International Marriage Broker Regulation Act

[pax 0]

No, I believe that's the whole point...all K visa applications will be subject to the requirements of the new law.

[Welshcookie 17]

This why I am confused now about this new law....

Is it just those using a marriage broker or applicable to all petitioners??? I assumed it was for all applicants.

[pax 0]

I think that it is.

[Welshcookie 17]

sorry abby I didn't go back further in the thread to see this had been addressed already....DOH.

[pax 0]

It's okay, I'm still confused.

[MikeAndIryna 0]

I'm not sure if I'm reading this right, and I have a friend that had 2 petitions that were approved but the women were not being 100% honest, so they didn't get hitched and the went back home. The women were more interested in the little green card then actually establishing and honest family.

That being said, I see wehre if he files another peition, he will go into the multiple filing data base (which I'm assuming is to keep track of potential traffickers or abusers of the system), but if he files another petition and states he didn't go thru w/ the marraiges because of their lack of honesty and they went back, does he have to wait 2 years to file the petition from the approval date of the last one as well?

Glad I don't have to worry about this problem!!

[aussiewench 9]

I'm not sure if I'm reading this right, and I have a friend that had 2 petitions that were approved but the women were not being 100% honest, so they didn't get hitched and the went back home. The women were more interested in the little green card then actually establishing and honest family.

That being said, I see wehre if he files another peition, he will go into the multiple filing data base (which I'm assuming is to keep track of potential traffickers or abusers of the system), but if he files another petition and states he didn't go thru w/ the marraiges because of their lack of honesty and they went back, does he have to wait 2 years to file the petition from the approval date of the last one as well?

Glad I don't have to worry about this problem!!

From what I have read of it....one can apply for a waiver of the wait time.

[john_and_marlene 162]

Not only is it a sell out to the big corporations like yahoo, match.com etc who are exempt from this but it's not going to do a thing to slow down any exploitation of women.

Further, to suggest that ANY law is a good law that is signed into law by the president or any other leader of a country without so much as a discussion and debate is unbelievable.

There are already laws on the books. Enforce them. But to suggest that American men are abusers, and foreign women are poor lowly waifs who will anything just to get out of their homelands including be abused by those mean old Americans who will now have to submit to an invasion of privacy before even saying hellow is outrageous.

Too late though, the king has spoken

If it protects the ones that may face abuse then I cant see how its a bad thing.

If it protects while violating someone's civil rights, then it can't be a good thing.

I bet this law is one day found unconstitutional. It requires a US citizen to disclose their entire criminal history PRIOR to ever even talking to a foreigner via an international broker.

This would be like making a law that says every peson that comes up to you in a bar has to declare his entire criminal history to you before conversing with you.

I have zero criminal history.. so the law would have little affect on me, however, I still have to disagree with it 100%.

criminal history is not protected private information. It is not unconstitutional to divulge someone's public criminal record. It's done all the time. In many states you can look up a person't criminal history on a web site. For some offenses names and pictures are displayed on public service announcements. Do they still post wanted posters in the post office?

[Artegal 1]

Having used several marriage/dating/matchmaking websites I have some problems with this bill. 1) It assumes that all American Men are wife abusing #######. 2) It seems to designate a prejudicial seperation between services such as loveme.com and others like match.com or yahoo personals--that is assuming that any web based matching service with actual brick and mortar offices is also criminally inclined.

The problem here is not that women are beaten and abused. The problem is that this law now assumes that all US Citizens are womanizing ####### that like punch greencard seeking third world debutantes. We used to have a presumption of innocence in this country and right to live freely without unlawful search and seizure. This law actually has another purpose--its really related to the Patriot Act and the recent revelation that NSA is spying on USC and openning any foreign based snail mail. Among other things.

Don't ever believe in the law on its face value--this law is not about protecting women from violence. It has nothing to do with domestic abuse--its another way to create a database and whatever watchlist. Why is there not a similiar law governing USC to USC matchmaking services? Which there seems to be a lot of bashing of Myspace.com and other such services.

[Artegal 1]

Also regarding the previous post before my first one by john_and_marlene. It is unconstitutional to be forced to divulge criminal activity that you may have or not have done in the past--its called the 4th and 5th Amendments. Unreasonable search/seizure and Self-Incrimination.

Granted there are such requirements to give background checks in other facets of American life such as required by some employers etc. Still I can see this issue becoming a legal challenge in the future. And the law is not really intended to protect women from abusive husbands/boyfriends.

The war on drugs/war on crime/war on terrorism/and now war on trafficing in women--they are all part of the governments shadow layer that intends to eventually erase completely the US Constitution.

[Kez/JWolf 6]

If you have nothing to hide............... then you have nothing to fear.........

IMO

Kezzie

[aussiewench 9]

And the battles have begun to wage in the courts over the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act

http://fianceevisalawyer.com/

I have to say whilst I agree that something should always be done to protect from abuse.......I agree with Artegal that this law goes a lot deeper then what it appears on the surface.

[Artegal 1]

If you have nothing to hide............... then you have nothing to fear.........

IMO

Kezzie

I think the over 300 people wrongfully put in jail in this country went with that same philosophy--and nearly half ended up serving life or got the death penalty for crimes they never committed. But hey they had nothing to Hide and therefore nothing to fear--that is if losing your freedom is not something you fear losing--personally I think if you have nothing to hide then you have no reason to be searched. And therefore never have the fear of losing your life or liberty.

Source on 300+ people wrongfully that is completely innocent people locked away in this country.

[desert_fox 32]

Also regarding the previous post before my first one by john_and_marlene. It is unconstitutional to be forced to divulge criminal activity that you may have or not have done in the past--its called the 4th and 5th Amendments. Unreasonable search/seizure and Self-Incrimination.

Granted there are such requirements to give background checks in other facets of American life such as required by some employers etc. Still I can see this issue becoming a legal challenge in the future. And the law is not really intended to protect women from abusive husbands/boyfriends.

The war on drugs/war on crime/war on terrorism/and now war on trafficing in women--they are all part of the governments shadow layer that intends to eventually erase completely the US Constitution.

Any criminal conviction plead to, or adjudicated in open court (which is our system) is public information and easily available.

Some people dont realize how many women are brought here every year and are abused, held prisioner, etc. by their abusive spouse with a history of violence, stalking, and related sex offenses. Some women are held in AOS blackmail. If this law prevents even one case of further abuse, then Im all for it.

[babybunny 2]

I agree with aussie ..