I guess Jaime caved

[Caballero2009]

I was looking at Jaimes site as i am a few months away from a trip to colombia. I had been planning on getting some emails and getting to know some ladies off his site..but the option doesnt exist now. All i see is options for men who have used his personal intro service.

So did jaime finally cave to the feminists and men who kiss their rumps?

Looks like another option taken away.

awesome

[GatoAzul]

I was looking at Jaimes site as i am a few months away from a trip to colombia. I had been planning on getting some emails and getting to know some ladies off his site..but the option doesnt exist now. All i see is options for men who have used his personal intro service.

So did jaime finally cave to the feminists and men who kiss their rumps?

Looks like another option taken away.

awesome

your too slow 

[sabound]

oh , but he has always been in compliance . ? remember he told he was .

[william3rd]

I was looking at Jaimes site as i am a few months away from a trip to colombia. I had been planning on getting some emails and getting to know some ladies off his site..but the option doesnt exist now. All i see is options for men who have used his personal intro service.

So did jaime finally cave to the feminists and men who kiss their rumps?

Looks like another option taken away.

awesome

You are missing the point. Jaime claimed that he didnt have to comply at all. The result for you as a client may have been that a future fiancee would be denied a visa because of Jaimie's misinformation and refusal to follow US laws. In which case, our hero would have needed dental implants and the like. So, he is quietly becoming compliant without telling anyone but you sharp-eyed viewers caught him in transition. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The cure for IMBRA is to marry overseas. Not the best approach but if that is what you have, then that is what you have. IMBRA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO MARRIAGES. So, for all you wife beaters out there, there is still hope

[Caballero2009]

hmmmm

I dont understand. Who has to know how people meet? Just because i meet a girl in a discotec in Colombia... doesnt mean i would put that down on any official documents. I would put "met while on vacation"

So all this change does is remove options from people... thus feminists winning.

Thats what i am seeing.

When I first started reading this board and looking at jaimies site i remember reading a "letter" from a feminist to jaime. It was pretty acusing and sounded ignorant claiming basicaslly all the girls are slaves and men who want to meet them wife beating low lifes -- all of em.

This change by jaime means  === win for those people and proving that person right.

I am sure some feminist group is sitting around smiling out there.

[michaelb]

If you lie on the application and get found out, you've just given them an excellent excuse to deny the visa (and be subject to charges of perjury on a government document, if they really want to get hard ass about it). How would they find out? Well duh..... "How did you meet?" and "Did you use an agency?" are two of the main questions they ask when they interview the foreign person, and Colombian women are notoriously poor liars (as has been discussed here extensively prolific, yes, skilled, no). Not to mention that a gentleman wouldn't put a woman he cares about in a position where she would have to lie on his behalf.

[Researcher]

 
           How do you know that this is why that option no longer exists?

             It's not a good idea for the agency owner to not be IMBRA compliant. All it will take is for one wife beater or pimp to meet one foreign woman to bring back to the US and abuse her(or kill her) and the agency owner could be considered to be guilty by not complying.There is an international effort to stop human trafficking also.That is worst case scenario but it is not a good idea to thumb one's nose at this law.
            How we met also came up in our AOS interview. The IO wanted to know what kind of information the agency wanted from me. You can lie if you want, but I chose not to and I'm glad I told the truth.



   Researcher

[mudd]

So, for all you wife beaters out there, there is still hope

William3rd, now that was funny, i almost spit my coke at my computer screen 

 from my own experience  with the  visa process, and my friends, men and women who have gone through the interview process, the embassy interviewer can go easy, or really make it stressful and difficult, depending on what they decide in the first 10 seconds, when you sit down. its all up to their discretion on how they want to treat you and how far to press the questions on the applicant, and girls usually crack under the pressure. so why take the chance, just be honest with  the questions.

[Ray]

hmmmm

I dont understand. Who has to know how people meet? Just because i meet a girl in a discotec in Colombia... doesnt mean i would put that down on any official documents. I would put "met while on vacation"

So all this change does is remove options from people... thus feminists winning.

Thats what i am seeing.

When I first started reading this board and looking at jaimies site i remember reading a "letter" from a feminist to jaime. It was pretty acusing and sounded ignorant claiming basicaslly all the girls are slaves and men who want to meet them wife beating low lifes -- all of em.

This change by jaime means  === win for those people and proving that person right.

I am sure some feminist group is sitting around smiling out there.

But you missed the whole point. The feminists already won this round a long time ago when IMBRA was signed into law.

michaelb made a good point about falsifying the documents and perjury. Question 18 on the I-129F asks you to describe the circumstances under which you met. Question 19 asks if you met through an IMB.

Listed penalties for knowingly falsifying or concealing a material fact include 5 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine.

Now keeping in mind that your fiancée will most likely be questioned extensively on these same topics during her interview under oath, and the penalties for her not being truthful could include a lifetime ban on immigration to the US.

I guess you have a clear choice. Either play along with the feminist-inspired law, wait for someone to rule it unconstitutional (fat chance), or don’t file a petition for a K-visa.

Ray

[texassingledad]

your too slow 

We all can't be as quick as the CAT.............THANK GOD!!!!!!!!!

[Ray]

We all can't be as quick as the CAT.............THANK GOD!!!!!!!!!

LOL! I guess the cat ain't quick enough...

 

[bcc_1_2]

But you missed the whole point. The feminists already won this round a long time ago when IMBRA was signed into law.

Listed penalties for knowingly falsifying or concealing a material fact include 5 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine.

Yep, Jamie changed... the law didn't. The met on vacation part he mentioned is true but the question if you met your soon to be wife through a marriage broker is something I wouldn't lie about.

I've never heard any poster applaud the IMBRA Law... just bring up the serious issue of compliance.

I wouldn't phrase it as he caved either. Just something he was very late in complying with. Better late than never.

[Caballero2009]

Ok well i dont see it like that.

This "DUMBRA" law is pretty simply a move by some PC group to control people. It isnt based in ANY thing truly controlable... just makes peoples lives harder.

And regardless of wether id heard of the law or not.... i would only put met on vacation and plan to.

Thats not a lie ........... since im not in my country and im on vacation from work.... right.

And again NO ONE.... needs to know anything more than that.

Too bad for jaime hes going to lose alot of business so he can comply with a silly "law".

You know this is kinda like the speed limits... no one obeys them and 99.9% of the people who say they do are liars... theres not ONE person who obeys it all the time therefore they are useless. The people who get stopped and charged are RANDOM...

A guy going 90 can pass right on by but the next guy right behind him going 75 can be stopped for going just 10 miles over the 65 sped limit. I have seen it.

Spend their time helping people -- like refugees from wars or natural disasters not making useless laws for the internet which are in essence un enforceable.

[Shadow_mas]

Caballero,

I hope that you will not be the guy that gets pulled over.
I think its quite different risking a traffic fine and risking denial to be together with your chosen partner, but that's just me.
And while there is a lot to say for the 'injustice' (though IMBRA is equal for both sexes) at the same time I wonder what the problem is on sharing the requested information woth your partner. The U.S. government already knows, so you are not disclosing anything new to them.

[Researcher]

     Also, the government usually looks at it as ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[GatoAzul]

There is a guy I know from other site.  A Scottish guy brought a Ukrainian girl to his home in Scotland and they got married.  They have a baby together but they are no longer an item.  The Scottish husband is a wife beater!!!  She beat her out on few occassions and also beat her while she was pregrant!  He only beat her when he was drunk.  He refused to give up drinking.  He chose his drinking over his wife.

Now, the wife is back to Ukraine with the baby.

You see what I mean - bringing ladies home for numbers of reasons including beating her, using her as prostititution - the list is endless!

[Ray]

And regardless of wether id heard of the law or not.... i would only put met on vacation and plan to.

Thats not a lie ........... since im not in my country and im on vacation from work.... right.

And again NO ONE.... needs to know anything more than that.

 

Technically, that may not be a lie, BUT, it’s at least concealing a material fact.

If you break the speed-limit law, you pay what, a couple hundred bucks and maybe an insurance increase? If you get caught concealing a material fact on your petition, you could get $10,000 plus 5 years…and very possibly your wife/fiancée could be banned for life if she knowingly participates in the concealment. Bad analogy...

As long as you fully understand all of the consequences, then you are still free to choose what story you tell. Good luck.

Ray

[bcc_1_2]

Technically, that may not be a lie, BUT, it’s at least concealing a material fact.

I haven't even gotten to this point, but since I used a couple agencies I researched it. You can't get around the marriage broker question. You have two options... yes or no. So you either lie or tell the truth. You either break the law or you don't. Which makes it all the more important that even though an agency may not have an office in the USA (or do any business there) that they be in compliance with the IMBRA law.

You don't have to like the cards you've been dealt, but you might as well deal with reality. My question for Caballero is why not just deal with it? These feminists may have put up a brick wall, but they forgot the mortar. You can just kick it down. However there is a mall cop behind the wall that will inform your lady if you have a criminal background. Are you worried about the mall cop? If not why not just deal with the situation?

[Caballero2009]

Who says people have to tell where they met exactly.... and whose enforcing that?

Are there love police now?

Not that i am aware of.

[Ray]

Who says people have to tell where they met exactly.... and whose enforcing that?

When you submit a fraudulent immigration petition and your story doesn't match what your fiancée/spouse tells the interviewer at her visa or AOS interview, then you will become a believer, the hard way. The enforcement takes place when your visa/AOS petition is denied.

For the sake of any foreign woman that you may petition, I strongly suggest that you download and read Immigration Form I-129F along with the accompanying instructions.

Ray

[OsageDave]

Who says people have to tell where they met exactly.... and whose enforcing that?

Are there love police now?

Not that i am aware of.

The gist of the answer to "who says, or why", is that, an anxious latina, going into an interview that is going to drastically change her life forever, is very possibly going to break down and tell that she lied on her petition if questioned under pressure. At that point, her life and yours will be affected, perhaps very significantly. If you truly love the woman you are attempting to marry, you would never consider doing that to her. The risk to yourself isn't worth it either.

If, however, you're certain that no one will ever find out that you met in an agency, and you know for a fact your fiancee will pull through the interview with flying colors, then it is possible that the two of you won't be caught.

Why though, is lying about meeting in an agency on a US immigration petition, so important? Perhaps you reallly aren't, but from reading here, it sounds like you're very opposed to telling the truth about meeting in an agency. If you are, can you explain why? From my perspective, I don't really see it as an issue. I understand being irked by the feeling that Big Brother is peering deeper than is necessary, but not to the extent that I would consider risking impacting mine and my fiancee's future.

[bcc_1_2]

Are there love police now?

Not that i am aware of.

Yea and it is no laughing matter. That's why I'm such a dick about agencies not following the US Law. You as the perspective husband are going to have to deal with the IMBRA issue (if you use an agency). You just cant get around dealing with it head on. Especially when I see an agency that has expensive packages... and when they don't run the stupid background check (puting all their male clients as well as ladies who decide to get engaged in a minor to major bind) I just have no respect for that.

[Researcher]

Who says people have to tell where they met exactly.... and whose enforcing that?

Are there love police now?

Not that i am aware of.

            One embassy interview I know of went like this.A couple went to the interview and were questioned seperately. The man said they interviewed him after his fiance and asked him if they had sex yet. The real answer was yes they had but he said no because he thought that is what his fiance would say.She didn't, she told the truth and said yes. They were denied a visa because they gave conflicting answers to one question.
           For me, that example speaks for itself.


           Researcher

[Jamie]

So did jaime finally cave to the feminists and men who kiss their rumps?

It has nothing to do with caving in. It was a business decision that was planned for over a year that had nothing to do with IMBRA. If it is deemed necessary for me to follow any law I will do so and doing so is not caving in because we are all forced to abide by thousands of laws some we would do so willingly and other because we have no choice. The ultimate concern is that my clients are not hampered by any actions that I take. To date they have not been, but if such a safeguard is deemed best for the client we would do it. I am certainly in a better situation to follow such regulations and I most likely will take another look in to the matter.

oh , but he has always been in compliance . ? remember he told he was .

Again you are not making any sense I never said I was in compliance and I still am not in compliance.

You are missing the point. Jaime claimed that he didnt have to comply at all. The result for you as a client may have been that a future fiancee would be denied a visa because of Jaimie's misinformation and refusal to follow US laws. In which case, our hero would have needed dental implants and the like. So, he is quietly becoming compliant without telling anyone but you sharp-eyed viewers caught him in transition. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

William you should know better, but it appears you don’t. How does this make me compliant? Since you never answer my questions I will respond for you, it doesn’t.
As for keeping this quite and being “caught” I am not sure how you come up with such a warped conclusion. Me posting my services in terms of what we do or do not do is not keeping things quite. My audience are those that come to my website not those that want to be misinformed with your legal advice. If an agency was becoming IMBRA compliant why would they keep this quite? They wouldn’t they would announce it. There are many laws in the U.S that I feel are unconstitutional that the Supreme Court approved. I have been proven wrong many times by the “majority” so me being on the losing side of what I believe is unconstitutional or not is nothing new. I have seen the law do too many strange things to believe I know which way it’s going to go.

The cure for IMBRA is to marry overseas. Not the best approach but if that is what you have, then that is what you have. IMBRA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO MARRIAGES. So, for all you wife beaters out there, there is still hope

Is this the joke you and the leftist feminist tell at your tea parties. It’s easy to read you as a proponent of bad laws.

Too bad for jaime hes going to lose alot of business so he can comply with a silly "law".

My actions were solely based on making more money and nothing else.

[william3rd]

Danger, guys!!!!!! he still won't comply. Nice that you all are at risk in using that service  on the basis of pure arrogance.  And a business decision- doesnt want to spend the money to obey the law. If you get fined, will you pay? 

Nice to know that Jamie can give you all your legal advice and a tour of his stable.


Hey Jamie are you going to cloak yourself in the american flag now? Talking about the Constitution, are we? Too little and too late. Humm a few bars of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, will ya?