inquisitive40

I personally think anyone that has moved here from abroad would have a bigger mountain to climb moving back to their original country of origin than if they remained here and maintained themselves here. No one is suggesting that the spouse of the dead person should get government hand outs to help them survive, all that is being said is that they should be left to make the decision to stay or go by themselves, the fact that this person was deported removes their right to choose, up until the death of the USC that person had been given that right by the US governement, after the death they are basically disgarded by the government and told they are no longer welcome in their country, even though they have broken no laws or rules.

Personally speaking, I have been here 5 years, through the first year I gradually started to lose contacts back home, I know from talking to relatives back home that it is not the same place I left, the US is where I live, moving back to Ireland would be a huge upset in my day to day living, having lost my US spouse would double that emotional trauma.

As for Canada, it really is not the same as an immigrant from either South America or Overseas.

Only someone who is a USC can possibly not see this perspective, also something that is much more different here is that people move from state to state all the time, it is a very normal part of life, back home people seldom move from one country to another and most people once they marry and put their roots down, they normally stay there, that is MUCH different to the US way of life.

Patrick

Just Jenney

I'm surprised no one has yet to respond to how offensive this statement is. (Despite the fact that the USC is technically the "spongee", not the "sponger".)

Do you really think all foreign spouses "sponge" off their USC spouses? Or only those whose USC spouses tragically die before the 2-year conditional period is up? Because I have to say, I never thought of Mark as sponging off me. He's just my husband, whom I love.

I think this statement of yours says a lot about you, Andrew.

~ Jenney

Noorah101

It's probably a typo for "sponsor". One of those typos that completely changes the meaning!

Reme

inquisitive40

Didn't really catch that comment on first reading BUT when my AOS is done I will by far be the more employable member of the household with an earning capacity in several different fields of work in excess of $40 an hour. The funny thing about this is, perception. When I was thinking of moving here and all the implications it was pointed out that "there are divorced US women who need a man to go out and work to make ends meet for them" this was said to me and as I say "it is all in preception" , for most of us couples, we are a couple and the good and bad times effect us both, there is no thought of one partner taking advantage of the other.

From Andrew's previous comments in this thread he seems to resent immigrants, period, I pity anyone that he might marry who is not a USC cause he may want them to kiss his feet for giving them "this wonderful opportunity to live in the US" , very narrow perception.

Patrick

Just Jenney

For some reason, I don't think it was a typo. If he had spelled it "sponser" then maybe I'd buy it. But on the keyboard the "G" key is not close to the "S" key. Seems like a pretty big coincidence that this particular "misspelling" could also fit perfectly in context. Plus, if you look at Andrew's posts he typically uses extremely good grammar, including correct spelling.

Maybe I'm wrong. But given Andrew's opinions as he usually posts them, I wouldn't put it past him.

~ Jenney

Folinskyinla

Hi Andrew:

The law is pretty clear on this one. However, that said, the article brings up a fair question and perhaps CONGRESS should change the law or at least permit it on a discretionary, case by case basis.

For example, the couple may have had children [or one on the way]. Or the alien spouse may no longer have family in the home country.

The two year number was an amendment to allow a widow to petition on her own behalf within two years of an American citizen spouse's death provided they had been married for two years at the time of his death. Although this amendment was made before his murder, I think this as the "Daniel Pearl" provision. It should be noted that such widows/ers may have never lived in the US.

BTW, under current law, there is also a difference between having an approved I-130 at time of death and having a pending I-130. The regulations have provided for quite some time that although an approved I-130 is automatically revoked upon the petitioner's death, the INS [now CIS] had the discretion to reinstate the visa petition for humantarian reasons.

But that is not true for pending visa petitions. It is simply treated as withdrawn.

Back in 1998, during the height of the impeachment, a "private bill" was processed, passed and signed for a Japanese woman here who had been married for 18 months when her husband was murdered in a robbery at his place of employment. They had a newborn child.

Sometimes the law just might be a little too rigid no matter how appealing the facts.

Andrew DeFaria

lpdiver wrote:

    > But should you have to...

According to the law... well... yes.

    > assuming you had a bona fide marriage. In my case my widow would have
    > to leave and my daughtrer would be faced with staying alon in the usa
    > or moving to Colombia.

What is your daughter in this case? I'm not being flippant here rather
I'm asking is this the daughter of your spouse or you or of both of you.
If of you (i.e. your spouse's step daughter) I would think she'd be more
comfortable back home in Columbia. If of your spouse (previous marriage)
I'd think that she'd be 1) a USC and 2) more comfortable here in the
states. Where would she go if you never entered the picture? That's
where I think she should go. And finally if both of yours I'd assume
this daughter is fairly young and if she went back to Colombia she
wouldn't even know it.

    > and what is so special about two years?

I'd say it's a time they've chosen to represent that the foreigner has
adjusted to life in the US and would not potentially be a burden on the
system.

--
"I am" is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language.
Could it be that "I do" is the longest sentence?

Andrew DeFaria

lpdiver wrote:

    > It all comes down to representation...look at OJ.

I'm not a big believer of the often claimed "If you got enough money you
can get off" theories. If they have a solid case then I don't believe
that mere money will get you off. Plus typically foreign spouses don't
have tons of money anyway. And where in the mix of all this is the
truth. Lord help us if merely allegations can gain you immigration benefits!

    > It happens a lot more than the 25 current cases of death.

What happens? Claims of spousal abuse? Or actual spousal abuse? I'd say
that spousal abuse is probably pretty common. However do you have the
data of how much it is reported and how many times such allegations are
successful? I'd like to know how many allegations are made, how many are
successful and how many are found out to be fraudulent. And, again, I
would hope that fraudulent claims of abuse are usually caught - wouldn't
you?

--
I am in shape. Round is a shape!

Andrew DeFaria

Folinskyinla wrote:

    > The law is pretty clear on this one. However, that said, the article
    > brings up a fair question and perhaps CONGRESS should change the law
    > or at least permit it on a discretionary, case by case basis.

Again, I think if the spouse can prove the bona fides of the marriage
and provide some sort of evidence that they will not become a drain on
the "welfare system" and/or obtain another sponser I have no problems
with allowing them to remain. My two concerns are: 1) Did they enter
into the marriage fraudulently (always a concern) and 2) will they cause
hardship on other USC who did not participate in the decision to
"import" this alien.

    > For example, the couple may have had children [or one on the way].

Children, especially such young ones, pack! See my previous responds
regarding children.

    > Or the alien spouse may no longer have family in the home country.

I highly doubt that within a short 2 years the aliens family disappears!
In any event I don't see why I should be forced to pay for their welfare
(regarding sponsership)!

    > The two year number was an amendment to allow a widow to petition on
    > her own behalf within two years of an American citizen spouse's death
    > provided they had been married for two years at the time of his death.

I'm OK with that.

    > Although this amendment was made before his murder,

Who's murder?!? I thought we were speaking of the general case where the
sponser dies, perhaps just due to natural causes...

    > I think this as the "Daniel Pearl" provision.

What "Daniel Perl" provision?

    > It should be noted that such widows/ers may have never lived in the US.

??? I think you're straying or I'm just not understanding this. I
thought the article was about a specific couple where the spouse was
being deported due to death of the other spouse and sponser if under 2
years. Under 2 years for what? I assumed that meant under 2 years of
residing in the US. As such that doesn't make any sense with your
statement of "widnows/ers may have never lived in the US" - they did!

    > BTW, under current law, there is also a difference between having an
    > approved I-130 at time of death and having a pending I-130. The
    > regulations have provided for quite some time that although an
    > approved I-130 is automatically revoked upon the petitioner's death,
    > the INS [now CIS] had the discretion to reinstate the visa petition
    > for humantarian reasons.

I don't think we should be getting all teary eyed and handing out visas
based on emotion. Again, my concerns are merely 2, validity of the
marriage and ability to stand on one's own feat.

    > But that is not true for pending visa petitions. It is simply treated
    > as withdrawn.
    > Back in 1998, during the height of the impeachment, a "private bill"
    > was processed, passed and signed for a Japanese woman here who had
    > been married for 18 months when her husband was murdered in a robbery
    > at his place of employment. They had a newborn child.
    > Sometimes the law just might be a little too rigid no matter how
    > appealing the facts.

I'm not convinced it's too rigid. Again if the marriage is legit and the
alien won't become a drain on other USC I have no problem it with. If
the marriage was not legit well then that's fraud. If the alien is
likely to become a drain on the system then I don't understand why we
should allow such a drain taxing us all.

--
A flying saucer results when a nudist spills his coffee.

Andrew DeFaria

inquisitive40 wrote:

    > I personally think anyone that has moved here from abroad would have a
    > bigger mountain to climb moving back to their original country of
    > origin than if they remained here and maintained themselves here.

Most foreigners who move here don't know the country, the culture and
often don't even speak the language that well. A lot of times
creditations that they may old (doctor, lawyer, engineer) just doesn't
translate. Getting a job and surviving may be very difficult for them -
especially when also bearing the emotional load of a lost loved one,
probably not really knowing that many people, etc. Are you really sure
it's not often just easier to move home?!?

    > No one is suggesting that the spouse of the dead person should get
    > government hand outs to help them survive,

I am suggesting that that is exactly what is likely to happen. Again,
they may not know the language, have creditation or any job prospects.
Hell when you bring in a foreigner you "sponsor" them. It's a big legal
deal. You promise to keep this alien off the public dole for a period of
40 quarters. This is an assurance to the American people that they will
not have to pick up the tab. Now that sponger is dead and whose gonna
pick up the tab should the alien experience difficulty in this very
difficult time?!?

    > all that is being said is that they should be left to make the
    > decision to stay or go by themselves,

That may be "said" however I do not agree with this saying. Again there
is probably a high likelihood that this person will need assistance and
may apply for assistance for which I am not willing to shell out my hard
earned money for! (Sorry if that sounds cold).

    > the fact that this person was deported removes their right to choose,

First off there is no "right to choose" - check your Constitution.
Secondly why would an alien be afforded a right that even a citizen is
not guaranteed?

    > up until the death of the USC that person had been given that right by
    > the US governement,

They were given (conditional mind you) permission to reside in the US
based on the sponsorship of their spouse. They lost their sponger.

    > after the death they are basically disgarded by the government and
    > told they are no longer welcome in their country, even though they
    > have broken no laws or rules.

The rule is that aliens must be sponsored. This alien is no longer
sponsored! Agreeably this was not their choice - an act of god happened
and their spouse died - however the conditions of the conditional status
have changed.

    > Personally speaking, I have been here 5 years, through the first year
    > I gradually started to lose contacts back home, I know from talking to
    > relatives back home that it is not the same place I left, the US is
    > where I live, moving back to Ireland would be a huge upset in my day
    > to day living, having lost my US spouse would double that emotional
    > trauma.

Yes it would be a bummer. However I think your 5 years of residence
shows that you are capable of surviving on your own and have fully
aclamated to life in the US.

    > As for Canada, it really is not the same as an immigrant from either
    > South America or Overseas.
    > Only someone who is a USC can possibly not see this perspective,

Come on! I can see the perspective from both sides. I admit it's a real
bummer. I just don't want to suffer from this as well as don't want my
fellow USC to suffer from this too (regarding sponsorship).

    > also something that is much more different here is that people move
    > from state to state all the time, it is a very normal part of life,
    > back home people seldom move from one country to another

OK, the move from city to city or Provence to Provence. There's no real
difference.

    > and most people once they marry and put their roots down, they
    > normally stay there, that is MUCH
    > different to the US way of life.

Many USC marry, put down roots and remain where they are at. Many of my
friends still reside in my hometown. Some are married, some aren't. Some
moved to other areas, some in the same state - others to other states.
You can't tell me that nobody moves anywhere except in the US!
--
Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.

Andrew DeFaria

Jenney & Mark wrote:

    > Originally posted by Andrew DeFaria
    >> Question is what to do with the foreigner who lost their sponger.
    > I'm surprised no one has yet to respond to how offensive this
    > statement is. (Despite the fact that the USC is technically the
    > "spongee", not the "sponger".)
    > Do you really think all foreign spouses "sponge" off their USC
    > spouses? Or only those whose USC spouses tragically die before the
    > 2-year conditional period is up? Because I have to say, I never
    > thought of Mark as sponging off me. He's just my husband, whom I love.
    > I think this statement of yours says a lot about you, Andrew.

I'm surprised you did not notice the typo! Admittedly the typo was mine.
Still a phrase like "foreigner who lost their sponger" would indicate
that the USC was the "sponger". Anyway...

OK, now substitute the correct word "sponsor" and tell me if you still
feel that way!
--
I spilled spot remover on my dog and now he's gone.

Andrew DeFaria

Noorah101 wrote:

    > It's probably a typo for "sponsor". One of those typos that completely
    > changes the meaning!

Actually I have been consistently misspelling sponsor as sponser. I
suspect that perhaps I clicked on the wrong substitution of sponser ->
sponsor and somehow selected sponger instead. Sorry for the confusion.

--
Double your drive space - delete Windows!

Andrew DeFaria

inquisitive40 wrote:

    > From Andrew's previous comments in this thread he seems to resent
    > immigrants, period, I pity anyone that he might marry who is not a USC
    > cause he may want them to kiss his feet for giving them "this
    > wonderful opportunity to live in the US" , very narrow perception.

I think you suffer from the same typo. Substitute "sponsor" for
"sponger" and I think you'll see what I mean.

I have nothing against immigrants - I just don't want to pay extra taxes
to support them. Do you?

--
I(nternal) R(evenue) S(ervice): We've got what it takes to take what
you've got.

Folinskyinla

Andrew:

There are all types of situations where there is the death of the US citizen spouse.

The provision in the law for the two years allows for the widow/er to self-petition on the I-130. This was intended to cover the situation where an American expatriate dies abroad and has a foregin family. That is in the Immigration & Nationality Act. However, in application, it is not just limited to the expat family. [Daniel Pearl was a Wall Street Journal reporter kidnapped and murdered in Pakistan in 2001].

There is also the situation where the I-130 was APPROVED prior to the petitioner's death. The regulations have long allowed for humanitarian reinstatement. In fact, there was an amendment to the ACT a couple of years ago to allow for cetain relatives to substitute as sponsor on the I-864.

It may very well be possible that a person had no family left in the home country when they left, and they have been strongly adopted into the in-law family here -- espeically if there is a child. Like I say, there are all types of situations.

inquisitive40

My apologies about mistaking your typo,,,
As far as taxes go, once taxes get paid I do not want to think about what is done with them.
I still stand by my view, just because my spouse dies I do not want to be forced to leave the country, I should be able to make that choice myself. Myself and my spouse to be have often discussed would I return to Ireland and the honest answer is I do not know, is a hard thing to know what I would do, the logical thing would be to travel back and see how I would get along there but I would hate it to be a one way trip with no option of coming back to the US if it did not work out back home.
Choice is the bottom line here.
Patrick