Dating Websites and IMBRA

[jangler 0]

Sorry -- I meant to say that in order to be "exempt" the statute requires that stuff....

Bottom line is, you don't want to guess wrong in your interpretation of the statute, and given that there are very serious penalties involved (making false statements on anything you submit carries a maximum 5 yr. prison sentence), I would seriously consider contacting an attorney if you have any doubts about how you should answer the RFE. Better safe than sorry, right?

Do you or the government really expect thousands of people to now contact lawyers if we have doubts? I answered the question NO and I did so to the best of my ability to be truthful. There was no intentional falsehood stated. I did not go to a marriage broker. If the government calls a piece of toast a toilet, it is still a piece of toast in my mind unless of course I get years of brainwashing to convince me that it is really a toilet. To suggest to people that they could get 5 years in prison if they unintentionally answered a question wrong is absurd. Knowingly stating falsehoods to mislead or deceive is a different story. What's with the scare tactics?

You're correct...the 5 yr. penalty is for "knowingly or willfully" making false statements. So you might be able to avoid jail time. Didn't mean to get you so upset. Unfortunately, though, if the government says that in order to obtain a visa, you have to tell the govt. if you've ever eaten a toilet -- and then it defines "toilet" as "any foodstuff derived from grain" you'd probably better answer "yes, I've eaten a toilet" if you've ever eaten a piece of toast, don't you agree?

Yes and no. But what if I didn't know that toast actually had grain? I guess I should ask a lawyer!

By the way, what makes you think that I'm "so upset"?

Edited June 24, 2006 by jangler

[Imbra2005 0]

And in answer to your question . . . I have no idea what the government expects. But, as one enters any legal or administrative proceeding, and he or she is unsure as to how or what to do with regard to legal questions that arise during those proceedings, then I would think a great many people would agree that person ought to contact a lawyer for advice and counsel. As they say, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Do you think telling the IRS "I didn't know I couldn't deduct that" will keep you from getting assessed penalties?

Obviously, that's why people use accountants and tax lawyers -- so they don't have to make their "best guess" at what the law means.

Edited June 24, 2006 by Imbra2005

[jangler 0]

Sorry -- I meant to say that in order to be "exempt" the statute requires that stuff....

Bottom line is, you don't want to guess wrong in your interpretation of the statute, and given that there are very serious penalties involved (making false statements on anything you submit carries a maximum 5 yr. prison sentence), I would seriously consider contacting an attorney if you have any doubts about how you should answer the RFE. Better safe than sorry, right?

You're correct...the 5 yr. penalty is for "knowingly or willfully" making false statements. So you might be able to avoid jail time. Didn't mean to get you so upset. Unfortunately, though, if the government says that in order to obtain a visa, you have to tell the govt. if you've ever eaten a toilet -- and then it defines "toilet" as "any foodstuff derived from grain" you'd probably better answer "yes, I've eaten a toilet" if you've ever eaten a piece of toast, don't you agree?

"So you might be able to avoid jail time." That is so funny.

[Imbra2005 0]

I've been sitting here trying to figure out why you thought it was so funny. I think I've stumbled on it. Do you think I was actually talking about you, Jangler? I wasn't commenting on the merits of your particular situation at all...

This is twice using the generic "you" may have gotten me into trouble. Sorry about that.

[Madison Man 0]

One thing I would like to add about mate1.com. You can join as a guest and pay nothing and use there instant messenger to contact other members without paying any fee. I only paid them $ to be able to make and recieve emails directly to that site. U can browse all the members without paying, so its logical to say that I could have met her without spending a dime. It seems to come down to if you paid to meet someone. Which is a more direct way of getting a "Mail order Bride". I think its this kind of service they are trying to stop.

Just my 2 cents.

Im going to contact my lawyer so he can fleece me out of more $ too.

[jangler 0]

I've been sitting here trying to figure out why you thought it was so funny. I think I've stumbled on it. Do you think I was actually talking about you, Jangler? I wasn't commenting on the merits of your particular situation at all...

This is twice using the generic "you" may have gotten me into trouble. Sorry about that.

No, Imbra2005, I knew you were not directing that statement towards me directly. I just think it is funny that you say that the general public just "might" be able to avoid jail time if they make an honest mistake answering something to the best of their knowledge or if they make an unintentional error. The picture of the USA which you are painting is very ugly and if it's true, well, then I don't know where I live anymore.

[JenT 0]

"They" are not trying to "stop" anything... the purpose of this legislation is to be sure that beneficiaries are fully informed about their intended's criminal background, if one exists.

[vartan 0]

No, Imbra2005, I knew you were not directing that statement towards me directly. I just think it is funny that you say that the general public just "might" be able to avoid jail time if they make an honest mistake answering something to the best of their knowledge or if they make an unintentional error. The picture of the USA which you are painting is very ugly and if it's true, well, then I don't know where I live anymore.

I agree.. The thing is I think is this was slapped together to quick.. 1 they are worrying to much about illegal immigrants in the US and not caring about the people that want to immigrate here.. or even their own citizens... Secondly .. thinking about this IMBRA thing just frustrates me and I am sure everyone else.. But we have to remember it is here for a reason .. it is here to protect women/men from "less fortunate" countries that want a better life. I am sure I will get flac for this post but it is true. America is a place many people want to be.. but its hard to get into.. especially now. And some people will be willing to marry strangers just to get here.. and that is what 2 women did , they married some men from washington state... and sooner then later.. they were just another statistic.. I don't know about you guys .. but that bothers me.

Now don't get me wrong.. I have my beefs with IMBRA and the way they are handling this.. but its there for a good reason.. we are trying to protect future citizens and current citizens to make this a country worth living in.

[jangler 0]

No, Imbra2005, I knew you were not directing that statement towards me directly. I just think it is funny that you say that the general public just "might" be able to avoid jail time if they make an honest mistake answering something to the best of their knowledge or if they make an unintentional error. The picture of the USA which you are painting is very ugly and if it's true, well, then I don't know where I live anymore.

I agree.. The thing is I think is this was slapped together to quick.. 1 they are worrying to much about illegal immigrants in the US and not caring about the people that want to immigrate here.. or even their own citizens... Secondly .. thinking about this IMBRA thing just frustrates me and I am sure everyone else.. But we have to remember it is here for a reason .. it is here to protect women/men from "less fortunate" countries that want a better life. I am sure I will get flac for this post but it is true. America is a place many people want to be.. but its hard to get into.. especially now. And some people will be willing to marry strangers just to get here.. and that is what 2 women did , they married some men from washington state... and sooner then later.. they were just another statistic.. I don't know about you guys .. but that bothers me.

Now don't get me wrong.. I have my beefs with IMBRA and the way they are handling this.. but its there for a good reason.. we are trying to protect future citizens and current citizens to make this a country worth living in.

I really don't see many people on this board posting that the law itself is a bad thing. It's just the implementation of it which irks the majority. IMBRA=Good, Government Ineptitude=Bad...I think most will agree.

[vartan 0]

6 one way , half a dozen the other.. I think I must have quoted the wrong person .. hahah Yeah .. well lets hope for speedy processes