Raise in Unemployment Benifits makes some ineligable for food stamps

[antda 13]

Hi Mona_calla,

I agree with all your points here:

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.....

Yes, I think that food stamps and other programs should be dependent on situation, and not on immigration status....

Food banks and other programs can help too, but only in a limited way...(I've been on both sides of this issue, on the giving/volunteering end of things, and on the receiving end of things too)....

Citizens shouldn't have to sign for the Immigrant. If they expect the immigrant to be responsible, then let them be responsible for themselves instead...(oh how I don't like it that sponsor is responsible for the responsible immigrant in this way)....

In fact, skip this affidavit of support #######....(what's the point anyways?)

Definitely there needs to be a change in the system that weeds out those immigration (especaially marriage) frauds!

Habitation sounds like a good idea. (in fact, we've even tried such). If you can live together before marriage, surely you can live together after marriage. If you can't live together at all at any point of the relationship....then what's the point of getting married and living together with your significant other for the rest of your life?

Fast-track for certain coutries...definitely....Canada anyone? We're just friendly neighbours to the north.....no harm done....

Lol..on a final note, it makes me wonder why we shouldn't immigrate to Canada, instead of the USA....

(though in our situation it wouldn't have worked out that way financially...so sigh, I moved to the USA instead....).

Ant

[moni_calla 0]

Hi AntandD,

You will always be a CDN citizen unless you renounce so maybe in the future migrating to Canada may be an option; I noticed that you were expecting so keep in mind that you can register birth abroad with Canada so that baby receives DUAL citizenship.

[trailmix 77]

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 think it's great that they couple need only to have met once to apply for a K visa. What you are talking about Ant, has pretty much zero to do with immigration - and more to do with your personal judgements about what is right and wrong for other people.

These people that are applying for their SO to come to the U.S. are adult people, I believe that they can make their own decisions without the government further intruding on their decision - I understand that it is your personal opinion - which of course you are entitled to.

I agree with what Sprailenes had to say.

Edited June 16, 2009 by trailmix

[antda 13]

Hi Moni_calla,

Lol..."Once a Canadian, always a Canadian"...I definitely will be keeping my Canadian citizenship for the rest of my life, and be proud of that too...

Oh Canada, my home and native land!....

As for migrating to Canada...lol...my USC husband is a no-go to that idea, especially more so when the finances don't work in our favour there (Canada=expensive)....Oh well, we live a few hours (1-2 hours) or so by land away from the border, so we visit Canada frequently anyways (in fact, we just went there to Canada last week for a visit/vacation, but that's another story)....

Yes, I am expecting a Baby in July in about 6 weeks or so (or even less)...oh my...time goes by so quickly in pregnancy....

As for our Baby getting dual American/Canadian citizenship, yes, I know that legally it can be done Canadian-wise (simply by going to the nearest Canadian embassy/consulate, applying for a birth abroad and a citizenship certificate/card...and volia..they legally are a Canadian!, as I've read about here on VJ as to what to do here).

However, I will let them make that decision by themselves to pursue Canadian citizenship or not, when they are ready and old enough for such, as I don't think that imposing a certain nationality/citizenship on a minor child, regardless of country, is fair thing to do, when they don't know much else legally otherwise.

Rather, I'll give them more time to learn more about Canada and it's culture, and visit more frequently there before they finally decide, as citizenship is a big decision for anyone at any age. And if they want to pursue Canadian citizenship, at some point or other, I'll be more than happy to help them out there in any way that I can as a Canadian parent...

Ant

Hi AntandD,

You will always be a CDN citizen unless you renounce so maybe in the future migrating to Canada may be an option; I noticed that you were expecting so keep in mind that you can register birth abroad with Canada so that baby receives DUAL citizenship.

[JillA 2]

"Fast-track for certain coutries...definitely....Canada anyone? We're just friendly neighbours to the north.....no harm done...."

I disagree with this statement. Why should we as Canadians get any preferential treatment of say, a fiancee from Great Britian or India? Just because we are right to the north we should be fast tracked? That's not fair at all. Canada is another country just like China or Australia and should be treated the same as any other country. How do you determine "certain countries"? That would be discrimination I think. Allowing "some" countries preferential treatment over others.

[trailmix 77]

"Fast-track for certain coutries...definitely....Canada anyone? We're just friendly neighbours to the north.....no harm done...."

I disagree with this statement. Why should we as Canadians get any preferential treatment of say, a fiancee from Great Britian or India? Just because we are right to the north we should be fast tracked? That's not fair at all. Canada is another country just like China or Australia and should be treated the same as any other country. How do you determine "certain countries"? That would be discrimination I think. Allowing "some" countries preferential treatment over others.

Definately agree with that Jill.

[antda 13]

Hi Trailmix and Everyone,

Lol...it is the government that made the "meet once in two years rule" not me...

So aren't they the ones passing judgement on potential immigrants there, in assuming that a couple can make a lifelong marriage commitment just in one short in-person meeting/visit in a long span of two years in between?

Meeting once is good yes (hey at least it's better than not meeting at all), but there should be more in-person meetings too...

I agree, that as adults, couples have a right to make their own decisions in terms of how their relationship should be...

And if it works out "happily ever after" for them, then it's good for them there....And if it doesn't...well....it's their choice there...

But just because the government says "you only have to meet once, that's it...get married...or else", doesn't mean that they have to follow those exact rules/guidelines.

And if a couple wants to meet each other in-person more....then more power to them!...

After all, more time with each other as a couple makes the relationship better instead of worse, right?

Ant

I think it's great that they couple need only to have met once to apply for a K visa. What you are talking about Ant, has pretty much zero to do with immigration - and more to do with your personal judgements about what is right and wrong for other people.

These people that are applying for their SO to come to the U.S. are adult people, I believe that they can make their own decisions without the government further intruding on their decision - I understand that it is your personal opinion - which of course you are entitled to.

I agree with what Sprailenes had to say.

[coldwatersurf 5]

I'm not trying to be a dickhead here or anything but if I'm the government, and you're on food stamps, I'm not going to let you bring someone to the US and be responsible for them.

Yeah! I agree with treble to a point. This is what I thought. But, I was thinking about this just in case my husband gets lay off. 200 ppl already lost their job where he works and rumors are there are more lay offs this coming fall. It is a scary thought. I am now here, but I cant work. so I am a bit worried.

[antda 13]

Hi JillA and Everyone,

Lol..I wasn't the one who suggested fast-tracking...(someone else here on VJ said that instead)

And be it that this is the Canadian forum...I was just kidding around with the Canadian aspect of things...

Sorry if there was a mis-understanding in the humour/sarcasm there....

Ok, seriously though, the whole immigration system needs to be "fast-tracked" and "improved" in so many ways!

All of us here on VJ, regardless of country, have had such long and stress waits....and it shouldn't have had to come to that for any legitimate couple...

We just all want to be with our significant others here in the USA....and not to go through this red-tape bureaucratic system, longer than we should have to be in...

Fast-track for the USCIS...sigh...wishful thinking...meanwhile all we can do is wait.....

Ant

"Fast-track for certain coutries...definitely....Canada anyone? We're just friendly neighbours to the north.....no harm done...."

I disagree with this statement. Why should we as Canadians get any preferential treatment of say, a fiancee from Great Britian or India? Just because we are right to the north we should be fast tracked? That's not fair at all. Canada is another country just like China or Australia and should be treated the same as any other country. How do you determine "certain countries"? That would be discrimination I think. Allowing "some" countries preferential treatment over others.

[trailmix 77]

Hi Trailmix and Everyone,

Lol...it is the government that made the "meet once in two years rule" not me...

So aren't they the ones passing judgement on potential immigrants there, in assuming that a couple can make a lifelong marriage commitment just in one short in-person meeting/visit in a long span of two years in between?

Meeting once is good yes (hey at least it's better than not meeting at all), but there should be more in-person meetings too...

I agree, that as adults, couples have a right to make their own decisions in terms of how their relationship should be...

Hi Ant,

I think you misunderstood me.

The fact that the government insists that the couple meet at least once is such a bare minimum requirement - I don't think anyone could argue it.

I don't think it's passing judgement really.

I do think that what you are saying "Meeting once is good yes (hey at least it's better than not meeting at all), but there should be more in-person meetings too..." - is passing judgement - but, of course, you are entitled to your opinion.

[antda 13]

Hi Trailmix and Everyone,

Yes, "meeting only once in two years" is just the minimum, according to "government guidelines".

And by all means, couples can meet more in-person than that requirement and get to know each other better...then why not?

However, there are unfortunate fraud circumstances where fake couples "just only meets the requirement and that's it"....

They do not develop their in-person relationship any further, and thus it's no surprise that some of them don't last in marriage....

Oh I can see it now (being sarcastic/using humour here)....

"Honey, now that I've just arrived at the airport and we met once...We've met all the government requirements there....So let's get married...."

"Ok sure. I just really want that green card anyways. Who cares about whether or not we know and love each other?"

And thus....a fraud marriage is made.....(ok, not exactly like that, but close enough...)

Ok, seriously though, to those couples who have met in-person for only a few visits, and it works out well for them...that's good...and may they be happy for many more years....

But to those couples who need more time with each other and need more in-person visits with each other and need more time to for each other...that's ok too....and works even better!...and may they be happy for many more years too....

As long as it all works out in the end, "happily ever after in a loving way", legal and legitimate, that's what matters....

Just don't let those government requirements and other life factors stop you from seeing your significant other, thats all!

And if it is a life-long commitment such as marriage, give some time and serious thought into this.....No need to rush...

Ant

Hi Ant,

I think you misunderstood me.

The fact that the government insists that the couple meet at least once is such a bare minimum requirement - I don't think anyone could argue it.

I don't think it's passing judgement really.

I do think that what you are saying "Meeting once is good yes (hey at least it's better than not meeting at all), but there should be more in-person meetings too..." - is passing judgement - but, of course, you are entitled to your opinion.

Edited June 16, 2009 by AntandD

[antda 13]

Hi Borderdriver,

Sorry to hear about your husband's job situation. I agree, it's a scary thought, to think that one could lose their job at any moment.... I hope that this doesn't happen to your husband and to any more people out there....

Though in case the unfortunate does happens, by all means, get the help that you and your family need. And if it means your husband getting means-tested benefits and/or some other types of benefits or help in the community, then go for it....

Remember: Help is there when we need it, don't be ashamed to ask for help when you and your family need such. There is nothing wrong with needing assistance, especially more so that a majority of people have difficult times in life and have asked for help before in bad economic times such as this....

Hope all works out well financially here. Good luck with you and your husband's situation.

Ant

But, I was thinking about this just in case my husband gets lay off. 200 ppl already lost their job where he works and rumors are there are more lay offs this coming fall. It is a scary thought. I am now here, but I cant work. so I am a bit worried.

[Sprailenes 47]

t.

Lol..I wasn't the one who suggested fast-tracking...(someone else here on VJ said that instead)

Fast-track for certain coutries...definitely....Canada anyone? We're just friendly neighbours to the north.....no harm done....

Well it looks like you said it.

I think it's so easy for people to sit back and point a finger, but as the old saying goes: "you're pointing one finger out and there's three pointing back at you"

To say "it's no surprise their marriage doesn't last" is just really judgmental imo. You don't know all the facts, you're looking strictly at the surface. You're on an immigration board with people who marry after only meeting once or twice. Sure it may not be what you or I would do... but who are we to look down on those who do. I just think it's a very naive way to think. Open your mind and look at the bigger picture ant.

[Carlawarla 1]

The original question and article posted was about food stamps. My all time favourite expression is "..there but for the grace of God go I..." We can never be so arrogant to believe bad times are not going to fall on us. Or we shouldn't anyway. If someone needs food stamps, heaven help them...and hopefully the government does as well. Some of the stories from posters already seem to indicate that rents are very high, so the unemployment benefits do not cover everything whatsoever, so I'm glad there is something there for people to be able to at least eat.

I don't agree with the whole idea of "food stamps" however. I think it's demeaning. They can't be used for things non-edible either. Like toilet paper, toothpaste, sanitary products. I think it's an antiquated system and should be stopped. Perhaps in Canada they used food stamps at one time, but I know that in my adult years, people were just given a cheque and they were allowed to buy whatever they wanted. Not anyone's decision but their own as to what they bought with it. They weren't identified by it either.

I would suspect it's hard to have to ask for this type of assistance, let alone be objectified by others when you approach a grocery store identifying you in this manner.

[Sprailenes 47]

I agree with everything you just said Carla.

I think it's hard for people to put themselves in other peoples shoes, but it really can teach us a lot to try. Hardships can teach us a million lessons to last a lifetime.