Correcting the System...

[Travis]

Some of you here know what I have been dealing with. Basically, I'm not going to stop until there is a change in the law. Not that I have decided to try this thing again, but I am very much disturbed that a woman can falsly claim abuse in order to obtain her green card...it's too much motivation as in my case. I think there are too many women out there that are willing to go this route out of desperation to get out of their home country. Once my case is complete, I do intend to escalate it to my Congressman and Senators. Here's the dilema: the Viloence Against Women Act is a legit law. You can't have a woman afraid to report true abuse because she's worried about being deported. How do you maintain this protection for the women but also incorporate some protection for the men from false claims? One of the problems being that this is one of the few crimes that a man is assumed guilty until proven innocent. All opinions welcome!!!

[thesearch]

... in response to Correcting the System..., posted by Travis on Jul 21, 2003

I would bet a person could get a grant to study this issue. Get all the info the INS has and put it into a summary and come up with some conclusions. Data like that in addition to single stories like yours could have a big impact. I think that it would be startling to know the true facts that are behind the INS data.

[Travis]

... in response to Re: Correcting the System..., posted by thesearch on Jul 22, 2003

Here's my thoughts. The time between a K1 recipient arriving and marrying be increased to 6 months opposed to 3 months. The time required for the green card be increased to 5 years. That any abuse claims would be heard by a BCIS court opposed to a county court. Any thoughts?

[Richard]

... in response to Corrective Action....., posted by Travis on Jul 23, 2003

In my opinion, what's needed is an environment where the man is able to fight false domestic violence on an equal footing with his accuser. Furthermore, should the domestic violence / abuse charges be not be proven, the woman should be faced severe penalties as a deterrent to other people filing false charges.

I don't like the idea of forcing *all* foreign spouses to return to their country of origin if a marriage fails: sometimes marriages do not work out, despite the best efforts of both parties.  (We have a poster here, whose name I can't remember at the moment, who seems to still be friends with, or at least sees his ex wife.  Why should she have to go back in this situation?)

I also believe that someone bringing a foreigner over for marriage has to do their own due diligence and make sure that their intended spouse is doing this for the proper reasons.  (Travis, I am not trying to kick you while you are down: if I had brought over my ex fiancé, I would probably be in your situation. Here's the link to my trip report: http://www.planet-love.com/wwwboard/russian/archives/display.php?archive=000166&id=70051)

[Travis]

... in response to Re: Corrective Action....., posted by Richard on Jul 24, 2003

I don't think your trying to kick me when I'm down and I agree with you that I made a lot of mistakes. But does the mistakes I made justify my wife's illegal actions? In my opinion no! But I also agree with you that a woman should not be automatically sent back in the event of a failed marriage.

Basically what my initial question was, how do you protect both the woman and the man. The legislation being proposed is to protect the women which I'm not opposed to but there has been nothing to protect the men. There is an incentive for the woman to claim false abuse in the event the marriage isn't working out or that was her original intent. Though it is illegal to file false charges, this is rarely prosecuted and difficult to prove.

That's why I think that a change in venue is appropriate in regards to a K1 marriage and claims of abuse. From the county courts to a BCIS court. If there is evidence of a false accusation, the accuser can be immediately deported. If there is true evidence of abuse then the man can be sentinced appropriately.

[Jersey Mike]

... in response to Re: Re: Corrective Action....., posted by Travis on Jul 24, 2003

[This message has been edited by Jersey Mike]

Travis,
Under my proposal, the reason I suggest that the law be changed to require her deportation if the marriage doesn't work is to remove the incentive from the outset for her to marry for immigration purposes only.  If the woman knows that she must return, she might actually choose to marry a man with whom she is compatable and expects to remain married.  (Of course, if kids are involved, everything changes.)  

I know this proposal may sound unduly cold and heartless, but under the present law, women are not supposed to be using marriage as a means to immigrate.  However, we know that in many cases they are looking for the plane ticket first and foremost.  The government should remove the incentive to break the law, as is presently the case.

Best of luck with your situation!
Sincerely, Mike

[Jersey Mike]

... in response to Corrective Action....., posted by Travis on Jul 23, 2003

Travis,
Absolutely right about 6 months on the K-1 (after all, most tourist visas are issued for 6 months)  Marriages while on tourist visa (my own personal mistake) should not be permitted - at the termination of the tourist visa, the woman MUST return within the expiration date.  (Failure to return within the prescribed expiration means permanent disqualification from either K-1 or additional tourist visas-no exceptions.)  Then, the US spouse must travel to her country and apply for K-1.

Green card - should be MINIMUM 5 years.  In addition, if a marriage fails, she must return to her country of origin and the woman should be ineligible for a new K-1 for a minimum 2-year waiting period - this will discourage her from spending her time looking for a new husband #2 while she's still married to #1 during the 5-year waiting period.  (As a right of appeal in the event of a failed marriage, the woman could petition to stay only if she can demonstrate that she can financially support herself and is paying income taxes, and her husband's Affadavit of Support is withdrawn with no additional liability.)

BCIS court vs. county court - hadn't considered this change of venue.  What would the advantages/differences be, in your opinion?

Also, the filing of an "abuse" charge, whether real or false, should not automatically give her a legal claim to remain in the US as it presently does.  If she truly married for love, then she should be glad to return home to her family and country if her husband is abusive.  As it stands, the present system is practically an acknowledgement that the woman has married with the primary intention of immigration and it accomodates that goal.

I have become cynical about the intentions of many of the women.  Recently, I have learned of two different women (both acquaintances of my ex-wife) who are still married in their home country, and who have now married here in the US while on tourist visa.  (My ex-wife does not approve of this behavior fortunately.)  I doubt that their new husbands know anything about this, and it is an example of one of the ways the systems is abused.

[Travis]

... in response to Re: Corrective Action....., posted by Jersey Mike on Jul 23, 2003

My thoughts regarding a BCIS court opposed to a county court are that the claim could be more closely scrutinized. And if there is a finding of a false allegation, she could be immediately deported. If a woman were to consider the negative results of a false accusation, I think she would be less prone to make such a claim to begin with. The county courts don't have any juristiction over deportation and the motive is not initially taken into consideration if they ever are.

I feel 6 months is more appropriate than 3 months for the time to conduct the wedding. It's quite difficult to wait for the last minute so most of these weddings would occur within 10 weeks or so. Thats not such a long time for someone with ill intentions to keep up a facade.

The waiting period for the green card I really believe should be longer...5 years to me seems appropriate. Two years is just enough time to learn the language, learn to drive, get a car and some new clothes, find a job and a boyfriend. Then on the 730th day it's "CYA, thanks for the ride"!

[Jersey Mike]

... in response to Correcting the System..., posted by Travis on Jul 21, 2003

Travis,
I wholeheartedly agree with your position that the present system stinks - it actually gives a woman strong incentive to file false charges once she feels the marriage is not going to work out.  But even in cases where the woman has not filed false abuse charges, too many of them are entering marriages of convenience with the primary goal of immigration.  

In fact, I feel the present system encourages too many women to marry with no regard as to whether they are even minimally compatible with the man.  For many women, I doubt if there is any intention to remain married beyond the minimum requirement.  Many women must figure that two years of marriage is not such a long time to endure for the green card, even those who marry in good faith.

Unfortunately, the political correctness of protecting a man's legal and financial interests from a dishonest woman doesn't make a very compelling issue for the politicians.  (I would guess that the number of fraudulant marriages and/or false abuse claims by unscrutable women far outnumber the few extreme cases of physical abuse by men.)  However, lurid cases such as the murder of the woman from Kyrgyzstan get the politicians' and the feminists' excited because it's an issue they can get some mileage out of.

In the event that a marriage fails (for any reason), I personally do not feel that a woman should be permitted to remain in the country unless she can demonstrate the ability to take care of herself financially or until she has obtained citizenship.  (The source of financial support CANNOT be another man, because this would just encourage some women to try to find a new guy during the marriage to the first man.)  Perhaps this would encourage a woman to actually marry for the purpose creating and maintaining a long-term, successful marriage, rather than just marrying a plane ticket over here.  And if the woman were to chose more carefully from the outset, she would be less likely to end up married to a guy like the one who murdered that woman.

[tim360z]

... in response to Re: Correcting the System..., posted by Jersey Mike on Jul 22, 2003

First:  Whether we like it or not there are PLENTY of abuse cases here in the USA of AM married to AW.  And none of these AW's are needing a green card.  In fact,  most are reluctant because the world then goes topsy-turvey.  Usually,  they do it for the kids.  The overwhelming number of cases here are real.  Talk to any cop and "domestics" sap the time of any police force.  Its one of the last situtations a cop wants.  They can be ugly.  Talk to any ER nurse and she has seen her share of these cases. Or Er Doctors?  There are just plenty of American men who have anger, temper and control issues...period.  Domestic abuse of women here is a real thing.

I would conjecture that some RW's do marry the wrong guy and do get abused.  How many?  Who knows?  But it is probably similiar and proportional the AW's who get abused here.

Also,  there being a good number of screwed-up guys in the pursuit of  a MOB...the RW's may have it worse.  Indie King a case in point.  Travis,  I think just got involved with a very conniving RW wanting a ticket and I think they are in the minority.

All of which does pose a problem for a decent guy.  In most states a guy can be accused by any woman of abuse and he will be immediately arrested.  No proof...no nothing.  "Go to Jail."

ps:  There are not just a "...few extreme cases of physical abuse by men."  There is a plethora.

[Jersey Mike]

... in response to I don't know?..., posted by tim360z on Jul 22, 2003

Not really sure why you are going off about domestic violence between AM and AW.  You missed my point.  When I stated that I guessed that these cases of extreme abuse were rare, I was referring to the few high-profile cases of murder of MOBs, which are presently the driving force behind this new legislation.  These are the types of cases that fire up the media and the politicians, and often result in bad legislation that hurts the well-intentioned majority.  

I do not have any problem with background checks on prospective MOB husbands, BTW.  I certainly acknowledge that real abuse cases exist, and that there is probably a pretty fair number of wackos seeking foreign-born women.  My problem with the system lies with the fact that there is a very real and valuable incentive built into the present system for a foreign-born woman to lie and file false charges against a man.  And if you are married or are going to marry one of these ladies, you had better understand the potential downside risk involved.  Trust me, your lady will know the ins and outs of the system soon after her arrival here, especially if you have any problems in your marriage.  (Believe me when I say that there will be strong "support" network available for her to provide her with info and legal advice, no matter where you may live.)  Under the system, adjudication of her complaint against you may actually result in an expedited issuance of her permanent green card.

Right now, there are too many women who are marrying men with the basic idea of, "Hey, even if it doesn't work out, just two years and I still get my greencard.  Whatever it takes!"  My suggestion is that the government must remove the incentive for marriage to be used by women as nothing more than an immigration ploy.

Instead, I am simply suggesting that there should is a real incentive for the woman to be selective and to pick a partner with whom she wants and fully expects to remain married for many years to come.  I feel that is a prudent and realistic goal, but Congress hasn't often been too friendly in matters of marriage or family or pro-male issues in recent years.

[stefang]

... in response to Re: I don't know?..., posted by Jersey Mike on Jul 22, 2003

Right now, there are too many women who are marrying men with the basic idea of, "Hey, even if it doesn't work out, just two years and I still get my greencard. Whatever it takes!" My suggestion is that the government must remove the incentive for marriage to be used by women as nothing more than an immigration ploy.

This sounds like American women, most say the same thing if it doesn't work out I can get a divorce since the courts are in my favor.

[Griffin redux]

... in response to Re: Re: I don't know?..., posted by stefang on Jul 23, 2003

[Richard]

... in response to Re: Re: I don't know?..., posted by stefang on Jul 23, 2003

You may be correct about many women entering marraige with the idea of getting their green card at or near the top of their list of reasons for marrying.  However, I believe that the men involved have an obligation to do their own due diligence regarding the women's motives.

[ChrisNJ]

... in response to Re: I don't know?..., posted by Jersey Mike on Jul 22, 2003

they increased the waiting period from 2 years to five.  That might discourage some of them from a "marriage of convenience".  On the other hand it might cause the number of manufactured abuse claims to rise (if abuse claims expedite the green card process).  Especially if the girl has a daughter.  Then the guy is toast.