Several years ago I was casually dating a man from Colombia named Carlos*. On our second date, he raised the topic of matrimony. I was a bit surprised; barely two weeks of knowing one another seemed a bit early for him to basically propose to me. Many other girls might be flattered or even elated if they received a proposal so soon in the relationship. However, while I was attracted to Carlos and was indeed considering a future with him, I suspected he might have ulterior motives for bringing up marriage on our second meeting. Carlos was in Canada on a visitor’s visa. As he explained it, there were three ways he could stay in this country: by obtaining refugee status (which he ultimately did), staying here illegally and working under the table, or marrying a Canadian. Needless to say, I did not marry him.
Though I did not become an example of it, my experience with Carlos got me interested in the subject of marriage fraud. Marriage fraud is defined as the act of marrying an individual with the sole purpose of immigrating to or obtaining permanent status in his or her country of residence and lying about the true purpose of the marriage (i.e. pretending to be in love with him or her). Marriage fraud should be distinguished from marriage of convenience, where both parties agree to get married in order to help one of them immigrate but where there is no intent to deceive the other (a la Andie MacDowell and Gerard Depardieu in the film Green Card).
The most famous case of (probable) marriage fraud is perhaps that of African-American writer Terry McMillan and Jonathan Plummer. At the age of 42, McMillan took a trip to Jamaica and there met Plummer, then twenty. After marrying him and bringing him to the United States, she wrote a semi-autobiographical novel about her experience entitled How Stella Got Her Groove Back, which was later made into a movie with Angela Bassett in the lead role. The marriage ended a decade later when Plummer revealed he was gay. He claimed to have discovered his homosexuality only on coming to the States, but McMillan asserted he knew of it all along and merely used her to get a green card. Personally, I strongly believe McMillan’s explanation to be the more likely one – though as a gay man his desire to leave Jamaica was somewhat understandable given the extensive homophobia in that nation and though maybe McMillan should have wondered why, gay or not, a man half her age in a developing country would be so eager to walk down the aisle with her.
Away from the limelight, marriage fraud has recently become an issue in Canada as well. The Toronto Sun ran an article in 2006 about a Canadian woman who married a Cuban man, only to have him abandon her three months after he received his permanent residency and social insurance number in this country. She would moreover be legally obliged to reimburse the government for any welfare costs he might incur. A local Toronto Chinese daily featured a story on a woman whom many in the community suspected of marrying her now-deceased husband solely to enter Canada. Many marriage fraud incidents involve the South Asian community. The situation among them is further complicated by the fact that a considerable proportion of their marriages are arranged by family members, so it may be even more difficult for them to gauge their would-be spouse’s true intentions if he or she lives outside Canada.
Now some people have said “enough.†A number of organizations with names like Stopmarriagefraud.ca, the Canadian Marriage Fraud Victim Society, and Canadians Against Immigration Fraud have formed to combat fraudulent marriages. They have received support from British Columbia Member of Legislative Assembly Raj Chouhan. Their premise: that Canada’s immigration system makes it too easy for people abroad to wed Canadians just to get a foothold in this country. For instance, the husband or wife of a Canadian citizen is provided with permanent residency papers immediately upon arriving here. Anti-marriage fraud groups suggest that Canada instead adopt a similar framework to that in the United States and Australia, whereby foreign spouses of nationals must wait three years before they can become permanent residents. If the marriage dissolved before the end of that period, barring hard cases such as domestic violence the spouse would be deported to his or her homeland, and obviously the Canadian partner would not be on the hook financially for him or her.
As a would-be victim of marriage fraud myself, I look at these organizations’ sites regularly and have even contributed to one of them (Stopmarriagefraud.ca). Some of them admittedly raise a few questions in my mind. For example, one states that the majority of Canadian-foreigner marriages involve deceit but provides no data to show this. The danger in making unsubstantiated claims is that when they are found to have no basis in fact they can cause the whole movement to lose credibility. They end up making the writer of the claim at issue (in this case, that most marriages with non-Canadians are shams) look irrational. As a result some readers might dismiss the existence of genuine marriage fraud entirely. I also have reservations about the wisdom of automatically deporting suspected marriage fraudsters. Deportation is not always practical: some individuals with deportation orders against them simply fail to show up at the immigration office and go into hiding. On the other hand, lengthening the period required to obtain permanent residence from zero to three years does not appear unreasonable. If the marriage ends before that time, the foreign partner should perhaps not be deported but nor should be entitled to alimony from his or her former spouse or to welfare from the public purse. This might ultimately push some fraudulent husbands and wives to go back to their home country if they knew they could not receive any financial assistance in Canada. Finally, these sites do an important job in raising awareness about the problem of marriage fraud.
* Pseudonym.
One of the more famous figures of American sports history was Roy Campanella. “Campy,†as he was known, served as catcher for the Brooklyn Dodgers from 1948 to 1957. He also boasted an impressive batting average. But his spectacular career as a baseball player was cut short in 1958 when a car accident left him permanently paralyzed. However, Campanella later returned to the Dodgers - who had since relocated to Los Angeles - as a coach. A picture of him in 1980 shows him seated in a wheelchair instructing the team’s rookie catchers. Roy Campanella died in 1993 at the age of seventy-one.
A general in the Indonesian army, Suharto (like many Indonesians he used only one name) took power in 1965 after conducting an anti-Communist purge and deposing then-president Sukarno. During his thirty-two-year leadership Suharto greatly industrialized the country and reduced its poverty. He gained the support of the United States, who saw his “New Order†administration as a bulwark against the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia. On the other hand, his regime was known for its corruption and brutality. Hundreds of thousands of people, mainly real or suspected Communists, were tortured by the police, kept in prison for long periods without trial, made to “disappear,†or killed outright. The Suharto administration’s invasion and annexation of West Papua (Irian Jaya) and East Timor (now an independent nation) and repression of the independence movement in the province of Aceh drew condemnation from international human rights organizations. Though Indonesia was the recipient of aid from the US and other Western countries, much of it went into the pockets of Suharto himself and his family members. There were discussions after his resignation in 1998 about prosecuting him for embezzlement, but he was never formally charged in a court of law.
Suharto’s treatment of different ethnic groups challenges the simplistic notion of a world made up of Whites on one hand and “people of colour†on the other. Ironically, this vision is shared by two factions who otherwise appear to have nothing in common: White Supremacists and leftists of all racial backgrounds. The latter tend to see non-Whites as victims of European colonialism - or American imperialism - and expect them to band together against the White oppressor. But this was hardly the case in East Timor, even if both that country and Indonesia at one time fell under European powers (Portugal and the Netherlands respectively). Though the West was rightly accused of turning a blind eye to Indonesia’s persecution of the Timorese people, the fact is that most of the human rights violations in Timor were committed not by Europeans or Americans but by Indonesians. East Timorese freedom fighter Constancio Pinto writes in his book East Timor’s Unfinished Struggle: Inside the Timorese Resistance that while not perfect, Timor’s former Portuguese overlords were far more humane than the Indonesians who came after them. And contrary to White racists’ idea of a vast anti-White conspiracy by “hordes of colour,†Timorese activist Xanana Gusmao has actually expressed solidarity with the people of Poland and the Baltics – at whose struggles for independence White “progressives†have often scoffed. Nor within Indonesia itself did Suharto love his Chinese subjects as fellow Asians.

Recent Comments