What are my responsibilities ..,.,., NOW???

[TBoneTX 43,059]

Cary you are so dead wrong it is not even funny. [...] Get for facts right before posting on here. Half of your posts have incorrect information.

For the record, Caryh's posts (in any forum, on any subject) are typically among the most level-headed, informed, and accurate on VisaJourney. Please avoid making an accusation such as "half of your posts have incorrect information" unless you have precise data to back it up.

TBoneTX

VJ Moderation

[d3adc0d3 186]

Actually he is still responsible. But to sponsor someone to immigrate into the USA, they need to also file an I-864, which means they have income to qualify, and although the signer of the I-864 is still responsible for them, they are not using support from that person if they're over the 125% mark.

At the time, no... But they could end up responsible for her if she loses her job and needs welfare after she's married, correct?

[Caryh 5,206]

At the time, no... But they could end up responsible for her if she loses her job and needs welfare after she's married, correct?

They certainly could. The I-864 is pretty clear on what gets the sponsor off the hook, and the beneficiary becoming a sponsor themselves, isn't one of the ways to get out of it. I never thought about this before, but it certainly is a rather ugly scenario. You sponsor a spouse or fiancee, then divorce, and the immigrant sponsors a spouse and goes on the public dole afterwards. You would not be responsible for any spouse or child of their's at least. Still it would really feel wrong if you're paying back money because they had a kid or two and found living on the public dole was easier than working for a living. Know who you sponsor, is all I can say.

[d3adc0d3 186]

They certainly could. The I-864 is pretty clear on what gets the sponsor off the hook, and the beneficiary becoming a sponsor themselves, isn't one of the ways to get out of it. I never thought about this before, but it certainly is a rather ugly scenario. You sponsor a spouse or fiancee, then divorce, and the immigrant sponsors a spouse and goes on the public dole afterwards. You would not be responsible for any spouse or child of their's at least. Still it would really feel wrong if you're paying back money because they had a kid or two and found living on the public dole was easier than working for a living. Know who you sponsor, is all I can say.

Yes it is, call me the devil's advocate if you may. LOL I've been known to think up too many "worst case" scenarios. I like to be informed and prepared for the worst, and hope for the best.

I blame that on the army. LOL

[Caryh 5,206]

Yes it is, call me the devil's advocate if you may. LOL I've been known to think up too many "worst case" scenarios. I like to be informed and prepared for the worst, and hope for the best.

I blame that on the army. LOL

For that matter, they don't even have to sponsor anyone to come, they could shack up with someone here, pop out a few kids and decide saying stay home and collecting welfare, its cheaper than working after day care is paid.

[d3adc0d3 186]

For that matter, they don't even have to sponsor anyone to come, they could shack up with someone here, pop out a few kids and decide saying stay home and collecting welfare, its cheaper than working after day care is paid.

Would he be responsible for just her, or her and any children she has with another man? I imagine those children would be USC's so he'd not be responsible for them.

[Caryh 5,206]

Would he be responsible for just her, or her and any children she has with another man? I imagine those children would be USC's so he'd not be responsible for them.

just her, but she'd be going from working to not working and getting welfare based on another man's kid. And it you look at welfare, the adult is considered the one getting the lions share of the payment, then it increase a bit for each kid. Or at least it used to work that way. So grand for the mother, you pay, and say 250 for each kid. How many doesn't matter to you because you only pay for her, but an unmarried women popping out kids and collecting could easily see that 10 or 15 dollar an hour job costing more after paying for child care than she makes. So they quit and go on the public dole. Got the bf working his 15 dollar an hour job or not, and they're living good while you go from middle class to poverty. The numbers are just pulled out of my butt, and I don't know if they calculate welfare that way any longer, but the point is an unmarried woman with kids can easily find not working more lucrative than working and paying child care.

[d3adc0d3 186]

just her, but she'd be going from working to not working and getting welfare based on another man's kid. And it you look at welfare, the adult is considered the one getting the lions share of the payment, then it increase a bit for each kid. Or at least it used to work that way. So grand for the mother, you pay, and say 250 for each kid. How many doesn't matter to you because you only pay for her, but an unmarried women popping out kids and collecting could easily see that 10 or 15 dollar an hour job costing more after paying for child care than she makes. So they quit and go on the public dole. Got the bf working his 15 dollar an hour job or not, and they're living good while you go from middle class to poverty. The numbers are just pulled out of my butt, and I don't know if they calculate welfare that way any longer, but the point is an unmarried woman with kids can easily find not working more lucrative than working and paying child care.

I can imagine that he could take that to court, since food stamps and other benefits is regulated by family size, and if she's over the "family size" limit, he could easily dispute it. A simple look-see would be all it would take.

Even a SNAP screener will show you how much someone making NOTHING would get. They'd have her income based on the SNAP application in there and the rest would be a deduction.

Plus SNAP is not considered welfare, technically [source], Only certain benefits are considered "welfare" according to the new reforms [source].

Edited October 14, 2014 by d3adc0d3