Guzzardi is exactly right about the importance of eliminating the K-1 visa.

[SMR 368]

Gotta be honest, I partially agree with the article (I read up until th '7-11' part)...it does tend to leave people out in the cold....beneficiary comes here, couple starts to 'get to know each other' (yeah, cos that never happens right?), and the petitioner bails. Not fair at all to the foreign bene, who just presumably walked away from a whole life to move here. I say, in that regard, the K-1 sucks and CR-1 would be a much better route.

This thread has legs! Huzzah!

While you make some valid points about pitfalls of the K-1, I'm skeptical of the CR-1 champions that claim it's so much better. You do have people in situations where they married in another country and lived there for a while and thus use CR-1. But if you assume that someone is in the situation to have a choice, then the simple fact that they used CR-1 is not going to mean that they know each other any better nor is it likely going to lessen the amount to which the non-USC has walked away from a life.

The CR-1 does certainly carry some more teeth as far as it being harder for the USC to walk away (as he or she is married). However, while I'm not a divorce lawyer and things do vary from state to state, even without a pre-nump, a divorce doesn't mean an even division of assets (typically, you divide the assets accumulated during the marriage. If you've been married for less than a year and not living together and don't have any common children, it's unlikely that much of anything will change hands.) I guess the point here is that if you outlaw the K-1 because of how easily it can be abused (from both ends) the CR-1 is not far behind. It's pretty simple for the USC to travel to another country for the wedding and then do the CR-1. The CR-1 is slightly more difficult for the USC to abuse but it doesn't really protect the USC one bit.

[thongd4me 69]

While you make some valid points about pitfalls of the K-1, I'm skeptical of the CR-1 champions that claim it's so much better. You do have people in situations where they married in another country and lived there for a while and thus use CR-1. But if you assume that someone is in the situation to have a choice, then the simple fact that they used CR-1 is not going to mean that they know each other any better nor is it likely going to lessen the amount to which the non-USC has walked away from a life.

The CR-1 does certainly carry some more teeth as far as it being harder for the USC to walk away (as he or she is married). However, while I'm not a divorce lawyer and things do vary from state to state, even without a pre-nump, a divorce doesn't mean an even division of assets (typically, you divide the assets accumulated during the marriage. If you've been married for less than a year and not living together and don't have any common children, it's unlikely that much of anything will change hands.) I guess the point here is that if you outlaw the K-1 because of how easily it can be abused (from both ends) the CR-1 is not far behind. It's pretty simple for the USC to travel to another country for the wedding and then do the CR-1. The CR-1 is slightly more difficult for the USC to abuse but it doesn't really protect the USC one bit.

[Fandango 1,440]

While you make some valid points about pitfalls of the K-1, I'm skeptical of the CR-1 champions that claim it's so much better. You do have people in situations where they married in another country and lived there for a while and thus use CR-1. But if you assume that someone is in the situation to have a choice, then the simple fact that they used CR-1 is not going to mean that they know each other any better nor is it likely going to lessen the amount to which the non-USC has walked away from a life.

The CR-1 does certainly carry some more teeth as far as it being harder for the USC to walk away (as he or she is married). However, while I'm not a divorce lawyer and things do vary from state to state, even without a pre-nump, a divorce doesn't mean an even division of assets (typically, you divide the assets accumulated during the marriage. If you've been married for less than a year and not living together and don't have any common children, it's unlikely that much of anything will change hands.) I guess the point here is that if you outlaw the K-1 because of how easily it can be abused (from both ends) the CR-1 is not far behind. It's pretty simple for the USC to travel to another country for the wedding and then do the CR-1. The CR-1 is slightly more difficult for the USC to abuse but it doesn't really protect the USC one bit.

Argh, I typed out a whole reply, then my comp crashed :/ Ok, so I'll retype:

I don't claim that the CR-1 is 'better' wrt the couples being 'more committed' than the K-1ers...hell, back in the day, I opted for the K-1 route myself. But taking this site alone - (and let's face it, visajourney members are but a small percentage of the whole of the US marriage based visa population)...how many times has it been uttered here about 'using the 90 days to get to know' the beneficiary? Of course, that's not what the visa was designed for, but it does happen. And wrt those beneficiaries who are actually legit and then come over only to be tossed aside like last year's model. it's not fair to them to have left their lives only to come here with no status and no pathway to status. And costly and a waste of taxpayers' time to have our gov't officials deal with them as they wander the US statusless.

I'm not even lauding the CR-1 as being better for division of marital asset reasons...the only reason why it's infinitely better to the bene is because they come here already with status, with a GC etc. So the petitioner can't change his or her mind, or withhold AOS for power-struggle reasons.

And for K-1ers from VWP countries...the K-1 is basically a bullsh!t-waste-of-time visa.

As far as protecting the USC...since they are the ones essentially vouching for the beneficiaries, the onus is on them to vet their partners to suss out fraud (to the best of their abilities)....in cases of fraud, the benes can and should be reported to ICE. So there's already protection in place for the USC.

See, you can't straddle the same sides of an argument....either the US is horrible for 'standing in the way of my right to marry who I want' <----how many times have we heard that one? or not doing enough to protect USCs from their own choices should the choice go t!ts up. Not saying you're saying this, just spitballing from what I've seen written here since 05...

Edited November 2, 2010 by Lisa C

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

What Robin said. Since you could do it anyways by doing AOS from VWP, what's the diff? The way it's set up now, is it really accomplishing anything? And if you've already been vetted enough from a VWP country, then all systems go, I'd say.

Take it even further...someone with TB visiting only and no aos...isn't it just as much as a danger?

JQ - the OP acknowledged that the article is old...whether it is or isn't doesn't really change the theories behind what people are saying here anyway.

The OP did not acknowledge (or more likely didn't ascertain) the source of the article. I think it's a good idea to do that before getting worked up with theories.

VDare is not your run-of-the-mill anti-illegal immigrant propaganda machine. They are anti-immigrant. If they say they don't support the K1, it's because they don't support ANYBODY coming over here. They just like to tie it up with a pretty bow about the poor women who come here and get dumped by the dudes who shopped for them.

Also, just so you know, the 90 day window was originally put in place to do exactly what you argue against. The K1 was born out of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, wherein the US government first began clamping down on "undesirable" entrants to the country. In order to allow US citizens to live in bliss with a foreign born spouse, the INA spelled out all the categories of "marriage visas". Because there are some countries in the world that do not recognize marriage between their citizens and citizens of other countries, the K1 was born. It gave the US citizen a way to bring the alien here and marry. The 90-day window for marriage gave the couple a way out of the relationship without damaging the immigrant status of the alien. The alien could return home without fear of being denied future entry to the US. IMO this was actually a case of the law being "sensible".

Remember this law was crafted in the 1950's. There was no internet whereby you could "get to know" someone; international phone calls were beyond expensive; air travel was only for the wealthy AND there was no visa waiver program for those who could fly. The US had just gone through a period in history wherein thousands of foreign-born women were brought to the US by returning WWII vets. The US military gave them a visa to get on the plane - that was it. In the ensuing cold war atmosphere of fear of other countries, the INA created marriage visas with the intent to limit those marriages whenever possible.

In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act placed "conditional residency" on those aliens whose marriages were less than two years old, in a further attempt to reduce fraudulent immigration to the US via marriage.

[Fandango 1,440]

The OP did not acknowledge (or more likely didn't ascertain) the source of the article. I think it's a good idea to do that before getting worked up with theories.

VDare is not your run-of-the-mill anti-illegal immigrant propaganda machine. They are anti-immigrant. If they say they don't support the K1, it's because they don't support ANYBODY coming over here. They just like to tie it up with a pretty bow about the poor women who come here and get dumped by the dudes who shopped for them.

Also, just so you know, the 90 day window was originally put in place to do exactly what you argue against. The K1 was born out of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, wherein the US government first began clamping down on "undesirable" entrants to the country. In order to allow US citizens to live in bliss with a foreign born spouse, the INA spelled out all the categories of "marriage visas". Because there are some countries in the world that do not recognize marriage between their citizens and citizens of other countries, the K1 was born. It gave the US citizen a way to bring the alien here and marry. The 90-day window for marriage gave the couple a way out of the relationship without damaging the immigrant status of the alien. The alien could return home without fear of being denied future entry to the US. IMO this was actually a case of the law being "sensible".

Remember this law was crafted in the 1950's. There was no internet whereby you could "get to know" someone; international phone calls were beyond expensive; air travel was only for the wealthy AND there was no visa waiver program for those who could fly. The US had just gone through a period in history wherein thousands of foreign-born women were brought to the US by returning WWII vets. The US military gave them a visa to get on the plane - that was it. In the ensuing cold war atmosphere of fear of other countries, the INA created marriage visas with the intent to limit those marriages whenever possible.

In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act placed "conditional residency" on those aliens whose marriages were less than two years old, in a further attempt to reduce fraudulent immigration to the US via marriage.

Be that as it may (and I have no information on how the K-1 came about so I'll accept what you say as true), when you sign that letter of intent, you state you're already planning to marry, not that you'd marry, providing all goes well when the bene gets here.

As to the OP, I think he or she happened across this article and just posted it for conversation, not that (s)he took it seriously that eliminating the K-1 is on the cards. I think it's been a cool discussion thus far, despite where the link came from.

*shrug*