International Marriage Broker Act of 2005

[Krissa]

It appears that the International marriage broker act of 2005 was just signed into law today and will begin to be effective in March 2006.

It requires disclosure of criminal convictions and other background information on the application for the visa(fiancee or spouse), notification of the lady during the interview of certain information on DV and remedies and background information on the man.

Marriage agencies are required to present information to the women about the background of the men prior to initiating communication and penalties can be stiff, up to $25,000 fine and 5 years in jail for violations.

It also restricts the number of visa applications that a man may file and the frequency.

Could be an interesting discussion regarding this law.

[Goombah]

Well, the agency requirements are clearly not enforcable for non-US companies.  The other conditions are just modification to the existing forms and process.

Kevin

[Leslie]

Here is the link to the Senate draft which appears to me to be the same as the text on Thomas (Lof C)

http://207.36.229.58/BSCC/Legal_Information/International-Marriage-Broker-Act-2003-Senate-draft.pdf

Re my recent arguements on K1 on this forum this law has a limit of one K1 per year.

 

[ConnerVT]

Bad law, and really unenforceable.  Here's one article:

http://heraldnet.com/stories/06/01/06/100loc_b1law001.cfm

From the article, the law provides:

* Limits the number of foreign visas for a prospective bride that an American man can apply for, to three in a lifetime.
* Creates a brochure explaining immigrant women's legal rights and resources, as well as the illegality of entering a marriage solely to obtain an immigration benefit.
* Requires men to answer questions about prior criminal convictions, with the information to be shared with the prospective bride. It also authorizes U.S. consulates to share criminal background information with fiances.

 
* First is OK on the surface.  Guess by the fourth one, you can marry out of country, and apply for a K-3 instead.


* Second one -- will the brochure be printed in the visa applicants native language?  Presented to both men and woman applicants?  When will they receive it. at the visa interview?  Will someone take the time to explain the legalities of it to them?  At the interview?  Very questionable...


* Why no protection afforded to male visa applicants?  Only men commit crimes in the US?  Will US citizens now be given access to a foreign applicant's police report (translated it to my native language, please).  Most important, why don't US citizens marrying other US citizens also receive this information?  Domestic violence doesn't happen between WM/WW couples?


My 15 minutes of fame is over.  Enjoy the discussion...

[Krissa]

In reading the text of the law, it does appear to be somewhat 'gender  neutral' - however the brochure is discussed in a manner that addresses  the concerns of women in regard to domestic violence.

[TigerPaws]

[color="blue"][size="4"]Wonderful another law which will be all but [/size][/color][color="blue"][size="4"]unenforceable, what agency will  enforce this law, what resources will be diverted to see to compliance? I will  tell you NONE. Dumb, passing a law which is all but unenforceable but  what-the-Hell I am sure it made someone in congress feel good telling  themselves "Look what I did, I passed ANOTHER law". [/size][/color] [color="blue"][size="4"] Give me a break, anyone who operates an agency in the U.S. will and should simply move off shore, end of  story.[/size][/color]

[wxman]

This law is so silly, it gets the Twit law of the year award. Now they will have to define what a "marriage broker" is. Once that is defined, these agencies will change the description of what they provide for a service, thus the law will not apply to them. No longer will they be marriage brokers, but casual dating agencies, friendship agencies, and on an on. It will just shift people from the K1 visa, to the K3 where the couple is already married, and then none of this applies. So many loopholes in this law and the only thing it will do is slow the already slow process down even more.  

[Leslie]

Conner,

The K1 visa restriction was amended viz -

`(2) A United States citizen or a legal permanent resident may not file more than 1 application for a visa under section 101(a)(15)(K)(i) in any 1-year period.'.

This provision of the law will be enforced.  So the days of the "big 3" Lawyer filing K1's after each social is over. 

"Hey Joe you already filed a K1 for Anna in Kiev, and Nataliya in Odessa but I know you got the hots for Lena from Dnepr so I'll file for her too."  All in one 10 day trip. 

We get the laws we deserve !

Sure you can marry in FSU, file for a K3 and import a wife but with this act in force FORGET any idea of a quickie, no pain divorce and sending her home.  If she wants to stay in the USA, you have NO effective leverage on her immigration status anymore.  Oh and the way this act is written a mere accusation of DV would be enough justification for a self petition for permanent resident status to succeed...

If you think this is unfair then you could get very easily end up with a notifiable history of violence against women.  That could very well end ANY plans you may ever have of marriage to an FSU woman !

This is not fair.  It is discrimination!

But it was easy to predict given the behaviour of a significant percentage of the guys involved in this endeavour...

Will American owned agencies have to obey these regulations??  I would be interested to hear Jack, Kevin and Marc Dayton's comments?  Sure your business may be registered overseas but if it is owned and operated by US citizens then legal action may be possible??  Could this act shut down most of the good agencies leaving the field clear for "Fat Yuri" (Think Absolute Agency). 

I hope not !

I have long maintained view that a significant minority of the guys who get involved in this endeavour should not be.  They are responsible for our stinking public reputation.  The sad thing is President Bush and Congress agree.  They have signed this biased bill into law.....
 

[Bruno]

INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER

1) GENERAL

The term international marriage broker means a corporation, partnership, business, individual, or other legal entity, whether or not organized under any law of the United States, that charges fees for providing dating, matrimonial, social referrals, or  matching services between United States citizens or legal permanent residents and non-resident aliens by providing information that would permit individuals to contact each other, including

- providing the name, telephone number, address, electronic mail address, or voicemail of an individual; or

- providing an opportunity for an in-person meeting.


2) EXCEPTIONS

Such term does not include

- a traditional matchmaking organization of a religious nature that operates on a nonprofit basis and otherwise operates in compliance with the laws of the countries in which it operates including the laws of the United States; or
- an entity that provides dating services between United States citizens or legal permanent residents and aliens, but not as its principal business, and charges comparable rates to all clients regardless of the gender or country of residence of the client.

If i read good, these who don't charge for contact information are not concerned by these law... so free site are not concerned...

A pay site with fowarding e-mail letter have a new reason for censure contact information in e-mail letter... perfect for more scam situation.... since the principal business will be foward and translate letter, they are free to operate ( if they charge everybody the same : men and women, American and foreign )

This law will change nothing... agency will adapt and the bad one have excuse for never give the contact information... now, GCG will be fully informed over DV before be married to a US citizen... again, the work become more easy for bad girls...

This law is sponsorised by feminist who are jealous that US men search happiness outside US...

Bruno, a happy European

[Bruce]

Stupid people make stupid laws.  Somehow, we men need to do something to stand up for ourselves and change things in our country.   It is easy for me to vote for other people, but it seems so what with this bills passing.  The trip to "hell in a hand basket" for men in this country has now quickened.  

[TigerPaws]

[size="3"]"This law is sponsorised by feminist who are jealous that US men search happiness outside US..."

[color="blue"][size="4"]Bruno,

 You may be on to something:shock:
[/size][/color][/size]

[dorogoyroberto]

Leslie wrote: "[size="3"]  I have long maintained view that a significant minority of the guys who  get involved in this endeavour should not be.  They are responsible for  our stinking public reputation."

Completely agree. I know of one fellow who has filed seven (!!!) K-1  applications, another who has filed four and still another who says he  filed three (within a five-month span!) All three men share this  commonality: they blame the women/consular officials/bad luck/bad  karma/whatever for their failures. None of them think they personally  had anything to do with the outcome.

Incidentally, the one who filed seven times maintains that six of the  women never showed up for the interview; the one that did so and was  approved apparently treated the K-1 process as getting a tourist visa  and, he says, merely wanted to travel.

Roberto
Kiev, Ukraine

[/size]

[TigerPaws]

[color="blue"][size="4"]Bruce,

 They are not called "Law Makers" for nothing, it seems mose in governemnt firmly believe if they pass ANOTHER law all of our problems will be solved.
 As to "going to Hell in a hand basket" we (America) have been traveling down that path for a very long time.
 While I agree things need to change in our country (America) personally I have come to the conclusion that things are going to get much worse before they get better.
[/size][/color]

Stupid people make stupid laws.  Somehow, we men need to do something to stand up for ourselves and change things in our country.   It is easy for me to vote for other people, but it seems so what with this bills passing.  The trip to "hell in a hand basket" for men in this country has now quickened.  

[al-c]

I'm certainly glad they changed the three in a lifetime to 1 per year.  Men make mistakes, and I already made 1 in the past applying for a visa for the wrong woman.  This way the mistake gets erased after one year, instead of sticking to my ribs for the rest of my life.

One thing I don't like is disclosure on orders of protection.  Criminal convictions are one thing, but orders of protection are given out like water, with only the flimsiest accusations to back them up.  Although this does not affect me, I would hate to have been on the receiving end of a flimsy protection order and then have to explain to every RW I correspond with that an American court gave the OP based on lies. Since at that point I have not yet established any credibility with the RW, I don't need to tell you who she thinks the real liar will be.

I have no problem with disclosure of criminal convictions, and I always found the old system where her record gets investigated and mine never even looked at to be a bit lopsided.  (I have none, BTW.)  My own policy has been that when I am serious with a RW, as I presently am, I tell them that I have nothing to hide, that I would not object if they hire an investigator to do a background check on me, and that I will give that investigator my full cooperation.

I also have no problem with a RW learning about her rights under U.S. law.  Whether that law is good or bad has nothing to do with her right to know the law she will be living under in the United States.  I even went as far as to tell the RW I did my aborted K-1 with to consult with an attorney to learn about her rights and responsibilities under U.S. law and that I would pay the lawyer's fee.

 

 

[BC]

I can't think of a better example where media oligarchs and NGO's are capable of controlling politics and laws of a country...

I'm all for disclosure, but if it is done only for foreign relationships it is wrong.. The principles should apply to all who apply for a marriage licence.. like mandatory blood tests.. Maybe this is where things are headed.  Anything else would be discrimination.

I doubt this legislation will pass oversight of the courts.. but then again it's in the hands of Homeland Security!!

[al-c]

If I may draw a distinction between a foreign (usually FSU or E. Europe) bride and an American one, the foreign bride is in a uniquely vulnerable position.

The American bride has access to her own family, their money, and her own money and car and career (and lawyer).  She knows the place cold, having lived here all of her life; she knows the culture cold, having grown up here and gone to school here; and she knows all the ins and outs of life in America.

The foreign bride has none of this.  She had a job and a place to live that she walked away from to come here.  What little money she has won't even buy lunch here in the high priced U.S.  She is in a strange land with a strange culture and where a strange language is spoken.  And she is here for the first time in her life.

How did you feel the first time you were in Russia, unable to instruct a cab driver where to take you or to even order a meal in a restaurant?  A bit vulnerable, perhaps?  You were only there for a vacation and went there with pockets full of U.S. dollars that you could exchange for enough rubles to live like a king.  Imagine not having those dollars, not having a return trip ticket, not having a U.S. residence any longer, and being dependent on a RW for everything, including tonight's dinner.  How vulnerable do you think you would feel then?

Their uniquely vulnerable position when they arrive here and their total dependence on a man in whose hands they will have placed their life and the life of their child in makes it all the more important that they have the utmost in protection.

I'm not defending the law as written; in fact I crticised it in this very thread.  I just don't have a problem with a foreign bride getting protection a U.S. bride simply does not need.

 

[Bruno]

[user=527]al-c[/user] wrote:

I just don't have a problem with a foreign bride getting protection a U.S. bride simply does not need.

Do you think that russian authority will treat you better that russian women because you are a foreign who have CHOOSE to live in Russia with his russian bride...

Same right for everybody... what they call "positive discrimination" is always discrimination...

Women have already more right that men, don't need to add more right for foreign bride... relationship is about sharing, not about make one superior to the other... in a marriage, each partner have the same right and responsabilities...

[TigerPaws]

[size="4"] [color="blue"]Bruno is right about one thing, in general women have far more rights than men and as one small example look at the DV issue. In most cases it is the man who spends the night (or more) in jail and like it or not is guilty until he proves his innocence. In far too many states the woman is preceived as more needing and a better parent simply because she is a woman and the man gets the short end of a very sharp stick.
 Sorry but laws like this is someones answer to a non existant problem, sure there have been abuses, so what they happen every day making a new law will do nothing to stop the problems.
 As was said before, what is next background checks on anyone who wants a marrage license, mental health exams, physicals, blood work, finger printing? Where do you draw the line, why not have a government agency approve couples?
 Government out of control, so what else is new?
 
 [/color]
[/size]

[Leslie]

Well Tiger I think this is view is rather simplistic -

"making a new law will do nothing to stop the problems."

The new law will curtail some of the existing problems.  It will also create new problems and make some existing issues worse.

Al-c I think this is correct -

"Criminal convictions are one thing, but orders of protection are given out like water, with only the flimsiest accusations to back them up."

But it is not just disclosure of OP's that is the issue.  Under this new law the flimsiest of evidence of domestic violence and abuse will be sufficient to self petition for permanent resident status.  It is the Green Card Girls ticket to stay !

Quite honestly I think guys will have to be way more careful. I would appreciate Maxx's view on this.

Bruno

The situation in Europe is already like this.  Once you are married you have no say in your wife's immigration status.  If she leaves you and wants to stay even verbal abuse is sufficient evidence (hearsay!!) for her to self file....

Roberto -

Thanks for the support.  This endeavour is not for everyone.  We actually got this law because guys abused the system and their wives.  A small number of psychopaths who beat their wives to death has tainted our public image.

 

[TigerPaws]

[color="blue"][size="4"]Leslie,

 I agree this whole issue is extremily complex, the problem is now we have a law which will simply drive agencies off shore (good and bad) and or change the way American men go about finding a bride. Nothing will change and while I agree that far too many men enter into this proposition with too little time and funds, new laws are not the answer.
 Possibly some changes in the immigration rules would be a better solution but that is a discussion for another thread.
[/size][/color]

[Bruno]

Bruno

The situation in Europe is already like this.  Once you are married you have no say in your wife's immigration status.  If she leaves you and wants to stay even verbal abuse is sufficient evidence (hearsay!!) for her to self file....

Maybe i have use the word "europe" a little fast... since each european country have his how rule...

In the case of Belgium, a foreign need to stay married 3 year ( previously 5 year ) and life together with his husband for have the nationality and definitive right to stay in Belgium...

My ex-wife have receive a refusal for the first time she have ask her nationality... She have win the second time due to a procedure error in the first time... Why she was refused... very simple, because the neightbour enquete make by police, several evidence that she was unfaithfull, that she was living with other men when i was in Russia with her daughter ( i have know this after divorce )...

About DV, we have not such law... but we have usual law where it it prohibith hurt other people... we don't treat domestic violence in a other way that usual violence... evidence are needed before accuse someone...

Certainly the situation in UK is near these in USA...

 

[RacerX]

The International Marriage Broker Regulation Act was signed into law on January 5th and its provisions are an obvious victory for the feminazis.  

Some of the glaring faults are pointed out in this story:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180487,00.html

This Act will:

    * Limit the number of fiancée visas an applicant may seek each year to one.

    * Require a U.S. citizen seeking a foreign fiancée visa to undergo a criminal background check. Information on convictions and civil orders would be relayed to the visa applicant by the consular official.

    * Require marriage agencies to obtain a foreign national client's consent prior to releasing her contact information and to provide her with information, in her own language, on the rights of victims of domestic violence in the United States.

    * Require marriage agencies to make American clients provide information on any previous arrests or courtordered restrictions  along with their previous marital history.  In addition they would have to perform searches of databases that list sex criminals. This information would also be made available to the foreign national.

[Admin]

What do you expect the 'fallout' to be?

My guess is:

MOB activity, in general, will change complexion - and DCF's will become much more common.

Because Russia does not allow DCF except for long-term ex-pat residents, Ukraine will become even more popular for bride-seekers.

Eventually (maybe soon) the legislation will be applied on a Consular level to K-1 sponsors, and it will not matter if the agency they worked through is American or foreign.

Probably other ramifications, but I'll need to study it further before I speculate more.

FWIW

- Dan

[Kevin]

I have decided not to require my client to give out their information to  
ladies that they are not engaged too. If the US Government decide that my  
Ukrainian corporation falls under the US law then we can handle it in court  
when it happens.  But since It's not an American company I do not believe  
that my Ukraine corporation is effected and I will gladly give up ownership  
of the corporation if needed to protect my clients.

The reason that   concerns me the most is a background check give the ladies
the full name,   SSN, mother maiden name and a few other items that could be
used for   identity theft and sold on the black market. Not something I want
to expose   my clients too.

Too test my theory I did the standard background check on   myself and It
included every question that my credit card company could   think of asking me
over the phone.  I could just see my credit cards company   issuing new cards
to a "employee" with a 50k limit.   I just had 3 such   cards issued last
month to my contractors/partners over the phone and it   common for business
owners too have such accounts..

I believe a   fiancée should know about a men violent past if he has one. But
this should   be done during the visa process and not required just in order
to   meet.

I also believe in the sex offenders background checks prior to any   meeting
and plan to include a policy change this week to require all   American's and
any other country that has a database of sex offenders to   either flag there
account so they can explain it to the lady when they meet   in the office or
be removed from my agency. This can be done by a simple   software program
when the client joins and verified when the client   arrives.  This is my
personally policy change..

I will continue to   offer my free advice from Florida as long as the law
allows   it.

Thanks
Kevin Hayes
http://www.khersongirls.com
352   266-8155 call anytime

[ronin308]

Kevin, you might have problems even though your company is Ukrainian as you are an american citizen, so instead of going after your company they'll go after you directly.

This is similiar to the fact that as an american citizen it is illegal for you to bribe someone anywhere in the world.  So even though your company is Ukrainian, if you've had to pay some of the typical "operating" bribes in that country and they can prove that you have knowledge of them they can prosecute you.  I learned this through several americans operating businesses over there. 

I do feel this is going to cause more "exporting" of this business to pure locals and reduce American involvement.   With the fact that the police record is disclosed by the consulate, why also require a background check before even meeting the woman? 

Makes me glad I'm out of the "dating" portion of this adventure for a while.