Anonther Moscow Approval

[slim 1,533]

Then she said that she has her immunizations, but not the documents to show the immunizations. I told her not to worry, that she could just get her immunizations again and get it documented this time. This did not sit well at all. "Not Keerk! Not! Too much immuneezatsia BAD!" Then she said she'd go get some documentation. LOL. I don't think I'll ask how she's going to get that document.

Since she' going to custom order her shot records, for ease of use later, have her get the DS-3025 and ensure they say that she's "had a the mumps and a chicken pox."

Seeing the big scars people who went to school in the soviet union have from their immunizations, her upset is understandable. Ouch!

The scars that you talk about are from smallpox vaccinations which were common in the Soviet Union all the way up past even the '90s. I want to say we stopped them here in '76 when the last strain was locked up in the CDC warehouse down in Atlanta. There was still a pea can or two (containing several test tubes full of active strain) floating around the FSU after the fall and so they continued to innoculate against it. The money dried up so even though they still do it, it's not as wide-spread as it once was.

There was fear post-9/11 that these pea cans were out on the black market and an attack against Americans with either smallpox along with a dirty bomb (and possibly even Anthrax too!) was in the works. We didn't have enough smallpox to vaccinate everyone so they started with the govt. employees and military members most at risk. They now have scars on their upper arms as well. They're not quite as bad as what the former Soviets have (not as many pin pricks needed now) but they're still noticeable and instantly ID anyone that's been innoculated.

Smallpox was officially eradicated in the late '70s but it was still being used for weapons purposes in places like the Soviet Union thus necessitating the need to innoculate the people for worst-case scenarios. Plus, since they were using it for weapons, they assumed we were too (we weren't.... but easily could) so they had to have their people protected.

Who knows, maybe someday we'll see a return of smallpox or another deadly virus. Maybe even something like 28 Days Later or Doomsday (both great movies, by the way!) is a possibility in our crazy world. In the event something like that happens, scarred upper arms will be a fashion statement!

[eekee 182]

I thought people had TB scars as well?

I actually have a fairly large round chickenpox scar on my arm in the same general area. No wonder people ask to see my passport and accuse me of faking my accent in Russian when I say I am an American.

Then she said that she has her immunizations, but not the documents to show the immunizations. I told her not to worry, that she could just get her immunizations again and get it documented this time. This did not sit well at all. "Not Keerk! Not! Too much immuneezatsia BAD!" Then she said she'd go get some documentation. LOL. I don't think I'll ask how she's going to get that document.

Since she' going to custom order her shot records, for ease of use later, have her get the DS-3025 and ensure they say that she's "had a the mumps and a chicken pox."

Seeing the big scars people who went to school in the soviet union have from their immunizations, her upset is understandable. Ouch!

The scars that you talk about are from smallpox vaccinations which were common in the Soviet Union all the way up past even the '90s. I want to say we stopped them here in '76 when the last strain was locked up in the CDC warehouse down in Atlanta. There was still a pea can or two (containing several test tubes full of active strain) floating around the FSU after the fall and so they continued to innoculate against it. The money dried up so even though they still do it, it's not as wide-spread as it once was.

There was fear post-9/11 that these pea cans were out on the black market and an attack against Americans with either smallpox along with a dirty bomb (and possibly even Anthrax too!) was in the works. We didn't have enough smallpox to vaccinate everyone so they started with the govt. employees and military members most at risk. They now have scars on their upper arms as well. They're not quite as bad as what the former Soviets have (not as many pin pricks needed now) but they're still noticeable and instantly ID anyone that's been innoculated.

Smallpox was officially eradicated in the late '70s but it was still being used for weapons purposes in places like the Soviet Union thus necessitating the need to innoculate the people for worst-case scenarios. Plus, since they were using it for weapons, they assumed we were too (we weren't.... but easily could) so they had to have their people protected.

Who knows, maybe someday we'll see a return of smallpox or another deadly virus. Maybe even something like 28 Days Later or Doomsday (both great movies, by the way!) is a possibility in our crazy world. In the event something like that happens, scarred upper arms will be a fashion statement!

[slim 1,533]

As far as I know, there's no way to vaccinate against TB. There's a way to treat it, but no way to prevent it. I could be wrong though.

And by the way..... Congrats Bobalouie!!! Good luck on your new Visa Journey. Now the fun begins!!!

[eekee 182]

Nope, they definitely vaccinated people in the soviet union against it. I have friends who went to a couple years of school in the USSR and then emigrated to the US, and whenever they take a TB test it comes back positive because they were vaccinated, and they have to explain it to the doctor and get an xray to prove they don't have tb and etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculosis_vaccine

As far as I know, there's no way to vaccinate against TB. There's a way to treat it, but no way to prevent it. I could be wrong though.

And by the way..... Congrats Bobalouie!!! Good luck on your new Visa Journey. Now the fun begins!!!

[slim 1,533]

Great link. I was wondering why I've never even heard of it.

[Bobalouie 0]

Here are the questions that were asked during the interview:

Where/How we met

How many times I have been to Russia to visit

How long I stayed on my trips

What do I do for a living

What does she want to do for work in the US

She asked about our house in the US and wanted to see pictures (we didnt have any with us, and that was OK with the consul)

Asked about the agency we used

When I started writing to her

Wanted to know what information the agency gave to her when we started communicating

Asked if I had been married before, had any children, any brothers or sisters

And then jokingly asked if I was a criminal.

Rubber stamp Rubber stamp, you will have your visa in 7 days.

The interesting thing here as this is the first time I have heard of the IMBRA line of questioning (I checked the box and provided info on the agency on the I-129F petition). She said the interview was about the same for all the girls that she talked to. I wonder if they are getting ready to start cracking down on the IMBRA stuff because I have not read any reports about the in depth questioning regarding an agency and what they provided. It appears to me that the consul was attempting to put together a timeline of events to make sure that we were IMBRA compliant. Something to keep in mind.

[slim 1,533]

Thanks for the report, Bobalouie. Seems the IMBRA thing is coming around.

[shikarnov 7]

I had never heard about IMBRA before now, and after a quick Google search, I'm both astounded and appalled. Even more so that the law was challenged and ruled constitutional!

I would have expected something like this from a Russian government trying to make it difficult for women to leave the country in an effort to stabilize their population decline. But, while I knew the US government has been doing some shady stuff in recent years, this is just simply maddening.

Doesn't anybody in government believe in the Constitution anymore? In its spirit or its written text?

Z

Edited April 3, 2008 by shikarnov

[shikarnov 7]

I haven't studied up on IMBRA so I'm not sure of the details, but it does seem to me to be a major violation of privacy, not to mention freedoms. The amount of personal data that's required to be in compliance with IMBRA seems ripe for not only data mining but identity theft. It also seems to me that, from a dating industry perspective, it's an unfair burden on free commerce. And finally, it's beyond ridiculous to say that it's ok for me to meet a woman through instant messaging, but that I have to pass a background check if I met that same woman through a dating agency. IMBRA just seems like the wrong solution for the problem.

I do appreciate the spirit/intent behind IMBRA though. There are relatively few protections for these women, and there are a lot of guys out there like my own girl's ex that are complete freaking nut jobs. An unhinged man with a woman who may not speak the language and who can be completely cut off from the outside world is bad news. But I think there are a lot better ways to protect these women than what I'm seeing from IMBRA.

A - The US government should be concerned with protecting American interests, not foreigners who are still safely on their home turf.

B - Based on all I've read in the past few hours, the intent of IMBRA is not to protect foreign women who are at a disadvantage here. It's to protect American women from romantic competition and to remove the threat to continued indoctrination into the male psyche of the feminist agenda.

From http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/10/prweb559970.htm

According to Mr. [Tristan] Laurent [lawyer and administrator of an advocacy group Online Dating Rights], the true purpose for the law was revealed in a press release which stated: "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." http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/7/emw138739.htm

Z

[Bobalouie 0]

I haven't studied up on IMBRA so I'm not sure of the details, but it does seem to me to be a major violation of privacy, not to mention freedoms. The amount of personal data that's required to be in compliance with IMBRA seems ripe for not only data mining but identity theft. It also seems to me that, from a dating industry perspective, it's an unfair burden on free commerce. And finally, it's beyond ridiculous to say that it's ok for me to meet a woman through instant messaging, but that I have to pass a background check if I met that same woman through a dating agency. IMBRA just seems like the wrong solution for the problem.

I do appreciate the spirit/intent behind IMBRA though. There are relatively few protections for these women, and there are a lot of guys out there like my own girl's ex that are complete freaking nut jobs. An unhinged man with a woman who may not speak the language and who can be completely cut off from the outside world is bad news. But I think there are a lot better ways to protect these women than what I'm seeing from IMBRA.

A - The US government should be concerned with protecting American interests, not foreigners who are still safely on their home turf.

B - Based on all I've read in the past few hours, the intent of IMBRA is not to protect foreign women who are at a disadvantage here. It's to protect American women from romantic competition and to remove the threat to continued indoctrination into the male psyche of the feminist agenda.

From http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/10/prweb559970.htm

According to Mr. [Tristan] Laurent [lawyer and administrator of an advocacy group Online Dating Rights], the true purpose for the law was revealed in a press release which stated: "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." http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/7/emw138739.htm

Z

In a nutshell, the story on IMBRA is this: The pro feminist movement started a campain stating that a number of these foriegn spouses were being abused, the abuse allegations were, rape, sexual slavery, neglect, murder, etc. All the usual suspects. The movement sucessfully lobbied congress to get the IMBRA clause enacted as a portion of the VAWA (Violence against women act). It is a small clause in a mountain of paperwork that was probably missed by some, and of the others who may have noticed it and thought it wrong/unconstitutional, which of them is going to risk reelection by not signing/voting for the Violence against women act? None!

IMBRA is wrong on several levels, the least of which is the US government trying to regulate foriegn businesses which have no ties to the US other than clientel. Another wrong is that the letter of the law presumes guilt and you prove innocence, which is exactly backwards. Basically to comply with the law, you are treated like a sexual deviant who has a history of abusing women, and you present paperwork that basically states that is not the case.

In order to comply with IMBRA, I did a National sex offender background check on myself and printed the results and gave them to my fiancee. I also downloaded the IMBRA questionaire from Elena's Models and filled it out and printed it off and presented it to her as well. At the time of my filing (7 months ago) this was the most that any of the Big name agencies were doing to comply with the law, so, I figured that it would be ok for me as well. Most smaller agencies, like the one I went thru, have not heard about IMBRA and have no idea how to find information on it or how to interpret it in order to be compliant.

[shikarnov 7]

In a nutshell, the story on IMBRA is this: The pro feminist movement started a campain stating that a number of these foriegn spouses were being abused, the abuse allegations were, rape, sexual slavery, neglect, murder, etc. All the usual suspects.

It should be noted that those allegations have been debunked more than once in recent years. Most data shows that American/Foreign relationships experience abuse 1/7th the number of times it happens in fully domestic relationships. And the whole sex slavery thing has turned up little evidence of this "widespread" problem.

Z

[Bobalouie 0]

In a nutshell, the story on IMBRA is this: The pro feminist movement started a campain stating that a number of these foriegn spouses were being abused, the abuse allegations were, rape, sexual slavery, neglect, murder, etc. All the usual suspects.

It should be noted that those allegations have been debunked more than once in recent years. Most data shows that American/Foreign relationships experience abuse 1/7th the number of times it happens in fully domestic relationships. And the whole sex slavery thing has turned up little evidence of this "widespread" problem.

Z

Preach on Brother Shikarnov

[shikarnov 7]

I know what you're saying shikarnov. When I say "intent," I mean the pure intent of the impetus behind IMBRA, not the actual implementation of IMBRA. I know a lot of our ladies here don't really need protection (and maybe even the opposite is true in some cases ) but I do think it's the business of the government to make sure immigrants understand that they have options available to them if they need help. This is, of course, very different than IMBRA, but I do believe that was the intent. It is, from what I can tell, a miserable failure, and I hope someone with deep pockets will challenge it again and on different grounds.

Completely agree with you on point A. On point B, this may be the "effect" of the law, but I seriously doubt there was any actual thought put into IMBRA, let alone something so nefarious as "let's make sure American women are protected from competition." IMBRA was enacted after a couple of high-profile murder cases. One was a Russian woman around 2001-2001, I don't remember who the other one was. It was a knee-jerk reaction, like so much of what our government does.

I agree that people should be protected from abuse -- but couldn't they give these immigrants a paper at the embassy that says "In the US, even married people aren't allowed to assault eachother. If your spouse beats you, rapes you, etc, seek help immediately from the local police force. They're here to help."

As for the lack of nefariousness of social activists with an agenda, I'll politely state that I disagree

Z

[shikarnov 7]

Preach on Brother Shikarnov

I guess this entire experience has had me reeling. Before beginning this process with Ira, I never really understood how invasive our government really was. Well, I knew, but it was all academic, you know? From start to finish (and we're not finished yet), this whole process has been about proving that I am telling the truth. I say I make X amount of money, but must back it up with several forms of proof. I say I want to marry this woman, and must back that up with proof. It's horribly upsetting to me that this is our government, and even more upsetting that so many people are complacent about it.

Brother Shikarnov, indeed...

Z

[eekee 182]

#######

A feminist is a person who believes that women should be held in equal esteem to men. Period.

B - Based on all I've read in the past few hours, the intent of IMBRA is not to protect foreign women who are at a disadvantage here. It's to protect American women from romantic competition and to remove the threat to continued indoctrination into the male psyche of the feminist agenda.

Edited April 3, 2008 by eekee