Mail-Order Misery

[Gary Bala]

[This message has been edited by Gary Bala]

This week's issue of Newsweek magazine (Feb. 07)
has decided to put a fresh national spotlight on the
recent case (mentioned here before) about
the Ukrainian bride claiming abuse who successfully
sued a matchmaker service in federal court in Maryland.
The jury awarded $433,500.

"Mail-Order Misery"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6884657/site/newsweek/

The court found violations of current immigration law
provisions requiring IMOs (International Matchmaker Organizations)
to advise lady customers of their spousal abuse rights.

It appears that the feminist lawyers of the Justice Center
which started this case are looking for new cases, and continue
to push passage of the International Marriage Brokers
Regulation Act, introduced in last session of Congress.

http://tahirih.org/?template=imb_case_summary

When and if this bill comes up for hearings and vote,
I hope every concerned person here and elsewhere
who values free access to and association with international
romance, will voice their views to their Congressional representatives
and senators.

I oppose nearly all provisions of this bill, as I believe
that it places unrealistic and impractical restrictions
on IMOs to conduct background checks, and also chills
U.S. citizen rights of free association. The purpose of this bill,
if it is to protect potential lady victims of abuse who arrive in
the US with visa, can be easily and more effectively satisfied
by other means:
a rigorous background check of gentlemen (and ladies)
at the Embassy interview stage, and with the Embassy
providing to the lady visa applicant all relevant information
about her immigration abuse rights in the U.S.

Regards.

[Ray]

... in response to Mail-Order Misery, posted by Gary Bala on Jan 31, 2005

Hi Gary,

Are you sure that the agency violated provisions of current immigration law? I didn’t know the law required disclosure. The way I read the article, they were found civilly liable for not informing their foreign client of her rights under immigration law when she asked for help. Technically, it sounds like they simply screwed up by giving her lousy legal advice without a license. If they had simply advised her to contact an attorney when she complained about her abusive husband, then they would possibly not have been liable at all. What do you think?

I know there is a law on the books in Washington State that requires the “mail order bride” agencies doing business in the state to advise foreign nationals (male or female) that they have a right to request marital and criminal history of stateside clients residing in Washington. I believe that the proposed federal bill is patterned after the Washington law.

My personal opinion is that the federal government has NO business getting involved in the marriage plans of two qualified consenting adults. If they provide background information to foreign partners, then they should do the same for ALL marriages. Since marriage law is a state issue, the feds should keep their noses out, IMHO.

I think most of the agencies covered under Washington law do nothing more than sell addresses, so they should not be involved in verifying the personal background of their clients.

In the Philippines, the Philippine government requires all of their citizens who are going abroad to marry a foreign national to attend a half-day seminar where they are advised of their rights in the foreign country. They are also counseled one-on-one and the very young girls are sometimes discouraged from marrying a much older foreign man with numerous divorces. They don’t actually  “approve” or “disapprove” the marriage, but they sometimes make it difficult for a few of the girls to complete the seminar. Most all of the ladies who attend think highly of the seminars and find them a valuable asset.

Also, I know that some of the Consular Officers doing the visa interviews will sometimes advise the ladies that they are making a mistake, but they can’t deny a visa based on their personal feelings alone.

Ray

[Jamie]

... in response to Re: Mail-Order Misery, posted by Ray on Feb 1, 2005

“My personal opinion is that the federal government has NO business getting involved in the marriage plans of two qualified consenting adults. If they provide background information to foreign partners, then they should do the same for ALL marriages.”

That’s how the snowball begins they require a law for a selected minority and than they add to the group over time and before you know it everyone has an extra burden. For example the social security number at one time was only suppose to be private and only for the purpose of its creation now you have to give it to everybody in order to get anything.
Your first sentence is correct and I suspect your second was just pointing out the absurdity of extending their logic not a don’t do it to a few unless you do it to us all.
The thing about laws is if enough people are against them the human mind is more than capable of developing systems to avoid them. The drug trade is a perfect example. All it does is create extra cost for those for and against such laws.

Engage the Exotic – Latin Women
http://International-Introductions.com

[Gary Bala]

... in response to Re: Mail-Order Misery, posted by Ray on Feb 1, 2005

[This message has been edited by Gary Bala]

Thanks for comments, Ray.

The federal law in question is the IIRAIRA Act of 1996, Section 652 (Mail Order Bride Business).
The plaintiff attorneys in the Maryland case used this law for the first time in a civil jury suit to
successfully argue immigration violation by defendant Encounters International, as well as making
other arguments.

http://uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/publaw/publaw-11103/publaw-14740?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm

Congress made certain "findings" about the "mail order bride business" at that time, and ordered
the legacy or old INS to follow up and provide studies and recommendations which triggered
their famous 1999 Mail Order Bride Report (linked here onto the PL left-side menu bar).  

The law also purported to create certain obligations for information dissemination on "matchmaking
organizations" doing business in the U.S., specifically that these organizations advise foreign citizens
about their immigration spousal abuse rights among other topics, and even imposed civil penalties
on matchmaker organizations for failure to comply.  

After that, the law went nowhere and laid dormant. The legacy or old INS never got around to drafting
regulations about these law provisions or the governmental brochure they were asked by Congress to
write on spousal abuse rights. It was that "laziness" and "incompetence" of the old INS again
(but you know about that), before they were finally abolished for being "lazy" and "incompetent".

At any rate, we are now looking at the "International Marriage Broker Regulation Act" (HR 2949 and S.1455),
which goes far beyond the old Mail Order Bride law to force matchmaker organizations to become private
investigators and do background history checks (criminal, marital, and domestic violence) and collect and
disseminate this information about each gentleman and provide it to each lady in her native language,
as well as advise her on all her immigration spousal abuse rights and other rights in her native language.

If this bill comes up in current session of Congress, we all need to voice our opinions and oppose it
through our representatives. I agree with you in general that federal officials should stay out of "marriage
plans" because marriage is a state law issue. However as immigration spousal abuse rights of a foreign
citizen are a matter of federal law, I would see no harm in allowing the Consulate to advise the lady
visa applicant of what is just a matter of open record, especially if it will operate to prevent this proposed
law from passing as currently written.

As for security and background checks, these are done at Service Center, NVC and Consulate anyway,
and again if it can keep the peace and prevent the worst parts of the proposed law from going into effect,
I would not oppose Consulate from doing a more extensive check of the gentleman and advising
the lady of any negative results (and vice versa), if there is truly any chance it could lessen risk of abuse.

But placing on the matchmaker organizations the task of background checks, and information collection
and dissemination, and civil statutory penalties, on top of civil tort penalties as in this recent Maryland
case is beyond all sense and reason. It will drive up company costs and administration. It will force some
organizations out of business and others underground and overseas and offshore. It will chill First
Amendment free association rights of U.S. citizens. It will reduce international romance choices for
sincere and honorable U.S. citizen gentlemen seeking foreign fiancees and brides, and also make it much
more expensive for those who still want to pursue it. Less romance "matches" equals less happiness. And it
won't help the ladies from being protected from potential abuse anyway, because the organizations either
won't do a very effective job at security checks (something far outside of their specialty), or they will
close up and won't do it at all. Besides, there is no evidence to my knowledge that U.S.-foreign marriages
have a higher or different abuse rate than plain old U.S. domestic marriages. As you suggest, why single
out foreign marriages for security checks, but instead, if it must be done at all, just have the appropriate
entity do it for everyone.

The "Mail-Order Misery" article is better titled "Mail-Order Misdirection", because as Patrick suggested
this whole enterprise of big jury awards and this proposed law against matchmakers is in effect more
aimed at castrating the matchmakers than truly protecting the ladies from abuse.

Regards.

[Hoda]

... in response to Mail-Order Misery, posted by Gary Bala on Jan 31, 2005

than the proposed legislation....

and would be cheaper on the pockets of US taxpayers! Maybe it's time for some news from those on the other side of this issue. I'm speaking of the numerous happily married couples! What is it with these feminist lawyers? Marriages of AM to foreign women represent what....2 percent, 3 percent of all marriages? I can understand their concern against spousal abuse. But Gat damn...there's more abuse happening between AM & AW, than what is happening between AM & their foreign spouse's! These feminist lawyers sound like they're in dire need of non-manually induced orgasms...

[Neil]

... in response to Mail-Order Misery, posted by Gary Bala on Jan 31, 2005

[This message has been edited by Neil]

"Spivack, still in business, promises to connect clients with women who will "follow their husband's lead, and stick with the marriage even when times get tough and things stop being 'fun'."

The problem is that most brides no longer make a commitment vow to love, honor and obey their husband.  Spviack calls it "follow the husband's lead.."  American Feminists encourage the woman to be independent, think for themselves and not follow what their husband says.

I heard a guy at the gym tell me that the reason there is spouse abuse is that offensive women do not obey their husbands when he tells her to "be quiet."  She continues to provoke his anger and then he says, "shut up."  She then continues to ignore him and provoke him some more until he says, "shut the F... up"  She continues to scream at him and point her finger in his face until.... blam!  she gets hit.  Then the husband goes to jail.

Women just need to learn to obey their men.  Things have changed for the worse in US society.

[kented]

... in response to Re: Mail-Order Misery, posted by Neil on Jan 31, 2005

...aren't you.  If a woman doesn't follow your command to shut up just hit her.  

I have found the best way to shut a woman up is to shut up.  Pretty soon she gets tired of yelling and stops.  Then no one goes to jail.

[Michael B]

... in response to Re: Mail-Order Misery, posted by Neil on Jan 31, 2005

Perhaps you'd like to reconsider some of the things you've been posting. I'm not sure if you mean to, but this is how you're comming across.

Good (or at least excusable) reasons to beat up your woman:
1) Da bitch had it comming, and anyway, she sassed me.
2) I couldn't control myself, I was really mad at  (pick one): a)my foreman, b)my brother, c)some cop who gave me a ticket, d)anybody who has some power over me and/or can at least defend themselves.
3) I'm the boss and don't you forget it.
4) Anyway, when it's over, she'll just have to understand and forgive.

----------------------------------------------------------
I have a degree in psychology and have studied personalities and counseling psychology.---is that a fact? Could have fooled me.

[Neil]

... in response to Hello, anybody in?, posted by Michael B on Feb 2, 2005

[This message has been edited by Neil]

magna cum laude.  If you don't know latin, that means my grades were very high in all subjects.

Did you ever matriculate?  (no that is not a bad word.)

"I'm not sure if you mean it but..."  Please speak for yourself.  You know I am not an advocate of any form of abuse.  You are just trying to play word games and associate bad boy things to me.  This is wrong.  Stop it.

[Hoda]

... in response to Re: Hello, anybody in?, posted by Neil on Feb 2, 2005

[This message has been edited by Hoda]

book sense, Neil. You've gone from graduate to magna cum laude doctorate! Trying to support your position by beating someone over the head with it here.....isn't very scholarly or civil. And it dayyum sure doesn't give you the right to talk down to others, who have taken a different life path than yourself....

You need to "Stop it"

[Jamie]

... in response to Re: Mail-Order Misery, posted by Neil on Jan 31, 2005

“Women just need to learn to obey their men.”
Neil it sounds like you should just get a dog they like to obey.
Hitting a woman, man, or a dog for that matter out of anger is wrong. If a man can’t restrain himself it would be better for him to live alone.

Jamie
Engage the Exotic – Latin Women
http://International-Introductions.com

[Neil]

... in response to Disagree, posted by Jamie on Feb 1, 2005

[This message has been edited by Neil]

For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does;  I Corinthians 7:4

train the young women to love their husbands...to be sensible, chaste, domestic, kind and submissive to their husbands...  Titus 2:4

The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.  Many of the men who disagree should have their nose in the Bible instead of looking at womens photos on websites and lusting after the flesh.  If the man has his nose in the Bible, 99% of the time he will be right and the woman will follow his lead.  Domestic violence occurs when neither one knows their rolls in society and in the Bible teachings.

of course there are other strong words in the Bible on how us men are to behave.  I am not an advocate of violence except in defense of one's country or in self-defense.  The knowledge of good and evil was the curse that was brought upon man (and woman) kind in the garden of eden.  Only by submitting to Godly principles will we live in harmony with others.

seems like the Bible, Home Economics and prayer were taken out of the classroom and replaced with "Women's Studies" and followed by no fault divorces.    That is why I am seeking a traditional lady, not one from the United States of Role Confusion.  

While women have the same intellectual abilities as men,many of you think that women should think for themselves and aggressively voice their opinions.  This can lead to constant confusion and issues that prevent them from enjoying life and being protected by their loving husbands.  

Whenever you see a happily married couple driving their car, guess which one is in the drivers seat chauffering the other around?  Men are by nature the ones who protect and care for their wives outside of the house.  

And, in the same vein, who has ever seen a man breast feed and infant?  Except in the movie, Meet the Fockers, of course and that man was a twit.  Womens duties are inside the house, where they have complete control of household responsibilties and the mans duties are outside the house.  A well known Judge told me this.

It has only been like this since the beginning of time.  Eventually modern day feministas will see that their aggresive hostility is counterproductive and have more respect for men.

[Ray]

... in response to Re: Submissive and obedient women are no..., posted by Neil on Feb 1, 2005

“…womens photos…”
That should be “women’s”.

“Womens duties…”
Same mistake bozo!

“…household responsibilties…”
That should be “responsibilities”.

“in the drivers seat chauffering the other around”
That should be “chauffeuring”.

“…in the garden of eden.”
That should be “Garden of Eden”. Don't forget your caps!

“…their aggresive hostility…”
That should be “aggressive”.

Hey, YOU appointed yourself Spelling Sheriff. Now you have to live up to the standards…LOL!

[OkieMan]

... in response to Re: Submissive and obedient women are no..., posted by Neil on Feb 1, 2005

Hey Neil,
I liked the points you made.  I am a Christian man as well.
So, how has your search been going?  I have not been at it as long as you have, but I have been to Cali once.  I am planning to go again.  There is a very sweet lady that I have been corresponding with, and I am hoping to meet her in person soon.  Drop me an email if you want.

                                OkieMan

[kented]

... in response to Re: Re: Submissive and obedient women ar..., posted by OkieMan on Feb 1, 2005

I am Jewish and if you justify beating up someone who is weaker than you by what you claim is Christianity, you do a horrible disserve to the majority of Christins who use their religion as a vehicle for good, not is justifying violence.