Help! Hearing in MD Senate to determine future of International dating

[Markus]

I had to get a background check done on me for my job. I have access to some sensitive areas. A background check is no big deal, unless you have a bad background.

[Bruce]

Ecock, maybe your rights and liberties were not violated but mine sure were.   Having to countless times show my taxes, give full disclosure on my business just because I fell in love with a woman abroad, having to waste countless hours filling in forms, having to wait in lines, suffer the indignities dealing with semi-literate foreign bureaucrats at our immigration offices after I had paid our increasing fees - you have got to be kidding.   Ah, you must be joking.

[ECOCKS]

Ecock, maybe your rights and liberties were not violated but mine sure were.   

How so?

BTW, it's ECOCKS.

[GregfromGa]

Ecock, maybe your rights and liberties were not violated but mine sure were.   Having to countless times show my taxes, give full disclosure on my business just because I fell in love with a woman abroad, having to waste countless hours filling in forms, having to wait in lines, suffer the indignities dealing with semi-literate foreign bureaucrats at our immigration offices after I had paid our increasing fees - you have got to be kidding.   Ah, you must be joking.

Sounds like you didnt go though anymore than any of the rest of us went through. What do you suggest, any swinging dick can just get on a plane and go load one up and bring her back? That kinda seems to be what some of you are advocating by not having rules and laws to govern this process. Hell lets just do it caveman style, knockem in the head and load on the plane and drag them through immigration.

[Bruce]

Greg, not quite - but treating American citizens worse than immigrants from the [other] countries is not what I call fair......


Based on your posts [insult removed] ............................

ToS Violation. Derogatory use of member name.  Cool it down immediately - in all forum areas.

[Boethius]

Ecock, maybe your rights and liberties were not violated but mine sure were.   Having to countless times show my taxes, give full disclosure on my business just because I fell in love with a woman abroad, having to waste countless hours filling in forms, having to wait in lines, suffer the indignities dealing with semi-literate foreign bureaucrats at our immigration offices after I had paid our increasing fees - you have got to be kidding.   Ah, you must be joking.

I had to send my tax return to the Canadian embassy when my MIL applied for a visa to visit us.  Big deal. 

Your rights end when others' rights are potentially violated.  Why should other taxpayers foot the bill if a man divorces, and his foreign spouse ends up on welfare?  Shouldn't you be happy to fill out forms, knowing the end result is reunification with the woman you love?  Those using the service should be paying the fees.

[ECOCKS]

Greg, not quite - but treating American citizens worse than immigrants from the [other] countries is not what I call fair......


Based on your posts [insult removed]............................

Gross ToS violation.

One of us will be gone shortly pending Mod/Admin response.

[BC]

I wonder what all the fuss is about..

Just move there for a while and when you're good an ready just do a K3 back.

[BillyB]

The problem is the having the Government run this operation.

Actually any jobs created by the new Maryland law will probably go to the special interest group who lobbied for it. The special interest group will in turn oversee the operation.

How hard is it to insert into the proposed law that both men and women will have to submit background checks in an effort to protect both men and women? There are women who went to prison and been bankrupt before and if it's good for a woman to know the background of who she's dating, then it's good for the men to know too. Like I said earlier, it's not politically correct to create hassles in a woman's life so any law doing that will fail with the exception of protecting a much more venerable group of people such as children.

Thanks Boethius and ECOCKS for answering my question but I knew most of what you said. I brought up the question to give people some thought about why the law for protecting children you mentioned is much different and fair compared to the Maryland law that is on the table.

If anybody is going to the hearing, they should address the reasons the law is not fair although it sounds good. If it shouldn't be discarded, then there should be improvement on it. Maybe someday it would be required for all people to keep a background check on their person no more than a month old and before speaking to the opposite sex or same sex in an effort to date whether online or walking down the street, they must provide an unexpired full disclosure of their background and a failure to do so may result in penalties of up to $5000, a year in jail and loss of rights to date. This of course is needed for your and everyone else's protection.

We can only do so much and only have so many tax dollars to spend. Forced prostitution, starving kids, gang violence etc..... all sound like issues that are much worse and need more attention than targeting select online dating sites and the men that use them. Ya know, if the the Maryland male freaks are afraid to find women on the internet due to the requirement of background checks, they won't stop and will just flock to the women who aren't at those internet sites. Eliminate a problem for a small group of women on the internet and create additional problems for the group of women that's not on the internet! If I were a woman that doesn't use internet sites, I'd be pissed the Maryland law will increase the freaks in my dating pool.

[ECOCKS]

You're right Billy the laws can be structured for protection of the citizens. Gender neutral isn't bad as it applies to law despite the biological differences.

Also, Myrddin raised a point that bthe law should be federal rather than individually by states. The freedom of internal movement we enjoy makes a large loophole to just be a resident of another state while searching, then move back. So, good intentions, faulty design and execution. Not unlike a lot of our laws as they evolve.

Rushing legislation is rarely appropriate and the one thing that is obvious about the MD legislation (based on the OP), is that it was almost a panic or railroad job (as someone referred to it).

Sometimes there are valid emergencies which require streamlined action, but this doesn't seem to be one of them.

[GregfromGa]

Actually any jobs created by the new Maryland law will probably go to the special interest group who lobbied for it. The special interest group will in turn oversee the operation.

How hard is it to insert into the proposed law that both men and women will have to submit background checks in an effort to protect both men and women? There are women who went to prison and been bankrupt before and if it's good for a woman to know the background of who she's dating, then it's good for the men to know too. Like I said earlier, it's not politically correct to create hassles in a woman's life so any law doing that will fail with the exception of protecting a much more venerable group of people such as children.

Thanks Boethius and ECOCKS for answering my question but I knew most of what you said. I brought up the question to give people some thought about why the law for protecting children you mentioned is much different and fair compared to the Maryland law that is on the table.

If anybody is going to the hearing, they should address the reasons the law is not fair although it sounds good. If it shouldn't be discarded, then there should be improvement on it. Maybe someday it would be required for all people to keep a background check on their person no more than a month old and before speaking to the opposite sex or same sex in an effort to date whether online or walking down the street, they must provide an unexpired full disclosure of their background and a failure to do so may result in penalties of up to $5000, a year in jail and loss of rights to date. This of course is needed for your and everyone else's protection.

We can only do so much and only have so many tax dollars to spend. Forced prostitution, starving kids, gang violence etc..... all sound like issues that are much worse and need more attention than targeting select online dating sites and the men that use them. Ya know, if the the Maryland male freaks are afraid to find women on the internet due to the requirement of background checks, they won't stop and will just flock to the women who aren't at those internet sites. Eliminate a problem for a small group of women on the internet and create additional problems for the group of women that's not on the internet! If I were a woman that doesn't use internet sites, I'd be pissed the Maryland law will increase the freaks in my dating pool.

What special interest groups are you talking about? Enlighten us on this very inside information. And for the record I dont care who gets the job as long as it protects the people it is supposed to protect. That being women and children who are being brought here on false pretenses.

[Shadow]

I have spoken to police who deal with underage prostitutes.  They face a lot of challenges because having a 12, 13, or 14 year old girl delivered to your door, anonymously, is just a click away.  It's a huge problem, and is a driving force behind forced prostitution.  

Not too many people meet at bars/community gatherings, and end up marrying barely knowing each other.

Glyden, I don't think prohibition is comparable.  You have a dynamic of women from poor countries, often looking for a better life.  When they arrive, they are almost completely dependent on their spouse.  A situation couldn't be better made for an abuser.

The problem is that currently, internet sites are catering to only one side in the equation (the men paying them a fee).  Unless they are ethical, like raven, the more men who sign up, the better for them.

I fully agree with you on the point of internet sites catering to only one side, and am not against protection.

However the information has to be given *BEFORE* contact information is exchanged, which makes the exchange of information similar to someone entering a bar having to provide the information to the doorman, and asking the doorman to disclose the information should he/she wish a telephone number of someone inside.

GQBlues, you clearly show that the IMB has to store this in a central repository. Now ifthe law *would*  be valid for any internet site as IMB, how do you think this would be stored ? The answer is simple, in an internet accessible database.

While you are thinking of and defending the protection, you are forgetting to look at this from the side of criminality, and this is the mistake the KD senate might be making as well. Murphy's law tells that anything that can go wrong , will go wrong.
This means that storing a large set of personal data in a publicly accessible database is asking for the data to be exposed to illegal activity.

The passage clearly shows what I noted in the first place, the lawmakers put the responsibility for this in the hands of the IMB.  Which means that if anything happens, the law makers will not feel themselves responsible.

When designing protection and information systems no matter if it is for 'real' things like buildings or for internet sites there are two things you know. That you have to have a security system that will fence off the casual attackers and make it seemingly hard to get in. And that the professionals intent on getting in will find a way, which means you implement damage control for that case. The cost of keeping out professionals longer increases tenfold for every step until a point where it is not feasible compared to the cost in case of an incident.

By requiring the information to be submitted at any stage, for instance the visa application, and by requiring any IMB, regardless of their nature, to notify their clients of this, you scare off those who are casually interested and have something they would rather not disclose. Any person willing to take circumventing measures will take them no matter how you write a law.

By requiring the information to be stored in any kind of central repository, chances of exposure of these data increase hundreds of times compared to the chance of exposure when submitting them during visa application, while the number of men deterred that have something to hide will be relatively small. There for one should see this as a non-feasible law, for practical reasons.

Protecting people from offenders is great, and should have high priority. However if someone would pass a law that all cars would have to drive in line behind a police vehicle in order to stop speeding in a state, I doubt it would be received well.

[Gylden]

If you think that ANY law will make the dangerous criminals give up their pursuits, IMO you are sadly mistaken. The proposed law applies to such a narrow band of people and in such an ineffective way, easily circumvented by the real offenders, that I can't imagine anyone can really believe it serves any purpose!

This push IMO is most likely supported by the agencies themselves, to enable them to flaunt a purported advantage for the use of an agency. I don't see any real concern demonstrated in this proposal, as it only addresses women associated with agencies. The real problem is the offenders, they will find victims with or without this legislation.

[GregfromGa]

If you think that ANY law will make the dangerous criminals give up their pursuits, IMO you are sadly mistaken. The proposed law applies to such a narrow band of people and in such an ineffective way, easily circumvented by the real offenders, that I can't imagine anyone can really believe it serves any purpose!

This push IMO is most likely supported by the agencies themselves, to enable them to flaunt a purported advantage for the use of an agency. I don't see any real concern demonstrated in this proposal, as it only addresses women associated with agencies. The real problem is the offenders, they will find victims with or without this legislation.

So you dont think this will serve as a deterrent for those men who have a history of domestic violence, multiple failed K-1 marriages, multiple sponsorships much less child abuse and other felonies or plead down cases against these fine upstanding flag waving red blooded American citizens whose complaining that their liberties are being taken away.

[Seeker]

So you dont think this will serve as a deterrent for those men who have a history of domestic violence, multiple failed K-1 marriages, multiple sponsorships much less child abuse and other felonies or plead down cases against these fine upstanding flag waving red blooded American citizens whose complaining that their liberties are being taken away.

I am none of those, but I do not appreciate any of my rights being denied unless there is a true benefit that is not offset by a larger problem being created.  This is such a convoluted law I can't see how it will help the real problem.  So I do not want my freedom of speech and association with whom I want to be denied.

I think in many ways we are getting used to our rights being taken away for one reason or another.  Some of them rational and some of them not.  That is what worries me about this.

[GregfromGa]

I am none of those, but I do not appreciate any of my rights being denied unless there is a true benefit that is not offset by a larger problem being created.  This is such a convoluted law I can't see how it will help the real problem.  So I do not want my freedom of speech and association with whom I want to be denied.

I think in many ways we are getting used to our rights being taken away for one reason or another.  Some of them rational and some of them not.  That is what worries me about this.

Well you are not from Maryland so you dont need to get your panties in a wad.

[GQBlues]

LOL. This law is 'a' solution, not 'the' solution. Small step for a leap of faith.

I remember when Santa Monica first introduced a bill, which became law about banning smoking inside resturants (SM is but a 8-square mile city, relatively very small compared to LA metropolitan)...man, you should hear all the banshee come out of the woodwork screaming bloody murder about:

1. It's every person's right to smoke anywhere they want to, preventing them from doing so is a clear violation of rights, liberty - yadayadayada...

2. It will economically decimate restaurants and shoo away patrons into restuarnts outside the city proper, thus creating massive unemployment, etc..

The alcohol and tobacco industry, association of restuarant owners, waitresses (not all), and everyone associated in restaurant businesses were all vying to oppose such an incredibly silly law that takes away the right of an AMERICAN. LOL.

Well, years after, that silly law is being adopted worldwide. Imagine that.

Today, even smokers themselves love the fact restaurants seem far more enjoyable to go to when it isn't dank and smelly inside.

Before it was solely IMBRA, now Maryland is taking this a bit further...sooner than later hopefully this will be the genesis of a far more reaching bill...

Don't you folks feel like your rights are constantly violated everytime you pass by a speed limit sign saying 35 MPH? What's the point of having those signs when everyone else either ignore it or drive the next street over where the speed limit is a bit faster. LOL.

You folks are upset because this bill will just steer these idiots to domestic women - gimmeabreak, since when did any of you cared about AWs? Many of you, based on your posts in this site, wouldn't mind AWs chewing on a bucket of nails. Now all of the sudden you're concerned? LOL.

No one's rights are getting violated. Seriously. This bill, if and when it passes, still afford everyone a choice whether they want to participate in it or not. It's a 'rule' not an invasion of people's rights. Just like that silly looking speed limit sign.


Shadow,

Criminal cases are stored in databases presently. The passing of Bill 65 /129 would not, does not change what is already a functionality of recordation and documentation. Public records are stored and readily available in the internet. So your fear is misguided.

[Seeker]

Well you are not from Maryland so you dont need to get your panties in a wad.

Still laws like this set a precedent.  And every freedom that is lost effects all of us.  It gives those that wish to restrict our rights another step to climb on.  Any erosion of our rights effects us all because it makes it seem acceptable.  And it is not, in my opinion, a healthy path to be walking.

[remiel6]

Just because i have a clean background does not mean it is right to conduct a background check for sending an email for gods sake. I have no problem with the US government requiring this before the issuance of a K1 or a K3 visa. They have a right to control immigration, it is within their power. The problem is requiring such things to talk to people is too far. 99% of the people who write to the woman's profile will never go there. Why waste all the paperwork.
I don't think anyone can argue that if a man is dangerous we need to protect the woman.
this reminds of a saying we had in school, "hang everyone, you get all the guilty."

on the smoking note, the comparision is not a proper one. Second hand smoke kills, causes cancer, etc...

[GQBlues]

on the smoking note, the comparision is not a proper one. Second hand smoke kills, 

LOL...so do sexual predation and abuse. You think they give out e-ticket rides to Disneyland?

[GregfromGa]

Still laws like this set a precedent.  And every freedom that is lost effects all of us.  It gives those that wish to restrict our rights another step to climb on.  Any erosion of our rights effects us all because it makes it seem acceptable.  And it is not, in my opinion, a healthy path to be walking.

You sound like these hunters around here crying and bitching and moaning about their gun rights. It's not a big deal. You have to register to own and buy a gun. These jacklegs think their rights are being violated because they cant own a focking uzi or AK-47....I swear I'm getting dumber by reading this board

[Seeker]

LOL. This law is 'a' solution, not 'the' solution. Small step for a leap of faith.

I remember when Santa Monica first introduced a bill, which became law about banning smoking inside restaurants (SM is but a 8-square mile city, relatively very small compared to LA metropolitan)...man, you should hear all the banshee come out of the woodwork screaming bloody murder about:

1. It's every person's right to smoke anywhere they want to, preventing them from doing so is a clear violation of rights, liberty - yadayadayada...

2. It will economically decimate restaurants and shoo away patrons into restaurants outside the city proper, thus creating massive unemployment, etc..

The alcohol and tobacco industry, association of restaurant owners, waitresses (not all), and everyone associated in restaurant businesses were all vying to oppose such an incredibly silly law that takes away the right of an AMERICAN. LOL.

Well, years after, that silly law is being adopted worldwide. Imagine that.

Today, even smokers themselves love the fact restaurants seem far more enjoyable to go to when it isn't dank and smelly inside.

Before it was solely IMBRA, now Maryland is taking this a bit further...sooner than later hopefully this will be the genesis of a far more reaching bill...

Don't you folks feel like your rights are constantly violated everytime you pass by a speed sign saying 35 MPH? What's the point of having those signs for when everyone else either ignore it, or just drive the next street where the speed limi is a bit faster. LOL. You folks seem upset that what this will do is just steer these idiots to domestic women - gimmeabreak, since when did any of you cared about AWs?

No one's rights are getting violated. Seriously. This bill, if and when it passes, still afford everyone a choice whether they want to participate in it or not. It's a 'rule' not an invasion of people's rights. Just like that silly looking speed limit sign.


Shadow,

Criminal cases are stored in databases presently. The passing of Bill 65 /129 would not, does not change what is already a functionality of recordation and documentation. Public records are stored and readily available in the internet. So your fear is misguided.

Smoking laws exist because smoking is harmful to EVERYONE involved.  It has been proven that there is no redeeming feature to smoking, and serves no good.  And I am a smoker.  I like the smoking laws.  I do not even smoke in my own house.

Can the same be said for contacting a person... any person in anyway... Are all such contacts bad?  And forgetting that... this law does nothing to address the real problem.  I will use cigarettes as the example since you mentioned it.  Cigarettes are available anywhere.  If someone stops selling them there is a store next door where I can buy them with no restrictions.  And if I can't smoke inside, I will just go outside as I have always done anyway.

The comparison isn't valid.  Or maybe it is... but it valid for the MD law being useless and with little meaning.

[GQBlues]

Smoking laws exist because smoking is harmful to EVERYONE involved.

So is sexual predation and abuse. Beyond that, what else is your point? 

[Seeker]

You sound like these hunters around here crying and bitching and moaning about their gun rights. It's not a big deal. You have to register to own and buy a gun. These jacklegs think their rights are being violated because they cant own a focking uzi or AK-47....I swear I'm getting dumber by reading this board

No, I am with you on this one.  I think gun laws are an acceptable thing.  Read my signature below...  I may be free, but I tolerate the rules I find acceptable.  And I do not want high powered weapons on the street since there is no reason or justification for them.

[SMS60]

The responses are hard to read. I'm sure the OP is surprised with the reactions of some. Probably in shock scratching his head. Maybe there is a Maryland in Venezuela and the countries are switched. I would believe it then.

I don't really care about the Olga stories and such. Im not giving up my freedom for the Olgas.Tuff chit.This is not a reason to strip liberties in the name of feel good. Life is hard and can be dangerous if you make the wrong decisions.Things happen every minute of the day which causes pain in someones life. You cant protect everyone.

The people who support this law live in the "now". They don't think about the future and the consequences of new laws. This is probably the furthest thought in their mind. They don't see how this could affect our freedoms down the road. Lets just try and solve the problem "now" by any means because the future is not important since I wont be a part of it.

Reading many immigrant type forums it seems the people who are part of this system always want to change the principles on how this country was founded. Petitioners included. Its fricken unbelievable. Leave the system alone. They don't like this or don't like that. There is a constitution. Live with it or become the slave of a country like Venezuela. Hugo would love this law.Think about it. The power a goverment can grab when they can dictate dating and marriage.

If we keep going I can see being more free in Russia than in the US , maybe in 100 years. There is more to this than screening daters. This is more than providing info to a third party. Its the consequences.

Someone posted about allowing any swing'n dick to board a plane and pick someone up. Well hell yes. We do live in a free nation and if they have a passport and can travel, so be it. They can fly like an eagle.

Remember you cant control everything. Live with it.

Rant over.....going to a party.....have a good day.