what is IMBRA ?

[Guest pushbrk]

The horse-hockey will likely hit the fan in the next several days as the entire IMBRA issue, while well-intentioned, is anti-consitutional.

218235[/snapback]

Not to get political (I know how much you hate that), but why do you think it's unconstitutional? The courts have upheld criminal background requirements for gun purchases (a constitutional right). Why would a background check for getting a visa (not a constitutional right) be held to a higher standard?

218349[/snapback]

I don't know why it would but just to be clear, this is a criminal background check in order to petition for and sponsor a visa applicant. The person getting a visa is not entitled to Constitutional protections until after the visa is issued.

[RLS]

Here's an interesting article on the subject taken from Fox News:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180487,00.html

 

my apology if this has been posted before.

Edited May 26, 2006 by RLS (see edit history)

[RLS]

The horse-hockey will likely hit the fan in the next several days as the entire IMBRA issue, while well-intentioned, is anti-consitutional.

218235[/snapback]

Not to get political (I know how much you hate that), but why do you think it's unconstitutional? The courts have upheld criminal background requirements for gun purchases (a constitutional right). Why would a background check for getting a visa (not a constitutional right) be held to a higher standard?

218349[/snapback]

This is taken from the law suit in the District Court in Georgia

 

Civil Action No.

1:06-CV-0426-CC

 

"Consistent with its ruling at the hearing, the Court

hereby enters the instant written Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order.1. . .

 

"The Court believes that there is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiff will

prevail on the merits of its First and Fifth Amendment claims. Courts use the fourprong

test articulated in Central Husdon Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n,

447 U.S. 557, 566, 100 S. Ct. 2343, 2351, 65 L. Ed.2d 341 (1980) to determine if

commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment. Specifically, a court must

determine the following: (1) whether the speech concerns lawful activity and is not

misleading; (2) whether the regulation serves a substantial governmental interest;

(3) whether the regulation directly and materially advances the state’s asserted

interest; and (4) whether the regulation is no more extensive than necessary to serve

that interest. See This That and Other Gift and Tobacco, Inc. v. Cobb County, 285

F.3d 1319, 1323 (11th Cir. 2000).

This Court does not believe that the Act meets the last two steps of Central

Hudson. As an initial matter, it appears to the Court that there is no governmental

interest suitably furthered by the distinctions made by the Act as to the brokers

covered by the Act. That is, the distinctions contained in the Act as to the entities,

persons, and groups qualifying as IMBs under the Act are not rationally related to

the harm Congress sought to prevent by passing the Act."

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

IMBRA = International Marriage Brokers Regulation Act.  http://usaimmigrationattorney.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=2

 

Incidentally, one federal court has already issued a temporary restraining order against the government as it relates to a single international marriage broker.  http://www.online-dating-rights.com/pdf/TRO.pdf

 

This is just the opening salvo, and it will likely take quite a while before the constitutionality of the Act gets settled.  In the meantime, I suspect DHS and DOS will continue to implement/enforce the new law until it's told to stop.

218212[/snapback]

Just saw this regarding the restraining order / injunction. It was denied....

 

http://usaimmigrationattorney.com/JudgeRos...rDenyingTRO.pdf

 

The Court finds no irreparable injury. The international marriage brokers can be

compensated for lost business. Their clients remain free to search for marriage partners via other channels, including the web sites excluded from IMBRA’s coverage.

Edited May 30, 2006 by ShaQuaNew (see edit history)

[frank1538]

Just saw this regarding the restraining order / injunction. It was denied....

219709[/snapback]

Remember that TROs are case specific and relate only to the party seeking it.

 

So, we now have one TRO granted and one TRO denied. Like I said earlier, I think it's going to be a while before this all gets sorted out.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

Just saw this regarding the restraining order / injunction. It was denied....

219709[/snapback]

Remember that TROs are case specific and relate only to the party seeking it.

 

So, we now have one TRO granted and one TRO denied. Like I said earlier, I think it's going to be a while before this all gets sorted out.

219715[/snapback]

No, I didn't realize that; I'll have to look up the meaning of TRO. So, there are several of these out there and each handled individually on it's own merit? Indeed each and every case will have to carefully examine the predecessor....

 

...it will take a while, and will be even more interesting to see how the federal court views and interprets constitutional law as it relates to the individuals that make up this country....

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

A little background on the IMBRA TRO (temporary restraining order)

 

http://prweb.com/releases/2006/3/prweb356921.htm

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

Just saw this reply from GUZ in the GUZ Speaks forum on this topic. Some of you will be affected...

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?...=0entry222303