OK now I am worried about an RFE

[James 2]

Unless you are including a DNA test result for any children and your husband, it is no better evidence than any other evidence..... It would not be the first time that babies daddy is not the husband.....

Just because you have a child does not prove that your marriage is any more real than a couple with no children.....

I could say that people like me and my husband, who are on the older side, should be approved quickly because we have already lived over half of our expected lifespan so we are not likely to enter into something just get a greencard when we have had to leave our adult children and grandchildren in another country....

Kez

A birth certificate is "no better evidence than any other evidence"? That's a laughable statement, and I would bet that deep down you recognize that. No better than jasman's 5 affidavits? No better than the landlord's "letter" saying, yeah, only hubby is on the lease, but wifey lives with him? No better than the cable bill with both names on it? No better than photos from some party? No better than your joint AAA membership or the furniture receipt with both names?

Puh-leez.

The law is quite clear on this. The fact that the parents are married legally establishes paternity. No DNA test required. End of story.

Also, your observation that a child doesn't prove that a marriage is "more real" than a marriage without children misses the point entirely. This is not a contest to see whose marriage is "more real" (whatever that means). It's a yes or no question: is the marriage genuine or not? A child establishes that far more readily than all of your other evidence.

While I feel for those who want children and cannot have them -- for children ARE the purpose of marriage (and no right-wing religious kook am I) -- this thread has a number of patently ridiculous statements.

[Kez/JWolf 6]

While I feel for those who want children and cannot have them -- for children ARE the purpose of marriage (and no right-wing religious kook am I) -- this thread has a number of patently ridiculous statements.

Your statements are what let you down.... how many people get married because they want children... Marriage has many purposes, I did not mary my husband because we needed to have children.... I married my husband because I wanted to be with him.... If I had been a USC we would not have got married, we would have been partners.... not because we dont want or cant have children but because we dont need a piece of paper to make our feelings real...

It is your opinion the children are the reason for marriage... but just because you have a child does not prove your marriage is any more gunuine than mine.... As for your statement about a legal marriage proves paternity... that is a load of #######... there are 1000's of wives who get child support from someone other than their husband.... you only have to watch some of these daytime TV programmes to see married couples having DNA tests done to find out if husband is the father of their child.....

As far as immigration goes, yes a child born to the couple is a strong piece of evidence, but that does not equate to people with children being approved any faster that people without children, otherwise you would not still be waiting while others have been approved ahead of you....

Kez(To old to have kids and been there done that)

[James 2]

While I feel for those who want children and cannot have them -- for children ARE the purpose of marriage (and no right-wing religious kook am I) -- this thread has a number of patently ridiculous statements.

Your statements are what let you down.... how many people get married because they want children... Marriage has many purposes, I did not mary my husband because we needed to have children.... I married my husband because I wanted to be with him.... If I had been a USC we would not have got married, we would have been partners.... not because we dont want or cant have children but because we dont need a piece of paper to make our feelings real...

It is your opinion the children are the reason for marriage... but just because you have a child does not prove your marriage is any more gunuine than mine.... As for your statement about a legal marriage proves paternity... that is a load of #######... there are 1000's of wives who get child support from someone other than their husband.... you only have to watch some of these daytime TV programmes to see married couples having DNA tests done to find out if husband is the father of their child.....

As far as immigration goes, yes a child born to the couple is a strong piece of evidence, but that does not equate to people with children being approved any faster that people without children, otherwise you would not still be waiting while others have been approved ahead of you....

Kez(To old to have kids and been there done that)

You're not looking at things from a legal perspective, which is what counts here. This is a legal process, not the Dr. Phil show. Although times have obviously changed, and society no longer views marriage as a prerequisite for cohabitation (or in some quarters, no longer views being of the opposite sex as a prerequisite for marriage), marriage is still viewed legally as a vehicle for having children. It is the legal link between having sex and family responsibility.

Flowing from that is the legal presumption of paternity that attaches to a child born of the marriage. A man is presumed to be the father of a child if he is married to the mother and the child was born during the marriage. Period. Far from being a "load of #######," as you put it, it is the law in every state in this nation. You may think marriage is just a piece of a paper. The law does not.

My original point remains: because my wife and I have had two children together, it is easier for us to prove that she did not enter into the marriage to evade the immigration laws than it is for you to prove the same. As I mentioned, marrying someone for a green card is done all of the time. Having that same person's children just for a green card would be extraordinary.

Edited March 5, 2008 by James

[Kathryn41 3,205]

I'm with Kezzie on this one. Both my husband and I are past our child-bearing years. Heck, his daughter/my step-daughter is older than many of the people on this list filing for immigration benefits! Having children is definitely NOT the reason to get married and I think you might have some later marriage issues if you believe that is the main reason you and your spouse got married - so you can have children. Your narrow definition of the purpose of marriage ignores the reality of marriage. Yes, it provides a legal 'presumed' paternity for children born to the woman in a marriage for the purposes of property rights, support, etc.. That legal relationship remains between the husband and wife regardless of whether or not there are children involved. If the sole purpose of getting married was to have children, then once a woman is menopausal her husband should obviously divorce her, put her out to pasture and get himself a younger model still capable of breeding! You are basically saying that my husband and I should not be married because we are older and will no longer have children. I suspect the two of you are still very, very young chronologically and have not yet had much life experience.

Marriage is also NOT the legal process for having children, btw. Childbirth is a biological experience and the courts recognize that children born outside of marriage have their legal rights as well. Regardless if the father is married to the mother or not the court will still issue a child support order to the non-custodial parent when the couple separate. Marriage provides only 'assumed' paternity, not actual.

While having children provides good evidence that the marriage was not entered into to evade immigration laws, there is nothing to stop someone who wishes to use marriage to gain a green card from fathering or giving birth to a child -and then abandoning that child and their partner. A marriage entered into by two people because they are interested in each other as individuals, as people they want to spend their lives with, has equally good resources to prove a valid marriage. Children are not required.

Edited March 5, 2008 by Kathryn41

[iansig40 1]

I'm with Kezzie on this one. Both my husband and I are past our child-bearing years. Heck, his daughter/my step-daughter is older than many of the people on this list filing for immigration benefits! Having children is definitely NOT the reason to get married and I think you might have some later marriage issues if you believe that is the main reason you and your spouse got married - so you can have children. Your narrow definition of the purpose of marriage ignores the reality of marriage. Yes, it provides a legal 'presumed' paternity for children born to the woman in a marriage for the purposes of property rights, support, etc.. That legal relationship remains between the husband and wife regardless of whether or not there are children involved. If the sole purpose of getting married was to have children, then once a woman is menopausal her husband should obviously divorce her, put her out to pasture and get himself a younger model still capable of breeding! You are basically saying that my husband and I should not be married because we are older and will no longer have children. I suspect the two of you are still very, very young chronologically and have not yet had much life experience.

Marriage is also NOT the legal process for having children, btw. Childbirth is a biological experience and the courts recognize that children born outside of marriage have their legal rights as well. Regardless if the father is married to the mother or not the court will still issue a child support order to the non-custodial parent when the couple separate. Marriage provides only 'assumed' paternity, not actual.

While having children provides good evidence that the marriage was not entered into to evade immigration laws, there is nothing to stop someone who wishes to use marriage to gain a green card from fathering or giving birth to a child -and then abandoning that child and their partner. A marriage entered into by two people because they are interested in each other as individuals, as people they want to spend their lives with, has equally good resources to prove a valid marriage. Children are not required.

Well said ....I'm sure some people here will complain again but,that's nothing new !

[Canuck78 0]

While I agree that having children does not absolutely prove anything, you will have to agree that MOST married women do not have a child that is not their husband's. Some do of course, but it is far from being the majority. And on a lighter note, anyone who saw my kids next to their daddy would NEVER doubt that he is the daddy! You would swear he made them by himself! LOL

I think the point is that having children is such a strong peice of evidence because it effectively ties you to the other person for quite a long time and if you were only after immigration benefits, that is probably not something you would do. While people who get divorced can go their seperate way and never have any contact again, couples who have kids are a different matter. Yes of course, it happens that a parent abandons the child, but it is not the rule. In most cases, both parents will have to deal with each other AT LEAST until the child is 18 years old.

It does not make a childless marriage any less "real", it just means that it is EASIER to prove you didn't get married just for immigration benefits if you DO have them, with less additional evidence to prove it. Nobody said that it makes it faster to get an approval, only that when you do have children you need less of the rest of the evidence.

[Kajikit 65]

I can't help feeling offended here... if the purpose of marriage is to have children, does that mean that I should just pack up and go home because I can't have them?! Our marriage isn't any less valid than anyone else's because our children have four legs and fur...

[iansig40 1]

I can't help feeling offended here... if the purpose of marriage is to have children, does that mean that I should just pack up and go home because I can't have them?! Our marriage isn't any less valid than anyone else's because our children have four legs and fur...

[James 2]

I can't help feeling offended here... if the purpose of marriage is to have children, does that mean that I should just pack up and go home because I can't have them?! Our marriage isn't any less valid than anyone else's because our children have four legs and fur...

I'm sorry, I'm not looking to offend anyone (except perhaps the snotty, snippy noob who picked out an observation of mine and started this). It's the traditional purpose of marriage. People who don't want to or can't have kids but who are committed to each other obviously can have a marriage that is equally "valid" in all respects to one in which the couple has or plans to have children. No question about that.

But having children, at least IMHO (which is all this was to begin with), demonstrates more than anything else that the marriage is not a sham. Plus children create ties that bind, even after a divorce. If I divorced my wife tomorrow, I would still have to deal with her for years to come, at least until the kids are grown and out of college. Other folks can just walk away from each other.

Also, IMHO, this topic has gone far enough, at least for me. The original point -- "kids are an ace in the hole" -- is that birth certificates attached to an I-751 petition are the most powerful evidence that the marriage was not entered into to evade the immigration laws. That's not meant to denigrate other evidence, and certainly not to denigrate childless marriages.

[Kez/JWolf 6]

I think that you implied that if you have a child then your application should only take a few mins to approve... IMHO the fact that you have children sould not make any diffrence to when your application gets approved or not.... each case should be treated on its own merits .... having a child to the marriage is a strong piece of evidence but the child does not mean you should be approved ahead of a couple who do not have a child...

Kez

[iansig40 1]

I can't help feeling offended here... if the purpose of marriage is to have children, does that mean that I should just pack up and go home because I can't have them?! Our marriage isn't any less valid than anyone else's because our children have four legs and fur...

I'm sorry, I'm not looking to offend anyone (except perhaps the snotty, snippy noob who picked out an observation of mine and started this). It's the traditional purpose of marriage. People who don't want to or can't have kids but who are committed to each other obviously can have a marriage that is equally "valid" in all respects to one in which the couple has or plans to have children. No question about that.

But having children, at least IMHO (which is all this was to begin with), demonstrates more than anything else that the marriage is not a sham. Plus children create ties that bind, even after a divorce. If I divorced my wife tomorrow, I would still have to deal with her for years to come, at least until the kids are grown and out of college. Other folks can just walk away from each other.

Also, IMHO, this topic has gone far enough, at least for me. The original point -- "kids are an ace in the hole" -- is that birth certificates attached to an I-751 petition are the most powerful evidence that the marriage was not entered into to evade the immigration laws. That's not meant to denigrate other evidence, and certainly not to denigrate childless marriages.

OMG ...not again !

[James 2]

I think that you implied that if you have a child then your application should only take a few mins to approve... IMHO the fact that you have children sould not make any diffrence to when your application gets approved or not.... each case should be treated on its own merits .... having a child to the marriage is a strong piece of evidence but the child does not mean you should be approved ahead of a couple who do not have a child...

Kez

Now you're porting over an obviously hyperbolic statement I made earlier on another thread.

I believe I made my point quite clearly and succinctly above.

Kindly give it a rest.

Thank you.

[Bootylicious!! 2]

I think it had to do with the term used that offended a lot of people. To say kids are an "ace in the hole" implied to me that once you get married you should pop out a few to guarantee you won't get questioned on the relationship you have. IMHO, there are plenty of people out there who got married (visa or no visa), had some kids, then split. I don't see why having kids seems to make you think the relationship should be approved with less evidence than any other. I for one think, if you were in it just for the visa and a kid just happened to come along, it wouldn't change your idea that you're out once you get that GC. You'd be surprised at how little people value their children now days. Which, is why the term above offended me. I would love to have kids and have put so much effort into doing so. My children would be the greatest and most valuable thing in my life. But, I wasn't trying so hard to have them because I knew it would guarantee a GC for Javi. I was and still am trying because children are what I want more than anything in this world, including a GC.

[Spiderette 0]

No one intended to offend anyone ---we're all in the same bucket with the USCIS here... sharing the same frustration....

So I also think we should give this topic a rest...

[utopiacowboy 0]

I do agree with James. How many couples in a sham marriage are going to have a child together in order to put one over on the USCIS? Has it ever happened? I doubt it. I know of one sham marriage and the couple has not even consumated that relationship.