It's getting serious...

[Gary Bala]

[This message has been edited by Gary Bala]

The International Marriage Brokers proposed law is getting closer to reality.

On October 04, 2005, the U.S. Senate PASSED the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 Renewal by "unanimous consent", which includes the full version of the International Marriage Brokers provisions.
SEE: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.01197:

The U.S. House PASSED the Violence Against Women Act renewal on Sept. 28, 2005(under H.R. 3402 Dept. of Justice appropriations bill), re-authorizing VAWA until 2009. The vote was 415 to 4.
SEE: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.03402:
(The House version did NOT contain the International Marriage Brokers bill but was watered down to include only a directive that Immigration and State Dept. provide a brochure to each lady at visa interview at Embassy about domestic violence rights and "help" options.)

**Important: The House version does include a provision called the King Amendment [Rep. Steve King (R.-IA)] which says that U.S. citizens who are convicted of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, trafficking, elder abuse, or dating violence cannot sponsor a person on an immigration visa, such as fiancee visa, or residency.)

Please keep the push on to defeat the International Marriage Brokers proposed law in the Senate version. Contact your lawmakers, senators and Congressmen and women.

You can reach the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.

The two versions of the law will be re-conciled in a joint conference committee and then voted again by both houses and, whatever final version emerges, is expected to be signed quickly by the President.

Time is short to express our views to our lawmakers.

GB

[Ray]

... in response to It's getting serious..., posted by Gary Bala on Oct 6, 2005

Thanks for the info.

“Contact your lawmakers, senators and Congressmen and women”. Since my federal elected representatives are Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and Bob Filner, I think it would be a waste of time contacting those idiots because they are hopelessly in the toilet already :-)

Gary, do you think these provisions requiring disclosure of damaging personal data just to correspond with someone overseas will stand up to legal challenges? Do you think the King Amendment violates the civil rights of those convicted long ago who have had their civil rights restored? How about equal protection for those wishing to marry overseas as compared to those marrying a fat American lesbian?

It sure looks like the intent of these laws is to prevent men from marrying foreign nationals while there are no such restrictions on marrying local women. How can they legally place those men in a separate class? Are there any restriction on women marrying or petitioning foreign men?

Thanks,

Ray

[Gary Bala]

... in response to Re: It's getting serious..., posted by Ray on Oct 7, 2005

[This message has been edited by Gary Bala]

Thanks, Ray.

You are quite right that the International Marriage Brokers bill, if passed, is open to various legal challenges (constitutional and otherwise), and will probably be tested for validity in the courts. (One recent problem though is that the federal judiciary is increasingly conservative and, in general, less prone to judicial activism and striking down legislation than in the past.)

I think that some of the best consitutional arguments against the bill are the equal protection argument (similarly-situated U.S. citizen men are treated differently without substantial reason, i.e. men seeking foreign brides vs. domestic ladies), the over-broad argument (the King Amendment not allowing for any mitigating circumstances, and lumping in men with very old convictions for Class C misdemeanors long-ago satisfied and rights restored, with men with recent serious felony convictions for violence), and the "chilling" of U.S. citizen men's free speech and free association rights, especially in light of the immigration principle of family re-unification.

At any rate, after I have a better opportunity to research the issues, I plan to work up an office Press Release summarizing the arguments against the bill, and make it available to the media. Some of these arguments can be brought to light now, in advance of any final vote in Congress, and perhaps it may cause some in Congress to slow down and pause or even modify the more "offensive" parts of the bill before any final passage.  

Regards,
GB

For anyone interested:
PS#1 Later this month, I plan to visit and tour the National Visa Center (NVC) with a group from AILA (American Immigration Lawyers Assn.). If anyone has any questions they want us to consider posing to the NVC Director and staff, let us know.

PS #2 I also plan to visit Cali, Colombia for 2 weeks over Thanksgiving  Holidays. In case someone wants to reach me, my Colombia Cell is: 315-416-2746.