Posted on 09/13/2007 6:07:23 AM PDT by FreeManDC
Every year thousands of Americans are victimized by a swindle known as the "immigrant abuse scam." What's amazing is this shake-down is paid for by the U.S. taxpayer under the guise of stopping domestic violence.
One of those persons was Roger Knudson, 64, of Arizona. When he discovered his wife was having an affair, he filed for divorce. Fearing the judge would learn her visa had expired and order her back to Mexico, she fell into a rage and attacked him.
But the DA refused to prosecute the assault. Then the illegal went to a local woman's shelter that provided her pro bono legal services and told her to accuse her husband of the very crime that she herself had committed. "I have spent thousands of dollars since 2002 clearing myself of the accusations," Knudson wrote sadly.
So here's how the scam works: A woman makes an accusation of abuse. The laws define domestic violence so loosely that she doesn't need to provide a scrap of evidence — she only needs to scream "abuse!" So the judge issues a let's-play-it-safe order.
That restraining order becomes the gold-plated meal ticket that entitles her to preferential treatment by immigration authorities, free legal services, and a generous helping of welfare services. And anyone who questions the swindle is accused of being "soft on domestic violence."
Elizabeth Howard of Arizona recounts how the wife of her father trapped him in the bedroom and threatened to kill him. When he called for help, the police arrested both of them. As soon as she got out of jail, she marched over to the domestic violence shelter to have him kicked out of his home. Then she began to hold yard sales to sell his car and tools.
"A friend at work whose family migrated here from Mexico told me it's common knowledge that if a woman marries a U.S. citizen and it doesn't work out, she can claim abuse and get the resources she needs," Howard sadly explains. "I believe the Violence Against Women Act should be called the 'Women Get What They Want Act.'"
In two cases, the extortion tactics continue to this day, forcing my informants to protect their identities.
One woman's close friend was falsely accused of abuse by his immigrant wife. The courtroom hearing resembled a kangaroo court more than the even-handed administration of justice: "We were not allowed to present a case, ask questions, look at the evidence that the accusing party submitted, two of our witnesses were cut off after two minutes, and the third was not allowed to testify at all," she revealed.
"As a victim of abuse previously myself, I am sensitive to real victims of abuse. But those who commit fraud and claim abuse where none exists endanger us all," the woman confides.
In 2001, Bob planned to marry a woman from the Caribbean. Shortly before the ceremony, she informed him she was an illegal alien. But he loved her so he went ahead with the wedding, knowing he could sponsor her for a work permit.
Then the relationship went sour and she threatened to abduct their newborn daughter if he didn't accede to her demands. One day she surprised him with this news: "I have my baby — I don't need you anymore!" Bob grew fearful of the intimidation tactics, so he filed for divorce and withdrew her work permit application, believing the immigration service would protect his daughter, a newborn U.S. citizen.
Turning the tables, she requested amnesty under the Violence Against Women Act, even though she didn't produce an iota of police or medical proof of violence. This filing prohibited him from submitting any evidence of immigration fraud or even appearing in the courtroom during her hearing.
"In the end, she got everything she could have hoped for: A work permit, VAWA amnesty, $750 tax-free dollars per month, and bragging rights on her cleverness on screwing over a stupid American fool in his own stupid country," Bob bitterly notes.
The abuse rip-off has become so accepted that its proponents openly instruct women how to fleece their boyfriends and husbands. One group instructs gold diggers to view restraining orders "as a tool for economic justice." Simply accuse your man of violence, and you can force him to pay your attorney's fees, medical expenses, punitive damages, use of his house and car, and much, much more. It's really that simple!
That advice comes to us from the Washington, DC-based Center for Survivor Agency and Justice, which receives generous support from the U.S. taxpayer by way of the Department of Justice. The Center offers no advice to help American taxpayers deal with false accusations of domestic violence by immigrant women.
Simple solution - don’t marry an illegal.
Like most leftist initiatives, their all out legislative demonization of men is resulting in significant negative impacts on those people they’re purporting to protect.
I’m not surprised.
Too many of you guys let the heart over rule the head when we are infatuated. I feel for these guys because my ex pulled the same crap on me. No she wasnt an illegal and was born in the states. But the system works that way for American women as well.
It’s not their, ahem “heart”.
I am sorry but you miss the larger issue..
Domestic violence statues need to be either eliminated or revised drastically.
The problem is all of ours.
The real objective of DV Laws as they currently are structured is to break family unity.
Illegals have just added a twist to the tale.
W
I don't think it's the heart that making those decisions. ;) If it were, one's intuition would clearly indicate that the woman has problems with loyalty long before any marriage took place. These behaviors never happen in a vacuum - men just unwisely choose to ignore the early warning signs as long as they are getting what they want.
Regardless, marriage is a relic of an ancient, ownership-based view of relationships. With continuing government subversion of its original purpose, marriage will be nearly unheard of in another generation.
Really? What an interesting statistic.
when i was in college a university administrator feminist pronounced
“if a woman says she was abused, then she was abused.”
I had an idiot boss at a very PC software company I worked for say that "perception is reality". In other words, if you offended someone without intending to, it didn't matter. You offended them, therefore you are a jerk.
I came to realize that there were people working there whose real career consisted of looking for things that offended them and then making a stink. What a colossal waste of everyone's time it was, and tiresome to boot.
When PC goes by the wayside, which can't be soon enough, our society will be much better for it. It's a destructive ideology, which is its intent.
I used a jury because I don’t trust judges. The judge intructed the jury that “If he touched her clothing, raised his voice or in any manner put fear into her, he is guilty”.
I was found guilty.
I’m with you! Why are these guys marrying these leeches?
“Too many of you guys let the heart over rule the head when we are infatuated...” I hate to say this but in many many cases it’s not exactly the “heart” that’s doin’ the Ruling.
We must have had the same boss, I had one who said the exact same thing! I tend to think it’s more than that though, I’ve always believed that most of these “troublemakers” are really out to get that fabled multi-million dollar lawsuit so they can retire, at your expense of course.
A majority of American men have come up with a more foolproof solution, don’t marry at all......
Yes, for sure that is the best advice....the story, could be:
How females abuse the system....
"Sexual harassment" is one of those offenses which is determined solely by the "feelings" of the "victim", rather than by any outwardly verifiable standard. Those potential offenders[1] of the more paranoid bent[2] deal with this by confining their workplace communications to business only.[3]
[1] Determining criteria for "potential offenders" are: ( do you really need to be told? )
[2] "Paranoid" is much less "delusional" than it used to be.
[3] IOW, don't say "Good morning!" to MOTOS.
A WORK permit? Why not go for lawful permanent residency based on the marriage?
Marrying long-term without addressing visa or citizenship status?
Couldn't the author interview some competent people to make his valid point?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.