| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Congress Tries To Stop Americans From Marrying Foreigners |
| 2006-07-22 |
| While we weren't looking Congress along with some extreme feminist groups used the "backdoor" to strip you of your right to choose whom you wish to date and marry by implementing the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA). The new law severely limits a man's ability to date and marry foreign women. These "International marriages" have lower divorce rates than the 50 percent average for all US citizens. The new law will affect veterans and others - 60,000 marriages occur each year between veterans and foreign women. The stated purpose of the new law was to protect foreign immigrant women from violence stemming from a few unfortunate cases of foreign immigrant women who were abused by their husbands. Everyone agrees protecting women from violence is important, but IMBRA is a senseless law creating an "iron curtain" that actually increases violence against women. The provisions of the new law are draconian, requiring clients of International marriage agencies ("marriage brokers") to provide sensitive background information (personal and criminal) to marriage brokers before sending love letters to foreign women. Since when are Americans required to provide documents just for the purpose of writing a love letter? Another provision amends the application form for so-called "fiancÂŽe Visas" with numerous questions including: Whether or not the romance was arranged by an international broker and if the U.S. citizen has ever been accused of various crimes including alcohol offenses. IMBRA is a confusing bureaucratic nightmare. Recently the Department of Homeland Security missed a deadline to revise the old petition forms, resulting in 10,000 "indefinite delays" trashing and destroying those marriages. Many of those affected by the recall are veterans. While these American servicemen have been fighting for their country, these extreme feminist groups made "backdoor" arrangements with YOUR legislators creating IMBRA and preventing them from marrying the person they love. Proponents of IMBRA were unable to get much support for IMBRA when the law was introduced in 2003. Most legislators felt the controversial law was a severe impingement of men's privacy rights. The manner in which IMBRA passed was an atrocity reminiscent of the old Soviet Politburo, being passed by an undemocratic voice vote with no debate, no questions answered and no violence statistics presented comparing violence rates. IMBRA reeks of political corruption and scandal on a massive level. Ironically, the largest international dating agencies are exempt from IMBRA for suspicious reasons. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) desperately presented false and misleading testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 14, 2004 (falsely) claiming international marriage brokers were involved in human trafficking of women into the United States. A DOJ study had already concluded no such correlation. Clients of IMBs are essentially a "politically unpopular group." The collective "mass psychological" behavior of human beings sometimes dictates totally irrational responses to events similar to mob anger mentality. Japanese Americans during World War II, a politically unpopular group, were placed in internment camps having done nothing wrong. The proponents continue to use deception , distortion and exaggeration, all of which are a form of lying (political McCarthyism). They carefully engineer "one sided" media interviews with no opposing point of view. IMBRA proponents sensationalize the three foreign immigrant women killed by American men in "mail order bride arrangements" in 10 years, masking the ugly American fact that 14,000 American women citizens have been killed by their intimate partner in the same time frame. The only problem with these "International marriages" is a false perception created by IMBRA proponents. IMBRA is a violation of the rights of people living in America. People living everywhere should have the right to choose whom they marry without government interference. Fellow citizens, please contact your elected representatives and ask for repeal of The "International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005." Please contact your fellow veterans also. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #9 "Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) desperately presented false and misleading testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 14, 2004 (falsely) claiming international marriage brokers were involved in human trafficking of women into the United States. A DOJ study had already concluded no such correlation." Funny. If one looks at the DoD Trafficking in Persons (TiP) briefing, marriage brokers are listed among the 'agents in trafficking'. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2006-07-22 22:36 |
| #8 CF8268, I was a blonde with a dark red Corvette. The other details are between me and the great state of Arizona. I paid my fine, got no time. Although I could have been eligible.... ;) Let's just say that the Corvette is a fine example of American engineering and competitiveness in the world of high performance automobiles. Trust me on this. |
| Posted by: Swamp Blondie 2006-07-22 21:14 |
| #7 Oh, and in your research did you come across the financial obligation the native citizen is held for if the marriage fails. I'd like to see the 'equal before the law' application of that to domestic marriages as well. Wait for the outcry on that little bit of imposition by the state. SS4450, I didn't need to do any research on that. I signed that paper stating I would financially support my sweetie for the next 10 years, regardless of whether our marriage lasted or failed. I've had to provide more documentation about my background to Immigration than you can imagine. They literally know more about me than some of my close friends. It sucks, but it's the law and my sweetie was worth it. I'd do it again, and furthermore, I'd use it as an example to my little boy someday if he wants to get married (as in, if this was the law for your marriage, would you be willing to sign such a document on behalf of your fiancee? If not, don't get hitched. You don't have what it takes to make it work with this person.) I understand the reasoning behind that financial paperwork and support it. Unless you don't mind supporting my sweetie with your tax dollars, SS4450, I can't see what your problem is with it. There may not be a lot of statistics to back up the domestic violence angle, true. But based on my past life as a civilian with a major city police department, that could be because many of these women (most are women, not guys....we bucked the trend) don't know that certain behaviors acceptable in their home countries (like beating the crap out of them for the crime of pissing off a man) are violations of the law until they become more Americanized. When combined with the fact that many of them didn't speak English, how many domestic violence incidents do you think get reported? Not a lot unless their American neighbors call it in.....and good luck in some departments finding someone who can speak the abused spouse's language. Most of the men who marry foreigners are honorable in their intentions and behavior. But you would have to be sorely mistaken to think there is not a sizable group who think that the women's unfamiliarity with their basic legal rights here is not a bug but a feature, and they do take advantage of it. If you don't have anything bad in your background, why the hell would you be afraid of this law? Yes, it would affect military personnel most. However, all of the military personnel I have known have been honorable, even to the point of Caesar's wife standards, so this isn't going to be a huge burden for the decent ones to shoulder. |
| Posted by: Swamp Blondie 2006-07-22 21:10 |
| #6 #3 The law, Blondie, the law is nonsense. |
| Posted by: GK 2006-07-22 20:59 |
| #5 Remember if you have a monopoly and competition shows up, do you offer better services or products or do you seek people in power to restrict by law, by regulation, by other means to keep the monopoly? The whole IMBRA is indeed a shame. The backers failed to show that the violence to foreigners was significantly any greater than domestic partners. It was based upon anecdotal events. Just like MSM, if it bleeds, it leads. I guess we need to restrict the import of foreign cars because of all the accidents theyÂ’ve been involved in too without regard to actual performance compared to other models. And who does it effort most - try your military. Go to any military installation. You'll find one of the greatest examples of integration created by marriages to locals from their overseas assignments. Oh, and in your research did you come across the financial obligation the native citizen is held for if the marriage fails. I'd like to see the 'equal before the law' application of that to domestic marriages as well. Wait for the outcry on that little bit of imposition by the state. |
| Posted by: Slavising Sholuting4450 2006-07-22 20:49 |
| #4 But I wouldn't have had a problem disclosing my criminal history (all two driving tickets) Traffic violations are criminal offences in the US? Or...just how fast were you driving, ma'am? :-) |
| Posted by: Critle Flosing8268 2006-07-22 19:54 |
| #3 What's nonsense, GK? What I wrote or what the other guy did? Five minutes on Google, ten to write the post. I'll spend my coffee break any way I wanna! ;) |
| Posted by: Swamp Blondie 2006-07-22 17:46 |
| #2 Looks as tho someone doesn't have enough real work to do. NONSENSE! |
| Posted by: GK 2006-07-22 17:13 |
| #1 The author here isn't exactly on top of things in regards to the law. Punch "IMBRA" into Google, and two of the top stories are about how a judge put a temporary restraining order on Immigration keeping them from enforcing the law back in March. It is still in effect. Another link, still on the same first page of sources when I typed it in, comes from an immigration lawyer who's been representing clients since 1994. She says it requires a potential foreign spouse to be notified of any criminal history of the American spouse, and that marriage brokers have to do a background check. The potential foreign spouse also gets information regarding our domestic violence laws. It also caps the lifetime limit of fiancee visas to three and prohibits more than one fiancee visa at a time. (Yes, it's possible to do that....wonder why that's been allowed up till now, but it has.) Other things that have to be disclosed are whether or not the US prospective fiance is currently legally married, how many times he or she has been married, has ever committed a violent crime like a homicide, kidnapping or rape, child abuse convictions, and if he or she has ever had a restraining order put on him or her. Read the act for yourself, which apparently this writer couldn't be bothered to do. Typical journalist. In spite of all that, if the fiancee still wishes to come to the US and meet his or her soon-to-be spouse and get married, this act does not keep that from happening. All it does is force the US party to provide information, and to make sure it is provided in the fiance's native language by the marriage broker and/or the consular officer. Big farking deal. Look, Immigration is a total pain in the ass. But I wouldn't have had a problem disclosing my criminal history (all two driving tickets), and the other requirements under this law to my sweetie before we said "I do" even though it wasn't required. The ones hyperventilating about it and distorting what it actually says probably do have some crap in their backgrounds that they correctly believe would turn off their prospective sweeties if they knew about it. The only group I can see that it might hurt are American men and women who were hoping that their foreign honeys wouldn't find out about their disreputable pasts until it was too late. Maria Cantwell might be the looniest moonbat around, but this doesn't seem like a horrible law to me at all. |
| Posted by: Swamp Blondie 2006-07-22 17:11 |