MARRIAGE BROKER REGULATION ACT UPDATE

[JackofTrades]

INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER REGULATION ACT INTENTIONALLY MISLEADS CONGRESS

On behalf of dozens of organizations, Jeanne L. Smoot of the Tahirih Justice Center (www.Tahirih.org) is submitting a letter to Congress in support of the proposed law that regulates "international marriage brokers." The following is a portion of that letter:

"...abuse is a tragic fact in many relationships brokered by IMB's. It is particulary disturbing that many IMB's explicitly market their services to men seeking domineering relationships with women whom they perceive to be docile and powerless. Some IMB's also systematically ignore the violent histories of their clients, and repeatedly pair violent men with foreign women recruits."

Jeanne L. Smoot
jeanne@tahirih.org
703-575-0070

There is no to very little evidence that supports anything stated above. Yet, this law is being rifled through Congress as if these are facts.

Therefore, without any sound basis, you will be required to submit a marital history and a criminal background check and receive a signed release from a woman you wish to contact JUST TO WRITE A LETTER TO A FOREIGN WOMAN.

JUST TO WRITE A LETTER TO A FOREIGN WOMAN!!

[JackofTrades]

... in response to MARRIAGE BROKER REGULATION ACT UPDATE, posted by JackofTrades on Jan 24, 2004

Perhaps you could comment on the viability of the following strategies:

1 - argue for the elimination of the provision of the law that excludes the larger dating sites such as Match and FriendFinder. The lawmakers' reason for the exclusion: larger sites cater to both American and foreign women and all members pay equal fees (so nobody is being "bought"). The latter is untrue as anyone can join for free and only paying members are able to make the initial contact. Fact-there are more foreign women on these sites than on all IMO sites combined. By forcing the law on the larger firms, which the lawmakers now have a weak argument for avoiding, an entire legal army will be available to fight the law.

2 - declare the law unconstitutional. Since when are Americans required to provide all sorts of documents just to write a letter to someone? Regarding the one visa application per year-this is a restriction on the right to marry. What if the woman finds a boyfriend at home and then cancels after one month? Now the man has to wait an entire year before being able to proceed with marriage to another.

3 - argue that the federal legislature is the wrong venue for regulating small private companies. That is the role of the states. Moreover, criminal background checks and the verification thereof would be unreliable in the hands of small inexperienced companies in the business of matchmaking.

Your opinions regarding the above is appreciated as well as any other suggestions you may have.

[Jeff S]

... in response to STRATEGIES FOR CONTESTING THE LAW, posted by JackofTrades on Jan 25, 2004

First of all, the vast majority of the sites are based out of the US, so the US gumment has no say in them whatsoever. Second, if you wanted to open a agency and you lived in the US, all you'd need to do is open a foreign company - you know, use a Tijuana server and bank account for your PayPal account to transfer funds into.

It's innane, uninforcable, and just another example of how stupid our out of control government is. I thought the 10th amendment reserved for the states anything not specificially authorized by the constitution. I read the constitution. In it I saw nothing about subsidizing farms, schools, definitions of marriage, abortion, how much water a toilet is allowed to flush, how much gas mileage cars are required to achieve and a million other stupid laws, our gumment hacks think up.

Here's a good one for you. In the city of Los Angeles, special order 40 says that if an illegal alien is arrested for a crime, deported, then shows up again, feloneously violating his deportation order, and is identified by a policeman - he cannot be arrested unless he commits yet another crime. All the while the city council votes on resolutions to stop global warming, and other mindless crap they have no say so over in the first place. They're all a bunch of busybodies, doing busybody work while teh real problems go unsolved.

- Jeff

[Humabdos]

... in response to MARRIAGE BROKER REGULATION ACT UPDATE, posted by JackofTrades on Jan 24, 2004

Sounds like a good idea to me. I know several Filipinas who wouldn't have been beaten and abused if there where back ground checks for the men.

I still can't figure out why anyone would need a  marriage broker. Women shouldn't be marketed like a horse.

International marriage brokers should be outlawed.
Hum

[Nathan]

... in response to Re: MARRIAGE BROKER REGULATION ACT UPDAT..., posted by Humabdos on Jan 24, 2004


  The term "broker" would be applied to any agency selling addresses or introductions, and unless you are into a totalitarian state, (such regulation of personal correspondence would be GREAT for a police state) it is hard to imagine that any freedom loving person would support
giving that kind of power to government. I have seen no evidence that abuse is any more common with women coming from overseas than with entirely local couples. In fact, the evidence tends to support the opposite. However,  feminist groups simply resent American men having options, so they will use isolated examples of abuse to tar all men and
further their agenda of using police state powers against men.

[Jimbo]

... in response to Re: Re: MARRIAGE BROKER REGULATION ACT U..., posted by Nathan on Jan 24, 2004

I owe my chance meeting of Sally to Cherry Blossoms and they are just an introduction site, not a "broker."  Giving more power to the government to regulate pen-pal agencies is simply a liberal response to a "crisis" that doesn't exist.

Jim

[Humabdos]

... in response to Excellent points, posted by Jimbo on Jan 24, 2004

Ya your right Jim I guess I'll retract that statement. My brother met his wife eleven years ago back when they sent you a book with photos, names address ect. she's a Filipina.
To me somehow it just seems wrong to make a profit off of it.
Hum

[Jimbo]

... in response to Re: Excellent points, posted by Humabdos on Jan 24, 2004

I figured you were thinking more along the lines of those farm tour type of things - line 'em up, pick one out, we'll have you married in a jiffy.

Jim

[Humabdos]

... in response to I know what you meant Hum, posted by Jimbo on Jan 24, 2004

Yes I find those "tours" revolting. :-(
Hum