Repeal IMBRA petition...

[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?

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.

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick!

I didn't think it was that difficult, really.....

Someone mentioned IMBRA preventing the foreign person from getting involved before finding out that the USC had a criminal history. That is what I was addressing. They theorized about the person marrying the USC even though they had a criminal record because they were 1) already emotionally involved or 2) felt obligated.

I DO have an IQ over 43, you know. I'd have to be a total moron to think that IMBRA was a law to protect peoples' feelings. The only pointless thing is me trying to explain this to someone who registers a -10 on the clue-o-meter. Ergo, I give up.

Edited June 12, 2006 by Cian

[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.

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick!

I didn't think it was that difficult, really.....

Someone mentioned IMBRA preventing the foreign person from getting involved before finding out that the USC had a criminal history. That is what I was addressing. They theorized about the person marrying the USC even though they had a criminal record because they were 1) already emotionally involved or 2) felt obligated.

I DO have an IQ over 43, you know. I'd have to be a total moron to think that IMBRA was a law to protect peoples' feelings. The only pointless thing is me trying to explain this to someone who registers a -10 on the clue-o-meter. Ergo, I give up.

If you can only speak in a condescending tone then don't address me. You have clearly missed the point.

[tigretigre 0]

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*

Ah, the old "I didn't stab him, he ran into my knife 16 times" argument.

Man of Action, in addition to being one of the most barbarouly ignorant people I've encountered on the Internet (and that is saying a lot), is pretty clue-free when it comes to the etiquette standards observed on this board. As I am only a "stupid female"/"retarded woman", Man of Action isn't likely to accept any statement of mine concerning the acceptability of his offensive comments here. Therefore, if there is any male here willing to do so, I humbly request that he explain to Man of Action exactly where and how his posts fail to meet our basic standards of acceptable forum behavior.

Thank you.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Wow. And I thought the flame-thread genre was dying on VJ.

Good to see it ain't so

[Pete 0]

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.

cristy- that may be one of the dumbest things I have ever read here. Did you ever stop to think not everybody lives a friendly, civilized country like Canada? And who says because something becomes law it is automatically a given that it is a good law? Are you really that naive? Most of the US tax code is written by lobbyists (like IMBRA2005) and special interest groups, and like IMBRA, it sure as hell doesn't serve the public interest.

Take a moment if you can and imagine beneficiaries who live in countries that are not so nice (unlike Canada). Even our friendly IMBRA lobbyist/sponsor admitted

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.

There is no disputing the fact that the VAST majority of American sponsors will be kind loving spouses and not abusers. So to extend that FACT, and extend IMBRA2005's quote...

The backers of the IMBRA legislation have just placed my fiancee in harms way by indefinitely delaying her arrival into the USA and my safe arms.

The IMBRA backers have placed a HUGE number of women in harms way by this fact. This is the elephant in the room that nobody has bothered to recognise. Cristy, by virtue of your IMBRA support, you are placing FAR more women in harms way. Can you see that? You and IMBRA2005 are hanging yourselves from your own petard, how does it feel to know the damage you are doing?

Here is the bottom line- IMBRA will keep more women in abusive situations than it will ever prevent. The IMBRA backers (knowingly) placed additional burden on a government office that was already mismanaged to the point of negligence. Now innocent women in these exact countries where they have the fewest rights and safeguards are condemned to more potential abuse.

The law was ostensibly passed to keep beneficiaries out of abusive relationships, but in fact the opposite is true. It lengthens the time they are in potentially abusive situations.

So let's tally this up, IMBRA in reality equals:

1. Women left in desperate situations in other countries as IMBRA implementation drags on, and on, and on.

2. One more way for a fiancee visa process to be derailed by authorities who already have difficulty interpreting existing laws. IMBRA is written in such convoluted fashion that it is inevitable many petitioners will receive visa denials on technicalities that have no bearing on their loving relationship.

3. Loved ones kept apart for no good reason.

4. Petitioners subject to extraordinary expenses due to dragged-out approvals, canceled tickets and lodging, additional communication costs...

5. A blatant denial of my basic human right to freely court and marry the spouse of my choice. The constitution is clear in my right to pursue happiness. This law is an inarguable violation of that constitutional right.

I love my fiance more than life itself- but because of IMBRA she is now placed in extended jeopardy, and I have no idea when, if ever, the broken fiancee visa machinery will allow us to be together. That is why this an emotionally charged topic for me.

I have to comfort her when she is sobbing in despair as I try to explain why we can't be together. And the explanation is that I first have to be investigated for the crime of meeting her on Instant Messenger on a web site, and for proof that I really am innocent of any crimes.

Yeah- you really are helping innocent women...

[Cristy 4]

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.

cristy- that may be one of the dumbest things I have ever read here. Did you ever stop to think not everybody lives a friendly, civilized country like Canada? And who says because something becomes law it is automatically a given that it is a good law? Are you really that naive? Most of the US tax code is written by lobbyists (like IMBRA2005) and special interest groups, and like IMBRA, it sure as hell doesn't serve the public interest.

Take a moment if you can and imagine beneficiaries who live in countries that are not so nice (unlike Canada). Even our friendly IMBRA lobbyist/sponsor admitted

How dumb to think that screening could weed out some of the freaks...what a leap I took.

Yes they always make up laws when nothing is happening to require it. No foreign woman has ever been brought to another country and been abused and or murdered. How naive of me.

FYI I have worked with and been an abused woman....I have education in this area. I know what goes on.

Refrain from adressing me if you are only going to be rude.

Edited June 12, 2006 by cristy

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The constitution is clear in my right to pursue happiness.

[...]

This law is an inarguable violation of that constitutional right.

Constitutional rights derive from the Constitution, not from the Declaration of Independence.

In other words, there is no constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[meauxna 15]

The law was ostensibly passed to keep beneficiaries out of abusive relationships, but in fact the opposite is true. It lengthens the time they are in potentially abusive situations.

Then they would be candidates for asylum, not looking to escape their torment at home by marrying a US citizen.

5. A blatant denial of my basic human right to freely court and marry the spouse of my choice. The constitution is clear in my right to pursue happiness. This law is an inarguable violation of that constitutional right.

Oops, have to comment on this one too, because you are not the only one who brings it up.

Your right to court and marry who you like is not in question here. You have every right to go and marry her today.

What is at question is your ability to bring whomever you like into the country that belongs to all the rest of us as well. She becomes part of 'us' and we all are responsible for her. The collective 'we' gets a say in the rules governing that.

If you have questions about the Constitution, I refer you to the recently-reviewed-in-my-house Guide To Naturalization.

[PlatyPius 5]

If you can only speak in a condescending tone then don't address me. You have clearly missed the point.

Yay! I've been shunned AND told that I'm missing the point of my own posts!

[Cristy 4]

If you can only speak in a condescending tone then don't address me. You have clearly missed the point.

Yay! I've been shunned AND told that I'm missing the point of my own posts!

OMG seriously. You missed the point of it all I guess. You did not miss the point of your own post, your post missed the point if IMBRA. Is this really that hard to get?

[almaty 19]

aw sh!t..this was a fine thread..to instigate....

[Cristy 4]

aw sh!t..this was a fine thread..to instigate....

I am usually so nice and quiet....and then....

[almaty 19]

aw sh!t..this was a fine thread..to instigate....

I am usually so nice and quiet....and then....

a bunch of chopf##ks start posting..happens to the best of us...

[PlatyPius 5]

If you can only speak in a condescending tone then don't address me. You have clearly missed the point.

Yay! I've been shunned AND told that I'm missing the point of my own posts!

OMG seriously. You missed the point of it all I guess. You did not miss the point of your own post, your post missed the point if IMBRA. Is this really that hard to get?

Should I mention for the third time that I know what IMBRA is about? How many times do I have to state that I know what IMBRA is about (4)? I was addressing A COMMENT by another member about ONE SIDE BENEFIT of IMBRA, not IMBRA itself.

I did not miss the point of IMBRA. IMBRA missed the point by "protecting" foreign people from us horrible American men, while there is no law in the states requiring the same pre-emptive information disclosure to American men/women. Nor is there any part of the law that requires information from the foreign person BEFORE the relationship has begun, as is required of the USC.

IMBRA releases criminal history and such to marriage brokers. Marriage brokers will have to release this information to the foreign person who will then decide whether or not to proceed. The foreign person is now able to stop the relationship early on (before becoming emotionally attached) if there's something they don't like in the history. Ok, got that?

The USC has NO such law protecting him/her AT THIS POINT of the relationship. He/She will not find out about the foreign persons' criminal history until after the relationship has progressed to the point of engagement and a Visa has been applied for. By then, he/she is emotionally attached. Comprende?

Then I threw in that to be completely fair, this info should be available to US citizens before dating other US citizens, too. Since it's all about preventing abuse, right?

THAT is what my post was about.

*sigh*

All this because someone addressed the "emotional attachment" issue and I had to reply to it.....

[babybunny 2]

Hot Dayum.. I been reading the wrong threads all day .. now here is the HOT TOPIC>.

brb.. need some hot buttered popcorns...

let me give you a ray of light why the popcorn is popping..

9 months 19 days of AP. I dont think you all would have to experiance that hell. so surely there has to be something that make you go. " HEY AT LEAST I AM NOT IN HELL LIKE OLD SHONNIES PUNK AZZ"

yeah there is minor set back but, dont worry you wont be like me..

now keep aruging this sh it is awsome..