New I-129F

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

What's misleading in the form is that the questions about criminal background are in section C.2 , and don't suggest (unless I'm missing it somewhere) that you only fill it out IF IF IF you used a IMB.. that's another question (19)...

222530[/snapback]

My read of the law is that criminal conviction information (Part C) and IMB information (question 19) are separate. It seems to me that EVERYBODY has to provide the criminal conviction information whether or not an international marriage broker was used.

 

But, as Lee says, we're dealing with a draft that may be revised before implementation.

222592[/snapback]

I agree. that's my read too...

 

This makes sense if their idea is to verify their own criminal name checks against the petitioner supplied info.. any discprency could be used to deny a form (?).. meaning you did not disclose sometime (?) Seems a backdoor way to stop some of those with criminal past.. but this is just my idea not suggesting they are doing this.

 

BUt if they collect it from everyone, then the [ethical] dilemma that a person did not use an IMB.. but has a criminal past... are they NOT required to disclose that to the beneficiary? (Insane if they don't... would go to show that policy--letter of the law--is more important than spirit of the law--protecting women).

222619[/snapback]

It is not the spirit of US law to engage in an "I gotcha" campaign disguised by requesting information from applicants and comparing it to their own record; then, if they find a discrepancy, view it as a deliberate withholding or obstruction. Speaking of violations, employing such a method would likely violate not only the spirit but the truths that Americans hold so sacred; those being the right to privacy, and of illegal search and seizure.

 

This issue is incredibly complex, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the best minds in constitutional law will make sure that the rights of US citizens are protected. Throughout US history there has been one attack after another, many well-intended, that if allowed to stand would have degraded our individual rights. Thankfully, we have great minds and spirits occupying the seats of the US supreme court that understand the complexities of such issues.

 

I do not believe that a US citizen can be compelled to disclose criminal information on this form. Rather, it's the responsibility of US law enforcement to keep their records, do a background check. If someone has convictions for domestic violence or sexual assault, the US will have records of this information. VAWA, the militant women's group supporting female victims of violence, is behind this effort. Make no mistake about it, while it seems like such activity would be a good thing on the surface, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it will help women from becoming victims of violent or sexually perverted men.

222633[/snapback]

While I understand your views, a convicted felon does not have the right to hide or mask their record. The individual actually surrenders rights by committing a crime against the laws of the land and while many feel there should be, there is no right to privacy specified or guaranteed in the US Constitution and criminal records are public records.

 

In the US, those identified as sexual predators are required by law to register their location, which is made available to the public. The purpose of this portion of the IMBRA is requiring this information and perhaps a bit more, be made available to those who would be potential victims of these people where they now choose to lure them from another country.

 

I suggest that those who consider this measure too harsh arrange a marriage to these people for their sister or daughter to demonstrate the conviction of their beliefs and let's see how that works out.

 

I see this as being another way to reduce the number of potential victims for those who have a history of violence against women or

children and the responsibility of our society.

222645[/snapback]

It's a touchy subject Lee. I think this can be summed up in what I posted here...

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?...ndpost&p=222643

[Randy W]

Lee - the issue is whether they are going to provide the SO with a valid background check verified (at some point) by a governmental authority, or to simply accept the word of the applicant, or take the word of the applicant and see if they can't catch him in a "lie".

 

That is an issue to be sorted out by DHS.

[david_dawei]

. . .  and I think that under any of the scenarios, the beneficiary would have the option to ACCEPT the criminal background check and go with the jerk anyway (if the visa were awarded).

222644[/snapback]

I read this... just not sure if the VO will ACCEPT the lack of communication as cause for a blue slip...

[Randy W]

. . .0„2 and I think that under any of the scenarios, the beneficiary would have the option to ACCEPT the criminal background check and go with the jerk anyway (if the visa were awarded).

222644[/snapback]

I read this... just not sure if the VO will ACCEPT the lack of communication as cause for a blue slip...

222653[/snapback]

 

 

Sure - a last minute SURPRISE would be a red flag. But hopefully, these background checks will be in the beneficiary's hands well before then.

[Linbar]

Some reading extracted from the Bill.

 

`(3) In this subsection:

`(A) The terms `domestic violence' , `sexual assault', `child abuse and neglect', `dating violence' , `elder abuse', and `stalking' have the meaning given such terms in section 3 of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005.

`(B) The term `specified crime' means the following:

`(i) Domestic violence , sexual assault, child abuse and neglect, dating violence , elder abuse, and stalking.

`(ii) Homicide, murder, manslaughter, rape, abusive sexual contact, sexual exploitation, incest, torture, trafficking, peonage, holding hostage, involuntary servitude, slave trade, kidnapping, abduction, unlawful criminal restraint, false imprisonment, or an attempt to commit any of the crimes described in this clause.`(iii) At least three convictions for crimes relating to a controlled substance or alcohol not arising from a single act.'.

(2) 214® AMENDMENT- Section 214® of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1184®) is amended--

(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting after the second sentence `Such information shall include information on any criminal convictions of the petitioner for any specified crime.'; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

`(4)(A) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall create a database for the purpose of tracking multiple visa petitions filed for fiance(e)s and spouses under clauses (i) and (ii) of section 101(a)(15)(K). Upon approval of a second visa petition under section 101(a)(15)(K) for a fiance(e) or spouse filed by the same United States citizen petitioner, the petitioner shall be notified by the Secretary that information concerning the petitioner has been entered into the multiple visa petition tracking database. All subsequent fiance(e) or spouse nonimmigrant visa petitions filed by that petitioner under such section shall be entered in the database.

`(B)(i) Once a petitioner has had two fiance(e) or spousal petitions approved under clause (i) or (ii) of section 101(a)(15)(K), if a subsequent petition is filed under such section less than 10 years after the date the first visa petition was filed under such section, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall notify both the petitioner and beneficiary of any such subsequent petition about the number of previously approved fiance(e) or spousal petitions listed in the database.

`(ii) A copy of the information and resources pamphlet on domestic violence developed under section 833(a) of the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 shall be mailed to the beneficiary along with the notification required in clause (i).

 

The italics are mine, but I did not add the smilies. Sorry

[rlheim]

B) To show my stupidity.....I thought this is what was done at the first 2 levels, before Guanzhou comes into the picture in the first place. Then once in Guanzhou, I thought that the Chinese citizen was checked. Then I thought the interview was done as the oral interview to trip up any criminal activity.

Shows what i know. B)

Rick and Yanlan

Edited June 8, 2006 by rlheim (see edit history)