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' 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

That is a terrible thing to do to anybody. He must be an idiot. There are plenty of women in this country with their legs wide open, why bother petitioning and temporarily destroying someones life?

can I take him out back and teach him a lesson. That is unbelievable, untolorable....i just hope that karma comes back on him one day

Must be a control thing... he'd have to answer for his behavior if he did that to women here. This way, he sends them off and moves on to the next one, relatively anonymously.

One could only hope that he gets his reward.... like a few untreatable STDs that make his life so miserable, he can't continue the behavior (or pass it along)...

We've had many a debate about the reasonability of IMBRA... there have been some opposed to its concept. but from what I read, most seemed more frustrated about the way it was implemented, not about the legislation itself....

Jen

He is one of the reasons why IMBRA was enacted in the first place. As Jen said most of us agree with it in concept and why it was enacted, it was just the implementation of it that really was absurd. Not the fault of the law but of the people within USCIS that havent handled it well at all.

Yes.. I have no problem with IMBRA, but I do have a problem with how the government waited and let cases go, and then went back and said "oooops... we messed up so screw your plans and your interviews." It could've well been avoided.

If I cant get my baby over here because she is my second petition (the first cheated...also never made it to the interview)..maybe I will look up your 'friend' since people like him helped create this inclusion in the law

I'm a firm believer in kharma. What goes around comes around. Like a lot of laws it ain't all good and it ain't all bad. The lack of implementation is what has got everybody here upset for the most part.

I have only one thing to say about that guy:

Get a ROPE!!!!

Because of people like this guy we have to wait so long.

It does not apply to me, and I hope it never does, but do you need the waiver on your third K1 application or your second, regardless of the 2 year limit. Jay

Within the 2 years, it is the second one..outside of that, I am unclear.

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.

It is not punishing everyone for the sake of one individual. Think of how many other people may be doing this also. This is only one story and although it's not ideal for people to have to wait longer to bring their loved-ones to the U.S, hopefully is stop aholes like this from continuing to use and abuse the system.

You may not like it, but if the shoe were on the other foot and your daughter was going to marry a man in a foreign country, wouldn't you like to make sure that there was a sfety net in place so this kind of thing doesn't happen??

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.

oh that's a nice thing to say about american women........

lost in the woods,

Indeed you are. There are far more than 1 bad apple. Here's a recent example from LA of an all too common situation around the country:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.visa.us...6537e94eaa68cf1

Note that the fraud ring was caught because USCIS employees gradually noticed some of the same petitioners submitting multiple petitions - one of the activities that IMBRA targets.

Yodrak

I hear ya on that. It's bad enough some of our foreign women live in har enough conditions, why would anyone want to make it any worse for them?!?! Destroying them temporarily? For someone to do that to a foreign woman, that is not only permanently scarred but most embarassing (to say the very least), especially to their families.

I won't lie, I dislike IMBRA but I am glad it's there to protect those who would be or have been victims. I just wish they would have planned the implementation much better and considered the effects of their process much more closely. Maybe, MAYBE, things would have been a lot smoother.

What's real estate got to do with filing multiple K-1 petitions? LOL!

Hi all,

I agree we have to protect the woman/men who are brought into the USA, BUT...

The processes of IMBRA was badly planned. USCIS can do a background check on the petioner without exposing criminal records of US citizens to the world. If someone have had been abusive in the past, DENY HIS/HER VISA!

Then, do not treat men who wants to bring their loved ones into the US like sex offenders, because IMBRA does exactly that!

Restricting who we choose to marry is rediculous. It is like something from the cold war :-) If we are trying to "protect" what are we doing on the homefront to prevent the same abuse of hapening? Nothing!

Anyway, the intent of IMBRA has merit, but how USCIS and JOD implemented it, was horrable!... and still is.

It is Un-American, Un-constitutional... it is simply bad and wrong!

Find a better way of doing it!

this must be you

I confess I haven't been watching the IMBRA details too closely of late. In what way are US men being treated like sex offenders? In my state, sex offenders are locked up, or if they're done with that, their names & addresses are posted on a website.

And just a pet peeve of mine, no one is restricting who you choose to marry. The restriction is on who is allowed to immigrate into the US, something that affects your entire community.

Oh goody goody gumdrops! Another thread debating the pros and cons of IMBRA. This week was getting boring.

Jayzeus, shon, what's wrong with you? Keep your personal attacks to PM why don't you? Are you going to defend the honor of every US citizen/resident woman? You deny the truth in icey's comment? I don't. I also don't take it as including myself. Why, did you?

i stand by my comments.

the person who compaired it to making murder legal has made my point for me.

they did not make it a crime to abuse the system.

the appropriate response is to create a law where it is a crime to do what the man in the original example did, it is somewhat akin to fraud.

this was not done, instead it is an attempt to prevent the situation from happening.

a noble enough idea, but it cannot work, you cannot protect people by passing a law, it has never worked.

all you can do is create a crime and punish people, in so doing you can also discourage such abuses.

there is no law that can be passed that will ever prevent someone from doing something wrong.

if that was possible then there would be no murders, murder is illegal and it happens all the time.

all we can do is punish the offenders, or in this case punish the honest because we reacted as a nation and were too short sighted to realize the limits of our ability and athority.

the man in the example has not been punished, if he does it again there is no crime he has committed and no jail sentence for him.

at the same times tens of thousands of honest people who do the right thing, the right way for the right reasons pay the price.

what has been accomplished here is that the innocent have been punished for no good reason, the entire process is discouraged.

i would say that the number of people who do not understand what i am saying and think i'm being short sighted is a very large part of what is wrong with society in general and the system in america in total.

Personally, I can't quite fathom the reason for all of the objections after implementing IMBRA. So it adds a couple of weeks, or possibly months to the process! Is that so critical? I know that waiting is difficult, but it's just a consequence of trying to ensure safe immigration for all, as a result of the acts of others. I look at this extra step as somewhat similar to attempts to stamp out drunk driving or enforce seat-belt use. We're all affacted, even if we are not the offenders. Sure, it takes a couple more seconds every time anyone gets in his/her vehicle before they can pull away, and it limts the number of drinks everyone should have before calling it a night, but it's for everyone's safety, when all is said and done.

the compairison to seat belt laws is accurate.

those are also intrusive, an attempt to protect someone from their own action or choice.

the problem with this law, and it's situation is that it will not protect these women, it will not be effective.

we'll see in a year, but i will bet that the fraud rings will continue, the abuses will continue.

I do not think there is any chance the law will work because it does not address the problem, this law was enacted as a bad solution to a real and serious problem.

but the one high profile case was not part of a fraud ring and many people have drawn conclusions from it, incorrect conclusions.

EDIT:

this law is similar to requiring every car in the country to be retrofitted with a breath testing machine to see if you've been drinking.

if that is a good idea in your mind then ok, you're for this law and that's ok

i'm for writing laws that make sense, accomplish something but do not intrude on liberty, freedom and the right to make choices for ones self.

i am against seat belt laws, but i have used one every time i am in a car since long before there were seat belt laws.

i don't care if someone makes a bad choice, they should be allowed to choose.

creating a law and system to agressively stamp out fraud is a good idea, that is not the purpose of this law.

this law has one purpose, to discourage legal immigration.

it was directed at you too..I did not personally attack anyone!

diadromous mermaid

"Personally, I can't quite fathom the reason for all of the objections after implementing IMBRA. So it adds a couple of weeks, or possibly months to the process! Is that so critical? I know that waiting is difficult, but it's just a consequence of trying to ensure safe immigration for all, as a result of the acts of others. I look at this extra step as somewhat similar to attempts to stamp out drunk driving or enforce seat-belt use. We're all affacted, even if we are not the offenders. Sure, it takes a couple more seconds every time anyone gets in his/her vehicle before they can pull away, and it limts the number of drinks everyone should have before calling it a night, but it's for everyone's safety, when all is said and done."


The comparison of "seconds" for putting on your seatbelt and waiting for "months" is a very significant difference. Being one of the recalled petitons has made it very obvious to me that the agencies involved in implementing IMBRA were totally unprepared.

That being said, I agree with the philosophy behind the law, I just disagree with how it was rolled out initially. As for the rest of the details behind the law, I don't care at this point, I just want to get the K1 process done. If someone is trying to abuse the system, hopefully the new law will make it harder for them, maybe not. It's been debated continuosly.

I recall reading that USCIS is being investigated for allowing visas for a good number of people who shouldn't have been given visas. Seems like they need to get their act together in the basic immigration process before they add more layers of complexity to the system. Refine what you've got before you add on more cr*p...

So true!

The "complete disclosure" provision of IMBRA parallel the complete disclosure laws of real estate...the "buyer" (in the case of IMBRA the buyer is the beneficiary of the K-1) is required by law to be informed of potentially negative aspects of the prospective "purchase" (likewise, the purchase is the petitioner) so that an informed decision can be made.

You don't seem to understand the law. The USC having a criminal conviction is not grounds for denial of anyone's VISA! Don't want anyone on here thinking that is the case.

Do you realise just how short-sighted that statement appears? 'Seconds' everytime you buckle up, that could be several times a day, 365 days a year, for as many years as you continue driving...as compared to a month, once in a lifetime. Any law newly implemented will cause some ripple effect, it's nature. We don't have the ability to 'stop the clock, cease all activity, to put it into action, before we resume'. In business, this happens daily, and we all take it in stride. I think if those involved with IMBRA (and that means all petitioners and beneficiaries of K visas) were to begin to really contemplate how it is ensuring their own safety, you;d have less to gripe about. I'm not sure of your background (i.e. are you the petitioner or the beneficiary) and I haven't looked at your sig to confirm, but if you're the petitioner and have not commited any act that could give rise to any scrutiny by USCIS, think, if you will about your beneficiary. Someone you love dearly, correct? Had he or she not met you, it's quite conceivable that at some point in time he/she could be party to a petition by someone who does give USCIS cause to scrutinise. Woudl you wish that on your loved one?

It wasn't meant to be a specific "bash" towards American women. Prostitutes exist, baby mama's exist, www.adultfriendfinder.com exists...

Sorry if you took it that way, though.



So very reported.

in the future you might find it to be a good idea to be more specific when you write something like that.



i'm sure you got reported for slandering american women too

Not shortsighted at all actually. In fact your statement comparing the time it takes to buckle up your seatbelt to the time people have to wait for the implementation of IMBRA is really totally irrelevant. You could have said the same about the time it takes to brush to prevent cavities or pick your nose to prevent boogers. The point is IMBRA was implemented or "rolled out" in a very inconsistent and inefficient manner. If you were not affected by the process, you possibly have less understanding of the process. I was affected as were many VJer's. I'm sorry if you can't understand my main point- I am not philosophically against IMBRA, just not happy with being a guinea pig for the new law ok? As for your statement about the business world, yes, that's wondeful businesses can adjust. The government is not a business, unfortunately, and nothing in the process after IMBRA was implemented has been done in a "businesslike manner". As many people have said before, if the government was in the businessworld, then it would go out of business rather quickly. As for griping, I'm not the one who is complaining about the law itself, I actually think the ideas behind it are good things.

All I can say is reread my post. I never said I was philosophically against IMBRA. As for the personal questions about my "loved one" I won't answer that because it's just a emotional appeal that attempts to cloud my original statement. I suggest you read some of the posts about the recalled petitions and the people that are still waiting to be approved.

Nothing to add to this very general statement except

you slandered all AMERICAN WOMAN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you think you can say things and its ok. its not!

Actually, it's not at all irrelevant. And to compare it with brushing one's teeth is not at all the same thing. One brushes one's teeth to prevent cavities and to ensure continued health. If you don't brush then you only have yourself to blame should you end up with a mouth full of rotting teeth. In other words, the end result of not brushing is self-imposed. On the other hand, in everyday life, we do things such as buckling up to prevent harm from others' mistakes in judgment, not just our own. Whichever way you look at it, in a system where people are at different levels of processing, to implement any new procedure is going to cause a wrinkle or two. Perhaps it is unfortunate that this new legislation's implementation in 2006 just happened to catch a few who are in mid-stride, but on the whole, I can't imagine anyone grumbling about the procedure, if one is altruistic, that is. The incidence of battered aliens is on the rise. Many are fearful to report it, just as they are fearful to leave the abuser. And predators use that to their advantage, believe me.

If I were an intending immigrant alien at this time, and especially one for whom English may be a second language, I'd be thankful for the extra scrutiny, and with electronic communication as popular and as widespread as it is nowadays, the problems without more due diligence would only escalate. Predators have access to anyone in the world now, with online fora and chatrooms. And believe me, anyone is potential prey.

This is not meant to be a personal statement, but a general one. Rather than grumble about its implementation, I'd be thankful that your loved one has some comfort of knowing that what you say is a squeaky clean record, is indeed that. I know I would.

Another day when I wonder how you got/keep your job with your reading comprehension and out of line responses. Senority must be a good thing if you can talk to people at work like that.
I'll take your flaming reply in private, thanks.

Irrelevant comparisons go both ways. The issue is not seat belts, toothbrushing , nor nose picking. I refuse to agree that "grumbling" about IMBRA implementation implies that one is not altruistic and I think many others affected by it would agree. You can choose to believe that just because people affected by the slowdown and backlog caused by the inefficient implementation of IMBRA are upset means they are against the philosophies behind the law but you are wrong. It appears to me you are more concerned about the law itself than how it actually has affected the present petition process.

A wrinkle or two? Where have you been?

You still don't get it, in my previous 2 posts I stated I agree with the general philosophy behind IMBRA. I really don't need a lecture on IMBRA and it appears to me at this point you are just using this opportunity to justify the reasons behind it. Why? IMBRA is already law. You don't have to convince me of anything and I'm done talking about it.

Fair enough, but I've been here quite some time and have read many threads on VJ pertaining to the implementation pitfalls. I am not pontificating the law, I'm recommending that while in the ideal world, no one would have been caught in a loop, how often do we actually live in an ideal world. If you are not against the law, as you say, I'll accept that, but if you support the concept, then to be alturistic would be to tolerate the delay with an eye to knowing that those that follow you may benefit from some of the heartache you have had to endure.

By the way, and this is just curiosity on my part, but how is it that you are asking where I've been? I don't recall going anywhere, although I do note that you've only been active on VJ since June of 2006.

Points well taken and thanks for understanding my views. I definitely appreciate your viewpoints and I do realize sometimes it's good to step back and look at the big picture. I know it is for the "greater good".

As for grumbling, I admit I have done some of that but I have also taken many other positive actions in order to find out about my case. The "grumbling" to our representatives may have had some benefits, who knows?

Didn't mean to offend by the "where have you been statement" it's just that our perspectives on what we discussed may be affected by the particular circumstances we are in. Too bad I didn't join VJ before all this, I wouldn't be so cantankerous and bitter!

Alright, here comes the pain.

Listen carefuly:

Taking aspirin for the headache a tumor is causing in the brain does not fix the tumor.

The same goes for this situation. You cannot cure a problem by simply removing the symptoms. It may make things seem like it's better (thus, why I am not an "out of sight out of mind" liberal in terms of US political alignments), but the problem still very much exists, we just don't hear about it as much once the placibo effect wears off.

The fact of the mater is, the bennificiary now can be made aware of who this person really is, without effecting a persons ability to attempt to make themselves better, even if they had a criminal history, by making a real life for themselves. Rather than having big government say you can or cannot get married because of a crime you commited 7 years ago, or instert example here, you have the freedom to try.

For centuries spouses from abroad has had a bad reputation because of all the numerous abuses that come from the lack of legislation and protection for the incoming foreign national, and the lack of restraint a petitioner has to have to find these people, use, and abuse them.

The term "Mail Order Bride" holds a sore spot with us. To us, it's derrogatory, but used each time someone with less than our happiness in mind hears we are marrying someone from another country. How did that happen? Because of the abuses of the past. Because of the track record of it. Because there was no prophylactic there to prevent these abuses. Now, maybe, mail order bride and it's meaning can change to a much more positive light because it makes it much harder for those with malicious intent to abuse the system.

Frankly my friend, if you have a problem with IMBRA, you have a problem with the vast majority of us here, and you are welcome to leave at any time.






The law will not add any extra time to the process once it's caught back up and business as usuall. It just did for those of us effected by it's cockamamie implamentation and recall.

And by the way, it's been 4 months.





You have a completly skewed and slanted understanding of the IMBRA law entirely, or you never really read it before. I don't know which it is. But something isn't right here.

In any case, this law DOES fix the problem. Others may arise or come to light. But the main problem is solved. The benneficiary now has the ability to learn the truth before deciding on if to follow through or not. It is their FREEDOM, LIBERTY, CHOICE, (as you like to throw around) to decide not to follow through, or to follow through with the visa process.

If you are being selfish enough to say that it takes away the freedom of the person who has been breaking the law, then you are more far gone than is even worth while debating this issue with.







There really wasn't much there to begin with, other than laws of how to prolong the process as long as possible with useless red tape and bloated overly execessive processes just because someone wanted to make a job for themselves at our expense. This particular law adds in a feature that should have been in there long ago. Our bennificiaries have to do a background check, why shouldn't we?

Simple. But as we all know the implementation of that was atrocious.

So maybe what needs to be refined is the beauraucracy of why it takes 6 months to implement a law on average, and then it takes the full 2 months deadline actually given to implement IBMRA even to realize it existed and holy crap it was supposed to be implemented by last month today! Do a system wide recall quick!. -They say as they create another 5 months of employment demand for themselves.









And the paranoia choo choo comes to get us...tin foil! tin foil!

I for one have no problem buckling my seatbelt at or about the same time I am preparing to safely drive my car. It, after probably the 10th time I ever put a seatbelt on my whole life, became quite easy and quick to do without any extra time wasted doing it as I have been able to adapt and make the time used dissapear by doing other things at the same time. I have two hands. I have the ability to learn better and faster ways to do things.

I don't do one thing at once. If I did, I wouldn't be able to type and read the monitor at the same time. I would have to type then read what I said and individually fix typos after the fact. Thats very innefficient.

IMBRA is just a way to officialy be able to disclose it to the bennificiary in all fairness to him or her so they know your criminal history if you have any. All of this extra crap you people are putting with it is non-existant.

So, your point is lost.

there is only one thing you are right about, there is obviously no discussion or debate here.

your post is quite good at personal attacks on me, quite weak on points to make.

we'll see in a year or two if i'm right or you are.

i still hold that this law will not protect anyone, it is 'feel good politics' at it's finest.

i'm selfish because i think this is an utterly stupid law, poorly conceived, poorly writen and poorly implimented?

ok i'm selfish.

damn my selfishness, i'm so evil that i have the audacity to demand solutions that actually work without punishing the innocent.

how ignorant of me.

EDIT:

it's almost comical to me that if your time line is accurate you received no delay from this law

Thus exactly why I am not marrying an American Woman. Too hyper emotionaly attached to words like that. Big deal. Deal with the truth. While the choice of words used may have seemed harsh, the fact still remains. Ther ARE enough women who have their morals comprimized enough to be "open" to any walking guy. This is how things are for a lot of women unfortunatly. You can't take umbrige to the truth. No matter how it was said.

If you can't admit that there is a problem here with that, just like just about everywhere else in the world then you are in denial.

The point that was being made in context was in reference to finding such women, but in different countries (where they too exist) so that they don't have to be accountable when they come back, or send the girl back.

Believe me, there is a much more vulgar way to say the above statement.

How would you have liked me to have stated it?

Uh, not this person did not. They used the word PLENTY. Not ALL. I think you are being way to overly emotional about this.




And you are also an arrogant sophmoric troll who should probably stop wasting time and move-on.org (your favorite website)
One last point, I am not on time. I would have had an Aug23rd interview date, but now it will be probably in November. How un-astute of you.

"Frankly my friend, if you have a problem with IMBRA, you have a problem with the vast majority of us here, and you are welcome to leave at any time.”


I find that statement self righteous, and the quintessential example of the "tyranny of the majority." IMBRA has had an enormous impact on all of us and a healthy raucous debate helps this community get a handle on the issues involved and the philosophy behind the law. The linchpin of a free society is free speech and we must tolerate excesses (look at talk radio for gods sake , and in our case trolls, but a self appointed arbiter of what crosses the line is the height of hubris. I will encourage us to tolerate all voices and only condemn those who cross the line with vicious personal attacks.

On the topic in question, my biggest concern is the two year waiting period, it
seems excessive. I will try, and most likely fail , to explain my position. In the digital age relationships that were unfathomable a generation ago our now commonplace; we can find our partner in virtually any portion of the globe. Many of these relationships are nurtured in a world that is even defined as unreal “virtual”. The emotions and commitment are no doubt genuine, but eventually that virtual world must give way to the real word, and the reality of everyday life versus brief jet delivered 2 week encounters can be jarring, my mind flashes to a poor farm girl from a homogenous culture encountering the multi plural cultural reality that is an American city. That is why I love that 90 day window, both parties can get a taste of the path that lies before them, and in most cases the commitment grows stronger, but when it frays they have a chance to step back and re-evaluate. If the strain is too great and one party returns home why should the USC have to wait two more years, especially if a pattern of abuse does not exist, granted the USC will probably not have a foreign fiancée again, but why should that window be closed. One year seems reasonable to me.


In my personal case, I lived in Guangzhou for a year, what an awful place. My GF is at her core Chinese; she wouldn’t even let me kiss her for six months. She has spent her entire adult life in large cities, she is in foreign trade and speaks English fluently, and I have exhausted many hours trying to prepare her, but in my heart I know she will be utterly confused by the her initial American experience

Jay