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

[Boethius]

"So, the chance of it not being passed, based on the self interested objections of men, is pretty remote."  ???

WOW, can you be more specific about this? I can't think of any example in any post here, which would fall under this category.

I'm not referring to this forum, but to objections voiced to legislators.  The number of men who will object will be insignificant, in contrast to those who will support the law, particularly groups working with immigrant women.

[Turboguy]

The FSU cases I cited (4) occurred in less than a decade from the time FSU women could legally emigrate. 

Ok, you quoted 4 and as high profile as cases where an AM murders his foreign bride there is a good chance that that is all there were but lets say there are that many unreported.   From the time men started to look for an FSU wife, my best guess is that there have been 100,000 +/- FSU K visas or the equivilent.   If this guestimate is anywhere near correct that mean it happens to less than 1 in 10,000 women.   Probably it is far more dangerous to be an AW, and much, much more so to be a black AW. 

I do have a feeling that Asian women may have more of a problem than to FSU women.  RW are a lot stronger and less likely to put up with as much as I think an Asian woman would. 

Still I consider this law and IMBRA to be a voilation of my rights and personal freedoms and to be anti-American based on the principals this country was founded on.  I would have no objection to these checks being part of the visa process.  I think they should not be part of the meeting process. 

Personally, if I were making the laws, I would make a law that if you have a conviction for crimes against women or a felony conviction you have to make the agency aware of it  when you sign up and if you don't there is no chance of an approved visa.  No background checks for anyone and the same or better results could be had.

[Bugman]

There is a Press Release written about the Maryland Marriage Broker law that sheds a lot of light on the topic.

Maryland businessman Michael Parrotte was outraged to learn that, in January 2010, his state, in pursuit of big-government control, had trampled the US Constitution with Senate Bill 129 and House Bill 65. He discovered that these unconstitutional twins, birthed by feminists, were intended to restrict "romantic" contact between Maryland men and foreign women. Ironically, by couching the misandrist legislation in gender-neutral language, Maryland lawmakers stomped on all American women in Maryland who date foreign men. ...

Click on this link...

http://www.prweb.com/releases/maryland-dating-law/20100305/prweb3689024.htm

[Misha]

Actually, it is not standard policy for police to arrest men in Canada.  In my city, it is not a "standard" policy.

Which city is that? Toronto? You should know that Ontario has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to domestic violence. This from The Lawyers Weekly: "A zero tolerance policy is indicated in the Ontario Crown Policy Manual, which says that whether or not a complainant agrees, 'all such assaults shall be prosecuted with vigour.'"

The police do follow through. You had one case in Ontario where a woman was arrested because of an email and an alleged punch that was thrown by her at a bar and the judge questioned the need to apply such policies with such zeal: "Justice Bruce Pugsley’s criticism came in a case where a 40-year-old woman was arrested and jailed overnight based on her husband’s complaint that she had struck him more than a month earlier at a Valentine’s dance."

Can you provide me any evidence that Ontario's policy is not being followed and that Ontario's police officers are not doing their duty and making arrests in cases where such assaults could be prosecuted with vigour?

Try calling the police in a domestic dispute case in Ukraine, and I know this to be true in parts of Russia, and see how far you get.  Do you think people magically develop a trust of police just because they've stepped off a plane?

In spite of the corruption and in spite of the apathy of police officers in Russia, it is possible to have a man arrested and charged with domestic abuse. My wife had a friend in Russia who did this and her husband was convicted and sent to jail for a number of years. Sure, it is not easy, but the laws do exist and most women do know this. Also, one of the reasons why women want to emigrate to the West is precisely because they know that there is less corruption and that a person's rights are valued more in the West. 

Two anecdotal cases is what you've presented, Misha.

And what do you provide as a rebuttal, your own anecdotal cases?  

Assets are hidden.

And what exactly does this have to do with whether women from Russian or the FSU are less likely to understand that they can call the police in the case of domestic violence?

[GQBlues]

There is a Press Release written about the Maryland Marriage Broker law that sheds a lot of light on the topic.

Holy Molly! Press Release? Are you kidding me?

PRWeb is a for-profit website where people can post articles, etc for a fee to enable higher visibility on search engines. Just like RWD. It isn't 'news', let alone a 'press release'. So calling it a press release is akin to calling people's posts here on RWD 'news'. It's nothing but a silly way to feed gullible AMs (yes, I admit there are plenty) with lines like...

"Annapolis, MD (PRWEB) March 5, 2010 -- Buckeystown, Maryland -- Maryland businessman Michael Parrotte was outraged to learn that, in January 2010, his state, in *pursuit of big-government control*, had *trampled the US Constitution* with Senate Bill 129 and House Bill 65. He discovered that these *unconstitutional twins*, *birthed by feminists*, were intended to *restrict "romantic" contact between Maryland men and foreign women*. Ironically, by couching the *misandrist legislation* in gender-neutral language, Maryland lawmakers *stomped on all American women* in Maryland who date foreign men.

LOL. That should really inflame lot's of AMs, man. This bill is really slapping their constitutional rights silly. Preventing them from finding happiness with a foreign woman. Making a silly law that protect foreign women over domestic women. I will agree however there's a whole lot of social misfit involved in this affair who are easily conned. It won't take much at all.

Bugman, which Maryland-based agency do you work for?

[Gylden]

"In the United States, a woman is beaten every 18 minutes. Indeed, domestic violence is the leading cause of injury among women of reproductive age in the United States. Between 22 and 35 per cent of women who visit emergency rooms are there for that reason."      fromhttp://www.un.org/rights/dpi1772e.htm

The vast majority of these women are not foreign women.

Lousy attempt to protect women with this legislation.     

[SMS60]

This legislation is useless, as it is targeted at such a narrow segment of society! If anyone wishes to be "high and mighty" then they best think of everyone concerned!

Of course Glyden, if you take everyone into account you wouldn't be percieved as the White Knight in Shining Armor rescuing all the pretty foreign ladies. you know the Ahhh what a nice guy image. I like him.

[BillyB]

Billy, the only part I'm not getting in your post is the "increased risk" you refer to it creating for others. How do you see it increasing the risk anymore than letting pedaphiles out of the country increases the risk for whatever country they go to visit or live? Short of the branding of the foreheads idea, how can we practically protect the population from the child molesters, rapists and domestic abusers?

IMBRA and the Maryland law proposed does nothing to stop in entirety the behavior of violent and morally bankrupt people. It limits their access to a certain group of people but those who intend to repeat their offenses will in turn focus on other groups of people.

Most agree it can be better designed and several of us seem to be trying to urge that the intervention in the process focus on slowing, refining and improving the law before passing it on.

The best way to do this is let the government to the background check. They have all our sensitive data anyway and with them doing a mandatory background check, it would be better than entrusting an agency in another country to do it. The baby step laws are a joke by special interest groups. If the government were responsible to do the background check, the interest groups would be less likely to sue the government and if they promoted a law that solved all problems, they'd be out of a job. Here's why.

Tahirih Justice Center, a special interest group for women backed IMBRA which obviously did not work. A foreign woman still got abused and they sued a Maryland based marriage agency and got $3 million in free support to down that agency. I'm not sure if the lawsuit is finished or still happening but if the Tahirih justice Center wins, they can take this landmark lawsuit to other States to hammer agencies that don't follow IMBRA proceedures or purposely or accidently negligent. With the landmark maryland law, they can lobby other States to accept their proposal on how to protect women. Of course what they propose in Maryland will not stop all the problems because you simply can't trust some agencies to follow the rules or carry them out effectively. One mistake or if the documents are not in order and an agency owner could be out of business. Tahirih Justice Center will get plenty of people to donate time, services, and money for a cause that "sounds good" in an effort to down an evil agency.

It's simpler just to let the governement through the embassy notify a foreign woman the man she intends to marry has a criminal background. But there will be no more work or donations to the Tahirih Justice Center for this cause so finding the best solution now will put them out of a job. They got 49 more States to take their crusade to after Maryland.

Some smart scammers who are in the business to steal identities will capitalized on the potential of getting American men's personal information by creating fake agency sites. There are already fake sites to purchase items and even escrow sites. People sign up with real name, password, and credit card info. Most people use the same login name and password for most sites they frequent including bank and credit card accounts. Again, we would not have this problem if our embassy handled the background checks since they have access to the info of all American citizens. It'll also eliminate all hassle for the overwhelming majority of men who do not have a criminal background.

Some of you may be happy the Tahirih Justice Center is doing things to protect women but they do not see you in the same favorible light. They think of the men here as guys who use their financial status to lure poor women and we practically force them into marriage. You should read about yourself at their site sometime and you'll begin to understand why you need to be stopped.

[ECOCKS]

IMBRA and the Maryland law proposed does nothing to stop in entirety the behavior of violent and morally bankrupt people. It limits their access to a certain group of people but those who intend to repeat their offenses will in turn focus on other groups of people.

Billy, this is like saying that the restriction of felons from purchasing firearms is bad since it will force them to use more knives in their violent actions.

Sorry but I can't agree on this point.

As I said though, it will certainly be unworkable if every state passes its own version of something like this and I don't for the life of me see how they can police it from within MD.

Additionally, the data security issue it creates is something they should give a lot more thought to before rushing into this.

Anyone speaking at the hearing should be bringing out many of the points here and nudging the legislature into a more thoughtful consideration of the issues created  as the price of protecting a small group of people.

Its a shame that the feds won't get going on changing the scope and responssibilities to set IMBRA up better for the protection of others, foreign or domestic, male or female.

[SMS60]

Ed

What Billy is trying to say is you cant stop people from doing something which they have not done. You cant be a mind reader. They might be thinking of doing a crime but they are the only one who knows unless they talk in their sleep.

And wouldn't most sex offenders be in jail or on probation. I might be wrong but doesnt your passport get revoked on certain crimes? Or if your on probation?

[BillyB]

Billy, this is like saying that the restriction of felons from purchasing firearms is bad since it will force them to use more knives in their violent actions.

No, the Maryland law is not like the firarms law. The firearms law to prevent criminals to purchase firearms is to protect ALL citizens or non citizens in this country. The Maryland law and IMBRA is far from that. Criminals will still get their illegal guns and violent men will continue to be violent but having IMBRA or the Maryland law will not curb their bad behavior against the majority of people in this country.

As I said though, it will certainly be unworkable if every state passes its own version of something like this and I don't for the life of me see how they can police it from within MD.

Maryland won't police all other States marriage brokers laws from within. Every State polices their own and federal govt will police IMBRA. Agencies will have to soon follow the many different laws of every State and govt. Most likely agencies will not be perfect, make mistakes, and vulnerable to be sued and put out of business. Tahirih Justice Center think marriage agencies exploit women and they are responsible for violence to foreign womenand they ARE on a campaign to end agencies. Make no mistake of that. If anything the bad agencies don't want their women to get married so they can keep an attractive pool of ladies in their data base so us men will get milked out of our money. The good agencies do care for bringing people together in a happy marriage. marriage agencies exploit women? How does the Tahirih Justice Center come to that conclusion?

http://www.tahirih.org/?s=maryland+international+marriage

[Boethius]

Misha, I know for a fact that this is not standard procedure in my city.   The "anecdotal cases" I cited comes from a colleague with 20 years of practice in the area.  Far more than 2 cases.  That particular colleague argued a SCC case that lead to a major change in maintenance laws (in favour of non custodial men, incidentally).

[UTRO]

Boethius, you gotta' be an Immigration Lawyer/Consultant?!?

[Boethius]

I am a lawyer.  I don't practice immigration law, but it does come up in my practice.

[BillyB]

Why target agencies?  Because they cater to men and don't care about anything else.  It's a different dynamic than free personals.  And, if a man feels this is a violation of his rights, there is a simple solution.  Don't register with a foreign dating agency.

Exactly, and that's what violent men with criminal records won't do, register with an agency. Although IMBRA and the Maryland law proposed was sold to the public to protect women and it sounded good, it was never about protecting women or ALL foreign women. It's about shutting down marriage agencies. It's requirements scare away criminals and creates hassles for innocent men to the point they don't want to do business with an agency and move on to a dating site or meet with locals. I've never used agencies and I don't recommend them but I do see the benefit of some men using them since they prefer to deal with a company that offers services. First it's a background check, soon men have to get fingerprinted, later men will have to go to the clinic, have their DNA identified and submit it to marriage agencies which in turn will be responsible for keeping them on file. If an agency loses, by accident or stolen, what's required by law and a woman gets abused, they are out of business. I just found out that a Maryland based agency paid $430,000 in damages to an abused woman.

Our government should do a required background check and pass out pamplets to foreign women coming to this country informing of their rights and contact info in case they are abused. Our government does care about women, don't they? They don't need special interest groups to tell them the importance of that. I'm sure it's better for one organization to handle this matter instead of hundreds of agencies with hundreds of owners in which we know some are corrupt based on their business practices.

 It's too simple and solid just to let our government handle it but Tahirih Justice Center will continue to lobby for poorly written and ineffective laws that put the private information of male citizens, responsibility and liability in an agency's hands. Of course since the laws are poorly written, it will require the constant attention of the Tahirih Justice Center and the need for donations to continue baby stepping the laws to perfection and sue marriage agencies till no end.

Protecting foreign women is the goal while leaving international dating sites alone? They can fool some of the people some of the time but they can't fool all the people. Unfortunately at the Maryland hearing it'll be a bunch of disgruntled women beating the biggest drum and it's not politically correct to disagree with women. I feel sorry for the men in Maryland.

[Misha]

Misha, I know for a fact that this is not standard procedure in my city.

Given that you do not specify your city, which is fair, there is no way for me to confirm with other sources as to whether this is correct or not. So, at this point, we will have to agree to disagree. Based on what I have read and the "anecdotal" evidence that I have heard, there has been IMHO a shift whereby policy encourages police officers to arrest spouses suspected of abuse even if the spouse that they suspect of being abused does not corroborate their suspicions and accuse their spouse of wrongdoing. I see this as a good thing, though of course it does lead to more people being arrested or falsely accused.

[Boethius]

It is not the policy in every Canadian city.   Where I live, how things are handled is solely up to the officers' discretion.

[Daveman]

Given that you do not specify your city, which is fair, there is no way for me to confirm with other sources as to whether this is correct or not. So, at this point, we will have to agree to disagree. Based on what I have read and the "anecdotal" evidence that I have heard, there has been IMHO a shift whereby policy encourages police officers to arrest spouses suspected of abuse even if the spouse that they suspect of being abused does not corroborate their suspicions and accuse their spouse of wrongdoing. I see this as a good thing, though of course it does lead to more people being arrested or falsely accused.

But the falsely accused then has a record which follows him pretty much forever.  It doesn't really matter whether there is a conviction, the mere arrest on a record can cause problems with future employment, not to mention having to post bail/bong and attain legal assistance (no minor costs there).  Arrests based on suspicions sans evidence are absolutely absurd.

[Misha]

Arrests based on suspicions sans evidence are absolutely absurd.

Usually there is some evidence. You can usually tell if there has been a bad fight and it has gotten physical.

[Gylden]

"Exactly, and that's what violent men with criminal records won't do, register with an agency. Although IMBRA and the Maryland law proposed was sold to the public to protect women and it sounded good, it was never about protecting women or ALL foreign women. It's about shutting down marriage agencies."

Billy,
Yes, you got it, or it will make agencies more attractive for FSU women, because they get the ultimate screening tool and if you have heard the old joke...."once you have all the women you will have all the money"
 

[UTRO]

If someone were to say that these checks would occur at the federal level at time of of the K-1 or K-whatever visa application and that there would be an extra charge to cover the costs, I might be on board, simply because it would include ALL of those poor women who are attempting to immigrate, but it isn't and it is just the state of Maryland and the taxpayers are already wasting plenty of money on such laws.

I agree. This IS the way the matter should be handled! Federally, not State or Provincially.

[BillyB]

it will make agencies more attractive for FSU women, because they get the ultimate screening tool

That's a possiblity but I'm curious to what the language is on the release forms and pamplets the RW get to read. Anybody know? Their media portrays marriage agencies and Western men in a bad light just as ours do. Reading additional information coming from our country about the "potential" for violence and other abuses that could happen to them may scare them away from Western men forever.

One thing is for sure is that it's going to hurt marriage agencies profit margin since less men will be motivated to engage in the hassles of writing a letter to an agency woman. It won't affect all men. Some men look at a photo and get so horny they can't wait to go get fingerprinted and fill out questionaires to earn the right to write a woman. Between a number of dating or marriage sites with beautiful RW in all, I'd choose the one that gives me less hassles in sending a letter and no hassles during correspondence with the ladies.

[boaterguy]

All I can say is WOW!

This is the most stupid,complicated proposal I have ever seen!

Yes,something should be done to protect people from other abusive people.

The target of the proposed law protects those(agency participants) that are more aware of the risks than those who are not(free dating sites).

I see a very simple solution to this. It can be as narrow or widespread as the government deems needed. My proposal would protect everyone! Why not just do away with all the bullshit and set up a government ID program.

Here is my proposal:

For a fee...the government could issue an ID card(or even password protected internet account which is accessable by the user to provide proof of ID and the required info.) which is kept current. Any necessary information...background check,criminal history,marital history,etc,etc. could be verified. All of this information is available to the government. There would be no need for anyone to release their private information to anyone...It would be more like being bonded.

How can this protect everyone? The law should require the ID to participate in any social networking site. Whala...everyone is protected! Most importantly it would bring to a screeching halt the ability of pedophiles pursuit of children online!

[michael.parrotte]

The arguments that are favor of supporting this legislation are so full of holes that it hard to figure out where to start.
The legislation as proposed would have ZERO effect of protecting and foreign national male or female. This is a proposed State law and would have to be enforced by one of the smallest States in the country. His is of course impractical if not completely impossible.
In addition the proposed Maryland law would require this information before the first e-mail would be sent. That would mean I Maryland resident could be writing to someone in Nigeria, or to an interpreter at a foreign marriage agency, or to someone who was seeking to come to the US through immigration fraud by using the K visa process. You have no idea who you are writing to when you first send an email. This law as proposed is not designed to protect it is designed to restrict or prevent COMMUNICATION.
What logical argument could be made that anyone is in danger by receiving a letter at their local marriage agency? What actual protection could even be imagined as being afforded by this?
Additionally the proposed Maryland bills make all sorts of special exemptions so that the vast majority of foreign nationals would receive no protection at all. In fact if you connect an abusive US spouse to a foreign national through Facebook, My Space, Match.com, Yahoo, Craig’s List, “Tradition Marriage Agencies, Religious Marriage Agencies, and on  and on – your are completely protected from any liability.
This law was not written to protect anyone. It was written to control or eliminate a certain class of business and that in itself poses all sorts of legal problems.
Immigration and foreign affairs is the domain of the Federal Government not the State Government.
The Federal IMBRA laws (which many of you strongly disagree with) are already in place and provide essentially the same information less the fingerprints. However even the misguided politicians that wrote the proposed Maryland law have realized the error of their ways and understood this is not the USSR so the figure print requirement seems to be dead now.
If there is a problem of domestic abuse that foreign spouses find more often than US spouses than the Federal law should be amended. However I would challenge and welcome anyone to provide me with FACTUAL information supporting this claim. What is the abuse rate between US citizens married to each other vs. a foreign spouse? Not opinion, conjecture, speculation, “gut feeling”, and antidotal evidence – I mean factual information.
Many groups in the US, Canada, and Europe want to greatly expand the definition of abuse. Abuse of course can take many forms other than physical harm. Emotional and financial harm are far more common. If they new “expanded” definition of “abuse” that Women’s Rights groups what to implement were actually applied there is no doubt that the ratio of alleged abuse between Foreign nationals and US citizens would swing dramatically. I am sure many men would argue that if the definition of abuse was expanded to included emotional and financial abuse that there would not be enough jails and prisons in the US to incarcerate all the wives found guilty of abuse. Might be a case for these groups of being very “careful of what you wish for!”
The proposed law is bad for so many reasons, but here is a short list of the more substantive ones.
1.   The local politicians drafting the legislation actually knew nothing about the issue at hand and created a law which violated US citizen’s rights well actually doing nothing to protect foreign nationals. I doubt many of them have every travel much or at all outside of the US.
2.   This law applies to women as well as men. This law applies to Canadians, Australians, and British citizens as much as Russians, Filipinos, or Ukrainians. This law applies to foreign nationals living in your city as much as to a person living overseas. None of this was thought of when the politicians drafted the bill. (Sort of like Health Care and TARP). The unintended consequences and fall out of this legislation as proposed is enormous.
3.   The concept of sending out your personal confidential information and fingerprints to some unknown party in a far away developing country is beyond naïve, it is just plain stupid. There are so many possibilities for criminal use including but not limited to identity theft. In fact the FBI IC3 Internet crime unit identifies that for the most part the countries with the more foreign spouse activity are also the same ones with the higher internet, financial, and white collar crime incidents. One of the major motivations for someone to leave their country is economics. And one of the primary reasons for a poor economy is corruption.
4.   The Constitution matters! Some people in this thread argue that any law is warranted to protect any possible potential victim. This is illogical and without any legal basis. We take risks every day and accept that as part of our freedom. Some things are protected by the Constitution like free speech, freedom of association, the right to bear arms, while other things like driving are protected by common sense and the logical reasoning that some level of risk is worth the benefits. Even if there was a greater risk to a foreign spouse than between spouses of the same citizenship (and there is no factual evidence supporting this) the solution is not ineffectual and “Orwellian” laws like this.
5.   The law puts the State in the impossible and improper position of enforcing International immigration policies and foreign affairs not to mention interstate trade and commerce. This was a “feel good” law in which no one looked outside the box to see what the real world implications would be.
6.   The politicians wanted to discriminate against a certain class of business but they knew that was not legal. They made a feeble attempt to arrive at the same result with clever wording about equal billing between genders. They had the mistaken idea that this would free all the “Majors” and only hammer the companies dealing primarily with foreign spouses. However TWO big mistakes!! 1. Many companies run promotions from time to time to balance off their ratio of female to male profiles. It is a necessary part of any online dating model. The politicians really do not understand the business model at all. Even eHarmony and Match would have their hands tied to ever do a single promotion that favored one gender over the other. The brainiacs in Annapolis never thought of that. And 2. They never thought of all the US focused sites that have big billing differences between the genders like Ashley Madison, Seeking Arrangement, Millionaire Match, and the Sugar Daddy and “Age-Gap” sites. These companies certainly have foreign nationals as members. The US is a national of immigrants and there are tens of millions on people already here legally on student, work, tourist, Fiancé, and other visas and millions more here illegally. Online dating sites cannot ever know who is a US citizen.
Some of the strongest opinions are from totally anonymous members. So just to clear the record here is a short bio – my profile name is my real name, I do not own a marriage agency, nor do I have any financial interest in one. I have not and do not have a foreign wife. I am not looking for one either! I have no criminal / sex offender record of any type. I have never committed or been accused of committing domestic abuse. I do have lots of speeding tickets.
I do have extensive international experience and have lived overseas. I travel more than 125,000 miles each year. Among the many countries I travel to - China, Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia, Russia, Ukraine, all of Europe, most of Latin American, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. I also have employees and college interns from almost every country imaginable.
Michael Parrotte
Frederick, Maryland
301-663-4550

[Seeker]

The arguments that are favor of supporting this legislation are so full of holes that it hard to figure out where to start.
The legislation as proposed would have ZERO effect of protecting and foreign national male or female. This is a proposed State law and would have to be enforced by one of the smallest States in the country. His is of course impractical if not completely impossible.
In addition the proposed Maryland law would require this information before the first e-mail would be sent. That would mean I Maryland resident could be writing to someone in Nigeria, or to an interpreter at a foreign marriage agency, or to someone who was seeking to come to the US through immigration fraud by using the K visa process. You have no idea who you are writing to when you first send an email. This law as proposed is not designed to protect it is designed to restrict or prevent COMMUNICATION.
What logical argument could be made that anyone is in danger by receiving a letter at their local marriage agency? What actual protection could even be imagined as being afforded by this?
Additionally the proposed Maryland bills make all sorts of special exemptions so that the vast majority of foreign nationals would receive no protection at all. In fact if you connect an abusive US spouse to a foreign national through Facebook, My Space, Match.com, Yahoo, Craig’s List, “Tradition Marriage Agencies, Religious Marriage Agencies, and on  and on – your are completely protected from any liability.
This law was not written to protect anyone. It was written to control or eliminate a certain class of business and that in itself poses all sorts of legal problems.
Immigration and foreign affairs is the domain of the Federal Government not the State Government.
The Federal IMBRA laws (which many of you strongly disagree with) are already in place and provide essentially the same information less the fingerprints. However even the misguided politicians that wrote the proposed Maryland law have realized the error of their ways and understood this is not the USSR so the figure print requirement seems to be dead now.
If there is a problem of domestic abuse that foreign spouses find more often than US spouses than the Federal law should be amended. However I would challenge and welcome anyone to provide me with FACTUAL information supporting this claim. What is the abuse rate between US citizens married to each other vs. a foreign spouse? Not opinion, conjecture, speculation, “gut feeling”, and antidotal evidence – I mean factual information.
Many groups in the US, Canada, and Europe want to greatly expand the definition of abuse. Abuse of course can take many forms other than physical harm. Emotional and financial harm are far more common. If they new “expanded” definition of “abuse” that Women’s Rights groups what to implement were actually applied there is no doubt that the ratio of alleged abuse between Foreign nationals and US citizens would swing dramatically. I am sure many men would argue that if the definition of abuse was expanded to included emotional and financial abuse that there would not be enough jails and prisons in the US to incarcerate all the wives found guilty of abuse. Might be a case for these groups of being very “careful of what you wish for!”
The proposed law is bad for so many reasons, but here is a short list of the more substantive ones.
1.   The local politicians drafting the legislation actually knew nothing about the issue at hand and created a law which violated US citizen’s rights well actually doing nothing to protect foreign nationals. I doubt many of them have every travel much or at all outside of the US.
2.   This law applies to women as well as men. This law applies to Canadians, Australians, and British citizens as much as Russians, Filipinos, or Ukrainians. This law applies to foreign nationals living in your city as much as to a person living overseas. None of this was thought of when the politicians drafted the bill. (Sort of like Health Care and TARP). The unintended consequences and fall out of this legislation as proposed is enormous.
3.   The concept of sending out your personal confidential information and fingerprints to some unknown party in a far away developing country is beyond naïve, it is just plain stupid. There are so many possibilities for criminal use including but not limited to identity theft. In fact the FBI IC3 Internet crime unit identifies that for the most part the countries with the more foreign spouse activity are also the same ones with the higher internet, financial, and white collar crime incidents. One of the major motivations for someone to leave their country is economics. And one of the primary reasons for a poor economy is corruption.
4.   The Constitution matters! Some people in this thread argue that any law is warranted to protect any possible potential victim. This is illogical and without any legal basis. We take risks every day and accept that as part of our freedom. Some things are protected by the Constitution like free speech, freedom of association, the right to bear arms, while other things like driving are protected by common sense and the logical reasoning that some level of risk is worth the benefits. Even if there was a greater risk to a foreign spouse than between spouses of the same citizenship (and there is no factual evidence supporting this) the solution is not ineffectual and “Orwellian” laws like this.
5.   The law puts the State in the impossible and improper position of enforcing International immigration policies and foreign affairs not to mention interstate trade and commerce. This was a “feel good” law in which no one looked outside the box to see what the real world implications would be.
6.   The politicians wanted to discriminate against a certain class of business but they knew that was not legal. They made a feeble attempt to arrive at the same result with clever wording about equal billing between genders. They had the mistaken idea that this would free all the “Majors” and only hammer the companies dealing primarily with foreign spouses. However TWO big mistakes!! 1. Many companies run promotions from time to time to balance off their ratio of female to male profiles. It is a necessary part of any online dating model. The politicians really do not understand the business model at all. Even eHarmony and Match would have their hands tied to ever do a single promotion that favored one gender over the other. The brainiacs in Annapolis never thought of that. And 2. They never thought of all the US focused sites that have big billing differences between the genders like Ashley Madison, Seeking Arrangement, Millionaire Match, and the Sugar Daddy and “Age-Gap” sites. These companies certainly have foreign nationals as members. The US is a national of immigrants and there are tens of millions on people already here legally on student, work, tourist, Fiancé, and other visas and millions more here illegally. Online dating sites cannot ever know who is a US citizen.
Some of the strongest opinions are from totally anonymous members. So just to clear the record here is a short bio – my profile name is my real name, I do not own a marriage agency, nor do I have any financial interest in one. I have not and do not have a foreign wife. I am not looking for one either! I have no criminal / sex offender record of any type. I have never committed or been accused of committing domestic abuse. I do have lots of speeding tickets.
I do have extensive international experience and have lived overseas. I travel more than 125,000 miles each year. Among the many countries I travel to - China, Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia, Russia, Ukraine, all of Europe, most of Latin American, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. I also have employees and college interns from almost every country imaginable.
Michael Parrotte
Frederick, Maryland
301-663-4550

There are several people that have brought up the idea that there should be equal protection no matter what gender or race.  I don't see this in the proposed law.  As presented, it seems to cause more harm than good.

Is the goal that is imagined actually possible by creating a law that addresses none of the real issues?  I have my doubts.