Talk:International Marriage Broker Regulation Act

Untitled

I see another coward named Ravensfire has jumped on board marking changes with absolutely nothing to say for his/herself.

Here's another piece of trivia for inquiring minds: regarding the King murder described in the first paragraph, Mr. Indle King did not meet Anastasia using the services of an 'International Marriage Broker' (a sinister-sounding label invented by feminists in order to drum up support for their draconian legislation). Mr. King met Anastasia using his own advertisement in a Moscow Newspaper. Why did the feminists at Tahirih Justice Center forget to regulate newspapers when they drafted IMBRA? Here's the source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer, February 2, 2001, article written by Lewis Kamb and Robert L. Jamieson Jr. The article is no longer available at the website of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer likely because the date is over ten years old, however the story can be read here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/KYRGYZNEWS/message/435 or: http://engforum.pravda.ru/index.php?/topic/154476-the-sixteen-reasons-why-russia-should-never-trust-the-west/page__st__80 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.120.125 (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Major POV and Factual Issues

Presently this article is written as an advocacy piece that clearly argues against the law and contains extremely dubious statements, sourced to advocacy websites, such as "burn your imbra." I will try to work on it over the weekend, but others should feel free to help. REL1870 (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this article is written as an advocacy piece by a proponent of the controversial IMBRA law. Likely the author has connections with the radical feminist organizations who drafted this draconian law: Tahirih Justice Center or N.O.W. (also known as Legal Momentum). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.26.30.5 (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

New sources are listed including..the FBI link, USCIS link, and other more pure read type sources. The article is now balanced, praising IMBRA's discovery of violent visa applicants, showing IMBRA's fear of large corporations & cultural or religious websites, and IMBRA's bias against small business, and finally, IMBRA's failure to protect women in same culture relationships. The article shows how Congress makes law, in a real world application. best wishes & blessings Daxmac (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Daxmac, you're kidding, right? 12.30.250.2 (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I've now taken care of most of the problems. It's a start anyway. REL1870 (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It is only the beginning if someone has arrived here to propagandize in favor of a law that even the Tahirih Justice Center admits is flawed and will probably have to be changed. The issue with IMBRA, something which Layli Miller of the TJC admits would be a fault, is that you cannot force a foreign woman to sign in writing that she read a man's background check when she has stated that she wants total strangers to call her on one of her cell phones. All the arguments against IMBRA center around the Right to Assemble of the 1st Amendment, or the right to say "hello". The entire conroversy is regarding how the government can interfere with people by making communication with each other "conditional" on government prerequisites. It is dishonest and a vandalization of Wiki to pretend that this law is mainly about the visa application process or about the part of the law that makes it illegal for 17 year olds to be on dating sites (referred to as the "marketing of children").

All the future court decisions on this law will affect domestic dating sites because the principles regarding government interference in personal communications do not start and stop on any borders.

If you, REL1870, think somehow that facts above are not the case, then you should call the owner of the largest international dating site at www.aforeignaffair.com or write to me, Jim Peterson, at veteran@veteransabroad.com.

This is not a matter of advocacy, but the truth. You vandalized a Wikipedia entry in the other direction after you saw that it needed a little editting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.241.32.20 (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a controversial thing when government steps into the personal social lives of individuals. IMBRA is actually a re-packaged law that was originally introduced in 2003 and rejected by Congress on concerns that it infringed on personal privacy and free speech rights. Why is this fact not in the article, other than a brief mention that it was "introduced" in July 2003? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.29.194 (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide a wp:reliable source for the proposition that it was "rejected" by Congress and and Congress did so on those specific grounds, then yes, it should be added. But I don't think that's what happened. REL1870 (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is very biased, not showing the controversy against this asinine law at all. Layli-Miller Muro, the insidious snake that drafted this law doesn't even have the courage to engage in a debate with the opponents of this unconstitutional law based on demagoguery, cooked statistics and stereotypes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.72.224 (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool piece of legislation! You know if you've tons of money and want a foreign bride, why not just rent and apartment there and try the local dating scene directly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.96.80 (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

True, that's a great option for the wealthy. The less-wealthy might need to continue holding a job in the U.S. in order to have a decent standard of living. Merdoza (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Identity Theft Risks

Another huge problem with this law is that “I-129F” petition form requires that the petitioner (U.S. citizen sponsor) must divulge his/her Social Security Number. A copy of the form is given to the overseas broker and to the visa requester (the 'bride'). At that point, the citizens Identity Theft password is release into the wild. The risk to the American sponsor is huge, of course. The question is, should these kinds if problems be documented in this article and if so where? Black Jam Block (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement

Are the provisions relating to the marriage agencies really enforced all that much? Because it seems like most marriage agencies I see online don't mention all these requirements. Tisane (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Complaint

SnowFire, you do NOT own this article. Do you have a problem with the word 'controversial'? All that you can say for yourself is 'not really'? IMBRA is a VERY controversial law, so my adjective is actually mild. Lawsuits were filed opposing this law. Websites exist whose only purpose is to repeal this law. Numerous articles have been written opposed to this law. This law is draconian because is regulates communication between consenting adults who use an international penpal service (including those who may never be getting married). The communication restrictions are the most important element of IMBRA, so it needs to be included in the first paragraph. I don't understand why this was not included in the first place? Are you afraid that people will learn how draconian IMBRA actually is? Why not provide some information regarding Susanna Blackwell's husband? King's husband is written about in the first paragraph but not Blackwell's? Why not mention something good and positive here? Like the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of loving, happy, successful international marriages between Americans and foreigners, yet IMBRA presumes that all American citizens are guilty until proven innocent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.26.30.5 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The existence of a tiny pressure group that really hates IMBRA does not mean IMBRA is actually controversial. Lawsuits are filed over everything, including "Obama is an illegal Kenyan-born president." The legislation is blandly uncontroversial; don't fool yourself. If IMBRA was somehow not the law but was proposed again, it'd pass, easily, by something like 400-35. This is because there are no police out there to stop normal international dating; IMBRA is very specifically an excuse to arrest men with a history of domestic violence from getting mail order brides, a constituency that has scant support among the public.

If you wish to add to the article, please cite your additions to neutral, secondary sources (Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Let me emphasize the secondary part: citing a repeal-IMBRA website doesn't say much. Citing The Wall Street Journal might say something. Quoting a scholarly book would say a lot... but I doubt that any talk about this law, aside from perhaps some law journals if any interesting cases on enforcement arose. Lest you assume that I am some crazed crusader, please note that the citation to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180487,00.html was added by me to the article. It's only an opinion piece, not neutral journalism, but it's still a solid addition prefaced with "Wendy McElroy dislikes the law because...." Additions like this, with a cited source to a major news outlet, would be welcome to the article. SnowFire (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

IMBRA is a VERY CONTROVERSIAL law. You are completly wrong. Laws are drafted/proposed over everything by radical, TINY, organizations and lobbyists who befriend gullible politicians. In the case of IMBRA, it was drafted by a bizarre feminist organization (Tahirih Justice Center) and discreetly attached to another bill. It is a well know fact that members of Congress do not read bills that can become hundreds or thousands of pages long (example: Obamacare), nor does anyone check if bills are Constitutional or not.

You stated that a "tiny pressure group really hates IMBRA". You can say the same thing regarding the proponents who drafted IMBRA: Tahirih Justice Center, a tiny N.G.O. who created IMBRA to support ulterior motives: the dislike of American men corresponding with foreign women. By the way, why do you keep removing the previous background information regarding Blackwell's husband? Information regarding King's past can appear in the first paragraph but nothing regarding Blackwell? Why do you keep removing the statement in the first paragraph regarding the regulation of communication between consenting adults? This is a major aspect of IMBRA because anyone who joins an international penpal service (now known as a sinister sounding "marriage broker") is effected including those who may never be getting married. Are you afraid that the public will learn how draconian IMBRA really is? (that the law violates the Constitution: Freedom of Speech).

It is very clear that you are a supporter of this atrocious law that criminalizes communication. The first paragraph of the article written by you ignores the communication aspect. Why??? Just because you included an anti-IMBRA citation, this article is far from balanced.

You bring up a couple of murder examples but say nothing regarding the thousands upon thousands of loving, happy, successful international marriages. Why have you ignored the majority? Why not mention something positive here? I look forward to your answer.

By the way, the murders that yourself and feminist proponents have exploited, occurred after marriage, yet IMBRA regulates communication before marriage including those you may never end up getting married.

Mr. Unknown IP address, I am not here to debate the merits of IMBRA with you. I am trying to make this article not suck. Adding in ridiculous statements like "there are thousands upon thousands of loving, happy, successful international marriages between Americans and foreigners" as if that somehow refuted IMBRA is not helping your credibility here.

So two comments. A, people can disagree on policy preferences but agree on reality. You think IMBRA sucks. Fine. However, understand that a single group's dislike of IMBRA does not mean that IMBRA is controversial; every single law is "controversial" if it only requires .1% of people to dislike it. If IMBRA were genuinely controversial - like, say, Obamacare, or don't ask don't tell - you could easily come up with dueling editorials, angry speeches by politicians, etc. by the simplest Google search. The results are considerably thinner than real controversies. You also keep insisting that this law is, say, written by xenophobes who hate foreigners. This is crazy. The law was pushed by people who dislike domestic violence. Critics are free to claim that IMBRA has somehow adversely affected normal international relationships... although there is 0 evidence of this and nobody has been arrested because of this... but you can't claim the proponents advocated along those lines. IMBRA is clearly and explicitly about preventing domestic violence.

B, you still don't seem to "get" Wikipedia. Wikipedia reports things how neutral, secondary sources report them. Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I quoted this at you before but please read it again. That means we report what the mainstream thinks about a topic, even if the mainstream is "wrong". Verifiability, not "truth" Wikipedia:Verifiability. This article does report criticism of IMBRA right now. It does not, however, put the critic's positions and assumptions front & center, nor should it. This is a place for a neutral rendition of mainstream opinion, not anti-IMBRA advocacy. If you'd like not to be reverted, please reference your additions with a neutral source. SnowFire (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

SnowFire, I'm still waiting for you to answer my original questions. You have avoided answering them. Again, why is there no mention in the first paragraph that IMBRA regulates COMMUNICATION? This is the aspect of IMBRA that effects the most people. More people just end up writing letters (by using an international penpal / introduction service) than actually filing visa petitions, yet you say nothing about the fact that IMBRA regulates all communication. Why??? Futhermore, why is there no mention of the background of Blackwell's husband? You talk about the history of King's husband in the first paragraph, but refuse to acknowledge that Blackwell had a clean record. Do you have a problem with that?

How do you know that ".1%" of people dislike it? Have you taken a poll somewhere? Likely the percentage will be much higher if people can learn how blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL the law is. IMBRA violates the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 10th Ammenments to the constitution (source: http://web.archive.org/web/20060219055508/http://imbra.org/pages/2/index.htm )

You are a gullible fool if you believe that the law "was pushed by people who dislike domestic violence." IMBRA is a law based on manufactured hysteria, cooked statistics, fuzzy math, lies, and feminist propaganda to support ulterior motives: the feminist dislike of American men corresponding with foreign women. Also, figure in the Bahai belief of gender equality, and the desire to make lots of money generated by this manufactured hysteria (the Tahirih Justice Center has received several millions of taxpayer dollars (earmarks) courtesy of Rep. James Moran, a person with a history of physically abusing women, children, and other members of Congress).

Your article is presently 95% written as pro IMBRA, with a small token from the other side to appear that you are unbiased. This artical is presently far from neutral. I intend to make this artical 50-50 as it should be.

"There are thousands upon thousands of loving, happy, successful, international marriages" is not a 'ridiculous' statement at all. It's the truth, which you are afraid to present on this article, which verifies that you are not neutral and actually a proponent of this CONTROVERSIAL law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.26.30.5 (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't write most of the article, and it needs a lot of work. But balance is not "50/50." The article on Earth shouldn't be 50/50 between a flat earth and a spherical earth. You have been unable to provide any neutral sources on why the article should be changed your way, and that's why I'm reverting you. Your "source" here is a link to a dead website of anti-IMBRA advocacy, with lovely quotes like "American men are liberators not abusers." (Lest you think I disagree with this statement, I once again remind you that the purpose of this law is to arrest *criminals* and this is a blatant attempt to pretend that IMBRA affects normal law-abiding couples.) As I noted, neutral and secondary sources are required here. You admit that your position is non-mainstream with your lame "maybe people will hate it once they find out the HORRIBLE TRUTH" comment. You're free to believe that! But have the maturity to admit that it isn't the mainstream opinion right now.

You keep wanting to engage me in a debate about the merits of IMBRA. My opinion and your opinion do not matter. What matters are - let's harp on it again! - what neutral, secondary sources say about IMBRA. You can't just write your opinion into the article. But keep on believing this is all some kind of vast feminist conspiracy if you want. SnowFire (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not good form to remove other people's talk page contributions, especially since you're the one wanting me to respond to you. I've made a request on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#International Marriage Broker Regulation Act - Neutrality Dispute for a third opinion here. SnowFire (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it was not my intention to remove your discussion. Please accept my apologies for the mistake. I think it's good idea for a third opinion from someone who is neutral--not someone who is biased and an IMBRA proponent such as yourself. You ignore my questions, especially the one about not mentioning in the first paragraph that the law regulates all communication between adults who join an international penpal service. This is the part of IMBRA that effects the MOST people, yet you refuse to acknowledge this in the first paragraph. Are you afraid of the bad publicity?

You state that I need to reference my sources from neutral sources. What about yourself? You consider nostatusquo.com, humantrafficking.org, tahirih.org reliable sources? Even the government references that you provide are biased because they are solely based on false data provided to the Federal government by propopnents of this law. Remember the proponents of IMBRA are conveniently located in a suburb of Washington, DC, so that they can easily manipulate our Federal government with their lies and manufactured hysteria. The hearing that you mention convened by Senator Brownback was 100% one-sided. You forgot to mention that no employees from any international penpal services (now known as sinister-sounding 'marriage brokers') or any of the thousands upon thousands of loving, happy, successful international marriages were allowed to participate in Senator Brownback's one-sided hearing. Not one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.26.30.5 (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

While I have no idea of the reliability of nostatusquo.com, it is reproducing an article in The Yale Law Journal, which is a scholarly source. It is well-cited as well. humantrafficking.org is an advocacy group, yes, but a respectable and notable one. Nevertheless, their status as an advocacy group means that their claim is referenced to them - you'll note the article says "Accoridng to humantrafficking.org, many more are believed to go unreported," and doesn't boldly state the claim as fact. (It also notes that the bill in question, a similar state law in California, passed unanimously...) The link to tahrir.org is dead, but it looks like it was just a summary of IMBRA as passed, and is being used as a double-cite to the fact that the lawsuit was defeated. I think that fact is relatively uncontroversial anyway, and is already cited regardless. On the other hand, the claim about "free speech and identity theft concerns have also been raised" goes to a dead link, so arguably that claim should be re-examined.

As for your other comments. Fine, I'll bite. I don't care about publicity, I care about an accurate and neutral article. Let's see a reference or citation for exactly how IMBRA has been "regulating all communication," and then we can discuss the reliability / accuracy of the source. Let's see a reference and citation from somebody who claims that the government sources are biased - surely someone notable has made this case if there really is anything to suspect about it, and people aren't shy about contradicting the government. Let's see a reference criticizing Brownback's hearing, or a reference that marriage brokers were barred from the proceedings. If somebody has found this fact notable, it can go in the article, but it needs a reliable source. (As a technical matter, that just means wrapping it like <ref>link</ref> after the statement.) As for your insistence on mentioning the happy marriages, the problem is that this isn't even under dispute. Nobody, repeat nobody, is claiming that marrying a foreigner is evil, or claiming that all marriages end in abusive relationship. It's like arguing that people arrested on drunken driving shouldn't have their license suspended because millions of Americans drive their car safely every day. That's not under dispute; the target, specifically, are the cases that are abusive. In the car analogy, it's people caught drunk driving; for IMBRA, it's people with a history of domestic violence. If the background check doesn't turn anything up, and the potential groom isn't running through brides suspiciously quickly, then there's no problem. If you want to claim that this isn't the case, and that people for whom the background check returns nothing are still being harassed, then provide a reference! SnowFire (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss pro's and cons of the law.

The article could use a more Impartial tone.

Sources:

• Link 2: Fox isn't exactly impartial source, but as a ref to criticism of the Act ok I think;
• Link 3: Article of Michelle J. Anderson: it's a bit dated; more importantly, I see no direct connection with the Act. Given also the homepage that states "The US & Israel Are Fascist, Rogue Nations", change that, enough sources available about citizenship probably
• link 5 ( http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/Mobrept_full.pdf ) broken ; link 6 broken, link 8 broken; link 9 broken.

The style should be more neutral, few examples:

• there are thousands upon thousands of loving, happy, successful international marriages between Americans and foreigners
• creating an imbalance of power (terminology)
• husbands using this advantage to abuse
• brutal

key provisions: find a source that gives a good overview, and shorten the "formal" section (this list); also: IMBRA requires the U.S. DHS to develop a pamphlet, maybe update this, guess the pamphlet is ready by now.

More sources (working links) seems to be the first requirement.

Just my 2 cents, didn't check the edit history, I leave the rest to more experienced editors DS Belgium (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

SnowFire, your car analogy is incorrect. IMBRA would be the same as requiring ALL drivers to submit to a breathalyzer test EVERY time that they start a vehicle. And it would not matter if the driver had any previous DUI's or not. Everybody will be tested. What you need to understand, this law presumes / declares that everyone is a violent criminal until proven innocent. Then, you have have to submit your police report to the foreigner (who, by the way does not have a photo or biographical information of the American that they are supposed to be approving therfore has no incentive), and wait for approval to be sent back to the U.S. before communication can occur.

Like I said, the communication regulation of this law is the part that affects by a wide margin the MOST people, which is why this needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph. Everyone is required to submit their police report (background check) before they can receive contact information, which is needed in order to communicate. This is a blatant violation of Freedom of Speech. You asked for the reference or citation, well here it is right in the law (pages 107-118):

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h3402enr.txt.pdf

Also, the Wikipedia article already mentions this under 'Key Provisions', however this should be stated in the first paragraph. Let the public know how draconian IMBRA really is, instead of burying the most important aspect in the middle of the article. The vast majority of international relationships do NOT end up with marriage, but everyone has to submit a background check before they are allowed to communicate. Prior to IMBRA, backgroud checks for visa applicants were already required (regulations for visa applicants is already described in first paragraph), so that is nothing new. The regulation of communication is the most draconian aspect and most significant because all Americans who use an international penpal service must comply, which is why this belongs in the first paragraph of the article.

Another statement that I wanted to add to the article yesterday was: the murders occurred AFTER marriage, but IMBRA regulates communication BEFORE marriage. There has never been a single conviction ever for abuse before an international couple became married, yet they are the ones being regulated. IMBRA punishes the wrong group of people. The law also presumes that someone is going to marry the first person that he/she corresponds with, which is certainly not the case.

IMBRA was passed thru Congress after hours (after 5:00 PM) on the Saturday before Christmas 2005 after it was discreetly attached to another bill, the 176-page Violence Against Women Act, considered 'must pass' legislation but I doubt anyone bothered to read or check the constitutionality. We already know that Congress does not read or have time to read large bills (example: Obamacare and the Stimulus Bill).

Here's my reference for Senator Brownback, who failed to invite any employees of international penpal / dating services, or anyone from the thousands upon thousands of loving, happy, successful international marriages between American and foreigners:

"No dating services of happily-bethrothed foreign women were invited to testify--their comments would not likely fit the script."

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/09/26/imbra-anatomy-of-a-feminist-hoax/

I am still puzzled why you have a problem with stating 'thousands upon thousands of loving, happy, successful international marriages between Americans and foreigners'. This is a true statement that adds up to 100,000 happy couples, but 2 murders are more significant? 100,000 vs. 2! I win by a huge margin! Just like the feminist proponents of IMBRA, the article exploits 2 tragedies. Feminist N.G.O.'s used the tragedies to support a hidden agenda and ulterior motives: the dislike of American men corresponding with foreign women. This law is a scandal and a feminist hoax. You are very gullible to believe the manufactured hysteria presented by Tahirih Justice Center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.26.30.5 (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Besides the fact it's not encyclopedic? This is a encyclopedia not a blog. I left the sentence in, but attempted to make it better formatted for an encyclopedia. Also I added a citation needed flag since there is no citations, please add. Thanks! C6541 (T↔C) 20:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I answered the IMBRA questions but it won't allow me to submit my answers. Whatg the he'll us the problem? Stefon 84 (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Terrible read

Probably one of the worst articles I've seen on an American law. On Wikipedia not every single line has to have a counter POV, try have a description of the law and general overview with a criticism section. I really don't feel either way about the law, but I think the opinions should be toned down. I don't believe it's Wikipedia's job to be an opinion piece. C6541 (T↔C) 20:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)