Length of stay

[Kirsten L 0]

While I don't believe in personal attacks, I am really saddened to read such a horrifying question. Having responded to your earlier post in another VJ forum, I can say that the condition of your heart is clearly not good. That you should even have to ask such a question makes it clear how focused on yourself you are. The thing is, when you focus solely on what's good for you, it usually makes you a pretty miserable person inside. Is that really what you want...? I am more and more convinced that you are not ready for marriage at all, and that while she's learning it late, the woman you, pretty thoughtlessly brought here is going to be fortunate to escape your mentality sooner rather than later.

Yes, I think you absolutely do have a moral obligation to pay for her maintenance and that of her child until she goes and to buy their plane tickets AND to help her get reestablished back in her own country since she has now left EVERYTHING for you. I hope you will do the right thing. Her act of good faith deserves at least that much out of someone who has now demonstrated that he has no good faith in her at all. Again, never mind what you're teaching this woman's daughter about men and what to expect from them. Don't you see what you're doing? The impact you're having in making these abysmal choices...?

If you're going to do all the wrong things--which you seem dead set on doing--at least try to do them in the kindest way possible. Pay the moral bills you've incurred without a fuss.

Oh, SL...You know you're my friend. You know how much I like you...But being offended by prenup does not a gold-digger make. I would be offended too because of what it said about someone's trust in me. Please try to understand that you're making assumptions, too. He at least has a moral obligation to return her and her daughter to their country and reestablish them if he's going to do this...The thing is, he didn't give HER an opportunity to decide what kind of person HE was before springing this on her...

She may not be a princess...I don't know. But if he was going to suggest a prenup, he should have done it well before she got to the States so she would know his mindset and whether she wanted to risk everything for it. Doesn't that seem like it would have been the right thing...?

You people are repugnant, coming to the defense of a gold digger. It just disgusts me how judgemental you all are here. Religious, moral thumping, fundamentalists of the worst kind.

Thank god he didn't marry. He was smart enough to see that she is indeed a gold digger. Once he married, he might have lost half of his assests. He was smart enough to prevent that from happening. And you all chastize him for that?

As Dean said, it's not an urban legend that foreign women from poor countries come to US for other motives than simple marriage. It's a fact of reality that many women do come to the US under a K-1 under false pretenses and many stupid American men under the delusion of "true love" are slaughtered like stupid little lambs. This guy is at least smart enough to not fall for it before it's too late.

Don't judge, lest you be judged!

One more thought, in general...Reading about this sort of situation makes me very glad that I'm marrying someone as poor as me...someone who trusts me without hesitation and wants to build something with me rather than shield something from me "just in case."

[Arazia 0]

Personally, I can see both sides of this issue and this argument. I understand why someone who has businesses and such might opt for a pre-nup, but at the same time it really is something that should have been discussed long before she ever came over to the United States.

There are many people who the idea of a pre-nup means that a person really isn't serious about a relationship. Especially those who are religious, some take great offense to the idea because it suggests a 'way out' of a marriage. In the end, we really don't know the full story of what is going on here, so it's hard to judge one way or the other.

I don't think it's right to say that this woman was a gold digger just because she paniced or was unsure about a pre-nup dropped on her once she uprooted her life. I also don't think it's right to judge the OP as there may be a lot more going on here than just that.

While there is no legal requirement to support the K-1 visa holder for the 90 days present in the country, I do agree that there is some moral requirement to at least fund her plane ticket back to her own country.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

While I don't believe in personal attacks, I am really saddened to read such a horrifying question. Having responded to your earlier post in another VJ forum, I can say that the condition of your heart is clearly not good. That you should even have to ask such a question makes it clear how focused on yourself you are. The thing is, when you focus solely on what's good for you, it usually makes you a pretty miserable person inside. Is that really what you want...? I am more and more convinced that you are not ready for marriage at all, and that while she's learning it late, the woman you, pretty thoughtlessly brought here is going to be fortunate to escape your mentality sooner rather than later.

Yes, I think you absolutely do have a moral obligation to pay for her maintenance and that of her child until she goes and to buy their plane tickets AND to help her get reestablished back in her own country since she has now left EVERYTHING for you. I hope you will do the right thing. Her act of good faith deserves at least that much out of someone who has now demonstrated that he has no good faith in her at all. Again, never mind what you're teaching this woman's daughter about men and what to expect from them. Don't you see what you're doing? The impact you're having in making these abysmal choices...?

If you're going to do all the wrong things--which you seem dead set on doing--at least try to do them in the kindest way possible. Pay the moral bills you've incurred without a fuss.

Oh, SL...You know you're my friend. You know how much I like you...But being offended by prenup does not a gold-digger make. I would be offended too because of what it said about someone's trust in me. Please try to understand that you're making assumptions, too. He at least has a moral obligation to return her and her daughter to their country and reestablish them if he's going to do this...The thing is, he didn't give HER an opportunity to decide what kind of person HE was before springing this on her...

She may not be a princess...I don't know. But if he was going to suggest a prenup, he should have done it well before she got to the States so she would know his mindset and whether she wanted to risk everything for it. Doesn't that seem like it would have been the right thing...?

You people are repugnant, coming to the defense of a gold digger. It just disgusts me how judgemental you all are here. Religious, moral thumping, fundamentalists of the worst kind.

Thank god he didn't marry. He was smart enough to see that she is indeed a gold digger. Once he married, he might have lost half of his assests. He was smart enough to prevent that from happening. And you all chastize him for that?

As Dean said, it's not an urban legend that foreign women from poor countries come to US for other motives than simple marriage. It's a fact of reality that many women do come to the US under a K-1 under false pretenses and many stupid American men under the delusion of "true love" are slaughtered like stupid little lambs. This guy is at least smart enough to not fall for it before it's too late.

Don't judge, lest you be judged!

One more thought, in general...Reading about this sort of situation makes me very glad that I'm marrying someone as poor as me...someone who trusts me without hesitation and wants to build something with me rather than shield something from me "just in case."

I can't fathom why it is that there seems to be this focus on *when* he presented the prenup. If a relationship is destined for success, no prenup would stand in the way, nor would when it was presented create a hiccup. If it did, in my opinion, then the parties were not truly in love. I wonder if this has occured to people posting in this thread. What difference does a prenup really make, if the relationship is not going to fail? Prenups are more and more common given the ease with which people can divorce these days and often without any grounds to speak of.

Let's boil down the facts to the essentials for a moment, giving credit where it's due. Without more factual information, I'm not leaning in one direction over another. I'm simply making candid observations.

The OP and his betrothed are *both* supposed to know each other well enough to make an informed decision on whether to commit to each other in marriage. She would obviously have come to know of his financial status, during their courtship. It's not possible to get to know another person without realising that. Granted, twostar55 might have played down the degree of his accummulated assets, but there's no way that his fiancé would not have known that he had a company of 22 years. Let's face it, he has proffered an I-134 in order to petition her.

Now, in the case of true love, were financial stature of little importance to his fiancé, it is not simply incumbent upon twostar55 himself to propose a prenup. She could very well have initiated the conversation, especially if she wanted to assuage any concerns he might have over any potential, alternate motivations.

I'm not sure I understand the point made in this quote..

But if he was going to suggest a prenup, he should have done it well before she got to the States so she would know his mindset and whether she wanted to risk everything for it.

Risk what? How does a prenup place anything at risk? Are you suggesting that if he had told her that she would not acquire half of his personal assets, say, 6 months ago, that her choice to marry him would have been different?

[doodlebug 3]

I feel so very bad for her daughter. I have two of my own and even though I'm not the one that will have to move, still they go through such an emotional time just thinking of having a step dad but then you throw moving to a foreign country into it and then having that potential step dad that you've emotionally prepared to have as your protector kick you out and whammo.....you've got some bigtime scars there that will need to be healed in the futurue.

[Yodrak 7]

twostar55,

I think you and your fiancee need to come to agreement on where each of you wants your current situation to go. It's going to be very difficult to keep emotion from dominating the discussion, but do your best. It seems that you've gotten yourself into a very difficult situation, especially if you and the woman cannot come to an agreement.

If you want answers to legal issues you should consult with an appropriate attorney. Recognize that if you and the woman visit an attorney together the attorney will ofer advice that is 'fair' and will seek to protect both of your interests. If you consult with an attorney individually, the attorney will offer advice that will seek to protect the individual interests only (essential for the pre-nup that apparently started the problem, but I digress). So, you may want to consider having two consultations with two different attorneys - first one together with your fiancee, followed if it seems necessary by a second on your own.

Yodrak

A question:

If the U.S. petitioner wants the K-1 holder to leave (his/her household) before the the 90-day period, is the U.S. petitioner required by law to support the K-1 holder for the remainder of the 90 day period until they must leave the country?

Thanks

[diadromous mermaid 36]

twostar55,

I think you and your fiancee need to come to agreement on where each of you wants your current situation to go. It's going to be very difficult to keep emotion from dominating the discussion, but do your best. It seems that you've gotten yourself into a very difficult situation, especially if you and the woman cannot come to an agreement.

If you want answers to legal issues you should consult with an appropriate attorney. Recognize that if you and the woman visit an attorney together the attorney will ofer advice that is 'fair' and will seek to protect both of your interests. If you consult with an attorney individually, the attorney will offer advice that will seek to protect the individual interests only (essential for the pre-nup that apparently started the problem, but I digress). So, you may want to consider having two consultations with two different attorneys - first one together with your fiancee, followed if it seems necessary by a second on your own.

Yodrak

A question:

If the U.S. petitioner wants the K-1 holder to leave (his/her household) before the the 90-day period, is the U.S. petitioner required by law to support the K-1 holder for the remainder of the 90 day period until they must leave the country?

Thanks

I agree that consultation with attorney(s) is perhaps best at this juncture. It might be that twostar's fiancée is unfamiliar with the precept of a prenuptial, and a quick consultation with an attorney could clear up some misgivings over what it is designed to do. I'd also recommend that twostar look into if it could be constructed so that it has an expiry date, say at some point in the future, when they both can be convinced that the marriage is likely to sustain.

[JAYKE 0]

Did any of you read this guy's prior posts? Check out one of the very first. Seems he had a "russian fiancee" here in 2002 and "returned" her as well, three months later due to incompatibility.

[Yodrak 7]

SirLancelot,

An interesting set of statements.

On what basis have you judged that the woman is a "gold digger"?

Yodrak

You people are repugnant, coming to the defense of a gold digger. It just disgusts me how judgemental you all are here. .....

Don't judge, lest you be judged!

[Kez/JWolf 6]

Did any of you read this guy's prior posts? Check out one of the very first. Seems he had a "russian fiancee" here in 2002 and "returned" her as well, three months later due to incompatibility.

OMG I am so glad that they have brought in the new rules about K1's hope this will stop this man for doing this to another person.....

What does he think he is doing???? TRY BEFORE YOU BUY!!!! if you dont like it send it back.....

Kezzie

[Carol&Marc 0]

You people are repugnant, coming to the defense of a gold digger. It just disgusts me how judgemental you all are here. Religious, moral thumping, fundamentalists of the worst kind.

Oh go take a nap......

[Kathryn41 3,205]

DMermaid wrote:

"I agree that consultation with attorney(s) is perhaps best at this juncture. It might be that twostar's fiancée is unfamiliar with the precept of a prenuptial, and a quick consultation with an attorney could clear up some misgivings over what it is designed to do. I'd also recommend that twostar look into if it could be constructed so that it has an expiry date, say at some point in the future, when they both can be convinced that the marriage is likely to sustain."

I agree, a consultation with attorneys is the best route to follow now. While pre-nup agreements are becoming quite common here in the US and similar types of marriage agreements have been part of other cultures, I strongly suspect that for many cultures this is a totally alien concept, and may appear to relegate the personal relationship to the level of a business partnership. I mentioned before that much of the OPs posts indicate a lack of sensitivity to the different ways things are done in his fiancee's previous experiences, cultural and otherwise. That is why I felt that an agreement like a pre-nup is something best discussed early in the relationship. It gives her time to become familiar with the concept, to talk about what it really means and possibly to move beyond the shock that she my have initially that her romantic partner is only interested in his assets - or even perhaps her assets - to an understanding that this is similar to a will - addressing what happens to the physical assets of the marriage when the relationship ends, in this case by a break up in the relationshp rather than by death. If this is the first time she has ever heard of this concept, of course she is going to be distraught and feeling that he is only using her and intends to discard her later. That's a scary position in which to be - the thought of being abandoned with no means of support for you and your daughter because your husband doesn't trust you enough to share his assets with you! I suspect if he had been more sensitive to her situation both personally and because of her background, this would not have blown up in his face like this.

Edited October 20, 2006 by Kathryn41

[diadromous mermaid 36]

That's a scary position in which to be - the thought of being abandoned with no means of support for you and your daughter because your husband doesn't trust you enough to share his assets with you! I suspect if he had been more sensitive to her situation both personally and because of her background, this would not have blown up in his face like this.

I'm not sure how anyone would get an idea that they would be abandoned with no means of support from a prenup. Surely, it specifies 'separate' property. While I have no specific knowledge, I suspect that from the fact that twostar's fiancée has gone through a divorce already, where she preserved some separate property from her ex-husband, the concept should not have been all that foreign to her. Nonetheless, anything is possible.

[SirLancelot 1]

SirLancelot,

An interesting set of statements.

On what basis have you judged that the woman is a "gold digger"?

Yodrak

You people are repugnant, coming to the defense of a gold digger. It just disgusts me how judgemental you all are here. .....

Don't judge, lest you be judged!

Yodrak, on the same basis that the chest-thumping moralists are coming out and attacking the OP for being a rotten scoundrel.

There is so much BS on this thread that it's the first time I've really been completely annoyed by the morons which post here. Normally I can tolerate the BS, but this time, it's gone above the level of even my tolerance--which is generally pretty high.

Who the hell said marriage has to be about love? Does the I129F petition EVER mention the word LOVE even once? The requirement is that the couple have met previously in the past two years prior to petitioning. The requirement is that the relationship be a genuine one, and not for the purpose of visa fraud. But NOWHERE does it mention that the two needs to be in love? A genuine relationship does NOT have to include love. There are plenty of pour countries around the world where the poor woman's purpose is to find a man with financial security to support her and her future children. It's supreme audacity of the worst kind when Western countries assume that every culture demands love for a marriage. I cannot put up with this arrogance and presumptions. And the love requirement for marriage is so recent even in Western history. As late as the 1800's, even in Europe and America, plenty of marriages were for financial reasons and not for love. This BS about love having to be the foundation of a marriage is #######! Arrogance of the worst kind.

The facts are not made up by me. It is well established that many beneficiaries are only interested with coming to the US. If they happen to land a rich guy with lots of assests, all the better when the divorce takes place and she gets half of his assests.

It is a prudent idea to have a pre-nup even for wealthy Americans marrying not-so wealthy Americans, it's imperative for a wealthy American to have a pre-nup when marrying a poor foreigner. It's simply smart. I can't imagine a single lawyer NOT advising that to their wealthy clients. It would be their fiduciary duty to do so. And I can't imagine a smart, wealthy American not doing so. The guy would be a moron and ridiculed by his wealthy collegues if he did not establish a pre-nup.

And to have all these holier than thou morons chest-thumping all this BS on this thread is beyond my tolerance.

It shows to me the true colors of many of these women on here. Gold diggers at heart, coming to the defense of like minded gold-digging sisters (Kristen excluded).

Repugnant!

Am I pissed? You bet your #######. The gloves are coming off!

For the record, I'm of the middle class. I don't have enough assests to protect so I won't be doing a pre-nup. But if I or my family had a lot of assests to protect, you bet your ####### I'd have a lawyer draw up an iron-clad pre-nup prior to the marriage. And if my SO refused to sign it, I would know her true intentions and would ask her to leave as well. There are few things in this world I can tolerate less than a gold digger! I am a romantic at heart and believe in true love, but I'm not stupid enough to delude myself into thinking the rest of the world all think this way as well. Love they can find easily in their own poor countries. What they have a much harder time finding are financially well off guys in their own countries.

[rob&ana 0]

I dont think the problem here is the pre-nup per se.

I guess everyone is upset with this man, because of the way he initially posted the situation, he wanted to send her back because she got upset about the affidavit, even after she agreed on signing it.

I agree, there are many, many fraud cases. But the OP also stated that she was financially stable wherever she was from. So I would presume she's not a gold digger.

But you are right, we are quick to jump to conclusions. But then again, the people should be careful about the way they post things here if they dont want to start a flaming topic.

[Kirsten L 0]

I can't fathom why it is that there seems to be this focus on *when* he presented the prenup. If a relationship is destined for success, no prenup would stand in the way, nor would when it was presented create a hiccup. If it did, in my opinion, then the parties were not truly in love. I wonder if this has occured to people posting in this thread. What difference does a prenup really make, if the relationship is not going to fail? Prenups are more and more common given the ease with which people can divorce these days and often without any grounds to speak of.

DMermaid...

Think of it like this...

Prenups are a charged issue for many--not just a few, as this thread so clearly demonstrates. It's not that some people wouldn't be willing to sign one; but timing is, in fact, EVERYTHING! On principle, I wouldn't sign a prenup because I believe it plants a seed of doubt and introduces the possibiity of failure into a marriage before it's even begun. It's like starting a building with a flawed foundation, from my perspective. If someone was going to ask me to sign a prenup, I would sure want to know that far in advance of my giving up my comfort zone to move across an ocean for someone. I'd be devastated if someone sprung that on me after I'd moved because it would signify TO ME that my partner's interests and faith were more in wealth than in me.

There are OTHER people, who would be willing to sign a prenup--as this man's fiancée ultimately did, incidentally--but who would feel a similar sting in being presented with the request. There's no time to PROCESS what's being asked of them, to adapt to it. And that's, frankly, critical. Again, timing, timing, timing. If this idea had been presented well before she moved to the States, then the fiancée could have made a reasoned decision about what she felt and believed about a prenup request from her partner. She should have been given that opportunity before she uprooted herself and her child. Now, no matter what she does, he can look at her as a gold digger, which she may not be. If she doesn't sign, she's a gold-digger because she won't. If she does sign, she's a gold-digger because she did, since it's the only way to stay in the country and have any access to his funds. Do you see the ugliness and doubt that has been created by not doing this till she got here, by not giving her any time to evaluate her choices? And whatever her own motivations, her child will now suffer. The instability this will cause and the view it will give her of marriage and relationships between men and women will not be healthy. It will be damaging.