bly

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone knows about the requesting of a police certificate in Ukraine. What needs to be asked for? How long does it take to receive? Please share your experiences--we're finally at that stage and I need to know.

Thanks in advance!

Josh

You have to go to the ministry of information or something like that. The Kiev US consulate website has more details. http://kiev.usembassy.gov/visa_K1K2_eng.html

Download packets 3 and 4 and read them, it will help a lot. When she went to get her police certificate it took about 2 to 3 weeks to get it back but I think we greased the wheels a little bit with 100 rph if you know what I mean. We spent more time getting her passport, it came in after 30 days. If I understand Svetlana correctly the police and passport can be obtained from the same building. The passport was a good bit more expensive to keep the wheels greased on that one. I think all in all we spent nearly $200 for passport and police certificate.

Take comfort in knowing Kiev is a very easy consulate to work with and they are generally very fast. We could have had an appt for her interview in less than 14 days after they received the packet from NVC if we were ready. I've yet to know anyone denied a K1 out of Kiev, and I've personally done 2 of them.

My girl in Russia tells me she is with an agency that can get her a work visa to come to the US. She says she has the money for the ticket and a visa. Is a work visa possible? Keeping my fingers crossed.

Cam

You need to run away from this, as fast as you can... typical scam.. I suggest you do some reading over at www.rwguide.com

She's not asking for money yet.. but she will..

It's virtually impossible for any single woman from russia to get a visa to the USA (unless it's a K1 or k3 fiancee or family based visa). Section 214 sub section b of the INA of 1952 assumes all visa applications are trying to immigrate to america. To get a visa to the USA she'd have to prove why she'd return to Russia. Trust me when I say consulars make this very difficult.

I'm slightly over 6'7" (that's 201 CM to you European people), and I would pay an extra 10 to 20% to get in an exit row.

I've always wondered why they don't charge extra for the seats and give them away to some 5'1" person. Delta has bumped me twice up to business for free because all of the exit rows went to short people.

I see your point Bly. Like i said it is not a perfect law. Perhaps the law is only written to save a few nickles. Have the agency keep track of the records and if there is a problem then the gov does an audit. All I can say is it is impossible to go through life without disclosing your "history". Dont like it but that is just the way it is. And unfortunately, post 911 is just going to make it all that much harder for everything else. I will say one thing. People do prey on other people and I can see where this is somewhat relavent.

I don't see how you can say it's impossible to go through your life without disclosing your history. You can easily get married to a USC without ever disclosing if you were previously married or arrested. People hide their past all the time. I'm not saying its right, it's just very easy and happens every day.

While I have nothing to hide and my fiancée knows everything about me, I was able to tell her myself, not mandated by the govt prior to ever saying hello.

The law will get tossed, I have no doubt…. The justice dept is already prohibited from enforcing it until it plays out in the courts.

Try the emergency advanced parole, that is the only way she will be allowed back here. Otherwise you will have to start all over again

OP can't do advanced parole as they aren't married yet.

The consulate can/may reissue the K1 if she can get back to the USA before the 90 days expires from entry on the first visa. I wouldn't want to try to go this route... but it is possible.

I have a question on how to date the Letter of Intent. I am going to see my fiance on March 22, 2006. I was going to take the visa packet with me so he could sign the G-325A and the Letter of Intent that I am preparing. Do the letters have to be dated within days of sending the petition? I thought about leaving the date off and then just printing the date on later. Just not sure if they are picky on the dates. We will be filing the first of April.

Any suggestions?

Thanks!

Jen

I'd date the letter the day it was actually signed. USCIS understand all of this paperwork can take a couple weeks to a couple months to complete, they aren't worried if all the dates aren't exact.Actaully I think most paperwork is good for at least 1 year from the date issued or signed.

If you have a history of abusing women, being convicted of spousal abuse, stalking, or are a registered sex offender....I could see why you would be against this law. But if you fall into none of these catagories, then why are you really concerned, and it would also make your potential spouse feel alot more safer with you.

Have to agree. Being pretty conservative myself, and one that cannot stand big bro watching over our shoulders, yet I think if someone is an abuser then this will make it a little harder for them. I have seen abuse and it sucks even for us savy Americans. I can only imagine the hell it would be for someone to come here unknowingly only to find out what a mistake that she (or he) made. And not having (or not knowing) the resources to leave especially when the alternative is flying back home perhaps to nothing after the she/he has uprooted all and given up all. Perhaps not the perfect law but it is a start in the right direction that probably needs to be addressed.

I agree with the idea that being abused is horrible and we need to try to find a way to prevent it, but once the govt can tell us who and how we can communicate, life as we know it today is over.

This all started because 2 young women were tragically killed. It is truly regretful that this happened.

There was a tragic rape and murder of a nice young NYC woman a week or 2 ago. Should we protect all women going to bars by requiring men to fill detailed information about them selves prior to entering a bar? Would this not protect more women?

Would you like to fill out a form of that states your entire criminal, marital, and child history, give that to anyone you are interested in, just to say “Hello”.

How is saying hello via email in different? It’s not.

There is a prejudice against any man meeting a woman via an IMB. We are treated as we are criminals and must prove otherwise and I take huge offense to it.

Again, you can accomplish the same goals be requiring this information to be divulged before a VISA to the USA is issued. It should NOT be required to say “Hello”

If you have a history of abusing women, being convicted of spousal abuse, stalking, or are a registered sex offender....I could see why you would be against this law. But if you fall into none of these catagories, then why are you really concerned, and it would also make your potential spouse feel alot more safer with you.

This law goes so far past the line for me.

It halts freedom of speech. It makes it illegal to ** communicate ** with a foreign woman prior to releasing incredible personal information about myself. You do not have to be convicted, a single arrest for one of the listed offenses MUST be reported, even if the arrest was bogus and the charges dismissed. Are we not innocent until proven guilty?

Since when did I have to disclose the number of children I have and their ages in order to say "Hello" to a woman via an IMB? Well if this law goes into affect I will be required to give this information. Information about my children and martial history is needed why?

Further more, would you really want your entire history including information about your children divulged to a FOREIGN company just so you can communicate with their listed members? The foreign company isn't bound by any laws to keep this information confidential, but we are required to give it in order to use their services.

If you want to require this kind of disclosure do it at the visa level. This way all information would stay within the hands of USA personal at the consulate. Treat all visa applicants the same regardless of how they met.

I am so opposed to this law because it singles out and targets one specific form of communication which is done via an IMB.

Would you be ok with a law that says you must disclose your entire criminal (convicted or not), child, and marital history BEFORE you were allowed to say hello to a woman in a bar? I fail to see the difference in saying hello in a bar or hello via IMB email. A nice young woman was tragically killed last week in NYC after leaving a bar, so if you follow the logic of the IMBRA we need to protect all women, so the next step is to mandate full disclosures at the local bar before communication is permitted. I firmly believe we all have freedom of speech, we are allowed to say hello to any one in any way we choose without our govt intruding in our lives or mandating what we must disclose about ourselves in order to speak to whom we choose.

If this law was allowed to stand, it is the beginning of the end.

The law has good intentions, but they are thoroughly misplaced.

Within 24 hours of this law becoming law, at least one Judge has stepped forward saying this law violates 1st and 5th amendment rights and is likely to be ruled unconstitutional, such as a temporary restraining order has been issued against the IMBRA.

http://www.internationalmarriagebrokers.com/id29.html

Directly from the court order "The Court believes that there is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiff will prevail on the merits of its First and Fifth Amendment claims."

"Finally, the issuance of a temporary restraining order would serve the public interest because the public has a strong interest in assuring that Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights are not violated."

I know how this got started. Most visas to the USA require a round trip ticket. It's a pretty big fine to the airline if they fly someone here without a return ticket.

K1/K3s don't need a return ticket via US law, however not all airline ticket agents know this. I have heard of a couple women coming out of Kiev that had issues with this until they asked for a supervisor that actually knows the rules.

If you're having someone fly on a one way, make sure she understands that she is allowed to fly with a one way and to ask for a supervisor if needed.

OK so this has been discussed, but as you know the old threads are a mess. I am sending Natasha to get the cash for the ticket. So where to get them, one way or round trip, etc. If you have any links to the old threads it would help. I can't search now here at work but will later tonight. Just wanted to see if anyone has anymore relevant info at this time. Thanks

I really do not know how this one-way ticket misleading info started but you should do what your budget allows you. I came to the U.S. with a one-way ticket and I was not once asked about it.

hi. i was wondering...how often do they deny visas? are they approved most of the time if all the papers are in order and there is no suspicion of fraud? is it hard for the embassy to deny it?

I'd have to say a huge percentage are approved, but I think it varies from embassy to embassy also.

If your paperwork is in order and the relationship is real I wouldn't worry about it.

Just got my noa2 email yesterday (approved)!!! 101 days btwn noa 1&2!!! Hello New Hampshire and Kyiv!!!!

Congrats! You should fly past the rest. One nice thing about Kiev, the embassy is fast. Appointments usually aren't more than 2 or 3 weeks out...

Usually male drivers get 2 breaks on age, one at 25 and another at 30.

I paid as high as $3000 per year for insurance when i was under 25. When I turned 26 it dropped to $1000 or so.

Now that I'm 34 I pay about $500 a year.

All for the same type of car and same amount of insurance.

Young male drivers get screwed in the USA. If you're under 30 marriage will help drop the rate some too.

This happened to some other folks. I think MistyB is one. They called the embassy and told them what happened. Then they had to go to the embassy and have it repackaged.

I hope this is the case and thank you for the info! She lives 20 minutes from the embassy so it's easy for her to go there, and we still have 7 weeks before she gets here.

I will email the embassy and see what they say.

My lovely fiancée didn't notice the warning on the envelope that's marked "to be opened by immigration only" and she opened the envelope. This is the envelope giving with the K1 visa that she brings to America.

Any ideas on what we should do?

Thanks

I think the argument that aliens do not deserve protection because they are not in the US is flawed. It is illegal for a US national to go abroad for the express purpose of engaging in sex with minors in a foreign country. So it's not the first time the US has engaged in protection of foreigners who are not residing in the US.

Regardless of whether this law regulates free speech, I still think its benefits outweigh its costs. We can engage in a debate all day about freedom of expression and the slow erosion of personal freedom. However, on this issue, just like child pornography, you will find very few supporters arguing for freedom of speech over the protection of women and children. Like I said, rightly or wrongly, this country chose to place protecting women and children above certain rights.

Sex with minors in a foreign country illegal in the foreign country. If you do it in our country, it's illegal. And yes, finally, if you travel to a foreign country it is also illegal by our laws.

However.

Marriage to a foreigner: Legal

Marriage to a American: Legal

Talking to foreigner about marriage: legal

Talking to an American about marriage: legal

Talk to a foreigner on a free internet service about marriage: legal

Talk to a American on a free internet service about marriage: legal

Pay to talk to an American via dating/marriage service about marriage: Legal

Pay to talk to a foreigner via dating/marriage service about marriage: Illegal , unless you divulge everything about your past including all places you lived, who you’ve married, how many children you currently have, and your criminal record. This is just to exchange contact info, not even a meeting yet.

You are the worst kind of idiot liberal on the plant. You lump every man in the USA as a rapist no good child molesting thug unless proven otherwise. You’d probably be happy if we just outlawed all travel of single men to foreign countries, can’t trust us, we’re probably out to rape a woman or child. Why even let anyone travel?

Making it illegal to talk isn’t going to stop any man from going to the other country and meeting women directly. You aren’t protecting anyone as anyone can go around the “freedom of speech” censorship by leaving the country. This law does nothing but violate the rights of every American man who would like to pursue a relationship with a woman outside of the USA via a marriage agency.

You probably live out in California. It’s amazing how ignorant everyone in a single state can be. You’re so stuck on your idiotic liberal high horse you can’t see how far you’ve shoved your own head up your a$$.

I’m done with this conversation, we’ll let the courts throw this one out. I have no doubt it will happen. This entire law is going to get tossed and have to be rewritten.

i agree with canuck

agreed with both above...

your I-129F petition is valid for 4 months after it's approved, that's the date the actual I-129F expires. But the Visa is good for 6 months after issuance.

Just like the Visa can expire after you get to the USA but before the 90 day marriage. You'll still be allowed to adjust status even with an expired visa, as long as you married within 90 days.

Why they track that on the actaul visa, I have no idea, but they did it with the my first K1 as well. Your name on the Visa is actaully needed. When you get married, your marriage certificate plus the expired K1 plus an AOS NOA1 proves you're still lawfully present as long as the name on the K1 matches who you married. If that makes any sense. Basically the marriage certificate has to match both names on the visa to be lawful. If a K1 visa marries someone else they aren't legally in the USA.

You hit it right on the head. Congress has chosen to regulate international marriage brokers. By choosing to utilize these services, you are bound to give up whatever privacy rights Congress asks. The same thing happens if you want to open a bank account. You are bound to prove your identity and give up your address when you open a bank account.

You can ask Congress or the courts to change the law, but I think that the benefit of the law, that is preventing violence against vulnerable aliens, outweighs the invasion of privacy and costs of the law. And yes, I do sound like a liberal.

You can argue that aliens/women have plenty of protection in current laws against domestic violence. I think this assertion is debatable because an alien who doesn't speak English, have no relatives or friends in the US, and is not familiar with US laws are extremely vulnerable to domestic violence regardless of how many laws are in place.

Another reason I don't think this law will be overturned is because this country thinks vulnerable women and children must be protected. Woe be to anyone who argues against protecting women from violence. Rightly or wrongly, women and children are placed at a higher pedestal than certain privacy rights.

I have no issue with the consulate screening ALL k1 applicants and giving this information to ALL spouses, no matter how they meet.

Foreign K1 applicants must provide a police certificate prior to entering the USA, so turning the tables and letting her see my police report is fine. I have no issue giving this info to a foreigner prior to issuing a visa.

But to make it illegal to pay to TALK to talk to a foreigner without divulging my entire personal life story isn't required to protect the foreigner. She isn't in the USA, she's still in her homeland. So throw out your entire argument and try again.

The govt has made it a criminal offense to pay to communicate with a foreigner (with the intention of marriage) without divulging my entire life's history. How can you not see this is a pure violation of our freedom of speech?

If you'd get off your liberal high horse for 2 minutes and realize they are regulating free speech. Not marriage, not getting a visa. This is SIMPLY FREE SPEECH. To make that a criminal act goes against everything American stands for.

In order for you to maintain your right to free speech, (it's free speech even if you pay for it yes?), you are now required to submit to a highly invasive back ground check. If they get away with this, what's next?

This is still the USA isn't it? Our congress can do something like this, and then 2 weeks later go after google and yahoo for working with China. Just a tad 2 faced yes?

I'm not a lawyer so I only write from my personal opinion. You are correct that this is a free speech issue. Whether Congress' right to regulate international marriage brokers infringes on an American's right to meet and love someone. Congress has a history to regulating services from banking to internet providers to marriage brokers. And over the years its rights have been greatly broaden. Somehow I doubt that the courts will find this law to be an impediment to anyone's rights to meet and love someone. There are many ways to meet someone and meeting through an international marriage broker is just one of them. So until this law impedes the primary method of meeting and loving someone, the courts are unlikely to overturn it.

For now, the majority of Americans still meet their potential mates through the old fashioned way, through friends, family, work, etc...

in my humble opinion, I have to disagree...

Free speech can't be impeded like this, even if there are other ways to meet foriegners.

That is like the govt saying "we are taking away free speech on the internet unless you submit to all of our regulations, but we're going to leave it for magazines and television."

You're making a generalization that this law applies to all of internet communications. It only applies when the international marriage broker charges fees for you to meet someone. It doesn't apply when you meet in a free chat room, through random e-mail, etc... So the law is pretty narrow.

I was making a point about the internet, however I still don't follow your logic

So by paying for a service, I'm required to give up my rights to privacy. I have no right to free speech with a foreign person because I'm paying for the speech, instead of getting it for free. If I use a free service, I'm not required to give up my rights.

When did paying for a service require a person to give up rights? It's still legal to talk to foreigners. It's legal to marry a foreigner. It's now illegal to pay to talk to a foreigner without first tell them basically everything and anything about my life. (My previous marriages, how many children I have, my past criminal history, and so forth)

from: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180487,00.html

Corresponding with a foreigner is legal. Marrying a foreigner is legal. Immigrating spouses and their husbands go through rigorous and lengthy screening before visas are issued. U.S. laws against violence protect "mail-order brides."

Now American men who wish to pursue a legal activity must release their government files to a foreign business and foreign individuals for their personal benefit.

...the privacy rights of people who are considered guilty until proven innocent. This is especially true when a government violates the privacy of its own citizens to benefit foreign individuals.

I'm not a lawyer so I only write from my personal opinion. You are correct that this is a free speech issue. Whether Congress' right to regulate international marriage brokers infringes on an American's right to meet and love someone. Congress has a history to regulating services from banking to internet providers to marriage brokers. And over the years its rights have been greatly broaden. Somehow I doubt that the courts will find this law to be an impediment to anyone's rights to meet and love someone. There are many ways to meet someone and meeting through an international marriage broker is just one of them. So until this law impedes the primary method of meeting and loving someone, the courts are unlikely to overturn it.

For now, the majority of Americans still meet their potential mates through the old fashioned way, through friends, family, work, etc...

in my humble opinion, I have to disagree...

Free speech can't be impeded like this, even if there are other ways to meet foriegners.

That is like the govt saying "we are taking away free speech on the internet unless you submit to all of our regulations, but we're going to leave it for magazines and television."

A really good article on this http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180487,00.html

and I quote here:

Contacting a woman for romantic purposes — internationally or domestically — is not a crime. Those who do so are not a priori criminals who must prove themselves innocent before being allowed an e-mail exchange.

What I do sympathize with, however, are the privacy rights of people who are considered guilty until proven innocent. This is especially true when a government violates the privacy of its own citizens to benefit foreign individuals.

Most of the marriage agencies are working on a questionnaire that the USC can sign electronically. They have until March 6, which is the date the law goes into effect.

If the US client goes through a marriage agency the US client is supposed to provide (to the agency) a signed statement of:

1. Any restraining orders, arrest or convictions for mostly violent crimes; but the list also includes assault (which can be yelling at someone in a threatening manner) or an open alcohol container, and prostitution charges. Even if a judge threw out the case or you were found not guilty, you still have to report it.

2. Any previous or current marriages, the marriage and divorce dates, how it ended, and whether you've previously tried to bring an alien into the country.

3. The ages of any children you have under 18.

4. Every state you've lived in since you were 18 years old.

In addition, the marriage agency has to do a check of the sex offender database, and give all this info to any alien you want to write a letter to.

The government and the agency are under no obligation to inform the USC of the alien's background or if the alien has provided false information to you.

All of this information will be verified by the government and anything that they find out about the USC will be added to the list and presented to the alien at the visa interview. The alien will be asked if you met through an agency, which agency, and did they already supply a signed statement? Even if you don't go through an agency, a government background check report will be presented to the alien at the interview.

The law is poorly written, and is unclear whether the visa can be denied if the agency did not provide the signed disclosure statement to the alien, even if you gave one to the agency.

A couple other interesting things about this law: The marriage agency can not post photos of an alien with any children under 18. It also prohibits an agency from giving contact info on an alien to anyone who is not a US client.

http://usaimmigrationattorney.com/images/IMBRA2005.pdf

Pork, you make some good points, not only is it criminal background, but full background on us. How many children, marriages, where we have lived, all of this before we can have her telephone number or meet her in person.

This is a huge burden on internation dating services, and I can't see how it can be legal. There is big money in international dating/marriage. It will be challenged.

I understand your concerns that international marriage brokers are held to different standards than US marriage brokers. However, Congress has chosen to regulate international marriage brokers out of concerns for US and foreign nationals being abused by criminals. The way I see it, this in no way infringes on your rights to love and marry someone without full disclosure. You can do so, but just don't do so via an international marriage broker.

I see this act as something similar to Congress regulating that one must provide proof of identity when opening a bank account. Although the requirements of this act are higher than merely providing identity, but the idea is similar. If you want to utilize a service that Congress regulates, then you have to follow the laws. If you feel the laws are too onerous to utilize that service, then don't use it or try to change the laws. But I don't see how regulating international marriage brokers infringes on your rights to love and marry. Just like how regulating banks does not infringe on your rights to make and spend money. Now whether Congress has such rights to regulate international marriage brokers is a different question. Although I don't forsee too many court challenges to this law.

I foresee a challenge to the law. I can't see how our govt has the right to tell any one of us that we can't meet people for dating or marriage without first disclosing our entire criminal past.

We do, as a USC have the right to meet anyone, in any way we please, without govt intervention. This is going to come down to a free speech issue. Our govt has stepped into not letting us speak freely with members of the opposite sex via internet dating services without first disclosing our criminal past. What this really comes down to is the USA govt has gone so far as to tell each and everyone of us how we can use the internet for foreign dating and marraige. What's next?

I would expect something like this from China, not from the USA.

I see the ACLU stepping into this one...

Ewen's just going to pile all his ###### onto a raft and row it over. He'll be all right.

hot air balloon!!

leave everything you have but 2 suitcases at your old home honey...

we'll start over and buy everything fresh in the USA.. it'd be cheaper! lol

This law puts a time based restriction on the number of petitions which can be filed. Since when is love and marriage timelines dictated by the govt?

Love and marriage timelines, no. Immigration timelines, most certainly yes, for as long as I can remember. If you just want to meet privately, fall in love, and marry and stay in your foreign spouse's country, this law can't touch you.

A second application puts you in an abusers database to have extra screening, like there isn't enough and this process isn't slow enough?

Since when did your govt decide they have the right to tell us what we must disclose about ourselves prior to ever meeting someone?

It also creates two set of marriage standards. Marry another USC and you have to do nothing. Marry a none USC and you must disclose everything about yourself to the govt, an over seas embassy, and your potential mate.

No, even after passage of this law, you are free to meet whomever you want and marry whomever you want with or without disclosing information about your past. This law only has an effect if you try to bring your foreign spouse or fiancee into the US.

When two people marry, it's a matter between the two of them. But when they decide to use that marriage to bring one of them into the US, it becomes a matter of concern for the rest of US society. There have been too many people seriously harmed by a few abusers of the system, and the taxpayers end up paying to pick up the pieces, while the abusers can pick a new target and start again.

I think the new rules are certainly well intentioned and will probably end up having a net benefit overall. There may be some inconveniences as the details are worked out, of course, but the general sentiment of disclosing one's past to one's potential mate is a good idea.

You have a good point, you are free to marry, just no longer free to marry and live with your mate in the USA without the govt intervention.

However, you can't use an International Marriage Broker and meet a potential mate without full disclosure, even if you plan on marriage outside the USA and living outside the USA. Something as simple as exchange telephone numbers with a person that is not a USC now requires full disclosure.

Why is the law different if you meet someone via match.com? Why not require all people to disclose all former criminal past before being allowed to exchange contact information?

I also whole hardly agree that disclosing ones past to one's mate is a good idea, it's just the idea of the govt telling me how and when that will be done is bothering.

I have to severely disagree with the statement "while the abusers can pick a new target and start again". We have so many laws on domestic violence, it's not like anyone can just so easily move on to the next victim. We need to enforce the laws we have, if you're a violent person and harm another person, you need to be placed in jail and dealt with that way.

If you are going to place this kind of requirement on marriage, require it on all marriages, regardless of either person’s citizenship.

This law puts a time based restriction on the number of petitions which can be filed. Since when is love and marriage timelines dictated by the govt?

Love and marriage timelines, no. Immigration timelines, most certainly yes, for as long as I can remember. If you just want to meet privately, fall in love, and marry and stay in your foreign spouse's country, this law can't touch you.

A second application puts you in an abusers database to have extra screening, like there isn't enough and this process isn't slow enough?

Since when did your govt decide they have the right to tell us what we must disclose about ourselves prior to ever meeting someone?

It also creates two set of marriage standards. Marry another USC and you have to do nothing. Marry a none USC and you must disclose everything about yourself to the govt, an over seas embassy, and your potential mate.

No, even after passage of this law, you are free to meet whomever you want and marry whomever you want with or without disclosing information about your past. This law only has an effect if you try to bring your foreign spouse or fiancee into the US.

When two people marry, it's a matter between the two of them. But when they decide to use that marriage to bring one of them into the US, it becomes a matter of concern for the rest of US society. There have been too many people seriously harmed by a few abusers of the system, and the taxpayers end up paying to pick up the pieces, while the abusers can pick a new target and start again.

I think the new rules are certainly well intentioned and will probably end up having a net benefit overall. There may be some inconveniences as the details are worked out, of course, but the general sentiment of disclosing one's past to one's potential mate is a good idea.

I agree with this. Too often members of this board forget that immigration is a benefit not a right. There is no inalienable right to petition someone to immigrate to the US. So if you don't like immigration laws, you're welcome to live outside the US. No one will say anything if you fall in love, marry and live in a different part of the world.

The US government doesn't care squat about who you love and marry. It only cares when you try to bring your loved ones into the US.

This is incorrect. The law clearly states you can't even exchange a phone number (or any other contact information) via an international marriage broker unless you hand over full criminal past, regardless if you plan on marriage or even plan on leaving the USA. So obviously the US govt does and is intruding into personal lives, wether or not you plan on bring your future mate to the USA or not.

I should state I am not against the idea of full disclosure.

But it is not the USA govts place to mandate that before I can go on a simple date with someone I might meet over the internet that doesn't live in the USA that I give that person my full criminal history.

It's just wrong. PERIOD.

It's discriminating to people meeting foreigners via international dating agencies. The same rules do not apply to USA dating agencies.

I have to disagree.

When a USC and USC get married, neither USC has the right to see the others past records. This law goes past the "RIGHT" to know and makes it a "MANDATE".

Before a USC can get contact information for a forgiener via an international contact, we must release all of our personal criminal history, wether we have any or not (and I do not)

This law puts a time based restriction on the number of petitions which can be filed. Since when is love and marriage timelines dictated by the govt?

A second application puts you in an abusers database to have extra screening, like there isn't enough and this process isn't slow enough?

Since when did our govt decide they have the right to tell us what we must disclose about ourselves prior to ever meeting someone?

The only people this law doesn't affect are first time K1 applicants who didn't meet via an IMB and who have zero criminal history. But by slowing everyone else down and making this more complicated, it's going to slow all applications down. Count on everyone being confused for the next year. This is sure to push delays on all applications.

Thankfully I'm done and my application is already approved.

It also creates two set of marriage standards. Marry another USC and you have to do nothing. Marry a none USC and you must disclose everything about yourself to the govt, an over seas embassy, and your potential mate.

And when exactly does it go against what I said??

I didn't say it was right or wrong.... I just said that if the check is something they already do during the K1 process, then the new law on disclosing the information found shouldn't slow things down even more.

I was aiming at more the only people who will see any difference are those ones hiding something vs the one who aren't.

Anyone who's on their second or third k1 or k3 will see a difference.

This isn't about disclosure. This is about the govt intruding into our personal lives and telling us what we must disclose to others, and how often we can be engaged/married to foreigners.

If someone meets via an IMB, and that broker fails to disclose information as they are required to, it is very possible a K1 could be denied. This law can deny you're right to marry for someone's else mistake all together. Now if that's not slowing down a petition I don't know what is.

Suppose your first K1 fails, or even a second. Since when are we going to be bound by the govt telling us when we can fall in love again or want to get married? A 2 year slow down is a big deal.