noBS

Now I see. So this isn't just IMBRA (which I now support) but the fact that woman are being placed on sites as if they were so much goods. This is deplorable. IMBRA clearly won't solve this since it is not designed to shut down services like loveme.com. We need to work together to shut down international dating services. This will require additional legislation. If you support me on IMBRA for Alabama and Imbra for woman making less than $20K/year, I will help support new legislation shutting down dating services with poor ecommerce asthetics. Should we leave dating sites that use politically correct methods of introducing men or just shut down the whole lot of them. I'm with you either way. Let's go!

But where are the statistics that marriages originating from these sites ended in spousal abuse? That is the problem there are no studies to prove they do. We have all these assumed and tenous associations being tossed around as truths, and there is no evidence! Show me? Prove to me? The visa process has been put into reverse, this is no matter of an extra day or two, we are talking 4-5 months! So you damn well better prove to me the law was written properly.

Opinion and anecdotal comments are not proof.

What we do have is people upset at morons marketing that appeals to neanderthals. BUT that is not illegal!

IMBRA has already set us upon a very slippery slope of legislating bad marketing. Bad marketing is not illegal.

But let's take it a step further... prove to me the IMBRA proponents did not plant these websites as part of their campaign to pass their legislation? This is not tinfoil hat stuff, this kind of public manipulation goes on 24/7. You might want to consider your government for example (Karl Rove)

Furthermore, IMBRA2005 has been asked on many occaisions to identify themselves so that we might more fairly judge their words. But the silence is deafening, and it is prudent to consider them the fox in the henhouse. I too have to presume that IMBRA2005 is a paid public relations representative, a hired gun, who's job it is to mold public perception, and indeed in this case- exercise damage control.

StevenJinky: I agree the marketing is abhorrent in many cases, and I have personally put myself in harms way many times to protect womens rights. But attempting to use an already broken mechanism, the visa process, to achieve the goals of protecting women (or men) was a terrible mistake. If you truly want results, this instrument simply will not work. USCIS was simply not designed to do what you want them to. They can't even find thier azz in a dark room using both hands!

omg. Tin foil hat much?

I really think that the social engineering theory is paranoia. Sorry to disagree so firmly, but using that argument, how could you call for US legislators to re-engineer the economies and culture of multiple countries around the world instead of doing what IS in their own power---making a US law that affects specifically the people it is intended for?

If you choose to attempt to "protect" people, and men are just as deserving and in need of protection as women, then anybody entering into a relationship must have a background check and the results disclosed to the potential suitor.

How in the world can it make sense to target only people who are applying for fiancee visa's?

To single out romances than begin via bar meeting, church meeting, email, online chat, marriage brokers, grandma's introduction, it does not matter. This is inarguable: Predators and bad people exist in our midst. They are not exclusive to some ambiguously described "International Marriage Broker". Predators exist in your neighborhood and mine.

The answer is not to make this a society were we may soon be required to "present our papers" in order to exercise our freedom to communicate, associate and god forbid maybe even marry.

The answer is disclosure and education. There are bad people in the world, it is full of risks. We cannot, and will never legislate them all away. Indeed, many foreign countries already have requirements that prospective brides attend mandatory education of the potential risks in regards to their suitor.

The answer is for each of us to exercise due diligence in who we associate with. There will always be men and women that choose to plunge into circumstances that are not good for them. To attempt to target this with broad-brush legislation is to cost all of us yet one more freedom, and burden us with yet more bureaucracy.

Existing laws, when enforced, deal perfectly well with actual crimes. To attempt to act presumptively, with no proof that is even possible in the case of IMBRA, enters us into a "Minority Report" type world. Prevent the crime before it happens, because we can see that it will happen. That is total BS in the case of the IMBRA law. There is no proof the law will prevent anything except preventing people in love from being together.

There is no basis in fact, nor precedent, that what IMBRA requires will have any beneficial effects for the people it purports to help.

Enforce existing law, don't enact new law.

And I think that is the future of this legal process, death by a thousand cuts, at some point, it is just too difficult to do (legally). Every step in the process is a total pain, and now this stupid IMBRA. My sympathies to you all, our government is ******* pathetic.

Hi Top-Gorilla, You certainly covered all the bases and I could not agree more. IMBRA has nothing to do with protecting women, and everything thing to do with social engineeering in an attempt to block men from marrying non-US women. You are right, women petitioners caught in this toxic legislation are considered by IMBRA backers to be collateral damage.

The law is targeted to a tiny, sub-set, niche corner of marriages. The true evil of this law is found when one looks at who is exempted from compliance:

"The Non-Profit": a traditional matchmaking organization of a cultural or religious nature which offers its services on a non-profit basis under law". There is not one shred of evidence that these organizations have a lower rate of spousal abuse cases than couples that met through any other circumstances! This special-interest exemption is pure social engineering, and has no basis in reality.

What really pains me is that I, as a man, have always identified as a feminist. Indeed, I put myself in harms way in Mobile, Alabama, Pensacola FL, and Jackson MS back in 1993-94 as a regular volunteer clinic escort for the women trying to enter the besieged womens clinics. Remember the murders of Dr. Patterson? Dr. Gunn? Dr. Britton? This law, IMBRA, has flipped me 180 degrees, and I feel like I have been stabbed in the back by the feminist movement. I never have felt driven to use words like that before.

The backers of IMBRA are trying to murder our right to marry who we choose. The migration of the human race over the face of the earth, and to inter-marry with other tribes and cultures is as old as the human race. Were it not for inter-marriage none of us would be here today. It is an evolutionary truth and a basic human right.

If the IMBRA backers REALLY wanted to help women, they would have worked to change conditions in the very countries that have an atrocious record of womens rights. Not target a tiny group of people willing to endure months and sometimes years of DHS and USCIS's convoluted and broken fiancee visa process. Some of our fiancee's are at risk every minute because of the countries that they live in - the IMBRA backers admitted as much!

Yes, IMBRA drew its support from those that believed the "Mail-Order Bride" fantasy to be true. We here on VisaJourney, know the "Mail-Order Bride" does not exist. And we know that to be a derogatory, ugly description. Comparable to any racial epithet.

Thanks for your post Top-Gorilla, I think there are a lot of people that feel like you. And as more innocent visa applicants get caught in IMBRA's deadly undertow, action will be taken to strike this terrible legislation.

I recieved the consulars report as to why it was denied and declared a sham relationship. They said because I was in my Fiancee company for 2 days only.

But I have a question if you don't mind... how many different trips did you make over there? Was it "just" the 20 day trip? Or were there others? I wonder if they weigh quantity more heavily than length?

Your comments help us all, appreciate you sharing.

That headline is degrading and offensive to all of us. This link provides contact information for The Star Telegram. I will be calling them today to register my comments

I urge ALL of you to contact the Editor and Publisher and register your comments on that headline. The whole mail-order bride bull sh it has gotten way out of hand thanks to IMBRA making all I-129F applicants presumptive criminals and their fiancees dim-witted, love-struck abuse victims in waiting.

Just because we all love someone not of our country doesn't make us deserving of this kind of dis-respect.

If anyone's interested, see http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/14/235558/513

Alison

Thank you Montanaman and Alison for giving our plight more publicity. The USCIS and DHS refuse to shoulder responsibility for thier horrendous mismangemet. There are no consequences for them, only for us. The more light that is shone on this broken process, and incompetant USCIS and DHS management, the better. I am sure the folks there working in the trenches are working as hard as they can- but the management must be held accountable.

Those of us trying to follow the laws are the most punished. The illegals are fat and happy and smiling. Change will only occur as pressure is applied to USCIS and DHS driven by public outcry.

Thanks for helping us all!

Out of curiosity, how broad IS their definition of "marriage broker"--the original poster appears to be suggesting that anybody who met their fiance online will be considered to have used a marriage broker.

Do you really suppose my fiance and I met through the services of a marriage broker as defined by IMBRA?

How about my grandma's online bridge club? Marriage broker?

My dad belongs to a Cleveland Indians fan forum. Marriage broker?

I belong to a sewing pattern review mailing list. Marriage broker?

A cogent and thoughtful Tigre post as always! According to one lawyers (Gary Bala) interpretation from his blog:

"IMB is defined very broadly in this law, as are all relevant terms in this law...

The definition of IMB, under Section 833(e)(4)(A), is any corporation, individual, or legal entity, whether or not existing under the laws of the U.S., who charges fees for providing dating, matrimonial, matchmaking or social referrals or is "otherwise faciliating communication between individuals."

Furthermore:

"There are, under Section 833(e)(4)(B), TWO IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS, : 1) "The Non-Profit": a traditional matchmaking organization of a cultural or religious nature which offers its services on a non-profit basis under law, tyically a state-registered corporation, and 2) "The Non-Primary Business with Comparable Rates": a domestic dating service or other primary service whose principal business is NOT international dating and which charges comparable rates for comparable services to all individuals, men and women, domestic and foreign.

Your favorite international correspondence website on the Internet would in fact be subject to this law, IF the exceptions enumerated above do not apply.

Some U.S. clients and IMBs are asking if the IMB would "qualify" for an exception if they don't charge fees for the lady's personal contact. The safe answer would appear to be: only if the other qualifications of Exception No. 1 apply. An IMB's claim to an exception based in the statement that "We don't charge fees for lady's contact or any dating service", but coupled with an admission that the company generates revenue and profits, however small, from such things as advertising fees for related services such as flowers, candy and cards, Google "ad-words", or charitable donations from members, carries a risk that the "non-profit" exception does not genuinely apply."

Nobody wants a panic- but all of us want answers and we want to be with our loved ones. We all deserve to be treated with respect and not as criminals simply because we met on a web site. Had the full ramifications of this law been thought out beforehand we would not be in this state of confusion.

IMBRA will go down in history as generating the most pain for innocent victims of any law. A perfect example of do-gooders f*cking up an already broken system and causing untold grief in the guise of "protecting women".

Can you imagine thousands of consulate officers across the world, interviewing your fiance and holding your future together in their hands, trying to interpret the IMBRA law quoted above? I can, and that is why I am scared.

Imbra2005 where's your timeline? Why are you here on VJ?

IMBRA2005 is a likely a paid shill attempting damage control in our forums. Aren't you IMBRA2005? You are so smooth, and right on message aren't you? IMBRA2005 posted the same examples (are they even real ???) in a different thread on this forum. IMBRA2005 is in fact here to do public relations.

Prove me wrong IMBRA2005? Or will you admit it?

IMBRA2005 and their ilk didn't expect the hue and outcry as their legislation is now eating like acid through the lives of innocent people. IMBRA2005 is now terrified that their legislation has turned into a public relations nightmare. They are now in our forum trying to put out the fire.

It is obvious that the IMBRA legislation was written, and has been implemented, in such a way as to cause maximum damage to innocent petitioners. One more subjective measure by which the interviewing consulate can misunderstand something and delay or deny you your life with your loved one.

The law throws out the baby with the bath water. It is a wrecking ball, impacting every good decent American petitioner (and their fiancee) that is now in its path.

Now you have passed legislation discrimating against American seeking foriegn spouses. What's next? Legislation for age difference? Race difference? Religious difference? What about americans on Match.COM? YAHOO! Personals?

IMBRA is the result of one more special interest group taking away the freedoms of 99.999% percent of people because of sensationalised, exceedingly rare examples. What of the statistics that marriages to forieners have a 70-80% success rate by some reports? I guess you felt threatened by that statistic didn't you?

Nobody wants to see another human abused, and we all seek full disclosure. But IMBRA is NOT the answer.

Thanks to IMBRA2005 we will be lucky if a fiance visa now can be obtained in less than two years.

Now THAT is being part of the solution! Very nice work Tigre.

If you are reading this forum, and you have not already called, written or mailed ombudsman, Senators, Congresspeople regarding the processing standstill of fiance visas, then PLEASE write your letter tonight and mail it tomorrow. It doesn't have to be fancy or long, just hit the high points and MAIL IT.

"...if you really think about it, 6/8/10 months to check people and make sure that you, your kids, and all Americans are safe is just a small sacrifice that you have to take to make sure everyone is kept safe. We sure do not want them to start flying these things through and not checking carefully...Otherwise, we are placing everyone at risk. So....we know how hard it is to wait and to have patience but PLEAZZZ think about how small this time is compared to the bigger picture........

That is the dumbest f*cking thing I have ever read. Oh, wait..was this meant as a joke?

This kind of mile wide but inch deep thinking is exactly why USCIS is so f'ed up. Because the appointed inept flunkies running the place have no accountability to serve the citizens. The citizens are taken in by thier spew that "daddy government" is there to "protect" them! Get a clue and enter reality. Might want to turn off the TV too...

Ask your sister how many 9/11 hijackers were here on fiance visas? Then ask her if she has any clue how easy our borders are to cross? Might want to guide the little woman to a map and let her examine the Canadian border for example.

Those who are willing to give up their freedoms deserve none! Your sister deserves to live in Russia. Or maybe Iran- they have a nice, protective government...

good gawd...