Marriage scams is a growing problem in Canada. With the advent of Internet based match making, for some, it is increasingly difficult to gauge whether love is real or whether love is blind. Many ‘love migrants’ are willing to leave their families, careers, and their homes in order to begin a new life in Canada, for the sake of love. Canadian immigration policymakers have long recognized that ‘love’ can be a potential motive for movement and thus created a category for this type of migration. Over the years the Canadian Sponsorship of Spouses and Common Law Partners program has facilitated the migration and the unification of genuine spouses and common-law partners in Canada.
But it’s not always a happy ending or a new beginning for those united in love. Warning flags are being raised in the direction of immigration policymakers, overseas missions and individuals who are in the process of sponsoring a spouse due in part to a growing number of national headlines that draw attention to marriage scams occurring between foreigners and Canadian nationals. Unlike a ‘marriage of convenience’, whereby two people wed so that one can get immigration status, marriage scams have been described as a ‘devious act’ used by foreigners that make a victim of the sponsor and gain them residency. Recognizing the hurt and shame that this causes victims, along with the evident exploitation of a generous system, what options can Canada immigration officials pursue to reduce the chances of this fraud increasing?
The Vancouver-based Canadian Marriage Fraud Victim Society (CMFVS), comprised of victims of marriage scams, has been putting pressure on Ottawa to develop a plan that will deter foreign spouses from using Canadians to obtain residency. One suggestion has been to grant a period of conditional residence to foreign spouses of nationals, a strategy presently used in countries like the United States, Australia, and Germany.
But there is also the concern that foreign spouses may choose to stay in an abusive relationship for fear of deportation has equally been addressed by CMFVS. The group states that foreign spouses choosing to leave the marriage before the probation period is over should be given the opportunity to convince an “officer that they left the relationship by reason of misconduct by the sponsor.” While this approach would hopefully deter potential scammers from applying, the argument has been made that these ‘deceptive foreign nationals’ would be willing to live through a suggested period of probation period to gain residency. And it can be difficult to sort out matrimonial disputes; even cases that do not require a protracted court process can give rise to years of complex and exhaustive wrangling.
The most practical solution to decrease the number of marriage scams is the most logical one: recognition and public awareness. Actions at a local level similar to the ones undertaken by the CMFVS and by the New Democrat MLA Raj Chouhan are steps in a the right direction, such as Chouhan’s dual strategy of raising public awareness about fraud marriages and promoting the construction a support network for victims. These discussions and support networks are particularly important in those communities where this type of scam marriage is more common, encouraging victims to speak out and to let them know they are not alone. Knowledge is both power and comfort for victims of marriage scams.
There are, and always will be, genuine couples that wish to be united, and Canada should continue to be a country that recognises the right of a couple to be together. Public awareness and policy development are the responsible strategies to pursue in order to reduce the number of painful and costly marriage scams, which would still allow nationals to choose who they will ‘love’ and, eventually, sponsor.
