My Personal Rant - IMBRA sux!

[BC]

If there were two roads to my destination, one fill with terrorist and one with mines, I would hope there's somebody I trust with statistics on hand to tell me which road has a better survival rate.

Billy,

Even here the statistics would not help any particular person.  Much, much more would depend on that persons skill and maybe even something like the length of his stride and weight..  I would certainly take the mined road even with a lower success rate since I acquired skills for such in the past.  Remember skill is a part of the overall 'average', so the best and probably only way to influence your odds is by learning the skills needed for the task.

[Gator]

If you take the 80% that end up in divorce along with the survey results of 92% saying it was because of alcohol, then 72% of all marriages end because of alcohol.  

This is an example of how one or two facts can become twisted into something totally misleading.

I have met and spent time with perhaps more than 25 divorced RW/UW interested in marrying a foreigner.  Very few (maybe 3-4) mentioned that alcohol was the reason for divorce.  

The most frequently mentioned reason - the economy crashed and the husband barely made enough money to provide for his family, so he left them to live on his own or move in with his parents.  Addictive gambling was about equal to addiction to alcohol as a reason for divorce.   Adultery was prevalent, but rarely mentioned as the reason for divorce as if the women tolerated it.  There were a few odd reasons.

So my sample says that 10-20% of the divorces result from alcohol abuse.  If you ever go to Russia and Ukraine, you will observe many, many happy families with what appear to be good husbands.

[jb]

If you ever go to Russia and Ukraine, you will observe many, many happy families with what appear to be good husbands.

That has been my experience as well.

[Turkey]

Stumbled upon this:

http://agencyscams.com/Divorce.html

"A few guys have blasted me for the statistic of foreign marriage statistics that I have on my Facts page. Well, here are the official statistics from the US government (uscis.gov) for the year 2003.

3889 K-1's (fiancée) entered the USA
54.0% left the USA within 6 months
28.2% left between 6 months to one year
17.7% lasted more than one year

1546 K-3 (spouse) entered the USA
70.3% left the USA within 6 months
22.6% left between 6 months to one year
7.1 % lasted more than one year
"


And also this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail-order_bride

"The USCIS reports that approximately 17,263 such visas were issued in fiscal 2001, about 7988 coming from Asia and about 4714 coming from Europe (including all of the former Soviet Union states). It should be noted though, that the K-1 visa is used by Americans who met partners overseas, and perhaps most commonly, by recent immigrants to the US. "Mail-order" style engagements account for a tiny fraction of all K-1 visas."

Does anyone have any information that can shed some light on this?  For one thing the first link has very different visa numbers than the second. I understand they are two different years but they are only different by 2 years.  Did something happen with the regulations?  Neither provides a link and i haven't been able to find it either on their site or by googling but will continue to look.  Anyone have any light they want to shed on this rather large discrepency?

[Admin]

Stumbled upon this:

http://agencyscams.com/Divorce.html

"A few guys have blasted me for the statistic of foreign marriage statistics that I have on my Facts page. Well, here are the official statistics from the US government (uscis.gov) for the year 2003.

3889 K-1's (fiancée) entered the USA
54.0% left the USA within 6 months
28.2% left between 6 months to one year
17.7% lasted more than one year

1546 K-3 (spouse) entered the USA
70.3% left the USA within 6 months
22.6% left between 6 months to one year
7.1 % lasted more than one year
"


And also this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail-order_bride

"The USCIS reports that approximately 17,263 such visas were issued in fiscal 2001, about 7988 coming from Asia and about 4714 coming from Europe (including all of the former Soviet Union states). It should be noted though, that the K-1 visa is used by Americans who met partners overseas, and perhaps most commonly, by recent immigrants to the US. "Mail-order" style engagements account for a tiny fraction of all K-1 visas."

Does anyone have any information that can shed some light on this?  For one thing the first link has very different visa numbers than the second. I understand they are two different years but they are only different by 2 years.  Did something happen with the regulations?  Neither provides a link and i haven't been able to find it either on their site or by googling but will continue to look.  Anyone have any light they want to shed on this rather large discrepency?

As for the first link - try to FIND the supportive data or report. It doesn't exist.

The 2nd link might be closer to the truth - but the simple facts are that there have never been any reliable statistics captured. Perhaps the closest was in 1996-1999, there was a report which was submitted to Congress (since rescinded by IMBRA), but you can find some statistics there -- http://www.planet-love.com/index.php?pid=4

- Dan

[Turkey]

Thank you for that information.  I also noticed the lack of supporting information and it appears that others only reference that site and have also been unable to find where they got those numbers.  Considering their inherent biases, I agree the Wiki link is probably more accurate.

I found this:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2005/OIS_2005_Yearbook.pdf

"PERSONS OBTAINING LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS BY TYPE AND MAJOR CLASS OF ADMISSION:
FISCAL YEARS 1996 TO 2005


Spouses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  259,144"

That 259k is for the year 2005.

What ways can spouses 'obtain legal status'.  k-1 and k-3, any others?  I would assume that those would have to match up with the running rate of legal permanent status minus those who go back to their former country.  This seems like a LOT more people than either of the two links above.  I'll keep looking

[Maxx2]

"PERSONS OBTAINING LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS BY TYPE AND MAJOR CLASS OF ADMISSION:
FISCAL YEARS 1996 TO 2005


Spouses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  259,144"

That 259k is for the year 2005.

According to the US stats on murder for 2004, 5.5 per 100K
 http://www.morganquitno.com/cit04r.pdf

Using these stat we could conclude that 14.25 of those women/men were murdered. I have only heard of 3 of these types of cases (maybe there is a few more) which would indicate that these relationships are far safer than the National average. Yet from these relatively few horrific examples men who marry MOBs are demonized and are made to justify laws like IMBRA. Of course we do not know if we have gotten all the examples but we should know that the other side doesn't seem to have them either.

"A few guys have blasted me for the statistic of foreign marriage statistics that I have on my Facts page. Well, here are the official statistics from the US government (uscis.gov) for the year 2003.

3889 K-1's (fiancée) entered the USA
54.0% left the USA within 6 months
28.2% left between 6 months to one year
17.7% lasted more than one year

1546 K-3 (spouse) entered the USA
70.3% left the USA within 6 months
22.6% left between 6 months to one year
7.1 % lasted more than one year
"

Leaving the US may not be the same thing as ending the marrige. It can be simply that it means they went back for visits. Many foreign wives go home for visits during the first year of marriage. That's all.


Maxx

[William3rd]

You forgot about the 2A family preference category- spouses of LPR. The lion's share of that 259000, I'm  betting.

[BC]

According to the US stats on murder for 2004, 5.5 per 100K
 http://www.morganquitno.com/cit04r.pdf

Using these stat we could conclude that 14.25 of those women/men were murdered. I have only heard of 3 of these types of cases (maybe there is a few more) which would indicate that these relationships are far safer than the National average.

Maxx,

You really need to let statistics go.. They are simply are not valid in the manner which you (mis)use them.

Did any of these women belong to gangs or other groups that have an above average murder rate?.. How many lived in Camden NJ? Using your methods I could likewise construe that the rate for these women were actually higher than the national average!

STATISTICS ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE !!  THEY ARE ONLY VALID FOR THE GROUP STUDIED!!

[purpletib]

With all the talk about statistics being argued and impersonal, why not discuss personal experiences?  That's what I'm interested in knowing.  With all the members of this forum, how many have married, are still in the marriage, have divorced, etc?  Heck, even a simple poll could be set up to get a general idea.  Yes, the numbers would be very small on a scale of the whole, but at least it could shed some light on the subject.  I'd like to hear some personal experiences, good and bad.

[Maxx2]

Maxx,

You really need to let statistics go.. They are simply are not valid in the manner which you (mis)use them.

Did any of these women belong to gangs or other groups that have an above average murder rate?.. How many lived in Camden NJ? Using your methods I could likewise construe that the rate for these women were actually higher than the national average!

STATISTICS ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE !!  THEY ARE ONLY VALID FOR THE GROUP STUDIED!!

Yeah, I forgot about all those RW gang members from Camden, New Jersey murdering each other and throwing off the National average. I know the Tahirah Justice Center of Falls Church, Virginia polls the women in shelters around there to get their National statistics on the rate of abuse of foreign women in America. IMO nothing but "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics" coming from the creators of IMBRA. BC, I'll add you to my list of people to avoid.


Maxx

[BC]

Yeah Maxx you're a real gem.

Other than the initial delays with modified forms etc and requiring waivers for multi-filers what's the big problem for 99% of the other folks out there?..

Much ado about nuthin in my book.

Cheers!

[Maxx2]

Some people are indifferent about this law because it doesn't affect them. Others are against it because it does. Still others are not affected by it at all but take a strong stand against it. Something about 1st and 4th admendment rights, principals, equality under the law and old-fashioned fairness. 

www.online-dating-rights.com

Online Dating Rights (ODR) is a group of men and a few women who believe that a new federal law called the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) is unconstitutional, immoral, and misandrist (man-hating). IMBRA criminalizes American men (and women) who meet foreign women (and men) via the internet. The law requires a man to have a criminal background check, a sex offender check and an intrusive report about intimate details of his life prepared and given to a foreign woman stranger (scammer?) BEFORE he can email or call her. This is the first time in US history criminal background checks have been required for two people to communicate.

IMBRA was developed over several years in secret by US Senator Maria Cantwell*, D, WA, Sen. Sam Brownback, R, KS, NOW and Tahirih Justice Center, a knee-jerk feminist group startup whose sexist director claims that American men seeking to date or marry foreign women “are often sexual predators, rapists or even pedophiles…many are premeditated torturers.” The law was hidden behind another bill and passed in a 2005 Christmas rush. No hearings were held on this law, and no international dating companies or mens’ groups were allowed any input into its development. Even though the purpose of the law as stated by Sen. Cantwell and Tahirih is to protect foreign women from abusive American men, statistics gathered by the INS in a 1999 study show that such relationships are far more successful than American-American relationships. Other justifications for the law are based on misleading, deceptive and dishonest use of statistics and on personal opinions disguised as fact. (The real reason for the law is to eliminate the ability of American men to meet and marry foreign women and to keep these women out of the US, a position for which substantial proof is provided here.) *For the 2006 election Sen. Cantwell received more money from women's groups than any other senator, and she was No. 2 senatorial recipient of funds from nonprofit groups.

NOW and the other knee-jerk feminists objectify and falsely stereotype all foreign women who marry American men as weak, submissive and desperate. They continually demean these women by calling them a pejorative, “mail order brides”. They suggest falsely that because the women are not American women and are so desperate to reach our shores they are willing to allow themselves to be used as “products” purchased by and beholden to any American man who chooses to marry them. They use 19th century terminology to describe the women as "traditional wives". Such attitudes are sexist, racist, ethnocentric, gynocentric, xenophobic and they display a breathtaking ignorance of foreign cultures, human relations and international dating.

ODR believes that this law violates US Constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, equal protection (Match.com is exempted from the law) and the right to privacy and we think Congress must repeal it. That last right is the one women wrap themselves in to demand legal abortions, but one conveniently ignored by some of the same women who believe the government should regulate how men date and who they choose to marry. We also believe this law is spectacularly misandrist and bad public policy, particularly when according to 2005 US Census data there are millions more unmarried men in the US than unmarried women.

Let it be clear: this website has no quarrel with American women.  After all, we have American mothers, American sisters and American daughters.  Some of us date/have dated Amercan woman AND foreign women.
Tristan Laurent, ODR Administrator

Most of the men of ODR are married to foreign women and have no agency affiliations. In this group includes the ODR Administrator.


Maxx

[BC]

Maxx,

Something to think about..  MOB 'somehow' acquired a bad reputation many years ago. It had nothing to do with women recently abused or murdered by their AM.

Who is at fault?  Determine that and try to fix the real problem - public perception.  Websites constructed to complain about the issue will make no difference at all unless there is a wider public willing to listen.

The ONLY way to change these laws is to present legal challenges.. go find someone that has been harmed and work your way through the courts to the top, again and again..  Then, and only then, can one determine if these laws are unconstitutional.  So far, everyone that tried on your side have simply given up.

I took a look at the website and quite honestly can understand why even this effort, even if well intended is not going to impress anyone.  Gotta get away from that waah waah feminazi stuff.

A group of 200 interested parties is very small indeed.. If this represents those offended then the only logical conclusion that I can draw is that more good than harm is being done by these 'bad' laws.

Consider yourselves lucky..  as it seems, there is little interest to enforce these laws so why all the worry?

[Voyageur]

  Hey, I am typing this from my company right here in Camden!  I guess I'd should try to steer clear of contributing to the statistics for this wonderful  city.

[MaxxumUSA]

Consider yourselves lucky..  as it seems, there is little interest to enforce these laws so why all the worry?

BC,

While parts of the law seem to not be enforced at this time, I personally think it is a scary law.

Take my case for instance.  I DO have a few minor infractions on my record.  I DID disclose that on the Elena's Models website.

BUT...  If Elena's models did not forward this information BEFORE me and my Elena emailed the first time - THEN technically the USCIS or Embassy can deny our K-1 from my understanding of the law.

For the record I don't think Elena's Models forwarded that information because I needed to tell Elena about my "criminal history" myself.  I did this early on like first week talking - but...  again, from my understanding of the law - if followed to the letter - we could legally get denied because of the lack of disclosure of my criminal history BEFORE we communicated the first time.

I'm not even getting into the privacy issues yet, only technical issues that arise when communicating with women in Russia and abroad.  That is scary for a governing agency to hold this power, even if not exercised at this time.

As for the privacy issues of the law - it's BS IMO.  I think a check for felonious actions on the petitioners part against children and/or former spouses would suffice.  I had to disclose court details of EVERY minor offense in my life.  I had an RFE on my K-1 asking for court records dating back to 1991 that was not alcohol or DV related.  I also had to disclose court records for a driving offense from 1993 which was not alcohol related because it was a misdemeanor.  In 1995 I was attacked by a biker in a bar and defended myself.  I ended  up with another mark on my record from that.

Besides not wanting to relive the stupid shit I did in the past...  I certainly DON'T desire my current fiancee to know about these silly things at the beginning of our relationship.  The USCIS forced me to divulge all this information (arrest records and disclosures) about some things I did more than 15 years ago.

I'm currently 39 years old, the president of a corporation, I have custody of my son, own property, decorated veteran, blah blah...  you get the point.  I am a different person than I was when I made those few minor mistakes when I was a young man.

I am NOT saying I would hide - nor do I intend to hide - any portion of my past from my Elena.  What I am saying is that I should not be REQUIRED to divulge this information.  I believe it is an invasion of my privacy and I believe I have the right to tell my woman about my past when the time is right, when asked, or when I feel like doing so.

What are other opinions about this?

[BC]

Maxxum,

I could be wrong, but aren't agencies only required to check sexual offender databases?

The other infractions are within the visa process.. pretty much the same as when she provides her required police certificate.. tit for tat.  I don't know what kind of other info Elena's requires but would be interesting to know what they are asking.. probably just want major stuff.

That she knows about prior marriages, divorces, other K's is quite ok.. that should have been discussed long before.  Regarding the legal infractions I think the Government is playing the safe side requesting the additional court docs etc.. doesn't necessarily mean they have to divulge this info.. only ask if she is aware of the more serious misdeeds.  I guess the interview will reveal that.

Yes I agree that the implications can be 'scary', unconstitutional or whatever.. but then again, so is the Patriot Act and even it somehow limps along, so far unfazed.. so will IMBRA.

[Turboguy]

I don't think the government has any right to have any say in who can talk to who for legally proper purposes anywhere in the world with the exception of those unable to make an informed decison, (children etc).

I do think they have a right and maybe even a duty to make sure someone coming here on a K-1/3 knows who they are coming for.   I see no problem with full disclosre of criminal backgrounds as part of the K-1 visa process.  I do see a violation of our rights at the stage it is at now.

BC, it is supposed to be a full criminal background check, not just sexual offenders.

[Maxx2]

Max, it is not easy to remain legally spotless in today's America. The idea that a man's reputation and name should not be tarnished unless absolutely necessary is an idea long gone in todays "justice" system. There is a side that believes that the more information and dirt they can gather on citizens the more control law enforcement will have. Control is a good thing for them.

Max, in regard to proof of pre-notice of your record before contact with your fiancee. One of the men I have talked too told me what happened to his fiancee during the Kiev interview. Apparently she was asked for the IMBRA notification at the begining of the interview. There was none as he had started the K-1 visa process before IMBRA was law. His case had been in review and held up for 1 1/2 years. His previous RW wife had filed false DV charges on him even though she had some skeletons in her closet such a K-1 document fraud (said she was single on her bio document) and bigamy (still married to another man when she married her American). Got her GC anyway as an "abused spouse of a USC" despite the annulment... So this guy was there at the embassy and told them about filing for his second fiancee before the law. After some conferencing with a higher-up at the embassy they decided to let this lack of pre-notice proof pass. She got her visa a few months ago.

IMBRA and the filling out the forms etc. is just a first step. Ultimately this will lead to the women's advocates (shelters etc.) bringing lawsuits against both marriage agencies and the men who marry foreign women. Tahirah Justic Center who wrote this law created the foundation for this by suing Encounters International (essentually Natasha Spivak) and James Fox using a well funded team of attorneys working pro bono. What could be the payoff? I can think of only one, the door open for suing marriage agencies and the men who use them.  I was recently at 'Encounters International'. Covering the walls of the office are framed newspaper clippings of articles written about Natasha Spivak and her agency. For the most part the articles were positive and up beat. Natasha even traveled with Connie Chung (very well know National TV news anchor) and crew for a while and was invited to join them as an employee of CBS ( or NBC, ABC). The MOB industry and MOBs hadn't yet been given the bad rap they have now. Sometime around '2002 the Tahirah Justice Center decided to look for a case they could prosecute for their political agenda. Natasha Spivak and Natalya Fox was in their backyard so they pitted one against another. They were going to make a big deal in the press over it but Natalya Fox who they were championing was in serious trouble with immigration because she was using another woman's INS "A" number and was declared by the Department of Homeland security as commiting "fraud". So when IMBRA finally overcame it's last hurdle a few months ago another women, Kristina Sheridan (RW MOB) was chosen as the advocate and spokesperson for the media. Dead husbands can't give their side of the story...  

BC, I agree with you a 100% about allot of things you write especially your ideas on what is an effective way to fight this thing. My belief is if we walked in the same shoes we would see eye to eye on most everything.


Maxx

[Maxx2]

How crazy this law is. An arrest even though dropped has to be disclosed. What a way to start out an introduction! I'm with Turboguy. \\

Maxx

[ecr844]

How crazy this law is. An arrest even though dropped has to be disclosed. What a way to start out an introduction! I'm with Turboguy. \\

Maxx

WHAT?? If the charges were dismissed and or one was found not guilty, except in a situation where they were 'indicted', then it is irrelevant. Isn't that part of why we are tried <hopefully> in front a jury of our peers? Can someone please post a link to the law where it says this in the text, or post the appropriate text? I am not a criminal, but this seems abit extreme..or maybe just to me?

ECR844

[Admin]

WHAT?? If the charges were dismissed and or one was found not guilty, except in a situation where they were 'indicted', then it is irrelevant. Isn't that part of why we are tried <hopefully> in front a jury of our peers? Can someone please post a link to the law where it says this in the text, or post the appropriate text? I am not a criminal, but this seems abit extreme..or maybe just to me?

ECR844

Here is a link to the IMBRA law -- http://www.planet-love.com/index.php?pid=10

Scroll down  to Sec 2 - par (c)(2) - and you will find the requisite disclosure of:

* Restraining orders - civil or criminal - past or present
* Any arrest or conviction for certain offenses

Yes, it is absolutely TRUE they demand disclosure of an arrest for certain offenses - even if dismissed or acquitted. AND....

The disclosures MUST be made PRIOR to you even having the opportunity to say "Hi".

BTW - the requirement to disclose *arrests* is an all-too-common practice in MANY areas - including visa applications (check your next visa app to Russia, for example) - and even in job-hunting when you fill out some applications.

I wholeheartedly concur with the notion that - if our legal system (I no longer refer to it as a "justice" system) is based on the premise that we are innocent till PROVEN guilty - then there is no excuse for demanding arrest information - only conviction.

My $.02.

- Dan

[ecr844]

Here is a link to the IMBRA law -- http://www.planet-love.com/index.php?pid=10

Scroll down  to Sec 2 - par (c)(2) - and you will find the requisite disclosure of:

* Restraining orders - civil or criminal - past or present
* Any arrest or conviction for certain offenses

Yes, it is absolutely TRUE they demand disclosure of an arrest for certain offenses - even if dismissed or acquitted. AND....

The disclosures MUST be made PRIOR to you even having the opportunity to say "Hi".

BTW - the requirement to disclose *arrests* is an all-too-common practice in MANY areas - including visa applications (check your next visa app to Russia, for example) - and even in job-hunting when you fill out some applications.

I wholeheartedly concur with the notion that - if our legal system (I no longer refer to it as a "justice" system) is based on the premise that we are innocent till PROVEN guilty - then there is no excuse for demanding arrest information - only conviction.

My $.02.

- Dan

Alright then, out of curiosity what is their definition of 'certain offenses'?

[Admin]

Alright then, out of curiosity what is their definition of 'certain offenses'?

I used the phrase "certain offenses". If you visit the link, you will see the actual list - it is rather long.

- Dan

[ecr844]

Never mind.... I found it.

(1) IN GENERAL- Each international marriage broker shall collect the background information listed in paragraph (2) from each United States client or other person to whom the personal contact information of a foreign national client or any other individual would be provided. The background information must be in writing and signed (which may be in electronic form, such as an electronic signature) by the United States client or other person to whom the personal contact information of a foreign national client or any other individual would be provided.

(2) BACKGROUND INFORMATION- The background information required to be collected with respect to a United States client or other person under paragraph (1) includes information about each of the following:
(A) Any court order restricting the client's or person's physical or other contact with, behavior towards, or communication with another person, including any temporary or permanent civil restraining order or protection order.
(B) Any arrest or conviction of the client or person for homicide, murder, manslaughter, assault, battery, domestic violence, rape, sexual assault, abusive sexual contact, sexual exploitation, incest, child abuse or neglect, torture, trafficking, peonage, holding hostage, involuntary servitude, slave trade, kidnapping, abduction, unlawful criminal restraint, false imprisonment, stalking, or any similar activity in violation of Federal, State, or local criminal law.
(C) Any arrest or conviction of the client or person for solely, principally, or incidentally engaging in prostitution; or for any direct or indirect attempts to procure prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution; or any receiving, in whole or in part, of the proceeds of prostitution.
(D) Any arrest or conviction of the client or person for offenses related to controlled substances or alcohol.
(E) Marital history of the client or person, including if the client or individual is currently married, if the client or person has previously been married and how many times, how previous marriages of the client or person were terminated and the date of termination, and if the client or person has previously sponsored an alien to whom the client or person was engaged or married.
(F) The ages of any of the client's or person's children under the age of 18.
(G) All States in which the client or person has resided since the age of 18.