> We've had to worry about work authorization in the past -- i.e. that my girlfriend might not be able to get a job after college because the approval is taking so long and that she would be forced to leave the country if she couldn't get a job within the allotted time. Right now, she can't legally drive (!!!) because her work authorization renewal, which she applied for with ample time, hasn't come through yet. In a couple months, we'll be back to worrying about job loss and deportation...
That is one legal route, but it takes time, and immigration being the reason for a hasty greencard marriage that the couple wasn't already naturally for, is never a good thing for the relationship and mental health of the couple.
It does make me wonder though why there isn't a "long-term relationship visa" for people who haven't reached marriage yet but want to be together and be eligible to work, and require some evidence that the two have been together stably for some period of time. In many cases one party is a US citizen and it would be in the best interest of the mental health of that US citizen to allow his/her partner to be together with them, and from the government perspective would thus be indirectly in the best interest of the country.
> It does make me wonder though why there isn't a "long-term relationship visa" for people who haven't reached marriage yet but want to be together and be eligible to work
What purpose would this status serve that marriage wouldn't? What is the idea behind planning to be in a permanent relationship, but not marrying?
> What is the idea behind planning to be in a permanent relationship, but not marrying?
What? This seems perfectly normal to me. At least for me any serious relationship is always with at least the vision of permanence, starting from the very beginning of when you call yourselves official -- unless it fails at some point.
Considering most such failures occur in the first couple years, as you're still getting to understand each other, it's probably a bad idea to jump the gun into marriage that early while you still don't have a full understanding of each other. But that doesn't make it any less "planning to be permanent".
I'd also say that people who meet "the one" earlier on should arguably stay unmarried for longer. If you meet at 20, I'd say wait till 25+ till you marry. A lot can change in a person between 20 and 25. If you meet at 30, you can cut that shorter a bit and that's fine because most people know what they want in life at 30.
But a 22 year old US citizen who has been in a 2 year stable relationship with an F1 student, possibly living together, with permanent intent? I'd say don't rush them into marriage, but for goodness sake, let them be happily together.
I'll have that status here in the Canadian province of Quebec later this year when my partner and I pass 1 year of living together. We'll be called common-law partners. That counts the same as marriage for many purposes, including tax and immigration rights within the Canadian system, but not for everything (e.g. no automatic inheritance and no need for divorce if we split). Many of the other legal differences can be reduced or eliminated by preparing contracts or documents like wills, but not all.
It's a great step before marriage, to provide recognition and protections for people who want a different bundle of legal consequences than marriage provides, for people who object to marriage on any number of reasons of principle, for people who want to defer the legally binding wedding until after the pandemic when their family can attend, to have less of a relationship hierarchy in polyamorous or open relationships, while waiting for just the right romantic moment to propose or to be able to obtain the right engagement ring, etc.
A lot of people either don't like marriage or don't view it as a valuable priority, even if they have a relationship. Federal government statistics from here in Quebec in 2016 show that only 34.3% of the province's population age 15 or over was married, and fully 22% of that population had a common-law partner. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/fo... (I'm not sure why they started that stat at 15, since the earliest you can get married in Canada is 16 and even that requires permission from e.g. a court or parent. Maybe it's for uniform reporting versus pre-2015 data where earlier ages were sometimes legal.)
Same is true in Alberta. You don't even have to live together in Canada, just be able to prove you lived together for 1 year somewhere.
I met my girl in Australia and between working on a farm together for a year and then a "short" visitor visa (6 months) in Canada we met that 1+ year requirement. Didn't hurt that I do IT remotely.
My understanding is that it was originally set up to allow gay couples to apply, as most countries didn't/still don't have gay marriage laws on the books. However only offering it to one group would be discriminatory, so everyone can use it, in theory. In my apartment building there is at least one other couple, a Scottish guy and Canadian girl, who did the same.
Plus, as the parent mentions, regular marriage is on the decline in N. America too.
That said, common law still carries weight in things like inheritance, and if you split they can petition for your property and money, just like in a divorce. They just have fewer/more limited rights to things, and there is a 2-year window to file after splitting, while a divorce decree can be far more encompassing and longer lasting.
Yeah, most of what I said applies to all of Canada, except for the specific statistics about Quebec which are even more shifted against marriage than the rest of Canada. Also I believe the status that was created for same-sex couples is civil unions, which at least in Quebec still exists as a separate option as well.
What you said about common law applying to inheritance and splitting doesn't actually apply to Quebec, however. No rights exist in that context here unless otherwise agreed in certain ways. Very different legal regime than the rest of Canada. (Technically common-law partners are called de facto spouses or de facto partners under some Quebec laws, though others include them under the definition of spouse despite not being married. Makes sense since Quebec doesn't use the common-law legal system with respect to relations between people, as opposed to between people and the government where it does.)
Be careful. The only automatic common-law things that the Québec government kick in are the “bad” ones (paying taxes). If you want to benefit from the full protection of a common law relationship, you have to actively register.
There's no such thing as registering a common-law relationship in Quebec, unless you mean a civil union which is legally entirely different. By common-law partner I mean (as do the federal government statistics I cited) what the Quebec government and legislation often call de facto spouse, de facto partner, or sometimes shoehorn into the definition of spouse despite not being married.
And the taxes aren't always a bad thing. In my case, my partner makes much less income than me, so starting this year we can shift medical expenses to her tax return to save with the medical expenses tax credit. We'll also qualify to share health insurance plans despite not being married.
Let me circle back and invite you to make sure you know all the limitations of being common law partners (which you seem to be). For my wife and I for example, the fear that her parents might have the final say in her health decisions if she's incapacitated meant we needed more than simply common law.
Well, as for that particular point, https://educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/incapacity-being-unable-t... makes it appear that spouses and common-law partners and parents are all equally able to submit a request to a court for protective supervision if the person in question hasn't prepared a protection mandate (formerly known as mandate in case of incapacity). And you and your wife were just as able to override that by giving protection mandates to each other before you married as you are now. Do you know otherwise?
In our case, there are strong financial reasons not to get married yet: she's a student receiving Quebec financial aid, and since we're unmarried and childless at the moment, Quebec doesn't consider my income or assets in student aid decisions (unlike how e.g. Ontario treats common-law partners). Once that changes, we may reconsider.
I and almost everyone I know studied in the US and most of my friends stay there now. In the end, being allowed in a country to study and then potentially to continue living there is a privilige. For the most part all of us were already from the priviliged parts of our country (almost no one I knew from India who went to the US was from anything less than middle class in India). This is all the more important when you consider the draconian rules India puts even on folks who used to be it's citizens, leave alone other nationals. Until the Trump administration, the US still had one of the most liberal immigration policies of any country. We don't need a girlfriend visa on top of that. The only beef I have is the constant moving of goal posts - just make the rules up and stick to them, whatever they are.
Let me also add that (a) I'm a US citizen (b) I'm dating someone who's not, and we're in a stable relationship but not ready for marriage yet (c) if my partner cannot stay in the US, I'll consider moving to her country because it's dead easy for me to get a visa and work there, and I'll be happy living either here or there long term.
If they want to keep this US citizen's talent in the US, they need to make sure their immigration policy is up to par.
> one of the most liberal immigration policies of any country
Uh, no. In a lot of countries, obtaining a work visa to live there and work there is as simple as a local company handing you an offer letter for a highly-skilled job.
It's the US that loves to intrude on employer-employee relationships. That kind of BS doesn't happen in e.g. China. If a company wants your talent, they'll find a way to get you a visa. For STEM jobs it's not even a question.
Singapore might even hand you a landed permanent residence (LPR) card if you have a PhD out of a well-known academic institution. You need to meet certain criteria within your first year there but goddamn the immigration policy is much more sensible for the future of the country.
In China, you only qualify for one year (and I think now 3 year for special cases) working visas and you have a really hard chance of obtaining permanent residency. Almost all foreigners are temporary residents. So while you can come and work...you aren’t supposed to immigrate.
Plus you are subject to political whimsy if your country of origin does something the CPC doesn’t like (even if you are Canadian).
H1B only needs to be obtained once and almost always terminates in a greencard. A Chinese Z visa...you need to go through the motion every year, and if your employer decides they no longer want you, you have 30 days to leave the country or find a new job that will miraculously be able to renew your visa quickly.
The government isn’t going to say no, but alibaba doesn’t play nice like an American company with a Chinese branch office (MS China, for example).
> H1B only needs to be obtained once and almost always terminates in a greencard.
Citation needed. I bet most H1b visas terminate in the applicants leaving the country. Like mine.
Many H1b applicants are from countries where it's harder to impossible to get green cards in a reasonable amount of time. If you make the mistake of coming from a big country like India or China, you can we but forget about it. It's easier if you come from, say, New Zealand or Switzerland.
The US immigration system needed work before. It is a total catastrophe now, if you are someone interested in working in the US.
What if she were your wife?