comment: >
  
  
  What makes a marriage legitimate? When you think of the concept of marriage no doubt many images are conjured in your head. Children. Love. Commitment. Property.
  However, as a country, we've come to agree that none of these notions are essential for a couple to be wedded. I argue that since we do not believe that any possible criteria is necessary for a legitimate marriage, we have no grounds upon which to declare any marriage null or fraudulent.
  So all of this is just to say I do not understand how the government can find a marriage illegitimate. Marriages do not require any aim of producing children, love, commitment, living together.
  
  The confusing thing is that these factors are typically used as tests for marriages when there is suspicion of fraud, while they're not in and of themselves requirements that must be fulfilled in order for any marriage to be legally valid. 
  If there's a suspicion of marriage fraud, these factors may be tested to see if the fraud suspicion can be disproved. If they find that there are indeed indicators of love, commitment, property sharing, pregnancy etc., this would help to disprove the fraud suspicion, but it doesn't make them positive requirements for the validity of all marriages. It even helps if just one or two of those factors can be demonstrated. They're effectively only treated as providing an "alibi" against fraud accusations, but not as marriage requirements.
context: /u/BrokenManOfSamarkand (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  There's an easy fraud. 
  I'm already legally married, I sign a doc saying I'm not, and get married again. 
  Fraud. >
  
  
  So all of this is just to say I do not understand how the government can find a marriage illegitimate.
  
  It's usually pretty straightforward actually.
  In most cases of marriage fraud that are actually pursued there's clearcut evidence that the union was entered into fraudulently, with the express purpose of gaining legal benefits.
  Most fraudulent marriages that are prosecuted involve two parties who have either never met, have only met briefly, or who meet only at the time of the marriage and then spend no time with one another after the marriage. 
  Evidence in such cases generally comes down to digital traces such as texts, emails, messages etc that show clear intent to enter into a fraudulent marriages or (even more immediately damning) one party who admits during questioning that the marriage was entered into purely for legal benefits or that they were compensated for entering into the marriage specifically for legal benefits such as immigration status. >
  
  But my point is that there are no possible grounds to declare a marriage illegitimate.  Marrying for a benefit is not only not fraudulent, it's actually the only thing that inherently characterizes a marriage.
  
  Most fraudulent marriages that are prosecuted involve two parties who have either never met, have only met briefly, or who meet only at the time of the marriage and then spend no time with one another after the marriage. 
  
  As far as I know, there is no requirement that spouses be well acquainted. >
  
  Federally, marriages that involve foreign nationals marrying U.S. citizens strictly to obtain U.S. citizenship are governed under 8 U.S.C. 1325(C) and 18 U.S.C. 1546, they provide for a penalty of up to five years in prison for the offense. Under that statute, you can also be fined up to $250,000.
  You argue that 
  
  Marrying for a benefit is not only not fraudulent, it's actually the only thing that inherently characterizes a marriage.
  
  But U.S. and international law has consistently, and over centuries, disagreed with you both as relates to the purpose of a marriage, the legality of marrying someone strictly for legal benefits, and the criteria for determining when a marriage is not valid.
  Marriage laws, from a legal history and theory perspective, are designed to encourage beneficial relations between two partners (polygamous marriages are universally illegal in the U.S.) that is both to their benefit and that benefits society as a whole.
  There are no personal or societal benefits from allowing mercenary unions purely to game the system and obtain otherwise illegitimate citizenship status.
  
  But even this is undercut by practices like prenups that aim to decide this in advance.
  
  In reference to this specific point, prenups are strictly regulated and cannot shield all property, particularly property acquired in the course of the relationship. 
  It's very, very easy to invalidate a prenup if it is found to have been entered into under fraudulent circumstances. >
  
  
  There are no personal or societal benefits from allowing mercenary unions purely to game the system and obtain otherwise illegitimate citizenship status.
  
  I mean, I'm not that creative and I can come up with numerous potential benefits without thinking much about it, increasing number of taxpayers, potential service members, labor force etc.
  But my point is a slightly different one.  There is nothing about marriage as we understand it that really requires any sort of social gain.  The union is said to exist solely based on consent of the two parties and no other indicia of any benefit to the parties or society. Since that's the case, it's incoherent to single out this one particular union. >
  
  
  There is nothing about marriage as we understand it that really requires any sort of social gain. The union is said to exist solely based on consent of the two parties and no other indicia of any benefit to the parties or society. Since that's the case, it's incoherent to single out this one particular union.
  
  And I provided you with direct links to legal precedent, history, and examples which clearly showed that interpretation is false.
  Specific to 
  
  The union is said to exist solely based on consent of the two parties and no other indicia of any benefit to the parties or society
  
  The union categorically does not exist solely because of the consent of the two parties.
  The union must comply with the legal standards of a jurisdiction in order to be recognized as a lawful union.
  Those legal standards are based on prevailing societal norms that evolve over time (as recently as 2015 gay marriage was not federally protected prior to the Obergefell decision) and are open to interpretation, but which always require the legal recognition and approval of the prevailing jurisdiction to be seen as a lawful union.
  You claim that "no one can say what a marriage is" and I refuted that by pointing out that marriage is now and has always been a societal construct based on historical and evolving societal norms that is not valid unless legally recognized. >
  
  Nothing you are arguing for is more than a vague notion of "norms." Of course norms decide what is and isn't a marriage.  But that's not the topic here, which says that the norm is incoherent.  
  Behavior that is acceptable for one group, but unacceptable for another solely because of immigration status is incoherent. >
  
  The norm isn't incoherent, you just disagree with the prevailing norm.
  The current norm is that a marriage shouldn't be entered into for specifically and strictly mercenary purposes (including marriages strictly for the acquisition of wealth, though generally those are just "frowned upon" rather than actually illegal).
  My point was specifically that
  
  So all of this is just to say I do not understand how the government can find a marriage illegitimate.
  
  The government can find a marriage illegitimate when it was entered into specifically to perform a function (getting a green card/citizenship) that the government has legally prohibited.
  You disagree with that interpretation, but I find it difficult to believe that you don't understand the governments position and the criteria they used to determine fraud. >
  
  Of course I understand what the government prohibits, and I understand it's rationales for prohibiting these marriages.  But understanding these reasons, doesn't make them coherent.
  You can marry for whatever benefit you desire and there is, as far as I know, nothing like the infrastructure we have set up for immigration to make sure every marriage is based on more than obtaining a benefit from the government because, again--marrying for wealth is truly marrying to obtain the power of the state to enforce your rights. >
  
  Coherence is the standard you  based your CMV on.
  I pointed out that the government has set a coherent, understandable, and completely reasonable standard by which to determine when a marriage is fraudulent.
  The standard is that you cannot enter into a marriage solely for immigration purposes, with no other reasonable purposes.
  Anyone who enters into a marriage, during which you make a legal and binding declaration as to the intent of their marriage, for purposes specifically prohibited by U.S. marriage laws has by definition committed fraud.
  It's an extremely cut and dried, understandable, logically consistent, and coherent position.
  If this doesn't offer a clear refutation of your point, then what standard would you accept to change your view? >
  
  I'll award a ∆ to the extent that it is true that it's a coherent position that if the government defines X as fraud and then you commit X, you've committed fraud. It's true as a tautology, but I still think it's not quite my point, which is essentially that the law says "anything goes" in just about every scenario, but then applies an extraordinary level of scrutiny not seen elsewhere to a small subset of marriages.  There is no overarching regime or enforcement infrastructure holding American marriages to these heights of rigor and integrity. >
  
  
  There is no "fraud" if one citizens marries another solely to attempt to get their wealth.
  
  There is if you've presented yourself as entering into it for anything but that.  It's not a fraud on the government, it's a fraud on the spouse.
  
  whereas in a green card marriage, one is attempting to "fraudulently" obtain citizenship from the government
  
  If they do anything other than go to the office and declare "This is a green card marriage, and I'm only doing this for citizenship and nothing more", then they have absolutely committed fraud on the government.  
  
  If you marry someone for wealth you are also attempting to "fraudulently" compel the government to enforce your rights to your spouse's wealth and potential benefits. It's no really different.
  
  Of course.   Both are illegal, by the way. >
  
  
  If they do anything other than go to the office and declare "This is a green card marriage, and I'm only doing this for citizenship and nothing more", then they have absolutely committed fraud on the government. 
  
  I agree that it's fraud as currently defined, but my greater point isn't that it's not legally fraudulent, but that it's an incoherent position.  Marrying for benefits in part or whole is a legitimate practice.
  
  Of course. Both are illegal, by the way.
  
  I haven't heard that before, but would be interested to read more about fraud on a spouse in marrying for wealth, if you would be able to point me towards a source or law. >
  
  I don't believe anything in this says that the marriage itself was fraudulent, unless I missed it. >
  
  The issue here is why we give immigration benefits related to marriage.
  The reason the benefits exist is as a service to citizens to allow them to live with their families and not have a border permanently separate them. It is not to allow people to immigrate by arrangements with total strangers who happen to be citizens.
  If you openly allowed marriage of convenience for immigration purposes, you would totally destroy support among the American public for allowing sponsorship of spouses at all, and that would mean a huge harm to those who do want to actually live with their spouses out of love.