IMBRA should be applied to all male-female interactions

[iLoveAPolishGirl 0]

USCIS is already bound to respect the state's authority with regard to marriage

... well.... not gay marriage...

dvc

[interested 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 !!!!

I'm angry as hell at this IMBRA thing. I just don't know what to do about it. Contacting my congressman won't do any good. There usually nothing but parasites. I got scammed by my last girlfriend. She had the visa in hand and was cheating on me. I confronted her with pics an unknown person sent me then I broke up with her. I sent two cancelation letters, one to California and one to the Bogota embassy in Colombia. Because of the lagtime of the letters, she came into the United States a week or two later, and contacted me telling me she never wanted wanted to marry me anyway. Now, if I want to file for another finance, I'm going to be a suspected of illegal scams. Believe me, I'm as mad about this as you are, but I just don't know what else to do.....

[Matt & Bing 56]

I'm angry as hell at this IMBRA thing. I just don't know what to do about it. Contacting my congressman won't do any good. There usually nothing but parasites. I got scammed by my last girlfriend. She had the visa in hand and was cheating on me. I confronted her with pics an unknown person sent me then I broke up with her. I sent two cancelation letters, one to California and one to the Bogota embassy in Colombia. Because of the lagtime of the letters, she came into the United States a week or two later, and contacted me telling me she never wanted wanted to marry me anyway. Now, if I want to file for another finance, I'm going to be a suspected of illegal scams. Believe me, I'm as mad about this as you are, but I just don't know what else to do.....

The bolded statement makes no sense. Requesting a waiver under IMBRA due to filing limitations does not subject the petitioner to any such suspicions. It just means your relationship didn't work out. Relax. Having a waiver granted is no big deal.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

USCIS is already bound to respect the state's authority with regard to marriage

... well.... not gay marriage...

dvc

That's a whole 'nother can of worms, but yes, you're correct. The Defense of Marriage Act prevents the US government from recognizing a same sex marriage. By the same token, the DOMA prevents the US government from telling any state whether or not THEY can legalize same sex marriage.

The US government cannot stay entirely out of the equation when it comes to marriage because the US government grants privileges and benefits to married people. At some level, they have to define who qualifies for those privileges and benefits. Without the DOMA, the US government would probably have to recognize same sex marriage, but that wouldn't mean that states would then have complete authority in defining marriage. For example, there are federal laws that pre-date the DOMA act that make polygamous marriage illegal in the US. A state could not legalize polygamous marriage, even if they wanted to. This has an impact on immigration, as well, because polygamy is allowed in many Islamic countries. In these cases, the US government only recognizes the first spouse.

[brlukath 1]

The IMBRA does impose additional requirements on people who have legitimate international relationships (especially when a previous intl relationship has failed), on those who choose to use international dating services to find a significant other, and on those who have had some missteps in their past.

However, try to step out of your own life for a second and consider the benefits. Before IMBRA (and VAWA) I had many more clients who were duped into coming to the US to marry someone who turned out to be a monster and who had a well-known history of it (even known to the dating service/marriage broker they used--the so-called money back guarantee system). If my clients had known before hand of the violent history of the man the agreed to marry, they may or may not have decided to come, but at least they would have had the choice. They did not have the benefit of this law. There is also a significant problem with trafficking in women to men who have previously purchased brides and abused them...

Of course, some mail-order brides are happy with the arrangements, some people have long and happy marriages to their mail-order bride, and even more online relationships from regular dating sites (vs. marriage brokers) don’t have any of these concerns.

The law--even if imperfect--aims to let the latter cases go forward and prevent the former. Just because it doesn’t and can’t prevent every problem by applying to all relationships, doesn’t make it an ill-advised law.

I don't think our frustration should be with the law; it should be with the people who made the law necessary by preying on foreign women. It is the same with the visa process: the law is very flawed (and I personally think the US should have open borders), but our main frustration should be with people who enter into fraudulent marriages/engagements for immigration benefits who make the lines longer and the process more arduous for those of us who are legit.

Just my opinion…

[1HappyGuy 45]

The OP, I believe was asserting that IMBRA is unfairly targeting those wishing to bring fiancee's to America over the marriage/introduction/dating services for people already in America. This was heavily debated on VJ a few years ago when IMBRA became law. The idea is to protect foreigners (mostly women) from marrying an unsafe person. But, if you look at this logically, don't the women of America also deserve the same protection. That was the essence of a lawsuit brought forth by an America IMB, which they lost.

A lot of how IMBRA has been interpreted does not follow the letter of the law, if you read it closely. But, in these cases the USCIS is the only one making the decisions. The ability to obtain a waiver does not seem to hamper those truly willing to bring a fiance(ee) to America. I do admit that some provisions are needed, especially the opportunity to bring multiple fiancees here. Unfortunately, before IMBRA, some unscrupulous people were bringing "fiancees" here and claiming they returned or disappeared, when in reality it was just a method for bringing in foreign women for prostitution.

But, the main reason this will not be implemented throughout America is because of a belief that American women don't need protection like this. Unfortunately the statistics do not bare this out. So, as much as the men have to deal with the somewhat humilating questions from IMBRA, it is the law.

[Down With PMP 0]

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

crazy.

[TBoneTX 45,032]

crazy.

If you want anyone to take you seriously, or even if not, please create a timeline. Also, is there a new visa-filing category called "N/A", or did you file for something actual? Thank you for your consideration.

[Caladan 19]

Help, help, I just discovered that there are immigration laws and I don't want to tell my fiancee about my past. Let me now make stupid analogies so I can prove I'm a n00b.

You can marry whoever the hell will have you. Immigration, however, is the responsibility of the federal government and requiring that the foreign fiance(e) be informed of specific items of the criminal past of the petitioner is no more unconstitutional than requiring meeting in person or sponsorship.