Obligation

[diadromous mermaid 36]

SterlingGirl,

This might be your intention, but recent case law, albeit limited to a few cases right now, established that the alien has no requirement to mitigate any damages a USC might bear from the obligation under the Affidavit of Support. In fact, it went so far as to say that the USC's support of the alien to the level of 125% of the Federal Poverty Guideline would not require the alien to even attempt to seek an income of his or her own. If you're interested in seeing just how one court chose to interpret the extant contract between the sponsor and the government as it applies to the alien and his or her income, google "Stump versus Stump'. I believe it is a divorce case adjudicated by the Indiana Courts. Granted, this is a rather unique case, in that it is widely considered that this particular Court used a very liberal application of the citizens obligation to the alien. However, it did establish a precedent that other courts might choose to follow.

If you consider the USCIS's point of view, the intent of the I-864 is to prevent the non-USC from becoming a burden on the government (unemployment, medicare, etc).

This is exactly right.

Therefore, this does not mean pay for their housing if they refuse to work, pay for their housing if they can afford a cheaper place but prefer to keep some luxury condo - hell, if the person is fully able to work and have a job in the U.S., then I can't see where I'm obligated to pay anything at all if the relationship falls apart. If the government wants to come back on me because he finds himself on some kind of welfare or aid . . . okay. Fair enough, it's in the contract.

But, were my guy to suddenly walk away from the relationship, changed course from everything we built, and expect ME to foot the bill for his "new life" away from where he promised he wanted to be? Yeah, no. My obligation doesn't extend THAT far. Maybe it'd be different in my case because my hubby is English and there's not really much of a cultural barrier between himself and the employers in the U.S. But my options to him would be thus: if you want to saw off the plank you're standing on, then I'm afraid it's not going to be the end that's nailed to the ship. Either get a job and support yourself or I can pay for you to fly back home.

There's absolutely no reason for that not to happen if he has an EAD. Besides, there's really not much ANY single man could get as far as welfare in the U.S., so it may well be a moot point.

Edited September 26, 2008 by diadromous mermaid

[Y's_habibitk 2]

I do know the seriousness of it.

I also notice is that is one of the first questions that people ask.

However, you are only responsible if the beneficiary applies for state/federal assistance. right? So unless the soon to be/ex spouse is running to the public assistance building, and they qualify!, you arent really left "holding the bag".

If they can support themselves and they do not apply(and get) public assistance...there really isnt much to fret about.

Someone correct me if Im wrong here. *edit(i just read the above post)

I totally get the reasoning behind the affidavit. Why should we(tax payers) support this person?

Lisa

Edited September 26, 2008 by Y_habibitk

[justashooter 430]

I love google-trained psychologists.

Regardless, the I-864 is a contract between the sponsor and the American public: I am bringing over another person who only has a claim to be here because of our relationship, I will not let that person become an undue burden on the taxpayers. I think of it like a shifting of risk, too; one does not have to prove that much of a relationship to bring a spouse here (you don't have to prove true love, or fidelity, or that you're a compatible couple, or that you will survive long-term), so it helps ensure that the USC, at least, is serious enough about the relationship to pledge minimal financial support.

It's always a surprise to me that people are surprised by the requirements, after the fact.

actually, i learned psychology while tutoring my second wife through a graduate degree. she wasn't too smart, but she had a mega trust fund that kept her in school till she was 34. her 4th degree was in clinical psychology. unfortunately, the degree did not protect her from genetic probability as it pertains to axis 1 (2 immediates diagnosed = 70% probability). she was a late bloomer. me, i'm just a normal guy with a high IQ that can be diagnosed as mild narcissism by a clinician who isn't equipped to understand it.

your second point is spot on. the I864 contract is designed to protect the american taxpayers from the burden potential created by persons who import a spouse, and later loose the relationship, for whatever reason. the I864 was deemed unnescessary until the age of internet marriage came into full bloom, with the number of K1 applications increasing nearly ten-fold between 1998 and 2006. that's ten times as many immigrants per year, with more than ten times as many marriages ending in russian brides seeking welfare and section eight housing immediately after receiving their green card. the drain on public resources just got too big to ignore.

in reality though, the contract is effectively between the immigrant and the sponsor, with the I864 a necessary instrument to guarrantee it's enforcement. the immigrant gets the free ride if the marraige dissolves, and the government sees no loss. this was the point of my original post.

why it is that people who meet their finance (deliberate misspelling, also avoiding the need for an accent mark) over the internet are willing to take such contractual risk is beyond my understanding. their assumption of the risk, after having spent only a few days determining in person if their fantasy partner approaches their expectation in reality, seems unreasonable. in my case, working in china most of the year since 2004, i actually lived with my wife for over two years before her entry into the US. we had a functional marriage before it was legalised.

even so, i am aware that if we seperate that i may end up paying spousal support. my wife has a strong sense of personal integrity and a strong desire to support herself. in less than a year she has integrated fairly well into american society and is employed at above the poverty level. i wouldn't have married her if i expected anything less, and don't understand why so many posters on this board tolerate such behavoiur. this comment from a person who has read this forum fairly regularly for over 3 years.

[justashooter 430]

I do know the seriousness of it.

I also notice is that is one of the first questions that people ask.

However, you are only responsible if the beneficiary applies for state/federal assistance. right? So unless the soon to be/ex spouse is running to the public assistance building, and they qualify!, you arent really left "holding the bag".

If they can support themselves and they do not apply(and get) public assistance...there really isnt much to fret about.

Someone correct me if Im wrong here. *edit(i just read the above post)

I totally get the reasoning behind the affidavit. Why should we(tax payers) support this person?

Lisa

the primary risk is that the I864 can be used in a divorce settlement to obligate spousal support.

[Caladan 19]

justashooter, clinical diagnoses can't be done over the Internet.

One thing to point out is that the party might be obligated to pay spousal support anyway; that happens in American-American marriages. The I-864 makes that a tiny bit more likely, based on what, one case and the resulting possible precedent?

I guess I don't really see the problem. If people are willing to take the risk to get married based on a few days in person, with all that entails, they shouldn't be able to get out of it just because they really, really didn't think it through and shift the public charge burden onto the taxpayer. (This is not cases of fraud, just 'it didn't work out how can I ensure I am not on the hook/deport her as$.')

[justashooter 430]

caladan, i agree that clinical diagnosis can't be done via the net. if you read the post in question you will see that i remarked on a single behaviour that would be defined as a feature of BPD within the american culture. the particular feature i remarked on is one of 8 that are listed for BDP. the presence of six are required for formal diagnosis, and these must occur at a level that significantly affects the client's lifestyle. this diagnosis is not valid outside of our culture. i define "our culture" in this case, as that group of people which have acclimated to the legal/moral/ethical structure existant in the majority of the US population. thereby, i leave recent immigrants from 2nd/3rd world countries and non-anglo countries completely out of the picture.

and before somebody has a cow, the anglo culture is the basis of the american culture, and is the baseline for clinical diagnosis within this country. clients from foreign cultures that don't closely model the anglo culture should be dealt with by clinicians who are familiar with their specific culture. that way, when some older asian woman extorts money from her adult daughter when some middle eastern guy beats his wife, or some central african guy mutilates his daughter's genitals, the clinician will understand that it's "normal" behaviour.

that's the trouble with america these days. the "normal" behaviour standard is degraded, day by day, within our social system. slowly, ever so slowly, we descend into chaos. disrespect for productivity, egalitarianism, and authority are a feature of today's immigrant population, by and large. fear of the club no longer forces immigrants to assimilate and produce. legal immigrants are less so than illegals, but more so than the american by birth.

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

I am probably going to face some discontent with this thread, but I just feel it is necessary to dispell the myth that a USC can simply withdraw his or her obligation made to USCIS under the Affidavit of Support.