To those of you griping about IMBRA

[garya505 2]

i'm going to be bluntly honest about the original poster.

Too bad.

you have demonstrated one malicious individual who abuses a system, that individual has not been punished.

tens of thousands of honest people who try to do it the right way are being punished because of one bad apple.

That is what we have fallen to as a society but it's not acceptable, you cannot punish everyone for the acts of an individual and you cannot punish everyone to try to protect one or two random people from doing something stupid. That last part is a direct reference to the high profile case that inspired this law.

The change is immoral, the way this country sometimes over reacts with far reaching consequences to honest citizens trying to make their way in the world and do things the right way is also totally wrong.

bad things sometimes happen to good people for no reason and the government has no business trying to legislate their protection.

Wow, what an incredibly short-sighted viewpoint. I suppose since Murder only occurs to 1 out of 15000 people each year, that the government should just get rid of the laws prohibiting that too? How about Drunk Driving? Robbery? The list goes on and on. If there is one isolated event...no law is needed...I agree. But you have to look at the scale of the number of events, and the impact those events has on people's lives. The circumstances the OP listed are not isolated events...but rather a single sampling in a large number of documented abuses of the prior system. The girls that the "business associate" used got off lucky...many of them wind up physically abused before being kicked to the curb. Being sent back to their home country, often without a pot to piss in, is considered a fantastic outcome compared to how many of them wound up. I'm sorry that adding a measure of "complete disclosure" in order to protect foreign nationals who are literally putting their lives into the hands of these USC's upsets you. But the way I see it...if it's good enough for the Real Estate industry, then it should be good enough for immigration.

It sucks that the USCIS has dropped the ball on implementing the program (DHS failing at something? Surprise Surprise)....but the rationale behind the legislation is both sound and over-due.

It's not just the implementation that was flawed but the law itself. Some parts are good, like the petitioner background checks and the limitations on number of petitions allowed. But the rules for the so-called International Marriage Brokers are just silly and don't accomplish the intended effect. It would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.

I gladly dissagree with you. This law does not have silly IMB laws, silly IMB regulations already existed. This is just a patch to those IMB laws to add buffers and prophylactics to the IMB regulations so that technologies like the internet cannot be abused by making the line of what makes an IMB, and what has to follow IMB rules, a little less blurry than before.

The easy way is not always the right way. Taking away someones freedoms like that because they made one or more of any mistake is absolutely wrong. This law avoids that possibility and leave the decision up to the benneficiary.

Unless you are one of those people who somehow think any incoming foreign national is less intellegent than you are and can't make a sound choice, allowing the benneficiary to make the final choice is adding freedom and libery to both parties.

The only thing that is flawed in this law is it didn't use more simple words for everyone to be able to understand clearly. So the trolls, drive by media, lawyers, and the rest of that scum, are taking parts of it and interperating it on behalf of the more impressionables amongst us and causing an unneed furor that is for nothing more than their own ego boost, or guilty conscience at best.

The real issue, for those of us who respect law and follow it, is the implementation. The real issue, for those of us who may have had a shady past and are trying to make an effort to become better, is also the implementation. The real issue, for those who still live and desire to live a shady life, is IMBRA.

Like I said, it would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.

Presenting a pettioner's criminal record to a beneficiary in a foreign country who may or may not be fluent in English, and certainly isn't familiar with the laws in all 50 states, won't accomplish anything. Your speech about freedom and liberty brings tears to me eyes (really), but it's just idealisitic to think that will work. No, she can't make a sound choice because she is at a disadvantage from the start.

Maybe you would like wait until the interview to tell her how many petitions he has gotten approved before and let her decide if she wants to go with him then?

Well you are "One of those guys" then. Obviously if you somehow think people outside of yourself in the good 'ol USA cannot make a conscious descision on their own (yes even with interperators which they can provide), then you ahve a superiority complex and not a real concern for the benneficiarys safety.

Sure I'm "One of those guys" then. I'm one of those guys who is favor of legislation that works, as opposed to "feel good" laws that don't work. Do you really think women in countries where domestic violence is tolerated can understand US laws, even with an interpreter?

No, I'll say it again, all felons should be prohibited from getting K1 or K3 VISAs. I don't have a problem with laws that take away freedoms from people who commit felonies.

Thanks for being a good example of why we have IMBRA. Good luck to YOUR fiancee. I sure hope you don't treat her like an inferior animal like you seem to want to do.

I see you are one of THOSE guys who just resorts to personal insults when you can't win your argument by other means. But since you brought it up, actually I treat my fiance with the love and respect she deserves. I disclosed my criminal record (which consists of a single misdemeanor charge in 1974 which was dropped) to her long before I even submitted my K1 petition.

I'll say it again, all felons should be prohibited from getting K1 or K3 VISAs. I don't have a problem with laws that take away freedoms from people who commit felonies.

[zethris 0]

i'm going to be bluntly honest about the original poster.

Too bad.

you have demonstrated one malicious individual who abuses a system, that individual has not been punished.

tens of thousands of honest people who try to do it the right way are being punished because of one bad apple.

That is what we have fallen to as a society but it's not acceptable, you cannot punish everyone for the acts of an individual and you cannot punish everyone to try to protect one or two random people from doing something stupid. That last part is a direct reference to the high profile case that inspired this law.

The change is immoral, the way this country sometimes over reacts with far reaching consequences to honest citizens trying to make their way in the world and do things the right way is also totally wrong.

bad things sometimes happen to good people for no reason and the government has no business trying to legislate their protection.

Wow, what an incredibly short-sighted viewpoint. I suppose since Murder only occurs to 1 out of 15000 people each year, that the government should just get rid of the laws prohibiting that too? How about Drunk Driving? Robbery? The list goes on and on. If there is one isolated event...no law is needed...I agree. But you have to look at the scale of the number of events, and the impact those events has on people's lives. The circumstances the OP listed are not isolated events...but rather a single sampling in a large number of documented abuses of the prior system. The girls that the "business associate" used got off lucky...many of them wind up physically abused before being kicked to the curb. Being sent back to their home country, often without a pot to piss in, is considered a fantastic outcome compared to how many of them wound up. I'm sorry that adding a measure of "complete disclosure" in order to protect foreign nationals who are literally putting their lives into the hands of these USC's upsets you. But the way I see it...if it's good enough for the Real Estate industry, then it should be good enough for immigration.

It sucks that the USCIS has dropped the ball on implementing the program (DHS failing at something? Surprise Surprise)....but the rationale behind the legislation is both sound and over-due.

It's not just the implementation that was flawed but the law itself. Some parts are good, like the petitioner background checks and the limitations on number of petitions allowed. But the rules for the so-called International Marriage Brokers are just silly and don't accomplish the intended effect. It would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.

I gladly dissagree with you. This law does not have silly IMB laws, silly IMB regulations already existed. This is just a patch to those IMB laws to add buffers and prophylactics to the IMB regulations so that technologies like the internet cannot be abused by making the line of what makes an IMB, and what has to follow IMB rules, a little less blurry than before.

The easy way is not always the right way. Taking away someones freedoms like that because they made one or more of any mistake is absolutely wrong. This law avoids that possibility and leave the decision up to the benneficiary.

Unless you are one of those people who somehow think any incoming foreign national is less intellegent than you are and can't make a sound choice, allowing the benneficiary to make the final choice is adding freedom and libery to both parties.

The only thing that is flawed in this law is it didn't use more simple words for everyone to be able to understand clearly. So the trolls, drive by media, lawyers, and the rest of that scum, are taking parts of it and interperating it on behalf of the more impressionables amongst us and causing an unneed furor that is for nothing more than their own ego boost, or guilty conscience at best.

The real issue, for those of us who respect law and follow it, is the implementation. The real issue, for those of us who may have had a shady past and are trying to make an effort to become better, is also the implementation. The real issue, for those who still live and desire to live a shady life, is IMBRA.

Like I said, it would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.

Presenting a pettioner's criminal record to a beneficiary in a foreign country who may or may not be fluent in English, and certainly isn't familiar with the laws in all 50 states, won't accomplish anything. Your speech about freedom and liberty brings tears to me eyes (really), but it's just idealisitic to think that will work. No, she can't make a sound choice because she is at a disadvantage from the start.

Maybe you would like wait until the interview to tell her how many petitions he has gotten approved before and let her decide if she wants to go with him then?

Well you are "One of those guys" then. Obviously if you somehow think people outside of yourself in the good 'ol USA cannot make a conscious descision on their own (yes even with interperators which they can provide), then you ahve a superiority complex and not a real concern for the benneficiarys safety.

Sure I'm "One of those guys" then. I'm one of those guys who is favor of legislation that works, as opposed to "feel good" laws that don't work. Do you really think women in countries where domestic violence is tolerated can understand US laws, even with an interpreter?

No, I'll say it again, all felons should be prohibited from getting K1 or K3 VISAs. I don't have a problem with laws that take away freedoms from people who commit felonies.

Thanks for being a good example of why we have IMBRA. Good luck to YOUR fiancee. I sure hope you don't treat her like an inferior animal like you seem to want to do.

I see you are one of THOSE guys who just resorts to personal insults when you can't win your argument by other means. But since you brought it up, actually I treat my fiance with the love and respect she deserves. I disclosed my criminal record (which consists of a single misdemeanor charge in 1974 which was dropped) to her long before I even submitted my K1 petition.

I'll say it again, all felons should be prohibited from getting K1 or K3 VISAs. I don't have a problem with laws that take away freedoms from people who commit felonies.

You are wasting my time. You are done.

[garya505 2]

i'm going to be bluntly honest about the original poster.

Too bad.

you have demonstrated one malicious individual who abuses a system, that individual has not been punished.

tens of thousands of honest people who try to do it the right way are being punished because of one bad apple.

That is what we have fallen to as a society but it's not acceptable, you cannot punish everyone for the acts of an individual and you cannot punish everyone to try to protect one or two random people from doing something stupid. That last part is a direct reference to the high profile case that inspired this law.

The change is immoral, the way this country sometimes over reacts with far reaching consequences to honest citizens trying to make their way in the world and do things the right way is also totally wrong.

bad things sometimes happen to good people for no reason and the government has no business trying to legislate their protection.

Wow, what an incredibly short-sighted viewpoint. I suppose since Murder only occurs to 1 out of 15000 people each year, that the government should just get rid of the laws prohibiting that too? How about Drunk Driving? Robbery? The list goes on and on. If there is one isolated event...no law is needed...I agree. But you have to look at the scale of the number of events, and the impact those events has on people's lives. The circumstances the OP listed are not isolated events...but rather a single sampling in a large number of documented abuses of the prior system. The girls that the "business associate" used got off lucky...many of them wind up physically abused before being kicked to the curb. Being sent back to their home country, often without a pot to piss in, is considered a fantastic outcome compared to how many of them wound up. I'm sorry that adding a measure of "complete disclosure" in order to protect foreign nationals who are literally putting their lives into the hands of these USC's upsets you. But the way I see it...if it's good enough for the Real Estate industry, then it should be good enough for immigration.

It sucks that the USCIS has dropped the ball on implementing the program (DHS failing at something? Surprise Surprise)....but the rationale behind the legislation is both sound and over-due.

It's not just the implementation that was flawed but the law itself. Some parts are good, like the petitioner background checks and the limitations on number of petitions allowed. But the rules for the so-called International Marriage Brokers are just silly and don't accomplish the intended effect. It would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.

I gladly dissagree with you. This law does not have silly IMB laws, silly IMB regulations already existed. This is just a patch to those IMB laws to add buffers and prophylactics to the IMB regulations so that technologies like the internet cannot be abused by making the line of what makes an IMB, and what has to follow IMB rules, a little less blurry than before.

The easy way is not always the right way. Taking away someones freedoms like that because they made one or more of any mistake is absolutely wrong. This law avoids that possibility and leave the decision up to the benneficiary.

Unless you are one of those people who somehow think any incoming foreign national is less intellegent than you are and can't make a sound choice, allowing the benneficiary to make the final choice is adding freedom and libery to both parties.

The only thing that is flawed in this law is it didn't use more simple words for everyone to be able to understand clearly. So the trolls, drive by media, lawyers, and the rest of that scum, are taking parts of it and interperating it on behalf of the more impressionables amongst us and causing an unneed furor that is for nothing more than their own ego boost, or guilty conscience at best.

The real issue, for those of us who respect law and follow it, is the implementation. The real issue, for those of us who may have had a shady past and are trying to make an effort to become better, is also the implementation. The real issue, for those who still live and desire to live a shady life, is IMBRA.

Like I said, it would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.

Presenting a pettioner's criminal record to a beneficiary in a foreign country who may or may not be fluent in English, and certainly isn't familiar with the laws in all 50 states, won't accomplish anything. Your speech about freedom and liberty brings tears to me eyes (really), but it's just idealisitic to think that will work. No, she can't make a sound choice because she is at a disadvantage from the start.

Maybe you would like wait until the interview to tell her how many petitions he has gotten approved before and let her decide if she wants to go with him then?

Well you are "One of those guys" then. Obviously if you somehow think people outside of yourself in the good 'ol USA cannot make a conscious descision on their own (yes even with interperators which they can provide), then you ahve a superiority complex and not a real concern for the benneficiarys safety.

Sure I'm "One of those guys" then. I'm one of those guys who is favor of legislation that works, as opposed to "feel good" laws that don't work. Do you really think women in countries where domestic violence is tolerated can understand US laws, even with an interpreter?

No, I'll say it again, all felons should be prohibited from getting K1 or K3 VISAs. I don't have a problem with laws that take away freedoms from people who commit felonies.

Thanks for being a good example of why we have IMBRA. Good luck to YOUR fiancee. I sure hope you don't treat her like an inferior animal like you seem to want to do.

I see you are one of THOSE guys who just resorts to personal insults when you can't win your argument by other means. But since you brought it up, actually I treat my fiance with the love and respect she deserves. I disclosed my criminal record (which consists of a single misdemeanor charge in 1974 which was dropped) to her long before I even submitted my K1 petition.

I'll say it again, all felons should be prohibited from getting K1 or K3 VISAs. I don't have a problem with laws that take away freedoms from people who commit felonies.

You are wasting my time. You are done.

I'm so happy you finally decided to agree with me.

[evansfan 0]

i'm going to be bluntly honest about the original poster.

Too bad.

you have demonstrated one malicious individual who abuses a system, that individual has not been punished.

tens of thousands of honest people who try to do it the right way are being punished because of one bad apple.

That is what we have fallen to as a society but it's not acceptable, you cannot punish everyone for the acts of an individual and you cannot punish everyone to try to protect one or two random people from doing something stupid. That last part is a direct reference to the high profile case that inspired this law.

The change is immoral, the way this country sometimes over reacts with far reaching consequences to honest citizens trying to make their way in the world and do things the right way is also totally wrong.

bad things sometimes happen to good people for no reason and the government has no business trying to legislate their protection.

Wow, what an incredibly short-sighted viewpoint. I suppose since Murder only occurs to 1 out of 15000 people each year, that the government should just get rid of the laws prohibiting that too? How about Drunk Driving? Robbery? The list goes on and on. If there is one isolated event...no law is needed...I agree. But you have to look at the scale of the number of events, and the impact those events has on people's lives. The circumstances the OP listed are not isolated events...but rather a single sampling in a large number of documented abuses of the prior system. The girls that the "business associate" used got off lucky...many of them wind up physically abused before being kicked to the curb. Being sent back to their home country, often without a pot to piss in, is considered a fantastic outcome compared to how many of them wound up. I'm sorry that adding a measure of "complete disclosure" in order to protect foreign nationals who are literally putting their lives into the hands of these USC's upsets you. But the way I see it...if it's good enough for the Real Estate industry, then it should be good enough for immigration.

It sucks that the USCIS has dropped the ball on implementing the program (DHS failing at something? Surprise Surprise)....but the rationale behind the legislation is both sound and over-due.

It's not just the implementation that was flawed but the law itself. Some parts are good, like the petitioner background checks and the limitations on number of petitions allowed. But the rules for the so-called International Marriage Brokers are just silly and don't accomplish the intended effect. It would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.

I gladly dissagree with you. This law does not have silly IMB laws, silly IMB regulations already existed. This is just a patch to those IMB laws to add buffers and prophylactics to the IMB regulations so that technologies like the internet cannot be abused by making the line of what makes an IMB, and what has to follow IMB rules, a little less blurry than before.

The easy way is not always the right way. Taking away someones freedoms like that because they made one or more of any mistake is absolutely wrong. This law avoids that possibility and leave the decision up to the benneficiary.

Unless you are one of those people who somehow think any incoming foreign national is less intellegent than you are and can't make a sound choice, allowing the benneficiary to make the final choice is adding freedom and libery to both parties.

The only thing that is flawed in this law is it didn't use more simple words for everyone to be able to understand clearly. So the trolls, drive by media, lawyers, and the rest of that scum, are taking parts of it and interperating it on behalf of the more impressionables amongst us and causing an unneed furor that is for nothing more than their own ego boost, or guilty conscience at best.

The real issue, for those of us who respect law and follow it, is the implementation. The real issue, for those of us who may have had a shady past and are trying to make an effort to become better, is also the implementation. The real issue, for those who still live and desire to live a shady life, is IMBRA.

In this post, I agree with almost everything you say, except the media rant, they are an essential part of our democracy, well maybe not TV media I think that the beneficiary should be informed of her potential suitors past, and I certainly believe that most of the women coming here will be able to make an informed decision and if they can't, short of stopping the whole K1 process, the government has done its best. I know that we have hashed this over, but I am troubled by the inference of the law. As far as I know no evidence exists that a foreign bride is any more likely to be abused then a native born bride, and if that is true then the law should apply to all marriages, otherwise we all get tainted with guilt by association to a problem that statistically does not appear out of the norm. I must admit I am troubled by your seeming to judge the worths of one's opinion by the length of time they are a member of the board.

My final thought is for the guy who wants to ban all felons. What an odious idea, this country has been and I hope always remains about second chances, Abe Lincoln was once considered a political failure, now if you are talking violent felons that is a different story.

jay

[garya505 2]

i'm going to be bluntly honest about the original poster.

Too bad.

you have demonstrated one malicious individual who abuses a system, that individual has not been punished.

tens of thousands of honest people who try to do it the right way are being punished because of one bad apple.

That is what we have fallen to as a society but it's not acceptable, you cannot punish everyone for the acts of an individual and you cannot punish everyone to try to protect one or two random people from doing something stupid. That last part is a direct reference to the high profile case that inspired this law.

The change is immoral, the way this country sometimes over reacts with far reaching consequences to honest citizens trying to make their way in the world and do things the right way is also totally wrong.

bad things sometimes happen to good people for no reason and the government has no business trying to legislate their protection.

Wow, what an incredibly short-sighted viewpoint. I suppose since Murder only occurs to 1 out of 15000 people each year, that the government should just get rid of the laws prohibiting that too? How about Drunk Driving? Robbery? The list goes on and on. If there is one isolated event...no law is needed...I agree. But you have to look at the scale of the number of events, and the impact those events has on people's lives. The circumstances the OP listed are not isolated events...but rather a single sampling in a large number of documented abuses of the prior system. The girls that the "business associate" used got off lucky...many of them wind up physically abused before being kicked to the curb. Being sent back to their home country, often without a pot to piss in, is considered a fantastic outcome compared to how many of them wound up. I'm sorry that adding a measure of "complete disclosure" in order to protect foreign nationals who are literally putting their lives into the hands of these USC's upsets you. But the way I see it...if it's good enough for the Real Estate industry, then it should be good enough for immigration.

It sucks that the USCIS has dropped the ball on implementing the program (DHS failing at something? Surprise Surprise)....but the rationale behind the legislation is both sound and over-due.

It's not just the implementation that was flawed but the law itself. Some parts are good, like the petitioner background checks and the limitations on number of petitions allowed. But the rules for the so-called International Marriage Brokers are just silly and don't accomplish the intended effect. It would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.

I gladly dissagree with you. This law does not have silly IMB laws, silly IMB regulations already existed. This is just a patch to those IMB laws to add buffers and prophylactics to the IMB regulations so that technologies like the internet cannot be abused by making the line of what makes an IMB, and what has to follow IMB rules, a little less blurry than before.

The easy way is not always the right way. Taking away someones freedoms like that because they made one or more of any mistake is absolutely wrong. This law avoids that possibility and leave the decision up to the benneficiary.

Unless you are one of those people who somehow think any incoming foreign national is less intellegent than you are and can't make a sound choice, allowing the benneficiary to make the final choice is adding freedom and libery to both parties.

The only thing that is flawed in this law is it didn't use more simple words for everyone to be able to understand clearly. So the trolls, drive by media, lawyers, and the rest of that scum, are taking parts of it and interperating it on behalf of the more impressionables amongst us and causing an unneed furor that is for nothing more than their own ego boost, or guilty conscience at best.

The real issue, for those of us who respect law and follow it, is the implementation. The real issue, for those of us who may have had a shady past and are trying to make an effort to become better, is also the implementation. The real issue, for those who still live and desire to live a shady life, is IMBRA.

In this post, I agree with almost everything you say, except the media rant, they are an essential part of our democracy, well maybe not TV media I think that the beneficiary should be informed of her potential suitors past, and I certainly believe that most of the women coming here will be able to make an informed decision and if they can't, short of stopping the whole K1 process, the government has done its best. I know that we have hashed this over, but I am troubled by the inference of the law. As far as I know no evidence exists that a foreign bride is any more likely to be abused then a native born bride, and if that is true then the law should apply to all marriages, otherwise we all get tainted with guilt by association to a problem that statistically does not appear out of the norm. I must admit I am troubled by your seeming to judge the worths of one's opinion by the length of time they are a member of the board.

My final thought is for the guy who wants to ban all felons. What an odious idea, this country has been and I hope always remains about second chances, Abe Lincoln was once considered a political failure, now if you are talking violent felons that is a different story.

jay

Jay, You have hit on an important point. Some of the people behind IMBRA just don't like the idea that an American man can meet and marry a women from a disadvantaged country and bring her to the US. The percentage of foreign brides who are abused is probably smaller than for native-born brides, but the people behind this are not really intertested in the facts, only their agenda. Of course I don't mean to dismiss the seriousness of the well-publicized cases of abuse and murder, but the reason these cases were so sensationalized in the news is because of the bias and attitudes of people against Amercan men marrying foreign women. Some people still think there is such a thing as a "mail order bride" that you can "buy" one on the internet, LOL. Also, keep in mind that one of the main backers of IMBRA was Maria Cantwell, who also supports partial-birth abortion. IMBRA never would have passed on it's own so it was attached to VAWA legislation which was guaranteed to pass. They tired to pass IMBRA earlier by itself and it failed because of its many flaws. It's just politics.

[twood2k 0]

This is directed at no one:

My wife is from Ukraine and she told me many horror stories of women being abused by foreign men.

Many women end up in another country with their passport stolen and forced to work in prostitution.

I think the IMBRA, indirectly, s a good thing. It at least gives the woman or man... an idea about what they are getting in to.

But, I do not think it is not anyones business how my wife and I met.. but she should know if I have a criminal backgound and its only fair because she was required to have a background check to get her visa!

The language problems alone can cause a women from Ukraine and i'm sure other countries to not get a "feel" for her new found fiance so IMBRA will at least give a heads up on his past.

Also, I think it was a major screw up on USCISs part to recall the petitions and send RFEs for petitions in process. But like us, they are victims of the burocrats and probably had no choice but to do things against their better judgement.

Ok, enough rambling for me... your turn )

P.S.

Beer helps K-3 blues.

and to follow my story...

http://www.khersonlove.com

[sbgwolf1 0]

Ok. I just want to say (flame away. I DONT CARE AT THIS POINT). Every time I see this thread I am instantly infuriated. Anyone that justifies the delay I am others are going through right now apparently have no clue. a) they 'claim' they did background check on all petitions already, so the law could have just stated that the information would be provided. B ) how I met my finance is noones damn business. its simple, do we love one another or not. c) The initial forms already ask if you filed previously, hense, the law could have just stated 'going forward all benificiaries will be notified of previous petitions'. If they chose they love you and trust you, let them come over. Going one step further, what difference does it make if it was approved if the interview or visa were never completed? Isnt that a bit rediculous. Part of this law is #######, the other part could have been implemented based on information they already had. In other words...without delaying my baby from being here......they guy in the example, sorry it happened...sorry for the ladies. But in no way should that affect me.

Edited August 14, 2006 by sbgwolf1

[garya505 2]

This is directed at no one:

My wife is from Ukraine and she told me many horror stories of women being abused by foreign men.

Many women end up in another country with their passport stolen and forced to work in prostitution.

I think the IMBRA, indirectly, s a good thing. It at least gives the woman or man... an idea about what they are getting in to.

But, I do not think it is not anyones business how my wife and I met.. but she should know if I have a criminal backgound and its only fair because she was required to have a background check to get her visa!

The language problems alone can cause a women from Ukraine and i'm sure other countries to not get a "feel" for her new found fiance so IMBRA will at least give a heads up on his past.

Also, I think it was a major screw up on USCISs part to recall the petitions and send RFEs for petitions in process. But like us, they are victims of the burocrats and probably had no choice but to do things against their better judgement.

Ok, enough rambling for me... your turn )

P.S.

Beer helps K-3 blues.

and to follow my story...

http://www.khersonlove.com

Hmmm, most of the cases of abuse and women forced into prostitution are in countries other than the US. The IMBRA rules for web sites only affect US web sites. Some of the IMBRA rules for websites will discourage US men (abusive AND non-abusive both) from seeking foreign women, making it more likely that she will end up with a husband in one of those other countries. This could actually increase, not decrease, the overall number of abuses. Just something to think about.

[zethris 0]

This is directed at no one:

My wife is from Ukraine and she told me many horror stories of women being abused by foreign men.

Many women end up in another country with their passport stolen and forced to work in prostitution.

I think the IMBRA, indirectly, s a good thing. It at least gives the woman or man... an idea about what they are getting in to.

But, I do not think it is not anyones business how my wife and I met.. but she should know if I have a criminal backgound and its only fair because she was required to have a background check to get her visa!

The language problems alone can cause a women from Ukraine and i'm sure other countries to not get a "feel" for her new found fiance so IMBRA will at least give a heads up on his past.

Also, I think it was a major screw up on USCISs part to recall the petitions and send RFEs for petitions in process. But like us, they are victims of the burocrats and probably had no choice but to do things against their better judgement.

Ok, enough rambling for me... your turn )

P.S.

Beer helps K-3 blues.

and to follow my story...

http://www.khersonlove.com

Hmmm, most of the cases of abuse and women forced into prostitution are in countries other than the US. The IMBRA rules for web sites only affect US web sites. Some of the IMBRA rules for websites will discourage US men (abusive AND non-abusive both) from seeking foreign women, making it more likely that she will end up with a husband in one of those other countries. This could actually increase, not decrease, the overall number of abuses. Just something to think about.

You do nothing but argue in circles. Much like what would have happend had the fact that enough people believe contrary to what you are talking about so IMBRA and VAWA did pass. How does your opinion oversahdow the majority? Enough statistics show that the abuse that does occur is a serious issue and needs to be addressed. It is alarming to me that you really don't care.

Edited August 14, 2006 by zethris

[garya505 2]

This is directed at no one:

My wife is from Ukraine and she told me many horror stories of women being abused by foreign men.

Many women end up in another country with their passport stolen and forced to work in prostitution.

I think the IMBRA, indirectly, s a good thing. It at least gives the woman or man... an idea about what they are getting in to.

But, I do not think it is not anyones business how my wife and I met.. but she should know if I have a criminal backgound and its only fair because she was required to have a background check to get her visa!

The language problems alone can cause a women from Ukraine and i'm sure other countries to not get a "feel" for her new found fiance so IMBRA will at least give a heads up on his past.

Also, I think it was a major screw up on USCISs part to recall the petitions and send RFEs for petitions in process. But like us, they are victims of the burocrats and probably had no choice but to do things against their better judgement.

Ok, enough rambling for me... your turn )

P.S.

Beer helps K-3 blues.

and to follow my story...

http://www.khersonlove.com

Hmmm, most of the cases of abuse and women forced into prostitution are in countries other than the US. The IMBRA rules for web sites only affect US web sites. Some of the IMBRA rules for websites will discourage US men (abusive AND non-abusive both) from seeking foreign women, making it more likely that she will end up with a husband in one of those other countries. This could actually increase, not decrease, the overall number of abuses. Just something to think about.

You do nothing but argue in circles. Much like what would have happend had the fact that enough people believe contrary to what you are talking about so IMBRA and VAWA did pass. How does your opinion oversahdow the majority? Enough statistics show that the abuse that does occur is a serious issue and needs to be addressed. It is alarming to me that you really don't care.

Actually I do care a great deal, and I think the rules on WHO can qualify to bring a fiance into the US should be even MORE restrictive then under IMBRA. On the other hand, the IMBRA rules for web sites may not accomplish anything at all, or worse yet have the opposite affect as what was intended by the legislators. You assume that because I criticize the passing of compromised legislation I oppose ALL of the intent of the legislation. Not true.

[MidnightinMoscow 0]

I had no idea that VJers continued to argue the merits of IMBRA back in August. Who is this Zethris person? Someone from Sam Brownback's doomed election campaign? Or more likely someone from the Tahirih Justice Center.

And why no discussion about the court cases? Is their a VJ ban on discussing the actual IMBRA court cases?

I noticed that Zethris considers herself/himself some kind of "social conservative"?

But IMBRA is a Cantwell-written left wing law and, no, the majority of people, especially conservative males, who actually get to hear the details of IMBRA are not for it.

Even feminists hate IMBRA:

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/edi.../2006/0111.html

Rudi Giuliani, no friend of radical feminists, is now trouncing the IMBRA-sponsor Brownback in the polls to be the Republican Nominee for President (Giulani will run as an independent in any case, so the Republicans basically now have the choice of Giuliani or nobody).

So I would not put much stock in what someone like Sam Brownback thinks. Republican males prefer Rudi.

The part of IMBRA that bans saying "hello" without criminal background checks being done (often adding 4 days to the ability of specific people to just chat online) will be struck down in the European Connections decision in Georgia to come shortly.

The part of IMBRA that treats Americans who marry foreigners differently from Americans who marry Americans is against the 5th Amendment and a new lawsuit is being prepared to wipe that part of the law away after we see Judge Cooper's decision in the EC Georgia case.

At least we should all discuss the actual details of the lawsuit when it is filed.

There is zero evidence that foreign-born wives, who met their American upper middle class husbands via the Internet, are treated more poorly by those upper middle class husbands than American wives are treated by American men in general.

[MidnightinMoscow 0]

For any conservatives who might have the illusion that IMBRA reflects conservative principles (as in "anyone opposed to background checks must have something to hide"), here is a recent article from "The Reagan Wing":

http://www.thereaganwing.com/modules.php?o...amp;page_id=709

[William33 110]

Why do people continue to dredge up dead posts? 7 months old?

[Meriem_DZ 37]

Cause he had something to say about the subject. It is his right.

[pokernut 0]

thats the exception and doesnt justify this terrible violation of american rights and freedoms , he is no different that a guy who uses women right here ini the states.... this law is ridiculous... and it was proposed by psycho man hating women who cant stand to see so many american men happy for a change.

\

I know a lot of you have had ridiculously long waits and delays because of IMBRA, and I have a short story for you:

I know a person through a business associate, (he is NOT my friend, in fact I loath his behavior), who has been abusing the I-129f petition for years. He has brought several women to the USA for the 90 day period, used them, and sent them away packing before the 90 days was up. He brags about all the women he's 'had'tha from all over the world.

I can most certainly sympathize with those of you who have had to wait so long, and I also think it must be he|| to have to see people who applied AFTER you getting approvals BEFORE you, (I'd be pis**d as he|| to!). The USCIS should be focusing in the older cases before working on the newer ones.

At the same time, I am extremely happy that what this SOB has been doing will no longer be permitted. At the very least, if he is ever permitted to bring anyone else here again, they are going to be informed how many he's done this to in the past, if i understand the new law correctly.

Bill