How an Undocumented Immigrant from Mexico Became a Star at Goldman Sachs(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
How an Undocumented Immigrant from Mexico Became a Star at Goldman Sachs
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-25/how-an-undocumented-immigrant-from-mexico-became-a-star-at-goldman-sachs
12 comments
My understanding is that under certain circumstances, such as marrying a US citizen, the USCIS can ignore any past violations of immigration law.[1]
"If you are a foreign citizen who is in the United States without permission, having overstayed your visa, you can indeed cure the problem if you enter into a bona fide (real) marriage with a U.S. citizen and then apply for adjustment of status (a green card)."
You are correct that for most visas and green cards, any violation of immigration law means that your application will be denied.
[1]http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/visa-over...
"If you are a foreign citizen who is in the United States without permission, having overstayed your visa, you can indeed cure the problem if you enter into a bona fide (real) marriage with a U.S. citizen and then apply for adjustment of status (a green card)."
You are correct that for most visas and green cards, any violation of immigration law means that your application will be denied.
[1]http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/visa-over...
Interesting. There was an episode on This American Life a few years ago about a Mexican-American couple. He had been in the US illegally and he had to leave and wait for ten years before he could come back legally even though they had married in the US. So they moved to Ciudad Juarez. He's working at a local factory, she's commuting to El Paso every day. IIRC they weren't entirely happy with their situation but they didn't complain either.
Would you have a link to this story? I'd love to listen to it!
I believe it's Act Two of episode:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/501/t...
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/501/t...
Keep in mind, she was also brought over as a child, without any input of her own.
The authorities have often given leniency in these cases as well.
The authorities have often given leniency in these cases as well.
It's worth nothing that there is a large fraudulent market for marriages in the US, precisely for this reason.
There are situations under which your previous status is not an issue for getting a green card; i think being a victim of human crime and marriage are two such situations.
I agree that you cannot or should not punish someone for something that they had no control over. If you're the victim of human trafficking, you didn't choose to break the law.
And I guess the same reasoning can be applied to minors that were brought to the US by their parents. They weren't asked. They had no choice.
So I shouldn't be too sore about her story because she just tried to make the best of the bad situation that her parents got her into. But somehow the article rubs me the wrong way.
It seems odd to me too that Texas and maybe other states would allow illegal immigrants to attend college but give them no perspective on what to do afterwards with their degrees. Maybe they should have petitioned the federal government to go along with: "Alright, you came here illegally as a minor. We're going to ignore that and let you start over now that you're 18. So here's your F1 student visa if you want to stay."
And I guess the same reasoning can be applied to minors that were brought to the US by their parents. They weren't asked. They had no choice.
So I shouldn't be too sore about her story because she just tried to make the best of the bad situation that her parents got her into. But somehow the article rubs me the wrong way.
It seems odd to me too that Texas and maybe other states would allow illegal immigrants to attend college but give them no perspective on what to do afterwards with their degrees. Maybe they should have petitioned the federal government to go along with: "Alright, you came here illegally as a minor. We're going to ignore that and let you start over now that you're 18. So here's your F1 student visa if you want to stay."
I hate the phrase 'undocumented immigrant.' It's not like she had some documents and—whoops!—lost them. She had documents from Mexico (presumably); she had expired documents from the United States. She was an alien whose residence in the United States was illegal; the phrase 'illegal alien' is completely accurate. The phrase 'illegal immigrant' is also accurate in her case, since she intended to stay here for good.
> “There is still the stigma that what we did is shameful,” she says. “I’m tired of being ashamed for pursuing my dream, for climbing up the ladder, and for having success.”
She should be ashamed: she appears to have violated immigration, pension and tax laws. 'I'm pursuing my dreams and being successful' is not a valid counter-argument to 'you're breaking the law.' She's a criminal; she's literally a shameless criminal.
> “There is still the stigma that what we did is shameful,” she says. “I’m tired of being ashamed for pursuing my dream, for climbing up the ladder, and for having success.”
She should be ashamed: she appears to have violated immigration, pension and tax laws. 'I'm pursuing my dreams and being successful' is not a valid counter-argument to 'you're breaking the law.' She's a criminal; she's literally a shameless criminal.
"Well, when we look back on history, the progress of Western civilization and human rights is actually founded on the violation of law. America was of course born out of a violent revolution that was an outrageous treason against the crown and established order of the day. History shows that the righting of historical wrongs is often born from acts of unrepentant criminality. Slavery. The protection of persecuted Jews.
But even on less extremist topics, we can find similar examples. How about the prohibition of alcohol? Gay marriage? Marijuana? Where would we be today if the government, enjoying powers of perfect surveillance and enforcement, had -- entirely within the law -- rounded up, imprisoned, and shamed all of these lawbreakers?
Ultimately, if people lose their willingness to recognize that there are times in our history when legality becomes distinct from morality, we aren't just ceding control of our rights to government, but our agency in determining our futures."
...
"In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends."
-- Edward Snowden
[1]https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_...
But even on less extremist topics, we can find similar examples. How about the prohibition of alcohol? Gay marriage? Marijuana? Where would we be today if the government, enjoying powers of perfect surveillance and enforcement, had -- entirely within the law -- rounded up, imprisoned, and shamed all of these lawbreakers?
Ultimately, if people lose their willingness to recognize that there are times in our history when legality becomes distinct from morality, we aren't just ceding control of our rights to government, but our agency in determining our futures."
...
"In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends."
-- Edward Snowden
[1]https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_...
I could spend my whole life correcting people who draw an equivalence between legality and morality, and that would be a life well spent.
Yes, unjust laws should be ignored. Is it unjust for a culture to attempt to regulate the rate at which it admits outsiders? I don't think so. As outsiders enter an organisation, they both alter it and are altered by it; if too many enter it before they are altered by it (i.e., assimilated), then the organisation fundamentally changes.
We all know that this is true of startups; if a startup grows too quickly, it risks losing the culture which enabled it to succeed in the first place. Risk-takers are slowly drowned out by risk-avoiders, and eventually the startup loses its drive. Is it so crazy that the same would be true of states?
I posit that there's nothing unjust about regulating the rate of influx into a society, and plenty unjust about flouting those regulations and cutting one's place in line.
Incidentally, Edward Snowden should be hanged by the neck until dead; quoting him is hardly compelling.
We all know that this is true of startups; if a startup grows too quickly, it risks losing the culture which enabled it to succeed in the first place. Risk-takers are slowly drowned out by risk-avoiders, and eventually the startup loses its drive. Is it so crazy that the same would be true of states?
I posit that there's nothing unjust about regulating the rate of influx into a society, and plenty unjust about flouting those regulations and cutting one's place in line.
Incidentally, Edward Snowden should be hanged by the neck until dead; quoting him is hardly compelling.
> Incidentally, Edward Snowden should be hanged by the neck until dead; quoting him is hardly compelling.
Hopefully we can continue to marginalize people with such an opinion. Exposing government corruption should never be a capital offense.
Hopefully we can continue to marginalize people with such an opinion. Exposing government corruption should never be a capital offense.
> Exposing government corruption should never be a capital offense.
Betraying one's country should always be a capital offense. Snowden violated his NDA; he betrayed his colleagues and his fellow citizens; he fled into the hands of China and Russia; he revealed legitimate and legal operations which he had no business revealing. He's a traitor.
Betraying one's country should always be a capital offense. Snowden violated his NDA; he betrayed his colleagues and his fellow citizens; he fled into the hands of China and Russia; he revealed legitimate and legal operations which he had no business revealing. He's a traitor.
Any plans for calling for the dismantling of the NSA for blatantly violating the constitutional rights of millions of Americans?
If I want someone hung or burned at the stake, its those who trample the civil rights of myself and my fellow citizen for the illusion of safety when none can be guaranteed.
If I want someone hung or burned at the stake, its those who trample the civil rights of myself and my fellow citizen for the illusion of safety when none can be guaranteed.
> Any plans for calling for the dismantling of the NSA for blatantly violating the constitutional rights of millions of Americans?
It has not done that. It may or may not have violated what you (and possibly I) might like those rights to be. But wanting doesn't make something so. I would love to restrict subpoena power solely to defendants compelling testimony in their defense, but until it has been so restricted, anyone can be forced to provide evidence to the state. I would love for the Fourth Amendment to apply at border crossings, but the courts—to include the Supreme Court—have repeatedly held that it does not.
The law is not what we want, but what it is. So far as I am aware, NSA has consistently acted within the limits of the law, as interpreted by the courts for decades and centuries. Acting within the limits of the law, incidentally, is precisely what neither Mr. Snowden nor Miss Arce did.
It has not done that. It may or may not have violated what you (and possibly I) might like those rights to be. But wanting doesn't make something so. I would love to restrict subpoena power solely to defendants compelling testimony in their defense, but until it has been so restricted, anyone can be forced to provide evidence to the state. I would love for the Fourth Amendment to apply at border crossings, but the courts—to include the Supreme Court—have repeatedly held that it does not.
The law is not what we want, but what it is. So far as I am aware, NSA has consistently acted within the limits of the law, as interpreted by the courts for decades and centuries. Acting within the limits of the law, incidentally, is precisely what neither Mr. Snowden nor Miss Arce did.
Crimes are what we decide they are! Criminalizing this sort of behavior is something that most Americans don't want [1]. Expecting someone to be ashamed for violating a law that isn't particularly popular seems silly. Should Uber be ashamed for violating taxi regulations, when those regulations are hated by consumers?
[1] http://americasvoice.org/blog/fox-news-poll-confirms-path-to...
[1] http://americasvoice.org/blog/fox-news-poll-confirms-path-to...
I'mma let you finish but let me twist your example a little further.
Should Uber be ashamed that by violating taxi regulations, women have been raped/stalked because of how they operate?
Should Uber be ashamed that by violating taxi regulations, women have been raped/stalked because of how they operate?
> Should Uber be ashamed that by violating taxi regulations, women have been raped/stalked because of how they operate?
Does following taxi regulations prevent these events from occurring? If no, then of course not.
The separate question is, can a corporation experience shame?
Does following taxi regulations prevent these events from occurring? If no, then of course not.
The separate question is, can a corporation experience shame?
> She should be ashamed: she appears to have violated immigration, pension and tax laws.
She is an illegal immigrant, and a shameless criminal, but why should she be ashamed? Braking a law does not necessarily imply anything shameful, and sometimes it is shameful to obey unjust laws. I hope everyone can think of some laws (at least from history) that you'd be proud to break.
She is an illegal immigrant, and a shameless criminal, but why should she be ashamed? Braking a law does not necessarily imply anything shameful, and sometimes it is shameful to obey unjust laws. I hope everyone can think of some laws (at least from history) that you'd be proud to break.
She was a minor when she came over. She was just trying to survive and succeed and the laws made it difficult for her to do so.
Up until the 1960s, blacks were not allowed basic rights and access to many thing, and doing so was considered "criminal". Ditto with gays until recently.
So, anyone fighting against unjust laws are "criminals?
Up until the 1960s, blacks were not allowed basic rights and access to many thing, and doing so was considered "criminal". Ditto with gays until recently.
So, anyone fighting against unjust laws are "criminals?
From the article: "Just as she was graduating in 2001, a new law made it possible for undocumented Texas students to attend public universities at in-state rates."
Actually this law made it easier for her to attend college as an undocumented immigrant. But then what ? what are undocumented immigrants that graduate from college supposed to do ? go back to working as cooks and maids ?
Actually this law made it easier for her to attend college as an undocumented immigrant. But then what ? what are undocumented immigrants that graduate from college supposed to do ? go back to working as cooks and maids ?
> She was a minor when she came over. She was just trying to survive and succeed and the laws made it difficult for her to do so.
Her parents brought her in on a tourist visa at 11, which expired when she was 14. She was only here for three years legally; her family could—and should—have returned to Mexico. Mexico is not some third-world hellhole; it's a developed and civilised country (yes, there's drug violence in some parts; it's still one of the nicer countries in the world). It's hardly like they were refugees from the Sudan.
Her parents brought her in on a tourist visa at 11, which expired when she was 14. She was only here for three years legally; her family could—and should—have returned to Mexico. Mexico is not some third-world hellhole; it's a developed and civilised country (yes, there's drug violence in some parts; it's still one of the nicer countries in the world). It's hardly like they were refugees from the Sudan.
We should walk in someone else's shoes first before judging what they could and should do. We have no idea what her personal circumstances were.
But whatever her parents did or could do, she had little choice in it as a minor.
But whatever her parents did or could do, she had little choice in it as a minor.
She should have gone through the process like everyone else. I invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in my business to get a visa, spending all of that money on American suppliers and employing Americans. Now that the business failed I have to leave the U.S., taking my kids out of their schools, and start the process all over again, taking even more time, expense and disruption. But I am not going to break the law.
As usual, the people who abide by the rules get screwed, while those who break them, not only thrive, but get written about as some kind of heroes.
As usual, the people who abide by the rules get screwed, while those who break them, not only thrive, but get written about as some kind of heroes.
She should suffer because you suffered? I sympathize with you but that's not good logic.
His argument is that she should have followed the rules. It was not about suffering.
My argument somewhere else in this thread is that the system has become an insane one.
My argument somewhere else in this thread is that the system has become an insane one.
As usual, the people who abide by the rules get screwed, while those who break them, not only thrive, but get written about as some kind of heroes.
Did she steal, defraud, or harm anyone?
If she contributed something of economic value, why are you so against her staying?
Maybe you should blame the immigration process instead.
Did she steal, defraud, or harm anyone?
If she contributed something of economic value, why are you so against her staying?
Maybe you should blame the immigration process instead.
>Did she steal, defraud, or harm anyone?
Well, she was creating and selling derivatives, for Goldman Sachs, prior to 2008.
Well, she was creating and selling derivatives, for Goldman Sachs, prior to 2008.
She came over when she was 14. The whole problem is that there is no process for her.
You could also break the law. But you don't because you have a lot to lose and most importantly you do have (shitty?) alternatives.
In her case, she was 14, and she had already broken the law. There were no other alternatives. And it wasn't easy. She got luck and did it in ~10 years.
I don't agree with that. Just that don't be so quick to judge without understanding her own situation.
In her case, she was 14, and she had already broken the law. There were no other alternatives. And it wasn't easy. She got luck and did it in ~10 years.
I don't agree with that. Just that don't be so quick to judge without understanding her own situation.
I assume you have contacted an immigration lawyer for your options correct? Sorry to hear about that.
Thank you for your sympathy. There's actually very little leeway in the immigration process for a lawyer to work any magic -- they mainly just help with processing applications and making sure you comply with the rules.
I invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in my business to get a visa.
This option is not available to everyone. I don't think you should have to spend that much in order to come to the U.S. But I also wouldn't blame someone without those resources trying to better themselves in any way possible.
This option is not available to everyone. I don't think you should have to spend that much in order to come to the U.S. But I also wouldn't blame someone without those resources trying to better themselves in any way possible.
The problem with the issue of illegal immigration in the US is that is has become too politicized, and the issues that relate to millions of people take precedence over the issues of attracting the fewer immigrants who bring a certain skill to the country.
I am going to criticize her approach a little first. She was a minor when coming over, but she did knowingly throw her employer under the bus as an adult who did not appropriately check her status for employment. The fact that this article exists seems a little self-serving and thankless to GS. If you are going under the radar and your employer had a slip up, the least you can do is keep quiet and keep working. You just embarrassed GS for nothing (not that the banking industry cares).
That being said, let's go back to the issue: why was this qualified person not easily allowed to apply for preferential status under the immigration rules? She has a college degree in a select field where we need resources, a job offer from a company more than willing to employ her, yet she was still considered in the same bucket as millions of others? That kind of sucks and it would be the same situation as in high tech.
Again, I know she should have stood in the line as millions of others and waited. However, today that is an unreasonable proposition as for many countries the line that is being considered is for those folks who applied in the 1990s.
There is another conversation to be had about the millions of other people who simply skip the line, and whether we in America try to have it both ways by "not wanting them" but "wanting the cheap tomatoes at the supermarket." That is for another thread.
I am going to criticize her approach a little first. She was a minor when coming over, but she did knowingly throw her employer under the bus as an adult who did not appropriately check her status for employment. The fact that this article exists seems a little self-serving and thankless to GS. If you are going under the radar and your employer had a slip up, the least you can do is keep quiet and keep working. You just embarrassed GS for nothing (not that the banking industry cares).
That being said, let's go back to the issue: why was this qualified person not easily allowed to apply for preferential status under the immigration rules? She has a college degree in a select field where we need resources, a job offer from a company more than willing to employ her, yet she was still considered in the same bucket as millions of others? That kind of sucks and it would be the same situation as in high tech.
Again, I know she should have stood in the line as millions of others and waited. However, today that is an unreasonable proposition as for many countries the line that is being considered is for those folks who applied in the 1990s.
There is another conversation to be had about the millions of other people who simply skip the line, and whether we in America try to have it both ways by "not wanting them" but "wanting the cheap tomatoes at the supermarket." That is for another thread.
> America try to have it both ways by "not wanting them" but "wanting the cheap tomatoes at the supermarket." That is for another thread.
Increased security at the border is keeping people in the USA. They would return to their families if they could, but they have to stay here because crossing back and forth is too dangerous. They should be able to come to the farms in the USA seasonally, help and go back to their families in Mexico. The money they bring to their rural communities will be highly beneficial to those communities. These are hardworking people that are desperate in need of work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_program
Increased security at the border is keeping people in the USA. They would return to their families if they could, but they have to stay here because crossing back and forth is too dangerous. They should be able to come to the farms in the USA seasonally, help and go back to their families in Mexico. The money they bring to their rural communities will be highly beneficial to those communities. These are hardworking people that are desperate in need of work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_program
That seems to be a formal, properly managed program with a specific need.
I was referring to both sides of the argument: people simply skip the line too, which screws people who stood in an orderly line. So with both sides screwed up (people skipping the line and Americans going "I dont want them but I want the cheap produce and the cheap nanny"), no wonder it is a free for all.
I was referring to both sides of the argument: people simply skip the line too, which screws people who stood in an orderly line. So with both sides screwed up (people skipping the line and Americans going "I dont want them but I want the cheap produce and the cheap nanny"), no wonder it is a free for all.
Sadly a properly managed program would require employers to pay a minimum wage, which is unacceptable to employers (along with other things that would solve the problem like mandatory use of eVerify for all employment applications).
Basically the current mess will continue because there is too much money to be made out of it.
Basically the current mess will continue because there is too much money to be made out of it.
As a Mexican national with a college degree she could really easily have obtained a TN visa. Then an H1B, then a green card.
But she was already in a gray area, because she came at 14 and had obtained and used false documents. I guess once you cross that line, the whole thing becomes highly complicated.
But she was already in a gray area, because she came at 14 and had obtained and used false documents. I guess once you cross that line, the whole thing becomes highly complicated.
For all those wondering why she was not deported when she "came out" publicly, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (aka "ICE") generally prioritizes immigrants involved in criminal activity (e.g. smuggling, drugs, etc.) due to limited resources and a distaste for stirring controversy, so as long as you are a productive member of society who is paying taxes and not breaking the law otherwise, ICE is willing to look the other way.
In fact, Jose Antonio Vargas (who is mentioned in the article) actually once called up ICE directly to ask them why they were not trying to deport him after he had come out publicly about his status and received a lot of attention in the press about it. ICE never got back to him.
In fact, Jose Antonio Vargas (who is mentioned in the article) actually once called up ICE directly to ask them why they were not trying to deport him after he had come out publicly about his status and received a lot of attention in the press about it. ICE never got back to him.
So take a note: if you bank with Goldman, you have no idea of the actual identity of the person you're dealing with.
"Stole client money & fled the country" isn't exactly common, but it is a thing that happens.
"Stole client money & fled the country" isn't exactly common, but it is a thing that happens.
Interesting that Goldman doesn't have good enough background checks (or any background check?) to catch fake SS numbers. The securities industry is supposed to fingerprint and check any candidate who would be licensed, which a securities salesperson generally would be.
It was not easy to check SS numbers back then. She joined the firm in 2005. The systems that verifies them today is recent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Verify). It did not really start working well until 2007.
http://www.uscis.gov/e-verify
http://www.uscis.gov/e-verify
I can understand that you might not verify the number for every random low-level position. But a securities trader has a specific risk profile and I would assume a higher level of due diligence by the employer to avoid potential law suits or problems with their liability insurance.
I'm also a little surprised that you can work and pay payroll taxes to an invalid SSN. Shouldn't that raise a red flag when someone pays payroll taxes to an invalid SSN, or when the name of the employee doesn't match the name on the SSN? Doesn't the social security administration notice that and notify ADP / the employer? Not just to combat fraud but also to uncover and fix honest mistakes when someone flips a digit in an SSN?
I'm also a little surprised that you can work and pay payroll taxes to an invalid SSN. Shouldn't that raise a red flag when someone pays payroll taxes to an invalid SSN, or when the name of the employee doesn't match the name on the SSN? Doesn't the social security administration notice that and notify ADP / the employer? Not just to combat fraud but also to uncover and fix honest mistakes when someone flips a digit in an SSN?
Maybe you are not in America and don't understand the power and the behavior of the Internal Revenue Service, which tracks your due taxes.
There are BILLIONS of dollars collected by the IRS into accounts not for the original beneficiary. The Federal Government is the last entity who will complain about those Billions of Dollars extra.
I am sure there is no RED FLAG for, "hey, look, you PAID US MORE" nor for "YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE PAID US THIS."
That is one requirement that would have immediately been deleted from the spec.
There are BILLIONS of dollars collected by the IRS into accounts not for the original beneficiary. The Federal Government is the last entity who will complain about those Billions of Dollars extra.
I am sure there is no RED FLAG for, "hey, look, you PAID US MORE" nor for "YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE PAID US THIS."
That is one requirement that would have immediately been deleted from the spec.
Wonder is she was paying any taxes? This whole article feels strange to me, if I slipped through the cracks and got luck I wouldn't be shouting on the rooftops about it.
hmmm, at that level of income, you don't PAY your taxes. They are DEDUCTED from your paycheck.
Personally I was inspired by her story. At 11 she didn't exactly decide to break the law herself. Do you all expect her to move to a place she doesn't even know after graduating from a great U.S. school? To me her story is of one who astutely overcame an insane amount of obstacles to achieve tremendous success.
Also for those veiled "illegal alien" racist I hope your smug attempt to caste a group of people as beneath you gives you the complacency you so crave.
Also for those veiled "illegal alien" racist I hope your smug attempt to caste a group of people as beneath you gives you the complacency you so crave.
I can't help but correlate her immigration tactics with the greed & character flaws necessary for many traders & ibankers to pursue this type of career. I'll continue to beat the dead horse by saying "what a waste of talent."
Maybe I missed it, but how did she qualify for the citizenship mentioned in the 2nd to last paragraph?
I did too, at first. But she and the boyfriend married. I assume the boyfriend is a US Citizen. Then she qualified as a spouse.
But still the US Citizenship application form has lots of very specific questions about past deeds that she would have been required to answer under oath. Either a) She disclosed and answered them "correctly" and had a good immigration lawyer or b) She lied, in which case her citizenship (in theory) could be revoked should USCIS wish to purse the matter in court.
"Undocumented Immigrant"
Illegal Alien.
"But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought."
― Orwell, "1984"
"But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought."
― Orwell, "1984"
It would be interesting to read a case study on how a small cultural change such as this is pushed. The fact that this wording change is being pushed is, in itself, a signal that a societal power seeks to change how we think of illegal immigration. As with many pushes, such as the push to accept the idea of globalization, a moral argument is used to convince the petite bourgeoisie of the worth of something that members of the ruling class want.
Presumably illegal alien. Only a court of law can say what's legal or not. #Democracy
Also, now that she came out, can her citizenship be revoked? She was in the country illegally for more than a decade, worked illegally, and apparently had tax issues. Don't you have to certify that you've complied with laws and paid your taxes when you apply for permanent residency or citizenship? Don't you have to supply police records for all the places that you've lived when applying for permanent residency? So she must have lied or not supplied all the information that was required. Or did the government just let it slide?
She also admits to marrying her boyfriend in large part because it would legalize her status. That's awfully close to admitting marriage fraud.
Edit: The whole thing sounds a bit like "Look how successful I was, therefore I deserved to live in the US, and I was justified in breaking immigration law." It's a slap in the face to all honest immigrants.