The federal Probation Department recommended no prison sentence, but Judge Cote disagreed, saying that written submissions on Ms. Rosa’s behalf included “very troubling suggestions” that the crime resulted in part because Ms. Rosa was following the American dream.Judge Cote was not appointed by Barack Obama, who, the day before Rosa's sentencing, appeared at the annual gala of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute and said: "Fixing our broken immigration system is one more big thing we have to do and one more thing we will do."
She said the suggestions were a “disservice to all our immigrants who actually try to follow the law and gain citizenship legitimately.”
Judge Cote was appointed by Bill Clinton.
Posts
27 comments:
Didn't the Clintons write the book on "sham marriages"?
A marriage is a marriage, whether she paid $8,000 for it or not.
I do not understand what the lie was from this article.
At least she went through the hoops required by law, even if her heart wasn't in the marriage, and got a one year sentence. Obama is telling people around the world just to ignore those hoops altogether. What's his sentence for aiding and abetting?
What's in a name? That whom we call Rosa by any other name would smell as sweat.
Arranged marriage worked fine in its day.
Probably the romantic marriages are the unstable ones.
Once love is a feeling, obligations are out the window.
As if you can't enjoy an obligation.
Lying to a federal official is a very mysterious crime.
It seems like it ought to be an obligation, just to keep the government in line.
As it is, the only wise course is to refuse to talk to government officials at all.
You know, if all the real marriages out there lasted as long as the Clintons' "sham marriage" has, we'd be in pretty good shape.
Judge Cote has fallen behind the times, though. She's supposed to rule that the law against sham marriages is the product of animus against sham-Americans and has no rational basis.
Our Hispanic princess, Gabriela Rosa has blonde hair.
What else is she lying about?
"Lying to a federal official is a very mysterious crime."
This. I would think there would be a positive constitutional right to lie to a federal official, or anyone else. Is there a "federal official" exception to the First Amendment?
Judge Cote is definitely behind the times.
These days, Gabriela Rosa, if anything, should be commended for having bothered to get a "green card" at all.
The records also show that while she was married to the first husband, Rosa continued a relationship with another man, whom she later married.
But lying to a federal official is defintely a federal offense.
Remember Scooter Libby? That is what he was convicted of, though his lying had nothing to do with who "outed" Valerie Plame, which they all knew from day one was Richard Armitage, the No. 2 man at the State Dept.
Don't you think something needs to be there to prevent the development of a free market in marriage, with single citizens reaping thousands of dollars and intermediaries skimming millions?
Maybe you think those who are rich enough to buy a fake marriage in the U.S. are paying the right price for citizenship and at least it keeps out the truly poor.
Our Hispanic princess, Gabriela Rosa has blonde hair.
What else is she lying about?
Hispanics can't be naturally blonde? Who knew?
How many things could be excuses because you are just following the American Dream. Henry Hill's story was just about him and his band of Good Fellas following the American dream.
hagar wrote:
These days, Gabriela Rosa, if anything, should be commended for having bothered to get a "green card" at all.
Exactly, She at least made the pretense that she was earning her citizenship legally. We should pay her (crack's) reparations for being so upstanding.
Don't you think something needs to be there to prevent the development of a free market in marriage, with single citizens reaping thousands of dollars and intermediaries skimming millions?
Money is speech. Why are you trying to suppress their speech?
"Don't you think something needs to be there to prevent the development of a free market in marriage, with single citizens reaping thousands of dollars and intermediaries skimming millions?"
Why should only the single profit from selling their citizenship? If I want to turn a tidy profit by marrying 80 or 90 men and women, and maybe a couple dogs, who are you to restrict my rights?
Actually, she was repatriating some of Charlie Rangel's money, or it could count as foreign investment, and in any case it was stimulus, so it was all good.
Does the Professor mean it should be illegal for guys to go to the Philippines or Thailand to buy wives?
Fixing the problems in second and third-world nations is one more big thing they need to do and one more thing they refuse to do. Instead choosing to provide incentive for an annual exodus, which displaces Americans, sustains a $3 trillion welfare economy and its attendant corruption, and obfuscates the consequences of evolutionary dysfunction.
It's a slippery slope to banning brideprices and dowries. Next it will be engagement rings and federal magistrates inquiring whether any thing of value was exchanged in connection with the formation of this union. Were there expensive dinners involved? Possibly entertainments of some sort?
A free market in marriage would give poor Americans a thing of extraordinary value to offer rich people abroad. Or even just middle class people abroad. Now that marriage is increasingly unmoored from tradition -- people seem to think linking procreation with marriage, even loosely, is so patently absurd it fails rational basis, and adultery and alienation of affection aren't punished either by law OR society -- why not?
That said, I would favour an auction system for 5 year residence visas. Start at 10 million usd, and work your way down. We could easily pull in ia couple billion a year.
Among other reasons, people legalize their marriages is to obtain legal benefits...as in this case.
Article linked from article:
“I married this person and it was not a real marriage,” she said.
Prosecutors said that around 1996, Ms. Rosa, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, paid a United States citizen about $8,000 to enter into “a sham marriage” while she was in a relationship with a man she would later marry; she ended the sham marriage a few years later.
What is the difference between a "real" marriage and a "sham" marriage"? Sex? Are sexually disabled people not able to have "real" marriages?
What's the difference between paying $8000 and giving an $8000 wedding ring?
Years ago the feds were pretty strict about marriages for green cards. They would do interviews and background checks to verify if the marriage was real such as if the couple was living together, had joint accounts etc.
Indeed if they determined the marriage was a sham not only was the immigrant punished but so was the citizen who married the immigrant.
Althouse said: Don't you think something needs to be there to prevent the development of a free market in marriage...
Seriously, Ann?? You were right out there in front, cheering at the destruction of marriage these last couple of years. Jeesze!
I think this woman must have done something to seriously annoy Tammany, but this was all they could tag her with.
Post a Comment