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?
Your euphemism for, I must prove that I'm not a child rapist or murder before I can use an Introduction agency to communicate with whomever I will.
Further my position is influenced by having seen several examples of creeps that shouldn't even be allowed near a computer involved.
Legislation by anecdote. The MO of fools and tyrants.
This legislation with make that harder, it will also put American agencies that cater to these individuals working to hide their motives and identity out of business.
It will accomplish nothing but to give men like you and your feminazi cohorts an excuse to further denigrate men and infringe on their basic Constitutional right of free association, for no other reason than to make you feel morally superior.
That can and is being made the law and is perfectly inline with existing consumer protection laws.
Go whine about how you can't smuggler foreigners over open borders and into your basement on DU.
[If he doesn't like it he can use an escort service or his own darned mouth or phone.]
But the women who want marriage are so much more attractive than the awful looking whores. Better to seduce someone who wants marriage. ;-)
We are talking about federal legislation here. If an agency wants to extract a promise from their male clients that they are, in fact, really seeking marriage that is great. A number of agencies actually do this...but they also collect huge fees for the privelege...which makes me wonder if the agency really cares if the client really, really does want marriage. I would never pay more than $30 for an introduction to someone.
You are getting scary regarding the rights you want to take away from males...not to mention possibly fusing religion with politics like an Islamist.
You have certainly demonstrated to all here that you are a man with something to hide and something to prove, and willing to do so at the expense of the freedoms of others.
What are YOU trying to hide behind your morally superior facade?
Why limit the scope to foreign women? If the Federal Wackos can find Constitutional authority to regulate Courtship with foreign peoples, can there be less authority between the constituent States? Why not a Federal Department of Courtship, Dating and Marriage, that prescribes "rules of engagement." Surely, this President would sign a Bill that set up such a Department, which could then promulgate in the Code of Federal Regulations, specific dating and Courtship rules for all Americans, in every situation.
Perhaps, it could be required that any American man who wants to go out with a woman must have certain warnings tatooed on his chest--perhaps with the telephone number of a Federal Agency, which any offended gal could call to obtain prompt intervention. (That would only be marginally more nutty than the elaborate regulations, in place now, governing what is supposed to be posted at places of employment.)
Such regulations might give some of the dear hearts in NOW their first true orgasms.
On the other hand. . .
If the company wants to require such disclosure, they can. If the "gentleman" wants to try to move on to other services as a result, he is free to do that as well.
It's called Freedom. It actually works! You don't actually need to have government making insipid laws with far-reaching and catastrophic unintended consequences in response to every wrong that a human commits. Just an FYI.
You seem to be eager to invite a system whereby government prevents crimes before they have a chance to happen. It's called totalitarianism. Picture a boot on a person's face for a thousand years, and all that. Read some good sci-fi for intelligent foresight, or read some history books on some regrettable hindsight on the theory.
[That can and is being made the law and is perfectly inline with existing consumer protection laws.]
How many times do we have to tell you that the new law has nothing to do with a man proving to anybody that he is willing and able to marry?
This is your crusade. The feminists just want the agencies shut down permanently so the American males have no choice but to wallow in the anti-social mire the feminists create for them in American cities.
The new form is a piece of bureaucratic nonsense. It is a time-consuming tool by which Senator Maria Cantwell (a Democrat) wants to put agencies out of business. They are spending a lot of money to readjust for this law...but most of the money is going to lawyers for a quick strike down. The gist of the strikedown:
1) Match.com and Yahoo have to be put under the same draconian rule immediately or this is unfair. There are a lot of foreign women on Match.com but Match.com had lobbyists in Washington who got them loopholed. Not fair.
2) The law has to apply to introductions to American women as well.
3) Foreign women can be male scammers. Private info on clients should not be sent to them before rapport has been established in person.
I can go on.
I just got an email from the President of the largest American marriage agency.
He said the fight is going to be massive, that the legislatures have no idea what they just did and thank God we have the judicial branch to stop the legislators.
I think this has far more to do with killing the broker business. I bet if you look deeper you will see this is related to those anti-EMigration forces out of the former soviet block countries.
I know a couple that met via "mail order" and are still married.
This will do NOTHING for online dating services since there is no "broker" invovled.
I think the issue in the USA is literally competition for feminist women who are in denial that NORMAL men have no interest in anything leftist or feminist.
The Congress critters really jumped the shark with this legislation.
This whole topic is a mixed bag. Personally, I think the government should butt out. A reputable marriage agency would already require that sort of info and Russian women are smart and savy enough to find the reputable ones. If they're not on a reputable agency site chances are that's for a reason - so "buyer" beware.
Secondly, there is a myth that Russian girlfriends cannot receive visas to come for a visit. That is not correct. While the visa denial rate is high, it has nothing to do with whether the girl is your girlfriend or not. It has all to do with whether or not she has enough reasons to return (bank account, apartment, good job, children, parents, etc.). Plus, a lot of the American boyfriends either don't write a good enough support letter (stating they will ensure she returns home at the end of her stay and stating that they will bear all expenses for her) or don't write one at all. Long before I got married I was able to help Russian girlfriends get tourist visas - but they all met the above qualifications. And, don't forget, if the American boyfriend hasn't actually met his "girlfriend" and she doesn't have a job or other ties to the motherland she ain't gonna get the visa.
Marriage Agencies - I've seen a lot of them in action in my travels throughout the FSU and what I've seen disgusts me. Sixty or seventy year old guys after the twentysomethings (or younger). They should know that the girl is just looking for a way out and the girl should know they're dealing with a pervert. However, I've seen some men searching for a bride after beind discouraged about American women's apparent preference to put career first and family second. A Russian woman won't do that.
The other bad thing about the marriage agencies is almost all of them sell their database to other agencies. Sometimes girls are listed on multiple sites when they only signed up for one. Some of these girls have ended up on "blacklists" because unscrupulous agencies have had someone else pretend to be them and bilk stupid foreigners out of money with the sick mother, ill son, etc., sob stories. Personally, I have no sympathy for anyone dumb enough to fall for those stories.
Another myth is the criminal background check the US Embassy requires. Anyone with any time in Russia knows that all it takes is a little cash to get a clean report. I'd be willing to bet good $$$$ that a lot of prostitutes have managed to slip through the system. So, the American man following the new rules is actually at a disadvantage because he's not having a credible background check done on his "love." Best thing to do is go over there on your own. Meet her friends, her parents, see her in her element. If warning bells ring in your head heed them.
"she realized I had fudged about my age when we met at a McDonalds (actually European women don't ask a man's age on the first date)."
McDonald's? You're not exactly Diamond Jim Brady on the first date, are you? :)
Does the law ONLY apply to men?
If so then it is going to fall. (ala old domestic violence laws which where gender specific)
... chuckle ....
You know what :-)))
["she realized I had fudged about my age when we met at a McDonalds (actually European women don't ask a man's age on the first date)."
McDonald's? You're not exactly Diamond Jim Brady on the first date, are you? :)]
No, I met her there by accident. She had popped in for an ice cream with a friend and the rest is history. :-)
Our first date was a walk along the canals in the Midnight Sunshine.
There are many reasons why this childish law is going to be struck down by the judicial branch:
1) Match.com and Yahoo have to be put under the same draconian rule immediately or this is unfair. There are a lot of foreign women on Match.com but Match.com had lobbyists in Washington who got them loopholed. Not fair. The foreign women must be taken off Match.com and Yahoo immediately or the draconian form process immediately implemented.
2) The law has to apply to introductions to American women as well. It must. Or it must be thrown out. There must be a statute of fairness in our legal system that covers this.
3) Foreign women can be male scammers. Private info on clients should not be sent to them before rapport has been established in person. Men will not want their last names going by snail mail to rural Russia where who knows who will be reading the name and all the states the client said he lived in.
Are you talking about illegal aliens?
Tell us how they get here friend?
If you don't like the original post, then tell your version of the story in a blog.
I don't think the government should stay out of it at this point.
I think there is a very real security risk involved. While there's tons of highly educated Europeon looking women in Russia, there's also a fair amount of Muslims, and Jihadist who could exploit the system, and probably do.
Also, what I've heard and seen of agencies, even reputable agencies, leads me to beleive the girl doesn't have a lot of say in things, or any sort of clear picture of the man before he arrives, if he arrives. I don't think this legislation is a perfect solution to either the security or information gap problem. But I don't think it's some sort of demogogery stealing away rights. Any man who wants to fly to Russia and pay an interpreter to meet women can (and I'm of the opinion if they can't do that they shouldn't be pondering marrying one). Further this law doesn't affect foreign owned sites, though many are complying anyway out of an interest in giving their female clients this knowledge. I think a lot of folks are making a mountain out of a mole hill with respect to this law.
I think there are legitimate folks using these agencies to find a wife because they are disenfranchised with American feminists, but I cna't fathom a reason they'd be against sharing such information with a would be suitor.
My wife's friend who used an agency to meet her british husband is still on blacklist sites after a rogue agency stole her information. She was very worried going into the interview whether the government looked at those sites when giving the visa interview.
As far as the background check I was under the impression that the US government requested this and that it is relatively difficult to forge. I should HOPE we have folks scruitinizing these to find forgeries. Also I seem to recall that the government runs another check on both parties when they apply for adjustment of status.
I still think this legislation is ho hum and not something to be alarmed about, though something that would probably be more effective if gone about differently (perhaps an online tool to access detailed translated public records such as sex offended convictions etc, though God only knows what agencies would charge to let women use this tool and how much that would cost).
Any site purporting to offer marriage broker services should be adhering to this law. Match.com doesn't promise marrige or even long term commitment exclusively, it's definitly unfair though if they are wholesale exempted not to mention defeating the who point of the legislation.
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.