Posted on 02/14/2006 6:12:25 AM PST by GermanBusiness
The Violence Against Women Act signed by President Bush on Jan. 5 contains an almost unnoticed attachment.
Subtitle D, also known as the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (IMBA), will become law when VAWA is enacted. The IMBA is an ostensibly noble measure with a surprising and ominous twist.
The scant attention directed toward the IMBA has been positive.
A headline in Washington State's The Daily Herald announced, "Mail-order brides gain protection" with the subtitle "The mother of a murdered immigrant hopes that pending federal legislation will keep foreign brides from abuse, neglect and slavery."
The "murdered immigrant" refers to Anastasia King, a "mail-order bride" from the former Soviet Union. In 2000, King was murdered by her husband in Washington State where the case created a sensation largely because the husband had violently assaulted a previous "mail-order bride."
Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., and Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., who championed the measure for years, introduced the IMBA to Congress.
Some parts sound reasonable. For example, U.S. consulates will provide "mail-order brides" with brochures that explain their legal rights.
Other parts sound draconian. For example, the IMBA requires American men who wish to correspond with foreign women through private for-profit matchmaking agencies to first provide those businesses with their police records and other personal information to be turned over to the women.
Corresponding with a foreigner is legal. Marrying a foreigner is legal. Immigrating spouses and their husbands go through rigorous and lengthy screening before visas are issued. U.S. laws against violence protect "mail-order brides."
Now American men who wish to pursue a legal activity must release their government files to a foreign business and foreign individuals for their personal benefit.
(Note: The act's language is gender-neutral but its clear purpose is to protect foreign women from predatory American men. Application to "male-order husbands" would be incidental as such 'brides' are relatively rare.)
The disclosure requirement is detailed under the provision entitled "Obligations of International Marriage Broker With Respect to Mandatory Collection of Information."
An international broker cannot provide contact or general information on a foreign woman to an American man unless that broker first collects and discloses to the woman the following information about the man:
Every state of residence since the age of 18; Current or previous marriages as well as how and when they terminated; Information on children under 18; Any arrest or conviction related to controlled substances, alcohol or prostitution, making no distinction on arrests not leading to conviction; Any court orders, including temporary restraining orders, which are notoriously easy to procure; Any arrest or conviction for crimes ranging from "homicide" to "child neglect"; Any arrest or conviction for "similar activity in violation of Federal, State or local criminal law" without specifying what "similar" means. 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 it be either.
Contacting a woman for romantic purposes — internationally or domestically — is not a crime. Those who do so are not a priori criminals who must prove themselves innocent before being allowed an e-mail exchange.
How many American men will be impacted by the IMBA?
If you are attempting to be a witness as your name and tag line suggest, perhaps you should do it with less venem.
Also, I don't think your son is fighting to repress someone else's freedom of speech and the right to ridicule others for not agreeing with you. His mission is greater than that.
I realize you are under a great deal of stress and worry so I would not want to increase that.
[It has nothing to do with saying hello or being introduced to a friend of your girlfriends.]
It has everything to do with saying hello to someone you just saw on the Internet. There will now be 4 week delays for Russians who only have postal addresses. The women, who crave contact with American men, will have to get a form that has no photo, no last name, no age and the man can simply lie about his criminal record...but she has to get the big agency a confirmation that she got the form before the contact can continue. It is total BullClinton. This law is made for immediate breaking and immediate overturning.
And Bush made a big political mistake signing this crap, that would have cost him the 2004 election if this happened in the first term.
More than 400,000 men are going to be finding out about this soon. If Yahoo and Match.com send emails to their male clients...it will be millions.
Yahoo and Match are next. I am sure you are fine with that. This isn't a right/left issue. It is a paranoid woman vs man issue. It is one of the most blatant feminist power take-aways I have ever seen.
I just talked with the owners of the two largest dating websites that don't have more American women than foreign women. Yahoo and Match clearly got off scott free FOR NOW as the rights were taken away from the other websites. The other websites are undergoing more than $100,000 in extra costs to accomodate this.
And they have lawyers working on getting that money BACK when this nonsense is overturned.
They are planning to have people challenge the law immediately after it comes into effect on March 7th.
This is going straight to the courts.
[Also, I don't think your son is fighting to repress someone else's freedom of speech and the right to ridicule others for not agreeing with you.]
His son isn't fighting for idiots to sign laws that make his son unable to contact someone he saw on the Internet without filling out BS forms that he can lie on anyway. Forms that will not show his last name or age or anything else relevant. Just a bureaucratic waste of time, brought to you by the US government and the feminist movement.
I want to stress that men are legally allowed to lie on these forms. But the agencies have to send the useless forms to the women and get a confirmation that the form was seen.
The owners of big dating sites told me tonight that this is going to cost tens of millions of dollars and the lawsuits against the government are being prepared by powerful people as I write.
The next step is Yahoo and Match getting regulated: background checks for everyone. The American male population may need its own political party if the mud really hits the fan (meaning feminists don't back down on their naked power grab).
Of course you would say that, you have a vested interest in this.
One guy out how many thousands who marry foreign women? There are actually three cases that I know about - now compare that to the numbers of American on American crime, if you will. There are scumbags everywhere, what's the next step? Searching peoples homes just because a guy down the road is a scumbag? This isn't about American men marrying foreign women, it's about erosion of our civil liberties.
And frankly, this opens up Americans to all kinds of fraud and coercion by unscrupulous foreign marriage agencies. And if you think that Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian authorities will truthfully report the "bad women" you obviously don't know how things work in those places.
Personally, I'd recommend any guy thinking about marrying a Russian/Ukranian, etc., woman do so not using an agency, but go there or meet them through friends. But, adults make their own choices.
[Of course you would say that, you have a vested interest in this.]
Not so much. I have a girlfriend whom I met at a McDonalds in Saint Petersburg. Like Romanov, I speak excellent Russian and can meet people fairly easily. But there are extremely high quality women on these websites, much higher quality than anyone I ever met on Match.com or Yahoo in the USA: although I didn't do badly meeting some cool American women on those sites in 2003 when I lived in California.
In Eastern Europe and other parts of the world, unmarried women 18-29 live with their parents and the parents, not knowing anything about American style paranoia, welcome suitors who just knock on the door during daylight hours. The Internet has changed the tradition slightly, but many women still do not have Internet. Lawmakers in the USA not only know nothing about traditions and attitudes in other countries...they simply don't have any business even talking about this.
You have no idea how slimy it is to even imagine that I am arguing with an American female about this issue. I feel like I have to take a shower now.
There will be no argument about this. It is unconstitutional, it will be overturned, the law will be broken or flouted, gotten around, etc. You cannot tell me that I need to sign US government forms in order to meet another adult.
What is dangerous for Republicans is that I just learned that one of the two senators that sponsored this law was a Republican...and I've learned tonight that Democrat males are organizing about this with an emphasis on blaming Bush for signing this law.
Most Republican males will agree with me that the Democrat males have every reason to be pissed that Bush signed this law.
If this gets momentum, which it should, there might be some political realignment on its way.
Also, I don't think your son is fighting to repress someone else's freedom of speech and the right to ridicule others for not agreeing with you. His mission is greater than that.
I realize you are under a great deal of stress and worry so I would not want to increase that.
Thank you for your consideration. But my son is back home now. Thank God. Although it is somewhat uncertain whether he will be returning to Iraq or not.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism or ridicule. You should already know that. And I am certainly not witnessing to fascists. Neither is this thread about Christianity.
But that is not what is really bothering you is it? Now do you have something to add to the topic at hand. Do you support this draconian legislation or not? Or is it your intention to just take impertinent shots at me because you don't like something I wrote but have no rational response to it.
What does this say about you? You hate America? Or just American women? Perhaps all women in general?
Most Republican males will agree with me
Conservative men tend to love and respect conservative women (it's a sexual thing I have to agree). Conservative women tend to love and respect conservative men. Unless we hate each other and go outside the US to buy someone who we think would be perfect, you lose. What a pity.
[One guy out how many thousands who marry foreign women? There are actually three cases that I know about]
We're talking 12,000 American men per year marrying foreign women. Our embassies and consulates around the world are backed up with tons of paperwork and extra costs...all at the behest of the feminazis, half of whom I've learned are Republican.
This new law will add tons of new paperwork and bureaucracy...as the Internet and lower airfares are making it easier to for American men to meet foreign women.
Democrat Senator Cantwell has told the dating agencies that she wants to see them put out of business.
If the porn business was able to strike back and put politicians in their place, you can imagine that wholesome dating sites will prevail as well.
Something's got to give. The question will be: will the men's movement be controlled by Democrat men or both?
Actually, I don't agree with the legislation. But I must make an emphatic disagreement with ridicule of someone you don't agree with (ridicule) and another and more emphatic disagreement with someone profiting from selling out women from another country for their own profit.
So, should there be a law which forces American men to subscribe to your tender notions? Is that your idea of the freedom that our fighting men are dying for this very day?
Do you support or oppose this legislation? I'm interested in what your idea of freedom is.
[Conservative men tend to love and respect conservative women (it's a sexual thing I have to agree).]
What methane. And YOU are a conservative feminist?
Eastern Europeans can teach you the meaning of what a conservative woman really is. But I am sure there are plenty of conservative American women...who need to be speaking up against this law anytime soon on FR.
Meanwhile, I don't need this insecure nonsense. This isn't a thread that deals with the "you have to love me or you are a jerk" garbage that you see on other FReminist threads.
Those are the most pathetic threads on the Internet, much less FR.
Let's talk legal issues:
Are you or are you not in favor of Match and Yahoo being put under federal regulation for background checks for all members? Both websites introduce foreigners to Americans, but they lobbied their way out of this law, which was initially rejected by the Republican Congress but which politicians clearly allowed to pass as part of various deals (like Cantwell voting as a Democrat against the Alito filibuster).
What is next? The answer: Reversal of this bull. This isn't going to stand. Challenges to the law, in the form of flagrant violations, are already being planned for March 8th. The government better be prepared to prosecute because the offenders will be knocking on the Justice Department's doors begging to be cited...so they can get this before a court ASAP.
Do you or do you not make a living selling Russian women for profit?
You almost had me and then your German friend posted his. No, I don't think this has anything to do with what your son and our American sons and daughters are fighting for. Selling women is wrong! No matter how poor they are and no matter how desperate, fat, bald and ugly our American men could be, selling someone for a "better life" is never an option.
[Actually, I don't agree with the legislation. But I must make an emphatic disagreement with ridicule of someone you don't agree with (ridicule) and another and more emphatic disagreement with someone profiting from selling out women from another country for their own profit.]
If you really disagree with this legislation, then please write to your senator about it.
Cripplecreek is a man who doesn't need you to fight his battles for him...and it wasn't just a matter of Cripplecreek's attitude being something some men here "disagreed with". Cripplecreek agreed with a fascist law written by a bitter feminist hag that violates the rights of single males to say hello to someone on the Internet and WILL be overturned.
As for me...if you have some sort of strange idea that I work in the dating industry, you must have misunderstood when I said that I would create an "agency" after March 7th in order to sell the email address of a female friend in Moscow to some nice guy without a criminal record...and then announce to the feminazi Senator Cantwell from Washington that we just broke her law (and apparently Bush's law and the law of the Republican jackass who cowrote it with Cantwell).
The online dating industry is very rough. Most "agencies" are run by foreign women who live in the USA and want to help other women find good husbands. They earn about $2000 per month on a good month.
It is one of these agencies that will flagrantly break the new law and brag about it until the courts overturn it quietly.
How does selling the contact information of foreign women seeking American men as husbands, to American men seeking foreign women as wives, equate to "selling out women from another country for their own profit"? You really don't believe that do you. It's just a smoke screen.
Can't you be honest and admit that what really bothers you is that American men are increasingly looking to non-feminist countries for wives. Because American men are fed up with American women who would have laws force them to do what they want.
Sorry. But it is still a man's world and in that world feminists will always lose in the end.
Feminist women have made their beds. Let them lie in it, alone.
Good for you! We have disagred in the past, but I will always stand up for the rights of my fellow man. This legislation is simply outrageous.
[Selling women is wrong!]
Match.com and Yahoo are not selling women. They are selling happiness for everyone. Or at least they are trying to.
They got around this law because they lobbied and because the jackass politicians who wrote the law knew that single men would go nuclear if the women of Match and Yahoo were categorized as foreigners who needed to see the men's background checks and American women who didn't yet need to see background checks (until the laws on that are passed next year).
Yahoo and Match.com will be next if this legislation is not overturned.
This whole issue is about introductions. It is about saying hello. The prostitution business is something entirely different. That is sale of women.
But even that is on a decline because of the Internet. There are plenty of articles on the web that describe how many young women who used to become prostitutes are now able to earn big money stripping on the Internet...which is still a shame, but an improvement on prostitution itself.
But then one gets into pornography. You can say that THIS is sale of women. But pornography is also a completely different subject.
Ahh, the 'ole legislate by anecdote routine. I suppose since OK killed nicole that you think a black guy should't be allowed to meet a white woman unless the woman has been given a background check on him? right?
the feminists such as Marueen Dowd wonder why men don't like them, so they are trying to drive out the competition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.