Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:BTW, are you still trying to figure out how the 80-20 rule applies to gays and immigration?

Ha ha. Nothing to figure out there. If they start granting immigration benefits to gay couples, you will see a skyrocketing of applications from 'gay' couples.

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:BTW, are you still trying to figure out how the 80-20 rule applies to gays and immigration?

Ha ha. Nothing to figure out there. If they start granting immigration benefits to gay couples, you will see a skyrocketing of applications from 'gay' couples.

That's a tautology. Today they don't accept applications from gay couples for immigration benefits. So number of applications today = 0. With DOMA, they will begin accepting such applications. If they get one application, that will be a skyrocketing from today's baseline. But it still doesn't explain how the 80-20 rule applies here.

Hellsangel wrote:You will see a majority of the fraudulent applications coming from the minority of the 'gay' applicants. No, it is not one of those 'saamiyar' type predictions. Maybe in your Utopian Liberal world it won't. But it is basic human nature.

Hellsangel wrote:And in case, Dogmatix, it is still not clear, I am not saying that the gay people are frauds.  I am just saying that a lot of people will feign gayness and get 'married' to enjoy immigration benefits. And this is where you will see the fraud.

Ironically, a lot of straight women  who commit this fraud now look for gay men  to commit this fraud with.

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:You will see a majority of the fraudulent applications coming from the minority of the 'gay' applicants. No, it is not one of those 'saamiyar' type predictions. Maybe in your Utopian Liberal world it won't. But it is basic human nature.

Labels are cheap, but let's talk substance. Why is it that the majority of fraudulent applications will come from the minority of gay applicants? Let us work out the math before you are blinded by your fears.

Percentage of openly gay people in the population, p_g = 2%
Percentage of population living in states with marriage equality, ssm = 30%
Percentage of population that is openly gay and can get married, p_gm = p_g x ssm = 0.6%
Percentage of population that is straight and can get married, p_sm = 98%
Percentage of all marriages in the US that will involve spouses of opposite sexes, m_s = p_sm / (p_sm + p_gm) = 99.4%
Percentage of all marriages in the US that will involve spouses of the same sex, m_g = p_gm / (p_sm + p_gm) = 0.6%

Now, let us make some assumptions for likelihood of a marriage being entered into for immigration fraud. Just for argument's sake, let us give full rein to your fears, and assume that a much higher proportion of gay marriages are fraudulent than straight marriages. 

Percentage of same-sex marriages that are fraudulent, f_g = 50%
Percentage of opposite-sex marriages that are fraudulent, f_s = 1%

That is, we are assuming that gay people are fifty times as likely to enter into a sham marriage to perpetrate immigration fraud than are straight people. I don't believe that is anywhere near the truth, but let us go with the assumption anyway for argument's sake. 

Percentage of all marriages in the US that are between spouses of opposite sexes and fraudulent, t_s = m_s x f_s = 1.0%
Percentage of all marriages in the US that are between spouses of the same sex and fraudulent, t_g = m_g x f_g = 0.3%

Percentage of all fraudulent marriages in the US that are between spouses of opposite sexes = t_s / (t_s + t_g) = 77%
Percentage of all fraudulent marriages in the US that are between spouses of the same sex = t_g / (t_s + t_g) = 23%

In other words, the majority of fraudulent applications will not be from the minority of gay people, even if gay people are fifty times more likely than straight folks to get married just for immigration benefits. 

I know enough gay people to know that they are not fifty times more dishonest than straight folks. And the bar to prove a genuine marriage to USCIS before the green card is granted will be just as high for gay couples as it will be for straight couples. So your fears are founded not in reality, but in prejudice.

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:And in case, Dogmatix, it is still not clear, I am not saying that the gay people are frauds.  I am just saying that a lot of people will feign gayness and get 'married' to enjoy immigration benefits. And this is where you will see the fraud.

Ironically, a lot of straight women  who commit this fraud now look for gay men  to commit this fraud with.

The gay men who help out those straight women with this fraud do this because -- wait for it! -- they cannot get married to their actual gay partners. If you legalize gay marriage, you actually take away from the market the opportunity for straight women to commit this fraud. You are making a case for same-sex marriage now based on your immigration fears, not against it!

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:And in case, Dogmatix, it is still not clear, I am not saying that the gay people are frauds.  I am just saying that a lot of people will feign gayness and get 'married' to enjoy immigration benefits. And this is where you will see the fraud.

Ironically, a lot of straight women  who commit this fraud now look for gay men  to commit this fraud with.

The gay men who help out those straight women with this fraud do this because -- wait for it! -- they cannot get married to their actual gay partners. If you legalize gay marriage, you actually take away from the market the opportunity for straight women to commit this fraud. You are making a case for same-sex marriage now based on your immigration fears, not against it!

Stupid argument. You assume they are committing this fraud coz they cannot do it thru their gay partners. In most cases they don't even have a partner and it is just to get that green card.

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:And in case, Dogmatix, it is still not clear, I am not saying that the gay people are frauds.  I am just saying that a lot of people will feign gayness and get 'married' to enjoy immigration benefits. And this is where you will see the fraud.

Ironically, a lot of straight women  who commit this fraud now look for gay men  to commit this fraud with.

The gay men who help out those straight women with this fraud do this because -- wait for it! -- they cannot get married to their actual gay partners. If you legalize gay marriage, you actually take away from the market the opportunity for straight women to commit this fraud. You are making a case for same-sex marriage now based on your immigration fears, not against it!

Stupid argument. You assume they are committing this fraud coz they cannot do it thru their gay partners. In most cases they don't even have a partner and it is just to get that green card.

You are not following me. The people who want to commit the fraud -- the straight women you mentioned -- need a US citizen partner to do it with. Why are they looking for gay male American citizens now? Because gay men cannot get married for real to the people they love, so they are available to fake-marry a woman to help her out. If you allow the gay men to get married, some of them will get married to other gay men, and the supply of men available to those straight women goes down. If you are really concerned about the abuse of marriage for immigration purposes, you should be happy with same-sex marriage!

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:And in case, Dogmatix, it is still not clear, I am not saying that the gay people are frauds.  I am just saying that a lot of people will feign gayness and get 'married' to enjoy immigration benefits. And this is where you will see the fraud.

Ironically, a lot of straight women  who commit this fraud now look for gay men  to commit this fraud with.

The gay men who help out those straight women with this fraud do this because -- wait for it! -- they cannot get married to their actual gay partners. If you legalize gay marriage, you actually take away from the market the opportunity for straight women to commit this fraud. You are making a case for same-sex marriage now based on your immigration fears, not against it!

Stupid argument. You assume they are committing this fraud coz they cannot do it thru their gay partners. In most cases they don't even have a partner and it is just to get that green card.

You are not following me. The people who want to commit the fraud -- the straight women you mentioned -- need a US citizen partner to do it with. Why are they looking for gay male American citizens now? Because gay men cannot get married for real to the people they love, so they are available to fake-marry a woman to help her out. If you allow the gay men to get married, some of them will get married to other gay men, and the supply of men available to those straight women goes down. If you are really concerned about the abuse of marriage for immigration purposes, you should be happy with same-sex marriage!

Nice story. And your explanation when the women are the US Citizens? In most of the cases, the US citizen is looking to make some money and the other party is looking for a green card. The fact that the other party is gay probably helps in cohabiting for at least a while. 3 years is not that long a time.  With gay marriages, you have just increased the opportunity for fraud many fold.

southindian wrote:
As I mentioned on other thread, fraud, divorce just jumped 100% after DOMA strike down. Divorce lawyers rejoice.

Easy money for men in USA. This business venture helps gay population jump many folds and when India comes to know of this, almost half of men become gay and makes them very very gay.

Hellsangel wrote:

southindian wrote:
As I mentioned on other thread, fraud, divorce just jumped 100% after DOMA strike down. Divorce lawyers rejoice.

Easy money for men in USA. This business venture helps gay population jump many folds and when India comes to know of this, almost half of men become gay and makes them very very gay.

I don't think the Liberals here are aware that gay men are not allowed to donate blood, if they openly declare that they are gay on the donor form. Discrimination? I don't think so. Just common sense. Just as people who have traveled to the Tropics are kept from donating.

southindian wrote:
As I mentioned on other thread, fraud, divorce just jumped 100% after DOMA strike down. Divorce lawyers rejoice.

Easy money for men in USA. This business venture helps gay population jump many folds and when India comes to know of this, almost half of men become gay and makes them very very gay.

Impedimenta wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

southindian wrote:
As I mentioned on other thread, fraud, divorce just jumped 100% after DOMA strike down. Divorce lawyers rejoice.

Easy money for men in USA. This business venture helps gay population jump many folds and when India comes to know of this, almost half of men become gay and makes them very very gay.

I don't think the Liberals here are aware that gay men are not allowed to donate blood, if they openly declare that they are gay on the donor form. Discrimination? I don't think so. Just common sense. Just as people who have traveled to the Tropics are kept from donating.

 shhh..common sense does not work in this situation. We have to stand up for gay rights, somehow. ya, only jesus works.

Hellsangel wrote:

southindian wrote:
As I mentioned on other thread, fraud, divorce just jumped 100% after DOMA strike down. Divorce lawyers rejoice.

Easy money for men in USA. This business venture helps gay population jump many folds and when India comes to know of this, almost half of men become gay and makes them very very gay.

I don't think the Liberals here are aware that gay men are not allowed to donate blood, if they openly declare that they are gay on the donor form. Discrimination? I don't think so. Just common sense. Just as people who have traveled to the Tropics are kept from donating.

Appalamma wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

southindian wrote:
As I mentioned on other thread, fraud, divorce just jumped 100% after DOMA strike down. Divorce lawyers rejoice.

Easy money for men in USA. This business venture helps gay population jump many folds and when India comes to know of this, almost half of men become gay and makes them very very gay.

I don't think the Liberals here are aware that gay men are not allowed to donate blood, if they openly declare that they are gay on the donor form. Discrimination? I don't think so. Just common sense. Just as people who have traveled to the Tropics are kept from donating.

 Like it or not keeping gays from donating blood IS discrimination! There are many heterosexuals with multiple sex partners who are at higher risk. They are allowed to donate blood. All kinds of tests are done these days, such ban doesnt make any sense anymore.

Percentage of HIV infected
2% of U.S. population is gay yet it accounts for 61% of HIV infection:  "Men who have sex with men remain the group most heavily affected by new HIV infections. While CDC estimates that MSM represent only 2 percent of the U.S. population, they accounted for the majority (61 percent; 29,300) of all new HIV infections in 2009. Young MSM (ages 13 to 29) were most severely affected, representing more than one quarter of all new HIV infections nationally (27 percent; 12,900 in 2009)."  (Center for Disease Control, cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIVIncidencePressRelease.html)

Hellsangel wrote:Nice story. 

southindian wrote:As I mentioned on other thread, fraud, divorce just jumped 100% after DOMA strike down. Divorce lawyers rejoice.

southindian wrote:This business venture helps gay population jump many folds and when India comes to know of this

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Nice story. 

I agree. And I told it because you told the nice story of straight women looking for gay men to commit immigration fraud with. 

The bottomline is this: if you oppose legal recognition for gay marriage because it can be abused for immigration purposes, you ought to oppose legal recognition for straight marriage as well. Otherwise, you are just being prejudiced.

Hellsangel wrote:I don't think the Liberals here are aware that gay men are not allowed to donate blood, if they openly declare that they are gay on the donor form. Discrimination? I don't think so. Just common sense. Just as people who have traveled to the Tropics are kept from donating.

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:I don't think the Liberals here are aware that gay men are not allowed to donate blood, if they openly declare that they are gay on the donor form. Discrimination? I don't think so. Just common sense. Just as people who have traveled to the Tropics are kept from donating.

You are wrong again; I was certainly aware of this. I think it started out as common sense, and as HIV rates fall, it will go away. For now, I don't think it is discrimination, as there can be a case made for public health risk. A gay man marrying another gay man has no implications on you or northindian.

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Nice story. 

I agree. And I told it because you told the nice story of straight women looking for gay men to commit immigration fraud with. 

The bottomline is this: if you oppose legal recognition for gay marriage because it can be abused for immigration purposes, you ought to oppose legal recognition for straight marriage as well. Otherwise, you are just being prejudiced.

What I told you wasn't a story. Maybe in your nice Utopian Liberal world everyone follows the letter and the spirit of the law and you never come across any of these instances.

This is just one of the many headaches that the ruling will bring.

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Nice story. 

I agree. And I told it because you told the nice story of straight women looking for gay men to commit immigration fraud with. 

The bottomline is this: if you oppose legal recognition for gay marriage because it can be abused for immigration purposes, you ought to oppose legal recognition for straight marriage as well. Otherwise, you are just being prejudiced.

What I told you wasn't a story. Maybe in your nice Utopian Liberal world everyone follows the letter and the spirit of the law and you never come across any of these instances.

This is just one of the many headaches that the ruling will bring.

Is that why the defense team for DOMA did not bring up this "headache" in front of the Supreme Court?

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:I don't think the Liberals here are aware that gay men are not allowed to donate blood, if they openly declare that they are gay on the donor form. Discrimination? I don't think so. Just common sense. Just as people who have traveled to the Tropics are kept from donating.

You are wrong again; I was certainly aware of this. I think it started out as common sense, and as HIV rates fall, it will go away. For now, I don't think it is discrimination, as there can be a case made for public health risk. A gay man marrying another gay man has no implications on you or northindian.

I love how Liberals apply commonsense where it is convenient and ignore it elsewhere.

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Nice story. 

I agree. And I told it because you told the nice story of straight women looking for gay men to commit immigration fraud with. 

The bottomline is this: if you oppose legal recognition for gay marriage because it can be abused for immigration purposes, you ought to oppose legal recognition for straight marriage as well. Otherwise, you are just being prejudiced.

What I told you wasn't a story. Maybe in your nice Utopian Liberal world everyone follows the letter and the spirit of the law and you never come across any of these instances.

This is just one of the many headaches that the ruling will bring.

Is that why the defense team for DOMA did not bring up this "headache" in front of the Supreme Court?

Ha ha. That is your argument? I am telling you what the practical fallout of this will be. I believe they argued this on principle. Sometimes principles don't consider the pragmatic implications.

Idéfix wrote:
You are telling me your unfounded fears of what will happen at the margins. If you were truly concerned about those fears, you would oppose opposite-sex marriage much more than same-sex marriage!

They did not argue it solely on principle. There was a lot of discussion about pragmatic implications like federal employee benefits, inheritance taxes, and raising children. They didn't argue about immigration fraud because they would have been laughed out of court if they did, and confirmed themselves as homophobes to the court and the world at large.

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:
You are telling me your unfounded fears of what will happen at the margins. If you were truly concerned about those fears, you would oppose opposite-sex marriage much more than same-sex marriage!

They did not argue it solely on principle. There was a lot of discussion about pragmatic implications like federal employee benefits, inheritance taxes, and raising children. They didn't argue about immigration fraud because they would have been laughed out of court if they did, and confirmed themselves as homophobes to the court and the world at large.

When States still control marriage laws, this is still very moot.

Hellsangel wrote: they are all what you would call Right-wing bloggers.

Idéfix wrote:
If it is moot, why are you bringing it up? Immigration is controlled by the federal government. The case was about making the federal government recognize gay marriages that states recognize, so any immigration concern is rather germane to the case.

Idéfix wrote:
Hahaha, what would you call them? After all, I am not the one on this thread who refuses to accept data if it is from "liberal beacons" like WaPo, even if WSJ says the same thing!

Hellsangel wrote:

southindian wrote:
As I mentioned on other thread, fraud, divorce just jumped 100% after DOMA strike down. Divorce lawyers rejoice.

Easy money for men in USA. This business venture helps gay population jump many folds and when India comes to know of this, almost half of men become gay and makes them very very gay.

I don't think the Liberals here are aware that gay men are not allowed to donate blood, if they openly declare that they are gay on the donor form. Discrimination? I don't think so. Just common sense. Just as people who have traveled to the Tropics are kept from donating.

southindian wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

southindian wrote:
As I mentioned on other thread, fraud, divorce just jumped 100% after DOMA strike down. Divorce lawyers rejoice.

Easy money for men in USA. This business venture helps gay population jump many folds and when India comes to know of this, almost half of men become gay and makes them very very gay.

I don't think the Liberals here are aware that gay men are not allowed to donate blood, if they openly declare that they are gay on the donor form. Discrimination? I don't think so. Just common sense. Just as people who have traveled to the Tropics are kept from donating.

I donate blood quite regularly but can't donate blood in USA if I declare, I visited India in the last 12 months before donation. Only J&K and Himachal state visits are excluded. No one can if they visited India 12 months prior to donating blood.

This is a check on Red Cross form they ask every time you visit their camp.

...And the questionnaire also has needle and gay questions. Those are oh ohss and folks are taken elsewhere for counsel.

Needless to say, I'm normal so I don't fall in above categories.

Hellsangel wrote:You can live in that Liberal Utopian cocoon, but this will be a natural fallout if they start accepting these applications. And you will see a disproportionately high incidence of fraud from 'gay' couples.

southindian wrote:Needless to say, I'm normal so I don't fall in above categories.

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:You can live in that Liberal Utopian cocoon, but this will be a natural fallout if they start accepting these applications. And you will see a disproportionately high incidence of fraud from 'gay' couples.

You are the one who is living in a world of weird, unfounded fears that even the defenders of DOMA did not bring up in court! We will see in a couple of years if the percentage of same-sex couples among applicants for immigration benefits is much higher than the percentage of all marriages in the US that are between same-sex partners.

Idéfix wrote:

southindian wrote:Needless to say, I'm normal so I don't fall in above categories.

The most interesting thing about your post is the need you felt to clarify that you are normal.

Hellsangel wrote:

southindian wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

southindian wrote:
As I mentioned on other thread, fraud, divorce just jumped 100% after DOMA strike down. Divorce lawyers rejoice.

Easy money for men in USA. This business venture helps gay population jump many folds and when India comes to know of this, almost half of men become gay and makes them very very gay.

I don't think the Liberals here are aware that gay men are not allowed to donate blood, if they openly declare that they are gay on the donor form. Discrimination? I don't think so. Just common sense. Just as people who have traveled to the Tropics are kept from donating.

I donate blood quite regularly but can't donate blood in USA if I declare, I visited India in the last 12 months before donation. Only J&K and Himachal state visits are excluded. No one can if they visited India 12 months prior to donating blood.

This is a check on Red Cross form they ask every time you visit their camp.

...And the questionnaire also has needle and gay questions. Those are oh ohss and folks are taken elsewhere for counsel.

Needless to say, I'm normal so I don't fall in above categories.

I am sure California will see a huge rise all of a sudden in bi-national same-sex couples now making a beeline for the marriage licenses.

southindian wrote:
Who could that be in California. Do we know any?

Hellsangel wrote:

Oh yes! Time will tell. And I was talking about fraud, not necessarily the percentage of gay couples applying for immigration benefits among all bi-national couples.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Oh yes! Time will tell. And I was talking about fraud, not necessarily the percentage of gay couples applying for immigration benefits among all bi-national couples.

As someone, just like you, who is trying to come to grips with same sex marriage, I find this particular argument of yours ludicrous.

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Oh yes! Time will tell. And I was talking about fraud, not necessarily the percentage of gay couples applying for immigration benefits among all bi-national couples.

As someone, just like you, who is trying to come to grips with same sex marriage, I find this particular argument of yours ludicrous.

That is because you have a rather Utopian view of society. I am sure you would accept there was a huge incidence of fraud of among the H1B visa applications for a while and they were particularly concentrated from one section of applicants.

Nila wrote:

 See the bright side hellsu...this time H1-Bs can stay illegally in the country and can apply for legal status later.

Nila wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Oh yes! Time will tell. And I was talking about fraud, not necessarily the percentage of gay couples applying for immigration benefits among all bi-national couples.

As someone, just like you, who is trying to come to grips with same sex marriage, I find this particular argument of yours ludicrous.

That is because you have a rather Utopian view of society. I am sure you would accept there was a huge incidence of fraud of among the H1B visa applications for a while and they were particularly concentrated from one section of applicants.

 See the bright side hellsu...this time H1-Bs can stay illegally in the country and can apply for legal status later.

Hellsangel wrote:Oh yes! Time will tell. And I was talking about fraud, not necessarily the percentage of gay couples applying for immigration benefits among all bi-national couples.

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Oh yes! Time will tell. And I was talking about fraud, not necessarily the percentage of gay couples applying for immigration benefits among all bi-national couples.

The fraud you are talking about is straight people falsely claiming to be gay, getting married to other people of their own gender, cohabiting with them years, and knowing enough intimate details about each other to answer immigration officers' questions. If that truly becomes a phenomenon, the way it will manifest itself in data is that among couples applying for immigration benefits, you will see a higher proportion of couples claiming to be gay, than you see in the general population. I will be on the lookout for this data, and will post this comparison when USCIS publishes the raw data.

Hellsangel wrote:That is because you have a rather Utopian view of society.  

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:That is because you have a rather Utopian view of society.  

That is one possibility. Another is that you have a rather dystopian view of society. Given that even the defenders of DOMA did not bring up your ludicrous argument in front of the Supreme Court, you should perhaps pause to consider where the truth might lie.

Hellsangel wrote:

That is because you have a rather Utopian view of society. I am sure you would accept there was a huge incidence of fraud of among the H1B visa applications for a while and they were particularly concentrated from one section of applicants.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

That is because you have a rather Utopian view of society. I am sure you would accept there was a huge incidence of fraud of among the H1B visa applications for a while and they were particularly concentrated from one section of applicants.

By one section, you mean Indians, to be specific Telugus! Yes, when demand was high. there were no takers when demand diminished i.e. past few years. But I fail to see the correlation with the topic at hand. Why would there be an abnormal surge of illegal marriages of bi-national same sex couple, even if we assume that there will be initially, will flatten out in a few years i.e. to the same proportions of illegal bi-national heterosexual marriages.