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

[Rufus2012 175]

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.

90 days is a really short time to plan a wedding (yes, I know, you wait a lot beforehand, but that 90 day window isn't known until the fiance arrives). I'm not sure about forcing a 365 day wait - in my case, I'm certain my fiance is the one for me and the sooner I get her on my health plan, etc, the better. I could also imagine some folks having religious customs which would preclude shacking up for a year and as much I'm not a fan of being too PC, I can sympathize - having to keep your fiance in a separate residence could be a huge financial burden for somebody.

Is 90 days too little to figure out if you can adapt to life in the US, but is 365 too many? From some of the horror stories you read here, it seems that if things unravel, they unravel very quickly, or years later. Perhaps it's like buying electronics, either it works forever, until planned obsolescence 3 years out, or is DOA.

[Peace be still 6]

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.

That's how I felt about the I751. It was for like 10yrs you will be held responsible for him/her. I love my hubby but it's crazy to do such a thing. I to struggle with the same situation although I do love him, it's always that voice in the back of your head.

[Ready to do it 101]

Well this is someone else's topic but I will answer your questions... 1) no I am not part of that 10%, but I am part of the 25% so I do pay my fair share, and 2) People that cannot afford children have no business having them. I can honestly tell you that it takes close to $1,000,000 to pay for a child from 0 thru 4 years of university. It can be with closer to $250,000 if you want to go to all public schools and can get university grants or financial aid. If someone doesn't believe they will be able to make at least an extra $250k to spend on the child's things alone, then they have no business having a child. Raising a child with less, when you factor in inflation etc, is simply foolish.

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?

[Rufus2012 175]

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?

There's the key difference, you are talking about children. While I can't speak for anyone else, I believe adults have obligations to society, but not children. They should be protected and cared for - it is in all our interests that this be the case.

One thing to consider is that only 53% of income earners in this country wind up paying income tax. This is frightening to me, everybody who can (and we argue about what constitutes "can" some other time) should have some skin in the game.

[Ready to do it 101]

The first 2-3 years is absolutely like raising a child (assuming the foreigner does not speak English and comes from a 3rd world country). Anyone who says differently is fooling themself.

Edited... I live in a big city, one of the top 10 in the US. I could see how things could be different and folks could adjust and be at full speed much faster in a small town or out in the country.

90 days is a really short time to plan a wedding (yes, I know, you wait a lot beforehand, but that 90 day window isn't known until the fiance arrives). I'm not sure about forcing a 365 day wait - in my case, I'm certain my fiance is the one for me and the sooner I get her on my health plan, etc, the better. I could also imagine some folks having religious customs which would preclude shacking up for a year and as much I'm not a fan of being too PC, I can sympathize - having to keep your fiance in a separate residence could be a huge financial burden for somebody.

Is 90 days too little to figure out if you can adapt to life in the US, but is 365 too many? From some of the horror stories you read here, it seems that if things unravel, they unravel very quickly, or years later. Perhaps it's like buying electronics, either it works forever, until planned obsolescence 3 years out, or is DOA.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Ready to do it

[MelissaAndJordan 5]

Well this is someone else's topic but I will answer your questions... 1) no I am not part of that 10%, but I am part of the 25% so I do pay my fair share, and 2) People that cannot afford children have no business having them. I can honestly tell you that it takes close to $1,000,000 to pay for a child from 0 thru 4 years of university. It can be with closer to $250,000 if you want to go to all public schools and can get university grants or financial aid. If someone doesn't believe they will be able to make at least an extra $250k to spend on the child's things alone, then they have no business having a child. Raising a child with less, when you factor in inflation etc, is simply foolish.

I am with you 100% that those that can't afford to support children shouldn't have them. But it happens... and they are here. The child didn't make that choice. The parent did. Do we punish them? Do we take away their parents? Do we not give the children food? Do we stop it before it happens and sterilize parents we think are unfit? What is the answer aside from welfare? I suggest the answer is not saying stop all social programs except for disability and SS, but perhaps put more into education and lets see what happens. Certainly that is not the only solution, but it's a start. Let's see if people make better decisions. My personal feeling is people shouldn't just criticize the current system but instead say "this is the problem" and "here is a reasonable solution". People should be given a reasonable opportunity for success.

[GringoD 33]

"what about the children who did not choose to be born into poverty?"

I think many of their parents are "fairing well" and are paid around $1,500.00 per child in the USA/Land of Entitlement and Welfare State.... Pays to have more children, if you are in the low income bracket. 4 children, $6K per month... for those who are not in a higher income level, they do what they consider 'pretty darn well' for themselves (and, their kids??)

Sick.

[Rufus2012 175]

The first 2-3 years is absolutely like raising a child

I somehow think my Armenian fiance is going to be the one making that claim in a few years about me. On the other hand, it will prepare her for dealing with our very likely crazy children.

[MelissaAndJordan 5]

There's the key difference, you are talking about children. While I can't speak for anyone else, I believe adults have obligations to society, but not children. They should be protected and cared for - it is in all our interests that this be the case.

One thing to consider is that only 53% of income earners in this country wind up paying income tax. This is frightening to me, everybody who can (and we argue about what constitutes "can" some other time) should have some skin in the game.

Ahhh... a 53%-er. (Not that I am a 99%-er)

Yes, everyone should have skin in the game. But, some of the lower level have a larger percentage of skin in the game than the upper level. And also, even with everyone putting skin in the game, those at the very bottom still wouldn't be able to make it. There is a fundamental problem with our minimum wage and tax code. It is what it is until someone decides to change it.

[MelissaAndJordan 5]

I somehow think my Armenian fiance is going to be the one making that claim in a few years about me. On the other hand, it will prepare her for dealing with our very likely crazy children.

LOL.

"what about the children who did not choose to be born into poverty?"

I think many of their parents are "fairing well" and are paid around $1,500.00 per child in the USA/Land of Entitlement and Welfare State.... Pays to have more children, if you are in the low income bracket. 4 children, $6K per month... for those who are not in a higher income level, they do what they consider 'pretty darn well' for themselves (and, their kids??)

Sick.

Parents may, on some occasions, be "fairing well". That doesn't mean the child is. How does the cycle stop?

[Rufus2012 175]

People should be given a reasonable opportunity for success.

While I'm not naive enough to think everything is fair and just, the US really is the land of opportunity. Unless you are born into an abusive, destructive situation, you can improve your lot in life. You may not become a millionaire, but things can get better if you use your head and are willing to put effort into it. Again, nothing is absolutely fair, and there are not guarantees, but most folks I know are better off than they were in the past, and better off than their parents.

Kids should be protected and cared for, but once you get to adulthood (and in my book that's 18, not 27 as Obamacare would have us think), you're on your own. Get busy living.

[Ready to do it 101]

I'd be all in favor of giving a tax credit to USC that make less than $40k/yr called "Credit for not having a kid." Give the USC half of what ever the credit is and put the other half in an account he/she can't touch until age 50? If he/she ever has a kid they lose all the money in the account, unless they made $40k+ the 3 previous years. The positives... it gives people a credit NOW for not having a kid when they can't afford it, it means there will be a lot less kids born into poverty, and it gives folks who do live on less than $40k/yr an opportunity to have a decent lump sum of savings at the age of 50... which is too old for a woman to bear a child. I said 50, even though a male could still have a kid (but I had to be fair).

In essence, instead of rewarding people for having kid after kid. Let's reward the poorer folks for NOT having kids.

I am with you 100% that those that can't afford to support children shouldn't have them. But it happens... and they are here. The child didn't make that choice. The parent did. Do we punish them? Do we take away their parents? Do we not give the children food? Do we stop it before it happens and sterilize parents we think are unfit? What is the answer aside from welfare? I suggest the answer is not saying stop all social programs except for disability and SS, but perhaps put more into education and lets see what happens. Certainly that is not the only solution, but it's a start. Let's see if people make better decisions. My personal feeling is people shouldn't just criticize the current system but instead say "this is the problem" and "here is a reasonable solution". People should be given a reasonable opportunity for success.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Ready to do it

[Rufus2012 175]

I'd be all in favor of giving a tax credit to USC that make less than $40k/yr called "Credit for not having a kid." Give the USC half of what ever the credit is and put the other half in an account he/she can't touch until age 50? If he/she ever has a kid they lose all the money in the account, unless they made $40k+ the 3 previous years. The positives... it gives people a credit NOW for not having a kid when they can't afford it, it means there will be a lot less kids born into poverty, and it gives folks who do live on less than $40k/yr an opportunity to have a decent lump sum of savings at the age of 50... which is too old for a woman to bear a child. I said 50, even though a male could still have a kid (but I had to be fair).

Wonderful, but what about maintaining the social security ponzi scheme? We need people to breed, how else will we ever retire?

[SuperDuper! 230]

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.

If you don't agree with the conditions of bringing a foreign bride into your life, then just go to match.com and get a plump, drama-free girlfriend with baggage there. It's as SIMPLE as that.....LOL!

[Ready to do it 101]

Let's get rid of all the ponzi schemes. I'm in my 40s and I'm not counting on it, but to be fair for those over 50 who are counting on it... how about we end all the wars and raise everyone's taxes .9%. I was thinking about 9-9-9. I think a .9% tax increase and no more wars would do the trick.

Wonderful, but what about maintaining the social security ponzi scheme? We need people to breed, how else will we ever retire?