comment: >
  
  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.
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.