Planet-Love.com Searchable Archives

i heard about these two proposed bills cooking in the WA. state gov.
one bill would require some extra type of criminal background checks on any WA. state resident guys getting a K-1 visa.
another bill would require some extra information be provided to any woman getting the k-1 visa, to a man living in wa. state..
i heard some of a radio interview of this Wa. state rep. who is working on this. she clearly had very little background info on the whole subject and it was really disgusting how she gave this whole false negative picture of the international marriage scene.    
a couple of years ago there was a murder of a new russian bride by the husband here so this has sparked these people to react.
washington state has had, or still has, the largest percentage of woman elected in the state goverment of any other usa state.
i have no idea if these bills will go very far into law, i have much doubt about that. but maybe they might just settle for a putting new tax or cost on it.

... in response to proposed Wa. state backgrd chks, posted by bradley on Jan 29, 2002

Dear Brent,

"BIG BROTHER" WANTS TO REGULATE YOUR PERSONAL LIFE!!!

We would like to bring to your attention an important matter that may
directly affect your life and freedoms as a US citizen, especially if you
are a resident of the state of Washington.

Currently in the Washington State Legislature there is a proposed bill #
6412. You may read this bill in its entirety by going to www.leg.wa.gov,
then select "Bill info", and on the following page enter 6412 in the
blank provided.

The digest on the bill reads:
========================================================
SB 6412 - DIGEST
Requires each international matchmaking organization doing
business in Washington state to disseminate to a recruit, upon
recruitment, state and federal background check information and
marital status information relating to any Washington state
resident about whom any information is provided to the recruit, in
the recruit's native language.
Provides that each Washington resident before receiving any
services from an international matchmaking organization shall
obtain from the state patrol and provide to the organization the
complete transcript of any background check information provided
pursuant to RCW 43.43.760 based on a submission of fingerprint
impressions and provided pursuant to RCW 43.43.838 and shall
provide to the organization information concerning the person's
current marital status.
Does not apply to a traditional matchmaking organization of a
religious nature that otherwise operates in compliance with the
laws of the countries of the recruits of such organization and the
laws of the United States nor to any organization that does not
charge a fee to any party for the service provided.
========================================================

Should this bill pass it would have wide spread affects on you and your
freedoms and rights to access information via the Internet. It would also
restrict companies such as European Connections, Yahoo, AOL, MSN,
and others to provide you with contact information of Foreign women
interested in serious relationships.

The implications and scenarios are far reaching and much too numerous to
mention in this letter. However, the very least fallout a consumer could
expect is a drastic increase in the cost of services supplied to Washington
residents, not to mention setting a dangerous precedent for other states to
follow. The bill as written would make the sale of address information
illegal in Washington until the client had provided marital and criminal
background information to the Internet company.  That information would
then have to be given to every woman the man contacted via the agency. The
address information that a company such as ours would normally supply to a
consumer for the price of a few pennies to the maximum of $9.00 per
address, would most certainly escalate as the cost of doing business in
Washington increases. This is assuming that such companies could function
as a business at all under the bill's proposed regulations, which is doubtful.

If the largely female sponsoring Senators of Washington State wish to
notify the potential brides of American men as to the marital and criminal
status of all Washington State American male citizens, we might suggest
that they seek to do so at the time of interview held at the US consulates
in the respective foreign countries. The INS already requires proof of
divorce in the required application forms and an additional form requiring
a criminal background check might seem reasonable.

To our knowledge there is currently no law that restricts the distinct
groups of divorced American men and Americans who have been convicted of a
crime, from marrying either in the US or abroad. We do not feel it is the
state or federal governments roll to suggest the appropriateness of
individuals falling under these headings to marry or not. At our last
recollection divorced men were not yet criminals and those convicted of a
crime, who have paid their debt to society were still entitled to the
rights of US citizens under the law and that includes the right to fall in
love and marry.

You may also want to read the article by Susanna Ray, published January 30,
2002 in the Everett Harold Newspaper for additional information:
http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/02/1/30/15093454.CFM

We would suggest at this time that any person having any voice in this
matter to contact any and all of the following members of the committee
that will soon be voting on this proposed legislation.

1. Sen. Jeanne Kohl/Wells  kohl_je@leg.wa.gov  (360)786-7670
2. Sen. Margarita Prentice  prentice_ma@leg.wa.gov  (360)786-7616
3. Sen. Shirley Winsley  winsley_sh@leg.wa.gov  (360)786-7654
4. Sen. Jeanine Long  long_je@leg.wa.gov  (360)786-7686
5. Sen. Karen Keiser  keiser_ka@leg.wa.gov  (360)786-7664
6. Sen. Jeri Costa  costa_je@leg.wa.gov  (360)786-7674
7. Sen. Don Benton  benton_do@leg.wa.gov  (360)786-7632
8. Sen. Alex Deccio  deccio_al@leg.wa.gov  (360)786-7626
9. Sen. Darlene Fairley  fairley_da@leg.wa.gov  (360)786-7662
10. Sen. Rosa Franklin  franklin_ro@leg.wa.gov  (360)786-7656
11. Sen. Harold Hochstatter hochstat_ha@leg.wa.gov  (360)786-7624
12. Sen. Jim Honeyford  honeyfor_ji@leg.wa.gov  (360)786-7684
13. Sen. Georgia Gardner  gardner_ge@leg.wa.gov  (360)786-7682
14. Sen. James West  west_ja@leg.wa.gov  (360)786-7610
15. Sen. Maryilyn Rasmussen  rasmusse_ma@leg.wa.gov  (360)786-7602
16. Sen. Debbie Regala  regala_de@leg.wa.gov  (360)786-7652
17. Sen. Karen Keiser  keiser_ka@leg.wa.gov  (360)786-7664

To see a complete list of Senators in Washington please click this
link: http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/members/default.htm

Sincerely,                            mailto:byron@russiantours.com
Preston Steckel
President/CEO

European Connection & Tours, Inc.
2308 Perimeter Park Dr.
Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30341
tel. (770)458-0909
fax (770)458-6222

... in response to Re: European Connections Sent me this 5 ..., posted by Clay on Jan 31, 2002

See, I told you that feminists think we are like slave masters buying these women. Trafficking is their code word for slavery.

Bubba

"I believe that the mail-order bride industry is a subset of the trafficking industry," said Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle. She quickly added that some men use the service legitimately to seek bona fide mates.

"We are the first state in the nation to address this problem legislatively," said Rep. Velma Veloria, D-Seattle. "It is the first step toward ending the modern day form of slavery."

"Had Anastasia King known that she was the second mail-order bride for Indle King, she may have thought twice," Veloria said during testimony in one of the hearings.

But correspondence between the couple before they married shows that Indle King had indeed told his bride-to-be about his previous marriage to another Russian woman. In addition, he had no prior felony convictions.

... in response to proposed Wa. state backgrd chks, posted by bradley on Jan 29, 2002

One of the things agencies are currently required to do by regulation (at least those operating in the US) is to inform the lady of her rights and responsibilities regarding immigration translated into her native language.  It describes her right to stay here under an abuse clause of she gets into an abusive relationship, and the penalties for immigration fraud.  We're also required to tell her that international matchmaking companies are unregulated. Seems a bit strange that there's a regulation requiring us to tell the female clients that we're unregulated, but true.  There's a $20,000 per incident fine for non-compliance, which would destroy someone financially for life with only a few ladies in the agency who were not informed.

I actually think it's a good thing to inform the ladies, but the obvious intention of the regulation was to go after the agencies.  If the goal was to make sure that the ladies are informed, it would be distributed to any woman entering the country on a fiancee or spousal visa by the INS.  That's the only way to be sure that they're all informed since there's many agencies operated by foreigners outside US jurisdiction.  They are not operating under US law and there's no requirement that they inform the ladies of anything.  The real intent was to go after agencies in my opinion.

I think this new proposal was talked about a few years ago and was a recommendation. I believe it was mentioned somewhere in the voluminous report to Congress (published here, you can see it by clicking on "INS Report" off the main message board page.)

I believe the intent of the regulations has been, and will continue to be, targeted towards eliminating the industry.  For those who operate free-lance without an agency, there will be no problems, but for anyone who relies on agencies to get them in contact with ladies interested in meeting Western men, they may have to go through only foreign owned agencies who are exempt from all these regulations in the future.  If the regulations succeed in putting US owned companies out of business it will have exactly the opposite effect of what they claim the intent is since the ladies will most likely either come through foreign owned agencies exempt from these regulations, or marry men who met them without the assistance of an agency.

If they really wanted to protect the ladies, these things should be done by the INS for ALL women entering the country through marriage.  They could make the man financially responsible for obtaining a background check and translating it.  The costs to generate the informational documents informing the ladies of their rights and responsibilities under immigration law would be small and would only add perhaps two more sheets of paper to an already large stack of paper work.  It would have virtually no financial impact on the INS.  Neither would background checks that had to be paid for by the person sponsering the lady.  But of course, protecting the ladies is not the real intent.  The real intent is to keep what many percieve as disgusting servitude based marriages from happening.

Find your lady in the next few years or it might become much more difficult to do in the future.

... in response to proposed Wa. state backgrd chks, posted by bradley on Jan 29, 2002

Never gonna happen. Immigration is a FEDERAL issuse, the states can lump it. With the feds already doing 400+ things the Constitution says are state things, what makes you think they are gonna let a state get by trying to do something that is SUPPOSSED to be federal?

... in response to proposed Wa. state backgrd chks, posted by bradley on Jan 29, 2002

The country (maybe world) would be much better off with fewer women in politics and in corporate management??

Well - that's my political incorrectness for the year --smile--.

- dan

... in response to Is It Just Me - Or Are There Others That..., posted by Dan on Jan 29, 2002

No, not just you.

... in response to Is It Just Me - Or Are There Others That..., posted by Dan on Jan 29, 2002

I have seen some capable women managers but it seems to me a lot of women get a complete pass when it comes to work performance.  A girl that is nice looking doesn't seem to have to put out much work at all.  Guys are really scrutinized more closely.  I like even fewer women politicians.

... in response to Is It Just Me - Or Are There Others That..., posted by Dan on Jan 29, 2002

Got my vote.

... in response to Is It Just Me - Or Are There Others That..., posted by Dan on Jan 29, 2002

A very intelligent well informed lady I know told me that history repeats itself. It was interesting to me that such comments as you will read would come from a woman and not a man. First of all this lady intellectually ranks probably in the top 5% regardless of sex and does not resent being a woman. She is very self confident.

Every nation, country etc that makes the shift of having women move into politics and government ultimately dies or goes through great disruption.

She said that for what ever reason - if you want a country to enter a decline - follow history and move women into positions of power. She cited several examples that I have now forgotten - that was ten years ago.

Now, women would say I am a chauvinistic pig for saying this. I am sorry but men and women are different and it very well could be that women as a whole are not suited for that type of work relative to men. Of course there are always exceptions such as men that would screw things up more than some women and of course there would be those that would focus on a specific to argue a general - of course that would be women in this case.

Women are superior to men in some ways and men superior to women in others. It seems that many women want to be superior in what men are but is it not interesting that few men want to be superior to women in areas that they excel over men.

... in response to You can not fool mother  nature............, posted by thesearch on Jan 30, 2002


Your thoughts mirror a recent post of mine.

http://www.planet-love.com/wwwboard/asian/messages/29181.html

-- Jeff S.

... in response to Is It Just Me - Or Are There Others That..., posted by Dan on Jan 29, 2002

.