To those of you griping about IMBRA

[lost in the woods 0]

there is only one thing you are right about, there is obviously no discussion or debate here.

your post is quite good at personal attacks on me, quite weak on points to make.

we'll see in a year or two if i'm right or you are.

i still hold that this law will not protect anyone, it is 'feel good politics' at it's finest.

i'm selfish because i think this is an utterly stupid law, poorly conceived, poorly writen and poorly implimented?

ok i'm selfish.

damn my selfishness, i'm so evil that i have the audacity to demand solutions that actually work without punishing the innocent.

how ignorant of me.

EDIT:

it's almost comical to me that if your time line is accurate you received no delay from this law

Edited August 10, 2006 by lost in the woods

[zethris 0]

That is a terrible thing to do to anybody. He must be an idiot. There are plenty of women in this country with their legs wide open, why bother petitioning and temporarily destroying someones life?

oh that's a nice thing to say about american women........

It wasn't meant to be a specific "bash" towards American women. Prostitutes exist, baby mama's exist, www.adultfriendfinder.com exists...

Sorry if you took it that way, though.

in the future you might find it to be a good idea to be more specific when you write something like that.

That is a terrible thing to do to anybody. He must be an idiot. There are plenty of women in this country with their legs wide open, why bother petitioning and temporarily destroying someones life?

this must be you

So very reported.

i'm sure you got reported for slandering american women too

Thus exactly why I am not marrying an American Woman. Too hyper emotionaly attached to words like that. Big deal. Deal with the truth. While the choice of words used may have seemed harsh, the fact still remains. Ther ARE enough women who have their morals comprimized enough to be "open" to any walking guy. This is how things are for a lot of women unfortunatly. You can't take umbrige to the truth. No matter how it was said.

If you can't admit that there is a problem here with that, just like just about everywhere else in the world then you are in denial.

The point that was being made in context was in reference to finding such women, but in different countries (where they too exist) so that they don't have to be accountable when they come back, or send the girl back.

[iceyspots 0]

That is a terrible thing to do to anybody. He must be an idiot. There are plenty of women in this country with their legs wide open, why bother petitioning and temporarily destroying someones life?

oh that's a nice thing to say about american women........

It wasn't meant to be a specific "bash" towards American women. Prostitutes exist, baby mama's exist, www.adultfriendfinder.com exists...

Sorry if you took it that way, though.

in the future you might find it to be a good idea to be more specific when you write something like that.

That is a terrible thing to do to anybody. He must be an idiot. There are plenty of women in this country with their legs wide open, why bother petitioning and temporarily destroying someones life?

this must be you

So very reported.

i'm sure you got reported for slandering american women too

Believe me, there is a much more vulgar way to say the above statement.

How would you have liked me to have stated it?

[zethris 0]

That is a terrible thing to do to anybody. He must be an idiot. There are plenty of women in this country with their legs wide open, why bother petitioning and temporarily destroying someones life?

oh that's a nice thing to say about american women........

It wasn't meant to be a specific "bash" towards American women. Prostitutes exist, baby mama's exist, www.adultfriendfinder.com exists...

Sorry if you took it that way, though.

That is a terrible thing to do to anybody. He must be an idiot. There are plenty of women in this country with their legs wide open, why bother petitioning and temporarily destroying someones life?

this must be you

So very reported.

you slandered all AMERICAN WOMAN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you think you can say things and its ok. its not!

Uh, not this person did not. They used the word PLENTY. Not ALL. I think you are being way to overly emotional about this.

there is only one thing you are right about, there is obviously no discussion or debate here.

your post is quite good at personal attacks on me, quite weak on points to make.

we'll see in a year or two if i'm right or you are.

i still hold that this law will not protect anyone, it is 'feel good politics' at it's finest.

i'm selfish because i think this is an utterly stupid law, poorly conceived, poorly writen and poorly implimented?

ok i'm selfish.

damn my selfishness, i'm so evil that i have the audacity to demand solutions that actually work without punishing the innocent.

how ignorant of me.

EDIT:

it's almost comical to me that if your time line is accurate you received no delay from this law

And you are also an arrogant sophmoric troll who should probably stop wasting time and move-on.org (your favorite website)

One last point, I am not on time. I would have had an Aug23rd interview date, but now it will be probably in November. How un-astute of you.

Edited August 10, 2006 by zethris

[evansfan 0]

"Frankly my friend, if you have a problem with IMBRA, you have a problem with the vast majority of us here, and you are welcome to leave at any time.”

I find that statement self righteous, and the quintessential example of the "tyranny of the majority." IMBRA has had an enormous impact on all of us and a healthy raucous debate helps this community get a handle on the issues involved and the philosophy behind the law. The linchpin of a free society is free speech and we must tolerate excesses (look at talk radio for gods sake , and in our case trolls, but a self appointed arbiter of what crosses the line is the height of hubris. I will encourage us to tolerate all voices and only condemn those who cross the line with vicious personal attacks.

On the topic in question, my biggest concern is the two year waiting period, it

seems excessive. I will try, and most likely fail , to explain my position. In the digital age relationships that were unfathomable a generation ago our now commonplace; we can find our partner in virtually any portion of the globe. Many of these relationships are nurtured in a world that is even defined as unreal “virtual”. The emotions and commitment are no doubt genuine, but eventually that virtual world must give way to the real word, and the reality of everyday life versus brief jet delivered 2 week encounters can be jarring, my mind flashes to a poor farm girl from a homogenous culture encountering the multi plural cultural reality that is an American city. That is why I love that 90 day window, both parties can get a taste of the path that lies before them, and in most cases the commitment grows stronger, but when it frays they have a chance to step back and re-evaluate. If the strain is too great and one party returns home why should the USC have to wait two more years, especially if a pattern of abuse does not exist, granted the USC will probably not have a foreign fiancée again, but why should that window be closed. One year seems reasonable to me.

In my personal case, I lived in Guangzhou for a year, what an awful place. My GF is at her core Chinese; she wouldn’t even let me kiss her for six months. She has spent her entire adult life in large cities, she is in foreign trade and speaks English fluently, and I have exhausted many hours trying to prepare her, but in my heart I know she will be utterly confused by the her initial American experience

Jay

[TucsonBill 0]

Props to Kobayashi & gcox457 - you saved me alot of typing!

Edited August 10, 2006 by TucsonBill

[zethris 0]

"Frankly my friend, if you have a problem with IMBRA, you have a problem with the vast majority of us here, and you are welcome to leave at any time.”

I find that statement self righteous, and the quintessential example of the "tyranny of the majority." IMBRA has had an enormous impact on all of us and a healthy raucous debate helps this community get a handle on the issues involved and the philosophy behind the law. The linchpin of a free society is free speech and we must tolerate excesses (look at talk radio for gods sake , and in our case trolls, but a self appointed arbiter of what crosses the line is the height of hubris. I will encourage us to tolerate all voices and only condemn those who cross the line with vicious personal attacks.

On the topic in question, my biggest concern is the two year waiting period, it

seems excessive. I will try, and most likely fail , to explain my position. In the digital age relationships that were unfathomable a generation ago our now commonplace; we can find our partner in virtually any portion of the globe. Many of these relationships are nurtured in a world that is even defined as unreal “virtual”. The emotions and commitment are no doubt genuine, but eventually that virtual world must give way to the real word, and the reality of everyday life versus brief jet delivered 2 week encounters can be jarring, my mind flashes to a poor farm girl from a homogenous culture encountering the multi plural cultural reality that is an American city. That is why I love that 90 day window, both parties can get a taste of the path that lies before them, and in most cases the commitment grows stronger, but when it frays they have a chance to step back and re-evaluate. If the strain is too great and one party returns home why should the USC have to wait two more years, especially if a pattern of abuse does not exist, granted the USC will probably not have a foreign fiancée again, but why should that window be closed. One year seems reasonable to me.

In my personal case, I lived in Guangzhou for a year, what an awful place. My GF is at her core Chinese; she wouldn’t even let me kiss her for six months. She has spent her entire adult life in large cities, she is in foreign trade and speaks English fluently, and I have exhausted many hours trying to prepare her, but in my heart I know she will be utterly confused by the her initial American experience

Jay

Not exactly sure how, or why you would find that self rightous when it is true. You haven't been here long enough then to know that this issue has been talked about over and over and over again. And that generally those who have a problem with the IMBRA law outside of the way it was implemented are usually those who IMBRA will primarily effect to help protect the incoming foreign national. Also usually, these people become the trolls.

Now about this 2 year thing. Getting a waiver, and even submitting it along with your application is not a big deal. The reviewer will not summarily deny your application. This is a system check to prevent those who are obviously scammers, and also raise well needed flags for those who have applied over and over again with different bennificiaries. This myth that people are trying to generate that you can only apply once every 2 years is totall bunk.

So yes, at this point, if you have a problem with IMBRA you have a problem with the vast majority as we all support the law. Especially knowing what it WILL and WILL NOT do. But we all have issue with how it was implemented.

Edited August 10, 2006 by zethris

[garya505 2]

i'm going to be bluntly honest about the original poster.

Too bad.

you have demonstrated one malicious individual who abuses a system, that individual has not been punished.

tens of thousands of honest people who try to do it the right way are being punished because of one bad apple.

That is what we have fallen to as a society but it's not acceptable, you cannot punish everyone for the acts of an individual and you cannot punish everyone to try to protect one or two random people from doing something stupid. That last part is a direct reference to the high profile case that inspired this law.

The change is immoral, the way this country sometimes over reacts with far reaching consequences to honest citizens trying to make their way in the world and do things the right way is also totally wrong.

bad things sometimes happen to good people for no reason and the government has no business trying to legislate their protection.

Wow, what an incredibly short-sighted viewpoint. I suppose since Murder only occurs to 1 out of 15000 people each year, that the government should just get rid of the laws prohibiting that too? How about Drunk Driving? Robbery? The list goes on and on. If there is one isolated event...no law is needed...I agree. But you have to look at the scale of the number of events, and the impact those events has on people's lives. The circumstances the OP listed are not isolated events...but rather a single sampling in a large number of documented abuses of the prior system. The girls that the "business associate" used got off lucky...many of them wind up physically abused before being kicked to the curb. Being sent back to their home country, often without a pot to piss in, is considered a fantastic outcome compared to how many of them wound up. I'm sorry that adding a measure of "complete disclosure" in order to protect foreign nationals who are literally putting their lives into the hands of these USC's upsets you. But the way I see it...if it's good enough for the Real Estate industry, then it should be good enough for immigration.

It sucks that the USCIS has dropped the ball on implementing the program (DHS failing at something? Surprise Surprise)....but the rationale behind the legislation is both sound and over-due.

It's not just the implementation that was flawed but the law itself. Some parts are good, like the petitioner background checks and the limitations on number of petitions allowed. But the rules for the so-called International Marriage Brokers are just silly and don't accomplish the intended effect. It would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.

[zethris 0]

i'm going to be bluntly honest about the original poster.

Too bad.

you have demonstrated one malicious individual who abuses a system, that individual has not been punished.

tens of thousands of honest people who try to do it the right way are being punished because of one bad apple.

That is what we have fallen to as a society but it's not acceptable, you cannot punish everyone for the acts of an individual and you cannot punish everyone to try to protect one or two random people from doing something stupid. That last part is a direct reference to the high profile case that inspired this law.

The change is immoral, the way this country sometimes over reacts with far reaching consequences to honest citizens trying to make their way in the world and do things the right way is also totally wrong.

bad things sometimes happen to good people for no reason and the government has no business trying to legislate their protection.

Wow, what an incredibly short-sighted viewpoint. I suppose since Murder only occurs to 1 out of 15000 people each year, that the government should just get rid of the laws prohibiting that too? How about Drunk Driving? Robbery? The list goes on and on. If there is one isolated event...no law is needed...I agree. But you have to look at the scale of the number of events, and the impact those events has on people's lives. The circumstances the OP listed are not isolated events...but rather a single sampling in a large number of documented abuses of the prior system. The girls that the "business associate" used got off lucky...many of them wind up physically abused before being kicked to the curb. Being sent back to their home country, often without a pot to piss in, is considered a fantastic outcome compared to how many of them wound up. I'm sorry that adding a measure of "complete disclosure" in order to protect foreign nationals who are literally putting their lives into the hands of these USC's upsets you. But the way I see it...if it's good enough for the Real Estate industry, then it should be good enough for immigration.

It sucks that the USCIS has dropped the ball on implementing the program (DHS failing at something? Surprise Surprise)....but the rationale behind the legislation is both sound and over-due.

It's not just the implementation that was flawed but the law itself. Some parts are good, like the petitioner background checks and the limitations on number of petitions allowed. But the rules for the so-called International Marriage Brokers are just silly and don't accomplish the intended effect. It would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.

I gladly dissagree with you. This law does not have silly IMB laws, silly IMB regulations already existed. This is just a patch to those IMB laws to add buffers and prophylactics to the IMB regulations so that technologies like the internet cannot be abused by making the line of what makes an IMB, and what has to follow IMB rules, a little less blurry than before.

The easy way is not always the right way. Taking away someones freedoms like that because they made one or more of any mistake is absolutely wrong. This law avoids that possibility and leave the decision up to the benneficiary.

Unless you are one of those people who somehow think any incoming foreign national is less intellegent than you are and can't make a sound choice, allowing the benneficiary to make the final choice is adding freedom and libery to both parties.

The only thing that is flawed in this law is it didn't use more simple words for everyone to be able to understand clearly. So the trolls, drive by media, lawyers, and the rest of that scum, are taking parts of it and interperating it on behalf of the more impressionables amongst us and causing an unneed furor that is for nothing more than their own ego boost, or guilty conscience at best.

The real issue, for those of us who respect law and follow it, is the implementation. The real issue, for those of us who may have had a shady past and are trying to make an effort to become better, is also the implementation. The real issue, for those who still live and desire to live a shady life, is IMBRA.

[garya505 2]

i'm going to be bluntly honest about the original poster.

Too bad.

you have demonstrated one malicious individual who abuses a system, that individual has not been punished.

tens of thousands of honest people who try to do it the right way are being punished because of one bad apple.

That is what we have fallen to as a society but it's not acceptable, you cannot punish everyone for the acts of an individual and you cannot punish everyone to try to protect one or two random people from doing something stupid. That last part is a direct reference to the high profile case that inspired this law.

The change is immoral, the way this country sometimes over reacts with far reaching consequences to honest citizens trying to make their way in the world and do things the right way is also totally wrong.

bad things sometimes happen to good people for no reason and the government has no business trying to legislate their protection.

Wow, what an incredibly short-sighted viewpoint. I suppose since Murder only occurs to 1 out of 15000 people each year, that the government should just get rid of the laws prohibiting that too? How about Drunk Driving? Robbery? The list goes on and on. If there is one isolated event...no law is needed...I agree. But you have to look at the scale of the number of events, and the impact those events has on people's lives. The circumstances the OP listed are not isolated events...but rather a single sampling in a large number of documented abuses of the prior system. The girls that the "business associate" used got off lucky...many of them wind up physically abused before being kicked to the curb. Being sent back to their home country, often without a pot to piss in, is considered a fantastic outcome compared to how many of them wound up. I'm sorry that adding a measure of "complete disclosure" in order to protect foreign nationals who are literally putting their lives into the hands of these USC's upsets you. But the way I see it...if it's good enough for the Real Estate industry, then it should be good enough for immigration.

It sucks that the USCIS has dropped the ball on implementing the program (DHS failing at something? Surprise Surprise)....but the rationale behind the legislation is both sound and over-due.

It's not just the implementation that was flawed but the law itself. Some parts are good, like the petitioner background checks and the limitations on number of petitions allowed. But the rules for the so-called International Marriage Brokers are just silly and don't accomplish the intended effect. It would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.

I gladly dissagree with you. This law does not have silly IMB laws, silly IMB regulations already existed. This is just a patch to those IMB laws to add buffers and prophylactics to the IMB regulations so that technologies like the internet cannot be abused by making the line of what makes an IMB, and what has to follow IMB rules, a little less blurry than before.

The easy way is not always the right way. Taking away someones freedoms like that because they made one or more of any mistake is absolutely wrong. This law avoids that possibility and leave the decision up to the benneficiary.

Unless you are one of those people who somehow think any incoming foreign national is less intellegent than you are and can't make a sound choice, allowing the benneficiary to make the final choice is adding freedom and libery to both parties.

The only thing that is flawed in this law is it didn't use more simple words for everyone to be able to understand clearly. So the trolls, drive by media, lawyers, and the rest of that scum, are taking parts of it and interperating it on behalf of the more impressionables amongst us and causing an unneed furor that is for nothing more than their own ego boost, or guilty conscience at best.

The real issue, for those of us who respect law and follow it, is the implementation. The real issue, for those of us who may have had a shady past and are trying to make an effort to become better, is also the implementation. The real issue, for those who still live and desire to live a shady life, is IMBRA.

Like I said, it would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.

Presenting a pettioner's criminal record to a beneficiary in a foreign country who may or may not be fluent in English, and certainly isn't familiar with the laws in all 50 states, won't accomplish anything. Your speech about freedom and liberty brings tears to me eyes (really), but it's just idealisitic to think that will work. No, she can't make a sound choice because she is at a disadvantage from the start.

Maybe you would like wait until the interview to tell her how many petitions he has gotten approved before and let her decide if she wants to go with him then?

[zethris 0]

i'm going to be bluntly honest about the original poster.

Too bad.

you have demonstrated one malicious individual who abuses a system, that individual has not been punished.

tens of thousands of honest people who try to do it the right way are being punished because of one bad apple.

That is what we have fallen to as a society but it's not acceptable, you cannot punish everyone for the acts of an individual and you cannot punish everyone to try to protect one or two random people from doing something stupid. That last part is a direct reference to the high profile case that inspired this law.

The change is immoral, the way this country sometimes over reacts with far reaching consequences to honest citizens trying to make their way in the world and do things the right way is also totally wrong.

bad things sometimes happen to good people for no reason and the government has no business trying to legislate their protection.

Wow, what an incredibly short-sighted viewpoint. I suppose since Murder only occurs to 1 out of 15000 people each year, that the government should just get rid of the laws prohibiting that too? How about Drunk Driving? Robbery? The list goes on and on. If there is one isolated event...no law is needed...I agree. But you have to look at the scale of the number of events, and the impact those events has on people's lives. The circumstances the OP listed are not isolated events...but rather a single sampling in a large number of documented abuses of the prior system. The girls that the "business associate" used got off lucky...many of them wind up physically abused before being kicked to the curb. Being sent back to their home country, often without a pot to piss in, is considered a fantastic outcome compared to how many of them wound up. I'm sorry that adding a measure of "complete disclosure" in order to protect foreign nationals who are literally putting their lives into the hands of these USC's upsets you. But the way I see it...if it's good enough for the Real Estate industry, then it should be good enough for immigration.

It sucks that the USCIS has dropped the ball on implementing the program (DHS failing at something? Surprise Surprise)....but the rationale behind the legislation is both sound and over-due.

It's not just the implementation that was flawed but the law itself. Some parts are good, like the petitioner background checks and the limitations on number of petitions allowed. But the rules for the so-called International Marriage Brokers are just silly and don't accomplish the intended effect. It would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.

I gladly dissagree with you. This law does not have silly IMB laws, silly IMB regulations already existed. This is just a patch to those IMB laws to add buffers and prophylactics to the IMB regulations so that technologies like the internet cannot be abused by making the line of what makes an IMB, and what has to follow IMB rules, a little less blurry than before.

The easy way is not always the right way. Taking away someones freedoms like that because they made one or more of any mistake is absolutely wrong. This law avoids that possibility and leave the decision up to the benneficiary.

Unless you are one of those people who somehow think any incoming foreign national is less intellegent than you are and can't make a sound choice, allowing the benneficiary to make the final choice is adding freedom and libery to both parties.

The only thing that is flawed in this law is it didn't use more simple words for everyone to be able to understand clearly. So the trolls, drive by media, lawyers, and the rest of that scum, are taking parts of it and interperating it on behalf of the more impressionables amongst us and causing an unneed furor that is for nothing more than their own ego boost, or guilty conscience at best.

The real issue, for those of us who respect law and follow it, is the implementation. The real issue, for those of us who may have had a shady past and are trying to make an effort to become better, is also the implementation. The real issue, for those who still live and desire to live a shady life, is IMBRA.

Like I said, it would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.

Presenting a pettioner's criminal record to a beneficiary in a foreign country who may or may not be fluent in English, and certainly isn't familiar with the laws in all 50 states, won't accomplish anything. Your speech about freedom and liberty brings tears to me eyes (really), but it's just idealisitic to think that will work. No, she can't make a sound choice because she is at a disadvantage from the start.

Maybe you would like wait until the interview to tell her how many petitions he has gotten approved before and let her decide if she wants to go with him then?

Well you are "One of those guys" then. Obviously if you somehow think people outside of yourself in the good 'ol USA cannot make a conscious descision on their own (yes even with interperators which they can provide), then you ahve a superiority complex and not a real concern for the benneficiarys safety.

Edited August 11, 2006 by zethris

[garya505 2]

i'm going to be bluntly honest about the original poster.

Too bad.

you have demonstrated one malicious individual who abuses a system, that individual has not been punished.

tens of thousands of honest people who try to do it the right way are being punished because of one bad apple.

That is what we have fallen to as a society but it's not acceptable, you cannot punish everyone for the acts of an individual and you cannot punish everyone to try to protect one or two random people from doing something stupid. That last part is a direct reference to the high profile case that inspired this law.

The change is immoral, the way this country sometimes over reacts with far reaching consequences to honest citizens trying to make their way in the world and do things the right way is also totally wrong.

bad things sometimes happen to good people for no reason and the government has no business trying to legislate their protection.

Wow, what an incredibly short-sighted viewpoint. I suppose since Murder only occurs to 1 out of 15000 people each year, that the government should just get rid of the laws prohibiting that too? How about Drunk Driving? Robbery? The list goes on and on. If there is one isolated event...no law is needed...I agree. But you have to look at the scale of the number of events, and the impact those events has on people's lives. The circumstances the OP listed are not isolated events...but rather a single sampling in a large number of documented abuses of the prior system. The girls that the "business associate" used got off lucky...many of them wind up physically abused before being kicked to the curb. Being sent back to their home country, often without a pot to piss in, is considered a fantastic outcome compared to how many of them wound up. I'm sorry that adding a measure of "complete disclosure" in order to protect foreign nationals who are literally putting their lives into the hands of these USC's upsets you. But the way I see it...if it's good enough for the Real Estate industry, then it should be good enough for immigration.

It sucks that the USCIS has dropped the ball on implementing the program (DHS failing at something? Surprise Surprise)....but the rationale behind the legislation is both sound and over-due.

It's not just the implementation that was flawed but the law itself. Some parts are good, like the petitioner background checks and the limitations on number of petitions allowed. But the rules for the so-called International Marriage Brokers are just silly and don't accomplish the intended effect. It would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.

I gladly dissagree with you. This law does not have silly IMB laws, silly IMB regulations already existed. This is just a patch to those IMB laws to add buffers and prophylactics to the IMB regulations so that technologies like the internet cannot be abused by making the line of what makes an IMB, and what has to follow IMB rules, a little less blurry than before.

The easy way is not always the right way. Taking away someones freedoms like that because they made one or more of any mistake is absolutely wrong. This law avoids that possibility and leave the decision up to the benneficiary.

Unless you are one of those people who somehow think any incoming foreign national is less intellegent than you are and can't make a sound choice, allowing the benneficiary to make the final choice is adding freedom and libery to both parties.

The only thing that is flawed in this law is it didn't use more simple words for everyone to be able to understand clearly. So the trolls, drive by media, lawyers, and the rest of that scum, are taking parts of it and interperating it on behalf of the more impressionables amongst us and causing an unneed furor that is for nothing more than their own ego boost, or guilty conscience at best.

The real issue, for those of us who respect law and follow it, is the implementation. The real issue, for those of us who may have had a shady past and are trying to make an effort to become better, is also the implementation. The real issue, for those who still live and desire to live a shady life, is IMBRA.

Like I said, it would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.

Presenting a pettioner's criminal record to a beneficiary in a foreign country who may or may not be fluent in English, and certainly isn't familiar with the laws in all 50 states, won't accomplish anything. Your speech about freedom and liberty brings tears to me eyes (really), but it's just idealisitic to think that will work. No, she can't make a sound choice because she is at a disadvantage from the start.

Maybe you would like wait until the interview to tell her how many petitions he has gotten approved before and let her decide if she wants to go with him then?

Well you are "One of those guys" then. Obviously if you somehow think people outside of yourself in the good 'ol USA cannot make a conscious descision on their own (yes even with interperators which they can provide), then you ahve a superiority complex and not a real concern for the benneficiarys safety.

Sure I'm "One of those guys" then. I'm one of those guys who is favor of legislation that works, as opposed to "feel good" laws that don't work. Do you really think women in countries where domestic violence is tolerated can understand US laws, even with an interpreter?

No, I'll say it again, all felons should be prohibited from getting K1 or K3 VISAs. I don't have a problem with laws that take away freedoms from people who commit felonies.

[zethris 0]

i'm going to be bluntly honest about the original poster.

Too bad.

you have demonstrated one malicious individual who abuses a system, that individual has not been punished.

tens of thousands of honest people who try to do it the right way are being punished because of one bad apple.

That is what we have fallen to as a society but it's not acceptable, you cannot punish everyone for the acts of an individual and you cannot punish everyone to try to protect one or two random people from doing something stupid. That last part is a direct reference to the high profile case that inspired this law.

The change is immoral, the way this country sometimes over reacts with far reaching consequences to honest citizens trying to make their way in the world and do things the right way is also totally wrong.

bad things sometimes happen to good people for no reason and the government has no business trying to legislate their protection.

Wow, what an incredibly short-sighted viewpoint. I suppose since Murder only occurs to 1 out of 15000 people each year, that the government should just get rid of the laws prohibiting that too? How about Drunk Driving? Robbery? The list goes on and on. If there is one isolated event...no law is needed...I agree. But you have to look at the scale of the number of events, and the impact those events has on people's lives. The circumstances the OP listed are not isolated events...but rather a single sampling in a large number of documented abuses of the prior system. The girls that the "business associate" used got off lucky...many of them wind up physically abused before being kicked to the curb. Being sent back to their home country, often without a pot to piss in, is considered a fantastic outcome compared to how many of them wound up. I'm sorry that adding a measure of "complete disclosure" in order to protect foreign nationals who are literally putting their lives into the hands of these USC's upsets you. But the way I see it...if it's good enough for the Real Estate industry, then it should be good enough for immigration.

It sucks that the USCIS has dropped the ball on implementing the program (DHS failing at something? Surprise Surprise)....but the rationale behind the legislation is both sound and over-due.

It's not just the implementation that was flawed but the law itself. Some parts are good, like the petitioner background checks and the limitations on number of petitions allowed. But the rules for the so-called International Marriage Brokers are just silly and don't accomplish the intended effect. It would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.

I gladly dissagree with you. This law does not have silly IMB laws, silly IMB regulations already existed. This is just a patch to those IMB laws to add buffers and prophylactics to the IMB regulations so that technologies like the internet cannot be abused by making the line of what makes an IMB, and what has to follow IMB rules, a little less blurry than before.

The easy way is not always the right way. Taking away someones freedoms like that because they made one or more of any mistake is absolutely wrong. This law avoids that possibility and leave the decision up to the benneficiary.

Unless you are one of those people who somehow think any incoming foreign national is less intellegent than you are and can't make a sound choice, allowing the benneficiary to make the final choice is adding freedom and libery to both parties.

The only thing that is flawed in this law is it didn't use more simple words for everyone to be able to understand clearly. So the trolls, drive by media, lawyers, and the rest of that scum, are taking parts of it and interperating it on behalf of the more impressionables amongst us and causing an unneed furor that is for nothing more than their own ego boost, or guilty conscience at best.

The real issue, for those of us who respect law and follow it, is the implementation. The real issue, for those of us who may have had a shady past and are trying to make an effort to become better, is also the implementation. The real issue, for those who still live and desire to live a shady life, is IMBRA.

Like I said, it would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.

Presenting a pettioner's criminal record to a beneficiary in a foreign country who may or may not be fluent in English, and certainly isn't familiar with the laws in all 50 states, won't accomplish anything. Your speech about freedom and liberty brings tears to me eyes (really), but it's just idealisitic to think that will work. No, she can't make a sound choice because she is at a disadvantage from the start.

Maybe you would like wait until the interview to tell her how many petitions he has gotten approved before and let her decide if she wants to go with him then?

Well you are "One of those guys" then. Obviously if you somehow think people outside of yourself in the good 'ol USA cannot make a conscious descision on their own (yes even with interperators which they can provide), then you ahve a superiority complex and not a real concern for the benneficiarys safety.

Sure I'm "One of those guys" then. I'm one of those guys who is favor of legislation that works, as opposed to "feel good" laws that don't work. Do you really think women in countries where domestic violence is tolerated can understand US laws, even with an interpreter?

No, I'll say it again, all felons should be prohibited from getting K1 or K3 VISAs. I don't have a problem with laws that take away freedoms from people who commit felonies.

Thanks for being a good example of why we have IMBRA. Good luck to YOUR fiancee. I sure hope you don't treat her like an inferior animal like you seem to want to do.

[desert_fox 32]

I think that the poor guy that is lost in the woods is so defensive because he is probably one of those few ppl who are going to be affected by the law and thus his processing will be delayed.

Maybe he has a history of domestic violence or a convicted stalker...who knows, but it would be obvious that he would not want this to be disclosed.

For those who simply have to check two more boxes on the petition that you havnt committed thos kind of crimes will not experience any further delays...this would be my non-expert opinion.

[zethris 0]

I think that the poor guy that is lost in the woods is so defensive because he is probably one of those few ppl who are going to be affected by the law and thus his processing will be delayed.

Maybe he has a history of domestic violence or a convicted stalker...who knows, but it would be obvious that he would not want this to be disclosed.

For those who simply have to check two more boxes on the petition that you havnt committed thos kind of crimes will not experience any further delays...this would be my non-expert opinion.

For the most part, that is probably what is going on. And thus their abusive nature which stands unchanged comes through via the board trolling that goes on. Frankly I am just tired of it.

We have a lot of things already to deal with to even be tollerant of that kind of ignorance.

I really wish Invision board systems, or someone, would create a message board mod that allows us as a community to bury a forum post by a voting system positive or negative. Get past a ceartain threshold, it's removed. Have too many removed posts, you are no longer allowed to post. We'd self moderate in that way because here, the majority of us are mature adults who actually care about what we are doing and not looking for some cheap thrill or fantasy like some of these other guys who come in are doing with their unfortunate benneficiaries.