Changes to Immigration Regs affecting spousal/cl/cp applications expected soon.

[buddhadimple]

I would just like to say that I actually agree with waitingintz 100%.

I believe there ARE too many people who get married because they think that'll get them into the same country. It's a bit of a gamble when you marry someone so that you can live together and then find out that you're not right for each other. If there is a way to live together without getting married, I would always suggest that option (i.e. one year working holiday, ancestry visa, volunteering visa, whatever it is that is available in that country) before considering getting married.

As much as I love my other half, I would not marry him - not yet anyway. We have been together for over 2 years and lived together for most of that, and we get along well and we love each other. But by principle, I just wouldn't marry someone unless I've been with them and lived with them for at least 5 years, and maybe even after having children and finding that we can still cope well and support each other after that. Marriage, to me, is the final step (not the first step) in a relationship.

Unless it's impossible for two people to live together and apply under Common-Law or Conjugal, I too get a bit suspicious when I see, "Met December 2008. Married March 2009. Applied for Visa April 2009." To me, you have known a person for 3-4 months before applying to Sponsor them, a huge undertaking and something that could cause you three years of trouble if you're wrong (10 with children, plus the potential effects it has on children). This isn't directed at anyone, and I understand both religious and cultural practices mean that it's not always cut-and-dry with Immigration, and I sure know that a lot of people don't appreciate or want a cookie-cutter definition of a "genuine relationship" or one that is not formed for "convenience". I'm just basically saying that what waitingintz said is a 100% completely valid statement.

 

[buddhadimple]

Are you suggesting that it should be a Canadian law that people should have to date for one year before marriage? Because you cant just select the legalities of marriage - a legal contract with serious implications and commitments involved. Common law now has equal rights/commitments/implications.

Canadian Law ALREADY states that you are not Common-Law until you have lived together (not 'been' together) for 12 consecutive months. In British Columbia, for all provincial purposes, it is 24 consecutive months. So if Marriage and Common-Law are just as legitimate as the other, then the government already says it's the law to live together for at least a year before declaring Common Law Marriage.

And even as a Same Sex couple, you can live as Common-Law before/without getting married in many cases.

 

[buddhadimple]

I know this is not the topic of the thread...but any advice on what I should do in this situation I mentioned above? Having knowledge that someone is simply in the relationship for a visa but they are already in the states...what can be done?...should I do anything? This poor woman has 4 kids from her previous relationship and I guess loves this guy...who am I to tear that apart? At the same time he is going to leave for Canada eventually and his words to me were "it is up to her if she comes with me or not." This person obviously has no issue with doing whatever it takes to get what he wants and does not care about the consequences to anyone else. He is simply a scammer and is one of the reasons people with genuine relationships are having such a hard time now.

Who are you to tear that apart? Someone who would rather be a friend and gently let her tear it apart and save her kids than have a User tear her AND her children apart later.

You should tell her what he said to you, and you should do it in front of him so that he doesn't have time to come up with a story and it will be easier for her to spot his lies. If she's in love with him (or rather, the idea of him), it'll be hard to convince her. She won't want to believe you. I would remind her of her kids. Maybe the responsibility of protecting her kids will help her gain strength to see through him.


Internet relationships are a toughie. I believe they exist and can be really healthy, especially for people who might have trouble finding someone in their own community, or who don't have time, or who have just left a long-term relationship and don't know where to start, or for whatever reason. The tough part is that you can literally be ANYONE online. I know you hear that every day, but even I'm a lot better at typing my thoughts than vocalising them. I can be awkward in "real life" as I try and come up with the best way of saying something. I was just saying to my co-workers the other day that I admire people with wit. Those who come up with a funny, witty statement only half-a-second after an event. Anyone can have this charm online though. You can receive an e-mail and reply two days later, with an apparently off-the-whim comedic remark. The point is that so much care should be put into these sorts of relationships, and if possible, voice and video should be used at all times. There should be (if possible) several visits in each other's countries and meeting of family and friends. I really believe you have to put in so much more effort in these sorts of relationships to make sure for yourself that it's genuine.

 

[sbwv09]

Not everyone thinks that it is morally right to live with someone before they are married. Why does that make a person suspicous? I believe you can learn about a person without sharing living quarters or even sharing a country. I knew more about my then boyfriend of 6 years than most of my friends knew about their live in 'baby daddy'... but oh no, in the eyes of some people here, I am a suspicious person because we got married and then put the ball in motion to live together.

If he were American or I was Canadian, I wouldn't have lived with him until the day of our wedding. Marriage is much more than a 'piece of paper' to me and to many people in the world.

I don't judge you for wanting to be a live in before marriage. Most of Western society seems to agree with you.. but just because I live by different beliefs doesn't make our relationship fradulant. Maybe you should judge people based on more than their timelines.

 

[bonbon9]

Not everyone thinks that it is morally right to live with someone before they are married. Why does that make a person suspicous? I believe you can learn about a person without sharing living quarters or even sharing a country. I knew more about my then boyfriend of 6 years than most of my friends knew about their live in 'baby daddy'....

Hi sbwv09!

I agree with this, you can learn a lot from a person and can actually say you know them even in a long distance relationship, because true long distance relationship take a LOT of commitment and when you're in love and away from each other the relationship is based 100000% on communication, which is something that is very often forgotten in "real" couples (couples that live together).

But that's not really the point, if there is love between two persons it doesn't matter if they're living together or not, or the reason why they are or they're not living together, it matters how long they have known each other for. As I said in my earlier post, I do understand that people can fall in love at first sight and get married a month after, but this makes it a little hard to believe that you are trusting them enough after a single month of dating to sign the Sponsorship Agreement. I mean.. one month ago, they were STRANGERS!
Hope nobody gets offended by this, it is not my intention.
I just believe that nowadays you can't trust people that easily or in that short period of time. Society nowadays is crowded with scammers and people that you can't trust, or that are looking only to harm innocent people or reach their own interests, no matter at what cost. I think something healthy in a relationship, before taking the big step, is at least knowing each other. Marriage and life commitment is something that you are not supposed to experiment with.

 

[BeShoo]

Not everyone thinks that it is morally right to live with someone before they are married. Why does that make a person suspicous?

Beside that, numerous studies show that living together before marriage actually increases the risk of a short marriage ending in divorce. And the longer the co-habitation, the worse it is for the marriage. Here are a few interesting web pages:

http://marriage.about.com/od/cohabitation/qt/cohabfacts.htm
http://www.suite101.com/content/living-together-before-marriage-a139472
http://www.smartmarriages.com/cohabit.html

Now actually making a 3-year commitment through a sponsorship agreement may actually alter those stats. I'd have to think about how that might affect the likelihood of later divorce.

In any case requiring cohabitation might be a bad thing and would never be a morally acceptable requirement. I do think, however, that no matter how well you know your partner from Internet communication, you definitely need "face time" together "IRL" (in real life) as they say. Spending time together does not necessitate living together, but you do need that time, no matter how much communication has occurred. (I speak from experience, having over 4,000 pages of IM chats, plus countless hours of phone calls.)

 

[CharlieD10]

I met my Canadian husband online in March 2009. We got engaged in Dec 2009, even though we didn't meet IRL (lol) until May 2010. We got married in June, and when I was denied a TRV to visit him in August, we decided to apply for PR. Does the "shortness" of this timeline invalidate our relationship and marriage? We think not. When it comes to human relationships, no-one can use their own timeline to judge another, every relationship has to stand or fall on its own merits. I am currently comforting a friend over the failure of her 15 year relationship and 9 year marriage with the same man. They lived together for 3 years and had a child before they got married. It didn't make them any stronger or any more willing to go the distance.

I would not have lived with my husband for years on years without getting married, I don't believe in it. People are not cars, you don't get to try them out and return them if you don't like how things work, nor do you get to take one home then trade it in a few years down the road for a newer model, you have to be prepared to make a commitment or know when to walk away before you get so entangled it takes a lawyer to sort it out, even if you're not married!

The whole commitment of the sponsorship agreement is an additional element to the one people in a committed relationship must be prepared to undertake. On the one hand, I think they are trying to weed out those people looking to use others for a quick step-up in life, but on the other hand it makes it that much harder for those of us who were just minding our own business when love came along from the last place you expected (the internet, for heaven's sake!) and who now have to prove that we are serious about being together and that immigration to Canada by one partner has become part and parcel of that decision.

The good, suffering for the bad...that's life for you.

 

[Lois Lane]

The law previously was that you had to prove both it wasnt long ago that it was changed to having to only prove one prong
I think once someone has proved the relationship is genuine almost by default the main purpose to come to canada becomes to be with the one u love and so the coming to canada takes a back seat so to speak

 

[MD2B]

Canadian Law ALREADY states that you are not Common-Law until you have lived together (not 'been' together) for 12 consecutive months. In British Columbia, for all provincial purposes, it is 24 consecutive months. So if Marriage and Common-Law are just as legitimate as the other, then the government already says it's the law to live together for at least a year before declaring Common Law Marriage.

And even as a Same Sex couple, you can live as Common-Law before/without getting married in many cases.

I realize that. What I was trying to express was, that we have two entities that are equal weight for immigration and both valid. 1. common law 2. marriage. They are different beings in and of themselves.
I was just saying that to ask married people to wait a year before reaping benefits of their union (before or after marriage), would be a bit silly. It would be asking people to 1st establish common law and then get married. I suppose it would reduce number of spousal apps and increase the number of common law ones.

Same sex common law is not legal in most countries of the world. nor is conjugal. For purposes of immigration in CANADA this is valid, but this would mandate the sponsor living for a year in the applicants country - which would then pose issues for 1. PRV holders and 2. people who then have to prove their intent to return.

I personally think that immigration needs to have a fixed list of criteria (not just for the sponsor) but for the application as a whole. That would save people from sending in a 300 page application that wastes time and efficiency. Everyone seems to up-do everyone else simply because noone is sure when "enough is enough". Simply submitting whats asked with the confidence of knowing that if you truly `submit what is asked` then you will be fine. If you want to have `documented courtship longer than a year` then how do you weight common law vs. someone who meets married AND common law definitions. Do the latter get more weight?

 

[Black-Berry]

ok what about if you have been married for over seven years and have young children (3) and lived together for almost ten years. Do you think regardless of hgow long you have been together and how many kids there are you still have to provide all this information??

 

[buddhadimple]

Not everyone thinks that it is morally right to live with someone before they are married. Why does that make a person suspicous?

I never said everyone thinks that is is morally right to live with someone before they are married. I said in my own personal opinino, I would live someone before I married him. Considering the actual context of my comment, the reason I see that kind of situation as suspicious is because it is so far from what I would normally consider 'normal'. I never said anyone was wrong for doing anything, I was backing someone up for making a valid statement which didn't deserve to be attacked, as it was based on her own cultural experiences, just like my opinion is, and just like yours is.

I believe you can learn about a person without sharing living quarters or even sharing a country. I knew more about my then boyfriend of 6 years than most of my friends knew about their live in 'baby daddy'... but oh no, in the eyes of some people here, I am a suspicious person because we got married and then put the ball in motion to live together.

Yes, you probably will know more about someone you talk to online or by long distance than someone who had a one-night stand with "their baby's daddy" as featured on the Maury show. But we're not talking about people with a one-night stand as featured on the Maury show. We're talking about people who have lived together for the same amount of time (in your case, 6 years), who also happen to have a healthy relationship with lots of effective communication. I'm sorry but that was just not a fair comparison.

And no, nobody ever said you are a suspicious person because you got married and then put the ball in motion to live together. You're taking a very loose and generalised statement and personalising it to your situation, and then getting angry about it.

If he were American or I was Canadian, I wouldn't have lived with him until the day of our wedding. Marriage is much more than a 'piece of paper' to me and to many people in the world.

Who ever said that marriage was just a piece of paper? If you live together for years, have children, get your careers on track, and then decide to top it off with the commitment of marriage as well as a formal ceremony in front of your friends and family to declare success in your relationship and continuing commitment to it, how is that just a piece of paper? Again, no one said that.

I don't judge you for wanting to be a live in before marriage. Most of Western society seems to agree with you.. but just because I live by different beliefs doesn't make our relationship fradulant. Maybe you should judge people based on more than their timelines.

Really? You don't?

Judging me for wanting to live together before marriage:

I knew more about my then boyfriend of 6 years than most of my friends knew about their live in 'baby daddy'

(Summing up other relationships as one-night stands with losers and or possible criminals who the mothers don't even know personally because they didn't get married...)

Marriage is much more than a 'piece of paper' to me and to many people in the world.

(Saying that your perspective is that I only view Marriage as a piece of paper because I wish to live with someone first?)

Maybe you should judge people based on more than their timelines.

(Saying that I judge people based on their timelines - which I don't, I have a certain perspective, which leads to have suspicions about the SITUATION of a timeline [a perfectly natural thing when you're reading something that does not conform to your personal culture and experiences], not the people themselves).

Beside that, numerous studies show that living together before marriage actually increases the risk of a short marriage ending in divorce. And the longer the co-habitation, the worse it is for the marriage. Here are a few interesting web pages:

http://marriage.about.com/od/cohabitation/qt/cohabfacts.htm
http://www.suite101.com/content/living-together-before-marriage-a139472
http://www.smartmarriages.com/cohabit.html

Now actually making a 3-year commitment through a sponsorship agreement may actually alter those stats. I'd have to think about how that might affect the likelihood of later divorce.

In any case requiring cohabitation might be a bad thing and would never be a morally acceptable requirement. I do think, however, that no matter how well you know your partner from Internet communication, you definitely need "face time" together "IRL" (in real life) as they say. Spending time together does not necessitate living together, but you do need that time, no matter how much communication has occurred. (I speak from experience, having over 4,000 pages of IM chats, plus countless hours of phone calls.)

In terms of the studies of marriage, I always take these with a grain of salt. I used to work as a Research Assistant for a National Study in Canada that was a long-term study (doing baseline questionnaires, as well as follow-ups every 6 months). Studies tend to look at simple conclusions (i.e. relationship length v. marriage success). There are more psychological factors though. For example, what about a couple who have been together for 20 years before one finds out that the other has had an affair? Perhaps they get married to try and solidify their relationship and start again, but the affairs continue so they divorce. Or what if they are trying for 10 years to conceive and can't? Do they get married to try and help themselves gain strength in their relationship? Does it fail because they're just too stressed and lost interest? There are so many reasons marriages can fail after living together for years. What I said earlier was that I would get married after everything was going well (not as a tool to try and make things better). So it really depends on the situation, I think.

And I totally agree with you about the communication - and that goes for whether it's online, or "IRL".

I met my Canadian husband online in March 2009. We got engaged in Dec 2009, even though we didn't meet IRL (lol) until May 2010. We got married in June, and when I was denied a TRV to visit him in August, we decided to apply for PR. Does the "shortness" of this timeline invalidate our relationship and marriage? We think not.

Obviously I'm not the best person to ask, since this is not an area where I have a lot of experience OR influence. But on first impression of your situation, it wouldn't just be the shortness of your timeline that would incline me to feel the situation is different (not "invalid" as you put it) - it would be the engagement before meeting in person.

When it comes to human relationships, no-one can use their own timeline to judge another, every relationship has to stand or fall on its own merits.

Yes, I'm glad we agree.

I am currently comforting a friend over the failure of her 15 year relationship and 9 year marriage with the same man. They lived together for 3 years and had a child before they got married. It didn't make them any stronger or any more willing to go the distance.

Nor would it. As I said up there somewhere ^^^, I wouldn't advocate marriage as a tool to "fix" a relationship, nor would I for having children. I don't know your friend (obviously), but I would hazard a guess that in most circumstances like the one you describe, it usually isn't smooth sailing all the way through a 15 year relationship, 9 year marriage, child birth, marriage and then just fails unless something significant happens that breaks the relationship - or there has been an ongoing problem(s).

I would not have lived with my husband for years on years without getting married, I don't believe in it. People are not cars, you don't get to try them out and return them if you don't like how things work, nor do you get to take one home then trade it in a few years down the road for a newer model, you have to be prepared to make a commitment or know when to walk away before you get so entangled it takes a lawyer to sort it out, even if you're not married!

Why should anyone have to commit to a relationship before they live together, or before they "test each other out"? I would think most people would respect the right to make an informed decision. Also, you do get to test drive a relationship. That's Dating. You go out on a few occasions, and if you don't like the person, you don't see them "in that way" any more. And also, if you do get into a relationship that goes on for years, why can't you trade in for a "newer model" (as you put it) if the relationship (or "car" as you likened it to) keeps breaking down? If a woman is being abused by her husband, or if a husband's wife is having an affair, and it's obvious the relationship is unrepairable (or even if the two just don't WANT to repair it), why can they not part and go their separate ways? Isn't that their right? Surely they shouldn't be made to feel guilty about it. Of course you have to be "prepared to make a commitment or know when to walk away before it takes a lawyer to sort out", but it's not a perfect world. In my own parents' case, they were married, moved in together, popped my brother and I out, and then my dad was in a Car Accident and hit his head. I won't get into details, but the divorce was inevitable. Were we any less off just because a "lawyer got involved"? No. In fact we're a much happier family. My parents have moved on from each other, but we all still get together for Christmas and Thanksgiving dinner, as well as little dinner parties here and there. The world did not come to an end, and both my parents went back to University and got their respective professional degrees and worked on bettering themselves while providing us a better future as children.

The whole commitment of the sponsorship agreement is an additional element to the one people in a committed relationship must be prepared to undertake. On the one hand, I think they are trying to weed out those people looking to use others for a quick step-up in life, but on the other hand it makes it that much harder for those of us who were just minding our own business when love came along from the last place you expected (the internet, for heaven's sake!) and who now have to prove that we are serious about being together and that immigration to Canada by one partner has become part and parcel of that decision.

The good, suffering for the bad...that's life for you.

I understand how tough that must be for you. Especially given your personal situation. Surely you would understand why it is so tough though. Imagine you go through all this trouble presenting evidence that your relationship is true and genuine, possibly go through an interview, and maybe even an appeal until you finally get PR, and then they change the law so you don't need to - and as a consequence all these "fake" relationships are being approved. Sure, it would have been nice if they were more lenient on unusual circumstances, but there are no limits to the number of people who would abuse it. Unfortunately for you, your situation is one where they are probably going to scrutinise. But you must respect that because - could you imagine the sheer number of people that are in your "situation" (except a fake relationship) and try and do the application process? I wish you luck and perhaps you will show them that there ARE relationships like your that are 100% true and committed, and perhaps in the future they will create a system that better fits different relationships scenarios. Here's hoping.

 

[sbwv09]

Some people are extremely self centered to think that my entire post was directed towards them or was about them. Several people on here have made similar comments, such as marriage being nothing more than a piece of paper, etc. If it doesn't apply to you, it is obviously not directed towards you.

But you and several others did say that it is suspicious for people to apply for PR without waiting a long time after marriage. THAT is an overgeneralization and is wrong. Not everyone believes that wedding is 'icing on the cake' of a long live in relationship. Most of the world believes it is the beginning of a life together.

Keep in mind that a 'common law marriage' doesn't even exist where I am from.

 

[chantol]

I like this thread

 

[HoneyBird]

very interesting discussion.
my husband once suggested that we live together before getting married.
however, whilst i did not fully agree i did see some merit in his request.
being that we were having an online relationship and to really get to know each other, i would have to move up and then we can begin dating like 'normal' people.
however when i thought about it, it would be the same like marriage. i would have to leave everything etc so to me marriage and common law is just about the same thing. what matters is people's perception of it. some people take it just as serious as marriage and some people dont. some people don't feel that they are in a committed relationship until they are married some people don't care. marriage paper brings alot of pressure...where the person is heavily influenced by family.
living together was not an option for us as my parents would have killed me.well you know what i mean.
so to each his own.
btw my parents had an arranged marriage and are together 35 years now...SO you really cant judge other people. it all depends on the people involved and their perceptions and if theywant to make it work.

 

[sbwv09]

My personal belief is that if you love someone that much, you should commit and marry them. If you can't handle the arguments about who does the dishes and the laundry, then you aren't ready to be adult, much less a spouse. If you are willing to immigrate to be with someone, it should be someone you love enough to marry, right?

We waited a long time to get married, but that was only so I could finish university and grad school. If he lived closer, we would have probably married much sooner... probably soon enough to make certain people suspicious of me (but we wouldn't have to deal with immigration then ).

I realize many people feel differently, and that's fine. My own in laws are unmarried. However, if you come in here and dismiss my beliefs as illegitimate and unacceptable and something that CIC should regard with skepticism, the gloves come off.