IMBRA

[OneiroKnight]

I was on an Asian Women website and came across a reference to IMBRA, a law passed early this year.  Can you guys share what you know about this and how it has changed the way we work on finding the woman we may choose to marry?

[Ray]

Welcome aboard!

One of our members, Gary Bala, is an immigration attorney who has a Web site with everything you ever wanted to know about IMBRA:

http://usaimmigrationattorney.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=2

Ray

[Dan]

I was on an Asian Women website and came across a reference to IMBRA, a law passed early this year.  Can you guys share what you know about this and how it has changed the way we work on finding the woman we may choose to marry?

You can also check out the information at our sister site -- http://www.GoodWife.com.

The Introduction has a link to the entire text of IMBRA, as well as the previous 1996 legislation (far more sensible, IMO), which was repealed with passage of IMBRA.

Enjoy!

- Dan

[OneiroKnight]

Wow.  From what I have read so far, this is ridiculous.  There should be in no way any limitations set on the freedom to correspond and create relations with anyone in the world, especially from this so called free country.  I am shocked.  Guess I missed that legal development...  I was married to a crazy Ukrainian woman for the past five years...  no more however, and have been corresponding with a Filipina recently...  this new law changes things just a little, just more I's to dot and T's to cross...  just developing a relationship shouldn't be a governmental issue.

[william3rd]

Here is the difference. You are free to develope whatever realtionship you wish wherever that relationship may be. You are also free to marry whomever you wish wherever they are. However, the rights of the sovereign to control the entrance of aliens and the terms under which they are admitted is undisputed.

The limitations are not that onerous unless you have had two or more fiancee visas or have a few wives or criminal convictions that you have not shared with your fiancee.

The limitations are waivable unless you have a DV conviction. You dont even need to disclose a lot of things unless you have crimes of violence or multiple substance abuse problems.

I see problems arising for agencies since the government is keeping track of the agencies involved in the introductions.

For the average Joe, there are not going to be any problems

[Dangodummy]

Out of curiosity, what exactly are they looking for as far as agencies? They ask if you met through a marriage broker. Do they consider any website to be a marriage broker? Or, are they looking for someone that introduces you to the ladies personally? I met my intended online, but website was typical one that provided no services other than personal listings.

Dummy

[doombug]

"...just developing a relationship shouldn't be a governmental issue.

Western feminists wouldn't have it any other way.

Now, bow before them and hand over that background info.!

[doombug]

You dont even need to disclose a lot of things unless you have crimes of violence or multiple substance abuse problems.

The quantity is not the issue.

The law doesn't grant me a single scrap of information on the background of anyone I wish to date here in the States, so why should the feminists (through their IMBRA surrogate) be requiring that I submit confidential background to distant foreigners who, heaven forbid, turn out to be con artists.

I hope it won't be too difficult to reach Interpol should one of these doves skip with my info. After all, blackmail and identity theft is not solely a domestic concern. 

[william3rd]

Dangodummy- the definition of IMB is very broad- unless it is a free site, religious marriage site(Indian matchmaking comes to mind) or its prime business is other than MOB, it is considered an IMB. Personal intros dont count UNLESS it is an agency that charges you and let her join for free.

So, if you paid to get the address and she did not pay the same fee to join, it counts.

[flipflop]

what TF am I missing here. We got a bunch of over zealous feminazi skanks up in congress sneaking through legislation that no one knew about. They hung this BS bill on an extension of the VAWA having no proof of their outlandish claims that persecute the very members of this forum describing us in apalling terms. The fatigue wearing butchs and their political movement is a way TF out of bounds and needs to be stopped in its tracks. I'll be goddamned if some C+ sociology major is going to decide who how or when I pursue a lady.

This legislation is uninforceable as the man can lie. Requiring a background check before I so much as send an e mail or make a phone call is a direct affront to my constitutional rights. If you cant see that this is an overreaching load of sh!t by a politican who lied to the families of victims then you need to take a long look at the Cantwell, Imbra and the Justice center  responsible for it.

Last I heard ECs in case in Atlanta had a TRO on the law which had since been lifted by Cooper (if someone would explain why I'd like to know how he came to this decision). So I assume this sh!tty legislation is law and and the skanky bull dykes that are responsible are laughing like the jakals they are. Anyone with info on the disposition of the EC case or the case in Ohio I'd be interested in links or any other sources, thanx

[william3rd]

But, but, but, our president signed the law. . . .

My understanding is that the case is over. In any event, absent lawsuits in every state, the TRO was limited to the state of filing. Interesting to note that alot of agencies did not even participate in the TRO process. Only a couple of the clean ones participated.

Keep in mind that you can pursue whoever you want wherever you want but she might not get a visa to come to the US unless the agency is complying.

[flipflop]

but but but..... As if Bush is the first Politician to sign a bill without picking apart 6000 pages of lies and pork. The fact is cantwell new the law would be shot down if given the time. Attaching the rider on an important piece of bi partisan legislation like VAWA on the day it was to be signed and hours before congress was to go on vacation was a sneaky way to make sure it got passed without being scrutinized by her peers. Bush had know choice but to sign it or suffer the consequences of delaying that legislation.

Making a man divulge his criminal record and marital status to buy an address or e mail is sickening. Anyway he could just lie and when doing the Visa say they met at the sushi bar in Cebu. The law is an affront to my civil rights and constitutional freedoms aside from being useless. If you think the feminists behind this stop here you are wrong.

[Ray]

You are free to develope whatever realtionship you wish wherever that relationship may be. You are also free to marry whomever you wish wherever they are. However, the rights of the sovereign to control the entrance of aliens and the terms under which they are admitted is undisputed.

The limitations are not that onerous unless you have had two or more fiancee visas or have a few wives or criminal convictions that you have not shared with your fiancee.

For the average Joe, there are not going to be any problems

William,

The REAL purpose of IMBRA was not to protect women, but to control who American men can communicate with overseas and ultimately who they are allowed to take as a wife.

The hard-core feminists don’t like us intermarrying with foreigners. They consider it “trafficking” of women and they are probably becoming very concerned about the increasing numbers of non-liberated women immigrating here.

They see international matchmaking organizations as “traffickers” and they would love to see all of them put out of business, which is a distinct possibility with the implementation of IMBRA. The hard-core feminists also have a hatred for men and IMBRA assumes that American men are mostly a bunch of abusive, controlling freaks who are only interested in foreign ladies because they think they can get away with abusing them.

I think the most offensive part of IMBRA is the requirement that American men divulge all sorts of personal information, much of which has nothing to do with the protection of women, before they are “allowed” by the U.S. government to communicate with a foreign lady, who voluntarily listed herself with an agency in the hopes of meeting foreign men.

How dare those ignorant, uneducated foreign women allow themselves to be “trafficked” like common sex-slaves! The feminists feel that they must “protect” these poor vulnerable women from the abusive American male by limiting even innocent contact with them.

Requiring men to disclose pertinent criminal convictions as part of the visa approval process may have some merit, but requiring them to disclose where they have lived in the past and the number and ages of their children, before they can even make initial contact, has nothing to do with protecting vulnerable women. It is all about forcing the matchmaking agencies out of business and limiting men’s options to even meet foreign ladies.

It’s really about women being able to control men, and the politicians who bought into the feminist propaganda about the need to protect women are simply suckers.

Ray

[william3rd]

We can agree to disagree.

While I do not agree with some of the aspects of the law, the agencies brought it on themselves. There have been successful lawsuits against some agencies and there will be more.

Having handled a couple dozen VAWA cases over the years, I can also tell you that batterers will repeat the process and they love the aspect of power and control that they get over having a woman beholden to them over a green card. I even had a second woman come to me involving the same man a few years later.

Some few of us out there shouldnt be allowed to reproduce or marry anybody and I believe that the regulations as far as disclosure may put a damper on some of these individuals' activities.

Since I am subject to the K waiver myself, I am not overwhelmed by it but I will live with it since I dont have much choice.

ANyway-weather in Bangkok today is 85 and hazy. New airport is pretty but unwieldy.The coup continues onward with no change visible in day to day life.

[Ray]

Hi William,

I am really no fan of the agencies and I have never used their services. I agree that some of them brought this on themselves, especially the ones that listed underage girls. However, I feel that legitimate agency owners have the right to make a living, whether the lesbians like it or not. The agencies that let women list themselves and then sell contact info to interested men should not be responsible for collecting and revealing personal or criminal information. If the government feels that information should be disclosed to a prospective mate, let them do it themselves at the time of the visa application.

I despise any man who beats his wife, but that isn’t what this law is about. The arguments in favor of IMBRA are an insult to all of us American men who simply choose to communicate with or marry a foreign woman. The great majority of us aren’t control freaks and we respect and love our wives, but the feminists don’t care about that. They want power over men who don’t buy into their agenda.

Since I am subject to the K waiver myself, I am not overwhelmed by it but I will live with it since I dont have much choice.

Well, actually you do have a choice. Remember that if you marry overseas and don’t petition for a K-3, you can bypass IMBRA entirely.   

I really miss Thailand and I wish I were over there with you. Have a cold bottle of Singha for me…



Ray

[Parlay Rey]

Well, actually you do have a choice. Remember that if you marry overseas and don’t petition for a K-3, you can bypass IMBRA entirely.   



Ray

Does this imply that one would simply choose to live in her country; that she would never live stateside? Or that there is another procedure to bypass IMBRA via overseas ceremony (eg, CR-1, etc)?

[Ray]

Does this imply that one would simply choose to live in her country; that she would never live stateside? Or that there is another procedure to bypass IMBRA via overseas ceremony (eg, CR-1, etc)?

If you marry overseas and then petition your spouse with Form I-130, she will receive the CR-1 (or SR-1) visa. If you also petition her with Form I-129F for the optional K-3 visa, then she can use the K-3 if it is approved first (normally faster).

Since IMBRA applies only to K-type visas, you can bypass the legal requirements of IMBRA by filing for the CR-1 only. (But don’t tell the murderers and rapists that… )

Why does the new law include K-3 souse visas but not CR-1 spouse visas? Who the hell knows? Perhaps William can provide some professional insight on that point, unless Maria Cantwell herself would like to chime in… 

Ray

[william3rd]

SInce Maria cant make it today. . .  . The right to marry is fundamental so you can always marry overseas. There would be a problem with the law if there was a limitation on marriage.

You just cant do a fiancee visa or hurry up K3. Actually, you can even with convictions.

BTW-processing times are currently about the same for CR and K3 right now but I would still recommend filing for both and taking the quicker of the two.

[Parlay Rey]

Thanks for that pertinent info and Long Live The Brotherhood of the Foreign Bride!