VAWA adds "U" Visas to make it E-Z for your FSU fiancee to ditch U & stay in USA

[Brasscasing]

MEN, if we don't speak up about things like VAWA and the horror of false allegations, and insist on reasonably scrutiny, we are going to continue to get more of this.  It's about stopping the expansion of the DV-Industrial Complex that is based on phony science and lies, and fosters millions of false allegations every year, mostly by women who are coached to take cynical advantage of rules and processes that are incredibly biased against men.  All in the name of "protecting women and children". 
In this case, the false allegations were RAPE.  I believe that false allegations need to be criminalized to a similar extent that the false charge is, e.g., if the penalty is 5 years in prison for the charge, the penalty should be 5 years in prison for a false allegation.

A little known precept of the much better known Hammurabi Law; An eye for an eye... is that Hammurabi actually was talking about the fairness of the scale of punishment meted out for the crime committed. Not that sentencing should amount to unfair retaliation due to social status or the indignation of the victim no matter how grievous they believed the crime to be.

Anyways, what's the end game here Phil - what do you want to see happen?

Brass

[RG]

I think Phil's getting attacked here a bit much.  I've got to agree with Andrew here, although I do think Phil needs to let the anger go, as well.

I have been around two people with BPD, one I was involved with.  It can be an incredibly stressful experience, as the person may truly believe an utterly distorted "version" of reality, so many things aren't seen as "lying," nor "unreasonable," regardless of reality.  Of course, there are plenty of stories of how "bad" a situation/person is, and the person is so completely blind to any possibilities besides the reality they currently believe, it's easy to wind up wasting much time and emotion in trying to understand their "viewpoint." 

One day, someone may be the best person in the world, the next they're "conspiring" against her (BPD sufferer).  Even when faced with facts easily proven, they will find a way to avoid or ignore them entirely, if it conflicts with whatever reality they believe at the moment.  Master manipulators have little on some of these folk.. The phrase "when she's good, she's very very good, when she's bad..." does come to mind here, among others. 

RE: the lack of closure.  This can be a challenge, as Andrew suggested.  It is not at all apparent in most cases that someone has BPD, without really being around them and knowing them well, at which point you may have been buying into the "stories" entirely, until eventually you see all of the inconsistencies, all of the situations and "problems" with the only common factor being the involvement or claims of that person.  Maybe you never figure it out, or only later.  I can see how some folks might consider if they are the problem, no matter the daily changes of "reality" from the BPD inflicted.  Of course, you may well be emotionally vested before you pick up on the "real issues," and like many people, do what you can to try to work things out.  I transitioned from caring to caring/concerned about her welfare, to simply wanting to know the truth behind all of the stories and insanity, all the while assaulted with more of the same at each transition.  Even when saying "enough, it's done" plainly, she would manage to pop up as if nothing was wrong, nothing had happened, with no concept of ever doing anything wrong at all.  Closure is what you make of it, and ultimately closure for me took the form of "Do not contact me in any way, shape or form, ever again.  Have a nice life, but please, far away from me, and try to get help." 

In my case at least, as the details filled in over time, this person ultimately came across as the most manipulative, selfish person I'd ever met, not with zero conscience, but one that changed daily, someone that could create a nightmare out of the best of occasions, and occasionally something good.  From her side, she was an angel, the best friend a person could have, the best person, and had no idea why so many people (now "bad people," but most of which were formerly "best friends") could disagree with her, take advantage of her, etc.  Sheer insanity.  You can get sucked into it, or see it for what it is, but it's very unlikely to remain entirely unaffected by it. 

Now, the above was years ago.  I can say that I don't hate this person, and I do hope that she gets help, but while I wish her well "enough," far away is ideal.  That was an amazingly chaotic period in my life, one thankfully kept at least relatively short due to the daily and never-ending insanity of it.  Far away is not far enough.

Having said all of that, there's nothing to be gained in the rehash.  I do feel bad for Phil's experience, but as pointed out, anger/obsession/bitterness does not a life make. 
The U visa changes surely will be abused, and it's worth discussion. 
RE: the ex in question, consider yourself as getting off lightly, look for the lessons to be learned, and share them, then put it behind you best you can, so you can move on, and forward, with your life. 

[AvHdB]

 
She and her daughter told (the man I refer to as) Scout, the man who took her in, a lot of very dark stuff about her past.  Maybe I'll do that in another thread.
Her daughter wants nothing more than to run way.

To a large degree I understand the frustration of Phil, but I also think there were red flags in Ukraine, that were ignored.

As for the qoute above personally I would prefer seeing less mud and more substance. Please spare us some one's dirty knickers.

[Philnatseaman]

MEN, if we don't speak up about things like VAWA and the horror of false allegations, and insist on reasonably scrutiny, we are going to continue to get more of this.  It's about stopping the expansion of the DV-Industrial Complex that is based on phony science and lies, and fosters millions of false allegations every year, mostly by women who are coached to take cynical advantage of rules and processes that are incredibly biased against men.  All in the name of "protecting women and children". 
In this case, the false allegations were RAPE.  I believe that false allegations need to be criminalized to a similar extent that the false charge is, e.g., if the penalty is 5 years in prison for the charge, the penalty should be 5 years in prison for a false allegation.

A little known precept of the much better known Hammurabi Law; An eye for an eye... is that Hammurabi actually was talking about the fairness of the scale of punishment meted out for the crime committed. Not that sentencing should amount to unfair retaliation due to social status or the indignation of the victim no matter how grievous they believed the crime to be.

Anyways, what's the end game here Phil - what do you want to see happen?

Brass

The end game here is political and legal change, and trying to find ways to halt this runaway train named VAWA and almost make it safe to be a man in this world again.  I'd like it to be safe for a normal man to have a relationship with women and not be at constant risk of having everything taken from him, his money, reputation, and freedom, based on false allegations, subject to the whims of his personality-disordered partner, who can be a very convincing liar when no fact-checking is involved and no proof or evidence is required.  I'd like for actual scrutiny and fact-checking to be inserted into these processes.  The pendulum has swung too far in one direction.  It needs to come back towards the center.  So far all I've figured out is to contribute to groups that are fighting the political fight.  I'm trying to figure out what else would be effective.

[BC]

I'm trying to figure out what else would be effective.

Moving elsewhere is of course a viable option.  The Earth is still a pretty big place.

[Philnatseaman]

I invented facts? let's review what I said.
Quote "he has no medical training but is able to diagnose her as bipolar
(if I remember the diagnosis correctly)" UnQuote

I admit that my memory was wrong, but I didn't invent anything so in my 
case of memory of the medical diagnosis you are right and I am wrong.

Now you need to admit that you became engaged to a woman you didn't know well
enough and that you ignored red flags

I have fully acknowledged that in other threads, that I got engaged to a woman I didn't know well enough, and that I ignored red flags.  That is not in question, OK?

I'm trying to keep this thread about changes to VAWA and alternatives for political and legal change, and figuring out how to advocate for some balance in the laws.  What we got with large parts of VAWA is an anti-male Trojan Horse snuck in under the guise of "protecting innocent women and children".  Who could possibly object to that?  But that's not really what it's doing.  It's become a way to create and fund a DV Industry that is based on lies and phony science, and assumes that all men are evil and all women are pure and virtuous pedestal material. 

My intent was only to discuss my ex-fiancee as a poster child for more of what we'll get by using the horribly flawed VAWA to expand "U" Visas.  We're creating another option for scammers, and more opportunities and *incentives* for clever, personality-disordered people to victimize their sponsors, and/or jump to the front of the immigration line based on lies and fraud.

The difference from some other train wrecks is that I started to pay attention to the red flags and halted the train.  So it's amusing that I become the evil one for halting the train wreck before I truly became a victim and a statistic.

Any deep self-reflection about the mess with my fiancee belongs in the other thread, the train-wreck thread.  People, it's pretty much already there if you want to go look for it.  I don't see any need to endlessly rehash the things that "I" did wrong in this thread.  There were plenty of mistakes on my end.  So if you really feel I've "accepted no responsibility" or whatever, maybe go read that other thread and insult me THERE if you feel I'm not owning up to my part in the mess.

[Tom Cat]

Hi Phill,
I understand what you are trying to say here, but IMHO is better to have an option for her to get out before the marriange, than after you marry her and then face even bigger problems.

Whats the difference if she stays or goes back? Either way she will be out of your life and, you move on with your  own.
No one forced you to hurry your relationship, you made decisions to bring her here ,when you could have lived with her in country and had opportunity to see what you were getting into.
The problem I see is too many guys try to save a few dollars and hurry the process along, and don't spend enough time with their ladies.
By the time you apply for a K1 visa, you should know you will marry this woman, and not use the 90 days as a trial run.
You have no one to blame here but yourself.

[andrewfi]

Phil, some folks when they have 'problems' with a former partner (especially ones from 'not the USA') seem to go off down a track where they become ardent campaigners or amateur sleuths. From the outside it can seem like a form of madness (and frankly I am sure that sometimes it is!)

I have some degree of sympathy with what you are saying about the legislation but here's the thing. The legislation can and will help women who have been cruelly treated by guys. It can and will help guys avoid having to face false accusations of rape violence and other abuses.

This woman is out of your life, in physical terms at least - keep her there!
Do not get obsessed with ideas of 'justice' or 'right'. It only keeps your head focussed upon the person.

Let it go. You got off lightly and it is not your place to campaign for changes to laws that have benefitted your former fiancee. Move on.

Maybe with the perspective of years you might go back and campaign again, at a time when you can do so from an objective head place. But I bet that at that time your perspective will be much like mine...
The legislation may not be perfect but I'd prefer that a few women get to be able to have a life than have all of them thrown out. As in other legal situations, US law (just as UK law) works from the premise that it is better for several guilty people go free than have innocents punished wrongly. On the whole that is not a bad perspective to have in this instance.

[Philnatseaman]

If I am angry about anything, it's about the rigged system that men deal with in family court and allegations of domestic violence and rape, and the reward for cleverly made false allegations and the almost total absence of penalties for false allegations.

It's not so much about my ex-fiancee, OK?  If anything, it's much more about my first ex-wife and being battered and abused in family court, having my ex (unsuccessfully, in the end) attempt to alienate my children against me, and naively thinking "hey, it's America, the land of truth and justice, right?"  Eventually I figured out that it was all about the money and the *Divorce Industry*, and the right of the industry participants to profit off the misery of families.  I practically barf every time I see or hear the phrase, "the best interests of the children", and mentally translate to, "the best financial interests of the industry participants who make money off of creating conflict and misery in the divorce process." I see that the same forces that created the land mine of family court are now working full steam on making immigration sponsorship just as dangerous as family court.

For what it's worth, I would prefer that K-1 simply convey full citizenship rights on fiancee's arrival, without the need to drag the man through phony domestic violence charges in order to get government blessing to stay.  I would 100% support that!!  But, the domestic violence "service providers" need a steady stream of created clients to stay in business.  Expanding U visas in this way is just one more way to "create demand" for these "services".  It's all about the money and the Domestic Violence Industry.

[Philnatseaman]

Phil, some folks when they have 'problems' with a former partner (especially ones from 'not the USA') seem to go off down a track where they become ardent campaigners or amateur sleuths. From the outside it can seem like a form of madness (and frankly I am sure that sometimes it is!)

I have some degree of sympathy with what you are saying about the legislation but here's the thing. The legislation can and will help women who have been cruelly treated by guys. It can and will help guys avoid having to face false accusations of rape violence and other abuses.

This woman is out of your life, in physical terms at least - keep her there!
Do not get obsessed with ideas of 'justice' or 'right'. It only keeps your head focussed upon the person.

Let it go. You got off lightly and it is not your place to campaign for changes to laws that have benefitted your former fiancee. Move on.

Maybe with the perspective of years you might go back and campaign again, at a time when you can do so from an objective head place. But I bet that at that time your perspective will be much like mine...
The legislation may not be perfect but I'd prefer that a few women get to be able to have a life than have all of them thrown out. As in other legal situations, US law (just as UK law) works from the premise that it is better for several guilty people go free than have innocents punished wrongly. On the whole that is not a bad perspective to have in this instance.

Actually, the way that VAWA works and the way the trend is heading is that it's better for many, many innocent men to be punished, as long as a few caught in the net are guilty.  But I understand you are looking at it from the point of view of women who ARE caught in a bad situation.  I'm simply asking for reasonable fact-checking in the process, and not a blank check being offered to all who would accuse.  In any case, it's become all about the money and the DV *industry*, not about right and wrong or good or bad policy. It's primarily about creating jobs and funding streams for those involved in the system.

As I said, it's more about the family court mess from 8+ years ago, than about my ex-fiancee.  It simply happens to be related an area where I've already been active, the area of family court reform, and ensuring that loving, involved fathers aren't shut out of their children's lives based on false allegations and a system biased against them.

But, I do appreciate your comments about not letting it become an obsession and take over my life, especially as related to my ex-fiancee.  Honestly, my emotions toward her are more in the range of amusement, indifference, and disgust, and not so much anger.  If anything, I feel celebratory and relieved that I didn't get caught in her trap.  My anger is more about the way the deck is stacked against men in family court, in child support, and in the DV laws and processes that stigmatize men and assume men are always evil and women are always virtuous, and the attempt to expand a DV industry that enables false accusers and creates even more land mines for men.  Men have allowed ourselves to be the frogs in the pot of cold water sitting on the burner, and the water is now scalding temperature.  Do we try to jump out, or do we stay in and get cooked and devoured by this ever-expanding system?

[missAmeno]

Can you seriously not separate the FACT of what my assertion was about (that she has BPD) from the separate question of whether or not she actually has it?  The first is a clearly observable fact, and the second, whether or not she has BPD, is not currently able to be either 100% proven or disproven.

Phil, I didnt ignore the FACT of your assertion, just pointed out that you cant seriously expect everyone else to take your assertion that she has BPD as a FACT.

If you and others (2TallBill) are going to *invent* your own facts about what I supposedly said or did, I ask you to at least pay close enough attention to use ACCURATE facts about readily discernable things.

Could you be more specific and tell exactly which FACT did I "invent" about what you supposedly said.

Wow, I had no idea the world is flat and balanced on the backs of four elephants.  Are you really sure about this? Thats not what they taught us in school.  I guess if you say so... that's about as plausible as some of the stuff people have made up about me.

"Flat world supported by the back of 4 elephants" is an assertion from a comic fantasy book   

And thanks for pointing out my status was still showing "engaged".  I have corrected that, as it is clearly not the case any longer.

It was confusing a bit 

Wow.  The outrageous assumptions and crap people invent.

Once again could you be kind enough to specify "outrageous assumptions" and "crap" you trying to imply here

[andrewfi]

Phil, there is much that is pernicious about the 'system' as it applies to US men. It was a part of what went into writing the Death of a Russian Bride stuff in 2010/11. Thing is though that for you, right now, it is probably not the most healthy of places for you to be.

There are not many women going to be feeling too attracted to a guy who is becoming a guerrilla fighter for a cause that most would see as being anti feminine to a greater or lesser degree.

[Brasscasing]

The end game here is political and legal change, and trying to find ways to halt this runaway train named VAWA and almost make it safe to be a man in this world again.  I'd like it to be safe for a normal man to have a relationship with women and not be at constant risk of having everything taken from him, his money, reputation, and freedom, based on false allegations, subject to the whims of his personality-disordered partner, who can be a very convincing liar when no fact-checking is involved and no proof or evidence is required.  I'd like for actual scrutiny and fact-checking to be inserted into these processes.  The pendulum has swung too far in one direction.  It needs to come back towards the center.  So far all I've figured out is to contribute to groups that are fighting the political fight.  I'm trying to figure out what else would be effective.

I'm going to assume you're venting a bit but let's take a look at your [my bolded] sentence...You do understand that based on what you've conveyed here there was no relationship, or more accurately (again based on what you've conveyed) a relationship that never realistically existed, right?

Normal men who have normal relationships with normal women are not at "constant risk of having everything taken from him, his money, reputation, and freedom, based on false allegations, subject to the whims of his personality-disordered partner, who can be a very convincing liar when no fact-checking is involved and no proof or evidence is required". Infact, they're at very low risk, da?

You seem to want to blame the system because based on your word she didn't immediately have 'Defective item. Return to sender' stamped across her backside and (wasn't) shipped back to where ever it was she came from. Well, that's just not going to happen (at least not in the short term) and no amount of you railing against the machine will change that. It's out of your hands.

You'll not have your pound of flesh for whatever wrongs she's (according to you) perpetrated against you.  No matter how unfair you perceive this to be, you'll need to let it go and set to work healing yourself and getting your own affairs back in order.

Yes, support your groups and be an advocate if you feel there is just cause but don't let it consume you (which is where you seem to be headed).

Brass

 

[Philnatseaman]

The end game here is political and legal change, and trying to find ways to halt this runaway train named VAWA and almost make it safe to be a man in this world again.  I'd like it to be safe for a normal man to have a relationship with women and not be at constant risk of having everything taken from him, his money, reputation, and freedom, based on false allegations, subject to the whims of his personality-disordered partner, who can be a very convincing liar when no fact-checking is involved and no proof or evidence is required.  I'd like for actual scrutiny and fact-checking to be inserted into these processes.  The pendulum has swung too far in one direction.  It needs to come back towards the center.  So far all I've figured out is to contribute to groups that are fighting the political fight.  I'm trying to figure out what else would be effective.

I'm going to assume you're venting a bit but let's take a look at your [my bolded] sentence...You do understand that based on what you've conveyed here there was no relationship, or more accurately (again based on what you've conveyed) a relationship that never realistically existed, right?

Normal men who have normal relationships with normal women are not at "constant risk of having everything taken from him, his money, reputation, and freedom, based on false allegations, subject to the whims of his personality-disordered partner, who can be a very convincing liar when no fact-checking is involved and no proof or evidence is required". Infact, they're at very low risk, da?

You seem to want to blame the system because based on your word she didn't immediately have 'Defective item. Return to sender' stamped across her backside and (wasn't) shipped back to where ever it was she came from. Well, that's just not going to happen (at least not in the short term) and no amount of you railing against the machine will change that. It's out of your hands.

You'll not have your pound of flesh for whatever wrongs she's (according to you) perpetrated against you.  No matter how unfair you perceive this to be, you'll need to let it go and set to work healing yourself and getting your own affairs back in order.

Yes, support your groups and be an advocate if you feel there is just cause but don't let it consume you (which is where you seem to be headed).

Brass

The system is what we the people, through our political agents, make of it.  A decade or two ago, it was normal in the USA to ostracize people because of their skin color or their sexual orientation.  That has gradually changed.
The system became what it was because nobody was representing ordinary men, and ordinary men were primarily seen as financial targets to be exploited (looted?) by the political interests that created the laws.

YES, a NORMAL MAN who marries a NORMAL WOMAN is at constant risk of having everything taken from him, his money, reputation, and freedom, based on false allegations, subject to the whims of his NORMAL divorcing partner, under the influence of the divorce industry, and with the emotional cocktail of anger and bitterness and money.  The normal man is still at great risk, because the normal smart woman will often find an attorney who will happily lie and distort to further the interests of his client, and hence the attorney's own financial interests.  Divorce and family court often turns normal people into abnormal demons.

All it takes is one high-conflict divorce in your close family, e.g. you, a son, a daughter, a brother, sister, etc. to realize what a mess all this is.  Possibly you have had the good fortune to not have that experience in your close people.

So, essentially, your advice for dealing with a corrupt and biased system (family court, and now fraudulently obtained U visas) is to advise others to bend over and grab their ankles, and hope the worst never happens to you and yours?  I could easily be writing this now from prison, had I not taken pre-emptive action to remove my ex-fiancee from my residence.  There were multiple people who wrote me that sexual/abuse allegations against me  would come next, and advised me never to be alone with her.

As far as the "pound of flesh" you think I'm seeking, that's not really what I'm after, and in any case, it's not your call, and the mysterious workings of "the system" will decide this, sometime over the next 3-4 years.  I would like to help "the system" follow its own rules in the matter, but only time will tell.  Possibly the biggest factor could involve who is elected president next Fall.  If Obama is re-elected, her odds of staying are favorable. If it's a Republican, her odds are not as good.

I do not intend to "rail against the machine".  My intent is to find ways to be effective in changing the machine, within the limits of time, attention, and finances that I am willing to devote.

[BC]

I do not intend to "rail against the machine".  My intent is to find ways to be effective in changing the machine, within the limits of time, attention, and finances that I am willing to devote.

Considering past objections to IMBRA et al, the lobby of men is insignificant in size therefore powerless.

Pi$$ing in the wind a hurricane comes to mind.