That is a valid point. Something people might find interesting, an abuser who is not an alcohol or drug user is considered more dangerous than one who is. When abuse is tied to alchohol or drug use it becomes predictable, the spouse has a clear sign that the abuser is under the influence and can use this as warning signal. An abuser who's abuse is not tied to drug or alchohol use is considered unpredictable...a powder keg that can blow at any time.

Good point but more importantly, why are we still awake at this ungodly hour?!

But by saying this aren't you the one now pulling "theories" out of the air? Do you have any facts to support the assumption? By saying "I bet ya" doesn't really prove there is a predilection toward violence and/or abuse just because one's parents may have.

Don't you feel there would be even MORE of an outcry by people if there was such a question as "Has your father (or mother!!!) ever verbally or physically abused your mother (or father)?" Wouldn't we feel as if "hey, just because my parent(s) did it, why should I"???

Then, shouldn't they ask, "were you abused as a child"? If they were, are they more apt to abuse their own children? The suppositions wouldn't end. Can it be possible that those that were subjected to and witnessed this in their parents could also be just as likely to NOT behave that way, because they know how horrible it is?

At least with the question as it stands, it is directly pertaining to that person's own behavior. It would be even less fair to ask questions about our parents' behavior.

Yes we should be sleeping!!! But before i do let me close with this:
Ther is a HUGE descrepency between active addiction and people who have sobered up either through treatment or ? I wish I could spit out statistics like others and I know that they are there, But people in recovery are actualy more responsible in their jobs than Non addicts/Alcoholics. Please give me a little time and I can back that statement up with more than words. I will find figures other than the government stats as like most, I don't trust all that they say.

Good night and thanks again for all of your support:)))))

Definitely!!! I agree wholeheartedly. Just because you must disclose it, doesn't mean that extenuating circumstances won't be considered. But, in all honesty, don't you feel it is important that your SO know about it...isn't it part and parcel of one's past that should be disclosed, even in the far past?

I lived with an alcoholic/drug abuser for a very long time (and yes, he was violent)...clean for several years and then began abusing again. Some can remain clean, some can't.

I applaud you for your recovery and hope that it remains that way. That doesn't lessen the issue of whether or not your loved one should know about it...especially if through IMBRA it is the only way one would. I would certainly hope that the length of time it occurred would weigh not only with Immigration, but with the loved one involved.

Best of luck to you and glad you are going to stick around.

What you are saying is actually quite logical, people who have struggled with an addiction and overcome it often have strong motivating factors for their success, which continue to be factors after recovery

I'm up because I'm being all political elsewhere tonight and until I'm satisfied that I've stated my opinions clearly and based on facts and data I'll be here

[quote name='pj1959us' date='Jun 24 2006, 03:04 AM' post='271349']
[quote name='jangler' post='271308' date='Jun 24 2006, 12:56 AM']
I bet ya that more abusers are that way because they saw their fathers treat women that way. They were "trained" to be that way by a bad example and role-model. I think that is more relevant than alcohol. I doubt that many men who come from warm, loving parents end up being abusers. If they are really looking to weed out the abusers, than maybe a more pertinent addendum to the I-129F would be, "Has your father ever verbally or physically abused your mother?"
[/quote]

[quote name='pj1959us' date='Jun 24 2006, 03:04 AM' post='271349']
But by saying this aren't you the one now pulling "theories" out of the air? Do you have any facts to support the assumption? By saying "I bet ya" doesn't really prove there is a predilection toward violence and/or abuse just because one's parents may have.
[/quote]

That's right. I said, "I bet ya...". Did I state this as fact? Just my opinion!

[quote name='pj1959us' date='Jun 24 2006, 03:04 AM' post='271349']
Don't you feel there would be even MORE of an outcry by people if there was such a question as "Has your father (or mother!!!) ever verbally or physically abused your mother (or father)?" Wouldn't we feel as if "hey, just because my parent(s) did it, why should I"???
[/quote]

Maybe I should have clearly stated that my statement was meant as an absurdity! I thought it was obvious.


[quote name='pj1959us' date='Jun 24 2006, 03:04 AM' post='271349']
Then, shouldn't they ask, "were you abused as a child"? If they were, are they more apt to abuse their own children? The suppositions wouldn't end. Can it be possible that those that were subjected to and witnessed this in their parents could also be just as likely to NOT behave that way, because they know how horrible it is?
[/quote]

I guess at times that may be so, but prove to me that people, especially men, are more likely to NOT be influenced by nuturing than to be influenced by it. Need I remind you that I said, "I bet ya..."?

[quote name='pj1959us' date='Jun 24 2006, 03:04 AM' post='271349']
At least with the question as it stands, it is directly pertaining to that person's own behavior. It would be even less fair to ask questions about our parents' behavior.
[/quote]

You are taking what I said all wrong.

[/quote]

I bet ya that more abusers are that way because they saw their fathers treat women that way. They were "trained" to be that way by a bad example and role-model. I think that is more relevant than alcohol. I doubt that many men who come from warm, loving parents end up being abusers. If they are really looking to weed out the abusers, than maybe a more pertinent addendum to the I-129F would be, "Has your father ever verbally or physically abused your mother?"
[/quote]


There's so many factors that can lead or influence wether someone abuses his/her partner, not to mention each individual circumstances, that it'd be impossible to touch on all of them in one form. It'd probably need a psychiatric assesment of each couple, so cases would take years.
I think we're missing the point that one of the main reasons for IMBRA is so that the foreign fiance(e) is INFORMED of certain aspects of the future husband/wife that may have an effect on their future. And the information has to be irefutable, you could easily answer no to the hypothetical question of "were you abused as a child", but with the criminal past, there's a record, so the petitioner can't lie.
We also have to keep in mind this law wasn't made with us (loving couples who are marrying out of love and we have shared all our life stories with our SOs) in mind. We have to accept the fact that there's men/women out there who might have less than honest intentions when getting a foreign wife/husband and men/women in poor countries who will marry out of economic reasons or in search of a better life and might get caught out in a life threatening situation. The law is made for those cases, so if you want to vent your frustration on someone, why not on the people who prey on the economically disadvantaged for dishonest reasons?
(even though i know we're stuck in this limbo and delays hell due to USCIS plain ineptitude, and believe me, it frustrates me too)

Everyone has their (usually wrong) opinion on what "should" have happened and what would be a "better" way. Again, usually wrong and that can include me often enough. But unfortunatly, law is not dynamic, it is static in nature and cannot be left to interperatation on individual basis due to the fact that, that leaves a gaping hole right there for the law to be "inteperated" at random negating the laws power from the start. Your policial affiliation kind of shows through on this one. Not to split hairs or anything. But the extreme of trying to make laws cater to the chaos of life would be disasterous at best. On the same token, sometimes having the laws be inflexible is also not good. But because of how unruly people are, that is the only way to keep some sense of order.

Remember 4-square in gradeschool? Remember how a group would have a "ring leader" that would make up some random rule, usually to bend it to their favor? This is much like how your take on laws should be. 4-square ended up turning into that persons game rather than a structured game that everyone can have fun and play. We have only one planet, and only one truely free country (sorry folks, but I am an Americanist, lol) that invented true freedom. So it's not like we can go to another "game" in this respect because we don't like how the rules don't bend to our favor when we want it to. No, unfortunatly because of the advantages of staying here currently, we have to ride out the rules changes at this time, or until it truely becomes impossible to win.




To be honest, thats not a bad idea at all. I would support that in the IMBRA. But I think it would have to be voluntary, otherwise one might say they need to provide proof of such abuse somehow.

[quote name='Anna Sif' date='Jun 24 2006, 06:04 AM' post='271403']
[/quote]

I bet ya that more abusers are that way because they saw their fathers treat women that way. They were "trained" to be that way by a bad example and role-model. I think that is more relevant than alcohol. I doubt that many men who come from warm, loving parents end up being abusers. If they are really looking to weed out the abusers, than maybe a more pertinent addendum to the I-129F would be, "Has your father ever verbally or physically abused your mother?"
[/quote]


There's so many factors that can lead or influence wether someone abuses his/her partner, not to mention each individual circumstances, that it'd be impossible to touch on all of them in one form. It'd probably need a psychiatric assesment of each couple, so cases would take years.
I think we're missing the point that one of the main reasons for IMBRA is so that the foreign fiance(e) is INFORMED of certain aspects of the future husband/wife that may have an effect on their future. And the information has to be irefutable, you could easily answer no to the hypothetical question of "were you abused as a child", but with the criminal past, there's a record, so the petitioner can't lie.
We also have to keep in mind this law wasn't made with us (loving couples who are marrying out of love and we have shared all our life stories with our SOs) in mind. We have to accept the fact that there's men/women out there who might have less than honest intentions when getting a foreign wife/husband and men/women in poor countries who will marry out of economic reasons or in search of a better life and might get caught out in a life threatening situation. The law is made for those cases, so if you want to vent your frustration on someone, why not on the people who prey on the economically disadvantaged for dishonest reasons?
(even though i know we're stuck in this limbo and delays hell due to USCIS plain ineptitude, and believe me, it frustrates me too)
[/quote]


That, in a nutshell is the God's honest truth. Well said.

So far, nobody's mentioned the public relations aspect of IMBRA, which I think is pretty significant.

High-profile cases of abuse and murder of immigrant wives by U.S. citizen husbands (like the King case in Washington) can and have created friction in U.S.-foreign relations. When the foreign press picks up these stories, what people in the victim's home country read tends to make them pretty angry with the U.S. because they feel more vigilance on the government's could have prevented it. It has caused our government embarassment in the past, both with international marriages and international adoption cases involving child abuse.

Of course, it's pretty hard to guarantee something like that won't happen again, for all the reasons people have mentioned on this forum. But what looks good is if the government takes some legislative steps that show it is serious about prevention of harm to foreign women who come to the U.S. to be married--whether or not they are likely to be effective. Repeated alcohol and drug offenses are considered unacceptable in most countries. Many nations have penalties for drunk driving or minor possession that I would cheerfully jam a screwdriver in my eye to avoid. This doesn't mean people in those countries don't use, or don't drive drunk, but it does mean their governments have taken a pretty strong position on the issue. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there were legislators who were skeptical of data correlating drug/alcohol abuse and spousal abuse, but who realized that the measure would help the U.S. out abroad.



Okay, sir, you need to simmer way down. You are jumping to wild conclusions about what people have said about those who abuse alcohol or drugs. Nobody here has expressed any personal opinion to that effect. If you take issue with the conclusions indicated by statistical studies on active alcoholics and violent behavior, that is legitimate, but it isn't fair to lash out at the people who merely suggest that those studies might have played a role in the drafting of IMBRA. My great grandmother felt that the Watergate break-in would never have happened if Woodward and Bernstein had not reported on it--she didn't like the news, so she vilified the messengers. You are making the same error by getting hostile with people who provide you with information you don't like. If they weren't giving you this information, the fact is it would still be out there, and it would still be influencing policy. I am sorry you are angry about that, but the people on this forum are not appropriate targets for that anger.

The interesting thing about IMRA is that it does not disqualify you as a petitioner. It just makes sure the berneficiary knows that one has killed his whole family with an axe.
[/quote]


ed, you are perfect. thank you for the laugh!

The interesting thing about IMRA is that it does not disqualify you as a petitioner. It just makes sure the berneficiary knows that one has killed his whole family with an axe.
[/quote]


ed, you are perfect. thank you for the laugh!