Howard...Forget the "Deport Her" Option

[Tim]

Preface: I am starting a new thread on this because I wanted to clarify the reality of this particular immigration story. The thread Howard started below where deportation was mentioned was getting lost, and I felt many of the readers here would be interested in the truth. All my following comments are based in information Howard has posted here as well as what I've learned over the years of following US marriage-based immigration.

Big H -

I'm glad you are a restrained and logical guy, because if you were to get fired up and decide to attempt to have Ayesa deported, I doubt you would be able to do it. Even with a fancy (and expensive) attorney at your side.

The reason is this: Ayesa is already a conditional permanent resident, with a 2 year green card. Things might be different if you had not filed at the Detroit INS office, with its same-day "instant" AOS processing for K-1 adjusters, but that excellent service that so many people covet has backfired for you. She was able to use this to adjust her status at the speed of light (compared to other INS offices), and that changes her options totally if the marriage implodes (which it did).

Even if the marriage is annulled, she can self-petition to have the conditions on her green card removed. All she has to do is prove that she entered into the marriage in good faith. That is ridiculously easy to prove, and since the INS doesn't use polygraph equipment at these type interviews, she will almost certainly be granted the removal of conditions. By now she's probably getting smart about this, and understands she will probably want to hire an attorney to help her get this done, but she's probably very relaxed about her future. She can stay here or go home as options, not forced conditions.  

If anyone misreads what I've stated here, let me say that I do believe she SHOULD be deported for the scam she was party to, but the reality of current immigration law is that she'll almost certainly be able to stay. So just forget about her and move on.

Regards, Tim

[Eman]

... in response to Howard...Forget the "Deport Her&quo..., posted by Tim on Apr 4, 2002

Just to add one thing - Howard's question was based on the fact that he is grappling with subtle moral distinctions. Apart from the question of whether deportation is legal or justifiable, it is not consistent to think a man of such refined conscience is suddenly going to take up the sledgehammer of deportation against a woman he still believes to be essentially blameless. The deportation debate has taken on a life of its own.

[BrianN]

... in response to Re: Howard...Forget the "Deport Her..., posted by Eman on Apr 4, 2002

This is what sucks about the whole deportation issue.
Not because it is, but because the guy brings a girl he loves, and knows that deportation, is not just an act of
"anti-love" (or plainly stated -I hate you vitch so away you go), but it's also one that must grapple with in their own conscious thoughts, and live with the results of for the rest of their life.

Even if Bear is dead on the money that she'd be happier in Tondo, just WHO THE HECK could do this, but by citing "the law", and having someone else do it for them.  I may harbor much distrust and (old) anger towards my ex, but I still have some love for her, (and care about her situation in life), and I'd NEVER take some overt act to deport her, (forget it anyway since she's been a us citizen since 1983).  

But yet, if I was an outright scam victim such as this, my checks and balances might be sitting on an entirely different plain.  I don't know.

What I DO KNOW, is that I would REALLY BE CONCERNED, that maybe the INS might delay or trash any further applications for a spousal or fiance visa in the future from ME, even though I became a victim of a family scam.

What a joke.  I'm the victim, but yet, all of the HR groups would rally the victimizers cause, and call me a b@stard American male looking to take advantage of some poor innocent woman.

At that point, (where my options are eliminated because of this), I'd be tempted to run for congress.  I'd lose for sure.  But at least I'd say I gave it a shot in the @ss.

Thanks for the vent space; the check's in the mail.  Sorry, this topic pisses me off a lot.

Like it's been said, find a woman you hate, and give her your house.  American dream 101.

[The Walker]

... in response to Howard...Forget the "Deport Her&quo..., posted by Tim on Apr 4, 2002

Vicky is a little hostile towards dishonest Filipinas. Talk about cheating of any sort gets her back up.

But is there anything Howard can do to reduce his obligations under the 10-year support agreement? If she goes on any government assistance, (and she probably will have to, since she has no skills and limited English, etc.) the feds will be knocking on Howard's wallet demanding he pay up. No?

Couldn't he prove deception of some sort? Any letters from her explaining why she married him or left him?

So she stays here, so what? The problem will be her support, not her residence. If she gets a "boyfriend" here instead of marrying, she can live with him and still use Howard for an ATM machine for 10 years. And you know lawyers and other groups will see to it she knows exactly what she can get, including making him pay for the lawyer that will set him up.

I agree it will be very hard to deport her. The same femi-lib groups that are shrilly complaining about foreign brides would love to see her stay here and soak Howard (double standard).

I have no problem here, as not only is Vicky a model wife, but she sure doesn't need my income. But Howard is not so fortunate.

Any options for him?

-Don

[Howard]

... in response to Re: Howard...Forget the "Deport Her..., posted by The Walker on Apr 4, 2002

Oh boy!  Did I miss something?  I thouhgt it was a 3 year affidavit fo support.  Is there something I missed?

Egads

H

[Tim]

... in response to Re: Howard...Forget the "Deport Her..., posted by The Walker on Apr 4, 2002

Hi Don,

It is possible that Howard could be forced to pay the government for Ayesa's welfare, but I find this scenario highly unlikely for a variety of reasons.

1. Since he's getting the marriage annulled, he could always hire a lawyer and fight the government in court if they came after him for support. However, this kind of defeats the purpose since paying the lawyer would probably cost as much as paying the government for Ayesa's welfare check. But I think this is a moot point, read on....

2. From all indications we've read, Ayesa will choose to work -- if she decides to stay in the USA at all. She had a job during the early months of their marriage, and could find work again. I believe she will do this because if she decides to stay in the USA she will want to make her own money for expenses, savings for the future (or to take back home), and to send money back home (which I believe she will eventually do, to win her place back in her family). Anyway, the point here is that if she's working again, she won't be on the dole and nothing will trigger the government to come after Howard's wallet.

3. Does our government even come after US citizen's money when sponsored immigrants leave the marriage and go on the dole ? In the 4 years I've followed marriage based immigration, I've never read of a single person complaining about making payments for this. Alot of guys worry about it when they begin researching this, but I have come to believe it's a paper-tiger threat. I personally think the INS has NO MECHANISM in place with the welfare authorities to track instances of immigrants getting benefits, and if they do there must be some kind of breakdown that is keeping the information from ever being used to force payment from the US citizen sponsor. This is probably even more broken after 9/11, when INS priorities are being reviewed and changed to more high-profile things. (If anybody knows of a US citizen who was forced to make payments due to an I-134 or I-864 form, please speak up...I'd love to hear about it).  

Bottom line (in my opinion of course): I think Howard has little to fear (financially), once the marriage is legally over.

Regards, Tim

[Jay]

... in response to Re: Re: Howard...Forget the "Deport..., posted by Tim on Apr 4, 2002

Hi Tim,

True that INS probably has no way of tracking someone who get's on welfare after immigrating here. However, if Ayesa, or any other foriegn lady, for that matter, were to UNDERSTAND the pledge we make by signing an affidavit of support, woulden't she easily be able tell to Howard that he
must support her? Or she will go on welfare and  report HIM? Maybe that's why you never heard of it. I doubt most Filipina's understand the legal implication's of a 10 yr. Affidavit of support. Otherwise they would live off the ex for ten years, and have the blessing of the Fed's (and the LAW) to back them up.

Jay

[Bob S]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Howard...Forget the "De..., posted by Jay on Apr 5, 2002

"...wouldn't she easily be able tell to Howard that he must support her? Or she will go on welfare and report HIM? ... they would live off the ex for ten years, and have the blessing of the Fed's (and the LAW) to back them up."

The affidavit of support is a contract between the sponsor and the gov't to repay any means-tested benefits.  But thanks to welfare reform laws (thank you Newt), it is not so easy to live off the dole indefinitely anymore.  If she is able-bodied, speaks some English, and has no children to support, she will be expected to get out and look for work.  Additionally, life on welfare is a miserable existence where you are only able to afford to live in the worst of neighborhoods (read: crime ridden).  For someone who doesn't want to put in the effort to make use of the opportunities America has to offer, life would be much more comfortable back in her home country.  To have any quality of life, an immigrant will want to work, so no eligibility for welfare, so the sponsor will have nothing to repay.  Besides, if she wants to eve adjust her status, it wouldn't look good to go into the INS and explain why she is a leech and burden on the American taxpayers.  That's why I'm not worried at all about my obligations to my ex.  I know that she knows that if she wants to remain here permanently, she must become a hard working, law abiding, tax-paying member of the public.

In the 5 years I've been reading these forums and lists, I've only heard of one anecdotal case from the RW-List of the affidavit of support being used against a guy.  Supposedly his uninsured ex was in an accident and racked up some serious medical bills.  Medicare covered her then came after him for reimbursement.  But I don't know if this story is true or not.

[BrianN]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Howard...Forget the "De..., posted by Jay on Apr 5, 2002

Nobody, that I know of, ever keeps track of such things.

It seems as if the promise of support is in signature (and consciousness) only, not in the bank statement.

Keerist, how much do we pay for mexican illegals that have never filed or even attested to such things?  But yet, we still foot the bill.

Yeah, I'd like to see enforcement on that plan.  The moment that someone tries to... the next thing you see is a hailstorm of lawyers looking for a cause to pursue, with money to make.

It would take 100 percent accountability to make this issue actually work, which ain't gonna happen in my lifetime.

[Dave H]

... in response to Howard...Forget the "Deport Her&quo..., posted by Tim on Apr 4, 2002

N/T