They have repeatedly taken incredibly broad if not downright delusional interpretations of legal precedent and used them to set policy. They literally tried to override a constitutional amendment (birthright citizenship) with an executive order. They have been laughed out of court many times but have won a shocking number of these ridiculous cases. This is just another one. Set the maximal policy that they want and make their opponents challenge it in court. It's legal until someone (with standing) stops them.
Trying to follow the Constitution literally is hard and in practice, it's not done. The political system just interprets the Constitution in whatever way the consensus of the given moment wants to interpret it. The 14th Amendment is clear that all persons born in the US are citizens of the US. However, if you follow the 2nd Amendment just as literally, it means that the Federal government, at least, cannot make any laws restricting us from owning nuclear weapons.
The second amendment is very much intended to protect access to military weapons. It was never intended to address personal defense or sport hunting but national defense by state militias.
Because the words temporary amd nonimmigrant don't carry the meaning that you're imbuing into them. Fiance visas operate very similarly to these dual intent H1 visas. You're granted a temporary nonimmigrant status while you pursue a permanent one. The words nonimmigrant and temporary doesn't exclude pursuing a permanent status at all.
In the case of a K-1, it is assumed you will transition from a temporary nonimmigrant status to a permanent status. [1] Requiring folks to move to the U.S., and then go back out of the country to get a green card, only to return again, is absurd. That absurd dance for both K1 and H1 w/dual intents is the reason the laws and guidance provided to agents changed starting in the 50's through the 90's. These changes in guidance to agents are nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to suppress people coming to the U.S. lawfully, which is absurd and deeply anti-American.
The K1 visa is even more temporary! It’s only for 90 days, and under the section 1255(d), the government doesn’t even have the power to convert a K1 visa into permanent residency. It’s like a tourist visa. The visa itself is not a pathway to anything.
People who come here on a K1 get permanent residency once they get married through a different statutory route: 8 USC 1154. But that has nothing to with the K1 itself. That route is available to anyone married to a US citizen, including illegal immigrants under certain conditions, or aliens who get married abroad. The K1 visa isn’t a stepping stone to permanent status. It’s just a convenience that allows people to have the wedding in the U.S. instead of the spouse’s home country.
> It’s like a tourist visa. The visa itself is not a pathway to anything.
> ...
> People who come here on a K1 get permanent residency once they get married through a different statutory route: 8 USC 1154. But that has nothing to with the K1 itself.
The UCIS explicitly links the K-1 (which has the words temporary and non-immigrant visa scattered throughout) to a de facto path to permanent status (see below). The fact that the two are different statutes is moving the goal posts (i.e., a logical fallacy). The government clearly sees them as a linked pathway to permanent status.
> "If you are a U.S. citizen who wants to bring your foreign fiancé(e) to the United States in order to get married"
> The K1 visa isn’t a stepping stone to permanent status. It’s just a convenience that allows people to have the wedding in the U.S. instead of the spouse’s home country.
There's a reason they require a medical exam to be filed with the consulate as a part of the K-1 application, they expect you to be in the U.S. for a long time. K style visas are a lot more than a convenience, they are the law of the land and have been so for nearly 75 years.
As is the K-1 fiance visa. Talk to us of how the purpose of the K-1 fiance visa is a "nonimmigrant" visa that is for people to be allowed "temporarily" into the US to see their spouse, and that it is "delusional" to think that that might be a path to permanent residency with their spouse.
Is the legal precedent they are ignoring only 36 years old? No? I guess that makes us talking about case law older than 36 years then. (As we all know, laws less than 40 years old are option to follow anyways).
