Blues Fairy

Which is apropos of nothing. People marry all the time for the wrong reasons. They also marry all the time for the right reasons, and yet 50% of marriages in the US still fail.

So how do you apply these considerations to the OP's situation? It's okay if his girlfriend marries him for the wrong reasons? It's okay if they divorce as soon as she gets her green card? Happens all the time?

It's quite possible that using the K1 to "test the waters" dramatically increases the chance of the fiance(e) staying in the US.

... for all the wrong reasons.

So you're arguing that it shouldn't be used as a trial period because it clogs up the system, which is not a legal argument. And certainly there's no evidence to support this claim either way (can you cite a percentage of filers who use the system in this manner?), and I could just as well argue that anyone who files clogs up the system, so maybe nobody should file, or maybe we should only limit filing from countries who have a higher likelihood of being approved. And of course all K1's are "potentially useless case[es] of paperwork" because the non-USC always has the option of returning to his or her country anyway.

As I said, the intention to use K-1 as a trial dramatically increases the chances of the fiance(e) returning to the home country. While it is within the law, such intentional abuse of K-1 visa prolongs the wait times for other filers whose intentions are more serious. You may demagogize as much as you like that everybody in effect clogs the system, but for those who understand the notion of personal responsibility, the idea I am promoting should be quite clear.

I am absolutely not surprised that you, IIRC having worked in a gov't institution, cannot accept the idea of making responsible choices while using a government program.

In any case, I say again: who are you or me or any of us to judge how a couple conducts the 90 day period their K1 visa legitimately allows? As long as the law is followed, and they either marry or the non-USC departs before day 91, there is no problem. I see the argument against using 90 days as a trial period as the same argument against sex before marriage. If two consenting adults don't mind, why is it anyone else's business?

Because two consenting adults do not increase the backlog of cases at the USCIS with their application to have sex. K-1 filers, however, do and if they use their K-1 as a trial period they burden the government agency, paid for by our tax dollars, with a potentially useless case of paperwork. Sure, every K-1 has a probability of failure but for "trial" filers, this probability increases several times. It's not only stupid but irresponsible toward the taxpayer, to say nothing of the earnest filers who have to wait in line.

Let me just say that the 90 days is NOT a trial period and was not designed as such. If you have doubts about this relationship, TAKE MORE TIME to get to know each other before jumping into this.

Are you sure you can afford her? Looks like unless she gets a job there'll be no pineapples.

There is a law that, before a kid is put up for international adoption, he/she has to be in the central orphans' database for at least 6 months so that Russian families could have precendence. This rule effectively eliminates all kids under 6 months and most healthy cute kids from the pool of prospective international adoptees. And yes, it's expensive ($30-40K on average including the trips).

tell us where you are in the process, and make with the yakkity-yak!!

Hmm... where are we?

Done with USCIS for 2 years in September,

Celebrated 1st anniversary in January,

Daughter Fiona Elizabeth born on the 14th of January.

Cigars all around! (...or pie, or guns, whichever you prefer )

The common man does not do what is right for the society they live in. They do what is cheaper and more convenient for themselves. That tendency to be selfish is human nature and I do not deny that I myself can be very selfish. That is where govern-ment can play a role in encouraging, offering incentives and punitive measures to change the society.

This is what's so sad about liberalism - it's the regressive distrust in the individual's capacity to decide what's good for him/herself. Only the paternalistic Government can decide what's good for you. A return to infancy, in a way.

I have always hated paternalism, that's why I will never live in Sweden. Not that the country is too inviting anyway, with their 50% taxes and failed economy (wonder where the money for this "ambitious" program will come from?)

K-1 approval takes anywhere from 6 to 12 months and lots of pain in the *** - and tourist visa takes 30 days. Why even suggest the K-1.

B-1/2 is very feasible if the girl supplies sufficient proof of ties to Russia (career or ongoing study is the best bet). When I was interviewing for my tourist visa I was also asked if I was married - I said not officially but I had a boyfriend (of course I "forgot" to mention that the boyfriend was American - but they did not ask, did they? )

If you are not a tax resident of Russia, i.e. do not reside in Russia for a total of at least 183 days out of a year, you are not required to pay income tax (according to paragraph 2 of article 11 of Russian Tax Code).

One way explained here.

Good luck

people who just recently voted Stalin #3 for "Greatest Russian of all Time".

Actually the poll question was to choose "the most influential figure in Russian history". If we consider Stalin's impact (not greatness as you quote above), he could well qualify for a place in the rating.

This thing has been going on so long that we don't know who really started what. Israel likely provoked them in some way, whether its building walls or restricting aid. Then hides behind blaming Hamas for everything and most of the western world won't question it.

Who's "we"? Speak for yourself if you don't know something; the sources of information are not restricted.

Sure Israel provokes Hamas - by the mere fact of its existence.

Russians are much too proud to ask for bailout money.

Actually Russian oligarchs did get bailed out of their loans to western banks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/business...31oligarch.html

The Russian oil sinecure takes care of itself just fine without your TARP money.

It must be awfully hard for you to wear the pants in the family while making sure your partner is not aware of it. He's obviously going through some tough growing pains (authoritative MIL being of little help). But I assure you, wanting him to be more of a man while you would prefer to be more of an old fashioned woman is NOT a "cultural difference", it's a perfectly normal desire. Sometimes making a man only requires LETTING him be a man - who knows, maybe if you stop holding the reins so tightly, he'll naturally pick them up.

Getting a tourist visa is actually not that difficult if a woman can show a valid reason to travel (e.g. invitation from friends or relatives, science or business conference, etc) and sufficient ties to Russia (good job with decent income, property, kids/parents etc).

I had an open tourist visa before we filed for K-1. Later I sent invitation to two of my unmarried girl friends and they both got visas no problem. Perhaps all of us being over 30 somewhat helped.

The term "stability" isn't a positive or negative. It is just "stability." That's not a moral judgment, it's just stating the facts.

No matter how much we like or dislike Putin, he's here to stay. But, if we learned anything from Saddam Hussein, it was that even a totalitarian regime is better for the stability of a country than being invaded by a foreign power and "democratized."

Are you very sure the above was said in a neutral, non-judgemental way?

The term Stability is usually used in a positive context (economic prosperity, rule of law, reasonable social welfare, smooth functioning of govt. structures etc). I just don't see how anyone can apply that to a totalitarian regime like Saddam's or Kim's or whoever else's. Misapplying the concept of stability to a repressive regime implies that the said regime is/was in some ways more desirable for the country than what comes/came after. Which is an absolutely insane thing to say.

But, if we learned anything from Saddam Hussein, it was that even a totalitarian regime is better for the stability of a country than being invaded by a foreign power and "democratized."

You must be completely nuts.

You also have to pay for a kitten even if you're getting it for free.

Panic and storing food is a typical Russian reaction to impending "crisis". If I still had family in Russia, I would advise them to make sure they are indispensable at their jobs and have a couple of alternative earning opportunities lined up, just in case. I would also advise not to take any serious loans, even if they are already approved for such. Perhaps redistribute their savings equally between RUR, USD, and EUR accounts.

The employees stayed with GM, Ford, or whomever all those years because of that benefit (and the abnormally high wages UAW workers are paid at some plants). As such, they didn't worry about their retirement or put anything away for it.

Those people essentially gave their lives to GM et al in exchange for wages and retirement. Are you going to be the one to tell them that their lives are now forfeit because you don't agree with their retirement plans?

So they got their abnormally high wages - nobody's proposing to take those back. I don't see how they "gave their lives" and I don't see how taking away their abormal retirement benefits would be unfair.

Sorry but wasn't she made to pay extra 3 months of rent BECAUSE OF problems with his status? That's a valid reason to get very angry, considering he shouldn't have owned that house in the first place.