Planet-Love.com Searchable Archives

http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=1&aid=D7S3GJK80_story

... in response to The Beginning, posted by Dingo on Jul 5, 2003

is the primary sponsor of the bill.. Maria (buy my seat in congress) C*ntwell.

What a waste of time.  I'm still trying to figure out how these agencies are going to arrange my marriage for me.

...'200 international matchmaking services operated in the United States, arranging 4,000 to 6,000 marriages annually between American men and foreign women, mostly from the Philippines and former Soviet Union....'

Yeah Right!

(And nobody does anything about LeRoy beatin' up his ol'lady Twana in his mobile home in Alabama).

... in response to The Beginning, posted by Dingo on Jul 5, 2003

Hey Dingo,

I thought it was the big mean “White Republicans” who were trying to keep our wives and fiancées out. So, how do you explain the fact that both of these bozos are Democrats??? ROTFLMAOTNTPIMP!

In principle, the idea has some merit, but it will never work the way they describe it.

If the agencies selling addresses are required to ask for your criminal record and give it to any woman “contemplating marriage” to you (meaning every freaking woman in their database?), the agencies will be out of business overnight, which is obviously the hidden agenda of the proposed legislation.

The idea of running a criminal background check on the petitioner at the time he applies for a visa “may” work if implemented very carefully. There should be ‘some’ way for these foreign ladies to check the background of the men before they come over like we check the foreigner’s background before giving them a visa.

Oh, and the “lady” from NOW can kiss my big hairy butt! A lot of that article was nothing more than a poorly disguised feminist, man-hating tirade.

Ray

... in response to Re: The Beginning, posted by Ray on Jul 5, 2003

Ray,
These "Feminazi" Democrats are just one "more" group
of people who will try to put an end to the M.O.B.
"Penpal" industry as we know it.
Here is another Feminazi "Democrat" who is feeding the flame.
Notice the flattering hair style. She just can't understand
why all these American men are going to the Philippines and Russia
looking for a wife when beautiful Filipina's like her
are right here for the taking in the good ole' USA.....LOL

http://www.leg.wa.gov/house/members/d11_2.htm
Has anyone seen my cereal bowl ?

Here is her/their "Agenda"

http://www.sdc.wa.gov/Releases/Kohl-Welles/2002%20archive/mailorderoped.htm

Hopefully all of this will be found "Unconstitutional" as
men here in the US are NOT required to disclose financial
and and criminal information to perspective American wives
here in the US an vice versa.

Furthermore who is going to PAY for these "Investigations"?
The Petitioner of coures.
How much time will all this investigating add to the
wait time?

I guess Veloria and others like her are hoping that
the "men" will tire of the wait and succumb to the
feminist charm.

Have a great weekend what's left of it.

Cheers
Dingo

... in response to Re: Re: The Beginning, posted by Dingo on Jul 6, 2003

You have to remember there is no "succumbing to the feminist charm".  These women don't need men in any capacity.

... in response to Re: Re: The Beginning, posted by Dingo on Jul 6, 2003

ROTGDFLMFAOTAHAIPCNTPAOMS!

... in response to Re: The Beginning, posted by Ray on Jul 5, 2003

Noticed that, did you Ray? I did too. Did you notice that they are both from Washington, which already has a state law to the same effect? Sounds real good (in a liberal sort of way) to 'protect' people....wonder if they also want to 'protect' the US citizen (usually a man) from false claims of abuse as well? Naaah, men don't get any protection from the guvment.

OTOH, I read just this morning on another board about a guy's fiance going to her interview in Moscow. She did alright, but said that one of the ladies she was sharing the waiting room with left in tears (and WITHOUT the visa) when she found out for the first time that her fiance had 3 divorces and several children. I think a fair solution would be to check out the US sponsor when he applies for the visa and notify the potential foreign spouse of the results (in her native language and make her sign that she received it, using what ever her country's equlivent to certified mail is) something like:

Dear Ms. Savletiva Pavlickinko, as you know, Mr. Fred Jones has applied to sponsor you for a K-1 (fiancee) visa to the United States. United States law requires that a background check of the sponsoring US citizen be conducted and the foreign bennificary be notified of the results. The investigation shall include: all prior marriages; all prior K-1 sponsorships; all children; child support orders (including time or duration, amount and status); criminal history; and spousal or child related protective orders. Our background check reveleved that Mr. Jones was married to Ms. Kathy Brown (native US citizen, dob 08/27/1970) on 01/07/1990 and that the marriage ended in divorce on the grounds of 'mutual incompabatilibity' on 05/15/1992. This marriage resulted in one child, a boy, dob 02/17/1991. Mr. Jones is currently under a court order to pay child support in the amount of $600US per month until 02/17/2009. Mr. Jones is current in this obligation. Mr. Jones has has never sponsored any person (except yourself) for a K-1 visa, Mr. Jones has no criminal record, Mr. Jones has never been the subject of a child or spousal protective order.

Now, this would (IMHO) be the right way to do things. It doesn't place the burden of 'tell EVERY woman in your catalog everything about EVERY man who subscribes' (something impossible to enforce anyway), but does protect the foreign fiancee. If the guy has been upfront with the woman, she already knows all this and doesn't care (or at least feels that his good points are 'worth it'), if she doesn't know, she'll probably drop him for lying to her, if she didn't know but still wants him (particulary if the investigation revels 3 or 4 past marriages and/or a serious criminal history) then she's a fool....but of course actualy 'protecting' the foreign fiance is the farest thing from NOW's agenda.

... in response to Re: Re: The Beginning, posted by Michael B on Jul 5, 2003

They do sorta have this in requiring your divorce papers to prove you are able to marry.I do not think that is a good idea to require marriage background checks.People have a right to their privacy.I believe, the things we have to prove, and forms we have to fill out are bad enough.How many people do you think would like it if they had to go through this process to marry a woman here in the states?

My thinking may be a little idealistic,but the right to marry who you want is a natural right.Not a government gift.
I believe the gov alredy has to much say.Protecting the ladies is a good thing.Bob L.,who runs asawa forum, had a very good idea.Putting together an area specific packet, that included emergency numbers, filipino community centers,
points of interest, and what to do in case of emergency. This would cover the protection idea without treating the petitioner as a criminal. Something sidelined the project(not sure what).

... in response to Re: Re: The Beginning, posted by Michael B on Jul 5, 2003

You have to wonder where some activists’ heads are.  Yesterday I went to the Miami Seaquarium and outside there were 10 to 15 animal rights protestors with signs saying you shouldn’t buy a ticket.  One protestor even briefly stepped in front of my car in an attempt to deny me access.  The Miami Seaquarium isn’t the most up to date facility, but the animals seem well taken care of and I couldn’t quite see what they were protesting.  While ideally you might prefer they not be in captivity, the reality of the situation is that most of the animals will have a far better life than they would have in the wild.  In fact many of them were wild animals that had been hit by boats and lost their tail or an appendage or two and wouldn’t even survive in the wild.  And if you were to eliminate zoos and places like the Seaquarium, where exactly would children learn about animals?  In books?  While there has to be a balance struck between the public service a place like a zoo provides and the impositions on the animal’s quality of life, I don’t think that balance is to eliminate them entirely.

Likewise, there are some areas of the MOB process that could be improved but if you listen to some legislators they don’t want to improve it, they want to cripple it until it goes out of business.  As pointed out by others that appears to be the point of this legislation.

... in response to Re: Re: The Beginning, posted by Michael B on Jul 5, 2003

Yes, the ladies are the ones taking the biggest chances IMHO. I hear a lot of guys worried about losing their precious money to a scam artist, but few folks concerned about the risks the women have to take. They're the REAL risk takers!

In the Philippines, all fiancées and spouses of foreigners are required to attend a government-run counseling session before they can get on the plane to leave the country. They do warn the girls about some of the problems they might face and put a little fear into them by relating some of the horror stories that other Filipinas got caught up in after marrying some psychopath. When they show up at the embassy for their interview, many times the interviewing officer will ask them for a complete copy of the petitioner’s divorce decree. Sometimes the divorce decree can reveal some juicy stuff about the guy’s marriage and divorce. Also, the tax returns and financial stuff for the affidavit of support will often tell the prospective bride a lot, including whether he is paying child support or has any other dependents. But there are NO criminal background checks done on the petitioner.

Ray

... in response to Re: Re: The Beginning, posted by Michael B on Jul 5, 2003

Michael, seems to me the system must already be doing that as your story about the lady in tears testifies.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: The Beginning, posted by lswote on Jul 5, 2003

Apparently the embassy knew, but SHE didn't until the interview. She waited around 'on the string' for a loser for who knows how long, 180, 200 days?, waiting for the interview and is now out the expense of a trip to Moscow. And think of her embarassement when she goes home to her friends and family and they ask "Did you get the visa?". At least if they had told her ASAP, she wouldn't have gone to Moscow and could have used the 200 days to mend from a (bad, but not AS BAD) hurt and maybe even found another guy, or at least had her dignity of telling her friends "good thing I found out about him in time".

Hey, I hope your wife is feeling better now.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: The Beginning, posted by Michael B on Jul 5, 2003

Thanks, my wife is doing pretty good now.  Almost back to normal.

I can see your point about the information being available when the woman applied for the visa, but how would that realistically be implemented?  I feel pretty confident in saying that information would have to be researched, it wouldn't be instantly available.  At least not with the current system.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Beginning, posted by lswote on Jul 5, 2003

Sure it's instantly available (although I'll have to sligtly modify my previous post). Simply make the US sponsor declare it, under penelty of perjury. Add a form called 'Martial, paternity(maternity) and criminal history disclosure statement' to the pile of forms we have to fill out anyway. As soon as he (we'll assume the sponsor is a man) files the petition for the visa, they tell the woman "In his petition, Mr. Jones states ...blah blah (about his martial history, criminal record etc.), we will investigate this information and notify you of the results of this investigation".....now, the woman knows instantly (at least she knows what the man CLAIMS), and you come down HARD if you catch the US citizen sponsor in a lie (minimum of deny petition and not eligible to ever file any future petitions, a hefty fine and maybe a little jail time, depending on how serious the lies are).  After actually doing the investigation, the woman receives a 2nd letter..

(the GOOD letter) "Dear Ms...we have completed our investigation and find the representations made to you by Mr. Bob Jones concerning his martial, paternal and criminal histories are indeed true and correct. (optional paragraph, if necessary) With the following exceptions: The actual amount of the child support payment is $610.15US per month. We beleive this to be an honest error and that it was in no way intended to mislead or deceive you. Your petition for K-1 visa will continue to the next step of processing and you will be notified of further developments in your case."

(or the BAD letter) "Dear Ms....we have completed our investigation, and regretifuly, we must deny your petition becasue of the following: Mr. Jones represented that he has been married only once and has no children, but in reality he has been married three times and has four children. Because of this serious misrepresentation, Mr. Jones is declared inelgible to sponsor an alien fiancee. Please accept our sympathy, but for your own protection, US law forbids citizens who misrepresent or with hold material facts concerning their martial or criminal history from participating in the fiance visa program. This denial does NOT mean that YOU are guilty of any wrong doing, nor does it mean that YOU are not elgible to obtain a fiance visa. After a 90 day waiting period, any other qualified US citizen may again sponsor you for a fiancee visa."

Naturaly, there would have to be a little bit of descretion and intelligence applied to administrating this system, say the guy says his CS payment is $600 but it is really $610.15 because it's figured as a % of his salary and is automaticaly garnished from his pay check and he forgot about his last raise...stuff like that you could ask the guy for a clarification and give him a chance to make the necessary corrections before 'branding' him.  

------------------------------------
Glad to hear she's better, tell her she had us all worried for a while, don't do that again, ja ja.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Beginning, posted by Michael B on Jul 6, 2003

The cost of these petitions and such would go through the roof.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Beginnin..., posted by bryan on Jul 6, 2003

And if Senator Ugly-Woman gets her way, these petitions won't happen at all...which do you perfer? Besides, I don't think the cost will go up that much. I can (not suppossed to, but I can) run your DL# through NCIC from my desk at work and find if you have any outstanding warrents or convictions and if you've been a good boy with your parole officer in about 30 seconds--what do you think the cop is doing with that computer screen in his car when he pulls you over for a speeding ticket?. Give me your SSN, your address, your DL# and for fifty bucks the on-line 'find out about anybody' places will tell me how many fillings your X wife has in her teeth and the name and birthday of your cat (well, maybe a slight exgeration, but things like criminal history, previous marriages and child support orders are EXTREEMELY easy to find out about).

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Begi..., posted by Michael B on Jul 6, 2003

Have you ever dealt with these folks, you pay by the keystroke. Its damn near impoissible to get the routine sheet done now and your gonna throw the petitioners background check @ them. Excuse me if im a little skeptical.Not only that but now you have shifted the responsabilty for the well being of a beneficiairy on the INS and I dont see them assuming that kind of a liability. Maybe if this process was privatized you could have a background check as an option but as the INS is run today I dont see it happening

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The ..., posted by bryan on Jul 6, 2003

Hey, INS is no friend of mine, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: They are incompetent, uncaring, stupid  fools! Here I'm waiting 166 days (so far) for my lady's K-1, so I know exactaly what you mean about adding to the wait time. But given her druthers, Senator Ugly-Face and her gang of NOW Natzis wouldn't permit ANYBODY to bring in a foreign fiancee, no matter how they met, her proposed law to 'protect' them from evil 'abusers' like you and me is just another step down that slipperly slope....My proposal would at least be able to say to the general public (and hopefully gain some support from them) "Hey, the foreign women ARE protected and DO know their rights and know the man's history" (and I'd be all for putting a reasonable time limit on the entire process-hey, BCIS, if you can't find a legetimate reason to say 'no' in 60 days, then the default answer on day 61 is 'yes')

Won't take but one or two more high profile nut cases who kill their foreign spouses before Senator Ugly-Face and company raise a hue and cry (and even worse, get support from the general public) of "No more MOB's PERIOD" and they make some stupid law that you have to marry overseas and live together for at least a year (or 2 or 3) before you can apply for her visa. That would eleminate the possibility of any foreign bride for 99.9% of the men who aren't millionares, which is much closer to their actual objective than 'protecting' people is.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ..., posted by Michael B on Jul 6, 2003

Amen to that Michael, you make some good points.
Last night my wife was looking through some women's
fashion magazine and she read an article where it listed
the names and faces of over 50 American women who were killed
by their husbands so far this year.  Nearly half of the killers
ended their own lives after finishing off their wife's.
Ole Ugly face will never mention that though.

Cheers