"The Russian Bride Business Is Dead" ? Really?

[JR]

Sadly I came to the understanding that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. [youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa5EPz9b3UI[/youtube]

There is no "Circle the Wagons!" in this issue. The people effected by it will only become interested individually as it effects them personally.

Lone wolves dies fast...

[Maxx2]

There is no "Circle the Wagons!" in this issue. The people effected by it will only become interested individually as it effects them personally.

Lone wolves dies fast...

That was the point I was trying to get to. Dan has a interest an IMBRA as it might affect his business as NAFTA has affected mine. The rest of the guys here, not much of an interest as they are either already married or have managed to get through their lives unblemished by the multitude of laws. IMBRA is a non-factor to them. It is very doubtful any of them will lift a finger to fight IMBRA. I'm not other than what I have already done. To the general public it is another 'who cares' non-issue and many may even think it's a good idea because it sticks to those creepy guys who purchase mail order brides. Of course everyone wants to defend women right? So goodbye 1st, 4th and 5th amendment rights, at least in this issue that nobody but a few care about. So that is why I believe that overturning IMBRA is a lost cause.

[GQBlues]

Dan-

I will admit I very likely did not spend an equal amount of time as you did on those admissions count...but from my vantage point at this juncture, are you somehow equating percentages of the number K-visas against total overall admissions in a given year? Which includes tourism, student visas, visa waiver, business, ambassadors, transit visas, etc....?

If so, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to illustrate. IMBRA-related / human trafficking related? Do you mind going through your point/objective with that exercise again? Thx...

[Admin]

Dan-

I will admit I very likely did not spend an equal amount of time as you did on those admissions count...but from my vantage point at this juncture, are you somehow equating percentages of the number K-visas against total overall admissions in a given year? Which includes tourism, student visas, visa waiver, business, ambassadors, transit visas, etc....?

If so, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to illustrate. IMBRA-related / human trafficking related? Do you mind going through your point/objective with that exercise again? Thx...

Sure.

K-visas are the primary means a US sponsor uses to bring a fiance(e) or spouse to the US. K-visas are the explicit target of IMBRA. One might ask - Well, how many people are affected by IMBRA? That answer, in straight numerical form is shown in the earlier tables, and for 2009 it means that IMBRA affected a *MAXIMUM* of 47,524 people - though we know it is substantially fewer than that for the reasons Jooky pointed out upthread. Basic point being, there are not many people directly affected by IMBRA.

The other question that I wanted to explore is whether K-visas are trending higher or lower in terms of overall immigration policy. If the number of K-visas were to be increasing (or decreasing) at a rate far different than overall admissions, it *might* indicate some form of a change in immigration policy specific to K-visas. I might have used the total nonimmigrant visas as my denominator, but decided it was more convenient to use the Total Admissions figures - and yes, I realize there are all sorts of admissions to the US that have absolutely nothing to do with cross-cultural marriage - but as a reference point for determining a trend, it is as good as any other denominator (and probably better than most).

In that context, the K-visas look reasonably stable from year to year. There is nothing to indicate that K-visas are increasing or decreasing at a rate that is inconsistent with overall US immigration policy. That is ALL I was hoping to accomplish with the trending.

Maybe if I add some context.

Here is a brief summary of all major US immigration legislation for the past century:

1917: Immigration Act of 1917 - First major codification of immigration laws in the US
1924: Immigration Act of 1924 - Established quotas - defined "nonimmigrant"
1945: War Brides Act
1946: GI Fiancees Act
1952: Immigration and Nationality Act (a/k/a McCarran-Walter Act) - Reaffirmed the national origins quotas
1965: Immigration and Nationality Act - Abolished the quota system - enacted uniform numerical limits
1970: Public Law 91-225 - Established K-visas (K-1 and K-2)
1986: Immigration Reform and Control Act - Authorized the Visa Waiver Pilot Program
1986: Marriage Fraud Amendments - established conditional residence
1994: Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - created nonimmigrant visa classifiction for witnesses and informants - allowed for self-petition by the immigrant spouse in special circumstances
1996: Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act - requires international matchmaking organizations to disseminate information to foreign fiancees or face penalties of fines
2000: Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act - created nonimmigrant visa category for alien victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons
2000: Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act - provided financial grants for immigrant women/children abused by their spouse
2000: Legal Immigration Family Equity Act - created K-3 and K-4 visas
2005: International Marriage Broker Regulation Act

Perhaps the most significant of those were in 1986 when the focus was on controlling illegal immigration to the US and in 2000 when the precursor legislation to VAWA was passed.

In any case, since K-visas are merely a small subset of the broader immigration picture in the US, I wanted to do a quick examination of how K-visas 'fit' into the bigger picture.

Make sense?

- Dan

[Admin]

That was the point I was trying to get to. Dan has a interest an IMBRA as it might affect his business as NAFTA has affected mine. The rest of the guys here, not much of an interest as they are either already married or have managed to get through their lives unblemished by the multitude of laws. IMBRA is a non-factor to them. It is very doubtful any of them will lift a finger to fight IMBRA. I'm not other than what I have already done. To the general public it is another 'who cares' non-issue and many may even think it's a good idea because it sticks to those creepy guys who purchase mail order brides. Of course everyone wants to defend women right? So goodbye 1st, 4th and 5th amendment rights, at least in this issue that nobody but a few care about. So that is why I believe that overturning IMBRA is a lost cause.

Overturning IMBRA *is* a lost cause. If that is your objective, then I daresay you are tilting windmills.

But that does not mean there is not 'room' to find common ground with those who are IMBRA proponents.

And BTW - my interest in IMBRA is *not* that it will affect my business, as I have NO BUSINESS that is subject to IMBRA (Dave, I thought we cleared that up a week ago in a different thread).

- Dan

[GQBlues]

I appreciate it, Dan. Thanks...

IMO, where the topic subject is concerned in relation to the recent regulations, notably IMBRA; I really do not believe it will have much of an impact at all. If there's any noticeable drop in the process, it would be because of factors other than the regulation.

I realize IMBRA had not been 'fully' exercised since it's passing and had just recently started to roll its wheels, but I do have a feeling that in time people will understand compliance is pain free and it's solely the idea of 'restraints' is what folks seem to be uncomfortable with at this time. We're creatures of habit and comfort. Not too many of us readily embrace change, let alone one levied by the government (e.g. smoking ban regulations). Change, or the appearance of 'change', somehow appear more daunting than the intent behind the regulation/change or its eventual 'benefit'. Just my opinion.

These regulations are nothing more than to have legal platform for future cases, which the government didn't have in dealing with 'abuse' in recent past that can/may hold IMBs'  accountable.

Immigration was never meant to be a 'business'. K-visas, while a non-immigrant visa process, eventually end up as an immigration tool nonetheless. International marriages, with the introduction/inclusions of IMBs, made this a business - thus government regulation must become a requirement.

In that context, the K-visas look reasonably stable from year to year. There is nothing to indicate that K-visas are increasing or decreasing at a rate that is inconsistent with overall US immigration policy. That is ALL I was hoping to accomplish with the trending.

[JR]

That was the point I was trying to get to. Dan has a interest an IMBRA as it might affect his business as NAFTA has affected mine. The rest of the guys here, not much of an interest as they are either already married or have managed to get through their lives unblemished by the multitude of laws. IMBRA is a non-factor to them. It is very doubtful any of them will lift a finger to fight IMBRA. I'm not other than what I have already done. To the general public it is another 'who cares' non-issue and many may even think it's a good idea because it sticks to those creepy guys who purchase mail order brides. Of course everyone wants to defend women right? So goodbye 1st, 4th and 5th amendment rights, at least in this issue that nobody but a few care about. So that is why I believe that overturning IMBRA is a lost cause.

yeah, I got that, I was just driving the point home.

Looks to me like energy would be well spent figuring out how to get the troops thru the minefield rather than worry about whether or not there will actually be one, there will be.

[acctBill]

That was the point I was trying to get to. Dan has a interest an IMBRA as it might affect his business as NAFTA has affected mine. The rest of the guys here, not much of an interest as they are either already married or have managed to get through their lives unblemished by the multitude of laws. IMBRA is a non-factor to them. It is very doubtful any of them will lift a finger to fight IMBRA. I'm not other than what I have already done. To the general public it is another 'who cares' non-issue and many may even think it's a good idea because it sticks to those creepy guys who purchase mail order brides. Of course everyone wants to defend women right? So goodbye 1st, 4th and 5th amendment rights, at least in this issue that nobody but a few care about. So that is why I believe that overturning IMBRA is a lost cause.

Maxx2 you also forget that a number of us are not Americans.  As Bruno has stated the situation in Europe is entirely different. IMBRA style legislation is probably impossible due to the nature of the EU governing bodies that can overrule some laws of individual countries which themselves are quite different from the US.

[Maxx2]

And BTW - my interest in IMBRA is *not* that it will affect my business, as I have NO BUSINESS that is subject to IMBRA (Dave, I thought we cleared that up a week ago in a different thread).

- Dan

Dan, I was not directly affected when the jewelry manufacturing started moving offshore. I was affected when my main account could no longer continue manufacturing in the US even though they had been doing this for the past 105 years. You are somewhat different when you receive advertising revenue from agencies that operate outside of the US. However a good share of their revenue comes from American clients. If IMBRA and I think more importantly the economy erodes that base it will affect these companies ability to continue this revenue stream at the level it is. I am not one who sees free enterprise or you as a villain or an exploiter or that profit is evil and something that one should be ashamed of. I also see that you are offended by the loss of our personal liberties as I am. I just drove 2500 miles round trip to avoid the TSA nonsense. No naked body scanners and genital gropings for me. I understand many foreigners are avoiding flying into the US but this is of course is another subject but related of course to our loss of liberty.

What TJC did with the help of A&P was not for the betterment of society. It was to construct an easy hunting ground for lawsuits against "IMB-T's" and all the revenue they could get from that. NAFTA set the conditions for the offshoring of our industry. IMBRA set the conditions for what you hinted at as the next step.  

acctBill, I seen your post as was about to post the above. We or at least those using the MOB business are in this together.

[acctBill]

acctBill, I seen your post as was about to post the above. We or at least those using the MOB business are in this together.

That's what I keep hearing from Americans but I can't get an example of how IMBRA can affect the UK or EU.  All I hear is that there is a possibility that similar legislation could emerge in Europe.  The Europeans on RWD in turn say different societies, different values, far different governments. Give me an example of a Brit or EU citizen being impacted by IMBRA when trying to contact a FSUW and I'll listen.       

[Voyager36]

Dan, you have heard of the infamous James Fox. The guy that kicked off the reason for IMBRA. Here is a 5 minute film clip I filmed of him explaining how much money he had to spend defending himself (his record is expunged of these charges), the level of legal effort mounted against him and what motivated this in his opinion.

I found the record of where the damages against Encounters were overturned, but I couldn't find any record of where james Fox was exonerated? Is there a link to this?

http://www.veteransabroad.com/encounters.htm

[Shadow]

That's what I keep hearing from Americans but I can't get an example of how IMBRA can affect the UK or EU.  All I hear is that there is a possibility that similar legislation could emerge in Europe.  The Europeans on RWD in turn say different societies, different values, far different governments. Give me an example of a Brit or EU citizen being impacted by IMBRA when trying to contact a FSUW and I'll listen.       

Lets say that a reasonably large US based site will be enforced to comply with IMBRA. They would have to make a choice between splitting between US and foreign customers or make all submit the same info. Many will choose to oblige submitting information.

[Jooky]

Lets say that a reasonably large US based site will be enforced to comply with IMBRA.

Don't all the large sites already comply with IMBRA?

[Admin]

That's what I keep hearing from Americans but I can't get an example of how IMBRA can affect the UK or EU.  All I hear is that there is a possibility that similar legislation could emerge in Europe.  The Europeans on RWD in turn say different societies, different values, far different governments. Give me an example of a Brit or EU citizen being impacted by IMBRA when trying to contact a FSUW and I'll listen.       

You are correct - sort of.

Imagine for a moment that YOU are the law-abiding owner of an agency that offers services to American clientele, as well as clientele from other countries. It matters little where you are based, as IMBRA is extra-territorial.

IMBRA is designed to place a burden on the IMB. Penalties for failing to follow IMBRA accrue to the IMB, not to their clientele - at least, not yet.

As the IMB owner, and being aware of IMBRA requirements, you would likely devise a system that complies with IMBRA. Now, depending on whether you believe the basis of IMBRA has merit, you might conclude that it is more cost to you (the IMB owner) to maintain two different systems - one for IMBRA clientele and one for other clientele, hence, it is more cost-effective to just have the one that you are mandated to have by IMBRA.

Is that how the big agencies/IMBs work now? I think a couple of them make the same demands for information regardless of the citizenship of the client - but, admittedly, I have not tested this question to be sure.

Aside from that, citizens of foreign countries who are NOT owners of an IMB are likely to not feel much 'sting' from IMBRA.

Does that help?

- Dan

[Admin]

Don't all the large sites already comply with IMBRA?

Depends on who you mean by "all the large sites."

I had a discussion with the owner of the oldest MOB service a while back, and he claims they are exempt from IMBRA - so at least one that I know of does not (or did not) comply with IMBRA. Not sure about the others. You guys with profiles at the big IMBs would have a better sense of their IMBRA compliance or not.

Oh - one more came to mind. About a year ago the owner of the site Bruno mentioned upthread, Dating and Matchmaking, visited here at RWD to get a copy of our draft IMBRA Compliance Kit, and she made it clear they were not complying at that time. Not sure about since then.

FWIW

- Dan

[Vinnvinny]

Is that how the big agencies/IMBs work now? I think a couple of them make the same demands for information regardless of the citizenship of the client - but, admittedly, I have not tested this question to be sure.

When I went with AFA in 2008 I was 'excused' and I understand Jack Bragg only requires IMBRA information from American clients. I have joined other USA based agencies and not been asked but admittedly it was only using their free credits so maybe I wasn't deep enough into their systems for IMBRA to apply.

Anyway, back on the specific topic. I am left with no doubt tonight due to the ridiculous and impartial moderating being enforced elsewhere that the whole report is nothing more that an advanced marketing campaign/back link exercise. Perhaps we should save our energy for when actual new laws are announced and/or the rat surfaces from his den.

[GQBlues]

When I went with AFA in 2008 I was 'excused' and I understand Jack Bragg only requires IMBRA information from American clients.

If so, then that's good value points for Jack.

Maybe Jack can chime in then to see if IMBRA regulations have hindered his business, or has he experienced a drop-off (if any) directly related to the regulations, or any other factors.

[Jooky]

Depends on who you mean by "all the large sites."

Well, there are a lot of sites, but seems to me that the main sites usually discussed here (that I can think of) such as AFA, Anastasia, Elena's Models and so on, already comply with IMBRA.

From experience I only know how Elena's Models complies with IMBRA by requiring US clients to fill out a simple online form. It would be interesting to know if Elena has noticed a drop in the number of clients when this was added to the signup process.

As much as I don't like laws like IMBRA, I honestly don't see how compliance is having any effect on the industry, especially when I hear things like the 'demand' side is increasing but the 'supply' is not there. To me that indicates that IMBRA isn't stopping potential clients, there are just not enough interested ladies on the other side for agencies (at least in Russia) to keep business going as usual.

I think the K visa numbers show the same pattern I pointed out before. If the overall number of K visas is staying around the same, since they have been decreasing in Russia (especially in terms of K visas for people meeting through marriage brokers), then they are likely increasing somewhere else.

[acctBill]

You are correct - sort of.

Imagine for a moment that YOU are the law-abiding owner of an agency that offers services to American clientele, as well as clientele from other countries. It matters little where you are based, as IMBRA is extra-territorial.

IMBRA is designed to place a burden on the IMB. Penalties for failing to follow IMBRA accrue to the IMB, not to their clientele - at least, not yet.

As the IMB owner, and being aware of IMBRA requirements, you would likely devise a system that complies with IMBRA. Now, depending on whether you believe the basis of IMBRA has merit, you might conclude that it is more cost to you (the IMB owner) to maintain two different systems - one for IMBRA clientele and one for other clientele, hence, it is more cost-effective to just have the one that you are mandated to have by IMBRA.

Is that how the big agencies/IMBs work now? I think a couple of them make the same demands for information regardless of the citizenship of the client - but, admittedly, I have not tested this question to be sure.

Aside from that, citizens of foreign countries who are NOT owners of an IMB are likely to not feel much 'sting' from IMBRA.

Does that help?

- Dan

Dan, I just did a quick search on EM which I believe is headquartered in Australia with a significant US presence with regard to US clientele.  EM's response to IMBRA is that only Americans have to do IMBRA related paperwork.  From EM "From 6 March 2006 Elena's Models comply with this law in regard to our USA clients by requesting a Personal Disclosure form to be filled out on the site, which will be sent to all the ladies you want to contact, as according to the law."

Did a quick search of AFA but couldn't find IMBRA related content but their website is so large I didn't have time to do a more thorough check. 

http://www.elenasmodels.com/press/usalaw.htm     

[Jooky]

acctBill,

Here is AFA's page about IMBRA compliance:

http://loveme.com/information/IMBRA/IMBRA-law.htm

From what I gather the 'scare' for non US clients is that is this:

IMBRA will lead to stricter laws such as requiring US marriage broker clients to get fingerprinted even before signing up on a site.

Because of this, marriage brokers will lose a lot of US clients.

With the loss of income, marriage brokers will be forced to close their doors.

That effects non US clients because there will be no marriage brokers for them to use.

[Vinnvinny]

For the record I'm a member of Elena's and Lucky lovers. I have never been required to complete any IMBRA declaration.

[Vinnvinny]

That effects non US clients because there will be no marriage brokers for them to use.

Which has largely been my point from the start. If the USA based IMB were removed tomorrow then (IMO) many American guys would find a different hobby but the effect on serious guys from both the USA and the rest of the world would be minimal. They will use the many other available methods and they will still get on a plane.

[acctBill]

acctBill,

Here is AFA's page about IMBRA compliance:

http://loveme.com/information/IMBRA/IMBRA-law.htm

From what I gather the 'scare' for non US clients is that is this:

IMBRA will lead to stricter laws such as requiring US marriage broker clients to get fingerprinted even before signing up on a site.

Because of this, marriage brokers will lose a lot of US clients.

With the loss of income, marriage brokers will be forced to close their doors.

That effects non US clients because there will be no marriage brokers for them to use.

BS, European citizens will simply use European matchmakers which will still be abundant and in business even if the American matchmaker agencies close their doors.  No European is going to do needless paperwork and get fingerprinted when he can simply use a European matchmaker agency that doesn't have to worry about IMBRA because they don't have an American clientele.

[Bruno]

Lets say that a reasonably large US based site will be enforced to comply with IMBRA. They would have to make a choice between splitting between US and foreign customers or make all submit the same info. Many will choose to oblige submitting information.

I think that it will be a splitting... simply because the tools needed for something like the IMBRA don't exist outside the US... How can a IMB check the Canadian sex offender register when these is not public... in the case of UK, similar sex register database can only be access by the Police, National Probation Service and HM Prison Service personnel.

The main problem is a money one... work with a US customer is more expensive that work with a other customer... the IMB need somebody to check the sex offender database, need somebody for translate result of the sex offender query along with the background info in the native language of the potential bride... IMBRA have a cost tag for the IMB and somehow, customer will pay for it... the real question is if the extra cost generated by IMBRA for IMB is put only on the US customer or shared between all the customer...

Well, similar problem have happen for the online distributor of game... due to different tax level, price of a game is different in US or EU... result was distributor like Impulse where the catalogue is mainly tagged with "US only"... or distributor like Steam who apply different price in function of the origine of the customer, respecting laws of each country... a game on Steam is more expensive for a EU customer that for a US customer... well, as today, Steam who have choose "splitting" is the World leader in online distribution of game...

So, sure that the IMBRA will have effect on the IMB market on a worldwide level... but IMB will adapt... how is the real question...

Depends on who you mean by "all the large sites."

I had a discussion with the owner of the oldest MOB service a while back, and he claims they are exempt from IMBRA - so at least one that I know of does not (or did not) comply with IMBRA. Not sure about the others. You guys with profiles at the big IMBs would have a better sense of their IMBRA compliance or not.

Oh - one more came to mind. About a year ago the owner of the site Bruno mentioned upthread, Dating and Matchmaking, visited here at RWD to get a copy of our draft IMBRA Compliance Kit, and she made it clear they were not complying at that time. Not sure about since then.

well, for the big one, with a world wide business, there is a escape door :

Definition of an International Marriage Broker. “International marriage broker” is defined as an entity (whether or not U.S.-based) that charges fees for providing matchmaking services or social referrals between U.S. citizens/permanent residents and foreign nationals. The definition also exempts nonprofit religious or cultural matchmaking services, and dating services that do not match U.S. citizens/residents with aliens as their principal business and that charge comparable rates and offer comparable services to all clients, regardless of gender or country of citizenship.

From what I gather the 'scare' for non US clients is that is this:

IMBRA will lead to stricter laws such as requiring US marriage broker clients to get fingerprinted even before signing up on a site.

Because of this, marriage brokers will lose a lot of US clients.

With the loss of income, marriage brokers will be forced to close their doors.

That effects non US clients because there will be no marriage brokers for them to use.

well, i will use partial quote from post i have made on a other forum in a topic related to Andrew paper...

That said, I know the Benelux, Germany, France, Scandinavia, Austria and Switzerland are large markets too. But most of the mega agencies are US based or US facing. Do you have a different view Bruno, as a multi lingual Benelux resident ex-agency owner? 

let see two example...

- a well know free site ( www.freepersonals.ru )... 15242 men where 3990 are from USA : 26%
- a big agency ( www.alena-marriage-agency.com )... 84434 men where 18497 are from USA : 22%

I am pretty sure that any international site with both women and men profile will have similar ratio... around the 25% of US men...

Consider: let's take Bruno's suggested figure of perhaps fifteen or twenty per cent of all customers for a moment.... if fifteen to twenty per cent of the clientele should disappear, can they survive to serve the other eighty to eighty-five percent?

Let review your number... 20% of all customer are from US... 20% of the US client should disappear due to Imbra... 20% of 20% is 4%... meaning that agency will need to survive with 96% of customer...

The error in your math is that you consider a drop of 20% of all customer, US and the rest of the world included... but IMBRA apply only to US customer... for have a result similar to your 80%, you need a agency who have 100% of US customer...

Again, it show why the relative size of US versus non-US customers is very important to the financial impact of the IMBRA for marriage agency.

If the agencies are marginally profitable now -- and according to many in the industry that seems to be the case for many --

Source/evidence please !!!

Today, big agency give 30-35% of the money spend by a referal system customer... if agency are able to give 30-35% away, it mean that their profit margin are somehow in the 50%... and in case of a direct customer, they will enjoy these full profit margin...

Let see a example... right side on these forum, there is ads for Elenasmodels ... their affiliate program have a 50% commissions ... seem that % of commissions have greatly increase in the last few years... if agency was marginally profitable now, why they increase commissions !!!

Believe me, there is huge amount of money involved in the dating/marriage industrie, specially in the big network... it is the little agency with a few customer who have difficult... these will maybe die... pity since they are usually the good agency with quality service, who really know their customer ( women - men )....

In some way, it is like the little local store at the corner of your street who disappear because of the big supermarket...

Jooky, sorry for the heavy "quote" reply... i am a lazy guy and don't like reply two time to the same thing... anyway, same if no official data exist, we can say that US citizen are around 25% of all male customer... that if 20% of US guy give up due to the IMBRA, it will mean a drop of 5% of the whole market... MOB business have relative large margin, specially when you see how much they give for referal system when compare to referal for other business... so, i don't think that IMBRA is a so huge problem for the MOB business...

[Jooky]

BS, European citizens will simply use European matchmakers which will still be abundant and in business even if the American matchmaker agencies close their doors.  No European is going to do needless paperwork and get fingerprinted when he can simply use a European matchmaker agency that doesn't have to worry about IMBRA because they don't have an American clientele.

Yup, I agree. The argument I posted above is BS.

I also agree with Bruno, however if laws require men to get fingerprinted before even signing up for a site, agencies that rely on US customers will lose more than 20% of their customers. Closer to 90% would be my guess.

It really doesn't matter. If the 'supply' is there, agencies will adapt. If the 'supply' is gone, agencies will shut down. For the serious guy, most agencies and sites as they are run today serve as more of an obstacle anyways.