Right, but if a couple is willing to actually live together and pool their financial resources for an indefinite period, so that outside the bedroom it has all the trappings of a sincere marriage, how would the immigration authorities detect a “beard” without asking point-blank if the couple is having sex? It’s my understanding that they’re checking for things like separate residences, or no joint bank accounts, or not being named on the other person’s health insurance, or the like.
Obviously, the immigrant and the “beard” would have to be good friends, willing and able to trust each other to that degree.
Sometimes the authorities do ask point-blank if the couple is having sex, or ask point-blank all sorts of questions on the subject (what birth control are you using? What are your plans for having children? etc.) The best way to get a marriage-based green card application approved with minimal hassle is to provide birth certificates for the couple’s children and/or show up at the interview with the wife visibly pregnant.
Eva Luna, Immigration Paralegal
(P.S. Back in the day when I worked at Immigration Court, one of the wackier marriage fraud hearings came about when a sharp-eyed immigraiotn official looked at the birth certificates for the U.S. citizen wife’s children. The father listed was her husband’s brother. Who was married to someone else. She broke down and confessed that she’d been having an affair with a married man, who then asked her to do him the favor of marrying his brother so he could get a green card. The rest of the hearing got even more surreal…)
I agree with Bricker’s sentiment here. But that aside, let me ask you this: let’s say we defer to you on this. And let’s say a billion people would like to come here. Do we just allow them all?
Out of curiosity, if you were to learn today–in fact, you learned it this moment–that for whatever reason you were not a citizen of the United States, and were in fact a citizen of, let’s say, Korea, what would you do?
I think that’s a false dichotomy. I’m saying the problem is that people say wannabe immigrants should “wait their turn”, when in reality under current rules, for many there is no possible legal path to immigration for them. The solution isn’t immediate immigration for a billion people - I just think it would be ideal if there was at least a possible legal chance they could get.
Hell, the backlogs for legal immigration of children/parents of citizens can be years or decades. And the odds of winning the “green card lottery” greatly vary by country.
I understand the reasoning behind why the “green card lottery” doesn’t have any spaces in countries that already contribute a lot of immigration to the US. But then that means that people from those countries who don’t have immediate relatives in the US/aren’t highly educated/aren’t rich are SOL. Maybe if there were a limited number of green cards for people from any country, then at least they’d have a chance.
Or at the very least, I wish that the general public would be more informed about how immigration really works, and/or that politicians wouldn’t pander to their ignorance. Making statements about how illegal immigrants are “jumping the line” is moronic if for that person there is no possible line they could join, no matter how small the chance or how long the wait.
I basically agree with the post. But I do think you make too sweeping a statement, implying that no one jumps the line. The fact of the matter is that certain countries will always be more attractive places to live than others, and not everyone who wants to go there will be able to go. I fervently support the right of any country to set their own immigration policy, and to so so in a way that they think best benefits them.
Even for real marriages it can take years and years to get the spouse into the States. Dealing with immegration is such a pain in the ass that basically only true love would make it worthwhile.
I’ve been prepositioned with sham marriages. Nobody has come up with anything that would make it worth it. First off, you become legally on the hook for supporting them if they threaten to be “a burden on the state.” How many people do you trust enough to ecome legally responsible for their finances? How many people would you really put your financial future on the line for. I can think of very few, even withing my own family. Would you really do that for a friend you were anything less than in love with?
An a roommate situation is not enough. They are going to ask your friends if you guys go to parties together. They are going to ask you probing questions on intimate issues that only married people are likely to discuss. And they are tricky. For tourist visas, for example, sometimes they will approve the husband for the “family vacation to Disneyland.” and not the wife. If you jump on that and seem excited-DENIED. People planning a real family vacation would be bummed, complain, and consider calling it off if the whole family could not go. It’s people who are planning to skip out on their visa who would be okay with one family member going, making some money, and figuring out how to get the rest over later.
Looking for fraud is all they do, all day long. Fraudsters are surprisingly unoriginal, and they’ve seen your “they’ll never see through this” idea a dozen times before noon. When you see something enough, the patterns become glaringly obvious.
Even if that meant she’d be receptive, trust me – if I slept with Helen Hunt it would violate my state’s laws against suicide, because Mrs. Bricker would kill me.
I would begin exploring what legal options I had to become a citizen, or to remain here as a legal resident, and, I suppose, start exploring where else I could live with Korean citizenship.
A. You are redefining ‘good people’ to fit your agenda.
B. What is ‘getting caught up in the law’???
C. An illegal immigrant staying in the country, esp. when he has means to obey the law is ‘doing something to deserve it’.
D. No, none of this means it is an unjust and unfair law. It may be one that you find unpalatable.
I notice you never acknowledged my correction: that although some people who are illegally present are not criminals, this particular guy, who claimed he was a citizen when he wasn’t, DID commit crimes and IS a criminal.