GEE, DON'T YOU FEEL SAFER?

This is who we're trying to keep out. And lest you think that this sort of thing is a one off occurrence, here's another story with similar facts.

Comments

[A Nony Mouse]

Ah, thanks L&NLW. :)

Yeah, I couldn't figure out why they hadn't gone for a K-Visa and married in the US, as the news report was pretty sketchy on background details.

The way I understood the K-Visa to work is that the US Citizen files the petition and then the Fiancee is able to come to the US around three to six months later, with the requirement of the two being married within three months of entering.

But if you believe they probably denied him the K-Visa on the same grounds (namely, the history of drug abuse, no matter how long ago) and they got married in Canada with the intent for him to move to the US two years after, that makes sense. :)

[Legal and no longer waiting]

Nony, ok, now I understand your question. In fact, marrying in the US would not have helped them - the grounds of admissibility are checked when someone crosses the border AND when someone applies for adjustment of status. So, no way around it.

[Legal and no longer waiting]

He was probably waiting for a K visa before he came to apply for AOS. Based on the number of times his "work authorization" was mentioned, his AOS is being denied.

Technically, his K admission should have been denied, too, they just did not ask about controlled substances. That happens all the time - read the second article. I bet Amy Winehouse did not come the awards because her lawyers told her she would likely be denied admission even though her visa was approved.

[A Nony Mouse]

On a slightly different subject, in the second news link, why did the guy have to live in Canada for two years if they were married?

Unless they got married in Canada, I guess. In which case, well... kind of a foolish decision there, right?

[Legal and no longer waiting]

Good, I am probably on the short side of the humor on Monday mornings.

"The point of the article however is that what is happening to the Canadian is somehow outrageous. "

I did not take it this way, though. There was another article that stated something ridiculous, like "those things only happen to Haitians or other people you don't care about" - that was quite bad. I think this article was talking about how unfair the law is, and was using an example of someone most Americans can relate to, like a Canadian. I think, the author was barking up the right tree - the law is stupid. If our goal is to change the law into something that makes sense, then I think it is OK to use examples people can relate to. Is is racist? Kind of. But it is not the journalist who is bigoted, he is just using the fact that many people in this country are bigoted to all immigrants advantage.

[Ren]

What is very alarming in this case is the matter in which decisions have been made? Googling a person's name and barring him from entering US is just misusing the power.

The guy must have got a huge power trip out of this situation.

[hmm]

LNLW: surely I was joking, so to avoid further confusion, let's get serious for the next two paragraphs.

I personally know Canadians that have had trouble with US immigrations, and I think this is fair as they should not be above the law. Whether it is a good idea to have such laws is another matter, which I do not attempt to discuss here. The point of the article however is that what is happening to the Canadian is somehow outrageous. Well, this kind of things happen all the time to people from third world countries, and nobody writes articles about that.

Now to address your point, most Americans would not be eligible to immigrate here, and not only because of drug use. It is a common knowledge that much higher standards are being applied to immigrants. This is a basis of US immigration system, and I think it is a good thing.

[Unfair]

Here we are arguing about whether it is ok to let someone who was arrested (albeit 30 yrs ago!)for drug possesion into the US. What about all those people who have not been let in for a 3 month visit for no reason! My 60 year old parents were denied a visitor's visa...and let me tell you this - they have no intention of ever moving to the USA!! Not even if you give them a million bucks! And these folks do not have any charges against them, have no kind of record, no links to any terrorist organzation..nothing! If anything, their only fault is that they have kids who are settled in the USA.

[Legal and no longer waiting]

"But wait I am confused, ain't Canada part of the US? Isn't it like moving from Maine to Texas?"

No, it is not. It is a different country. You seem to know about laws, so I am very confused about your comment, as you don't appear to be joking...

"they suggest that people from Canada/UK should be subject to a totally different set of rules because they are good guys"

No, they are not subject to differnt rules. If you knew some people from there, you would have known that they struggle with immigration just like any of us.

Admission (no need for conviction or arrest) of drug posession is grounds for permanent inadmissibility according to the INA. By permanent they mean indefinite bar on entry to the US, not even for visits, not even if your spouse is American. There was an article about it on ILW.com just a few days ago - it's about the new medical form where the doctor must ask the immigrant about past drug use, and asmission will lead to you know what.

If you read the INA, you will realize, 80% of Americans, if they weren't citizens by birth, would not be able to immigrate here legally. The drug thing takes alone out 55%, including Presidents Clinton and Bush, and presidential candidate Obama. Now tell that to all those people yelling "they should have just come here legally"...

[hmm]

What does "safely" have to do with this case? An absolute majority of people are denied entry to US for reasons other than safety. And denials are quite routine. What is unusual here is that the guy is Canadian. But wait I am confused, ain't Canada part of the US? Isn't it like moving from Maine to Texas? I never liked this kind of articles because they suggest that people from Canada/UK should be subject to a totally different set of rules because they are good guys, they are just like Americans. I quite agree, a grandma from Argentina/India/Russia/China etc is more dangerous that this Canadian guy, way more dangerous. That's why we don't let them in, but surely the system must be made flexible to accomodate our friends from up north.

[USC]

It appears that R.L. might have a problem if Mexican immigration starts googling people! ;-)