One Agency Refuses to Accept Texas Customers

[BC]

The affected agencies' concern about the possible revenue loss to these legislations is directly proportionate to the money, time, and energy they invest in lawyers trying to curb these legislations. What message is that sending you? That they've heavily invested to protect your interest and fight for your right? LOL. Please....

Why this boondazzles some of you is beyond me.

Yeah, hear ya.  Quite honestly I think it's all deterrent.  Someone who is really serious won't have a problem jumping the hoops involved to achieve what they want.  Special interest groups, regulation, laws, etc are simply trying to raise the bar a bit, maybe even justifiably so.  Snippin' it in the bud.. quite ok.  Police reports have been required for eons for women immigrating and no one complained. They get fingerprinted, not the men and I don't hear any complaints about that.

Seems the most ruckus arises when men are affected, but in the end all efforts to fight against these laws have been for squat.  The majority will rule, that's democracy, and THE LAW so best to get used to it.

To me, this whole MOB 'thing' has been about cutting corners.  Yeah, wouldn't it be nice to really be able to order a bride, best with some return policy that will ensure they are on a plane when trouble starts..

Regarding commercial interests, in the long run agencies if they want to exist will just have to change their business models a bit to embrace such laws instead of fighting them.  After all, put yourself into the women's shoes (or high heels).. Wouldn't you be more willing to communicate with someone that has provided their basic credentials?  I'm sure not a single man would complain if women were required to do the same.  If I were a woman seriously going the agency route I'd probably gravitate towards an agency that will jump the hoops too and help filter the chaff..

Lets take it a bit further.. I am a RW who started corresponding with some unknown man and he starts stalking me or posting crap all over internet scam boards because I turned him down.  Wouldn't it be reassuring that the agency I work with has all the details so that I can file a legal complaint with something more than just 'Joe123' in hand?

Right now it's all a free for all.. men getting scammed, women getting scammed, bad men involved, bad women involved all construed to fulfill a need for instant satisfaction and make a buck.  Anything that is done to try and tidy up a bit and provide a basic level of accountability should be welcomed.

My suggestion is to start looking at the positive side because that is where the serious women will soon be headed.  The only downside is that it will get more expensive to 'shop around' which might not be so bad either.

[BillyB]

Because the government is not on the wholesale business of corraling citizens with sketchy past, or worst reformed convicts UNTIL a crime is committed.

What do you mean they aren't in the business of corralling citizens with a past? They are the only organization that have the convicts in their system. How hard is it for the embassy to type a SS# in the computer and check if there is any dirt on a man and then let the fiancee/wife know during or before the interview. They have to talk to her anyway! Target those who have a past, not the majority that have no past.

If you can explain to me how IMBRA and similar laws keep felons from marrying women entirely, then I'll buy your argument. If they can't have access to foreign women in agencies, they will target those at dating sites or at home increasing the risk of those women since convicts are going into their dating pool after being flushed out of another. How would you like it if the government doesn't allow released convicts and sex offender to live in certain neighborhoods but your neighborhood is not exempt? That means you are going to get more than a fair share of those felons compared to the other neighborhoods that are protected.

The only downside is that it will get more expensive to 'shop around' which might not be so bad either.

BC, for many men, IMBRA and future laws will make this whole process cheaper when they sign up with dating sites... especially if it's a free one. It certainly got cheaper for convicts since they have to stick with women at dating sites or at home.

[BC]

What do you mean they aren't in the business of corralling citizens with a past? They are the only organization that have the convicts in their system. How hard is it for the embassy to type a SS# in the computer and check if there is any dirt on a man and then let the fiancee/wife know during or before the interview. They have to talk to her anyway! Target those who have a past, not the majority that have no past.

Billy,

As I understand it, she will be advised at the interview or otherwise informed.  Again from the 129F:

Moreover, I understand that this petition, including any criminal conviction information that I am required to provide with this petition, as well as any related criminal background information pertaining to me that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services may discover independently in adjudicating this petition will be disclosed to the beneficiary of this petition.

Interesting document to review for those that are interested in this venture.  I'm surprised you haven't.  Isn't it a bit unfair for the emotionally involved woman to find out something this late in the game?  Of course if she knows it won't be a problem but isn't it better to be 'up front' about these things?

If you can explain to me how IMBRA and similar laws keep felons from marrying women entirely, then I'll buy your argument.

The government isn't going to stop a couple from getting married.. he could have a record as long as your arm, be a sex offender, just got out of jail, whatever and that's ok as long as the woman knows and accepts it.

BC, for many men, IMBRA and future laws will make this whole process cheaper when they sign up with dating sites... especially if it's a free one. It certainly got cheaper for convicts since they have to stick with women at dating sites or at home.

Yes, there will always be those that want to go the cheap and easy way.. Some may get lucky, many will get exactly what they ask for.

[Gylden]

Well just my opinion, but an honest and good man will disclose the bad and good about himself, without the need for Uncle Sam (or anyone else for that matter) making him do it under the law. The rest of the men, whether they are criminals or just plain deceptive or dishonest will certainly not volunteer any information and will do whatever is necessary to avoid it.

Thus all of this bru ha ha is just another waste of taxpayers time and money!

[BillyB]

As I understand it, she will be advised at the interview or otherwise informed.  Again from the 129F:

No she will not be informed a the criminal past because the government isn't required to check a man's background. A woman is only informed if a felon/sex abuser is honest how they met at a marriage agency and complied with what is required of him. IMBRA really only works properly if the felons are honest. If you read what is said on the 129F, it says the goverment "may" discover, not "will" discover because IMBRA doesn't give responsiblity and assumed liability to the government for letting a convicted felon slip through the cracks to bring a woman to the States, marry her and abuse/kill her. IMBRA gives the bulk of responsiblilty to the marriage agencies for checking out their customers. Our government should be responsible because they have easy access to data on citizens.

I met my ex finacee on a dating site. What you think happens in the interview or outside of it did not happen with us. I wrote on the k-1 that we met on a dating site which is true. End of story. Never heard back from government to supply a background check. I could be a be a multiple felon and still get away with marrying a foreign woman.

[BC]

No she will not be informed a the criminal past because the government isn't required to check a man's background.

It's the same principle when filling out your taxes. I suspect they have their ways and might flag a certain percentage for deeper checks. Maybe some red flags. Who knows?  10k, five years behind bars, on the record for perjury, a felony.. pretty hefty deterrent IMHO, especially when divorce time comes around and your wife's lawyer uses all this to prove that you are a liar and a criminal.. then the DA gets involved..

In any case their liability is covered as it is the applicants responsibility to provide the information requested.  You seem to be asking a lot of your government, but don't think they are stupid.  There is a realm of law that lies between the lines and is not explicitly stated.. Think of a double edged sword.. (thought you would like that LOL).

I could be a be a multiple felon and still get away with marrying a foreign woman.

Yep, and if all goes well it won't be a problem for anyone.

[GQBlues]

What do you mean they aren't in the business of corralling citizens with a past? They are the only organization that have the convicts in their system. How hard is it for the embassy to type a SS# in the computer and check if there is any dirt on a man and then let the fiancee/wife know during or before the interview. They have to talk to her anyway! Target those who have a past, not the majority that have no past.

LOL, exactly the way I already explained to you, Billy. Which part of it didn't you understand?

It doesn't matter if a person have a rap sheet longer than Oprah Winfrey's grocery list, as long as he doesn't have an outstanding warrant there's no reason to arrest the man. With these legislations, his criminal past will be made known to the woman PRIOR to any contact/relationship developing and NOT after. These regulations are specifically levied to agencies in the business of international marriage brokerage that are/were LICENSED and CERTIFIED by the government. If in so doing, the woman still opted and allowed for any type of relationship to progress, then that's her decision and choice.

If you can explain to me how IMBRA and similar laws keep felons from marrying women entirely, then I'll buy your argument.

Keep felons from marrying woman entirely? LOL. There are women who willingly line up in any penitentiaries WANTING to marry a jailed felon, dude. Urbanspeak 'Thug Passion'.

These legislations ARE NOT to prevent anyone from marrying anyone. It is a legislation to regulate licensed and certified marriage brokers specifically involved on the international marriage industry. What happens after these regulations are exercised it's no longer an affair the government can intervene on. Again, unless there's a judicial reason to do so.

Seriously, why is this really a hassle for you, Billy?

[Markus]

I learned early on during the searching and waiting stages that you don't tell single AW that you are either searching or marrying an FSUW. I didn't read about the fact that it's not good to tell single AW your intentions; I learned it through experience.  Ironically, I don't read that advice today either. But, it's a no-no unless you want the equivalent of an angry cat with claws trying to take you down after teasing it so much. Single AW very much dislike WM trying to find a wife from the FSU. My guess is that the female Senator who may be married who was involved in creating IMBRA knew a man who had a beautiful wife from the FSU. He was probably some dud like me who had a beautiful wife, a man like me who thinks he is a chick magnet, yet, the results say otherwise. If a female US Senator cared so much about women's safety, why didn't she apply her law to dating sites in the U.S.?

The law being discussed here will continue in other states with no problem because the group of folks who oppose it are too small. A small group of people can get prayer out of schools, but a small group who oppose this TX law are like a dog chasing a car. This law, along with IMBRA contain too much "feel good" items that have the appearance of protecting women from abroad. So, IMO efforts put forth to oppose this law are futile. Yes is the way to go for bills of this nature. Here's where the hypocrisy comes in.

If the problem is with the International women, then the law should survey them. But, the law focuses upon U.S. men. If U.S. men are the problem, is it not smart to conclude that if a man is bad with a woman from abroad whom he meets on a dating site that is dominated by international woman, he would also be bad with a woman he meets on a U.S. site such EHarmony, etc.? Can you imagine the outrage of U.S. citizens coming together against a regime who want to regulate their dating opportunities? The opposition would be vast and they know this fact. Yet, the opposition against men dating women from abroad is small.

If the authors of IMBRA and this TX law and other laws like it believe they are protecting women, these same laws should apply to any dating site in the U.S. To really show the "care" value, why don't we begin with high school students dating each other or anyone else who wants to date and apply the laws in this bill to them? If we are going to protect, then let's apply the law to everyone. That's where the hypocrisy manifests itself in that it targets a specific group of men.


 

[Seeker]

Let me begin by saying I have no real stake in this discussion, but it touches on sensitive subjects.  And the details present not just an immediate problem, but also set a precedent for future 'laws', and a base for further erosion of 'our' rights.

For me it is the taking away of freedoms, and the expectation that we have to prove ourselves innocent or else we are assumed guilty...  I have seen it happen over the years, slowly at first... but now it seems to be speeding up.  I have seen all this before.  In history, and a lot in my life time and I worry about the way laws like this can grow and change over time.

It seems to have little value except on the 'feel good law' level.  I am not against trying to protect people no matter what side of the fence they are on.  But 'these' laws seem reactionary, and don't address the real problem.  It seems more an attempt to sensationalize it.

Just my opinion.

[tim 360]

GQ,  exactly what government agencies "certify" or "license" marriage agencies? FDA?  DOA?  FBI?  Never heard of us having a licensing and/or certification process.  Is that part of IMBRA?

[Boethius]

I learned early on during the searching and waiting stages that you don't tell single AW that you are either searching or marrying an FSUW. I didn't read about the fact that it's not good to tell single AW your intentions; I learned it through experience.  Ironically, I don't read that advice today either. But, it's a no-no unless you want the equivalent of an angry cat with claws trying to take you down after teasing it so much. Single AW very much dislike WM trying to find a wife from the FSU. My guess is that the female Senator who may be married who was involved in creating IMBRA knew a man who had a beautiful wife from the FSU. He was probably some dud like me who had a beautiful wife, a man like me who thinks he is a chick magnet, yet, the results say otherwise. If a female US Senator cared so much about women's safety, why didn't she apply her law to dating sites in the U.S.?

Sometimes it is a wonder some of you guys can tie your shoes yourselves. All single AW really care about what a bunch of middle aged AM are doing? The single AW you told were either:
a) interested in a romantic relationship with you; or
b) thought they could fix you up with a friend.  

The senator who first introduced IMBRA was a GOP male, Sen. Sam Brownback.  He did this after convening hearings on human trafficking (as 2012 pointed out, this was the original impetus for the legislation).  After the hearings, it was Senator Brownback who lead introduction of the legislation, though it was also sponsored by three other senators, two male, and one female, Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington state.  You may recall Washington state had two high profile foreign bride murders (Susanna Blackwell and Anastasia King).  FTR, Cantwell is single.  However, she is attractive, and is known to date rich and powerful men (rumour has it some of them are married).  Not exactly the demographic chasing foreign women on bride sites.

Remember as well that IMBRA puts age limitations on who can be listed on a so called "MOB"  website.

I suppose the same restrictions don't exist on American situs sites catering to Americans because there haven't been a number of high profile murders or lawsuits  involving such sites.  AW meeting potential mates online also have the ability to take action themselves.

[GQBlues]

GQ,  exactly what government agencies "certify" or "license" marriage agencies? FDA?  DOA?  FBI?  Never heard of us having a licensing and/or certification process.  Is that part of IMBRA?

Any local / City / County / State  - Department of Business and Development e.g. Maryland Department of Business. They will happily issue you a license for any legal business permit and license you'd like to acquire. Thus, once licensed, certification by default denote a business is officially (certifiably) authorize to conduct business or function as a business within that permitted territory.

You can try at the FDA or the FBI offices if you wish but I won't recommend it.

FTR i.e. IMBRA:

1. In 2006, a group of dating companies sued the Federal Government to overturn IMBRA. Eventually the group withdrew their lawsuit prior to going to trial.
2. In 2006, European Connections challenged and temporarily levied a restraining order against the law (IMBRA) which a Federal judge later determined after hearing the arguments that upholding the restraining order was wrong and additionally found it (IMBRA) is "highly likely to reduce domestic abuse".
3. In March 2007, US District Judge Clarence Cooper dismissed, with prejudice, the suit for injunctive relief filed by EC and favored the AG that IMBRA is a constitutional exercise of Congressional authority to regulate FOR-PROFIT dating websites and agencies where the primary focus is on introducing Americans to foreigners.

Add on Billy's Q:

If you can explain to me how IMBRA and similar laws keep felons from marrying women entirely, then I'll buy your argument.

Page 9 of this link, last paragraph.

* With the exception of an offense against a minor, The Adam Walsh Child Protection ACT of 2006, the government (USCIS) does not have any legal authority to deny a family-based petition solely on the grounds the petitioner have a criminal sexual history.*

In support of what I posted upthread as my response to the same Q.

[Voyager36]

You may want to speak with EM about that, especially if it happened recently. There's a US law called IMBRA (and other state legislations) currently in place that actually make the dating agencies require criminal and personal status information from American men, including but not limited to historical sexual crimes &  marital status, BEFORE these men can be provided foreign women's personal contact information.

There are, unfortunately, many men who opposes such law/legislations. You can read it here.

So why shouldn't the US government be protecting AW, before they start worrying about foreign nationals? 

Perhaps you should have a criminal record check before meeting a lady in your local bar or restaurant? 

Well....technically it's no longer classified as sexual harassment if they actually get sexed up - or else, e.g. fired, lose promotion/raise... - Come here, you little pretty!

So yes, in that regard, FSUM are certainly far more mature than AMs since they're well ahead of the game. 

Just curious, what do you base your observation of FSUM on, if you've never been there? 

[stevej]

I do not see a problem from either side. If some one is truthful, there is no problem.

[Turboguy]

So why shouldn't the US government be protecting AW, before they start worrying about foreign nationals? 

They don't because they can't.  If they started demanding criminal background checks for Match.com and POF and the like there would be a big uproar.   There are not enough of us who want to go where the good women are to really make much of a fuss.  There is probably more risk in an AW contacting an AM on a site like Match than there is to a woman who writes an AM on Elenas.  We are a tiny group and easy to push around. 

[SFandEE]

Is it possible that in the behind the scenes world of politics Russia and Ukraine want to minimize the drain of young people from their countries to the West?

It is my understanding that Europe's natural populations are not reproducing and to lose their young women could only accelerate the death of their traditional nations.  As cosmopolitan as Kyiv and Moscow like to be perceived they are still very much Russian and Ukrainian by ethnicity.  America could absorb their young and ambitious with ease if it weren't for the difficulties imposed by the American government.

[TheTraveler]

I learned early on during the searching and waiting stages that you don't tell single AW that you are either searching or marrying an FSUW. I didn't read about the fact that it's not good to tell single AW your intentions; I learned it through experience.  Ironically, I don't read that advice today either. But, it's a no-no unless you want the equivalent of an angry cat with claws trying to take you down after teasing it so much. Single AW very much dislike WM trying to find a wife from the FSU. My guess is that the female Senator who may be married who was involved in creating IMBRA knew a man who had a beautiful wife from the FSU. He was probably some dud like me who had a beautiful wife, a man like me who thinks he is a chick magnet, yet, the results say otherwise. If a female US Senator cared so much about women's safety, why didn't she apply her law to dating sites in the U.S.?

The law being discussed here will continue in other states with no problem because the group of folks who oppose it are too small. A small group of people can get prayer out of schools, but a small group who oppose this TX law are like a dog chasing a car. This law, along with IMBRA contain too much "feel good" items that have the appearance of protecting women from abroad. So, IMO efforts put forth to oppose this law are futile. Yes is the way to go for bills of this nature. Here's where the hypocrisy comes in.

If the problem is with the International women, then the law should survey them. But, the law focuses upon U.S. men. If U.S. men are the problem, is it not smart to conclude that if a man is bad with a woman from abroad whom he meets on a dating site that is dominated by international woman, he would also be bad with a woman he meets on a U.S. site such EHarmony, etc.? Can you imagine the outrage of U.S. citizens coming together against a regime who want to regulate their dating opportunities? The opposition would be vast and they know this fact. Yet, the opposition against men dating women from abroad is small.

If the authors of IMBRA and this TX law and other laws like it believe they are protecting women, these same laws should apply to any dating site in the U.S. To really show the "care" value, why don't we begin with high school students dating each other or anyone else who wants to date and apply the laws in this bill to them? If we are going to protect, then let's apply the law to everyone. That's where the hypocrisy manifests itself in that it targets a specific group of men.

Of all the responses I've read thus far, I tend to agree with Markus' analysis the most.  Great post!

This is a great topic for discussion.

I'd just like to add that when equal protection under the law is not provided, then those given "special" attention are always stigmatized.

In the US -- in the name of providing equal treatment while preventing terrorism -- whenever we fly, we all have to witness 80-year-old grannies get molested by the TSA screeners.  Why?  Because no ethnic or religious profiling is permitted, even though it would focus the screeners' efforts on those most likely to be a terrorist.

So Markus is right... This IMBRA issue is all about hypocrisy.  And someone brought up Maria Cantwell... Good example.  She is the major proponent of AM-seeking-RW profiling (IMBRA), but she is violently opposed to muslim profiling at airports.  I don't think it can be had both ways.

The existence of the IMBRA law proclaims that men who don't pursue a foreign wife don't need to be screened.  They're "normal".  The rest of us?  No so.

Why are feminists worked up about this?  IMO, it's strictly about the numbers.  If the internet and cheap international communications make it ever-more popular for American men to date and marry internationally, then it will significantly reduce the marriage pool for American women.  For every foreign bride who enters the country, there will be one more American old maid created.  That's an indisputable fact.

Sure, one could argue that American women are free to date internationally, too, and bring the numbers back into balance.  Will American women be clamoring to find men abroad?  All it will require is that they spend a lot of money on travel to make it happen, then work to support their stay-at-home husband who's learning English and taking classes at the local college for a few years... or maybe he's working, but in a low-paying job because his English skills aren't up to par.  And of course they will have to shoulder the risk of marrying a "Green Card Husband", too.  In my experience, the average American woman is not looking for that!

IMBRA didn't affect me directly, because it went into effect long after my wife and I were married; but the stigma that it places on all of us (married or dating) is real.

Rather than the targeted (and discriminatory) IMBRA law... A much more equitable solution would be for ALL men and ALL women to provide their police records (or lack thereof) to their potential dates.  Maybe throw in the credit report, too.

[Al_C]

Actually, over at Visa Journey, I see quite a lot of American women getting K1s for foreign men.  They're just not getting them for Russian men, which makes sense:  If Boris and Ivan were so wonderful, the RW wouldn't be looking quite so hard in America for us.

But I see AW at visa journey engaged to Haitians, Central Americans, Africans, Canadians, Colombians, British, and so on.

So it really does cut both ways.

As for the need to protect foreign women, I can see how it greater than for AW.  If an AW ends up with an abuser, she already knows how to summon the police, get a restraining order, etc., and do it all in English and without concern for being deported for not staying married to the guy for two years.  And her family is usually accessible, another luxury the foreign woman does not have.

IMBRA is not perfect.  I think it goes too far in branding the man for things that really do not reflect on his character, like a temporary restraining order that some woman may have gotten against him in the past on total BS.  But the concept is good.

I say let's fine tune the law but not abandon it, and then the Feds should exercise preemption in the area pursuant to the Commerce Clause.  That way, we get one uniform workable law for the whole country.