Repeal IMBRA petition...

[dowd001 0]

IMBRA2005:

Even if I agree with you, it does not explain why the law does not attempt to draw distinctions between on the one hand those foreign nationals who do have significant knowledge of their fiance(e) and who are also knowledgable about their rights and protections available in the U.S. and on the other those foreign nationals who do not have that knowledge. It also does not draw a distinction between those using the fiance visa process to marry someone they met without using a marriage broker, and those that do use a marriage broker, as far as the K-1 process goes.

My fiancee is fluent in English, has been employed in the U.S. for years and has 2 graduate degrees. We have lived together in both her home country and here in the states for years. She knows me better than anyone else on the planet and knows the U.S. better than most Americans with half her education. She has connections to people who support her in the U.S. well beyond just me.

Yet I just cancelled our wedding, losing a couple grand in the process, and now have to submit myself to a criminal background check just to marry her. She is stuck in Russia now, and cannot get back here until the government steps in to protect her, something she neither needs nor wants, even if measured by the standards that IMBRA set for itself. I won't be able to see my fiancee for months, unless we take a trip together somewhere in between the U.S. and her country, to the tune of a couple thousand more dollars, a temporary solution we are talking about now.

Most people would be willing to put up with some inconvenience in their personal lives to accomodate efforts to protect violence against women. Most people should be willing to do that. It is an important issue. But those accomodations should not include losses of thousands of dollars, needless separations from our loved ones while criminal background checks are conducted, and, most significantly, the government interposing itself between couples before getting married without regard to whether or not the foreign citizen really is at the informational disadvantage that the law presupposes. Without that informational disadvantage you talk about, this is simply the government getting in between two adults in a decision that will likely be the most important decision they ever take together. That is exactly not what you want the government doing.

This law is a perfect example of people with good intentions who nonetheless don't really understand what they are doing. By not distinguishing between situations like mine, and the ones where the potential issue of violence against women really exists, it serves not to protect women, but rather it burdens those people who really care about their foreign girlfriend/fiancee and who could do a lot more to prevent violence against them than the government could ever do.

It is hard to see the importance of protecting women in the abstract when the law has in reality served to harm the one woman I really care about.

[MrsWhizz 0]

wow! well said.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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.

Excellent point! Did anyone here watch the mocumentary, Mail Order Wife (2004)? It's worth watching even though it's fictional.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0377088/

[Imbra2005 0]

IMBRA2005:

Even if I agree with you, it does not explain why the law does not attempt to draw distinctions between on the one hand those foreign nationals who do have significant knowledge of their fiance(e) and who are also knowledgable about their rights and protections available in the U.S. and on the other those foreign nationals who do not have that knowledge. It also does not draw a distinction between those using the fiance visa process to marry someone they met without using a marriage broker, and those that do use a marriage broker, as far as the K-1 process goes.

My fiancee is fluent in English, has been employed in the U.S. for years and has 2 graduate degrees. We have lived together in both her home country and here in the states for years. She knows me better than anyone else on the planet and knows the U.S. better than most Americans with half her education. She has connections to people who support her in the U.S. well beyond just me.

Yet I just cancelled our wedding, losing a couple grand in the process, and now have to submit myself to a criminal background check just to marry her. She is stuck in Russia now, and cannot get back here until the government steps in to protect her, something she neither needs nor wants, even if measured by the standards that IMBRA set for itself. I won't be able to see my fiancee for months, unless we take a trip together somewhere in between the U.S. and her country, to the tune of a couple thousand more dollars, a temporary solution we are talking about now.

Most people would be willing to put up with some inconvenience in their personal lives to accomodate efforts to protect violence against women. Most people should be willing to do that. It is an important issue. But those accomodations should not include losses of thousands of dollars, needless separations from our loved ones while criminal background checks are conducted, and, most significantly, the government interposing itself between couples before getting married without regard to whether or not the foreign citizen really is at the informational disadvantage that the law presupposes. Without that informational disadvantage you talk about, this is simply the government getting in between two adults in a decision that will likely be the most important decision they ever take together. That is exactly not what you want the government doing.

This law is a perfect example of people with good intentions who nonetheless don't really understand what they are doing. By not distinguishing between situations like mine, and the ones where the potential issue of violence against women really exists, it serves not to protect women, but rather it burdens those people who really care about their foreign girlfriend/fiancee and who could do a lot more to prevent violence against them than the government could ever do.

It is hard to see the importance of protecting women in the abstract when the law has in reality served to harm the one woman I really care about.

Dowd,

First of all, regardless of where we stand on this issue, I'm sorry you're going through such a rough time with this. But if you'll allow me, I'll try and respond to the issues you raised.

First, I would suggest that your situation is a definite exception. I don't see any way the government could make the distinction between those women who "know" about their fiances, and those who don't; between situations where the potential for violence "really exists," and those where it doesn't. Laws generally can't be written to cover every possible situation. They have to be more utlilitarian.

Second, I think people lose sight of the fact that the K-visa is a creation of Congress and could be taken away at any time. Congress could determine that no immediate relatives or spouses of USC's could be admitted and there would be nothing that anyone (even the courts) could do about it. The constitution give absolute discretion to Congress on immigration matters. That said, strictly speaking the law doesn't keep you from marrying. You're free to marry your fiance in Russia, aren't you? I know that's not the way you wanted it, but my point is the law isn't stopping you.

[jangler 0]

For those of us who have applied for a K-1 after the deadline, is there some logical reason why the Service Center can't just send us a release form to sign for a criminal record scan, and maybe charge us a $10.00 fee for the eight seconds it would take them to get a report on us???!!! For instance, why do I have to get 3 years of tax records together for my AOS when all they have to do is put in my social security number and see my entire history of filing my taxes! I filed it with the IRS, a government agency! I realize that all the computers in the different agencies are not networked but geez, a quick phone call from the Center and a replied fax from the other agency is all that is required. Or is that just too much organization to expect?

By the way, protect ALL women...except Hillary!

[Chuckles 0]

IMBRA2005:

Even if I agree with you, it does not explain why the law does not attempt to draw distinctions between on the one hand those foreign nationals who do have significant knowledge of their fiance(e) and who are also knowledgable about their rights and protections available in the U.S. and on the other those foreign nationals who do not have that knowledge. It also does not draw a distinction between those using the fiance visa process to marry someone they met without using a marriage broker, and those that do use a marriage broker, as far as the K-1 process goes.

My fiancee is fluent in English, has been employed in the U.S. for years and has 2 graduate degrees. We have lived together in both her home country and here in the states for years. She knows me better than anyone else on the planet and knows the U.S. better than most Americans with half her education. She has connections to people who support her in the U.S. well beyond just me.

Yet I just cancelled our wedding, losing a couple grand in the process, and now have to submit myself to a criminal background check just to marry her. She is stuck in Russia now, and cannot get back here until the government steps in to protect her, something she neither needs nor wants, even if measured by the standards that IMBRA set for itself. I won't be able to see my fiancee for months, unless we take a trip together somewhere in between the U.S. and her country, to the tune of a couple thousand more dollars, a temporary solution we are talking about now.

Most people would be willing to put up with some inconvenience in their personal lives to accomodate efforts to protect violence against women. Most people should be willing to do that. It is an important issue. But those accomodations should not include losses of thousands of dollars, needless separations from our loved ones while criminal background checks are conducted, and, most significantly, the government interposing itself between couples before getting married without regard to whether or not the foreign citizen really is at the informational disadvantage that the law presupposes. Without that informational disadvantage you talk about, this is simply the government getting in between two adults in a decision that will likely be the most important decision they ever take together. That is exactly not what you want the government doing.

This law is a perfect example of people with good intentions who nonetheless don't really understand what they are doing. By not distinguishing between situations like mine, and the ones where the potential issue of violence against women really exists, it serves not to protect women, but rather it burdens those people who really care about their foreign girlfriend/fiancee and who could do a lot more to prevent violence against them than the government could ever do.

It is hard to see the importance of protecting women in the abstract when the law has in reality served to harm the one woman I really care about.

Dowd,

First of all, regardless of where we stand on this issue, I'm sorry you're going through such a rough time with this. But if you'll allow me, I'll try and respond to the issues you raised.

First, I would suggest that your situation is a definite exception. I don't see any way the government could make the distinction between those women who "know" about their fiances, and those who don't; between situations where the potential for violence "really exists," and those where it doesn't. Laws generally can't be written to cover every possible situation. They have to be more utlilitarian.

Second, I think people lose sight of the fact that the K-visa is a creation of Congress and could be taken away at any time. Congress could determine that no immediate relatives or spouses of USC's could be admitted and there would be nothing that anyone (even the courts) could do about it. The constitution give absolute discretion to Congress on immigration matters. That said, strictly speaking the law doesn't keep you from marrying. You're free to marry your fiance in Russia, aren't you? I know that's not the way you wanted it, but my point is the law isn't stopping you.

I am curious how you define Dowd's case as a 'definite exception'? Are you saying most other cases are unlike his?

[kitkat1 5]

For those of us who have applied for a K-1 after the deadline, is there some logical reason why the Service Center can't just send us a release form to sign for a criminal record scan, and maybe charge us a $10.00 fee for the eight seconds it would take them to get a report on us

Well my first thought is they cannot do it because they are completely inefficient, disorganized and generally inept. But it probably has more to do with needing a signed "release" form for that information.

Now why they can't simply email us something to tell us officially what is going on - that is surely because they are incapable of providing straight forward and accurate information which is also my explanation for why they sent me 3 emails and 2 letters regarding my transfer from Nebraska to California (again, with zero information on why they did this).

[A Man of Action 0]

There is nothing IMBRA 2005 states that is worth reading or replying.

IMBRA2005 believes the "if we can save at least one..." b.s. well...all can be saved by shutting the whole immigration thing down in the US and lots and lots of people will be saved. sheeesh. Stupid do-gooders.

IMBRA2005 quit trying to be the sugar to make this bitter IMBRA stuff go down easier. IMBRA sux! Plain and Simple. It is ridiculous and epitomizes the brainless who typically hold their 19th Century noses up at the commoners by doing them some good.

These people always thinking about laws and laws. VAWA should be named the Retarded Woman's Act (RWA) *laugh* As a group of 80 - 90 year-old ladies playing cards told me - who are these stupid females getting themselves into such situations and not walking or running away? They have no excuse if they can walk or crawl - what they are invalids? *laugh*

They said the people in the capital of Germany made many laws that were Good For The People; eventually everyone did not want to be good anymore. The ladies laughed and went back to playing cards.

Then a couple of them started to think and talk about a way to bring my love to me - around the US checkpoints...er...passport control *laugh* They had to do that back then, too. Little old ladies. IMBRA gonna stop [fill in whatever perceived method here] to [whatever feared results here]. Unlikely. The old ladies are already thinking of ways around IMBRA. *laugh* Such a nice Sunday afternoon.

[Imbra2005 0]

I am curious how you define Dowd's case as a 'definite exception'? Are you saying most other cases are unlike his?

Sorry, no, that's not what I meant to imply, especially with regard to people who are not using marriage brokers. Thanks for the opportunity to correct that.

[kitkat1 5]

There is nothing IMBRA 2005 states that is worth reading or replying.

Actually, what you meant to say is that nothing YOU state is worth reading.

All you post is misinformation and lies and i.e. saying that the "US President and US Congress has decided to grant them Amnesty – give them free US Citizenship. To prepare for the Amnesty the USCIS divided the I-129 work to process these 12 million between two centers" which of course is total bullsh*t and does not have one ounce of truth. Stop trying to make trouble.

GO AWAY

[Lewis 0]

There is nothing IMBRA 2005 states that is worth reading or replying.

IMBRA2005 believes the "if we can save at least one..." b.s. well...all can be saved by shutting the whole immigration thing down in the US and lots and lots of people will be saved. sheeesh. Stupid do-gooders.

IMBRA2005 quit trying to be the sugar to make this bitter IMBRA stuff go down easier. IMBRA sux! Plain and Simple. It is ridiculous and epitomizes the brainless who typically hold their 19th Century noses up at the commoners by doing them some good.

These people always thinking about laws and laws. VAWA should be named the Retarded Woman's Act (RWA) *laugh* As a group of 80 - 90 year-old ladies playing cards told me - who are these stupid females getting themselves into such situations and not walking or running away? They have no excuse if they can walk or crawl - what they are invalids? *laugh*

They said the people in the capital of Germany made many laws that were Good For The People; eventually everyone did not want to be good anymore. The ladies laughed and went back to playing cards.

Then a couple of them started to think and talk about a way to bring my love to me - around the US checkpoints...er...passport control *laugh* They had to do that back then, too. Little old ladies. IMBRA gonna stop [fill in whatever perceived method here] to [whatever feared results here]. Unlikely. The old ladies are already thinking of ways around IMBRA. *laugh* Such a nice Sunday afternoon.

[Lewis 0]

Sorry about the messed up reply, I'm still getting used to the system. I was trying to say I'm greatly offended by the quote by A Man of Action,

"These people always thinking about laws and laws. VAWA should be named the Retarded Woman's Act (RWA) *laugh*"

What people are you talking about? Every society on earth needs laws or a form of rules to function effectively, including this board. What is the point of slamming a whole sector of society just because you disagree with a law? You are demonstrating a extreme lack of sensitivity to the board and to the human population in general.

I really don't know why you joined up, but I was under the impression that this was a great environment to share info effectively, peacefully and truthfully in order to make the K1 process run smoothly.

[storyteller 0]

Second, I think people lose sight of the fact that the K-visa is a creation of Congress and could be taken away at any time. Congress could determine that no immediate relatives or spouses of USC's could be admitted and there would be nothing that anyone (even the courts) could do about it. The constitution give absolute discretion to Congress on immigration matters. That said, strictly speaking the law doesn't keep you from marrying. You're free to marry your fiance in Russia, aren't you? I know that's not the way you wanted it, but my point is the law isn't stopping you.

IMBRA,

First of all, that's right. Congress has broad powers. But it is not a question of what Congress can or cannot do, it is a question of what serves the people of United States, and what doesn't. That's why the people are given the right to petition the government, aren't they? So what good the argument is, that Congress can be a hard-liner of sorts?? "Calm down and be grateful for whatever rights are still given to you", that sort of argument?? Is this still America we are living in?

So... how does exactly the IMBRA serve the people of US? Except for being a nuisance to join the loved ones? Well, there are two groups of provisions in the law: the ones that relate to marriage brokers, and the one that relate to all the USC petitioners. The former ones do not protect USC, and the latter ones just create a nuisance. Plus, all those nuisances are aided by additional overhead for the implementation of the law -- that alone sucks in a lot of money and time at this point.

As far as immigration is concerned, my view on that is that the purpose of the government is to determine if any particular immigration case would present problem for the national interests. E.g. so much beaten up border security issue. Foreign nationals' backgrounds checks. Once this issue is cleared, the government should have no further saying in how marriage should be regulated. Try to implement that sort of regulation on the USC-to-USC marriage. Everybody would agree that would be ridiculous. The argument that foreign fiance(e)s are more vulnerable because they are not really accustomed to the US environment is IMHO quite an arrogant thing to say. I think this argument is plain wrong. Americans could give foreigners some credit. Foreigners are not some sort of weak and humble creatures that need extra protection once in the US. Want proof? Try statistics for enterpreneurship. Immigrants are so much more eager to take risks and adjust to new environment. So that doesn't hold either. And the argument about trafficking has some grounds, but no more than e.g. children trafficking issue. Human trafficking is not a prerogative of K-1 petitioners by any stretch of imagination. Why not fight trafficking with some more general immigration laws, but not just target K1 process exclusively?

So the law does not add to the US national interests, or US people secuirty, since its ammendments are not targeted at controlling the immigration per se. Instead, the law tries to regulate private matters of group of people, part of whom are explicitly non-US people, allegedly to protect them while they never asked to be protected. You cannot deny the fact that the most people here interested in this regulation are not positive about this law, which makes me think that this law does not generally serves their interest, in their majority.

So, what do we have at the end of the day... The law that doesn't serve US interests. The law that doesn't serve US people's interests either. The law that doesn't even serve the foreign people's interests. Instead, it sneaks certain private matters into the regulated area under disguise of controlling immigration, while the whole issue in fact does not have anything to do with immigration. The law that does not address human trafficking at the entire scale, either. The law that would add (oh, so unpredictably and unexpectedly, really!) 3-4 months of delays for people to meet their loved ones because of notorious slowliness of government agencies to implement any new law.That's what IMBRA is. Quite a mistargeted and misplaced piece of work that does not address any single problem it claims to address, on the large scale. While domestic violence and abuse and human trafficking are all serious problems, i don't see any reason why those problems should be resolved based on very loose immigration criterion such as what K1 is. Domestic violence and abuse issues are not a prerogative of K-1 petitioners by any stretch of the most wildest imagination, as much as human trafficking.

Edited June 12, 2006 by storyteller

[storyteller 0]

PS. So for all those people that, as previously was said, inundate the shelters. They all must be some sort of former K1 beneficiaries. How many people are smuggled illegaly annually into the US? Let me throw a wild guess. 700,000? 500,000?.. I couldn't be much far off. Come on, why not get on the real issues out there, for a change.

Edited June 12, 2006 by storyteller

[dowd001 0]

IMBRA2005:

The interest groups who wrote this law could have designed a better law to take into consideration the wide array of people who use the K-1 process.

The fact of the matter is that they did not. This is just a really poorly written law. There is no excuse for legislators and interest groups simply not taking the time to understand the people they are about to burden. If they had done so, they would have easily recognized that the majority of people who use the K-1 process do not fall into the risk groups discussed in all of your social science.

But the fact of the matter is that the legislation was so motivated by disdain for marriage brokers, particularly, and this is a quote from the Tahirih Justice Center website, disdain for a system that allows men to find "subservient wives," that they completely overlooked the majority of people who don't fit into their preconceived notions.

For example, Congress could have required registration of marriage brokers in a manner similar to the way securities broker-dealers register with the SEC and NASD under, respectively, the Investment Advisors Act and the NASD rules and regulations. They could have required that marriage brokers file with USCIS on a quarterly basis, explaining their own means for providing for the safety of their clients and the foreign women, and subject the brokers to strong anti-fraud regulation to ensure that those procedures are met. They could have required that marriage-brokers provide a supplement to the 129f to anyone who uses their services when that US citizen then files for a K-1, triggering a requirement to provide criminal information to the government as part of the K-1 for only those who use marriage brokers. They could have similarly required more substance in Question 19 of the 129f, requiring petitioners to explain their relationship in detail, including such things as whether or not the foreign citizen has spent time in the U.S., whether or not he/she speaks English, what her level of education is, and all the factors that inform your social science conclusions on the relationship between violence against women and immigration. They could have developed a set criteria that trigger further review, tailored to meet the criteria that the social science reflects. This is, by the way, precisely how the government hires people, so they are quite accustomed to such an approach.

But of course they did not look into any of this. Sometimes, people who see the world in political terms on a variety of issues (not just this one) blindly defend legislation that meets their goals without asking themselves questions learned in the 3rd grade..."Is this the best you can do?" This law is clearly not the best they could do. But that really does not matter to them because they do not have to bear the burden of their poor drafting.

And regarding your proposal that I get married overseas. Read the LIFE act. The very piece of legislation that created the K-1 process, and you will see that what I am doing is precisely what Congress intended when it designed the K-1 process. They carved out an exception from the normal immigration process for fiances - an exception that my fiancee and I relied on. We did exactly what Congress recommended by using the K-1 process. I am not making a choice independent of Congress, I am instead influenced in my decision making by what Congress says and does. They are complicit in this by steering behavior in patterns they can create. That makes them culpable when they change those processes, and also should require Congress to think twice before changing things.

When Congress writes a bad law, you cannot just turn around and say, well, the K-1 process could be "taken away at any time" and therefore they can do the lesser-and-included harm of simply making the system poorly reflect the goal it intended to achieve. Whether that goal is allowing an expedited process for foreign fiance(e)s to enter the U.S., or ensuring that foreign women are not subject to abuse, the LIFE Act and IMBRA read together no longer establish a system that effectively does either of those goals.