Don't flame me too much but... all these co-sponsers?

[Brad and Vika 129]

I understand, BirdyGirl.

I also believe it's unfair to think people should wait possibly years until they're financially above a certain level - when there are millions of USC's getting together and marrying, making families, etc ALL the time. I'm not saying that it's right for them to do that, I think it depends on the situation; but are we to restrict *everyone* from getting together in person until they've reached a certain tier of income? How many USC couples would even stay together if they were told they couldn't see physically together until they got a job paying x amount? Don't make judgements of immigrant situations.

Ha! ha! Ha! If you heard of a man/woman with a puppy whom he didn't feed or bathe or take out for a walk etc. - you will be willing to hang him for it (I am) - But one can get a woman/man and not feed or clothe or take care of him/her and it is OK with you? The US citizens who do it are not very bright - when they work in McDonald's they should not be driving a Mercedes Or start a family Or get married without thinking of the Most important thing - Finances. If you don;t have the money you should not marry/have children or even have a pet. Those who do are not very intelligent and are drawing this nation down with their self greed - this is not what I choose to do; nor should you. Marriage is a very important decision involving a lot of emotional and financial support - if you lack it - don't do it. Same thing with having children or pets or a car even! Good Luck

Where is your free market sensibility motu? McDonald's needs employees too. If two consenting adults can convince the government that they can support themselves....

[baron555 934]

I also believe it's unfair to think people should wait possibly years until they're financially above a certain level - when there are millions of USC's getting together and marrying, making families, etc ALL the time.

Don't you understand the requirements of being financially able to support the other person?

Yes it is travesty that folks here in the US can get together without demonstrating financial responsibility. ( I agree that this should be imposed.)

You are both young. Understand that sometimes the rules are for a good thing. You ought to be able to support your foreign spouce so that they do not become a burden on the government like many of their fellow citizens have become. (Don't get me started.)

Edited June 8, 2009 by baron555

[Gemmie 142]

Ha! ha! Ha! If you heard of a man/woman with a puppy whom he didn't feed or bathe or take out for a walk etc. - you will be willing to hang him for it (I am) - But one can get a woman/man and not feed or clothe or take care of him/her and it is OK with you?

What the hell is wrong with VJ in the past week or so... everyone has a tree up their ####.

I never said that it was fine for people who cannot afford to EAT to bring someone over from abroad. Of course that is ridiculous and I never even brought that up. I didn't give examples of how you can support yourselves without buying luxuries (as you mentioned pets, cars, children) to boast about how money-efficient I am. It's because I believe that in modern society, people share this belief that luxuries are a must. We have credit cards, overdrafts and loans being given out to anyone who desires something that they can't wait for. That is something I am against, hence why we waited to visit each other in person once we had the money, and why we waited to file for the visa when we had the money; and why we don't even go out to dinner if we're saving for something else. And you know what, I'm fine with that.. because I've been raised by parents that didn't have much themselves, we were never rich by any means during my childhood. I value the gift of appreciation.

I never said that money wasn't important in a relationship. I even said I was NOT saying that it was right that millions of people were getting together, regardless of the money - but that it depends on each situation. For your example, if both people *do* work at McDonalds and are making enough money to support themselves and are happy with that, who are we to judge them? If one person is making enough money for support them for the essentials but not for luxuries, and they're happy with that, who are we to judge them?

You are both young. Understand that sometimes the rules are for a good thing.

Please don't patronise me.

We are young, but we're not stupid. We understand the laws, the standards, and the reasonings behind them.

I never said that the rule of making over a certain limit was unfair; I think it's essential to the process that the sponsor can demonstate that they won't be a strain on public resources. I actually said that people believing that others should wait years to be together until they independently make over the financial limit (no matter what) is unfair. I see nothing wrong with using a co-sponsor in certain situations. Some people are fresh out of college; some have been looking after sick relatives; some are at odds with the job market; some people have spent time in another country (and hence filing for a visa, perhaps); there are many reasons why co-sponsors are useful and should be allowed, in my opinion.

That does not include people that cannot afford to currently eat or bathe themselves. That shouldn't even be considered.

[SCFsnoopy 0]

Ha! ha! Ha! If you heard of a man/woman with a puppy whom he didn't feed or bathe or take out for a walk etc. - you will be willing to hang him for it (I am) - But one can get a woman/man and not feed or clothe or take care of him/her and it is OK with you?

What the hell is wrong with VJ in the past week or so... everyone has a tree up their ####.

I never said that it was fine for people who cannot afford to EAT to bring someone over from abroad. Of course that is ridiculous and I never even brought that up. I didn't give examples of how you can support yourselves without buying luxuries (as you mentioned pets, cars, children) to boast about how money-efficient I am. It's because I believe that in modern society, people share this belief that luxuries are a must. We have credit cards, overdrafts and loans being given out to anyone who desires something that they can't wait for. That is something I am against, hence why we waited to visit each other in person once we had the money, and why we waited to file for the visa when we had the money; and why we don't even go out to dinner if we're saving for something else. And you know what, I'm fine with that.. because I've been raised by parents that didn't have much themselves, we were never rich by any means during my childhood. I value the gift of appreciation.

I never said that money wasn't important in a relationship. I even said I was NOT saying that it was right that millions of people were getting together, regardless of the money - but that it depends on each situation. For your example, if both people *do* work at McDonalds and are making enough money to support themselves and are happy with that, who are we to judge them? If one person is making enough money for support them for the essentials but not for luxuries, and they're happy with that, who are we to judge them?

You are both young. Understand that sometimes the rules are for a good thing.

Please don't patronise me.

We are young, but we're not stupid. We understand the laws, the standards, and the reasonings behind them.

I never said that the rule of making over a certain limit was unfair; I think it's essential to the process that the sponsor can demonstate that they won't be a strain on public resources. I actually said that people believing that others should wait years to be together until they independently make over the financial limit (no matter what) is unfair. I see nothing wrong with using a co-sponsor in certain situations. Some people are fresh out of college; some have been looking after sick relatives; some are at odds with the job market; some people have spent time in another country (and hence filing for a visa, perhaps); there are many reasons why co-sponsors are useful and should be allowed, in my opinion.

That does not include people that cannot afford to currently eat or bathe themselves. That shouldn't even be considered.

Hear, hear! Couldn't have said it better.

[SMR 368]

The real problem is that the government lets people who can't support themselves become a strain on public resources. People are irresponsible because the government has created a safety net that won't let people fail. If we just let irresponsible people fail hard, then people would start to realize that they have to plan ahead. This goes for immigrants and USC alike.

Then it wouldn't be necessary for people to prove they have planned ahead. If they haven't, it wouldn't be any skin off the government's nose.

[Susita 175]

The real problem is that the government lets people who can't support themselves become a strain on public resources. People are irresponsible because the government has created a safety net that won't let people fail. If we just let irresponsible people fail hard, then people would start to realize that they have to plan ahead. This goes for immigrants and USC alike.

Then it wouldn't be necessary for people to prove they have planned ahead. If they haven't, it wouldn't be any skin off the government's nose.

I do think it's important to state that the overwhelming majority of people who live off of the system are American citizens. Just sayin'

[Brad and Vika 129]

The real problem is that the government lets people who can't support themselves become a strain on public resources. People are irresponsible because the government has created a safety net that won't let people fail. If we just let irresponsible people fail hard, then people would start to realize that they have to plan ahead. This goes for immigrants and USC alike.

Then it wouldn't be necessary for people to prove they have planned ahead. If they haven't, it wouldn't be any skin off the government's nose.

I do think it's important to state that the overwhelming majority of people who live off of the system are American citizens. Just sayin'

But this IS an equal opportunity environment. Any one here legally (and most of those who aren't) can try for assistance. Ya rolls da dice, ya takes yer chances.

[bhajishah 4]

alot of poor immigrants save up thier money, work hard,and end up having more than most usc. education, businesses, etc

[Brad and Vika 129]

alot of poor immigrants save up thier money, work hard,and end up having more than most usc. education, businesses, etc

No doubt. People from other countries arrive without the sense of entitlement that we have. One of the foibles attributable to being born a citizen of the Empire.

[Twisted K 2]

[MikeMc 38]

rantmode

I know most likely I should just be keeping my mouth shut but... there really seems to be much discussion about people needing co-sponsers to be 125% above the poverty line.

(This is not directed at young couples who are just finishing college with a bright future ahead of them)

I guess... maybe it is just me... but if you are some middle aged guy who is still not making 125% of the poverty line... maybe you should concentrate your life efforts more on improving you life's postiion rather then finding a bride from a foreign country.

Marriage is tough enough without the cultural issues and money matters of scraping by. Just because you are an American and in their eyes ... all Americans are rich... don't start believing it yourself.

/rantmode

I don't see how people live at 125% of the poverty line

It's not about how much you make, but about how you spend it. I don't make a ton of money, I am comfortable and capable of saving. Many people live above their means, as we are finding out now with so many houses in foreclosure and people filing bankruptcy now.

Sure I want a new SUV right off the line and I want a nice big house but keep it realistic, if you can't afford that stuff with out getting into a ton of debt, then you are not helping yourself. Get a house that you can afford and use your extra money for vacations and fun things. You only live once.

[NVC FAN :( 18]

very reluctant to throw my thoughts on this

1. i the usc, would not allow my parents or friend to petition for my fiancee. if it came to that i would either sell off assets or get another job.

2. to marry a foreign person is not a ' right ' like many ppl think. it is a privelege , just like driving.

however, i think the 125 poverty line is not really reliable, and is more of a broad sword and encompasses alot of ppl. example would be, a policeman in california, working everyday and lots of overtime , making over a 100k a year. that exact job here in my state would not even be half that salary. but the cost of living, prices, food, fuel etc. equal out to about the same. were im at a single person can live very well on 30 k a year. in california! LOL you would have no future or posessions.

i guess if i had to have a cosponsor , i might even consider just seling what things i had here and moving abroad. come back in 2012 and avoid all these taxes comin down the pipe.

thats it.

gl

[dawgofwar71 0]

a year ago, the economy fell out! i lost my job.i was there 4 yrs now, i have to start all over again. from the bottom! i am like most people, i live check to check. and i barley get by. i do not agree with this comment

" to marry a foreign person is not a ' right ' like many ppl think. it is a privilege , just like driving"

how is that so, what they tax you for pleasure as well? like buying a corvette or a Harley. because its a privilege!!

love is not like a parking spot in mid Manhattan. or worse Japan! how could it be a privilege!!! how can you honestly tag a price on love,? grant it, i know the government has its reasons. but should you be punished with the fact you have to have some one "sponsor" you? or that your the salt of the earth an not a college grad ? that you live in a basement apartment and drive a early 80's model car and shop at a value store!! should you be punished because of the fact you found your "soul mate" playing pool on yahoo, and he/she lives in another country!!! is that a privilege!! i know several men that meet there fiancees then took trips to meet. then the economy want belly up now there jobless or in my situation, starting all over again at there new jobs. just because your a college grad, or was miserly with your money. doesn't give you the right to have a fiancees from another country

Edited July 6, 2009 by dawgofwar71

[Susita 175]

I think what he meant was different. You can marry whomever you want (it is your right), but immigration to the US is not a right, it's a privilege given to the family members of US Citizens and some family members of Permanent Residents.

My husband and I thought this through a lot before we petitioned, 3 years worth of Long Distance Relationship. I didn't have a good enough paying job because I was still studying (and still am, but only part-time now). You save up, get a better job or get another job. You do whatever you have to do to make it work.

What I did find odd is that they don't follow the different state's poverty lines, only the federal one. Like NVC Fan said, living on 30,000 can vary depending on where you live. I live in NY on Long Island and 30,000 doesn't get you very far at all. My best friend makes 40,000 and lives in Oklahoma and lives like a king.

Depends.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

What I did find odd is that they don't follow the different state's poverty lines, only the federal one. Like NVC Fan said, living on 30,000 can vary depending on where you live. I live in NY on Long Island and 30,000 doesn't get you very far at all. My best friend makes 40,000 and lives in Oklahoma and lives like a king.

One possible solution to this is to move to California temporarily while waiting out the visa process. A full-time job at McDonald's will bring in enough to put you well over the minimums for a household size of 2. On the other hand, no McDonald's in California is going to give anybody a full-time position here. Employers in California are required to provide benefits to full-time employees, so many employers just hire a lot of part-time workers. Also, unemployment in California is currently well over 11% and rising.