Enjoy!

Wow, you really put ALL the choices in there. I can see that you don't like IMBRA and that anyone who chooses that they agree with it is a fool? Interesting.

ps. Innocent until proven guilty- yes. However IMBRA is protecting people from coming to the US and marrying people who HAVE CRIMINAL RECORDS, meaning they could have been proven guilty. So they already had trouble, shouldn't their spouse know about it? I would be pretty upset not knowing if my fiance has a criminal history or not, he does not, but if he did and I didn't know until later that could get ugly.

I second that. Something that has fascinated me all along is the display of hatred for this law, which ONLY helps in the long run for our country.

Having said that, I can though understand from where the hatred which ive witnessed manymany times in peoples threads for this law, i can understand it. Because of our individual situations and the hardships and heartache it has recently burdened us with, I feel it has clouded alot of judgement.


This law, for me, right now, because of my situation has become a HUGE pain in my ###. But, it is worth it in the long run.

doesn't affect me... so no opinion either way

As the non USC I already have to provide information similar to that asked for of USC's by IMBRA.
I certainly have no problem with the idea that my fiance should also disclose his past record, as it happens neither of us have anything to declare and we both have shared everything with each other.
While the implementation of IMBRA has been a mess the change is not a bad thing, I know it will delay our K1 as we will be filing in the midst of the backlog but I'M not going to whine about a law that will protect vulnerable foreign spouses from potentially abusive partners. Those people who are not potential abusers have nothing to worry about as they will have nothing to fear from the extra questions.

Hmm...ok, so those of us that agree with IMBRA are idiots? From what I've read, I don't see anything wrong with IMBRA. True, it may cause some delays but if it prevents a fiance/spouse from being taken advantage of by a dishonest person then I don't see what the big problem is. I can understand why someone with a record wouldn't like it, but why would anyone else mind?

I agree with the law....and even if it applied to us I would still agree with it. Yes it DOES delay things. But I would rather there be a delay and a man or woman prevented from being possibly abused than for the unmentionable to happen. I've been in an abusive marriage...to an american. I think there should be a way to investigate men and women here as well when an american wants to marry an american. I believe if this had been possible I wouldn't have been abused at the hands of my "ultra religious" ex husband.

So (in my humble opinion) if you don't have anything to hide, be glad for this law.

While i feel for those that got caught up in the mix of the debacle.... sorry, but what CRAP. try going through months of AR, QUITE different from oops RFE : you have another form to fill out.

sheesh.

I think you forgot "Yes! Because I wanted to marry some unsuspecting woman from a poor country and abuse the $*** out of her!"

Seriously, I think it sucks that they were incompetent about it, and I do have some concerns about civil rights issues maybe (are they going to deny visas if the *USC* has a criminal record? when the only requirement to sponsoring your fiancé(e) is supposed to be US citizenship and being free to marry?), but overall the idea is to protect foreign spouses from being abused.

I'll be interested to see if the people who oppose IMBRA are the same ones who favor the NSA's warrantless domestic spying. They don't mind the government interfering in their lives illegally (read the Fourth Amendment, folks) if it doesn't cause interference, but God forbid that *legal* interference should inconvenience them at all.

?

IMBRA is a necessary law. Poorly thought out and implemented, yes... but necessary.

I have to agree with someone else who said the only people who don't like it are criminals with something to hide.

What? Santa Claus doesn't exist??? Are you serious?


I would be pissed too. I know IMBRA is affecting us, altho we didn't meet through a marriage broker, but it is delaying our petition and IT SUCKS, but I also agree it's something that should be done, bad timing for all of us with the current process, but something that has to be done and it will help a lot of people in the future.

I understand why people dislike the delay it might entail, but it seems rather sensible. If convicted criminals can have their right to vote revoked, surely being forced to inform their spouse of a status they should have disclosed long before marriage was contemplated isn't that onerous.

it's the law, it's not going to change... deal with it!

just another thing to complicate the system

This poll is interesting:

1. The poll is somewhat flawed because the votes adamantly opposed to IMBRA are divided up among the first 3 voting selections.

2. Based on that, there are more people VOTING that are adamantly opposed to IMBRA.

3. But, so far, the ones vocal enough to actually post something are those who are actually in favor of IMBRA, even if they don't like the delays it causes.

Just an observation...

i'd say the worst most cruel laws ever PROABLY involved slavery or something much more terrible than this.

Maybe the Holacaust didn't affect you either. You have no opinion on it either???
Andrea Yates drowned her six children and got found not guilty. No opinion???

Why post that you have no opinion about such a travesty? I have an opinion on your post, for sure.

The IMBRA law is a TRAVESTY? I mean, I know you're not saying it's on par with the Holocaust, or the Andrea Yates deal.....right?

me either..but i think it is needed

post boosting

No I think it is a good law

Why are the choices so biased against IMBRA?

If I think it's a good law, I must also believe in Santa Claus?

The IMBRA criminal background screening is a good idea, but I think it would have been simpler and more effective to just prohibit felons from qualifying for a K1 or K3. I also think all petitioners should be required to have an interview in the US. The beneficiary is required to pass an interview, so why not the petitioner? That would filter out some of the scumbags and frauds.

The IMBRA limit on number of petitions is a good idea and overdue. Some guys were bringing in multiple women for trial marriages or worse.

The IMBRA web site rules probably won't do much good, will put some web sites out of business, will make more money for Match.com etc., and will just make it more difficult for poor foreign women to find a US husband. Defining a web site as a "Marriage Broker" because they charge men in the US maybe a 100 bucks a year and don't charge foreign women who can't afford to pay is silly, and just puts disadvantaged women at a greater disadvantage in finding a good husband.

Why make it easier for them? If two people meet by chance and fall in love - great,
but why should the law encourage people to actively seek partners in another country?
I say make it as difficult as possible!