How to stop fraud in Fiance/Spouse Visas

[PantomimeGoose 59]

I agree wholeheartedly that removing people from the country is currently harder for the government than screening them intensively before they can come in. But I also believe it doesn't have to be. The structure for screening is already in place. It is not a very efficient structure, which is why we're all gathered here talking about it. It would take time, thought, and money to improve it. All it takes to not deport people is... nothing at all. Lots of money is spent trying to keep people out. If more of that money was spent removing people who had broken laws to be here, more of those people would be removed, and maybe more would think about trying to get in in the first place. Right now, about the worst that can happen is you'll be rejected, and USCIS will seriously consider telling your next spouse that you've been trying to get in via marriage for the past five years. The current system may be the path of least resistance, but that doesn't make it right.

It seems the current two year scheme opens Americans to abuse. Right now, anyone who can show 'good faith' can get citizenship, and maybe a chunk of the USC's assets in exchange for faking a little drama and making the marriage fall apart. We've all read the horror stories of spouses who come here and immediately spend all the USC's money or start accusing the USC of battery. Plenty of cases (thankfully) don't go that far, but it's still an easy in for people, and can just as easily leave the USC with a broken heart.

"Good faith" needs to not be an option for everyone for whom things just don't work out. You married the person, not the country. If that turned out to be a bad decision, you're free to divorce and go back to the straights you were in before the marriage. The USC may owe them alimony for a mutual mistake, but the country certainly doesn't owe them citizenship for it. Someone who knows their marriage is alright wouldn't have to live in fear of being deported, unlike people now who have to worry that the government won't think their love is real at every step.

The potential for real abuse on both sides is tricky, I admit, but if you're staying in a loveless marriage with a controlling, lazy, or mean (but non-abusive) spouse because to divorce them would remove your chances for citizenship, well isn't that technically fraud too? I think counseling and/or the type of social work that I initially mentioned would go a long way to preventing the sort of "If you don't do this or that, then I'll divorce you and you'll lose citizenship" dynamic that's more extortionate than abusive.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

I agree wholeheartedly that removing people from the country is currently harder for the government than screening them intensively before they can come in. But I also believe it doesn't have to be. The structure for screening is already in place. It is not a very efficient structure, which is why we're all gathered here talking about it. It would take time, thought, and money to improve it. All it takes to not deport people is... nothing at all. Lots of money is spent trying to keep people out. If more of that money was spent removing people who had broken laws to be here, more of those people would be removed, and maybe more would think about trying to get in in the first place. Right now, about the worst that can happen is you'll be rejected, and USCIS will seriously consider telling your next spouse that you've been trying to get in via marriage for the past five years. The current system may be the path of least resistance, but that doesn't make it right.

12 million illegals.. Show me they can remove the 12 million illegal immigrants here already and then maybe there is room to talk about letting people though and cleaning up the mess later. Right now we already have proof we can't clean up the mess.

It seems the current two year scheme opens Americans to abuse. Right now, anyone who can show 'good faith' can get citizenship, and maybe a chunk of the USC's assets in exchange for faking a little drama and making the marriage fall apart. We've all read the horror stories of spouses who come here and immediately spend all the USC's money or start accusing the USC of battery. Plenty of cases (thankfully) don't go that far, but it's still an easy in for people, and can just as easily leave the USC with a broken heart.

two year, 5 year, 10 year, 100 year ... it makes no difference if they plan on disappearing into the either... We are just creating another avenue to come and join the other 12+ Million that are here.. Punishment after the fact will not be effective for those that do not intend on being around or getting caught. We need proof we can clean up that mess before we adopt a "trust-first" attitude.

"Good faith" needs to not be an option for everyone for whom things just don't work out. You married the person, not the country. If that turned out to be a bad decision, you're free to divorce and go back to the straights you were in before the marriage. The USC may owe them alimony for a mutual mistake, but the country certainly doesn't owe them citizenship for it. Someone who knows their marriage is alright wouldn't have to live in fear of being deported, unlike people now who have to worry that the government won't think their love is real at every step.

I agree.. but (there is always a but ) there are just too many scenarios for abuse that would require safety nets to be created - some already exists such as VAWA. Those safety nets then become the loopholes for a whole new set of fraud.

I think your whole argument is dependent on the ability to forcibly remove someone from the country who should not be here. If we had that ability I think you might have a case though I still am uncomfortable with forcing someone to leave that came in good faith.

[PantomimeGoose 59]

The crux of my argument is actually more along the lines that our rights to marry and cohabitate with our families must not be impeded, whether or not some people are able to commit fraud using those avenues. Do some USCs marry other USCs for money? For status? To receive healthcare benefits? To improve their quality of life, without regard for the othe person? Absolutely. Do some USCs marry other USCs who turn out to be abusive, negligent, selfish, or even criminal? Every day. Our taxes may go in a variety of ways toward supporting those families if they can't pay their bills, policing abusive relationships, paying for daddy or mummy's time in jail (where even then, I might add, conjugal visits are a possibility) and educating their children. Still the government does not get to vet their marriages 'just in case'. Much like the government can not put special restrictions on individuals within an ethnic group of Americans because their demographic may have the highest recorded incidence of criminal activity, the government can not fail to protect our marriages, as it protects every American marriage.

The current administration has shown extreme willingness to listen to groups of non-citizens who, though they did not go through legal channels and continue to engage in a non-legal behavior, now demand the rights of citizenship, or at least demand to be left alone within our borders. You and I merely going through the legal channels is not preventing them coming in, and it has not caused the government to try to remove them. The fact that we are not *trying* to clean up the mess is not proof that we *can't* clean the mess. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. We need to become a squeakier wheel, rather than hoping for a mythical day when criminals decide to stop committing fraud.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

The crux of my argument is actually more along the lines that our rights to marry and cohabitation with our families must not be impeded, whether or not some people are able to commit fraud using those avenues. Do some USCs marry other USCs for money? For status? To receive healthcare benefits? To improve their quality of life, without regard for the other person? Absolutely. Do some USCs marry other USCs who turn out to be abusive, negligent, selfish, or even criminal? Every day. Our taxes may go in a variety of ways toward supporting those families if they can't pay their bills, policing abusive relationships, paying for daddy or mummy's time in jail (where even then, I might add, conjugal visits are a possibility) and educating their children. Still the government does not get to vet their marriages 'just in case'. Much like the government can not put special restrictions on individuals within an ethnic group of Americans because their demographic may have the highest recorded incidence of criminal activity, the government can not fail to protect our marriages, as it protects every American marriage.

Then you should have just said that from the start.. Don't pretend letting them through first and providing counseling and kicking them out is a better solution to the fraud issue.. This really really irks me.. you have known from the start that was an unworkable solution (see your quote below) Just say what you mean from the start: Let them all in consequences be damned because you don;t care about the fraud. This is the second time in this thread where the proposed solution was just a rouse to an agenda.

The government is not vetting the relationship, they are vetting a person. The person is using the relationship to enter the country so the relationship comes into play. Your right to cohabitation does not override all other concerns.

The current administration has shown extreme willingness to listen to groups of non-citizens who, though they did not go through legal channels and continue to engage in a non-legal behavior, now demand the rights of citizenship, or at least demand to be left alone within our borders. You and I merely going through the legal channels is not preventing them coming in, and it has not caused the government to try to remove them. The fact that we are not *trying* to clean up the mess is not proof that we *can't* clean the mess. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. We need to become a squeakier wheel, rather than hoping for a mythical day when criminals decide to stop committing fraud.

...*or* we punish those that give them jobs like they did in Georgia where they are planting 33% less crops this year because the illegals have left rather face potentially getting caught. It certainly *can* be done and should be the option before giving in to really really stupid demands. I would never expect Canada or Mexico or any other country on this planet to give me citizenship because I sneek over the boarder and demanded rights.

[PantomimeGoose 59]

I stated ''my agenda" quite clearly in my initial post. I went on to say that the prevention of fraud "made for a more compelling argument" to add to a petition, which was the initial topic of this thread. As stated in my first post, I do believe the government has the right to investigate the criminal background of the beneficiary, including any links to terrorism, and deny entry on that basis. I just think they need to do so in a timely fashion, and to do so is going to necessitate either less invasive vetting, or a huge increase in personnel.

I do care about prevention of fraud, but I maintain that it is secondary to civil rights, much like I care whether or not terrorists board airplanes with the intent of blowing them up, but think there must be a balance between trust and cavity-searching everyone 'just in case'. Equal protection under the law and pursuit of happiness do not override all concerns true, but they override most: that's not just how I feel about it, but a cornerstone of our government.

I do not, as you claim, 'know my solution is unworkable'. I would not have proposed it if I thought it was. It is not being implemented now, obviously, but that does not mean components of it could not be effective if implemented. And yes, despite my 'agenda' of upholding our civil rights (assuming you also have some of those, and do not prefer to live in a facist society), I did suggest a number of not entirely outlandish solutions for the prevention of fraud for people to discuss, criticize, whatever; again, the supposed purpose of this thread. I am not advocating giving in to "really stupid demands" or letting people in and providing counseling only to kick them out again for fun.

You have been saying all along to show you how the problem of illegal immigrants already in the country can be solved, and then seem to contradict yourself by giving an example of how measures have been taken to do just that in Georgia. While I don't know much about that specific legislation (and I'm willing to bet that's doing a lot to screw over small family farmers in Georgia), that is exactly what I was saying before: the government is perfectly capable of harrying, locating, and deporting illegal immigrants who are in the country- they just generally do not try very hard, especially in liberal states. I think we (legal immigrant interests) need to become a more vocal minority than the illegal lobby, and convince the government that *resources need to be shifted toward identifying/deporting more people who are here illegally, while rewarding those who seek to come here legally, by not treating them like criminals, and expediting the process of legal immigration*.

[keysjangle 145]

I think it's pretty simple and SHOULD be implemented on a personal basis.... if you meet someone overseas, visit them MORE THAN ONCE. Do not rely on Skype and texts to build a relationship. Put time into it.

Someone who wants to scam you won't want to waste time; they want to get in and get out. I keep seeing people who only meet their foreign spouses/fiancees one time before marrying them or getting engaged. It's INSANE.

Live with them for heavens sake. And watch for warning signs (we've all read those "what do I do now?" threads). Don't rush into it then cry after because you thought they loved you.

If a case goes to USCIS and the couple has met LESS than three (maybe even 5) times, it should be denied.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Gervl

[DeeDee&Sam 68]

immigration fraud cannot be stopped. there will ALWAYS be people finding new ways of entering USA illegaly

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

I think it's pretty simple and SHOULD be implemented on a personal basis.... if you meet someone overseas, visit them MORE THAN ONCE. Do not rely on Skype and texts to build a relationship. Put time into it.

Someone who wants to scam you won't want to waste time; they want to get in and get out. I keep seeing people who only meet their foreign spouses/fiancees one time before marrying them or getting engaged. It's INSANE.

Live with them for heavens sake. And watch for warning signs (we've all read those "what do I do now?" threads). Don't rush into it then cry after because you thought they loved you.

If a case goes to USCIS and the couple has met LESS than three (maybe even 5) times, it should be denied.

Easy to say for someone with a spouse from Canada. Both the US citizen and Canadian spouse can cross the border fairly easily, and even cross by land if they're close enough. What would you suggest for someone with a fiancee or spouse from a third world country half way around the world? There's practically zero chance the foreigner is going to get a B2 visa to come to the US, so any visit is going to require the US citizen to schedule time off from work and spend upwards of $1000 to book airfare to the foreigner's country. Many people only get a couple of weeks vacation each year, so you're basically saying someone like that is going to have to wait three to five years before they can file a petition. On the other hand, someone who is wealthy and can vacation anytime they like could meet these requirements in a matter of months, so now the system unfairly favors the wealthy, far beyond simply providing a guarantee that the foreigner won't become a public charge in the US. In reality, the odds of a wealthy person being scammed are even higher because they're going to be targeted by gold diggers as well as green card scammers.

Live together? Ok, then that means the USC has to quit their job and move to the foreigner's country, presuming they can get a visa that would allow them to do that. Some countries are also pretty strict about what sort of work a foreigner is permitted to do. For instance, most of the Americans who live in Vietnam teach English, presuming they've got a college degree and an English teaching certification, as well as a rudimentary grasp of Vietnamese. How many Americans would want to give up their middle class career in the US and become a low paid English teacher in a foreign country? How does that benefit them if their ultimate goal is to live in the US with their foreign spouse?

What if the foreigner is in a country that prohibits opposite sex couples from cohabiting unless they're married? Ok, I guess they'll have to get married. But what if they're not the same religion, and the country also prohibits mixed-religion marriages? Does the USC now have to convert to the foreigners religion in order to get a visa for them?

So, let's presume the worst case. A USC meets someone online who lives in a third world country with restrictive religious laws. They quit their job and move to the foreigner's country. They convert to the foreigner's religion, marry and live together for a couple of years. Eventually, they file a petition, and get the visa. The foreigner enters the US as an immigrant, and because they've been married more than two years they get a 10 year green card. Now the new immigrant files for divorce and walks away. Who would have seen this coming? How is this any different from a foreign fiancee who comes to the US, marries, and puts up with the marriage long enough to remove conditions? All you've really done is changed the layout of the playing field so the players have to take a different route, but you haven't moved the goal posts. They can still get what they want - an unconditional green card - by taking a different route. For the foreigner, this route is actually easier because, other than being married to an American, their life doesn't change much while they're waiting for that immigrant visa.

There's no way you can apply a fixed set of rules like that for evaluating the bona fides of a relationship at the visa interview. Something that might seem reasonable in one country might be absurdly oppressive in another. That's why Department of State leaves it up to the individual consulates in each country to determine what is reasonable in that specific country.

I think a more rational and effective approach would be to move the goal posts. For example, conditional resident status for five years with no divorce or abuse waivers for removal of conditions, and no eligibility for citizenship until the conditions have been removed. A scammer has their eyes on that prize - the 10 year green card - and they know their options for getting it. If you move that prize further away, and eliminate the shortcuts for getting there, many will not bother to try. This will automatically make it easier at the consulate stage because the CO will know that the odds of the person on the other side of the window being a scammer is a lot lower.

[keysjangle 145]

The way I see it, if you truly want to be with someone for the rest of your life you will 1) be wise and 2) do what it takes.

If you cannot afford to fly to see your heart throb in a third world country a few times a year, then why are you looking there in the first place? Why put yourself through the emotional/financial burden of dating someone you cannot feasibly afford to see or spend time with?

For me, yes it has been easy to see my spouse. But we've visited back and forth many, many, many times. We knew each other for 3 years before ever meeting face to face. We dated other people, we fought, we went through hell and when we finally realized the answer was right under our noses we stopped acting like idiots. We became exclusive, visited often and then we ended up married and I couldn't be happier. We didn't jump into it without knowing every angle. The way I see it, we worked to make it as easy as right now. If I'm a 21 year old student and making enough money to independantly travel, why couldn't someone twice my age do the same? But if someone else does not have that opportunity.... well, I just really don't know how you can logically justify marrying someone you barely know. Because god knows the immigration fees, the flights, the new nest for the two of you THEN the divorce fees, it all seems absolutely illogical. How can you experience life with someone? How can you know how they handle themselves in times of anger, jealousy, mood swings, bad days at work (everyone is good at being happy) etc if you don't see it face to face? Of course things will be great one those 1 or 2 visits, she wants to please and she wants you to be happy.

I think it's good if someone takes 3-5 years to develop a relationship. Marriage isn't a race. I'm actually kind of appalled you would say that waiting such a short period of time is unfair. Divorce rates are high for a reason; because people think with their genitals, not their heads. And I really don't see a very wealthy person looking for a bride in a third world country, sorry. Plenty of local gold diggers who come without the immigration package/cultural boundaries/etc to deal with.

Personally, and this is just me, there are too many horror stories of women from third world countries who scam honest men out of their time and money. One would think it would be enough to deter some men, but alas, the penisforce is too strong. Some of those women are marketed as so obedient and "family oriented", they'll never tell you they have a headache, they'll worship the ground you walk on. It's sickening. However, I know this isn't what happens in every case, so I'm not here to judge. I remember seeing one doc where a very fat, pig like man married a stunning Eastern European woman. He must of thought he was the luckiest man in the world, but when she came to the U.S. she had no interest in him anymore - and so he killed her.

But hey, every person has to learn for themselves.

A great documentary to watch when one wants a look into the marketing of *young* Thai women:

http://documentaryheaven.com/thai-brides-louis-theroux/

[sachinky 465]

+1 for the #######-force.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

The way I see it, if you truly want to be with someone for the rest of your life you will 1) be wise and 2) do what it takes.

If you cannot afford to fly to see your heart throb in a third world country a few times a year, then why are you looking there in the first place? Why put yourself through the emotional/financial burden of dating someone you cannot feasibly afford to see or spend time with?

I wasn't looking for wife in a third world country.. I wasn't looking for a wife at all. I met someone that happened to be from another country. I was lucky enough to be at a point in my life where I could afford to make multiple trips... but If could not have made multiple trips I still would have taken the chance.

I think it's good if someone takes 3-5 years to develop a relationship. Marriage isn't a race. I'm actually kind of appalled you would say that waiting such a short period of time is unfair. Divorce rates are high for a reason; because people think with their genitals, not their heads. And I really don't see a very wealthy person looking for a bride in a third world country, sorry. Plenty of local gold diggers who come without the immigration package/cultural boundaries/etc to deal with.

You think 3-5 years is good and that's great for you, personally I think that screams of indecision and at least one of the partners unable to make a commitment and hoping for something better but beyond that... and since we are thinking out loud and sharing: I truly think 90% of married couples are not in love. They do not realize this, they think that what they feel is love but it is something else.. Those that *really* have been in love will settle for nothing less. I was in love one time and then it ended.. Killed me. I stayed single for 16 years and could never commit because I never felt that way again for another and once you have had it you can't settle or you will always be miserable. I had many 2-4 year relationships - like I said I could not commit and high quality women don't put up with men who can't make a commitment in that time.. When I finally *finally* felt it again I jumped - no way I was going to let it get away - and to quote you I "did what it took" because I found to my surprise it can happen more than once... Nobody that gets that feeling waits 3-5 years... nobody. You have no idea what you are missing and never will and that is probably for the best... that's just my opinion.

Personally, and this is just me, there are too many horror stories of women from third world countries who scam honest men out of their time and money. One would think it would be enough to deter some men, but alas, the penisforce is too strong. Some of those women are marketed as so obedient and "family oriented", they'll never tell you they have a headache, they'll worship the ground you walk on. It's sickening. However, I know this isn't what happens in every case, so I'm not here to judge. I remember seeing one doc where a very fat, pig like man married a stunning Eastern European woman. He must of thought he was the luckiest man in the world, but when she came to the U.S. she had no interest in him anymore - and so he killed her.

Nice.. Please re-read this thread and you will notice many older-women with younger men are posting as they tend to be victims of much of the fraud accusations. Notice that no snide remarks were made towards them in this type of fashion. Kindly return the favor.

Edited September 1, 2011 by OnMyWayID

[PantomimeGoose 59]

Gervi feels that marriage needs to be a practical decision, riding on more than just those first fireworks. On My Way feels like no one really in love could possibly need three years to make that big leap. In my case, I "knew" within six months, but waited owing to circumstances beyond our control and a lingering sense of caution after having loved someone in the past who I had no business making a life with.

This is perhaps exactly the problem with having an intermediary judge the authenticity of other people's relationships?

The heart has reasons of which reason knows nothing.

[keysjangle 145]

I loved him for years, but I was young. I'm only 21 now, and we began communicating when I was 16 and had been in a long term relationship with someone else.

I've known for years after watching the failed marriage of my parents and then their own failed relationships afterwards that the fireworks do not last forever. If one goes into a relationship and then a marriage thinking that the fire burns bright forever... they set themselves up for disappointment. I think it's fundamental to be with someone who you can be with for more than that excitement and fire. Someone who is a complement to you - not just an accessory or add-on. It doesn't mean sex specifically (that would be one of the side effects of it) but that feeling when you wake up beside your partner and you're just happy they are there, you're grateful to be so close to them. The smell of their morning breath doesn't bother you. Hell, I clip his toenails while we watch bad Jason Statham movies after I haven't shaved my legs for a week. To me, that is love. When you can still have physical/intellectual/emotional passion even with hairy legs.

I knew I didn't want to jump into a relationship so young that would leave me thinking "what have I done?" and making me resentful or jaded after a few years. That is why when I see other people who only follow their emotions I feel confused and mind-boggled. But like I said - everyone must learn for themselves and discover what they need.

Development and experiences through life shape who and how we love. No two people are the same. This is just my story.

[Highyella72 11]

I really think they need to up to amount of together time before filing . Like 90-120 days in the last 3 years of which 60 has be be in the last 2 years.

Well....only problem with that ....is it would only be convenient for those people that don't have to work hard for a living or don't have family to support...then it would be ok to spend that much time away from home..... But reality is, most people are just hard working americans with responsibilities other than themselves....

[LoveNigarmostyle 164]

Easy to say for someone with a spouse from Canada. Both the US citizen and Canadian spouse can cross the border fairly easily, and even cross by land if they're close enough. What would you suggest for someone with a fiancee or spouse from a third world country half way around the world? There's practically zero chance the foreigner is going to get a B2 visa to come to the US, so any visit is going to require the US citizen to schedule time off from work and spend upwards of $1000 to book airfare to the foreigner's country. Many people only get a couple of weeks vacation each year, so you're basically saying someone like that is going to have to wait three to five years before they can file a petition. On the other hand, someone who is wealthy and can vacation anytime they like could meet these requirements in a matter of months, so now the system unfairly favors the wealthy, far beyond simply providing a guarantee that the foreigner won't become a public charge in the US. In reality, the odds of a wealthy person being scammed are even higher because they're going to be targeted by gold diggers as well as green card scammers.

Live together? Ok, then that means the USC has to quit their job and move to the foreigner's country, presuming they can get a visa that would allow them to do that. Some countries are also pretty strict about what sort of work a foreigner is permitted to do. For instance, most of the Americans who live in Vietnam teach English, presuming they've got a college degree and an English teaching certification, as well as a rudimentary grasp of Vietnamese. How many Americans would want to give up their middle class career in the US and become a low paid English teacher in a foreign country? How does that benefit them if their ultimate goal is to live in the US with their foreign spouse?

What if the foreigner is in a country that prohibits opposite sex couples from cohabiting unless they're married? Ok, I guess they'll have to get married. But what if they're not the same religion, and the country also prohibits mixed-religion marriages? Does the USC now have to convert to the foreigners religion in order to get a visa for them?

So, let's presume the worst case. A USC meets someone online who lives in a third world country with restrictive religious laws. They quit their job and move to the foreigner's country. They convert to the foreigner's religion, marry and live together for a couple of years. Eventually, they file a petition, and get the visa. The foreigner enters the US as an immigrant, and because they've been married more than two years they get a 10 year green card. Now the new immigrant files for divorce and walks away. Who would have seen this coming? How is this any different from a foreign fiancee who comes to the US, marries, and puts up with the marriage long enough to remove conditions? All you've really done is changed the layout of the playing field so the players have to take a different route, but you haven't moved the goal posts. They can still get what they want - an unconditional green card - by taking a different route. For the foreigner, this route is actually easier because, other than being married to an American, their life doesn't change much while they're waiting for that immigrant visa.

There's no way you can apply a fixed set of rules like that for evaluating the bona fides of a relationship at the visa interview. Something that might seem reasonable in one country might be absurdly oppressive in another. That's why Department of State leaves it up to the individual consulates in each country to determine what is reasonable in that specific country.

I think a more rational and effective approach would be to move the goal posts. For example, conditional resident status for five years with no divorce or abuse waivers for removal of conditions, and no eligibility for citizenship until the conditions have been removed. A scammer has their eyes on that prize - the 10 year green card - and they know their options for getting it. If you move that prize further away, and eliminate the shortcuts for getting there, many will not bother to try. This will automatically make it easier at the consulate stage because the CO will know that the odds of the person on the other side of the window being a scammer is a lot lower.

Thanks Jim for pointing out the obvious with most of us in this Visa Journey!