The secret meaning of IMBRA...

[zethris 0]

"just because one woman got murdered"??? You don't really think that's why it was passed do you? Please don't make me repost the horror stories of murders, rapes, and child molestations that Congress cited. Did you not see that in the last 10 years, over 30,000 "battered spouse waiver" self-petitions were filed by immigrant women and children who were subjected to abuse by their USC sponsor spouses?

Well I agree with the evidence you mention because I have seen it, and I wish there was a law that addressed the issues that lead to this only. So because of that, IMBRA is "ok" but not great. I vehemently disagree with how the law was underhandedly passed though. The reason it didn't pass in 2003 is because of it's flaws that was very much seen by the voting reps. So, the woman (who is a feminisim advocate) encapsulated the law within a law to hide it under the umbrella of the bigger law. That is the liberal/feminism I think the OP of that comment was vaguly getting at.

Most commonly, it is very well known that the far left (liberals) do that as a general practice when an absurd law they want passed doesn't pass on it's own merrits and the writer refuses to make it better out of pride or emotional and irrational vindication (what too many feminists these days have, forgetting that the orginal goal was equality). So it's actually people like that, that give feminism a dirty name. While feminism is extremely and very much so a fantastic thing for our society, many have just gone too far with it.

On a side note, if we truely did have equality within the sexes, the feminist advocacy would be out of controversy to keep the votes coming in, and money being made. Thats one reason why there are those that take it too far. To keep the controversy alive.

IMBRA is simply one more stupid thing you can thank the feminists for.

I agree IMBRA sucks, because it's delaying everybody's process. But I also agree it has one benefit: why do us foreigneirs have to show the police certificates and prove this and that while the USC don't need to? I think it's more than fair. If you need proof we are not lying about our past and we're not murderers, rapists, etc, why should the rule apply only 1 sided?

Bingo! and thats A-number 1 why IMBRA should have ONLY been that and only that. Instead the writer took it too far and thats why it didn't pass iniitally because of all the extra cruft and fat of the written law. To me it's a no brainer. We should have had background checks for us on the applications long ago, and should have even had to have a law to say so. It would have been long accepted as just part of the application process by now if that was the case.

Edited June 22, 2006 by zethris

[Imbra2005 0]

I think the main flaw with the argument that IMBRA was concealed, hidden, etc. is that it assumes that 531 lawmakers didn't know what they're voting for. I would challenge anyone to show me where a single representative or senator who voted for passage has admitted (a) that they didn't know IMBRA was incorporated into the VAWA bill, and/or (B) had they known that, they would not have voted for it. I don't think you can assume that these lawmakers don't know what they're voting for. In fact, I think you should assume just the opposite, that they know exactly what they are voting on.

The idea of amending different pieces of legislation to each other is commonplace. Congress (both parties) does it all the time -- sometimes for efficiency, and sometimes for political reasons (remember the Republicans tacking on the ANWR drilling amendment to the money for Iraq bill?)

And, various senators (both parties) spoke on the senate floor (before passage) about IMBRA and why it should be supported. It's all in the Congressional Record (the various anti-imbra website have villified these senators and can point you to their statements). So I just don't think that the argument that the evil feminists put one over on the Congress really holds much water.

[zethris 0]

I think the main flaw with the argument that IMBRA was concealed, hidden, etc. is that it assumes that 531 lawmakers didn't know what they're voting for. I would challenge anyone to show me where a single representative or senator who voted for passage has admitted (a) that they didn't know IMBRA was incorporated into the VAWA bill, and/or (B) had they known that, they would not have voted for it. I don't think you can assume that these lawmakers don't know what they're voting for. In fact, I think you should assume just the opposite, that they know exactly what they are voting on.

The idea of amending different pieces of legislation to each other is commonplace. Congress (both parties) does it all the time -- sometimes for efficiency, and sometimes for political reasons (remember the Republicans tacking on the ANWR drilling amendment to the money for Iraq bill?)

And, various senators (both parties) spoke on the senate floor (before passage) about IMBRA and why it should be supported. It's all in the Congressional Record (the various anti-imbra website have villified these senators and can point you to their statements). So I just don't think that the argument that the evil feminists put one over on the Congress really holds much water.

Keyword on evil feminists here. Not the real feminists who actually do good for people on not their own continued gain (monetarily/politicaly).

With that, you have the nail, and almost hit it on the head. (I am not republican either by the way, I see both sides for what extremes they can take and how it is wrong either extreme) But I want to make the point though that many times laws are encapsulated into another when they strategicaly know the law in which it is now hiding is will force many to vote for "yey" on the bigger law because it would be "political suicide" if they didn't. Or the bigger law is so important to pass as soon as possible that the collateral damage of the deviously placed smaller bits becomes somewhat artificialy acceptable. Sometimes it just even comes right down to pay-offs and political favor trading.

It is fact that some of these guys truely never read over the laws. They just go by what others say or their political party leader "recommends" (forces, depending on who you talk to), or the vague descriptions they hear from one extreme or the other in their debates. Realisticaly, do you seriously believe that people of this calibur would ever admit they didn't know the full details of the law they voted on? Not likely. They want to keep the easy job.

The exploitation and passage of laws is extreme and it causes things like this to happen all the time. Unfortunatly, most of the detrimental stuff comes from the liberal side in multiple disguises. They have mastered the art of encapsulation much better than the conservative side.

Edited June 22, 2006 by zethris

[meauxna 15]

Keyword on evil feminists here. Not the real feminists who actually do good for people on not their own continued gain (monetarily/politicaly).

And by the same token, IMBRA is keyed toward the evil USC petitioners who import and abuse spouses. Not the real USC spouses who actually love their partners and want to live together in the US in happiness.

Sometimes the many get painted with a brush intended for only a few.

[zed2283 1]

"just because one woman got murdered"??? You don't really think that's why it was passed do you? Please don't make me repost the horror stories of murders, rapes, and child molestations that Congress cited. Did you not see that in the last 10 years, over 30,000 "battered spouse waiver" self-petitions were filed by immigrant women and children who were subjected to abuse by their USC sponsor spouses?

Imbra, if you could provide a link to what Congress cited, it would be appreciated. Anything I've ever read basically says that there is no evidence to suggest that these types of occurances (divorces also) are any more prevelant in marriages with foreign spouses than in any other marriage in this country. And I find that to be a reasonable statement.

I think the main flaw with the argument that IMBRA was concealed, hidden, etc. is that it assumes that 531 lawmakers didn't know what they're voting for. I would challenge anyone to show me where a single representative or senator who voted for passage has admitted (a) that they didn't know IMBRA was incorporated into the VAWA bill, and/or (B) had they known that, they would not have voted for it. I don't think you can assume that these lawmakers don't know what they're voting for. In fact, I think you should assume just the opposite, that they know exactly what they are voting on.

The idea of amending different pieces of legislation to each other is commonplace. Congress (both parties) does it all the time -- sometimes for efficiency, and sometimes for political reasons (remember the Republicans tacking on the ANWR drilling amendment to the money for Iraq bill?)

And, various senators (both parties) spoke on the senate floor (before passage) about IMBRA and why it should be supported. It's all in the Congressional Record (the various anti-imbra website have villified these senators and can point you to their statements). So I just don't think that the argument that the evil feminists put one over on the Congress really holds much water.

Keyword on evil feminists here. Not the real feminists who actually do good for people on not their own continued gain (monetarily/politicaly).

With that, you have the nail, and almost hit it on the head. (I am not republican either by the way, I see both sides for what extremes they can take and how it is wrong either extreme) But I want to make the point though that many times laws are encapsulated into another when they strategicaly know the law in which it is now hiding is will force many to vote for "yey" on the bigger law because it would be "political suicide" if they didn't. Or the bigger law is so important to pass as soon as possible that the collateral damage of the deviously placed smaller bits becomes somewhat artificialy acceptable. Sometimes it just even comes right down to pay-offs and political favor trading.

It is fact that some of these guys truely never read over the laws. They just go by what others say or their political party leader "recommends" (forces, depending on who you talk to), or the vague descriptions they hear from one extreme or the other in their debates. Realisticaly, do you seriously believe that people of this calibur would ever admit they didn't know the full details of the law they voted on? Not likely. They want to keep the easy job.

The exploitation and passage of laws is extreme and it causes things like this to happen all the time. Unfortunatly, most of the detrimental stuff comes from the liberal side in multiple disguises. They have mastered the art of encapsulation much better than the conservative side.

Yes, this is a common practice and, unfortunately, probably the only way that anything gets done on Capitol Hill. That's why the presidents have asked for the line-item veto so many times over the years (like many governors have).

[meauxna 15]

Anything I've ever read basically says that there is no evidence to suggest that these types of occurances (divorces also) are any more prevelant in marriages with foreign spouses than in any other marriage in this country. And I find that to be a reasonable statement.

zed,

Can you consider this? It's nothing to do with marriage, divorce or protecting foreign women(men). It's all about immigration and the American collective 'we' taking on someone we're eventually going to have to pay for.

What if?

Take all the bleeding heart ####### out of it if it doesn't jibe for you---look at it from a cooly practical point of view.

[zethris 0]

Keyword on evil feminists here. Not the real feminists who actually do good for people on not their own continued gain (monetarily/politicaly).

And by the same token, IMBRA is keyed toward the evil USC petitioners who import and abuse spouses. Not the real USC spouses who actually love their partners and want to live together in the US in happiness.

Sometimes the many get painted with a brush intended for only a few.

scary but true

[Imbra2005 0]

Imbra, if you could provide a link to what Congress cited, it would be appreciated. Anything I've ever read basically says that there is no evidence to suggest that these types of occurances (divorces also) are any more prevelant in marriages with foreign spouses than in any other marriage in this country. And I find that to be a reasonable statement.

Sure. Here's the link to the page of Congressional Record with Sen. Brownback's statment, it continues over a page or two. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...ame=2005_record

Also, the INS commissioned a study for a report to Congress (I think it was in 1997) that, among other things, concluded that "While no national figures exist on abuse of alien wives, there is every reason to believe that the incidence is higher in this population than for the nation as a whole. Authorities agree that abuse in these marriages can be expected based on the men's desire for a submissive wife and the women's desire for a better life. At some point, after the alien bride has had time to adjust to the new environment, to make new friends, and to become comfortable with the language, her new independence and his domination are bound to conflict. The problem, according to Mila Glodava (Glodava and Onizuka, 1994) and Uma Narayan (Narayan, 1995), is largely due to the men's unrealistic expectations. While many state a desire for a submissive wife, they find that such dependence becomes a burden. To provide some relief, the husband seeks ways (friends, activities) that will get the wife "out of the house" on occasion. The resulting independence then angers the husband who manifests the anger on the wife, who may have only been guilty of trying to please her husband." http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/reps...ies/Mobappa.htm

Does that help? There was testimony before the House Foreign Relations Committee in 2004 as well. I can try and find that online somewhere to if you want.

[jangler 0]

I agree IMBRA sucks, because it's delaying everybody's process. But I also agree it has one benefit: why do us foreigneirs have to show the police certificates and prove this and that while the USC don't need to? I think it's more than fair. If you need proof we are not lying about our past and we're not murderers, rapists, etc, why should the rule apply only 1 sided?

I believe the reason the government demands foreigners to have to show police certificates is to keep criminals out of the USA. Let's not pretend that they had the USC's welfare in mind. Do you really think they did that to keep us safe from abuse? Now the USC has to prove he/she is innocent of any crimes to solely protect the foreign spouse. They never really cared about "us" or that we may end up with a wife/husband who was at one time a prostitute or who once dealt drugs. The reasons for the criminal checks are different for both sides. Just my opinion.

[chris&o 0]

I M B R A

Initiating Millions of Berating Responses Accidentally

sorry everybody, just trying to start a mildly entertaing line of discussion by starting this topic but alas I have failed... i shant do it again.

[zethris 0]

Imbra, if you could provide a link to what Congress cited, it would be appreciated. Anything I've ever read basically says that there is no evidence to suggest that these types of occurances (divorces also) are any more prevelant in marriages with foreign spouses than in any other marriage in this country. And I find that to be a reasonable statement.

Sure. Here's the link to the page of Congressional Record with Sen. Brownback's statment, it continues over a page or two. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...ame=2005_record

Also, the INS commissioned a study for a report to Congress (I think it was in 1997) that, among other things, concluded that "While no national figures exist on abuse of alien wives, there is every reason to believe that the incidence is higher in this population than for the nation as a whole. Authorities agree that abuse in these marriages can be expected based on the men's desire for a submissive wife and the women's desire for a better life. At some point, after the alien bride has had time to adjust to the new environment, to make new friends, and to become comfortable with the language, her new independence and his domination are bound to conflict. The problem, according to Mila Glodava (Glodava and Onizuka, 1994) and Uma Narayan (Narayan, 1995), is largely due to the men's unrealistic expectations. While many state a desire for a submissive wife, they find that such dependence becomes a burden. To provide some relief, the husband seeks ways (friends, activities) that will get the wife "out of the house" on occasion. The resulting independence then angers the husband who manifests the anger on the wife, who may have only been guilty of trying to please her husband." http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/reps...ies/Mobappa.htm

Does that help? There was testimony before the House Foreign Relations Committee in 2004 as well. I can try and find that online somewhere to if you want.

Anyone really who disputes that is in denial. I would go so far as to say the vast majority percentage of older men marying younger women is for this reason. Even domestic mariage between an older man and a younger naieve woman. Once the Woman gets older and more experienced, the control factor (fantasy world) the older man was seeking goes away and the real abuse starts becasue he feels there is a growing power struggle.

Even worse when the American man solely desires a wife strictly from a foreign country because she is younger and/or because she is considered "poor and humble" (a.k.a non-western) and he believes them to be culturaly submissive in comparison to the brass rude American style, he feels there is a greater chance to live the fantasy of control. The girl is more a pet, than a person at this point. Thats when it gets sick. Thats why IMBRA, on many levels, is a good thing, it makes it much harder for the easy venues these people go to, to order a wife/spouse.

Oh and P.S. don't waste time commenting on the un-pc sounding nature of my comparison with older men and younger women. Lets face it, it's rare that there is a brokered mariage between a woman petitioner and a male beneficiary. Although, I would suspect that in many more cases, even if the woman was older the relationship would work out much better. Or at least, the odds of success are much higher in comparison. Heck, I have a thing for older women (they know what they want), I just happened to find someone who I love dearly that happens to be more my age.

I agree IMBRA sucks, because it's delaying everybody's process. But I also agree it has one benefit: why do us foreigneirs have to show the police certificates and prove this and that while the USC don't need to? I think it's more than fair. If you need proof we are not lying about our past and we're not murderers, rapists, etc, why should the rule apply only 1 sided?

I believe the reason the government demands foreigners to have to show police certificates is to keep criminals out of the USA. Let's not pretend that they had the USC's welfare in mind. Do you really think they did that to keep us safe from abuse? Now the USC has to prove he/she is innocent of any crimes to solely protect the foreign spouse. They never really cared about "us" or that we may end up with a wife/husband who was at one time a prostitute or who once dealt drugs. The reasons for the criminal checks are different for both sides. Just my opinion.

Again well said, and I agree. It is very one sided with how these laws are being made and it goes to show how xenophobic America has become.

I M B R A

Imbicilic Magistrate Bought, Re-election Always

Edited June 23, 2006 by zethris

[zed2283 1]

Anything I've ever read basically says that there is no evidence to suggest that these types of occurances (divorces also) are any more prevelant in marriages with foreign spouses than in any other marriage in this country. And I find that to be a reasonable statement.

zed,

Can you consider this? It's nothing to do with marriage, divorce or protecting foreign women(men). It's all about immigration and the American collective 'we' taking on someone we're eventually going to have to pay for.

What if?

Take all the bleeding heart ####### out of it if it doesn't jibe for you---look at it from a cooly practical point of view.

That's a good point, Meauxna, although I disagree that that's what it's about.

Imbra, if you could provide a link to what Congress cited, it would be appreciated. Anything I've ever read basically says that there is no evidence to suggest that these types of occurances (divorces also) are any more prevelant in marriages with foreign spouses than in any other marriage in this country. And I find that to be a reasonable statement.

Sure. Here's the link to the page of Congressional Record with Sen. Brownback's statment, it continues over a page or two. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...ame=2005_record

Also, the INS commissioned a study for a report to Congress (I think it was in 1997) that, among other things, concluded that "While no national figures exist on abuse of alien wives, there is every reason to believe that the incidence is higher in this population than for the nation as a whole. Authorities agree that abuse in these marriages can be expected based on the men's desire for a submissive wife and the women's desire for a better life. At some point, after the alien bride has had time to adjust to the new environment, to make new friends, and to become comfortable with the language, her new independence and his domination are bound to conflict. The problem, according to Mila Glodava (Glodava and Onizuka, 1994) and Uma Narayan (Narayan, 1995), is largely due to the men's unrealistic expectations. While many state a desire for a submissive wife, they find that such dependence becomes a burden. To provide some relief, the husband seeks ways (friends, activities) that will get the wife "out of the house" on occasion. The resulting independence then angers the husband who manifests the anger on the wife, who may have only been guilty of trying to please her husband." http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/reps...ies/Mobappa.htm

Does that help? There was testimony before the House Foreign Relations Committee in 2004 as well. I can try and find that online somewhere to if you want.

Wow... now if I tried to say something with a disclaimer like "although I have no facts, I know this is true" I would take some pretty serious heat. And I say that from experience. "Authorites agree that abuse in these marriages can be expected "???

Imbra, if you could provide a link to what Congress cited, it would be appreciated. Anything I've ever read basically says that there is no evidence to suggest that these types of occurances (divorces also) are any more prevelant in marriages with foreign spouses than in any other marriage in this country. And I find that to be a reasonable statement.

Sure. Here's the link to the page of Congressional Record with Sen. Brownback's statment, it continues over a page or two. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...ame=2005_record

Also, the INS commissioned a study for a report to Congress (I think it was in 1997) that, among other things, concluded that "While no national figures exist on abuse of alien wives, there is every reason to believe that the incidence is higher in this population than for the nation as a whole. Authorities agree that abuse in these marriages can be expected based on the men's desire for a submissive wife and the women's desire for a better life. At some point, after the alien bride has had time to adjust to the new environment, to make new friends, and to become comfortable with the language, her new independence and his domination are bound to conflict. The problem, according to Mila Glodava (Glodava and Onizuka, 1994) and Uma Narayan (Narayan, 1995), is largely due to the men's unrealistic expectations. While many state a desire for a submissive wife, they find that such dependence becomes a burden. To provide some relief, the husband seeks ways (friends, activities) that will get the wife "out of the house" on occasion. The resulting independence then angers the husband who manifests the anger on the wife, who may have only been guilty of trying to please her husband." http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/reps...ies/Mobappa.htm

Does that help? There was testimony before the House Foreign Relations Committee in 2004 as well. I can try and find that online somewhere to if you want.

Anyone really who disputes that is in denial. I would go so far as to say the vast majority percentage of older men marying younger women is for this reason. Even domestic mariage between an older man and a younger naieve woman. Once the Woman gets older and more experienced, the control factor (fantasy world) the older man was seeking goes away and the real abuse starts becasue he feels there is a growing power struggle.

Even worse when the American man solely desires a wife strictly from a foreign country because she is younger and/or because she is considered "poor and humble" (a.k.a non-western) and he believes them to be culturaly submissive in comparison to the brass rude American style, he feels there is a greater chance to live the fantasy of control. The girl is more a pet, than a person at this point. Thats when it gets sick. Thats why IMBRA, on many levels, is a good thing, it makes it much harder for the easy venues these people go to, to order a wife/spouse.

Oh and P.S. don't waste time commenting on the un-pc sounding nature of my comparison with older men and younger women. Lets face it, it's rare that there is a brokered mariage between a woman petitioner and a male beneficiary. Although, I would suspect that in many more cases, even if the woman was older the relationship would work out much better. Or at least, the odds of success are much higher in comparison. Heck, I have a thing for older women (they know what they want), I just happened to find someone who I love dearly that happens to be more my age.

I agree IMBRA sucks, because it's delaying everybody's process. But I also agree it has one benefit: why do us foreigneirs have to show the police certificates and prove this and that while the USC don't need to? I think it's more than fair. If you need proof we are not lying about our past and we're not murderers, rapists, etc, why should the rule apply only 1 sided?

I believe the reason the government demands foreigners to have to show police certificates is to keep criminals out of the USA. Let's not pretend that they had the USC's welfare in mind. Do you really think they did that to keep us safe from abuse? Now the USC has to prove he/she is innocent of any crimes to solely protect the foreign spouse. They never really cared about "us" or that we may end up with a wife/husband who was at one time a prostitute or who once dealt drugs. The reasons for the criminal checks are different for both sides. Just my opinion.

Again well said, and I agree. It is very one sided with how these laws are being made and it goes to show how xenophobic America has become.

I M B R A

Imbicilic Magistrate Bought, Re-election Always

Again wow... and people accuse ME of sweeping generalizations. I would absolutely dispute this and in no way am I in denial about anything. The citings in the Congressional document were horrible, but I saw no dates, no numbers, or anything else. Unfortunately, you could make a list 100 times as long involving domestic spouses.

[de&a 0]

yeah, what Z said

[Imbra2005 0]

yeah, what Z said

Well the "while no figures exist" statement was true in 1997, that is no longer the case, there are now real figures. I've posted elsewhere from the recent paper that cites all the studies showing that the incidence of domestic violence in marriages with immigrant women and USC spouses is considerably higher than average. I'll dig that up again if you want me to. But that's basically irrelevant for the reasons I've mentioned before, . . .you don't need to do an experiment or have hard-scientific data before passing a law.

Congress can just think that there might be a problem and pass a law that they think might address it -- even if it only helps a little bit (they don't have to try and tackle the whole problem). So although you might not think it wiser to try and address abuse in marriages between two USCs (or as some have suggested, all marriages) that doesn't make what Congress did wrong.

[zed2283 1]

yeah, what Z said

Well the "while no figures exist" statement was true in 1997, that is no longer the case, there are now real figures. I've posted elsewhere from the recent paper that cites all the studies showing that the incidence of domestic violence in marriages with immigrant women and USC spouses is considerably higher than average. I'll dig that up again if you want me to. But that's basically irrelevant for the reasons I've mentioned before, . . .you don't need to do an experiment or have hard-scientific data before passing a law.

Congress can just think that there might be a problem and pass a law that they think might address it -- even if it only helps a little bit (they don't have to try and tackle the whole problem). So although you might not think it wiser to try and address abuse in marriages between two USCs (or as some have suggested, all marriages) that doesn't make what Congress did wrong.

Yes, I would be interested to see that. But I think (yes, I suppose I am prejudging) that the data will be highly disputable.

Well I guess I disagree on that one. For Congress to go through all the time and money and whatever else it takes to pass a law that may or not be needed for a problem that may or not exist, and that will cost taxpayers money to implement and maintain in a way that no one seems to have a handle on... well that may be politics as usual, but YES it is wrong.

Chris... I sincerely apologize for hijacking your innocent, fun little thread!