Should the 90 days time limit to get married extended to 365 days?

[TerriandEric 4]

I voted No because as so many said before me -- if you are not sure then you shouldn't be filing.

[Saska+Tim 7]

I voted No because as so many said before me -- if you are not sure then you shouldn't be filing.

[~ameriptian~ 54]

I voted yes, but I think 6 months is more appropriate...primarily so that it gives a person the opportunity for a wedding of their liking. Yes its possible to plan a wedding in 90 days, yes its possible to hold off using the visa to get more time to plan but its not the most ideal situation.

[mounir and suzie 0]

Should the 90 days time limit to get married extended to 365 days?

I think it should get changed, so both person can live with each other for at least a year, before getting married.

But SSN and Work permit should be issued for this period of time so the beneficiary can work and pay taxes.

i voted no , i do believe once you felt in love and get this warm feeling who God send to your heart then you decide to engaged that means you want to marry fast cause no doubt you wanna spend the rest of your life with your love.

[almaty 19]

90 days is enuff...

[toma1 10]

I voted yes, but I'm Libertarian and think that there should be a SO visa.

[Gemmie 142]

I voted yes, but I'm Libertarian and think that there should be a SO visa.

Being liberal has nothing to do with it. While I would like to agree that there SHOULD be a SO visa, think about the trouble it would cause; fraud would go up (as it's easy to claim a romantic relationship when one doesn't exist), and the legal aspect would be gone. We don't have any "break-up decree"... what happens if it doesn't work out and the foreigner wishes to stay in the US? Should they then be treated as the divorcees and have the advantage of staying? Then it invites homosexual relationships to come into question, moreso than it already is. It would get ridiculous.

I voted no, because the US can't go around handing out APs and EADs to anyone that wishes to come in and "test" their relationship. 90 days might be a rush to plan a wedding, but a YEAR? No way.

Edited December 6, 2009 by Gemmie

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think that a year deadline would amount to a "girlfriend" visa, in a way.

Yep. We're fortunate to even have a fiancee Visa (K-1), which was probably a concession to those couples who were going to get married but wanted the opportunity to marry inside the U.S.. Also, keep in mind the K-1 is a non-immigrant Visa, much like a tourist Visa, which is why you are required to adjust status before you can legally work (with the exception of a temporary work permit).

[toma1 10]

I voted yes, but I'm Libertarian and think that there should be a SO visa.

Being liberal has nothing to do with it. While I would like to agree that there SHOULD be a SO visa, think about the trouble it would cause; fraud would go up (as it's easy to claim a romantic relationship when one doesn't exist), and the legal aspect would be gone. We don't have any "break-up decree"... what happens if it doesn't work out and the foreigner wishes to stay in the US? Should they then be treated as the divorcees and have the advantage of staying? Then it invites homosexual relationships to come into question, moreso than it already is. It would get ridiculous.

I voted no, because the US can't go around handing out APs and EADs to anyone that wishes to come in and "test" their relationship. 90 days might be a rush to plan a wedding, but a YEAR? No way.

libertarian ≠ liberal

A lot of people confuse the terms because they sound similar, and I don't really have time to give you a primer on libertarianism. (How would you explain what "Republican" means to someone that confused "Republican" with, say, "republic" or "Democrat" with "democracy". You'd have a LOT of explaining to do, right? The wikipedia article on libertarianism is decent.) Suffice it to say that I support MUCH, MUCH more legal immigration than we currently allow, so letting former SOs stay would be ok with me. Also, I would support visas for gay SOs as well, so no issue there either. I suppose that sounds "liberal", so hit up the wikipedia article and hopefully you'll see the difference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

[SuperDuper! 230]

I bet if the K1 rules allowed only 30 days to get married, people here would now say 90 days is too many allowed. Maybe we should have 270 days to get married.

[Aubrey 10]

I also said no. I think 90 days is a bit short for planning (think of the foreigners' family wanting to see the wedding, too?), but 365 is far too long. I think 6 months would be better. Then again, I couldn't have waited 6 months, because that's 6 months more of no EAD. (blech)

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Wouldn't a libertarian want no visas what so ever? IE open borders with no governmental involvement?

[toma1 10]

Wouldn't a libertarian want no visas what so ever? IE open borders with no governmental involvement?

Other than criminal background checks, generally speaking, yes. But realistically, you take what you can get.

[Rob and Jill 82]

I think it should get changed, so both person can live with each other for at least a year, before getting married.

I do not think it should be changed for this reason alone. "Playing house" is not the same thing as having a bonafide relationship. Living together gives you an easy "get out of jail free card" and does not make it more likely for people in the relationship to work out their issues. Get married or don't. Make the commimentment or don't!

(I am not aiming that personally at you, just because I quoted you.)

However, I think a little more than 90 days would be nice for those who don't want to have a shot gun wedding! It makes me all jkinds of twitchy to try and think of a way to plan a wedding on such short notice!

[JVKn'CVO 11]

No. You are being allowed to immigrate based on family ties. Family being the key word

I voted no. If you are not ready to get married; then don't apply.

Saludos,

Caro