Repeal IMBRA petition...

[De & Al 0]

I'm angry at the delay and the poor way in which this law was implemented, but I'm on the fence as to whether I think IMBRA is a good law or not. On the one hand, I don't think it's a bad thing to give women who go through a marriage broker information that could potentially save their lives should a fiance turn out to be violent. On the other hand, plenty of American women get married to American men without having a background check done, and no one is clamoring to protect them from what their husbands may be hiding from them. And I'm not convinced that making a third party responsible for collecting information about criminal records is a great idea. But I won't be signing any petitions any time soon.

The difference between American women and those who come to the United States through IMBs is that many women who come to America do so unfamilliar with the language, laws, or customs of the United States. Unlike their American counterparts, these women frequently come from countries where the police are not to be trusted, where domestic violence isn't even a crime, etc. Now take them, and isolate them thousands of miles away from any family, friends or any other support network and you may begin to see why Congress and the President thought special protection was needed for them. As to background checks, it's a lot easier as a resident of New Jersey to get a background check on someone here then it is for a foreign woman living in a village in, say, Moldova or Krzygstan to do.

I don’t think that what we are all upset is of the IMBRA Law, it is only that it is delaying the process, I work for a government agency were my background is checked every year, and it takes a couple of days, once I get my finger prints an send it in. so why is this delaying the process so much, and in my case I have a questions I submitted an application for my husband I-129F, he was approved and he came to the USA he left back to his country and know I am reapplying for him, it is a long story however what about this does this apply to our case, (‘‘(ii) if the petitioner has had such a petition previously approved, 2 years have elapsed since the filing of such previously approved petition. )

I would really like to know???

[tigretigre 0]

Man of Action:

My understanding is that the IMBRA amendment had many sponsors in Congress, and that VAWA had even more.

Why pick Senator Clinton out of the bunch?

Could it be that you are using her as a lightning rod because you know she is a polarizing political figure, and that you figure you can get people who don't like Hillary Clinton on your side against IMBRA by claiming it was her doing?

[Imbra2005 0]

I'll just say this: I am not a "plant" nor am I "astroturfing" (I didn't even know what that term meant -- I had to look it up on wikipedia). It's true I've posted the same thing in a couple of forums, but that's because the same issue arose in them.

I have lurked around here for a while but didn't speak until I saw the furor emerging regarding this law -- people getting upset over something they didn't really understand. So I just stepped in and tried to share some of the stuff I know about this law so that maybe people might get some perspective on IMBRA. I think that's been accomplished, with the exception of a few folks who have a view that simply won't be changed, no matter what actual evidence you give them (such as the multiple cases of abuse, rape, torture, child molestation; links to studies that actually demonstrate the higher incidence of abuse, etc.).

It doesn't matter "who I am" -- the material is now here for you to decide on your own about it. We're all grown-ups who can think for ourselves.

[*Robert* 2]

Obviously many of the opposers forget the fact that all the non-US beneficiaries have to have a police check done on them for everywhere they have lived for more than a year since they were 16!!! I guess it's okay to have double standards? I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The laws and the processes have changed a lot, and will continue to change. People have to accept it, or not go through the process. It's as simple as that. Anyone who thinks that some silly petition will cause the Congress to repeal the law, is sadly naive.

I'm sorry a lot of people are getting delayed by this, but that's life. Good luck to everyone waiting to be reunited with their loved ones.

Edited June 10, 2006 by roi_aggie

[PlatyPius 5]

Obviously many of the opposers forget the fact that all the non-US beneficiaries have to have a police check done on them for everywhere they have lived for more than a year since they were 16!!! I guess it's okay to have double standards? I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The laws and the processes have changed a lot, and will continue to change. People have to accept it, or not go through the process. It's as simple as that. Anyone who thinks that some silly petition will cause the Congress to repeal the law, is sadly naive.

I'm sorry a lot of people are getting delayed by this, but that's life. Good luck to everyone waiting to be reunited with their loved ones.

Yes, the foreign fiance(e) must also go through these checks....AFTER it has become a relationship. My problem with IMBRA is that it releases information to the foreign person before you can even get that person's phone number!

[Imbra2005 0]

Obviously many of the opposers forget the fact that all the non-US beneficiaries have to have a police check done on them for everywhere they have lived for more than a year since they were 16!!! I guess it's okay to have double standards? I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The laws and the processes have changed a lot, and will continue to change. People have to accept it, or not go through the process. It's as simple as that. Anyone who thinks that some silly petition will cause the Congress to repeal the law, is sadly naive.

I'm sorry a lot of people are getting delayed by this, but that's life. Good luck to everyone waiting to be reunited with their loved ones.

Yes, the foreign fiance(e) must also go through these checks....AFTER it has become a relationship. My problem with IMBRA is that it releases information to the foreign person before you can even get that person's phone number!

Actually, it only reases that information to the foreign person if you are trying to get her phone number through an international marriage broker (i.e. mail order bride company). You're free to get her phone number any other way without disclosing anything.

And the reason its done at the front end, is to give the information to the foreigner before they are even a little dependent upon the USC. The idea is to have her aware of the information long before the interview so she doesn't feel like she has to go through with something she's already started.

[Karen_L 1]

Here is an interesting article, written by a "feminist", on the Fox News website.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180487,00.html

In part: "What view of the American man does the IMB®A broadcast to the world? American men are so predatory and violent that the U.S. government must protect foreign women by providing police checks before allowing the men to say "hello."

The "Ugly American" has become an article of federal law, supported by Congress."

Sian already knows everything that is in my background (ie: nothing, as far as criminal record), so I am not upset about that. I am upset that we (men, primarily) are being treated as guilty until proven innocent. I am upset that I have seen no women (except Sian) state that the law is unfair and puts an unnecessary burden on Americans looking for foreign spouses.

All I've seen is women giving each other high-fives that another law has been implemented to inconvenience men, who are "mostly abusers", and to force them to release all kinds of data about themselves to a third party.

If I were to become single and start dating American women, should I start carrying a briefcase on all dates that contains my complete criminal history, my financial documents, my grade school transcripts, and my medical records?

Oh goodness -- what is with you and the American Women all the time? Just about every post is about how terrible we all are lol. You seem to have very strong and very negative opinions about your countrywomen, which is unfortunate since those opinions are so misguided. I'm glad you found someone right for you overseas (we all did, it seems), but please don't attempt to be the expert on how American women behave/feel/think/act, etc. because frankly, you know not of what you speak

I have yet to read one comment in here from a female petitioner saying anything like "American men are so (negative adjective), which is one of the reasons why I love my foreign fiance'." That sort of thinking is absurd -- stereotypes of ALL kinds are always faulty and most female petitioners in here would probably NEVER say that men (from any nation) are "mostly abusers" because that simply is not true. If we believed that, how could we ever come to trust our own fiances not to be abusive?

And... no one is "high-fiving" each other about this law either.

-- Karen (Loud-mouth American Woman )

[pax 0]

Obviously many of the opposers forget the fact that all the non-US beneficiaries have to have a police check done on them for everywhere they have lived for more than a year since they were 16!!! I guess it's okay to have double standards? I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The laws and the processes have changed a lot, and will continue to change. People have to accept it, or not go through the process. It's as simple as that. Anyone who thinks that some silly petition will cause the Congress to repeal the law, is sadly naive.

I'm sorry a lot of people are getting delayed by this, but that's life. Good luck to everyone waiting to be reunited with their loved ones.

Ah, the beauty of common sense.

[PorknBeanz 0]

IMBRA 2005 thanks for enlightening me on the law that bears your name.

Ya see, I was going to spend time doing research on marriage agencies and spend a few hundred dollars gathering addresses. I was then going to spend another couple months writing letters to weed out educated women in my search for those elusive submissive, illiterate women that I keep hearing about. After that I was going to spend a few thousand dollars to visit her and propose marriage. Then, all I have to do is pay a few hundred more for paperwork, wait about 6 months, pay for a flight to the US and marry her... so I can start abusing her.

It was all so simple before IMBRA! Now after IMBRA, I see there are other easier routes to domination, that are unaffected by IMBRA’s disclosure requirements.

I can go on a sex tour! I can go on a tour sponsored by a marriage agency. I can meet a foreign woman on Match.com or Yahoo personals. None of these requires a note from my mommy or disclosure before conversing. Since IMBRA (brilliantly written and executed) eliminates all the low hanging fruit, may be I’ll just abuse an American woman tonight.

But now I’m torn. IMBRA 2005, you pointed out 14 woman who have been killed in the past 20 years (great detective work) but didn’t equally name the 4,000 plus American men who were murdered last year by their significant other. So obviously there’s some danger in being a typical American male abuser. Because surely these 4,000 men must have done something to deserve this, right? Otherwise, congress would pass a law to help men, right?

BTW, although you state “facts” from the congressional record, there were no congressional hearings on IMBRA. There was a government study commissioned by the supporters of IMBRA, but it was filed away because the US Attorney General concluded:

“Concern about immigration fraud and domestic violence involving foreign-born spouses is well founded, but the administrative sources of information available to the INS for this study failed to establish that the international matchmaking industry contribute in any significant way to these problems.”

I guess if I was a supporter of IMBRA I wouldn’t want a congressional hearing either.

So IMBRA 2005, thanks for enlightening me. I recommend you go into a field where you try to shape public opinion (if you haven’t already). That way, when you’re finished educating us here on visajourney (“people getting upset over something they didn't really understand.”), you can get paid for your next assignment. Perhaps the “Smoking is Good for You (and Me) Institute” is hiring. Or maybe you can help out with the Steak & BJ Day petition .

[tigretigre 0]

It is really a terrible shame that IMBRA has had the unintended consequence of trivializing the entire issue of violence against women. It took decades for that issue to escape classification as a "private family matter," and now it is rapidly headed towards dismissal "hysterical feminist propaganda." It won't be long before nobody pays much attention to it anymore. Again.

Which is a really sucky situation, since the whole time we are debating whether or not it is "fair" to pay "special" attention to female victims of relationship violence, it will be taking place.

I'm not going to hand out specific research, because anything I cite will probably be dismissed as fabricated feminist lies. People are a lot more likely to accept the validity of material they've located themselves. Plus I think it's best to do one's own research anyway. I do know, however, that there is a lot of data, based on longitudinal studies, about what happens to children who witness domestic violence in their homes. I also know that abusive partners tend to be abusive parents as well. Funny thing about all this family violence--it tends to get handed down from generation to generation like Grandma's ugly knick-knacks. Except the next generation doesn't always "keep it in the family."

To the men who are so angry about being pigeonholed as an "abuser" just for being male in this country: did it ever occur to you that the government is desperate? I worked for a pro bono firm that provided services to victims of family violence, and spent a lot of time listening to state and local government officials, law enforcement officers, and social services providers about how inundated they were with victimized women and children in desperate need of assistance, protection, and services. And about how they needed more people, more facilities, and MORE MONEY. If you are curious, do some research on how many workdays are lost per year due to domestic violence matters. Read about how many people go on welfare as a direct result of a domestic violence situation. Learn about how much domestic violence injuries cost HMOs, including Medicaid and Medicare. Learn about how it is a major issue in facilities that serve the elderly, placing even more of a burden on the strained long-term care structure.

It might start to make more sense that our government might attempt a measure, no matter how misguided (and I think IMBRA is misguided in many ways), that they think stands a chance of keeping potential victims under the jurisdiction of another country's government. Particularly now that they are faced with both a greater need for public spending on this issue AND criticism about the fairness of increasing public spending on this issue.

And, next time you stew about VAWA's only purpose being to help women, remember that there are a lot of little boys whose lives will be a thousand times better if they never see Dad hit Mom again. Of course men are not all abusers--and I think we should do our best to keep it that way.

If IMBRA and VAWA aren't sitting well with you because you find them "unfair," come up with another idea for stopping all the damn family violence. Because it is getting pretty scary.

Tigre OUT

[Imbra2005 0]

Ya see, I was going to spend time doing research on marriage agencies and spend a few hundred dollars gathering addresses. I was then going to spend another couple months writing letters to weed out educated women in my search for those elusive submissive, illiterate women that I keep hearing about. After that I was going to spend a few thousand dollars to visit her and propose marriage. Then, all I have to do is pay a few hundred more for paperwork, wait about 6 months, pay for a flight to the US and marry her... so I can start abusing her.

You touched on an excellent point, sir. You see, the reason the law discriminates between "marriage agencies" and the other sites you mention is that with "marriage agencies" the male does spend all that money, while the foreign bride does not. That creates a power imbalance and a sense in the USC that he has "purchased" a very expensive toy that he owns and can do with what he wishes. Many of the marriage agencies actually explicitly exploit this very idea in their materials.

I see you also buy the ####### about there not being any hearings on IMBRA that you can read on sites like www.imbra.org. That's simply not true. There were hearings. Of course, that's just yet another inconvenient truth that gets in the way of your sarcastic rant. Here, once again, are the FACTS:

In addition to floor debate, hearings on IMBRA occurred before the House Foreign Relations Committee on July 14, 2004. Senator Maria Cantwell, George Washington Law School Professor Suzanne H. Jackson, Department of State Director of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking and Persons John R. Miller, Michele A. Clark, Co-Director of the Protection Project, at the Johns Hopkins University School of International Studies, and Donna M. Hughes, Professor of Women Studies at the University of Rhode Island all testified before the committee.

Here's some of what Senator Cantwell had to say before the Committee:

Today, an American seeking to marry someone through an international marriage broker holds all of the cards. The American client has the benefit of a complete background check on his future wife, which is a requirement of the immigration process. In addition, the brokers provide clients extensive information about the women they offer, everything from their favorite movies and hobbies to whether they are sexually promiscuous.

Conversely, the foreign fiancée only gets whatever information her future spouse wants to share. These women have no way of confirming what they are told about previous marriages or relationships -- or the American client’s criminal history.

Most of the foreign brides advertised by the international marriage brokers come from countries where women are oppressed, have few educational or professional opportunities, and where violence against women is condoned, if not encouraged. Because of the cultural differences, researchers say there is an inherent imbalance of power in these relationships between American men and foreign women.

Because these women often immigrate alone, they have no family or other support network and rely on their husbands for everything. Such dependency can make it difficult for a wife to report abuse without worrying that doing so is a surefire ticket to deportation. Researchers agree that isolation and dependency put these women at greater risk of domestic abuse.

You can find all the rest of the testimony on the web. Once again, all trying to do is give people the facts. IMBRA doesn't completely eliminate all the problems it's designed to help fix. But no law is ever a complete solution. Take gun laws, for example. Background checks are only required if you buy a gun from your local Wal-Mart, but not if you buy the same gun at a gun show. The whole problem doesn't have to be fixed in one fell swoop.

As for the Steak and BJ day petition, I think it's a great idea.

[PlatyPius 5]

Here is an interesting article, written by a "feminist", on the Fox News website.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180487,00.html

In part: "What view of the American man does the IMB®A broadcast to the world? American men are so predatory and violent that the U.S. government must protect foreign women by providing police checks before allowing the men to say "hello."

The "Ugly American" has become an article of federal law, supported by Congress."

Sian already knows everything that is in my background (ie: nothing, as far as criminal record), so I am not upset about that. I am upset that we (men, primarily) are being treated as guilty until proven innocent. I am upset that I have seen no women (except Sian) state that the law is unfair and puts an unnecessary burden on Americans looking for foreign spouses.

All I've seen is women giving each other high-fives that another law has been implemented to inconvenience men, who are "mostly abusers", and to force them to release all kinds of data about themselves to a third party.

If I were to become single and start dating American women, should I start carrying a briefcase on all dates that contains my complete criminal history, my financial documents, my grade school transcripts, and my medical records?

Oh goodness -- what is with you and the American Women all the time? Just about every post is about how terrible we all are lol. You seem to have very strong and very negative opinions about your countrywomen, which is unfortunate since those opinions are so misguided. I'm glad you found someone right for you overseas (we all did, it seems), but please don't attempt to be the expert on how American women behave/feel/think/act, etc. because frankly, you know not of what you speak

I have yet to read one comment in here from a female petitioner saying anything like "American men are so (negative adjective), which is one of the reasons why I love my foreign fiance'." That sort of thinking is absurd -- stereotypes of ALL kinds are always faulty and most female petitioners in here would probably NEVER say that men (from any nation) are "mostly abusers" because that simply is not true. If we believed that, how could we ever come to trust our own fiances not to be abusive?

And... no one is "high-fiving" each other about this law either.

-- Karen (Loud-mouth American Woman )

I think you've read my post in the context of your own concerns.....

Have you read the articles about IMBRA in non-immigration-based stories? I have. Many are by women who see this as another victory against their low-browed male oppressors. That is what I meant by "women high-fiving each other" about IMBRA.

The comment about carrying a briefcase with me if I were to start dating American women was to point out the absurdity of IMBRA, as far as offering information to foreign fiancees that isn't readily available to American women.

As for the other comment, I really HAVEN'T heard from any women who think IMBRA is unfair (except for the woman who wrote the article I linked to). Look closer. Do you see "American" before the word "women" in that comment? No.

Your insecurities are showing....

[Karen_L 1]

Here is an interesting article, written by a "feminist", on the Fox News website.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180487,00.html

In part: "What view of the American man does the IMB®A broadcast to the world? American men are so predatory and violent that the U.S. government must protect foreign women by providing police checks before allowing the men to say "hello."

The "Ugly American" has become an article of federal law, supported by Congress."

Sian already knows everything that is in my background (ie: nothing, as far as criminal record), so I am not upset about that. I am upset that we (men, primarily) are being treated as guilty until proven innocent. I am upset that I have seen no women (except Sian) state that the law is unfair and puts an unnecessary burden on Americans looking for foreign spouses.

All I've seen is women giving each other high-fives that another law has been implemented to inconvenience men, who are "mostly abusers", and to force them to release all kinds of data about themselves to a third party.

If I were to become single and start dating American women, should I start carrying a briefcase on all dates that contains my complete criminal history, my financial documents, my grade school transcripts, and my medical records?

Oh goodness -- what is with you and the American Women all the time? Just about every post is about how terrible we all are lol. You seem to have very strong and very negative opinions about your countrywomen, which is unfortunate since those opinions are so misguided. I'm glad you found someone right for you overseas (we all did, it seems), but please don't attempt to be the expert on how American women behave/feel/think/act, etc. because frankly, you know not of what you speak

I have yet to read one comment in here from a female petitioner saying anything like "American men are so (negative adjective), which is one of the reasons why I love my foreign fiance'." That sort of thinking is absurd -- stereotypes of ALL kinds are always faulty and most female petitioners in here would probably NEVER say that men (from any nation) are "mostly abusers" because that simply is not true. If we believed that, how could we ever come to trust our own fiances not to be abusive?

And... no one is "high-fiving" each other about this law either.

-- Karen (Loud-mouth American Woman )

I think you've read my post in the context of your own concerns.....

Have you read the articles about IMBRA in non-immigration-based stories? I have. Many are by women who see this as another victory against their low-browed male oppressors. That is what I meant by "women high-fiving each other" about IMBRA.

The comment about carrying a briefcase with me if I were to start dating American women was to point out the absurdity of IMBRA, as far as offering information to foreign fiancees that isn't readily available to American women.

As for the other comment, I really HAVEN'T heard from any women who think IMBRA is unfair (except for the woman who wrote the article I linked to). Look closer. Do you see "American" before the word "women" in that comment? No.

Your insecurities are showing....

There are lots of women on this forum who think it's an unfair law -- it's well-intentioned perhaps, but it DOES cast a suspicious eye onto innocent people (not mention lengthening this process further) and, as you said, it promotes the notion of the Ugly American. This law also distorts the general image of people who have found spouses (or in our cases future spouses) overseas -- male or female. The stereotype of the abusive, authoritative man and his subserviant foreign bride is untrue in most cases, but this law assumes it may be true in MOST cases. And anyway, having/not having an OFFICIAL history of abusive behavior doesn't necessarily relate to how a person will behave now/in reality. I'd wager that most abusive spouses are never reported because the person being abused is too afraid.

As for the other things: I apologize if I took your comments out of context or if I misinterpreted your meaning, however, in my own defense, what women ARE you talking about if not American women? Foreign women? All women? Or are you strictly speaking about female politicians?

As for my exposed insecurities -- you're right, I'm like an open wound

But okay, seriously, I apologize if I came off nasty or confrontational earlier (or now for that matter lol). Peace? Pace? Paz?

[tigretigre 0]

And my epidermis is showing...

Do I think IMBRA is unfair? Well, my petition is being held up, and my criminal and marital history will be shared with my fiance during this process...and I'm female. So of course it's unfair! I'm kidding...kidding.

But as an American female I don't use IMBs--only men do, so that's disparate impact, right? Well, laws that discriminate based on gender are considered to pass constitutional muster if they serve an important government purpose and are narrowly tailored to serve that purpose.

Apparently this was considered narrowly tailored enough? Personally, I think they could do better.

I do think it's perfectly reasonable to require IMBs who solicit business in the U.S. to meet certain standards of professional conduct, and that a company offering that type of service (marriage brokering, as opposed to a simple dating service where the stakes are lower) ought to be at least that careful about their clientele. They are very careful about the women whose marriages they facilitate, because they don't want angry customers--or lawsuits. I suspect that if they were in as much danger of tort litigation from dissatisfied or injured foreign brides as they are from dissatisfied or injured male clients, they'd run these checks in a heartbeat. But, they aren't and they don't, so in comes the Big Mean Government to do it for them. And whether or not one approves of THAT has more to do with fundamental political philosophy than with views on gender dynamics, IMO. Personally, I think this has the potential to bring a much more legitimate, everyday vibe to the IMB industry, meaning perhaps more foreign women will want to participate, and perfectly well-meaning men who use IMBs will not automatically be regarded as shady dudes trying to "buy" a woman.

So, having done that, do they need to run the background check on all K1 petitioners? I mean, it is called the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act, not the Every K1 Visa Petitioner Screening Act. If you assume that the important government purpose here is regulating marriage brokers doing business in the United States to ensure that they are taking some responsibility for the safety of everyone involved, then all the business with the new I-129F and the "did you meet her in a box, did you meet her with a fox?" routine don't quite meet the "narrowly tailored" standard in my opinion. I think that IMBRA needs to focus on the IMB, period.

Then maybe the number of cranky people screaming that radical feminists have invaded the government and want to trample the rights of everything with a Y chromosome could be kept to a minimum, so that we average hardworking everyday feminists can get back to growing our leg hair and painting mother-goddess figurines.

[Cristy 4]

Yes, the foreign fiance(e) must also go through these checks....AFTER it has become a relationship. My problem with IMBRA is that it releases information to the foreign person before you can even get that person's phone number!

Good. That way she will know who she is getting involved with before she falls for some line fed to her by an abuser.

For those with nothing to hide this won't be a problem.

Edited June 11, 2006 by cristy