Proxy wedding means Marine's Japanese widow, baby unwelcome in U.S.

Friday 18th September, 05:29 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 116 Total Comments Show All

LFRAgain at 10:47 AM JST - 19th September

Biglittleman,

Are you really stating in all seriousness that my suggestion that you are allowing cynicism to color your position somehow impugns your character?

Then you, sir, by suggesting that I am allowing sympathy to “cloud” my rationale, are a rotten scoundrel. :-D

On the other hand, methinks thou suffer from overly thin skin.

At any rate, no insult was intended. I merely pointed out what is more than obvious to most posters here, namely your rush to judge this woman based on little more than stereotypes.

I must applaud, however, the great lengths you’ve gone to distance yourself from your earlier inflammatory statements and repackage your argument as one of reasoned logic. Unfortunately for those efforts, this thread possesses an infallible memory of your statements, even if you don’t. Allow me to correct the lapse:

biglittleman at 12:55 PM JST - 18th September

“It seems more likely the soldier was just naive guy with little experience and fell for the first girl who gave him some. And he met some girl who may have been a military groupie hoping to get drafted by some soldier. Hoping to live the fantasy life of traveling the world and having haafu children. She can barely speak the language and he could barely speak Japanese. That right there is the wrong way to start a choice that will affect the rest of your life. There are a lot of unanswered questions. Also where is the girls parents in this? She does seem quite desperate to run to America. Just like them getting married and her getting pregnant. My gut tells me she may have been trying to trap him or just anybody.”

Naïve guy who fell for the first girl who gave him some? Classy.

Military groupie hoping to get “drafted” by some soldier? Cute.

Live a fantasy life of traveling the world with a haafu child? No. No judgmental disdain here. No sirree.

Desperate to “run” to America? Now, by your account, she’s not only "desperate," but also seeking to escape from some as-yet unknown situation?!

And your “gut” seems to have something to share. It tells you she may have been trying to trap someone -- anyone -- unfortunate enough to come along? Tell me, what does your “gut” have to say about irrational assumptions?

As you maintain, you initial position hasn’t changed, but that doesn’t necessarily make it right, despite the somewhat noisome tone in your recent posts that says, “Biglittleman knows best.” Your logic is couched firmly in supposition and assumption, relying almost exclusively on stereotypes and hearsay for support. You cite some vague “personal experience living in Japan” as if it bore all the weight necessary to pigeonhole any and all relationships between a girl from Okinawa and a US serviceman based there, too.

Well, unless your experiences includes some 500 or more personally witnessed episodes of fraudulent marriages conducted under precisely the circumstances you cite in order to openly question the character of this woman you know nothing of, thus demonstrating a statistical probability that your experiences speak to the norm, then your “personal experience living in Japan” has about as much relevance here as a personal recollection of a satisfying bowel movement during a particularly full moon.

In the meantime, a far greater body of evidence actually exists to suggest that this couple met, married, and ultimately had a child with purer intentions than you would give them credit for. If your refusal to acknowledge even this isn’t cynicism speaking, then I don’t know what cynicism is.

You’re correct in that you do leave plenty of wiggle room in the event that your accusations of impure intentions are wrong, while you slowly try to shape your position into one of pure good-natured intentions, i.e., “She and the child should simply go through the other more lengthy process,” all the while ignoring the fact that your original premise for insisting this woman take the far lengthier route to US citizenship in the first place is based on your preconception that she is a fraud. I can assure you, your argument -- or more specifically, your lengthy attempts to recast your initial disparagement of the woman in this story in a seemingly more balanced light -- certainly isn't well-reasoned “logic” at work. It's emotionally tinted recollection and impression -- and cynicism -- at work, and little else.

If you insist on feeling as if your character has been called into question, then fine; I’m calling into question your lack of intellectual integrity to admit that your heart is displayed as prominently on your sleeve in this matter as it is for any of us.
furuigakko at 05:39 PM JST - 19th September

There are other cases:

US 60 minutes:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5088149n&tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea.2
taj at 05:50 PM JST - 19th September

Damn, that Stripes link made me cry!

Anyone who's being a jerk in this thread is kindly invited to take a flying leap through the link, posted here again for easy access.

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=64437&archive=true
Triumvere at 08:59 PM JST - 19th September

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5088149n&tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea.2

Wow. Just wow. From this video it looks like it wouldn't have mattered if the consumated the marriage; under Bush era leadership the Immigration just deported non-citizen widows regardless situation. Glad to here Obama and Nepolitano are working on fixing this debacle.
womanforwomen at 11:08 PM JST - 19th September

biglittleman,

Your comparison of this woman with the Filipino women is not very appropriate here. Every woman has an 'ulterior motive' in finding a partner. Future security - and financial security in particular I would think. But some women risk too much to secure that and will go to any extend to achieve that. The marriage rackets of the the women from the South East Asian countries, Filipinas in particular are not a secret. There are organised gangs involved and sadly, the pattern is the Japanese man is killed or in a worst situation than before the said marriage. In a few cases, the Filipina is killed too. Or the Japanese man is made a Santa Claus for the entire family and relatives of the woman.

Do you see the case of the Marine's widow in the same light? I have not heard about Japanese women married to foreigners involved in plots and scheme to kill their husbands. While we really cannot say what really went on with this marine and his wife, for the sake of the child atleast, some consideration has to be given to the woman. from the links provided I see that she was not trying to "runaway" from Okinawa.

Don't we all run away from something?
Alan at 03:03 PM JST - 20th September

More evidence that in every country, the people in charge of immigration laws and administration are the most heartless, mindless and notoriously corrupt creeps. While thousands of people are trafficked and traded under their noses every day, these lice would rather waste time and money dragging this poor woman and her child through the courts.
AK619 at 11:08 PM JST - 20th September

How about letting her baby come to America, and then the mother must stay in Japan. Thats how the Japanese immigration does foreigners with babies born in Japan. The Babies a Japanese national, and the father is nothing but a foreigner with no parental rights.
biglittleman at 02:33 PM JST - 21st September

LFRagain,

First of all, my position has never changed. In your attempt to use my own words against me. You have shown that in my statements that I had stated "may have been" which never means 100% definitely. Secondly, you failed to show and ignored in my earlier postings.

I also wrote:

Whatever her story is the government should not rush into this. It should take its time and review the facts. It maybe a different time but this rule in particular is still applicable.

You seem to be selectively taking my words out context and then ignoring other parts to prove your point. That is why sympathy is clouding your rational judgement. Because you are willing to got such lengths.

And that sir makes you a scoundrel!

@womanforwomen

First, it was Cleo who brought up the analogy about Filipino women. And yes it is relevant by your own words nonetheless.

you wrote:

Every woman has an 'ulterior motive' in finding a partner. Future security - and financial security in particular I would think. But some women risk too much to secure that and will go to any extend to achieve that.

Which was my point from the beginning! She had an ulterior motive. Thank you for agreeing with me. Just because some groups go to the extreme as pointed out about getting marriage doesn't mean we totally rule out the point we don't know for sure what her original attentions were in the relationship. So we are back at where we started from with this conversation.

So you are right I don't see the Japanese woman marrying her husband to hopefully kill him in the future like your Filipino example.

I do see the possibility of an ulterior motive in both which you have admitted as woman you all possess. Thus the rule is still applicable today as when it was first conceptualized.
Triumvere at 02:36 PM JST - 21st September

How about letting her baby come to America, and then the mother must stay in Japan. Thats how the Japanese immigration does foreigners with babies born in Japan. The Babies a Japanese national, and the father is nothing but a foreigner with no parental rights.

Because we are better than that.
biglittleman at 02:51 PM JST - 21st September

@Triumvere,

Why are arguing about extreme situations? None on the this thread other than AK619. Has suggested separating mother from child and sending her away.

We have suggested is that she follow the law. Are you suggesting she should be beyond the law? Which is let immigration review her case and make a decision. Not based on anything other than the circumstances of this case and law. If they don't give her citizenship now then go home with her child and do all things I laid out in my previous posts to get citizenship later. Nothing would change for her, the child or family either way.

The father is still gone, the child is a citizen and the mother will be eventually.

The bases of the relationship between the two has been simply a sub-conversation.
Badge213 at 07:21 PM JST - 21st September

INS no longer exists (legacy agency) know known as USCIS. Any case I hope that a private bill introduced by one of the representatives of the home state will most likely pass.
Triumvere at 02:58 PM JST - 22nd September

@BLM,

I am suggesting that the law as written is unjust, and should be changed for the benefit of all. I am suggesting that decision made by the USCIS was not a moral one, however technically correct it may be. I find your definitions of "relevant circumstances" to be narrow and somewhat arbitrary. Furthermore, I find that your statement that "Nothing would change for her, the child or family either way." to be extremely subjective. The question is what, if any, rights are due to her; it is not your place to place a value on the rights of others.
biglittleman at 09:23 PM JST - 23rd September

@Triumvere

I am suggesting that decision made by the USCIS was not a moral one, however technically correct it may be. I find your definitions of "relevant circumstances" to be narrow and somewhat arbitrary. Furthermore, I find that your statement that "Nothing would change for her, the child or family either way." to be extremely subjective. The >question is what, if any, rights are due to her; it is not your place to place a value on the rights of others.

I want you to reread your post. Because you obviously don't know what you are saying.

The question is what, if any, rights are due to her;

Firstly, you agree with me but I am wrong. Doesn't that make you wrong too? LOL!!!

Reread what I said:

We have suggested is that she follow the law. Are you suggesting she should be beyond the law? Which is let immigration review her case and make a decision. Not based on anything other than the circumstances of this case and law.

Oh, how we quickly forget.

Secondly, you say:

it is not your place to place a value on the rights of others.

You do realize how hypocritical you sound. You tell me it is not my place to place value on the rights of others.

Then you say:

I am suggesting that decision made by the USCIS was not a moral one, however technically correct it may be.

So you believe it your place to put value on the rights of others? Instead following the rules that were put in place. LOL!!!

Once again:

I am suggesting that decision made by the USCIS was not a moral one

So you and the others went through all this character assassination (LFRAgain, womanforwomen and Triumvere) and in the end you agree me.
DeepAir65 at 10:54 AM JST - 24th September

As for the son, yes he should be an automatic for US citizenship based on the father being American. Hotaru san will just have to wait until the son turns 18 and he can sponsor her residency.

How crazy does that sound?

For those criticizing the marriage by proxy thing he found out he was going to be a dad whilst deployed in a danger zone. So he did what he could to legitimise the relationship just in case. Unfortunately the worst did happen and he was killed.

Also there is no mention of support from her family only his. This also is not uncommon in international marriages in Japan so maybe she wants to go where she has support and not being treated as an outcast - one possible reason why she wants to go to the US. Not saying that is the case, but something to consider rather than throwing out wild accusations...
Triumvere at 11:22 AM JST - 24th September

BLM.

I am starting to suspect you are being disingenuous in your argument. Either that or you don't understand what I am saying to you. How, exactly have I engaged in "character assassination"? If you feel I have been uncivil or unfair in regards to my exchanges with you I encourage you to specify (with quotes) how.

While I have many issues with your last post, I'd like to focus on the "it is not your place to place a value on the rights of others" part. I feel you are not understanding what I am trying to convey to you, so let me restate it as clearly as possible: You have repeatedly claimed that the woman (and her child) have effectively lost nothing by not being granted the rights normally afforded to the spouses of US citizens. To support this position you have given the following arguments: 1) You believe that she will be able to receive various benefits from the USMC and US gov't. 2) You are certain she will be able to get citizenship after an undisclosed period of time, just not immediately. 3) You believe that it would be in her best interest, and that of the child, for her to raise the boy in Japan for a portion of his life.

Now, setting aside that it is not certain to me that she will eventually receive citizenship, my point is this:

What you are saying is that we should not be concerned about whether her rights are being violated, because she will eventually receive a benefit which is, in your estimation, equal to or better than that which she would derive from being to exercise those rights immediately. The problem is, this is a value judgment (on the value of said rights) that we (both you, I, and everyone else) do not have the right to make. We cannot deny "rights" to others based on our own perceived values of said rights. If I have the right to do X, then I must be free to do X if I so choose. You deny me that right based on the fact you think that I should do Y, or that Y is just as good or better than X. This is what I mean by "value judgment". If she has the right, then she must be free to exercise that right. So the only question becomes whether or not the right is due to her.

This question is both a legal and a moral one. You appear to be stating a preference for following the letter of the law rather strictly, and for allowing the machinery of the Immigration department to resolve the issue. I am trying to tell you that I find the letter of the law in opposition to the spirit of the law in its application here, and think that the law should be changed accordingly. I feel this is a moral responsibility. I would welcome any attempt by yourself to restate you position regarding the case for the purposes of clarity. I feel as if we may have been speaking cross purposes here.