dawning

That was my first thought on reading those comments too.
 
I prefer not to spend a lot of time being political on forums.  However, this discussion is so related to some things I have been thinking about lately that I feel compelled to speak up.  What is happening lately in public discourse with the idea of  "illegal immigrants" (in quotes because the phrase tends to be thrown around without a lot clarification about what it means) makes me really uncomfortable, and the more I think about it, the more I come to think that it bothers me because it's targeting a vulnerable group and blaming (scapegoating) them for problems that often have little to do with them.  I'm also really concerned that if you look deeper at the actions of different people in power, target "illegals" is just a beginning.  A lot of their actions seem to me to indicate that there is also a willingness to target people of certain ethnicities and religions.  It's a pattern seen before at different times in history, and the results aren't usually something citizens are proud of 50 years later.  It may be hyperbole to compare the Trump administration's treatment of Muslims and Mexicans to Nazi Germany and the run up to the holocaust, but comparing it to the US's internment of citizens and LPRs of Japanese ancestry is much less a reach.  And while the invocation of US internment camps for Japanese doesn't conjure up nearly the stark horror in the collective consciousness that the word "Holocaust" does, it was unarguably a great failing of the US's ideals of equality, and one that we have an obligation to try to avoid repeating.
 
In other words, they sometimes say they are not against immigrants, but it's not at all clear to me that their actions are bearing that out.

That was my first thought on reading those comments too.
 
I prefer not to spend a lot of time being political on forums.  However, this discussion is so related to some things I have been thinking about lately that I feel compelled to speak up.  What is happening lately in public discourse with the idea of  "illegal immigrants" (in quotes because the phrase tends to be thrown around without a lot clarification about what it means) makes me really uncomfortable, and the more I think about it, the more I come to think that it bothers me because it's targeting a vulnerable group and blaming (scapegoating) them for problems that often have little to do with them.  I'm also really concerned that if you look deeper at the actions of different people in power, target "illegals" is just a beginning.  A lot of their actions seem to me to indicate that there is also a willingness to target people of certain ethnicities and religions.  It's a pattern seen before at different times in history, and the results aren't usually something citizens are proud of 50 years later.  It may be hyperbole to compare the Trump administration's treatment of Muslims and Mexicans to Nazi Germany and the run up to the holocaust, but comparing it to the US's internment of citizens and LPRs of Japanese ancestry is much less a reach.  And while the invocation of US internment camps for Japanese doesn't conjure up nearly the stark horror in the collective consciousness that the word "Holocaust" does, it was unarguably a great failing of the US's ideals of equality, and one that we have an obligation to try to avoid repeating.
 
In other words, they sometimes say they are not against immigrants, but it's not at all clear to me that their actions are bearing that out.

That was my first thought on reading those comments too.
 
I prefer not to spend a lot of time being political on forums.  However, this discussion is so related to some things I have been thinking about lately that I feel compelled to speak up.  What is happening lately in public discourse with the idea of  "illegal immigrants" (in quotes because the phrase tends to be thrown around without a lot clarification about what it means) makes me really uncomfortable, and the more I think about it, the more I come to think that it bothers me because it's targeting a vulnerable group and blaming (scapegoating) them for problems that often have little to do with them.  I'm also really concerned that if you look deeper at the actions of different people in power, target "illegals" is just a beginning.  A lot of their actions seem to me to indicate that there is also a willingness to target people of certain ethnicities and religions.  It's a pattern seen before at different times in history, and the results aren't usually something citizens are proud of 50 years later.  It may be hyperbole to compare the Trump administration's treatment of Muslims and Mexicans to Nazi Germany and the run up to the holocaust, but comparing it to the US's internment of citizens and LPRs of Japanese ancestry is much less a reach.  And while the invocation of US internment camps for Japanese doesn't conjure up nearly the stark horror in the collective consciousness that the word "Holocaust" does, it was unarguably a great failing of the US's ideals of equality, and one that we have an obligation to try to avoid repeating.
 
In other words, they sometimes say they are not against immigrants, but it's not at all clear to me that their actions are bearing that out.

That was my first thought on reading those comments too.
 
I prefer not to spend a lot of time being political on forums.  However, this discussion is so related to some things I have been thinking about lately that I feel compelled to speak up.  What is happening lately in public discourse with the idea of  "illegal immigrants" (in quotes because the phrase tends to be thrown around without a lot clarification about what it means) makes me really uncomfortable, and the more I think about it, the more I come to think that it bothers me because it's targeting a vulnerable group and blaming (scapegoating) them for problems that often have little to do with them.  I'm also really concerned that if you look deeper at the actions of different people in power, target "illegals" is just a beginning.  A lot of their actions seem to me to indicate that there is also a willingness to target people of certain ethnicities and religions.  It's a pattern seen before at different times in history, and the results aren't usually something citizens are proud of 50 years later.  It may be hyperbole to compare the Trump administration's treatment of Muslims and Mexicans to Nazi Germany and the run up to the holocaust, but comparing it to the US's internment of citizens and LPRs of Japanese ancestry is much less a reach.  And while the invocation of US internment camps for Japanese doesn't conjure up nearly the stark horror in the collective consciousness that the word "Holocaust" does, it was unarguably a great failing of the US's ideals of equality, and one that we have an obligation to try to avoid repeating.
 
In other words, they sometimes say they are not against immigrants, but it's not at all clear to me that their actions are bearing that out.

That was my first thought on reading those comments too.
 
I prefer not to spend a lot of time being political on forums.  However, this discussion is so related to some things I have been thinking about lately that I feel compelled to speak up.  What is happening lately in public discourse with the idea of  "illegal immigrants" (in quotes because the phrase tends to be thrown around without a lot clarification about what it means) makes me really uncomfortable, and the more I think about it, the more I come to think that it bothers me because it's targeting a vulnerable group and blaming (scapegoating) them for problems that often have little to do with them.  I'm also really concerned that if you look deeper at the actions of different people in power, target "illegals" is just a beginning.  A lot of their actions seem to me to indicate that there is also a willingness to target people of certain ethnicities and religions.  It's a pattern seen before at different times in history, and the results aren't usually something citizens are proud of 50 years later.  It may be hyperbole to compare the Trump administration's treatment of Muslims and Mexicans to Nazi Germany and the run up to the holocaust, but comparing it to the US's internment of citizens and LPRs of Japanese ancestry is much less a reach.  And while the invocation of US internment camps for Japanese doesn't conjure up nearly the stark horror in the collective consciousness that the word "Holocaust" does, it was unarguably a great failing of the US's ideals of equality, and one that we have an obligation to try to avoid repeating.
 
In other words, they sometimes say they are not against immigrants, but it's not at all clear to me that their actions are bearing that out.

I'm sure that was of great comfort to those LPRs and immigrant visa holders stranded outside the US when the first executive order on immigration came into being a couple of months ago.

That was my first thought on reading those comments too.
 
I prefer not to spend a lot of time being political on forums.  However, this discussion is so related to some things I have been thinking about lately that I feel compelled to speak up.  What is happening lately in public discourse with the idea of  "illegal immigrants" (in quotes because the phrase tends to be thrown around without a lot clarification about what it means) makes me really uncomfortable, and the more I think about it, the more I come to think that it bothers me because it's targeting a vulnerable group and blaming (scapegoating) them for problems that often have little to do with them.  I'm also really concerned that if you look deeper at the actions of different people in power, target "illegals" is just a beginning.  A lot of their actions seem to me to indicate that there is also a willingness to target people of certain ethnicities and religions.  It's a pattern seen before at different times in history, and the results aren't usually something citizens are proud of 50 years later.  It may be hyperbole to compare the Trump administration's treatment of Muslims and Mexicans to Nazi Germany and the run up to the holocaust, but comparing it to the US's internment of citizens and LPRs of Japanese ancestry is much less a reach.  And while the invocation of US internment camps for Japanese doesn't conjure up nearly the stark horror in the collective consciousness that the word "Holocaust" does, it was unarguably a great failing of the US's ideals of equality, and one that we have an obligation to try to avoid repeating.
 
In other words, they sometimes say they are not against immigrants, but it's not at all clear to me that their actions are bearing that out.

I would again respectfully disagree.
 
Just because one is posting anonymously doesn't necessarily mean that one will not be impacted by others dismissing one's experience or casting aspersions on one's motives.  I think many of us here have been moved to sympathy, annoyance, laughter and other emotions by these anonymous conversations between people who will never meet off the internet.  I am not disagreeing with your assertion that many with no other path to residency come forward with false allegations of abuse.  It's only logical.  However, genuine victims may not always want to talk about their abuse, and that DOES NOT mean it didn't happen.  To me it seems fairly clear that how we treat each other in an anonymous forum could definitely impact an abuse victim's willingness to come forward in other settings. 
 
 

I have to add that I am a little puzzled by all the hostility to the idea that the OP might want to stay.  I understand that s/he may not have a legal right to residency.  But to say that s/he must be desperate to stay and should just go home if the marriage isn't working seems a little harsh.  Immigration is a huge leap of faith, and many leave everything behind when they come and feel that they may have any easier time reestablishing here than going back to their home country.  It doesn't seem unreasonable to want to stay, nor does it indicate lack of good faith in the beginning, at least in my mind.

I would respectfully disagree.  In my experience abuse victims are not at all all the same in terms of how much they want to disclose or how eager they are to talk about the abuse they have experienced. There isn't really a way that abuse victims "usually talk".  And it's not at all uncommon for many, especially males, to be very hesitant to disclose at all, even on an anonymous forum.  The fact that he answered the question about why he wanted to stay independent of his marriage before he answered the question about what the abuse was like does not in my mind indicate that the abuse was not real, or not serious.  None of us here knows what has happened between him and his wife.  (I am assuming OP is male, actually it could be a same-sex relationship, as the only information we had was that the wife is female.) 
 
To the OP:  Some of the posters have given you good advice about the legal limitations of your current status, and what you would need to do if you decide to pursue status based on abuse.  JFH's advice about counseling and trying to see if the marriage can be saved may also be useful, depending on how bad the abuse has been and if you think things could improve. 
Good luck!

I would respectfully disagree.  In my experience abuse victims are not at all all the same in terms of how much they want to disclose or how eager they are to talk about the abuse they have experienced. There isn't really a way that abuse victims "usually talk".  And it's not at all uncommon for many, especially males, to be very hesitant to disclose at all, even on an anonymous forum.  The fact that he answered the question about why he wanted to stay independent of his marriage before he answered the question about what the abuse was like does not in my mind indicate that the abuse was not real, or not serious.  None of us here knows what has happened between him and his wife.  (I am assuming OP is male, actually it could be a same-sex relationship, as the only information we had was that the wife is female.) 
 
To the OP:  Some of the posters have given you good advice about the legal limitations of your current status, and what you would need to do if you decide to pursue status based on abuse.  JFH's advice about counseling and trying to see if the marriage can be saved may also be useful, depending on how bad the abuse has been and if you think things could improve. 
Good luck!

I have to add that I am a little puzzled by all the hostility to the idea that the OP might want to stay.  I understand that s/he may not have a legal right to residency.  But to say that s/he must be desperate to stay and should just go home if the marriage isn't working seems a little harsh.  Immigration is a huge leap of faith, and many leave everything behind when they come and feel that they may have any easier time reestablishing here than going back to their home country.  It doesn't seem unreasonable to want to stay, nor does it indicate lack of good faith in the beginning, at least in my mind.

I would respectfully disagree.  In my experience abuse victims are not at all all the same in terms of how much they want to disclose or how eager they are to talk about the abuse they have experienced. There isn't really a way that abuse victims "usually talk".  And it's not at all uncommon for many, especially males, to be very hesitant to disclose at all, even on an anonymous forum.  The fact that he answered the question about why he wanted to stay independent of his marriage before he answered the question about what the abuse was like does not in my mind indicate that the abuse was not real, or not serious.  None of us here knows what has happened between him and his wife.  (I am assuming OP is male, actually it could be a same-sex relationship, as the only information we had was that the wife is female.) 
 
To the OP:  Some of the posters have given you good advice about the legal limitations of your current status, and what you would need to do if you decide to pursue status based on abuse.  JFH's advice about counseling and trying to see if the marriage can be saved may also be useful, depending on how bad the abuse has been and if you think things could improve. 
Good luck!

I don't understand why you would say that... If he is sending the electric company to her house to shut off the power then her not "letting go" is quite legitimate.  And if he has moved on then he shouldn't have a problem taking his names off the bills.

I don't understand why you would say that... If he is sending the electric company to her house to shut off the power then her not "letting go" is quite legitimate.  And if he has moved on then he shouldn't have a problem taking his names off the bills.

According to her he is.  It may leave him open to liability, but depending on the company's policy, it might also give him a voice in the services she receives.  I don't think it's unreasonable of her to be concerned, especially since she is describing someone who was not very forthcoming with her throughout their relationship.
 
OP, I think the advice you've been given to seek pro bono legal counsel and other advice from non-profits might be a very good start.  Or as someone else said, save up for a deposit for a new account.  I assume you would get something back from a deposit on the old account?

I don't understand why you would say that... If he is sending the electric company to her house to shut off the power then her not "letting go" is quite legitimate.  And if he has moved on then he shouldn't have a problem taking his names off the bills.

I don't understand why you would say that... If he is sending the electric company to her house to shut off the power then her not "letting go" is quite legitimate.  And if he has moved on then he shouldn't have a problem taking his names off the bills.

According to her he is.  It may leave him open to liability, but depending on the company's policy, it might also give him a voice in the services she receives.  I don't think it's unreasonable of her to be concerned, especially since she is describing someone who was not very forthcoming with her throughout their relationship.
 
OP, I think the advice you've been given to seek pro bono legal counsel and other advice from non-profits might be a very good start.  Or as someone else said, save up for a deposit for a new account.  I assume you would get something back from a deposit on the old account?

I don't understand why you would say that... If he is sending the electric company to her house to shut off the power then her not "letting go" is quite legitimate.  And if he has moved on then he shouldn't have a problem taking his names off the bills.

According to her he is.  It may leave him open to liability, but depending on the company's policy, it might also give him a voice in the services she receives.  I don't think it's unreasonable of her to be concerned, especially since she is describing someone who was not very forthcoming with her throughout their relationship.
 
OP, I think the advice you've been given to seek pro bono legal counsel and other advice from non-profits might be a very good start.  Or as someone else said, save up for a deposit for a new account.  I assume you would get something back from a deposit on the old account?

I don't understand why you would say that... If he is sending the electric company to her house to shut off the power then her not "letting go" is quite legitimate.  And if he has moved on then he shouldn't have a problem taking his names off the bills.

I don't understand why you would say that... If he is sending the electric company to her house to shut off the power then her not "letting go" is quite legitimate.  And if he has moved on then he shouldn't have a problem taking his names off the bills.

Well from her point of view, she would need to come to the US to have that same experience as you had of meeting your potential life partner in his homeland.  Of course it may not be possible, but it's probably worth a try, because if she does proceed eventually with a K1, she will be moving to live with him, so it would be nice if she could have some idea of what that might be like.
 
Ideal would be for both partners to visit each other, but for people from many parts of the world that is difficult due to limitations on US visitor visas.

Well from her point of view, she would need to come to the US to have that same experience as you had of meeting your potential life partner in his homeland.  Of course it may not be possible, but it's probably worth a try, because if she does proceed eventually with a K1, she will be moving to live with him, so it would be nice if she could have some idea of what that might be like.
 
Ideal would be for both partners to visit each other, but for people from many parts of the world that is difficult due to limitations on US visitor visas.