Loren Pechtel

And they have some pretty stiff penalties.

Our first interview consisted entirely of threats and warnings of the punishment. The fact that there's quite a difference in our ages probably had something to do with that, though.

I'd love to find that interviewer and ask her if she was still sure our marriage was a sham. (We just passed 15 years this month.)

Jamie_L

What I wonder is how does the government define "sham"?

Do the marriage laws specify anything about love? Is a marriage not legal if the parties don't love each other? Is it not legal if they don't have sex? Is this spelled out in the marriage laws?

If none of that is spelled out in the law, on what legal basis can the INS say the marriage isn't a "real" marriage? Unless the law specifies things about love and copulation, isn't it "real" as long as both parties signed the paperwork?

Jamie

Pyrrho

To get a proper answer to the questions you have, I suggest you speak with a lawyer. As I am not a lawyer, consider the remainder of my comments as "entertainment".

I believe that the law is stricter (in the U.S.) regarding what constitutes a marriage when one of the persons involved is not a U.S. citizen. This is very much like the laws that govern when one can become a citizen. If you want to become a citizen, you must pass a test showing that you know something about the U.S. (among other requirements). If those born in the U.S. were held to the same standards, most would probably be deported, and the country would be significantly less populated than it is now.

Furthermore, different states have different laws regarding marriage, and what the INS does is regulated by federal law. This means that you may very well be married as far as a particular state is concerned, but the federal government may have a differing opinion on the subject.

To come close to a direct answer to some of your questions, I believe the INS would regard a marriage as requiring love, sex, and that the couple live together. Again, for specifics regarding the legal nature of such things, I suggest that you speak with an attorney.

Loren Pechtel

Their standard: If the marriage was for the purpose of obtaining a green card and they aren't living as husband and wife it's considered a sham.

The one real interview we had basically consisted of separating us and asking both of us a bunch of trivia about daily life and then they compared the answers.

They weren't happy about her not taking my last name (In China the wife normally does *NOT* take the husband's name and to me a mixed-language name sounds odd. Because of their squawks she ended up adding my name but not dropping her maiden name.) They weren't particularly happy about not having very many instances of our finances being mingled--but the idiots weren't considering the fact that neither of us had much. The "not very much" was all active accounts. (I hadn't bothered to put her name on a gas credit card that I no longer used and which was rather moot as she doesn't drive. They gave no indication of knowing of this account.)

They also weren't too happy that our marriage produced no children. (1--even if I wanted children I wouldn't start right out having them when we hadn't had time to accumulate savings, 2--neither of us wanted children.) Finally, they were quite unhappy about the age difference.

However, despite their inability to ask the questions right (ex: I was asked "what does she usually wear at night?" She was asked "What did you wear last night?") and inability to listen to the answers (I told them that her answer for the brand of TV was going to be "I don't know". My interviewer insisted that she would know. She didn't.) we must have agreed on enough of them that they couldn't find any grounds to turn us down. It was a couple of week short of 2 years before she got her conditional green card. (And that's a delaying tactic on their part--had they waited past 2 years it would not have had the conditional status, thus we wouldn't have had to appear again in 2 years to get it lifted.)

Loren Pechtel

The closest they ever came to asking us about sex was "What side of the bed do you sleep on?" as part of the trivia test.

Pyrrho

So they clearly want you to sleep together. (By "sleep" in the previous sentence, I mean "sleep", not some euphemism for "sexual intercourse".) That is probably enough for them to suppose that you do have sex. There would probably be a public outcry against them if they asked things like: "What is your favorite sexual position?" which, of course, is none of their business (not that that prevents them from asking you other questions that are none of their business).

Loren Pechtel

They weren't interested in the answers to the trivia test, they were interested in if we gave the *SAME* answers.

They were questions that for the most part two people living together would know the answers to. The side-of-the-bed question was the only one that roommates wouldn't know. It would weed out a lot of the sham cases where a couple "marries" but continue to lead their separate lives.

Pyrrho

I am aware of the fact that they want the same answers from both of you. The idea being that you are more likely to be telling the truth if you both say the same thing. However, I don't think it is accurate to say that they don't care what your answers are. If you believe I am mistaken, during the next interview, why don't you both say that you sleep in separate beds and have never had sex? My guess is that they would declare your marriage to be a "sham" if you both (or even if one of you) claimed that. I think they would say that you were not, as you put it, "living as husband and wife". But by all means, try it to prove me wrong by telling the INS that at your next interview if you wish to do so.

Why do you think, as you put it, "They also weren't too happy that our marriage produced no children"? Obviously, they expect you to be having sex; otherwise the disappointment about children would make no sense, as people who don't have sex typically don't have children.

abe smith

Interesting fact that way back in WW2, before some of you were born, Thomas Mann's at-least-unmarried daughter um, Erika was her name I guess, had to be gotten out of Germany to some safe country; and interested persons figured out that if she were married to a Brit(?) she could be accepted in England.
The matter circulated among the academics; and WH Auden, the queer poet, said he'd be willing to do that. So far as I know Auden never bothered to offer any overt reasons; probably he'd have thought them unnecessary, or nobody's business.
Anyway, he did & she did and (no bears involved) the Brits
officialdom did. Of course Auden never divorced nor remarried after that; I assume Mrs Mann-Auden did not either. Interesting. Given the sorts of thinking ole WH was prone to, I infer that he'd 've considered the moral qq involved. Not sure if he'd fallen back into the arms of the CofE by then, or not. He did do, later at least.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Pyrrho
I am aware of the fact that they want the same answers from both of you. The idea being that you are more likely to be telling the truth if you both say the same thing.

It's a matter of whether you are living the same life.

However, I don't think it is accurate to say that they don't care what your answers are. If you believe I am mistaken, during the next interview, why don't you both say that you sleep in separate beds and have never had sex?

I see your point.

Why do you think, as you put it, "They also weren't too happy that our marriage produced no children"? Obviously, they expect you to be having sex; otherwise the disappointment about children would make no sense, as people who don't have sex typically don't have children.

True. Sex is assumed, not asked about.