lysander

I think I'm going to get a lawyer to tell my wife that she has four options:
Reconcile with me, and finish putting in her two years, after which we can file the I-751 jointly. Drop the restraining order petition and sign away her rights to sue my mom, in exchange for my filing for and finalizing a divorce before it comes time for her to file the I-751. File for divorce on her own, which I won't sign for, with the result probably being that the case will still be tied up in court by the time she needs to file her I-751, causing her to become deportable. I could then finalize the divorce at my leisure when she's back in the Philippines and the I-864 is no longer in effect. Carry on with this VAWA path and see if that works.

We may as well totally get rid of the visa system, and allow everyone to come here on a passport and stay indefinitely.
 
Think of the advantages this would have compared to, say, the current fiancee visa system. We wouldn't have to worry about foreigners' pretending to love U.S. citizens so that they can get a visa. They would have no need to engage in deceit in order to come here, and so a lot of heartbreak, divorce, and related court battles would be eliminated.
 
At the same time, those who have good intentions would not have to deal with such a prolonged wait before coming here. Also, they would not have to worry so much about being abused or exploited due to their vulnerable situation; they could bring their whole family over and have that social support, so issues such as being battered or otherwise controlled by a U.S. citizen spouse, or having their passport taken away and forced into prostitution by some pimp, would be mitigated. Those who are currently unable to get a visa also would not have to pay a bunch of money to some mule to bring them across the border in unsafe conditions.
 
Open borders would benefit U.S. citizens as well because they would be at less risk of being accused of abusing immigrants when the circumstances would not make it as plausible that they acted that way, and when there would be less incentive for immigrants to make such claims for an immigration benefit. The current system exposes U.S. citizen sponsors to a lot of legal liability and makes them spend a lot of time and money dealing with red tape without any guarantee of getting the desired result. Immigration fraud will go down to zero when there's nothing to be fraudulent about in order to cross the border.
 
Public charge concerns could be eliminated by simply having a less generous welfare system. Allowing the immigrant's entire family to come over could help with that, by giving them a larger base of support in case they fall into poverty and need help. Also, granting blanket authorization to all immigrants to work would allow them to be productive immediately upon arrival.
 
Most of the objections people have to mass immigration could be dealt with through enforcement of existing laws. For example, people living 25 to a house could be remedied through stricter enforcement of local ordinances about maximum occupancies. Also, when illegal immigrants are given legal status here, they can begin paying taxes and thereby supporting social services such as hospitals and schools, making them less of a burden on the cities and states in which they live. If, despite all that help, they still can't survive here, they can always go back to their home country, where the costs of living are lower. Poverty, although unpleasant, should not be a reason for anyone to starve in a world where farmers have so much excess produce that they have to send it to the third world just to prevent it from going to waste.
 
Some might say, there are some immigrants who don't assimilate into American culture; but that doesn't really matter, since they tend to stay in their own enclaves anyway, given that the same insularity that makes them not want to learn our culture also makes them want to spend their time hanging out among their own. Some might say, immigrants will change American politics, but historically that issue was dealt with pretty effectively by simply not having a universal franchise; we could always go back to the old laws restricting voting rights to people meeting certain qualifications.
 
The more people a country has, the stronger its economy and therefore its military is. Even if, on paper, wages seem to go down because of an influx of immigrants willing to work for less, real wages are not really affected that much because the savings to the company in labor costs are passed on to consumers, so their dollars go further even if they're not getting paid as much. Plus, economies of scale from having more customers and workers allow businesses to operate more efficiently.
 
Some might say, immigrants will bring disease and terrorism, but those concerns are pretty overblown. Covid, for example, does not cause as serious of an illness as people have claimed, and the odds of any given person's getting attacked by a terrorist are pretty low, even in countries that have a lot of Arabs. 9/11 could have been prevented by having more secure cockpit doors or allowing pilots to be armed. Probably a lot of Islamist terrorism could be prevented too by not having a U.S. foreign policy that involves arming and training terrorists like Osama bin Laden and then provoking them to attack us by meddling in the affairs of the Arab world.
 
I think I've demolished all the arguments for why we need a visa system; does anyone have a rebuttal?

We may as well totally get rid of the visa system, and allow everyone to come here on a passport and stay indefinitely.
 
Think of the advantages this would have compared to, say, the current fiancee visa system. We wouldn't have to worry about foreigners' pretending to love U.S. citizens so that they can get a visa. They would have no need to engage in deceit in order to come here, and so a lot of heartbreak, divorce, and related court battles would be eliminated.
 
At the same time, those who have good intentions would not have to deal with such a prolonged wait before coming here. Also, they would not have to worry so much about being abused or exploited due to their vulnerable situation; they could bring their whole family over and have that social support, so issues such as being battered or otherwise controlled by a U.S. citizen spouse, or having their passport taken away and forced into prostitution by some pimp, would be mitigated. Those who are currently unable to get a visa also would not have to pay a bunch of money to some mule to bring them across the border in unsafe conditions.
 
Open borders would benefit U.S. citizens as well because they would be at less risk of being accused of abusing immigrants when the circumstances would not make it as plausible that they acted that way, and when there would be less incentive for immigrants to make such claims for an immigration benefit. The current system exposes U.S. citizen sponsors to a lot of legal liability and makes them spend a lot of time and money dealing with red tape without any guarantee of getting the desired result. Immigration fraud will go down to zero when there's nothing to be fraudulent about in order to cross the border.
 
Public charge concerns could be eliminated by simply having a less generous welfare system. Allowing the immigrant's entire family to come over could help with that, by giving them a larger base of support in case they fall into poverty and need help. Also, granting blanket authorization to all immigrants to work would allow them to be productive immediately upon arrival.
 
Most of the objections people have to mass immigration could be dealt with through enforcement of existing laws. For example, people living 25 to a house could be remedied through stricter enforcement of local ordinances about maximum occupancies. Also, when illegal immigrants are given legal status here, they can begin paying taxes and thereby supporting social services such as hospitals and schools, making them less of a burden on the cities and states in which they live. If, despite all that help, they still can't survive here, they can always go back to their home country, where the costs of living are lower. Poverty, although unpleasant, should not be a reason for anyone to starve in a world where farmers have so much excess produce that they have to send it to the third world just to prevent it from going to waste.
 
Some might say, there are some immigrants who don't assimilate into American culture; but that doesn't really matter, since they tend to stay in their own enclaves anyway, given that the same insularity that makes them not want to learn our culture also makes them want to spend their time hanging out among their own. Some might say, immigrants will change American politics, but historically that issue was dealt with pretty effectively by simply not having a universal franchise; we could always go back to the old laws restricting voting rights to people meeting certain qualifications.
 
The more people a country has, the stronger its economy and therefore its military is. Even if, on paper, wages seem to go down because of an influx of immigrants willing to work for less, real wages are not really affected that much because the savings to the company in labor costs are passed on to consumers, so their dollars go further even if they're not getting paid as much. Plus, economies of scale from having more customers and workers allow businesses to operate more efficiently.
 
Some might say, immigrants will bring disease and terrorism, but those concerns are pretty overblown. Covid, for example, does not cause as serious of an illness as people have claimed, and the odds of any given person's getting attacked by a terrorist are pretty low, even in countries that have a lot of Arabs. 9/11 could have been prevented by having more secure cockpit doors or allowing pilots to be armed. Probably a lot of Islamist terrorism could be prevented too by not having a U.S. foreign policy that involves arming and training terrorists like Osama bin Laden and then provoking them to attack us by meddling in the affairs of the Arab world.
 
I think I've demolished all the arguments for why we need a visa system; does anyone have a rebuttal?

We may as well totally get rid of the visa system, and allow everyone to come here on a passport and stay indefinitely.
 
Think of the advantages this would have compared to, say, the current fiancee visa system. We wouldn't have to worry about foreigners' pretending to love U.S. citizens so that they can get a visa. They would have no need to engage in deceit in order to come here, and so a lot of heartbreak, divorce, and related court battles would be eliminated.
 
At the same time, those who have good intentions would not have to deal with such a prolonged wait before coming here. Also, they would not have to worry so much about being abused or exploited due to their vulnerable situation; they could bring their whole family over and have that social support, so issues such as being battered or otherwise controlled by a U.S. citizen spouse, or having their passport taken away and forced into prostitution by some pimp, would be mitigated. Those who are currently unable to get a visa also would not have to pay a bunch of money to some mule to bring them across the border in unsafe conditions.
 
Open borders would benefit U.S. citizens as well because they would be at less risk of being accused of abusing immigrants when the circumstances would not make it as plausible that they acted that way, and when there would be less incentive for immigrants to make such claims for an immigration benefit. The current system exposes U.S. citizen sponsors to a lot of legal liability and makes them spend a lot of time and money dealing with red tape without any guarantee of getting the desired result. Immigration fraud will go down to zero when there's nothing to be fraudulent about in order to cross the border.
 
Public charge concerns could be eliminated by simply having a less generous welfare system. Allowing the immigrant's entire family to come over could help with that, by giving them a larger base of support in case they fall into poverty and need help. Also, granting blanket authorization to all immigrants to work would allow them to be productive immediately upon arrival.
 
Most of the objections people have to mass immigration could be dealt with through enforcement of existing laws. For example, people living 25 to a house could be remedied through stricter enforcement of local ordinances about maximum occupancies. Also, when illegal immigrants are given legal status here, they can begin paying taxes and thereby supporting social services such as hospitals and schools, making them less of a burden on the cities and states in which they live. If, despite all that help, they still can't survive here, they can always go back to their home country, where the costs of living are lower. Poverty, although unpleasant, should not be a reason for anyone to starve in a world where farmers have so much excess produce that they have to send it to the third world just to prevent it from going to waste.
 
Some might say, there are some immigrants who don't assimilate into American culture; but that doesn't really matter, since they tend to stay in their own enclaves anyway, given that the same insularity that makes them not want to learn our culture also makes them want to spend their time hanging out among their own. Some might say, immigrants will change American politics, but historically that issue was dealt with pretty effectively by simply not having a universal franchise; we could always go back to the old laws restricting voting rights to people meeting certain qualifications.
 
The more people a country has, the stronger its economy and therefore its military is. Even if, on paper, wages seem to go down because of an influx of immigrants willing to work for less, real wages are not really affected that much because the savings to the company in labor costs are passed on to consumers, so their dollars go further even if they're not getting paid as much. Plus, economies of scale from having more customers and workers allow businesses to operate more efficiently.
 
Some might say, immigrants will bring disease and terrorism, but those concerns are pretty overblown. Covid, for example, does not cause as serious of an illness as people have claimed, and the odds of any given person's getting attacked by a terrorist are pretty low, even in countries that have a lot of Arabs. 9/11 could have been prevented by having more secure cockpit doors or allowing pilots to be armed. Probably a lot of Islamist terrorism could be prevented too by not having a U.S. foreign policy that involves arming and training terrorists like Osama bin Laden and then provoking them to attack us by meddling in the affairs of the Arab world.
 
I think I've demolished all the arguments for why we need a visa system; does anyone have a rebuttal?

We may as well totally get rid of the visa system, and allow everyone to come here on a passport and stay indefinitely.
 
Think of the advantages this would have compared to, say, the current fiancee visa system. We wouldn't have to worry about foreigners' pretending to love U.S. citizens so that they can get a visa. They would have no need to engage in deceit in order to come here, and so a lot of heartbreak, divorce, and related court battles would be eliminated.
 
At the same time, those who have good intentions would not have to deal with such a prolonged wait before coming here. Also, they would not have to worry so much about being abused or exploited due to their vulnerable situation; they could bring their whole family over and have that social support, so issues such as being battered or otherwise controlled by a U.S. citizen spouse, or having their passport taken away and forced into prostitution by some pimp, would be mitigated. Those who are currently unable to get a visa also would not have to pay a bunch of money to some mule to bring them across the border in unsafe conditions.
 
Open borders would benefit U.S. citizens as well because they would be at less risk of being accused of abusing immigrants when the circumstances would not make it as plausible that they acted that way, and when there would be less incentive for immigrants to make such claims for an immigration benefit. The current system exposes U.S. citizen sponsors to a lot of legal liability and makes them spend a lot of time and money dealing with red tape without any guarantee of getting the desired result. Immigration fraud will go down to zero when there's nothing to be fraudulent about in order to cross the border.
 
Public charge concerns could be eliminated by simply having a less generous welfare system. Allowing the immigrant's entire family to come over could help with that, by giving them a larger base of support in case they fall into poverty and need help. Also, granting blanket authorization to all immigrants to work would allow them to be productive immediately upon arrival.
 
Most of the objections people have to mass immigration could be dealt with through enforcement of existing laws. For example, people living 25 to a house could be remedied through stricter enforcement of local ordinances about maximum occupancies. Also, when illegal immigrants are given legal status here, they can begin paying taxes and thereby supporting social services such as hospitals and schools, making them less of a burden on the cities and states in which they live. If, despite all that help, they still can't survive here, they can always go back to their home country, where the costs of living are lower. Poverty, although unpleasant, should not be a reason for anyone to starve in a world where farmers have so much excess produce that they have to send it to the third world just to prevent it from going to waste.
 
Some might say, there are some immigrants who don't assimilate into American culture; but that doesn't really matter, since they tend to stay in their own enclaves anyway, given that the same insularity that makes them not want to learn our culture also makes them want to spend their time hanging out among their own. Some might say, immigrants will change American politics, but historically that issue was dealt with pretty effectively by simply not having a universal franchise; we could always go back to the old laws restricting voting rights to people meeting certain qualifications.
 
The more people a country has, the stronger its economy and therefore its military is. Even if, on paper, wages seem to go down because of an influx of immigrants willing to work for less, real wages are not really affected that much because the savings to the company in labor costs are passed on to consumers, so their dollars go further even if they're not getting paid as much. Plus, economies of scale from having more customers and workers allow businesses to operate more efficiently.
 
Some might say, immigrants will bring disease and terrorism, but those concerns are pretty overblown. Covid, for example, does not cause as serious of an illness as people have claimed, and the odds of any given person's getting attacked by a terrorist are pretty low, even in countries that have a lot of Arabs. 9/11 could have been prevented by having more secure cockpit doors or allowing pilots to be armed. Probably a lot of Islamist terrorism could be prevented too by not having a U.S. foreign policy that involves arming and training terrorists like Osama bin Laden and then provoking them to attack us by meddling in the affairs of the Arab world.
 
I think I've demolished all the arguments for why we need a visa system; does anyone have a rebuttal?

We may as well totally get rid of the visa system, and allow everyone to come here on a passport and stay indefinitely.
 
Think of the advantages this would have compared to, say, the current fiancee visa system. We wouldn't have to worry about foreigners' pretending to love U.S. citizens so that they can get a visa. They would have no need to engage in deceit in order to come here, and so a lot of heartbreak, divorce, and related court battles would be eliminated.
 
At the same time, those who have good intentions would not have to deal with such a prolonged wait before coming here. Also, they would not have to worry so much about being abused or exploited due to their vulnerable situation; they could bring their whole family over and have that social support, so issues such as being battered or otherwise controlled by a U.S. citizen spouse, or having their passport taken away and forced into prostitution by some pimp, would be mitigated. Those who are currently unable to get a visa also would not have to pay a bunch of money to some mule to bring them across the border in unsafe conditions.
 
Open borders would benefit U.S. citizens as well because they would be at less risk of being accused of abusing immigrants when the circumstances would not make it as plausible that they acted that way, and when there would be less incentive for immigrants to make such claims for an immigration benefit. The current system exposes U.S. citizen sponsors to a lot of legal liability and makes them spend a lot of time and money dealing with red tape without any guarantee of getting the desired result. Immigration fraud will go down to zero when there's nothing to be fraudulent about in order to cross the border.
 
Public charge concerns could be eliminated by simply having a less generous welfare system. Allowing the immigrant's entire family to come over could help with that, by giving them a larger base of support in case they fall into poverty and need help. Also, granting blanket authorization to all immigrants to work would allow them to be productive immediately upon arrival.
 
Most of the objections people have to mass immigration could be dealt with through enforcement of existing laws. For example, people living 25 to a house could be remedied through stricter enforcement of local ordinances about maximum occupancies. Also, when illegal immigrants are given legal status here, they can begin paying taxes and thereby supporting social services such as hospitals and schools, making them less of a burden on the cities and states in which they live. If, despite all that help, they still can't survive here, they can always go back to their home country, where the costs of living are lower. Poverty, although unpleasant, should not be a reason for anyone to starve in a world where farmers have so much excess produce that they have to send it to the third world just to prevent it from going to waste.
 
Some might say, there are some immigrants who don't assimilate into American culture; but that doesn't really matter, since they tend to stay in their own enclaves anyway, given that the same insularity that makes them not want to learn our culture also makes them want to spend their time hanging out among their own. Some might say, immigrants will change American politics, but historically that issue was dealt with pretty effectively by simply not having a universal franchise; we could always go back to the old laws restricting voting rights to people meeting certain qualifications.
 
The more people a country has, the stronger its economy and therefore its military is. Even if, on paper, wages seem to go down because of an influx of immigrants willing to work for less, real wages are not really affected that much because the savings to the company in labor costs are passed on to consumers, so their dollars go further even if they're not getting paid as much. Plus, economies of scale from having more customers and workers allow businesses to operate more efficiently.
 
Some might say, immigrants will bring disease and terrorism, but those concerns are pretty overblown. Covid, for example, does not cause as serious of an illness as people have claimed, and the odds of any given person's getting attacked by a terrorist are pretty low, even in countries that have a lot of Arabs. 9/11 could have been prevented by having more secure cockpit doors or allowing pilots to be armed. Probably a lot of Islamist terrorism could be prevented too by not having a U.S. foreign policy that involves arming and training terrorists like Osama bin Laden and then provoking them to attack us by meddling in the affairs of the Arab world.
 
I think I've demolished all the arguments for why we need a visa system; does anyone have a rebuttal?

We may as well totally get rid of the visa system, and allow everyone to come here on a passport and stay indefinitely.
 
Think of the advantages this would have compared to, say, the current fiancee visa system. We wouldn't have to worry about foreigners' pretending to love U.S. citizens so that they can get a visa. They would have no need to engage in deceit in order to come here, and so a lot of heartbreak, divorce, and related court battles would be eliminated.
 
At the same time, those who have good intentions would not have to deal with such a prolonged wait before coming here. Also, they would not have to worry so much about being abused or exploited due to their vulnerable situation; they could bring their whole family over and have that social support, so issues such as being battered or otherwise controlled by a U.S. citizen spouse, or having their passport taken away and forced into prostitution by some pimp, would be mitigated. Those who are currently unable to get a visa also would not have to pay a bunch of money to some mule to bring them across the border in unsafe conditions.
 
Open borders would benefit U.S. citizens as well because they would be at less risk of being accused of abusing immigrants when the circumstances would not make it as plausible that they acted that way, and when there would be less incentive for immigrants to make such claims for an immigration benefit. The current system exposes U.S. citizen sponsors to a lot of legal liability and makes them spend a lot of time and money dealing with red tape without any guarantee of getting the desired result. Immigration fraud will go down to zero when there's nothing to be fraudulent about in order to cross the border.
 
Public charge concerns could be eliminated by simply having a less generous welfare system. Allowing the immigrant's entire family to come over could help with that, by giving them a larger base of support in case they fall into poverty and need help. Also, granting blanket authorization to all immigrants to work would allow them to be productive immediately upon arrival.
 
Most of the objections people have to mass immigration could be dealt with through enforcement of existing laws. For example, people living 25 to a house could be remedied through stricter enforcement of local ordinances about maximum occupancies. Also, when illegal immigrants are given legal status here, they can begin paying taxes and thereby supporting social services such as hospitals and schools, making them less of a burden on the cities and states in which they live. If, despite all that help, they still can't survive here, they can always go back to their home country, where the costs of living are lower. Poverty, although unpleasant, should not be a reason for anyone to starve in a world where farmers have so much excess produce that they have to send it to the third world just to prevent it from going to waste.
 
Some might say, there are some immigrants who don't assimilate into American culture; but that doesn't really matter, since they tend to stay in their own enclaves anyway, given that the same insularity that makes them not want to learn our culture also makes them want to spend their time hanging out among their own. Some might say, immigrants will change American politics, but historically that issue was dealt with pretty effectively by simply not having a universal franchise; we could always go back to the old laws restricting voting rights to people meeting certain qualifications.
 
The more people a country has, the stronger its economy and therefore its military is. Even if, on paper, wages seem to go down because of an influx of immigrants willing to work for less, real wages are not really affected that much because the savings to the company in labor costs are passed on to consumers, so their dollars go further even if they're not getting paid as much. Plus, economies of scale from having more customers and workers allow businesses to operate more efficiently.
 
Some might say, immigrants will bring disease and terrorism, but those concerns are pretty overblown. Covid, for example, does not cause as serious of an illness as people have claimed, and the odds of any given person's getting attacked by a terrorist are pretty low, even in countries that have a lot of Arabs. 9/11 could have been prevented by having more secure cockpit doors or allowing pilots to be armed. Probably a lot of Islamist terrorism could be prevented too by not having a U.S. foreign policy that involves arming and training terrorists like Osama bin Laden and then provoking them to attack us by meddling in the affairs of the Arab world.
 
I think I've demolished all the arguments for why we need a visa system; does anyone have a rebuttal?

We may as well totally get rid of the visa system, and allow everyone to come here on a passport and stay indefinitely.
 
Think of the advantages this would have compared to, say, the current fiancee visa system. We wouldn't have to worry about foreigners' pretending to love U.S. citizens so that they can get a visa. They would have no need to engage in deceit in order to come here, and so a lot of heartbreak, divorce, and related court battles would be eliminated.
 
At the same time, those who have good intentions would not have to deal with such a prolonged wait before coming here. Also, they would not have to worry so much about being abused or exploited due to their vulnerable situation; they could bring their whole family over and have that social support, so issues such as being battered or otherwise controlled by a U.S. citizen spouse, or having their passport taken away and forced into prostitution by some pimp, would be mitigated. Those who are currently unable to get a visa also would not have to pay a bunch of money to some mule to bring them across the border in unsafe conditions.
 
Open borders would benefit U.S. citizens as well because they would be at less risk of being accused of abusing immigrants when the circumstances would not make it as plausible that they acted that way, and when there would be less incentive for immigrants to make such claims for an immigration benefit. The current system exposes U.S. citizen sponsors to a lot of legal liability and makes them spend a lot of time and money dealing with red tape without any guarantee of getting the desired result. Immigration fraud will go down to zero when there's nothing to be fraudulent about in order to cross the border.
 
Public charge concerns could be eliminated by simply having a less generous welfare system. Allowing the immigrant's entire family to come over could help with that, by giving them a larger base of support in case they fall into poverty and need help. Also, granting blanket authorization to all immigrants to work would allow them to be productive immediately upon arrival.
 
Most of the objections people have to mass immigration could be dealt with through enforcement of existing laws. For example, people living 25 to a house could be remedied through stricter enforcement of local ordinances about maximum occupancies. Also, when illegal immigrants are given legal status here, they can begin paying taxes and thereby supporting social services such as hospitals and schools, making them less of a burden on the cities and states in which they live. If, despite all that help, they still can't survive here, they can always go back to their home country, where the costs of living are lower. Poverty, although unpleasant, should not be a reason for anyone to starve in a world where farmers have so much excess produce that they have to send it to the third world just to prevent it from going to waste.
 
Some might say, there are some immigrants who don't assimilate into American culture; but that doesn't really matter, since they tend to stay in their own enclaves anyway, given that the same insularity that makes them not want to learn our culture also makes them want to spend their time hanging out among their own. Some might say, immigrants will change American politics, but historically that issue was dealt with pretty effectively by simply not having a universal franchise; we could always go back to the old laws restricting voting rights to people meeting certain qualifications.
 
The more people a country has, the stronger its economy and therefore its military is. Even if, on paper, wages seem to go down because of an influx of immigrants willing to work for less, real wages are not really affected that much because the savings to the company in labor costs are passed on to consumers, so their dollars go further even if they're not getting paid as much. Plus, economies of scale from having more customers and workers allow businesses to operate more efficiently.
 
Some might say, immigrants will bring disease and terrorism, but those concerns are pretty overblown. Covid, for example, does not cause as serious of an illness as people have claimed, and the odds of any given person's getting attacked by a terrorist are pretty low, even in countries that have a lot of Arabs. 9/11 could have been prevented by having more secure cockpit doors or allowing pilots to be armed. Probably a lot of Islamist terrorism could be prevented too by not having a U.S. foreign policy that involves arming and training terrorists like Osama bin Laden and then provoking them to attack us by meddling in the affairs of the Arab world.
 
I think I've demolished all the arguments for why we need a visa system; does anyone have a rebuttal?

I know it's hard for someone who hasn't been subjected to a malicious attempt to destroy her life and reputation by means of a spurious VAWA accusation to understand the righteous indignation that would inspire someone to go to such extremes, but try to look at it from the OP's perspective. The sense of shocking, devastating, and uncalled-for betrayal creates a strengthened sense of determination to do something about it, which is not to be lamented, because that is how great wrongs in this world get righted.

Thanks for keeping up the good fight, to hold the line against those who would threaten the integrity of the immigration system. Working together, we can keep these scheming, lying, manipulative scammers from getting away with immigration fraud. Don't listen to those who say you just forget about it and not be vindictive; make every personal sacrifice that is necessary to punish those who have made false VAWA accusations. It is your patriotic duty.
 
On behalf of not just myself, but all of America, I say again, thank you.

Thanks for keeping up the good fight, to hold the line against those who would threaten the integrity of the immigration system. Working together, we can keep these scheming, lying, manipulative scammers from getting away with immigration fraud. Don't listen to those who say you just forget about it and not be vindictive; make every personal sacrifice that is necessary to punish those who have made false VAWA accusations. It is your patriotic duty.
 
On behalf of not just myself, but all of America, I say again, thank you.

yes, and yours were the least useful ones

I thought the regulation said, "Form I-751 shall be accompanied by evidence that the marriage was not entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws of the United States. Such evidence may include: . . . (iv) Birth certificates of children born to the marriage".

I thought the regulation said, "Form I-751 shall be accompanied by evidence that the marriage was not entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws of the United States. Such evidence may include: . . . (iv) Birth certificates of children born to the marriage".

A lot of men feel morally obligated to stay in a marriage and try to make it work, even if they're being mistreated, because they made a commitment. And a lot of them feel like they don't have other options either, unless they want to be alone. The mate market these days just isn't very favorable to the average man these days, because so many women are chasing after Chad.
 
The other thing is, there's a cultural presumption that women are not as responsible for their behavior as men are (which is why there are sayings like "it's a woman's prerogative to change her mind" even though men are expected to be resolute and decisive, and stand by their promises). Emotional outbursts, tantrums, etc. from women, even if they cross the line into physicality, are something men are used to looking at as normal female behavior, and maybe even cute because it's so juvenile. However, unlike a parent, a husband has limited options for trying to impose some discipline on a girl who's being childishly bad-tempered and disruptive; so that's where a problem arises.
 
What else was he supposed to do? He's not allowed to hit her back, so how is he going to keep her behavior in check? He can dump her and try to find someone else, but given he had to look to another country for a bride, I'm presuming he didn't have a lot of good options of American women to be with, or he would've just chosen one of them, and avoided having to go through the visa process. She must have been special to him, to be worth dealing with that system.
 
But there's such a thing, even when you're dealing with those who have the potential to be good family members, of "keeping honest people honest". There needs to be discipline and order in the family, and clear lines of authority, and standards of what's acceptable and unacceptable, or it descends into chaos. It sounds like he was trying to get the situation under control by obtaining a police report he could hold over her head to deter future bad behavior (by establishing that there was a pattern of it), but then events took an unexpected turn when the cops insisted on pressing charges.

You did pretty much the same thing in one of my threads (making an accusatory statement about a restraining order, "Once again it seems you dont want to fight it because you are guilty.") However, because I'm an easygoing guy I didn't report the post even though it may have violated the ToS by inhibiting my use and enjoyment of the site.
 
Anyway, "abuse" is a vague catchall that can mean anything, especially when we're talking about psychological abuse, which mostly boils down to feeling unhaaaaaaaaaaaaappy enough with the situation to want to leave one's husband and go make use of services for abused women. Given that the system is wide open for plausibly deniable exploitation, chiding people for doing so is unlikely to deter them.
 
OP, by prima facie, are you talking about the I-360? My experience with DSS is that they're pretty bureaucratic and don't really care about emotional displays. They'll hand out food stamps if you meet the criteria. Supposedly, battered spouses with petitions pending can get SNAP benefits.
 
My mom is director of a shelter for battered women, and says that claiming psychological abuse won't cut it; you have to claim that your life is in danger before they'll let you stay there.

I wonder if it helps at all to explain to immigration that domestic violence doesn't mean the same thing across all cultures. For example, I think a lot of times, when men get assaulted by their wives, they think, "Well, she's just being emotionally expressive. She's just trying to get her point across forcefully, and I shouldn't take it as anything more than that."
 
It's like how in Filipino culture, if your wife goes into a jealous rage, you don't take it as a sign that she's abusive; you take it as meaning she loves you, because if she didn't care about you, she wouldn't be so possessive and suspicious to the point of paranoia. It's the same way if your wife scratches the hell out of your face and neck; she wouldn't get angry enough to do that if she didn't have strong feelings toward you. So, at least you know she's not indifferent toward you; she's literally willing to fight for the relationship, even though American culture and law might say that's not the appropriate way.
 
But, because of the influence of the feminists, American immigration authorities will probably say, "This suggests there could be power and control issues" when really that's not necessarily what it's about. It sounds like just a lover's spat that led to reconciliation; but the authorities will say, "That's the cycle of abuse."

***Posts violating the below quoted provisions of the TOS removed; Administrative Action taken against one poster for an egregious violation of those provisions.***
 

The above merits enshrinement in the highly exclusive pantheon of All-Time Greatest VJ Posts.

So to clarify for those not married to an Asian woman (men too, I assume, but not interested in knowing for sure)... they don’t sit on the toilet, and the don’t hover.  The seat stays up, the shoes are flat on the rim of the porcelain (hence no seat in NB’s picture).  Also, the tank isn’t needed, because they “flush” by filling the bucket and dipping water with a Tabo that is far too small to flush properly (IMO).  That Tabo is then used to hold the water that then cleans the private parts. 
 

 
And then there is the Tabo.  TP is not required in the PI.  And while it is used by many Pinays in the USA, it is not NEARLY enough.  
 
And I must say, after being introduced to the concept, I am embarrassed by the traditional bathroom rituals that most Americans employ.  Very unclean!

Toilets in the PI not so much
 

Facebook is so destructive of relationships. It creates a lot of opportunity for this type of unnecessary drama, where people end up feeling slighted. It's better to get a girl who doesn't use Facebook at all, because Facebookers tend to devote all their time and attention to trying to impress their FB friends instead of pleasing their spouse. They become narcissistic from all the approval and compliments they get on there, and start thinking that maybe they could have done better. Getting likes from FB friends becomes more important to them than having meaningful relationships with the family members who are with them in person.

Facebook is so destructive of relationships. It creates a lot of opportunity for this type of unnecessary drama, where people end up feeling slighted. It's better to get a girl who doesn't use Facebook at all, because Facebookers tend to devote all their time and attention to trying to impress their FB friends instead of pleasing their spouse. They become narcissistic from all the approval and compliments they get on there, and start thinking that maybe they could have done better. Getting likes from FB friends becomes more important to them than having meaningful relationships with the family members who are with them in person.

Facebook is so destructive of relationships. It creates a lot of opportunity for this type of unnecessary drama, where people end up feeling slighted. It's better to get a girl who doesn't use Facebook at all, because Facebookers tend to devote all their time and attention to trying to impress their FB friends instead of pleasing their spouse. They become narcissistic from all the approval and compliments they get on there, and start thinking that maybe they could have done better. Getting likes from FB friends becomes more important to them than having meaningful relationships with the family members who are with them in person.

So sad to hear about this situation. I agree with the consensus from others that you have a tricky road ahead in hiring a lawyer to represent you while not draining all of your resources. One thing that occurs to me is that scammers likely don't simply arise up out of nothing. These are not good people who suddenly break bad. Chances are this guy has a shady past. Perhaps he has a criminal record or existing marriage back in his home country that wasn't admitted to nor caught in any immigration background check. Maybe he's already engaged in shady acts here in his new country.  Might be worthwhile to spend a minimum amount of money to have an electronic background check done on the guy, here and in his home country.
 
EDIT: Just realized that the post above mine is suggesting the same thing.