Question about the new law

[scy 0]

I understand your concerns that international marriage brokers are held to different standards than US marriage brokers. However, Congress has chosen to regulate international marriage brokers out of concerns for US and foreign nationals being abused by criminals. The way I see it, this in no way infringes on your rights to love and marry someone without full disclosure. You can do so, but just don't do so via an international marriage broker.

I see this act as something similar to Congress regulating that one must provide proof of identity when opening a bank account. Although the requirements of this act are higher than merely providing identity, but the idea is similar. If you want to utilize a service that Congress regulates, then you have to follow the laws. If you feel the laws are too onerous to utilize that service, then don't use it or try to change the laws. But I don't see how regulating international marriage brokers infringes on your rights to love and marry. Just like how regulating banks does not infringe on your rights to make and spend money. Now whether Congress has such rights to regulate international marriage brokers is a different question. Although I don't forsee too many court challenges to this law.

I foresee a challenge to the law. I can't see how our govt has the right to tell any one of us that we can't meet people for dating or marriage without first disclosing our entire criminal past.

We do, as a USC have the right to meet anyone, in any way we please, without govt intervention. This is going to come down to a free speech issue. Our govt has stepped into not letting us speak freely with members of the opposite sex via internet dating services without first disclosing our criminal past. What this really comes down to is the USA govt has gone so far as to tell each and everyone of us how we can use the internet for foreign dating and marraige. What's next?

I would expect something like this from China, not from the USA.

I see the ACLU stepping into this one...

I'm not a lawyer so I only write from my personal opinion. You are correct that this is a free speech issue. Whether Congress' right to regulate international marriage brokers infringes on an American's right to meet and love someone. Congress has a history to regulating services from banking to internet providers to marriage brokers. And over the years its rights have been greatly broaden. Somehow I doubt that the courts will find this law to be an impediment to anyone's rights to meet and love someone. There are many ways to meet someone and meeting through an international marriage broker is just one of them. So until this law impedes the primary method of meeting and loving someone, the courts are unlikely to overturn it.

For now, the majority of Americans still meet their potential mates through the old fashioned way, through friends, family, work, etc...

[bly 0]

I'm not a lawyer so I only write from my personal opinion. You are correct that this is a free speech issue. Whether Congress' right to regulate international marriage brokers infringes on an American's right to meet and love someone. Congress has a history to regulating services from banking to internet providers to marriage brokers. And over the years its rights have been greatly broaden. Somehow I doubt that the courts will find this law to be an impediment to anyone's rights to meet and love someone. There are many ways to meet someone and meeting through an international marriage broker is just one of them. So until this law impedes the primary method of meeting and loving someone, the courts are unlikely to overturn it.

For now, the majority of Americans still meet their potential mates through the old fashioned way, through friends, family, work, etc...

in my humble opinion, I have to disagree...

Free speech can't be impeded like this, even if there are other ways to meet foriegners.

That is like the govt saying "we are taking away free speech on the internet unless you submit to all of our regulations, but we're going to leave it for magazines and television."

A really good article on this http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180487,00.html

and I quote here:

Contacting a woman for romantic purposes — internationally or domestically — is not a crime. Those who do so are not a priori criminals who must prove themselves innocent before being allowed an e-mail exchange.

What I do sympathize with, however, are the privacy rights of people who are considered guilty until proven innocent. This is especially true when a government violates the privacy of its own citizens to benefit foreign individuals.

Edited February 23, 2006 by bly

[scy 0]

I'm not a lawyer so I only write from my personal opinion. You are correct that this is a free speech issue. Whether Congress' right to regulate international marriage brokers infringes on an American's right to meet and love someone. Congress has a history to regulating services from banking to internet providers to marriage brokers. And over the years its rights have been greatly broaden. Somehow I doubt that the courts will find this law to be an impediment to anyone's rights to meet and love someone. There are many ways to meet someone and meeting through an international marriage broker is just one of them. So until this law impedes the primary method of meeting and loving someone, the courts are unlikely to overturn it.

For now, the majority of Americans still meet their potential mates through the old fashioned way, through friends, family, work, etc...

in my humble opinion, I have to disagree...

Free speech can't be impeded like this, even if there are other ways to meet foriegners.

That is like the govt saying "we are taking away free speech on the internet unless you submit to all of our regulations, but we're going to leave it for magazines and television."

You're making a generalization that this law applies to all of internet communications. It only applies when the international marriage broker charges fees for you to meet someone. It doesn't apply when you meet in a free chat room, through random e-mail, etc... So the law is pretty narrow.

[bly 0]

I'm not a lawyer so I only write from my personal opinion. You are correct that this is a free speech issue. Whether Congress' right to regulate international marriage brokers infringes on an American's right to meet and love someone. Congress has a history to regulating services from banking to internet providers to marriage brokers. And over the years its rights have been greatly broaden. Somehow I doubt that the courts will find this law to be an impediment to anyone's rights to meet and love someone. There are many ways to meet someone and meeting through an international marriage broker is just one of them. So until this law impedes the primary method of meeting and loving someone, the courts are unlikely to overturn it.

For now, the majority of Americans still meet their potential mates through the old fashioned way, through friends, family, work, etc...

in my humble opinion, I have to disagree...

Free speech can't be impeded like this, even if there are other ways to meet foriegners.

That is like the govt saying "we are taking away free speech on the internet unless you submit to all of our regulations, but we're going to leave it for magazines and television."

You're making a generalization that this law applies to all of internet communications. It only applies when the international marriage broker charges fees for you to meet someone. It doesn't apply when you meet in a free chat room, through random e-mail, etc... So the law is pretty narrow.

I was making a point about the internet, however I still don't follow your logic

So by paying for a service, I'm required to give up my rights to privacy. I have no right to free speech with a foreign person because I'm paying for the speech, instead of getting it for free. If I use a free service, I'm not required to give up my rights.

When did paying for a service require a person to give up rights? It's still legal to talk to foreigners. It's legal to marry a foreigner. It's now illegal to pay to talk to a foreigner without first tell them basically everything and anything about my life. (My previous marriages, how many children I have, my past criminal history, and so forth)

from: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180487,00.html

Corresponding with a foreigner is legal. Marrying a foreigner is legal. Immigrating spouses and their husbands go through rigorous and lengthy screening before visas are issued. U.S. laws against violence protect "mail-order brides."

Now American men who wish to pursue a legal activity must release their government files to a foreign business and foreign individuals for their personal benefit.

...the privacy rights of people who are considered guilty until proven innocent. This is especially true when a government violates the privacy of its own citizens to benefit foreign individuals.

Edited February 23, 2006 by bly

[scy 0]

I'm not a lawyer so I only write from my personal opinion. You are correct that this is a free speech issue. Whether Congress' right to regulate international marriage brokers infringes on an American's right to meet and love someone. Congress has a history to regulating services from banking to internet providers to marriage brokers. And over the years its rights have been greatly broaden. Somehow I doubt that the courts will find this law to be an impediment to anyone's rights to meet and love someone. There are many ways to meet someone and meeting through an international marriage broker is just one of them. So until this law impedes the primary method of meeting and loving someone, the courts are unlikely to overturn it.

For now, the majority of Americans still meet their potential mates through the old fashioned way, through friends, family, work, etc...

in my humble opinion, I have to disagree...

Free speech can't be impeded like this, even if there are other ways to meet foriegners.

That is like the govt saying "we are taking away free speech on the internet unless you submit to all of our regulations, but we're going to leave it for magazines and television."

You're making a generalization that this law applies to all of internet communications. It only applies when the international marriage broker charges fees for you to meet someone. It doesn't apply when you meet in a free chat room, through random e-mail, etc... So the law is pretty narrow.

I was making a point about the internet, however I still don't follow your logic

So by paying for a service, I'm required to give up my rights to privacy. I have no right to free speech with a foreign person because I'm paying for the speech, instead of getting it for free.

You hit it right on the head. Congress has chosen to regulate international marriage brokers. By choosing to utilize these services, you are bound to give up whatever privacy rights Congress asks. The same thing happens if you want to open a bank account. You are bound to prove your identity and give up your address when you open a bank account.

You can ask Congress or the courts to change the law, but I think that the benefit of the law, that is preventing violence against vulnerable aliens, outweighs the invasion of privacy and costs of the law. And yes, I do sound like a liberal.

You can argue that aliens/women have plenty of protection in current laws against domestic violence. I think this assertion is debatable because an alien who doesn't speak English, have no relatives or friends in the US, and is not familiar with US laws are extremely vulnerable to domestic violence regardless of how many laws are in place.

Another reason I don't think this law will be overturned is because this country thinks vulnerable women and children must be protected. Woe be to anyone who argues against protecting women from violence. Rightly or wrongly, women and children are placed at a higher pedestal than certain privacy rights.

[bly 0]

You hit it right on the head. Congress has chosen to regulate international marriage brokers. By choosing to utilize these services, you are bound to give up whatever privacy rights Congress asks. The same thing happens if you want to open a bank account. You are bound to prove your identity and give up your address when you open a bank account.

You can ask Congress or the courts to change the law, but I think that the benefit of the law, that is preventing violence against vulnerable aliens, outweighs the invasion of privacy and costs of the law. And yes, I do sound like a liberal.

You can argue that aliens/women have plenty of protection in current laws against domestic violence. I think this assertion is debatable because an alien who doesn't speak English, have no relatives or friends in the US, and is not familiar with US laws are extremely vulnerable to domestic violence regardless of how many laws are in place.

Another reason I don't think this law will be overturned is because this country thinks vulnerable women and children must be protected. Woe be to anyone who argues against protecting women from violence. Rightly or wrongly, women and children are placed at a higher pedestal than certain privacy rights.

I have no issue with the consulate screening ALL k1 applicants and giving this information to ALL spouses, no matter how they meet.

Foreign K1 applicants must provide a police certificate prior to entering the USA, so turning the tables and letting her see my police report is fine. I have no issue giving this info to a foreigner prior to issuing a visa.

But to make it illegal to pay to TALK to talk to a foreigner without divulging my entire personal life story isn't required to protect the foreigner. She isn't in the USA, she's still in her homeland. So throw out your entire argument and try again.

The govt has made it a criminal offense to pay to communicate with a foreigner (with the intention of marriage) without divulging my entire life's history. How can you not see this is a pure violation of our freedom of speech?

If you'd get off your liberal high horse for 2 minutes and realize they are regulating free speech. Not marriage, not getting a visa. This is SIMPLY FREE SPEECH. To make that a criminal act goes against everything American stands for.

In order for you to maintain your right to free speech, (it's free speech even if you pay for it yes?), you are now required to submit to a highly invasive back ground check. If they get away with this, what's next?

This is still the USA isn't it? Our congress can do something like this, and then 2 weeks later go after google and yahoo for working with China. Just a tad 2 faced yes?

Edited February 23, 2006 by bly

[scy 0]

You hit it right on the head. Congress has chosen to regulate international marriage brokers. By choosing to utilize these services, you are bound to give up whatever privacy rights Congress asks. The same thing happens if you want to open a bank account. You are bound to prove your identity and give up your address when you open a bank account.

You can ask Congress or the courts to change the law, but I think that the benefit of the law, that is preventing violence against vulnerable aliens, outweighs the invasion of privacy and costs of the law. And yes, I do sound like a liberal.

You can argue that aliens/women have plenty of protection in current laws against domestic violence. I think this assertion is debatable because an alien who doesn't speak English, have no relatives or friends in the US, and is not familiar with US laws are extremely vulnerable to domestic violence regardless of how many laws are in place.

Another reason I don't think this law will be overturned is because this country thinks vulnerable women and children must be protected. Woe be to anyone who argues against protecting women from violence. Rightly or wrongly, women and children are placed at a higher pedestal than certain privacy rights.

I have no issue with the consulate screening ALL k1 applicants and giving this information to ALL spouses, no matter how they meet.

Foreign K1 applicants must provide a police certificate prior to entering the USA, so turning the tables and letting her see my police report is fine. I have no issue giving this info to a foreigner prior to issuing a visa.

But to make it illegal to pay to TALK to talk to a foreigner without divulging my entire personal life story isn't required to protect the foreigner. She isn't in the USA, she's still in her homeland. So throw out your entire argument and try again.

The govt has made it a criminal offense to pay to communicate with a foreigner (with the intention of marriage) without divulging my entire life's history. How can you not see this is a pure violation of our freedom of speech?

If you'd get off your liberal high horse for 2 minutes and realize they are regulating free speech. Not marriage, not getting a visa. This is SIMPLY FREE SPEECH. To make that a criminal act goes against everything American stands for.

In order for you to maintain your right to free speech, (it's free speech even if you pay for it yes?), you are now required to submit to a highly invasive back ground check. If they get away with this, what's next?

This is still the USA isn't it? Our congress can do something like this, and then 2 weeks later go after google and yahoo for working with China. Just a tad 2 faced yes?

I think the argument that aliens do not deserve protection because they are not in the US is flawed. It is illegal for a US national to go abroad for the express purpose of engaging in sex with minors in a foreign country. So it's not the first time the US has engaged in protection of foreigners who are not residing in the US.

Regardless of whether this law regulates free speech, I still think its benefits outweigh its costs. We can engage in a debate all day about freedom of expression and the slow erosion of personal freedom. However, on this issue, just like child pornography, you will find very few supporters arguing for freedom of speech over the protection of women and children. Like I said, rightly or wrongly, this country chose to place protecting women and children above certain rights.

[bly 0]

I think the argument that aliens do not deserve protection because they are not in the US is flawed. It is illegal for a US national to go abroad for the express purpose of engaging in sex with minors in a foreign country. So it's not the first time the US has engaged in protection of foreigners who are not residing in the US.

Regardless of whether this law regulates free speech, I still think its benefits outweigh its costs. We can engage in a debate all day about freedom of expression and the slow erosion of personal freedom. However, on this issue, just like child pornography, you will find very few supporters arguing for freedom of speech over the protection of women and children. Like I said, rightly or wrongly, this country chose to place protecting women and children above certain rights.

Sex with minors in a foreign country illegal in the foreign country. If you do it in our country, it's illegal. And yes, finally, if you travel to a foreign country it is also illegal by our laws.

However.

Marriage to a foreigner: Legal

Marriage to a American: Legal

Talking to foreigner about marriage: legal

Talking to an American about marriage: legal

Talk to a foreigner on a free internet service about marriage: legal

Talk to a American on a free internet service about marriage: legal

Pay to talk to an American via dating/marriage service about marriage: Legal

Pay to talk to a foreigner via dating/marriage service about marriage: Illegal , unless you divulge everything about your past including all places you lived, who you’ve married, how many children you currently have, and your criminal record. This is just to exchange contact info, not even a meeting yet.

You are the worst kind of idiot liberal on the plant. You lump every man in the USA as a rapist no good child molesting thug unless proven otherwise. You’d probably be happy if we just outlawed all travel of single men to foreign countries, can’t trust us, we’re probably out to rape a woman or child. Why even let anyone travel?

Making it illegal to talk isn’t going to stop any man from going to the other country and meeting women directly. You aren’t protecting anyone as anyone can go around the “freedom of speech” censorship by leaving the country. This law does nothing but violate the rights of every American man who would like to pursue a relationship with a woman outside of the USA via a marriage agency.

You probably live out in California. It’s amazing how ignorant everyone in a single state can be. You’re so stuck on your idiotic liberal high horse you can’t see how far you’ve shoved your own head up your a$$.

I’m done with this conversation, we’ll let the courts throw this one out. I have no doubt it will happen. This entire law is going to get tossed and have to be rewritten.

[scy 0]

You are the worst kind of idiot liberal on the plant. You lump every man in the USA as a rapist no good child molesting thug unless proven otherwise. You’d probably be happy if we just outlawed all travel of single men to foreign countries, can’t trust us, we’re probably out to rape a woman or child. Why even let anyone travel?

Making it illegal to talk isn’t going to stop any man from going to the other country and meeting women directly. You aren’t protecting anyone as anyone can go around the “freedom of speech” censorship by leaving the country. This law does nothing but violate the rights of every American man who would like to pursue a relationship with a woman outside of the USA via a marriage agency.

You probably live out in California. It’s amazing how ignorant everyone in a single state can be. You’re so stuck on your idiotic liberal high horse you can’t see how far you’ve shoved your own head up your a$$.

I’m done with this conversation, we’ll let the courts throw this one out. I have no doubt it will happen. This entire law is going to get tossed and have to be rewritten.

There is no need for insults. I didn't write any derogatory comments about you in my posts. I disagreed with you but I did not insult you. You have proven yourself to be very childlike with your derogatory comments.

I am also finished this conversation since you are incapable of having an intelligent debate without resorting to insults. No one is taking away your right to travel or calling you a child rapist. Chill out a little bit.

Edited February 23, 2006 by scy

[PorknBeanz 0]

Technically, this isn’t a law against international marriage agencies, it is a law against a particular business model.

If you're an abusive USC and want to meet an unsuspecting alien on Match.com, Yahoo Personals, Matchmaker.com, etc. No problem. The law has loopholes just for you.

If an abusive USC gets frustrated with this new law, he (or she) is free to abuse other USCs because this law doesn't apply to those relationships. BTW, 440 US men were murdered last year by their girlfriends/wives.

I think the opening a bank account analogy is correct with a few other conditions added: If you want to open up a bank account in a certain section of town, the US government will require you to disclose everything about yourself, in a signed statement, to a place you think is a bank, because it looks like a bank in a photo. You’ll also have to tell it how many banks you’ve had accounts at in the past, and why you closed those accounts.

The bank can then decide if they want you as a potential customer. The bank is not required to tell you anything about itself, like how many customers might have lost everything at this bank, how many customers are currently making night deposits, or even if it really is a bank . It might be a collection of crooks who call you “green card mule’ behind your back . You won’t really be sure until you’ve deposited everything at this place you think is a bank.

If you really like this place you think is a bank , you can invite it to relocate to your section of town. The US government will step in again at this point and tell the bank that the move has restrictions, but after two years it can permanently relocate to your section of town with no restrictions .

After the bank relocates, and while it is waiting for the two year period to end, it may decide that there are other customers in this section of town who make bigger night deposits, and have more assets than you. At this point the bank may turn to an instruction pamphlet entitled “How to Eliminate the Two Year Waiting Period by Claiming That a Customer Abused Your Assets” The new law mandates that this instruction pamphlet be given to the bank by the US government when the bank asks to be allowed to relocate to your section of town. Finally, you slowly realize that this wasn’t a bank at all! You were fooled by a shoddy Savings & Loan!

You turn to the US government for help, but they're busy protecting other banks from potential customers.

OK, I think I’ve just about killed the bank analogy.

[laybar 0]

Where is the luv, dudes?

C'mon ... you both should calm down a bit.

Scy: your arguments at times did sound like you weren't really reading what bly had to say... he did make a pretty good point about the law not actually protecting the foreign woman if she's not even trying to get into the U.S. yet.

Bly: c'mon... you have to learn how to debate. You make some pretty good darn points but your angry tone makes that all not matter much...

Yes, this is a well intentioned law but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. They'll have to work a lot harder at making it fair. I think this should be done only AFTER the visa is requested... before that it's a bit precipitated for anyone to legally have to spill their past.

But that's just my opinion.

[MrMrsKnight 0]

Yes, this is a well intentioned law but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. They'll have to work a lot harder at making it fair.

Agreed!!

[bly 0]

Within 24 hours of this law becoming law, at least one Judge has stepped forward saying this law violates 1st and 5th amendment rights and is likely to be ruled unconstitutional, such as a temporary restraining order has been issued against the IMBRA.

http://www.internationalmarriagebrokers.com/id29.html

Directly from the court order "The Court believes that there is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiff will prevail on the merits of its First and Fifth Amendment claims."

"Finally, the issuance of a temporary restraining order would serve the public interest because the public has a strong interest in assuring that Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights are not violated."

Edited March 15, 2006 by bly

[desert_fox 32]

If you have a history of abusing women, being convicted of spousal abuse, stalking, or are a registered sex offender....I could see why you would be against this law. But if you fall into none of these catagories, then why are you really concerned, and it would also make your potential spouse feel alot more safer with you.

[isleta521 5]

If you have a history of abusing women, being convicted of spousal abuse, stalking, or are a registered sex offender....I could see why you would be against this law. But if you fall into none of these catagories, then why are you really concerned, and it would also make your potential spouse feel alot more safer with you.

Have to agree. Being pretty conservative myself, and one that cannot stand big bro watching over our shoulders, yet I think if someone is an abuser then this will make it a little harder for them. I have seen abuse and it sucks even for us savy Americans. I can only imagine the hell it would be for someone to come here unknowingly only to find out what a mistake that she (or he) made. And not having (or not knowing) the resources to leave especially when the alternative is flying back home perhaps to nothing after the she/he has uprooted all and given up all. Perhaps not the perfect law but it is a start in the right direction that probably needs to be addressed.