Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Education Government United States

Government's Fake University Trap Results in 21 Visa Fraud Arrests 153

An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. government set up a fake college called the University of Northern New Jersey as a trap to find and arrest 21 people on charges of visa fraud, reports Newsweek. The arrested 21 individuals were brokers, employers, and recruiters who conspired with more than 1,000 foreign nationals to fraudulently obtain student and foreign worker visas through a "pay to stay" New Jersey college, Department of Justice was quoted as saying. Those overseas students now face being deported from the United States for buying visas, in an alleged immigration scam worth up to $1m. From the report, "During conversations with undercover agents, one of the recruiters, Alvin Yeun, said 'we've been doing this for years' and told an agent not to worry. The 21 people arrested are residents are New Jersey, New York, California, Illinois and Georgia; some were also involved in committing work visa fraud."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Government's Fake University Trap Results in 21 Visa Fraud Arrests

Comments Filter:
  • by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Thursday April 07, 2016 @12:22PM (#51861183)

    Should of also gone after loan abuse with schools as well.

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by Hognoxious ( 631665 )

      Should of gone after loan abuse with schools as well.

      Like the one that taught you English?

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by EmeraldBot ( 3513925 )

        Should of gone after loan abuse with schools as well.

        Like the one that taught you English?

        By American Vernacular English, that's not wrong. People frequently substitute "should of" in place of "should've". The only other thing is loan and schools being different number cases, which is indeed technically incorrect.

        However, I couldn't help but notice the use of an indirect reference ("the one") in your sentence. I'm not exactly sure on the specifics of context, but you specifically said "the one" when he clearly used a plural form, which results in a disagreement of number. If you try to tell m

        • by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Thursday April 07, 2016 @01:23PM (#51861711)

          By American Vernacular English, that's not wrong.

          Ahh, no. It's wrong.

          It's like people who say, "For all intensive purposes" when they what they really mean is, "For all intents and purposes".

          "Vernacular" is not a synonym for "wrong".

          • By American Vernacular English, that's not wrong.

            Ahh, no. It's wrong.

            It's like people who say, "For all intensive purposes" when they what they really mean is, "For all intents and purposes".

            "Vernacular" is not a synonym for "wrong".

            You're right, it's not. If you walked up to someone in the US and said, "Has I downs gones school walked", it's accepted as incorrect and undecipherable. If you walked up to someone in the US, and instead said that "all intensive purposes" phrase in a sentence, no one is going to correct you or have trouble understanding the meaning behind it. If no one has trouble understanding it and people widely use that phrase, how can it be wrong? If you really want to press the point, sure, I'll concede that it's te

            • by tnk1 ( 899206 )

              If you walked up to someone in the US, and instead said that "all intensive purposes" phrase in a sentence, no one is going to correct you or have trouble understanding the meaning behind it.

              True, but that's mostly because I don't relish the opportunity to tell someone to their face, that they are spewing gibberish , unless they're fully indecipherable and I can't avoid it.

              • True, but that's mostly because I don't relish the opportunity to tell someone to their face, that they are spewing gibberish , unless they're fully indecipherable and I can't avoid it.

                Exactly. If I hear "for all intensive purposes", it immediately marks that person as a bit of a fool in my estimation. I probably won't say anything, but their image is forever tarnished in my mind.

            • If someone says "all intensive purposes" you're just as likely to mishear it as the phrase that makes sense (as opposed to seeing it in writing).

              Forget whether it's grammatically correct. It's not literately correct. What's an intensive purpose? And if you only include the intensive ones, that's a different meaning.

              A contraction is vernacular, but not wrong. "Should of" is a misspelling of should've without being literate enough to know better.

            • If you walked up to someone in the US, and instead said that "all intensive purposes" phrase in a sentence, no one is going to correct you or have trouble understanding the meaning behind it.

              Wrong, I'm going to tell you you're wrong.

              I unfortunately very often have to say "fewer" out loud when someone misuses "less" and "fewer".

            • by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Thursday April 07, 2016 @04:50PM (#51863501)

              If you really want to press the point, sure, I'll concede that it's technically grammatically incorrect - but then I'll refuse to recognize you as any better in this manner, because you used a contraction. Contractions started out as vernacular as well, and we only write proper English around here, eh?

              The difference is that contractions are taught in school and are recognized as proper English, but no teacher who has a clue about the language would ever teach that "should of" is correct. None, zero, zip, nada. In fact, contractions date back to Old English (450 AD – 1150 AD). They also appear in Early Modern English (1450 AD to 1750 AD). Nowhere, however, in the history of written language does "should of" appear as proper, but if it's considered acceptable in 500 years or so then I'll reconsider my position.

              Or, maybe not. As someone else pointed out, "should of" is wrong because it's a mishearing of "should have", which is completely acceptable. Using "should of" means the person doesn't know what they're really supposed to be saying, just like saying "for all intensive purposes". It makes no sense in any literal or figurative form; instead it indicates that the person saying it doesn't really understand what's supposed to be coming out of their mouth.

              It's similar to people who say, "It's a doggy-dog world", when the term they mean to use is, "it's a dog-eat-dog world." One makes sense, the other does not. "Should of" makes no sense and I wish people would stop trying to pretend that it does.

              • Eventually, given enough time 'should of' will become 'shouldof' and then probably eventually something like 'shudov' because when the constituent components of a phrase don't make any sense any more but the phrase itself has meaning it makes more sense to contract the phrase into a word, which does have meaning.

                Don wori it wil al be in da NewSpeek dicshonry ov 2052.
            • If you walked up to someone in the US, and instead said that "all intensive purposes" phrase in a sentence, no one is going to correct you or have trouble understanding the meaning behind it. If no one has trouble understanding it and people widely use that phrase, how can it be wrong?

              In speech, we rely primarily on context and the sounds of words to infer their meaning. You can get away with "should of" and "for all intensive purposes" in speech because you're substituting them for sound-alike phrases in the exact same context where the phrases they resemble would normally be used. In speech, the resemblance is so strong that a listener will generally infer the intended meaning without suffering any confusion. Communication would have succeeded, despite the fact that the words you used

          • In that particular example yes, but many dialects of English "should of" would be considered correct. Consider the sentence "I'm a gonna ride that bike" which is valid for certain dialects of English, but wouldn't pass muster in your typical high school grammar class. If there weren't parts of different vernacular dialects that were considered wrong, they wouldn't be considered dialects at all.

            The example you've used is more of a homophonic mistake than a matter of vernacular, unless someone is meaning t
            • "Should of" is just people who don't know how "should've" is spelled. Illiteracy is not the same thing as a dialect. The spoken word is technically the same in that case.

              • "Should of" is just people who don't know how "should've" is spelled. Illiteracy is not the same thing as a dialect.

                Exactly Thank you for putting it so succinctly.

        • By American Vernacular English, that's not wrong. People frequently substitute "should of" in place of "should've".

          Please, don't confuse illiteracy with 'vernacular'.

          "Should of" is NOT 'vernacular', it's making random meat noises to approximate language and failing to grasp something they taught you fairly early in school.

          It is hearing sloppy speaking, turning that into a sloppy understanding of the words you're using, and then using that in a written form which demonstrates you think the incoherent mumbli

          • By American Vernacular English, that's not wrong. People frequently substitute "should of" in place of "should've".

            Please, don't confuse illiteracy with 'vernacular'.

            "Should of" is NOT 'vernacular', it's making random meat noises to approximate language and failing to grasp something they taught you fairly early in school.

            It is hearing sloppy speaking, turning that into a sloppy understanding of the words you're using, and then using that in a written form which demonstrates you think the incoherent mumbling you do in the real world corresponds to speaking the language.

            "Should of" is so wrong it defies belief.

            Between the dangling definition of "they", the godawful run on sentence in the second portion of your comment, and the horrendous collision of your tenses, I'm going to interpret this as either an intentional troll or a sarcastic remark. I apologize if I seem hesitant to recognize that, but my sarcasm detector is temporarily out of order after pulling an all-nighter.

            Amount of comment slots spent on this topic: three, and apparently counting.

            • Perhaps you could point out the run-on sentence he used, because I don't see anything that's even close.

              I don't see a dangling definition of "they" either. He uses it in an impersonal form, similar to French on.

              You aren't very good, are you?

            • 1) I see no run-on sentence in what he wrote, the sentence seems properly formed to me. Enlighten me, where is the run-on portion?

              2) Also, his use of "they" seems quite clear to me, in that he's referring to the teacher or teachers who taught him grammar. What is supposedly wrong about his usage?

              3) And finally, I don't see anything wrong with his use of tenses.

          • Please, don't confuse illiteracy with 'vernacular'.

            Although illiteracy is not the same as vernacular or dialect, it is often a starting point...

        • but you specifically said "the one" when he clearly used a plural form, which results in a disagreement of number.

          Wrong. You can only have a disagreement of number when they refer to the same thing, like if you wrote "he are" or "they is".

          A member of a set or group is totally not, logically or grammatically, the same thing as the set or group itself.

          For example, if we're talking about women (plural), and I go on to ask about you mother (singular, pretty much by definition[1]) are you saying it should be "

        • People frequently substitute "should of" in place of "should've".

          People also frequently say things like "for all intensive purposes" and "this code has been depreciated." That these mistakes are oft repeated doesn't make them any less wrong. "Should of," "could of," "would of," are fundamentally erroneous, and people who type these phrases out should be corrected for their own benefit.

          • That these mistakes are oft repeated doesn't make them any less wrong.

            Absolutely it does make them less wrong. Are you going to tell me that using phrases such as "to curry favor" and "moot point" are incorrect because a long time ago someone misheard someone else say "to curry Favel" and "mute point"? (see: http://blog.oxforddictionaries... [oxforddictionaries.com])

            Everyone should agree that languages evolve over time. For some reason, however, some people get really indignant when they observe the actual mechanisms by which languages evolve up-close.

        • Reading a post with bad grammar is like chatting with someone who has bad breath. Maybe it really shouldn't matter, but ew...

          Now go brush your teeth.

    • Should of also gone after loan abuse with schools as well.

      Or whatever school you graduated from which didn't teach you proper grammar.
  • Used to work in software dev for Lexmark and man, they couldn't bring 'em in fast enough. I swear the ink was still wet on some of those 'visas' while our teams were being escorted out the door.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07, 2016 @12:36PM (#51861333)

      America desperately needs President Trump. He's the only candidate we've seen so far who has taken anything resembling a pro-American stance with respect to this issue. He has taken a strong stance against illegal immigration. He has taken a strong stance against unjust "free" trade with the third world. He has made it clear that he would put America and Americans first.

      It's no wonder he's seeing such strong support from the legal immigration communities. They had to ensure a very arduous process in order to get into America legally. It's extremely harmful and disrespectful to these legal immigrants when illegals are allowed into the country, and it's even worse when these illegals are then given amnesty.

      America needs President Trump more than ever. America needs President Trump's policies more than ever. America needs a defender like President Trump.

      • by m00sh ( 2538182 )

        America desperately needs President Trump. He's the only candidate we've seen so far who has taken anything resembling a pro-American stance with respect to this issue. He has taken a strong stance against illegal immigration. He has taken a strong stance against unjust "free" trade with the third world. He has made it clear that he would put America and Americans first.

        It's no wonder he's seeing such strong support from the legal immigration communities. They had to ensure a very arduous process in order to get into America legally. It's extremely harmful and disrespectful to these legal immigrants when illegals are allowed into the country, and it's even worse when these illegals are then given amnesty.

        America needs President Trump more than ever. America needs President Trump's policies more than ever. America needs a defender like President Trump.

        He also has a strong stance against legal immigration (unless they are like his wife). He also associates with supremacists so it feels more like immigration is the code word for race.

        His whole stance is all against rapist Mexicans, cheating Chinese, terrorist Middle Eastern Muslims and H1B Indians. Americans first just is code word for hating those groups and doing something to institutionalize some sort of persecution.

        I wish Americans first meant Americans first and not let's do something about "thos

  • Buying Visas? (Score:3, Informative)

    by TechyImmigrant ( 175943 ) on Thursday April 07, 2016 @12:28PM (#51861245) Homepage Journal

    >Those overseas students now face being deported from the United States for buying visas,

    And yet when I was in the green card process, it was made clear that one of the eligibility criteria was having $1,000,000 invested in the US companies (the others being marriage, work and things I may have forgotten). $1,000,000 buys you a visa and you can get your megabuck back afterwards. How 1% privilege is that?

    • Re:Buying Visas? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kamapuaa ( 555446 ) on Thursday April 07, 2016 @12:33PM (#51861299) Homepage

      What? It's US policy to encourage rich people and educated people to move here. Investing a million dollars in US provides benefits to our economy. This is a wonderful policy. There's no guarantee or even motivation of egalitarianism towards immigrants.

      • I'm not arguing it's wrong. I'm pointing out the step function change in rules once you have $1,000,000 to spend. If you only have a few thousand the rules that apply are very different.

        • by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

          $1M and a few thousands are entirely different things.
          With an median income of maybe $30k/year per capita, a million is enough to pay someone for most of his work life. Essentially, the millionaire earned his status by creating a job for an American.
          OTOH, selling green cards for, say, $10k would be ridiculous. This is barely enough to survive for the few months it may take to find a decent job. Getting into a country with this kind of money only to come back home broke less than a year later is all too comm

      • While I hate to pull this angle, another consideration is the possibility of foreign nationals with interests other than pure immigration coming in on an educational visa. Now granted you could theoretically have them coming in to a legitimate institution with similar results, but at least a real University could track "hey, we have student X who came in and hasn't attended a single class" (resulting in the Visa being close and the student deported)

    • by Anonymous Coward

      That's a reasonable policy, because, frankly speaking, living in the US with less than $1,000,000 really just sucks.

    • How 1% privilege is that?

      Entirely. This is essentially the big dog chasing away someone attempting to undercut him and cheapening the product that is US citizenry.

      And it's a little more nefarious as this pay-to-stay program is more like rent/extortion rather than fostering investment.

      Question, if you could get someone to loan you $1,000,000 which you then invested in the USA, does that work towards getting you a visa? Is there some sort of no-cash-out clause?

      • I didn't do the loads-o-cash route, so I don't remember the specifics, but I strongly suspect they mirror the marriage rules - stay married for at least two years, then you can 'remove the restriction' (that you be married to a US citizen). So I assume you need to stay invested for a period then you can remove the restriction.

        You also have to stay in the US. Go away for more than 6 months and they'll revoke it.

    • Sounds like you did not pick the employment base sponsorship, huh? Because if you did, you wouldn't need to look for a way to get a green card. Normally, you would know about employment base green card when you enter into an agreement with your employer (being hired). If you are working and have a good relationship with your employer, either you would ask them to sponsor or they would offer to sponsor you. I am guessing you choose the married route which might have come from your attorney suggestion because

  • To the brokers that say they did it before. Squeal and testify against the people (and schools) that they did it with for half time off.

    • The time for deals with the FBI was before the FBI went public. Once they go public you have almost no chance of getting a deal.

  • It's fake? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Damn, I was thinking of applying to the University of Northern New Jersey. I heard it's a good party school.

  • by Hognoxious ( 631665 ) on Thursday April 07, 2016 @01:01PM (#51861543) Homepage Journal

    I have thought of an excellent joke about DeVry[1] which this post is too small to contain.

    [1] Substitute University of Phoenix or Texas A&M if you prefer.

    • Texas A&M is a wonderful and huge university. Why would anyone want to damage their reputation? They are the largest engineering school in the US. By the way they also have a campus in China.
  • Big deal, 21 brokers and recruiter or student....compared to the overall H1-B abuse, that's nothing. It's not even a rounding error.

  • I know it is fashionable not to RTFA, but the Justice Department named this operation "Triple Lindy", the infamous dive Rodney Dangerfield's character performed in "Back to School". :)

    • Strange, that's the second time that movie's come up in two days after years of nobody thinking of it. The movie "Back to School" was a plot point in last night's episode of "The Goldbergs".
  • Those overseas students now face being deported from the United States for buying visas

    One would think, the government's priorities would be to block the poor foreigners entering the country illegally and most immediately becoming a public burden [judicialwatch.org]. Only after we stop importing poverty [heritage.org], would the borders-enforcers turn on to people, who express their love for the United States without asking taxpayers for financial assistance.

    Surely, both groups are breaking the law and ought to be prosecuted, but, if you mu

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      I don't think the US is importing poverty, except as a minor part of immigration that cannot reasonably be filtered out. I think it is importing its future. Stopping to do that may not be a smart move.

  • He has expertise in setting up fake universities after all.

8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss

Working...