Skip to comments.Federal judge to determine International Marriage Regulations Act soon
Posted on 04/22/2006 10:18:11 AM PDT by flusman
A Federal Judge in Atlanta Georgia will soon determine the outcome of the International Marriage Broker Regulation Marriage act of 2005. (IMBRA). The law was passed by Congress on Dec. 17, 2005 and signed by the president on Jan. 5, 2006. Before the law was scheduled to be enacted on March 6, 2006 a Federal Judge in Atlanta issued a Temporary Restraining Order. A hearing was held including April 3, 2006 with the plaintiffs (European Connections and Tours)and defendants (The Attorney General)presenting Testimony. A decision is expected by the Federal judge the week of April 24, 2006.
The laws provisions required extensive criminal and personal information to be submitted to Immigration officials for a variety of crimes with no distinction regarding the nature of the crime or whether or not there was a conviction. The law also regulated International marriage agencies requiring them to perform background checks on clients before American men could write love letters to foreign women.
When IMBRA was originally introduced in 2003 the proponents were unable to attract legislative support for a law seen as a gross violation of mens privacy and Constitutional rights . Many people have asserted that leading proponent Maria Cantwell was so desperate to pass IMBRA she presented false and misleading testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 14, 2004. Cantrell claimed International marriage agencies were the Nexis for human trafficking of women into the United States even though she was aware of an US Immigration report indicating no such correlation existed.
Still unable to attract support for this law the proponents then attached the tiny IMBRA onto the back end of the Violence Against Womens Act (VAWA) up for an extension vote and expected to pass easily. The IMBRA (attached to the backend of the VAWA) was hurriedly passed by unanimous vote on December 17, 2005 so law makers could return for Christmas holidays. Many lawmakers did not read the IMBRA portion attached to the VAWA.
When the law was passed there were no hearing, no questions answered and no statistics comparing violence rates of domestic USA marriages versus International marriages.
The stated purpose of the law was to protect foreign immigrant women from violence stemming from a few unfortunate cases of domestic violence. The proponents claimed that foreign immigrant women who had met their husbands through International marriage agencies were increasingly being abused. The proponents however presented misleading and deceptive factual and statistical information. Layli Miller - Muro one of the leading proponents representing the Tahirih Justice Center recently was a panelist on the OReilly factor TV program. When asked what percent age of these International marriages would be in abusive situations Miller- Muro stated, We have no way of definitive way of knowing.
Soon there will be no way to find a woman untainted by the constant drone of feminist mind-f%^$.
More police state law. More bad law. All because of one single incident with one person.