Answer from Colorado Senator

[no name 1]

What is needed is publicity ... going to the AP for a follow-up on bill's story, or getting one of the big weblogs involved.

Did it myself just now, to the AP, about Bill & his lack of activity, yet Junes are getting approved. But there's a big group with a plan brewing as well.

[carldecolorado 0]

Well I am currently at 123 days since my NOA1 was received, I have been reading that some NOA2's have been going out from the CSC, however all of those applications are not the transfers from the NSC. Oooh and to make matter worse, some of those NOA2's have NOA1 dates from May!! So I think now I have a right to complain a bit and wonder what the heck is gon on with CSC and the Nebraska transfers. I have contacted both Senator Allard and Congressman Beaprea (I know I spelled it worng) and am waiting for them to possible getr some answers on what is going on the the Nebraska pile. Did it get lost on someones desk???

[William33 110]

I thought I read on another thread that many of these were NSC transfers... Anyone else with info?

I really hope there were some transfers approved today....

Well I am currently at 123 days since my NOA1 was received, I have been reading that some NOA2's have been going out from the CSC, however all of those applications are not the transfers from the NSC. Oooh and to make matter worse, some of those NOA2's have NOA1 dates from May!! So I think now I have a right to complain a bit and wonder what the heck is gon on with CSC and the Nebraska transfers. I have contacted both Senator Allard and Congressman Beaprea (I know I spelled it worng) and am waiting for them to possible getr some answers on what is going on the the Nebraska pile. Did it get lost on someones desk???

[Thomas-n-Elena 0]

Ill pray for you

some of these so called loved ones dont deserve to come here.

The US has been victimized for years with fraudulent family based visas. They are finally cracking down on them. Read the article post recently by Ellis Island. This is the reality.

What is the pain by the way??...if you have a valid relationship...you have nothing to worry about.

You mean cracking down on people trying to follow the laws of immigration, as opposed to the millions of those that walk across our borders illegally every year?

Also, maybe you have not read the entire IMBRA law. Although I support the part of the law that requires the petitioner state his past criminal history, should he have one, do you think it is correct that a US Citizens must provide personal information to a woman before he can simply say "Hello" to them? I can tell you I surely don't. Did you know that was also part of the IMBRA law? This however, is a completely different debate.

I agree with wolf here. We have the right to contact our elected reps anytime we want. After all, we put them there, and oh yeah we pay they're salaries.

Please send me the exact reference in the actual law that states this.

Jen

It is not actually worded like that in the law.

However, it requires that "Marriage Brokers" (however they actually classify them) get background information from someone who would like to contact a woman, before he actually says hi to her or makes any sort of initial contact. The background information is then viewed by the woman.

If you look at a Marriage Broker website (I found this one for example www.latineuro.com) because of IMBRA people are required to complete a profile with "background" information regarding themselves (I do not know what information exactly required though).

If you go to this link on that website, it gives a Q/A about how IMBRA changed things in regards to this, to a certain extent. http://www.latineuro.com/qa.html

This is the only part of the law I was not comfortable with. To me it would be like carrying around a background print out in my back pocket when I went to a club and wanted to talk to a woman. First I'd have to give it to her friend, then she would give it to her, then she would tell her friend if it was ok for me to say hello to her or not. But, again that is a different debate for a different place.

Just to complete the thought, If you look at the IMBRA law in detail you will find that the law defines a Marriage broker as any person, company or service that requires its users to pay to make contact. That is the abreviated definition, the legal one is technical and silly sounding. The IMBRA law paints a very broad stroke across the definition of a marriage broker that if you are from the USA and your fiancee is from Canada and you met through Yahoo personals, Yahoo personals acted as a marriage broker, because you have to pay to send the emails to the persons you are interested in. By the definition I met my fiancee through a marriage broker but I only used the site as a way to look through personal ads, similar to Yahoo personals, or match.com or any of the hundreds of others that are out there. My fiancee is the only woman I met face to face. The law paints left the definition too broad, so I answered Yes on my RFE and included a letter of explanation of how the site was used.

-To dessert fox - please dont judge others on how they meet the most important people in their lives, I am not 60, nor bald, nor do I weigh 280 lbs, and I resent the idea that I did anything wrong in meeting my fiancee the way we met. Not all of us can be lemings and join the military to travel the world on my tax dollars. I like to travel and I am always looking for a new adventure, to experience new cultures, instead of closing your mind, close your mouth open your mind, you will be amazed and the wonderful things the world can serve up to. Potential has no bounds and a free mind is potential.

[JenT 0]

[ellis-island 6]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. But Match.Com, and perhaps even Yahoo Personals might be exempt from IMBRA. There is an exception written into the law that reads: (emphasis added by underlining)

"(ii) an entity that provides dating services if its principal business is not to provide international dating services between United States citizens or United States residents and foreign nationals and it charges comparable rates and offers comparable services to all individuals it serves regardless of the individual's gender or country of citizenship."

As I read that exception, the law exempts singles sites whose principal business is "domestic" dating services, ie., couples inside the United States and not "international" dating services between US Citizens, LPR's and foreign nationals.

Thus, if the bulk of Match.Com's dating services are provided to citizens and residents of the US, they'd be exempt under that section of the law. Ditto for Yahoo.Personals.

This makes me wonder, is this law rationally related to its objective? For instance, small international dating sites like loveofasiavietnam or russianbrides.com or Ethiopianbrides.com or Filipinabrides.com, might actually broker fewer international marriages than a huge site like Match.com. Yet, because the principal business of the huge site is domestic, it is exempt from the law. And the little sites aren't.

I think IMBRA is a probably good idea. I have problems with the way some parts of it are drafted. But the exception for huge match-making corporations whose principal business is to provide US dating services seems very irrational in relation to the law's objective. In fact, it smacks of lobbyists doing what they're paid to do.

I've done an internet search. It's not definitive, but everything I read (mostly from anti-IMBRA sites), mentions both Yahoo Personals and Match.com being exempt from the law.

Please correct me if I've got this wrong.

Edited August 5, 2006 by ellis-island