IMBRA might suck for us but...

[dowd001 0]

I'll repeat what I said earlier, as my feeling on this has not changed. The short answer: good intentions, but they could have written the law to cover only those situations where, by the standards set by IMBRA proponents, abuse is likely.

None of this explains 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. It's a good law because it can accomplish some good things. It's a bad law because it is not narrowly tailored enough. When the burden faced by thousands of people who don't need the protection outweighs the benefit provided to a few, a law is overall not a good law.

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. She had to postpone her education another year.

Most people would be willing to put up with some inconvenience in their personal lives to accomodate efforts to protect women from violence. Most people should be willing to do that. It is an important issue. But those accommodations 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 the law talks 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. That is a very high burden to pay for protecting foreign citizens.

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.

Besides, when they passed the LIFE Act a few years ago, and created the fiancee visa process, the same Congress concluded that the burdens that we are facing today are serious and need to be corrected. That is why they created the fiancee visa - to make the process shorter and so Americans can spend time with their families. This Congress inverted that, and now all of a sudden the burdens imposed on Americans are not all that important in comparison to the women who might be saved. This Congress essentially undid the LIFE Act to a great extent.

When you write a law, a good legislator understands that the law will be implemented by a bureaucracy, with all its delays. That needs to be part of the balance. It was not part of the balance with IMBRA, which is why it is a bad law.

[norotonfd 1]

I'm in the same boat as you. My fiance is well educated and has been in the US for a long time now. Yet because of poorly enacted legislature, she is stuck in Moldova waiting with no answers. I can't even see my fiance because of my obligations to my business in the US.

A thought I had on the class action idea. The class action would be seeking two different things.

First, they would probably need monetary compensation for lost deposits due to processing errors on behalf of "fill in your choice of government agency here." People have already had their petitions approved and a recall of an approved petition at the time of interview constitutes negligence of continuity on the governments part because all RFE's should have been handled earlier in the process.

Second, the suit would require a more clear definition of how late in the game an RFE can be issued. It seems like currently ones fiance could be at the airport and the sponsor would still be filling our RFE's based on the originally petition.

I will say that IMBRA would have been a great piece of legislature if it was implemented clearly and given the appropriate amount of time to have all the paperwork that goes along with it prepared. Unfortunately it was poorly implemented. The people we call for help at agencies across the country have no idea what IMBRA is or how it is affecting our lives. The people we are supposed to call for answers to our questions only leave us with more questions.

I'm sorry to say that our government rushed a good idea and now we are all paying the price.

[rockamandy 0]

I'm in the same boat as you. My fiance is well educated and has been in the US for a long time now. Yet because of poorly enacted legislature, she is stuck in Moldova waiting with no answers. I can't even see my fiance because of my obligations to my business in the US.

A thought I had on the class action idea. The class action would be seeking two different things.

First, they would probably need monetary compensation for lost deposits due to processing errors on behalf of "fill in your choice of government agency here." People have already had their petitions approved and a recall of an approved petition at the time of interview constitutes negligence of continuity on the governments part because all RFE's should have been handled earlier in the process.

Second, the suit would require a more clear definition of how late in the game an RFE can be issued. It seems like currently ones fiance could be at the airport and the sponsor would still be filling our RFE's based on the originally petition.

I will say that IMBRA would have been a great piece of legislature if it was implemented clearly and given the appropriate amount of time to have all the paperwork that goes along with it prepared. Unfortunately it was poorly implemented. The people we call for help at agencies across the country have no idea what IMBRA is or how it is affecting our lives. The people we are supposed to call for answers to our questions only leave us with more questions.

I'm sorry to say that our government rushed a good idea and now we are all paying the price.

i would have to agree wholeheartedly. luckily, my fiance has a place to live and a job to keep him fed and healthy until we can get this all straightened out. i can't imagine how much stress folks are under who have handed in thier resgination and sold their home/gotten out of their lease to find that their interview is postponed or that thier visa will not be issued.

i'm not even going to mention dates that were scheduled for weddings...

[ScottishHighlands 0]

For the person who said "Who would you sue and what would you sue for", this is the answer:

http://www.imbra.org/images/TROJudge_sFinalOrder.pdf

The Attorney General is under restraining order for an unconstitutional law...which the DHS is now construing only as a restraining order on the law enforcement punishment of dating websites with more than 50% foreigners on them.

So the simple answer is: Someone needs to launch a class action suit against the DHS noting that the backhanded persecution of men who met their fiances (2 years ago and have lived with in their country for 1 year) via a website...amounts to hampering free speech up front in the same manner that harrassing website owners would have done.

Congress has had power over immigration in times when arguments were relatively reasonable, but this backhanded persecution via bizarre ideological questions on forms...severely tests the limits of that statement.

Those of you who "just don't like the bureacratic delays"...be prepared to be delayed just as long as those who met their fiances on the Internet.

Remember what the Ohio Republican Judge Thomas Rose just said on May 26th:

"The Supreme Court has never explicitly recognized a fundamental liberty interest in Americans meeting foreigners for relationships."

Think again if you think "I agree with this law if it will save even one woman from being abused." Think again if you falsely believe that a significant number of website and "agency" users marry their fiance without getting to know them for awhile first.

Because, as 4,000 American women are killed each year by their American husbands...you are giving up a "fundamental liberty interest" in meeting YOUR fiance.

All because you "agree" with something that the media has been trying very, very hard for you to "agree" with.

The Ohio Court and IMBRA2005 (who is actually part of the TJC fighting in place of the government to uphold IMBRA) are basically telling you that you NEVER HAD a fundamental right to meet your foreign fiance in the first place.

Whether you are an American woman or an American man.

You will get to marry your partner only on the sufferance of the US government.

Think about it.

And be prepared for a whole new round of delays as several new lawsuits put a restraining order on the DHS forcing them to cancel this RFE form and proceed with the old form.

I am going to make sure this happens.

[ScottishHighlands 0]

[The people we call for help at agencies across the country have no idea what IMBRA is or how it is affecting our lives. The people we are supposed to call for answers to our questions only leave us with more questions.]

If the American people knew what IMBRA really is and how deeply it affects all our lives, freedom of the Internet and the interpretation of the Constitution, it would be repealed. So you can expect people not to have any idea about IMBRA.

Almost all the US media, including Fox News, refuses to discuss IMBRA.

And I can promise you that some key employees at the US Embassy in Berlin don't WANT to impose IMBRA because they believe it is a bad law.

But they cannot speak out because they need their pensions.

But you can be sure that Embassy and Consular employees who don't agree with IMBRA...will be harrassing everyone with it, especially American women who apply for fiance visas, in order to make it as fair as possible.

The fact is: those of us who want to marry foreigners are an insignificant minority in the USA. We're the elite. But the vast majority of Americans can rule us and they get judges into power like the one in Ohio who said "Americans have no fundamental liberty interest in meeting foreigners".

So it doesn't matter to the public if 10,000 Americans are caught up in red tape now. It barely made the news and only on a slow news day two weeks ago.

Welcome to the club of the victims of a bad law with hidden intentions: that of destroying international dating sites and trying to put the brakes on social globalization. Go to IMBRA.ORG and read the actual law. How are foreign women without email supposed to approve of specific men contacting them? They cannot and the authors of the law know this. The law was written in bad faith. The authors don't want American men even meeting foreign women. The definition of an IMB is a joke. Most men who use "mail order bride" websites have no intention of marrying anyone anymore than most users of Match or Yahoo seriously intend to find a mate that way.

Why do you think the US government is not defending itself in all the IMBRA lawsuits? Instead there is only a special interest group trying to defend the law. You have to realize that this special interest group, represented here by IMBRA2005, is not acting in YOUR interest.

The TJC leaders pay themselves big salaries from the "donations" they get to "protect foreign women" from "American abusers". It is a big business.

Don't expect people to know anything about IMBRA until the media starts to discuss it and to allow the public to talk to each other about it.

[lisaf 0]

[And be prepared for a whole new round of delays as several new lawsuits put a restraining order on the DHS forcing them to cancel this RFE form and proceed with the old form.

I am going to make sure this happens.

wouldn't you call this counter productive? Don't you want your fiance with you any time soon?

[Lestat 0]

I'm in the same boat as you. My fiance is well educated and has been in the US for a long time now. Yet because of poorly enacted legislature, she is stuck in Moldova waiting with no answers. I can't even see my fiance because of my obligations to my business in the US.

A thought I had on the class action idea. The class action would be seeking two different things.

First, they would probably need monetary compensation for lost deposits due to processing errors on behalf of "fill in your choice of government agency here." People have already had their petitions approved and a recall of an approved petition at the time of interview constitutes negligence of continuity on the governments part because all RFE's should have been handled earlier in the process.

Second, the suit would require a more clear definition of how late in the game an RFE can be issued. It seems like currently ones fiance could be at the airport and the sponsor would still be filling our RFE's based on the originally petition.

I will say that IMBRA would have been a great piece of legislature if it was implemented clearly and given the appropriate amount of time to have all the paperwork that goes along with it prepared. Unfortunately it was poorly implemented. The people we call for help at agencies across the country have no idea what IMBRA is or how it is affecting our lives. The people we are supposed to call for answers to our questions only leave us with more questions.

I'm sorry to say that our government rushed a good idea and now we are all paying the price.

i would have to agree wholeheartedly. luckily, my fiance has a place to live and a job to keep him fed and healthy until we can get this all straightened out. i can't imagine how much stress folks are under who have handed in thier resgination and sold their home/gotten out of their lease to find that their interview is postponed or that thier visa will not be issued.

i'm not even going to mention dates that were scheduled for weddings...

I agree with the above statements. I want to add that if the current situation gets worse, a class-action lawsuit is a good idea to recoup the enormous damages that IMBRA has already done to many of us here. IMBRA, while its intent was good, was very poorly written, overly broad and vague and thus, it has been almost impossible to implement. I think more of the blame should lie with the sponsers and the proponents of IMBRA rather than the USCIS, which is trying hard to implement this piece of garbage. For a class-action lawsuit, instead of USCIS, it might be better to direct it against the special interest groups which were involved in writing and supporting IMBRA, such as Tahiri Justice Center, which is still defending this piece of garbage in the courts.

Edited June 30, 2006 by Lestat

[vartan 0]

To whom was speaking about the Class action suit (I am too lazy to quote)... If anyone was liable for a suit I would think it was USCIS.. Yeah IMBRA helps protect, and yeah it has some bad parts but USCIS dropped the ball by not providing the correct forms in a timely manner. I understand forms need to be approved but they knew this was passing back in Sept-Oct of 05 so why not get the correct forms before the March 6 deadline.. USCIS are the only people that I think are to blame for the ball being dropped in this situation.

Weird I can't edit my post.. But anyways I guess it comes down to its hard to see who is to blame.. but in my mind our delay is due to USCIS bad planning.

[EnglishGarden 0]

USCIS is not liable because of the Georgia TRO placed on March 3rd (verbally) and March 8th officially. The president could not have been expected to actually sign the law on January 6th that was passed by Congress just before Christmas without debate or publicity as it was snuck in the back of the so-called "Violence Against Women Act".

Many in the US government are against IMBRA. They assumed, correctly, that somebody would sue and so they didn't create the forms before March. There are Attorney General documents, probably, that instruct the USCIS to await further instructions.

The reason why the USCIS finally released documents was because of the publicity campaign about 10,000 marriages on hold two weeks ago.

They were otherwise waiting for the Georgia judge to issue a permanent injunction or not.

That injunction can happen at any minute.

I am not a lawyer so I don't know how a permanent injunction would affect any of us.

[wouldn't you call this counter productive? Don't you want your fiance with you any time soon?]

Lots of us on this site actually live with our partner in their country. ;-)

So I am in no rush personally.

[vartan 0]

The reason why the USCIS finally released documents was because of the publicity campaign about 10,000 marriages on hold two weeks ago.

I am sorry but I must say this is no grounds to "not be at fault" I am sorry I work in the credit card industry which has many many MANY regulations.. and some get over turned and some don't but I am sorry we can't just sit and wait to see if something gets over turned.. we have to act and act right away or suffer stiff fines, there is no way that a government agency should be able to get away with.. lets hold out and hope something happens.. I understand what you are saying and this is not directed at you englishgarden but that is poor reasoning.

So if it was someone else that gave USCIS the call to hold off, they should be liable.

Don't get me wrong I don't mind waiting for my fiance till the end of time if I have to ..

Edited June 30, 2006 by vartan

[ktsuns2 0]

yeah, it's called don't rush into things and spend some time with the one your going to marry.

Exactly!!! Dating the old-fashion way definitely has it bennefits!!!

[Lestat 0]

(1) Who would you sue?

(2) What would you sue for?

(3) How do you get around the fact that Congress can pretty much do whatever it wants with regard to immigration matters, i.e. they can completely do away with immigration altogether, or open the borders, or something inbetween (like eliminating all family-based immigration)?

What about suing Tahiri Justice Center, a principle backer of this law, for monatary damages and other damages resulting from many wedding plan disruptions?

A class action lawsuit against Tahiri Justice Center may be possible if enough damage is done to enough people.

[aussiewench 9]

(1) Who would you sue?

(2) What would you sue for?

(3) How do you get around the fact that Congress can pretty much do whatever it wants with regard to immigration matters, i.e. they can completely do away with immigration altogether, or open the borders, or something inbetween (like eliminating all family-based immigration)?

What about suing Tahiri Justice Center, a principle backer of this law, for monatary damages and other damages resulting from many wedding plan disruptions?

A class action lawsuit against Tahiri Justice Center may be possible if enough damage is done to enough people.

Considering it is clearly stated not to make any flight or other plans (including weddings) until one has the visa in hand, there would be no grounds.