For those of you looking for foreign women via websites be aware of the new legislation coming down the pipe.
I wonder if this will apply for players going overseas looking for providers.
by deforesting the entire freaking country, turning every chip of wood into paper, filling it with useless investigations to be filed in the National Archives, a/k/a West Virginia landfill.
Then they are tired of that, they will use every damned last electron to file similarly useless electronic records.
When will Americans learn that it is not Arabs who are their enemy, it is their own busybody next-door neighbors??
who came up with that idea sure needs a workover.
SECTION 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) There is a substantial international marriage broker business worldwide. A 1999 report by the Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that there were at least 200 such companies operating in the United States, and that as many as 4,000 to 6,000 individuals in the United States, almost all male, found foreign spouses through for-profit international marriage brokers each year. The international marriage broker business has grown significantly in recent years, greatly facilitated by the Internet. Studies suggest that in 2005 approximately 500 such companies operate in the United States. In addition, the total number of foreign individuals entering the United States to marry United States residents each year more than doubled between 1998 and 2002. It is estimated, then, that in 2005 at least 8,000 to 12,000 individuals in the United States find foreign spouses through for-profit international marriage brokers each year.
(2) That report noted that the `pervasiveness of domestic violence in our society has already been documented, and with the burgeoning number of unregulated international matchmaking organizations and clients using their services, the potential for abuse in mail-order marriages is considerable.' The report noted further that men in the United States who use the services of an international marriage broker tend to seek relationships with women whom they feel they can control.
(3) The dangers posed to foreign women who meet their United States husbands through international marriage brokers are underscored by the growing number of cases across the United States of foreign women who have been abused or killed by those husbands. Two highly publicized examples are the murders in Washington State of Susanna Remunerata Blackwell of the Philippines and Anastasia Solovieva King of Kyrgyzstan.
(4) A 2003 survey of programs providing legal services to battered immigrant women across the country found that more than 50 percent of these programs had served female immigrant clients battered by men in the United States they met through international marriage brokers.
(5) 30.4 percent of all women in the United States are physically abused by their husbands or male cohabitants at some point in their lives. 49.3 percent of immigrants reported physical abuse by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, with 42.1 percent reporting severe physical or sexual abuse. Among immigrants who were married or formerly married the lifetime abuse rate raises as high as 59.5 percent.
(6) Of abusive United States citizen or legal resident spouses, 72.3 percent never file the immigration papers necessary for their foreign spouses to obtain legal immigrant status, and the 27.7 percent who eventually do file wait an average of 4 years to do so. In 1994, Congress included immigration protections in the Violence Against Women Act (`VAWA') (Public Law 103-322; 108 Stat. 1902), to remove the ability of abusive United States citizens and legal permanent residents to fully control their foreign spouses' ability to gain legal immigration status. By removing the threat of automatic deportation, VAWA aims to enable battered immigrants to take actions to protect themselves and their children, such as calling the police, obtaining a civil protection order, or filing criminal charges.
(7) Aliens seeking to enter the United States to marry citizens or legal residents of the United States currently lack the ability to access and fully verify personal history information about their prospective spouses in the United States.
(8) Many individuals entering the United States on K nonimmigrant visas to marry citizens of the United States are unaware of United States laws regarding--
(A) domestic violence, including protections for immigrant victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking;
(B) prohibitions on involuntary servitude;
(C) protections from automatic deportation; and
(D) the role of police and the courts in providing assistance to victims of domestic violence and other crimes.
you won't mistake these for facts. All the documentation I've seen says that DV among international marriages is LOWER than domestic marriages. Why, who knows? COuld be that the guy who travels is in a higher socio-economic bracket, and less prone to communicating this way.
It's real clear that this is gender politics. Jealousy doesn't bother me, although I'd rather see it expressed with lifted skirts & opened legs; what bothers me is the reality that the people behind this are the political busybodies who want to make sure that, if they are so fucking disagreeable that they can't get laid, then by God, nobody else will get laid either.
But a discussion that has merit where there are many who believe the abuse and trafficking of immigrant women needs to be corrected.
I agree that some measure of action to prevent the abuse of immigrant women should be taken, what is at contention here in this discussion is this bill – a little extreme IMHO.
I know little about the statistical difference in DV for US Citizen as opposed to Immigrants – but what I see and am reading tonight is different then what you state contend – that DV is higher among US Citizens.
I will show you where I read this from, please show me where you are finding the DV higher among US citizens then the immigrant women.
See section - BATTERED IMMIGRANT WOMEN http://www.abanet.org/domviol/stats.html
The greater problem here isn't even the screening; it's the economic impact to the hundreds of businesses currently operating.
Also, noted was the fact this bill does not apply to the non-profit organizations doing the same? I guess they assume they will be self regulated or are at less risk. I think it's a matter of collecting a new tax or fee. This market is worth Millions.
[[the abuse and trafficking of immigrant women needs to be corrected.]]
(1) Equating looking for a MO bride to "abuse & trafficking of immigrant women". This is very close to Catherine McKinnon's concept that "all sex is rape". Do not forget this woman was a professor of law at the time she floated this concept, and while its legal merit could be debated, its practical effect is to criminalize the continuation of the species, inter alia. Somehow I think this is not merely academic concept, but a pointlessly hostile one. I personally am aware of any number of women who enjoy sex thoroughly - not to say they are typical or anything, but I do suspect it's reasonably normal.
(2) Equating men looking for a bride (however misguided they may be) to sexual trafficking is just incredibly hostile and misguided. I suspect there are real sexual trafficking issues, but (a) they aren't centered in the USA as much as east Europe, Asia, and the mideast, and (b) they are more tied to commercial prostitution & other entertainment operations, not INDIVIDUALS who are usually looking for ONE person.
The apparant motive of people behind this legislation is not to punish commercial entertainment operators, but men who look overseas for brides - not the Thai tour users, but men usually looking for 1-1 LTRs. Does this apply to multinational operators like Match/Yahoo personals? Probably not. Does this legislation require more than an affidavit? No. So it's basically pointless harassment of the wrong people, and what could the motive be? Simple: the self-appointed "women's lobby" (ie, the ones who equate looking for a bride overseas to trafficking, while ignoring real issues like HIV epidemics and commercial conspiracies) are feeling out their allies. Who is into busybody politics, who will get behind legislation solely because of its label?
I think there is a serious problem that this may distract from enforcement from real trafficking issues, but for the busybodies, its not about solving problems, its about giving the busybodies enough power over their neighbors to allow the busybodies to improve their self-esteem. What they really need is to be treated as they were in 17th century New England, eg ducked in the local pond.
(3) [[what is at contention here in this discussion is this bill – a little extreme IMHO.]]
Not so much extreme as misguided and hostile. 1st, they aim at the wrong people, and they know it. 2nd, what the hell difference is a statement going to make? How is it legally enforceable?
(4) [please show me where you are finding the DV higher among US citizens then the immigrant women.]
I cannot recall where I saw that. I have several friends regularly involved with multinational & immigrant families and marriage issues, and have periodic contact with this issue.
The general question would be, what evidence do we have that DV is HIGHER among immigrant families than US?
I will agree there are abuses, but most of those, IMHO, are tied to defects in the code itself, and are overlooked by legislators because the individuals do not want to come forward. Instead, we have professional busybodies calling the shots.
Don't kid yourself: this is not about protecting immigrants - nobody likes immigrants these days, even if they are helpless & beautiful babes. What it's about is political gestures to embarrass men who are perceived as out of the mainstream. It's not about making them sign affidiavits - it's about equating any man who looks overseas for a bride (imagine Fred Reed's comments on the issue) with a wife-beater and sexual trafficker. This is the politics of gender hostility, and it's shameful.
(5) [[The greater problem here isn't even the screening; it's the economic impact to the hundreds of businesses currently operating.
Also, noted was the fact this bill does not apply to the non-profit organizations doing the same? I guess they assume they will be self regulated or are at less risk. I think it's a matter of collecting a new tax or fee. This market is worth Millions.]]
I doubt that analysis. My impression is that the actual market is full of small time self-employed independent operators on a thin margin, who are uncoordinated anarchists. Cumulatively, I agree it's large, but I suspect it's mostly small operators who are easy political targets.
What I have heard is that the real money is in the associated travel businesses. I don't know, but it makes sense to me.
Noted that it does not apply to non-profits. I also doubt that it would apply to anybody offshore (as in the Caymans), and would not apply to international connections in operations like Match or Yahoo. IOW, it's purely a political gesture, aimed at marginalizing a target group, using a misleading label ("violence" and "trafficking").
I can describe many abuses in the system, but again, my perceptions is that these are legal defects in the code, not the problems of people, and certainly these measures don't come close to a cure.
You should note that the Philippine Republic outlawed MO bride operations at one time (maybe still) and yet the RPI has always been one of the most active sources. (There's a lot of pro & con to be said about this culture, just like most.) I think the lesson may be that economic and social issues cannot always be changed by simple legislation - eg, you cannot reduce rents by passing a law. If a couple has any hopes in each other, politicians are not going to be able to do much except cluck; and IMHO, they should keep their mouths shut until such time as they are canonized, maybe 2 or 3 centuries after their deaths, eh?
note the qualifying language unique in this section, "may be", "thought to be", etc.
IOW, they don't have stats. I believe I have seen stats, without archiving them, indicating that (a) men who travel overseas for brides are in the economic upper strata, and (b) DV stats in those marriages compare closely to those in comparable economic strata, ie, much lower than the country at large, (c) multinational marriages tend to last somewhat longer than domestic ones. There have been serious questions about the validity of studies underlying the 1986 IMFA, but the reality is that it has become a part of the culture, and people have adapted.
My perception and observation is that the abuses they describe - which I have seen - relate directly to problems with the immigration code. The solution is eg is to allow a spouse to be a self-petitioner, so that the green card cannot be held over their head. That will not happen, because it will have the effect of opening the doors to any babe who wants to come to the USA, and what the legislation is really about is the expression of hostility and frustration of the authors that George Clooney is not banging on their door to marry them, because they have arachnid personalities. Life is tough all over: Sophia Loren didn't marry me, but I didn't seek a legislative remedy.
Other abuses are in the bureaucracy, and the solution is in the bureaucrats doing their job. I often think that limitations of sovereign immunity, for example reenactment of the Equal Access to Justice Act, would be the proper solution.
I find it curious that the legislation does not truly remedy the abuses noted in the findings, eg, inability to authorize their own papers.
The logical explanation would be that we are not trying to protect women, but make an empty political gesture to harass the men who divorced the authors of this legislation, and now somehow think that a foreign virgin will be different.
All these people need to be locked in padded cells with equally crazy psychiatrists, instead of wasting taxpayer money with silly-assed legislation.
[[30.4 percent of all women in the United States are physically abused by their husbands or male cohabitants at some point in their lives]]
and not something that sounds right from my observation. Maybe some boys are getting in the licks that I don't know about, or maybe somebody is playing with stats. While I find physical violence much more rare, I do find it fairly common for a woman to claim abuse based on the husband "shouting" at her, which upon investigation, turns out that he was saying something unpleasant or not "supportive".
I think the solution is fairly obvious; we should not allow boys and girls to live together under any circumstances. Copulation is to be closely supervised only after application for and approval of a special use permit....
So an American completes this affidavit, swearing that he's not a bad fellow. (Incidentally, the prior marriages thing already has to be documented on both sides.)
It's not a big deal if he tells the truth. If he lies, then what? Can the govt prosecute him? I suppose, but the fact is that they never prosecute much more serious things.
Can the spouse sue him? Well, yes, but for what? Fraud? What is the damage? Only if she says, well, I would never have married him if I knew this. Fine, annul the marriage. Problem is, I'm pretty sure that destroys her claims to divide the property and get alimony. So that ain't going to happen.
It's all part of the International Bureaucratic DoGooders' Conspiracy to Destroy the USA With Useless Paperwork (IBDGCDUSAWUP). IBDGCDUSAWUP is a subdivision of Al Qaeda.
Next year we're going to see VAWA amended to make it illegal to offend a woman. You ugly guys better get find a good Italian tailor to make yourself some burqas.
Me, I'm headed back to my home planet. Fuck this shit.
On the "Left" we have good intentioned people who feel that political correctness should be legislated on us to the extent of allowing convicted pedophiles to apply for positions in child care centers.
On the "Right" we have an administration and mind-set devoted to extending an emergency legislation (The Patriot Act) that all but eviscerates our Bill of Rights. (It is the above mentioned opposing factions BOTH joining to gut our internet freedoms)
The FCC has successfully censored the airwaves so that the single most popular, revenue generating talk radio jock had to seek asylum for free speech on a pay satellite radio network.
Since the early seventies we have been advised to buy more fuel efficient automobiles to lessen our dependency on and to furthermore conserve petroleum. Yet with an internal combustion engine readily available that delivers 30+ percent greater mileage per gallon along with giving greater overall service life several States have effectively outlawed the sale of new cars being powered by Diesel fuel.
BTW-Diesel is ecologically as clean or cleaner in many ways than gas
In three short months Americans from sea to shining sea will be scrambling to understand(or pay someone else to) more changes to our ridiculously abstruse Income Tax laws. These annual revisions are written to change last years legal write-offs to this years culpability of evasion and fraud.
I look forward cynically to our next Presidential Election to see whether it is a popular vote, an electoral college or a Supreme Court decision that names our next leader.
It doesn’t matter whether they call themselves Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative. Those with or in power will always seek to control and engineer society to their favor while slathering us with philanthropic rhetoric while wrapping themselves in the flag.
FR.
is useless. Even politicians who get elected to clean house wind up spending more money and creating more patronage, ie useless jobs.
Even the GOP comes up with the strategy of bankrupting the govt to limit useless programs, and how do they do this? By getting involved in programs that are not only useless, but also uncontrollable. Now that is truly dumb.
I can't object to something that really contributes to a community, like roads, honest cops, etc. But exactly what is the point of the BS described in the lead post? What is this useless crap? If you want to lean on somebody for beating his GF, battery works just fine. I'm very reluctant to get worried about what SOs call each other, because I just don't think we should get into people's relationships.
The BDSM folks should be shaking in their boots. They're gonna license those people. And there won't be any more happy spanking, I guess. Fucking idiots are going to take all the fun out of life, just because of their own emotional inadequacy.
who are sensible, and determined.
We have so many fringers like Pat Robertson and Mike Moore running around making money from entertaining people by fucking up their lives, it's no surprise we should have a President whose idea of political utility is to declare Jesus Day.
We need a Radical Moderate Party, mainstream vigifuckinglantes who will test for BS, and knock the heads of BSers.
...with a bit of political discussion creeping back from the ghetto of the "Politics Board" which is too polemic for its own good. As long as we keep name calling to zero, we may actually get away with it on the General Discussion Board. FOr those of you too young to remember, political discussion was sent off to the Politics Board which was created as a kind of leper colony for the TER discussion board. As an historical note---it was quite an election year when it happened.
one of the more common reasons for'n women give for joining these services is that American men are widely regarded as NOT nearly as prone to the stereotypical abuses - drunks, wife-beaters, daughter-molesters, etc.
I think we need a International Appreciation Day for American Men, and we celebrate this day by beating the shit out of pinatas made to look like Andrea Dworkin (that would not be hard, would it?) and what we use is our wallets. Or alternatively, you can hire a wetback to use a baseball bat. Because it's all about the $$$$.
You have a point, but remember, I only mistreated those people OUTSIDE my fambly. The girls all loved me, and so what if I got them in big trouble? I'm not doing anything that Shrub isn't doing for his country, ie, getting them in big trouble.
-- Modified on 12/20/2005 3:38:06 PM
my sheets are starched from whacking off thinking of you...