Repeal IMBRA petition...

[Chuckles 0]

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.

Anyone who wants to commit a crime will not use an IMB. Its simple. In the end nothing changes with this law in regards to 'dating'.

Whats next? Why not require this for American couples? Do abusers not use the Yahoo Personals? Why do we not require women to submit a pshycological profile to insure men do not get stuck with a pshycological, child beating mental abuser? Where does it end?

Its one of those slippersy slope things. Not a chauvinist pig thing.

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.

Anyone who wants to commit a crime will not use an IMB. Its simple. In the end nothing changes with this law in regards to 'dating'.

Whats next? Why not require this for American couples? Do abusers not use the Yahoo Personals? Why do we not require women to submit a pshycological profile to insure men do not get stuck with a pshycological, child beating mental abuser? Where does it end?

Its one of those slippersy slope things. Not a chauvinist pig thing.

Too late to edit but of course I meant pshycotic and not phsycological... My brain and hands aren't communicating well to each other today.

[Cristy 4]

Anyone who wants to commit a crime will not use an IMB. Its simple. In the end nothing changes with this law in regards to 'dating'.

I don't think that is true, otherwise this law would never have passed. I mean sure there are nuts everywhere but if this can prevent even one of them from abusing a woman then it works.

[Imbra2005 0]

In case anyone here is interested, here is the link to the latest court decision regarding IMBRA's constitutionality. Here's the quick backstory, A bunch of IMBs and on of their clients sued in federal court in Ohio to have IMBRA declared unconstitutional and asked for a temporary restraining order against the law. (Another IMB in Atlanta was able to get a TRO until the judge makes up his mind because the government didn't get a chance to argue against it.). Anyway, in Ohio, the government and a non-profit group, the Tahirih Justice Center got to argue that the law was constitutional. Here's the outcome:

http://usaimmigrationattorney.com/JudgeRos...rDenyingTRO.pdf

[Chuckles 0]

Anyone who wants to commit a crime will not use an IMB. Its simple. In the end nothing changes with this law in regards to 'dating'.

I don't think that is true, otherwise this law would never have passed. I mean sure there are nuts everywhere but if this can prevent even one of them from abusing a woman then it works.

I respectfully disagree, and I will explain why. First of all, I am not opposed to the law because it does more good then harm, even though I do think it does harm. I am not one of those people out to get it repealed or start a petition because I think the part about the police check during the immigration petition process is worthwhile.

However, there are sooo many laws a person could pass to save 'one person' from abuse/harm/murder. If you start passing all these laws you are left without freedoms. Sure, the law does not necessarily violate basic rights, but soon you are living in a authoritarian state that does not trust its citizens. You end up with something like the old Russian Soviet government.

We simply cannot protect everyone. At some point there is personal responsibility. That is one thing I feel helps make America great. We are allowed this responsibility, we are not treated like children or all as suspects. At least that is how I would like to feel.

[Karen_L 1]

we average hardworking everyday feminists can get back to growing our leg hair and painting mother-goddess figurines.

LOL! Indeed.

[Macaw 0]

However, there are sooo many laws a person could pass to save 'one person' from abuse/harm/murder. If you start passing all these laws you are left without freedoms. Sure, the law does not necessarily violate basic rights, but soon you are living in a authoritarian state that does not trust its citizens. You end up with something like the old Russian Soviet government.

We simply cannot protect everyone. At some point there is personal responsibility. That is one thing I feel helps make America great. We are allowed this responsibility, we are not treated like children or all as suspects. At least that is how I would like to feel.

Well said Chuckles. I agree 100%

Edited June 11, 2006 by Raven

[Cristy 4]

We simply cannot protect everyone. At some point there is personal responsibility. That is one thing I feel helps make America great. We are allowed this responsibility, we are not treated like children or all as suspects. At least that is how I would like to feel.

But we are not talking about people who grew up in America. We are talking many times about poor, uneducated young women who are very much looking for a way out and get trapped by someone who has bad intentions. They deserve protection don't they?

[Karen_L 1]

Anyone who wants to commit a crime will not use an IMB. Its simple. In the end nothing changes with this law in regards to 'dating'.

I don't think that is true, otherwise this law would never have passed. I mean sure there are nuts everywhere but if this can prevent even one of them from abusing a woman then it works.

I respectfully disagree, and I will explain why. First of all, I am not opposed to the law because it does more good then harm, even though I do think it does harm. I am not one of those people out to get it repealed or start a petition because I think the part about the police check during the immigration petition process is worthwhile.

However, there are sooo many laws a person could pass to save 'one person' from abuse/harm/murder. If you start passing all these laws you are left without freedoms. Sure, the law does not necessarily violate basic rights, but soon you are living in a authoritarian state that does not trust its citizens. You end up with something like the old Russian Soviet government.

We simply cannot protect everyone. At some point there is personal responsibility. That is one thing I feel helps make America great. We are allowed this responsibility, we are not treated like children or all as suspects. At least that is how I would like to feel.

You're correct. Also, I think the government/local lawmakers would do better to create (and enforce) more laws to protect victims of abuse who are actually currently being victimized instead of trying to such lengths to prevent it.

Many horribly abusive people do not have criminal records/official documentation of their violence and will probably slip under this law. And I'm sure MANY foreign fiancees (and fiances) would be willing to overlook the criminal past of the USC (possibly at their own peril), either out of love or out of the desire to come to the US. What will happen if something terrible happens to a K-1 recipient at the hands of their spouse after all these IMBRA checks are actively enforced? Will lawmakers lengthen this process even more in an attempt to further protect, regulate and control?

[tigretigre 0]

Who cares about protecting anyone? I'm just a pinko who never met an industry she didn't want to regulate!!!!

[meauxna 15]

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.

We simply cannot protect everyone. At some point there is personal responsibility. That is one thing I feel helps make America great. We are allowed this responsibility, we are not treated like children or all as suspects. At least that is how I would like to feel.

First, thank you both for having a reasonable debate & sharing your thoughts calmly.

The difference between protecting American women from you vs foreign women (and men) is resources. As an American woman, if I decide to get serious about an American man, I have a lot of options to investigate you myself. I live here, I understand our culture and I have context. I have a support system, family, easy access to money, travel (escape) and I can legally buy a firearm. Resources.

As cristy says, someone coming from outside the US does not have access to those resources, she's (or he, I read many stories of guys 'trapped' in the US) thousands of miles from home, may not speak the language fluently and may have wildly unrealistic expectations of American life.

It's easy to say that *we* can excercise personal responsibility, but time and again, our fellow citizens have shown that they can not or will not do so. The protections offered by IMBRA aren't just for some faceless female from across the ocean. They are consistant with US immigration policy, which is to protect all of American society from newcomers who are not self-sufficient or reliant on a stable source of USC support.

Maybe because I'm not directly affected, I can see it differently. I hope that does not mean to you that my opinion can't count or isn't valid.

[PlatyPius 5]

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.

We simply cannot protect everyone. At some point there is personal responsibility. That is one thing I feel helps make America great. We are allowed this responsibility, we are not treated like children or all as suspects. At least that is how I would like to feel.

First, thank you both for having a reasonable debate & sharing your thoughts calmly.

The difference between protecting American women from you vs foreign women (and men) is resources. As an American woman, if I decide to get serious about an American man, I have a lot of options to investigate you myself. I live here, I understand our culture and I have context. I have a support system, family, easy access to money, travel (escape) and I can legally buy a firearm. Resources.

As cristy says, someone coming from outside the US does not have access to those resources, she's (or he, I read many stories of guys 'trapped' in the US) thousands of miles from home, may not speak the language fluently and may have wildly unrealistic expectations of American life.

It's easy to say that *we* can excercise personal responsibility, but time and again, our fellow citizens have shown that they can not or will not do so. The protections offered by IMBRA aren't just for some faceless female from across the ocean. They are consistant with US immigration policy, which is to protect all of American society from newcomers who are not self-sufficient or reliant on a stable source of USC support.

Maybe because I'm not directly affected, I can see it differently. I hope that does not mean to you that my opinion can't count or isn't valid.

Well, I'm only partially affected by it (the wait), and I sure give my opinion everywhere it's not wanted. lol

Seriously, though....

I was thinking about this thread on the drive home from work, and I'm wondering where exactly I've posted numerous times about the evils of American women. Honestly, I can't ever remember posting anything like that here, so I'm wondering where that came from; the accusation that I blast American women with almost every reply I make. In the past few days I've replied to a topic about couscous, one about favourite seasons, this one, and a few others. I don't remember posting "American Women can't properly prepare Couscous! They're rubbish!" If I've been posting while I'm asleep or something, and have really posted many diatribes about the blight on the planet known as American women, would someone please point out these posts to me?

Now back to the quoted post....

The difference is, an American woman would need to spend a lot of money to investigate a potential partner, do it on her own time, AND the government isn't involved in it. To make it fair, the background check would have to be available to everyone - US and foreign. Also, what about the American man? What happens when he falls for a foreign female, becomes very emotionally involved with her, then discovers late in the process (K1 visa police check) that his sweetie has a criminal record for fraud, theft, etc? This is the basic inequality of the law that I am concerned with. Is the American somehow better equipped to deal with hurt, deception, and heartache?

A very personal story....

I was involved with a woman from England for almost 2 years (not Sian). I went against my better judgement on this one. She was married, but "was getting divorced soon". The divorce never happened. By the time I realized that she wasn't going to divorce her "abusive, alcoholic, negligent" husband, I was already emotionally involved. It doesn't compare to the criminal history issue, but it does relate to the emotional attachment part. I was willing to overlook several things because I already had a strong emotional tie. Ergo, I can't give the arguement of "going through with it because of emotional ties, expectations, etc" any validity. I've been there. And *I* was the American male. Previously BOTH people relied on trust and faith in the sincerity of their SO. Now only the American must do so - until the visa process, of course.

There are risks involved with any relationship. We can't protect people from themselves, nor should we. I hate to call it "survival of the fittest", but it really is. The images I'm getting from the proponents of IMBRA are of nations of befuddled-looking females, easily influenced by American men, looking to escape a blighted village in the middle of nowhere by marrying an American man. These women are completely clueless, can't think for themselves, and need the help of their Great White Uncle to protect them from themselves. This is the impression that some have given here. That these women need a protector - a champion. BS, says I. If the government is going to get involved in relationships now, they need to require the release of information to BOTH sides AT THE BEGINNING. Arguing that the foreign fiancee also undergoes a background check is a nonsense argument. It doesn't happen until the relationship is already existant.

Can y'all see my point now? (I know....I tend to babble a little bit)

My concern is with the overall fairness of IMBRA. It is giving an "advantage" to the foreign person over the American. That is the issue I have with it. I shouldn't really care, since I've never used a "marriage broker." But I do. I live in the US, and any new law affects me simply by its existence.

Ok, I'll shut up now.

[Cristy 4]

Can y'all see my point now? (I know....I tend to babble a little bit)

My concern is with the overall fairness of IMBRA. It is giving an "advantage" to the foreign person over the American. That is the issue I have with it. I shouldn't really care, since I've never used a "marriage broker." But I do. I live in the US, and any new law affects me simply by its existence.

I disagree. It is leveling the field. I have to go through a criminal check as the foreign fiance. Why shouldn't we all have to? And if I was to meet someone through a broker I think both parties should have to have a check.

And no I don't equate getting involved with a married person on their word they would get a divorce with bringing someone to another country, isolating them and then abusing them. Apples and oranges.

Edited June 12, 2006 by cristy

[PlatyPius 5]

I disagree. It is leveling the field. I have to go through a criminal check as the foreign fiance. Why shouldn't we all have to? And if I was to meet someone through a broker I think both parties should have to have a check.

That's exactly what I said. That both parties should be checked. However, as stated, the foreign fiancee doesn't get checked until after the relationship is already existent. With IMBRA, the foreign person will get this information first, while the American must wait months or years to learn that his fiancee has a criminal record. That isn't leveling the field; it's tilting it toward the Visitor team.

And no I don't equate getting involved with a married person on their word they would get a divorce with bringing someone to another country, isolating them and then abusing them. Apples and oranges.

Wow! Talk about completely missing the point!

I was talking about the emotional involvement aspect in response to a few replies I saw about protecting the foreign person before they become emotionally involved with the USC. I was pointing out that Americans have the capability of getting emotionally involved also, so why isn't anyone protecting us BEFORE the visa process starts, as they are doing with IMBRA?

[Imbra2005 0]

[i was talking about the emotional involvement aspect in response to a few replies I saw about protecting the foreign person before they become emotionally involved with the USC. I was pointing out that Americans have the capability of getting emotionally involved also, so why isn't anyone protecting us BEFORE the visa process starts, as they are doing with IMBRA?

It really isn't "emotional" involvement that the law is meant to protect, but more the control that emerges in the relationship. Some have suggested that the best thing would be an exchange of background info at the interview. The problem with that, is by that time, it is possible that the foreign woman may already be unduly influenced by the American male, sitting there in his consulate, at his side. This was thought to be a better solution. Perhaps a better solution might be to require a bi-directional review of backgrounds at first contact. I suspect, however, that the mail order bride companies would probably balk at having to collect that info before listing the women in their catalogs.

[Cristy 4]

I disagree. It is leveling the field. I have to go through a criminal check as the foreign fiance. Why shouldn't we all have to? And if I was to meet someone through a broker I think both parties should have to have a check.

That's exactly what I said. That both parties should be checked. However, as stated, the foreign fiancee doesn't get checked until after the relationship is already existent. With IMBRA, the foreign person will get this information first, while the American must wait months or years to learn that his fiancee has a criminal record. That isn't leveling the field; it's tilting it toward the Visitor team.

And no I don't equate getting involved with a married person on their word they would get a divorce with bringing someone to another country, isolating them and then abusing them. Apples and oranges.

Wow! Talk about completely missing the point!

I was talking about the emotional involvement aspect in response to a few replies I saw about protecting the foreign person before they become emotionally involved with the USC. I was pointing out that Americans have the capability of getting emotionally involved also, so why isn't anyone protecting us BEFORE the visa process starts, as they are doing with IMBRA?

No I think you missed the point. IMBRA is not an emotion protecting law. It is a life protecting law hence your analogy is pointless.