Need Inputs - Less Than 24 Hours to Respond

[Admin]

Hey Folks,

I am copying the relevant excerpt of a document sent to me by the GAO. I am interested in your feedback on the following questions?

C.  IMB Industry

8. How many IMBs do you believe are operating in the U.S.?   
    a. How would you go about making an estimate?  Please explain.

9. Are there any IMB associations?  If yes, in what capacity do they serve?
    a. Are any involved in an oversight capacity?
    b. Are the associations independent of any particular IMB? Please provide any contact information that you may have for IMB associations

10. Do you believe that abuses of foreign beneficiaries by U.S. citizens has been overstated or exaggerated? 

11. How do you think the IMB industry should address the concern of U.S. clients that abuse beneficiaries? 

12. What are your views regarding IMBRA?
    a. Any positive aspects of the law?
    b. Negative
    c. How has the law impacted your operations?

12. In your opinion, what impact has IMBRA had on the industry as a whole?
    a. Do you think IMBRA helps protect foreign beneficiaries from U.S. clients who are criminal, such as violent or sexual abusers?  If not, why not?

Please note, the text is copied verbatim. I did not correct any of the obvious errors.

In any case, please let me know your thoughts/comments on these questions.

Thanks!

- Dan

[William3rd]

C.  IMB Industry

8. How many IMBs do you believe are operating in the U.S.?   
    a. How would you go about making an estimate?  Please explain.

RESEARCH ON THE INTERNET BY UTILIZING KEY WORDS AND OTHER SEARCH METHODS WOULD GIVE A PRETTY GOOD ESTIMATE. IN ADDITION, CHECKING THE ADVERTISING IN LOCAL FOREIGN NEWSPAPERS WOULD PERHAPS ADD TO THE TOTALS. CAVEAT, CERTAIN AGENCIES MAY HAVE DOZENS OR EVEN MORE, ALTER-EGOS SO THAT THEY CAN PRETEND TO BE SEPARATE AGENCIES. THUS, THE NUMBERS MAY DROP SIGNIFICANTLY WHEN THIS IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

9. Are there any IMB associations?  If yes, in what capacity do they serve?

I BELIEVE THAT MOST OF THE ASSOCIATIONS ARE SELF_SERVING ORGANS FOR THE IMBs.
    a. Are any involved in an oversight capacity?
    b. Are the associations independent of any particular IMB? Please provide any contact information that you may have for IMB associations

10. Do you believe that abuses of foreign beneficiaries by U.S. citizens has been overstated or exaggerated?  I BELIEVE THAT THE ABUSE ISSUE HAS BEEN OVERSTATED SIGNIFICANTLY AND DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FOREIGN OPPORTUNISTS WHO CLAIM ABUSE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE LAW.

11. How do you think the IMB industry should address the concern of U.S. clients that abuse beneficiaries?  DO ABUSERS HAVE ANY CONCERNS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED?

12. What are your views regarding IMBRA? I BELEIVE THAT THE LAW OVER-REACHES.
    a. Any positive aspects of the law? FORCES DISCUSSION OF ISSUES THAT CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS MAY WANT TO OVERLOOK WHEN UNDERTAKING A FOREIGN RELATIONSHIP.
    b. Negative- OVERLY BROAD. ADDRESSING A PROBLEM THAT MAY NOT EVEN BE A PROBLEM
    c. How has the law impacted your operations? BETWEEN IMBRA AND THE FEE INCREASES, MY OPERATIONS HAVE DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY

12. In your opinion, what impact has IMBRA had on the industry as a whole? A CHILLING EFFECT ON CERTAIN LESS THAN SCRUPULOUS AGENCIES AND ON THE INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE.
    a. Do you think IMBRA helps protect foreign beneficiaries from U.S. clients who are criminal, such as violent or sexual abusers?  IT CAN- HOWEVER, THERE HAS BEEN NO REAL SHOWING OF A PROBLEM WARRANTING THIS LEVEL OF INTERFERENCE. If not, why not? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A REAL PROBLEM TO BE ADDRESSED.

There is my 2 cents worth.

[Lit_1nce]

Besides being anti-competitive (people will simply use non US companies), I think it's like most internet regulations.. pretty much unenforceable.

I think it's probably well meaning to try and protect foreign women, however I see no protection of US citizens from unscrupulous people on the other end of this communication.

The dangers of communicating with strangers over the internet is well known already. That a person has no criminal record does not mean he is not a criminal, and could offer a false sense of security.

These regulations should not be enforced at the communication level anyway, but would be better enforced by limiting passports or visas to those that qualify, and at the immigration process.

[Shadow]

As European I do not think my thoughts are relevant.
In general I think that any law that is directed towards a business more than the proclaimed goal of protection will lead to ways of circumventing the business by those who do not want to follow it.
As such instead of protecting the interests, it damages the business both in finance and goodwill.

[BillyB]

It's a guess but I would say about 400 IMB's out there specializing towards different parts of the world. There are so many little agencies out there that are not know but from time to time some new member will post a link to a new site or one never discussed here.

9) Yes.
  a) Some associations attempt to keep the industry clean.
  b) Some associations are independent and I'm sure some are probably in bed with certain agencies

10) I believe abuses of foreign beneficiaries by U.S. citizens has been overstated or exaggerated as some foreign women are opportunists but I also believe some abuse doesn't get reported.

11) I believe IMB industry should address the concern of U.S. clients that abuse beneficiaries by having easy access to criminal records so a repeat won't happen. The current IMBRA system puts a strain on the majority of people who are innocent of any DV.

12) I don't think highly of IMBRA
  a) Positive thing about it is that it does detour some violent men from pursuing foreign women.
  b) Negative thing is that it does not solve the problem of getting rid of violent/abusive men as those men will turn their attention to pursuing a domestic woman for marriage instead. With more paperwork involved and complications, it will discourage a few good men from pursuing foreign women.
  c) I don't have any operations and I'm not affected.

13) I think IMBRA hurt many US based IMB businesses and some may have left the States because of this.
  a) I do think IMBRA does help a little to protect foreign beneficiaries from U.S. clients who are criminal, such as violent or sexual abusers because it has discouraged men from seeking a foreign woman but it does not solve the overall problem as these men will then it turn focus their attention to domestic women. One group of women benefit while another group of women gets a bigger group of violent and/or sexually abusive men added to their dating pool.

[Jet]

8. How many IMBs do you believe are operating in the U.S.?   
    a. How would you go about making an estimate?  Please explain.
 :noidea: +/- 100? Estimate based on what I know of the Eastern Europe operators x 3 (other two being Latin & Asian operators)


9. Are there any IMB associations?  If yes, in what capacity do they serve?
Our own CMA

    a. Are any involved in an oversight capacity?
    b. Are the associations independent of any particular IMB? Please provide any contact information that you may have for IMB associations

CMA is trying to offer oversight through voluntary compliance, and is independent of any agency.


10. Do you believe that abuses of foreign beneficiaries by U.S. citizens has been overstated or exaggerated?
Wildly! I’ve seen no hard evidence to suggest there is a disproportionately larger number of violent and/or predatory citizens seeking marital partners abroad than there is domestically.


11. How do you think the IMB industry should address the concern of U.S. clients that abuse beneficiaries?
The burden of addressing the heretofore-unqualified concerns that prompted the IMBRA legislation should not lie with the IMB industry. If there were a genuine concern substantiated by hard evidence rather than emotion and conjecture, perhaps the “IMB industry” would be able to address concerns based on the facts provided.


12. What are your views regarding IMBRA?
    a. Any positive aspects of the law?
    b. Negative
    c. How has the law impacted your operations?

a.
Nothing so important as to be notable when compared with the negative aspects.
b.
Unnecessarily narrow in their intended target.
Gives the impression of impropriety with regard to which agencies are subject to the law and which are excluded.
Puts citizens at substantial security risk WRT personal information.
Appears to disregard constitutional rights to privacy and free assembly.
Penalizes American based businesses in the world marketplace.
Cannot effectively manage the practices of less scrupulous agencies that simply move outside US jurisdiction and continue largely unaffected.
Presumes guilt on the part of the citizen while doing nothing to address potential crimes against same, by those residing on foreign soil.
And probably most importantly…
Encourages visa fraud through false DV claims

c.
Negatively


12. In your opinion, what impact has IMBRA had on the industry as a whole?
a.   Do you think IMBRA helps protect foreign beneficiaries from U.S. clients who are criminal, such as violent or sexual abusers?  If not, why not?

The same effect turning a light on in a cockroach-infested room does. Those it was intended to expose simply scurry into the shadows.
a. I do not, simply put: It encourages those with criminal backgrounds or a history of violence and/or sexual abuse to follow the path of least resistance. In this case it’s as simple as signing up with Match.com or a foreign based agency.

[Taz]

C.  IMB Industry

8. How many IMBs do you believe are operating in the U.S.?   
    a. How would you go about making an estimate?  Please explain.

9. Are there any IMB associations?  If yes, in what capacity do they serve?
    a. Are any involved in an oversight capacity?
    b. Are the associations independent of any particular IMB? Please provide any contact information that you may have for IMB associations

10. Do you believe that abuses of foreign beneficiaries by U.S. citizens has been overstated or exaggerated?

I think the abuses have been vastly overstated. According to the government's own statistics, the rate of US citizens abusing foreigner beneficiaries is 1/7th the typical rate of domestic relationships. Quite likely there are more abuses of foreign beneficiaries “gaming” the system

11. How do you think the IMB industry should address the concern of U.S. clients that abuse beneficiaries?  This is not a clearly stated question. Are you asking about how the IMB industry should address the public’s concern at large about US clients that potential abuse FOREIGN beneficiaries? The issue should be abuse in general against all people and not just foreign beneficiaries.

12. What are your views regarding IMBRA?
    a. Any positive aspects of the law?- None that are obvious at this point. Has it been shown to actually prevent any violence against women?
    b. Negative – To numerous to mention. Primarily one of the NGO that was meant to be a watchdog ("Tahirih" Justice Center) is very sexist (anti-men) and has a vested interest in this law and is not an impartial overseer.

It has put American companies at a competitive disadvantage with respect their foreign counterparts. It is also too intrusive in that it regulates a US citizen’s conduct even in a foreign land where the US does not have direct jurisdiction. Why were the major dating agencies such as Match et al exempted? If it is good enough for the smaller agencies, why not the big ones as well?   

c. How has the law impacted your operations? We have lost substantial amounts of revenue.

12. In your opinion, what impact has IMBRA had on the industry as a whole? – It has stifled the industry and put US based companies at a competitive disadvantage.

    a. Do you think IMBRA helps protect foreign beneficiaries from U.S. clients who are criminal, such as violent or sexual abusers?  If not, why not? No, it doesn’t. Just because a person committed a crime in the past, doesn’t not mean he will commit the same crime again. Quite often serial killers for example had no previous criminal history prior to their killing sprees.

What it has done though is give more information, as well as accurate information, to the foreign beneficiaries than is available to the US citizen. Why not require this same information for ALL US citizens that use any sort of online dating agency? If it is good enough for foreign citizens, why not grant it to US citizens as well?

This is obviously a “feel good law” rather than something useful. The entire concept was flawed from the start based on a few sensational cases. More people are killed by drunk driving than crimes perpetrated against foreign beneficiaries by US citizens. Why not do more to protect the US citizens from fraudulent claims of DV or visa fraud? Based upon the current environment there is almost no recourse for a US citizen in a case where domestic violence has been falsely claimed and the foreign beneficiaries know and understand this and use it to their advantage.

IMBRA was supported with two claims, that American men who marry foreign women abuse them at greater rates than occur in domestic relationships and that American men marry foreign women and then sell them to local brothels, as implied in testimony by one of the bill's sponsors, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D, WA.

There is no data to actually back this up. See the government's stats of the first point. IT was published by the INS in 1999 entitled the Scholes Report 2, Final. It wasn't written by Scholes but it shows by the government's own stats that the violence rate between a USC (US citizen) and a foreigner is only 1%. While no abuse is tolerable, this is far below the domestic rate!

The original supporting data was shown to be fraudulent for the sex trafficking allegation. See here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201401_pf.html

[Admin]

I want to thank everyone who provided input. I took elements from each one of your comments and included those in my teleconference with the GAO yesterday. The conference went for 1 hour, 15 minutes. I was on one end of the conference, and there were 4 on the GAO side, including the "Director" from their LA Division.

My major points were:

1. IMBRA was passed without any substantive facts or evidence in support of the claims made for passage - and it seems it was a knee-jerk reaction to the horrible killings of Anastasia King and a couple of others. The most important need is for a comprehensive and professional study of THE FACTS to be developed - so that it can be understood why, if at all, this legislation is warranted and/or which elements of the legislation make sense and which elements do not.

2. IMBRA presumes there is a dark and lurking "IMB Industry" - and I just do not see it. I used the metaphor of a beach bum in Brazil who notices some tourists eying some pretty shells - so he puts up a table, polishes a few shells, and sells them to tourists. To a very large extent, the international marriage brokers initiate business in exactly the same way.

If one would consider a collection of small tables with beachbums selling shells to tourists on a beach in Brazil an "Industry" - then, I guess, the "IMB industry" may be an appropriate term. In my experience, the collection of agency owners, in spite of the fact that a few have made millions, just do not fit any of the categories of an "industry" which are prevalent in other true industry segments.

I further highlighted the elusive nature of this business being primarily a group of internet 'store-fronts' which are rapidly constructed and de-constructed, and which allows for easy cloaking of ownership. In other words, the "IMB industry" is dominated by small operators, or by large ones who disguise their ownership of various sites. It is a VERY tough arena to be certain of much of anything.

And BTW - I do *not* believe the above creates a strong argument for these businesses to be legislated - although I expect some to spin the message in that direction.

3. IMBRA does, IMO, have some fatal flaws which will be litigated in the near future. Among them are: infringement on the implicit Right to Associate; it is anti-competitive; there is illogical (and perhaps illegal) disparity in the treatment of companies who deal primarily in the international markets versus those (like Match.com and eHarmony) who focus principally on North America.

In sum, the teleconference went well - and I doubt there is much more I might have done to stake out the position that IMBRA needs to be re-evaluated from the ground up. It remains to be seen how they might spin it when they report to Congress later this month.

Will let you know if I hear anything further.

- Dan