id like to see k1 process made harder

[Dan & Jenni 457]

I think they should do away with co sponsors for marriage based petitions. If you can't meet the income levels you are not going to live well here. If you have spent the last year living abroad and have no job then you would just have to wait until you could show 3 years of decent income

the amount of money a person earns means nothing once outgoings are taken in to account. someone earning 18000 but with no debt or outgoings might have more money in there pocket than someone earning 70000 who has a lot of debt and high outgoings.

[cardigans5 43]

I'm still waiting for a reason WHY they think the K-1 should be a harder process. Foreign marriages statistically have a much lower divorce rate so that can't be it....so why? Just because? If anything I believe if the process somehow could move quicker a lot more people would go this route. Maybe you're just bored and wanted a controversial post? I think the average for the K-1 is less than a year and that seems fine to me.

[Dan & Jenni 457]

anyone that has completed this process and then said that it needs to be made harder is a jerk... A FIRST CLASS JERK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! some people should have a little more respect for those that are just beginning or halfway through there journey and finding it hard for whatever reason

[gretchen_darren 67]

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reports that "...marriages arranged through these services would appear to have a lower divorce rate than the nation as a whole, fully 80 percent of these marriages having lasted over the years for which reports are available."[42] The USCIS also reports that "... mail-order bride and e-mail correspondence services result in 4,000 to 6,000 marriages between U.S. men and foreign brides each year." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail-order_bride#Divorce_rate

Seriously. it does need changed. But not in the way you suggest.

1) for k-1/k-2/k-3/k-4/CR-1/ir-1 make it a 6 month tourist visa with 6 month renewals pending approval. 95% of all k-1's are approved at the USCIS level.

1a) all immediate spouse/fiance visas 100% must be processed in 6 weeks. No immediate spouse/fiance visa should go beyond 8 weeks. Mandatory NO backlog.

1b) RFE extends for 8 weeks, RFE must be answered after receipt of answer in 7 calendar days.

2) AFTER approval, you have 90 days to get married. But CANNOT get married during hte 6 month tourist visa stage until approval has been given. Marriage will not be considered valid.

3) You can apply for a waiver on the tourist visa stage to get married submitting a waiver of conditions.

4) Parents/immediate family be allowed to travel for wedding on tourist visa only. Parents cannot in any way turn the tourist visa into a permanent stay visa. And parents must have round trip tickets. Parents/immediate family refusing to leave subjects child to expulsion and lifetime ban as well.

5) K-1 visa approval with visa issued, Petitioner and beneficiary can "ceremonial" marry not more then one week just prior to entering the USA and must immediately marry in the USA.

[Bec_Dipu 103]

I have a question for the OP: do you only want to see the process made harder for the K1 or for the marriages too? If it's only the K1, then your proposal has a major flaw. Everyone would just skip the K1 and get married to avoid the harsher requirements. If you mean the marriage visas too, well, that's just silly. These people are ALREADY married...why would you make it harder for people who are already married? That could result in a higher divorce rate due to stress. Additionally, you could be placing undue financial stress as possibly two households now have to be maintained. And what about married couples who are starting or have started families? You really want to keep parents away from their children? BUT, if you were only referring to the K1 visa applicants, well, then I'll just get married, thank you very much.

It is not the government's job to make sure we've gotten to know our beloveds well enough for a lasting marriage. It is the government's job to make sure we are legally able to marry or are legally married, that we pose no threat to each other's personal safety or to the safety of the US and that our intentions are to be married or to stay married. Each couple is different, I knew within two weeks that my fiance was the man I'd been waiting my whole life for. I know other couples who've dated for 10 years and still don't know. It's up to each person to take accountability for their relationship to make sure it lasts.

I think you also forget that talking to your loved one is the most important tool to having a successful relationship. And communication can occur anywhere! I skype with my fiance for an hour each day, and we talk on the phone once a day and we are able to IM while at work every day. I talk to him more than the person who sits next to me for 50+ hours each week. Communication is the foundation for a solid relationship.

If you really want to make the process harder so that there are fewer divorces, then how about mandating a few pre-marriage/marriage counseling sessions or group therapy sessions for how to successfully mix two cultures? I, by the way, am not in favor of this as I believe each couple should seek assistance when and if they feel they need it. I am merely suggesting a more practical and productive way that the process could be made more difficult.

To the person with the "rich white person" comment - doesn't help at all in Indian consulates!

To the person who said "i think the income requirements should be higher to marry because this is not a cheap process. " These fees are a one-time occurring cost. You shouldn't be required to have high income to cover a one-time cost. Now, if you had to pay that fee every year of marriage, then obviously you would need to make above poverty + the fee. However, the process is not and should not be concerned with your ability to pay the fees but rather your ability to adequately support your beneficiary. Additionally, income does not determine ability to pay the fee. The fee could be covered by savings or by family as a wedding gift or could come from the wedding fund if the couple is lucky enough to have one or a short-term part-time job just to earn the fees. None of those sources are necessarily sustainable but all accomplish covering the fee.

[SWSH 7]

If only they had denied the OP's visa and he had to go through to the process once again! Then I will see if he dare to say such a thing "I'd like to see k1 process made harder"!

[Ron and Rhea 42]

Excellent retort guys...backed with actual STATS, not with the posters, "I will stick my neck and and say I BELIEVE the divorce rates...blah, blah)....I was a case in point, with all odds against the marriage, (culture, both of us teens, and so forth)....and I am glad to learn FACTS, that our types of marriages actually last longer than the averages.

I would say the original poster was a troll, but I assume he actually went through the process so maybe he's not.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Ron & Diana

[Helen Louise Pile 80]

we have allready done the k1 etc etc.we are now removing conditions.i for one would like to see this whole process more stringent than it already is.we have our circle of friends whom are all k1 holders and ive closely watched all of them and there marriages.first,i would like to see more up front than just meeting 1 time within 2 years.second,this 90 day to marry must be extended to at least double (180 days)third,i believe that the income levels of pationers should be much higher than 125% of poverty level.we all have to admit the process is already long.uscis can only do so much when it comes to paperwork and background checks.but in all reality it is up to the petioner and the k1 visa holder to make a marriage that will last a lifetime.im gonna stick my neck out here and say i personally believe that only 40% of these marriages last any length of time.dont get me wrong i am happily married to a wonderful women and weve been together now a full 2 years.but looking back it sure was very tough.any comments welcome?

I had a relatively easy process to get my K1. Now I am in the US and have been married for almost a year I can look at it and say that casually...I did have it easy compared to a lot of people here and I am grateful for that and I admire the patience of those who have a more difficult journey.

I believe that the process is the way it is to prevent marriage fraud and so I'm ok with having to jump through the hoops and pay the money.

You may think it needs to be harder. That's fine. I have my own opinions on people marrying people they met online and have only seen a few times. They are my personal views and have no bearing on the lives of others or their relationships. I personally wouldn't marry someone I hadn't actually been able to live with first,at least in the same place. There can be a difference in your personal opinions and the ethical conclusions you draw on such matters.

[B_J 2,752]

we have allready done the k1 etc etc.we are now removing conditions.i for one would like to see this whole process more stringent than it already is.we have our circle of friends whom are all k1 holders and ive closely watched all of them and there marriages.first,i would like to see more up front than just meeting 1 time within 2 years.second,this 90 day to marry must be extended to at least double (180 days)third,i believe that the income levels of pationers should be much higher than 125% of poverty level.we all have to admit the process is already long.uscis can only do so much when it comes to paperwork and background checks.but in all reality it is up to the petioner and the k1 visa holder to make a marriage that will last a lifetime.im gonna stick my neck out here and say i personally believe that only 40% of these marriages last any length of time.dont get me wrong i am happily married to a wonderful women and weve been together now a full 2 years.but looking back it sure was very tough.any comments welcome?

This is confusing. You don't really say why you want it to be more stringent.

1. I don't see a problem with the having met one time condition. With today's technology, you can get to know somebody very well without meeting. Meeting is important but it's not as important as it once was, so it doesn't make sense to change that now.

2. Change the 90 day period to 180. That would make this less of a fiance visa and more of a get to know someone better in half a year visa. I think it's better the way it is since you should be committed to getting married when you decide to begin this process.

3. Raise the income limit. Why? The reason for the limit is just to make sure that the person won't become a burden on society. Why make it into something where only the rich deserve to marry their loved one?

I just don't see any reason for any of your suggested changes.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

I had a relatively easy process to get my K1. Now I am in the US and have been married for almost a year I can look at it and say that casually...I did have it easy compared to a lot of people here and I am grateful for that and I admire the patience of those who have a more difficult journey.

I believe that the process is the way it is to prevent marriage fraud and so I'm ok with having to jump through the hoops and pay the money.

You may think it needs to be harder. That's fine. I have my own opinions on people marrying people they met online and have only seen a few times. They are my personal views and have no bearing on the lives of others or their relationships. I personally wouldn't marry someone I hadn't actually been able to live with first,at least in the same place. There can be a difference in your personal opinions and the ethical conclusions you draw on such matters.

If people should not bring their personal opinions into the mix, then why bring up yours?

[Helen Louise Pile 80]

If people should not bring their personal opinions into the mix, then why bring up yours?

I did not use the term 'into the mix'.

I said that the personal opinions of an individual should have no bearing on the relationships of others.

I was talking about the original issue of change to immigration law...not chat on an online discussion forum.

[Michael & Amy 3]

OP: Relationships are hard. Committing yourself to someone across a span of years, constantly changing during the process, to someone who is themselves a changing person. It's amazing that any relationships work, come to think of it. Did you expect it to be easy? "Love is not affectionate feeling, but a steady wish for the loved person's ultimate good as far as it can be obtained." (C.S. Lewis)

It is not the government's job to make sure we've gotten to know our beloveds well enough for a lasting marriage. It is the government's job to make sure we are legally able to marry or are legally married, that we pose no threat to each other's personal safety or to the safety of the US and that our intentions are to be married or to stay married. ... It's up to each person to take accountability for their relationship to make sure it lasts.

Excellent point. It's not the government's job to protect me from myself - just to protect others from me!

1) for k-1/k-2/k-3/k-4/CR-1/ir-1 make it a 6 month tourist visa with 6 month renewals pending approval. 95% of all k-1's are approved at the USCIS level.

1a) all immediate spouse/fiance visas 100% must be processed in 6 weeks. No immediate spouse/fiance visa should go beyond 8 weeks. Mandatory NO backlog.

1b) RFE extends for 8 weeks, RFE must be answered after receipt of answer in 7 calendar days.

2) AFTER approval, you have 90 days to get married. But CANNOT get married during hte 6 month tourist visa stage until approval has been given. Marriage will not be considered valid.

3) You can apply for a waiver on the tourist visa stage to get married submitting a waiver of conditions.

4) Parents/immediate family be allowed to travel for wedding on tourist visa only. Parents cannot in any way turn the tourist visa into a permanent stay visa. And parents must have round trip tickets. Parents/immediate family refusing to leave subjects child to expulsion and lifetime ban as well.

5) K-1 visa approval with visa issued, Petitioner and beneficiary can "ceremonial" marry not more then one week just prior to entering the USA and must immediately marry in the USA.

I'll vote for you - please run for office I am not convinced about #2/#3, though. You've already confirmed their lack of threat via #1, so why should the government be brought in again at this juncture? Very interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing.

Umm, nothing personal but was this comment really necessary? I understand that you're upset with the OP's original topic but I think we are all in mutual agreement that the process is already tough enough.

I'm pretty sure the person whose post is being challenged in this quote was being sarcastic. A couple of people jumped on them. I suggest rereading.

I love quotas. and I love a reward of a nice paycheck So I would excel and I would be a good hard worker. I would work and make sure i made 300 dollars a day if possible. But if the government pays me 15 dollars an hour no matter how hard I work... then i will just work good.

Yay! So true. The eternal problem of any government (or quasi-government) (or any protected job) process... I'm looking at you, local USPS...

Before I decided to enter the K-1 process, I agreed to sponsor someone's wife. I do not like the minimum income requirement, because it admits that minimum wage in the US is not enough money to live on. In college, my roommate pointed out that McDonalds was subsidized by the federal government. In her store, anyone with a kid or two was on welfare of some sort. Now, that doesn't make sense. I'm fully aware that if we raise the minimum wage, we lose the $1.19 double cheeseburgers, by the way. In Canada, to sponsor me, all my fiance needs is a full-time job. I suppose their country assumes a living wage. Their double cheeseburgers are more like $2.39. Potential exception: contractors/non-salaried workers/whatever the proper term would be, maybe allow them a sponsor. Although, as mentioned, savings could mitigate the risk here, as well.

[K&E2009 71]

we have allready done the k1 etc etc.we are now removing conditions.i for one would like to see this whole process more stringent than it already is.we have our circle of friends whom are all k1 holders and ive closely watched all of them and there marriages.first,i would like to see more up front than just meeting 1 time within 2 years.second,this 90 day to marry must be extended to at least double (180 days)third,i believe that the income levels of pationers should be much higher than 125% of poverty level.we all have to admit the process is already long.uscis can only do so much when it comes to paperwork and background checks.but in all reality it is up to the petioner and the k1 visa holder to make a marriage that will last a lifetime.im gonna stick my neck out here and say i personally believe that only 40% of these marriages last any length of time.dont get me wrong i am happily married to a wonderful women and weve been together now a full 2 years.but looking back it sure was very tough.any comments welcome?

I agree with the 180 days.

The rest, however, is complete

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

I did not use the term 'into the mix'.

I said that the personal opinions of an individual should have no bearing on the relationships of others.

I was talking about the original issue of change to immigration law...not chat on an online discussion forum.

So, if the personal opinions of an individual should have no bearing on the relationships of others, why did you bring up your opinion on relationships that began online?

I'm asking because I believe this goes to topic.

[Helen Louise Pile 80]

So, if the personal opinions of an individual should have no bearing on the relationships of others, why did you bring up your opinion on relationships that began online?

I'm asking because I believe this goes to topic.

Perhaps my point was not clear.

My point was to say that your personal opinions on such matters should not influence the law. My opinion on that does not mean I think that people who met online should have any different experience with USCIS than my husband and I did. I can separate the two things and respect the differences in relationships. Sometimes I read things on here and think that the person is just nuts for marrying someone...but I am able to accept that people are different and my personal conclusions on the matter are separate from their experience.

The OP states that he thinks it should be harder...so it should be harder. That is not a good enough reason. He has no real reason for what he thinks should mean a change in law....other than he thinks it. I think you need to be able to separate how you feel from what you think is right,especially when talking about the lives of others.

I hope my example did not offend. I often read about online relationships here where people meet once or twice and get married and so it seemed relevant. I do not judge anyone. I have my personal views but I value the experience of everyone and the right of couple/family to be together. I felt that was relevant to the topic.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Helen Louise Pile