the system, including overstaying on a tourist visa several times Sure, but what civilized nation requires someone with a spouse and children who are citizens to get a visa in the first place? Surely that should automatically qualify one for at least permanent resident status.

Kalium 10y ago
A number of civilized nations have encountered what they deemed to be problems stemming from automatic family visas. This is one way to respond.
BeetleB 10y ago
>Sure, but what civilized nation requires someone with a spouse and children who are citizens to get a visa in the first place? The US? Reminds me of the Syrian American guy I met. He was a US citizen who moved to Syria in the early 2000's. Got married there and had kids. Then when the civil war occurred, he returned to the US, but could not bring his family. His kids were US citizens, but he had never done the paperwork. So he set about doing it. Before too long they could enter the US. But his wife? That's not "automatic". Even though her husband and kids were US citizens, she had to go through the whole motions of applying, etc. Not allowed to come visit the US in the interim. As a result, his kids did not come to the US - they couldn't leave her alone.
- refurb 10y ago
  but he had never done the paperwork Sounds like he dropped the ball.
  - jakobegger 10y ago
    A bit of compassion for someone fleeing the war would be appropriate.
  - BeetleB 10y ago
    >Sounds like he dropped the ball. You're actually making my point for me: The US requires someone with a spouse and children who are citizens to get a visa to come and live with them. If it didn't, there would be no ball to drop. (Never mind that you also quote the part that is irrelevant to his spouse).
- ap3 10y ago
  I knew a pakistani-american who was working in the US but the visa for his girlfriend-wife had not been aprooved. So he brought her to Mexico were they lived and he crossed the border to work on the US side. No reason to leave your kids in the middle of a civil war.
refurb 10y ago
Sure, but what civilized nation requires someone with a spouse and children who are citizens to get a visa in the first place? Most, no? What would stop me from claiming I married someone in a foreign country and bring them back to live with me? Seems like a major loophole without some verification of the marriage.
- tobltobs 10y ago
  > without some verification of the marriage. Nobody is talking about skipping this part.
mdekkers 10y ago
Sure, but what civilized nation requires someone with a spouse and children who are citizens to get a visa in the first place? Surely that should automatically qualify one for at least permanent resident status. The Netherlands? It was a long time ago, but after you get married to a foreign spouse outside of the Netherlands, you have to come home, she has to wait in her country of origin for 6 months minimum until she can come and join you. This was like 15 years ago, I'm sure it is even more ridiculous now.

Kalium 10y ago

A number of civilized nations have encountered what they deemed to be problems stemming from automatic family visas. This is one way to respond.

BeetleB 10y ago

>Sure, but what civilized nation requires someone with a spouse and children who are citizens to get a visa in the first place? The US? Reminds me of the Syrian American guy I met. He was a US citizen who moved to Syria in the early 2000's. Got married there and had kids. Then when the civil war occurred, he returned to the US, but could not bring his family. His kids were US citizens, but he had never done the paperwork. So he set about doing it. Before too long they could enter the US. But his wife? That's not "automatic". Even though her husband and kids were US citizens, she had to go through the whole motions of applying, etc. Not allowed to come visit the US in the interim. As a result, his kids did not come to the US - they couldn't leave her alone.

refurb 10y ago
but he had never done the paperwork Sounds like he dropped the ball.
- jakobegger 10y ago
  A bit of compassion for someone fleeing the war would be appropriate.
- BeetleB 10y ago
  >Sounds like he dropped the ball. You're actually making my point for me: The US requires someone with a spouse and children who are citizens to get a visa to come and live with them. If it didn't, there would be no ball to drop. (Never mind that you also quote the part that is irrelevant to his spouse).
ap3 10y ago
I knew a pakistani-american who was working in the US but the visa for his girlfriend-wife had not been aprooved. So he brought her to Mexico were they lived and he crossed the border to work on the US side. No reason to leave your kids in the middle of a civil war.

refurb 10y ago

Sure, but what civilized nation requires someone with a spouse and children who are citizens to get a visa in the first place? Most, no? What would stop me from claiming I married someone in a foreign country and bring them back to live with me? Seems like a major loophole without some verification of the marriage.

tobltobs 10y ago
> without some verification of the marriage. Nobody is talking about skipping this part.

mdekkers 10y ago

Sure, but what civilized nation requires someone with a spouse and children who are citizens to get a visa in the first place? Surely that should automatically qualify one for at least permanent resident status. The Netherlands? It was a long time ago, but after you get married to a foreign spouse outside of the Netherlands, you have to come home, she has to wait in her country of origin for 6 months minimum until she can come and join you. This was like 15 years ago, I'm sure it is even more ridiculous now.