International Marriage Broker Act of 2005

[Kevin]

I'm checking with the attorneys and if needed I'll transfer the stock  ownership over to my in-laws.  Since I don't get a pay check or  any funds from the corporation. I don't feel that just being a stock  owner holds me fully liable.   Other then the stock ownership  I work strickly as a volunteer..

I have 90 days and then some to find out and currently nobody seem to know the offical answer yet.

thanks
Kevin

[BC]

Will also be interesting to see how the information they collect is used..

The applicants as I understand will have to divulge the agency used and whether info/procedures were followed at the interview.  Maybe an industry shift to overseas would result in more scrutiny at the interview since the requirements were not held..  Maybe even Agency Blacklists??

'Capping' how many times the AM can sponsor K visa will also put a damper on things.  Hopefully AM will become much more interested with true compatability and get away from the numbers game.

Providing women with abuse info and records is not bad.. guys will have a lot more to explain about their past before the interview.  The requirement for agencies to inform the ladies about their past is to prevent stalker type situations imho.  Sure does give the ladies a bigger hand in their selection process.

Good 'clean' serious AM taking their time won't be bothered much.. but putting law into practice will certainly have a negative effect on interviews and processing timelines.  Forms and documentation requirements will also be more complex I think.

US based agencies that do comply might get an upper hand in the end.  Folks that work in this industry may want to take a second look before balking..  earn the USCIS stamp of approval!

I'm sure it will be a booming business for immigration attourneys... at least until the dust settles.

[BC]

I'm checking with the attorneys and if needed I'll transfer the stock ownership over to my in-laws.  Since I don't get a pay check or any funds from the corporation. I don't feel that just being a stock owner holds me fully liable.   Other then the stock ownership I work strickly as a volunteer..

[align=left] [/align]
[align=left]R[/font]EPRESENTATIVE.--The term ''representative'' means,[/align]
[align=left]with respect to an international marriage broker, the person[/align]
[align=left]or entity acting on behalf of such broker. Such a representative[/align]
[align=left]may be a recruiter, agent, independent contractor, or other[/align]
[align=left]international marriage broker or other person conveying[/align]
[align=left]information about or to a United States client or foreign[/align]
[align=left]national client, whether or not the person or entity receives[/align]
[align=left]remuneration.[/align]

[TigerPaws]

[color="#0000ff"][size="4"] The bottom line is this "law" is all  but unenforceable, sure it sounds good on paper but in the real world this "law"  is not worth the paper it is written on. Sure in theory someone in Kevin Hayes  position could be held responsible but in reality nothing will change except  people like Kevin (I am not picking on you Kevin you are just convenient) will  divest themselves of any direct contact with their off shore operations. If you  think the government of a foreign country will cooperate and waste their  time and resources assisting in an investigation by the U.S. justice department  for something which would be a violation of this ridiculous "law" then you are  sadly mistaken. [/size][/color] [color="#0000ff"][size="4"] Sure Kevin or even Jack Bragg might  get a call by some over zealous federal prosecutor but a well written letter by  a competent criminal defense attorney will put the matter to rest, no prosecutor  is going to spend more than a few minutes  dealing with this poorly written  "law". All this "law" will accomplish is forcing businesses to completely move  their operations off shore and their U.S. owners to isolate themselves for their  own protection.[/size][/color]

[BC]

Kevin,

There is also a lot of unclear legal territory when it comes to jurisdiction over international internet based companies.  Especially tricky for the MOB industry is the targeting of your business efforts.  If your services primarily target US citizens then there might be a problem..  Sure they can't arrest your in-laws in Ukraine but what if they visit the US?.. happens all the time.. and guess what.. chances are probably better getting a tourist visa approved if they are looking for ya! (in some cases you may not even know Uncle Sam is looking for you).

Very murky waters indeed.. but you don't want to be the company 'picked' to test these new laws in US courts..  The govt makes a ton of money in fines and settlements because many businesses simply cannot afford the legal costs and time involved to prove bad law.

disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer so anything and/or everything in this post could be totally wrong.  What I wrote is based on personal business experiences/considerations over the years in other industries.. Choose your legal advisor wisely, but even he/she will likely not be able to guarantee anything.

[ronin308]

BC, while I agree that if providing just basic information like a criminal record is nice in concept the level of information provided as others have stated isn't on par with just that ideal, it's far more invasive than that.

My problem is that it will increase costs and not significantly change the safety of the women.  If they are going through the type of agency that will actually follow these regulations, they already will help the girls if a stalker situation occurs. 

As to enforcement, as I said any agencies with Americans involved in it's operations will have to follow these rules or risk the American being punished.  Your statement further clarifies this and makes the situation for Kevin et al more challenging.

On the consular side, even if they add a field about agencies on the form, there is nothing preventing me from simply not mentioning an agency anywhere on that form. 

Personally I don't have a problem with the following things:

1. K-1 limits, as you stated it makes the process more serious, personally I would have used a more strict level of criteria on a sliding scale.

2. Educating the girls as to their rights in DV situations also is a good thing, but it there is the possible escalation of GCGs using this to get an early out in the marriage as they will be given a free road map to do it.

3.  Background checks, this is the one area that I entirely dislike.  There is 0 reason if using an agency that the girl needs to know this prior to meeting me.  I do not have a problem providing that information to the agency so that they can verify that I am a not a threat to their women.  Once again the type of agency that is going to follow these regs anyway is legit enough to have the interests of both parties at heart.  After all where else am I ever required or going to do such a thing with someone I meet for the first time?  Where I feel it is appropriate that the girl be given the background report would be once the paperwork is filed establishing that the relationship is serious but prior to the interview.  Ideally 5 days from the initial reciept date the agency would be responsible for releasing the information to the girl.

I am someone who has a clean background, nothing to hide but would not undergo the process as required as I feel it is too invasive.  Granted because it's hidden behind the shroud of protecting these women from DV, you probably won't get the ACLU to do a thing about it, but I find it an extremely invasive into my privacy that I have to supply a large volume of data to a person I have never met or corresponded to.

[Bruce]

2) EXCEPTIONS (thanks for picking this one to start with Bruno)

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.

Just a suggestion, for Kevin and other owners out there, if you concentrate on the above paragraph you can be a primary travel agency or rental agency with a "marriage agency" / "dating" / "introduction" agency as a secondary or tertiary business.  Whatever you charge to the guy you can also charge to the girl and either "back end" the collection date to whatever terms you like for your female clients or have "Kevin's Ukrainain International White Christian Traditional Travel, Tour and Matchmaking Service."  

 

Other key sections have similar outs if you think creatively and play with the language like a good lawyer will for you.  Then, you just write a policy statement and have your legal team deal with it when the time comes.  Switching "ownership" to the in-law side sounds logical as well.  Setting up a foreign corporation so it is no longer "American" owned and operated seems like the right thing to do. 

I am not a lawyer but just looking at the document leaves alot of holes for you to operate around.

Like you guys above stated - more garbage for us guys to deal with, sponsored by feminist leaning Democrats from a liberal State and mistakenly signed by a Republican administration.  I blame Bush for not having the guts or being too ill informed to veto this one.

[BC]

I am not a lawyer but just looking at the document leaves alot of holes for you to operate around.

applies to 'them' too

 

[RacerX]

Since this Act didn't specifically appropriate any funds to enforce it, exactly who  in the DHS would undertake this additional task would be problematical for them.  The DHS has on a number of previous occasions 'announced' that visa fraud is no longer their interest and have instead directed all of their attention to terrorism.

As others have pointed out, there are a number of serious problems with this Act.  First, it requires the disclosure of sensitive information ONLY from the guy - interesting that our government didn't feel any protection for its citizens was something it had a constitutional duty to provide.

Interesting though, it does not appear there is any penalty towards the US citizen for not disclosing this information.

The new requirement for background checks of the petitioner will delay the process even further and raise the cost of what is already an expensive affair.  I know of scores of cases where a computer database "hit" due to a name match has delayed the K-1 petition by months.  If past performance is any indication, guys can expect delays if there is any negative information in their background checks - for example, an OP which others have mentioned are freely given to any vindictive (read: ex Russian) spouse.

In addition, there's the practical side of all of this.  Imagine your fiancee, at the time of her interview, being presented by the interviewing officer, a copy of some cryptic computer database report that shows you were arrested for some crime you had been acquitted of decades ago.  Further, do you think she will fully comprehend what an order of protection really is, especially those given to ex-spouses without even a hearing?  

Hell of a way to begin the marriage process IMO.

[TigerPaws]

[color="#0000ff"][size="4"]BC,[/size][/color]   [size="4"][color="#0000ff"] Here is a quick work  around this "law", I start up an "agency" with someone like you in Italy, the  business is biased out of Italy but funded by me through a ghost account in  the Principality of Monaco which has an official state policy of not cooperating  with the U.S. Justice Department in non capitol crimes. All finical transactions  are through the ghost account so funds flow freely, I could travel back and  forth provide various in country (FSU countries) services and the only traceable  direct links go to the Italian operation. Of course this is an extremely simple  example, the country could just as easily be Poland, Germany or the Czech  Republic or even a combination of more than one company through several countries, the point is this is  bad legislation and it will change nothing except how business is done in the future.[/color][/size]

[BC]

Tiger,

Sure there are many ways to Rome but right now this is indeed 'good law'.  Until someone steps up and proves the law to be 'bad' in the courts there is little that can be done imho.  This will take quite some time tho'..  until then who knows what can happen.

I'm sure there are many workarounds as you suggest, but as you well know DOJ does have all the time in the world (within statuate of limitations) to find them as they frequently do in other areas of interest.  Ask me today to invest in an agency anywhere in the world today peddling services in the US and I'll respectfully decline without thinking twice.

[BC]

Just as a side note there are a LOT of business organizations and associations that lobby politicians  to try and convince them of 'better' ways to write upcoming laws.

I really wonder if anyone in the MOB industry really cared enough to try..  I bet most of the romance letter mills are quite happy with it.. 'sign up now!' and later slam dunk with "well we first need your rap sheet before you get the ladies telephone number or address.. small processing fee for this.. oops!~ lady declined.. you're not up to snuff, but try this girl!!" After all nothing wrong with passing around a name, pictures and letters without personal info (as far as I can see).

Maybe the letter factories were lobbying~!


 

[TigerPaws]

BC, 

 To my knowledge there is no active lobbing group for the MOB (agency) industry and most likely never will be because of the very nature of the business, maybe Jack or Kevin could comment on that. So there is no advocate to assist with lousy legislation which is put forth to make come congressman or senator feel good about themselves.

[Oosik]

The sad thing is most judges issue PO's like they issue farts after spagetti night. Protective orders are usually issues based soley on the woman's complaint, and then there is a followup court hearing to see if it should be upheld or made permanent or whatever they call it. But the initial order is easier to get than a headache.

We always hear about guys who violate such orders, but I have yet to hear about a woman being prosecuted for getting one under false pretences. There is no downside for the woman filing false charges.

[Kevin]

Bruno
 How does Rev. Kevin Hayes of the Holy Kherson Girls marriage agency and dating   ministries sound to you.  For $50 I can become ordained within a week? :dude:

Too many loop holes in the law to make it really effective but more of  a hassle.  The typicall agencies that don't really care about  anything but money aren't even effective by this.

Kevin

[Kevin]

US based agencies that do comply might get an upper hand in the  end.  Folks that work in this industry may want to take a second  look before balking..  earn the USCIS stamp of approval!

BC,
  Americans don't see to care who owns the agencies and most often  they don't even care if they have a office . Just look at how many  agencies sites hide there owners names, office address or any legit  contact information on the internet.  Yet these agencies are  making a killing. 

The fact is US guys care more about the ladies photo's then the agency  that is hosting them.  So having the goverment approval isn't  going to matter to most clients.

In kherson there are only 4 legal agencies and yet we seem to have  1000's of ladies listed on the internet from Kherson that are not  members of these legal agencies. 

All this law is going to do is give the guy an option.  He can use  a American agency and do the background for each lady or he can use the  local agency and meet the lady and then decide if he wants the  background done or just to lie during the interview.     This is why many american owned agencies are going overseas as I type  this and why many agencies are already incorporated overseas to start  with.

Our goverement seem to be very good at getting corporations to leave America.

Kevin

[TigerPaws]

"Our goverement seem to be very good at getting corporations to leave America"

[color="blue"][size="4"]And they are getting better at it all the time.

 You would be amazed at the number of Mega Yachts we see owned buy some very famous and of course wealthy people which are NOT U.S. flaged. Over New Years the marina here at Paradise Island (Bahamas) was full of them. [/size][/color]

[Charles]

While I share the libertarian concerns about this law, I would nevertheless advise caution in how you comply with this law.  A policy of open non-compliance could result in the Government bringing a test case against you personally, costing you hundreds of thousands in legal fees.   If anyone is prosecuted, it won't be a Ukrainian corporation or its titular shareholders -- they will go after the Kevins and the Jacks who are the de facto operators of the business.    It will be interesting to see how the large agencies, like Foreign Affair, attempt to comply with this law as well as the smaller agencies.   It requires a check of the Sex Offender database, which will cost money to the agency, as well as requiring the AM applicant to provide information, including documents, regarding past criminal AND marriage history, all of which will cost money to administer and review.    It may bring down the MOB agencies in the U.S.  And it certainly won't catch the abusers, who will just use the foreign-based agencies which generally have more scammers and are less than scrupulous.     

[TigerPaws]

"It may bring down the MOB agencies in the U.S."

[color="blue"][size="4"]No it WILL bring down the agency business here in the U.S. end of story.[/size][/color]

[TigerPaws]

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

 What is your take on this whole International Marriage Broker Act of 2005 Bull?[/color][/size][color="blue"][size="4"][/size][/color]

[RacerX]

Other than push some of the MOB agencies to establish foreign offices, I don't think the Act will have much of an impact.  For example, the searching of a sex offender database can be done in many States for free and it only takes seconds to do so.  The requirement that the guy supply biographical info could be ignored since there seems to be no penalty for him in doing so - the agency could keep a pack of pre-signed authorization forms from the girls where they simply fill in the guy's name, and the Gov. pamphlet will eventually be available on-line.

Then there's the practical side for the DHS.  Exactly who would do the auditing of the agencies and how will probably never be resolved and there doesn't appear to have been any extra funding for this anyway.  If USCIS is given that role, I wouldn't expect much from them except as a response to a complaint, which should be rather rare.

The Act is full of loop-holes in that an MOB agency can claim to be a dating service and charge the girl (money supplied by the guy) for their services to complete the disguise.  

The real burden is not upon the agencies but instead the clients (guys). They will have to pay extra fees to cover the background searches and then be faced with explaining to their fiancees, at the time of the interview, how their ex-wife got an Order of Protection some 20 years ago.  Whether a CO deems any negative info contained in their file as grounds for a K visa denial is uncharted waters.

[Maxx]

The real burden is not upon the agencies but instead the clients (guys). They will have to pay extra fees to cover the background searches and then be faced with explaining to their fiancees, at the time of the interview, how their ex-wife got an Order of Protection some 20 years ago.  Whether a CO deems any negative info contained in their file as grounds for a K visa denial is uncharted waters.

This was my concern a year ago. How to explain that I was married and divorced to a RW. I was married in Russia. What came to the conclusion was that I would need to sit down with my fiancee with a Russian interpreter and present my case. I actually have allot documents that would indicate my ex-wife engaged in fraud. Anyway I have had several RW (5) who have offered to help me explain my past.

This explaining one's past would require some skill.

I just found this thread today.

Maxx

 

[Charles]

I'm not sure the law is so simple.  In addition to the sex offender check and providing criminal and marital information, the law requires the agency to collect documentation to support the information being provided.  Merely providing a form may not be enough.

[TigerPaws]

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

 There is little question this will shut down most if not all of the agencies here in America, what happens off shore will be another issue. The point is nothing will change, so the law is worthless except to the agencies who operate only within the U.S. and they are screwed.
[/size][/color]

[Oosik]

I was thinking that the worst part of this is when you have to take the tiger by the tail and explain to your fiance how easy it is for a woman to get a PO/RO against a man, and why just about every divorcing woman does it. I am certain if you have demonstrated kindness and honesty already she will believe  you when you plead your case... She will believe that she should file the knowledge away just in case she ever needs to do it herself. I realize that any slightly feminist or otherwise pissed off woman will be trying to tell your wife about it during a "girl talk" session as soon as she gets here, but this way you yourself will be giving her a blueprint to the angry or dishonest woman's #1 weapon against you, and you will be doing before she even comes.