Foriegn fiance is on welfare, problems?

[WhiteFox 7]

Hello wonderful people of VJ,

So me and my fiance have sent off our K1 (it's been one month since) and I was wondering if this could be a problem later: my fiance has been unemployed for 3 years now and has since been on welfare, will this mean trouble for us when the Affidavit of support comes around? I have never been on welfare and have been working the same job for 2 years, and my father as my future cosponsor has never been on welfare ever either. Has anyone had any experiences like this?

Hope that all makes sense. Thanks!!

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Hello wonderful people of VJ,

So me and my fiance have sent off our K1 (it's been one month since) and I was wondering if this could be a problem later: my fiance has been unemployed for 3 years now and has since been on welfare, will this mean trouble for us when the Affidavit of support comes around? I have never been on welfare and have been working the same job for 2 years, and my father as my future cosponsor has never been on welfare ever either. Has anyone had any experiences like this?

Hope that all makes sense. Thanks!!

Is she unemployable? The consular officer has a responsibility to determine if the beneficiary is likely to become a public charge in the US. Part of that determination concerns the ability of the beneficiary to support themselves. Part concerns the ability of the sponsor to guarantee that they'll provide sufficient support for the beneficiary. If she's been on welfare because she's unemployable then that would definitely be a strike in the first category. The fact that you'll need a joint sponsor is a strike in the second category. I don't know how strict the consular officers in Australia are, but I know a few countries where this could certainly be an issue.

[WhiteFox 7]

Is she unemployable? The consular officer has a responsibility to determine if the beneficiary is likely to become a public charge in the US. Part of that determination concerns the ability of the beneficiary to support themselves. Part concerns the ability of the sponsor to guarantee that they'll provide sufficient support for the beneficiary. If she's been on welfare because she's unemployable then that would definitely be a strike in the first category. The fact that you'll need a joint sponsor is a strike in the second category. I don't know how strict the consular officers in Australia are, but I know a few countries where this could certainly be an issue.

thanks for replying so quick! No he is in perfect health and pretty young (23 years) so I would not think he is unemployable. Although does it really count against me for having a joint sponsor?

[VanessaTony 3,567]

I assume your fiance is the Australian because you said your father is going to be a cosponsor making you the American.

So you mean he's on centrelink payments? That's not "welfare" the same as it is in America. I assume it's something like Newstart?

[VanessaTony 3,567]

thanks for replying so quick! No he is in perfect health and pretty young (23 years) so I would not think he is unemployable. Although does it really count against me for having a joint sponsor?

He's 23 which means it's probably Newstart. Centrelink is not a problem. Please do not equate Centrelink with welfare.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

Is she unemployable? The consular officer has a responsibility to determine if the beneficiary is likely to become a public charge in the US. Part of that determination concerns the ability of the beneficiary to support themselves. Part concerns the ability of the sponsor to guarantee that they'll provide sufficient support for the beneficiary. If she's been on welfare because she's unemployable then that would definitely be a strike in the first category. The fact that you'll need a joint sponsor is a strike in the second category. I don't know how strict the consular officers in Australia are, but I know a few countries where this could certainly be an issue.

Co-sponsors are not a problem. Centrelink is not welfare the OP is confused about what Centrelink is. Given his age it's most likely he is on Newstart which is basically unemployment.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Co-sponsors are not a problem. Centrelink is not welfare the OP is confused about what Centrelink is. Given his age it's most likely he is on Newstart which is basically unemployment.

Ah, that's different. Is that an earned benefit, like it is in the US?

[WhiteFox 7]

Ack sorry! I had no idea what Centrelink really was, didn't mean any offense or anything. That's a huge relief though!

Edited June 11, 2012 by WhiteFox

[VanessaTony 3,567]

Ah, that's different. Is that an earned benefit, like it is in the US?

Nope. Australia has a very strong support system for it's residents/citizens. Newstart is what people get when they're looking for work to help make ends meet. There's also carers payments, disability payments, parenting payments and all sorts of stuff like that.

We don't have unemployment insurance the same way that you do here. Anyone who doesn't have a job can get on Newstart. Depending on how they're unemployed there can be a waiting period and it depends on your assets as well.

I've been on Newstart multiple times and was on Newstart when I got my visa. Not a problem because my income was and is totally irrelevant to the process.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Vanessa&Tony

[VanessaTony 3,567]

Ack sorry! I had no idea what Centrelink really was, didn't mean any offense or anything. That's a huge relief though!

That's okay really It's all a learning experience. Centrelink does not have the same stigma in Australia that "welfare" does. Some people feel that way (the rich people) but most average joes really appreciate the support from the government when they're struggling (I know I miss it).

[WhiteFox 7]

That's okay really It's all a learning experience. Centrelink does not have the same stigma in Australia that "welfare" does. Some people feel that way (the rich people) but most average joes really appreciate the support from the government when they're struggling (I know I miss it).

Ah, I see. I'm am so very glad! Sorry I made it sound like a bad thing, me and my fiance were worried together about getting a denial after reading what could happen if the American side was getting 'welfare'. I'm happy to hear its not like that though for Centrelink. Thank you for helping us out

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

That's okay really It's all a learning experience. Centrelink does not have the same stigma in Australia that "welfare" does. Some people feel that way (the rich people) but most average joes really appreciate the support from the government when they're struggling (I know I miss it).

That's because in the US many people believe that "support from the government" is a euphemism for "support from the taxpayers". The government in the US doesn't have any money they didn't take from a taxpayer or borrow from a bond holder. The same is true in most countries that aren't socialist (i.e., where the government isn't getting revenue from nationalized industries), but many people don't make the mental connection between the government's money and where the government got that money.

I'm not belittling the social support structure they have in Australia, especially if most Australians are happy with it. I'm saying that, to a large degree, people in America don't feel the same way. Most people in America believe that unearned public benefits should be reserved for those who are either permanently incapable of supporting themselves (the disabled), or are temporarily down on their luck. What might be surprising is that this belief is the strongest in America's working class. The people who believe that America should have a social support structure resembling the one in Australia or much of Europe are at opposite ends of the income spectrum - those at the bottom who would directly benefit from a strong social support system, and wealthy liberals who would happily contribute a chunk of their own wealth if the government forced everyone else to do the same. The people in between don't like it because they're the ones who would mostly be paying for it.

Immigration law is crafted to appease the majority of American who feel this way. Americans, for the most part, expect the costs of family immigration to be paid for by the families and immigrants, and that there should be protections in place to ensure that Americans aren't left holding the bill for immigrants who can't support themselves.

[Chicagoguy 2 27]

JimVaPhuong - Well Said

[Calicolom 266]

This is by far the best description of American people I have heard in a while. This is what I believe, this makes a country strong. I also believe most immigrants want to better themselves, this is why most of them want to leave there country.

[Sirdaniel42 86]

That's because in the US many people believe that "support from the government" is a euphemism for "support from the taxpayers". The government in the US doesn't have any money they didn't take from a taxpayer or borrow from a bond holder. The same is true in most countries that aren't socialist (i.e., where the government isn't getting revenue from nationalized industries), but many people don't make the mental connection between the government's money and where the government got that money.

I'm not belittling the social support structure they have in Australia, especially if most Australians are happy with it. I'm saying that, to a large degree, people in America don't feel the same way. Most people in America believe that unearned public benefits should be reserved for those who are either permanently incapable of supporting themselves (the disabled), or are temporarily down on their luck. What might be surprising is that this belief is the strongest in America's working class. The people who believe that America should have a social support structure resembling the one in Australia or much of Europe are at opposite ends of the income spectrum - those at the bottom who would directly benefit from a strong social support system, and wealthy liberals who would happily contribute a chunk of their own wealth if the government forced everyone else to do the same. The people in between don't like it because they're the ones who would mostly be paying for it.

Immigration law is crafted to appease the majority of American who feel this way. Americans, for the most part, expect the costs of family immigration to be paid for by the families and immigrants, and that there should be protections in place to ensure that Americans aren't left holding the bill for immigrants who can't support themselves.

:thumbs: :thumbs: Well spoken!!!!!