Planet-Love.com Searchable Archives

Wendy McElroy's Op-Ed piece gets it right on the new IMBRA law:

'Mail-Order Bride' Law Brands All American Men Abusers

Check it out:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180487,00.html

... in response to Fox News "iFeminist" Writer ha..., posted by Gary Bala on Jan 11, 2006

Although I don't see anything that pertains to me, this law was rushed through without any real logical thought.  I am not an attorney, but I think that it could be challenged on many points.

Just like the liars that the current govt. has shown itself to be, it now appears that they don't give a damn about our personal privacy (like spying on us without our knowledge).  This law could have been instantiated in more logical ways with a little effort and thought, but that is too much to ask of the current govt.

It is just another case of the Ugly American impressing his closed-minded beliefs upon everyone.  Sounds like the Christian fundamentalists (or can you say Al Qaeda???). It looks like we are slowly reverting to a form of communism. I guess we have to live with it for a couple more years, since the majority of you put them in there.

Sometimes I just sit back and laugh, and I am so glad that I didn't vote for him.  I don't believe in rewarding poor performance.  The past is a reasonable predictor of the future (statistically-speaking).

... in response to Re: Fox News "iFeminist" Write..., posted by EbonyPrince on Jan 12, 2006

Just like the liars that the current govt. has shown itself to be, it now appears that they don't give a damn about our personal privacy (like spying on us without our knowledge). _______________

What kind of bullshit is this?  Can you provide any evidence of your claims?

Or are you just anther Bush hating Affirmative Action loving homosexual supporting left wing nut case?

And I do not believe in god and am a libertarian so there goes your theory about the Christian right bullshit.

It is people like you who scare the hell out of those of us in the middle.

... in response to Re: Re: Fox News "feminist" Wr..., posted by Heat on Jan 13, 2006

Cris

Come on man. You and i are alike in may ways, but it seems lately that anyone that does not agree with Bush is a commy pig ? what gives. Our country is free because we can choose to suport whom we please and this new law is just an example of some of those freedoms being taken away from us. Remeber, it was not a Dem that signed the bill into law, it was GWB and for that, he is not on my most liked list. His plicies as of late are really confusing.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Fox News "feminist"..., posted by Kiltboy1 on Jan 13, 2006

Kilt,

Please give me ONE example of a freedom that has been taken away from you.

Give me just ONE example.

BTW, I am not a Republican.  I do not believe in god and I am not in agreement with Bush on many issues.  But I dislike liars and fools.

I am waiting for your example.  Give me ONE.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Fox News "feminist"..., posted by Kiltboy1 on Jan 13, 2006

Do you agree with Ebony that IMBRA is some kind of "Christian fundamentalist" plot?

ROFLMAO!

... in response to Re: Fox News "iFeminist" Write..., posted by EbonyPrince on Jan 12, 2006

What in the hell are you talking about?

This a FEMINIST plot, so what is all this crap about Christians, Al Queda, spying, communists, voting for "him", and "the majority of you put them in there"?

If you want to bitch at someone, start with the author of this bill... Senator Maria Cantwell, D-Washington.

Sheesh!

... in response to Have you been drinking?, posted by Ray on Jan 12, 2006

The sponsor of the bill in the House was Republican James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin.

In both houses of Congress the votes were unanimous, thus, all Republicans and all Democrats voted for it. The president is a Republican and he signed the bill into law.

Hamlet

... in response to Clarification, posted by Hamlet on Jan 12, 2006

Cantwell say it again.............. LIBERAL DEMOCRAT

... in response to Clarification, posted by Hamlet on Jan 12, 2006

But we aren’t discussing the entire bill, are we? In case you haven’t noticed, we have been discussing the “International Marriage Broker Regulation Act” (IMBRA).

The original bill you mentioned was introduced in the House in July, 2005 by Rep Sensenbrenner as the “Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009” (H.R. 3402) and contained no reference to IMBRA.

The bill was later amended in the Senate (SA 2681) and became known as the “Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005”. The “International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005”, which is the topic of discussion here, came under Title VIII, Subsection D of the final bill.

The current version of IMBRA is largely based on the original “International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2003”, sponsored by MARIA CANTWELL. This has been Cantwell’s baby from the beginning.

Ray

... in response to Clarification to Your Clarification, posted by Ray on Jan 13, 2006

I dont see it on his web site now, but two weeks ago Sensenbrenner was bragging about his role in protecting women with the IMBRA law.

... in response to Re: Clarification to Your Clarification, posted by Hamlet on Jan 13, 2006

I think you are confusing apples and oranges. IMBRA is only a very small part of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) part of the bill. I suggest that you read the entire bill (H.R. 3402) so that you can understand how the IMBRA portion of the SENATE amendment could get lost in the whole mess and get approved on a voice vote at the end of the congressional session just before the recess.

Perhaps you were confused two weeks ago and really read Maria Cantwell’s press release where she was crowing about HER legislation to protect “Mail Order Brides” finally being passed.

http://cantwell.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=250270

Your feeble attempts to portray IMBRA as some kind of Republican plot are silly and uninformed. I know all of this legal stuff is probably confusing you, so may I suggest that instead of relying on a layman’s explanation of this subject, perhaps you should discuss this with an informed attorney so that he can possibly straighten you out. I highly recommend Gary Bala  :-)

Ray

... in response to Clarification to Your Clarification, posted by Ray on Jan 13, 2006

After everything that happened in the mid-90s, don't we already have laws that protect women?

I know that along with O.J. thing and someone being killed with a bat in Ohio, Ohio got very strict with Domestic Violence laws to the point of being ridiculous.  This is all because our officials weren't doing their jobs in protecting these people in the first place.  

In retrospect, nothing was done to prevent these abused people from voluntarily going back to these abusive men.

Bottom-line is these officials are only trying to make up for their mistakes in not protecting their public (IMHO).

... in response to Have you been drinking?, posted by Ray on Jan 12, 2006

First of all, It was still signed without regard to all the points made against the bill.

My point is that you have people trying to control how we live our lives (right and left), and this bill is just one of those controls.  Obviously the bill was signed and/or attached to other signed bills without regard to what was really contained within.  It was sped through the process without applying common-sense logic like so many other bills/laws/actions etc.

My heart goes out to anyone that is abused in any relationship, but abuse is abuse whether its an American bride or a foreigh bride.  Obviously somewhere someone didn't do their jobs, and that is why the situation happened.  So Who is this law really protecting?

If more issues were put in front of the majority of people, without special interests, my feeling is that we would have better laws/actions which would reflect the true will of the people.  That clearly isn't what is happening today, because there are people that feel they know more about what is so-called "right" or "right for us" or right for anyone better than we (the people) do (hence my comments)...

... in response to Fox News "iFeminist" Writer ha..., posted by Gary Bala on Jan 11, 2006

I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone on this board who have taken positive steps to deal with this unjust new legislation and special thanks to Gary Bala.  I, myself have been in denial since I first became aware of this- my thinking was this just can't happen here in the good old USA.  Like many of you I am thinking this legislation could deal a fatal blow to our freedoms and for me put un ugly end to 16 good years of matchmaking.  Thanks to Wendy's excellent article and insight into the wrongs brought by this legislation I now want to fight like everyone else to stop this from being enforced as is.  This summer Fox News did a positive television show re Colombian Marriage Agencies on "A Current Affair " see for yourself at "http://latinlifemates.com/home.asp".  I will contact them with the latest news and hope that they will pick up on this.  I hope that others can by whatever means go to the media and expose all the flaws in this  new legislation like Gary and Wendy have already done.  Maybe we can embarass those responsible for this thoughtless piece of legislation.  

Jim Heinrich

President- Latin Lifemates

... in response to Re: Fox News "iFeminist" Write..., posted by BogotaJim on Jan 12, 2006

My office is compiling and developing legal arguments against this law for possible use later, including points and counter-arguments made by many of you.  

Those of you who would like to help, feel free to post any more such arguments here or E-mail me with any additional ideas and suggestions.

Thanks!

Bulletpoint summary of some arguments:
*Stealth nature of the law's passage: no hearings held, no witnesses heard or other opportunity to be heard, no statistical evidence considered of marriages, divorces, domestic violence incidences, comparisons with domestic numbers;

*"Chilling" of First Amendment free speech and free association rights of U.S. citizen gentlemen who wish to simply communicate with ladies abroad; "chilling" of "unrestricted right to marry" of U.N. Human Rights Declaration;

*Infringement of privacy rights of U.S. citizens compelled to disclose mandatory personal data to strangers in order to communicate with ladies abroad;

*Equal protection of the laws violations (similarly situated U.S. citizens treated unjustifiably differently): For example, requires mandatory disclosure of criminal and other data for communcation and dating with ladies abroad, but not for communication and dating with domestic ladies; Also, requires mandatory disclosure of background info. and background check for filing a K visa for foreign lady and Consular interview, but not for local marriage license with domestic lady;

*Equal protection of the laws of U.S. citizens pursuing K visa petition process for fiancees and spouses are violated by requirements for mandatory information disclosure and extended background check, when this law omits same for U.S. citizens pursuing CR-1 residency visa process for spouse;

*Unenforceable and impractial provisions rendering law void - Consular Officer interview and documents delivered in "primary language" of foreign national client, not practically possible;

*Constitutional presumption in criminal cases of "innocent until proven guilty" is reversed in this law by mandatory criminal background disclosure as a condition of communication, thus imposing a presumption of guilt before innocence for gentlemen who simply wish to communicate with a foreign lady;

*Unfairly onerous and commercially impossible restrictions are imposed on "commercial free speech" rights of companies and businesses to engage in interstate commerce;

*Unfair discriminatory treatment of persons and businesses under the law: Example, Mandatory requirements are imposed on "United  States clients" for putative purpose of abuse protection of immigrant women, but foreign citizens living abroad are bound by no such requirements when abuse potential can be the same. Other example, Mandatory requirements are imposed on an "International Marriage Broker (IMB)" for supposed purpose of abuse protection of immigrant women, but exceptions are made for non-profit brokers and brokers who do not do international matchmaking, when the potential for abuse is the same.

... in response to Additional thoughts..., posted by Gary Bala on Jan 12, 2006

These background checks are supposed to weed out the criminal element who seek foreign brides.  But, what if you held a highly respectable position in the community AND had a pristine background?  Is it possible that such "knights in shining armor" could ace the intrusive IMBRA screening process and still go on to kill their foreign brides?

Of course they can--and would have, were the relevant provisions of the law in effect back in 1997 when Dan William Hiers, Jr, came on the scene.

Aside from currently holding the "#1 Most Wanted Fugitive" spot on America's Most Wanted, he WOULD have been the most-wanted man in America to have successfully run circles around IMBRA.  For, in 1997, Hiers got hitched for the first time to a Brasileira; and eight years later, this "All-American, clean-cut guy" killed her.

He's been getting a lot of air time over the past few months on AMW, but I've yet to see his name come up in any of the IMBA testimony.  There is no possible way the feminist backers of this bill could have missed his story.  Does his case prove that IMBRA is utterly useless; that there is no fool-proof method of screening for PREDILECTION to crime; that not a single item on its list of background disclosures would have tipped off Hier's wife to his violent potential.

A brief of Hier's history and accolades:

"Residents in Hiers' hometown of Hampton know him as a polite young man who didn't curse, drink or smoke. The oldest of two sons in a well-known and respected family, he is the kind of man neighbors trusted with their children and volunteer firefighters trusted with their lives."  

"[Former Hampton Fire Department Assistant Chief Mike] Kring...praised Hiers' dedication and enthusiasm as a volunteer firefighter."

"Everybody said the same thing about Dan. He was a totally friendly, alive, vivacious kinda guy. You looked at him like he was the all-American, clean-cut guy..."

"Daniel Hiers left the Hampton Police Department in September 1996, citing 'visit fiancee in Brazil' as his reason for quitting. He was working for the Allendale Police Department by the end of the year.

"The couple married Aug. 9, 1997, at the Huggin Oak Church of God in Cummings, according to the Hampton County Probate Court. The bride was 16. Hiers listed the year of his marriage as 1998 on his Charleston Police Department application.

"The couple moved after Hiers started working for the Charleston Police Department in April 1998. The department has not responded to a Freedom of Information Act request for Hiers' personnel records, so whether he had prior discipline problems is unknown. His record is clean at the Allendale and Hampton police departments."

http://www.southcarolinafop.com/printpage.asp?ref=1683

His AMW profile, and an overview of the case:

http://www.amw.com/fugitives/case.cfm?id=30956

... in response to Additional thoughts..., posted by Gary Bala on Jan 12, 2006

While the majority of people impacted would be men seeking foreign women, for purposes of the law you would want to keep the language of your argument as gender neutral as possible.
"Ladies abroad" should be "persons abroad"; "domestic ladies" should be "domestic persons"; and "foreign ladies" should be "foriegn individuals".  That would better emphasize the fairness (or lack thereof) aspect of the new law.

... in response to Additional thoughts..., posted by Gary Bala on Jan 12, 2006

[This message has been edited by doombug]

A potential ally who's got a decent left jab:  Elena "Rocky" Petrova, proprietor of Russian Brides Cyber Guide.  (Okay, "Rocky" is not really part of her name.  Although, she is a knock out!) She seems to be one of the more outspoken female critics of IMBRA--even if she's clearly more concerned about the effect it will have on IMB's.  Her take:

"The point is, an honest man will not have a problem to undergo a background check performed by authorized officials during the process of visa application for his fiancee that he loves and wants to spend the rest of his life with. But he will have a problem to supply particulars of his private life to some website when he is not even sure he is interested in any member of this website (since he is not allowed to see women's ads before he supplies those particulars).

"The proposed procedure seems to be based on assumption that a man using services of international matchmakers does not care which person to marry, just to get somebody to use as a slave. But most people do care which person to marry and seek their true love and their soul mate. A person of dignity will not feel comfortable being requested to provide details of his private life to some website he does not know and never used before, without being interested in a certain member of this website. Thus, the procedure suggested by IMBRA cannot stop dishonest people seeking slaves from using services of international matchmakers but it will be a huge turn-off for many honest people sincerely seeking their special one."

http://www.womenrussia.com/press/22_07_2004.htm

I suspect she never got a chance (or invitation) to testify.

On another matter, am I misreading something here:

VAWA 2005 IMMIGRATION PROVISIONS  

FINAL AS PASSED BY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND U.S. SENATE DECEMBER 17, 2005

"Requires U.S. citizen filing K petitions to disclose criminal background information.":

"Mandates that U.S. citizens filing K visa petitions disclose criminal background information to international marriage brokers and to DHS/CIS. Relevant crimes include domestic abuse crimes, other violent crimes, and multiple convictions for substance and/or alcohol abuse. DHS will be required to transmit this criminal history information, along with results of any database search, to the foreign fiancé or spouse [Section 832(a)]."

K-visa petitioners have to submit background checks to both IMB's (if one were to be used) AND DHS/CIS?  I must have completely missed (or misread) mention of this earlier.  So, regardless of how a K-visa petitioner met his novia, he must personally submit this mass of background information to the DHS/CIS?  

While reading over the testimony of some of the groups who were gunning to keep IMBA alive (or who were gunning to be included as funding beneficiaries), I came across this from a group called the Sacred Circle (aka, National Resource Center To End Violence Against Native Women):

"About 9 in 10 American Indian victims of rape or sexual assault were estimated to have assailants who were white or black."
http://www.sacred-circle.com/2005%20SC%20testimony.htm

What a clever-ass move!  Implicate ethnic males who aren't within your sovereign responsibility (say, anyone who isn't a Native American male), and your group will surely reap some of that federal sympathy-pork, too.  Blanket, emotionally-charged b.s. like this is just what our politicians--of both stripes--accepted as sufficient evidence of a problem in need of mending.  Then again, what "callous" politician would risk the wrath of their female constituents by refuting--or even fact checking--charges such as these?  

This all reminds me of the McMartin Preschool trials a few decades ago, where overreaction to accusations of child molestation involving hundreds of children (later discounted) ultimately wrecked a community.  There's even a clinical term for such blind "pursuits of justice":  Confirmatory bias.  

"A phenomenon in which one notices data which seem to confirm one's hypothesis, and ignores (or does not see) data that tend to disconfirm that hypothesis."

... in response to Fox News "iFeminist" Writer ha..., posted by Gary Bala on Jan 11, 2006

This was also posted yesterday on the Asian Forum if anyone wants to read the whole text of the article.

... in response to Fox News "iFeminist" Writer ha..., posted by Gary Bala on Jan 11, 2006

Excellent article.

"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  be either.

[...]

"What I do sympathize with, however, are the privacy rights of people who are considered guilty until proven innocent. This is especially true when a government violates the privacy of its own citizens to benefit foreign individuals.

"What view of the American man does the IMBA broadcast to the world? American men are so predatory and violent that the U.S. government must protect foreign women by providing police checks before allowing the men to say 'hello.'

"The "Ugly American" has become an article of federal law, supported by Congress."

... in response to Fox News "iFeminist" Writer ha..., posted by Gary Bala on Jan 11, 2006

HELL THE FEKIIIN EHH !! Now as a group of same like men, what can we do to protest this law, Forget our differences, not the time for that crap.We all want the same thing, THE RIGHT TO DATE, MARRY AND GET A VISA TO LIVE IN THIS COUNTRY FOR WHOEVER WE CHOOSE ! So let's ask advice from a legal expert on what we can do to imporove out chances, not to CONTACT OUR REPRESENTATIVES,  does not work , but as a group of men wanting the same things.

I want to get a visa someday for another woman and i have had the police called to my home for no reason at all, IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU !!!!!!!!

Gary, give us some things to do besides contacting  the reps alone how about at a group, a collective ??

STRENGHT IN NUMBERS

Guys, this is going to hurt all of us and the ones that come behind us, if this is a site for advice for looking for a latin woman, then this site is being underminded buy the goverment each and every day if we cannot at least unite and voice against it. look , i could care less if you are Dem, Repub, Libert, or just DO NOT GIVE A Flock !, Not Important, because we all have the same objective

TO BE ABLE TO MARRY WHO WE WANT , WHERE WE WANT AND IF SHE IS IN LATIN AMERICA, EURO AMERICA OR JUST IN THE DAMN PAW PAW PATCH OF ANYWHERE OF YOUR BRAIN,  WELL THEN THAT IS WHERE SHE IS AT AND NOT LET ANYONE TELL YOU WHO YOU CAN MARRY !!

Sorry, tired of listening to all the crap of who is a moran and who is not.Things are getting worse and all of us fighting are not going to make it better. Garry Bala, give us some advise that we can unite with please !!!

... in response to Re: Fox News "iFeminist" Write..., posted by Kiltboy1 on Jan 11, 2006

IMBRA is just the start.  The precedent's been set.

Surely their next move is to take this national.  

The femagogues could now easily argue that since background checks are  called for in certain circumstances to protect foreign women, they should be more broadly applied to protect ALL women--no matter where they reside.  

Maybe a petition to kick-start a counter-offensvie is called for.  One can be crafted simply enough:

http://www.petitionspot.com/
http://www.petitiononline.com/
http://www.petitionthem.com/
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/
http://www.ipetitions.com/
http://www.e-thepeople.org/

We've mustered enough resentment and counter-arguments recently; and Gary Bala would make for an eloquent representative/wordsmith.

... in response to Hear, hear!, posted by doombug on Jan 11, 2006

I'm behind it - but where is it???

... in response to So where is the petition?, posted by Bobby Orr on Jan 12, 2006

Those were just a few general examples of online petition sites I came across.  I did a cursory check on some of them to see if any petitions were being drafted to counter portions of the IMBRA, but didn't notice any.  I'm just as eager to sign one and add my two cents--if and when they surface.  

... in response to Hear, hear!, posted by doombug on Jan 11, 2006

is that it is limited to a "United States client", as the feminist drafters defined it.

A "United States client" (gentleman) who chooses to utilize the services of an IMB must provide full range of background information or documents, including criminal history, etc. which is then provided to the "foreign national client" in her primary language who must sign a written consent before release of her personal contact information.

But a foreign citizen gentlemen living abroad is not covered.

In other words, a known or suspected terrorist abroad from Al-Queda can freely order a lady's address from an IMB without having to submit any criminal history.

... in response to One amusing part of this new law..., posted by Gary Bala on Jan 12, 2006

It's just incredibly poorly drafted legislation.I can't imagine it would withstand judicial review.

... in response to One amusing part of this new law..., posted by Gary Bala on Jan 12, 2006

It's not about protecting women. It's about punishing men.

These feminists secretly despise all of those foreign women coming in here and acting like women should act. They just can't stand it when men and women are happy together in their traditional roles. Anything that threatens their power over men will be a target of their wrath.

Ray

... in response to The REAL motive..., posted by Ray on Jan 12, 2006

That's exactly it.  It's all about changing their behavior.  They don't want to do that.  But when Western Women wake up and notice all the beautiful competition running around and all the men that they want running to that competition, they would be forced to change their ways.

However, this change is inevitable, the IMBRA can only slow it down.  Men are waking up.  Things CAN NOT go on the way they are, Western society is about to fall to pieces.

Can you imagine a day when American marriages that can  actually work?!?!?

American Women who don't prefer Bad Boys, THUGS or Gang Members to decent men and prefer to be called "Ho's .." and treated badly by them and finally cheated on and dumped.  Then afterwards when we come across these women we come across the vengeful bitch from hell ...

Women who have their priorites straight and who put the well being of their family and her Husband, ahead of their damn careers?

... in response to Exactly!!!, posted by bjsisko on Jan 12, 2006

Could Not Have Said It Any Better Myself.