Planet-Love.com Searchable Archives
June 25, 2019, 04:44:02 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: This board is a BROWSE and SEARCH only board. Please IGNORE the Registration - no registration necessary. No new posts allowed. It contains the archived posts from the Planet-Love.com website from approximately 2001 through 2005.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: IMBRA Update..the feminist applause begins..  (Read 21894 times)
soltero
Guest
« Reply #15 on: January 06, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... in response to Some answers under the IMBRA law...(very..., posted by Gary Bala on Jan 6, 2006

I know you said that you would answer other questions personally, but I am hoping since this one is (hopefully) a quick yes or no, you might reply here.

The question is this:
Will this law be retroactive?

"Another problematic issue for the foreign owner (or U.S. owner living overseas) is the Consular Interview for the visa. Under this law, the Officer is required to ask the lady if they met through an IMB (as broadly defined in that law). IF the answer is YES, he MUST ask if the IMB provided the lady with all the background client information on the U.S. client and secured her signed written release before the couple communicated. If NOT, then the Officer presumably has the discretion to DENY issuance of the visa because of the broker violation (even though it was a foreign company)."

What if you met the person before the law was inacted for the "IMB" to even have had the opportunity to follow this law if the meeting occurred before the law existed. They (the lawmakers and enforcers) do realize that the women don't work for the agencies and do not necessarily keep in touch with the women or vice versa after they have met someone? What I am trying to say is that during and extended courtship that began before the law existed, do they take that into consideration as far as whether or not the agency provided the women with the documentation when it was not necessary at the time of the meeting?

Logged
Gary Bala
Guest
« Reply #16 on: January 07, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... in response to Very Important Question, posted by soltero on Jan 6, 2006

Soltero,
This law, by its terms, is prospective, not retroactive.

Most of the provisions go into effect 60 days after date of enactment (date of President's signature), which means early March 2006. The domestic violence pamphlet goes into effect in 120 days, or early May 2006.

By logic and fairness, the Consular Officer will likely not enforce this law at interview if the couple who are the subject of the visa interview met through an IMB before March 2006, i.e. before the broker provisions of the law took effect (the standard administrative "grandfather" practice.)  

GB

Logged
mudd
Guest
« Reply #17 on: January 07, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... in response to Re: Very Important Question, posted by Gary Bala on Jan 7, 2006

so you mean, it goes by the date that you two actualy met, or by the date homeland security receives your packet for processing for a K1?
Logged
soltero
Guest
« Reply #18 on: January 07, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... in response to Re: Very Important Question, posted by Gary Bala on Jan 7, 2006

GB,

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply to my post.

"By logic and fairness, the Consular Officer will likely not enforce this law at interview if the couple who are the subject of the visa interview met through an IMB before March 2006"

That's what scares me. Logic and fairness don't seem to have much to do with this law. I would hate to have made it to the interview after a possible two year courtship that began six months ago only to be denied for papers that we would have no way of getting, especially since the agency will probably be closed or sold long before then.

Logged
Brazilophile
Guest
« Reply #19 on: January 06, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... in response to Some answers under the IMBRA law...(very..., posted by Gary Bala on Jan 6, 2006

Thank you very, very much!

I have come across 2 international agencies based in Canada.  It boggles my mind that a US attorney, however unlikely, may be able to indict Canadians living and working in Canada for selling contact information about a Colombian woman to an American, a Canadian, a German, or anyone.

What happened to jurisdiction?

Logged
JackofTrades
Guest
« Reply #20 on: January 05, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... in response to IMBRA Update..the feminist applause begi..., posted by Gary Bala on Jan 5, 2006

...and dont forget this winner:


http://www.livejournal.com/users/ginmar/598034.html

Logged
Jamie
Guest
« Reply #21 on: January 06, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... in response to Re: IMBRA Update..the feminist applause ..., posted by JackofTrades on Jan 5, 2006

Those who calmly question her contradictions and inconsistencies are either labeled as trolls, idiots, or traitors to the cause... end of argument.  Her vile temperament, propaganda and humorless sarcasm are the feminist methods of persuasion. Throw in an extreme example to top their case and you have all that is needed to pop a law that makes good people into bad.

I have always found it amusing when Republicans claim how different they are from Democrats. As if I should be grateful that their intrusive laws are less intrusive than what the Democrats would have done.  

An excerpt I have been sending to my customers:

The radical feminist advocates are doing their best to prevent American men from accessing and marrying foreign women and our “conservative” Republican politicians have complied with their wishes. However not all is lost, the same U.S politicians are making it easier for you to marry a man, if this doesn’t tell you all you need to know about the crazy world we live in.

Engage the Exotic – Colombian Women
http://International-Introductions.com

Logged
Jamie
Guest
« Reply #22 on: January 06, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... in response to What an angry joke she is, posted by Jamie on Jan 6, 2006

She is not looking for an informative exchange she tells you this is her blog, her rules and she will say and do as she like. She entertains through insults and echoing the extreme feminist line which is mainly hate towards men.

When I told Karina about this new law, which actually may help my business since we are solely registered as a Colombian company, she couldn’t believe someone could come up with something so crazy. I would think that one of the larger American agencies would want to immediately challenge this law in the courts by defying it. We can find out if the Supreme Court with its two new members is really conservative or not we know our Republican president and congress aren’t.

I did have a lengthy exchange with a female French author which I will post on my site whenever I find time to do so that is somewhat interesting in exposes the sinister intentions these feminist have. Fair play is not in their nature. If one man rapes a woman all the other men share some responsibility for his evil doing. If one man beats his wife than all men are prone to do so and should be under suspicion with restrictions.

Engage the Exotic – Colombian Women
http://International-Introductions.com

Logged
pablo
Guest
« Reply #23 on: January 06, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... in response to What an angry joke she is, posted by Jamie on Jan 6, 2006


Jamie,

I took a look at Ginmar's profile and noticed she is a prolific poster.  I would love to see you and her go at it on that discussion board.  It would probably be like talking to a brick wall but I found it curious that there were no opposing views on that site and especially ironic is her avatar of a bare chested Latino looking dude with the caption "get me THIS for xmas".  I doubt if he is a MOH (mail order husband).

http://www.livejournal.com/users/ginmar/

Logged
CelticUrge
Guest
« Reply #24 on: January 06, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... in response to Re: What an angry joke she is, posted by pablo on Jan 6, 2006

This past year they added 12 full time positions to the staff, doubling the staff at Live Journal. Staff of 24 or so. That's not a small home business.

She is not only a prolific poster, I get the impression she is the moderator. Look at the following excerpt comments:

"quote"
Um, in case you haven't noticed the little notice you get when you post BECAUSE YOU'RE A XXXXXXX XXXXX, here's helpful reminder:

Your comment has been screened according to this blog's settings.

That means I've gotten sick of dipXXXXX

like I'm going to give you a platform for your idiocy.

Most fun are the dipXXXXX who I've banned and who I occasionally unscreen so people can see what a troll who seemed polite initially turns into when he doesn't get his way.

The 'bad mom' and the MOB posts are attracting the most attention. If a troll replies to you there, please don't take the bait. These gits want attention. Don't give it to them here.

Yeah, that'll happen. It just won't happen here.
"end quote"

I X'd out several words so Patrick and HODA won't have a cow.

She definitely has some "issues" and I'm quite happy she is not one of my neighbors. Perhaps increasing the doses of Prozac is in order.

Logged
doombug
Guest
« Reply #25 on: January 06, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... in response to Re: What an angry joke she is, posted by pablo on Jan 6, 2006

"It would probably be like talking to a brick wall but I found it curious that there were no opposing views on that site..."

It's because she screens out the responses she doesn't agree with.  I'd responded to one of her posts, and she screened it out.

She claims to have been a "grunt" in Iraq, though women are NOT permitted in the ranks of the infantry.  Many of her posts brag about this.

She fills the feminazi role quite well.

I doubt an invitation to post her opinions here would be accepted.

Logged
CelticUrge
Guest
« Reply #26 on: January 06, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... in response to Re: Re: What an angry joke she is, posted by doombug on Jan 6, 2006

It's obvious she won't allow your, or many others, to post their opinions at Live Journal.
Logged
Kiltboy1
Guest
« Reply #27 on: January 06, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... in response to What an angry joke she is, posted by Jamie on Jan 6, 2006

Tell me about it. If i did not like Latinas so much, GAY IS THE WAY !!!!!
Logged
Bob S
Guest
« Reply #28 on: January 06, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... in response to Re: What an angry joke she is, posted by Kiltboy1 on Jan 6, 2006

there are so many gays in California?

Because if the choice is getting reamed up the butt by another man or dating CA women, they really are choosing the lesser of two evils.

Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!