Having kids only means you have sex.

[dawning 212]

I also think there's a confusion of two concepts.  Pregnancy is not a reason for expedite, unless there's a medical problem.  Neither are existing children, although one parent might be unhappy to be away from them.  But that doesn't mean that HAVING the children is proof of a genuine relationship, even if that relationship has to wait in line with all the others.

[Boiler 45,535]

How is being a Baby Mama proof of anything?

[Tilia 75]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

How is being a Baby Mama proof of anything?

 

 How is hanging out with someone proof of anything?

 

 My husband and I spent the first two years as travelling buddies. We went across Europe and spent 2+ months of time together. Endless amount of pictures, we shared a hotel room and so on. Not a romantic relationship, yet could provide "evidence" of one.

[Tilia 75]

1 hour ago, Springrain22 said:

The fact that someone is having kids does not prove anything at all. Why would it? You won't believe how many people cheated the system by having kids and not having any love / relationship / family.

 

 It actually does. This was my entire point. Are children 100% evidence of a genuine relationship? No. Are they evidence of nothing? No again. I don't understand how people genuinely think that taking pictures with someone is a stronger evidence of a relationship than having a child with that person.

[Jaquelly 1,647]

3 minutes ago, Tilia said:

 

 It actually does. This was my entire point. Are children 100% evidence of a genuine relationship? No. Are they evidence of nothing? No again. I don't understand how people genuinely think that taking pictures with someone is a stronger evidence of a relationship than having a child with that person.

Because women come to the US to give birth to kids to get them US citizenship. Birth tourism is a thing. Frankly, if you don't think that people abuse having kids to have an anchor baby you are out of your gourd.

[Tilia 75]

Just now, Jaquelly said:

Because women come to the US to give birth to kids to get them US citizenship. Birth tourism is a thing. Frankly, if you don't think that people abuse having kids to have an anchor baby you are out of your gourd.

 

 We are discussing this in the context of fiance or marriage visas. I am aware that anchor baby exists and I frankly think it is idiotic that citizenship can be acquired by birth on the soil alone.

[dawning 212]

2 minutes ago, Jaquelly said:

Because women come to the US to give birth to kids to get them US citizenship. Birth tourism is a thing. Frankly, if you don't think that people abuse having kids to have an anchor baby you are out of your gourd.

I suspect most of those women wanted children anyway, and are using birth tourism to give the child a perceived advantage via US citizenship.   I would guess the percentage that only had a child because they had a chance to give birth in the US is relatively low.  It's hard to get statistics on that though.  I think we also have to realize that reasons for having children vary a lot across cultures, and people may not always describe the reasons in the same way.  That doesn't mean they are not sincere in their desire to have children.

[Jaquelly 1,647]

Just now, Tilia said:

 

 We are discussing this in the context of fiance or marriage visas. I am aware that anchor baby exists and I frankly think it is idiotic that citizenship can be acquired by birth on the soil alone.

 

It's the same line of conversation, though. A couple could get pregnant because they think that having a baby is a strong tie, and if the woman gets approved while pregnant, BAM. You got yourself a bonafide US baby. So why would someone having a kid with someone else give them a strong tie? My parents had me. They divorced. I was their only tie. 

 

You do NOT need a second party to have a child. Why should USCIS make a concession? It makes no sense.

[Jaquelly 1,647]

Just now, dawning said:

I suspect most of those women wanted children anyway, and are using birth tourism to give the child a perceived advantage via US citizenship.   I would guess the percentage that only had a child because they had a chance to give birth in the US is relatively low.  It's hard to get statistics on that though.  I think we also have to realize that reasons for having children vary a lot across cultures, and people may not always describe the reasons in the same way.  That doesn't mean they are not sincere in their desire to have children.

 

It also doesn't mean that every person who has a child does it for the right reasons, either. 

[Springrain22 427]

10 minutes ago, Tilia said:

 

 It actually does. This was my entire point. Are children 100% evidence of a genuine relationship? No. Are they evidence of nothing? No again. I don't understand how people genuinely think that taking pictures with someone is a stronger evidence of a relationship than having a child with that person.

No, it does not at all. Children are only 100% evidence of two people had sex. That's it. The rest is NOT guaranteed and can't be guaranteed at all.

[AshMarty 360]

17 minutes ago, Tilia said:

 

 It actually does. This was my entire point. Are children 100% evidence of a genuine relationship? No. Are they evidence of nothing? No again. I don't understand how people genuinely think that taking pictures with someone is a stronger evidence of a relationship than having a child with that person.

I think in the right context yes, Children can strengthen proof of relationship but a child by itself doesn’t prove a relationship. Just like a single photo doesn’t by itself either.

 

Any CO with be silly to take a single piece of evidence with no further context or explanation either photo or child. But a child and a family photo at something like infant swimming lessons would start to build context.

Edited October 2, 2018 by AshMarty

[Unlockable 7,314]

47 minutes ago, dawning said:

 

 

 

I also find it interesting that OP has had an answer from two USCIS officers that children are excellent evidence, and yet posters here continue to insist they aren't.  Were the officers lying?

It is because we don't know what context the question was asked. If they presented it in a way like, "can a couple that has been together for a while use their kids they had together as evidence?" Of course the officals would agree.

 

But if they presented it like, " if I knocked up a bargirl, whose name I can't remember, when I was drunk on my last vacation... is the child enough evidence we had a real relationship?"

 

I'm sure the second question would get different answers from those officials.

[andy78 178]

On something like the I-751 instructions, for example, the first example listed in the "Evidence of Relationship" section is:

- Birth certificates of children born during the time of this marriage, if any.

 

When I received a generic RFE in response to my removal of conditions petition, the first example of evidence it asked for is:

- Children as a result of your marriage / Birth certificate(s) of child(ren) born to the marriage.

 

In conclusion, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services says that having children is considered evidence of a good faith marriage.

 

 

[Mrsjackson 300]

3 hours 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.

As a mother of a baby with my US citizen spouse I know where you’re coming from and it has bothered me in the past as well to read statements about children proving nothing about a relationship. For most people, the child you share with your partner is your pride and joy and by far the most special thing about your union, so hearing someone say it “means nothing” and “only proves sex occurred” can absolutely be really frustrating. However, the majority of users on here play a devil’s advocate role and it is to be helpful, so I try and keep that in mind when I read things like that on here. I do wish some people would cool it though. 

[Mrsjackson 300]

4 minutes ago, andy78 said:

On something like the I-751 instructions, for example, the first example listed in the "Evidence of Relationship" section is:

- Birth certificates of children born during the time of this marriage, if any.

 

When I received a generic RFE in response to my removal of conditions petition, the first example of evidence it asked for is:

- Children as a result of your marriage / Birth certificate(s) of child(ren) born to the marriage.

 

In conclusion, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services says that having children is considered evidence of a good faith marriage.

 

 

Good point and to add to that my interviewer definitely focused on the child we share together. So I’m not sure I agree with it meaning nothing. Might depend on the person though.