Marriage of Convenience - The truth.
CANADAVISA.com Immigration Forum
July 23, 2014, 09:13:17 pm
   Home   Assessment Help Search Login Register RSS  
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

 News
 
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Marriage of Convenience - The truth.  (Read 2759 times)
keesio
Champion Member
******

Posts: 1888
Ratings: +42
Category........: FAM
Visa Office......: CPP-O
App. Filed.......: 09-01-2013
Doc's Request.: 09-07-2013
AOR Received.: 30-01-2013
File Transfer...: 11-02-2013
Med's Done....: 02-01-2013
Interview........: waived
Passport Req..: 12-07-2013
VISA ISSUED...: 15-08-2013
LANDED..........: 14-10-2013

« Reply #30 on: January 17, 2014, 05:03:15 pm »

I agree the 10 year rule is stupid anyway, considering that after 3 years, the sponsored spouse can qualify for Canadian citizenship. Once they become Canadians, they have as much right to apply for social assistance as everyone else.

The issue now is that these people who got duped both male and female don't want to accept personal accountability and responsibility to their actions anymore.

Poor me, I got duped. Well duh, what do you expect, a fairy story where it ends happily ever after? Now they complain to government about being duped. Not that I am saying all relationships are like this. Look at marriages in north America. 50% end up in divorce. The people who want to marry foreigners should owe up to their responsibilities in their decisions. It is no difference from those who married within Canada.

They are not complaining about being duped as much as they are complaining about being on the hook for 3 years, something they wouldn't deal with if they divorced a Canadian. They are already hurting from being dumped and they consider it an additional slap in the face when they get a bill from the government to pay back money for welfare claimed by their ex. Again, I am in the camp of "tough, you signed off on it". But people by nature often don't want to shoulder the responsibility when sh*t hits the fan, even if they agreed to it in the first place.
Logged

-Sponsored wife from US (Application filed Jan. 9th 2013, COPR received Aug 15th 2013, Landed Oct 14th 2013)
-I applied for Citizenship (Application filed April 26th 2013, Oath Ceremony Dec 6th 2013)
screech339
VIP Member
*******

Posts: 3144
Ratings: +77
Category........: FAM
Visa Office......: Vegreville
App. Filed.......: 14-08-2012
AOR Received.: 20-11-2012
Med's Done....: 18-07-2012
Interview........: 17-06-2013
LANDED..........: 17-06-2013

« Reply #31 on: January 17, 2014, 05:04:33 pm »

Actually i think it is the Cuban gentleman who is being scammed. The couple was legally married. That means he is entitled to 50% of her assests, 50% of her savings, 50% of her house, 50% of her cars. Did he get any of that? Its sounds like he didnt. In which case he is being scammed by her and is not getting what he should. I hope that Cuban gentleman gets a good divorce lawyer and goes after her for what he is entitled too under the law.

While he is entitled to her 50% of her assets come divorce, he is not entitled to it, if it is proven that he married under false pretenses, organized fraud.

It is no different from a spouse getting entitled to life insurance to his/her spouse if spouse is responsible for the death. Spouse gets no entitlement to the life insurance benefits.
Logged

2012 Canada Inland Spousal Sponsorship Timeline

Google Sheet Format: http://tinyurl.com/d8lfw7v
screech339
VIP Member
*******

Posts: 3144
Ratings: +77
Category........: FAM
Visa Office......: Vegreville
App. Filed.......: 14-08-2012
AOR Received.: 20-11-2012
Med's Done....: 18-07-2012
Interview........: 17-06-2013
LANDED..........: 17-06-2013

« Reply #32 on: January 17, 2014, 05:05:59 pm »

They are not complaining about being duped as much as they are complaining about being on the hook for 3 years, something they wouldn't deal with if they divorced a Canadian. They are already hurting from being dumped and they consider it an additional slap in the face when they get a bill from the government to pay back money for welfare claimed by their ex. Again, I am in the camp of "tough, you signed off on it". But people by nature often don't want to shoulder the responsibility when sh*t hits the fan, even if they agreed to it in the first place.

Again it goes back to personal responsibility to their actions.
Logged

2012 Canada Inland Spousal Sponsorship Timeline

Google Sheet Format: http://tinyurl.com/d8lfw7v
steerpike
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 439
Ratings: +24
Category........: FAM
App. Filed.......: 31-10-2012
LANDED..........: 03-04-2014

« Reply #33 on: January 17, 2014, 05:28:26 pm »

While he is entitled to her 50% of her assets come divorce, he is not entitled to it, if it is proven that he married under false pretenses, organized fraud.

It is no different from a spouse getting entitled to life insurance to his/her spouse if spouse is responsible for the death. Spouse gets no entitlement to the life insurance benefits.

Oh I forgot, he is also entitled to 50% of her pension, which for a professor might be quite good. I'm not sure what you mean be "married under false pretenses". Thats something CIC and CBSA care about, but its not something divorce lawyers care about. It is actually routine for Canadians to marry other Canadians solely for money and still get half the assest when they divorce. That is why many people use a prenuptial agreement.
Logged
DaveSav
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 235
Ratings: +17
Category........: FAM
Visa Office......: Manila
App. Filed.......: 19-02-2013
Doc's Request.: 8/8/2013
AOR Received.: 27-02-2013
File Transfer...: 13-03-2013
Med's Done....: 07-12-2012
Interview........: n/a
Passport Req..: 8/8/2013
VISA ISSUED...: 14-11-2013
LANDED..........: 28-11-2013

« Reply #34 on: January 17, 2014, 05:38:48 pm »

No, thats not her only crime. Her actions, and the actions of people like her, also harm my family by making it harder and harder to sponsor. I sound like a "horrible person"? My actions havent made life harder for thousands of Canadian families and tax payers. Her actions have. People need to wake up and realize these cheats are harming the honest people. They are one reason the government keeps making the process harder and harder and slower and slower and more damaging, expensive and intrusive to families.


Oh I forgot, he is also entitled to 50% of her pension, which for a professor might be quite good. I'm not sure what you mean be "married under false pretenses". Thats something CIC and CBSA care about, but its not something divorce lawyers care about. It is actually routine for Canadians to marry other Canadians solely for money and still get half the assest when they divorce. That is why many people use a prenuptial agreement.

Your anger seems to be really misplaced.  She's stupid and naive, but you seem to be giving him a pass when he's the one that's running the scam.  She's stupid but that's not a crime, it's quite naive and you'd think most people would realize that, but again not a crime.... it's his actions that are the problem.  Strange.....
Logged
steerpike
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 439
Ratings: +24
Category........: FAM
App. Filed.......: 31-10-2012
LANDED..........: 03-04-2014

« Reply #35 on: January 17, 2014, 05:54:40 pm »


Your anger seems to be really misplaced.  She's stupid and naive, but you seem to be giving him a pass when he's the one that's running the scam.  She's stupid but that's not a crime, it's quite naive and you'd think most people would realize that, but again not a crime.... it's his actions that are the problem.  Strange.....

He didnt agree to sponsor anyone. She did. That's the point.  She wanted to have sex with a young Cuban hunk, good for her, but i'm not sure why I, as a taxpayer, should be subsidizing her sexcapades. She brought him here, she should be fully responsible for him. In the future she should probably just stick to Canadian prostitues because its cheaper in the long run.
Logged
SenoritaBella
VIP Member
*******

Posts: 3092
Ratings: +111

« Reply #36 on: January 17, 2014, 07:04:28 pm »

It's good to be mindful of what we say because no one knows tomorrow. Just having a foreign spouse elicits judgement from people even if you are of the same age. This is just one of many things that come with the process in addition to wait times.

She felt it was love, perhaps without immigration it may have never come to this. She could have just stayed boyfriend/girlfriend with him. The gov't needs to bring back the fiance visa.

He didnt agree to sponsor anyone. She did. That's the point.  She wanted to have sex with a young Cuban hunk, good for her, but i'm not sure why I, as a taxpayer, should be subsidizing her sexcapades. She brought him here, she should be fully responsible for him. In the future she should probably just stick to Canadian prostitues because its cheaper in the long run.
Logged
MofC2014
Star Member
****

Posts: 171
Ratings: +9

« Reply #37 on: January 17, 2014, 09:52:08 pm »

In the end everyone should be accountable for their actions and decisions.  Love is not only blind it's expensive and people get hurt.  


Logged
on-hold
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 938
Ratings: +83

« Reply #38 on: January 17, 2014, 10:48:05 pm »

Now that is an excellent idea -- a fiance visa would remove the all-or-nothing aspect of international relationships. 
Logged
Nell1236
Star Member
****

Posts: 56
Ratings: +1
Category........: FAM
Visa Office......: Mexico City
App. Filed.......: November 30, 2012
Doc's Request.: June 3, 2013
AOR Received.: June 3, 2013

« Reply #39 on: January 18, 2014, 08:57:30 am »

It would be nice in this discussion if people put forward some alternatives, workable guidelines that might help people avoid such situations rather than continually calling the woman "stupid" - she is obviously not, she has a PhD and you probably don't. Gullible, foolish, maybe desperate, possibly a "rescue" type of person, but if you actually met her I doubt if you could call her stupid to her face without shame. If by stupid you mean vain, then I have see more men than women falling into that trap.

I saw so many old geezers in Mexico picking up young women - overweight, wrinkled old mechanics or oil rig workers with limited education who just happened to have enough cash to impress. Little do they know that in addition to adopting the family, they will certainly be cheated on whenever possible with the milkman or electrician.

We were told that CIC now considers all relationships fake until proven otherwise, which is why it's incumbent on applicants to be as thorough as possible.

By the way, divorce stats for Canada above are wrong: Sweden has a 55% divorce rate, US & Australia are 46%, Canada 40%. In polls, married Canadians consider themselves one of the happiest groups. If anyone immigrating to Canada is still lumping Canada together with the US in all aspects, it shows an ignorance that should be corrected before bothering to make the move. It's just the same as if I said Mexico is the same as Guatemala, or Pakistan is the same as Afghanistan.
Logged
QuebecOkie
Champion Member
******

Posts: 1143
Ratings: +40
Category........: FAM
Visa Office......: Vegreville
App. Filed.......: 23-10-2012
AOR Received.: 28-01-2013
Med's Done....: 10-04-2013
Passport Req..: AIP 30-08-2013
VISA ISSUED...: DM 30-08-2013
LANDED..........: 10-10-2013

« Reply #40 on: January 18, 2014, 10:48:49 am »

Totally agree -- it's basically impossible for a government agency to police marriages, people are simply too 'creative' in this area . . .  Personally, I'm against the idea of the 2-year conditional PR, it puts too much power in the hands of a potentially abusive sponsor -- I am completely comfortable with that person bearing three years of financial risk, that they base on their own judgement.

As much as I tend to be the kind of person who says, "Tough luck! You made your bed, now lie in it," I'm pretty much with on-hold on this one.  I don't see the new conditional PR rule helping a whole lot.  We've yet to see if CIC even pursues complaints to try to revoke PR when the foreign spouse ends a relationship within the first two years, and even if they do, that will be another grab at the pockets of Canadian taxpayers to finance those efforts.  On the flip side of that coin, I can see the 2-year rule forcing a newly arrived immigrant who finds his/her sponsoring spouse is abusive or controlling to stay and feel he/she has no options. 

Me, I'd just hightail it back to the U.S. if things didn't work out with my beloved.  But I still have family and friends there.  If I didn't have a place that still felt like "home," and if it was in a country with a much lower standard of living than Canada, I might feel very differently.  Also, it costs money to get from Canada to another country and to try to reestablish a life there.  My husband and I joked, when we started to seriously discuss me coming to Canada with him, what we would do in the case of things going sour.  I told him, "I don't want half your stuff.  I want a thousand dollars and a plane ticket."  It was a joke, but with a spirit of truth behind it.  I'd need help to get back to where my family lives, and a little bit of cash to rely on until I could find work.  And I'm LUCKY that there's no question I could stay with my mom or my sis until I could get back on my feet.  Some people don't have these luxuries. 

Not sure you can legislatively fix problems that come from the human heart.
Logged

VO: Vegreville
Filed: 23-10-12
AOR: 28-01-13
CSQ Req: 01-02-13
CSQ R'cvd: 27-02-13
Meds/Police: 10-04-13
AIP: 30-08-13
DM: 30-08-13
Québec ltr rcvd: 12-09-13
Replied: 13-09-13
Landed: 10-10-13
PR Card: 06-01-14
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC