Affidavit of support

[JeanneAdil 6,414]

6 hours ago, rich rich said:

No I can't afford a lawyer, I can barely afford to post on this free forum.

 

Bond is easier.  You want to be my cosponsor?

i took that info from previous post u made saying a lawyer told u to AOS

 

and bond is not easier nor cheap

The i 134 is not enforceable but when you AOS it is so u need 125% of poverty level income

 

and no,  i would not take on financial responsibility for someone i do not know

 

https://fam.state.gov/fam/09fam/09fam030208.html

 

Read the above to understand  public charge issues 

 

and the following dated December 2022 

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20221219-PublicChargeFinalRule.pd

 

What i find on bond is CO  can offer it to those seeking a tourist visa that may overstay the visa and AOS 

 

Program is designed to apply to nationals of specified countries with high overstay rates to serve as a diplomatic tool to encourage foreign governments to take all appropriate actions to ensure their nationals timely depart the United States after making temporary visits. The Pilot Program will run for six months. During that period, consular officers may require nonimmigrant visa applicants falling within the scope of the Pilot Program to post a bond in the amount of $5,000, $10,000, or $15,000 as a condition of visa issuance. The amount of the bond, should a bond be appropriate, will be determined by the consular officer based on the circumstances of the visa applicant.

[wazzujoel 63]

@rich rich

 

Yes you're correct I was more specifically addressing K1 as opposed to other types of immigration cases. Since I am going through K1, I am plugged into a lot of communities that are also going through the same K1 process. And I am personally amazed by the number of people that are going through this process, but get the one-time meeting requirement, and then think they are ready to marry this person. It seems that there are many people living below the poverty line that think the K1 process is a good idea, and that's what I don't understand or agree with. 

 

someone in capital intensive businesses are still filing taxes and still have an AGI and thus aren't below the poverty line probably.  You know someone working full time at minimum wage will be above the minimum poverty line. 

 

Good point on bringing your wife's parents or siblings here and I agree with you this sort of immigration where someone comes and is supported by the government is a rounding error on our massive military budget. The motivation behind my post wasn't that I was concerned about the taxpayer burden. My motivation was more coming from the K1 perspective where I feel that if you are living below the poverty line than you wont have the means to really get to know your partner in the way you should before marrying someone. 

[Mike E 11,739]

13 minutes ago, wazzujoel said:

 

. And I am personally amazed by the number of people that are going through this process, but get the one-time meeting requirement, and then think they are ready to marry this person.

Likewise 

13 minutes ago, wazzujoel said:

It seems that there are many people living below the poverty line that think the K1 process is a good idea, and that's what I don't understand or agree with.

Likewise.  
 

I similarly fail to understand the non citizens in this equation who fail to grasp that their destitute fiancé(e) is in no position to take on this financial responsibility.  One should marry for love for sure, but ignoring the financial prospects of a potential spouse  to be a bread winner makes zero sense.  

13 minutes ago, wazzujoel said:

 

  I agree with you this sort of immigration where someone comes and is supported by the government is a rounding error on our massive military budget.

While a case can be made for a smaller military budget, I don’t follow the logic for applying the savings from lower military spending to be spent on helping destitute Americans import destitute people to start destitute families.  I can think of dozens of higher priorities for reallocated budget.  I’m pretty sure if you poll citizens the majority will agree with me.  
 

If one  can’t afford $2K for a lawyer one can’t afford a $9K bond that one won’t be invited to pay regardless. Yet somehow one can afford to maintain a long distance relationship, including international air travel.  

[wazzujoel 63]

This was my fixed original post that was deleted for violating the language rules. Changed the word I used to more appropiate. 

 

Am I an [Jerk] for thinking if you can't meet the minimum poverty guidelines than you shouldn't be considering marriage with a foreign national? 

 

Long distance relationships are already difficult enough, and personally I don't think meeting someone one-time and talking to them on the phone or texting them is sufficient for really getting to know them. It's certainly enough to get infatuated with them and certainly enough to know that you want to get to know them better, but that "knowing them" happens by spending real, in-person time together with them. We are talking marriage here, it's not a legal contract that people should be so quick to leap into with someone they really don't know.  Since my romance started, I've had 11 trips with my fiancée where each tip was between 5-30 days, and even with that much time together I recognize that when I am living with her full time there are going to be negative things we learn about each other and hopefully we can overcome those obstacles. 

 

Anyways, if you are living below the poverty line, how can you even afford to see this person? How can you afford to care for this person when they arrive and can't work for a year or more? If you are below the poverty line, how many trips did you actually take to see this person? If I was in charge of this process, I think the one change I would make is that I would require no less than 6 in person trips prior to the interview in the embassy (with exceptions for places like Ukraine that are under active war). My goal with this change would be to try and weed out those who are infatuated with the idea of being in love with this person, verses those who are actually in love. 

[wazzujoel 63]

6 minutes ago, Mike E said:

I similarly fail to understand the non citizens in this equation who fail to grasp that their destitute fiancé(e) is in no position to take on this financial responsibility.  One should marry for love for sure, but ignoring the financial prospects of a potential spouse  to be a bread winner makes zero sense.  

 

I completely agree with you here also. There are so many people in the K1 process that should really be looking 

 

6 minutes ago, Mike E said:

While a case can be made for a smaller military budget, I don’t follow the logic for applying the savings from lower military spending to be spent on helping destitute Americans import destitute people to start destitute families.  I can think of dozens of higher priorities for reallocated budget.  I’m pretty sure if you poll citizens the majority will agree with me.  
 

If one  can’t afford $2K for a lawyer one can’t afford a $9K bond that one won’t be invited to pay regardless. Yet somehow one can afford to maintain a long distance relationship, including international air travel.  

 

In the original message that I posted, and then I reposted above following the site's rules - The motivation of that message was to discuss the ability of a K1 petitioner living below the poverty line and being able to have and maintain a healthy long distance foreign relationship that will end up in marriage. I wasn't saying what I did in that message due to the potential increased tax payer burden. 

 

One thing I have learned from having children in my first marriage is that you need to pick your battles. Although I would absolutely agree with you that I don't think it is right for immigrants to come to the US and then live off the taxpayers and contribute nothing to society, I also realize that in the grand scope of the US's budget that's not the first thing to get all bothered by. Yes, I would absolutely love a government that is fiscally conservative and had to manage the national budget (and debt) the same way any responsible adult would. Yes I would like more accountability from people living off the system, and would like to remove all possible cases of fraud. But this isn't a perfect world or perfect government, and so you should pick your battles on where to start first with fixing our fiscal accountability. And the biggest elephant in the room that is bleeding us dry is the budget we allocate for military spending. This doesn't mean I don't agree with you. Sure I would also like more accountability from people living off the taxpayers (both citizens and immigrants), but it's not worth fighting about that when there are much bigger problems in our budget. My opinion anyways. 

[Mike E 11,739]

1 hour ago, wazzujoel said:

One thing I have learned from having children in my first marriage is that you need to pick your battles

This is an unfortunately someway apt analogy: people who are nominally adults nonetheless think like 5 year olds and so think it is their right to my tax dollars despite me voting for a Congress that passed public charge laws and military  weapons appropriations in my name.  
 

Where the analogy breaks down is I never conceded thousands of dollars of my money to my 5 year old in order to avoid a disagreement.  Instead what  I learned to do was give my 5 year old a choice among two or more acceptable alternatives. 
 

And the choices for those who are nominally adults who want me to fund their romance, are to instead get a job, find a sponsor, change the laws through the electoral process, or move to another country.  
 

One of those options is not practical.  

[rich rich 10]

9 hours ago, wazzujoel said:

@rich rich

 

Yes you're correct I was more specifically addressing K1 as opposed to other types of immigration cases. Since I am going through K1, I am plugged into a lot of communities that are also going through the same K1 process. And I am personally amazed by the number of people that are going through this process, but get the one-time meeting requirement, and then think they are ready to marry this person. It seems that there are many people living below the poverty line that think the K1 process is a good idea, and that's what I don't understand or agree with. 

 

someone in capital intensive businesses are still filing taxes and still have an AGI and thus aren't below the poverty line probably.  You know someone working full time at minimum wage will be above the minimum poverty line. 

 

Good point on bringing your wife's parents or siblings here and I agree with you this sort of immigration where someone comes and is supported by the government is a rounding error on our massive military budget. The motivation behind my post wasn't that I was concerned about the taxpayer burden. My motivation was more coming from the K1 perspective where I feel that if you are living below the poverty line than you wont have the means to really get to know your partner in the way you should before marrying someone. 

 

Thanks for your thoughts and thanks for reposting.

 

I originally brought up the bond question because it seemed like an easy way to meet the support requirement.  Some of the other posters did not bother to see the entire video before commenting.  The lawyer does mention that you get the bond back at some point (e.g. like a loan).

 

There's been deleted posts and other comments, so I'll try to address everything:

 

1) It's not a loophole if it is part of immigration rules and regs. It's a way to make things easier.

2) I bring up Drumpf because whether you like him or not, he is a billionaire and was POTUS.  He has NEGATIVE AGI for many years.  So he would hypothetically have to fill out negative income on his affidavit of support.  Yes, a billionaire can "make less money" and pay less taxes than someone on minimum wage.  So if a billionaire can have negative AGI, so can a mid-level investor, especially a real estate investor.  That's the whole point of investing in real estate.

3) You could be living abroad as a very successful corporate drone with a high salary - you could be the god-loving CEO of BMW and Tata.  But guess what?  Your US-based income is a big fat ZERO.  So that's what you put down for your income on the I-134.  Yes, less income than minimum wage.

4) In regards to bringing in destitute people, I don't want to get too much into illegal immigration, but just watch the news to understand the status of our borders.

5) There are arguments back and forth across this forum on whether asses with zero income would allow you to meet the support reqs.  Some people swear they have done it.  The naysayers have not tried it but swear that won't work.  See #1 - bond would make things easier.

 

[rich rich 10]

Someone asked how Drumpf was tied to the immigration process.  The exact timeline is not publicly available info.

 

M. Drumpf's parents were given citizenship in 2018.  As her husband, Drumpf was possibly on the I-864 form as part of her household in the LPR process.  "Trump on his federal tax returns declared negative income in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2020, and that he paid a total of $1,500 in income taxes for the years 2016 and 2017."  

 

sources:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45137752

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/21/trump-income-tax-returns-detailed-in-new-report-.html

[Mike E 11,739]

2 hours ago, rich rich said:

2) I bring up Drumpf

When your ancestors immigrated to America, did they keep their original name or did they AmericanIze it? If so, do you like it when people insist on using the name that is not on your U.S. birth certificate?

 

As a person of 100 percent ethnic  German, ancestry, I find your slur  to be offensive.  German immigrants were victims of bigotry and discrimination in this country and it appears to continue here on Visajourney.  We changed our names. We gave up our language.  It will never be enough for us to assimilate, will it?

 

Quote

 

because whether you like him or not, he is a billionaire and was POTUS.  He has NEGATIVE AGI for many years.  So he would hypothetically have to fill out negative income on his affidavit of support.  

Assuming:

 

1. he filled out an I-864 for his wife’s parents (presumptuous given Melania Trump was a well paid model and it is likely she had sufficient income, even if just residuals)

 

2. he did an income based I-864

 

then he likely hired attorneys that understood the INA law better than you, me, and any consular officer, and thus showed his real income versus taxable income was enough per the INA law. Any consular officer with an incorrect understanding of INA would be corrected.  
 

If he did sign an I-864, I doubt it was income based. There are asset based I-864s and given he is a billionaire he would easily have had enough assets. 
 

Regardless he is a billionaire and based your posts you aren’t even a ten thousand-aire. You should not expect to be treated equally to him.  

Edited December 28, 2022 by Mike E

[rich rich 10]

17 minutes ago, Mike E said:

When your ancestors immigrated to America, did they keep their original name or did they AmericanIze it? If so, do you like it when people insist on using the name that is not on your U.S. birth certificate?

 

As a person of 100 percent ethnic  German, ancestry, I find your slur  to be offensive.  German immigrants were victims of bigotry and discrimination in this country and it appears to continue here on Visajourney.  We changed our names. We gave up our language.  It will never be enough for us to assimilate, will it?

 

Assuming:

 

1. he filled out an I-864 for his wife’s parents (presumptuous given Melania Trump was a well paid model and it is likely she had sufficient income, even if just residuals)

 

2. he did an income based I-864

 

then he likely hired attorneys that understood the INA law better than you, me, and any consular officer, and thus showed his real income versus taxable income was enough per the INA law. Any consular officer with an incorrect understanding of INA would be corrected.  
 

If he did sign an I-864, I doubt it was income based. There are asset based I-864s and given he is a billionaire he would easily have had enough assets. 
 

Regardless he is a billionaire and based your posts you aren’t even a ten thousand-aire. You should not expect to be treated equally to him.  

Yes, they kept their original name. 

 

Who knows, maybe he did a bond, eh?

 

So we should be treated based on our net worth? What's your net worth Mike? I'll need that info before I decide how to treat you. 

[Mike E 11,739]

1 minute ago, rich rich said:

Who knows, maybe he did a bond, eh?

Another slur.  Welcome to the list.  This will be my last reply to you.  
 

1 minute ago, rich rich said:

 

So we should be treated based on our net worth?

The INA act says assets can count in lieu of income at a rate of 5 to 1 of the minimum required income.  So yes the law yes we should be treated differently based on net worth or income.  
 

1 minute ago, rich rich said:

 

What's your net worth Mike? I'll need that info before I decide how to treat you

When you get a job  with USCIS, ICE, or CBP as an officer you can look it up.  
 

But then again if you had such a job you wouldn’t have difficulty producing an acceptable I-134 or I-864.  

[rich rich 10]

9 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Another slur.  Welcome to the list.  This will be my last reply to you.  
 

The INA act says assets can count in lieu of income at a rate of 5 to 1 of the minimum required income.  So yes the law yes we should be treated differently based on net worth or income.  
 

When you get a job  with USCIS, ICE, or CBP as an officer you can look it up.  
 

But then again if you had such a job you wouldn’t have difficulty producing an acceptable I-134 or I-864.  

I'm happy to be on that coveted list. I hope you mean it will be your last reply to anything I post. 

 

Before you go though, how's that a slur? He might actually have gotten that golden ticket bond. 

 

I think I'll treat you like a thousand-aire. But see, this is America. I treat everyone equally. It's why we're all here and why everyone wants to come. 

[Family 3,988]

1 hour ago, Mike E said:

When your ancestors immigrated to America, did they keep their original name or did they AmericanIze it? If so, do you like it when people insist on using the name that is not on your U.S. birth certificate

I admit i am here for the comments.😎

 

 

[Family 3,988]

53 minutes ago, Mike E said:

 

3 hours ago, rich rich said:

2) I bring up Drumpf

When your ancestors immigrated to America, did they keep their original name or did they AmericanIze it? If so, do you like it when people insist on using the name that is not on your U.S. birth certificate?

 

I guess you are right…maybe these fellows don’t like it

 

 

Republican Sen. Jeff Flake was another politician who feuded with Trump this year. Trump called him 'Jeff Flakey.'

 

Steve Bannon, Trump's ex-chief strategist, was named 'Sloppy Steve' by the President in January after his contributions to Michael Wolff's book 'Fire and Fury.'

 

https://www.tmj4.com/news/16-people-president-trump-has-nicknamed

[rich rich 10]

12 minutes ago, Family said:

I guess you are right…maybe these fellows don’t like it

 

 

Republican Sen. Jeff Flake was another politician who feuded with Trump this year. Trump called him 'Jeff Flakey.'

 

Steve Bannon, Trump's ex-chief strategist, was named 'Sloppy Steve' by the President in January after his contributions to Michael Wolff's book 'Fire and Fury.'

 

https://www.tmj4.com/news/16-people-president-trump-has-nicknamed

Hehe, glad you're enjoying it. Gotta kill time somehow lol. 

 

I got one for you. This one's a tongue twister. Ron Desanctimonious. Wonder where his ancestors immigrated from

 

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/11/ron-desanctimonious-trump-desantis-nickname.html

 

Edited December 28, 2022 by rich rich