id like to see k1 process made harder

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

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.

If a government establishes a minimum wage, isn't it that governments affirmation that the wage is enough to live on? Would that not be the point of setting such a bar? One would think so, except minimum wage establishes a person at roughly US poverty level. If poverty is enough to "live on" that is.

At any rate, a minimum wage job is not 125% of the Federal Poverty Guideline for a family of two. It falls short about $3500 US. It does seem ludicrous that USCIS would adopt a bar this low. But they have to start somewhere, and raising income levels for sponsorship does nothing to promote legal immigration.

As a side note, all the US would have to do to prevent $2.39 cheeseburgers (in relation to minimum wage) would be establish a tiered minimum wage based upon the age of the employee. High school kids working for gas money shouldn't be earning the same wage as lower-skilled adults who prefer earning an honest living over the welfare line.

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

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.

So you would start by giving fraudsters visitors visas. They then could adjust status by anyone they find in the US , Talk about a country of illegals, we would become a country of run away spouses , some of which I am sure would be terrorist is training if the path into the US was as easy as getting a USC to think they wanted to marry them . To keep the RFE 1 week, not much time to get your evidence on such a crucial thing in order. process with RFE in your timeline you would have to make the timeline for response to an RFE a week. Not enough in my opinion. To keep the timeline to 6 weeks they would need to put numeric limits on all family petitions. So when then hit X petitions they would reject the rest as not having a visa number available. By closing it that way you would probably have to do away with petitions for parents and sibling which probably should be done anyway. We are trying to unite a USC with a spouse not provide ways for entire countries to get here on relative at a time.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

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.

All right, I can accept that.

I'd say this to you though. The topic of online dating seems to come up in these discussions because the relationships are often regarded as inferior to a relationship that blossomed face to face. In today's world, I find that notion amusing. After all, people now use technology to meet the locals!

Someone else said that in today's technology, you can get to know someone well without meeting. I don't think this is untrue if that person is a good person to begin with. I met my husband online. When I met him, I found him to be pretty much as he represented himself online. But, we've been married almost six years now. He hasn't changed, so that's good! But living with someone long term is different than "dating" whether, it be online or face to face.

Most couples (domestic or international) aren't going to live together 5 or 10 years before they marry. Some do, but not many. And even if they live together unmarried, trust me that isn't the same. The simple legality of the marriage contract changes the entire landscape - with or without any "commitment" factor.

I think what people get mixed up on isn't how the relationship began. It doesn't matter whether the couple met online or face to face. What matters is the quality of the two individuals.

[DeeDee&Sam 68]

that's total bullcrap. of course people who are already done with the whole process dont give a fluck about the ones that didnt start or are in the process of it. let's be serious not everyone affords to visit their parteners often and the higher income is the stupidest idea ever. it would ruin the lifes of thousand of people. just because some of them use k1 visas for immigration fraud doesnt mean a harder process would stop it, and it doesnt mean the fraud is as often as you think. 180 days instead of 90 yeah that is somehow logical. but 90 days is more than enough for a civil marriage required for AOS. whoever wants to get married religious and with big wedding with rainbows and sunshines can do it whenever they want

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

So you would start by giving fraudsters visitors visas. They then could adjust status by anyone they find in the US , Talk about a country of illegals, we would become a country of run away spouses , some of which I am sure would be terrorist is training if the path into the US was as easy as getting a USC to think they wanted to marry them . To keep the RFE 1 week, not much time to get your evidence on such a crucial thing in order. process with RFE in your timeline you would have to make the timeline for response to an RFE a week. Not enough in my opinion. To keep the timeline to 6 weeks they would need to put numeric limits on all family petitions. So when then hit X petitions they would reject the rest as not having a visa number available. By closing it that way you would probably have to do away with petitions for parents and sibling which probably should be done anyway. We are trying to unite a USC with a spouse not provide ways for entire countries to get here on relative at a time.

I don't line to be "mean" (in the upper forums ) but pretty much everything Darren knows about immigration comes from his "knowledge" of Philippine culture and the immigration process from that country.

Just sayin' take that into account when he posts.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

that's total bullcrap. of course people who are already done with the whole process dont give a fluck about the ones that didnt start or are in the process of it. let's be serious not everyone affords to visit their parteners often and the higher income is the stupidest idea ever. it would ruin the lifes of thousand of people. just because some of them use k1 visas for immigration fraud doesnt mean a harder process would stop it, and it doesnt mean the fraud is as often as you think. 180 days instead of 90 yeah that is somehow logical. but 90 days is more than enough for a civil marriage required for AOS. whoever wants to get married religious and with big wedding with rainbows and sunshines can do it whenever they want

Everybody is jumping on the OP, but I think he is trying to say that he has seen several international marriages go down the tubes. So, he has this opinion that bringing someone here for marriage should be made harder. I guess he would like to see fewer USC's end up broken hearted.

I can't say I disagree with his good intentions. But good intentions aren't the problem.

The problem is that some people search for a spouse from countries where there is a known component of "difficulty". That difficulty takes many forms. Maybe in that country, getting to the US through immigration is a cottage industry, so all the applicants know the rules and are willing to take any USC in order to get out of their country. Or, in another country, it is known that many applicants have a history of romanticism towards their US partner, only to take a quick hike to divorce court shortly after they have a green card.

So, if this information is known (and we all know it is) who is to blame for the almost assured failure of these marriages? Isn't it the person who swam in these waters with their eyes shut, rather than those who did not? The consular process in these known countries tries to protect foolish USC's from themselves. But there is only so much it can do.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Rebecca Jo

[Helen Louise Pile 80]

All right, I can accept that.

I'd say this to you though. The topic of online dating seems to come up in these discussions because the relationships are often regarded as inferior to a relationship that blossomed face to face. In today's world, I find that notion amusing. After all, people now use technology to meet the locals!

Someone else said that in today's technology, you can get to know someone well without meeting. I don't think this is untrue if that person is a good person to begin with. I met my husband online. When I met him, I found him to be pretty much as he represented himself online. But, we've been married almost six years now. He hasn't changed, so that's good! But living with someone long term is different than "dating" whether, it be online or face to face.

Most couples (domestic or international) aren't going to live together 5 or 10 years before they marry. Some do, but not many. And even if they live together unmarried, trust me that isn't the same. The simple legality of the marriage contract changes the entire landscape - with or without any "commitment" factor.

I think what people get mixed up on isn't how the relationship began. It doesn't matter whether the couple met online or face to face. What matters is the quality of the two individuals.

I agree.

I would also never marry someone I'd just met...even though I knew I was going to marry my husband within a few 'dates'. We were together for a while before we got engaged and we lived together. These are just my personal values...for myself

It's interesting, I have had a few questions about how I met my husband since I've been here. One person said to me 'So, are you one of those mail order online brides then'. I think they were joking. But it shows there is a bias. So I always find myself defending the rights of those who met online...even though I don't think I'd have married someone I'd only visited previously. But I guess marriage equality is important to me. You can never make a judgement on what other people should do,only yourself. I think if I'd met my husband online I'd have figured out a way to move here, or for him to move to the UK without involving marriage. Tourist visa/work visa etc...but who knows really, I knew right away that my husband was the one for me and perhaps that would have also been obvious in an online situation...I don't know. However...as I say, I don't judge others. My Aunt and Uncle met online about 15 years ago and they lived in the same town. They've been married for 10 years now.

I've taken this a bit off topic but I appreciate hearing your views.

[Helen Louise Pile 80]

that's total bullcrap. of course people who are already done with the whole process dont give a fluck about the ones that didnt start or are in the process of it. let's be serious not everyone affords to visit their parteners often and the higher income is the stupidest idea ever. it would ruin the lifes of thousand of people. just because some of them use k1 visas for immigration fraud doesnt mean a harder process would stop it, and it doesnt mean the fraud is as often as you think. 180 days instead of 90 yeah that is somehow logical. but 90 days is more than enough for a civil marriage required for AOS. whoever wants to get married religious and with big wedding with rainbows and sunshines can do it whenever they want

The OP is entitled to his opinions...try not to take it personally.

I think the process is pretty stringent. So I agree making it harder is not the answer.

Looks like you have your interview in a few days!

Good luck and relax, you'll be fine! I was so nervous but it was easy. You'll be together with your fiance soon

[A and T 82]

I would like the USA to actually process those that file and wait legally, and approve them instead of just giving out amnesty to anyone that breaks the rules . How about approve those that take the legal route first that have spent thousands of dollars and waited YEARS

[maning 36]

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.

Thank you for listing this, I absolutely agree with everything you stated. His rule of making the visa stay 60 to 180 days would benefit couples who are planning a more elaborate wedding or simple do not want to rush something as important as a wedding. I know quite a few people who wanted a dream wedding, but with their visa time constraints had to simply do a court house wedding and then later have a formal wedding when things started to settle down. Also, like you stated he simply wanted the extension so that couples can get to know each other. Which is stupid, since when you proposed you should know already what you're getting into...

Also, what's the reasoning behind him wanting to raise the income limit, it's already OVER the poverty level by 25%. How high does he want it to be? Also, he doesn't factor in that certain places in the US get paid more due to cost of living in that particular area. For example, someone making $15 an hour in the South is considered having good income, but $15 an hour in New York City or San Francisco is considered minimum wage.

I understand why the K1 visa process is hard and I respect the rules in place. I just hate the feeling that my fiancee and I future together rest in the hands of other people. I just find it scary that someone has that power over someone. I mean what if someone was having a bad day and took it out on your petition. Scary.

It would be nice if they made the whole process less stressful. I would love the idea that I can file my K1 visa with the local USCIS office and they will be the one processing everything and I can deal with them directly face to face. It would help ease the stress knowing that if I had a problem that I can simply drive down to the office and fix the problem right away. I can make an appointment with the immigration officer who is overseeing my petition directly.

I would also love the idea of having an immigration officer at the local USCIS office look over our paperwork beforehand to give suggestions or tell us what exactly we are missing before we file the petition. It would eliminate majority of the RFEs because a lot of times RFEs are due to simple errors that could of been easily caught before filing the K1 visa.

I wouldn't mind paying extra for that peace of mind.

[Helen Louise Pile 80]

It would be nice if they made the whole process less stressful. I would love the idea that I can file my K1 visa with the local USCIS office and they will be the one processing everything and I can deal with them directly face to face. It would help ease the stress knowing that if I had a problem that I can simply drive down to the office and fix the problem right away. I can make an appointment with the immigration officer who is overseeing my petition directly.

I would also love the idea of having an immigration officer at the local USCIS office look over our paperwork beforehand to give suggestions or tell us what exactly we are missing before we file the petition. It would eliminate majority of the RFEs because a lot of times RFEs are due to simple errors that could of been easily caught before filing the K1 visa.

I wouldn't mind paying extra for that peace of mind.

I wouldn't mind either! Good ideas!

[DeeDee&Sam 68]

The OP is entitled to his opinions...try not to take it personally.

I think the process is pretty stringent. So I agree making it harder is not the answer.

Looks like you have your interview in a few days!

Good luck and relax, you'll be fine! I was so nervous but it was easy. You'll be together with your fiance soon

thank you so much! yeah it's on wednesday. im not nervous, i know ill pass they have no reason not to gimme he visa

when the OP will sleep in the bed with every individual from those 40%, then he can say that. until then, shouldnt speak about those matters. thats trolling

[JohnandWendyB 21]

I know I am tired of seeing people who make it almost all the way through the process just to abandon it. You read these posts on here ALL THE TIME! Or people who obviously are in the mode of "what the heck? I think I will get married to a USC and move to America. Now who is the lucky candidate?" I think there are far too many people who aren't serious about what they are doing.

I don't think making it harder or more expensive is the answer. My fiance and I met online. We spent hours a day on Skype then after months of this, he came to stay with me for a month. Hours more of Skype later, I came to stay with him for a couple of weeks. Hours more of Skype later, we filed. I have kids, he has kids. I make a pretty good wage to support me and my kids. Their loser dad doesn't pay child support. So I just barely qualify to file for all of us. You want to tell me that as a USC I have less of a right to my love than you did to yours? As a female, statistically I will never make as much as a male. I find this really insulting. I worked very hard to get where I am, be who I am, and find a good man who will treat me and mine well. I just happened to find him in the most unlikely of places and not when I ever expected to find him-I wasn't even looking.

There are cultures who are not even allowed to meet their intended before marriage. Who are you to say this is wrong? It might even be a better way! If I had not picked my own ex, perhaps my parents might have picked a good one that would at least be there for his kids! I agree with the previous posters about how now since you made it through a tough process you want to make it harder for the rest of us?

I can't even post my thought on that.

I do like the idea of allowing more time between POE and marriage but if the marriage does not happen the fiance goes home. In England you can immigrate based on partnership. Why not do this as a trial period to truly date first.

A 2 year marriage is not very long...

I think the process is about the best it can be. Perhaps more training for the officers to spot those who aren't very serious about it. But I honestly think they probably are pretty good at spotting alot of those. This process has been incredibly difficult for us. I have to just not think about how much I miss him or I cry. He gets worried because I don't cry that perhaps I am chickening out. I mean there is alot of stress, struggle, frustration, and worry that goes in to this. I will not back out ever. When he is here we will work hard to make ours a great marriage. We spend alot of time discussing this. The process weeds out alot of fakes and insincerity as well just by how difficult it is-not the financial aspect but the lack of an immediate pay off and having to manage a relationship in light of the strife.

How dare you imply my relationship might not be as real as yours because I might not have spent as much time with him as someone who can afford to go visit their fiance more often or that I cannot take care of him until he can work just because I make less than you think they should require. Money does not equal better ability to love and nurture a marriage.

I am sorry but I expected to agree with your post based on the title. Maybe make people wait longer-which God, I hate the thought of that but I would wait for him forever. Don't make the process less accessible to people based on money which is all your suggestions are based on. In fact I think the process should be more accessible to folks with less money. I can tell you I learned how to be very darned creative at getting by when I was poor. I will take care of him just fine and we are paying the immigration fees just fine.

[KittyPollitt 284]

:pop:

[somamido4life 0]

I am very happy that you have read the Quran and that your husband is Muslim....now ask him if his sister that has never been married would be allowed to travel alone to a different country with out one of his family......

maybe Egyptians are not as strict about their unmarried daughters i don't know as im not Egyptian

but the process is hard enough as it is the only thing i think should be changed is the length of time to marry after the fiance comes to the USA

sara

I'm an unmarried egyptian but engaged, and I do live in the USA, but i'm still not allowed to travel alone or be with my fiance alone without one of my family being there with us. Muslim Egyptian men are different from Muslim Egyptian women.