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?
I sent this to the White House:
Dear President Bush and VP Cheney,
I worked on your campaign in 2004 and contributed a lot of money. I have supported you every day on FreeRepublic.com and on left wing web sites. When Democrat males decried the Patriot Act and Wiretapping...I looked down on them as traitorous wimps.
Until last night.
Now I've learned that you signed a law (the IMBA) on January 6th that requires American males to fill out degrading paperwork (that Canadian men and other men in this world don't have to fill out) in order to be introduced to foreign women (like German women).
Do you have any idea that you signed such a law? If so, what were you thinking? It was stuck inside the socalled "Violence Against Women Act" after it failed to pass through Congress on its own.
Do you think that American males would not notice this? Would you have tried signing this law before the 2004 elections? I guarantee you that I would have personally pulled a million male voters away from you in 2004 if you had tried to sign this back then.
Please read the following thread at FreeRepublic to understand that almost all Republican males will agree with almost all Democrat males that this law is garbage and an outrage:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1578188/posts?page=1,50
This is where Democrat males and Republican males completely agree.
Feminazis like Maria Cantwell say that this law is to protect future Anastasia Kings, referring to the Russian bride who was killed by her American husband. But do you have any idea how many American men have been killed in Russia and the Ukraine recently? More than 12,000 American men marry foreign women per year...so what? 2 murders in 10 years? And your point is?
So American men are now second class citizens in this world because Idle King murdered his wife Anastasia? Why did Maria Cantwell not ask, after the OJ murders, that black men fill out paperwork on their criminal backgrounds when they want to meet white women? I live in Germany: does my President have to make me a second class citizen over here by requiring German dating websites to make me, as an American, fill out degrading paperwork?
And when are you planning to sign a law that requires background checks for all American men who want to meet American women on Match.com and Yahoo?
Maybe soon a Bush Family member (your brother perhaps) will be president and sign a law requiring American men to carry approved dating cards telling women that they have no criminal records and no restraining order was ever placed on them. You are heading in that direction. Do you think you have male support on this?
And also: why did the law you signed exclude Match and Yahoo who also introduce American men to non-American women? I here lobbyists got the clause in the law that said only agencies that do the majority of their business with foreign women must comply with the law that subjects American men to government meddling in their personal lives.
Please be aware that this is the kind of issue than can trump the war on terror. You are either with us or against us on this issue.
Please tell me that you signed this law in order for it to go straight to the courts and be struck down. I guarantee you that this law will be openly broken on the day it comes into effect. Hopefully, the courts will take this on pronto. Please help this happen. Please fix your mistake.
[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)]
No. The three biggest agencies are in Arizona, Hawaii and Georgia and they are staying put with an army of lawyers to get this struck down in the courts ASAP.
Politicians couldn't dent the porn industry because the courts protected that. They are not going to get away with trying to destroy a legitimate industry that gives American men choice in their marriage partners.
Keep in mind that Senator Cantwell openly stated to the agencies that she intended to shut them down with this.
American males may want to concentrate on getting Senator Cantwell unelected in November. Democrat males are with us on this.
But which senators voted for this? How did they let this slip through? What backroom deals were made?
You vastly overestimate the liberal democratic male's concern over even his own personal freedom. Liberals worship government and hate loath and detest even the slightest vestige of freedom. The more government intrudes into peoples' lives they better they like it. This applies to liberal males as well as females.
Call me names if you want but I know better. My wife and our roomate conduct workshops to help these women. That's hundreds per year in Detroit alone and there are God know how many who never get help.
BTW you might take a long look at the original posters story because he can't seem to keep that straight either. Very interesting for a newbie.
[The more government intrudes into peoples' lives they better they like it. This applies to liberal males as well as females.]
Male voting patterns fluctuate.
As a New Yorker, I have a more sanguine view of a lot of liberal males. For instance, I agreed with them when Bush went to that weird school where dating wasn't allowed in the 2000 campaign.
And I agree with them about the President's Adult Abstinence Programs using taxpayer funds.
I am referring to the kind of tough, alpha-male liberals who may have voted against Bush because the male likes premarital sex and doesn't like Holy Rollers.
I didn't vote for anyone in 2000 because of the Bob Jones University visit by George Bush.
And I voted for Clinton in 96 because of his anti-smoking crusade (which I still see as a matter of protecting employees and customers from a very real nuisance as opposed to the fake nuisance that American males supposedly are for meeting foreign women).
I seriously disagree with many liberal males on Iraq and the Wiretapping...but remember that 15% of liberals are with the President on Iraq and 17% of FReepers are against the President on Iraq. There is a lot of crossover there.
The liberal males made pornography stick as a first amendment right. They now have porn as the main Internet business in terms of revenue (10 times more than the next biggest Internet industry). They aren't going to let a law stand that regulates meeting real women on the Internet, regardless of whether it is innocent marriage services or actual hooker websites.
For this reason, I hate to say it, but I trust the stronger liberal males (as opposed to homo-wannabes) to take this farther than FReepers...to protect my right to be free of government when just innocently hoping to meet someone nice to talk with.
But I agree that more men like CrippleCreek would exist in the liberal camp: the metrosexuals with no balls who would slither on their bellies to support man-hating feminists.
WHY.
You know, not even Russia was this 'in everyone's business'.
I fully expect that the FedGuv will be wanting paperwork when any man is introduced to ANY woman -- foreign or domestic.
We beat the Soviet Union, then we became them.
The goal: Wherever you are, whatever you do, that you be branded a criminal.
Ayn Rand was a visionary.
Expect more of the same until we are all mandated to wear RFID collars.
[That's hundreds per year in Detroit alone and there are God know how many who never get help.]
Quite frankly, I don't give a damn if Detroit males are a bunch of rejects or not.
It is none of the government's God-damned business to be making me a second class citizen in comparison with males from other countries who don't have feminazis clamping sick laws down on them.
Take your beef to the United Nations if you want "justice".
Get the UN to regulate the Internet for you.
I am sure you will remain very welcome on FR.
[I fully expect that the FedGuv will be wanting paperwork when any man is introduced to ANY woman -- foreign or domestic.
We beat the Soviet Union, then we became them.]
You know that is next on the agenda. Remember that Yahoo and Match.com had to lobby Congress to be excluded from this bill (unconstitutional exclusion criteria - pure payola).
I will have to admit that Nazi Germany was somewhat worse. German men could be executed for dating Russian or Polish women. It went against the Nuremburg Race Laws.
But the Democrats and their Bush Family allies are working on it: if you are white and male and American...that is a race that apparently shouldn't mix with others.
I cannot get my girlfriend in St. Petersburg to come to Germany or the USA for a visit...without applying for a fiance visa...for a 90 day visit mind you.
That is direct State Department intervention in my happiness. Nothing new here.
How so? It seems to be aimed at a for-profit business rather than individuals.
"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.
I'll agree it's a stupid law but it doesn't sound as bad as it is being made out to be.
[Remember that Yahoo and Match.com had to lobby Congress to be excluded from this bill (unconstitutional exclusion criteria - pure payola).]
Let me clear about this. It wasn't direct bribery to Democrat Washington Senator Maria Cantwell and other Congresspeople that got Match.com and Yahoo off the hook. The feminazi Maria Cantwell was warned big-time by Yahoo and Match after which she agreed that her main hatred was for the websites that specialized in foreign women. So she decided to try to destroy these companies first (telling them in no uncertain terms that her plan was to destroy them).
But Match and Yahoo and other dating sites will see regulation soon if the courts don't strike this down and American males just roll over and let their thingies get cut off.
My wife is from the Philippines. There are many introduction agencies for Philippine women, but I met mine through her cousin, whom I have known for years. When I went to the Philippines to meet her in Oct 2004, I did not want to come back here. The visa process was frustrating, but worked. I am struggling to learn to speak her language, but I am enjoying it. Even better, she is a die hard football/baseball/ice hockey fan.
Jeeeeeeeezzzzzz...it's a metaphor Gary, relax.
This article deals with marriage brokers...I am sure you met your wife under different circumstances.
So are you saying you have a criminal record?
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.