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?
"Certainly these situations can be very bad, but that's not the norm."
Garbage, it's a modern day slave trade but pathetic men get laid and the slave traders get paid.
The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is manners.
[Bush is a RINO. Just like his Dad.]
That is my take. If FR cannot start a movement to try to get this "law" declared unconstitutional...I may have to just use FR quickly to see the newswire and find a forum that cares about our rights.
This is an outrage.
If the matchmaking service is based in a foriegn country, how can this law be enforced against them? The article says the law imposes the duty on the matchmaker to collect this info. If an American just contacts the foriegn matchmaker on their foriegn website and conducts the business over the net, how is law going to impact that?
agree...
The free speech problems with this law seem pretty severe. What you'd need to challenge it is a test case; preferably a man with no criminal record whose only "crime" is his lack of reporting. That would be an interesting case, because it would pit constitutional freedoms against the disturbing deference to federal government that many Supreme Court justices have been showing recently. Assuming the case makes it that far.
[So. . .a man would contact such a service for what other reason than to seek a wife?]
It really isn't any of your business. It doesn't even begin to cross my mind that it would ever be any of your business.
This does not sound constitutional.
While we do have the Maureen Dowds and Helen Thomases...I know that American women are still the best in the world, once you filter out the liberal feminazi nutcases. There's a lot of great women right on FR, for that matter.
How would Alito vote on this?
It's hard to say. I hope he'd vote in favor of the constitution's 1st Amendment, but until the case is decided, it's hard to know if he - or anyone else on the court - would contort himself until he finds a way to give more power to the feds.
Don't be so smug. We're talking about the 99% of American males who just lost their right to say hi to someone.
Why limit these "protections" to foriegn women. American women are just as entitled to protection from American men as foriegn women are. I think all of the myriad introduction services (E-Harmony, etc.) should be required by law to acquire the police records, etc. from each of their male clients before any introductions.
Not.
"This sounds sick. And yet the President signed the law happily because it was tucked inside another law and because, apparently, Republicans don't care about the rights of single males."
Correction, the Government doesn't care about the rights of males, period.
I'll change my mind when we gain the right to demand our children NOT be aborted without our consent.
And stupid American women will continue to marry men from the Middle East so they can get American citizenship.
It can't of course.
The introduction service will still collect their fee.
What will happen is the couple will be hassled by our government for not Kissing Government butt.
They'll just deny the Visa.
What a rediculous thing to legislate. Perhaps Washington State should ask itself how this 'male' was able to do this 'twice' and not pass more laws because we are not enforcing those already on the books.
Marrying an American citizen does not bestow American citizenship on a spouse. The only effect is shortening the time needed for the legal alien to apply.
But how could we possibly do anything without the government's help? Republicans and Democrats have taught us that we need nanny statism intruding into every aspect of our lives. I find it odd that anyone who voted for one of these parties is shocked at this level of statism. I mean, that's what you purchased. It's what was promised, and now they are delivering it. And when you vote Republican or Democrat in 2006 and 2008, you will recieve more of the same.
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.