People's feelings

[rin and john 71]

So I recently heard a story of a couple where the USC was the wife, and she brought her fiance over from the MENA area. They were married less than a year ago, and have just seperated and filed for divorce. This is the part that makes me ill...when asked about the situation the wife said "I guess it was a learning experience!". This is a human being, who you brought here to an unfamiliar country, and promised to love, cherish, and honor ALL THE DAYS OF YOUR LIFE, and it's just a "learning experience?". I am 90% sure that the husband was not in it for a greencard, but that the wife thought things would be different than they turned out to be and then tossed the poor guy. I don't think the guy knows what hit him.

I just sometimes worry that SOME (definitely not all) people going through this process treat it as though they've mail ordered a product from overseas. Does anyone else know of people who have such a cavalier attitude toward this HUGE commitment? Just curious.

I think you'll find it was a learning experience for BOTH of them. Once the man has got over it, he'd probably agree with me too.

Perhaps the man treated the women really badly and deserved being thought of as a learning experience anyway. Do you know this couple?

Yes, I know the couple, both the online representation and in real life. The immigration process is far from perfect, and the 90 day time period is, in my opinion , ridiculous. I've said before that the US should give more time to really "live" with the person before the deadline. Even if that means the other person stays somewhere else. I just don't think that if you meet someone from another country online, and no matter how much you chat, talk, text, and at times, visit, it's still not an accurate representation of what you're walking into. However, the US time constraints are what they are, so in that case, I guess my sense of commitment to the person that I just yanked halfway across the world would have to overrule any rocky road situations (barring abusive behavior toward myself or my children). But I guess that's just me.

Just to be the devil's advocate -

Why not eliminate the K1 visa altogether? Why not require a couple to be married before imparting immigration benefits? So instead of 90 days, make it zero.

Conversely, why not make it an infinite amount of time? If I am willing to sponsor my girlfriend to come live with me and sign the forms that I will support her and be responsible for her actions, then why should the government insist that we be married?

The 90 days is a compromise on the two extremes. It is what the government has deemed as a 'reasonable' amount of time to come to the USA and arrange a wedding. They did not allocate the time to date, get to know your fiance(e) better, to see if your SO 'likes' it here, etc. That should have been decided way before filing for the visa.

[ziia 9]

Just to be the devil\'s advocate -

Why not eliminate the K1 visa altogether? Why not require a couple to be married before imparting immigration benefits? So instead of 90 days, make it zero.

They have that I believe, if they marry in the foreigh country. So the K1 days are 0, because there's no k1 in that case. k1 is an option. If some don't like it, no one forces them to marry within 90 days in USA. They can marry overseas. What you're talking about is limiting the options. More options is much better than less options, in my oppinion.

Conversely, why not make it an infinite amount of time? If I am willing to sponsor my girlfriend to come live with me and sign the forms that I will support her and be responsible for her actions, then why should the government insist that we be married?

That is an option but I believe it's unconstitutional and unamerican to make someone sign an Affidavit and hold it above the USC's head indefinetly. It limits the freedom of the USC for an indefinite time, having to pay out of their pocket for a person who's not a family member. We already do that through paying taxes and we don't like that as it is. Plus all the family laws would have to be adjusted, not only the immigration laws.

The 90 days is a compromise on the two extremes. It is what the government has deemed as a \'reasonable\' amount of time to come to the USA and arrange a wedding. They did not allocate the time to date, get to know your fiance(e) better, to see if your SO \'likes\' it here, etc. That should have been decided way before filing for the visa.

One should know the fiance before they marry. They can spend time in the fiance's country and travel here with turist visas and stay for up to 6 months at a time. that\'s plenty of time to live and get to know one another. One should not marry another just knowing them through ciberspace, period. In terms of "if she likes it", no one is keeping the couple here. If she/he doesn' like it, the couple can choose a different country to live in. Plus they're here for the loved one and they're married. That should matter to both more than the place they live in. Marriage requires sacrifices and compromise. It is ok to compromise on where you life for the sake of beeing with the one that matters most.

To the OP: Maybe the wife had a life changing experience she learned from, not the husband was an experience. I think the feeling of the wife is more inward towards herself(what she learned from life, by going through possible traumas in her marriage and how they both handled themselves) than directed towards the person(her husband). Words can be interpreted and missleading. I belive that the wife was talking about herself! That's just my oppinion.

Edited August 19, 2009 by ziia

[trillium13 84]

Marriage requires sacrifices and compromise.

Marriage also requires communication.

Many people are not capable of either. Doesn't matter whether they are 2 people from different countries or the same one. How many stories do you read here about couples splitting up because of vast differences that should have been discussed long before a move across the world was made? One wants kids, the other doesn't, one wants sex, the other doesn't, one wants to spend wildly and be taken care of, the other doesn't want to live that way, the list goes on. It basically comes down to different expectations on both sides.

People split up for the same reasons all over the place.

[sjr09 155]

This whole life is a learning experience, we make mistakes we learn. Whenever any couple get together they learn, when they split they learn. Prob each did learn something about life and themselves, its not a crime to not get along forever, you go into it with that idea of forever but it doesnt always work. What is it Forest says, life is like a box of cherries...........

Box of chocolate’s, never know what your going to get!

thanks so maybe she got a lemon

When you got lemons make lemonade

[ziia 9]

Marriage requires sacrifices and compromise.

Marriage also requires communication.

Many people are not capable of either. Doesn't matter whether they are 2 people from different countries or the same one. How many stories do you read here about couples splitting up because of vast differences that should have been discussed long before a move across the world was made? One wants kids, the other doesn't, one wants sex, the other doesn't, one wants to spend wildly and be taken care of, the other doesn't want to live that way, the list goes on. It basically comes down to different expectations on both sides.

People split up for the same reasons all over the place.

That is true. But this is valid for anybody, not only the international marriages. Whether it ends up in divorce or not, marriage is a learning experience. A couple always dicover something new about their partner throughout the entire life; a healthy couple greets the new discoveries with comunication and compromise. But you can never know everything about a person in any given time together. We always change...our perceptions, desires, likes and dislikes... it's just human nature. That's just what i'm trying to say regarding getting to know someone. You can't! You'll know their present, never their future. We don't even know our oun future or what we'll think the next day, so how can we expect to know someone else's brain or future? In terms of immigration, we have to make peace once and for all that no matter how much cushion we desire ahead of marriage, fraud or divorce is a risk that comes with the territory. Once we accept that, life becomes easyer to bear when something like that happends. Also, where there's a barrier of language, there should be extra body language involved: more carreses, more kisses, more hugs, more approval and optimism. Ways of communication should not be restricted to words. I believe that words are just means to compliment our actions.

Edited August 19, 2009 by ziia

[furiousng 2]

IMHO, a significant number of short lived marriages such as this collapse because one or both partners was/were viewing the future through rose tinted glasses. If the rose glasses are taken off and both partners realize they are going into a lifetime commitment with someone else who has a COMPLETELY different orientation, cultural background, traditions etc THEN its easier to deal with the problems as they arise. A lot of people have it at the back of their mind that if it doesn't work, we can always divorce and to that I borrow a statement from my wife. "If divorce is an option, it ends up as the solution"! Good luck to all!!!!

Edited August 19, 2009 by furiousng

[rin and john 71]

Just to be the devil\'s advocate -

Why not eliminate the K1 visa altogether? Why not require a couple to be married before imparting immigration benefits? So instead of 90 days, make it zero.

They have that I believe, if they marry in the foreigh country. So the K1 days are 0, because there's no k1 in that case. k1 is an option. If some don't like it, no one forces them to marry within 90 days in USA. They can marry overseas. What you're talking about is limiting the options. More options is much better than less options, in my oppinion.

Conversely, why not make it an infinite amount of time? If I am willing to sponsor my girlfriend to come live with me and sign the forms that I will support her and be responsible for her actions, then why should the government insist that we be married?

That is an option but I believe it's unconstitutional and unamerican to make someone sign an Affidavit and hold it above the USC's head indefinetly. It limits the freedom of the USC for an indefinite time, having to pay out of their pocket for a person who's not a family member. We already do that through paying taxes and we don't like that as it is. Plus all the family laws would have to be adjusted, not only the immigration laws.

The 90 days is a compromise on the two extremes. It is what the government has deemed as a \'reasonable\' amount of time to come to the USA and arrange a wedding. They did not allocate the time to date, get to know your fiance(e) better, to see if your SO \'likes\' it here, etc. That should have been decided way before filing for the visa.

One should know the fiance before they marry. They can spend time in the fiance's country and travel here with turist visas and stay for up to 6 months at a time. that\'s plenty of time to live and get to know one another. One should not marry another just knowing them through ciberspace, period. In terms of "if she likes it", no one is keeping the couple here. If she/he doesn' like it, the couple can choose a different country to live in. Plus they're here for the loved one and they're married. That should matter to both more than the place they live in. Marriage requires sacrifices and compromise. It is ok to compromise on where you life for the sake of beeing with the one that matters most.

Couldn't agree with you more! Eliminating the K1 or making it infinite are both extreme measures that would either limit options or cause greater levels of fraud. I'm not advocating either. Simply making the point that the 90 days is a reasonable compromise.

I completely agree with the underlined statement above, but alas it happens way to often. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It would be interesting to know the divorce/breakup rate for international couples based on actual days spent together prior to marriage.

[justashooter 430]

just one more instance in which it is demonstrated that marrying someone you have not lived with or in close proximity to for a year or so is chancy, at best.

[Gemmie 142]

To people that are bringing up "how can we expected to marry within 90 days when we met online"...

You're right, couples that meet online can never really *know* until they're physically together. There are too many living habits, traditions, behaviours etc that we can never know about until we experience it personally...

BUT the US government doesn't discriminate between online and offline meetings/couples. If they had a visa specifically for people that met online and needed a longer period of time than 90 days, that opens up a whole can of worms... what about people that met in other "strange" ways? And who says that they "deserve" longer than offline couples? I'm sure plenty of other couples would like longer to plan a wedding or feel they want longer to live together, for example. And I'm also sure there would be lots of complaints about discrimination.

I met my SO online but I don't think I deserve a longer time period because of this. It was our decision to be together despite of this and make the commitment. We wanted to be treated as a normal couple, and we got that.

Edited August 24, 2009 by Gemmie

[chizkeyk 0]

So I recently heard a story of a couple where the USC was the wife, and she brought her fiance over from the MENA area. They were married less than a year ago, and have just seperated and filed for divorce. This is the part that makes me ill...when asked about the situation the wife said "I guess it was a learning experience!". This is a human being, who you brought here to an unfamiliar country, and promised to love, cherish, and honor ALL THE DAYS OF YOUR LIFE, and it's just a "learning experience?". I am 90% sure that the husband was not in it for a greencard, but that the wife thought things would be different than they turned out to be and then tossed the poor guy. I don't think the guy knows what hit him.

I just sometimes worry that SOME (definitely not all) people going through this process treat it as though they've mail ordered a product from overseas. Does anyone else know of people who have such a cavalier attitude toward this HUGE commitment? Just curious.

Or probably they have the mentality of returning everything they bought when it doesn't satisfy their needs. :dance: They (Petitioner) must come to a realization that they don't get their spouses from Home Depot, Sears or Costco - that with or without receipt, they can return it anytime, with full refund or store credit.

Edited August 24, 2009 by chizkeyk

[SterlingGirl 1]

Eliminating the K1 or making it infinite are both extreme measures that would either limit options or cause greater levels of fraud. I'm not advocating either. Simply making the point that the 90 days is a reasonable compromise.

I don't agree with this. The visa is merely a stepping stone. It means absolutely nothing as far as who gets to STAY in America and who doesn't; it's just a conduit to get to this country and THEN start the process of permanent residency. I'm sure anyone who is intent on defrauding a USC would like for the process to go as quickly as possible so they can get what they're after - permanent residency/citizenship - and then shed the disguise to be able to do what he or she really wants to do.

So I don't understand how, if on one end of the extreme is NO K-1 Visa (which means con artists can simply board a plane when the urge takes them after "wooing" someone and start towards their green card) and on the other end of the extreme is an indefinite stay without marriage (again, not like they'd complain TOO much about that, aside from the inability to work), why can't a K-1 be valid for a year? Perhaps 18 months? That's certainly a drop in the bucket compared to a lifetime commitment, and since the ability to work and travel is contingent on a submitted AOS, it certainly won't benefit a fraudster any more if the USC wants to take their time, explore the relationship, and be absolutely sure it's what they want.

The process is already so unbelievably expensive that, if you've got a good feeling that someone is right for you and you simply want the opportunity to be with them without having to jump to either extreme - either immediate marriage or a complete severing of the relationship because of distance/expense to see one another - you'd have to either give up a large part of your life to be with each other in long increments (which a non-USC is not allowed to do if he wants to travel under any tourist visa), or you'd have to spend completely unfair amounts of money on frequently flying across the world for short trips.

I do not see why a 1-year K-1 isn't feasible. It would make perfect sense.

Edited August 25, 2009 by SterlingGirl