International Marriage Broker Regulation Act
The International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (Subtitle D of Title VIII (Sec.831-834) of United States Public Law 109-162), or IMBRA, is a United States federal statute that requires background checks for all marriage visa sponsors and limits serial visa applications. Additionally, the law requires background checks for all persons wanting to receive contact information, something that is necessary in order to communicate. The impetus for its introduction were two cases (including the Susanna Blackwell case in 1995 and the Anastasia King case in 2000) in which foreign women had been abused and eventually murdered by men who had used a K-1 fiancée visa issued by the US State Department to bring them to the United States. In the King case, the husband had physically abused a previous foreign bride before murdering Anastasia. King had met Anastasia through his own advertisement in a Moscow newspaper (not through an "international marriage broker"). In the Blackwell case, the husband had a clean record, therefore IMBRA would not have prevented her murder. It was intended to stop abuse of "mail order brides" by prospective husbands with criminal histories. At the same time there are thousands of international marriages between Americans and foreigners without problem.
Read more about International Marriage Broker Regulation Act: Key Provisions
Famous quotes containing the words marriage, regulation and/or act:
“A funeral is not death, any more than baptism is birth or marriage union. All three are the clumsy devices, coming now too late, now too early, by which Society would register the quick motions of man.”
—E.M. (Edward Morgan)
“Nothing changes my twenty-six years in the military. I continue to love it and everything it stands for and everything I was able to accomplish in it. To put up a wall against the military because of one regulation would be doing the same thing that the regulation does in terms of negating people.”
—Margarethe Cammermeyer (b. 1942)
“It has often been argued that absolute scepticism is self-contradictory; but this is a mistake: and even if it were not so, it would be no argument against the absolute sceptic, inasmuch as he does not admit that no contradictory propositions are true. Indeed, it would be impossible to move such a man, for his scepticism consists in considering every argument and never deciding upon its validity; he would, therefore, act in this way in reference to the arguments brought against him.”
—Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914)