marriage fraud
Dec 18th 2003, 12:11 am
#46
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: marriage fraud
Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
jeffreyhy wrote:
> 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.
I was told it was only for public, means tested benefits. Perhaps the
people that has told me were wrong.
> 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.)
I wonder, how is one to know when one permanently departs the US?
Nothing is really permanent as nobody can tell the future. There must be
some test employed I would guess.
> 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)
Ah yes, sponging of the rest of us is a right of USCs only I supposed
:-( . Seriously, however, why shouldn't it be the foreigner's
responsibility?!? We wouldn't want to put responsibility onto the actual
responsible party not would we! That would make way too much sense!
I can understand them expecting and deserving of some support for some
time period but I believe that everybody has a responsibility to be
self-sufficient (barring medical impossibilities) and that no man should
be forced into giving up his life for the sake of another. But hey
that's just me...
> I agree with the government, despite the fact that I'm one of those
> who's on the hook.
I believe in placing responsibility directly on the people who are
responsible.
--
I intend to live forever - so far, so good
jeffreyhy wrote:
> 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.
I was told it was only for public, means tested benefits. Perhaps the
people that has told me were wrong.
> 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.)
I wonder, how is one to know when one permanently departs the US?
Nothing is really permanent as nobody can tell the future. There must be
some test employed I would guess.
> 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)
Ah yes, sponging of the rest of us is a right of USCs only I supposed
:-( . Seriously, however, why shouldn't it be the foreigner's
responsibility?!? We wouldn't want to put responsibility onto the actual
responsible party not would we! That would make way too much sense!
I can understand them expecting and deserving of some support for some
time period but I believe that everybody has a responsibility to be
self-sufficient (barring medical impossibilities) and that no man should
be forced into giving up his life for the sake of another. But hey
that's just me...
> I agree with the government, despite the fact that I'm one of those
> who's on the hook.
I believe in placing responsibility directly on the people who are
responsible.
--
I intend to live forever - so far, so good
Part of the problem is that Section 213A of the Immigration & Nationality Act is a poorly drafted piece of the extremely mean spirited 1996 IIRAIRA legislation. IIRAIRA was one huge piece of "screw the aliens" with a lot of stuff which the lawyers and courts are still trying to sort out. However, a lot of people don't realize that IIRAIRA was passed as a rider to the September 30, 1996 Budget bill which had to be passed or there would have been a second "shut down of the government" just before the 1996 elections.
On the affidavit provision, I find it somewhat amusing that the section speaks of "specific performance" of support obligations! This legal oxymoron is of no consequence because its a superfluity. However, it does indicate the lack of care exercised in drafting the legislation IMHO.
As you note, there is a "reimbursement" provision and that is the focus of most of the section. But it DOES say that the sponsor is on the hook to provide 125% poverty level support to the sponsored alien if necessary.
However, the I-864 is a CONTRACT. I feel that as a "contract", enforcement actions will therefore be subject to various defenses available in contract law. And I still have fuzzy memories of First Year Contract Law. But I wonder about mitigation of damages, fraud in the inducement, statute of limitations, etc.
The future will tell -- but I also have a feeling that the "law of unintended consequences" will kick in. But I'm not in the cyrstal ball business.
Dec 18th 2003, 2:47 am
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: marriage fraud
jeffreyhy wrote:
> So do I. And the USC who brought the foreign spouse to the US is one
> of the people who is directly responsible.
No I believe people are directly responsible for their own actions or
lack thereof. I guess I'm kinda funny that way. We are talking about
adults here, not parents and their children - adult enough to marry at
aleast. Why to you totally forgive the foreign spouse of any personal
responsibility? Did they not make a decision to come here? Can they not
succeed on their own? Can they not leave should they not want to be here?
--
C:\> Bad command or file name! Go stand in the corner.
> So do I. And the USC who brought the foreign spouse to the US is one
> of the people who is directly responsible.
No I believe people are directly responsible for their own actions or
lack thereof. I guess I'm kinda funny that way. We are talking about
adults here, not parents and their children - adult enough to marry at
aleast. Why to you totally forgive the foreign spouse of any personal
responsibility? Did they not make a decision to come here? Can they not
succeed on their own? Can they not leave should they not want to be here?
--
C:\> Bad command or file name! Go stand in the corner.
Dec 18th 2003, 4:25 am
#48
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,049
Re: marriage fraud
Andrew,
What makes you think that I totally forgive a foreign spouse for any personal responsibilty? I don't. And I agree with you about the things a foreign spouse should do.
The problem is, unfortunately, some of them do not behave in the responsible manner that you and I - and the USC spouse who brought them here - would like them to. In which case, someone must pick up that responsibility, and I don't want it to be you and me. That pretty much leaves the USC spouse who brought them here.
Your proposal to end the obligation of the I-864 leaves you and me to pick up the slack for a foreign spouse who does not fulfill the responsibility we expect of them. Sorry, I fail to see the logic in that.
Certainly they can leave should they not want to be here, and those who do not want to be here do leave. Our problem is with the ones who do want to be here, do not leave, and may not want to be responsible for themselves either. Or maybe they would very much like to be responsible but are not able to for one reason or another.
Whether by choice or circumstance, a dropped financial responsibility has to be picked up by someone, and I agree with the law that it should be me if I'm the one who is responsible for the foreigner being in this country, it should be you if you are the one who is responsible for the foreigner being in this country, and it should not be either of us if someone else was responsible for the foreigner being in this country.
When immigrating on the basis of marriage to a USC, a foreigner does not get here by themselves.
Regards, JEff
What makes you think that I totally forgive a foreign spouse for any personal responsibilty? I don't. And I agree with you about the things a foreign spouse should do.
The problem is, unfortunately, some of them do not behave in the responsible manner that you and I - and the USC spouse who brought them here - would like them to. In which case, someone must pick up that responsibility, and I don't want it to be you and me. That pretty much leaves the USC spouse who brought them here.
Your proposal to end the obligation of the I-864 leaves you and me to pick up the slack for a foreign spouse who does not fulfill the responsibility we expect of them. Sorry, I fail to see the logic in that.
Certainly they can leave should they not want to be here, and those who do not want to be here do leave. Our problem is with the ones who do want to be here, do not leave, and may not want to be responsible for themselves either. Or maybe they would very much like to be responsible but are not able to for one reason or another.
Whether by choice or circumstance, a dropped financial responsibility has to be picked up by someone, and I agree with the law that it should be me if I'm the one who is responsible for the foreigner being in this country, it should be you if you are the one who is responsible for the foreigner being in this country, and it should not be either of us if someone else was responsible for the foreigner being in this country.
When immigrating on the basis of marriage to a USC, a foreigner does not get here by themselves.
Regards, JEff
Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
No I believe people are directly responsible for their own actions or lack thereof. I guess I'm kinda funny that way. We are talking about adults here, not parents and their children - adult enough to marry at aleast. Why to you totally forgive the foreign spouse of any personal responsibility? Did they not make a decision to come here? Can they not succeed on their own? Can they not leave should they not want to be here?
--
C:\> Bad command or file name! Go stand in the corner.
No I believe people are directly responsible for their own actions or lack thereof. I guess I'm kinda funny that way. We are talking about adults here, not parents and their children - adult enough to marry at aleast. Why to you totally forgive the foreign spouse of any personal responsibility? Did they not make a decision to come here? Can they not succeed on their own? Can they not leave should they not want to be here?
--
C:\> Bad command or file name! Go stand in the corner.
Dec 18th 2003, 5:50 am
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: marriage fraud
jeffreyhy wrote:
> What makes you think that I totally forgive a foreign spouse for any
> personal responsibilty?
Because you seem to believe that it's OK for the USC to be on hook for
their refusal to, as is often been said, "get a life".
> I don't. And I agree with you about the things a foreign spouse should do.
> The problem is, unfortunately, some of them do not behave in the
> responsible manner that you and I - and the USC spouse who brought
> them here - would like them to.
I have found that having to face things like starvation and lack of
heat, etc to be powerful motivators! :-)
> In which case, someone must pick up that responsibility,
Stop right here! Sorry sir but I do not subscribe to the philosophy that
"somebody *must* pick up that responsibility". This is not to say that I
don't think charitable people can not provide assistance rather I don't
believe that people in general should be *required *to provide
assistance unless they decide to do so voluntarily.
> and I don't want it to be you and me. That pretty much leaves the USC
> spouse who brought them here.
Again I bring responsibility back to the person directly responsible for
his or her own life instead of trying to find somebody else to finance
another's refusal to be responsible.
> Your proposal to end the obligation of the I-864 leaves you and me to
> pick up the slack for a foreign spouse who does not fulfill the
> responsibility we expect of them. Sorry, I fail to see the logic in that.
That's because your premise is that we must provide the support. My
premise is that providing of such support should not be required of
anybody - you, me, nor the USC spouse (save for a temporary time period
to allow the foreign spouse the opportunity to adjust and/or get on
their feet. And there is also a certain amount of support that a family
court would also presumably award) but should be the responsibility of
the person directly involved.
> Certainly they can leave should they not want to be here, and those
> who do not want to be here do leave.
Whether or not they want to be here is irrelevent in that leaving is an
option to them nonetheless.
> Our problem is with the ones who do want to be here, do not leave, and
> may not want to be responsible for themselves either.
Again, I believe that people who do not want to be responsible for
themselves should be compelled to become responsible for themselves or
suffer the consequences that any other person would face who decides
that responsibility is not for them.
> Or maybe they would very much like to be responsible but are not able
> to for one reason or another.
They may not be able to be responsible for themselves in exactly the
same manner as any USC. As such they should not get any special
treatment just because they are not native born, IMHO. IOW, if I become
unable to be responsible for myself I do not have the option of putting
some other USC (or non USC for that matter) on the hook. Why should they?
> Whether by choice or circumstance, a dropped financial responsibility
> has to be picked up by someone,
You keep saying that but I'm not convinced. The "someone" who should be
forced to pick up responsibilty should be the person themselves,
especially if said person just doesn't want to become responsible. IOW
becoming responsible for oneself I do not view as an "option".
> and I agree with the law that it should be me if I'm the one who is
> responsible for the foreigner being in this country, it should be you
> if you are the one who is responsible for the foreigner being in this
> country, and it should not be either of us if someone else was
> responsible for the foreigner being in this country.
I'm not convinced is should be anyone other than the individual
themselves. Avoiding responsibility just because it's "inconvenient"
should not be allowed, IMHO.
> When immigrating on the basis of marriage to a USC, a foreigner does
> not get here by themselves.
This would leave open the possibility, for example, of a USC bringing in
a fiance/spouse and let's say after 3 years of successful marriage the
foreign spouse is the major bread winner in the family. The marriage
fails and the major bread winner foreign spouse decides to not work ever
again, instead gets their "living" from the USC spouse and encumbers
them for the rest of their life when it is clear to most rational people
that the foreign spouse can and should be responsible for themselves.
--
If you drink, don't park. Accidents cause people.
> What makes you think that I totally forgive a foreign spouse for any
> personal responsibilty?
Because you seem to believe that it's OK for the USC to be on hook for
their refusal to, as is often been said, "get a life".
> I don't. And I agree with you about the things a foreign spouse should do.
> The problem is, unfortunately, some of them do not behave in the
> responsible manner that you and I - and the USC spouse who brought
> them here - would like them to.
I have found that having to face things like starvation and lack of
heat, etc to be powerful motivators! :-)
> In which case, someone must pick up that responsibility,
Stop right here! Sorry sir but I do not subscribe to the philosophy that
"somebody *must* pick up that responsibility". This is not to say that I
don't think charitable people can not provide assistance rather I don't
believe that people in general should be *required *to provide
assistance unless they decide to do so voluntarily.
> and I don't want it to be you and me. That pretty much leaves the USC
> spouse who brought them here.
Again I bring responsibility back to the person directly responsible for
his or her own life instead of trying to find somebody else to finance
another's refusal to be responsible.
> Your proposal to end the obligation of the I-864 leaves you and me to
> pick up the slack for a foreign spouse who does not fulfill the
> responsibility we expect of them. Sorry, I fail to see the logic in that.
That's because your premise is that we must provide the support. My
premise is that providing of such support should not be required of
anybody - you, me, nor the USC spouse (save for a temporary time period
to allow the foreign spouse the opportunity to adjust and/or get on
their feet. And there is also a certain amount of support that a family
court would also presumably award) but should be the responsibility of
the person directly involved.
> Certainly they can leave should they not want to be here, and those
> who do not want to be here do leave.
Whether or not they want to be here is irrelevent in that leaving is an
option to them nonetheless.
> Our problem is with the ones who do want to be here, do not leave, and
> may not want to be responsible for themselves either.
Again, I believe that people who do not want to be responsible for
themselves should be compelled to become responsible for themselves or
suffer the consequences that any other person would face who decides
that responsibility is not for them.
> Or maybe they would very much like to be responsible but are not able
> to for one reason or another.
They may not be able to be responsible for themselves in exactly the
same manner as any USC. As such they should not get any special
treatment just because they are not native born, IMHO. IOW, if I become
unable to be responsible for myself I do not have the option of putting
some other USC (or non USC for that matter) on the hook. Why should they?
> Whether by choice or circumstance, a dropped financial responsibility
> has to be picked up by someone,
You keep saying that but I'm not convinced. The "someone" who should be
forced to pick up responsibilty should be the person themselves,
especially if said person just doesn't want to become responsible. IOW
becoming responsible for oneself I do not view as an "option".
> and I agree with the law that it should be me if I'm the one who is
> responsible for the foreigner being in this country, it should be you
> if you are the one who is responsible for the foreigner being in this
> country, and it should not be either of us if someone else was
> responsible for the foreigner being in this country.
I'm not convinced is should be anyone other than the individual
themselves. Avoiding responsibility just because it's "inconvenient"
should not be allowed, IMHO.
> When immigrating on the basis of marriage to a USC, a foreigner does
> not get here by themselves.
This would leave open the possibility, for example, of a USC bringing in
a fiance/spouse and let's say after 3 years of successful marriage the
foreign spouse is the major bread winner in the family. The marriage
fails and the major bread winner foreign spouse decides to not work ever
again, instead gets their "living" from the USC spouse and encumbers
them for the rest of their life when it is clear to most rational people
that the foreign spouse can and should be responsible for themselves.
--
If you drink, don't park. Accidents cause people.
Dec 18th 2003, 10:33 am
#50
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,049
Re: marriage fraud
Andrew,
Yes, it is my premise that we must provide support. Not because I want it to be that way, but because it is that way. You seem to be overlooking the fact that the US has laws and programs under those laws that provide for those in need. These programs are available to citizens, permanent residents, and others who are present in this country. Some people are unhappy about some of this, but nevertheless that's the situation that exists.
You and I pay for these programs, so you and I are paying some bills for people who we don't think we should have to pay for. Clearly you don't think we should have to pay.
The government agrees with you - you shouldn't have to pay. But it does feel that those who quailify for benefits should get them. So it has decided that rather than recind the programs in the case of marriage-base immigrants, the party who will pay, should payment be necessary, is the party who was responsible for bringing the foreigner into the country.
As Folinskyinla pointed out, the part that allows the immigrant to sue the sponsor directly for support can seem a bit perverse, but it may be justifiable in some situations.
Anyway, we are not so far apart in our views as you seem to think. The significant difference is that I am dealing with the world as it is, you are dealing with it as you wish it were.
Regards, JEff
Yes, it is my premise that we must provide support. Not because I want it to be that way, but because it is that way. You seem to be overlooking the fact that the US has laws and programs under those laws that provide for those in need. These programs are available to citizens, permanent residents, and others who are present in this country. Some people are unhappy about some of this, but nevertheless that's the situation that exists.
You and I pay for these programs, so you and I are paying some bills for people who we don't think we should have to pay for. Clearly you don't think we should have to pay.
The government agrees with you - you shouldn't have to pay. But it does feel that those who quailify for benefits should get them. So it has decided that rather than recind the programs in the case of marriage-base immigrants, the party who will pay, should payment be necessary, is the party who was responsible for bringing the foreigner into the country.
As Folinskyinla pointed out, the part that allows the immigrant to sue the sponsor directly for support can seem a bit perverse, but it may be justifiable in some situations.
Anyway, we are not so far apart in our views as you seem to think. The significant difference is that I am dealing with the world as it is, you are dealing with it as you wish it were.
Regards, JEff
Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
jeffreyhy wrote:
> Your proposal to end the obligation of the I-864 leaves you and me to
> pick up the slack for a foreign spouse who does not fulfill the
> responsibility we expect of them. Sorry, I fail to see the logic in that.
That's because your premise is that we must provide the support. My
premise is that providing of such support should not be required of
anybody - you, me, nor the USC spouse (save for a temporary time period
to allow the foreign spouse the opportunity to adjust and/or get on
their feet. And there is also a certain amount of support that a family
court would also presumably award) but should be the responsibility of
the person directly involved.
jeffreyhy wrote:
> Your proposal to end the obligation of the I-864 leaves you and me to
> pick up the slack for a foreign spouse who does not fulfill the
> responsibility we expect of them. Sorry, I fail to see the logic in that.
That's because your premise is that we must provide the support. My
premise is that providing of such support should not be required of
anybody - you, me, nor the USC spouse (save for a temporary time period
to allow the foreign spouse the opportunity to adjust and/or get on
their feet. And there is also a certain amount of support that a family
court would also presumably award) but should be the responsibility of
the person directly involved.
Last edited by jeffreyhy; Dec 18th 2003 at 10:36 am.
Dec 18th 2003, 11:49 am
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: marriage fraud
jeffreyhy wrote:
> Yes, it is my premise that we must provide support. Not because I want
> it to be that way, but because it is that way. You seem to be
> overlooking the fact that the US has laws and programs under those
> laws that provide for those in need. These programs are available to
> citizens, permanent residents, and others who are present in this
> country. Some people are unhappy about some of this, but nevertheless
> that's the situation that exists.
> You and I pay for these programs, so you and I are paying some bills
> for people who we don't think we should have to pay for. Clearly you
> don't think we should have to pay.
> The government agrees with you - you shouldn't have to pay.
Actually no they don't. Otherwise the laws wouldn't be the way they are.
> But it does feel that those who quailify for benefits should get them.
> So it has decided that rather than recind the programs in the case of
> marriage-base immigrants, the party who will pay, should payment be
> necessary, is the party who was responsible for bringing the foreigner
> into the country.
> As Folinskyinla pointed out, the part that allows the immigrant to sue
> the sponsor directly for support can seem a bit perverse, but it may
> be justifiable in some situations.
> Anyway, we are not so far apart in our views as you seem to think. The
> significant difference is that I am dealing with the world as it is,
> you are dealing with it as you wish it were.
I think I was clear when I was speaking that I was not talking about the
law as currently implemented rather the law as it should be, IMHO.
--
I thought about how mothers feed their babies with tiny little spoons
and forks so I wondered, what do Chinese mothers use? Toothpicks?
> Yes, it is my premise that we must provide support. Not because I want
> it to be that way, but because it is that way. You seem to be
> overlooking the fact that the US has laws and programs under those
> laws that provide for those in need. These programs are available to
> citizens, permanent residents, and others who are present in this
> country. Some people are unhappy about some of this, but nevertheless
> that's the situation that exists.
> You and I pay for these programs, so you and I are paying some bills
> for people who we don't think we should have to pay for. Clearly you
> don't think we should have to pay.
> The government agrees with you - you shouldn't have to pay.
Actually no they don't. Otherwise the laws wouldn't be the way they are.
> But it does feel that those who quailify for benefits should get them.
> So it has decided that rather than recind the programs in the case of
> marriage-base immigrants, the party who will pay, should payment be
> necessary, is the party who was responsible for bringing the foreigner
> into the country.
> As Folinskyinla pointed out, the part that allows the immigrant to sue
> the sponsor directly for support can seem a bit perverse, but it may
> be justifiable in some situations.
> Anyway, we are not so far apart in our views as you seem to think. The
> significant difference is that I am dealing with the world as it is,
> you are dealing with it as you wish it were.
I think I was clear when I was speaking that I was not talking about the
law as currently implemented rather the law as it should be, IMHO.
--
I thought about how mothers feed their babies with tiny little spoons
and forks so I wondered, what do Chinese mothers use? Toothpicks?
Dec 18th 2003, 12:09 pm
#52
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: marriage fraud
Originally posted by jeffreyhy
Andrew,
Yes, it is my premise that we must provide support. Not because I want it to be that way, but because it is that way. You seem to be overlooking the fact that the US has laws and programs under those laws that provide for those in need. These programs are available to citizens, permanent residents, and others who are present in this country. Some people are unhappy about some of this, but nevertheless that's the situation that exists.
You and I pay for these programs, so you and I are paying some bills for people who we don't think we should have to pay for. Clearly you don't think we should have to pay.
The government agrees with you - you shouldn't have to pay. But it does feel that those who quailify for benefits should get them. So it has decided that rather than recind the programs in the case of marriage-base immigrants, the party who will pay, should payment be necessary, is the party who was responsible for bringing the foreigner into the country.
As Folinskyinla pointed out, the part that allows the immigrant to sue the sponsor directly for support can seem a bit perverse, but it may be justifiable in some situations.
Anyway, we are not so far apart in our views as you seem to think. The significant difference is that I am dealing with the world as it is, you are dealing with it as you wish it were.
Regards, JEff
Andrew,
Yes, it is my premise that we must provide support. Not because I want it to be that way, but because it is that way. You seem to be overlooking the fact that the US has laws and programs under those laws that provide for those in need. These programs are available to citizens, permanent residents, and others who are present in this country. Some people are unhappy about some of this, but nevertheless that's the situation that exists.
You and I pay for these programs, so you and I are paying some bills for people who we don't think we should have to pay for. Clearly you don't think we should have to pay.
The government agrees with you - you shouldn't have to pay. But it does feel that those who quailify for benefits should get them. So it has decided that rather than recind the programs in the case of marriage-base immigrants, the party who will pay, should payment be necessary, is the party who was responsible for bringing the foreigner into the country.
As Folinskyinla pointed out, the part that allows the immigrant to sue the sponsor directly for support can seem a bit perverse, but it may be justifiable in some situations.
Anyway, we are not so far apart in our views as you seem to think. The significant difference is that I am dealing with the world as it is, you are dealing with it as you wish it were.
Regards, JEff
If you really want look into matters -- look at support obligations outside of the immigration context. Not only for marriage -- but for parents and children.
Lets say that two US citizens get married. Both have well paying jobs. In fact, the husband starts spending a much more "time at the office" -- with his secretary -- and the "office business" has no relation to the job. Wife finds out, tells him to get out. Immediately after he leaves, he gets run over by a car. On top of it, the disloyal jerk spent the health insurance money on his honey instead of paying the premium.
I'm willing to bet that wife is on the hook for the lying jerk's health care.
Which reminds me -- since the I-864 is contractual, the big BK might be a way out.
As I think I mentioned, section 213A and the concomitant I-864 is a poorly thought out piece of work.
Dec 18th 2003, 2:13 pm
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: marriage fraud
Folinskyinla wrote:
> If you really want look into matters -- look at support obligations
> outside of the immigration context. Not only for marriage -- but for
> parents and children.
I don't see parents and children as a good analog. A child is a minor
and not expected to be self-sufficient.
> Lets say that two US citizens get married. Both have well paying jobs.
> In fact, the husband starts spending a much more "time at the office"
> -- with his secretary -- and the "office business" has no relation to
> the job. Wife finds out, tells him to get out. Immediately after he
> leaves, he gets run over by a car. On top of it, the disloyal jerk
> spent the health insurance money on his honey instead of paying the
> premium.
> I'm willing to bet that wife is on the hook for the lying jerk's
> health care.
No more than she'd be on the hook if she was the lying jerk or if
neither or them were unfaithful. However, if he happened to be hit after
the divorce was final (or even after legally separated I think) she is
not on the hook. This is where things differ when comparing two US
citizens to a US citizen/foreign spouse situation.
> Which reminds me -- since the I-864 is contractual, the big BK might
> be a way out.
BK? You mean like BK Burger? :-) No, seriously though, what a big BK?
Bankruptcy?
--
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines
> If you really want look into matters -- look at support obligations
> outside of the immigration context. Not only for marriage -- but for
> parents and children.
I don't see parents and children as a good analog. A child is a minor
and not expected to be self-sufficient.
> Lets say that two US citizens get married. Both have well paying jobs.
> In fact, the husband starts spending a much more "time at the office"
> -- with his secretary -- and the "office business" has no relation to
> the job. Wife finds out, tells him to get out. Immediately after he
> leaves, he gets run over by a car. On top of it, the disloyal jerk
> spent the health insurance money on his honey instead of paying the
> premium.
> I'm willing to bet that wife is on the hook for the lying jerk's
> health care.
No more than she'd be on the hook if she was the lying jerk or if
neither or them were unfaithful. However, if he happened to be hit after
the divorce was final (or even after legally separated I think) she is
not on the hook. This is where things differ when comparing two US
citizens to a US citizen/foreign spouse situation.
> Which reminds me -- since the I-864 is contractual, the big BK might
> be a way out.
BK? You mean like BK Burger? :-) No, seriously though, what a big BK?
Bankruptcy?
--
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines
Dec 18th 2003, 2:46 pm
#54
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: marriage fraud
Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
Folinskyinla wrote:
> If you really want look into matters -- look at support obligations
> outside of the immigration context. Not only for marriage -- but for
> parents and children.
I don't see parents and children as a good analog. A child is a minor
and not expected to be self-sufficient.
> Lets say that two US citizens get married. Both have well paying jobs.
> In fact, the husband starts spending a much more "time at the office"
> -- with his secretary -- and the "office business" has no relation to
> the job. Wife finds out, tells him to get out. Immediately after he
> leaves, he gets run over by a car. On top of it, the disloyal jerk
> spent the health insurance money on his honey instead of paying the
> premium.
> I'm willing to bet that wife is on the hook for the lying jerk's
> health care.
No more than she'd be on the hook if she was the lying jerk or if
neither or them were unfaithful. However, if he happened to be hit after
the divorce was final (or even after legally separated I think) she is
not on the hook. This is where things differ when comparing two US
citizens to a US citizen/foreign spouse situation.
> Which reminds me -- since the I-864 is contractual, the big BK might
> be a way out.
BK? You mean like BK Burger? :-) No, seriously though, what a big BK?
Bankruptcy?
--
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines
Folinskyinla wrote:
> If you really want look into matters -- look at support obligations
> outside of the immigration context. Not only for marriage -- but for
> parents and children.
I don't see parents and children as a good analog. A child is a minor
and not expected to be self-sufficient.
> Lets say that two US citizens get married. Both have well paying jobs.
> In fact, the husband starts spending a much more "time at the office"
> -- with his secretary -- and the "office business" has no relation to
> the job. Wife finds out, tells him to get out. Immediately after he
> leaves, he gets run over by a car. On top of it, the disloyal jerk
> spent the health insurance money on his honey instead of paying the
> premium.
> I'm willing to bet that wife is on the hook for the lying jerk's
> health care.
No more than she'd be on the hook if she was the lying jerk or if
neither or them were unfaithful. However, if he happened to be hit after
the divorce was final (or even after legally separated I think) she is
not on the hook. This is where things differ when comparing two US
citizens to a US citizen/foreign spouse situation.
> Which reminds me -- since the I-864 is contractual, the big BK might
> be a way out.
BK? You mean like BK Burger? :-) No, seriously though, what a big BK?
Bankruptcy?
--
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines
Just a hypothetical. Also, for "children", that can extend to adult children. And don't forget, returing to immigration, that the teenagers are included on the I-864!
But in family law courts all over the land, judges deal with spousal support issues all the time -- with a lot more flexibility. That's one thing that kind of bothers me about the I-864 -- it is a "one size fits" all when such a thing is inappropriate.
Dec 18th 2003, 2:47 pm
#55
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,049
Re: marriage fraud
But if they did, it would save us from your inane posts.
Regards, JEff
Regards, JEff
Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
...
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines
...
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines
Dec 18th 2003, 3:44 pm
#56
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: marriage fraud
Originally posted by jeffreyhy
But if they did, it would save us from your inane posts.
Regards, JEff
But if they did, it would save us from your inane posts.
Regards, JEff
Be nice. Those little end notes are often the most amusing part of his posts.
Rent a DVD of "The Paper Chase" movie [not the TV show] and you'll get the idea of why I kind of like Andy -- he is like Kingsfield without the background knowledge.
BTW, that movie was a pretty accurate portrayal of law school -- other than the final scene. If books are more your speed on describing the law school experience, I recommend Scott Turrow's very first book "1-L" which is a slightly fictionalized version of his first year in Harvard Law School. I first read it 15 years after graduation [18 after my first year] and it brought back all the memories I had surpressed.
Dec 18th 2003, 4:02 pm
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: marriage fraud
Folinskyinla wrote:
> Just a hypothetical. Also, for "children", that can extend to adult
> children. And don't forget, returing to immigration, that the
> teenagers are included on the I-864!
Good point. I assumed small children.
> But in family law courts all over the land, judges deal with spousal
> support issues all the time -- with a lot more flexibility. That's one
> thing that kind of bothers me about the I-864 -- it is a "one size
> fits" all when such a thing is inappropriate.
I guess the part that bugs me is that the I-864 seems to be "on top of"
whatever family court might decide. And family court will probably not
care to get involved with immigration issues. It just seems unfair that
given a divorcing couple of 2 USCs and a divorcing couple of 1 USC and 1
foreign spouse that the later should face more "punishment" than the
former. And I'm talking about such cases where the foreign spouse, while
maybe not a full citizen, is normalized and functional in the US.
--
No one ever says, "It's only a game", when their team is winning.
> Just a hypothetical. Also, for "children", that can extend to adult
> children. And don't forget, returing to immigration, that the
> teenagers are included on the I-864!
Good point. I assumed small children.
> But in family law courts all over the land, judges deal with spousal
> support issues all the time -- with a lot more flexibility. That's one
> thing that kind of bothers me about the I-864 -- it is a "one size
> fits" all when such a thing is inappropriate.
I guess the part that bugs me is that the I-864 seems to be "on top of"
whatever family court might decide. And family court will probably not
care to get involved with immigration issues. It just seems unfair that
given a divorcing couple of 2 USCs and a divorcing couple of 1 USC and 1
foreign spouse that the later should face more "punishment" than the
former. And I'm talking about such cases where the foreign spouse, while
maybe not a full citizen, is normalized and functional in the US.
--
No one ever says, "It's only a game", when their team is winning.
Dec 18th 2003, 4:04 pm
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: marriage fraud
jeffreyhy wrote:
> But if they did, it would save us from your inane posts.
I guess somebody's getting upset. Sorry jeffreyhy that I don't agree
with your viewpoint and that that fact appears to upset you.
--
I'm as confused as a baby in a topless bar.
> But if they did, it would save us from your inane posts.
I guess somebody's getting upset. Sorry jeffreyhy that I don't agree
with your viewpoint and that that fact appears to upset you.
--
I'm as confused as a baby in a topless bar.
Dec 18th 2003, 10:43 pm
#59
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: marriage fraud
Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
Folinskyinla wrote:
> Just a hypothetical. Also, for "children", that can extend to adult
> children. And don't forget, returing to immigration, that the
> teenagers are included on the I-864!
Good point. I assumed small children.
> But in family law courts all over the land, judges deal with spousal
> support issues all the time -- with a lot more flexibility. That's one
> thing that kind of bothers me about the I-864 -- it is a "one size
> fits" all when such a thing is inappropriate.
I guess the part that bugs me is that the I-864 seems to be "on top of"
whatever family court might decide. And family court will probably not
care to get involved with immigration issues. It just seems unfair that
given a divorcing couple of 2 USCs and a divorcing couple of 1 USC and 1
foreign spouse that the later should face more "punishment" than the
former. And I'm talking about such cases where the foreign spouse, while
maybe not a full citizen, is normalized and functional in the US.
--
No one ever says, "It's only a game", when their team is winning.
Folinskyinla wrote:
> Just a hypothetical. Also, for "children", that can extend to adult
> children. And don't forget, returing to immigration, that the
> teenagers are included on the I-864!
Good point. I assumed small children.
> But in family law courts all over the land, judges deal with spousal
> support issues all the time -- with a lot more flexibility. That's one
> thing that kind of bothers me about the I-864 -- it is a "one size
> fits" all when such a thing is inappropriate.
I guess the part that bugs me is that the I-864 seems to be "on top of"
whatever family court might decide. And family court will probably not
care to get involved with immigration issues. It just seems unfair that
given a divorcing couple of 2 USCs and a divorcing couple of 1 USC and 1
foreign spouse that the later should face more "punishment" than the
former. And I'm talking about such cases where the foreign spouse, while
maybe not a full citizen, is normalized and functional in the US.
--
No one ever says, "It's only a game", when their team is winning.
We're pretty much in agreement.
Another point, IMHO, use of naturalization as a cut-off of support obligations is absurd from several angles. I think naturalization is a very personal and important decision -- and it should not be influenced by the fact "I'll naturalize so my father-in-law will be off the hook" or "I won't naturalize lest I lose support from my sponsor" or "I'll naturalize so I qualify for government benefits so I qualify for medic-aid [Medi-Cal here].
Earlier this year I was consulted by a law school classmate in regards to a pending divorce where the alien sought to set the level of spousal support at 125% poverty level. My advice was to use the standard contract defenses, including mitigation of damages on support, but beware of the risk of long term medical care. The final deal was no direct monetary support, but he would pay the premiums on the health insurance policy which she became eligible from under COBRA. The deal also included that spousal support would remain subject to the jurisidction of the court. Usually, this is something to aovid in representing the person with the money, but she had expressed interest in naturalizing and there was a recitation that the health insurance was an expression of intent to comply with the I-864. So if wife naturalized without thinking ---
Dec 18th 2003, 11:19 pm
#60
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,049
Re: marriage fraud
Mr. F,
I agree, Andrew's end notes are good.
Thanks for the recommendations. I remember the movie, although I never saw it. I will have to try to find a copy on DVD.
Regards, JEff
I agree, Andrew's end notes are good.
Thanks for the recommendations. I remember the movie, although I never saw it. I will have to try to find a copy on DVD.
Regards, JEff
Originally posted by Folinskyinla
Jeff:
Be nice. Those little end notes are often the most amusing part of his posts.
Rent a DVD of "The Paper Chase" movie [not the TV show] and you'll get the idea of why I kind of like Andy -- he is like Kingsfield without the background knowledge.
BTW, that movie was a pretty accurate portrayal of law school -- other than the final scene. If books are more your speed on describing the law school experience, I recommend Scott Turrow's very first book "1-L" which is a slightly fictionalized version of his first year in Harvard Law School. I first read it 15 years after graduation [18 after my first year] and it brought back all the memories I had surpressed.
Jeff:
Be nice. Those little end notes are often the most amusing part of his posts.
Rent a DVD of "The Paper Chase" movie [not the TV show] and you'll get the idea of why I kind of like Andy -- he is like Kingsfield without the background knowledge.
BTW, that movie was a pretty accurate portrayal of law school -- other than the final scene. If books are more your speed on describing the law school experience, I recommend Scott Turrow's very first book "1-L" which is a slightly fictionalized version of his first year in Harvard Law School. I first read it 15 years after graduation [18 after my first year] and it brought back all the memories I had surpressed.
