Imbra2005

I agree that those studies do not show a cause/effect relationship. But that's not the point. The whole point of IMBRA is to arm the foreign spouse with critical information about their spouse -- information that is correlated with abuse -- not necessarily the cause of the abuse.

And what rights guaranteed you by the bill of rights or constitution are being violated here? and how?

Jangler, thanks for your post. I don't mean to sound combative. But don't you know why I'm so supportive of IMBRA?? Because I'm a paid shill, remember?? Just kidding (I don't think anybody could pay me enough to sit on this site at all hours anyway).

I just honestly support the law and don't think that there is much that is wrong with it. I'm sorry that there are delays, but that's just a by-product of its implementation. Honestly, I think that if USCIS was more on the ball, the delays wouldn't have happened. So while I fully support the law and its provisions, I think the fire-drill in its implementation was poorly executed.

I also honeslty think that a large portion of the unhappiness with the law derives from misunderstandings, so I strive to clear those up. You are free to have opinions, but there's no sense arguing about facts -- I just think most people don't have them.

That said, I think your earlier point about the direction of the correlation between AOD and domestic abuse is well-taken. Feel better?

You want facts? Here you go:

National Crime Victimization Survey data: “alcohol was used by 67 percent ofpersons who victimized an intimate.”

The 50% figure can be found in Chapter 1: Alcohol and Violence, in 10th Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health (U.S. Dep’t. of Health and Human Services: June 2000), p. 57, http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/10report/intro.pdf.

U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration, “Experts Assess Links Between Substance Abuse and Domestic Violence” http://www.samhsa.gov/news/newsreleases/980121t.html).

Hope this helps.

Great statistics! So the other 33% should just be convicted! Lets just lock them up and put away the key. Does you trivial google search include the huge amount of recovering alcoholics that live each day praising their sobriety? No. You just say that once convicted, you are never reformed! 10 years sober and people like you disgust me!!!

wow. yes, good luck to you.

You want facts? Here you go:

National Crime Victimization Survey data: “alcohol was used by 67 percent ofpersons who victimized an intimate.”

The 50% figure can be found in Chapter 1: Alcohol and Violence, in 10th Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health (U.S. Dep’t. of Health and Human Services: June 2000), p. 57, http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/10report/intro.pdf.

U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration, “Experts Assess Links Between Substance Abuse and Domestic Violence” http://www.samhsa.gov/news/newsreleases/980121t.html).

Hope this helps.

by the way....what does People magazine have to do with it? What does the BAC level have to do with it? and it was Congressman Kennedy of Rhode Island, not Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, who recently had the auto accident that was in the papers. (although they both have had substance abuse problems.)

Nobody said there are any studies that show correlation between DUI convictions and spousal abuse. What was said is that there is statistical correlation between substance abuse and domestic violence. Let me know if that's what you're disputing and I'll give you all the statistics and federal government studies on that (including one that found that half of the men receiving treatment for alcohol abuse were guilty of abusing an intimate partner within the year prior to seeking treatment).

Now, if you have a DUI, some might say (I'm not one of them) that drinking to intoxication and then getting behind the wheel is proof positive that you abused the intoxicant -- at least that time (and most would suggest that it wasn't the first time, either). Thus, there is a DUI's can be a proxy or marker for substance abuse. And then there is a connection between substance abuse and domestic abuse. If A=B and B=C, then A=C.

Ask yourself if it would give you pause to find out your young daughter was about to move thousands of miles away to a new country to marry a much older guy with multiple convictions involving alcohol or drugs.

Cheap shot IMBRA. Here is your Post:

The theory is that if you have an alchohol/drug offense, you likely have abused alchohol/drugs. There is a well-documented correlation between domestic violence and alchohol and drug abuse.

I was upset with yours and Dessertfox reply but I will take the high road and understand that you have your opinion. Your direct insult of me being violent is a well founded correlation is harder to let go. Still I will just let it go. Just own your words! if you post them then they are yours. As far as dessertFox? There is no dignified reply to such an ignorant post.

Again the high road. I wish you all the best in your life. discussions of trials and tribulations of our loved one should not resort to this.

Good Luck!!!!

Maybe it's just me, but when I read IMBRA's post, I thought the "you" was a general "you" and not "you" personally. *shrug*

And that's how I meant it.

I am well-aware of what I stated in the post and I stand by my words 100%. I said the THEORY is that a person (perhaps I shouldn't have said "you") that has AOD offenses likely is a AOD abuser, and that many studies indicate a statistical correlation between AOD abuse and domestic abuse.

Really sorry you're on such a short fuse, but there ain't no accusation there.

But what studies, what do they say exactly? While not disaggreeing with what you are saying about the correlation--I would also say there is a correlation were many Victims of abuse are also often AOD abusers. Furthermore low education, and as stated low IQ and low income are often associated with or correlated to domestic abuse. So are young experienced couples or parents. People who grew up in borken homes or who were abused as a child--or who work in law enforcement or the military, or take steroids, or who smoke tobacco are correlated to being domestic abusers. There are many factors that could correlate to domestic abuse. And why only report the 3 convictions of DUI--who is to say that 3 convictions is anymore a magic threshold of abuse than 1 or 2 convictions.

I don't know, but I have no reason to doubt what you say about education, social history, etc. is true. Are you suggesting that Congress should have included all those factors in passing IMBRA? If so, maybe you're right and it might have been smarter to include all those things. But that's different from saying that Congress couldn't draw a line based on what they thought (they don't need the actual studies) was important. That's why we pay them the big bucks -- to make those decisions based on their judgment. Of course, you're free to disagree with their judgment and I guess that's why people run against incumbents.

Same thing with the magical number 3. All I can say is that someobdy thought 3 was a reasonable number. You see that sort of thign all the time -- think about the "three strikes" laws, etc. Maybe 2 is a better number, maybe 4? Seems kind of reasonable to me, though

I am well-aware of what I stated in the post and I stand by my words 100%. I said the THEORY is that a person (perhaps I shouldn't have said "you") that has AOD offenses likely is a AOD abuser, and that many studies indicate a statistical correlation between AOD abuse and domestic abuse.

Really sorry you're on such a short fuse, but there ain't no accusation there.

The theory is that if you have an alchohol/drug offense, you likely have abused alchohol/drugs. There is a well-documented correlation between domestic violence and alchohol and drug abuse.

There's also a correlation between domestic violence and low IQ. Should we start giving people IQ tests?

IMBRA2005- What an Ignorant individual you are. I feel sorry for the small world you live in that you can classify all persons via a subject. You have totally missed the mention of herendous felonies not counted towards this post. Thank God we have upstanding Christians like you to tell the rest of the world the statistics on what is correlated to abuse. Your dirty little secrets are safe but yet again, who knows them? I am taking and have still taken FULL responsibilities for my actions. How dare you classify me as an abuser!!! You could be a closet abuser for all anyone on this post knows!!! Easy to point fingers, let's let our loved ones decide if we should be executed for DUI!

Am I missing something here? Where in my post did I classify you as an abuser? I answered your question as to why IMBRA asks about alchohol/drug abuse. Given your demonstration, perhaps the correlation is well-founded.

The theory is that if you have an alchohol/drug offense, you likely have abused alchohol/drugs. There is a well-documented correlation between domestic violence and alchohol and drug abuse.

Quotes from the recent article are in this thread:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18404

yeah, what Z said

Well the "while no figures exist" statement was true in 1997, that is no longer the case, there are now real figures. I've posted elsewhere from the recent paper that cites all the studies showing that the incidence of domestic violence in marriages with immigrant women and USC spouses is considerably higher than average. I'll dig that up again if you want me to. But that's basically irrelevant for the reasons I've mentioned before, . . .you don't need to do an experiment or have hard-scientific data before passing a law.

Congress can just think that there might be a problem and pass a law that they think might address it -- even if it only helps a little bit (they don't have to try and tackle the whole problem). So although you might not think it wiser to try and address abuse in marriages between two USCs (or as some have suggested, all marriages) that doesn't make what Congress did wrong.

Considering (1) that you're taking the agency's own interpretation of whether or not they are exempt (they sort of have a dog in the fight, you know?); and (2) that there may be serious consequences if you guess wrongly, it may make sense to seek and rely on the the advice of qualified legal counsel.

Imbra, if you could provide a link to what Congress cited, it would be appreciated. Anything I've ever read basically says that there is no evidence to suggest that these types of occurances (divorces also) are any more prevelant in marriages with foreign spouses than in any other marriage in this country. And I find that to be a reasonable statement.

Sure. Here's the link to the page of Congressional Record with Sen. Brownback's statment, it continues over a page or two. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...ame=2005_record

Also, the INS commissioned a study for a report to Congress (I think it was in 1997) that, among other things, concluded that "While no national figures exist on abuse of alien wives, there is every reason to believe that the incidence is higher in this population than for the nation as a whole. Authorities agree that abuse in these marriages can be expected based on the men's desire for a submissive wife and the women's desire for a better life. At some point, after the alien bride has had time to adjust to the new environment, to make new friends, and to become comfortable with the language, her new independence and his domination are bound to conflict. The problem, according to Mila Glodava (Glodava and Onizuka, 1994) and Uma Narayan (Narayan, 1995), is largely due to the men's unrealistic expectations. While many state a desire for a submissive wife, they find that such dependence becomes a burden. To provide some relief, the husband seeks ways (friends, activities) that will get the wife "out of the house" on occasion. The resulting independence then angers the husband who manifests the anger on the wife, who may have only been guilty of trying to please her husband." http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/reps...ies/Mobappa.htm

Does that help? There was testimony before the House Foreign Relations Committee in 2004 as well. I can try and find that online somewhere to if you want.

I think the main flaw with the argument that IMBRA was concealed, hidden, etc. is that it assumes that 531 lawmakers didn't know what they're voting for. I would challenge anyone to show me where a single representative or senator who voted for passage has admitted (a) that they didn't know IMBRA was incorporated into the VAWA bill, and/or (B) had they known that, they would not have voted for it. I don't think you can assume that these lawmakers don't know what they're voting for. In fact, I think you should assume just the opposite, that they know exactly what they are voting on.

The idea of amending different pieces of legislation to each other is commonplace. Congress (both parties) does it all the time -- sometimes for efficiency, and sometimes for political reasons (remember the Republicans tacking on the ANWR drilling amendment to the money for Iraq bill?)

And, various senators (both parties) spoke on the senate floor (before passage) about IMBRA and why it should be supported. It's all in the Congressional Record (the various anti-imbra website have villified these senators and can point you to their statements). So I just don't think that the argument that the evil feminists put one over on the Congress really holds much water.

I wanted to publicly apologize to zethris for my tone in the post. I can't seem to edit it to remove the preliminary comment that seems to scold him, but if I could I would. It was inappropriate, and I'm sorry.

Uh, zethris, I don't know where you are getting your information from, but that's not at all what's in the language of the statute which actually DEFINES what an international marriage broker is (see below). I don't think it says anything about "social networking websites" or "price tags to order."

(4) INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘international marriage

broker’’ means a corporation, partnership, business, individual,

or other legal entity, whether or not organized

under any law of the United States, that charges fees

for providing dating, matrimonial, matchmaking services,

or social referrals between United States citizens or

nationals or aliens lawfully admitted to the United States

as permanent residents and foreign national clients by

providing personal contact information or otherwise facilitating

communication between individuals.

(B) EXCEPTIONS.—Such term does not include—

(i) a traditional matchmaking organization of a

cultural or religious nature that operates on a nonprofit

basis and otherwise operates in compliance with the

laws of the countries in which it operates, including

the laws of the United States; or

(ii) an entity that provides dating services if its

principal business is not to provide international dating

services between United States citizens or United

States residents and foreign nationals and it charges

comparable rates and offers comparable services to

all individuals it serves regardless of the individual’s

gender or country of citizenship.

"just because one woman got murdered"??? You don't really think that's why it was passed do you? Please don't make me repost the horror stories of murders, rapes, and child molestations that Congress cited. Did you not see that in the last 10 years, over 30,000 "battered spouse waiver" self-petitions were filed by immigrant women and children who were subjected to abuse by their USC sponsor spouses?

traps American men into marriages to American feminists.

See guys, I wouldn't trust 'em. They obviously don't care about my poor foreign man, about to be trapped into marriage to an American feminist.

Exactly! There sould be a background check done on us-- foreign men need to be protected, too! The FBI needs to verify that we all shave our legs and know how to cook. The fact that I own a copy of Andrea Dworkin's 'Intercourse' should be disclosed before he's granted a visa. For his own safety.

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!

I see more people recognize the game being played here: Once the going gets tough, the example of bad marketing get trotted out to provoke sympathy and revulsion.

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!

Oh my! Now the conspiracy doesn't just extend to me, but the people who hired me to post on this forum must have actually created fictitious mail order bride websites just to get the legistlation passed. I suppose they also slashed Alla Barney's throat just so they could have a poster child for their cause, right? Are you sure you're not wearing a tin foil hat?

I can assure you that I am no "paid public relations representative" "exercising damage control." What damage is there to control? IMBRA passed with only 3 dissenting votes in Congress. The President of the United States signed it. It is, as they say, the law of the land. There is no damage to control. All I'm doing is giving my personal views here, armed with the facts which I have presented for public consumption. The members of this board can decide for themselves as to whether the information I posted is credible. My personal details are utterly irrelevant to that determination.

Is there even such a thing as "mail order bride"????

The language implies that a "client" pages through a book of personal ads, makes a selection, then places a request for that person to be shipped to them.

...Does this describe something real? or is this just a term/label from many years ago, before the Internet medium came along to be used as a REAL communication tool?

j

Here's a few examples from the Tahirih Justice Center:

Women “sold” like items in a shopping cart (e.g., “Add Marina (68849) to my order”) or implied as goods: http://www.datingdepot.com/women/russia/russia-women.htm

http://www.loveme.com/women/moscow-women/moscow-women.htm

http://www.goodwife.com (“The Mail Order Bride Warehouse”)

http://www.abc.net.au/ra/asiapac/programs/s1074951.htm (re: listing of Vietnamese women on E-bay by marriage broker).

http://www.anastasiaweb.com/top1000.htm

But I know bad legislation when I see it. Just because there is a problem it doesn't mean every law that addresses it is a good law, and a person who opposes a law is not necessarily for the crime, understand?

Sums up the reality pretty good- thank you for saving me the typing.

Like the premise of "The Colbert Report", people want to "feel" a law is good, regardless of the weight (in this case the lack thereof) of the evidence proving otherwise. It is all puppies and butterflies as long as the law "sounds" good.

To cite emotionally gripping examples, and claiming they were all preventable if IMBRA had only been in effect, is intellectually bankrupt and only panders to the sensationalistic hot-buttons of the masses.

BUT what is always missing are the studies showing causation and linkage.

What studies were conducted? Were meta-studies done? Who were the control groups? What are the facts supporting this "power imbalance" theory? This is IMBRA's whole problem, it is all based on emotion, there are no facts supporting the alleged efficacy of the solution.

Don't cram legislation down my throat that was written in ambiguous and convolution fashion, based on knee-jerk reaction.

There were already laws in place for visa fraud, spousal abuse. Don't create new laws when you don't enforce the ones already in place.

Pete,

We're dealing with sociological and psychological principles here. They don't lend themselves (at least not ethically) to double-blind controlled studies as you suggest. The government cannot ethically randomly reveal information about the USC to half the immigrants and stay silent to the other half -- in the hopes that sometime in the future, we can look back and compare the relative incidence of domestic abuse to infer a causal relationship. What do you say to all the battered immigrants who weren't in the control group? "Sorry, we were conducting an experiment so we didn't tell you we knew your husband abused and raped his last three foreign wives?" (a real case). We can't put people in a test tube and control the variables here to determine "efficacy" of the law. Seriously, do you really think that for every law there needs to be some demonstrably provable benefit before the law can be passed? Or do you think governments are allowed to use common sense?

Understanding this, Congress can draw its own rational conclusions from the studies that are out there that show the heightened risk of domestic abuse in these relationships. I'll cut and paste from another post that was taken from the most recent study on the topic, "Battered Immigrants and U.S. Citizen Spouses" By Giselle Aguilar Hass, Psy.D., Nawal Ammar, Ph.D., Leslye Orloff, J.D.

Hey aussie

This is a strange question but....................wouldn't it be very easy for people to lie & say that they haven't commited any crimes? how are they going to verify this? are they going to check EVERY single petitioner's background?

IMBRA does not affect our petition-I was just wondering

You read my mind

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 47--FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

Sec. 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any

matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or

judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and

willfully--

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or

device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent

statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same

to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement

or entry;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or

both.

What about American brides? There is no such law for americans marrying americans. What if married my ex boyfriend from college and he ended up murdering me because I broke up with him? I also would have never known he had a criminal record. You can't exactly do a google search on someone's background.

Maybe they should create this law for EVERYONE.

I don't think this is about protecting foreigners at all. This is just another way to make it even harder for people to come to the US.

Grismar,

As I've explained in other posts, there are very good reasons why the law targets immigrants as opposed to Americans. There is a ton of research that demonstrates that immigrant women are at a significantly higher risk of domestic abuse than their American counterparts. These women frequently arrive in the US not understanding the language, laws or customs of the U.S. Their presence in this country is entirely dependent upon their USC sponsor, who is frequently their abuser. American women, on the other hand, have relatively access to background check information on Americans and know the system a whole lot better than women from the developing countries where the mail order bride agencies recruit from.

I'd be curious to know how many women who immigrated to America as foreign brides ended up being victims of abuse and consequently taken care of by the taxpayer (affidavit of support is important for obvious reasons). I'm not griping about taking care of them as a taxpayer (they are the victims), but I'd rather see we do a better job of screening the kind of men who are bringing foreign brides here, especially if all it means is that we take a look at his criminal record to see if he has a history of domestic violence. Heck, we should be doing that for anyone wanting to marry, foreign or domestic.

According to USCIS statistics, from the time that VAWA made it possible in 1996 for foreign spouses to leave their abuser and self-petition for their own immigration status through March 2005, approximately 38,000 I-360 applications were filed, 30,672 were approved, and approximately 7200 were denied.