Protect Your Rights to seek Foreign Romance
Join the Fight against IMBRA
| IMBRA Main | IMBRA Information | IMBRA Articles | Background Information Form | Contact your Representative |
Janurary 16, 2006
Gary Bala, USA Immigration Attorney
After hours on the Saturday before Christmas Weekend 2005, the U.S. House rushed through the final version of a law which will, as a practical matter, effectively shoot down Cupid’s Arrow for many American men (and women) seeking romance and love with a foreign partner.
The International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (IMBRA), Public Law No. 109-162, Title VIII, Subtitle D, was passed on a simple but undemocratic “voice vote” in time to allow lawmakers to return home for the holidays, without any hearings, witness testimony or even review of relevant statistical or empirical evidence, in true "backdoor" fashion.
Many legislators who agreed on the voice vote after a House-Senate Conference probably did not even read the law as it was cleverly attached, by its feminist proponents notably Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), to the back-end of the universally applauded “Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005”, signed by the President on January 05, 2006. Most of the law's provisions go into effect in early March 2006.
Let’s be crystal clear that NO ONE is against protection of women and children from deadly and vicious attacks at the hand of spouses who may be violent offenders. Yes, we all agree and should indeed work hard and imaginatively to combat this pernicious evil in our society.
First off, let’s keep the topic which is the subject of this law - abuse protection for immigrant women entering the U.S. on K Visas – in true perspective.
50,000+ people are killed every year in motor vehicle accidents in the U.S. Almost 50,000 people also die of homicides each year. Almost 5 million incidents of “Intimate Partner Violence” are reported each year, according to the National Institute of Domestic Violence. Yet, compared with these massive numbers, the number of reported deaths and serious injury to immigrant women in an inter-cultural marriage is probably very small.
Thus, we are probably not talking about a major number of incidents here. In fact, the genesis of this law was media reports of two (2) cases from Washington State, Anastasia King from one of the Russian states, and Susanna Blackwell from the Philippines, who were murdered by their husbands who petitioned for their K Visas, compared with what Immigration estimates is approximately 5000 marriages each year between inter-cultural couples.
The law’s laudable purpose, yet dubious and even destructive practical consequences Preventing and limiting potential for domestic violence abuse is indeed a laudable goal.
This law tries to further that purpose by requiring the disclosure of certain mandatory information from a U.S. citizen (mostly men), primarily about their criminal and domestic violence history, who want to file for a K Visa, or pursue romance options through a romance company, so that the foreign client (mostly ladies) can make an informed choice to pursue the relationship or not.
In fact, the provisions of this law requiring U.S. citizen petitioners for K Visas to submit criminal and domestic violence history information and records to the U.S. government is probably a good thing. As are the provisions which require the U.S. Consulates to conduct intensive background checks of the petitioners and share that information in the K Visa applicant’s primary language, together with domestic violence help information, at time of the Consular visa interview.
Law enforcement and consular databases in the electronic age probably make Uncle Sam best suited for this investigative task anyway. And the distributing of this information to the K Visa applicants BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT and BEFORE the applicant receives the visa, will ensure that that information has maximum relevant impact from the most credible actor, if it is in fact needed. (Most K Visa applicants are foreign ladies who will share 90 days of time in the U.S. with their gentleman suitor before making a decision to marry.)
The real problem of this law is found in the provisions in Section 833(d) pertaining to the requirements imposed on “International Marriage Brokers”, private companies which range from correspondence only to full-blown matchmakers for U.S. clients (usually gentlemen) and foreign clients (usually ladies).
This provision mandates private brokers to secure from U.S. clients the same extensive criminal and domestic violence background information as the Consulates, AND THEN to translate and provide the information to a potential foreign client, AND THEN to obtain from her a signed, written consent BEFORE allowing her personal contact information to be released to the U.S. client. In other words, this information release and paperwork is a condition for the couple to even begin to communicate or even just say “Hello.”
— Any arrest or conviction for crimes ranging from "homicide" to "child neglect", not making any distinctions between any arrest or those arrests not resulting in conviction;
— Any arrest or conviction related to controlled substances, alcohol or prostitution, again making no distinction on arrests not leading to conviction;
— Any arrest or conviction for "similar activity in violation of Federal, State or local criminal law" without specifying what "similar" means;
— Any family court orders, including temporary restraining orders, which are often not difficult to procure in many states;
— Every state and country of the U.S. client’s residence since the age of 18;
— Current or previous marriages, and how and when they were terminated;
— Ages of children under age 18;
Most romance agencies and companies are realistically dealing with hundreds and thousands of U.S. clients, and hundreds and thousands of foreign clients as well.
It is obvious that it will be commercially prohibitive and physically impossible for most agencies and companies to begin to comply with these onerous and punitive requirements as a condition of doing business. They will be forced from business or driven overseas or offshore. U.S. clients will have fewer customer choices and options for overseas romance. And foreign clients abroad will have fewer choices and options to communicate with U.S. clients.
In short, “international romance” is the real casualty, and the couples pursuing it, are the true losers.
The “anti-male” and “anti-couple” bias of this law The feminist advocates of this law, including reportedly Bo Cooper, former INS General Counsel who sits on the feminist Tahirih Justice Center, successfully pushed this law by latching onto the practices of seedy and distasteful “bad guy” international agencies: a very few unethical and criminal companies who are operating as fronts for human trafficking, the sex tourism trade and child prostitution. To address this issue, the anti-Human Trafficking law (The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005) was just signed this month by President Bush, with stiff new penalties for these offenses.
This new IMBRA law however misses the mark. It basically punishes all men (good, bad and indifferent) by “branding” them all abusers, as Wendy McElroy put it in her recent "iFeminist" Op-Ed piece at Fox News:
See: Mail Order Bride Law Brands All American Men Abusers
It forces U.S. client men to prove that they are NOT abusers to just say “Hello” to a lady abroad in a romance agency. Under the guise of protecting foreign women against men with possible domestic violence records, it inhibits and prevents any real romance communication before it can even begin, thus punishing men for being men, and killing a potential couple’s romantic courtship before it can even start.
*You must submit a world of personal and confidential information to a private agency if you wish to communicate with a foreign lady for possible friendship and romance, including criminal and domestic violence background (even if you have no such record);
*You must wait until the information is translated to her primary language and is provided to her and she signs a written consent for you to receive her “personal contact information”;
*You must supply the same personal information if you file for a K Visa (fiancée or spousal visa);
*You are effectively limited to three (3) fiancée or spousal visas, unless you can get a special “waiver”;
*You will likely pay more as a customer and have fewer options in foreign romance, since there will likely be less agencies willing and able to remain in business because of the onerous and even punitive documentary requirements.
*Undemocratic stealth nature of the law's passage: No opportunity to be heard, no hearings held, no witness testimony, no statistical evidence considered comparing or evaluating domestic vs. foreign marriages, divorces, or domestic violence incidents;
*"Chilling" of First Amendment free speech and free association rights of U.S. citizen gentlemen who only wish to simply communicate with ladies abroad; "Prior restraint" of free speech; "Chilling" of the "unrestricted right to marry" found in the U.N. Human Rights Declaration; the law is also probably “constitutionally overbroad” under the First Amendment since it restricts the rights of U.S. citizens with no criminal or domestic violence records and lumps them with those who do have such a record;
*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, the law requires mandatory disclosure of criminal and other data for communication and dating with ladies abroad, but not for communication and dating with domestic ladies; Also, the law requires mandatory disclosure of background info. and background check for filing a K Visa for a foreign lady and Consular interview, but not for local marriage license with a domestic lady;
*Equal protection of the laws of U.S. citizens pursuing K Visa petition process for fiancées and spouses are violated by the law’s requirements for mandatory information disclosure and extended background check, when this law fails to require the same for U.S. citizens pursuing CR-1 residency visa process for spouse;
*Unenforceable and impractical provisions rendering law void - Consular Officer interview and documents delivered in "primary language" of foreign national client, which is probably not realistically 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, punitive and commercially impossible restrictions are imposed on "commercial free speech" rights of companies and businesses to engage in interstate commerce; Also, the "Limitation of Disclosure of Information" on an International Marriage broker (IMB) preventing release of a lady's personal contact information to person or entity other than a United States client, even if a company wants to comply with the law requirements, unfairly restricts "commercial free speech" of companies and businesses.
*Unfair discriminatory treatment of businesses under the law: For example, the mandatory document collection requirements are imposed on an "International Marriage Broker (IMB)" for the supposed purpose of abuse protection of immigrant women, but certain exceptions are made for non-profit brokers and brokers who do not do international matchmaking, when the potential for abuse is the same. Similarly, these mandatory document collection requirements are imposed on services providing international matchmaking, but no such requirements are imposed on domestic matchmaking services.
Contact your Congressman, Congress lady and Senator and make them own up to the fact that they voted for this flawed law. Many of them do not even know that they voted for it through a “voice vote”, or what exactly they voted for. We can embarrass them into re-considering this bad law.
Tell your friends and neighbors and tell anyone in the media who will listen. Visit Websites and Discussion Forums and sign electronic petitions which are coming online to repeal this pernicious law. There are bound to be legal challenges to this new law, but we don’t need to wait for the courts to rule on this law to make our voices heard.
Hoping that you find happiness,
| IMBRA Main | IMBRA Information | IMBRA Articles | Background Information Form | Contact your Representative |
|
|
|
Protect Your Rights to seek Foreign Romance |
|
|