Andrew Defaria

DCMark wrote:

    > Again, you all have been hood winked. This is the same troll as
    > before, SeaDave, Bill Wilson, etc. Notice that the post is now gone?
    > Come on people, wake up!!!!

Some of us are on Usenet. Posts don't "disappear".
--
Disk Full - Press F1 to belch.

Andrew Defaria

jeffreyhy wrote:

    > My impression from reading the posts to this newsgroup about
    > affidavits of support in general, and the I-864 in particular, is that
    > few people appreciate what it is they're signing when they execute an
    > I-864. They worry only about meeting the requirement and not about the
    > potential obligation they are incurring to provide that amount to the
    > immigrant.

Some of us do - however what are you going to to - refused to fill it out?
--
There are 3 kinds of people in this world. Those who can count and those
who can't.

blenky16

Correct me if I am wrong, but the I-864 has a specific life span and is NOT for the entire life of an individual. BIG difference.

Cheers,
Sean

jeffreyhy

Sean,

You're wrong.

The obligation can very well be for life if the beneficiary does not fulfill the requirements to end the obligation sooner.

You're right about one thing - BIG difference!

Regards, JEff

blenky16

You are right, I just went and re-read it. The fact the PR has to meet the requirements (Citizenship, death, 40 quarters of work, or depart the US permanently) is the part I wasn't thinking straight on.

I agree though... this is something that no one should take lightly... but at the same time, like someone else previously mentioned, you have no choice but to sign it, or kill the relationship. That is the individual's responsibility I guess. Makes me appreciate that much more what my Father-In-Law did for me!

Cheers,
Sean

Bill Garske

My wife ran off and left me. I brought her over from Thailand.
Everything started out okay. I think in the end, she wasn't as attracted to
me. I was a short fat person, and also I had a "small package" down below.
I also didn't make a great deal of money, and I lived in a house my
parents had helped me get. She wanted someone taller, *larger* and not so
depending on mommy and daddy. Plus, she never did like my drinking.
In the end she said I really was a putz basically, and I haven't seen
her since the day she left.

Andrew Defaria

jeffreyhy wrote:

    > Sean,
    > You're wrong.
    > The obligation can very well be for life if the beneficiary does not
    > fulfill the requirements to end the obligation sooner.

How do you figure. Obligation under the I-864 is 40 quarters is it not?
--
If it's true that we are here to help others, then what exactly are the
others here for?

blenky16

That reminds me of a country song... what was the name of it? *scratching head*

DCMark

Bill Wilson, that name was so obvious for you. You can't do better than Bob Austin.

The Dubya was a bit more creative, I will give you that. Taking someone else's picture was a nice touch.

jeffreyhy

Andrew,

No, the obligation is not 40 quarters.

The obligation is ended after the immigrant has worked for 40 quarters (stating it simply), but if the immigrant doesn't work....

There are other ways to end the obligation also. But again, if none of those things come to pass, the obligation continues until one of them finally happens.

Regards, JEff

Andrew Defaria

blenky16 wrote:

    > You are right, I just went and re-read it. The fact the PR has to meet
    > the requirements (Citizenship, death, 40 quarters of work, or depart
    > the US permanently) is the part I wasn't thinking straight on.

Maybe I have other misconceptions about the I-864, however, my
understanding is that it is only for federal, means-tested programs
(e.g. welfare, food stamps, etc).

The part about the 40 quarters gets me though. Are we saying all the
immigrant need do is not get citizenship, not die or depart the US
(question here, can they get a visa to visit say home or is that
considered departing the US) and not work? I mean what keeps them from
sitting on their butt and collecting welfare (short of it's a pretty
shitty way to live)?

Personally I think it should be finite and pretty short. You want to be
here then contribute to society like the rest of us or suffer like any
other bum would. But that's just my opinion.
--
Be nice to your kids. They'll choose your nursing home.

jeffreyhy

Andrew,

Go back and read the whole affidavit carefully. The immigrant can sue the sponsor directly, at the sponsor's expense, for a level of support up to the 125% of poverty level.

Exactly. (And it's permanently depart the US, I believe. Remember, the I-864 becomes effective when the immigrant obtains Permanent Resident status, at which point the immigrant can go and return pretty much as they please.)

That's one way to look at it. The way the government looks at it, if a USC wants to bring a foreigner into the country to live with them as their spouse, then it's that USC's responsibility to insure that said immigrant does not sponge off the rest of us until said immigrant demonstrates that they are contributing to society. (or leaves permanently or dies)

I agree with the government, despite the fact that I'm one of those who's on the hook.

Regards, JEff

Paul Ronald

Paul here;

Hi group, I think I know the song, was it "thank God and Greyhound you're gone"? by Roy Clark I believe.



regards;

Paul

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Lets posit a situation: Mr. Citizen marries Ms. Alien and she immigrates. In the process, Mr. C does the I-864 on behalf of Ms. A. Six years later, Ms. A runs into her high school flame [whose wife just died] and the sparks are reignited between Ms. A and Mr. HSF. Mr. C and Ms. A get divorced.

Ms. A is so dreamy over her new romance, she is not as careful as she should be in crossing the street and doesn't see the speeding car that hits her. Since the car is driven by Mr Illegal, he was unable to get a California driver's license and therefore obtain the concominitant auto insurance policy.

Ms. A is severly injured, has no medical insuarance, unable to work and goes to the hospital for major treatment.

Mr. C is on the hook.

Matthew Udall

This seems to be in line with a speech I heard at one of the national AILA conferences a few years ago when I was getting started.

The subject was the new I-864 (new at that time) and possible reimbursement scenarios. The AILA expert mentioned that the sponsor could be asked to reimburse the cost of long term, institutionalized medical care rendered to the alien, but not for the costs long term, institutionalized prison confinement of the alien.

What do you think? Should the sponsor have to reimburse the government for the costs associated with housing the criminal the sponsor just had to bring in? (I vote no :-).