IMBRA should be applied to all male-female interactions

[hyabusa 0]

To put it in perspective

IMBRA should be required to all forms of interaction beween males and females in the US.

So, starting in kindergarten, if a boy wants to talk to a girl he should first go through a criminal background check, as early as 3 years old.

In high-school, any form of contact, must first have the approval of the Federal Government.

What an uproar that would create.

I have had it with the government, will never vote again, never do any civic duties, never volunteer, never watch any political news.

I dont understand why there is not more of an uproar about this.

The government should also create a law that you can date, get engaged, marry an american woman a maximum of two times.

THAT WOULD CREATE A CIVIL WAR IN THE COUNTRY, BY THE AMERICAN WOMEN !!!!

[Matt & Bing 56]

To put it in perspective

IMBRA should be required to all forms of interaction beween males and females in the US.

So, starting in kindergarten, if a boy wants to talk to a girl he should first go through a criminal background check, as early as 3 years old.

In high-school, any form of contact, must first have the approval of the Federal Government.

What an uproar that would create.

I have had it with the government, will never vote again, never do any civic duties, never volunteer, never watch any political news.

I dont understand why there is not more of an uproar about this.

The government should also create a law that you can date, get engaged, marry an american woman a maximum of two times.

THAT WOULD CREATE A CIVIL WAR IN THE COUNTRY, BY THE AMERICAN WOMEN !!!!

More of an uproar about what? What specifically did you have to deal with? I had to submit a waiver for filing limitations, but it was no big deal. IMBRA is there to protect the foreign fiancee. It can be a good thing.

[hyabusa 0]

To put it in perspective

IMBRA should be required to all forms of interaction beween males and females in the US.

So, starting in kindergarten, if a boy wants to talk to a girl he should first go through a criminal background check, as early as 3 years old.

In high-school, any form of contact, must first have the approval of the Federal Government.

What an uproar that would create.

I have had it with the government, will never vote again, never do any civic duties, never volunteer, never watch any political news.

I dont understand why there is not more of an uproar about this.

The government should also create a law that you can date, get engaged, marry an american woman a maximum of two times.

THAT WOULD CREATE A CIVIL WAR IN THE COUNTRY, BY THE AMERICAN WOMEN !!!!

More of an uproar about what? What specifically did you have to deal with? I had to submit a waiver for filing limitations, but it was no big deal. IMBRA is there to protect the foreign fiancee. It can be a good thing.

To put it in perspective

IMBRA should be required to all forms of interaction beween males and females in the US.

So, starting in kindergarten, if a boy wants to talk to a girl he should first go through a criminal background check, as early as 3 years old.

In high-school, any form of contact, must first have the approval of the Federal Government.

What an uproar that would create.

I have had it with the government, will never vote again, never do any civic duties, never volunteer, never watch any political news.

I dont understand why there is not more of an uproar about this.

The government should also create a law that you can date, get engaged, marry an american woman a maximum of two times.

THAT WOULD CREATE A CIVIL WAR IN THE COUNTRY, BY THE AMERICAN WOMEN !!!!

More of an uproar about what? What specifically did you have to deal with? I had to submit a waiver for filing limitations, but it was no big deal. IMBRA is there to protect the foreign fiancee. It can be a good thing.

[hyabusa 0]

To put it in perspective

IMBRA should be required to all forms of interaction beween males and females in the US.

So, starting in kindergarten, if a boy wants to talk to a girl he should first go through a criminal background check, as early as 3 years old.

In high-school, any form of contact, must first have the approval of the Federal Government.

What an uproar that would create.

I have had it with the government, will never vote again, never do any civic duties, never volunteer, never watch any political news.

I dont understand why there is not more of an uproar about this.

The government should also create a law that you can date, get engaged, marry an american woman a maximum of two times.

THAT WOULD CREATE A CIVIL WAR IN THE COUNTRY, BY THE AMERICAN WOMEN !!!!

More of an uproar about what? What specifically did you have to deal with? I had to submit a waiver for filing limitations, but it was no big deal. IMBRA is there to protect the foreign fiancee. It can be a good thing.

To put it in perspective

IMBRA should be required to all forms of interaction beween males and females in the US.

So, starting in kindergarten, if a boy wants to talk to a girl he should first go through a criminal background check, as early as 3 years old.

In high-school, any form of contact, must first have the approval of the Federal Government.

What an uproar that would create.

I have had it with the government, will never vote again, never do any civic duties, never volunteer, never watch any political news.

I dont understand why there is not more of an uproar about this.

The government should also create a law that you can date, get engaged, marry an american woman a maximum of two times.

THAT WOULD CREATE A CIVIL WAR IN THE COUNTRY, BY THE AMERICAN WOMEN !!!!

More of an uproar about what? What specifically did you have to deal with? I had to submit a waiver for filing limitations, but it was no big deal. IMBRA is there to protect the foreign fiancee. It can be a good thing.

I have a perfect background, no crimes, no dv, no nothing.

That is not the point.

Imbra is a blatant form of discrimination.

If they are applying this to foreign women to protect them, then it should also be applied to

1. Gay people - hiv proof should be required before communications

2. All dating sites in the US - women should be protected equally, not just foreign women

3. all forms of dating and interaction, starting from the day we are born, you just can never be safe enough

4. a background check should also be required of all couples who want to get married - that should reduce dv's

restricting communications between american men and foreign women is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

there is this little thing called FREEDOM OF SPEECH

about filing limits

it means asking the government for permission to get engaged and to get married

the government has no business sticking their noses in our romantic lifes.

If a background check is required, then let the foreign woman request it from her guy.

This is how we keep losing our freedom more and more,

the government keeps encroaching, and people keep absorbing it without protesting.

I thought that we were living in a democracy !

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

I have a perfect background, no crimes, no dv, no nothing.

That is not the point.

Imbra is a blatant form of discrimination.

If they are applying this to foreign women to protect them, then it should also be applied to

1. Gay people - hiv proof should be required before communications

2. All dating sites in the US - women should be protected equally, not just foreign women

3. all forms of dating and interaction, starting from the day we are born, you just can never be safe enough

4. a background check should also be required of all couples who want to get married - that should reduce dv's

restricting communications between american men and foreign women is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

there is this little thing called FREEDOM OF SPEECH

about filing limits

it means asking the government for permission to get engaged and to get married

the government has no business sticking their noses in our romantic lifes.

If a background check is required, then let the foreign woman request it from her guy.

This is how we keep losing our freedom more and more,

the government keeps encroaching, and people keep absorbing it without protesting.

I thought that we were living in a democracy !

I'm sorry, but this is just another example of somebody whining because they can't do whatever they want in whatever way they want to do it. You're not asking for democracy - you're asking for anarchy, where there is no government and no laws.

IMBRA doesn't restrict your right to freedom of speech in any way. Any US citizen can say anything they want to anyone they want at anytime they want. You aren't REQUIRED to meet foreign women on IMB sites. There are plenty of dating sites that are not affected by the IMBRA, and where you don't have to provide anything more than an email address to join, just like this forum. The IMBRA only affects sites that charge a fee to connect US citizens with foreign men and women. As long as they allow people from two countries OTHER than the US to meet, and they charge the same fees to them, then they aren't covered by the IMBRA. In addition, the IMBRA imposes the restrictions on the IMB internet site - NOT the US citizen. If you don't like having to give your personal history to an IMB so that they can comply with the law, then don't use the IMB! You have plenty of other options! You're even perfectly free to meet foreign women without even giving out your email address - just hop on a plane and go to their country!

Regarding filing limits, you can get engaged to anyone you want to at anytime you want to. If you want to do this more than once in two years or more than twice in a lifetime, you can do that as well. However, if you want to get engaged to and marry foreigners, and bring them to the US and grant them legal status, then there's a limit to how many times you're allowed to do this. Fiance and spousal visas are one of the few types of visas for which there are no quotas. Without some sort of limits, a US citizen could make a pretty tidy living acting as a personal gateway into the US for any foreigner who is willing to pay to come here, or whose family is willing to foot the bill. If you've already sponsored two foreigners, divorced them, and now want to sponsor a third, then apply for a waiver. If it's denied, then you still have the option of moving to the foreigner's country to be with them. The US government isn't telling you that you can't marry them. They're telling you that you've used your fair share of immigration privileges, and other people who haven't "imported" a wife yet deserve a chance.

IMBRA doesn't restrict your rights, but it does restrict some of your options in exercising your rights. This fact is true of every right you have in every democratic country, and has also always been true in the United States. For example, you've always had the right to freedom of speech, but you've never had the right to stand on your neighbors porch to make your speech. Personally, I think the IMBRA is a pretty good idea, but I'm not personally affected by it. I've never committed a crime that falls under the act, never used an internet marriage broker, and this is the first time I'm sponsoring a foreign fiance.

The difference between democracy and anarchy is that a democracy imposes and enforces laws to ensure that everyone's rights are protected equally, and gives people a choice to participate in selecting the lawmakers or even to become a lawmaker themselves. If you believe the IMBRA is unfair, then you have the RIGHT to challenge it in court.

Best of luck!

[Matt & Bing 56]

LOL - Just file the waiver and get on with your life.

[lucyrich 20]

I have a perfect background, no crimes, no dv, no nothing.

That is not the point.

Imbra is a blatant form of discrimination.

If they are applying this to foreign women to protect them, then it should also be applied to

1. Gay people - hiv proof should be required before communications

2. All dating sites in the US - women should be protected equally, not just foreign women

3. all forms of dating and interaction, starting from the day we are born, you just can never be safe enough

4. a background check should also be required of all couples who want to get married - that should reduce dv's

restricting communications between american men and foreign women is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

there is this little thing called FREEDOM OF SPEECH

about filing limits

it means asking the government for permission to get engaged and to get married

the government has no business sticking their noses in our romantic lifes.

If a background check is required, then let the foreign woman request it from her guy.

This is how we keep losing our freedom more and more,

the government keeps encroaching, and people keep absorbing it without protesting.

I thought that we were living in a democracy !

IMBRA doesn't restrict you in any way from meeting, dating, and marrying anyone you wish. It doesn't restrict your freedom of speech in any way. You can talk to anyone, meet in any fashion, talk as much as you want, date, pay fees to people to arrange your meeting, whatever. No background checks of any kind are required for doing any of these things.

IMBRA ONLY comes into play when you want to bring someone into the US. Once you decide to bring someone into the US, it's not just about you two anymore. Bringing someone to the US potentially involves all the US taxpayers and citizens. IMBRA came about because too many people before you did bad things that left the taxpayers to pick up the pieces.

[iLoveAPolishGirl 0]

Well, I'd never put it the way the OP does, but certainly do have objections with IMBRA as well. I think I understand the reasoning behind it, but it effectively makes USCIS judge and jury over matters that have already been decided in court.

It should be up to the justice system, not the legislative or executive systems, to decide if an individual's rights should be limited in some way for some reason.

Most specifically objectionable to me is the following statement on the I-129F instructions:

If you have ever been convicted of any of the following crimes, submit certified copies of all court and police records showing the charges and dispositions for every such conviction. This is required even if your records were sealed or otherwise cleared or if anyone, including a judge, law enforcement officer, or attorney, told you that you no longer have a record.

In essence, this claims that the USCIS has veto power over the judicial branch, which sure sounds unconstitutional to me!! What happened to the separation of powers, which forms the cornerstone of our constitution?

dvc

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Well, I'd never put it the way the OP does, but certainly do have objections with IMBRA as well. I think I understand the reasoning behind it, but it effectively makes USCIS judge and jury over matters that have already been decided in court.

It should be up to the justice system, not the legislative or executive systems, to decide if an individual's rights should be limited in some way for some reason.

Most specifically objectionable to me is the following statement on the I-129F instructions:

If you have ever been convicted of any of the following crimes, submit certified copies of all court and police records showing the charges and dispositions for every such conviction. This is required even if your records were sealed or otherwise cleared or if anyone, including a judge, law enforcement officer, or attorney, told you that you no longer have a record.

In essence, this claims that the USCIS has veto power over the judicial branch, which sure sounds unconstitutional to me!! What happened to the separation of powers, which forms the cornerstone of our constitution?

dvc

No, that's not true. If the court wants to clear a conviction from somebody's criminal record, they have that authority. USCIS cannot tell the court that they cannot do that. By the same token, the court can't tell USCIS how to define a "conviction" according to the laws which USCIS must follow. Only Congress has that authority, since Congress makes the laws.

If it makes any difference, I agree - USCIS shouldn't count it as a conviction if the court that originally convicted no longer counts it. But, that's not the law that USCIS is bound by.

[iLoveAPolishGirl 0]

Well, Congress makes the laws, but the Supreme Court decides if the law is constitutional... if and when it is brought to and accepted for review by the court. AFAIK, this law has not yet been reviewed and decided by the Supreme Court and... if that's true... it's constitutionality has not yet been decided.

Personally, my hope is that it will be declared unconstitutional one of these days, months, years ...

dvc

Edited June 15, 2009 by iLoveAPolishGirl

[baron555 934]

It should be up to the justice system, not the legislative or executive systems, to decide if an individual's rights should be limited in some way for some reason.

I do agree with your concern but freedom of immigration is not a right. It is a priviledge and it is adminstered my USCIS.

There is a big difference.

[My Name Is Nobody 3]

To put it in perspective

IMBRA should be required to all forms of interaction beween males and females in the US.

So, starting in kindergarten, if a boy wants to talk to a girl he should first go through a criminal background check, as early as 3 years old.

In high-school, any form of contact, must first have the approval of the Federal Government.

What an uproar that would create.

I have had it with the government, will never vote again, never do any civic duties, never volunteer, never watch any political news.

I dont understand why there is not more of an uproar about this.

The government should also create a law that you can date, get engaged, marry an american woman a maximum of two times.

THAT WOULD CREATE A CIVIL WAR IN THE COUNTRY, BY THE AMERICAN WOMEN !!!!

More of an uproar about what? What specifically did you have to deal with? I had to submit a waiver for filing limitations, but it was no big deal. IMBRA is there to protect the foreign fiancee. It can be a good thing.

Evidently you dont value your freedoms and privacy granted by the constitution. No, its not a big deal but its the principal behind it.

There are countries in which the goverment controls a big portion of the peoples lifes. Surely you dont want this country to end up that way?

Each time the citizens roll over the more the goverment will take the next time.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Well, Congress makes the laws, but the Supreme Court decides if the law is constitutional... if and when it is brought to and accepted for review by the court. AFAIK, this law has not yet been reviewed and decided by the Supreme Court and... if that's true... it's constitutionality has not yet been decided.

Personally, my hope is that it will be declared unconstitutional one of these days, months, years ...

dvc

That might be kind of tough. The constitution doesn't guarantee anybody the right to a free and clear criminal record with all government agencies even after a court has convicted them. I can't think of any constitutional right that is affected by this. In fact, the courts have upheld that your constitutional rights can be revoked after you've been convicted, such as your right to vote and own guns.

On the other hand, I could see the 9th circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruling that the USCIS policy violates equal protection or constitutes an intrusion by the federal government on state's rights. That court has a history of judicial activism. I don't see such a ruling standing up in the Supreme Court, though.

I think there's a much better chance of getting Congress to correct it. All they'd need to do is tell USCIS to respect the state's authority in determining whether a conviction exists, since the state has the authority to convict in the first place. USCIS is already bound to respect the state's authority with regard to marriage, so it's not a stretch to make them also respect their authority with regard to criminal records.

[Matt & Bing 56]

To put it in perspective

IMBRA should be required to all forms of interaction beween males and females in the US.

So, starting in kindergarten, if a boy wants to talk to a girl he should first go through a criminal background check, as early as 3 years old.

In high-school, any form of contact, must first have the approval of the Federal Government.

What an uproar that would create.

I have had it with the government, will never vote again, never do any civic duties, never volunteer, never watch any political news.

I dont understand why there is not more of an uproar about this.

The government should also create a law that you can date, get engaged, marry an american woman a maximum of two times.

THAT WOULD CREATE A CIVIL WAR IN THE COUNTRY, BY THE AMERICAN WOMEN !!!!

More of an uproar about what? What specifically did you have to deal with? I had to submit a waiver for filing limitations, but it was no big deal. IMBRA is there to protect the foreign fiancee. It can be a good thing.

Evidently you dont value your freedoms and privacy granted by the constitution. No, its not a big deal but its the principal behind it.

There are countries in which the goverment controls a big portion of the peoples lifes. Surely you dont want this country to end up that way?

Each time the citizens roll over the more the goverment will take the next time.

IMBRA did not affect my freedom or privacy in any way. The principal behind it is to protect foreign fiancees not limit my rights.

[iLoveAPolishGirl 0]

The principal behind it is to protect foreign fiancees not limit my rights.

Only partially. People with certain convictions are not allowed to petition.

dvc

Edited June 15, 2009 by iLoveAPolishGirl