Exasperated

Why are people allowed to skip the process? Other than the law says it OK, we've covered that. The citizens of VWP nations don't have a high rate of marital immigration fraud. In other words, they aren't so desperate to get out of their country that they use US citizens just to get away from it. And apparently there isn't a high rate of marital fraud from B1's or adjustment based on marriage would not be allowed either.
As far as my mention of Great Britain, I only brought that up because one might think since the US and the UK both allow free movement of their citizens for tourism, that they might allow the same rights for their citizens to marry. Not necessarily for a US citizen to stay in the UK, but at least for them to be able to marry, as a UK citizen can marry a US citizen over here.
I used to feel the same way many in this forum do. That it isn't "fair" for someone to skip the consular process. I've changed my mind over time. I read other immigration forums, and see what is happening in other countries regarding the sanctity of family life. So for now, I am glad my country lets husband and wife be together - no matter how they get there. In my mind, the more we restrict the movement of families, the closer we come to losing that precious human right of family.

However, even if you succeed in stopping her from getting citizenship, that doesn't mean that she'll necessarily be deported. And then you would be in the awkward situation of still being bound by the I-864. You'd need to prove that she obtained the green card fraudulently. You say you have proof, but is this proof of a deportable offense or proof that she's not very nice? Even if you can prove that she stated that she married you only for the green card (time stamped recordings? emails?), that doesn't necessarily constitute proof that she actually did so - a lot of things can be said in the heat of an argument, and she could claim she simply said this to hurt you.
Being malicious and an unpleasant and selfish person in general is not necessarily an immigration crime, nor a sign that the marriage was not originally in good faith. Neither is being a financially irresponsible leech. Plenty of American women (and men) share the same traits, and in those instances, one doesn't have the option of getting them "shipped out" of the US.
Bottom line is: you have to make sure to really know the person - Thai or not - before you sign a document as important as the I-864 and, even moreso, have a child with them.

I did my fingerprints for the removal of conditions in March, so it will be interesting to see if I'm also exempted.
Also, does the email update thingy work for any of you? I filled out the extra form and attached it to the front, but it's been a week so far since the documents were received and I have yet to receive any kind of electronic announcement to that effect. I was expecting to receive it by now (even taking into account Thanksgiving holidays).

Though by the same token: if we assume that the "production" of a child would make the ROC so much easier and more pain free (as seems to be your theory), then the presence of a child may well work as an anchor child for purposes of simplifying the ROC process (and maybe allowing its approval when there is little other proof of a real relationship - not that I imply that's necessarily your case as I'm not familiar with it).
It just seems logical to me that if you yourself think having a child would be so beneficial to the ROC, the USCIS could (in theory of course) also envision a risk when it comes to children being used for that very purpose. Removal of conditions is really an "immigration privilege" in and of itself.
Just my 2 cents. Not that any of this matters if the USCIS loses your application for removal of conditions.

It would be even better if they actually processed cases in 6 months instead of posting about it on their site.

Hello everyone,
As you may have read in some other posts of mine, I've decided to go ahead and apply for the N-400 under the "3 year rule". My question is about the parts of the form requesting information about the places you've lived in the last 5 years, the time you've spent outside the US and amount of trips in the last 5 years, where you've worked the last 5 years, etc.
Since I'm applying under the 3 year rule, it seems pointless/misleading to mention the time I've spent outside the US before I actually got the residence permit (since that would obviously add up to over 700 days - even though I've spent only 10 days outside the US since I got my residence permit). When it comes to where I've lived in the last 5 years and where I've worked in the last 5 years, I guess that makes more sense to specify, but I'm still unsure if that's relevant in my case, or if they would even want that information (in other words, if it's just a matter of the form stating 5 when they really mean 3 for filers applying under the three year rule).
I've read about multiple approaches people have when dealing with this:
1. Some people cross out "five" and write "three" on the actual form. In a way, this seems like the clearest method of specifying exactly what you're referring to. On the other hand, I'd always be wary to tamper with the USCIS form in any way (and get some kind of denial based on "corrupting the form" or similar - who knows with the USCIS).
2. Some people leave the form as it is, but fill it out as if it asked for three rather than five years. Of course, then you won't actually be answering the questions according to how they are written, but again, it makes more sense than giving your history for five years.
3. Some people actually answer the question as written and give their full history for five years. While this seems to be the most "safe" way of doing it, I would still be afraid to rely on the USCIS to substract the first two years (e.g. in the listing for "days spent outside the US" and having to make their own calculation of the remainder.
I would like to know ideas on how to best deal with this issue. Also, has anyone already filed under the three year rule and gotten approved, and if so, what approach did you use? In addition, if you did specify information only for three years, it would be great to know if you did so consistently for every question concerning "five years" or just when answering certain ones (specifically the ones about trips outside the US and days spent outside the US).
Thanks!