You can also do that in high-functioning societies. In Japan people leave their purses, phones, etc to hold their seat before ordering in a café, going to the bathroom, etc.
Wow, this was so well presented! I almost didn't click on the article since I assumed it would be a meandering explanation about awkward edge cases or something. But this is so clearly and succinctly demonstrated! Amazing work by the author.
"You let me in at the time, therefore you can never deem the past entry fraudulent" is not how the law works. It was fraudulent at the time of entry, but the government doesn't know that until true intent is revealed when the foreigner applies for a change of status.
The timeline is:
1. Foreigner is married to or intends to marry a US citizen and live in the US (they know this; the government doesn't).
2. Foreigner enters the US with the assertion they have no intent to immigrate (they know this is false; US doesn't).
3. Couple applies for change of status to immigrate → This reveals the foreigner's original intent to immigrate even at the time of entry (the US now knows the entry was fraudulent)
I'm not defending the law; I believe it's haphazard and inhumane. Why do you get to apply while together inside the US only if you decided to marry and immigrate after entering the US, but if the foreigner is outside the US at the time you make the decision, you're now locked out for years? But that is what it is, and these people are getting burned trying to skirt the law.
In many cases regarding immigration, any single agent can act as judge, jury, and (deportation) executioner. Again something I learned many years ago and have kept top of mind for my own family.
If you are already married, then you enter the country with an assertion that you have no intent to immigrate, then you soon after apply to immigrate, chances you were not lying are vanishingly slim.
Yes, if you meet after you enter the country, then that doesn't apply to you. That's exactly when it is appropriate to apply from inside the country and stay while your application is pending. That's not what these couples are doing.
That sentence should probably be broken up for better clarity, but the content looks true and informative to me. Did you include that to imply there's something wrong with it?
It's extremely unlikely a journalist this haphazard is going to differentiate between a visa waiver and a temporary visa. Obviously some came on other visa if they could work, but it doesn't matter anyway; any non-immigrant visa you enter with will include the requirement that you have no intent to immigrate.
The only options are to be lucky enough to have decided to get married and immigrate after you were already in the US, or to do the application from overseas.
I assume you’re insinuating some kind of insult? I’m honestly not sure which one. For not risking my family to cheat US immigration law?
Edit: And now browsing the latest on this thread, it seems all the commenters here who have actually filed petitions agree—the law should be enforced evenly.
People following the actual immigration law, like I did. This very much impacts me and has determined my family's country of residence for many years. The process is horrible, but we still aren't cheating and I don't appreciate being skipped by people that are cheating.
Maybe I'm too stiff, but even if they don't get around to updating the laws, I'd still prefer they enforce the ones that exist so it's clear, fair, and safe. And so upstanding citizens aren't spending years separated from their spouses while they keep getting skipped by people willing to cheat the system.
It's not even a law that results in the years-long wait; it's just because the system is clogged up with other junk and understaffed. As other's have mentioned; there's no formal waiting for citizen spouses—it's supposed to be immediate—it's just that they don't even get to look at your application for years.
The article strongly misrepresents this, and they were almost certainly not detained for over-staying, but likely for fraudulent entry. See my other comment.
Supply and demand. The US is by far the top place people want to be, so however poorly they treat applicants, there will still be an infinite supply of people willing to put up with it.
Yes, exactly. Your legal options are to either remain separated for one or two years while you wait, or the American can immigrate to the spouse’s country and wait there (since almost every other country is easier to immigrate to).
It's an inhumane system, but as someone heavily impacted by US immigration policy, I'd much prefer they enforce the laws evenly and then fix them where they're broken rather than disadvantaging everyone going through the legal process while those that cheat get to jump ahead.
As an American with a foreign-spouse who went through the green card application long before Trump, these stories are heart-breaking but also what I expected. I guess these couples and lawyers were just counting on lax enforcement? But this was never allowed.
The article is very light on details, but implies all of these spouses travelled to the US on a visa waiver (or similar) and then applied for a green card. Entering the US on most visas includes the assertion that you have no intent to immigrate. If you happen to already be in the US when you fall in love, get married, and apply to stay, that's when you're allowed to overstay during your pending application.
As far as I can tell from the article, it appears all of these people committed immigration fraud by entering on non-immigrant visas with clear intent to immigrate. Given that they're almost certainly upstanding people who intended to do the right thing, I think they could safely be asked to leave and apply correctly without the forceful detention, but they are technically in the wrong. What they did is specifically something I knew not to do and went through great pains to avoid.
The immigration processes for legitimate foreign spouses are Kafkaesque and absolutely need to be overhauled. It shouldn't be easier to come in illegally than through legitimate marriage. But in the meantime, people also can't circumvent the existing laws and then act flabbergasted when called on it.
I really do feel terrible for these couples caught up in it, especially since it seems their lawyers misled them.
This is a disingenuous strawman. "Japan First" doesn't have to mean your naïve interpretation of some maximally xenophobic isolationism. If the US bases are good for Japan, then it's perfectly "Japan First".
Some people might disagree—certainly plenty of right-wing Japanese do disagree—but many also believe that the US alliance and the bases are critical to Japan's greater sovereignty and prosperity. Without the security treaty and cooperation, Japan would on their own against China, diverting far more funds to defense and accepting much higher security risk.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2026/0...