"Mail-order brides in an Internet age"

[jsnearline 2]

My wife is a Filipina who's only six months apart from me in age. We were introduced by one of her relatives and a friend of mine. I don't agree with the author of the article that our marriage is "bizarre". My wife is at least as well educated as I am if not more so, and she doesn't have any problem letting me know who's boss. Submissive is not exactly how I would describe her.

That said, I think the people who make the argument that there should be no regulation of the marriage visa process are just as out to lunch as those who say that the process should not be allowed at all. When you marry someone and bring them to the US you are conferring a very special privelege on your spouse and the government does have an interest to make sure that you and your intended are doing that for the right reasons.

Edited November 7, 2006 by jsnearline

[PurrSuede 0]

When you marry someone and bring them to the US you are conferring a very special privelege on your spouse and the government does have an interest to make sure that you and your intended are doing that for the right reasons.

As long as those reasons don't involve fraudulent entry as an immigrant into the US, exactly who is to say what are the "right reasons"??

-- Dan

[1HappyGuy 45]

What difference does it make if it is a privilege or a right? The government is trying to regulate who we marry by setting up arbitrary restrictions on foreign engagements. This all has to do with IMBRA. If this provision had not been attached to VAWA it would not have become law. I say that we demand the restrictions from IMBRA be applied to all domestic marriages. The idea was to protect women, that's why it's part of VAWA. So, lets make all couples comply with these regulations. Lets extend it further to say that after two marriages you are not entitled to another marriage. This is what the USCIS is implying in their slanted interpretation of the law.

When you look at it in this manner, then all of a sudden it's not so nice to the women of this country. If this writer Bonnie Erbe was really interested in protecting women she should have proposed this. Oh, I forgot. She didn't do any research. She just decided that it wasn't good for men to marry foreign women because as we all know they are ignorant, poor and seek to be a burden upon our society.

I get a kick out of using the link on the first letter in this section to review the subsequent letters that have been sent to this article. It seems to me that this woman had no idea what she was speaking of and now can't come up with a reasonable response. She just moves on to another topic and lets the past writing hopefully die. I sent a letter directly to her (of course, no response back), but numerous people have written to respond to the article. I laugh my butt off with the responses. I think we should plan a mass email to the editor demanding a retraction of this odd woman's statement.

[sheraz 0]

This article pissed me off. If she only knew about the time money and effort it takes to order a so called mail order bride, her opinions will change. Imagine spending money on the I129 F, visa plane tickets etc and waiting for months.

[garya505 2]

This article pissed me off. If she only knew about the time money and effort it takes to order a so called mail order bride, her opinions will change. Imagine spending money on the I129 F, visa plane tickets etc and waiting for months.

And the shipping charges! Sheesh, I tried to find the lightest one I could find but it still cost me a fortune to ship her here!

[rebeccajo 14]

This article pissed me off. If she only knew about the time money and effort it takes to order a so called mail order bride, her opinions will change. Imagine spending money on the I129 F, visa plane tickets etc and waiting for months.

You can't be serious............

[AKW65 0]

Love knows no bounds and some rights are God Given.

Your 'rights' are spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

They were given to you by our founding fathers, not God. And there's nothing in there about 'love' either.

Don't confuse spiritualism with the law.

"Our founding fathers" COMPLETELY based the laws on the bible in case you aren't aware. Don't tell me because I mention God I'm being "spiritual". Give me a break. Why is it in this country that anytime someone talks about ANYTHING, you have to leave God completely out of it?

For you to pick my one quote to spout off about is silly. Love does know no bounds. If you think it does, I feel sorry for you.

[rebeccajo 14]

Love knows no bounds and some rights are God Given.

Your 'rights' are spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

They were given to you by our founding fathers, not God. And there's nothing in there about 'love' either.

Don't confuse spiritualism with the law.

"Our founding fathers" COMPLETELY based the laws on the bible in case you aren't aware. Don't tell me because I mention God I'm being "spiritual". Give me a break. Why is it in this country that anytime someone talks about ANYTHING, you have to leave God completely out of it?

For you to pick my one quote to spout off about is silly. Love does know no bounds. If you think it does, I feel sorry for you.

I have no problem with you referring to God. I have my own relationship with the Lord - I just don't beat my chest about it in the forums.

I am only referring to the laws of the land.

Which in case YOU aren't aware, specifically reference a separation of Church and State.

Your rights as a citizen of this country were crafted by men and as such are the laws of man, not God.

The boundaries of love have nothing to do with immigration. The boundaries of nations, on the other hand, have everything to do with it.

You are confusing the emotion of your marriage with the process of immigration. It's my opinion that to make it out sane at the end of this process, you need to separate the two.

[AKW65 0]

Love knows no bounds and some rights are God Given.

Your 'rights' are spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

They were given to you by our founding fathers, not God. And there's nothing in there about 'love' either.

Don't confuse spiritualism with the law.

"Our founding fathers" COMPLETELY based the laws on the bible in case you aren't aware. Don't tell me because I mention God I'm being "spiritual". Give me a break. Why is it in this country that anytime someone talks about ANYTHING, you have to leave God completely out of it?

For you to pick my one quote to spout off about is silly. Love does know no bounds. If you think it does, I feel sorry for you.

I have no problem with you referring to God. I have my own relationship with the Lord - I just don't beat my chest about it in the forums.

I am only referring to the laws of the land.

Which in case YOU aren't aware, specifically reference a separation of Church and State.

Your rights as a citizen of this country were crafted by men and as such are the laws of man, not God.

The boundaries of love have nothing to do with immigration. The boundaries of nations, on the other hand, have everything to do with it.

You are confusing the emotion of your marriage with the process of immigration. It's my opinion that to make it out sane at the end of this process, you need to separate the two.

I'm not confused...

I wouldn't say I was beating my chest by the simple mention of God. In fact, I'd say it's the other way around. You couldn't let my statement go by without trying to "correct" me and influence the way I believe. You don't have to agree with me, you are not obligated to correct me either. My statement is what I believe, if you believe differently, good for you. Your comments have compelled me to be defensive, which in and of itself is sad because all I did was use the word God once. Never in my life have I engaged in a public debate about God such as this, BUT, I’m not afraid to do so either. You act like I said, “hey everybody, God is great, follow me to Jesus” or something like that. Do you feel that you are entitled to voice your opinion more than I am because you feel you are politically (or legalistically) correct?

Now that you have me on the defensive, I will say this: People are afraid to even mention God for fear of getting a reprimand from someone like you. As an example, many people now say "Happy Holidays" because they are afraid to say "Merry Christmas". If I mistakenly say “Merry Christmas” to a Jewish person because I don’t know they are Jewish, most would probably realize I am just wishing them well.

The phrase "God given rights" has been used in literature, speeches, and numerous other communications countless times throughout history. Then (and now), I'm sure it wasn't used as a way to beat one's chest, try to convert the masses to Christianity or force a belief system on anyone.

Have you ever heard the statement "One Nation under God"... Now everyone wants to keep God so separate that to even mention God in the context of a legal discussion brings out all sorts of emotional distress. We've kicked God out of our schools, out of our courts, and for the most part out of our lives. I don’t think this has produced positive results.

Millions of people’s last thoughts in life will be “God help me!” I wonder how many of them will have worked so hard to keep God out of their lives and been afraid to even mention him up to that point… I wonder how God feels about that… Believe what you want. I wish you the best.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

The article is pure nonsense and is evidently intended to stir-up confusion and to stir up a buzz because it holds no merit. There is no news like bad news that generates good news because people talk about it. It’s the same tactic stars use to thrust themselves back into the spotlight.

I do agree with Satellite that immigration is based on a privilege and not a right based upon the rule of law. Unfortunately we blur the lines between what are privileges and what are rights because of our open society. For example, is driving a privilege or a right? For most of us, driving is an absolute necessity, but it’s a privilege granted by law. Nowadays it’s really hard to draw the line between rights and privileges because they are very debatable (even inalienable rights).

The great thing is that we don’t have to fight in order to have the privilege to bring our beloved ones to the states. However we do have to wait entirely too long time in order to re-unite with our beloved ones.

That’s all for now… and as always...

Cheers!!!

Sheriff Uling

p.s. - Best of luck to all those trying to make their way through this journey...

Edited November 8, 2006 by Uling

[rebeccajo 14]

AKW65, you are being defensive with the wrong person here. And you are the one who has misread.

You use the phrase 'God given right' in an argument about the immigration process. My only point is that you don't have any such 'God given right' when it comes the process. Any more than some would have 'Allah given rights' or 'Buddha given rights'.

It's up to the government of this nation to decide if anyone other than a citizen of it has a right to live here. And the last time I looked no Supreme being wrote the laws of this land. Man did and man is flawed.

My statement was simple - don't overread it.

Like you I fell in love with someone who was not born here. I had to prove to the US government that our love was real and that our intentions were honorable. Our successful petition allowed him to come to this country. I continue now to petition the US government during the AOS process for his right to STAY here.

I rarely speak about my religious convictions in this community only because I consider them to be private, not politically correct or incorrect. Thus my use of the phrase 'beat my chest' which had nothing to do with my opinion of how you stated your convictions.

As I said, I believe you are confusing the love you feel for your lady with this agonizing process we all are on. I too wish you good luck and success. Your faith will comfort you as you are on this journey, but unfortunately it is the laws of man you must conform to in order to live together as man and wife in this land. And that simply and succinctly is not a 'God given right'. It is a priveledge conferred on you and she by the US government.

Distasteful and unromantic as it may sound.

Edited November 8, 2006 by rebeccajo

[BPM-MVS 0]

In my opinion, God gave me the right to breathe! God is the foundation of the US Constitution and it authors had stated Gods involvement in the rights of the people with Gods blessings. My money I spend every day says, In God we trust. If you would like to rid yourself of such God thrashing down your throat paper, please send it to a local church. How fast we forget were we came from and start changing history to fit what we like and feel comfortable with. Whats next, a K1 for gay couples?

My opinion!

[AKW65 0]

In my opinion, God gave me the right to breathe! God is the foundation of the US Constitution and it authors had stated Gods involvement in the rights of the people with Gods blessings. My money I spend every day says, In God we trust. If you would like to rid yourself of such God thrashing down your throat paper, please send it to a local church. How fast we forget were we came from and start changing history to fit what we like and feel comfortable with. Whats next, a K1 for gay couples?

My opinion!

YES! I couldn't agree more!

Edited November 10, 2006 by AKW65

[rebeccajo 14]

Go on, boys. Continue to try and read something into my post that wasn't there.

That still doesn't change the fact that immigration is a priviledge granted by the government, not a right you possess by virtue of the constitution.

[rebeccajo 14]

First ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights:

Amendment I [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)]

Amendment II [Right to Bear Arms (1791)]

Amendment III [Quartering of Troops (1791)]

Amendment IV [search and Seizure (1791)]

Amendment V [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process (1791)]

Amendment VI [Criminal Prosecutions - Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel (1791)]

Amendment VII [Common Law Suits - Jury Trial (1791)]

Amendment VIII [Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1791)]

Amendment IX [Non-Enumerated Rights (1791)]

Amendment X [Rights Reserved to States (1791)]

Subsequent 17 amendments:

Amendment XI [suits Against a State (1795)]

Amendment XII [Election of President and Vice-President (1804)]

Amendment XIII [Abolition of Slavery (1865)]

Amendment XIV [Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, Equal Protection, Apportionment of Representatives, Civil War Disqualification and Debt (1868)]

Amendment XV [Rights Not to Be Denied on Account of Race (1870)]

Amendment XVI [income Tax (1913)]

Amendment XVII [Election of Senators (1913)

Amendment XVIII [Prohibition (1919)]

Amendment XIX [Women's Right to Vote (1920)

Amendment XX [Presidential Term and Succession (1933)]

Amendment XXI [Repeal of Prohibition (1933)]

Amendment XXII [Two Term Limit on President (1951)]

Amendment XXIII [Presidential Vote in D.C. (1961)]

Amendment XXIV [Poll Tax (1964)]

Amendment XXV [Presidential Succession (1967)]

Amendment XXVI [Right to Vote at Age 18 (1971)]

Amendment XXVII [Compensation of Members of Congress (1992)]