Having kids only means you have sex.

[Tilia 75]

No, no it doesn't.

 

I have seen this idea for a while now, and it is WRONG. I don't know where it comes from, but it seems to have made quite a career on this site.

 

In case people are not aware, having kids means co-parenting for at least 18 years with someone. It is very, very much a sign of good faith, especially since in case of separation, shared custody is almost impossible between people from two counties.

 

Compare this to the "strong evidence", aka common bank account. Seriously? All it takes for me to boot my husband off of mine is a call. Same for insurances, credit cards, and so on. Even a house owned in common is way, way easier to figure out than custody issues.

 

Lastly, I have spoken to two USCIS officers, one at my AOS interview and the other at my N-400 interview. They both said having children is the STRONGEST evidence a couple can bring.

 

Just wanted to get this off my chest, lol.

[Unlockable 7,314]

*** Moving to General Immigration related Discussion ***

[geowrian 22,337]

I disagree (for various reasons).

Co-parenting a child is good IMO, but just having a child doesn't show a relationship.

Just having a joint bank account (which you cannot just boot somebody off with a call...), credit cards, insurance, etc. has little meaning. Actually using said resources together has a meaning.

It's not the actions, but the contexts that surround them that make a good or weak case.

Edited October 2, 2018 by geowrian

[Ben&Zian 4,398]

For N-400 perhaps or even AOS in some cases, and married already for 3-4 plus years. Using pregnancy or a kid between newly weds or fiances, especially if from high fraud countries isn't. To some kids are very special and super important, to others they aren't. So no matter how special and amazing you may think they are, someone else doesn't have that mutual feeling, and probably thinks the complete opposite.

[Tilia 75]

2 minutes ago, Ben&Zian said:

For N-400 perhaps or even AOS in some cases, and married already for 3-4 plus years. Using pregnancy or a kid between newly weds or fiances, especially if from high fraud countries isn't. To some kids are very special and super important, to others they aren't. So no matter how special and amazing you may think they are, someone else doesn't have that mutual feeling, and probably thinks the complete opposite.

 

 Even in fresh relationships, there is more to having a child than sex. You have to actively agree to carry the pregnancy, it's not like you wake up in the morning after sex and the baby's there.  

 

And while it may carry less strength than it does for more established couples, it does carry importance. 

[Unlockable 7,314]

4 minutes ago, Tilia said:

No, no it doesn't.

 

I have seen this idea for a while now, and it is WRONG. I don't know where it comes from, but it seems to have made quite a career on this site.

 

In case people are not aware, having kids means co-parenting for at least 18 years with someone. It is very, very much a sign of good faith, especially since in case of separation, shared custody is almost impossible between people from two counties.

 

Compare this to the "strong evidence", aka common bank account. Seriously? All it takes for me to boot my husband off of mine is a call. Same for insurances, credit cards, and so on. Even a house owned in common is way, way easier to figure out than custody issues.

 

Lastly, I have spoken to two USCIS officers, one at my AOS interview and the other at my N-400 interview. They both said having children is the STRONGEST evidence a couple can bring.

 

Just wanted to get this off my chest, lol.

Yeah, I can see how this bothers a lot of people.

 

But when we say evidence of a "bonafide relationship", it means a substantial relationship where two people are committed and not a sexual one.

 

The phrase "a child only proves two people had sex" came from the fact that people do just "hook up" and don't have any type of relationship except a sexual one. Also, being obligated to care for a child for 18 years (actually, a true parent would care for them for a lifetime) still does not mean that the parents had a genuine committed relationship.

 

 As I have witnessed one or two family and friends have a kid by someone they had a quick fling with, I can see the argument behind the theory. If a couple is together for a while and have a child, sure, it is one of the strongest evidence of a relationship. But if a guy goes on vacation and gets a local girl pregnant in the short week he is there, it can be argued that their relationship was simply a physical one. How can you justify a bonafide relationship simply because the condom broke? (rhetorical question)

[Tilia 75]

5 minutes ago, geowrian said:

I disagree (for various reasons).

Co-parenting a child is good IMO, but just having a child doesn't show a relationship.

Just having a joint bank account (which you cannot just boot somebody off with a call...), credit cards, insurance, etc. has little meaning. Actually using said resources together has a meaning.

It's not the actions, but the contexts that surround them that make a good or weak case.

 

 Having a child while being in a relationship does show commitment. No, you don't have to be in a relationship to have one, but it does bring an extra layer to it.

 

My husband and I have been married 6+ years. We still have not mixed resources, except for the house mortgage. We are not less married because we each have our credit cards. 

[geowrian 22,337]

1 minute ago, Tilia said:

Even in fresh relationships, there is more to having a child than sex. You have to actively agree to carry the pregnancy, it's not like you wake up in the morning after sex and the baby's there. 

Depends on the country, and even in the US access is not always easy.

 

1 minute ago, Tilia said:

 Having a child while being in a relationship does show commitment. No, you don't have to be in a relationship to have one, but it does bring an extra layer to it.

Key point "while in a [bona fide] relationship". One must show the bona fide relationship first.

 

1 minute ago, Tilia said:

My husband and I have been married 6+ years. We still have not mixed resources, except for the house mortgage. We are not less married because we each have our credit cards. 

Okay. As noted, financial commingling is just one form of evidence. It is by no means a make or break aspect.

[Tilia 75]

2 minutes ago, NuestraUnion said:

Yeah, I can see how this bothers a lot of people.

 

But when we say evidence of a "bonafide relationship", it means a substantial relationship where two people are committed and not a sexual one.

 

The phrase "a child only proves two people had sex" came from the fact that people do just "hook up" and don't have any type of relationship except a sexual one. Also, being obligated to care for a child for 18 years (actually, a true parent would care for them for a lifetime) still does not mean that the parents had a genuine committed relationship.

 

 As I have witnessed one or two family and friends have a kid by someone they had a quick fling with, I can see the argument behind the theory. If a couple is together for a while and have a child, sure, it is one of the strongest evidence of a relationship. But if a guy goes on vacation and gets a local girl pregnant in the short week he is there, it can be argued that their relationship was simply a physical one. How can you justify a bonafide relationship simply because the condom broke? (rhetorical question)

 

 But see, the other evidence that are used are just as flimsy. Just because you spent time with someone doesn't mean you are in a relationship. All the "strong" evidence, especially for K1 visas are pretty meh, honestly.

[Ben&Zian 4,398]

People have literally asked on here basically about "should we get pregnant to boost our chances of approval" as in using a kid for immigration benefits. That's in part where it came from too and why it shouldn't be considered at all. 

 

As was mentioned, people hook up, one time sex can get someone pregnant. Doesn't have to be a "mutual" we want to have kids plan. If it was strong evidence, everyone would be having kids for no reason other than to try to strengthen their cases for approvals. 

 

And it doesn't require two people for 18 some years to help co-raise a child. Single parents do it all the time with no assistance or help from the other partner whether mother/father. A lot don't even ask for financial assistance and a lot don't even discuss the other parent to the kid. So it isn't just a "mutual process" as you claim. Maybe in some magical fairy tale world of decent people  with unicorns and sparkles it is; but in the real world, it's far from it.

Edited October 2, 2018 by Ben&Zian

[NikLR 13,227]

Considering a child can be born of rape, yes it does just mean a sexual encounter occurred.  I have a friend who was raped by her boyfriend when we were 16. Her daughter is now 21. She doesnt believe in abortion (as is her right) and could not give up a child to adoption (again her right.)  This child is not evidence of a bonafide genuine relationship.  There was no co-parenting. 

 

I co-parent quite well with my ex-boyfriend and we live in different countries. 

[Scandi 4,166]

25 minutes ago, Tilia said:

 

 Even in fresh relationships, there is more to having a child than sex. You have to actively agree to carry the pregnancy, it's not like you wake up in the morning after sex and the baby's there.  

 

And while it may carry less strength than it does for more established couples, it does carry importance. 

If you only knew how many scammers decide to get pregnant just for the finanical and i migration benefit. Just having a child proves nothing in regards to a bonafide relationship, there are thousands and thousands of people out there who would bring a child into this world for egotistical reasons and benefit reasons.

 

There are also thousands and thousands of women out there who ONLY want a child, for whatever reasons, and they don't care one bit with whom they have this child. Meaning they are willing to have a child with anyone, there's no bonafide relationship at all between the woman and the person she decided to get pregnant with.

[YecaCruz 379]

In an ideal world and for many families, including my own, Tilia is right but it certainly isn't the case for all. And Immigrations has to take everything with a bit of salt because of those who have cheated the system before us.

 

Unfortunately this is far from a ideal world that we live in.  There are so many broken people that make our world even more messed up for the next generation. Some people treat their kids more like pets or accessories than they do as little-mini people. Others have kids for tax benefits and literally pass their kids around to cousins' and aunt/uncles' houses throughout the year (my friend's cousin has been a US missionary for 20 years and works with a certain people-group that does exactly this). And as others above have mentioned, kids are born into situations where they aren't necessarily wanted (like rape) or they are a mere means to an end (expedite processes, anchor babies).  

 

It sucks that the kids have to pay for all that in the end :-/

Edited October 2, 2018 by YecaCruz

[Lemonslice 4,853]

So many parents on VJ abandoned their (young) kids at home, with ex-spouse or other relatives - I've seen it done by parents from developing countries and countries as industrialized as the US. Didn't matter they left...  So apparently, for many, kids aren't more than a minimal part of their life. 

[Unlockable 7,314]

26 minutes ago, Ben&Zian said:

People have literally asked on here basically about "should we get pregnant to boost our chances of approval" as in using a kid for immigration benefits. That's in part where it came from too and why it shouldn't be considered at all. 

Don't know if you remember it but i remember a guy who brought over his wife and came on the board to find out if he could bring over his baby mama also. Imagine if that was actually allowed. 😳