Harsh Question

[Mike B. 231]

At the end of the day, this entire thread boils down to this: the poverty guideline is totally divorced from the reality of what it means to be impoverished in this country. This is a problem that demographers have known about for years, and for the past several decades the government has floated ideas to change around how we calculate it, but nothing is ever done. The problem is that the guidelines are based way too much on providing "the meager meal." The price of beef has remained relatively stable in this country, but the cost of rent and medical care has shot through the roof. The formula to calculate the poverty level does not accurately reflect this. So we end up saying that a single person making more than $10,890 a year isn't impoverished, even though that doesn't even come close to paying for a single studio apartment in a half-decent part of town in our major cities, or treating a major illness. In most cases, this unrealistically-low number hurts poor people, because it counts them as not-really-poor, and thus cuts them out of all sorts of policies we enact to alleviate poverty. In K1 immigration, it's the reverse, since it's so beneficial to be not among the poor: it helps poor people get their fiancees over here even though they don't make much of anything. If you want to change something, change the way we calculate poverty. Everyone already knows that it sucks.

[easyriders2011 14]

and what type is that exactly????

have you ever been to the UK??

case in point.

when you met your spouse. you both had a choice of where to live. UK or US.

I don't see you on the UK immigration forum so there must be a reason you chose the US.

For good or for bad. I don't have to live in the UK to be able to do that calculus.

I personally like the UK, but that doesn't change the fact that the UK historically had a caste based system.

[Dan & Jenni 457]

case in point.

when you met your spouse. you both had a choice of where to live. UK or US. incorrect

I don't see you on the UK immigration forum so there must be a reason you chose the US. for me to be with jenni then the US is our only option

For good or for bad. I don't have to live in the UK to be able to do that calculus.

I personally like the UK, but that doesn't change the fact that the UK historically had a caste based system. i cant disagree with you on that one

[easyriders2011 14]

Ok, I concede its not the 4th, it's basis is even deeper in the constitution's declaration of independence as part of the original document.

I should have fact checked that a tad more. In the end it's semantics whether it's the 4th Amendment or the 25th or if it's in the declaration. It's in the Constitution and that is the prevailing document in our country.

Where its at doesn't change the implication nor the inference to the stated reason in the post when compared to the statement in the Constitution.

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence and considered by some as part of one of the most well crafted, influential sentences in the history of the English language." -

[Brad and Vika 129]

Removed several posts containing personal attacks. Further attacks or baiting may be met with thread bans or administrative action

[Imagination 15]

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/01/news/economy/immigration_economy/index.htm

http://takingnote.tcf.org/2010/03/immigration-jobs-and-the-american-economy-revisited.html

[dwheels76 5,468]

What I find as ruduculous is this co-sponsor> so the USC doesn"t meet the 125% poverty guideline so you go ask mom, dad, aunt Sue somebody to fill out forms. So when the USC can't afford to take care will these sponsors really step in?

Do co-sponsors really realize they have signed a swore oath saying they will financially support this person. It just seems wrong to ask someone else to step in and sign for your responsibility.

But the initial question I did vote on the No, it needs to be higher. I can mot even imagine a family of two on $18450 or so. WOW.

[easyriders2011 14]

You're giving me a lot of credit that I don't deserve. You have a right to your opinion. I disagree with it.

I served my country in the USAFE as a Security Policeman. My entire tour was a NATO mission. I graduated College with a degree in Social Work, and worked in Children's homes, and went to work for SRS investigating Child Abuse and Neglect. I managed not to get any of my girlfriends pregnant along the way. Pay my taxes (the minimum I can legally get away with). Never arrested, hold a security clearance. I'm clearly what's wrong with this country.

I am Liberal (seriously) and for many social programs. But I absolutely believe people need to take more personal responsibility than they typically do. Back to what I think set you off...

Socialism (of a sort) is absolutely driving more social policy in Europe, than the US. The amount of taxes that goes to providing services to the citizens. I could be wrong, but I think that's fairly well established.

So rather than say I'm what's wrong, educate me.

I don't think you're the problem. I don't think you're a bad guy at all. But Western Europe is in deeper trouble than the US, and most of it has to do with the creeping of socialism. Living a lifestyle with benefits their economies can sustain. Take a look at Greece, Spain Portugal, Italy. All of the riviera - Southern European countries are in desperate straights, and their economic policies are such that it's bringing the collapse of the Euro. The Northern European countries, primarily Germany (the economic powerhouse) is resenting having to fund their lavish lifestyles (when the Germans are the ones who have the higher savings rates, higher employment, etc). But the Greeks now, and probably others to come, are whining that you can't make us tighten our belts, you can't take away our vacations (far more than US workers take). These things are fine if you can afford them, but if your system is broken you have to look at why. Entitlements. pure and simple. And the US needs to be paying close attention too because we are heading in that same direction at full speed.

Since the 80's Western Europe looked at the US with envy because we have 300+ million people and we still had ~4-6% unemployment. Why? Because the system was allowed to ebb and flow as the situation dictated. Contrasted to Western Europe practices, that most people get a job and the company is stuck with them. It's nearly impossible to fire someone or lay them off. Nobody wants to fire someone without cause, or lay off someone when it's not necessary. I've been on that side of the stick and its not fun, but it's a business decision. Not a personal decision.

[Imagination 15]

And now money should decide if a family should reunite or not. because someone can not imagine a family of two on $18450... you know iphones, brand name clothing and expensive cars are not necessities of life.

18450 is enough for a family of two. Let me break it down for you:

1. Rent: 600x12 = 7200

2. Utilities: 100x12 = 1200 (most are usually included with rent)

3. Transportation: 50x12= 600 (public transportation)

6000 left to spend on rest of the expenses (food, shopping, etc)

but by the wayyy.. thats one person salary.. when their partner is here the income would double too!

Edited February 25, 2012 by Imagination

[Imagination 15]

.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Imagination

[villaspurs 65]

To clarify: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are two different documents. The Declaration was written in 1776. The Constitution was written in 1787. They are not the same thing.

As far as the poverty line goes, there has to be a cut-off somewhere, and I guess the 125% works in some areas. But we do see evidence on here of people who could support themselves at that level, but need to apply for public assistance once they are supporting two people. I am the sole breadwinner in our family of four right now, and I make way more than 125% of the poverty line, but money is still tight. Granted, there are many ways we could do a better job with our available resources, but my paycheck only goes so far. If you can't afford to support your spouse (and any kids who might come along as part of the package), it might be better to wait until you can.

[villaspurs 65]

And now money should decide if a family should reunite or not. because someone can not imagine a family of two on $18450... you know iphones, brand name clothing and expensive cars are not necessities of life.

18450 is enough for a family of two. Let me break it down for you:

1. Rent: 600x12 = 7200

2. Utilities: 100x12 = 1200 (most are usually included with rent)

3. Transportation: 50x12= 600 (public transportation)

6000 left to spend on rest of the expenses (food, shopping, etc)

but by the wayyy.. thats one person salary.. when their partner is here the income would double too!

Your calculations make a lot of assumptions. In some areas, you couldn't rent a tiny studio for $600/month. A lot of areas don't have public transportation. And I don't know anyone whose utilities are $100, even if some are included in rent. $6000 for food, shopping, etc. is $500 a month. Does that really seem realistic to you? Maybe people with tremendous self-control and the time/inclination to clip coupons and shop around could make that work, but it seems awfully optimistic if you are expecting that money to cover all other needs.

[Jamie and Shirley 2]

I also see no reason why the work done in Vermont and California could not be outsourced to a private company. Doing so would surely cut the process time by 75%. They should also add a service for expedited applications at a premium, say double the normal fee.

Truer words were never written....

[Imagination 15]

Your calculations make a lot of assumptions. In some areas, you couldn't rent a tiny studio for $600/month. A lot of areas don't have public transportation. And I don't know anyone whose utilities are $100, even if some are included in rent. $6000 for food, shopping, etc. is $500 a month. Does that really seem realistic to you? Maybe people with tremendous self-control and the time/inclination to clip coupons and shop around could make that work, but it seems awfully optimistic if you are expecting that money to cover all other needs.

I am talking about the possibility people have with that amount of money. If they CHOOSE to live in an area where public transportation or low rent apartments are not available, it is their choice. and again, people's situation can get much better when they have a partner here to work with them. Why the assumption that the person that will come will be a burden to the sponsor?

[Jamie and Shirley 2]

Your calculations make a lot of assumptions. In some areas, you couldn't rent a tiny studio for $600/month. A lot of areas don't have public transportation. And I don't know anyone whose utilities are $100, even if some are included in rent. $6000 for food, shopping, etc. is $500 a month. Does that really seem realistic to you? Maybe people with tremendous self-control and the time/inclination to clip coupons and shop around could make that work, but it seems awfully optimistic if you are expecting that money to cover all other needs.

This is the absolute truth. I live in an area where the cost of living is very low and I could never dream of the numbers that were mentioned there. There seems to be a lack of reality in the numbers.