Julies--
Have a great time at the wedding! We look forward to a detailed report.

Just eavesdropping. As a yankee, I'm unaware of U.S.immigration obstacles. But I'll take the comments at face value. Isn't it interesting that we have all these bureaucracies in the government, each having "mission statements" focusing their customer service to their constituency (us), and with results apparently far below those gained in the commercial world? Particularly since they're all apparently headed by appointees from the private world, who'd seemingly have some knowledge of better ways to achieve things. Doesn't seem to matter who's in office. Perhaps they have complexities and problems which are never publicized which lead to these behaviors which, in the private sector, would not be tolerated.

Julies - for a laugh, you really ought to rent a copy of the 1942 movie, "The Man Who Came to Dinner." It will give you a new perspective on hosts who find themselves responsible for guests with medical problems, and also (thinking of your son's forthcoming marriage) it has romance.

Walkinaround - 'free and open travel', "short leisure visit" - oh, my. You obviously don't have much experience with providing hospitality to people in your home who announce they're coming for a 'short visit.'

And three weeks after ringing my doorbell on a dark and stormy November night (no, I am not making that part up) and having demonstrated a hunger as ravenous as the roadrunner in the Bugs Bunny show, this man and his friend whom I had never laid eyes upon before or since (but who actually did turn out to have a nodding acquaintance with my sister) finally, finally left...

sue, huh?

julies said:

"paid a ton of money to our US immigration officials.--------
There are no live people to talk to, you are a number with no recourse, every little thing takes months, and every step is another $300."

I dispute this assertion. Would you care to elaborate on every little step that cost $300?

Today I attended a naturalization ceremony in Boston where a friend and 2,488 became American citizens. This friend had some difficulties but was EASILY able to make an appointment with a live person. You just go to the USCIS website to do so. The live person suggested talking with our US Representative and the problem was resolved by his staff.

BTW, The address for USCIS is:
ttps://infopass.uscis.gov/info_en.php

Sorry, dropped my H, the correct address is:

https://infopass.uscis.gov/info_en.php

walkinaround:

Not to worry, I was just having a little fun.

The question concerns countries that have various regulations because they wish to be a bit careful about who they take in as visitors, because they don't wish to find their hospitality possibly abused. I was having a little fun by 'empathizing' with these countries as someone who knows something about having one's hospitality abused.

You complained that countries were too tough on visitors who just wanted to come for a short visit. I was pointing out that if the case for countries is as it is for people's private homes, then most of those visitors who do end up abusing their entry will be those who got in by insisting they were just coming for a short visit. (My three-week visitors were supposed to stay all of two days....)

Well, jsmith you asked, so here is what I can recall of the sequence so far. I have probably forgotten some things.

1st there is the application and the fees for the fiancee visa. That took from Feb. to Nov. It entailed an overnight visit to Poland for the interview because Lithuania has no US embassy. She had to present forms from her local police department stating that she had no criminal record. There was also a requirement that a physical be performed by a US approved physician (and the results in a sealed envelope couldn't be looked at until in the presence of an embassy official). They chose to be married by a judge here in the US because it makes the process easier than for those who have been married abroad; those couples usually have a separation of at least 9 months while they wait for the paperwork to be processed.

Then after the marriage here was certified as offical, there were the forms to fill out and the fee to pay to apply for a change of status from fiancee to wife. There were additional forms and fees to apply for a work authorization. Then the announcement came to report for "biometrics", which I discovered means fingerprinting. We're lucky because we live in a major metropolitan area with the offices here. Those who don't often have to travel several hours or more in order to get this done. Next in the process there is also the required interview at the immigration offices here in the US. A form comes in the mail telling the immigrant and her husband to appear at such and such a date and time. There is no choice about when, and if it's during work hours, then just take the day off and come to the office. When my daughter-in-law and son went for the interview they discovered that our immigration service had lost all of her medical information (it was taken by immigration officials when she entered the country). So, she needed to go to another US approved doctor here in the US and have all of the medical examinations done again at her expense.

The work authorization only took about 3 months to be approved. But, the change of status took a year. If the change of status is not yet approved, and the immigrant wants to go home to visit, she can apply for Parole; this is more paperwork and costs an additional $180. I am certain I forgot some of the steps in the sequence (each of which involves another fee), and I won't even go into all the hassles involved in something as simple as just trying to get a driver's license because that is the state and not the federal bureacracy.

What I am trying to say is that this is a very, very long and confusing process. Just try reading all the legalese on the INS (can't remember what the new name is) website. We are all at least college graduates, my daughter-in-law is fluent in English so she doesn't have language issues, and we were still confused by the process. I can't imagine how difficult all this must be for those who are uneducated, don't have advocates here speaking for them, and who aren't fluent in English. I think perhaps most Americans do not realize how difficult the actual immigration process is. I also see why most people automatically hire an immigration attorney. So, it's great that you just went to the naturalization ceremony, but it was a long and confusing process for those people to get to that point. Perhaps the friend in Boston was easily able to make an appointment with a real person, but that isn't what happens here in Minneapolis. And, the one time they did manage to get an appointment with a real person because they wondered why the process was taking so long, that person gave them totally inaccurate information.

julies, in that my SIL went through the whole process and cost you described I competely understand. And don't forget the fees of the immigration attorney. To get the proper documentation in the legal manner is so stressful, time consuming and expensive.

"She had to present forms from her local police department stating that she had no criminal record. There was also a requirement that a physical be performed by a US approved physician (and the results in a sealed envelope couldn't be looked at until in the presence of an embassy official)."

I think it reasonable to expect an immigrant not to have a criminal record and not to have a disease like TB, an STD, Aids etc.

I'm sorry you feel it onerous to have to take time off from work for an interview. Tough. Most of us have to do that to visit our dentist, doctor, lawyer.

Please, don't tell me and others how difficult it is to make an appointment, the website spells out how to do it and you just keep trying until you find an appropriate date and time.

It wasn't easy for my friend which is why she called her congressman for assistance.

Well, unless it's aan emergency, I do have a choice as to when I schedule doctor, dentist appointments etc.

Why should this be such an onerous process that people have to have a congressperson intervene? Doesn't this say something is wrong with the entire process? And, a congressperson certainly can't intervene in every single immigration case.

I think the proces is s/w difffernet for a fiance/spouse visa than to become a citizen - to become a citizen one has to have a green card already. Althought that process is difficult and onerous etc etc, once you HAVE the green card, there's not a cloud of suspicion about why you want to become a citizen.

With a fiance/spouse VISA, this is the FIRST step in the process and it IS confusing and expensive and it is REALLY hard to talk to someone. the asusmption is that you are lying about your REAL reasons for getting married.

Well actually I wasn't commenting on the problems of immigrating to the USA - most first world countries manage to turn this into a Kafkaesque nightmare.

I was was referring to the way that US immigration officials treat holiday makers and business travellers. They are dreadful. I know lots of people who like to holiday in the US and are now reconsidering it as it has just become too much grief.

It's all wrapped up under the blanket of "homeland security", but to be honest it's just a symptom of what happens when any bunch of tuppeny tossers get complete freedom - they go power mad.

I suspect that most Americans aren't aware of this as you aren't treated as others are (and frankly I suspect that we white Europeans have no idea what people from the likes of Pakistan or N Africa go through).

In all honesty I'm not trying to score a point here. It's just that The USA is actively putting up obstacles to entry to harmless tourists etc.

In accepting someone as a citizen, a country is taking on someone for whom there will be a lifetime of responsibilities on both sides.

In short, in becoming a citizen, one is getting married to an entire nation of people.

Put this way, one can better appreciate the challenges faced by governments. Presumably we spend at least $300 and not a few interviews (including broken dates, etc.) before deciding on our private, personal marriages: why should citizenship be any less careful a consideration on both sides?

When we go through the process of selecting a mate, we know that sometimes we accept people who later turn out to be incompatible; yet, once a government grants citizenship, this can only be revoked by the individual. Outside of criminal incarceration, for which time some rights are suspended, I've never heard of a government being able to change its mind about a citizen (or even a non-citizen, it seems, in the case of at least 11 million people in the U.S.) Any prospective 'divorce' is one way. Think of your own marriages - imagine if only your spouse had the option of breaking the agreement, whereas you were bound for life. Would tend to make you a bit jittery about the whole exercise, wouldn't it?

Equally, when we go through courtship, we might have the suspicion we turned down prospective suitors who would have been worth at least investigating further. Why is it so hard to understand that governments might make the same mistakes?

Governments are not infrequently accused of being impersonal - even when and perhaps especially when they show signs of being run by all too human beings.

Very good analogy, Sue-xx-yy.

Julies said "unless it's an emergency, I do have a choice as to when I schedule doctor, dentist appointments etc."

This quote from the directions on the USCIS Infopass site allows the same choice:

Step 6: Choose a date and time for your appointment. If you do not find an available appointment at a time that is convenient for you, feel free to check the InfoPass appointment schedule periodically. New appointments are added to the schedule each business day.

Like myself, my son has dual citizenship (US and Brazilian), and was getting ready to move back to the States with his wife, a Brazilian with a B.A. in English Literature. He had recently finished Law School here and had everything arranged to go to work in the Legal Department at Ford Motor Company in Detroit. However, it was so difficult to get a permanent visa for his wife to move to the US with him that they finally gave up. He passed a civil service text here and is now happily working for the Federal Labour Courts and she is teaching High School English...

I don't know what axe some posters have to grind about what seems to be a legit complaint abot the foreign spouse/fiancee process - but the infopass site is NOT for people who are first petitioning to have their fiancee enter the US. The fiance/spouse process is very cumbersome - and the infopass site is for people who already are IN the process to live here legally and need to make an appointment.

it's unfortunate the the OP's original problem got lost in tangential rants about US homeland security and immigration policies.

this doesn't even effect me as i'm from the EU but a trend to require insurances of different sorts is a bad trend (if it indeed becomes a trend).

insurance can be extremely complicated and this lithuanian reg states that ALL hospitalisation must be covered as well as ALL medical bills. there is no such policy that exists. what if i have a medical condition that is excluded from coverage?

i wouldn't want to have to check a library of complex regs for different countries (if this expands) and carry insurance policies everywhere i go....then have my policies analysed by immigration officers and hope that my insurance passes the stated requirement that no policy will pass as the reg is stated.

nor do i wish to be hit up to buy insurance when entering a country. again, what about those of us with health conditions...do we need to worry about being "insurable" every time we take a long weekend in a different country?

i cannot see how this is a positive thing for travellers.

I take your point about insurance policies being complicated and no policy existing that covers virtually all conditions. However, the same is true for many state-administered 'free' policies for their citizens. Such policies don't necessarily cover everything either, including ambulance bills, say, or 'elective' surgery. A state's policy may rule that virtually all surgery that might be required by those who 'elect' to travel to said state constitutes elective surgery. Consequently, the insurer (the state) may wish to see proof of other insurance being available in advance of any problem arising. It is a problem - and they don't want it to be their problem. So, by default, we are the lucky (!) winners of said problem.

The best thing is to find an insurance carrier who knows of the Lithuanian rule and who would be able to inform you if they have a policy to suit your specific requirements. This is no different from researching auto insurance policies, for which a special rider is sometimes needed if you want to drive a car into Eastern Europe. That responsibility, too, may be cumbersome for us as travellers to assume but it is a reality.

People ask why things are made so difficult for the casual or leisure traveller, or for someone's spouse or mother or whomever. However, such questions reflect rather unrealistic expectations of which party gets to supply the definition of casual or leisure travel, or genuine (as in the case of genuine spouse) etc. Obviously it would be most convenient and less cumbersome for the traveller or visa/immigration applicant if we got to make the definitions, but that amounts to a state's surrendering sovereignty to whomsoever approaches their borders. Since nothing short of outright warfare has been fought, and still is fought, as a rule, over border sovereignty, we should expect some resistance , even cumbersome resistance, to this expectation.

I can imagine some reasons why states do not necessarily accept length of stay, let alone the traveller's word on their intended length of stay, as proof that theirs is but a 'casual' trip to accomodate this or that reason (leisure, family visit, whatever.) If I earn minimum wage (around here that would be about $15,000 p.a. for a 40 hour work week) then for me to undertake a trip that involves expenses, including airfare, that amounts to a significant percentage of my net income p.a., then such trip can arguably be said not to be a casual trip for me to take, even it is only of a few days duration.

In sum, the better we try to know the point of view of a state (which needn't amount to approving that point of view) the better able we are to predict how their officials are going to behave at the borders. This can only be to our benefit.