Marriage Fraud is not allowed under Canada's immigration law!

[Ontario Loyalist]

And please, if you could find a link for this "literature" and "programming" I would be interested in reading it.

You know what I'm talking about...

[Drea]

The guy said "women are evil"

Therefore he is either:

1. Homosexual

2. Loves vaginas, hates the skin around them. In that case, they've got these new blow up dolls that look incredibly real... LOL

Was just kiddin' anyway...

[Drea]

You know what I'm talking about...

No, I don't. Please provide a link that proves that there is widespread "literature" on how to scam a man.

and again... Caveat Emptor.

My man was with woman years before he met me... she took all his money -- it took him years to feel financially safe with me and that I wasn't squirrelling away money and assets for my getaway.

I suck with money -- can't save a darn nickle! Thank goodness all I have to do is go out and earn it -- hubby manages the money in my family. LOL

[Ontario Loyalist]

No, I don't. Please provide a link that proves that there is widespread "literature" on how to scam a man.

and again... Caveat Emptor.

My man was with woman years before he met me... she took all his money -- it took him years to feel financially safe with me and that I wasn't squirrelling away money and assets for my getaway.

I suck with money -- can't save a darn nickle! Thank goodness all I have to do is go out and earn it -- hubby manages the money in my family. LOL

I'm not talking about literature "on how to scam men" rather literature, programming that normalizes female social aggression etc. that leads girls to believe that lying, manipulating, cheating, and gold digging is perfectly normal.

[Ontario Loyalist]

The guy said "women are evil"

Therefore he is either:

1. Homosexual

2. Loves vaginas, hates the skin around them. In that case, they've got these new blow up dolls that look incredibly real... LOL

Was just kiddin' anyway...

Doesn't matter.

[Canada Marriage Fraud CPO]

I am not a lawyer so I do not know all the loopholes in the law.

How would you go about fixing this? Would the partners in marriage be forced to stay with one another for a specified period of time? Or perhaps we should not allow husbands/wives/children of immigrants to come here at all. Would that be fair in your opinion?

So my friend in Iran.. her uncle is coming to Canada.. should he be forced leave his wife and child behind because there is a chance they may divorce in the future? Why should tons of families suffer because one person wanted out of a relationship?

There still can be sponsorship agreement, but without a title of "Spousal Sponsorship." When in Canada you can leave from the airport you are landing, Canada should not force the "spousal sponsor" to support someone who is not his/her spouse. If Canada would tell me that I have sponsored an "adult" (doesn't matter brother, sister, spouse or friend), then that would have been fine, but Canada told me to bring my "wife," my "spouse" and that I am a "spousal" sponsor. Canada should change the "spousal sponsorship" to "general sponsorship" or "adult sponsorship." Or rathar than any sponsorship, have the adult spouse or adult relative apply for immigration themselves rather that sponsorship. Can someone tell me how I can bring this issue to the government?

READ THE FINE PRINT! When you lease a vehicle you read the fine print. When you purchase a house you read the fine print. Ignorance is not an excuse.

I mentioned "INVISIBLE." But I know now how to read it, as one of you said before through experience (i.e. through victimization).

How long is this "conditional establishment" in the countries that you mentioned?

They have conditional establishment of 1 and 2 years; that's how long a true marriage should usually last.

Does this still apply if the relationship is volatile -- if one of the spouses fears for their life or wellbeing? In Canada, we have a thing called Human Rights. It is available to all humans, citizens or not. In Canada a person has the right to leave a marriage regardless of circumstances, regardless of whether they were born here or just arrived.

That's how you go about fixing it. If there is a violation, then Canada can interview the sponsored person and if he/she says the truth accept him/her for compationate reasons.

[Canada Marriage Fraud CPO]

do you hate women but love their vaginas? (That'd suck eh?!)

Buy the way...sponsoring her doe's not make her your property. She is free to come and go as she pleases.

Yes both of you are right, married women are not their spouse properties, they are everyone's properties, everyone should benefit from their fresh v... until it is overused; then wemon realize that it is time to forget about their "fantcy wemon's right" and stick to their family and by then no one is going to look at their commonplace so now they have to walk their dogs and enjoy their dog's royalty.

That's how "western women's rights" and "western freedom and democracy" value women.

Edited August 31, 2008 by Canada Marriage Fraud CPO

[Peter F]

Yes both of you are right, married women are not their spouse properties, they are everyone's properties, everyone should benefit from their fresh v... until it is overused; then wemon realize that it is time to forget about their "fantcy wemon's right" and stick to their family and by then no one is going to look at their commonplace so now they have to walk their dogs and enjoy their dog's royalty.

That's how "western women's rights" and "western freedom and democracy" value women.

Your wife left you. I think it is fair to assume that she has no interest in living with you. You have not disputed this.

You entered into a sponsorship agreement with the government of Canada. The small print of wich says, in not so small print:

Anyone who wants to sponsor their spouse or partner to immigrate to Canada makes a serious legal commitment. As part of this commitment, sponsors must support their spouse or partner for three years, even if the relationship fails. If the couple breaks up and the sponsored person gets social assistance, the sponsor must pay back the amount of social assistance the former spouse received. Given the legal obligations, sponsorship should not be taken lightly, and everyone is responsible for ensuring that their marriage is genuine.

The facts - from your link in the original post

It's pretty clear to me that you failed to ensure that your marriage was genuine. So you agreed to the sponsorship deal and now are trying to weasel out of the sponsorship deal.

I am rapidly running out of sympathy for your plight.

Your concern for her - the woman you apparently love - extends as far as your wallet. I am not surprised at all that her concern for you was of the same approximate extent.

[MontyBurns]

In Canada, we value her being in this country more than we value you.. a fellow Canadian who has contributed this country all of his life.

A foreigner who scammed her way into Canada gets the royal treatment and a Canadian citizen gets screwed. If our country's immigration system was worth a damn this bitch would be deported. Usually a country looks out for it's own citizens. In this case we can see that a foreigner is more important.

[CANADIEN]

A foreigner who scammed her way into Canada gets the royal treatment and a Canadian citizen gets screwed. If our country's immigration system was worth a damn this bitch would be deported. Usually a country looks out for it's own citizens. In this case we can see that a foreigner is more important.

Less we forget... a man who is clearly a misogynist says he was scammed, and we are to believe him no question asked. Is it because he hates women, because he's a man, or because is Canadian-born?

Far from me to say that the woman in question wasn't a scam artist, as I don't have all the facts. Suffice to say that if I were a woman I'd stay far away from him.

Edited September 1, 2008 by CANADIEN

[Drea]

I'm not talking about literature "on how to scam men" rather literature, programming that normalizes female social aggression etc. that leads girls to believe that lying, manipulating, cheating, and gold digging is perfectly normal.

Do you have a link to any literature of this regard?

Be real.

Feminists believe that men and women should share life's burdens equally.

Those of you who think that feminists encourage women to "gold dig" are sadly misguided!

It's the traditional female role that is manipulative. A traditional woman must manipulate a man into taking care of her -- she is a dependent.

A feminist is not a dependent, she is a life partner who willingly shares in her family's financial and emotional health. Most men understand that the financial and emotional health of the family is a job for two people to share, not a job for one or the other. A feminist does not need to be married, she chooses to be married.

Now come along and tell me how a woman who contributes financially and emotionally to her family is a "gold digger", a "cheater", or a "liar".

[Drea]

Yes both of you are right, married women are not their spouse properties, they are everyone's properties, everyone should benefit from their fresh v... until it is overused;

You really do believe that woman are not autonomous human beings! I have never met anyone so blatant in saying women are "property" -- holy Shit with capital S!

then wemon realize that it is time to forget about their "fantcy wemon's right" and stick to their family and by then no one is going to look at their commonplace so now they have to walk their dogs and enjoy their dog's royalty.

That's how "western women's rights" and "western freedom and democracy" value women.

My value as a woman is whatever the hell I deem it to be. That is MY choice. I choose MY life in this country. Some asshat like you has no say.

Someday you will run into a strong feminist woman and may have to operate in a professional manner towards her (she may be your banker, your lawyer, your judge or your doctor) -- how the hell will you cope with that?

Wherever you come from -- go home! Men like you do not belong here -- go back to your country where you can purchase women like going to the store to pick up a vaccuum cleaner. Look on the rack, see one you like and take it home and it will suck and suck for you

[MontyBurns]

A feminist is not a dependent, she is a life partner who willingly shares in her family's financial and emotional health.

Ha Ha. Funny.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

I would suspect that this agreement to sponsor your spouse for 3 years does more good for Canadians than bad.

Without it there could be potential for a lot more abuse... such as strip club owners marrying russians or phillipinos, for example...

With most people if they know they are responsible for the financial support of the person they sponsor for 3 years, hopefully they will make their decision wisely.

Many years ago, when I was young and naive, I lived in Indonesia. During my 3.5 years there I (thought) I fell in love and nearly married an Indonesian woman. I held off doing so because of these very same immigration laws - I needed to make absolute sure this woman was the right woman because I think the sponsorship rules back then stated 10 years of support. The end of the story is that after 2 or so years together this woman likely got tired of waiting for me to make a decision and left me for an Australian...

At the end of the day this sponsorship requirement saved me from making a very big mistake both to myself and for other Canadians. Too bad about the Australians got handed the problem...

After that situation (and there is a lot more than the condensed version I have given) I was woken up. I told myself that if I marry it will be in the country I intend to live. If in Canada it will be to a Canadian or to an immigrant who has come here on her own and doesn't need my help.

As sad as it is to write, the reality is that marriage these days can potentially be the most financially devastating decision you can make - as it has the potential to not just take what you have but also what you will have. Don't make that decision lightly.

[Drea]

Ha Ha. Funny.

Do you disagree Monty?

Do you really think working women are "gold diggers"?

Then why the sweet hell do they WORK?

Why do they have careers? So they can "gold dig" LATER in life perhaps? After they retire, they gonna go get a young stud and he'll pay for all her manicures and trips to the spa?

I pay for my own trips to the spa. LOL You are too funny! Laughing that feminism somehow has created gold diggers. On the contrary -- if I was not able to work for a living I would have to been a lying, cheating, golddigger just to survive!

It's men like you who WANT gold diggers. (thankfully men like you are rare -- almost extinct.) You are not interested in the female as a human, just a hole to poke and a pair of hands to bring you food.

The ones that work you call "gold diggers" -- how ridiculous is that!? Like telling your son he's a loser after he gets into University because you wanted him to shovel shit for a living.

Sorry to rant, but the stupidity simply astounds me.

[Drea]

As sad as it is to write, the reality is that marriage these days can potentially be the most financially devastating decision you can make - as it has the potential to not just take what you have but also what you will have. Don't make that decision lightly.

You are so right Chuck.

The best way to protect yourself from being financially devastated in divorce is to marry a woman who makes the same amount of coin as you do.

That is the best protection yet. Marrying a stay-at-home wife may seem like a dream (she takes care of all household stuff and the children and you just work your eight hours) but it can very quickly turn into a nightmare.

And I don't blame the stay-at-home spouse... after the divorce she NEEDS the assets as she cannot earn her own. THAT, boys, is the risk you take if you marry a traditional woman (even if the divorce is your idea, you are on the hook. If it is her idea, you are on the hook).

A judge will look at the current financial capabilites of both parties and divide assets according to need.

[MontyBurns]

(thankfully men like you are rare -- almost extinct.)

You really think that men have changed?

What would you rather, a girly man who believes in "equality" and acts like a neutered cat or a real man (like myself) who does not listen to any of that feminist garbage?

I like the good old fashioned women myself. Nice doormats to walk over.

Edited September 1, 2008 by MontyBurns

[Drea]

You really think that men have changed?

I like the good old fashioned women myself. Nice doormats to walk over.

Then why are you so upset? You WANT a woman to want you for your money so what is the problem?

WTF kind of backass reasoning leads you to believe that a career woman "lies", "cheats" or "gold digs"?

She works and earns her own way.

That really gets your goat doesn't it? LOL

Monty says: "I hate gold diggers, but no wife of mine is ever gonna work for a living I tell you!" "I can support you honey you don't need to go to college, just get pregnant right away - don't worry, you'll get a weekly grocery allowance and I pay more than your father paid you!"

Edited to respond to your edit... then be a MAN! Suck it up financially -- if you have to pay alimony tough luck. Give her the entire house, suck it up you're a manly man! Your pension gone? Suck it up you're a manly man!

It's not about being "manly" or being "neutered"... it's about sharing equally in the relationship. What part of "share equally" do you not understand?

Edited September 1, 2008 by Drea

[MontyBurns]

Then why are you so upset? You WANT a woman to want you for your money so what is the problem?

WTF kind of backass reasoning leads you to believe that a career woman "lies", "cheats" or "gold digs"?

She works and earns her own way.

That really gets your goat doesn't it? LOL

Monty says: "I hate gold diggers, but no wife of mine is ever gonna work for a living I tell you!" "I can support you honey you don't need to go to college, just get pregnant right away - don't worry, you'll get a weekly grocery allowance and I pay more than your father paid you!"

I want a good old fashioned woman. Just like back in the good old days.

[CANADIEN]

I want a good old fashioned woman. Just like back in the good old days.

Except that when you were young they were not called women - they were called female pterodactyls.

[MontyBurns]

Except that when you were young they were not called women - they were called female pterodactyls.

Women are women. Men are men. Nothing has changed no matter how much social "progress" we claim to have made.

[Drea]

I want a good old fashioned woman. Just like back in the good old days.

Then quitcher bitchin and suck it up! Be a man already!

You must be thrilled with the way today's custody laws "prefer" the mother.

You, being a manly man, are incompetent in raising children, you should not get custody of them, ever.

You also, being a manly man, are probably volatile, so you get supervised visits with your children.

[CANADIEN]

Women are women. Men are men. Nothing has changed no matter how much social "progress" we claim to have made.

You haven't progressed from the days dinosaurs were roaming the Earth.

[MontyBurns]

You, being a manly man, are incompetent in raising children ...

The kids nowadays need some manly men to show them the way. They are all turning into queers, feminists and metrosexuals without it.

Edited September 1, 2008 by MontyBurns

[MontyBurns]

You haven't progressed from the days dinosaurs were roaming the Earth.

Neither have you. You can make all the "progress" you want but men are men, women are women.