Immigration has certainly become a hot-button issue in the last few years. Most of the rhetoric has been focused on illegal immigration occurring at our southern border, and deservedly so. The truth of the matter is, that much of the immigration process needs reform. But rather focusing on the construction sites, fields, universities, science labs, or tech companies where immigration is typically discussed, we need to focus on better defending the home front. It’s seriously time to overhaul the horribly broken K-1 Spouse visa.
So let me address a linguistic concern here. I’m going to be referring to this dynamic through the lens of a heterosexual relationship in which the man is an American and the woman is the foreigner. Yes, I’m aware that other relationship dynamics exist, but for the sake of getting my point across, I’ll stick to the most recognizable one. To be very clear; I do not view women as objects to be bought. With that said, the average American man who participates in this program clearly does view women this way. As a consequence, I’ll be referring to marriage as a transaction; I do this so I can reach people where they currently are. While I feel that marriage is an institution (and one that I’d like for myself one day), again it’s obvious that the typical American man who pursues foreign wives views himself as a buyer rather than an equal partner. Hence, my word choice will reflect these realities; it’s a better strategy than living in denial, sharpened pitchforks be damned…
Suffice it to say that the current state is sub-par. Both spouse-applicants are subject to interviews at multiple points in the process. Failing any of these interviews de-rails the process entirely. Another requirement is that the two participants must have met in person before starting the import process. After 2 years (which is far lower than the median marriage), the foreigner can divorce the American and stay in the United States.
The American buyer is often left incurring a lengthy and burdensome financial commitment to an ex-wife that has just maliciously weaponized the system against him. After the spurned American puts the pieces of his financial and romantic life back together, he is welcome to try this process again only after a mandatory two-year cooldown period.
What I’d Change
There’s plenty of room for improvement. First, I recommend lengthening the minimum time requirement for the foreigner to apply for lawful permanent status to twenty years. Yes, you read that correctly, and I’m serious. The intent behind this is to cut down on the churning effect of the foreigner divorcing the American after only two years. For those who feel that this shifts the power dynamic too far in favor of the American, let me not mince words here. This reform is designed to protect the American consumer; full stop. Keep in mind that K-1 visa recipients are low-skilled migrants. Hence, the current administration has far less sympathy for K-1’s than they would an H1-B or an entrepreneur visa-holder.
Next, we need to remove the two-year cooldown period for the American citizen. If, for whatever reason, the marriage ends in divorce within the twenty-year time period, then the American would have the option of starting the process over again with a new foreigner as soon as the foreign divorcee has been deported. Why this policy? Simple; It creates the mechanic of being able to return a defective purchase under warranty. Let’s face it; Americans dislike buying household appliances and TV’s without a return policy, so why should foreign wives be any different? Don’t get stuck with a lemon…
Speaking of divorce, the American man will be exempted from paying alimony to the deported wife, nor will he be held liable for any deportation fees for marriages that end before the twentieth anniversary. Ditto for child support, except for children that are biologically his that she gave birth to during their marriage. Failing to include these protections only punishes the American buyer, which is the opposite intended effect of this reform. Further, she forfeits any and all federally funded assistance (e.g, Medicaid, student loans, etc.) in the case of a premature divorce.
Under my proposal, the process would also no longer have any interviews with either party. It’s obvious what is happening here; the American man is buying a sentient sexual servant, and the woman is using her attractiveness to escape poverty and/or a violent country. It is time for the government to get out of American’s bedrooms already…
However, I’m willing to be flexible on one point. Feminists would say that twenty years is too long and Conservatives would bemoan that the whole point of marriage is to create a family. Thus, I’m willing to accept a reduction of the time-served requirement to fifteen years upon the birth of the couple’s third child. After all, there is a population collapse happening, so let’s incentivize family building again. And by the way, this isn’t a fringe opinion
What I’d Keep
One requirement from the current process that I would keep is that the bride-to-be-bought undergoes a thorough medical examination. This medical examination will of course provide information such as typical vitals and any abnormalities. Of course, this evaluation will have her measurements as well; height, weight, bra cup, waist measurement and hip measurement. Information is power to the consumer, and again; let’s empower the American consumer.
Additionally, this medical examination needs to include an STD panel and basic flexibility test. If a foreign bride is discovered to have concealed a serious medical diagnosis or had an undisclosed STD, then the American can terminate the marriage with zero ongoing financial obligation to the exiting wife. We wouldn’t accept being sold a false bill of goods in any other context, so let’s not accept it at the altar…
Speaking of being sold, I’d also keep the current financial verification of the American buyer. The American should have to prove, by either income or by net worth, that he can afford this two-legged-toy that he’s importing. Normally, I’d argue that the Feds have no business whether or not someone can actually afford something. However, let’s not ship someone in who’ll eventually become a taxpayer burden.
Sadly, we’ll have to keep the fee. Trump is adamant about wanting tariffs and encouraging the American consumer to buy local goods. Hence it would be naïve to expect that wife-buying would be any different. Nevertheless, the fee needs to be balanced. If the fee is set too high, then this essentially walls off the market for many American men. Too low, and it would fail to entice serious buyers. Thus, I’d suggest setting the fee to $1000, since this is a realistic-yet-stretch goal for most Americans, though it can always be moved according to wage growth (note how I’m not saying inflation).
As for meeting in person, there can be a two-tiered approach to this. The fast lane for processing the import forms can be achieved by the buyer inspecting his attractive product in-person. This is two-fold. First, it shows that the American has the disposable income to afford this fleshy luxury purchase. Secondly, this protects the American from buying a woman that misrepresented herself on social media and Zoom calls; nobody wants to get catfished.
However, my approach does not require that the couple meet in person, in exchange for being a lesser-priority application (meaning after all of the met-in-person cases have been processed). Is it fair? No. Does money buy special perks in literally every other avenue in life? Yes; deal with it, brokie.
Resistance
Needless to say, these ideas will be quite unpopular at first. The biggest organized resistor to my proposed reform would be the television network TLC. Face it, they are the ones who currently profit from today’s broken K-1 visa process. They love making shows such as 90-Day Fiancé in which they profile the high-stakes and high-stress process. Thus, they have a lot to lose if we took the hassle out of buying a far-flung female. TLC would harshly condemn the above-listed ideas in a scathing social media and marketing campaign. With that said, do not expect their advocacy to end there. Only a fool would think that TLC won’t dial up their bought-off Senators to fight this in DC. Additionally, expect numerous AstroTurf feminist-sounding organizations to oppose the changes as well. Gee willikers, where will that funding and coordination come from??
Naturally, American women will be among some of the most outspoken critics of this policy. Liberal American women will bemoan the perceived exploitations of the foreign wife, while Conservative women will share Trump’s protectionist mindset. Expect both to performatively hype themselves up at the buyer’s expense vis-a-vie these men couldn’t handle a REAL woman (like her, obviously) to a simpish audience. No matter their preferred flavor of radicalization, it’s wise to anticipate pushback from American women.
Also, don’t sleep on the current international match-making companies that profit from the current trade. It doesn’t exactly take a Wharton MBA to figure out that a business is not going to like having far more returns on their products. At first, shadier agencies will try to enforce an all sales are final policy. More reputable firms (as reputable as one can be in this industry) will focus more on thoroughly understanding their client and then curating the best possible fit with plenty of post-purchase follow-up. Ideally, these practices will become the new standard. It’s almost like the American consumer will benefit in the long-term or something…
Defensive Maneuvers
Yes, an experienced public relations firm will need to be retained. Those who oppose the policy will absolutely need to be painted as anti-marriage and hence anti-family and anti-children. This is essential, as it would bring the Conservative media into the fight, where the talking heads will do much of the heavy-lifting for the policy. The American Right cannot help themselves but to defend marriage at all costs. For extra effect, point to studies detailing the pitfalls of single parent homes; what kind of monster opposes families, amirite?
Thos who oppose the twenty-year requirement in favor of the status quo are simply endorsing fraud. It’s not exactly rocket science to say that in the current state of the program, many of these foreign women agree to this solely to divorce their American sponsor immediately upon meeting the Green Card requirement. This is fraud, full stop and anyone defending it that doesn’t have J.D after their name ought to be viewed with a hefty dose of suspicion.
While some might see this process as invasive and one-sided against the foreign wife, we need to keep in mind that she consented to all of this. Anyone who would deny this fact is simply suggesting that the foreign woman cannot make an informed decision for herself. Whether it’s due to misogyny or bigotry, the end result is the same; it must be loudly pointed out and vilified by the PR firm at all costs.
As for American women, it is important for the PR firm to drum up doubt about their motives. Is the American woman truly advocating for the well-being of her overseas sisters? Or is she merely trying to keep competitors out of the market? We see the same behaviors with US auto manufacturers and other commodities; thus it isn’t a stretch to say that entrenched interests will mount a resistance to unwelcome market entries. A skilled PR professional will work wonders in diverting the conversation away from the policy and towards the motives of the detractors.
Of course, the Woke Mafia’s rhetoric can be used against itself in this instance, provided that the PR firm is skilled enough to do so. By preventing these marriages, opponents are removing opportunities from women in developing nations from immigrating (you know, that thing they claim to love so much). Such actions would disproportionately impact women of color. Conduct unbecoming of Woke, indeed.
Netflix and Chill(ing Effect)?
Public backlash to this policy is a feature, not a bug. There is a chance that the one-sided nature of the plan will have a chilling effect on women willing to come to the United States as trophy wives. If so, then this would be a net-positive for Donald Trump’s immigration policy. As mentioned above, these bought-brides are essentially unskilled immigrants. Having less low-impact migrants in the country plays right into Trump’s hands. Heads I win, tails you lose.
The chilling effect isn’t a guarantee, though. So long as there is a gender-based relationship imbalance in the United States, then there will be enough demand (men willing to import foreign bedwarmers) to ensure a steady supply (overseas women willing to cater to American buyers). Hence, it isn’t likely that protecting the American buyer would be a large deterrent on this trend. The result? Well, marriage rates go up, which tends to benefit society.
I’ll leave you with some words from the great Peter Lloyd…
Home Page 