What constitutes a "sham" marriage

[Severian]

I was interested to read today about a vicar jailed for four years for carrying out hundreds of fake marriages to bypass immigration law.

 

In this case, it seems seems that some of the women were taken advantage of, since they were in dire financial circumstances. That alone make the whole episode unsavoury.

 

But leaving that aside, and assuming that both parties are consenting with no duress, how does one define a "sham marriage"? Surely if both parties are willing to get married it should be their right to do so, and they should be given all the privileges of marriage irrespective of their motivations. Why should a couple have to demonstrate that they are "in love" (whatever that means) or have sex, in order for it to be a "real" marriage?

 

We are permitted to undertake binding business contracts with the only motivation being personal monetary gain, so why should a marriage contract be any different. Indeed, I have (female) friends who insist that standard marriage is nothing more than legalised prostitution.

 

I probably wouldn't go that far, but in my opinion, this highlights how the entire system of marriage, and indeed the entire philosophy of immigration laws in our society, are deeply flawed.

 

What do you think? Should marriages between people who are clearly not in love and only motivated by monetary gain be legal and provide the same rights as "standard" marriages? If not, why not?

[CaptainPanic]

Many cultures still have arranged marriages where the couple have never (or not often) met before they get married. Logically, there can be no love, no passion when the couple get married. And it may never happen. Also, monetary or political gain of a family is an important motivation for these arranged marriages.

 

Whatever we think about these "fake marriages", it is important to know that we may be judging more people than those "thousands" of people who try to bypass immigration laws. We may be judging billions of people.

 

I believe that a system that relates marriage and immigration is asking for fake marriages. The real solution is therefore to decouple these. In the Netherlands, immigration of a partner is allowed if a person has enough income. Marriage does not change that situation at all. I believe this makes sense - especially since the minimum income to be allow a partner to get a residence permit is not ridiculously high. It's just 20% more than the minimum wage.

[Marat]

To unpack the legal notion of 'sham marriage' we have to look at the reasons why states first started allowing spouses to immigrate to their partners' home country. This was intended as an exemption to restrictive immigration laws in order to make a merciful concession to the genuine human need of a couple with differing citizenships to live together. But obviously if the marriage was concluded only for the sake of circumventing the immigration restrictions and not out of any real human need, the reason for the state to make a merciful concession was missing, so the statute had to establish various tests to distinguish cases where the state's mercy was needed from where it wasn't.

 

The problem is that the great variety of cultural understandings of the appropriate reasons for getting married means that many of these tests may appear arbitrary to those from non-Western societies. Even in the West, people used to get married centuries ago just to cement dynastic and familial alliances, to settle feuds, or to allow for the combination of adjoining fields divided between two families into a more profitable unit. Marrying for the practical advantage of immigration to a country with a better welfare system or higher wages seems no different than marriage motivated by these purely pragmatic historical reasons.

[Pangloss]

I was interested to read today about a vicar jailed for four years for carrying out hundreds of fake marriages to bypass immigration law.

 

The whole premise of the case is interesting. It suggests that the church is responsible for validating a legal contract in England. In the US you actually have to get a "marriage license" from the government -- the religious ceremony is purely for show.

 

Or am I just missing something here?

[Severian]

It needs to be validated by the state in the UK too. So I am also unsure as to why this is the vicar's responsibility. The actual signing of the contract happens in the church, but you still have to apply for the contract in advance.

[Mr Skeptic]

Many cultures still have arranged marriages where the couple have never (or not often) met before they get married. Logically, there can be no love, no passion when the couple get married. And it may never happen. Also, monetary or political gain of a family is an important motivation for these arranged marriages.

 

Whatever we think about these "fake marriages", it is important to know that we may be judging more people than those "thousands" of people who try to bypass immigration laws. We may be judging billions of people.

 

While such marriages may have practical implications as their priority, I don't think any of them were for getting around a law.

 

I believe that a system that relates marriage and immigration is asking for fake marriages. The real solution is therefore to decouple these. In the Netherlands, immigration of a partner is allowed if a person has enough income. Marriage does not change that situation at all. I believe this makes sense - especially since the minimum income to be allow a partner to get a residence permit is not ridiculously high. It's just 20% more than the minimum wage.

 

Yeah, I'm not too fond of all the stuff that our legal system has attached to marriage.

[CaptainPanic]

While such marriages may have practical implications as their priority, I don't think any of them were for getting around a law.

No, but trying to get around a law in itself is not a crime. It just means that the law is not well-defined. It means that the law has a different effect than the one intended. That is not something you can blame on the people who try to get around a law. It should be blamed on those who wrote the law (or on those who did not adapt the law when times changed and a law had to be rewritten).

[Pangloss]

No, but trying to get around a law in itself is not a crime.

 

Well in the US there's a law that says it's a crime to use marriage to circumvent immigration law.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_of_convenience

 

The Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments Act of 1986 amended § 1325 by adding § 1325©, which provides a penalty of five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine for any "individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws."

 

It sounds like the UK has a similar statute. Makes sense, really.

[John Cuthber]

"What constitutes a "sham" marriage"

David Cameron and Nick Clegg.

[ewmon]

In the US you actually have to get a "marriage license" from the government -- the religious ceremony is purely for show.

What surprised me, where I'm from in the US, was that the couple signs the application for a marriage license, but only the state official (like a JP) or a religious official (like a minister) signs the license after the couple perform the wedding witnessed by the official. And I think there's a time limit (like 60 days) on how long the application is good for.

 

IMO, unless there's absolute proof of a scam, the govt should stay out of deciding what's for real and what's not.