Planet-Love.com Searchable Archives
September 02, 2014, 06:41:58 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: This board is a BROWSE and SEARCH only board. Please IGNORE the Registration - no registration necessary. No new posts allowed. It contains the archived posts from the Planet-Love.com website from approximately 2001 through 2005.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Fox News "iFeminist" Writer has it right...  (Read 8792 times)
Gary Bala
Guest
« Reply #15 on: January 12, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... 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.

Logged
doombug
Guest
« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... 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

Logged
Bob S
Guest
« Reply #17 on: January 13, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... 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.
Logged
doombug
Guest
« Reply #18 on: January 13, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... 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."

Logged
Ray
Guest
« Reply #19 on: January 11, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... 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.
Logged
doombug
Guest
« Reply #20 on: January 11, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... 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."

Logged
Kiltboy1
Guest
« Reply #21 on: January 11, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... 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 !!!

Logged
doombug
Guest
« Reply #22 on: January 11, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... 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.

Logged
Bobby Orr
Guest
« Reply #23 on: January 12, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

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

I'm behind it - but where is it???
Logged
doombug
Guest
« Reply #24 on: January 13, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... 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.  

Logged
Gary Bala
Guest
« Reply #25 on: January 12, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... 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.

Logged
Avispa
Guest
« Reply #26 on: January 12, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... 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.
Logged
Ray
Guest
« Reply #27 on: January 12, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... 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

Logged
bjsisko
Guest
« Reply #28 on: January 12, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

... 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?

Logged
FanMan
Guest
« Reply #29 on: January 12, 2006, 05:00:00 AM »

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

Could Not Have Said It Any Better Myself.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!