GAO Issues Report on IMBRA

[Admin]

I reported some months ago that GAO had contacted me for an interview, which I provided. It was quite some time ago.

I've contacted them several times asking when they would publish the report, as it was mandatory they produce a report per the original IMBRA legislation.

That report was issued today, and is attached to this post.

Long and the short of it is - they were predictably non-critical about the specious underpinnings of IMBRA legislation passage, instead opting simply to re-state the legislation for context, and then go on to describe the current lack of enforcement.

They made specific recommendations that are likely to lead to increased IMBRA enforcement in the coming weeks and months.

- Dan

[I/O]

Long and the short of it is - they were predictably non-critical about the specious underpinnings of IMBRA legislation passage, instead opting simply to re-state the legislation for context, and then go on to describe the current lack of enforcement.

They made specific recommendations that are likely to lead to increased IMBRA enforcement in the coming weeks and months.

- Dan

So what's the bottom line? Keep prodding a snoozing bear with a stick and eventually it will wake up and growl? Government Accountability Office or whatever it is reporting on what? Government legislation. A result other than the report suggesting stronger implimentation is likely? I don't think so. There is a lot more people opposed to or disinterested in international mariages than there is people who support them. Hello, election year......everyone votes.....cut the numbers.........go figure...........it's not rocket science.

I/O

[steviej]

So what's the bottom line? Keep prodding a snoozing bear with a stick and eventually it will wake up and growl? Government Accountability Office or whatever it is reporting on what? Government legislation. A result other than the report suggesting stronger implimentation is likely? I don't think so. There is a lot more people opposed to or disinterested in international mariages than there is people who support them. Hello, election year......everyone votes.....cut the numbers.........go figure...........it's not rocket science.

I/O

Yep. It's interesting to note that in American-style democracy, if you have an active, well organized and effective minority (feminists in this case), with others being indifferent or too busy, that minority wields a lot of political power. This proves that in fact, feminists can, by law, continue to control and restrict the lives of men, American citizens, and their interactions with the world at large as well as at home. As preposterous as it sounds, that is exactly what it happening. It is also interesting to me that women politicians and women interest groups will stand up "as women" and defend the interests "of women." There are not any male politicians, to my knowledge, that will stand up to something in the interests "of men." IMBRA is a law that is "bad for men". If there was a law proposed that was "bad for women" we would hear about it, and it would be expressed as "bad for women." Not for men.

Dan et. al, the only way to proceed is to get senate sponsors. Senators that are men that would hear the issue, take issue with it, and defend men politically. As I/O has identified, we cannot count on the government bureaucracy itself to change policy. It is either the congress or the courts.

By the way, Dan. For all your effort in this, thanks for all of us, and all the future newbies as well.

How long will it be before the essence of IMBRA is simply extended to any dating that men may engage in, domestic or foreign. We are requiring men to reveal very personal information to basically strangers in foreign countries which we would not even tell our own neighbor.

[TwoBitBandit]

The problem is that men are stoic.  Men have a "hunker down and get on with it" mentality that hurts them in cases like this.  They don't take the shrill, whiney positions that feminists (and women of all flavors) take.

Take the issue of prostate cancer, for instance.  Prostate cancer has both a higher incidence and a higher death rate than breast cancer.  However, you don't see men organizing marches and convincing the US Postal Service to do a special stamp to help "fight" prostate cancer.  That's just the nature of men, to be stoic and not whine.

At one end of IMBRA you have the shrill whine of feminism, at the other end you have the stoic get-on-with-it-ness of men... who do you think is going to win?

[Maxx2]

TwoBitBandit summed it up nicely. It is so true about the shame being put on men who "whine". Victims of these laws are told to move on and forget about what happened to them. I find that most men are afraid to take a man's side or take up the men's issue lest they be perceived as chauvinistic or sympathetic towards "abusers". This whole subject is an ugly. Most people including the politicians do not want to deal with it. So they leave the drafting of the laws to those who make a living off the "victims" or victims. If a law is blatantly unfair to men then what group of any size is going to complain about it?   


Maxx

[I/O]

We are requiring men to reveal very personal information to basically strangers in foreign countries which we would not even tell our own neighbor.

Ahem, choke and cough. When does the regulation say such information must be fully revealed? Isn't it during the K-1 application stage. How much must actually be revealed at agency level? And..........doesn't this legislation apply to USA based agents? And.........as the report apparently highlights, is or will there ever be any real level of agency compliance anyway? This is information some would prefer withheld from their wives-to-be? Down here, we don't even have this kind of regulation in stand alone form, however we MUST document all prior marriages, names, dates and so forth or mid term defacto relationships, any criminal history, bankruptcy, domestic violence orders, restraining orders or matters of similar nature and all of this is handed to our wives-to-be to be lodged at the embassy with her application. Where is the problem? If one is to marry a RW, she'll dig it all up sooner or later.

From what I understand the IMBRA is pretty dodgy legislation and I am not here to support it by a long shot, but the questions I put at this time, how many legitimate romances has it put paid to? And..........who here, or who do we know that it has prevented from bringing their partner in?

To remove, amend or abolish legislation of this sort, one is wasting their time trying to make it happen from the top down, it would, as it almost always does, require a ground swell of voice/s at the grass roots level. Once the Polly's see their constitute calling against something they will start to move, rarely before.

IMO, the danger of such legislation lies not with the country who frames it, but in this pursuit, if Russia continues to suffer population decline and becomes serious about keeping all her "Natashas" at home, then maybe, just maybe Russia will jump on the bandwagon and demand compliance on her soil. Doubtful but possible.   

I/O

[Admin]

Ahem, choke and cough. When does the regulation say such information must be fully revealed? Isn't it during the K-1 application stage. How much must actually be revealed at agency level? And..........doesn't this legislation apply to USA based agents? And.........as the report apparently highlights, is or will there ever be any real level of agency compliance anyway? This is information some would prefer withheld from their wives-to-be? Down here, we don't even have this kind of regulation in stand alone form, however we MUST document all prior marriages, names, dates and so forth or mid term defacto relationships, any criminal history, bankruptcy, domestic violence orders, restraining orders or matters of similar nature and all of this is handed to our wives-to-be to be lodged at the embassy with her application. Where is the problem? If one is to marry a RW, she'll dig it all up sooner or later.

From what I understand the IMBRA is pretty dodgy legislation and I am not here to support it by a long shot, but the questions I put at this time, how many legitimate romances has it put paid to? And..........who here, or who do we know that it has prevented from bringing their partner in?

To remove, amend or abolish legislation of this sort, one is wasting their time trying to make it happen from the top down, it would, as it almost always does, require a ground swell of voice/s at the grass roots level. Once the Polly's see their constitute calling against something they will start to move, rarely before.

IMO, the danger of such legislation lies not with the country who frames it, but in this pursuit, if Russia continues to suffer population decline and becomes serious about keeping all her "Natashas" at home, then maybe, just maybe Russia will jump on the bandwagon and demand compliance on her soil. Doubtful but possible.   

I/O

There are lots of flaws in the legislation - but for now, it is the law of the land.

Among those flaws are blatant extra-territorialism - witness the definition of the IMB they claim to legislate. It specifically states that it matters not whether they are US-based.

As for WHEN the man's information must be divulged, stevie is exactly correct. Background information of various sorts must be provided to the IMB who must then provide it to any lady who might want to communicate with the American man, who then must explicitly agree to said communication - and all must be done PRIOR to ANY direct communication whatsoever.

Some less than scrupulous agencies are leveraging IMBRA and using it as a license to steal, IMO.

- Dan

[Lit_1nce]

Of the 3 dating sites I use (actually only active in 1)  2 of them asked for IMBRA information.. Which I provided.. of those 2 the questions were different.. and one actually asked things that were not in the IMBRA text I read. I guess what bugs me, is that what information is required to collect, and how specific, is open to interpretation.. It's the dang government, if anybody know how to create a form they do.. so they should have a set format of questions in the order they want, ready for these sites.

I guess I am also curious as to how this information is used "on the other side". Does any woman interested in me have access to all my information, or am I just either Imbra acceptable or not.

There is also a difference at one site I went to.. Someone from a non IMBRA country could just order ladies addresses.. now illegal for US residents ? .. now, what is the point to give them IMBRA information, if that doesn't "vet" you ?

[I/O]

it is the law of the land.

But not the law of any other land at this time, so 50% of any international marriage is not subjected to the law (Prior to entry) unless they develop a process at embassy inteview stage of actually establishing the lady in question was provided the information prior to communications.

Some less than scrupulous agencies are leveraging IMBRA and using it as a license to steal, IMO.

Steal what?

Again, I am no supporter of this type of legislation because it was seemingly developed on the back of emotive lobbying but it does seem to have so many holes that it has or can have little if any effect. 

I/O

[BC]

I/O,

There are many US laws that apply to overseas businesses doing commerce in the US.. One of the most active areas is antitrust actions against foreign companies reaping billions of dollars in fines every year.

Also many countries (including US IIRC) can take action against their own citizens regarding certain conducts overseas.

Laws are like taxes.. they expand rather than decrease in power.

The GAO report shows clearly that until now there hasn't been much movement at all for USCIS to comply with the law - it's been on the back burner until GAO showed up.  Note that the information brochure due long ago magically appeared just recently.

Just because there is little or no enforcement now doesn't mean that it will always be that way - and they certainly can go back in time...

[Lit_1nce]

From Wikipedia...

The secrecy of letters and correspondence is derived through litigation from the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a 1877 case the U.S. Supreme Court stated:

    "No law of Congress can place in the hands of officials connected with the Postal Service any authority to invade the secrecy of letters and such sealed packages in the mail; and all regulations adopted as to mail matter of this kind must be in subordination to the great principle embodied in the fourth amendment of the Constitution."


The US is unfortunately behind the EU on legally protecting citizens email privacy.. And given the current trend of allowing telephone wiretapping, it may be awhile until we get better privacy laws in general.. But to me the above law would seem to cover it.. but then what do I know.

[I/O]

BC: No argument with your examples, but for a foreign citizen (Not on US soil) the US has no practical jurisdiction over them unless the US gains the cooperation of the citzen country. Can you provide any reason why a foreign country would be even interested much less want to be involved in supporting this type of obscure legislation, unless as I suggested earlier, Russia wants to prevent any further out flow of Natahsa's?

The practicalities of this, so far as I can see, are that the only real first point of check that information has actually be received and understood is during an embassy interview prior to visa issuance. I see that as easily implemented, but I also see a 99.99 % automatic answer of "yes I have received this", thus rending the whole thing fairly toothless.

I seriously dislike these types of legislations, however, over time I have seen potentially damaging legislations come and go with the usual outcry and often they pale into worthlessness. I understand why the people upset by this are upset, however, it will be interesting to see if it ever grows any workable legs. The femmies and pollys can snort and rant, but it appears to me they are carrying a stuffed cat with this one (pleasant to stroke and wont bite anyone).

TBB hit it pretty squarely I suspect when he said guys basically hunker down and get on with it. I tend to think that is the best approach with this one because, frankly, I think the boys have a snowflakes chance in hell of having it repealled. A defensive position on this subject is often where we all are (and where people supporting international marriages will find themselves by shouting against the legislation) and it is impossible to defend successfully, the attacks are far better ignored as has been advised here so many times. The only benefit I can see from people ramping this up is for a few websites to create a bit more click revenue. Who's the real winner from that? Auntie Google.

I guess, I've commented on this only because I wonder if a number of people haven't simply gotten up in arms about something which doesn't and likely never will do or achieve anything tangible before really thinking it through. Anyone changed their minds about meeting someone from abroad because of IMBRA?

Must dash, the Aussie girls are playing the Russian girls in beach volleyball. That DOES appeal to my taste. Politically, I am on a winner either way also.

I/O

[Turboguy]

I/O

The potential enforcement as I understand it could be do not allow K-1 visas if the agency in use did not comply with IMBRA.  This has not been done yet but there is potential for it if I understand things correctly.

You asked if anyone was detered from seeking a foreign bride because of IMBRA.   I believe Maxx is not willing to persue a foreign bride because of it and I think anyone who had false charges by a GCG will be very detered from trying.   Yes, if the man really abused the woman that would be a good thing but I think there are more cases of false domestic abuse in K-1 situations than real ones.

Personally IMBRA cost me about $ 20,000.   

[BC]

Personally IMBRA cost me about $ 20,000.   

wow that's kinda steep for a waiver or?

[Turboguy]

The waver cost me a sheet of paper and an hour or two figuring out what to say.   When they first came out with IMBRA they were throwing tons of people in Administrative Review (FBI name checks) since they were still figuring out what to do with IMBRA.   We got caught up in that and spent 7 months going nowhere.   Since we were not content to have her sit in Russia alone and me sit in the USA alone we spent a lot of time together and that is the expenses and lost income from spending time together that we would not have had to do if it were not for IMBRA.   They seem to have smoothed out the FBI name checks now so hopefully others will not have the problem. 

[I/O]

I/O

The potential enforcement as I understand it could be do not allow K-1 visas if the agency in use did not comply with IMBRA.  This has not been done yet but there is potential for it if I understand things correctly.

You asked if anyone was detered from seeking a foreign bride because of IMBRA.   I believe Maxx is not willing to persue a foreign bride because of it and I think anyone who had false charges by a GCG will be very detered from trying.   Yes, if the man really abused the woman that would be a good thing but I think there are more cases of false domestic abuse in K-1 situations than real ones.

Personally IMBRA cost me about $ 20,000.   

Turbo: Interesting post. 20K? Directly attributable to IMBRA or just your gut feeling? Can you be certain that wouldn't have happened before IMBRA? You guys chose to spend the money to spend time together, nobody actually forced you. Mine and I were faced with the same choices and decided on the other option.

You raise a vaild point with the false DV charges. Wouldn't you gain a greater groundswell of support by attacking that legislation and trying to have it improved as surely it effects or potentially effects all American men, where as the IMBRA effects only a handful?

I/O

[Admin]

But not the law of any other land at this time, so 50% of any international marriage is not subjected to the law (Prior to entry) unless they develop a process at embassy inteview stage of actually establishing the lady in question was provided the information prior to communications.


Steal what?

Again, I am no supporter of this type of legislation because it was seemingly developed on the back of emotive lobbying but it does seem to have so many holes that it has or can have little if any effect. 

I/O

If the GAO report is actioned - and that is likely - then there will, indeed, be significantly increased enforcement of the provisions of IMBRA. The *real* test will be if/when the US Attorney's office decides to prosecute some poor schmuck agency owner for failing to comply. Well, it will be a test if that owner decided to defend. More likely is, in the face of a US prosecution, they will simply fold.

As I wrote earlier, the fact that the law is written with language that is clearly extra-territorial, is problematic for agencies no matter where they are based, or the citizenship of their owner. While true the law may have little effect on that owner if a foreign citizen, IMBRA most certainly can (and will) have effect on any US customers AND THEIR FIANCES.

As for the unscrupulous behaviors of agencies owing to IMBRA - a couple of instances.

One - IMBRA has allowed agencies to interject themselves between the men and the women who want to communicate and possibly meet. Some (most?) now charge fees to act in the middle position. I know of several well-known agencies that did NOT insert themselves in the middle of communications prior to IMBRA - but they do now, and they charge a fee for it - and with that new income stream has come incentive to remain in the middle as long as possible. At least a couple of the big agencies have been reported to never allow the communications to progress to a point where the men and the women are communicating directly. Those agencies hide behind IMBRA as the reason for their interminable middleman activities.

Another - there are at least a few, and one notably shrill, agency owners who claim that because they are based in another country, they can help people to "circumvent" (their word, not mine) IMBRA. For any customer who is a US citizen, those agencies are promoting open violation of US law - nevermind the senselessness of the law, it is still the law - for now. Guess who takes the risk of violating US law?!? Not that shrill agency owner - but instead, the US citizen who ignorantly or knowingly follows the fallacious advice! IMBRA makes no provision (that I am aware) for action against a US citizen customer, however, they most certainly have the ability to deny that person's fiance a visa - so the 'risk' I reference is that of spending all the time, money, and emotion - and ending up with a failed visa interview.

There is more - but that will do for now.

- Dan

[ConnerVT]

The potential enforcement as I understand it could be do not allow K-1 visas if the agency in use did not comply with IMBRA.  This has not been done yet but there is potential for it if I understand things correctly.

Technically, the agency isn't a party to the K-1 visa application.  To penalize the petitioners because of a third party's actions would make attorneys lots of money.

It would be similar to AT&T not filling out their documents correctly, and your visa being denied because you used them as your long distance carrier to speak with your fiancee.

[Tristan]

Over at www.onlinedatingrights.com we are leading the way in research on IMBRA and on the social and political forces that brought it upon us.

We also are active in Washington, and several of our members roam the halls of Congress on their days off discussing the law with legislative aides some of whose bosses are sure to vote differently when any new legislation like this is proposed in the future, as it surely will be.

And we are devoted to defeating the law in the courts on First Amendment grounds.  We have a lawyer ready to challenge the law and the ability to raise the necessary funds to do so.  We are only missing one ingredient: a plaintiff.

If there is anyone reading this willing to go to bat to get rid of this law, please contact me at my yahoo account which is: onlinedatingrights@

[steviej]

Ahem, choke and cough. When does the regulation say such information must be fully revealed? Isn't it during the K-1 application stage.

Ahem, choke and cough. When does the regulation say such information must be fully revealed? Isn't it during the K-1 application stage.

Nope. Before you can even ask for her telephone number. Imagine, I/O, if there's a lady you'd like to introduce yourself to, you'd like to ask out. And your government requires that first, you file this form on which you provide: zip codes for everywhere you've lived since you were 18, all your previous marriages, status of children, any criminal violations, any civil violations, and accusations of DV , etc etc.  That is, many of the most personal and exhaustive details of your life. Just to talk on the phone the first time? This would be for any and every woman you want to talk to. AND if you the relationship with any one woman actually progressed to the point of wanting to get married, then you have to prove to your government that you followed and filed all these forms and regulations properly or they won't let you get married. It's just unbelievable to me, but that's what contemporary "minority" politics is all about in US. Do you have that in AU yet? The political will and presence of white men in US was killed in the aftermath of the "civil rights" movement. We are dead creatures, beasts of burden, in our own country now. Sad.

, but the questions I put at this time, how many legitimate romances has it put paid to? And..........who here, or who do we know that it has prevented from bringing their partner in?
I/O

That's the same kind of thinking that allows the government to provide surveillance on all domestic phone calls, wire tapping, mail checking ..... The rationale is: if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide, right? Such acquiessence allows the ever tightening state control of our lives.

I would say that the right of man to pursue romantic relations toward whomever he desires, whenever and wherever, without government interference and control, should be a sort of "basic right to life" that must be upheld.

At the root of it politcally in US, of course, is that feminists never miss an opportunity to increase state surveillance and control of men, they want to control men in the US, and they don't want them to  have an "escape hatch" by being able to marry women from other countries. It is a power struggle. A true battle of the sexes that for now, the men are losing. We're not even fighting actually. We are passive, and as someone said correclty earlier, stoic. It is certainly not very "manly" to complain about the feminists, is it?

[Turboguy]

Turbo: Interesting post. 20K? Directly attributable to IMBRA or just your gut feeling? Can you be certain that wouldn't have happened before IMBRA? You guys chose to spend the money to spend time together, nobody actually forced you. Mine and I were faced with the same choices and decided on the other option.

You raise a valid point with the false DV charges. Wouldn't you gain a greater groundswell of support by attacking that legislation and trying to have it improved as surely it effects or potentially effects all American men, where as the IMBRA effects only a handful?
I/O

Well I can be fairly certain it would not have happened before IMBRA.  VWRW and I both have spotless records.   Both of our Pre-IMBRA applications sailed right through.  During that point in time floods of people were getting socked into FBI name checks for no reason.   For some strange reason about a truck load of us on the week we applied got stuck in it and we all cleared it on the same day in July.   I saw the figures of how many people were in A/R when we were and the number was staggering.   I forget now but it was hundreds of thousands.    The amount of money I quoted was probably conservative.   Yes it was our choice to be together.  But that choice would not have been necessary had our K-1 been approved in March or April as it should have been.   We were not sure we ever would get out of it and scoped out Sochi as a place to live together and then spent the biggest part of the Summer in Granada and Barbados with plans to return and possible relocate there if our application was not approved. 

The biggest problem is that those it affects are too small in number and to disorganized.   If they decided to cut Social Security payments in half they would all be run out of Washington on a rail because it would affect so many.  Who cares about some slob in Pa who can't get his visa approved or some slob somewhere else and as unfair as it is there are just not enough people affected by it.

Even the idea of a lifetime limit of two K-1's is stupid.  This is not a duck shoot as we all know.   It does not take too many foolish decisions to hit that limit.   William is doing his 5th K-1 and when you hear the stories you know he is a good guy who had bad luck.  He is no serial abuser.  What right do they have to tell anyone who they can and can not marry.  Even Stalin didn't do that.

[BC]

As I wrote earlier, the fact that the law is written with language that is clearly extra-territorial, is problematic for agencies no matter where they are based, or the citizenship of their owner. While true the law may have little effect on that owner if a foreign citizen, IMBRA most certainly can (and will) have effect on any US customers AND THEIR FIANCES.

A foreign business owner who is not complying with IMBRA should never travel to the US.  His/her visa will be automatically approved but the return trip might have to be rescheduled or even canceled if they can't make bail.

I don't think it will have much effect on the USC or beneficiary.. but beware.. they plan to ask whether a broker was used on the 129f? and some are asked at the interviews now (under oath?).  Many may think 'I'll just answer no'.. If in the future some disgruntled agency employee (and there are plenty) sends DHS a copy of their client database, or maybe even more simply an ex spouse finds an email from some agency to you, and sends it to USCIS you might be looking at a hefty fine and other criminal action.  Also whistleblower business is brisk and quite profitable.

[Kevin]

Being a Ukraine corporation but a US owner. I require my clients to meet IMBRA requirement. Not because of a Ukraine law but because of the interest in my clients visa process. As stated in the GAO it is focusing on the visa process more then the introduction side.  I do highly recommend any US citizen to follow the law no matter how badly written. But I also believe this law is a waste of time for most agencies. It is too easy for a men to provide false information in order to meet a lady in a foreign country.  My office requires a passport to meet the lady. But many agencies do not.  Applications taken online for membership can not be verified without additional cost and people won't pay it. John Smith is my most popular client.   Foreign agencies are not going to abide by it and the risk of a visa to the USA is min. since most of these agencies owner do not list their names or passport numbers online.  So the ideal of the foreign agency owner being stop in the USA while traveling is close to nil.

What should happen with this law is the information should be disclosed during the visa process and not be a legal requirement during the meeting process.

Kevin Hayes
agency owner.

[Admin]

Being a Ukraine corporation but a US owner. I require my clients to meet IMBRA requirement. Not because of a Ukraine law but because of the interest in my clients visa process. As stated in the GAO it is focusing on the visa process more then the introduction side.  I do highly recommend any US citizen to follow the law no matter how badly written. But I also believe this law is a waste of time for most agencies. It is too easy for a men to provide false information in order to meet a lady in a foreign country.  My office requires a passport to meet the lady. But many agencies do not.  Applications taken online for membership can not be verified without additional cost and people won't pay it. John Smith is my most popular client.   Foreign agencies are not going to abide by it and the risk of a visa to the USA is min. since most of these agencies owner do not list their names or passport numbers online.  So the ideal of the foreign agency owner being stop in the USA while traveling is close to nil.

What should happen with this law is the information should be disclosed during the visa process and not be a legal requirement during the meeting process.

Kevin Hayes
agency owner.

Kevin,

I want to address several of your points:

>>I require my clients to meet IMBRA requirement. Not because of a Ukraine law but because of the interest in my clients visa process.<<

To your credit, you recognize the potential impact on your customers.

>>As stated in the GAO it is focusing on the visa process more then the introduction side.<<

Actually, the GAO report addresses seven separate enforcement areas, and make specific recommendations about increasing enforcement in five of them. I do not know where you are coming from with writing that they are focusing less attention on "the introduction side." That was not my read of the report at all.

>>I do highly recommend any US citizen to follow the law no matter how badly written. But I also believe this law is a waste of time for most agencies. It is too easy for a men to provide false information in order to meet a lady in a foreign country.<<

I believe that is already prohibited under other statutes (fraud), and the new enforcement mechanisms are likely to expose that.

>>My office requires a passport to meet the lady. But many agencies do not.<<

I am not sure of the relevance of this comment. IMBRA was not written to make demands on the beneficiaries. To the best of my knowledge, the beneficiaries (in this case, RW), are not required to do anything based on IMBRA.

Edit: I mis-read your comment originally. I now understand it.

>>Applications taken online for membership can not be verified without additional cost and people won't pay it. John Smith is my most popular client.<<

I believe that IMBRA expects the IMB to be running some level of background check on its customers. There are, indeed, costs to this. Whether it is passed along to the customer or absorbed by the IMB is a matter of the IMB's business model - but there is clearly the expectation by the authorities that this check WILL be performed.

>>Foreign agencies are not going to abide by it<<

My direct experience does not support your statement. We are routinely interacting with most (or all) of the largest IMB's in operation across the globe. Those who are ethical do, indeed, follow IMBRA - most grudgingly. Sadly, there are also some (many?) who use a smokescreen of IMBRA to exercise dishonest and unethical business practices. How does one know? Good question - and an important one. The Agency Code of Ethics explicitly requires any agency to comply with the laws of their home country, and those of countries in which they conduct business (ref. par. 2-B).

>>and the risk of a visa to the USA is min. since most of these agencies owner do not list their names or passport numbers online.  So the ideal of the foreign agency owner being stop in the USA while traveling is close to nil.<<

No, not "nil" at all. Consider that the vast majority of revenue stream emanates from US sources. I am not going to go into possible actions. Suffice to say they are VERY substantial - particularly to the US government.

>>What should happen with this law is the information should be disclosed during the visa process and not be a legal requirement during the meeting process.<<

Shudda - cudda - wudda - they are ALL valueless comments. What does have value is - what are YOU doing to address the inequity of IMBRA? Have you contacted your Congressman - written a letter - provided tangible ($$) support to ANY of the operations sprouting up to fight it? Anything? If so - GREAT! If not - better get busy, particularly if you feel the risks and consequences are substantial. And for those who choose to dismiss those risks and consequences as trivial - do so with the full awareness of what you are dismissing.

- Dan