Waxing Philosophic About IMBRA

[Yodrak 7]

I saw a thread this morning started by a USC who determined, after severl years of marriage, that their spouse had been patiently working during those years to establish claim on their income and assets, and divert some of it, while waiting for LPR status to be approved. Objectives achieved, the foreign spouse bid adieu and what they'd been up to began to emerge. Nothing unusual, we see such posts of VJ fairly often.

Going with the tone that had been set, other posters requested details of the scam so that they could be more atuned to 'red flags' in their own relationships. One poster, who had been scammed themself a few years back, neverthelesss offered some balance by pointing out that USCs have also been known to scam aliens, and gave several examples personally known.

In response to that the last poster in the thread had written, "There should be laws to protect those who come here in good faith from other countries."

Yodrak

[AndyMisiu 0]

There is no doubt in anyones mind that IMBRA is a good thing. I think posters have stated this time and time again. I think the main problem everyone has with the law is the timing and implementation of it. The law has been a heavy inconvenience on many petitioners.

No one seems to have a problem with the information being shared with the beneficiary, that's a great and beautiful thing. However, should the government be able to deny petitions because of someones past, or multiple filing? or should it really be the beneficiary's decision?

[vartan 0]

However, should the government be able to deny petitions because of someones past, or multiple filing? or should it really be the beneficiary's decision?

I think that is part of the protection the foerign national gets.. knowing that their future husband/wife has petitioned for 1,2,4 previous people.. I wouldn't be so sure of them if I saw that myself.

[AndyMisiu 0]

However, should the government be able to deny petitions because of someones past, or multiple filing? or should it really be the beneficiary's decision?

I think that is part of the protection the foreign national gets.. knowing that their future husband/wife has petitioned for 1,2,4 previous people.. I wouldn't be so sure of them if I saw that myself.

That does give the petitioner a choice and does protect them. I'm more or less talking about the fact that you have to file a waiver.

I would be a little suspect about a beneficiary that has filed a few petitions themselves. Hey! let's be honest though, when your in love, all blinders are on!!

[john_and_marlene 162]

There is no doubt in anyones mind that IMBRA is a good thing.

I'm absolutely positive that you are wrong with this statement. I do not think that IMBRA is a good thing. I think it's intentions may be good, but I also think that the way it is implemented is bad. I think for all the extra checks and disclosures, it will do little to change the end result. I also think that it has the potential to be enforced in ways that will restrict some liberties of nonabusive people.

I don't think a "preemptive" law can ever be justly applied.

Edited July 20, 2006 by john_and_marlene

[vartan 0]

I also think that it has the potential to be enforced in ways that will restrict some liberties of nonabusive people.

How so? I can't see it myself.

[AndyMisiu 0]

There is no doubt in anyones mind that IMBRA is a good thing.

I'm absolutely positive that you are wrong with this statement. I do not think that IMBRA is a good thing. I think it's intentions may be good, but I also think that the way it is implemented is bad. I think for all the extra checks and disclosures, it will do little to change the end result. I also think that it has the potential to be enforced in ways that will restrict some liberties of nonabusive people.

I don't think a "preemptive" law can ever be justly applied.

Well, you more or less agreed with the statement. You said "there intentions were good" which is what the statement I made implied. You also said the problem was "the way it is implemented is bad". So, I think we are in a agreement. IMBRA is a good thing, the way it's implemented is bad. I also agree that liberties will be restricted on nonabusive people.

Any time you have a new law it takes time to iron out the wrinkles. That's why the timing is so bad for all of us.

I also think that it has the potential to be enforced in ways that will restrict some liberties of nonabusive people.

How so? I can't see it myself.

Well, Alcohol abuse is a pretty bad thing and I sure have abused that privilege. It just sucks that I'm stuck in the adjudication of court records & police records, and convictions, and all this other good stuff. My fiancee knows about everything I've been through, she doesn't want to wait extra time so they can tell her about something she has helped me with and knows about. I'm wrapped in with Wife beaters, murderers, rapists, and slave traders!! kinda sucks!! I think this is not taking away my liberties, but it is restricting and making the process more difficult for me to handle.

[vartan 0]

kinda sucks!! I think this is not taking away my liberties, but it is restricting and making the process more difficult for me to handle.

Not directed towards you .. but if you drink and drive.. are you not committing a crime? If you committ a crime I feel you give up your liberties.. The country in a whole (not as tough as canada) is pretty strict on Drinking and driving.. Is it as bad as the other crimes.... in my mind no... does that make it not a crime.. no .. 6 one way 1/2 a dozen the other..

[john_and_marlene 162]

So, I think we are in a agreement. IMBRA is a good thing, the way it's implemented is bad.

No, you misread my mind again. I think IMBRA is not a good thing. I think trying to protect people from harm is a good intention. I don't think any preemptive law is going to accomplish that.

They already make sure the beneficiary knows how many times you've been married at the consular interview. Why does it matter if your former spouses were from another country? The way the law reads, If had 2 foreign wives that I was married to for 20 years each and we divorced without ever an unkind word towards each other, I must now get special permission to file a petition for a third and they can turn me down. But, if I married two USC women under the same circumstances, there would be no question regarding my ability to petition for a third wife.

We already have laws that are supposed to protect people from abuse--enforce those laws and perhaps the instance of abuse will go down. I know of no statistics that link the number of marriages to abuse. I would like to see the evidence that shows a trend that multiple petitions is linked to abuse--a few isolated cases of repeat abusers does not indicate that a person filing a second or third petition is any more likely to abuse than someone filing for the first time. I would like to see evidence that shows a higher incidence of abuse when an IMB is used vs. all other petitions--I don't think it exists.

I didn't use an IMB, I have no record of abuse, this was my first and only petition and it would not have been a problem for me, but I don't agree that IMBRA is a good thing.

If you want a law, make it mandatory for USCs to disclose certain convictions formally, to any spouse USC or foreign, with some government form before their marriage can be recognized by the US (This would be a requirement before you marry in a foreign country too). Make it a federal law, not an immigration law. Make the penalty for falsifying this document stiff and enforce it.

[AndyMisiu 0]

kinda sucks!! I think this is not taking away my liberties, but it is restricting and making the process more difficult for me to handle.

Not directed towards you .. but if you drink and drive.. are you not committing a crime? If you commit a crime I feel you give up your liberties.. The country in a whole (not as tough as canada) is pretty strict on Drinking and driving.. Is it as bad as the other crimes.... in my mind no... does that make it not a crime.. no .. 6 one way 1/2 a dozen the other..

Vartan, it's no problem to direct anything towards me. I've done the crime and the time. We don't need to get into specifics or anything, and we probably already have gotten too personal. When committing a crime you do lose liberties, such as driving, and job freedom. We're talking about marriage here, an institution entered into by 2 people, not 3.

You know, I really think the law is a great thing, I really do. I think that beneficiary's should be informed about the person there getting involved with. I'm sure some people don't tell the whole truth, I'm sure there are predators out there. Now, I'm not talking about this law because of my opinion on who should marry who. Should someone marry a pedophile? well in my eyes no, but it should be there choice. I'm just talking about law and the freedom of choice here. I just don't think the law should prohibit marriage. I DO agree with informing the beneficiary of the petitioners past.

I know that I'm not going to be denied because of what I've done. I'm just more or less a little scared of the time it could take for my petition to be adjudicated do to the new law. I mean, I think I'll be the first to go through this, or one of the first. I wonder if they even have the information packet to give my fiancee? are they going to have a separate interview to inform her? I wonder if USCIS know what there going to do? We just want to be together like everyone else.

[WheresTheVisa 0]

A Good Thing? No! IMBRA is "intention", "idea" or any other such nebulous thing. It's a legislative "Act". Just because it's a good idea for people to know a lot about each other before marriage, doesn't mean it makes good law. Where's the rush to make a lengthy beaurocratic process out of citizens engaging or is there a smaller incidence of abuse? I think there isn't. A US citizen giving up background information to a website before talking with someone? When was the last time you came up with your SSN or police records when going to a bar to socialize. That's what the websites are after all - except the cost of drinks is in the subscripiton fee. You don't marry someone after a night out drinking, and you shouldn't without getting to know someone after meeting online. There's plenty of protection in US law already, nothing that can't be explained with a simple brochure given at the embassy or entry point. My problem with it is beaurocratic - months of extra waiting in what is a long process as it is - we met in person.

On an informational, relevant note - I spoke with a VSC rep a couple days ago. (I was NOA2 approved May 10th, got recalled, got RFE July 9th or so, o/n it back, they received it July 10th. I was told earlier that when they received the RFE they attach it to the approved case and just send it back to where it came... Embassy, NVC..)

Now I spoke to a nice lady at VSC, who knew nothing! Not what happens to the RFE, how it gets approved after that, not what order it gets done and just whined that they only get the laws as they come and don't know themselves. Furthermore, a lot of people are on vacation now so it ain't moving that fast, and in any case I should feel lucky, because they didn't get back a lot of the RFE's that were sent out.

peace out suckas.

[AndyMisiu 0]

So, I think we are in a agreement. IMBRA is a good thing, the way it's implemented is bad.

No, you misread my mind again. I think IMBRA is not a good thing. I think trying to protect people from harm is a good intention. I don't think any preemptive law is going to accomplish that.

They already make sure the beneficiary knows how many times you've been married at the consular interview. Why does it matter if your former spouses were from another country? The way the law reads, If had 2 foreign wives that I was married to for 20 years each and we divorced without ever an unkind word towards each other, I must now get special permission to file a petition for a third and they can turn me down. But, if I married two USC women under the same circumstances, there would be no question regarding my ability to petition for a third wife.

We already have laws that are supposed to protect people from abuse--enforce those laws and perhaps the instance of abuse will go down. I know of no statistics that link the number of marriages to abuse. I would like to see the evidence that shows a trend that multiple petitions is linked to abuse--a few isolated cases of repeat abusers does not indicate that a person filing a second or third petition is any more likely to abuse than someone filing for the first time. I would like to see evidence that shows a higher incidence of abuse when an IMB is used vs. all other petitions--I don't think it exists.

I didn't use an IMB, I have no record of abuse, this was my first and only petition and it would not have been a problem for me, but I don't agree that IMBRA is a good thing.

If you want a law, make it mandatory for USCs to disclose certain convictions formally, to any spouse USC or foreign, with some government form before their marriage can be recognized by the US (This would be a requirement before you marry in a foreign country too). Make it a federal law, not an immigration law. Make the penalty for falsifying this document stiff and enforce it.

Well... I have to say good job on that post! I agree! if it's a law for immigration it should be a law for marriage period, or get rid of it!!! I think I'm in too deep here and i'm bailing out. I've put to much opinion and too much personal info. I really just come here for help to get through the process.

Edited July 20, 2006 by AndyMisiu