Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

On March 6th, American males must submit US Gov paperwork to be introduced to foreign women
Enter Stage Right ^

Posted on 02/14/2006 6:12:25 AM PST by GermanBusiness

The Violence Against Women Act signed by President Bush on Jan. 5 contains an almost unnoticed attachment.

Subtitle D, also known as the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (IMBA), will become law when VAWA is enacted. The IMBA is an ostensibly noble measure with a surprising and ominous twist.

The scant attention directed toward the IMBA has been positive.

A headline in Washington State's The Daily Herald announced, "Mail-order brides gain protection" with the subtitle "The mother of a murdered immigrant hopes that pending federal legislation will keep foreign brides from abuse, neglect and slavery."

The "murdered immigrant" refers to Anastasia King, a "mail-order bride" from the former Soviet Union. In 2000, King was murdered by her husband in Washington State where the case created a sensation largely because the husband had violently assaulted a previous "mail-order bride."

Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., and Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., who championed the measure for years, introduced the IMBA to Congress.

Some parts sound reasonable. For example, U.S. consulates will provide "mail-order brides" with brochures that explain their legal rights.

Other parts sound draconian. For example, the IMBA requires American men who wish to correspond with foreign women through private for-profit matchmaking agencies to first provide those businesses with their police records and other personal information to be turned over to the women.

Corresponding with a foreigner is legal. Marrying a foreigner is legal. Immigrating spouses and their husbands go through rigorous and lengthy screening before visas are issued. U.S. laws against violence protect "mail-order brides."

Now American men who wish to pursue a legal activity must release their government files to a foreign business and foreign individuals for their personal benefit.

(Note: The act's language is gender-neutral but its clear purpose is to protect foreign women from predatory American men. Application to "male-order husbands" would be incidental as such 'brides' are relatively rare.)

The disclosure requirement is detailed under the provision entitled "Obligations of International Marriage Broker With Respect to Mandatory Collection of Information."

An international broker cannot provide contact or general information on a foreign woman to an American man unless that broker first collects and discloses to the woman the following information about the man:

Every state of residence since the age of 18; Current or previous marriages as well as how and when they terminated; Information on children under 18; Any arrest or conviction related to controlled substances, alcohol or prostitution, making no distinction on arrests not leading to conviction; Any court orders, including temporary restraining orders, which are notoriously easy to procure; Any arrest or conviction for crimes ranging from "homicide" to "child neglect"; Any arrest or conviction for "similar activity in violation of Federal, State or local criminal law" without specifying what "similar" means. U.S. law will provide foreign women with extensive government information on American suitors that is not similarly offered to American women — which it shouldn't it be either.

Contacting a woman for romantic purposes — internationally or domestically — is not a crime. Those who do so are not a priori criminals who must prove themselves innocent before being allowed an e-mail exchange.

How many American men will be impacted by the IMBA?


TOPICS: Russia
KEYWORDS: 2inchbratwurst; antifreetrade; antipimptrade; billofrights; billofrights4losers; constitutionlist; dorkdiscrimination; fatbaldlosers; feministbogeywimmen; georgetherino; govwatch; jealousskanks; libertarians; males; maleswithtinyunits; pickylosertoads; piginpokeseekswife; pimpyomamma; protectionism; rinowatch; roughtradepimp; tinyweenerthread; tittytariff; unionofusgals; vawa; wantservantwives; waronmen; waronmicroweeners; wifebuyinglosers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-407 next last
So...apparently a Republican American president just sold my rights as a male down the drain to satisfy screaming leftist Democrats in Washington State?

Apparently this "law" goes into effect on March 6th.

Patriot Act...OK...but this? How does this stop terrorists? Oh, I see...according to the left whose law Bush signed so happily...American males are the terrorists and foreign women need to know everything about us before we can even be introduced to them.

And I thought the TV show "Over There" was treasonous because it depicted American males as evil.

1 posted on 02/14/2006 6:12:27 AM PST by GermanBusiness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GermanBusiness

We need to cut through the red tape and just imprison American men who correspond with foreign women. [/sarcasm]


2 posted on 02/14/2006 6:14:52 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GermanBusiness

Good. it's about time and I don't care how you try to spin it. It's about time foreign women were protected from animals within our own country.


3 posted on 02/14/2006 6:15:29 AM PST by cripplecreek (Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GermanBusiness


Perhaps there will be corresponding legislation to protect your bank account from your foreign bride and restrain her from sleeping with your friends?

Mail order brides are, pretty much, always a bad idea.


4 posted on 02/14/2006 6:15:33 AM PST by in hoc signo vinces ("Houston, TX...a waiting quagmire for jihadis. American gals are worth fighting for!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GermanBusiness

I wonder if this law is even constitutional; it may run into freedom of speech problems.

That being said, why not go over and meet these girls the old-fashioned way? I have enough friends, from the Navy and elsewhere, who came back from the Philippines with wives, to know that this works.


5 posted on 02/14/2006 6:19:47 AM PST by seacapn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

[We need to cut through the red tape and just imprison American men who correspond with foreign women. [/sarcasm]]

I haven't had such a pit in my stomach since 9-11. In the 6000 year written history of mankind...where has a country worked so hard to cut the rights of its citizens overseas? And I am talking about a right that is like breathing...an introduction: "Katrina, meet Jim...Jim, meet Katrina".

I had thought that the law was something about fiances being told by US consulates what their rights would be in the USA...plus maybe the consulates telling fiances if their husband to be had any criminal record or some such.


6 posted on 02/14/2006 6:20:11 AM PST by GermanBusiness (Buy from Danish Food Dot Net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GermanBusiness

This law will force the matchmaking agencies to move offshore but nothing else will change.
Our legislature needs to read "Internet for Dummies" to finally get it through their thick skulls that you can't legislate Internet.
(Hint: It's global)


7 posted on 02/14/2006 6:20:44 AM PST by MrNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GermanBusiness

Bush is a RINO. Just like his Dad.


8 posted on 02/14/2006 6:21:34 AM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: in hoc signo vinces

{Mail order brides are, pretty much, always a bad idea.]

We are not talking about brides. We are talking about "Katrina, meet Jim, Jim meet Katrina". We are talking about the government getting involved with basic human interactions....long before marriage becomes an issue.


9 posted on 02/14/2006 6:22:25 AM PST by GermanBusiness (Buy from Danish Food Dot Net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy; derllak

We need to cut through the red tape and just imprison American men.

Fixed it for you.

This is what they want.


10 posted on 02/14/2006 6:22:31 AM PST by Leatherneck_MT (An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: in hoc signo vinces
Mail order brides are, pretty much, always a bad idea.

And we needed a Nanny State government policy to protect us from this? Or them from us? What a bunch of hyped up, non-issue, paternailistic, anti-freedom, anti-male, bullsh*t.

11 posted on 02/14/2006 6:22:55 AM PST by Dead Corpse (I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething; cripplecreek

One of my best friends met a girl on-line from one of the "mail order bride" places. He went to Russia to meet her and her family a couple of times before they came to America to get married. It took months to get her visa.

They've been married about 8 years now, very happily, and have a beautiful daughter.

Certainly these situations can be very bad, but that's not the norm.

But this is typical of the government - a knee jerk response to isolated incidents that creates bureacracy and government meddling where it wasn't necessary.


12 posted on 02/14/2006 6:24:52 AM PST by SittinYonder (That's how I saw it, and see it still.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seacapn

[That being said, why not go over and meet these girls the old-fashioned way?]

I am already over "there" and I already have a girlfriend.

That is not the point.

This is a major rights take-away and, yes, I don't see how it is even a little bit constitutional.

Are there lawyers who can check on that? I am sitting in a hotel in Denmark now. If the desk clerk introduces me to her friend...is she breaking a US law because I didn't submit US government paperwork on my background?

This sounds sick. And yet the President signed the law happily because it was tucked inside another law and because, apparently, Republicans don't care about the rights of single males.


13 posted on 02/14/2006 6:25:22 AM PST by GermanBusiness (Buy from Danish Food Dot Net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GermanBusiness
Patriot Act...OK...but this? How does this stop terrorists?

Uh, not sure where you got the idea that it was supposed to stop terrorists. Well, I guess you could call a wife beater a terrorist of sorts.

14 posted on 02/14/2006 6:25:35 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse


Yep...why this requires legislation is just nutz but look at the source.


15 posted on 02/14/2006 6:25:37 AM PST by in hoc signo vinces ("Houston, TX...a waiting quagmire for jihadis. American gals are worth fighting for!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GermanBusiness

The real problem is American woman are worried about the competition. Think about how many nasty skanks such as Maureen Dowd exist in America. These women wonder why no American men want to marry them. If they are going to be miserable then American men have no right to be happy.


16 posted on 02/14/2006 6:26:39 AM PST by FreedomSurge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GermanBusiness
I haven't had such a pit in my stomach since 9-11.

LOL Nothing like a bit of hysteria to liven up the day.

17 posted on 02/14/2006 6:26:47 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: in hoc signo vinces

Hey, the kind you meet here can be just as bad!


18 posted on 02/14/2006 6:27:04 AM PST by white trash redneck (Everything I needed to know about Islam I learned on 9-11-01.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GermanBusiness
We are not talking about brides.

So. . .a man would contact such a service for what other reason than to seek a wife?

19 posted on 02/14/2006 6:27:52 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SittinYonder

Oh for goodness sake! This is ridiculous.


20 posted on 02/14/2006 6:28:12 AM PST by eyespysomething (Iran is like the slightly retarded cousin that keeps asking Santa for a shotgun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SittinYonder

"Certainly these situations can be very bad, but that's not the norm."

Garbage, it's a modern day slave trade but pathetic men get laid and the slave traders get paid.


21 posted on 02/14/2006 6:28:35 AM PST by cripplecreek (Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: webstersII

The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is manners.


22 posted on 02/14/2006 6:29:39 AM PST by frankiep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: webstersII

[Bush is a RINO. Just like his Dad.]

That is my take. If FR cannot start a movement to try to get this "law" declared unconstitutional...I may have to just use FR quickly to see the newswire and find a forum that cares about our rights.

This is an outrage.


23 posted on 02/14/2006 6:29:56 AM PST by GermanBusiness (Buy from Danish Food Dot Net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GermanBusiness

If the matchmaking service is based in a foriegn country, how can this law be enforced against them? The article says the law imposes the duty on the matchmaker to collect this info. If an American just contacts the foriegn matchmaker on their foriegn website and conducts the business over the net, how is law going to impact that?


24 posted on 02/14/2006 6:30:57 AM PST by joebuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

agree...


25 posted on 02/14/2006 6:31:15 AM PST by dakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GermanBusiness

The free speech problems with this law seem pretty severe. What you'd need to challenge it is a test case; preferably a man with no criminal record whose only "crime" is his lack of reporting. That would be an interesting case, because it would pit constitutional freedoms against the disturbing deference to federal government that many Supreme Court justices have been showing recently. Assuming the case makes it that far.


26 posted on 02/14/2006 6:31:35 AM PST by seacapn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

[So. . .a man would contact such a service for what other reason than to seek a wife?]

It really isn't any of your business. It doesn't even begin to cross my mind that it would ever be any of your business.

This does not sound constitutional.


27 posted on 02/14/2006 6:31:54 AM PST by GermanBusiness (Buy from Danish Food Dot Net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FreedomSurge

While we do have the Maureen Dowds and Helen Thomases...I know that American women are still the best in the world, once you filter out the liberal feminazi nutcases. There's a lot of great women right on FR, for that matter.


28 posted on 02/14/2006 6:33:04 AM PST by RockinRight (Attention RNC...we're the party of Reagan, not FDR...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: seacapn

How would Alito vote on this?


29 posted on 02/14/2006 6:34:31 AM PST by GermanBusiness (Buy from Danish Food Dot Net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GermanBusiness

It's hard to say. I hope he'd vote in favor of the constitution's 1st Amendment, but until the case is decided, it's hard to know if he - or anyone else on the court - would contort himself until he finds a way to give more power to the feds.


30 posted on 02/14/2006 6:37:56 AM PST by seacapn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dakine

Don't be so smug. We're talking about the 99% of American males who just lost their right to say hi to someone.


31 posted on 02/14/2006 6:44:16 AM PST by GermanBusiness (Buy from Danish Food Dot Net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Why limit these "protections" to foriegn women. American women are just as entitled to protection from American men as foriegn women are. I think all of the myriad introduction services (E-Harmony, etc.) should be required by law to acquire the police records, etc. from each of their male clients before any introductions.

Not.


32 posted on 02/14/2006 6:46:30 AM PST by Lucas McCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GermanBusiness

"This sounds sick. And yet the President signed the law happily because it was tucked inside another law and because, apparently, Republicans don't care about the rights of single males."

Correction, the Government doesn't care about the rights of males, period.

I'll change my mind when we gain the right to demand our children NOT be aborted without our consent.


33 posted on 02/14/2006 6:48:51 AM PST by Pravious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lucas McCain

And stupid American women will continue to marry men from the Middle East so they can get American citizenship.


34 posted on 02/14/2006 6:49:51 AM PST by massgopguy (massgopguy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: joebuck
If the matchmaking service is based in a foriegn country, how can this law be enforced against them?

It can't of course.
The introduction service will still collect their fee.
What will happen is the couple will be hassled by our government for not Kissing Government butt.
They'll just deny the Visa.

35 posted on 02/14/2006 6:50:25 AM PST by ASA Vet (Those who know don't talk, those who talk don't know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GermanBusiness

What a rediculous thing to legislate. Perhaps Washington State should ask itself how this 'male' was able to do this 'twice' and not pass more laws because we are not enforcing those already on the books.


36 posted on 02/14/2006 6:50:51 AM PST by AgThorn (Bush is my president, but he needs to protect our borders. FIRST, before any talk of "Amnesty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

Marrying an American citizen does not bestow American citizenship on a spouse. The only effect is shortening the time needed for the legal alien to apply.


37 posted on 02/14/2006 6:52:32 AM PST by ASA Vet (Those who know don't talk, those who talk don't know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
"Garbage, it's a modern day slave trade but pathetic men get laid and the slave traders get paid."


Nonsense I have one close friend and two acquaintances who have gone offshore for wives. All of them have been very happily married for several years.

How is the Internet introduction services any different than lets say... a Christian matchmaking service?
or even Yahoo personals for that matter?
38 posted on 02/14/2006 6:52:59 AM PST by taxed2death (A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #39 Removed by Moderator

To: GermanBusiness

But how could we possibly do anything without the government's help? Republicans and Democrats have taught us that we need nanny statism intruding into every aspect of our lives. I find it odd that anyone who voted for one of these parties is shocked at this level of statism. I mean, that's what you purchased. It's what was promised, and now they are delivering it. And when you vote Republican or Democrat in 2006 and 2008, you will recieve more of the same.


40 posted on 02/14/2006 6:58:07 AM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jv1

I'm lost. I fail to see your point.


41 posted on 02/14/2006 7:00:56 AM PST by taxed2death (A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn

By the way, it isn't the male who would get in trouble with the law. Someone just mentioned that the male would only fall into trouble if he ever applied for a fiance visa and he or his fiance was stupid enough to say they met via a non-complying service.

The Gestapo is unforgiving when it comes to regulating who an American man can marry.

We need to see some American-based services openly violating the law and DARING the jackasses in the government to come down on them. The biggest of them seems to be ready to comply however. They will do so by having a man fill out a one page form that would be submitted to s a foreign woman before she agrees to correspond. The problem with this, beyond the red tape delays that could take months for someone who only has an address but no email, is that it takes privacy away big time and makes American males look guilty until proven innocent. I don't know yet what info will be on the form. I am sure half the men will lie about their age on the form to begin with. You just can't take away privacy rights like this. It is BS.

Yet American males have shown the capacity in the past 30 years to really wimp out.


42 posted on 02/14/2006 7:05:10 AM PST by GermanBusiness (Buy from Danish Food Dot Net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: in hoc signo vinces
Mail order brides are, pretty much, always a bad idea.

Yeah, but after enough frustration for some guys, it's time to
"enlarge the eligible pool".
I've got four college friends...four foreign brides...
four marriages that have lasted over 20 years.

Maybe they were just unlucky enough to run into the buzz-saw of
the red-hot day of radical American feminism in the late 1970s-early 1980s,
but after enough abuse, they did what now looks like an very sane thing.
43 posted on 02/14/2006 7:05:57 AM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GermanBusiness
It really isn't any of your business.

In other words, a man might have all kinds of nefarious reasons for going through such an agency to 'meet' foreign women, and you don't want to talk about them.

If you don't want to turn over your police records (hmmmm. . .wonder why), then meet foreign women on your own, without using an agency.

44 posted on 02/14/2006 7:06:22 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mysterio
And when you vote Republican or Democrat in 2006 and 2008, you will receive more of the same.

Sad but true.

The major political parties are not at all concerned with protecting the rights affirmed to us in the Constitution.

For them, it's all about control. And this legislation is just another example of big brother tightening the screws.

45 posted on 02/14/2006 7:09:07 AM PST by Freebird Forever (Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: in hoc signo vinces

Bad Idea ? A friend of mine married a Russian woman. He was having trouble FINDING a nice Jewish girl: the ones he was meeting and/or dating just weren't working out. Out of sheer desperation he tried one of the "mail-order bride" outfits.

After 6 months, he found Irina: 2 months later, he went over to St. Petersburg to meet her. They were married 8 months later. That was 6 years ago.

I have no idea if Irina was a typical "mail order bride". But, she's a real sweetheart, utterly devoted to her new husband (she's a widow, her first husband was killed fighting Chechens, the guy was Speznaz. . . ). She's drop-dead gorgeous, a fantastic cook, and smart as a whip: she also speaks more languages than I do (I speak 3 other than English: he speaks English, Hebrew, and French, and has picked up Russian: SHE is fluent in English, German, French, and Japanese, plus some Hebrew and Arabic). They're both observant Jews (Conservative). . . and their little boy is 4, and they're expecting another in a few months.

I'd say he hit the jackpot.

BTW, parties at their place are rather interesting. Her cousin is apparentely a junior Military attache at the Russian Embassy, and also the guy who introduced her to her late husband. It's interesting to swap war stories with a Speznaz officer. . .all three of us have fought Muslims: him in Chechnya, and Abe and I during Desert Storm. . .


46 posted on 02/14/2006 7:09:47 AM PST by Salgak (Acme Lasers presents: The Energizer Border: I dare you to try and cross it. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
If you don't want to turn over your police records (hmmmm. . .wonder why), then meet foreign women on your own, without using an agency.

A man should be honest with a spouse-to-be. But it's not the place of the federal government to dictate the terms of the information exchange.

47 posted on 02/14/2006 7:14:37 AM PST by Freebird Forever (Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Salgak

Great story...but the benefits of marrying foreign women is not the issue here.

It is the right to be introduced by someone. It is the right to say hello.

This is basic. It is elemental.

Yet George Bush happily signed away that right for single males on January 6th. It comes into effect on March 6th.


48 posted on 02/14/2006 7:14:46 AM PST by GermanBusiness (Buy from Danish Food Dot Net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: GermanBusiness

ok...


49 posted on 02/14/2006 7:16:10 AM PST by dakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GermanBusiness

bump


50 posted on 02/14/2006 7:16:11 AM PST by lesser_satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-407 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson