In 1997, Indle King Jr.’s wife divorced him. King had beaten her head against a wall, and she sought and got a protective order to keep King away from her. King felt victimized by the divorce settlement (still does, probably).
King’s first wife had been what people call a mail-order bride. So King went back to the internet and found a new wife, Anastasia Soloviev from Kyrgyzstan. Two years into their marriage, 20-year-old Anastasia King had realized that she married an abusive monster, and was seeking a divorce. Not wanting to pay a second divorce settlement, King recruited his friend Dan Larson to help him murder Anastasia. King, a big man, sat on Anastasia’s chest to hold her down while Larson strangled her.
They dumped Anastasia’s body. Then the newly-single King went back to the internet to find his third mail-order bride.
Fortunately, Anastasia’s body was found before King could close that transaction. King wound up getting a 27-year sentence (newspaper accounts say King’s testimony on his own behalf cleared up any doubt the jury was feeling). The trial was big news in Washington state, where Anastasia had lived, and the issue came to the attention of Washington Senator Maria Cantwell and Representative Rick Larsen. As a result, Congress this month passed The International Marriage Broker Act, which requires potential mail-order brides to be informed if their suitors have criminal histories or have had domestic violence complaints taken out against them.
Actually, there’s a lot more to the legislation; Bean, posting on her blog for the first time in months, describes the legislation in detail. There’s too much for me to sum up, so go over there and read her post. From Bean’s post:
Bean also discusses the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000. The most disturbing bit? In 2000, Congress created a class of visas – the “U visa” – for witnesses to and victims of “rape, torture, trafficking, incest, domestic violence, sexual assault, abusive sexual contact, prostitution, sexual exploitation, female genital mutilation” and a variety of other crimes. U visas are needed; they can give crime victims a way to avoid the impossible choice between staying with an abusive criminal or being deported.
Five years after Congress passed the U visa law, however, the law might as well have never been passed. Why? Because the Bush administration has refused to release rules for U visas, meaning that no one can get a U visa. (Women who would qualify for a U visa have been getting by with halfway measures and year-to-year visas in the meanwhile – if they’re lucky.) Sheer incompetence, or cold-hearted indifference? Who can even tell anymore?
UPDATE: See Ginmar’s post on this subject, as well.
No, no, kittens cure cancer (as do half cylon babies, apparently), but cats are sufficient to prevent it.
Or so I’m told.
Yesterday I called my friends to find out how the paralyzed man was doing and if he would be willing to participate in this discussion. I found out that he died. He was 40 with two small children from the previous marriage. His ex- “abused mail-order-bride” is still trying to get something from his estate, I was told. His friends did not want to discuss this any further. His mother is in very bad shape and would not be able to speak out.
Then again, from reading what this story was reduced to — cats, dogs, kittens, what else? — I am thinking that may be the feminists are not that wrong. After all, every people deserves its own government, as they say.
My e-mail is moscownightsindc@hotmail.com
I would be happy to provide you with any information I have and I have lot of it. Just please do not ask me how to use cats, dogs and pigs for curing physical illnesses. I am more concerned about social diseases.
moscownights, upon further consideration your story doesn’t sound all that crazy. It’s just that at this point in the game, I’ve heard it all. My favorite cliche about the whole industry is the Russian Mob, who are about as active in the real world as Dracula and the Mummy.
P.S.- Kittens and Broccoli cure cancer. But they have to be together at the same time to have full effect. (has anyone else noticed that we hijacked this thread?)
The case number isn’t meaningful unless the judge’s full-text ruling is published on lexis or available online, or unless you know of some other free method by which people who don’t live in Virginia can access official court documents. If there is documentation of Bill and Luba’s case available online, from an official, objective source, let me know and I’ll certainly read it, and eat crow if you’re telling the truth.
Lacking any evidence, however, your story sounds nuts.
It doesn’t even make sense on its own terms – if Luba had already filed an abuse claim the day before she talked to you, then she must already have researched immigration law and decided to falsely claim she was being abused. IF she already knew that, why did Luba need to get that info from you the day after she filed her claim? And if she had already lied to authoriteis about being abused, then why undermine her own case the very next day by telling you she hadn’t been abused?As it is, your story is that on day one, Luba filed for a restraining order. On day two, she decided to insist that she and Bill come over to your house, so she could ask you leading questions about immigration law and assure you that she’s never been abused, hence making sure you’d be in a perfect position to testify against her.That doesn’t sound like a plausible way for a woman pulling off a slick legal scam to behave.Let’s assume, though, that you are telling the truth. How do you know that Luba wasn’t being abused? If you ask a real-life abused woman, in front of her abuser, if she’s being abused, she might well lie. Maybe she doesn’t feel comfortable discussing her abuse with you. Maybe she doesn’t feel comfortable discussing this (even in Russian) in the same room as her abuser.
Similarly, how do you know that the two Russian men you’ve mentioned weren’t lying when they told you they hadn’t committed abuse? Maybe they were telling the truth, but maybe not.
That’s nothing. My friend’s aunt has a friend whose cousin works in the Pentagon, and she told me that all the Jewish employees took the day off on September 11th!
Dude, if you don’t think her story sounds crazy, then you’re probably crazy yourself. Did you not read the bit about the instructional film?
You’ve misread. Luba filed an abuse claim the day following the alleged meeting. In this claim, she alleged that she had been abused the day before meeting with our storyteller.
More importantly, do the police issue restraining orders in VA? I know that in OR that a court does that.
My friend’s aunt has a friend whose cousin works in the Pentagon, and she told me that all the Jewish employees took the day off on September 11th!
I knew it!
Man, you Jews are wily!
Whoops. Okay, I’ve corrected my earlier post (moderator’s privilege) by crossing out the bad bits.
In Virginia, the police can issue a 72-hour emergency restraining order. After that, you need a judge to sign off on it, and in the long run a hearing (at which both sides get to speak, if they choose to) is unavoidable.
This is just a small sample. It is very sad that IMBRA excluded protection to these innocents –
http://th.match.com/match/mt.cfm?pg=results
The initial intensions of this law have merit. Unfortunately, the law makers did not have real intentions to protect anyone. You need to ask the question “Who benefits from this law?” The answer: “BIG” Dating and a few senators who get to brag publicly about how they are saving the world from the evil U.S. citizen man. This law is not to protect women. Its to curb legal immigration. If the real intent was to protect women from dangerous men, how can yahoo, match, and others let any sex offender, or psychopath join.
If I had to publicly post any private information about myself in a restaurant and everyone inside had to read it and sign-off on it before I was allowed entry into that restaurant. I wouldn’t waste my time going to that restaurant.
This law further erodes anyone’s choice to pursue life, liberty and happiness. It is not illegal to write someone a letter in another country. It is not illegal to call someone from another country on the telephone. At least not for now.
Well of course the government will listen in and read everything you do since they spy on its citizens anyhow. But let’s put that aside for now. It is not illegal to marry someone from another country whether it be Britain, Canada, Greece, you name it.
The section of the law requiring U.S. citizens to undergo a criminal background check and answer very personal questions should scare the pants off of anyone who values what’s left of their personal privacy and freedoms.
You see, this law opens the doors for more and more regulations. Pretty soon you’ll need to get a psychological examination, a personality profile test, an interviews with every friend, you’ve had since kindergarten, your family members and employers. Maybe you’ll be required to have a microchip implanted on you to track your every move because this law says you are a “criminal” until you prove otherwise. You know those fancy criminal ankle bracelets.
Now this is not the America I remember when I was growing up as a child. I don’t have a criminal record and I work hard. And I don’t have time to meet people in bars and I enjoy chatting with people and meeting new people online. I know I’ll never meet 99% of them in person but you have to meet many people in order to find that special person who is right for you.
I have passion and pride for the USA. We have people dying in Iraq to serve and protect this country and to preserve the freedoms and liberties we enjoy (or what’s left of them)
I should be able to put my profile on a dating website and have a choice to meet anyone in the world that I want without having to give up my liberties. I don’t want the government to tell me who I can fall in love with and who I can’t.
So now webmasters who do not comply with near impossible regulations are criminals. Good God! You people should be angry. Your government spies on you and takes all of your freedoms away everyday little-by-little. Now your house can be taken away from you if a business can generate tax dollars from your land for the betterment of government. You see every year more rules, more regulations and you people let them do it. You live in the United States Prison. A prison without bars…that’s why it works and people like you let them take and take and control you.
The IMBRA 2005 does not do squat other than to deprive people of a means to meet other people. To say “hello”. Well I guess saying “hello” is soon to be a crime. Since only U.S. citizens are affected by this and only small “mom and pop” websites, this law doesn’t accomplish anything except further degrade your freedom to fall in love with whom you choose. Shame on all of you! If you really want to protect everyone’s rights whether they be a man or a woman, do background checks when a couple is ready to get married at the immigration stage of a relationship. This way everyone gets “last looks” before a commitment is made and everyone is treated the same no matter the persons nationality, gender, religion, race.
Yikes
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/2/inktomi345729.php
International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 — Welcomed by Big Internet Dating Companies Seeking to Corner the Foreign-Women Dating Market
Regulation of international marriage brokers creates competitive advantage for big Internet dating companies.
(PRWEB) February 14, 2006 — The Big Internet Dating Organization (BID) supports the efforts of Internet dating sites in their opposition to criminal background check regulations (see http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/news2005/online-dating-regulation.html). However, despite BID’s opposition to background checks, BID supports the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (IMBRA) as it will enable BID’s Member Websites to capture more of the cross-cultural dating market.
Cross-cultural dating is the fastest growing segment of the Internet dating industry. It seems that there is a large and growing segment of American men who desire strong family relationships and believe women from other cultures also have this goal in mind. BID’s Member companies facilitate communication between foreign women and American men, although it is not their primary business. Typically, the women do not pay for membership since many come from impovershed circumstances, and the men join as paying members in order to receive their contact information.
Feminist organizations have been seeking to regulate the cross-cultural segment for years. The first law was from Washington State in January, 2002, (House Bill 2667). The feminist groups that helped write the law were mainly focused on International Matchmaking Organizations (IMO’s) that, in their opinion, advertise women as commodities and perpetuate sexist and racist stereotypes of foreign women. However, the law was too inclusive and would have negatively impacted our Member Websites’ cross-cultural segments. Therefore, BID worked with these groups to develop a more narrowly tailored definition that would only affect the IMO’s.
To further separate the IMO’s from the cross-cultural dating business, they were labeled International Marriage Brokers and the law was taken national as the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act. The hallmark of the law is the requirement that mandatory criminal and marital background checks be performed on each American man and each foreign woman must receive and approve of this information before her email address can be released. This last provision will certainly drive more traffic to BID Member Websites since most men, CRIMINAL OR NOT, will not want to be bothered with all the paperwork and compromise their privacy just to say “hi” to a woman. BID also anticipates that, in addition to the declining customer base, the cost of compliance will drive most marriage brokers out of business.
IMBRA goes into effect on March, 6 2006. Already, the cross-cultural segments of BID’s Member Websites are showing increased traffic. BID thanks the writers of IMBRA for their support and appreciate their concern for women worldwide.
As many as 64 million Americans have arrest records, many of which never resulted in conviction. That means that about 27% of the nation’s adult population have a criminal record. (Source: LAC.org).
In 2004, nearly 7 million Americans (3% of adult population) were under some form of correctional supervision: 2.2 million incarcerated in state and federal prisons and local jails; 4.1 million on probation; and 700,000 on parole. (Source: US Department of Justice)
If you want to make some money, invest in some private prisons that trade on Wall Street like Corrections Corporation or Wackenhut. Soon everyone can be a prisoner!
’twas a joke. I’ve heard some whoppers in my time but that one goes on the shelf for display. I wonder who produces such instructional films? ;-)
In other news, we are now in full compliance with the new legislation and all is well in the jungle. Our customers (both men and women) are more than willing to comply with the new rules and business is thriving once more, much to Alice’s chagrin I’m sure (that was some nice trolling on http://internationalmarriagebrokers.com/index.html by the way).
As others have noted, the law has intentions that are valid but unfortunately it falls short of the mark. I believe that in one of the primary cases they use as an example, the man had no previous convictions of any kind. So in truth, that poor woman’s fate would have been no different with this law in effect. Unfortunately though, most of the less ethical agencies who specialize in canned letters and fake profiles are now thriving overseas because their legitimate American competition is running for the hills. Many of them were almost on the brink of bankruptcy until now.
I guess the bulk of my frustration comes from the fact that we never specialized in any type of “mail order bride” service but have still been forced to divert lots of time and effort to comply with the IMBRA. Oh well, such is life in the big city.
IMBRA Photos?
A recent search on the subject came up with this
http://www.online-dating-rights.com/index.php?ind=gallery&op=section_view&idev=6
Why are these photos on that site?
Yikes!
From http://www.pacificislandtours.com/imbra.html
The United States must be the first country in history to ever pass a law to protect foreign citizens from it’s OWN CITIZENS! This is an example of our legislators hard at work protecting our constitutional rights!!!
The United States is the only country in the world that is now putting these restrictions on its men! Foreign women do not have to go through any of these requirements to contact American men. The two Senators and the feminist militant activists state that there is a trend of raising violence to foreign born brides of American men, nonsense! They presented no evidence of this, because there is none, no surveys, no reports, NOTHING! They dwell on three horrible incidents of violence in the last 10 years where those women who were foreign born brides were murdered by their husbands. It is interesting to note that the feminists do not mention the American husband who had his penis cut off as he slept by his foreign born bride or the Florida man who’s foreign born wife tried to slowly poison him to death and now in prison! As a matter of fact, the evidence out there states that marriages to foreign born women are more stable and successful than marriages to American born women. The divorce rate in one survey made some years ago after ten years of marriage found a divorce rate under 10% with American men married to foreign born women. The divorce rate of men married to American born women is over 50%. So than, why are these women pushing through this legislation? Is it to protect foreign women from the horrible, violent and criminal American men? No, they could care less. The real reason is that it just infuriates them that American men are more and more disgusted with the attitudes of many American women. Many American men seek traditional women who have some old fashion and traditional values of what a family and a wife is suppose to be. Women that act like women, not wannabe men! These traditional values are poison to the feminist as this threatens their sickening and destructive agenda. This does not mean that most of these men are looking for women to be submissive or to be treated as an object or a sexual slave. This is just the nonsense that these people are telling us. What infuriates them is that many men are finding successful relationships with foreign women, more so than American women on average. Right along side this fact is that many of these foreign born brides are much younger and more beautiful than what is available in the U.S. Many foreign women especially from Asia are very unconcerned about large age differences of the men they marry.
This law {IMBRA} is now telling the world that American men are by nature so violent, horrible, abusive and criminal that the U.S. government has to protect all foreign women by the mandating of it’s male citizens to provide police checks before allowing the men to correspond with a foreign women to say a simple, hello! So there you have it……………………… How does it make you feel?
Sites like Yahoo personals, MSN, match.com, etc are also exempt as dating is not their primary business and other exemptions they may qualify for. They exempted these large sites because they knew this law could be tied up in the courts for years if challenged by them with their large wallets. The common belief is that these companies contributed largely to the lobbying of this law to push it through and give them most of the online dating market.
TODAY is the last day for marriage brokers!!! Do I hear taps playing?
They are starting to shut down. Here is the first of multitudes to be put out of business.
“Love of Asia Vietnam”
No more Viets for you buster
http://www.online-dating-rights.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=93&sid=67bf2ce502e71d503497035ddc918786
IMBRA is working. Thanks to Tahirih, Legal Momentum (N.O.W.) and Maria Cantwell.
Looks like a judge in Atlanta has issued a temporary restraining order on this ridiculous law.
It’s only good for about 10 to 20 days but at least that gives more time for more people to see how poor put together and just plain wrong this piece of legislation is.
Hopefully we’ll soon see this legislative jalopy relegated to the junkpile where it belongs
Hello all.. .. i called the United States District Court (Northern District of Georgia Atlanata Division) today and was told the following
Temporary Restraining Order Entry today IN CASE 1:06-CV-00426-CC , granting European Connections request for a TRO…. Prelim Injunction Hearing Scheduled for March 20, 2005.
Federal judges do not issue TRO’s just for the hell of it.. the fact that a TRO was granted should tell you something about this garbage law which tries to regulate free speech between law abiding folks….
In the end what i think will happen (this is just my opinion based on experience in court) is that the law will be stripped and end up another uselss piece of legislation that failed to consider the constitution… you know that document i am talking about?
Passing laws to regulate people (because you do not like their life style) is never a good idea, especially when you have no facts to back up your claims of immigrant women abuse… but again, I understand that the supporters of this law were able to gain traction with sensational sound bites which connect penpal websites with human trafficking… you better find something better
Unfortunatley, this may bring unwanted public scrutiny and brand the law as a scornful subversive feminist plot. How those boneheads were actually able to pull this off is a wonder.
http://www.online-dating-rights.com/pdf/ConBrief.pdf
Alice,
If it looks like chicken, smells like chicken, and tastes like chicken….chances are its CHICKEN!
So hopefully this subversive feminist plot will be exposed for what it really is and IMBRA will be thrown in the trash.
Alice, you could gain a lot more respect and support for your causes if did not refer to everyone else as “boneheads” and “idiots”… many of the people you refer to with these comments actually are decent people with wives and children… they are not all looking for slaves.
Maybe take some time to understand why men from the west marry ladies from the far east. Not every man does a search for “submissive asian bitch” on the internet looking for a wife. Many of the guys I talk to have just stumbled across sites from other dating sites.. i hear things like “I didn’t even know what a Filipina was before I met my wife” … or guys are searching for penpals and find a “foreign bride” website… believe it or not, many of the guys that meet foreign nationals are not even looking for them.. like a lot of things in life there is no rhyme or reason for it
While it may be easier to label everyone with the same label, if you do this you are not being honest with yourself or anyone else for that matter…
Actually, I’m pretty sure that Alice is a marriage broker supporter just pretending to be a feminist.
As a matter of fact, all the links she posted point to such websites.
Amp,
I think maybe you are right about Alice…but nonetheless, there must be a better way to protect women AND men such as requiring the background checks when a couple is applying for the fiance visa. This method is most fair to everyone and would apply to all foreign fiances.
Ya think, Amp?
“The real reason is that it just infuriates them that American men are more and more disgusted with the attitudes of many American women. Many American men seek traditional women who have some old fashion and traditional values of what a family and a wife is suppose to be. Women that act like women, not wannabe men! These traditional values are poison to the feminist as this threatens their sickening and destructive agenda. ” – Alice
There is a better link to the actual judge’s comments at http://www.imbra.org
The brief you linked to was what the plaintiff’s lawyer said (quite interesting in that he mentioned Alito and Scalia as having ruled in similar cases to the benefit of the victims of the anti-constitutional law).
The actual judge did his homework and came up with even more precedents to throw this law out. Now he is going to do even more homework and make this the kind of decision that the feminists won’t even bother taking to the Supreme Court.
IMBRA is stillborn.
But the feminists will push at their real agenda: stopping foreign women from getting great American husbands which might involve the American men divorcing feminist American women and moving in with someone half her age. The Internet and cheap airfares is making this more and more a danger to the mouthy feminist types approaching menopause.
To this end, fiance visas will soon take a year to be granted. The hatred continues…men must be stopped from pursuing happiness at all costs.
I recommend the book ‘Ethan Fromme’.
Or a schizophrenic forum troll, either way it’s a bit aggavating. Don’t people have better things to do with their time? The fact that he/she posted on the Marriage Broker forums doesn’t make much sense to me, as one would think it would get boring after a while.
Alice wrote:
It’s called due process, look it up.
Geeze, Aaron. Could you possibly use more misogynist cliches in your writing? To be fair, you did avoid the terms “feminazi,” “bitch” & “hag.” But I can’t really credit you for that.
Yeah, I thought that was a bit heavy. Cliches running amok.
I recommend the book ‘Ethan Fromme’.
… and I recommend a good therapist.
Well, if someone were trying to take away your basic rights I’m sure you would be using a few choice words also
Yes. Yes, I would use a few choice words. Motherfuckers, oppressive assholes, intolerant bigots are all terms that come to mind. However, “…mouthy feminist types approaching menopause,” is simply a misogynist cliche.
Rather than attack your opposition for their position, this uses the old cliche of your opponents simply being bitter because they are old, ugly & unable to enjoy sex rather than having an opposing opinion due to their interpretation of the facts that have been displayed (even in this comment thread). In short, Mahku, you’re apoligising for an insulting misogynistic bigot (or so his words strongly suggest).
Well, given the obvious man-hating nature of this law, and the anti-male cliches which appear on this very thread (e.g. guys who look for women overseas are losers, can’t get women back home, are all over the hill) you an see that there’s plenty of cliche going around on both sides of this issue.
The law is intended to prevent future deaths like the death of Anastasia King. The law may be badly written, or futile; but please explain, using simple language, why trying to prevent another case like Anastasia King’s is “man-hating” in nature.
It’s VERY telling that not one pro-marriage-broker person here has expressed more than a pro forma sentence of concern about what happened to Anastasia King, even though the original post spends quite a bit of time discussing her case. Most marriage broker supporters can’t even be bothered to even express the pro forma concern; the fact that Mr. King beat one marriage-broker bride and murdered another isn’t even a matter of concern for you folks, judging from what you’ve written here.
And you wonder why we feminists think you folks don’t give a crap about what happens to women?
If you’re against this law, then suggest an alternative that might protect women like Anastasia King in the future. If you can’t even be bothered to do that, then please don’t imagine that you’ll have any credibility in this forum.
Aside from yourself and Alice (who is a conservative pretending to be a feminist, not an actual feminist), no one has used those cliches in this thread.
Well, you’ll have to work that out with ‘Alice’ since it’s your blog. Those may be the only instances the cliches appear on this thread. But if I had a dime for every time I’ve heard them when this issue came up I’d be typing this from my penthouse overlooking Central Park.
Other than the intro to this thread and possibly the first response nobody on your side has expressed much concern either, pro forma or otherwise. For what it’s worth I hate those crimes and I can’t imagine a man laying an angry hand on the the woman he’s supposed to love. I agree with the responder that implied that 27 years is too short a term. I’ll spare you the details but I have definite ideas for the punishment that should be given to such scum. Also, concern and condolences for Anastasia and the other woman who was murdered by her American husband have been expressed on other forums discussing this issue such as online dating rights.
And while your showing all of this concern might you spare a little for the men who’ve been attacked, poisoned and killed by their foreign-born wives?
And you wonder why we marriage broker supporters think you folks don’t give a crap about what happens to men.
These terrible tragedies are 2 (TWO!) out of the tens of thousands of American man-foreign born wife marriages. Can you, Ampersand, give me clear evidence that there’s more of a problem with these marriages than with American man-American woman marriages? That’s what proponents of this law are claiming, and giving zero evidence to back it up.
You wonder why I say that this law is ‘man-hating?’ Well, clearly it targets men and paints them as criminals until proven otherwise. It also targets only men looking overseas, like there isn’t a domestic violence problem and a 50% divorce rate in this country?
How about this? African-American man married Caucasian woman. He kills his wife. Out of the tens of thousands of such marriages maybe one other instance like this is found. An outraged nation enacts a law saying that all black men must produce documents proving they’ve never committed such crimes before they can say ‘Hi’ to a white woman. Fair law Ampersand?
What to do to prevent these crimes? Background checks for both the American man and the foreign woman at the time of the application for the spouse/fiance visa. Unlike your side I want to protect everyone involved, not just target one group that I find ‘creepy.’
Mahku, while I see the logic in both having a background check, isn’t that what immigration is for, with regards to the foriegner? Don’t immigration hearings cover that background as is?
Second, your stance seems to come from a perspective that would imply that men and women are equally as likely to commit these violent acts. Statistics don’t tend to back that up.
And finally, the more vulnerable of the two parties is the one that is being ‘purchased’. I for one find the practice abhorrent. I think that most would agree that the vast majority of these women would not be selling themselves into an unknown marriage if they weren’t desperate in some way or another (to immigrate or for money). The notion of a person being purchased can (and does from what I’ve read of things written by men who have used such services) a sense of entitlement that is flat out frightening. Cultivate that megalomania enough, and it isn’t hard to imagine acts of imagined subordination or independence being responded to with violence.
Oh, also, is this law specific to men buying brides, or does it apply to if a woman were to buy a groom?
As I understand it the immigration process mainly checks into the background of the foreign spouse-to-be. I’m proposing that this is the best time to check into the American applicant (man or woman), not at the point where they’re saying ‘Hi, nice to meet you.’ I would support full background checks for both sides at this time as a way to protect both sides.
Yes, men commit these crimes more often. That doesn’t mean that men who are victims of these crimes from women don’t deserve equal protection. All victims of crime deserve the same protection and all criminals deserve punishment. Let’s make laws that address the issue equally, scrutinizing foreign and domestic relationships, investigating the men and the women.
As for your last paragraph, it’s full of the condescension one often finds from those who are trying to ‘protect’ foreign women. It also shows that you knows these marriages about as well as I know about the mating habits of the platypus. I’m sorry that you find it ‘abhorrent’ that so many of them men are going out and finding wives, having happy, long marriages with children. It’s too bad that you see a woman of color and assume that she’s a vulnerable shrinking thing that needs your protection.
I’ve been living in Asia, Africa and the Middle East for the last 18 years. I’ve seen hundreds of such marriages. I can assure you that the abuse and other problems in these marriages are nothing compared to the carnage that is the American marriage scene.
You know, it was easily predictable that you’d say something like that at some point. I know you. We know you (make that a plural ‘you’ as well, if you like).
Like we care what someone who sides with the oppressor “assures” us. As long are you are not one of those women, instead of a pimpstress or a bride purchaser, nobody cares about your “experience”. Oh, and don’t assume that we all spent our entire lives in Western countries and don’t know anything about “exotic” cultures and languages. ‘Cause that would be “condescending”, y’know.
What I do know about these marriages is that the age difference is generally quite large, and involves older American men with younger foriegn women. That in and of itself is a concern for me, because it sets up an immediate power dynamic that needs to be overcome to ensure equality. Do I wish to protect these foriegn women from potential servitude? Well yes, as much as I can by speaking out and asking the tough questions that seem to make you so uncomfortable.
Wow, so some of them finding happiness makes a system that is set up in such a way that could easily create abuse and human servitude of a very questionable sort is enough to free it from scrutiny?
Whoa, hold-up there Sparky, where did I at any point say ‘women of color’? Hell, through this whole conversation, I’ve actually had those silly Russian bride websites going through my brain. While I know that the marriage market is not exclusive to Russia, my own critical thoughts have got zero to do with color. My concern is for women in vulnerable situations, regardless of their ethnicity.
And pray tell, how many of these marriages occur between young men to older women, or older men to older women, or younger men to younger women? Can you deny that the vast majority are middle aged to older men marrying barely post pubescent women?
Re The IMBRA
However noble the motivations might have been in wanting
to prevent crimes against foreign brides like those two that
occurred in Washington State, it is not fair or appropriate to
inject innuendo and slander on all men dating or wanting to
meet and marry a woman outside the US. Last I heard, Scott
Peterson was an American married to an American. Why
not slander all American men?
Additionally, the term ‘marriage broker’ is an intentional
added slur that does not at all describe introduction
agencies that foster people meeting rather than
engaging in anything like being a marriage broker. I have
written to Russian women for the past two years and
have never even encountered a so-called marriage broker.
These ad hominen attacks through intentional mislabeling
just confirm the lack of intellectual integrity in the IMBRA.
Furthermore, the focus of congressman Larson should
properly be on protecting American men from the
illegitimate agencies that use phony photos, or foreign
women seeking only money, entertainment, or a green card. We are,
after all, the taxpayers paying for his services and protection.
Embassies may advise engaged women as to their legal rights and responsibilities as part of the visa application process”“which seems reasonable. Knowledge of these same rights protects U.S. citizens at home. Futhermore, exercising these rights by the women truly victimized in Washington State would have given them the means to escape their inexcusable and fully reprehensible abuse. Rights should protect both men and women equally and fairly and be legislated with that objective in mind. Creating innuendo and bad mouthing and victimizing American men who are dating foreign women is not reasonable. Nor is continuing to sermonize the fiction that men are more often scoundrels and women are more often saints.
Some introduction agencies”“not marriage brokers”“have actually sold their databases and gone out of business. This has not only destroyed the dreams of some American men and foreign women, but also the financial dreams of the respective entrepreneurs and their employees.
The assumptions that American men seeking to meet foreign
women are a ‘risk group’ to be treated differently is not only
insulting and a calculated innuendo, but also patently false.
The corollary assumption that American women are the
last bastions of moral virtue and any man looking elsewhere
must be morally deficient is also patently false and ludicrous.
I didn’t realize the state of marriage is so advanced and harmonious
in the USA that we can lecture the world.
In the comments below are addressed other issues that
relate to the IMBRA. I particularly object to the use of
innuendo to prevent or discourage international marriages.
This is the new McCarthyism of our age egged on by
the radical feminists and ‘political correctness.’ Or perhaps
the Salem witch trials come to mind? Just who is it that is really
in league with the devil? The radical feminists
should look in the mirror since they propose to take away
‘the pursuit of happiness’ from some American men and
foreign women as guaranteed by the US constitution.
The Salem witch trials were apparently sparked by a
homegrown cause of the wholesale eating of a type
of grain that caused delirium and delusions, which
was not understood at that time. Similarly, American
women should look at themselves to answer and address the
question as to why so many and ever growing numbers
of American men find foreign women to be better and more
pleasing spouses, rather than to try to prevent American men
from seeking international romance.
Email to Fox News:
I commend you for criticizing this outrageous act. I am attaching
below my response to the stop the IMBRA web site.
I would also like to add that I was up in Montreal for six months and
discovered all of the college students there are cohabitating happily,
while Americans are too puritanical and dysfunctional to do so.
There is also remarkably less obesity and violence, and medical care
for all, but that’s another subject.
I have not submitted a spousal Visa, but would like to one day. I
have found the Russian women to be a lot more polite and even
handed in correspondence as compared to narcissistic American
women who always act like they are doing you a great favor for
five minutes of their precious time.
Contrary to belief and some others, I don’t want a woman to be subservient
or a baby machine. Actually, I would like her to have a career.
What I do want is a woman who will meet me 50% of the way and not
demand 100% or throw a tantrum or/and run to a divorce lawyer.
This has not happened to me, but I fear it greatly. It happened to
my Dad and other men I know. I guess some American women label any woman who doesn’t expect to get her way 100% of the time as “subservient.”
Women over much of the rest of the world actually
hold American men in high esteem as compared to their men. (Russian
men drink to excess while Latin men are too macho.)
Are these women all really just misinformed? Why is it that no foreign or domestic company has had a singles tour for wealthy foreigners: Europeans, Arabs, Koreans, or any background to come here to meet poor
American women for prospective brides? Why are so many
American women divorced and overweight? Many have
ended up with 18 years of child support”“which come to
think about it”“is a lot more expensive than a green card!
I think the reputation of American women has preceded them. They
only get excited for movie stars, rock stars, or pro athletes who will let their entire life revolve around her and do and agree with everything
she demands.
Comment to Anti-IMBRA site:
I was thinking of doing a similar web site. Thanks to you I don’t have to.
I did complain to several congressmen’s offices about this outrageous law. You are exactly right about the type of innuendo that it purposely associates with American men looking for love abroad.
May I say that you have not touched on related topics which are, I admit, beyond the immediate scope of fighting the IMBRA.
What I am referring to is that the strategy of ‘attack by innuendo’ is not new. Some American women use this strategy in the workplace to attack male coworkers. Let me be clear, I have never harassed
any woman or been accused of such. I am going by what I have seen in the work place at large companies. Some women have ‘relations’ with upper level or mid level bosses to gain favor and then ‘bad mouth’ or spread innuendo about lower level men who compete with them for advancement. Others may suffice to use a form of innuendo alone”“much as the IMBRA does. This ‘innuendo’ does not have to be about sex. It might be about misconstrued comments about the company or a manager, or any other subject, which can then be turned into gossip to be used against a coworker. No doubt the woman engaging in this innuendo will demand ‘equal pay’ for her efforts. I personally have witnessed this type of behavior at several companies in different industries. It has made me so disgusted that I refuse to work for any business but my own.
Women are hardwired to compete this way, much as men are inborn to use their fists. What really burns me is that the media is saturated by the evil men do….and I admit that there are some very evil and cruel men, but that the media almost never covers the wrong, unethical, cruel, dishonest, unprofessional, and abusive things that some women do. Woman are propagated to be faultless paragons of virtue, or yes, the ultimate virgins of moral purity while men are dirty scoundrels, and only to be tolerated if they do everything that the enlightened ones”“the women”“want. Ugh. Enough!
So-called political correctness is used to intimidate anyone who has the balls”“no pun intended”“to speak out against this contrived and outrageous sex prejudice. Of course, American women don’t want to compete with foreign women because they know how insufferable
some of them have become by the ‘bitch factor’ and by demanding their way 100% of the time for putting out, while a Russian woman would be very, very, happy to get her way 50% of the time in a relationship. Another good thing to mention would be the right to say no. Any woman has the right to say no, but does she have the right to be a rude bitch while saying no. American women don’t feel any obligation to show or even
reciprocate politeness to American men since they are constantly bombarded by the media of the latest crime committed by a very small minority of men. Also, the constant harping by the media on how
women have all been ‘victimized’ by all men economically, politically, socially, and sexually, gives them the right to treat all men as the ‘evil disreputable ones’ not deserving of courtesy or fair play.
I don’t know of a website that actually discusses these issues in a ‘fair and balanced’ way. Women extremists would like to institute a new McCarthyism with them deciding, of course, who in the
male community is in league with the devil. The IMBRA is just the tip of the iceberg.
Are not American women in need of any improvement? Could this have anything to do with why many American men are seeking foreign wives?
by Hal Watkins
You make the assumption: Age difference, bad…same age, good. I don’t see you justify it other than with your own preference. If you want somebody near your own age, go out and find them. A lot of these women WANT older guys and they go out and find them. In fact a lot of cultures in the world encourage age difference in marriage. And even in western countries large age differences weren’t unusual until recent times. Are you saying that other cultures are wrong and only modern, western culture is right?
Yes, power in the relationship is an important thing to be negotiated BY THE TWO PEOPLE IN THE RELATIONSHIP. Not by a nanny state looking over their shoulder before the relationship even starts. You can have equality in a relationship even if the age difference and economic difference is large. The two people in a couple can have different roles in a relationship without one feeling that they’re a groveling slave.
And on what basis do you conclude that equal age, equal everything is the recipe for success? It seems like plenty of couples like that end up on the rocks, with beating, intimidation, etc. Why don’t you get exercised about that? Could it be because the smaller percentage of trouble with foreign born wives gets sensationalized and propagandized beyond all reality?
You said some, I said many. Anyway, if even half of the marriages are happy and work then they’ve already beaten US domestic marriages. And it’s definitely more than half. Is there abuse and unhappiness? Sure there is? But my problem with you and others is that you demand a standard of scrutiny and perfection from this subset that you don’t ask of others. And on top of this you have NO EVIDENCE that a problem even exists.
Yes, I’ll grant you that I overreached my conclusion that we were talking about women of color. My experience is with East Asian, East African and Latin women marrying western guys. I don’t know very many East European/Western marriages so I can’t comment on those very much.
All of the above except I DO DENY THAT THE VAST MAJORITY ARE MIDDLE AGED TO OLDER MEN MARRYING BARELY POST PUBESCENT WOMEN. Where do you get that? That’s propaganda that you’ve swallowed hook, line and sinker. For example look at the website for A Foreign Affair and see the photos from their tours. Some of the guys are older. The majority are 30s and 40s and the women are 20s and 30s with some older ones. Both sides are free to choose or not choose.
I am 39 and my wife is 35, so we must not fit the “typical” age difference you indicate.. I think the age difference is decreasing based on my limited experience in meeting other Asian/American couples..
One reason more sympathy is not expressed over the few terrible cases that have been mentioned (or even discussion about common sense approaches to protect immigrant women) is because many people see IMBRA as a sell out, or a law with another agenda..
The one essential thing I cannot get passed is this. Since the law requires all of this background checking to occur during the visa processing, then what is the purpose of it at the hello stage? It just makes no sense.
The only conclusion I can come to is that it is meant to hinder or prevent men from seeking a foreign bride, because most men wouldn’t want a foreign national he has never met to see all of this information.
If the intention of the law was truly to protect immigrant women, then what harm can come from delaying the background checks until the visa stage? Can anyone answer this question for me?
Aight, I’d better refrain from commenting on this particular thread: no time nor patience, and I’d have to break all of them “civility” rules.
Of course not. She has the right to shyly whisper “nnooo, I’m not sure…” while batting her eyelashes, and that’d be already too much, wouldn’t it? What fuhmocking rape fantasy is that? Hey, y’all want some “petite geishas” and “me-so-literate guniangs”? You’re in for a treat, mm-hmm. Everyone’s only doing their business, after all.
Jimmy Ho, You miss the intent of the comment. The right to say no was NOT meant to be a request for sex. I was unfortunately, unintentionally vague on that point. I meant rather a request to dance, a request to have a conversation at a bar, or a request for a minute of her time, or even a request for information on the telephone for information that has nothing to do with social interaction–like tech support.
I agree that a direct request for sex–out of context– should not be expected to have a polite response expecially when talking to a stranger. This is not what I meant to say. The point is that when asked almost anything, including even, for example, tech suppport on the telephone from a Tech Support Dept., or an offer to dance proffered in the most polite and respectful manner, or a request for information at a pharmacy….American women are often amazingly rude. Even when nothing is said or asked, like holding a door open for a stranger, most American women will not even utter a thank you.
Regarding the Geishas ha-ha. Not what I am looking for. I have written several Russian women in a respectful manner and never received a complaint for rudeness of what I have written. I have learned that some American men inject sexual questions in an inappropriate mannner and that understandably turns these Russian women off. I know these women deserve equal respect that they are extending to you.
However, try to write to an American woman in a similar respectful manner and you soon find that she will not reciprocate the courtesy that you have extended to her. Russian women I have written at two major introduction–not marriage brokers–agencies have all without exception been polite, even if a few were not being honest. Also, they are interested in learning more about you. They are willing to meet you 50% of the way and treat you with respect. I can tell you that this is remarkably different than writing American women on Match.
American women first go overboard in telling you every boring detail about their mundane preferences: all muscians, films, books they like..ad nauseum, and then will demand what specific characteristics you must have to continue to correspond to them. One demanded that you must read a certain relationship book before even writing her. Another demanded that you have a certain number of pictures of certain views on your profile before she would consider responding.
Additionally, an American woman will almost never thank you for writing her. Russian women always thank you for writing them. Just basic courtesy. An American woman always tries to make you feel grateful for having ‘gotten’ five minutes of her time for free. A Russian woman understands that your time is as valuable as hers.
Some of this may be attributable to the fact that American women are bombarded with Emails at major sites while Russian women don’t get as many letters in comparison. However, it is more attributable that in their culture it is customary to be polite to a man as long as he is polite and respectful to you. American women have the freedom to be rude in every situation and every interaction for no reason at all–after all: ‘there worth it!’ It’s simply cool and in vogue to behave this way. Foreign women in any country have better manners. Even in Canada–just across the border–women are markedly more polite. Also, Canadian coeds are all cohabitating while American women are too puritancal and dysfunctional to do so. Miss manners and civility have left the entire American culture..as has been much talked about, but American women have embraced this trend and made it their own.
Amp,
I’m not sure if anyone has mentioned this or not. I don’t feel like reading this entire thread again. But, in the two cases in Washington State, including the Anatasia King case, none of the husbands had criminal backgrounds and the IMBRA would not have protected them at all. That’s what I don’t understand. The government representatives in Washington state created a law based on (3) cases where the law would not have protected anyone. Even if background checks were done at the visa stage, it still would not have protected anyone. Scott Peterson never had a criminal history either. He murdered his wife Lacie. Many times terrible murders take place and really nothing could have been done to prevent it. Statistics show that you have twice the chance of being murdered by your spouse if you are an American woman married to an American man than if you are a foreign woman married to an American man. The IMBRA law protects no one and further erodes fundamental freedoms and liberties we once had in this country. Not only that, but it opens the door for men to be falsely accused of spousal abuse so a foreign woman can get a “free ride” to permanent residency in the United States.
Jeremy wrote:
Actually, as my post at the top of this thread said, “Congress this month passed The International Marriage Broker Act, which requires potential mail-order brides to be informed if their suitors have criminal histories or have had domestic violence complaints taken out against them.”
So I think you’re mistaken about the facts. Since Indle King’s first wife had taken out a domestic violence complaint against him, IMBRA would have warned Anatasia Soloviev about his history before she began a relationship with King. You can’t dismiss the possibility that this would have saved her life.
What is the primary source for this finding, please?
How does it do that?
Furthermore, what alternative do you propose to protect immigrant women who are abused by their American spouses?
This quote and others like it keep me at a point of near constant boggled amusement and amazement when I’m reading this thread. On one hand, we have a group of men that are demanding to be seen as victimized, humble gentlemen, being painted with an errant brush by a society that wants only to keep them from achieving happiness. On the other, we see them making commentary that can only be considered completely arrogant and sexist. Somehow, these men have gotten it in their heads that the reason people (specifically women) object to these protections is out of selfish petulance.
Fella’s, hate to burst your bubble of self-aggrandizing studliness, but that’s not why people (including women) object. Here we have completely unaware comments of consistent sexism laced with misogynistic beliefs about American women and feminists, and confusion still runs rampant about why it is people worry about the vulnerability of the foriegners coming to meet them. While I know I’m not going to change anyones mind here, you have to admit that such arguments and accompanying beliefs seem very telling, and only bolster the case for such laws.
Ampersand, I think Alice has found a new handle in Jimmy Ho.
It would be nice if your side would hold yourself to this standard. You have yet to provide any convincing proof that there’s a problem here that justifies singling out these population groups. I could go out and find 2 murders in just about any combination of ethnic marriages but why do you zero in on American men meeting foreign women?
Assuming we concede your assertion that there is indeed a problem which justifies singling out these subsets of people and making laws about it, several of us have proposed having the background checks as part of the immigration process. One can assume that such a check would have saved Anastasia from her terrible fate. By the way, I have yet to see anyone from your side besides you, Ampersand, express this concern for the victim that you beat us over the head with. It would certainly work better than this preposterous IMBRA which leaves 90% of the people involved out of the dragnet anyway.
Another thing, does such a check exist to stop an American woman from marrying a monster like Indle? If not, why aren’t you trying to move heaven and earth to make a law about that, like you are about this one?
It seems that there’s this persistent idea that foreign women don’t have the knowledge or ability to protect themselves and therefore they need their wise and all-knowing American sisters to save them from these slavering male monsters. Well the truth is that out of the over 100 wives of western men that I’ve met from Japan, Korea, Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Colombia, etc. the majority of them are college degree holders with some skill to support themselves. Furthermore, they have a vast network of relatives and friends who are already married to westerners, passing back information about their experiences. They know full well that there are cases of abuse. They also know that this network tells them that the odds and statistics point to a pretty fair chance of a happy, long-lasting marriage with a western man. Or so I’ve been told by women in many countries. Also, when I tell them that American feminists are looking out for them by making restrictive laws it’s met by hoots of derision and outrage that someone is trying to take away their right to meet people.
As for you Basement Kim:
You talk of hate (misogyny). I’ll tell you what hate is. It’s singling out and pursueing a small group of people, spending years trying to dig up dirt, not finding very much (2 or 3 cases), couldn’t pass a normal law, so a poorly crafted one was sneakily attached to another law to ride with little notice through the voting and presidential signing. All of this spending years and the untold money spent all targeting this group of people that you hate. Very little evidence is produced justifying the need for all of this, only these few cases which could be duplicated in any number of other population groups. In fact the main reason for the hostility seems to be things like the age difference, the economic disparity, etc. Going to such lengths over years just to stick it to a group you don’t like seems to me like a fine, shining example of hate. So consenting adults are choosing to enter these relationships that run counter to your narrow definition of the ideal. And you and others move heaven and earth to make laws to express your hatred of these people. Very sad indeed.
Also, it’s not hatred (misogyny) or sexism to reject unsatisfactory mating options and look elsewhere. This is like the innuendo and slurring thing that Hal was talking about. Also, if you find us American men so repugnant you yourself are free to look overseas. There are still parts of the world where the guys still like American women. But you’d better hurry. The word is spreading fast. And we just might get together and make a law protecting those poor, vulnerable guys.
You know what I find extremely irritating about this statement? It is in absolute denial of the fact that women are at risk due to patriarchal systems and beliefs like this regardless of foreign marriage arranging. This system of buying or ‘investing’ in young women as brides with the expectation that people will trust that despite what it looks like the motives are completely altruistic and without any intent of creating a relationship that is much like indentured servitude is not realistic or even deserved. If men were being trafficed in the same manner, I’d have the exact same feeling about it. It is a situation that is ripe for setting up potentially abusive relationships. While it may not occur in all or even half of the relationships, the excuse that marriages are filled with women are in abusive relationships in the United States is absolutely not a justification for neglecting to set up whatever systems are possible that would at the very least make the women getting into these relationships aware of any potential problems with their prospective spouse. The fact that you are so eager to have these relationships kept away from any scrutiny despite their unusual nature that warrants it makes me leery.
This blog’s writers and regular readers were not born just yesterday and this is not the first time we’re having this discussion with people who defend the “right” to purchase a live woman chosen for her economic dependance. It’s too bad a large part of the previous thread has been lost, because we could just copy ans paste it here.
You are the one advertizing for this industry. “Alice” is on your side. Stop insulting our intelligence, will’ya?
Whoa! I got linked to here from some press release through a “dating rights?” site. Actually read through most of the above and had to say something.
Its seems that there is a lot of common beliefs – maybe more than differences. Everyone seems to acknowldge that background checks are being done under the current system (that is without IMBRA) but there is maybe disagreement over the need for them. One sticky point that comes up is the timing of the when background information is provided – that seems to be what IMBRA is adding to the current system (among other less contentious things anyway).
I think that everyone (excluding crazy folks) wants people to be safe. So how can all this be solved where everyone is happy?
My knowledge of immigration for marriage is limited. However, it seems logical that at some point she decides to marry someone and at another point, she applies to leave her country. While preparing these documents and while she is still in her country, she could receive whatever information used to be given to her after she came to the US. Moreover, I think that the background information given at that point would be more reliable since it would be prepared by (or for) a credible government agency and not inexperienced matchmakers.
Does this seem plausible?
IMBRA seems to have addressed a number of points. Is it plausible to have the US government background check that is required under IMBRA be given to the woman at the point she has decided to leave her country?
Hi everyone!
There is a crisis! You see, Chinese people eat cats. And Americans who like to eat Chinese food could be putting a cat’s life in great danger.
We must protect these poor cats from evil Chinese people here in the United States who may be importing cats and serving them as food in a Chinese restaurant.
We need to pass a law to protect these cats from sadistic American customers!
The law needs to say that if you own a Chinese restaurant whether or not it is organized under any law in the United States or if serving Chinese food is your principal business, then you may be endangering the lives of cats. We don’t have any statistics to prove it but hey, we all know Chinese people eat cats!
If you own a Chinese Restaurant, know you are now on watch. And all of your customers must prove they don’t eat cats before they can read the menu in your restaurant or eat there.
So you must do this:
If you own a Chinese restaurant or primarily serve Chinsese food as your principal business (YES, take out included), you must fingerprint your customers and perform a criminal background check on them to see if they have ever eaten a cat or even joked about eating a cat before they can come inside and look at your menu.
You must also check with the Chinese government to see if they have ever travelled to China and eaten a cat there. Check with all humane societies throughout the country and see if your customer has ever inquired about getting a cat. Doesn’t matter if they wanted a pet, they may have a different motive.
Failure to investigate your customers will send you to jail and you will have to pay $25,000 per incident. You better do those background checks!
We will have secret customers visit your restaurant to make sure you comply with the new law so don’t cheat!
Now of course, if you serve Chinese food but its not your principal business, you are exempt from these regulations (you may buy Chinese food at a grocery store or a restaurant who does not exclusively serve Chinese food). You are also exempt if you give your food away for free or if you eat cats for religious purposes.
American customers secretly love to eat cats so we must stop this terrible cat trade and slaughter of cats in the United States. Chinese people are terrible….SAVE THE CATS!
IMBRA seems to have addressed a number of points. Is it plausible to have the US government background check and other items required under IMBRA be given to the woman only at the point she has decided to leave her country?
Given the history of this type of question being ignored, I really was not expecting a response. But maybe, just maybe, someone will be brave enough to step up and prove me wrong. Bean?
…patriarchal systems… foreign marriage arranging… buying or ‘investing’ in young women…. completely altruistic…..indentured servitude…. fuhmocking rape… petite geishas…me-so-literate guniangs….
Jimmy Ho.. you are really funny… do you really believe all of the things that you type? you should be on stage
I corrresponded with my wife for 2 freaking years after meeting on a penpal website, and i didn’t purchase anything.. my children come out of a happy 8 year marriage. That is why I can laugh at all of this dribble… the sensationalism is about to run out of steam, so maybe now would be the time to go get some facts
I don’t know where you’ve been Kim, but people have been going through this business with a fine-tooth comb for years. They’ve been turning over every stone, desperately hoping to find things they can use. The attempts to make laws like IMBRA have been going on for years now. And the best they can do is come up with these two cases. So no, I’m not worried about scrutiny because it’s already scrutinized through and through.
As Mike said, give us facts, not your pet social engineering theories. I could hear the groans and see the eyes glaze over in front of screens everywhere when I read words like ‘patriarchal systems, buying and selling, indentured servitude.’ Repeating them over and over again may help you believe them. But if you want to make laws to go after people the burden of proof is on you to show there’s a problem. The truth is even after years you have nothing but rhetoric to fall back on.
Yes, there’s a serious problem in the world with women trafficking. But guess what? Almost none of the people you are targetting have anything to do with it. Could it be that you’re really afraid to go after the big, mean boys that are the true criminals? I have to say I’m not too impressed with the bravery of your movement after you shy away from taking on Yahoo, Match.com, et al.
And oh, Jimmy, since you’ve had so many chances in the past to hone your debating skills with oppressors like Mike and I why can’t you do any better than fall back on your tired mantras. However, your post with the link was entertaining, if not juvenile and unconstructive. That’s why I thought you were Alice.
See, this is what I find flat out wrong with your mindset. You are viewing this law as some sort of huge inconvenience or threat to you or other men. We’ve all agreed that if there isn’t a system for background checking the women, that one should be set, but that doesn’t make background checking the men any less important. You aren’t being ‘targeted’ for anything other than the same damn thing people get targeted for to work at a daycare center, and yet you object. Why on earth would you not wish to have a system in place that allows these women to feel confident and secure in their choices – wouldn’t it ultimately benefit you, or other men that use these services through the assurance that you are on the level and not a violent criminal, domestic or otherwise? The only people this law could possibly hurt as I’ve come to understand it (and feel free to correct me if this is not the case) is people who have records – and even then, it only affects them in so much as it is making it a ‘buyer beware’ sort of market for these women.
And finally, I’m not part of any movement, I simply support laws that protect people – women and men, from systems that are potentially dangerous. You should too.
Kim, let me make sure i understand you. If you saw a guy that you liked, and wanted to get to know him by email or over the telephone, you have no problem with providing the following information to him so he can decide whether to communicate with you.
1) You criminal background check, 2) how many times you have been married and the dates of any divorces 3) every state you have lived in since age 18 years old 4) how many children you have and their ages 5) the results of your name being run through a sexual registry of sex offenders and if your name happens to be Jane Smith you will have a lot of matches..
So Kim, you think this is reasonable? Or should it only be required of men wanting to communicate with a foreign national because he is more likely a spousal abuser?
Actually I think a good reason for requiring it of men wanting to communicate with a foreign national is because, as a foreign national, and most likely as a relatively impoverished foreign national, it would be nearly impossible for that foreign national to do her own research on the background of the man she is communicating with.
We have lots of ways of vetting the people we date. Usually it’s knowing other people who know them, knowing their reputation, how they treat others (how they treat waiters, etc). If you grew up in the same town you might know that person’s family.
All of these safeguards are much harder to find in a correspondence situation (although coincidences abound!), and some people do advise people to get a background check and do some investigating of anyone they meet online when they’re on the point of getting serious – to make sure they are who they say they are.
But that’s *even* harder (if not impossible) if the corresponders have different home nations and different first languages. I think that it’s totally reasonable to provide some basic verified background information.
Tara
The writers and supporters of IMBRA probably would agree with you. Please explain why, in your opinion, they purposely excluded protection to foreign nationals advertising themselves to American men on Match.com, Yahoo Personals, FriendFinder, et al. From my read of all the above, no person who supports IMBRA has provided a logical explanation.
Bean Writes:
Thank you Bean. I do believe that a change like this would relieve a lot of the tension. The matchmaking company would perform the background check on ONE man for ONE woman and the requirement of numerous consent verifications from women would be eliminated. Also, men would be able to say “hello” to women without having to provide very sensitive background information.
Bean, do you think the lawmakers would consider this? If so, how do can it be communicated to them? Do you think the Tahirih Justice Center, Legal Momentum (NOW) and others would be willing to consider this change?
Tara Writes:
The writers and supporters of IMBRA probably would agree with you. Please explain why, in your opinion, they purposely excluded protection to foreign nationals advertising themselves to American men on Match.com, Yahoo Personals, FriendFinder, et al. From my read of all the above, no person who supports IMBRA has provided a logical explanation.
Given the history of this type of question being ignored, I am really not expecting a response. But maybe, just maybe, someone will be brave enough to step up and prove me wrong. Tara?
Tara writes:
First question Tara. Are you saying it is a good idea to require all of the information i mentioned to be able to send an email to someone during the hello stage? Or do you think it is appropriate during the visa processing stage?
Second question Tara. If you think it is appropriate to require this background check at the hello stage because she is a “impoverished foreign national”, then it would only be appropriate that the guy be given the same exstensive background information, right? I mean heaven knows it would not be out of the realm of possibility that the “impoverished foreign national” may be a scam artist.
There is only one appropriate place for the background checks of both parties, that is the visa processing stage. If you think it is appropriate just to communicate with someone then you should consider living in North Korea.
Kim writes:
if i am a daycare worker and have childrens lives in my hands the it is appropriate….. if i am marrying a lady from abroad i expect this for both me and her when the petition process begins.. It is all about timing.
Don’t force me to reveal personal information about myself to strangers so I can talk with them. That shows an intent to punish me for wanting to know a lady from abroad… That indicates you have prejudged me as a criminal.. That is why this law pisses me off.. Any reasonable person can understand this.
Mike wrote: Jimmy Ho.. you are really funny… do you really believe all of the things that you type? you should be on stage…
Mahku wrote: And oh, Jimmy, since you’ve had so many chances in the past to hone your debating skills with oppressors like Mike and I why can’t you do any better than fall back on your tired mantras. However, your post with the link was entertaining, if not juvenile and unconstructive.
Folks, you’re guests here on my blog. Please read the moderation policies. If you’re not willing to abide by them, then you won’t be allowed to post here anymore.
There has got to be way to mediate this soon-to-escalate issue. As it is, typing Marriage Broker Act into any search engine produces a lot of fuming intensity. All sorts of blogs, articles, press releases, and now a full blown restraining order. Major dating sites like Match.com (for ease of reference and lack of a better term – DMB’s – Domestic Marriage Brokers) are probably watching all this in amazement, if not sheer fear as to how it may play out in what has become a very competitive industry.
Look, it really comes down to the issues of when background check information is revealed and to a lesser extent, the exemption of DMB’s from the law. Bean is on board with the changing of the background timing, so just work with that.
With all the perceived social gender tension that now exists in this country (marriage strike, divorce and sexual harassment industry, rise of the MRA movement, to name a few) the last thing anyone wants is a full blown battle taken to the federal level.
I will not bore the moderator with a dozen insulting block quotes from Jimmy Ho. I was simply pointing out his sensationalism and insutling comments.. Since that is not appropriate i will move on
Kim wrote:
I’m not just saying that it’s an inconvenience. I’m saying that it’s an inconvenience which doesn’t help hardly anybody. An inconvenience for nothing.
Fine, at the visa processing stage.
Apples and oranges. Interesting that you seem to compare these women to helpless children though.
I will indeed feel free to correct you. First of all some introduction agencies (I will no longer go along with your inaccurate naming) have already closed down in anticipation of this law. Now I’m sure that you consider this some sort of great victory. But the ones that have been hit are small operations mainly run by interracial couples where the lady is trying to find good matches for women back in her home country. They’re run more as a labor of love than for profit. Real menaces to society there.
Second and much more, has anyone thought of the identity theft implications of giving this sensitive information to companies all over the internet? If the background checks are done at the visa stage at least they’re in the hands of the government. So anyway there’s plenty of hurt and possible hurt to be had by this law. And again it’s all for very little help to the protectees.
Tara wrote:
The patronizing of women from other countries just never stops. I was chatting today with a lady from a remote part of Mindanao in the Philippines. This ‘impoverished, vulnerable’ woman was doing medical research online to finish up her nursing degree. She makes about 4 bucks a day in her part-time job. I’ve been online with good, speedy connections in small villages from Ethiopia to Indonesia. The point I’m trying to make is these women are quite capable and have the resources to take care of themselves. They don’t need or want big sister.
Not at all common in today’s mobile, urban society. Would you propose making the same kind of stringent law where this level of connectivity doesn’t apply?
Ampersand wrote:
I did read your policies before and I knew this was coming. Because I saw where you openly admit that you’re going to treat us with a double standard. Like you said it’s your blog. But if you’re interested in having credibility I would think you would want to be more even-handed. Remarks by the person in question like ‘oppressor’ and ‘rape fantasy’ are at least the equal of anything Mike and I said. Not to mention the link. I have a sense of humor and can laugh at it but there’s no denying that it’s insulting and demeaning to lots of people.
So if that’s the way you want it then fire away. We’ll leave you to bat softball posts at each other.
The visa processing stage is too late. The hello stage might be too early but unless there’s some better middle stage, better early than late.
If any particular foreign national (and my perception is that if there were male foreign grooms, this would apply to them also) feels that they don’t want the information from the background check, they’re free not to look at the results. Perhaps you should do the honour of not presuming that the medical researcher you are corresponding with would want to take away informative measures from others who might not have the same access to information she does?
Even in today’s mobile society, I still know a lot of couples whose parents know each other. Let alone the number of people who know each other’s classmates, colleagues, campmates, churchmates, and friends of friends. And if not before they meet, than certainly before the make life long visa-status effecting commitments.
(Also, I don’t know if it’s still true, but didn’t the state use to require blood tests before issuing a marriage license?)
The small companies whom you claim are doing it as a labour of love? If they’re not taking steps to protect the people they’re marrying out, that doesn’t look very loving to me.
How so? Please elaborate on why this is too late.
That’s a bit rich given the forest of presumptions that your side makes.
Perhaps you could do her the honor of not presuming that she and others don’t have their own means of taking care of themselves.
Even if I were to concede your rather idealistic take on the stateside dating situation there would still be a rather large percentage that fall outside of this secure land of know him and know her. Why aren’t you exercised enough to make laws about them and their protection? Nobody on this entire thread has addressed this question.
And even back in the safe and sound area of dating acquaintances of friends can you really be so sure? Shouldn’t these people get the same rights as our poor, vulnerable foreign lasses? There are plenty of instances where guys conned and charmed whole communities and families only to turn out to be cunning killers. Don’t you agree we’d better set about making laws here also.
See? You can’t justify the selective concern you show for one group while ignoring others.
So you’re saying this is a good time for people to be checked out? If so you’re contradicting your earlier statement.
Don’t forget we’re dealing with different cultures here. There are very few places in the world that have this American notion of hand-wringing over every possible bad thing that may happen and legislating everything to death. In most places they accept that life is about risk and reward, personal choice and responsibility. There are however, places where they make women wear burkas and lock them in the house. I’m sure you’ll these women are very safe.
This will be my last post. I am sorry, but the above as stated in your policies is just not happening. The allowed flaming coming from the feminist point of view is overwhelming. I only challenged what were some of the most outrageous comments from Jimmy Ho that i have ever seen posted here. The ultimate in flaming.
Tara said:
Well, that comment suggests at the beginning but you never really did answer the question. So is the purpose to protect a woman in advance from having a broken heart?
I mean if the check is done on both parties during the visa processing then how is this too late? Lets say the lady is really married to someone else, or the guy has a record of abuse, or the lady spent 3 years in jail, or the guy had 5 kids he failed to mention, all of this will be discovered and the visa will be denied. You will have one or more parties devistated but that is life. Men and women sometimes find out the person they fell in love with was not really who they thought.. life is nothing but chances.
Tara Writes:
I actually do care about people. Telling people they have to submit everything about themselves to communicate with another person isn’t a labor of love. I am not the police. There is a reason dating sites in the USA do not require background checks for people to communicate. The reason is because the general public thinks this is a tad much. So why is there a double standard here for foreign personals?
Take care.
Mahku wrote:
The post you are responding to here (post #176 by Tara) is perfectly polite. Nothing in it in any way insults you or any other person personally. And you responded by implying that she’d approve of how women in Saudi Arabia and other countries with Sharia law are treated.
This is the second time I’ve given you a warning. The previous time you responded with a juvenile “they insulted me first!” excuse; but that you’re treating Tara’s respectful post with such contempt shows that you treat even people who disagree respectfully with you, with contempt.
Responding respectfully – especially to posts like Tara’s, which were perfectly respectful of you – should not be too much to ask of you. If you can’t manage that, then stop posting here.
Mike, Jimmy’s more extreme comments were virtually all a direct response to Hal’s post about how no woman has a right to be a “rude bitch” while turning him down. Here’s another lovely quote from the post Jimmy was responding to:
Hal’s post was woman-hating in the extreme, and thoroughly deserved Jimmy’s response. To take those comments of Jimmy’s as if they were personally directed at you or generally directed at everyone here on your side – when they were clearly directed at one particular posters’ over-the-top misogynist post – is not fair of you.
As for the link, I thought it was funny. And although I’ll take your word that not all men who use international marriage broker sites have the racist beliefs that site satirizes, some do have such beliefs. If you can’t see that such attitudes exist, and deserve satirizing, then you’ve pulled the wool over your eyes.
Makhu,
There is no good data on domestic violence in relationships begun via marriage brokers; nor, currently, is there any means of collecting the data. I wish the people who had written this bill had included a mandate for federal record-keeping combined with funding for a future study, but they either chose not to do that, or didn’t think of it.
I’m not sure how accurate records could be kept, unfortunately. As even many pro-international-marriage-broker (IMB) sites admit, there is a social stigma against relationships begun via IMB. So even if a question about how people met was added to immigration forms (which would be a necessary first step in being able to track and keep statistics), there’s the problem that people might lie to avoid the stigma.
So there are no quantitative facts to deal with – and it’s probably impossible to gather such facts for many years. (Unlike Jeremy (#148), I have never falsely claimed such facts exist.)
But I think there are still good reasons to be concerned. Women like the woman who was shot to death by her husband (met through a IMB) in a Seattle courthouse aren’t just myths made up by American feminists, and saying “we can’t do anything until data is gathered, which may be never” isn’t a solution. And the power inequalities when one member of a marriage is dependent on the other for citizenship and the right to work, and has moved far away from everyone she knows and any independent support system she has, is a legitimate reason for concern. I don’t see anything wrong with trying to provide such women (or men) with tools for protecting themselves.
(Are there women who get into such situations outside of IMB sites? Of course. But it seems self-evident that the proportion of such women in IMB-initiated relationships is going to be significantly higher. Furthermore, like all feminists, I support many sorts of legislation to protect all people from domestic violence – the idea that feminists are only concerned about DV when dealing with IMBs is nonsense.)
You complain that providing women with tools to help themselves is paternalistic: “Perhaps you could do her the honor of not presuming that she and others don’t have their own means of taking care of themselves.” That’s a common argument made by right-wingers against government aid: We can’t have food stamps, welfare, minimum wage laws, etc etc, because such laws allegedly presume that people don’t have the means to take care of themselves.
But your argument is wrong. Such laws don’t assume that 100% of the people offered help by the law can’t take care of themselves; rather, they assume – based on good reason – that some of the people offered the help can use the help, and that those who don’t want the help are free to ignore what the government offers. Unless you’re going to claim that there is absolutely no person using a IMB service who might be wooed by an abuser, and who would find it useful to know the person is an abuser from the outset, your “how dare you presume to help people who don’t need your help!” argument is nothing but hot air.
Several people here have suggested that the information should be offered only at the point of immigration, when the prospective bride has already made plans, begun arrangements to sell her stuff and give up her residence, etc.. I’m leery of that. I think most people are far more able to view a suitor objectively before they’ve committed to marrying him and begun preparations to entirely uproot their life and begin again.
And any American man who can afford the price of a IMB can also afford to have a background check performed on his prospective wife, if he feels the need to do so in fact, some IMBs offer that service to their male clients. In contrast, I’d bet a significant proportion of foreign women who use IMBs don’t have the resources to pay for a background check on their prospective husband.
You really weren’t kidding about this double standard were you?
and you respond with a juvenile ‘Hal started it!’
Yes, Tara’s post was perfectly respectful and I had no problem with it in that way. And I meant no insult by the point about the burka. I’m just trying to point out that the burka thing and this IMBRA law grow out of similar mentalities, that one group decides that women need protecting and sheltering from ‘evil men’ and then compose onerous and inappropriate strictures. Now you may well disagree with that point but I think we can discuss that without getting huffy and can be assured that respect for Tara and your blog is intact.
And by the way burkas are worn in Afghanistan, not much in Saudi Arabia.
That’s it for me for a while. It’s 3:30 am here in the Emirates and I’m only up to see the NCAA pairings anyway.
Well this thread fell apart rather fast. Regardless, I think we can all agree that international dating/marriage has many pitfalls, some of which can be devistating if not handled correctly. Hopefully one good thing that will come out of this situation is a mutual understanding of the complexities of the process.
I personally remind each male and female client of the seriousness of this situation, that it’s not a game and that they should keep themselves informed at all times of who they are dating and what they should expect. While I don’t agree with this particular piece of legislation, it has actually helped us weed out some potential clients (on both sides) who may not have been serious about this at all.
Believe it or not, I work with a wonderful bunch of women from the FSU who have all found their soulmates in the United States. They have educated me on so many things that as an American man I was previously unaware (cultural stereotypes and the like) and have really opened my eyes to how wrong our perception is of their country and customs.
Look, I’m a 28 year old Liberal with a Creative Writing degree who ended up in this business almost by accident. I would NEVER align myself with an industry or company that thrived on taking advantage of anyone- man, woman, dog, cat, etc. Most of the men I deal with on a day to day basis are widowers who are simply trying something new or guys who just never had much luck in the normal dating scene. In every instance where we thought we had someone who was slightly unbalanced or dangerous, we immediately cut them off and reported them to the proper authorities. The moment we heard about this law we immediately created the proper background check paperwork and informed all of the Russian agencies of the new policies. Their reaction? Laughter. They find it hilarious that in the United States we have more rules than they do in the Former Soviet Union. And no, this isn’t some fat sweaty male Agency owner either, these are the women themselves telling me this. The ladies I talk to every day (roughly two hundred in a week) are smart, educated, and as socially aware as any woman on this thread or anywhere else. In short, their not ignorant of their situation at all.
I rarely see any massive gaps in dating ages like the kind that have been mentioned here in this thread. Sure there are guys looking to date younger ladies but you can find that on every college campus or social setting in the U.S. Almost all of the marriages that occured through our service were between couples of the same age group and of the same mindset.
In the end I hope that everyone can put aside the Red vs. Blue, Feminist vs. Misogynist mentality and look at the bigger picture. Sure we need some rules but let’s use our heads when deciding them. The murders and abuses that spurred this law into being are beyond horrendous but we can’t let that get in the way of logic. Maybe I’m being idealistic here but I think if everyone just sat down and worked together on this we could all come to a mutual agreement on what would work and what wouldn’t.
Again, my two cents on this. Take it as you will.
(please excuse any typos, as I’m battling my allergy medicine and trying to focus as best I can)
Yossarian;
First, I commend you for attempting to make your agency work within the guidelines. Some of what you said was great to hear, and some was, well, to be blunt, just plain silly.
It’s great to hear that the agencies are responding and conforming to the laws with ease and haste. It’s silly to hear that a few women laughing about the laws would indicate that they are in fact unnecessary or pointless. If a bit of paperwork is enough to save even -one- life, isn’t that worth it?
As for the age differences and my bringing them up, I admit that it’s based on a book I read a few years ago that was called the Gentleman’s Guide to Asian Women (or something like that, I forget), where an American man basically wrote up a book giving what he thought was a ‘sexy’ underground look at the asian sex industry and young women in it, but came off as what I could only describe as a guide on how to take advantage of the vulnerabilities of cultures that are both poor and place little value on women and girls that have somehow found themselves in the sex industry. Many of the young women were sold into the industry or into marriage brokerages by their fathers or male custodians. Many of these girls said they saw it as their duty, and they couldn’t let down their families (the man writing the book seemed to see this as a charming asset to their personality, referring to it often as ‘humility’ and ‘desire to please’). Scenario’s of large age difference in pretty much any relationship where there is a barely adult person involved have genuine reason to set off red flags of potential inequity or worse in relationship foundations. So while I realise that this is not the complete picture, that this is even part of the picture to me says that there is reason to sift through it all to make sure there is a possiblity of prevention and protection. I don’t doubt that couples also can find love and happiness in these services, but in taking the good with the bad, it’s the bad we need to focus on for sake of prevention.
Finally, just so you know, it’s not generally a good thing to use feminism and misogyny as ‘opposites’, as it implies that feminism is male-hatred. It’s not. Feminism is the belief of equality for the sexes, not the oppression of one over the other. Misogyny, however, is hatred of women.
Mahku Writes:
March 12th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
…..Not to mention the link. I have a sense of humor and can laugh at it but there’s no denying that it’s insulting and demeaning to lots of people.
——————————————————-
Ampersand Writes:
March 12th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
As for the link, I thought it was funny. And although I’ll take your word that not all men who use international marriage broker sites have the racist beliefs that site satirizes, some do have such beliefs.
*****
This link is NOT funny, it is a deliberate defamation directed to all Caucasian/Asian couples including my family.
Some American Asians are totally opposed against marriage between Asian women and Caucasian men and are full of hate against such couples, including their children. Racist remarks cannot be considered as funny.
Generally I got the impression, that some posters here are truly wrong informed about Asian women living in Asia.
I read something about age difference, I am 53, my Asian wife is 54, married since 1976. Most mixed-race couples I know are married since decades, their age difference is only a few years.
Further I read about an ‘impoverished foreign national’ – I can comment only about Asia, and there are plenty of women, who really do not miss anything and often have a better living standard and educational background than a woman, who is an US citizen and living in the US since birth.
I doubt very much, that ALL American man AND women are financially better off than their Asian counterparts.
I also read something about language problems, as English is not the first language for most Asians. I see no problem – you can learn more than 1 language in your life.
For sure, not all foreign women looking for an American husband are uneducated, impoverished, unable to communicate and finally bought by a loser from the States.
This new US-law however presumes, that any US man is a violent criminal and any foreign woman is uneducated and impoverished.
There is no logical reason, why an US man should not choose a foreign woman as his wife.
My advice for all concerned US men is, to get on an airplane, find your foreign wife yourself and then bring her back to the USA. This is maybe the best solution for all.
Kim,
Thanks for your reply. I realized the “feminist/misogynist” error about two hours later after I posted but thanks for understanding. In my head the Claritin made it sound like a good analogy.
In regards to the book you referenced, there are some valid points there but like a lot of things there are some half-truths hidden underneath. Whenever you’re dealing with an open forum like the internet, you’re going to deal with all kinds of personalities and preferences. Admittedly I had some preconceived notions about this business before I came aboard but after enough exposure I’ve been able to see the difference between the truths and rumors.
There’s a large contingent of men (normally American) who find themselves disillusioned by women from their own countries and have decided to look elsewhere. Personally I think a great majority of them lump their bad experiences with domestic dating into one huge category, unfairly labeling all American women as snobby, materialistic, or just rude. Of course, we all know that these types of negative traits exist in almost all cultures, regardless of nationality or ethnicity. These men also like to think that all feminists sit at some roundtable in an underground lair plotting the downfall of masculinity, as if they were part of the Legion of Doom or something. A lot of this comes from bad divorces or just plain old ignorance that has put them on the defensive. On the other side of the token there are American women who hold a certain bias against any foreign woman dating American men. To me this mindset is just as flawed.
When describing the cultural traits of women in the FSU, I’ve often found it hard to differentiate between our two cultures without using words like “traditional values” and the like. This is mainly because to a certain extent, many Russian and Eastern European families still operate on what we Americans would consider “Old school values”, for better or worse.
I do agree that some sites specifically use the words “submissive” in a context that can only give some men the idea of a little foreign bride who will do everything you say and ask. The irony here is that most of the women from Russian and parts of Eastern Europe couldn’t be more different. In the same way that my Irish mother would sooner smack me in the back of the head than answer my demands, most of these women have a will that is strong as steel. When talking to some of our potential clients about what they’re looking for in a wife, I can only shake my head when they bring up the concept of submissiveness in the house. If anything, these women are going to rule with an iron fist and I make it a point to tell them so.
I totally agree that if anything- a piece of paper, background check, or whatever- saves just one life, then it’s worth it. My only concern is that it’s fair to both parties and that it makes sense. One thing about the background check that falls short of the mark is accountability. See, the man can lie about his history and for the most part the Russian Agency won’t be able to find out whether it’s true or not. Because the government didn’t create their own forms, all of the agencies had to create their own. One thing that we’ve seen is that the companies based in foreign countries (which are also some of the less scrupulous ones) are doing the smallest effort possible to satisfy the law. In short, because the law doesn’t directly affect them as it would an American company, they’re just creating a simple questionnaire that cannot be verified by the lady.
We’ve actually taken the step of giving each agency the links to all Sex-offender databases in the United States, along with instructions on how to do a search on a man. Another problem is that depending on where you live, public records may not be readily available for viewing. For instance, in my county they just had a large issue at the Clerk’s office where thousands of documents got either misplaced or destroyed. This means that documents that could presumably help a woman determine whether or not the man is safe were essentially lost in the void. I guess what I’m trying to say here is that since the government went through the pains of writing the law, it would have been nice if they could have taken a little more time in planning its implementation. The loopholes and generalizations that the legislation puts forward are some of the reasons why a lot of men have begun believing that IMBRA is a conspiracy, as it doesn’t appear to give you any definable options that are legally secure and leaves the impression that you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
I think that if the same legislators who created this law could just sit down and work out the details, this law could really help a lot of people.
And yet another press release – this one by an immigration lawyer discussing how the law favors the large dating sites. Does this guy hope to get more business? Well, for sure, it will agitate companies like Match.com.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/3/prweb357407.htm
Kim wrote:
Well, that’s not why we’re saying it’s unnecessary and pointless. But the reaction this law gets is telling. Stunned disbelief to full-on belly laughs are the reaction it’s getting so far, and not just from a few women Kim. So far this law is flying under the radar (attached at the last minute before Christmas) or else it would be sitting at the top of the oddity news sections of CNN and Yahoo. Silly? How silly is a law that’s claiming to protect people while leaving 90% of the industry untouched?
One may have more sympathy for your point if the word misogyny weren’t constantly used to beat down anyone who tries to say anything about the dating scene in the US. It’s like anyone who talks about ethnic issues gets the R word. Anyone who has issues about Muslims gets called an Islamophobe. I’m sure you have a similar frustration about how the word feminist gets used.
Oh, the places we could go if we set this principle free to roam. I’m sure it would save one life to shut down NASCAR. Let’s do it.
I’m sure your book was an interesting read. However, I don’t accept your attempt to link introduction agencies with prostitution. And you need much more proof that there’s a problem with these agencies if you’re going to run roughshod over the good just to get at a very few bad. Your ‘red flags’ aren’t reason enough for this oppressive legislation.
I do however, appreciate your admission that reading a book written years ago by some sex tourist horndog gives you limited qualifications to comment on these matters and advocate legislation. It’s a refreshing bit of intellectual honesty that this thread could use more of.
Yossarian wrote:
To be sure it’s one of those hysterical ‘vast conspiracy’ things. However, this law is only going to intensify that perception.
I can give a wry smile about the whole submissive woman thing. The myth of the ‘submissive Asian woman’ is something that feminists and wife-searching both fall for. But having visited homes from Seoul to Surabaya I know who more often ‘wears the pants’ in the household. Unfortunately, it’s this enduring myth which helps drive this ‘poor, vulnerable, helpless’ patronizing that we see written here.
Yossarian, your attempts to bridge the gap are admirable. But it will be in vain until the other side has to show a little more inclination to compromise.
Kim (basement variety!) Writes:
March 13th, 2006 at 2:10 am
……it’s not generally a good thing to use feminism and misogyny as ‘opposites’, as it implies that feminism is male-hatred. It’s not. Feminism is the belief of equality for the sexes, not the oppression of one over the other. Misogyny, however, is hatred of women.
================================
Yes, correct, feminism and misogyny should not be used as ‘opposites’.
The opposite of misogyny is misandry.
The opposite of feminism is masculism.
Generally, feminism is about promoting women rights, but this does not mean necessarily, that feminism is considering the concerned position of a man and tries to treat him as an ‘equal’.
Many publications of feminists are containing man-hating statements, like the manifesto of Valerie Solanas.
Feminism means to restrict any man in any aspect of his daily life, and this cannot be called to be a dialog between equals.
This new law, International Marriage Broker Act, about how a man is allowed to look for a foreign wife is a perfect example for that.
It has nothing to do with ‘equality’ between women and men.
Okay, Johann, you’ve had your say. But I don’t think you’re open to respectful dialog, so I think you’re done posting on “Alas.” Best of luck to you, and good-bye.
Well Bean if you read the start of my post 188 I clearly say that the reactions aren’t the reason for saying that this law is pointless and unneeded. Pointless because it covers only a tiny part of the industry anyway. Most of the women in your shelter probably wouldn’t be helped by this law because they would have met their husbands via one of the big agencies. Unneeded because the background checks can be done by immigration. You yourself agreed that this would be acceptable in post 161 Bean.
I’m sorry about what’s happening to the women coming into your shelter. I pray that they find the good, loving men that they deserve.
As for the anecdotal evidence, of course yours is going to be almost 100% one way. After all, happily married women aren’t real likely to come into a battered women’s shelter are they? At least I see more of a random sample.
Ampersand wrote:
Well, the data that does exist would seem to say this law is unneeded. We have 2(some say 3) cases of murder since 1995 involving husbands of foreign wives. Immigration estimates 10,000 foreign women come to the US every year as wives of American men. So that’s a murder rate of about 2 per 100,000. Far less than the murder rate of most American cities. Less than the murder rate of a lot of renowned ‘safe’ countries of the world. In fact this data may lead many to believe that this kind of marriage should be encouraged. Furthermore, it’s about a tenth of the murder rate of domestic American marriages.
I wouldn’t call it an admission so much as a lamentation. The media has been in the hip pocket of your side on this one. This has helped perpetuate myths such as “These guys are all fat, bald losers who can’t find American women.” or “Most of these women are sex slaves.” It also has helped standardize slurs such as “Mail-Order Bride” or “International Marriage Broker.”
So? People might also lie to avoid the IMBRA law as it exists now. Shall we throw it out then?
Nobody’s saying ‘we can’t do anything…’ I believe that most guys who have come onto this blog have agreed that background checks at the time of immigration are a good thing for protecting both sides. The woman who died tragically is not a made up myth by feminists. The myth is the idea that there is an epidemic of abuse of foreign wives (as has been claimed in so many words.)
Please expand on how it is self-evident that the proportion of such women in IMB-initiated relationships is going to be significantly higher.
One way that feminists could begin to dispel this idea is to withdraw IMBRA and replace it with a more all-inclusive law rather than the narrow-targeting one we have now.
As I understand it you advocate this law to protect women from murder and beatings. What you’re talking about here is protecting them from a broken heart. I don’t believe it’s the role of government to do that.
If they sell out all of their stuff before they get the visa that would be a lack of common sense on their part for which they should mainly blame themselves, not the lack of any laws or information about their rights.
I doubt such a check performed by immigration would cost the women anything, except perhaps in the form of higher visa fees. Furthermore, it would be exceedingly complicated for men to perform checks on women they haven’t met yet and want to say ‘Hello’ to. Therefore IMBRA would create an inequality here. However, at visa application time both sides could get the unvarnished truth about the other at the same time. Sounds like a good way to me.
And if I used wording like this on you or your friends what would be my chances of getting banned Mr. Moderator?
Some? Do you have any idea of the percentages involved here? Something like 90% of the industry is in the companies that your law exempts by name. I call that pretty pointless.
Bullshit huh? (And Ampersand, is this your idea of ‘respectful dialogue’ that you were talking about as you sent Johann yodling into the night?)
Bean, please don’t make me go all the way up and pull down post 161 where you said that background checks at immigration would be just fine. If it is just fine why wasn’t the law written like that in the first place? It would have saved a lot of trouble because your law’s gonna get thrown out of court for being unconstitutional.
Not letter perfect by statistical theory perhaps. But a sample taken from dozens of countries on several continents of couples that I generally met by chance? Compared to a shelter where it’s PRE-DETERMINED that all the women there will have this problem? Not as valid or true for what? You need more evidence than you’ve shown to prove that there’s a problem of epidemic proportions that warrants such a law. And did you get the husbands’ side of the story?
Well Bean I get my statistics from the drafters of this law. After all they claimed that there’s some sort of epidemic of abuse from these marriages. As evidence of this they have only produced these examples. If someone is going to propose that a law is needed the burden of proof is on them to show that need. If there are more murders where are they and if they aren’t any different proportion to the general population it can be argued that this law isn’t needed.
By the way, there was never an opportunity for such debate because this law was attached at the last minute to another piece of legislation. It’s questionable whether all the senators even knew they were voting for it. At the very least you have to admit that in our country all laws should have a free and fair debate before they’re enacted. This bit of thief in the night legislative naughtiness is a travesty of our system.
And Bean I wouldn’t lightly call you a liar. If you were on the other side of this issue you would be out on the street with Johann.
Unfortunately I think we all have to reside ourselves to the fact that this is the most appealing method for lawmakers to pass what could be controversial bills. Everything from the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind Act, and IMBRA have all been passed through methods similar to this. When nobody knows what you’re about to push for legislation, it’s easier to sneak it through. One provision of the No Child Left Behind Act which states that military recruiters MUST have access to student’s contact information was stuck in the very back of the massive document, thereby making it practically invisible for the average reader to find until it was too late.
Again, I think that everyone here has good intentions for what they’d like to see implemented through this bill, it’s just a shame that we can’t come to any one agreement on what would work. I’m sure after March 20th we’ll see the Government’s rebuttal to the restraining order and things will become a little clearer.
Or maybe not, who knows?
Just remember the first woman who becomes a victim of domestic violence from one of those “exempt” sites and gets killed or badly injured law makers who voted for IMBRA will be held accountable. In all due respect Ignorance of the law is no excuse even for lawmakers who failed to read IMBRA when they voted. Its the legislators conscience and reputation (not mine) that will be at stake. Legislators: you should consider addressing this issue NOW.
We want to work to prevent violence against women and support the Violence Against Women Act but the tiny IMBRA portion of the VAWA needs to be repealed. Once IMBRA is repealed the interested parties should reconstruct a law to truly prevent violence against women with a logical/sensible means to accomplish this.
(I am a private citizen expressing my concerns. No affiliation to “Marriage Brokers”)
Hey Dan – why the exemption? No person on this blog who supports the law has been brave enough to offer their opinion as to why, despite being asked numerous times. What is your opinion?
Makhu – I think it’s bullshit to say that using swear words is necessarily disrespectful. Me and my friends use swear words all the time in conversation, including saying things like “that’s bullshit, because in fact, statistics show X.” I’m against personal attacks, but not against swear words.
Here’s what Bean wrote:
The emphasis in that is clearly on correcting what Bean sees as an inaccurate statement, not on attacking another poster. She’s attacking the argument, not the person, which is exactly what I ask of posters here.
Whatsisname wasn’t banned for swearing; I don’t recall that I’ve ever banned anyone for swearing per se. He was banned for a combination of incoherence and his obvious contempt for feminists and feminism.
* * *
Broham – as a matter of theory, IMB sites are going to create a far, far higher level of power imbalance than a site like Yahoo Personals does. There’s good reason to believe that IMBs are simply more dangerous to women. That, for me, is more than enough to justify the exemption.
But let’s ignore that (as most of the pro-IMB folks have done). It’s politically unrealistic to think that such a law could have been passed for all dating sites. When doing X & Y to protect women is not politically viable because X is politically impossible, it doesn’t make it therefore okay to not do Y to protect women. Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the ideal.
You’re in effect arguing that it’s unfair to American abusers who use IMBs that they get regulated more than American abusers who use the big sites. Well, I guess it is unfair, but you know what? I can live with being unfair to abusers. And if this law, which creates a very minor inconvenience to non-abusive men, leads to saving even one abuse victim from being abused, then I can live with that, too.
And for the record, if someone were to find a way to make a practical law requiring dating sites (both IMBs and non-IMBs) to do a check on all users, and refuse to allow users with a history of domestic violence to use their services – I’d totally favor that. And if someone were able to pass a law requiring that all Americans, regardless of how they met, have to go through a criminal background check before getting a marriage license – so that every person getting married would have access to the record of the person they’re going to marry – I’d favor that too.
Well Ampersand…selective enforcement…selective interpretation…the way you handle this just plays into the hands of people who have this attitude of feminists that you decry. If you can’t handle a robust discussion you really shouldn’t have a discussion at all. You may not like the way you’re seen by the world in general. But if you do a lot of walking and quacking a certain way (and you’ve definitely had a good quack with this law) over a good, long period of time you should expect to have some explaining to do.
And just to be clear, I don’t particularly mind the bullshit thing. But on this site you seem to be so prickly and quick to hit the eject button. I think you and I both know that if I had used it first rather than one of your club of chums, I’d have been in pretty hot water. And my statement was accurate anyway, if not understood very well.
And can I now assume that it’s ok to call someone a liar and that it’s ‘attacking the argument, and not the person.’ After all I was just using the information that’s out there, the information that the crafters of this law gave as a justification.
A matter of theory? Well Hitler had a few theories about race that he made national policy. If you’ve got a theory let’s put it out there for fair, rational debate. That didn’t happen in Congress which is why this law could be kicked back for better due process. And if you’ve got theories which are ‘self-evident’ and ‘good reason to believe’ you need to expand on that much more to be able to complain they should be matters of law.
Well, some of these ‘minor inconveniences’ are or will be:
1. A scammer’s dream. If you’re fine with having all of your personal info scattered around the internet that’s affair. But I would hardly call identity theft or other fraud a minor inconvenience.
2. Small introduction sites have already shut down. Their greatest crime is that they don’t have the resources to comply with this unfair law. Having your business shut down is not a minor inconvenience.
3. Reduces the number of possible contacts for marriage. It’s hard enough to find one’s life partner without someone making it even more complicated. For many people this is the most important decision in life and the government getting in the way is not a minor inconvenience.
Most of these men who use these sites are not abusers. Your ‘if we only save one’ argument is flawed and dangerous to apply as a general rule.
I am, however, heartened that you express support for having a more general, inclusive law. We’ve all agreed that it’s a good thing to have some measure to protect people against abuse. Let’s work to see that there’s a law that’s fair and useful for all.
Also, people may begin to have sympathy for your displeasure about the reputation of feminists if you would stop joining in on the unfair villifying of foreign introduction sites and the men and women who use them.
Well, there you have it Broham. It was the cheap and easy way to go. Just grab for the low-hanging fruit. Never mind that Y doesn’t hardly protect any women and has all kinds of fairness and constitutional problems. If they had tried X they not only would have lost, but the ridicule of what they propose would have made feminists late-night joke fodder for years to come.
Let me tell you what’s happened here Broham. First you choose an easy target, one with little political influence. One that’s already been villified in the press for years and so probably won’t gather much sympathy. The target has to be small so all this can be kept quiet. If much general attention comes to this law it will stop it dead. Gather a few sensationalized cases of abuse or worse. It doesn’t take many, even if there’s really no general evidence that much abuse exists. Just enough to get sympathy.
Now, mind you, even with all these advantages this law still didn’t pass. It’s been out there for years. So, finally, just attach it to a good, popular law at the last minute to avoid debate and attention. And the ship sails, with this last-minute measure strapped to the bottom of the keel, generally unnoticed. The politicians who pushed the law get to put a feather in their cap and proclaim that they’re doing such good.
And for good measure proponents on sites like this go “Hip, hip hooray!” and pat each other on the back, convincing themselves that they’re dong something for the ‘poor, vulnerable, victims’ of the world.
It’s good to see Amp admit this was all about political expediency. Really we knew it all along. Hopefully the judicial branch won’t be so give over to special interests on this one.
I really loathe the “we both know that you’re not telling the truth” formulation. First of all, it’s condescending. Second of all, unless you have mind-reading powers, it’s clearly not a true statement – you have no way of knowing what’s in my mind. And third of all, it’s a personal attack, because – unlike the word “bullshit” – it unquestionably accuses the other person of being a liar.
I do have a double-standard; people who make the blog more interesting for me get more leeway than people who bore me. I’m perfectly open about this double-standard in the moderation guidelines. However, in this case, the specific double-standard you’re accusing me of, regarding swearing, simply doesn’t exist. No one has ever been banned by me just for swearing, regardless of their ideology. Period.
Furthermore, rereading Bean’s post, she never accused you of lying. As I already pointed out, calling someone’s argument “bullshit” is not the same as accusing them of being a liar. Bean could have replaced “bullshit” with the word “nonsense” and the post’s substance would have been unchanged, because her post was focused on the argument, and made no personal attacks.
If you want to stay here to debate the issues, you’re welcome to. But if you with to continue making personal attacks on me, go do that in your own space instead of mine.
Well, obviously you didn’t read very well. Let me help you.
And I’m not reading your mind. I’m reading this thread. Guys on one side of the issue get rapped. People on the other side who do similar or greater things are untouched.
I’m trying to imagine how you could have made that more condescending.
You’re right – in a completely different post from the one you quoted, Bean said you had lied. My bad.
On the other hand, you’re switching targets – I didn’t reread the entire thread. I reread the particular post you quoted and complained about, in which Bean said “bullshit.” If that wasn’t the post you were complaining about, then you shouldn’t have quoted it; you should have quoted the one you were complaining about.
Nor do I see how Bean calling you a liar (which she shouldn’t have done) makes it acceptable for you to call me a liar.
Anyway, it’s obvious that you have no ability to make your argument in a respectful matter; you’re all about making attacks on other posters and treating people with contempt. If you had more confidence in your argument, you wouldn’t have to spend so much of your posts attacking me personally.
3. Reduces the number of possible contacts for marriage. It’s hard enough to find one’s life partner without someone making it even more complicated.
There is a funny! Ha. Most of my friends are people that I have been friends with for over 10 years. I don’t meet many new people. Some of my friends are people that I was in middle school with 25 years ago. My circle of friends and acquaintances is pretty damned small. Yet I was able to find my life partner (twice if you count my mistaken first try) without the help of an IMB. I met my spouse via the personals in a local free paper. Although that was somewhat stressful, it was less than overwhelmingly difficult. You want to know how else I (the guy who rarely meets new folks) meet new people? I volunteer for things that I’m interested in. That really ups your chances of meeting somebody with similar interests. Sorry guys, I just don’t see the limiting of IMBs as a major issue. Especially not if the purpose of the limits is to make people safer.
I am oh, so tired of the fragile male ego defense for worthless social constructs. If *you* have poor social skills, work on them. It isn’t hard to find a life partner, not if you have respect for the potential other half of the relationship. If you go into it thinking that this individual is capable of being “brokered” to you, well… that might just be the reason you’re finding it so difficult.
FWIW, men have no birthright to be partnered, no birthright to be married, no birthright to have sex. If they desire marriage, they should be willing to work for it. Otherwise what they’re looking for is a live-in prostitute.