Cantwell Legislation to Protect Thousands of Mail Order Brides from Abuse Becomes Law
Cantwell applauds renewal of Violence Against Women Act as president signs bill to guard against exploitation and domestic violence
Thursday, January 05,2006
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) applauded the president’s signing of the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act Thursday as part of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 2005. The new regulations, based on a bill sponsored by Cantwell, will help provide foreign fiancées with additional resources and will help them decide for themselves whether they are entering into a safe situation. VAWA includes additional safeguards for survivors of domestic violence.
“This law builds on past lessons, putting in place vital safeguards to protect women from abuse and exploitation,” said Cantwell. “Foreign-born fiancées deserve to know about their rights here in the United States, and need information about whether their potential spouse has a history of violent crime.”
Continued here
Full Version: International Marriage Broker Regulation Act
Listen up guys,
this new law will give us fits for the next year or so while USCIS tries to sort it all out.....
USC must now have a criminal background check. I think this will slow things down even more...
this new law will give us fits for the next year or so while USCIS tries to sort it all out.....
USC must now have a criminal background check. I think this will slow things down even more...
QUOTE(LostInIllinois @ Feb 7 2006, 08:46 AM) 
Listen up guys,
this new law will give us fits for the next year or so while USCIS tries to sort it all out.....
USC must now have a criminal background check. I think this will slow things down even more...
USC as well as attorney and anyone else that has anything to do with the petition is subject to a security check just as the alien is. All names are entered into the system for IBIS eg and if a hit results from any of the names it has to be resolved. I dont think the USC having a background check is going to slow down the process much, if at all. What people are forgetting is that this new law in most part only applies to those meeting through a Marriage Broker, hence the name of the Act.
It is a good thing. It may also reduce the numbers of victims of human trafficking by allowing them to speak out. Progress in this area remains to be seen though, not just in the US but worldwide. I would also like to see, at the same time, some progress being made in protecting asylum seekers and refugees, instead of a twist in the law to expedite their trip back home. One step at a time. Maybe this is heading a bit more in the right direction.
Criminals are getting better at using the Internet, not just by spreading viruses and stealing people's credit card number. People who track them down are gettting better too. Marriage brokerage is a big business for criminals and organized crime.
"The trafficking of women for sexual exploitation is an international, organized, criminal phenomenon that has grave consequences for the safety, welfare and human rights of its victims.
Trafficking in women is a criminal phenomenon that violates basic human rights, and totally destroying victims' lives. Countries are affected in various ways. Some see their young women being lured to leave their home country and ending up in the sex industry abroad. Other countries act mainly as transit countries, while several other receive foreign women who become victims of sexual exploitation. "
Soure: interpol
"The trafficking of women for sexual exploitation is an international, organized, criminal phenomenon that has grave consequences for the safety, welfare and human rights of its victims.
Trafficking in women is a criminal phenomenon that violates basic human rights, and totally destroying victims' lives. Countries are affected in various ways. Some see their young women being lured to leave their home country and ending up in the sex industry abroad. Other countries act mainly as transit countries, while several other receive foreign women who become victims of sexual exploitation. "
Soure: interpol
It's a good thing and probably the best thing to do 
Sheila
Sheila
Not only is it a sell out to the big corporations like yahoo, match.com etc who are exempt from this but it's not going to do a thing to slow down any exploitation of women.
Further, to suggest that ANY law is a good law that is signed into law by the president or any other leader of a country without so much as a discussion and debate is unbelievable.
There are already laws on the books. Enforce them. But to suggest that American men are abusers, and foreign women are poor lowly waifs who will anything just to get out of their homelands including be abused by those mean old Americans who will now have to submit to an invasion of privacy before even saying hellow is outrageous.
Too late though, the king has spoken
Further, to suggest that ANY law is a good law that is signed into law by the president or any other leader of a country without so much as a discussion and debate is unbelievable.
There are already laws on the books. Enforce them. But to suggest that American men are abusers, and foreign women are poor lowly waifs who will anything just to get out of their homelands including be abused by those mean old Americans who will now have to submit to an invasion of privacy before even saying hellow is outrageous.
Too late though, the king has spoken
QUOTE(MrTudo @ Feb 18 2006, 03:15 PM)
Not only is it a sell out to the big corporations like yahoo, match.com etc who are exempt from this but it's not going to do a thing to slow down any exploitation of women.
Further, to suggest that ANY law is a good law that is signed into law by the president or any other leader of a country without so much as a discussion and debate is unbelievable.
There are already laws on the books. Enforce them. But to suggest that American men are abusers, and foreign women are poor lowly waifs who will anything just to get out of their homelands including be abused by those mean old Americans who will now have to submit to an invasion of privacy before even saying hellow is outrageous.
Too late though, the king has spoken
If it protects the ones that may face abuse then I cant see how its a bad thing.
QUOTE(aussiewench @ Feb 18 2006, 02:27 AM)
QUOTE(MrTudo @ Feb 18 2006, 03:15 PM)
Not only is it a sell out to the big corporations like yahoo, match.com etc who are exempt from this but it's not going to do a thing to slow down any exploitation of women.
Further, to suggest that ANY law is a good law that is signed into law by the president or any other leader of a country without so much as a discussion and debate is unbelievable.
There are already laws on the books. Enforce them. But to suggest that American men are abusers, and foreign women are poor lowly waifs who will anything just to get out of their homelands including be abused by those mean old Americans who will now have to submit to an invasion of privacy before even saying hellow is outrageous.
Too late though, the king has spoken
If it protects the ones that may face abuse then I cant see how its a bad thing.
A) it doesn't do that ,
it greatly limits even the possibility of the bonding of hearts across the oceans and C) it greatly robs property from small business owners Which of course goes against not only the letter but the spirit of the Constitution.
But of course never mind that old thing
QUOTE(aussiewench @ Feb 18 2006, 02:27 AM)
QUOTE(MrTudo @ Feb 18 2006, 03:15 PM)
Not only is it a sell out to the big corporations like yahoo, match.com etc who are exempt from this but it's not going to do a thing to slow down any exploitation of women.
Further, to suggest that ANY law is a good law that is signed into law by the president or any other leader of a country without so much as a discussion and debate is unbelievable.
There are already laws on the books. Enforce them. But to suggest that American men are abusers, and foreign women are poor lowly waifs who will anything just to get out of their homelands including be abused by those mean old Americans who will now have to submit to an invasion of privacy before even saying hellow is outrageous.
Too late though, the king has spoken
If it protects the ones that may face abuse then I cant see how its a bad thing.
If it protects while violating someone's civil rights, then it can't be a good thing.
I bet this law is one day found unconstitutional. It requires a US citizen to disclose their entire criminal history PRIOR to ever even talking to a foreigner via an international broker.
This would be like making a law that says every peson that comes up to you in a bar has to declare his entire criminal history to you before conversing with you.
I have zero criminal history.. so the law would have little affect on me, however, I still have to disagree with it 100%.
QUOTE(bly @ Feb 23 2006, 01:09 PM)
QUOTE(aussiewench @ Feb 18 2006, 02:27 AM)
QUOTE(MrTudo @ Feb 18 2006, 03:15 PM)
Not only is it a sell out to the big corporations like yahoo, match.com etc who are exempt from this but it's not going to do a thing to slow down any exploitation of women.
Further, to suggest that ANY law is a good law that is signed into law by the president or any other leader of a country without so much as a discussion and debate is unbelievable.
There are already laws on the books. Enforce them. But to suggest that American men are abusers, and foreign women are poor lowly waifs who will anything just to get out of their homelands including be abused by those mean old Americans who will now have to submit to an invasion of privacy before even saying hellow is outrageous.
Too late though, the king has spoken
If it protects the ones that may face abuse then I cant see how its a bad thing.
If it protects while violating someone's civil rights, then it can't be a good thing.
I bet this law is one day found unconstitutional. It requires a US citizen to disclose their entire criminal history PRIOR to ever even talking to a foreigner via an international broker.
This would be like making a law that says every peson that comes up to you in a bar has to declare his entire criminal history to you before conversing with you.
I have zero criminal history.. so the law would have little affect on me, however, I still have to disagree with it 100%.
Yes and it only prevents American men from communicating with "foreign" women, unless of course the American man is using Yahoo Personals, Match.com, E-Harmony. They are exempt from this law.
This law is the ultimate discriminatory law against American men, and Foreign Women not to mention how it caters to big business while destroying the little people.
I'm waiting for bush to claim he was unaware........
This document leads me to believe that all K-1 applications are subject to the new law, not just those resulting from a pairing through an international marriage broker:
http://www.gop.gov/Committeecentral/bills/hr3402.asp
http://www.gop.gov/Committeecentral/bills/hr3402.asp
QUOTE(pax @ Mar 3 2006, 05:58 AM)
This document leads me to believe that all K-1 applications are subject to the new law, not just those resulting from a pairing through an international marriage broker:
http://www.gop.gov/Committeecentral/bills/hr3402.asp
Correct. The first lot of info that was available was focused on the section regarding marriage brokers which is why I think many, including myself, didnt realise at first that there was implications right across the board. I sat and read the whole thing a couple of weeks ago and I was a lil shocked at the extent of it.
And yahoo personals, match.com and of course american singles are EXEMPT from this law.
All done without so much as a discussion in congress.
american wo-man should be overjoyed.
All done without so much as a discussion in congress.
american wo-man should be overjoyed.
No, I believe that's the whole point...all K visa applications will be subject to the requirements of the new law.
This why I am confused now about this new law....
Is it just those using a marriage broker or applicable to all petitioners??? I assumed it was for all applicants.
Is it just those using a marriage broker or applicable to all petitioners??? I assumed it was for all applicants.
I think that it is.
sorry abby I didn't go back further in the thread to see this had been addressed already....DOH.
It's okay, I'm still confused.
I'm not sure if I'm reading this right, and I have a friend that had 2 petitions that were approved but the women were not being 100% honest, so they didn't get hitched and the went back home. The women were more interested in the little green card then actually establishing and honest family.
That being said, I see wehre if he files another peition, he will go into the multiple filing data base (which I'm assuming is to keep track of potential traffickers or abusers of the system), but if he files another petition and states he didn't go thru w/ the marraiges because of their lack of honesty and they went back, does he have to wait 2 years to file the petition from the approval date of the last one as well?
Glad I don't have to worry about this problem!!
That being said, I see wehre if he files another peition, he will go into the multiple filing data base (which I'm assuming is to keep track of potential traffickers or abusers of the system), but if he files another petition and states he didn't go thru w/ the marraiges because of their lack of honesty and they went back, does he have to wait 2 years to file the petition from the approval date of the last one as well?
Glad I don't have to worry about this problem!!
QUOTE(MikeAndIryna @ Mar 14 2006, 02:11 AM)
I'm not sure if I'm reading this right, and I have a friend that had 2 petitions that were approved but the women were not being 100% honest, so they didn't get hitched and the went back home. The women were more interested in the little green card then actually establishing and honest family.
That being said, I see wehre if he files another peition, he will go into the multiple filing data base (which I'm assuming is to keep track of potential traffickers or abusers of the system), but if he files another petition and states he didn't go thru w/ the marraiges because of their lack of honesty and they went back, does he have to wait 2 years to file the petition from the approval date of the last one as well?
Glad I don't have to worry about this problem!!
From what I have read of it....one can apply for a waiver of the wait time.
QUOTE(bly @ Feb 23 2006, 12:09 PM)
QUOTE(aussiewench @ Feb 18 2006, 02:27 AM)
QUOTE(MrTudo @ Feb 18 2006, 03:15 PM)
Not only is it a sell out to the big corporations like yahoo, match.com etc who are exempt from this but it's not going to do a thing to slow down any exploitation of women.
Further, to suggest that ANY law is a good law that is signed into law by the president or any other leader of a country without so much as a discussion and debate is unbelievable.
There are already laws on the books. Enforce them. But to suggest that American men are abusers, and foreign women are poor lowly waifs who will anything just to get out of their homelands including be abused by those mean old Americans who will now have to submit to an invasion of privacy before even saying hellow is outrageous.
Too late though, the king has spoken
If it protects the ones that may face abuse then I cant see how its a bad thing.
If it protects while violating someone's civil rights, then it can't be a good thing.
I bet this law is one day found unconstitutional. It requires a US citizen to disclose their entire criminal history PRIOR to ever even talking to a foreigner via an international broker.
This would be like making a law that says every peson that comes up to you in a bar has to declare his entire criminal history to you before conversing with you.
I have zero criminal history.. so the law would have little affect on me, however, I still have to disagree with it 100%.
criminal history is not protected private information. It is not unconstitutional to divulge someone's public criminal record. It's done all the time. In many states you can look up a person't criminal history on a web site. For some offenses names and pictures are displayed on public service announcements. Do they still post wanted posters in the post office?
Having used several marriage/dating/matchmaking websites I have some problems with this bill. 1) It assumes that all American Men are wife abusing assholes. 2) It seems to designate a prejudicial seperation between services such as loveme.com and others like match.com or yahoo personals--that is assuming that any web based matching service with actual brick and mortar offices is also criminally inclined.
The problem here is not that women are beaten and abused. The problem is that this law now assumes that all US Citizens are womanizing assholes that like punch greencard seeking third world debutantes. We used to have a presumption of innocence in this country and right to live freely without unlawful search and seizure. This law actually has another purpose--its really related to the Patriot Act and the recent revelation that NSA is spying on USC and openning any foreign based snail mail. Among other things.
Don't ever believe in the law on its face value--this law is not about protecting women from violence. It has nothing to do with domestic abuse--its another way to create a database and whatever watchlist. Why is there not a similiar law governing USC to USC matchmaking services? Which there seems to be a lot of bashing of Myspace.com and other such services.
The problem here is not that women are beaten and abused. The problem is that this law now assumes that all US Citizens are womanizing assholes that like punch greencard seeking third world debutantes. We used to have a presumption of innocence in this country and right to live freely without unlawful search and seizure. This law actually has another purpose--its really related to the Patriot Act and the recent revelation that NSA is spying on USC and openning any foreign based snail mail. Among other things.
Don't ever believe in the law on its face value--this law is not about protecting women from violence. It has nothing to do with domestic abuse--its another way to create a database and whatever watchlist. Why is there not a similiar law governing USC to USC matchmaking services? Which there seems to be a lot of bashing of Myspace.com and other such services.
Also regarding the previous post before my first one by john_and_marlene. It is unconstitutional to be forced to divulge criminal activity that you may have or not have done in the past--its called the 4th and 5th Amendments. Unreasonable search/seizure and Self-Incrimination.
Granted there are such requirements to give background checks in other facets of American life such as required by some employers etc. Still I can see this issue becoming a legal challenge in the future. And the law is not really intended to protect women from abusive husbands/boyfriends.
The war on drugs/war on crime/war on terrorism/and now war on trafficing in women--they are all part of the governments shadow layer that intends to eventually erase completely the US Constitution.
If you have nothing to hide............... then you have nothing to fear.........
IMO
Kezzie
IMO
Kezzie
And the battles have begun to wage in the courts over the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act
http://fianceevisalawyer.com/
I have to say whilst I agree that something should always be done to protect from abuse.......I agree with Artegal that this law goes a lot deeper then what it appears on the surface.
http://fianceevisalawyer.com/
I have to say whilst I agree that something should always be done to protect from abuse.......I agree with Artegal that this law goes a lot deeper then what it appears on the surface.
QUOTE(Kezzie @ Mar 17 2006, 06:22 AM)
If you have nothing to hide............... then you have nothing to fear.........
IMO
Kezzie
I think the over 300 people wrongfully put in jail in this country went with that same philosophy--and nearly half ended up serving life or got the death penalty for crimes they never committed. But hey they had nothing to Hide and therefore nothing to fear--that is if losing your freedom is not something you fear losing--personally I think if you have nothing to hide then you have no reason to be searched. And therefore never have the fear of losing your life or liberty.
Source on 300+ people wrongfully that is completely innocent people locked away in this country.
QUOTE(Artegal @ Mar 17 2006, 05:25 AM)
Also regarding the previous post before my first one by john_and_marlene. It is unconstitutional to be forced to divulge criminal activity that you may have or not have done in the past--its called the 4th and 5th Amendments. Unreasonable search/seizure and Self-Incrimination.
Granted there are such requirements to give background checks in other facets of American life such as required by some employers etc. Still I can see this issue becoming a legal challenge in the future. And the law is not really intended to protect women from abusive husbands/boyfriends.
The war on drugs/war on crime/war on terrorism/and now war on trafficing in women--they are all part of the governments shadow layer that intends to eventually erase completely the US Constitution.
Any criminal conviction plead to, or adjudicated in open court (which is our system) is public information and easily available.
Some people dont realize how many women are brought here every year and are abused, held prisioner, etc. by their abusive spouse with a history of violence, stalking, and related sex offenses. Some women are held in AOS blackmail. If this law prevents even one case of further abuse, then Im all for it.
I agree with aussie ..
QUOTE(aussiewench @ Feb 23 2006, 02:13 PM)
Hi,
Can anyone there provide me with some link to this new VAWA Act. Or suggest me where I can get some more information in this respect. (I have seen the links in the above thread).
Thanks.
QUOTE(aussiewench @ Mar 13 2006, 01:51 PM)
QUOTE(MikeAndIryna @ Mar 14 2006, 02:11 AM)
I'm not sure if I'm reading this right, and I have a friend that had 2 petitions that were approved but the women were not being 100% honest, so they didn't get hitched and the went back home. The women were more interested in the little green card then actually establishing and honest family.
That being said, I see wehre if he files another peition, he will go into the multiple filing data base (which I'm assuming is to keep track of potential traffickers or abusers of the system), but if he files another petition and states he didn't go thru w/ the marraiges because of their lack of honesty and they went back, does he have to wait 2 years to file the petition from the approval date of the last one as well?
Glad I don't have to worry about this problem!!
From what I have read of it....one can apply for a waiver of the wait time.
I have read this and i am still confused. Will the person have to wait 2 years from the date of the previous petition filed? Or can he file a waiver for some reason? And if he can file the waiver, what ARE the reasons he can use? All of this IMBRA stuff is confusing to me.
QUOTE(Wind~Dancer @ Jul 13 2006, 12:54 PM)
QUOTE(aussiewench @ Mar 13 2006, 01:51 PM)
QUOTE(MikeAndIryna @ Mar 14 2006, 02:11 AM)
I'm not sure if I'm reading this right, and I have a friend that had 2 petitions that were approved but the women were not being 100% honest, so they didn't get hitched and the went back home. The women were more interested in the little green card then actually establishing and honest family.
That being said, I see wehre if he files another peition, he will go into the multiple filing data base (which I'm assuming is to keep track of potential traffickers or abusers of the system), but if he files another petition and states he didn't go thru w/ the marraiges because of their lack of honesty and they went back, does he have to wait 2 years to file the petition from the approval date of the last one as well?
Glad I don't have to worry about this problem!!
From what I have read of it....one can apply for a waiver of the wait time.
I have read this and i am still confused. Will the person have to wait 2 years from the date of the previous petition filed? Or can he file a waiver for some reason? And if he can file the waiver, what ARE the reasons he can use? All of this IMBRA stuff is confusing to me.
One can file a waiver.
From the I-129F instructions....
B. If you are seeking a waiver of the filing limitations imposed by IMBRA, you must attach a signed and dated request for the waiver, explaining why a waiver would be appropriate in you case, together with any evidence in support of your request. Examples of such evidence include, but are not limited to: a death certificate, police reports, news articles, or medical reports from a licensed medical professional, regarding the death of an alien approved for a prior K visa.
Documentation is going to vary depending on the individual circumstances. Basically what someone is going to need is anything that is going to support the written request for a waiver.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.