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

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."

Comments

Re:Should of also gone after loan abuse with schoo

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

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".

Re:Should of also gone after loan abuse with schoo

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

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.