Raise in Unemployment Benifits makes some ineligable for food stamps

[Kathryn41 3,205]

As well, the sponsor may have had a great job and had no problem meeting the sponsorship obligations when they entered into the agreement, and then lose their job and find themselves in need of taking food stamps. Accepting food stamps at one point of time does not mean you always needed food stamps. Life happens and things can change.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Kathryn41

[antda 13]

Hi Kathryn41 and Everyone,

I agree....

As well, the sponsor may have had a great job and had no problem meeting the sponsorship obligations when they entered into the agreement, and then lose their job and find themselves in need of taking food stamps. Accepting food stamps at one point of time does not mean you always needed food stamps. Life happens and things can change.

Anything can happen....life can change......people need help from time to time....

And if there is help out there, by all means....go for it!....

"Ask, and you shall receive", so the old saying goes....(lol...unless there are certain restrictions that one cannot receive such...)

I think I read somewhere (but I can't remember where exactly) that at some point one's life, a certain high percentage of people have asked for government assistance in some way or other. So don't be ashamed to do such, if you ever find yourself in that difficult life situation....

Lol...Is there any help out there for immigrants who have gone into debt from paying those high immigration/USCIS fees over so many years? (just kidding....but it's a good thought....)

Ant

[thetreble 19]

I understand what you are saying, Ant, but I guess I'm taking a kind of hardcore conservative view on this topic. I do think they should count the immigrant's finances, however, it appears to me that they believe you won't be working for quite some time once you are first in the US so someone needs to cover you in a sense, even if that's not true for all couples. I know I certainly wasn't working AND I had a little money, but not even enough to 100% support myself.

But my feelings are, if you need food stamps, how do you support someone who is coming across who doesn't have a dime? I checked out this website:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/FSP/applicant_reci...lity.htm#income

But if you are only making 1500/month, for example, and your rent is 800, bills, etc. on top...and then you need food stamps...how do you support someone else if they can't even work because they aren't legal yet?

I'm not trying to put any one down who is in that situation, but you made a comment about finances shouldn't be the only thing that counts for a sustainable relationship.

But if I'm the government, I'm more worried about who is going to try to come live off me and how much more I will have to ask tax payers to pay, then if two people aren't compatible.

I think we would be living in an idealistic world if we thought that immigration should be based upon love alone. It costs money just to breathe, half the time...

If you can hold it together, you can hold it together! I think I feel more strongly about someone living in section 8 and on welfare though and trying to immigrate, rather than getting food stamps and on unemployment benefits.

Many of us fall hard on bad luck a few times in our lives so I have nothing but sympathy...immigration is just such a lengthy and expensive process.

[antda 13]

Hi Thetreble and Everyone,

I agree, that "immigration is just such a lengthy and expensive process". And to expect an immigrant to "get a job right away, make a lot of money/be rich, and not expect to have any help at all from the government in their lifetime" is unrealistic of the government to think such.

It doesnt help either, that an immigrant has to suffer through the immigration process, such as by going into extra debt from those outrageous application fees and waiting forever for the process to be completed, just because the government doesn't think that immigrants are "responsible" enough and need to go through "legal red tape" to be responsble enough....

Heck, even most people, regardless of immigration/citizenship status, can't meet those unrealistic expectations...Look at the way the economy is going downhill.....

If we are talking about "unrealistic" here...I would say it was the government who is such.....All they are concerned about is money and finances, and are not truly and fully caring of the people when they are in need....sad, really....

I understand though, that there would be concern that one cannot support another just because they are in a difficult financial situation. In some ways, that's true, but I think that it's also some lame excuse that the government uses to say "sorry, if you don't make a lot of money, then you are not worthy of living in our country".

But in other ways, "There is a way to do it! (though it takes a lot of sacrifice, time, and responsibility to do such). Who cares about the government and what they think of one's financial situation?"....

How about couples that are US citizens, in the exact same financial situation? How come they can make it, but it is presumed that an immigrant and a US citizen can't? Seems kind of discriminatory in that way.....

The government should be looking at other things besides finances/money. For example, instead of thinking of immigrants as a "financial burden", think of them as "a way to help our country". Look at how many immigrants who want to come here, for better opportunites, such as for love, family, work, education, etc. "The American Dream?", anyone?

And it is those immigrants that make our country better, not for the worse....

Money is not everything.....Wish the government can see the benefits of that, instead of the "unrealistic" financial benefits.....

Ant

I understand what you are saying, Ant, but I guess I'm taking a kind of hardcore conservative view on this topic. I do think they should count the immigrant's finances, however, it appears to me that they believe you won't be working for quite some time once you are first in the US so someone needs to cover you in a sense, even if that's not true for all couples. I know I certainly wasn't working AND I had a little money, but not even enough to 100% support myself.

But my feelings are, if you need food stamps, how do you support someone who is coming across who doesn't have a dime? I checked out this website:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/FSP/applicant_reci...lity.htm#income

But if you are only making 1500/month, for example, and your rent is 800, bills, etc. on top...and then you need food stamps...how do you support someone else if they can't even work because they aren't legal yet?

I'm not trying to put any one down who is in that situation, but you made a comment about finances shouldn't be the only thing that counts for a sustainable relationship.

But if I'm the government, I'm more worried about who is going to try to come live off me and how much more I will have to ask tax payers to pay, then if two people aren't compatible.

I think we would be living in an idealistic world if we thought that immigration should be based upon love alone. It costs money just to breathe, half the time...

If you can hold it together, you can hold it together! I think I feel more strongly about someone living in section 8 and on welfare though and trying to immigrate, rather than getting food stamps and on unemployment benefits.

Many of us fall hard on bad luck a few times in our lives so I have nothing but sympathy...immigration is just such a lengthy and expensive process.

[antda 13]

P.S. And if "fraud couples" are not compatable....why bother wasting taxpayers money and their time trying to get them into the country, when they aren't deserving of such by commiting such a crime?.....

Spend the time and money in getting "real, genuine, and loving couples" into the country instead.....

[JillA 2]

P.S. And if "fraud couples" are not compatable....why bother wasting taxpayers money and their time trying to get them into the country, when they aren't deserving of such by commiting such a crime?.....

Spend the time and money in getting "real, genuine, and loving couples" into the country instead.....

But how does the government differentiate between "fraud couples" and "genuine loving couples"? After all, you only have to prove that you met your fiancee once within the past 2 years. Which isn't much, in my opinion. "Fraud couples" can submit evidence just as you and I did, go to the interview claiming to be in love. There is no good way to tell that one is going to commit fraud. You just have to prove you have a relationship and you intend to marry.

[antda 13]

Hi JillA and Everyone,

There are ways, to tell the difference between fraud couples and genuine loving couples...One just has to be smart enough to detect such....That's all....(lol..though don't count on the government to be intelligent enough for such in all cases)

If they can keep "terrorists" out of the country, then why can't they keep "fraudsters" out of the country too?...lol....

For starters, the government can start by changing the fiancee requirement for example....

For goodness sake, meeting once in-person within the past 2 years and then getting married is simply not enough!...

Evidence-wise, yes, fraud couples can submit evidence (especially financial-wise, which can be faked somewhat easily),

But it is up to a compentent government worker (those are rare), to figure out what is real or fake evidence-wise here.

Focus less on financial evidence, and more on the personal-side of things, for marriage/family visas....

Then they'll be able to really figure "genuine" things out!

For example, so what if the bank statements, tax returns, utility bills, lease/rental/mortgage agreements etc. are in joint names (which by the way, is mainly what they require to prove that a relationship "genuine")? Big deal....I might as well put my dog's name and social security number on these documents (lol..I don't have a dog though, and I would never do such)...

Now do you know what your spouse's daily habits, personality quirks, likes/dislikes, hobbies/intrests, etc. are? What about other pieces of non-financial personal evidence (daily interactions, correspondence, cards, letters, e-mails, photos, etc.)? In my opinion, that is more genuine than financial statements and cannot be easily faked here.....And I'm sure there are other ways too, to test out if a couple is "genuine" or not.....

Sure there is an intent to marry...But to stay married.....The government needs to further evaluate and make decisions based on that long-term commitment, instead of just the financial evidence needed.....

If they want to go through the financial route, apply for a work-related visa instead......

Ant

But how does the government differentiate between "fraud couples" and "genuine loving couples"? After all, you only have to prove that you met your fiancee once within the past 2 years. Which isn't much, in my opinion. "Fraud couples" can submit evidence just as you and I did, go to the interview claiming to be in love. There is no good way to tell that one is going to commit fraud. You just have to prove you have a relationship and you intend to marry.

Edited June 15, 2009 by AntandD

[Sprailenes 47]

They can't keep terrorists out of the country though.

[antda 13]

They can't keep terrorists out of the country though.

Lol...because there aren't any! (just kidding)....Seriously though...the government should be doing better things instead of hunting down "terrorists".....

Again, going back to my other point that I mentioned about earlier....

Look at how the government is wasting their money/time fighting international "terrorists".....Irresponsible...

Whatever happened to "helping out domestically", with better healthcare, education, jobs, etc. for people in its own country?

Ant

P.S. "Terrorists"....yet another "lame government excuse" as to why legal and genuine immigrants have such a difficult time immigrating into this country....

Edited June 15, 2009 by AntandD

[Emancipation 2]

For starters, the government can start by changing the fiancee requirement for example....

For goodness sake, meeting once in-person within the past 2 years and then getting married is simply not enough!...

Ah.. i think that's a little simplistic IMO.. what about cultures etc. who have arranged marriages (not all of which are the horrible scenarios you see on TV), what about couples (like me & hubby) who know when they first meet? I think your blanket requirement is a little rash.. culture, distance, financial responsibilities complicate many relationships to the point where multiple visits etc. just are not possible. My brother for example married a gal from China, he only had a chance to meet her once before he married her.. but that was enough to decide he wanted to marry her.

[antda 13]

Hi Emancipation and Everyone,

Ok...to those couples who have met each other in very few visits and their marriages have worked very happily over many years, then that's a good thing...and more happiness to them for many more years...

On the other hand, there are many more marriages whereby the couples don't get to know each other for long enough. It is when it is too late and they are already married that they realize that they have made the wrong choice there. And sad to say, those marriages end up with a lot of unhappiness, divorce, or even worse...

Isn't it a wonder why so many marriages (50%) end in divorce these days.....

Then why is the government promoting such, by making couples "rush into marriage", just because of some general immigration requirements and having to deal with the stressful situation of "getting married, or else be apart forever"?....

The government's definition of "once" is not specific enough either...

"Once" can be meeting for someone "once for a few minutes", based on the government's general definition here...is that enough for marriage? Lol...heck, that's not even long enough for a person to decide what they want to eat for dinner!

Instead of generally saying "once", maybe they can also define it in a specific longer span of time that more reasonable enough to get married with someone, especially internationally when couples are apart.

The government can define a certain amount of practice time behind the wheel before one gets their driver's license. Why can't they do something similar, by defining a certain amount of time together for all couples, regardless, who are considering marriage? How about marriage preparation classes, marriage tests, or some other measurable requirement before all couples, regardless, before they get married? Again, if classes are required for a driver's license, why can't they do the same for marriage?

As well, instead of saying "once in 2 years", maybe they should increase requirements for the visits (more than one visit), and have a shorter amount of time in between visits (once every few months, once every year). Once in two years seem too few and far in between for two people that genuinely love each other to be apart anyways.

Regardless, in my opinion, "once" is simply not enough to meet someone, and then want to get married with them....

It takes commitment, a lot of communication, and most importantly love, to finally decide to spend the rest of someone in marriage. This decision should not be taken lightly, just because of "one visit" for "immigration purposes".....

Couples need time to "get to know each other" through the span of the many seasons of life....not just based on "one visit".

Think about it: Marriage is a lifelong decision. Why rush into it? Give it some time to get to know each other...then decide....

It's definitely worth the "multiple visits" for a "lifetime of love and marriage"!....

The more time a couple spends with each other, the more happier they will be, right?....

Ant

Ah.. i think that's a little simplistic IMO.. what about cultures etc. who have arranged marriages (not all of which are the horrible scenarios you see on TV), what about couples (like me & hubby) who know when they first meet? I think your blanket requirement is a little rash.. culture, distance, financial responsibilities complicate many relationships to the point where multiple visits etc. just are not possible. My brother for example married a gal from China, he only had a chance to meet her once before he married her.. but that was enough to decide he wanted to marry her.

Edited June 15, 2009 by AntandD

[Sprailenes 47]

There's a lot of people on this board who maybe saw the people they married only one or two times before actually living with them and many of them are happy. I understand what you're saying but I don't think everyone is as fortunate as us and can just cross a land border and go visit our SO's. I mean flying back and forth to these countries can be costly.. and we're back to square one saying that because they are from a certain status quo they shouldn't be allowed to love and bring their SO's over. I just think that's really unfair.. especially to a lot of people on this board who maybe only met their SO's once or twice before marrying them and yet who are very happy. Maybe I wouldn't do it that way, but it's not up to me to say it can't work that way.

What's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander and what works for you may not work for others.

If you look at the history of marriage, many times a woman would marry without meeting the man first. It was quite common. The idea of marriage has changed a lot since then but the fundamentals are still the same.

Regardless everyone deserves to live, love and learn... no matter how much money they have and no matter where they are from. That is just my humble opinion.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Sprailenes

[antda 13]

Hi Sprailenes and Everyone,

As I said before, to those couples who have met each other in very few visits and their marriages have worked very happily over many years, then that's a good thing...and more happiness to them for many more years...

But again, there are many more marriages whereby the couples don't get to know each other for long enough. It is when it is too late and they are already married that they realize that they have made the wrong choice there. And sad to say, those marriages end up with a lot of unhappiness, divorce, or even worse...

Yes, flying back and forth can be costly. And there are others in countries that are not as fortunate as we are as Canadians/Americans who live so close to the border, that can have frequent visits with each other.

However, despite such high costs, if couples want their long-distnace relationship to work, then they will find ways to meet each other more, regardless of costs, and/or any other factors.

The cost of an extra airplane, train, bus, etc. ticket is worth the extra expense to see your loved-one and then decide to spend the rest of your life with them....

Surely, "more than once", in a "shorter period of time than 2 years", is not an unreasonable request?

It shouldn't be up to the government to say "meet once in two years, then you should get married, or risk never being able to see each other again". Let the couples themselves decide as to how much more frequent they meet each other in-person. Why rush when you don't have to? And if it takes awhile, and with more in-person visits in between...then all the better there....

If a couple is genuinely in love....Then they would want to see each other more than once in 2 years anyways.....

I agree, "everyone deserves to live, love, and learn, no matter what..."

On that note, "couples can live, love, learn, etc. with each other more frequently in-person, can have better relationships", right?

Ant

There's a lot of people on this board who maybe saw the people they married only one or two times before actually living with them and many of them are happy. I understand what you're saying but I don't think everyone is as fortunate as us and can just cross a land border and go visit our SO's. I mean flying back and forth to these countries can be costly.. and we're back to square one saying that because they are from a certain status quo they shouldn't be allowed to love and bring their SO's over. I just think that's really unfair.. especially to a lot of people on this board who maybe only met their SO's once or twice before marrying them and yet who are very happy. Maybe I wouldn't do it that way, but it's not up to me to say it can't work that way.

What's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander and what works for you may not work for others.

If you look at the history of marriage, many times a woman would marry without meeting the man first. It was quite common. The idea of marriage has changed a lot since then but the fundamentals are still the same.

Regardless everyone deserves to live, love and learn... no matter how much money they have and no matter where they are from. That is just my humble opinion.

Edited June 16, 2009 by AntandD

[moni_calla 0]

Food Stamps

I think it should depend on one's situation whether they receive food stamps or not for some the shortfall is the difference b/w eating and starving (I am a little biased as I volunteer and donate to food bank). But besides food stamps their are many resources where one can obtain food and assistance.

Affidavit of Support

Immigrants should be allowed to sign their own affidavits based on specific criteria's that need to be established (In Canada the immigrant can guarantee themselves, and Canada gives welfare to everyone, LOL)

Relationships

The system needs to be revamped to make it easier for legit and harder for the not so legits (some sort of minimum co habitation before marriage but longer than three months)

I personally think that certain countries should have a fast tracked system.....

Edited June 16, 2009 by moni_calla

[Emancipation 2]

On that note, "couples can live, love, learn, etc. with each other more frequently in-person, can have better relationships", right?

Ant

Right exactly.. that's why so many are trying to IMMIGRATE in the first place