[subego]

It was pointed out in the "I f-ing hate it" thread that more people might have a problem with this if they knew how much it was abused.

In the US, it's estimated that about one-third of the marriages which grant citizenship are fraudulent (i.e. the marriage is only for purposes of gaining citizenship).

[besson3c]

The rate of fraud may be accurate, but I don't even care. Not being able to be with people you fall in love with while living or visiting other countries is just not a country I want to live in, and the marriage path is pretty much the only path for legal permanent residence in this case. If somebody wants to come up with some alternative path or some means to weed out the fraud, fine, but as of now one doesn't exist, and I can't fathom what those methods for detecting fraud might be.

And yes, my US permanent residency was obtained through my marriage, so this does make me partially biased. Still, my best friend married somebody he fell in love with while visiting another country too, and we know several others with similar stories. This is not all that uncommon, and the world continues to flatten.

[turtle777]

Uhm, OP, you're portraying it wrong. Marriage does NOT grant you citizenship right now.

I like the current system.
Marriage with a US citizen will not grant you citizenship, but grant you a Green Card to allow you to stay legally in the US and work.

The path to citizenship is is possible, after 3 years of Green Card.

To NOT allow citizenship after many years of Green Card would be a bad thing.
E.g., a foreigner married to a US citizen could (under some circumstances) face double taxation in the case of death benefits / inheritance. The only way to avoid double taxation is to be a US citizen.

-t

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The rate of fraud may be accurate, but I don't even care. Not being able to be with people you fall in love with while living or visiting other countries is just not a country I want to live in...

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Uhm, OP, you're portraying it wrong. Marriage does NOT grant you citizenship right now...

The path to citizenship is is possible, after 3 years of Green Card.

I consider this difference to be semantic. Compare the ease of getting a green card if you're married to a US citizen versus not being married to one.

[subego]

Though it's too late for you to change your vote t7, you (or anyone else) may consider the question to be whether marrying a citizen should grant you a pony, a green card, a permanent resident card, which would likely later be turned into citizenship.

My original question is pithier though.

[subego]

If I really was interested in doing it wrong, the question would have been "are you against family reunification?"

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Uhm, OP, you're portraying it wrong. Marriage does NOT grant you citizenship right now.

I like the current system.
Marriage with a US citizen will not grant you citizenship, but grant you a Green Card to allow you to stay legally in the US and work.

The path to citizenship is is possible, after 3 years of Green Card.

To NOT allow citizenship after many years of Green Card would be a bad thing.
E.g., a foreigner married to a US citizen could (under some circumstances) face double taxation in the case of death benefits / inheritance. The only way to avoid double taxation is to be a US citizen.

-t

To be more precise, it is called conditional permanent residency (not a green card), and after those three years of staying out of trouble those conditions are lifted. The conditions within that three year span include being situated in the US (although you can travel), and in order for your conditions to be lifted you still need to be married, I'm pretty sure. It would be pretty hard to carry on a fraudulent functioning three year marriage.

A non-conditional permanent resident can *then* shell out $1000 or so to take the test and become a citizen. The only difference between a (non-conditional) permanent resident and a citizen is that citizens can vote, run for office, as well as sponsor direct family members to immigrate to the US. Since my family is happy in Canada, and I've been living in Indiana I still haven't become a citizen actually, and likely never will until there is an election where I feel like my vote is worth the $1000 and traveling to wherever to take the test.

[subego]

Canada > Indiana.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Canada > Indiana.

No disagreement from me!

[besson3c]

The term "green card" is not inaccurate, it is still known as that, but I believe "green card" was one of its older official names. That being still call it that is a holdover. It is now a permanent resident card.

[subego]

While we're talking holdovers, who puts set-top boxes on top of their set? I can't even get my Wii sensor bar to balance up there.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

Though it's too late for you to change your vote t7, you (or anyone else) may consider the question to be whether marrying a citizen should grant you a green card, which would likely later be turned into citizenship.

It absolutely should.

There's two arguments for it:

1) NOT granting a Green Card (i.e. right to work and be a permanent resident) to a married spouse would be absolutely ridiculous.
You'd effectively ensure that Americans can't / shouldn't marry outside of the US.

2) Granting a Green Card w/o citizenship would only acceptable if the IRS laws for allowing double taxation of a foreign citizen would be changed. Plus some other tax laws that would cause disadvantage to non-US citizens married to a US citizen.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The term "green card" is not inaccurate, it is still known as that, but I believe "green card" was one of its older official names. That being still call it that is a holdover. It is now a permanent resident card.

Yes, you are right, but no, it doesn't really matter.

Everyone knows what Green Card means. Few know what Permanent Residency means.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

1) NOT granting a Green Card (i.e. right to work and be a permanent resident) to a married spouse would be absolutely ridiculous.
You'd effectively ensure that Americans can't / shouldn't marry outside of the US.

Yeah. I personally think its a pretty whack-a-doodle idea.

[besson3c]

Some other ways to gain legal status in the US:

- work VISA: which are tethered to your employment status with the company that employs you, and that company has to take extra steps to prove that they can't employ a US worker to fulfill their job requirements. I'm willing to bet that these are quite rare, finding an employer who is willing to go through this hassle is a big enough of an obstacle alone. Unless you want the potentially hellish life of staying with that same company for the rest of your life, these are designed to be temporary.

- student VISA: tethered to your student status, temporary.

- family sponsorship: requires a direct family member who is a US citizen.

- marriage


The biggest problem as far as illegal immigration goes and exploitation of these VISAs is probably people who overstay their temporary VISA. It is pretty hard, if not impossible, to track everybody who has entered the country legally. I would bet the most commonly exploited VISA is the student VISA, but I would not suggest that the "solution" is to deny international students admission to universities, I wouldn't want to live in a country that did this either.

There is so much misdirected emotion with the whole immigration thing. Until we can come up with a way to track illegal border crossings, employers that hire illegals, and students that overstay their VISAs and the like, those who go on about how we should "deport al dem illegals" should shut up until they can make positive contributions to the issue. The whole Jan Brewer illegal immigrant witch hunt thing is not the solution either, the solution needs to be instated at the federal level.

The thing is, I honestly don't think there is a fair solution beyond what is in place now that would pass my "would I want to live in a country that imposes this?" test, and possibly even regardless of my test.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You'd effectively ensure that Americans can't / shouldn't marry outside of the US.

That's assuming that the foreigner is trying to get into the US, rather than the Amerikan trying to get out.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The thing is, I honestly don't think there is a fair solution beyond what is in place now that would pass my "would I want to live in a country that imposes this?" test, and possibly even regardless of my test.

On the contrary.

If you let in more immigrants, there's less incentive to abuse the system.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

In the strict question on the pole I'm a no, should they get a green card sure. AKA if the couple breaks up, the spouse goes home.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

In the strict question on the pole I'm a no, should they get a green card sure. AKA if the couple breaks up, the spouse goes home.

Sorry about that. I really meant "a clear path to" rather than "grant".

[Uncle Skeleton]

How exactly are we harmed by "fraudulent" marriages?

Also what is the number? How does it compare to the total number of legal and illegal immigrants?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How exactly are we harmed by "fraudulent" marriages?

Well, I would imagine there's often money exchanged which isn't reported to the IRS.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, I would imagine there's often money exchanged which isn't reported to the IRS.

Yeah but the existence of the loophole is what made that commerce exist in the first place. In a perfect world, there would be no loophole to exploit and the money would not be exchanged. Therefore we're no worse off.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

In the strict question on the pole I'm a no, should they get a green card sure. AKA if the couple breaks up, the spouse goes home.

So, you can be married to somebody for 20 years, break up, and then have to go home? How does this make sense?

[reader50]

Originally Posted by subego 

In the US, it's estimated that about one-third of the marriages which grant citizenship are fraudulent (i.e. the marriage is only for purposes of gaining citizenship).

You're phrasing it wrong. 2/3 of such marriages are legit, which may be a record for a federal program today. So we'd be blocking 2/3 of legit marriages in this class to obstruct a minority who bring (bribe) money into the country and don't necessarily do any harm.

One could argue that blocking citizenship-related marriages will increase pay for federal workers - the bribes would go somewhere more effective. Kind of like if copyright law didn't start counting down until after the author died would create an incentive for murder. You'd be creating incentives for corruption and possibly worse crimes.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

You're phrasing it wrong.

I wanted to phrase things as sympathetically as possible towards the negative response.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yeah but the existence of the loophole is what made that commerce exist in the first place. In a perfect world, there would be no loophole to exploit and the money would not be exchanged. Therefore we're no worse off.

Very good point.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, you can be married to somebody for 20 years, break up, and then have to go home? How does this make sense?

You had 20 years living in the US and you never applied for citizenship? I know the immigration line is long but what do you care your already in the country. I don't think the fact that you married a citizen should somehow put you ahead of the people who've been waiting to immigrate.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, you can be married to somebody for 20 years, break up, and then have to go home? How does this make sense?

Isn't it set up that if you have a green card for certain amount of time you can get citizenship?

[Big Mac]

It should grant citizenship, but not immediately (if we're talking about my ideal system). There should be a waiting period wherein the person has the legal right to live and work in the country, but full citizenship shouldn't be granted for perhaps a couple years or more, to help ensure that it's not a sham marriage.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is so much misdirected emotion with the whole immigration thing. Until we can come up with a way to track illegal border crossings, employers that hire illegals, and students that overstay their VISAs and the like, those who go on about how we should "deport al dem illegals" should shut up until they can make positive contributions to the issue. .

My idea, IMF agents paid by commission, for every illegal worker they find the employer is fined 6mo wages or 50k if they can't prove wages. Agent gets to keep 5% of the fines.
Take away the work and all you have left to deal with is the actual criminals.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

It was pointed out in the "I f-ing hate it" thread that more people might have a problem with this if they knew how much it was abused.

In the US, it's estimated that about one-third of the marriages which grant citizenship are fraudulent (i.e. the marriage is only for purposes of gaining citizenship).

This is worded about as fairly in my favor as I could've hoped and congrats, I'm getting lambasted.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

My idea, IMF agents paid by commission, for every illegal worker they find the employer is fined 6mo wages or 50k if they can't prove wages. Agent gets to keep 5% of the fines.
Take away the work and all you have left to deal with is the actual criminals.

Seems to me after all the actual criminals are locked up or deported, they'll start making up new ones just to get that 5% they've grown to depend on.

I can't think of anything worse than commission based law enforcement.

[olePigeon]

One of the custodians at my work just threw a huge party recently. His wife of 22 years just got her citizenship after waiting 9 years. Nine years. It's no wonder people come over here illegally. No one could keep me from my wife for 9 years. That's insane.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

One of the custodians at my work just threw a huge party recently. His wife of 22 years just got her citizenship after waiting 9 years. Nine years.

Do you know the reasons why it took so long ?

Between my citizenship application and becoming a citizen were only 3 months.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It should grant citizenship, but not immediately (if we're talking about my ideal system). There should be a waiting period wherein the person has the legal right to live and work in the country, but full citizenship shouldn't be granted for perhaps a couple years or more, to help ensure that it's not a sham marriage.

That's exactly how it works today.

If you obtained your Green Card through marriage, you have to wait at least 3 years.
If you got your Green Card by other means (like based on years of work visas), it's a 5 year wait.

-t

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Seems to me after all the actual criminals are locked up or deported, they'll start making up new ones just to get that 5% they've grown to depend on.

I can't think of anything worse than commission based law enforcement.

There's no locking up or deporting. I'm only fining the employer, who probably a us citizen and look to the courts for redress if he feels he's been wronged. I dont care about what happens to the illegals. The employer I's even free to keep them on staff, I'll just come back next week and fine him again. I don't expect there to be very many of these agents, put a few farms, landscape, construction companies out of business and the message will be sent.

[nonhuman]

Can anyone provide a good argument for why we have citizenship at all? Why don't just say that anyone who wants to can come live here and enjoy the benefits (and responsibilities) of doing so? What do we actually gain by keeping people out (or trying to)?

[BLAZE_MkIV]

People who would come to take advantage of all the social institutions we have intead of intending to contribute. I believe parasite is the term. You were ignoring known criminals right?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Can anyone provide a good argument for why we have citizenship at all? Why don't just say that anyone who wants to can come live here and enjoy the benefits (and responsibilities) of doing so? What do we actually gain by keeping people out (or trying to)?

I'm all for it, if we shut down all the freebies and government handouts.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

You had 20 years living in the US and you never applied for citizenship? I know the immigration line is long but what do you care your already in the country. I don't think the fact that you married a citizen should somehow put you ahead of the people who've been waiting to immigrate.

If the couple breaks up within the first 3 years, the non-US alien is already required to go home. What would you want to change?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It should grant citizenship, but not immediately (if we're talking about my ideal system). There should be a waiting period wherein the person has the legal right to live and work in the country, but full citizenship shouldn't be granted for perhaps a couple years or more, to help ensure that it's not a sham marriage.

I guess what we have now is ideal to you then...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

My idea, IMF agents paid by commission, for every illegal worker they find the employer is fined 6mo wages or 50k if they can't prove wages. Agent gets to keep 5% of the fines.
Take away the work and all you have left to deal with is the actual criminals.

How would they know these wages even exist? These employers surely do not report the wages of these illegals in their taxes, or do they?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Do you know the reasons why it took so long ?

She's Mexican.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

People who would come to take advantage of all the social institutions we have intead of intending to contribute. I believe parasite is the term. You were ignoring known criminals right?

I would say the stronger rationale would be people that come here to take advantage of the economic opportunity here.

As the world flattens the idea of disbanding the concept of citizenship is not a bad one. Instead, we could just utilize the same resources to making sure everybody who enters has a clean criminal record, those who are here are paying taxes, and require a minimum number of years of residency before gaining voting rights. It seems like as every day passes the whole concept of citizenship of any country is archaic - we are citizens of the world.

The US makes a bunch of money off of citizenship and permanent residency applications, so they'd have to find a way to make up for this lost revenue....

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Can anyone provide a good argument for why we have citizenship at all? Why don't just say that anyone who wants to can come live here and enjoy the benefits (and responsibilities) of doing so? What do we actually gain by keeping people out (or trying to)?

The same thing you gain by having locks on your doors, windows, and vehicles. Or by not serving soup each night out of your home to the general public. With trillions in debt, a surplus of unskilled labor, an unemployment rate scaring 9%, and an obvious problem managing benefits and responsibilities already; I think we'd do well to pick up a bit before inviting a bunch of folks over.

We might be closer in that I don't see why we can't at least get an awareness of and produce citizenship for those presently in the US. (IMO, only with a downpayment of serious measures to seal the border) I just can't imagine a scenario where we keep fighting all fronts of immigration half-heartedly with limited resources and get our house in order, but I'm sure someone will have good points.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The same thing you gain by having locks on your doors, windows, and vehicles. Or by not serving soup each night out of your home to the general public. With trillions in debt, a surplus of unskilled labor, an unemployment rate scaring 9%, and an obvious problem managing benefits and responsibilities already; I think we'd do well to pick up a bit before inviting a bunch of folks over.

Isn't this bordering a bit on some sort of "ism", in assuming that those that would come over here would be the scoundrel types, draining economic resources? Maybe some of these same people would be starting businesses that would boost the economy?

We might be closer in that I don't see why we can't at least get an awareness of and produce citizenship for those presently in the US. (IMO, only with a downpayment of serious measures to seal the border) I just can't imagine a scenario where we keep fighting all fronts of immigration half-heartedly with limited resources and get our house in order, but I'm sure someone will have good points.

The problem is accounting for everybody, and having the financial resources to do so. For instance, for tracking student VISAs there would need to be a database of every VISA granted (I'm sure there already is), records of when that student entered and left the country (there probably already is), and then some way of coming up with lists of people that haven't left when they should have, and some way of tracking down these people in a country of this vast size.

This is just for overstayed VISAs though, for illegal border crossings I don't know what you'd do. A fence is retarded, heightening security is expensive and has severe social ramifications.

You like small government, right?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

She's Mexican.

Wow. 9 freaking years ?

-t

[BLAZE_MkIV]

You can't really physically keep them out. You need to remove the incentives for them to come.

[reader50]

Our politicians are working on just that. Between financial meltdown, endless foreign wars, and rollbacks of civil liberties, it shouldn't take long to solve the immigration problem.