New IMBRA Restrictions on Petitions Make Sense

[jsnearline 2]

I can understand the frustration people feel about how this law has been implemented and the impact it has had on their current petitions. That said, I think the new limits on K1 petition filings make very good sense.

I've read posts in the past on VJ that sound like some people see the K visa process like shopping for something at the mall. If it doesn't work out with this one, no problem. I'll just go shopping for another one. People say they should be able to marry anyone they want, however many times they want, and the government shouldn't interfere. What they don't take into account is that when a US Citizen marries a foreign national, they are putting that person on the fast track to Citizenship. Bringing a fiancée to the US is a privilege and the government has a valid interest in ensuring that our immigration system is not abused.

Why shouldn't there be a limit on the number of petitions you can file? If a petitioner knows that their number of K petitions is limited, I would think it would be incentive to be extra careful, especially the second time around.

What is so unreasonable about having to wait two years after having the first K1 approved before applying for a second? If you get burned the first time around, why be so anxious to rush in the second time. This restriction allows time for some soul searching and reflection. This may not have been the purpose of the law, but it is a good side effect in my humble opinion.

[vartan 0]

Very very true.. And its unfair to the foreign national .. they are willing to give up their life in their country to move here and if a person is just going to get fed up with them and send them back that is not right.

[kitkat1 5]

I can understand the frustration people feel about how this law has been implemented and the impact it has had on their current petitions. That said, I think the new limits on K1 petition filings make very good sense.

If you read through the older posts, I think you'll find the people are not frustrated or upset by the limitations on K1 filings. We are frustrated and upset and understandably downright angry at the incompetence of USCIS. They knew about this law in January but they did nothing to ensure that people filing petitions after March 6 - when they law took effect - had access to the corrected I-129F form to file with in order to comply with the law. It that wasn't bad enough, they didn't produce an RFE form or a new form until well more than 3 months after the law went into effect. To add to that, they have NEVER contacted petitioners to provide information regarding their enormous error or to provide any clarification or direction. Can you imagine any business making a mistake of the magnitude and NOT contacting their customers to inform them of the situation and the necessary steps to correct it? People's lives have been affected by this in a big way. 10,000 people. And not once have they been treated with respect or courtesy. We can't even get a clear, concise, correct email response. Instead, we beg and plead for information and the only way we can get it is by sharing amongst ourselves while wait for these people to find a way to get their act together. And still, 4 months later, we are paying the price for their incompetence.

Sorry, I am EXTREMELY pissed of right now.

[sbgwolf1 0]

I can understand the frustration people feel about how this law has been implemented and the impact it has had on their current petitions. That said, I think the new limits on K1 petition filings make very good sense.

I've read posts in the past on VJ that sound like some people see the K visa process like shopping for something at the mall. If it doesn't work out with this one, no problem. I'll just go shopping for another one. People say they should be able to marry anyone they want, however many times they want, and the government shouldn't interfere. What they don't take into account is that when a US Citizen marries a foreign national, they are putting that person on the fast track to Citizenship. Bringing a fiancée to the US is a privilege and the government has a valid interest in ensuring that our immigration system is not abused.

Why shouldn't there be a limit on the number of petitions you can file? If a petitioner knows that their number of K petitions is limited, I would think it would be incentive to be extra careful, especially the second time around.

What is so unreasonable about having to wait two years after having the first K1 approved before applying for a second? If you get burned the first time around, why be so anxious to rush in the second time. This restriction allows time for some soul searching and reflection. This may not have been the purpose of the law, but it is a good side effect in my humble opinion.

1st off, this is a law that is retro. If you file and someone didnt come over here, why should the petitioner be penalized. Its not like I knew when I met my fiancee...'oh, i have to wait 2 years to apply for you'. We got blindsided. I am under the impression you have an issue with international relationships by the tone of your post. Also, this is not abusing the immigration system. If we marry someone, wait a couple years, leave them and bring someone else over. That could be taken that way. Those of us that have never brought someone in this country should not be punished for having a relationship that didnt work out.

Plus, no offense. Who has the right to say you need to know someone for a long time before you make that committment. Sometimes you know right away. I personally feel this should be a faster process once an application is submitted or the benificiary should be allowed to at least come and visit. After being here and seeing how thier life would change would make it a more informed decision than saying 'you have 90 days to be married or get out'.

[Dean iWait 0]

Isn't anyone tired of hashing and rehashing this subject. I'm getting so tired of it I could puke. People pick out parts of the law that are good blah blah blah. People pick out parts of the that are bad blah blah blah. It's all beginning to sound the same to me.

[Mike n Huong 1]

jsnearline,

I am sorry but you have taken for granted that your ancestors had to immigrate to the US at some point. Our fiancees have the same right to live on this land that we do. Almost all of us have to thank our ancestors who moved here at some point. If the immigration system was set up the same way it is now, when they came to the US, how many of us actually would be living here now?

I am not against this law, I am against how it was implemented. As far as what your trying to say about previous K-1 petitions. All of us as US Citizens have the right to determine when we fall in love, and when to get married. If the government starts controlling the feelign of US citizens then our freedom is gone completely. We should not be treated any different than a normal couple in the US. Is it fair to an individual that was recently divorced, or just ended a relationship to receive a letter telling them they cannot marry for 2 years, because they need to make better decisions? I don't think so. Do you like your freedom? Then don't take away ours.

[Cigarovich 1]

Wow, jsn. Nice soapboxing! But maybe if you were caught in the same s##tstorm we're in you'd feel different. It's not the spirit of the law that most of us have problems with, it's the shoddy compliance procedure coupled with lack of transparency (as many of my colleagues above have pointed out).

Then you imply that we somehow deserve this treatment because some of us feel that we are at some K1 Wal-Mart? I'm extra careful - I'm getting married for the first time (and hopefully last) at 37 - and I think only a fool would need a law to tell him or her that they shouldn't be emulating the Britneys and Tom Cruises and J-Los of the world in the marriage department.

Though perhaps unintentional, your high-handed tone and sophomoric logic land you a place at the back of the debate class, sir.

Edited July 15, 2006 by Cigarovich

[no name 1]

Wow, jsn. Nice soapboxing! But maybe if you were caught in the same s##tstorm we're in you'd feel different. It's not the spirit of the law that most of us have problems with, it's the shoddy compliance procedure coupled with lack of transparency (as many of my colleagues above have pointed out).

Then you imply that we somehow deserve this treatment because some of us feel that we are at some K1 Wal-Mart? I'm extra careful - I'm getting married for the first time (and hopefully last) at 37 - and I think only a fool would need a law to tell him or her that they shouldn't be emulating the Britneys and Tom Cruises and J-Los of the world in the marriage department.

Though perhaps unintentional, your high-handed tone and sophomoric logic land you a place at the back of the debate class, sir.

I applaud your reply, Cigar!

As a 35 y.o. never been married petitioner, I only want to get the love of my life here & get on with it already.

[vartan 0]

Wow, jsn. Nice soapboxing! But maybe if you were caught in the same s##tstorm we're in you'd feel different. It's not the spirit of the law that most of us have problems with, it's the shoddy compliance procedure coupled with lack of transparency (as many of my colleagues above have pointed out).

Then you imply that we somehow deserve this treatment because some of us feel that we are at some K1 Wal-Mart? I'm extra careful - I'm getting married for the first time (and hopefully last) at 37 - and I think only a fool would need a law to tell him or her that they shouldn't be emulating the Britneys and Tom Cruises and J-Los of the world in the marriage department.

Though perhaps unintentional, your high-handed tone and sophomoric logic land you a place at the back of the debate class, sir.

If I am not mistaken we are talking about two different subjects here.. JSN was touching on the multiple petition aspect. Saying that it is fair to limit the amount of fiance visas someone can have and the time frame in between them.. we got sidetracked on the discussion and are causing unneeded flaming.

[Lestat 0]

Wow, jsn. Nice soapboxing! But maybe if you were caught in the same s##tstorm we're in you'd feel different. It's not the spirit of the law that most of us have problems with, it's the shoddy compliance procedure coupled with lack of transparency (as many of my colleagues above have pointed out).

Then you imply that we somehow deserve this treatment because some of us feel that we are at some K1 Wal-Mart? I'm extra careful - I'm getting married for the first time (and hopefully last) at 37 - and I think only a fool would need a law to tell him or her that they shouldn't be emulating the Britneys and Tom Cruises and J-Los of the world in the marriage department.

Though perhaps unintentional, your high-handed tone and sophomoric logic land you a place at the back of the debate class, sir.

You, of course sir, are correct.

[jsnearline 2]

So it looks like I hit a nerve. My wife (who happens to agree with me) told me I was likely to get flamed for posting this. Next time maybe I'll listen to her.

I posed two questions in my original post. For the most part, no one has bothered to try and answer them. Instead I've been attacked for things I didn't even say.

I never said I was in favor of how the law has been implemented so far. The current situation sounds like a complete nightmare and I know a lot of innocent people are being hurt right now as a result. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough on that point? The first sentence of my post was intended to address that.

I don't have a problem with international relationships in general. My wife is a Filipina and we went through the K1 process in 2004. I never said that our foreign national fiancees shouldn't be able to come here. The question is whether there should be limits on how many and how often.

The "older" posts I referred to were pre-IMBRA and were posted in the K1 and AOS forums. I remember one in particular in which the poster said they split up with their wife after a month and their chief concern was the impact that getting a divorce so fast might have on their being able to file for another K1 as soon as they wanted. That's the mentality I'm concerned about. I take it that it's also part of what IMBRA was enacted to help protect against.

Before relegating me to the back of the debate class, why not try to respond to the questions I asked instead of putting words in my mouth.

[vartan 0]

Before relegating me to the back of the debate class, why not try to respond to the questions I asked instead of putting words in my mouth.

No worries man some of the people that posted to your topic (I won't mention names) are known trolls.. so don't even worry about it.. I understood what you said.. and back you up.

[kitkat1 5]

OK - point taken. But you have to know that no matter what part of IMBRA you are in favor of (and not saying I disagree) the fact the so many people are suffering due to USCIS's huge screwup will undoubtedly come into play. We seem to no longer care about the reasoning for the law - we're over that. It's how much this debacle has messed with our lives.

Also, here's what hit a nerve in your original post:

I've read posts in the past on VJ that sound like some people see the K visa process like shopping for something at the mall. If it doesn't work out with this one, no problem. I'll just go shopping for another one. People say they should be able to marry anyone they want, however many times they want, and the government shouldn't interfere. What they don't take into account is that when a US Citizen marries a foreign national, they are putting that person on the fast track to Citizenship. Bringing a fiancée to the US is a privilege and the government has a valid interest in ensuring that our immigration system is not abused.

I just don't think there are that many people here who see the K visa process as shopping for something. Of course there are a few - it has happened. But 99% of us are trying to bring the loves of our lives to our country and the decision to do so wasn't a quick decision. Yes, there are people dealing with marriage brokers who are abusing the system. For this, IMBRA should help. For the rest of us, there is no reason whatsoever - no explanation anyone can provide - for how USCIS could mess this up as badly as they did.

BTW - I don't agree that marrying a foreign national puts the person on the fast track to Citizenship. It will be years before my then husband has the chance to become a citizen but it is of no importance to him. He has no desire to be a US citizen and never will.

[jsnearline 2]

I just don't think there are that many people here who see the K visa process as shopping for something. Of course there are a few - it has happened. But 99% of us are trying to bring the loves of our lives to our country and the decision to do so wasn't a quick decision. Yes, there are people dealing with marriage brokers who are abusing the system. For this, IMBRA should help. For the rest of us, there is no reason whatsoever - no explanation anyone can provide - for how USCIS could mess this up as badly as they did.

BTW - I don't agree that marrying a foreign national puts the person on the fast track to Citizenship. It will be years before my then husband has the chance to become a citizen

I certainly didn't mean to imply that everyone on VJ is "shopping", but enough people have done it to prompt Congress to change the law and crack down.

If you naturalize based on marriage you can do so within three years of getting your green card. Pretty much everyone else has to wait five years after getting their green card. I think the people who have to wait the full five years would consider that a fast track.

[Cigarovich 1]

I have no problems with your questions, sir. I have problems with your logic and reasoning. Hearsay, innuendo, and exceptions-that-prove-the-rule do not make a case for your arguments/advice. I for one thought your questions were basically rhetorical and you put your post on a soapbox. If you want to wear your opinions like a t-shirt, prepare to face people whose opinions are different than your own or those who will seek to debunk your logic. If you consider that 'flaming', and shrink from it, you should not have posted in the first place.

Edited July 15, 2006 by Cigarovich