I-751 Waiver - Changes in Law

[blistex27 4]

Hi all -

I was wondering if someone could provide clarification and insight for me. I recently heard through a source who has said that starting March 2010, USCIS will make the I-751 waivers more restrictive (ie, they will be getting rid of the divorce/extreme cruelty waiver). Is this true? I have done much research on this, and all I've managed to come up with is that the I-751 waiver laws seem to be LESS RESTRICTIVE and are more pro-immigrant.

I also asked an immigration attorney and he said that he hasn't heard anything of that sort. Any ideas anyone?

[NutMagnet 2]

Hi all -

I was wondering if someone could provide clarification and insight for me. I recently heard through a source who has said that starting March 2010, USCIS will make the I-751 waivers more restrictive (ie, they will be getting rid of the divorce/extreme cruelty waiver). Is this true? I have done much research on this, and all I've managed to come up with is that the I-751 waiver laws seem to be LESS RESTRICTIVE and are more pro-immigrant.

I also asked an immigration attorney and he said that he hasn't heard anything of that sort. Any ideas anyone?

More information please, this is very interesting. Its about time they tighten things up.

So from your research, they would be eliminating the good faith marriage and extreme cruelty options for an excuse to hang around the country?

What about battered spouses under Box E of the form. Would that language remain in the I-751 or would there be a new form to address exceptions relative to VAWA?

The idea of, "I came here to USA to be married but it didn't work out, but I wanna stick around anyway" garbage has got to go.

I'll stop there.

Any links or more info would be appreciated.

[blistex27 4]

Hi all -

I was wondering if someone could provide clarification and insight for me. I recently heard through a source who has said that starting March 2010, USCIS will make the I-751 waivers more restrictive (ie, they will be getting rid of the divorce/extreme cruelty waiver). Is this true? I have done much research on this, and all I've managed to come up with is that the I-751 waiver laws seem to be LESS RESTRICTIVE and are more pro-immigrant.

I also asked an immigration attorney and he said that he hasn't heard anything of that sort. Any ideas anyone?

More information please, this is very interesting. Its about time they tighten things up.

So from your research, they would be eliminating the good faith marriage and extreme cruelty options for an excuse to hang around the country?

What about battered spouses under Box E of the form. Would that language remain in the I-751 or would there be a new form to address exceptions relative to VAWA?

The idea of, "I came here to USA to be married but it didn't work out, but I wanna stick around anyway" garbage has got to go.

I'll stop there.

Any links or more info would be appreciated.

Nutmagnet, thank you for your reply. I did not find out this information through research - I found this information out through a 3rd source. The source told me that according to a tv program he watched, USCIS would do away with the good faith marriage waiver and what I assume is the extreme cruelty waiver. I asked an immigration attorney about this; he said that rumors are rampant regarding these kind of laws but that he hasn't heard anything of the sort. What I researched was whether or not there was an iota of truth to what this source has said - so far, all I've managed to find is that the USCIS has come up with guidelines on what to do when you have a person in pending divorce proceedings/separation who doesn't yet qualify for the "good faith marriage" exception. And that stance is very pro-immigrant.

Additionally, before you refer to things as "garbage", please take a step back and take a second look at what you say. If you look at the immigration laws very closely, they favor the USC very much. It leaves alot of control and power in their hands - for instance, when to file the adjustment of status once you have a qualifying marriage on a K-1 visa. And try this one too - the USC has to sign the joint petition on the I-751 to have the conditions on the greencard lifted. If all USC spouses were good, it would not be an issue. But, the sad reality is there have been many scenarios where the USC have used these laws to exert control and abuse their immigrant spouses. If that is what you refer to as "garbage," I wholeheartedly agree that THAT must go. However, I believe what you are referring to is taking away someone's livelihood and their right to be in America simply because the marriage didn't work out or the USC refused to cooperate. If there is a hint of immigration fraud, that is a different scenario. BUT in cases where people have bonafide reasons for entering into the relationship and for whatever reason it doesn't work out, than yes, I believe that immigrants should be afforded protection and a chance to stay. Imagine what the immigrant had to leave behind to come to America, and imagine how much more they stand to lose by not having the chance to protect their futures. I believe what you suggest is to remove all protections - and essentially, that is what the waivers are - for the immigrant and to give more power to the USC. That's sad, and I wonder whether you would feel differently if you were facing these same situations that some immigrants face....

[NutMagnet 2]

Hi all -

I was wondering if someone could provide clarification and insight for me. I recently heard through a source who has said that starting March 2010, USCIS will make the I-751 waivers more restrictive (ie, they will be getting rid of the divorce/extreme cruelty waiver). Is this true? I have done much research on this, and all I've managed to come up with is that the I-751 waiver laws seem to be LESS RESTRICTIVE and are more pro-immigrant.

I also asked an immigration attorney and he said that he hasn't heard anything of that sort. Any ideas anyone?

More information please, this is very interesting. Its about time they tighten things up.

So from your research, they would be eliminating the good faith marriage and extreme cruelty options for an excuse to hang around the country?

What about battered spouses under Box E of the form. Would that language remain in the I-751 or would there be a new form to address exceptions relative to VAWA?

The idea of, "I came here to USA to be married but it didn't work out, but I wanna stick around anyway" garbage has got to go.

I'll stop there.

Any links or more info would be appreciated.

Nutmagnet, thank you for your reply. I did not find out this information through research - I found this information out through a 3rd source. The source told me that according to a tv program he watched, USCIS would do away with the good faith marriage waiver and what I assume is the extreme cruelty waiver. I asked an immigration attorney about this; he said that rumors are rampant regarding these kind of laws but that he hasn't heard anything of the sort. What I researched was whether or not there was an iota of truth to what this source has said - so far, all I've managed to find is that the USCIS has come up with guidelines on what to do when you have a person in pending divorce proceedings/separation who doesn't yet qualify for the "good faith marriage" exception. And that stance is very pro-immigrant.

Additionally, before you refer to things as "garbage", please take a step back and take a second look at what you say. If you look at the immigration laws very closely, they favor the USC very much. It leaves alot of control and power in their hands - for instance, when to file the adjustment of status once you have a qualifying marriage on a K-1 visa. And try this one too - the USC has to sign the joint petition on the I-751 to have the conditions on the greencard lifted. If all USC spouses were good, it would not be an issue. But, the sad reality is there have been many scenarios where the USC have used these laws to exert control and abuse their immigrant spouses. If that is what you refer to as "garbage," I wholeheartedly agree that THAT must go. However, I believe what you are referring to is taking away someone's livelihood and their right to be in America simply because the marriage didn't work out or the USC refused to cooperate. If there is a hint of immigration fraud, that is a different scenario. BUT in cases where people have bonafide reasons for entering into the relationship and for whatever reason it doesn't work out, than yes, I believe that immigrants should be afforded protection and a chance to stay. Imagine what the immigrant had to leave behind to come to America, and imagine how much more they stand to lose by not having the chance to protect their futures. I believe what you suggest is to remove all protections - and essentially, that is what the waivers are - for the immigrant and to give more power to the USC. That's sad, and I wonder whether you would feel differently if you were facing these same situations that some immigrants face....

Hello blistex27,

Your profile information is blank and a previous post of yours suggests that you are a foreign man on a Conditional Green card who married to a USC, and are having problems in your relationship.

hello all. I already have my 2 year conditional green card, which I was granted august 30, 2008. We can't file to remove conditions until may 30, 2010. I don't think we are going to last that long, no matter how many times we try. I keep quiet as much as possible to keep the peace, but my wife picks fights with me often about trivial things, and she lets her family interfere way too much in our affairs. This woman has treated my family members with disrespect and repeatedly threatens to kick me out of our home. She insists she will be moving out of our home soon and refuses to file for divorce. I doubt when it comes time to remove conditions that she will do it, so i am in quite a pickle.

I will reply step-by-step.

"I found this information out through a 3rd source. The source told me that according to a tv program he watched, USCIS would do away with the good faith marriage waiver and what I assume is the extreme cruelty waiver."

So this is based on a 3rd party who saw an unmentioned TV show. I should save my breath here.

"If you look at the immigration laws very closely, they favor the USC very much. It leaves alot of control and power in their hands - for instance, when to file the adjustment of status once you have a qualifying marriage on a K-1 visa."

Of course! Why would you think the immigrations laws would favor anyone else BUT the USC? This is America, the USC is American and the USCIS, a division of DHS is in place to protect the USA and its citizens.

"And try this one too - the USC has to sign the joint petition on the I-751 to have the conditions on the greencard lifted."

Fancy that. but not necessarily so. Remember the USC started the process for the foreign beneficiary. Why do you think their involvement would suddenly stop. They did sign an contract guaranteeing their support for you. Perhaps a bond also.

"If all USC spouses were good, it would not be an issue. But, the sad reality is there have been many scenarios where the USC have used these laws to exert control and abuse their immigrant spouses."

If all intending immigrants were good................... The sad reality is that is not always the case. There have been countless scenarios when the USC was duped by the intending immigrant in regards to their sincerity of a marital commitment for the sole intent of obtaining immigration benefits. DHS/USCIS exists for the ultimate benefit and concern over the USC and the USA. They can pick and choose.

"I believe what you are referring to is taking away someone's livelihood and their right to be in America simply because the marriage didn't work out or the USC refused to cooperate."

The buck stops right here. "Their right to be in America"

My friend, The USA has granted you a privilege, currently Conditional, to exist to this county. ITS NOT A RIGHT. Never assume differently or forget that.

I am sorry that you marriage is not working out, unfortunately, it is a fact of life with statistical odds against success. Try getting your money back from a Casino when you loose - through no fault of your own - the dealer must have cheated- security wont look at the video tape - the police don't want to make a report. In that situation, it would appear that you have no choice to go home without your money. It the way the game is played. If the rules differ in your country, the better you go and abide by them.

To continue.

"BUT in cases where people have bonafide reasons for entering into the relationship and for whatever reason it doesn't work out, than yes, I believe that immigrants should be afforded protection and a chance to stay."

Protection? Sorry, based on eligibility. Immigration is a benefit, not a right.

" Imagine what the immigrant had to leave behind to come to America,"

Consider what the USC had to do you get the immigrant here. Marriage is a risk.

"and imagine how much more they stand to lose by not having the chance to protect their futures. I believe what you suggest is to remove all protections"

Why would the DHS/USCIS entertain your desire to protect your future, when it is not in accordance with the desires of the qualifying petitioner, and circumstances regarding your appearance and presence in this country?

"and essentially, that is what the waivers are - for the immigrant and to give more power to the USC."""

Amen. So mote it be.

"That's sad, and I wonder whether you would feel differently if you were facing these same situations that some immigrants face...."

And that some do not face. And what some USC's face and deal with as a result. It goes both ways.

Marriage is a ####### shoot, 50% success. Be lucky that you found out NOW so that you may return to your previous life with the experience and knowledge that you gave gained from your experience. You are entitled to very little, if not nothing at all.

This country owes you nothing, no rights for permanent residency whatsoever Only the privilege to be a beneficiary from a qualifying US citizen/permanent residence. How much could I get away with in your country? Hummmm?

You rolled the dice against 50% odds, you lost. Stop your crying, take it like a man and continue on with your life, as it was, prior to this mistake. You are not the only one who has suffered such a disappointment, nor will you be the last.

Regards,

NM

[3600rs 24]

Hi all -

I was wondering if someone could provide clarification and insight for me. I recently heard through a source who has said that starting March 2010, USCIS will make the I-751 waivers more restrictive (ie, they will be getting rid of the divorce/extreme cruelty waiver). Is this true? I have done much research on this, and all I've managed to come up with is that the I-751 waiver laws seem to be LESS RESTRICTIVE and are more pro-immigrant.

I also asked an immigration attorney and he said that he hasn't heard anything of that sort. Any ideas anyone?

Stop fear mongering around whatever unwarranted you wonder and hear. Post something legit if you have. Your post is counter blows the serious immigration reform that Obama has for immigrants. The laws that are coming will be better for immigrants. One of the latest is below, specifically for widowers.

http://shusterman.typepad.com/nation-of-im...ly-members.html

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

I agree with NutMagnet on this. Gallup recently conducted a worldwide poll of nearly 260,000 people that found that 700 million would pick up stakes and immigrate permanently to another country if they had the chance. Nearly 1/4 of those said they preferred to move to the US. That's 165 million people who want to come to the US, or more than half the number of people currently residing in the US.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091103/lf_af..._20091103190030

Obviously, most of those people want to come to the US in order to improve the quality of their lives. Unfortunately, most have no skills or talent which are needed in the US. There are a limit to how many retail and service sector jobs the US economy can support. The influx of uneducated and/or unskilled immigrants has already ballooned the bottom end of the US economy. High school graduates in the US now have to compete with unemployed middle aged immigrants for their first minimum wage job.

And this is why there are strict quotas on most immigrant visa categories.

The US economy doesn't need any more taxi drivers and convenience store clerks from south Asia. The US doesn't need any more housekeeping workers, super store clerks, or day laborers from central and south America. We have many more of these workers than we need already. US immigration law is designed to control the influx of immigrants and preserve jobs and entitlements for people already living in the US. If the US opened it's doors to every immigrant who wanted to enter, the US would quickly become the same sort of 3rd world hell hole that many of these immigrants are fighting so hard to escape from. I guess the upshot is that nobody would want to come here anymore.

There is a huge exception to these strict immigration controls - an immediate relative of a US citizen, or a foreigner who intends to marry a US citizen, is not subject to the quotas. They are immediately eligible to immigrate. This isn't a special courtesy the US government grants to these immigrants. It is a courtesy they grant to the US citizen who is sponsoring them. It is by virtue of their relationship to the US citizen that they are permitted to jump ahead of millions of people waiting in line to immigrate to the US. When their relationship to the US citizen ends, the presumption under the law is that their immigration benefit ends as well.

Unfortunately, the immigration law provides two relatively easy paths an immigrant can take to retain their immigration benefits, in spite of the fact that the basis for their immigration no longer exists. These are abuse and divorce. These paths were provided with the best intentions of the US government to allow an immigrant to stay in the US when the relationship ended through no fault of their own. The sad fact is that these paths are heavily abused by immigrants who did NOT enter the relationship with sincere intentions, and whose ulterior motive from the beginning was immigration to the US. As a result of those who abuse these paths to retain immigration benefits they would otherwise not be eligible for, many intending immigrants who have or want a marital relationship with a US citizen end up being put through the wringer by the US consulates in foreign countries.

blistex27, you view immigration law as an immigrant who benefited from the sponsorship of a US citizenship, and now wants to keep those benefits in spite of no longer being eligible for them under the law. I view the law as a US citizen who wants to marry a foreigner and bring her to the US. Because US immigration law is designed to give YOU the benefit of the doubt when applying to keep your immigration benefits, US citizens like ME have to wait longer, spend more money, and endure being suspected of fraud by our own government.

I'm sorry, but I view the abuse and divorce waivers as loopholes that need to be closed. The law establishes that your immigration benefit is based on your marriage to a US citizen, which is why joint filing of the I-751 is required. The law presumes that your eligibility to retain these benefits ends when your relationship with the US citizen ends, which is why a waiver of the joint filing requirement is needed to self-petition. It is far too easy for a foreigner to dupe a US citizen into a relationship, and then get permanent legal resident status in the US. As far as I'm concerned, positive immigration reform would mean making it so difficult to keep the immigration benefits after ending the relationship with the US citizen that nobody would dream of marrying a US citizen just for the immigration benefits. If you remove the incentive for fraud, the fraud will end, and it will be much easier for US citizens to sponsor foreign spouses and fiancees.

In other words, the law should ALWAYS favor the US citizen.

[3600rs 24]

I agree with NutMagnet on this. Gallup recently conducted a worldwide poll of nearly 260,000 people that found that 700 million would pick up stakes and immigrate permanently to another country if they had the chance. Nearly 1/4 of those said they preferred to move to the US. That's 165 million people who want to come to the US, or more than half the number of people currently residing in the US.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091103/lf_af..._20091103190030

Obviously, most of those people want to come to the US in order to improve the quality of their lives. Unfortunately, most have no skills or talent which are needed in the US. There are a limit to how many retail and service sector jobs the US economy can support. The influx of uneducated and/or unskilled immigrants has already ballooned the bottom end of the US economy. High school graduates in the US now have to compete with unemployed middle aged immigrants for their first minimum wage job.

And this is why there are strict quotas on most immigrant visa categories.

The US economy doesn't need any more taxi drivers and convenience store clerks from south Asia. The US doesn't need any more housekeeping workers, super store clerks, or day laborers from central and south America. We have many more of these workers than we need already. US immigration law is designed to control the influx of immigrants and preserve jobs and entitlements for people already living in the US. If the US opened it's doors to every immigrant who wanted to enter, the US would quickly become the same sort of 3rd world hell hole that many of these immigrants are fighting so hard to escape from. I guess the upshot is that nobody would want to come here anymore.

There is a huge exception to these strict immigration controls - an immediate relative of a US citizen, or a foreigner who intends to marry a US citizen, is not subject to the quotas. They are immediately eligible to immigrate. This isn't a special courtesy the US government grants to these immigrants. It is a courtesy they grant to the US citizen who is sponsoring them. It is by virtue of their relationship to the US citizen that they are permitted to jump ahead of millions of people waiting in line to immigrate to the US. When their relationship to the US citizen ends, the presumption under the law is that their immigration benefit ends as well.

Unfortunately, the immigration law provides two relatively easy paths an immigrant can take to retain their immigration benefits, in spite of the fact that the basis for their immigration no longer exists. These are abuse and divorce. These paths were provided with the best intentions of the US government to allow an immigrant to stay in the US when the relationship ended through no fault of their own. The sad fact is that these paths are heavily abused by immigrants who did NOT enter the relationship with sincere intentions, and whose ulterior motive from the beginning was immigration to the US. As a result of those who abuse these paths to retain immigration benefits they would otherwise not be eligible for, many intending immigrants who have or want a marital relationship with a US citizen end up being put through the wringer by the US consulates in foreign countries.

blistex27, you view immigration law as an immigrant who benefited from the sponsorship of a US citizenship, and now wants to keep those benefits in spite of no longer being eligible for them under the law. I view the law as a US citizen who wants to marry a foreigner and bring her to the US. Because US immigration law is designed to give YOU the benefit of the doubt when applying to keep your immigration benefits, US citizens like ME have to wait longer, spend more money, and endure being suspected of fraud by our own government.

I'm sorry, but I view the abuse and divorce waivers as loopholes that need to be closed. The law establishes that your immigration benefit is based on your marriage to a US citizen, which is why joint filing of the I-751 is required. The law presumes that your eligibility to retain these benefits ends when your relationship with the US citizen ends, which is why a waiver of the joint filing requirement is needed to self-petition. It is far too easy for a foreigner to dupe a US citizen into a relationship, and then get permanent legal resident status in the US. As far as I'm concerned, positive immigration reform would mean making it so difficult to keep the immigration benefits after ending the relationship with the US citizen that nobody would dream of marrying a US citizen just for the immigration benefits. If you remove the incentive for fraud, the fraud will end, and it will be much easier for US citizens to sponsor foreign spouses and fiancees.

In other words, the law should ALWAYS favor the US citizen.

Very eloquently written but with favor to the US citizen.

I am a USC and law should be just and fair, should not favor one over another. USC, PR or Alien should be all treated equally in the eyes of law.

So, Jim, law should ALWAYS favor the US citizen IF AND ONLY IF the USC is right! There are the righteous, frauds and abusers on both sides.

[Machita 1]

Hey guys!

First, God bless America for giving us PRIVILEGE to have a green card. Most of the other countries wouldn't do so. The questions is: assuming that this law will be effective next year, is it going to affect the pending I-751 waivers? What if I file my I-751 waiver a day before this law becomes effective? Or is it going to affect the people who get married and get divorced after this law become effective?

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Very eloquently written but with favor to the US citizen.

I am a USC and law should be just and fair, should not favor one over another. USC, PR or Alien should be all treated equally in the eyes of law.

So, Jim, law should ALWAYS favor the US citizen IF AND ONLY IF the USC is right! There are the righteous, frauds and abusers on both sides.

There is no way the law can treat aliens and US citizens equally. As US citizens, you and I cannot apply for a visa to the US under the law. As an LPR, blistex27 cannot vote in the United States. As US citizens, you and I are required to pay taxes to the federal government, even if we are working in another country. An alien in the US on a work visa is only required to pay taxes to the US government while they are working in the US, but not when they are working abroad. As US citizens, we cannot be deported from the United States, regardless of any crimes we might be guilty of. An LPR can be deported, and lose their residency status.

What you're talking about is enforcement under the law, and not the law itself. US citizens, LPR's, and non-immigrant aliens should be treated equally under the law, but the laws themselves cannot be equal, nor should they be.

My complaint is the immigration law, as it currently stands, makes it too easy to dupe a US citizen into a relationship for the purpose of immigration. If a US citizen is abusive to a foreign spouse, the foreign spouse is rewarded with permanent residency. If a US citizen makes a marriage intolerable to foreign spouse, or divorces the foreign spouse, then the foreign spouse is rewarded with permanent residency. And what happens if a foreign spouse dupes a US citizen into a sham relationship? Yep! They are rewarded with permanent residency!

And what about the US citizen? What do they get? Well, they get shackled with an obligation to support the foreigner, potentially for the remainder of their lives. They might even get a criminal record for spousal abuse that never occurred. If the relationship doesn't last, for whatever reason, is there any potential for the US citizen to benefit in any way? Not that I can think of.

In order to perpetrate a fraud, or any other crime for that matter, you need the motive and the means. In the case of a foreigner perpetrating immigration fraud, the motive is the privilege of staying in the United States - something the Gallup poll shows is clearly desirable to a more than one hundred million people in the world. The means is provided by the US government itself - marriage to a US citizen. In order to remove the motive for fraud, the US government has to stop granting legal permanent resident status based on divorce or abuse. A green card should not be handed out as a reward for enduring a bad relationship, unless of course the US government is prepared to offer a similar reward to the US citizen. In addition, the US government needs to stop viewing deportation as if it were some cruel form of punishment. They certainly don't feel it's cruel or inhumane when they deny them a visa at the consulate, and don't let them come to the US in the first place.

[3600rs 24]

Very eloquently written but with favor to the US citizen.

I am a USC and law should be just and fair, should not favor one over another. USC, PR or Alien should be all treated equally in the eyes of law.

So, Jim, law should ALWAYS favor the US citizen IF AND ONLY IF the USC is right! There are the righteous, frauds and abusers on both sides.

There is no way the law can treat aliens and US citizens equally. As US citizens, you and I cannot apply for a visa to the US under the law. As an LPR, blistex27 cannot vote in the United States. As US citizens, you and I are required to pay taxes to the federal government, even if we are working in another country. An alien in the US on a work visa is only required to pay taxes to the US government while they are working in the US, but not when they are working abroad. As US citizens, we cannot be deported from the United States, regardless of any crimes we might be guilty of. An LPR can be deported, and lose their residency status.

What you're talking about is enforcement under the law, and not the law itself. US citizens, LPR's, and non-immigrant aliens should be treated equally under the law, but the laws themselves cannot be equal, nor should they be.

My complaint is the immigration law, as it currently stands, makes it too easy to dupe a US citizen into a relationship for the purpose of immigration. If a US citizen is abusive to a foreign spouse, the foreign spouse is rewarded with permanent residency. If a US citizen makes a marriage intolerable to foreign spouse, or divorces the foreign spouse, then the foreign spouse is rewarded with permanent residency. And what happens if a foreign spouse dupes a US citizen into a sham relationship? Yep! They are rewarded with permanent residency!

And what about the US citizen? What do they get? Well, they get shackled with an obligation to support the foreigner, potentially for the remainder of their lives. They might even get a criminal record for spousal abuse that never occurred. If the relationship doesn't last, for whatever reason, is there any potential for the US citizen to benefit in any way? Not that I can think of.

In order to perpetrate a fraud, or any other crime for that matter, you need the motive and the means. In the case of a foreigner perpetrating immigration fraud, the motive is the privilege of staying in the United States - something the Gallup poll shows is clearly desirable to a more than one hundred million people in the world. The means is provided by the US government itself - marriage to a US citizen. In order to remove the motive for fraud, the US government has to stop granting legal permanent resident status based on divorce or abuse. A green card should not be handed out as a reward for enduring a bad relationship, unless of course the US government is prepared to offer a similar reward to the US citizen. In addition, the US government needs to stop viewing deportation as if it were some cruel form of punishment. They certainly don't feel it's cruel or inhumane when they deny them a visa at the consulate, and don't let them come to the US in the first place.

Your thoughts are different. You have adviced the divorced so well on how to remove conditions. And today you look at the divorced with hostility. Something contrasting here.

Anyways, your advice is always helpful. Keep up the good work. Look at this whole issue from the eyes of an immigrant. That hostility will turn to compassion. Not all immigrants are fraudsters, scam artist and abusers.

[rsn 135]

Very eloquently written but with favor to the US citizen.

I am a USC and law should be just and fair, should not favor one over another. USC, PR or Alien should be all treated equally in the eyes of law.

So, Jim, law should ALWAYS favor the US citizen IF AND ONLY IF the USC is right! There are the righteous, frauds and abusers on both sides.

There is no way the law can treat aliens and US citizens equally. As US citizens, you and I cannot apply for a visa to the US under the law. As an LPR, blistex27 cannot vote in the United States. As US citizens, you and I are required to pay taxes to the federal government, even if we are working in another country. An alien in the US on a work visa is only required to pay taxes to the US government while they are working in the US, but not when they are working abroad. As US citizens, we cannot be deported from the United States, regardless of any crimes we might be guilty of. An LPR can be deported, and lose their residency status.

What you're talking about is enforcement under the law, and not the law itself. US citizens, LPR's, and non-immigrant aliens should be treated equally under the law, but the laws themselves cannot be equal, nor should they be.

My complaint is the immigration law, as it currently stands, makes it too easy to dupe a US citizen into a relationship for the purpose of immigration. If a US citizen is abusive to a foreign spouse, the foreign spouse is rewarded with permanent residency. If a US citizen makes a marriage intolerable to foreign spouse, or divorces the foreign spouse, then the foreign spouse is rewarded with permanent residency. And what happens if a foreign spouse dupes a US citizen into a sham relationship? Yep! They are rewarded with permanent residency!

And what about the US citizen? What do they get? Well, they get shackled with an obligation to support the foreigner, potentially for the remainder of their lives. They might even get a criminal record for spousal abuse that never occurred. If the relationship doesn't last, for whatever reason, is there any potential for the US citizen to benefit in any way? Not that I can think of.

In order to perpetrate a fraud, or any other crime for that matter, you need the motive and the means. In the case of a foreigner perpetrating immigration fraud, the motive is the privilege of staying in the United States - something the Gallup poll shows is clearly desirable to a more than one hundred million people in the world. The means is provided by the US government itself - marriage to a US citizen. In order to remove the motive for fraud, the US government has to stop granting legal permanent resident status based on divorce or abuse. A green card should not be handed out as a reward for enduring a bad relationship, unless of course the US government is prepared to offer a similar reward to the US citizen. In addition, the US government needs to stop viewing deportation as if it were some cruel form of punishment. They certainly don't feel it's cruel or inhumane when they deny them a visa at the consulate, and don't let them come to the US in the first place.

Your thoughts are different. You have adviced the divorced so well on how to remove conditions. And today you look at the divorced with hostility. Something contrasting here.

Anyways, your advice is always helpful. Keep up the good work. Look at this whole issue from the eyes of an immigrant. That hostility will turn to compassion. Not all immigrants are fraudsters, scam artist and abusers.

If anything, based on my observations, Jim is fair first are foremost. Simply because he has helped advise potential divorcee's on removing conditions in the past does not require that he support such a decision. Second, I don't see any hostility in his answer. He didn't insinuate that all immigrants are scam artists. The simple fact is that U.S. citizens cannot be treated, under the law, in the same manner as non-U.S. citizens. One can have compassion for non-citizens without removing the privileges that rightfully come with citizenship.

Edited November 4, 2009 by rsn

[lucyrich 20]

Hi all -

I was wondering if someone could provide clarification and insight for me. I recently heard through a source who has said that starting March 2010, USCIS will make the I-751 waivers more restrictive (ie, they will be getting rid of the divorce/extreme cruelty waiver). Is this true? I have done much research on this, and all I've managed to come up with is that the I-751 waiver laws seem to be LESS RESTRICTIVE and are more pro-immigrant.

I also asked an immigration attorney and he said that he hasn't heard anything of that sort. Any ideas anyone?

The USCIS can't get rid of the divorce/extreme cruelty waiver. It's not their call. Congress wrote that provision into the law (INA 216©(4)), and only Congress can change it. Until Congress does change it, the USCIS is bound to follow the law as written.

In order for Congress to change it, the change would have to make it through various committees, pass both the full Senate and full House of Representatives, and then be signed into law by the President. Or the President could veto it and the veto could be overridden by a supermajority of both houses of Congress (but I don't think it would be easy for Congress to override a veto).

This won't happen quickly, if at all.

Although Congress sometimes does things that surprise me, I seriously doubt they would change this little provision of immigration law without tackling some more broad sweeping immigration reform changes at the same time.

In other words, we'll hear plenty about such a change before it happens, if it ever does happen.

[rika60607 215]

Nut,

return to previous life is rarely possible (housing - sold to pay for immigration, children born, jobs and opportunities given up). It costs a LOT to go back to life as it was, and who's going to pay that bill? If justice is what you want, oblige the USC to split the cost. Then watch how many couples will stay married on paper just to avoid consequences of such law.

Otherwise, sure, just let the USCs to run the mail-in bride scam, use them aliens for two years and send them aliens back with nothing but clothes on their back. Children kept by the USC, if wanted, of course.

Marriage is a ####### shoot, 50% success. Be lucky that you found out NOW so that you may return to your previous life with the experience and knowledge that you gave gained from your experience. You are entitled to very little, if not nothing at all.

You rolled the dice against 50% odds, you lost. Stop your crying, take it like a man and continue on with your life, as it was, prior to this mistake. You are not the only one who has suffered such a disappointment, nor will you be the last.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Your source is the BBC? What program? date on air? details or it didn't happen.

[visacheck 3]

Very eloquently written but with favor to the US citizen.

I am a USC and law should be just and fair, should not favor one over another. USC, PR or Alien should be all treated equally in the eyes of law.

So, Jim, law should ALWAYS favor the US citizen IF AND ONLY IF the USC is right! There are the righteous, frauds and abusers on both sides.

There is no way the law can treat aliens and US citizens equally. As US citizens, you and I cannot apply for a visa to the US under the law. As an LPR, blistex27 cannot vote in the United States. As US citizens, you and I are required to pay taxes to the federal government, even if we are working in another country. An alien in the US on a work visa is only required to pay taxes to the US government while they are working in the US, but not when they are working abroad. As US citizens, we cannot be deported from the United States, regardless of any crimes we might be guilty of. An LPR can be deported, and lose their residency status.

What you're talking about is enforcement under the law, and not the law itself. US citizens, LPR's, and non-immigrant aliens should be treated equally under the law, but the laws themselves cannot be equal, nor should they be.

My complaint is the immigration law, as it currently stands, makes it too easy to dupe a US citizen into a relationship for the purpose of immigration. If a US citizen is abusive to a foreign spouse, the foreign spouse is rewarded with permanent residency. If a US citizen makes a marriage intolerable to foreign spouse, or divorces the foreign spouse, then the foreign spouse is rewarded with permanent residency. And what happens if a foreign spouse dupes a US citizen into a sham relationship? Yep! They are rewarded with permanent residency!

And what about the US citizen? What do they get? Well, they get shackled with an obligation to support the foreigner, potentially for the remainder of their lives. They might even get a criminal record for spousal abuse that never occurred. If the relationship doesn't last, for whatever reason, is there any potential for the US citizen to benefit in any way? Not that I can think of.

In order to perpetrate a fraud, or any other crime for that matter, you need the motive and the means. In the case of a foreigner perpetrating immigration fraud, the motive is the privilege of staying in the United States - something the Gallup poll shows is clearly desirable to a more than one hundred million people in the world. The means is provided by the US government itself - marriage to a US citizen. In order to remove the motive for fraud, the US government has to stop granting legal permanent resident status based on divorce or abuse. A green card should not be handed out as a reward for enduring a bad relationship, unless of course the US government is prepared to offer a similar reward to the US citizen. In addition, the US government needs to stop viewing deportation as if it were some cruel form of punishment. They certainly don't feel it's cruel or inhumane when they deny them a visa at the consulate, and don't let them come to the US in the first place.

If a foreign spouse dupes a US citizen into a sham relationship, its the USC responsibility to report it and prove it. Same thing with foreign spouses abused by USC, they would also have to prove it. Being divorced regardless of who is at fault does not mean an automatic 10yr green card anyway. Foreign spouse should still prove that marriage was entered into in good faith. After that, its USCIS responsibility to decide on the matter.

Bottomline, the law is the law! If the law allows foreign spouses to get permanent residency even after divorce... guess what?! there is nothing any of us can do about it.

Its also interesting to hear that this supposed change in US immigration law was reported in a british news channel (BBC) but it is not in the USCIS website.