Oh thank you! … You just gave me the most brilliant excuse to console all the fainting US women…
“Don’t approach me or they send me to jail”…
or
“Throw those flowers not that visible at me or they send me to jail”…
or
“I love you also very much but I fear Guatanamo Bay”…
Which I find personally the best of all. What do you think?
Other suggestions are welcome.
Salaam. A
big·a·my ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bg-m)
n.
The criminal offense of marrying one person while still legally married to another.
po·lyg·a·my ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-lg-m)
n.
The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time. Also called plural marriage.
What say you, milroyj?
Kelly, as I recall (and my apologies if I am wrong) you aren’t a lawyer. I’m certainly not.
As such, I would welcome the advice or input of anyone who is familiar with the application of American immigration law, as to my reading the key phrase is what is meant by "to practice polygamy ". I would have understood that as meaning someone intending to live in a polygamous marriage in the states. Especially as that section (again by my deeply limited understand) seems to be for immigration, rather than a visitors visa?
Aldeberan, it’s not clear how this law if this law applies to “visitors”. The language suggests that if a person would be barred as an immigrant they are also barred as a visitor. However, this provision dates back to the anti-Mormon pogroms of the 1880s and has not been enforced (as far as I know) in a long time.
It is illegal in many states to have a mistress or other lover outside of marriage. In some states it is only illegal if it becomes “open and notorious”. Cohabiting with more than one other person is illegal in some states, and every state makes it a crime to knowingly contract a second marriage while still married (and holds the second marriage void as a matter of law). These laws are designed to punish adultery and similiar “vices”, or else were created as part of the same late 19th century anti-Mormon attitudes that led to the immigration proscription I cited earlier. They are infrequently (and inconsistently) enforced and raise privacy concerns (see also Lawrence v. Texas) as well as free-association concerns, but remain on the books in most states.
OK I will. How come you double posted? Nobody around here has ever done that before. Sheesh!
I already asked him:
But I’m still waiting for an answer.
Milroyj, do you continue to accuse Aldebaran of being a common criminal ?
While it is not clear from the cited law, it is not that hard to discover the application of it. The Cleveland Clinic routinely admits people from the Middle East region (including several of the Sauds) for heart sugery. Most of them have been in polygynous marriages and I have never heard of one being denied admittance. (I suspect that Johns Hopkins, the Mayo Clinic, and similar outfits see the same situation.)
Similarly, I have known several women who, while in grad school, were wooed by various guys hailing from other lands who proposed marriage with the claim that the woman would be the “favorite” wife and that the current wives would welome the newcomer. Leaving aside the commentary on the lines that males will use to get some nookie, it is pretty clear that none of them were denied entry, despite their existing polygynous practices.
I would guess that the “for the purpose of” phrase indicates that one cannot move to the U.S. for the purpose of setting up house and entering into or continuing a polygamous relationship within the U.S.. Visits would seem to have no prohibition under law and, I would speculate, that longer term residence would not generally be an issue if the “extra” spouses wre left home. (All this before 9/11, of course, when we began looking for more reasons to throw or keep people out.)
And, of course, no one knows how many polygynous marriages exist in Utah (and, presumably, elswhere) because they’re denied in public. I’ve seen suggestions of 60,000 unions, but that’s obviously a guess . . . because they don’t exist [sub]cough[/sub]
Ah, yes LC… I forgot to mention those… I was of course convinced that in the eyes of the OP, because they are US’ers…mmm… hm… Those people don’t fall under the same criminal category as when you are not a member of the US Club and polygamy becomes automatically criminal behaviour needed to be called bigamy… If you still can follow the none-reasoning…
Question to the OP:
Do the members of this particular branch of the LDS all end up behind bars inside the USA or do they get expelled for violating the immigration laws (one can always adapt a law to a current situation in order to make it work as you wish, no?) after being stripped of their US citizenship?
If yes, don’t hesitate to let me know. I can in no time deliver tents to house them at first and then we can investigate further possibilities for more solid housing in their country of choice, where they of course can ask for political/religious asielment.
Salaam. A
Always ready to exploit… hm… sorry… HELP… US’ers in need…
IANAL, but I seriously doubt that members of the Saudi royal family are denied entry to the US if they are in a polygamous marriage.
“Only”?
Sorry to ask, but
do you want me dead ?
Salaam. A
I think the immorality of bigamy/polygamy stems from it’s sexist practice. If it were an option for both sexes, I’d find it more acceptable, but as it is it perpetuates inequality.
well some do end up in jail.
http://www.voiceofthehomeconsultant.com/hv06036.html
you’re welcome it sounds like you have your hands full already.
It seems to me that with 50% male and 50% female population that a 1 to 1 ratio is the way to go. Besides I have my hands full with one.
Generally, recidivist Mormon polygamists end up incarcerated if they “cross the line” and cause problems, but are left alone otherwise.
There is no way to strip the citizenship of a native born U.S. citizen (it can only be voluntarily relinquished), and the citizenship of a naturalized citizen can be stripped only for fraud during the naturalization process.
kidchameleon, there is nothing specific about polygamy that limits it to one man, multiple women, and in fact other combinations do exist.
You have a very good point there. On the principle of which I fully agree. But I think this is a debate for an other thread.
Salaam. A
You have a very good point there. On the principle of which I agree. But I think this is a debate for an other thread.
Salaam. A
As you see, I must have everything in double… It is stronger then myself.
Notice that the case that Eveready supplied is a case where the man flaunted his illegal activity on TV. Suffice to say, most (Utah, LDS fundamentalist) cases go unprosecuted.
Oh, and the population is not a 1:1 ratio (although close). In many societies across the globe, it can often get out of whack, particularly in times of war. Even in the US, within the black community, marriageable women outnumber men significantly, mainly due to the higher incarceration rate of young black males.
And why shouldn’t it be an option for either sex?
Everaedy…
Yes, I’m informed about that particular case you gave a link to…
I found it a very doubtful case when it came to gain insight in the question if yes or no the women involved had much to say.
Salaam. A
willfully oppressed in double
Under Shari’a based law - which counts in my case - it is not.
But debating that would lead us away from the intentions of the OP.
Oh… Forgot… I don’t know what those are.
Anyone?
Salaam. A