Polyamory and K-1 visas

[no name 1]

I was talking more about the younger half of the relationship. If they're not in for love, then what are they in it for besides immigration benefits?

[Caladan 19]

They don't look for proof of love. If they did, there'd be quite a lot of May-December relationships headed for a denial. There's be a lot of cultural differences that would amount to a denial. They don't care if you're happy or in love, just that you intend to get married and not just for immigration benefits.

If you think there's a lack of love in some of the May-December relationships, what is it then that would qualify them as bonafide?

Doesn't just wanting a partnership count? I doubt the guys whose wives die/divorce them and then who get a new younger wife 6 months later are in it for love, but they are definitely in it for marriage. Or did I miss your point?

I was talking more about the younger half of the relationship. If they're not in for love, then what are they in it for besides immigration benefits?

Financial security, stability, get to see the world, seems like a nice enough guy, would be good for my family? Lots of things that aren't fraudulent that don't fit into the the Western romance model.

[JoeMama 0]

I can't help but think of a "tag team" thing happening often in this future household. One tires out, slap the hand of the other to take over.

or perhaps some quality 3-way action. The "london bridge" manuever comes to mind.

Don't forget about the "Locomotion"! Who gets to be the caboose? WOO! WOO!

or like an inverted hamburger. beef on top and bottom and the bun in the middle

As the farmer once said, "There's always a hole to fill". In this case, maybe the plumber(s) would be better by plugging up a hole(s)!

Edited March 27, 2007 by altimixdj

[DA BOMB 1]

Read the rules before you let your little fingers loose on the keyboard. I could interject my Catholic beliefs on this matter but then I'd be here all day...HOWEVER...the USCIS added moral character as a requirement for a reason. The reason the OP cant find archives on the subject is because its not allowed. Let her find a lawyer...unless that lawyer is willing to lose his or her license she's out of luck. If there were no standards then CIMT wouldnt exist. The difference here is that the OP continues her lifestyle. It IS up to the USCIS to investigate on how a couple chooses to live their lives..why else are we pouring every ounce of evidence into these petitions we send in? Google it...an immigration officer will ask whether the OP practices polygamy at the interview...should she leave the boyfriend out then? Oh...lie to an immigration officer? That goes against everything this board stands for.

As has been said before, polygamy is not the same as polyamory:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/polyamory

and

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=polygamy

Please don't interject your Catholic beliefs on this matter as they are irrelevant. The purpose of K-1 is to be with the person you love. People in a polygamous relationship are not allowed to get K-1. No conflicts here, because OP does want to bring her loved one here, and she isn't in a polygamous relationship.

As you seem to be in a tiny minority with your opinion on this topic, this (topic) doesn't go against everything this board stands for.

"Oh...lie to an immigration officer? That goes against everything this board stands for."

Lying to an immigration officer does go against what this board stands for (or thats the impression I got when I joined) and I could care less if Im the minority on this subject. Its never stopped me from voicing my opinion before. Tell ya what...its not whether you're all for group love or if the OP doesnt intend on marrying the US boyfriend...its all about what the adjudicator decides. Polyamory by definition itself does not come up in any law...however if mentioned, the adjudicator would absolutely assume polygamy was the intention. If you dont see that you're really blind. The majority of politically correct posters on this thread think its a good idea to "not mention" the third wheel in this triangle. Ok. Let the "boyfriend" continue claiming her on his taxes, sponsor the beneficiary, and they can all live as one big happy family. Gimme a break.

Unless you're an AO you have no reason to make such an absolute statement. It is merely your opinion. And if I may be so blunt, it is more than obvious that you don't understand the culture of a polyamorous relationship and therefore don't know that for the majority of them, "marriage" is not a goal. I daresay if there was a way for this situation to be resolved (i.e. a non-marriage visa) that would be the preferred solution. Of course, that's just my guess.

I also haven't seen anyone suggest they outright lie to an AO. I haven't seen anyone come back and confirm that they are a dependent on the taxes. So your post here is full of suppositions based on your own perceptions and bias.

Give the rest of us a break and maybe leave the judgment at the door. Of course, that's just my opinion. *shrug* To be taken or left.

"I think you should leave your boyfriend out of this as much as possible, and have your parents co-sponsor. The USCIS doesn't need to know about your boyfriend, and to save yourself from questions of a bona fide relationship its best not to complicate it by mentioning him. Its not illegal, but there is a cultural bias against it. Don't make it anymore complicated than you need to."

"I agree. Use one of your parents, and don't bring your boyfriend into the equation at all."

so - OP listens to the ####### advice and:

"Everyones replies have been very helpful so far. I was thinking about leaving my bf out of it and then I wondered how much they would want to know about my household situation i.e. who I live with, how I pay for my housing if I dont work, etc. "

Now what? You're going to tell me that evading certain specific questions isnt exactly lying? Oh wait - here's the OP saying she's a dependant on her boyfriend's taxes:

"Either of my parents could qualify for this but I think my boyfriend would be the best choice as I am a dependent on his taxes and live soley with him."

I have more of a chance at being right about my absolute statement than you do at proving I'm wrong. It doesnt matter if the orgy members want to marry or not...how will they prove there's no intent if they even get as far as an interview? Get a grip.

[jlvr 1]

All of you who jump right on "this is so wrong" train need to get over yourselves. Wrong according to who? Your beliefs aren't shared by everyone. I'm pretty certain that we each do something or have done something in our lives that someone else believes is morally bankrupt. Unless you follow your particular faith to the letter and will soon be nominated for sainthood, you should be concerned with your own practices.

The OP has not done anything illegal. She may have a difficult time making a case with USCIS but none of us are going to be the ones to decide whether her petition is approved or not. She didn't ask for your judgments, she asked for practical advice. If you can't be helpful, why bother posting? Take your judgments to church.

[William33 110]

I think we've pretty much exhausted this topic, as now we are just moving into assumptions and random comments. If anyone else has anything useful to add, I check my inbox often. Thank you once again to everyone, even those who were un-helpful, as I do enjoy a good bit of debate. I will keep in contact with those who have been most helpful. Good luck to everyone else.

--*--A

Not even close, you are a bold one with your assumptions of the acceptability of open cheating, moreover the assumption that others are like you?

Do you engage in the use of drugs?

[no name 1]

how will they prove there's no intent if they even get as far as an interview? Get a grip.

I would be very interested to see them try!! Bet they don't make it.

[William33 110]

All of you who jump right on "this is so wrong" train need to get over yourselves. Wrong according to who? Your beliefs aren't shared by everyone. I'm pretty certain that we each do something or have done something in our lives that someone else believes is morally bankrupt. Unless you follow your particular faith to the letter and will soon be nominated for sainthood, you should be concerned with your own practices.

The OP has not done anything illegal. She may have a difficult time making a case with USCIS but none of us are going to be the ones to decide whether her petition is approved or not. She didn't ask for your judgments, she asked for practical advice. If you can't be helpful, why bother posting? Take your judgments to church.

Hey, join in the cheating train....

[Jenn! 918]

They don't look for proof of love. If they did, there'd be quite a lot of May-December relationships headed for a denial. There's be a lot of cultural differences that would amount to a denial. They don't care if you're happy or in love, just that you intend to get married and not just for immigration benefits.

If you think there's a lack of love in some of the May-December relationships, what is it then that would qualify them as bonafide?

Doesn't just wanting a partnership count? I doubt the guys whose wives die/divorce them and then who get a new younger wife 6 months later are in it for love, but they are definitely in it for marriage. Or did I miss your point?

I was talking more about the younger half of the relationship. If they're not in for love, then what are they in it for besides immigration benefits?

Financial security, stability, get to see the world, seems like a nice enough guy, would be good for my family? Lots of things that aren't fraudulent that don't fit into the the Western romance model.

Yeah, I guess so. I just have a hard time seeing it personally. I don't think I'd make a very good AO.

[no name 1]

Yeah, I guess so. I just have a hard time seeing it personally. I don't think I'd make a very good AO.

au contraire, I think you're just what the USCIS needs!!

[mRx 16]

All of you who jump right on "this is so wrong" train need to get over yourselves. Wrong according to who? Your beliefs aren't shared by everyone. I'm pretty certain that we each do something or have done something in our lives that someone else believes is morally bankrupt. Unless you follow your particular faith to the letter and will soon be nominated for sainthood, you should be concerned with your own practices.

The OP has not done anything illegal. She may have a difficult time making a case with USCIS but none of us are going to be the ones to decide whether her petition is approved or not. She didn't ask for your judgments, she asked for practical advice. If you can't be helpful, why bother posting? Take your judgments to church.

Maybe you dont get it... It is as much our right to post as it is as hers to have her little adam, eve, and steve thing.

[JoeMama 0]

All of you who jump right on "this is so wrong" train need to get over yourselves. Wrong according to who? Your beliefs aren't shared by everyone. I'm pretty certain that we each do something or have done something in our lives that someone else believes is morally bankrupt. Unless you follow your particular faith to the letter and will soon be nominated for sainthood, you should be concerned with your own practices.

The OP has not done anything illegal. She may have a difficult time making a case with USCIS but none of us are going to be the ones to decide whether her petition is approved or not. She didn't ask for your judgments, she asked for practical advice. If you can't be helpful, why bother posting? Take your judgments to church.

Something for the ones looking at this through the eyes of a Christian. A quote from the one person who is considered to be the most influential person who has ever walked the Earth:

"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" - Jesus Christ

Edited March 27, 2007 by altimixdj

[ceriserose 1]

Read the rules before you let your little fingers loose on the keyboard. I could interject my Catholic beliefs on this matter but then I'd be here all day...HOWEVER...the USCIS added moral character as a requirement for a reason. The reason the OP cant find archives on the subject is because its not allowed. Let her find a lawyer...unless that lawyer is willing to lose his or her license she's out of luck. If there were no standards then CIMT wouldnt exist. The difference here is that the OP continues her lifestyle. It IS up to the USCIS to investigate on how a couple chooses to live their lives..why else are we pouring every ounce of evidence into these petitions we send in? Google it...an immigration officer will ask whether the OP practices polygamy at the interview...should she leave the boyfriend out then? Oh...lie to an immigration officer? That goes against everything this board stands for.

As has been said before, polygamy is not the same as polyamory:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/polyamory

and

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=polygamy

Please don't interject your Catholic beliefs on this matter as they are irrelevant. The purpose of K-1 is to be with the person you love. People in a polygamous relationship are not allowed to get K-1. No conflicts here, because OP does want to bring her loved one here, and she isn't in a polygamous relationship.

As you seem to be in a tiny minority with your opinion on this topic, this (topic) doesn't go against everything this board stands for.

"Oh...lie to an immigration officer? That goes against everything this board stands for."

Lying to an immigration officer does go against what this board stands for (or thats the impression I got when I joined) and I could care less if Im the minority on this subject. Its never stopped me from voicing my opinion before. Tell ya what...its not whether you're all for group love or if the OP doesnt intend on marrying the US boyfriend...its all about what the adjudicator decides. Polyamory by definition itself does not come up in any law...however if mentioned, the adjudicator would absolutely assume polygamy was the intention. If you dont see that you're really blind. The majority of politically correct posters on this thread think its a good idea to "not mention" the third wheel in this triangle. Ok. Let the "boyfriend" continue claiming her on his taxes, sponsor the beneficiary, and they can all live as one big happy family. Gimme a break.

Unless you're an AO you have no reason to make such an absolute statement. It is merely your opinion. And if I may be so blunt, it is more than obvious that you don't understand the culture of a polyamorous relationship and therefore don't know that for the majority of them, "marriage" is not a goal. I daresay if there was a way for this situation to be resolved (i.e. a non-marriage visa) that would be the preferred solution. Of course, that's just my guess.

I also haven't seen anyone suggest they outright lie to an AO. I haven't seen anyone come back and confirm that they are a dependent on the taxes. So your post here is full of suppositions based on your own perceptions and bias.

Give the rest of us a break and maybe leave the judgment at the door. Of course, that's just my opinion. *shrug* To be taken or left.

"I think you should leave your boyfriend out of this as much as possible, and have your parents co-sponsor. The USCIS doesn't need to know about your boyfriend, and to save yourself from questions of a bona fide relationship its best not to complicate it by mentioning him. Its not illegal, but there is a cultural bias against it. Don't make it anymore complicated than you need to."

"I agree. Use one of your parents, and don't bring your boyfriend into the equation at all."

so - OP listens to the ####### advice and:

"Everyones replies have been very helpful so far. I was thinking about leaving my bf out of it and then I wondered how much they would want to know about my household situation i.e. who I live with, how I pay for my housing if I dont work, etc. "

Now what? You're going to tell me that evading certain specific questions isnt exactly lying? Oh wait - here's the OP saying she's a dependant on her boyfriend's taxes:

"Either of my parents could qualify for this but I think my boyfriend would be the best choice as I am a dependent on his taxes and live soley with him."

I have more of a chance at being right about my absolute statement than you do at proving I'm wrong. It doesnt matter if the orgy members want to marry or not...how will they prove there's no intent if they even get as far as an interview? Get a grip.

*yawn* Not in the least trying to prove you wrong, since we both know your mind is made up, even if you can't use the correct terminology or gain a concept outside of the most rigid. My suggestions was that unless you're an AO you don't know for sure anything. Neither do I. The difference is I'm willing to accept I'm not all-knowing.

Oh, and I have a grip. Solid. It's just not around someone else's neck over the matter of their personal business.

[Caladan 19]

I figure they're not going to do any worse than most American trainwrecks of marriages. As long as they want to make the marriage work, it's not really USCIS's place to make sure they're not miserable.

There's a lot of things that are inadvisable, or that I wouldn't want for myself, that are legal. I wouldn't marry someone if I had to be assured through a translator that he really, really loved me. I wouldn't marry someone if there was a huge age gap. I wouldn't marry someone who went shopping for a bride because he thought all American women were too savvy and would take his money and wanted someone docile and subservient. I certainly wouldn't be interested in polyamory.

But all that means is that there's a hell of a lot of legal things I don't agree with.

[Otto 83]

<====Candy Break??