I might have cracked the code so to speak, behind this enigmatic and empirial decree that has been titled, "IMBRA".

When broken down, the acronym is actually seen to be a phrase, with the government as the speaker of if, and we the people are the listeners:
" I m (am) b - ra (ting)" or "I am berating..." where the -ting is silent.
the phase is incomplete, which is a clue that the government is itself the speaker.
Berating - this means to scold or condemn vehemently and at length (ref. Webster's Dictionary)

I conclude that this is the government or the individual who scripted the law, attempting to scold us, the fiance(e)s and spouses of foriegn nationals, for having recklessly fallen in love with other than another US citizen. Apparently, we should all be ashamed of ourselves and we will all be made to suffer for it by being cast into this pit of dispare until such time as it pleases them to release us or put us out of our misery.

It's ironic and almost funny that our immigrating spouses' and fiance(e)s' first official contact with the so called "Greatest Democracy on Earth" is actually with the biggest oligarchy in the western hemisphere, the USCIS. I hear echos of, "absolute power corrupts absolutely..." Does anyone else see the irony here?

So I would further like to congratulate and thank the authors and approvers of this superb law for straightening us all out. They once again have saved us simple minded commonfolk from ourselves. I'm suprised we can find our ways home after work every day without the government's help. Oh, the horror! Why, we might have gone ahead and got visas and started living together with our wives and husbands by now if it weren't for this gem of legislative joy. I hope those senetors and judges and whoever (they know who they are), I hope they're sleeping nice and tight tonight with their wives and husbands (and in many cases, I'll bet mistresses as well). Sure is great to be with the one you love, yeah? Thanks, guys. Keep up the good work. Give yourselves a raise. -Oh, wait! You already did! Good job senetors. I think I'll run for office next time around, just so I can edge one of you sloths out of the House and actually get some work done.

I consider myself a patriot and I love this country dearly. I am in the armed services and I would lay my life down for this land and it's people if called upon in need. But I find the treatment that we are given by this nation's so-called immigration service goes beyond insulting, it goes against the very fabric upon which this nation was founded. It makes me irate that the swollen beaurocratic carcasses of those in power can torment and destroy the lives of so many innocent people with such little effort. It is amazing that this can happen in America, the land of the free. In spite of this, I still say God bless America. And God bless all her weary souls, and God bless all those who knowing all the problems with it, still want to make her their home.

End of rant.

Other sercret meanings recently uncovered:

USCIS - Unable to Start 'Cause IMBRA Sucks
or - Uncommonly Slow Citizenship Information Service
or - Ultimately, Suck-it-up, Cry-to-your-mother, Ingest-much-alcohol, and Sleep-it-off
and finally - UnSatisfactory Conditions Imposed on your Spouse

aloha!

Oh chris&o, you've fallen victim to the common complaint of having to wait too long and letting your mind play tricks. IMBRA does not stand for "berate" because the government doesn't use big words unless they want to obfuscate, such as on their forms.

In Fact, IMBRA is an acronym for a simpler code. It means, "I am a bra." Restrictive, sweaty, and designed to set off alarms in airports.

Take a deep breath and use the Web to look up the patron saint of immigrants. (Yes, there is one.)

IMBRA is simply one more stupid thing you can thank the feminists for.

St. Frances Xavier Cabrini, the patron saint of immigrants. Well, look at that. Who would have thunk it - a saint, just for us.

HA! THat was funny Jersey Girl. I think your research to the code's meaning might be more accurate...

And the prize goes to (drumroll) NorthernGirl!

Yes, there's a patron saint of immigrants, complete with stories about her going into the taverns of Newark, New Jersey. She'd pull people out and remind them about their responsibilities to support their families. She must have caused quite a stir, as guys dove under tables, spilling their beer and yelling, "Here comes Mother Cabrini!"

Does she answer prayers? Ya never know...

LOL! Do you even know what feminist means? I doubt it. I think you meant government. Feminism is about equality not female superiority. The last time I looked under my hairy armpits, I found out that there are a lot of women (as well as men) inconvienced by IMBRA.

I hope your wife meets a few "feminists" when she gets here. Or do you plan to just knock her up and chain her to the stove like all good southern boys?


...."all good southern boys" was an example of your gross generalizations. Not the way I really feel. Offensive, eh?

Kudos to you, MrsWhizz! I thought to address Zed's ignorant comment, but instead I chose to ignore him and stick with the subject. Glad to see that someone attempted to educate him. And righto, not all men from the South have their women knocked up and tied, but I think we might have a live one here.

hey hey hey, what a way to ruin a good humored thread. Ok to get back on track to the zany just a quick response. Many feminists take it too far and seek out to be superior to men as some form of payback for all the years of "supression and opression". Another example is the minority movement, or the so-called ACLU always going overboard with things. Both of those are constantly trying to take more and more and more. I can't get money for school because I am white, yet my incoming fiance can get grants, scholarships, loans, you name it right off the plane. Where is the equality when it's limited to one type of person of "color" or sex? While the original intention of feminism was extremely noble, just like many other "causes" there are those who want more and more and more. That is just how it is with activists of all kinds. People actually trying to find a true equal balance are few and far between.

Now, back to the funny...

No, Mrs Whizz, I don't find that offensive at all. I'm not all sensitive like the rest of the goofballs in this country. I think everyone is entitled to express their opinions and beliefs. Maybe "feminist" wasn't the right word and "liberal" was. I don't know. But look at all this crap everyone has to go through over IMBRA just because one woman got murdered. Now I'm not saying that that's a small thing, because clearly it's a terrible thing to have happened. But to take one awful instance and translate it into what we've got now is way more than just overblowing things. Maybe you call it government, but I call it feminist/liberal foolishness.

"just because one woman got murdered"??? You don't really think that's why it was passed do you? Please don't make me repost the horror stories of murders, rapes, and child molestations that Congress cited. Did you not see that in the last 10 years, over 30,000 "battered spouse waiver" self-petitions were filed by immigrant women and children who were subjected to abuse by their USC sponsor spouses?

I agree IMBRA sucks, because it's delaying everybody's process. But I also agree it has one benefit: why do us foreigneirs have to show the police certificates and prove this and that while the USC don't need to? I think it's more than fair. If you need proof we are not lying about our past and we're not murderers, rapists, etc, why should the rule apply only 1 sided?

Good lord! I'm just saying that this bites for all of us. Labeling and being offensive is a cop out and ultimately, just makes things worse. It's clear that everyone has a different political view and that's what this country is all about, but why make everything worse by using narrowminded words or blaming this group or that group? If you want a scapegoat, blame your lawmakers. Personally, I don't really care. I just want my husband next to me when I wake up in the morning.

As for my previous post...it's called being cheeky. Perhaps a sense of humour would help you a bit Zed.

My only problem with this whole situation is that it appears to me like the following.

Ok everyone we have this really terrible problem lets pass a law.

**** work ****
***** woork *****

wow thats great we got it done and it is passed!!!! Wooo hooo

*** tap tap tap *****

someone in the Visa agencies asks, "Um how are we supposed to do that?"

Lawmakers respond, "oh..that is not our problem we just make the laws you figure out how to make it happen!!!"

Now is that the way it really happens, I dont know but from this side of the glass that is what it looks like. Because if they had a plan for transitioning in the new law into the old process it is the best kept secret on the planet!!!!

All that putting a Law into place without the infrastucture to manage that law does is hurt the current users of the system and no one will be saved until the processes and procedures are fully in place to support the law that was passed.

"Just because one woman got murdered"

One Woman/ Man..... either one murdered is one too many.

Spousal Viloence in my humble opinion as a male,

Should never happen in the first place.



Whether it's to do with IMBRA or not.

Nobody has the god given right to lay a hand on a woman/ man in a violent situation or way.

If you get angry with your spouse, or they get angry with you,

Walk away, chill out, go and calm down.

There are always ways to deal with aggressionin ( if it is present in) a relationship.

Most cases of abuse in relationships/ Marriages are caused by the usual means.

Alcohol/ drug abuse, Gambling, cheating on spouses and Money.

If you do not feel safe in your relationship/ marriage, leave.

Don't stay for the kids( if they are in the picture)

Take yourself and your kids anf get out.

If someone has hit you (spouse) once, good chance it won't be a isolated case in the future.

Protect yourself and kids first.

Report him/ her for domestic violence.

Never feel you have no choices.

You are in control.

You have the choice to stay or to go.

Choose wisely.

Having grown up in a abusive household,

I do know first hand of the consequences.

Always trust your gut feelings.

Be safe / not sorry.

Well I agree with the evidence you mention because I have seen it, and I wish there was a law that addressed the issues that lead to this only. So because of that, IMBRA is "ok" but not great. I vehemently disagree with how the law was underhandedly passed though. The reason it didn't pass in 2003 is because of it's flaws that was very much seen by the voting reps. So, the woman (who is a feminisim advocate) encapsulated the law within a law to hide it under the umbrella of the bigger law. That is the liberal/feminism I think the OP of that comment was vaguly getting at.

Most commonly, it is very well known that the far left (liberals) do that as a general practice when an absurd law they want passed doesn't pass on it's own merrits and the writer refuses to make it better out of pride or emotional and irrational vindication (what too many feminists these days have, forgetting that the orginal goal was equality). So it's actually people like that, that give feminism a dirty name. While feminism is extremely and very much so a fantastic thing for our society, many have just gone too far with it.

On a side note, if we truely did have equality within the sexes, the feminist advocacy would be out of controversy to keep the votes coming in, and money being made. Thats one reason why there are those that take it too far. To keep the controversy alive.




Bingo! and thats A-number 1 why IMBRA should have ONLY been that and only that. Instead the writer took it too far and thats why it didn't pass iniitally because of all the extra cruft and fat of the written law. To me it's a no brainer. We should have had background checks for us on the applications long ago, and should have even had to have a law to say so. It would have been long accepted as just part of the application process by now if that was the case.

I think the main flaw with the argument that IMBRA was concealed, hidden, etc. is that it assumes that 531 lawmakers didn't know what they're voting for. I would challenge anyone to show me where a single representative or senator who voted for passage has admitted (a) that they didn't know IMBRA was incorporated into the VAWA bill, and/or ( had they known that, they would not have voted for it. I don't think you can assume that these lawmakers don't know what they're voting for. In fact, I think you should assume just the opposite, that they know exactly what they are voting on.

The idea of amending different pieces of legislation to each other is commonplace. Congress (both parties) does it all the time -- sometimes for efficiency, and sometimes for political reasons (remember the Republicans tacking on the ANWR drilling amendment to the money for Iraq bill?)

And, various senators (both parties) spoke on the senate floor (before passage) about IMBRA and why it should be supported. It's all in the Congressional Record (the various anti-imbra website have villified these senators and can point you to their statements). So I just don't think that the argument that the evil feminists put one over on the Congress really holds much water.

Keyword on evil feminists here. Not the real feminists who actually do good for people on not their own continued gain (monetarily/politicaly).

With that, you have the nail, and almost hit it on the head. (I am not republican either by the way, I see both sides for what extremes they can take and how it is wrong either extreme) But I want to make the point though that many times laws are encapsulated into another when they strategicaly know the law in which it is now hiding is will force many to vote for "yey" on the bigger law because it would be "political suicide" if they didn't. Or the bigger law is so important to pass as soon as possible that the collateral damage of the deviously placed smaller bits becomes somewhat artificialy acceptable. Sometimes it just even comes right down to pay-offs and political favor trading.

It is fact that some of these guys truely never read over the laws. They just go by what others say or their political party leader "recommends" (forces, depending on who you talk to), or the vague descriptions they hear from one extreme or the other in their debates. Realisticaly, do you seriously believe that people of this calibur would ever admit they didn't know the full details of the law they voted on? Not likely. They want to keep the easy job.

The exploitation and passage of laws is extreme and it causes things like this to happen all the time. Unfortunatly, most of the detrimental stuff comes from the liberal side in multiple disguises. They have mastered the art of encapsulation much better than the conservative side.

And by the same token, IMBRA is keyed toward the evil USC petitioners who import and abuse spouses. Not the real USC spouses who actually love their partners and want to live together in the US in happiness.

Sometimes the many get painted with a brush intended for only a few.

Imbra, if you could provide a link to what Congress cited, it would be appreciated. Anything I've ever read basically says that there is no evidence to suggest that these types of occurances (divorces also) are any more prevelant in marriages with foreign spouses than in any other marriage in this country. And I find that to be a reasonable statement.



Yes, this is a common practice and, unfortunately, probably the only way that anything gets done on Capitol Hill. That's why the presidents have asked for the line-item veto so many times over the years (like many governors have).

zed,
Can you consider this? It's nothing to do with marriage, divorce or protecting foreign women(men). It's all about immigration and the American collective 'we' taking on someone we're eventually going to have to pay for.
What if?

Take all the bleeding heart crap out of it if it doesn't jibe for you---look at it from a cooly practical point of view.

scary but true

Sure. Here's the link to the page of Congressional Record with Sen. Brownback's statment, it continues over a page or two. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...ame=2005_record

Also, the INS commissioned a study for a report to Congress (I think it was in 1997) that, among other things, concluded that "While no national figures exist on abuse of alien wives, there is every reason to believe that the incidence is higher in this population than for the nation as a whole. Authorities agree that abuse in these marriages can be expected based on the men's desire for a submissive wife and the women's desire for a better life. At some point, after the alien bride has had time to adjust to the new environment, to make new friends, and to become comfortable with the language, her new independence and his domination are bound to conflict. The problem, according to Mila Glodava (Glodava and Onizuka, 1994) and Uma Narayan (Narayan, 1995), is largely due to the men's unrealistic expectations. While many state a desire for a submissive wife, they find that such dependence becomes a burden. To provide some relief, the husband seeks ways (friends, activities) that will get the wife "out of the house" on occasion. The resulting independence then angers the husband who manifests the anger on the wife, who may have only been guilty of trying to please her husband." http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/reps...ies/Mobappa.htm

Does that help? There was testimony before the House Foreign Relations Committee in 2004 as well. I can try and find that online somewhere to if you want.

I believe the reason the government demands foreigners to have to show police certificates is to keep criminals out of the USA. Let's not pretend that they had the USC's welfare in mind. Do you really think they did that to keep us safe from abuse? Now the USC has to prove he/she is innocent of any crimes to solely protect the foreign spouse. They never really cared about "us" or that we may end up with a wife/husband who was at one time a prostitute or who once dealt drugs. The reasons for the criminal checks are different for both sides. Just my opinion.

I M B R A

Initiating Millions of Berating Responses Accidentally






sorry everybody, just trying to start a mildly entertaing line of discussion by starting this topic but alas I have failed... i shant do it again.

Anyone really who disputes that is in denial. I would go so far as to say the vast majority percentage of older men marying younger women is for this reason. Even domestic mariage between an older man and a younger naieve woman. Once the Woman gets older and more experienced, the control factor (fantasy world) the older man was seeking goes away and the real abuse starts becasue he feels there is a growing power struggle.

Even worse when the American man solely desires a wife strictly from a foreign country because she is younger and/or because she is considered "poor and humble" (a.k.a non-western) and he believes them to be culturaly submissive in comparison to the brass rude American style, he feels there is a greater chance to live the fantasy of control. The girl is more a pet, than a person at this point. Thats when it gets sick. Thats why IMBRA, on many levels, is a good thing, it makes it much harder for the easy venues these people go to, to order a wife/spouse.

Oh and P.S. don't waste time commenting on the un-pc sounding nature of my comparison with older men and younger women. Lets face it, it's rare that there is a brokered mariage between a woman petitioner and a male beneficiary. Although, I would suspect that in many more cases, even if the woman was older the relationship would work out much better. Or at least, the odds of success are much higher in comparison. Heck, I have a thing for older women (they know what they want), I just happened to find someone who I love dearly that happens to be more my age.





Again well said, and I agree. It is very one sided with how these laws are being made and it goes to show how xenophobic America has become.


I M B R A

Imbicilic Magistrate Bought, Re-election Always

That's a good point, Meauxna, although I disagree that that's what it's about.




Wow... now if I tried to say something with a disclaimer like "although I have no facts, I know this is true" I would take some pretty serious heat. And I say that from experience. "Authorites agree that abuse in these marriages can be expected "???




Again wow... and people accuse ME of sweeping generalizations. I would absolutely dispute this and in no way am I in denial about anything. The citings in the Congressional document were horrible, but I saw no dates, no numbers, or anything else. Unfortunately, you could make a list 100 times as long involving domestic spouses.

yeah, what Z said

Well the "while no figures exist" statement was true in 1997, that is no longer the case, there are now real figures. I've posted elsewhere from the recent paper that cites all the studies showing that the incidence of domestic violence in marriages with immigrant women and USC spouses is considerably higher than average. I'll dig that up again if you want me to. But that's basically irrelevant for the reasons I've mentioned before, . . .you don't need to do an experiment or have hard-scientific data before passing a law.

Congress can just think that there might be a problem and pass a law that they think might address it -- even if it only helps a little bit (they don't have to try and tackle the whole problem). So although you might not think it wiser to try and address abuse in marriages between two USCs (or as some have suggested, all marriages) that doesn't make what Congress did wrong.

Yes, I would be interested to see that. But I think (yes, I suppose I am prejudging) that the data will be highly disputable.

Well I guess I disagree on that one. For Congress to go through all the time and money and whatever else it takes to pass a law that may or not be needed for a problem that may or not exist, and that will cost taxpayers money to implement and maintain in a way that no one seems to have a handle on... well that may be politics as usual, but YES it is wrong.

Chris... I sincerely apologize for hijacking your innocent, fun little thread!

Quotes from the recent article are in this thread:
http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18404

Of course you can make such a list, sham relationships happen domesticly too. But your "list" would have more cases because there are magnitudes more than there are imigrant mariages. So your example is kind of lukewarm at best im afraid.

The citings of the Congressional Document, as well as many other spousal abuse cases show that a higher concentration of spousal abuse occurs with imigrant spouses, especially those arranged by a mariage broker.

I think femainist and liberal are the same thing. Men (not liberal metro sexuals) the femainization of the American male is why American men seek foreign brides. Those of us who are not PC and want to live in a traditional marriage that is scorned in the US have gone overseas to embrase the culture of countries where men are the bread winners and providers of the family. Maybe the hardest job a woman can have is a housewife and mother. I am seeking a companion to grow old with not a slave. I am too old for more children and am marrying a woman my own age. The difference is she has class and culture and is not intrested in competing with males for careers. I will be happy in my golden years while you corporate types work yourself into a early grave. IMBRA is all about business. Eharmony, Match.com, and Yahoo personals don't want the competition. follow the money. The senator from Washington was bought and may not be aware of it. Follow the money.

Here is a link to a 2004 news press release that shows the tactics used to get IMBRA passed:


http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/7/prweb138739.htm

Promoters of the INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER REGULATION ACT strategically link international matchmaking organizations with human trafficking rings in effort to gain bipartisan support.

Strategic linking of marriage brokers with human trafficking rings aids in gaining bipartisan support for law intent on eliminating international matchmaking companies and websites.

(PRWEB) July 4, 2004 -- To gain bipartisan support for the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act, we endorse the strategies of (1) using "womens' protection" as the main theme of the law; and (2) claiming that American-based marriage brokers are part of global human trafficking rings, however unfounded.

We also support provisions of the Act that will require brokers to conduct large quantities of consent verifications and background checks before American men can write love letters or make any contact with foreign women. These provisions will make it very difficult for American-based marriage brokers to organize those disgusting overseas introduction "parties" where women outnumber men 100 to 1. These provisions will also drive up costs to the point of putting most brokers out of business. In addition, this law effectively places "warning labels" on American men thus decreasing demand for them among foreign women over time.

Although this law is long overdue (and hopefully not too late), we welcome the Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2003 as a means to regulating the often arrogant and brazen international marriage broker industry. This industry has gone from the fringe to the mainstream. The American male population is now overly exposed to the message that it is acceptable to desire and actually marry women "unspoiled" by American materialism and most troubling, "uninfected" by American feminism. This message may impede the progress of feminism here at home and give American men the idea that it is acceptable to not respect feminist principles that took so long to instill upon them.

The marriage broker websites promulgate the "message" that American men are highly desirable outside the U.S. and can have access to women not intent on upholding over 30 years of hard won womens' rights. These sites also offensively elaborate on the reasons for rejecting American women as part of a campaign to promote the desirablity of foreign women. We find this to be most appalling.

Certainly, the existence of this industry is indicative of the sad state of romantic relationships between men and women in North America; however, it by no means should be allowed to continue unregulated. Sites such as www.americanwomensuck.com and www.nomarriage.com are problematic enough.

# # #