Imbra2005

Would IMBRA have saved Anastasia King's life? We cannot possibly know. But had IMBRA been in effect, she would have known that her husband, Idle King, had previously gotten a mail order bride, and that she had taken out multiple restraining orders against him due to his violent tendencies. Would Anastasia have acted on that information? Who knows. But because she was never told about his past K-1 petition and his abuse history, she didn't even have the chance to consider it.

Before he killed Anastasia, he began efforts to find a third mail order bride -- he wanted to get rid of Anastasia, he just didn't want to have to pay to divorce her.

What I believe he is alluding to is the "battered spouse waiver." In short, if a foreign beneficiary (or her children) here on a K-visa becomes abused by her USC petitioner, she can leave the relationship without fear of deportation by "self-petitioning" for adjustment. One of the things IMBRA does is advises the beneficiary of this in the pamphlet they receive.

The OP obviously has his own take on this. I suspect that he may have been influenced by a high-profile court case where the marriage broker was sued for failing to advise the female recruit of this option, even when she complained that she was being abused by the USC. The court's opinion upholding the jury verdict actually makes interesting reading and can be found at http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/051139.U.pdf if anyone is interested.

I think what "mail order bride" sites mean are those sites that market the foreign woman as a commodity that is being "sold" to the USC male. Obviously you will not find sites openly trafficking in humans (at least I hope not). But the websites do advertise their "products" this way.

BINGO! In IMBRA2005's own words- they passed a law which does nothing to protect women, but instead targets crappy marketing. This hits the nail on the head. Create laws which make us feel better, not which have no teeth and are not written to actually provide results. They for all intents and purposes legislated good taste in advertising!

Once again, the laudable intention to do good slams into the concrete wall of unintended consequences.

All of us on here know, for a fact, that the whole purpose of the fiancee visa process is to allow the various governments to ascertain if the relationship is real or sham. Law was already in place, and the mechanisms were working.

I don't know, the law has some pretty serious teeth -- fines, jail time, sounds pretty serious to me if you violate it.

I understand that the concepts driving the law may be a bit sophisticated and difficult for some to understand. Let me try to put it this way. These relationships have a power imbalance built into them from the beginning and it is precisely that imbalance that these companies try to capitalize on in their marketing. The law isn't targeting the marketing, its targeting the power imbalance.

Unlike an ordinary dating service, the IMB industry charges its American male clients fees of up to several thousand dollars to gain access to foreign women from developing countries. The women are marketed to men as commodities that are submissive, docile, obedient, and sexually attractive (and available at command). The women recruited by these agencies usually have no idea how they are marketed and believe, erroneously, that the agencies screen their male clients for “bad apples.”

Other IMB practices, from “satisfaction guaranteed” assurances to so-called “romance tours” during which a dozen men may be introduced to several hundred women at once competing for the males' attention, firmly establish the “male as client, female as commodity” dynamic. The sense of entitlement that the male client develops in his costly investment is a recipe for domestic violence. These companies have been making themselves an easy conduit for predatory abusers to find their next victims. The consequences can be fatal.

Obviously, the system before IMBRA didn't work for Alla Barney. The system didn't work for Anastasia King. The system didn't work for Susanna Blackwell . . . and countless others.

Mail Order brides... how does that work? I see lots of sites that operate EXACTLY like the Yahoo personals, is that what you refer to as 'mail order bride' sites?

Ok, I googled it. Nowhere can I pay a fee to have a wife delivered. Sorry. For that I need to go underground and contact organized crime that deals in human trafficing.

I understand your opinion now, but I still think you miss the mark. There are plenty of checks along the way when applying for the K1 petition. The added police check is great, at the time of the petition. The rest is a bunch of ####### that makes no sense in the real world, IMO.

And oh... Organized crime i.e. the MOB has been illegal for a long time ... not sure what you were thinking there.

Chuckles,

I think what "mail order bride" sites mean are those sites that market the foreign woman as a commodity that is being "sold" to the USC male. Obviously you will not find sites openly trafficking in humans (at least I hope not). But the websites do advertise their "products" this way (I posted this on a different thread so sorry for the rerun if you've seen them already)

"Total cost for services: $10,500.00 U.S. A beautiful woman to sleep with at night, kiss in the morning, and love all day long, for so little - less than an economy car." www.armcandyinternational.com

"Welcome to Intimate Submissives®™, where Western Men can find sexy submissive Asian women … selected for their loyalty and zero tolerance for divorce… who want a man to serve and to please. . . .” (www.submissives.net) “Our registered trademark is: It’s Good to be the King!” (www.submissives.net/order.htm)

“Most Asian ladies fill out an application saying what they want. … If a guy went shopping he is going to buy what interest him, not what interest you. … The ladies who use words like below, improve their chances of meeting someone: ‘If I meet a man who loves me, I'm going to love him forever. I hope to meet a family man that I can be a good wife for. I want to meet a man who is responsible and I'll be there for him for better or worse.’ ” (www.filipinalady.biz/asian-ladies-advise-for-ladies.htm)

“Women from Asia are gentle. They don't bust your chops, when you are home a little late, or forget an anniversary.” (http://www.heart-of-asia.com/gen/whyasia.html)

“In Russia, she doesn’t have a choice to stay home to take care of her husband, house, and children – for her, it is a dream. The Russian woman’s attitude about herself is feminine. She expects to be treated as a lady, she is the weaker gender and knows it. The Russian woman has not been exposed to the world of rampant feminism that asserts its rights in America.” (www.chanceforlove.com)

“These women have a different outlook on life and marriage. They are less materialistic than their American counterparts and are more family oriented. As wives, they desire to build a loving home, follow their husband's lead, and stick with the marriage, even when times get tough and things stop being ‘fun.’” (http://www.encount.com/ladies/)

“[Russian women] are much more patient and can tolerate things that Western women will never be able to bear. … Another important difference is that Russian women (and Russians in general) have very low self-esteem. While Western women think that they are goddesses and able to cope with anything on their own, a Russian woman will rarely leave a bad (really BAD) husband because of the fear that she won't find another one. For many years the state and men have been oppressing them, and they don't think much about themselves.” (http://www.womenrussia.com/faq.htm#husbands)

“Have you been twice married to modern women who were too involved in their careers and your bank accounts? Think about a kind Russian girl!” (personals.agava.ru/)

“. . . you will want your Latin wife to keep that beautiful body for many years to come. They will be eating more fatty foods here then [sic] in their country. Look around at all these fat American women, they will look at your beautiful wife with scorn, don’t let it happen to your wife, she is your greatest investment. . . .

Americanized – This is the worst thing that can happen to your sweet, innocent Latin wife. She becomes like the women you are trying to get away from. She can become Americanized through her friends or her work. It only takes one lesbian or feminist to plant the seeds in her head, our society can do the rest. Get to know her friends and co-workers. Never let here [sic] go out at night with her friends alone to dance or to a party.” (http://www.latina-women-girls-brides-wives-ladies.com/id41.html)

Some of the websites actually have "satisfaction guarantees" -- if you don't like your first mail order bride, just send her back to her country before the 90 day K-1 visa expires and we'll hook you up with another at no extra charge. I'm not making this stuff up....

"It was designed to prevent foreign fiancess from becoming victims of abusers..."

Desert Fox, please be accurate!! The law was not designed to prevent anything IMO. It is a law that is designed to give fiance's information about the petitioner - that's all. The law itself does not prevent a thing.

There are people who hope that the effect of the law will reduce abuse. That is a hoped for byproduct of the new law. At this point it is anyone's guess if it will indeed have such an "effect", or if it will also have the effect of distorting things to the degree a good and otherwise viable relationship is soured at its birth.

I think you might be confusing the purpose of the law with the mechanism by which it attempts to achieve that goal. There is no question but that the law's purpose is to reduce the potential for abuse in these relationships. The mechanism by which it attempts to achieve this goal is to "level the playing field" between the USC and foreign woman by providing her with additional information, both about the USC petitioner and her rights under U.S. law if her relationship becomes abusive.

I don't think this website is up anymore, but its line is classic too:

Welcome to Intimate Submissives®T, where Western Men can find sexy submissive Asian women . selected for their loyalty and zero tolerance for divorce. who want a man to serve and to please" (www.submissives.net) "Our registered trademark is: It's Good to be the King!"

Uh oh, I may have created a monster!

I can't believe I forgot my personal favorite:

"Total cost for services: $10,500.00 U.S. A beautiful woman to sleep with at night, kiss in the morning, and love all day long, for so little - less than an economy car." www.armcandyinternational.com

This is why IMBRA talks about comperable rates -- where the guy is spending all this money to "buy" his bride, it creates a power imbalance and a sense of ownership that contributes to the abuse problem.

The "comperable rate" part of the exception is meant to exclude sites where everyone pays a membership fee. One of the common practices of marriage brokers is that the USC (usually male) pays a fee, whereas the foreign female doesn't pay anything to join. Contrast this with match.com where everyone has to pay to play.

Just my opinion - the only true marriage brokers out there are the sites which market foreign brides to American men. These sites in essence are the Mail-Order Bride sites where the women are put on display like pieces of meat. The process usually has the men join for a fee and they restrict how the man can contact the woman. The men are promised a plethora of young, beautiful, submissive women who aren't concerned about the man's appearance, just his love and devotion. The women are promised a green card. Sorry, if that sounds a bit cynical, but that's mostly true about a lot of those sites.

I had to fight that stereotype as I met my fiancee long distance from mutual friends, yet her being a Filipina and me being the Americano. I do believe that love is blind but seriously, when I was in the Philippines and I'd see a guy in his 50's with some girl in her early 20's, I'd wonder just what it is they have in common. I don't mean to judge anyone's love, however if I were the interviewer of a couple like that and had the power to grant them the Visa or not, I'd be hard pressed to be convinced they are in a real, mutually equal relationship.

Your opinion has some basis in fact. Here are some quotes from mail order bride websites compiled by the Tahirih Justice Center that support your view:

“Most Asian ladies fill out an application saying what they want. … If a guy went shopping he is going to buy what interest him, not what interest you. … The ladies who use words like below, improve their chances of meeting someone: ‘If I meet a man who loves me, I'm going to love him forever. I hope to meet a family man that I can be a good wife for. I want to meet a man who is responsible and I'll be there for him for better or worse.’ ” (www.filipinalady.biz/asian-ladies-advise-for-ladies.htm)

“Women from Asia are gentle. They don't bust your chops, when you are home a little late, or forget an anniversary.” (http://www.heart-of-asia.com/gen/whyasia.html)

“In Russia, she doesn’t have a choice to stay home to take care of her husband, house, and children – for her, it is a dream. The Russian woman’s attitude about herself is feminine. She expects to be treated as a lady, she is the weaker gender and knows it. The Russian woman has not been exposed to the world of rampant feminism that asserts its rights in America.” (www.chanceforlove.com)

“These women have a different outlook on life and marriage. They are less materialistic than their American counterparts and are more family oriented. As wives, they desire to build a loving home, follow their husband's lead, and stick with the marriage, even when times get tough and things stop being ‘fun.’” (http://www.encount.com/ladies/)

“[Russian women] are much more patient and can tolerate things that Western women will never be able to bear. … Another important difference is that Russian women (and Russians in general) have very low self-esteem. While Western women think that they are goddesses and able to cope with anything on their own, a Russian woman will rarely leave a bad (really BAD) husband because of the fear that she won't find another one. For many years the state and men have been oppressing them, and they don't think much about themselves.” (http://www.womenrussia.com/faq.htm#husbands)

“Have you been twice married to modern women who were too involved in their careers and your bank accounts? Think about a kind Russian girl!” (personals.agava.ru/)

“. . . you will want your Latin wife to keep that beautiful body for many years to come. They will be eating more fatty foods here then [sic] in their country. Look around at all these fat American women, they will look at your beautiful wife with scorn, don’t let it happen to your wife, she is your greatest investment. . . .

Americanized – This is the worst thing that can happen to your sweet, innocent Latin wife. She becomes like the women you are trying to get away from. She can become Americanized through her friends or her work. It only takes one lesbian or feminist to plant the seeds in her head, our society can do the rest. Get to know her friends and co-workers. Never let here [sic] go out at night with her friends alone to dance or to a party.” (http://www.latina-women-girls-brides-wives-ladies.com/id41.html)

Just to clear up any confusion, here is the exact language of IMBRA's definition of marriage broker. It's not at confusing as some here would have you believe:

(4) INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘international marriage

broker’’ means a corporation, partnership, business, individual,

or other legal entity, whether or not organized

under any law of the United States, that charges fees

for providing dating, matrimonial, matchmaking services,

or social referrals between United States citizens or

nationals or aliens lawfully admitted to the United States

as permanent residents and foreign national clients by

providing personal contact information or otherwise facilitating

communication between individuals.

(B) EXCEPTIONS.—Such term does not include—

(i) a traditional matchmaking organization of a

cultural or religious nature that operates on a nonprofit

basis and otherwise operates in compliance with the

laws of the countries in which it operates, including

the laws of the United States; or

(ii) an entity that provides dating services if its

principal business is not to provide international dating

services between United States citizens or United

States residents and foreign nationals and it charges

comparable rates and offers comparable services to

all individuals it serves regardless of the individual’s

gender or country of citizenship.

I am curious how you define Dowd's case as a 'definite exception'? Are you saying most other cases are unlike his?

Sorry, no, that's not what I meant to imply, especially with regard to people who are not using marriage brokers. Thanks for the opportunity to correct that.

IMBRA2005:

Even if I agree with you, it does not explain why the law does not attempt to draw distinctions between on the one hand those foreign nationals who do have significant knowledge of their fiance(e) and who are also knowledgable about their rights and protections available in the U.S. and on the other those foreign nationals who do not have that knowledge. It also does not draw a distinction between those using the fiance visa process to marry someone they met without using a marriage broker, and those that do use a marriage broker, as far as the K-1 process goes.

My fiancee is fluent in English, has been employed in the U.S. for years and has 2 graduate degrees. We have lived together in both her home country and here in the states for years. She knows me better than anyone else on the planet and knows the U.S. better than most Americans with half her education. She has connections to people who support her in the U.S. well beyond just me.

Yet I just cancelled our wedding, losing a couple grand in the process, and now have to submit myself to a criminal background check just to marry her. She is stuck in Russia now, and cannot get back here until the government steps in to protect her, something she neither needs nor wants, even if measured by the standards that IMBRA set for itself. I won't be able to see my fiancee for months, unless we take a trip together somewhere in between the U.S. and her country, to the tune of a couple thousand more dollars, a temporary solution we are talking about now.

Most people would be willing to put up with some inconvenience in their personal lives to accomodate efforts to protect violence against women. Most people should be willing to do that. It is an important issue. But those accomodations should not include losses of thousands of dollars, needless separations from our loved ones while criminal background checks are conducted, and, most significantly, the government interposing itself between couples before getting married without regard to whether or not the foreign citizen really is at the informational disadvantage that the law presupposes. Without that informational disadvantage you talk about, this is simply the government getting in between two adults in a decision that will likely be the most important decision they ever take together. That is exactly not what you want the government doing.

This law is a perfect example of people with good intentions who nonetheless don't really understand what they are doing. By not distinguishing between situations like mine, and the ones where the potential issue of violence against women really exists, it serves not to protect women, but rather it burdens those people who really care about their foreign girlfriend/fiancee and who could do a lot more to prevent violence against them than the government could ever do.

It is hard to see the importance of protecting women in the abstract when the law has in reality served to harm the one woman I really care about.

Dowd,

First of all, regardless of where we stand on this issue, I'm sorry you're going through such a rough time with this. But if you'll allow me, I'll try and respond to the issues you raised.

First, I would suggest that your situation is a definite exception. I don't see any way the government could make the distinction between those women who "know" about their fiances, and those who don't; between situations where the potential for violence "really exists," and those where it doesn't. Laws generally can't be written to cover every possible situation. They have to be more utlilitarian.

Second, I think people lose sight of the fact that the K-visa is a creation of Congress and could be taken away at any time. Congress could determine that no immediate relatives or spouses of USC's could be admitted and there would be nothing that anyone (even the courts) could do about it. The constitution give absolute discretion to Congress on immigration matters. That said, strictly speaking the law doesn't keep you from marrying. You're free to marry your fiance in Russia, aren't you? I know that's not the way you wanted it, but my point is the law isn't stopping you.

[i was talking about the emotional involvement aspect in response to a few replies I saw about protecting the foreign person before they become emotionally involved with the USC. I was pointing out that Americans have the capability of getting emotionally involved also, so why isn't anyone protecting us BEFORE the visa process starts, as they are doing with IMBRA?

It really isn't "emotional" involvement that the law is meant to protect, but more the control that emerges in the relationship. Some have suggested that the best thing would be an exchange of background info at the interview. The problem with that, is by that time, it is possible that the foreign woman may already be unduly influenced by the American male, sitting there in his consulate, at his side. This was thought to be a better solution. Perhaps a better solution might be to require a bi-directional review of backgrounds at first contact. I suspect, however, that the mail order bride companies would probably balk at having to collect that info before listing the women in their catalogs.

In case anyone here is interested, here is the link to the latest court decision regarding IMBRA's constitutionality. Here's the quick backstory, A bunch of IMBs and on of their clients sued in federal court in Ohio to have IMBRA declared unconstitutional and asked for a temporary restraining order against the law. (Another IMB in Atlanta was able to get a TRO until the judge makes up his mind because the government didn't get a chance to argue against it.). Anyway, in Ohio, the government and a non-profit group, the Tahirih Justice Center got to argue that the law was constitutional. Here's the outcome:

http://usaimmigrationattorney.com/JudgeRos...rDenyingTRO.pdf

Ya see, I was going to spend time doing research on marriage agencies and spend a few hundred dollars gathering addresses. I was then going to spend another couple months writing letters to weed out educated women in my search for those elusive submissive, illiterate women that I keep hearing about. After that I was going to spend a few thousand dollars to visit her and propose marriage. Then, all I have to do is pay a few hundred more for paperwork, wait about 6 months, pay for a flight to the US and marry her... so I can start abusing her.

You touched on an excellent point, sir. You see, the reason the law discriminates between "marriage agencies" and the other sites you mention is that with "marriage agencies" the male does spend all that money, while the foreign bride does not. That creates a power imbalance and a sense in the USC that he has "purchased" a very expensive toy that he owns and can do with what he wishes. Many of the marriage agencies actually explicitly exploit this very idea in their materials.

I see you also buy the ####### about there not being any hearings on IMBRA that you can read on sites like www.imbra.org. That's simply not true. There were hearings. Of course, that's just yet another inconvenient truth that gets in the way of your sarcastic rant. Here, once again, are the FACTS:

In addition to floor debate, hearings on IMBRA occurred before the House Foreign Relations Committee on July 14, 2004. Senator Maria Cantwell, George Washington Law School Professor Suzanne H. Jackson, Department of State Director of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking and Persons John R. Miller, Michele A. Clark, Co-Director of the Protection Project, at the Johns Hopkins University School of International Studies, and Donna M. Hughes, Professor of Women Studies at the University of Rhode Island all testified before the committee.

Here's some of what Senator Cantwell had to say before the Committee:

Today, an American seeking to marry someone through an international marriage broker holds all of the cards. The American client has the benefit of a complete background check on his future wife, which is a requirement of the immigration process. In addition, the brokers provide clients extensive information about the women they offer, everything from their favorite movies and hobbies to whether they are sexually promiscuous.

Conversely, the foreign fiancée only gets whatever information her future spouse wants to share. These women have no way of confirming what they are told about previous marriages or relationships -- or the American client’s criminal history.

Most of the foreign brides advertised by the international marriage brokers come from countries where women are oppressed, have few educational or professional opportunities, and where violence against women is condoned, if not encouraged. Because of the cultural differences, researchers say there is an inherent imbalance of power in these relationships between American men and foreign women.

Because these women often immigrate alone, they have no family or other support network and rely on their husbands for everything. Such dependency can make it difficult for a wife to report abuse without worrying that doing so is a surefire ticket to deportation. Researchers agree that isolation and dependency put these women at greater risk of domestic abuse.

You can find all the rest of the testimony on the web. Once again, all trying to do is give people the facts. IMBRA doesn't completely eliminate all the problems it's designed to help fix. But no law is ever a complete solution. Take gun laws, for example. Background checks are only required if you buy a gun from your local Wal-Mart, but not if you buy the same gun at a gun show. The whole problem doesn't have to be fixed in one fell swoop.

As for the Steak and BJ day petition, I think it's a great idea.

Obviously many of the opposers forget the fact that all the non-US beneficiaries have to have a police check done on them for everywhere they have lived for more than a year since they were 16!!! I guess it's okay to have double standards? I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The laws and the processes have changed a lot, and will continue to change. People have to accept it, or not go through the process. It's as simple as that. Anyone who thinks that some silly petition will cause the Congress to repeal the law, is sadly naive.

I'm sorry a lot of people are getting delayed by this, but that's life. Good luck to everyone waiting to be reunited with their loved ones.

Yes, the foreign fiance(e) must also go through these checks....AFTER it has become a relationship. My problem with IMBRA is that it releases information to the foreign person before you can even get that person's phone number!

Actually, it only reases that information to the foreign person if you are trying to get her phone number through an international marriage broker (i.e. mail order bride company). You're free to get her phone number any other way without disclosing anything.

And the reason its done at the front end, is to give the information to the foreigner before they are even a little dependent upon the USC. The idea is to have her aware of the information long before the interview so she doesn't feel like she has to go through with something she's already started.

I'll just say this: I am not a "plant" nor am I "astroturfing" (I didn't even know what that term meant -- I had to look it up on wikipedia). It's true I've posted the same thing in a couple of forums, but that's because the same issue arose in them.

I have lurked around here for a while but didn't speak until I saw the furor emerging regarding this law -- people getting upset over something they didn't really understand. So I just stepped in and tried to share some of the stuff I know about this law so that maybe people might get some perspective on IMBRA. I think that's been accomplished, with the exception of a few folks who have a view that simply won't be changed, no matter what actual evidence you give them (such as the multiple cases of abuse, rape, torture, child molestation; links to studies that actually demonstrate the higher incidence of abuse, etc.).

It doesn't matter "who I am" -- the material is now here for you to decide on your own about it. We're all grown-ups who can think for ourselves.

[

Yeah right, just look at the source of the link. "Legal momentum - Advancing Women's Rights". I think we all know why you're here and it's not seeking advice for immigration.

Thanks for keeping an eye on all us VJ's and educating us.

Yes, shoot the messenger when the message isn't to your liking. You asked for the studies, and that group has compiled them. Rational discussion is out of the question, isn't it?

Oh, and you have no idea why I'm here, but I do find your conspiracy theories entertaining.

But hey, what's a few abused, raped, tortured, and/or murdered women compared to the gutwrenching, heartbreaking inconvenience of filling out an extra form?

Imbra2005, there's no statistical proof/study that says international women are abused at a higher rate than domestic relationships. Please point me to a non-biased statistical study if it exits. Don't try to justify your position by picking and choosing individual cases. And don't tell me that ####### that American men are looking for submissive women.

This should get you started, if you are actually seeking the facts. The entire report is at:

http://legalmomentum.org/legalmomentum/files/dvusc.pdf

There is a growing body of research data demonstrating that immigrant women are a

particularly vulnerable group of victims of domestic violence. They tend to have fewer

resources, stay longer in the relationship, and sustain more severe physical and emotional

consequences as a result of the abuse and the duration of the abuse than other battered

women in the United States (Abraham, 2000; Anderson, 1993; Ammar, Orloff, Dutton &

Hass, 2005; Ammar & Orloff, 2006; Bui, 2003; Hass, Dutton, & Orloff, 2000; Menjivar

& Salcido, 2002; Raj & Silverman, 2002; Raj & Silverman, 2003; Rodriguez, 2004;

Valdez, 2005; Warrier, 2002). In particular, research studies have found that abusers of

immigrant domestic violence victims actively use their power to control their wife’s and

children’s immigration status and threats of deportation as tools that play upon victim’s

fears so as to keep their abused spouses and children from seeking help or from calling

the police to report the abuse (American Bar Association,1994; Ammar, Orloff, Dutton &

Hass, 2005; Natarajan, 2003; Orloff, Dutton, Hass, & Ammar, 2003; Raj & Silverman,

2003; Ramos & Runner, 1999; Raj, Silverman, McCleary-Sills & Liu, 2005).

Although the lifetime prevalence of domestic violence in the U.S. in the general

population is estimated at 22.1% (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), the prevalence of domestic

violence for immigrant women has been reported as being much higher. In a study of

immigrant Latinas in Atlanta; Perilla, Bakerman, and Norris (1994) found that half of

them have sought out assistance for abuse. The Immigrant Women’s Task Force of the

Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights and Service (CIRRS, 1990) in their study of

immigrant Latina and Filipina women in the San Francisco Bay Area found that 34% of

Latinas and 20 % of Filipinas admitted experiencing domestic violence. More than half

(52%) of the battered Latina said they were still living with the abusive partner. Taken

together, studies of intimate partner violence prevalence in Latina, South Asian, and

Korean immigrant women report numbers that range from 30% to 50% (Dutton, Orloff &

Hass, 2000; Raj & Silverman, 2002ab; Rodriguez & Duran, 1995; Song, 1996).

But before I can talk to someone I need to submit my personal history?

That's not what the law says. The law says that before you can purchase contact information from an international marriage broker (who profits from the transaction), the broker must obtain the "informed consent" of the person whose information you wish to buy. In order to "inform" that person, the broker must be able to give them your background information.

You can talk to whomever you want, whenever you want. Nobody is stopping you.

Imbra2005 where's your timeline? Why are you here on VJ?

IMBRA2005 is a likely a paid shill attempting damage control in our forums. Aren't you IMBRA2005? You are so smooth, and right on message aren't you? IMBRA2005 posted the same examples (are they even real ???) in a different thread on this forum. IMBRA2005 is in fact here to do public relations.

Prove me wrong IMBRA2005? Or will you admit it?

IMBRA2005 and their ilk didn't expect the hue and outcry as their legislation is now eating like acid through the lives of innocent people. IMBRA2005 is now terrified that their legislation has turned into a public relations nightmare. They are now in our forum trying to put out the fire.

It is obvious that the IMBRA legislation was written, and has been implemented, in such a way as to cause maximum damage to innocent petitioners. One more subjective measure by which the interviewing consulate can misunderstand something and delay or deny you your life with your loved one.

The law throws out the baby with the bath water. It is a wrecking ball, impacting every good decent American petitioner (and their fiancee) that is now in its path.

Now you have passed legislation discrimating against American seeking foriegn spouses. What's next? Legislation for age difference? Race difference? Religious difference? What about americans on Match.COM? YAHOO! Personals?

IMBRA is the result of one more special interest group taking away the freedoms of 99.999% percent of people because of sensationalised, exceedingly rare examples. What of the statistics that marriages to forieners have a 70-80% success rate by some reports? I guess you felt threatened by that statistic didn't you?

Nobody wants to see another human abused, and we all seek full disclosure. But IMBRA is NOT the answer.

Thanks to IMBRA2005 we will be lucky if a fiance visa now can be obtained in less than two years.

All I've done is post the facts -- facts that are all a matter of public record and published in the Congressional Record -- in an effort to explain the rationale and reasoning that was behind the passage of a United States Statute (by the way, there are thousands of pages of studies in peer-reviewed academic journals that show that IMB marriages do have a higher incidence of abuse than others -- I have the data). I didn't attack anyone on this board, but I do find it interesting that the mere mention of these facts throws you into an uncontrollable rage, demonstrating precisely why this law was needed. I am just so thankful that my legal status in this country is not entirely dependent upon someone who angers so quickly at hearing inconvenient truths.

And by the way, did you know that six states currently have "little IMBRA" statutes of their own. At least one of them (Missouri) makes it a FELONY to give false information to a marriage broker with regard to background information.

IMBRA was motivated by far far more than just Anastasia King:

ALABAMA

Thomas Robert Lane was charged with the murder of his estranged Filipina wife, Teresa Lane. Teresa’s body was discovered in a bathtub filled with running water. Authorities found evidence that Lane drowned his wife by pinning her under the water with his foot. A forensic physician determined that Teresa was also subjected to blunt force trauma. During the couple’s separation, Lane had been trying to arrange to marry yet another woman from the Philippines.

CALIFORNIA

Marilyn Carroll married Steffan Carroll in the Philippines in 1988. One year later, he traveled to Thailand to marry another young woman, Preeya. Before marrying his second wife, Carroll assured her that it was legal in California to have two wives. The bigamous marriage ended when Marilyn called the police to report that Carroll had sexually assaulted her – restraining her with thumbcuffs and other devices during the attack. Carroll was charged with bigamy and false imprisonment.

GEORGIA

Shortly after Katerina Sheridan, a young woman from Siberia, married Frank Sheridan, he kept her a virtual prisoner, forbidding her to keep her own set of house keys, and taking away her visa, passport, and birth certificate. Later, he also took away her cell phone and cut all the phone lines in the house. He flew into violent rages, on one occasion beating Katerina and dragging her around the house by her legs. After several such incidents, Katerina told him that she wanted to go back to Russia. In retaliation, Sheridan stabbed himself and then accused her of doing it to get her thrown in jail. Later, Katerina managed to make it to a women’s shelter, but Sheridan stalked her relentlessly and tried to get her detained and deported. When police went to arrest Frank for aggravated stalking, they discovered he was in Russia looking for a new bride. Months later, when an officer went to arrest Sheridan for another stalking-related crime, he shot the officer. The deputy returned fire and killed Sheridan.

HAWAII

The mutilated body of a young Filipina woman, Helen Mendoza Krug, was found in a garbage dumpster behind her high-rise apartment building. The murder was committed in front of her 2-year-old son by her husband, Robert Krug, whom she had met through an IMB. Krug was sentenced to life in prison.

KENTUCKY

“Dina” corresponded with her husband “Paul,” an anesthesiologist, for several months before she agreed to marry him when he visited her and her family in Ethiopia. When she came to the United States, however, Paul took Dina’s money and passport, brought her to a motel (the first of five), and kept her drugged and imprisoned for weeks while he subjected her to horrific physical, sexual, and mental abuse. Paul also threatened Dina that she, not Paul, would be arrested and jailed if she reported him to the police. Only when Paul left to attend a conference for a few days did she regain enough consciousness and strength to drag herself to the motel office for help. Paul killed himself before he could be prosecuted. Dina received protection under US trafficking laws.

MINNESOTA

Soon after “Medina,” a Ukrainian college professor, married “Thomas,” a well-respected doctor, Thomas turned controlling and violent. Among other outbursts, he threatened Medina with a knife; kicked her in the chest; and even attempted to push her out of a moving car. Thomas also slept with an ax in his drawer and threatened to have her deported if she ever called the police. Medina left Thomas after he broke her son’s finger. Today, Medina continues to live in constant fear of Thomas, who stalks and harasses her. Despite knowing about Medina’s abuse, the IMB facilitated a new match between Thomas and another Ukrainian woman who also later fled because of abuse. Medina was Thomas’ third wife; he had also abused at least one of his prior wives.

NEW JERSEY

A 26 year-old Ukrainian engineer named Alla bled to death on the floor of her car after her husband Lester Barney, 58, slashed her throat in front of the couple’s 4-year-old son, Daniel. Barney fled with Daniel from the scene, the parking lot of the boy’s daycare center, but after an Amber Alert was triggered he turned Daniel over to a friend and was himself taken into custody by police. Alla had been granted a restraining order against Barney a few months before and had been given temporary custody of Daniel.

NEW YORK

Andrew Gole, a former policeman from Long Island, was convicted of murdering Martha Isabel Moncada on a trip back to her home country, Honduras, after she told him she did not want to return with him to the United States. Martha had tried to leave the abusive Gole before, but had feared losing custody of their newborn son to him. Gole strangled and dismembered Martha in their hotel room in front of their baby and Martha’s disabled son from her first marriage, then dumped her remains along the roadside. Police arrested Gole as he tried to flee the country after abandoning the older boy at a gas station.

PENNSYLVANIA

Though she was trained as an accountant, Norman McDonald compelled his Ukrainian wife to take several waitress jobs and rely on him for transportation so he would have long stretches of time alone with her daughter, who was only 3 when the couple married. With his wife securely out of the house, McDonald showed the toddler pornographic videos of what he wanted to do to her and then raped her. Two years after the abuse started, his wife discovered what McDonald was doing and immediately contacted the police. Authorities found more than 10,000 images of child pornography in McDonald’s computer and hundreds of video clips that depicted him having sex with his stepdaughter. McDonald’s 28-year-old daughter from a previous marriage testified that her father had also abused her as a child.

TEXAS

Jack Reeves, a retired U.S. Army officer, was convicted of killing his fourth wife, Emelita Reeves, a 26-year-old from the Philippines whom he met through an IMB called “Cherry Blossoms.” Emelita had confided to family and friends that Reeves physically and sexually abused her, and told friends she planned to leave him a day before she disappeared. Two of Reeves’ previous wives also died under suspicious circumstances (drowning and suicide). During the investigation into Emelita’s death, the State re-opened the investigation into Reeves’ second wife’s death, and obtained a further conviction against him. The State did not have enough evidence to re-open the investigation into the third wife’s murder because Reeves had cremated her body. Reeves was also suspected in the mysterious disappearance of a Russian woman with whom he had lived in 1991.

VIRGINIA/MARYLAND

A young Ukrainian medical student named “Nina” married “John,” a U.S. military officer residing in Virginia whom she met through a Maryland-based IMB with a “satisfaction guaranteed” policy. Throughout their one-year marriage, John repeatedly physically and emotionally abused Nina, shaking her violently and insisting that she repeat the commands he gave her. He choked, raped, and beat her on several occasions, ripped a tooth out of her mouth, and threatened her with a knife. When Nina informed the president of the IMB about the abuse, the president said that Nina’s experience was normal and that many girls had the same problem. The president said domestic violence is “just the American culture,” and abuse is “very hard to prove.”

WASHINGTON

Susanna Blackwell met her husband through an IMB called “Asian Encounters” and left the Philippines to settle with him in Washington state in 1994. Blackwell physically abused Susanna, including one incident in which he choked her the day after their wedding. Susanna reported the abuse to the police and obtained a protection order against him. While awaiting divorce/annulment proceedings in a Seattle courtroom many months later, the pregnant Susanna and two of her friends were shot to death. Blackwell was convicted of murdering all three women.

Anastasia King, a young woman from Kyrgyzstan, was found strangled to death and buried in a shallow grave in Washington state in December 2000. At the age of 18, Anastasia was selected by her husband, Indle King, out of an IMB’s catalogue of prospective brides. Two years later, wanting another bride and allegedly unwilling to pay for a divorce, King ordered a tenant in their Washington home to kill Anastasia. Weighing nearly 300 pounds, King pinned Anastasia down while the tenant strangled her with a necktie. Both were convicted of murder. King’s previous wife, whom he had also met through an IMB, had a domestic violence protection order issued against him and left him because he was abusive.

And then there was this court case featured in Newsweek and USA Today:

On November 18, 2004, a federal jury in Baltimore, Maryland awarded Ukrainian mail order bride Nataliya Fox $433,500 ($341,000 of which were punitive damages) against international marriage broker Encounters International and its owner, Natasha Spivack. Spivack arranged Nataliya's marriage to an American man with a history of violently abusing women and who, after being matched with Nataliya, savagely abused her over the course of their marriage. The jury unanimously found the marriage broker guilty of fraud, unfair and deceptive trade practices, willful and wanton negligence, unauthorized appropriation of Ms. Fox's name and likeness, and defamation. The jury found the mail order bride company liable for failing to tell Nataliya about a federal law that allows foreign nationals to escape abusive marriages without fear of automatic deportation, and for actively misleading her about her legal options. The jury also found EI liable for misrepresenting that it screened male clients when it did not; and publicizing Nataliya’s marriage to Mr. Fox as an EI “success” story, without her permission, even after she fled to a domestic violence shelter. On April 14, 2006 a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the jury's verdict in full, noting that Spivack's conduct involved "moral turpitude.

Oh, and I forgot one thing...also add in the fact that the woman's legal status in the United States is entirely dependent upon the very person who may be abusing her....

I'm angry at the delay and the poor way in which this law was implemented, but I'm on the fence as to whether I think IMBRA is a good law or not. On the one hand, I don't think it's a bad thing to give women who go through a marriage broker information that could potentially save their lives should a fiance turn out to be violent. On the other hand, plenty of American women get married to American men without having a background check done, and no one is clamoring to protect them from what their husbands may be hiding from them. And I'm not convinced that making a third party responsible for collecting information about criminal records is a great idea. But I won't be signing any petitions any time soon.

The difference between American women and those who come to the United States through IMBs is that many women who come to America do so unfamilliar with the language, laws, or customs of the United States. Unlike their American counterparts, these women frequently come from countries where the police are not to be trusted, where domestic violence isn't even a crime, etc. Now take them, and isolate them thousands of miles away from any family, friends or any other support network and you may begin to see why Congress and the President thought special protection was needed for them. As to background checks, it's a lot easier as a resident of New Jersey to get a background check on someone here then it is for a foreign woman living in a village in, say, Moldova or Krzygstan to do.

Definition of marriage broker from the statute:

A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘international marriage

broker’’ means a corporation, partnership, business, individual,

or other legal entity, whether or not organized

under any law of the United States, that charges fees

for providing dating, matrimonial, matchmaking services,

or social referrals between United States citizens or

nationals or aliens lawfully admitted to the United States

as permanent residents and foreign national clients by

providing personal contact information or otherwise facilitating

communication between individuals.

(B) EXCEPTIONS.—Such term does not include—

(i) a traditional matchmaking organization of a

cultural or religious nature that operates on a nonprofit

basis and otherwise operates in compliance with the

laws of the countries in which it operates, including

the laws of the United States; or

(ii) an entity that provides dating services if its

principal business is not to provide international dating

services between United States citizens or United

States residents and foreign nationals and it charges

comparable rates and offers comparable services to

all individuals it serves regardless of the individual’s

gender or country of citizenship.