Limited Stay but difficult to travel





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







11















My wife was given a limited stay of 2 weeks on entry into the US after almost being denied entry to US. The problem
Is she was due to see a doctor and is almost 33 weeks pregnant which limits her ability to even fly. What can she do? Is there away to appeal while on US soil?






usa customs-and-immigration nigerian-citizens







share|improve this question




















  • 10





    Google suggests that most airlines will allow a woman to fly when she's up to 36 weeks pregnant, so isn't the answer to fly home in two weeks?

    – David Richerby
    Feb 10 at 12:44






  • 40





    @user92007 I don’t mean to sound unsympathetic, but on the face of it this sounds very much like an attempt to give birth in the US - which clearly was the conclusion of the not unintelligent Border officials who will have seen it all before.

    – Traveller
    Feb 10 at 13:32






  • 29





    She was due to see a doctor in USA? My brother aren’t there competent doctors in Naija? You’re just asking for trouble. We all know the game. This story is as old as US Immigration. Unfortunately she met an astute immigration officer. Just accept the game is up. Sometimes in life you accept your losses.

    – ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
    Feb 10 at 13:43








  • 7





    Given the concern about flying while pregnant, unless she has really important things she can and will do in the next two weeks, it may be better to leave immediately.

    – Patricia Shanahan
    Feb 10 at 15:53






  • 6





    Don't forget that some airlines will fly two-day-old babies. Does she want to be deported just 48 hours after the birth, or go back before it?

    – alephzero
    Feb 10 at 17:09


















11















My wife was given a limited stay of 2 weeks on entry into the US after almost being denied entry to US. The problem
Is she was due to see a doctor and is almost 33 weeks pregnant which limits her ability to even fly. What can she do? Is there away to appeal while on US soil?






usa customs-and-immigration nigerian-citizens







share|improve this question




















  • 10





    Google suggests that most airlines will allow a woman to fly when she's up to 36 weeks pregnant, so isn't the answer to fly home in two weeks?

    – David Richerby
    Feb 10 at 12:44






  • 40





    @user92007 I don’t mean to sound unsympathetic, but on the face of it this sounds very much like an attempt to give birth in the US - which clearly was the conclusion of the not unintelligent Border officials who will have seen it all before.

    – Traveller
    Feb 10 at 13:32






  • 29





    She was due to see a doctor in USA? My brother aren’t there competent doctors in Naija? You’re just asking for trouble. We all know the game. This story is as old as US Immigration. Unfortunately she met an astute immigration officer. Just accept the game is up. Sometimes in life you accept your losses.

    – ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
    Feb 10 at 13:43








  • 7





    Given the concern about flying while pregnant, unless she has really important things she can and will do in the next two weeks, it may be better to leave immediately.

    – Patricia Shanahan
    Feb 10 at 15:53






  • 6





    Don't forget that some airlines will fly two-day-old babies. Does she want to be deported just 48 hours after the birth, or go back before it?

    – alephzero
    Feb 10 at 17:09














11












11








11


1






My wife was given a limited stay of 2 weeks on entry into the US after almost being denied entry to US. The problem
Is she was due to see a doctor and is almost 33 weeks pregnant which limits her ability to even fly. What can she do? Is there away to appeal while on US soil?






usa customs-and-immigration nigerian-citizens







share|improve this question
















My wife was given a limited stay of 2 weeks on entry into the US after almost being denied entry to US. The problem
Is she was due to see a doctor and is almost 33 weeks pregnant which limits her ability to even fly. What can she do? Is there away to appeal while on US soil?






usa customs-and-immigration nigerian-citizens




usa customs-and-immigration nigerian-citizens






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Feb 10 at 12:03









Traveller

11.2k11945




11.2k11945










asked Feb 10 at 11:44









user92007user92007

5613




5613








  • 10





    Google suggests that most airlines will allow a woman to fly when she's up to 36 weeks pregnant, so isn't the answer to fly home in two weeks?

    – David Richerby
    Feb 10 at 12:44






  • 40





    @user92007 I don’t mean to sound unsympathetic, but on the face of it this sounds very much like an attempt to give birth in the US - which clearly was the conclusion of the not unintelligent Border officials who will have seen it all before.

    – Traveller
    Feb 10 at 13:32






  • 29





    She was due to see a doctor in USA? My brother aren’t there competent doctors in Naija? You’re just asking for trouble. We all know the game. This story is as old as US Immigration. Unfortunately she met an astute immigration officer. Just accept the game is up. Sometimes in life you accept your losses.

    – ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
    Feb 10 at 13:43








  • 7





    Given the concern about flying while pregnant, unless she has really important things she can and will do in the next two weeks, it may be better to leave immediately.

    – Patricia Shanahan
    Feb 10 at 15:53






  • 6





    Don't forget that some airlines will fly two-day-old babies. Does she want to be deported just 48 hours after the birth, or go back before it?

    – alephzero
    Feb 10 at 17:09














  • 10





    Google suggests that most airlines will allow a woman to fly when she's up to 36 weeks pregnant, so isn't the answer to fly home in two weeks?

    – David Richerby
    Feb 10 at 12:44






  • 40





    @user92007 I don’t mean to sound unsympathetic, but on the face of it this sounds very much like an attempt to give birth in the US - which clearly was the conclusion of the not unintelligent Border officials who will have seen it all before.

    – Traveller
    Feb 10 at 13:32






  • 29





    She was due to see a doctor in USA? My brother aren’t there competent doctors in Naija? You’re just asking for trouble. We all know the game. This story is as old as US Immigration. Unfortunately she met an astute immigration officer. Just accept the game is up. Sometimes in life you accept your losses.

    – ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
    Feb 10 at 13:43








  • 7





    Given the concern about flying while pregnant, unless she has really important things she can and will do in the next two weeks, it may be better to leave immediately.

    – Patricia Shanahan
    Feb 10 at 15:53






  • 6





    Don't forget that some airlines will fly two-day-old babies. Does she want to be deported just 48 hours after the birth, or go back before it?

    – alephzero
    Feb 10 at 17:09








10




10





Google suggests that most airlines will allow a woman to fly when she's up to 36 weeks pregnant, so isn't the answer to fly home in two weeks?

– David Richerby
Feb 10 at 12:44





Google suggests that most airlines will allow a woman to fly when she's up to 36 weeks pregnant, so isn't the answer to fly home in two weeks?

– David Richerby
Feb 10 at 12:44




40




40





@user92007 I don’t mean to sound unsympathetic, but on the face of it this sounds very much like an attempt to give birth in the US - which clearly was the conclusion of the not unintelligent Border officials who will have seen it all before.

– Traveller
Feb 10 at 13:32





@user92007 I don’t mean to sound unsympathetic, but on the face of it this sounds very much like an attempt to give birth in the US - which clearly was the conclusion of the not unintelligent Border officials who will have seen it all before.

– Traveller
Feb 10 at 13:32




29




29





She was due to see a doctor in USA? My brother aren’t there competent doctors in Naija? You’re just asking for trouble. We all know the game. This story is as old as US Immigration. Unfortunately she met an astute immigration officer. Just accept the game is up. Sometimes in life you accept your losses.

– ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
Feb 10 at 13:43







She was due to see a doctor in USA? My brother aren’t there competent doctors in Naija? You’re just asking for trouble. We all know the game. This story is as old as US Immigration. Unfortunately she met an astute immigration officer. Just accept the game is up. Sometimes in life you accept your losses.

– ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
Feb 10 at 13:43






7




7





Given the concern about flying while pregnant, unless she has really important things she can and will do in the next two weeks, it may be better to leave immediately.

– Patricia Shanahan
Feb 10 at 15:53





Given the concern about flying while pregnant, unless she has really important things she can and will do in the next two weeks, it may be better to leave immediately.

– Patricia Shanahan
Feb 10 at 15:53




6




6





Don't forget that some airlines will fly two-day-old babies. Does she want to be deported just 48 hours after the birth, or go back before it?

– alephzero
Feb 10 at 17:09





Don't forget that some airlines will fly two-day-old babies. Does she want to be deported just 48 hours after the birth, or go back before it?

– alephzero
Feb 10 at 17:09










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















32














She should leave and go and have the child in Nigeria. Do not risk it for several reasons.





  1. Public Charge complications

  2. Visa Revocation/voiding

  3. Immediate Removal/Deportation Proceedings

  4. Fraud/Misrepresentation


Under the new USCIS policy, most immigrants are put into removal proceedings immediately their extension of status is denied. In you wife’s case she has only two weeks. The change of status will not be acted on within two weeks, that’s a guarantee. Thus if it’s refused it means she will begin accruing illegal presence immediately.There are no appeal rights for B-2 nonimmigrants who are denied extensions of stay.



Do you have insurance to cover the childbirth? If you use public assistance, that’s a public charge. Her next USA visa application will be definitely refused. Even if you petition her for a green card, the possibility of public charge denial will follow her.



Immediately she accrues one day of illegal presence, her visa will automatically void even if its a 5 year visa wirh remaining validity. She will then have to apply for a new visa, with unknown results.



Finally she can be barred from reentry for misrepresentation because I am very sure she told the immigration officer she does not intend to give birth here. Well if now she does give birth they will say she lied. That comes with a permanent bar.



See this video of a Nigerian woman getting her USA visa revoked for attempting to board a flight to give birth in the USA, forward video to 41:35. Your wife was very lucky. Don’t push your luck.



Bottom line, don’t do it. You’re from Nigeria. It might be helpful for you to know that under the Trump administration people from Sub Saharan Africa are being put into deportation procedures at twice the rate of other aliens.



Just don’t do it.



References



Black Migrants Vulnerable For Deportation




Sub-Sahara African migrants have seen the highest spike in
deportations during the first nine months of the Trump presidency—more
than doubling from 909 to 2,184, according to the report.




Trump administration is revoking previously issued nonimmigrant visas at a record pace for a variety of reasons




Michelle Nicoll Gutierrez had often visited the United States legally
since her mother married a retired U.S. Foreign Service official years
ago and relocated from Mexico to Maryland. Nicoll Gutierrez’s toddler
son was born here after she became ill during an extended stay late in
her pregnancy.



She was returning on another trip to celebrate her 42nd birthday when
federal officials detained her at Bush Intercontinental Airport
Saturday and denied her entrance, revoking her tourist visa, and
barring her from returning for five years.



But they said federal officials focused unusually on her use of
Medicaid and state health insurance during the birth of her son in
December 2016 in Maryland.







share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    "Under the new USCIS policy, most immigrants are put into removal proceedings immediately their extension of status is denied." It's actually after a 33-day appeal period after the denial.

    – user102008
    Feb 10 at 18:41






  • 1





    "If you use public assistance, that’s a public charge." Not true. Non-cash benefits are not considered for public charge inadmissibility under current rules. And even under proposed future rules (which would only apply to benefits received after the rule becomes effective), Emergency Medicaid (which is the almost certainly the only public insurance the visitor in this case can receive) is not considered.

    – user102008
    Feb 10 at 18:43








  • 2





    @user102008 Feel free to down vote and provide a better answer if you think the answer is substantially defective. Since when did childbirth and the associated typical three day stay in the hospital become a non public charge event? And I hope you are aware emergency medicaid only covers labor and delivery only?

    – ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
    Feb 10 at 19:29






  • 1





    use of non-cash benefits like Medicaid other than for long-term institutionalized care, food stamps, WIC, CHIP, etc. are never considered for public charge inadmissibility purposes under policies adopted by both USCIS and the Department of State for the last 2 decades. Proposed rules would consider use of Medicaid in the future if obtained after the rule becomes effective, but as the OP's wife is not a US citizen or permanent resident, she is generally not eligible for Medicaid, except Emergency Medicaid (or maybe state-funded benefits which are also not considered under the proposed rules).

    – user102008
    Feb 11 at 6:25








  • 1





    I know the law and policies very well, thank you; and I cite the actual official policies. A visa cannot be denied or revoked for past or future use of Medicaid (not that a visitor would qualify for regular Medicaid) or any other non-cash benefit. Anything that says otherwise is just factually wrong. However, most kinds of nonimmigrant visas (including visitor visas) can be denied or entry denied for anything the officer doesn't like, under the basis of "failure to overcome the presumption of immigrant intent".

    – user102008
    Feb 11 at 6:34





















20














Your wife's intentions are being confused.



They think she is here to give birth.



The US has had 243 years of continuous government. Most of its Constitution was written in the age of sailing ships and wagons for transport, when a pregnant woman coming to the US wasn't really possible. This was just after the Civil War, which ended (state sponsored) slavery. To settle the question and lock in citizenship for former slaves, they made the Constitution say that citizenship is granted to anyone who was on US soil when they were born. This is called jus soli.



They might not have gone with that decision today, when that Peculiar Institution is a distant memory and a pregnant woman can easily, safely get to the US in 1-3 days. The only reason it's still that way is that the Constitution is really hard to change. But the recent controversy may cause it.



Anyway, because of this old rule, many pregnant women enter the country specifically so they can give birth on US soil. They want to give their child the ”gift” of US citizenship. And US taxes.



After the child turns 21, he can apply for citizenship for his parents and other family members under current law (which is more easily changed, and is likely to be changed given current fervor about immigration). This creates the appearance of birth parents seeking citizenship for themselves also.



I'm sure this has nothing to do with your reasons, and perhaps this is the first time you're hearing of any of this. The upshot is:



Don't even create the appearance of "birth tourism"



Her situation is problematic.



She claims that flying is perfectly fine at 32 weeks (evidenced by the fact that she willingly did it). But now she claims that flying is not ok at 34 weeks. There are a couple problems with that latter claim. First, it contradicts the fact that she told immigration that was her plan!!! This has "deception" written all over it.



Second, it contradicts the fact that she booked the return trip that way, and started the trip knowing what the timing would be. So she changed her mind after clearing immigration. That makes it look like that was her plan all along.



And third, if she genuinely did just now develop this belief that flight after 34 weeks in unsafe, then why doesn't she move up her return date and leave immediately? Have the doctor squeeze her in first thing tomorrow morning, then be on a flight tomorrow afternoon... That would be most prudent, staying in a strange foreign country to use the most expensive healthcare in the world doesn't make a lot of sense on its face.



All these create the appearance of an ulterior motive, and a rather obvious one. And yes, there is no presumption of innocence in immigration; immigration is not a right.



So anyway, Immigration saw this coming a mile away. She would have been turned away immediately. She was only let in because Immigration saw a great deal of evidence in her favor, that her trip had other legitimate reasons, that she would be a reliable visitor and would keep her commitment. She earned that trust, clearly. But if she now stays, it will break that trust, making the deception even more serious. On top of that, she will have overstayed.



Immigration law calls for a lifetime ban for deception. Immigration will often reconsider after 10 years, but that's not required. Until the Constitution is changed, it will probably be Immigration's practice to make life as difficult as possible. Your future citizenship would be impossible because of deception. A constitutional amendment could even void the child's citizenship as the product of fraud. It would make a big mess.



Staying to have the baby is simply not an option. She needs to complete her travel plans ASAP.






share|improve this answer





















  • 4





    This answer contains some very wrong statement that must be challenged. Birth right citizenship was not part of the original constitution. Originally citizenship was defined entirely by the states as they felt, Birth right citizenship was added during Reconstruction. Some states were using so-called "grandfather clauses" - you are a citizen if both your grandparents were citizens. Your grandparents were slaves not citizens? You are not a citizen either. Birthright citizenship says even if your grandparents were born slaves, you are a citizen because you were born here.

    – emory
    Feb 11 at 0:51






  • 5





    @emory first part: good point. Edited. Second point: It is not illegal for a mother to desire to have a child here, but also the right of Congress or the executive to shape law and regulations to suit their national priorities. Currently they are hostile to birth tourism. If you want different, talk to them. Please don't shoot the messenger.

    – Harper
    Feb 11 at 1:17






  • 1





    I do not think Congress has acted with respect to birth tourism. You are definitely correct that the President is hostile.

    – emory
    Feb 11 at 2:00






  • 5





    @emory Birth tourism in itself is not illegal however it is opportunism, shameful, gaming of the system and abuse when you don’t pay for the medical services with your own funds but take advantage of public funds you didn’t contribute any taxes to. At least that’s my opinion. It’s no surprise most countries have moved to end jus soli. Who says it is not the business of immigration to police it?

    – ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
    Feb 11 at 5:56








  • 2





    "[…] in the age of sailing ships and wagons for transport […] a pregnant woman coming to the US wasn't really possible." Why not? Did a ship really need 9 months to get to America from USA? And if so, is it really impossible to get pregnant on a sailing ship?

    – glglgl
    Feb 11 at 9:48



















3














On a sensitive matter such as this, you should talk to a qualified immigration professional and not rely on the advice of random strangers on the internet. That said here is my advice based on your description and response in the comments.



Congrats to your wife for being able to obtain entry into the US legally. Based on your description it appears that the immigration officer has stamped a No EOS/COS in your wife's passport, this means that the CBP officer believes that your wife shouldn't be allowed to extend here status or change your status.
The key here is that this is the opinion of the CBP agent and is not binding as the CBP agent isn't the authority when it comes to deciding whether someone should be allowed to extend their status of to change it. This is exclusively the domain of USCIS.



Based on the USCIS website, you need to meet the following conditions to apply for an extension of status -




  • You were lawfully admitted into the United States with a nonimmigrant
    visa

  • Your nonimmigrant visa status remains valid

  • You have not
    committed any crimes that make you ineligible for a visa

  • You have not
    violated the conditions of your admission

  • Your passport is valid and
    will remain valid for the duration of your stay


Assuming that these are true (Depends on if your wife's passport is valid and if she committed any crime during her stay, if not the other conditions will be valid till the date the CBP officer stamped on your passport or on her i94), she is eligible to file for a request to extend her stay by timely filing a form I-539.



Now that we've evaluated the legality, lets also hypothetically discuss the next steps. Do note that this again is my opinion and not legal advice. Based on the facts, it is evident that your wife entered the US to give birth (while this in itself isn't illegal) and to do so she lied to the CBP official. Given this when USCIS evaluates the application for extension it will most likely be denied, the only reason they would approve it it if your wife uncovered some information that was previously unknown to her; perhaps the baby is due prematurely or has a condition that she wasn't aware of; you will need a US Doctors letter explaining such circumstances.



What does work in your wife's favor is the time USCIS takes to process extension of stays and the fact that she will not accrue illegal presence until USCIS adjudicates her application. So if she was to file the paperwork timely and have the baby and leave the US before USCIS denies the petition she will have accrued no illegal presence.



This might still make it harder for her to seek admission to the US again nevertheless but she will not have done anything illegal strictly per the immigration law.



I wish you and your wife the very best and strongly urge you to consult an immigration attorney.






share|improve this answer



















  • 3





    +1 However note that it is only for a timely non frivolous application that one doesn’t accrue illegal presence. If her application to extend status is denied as frivolous (which is possible in this immigration environment) she would start accumulating illegal presence from the day her I94 expires. uscis.gov/news/news-releases/…

    – ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
    Feb 11 at 19:28














Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "273"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftravel.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f131902%2flimited-stay-but-difficult-to-travel%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









32














She should leave and go and have the child in Nigeria. Do not risk it for several reasons.





  1. Public Charge complications

  2. Visa Revocation/voiding

  3. Immediate Removal/Deportation Proceedings

  4. Fraud/Misrepresentation


Under the new USCIS policy, most immigrants are put into removal proceedings immediately their extension of status is denied. In you wife’s case she has only two weeks. The change of status will not be acted on within two weeks, that’s a guarantee. Thus if it’s refused it means she will begin accruing illegal presence immediately.There are no appeal rights for B-2 nonimmigrants who are denied extensions of stay.



Do you have insurance to cover the childbirth? If you use public assistance, that’s a public charge. Her next USA visa application will be definitely refused. Even if you petition her for a green card, the possibility of public charge denial will follow her.



Immediately she accrues one day of illegal presence, her visa will automatically void even if its a 5 year visa wirh remaining validity. She will then have to apply for a new visa, with unknown results.



Finally she can be barred from reentry for misrepresentation because I am very sure she told the immigration officer she does not intend to give birth here. Well if now she does give birth they will say she lied. That comes with a permanent bar.



See this video of a Nigerian woman getting her USA visa revoked for attempting to board a flight to give birth in the USA, forward video to 41:35. Your wife was very lucky. Don’t push your luck.



Bottom line, don’t do it. You’re from Nigeria. It might be helpful for you to know that under the Trump administration people from Sub Saharan Africa are being put into deportation procedures at twice the rate of other aliens.



Just don’t do it.



References



Black Migrants Vulnerable For Deportation




Sub-Sahara African migrants have seen the highest spike in
deportations during the first nine months of the Trump presidency—more
than doubling from 909 to 2,184, according to the report.




Trump administration is revoking previously issued nonimmigrant visas at a record pace for a variety of reasons




Michelle Nicoll Gutierrez had often visited the United States legally
since her mother married a retired U.S. Foreign Service official years
ago and relocated from Mexico to Maryland. Nicoll Gutierrez’s toddler
son was born here after she became ill during an extended stay late in
her pregnancy.



She was returning on another trip to celebrate her 42nd birthday when
federal officials detained her at Bush Intercontinental Airport
Saturday and denied her entrance, revoking her tourist visa, and
barring her from returning for five years.



But they said federal officials focused unusually on her use of
Medicaid and state health insurance during the birth of her son in
December 2016 in Maryland.







share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    "Under the new USCIS policy, most immigrants are put into removal proceedings immediately their extension of status is denied." It's actually after a 33-day appeal period after the denial.

    – user102008
    Feb 10 at 18:41






  • 1





    "If you use public assistance, that’s a public charge." Not true. Non-cash benefits are not considered for public charge inadmissibility under current rules. And even under proposed future rules (which would only apply to benefits received after the rule becomes effective), Emergency Medicaid (which is the almost certainly the only public insurance the visitor in this case can receive) is not considered.

    – user102008
    Feb 10 at 18:43








  • 2





    @user102008 Feel free to down vote and provide a better answer if you think the answer is substantially defective. Since when did childbirth and the associated typical three day stay in the hospital become a non public charge event? And I hope you are aware emergency medicaid only covers labor and delivery only?

    – ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
    Feb 10 at 19:29






  • 1





    use of non-cash benefits like Medicaid other than for long-term institutionalized care, food stamps, WIC, CHIP, etc. are never considered for public charge inadmissibility purposes under policies adopted by both USCIS and the Department of State for the last 2 decades. Proposed rules would consider use of Medicaid in the future if obtained after the rule becomes effective, but as the OP's wife is not a US citizen or permanent resident, she is generally not eligible for Medicaid, except Emergency Medicaid (or maybe state-funded benefits which are also not considered under the proposed rules).

    – user102008
    Feb 11 at 6:25








  • 1





    I know the law and policies very well, thank you; and I cite the actual official policies. A visa cannot be denied or revoked for past or future use of Medicaid (not that a visitor would qualify for regular Medicaid) or any other non-cash benefit. Anything that says otherwise is just factually wrong. However, most kinds of nonimmigrant visas (including visitor visas) can be denied or entry denied for anything the officer doesn't like, under the basis of "failure to overcome the presumption of immigrant intent".

    – user102008
    Feb 11 at 6:34


















32














She should leave and go and have the child in Nigeria. Do not risk it for several reasons.





  1. Public Charge complications

  2. Visa Revocation/voiding

  3. Immediate Removal/Deportation Proceedings

  4. Fraud/Misrepresentation


Under the new USCIS policy, most immigrants are put into removal proceedings immediately their extension of status is denied. In you wife’s case she has only two weeks. The change of status will not be acted on within two weeks, that’s a guarantee. Thus if it’s refused it means she will begin accruing illegal presence immediately.There are no appeal rights for B-2 nonimmigrants who are denied extensions of stay.



Do you have insurance to cover the childbirth? If you use public assistance, that’s a public charge. Her next USA visa application will be definitely refused. Even if you petition her for a green card, the possibility of public charge denial will follow her.



Immediately she accrues one day of illegal presence, her visa will automatically void even if its a 5 year visa wirh remaining validity. She will then have to apply for a new visa, with unknown results.



Finally she can be barred from reentry for misrepresentation because I am very sure she told the immigration officer she does not intend to give birth here. Well if now she does give birth they will say she lied. That comes with a permanent bar.



See this video of a Nigerian woman getting her USA visa revoked for attempting to board a flight to give birth in the USA, forward video to 41:35. Your wife was very lucky. Don’t push your luck.



Bottom line, don’t do it. You’re from Nigeria. It might be helpful for you to know that under the Trump administration people from Sub Saharan Africa are being put into deportation procedures at twice the rate of other aliens.



Just don’t do it.



References



Black Migrants Vulnerable For Deportation




Sub-Sahara African migrants have seen the highest spike in
deportations during the first nine months of the Trump presidency—more
than doubling from 909 to 2,184, according to the report.




Trump administration is revoking previously issued nonimmigrant visas at a record pace for a variety of reasons




Michelle Nicoll Gutierrez had often visited the United States legally
since her mother married a retired U.S. Foreign Service official years
ago and relocated from Mexico to Maryland. Nicoll Gutierrez’s toddler
son was born here after she became ill during an extended stay late in
her pregnancy.



She was returning on another trip to celebrate her 42nd birthday when
federal officials detained her at Bush Intercontinental Airport
Saturday and denied her entrance, revoking her tourist visa, and
barring her from returning for five years.



But they said federal officials focused unusually on her use of
Medicaid and state health insurance during the birth of her son in
December 2016 in Maryland.







share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    "Under the new USCIS policy, most immigrants are put into removal proceedings immediately their extension of status is denied." It's actually after a 33-day appeal period after the denial.

    – user102008
    Feb 10 at 18:41






  • 1





    "If you use public assistance, that’s a public charge." Not true. Non-cash benefits are not considered for public charge inadmissibility under current rules. And even under proposed future rules (which would only apply to benefits received after the rule becomes effective), Emergency Medicaid (which is the almost certainly the only public insurance the visitor in this case can receive) is not considered.

    – user102008
    Feb 10 at 18:43








  • 2





    @user102008 Feel free to down vote and provide a better answer if you think the answer is substantially defective. Since when did childbirth and the associated typical three day stay in the hospital become a non public charge event? And I hope you are aware emergency medicaid only covers labor and delivery only?

    – ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
    Feb 10 at 19:29






  • 1





    use of non-cash benefits like Medicaid other than for long-term institutionalized care, food stamps, WIC, CHIP, etc. are never considered for public charge inadmissibility purposes under policies adopted by both USCIS and the Department of State for the last 2 decades. Proposed rules would consider use of Medicaid in the future if obtained after the rule becomes effective, but as the OP's wife is not a US citizen or permanent resident, she is generally not eligible for Medicaid, except Emergency Medicaid (or maybe state-funded benefits which are also not considered under the proposed rules).

    – user102008
    Feb 11 at 6:25








  • 1





    I know the law and policies very well, thank you; and I cite the actual official policies. A visa cannot be denied or revoked for past or future use of Medicaid (not that a visitor would qualify for regular Medicaid) or any other non-cash benefit. Anything that says otherwise is just factually wrong. However, most kinds of nonimmigrant visas (including visitor visas) can be denied or entry denied for anything the officer doesn't like, under the basis of "failure to overcome the presumption of immigrant intent".

    – user102008
    Feb 11 at 6:34
















32












32








32







She should leave and go and have the child in Nigeria. Do not risk it for several reasons.





  1. Public Charge complications

  2. Visa Revocation/voiding

  3. Immediate Removal/Deportation Proceedings

  4. Fraud/Misrepresentation


Under the new USCIS policy, most immigrants are put into removal proceedings immediately their extension of status is denied. In you wife’s case she has only two weeks. The change of status will not be acted on within two weeks, that’s a guarantee. Thus if it’s refused it means she will begin accruing illegal presence immediately.There are no appeal rights for B-2 nonimmigrants who are denied extensions of stay.



Do you have insurance to cover the childbirth? If you use public assistance, that’s a public charge. Her next USA visa application will be definitely refused. Even if you petition her for a green card, the possibility of public charge denial will follow her.



Immediately she accrues one day of illegal presence, her visa will automatically void even if its a 5 year visa wirh remaining validity. She will then have to apply for a new visa, with unknown results.



Finally she can be barred from reentry for misrepresentation because I am very sure she told the immigration officer she does not intend to give birth here. Well if now she does give birth they will say she lied. That comes with a permanent bar.



See this video of a Nigerian woman getting her USA visa revoked for attempting to board a flight to give birth in the USA, forward video to 41:35. Your wife was very lucky. Don’t push your luck.



Bottom line, don’t do it. You’re from Nigeria. It might be helpful for you to know that under the Trump administration people from Sub Saharan Africa are being put into deportation procedures at twice the rate of other aliens.



Just don’t do it.



References



Black Migrants Vulnerable For Deportation




Sub-Sahara African migrants have seen the highest spike in
deportations during the first nine months of the Trump presidency—more
than doubling from 909 to 2,184, according to the report.




Trump administration is revoking previously issued nonimmigrant visas at a record pace for a variety of reasons




Michelle Nicoll Gutierrez had often visited the United States legally
since her mother married a retired U.S. Foreign Service official years
ago and relocated from Mexico to Maryland. Nicoll Gutierrez’s toddler
son was born here after she became ill during an extended stay late in
her pregnancy.



She was returning on another trip to celebrate her 42nd birthday when
federal officials detained her at Bush Intercontinental Airport
Saturday and denied her entrance, revoking her tourist visa, and
barring her from returning for five years.



But they said federal officials focused unusually on her use of
Medicaid and state health insurance during the birth of her son in
December 2016 in Maryland.







share|improve this answer















She should leave and go and have the child in Nigeria. Do not risk it for several reasons.





  1. Public Charge complications

  2. Visa Revocation/voiding

  3. Immediate Removal/Deportation Proceedings

  4. Fraud/Misrepresentation


Under the new USCIS policy, most immigrants are put into removal proceedings immediately their extension of status is denied. In you wife’s case she has only two weeks. The change of status will not be acted on within two weeks, that’s a guarantee. Thus if it’s refused it means she will begin accruing illegal presence immediately.There are no appeal rights for B-2 nonimmigrants who are denied extensions of stay.



Do you have insurance to cover the childbirth? If you use public assistance, that’s a public charge. Her next USA visa application will be definitely refused. Even if you petition her for a green card, the possibility of public charge denial will follow her.



Immediately she accrues one day of illegal presence, her visa will automatically void even if its a 5 year visa wirh remaining validity. She will then have to apply for a new visa, with unknown results.



Finally she can be barred from reentry for misrepresentation because I am very sure she told the immigration officer she does not intend to give birth here. Well if now she does give birth they will say she lied. That comes with a permanent bar.



See this video of a Nigerian woman getting her USA visa revoked for attempting to board a flight to give birth in the USA, forward video to 41:35. Your wife was very lucky. Don’t push your luck.



Bottom line, don’t do it. You’re from Nigeria. It might be helpful for you to know that under the Trump administration people from Sub Saharan Africa are being put into deportation procedures at twice the rate of other aliens.



Just don’t do it.



References



Black Migrants Vulnerable For Deportation




Sub-Sahara African migrants have seen the highest spike in
deportations during the first nine months of the Trump presidency—more
than doubling from 909 to 2,184, according to the report.




Trump administration is revoking previously issued nonimmigrant visas at a record pace for a variety of reasons




Michelle Nicoll Gutierrez had often visited the United States legally
since her mother married a retired U.S. Foreign Service official years
ago and relocated from Mexico to Maryland. Nicoll Gutierrez’s toddler
son was born here after she became ill during an extended stay late in
her pregnancy.



She was returning on another trip to celebrate her 42nd birthday when
federal officials detained her at Bush Intercontinental Airport
Saturday and denied her entrance, revoking her tourist visa, and
barring her from returning for five years.



But they said federal officials focused unusually on her use of
Medicaid and state health insurance during the birth of her son in
December 2016 in Maryland.








share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Feb 11 at 8:43

























answered Feb 10 at 13:20









ThE iLlEgAl aLiEnThE iLlEgAl aLiEn

1




1








  • 1





    "Under the new USCIS policy, most immigrants are put into removal proceedings immediately their extension of status is denied." It's actually after a 33-day appeal period after the denial.

    – user102008
    Feb 10 at 18:41






  • 1





    "If you use public assistance, that’s a public charge." Not true. Non-cash benefits are not considered for public charge inadmissibility under current rules. And even under proposed future rules (which would only apply to benefits received after the rule becomes effective), Emergency Medicaid (which is the almost certainly the only public insurance the visitor in this case can receive) is not considered.

    – user102008
    Feb 10 at 18:43








  • 2





    @user102008 Feel free to down vote and provide a better answer if you think the answer is substantially defective. Since when did childbirth and the associated typical three day stay in the hospital become a non public charge event? And I hope you are aware emergency medicaid only covers labor and delivery only?

    – ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
    Feb 10 at 19:29






  • 1





    use of non-cash benefits like Medicaid other than for long-term institutionalized care, food stamps, WIC, CHIP, etc. are never considered for public charge inadmissibility purposes under policies adopted by both USCIS and the Department of State for the last 2 decades. Proposed rules would consider use of Medicaid in the future if obtained after the rule becomes effective, but as the OP's wife is not a US citizen or permanent resident, she is generally not eligible for Medicaid, except Emergency Medicaid (or maybe state-funded benefits which are also not considered under the proposed rules).

    – user102008
    Feb 11 at 6:25








  • 1





    I know the law and policies very well, thank you; and I cite the actual official policies. A visa cannot be denied or revoked for past or future use of Medicaid (not that a visitor would qualify for regular Medicaid) or any other non-cash benefit. Anything that says otherwise is just factually wrong. However, most kinds of nonimmigrant visas (including visitor visas) can be denied or entry denied for anything the officer doesn't like, under the basis of "failure to overcome the presumption of immigrant intent".

    – user102008
    Feb 11 at 6:34
















  • 1





    "Under the new USCIS policy, most immigrants are put into removal proceedings immediately their extension of status is denied." It's actually after a 33-day appeal period after the denial.

    – user102008
    Feb 10 at 18:41






  • 1





    "If you use public assistance, that’s a public charge." Not true. Non-cash benefits are not considered for public charge inadmissibility under current rules. And even under proposed future rules (which would only apply to benefits received after the rule becomes effective), Emergency Medicaid (which is the almost certainly the only public insurance the visitor in this case can receive) is not considered.

    – user102008
    Feb 10 at 18:43








  • 2





    @user102008 Feel free to down vote and provide a better answer if you think the answer is substantially defective. Since when did childbirth and the associated typical three day stay in the hospital become a non public charge event? And I hope you are aware emergency medicaid only covers labor and delivery only?

    – ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
    Feb 10 at 19:29






  • 1





    use of non-cash benefits like Medicaid other than for long-term institutionalized care, food stamps, WIC, CHIP, etc. are never considered for public charge inadmissibility purposes under policies adopted by both USCIS and the Department of State for the last 2 decades. Proposed rules would consider use of Medicaid in the future if obtained after the rule becomes effective, but as the OP's wife is not a US citizen or permanent resident, she is generally not eligible for Medicaid, except Emergency Medicaid (or maybe state-funded benefits which are also not considered under the proposed rules).

    – user102008
    Feb 11 at 6:25








  • 1





    I know the law and policies very well, thank you; and I cite the actual official policies. A visa cannot be denied or revoked for past or future use of Medicaid (not that a visitor would qualify for regular Medicaid) or any other non-cash benefit. Anything that says otherwise is just factually wrong. However, most kinds of nonimmigrant visas (including visitor visas) can be denied or entry denied for anything the officer doesn't like, under the basis of "failure to overcome the presumption of immigrant intent".

    – user102008
    Feb 11 at 6:34










1




1





"Under the new USCIS policy, most immigrants are put into removal proceedings immediately their extension of status is denied." It's actually after a 33-day appeal period after the denial.

– user102008
Feb 10 at 18:41





"Under the new USCIS policy, most immigrants are put into removal proceedings immediately their extension of status is denied." It's actually after a 33-day appeal period after the denial.

– user102008
Feb 10 at 18:41




1




1





"If you use public assistance, that’s a public charge." Not true. Non-cash benefits are not considered for public charge inadmissibility under current rules. And even under proposed future rules (which would only apply to benefits received after the rule becomes effective), Emergency Medicaid (which is the almost certainly the only public insurance the visitor in this case can receive) is not considered.

– user102008
Feb 10 at 18:43







"If you use public assistance, that’s a public charge." Not true. Non-cash benefits are not considered for public charge inadmissibility under current rules. And even under proposed future rules (which would only apply to benefits received after the rule becomes effective), Emergency Medicaid (which is the almost certainly the only public insurance the visitor in this case can receive) is not considered.

– user102008
Feb 10 at 18:43






2




2





@user102008 Feel free to down vote and provide a better answer if you think the answer is substantially defective. Since when did childbirth and the associated typical three day stay in the hospital become a non public charge event? And I hope you are aware emergency medicaid only covers labor and delivery only?

– ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
Feb 10 at 19:29





@user102008 Feel free to down vote and provide a better answer if you think the answer is substantially defective. Since when did childbirth and the associated typical three day stay in the hospital become a non public charge event? And I hope you are aware emergency medicaid only covers labor and delivery only?

– ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
Feb 10 at 19:29




1




1





use of non-cash benefits like Medicaid other than for long-term institutionalized care, food stamps, WIC, CHIP, etc. are never considered for public charge inadmissibility purposes under policies adopted by both USCIS and the Department of State for the last 2 decades. Proposed rules would consider use of Medicaid in the future if obtained after the rule becomes effective, but as the OP's wife is not a US citizen or permanent resident, she is generally not eligible for Medicaid, except Emergency Medicaid (or maybe state-funded benefits which are also not considered under the proposed rules).

– user102008
Feb 11 at 6:25







use of non-cash benefits like Medicaid other than for long-term institutionalized care, food stamps, WIC, CHIP, etc. are never considered for public charge inadmissibility purposes under policies adopted by both USCIS and the Department of State for the last 2 decades. Proposed rules would consider use of Medicaid in the future if obtained after the rule becomes effective, but as the OP's wife is not a US citizen or permanent resident, she is generally not eligible for Medicaid, except Emergency Medicaid (or maybe state-funded benefits which are also not considered under the proposed rules).

– user102008
Feb 11 at 6:25






1




1





I know the law and policies very well, thank you; and I cite the actual official policies. A visa cannot be denied or revoked for past or future use of Medicaid (not that a visitor would qualify for regular Medicaid) or any other non-cash benefit. Anything that says otherwise is just factually wrong. However, most kinds of nonimmigrant visas (including visitor visas) can be denied or entry denied for anything the officer doesn't like, under the basis of "failure to overcome the presumption of immigrant intent".

– user102008
Feb 11 at 6:34







I know the law and policies very well, thank you; and I cite the actual official policies. A visa cannot be denied or revoked for past or future use of Medicaid (not that a visitor would qualify for regular Medicaid) or any other non-cash benefit. Anything that says otherwise is just factually wrong. However, most kinds of nonimmigrant visas (including visitor visas) can be denied or entry denied for anything the officer doesn't like, under the basis of "failure to overcome the presumption of immigrant intent".

– user102008
Feb 11 at 6:34















20














Your wife's intentions are being confused.



They think she is here to give birth.



The US has had 243 years of continuous government. Most of its Constitution was written in the age of sailing ships and wagons for transport, when a pregnant woman coming to the US wasn't really possible. This was just after the Civil War, which ended (state sponsored) slavery. To settle the question and lock in citizenship for former slaves, they made the Constitution say that citizenship is granted to anyone who was on US soil when they were born. This is called jus soli.



They might not have gone with that decision today, when that Peculiar Institution is a distant memory and a pregnant woman can easily, safely get to the US in 1-3 days. The only reason it's still that way is that the Constitution is really hard to change. But the recent controversy may cause it.



Anyway, because of this old rule, many pregnant women enter the country specifically so they can give birth on US soil. They want to give their child the ”gift” of US citizenship. And US taxes.



After the child turns 21, he can apply for citizenship for his parents and other family members under current law (which is more easily changed, and is likely to be changed given current fervor about immigration). This creates the appearance of birth parents seeking citizenship for themselves also.



I'm sure this has nothing to do with your reasons, and perhaps this is the first time you're hearing of any of this. The upshot is:



Don't even create the appearance of "birth tourism"



Her situation is problematic.



She claims that flying is perfectly fine at 32 weeks (evidenced by the fact that she willingly did it). But now she claims that flying is not ok at 34 weeks. There are a couple problems with that latter claim. First, it contradicts the fact that she told immigration that was her plan!!! This has "deception" written all over it.



Second, it contradicts the fact that she booked the return trip that way, and started the trip knowing what the timing would be. So she changed her mind after clearing immigration. That makes it look like that was her plan all along.



And third, if she genuinely did just now develop this belief that flight after 34 weeks in unsafe, then why doesn't she move up her return date and leave immediately? Have the doctor squeeze her in first thing tomorrow morning, then be on a flight tomorrow afternoon... That would be most prudent, staying in a strange foreign country to use the most expensive healthcare in the world doesn't make a lot of sense on its face.



All these create the appearance of an ulterior motive, and a rather obvious one. And yes, there is no presumption of innocence in immigration; immigration is not a right.



So anyway, Immigration saw this coming a mile away. She would have been turned away immediately. She was only let in because Immigration saw a great deal of evidence in her favor, that her trip had other legitimate reasons, that she would be a reliable visitor and would keep her commitment. She earned that trust, clearly. But if she now stays, it will break that trust, making the deception even more serious. On top of that, she will have overstayed.



Immigration law calls for a lifetime ban for deception. Immigration will often reconsider after 10 years, but that's not required. Until the Constitution is changed, it will probably be Immigration's practice to make life as difficult as possible. Your future citizenship would be impossible because of deception. A constitutional amendment could even void the child's citizenship as the product of fraud. It would make a big mess.



Staying to have the baby is simply not an option. She needs to complete her travel plans ASAP.






share|improve this answer





















  • 4





    This answer contains some very wrong statement that must be challenged. Birth right citizenship was not part of the original constitution. Originally citizenship was defined entirely by the states as they felt, Birth right citizenship was added during Reconstruction. Some states were using so-called "grandfather clauses" - you are a citizen if both your grandparents were citizens. Your grandparents were slaves not citizens? You are not a citizen either. Birthright citizenship says even if your grandparents were born slaves, you are a citizen because you were born here.

    – emory
    Feb 11 at 0:51






  • 5





    @emory first part: good point. Edited. Second point: It is not illegal for a mother to desire to have a child here, but also the right of Congress or the executive to shape law and regulations to suit their national priorities. Currently they are hostile to birth tourism. If you want different, talk to them. Please don't shoot the messenger.

    – Harper
    Feb 11 at 1:17






  • 1





    I do not think Congress has acted with respect to birth tourism. You are definitely correct that the President is hostile.

    – emory
    Feb 11 at 2:00






  • 5





    @emory Birth tourism in itself is not illegal however it is opportunism, shameful, gaming of the system and abuse when you don’t pay for the medical services with your own funds but take advantage of public funds you didn’t contribute any taxes to. At least that’s my opinion. It’s no surprise most countries have moved to end jus soli. Who says it is not the business of immigration to police it?

    – ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
    Feb 11 at 5:56








  • 2





    "[…] in the age of sailing ships and wagons for transport […] a pregnant woman coming to the US wasn't really possible." Why not? Did a ship really need 9 months to get to America from USA? And if so, is it really impossible to get pregnant on a sailing ship?

    – glglgl
    Feb 11 at 9:48
















20














Your wife's intentions are being confused.



They think she is here to give birth.



The US has had 243 years of continuous government. Most of its Constitution was written in the age of sailing ships and wagons for transport, when a pregnant woman coming to the US wasn't really possible. This was just after the Civil War, which ended (state sponsored) slavery. To settle the question and lock in citizenship for former slaves, they made the Constitution say that citizenship is granted to anyone who was on US soil when they were born. This is called jus soli.



They might not have gone with that decision today, when that Peculiar Institution is a distant memory and a pregnant woman can easily, safely get to the US in 1-3 days. The only reason it's still that way is that the Constitution is really hard to change. But the recent controversy may cause it.



Anyway, because of this old rule, many pregnant women enter the country specifically so they can give birth on US soil. They want to give their child the ”gift” of US citizenship. And US taxes.



After the child turns 21, he can apply for citizenship for his parents and other family members under current law (which is more easily changed, and is likely to be changed given current fervor about immigration). This creates the appearance of birth parents seeking citizenship for themselves also.



I'm sure this has nothing to do with your reasons, and perhaps this is the first time you're hearing of any of this. The upshot is:



Don't even create the appearance of "birth tourism"



Her situation is problematic.



She claims that flying is perfectly fine at 32 weeks (evidenced by the fact that she willingly did it). But now she claims that flying is not ok at 34 weeks. There are a couple problems with that latter claim. First, it contradicts the fact that she told immigration that was her plan!!! This has "deception" written all over it.



Second, it contradicts the fact that she booked the return trip that way, and started the trip knowing what the timing would be. So she changed her mind after clearing immigration. That makes it look like that was her plan all along.



And third, if she genuinely did just now develop this belief that flight after 34 weeks in unsafe, then why doesn't she move up her return date and leave immediately? Have the doctor squeeze her in first thing tomorrow morning, then be on a flight tomorrow afternoon... That would be most prudent, staying in a strange foreign country to use the most expensive healthcare in the world doesn't make a lot of sense on its face.



All these create the appearance of an ulterior motive, and a rather obvious one. And yes, there is no presumption of innocence in immigration; immigration is not a right.



So anyway, Immigration saw this coming a mile away. She would have been turned away immediately. She was only let in because Immigration saw a great deal of evidence in her favor, that her trip had other legitimate reasons, that she would be a reliable visitor and would keep her commitment. She earned that trust, clearly. But if she now stays, it will break that trust, making the deception even more serious. On top of that, she will have overstayed.



Immigration law calls for a lifetime ban for deception. Immigration will often reconsider after 10 years, but that's not required. Until the Constitution is changed, it will probably be Immigration's practice to make life as difficult as possible. Your future citizenship would be impossible because of deception. A constitutional amendment could even void the child's citizenship as the product of fraud. It would make a big mess.



Staying to have the baby is simply not an option. She needs to complete her travel plans ASAP.






share|improve this answer





















  • 4





    This answer contains some very wrong statement that must be challenged. Birth right citizenship was not part of the original constitution. Originally citizenship was defined entirely by the states as they felt, Birth right citizenship was added during Reconstruction. Some states were using so-called "grandfather clauses" - you are a citizen if both your grandparents were citizens. Your grandparents were slaves not citizens? You are not a citizen either. Birthright citizenship says even if your grandparents were born slaves, you are a citizen because you were born here.

    – emory
    Feb 11 at 0:51






  • 5





    @emory first part: good point. Edited. Second point: It is not illegal for a mother to desire to have a child here, but also the right of Congress or the executive to shape law and regulations to suit their national priorities. Currently they are hostile to birth tourism. If you want different, talk to them. Please don't shoot the messenger.

    – Harper
    Feb 11 at 1:17






  • 1





    I do not think Congress has acted with respect to birth tourism. You are definitely correct that the President is hostile.

    – emory
    Feb 11 at 2:00






  • 5





    @emory Birth tourism in itself is not illegal however it is opportunism, shameful, gaming of the system and abuse when you don’t pay for the medical services with your own funds but take advantage of public funds you didn’t contribute any taxes to. At least that’s my opinion. It’s no surprise most countries have moved to end jus soli. Who says it is not the business of immigration to police it?

    – ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
    Feb 11 at 5:56








  • 2





    "[…] in the age of sailing ships and wagons for transport […] a pregnant woman coming to the US wasn't really possible." Why not? Did a ship really need 9 months to get to America from USA? And if so, is it really impossible to get pregnant on a sailing ship?

    – glglgl
    Feb 11 at 9:48














20












20








20







Your wife's intentions are being confused.



They think she is here to give birth.



The US has had 243 years of continuous government. Most of its Constitution was written in the age of sailing ships and wagons for transport, when a pregnant woman coming to the US wasn't really possible. This was just after the Civil War, which ended (state sponsored) slavery. To settle the question and lock in citizenship for former slaves, they made the Constitution say that citizenship is granted to anyone who was on US soil when they were born. This is called jus soli.



They might not have gone with that decision today, when that Peculiar Institution is a distant memory and a pregnant woman can easily, safely get to the US in 1-3 days. The only reason it's still that way is that the Constitution is really hard to change. But the recent controversy may cause it.



Anyway, because of this old rule, many pregnant women enter the country specifically so they can give birth on US soil. They want to give their child the ”gift” of US citizenship. And US taxes.



After the child turns 21, he can apply for citizenship for his parents and other family members under current law (which is more easily changed, and is likely to be changed given current fervor about immigration). This creates the appearance of birth parents seeking citizenship for themselves also.



I'm sure this has nothing to do with your reasons, and perhaps this is the first time you're hearing of any of this. The upshot is:



Don't even create the appearance of "birth tourism"



Her situation is problematic.



She claims that flying is perfectly fine at 32 weeks (evidenced by the fact that she willingly did it). But now she claims that flying is not ok at 34 weeks. There are a couple problems with that latter claim. First, it contradicts the fact that she told immigration that was her plan!!! This has "deception" written all over it.



Second, it contradicts the fact that she booked the return trip that way, and started the trip knowing what the timing would be. So she changed her mind after clearing immigration. That makes it look like that was her plan all along.



And third, if she genuinely did just now develop this belief that flight after 34 weeks in unsafe, then why doesn't she move up her return date and leave immediately? Have the doctor squeeze her in first thing tomorrow morning, then be on a flight tomorrow afternoon... That would be most prudent, staying in a strange foreign country to use the most expensive healthcare in the world doesn't make a lot of sense on its face.



All these create the appearance of an ulterior motive, and a rather obvious one. And yes, there is no presumption of innocence in immigration; immigration is not a right.



So anyway, Immigration saw this coming a mile away. She would have been turned away immediately. She was only let in because Immigration saw a great deal of evidence in her favor, that her trip had other legitimate reasons, that she would be a reliable visitor and would keep her commitment. She earned that trust, clearly. But if she now stays, it will break that trust, making the deception even more serious. On top of that, she will have overstayed.



Immigration law calls for a lifetime ban for deception. Immigration will often reconsider after 10 years, but that's not required. Until the Constitution is changed, it will probably be Immigration's practice to make life as difficult as possible. Your future citizenship would be impossible because of deception. A constitutional amendment could even void the child's citizenship as the product of fraud. It would make a big mess.



Staying to have the baby is simply not an option. She needs to complete her travel plans ASAP.






share|improve this answer















Your wife's intentions are being confused.



They think she is here to give birth.



The US has had 243 years of continuous government. Most of its Constitution was written in the age of sailing ships and wagons for transport, when a pregnant woman coming to the US wasn't really possible. This was just after the Civil War, which ended (state sponsored) slavery. To settle the question and lock in citizenship for former slaves, they made the Constitution say that citizenship is granted to anyone who was on US soil when they were born. This is called jus soli.



They might not have gone with that decision today, when that Peculiar Institution is a distant memory and a pregnant woman can easily, safely get to the US in 1-3 days. The only reason it's still that way is that the Constitution is really hard to change. But the recent controversy may cause it.



Anyway, because of this old rule, many pregnant women enter the country specifically so they can give birth on US soil. They want to give their child the ”gift” of US citizenship. And US taxes.



After the child turns 21, he can apply for citizenship for his parents and other family members under current law (which is more easily changed, and is likely to be changed given current fervor about immigration). This creates the appearance of birth parents seeking citizenship for themselves also.



I'm sure this has nothing to do with your reasons, and perhaps this is the first time you're hearing of any of this. The upshot is:



Don't even create the appearance of "birth tourism"



Her situation is problematic.



She claims that flying is perfectly fine at 32 weeks (evidenced by the fact that she willingly did it). But now she claims that flying is not ok at 34 weeks. There are a couple problems with that latter claim. First, it contradicts the fact that she told immigration that was her plan!!! This has "deception" written all over it.



Second, it contradicts the fact that she booked the return trip that way, and started the trip knowing what the timing would be. So she changed her mind after clearing immigration. That makes it look like that was her plan all along.



And third, if she genuinely did just now develop this belief that flight after 34 weeks in unsafe, then why doesn't she move up her return date and leave immediately? Have the doctor squeeze her in first thing tomorrow morning, then be on a flight tomorrow afternoon... That would be most prudent, staying in a strange foreign country to use the most expensive healthcare in the world doesn't make a lot of sense on its face.



All these create the appearance of an ulterior motive, and a rather obvious one. And yes, there is no presumption of innocence in immigration; immigration is not a right.



So anyway, Immigration saw this coming a mile away. She would have been turned away immediately. She was only let in because Immigration saw a great deal of evidence in her favor, that her trip had other legitimate reasons, that she would be a reliable visitor and would keep her commitment. She earned that trust, clearly. But if she now stays, it will break that trust, making the deception even more serious. On top of that, she will have overstayed.



Immigration law calls for a lifetime ban for deception. Immigration will often reconsider after 10 years, but that's not required. Until the Constitution is changed, it will probably be Immigration's practice to make life as difficult as possible. Your future citizenship would be impossible because of deception. A constitutional amendment could even void the child's citizenship as the product of fraud. It would make a big mess.



Staying to have the baby is simply not an option. She needs to complete her travel plans ASAP.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Feb 11 at 17:03

























answered Feb 10 at 20:08









HarperHarper

12.6k32361




12.6k32361








  • 4





    This answer contains some very wrong statement that must be challenged. Birth right citizenship was not part of the original constitution. Originally citizenship was defined entirely by the states as they felt, Birth right citizenship was added during Reconstruction. Some states were using so-called "grandfather clauses" - you are a citizen if both your grandparents were citizens. Your grandparents were slaves not citizens? You are not a citizen either. Birthright citizenship says even if your grandparents were born slaves, you are a citizen because you were born here.

    – emory
    Feb 11 at 0:51






  • 5





    @emory first part: good point. Edited. Second point: It is not illegal for a mother to desire to have a child here, but also the right of Congress or the executive to shape law and regulations to suit their national priorities. Currently they are hostile to birth tourism. If you want different, talk to them. Please don't shoot the messenger.

    – Harper
    Feb 11 at 1:17






  • 1





    I do not think Congress has acted with respect to birth tourism. You are definitely correct that the President is hostile.

    – emory
    Feb 11 at 2:00






  • 5





    @emory Birth tourism in itself is not illegal however it is opportunism, shameful, gaming of the system and abuse when you don’t pay for the medical services with your own funds but take advantage of public funds you didn’t contribute any taxes to. At least that’s my opinion. It’s no surprise most countries have moved to end jus soli. Who says it is not the business of immigration to police it?

    – ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
    Feb 11 at 5:56








  • 2





    "[…] in the age of sailing ships and wagons for transport […] a pregnant woman coming to the US wasn't really possible." Why not? Did a ship really need 9 months to get to America from USA? And if so, is it really impossible to get pregnant on a sailing ship?

    – glglgl
    Feb 11 at 9:48














  • 4





    This answer contains some very wrong statement that must be challenged. Birth right citizenship was not part of the original constitution. Originally citizenship was defined entirely by the states as they felt, Birth right citizenship was added during Reconstruction. Some states were using so-called "grandfather clauses" - you are a citizen if both your grandparents were citizens. Your grandparents were slaves not citizens? You are not a citizen either. Birthright citizenship says even if your grandparents were born slaves, you are a citizen because you were born here.

    – emory
    Feb 11 at 0:51






  • 5





    @emory first part: good point. Edited. Second point: It is not illegal for a mother to desire to have a child here, but also the right of Congress or the executive to shape law and regulations to suit their national priorities. Currently they are hostile to birth tourism. If you want different, talk to them. Please don't shoot the messenger.

    – Harper
    Feb 11 at 1:17






  • 1





    I do not think Congress has acted with respect to birth tourism. You are definitely correct that the President is hostile.

    – emory
    Feb 11 at 2:00






  • 5





    @emory Birth tourism in itself is not illegal however it is opportunism, shameful, gaming of the system and abuse when you don’t pay for the medical services with your own funds but take advantage of public funds you didn’t contribute any taxes to. At least that’s my opinion. It’s no surprise most countries have moved to end jus soli. Who says it is not the business of immigration to police it?

    – ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
    Feb 11 at 5:56








  • 2





    "[…] in the age of sailing ships and wagons for transport […] a pregnant woman coming to the US wasn't really possible." Why not? Did a ship really need 9 months to get to America from USA? And if so, is it really impossible to get pregnant on a sailing ship?

    – glglgl
    Feb 11 at 9:48








4




4





This answer contains some very wrong statement that must be challenged. Birth right citizenship was not part of the original constitution. Originally citizenship was defined entirely by the states as they felt, Birth right citizenship was added during Reconstruction. Some states were using so-called "grandfather clauses" - you are a citizen if both your grandparents were citizens. Your grandparents were slaves not citizens? You are not a citizen either. Birthright citizenship says even if your grandparents were born slaves, you are a citizen because you were born here.

– emory
Feb 11 at 0:51





This answer contains some very wrong statement that must be challenged. Birth right citizenship was not part of the original constitution. Originally citizenship was defined entirely by the states as they felt, Birth right citizenship was added during Reconstruction. Some states were using so-called "grandfather clauses" - you are a citizen if both your grandparents were citizens. Your grandparents were slaves not citizens? You are not a citizen either. Birthright citizenship says even if your grandparents were born slaves, you are a citizen because you were born here.

– emory
Feb 11 at 0:51




5




5





@emory first part: good point. Edited. Second point: It is not illegal for a mother to desire to have a child here, but also the right of Congress or the executive to shape law and regulations to suit their national priorities. Currently they are hostile to birth tourism. If you want different, talk to them. Please don't shoot the messenger.

– Harper
Feb 11 at 1:17





@emory first part: good point. Edited. Second point: It is not illegal for a mother to desire to have a child here, but also the right of Congress or the executive to shape law and regulations to suit their national priorities. Currently they are hostile to birth tourism. If you want different, talk to them. Please don't shoot the messenger.

– Harper
Feb 11 at 1:17




1




1





I do not think Congress has acted with respect to birth tourism. You are definitely correct that the President is hostile.

– emory
Feb 11 at 2:00





I do not think Congress has acted with respect to birth tourism. You are definitely correct that the President is hostile.

– emory
Feb 11 at 2:00




5




5





@emory Birth tourism in itself is not illegal however it is opportunism, shameful, gaming of the system and abuse when you don’t pay for the medical services with your own funds but take advantage of public funds you didn’t contribute any taxes to. At least that’s my opinion. It’s no surprise most countries have moved to end jus soli. Who says it is not the business of immigration to police it?

– ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
Feb 11 at 5:56







@emory Birth tourism in itself is not illegal however it is opportunism, shameful, gaming of the system and abuse when you don’t pay for the medical services with your own funds but take advantage of public funds you didn’t contribute any taxes to. At least that’s my opinion. It’s no surprise most countries have moved to end jus soli. Who says it is not the business of immigration to police it?

– ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
Feb 11 at 5:56






2




2





"[…] in the age of sailing ships and wagons for transport […] a pregnant woman coming to the US wasn't really possible." Why not? Did a ship really need 9 months to get to America from USA? And if so, is it really impossible to get pregnant on a sailing ship?

– glglgl
Feb 11 at 9:48





"[…] in the age of sailing ships and wagons for transport […] a pregnant woman coming to the US wasn't really possible." Why not? Did a ship really need 9 months to get to America from USA? And if so, is it really impossible to get pregnant on a sailing ship?

– glglgl
Feb 11 at 9:48











3














On a sensitive matter such as this, you should talk to a qualified immigration professional and not rely on the advice of random strangers on the internet. That said here is my advice based on your description and response in the comments.



Congrats to your wife for being able to obtain entry into the US legally. Based on your description it appears that the immigration officer has stamped a No EOS/COS in your wife's passport, this means that the CBP officer believes that your wife shouldn't be allowed to extend here status or change your status.
The key here is that this is the opinion of the CBP agent and is not binding as the CBP agent isn't the authority when it comes to deciding whether someone should be allowed to extend their status of to change it. This is exclusively the domain of USCIS.



Based on the USCIS website, you need to meet the following conditions to apply for an extension of status -




  • You were lawfully admitted into the United States with a nonimmigrant
    visa

  • Your nonimmigrant visa status remains valid

  • You have not
    committed any crimes that make you ineligible for a visa

  • You have not
    violated the conditions of your admission

  • Your passport is valid and
    will remain valid for the duration of your stay


Assuming that these are true (Depends on if your wife's passport is valid and if she committed any crime during her stay, if not the other conditions will be valid till the date the CBP officer stamped on your passport or on her i94), she is eligible to file for a request to extend her stay by timely filing a form I-539.



Now that we've evaluated the legality, lets also hypothetically discuss the next steps. Do note that this again is my opinion and not legal advice. Based on the facts, it is evident that your wife entered the US to give birth (while this in itself isn't illegal) and to do so she lied to the CBP official. Given this when USCIS evaluates the application for extension it will most likely be denied, the only reason they would approve it it if your wife uncovered some information that was previously unknown to her; perhaps the baby is due prematurely or has a condition that she wasn't aware of; you will need a US Doctors letter explaining such circumstances.



What does work in your wife's favor is the time USCIS takes to process extension of stays and the fact that she will not accrue illegal presence until USCIS adjudicates her application. So if she was to file the paperwork timely and have the baby and leave the US before USCIS denies the petition she will have accrued no illegal presence.



This might still make it harder for her to seek admission to the US again nevertheless but she will not have done anything illegal strictly per the immigration law.



I wish you and your wife the very best and strongly urge you to consult an immigration attorney.






share|improve this answer



















  • 3





    +1 However note that it is only for a timely non frivolous application that one doesn’t accrue illegal presence. If her application to extend status is denied as frivolous (which is possible in this immigration environment) she would start accumulating illegal presence from the day her I94 expires. uscis.gov/news/news-releases/…

    – ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
    Feb 11 at 19:28


















3














On a sensitive matter such as this, you should talk to a qualified immigration professional and not rely on the advice of random strangers on the internet. That said here is my advice based on your description and response in the comments.



Congrats to your wife for being able to obtain entry into the US legally. Based on your description it appears that the immigration officer has stamped a No EOS/COS in your wife's passport, this means that the CBP officer believes that your wife shouldn't be allowed to extend here status or change your status.
The key here is that this is the opinion of the CBP agent and is not binding as the CBP agent isn't the authority when it comes to deciding whether someone should be allowed to extend their status of to change it. This is exclusively the domain of USCIS.



Based on the USCIS website, you need to meet the following conditions to apply for an extension of status -




  • You were lawfully admitted into the United States with a nonimmigrant
    visa

  • Your nonimmigrant visa status remains valid

  • You have not
    committed any crimes that make you ineligible for a visa

  • You have not
    violated the conditions of your admission

  • Your passport is valid and
    will remain valid for the duration of your stay


Assuming that these are true (Depends on if your wife's passport is valid and if she committed any crime during her stay, if not the other conditions will be valid till the date the CBP officer stamped on your passport or on her i94), she is eligible to file for a request to extend her stay by timely filing a form I-539.



Now that we've evaluated the legality, lets also hypothetically discuss the next steps. Do note that this again is my opinion and not legal advice. Based on the facts, it is evident that your wife entered the US to give birth (while this in itself isn't illegal) and to do so she lied to the CBP official. Given this when USCIS evaluates the application for extension it will most likely be denied, the only reason they would approve it it if your wife uncovered some information that was previously unknown to her; perhaps the baby is due prematurely or has a condition that she wasn't aware of; you will need a US Doctors letter explaining such circumstances.



What does work in your wife's favor is the time USCIS takes to process extension of stays and the fact that she will not accrue illegal presence until USCIS adjudicates her application. So if she was to file the paperwork timely and have the baby and leave the US before USCIS denies the petition she will have accrued no illegal presence.



This might still make it harder for her to seek admission to the US again nevertheless but she will not have done anything illegal strictly per the immigration law.



I wish you and your wife the very best and strongly urge you to consult an immigration attorney.






share|improve this answer



















  • 3





    +1 However note that it is only for a timely non frivolous application that one doesn’t accrue illegal presence. If her application to extend status is denied as frivolous (which is possible in this immigration environment) she would start accumulating illegal presence from the day her I94 expires. uscis.gov/news/news-releases/…

    – ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
    Feb 11 at 19:28
















3












3








3







On a sensitive matter such as this, you should talk to a qualified immigration professional and not rely on the advice of random strangers on the internet. That said here is my advice based on your description and response in the comments.



Congrats to your wife for being able to obtain entry into the US legally. Based on your description it appears that the immigration officer has stamped a No EOS/COS in your wife's passport, this means that the CBP officer believes that your wife shouldn't be allowed to extend here status or change your status.
The key here is that this is the opinion of the CBP agent and is not binding as the CBP agent isn't the authority when it comes to deciding whether someone should be allowed to extend their status of to change it. This is exclusively the domain of USCIS.



Based on the USCIS website, you need to meet the following conditions to apply for an extension of status -




  • You were lawfully admitted into the United States with a nonimmigrant
    visa

  • Your nonimmigrant visa status remains valid

  • You have not
    committed any crimes that make you ineligible for a visa

  • You have not
    violated the conditions of your admission

  • Your passport is valid and
    will remain valid for the duration of your stay


Assuming that these are true (Depends on if your wife's passport is valid and if she committed any crime during her stay, if not the other conditions will be valid till the date the CBP officer stamped on your passport or on her i94), she is eligible to file for a request to extend her stay by timely filing a form I-539.



Now that we've evaluated the legality, lets also hypothetically discuss the next steps. Do note that this again is my opinion and not legal advice. Based on the facts, it is evident that your wife entered the US to give birth (while this in itself isn't illegal) and to do so she lied to the CBP official. Given this when USCIS evaluates the application for extension it will most likely be denied, the only reason they would approve it it if your wife uncovered some information that was previously unknown to her; perhaps the baby is due prematurely or has a condition that she wasn't aware of; you will need a US Doctors letter explaining such circumstances.



What does work in your wife's favor is the time USCIS takes to process extension of stays and the fact that she will not accrue illegal presence until USCIS adjudicates her application. So if she was to file the paperwork timely and have the baby and leave the US before USCIS denies the petition she will have accrued no illegal presence.



This might still make it harder for her to seek admission to the US again nevertheless but she will not have done anything illegal strictly per the immigration law.



I wish you and your wife the very best and strongly urge you to consult an immigration attorney.






share|improve this answer













On a sensitive matter such as this, you should talk to a qualified immigration professional and not rely on the advice of random strangers on the internet. That said here is my advice based on your description and response in the comments.



Congrats to your wife for being able to obtain entry into the US legally. Based on your description it appears that the immigration officer has stamped a No EOS/COS in your wife's passport, this means that the CBP officer believes that your wife shouldn't be allowed to extend here status or change your status.
The key here is that this is the opinion of the CBP agent and is not binding as the CBP agent isn't the authority when it comes to deciding whether someone should be allowed to extend their status of to change it. This is exclusively the domain of USCIS.



Based on the USCIS website, you need to meet the following conditions to apply for an extension of status -




  • You were lawfully admitted into the United States with a nonimmigrant
    visa

  • Your nonimmigrant visa status remains valid

  • You have not
    committed any crimes that make you ineligible for a visa

  • You have not
    violated the conditions of your admission

  • Your passport is valid and
    will remain valid for the duration of your stay


Assuming that these are true (Depends on if your wife's passport is valid and if she committed any crime during her stay, if not the other conditions will be valid till the date the CBP officer stamped on your passport or on her i94), she is eligible to file for a request to extend her stay by timely filing a form I-539.



Now that we've evaluated the legality, lets also hypothetically discuss the next steps. Do note that this again is my opinion and not legal advice. Based on the facts, it is evident that your wife entered the US to give birth (while this in itself isn't illegal) and to do so she lied to the CBP official. Given this when USCIS evaluates the application for extension it will most likely be denied, the only reason they would approve it it if your wife uncovered some information that was previously unknown to her; perhaps the baby is due prematurely or has a condition that she wasn't aware of; you will need a US Doctors letter explaining such circumstances.



What does work in your wife's favor is the time USCIS takes to process extension of stays and the fact that she will not accrue illegal presence until USCIS adjudicates her application. So if she was to file the paperwork timely and have the baby and leave the US before USCIS denies the petition she will have accrued no illegal presence.



This might still make it harder for her to seek admission to the US again nevertheless but she will not have done anything illegal strictly per the immigration law.



I wish you and your wife the very best and strongly urge you to consult an immigration attorney.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Feb 11 at 18:46









nikhilnikhil

1,325716




1,325716








  • 3





    +1 However note that it is only for a timely non frivolous application that one doesn’t accrue illegal presence. If her application to extend status is denied as frivolous (which is possible in this immigration environment) she would start accumulating illegal presence from the day her I94 expires. uscis.gov/news/news-releases/…

    – ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
    Feb 11 at 19:28
















  • 3





    +1 However note that it is only for a timely non frivolous application that one doesn’t accrue illegal presence. If her application to extend status is denied as frivolous (which is possible in this immigration environment) she would start accumulating illegal presence from the day her I94 expires. uscis.gov/news/news-releases/…

    – ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
    Feb 11 at 19:28










3




3





+1 However note that it is only for a timely non frivolous application that one doesn’t accrue illegal presence. If her application to extend status is denied as frivolous (which is possible in this immigration environment) she would start accumulating illegal presence from the day her I94 expires. uscis.gov/news/news-releases/…

– ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
Feb 11 at 19:28







+1 However note that it is only for a timely non frivolous application that one doesn’t accrue illegal presence. If her application to extend status is denied as frivolous (which is possible in this immigration environment) she would start accumulating illegal presence from the day her I94 expires. uscis.gov/news/news-releases/…

– ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn
Feb 11 at 19:28




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Travel Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftravel.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f131902%2flimited-stay-but-difficult-to-travel%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Human spaceflight

Image
Human spaceflight From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "Space traveler" redirects here. For other uses, see Space traveler (disambiguation). @media all and (max-width:720px){.mw-parser-output .tmulti>.thumbinner{width:100%!important;max-width:none!important}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .tsingle{float:none!important;max-width:none!important;width:100%!important;text-align:center}} Apollo 11 crewmember Buzz Aldrin on the Moon, 1969 International Space Station crewmember Tracy Caldwell Dyson views the Earth, 2010 Space Shuttle Discovery heads into space with a crew aboard, STS-121 in 2006 Inside a space suit on the Canadarm, 1993 Human spaceflight (also referred to as crewed spaceflight or manned spaceflight ) is space travel with a crew or passengers aboard the spacecraft. Spacecraft carrying people may be operated directly, by human crew, or it may be e
Read more

Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

Image
0 1 What exactly does the error message beginning with E: mean? I assume it has to do with the file structure on Ubuntu-on-Windows, but what exactly? The following package was automatically installed and is no longer required: os-prober Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove it. The following extra packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 The following NEW packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 xmlstarlet 0 upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 435 kB of archives. After this operation, 1023 kB of additional disk space will be used. Get:1 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/main libxslt1.1 amd64 1.1.28-2build1 [145 kB] Get:2 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/universe xmlstarlet amd64 1.5.0-1 [290 kB]
Read more

File:DeusFollowingSea.jpg

Image
File:DeusFollowingSea.jpg From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search File File history File usage No higher resolution available. DeusFollowingSea.jpg ‎ (238 × 211 pixels, file size: 12 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg ) Summary [ edit ] Media data and Non-free use rationale Description Cover art of the Deus CD Following Sea Author or copyright owner Deus Source (WP:NFCC#4) rocksucker.co.uk Date of publication 2012 Use in article (WP:NFCC#7) Following Sea Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8) to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question. Not replaceable with free media because (WP:NFCC#1) n.a. Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3) Low res image used in infobox of the article on the album Respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2) n.a. Fair use Fair use of co
Read more