Should the 90 days time limit to get married extended to 365 days?

[msu17 0]

I think the 120-180 is fair. Anything longer is going to be a "get to know you" visa for idiots that can't be bothered taking the time to do long distance and back up the process even farther. I'd rather see it at 90 days than 1 year. I disagree with those who say 90 days is fine to plan a wedding in. My husband and I did not want to do the JP thing, we wanted our wedding to be our wedding, not a celebration after the fact. that was very very important to us, and if you don't get that, well to you! We were able to get it all done in 90 days, but 120 would have been nicer to work with, that's what the UK gives fiance visas.

[paothao 0]

The purpose of K1 visa is to get married within 90 days and if you can not do it, then do not apply until you're ready. This is one of the reason why US consular officers need to see your proof of relationship before your fiance(d) get the K1 visa, and therefore, you do not need 365 days to make that decision!!! All these fiance(e) are foreigners and their cultures are different than the USA and staying together for too long is not an option.

The purpose of K1 visa is to get married within 90 days and if you can not do it, then do not apply until you're ready. This is one of the reason why US consular officers need to see your proof of relationship before your fiance(d) get the K1 visa, and therefore, you do not need 365 days to make that decision!!! All these fiance(e) are foreigners and their cultures are different than the USA and staying together for too long is not an option.

[Ladylethal 12]

I voted no. If you are not ready to get married; then don't apply.

[Ricardo_C 4]

For those who say they need more than 90 days of living together before they can be sure... Why not do it in their SO's home country? Sure, the US is a tough country to get visas to, if you're not Canadian or qualify under the VWP, but American citizens can travel visa-free to most countries. Nothing stopping ya, y'know?

[attaya_girl 1]

For those who say they need more than 90 days of living together before they can be sure... Why not do it in their SO's home country? Sure, the US is a tough country to get visas to, if you're not Canadian or qualify under the VWP, but American citizens can travel visa-free to most countries. Nothing stopping ya, y'know?

I agree. It would also help empathize with your fiance(e) when they later go through the process of adjusting to a new culture.

I voted no as well. If you're engaged, you should already be 120% sure.

[Mikkel 0]

For those who say they need more than 90 days of living together before they can be sure... Why not do it in their SO's home country? Sure, the US is a tough country to get visas to, if you're not Canadian or qualify under the VWP, but American citizens can travel visa-free to most countries. Nothing stopping ya, y'know?

There are plenty of factors stopping people from doing this. Not everyone can afford such an extended vacation, and not everyone are residents of countries in which salaries are high enough to support two people, let alone save up enough for two people who are going to land in the U.S. with little to their names to get by with.

[Ricardo_C 4]

Even several short holidays together would do a lot towards helping both partners figure their feelings out.

The alien is giving up everything to go be with their SO in the States. The foreign fiancé is giving up their job, home, and family. Even if they come from the poorest, most warn-torn country in the world and getting to the US will be nothing but an improvement in their quality of life, roots are roots. It's a two-way street.

Maybe the long-distance courtship should last longer. Not a true substitute for living together, but a damn sight better than "we've spoken on Skype with an interpreter by her side a few times, how do I bring her over?"

[toma1 10]

Maybe the long-distance courtship should last longer. Not a true substitute for living together, but a damn sight better than "we've spoken on Skype with an interpreter by her side a few times, how do I bring her over?"

Ricardo, I agree with your thoughts about marriage and would hope that people would consider things well before acting, if only to protect themselves from a fate likely to be even worse than loneliness. However I am reminded in this thread of one of my favorite quotes (which is also on my Facebook page):

"It is not advisable, James, to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener."

--Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged," 1957

Adults should be free to make their own decisions regarding their personal lives--poor as they may be--without interference from the government or anyone else.

I do take issue with your original statement: "Why not do it in their SO's home country?" Though my wife and I did exactly that, I think the comment showed spectacular ignorance (rising to the level of "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche") of the circumstances of most people.

[Mikkel 0]

Even several short holidays together would do a lot towards helping both partners figure their feelings out.

Often the issue isn't with feelings towards each other, it's with what happens when one party changes their life upside down, and both parties experience a part of their relationship that they've never experienced before.

The alien is giving up everything to go be with their SO in the States. The foreign fiancé is giving up their job, home, and family. Even if they come from the poorest, most warn-torn country in the world and getting to the US will be nothing but an improvement in their quality of life, roots are roots. It's a two-way street.

I think you misunderstand me. It most certainly is not a two-way street if the USC relocates to live with the beneficiary prior to settling down in the U.S., which is what you suggested. It simply is not financially viable for most people.

Maybe the long-distance courtship should last longer. Not a true substitute for living together, but a damn sight better than "we've spoken on Skype with an interpreter by her side a few times, how do I bring her over?"

Certainly, but it is still a damn sight short of living together in marriage.

[Ricardo_C 4]

I do take issue with your original statement: "Why not do it in their SO's home country?" Though my wife and I did exactly that, I think the comment showed spectacular ignorance (rising to the level of "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche") of the circumstances of most people.

If the cake fits.

If the petitioner can't afford to visit just a couple of times, how are they going to afford all the fees inherent in a K-visa petition, and the subsequent adjustment of status, plus the financial support once the non-working fiancé arrives? And if the USC's circumstances preclude the time and money expense involved in spending time with their fiancé abroad, what happens if, at the end of the "trial period", they decide they don't want to "keep" their "import"? It's not an iPod, dude. Can't just return it for a refund.

I guess I'm more judgmental than I thought. But I don't think anyone should go down the path of the lengthy, expensive, often-heartbreaking US immigration journey if they're not certain they want to share their lives with the person they're sponsoring. There's no "test drive visa", and I don't believe there should be one.

PS-- As much as I enjoy Ayn Rand's works, that particular quote is hilariously out of place when applied to a response to an open poll on an internet forum

Edited January 9, 2010 by Ricardo_C

[Ricardo_C 4]

Often the issue isn't with feelings towards each other, it's with what happens when one party changes their life upside down, and both parties experience a part of their relationship that they've never experienced before.

Then do your best to work out what would happen before going down the immigration road. I don't mean to sound like it's the easiest thing in the world, and certainly not the cheapest, but if it's that serious of a concern that a person's worried they might not want to marry after being granted the visa? Then work out the issue beforehand.

I think you misunderstand me. It most certainly is not a two-way street if the USC relocates to live with the beneficiary prior to settling down in the U.S., which is what you suggested. It simply is not financially viable for most people.

Given that some people see nothing wrong with taking the 90-day marriage window as a chance to make a final decision, it is a two-way street. Think of that this means for the would-be immigrant who's given up employment and housing to go join their SO. What are they to do if they're "shipped back" by a cold-footed SO?

Certainly, but it is still a damn sight short of living together in marriage.

Same goes for the "preview" of spending 90 days together on a K-1, with the alien unable to work, drive, and sometimes even just communicate, and thus unable to really get a feel for what their new life would be like.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Ricardo_C

[Mikkel 0]

Then do your best to work out what would happen before going down the immigration road. I don't mean to sound like it's the easiest thing in the world, and certainly not the cheapest, but if it's that serious of a concern that a person's worried they might not want to marry after being granted the visa? Then work out the issue beforehand.

The point I'm trying to make is that the issues that cause separation often are issues that cannot be dealt with beforehand. I'm not proposing that this should benefit people who are worried that they might not want to marry, but rather that it should benefit people who are intent on marriage, but have absolutely no idea how they will react to the massive change that they're going to undergo. Intent is never impervious to practical realities.

Given that some people see nothing wrong with taking the 90-day marriage window as a chance to make a final decision, it is a two-way street. Think of that this means for the would-be immigrant who's given up employment and housing to go join their SO. What are they to do if they're "shipped back" by a cold-footed SO?

I think we're talking beside each other. In the specific situation where a temporarily relocating U.S. citizen for whatever reason wishes to call off the engagement and go home, yes, they would be in the same situation as a foreign fiancé(e) going through a similar scenario. If, however, the marriage works, then your suggestion for the U.S. citizen to relocate to the beneficiary's locale pending certainty would leave the vast majority of the people applying for K-1 visas financially ruined, perhaps even unable to sponsor an affidavit of support. This is why your suggestion isn't an option for most applicants.

Same goes for the "preview" of spending 90 days together on a K-1, with the alien unable to work, drive, and sometimes even just communicate, and thus unable to really get a feel for what their new life would be like.

That is why the poster of this thread proposes an extension to those 90 days.

[toma1 10]

If the petitioner can't afford to visit just a couple of times, how are they going to afford all the fees inherent in a K-visa petition, and the subsequent adjustment of status, plus the financial support once the non-working fiancé arrives?

Think for another 5 minutes and you might realize that:

1. The petitioner may not be able to get that much time off work.

2. The costs of travel and living away from home may triple or quadruple the costs involved. One flight to Asia may run $1200 or more. What kind of reasoning is, "if they can afford $1500, they can afford $5000"? Ridiculous.

There's no "test drive visa", and I don't believe there should be one.

I concur, but for a different reason. Visitors visas should be easier to get, and should not be disallowed due to "immigration intent."

PS-- As much as I enjoy Ayn Rand's works, that particular quote is hilariously out of place when applied to a response to an open poll on an internet forum

On the contrary, that quote is entirely appropriate BOTH to your comments as well as to the broader issue of government intrusion into peoples' private affairs.

No one asked you whether a brief online courtship is something on which one should base a marriage. You turned the poll into a straw man and answered the non existant question with your opinion on brief courtships. In addition, the broader question of government regulation of the timing of a marriage ceremony was exactly the kind of ####### that Rand condemned in her writing.

Edited January 9, 2010 by toma1

[CheeseQuavers 0]

I voted no. I believe that the K-1 fiance visa should only be applied for once you are sure about your engagement and future wedding. Weddings are difficult to plan and only having 90 days in a country to put one together, well that's just a nightmare that most brides would HATE to think about. I personally got married in a small (just me, DH, my mother and two younger sisters) civil ceremony at the County Court in 2006 and now we're planning a 5 year anniversary hooplah. Renewing our vows, the big white dress..etc, and to be honest, I think going this route really helped us avoid a huge debt at the start of our marriage. We didn't actually take on any debt until our Mortgage a year ago, so 3 debt-free years of semi-bliss were well worth it for me!

[Ricardo_C 4]

Mikkel,

The point I'm trying to make is that the issues that cause separation often are issues that cannot be dealt with beforehand. I'm not proposing that this should benefit people who are worried that they might not want to marry, but rather that it should benefit people who are intent on marriage, but have absolutely no idea how they will react to the massive change that they're going to undergo. Intent is never impervious to practical realities.

And the point I'm trying to make is that there's no threshold for when one "really" knows what married life, either at home or abroad, is going to be like. You can get a feel for the other person's culture. You can spend time with them. You can spend time in each other's country. And it still won't be enough. At some point, you have to say "I'm ready for this adventure", and do it. Man, I've known my wife for seven years. I've known her family just as long. I know her culture inside and out, and she does mine. We have lived together before and after marriage. And knowing that I will be uprooting my entire life shortly, to be in a foreign country, is still intimidating. In the end, it comes down to being able to honestly tell yourself that you've made the choice that will bring you the most happiness. The rest is workable.

Look, I wish it were easier for partners to visit each other. It would certainly have made our journey a lot easier. But the potential for abuse is just too great. And people are already dealing with all-too-long waiting periods because of the sheer amount of petitions out there. Modifying the existing K-1 visa to basically be a "let's see how it goes" tourist visa would mean the system would be even more swamped than it already is.

I think we're talking beside each other. In the specific situation where a temporarily relocating U.S. citizen for whatever reason wishes to call off the engagement and go home, yes, they would be in the same situation as a foreign fiancé(e) going through a similar scenario. If, however, the marriage works, then your suggestion for the U.S. citizen to relocate to the beneficiary's locale pending certainty would leave the vast majority of the people applying for K-1 visas financially ruined, perhaps even unable to sponsor an affidavit of support. This is why your suggestion isn't an option for most applicants.

That is why the poster of this thread proposes an extension to those 90 days.

I don't suggest a permanent move. But I do suggest, if the person has serious doubts about whether or not this is what they want, that they find a way to visit their partner for more than a perfunctory meeting to meet K-1 rules.

Toma1,

Think for another 5 minutes and you might realize that:

1. The petitioner may not be able to get that much time off work.

2. The costs of travel and living away from home may triple or quadruple the costs involved. One flight to Asia may run $1200 or more. What kind of reasoning is, "if they can afford $1500, they can afford $5000"? Ridiculous.

Then I would have to go back to my earlier recommendation: Extend the long-distance courtship. They should make sure they're a match romantically and intellectually before they take the K-plunge, in order to reduce the risk of cold feet. I know waiting is not an attractive proposition, but it seems to me more responsible than just letting the rest of us pay for others' rashness with lengthier waits and more scrutiny.

I concur, but for a different reason. Visitors visas should be easier to get, and should not be disallowed due to "immigration intent."

I agree completely. But that would require tighter controls on visitors. A relaxed tourist policy would be very inviting to people intending to just skip their visa.

On the contrary, that quote is entirely appropriate BOTH to your comments as well as to the broader issue of government intrusion into peoples' private affairs.

No one asked you whether a brief online courtship is something on which one should base a marriage. You turned the poll into a straw man and answered the non existant question with your opinion on brief courtships. In addition, the broader question of government regulation of the timing of a marriage ceremony was exactly the kind of ####### that Rand condemned in her writing.

Actually, on his second post, the OP asked "don't you think 2 person should live with each other for at least 365 days before getting married." Maybe my English comprehension skills aren't as good as I think they are, but if that's not inviting a discussion, I don't know what is.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Ricardo_C