What does the Affidavit of Support require?

[tito 1]

In light of the gratuitous commentary...the analysis is as misguided as the conclusions in the Stump case are ill-conceived.

Nobody should even joke about giving up their dreams. The point was made to illustrate just how prevalent are the problems concerning these issues when it comes to immigrants from certain parts of the world.

The question is: what is a public charge? If taxpayers start picking up the tab for means tested benefits received. This should NOT mean that the immigration service says, "welcome to America - here's your green card, and you can count on a couple grand a month from your sponsor if things don't work out with your marriage." That's what the court in Stump suggests is the case, and why the result and rationale is so baseless.

[mox 298]

Nobody should even joke about giving up their dreams. The point was made to illustrate just how prevalent are the problems concerning these issues when it comes to immigrants from certain parts of the world.

Right. The making up of stories about other people's relationships should be left to experts like you.

I'm fully aware of the "issues" faced with "immigrants from certain parts of the world." In fact, I'm willing to bet I'm a lot more familiar with it than you are. Which is why you might be interested in knowing that the divorce rate amongst Russian/American couples is almost exactly the same as the national divorce rate. (No I don't have a source, I'm a baaaaad bookmarker. But I've never seen you cite a source either, so let's move on.) So while yes there are scammers from that "certain part of the world," it's not near as bad as the paranoic ####### you try to scare everyone into believing.

The question is: what is a public charge? If taxpayers start picking up the tab for means tested benefits received. This should NOT mean that the immigration service says, "welcome to America - here's your green card, and you can count on a couple grand a month from your sponsor if things don't work out with your marriage." That's what the court in Stump suggests is the case, and why the result and rationale is so baseless.

Say it with me now: IN YOUR OPINION. (I capitalized it like you like because...you know...I care.)

See, the IN YOUR OPINION part is important. Because otherwise it sounds like you're advising people to break the law. (that would be a violation of the TOS btw.) This is what makes people like you so dangerous. You cloak personal opinion in the guise of fact. It's fine that your experience gives you so much insight into these things, and hey I actually agree with your OPINION in this matter. (and don't think the other tito baiters aren't going to give me ####### about that, tyvm) But you need to start clarifying where reality leaves off and your OPINION takes over. Otherwise you do a disservice to everyone except your own ego.

Anyway, as I said, don't change. I'm actually learning a lot from the other people who have to come in and explain to you what you should already know. Kudos for that.

[tito 1]

You're ignoring the reality, but you go right ahead and save the world.

The nature and extent of the obligations under a declaration of support are set forth in the Federal Register, and a discussion was invited on the subject. As flattered as I am to have a fan like Mox, please cry 'wolf' another place. Good luck getting your fiancee here ASAP. Something is needed for the stress...

Edited February 7, 2008 by tito

[mox 298]

You're ignoring the reality, but you go right ahead and save the world.

Anyone who's ever saved the world has ignored the reality.

The nature and extent of the obligations under a declaration of support are set forth in the Federal Register, and a discussion was invited on the subject.

And you should discuss. Discuss, DISCUSS! Don't let me stop you from sharing your OPINION.

As flattered as I am to have a fan like Mox, please cry 'wolf' another place. Good luck getting your fiancee here ASAP. Something is needed for the stress...

You can't kick me out. You made me king of the sandbox, remember?

Thanks for the well wishes.

[StillThePrettiest 3]

Say it with me now: IN YOUR OPINION. (I capitalized it like you like because...you know...I care.)

See, the IN YOUR OPINION part is important. Because otherwise it sounds like you're advising people to break the law. (that would be a violation of the TOS btw.) This is what makes people like you so dangerous. You cloak personal opinion in the guise of fact. It's fine that your experience gives you so much insight into these things, and hey I actually agree with your OPINION in this matter. (and don't think the other tito baiters aren't going to give me ####### about that, tyvm) But you need to start clarifying where reality leaves off and your OPINION takes over. Otherwise you do a disservice to everyone except your own ego.

*applause*

even though tito will, if past experience is anything to go by, still read the above as saying 'we think you don't know anything and marriage fraud never occurs with Russian women and we are challenging the content of your remarks', you have got the heart of the issue as well as anyone ever has, mox

(bolding mine for bits I especially agree with)

Edited February 7, 2008 by StillThePrettiest

[tito 1]

I fail to see the problem here - there's no advice to break any law. The issue, once again to be narrowed for the purposes of discussion, is the nature and extent of the obligation on the part of a sponsor under a declaration of support. Why things seem to go sideways when a few posters choose to make this a personal issue is beyond me. Then again, I fail to see how some people with so much optimism and hope for their own relationship follow so closely and with such vigor the threads about the unfortunate and devastating circumstances of others. Quite revealing, actually.

Carry on...

[mox 298]

I fail to see the problem here - there's no advice to break any law.

Never said there was. I said "it sounds like..." In other words, when you explain OPINION as FACT then it makes it sound like you are saying something that isn't what you're really saying. Now I have my own thoughts on whether this is intentional or not, but for argument's sake I'll just say that because you won't make a distinction between fact and opinion you are muddling your own message.

The issue, once again to be narrowed for the purposes of discussion, is the nature and extent of the obligation on the part of a sponsor under a declaration of support.

Cool. As I've already said, I actually agree with your OPINION. I think the ruling was bogus too. And if you would simply make the distinction I'd be all like "wooowoooo!!! Go tito! Go tito! Go tito!" And then I'd make like a fist pumping motion and shake my thang. Sorta like the other tito minions but I think I'd be cooler. Because of the fist pumping thing. None of your other minions do that.

Then again, I fail to see how some people with so much optimism and hope for their own relationship follow so closely and with such vigor the threads about the unfortunate and devastating circumstances of others.

I know. It must be very difficult for you. You seem to have a difficult time handling separate but related concepts.

Quite revealing, actually.

I like to think of you saying that in a British accent. With a monocle. Can I call you "Colonel?"

Carry on...

Will do. I'll keep saying this too: you have a lot of helpful knowledge that would be extremely useful to a lot of people. But you are completely unfocused (FACT vs OPIONION) and seemingly unwilling to actually engage in any productive manner. I say "seemingly" because maybe it's just that you don't understand what you're doing. For example, maybe you really do think I'm just "attacking" you because I don't agree with your viewpoint. But hopefully you'll come around and actually start being helpful and then I can do my "woowoo'ing!" and my arm pumping.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

In light of the gratuitous commentary...the analysis is as misguided as the conclusions in the Stump case are ill-conceived.

Nobody should even joke about giving up their dreams. The point was made to illustrate just how prevalent are the problems concerning these issues when it comes to immigrants from certain parts of the world.

The question is: what is a public charge? If taxpayers start picking up the tab for means tested benefits received. This should NOT mean that the immigration service says, "welcome to America - here's your green card, and you can count on a couple grand a month from your sponsor if things don't work out with your marriage." That's what the court in Stump suggests is the case, and why the result and rationale is so baseless.

As far as determining the scope of obligation that the USC undertakes by endorsing the Affidavit of Support one cannot simple make constant reference to the commentary in the Federal Register. That is not viewing the matter in totality, in my opinion.

Since an alien (save for a handful of exceptions) is statutorily barred from receiving means-tested benefits for a period of 5 years, anyway, of what value would the Affidavit be to USCIS, certainly at this the AOS stage, if it were only an enforceable tool to recover benefits related to federal means? Why not institute that Affidavit at a later stage when it becomes more germane?

Furthermore, with sponsor deeming, what alien would qualify for means tested benefits if his or her income were to be inflated by his or her US citizen sponsor? Unless that sponsor had fallen into an impoverished state, and therefore any recovery attempt by the agency for benefits the alien would secure would naturally be thwarted.

In order to trully understand what is intended to be the scope of support to which the Affidavit binds the petitioner, I believe it would be shortsighted to not bear in mind these other issues.

[rebeccajo 14]

Silly question, but.....

Isn't this whole Affidavit business a load of bollocks anyway?

The Affidavit makes you (in theory) responsible for repaying the cost of any "means-tested

public benefits", but no-one (except USCIS) knows the Affidavit even exists, and the USCIS

keep it securely locked in a vault (or a dusty file cabinet.)

So even if an immigrant goes and claims all of sorts of benefits, who would know that there's

an Affidavit of Support out there somewhere and who's going to enforce it? It's not like

the IRS, SSA and USCIS all use the same computer system.

Subpeona, anyone?

[rebeccajo 14]

In light of the gratuitous commentary...the analysis is as misguided as the conclusions in the Stump case are ill-conceived.

Nobody should even joke about giving up their dreams. The point was made to illustrate just how prevalent are the problems concerning these issues when it comes to immigrants from certain parts of the world.

The question is: what is a public charge? If taxpayers start picking up the tab for means tested benefits received. This should NOT mean that the immigration service says, "welcome to America - here's your green card, and you can count on a couple grand a month from your sponsor if things don't work out with your marriage." That's what the court in Stump suggests is the case, and why the result and rationale is so baseless.

As far as determining the scope of obligation that the USC undertakes by endorsing the Affidavit of Support one cannot simple make constant reference to the commentary in the Federal Register. That is not viewing the matter in totality, in my opinion.

Since an alien (save for a handful of exceptions) is statutorily barred from receiving means-tested benefits for a period of 5 years, anyway, of what value would the Affidavit be to USCIS, certainly at this the AOS stage, if it were only an enforceable tool to recover benefits related to federal means? Why not institute that Affidavit at a later stage when it becomes more germane?

Furthermore, with sponsor deeming, what alien would qualify for means tested benefits if his or her income were to be inflated by his or her US citizen sponsor? Unless that sponsor had fallen into an impoverished state, and therefore any recovery attempt by the agency for benefits the alien would secure would naturally be thwarted.

In order to trully understand what is intended to be the scope of support to which the Affidavit binds the petitioner, I believe it would be shortsighted to not bear in mind these other issues.

Not only shortsighted but, given Post #5, it seems to also indicate a complete 'black-out' on Tito's part during Contractual Law 101.

But then again, we see this from time to time on VJ. A practitioner of law thinking they can easily step into the arena of immigration law simply by virtue of the JD hanging on their wall.

No doubt the same attorneys we read reports about who took a clients' fee to process a visa petition and then royally screwed it up.

Edited February 7, 2008 by rebeccajo

[tito 1]

No - because the contact has the immigrant, at best, as an indirect 3rd party beneficiary. The government can contract on its own behalf for what may be its exposure, but the creation of rights on behalf of other parties is a stretch.

Indeed, the prospect of other issues does arise. But given the legislative intent (that the immigrant not be a public charge, i.e., that the State can seek reimbursement for certain benefits it must provide vis-a-vis means tested public benefits...), it seems to me, as I state from the get-go in connection with any discussion here, that the conclusion reached by the Stump court is incorrect. The Court expanded language that should have been contracted.

[tito 1]

No - not so fast, Rebecca...because the contact has the immigrant, at best, as an indirect 3rd party beneficiary. The government can contract on its own behalf for what may be its exposure, but the creation of rights on behalf of other parties is a stretch. I don't claim to be an expert in immigration law by any stretch of the imagination - however, I am confident that my statutory analysis is correct, as is my analysis of the role of a court in its interpretation. I invited a discussion, and I provided commentary that reflect confusion and an attempt on the part of immigration services to clarify to support my conclusion. Please read it and then comment on the subject matter, don't simply swim around and come to short sighted conclusions as to either me or the result.

Indeed, the prospect of other issues does arise. But given the legislative intent (that the immigrant not be a public charge, i.e., that the State can seek reimbursement for certain benefits it must provide vis-a-vis means tested public benefits...), it seems to me, as I state from the get-go in connection with any discussion here, that the conclusion reached by the Stump court is incorrect. The Court expanded language that should have been contracted.

[rebeccajo 14]

No - because the contact has the immigrant, at best, as an indirect 3rd party beneficiary. The government can contract on its own behalf for what may be its exposure, but the creation of rights on behalf of other parties is a stretch.

Indeed, the prospect of other issues does arise. But given the legislative intent (that the immigrant not be a public charge, i.e., that the State can seek reimbursement for certain benefits it must provide vis-a-vis means tested public benefits...), it seems to me, as I state from the get-go in connection with any discussion here, that the conclusion reached by the Stump court is incorrect. The Court expanded language that should have been contracted.

Which is what case law is for.

[pushbrk 12,898]

No - not so fast, Rebecca...because the contact has the immigrant, at best, as an indirect 3rd party beneficiary. The government can contract on its own behalf for what may be its exposure, but the creation of rights on behalf of other parties is a stretch. I don't claim to be an expert in immigration law by any stretch of the imagination - however, I am confident that my statutory analysis is correct, as is my analysis of the role of a court in its interpretation. I invited a discussion, and I provided commentary that reflect confusion and an attempt on the part of immigration services to clarify to support my conclusion. Please read it and then comment on the subject matter, don't simply swim around and come to short sighted conclusions as to either me or the result.

Indeed, the prospect of other issues does arise. But given the legislative intent (that the immigrant not be a public charge, i.e., that the State can seek reimbursement for certain benefits it must provide vis-a-vis means tested public benefits...), it seems to me, as I state from the get-go in connection with any discussion here, that the conclusion reached by the Stump court is incorrect. The Court expanded language that should have been contracted.

Yet, the sponsor in "Stump" is paying, right? I don't agree with the Stump decision either but I'm not the judge.

[tito 1]

Sure. It costs less to pay than to appeal. The result, however, is inconsistent with the manner in which immigration services view the issue, so it remains an open question, yes, subject to interpretation as the issue is litigated. But by no means is the issue settled, which is the formidable issue facing those of us signing on the dotted line. Just what IS the nature of the obligation? What ARE we agreeing to pay?