who in their right mind would sign the I-864????

[Rufus2012 175]

PS. Canadian health care is free below a certain income. Above that level it is heavily subsidized.

Subsidized how? By somebody who is producing, and have the fruits of their labors confiscated by the government. It may be free to an individual here or there, but everybody is paying for it, directly or indirectly.

[Rufus2012 175]

This form is NOT designed around popularity, it is likely due to all the mistakes made by horny men who think their girl friend is coming here only to rock thier world, and when the men realize, that wasnt thier intention, they feel they can dump em off to the American Taxpayers...

That's rich. Great observation, do you have any other bigoted opinions about why things are they way they are? Imagine someone making comments about social policy being the result of poor choices women make, everybody would criticizing such a statement. Sexist ####### like this just slides by.

[kennym 275]

That's rich. Great observation, do you have any other bigoted opinions about why things are they way they are? Imagine someone making comments about social policy being the result of poor choices women make, everybody would criticizing such a statement. Sexist ####### like this just slides by.

Dont get uptight.. it's only an example..

The point is, people petitioning for someone, needs to take responsibilty for their actions whether it works out or whether it doesnt..

I'm a man, and while working in south america, I met plenty guys who were looking for a "good time" they absoulutely fell in that category.. Your insults are naive and you're getting way to worked up for nothing.. It may have been a poor way to deliver a point, but that's why I dont work for CNN...

It is simply not the responsibilty of American Taxpayers, to take care of a person who the Petitioner decided wasn't the right person for them or the beneficiary felt it wasnt working for WHATEVER Reason.. the place to decide the relationship is going to work is before the arrive.. and then, if it still fails, then it's the USC's responsibilty..

Before you throw insults around, try to get the point and consider not everyone delivers things the way you would...

[GringoD 33]

A good Ukrainian woman can make you forget about all this anyway

you know any??

That's right!

Or, a great colombian woman who loves you more than anyone else possibly Could/Would/Should! lol

Edited October 17, 2011 by GringoD

[kennym 275]

That's right!

Or, a great colombian woman who loves you more than anyone else possibly Could/Would/Should! lol

True Story

[Rufus2012 175]

It is simply not the responsibilty of American Taxpayers, to take care of a person who the Petitioner decided wasn't the right person for them or the beneficiary felt it wasnt working for WHATEVER Reason.. the place to decide the relationship is going to work is before the arrive.. and then, if it still fails, then it's the USC's responsibilty..

Before you throw insults around, try to get the point and consider not everyone delivers things the way you would...

Fair enough, I should have spent a bit more time digesting what you were trying to say. Sorry to offend you.

It does bring up an interesting question for me though. Our government insists no one comes here without a sponsor who can cover their bills. Okay, I get that (whether it's because of horny guys making mistakes, well, we can discuss that over a beer someday). However, we seem to make no similar requirements of our citizens. We don't demand that people work and contribute. We have a lot of folks who are doing nothing and not pulling their weight (I'm not talking about those who genuinely can't work or have been unemployed yet looking for something in a bad economy).

It seems like we should hold our natural born citizens to the same standards as immigrants, no?

[Ready to do it 101]

But this form doesn't solve that problem. If someone makes $18k/yr and sponsors someone, get's divorced, and then the beneficiary has some $13k+/yr problem for the rest of their life... then what? The $18k/yr petitioner gives up $13k/yr to the government to pay for the beneficiary's issue and then lives on $5k/yr. I can only imagine that means the petitioner then will be getting every social program under the sun... food stamps, free medical, etc... so it's still the American tax payer on the hook.

The solution would be to a) require the beneficiary to go back to their country (perhaps with a stipend the government requires the USC to put into some sort of escrow account up front... which ultimately means folks that make $18k/yr probably won't be sponsoring anyone, b) raise the sponsorship limits to at least $50k/yr, c) no welfare benefits for the beneficiary EVER nor for the petitioner for at least 10 years, or d) some sort of combination of a, b, and c. This would stop folks that really can't afford bringing a foreign fiance or spouse, and it would better ensure the US taxpayer isn't going to be on the hook for a failed marriage between a USC and a foreigner. At the end of the day 50% of all marriages fail. Over 50% of the marriages on this board pertain to folks needing a sponsor or worried that they are very close to the 125% poverty line. OVER 50%!!! More than half of those marriages are going to fail, and means tested benefits are going to be received by most if not all of those beneficiaries as well as the USC. This form does absolutely nothing to guarantee the US taxpayer won't be picking up the tab. There are much better ways to ensure that because the I-864 aint it.

Even in situations regarding folks who make a 6-figure income, the I-864 is foolish. At that point there is a judge in divorce court that determines the future alimony and division of assets. Why should a rich USC male or female be on the hook if a fiance goes crazy 5 years down the line. He/she got her money in divorce court, and by having such a foolish document he/she can purposely become a public burden simply to get back at the ex-spouse for life. This is where no means tested benefits EVER for beneficaries should come it.

The I-864 is surely a very foolish document both for the poor USC and the rich USC.

It is simply not the responsibilty of American Taxpayers, to take care of a person who the Petitioner decided wasn't the right person for them or the beneficiary felt it wasnt working for WHATEVER Reason.. the place to decide the relationship is going to work is before the arrive.. and then, if it still fails, then it's the USC's responsibilty..

Edited October 17, 2011 by Ready to do it

[GringoD 33]

What's one more colombiana, in the midst of MILLIONS DE MEJICANAS ILEGALES?

en bromita,... I constantly plead with my colombiana: comenza caminar en lado de la playa! por estar aqui mas rapido! ( Obama gusta las ilegales! lol)

Edited October 17, 2011 by GringoD

[kennym 275]

It seems like we should hold our natural born citizens to the same standards as immigrants, no?

I don't know how they could make laws over that... It would be a serious violation of our rights to say; you cant be a drain on society if you're a US Citizen..

However...

The US Goverment, can limit those coming in from outside the US who aren't USC's... That's what the 864 attempts to address... If you're sponsering someone, they make the sponser responsible...

I think it's reasonable.. on the surface..

the only issue I have is that, I think it's kind of sad that in order to be with the one you love, you have to qualify...

I get both sides of the arguement...

[Rufus2012 175]

The solution would be to a) require the beneficiary to go back to their country (perhaps with a stipend the government requires the USC to put into some sort of escrow account up front...

You raise some interesting points. However, I think deporting the beneficiary in the event of a failed marriage makes them vulnerable to an abusive SOB. Ok, you say, well if there is abuse, then no deportation if they get divorced. Then you make the petitioner vulnerable to false allegations of abuse by a vindictive spouse who will do anything to stay. The system currently lets people do AOS if divorced as long as they can show they entered the marriage in good faith. That's probably the most humane compromise, but yes, that does leave the question of who pays the bills.

What if you dial down the I-864 requirements somewhat, and also have some requirements for the beneficiary? Perhaps they should have some education or credentials, or work experience which would suggest that they could be financially independent were the marriage to fail. That's a difficult thing to assess, however, but perhaps no more difficult than whether a marriage is genuine. And even then, there are plenty of people with no credentials, no significant education and no demonstrable work skills who have been very successful financially, so what then?

So, it really comes down to the petitioner. We place what is arguably a heavy burden on them, and if it forces a few of them to think it through and decide against getting married to someone they don't really trust, I guess that's the best we can hope for. Choose your spouse wisely, and sign with reckless abandon.

[Ready to do it 101]

Why? Why should anyone get means tested benefits? The people that get them don't pay for them? I strongly disagree with every social program out there, other than disability. Seriously, other than disability and SS every person who gets any other sort of social benefit does not pay for them. One could argue that the top 10% pay the taxes for every single means tested benefit out there. One could also argue that the bottom 60% doesn't even pay enough taxes to pay for the roads they drive on. I see no violation of rights to take social benefits away from USC. In fact, I feel it is more a violation of the rights of the "real taxpayers... the people in the top 25%" to force them to pay for other people's welfare benefits.

I don't know how they could make laws over that... It would be a serious violation of our rights to say; you cant be a drain on society if you're a US Citizen..

[kennym 275]

So, it really comes down to the petitioner. We place what is arguably a heavy burden on them, and if it forces a few of them to think it through and decide against getting married to someone they don't really trust, I guess that's the best we can hope for. Choose your spouse wisely, and sign with reckless abandon.

Absolutely agree.. I wonder why my point doesnt come across so well...

Why? Why should anyone get means tested benefits? The people that get them don't pay for them? I strongly disagree with every social program out there, other than disability. Seriously, other than disability and SS every person who gets any other sort of social benefit does not pay for them. One could argue that the top 10% pay the taxes for every single means tested benefit out there. One could also argue that the bottom 60% doesn't even pay enough taxes to pay for the roads they drive on. I see no violation of rights to take social benefits away from USC. In fact, I feel it is more a violation of the rights of the "real taxpayers... the people in the top 25%" to force them to pay for other people's welfare benefits.

I may agree with you, but it isnt the point here or the topic...

Focus grasshopper...

[Ready to do it 101]

Well instead of forcing a couple to marry in 90 days, I think they should require a couple to WAIT 365 days before they can get married. That would certainly help clear out folks who had no business marrying. The reality is many foreigners won't be able to adjust to life in the US, and foreigners who are thrown into a life of poverty in the US (people barely making ends meat). Require folks to wait 365 days and then give them the 90 day requirement to marry or go back. It would make a heck of a lot more sense. Yes, I know the fiance visa isn't for 2 people to test the waters. Well, life isn't easy for a lot of folks and beneficiaries don't have any idea what they are getting into with a move to the US. The Visa would be better suited and relationships would stand a better chance to succeed if folks were given the opportunity to adjust to life in the US and were required to live with their future spouse for a year before they could tie the knot.

You raise some interesting points. However, I think deporting the beneficiary in the event of a failed marriage makes them vulnerable to an abusive SOB. Ok, you say, well if there is abuse, then no deportation if they get divorced. Then you make the petitioner vulnerable to false allegations of abuse by a vindictive spouse who will do anything to stay. The system currently lets people do AOS if divorced as long as they can show they entered the marriage in good faith. That's probably the most humane compromise, but yes, that does leave the question of who pays the bills.

What if you dial down the I-864 requirements somewhat, and also have some requirements for the beneficiary? Perhaps they should have some education or credentials, or work experience which would suggest that they could be financially independent were the marriage to fail. That's a difficult thing to assess, however, but perhaps no more difficult than whether a marriage is genuine. And even then, there are plenty of people with no credentials, no significant education and no demonstrable work skills who have been very successful financially, so what then?

So, it really comes down to the petitioner. We place what is arguably a heavy burden on them, and if it forces a few of them to think it through and decide against getting married to someone they don't really trust, I guess that's the best we can hope for. Choose your spouse wisely, and sign with reckless abandon.

[MelissaAndJordan 5]

I'm just baffled by this I-864 Affidavit of Support. This is insane. The govt must be astounded that there are any legal immigrants into America! Who are the financial suicide volunteers who are signing these papers? Would you marry someone and sign a pre-nupt that says: "If you are ever divorced that you will pay ex-spouse $13,000 MINIMUM for the rest of their lives, and have additional liabilities with the govt? No one would get married. I mean the sponsor is putting himself / herself at a complete disadvantage. It's giving your spouse a loaded gun and saying, okay honey, when we have an argument, let's try to forget that you are holding a loaded gun. And yet people sign this form.

I am baffled. Am I missing something here?

I was going to try to bring a fiance here to the USA, but after reading this form....I'm utterly floored. This can't be right.

We aren't in our "right" minds... we are in love. That said, my understanding is that the affidavit in not valid once the spouse becomes a citizen. I understand that going through a divorce is hard. Building trust with someone new after going through that can be difficult, to say the least. As the others have said, if you aren't willing to put your complete trust in someone and to truly believe that you will be with them for the rest of your life, then perhaps you are not ready for engagement. Take some more time and build that trust up.

[MelissaAndJordan 5]

Why? Why should anyone get means tested benefits? The people that get them don't pay for them? I strongly disagree with every social program out there, other than disability. Seriously, other than disability and SS every person who gets any other sort of social benefit does not pay for them. One could argue that the top 10% pay the taxes for every single means tested benefit out there. One could also argue that the bottom 60% doesn't even pay enough taxes to pay for the roads they drive on. I see no violation of rights to take social benefits away from USC. In fact, I feel it is more a violation of the rights of the "real taxpayers... the people in the top 25%" to force them to pay for other people's welfare benefits.

BUT.. What about children who did not choose to be born into poverty and survive only from government assistance? I just do not understand when it became acceptable to not want to take care of our fellow human being. And, are you really part of that 10% that you should even be making this argument?

Edited October 17, 2011 by MelissaAndJordan