International Marriage Broker Regulation Act

IMBRA

International Marriage Broker Regulation Act

IMBRA: On May 26th, 2006 a feminist Republican federal judge in Ohio, Thomas Rose, declared that “American men have no Constitutional right to meet foreign women (the exact words were: the Supreme Court has never explicitly recognized a fundamental liberty interest in Americans meeting foreigners for relationships).

BoardServer
 

Let this judge and US politicians know that our Veterans did not fight for such a country. Period. It is Congress’ duty to protect Americans, not foreigners.

Here are the sick words of this judge as the 2006 Memorial Day Weekend began.

This moron doesn’t deserve to shine the shoes of veterans, much less tell veterans that they have no Constitutional right to meet foreigners and to call veteran males “products” being sold to foreign women that need warning labels on them.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

EUROPEAN CONNECTIONS & : TOURS, INC., : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO. : ALBERTO GONZALES in his official : 1:06-CV-0426-CC capacity as Attorney General of the : United States and THE UNITED : STATES OF AMERICA, : : Defendants. :

ORDER On February 24, 2006, Plaintiff European Connections & Tours, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) commenced the above-styled action against Alberto Gonzales, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, and against the United States of America (collectively referred to herein as “Defendants”), contending that the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (the “Act”) is unconstitutional under the First and Fifth Amendments. Contemporaneously with the filing of the Complaint, Plaintiff moved the Court to enter a temporary restraining order enjoining Defendants from enforcing the Act against Plaintiff. On March 3, 2006, the matter came before the Court for a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. No. 2]. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court orally granted the Motion. Consistent with its ruling at the hearing, the Court hereby enters the instant written Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.1

 

I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, according to the Complaint, is an “international marriage broker” (“IMB”) within the meaning of the Act. Section 833(e)(4)(A) defines an IMB as follows:

(4) INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER. –- (A) IN 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, matchmaking services, or social referrals between United States citizens or nationals or aliens lawfully admitted to the United States as permanent residents and foreign national clients by providing personal contact information or otherwise facilitating communication between individuals.

 

In Section 833(e)(4)(B), the Act provides for two exceptions to this definition of IMB, including the following:

(i) a traditional matchmaking organization of a cultural or 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

(ii) an entity that provides dating services if its principal business is not to provide international dating services between United States citizens or United States residents and foreign nationals and it charges comparable rates and offers comparable services to all individuals it serves regardless of the individual’s gender or country of citizenship.

 

As relevant to the case at bar, the Act requires an IMB to collect background information about a United States client to whom the personal contact information of foreign national clients would be provided. See Section 833(d)(2)(A)(ii). Section 833(d)(2)(B) requires the IMB to collect a certification signed by the United States client accompanied by documentation concerning certain information regarding, without limitation, the following: (1) temporary or permanent civil protection orders or restraining orders issued against the United States client; (2) arrests or convictions of the United States client for, inter alia, homicide, assault, sexual assault, torture, trafficking, kidnapping, or stalking; (3) arrests or convictions of the United States client for engaging in prostitution, attempting to procure prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution, or receiving the proceeds of prostitution; (4) arrests or convictions of the United States client for offenses related to controlled substances or alcohol; (5) marital history of the United States client; (6) the ages of any of the United States client’s children who are under the age of 18; and (7) all States and countries in which the United States client has resided since the client was 18 years of age.

 

The Act prohibits an IMB from disclosing the “personal contact information” of a foreign national client to a United States client or representative without first obtaining the foreign national client’s “informed consent.” See Section 833(d)(3)(A). To obtain informed consent from a foreign national client, the IMB must search the national or state sex offender registry, collect the background information of the United States client specified supra, provide to the foreign national client the information retrieved about the United States client, provide to the foreign national client an information pamphlet on legal rights and resources for immigrant victims of domestic violence, and receive from the foreign national client a signed written consent to release the foreign national client’s personal contact information to the United States client. See Section 833(d)(3)(A).

 

II. STANDARD In order to obtain a temporary restraining order, the movant must demonstrate the following: (1) a substantial likelihood of ultimate success on the merits; (2) that a temporary restraining order is necessary to prevent irreparable injury; (3) that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the harm the temporary restraining order would inflict on the opposing party; and (4) that the issuance of a temporary restraining order would serve the public interest. Ingram v. Ault, 50 F.3d 898, 900 (11th Cir. 1995).

 

III. DISCUSSION In this case, Plaintiff brings a facial challenge to the provisions of the Act discussed supra, arguing that the restrictions on the ability of an IMB to disclose the personal contact information of its foreign national clients violates its rights under the First and Fifth Amendments. More specifically, Plaintiff contends that the Act is an unconstitutional content-based prior restraint under the First Amendment and that the Act unconstitutionally denies equal protection under the Fifth Amendment Among other things, Plaintiff argues that the distinctions contained in the Act as to the entities, persons, and groups qualifying as IMBs under the Act are not rationally related to the harm Congress sought to prevent by passing the Act. Plaintiff also argues that the Act does not employ the least restrictive means of advancing a governmental interest because the Act regulates IMBs rather than regulating the conduct of the IMBs’ clients. Plaintiff finally argues that the challenged provisions of the Act are not narrowly tailored to serve Congress’ interest in protecting immigrant women from domestic abuse by United States males.

 

A. Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits The Court believes that there is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiff will prevail on the merits of its First and Fifth Amendment claims. Courts use the fourprong test articulated in Central Husdon Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557, 566, 100 S. Ct. 2343, 2351, 65 L. Ed.2d 341 (1980) to determine if commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment. Specifically, a court must determine the following: (1) whether the speech concerns lawful activity and is not misleading; (2) whether the regulation serves a substantial governmental interest; (3) whether the regulation directly and materially advances the state’s asserted interest; and (4) whether the regulation is no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. See This That and Other Gift and Tobacco, Inc. v. Cobb County, 285 F.3d 1319, 1323 (11th Cir. 2000).

 

This Court does not believe that the Act meets the last two steps of Central Hudson. As an initial matter, it appears to the Court that there is no governmental interest suitably furthered by the distinctions made by the Act as to the brokers covered by the Act. That is, the distinctions contained in the Act as to the entities, persons, and groups qualifying as IMBs under the Act are not rationally related to the harm Congress sought to prevent by passing the Act. As with the legislation addressed by the Supreme Court in Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass’n v. United States, 527 U.S. 173, 190, 119 S. Ct. 1923, 144 L. Ed. 2d 161 (1999), the operation of the Act “is so pierced by exemptions and inconsistencies that the Government cannot hope to exonerate it.” Additionally, at this stage, the Court is of the opinion that the Act is more extensive than necessary to serve the governmental interest in protecting immigrant women from domestic abuse by United States males in that the disclosures required to be made by the IMBs are overbroad.

 

Finally, with respect to Plaintiff’s equal protection claim, the Court finds that the exemption of various types of marriage brokers from regulation under the Act appears to be a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

B. Irreparably Injury Plaintiff has also shown that it will suffer irreparably injury if a temporary restraining order is not issued. In Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 96 S. Ct. 2673, 49 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1976), the Supreme Court held that “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Id. at 373; see also Tillman v. Miller, 917 F. Supp. 799, 801 (N.D. Ga. 1995) (“It is widely recognized that a violation of the First Amendment free speech rights of a citizen of the United States is the type of inquiry [sic] that cannot be remedied merely by money damages but instead is properly corrected only through the equitable powers of the federal courts.”). Insofar as this case implicates the loss of Plaintiff’s First Amendment freedoms, the Court finds that irreparable injury has been shown.

C. Balance of the Harms The Court similarly finds that the threatened injury to Plaintiff outweighs the harm that the temporary restraining order would inflict on Defendants. The threatened injury to Plaintiff is irreparable, while the damage that would be inflicted on Defendants is minimal. See Tillman, 917 F. Supp. at 801 (“The harm that would befall Plaintiff from the loss of his First Amendment rights far outweighs any harm that the State might suffer from a delay in the effective date of the statute.”).

 

D. Public Interest Finally, the issuance of a temporary restraining order would serve the public interest because the public has a strong interest in assuring that Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights are not violated. See Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257, 1276 (11th Cir. 2001) (“the public interest is always served in promoting First Amendment values”); see also Tillman, 917 F. Supp. at 801 (“There is no harm to the public from granting an injunction that would prohibit enforcement of the Statute until the Court has evaluated its constitutionality, especially when the Statute could impair a fundamental constitutional right to free speech as guaranteed under the First Amendment.”).

 

IV. CONCLUSION Plaintiff having satisfied all four requirements necessary for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. No. 2]. Accordingly, Defendants are barred from enforcing the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 against Plaintiff during the pendency of this temporary restraining order. Further, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b), the motion for preliminary injunction is hereby set down for hearing on March 20, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. Finally, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c), the Court does not require Plaintiff to post security. See Corrigan Dispatch Co. v. Casa Guzman, 569 F.2d 300, 303 (5th Cir. 1978)

 

SO ORDERED this 7th day of March, 2006. s/ CLARENCE COOPER CLARENCE COOPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

IMBRA

American Men Are Not Abusers !

      It does not matter if you are a Liberal or a Conservative, a Democrat or a Republican, a man or a woman, an American or a Foreigner, the conclusion is the same.  The International Marriage Brokers Act of 2005 (IMBRA) is repugnant to the letter and the spirit Constitution of the United States.

      IMBRA violates almost every listed right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights both textually and under the penumbra of these rights.  It goes against every major decision by the Supreme Court protecting the sanctity of marriage and privacy therein.  IMBRA is hetero phobic, racist and sexist.

     While homosexuals are achieving greater freedom to marry, IMBRA restricts the rights of heterosexuals to marry.

      While the immigrant wives of American husbands are safer in this country, IMBRA will force more women to be abused and murdered in their home countries. 

      While marriage fraud is an unfortunate occurrence in immigration, IMBRA hurts women from entering sincere marriages and publishes a guide on how to commit marriage fraud.

      While criminals are achieving more rights, IMBRA strips law abiding citizens of theirs.

      While the Men of America have liberated Europe and the world from Communist and Nazi terror and have a legacy of decency and honor, IMBRA dishonors them by labeling them as being abusers. 

     While Congressmen condemn Google for internet censorship in China, it practices censorship in America !

      IMBRA is immoral.  IMBRA is unconstitutional.  IMBRA is UnAmerican.

      I am not going to take this.  I am not an abuser.  I have no criminal record.  I have nothing to hide.  I should not be treated like a criminal.  I should not submit to questioning and “prove my innocence” just to communicate to another human being.  I should not have to be embarrassed to explain to my future wife why she needs so much protection against “rampant” abuse by American men.  I am challenging this case in the Federal court system.  I am collecting as much data, information, and resources as possible to prepare for this.  I ask anyone that can provide anything to contact me.  I am especially looking for people who can communicate to the American people what a travesty this law is.  I am also looking for lawyers who specialize in Constitutional Law.  My email is michaellovesnyc@aol.com

Thank you and May God Bless America.

Wendy McElroy’s article in “iFeminist” on Fox News: Mail Order Bride Law Brands All American Men Abusers
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180487,00.html
From Gary Bala, a prominent immigration attorney

Date: January 05, 2006

Dear Clients, Friends and Supporters,

On January 05, 2006, President Bush signed into law the “International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005”, H.R. 3402, Public Law No. 109-162, Title VIII, Subtitle D.

SEE: White House Announcement

This law was attached to the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 up for renewal (passed by House and Senate). No public hearings were conducted, or any witnesses questioned. There was no statistical evidence submitted regarding International marriages, subsequent divorces or incidences of domestic violence. In fact, all informal studies suggest that inter-cultural couples enjoy a divorce rate percentage much smaller than the national domestic rate of 50%. More discussion will certainly result from this as individuals learn of this law’s enactment.

For the text of the final version of the new law, see this link (in Adobe PDF Format):

International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005

WHAT IS THIS NEW LAW? WHAT DROVE IT?

Based on a very few unfortunate cases around the country of a foreign lady spouse who became a victim of domestic abuse, Congress passed a law to, understandably, offer some protection for these immigrant women. The law was passed as part of the passage of the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization of 2005.

The new law is called the “International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005”. It requires all U.S. gentlemen who petition for a fiancee or spousal visa to provide more personal background information to Immigration Service and the State Department than ever before. It creates more restrictions in the process such as the number of fiancee or spousal petitions one can file, and how quickly a gentleman can file some visa petitions.

The law also requires a U.S. gentleman who wishes to meet his future fiancee or spouse through an “International Marriage Broker” to first submit extensive personal background information to the broker agency. The broker must then share that information with a future lady fiancee or spouse who must consent before the couple can start a communication and relationship.

WHY IS THIS LAW IMPORTANT? WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR ME?

For the foreign ladies, the law is important because it tries to protect immigrant women by allowing them to review a potential gentleman suitor’s background before starting a relationship. For the gentlemen, it means that they must be prepared to forego some privacy and offer some extensive background data. Perhaps, the best way to view this law is simply to acknowledge the obvious: in the long run, full disclosure is the best “relationship” policy.

WHAT EXACTLY ARE SOME OF THE PROVISIONS?

Some highlights of the new law:

1. NEW PETITION FORMS: New I-129F Fiancee and Spousal Visa petitions will require that the petitioner provide information on his criminal convictions for specified crimes, including violent offenses, domestic abuse and sexual assualt.

2. LIMIT ON NUMBER OF PETITIONS: Some petitioners will need to wait before they can successfully file for a fiancee visa. For example, if you filed two (2) or more fiancee visa petitions in the past, and at least one of them was approved, you must wait two (2) years from the filing date of the last approved petition before you can be successfully approved for another fiancee visa petition. (Exception: Under some circumstances, a petitioner may be able to obtain a “waiver”.)

3. MULTIPLE VISA PETITION DATABASE: Any person approved for a second visa petition or filing a third visa petition will be notified by Immigration that their case has been put into a special visa petition database which will track multiple petition filers and help identify those who might be abusing the system.

4. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PAMPHLET BROCHURE: Homeland Security will develop and make available on USCIS, State Department and Embassy websites a domestic violence pamphlet brochure in 14 languages and revised every 2 years which discusses the visa process, adjustment of status, conditional residency, marriage and visa fraud, domestic violence abuse rights, where and how to get help and other warnings and notifications.

5. CONSULAR INTERVIEW: The Consular Officer at interview will provide the visa applicant with a copy of the fiancee or spousal petition, and information and documents in her native language on any past marital and divorce history, past criminal history and past domestic violence history of the petitioner. The Consular Officer will also answer any questions about the domestic violence pamphlet brochure. The Consular Officer will also ask the visa applicant if the relationship was facilitated by an International Marriage Broker and , if so, confirm that the broker provided the applicant with information or documents about the petitioner’s background.

6. REGULATION OF INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKERS (IMBs): IMBs are required to check the National Sex Offender public registry and state public registry for each specific U.S. client, and to gather mandatory background information and documents on that particular U.S. client’s past criminal history, including prostitution offenses, past domestic violence history, past marital and divorce history, past visa petition history, ages of any children under age 18, and all states and countries where the U.S. client lived since age 18. IMBs must then provide that information to the foreign client lady in her native language and secure a signed, written consent from her before releasing her personal contact information to that specific U.S. client. The law imposes stiff civil and criminal penalties of up to $25,000 and up to 5 years in federal prison for each broker violation.

WHEN DOES THE LAW GO INTO EFFECT? WHAT SHOULD I DO?

Most of the new law’s provisions go into effect in sixty (60) days after date of enactment, which is early March 2006. The bottom line for gentlemen and foreign ladies with an international romance and courtship is, if possible, to finalize their engagement and file their visa petitions as soon as possible.

WHAT IF I DISAGREE WITH THIS LAW? HOW DO I COMPLAIN ABOUT IT?

Many gentlemen value their rights of privacy. Many gentlemen feel that this new law might unduly impinge on their rights of free speech and free association as U.S. citizens. Perhaps, the law may also intrude on equal protection rights of U.S. citizens who are required to provide extensive background data for foreign romances but not for domestic dating. If you wish to register and voice your concerns and complaints about this law, please contact your federal Senator’s or local Congressman’s office.

SEE THIS LINK FOR HELP:

Contacting the Congress

WHAT NEXT?

Needless to say, this new law mandates a significant change in the way the fiancee and spousal visa process will take place. It poses new challenges to brokers, U.S. clients and foreign clients alike in the international romance field. In the coming days and weeks, we will together monitor and follow the roll-out of this new law. Your comments, suggestions and ideas are welcome.

Good luck to all,

Gary Bala
USA Immigration Attorney
Pennsylvania USA
Web: www.garybala.com
E-Mail: gb@garybala.com
Tel: 610-446-VISA (8472)

SOME MORE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
ABOUT THE NEW LAW:

Q #1: What is the definition of “International Marriage Broker (IMB)”? Are there exceptions? Does this law apply to my favorite international correspondence Internet website?

Answer: IMB is defined very broadly in this law, as are all relevant terms in this law. (Bo Cooper, former INS General Counsel from several years ago, actually drafted this law; he sits on the board of directors of the feminist Tahirih Justice Center and intended to provide broad abuse protection to immigrant fiancées and brides.)

The definition of IMB (paraphrased) is any corporation, individual, or legal entity, whether or not existing under the laws of the U.S., who charges fees for providing dating, matrimonial, matchmaking or social referrals.

There are two exceptions: 1) cultural and religious matchmaking organizations which offer their services on a non-profit basis, and 2) a dating service whose principal business is not international dating and which charges comparable rates for comparable services to all individuals, men and women, domestic and foreign.

Your favorite international correspondence Internet website would be subject to this law, IF the exceptions enumerated above do not apply.

Q #2: How are the terms “U.S. client” and “Foreign National Client” defined? Does this law apply to women U.S. citizens who seek a male partner abroad through an IMB?

Answer: The definition of “U.S. client” is any U.S. citizen or other person who resides in the U.S. who makes a payment or incurs debt for an IMB’s services.

The definition of “foreign national client” is anyone outside the U.S. OR a legal permanent resident (LPR) in the U.S. who utilizes the services of an IMB.

The definition of “U.S. client” is gender-neutral, and thus the law would apply to both gentlemen U.S. clients seeking foreign lady nationals, and lady U.S. clients seeking foreign gentlemen nationals.

The definition does NOT say just U.S. citizens living in the U.S. Thus, the law would seem to apply to a U.S. citizen working abroad in a foreign country.

Q #3: Will this law really be enforced and, if so, how?

Answer: It remains to be seen exactly how this law will actually be enforced and how vigorously and quickly. (There is a 60 day waiting period before the law’s provisions take effect, meaning early March 2006.)

On its face, the broker provisions of the law delegate enforcement to the Justice Dept, and thus the U.S. Attorneys Offices and the FBI. It appears that a broker will first receive a “citation” for violation followed by a Notice of Hearing for an “agency hearing on the record”. This may be an immigration judge at the various immigration courts around the country or possibly before a federal magistrate. But that part will become more clear as time passes.

There are civil and criminal penalties on the broker for violations. There are penalties also on “any person” for “misuse of the information”, that is on those who use or disclose the U.S. client’s background information without consent, or who use it to harass or intimidate anyone.

It is important to note that this law does not replace state laws, but supplements them. The law states explicitly that it does NOT “pre-empt” or supercede any rights, penalties, remedies or enforcement under any state law.

Q #4: Does this law apply to “U.S. citizens” only?

Answer: No. The law applies NOT to “U.S. citizens” but to “U.S. clients”, which is broadly defined as a U.S. citizen OR any person residing in the U.S. Thus, “U.S. clients” are required to comply with this law, and supply the mandated background information and documents.

It should be noted that the definition of “U.S. client” does NOT include foreign citizens, who appear to be exempt from the background information. However, another provision of this law called” “Limitation on Disclosure” appears to prohibit IMBs from providing personal contact information of a foreign lady to any “person or entity other than a United States client.”

Q #5: Does this law apply to U.S. brokers and agencies only?

Answer: The simple and quick answer is: yes, the law applies only to U.S. companies owned and operated in the U.S., (even if they just happen to have a matchmaker subsidiary or sub-division abroad.) It would likely be very difficult at best to enforce this law on a “foreign company”, with full operations and staff abroad and foreign-owners (or a U.S. owner who is offshore).

But before foreign owners celebrate their “free pass”, there are some complications. For example, the law’s definition of IMB is NOT limited to a U.S. company. (It says ANY company WHETHER OR NOT organized under U.S. law.)

“Foreign national client” and “U.S. client” definitions are also NOT limited to those who deal with a U.S. company only. What about a foreign company which advertises in the U.S., and displays a website hosted by a U.S. server with a U.S. URL? Or which otherwise actively solicits U.S. customers and derives most of their revenue from U.S. customers? Or who use a U.S. payment processor such as PayPay, partnered with Wells Fargo Bank (U.S. bank)? Or who have a U.S. P.O. Box or U.S. address on their website or who use an authorized sales agent or sales rep. in the U.S.? What about the applicability of federal mail fraud and wire fraud laws to overseas companies under “long-arm” statutes?

One knowledgeable person I spoke with takes this view: In a special case where it may be warranted, this law can POSSIBLY be enforced on a foreign owner (or a U.S. owner living overseas) as follows: A citation is issued for a known broker violation to the owner, and he is convicted in “absentia”, with the record so noted. When he tries to visit or re-enter the U.S., USCIS officers at Port of Entry enforce the conviction on him by apprehension.

Another problematic issue for the foreign owner (or U.S. owner living overseas) is the Consular Interview for the visa. Under this law, the Officer is required to ask the lady if they met through an IMB (as broadly defined in that law). IF the answer is YES, he MUST ask if the IMB provided the lady with all the background client information on the U.S. client and secured her signed written release before the couple communicated. If NOT, then the Officer presumably has the discretion to DENY issuance of the visa because of the broker violation (even though it was a foreign company).

Q #6: Does this law focus on the brokers and agencies only, or does it also apply to the gentlemen customers?

Answer: The law focuses on the IMBs and their obligations and penalties. There are no explicit penalties in this law on the U.S. client in dealing with the IMB, if he makes misrepresentations, falsehoods or submits false information. Remember though that this law does NOT pre-empt or over-ride your state law. So if the information the U.S. client submitted to the IMB was false under a signed certification or affidavit, then state law penalties for perjury and false information could apply.

It would seem though that no additional liabilities attach to the IMB if it was the U.S. client who submitted false information. Similarly, if the IMB did anything wrong, nothing in the law seems to penalize the U.S. client for that. In other words, the IMB and the U.S. client are each responsible for their own liabilities, not the other’s.

Keep in mind that the above applies only at the IMB stage of the couple’s communication and relationship. Once the gentleman is serious about the lady and chooses to file a U.S. K-1 Fiancée Visa petition with Immigration, he MUST certify that all information supplied by him in his petition package is truthful, under penalty of federal perjury: up to $25,000 fine and 5 years in federal prison.

Q #7: How, when and to whom do I, as a U.S. client gentlemen customer of a romance agency, company or correspondence website defined as an IMB under the new law, provide the required client background information or documents, such as criminal background, domestic violence history and prior orders, and so on?

Answer: According to this new law, this information or documentation is supplied by the U.S. client directly to the IMB agency or company at the time the the U.S. client signs up for and purchases the services of the IMB. At this time, there is no prescribed or pre-fabricated U.S. government form. The IMB is responsible for collecting and gathering this information or documentation from each U.S. client, storing it, translating it to the primary language of the foreign national client and securing from her a signed, written consent as to that specific U.S. client BEFORE the U.S. client can obtain her “person contact information” or enjoy a social meeting with her.

IMBs will probably develop and make available either electronically on their website or via E-Mail, Regular Mail or Fax, or in their office, a client background information questionnaire of some type for U.S. clients to fill out and otherwise respond to, if the both IMB and U.S. client wish to comply with this law.

Q #8: How the “Buyer-Seller” public reacting to this law so far?
Answer: It is always risky to categorize or label peoples’ response to this law. Of course, it is obvious that each person is individual and thinks for himself. Yet, in the brief few days of this new law, the “buyer & seller” public seems to divide into roughly into 4 groups:

1) THE DISBELIEVERS – These people may still be in a state of “denial”, and probably need to reflect quietly and read this law.
2) THE NEIGH-SAYERS – These may be people who under-estimate this law, depreciate its potential effect, and almost “pooh-pooh” it. They take the view that the new law just means that everybody has to give up a little more information, and that it won’t have much real impact, or that it will take Uncle Sam years to enforcement it, so it doesn’t really matter all that much. (We hope that they are right, but are not optimistic about that.)

3) THE DOOM-SAYERS – This group sees a monumental change in the landscape of international romance and the visa process: Brokers, agencies, tour groups, and correspondence websites leaving the business, and U.S. customers and foreign ladies basically “scared off” by suffocating document requirements, etc. For this group, this new law might be a combination of a tsunami, earthquake and asteroid hitting all at once, a “romance Armageddon”. (We fear that this may turn out to be only a small exaggeration.). A subset of this group are the RUN & HIDE group who will move overseas or underground to escape the clutches of this law, or at least will try.

4) THE REALISTS –This group is reading this law closely and attempting to try and comply with it as best they can cost-effectively, and thinking about some imaginative options, including but not only, use of release and consent forms on webpages, on the Internet, and via electronic forms, etc.

Frankly, it may well be that some people (sellers) will likely leave the business, go underground or go overseas. And some businesses will choose to violate the law until they are caught.

Bottom line: We will all experience and “live and learn” exactly what will happen as the law is actually rolled out.

Copyright©, 2006. All Rights Reserved. Gary Bala

Comments

david wrote:

nice job gary..
great info..like always…
David
02/01 13:05:26

Tom wrote:

Hmmmm, Gary good info, but self generated questions and answers seems self serving. I made several comments and questions but it has not merit your attention. I’ll try again.

1. If one has to comply with the law requirements to meet a lady how would or where would they provide the information. If I remember, you have to provide the following:

Every state of residence since the age of 18;

— Current or previous marriages as well as how and when they terminated;

— Information on children under 18

— Any arrest or conviction related to controlled substances, alcohol or prostitution, making no distinction on arrests not leading to conviction;

— Any court orders, including temporary restraining orders

— Any arrest or conviction for crimes ranging from “homicide” to “child neglect”;

— Any arrest or conviction for “similar activity in violation of Federal, State or local criminal law”

I know I summarized above the requirements, but here is what is confusing. How and where is this information submitted. For example, I’m Joe Smith and I join dating site XZY. Do I submit the required information to XZY? Will there be forms for me to fill out at XZY? If so, are these forms made up by XZY or are they official forms provided by the U.S. government?

I don’t mind providing my personal background I just don’t know how or where.

Thanks

17/01 12:11:28
Gary’s Blog:
http://usaimmigrationattorney.com/nucleus/index.php

—Legally Flawed “Anti-Couple” Legislation Labels U.S. Men Abusers and Hurts Foreign Women’s Options for American Courtship—

Opinion-Editorial by Gary Bala, USA Immigration Attorney

Date: January 16, 2006
—————————————————-
NOTE: Mr. Bala, a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Assn. (AILA) with 24+ years of legal experience, has completed hundreds of family cases, fiancée visas, spousal petitions and consultations. His office is in Pennsylvania. Contact him via E-Mail at: gb@garybala.com
Website: USA Immigration Attorney.com
—————————————————-

After hours on the Saturday before Christmas Weekend 2005, the U.S. House rushed through the final version of a law, H.R. 3402, which will, as a practical matter, effectively shoot down Cupid’s Arrow for many American men (and women) seeking romance and love with a foreign partner.

The International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (IMBRA), Public Law No. 109-162, Title VIII, Subtitle D, was passed on a simple but undemocratic “voice vote”, by the Senate on Friday, Dec. 16 and the House on Saturday, Dec. 17, in time to allow lawmakers to return home for the holidays, without any hearings, witness testimony or even review of relevant statistical or empirical evidence, in true “backdoor” fashion.

Many legislators who agreed on the voice vote after a House-Senate Conference probably did not even read the law as it was cleverly attached, by its feminist proponents notably Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), to the back-end of the universally applauded “Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005”, signed by the President on January 05, 2006. Most of the law’s provisions go into effect in early March 2006.

Let’s be crystal clear that NO ONE is against protection of women and children from deadly and vicious attacks at the hand of spouses who may be violent offenders. Yes, we all agree and should indeed work hard and imaginatively to combat this wicked evil in our society. But this law is NOT the answer…

Read and comment on Gary’s Blog
http://usaimmigrationattorney.com/nucleus/index.php

 

  THE TEXT OF THE NATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKERS REGULATION ACT OF 2005

From Thomas.gov  http://thomas.loc.gov/

S 1618 IS 

109th CONGRESS  1st Session S. 1618

To regulate international marriage broker activity in the United States, to provide for certain protections for individuals who utilize the services of international marriage brokers, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

September 7, 2005

Ms. CANTWELL (for herself and Mr. BROWNBACK) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL

To regulate international marriage broker activity in the United States, to provide for certain protections for individuals who utilize the services of international marriage brokers, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005′.

SEC. 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.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) CRIME OF VIOLENCE- The term `crime of violence’ has the meaning given such term in section 16 of title 18, United States Code.

(2) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE- The term `domestic violence’ means any crime of violence, or other act forming the basis for a past or outstanding protective order, restraining order, no-contact order, conviction, arrest, or police report, committed against a person by–

(A) a current or former spouse of the person;

(B) an individual with whom the person shares a child in common;

(C) an individual with whom the person is cohabiting or has cohabited;

(D) an individual similarly situated to a spouse of the person under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction in which the offense occurs; or

(E) any other individual if the person is protected from that individual’s acts pursuant to a court order issued under the domestic or family violence laws of the United States or any State, Indian tribal government, or unit of local government.

(3) FOREIGN NATIONAL CLIENT- The term `foreign national client’ means an individual who is not a United States citizen, a national of the United States, or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence and who utilizes the services of an international marriage broker, and includes an alien residing in the United States who is in the United States as a result of utilizing the services of an international marriage broker.

(4) INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER-

(A) IN 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, matchmaking services, or social referrals between United States clients and foreign national clients by providing personal contact information or otherwise facilitating communication between individuals from these respective groups.

(B) EXCEPTIONS- Such term does not include–

(i) a traditional matchmaking organization of a cultural or religious nature that operates on a nonprofit basis and in compliance with the laws of the countries in which it operates, including the laws of the United States; or

(ii) an entity that provides dating services between United States citizens or residents and other individuals who may be aliens, but does not do so as its principal business, and charges comparable rates to all individuals it serves regardless of the gender, country of citizenship, or residence of the individual.

(5) K NONIMMIGRANT VISA- The term `K nonimmigrant visa’ means a nonimmigrant visa issued pursuant to clause (i) or (ii) of section 101(a)(15)(K) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(K)).

(6) PERSONAL CONTACT INFORMATION-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `personal contact information’ means information or a forum that would permit individuals to contact each other and includes–

(i) the name, telephone number, postal address, electronic mail address, and voice message mailbox of an individual; and

(ii) the provision of an opportunity for an in-person meeting.

(B) EXCEPTION- Such term does not include a photograph or general information about the background or interests of a person.

(7) STATE- The term `State’ includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

(8) UNITED STATES CLIENT- The term `United States client’ means a United States citizen or other individual who resides in the United States and who makes a payment or incurs a debt in order to utilize the services of an international marriage broker.

SEC. 4. REGULATION OF INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKERS.

(a) Prohibition on Marketing Children- An international marriage broker shall not provide any United States client or other person with the personal contact information, photograph, or general information about the background or interests of any individual under the age of 18.

(b) Limitations on Sharing Information Regarding Foreign National Clients-

(1) IN GENERAL- An international marriage broker shall not provide any United States client or other person with the personal contact information of any foreign national client or other individual 18 years of age or older unless and until the international marriage broker has–

(A) collected certain background information from the United States client or other person to whom the personal contact information would be provided, as specified in subsection (c);

(B) provided a copy of that background information to the foreign national client or other individual in the primary language of that client or individual;

(C) provided to the foreign national client or other individual in such primary language the information about legal rights and resources available to immigrant victims of domestic violence and other crimes in the United States developed under section 5;

(D) received from the foreign national client or other individual in such primary language a written consent that is signed (including using an electronic signature) to release such personal contact information to the specific United States client or other person to whom the personal contact information would be provided; and

(E) informed the United States client or other person from whom background information has been collected that, after filing a petition for a K nonimmigrant visa, the United States client or other person will be subject to a criminal background check.

(2) CONFIDENTIALITY AFTER ORDER OF PROTECTION OR CRIME-

(A) NONDISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION REGARDING INDIVIDUALS WITH PROTECTION ORDERS AND VICTIMS OF CRIMES- In fulfilling its obligations under this subsection, an international marriage broker shall not disclose the name or location of an individual who obtained a restraining or protection order as described in subsection (c)(2)(A), or of any other victim of a crime as described in subparagraphs (B) through (D) of subsection (c)(2).

(B) DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION REGARDING UNITED STATES CLIENTS- An international marriage broker shall disclose the relationship of the United States client or other person to an individual or victim described in paragraph (A).

(c) Obligations of International Marriage Broker With Respect to Mandatory Collection of Information-

(1) IN GENERAL- Each international marriage broker shall collect the background information listed in paragraph (2) from each United States client or other person to whom the personal contact information of a foreign national client or any other individual would be provided. The background information must be in writing and signed (including using an electronic signature) by the United States client or other person to whom the personal contact information of a foreign national client or any other individual would be provided.

(2) REQUIRED BACKGROUND INFORMATION- An international marriage broker shall collect from a United States client or other person under paragraph (1) background information about each of the following:

(A) Any court order restricting the client’s or person’s physical contact or communication with or behavior towards another person, including any temporary or permanent civil restraining order or protection order.

(B) Any arrest or conviction of the client or person for homicide, murder, manslaughter, assault, battery, domestic violence, rape, sexual assault, abusive sexual contact, sexual exploitation, incest, child abuse or neglect, torture, trafficking, peonage, holding hostage, involuntary servitude, slave trade, kidnapping, abduction, unlawful criminal restraint, false imprisonment, stalking, or any similar activity in violation of Federal, State or local criminal law.

(C) Any arrest or conviction of the client or person for–

(i) solely or principally engaging in, or facilitating, prostitution;

(ii) any direct or indirect attempts to procure prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution; or

(iii) any receipt, in whole or in part, of the proceeds of prostitution.

(D) Any arrest or conviction of the client or person for offenses related to controlled substances or alcohol.

(E) Marital history of the client or person, including–

(i) whether the client or individual is currently married;

(ii) whether the client or person has previously been married and how many times;

(iii) how previous marriages of the client or person were terminated and the date of termination; and

(iv) whether the client or person has previously sponsored the immigration of an alien to whom the client or person was engaged or married.

(F) The ages of any children of the client or person under the age of 18.

(G) All States in which the client or person has resided since the age of 18.

(d) Penalties-

(1) FEDERAL CIVIL PENALTY-

(A) VIOLATION- An international marriage broker that violates subsection (a), (b), or (c) is subject to a civil penalty of not less than $20,000 for each such violation.

(B) PROCEDURES FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY- The Secretary of Homeland Security may impose a penalty under paragraph (A) only after notice and an opportunity for an agency hearing on the record in accordance with subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code.

(2) FEDERAL CRIMINAL PENALTY- An international marriage broker that violates subsection (a), (b), or (c) within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States shall be fined in accordance with subchapter B of chapter 229 of title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not less than 1 year and not more than 5 years, or both.

(3) STATE ENFORCEMENT- In any case in which the Attorney General of a State has reason to believe that an interest of the residents of that State has been, or is threatened to be, adversely affected by a violation of subsection (a), (b), or (c) by an international marriage broker, the State, as parens patriae, may bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of the State in a district court of the United States with appropriate jurisdiction to–

(A) enjoin that practice;

(B) enforce compliance with this section; or

(C) obtain damages.

(4) ADDITIONAL REMEDIES- The penalties and remedies under this subsection are in addition to any other penalties or remedies available under law.

(e) Nonpreemption- Nothing in this section shall preempt–

(1) any State law that provides additional protections for aliens who are utilizing the services of an international marriage broker or other international matchmaking organization; or

(2) any other or further right or remedy available under law to any party utilizing the services of an international marriage broker or other international matchmaking organization.

(f) Repeal of Mail-Order Bride Provision- Section 652 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1375) is hereby repealed.

SEC. 5. INFORMATION ABOUT LEGAL RIGHTS AND RESOURCES FOR IMMIGRANT VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

(a) Development of Information Pamphlet-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall develop an information pamphlet to ensure the consistency and accuracy of information disseminated to–

(A) foreign national clients or other individuals by international marriage brokers pursuant to section 4(b)(1)(C); and

(B) beneficiaries of petitions filed by United States citizens for K nonimmigrant visas.

(2) CONSULTATION WITH EXPERT ORGANIZATIONS- The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall develop such information pamphlet by working in consultation with non-profit, non-governmental immigrant victim advocacy organizations.

(b) Contents of Information Pamphlet- The information pamphlet required under subsection (a) shall include information on the following:

(1) The K nonimmigrant visa application process and the marriage-based immigration process, including conditional residence and adjustment of status.

(2) The requirement that international marriage brokers provide foreign national clients with background information collected from United States clients regarding their marital history and domestic violence or other violent criminal history, but that such information may not be complete or accurate.

(3) The illegality of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse in the United States.

(4) Information on the dynamics of domestic violence.

(5) Domestic violence and sexual assault services in the United States, including the National Domestic Violence Hotline, a project of the Texas Council on Family Violence, a nonprofit organization dedicated to fighting domestic violence, and the National Sexual Assault Hotline, operated by the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, and independent anti-sexual assault organization.

(6) A description of immigration relief available to an immigrant victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking, and other crimes under the Violence Against Women Act, including the amendments made by that Act, section 101(a)(15)(U) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(U)), and section 101(a)(15)(T) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(T)).

(7) The legal rights of immigrant victims of abuse and other crimes in immigration, criminal justice, family law, and other matters.

(8) The obligations of parents to provide child support for children.

(9) The illegality of and penalties for knowingly entering into marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws of the United States.

(c) Translation-

(1) LANGUAGES- In order to best serve the language groups most recruited by international marriage brokers and having the greatest concentration of K nonimmigrant visa applicants, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall translate the information pamphlet developed under this section, subject to paragraph (2), into the following languages:

(A) Arabic.

(B) Chinese.

(C) French.

(D) Hindi.

(E) Japanese.

(F) Korean.

(G) Polish.

(H) Portuguese.

(I) Russian.

(J) Spanish.

(K) Tagalog.

(L) Thai.

(M) Ukrainian.

(N) Vietnamese.

(2) MODIFICATION OF LANGUAGE- The Secretary of Homeland Security may modify the translation requirements of paragraph (1) if the report submitted under section 7(b) includes recommendations for such modification.

(d) Availability and Distribution- The information pamphlet under this subsection shall be made available and distributed as follows:

(1) INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKERS AND VICTIM ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS- The information pamphlet shall be made available to each international marriage broker and to each governmental or non-governmental victim advocacy organization.

(2) K NONIMMIGRANT VISA APPLICANTS-

(A) MAILING WITH IMMIGRATION FORMS- The information pamphlet shall be mailed by the National Visa Center, of the Secretary of State, to each applicant for a K nonimmigrant visa at the same time that Form DS-3032 is mailed to such applicant. The pamphlet so mailed shall be in the primary language of the applicant, or in English if no translation into the applicant’s primary language is available.

(B) POSTING ON NVC WEB SITE- The Secretary of State shall post the content of the pamphlet on the web site of the National Visa Center, as well as on the web sites of all consular posts processing K nonimmigrant visa applications.

(C) CONSULAR INTERVIEWS- The Secretary of State shall require that the pamphlet be distributed directly to such applicants at all consular interviews for K nonimmigrant visas. If no written translation into the applicant’s primary language is available, the consular officer conducting the visa interview shall review the pamphlet with the applicant orally in the applicant’s primary language, in addition to distributing the pamphlet to the applicant in English.

SEC. 6. CHANGES IN PROCESSING K NONIMMIGRANT VISAS; CONSULAR CONFIDENTIALITY.

(a) K Nonimmigrant Visa Processing- Section 214(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(d)) is amended–

(1) by striking `Attorney General’ and inserting `Secretary of Homeland Security’ each place it appears;

(2) by inserting `(1)’ before `A visa’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

`(2) A United States citizen may not file a petition under paragraph (1) if such a petition filed by that petitioner for another alien fiancee or fiance is pending or has been approved and is still valid.

`(3) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide to the Secretary of State the criminal background information on a petitioner for a visa under clause (i) or (ii) of section 101(a)(15)(K) to which it has access under existing authority in the course of adjudicating the petition.

`(4) Each petitioner for a visa under clause (i) or (ii) of section 101(a)(15)(K) shall provide, as part of the petition, in writing and signed under penalty of perjury, information described in section 4(c)(2) of the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005.

`(5) The Secretary of State shall ensure that an applicant for a visa under clause (i) or (ii) of section 101(a)(15)(K)–

`(A) shall be provided, by mail or electronically–

`(i) a copy of the petition for such visa submitted by the United States citizen petitioner; and

`(ii) any information that is contained in the background check described in paragraph (3) relating to any court orders, arrests, or convictions described in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of section 4(c)(2) of the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005;

`(B) shall be informed that petitioner information described in subparagraph (A) is based on available records and may not be complete; and

`(C) shall be asked in the primary language of the visa applicant whether an international marriage broker has facilitated the relationship between the visa applicant and the United States petitioner and whether that international marriage broker complied with the requirements of section 4 of such Act.

`(6) The Secretary shall provide for the disclosure of information described in paragraph (5) to the visa applicant at the consular interview in the primary language of the visa applicant.

`(7) The fact that an alien described in clause (i) or (ii) of section 101(a)(15)(K) is aware of any information disclosed under paragraph (5) shall not be used against the alien in any determination of eligibility for relief under this Act or the Violence Against Women Act (Public Law 103-322; 108 Stat. 1902), and the amendments made by that Act.

(8) In fulfilling the requirements of paragraph (5)(A)(ii), a consular officer shall not disclose the name or location of any person who obtained a restraining or protective order against the petitioner, but shall disclose the relationship of the person to the petitioner.’.

(b) Sharing of Certain Information- Section 222(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1202(f)) shall not be construed to prevent the sharing of information under section 214(d) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(d)).

(c) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to petitions filed after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 7. STUDY AND REPORT.

(a) Study- The Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, shall conduct a study of the international marriage broker industry in the United States that–

(1) estimates, for the years 1995 through 2005,the number of international marriage brokers doing business in the United States, the number of marriages resulting from the services provided by such brokers, and the extent of compliance with the applicable requirements of this Act;

(2) assess the information gathered under this Act from clients by international marriage brokers and from petitioners by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services;

(3) examine, based on the information gathered, the extent to which persons with a history of violence are using the services of international marriage brokers and the extent to which such persons are providing accurate information to international marriage brokers in accordance with section 4;

(4) assess the accuracy of the criminal background check at identifying past instances of domestic violence; and

(5) assess the extent to which the languages of translation required under section 5(c)(1) continue to accurately reflect the highest markets for recruitment by international marriage brokers and the greatest concentrations of K nonimmigrant visa applicants.

(b) Report- Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives setting forth the results of the study conducted under subsection (a).

SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) In General- Except as provided in subsection (b), section 5, and the amendments made by section 6, this Act shall take effect on the date which is 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

(b) Additional Time Allowed for Information Pamphlet- Section 5(b) shall take effect on the date which is 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE TAHIRIH JUSTICE CENTER

 

HERE IS THE TEXT OF THE FLYER THAT TJC BANNED AND CENSORED AT A HOTEL

THEY CLAIM THEY REPRESENT IMMIGRANT WOMEN BUT DENY THEM FREEDOM OF SPEECH

THEY FORGET THAT THIS IS AMERICA, NOT IRAN !!!

TAHIRIH WAS A RADICAL FEMINIST MOSLEM TERRORIST THAT WAS TOO EXTREME EVEN FOR OSAMA BIN LADEN

Tahirih Justice Center Ruined my Life

 

My name is Clara . I am 36 years old and I am an ER nurse supervisor

with 14 years of experience. I am divorced with no children. My exhusband,

a Colombiano, had both a lover and a girlfriend, which is common

among men here. He beat me whenever he came home drunk but I never

complained because the police here do nothing;

Since my sister, an engineer, found her love in the US on the internet, I

decided to go online and in March of this year I met John from a small city

near Colombus, Ohio. John is 45 and he works as a sales representative for a

farm implements supply company. He is divorced with custody of his nine

year-old daughter. We felt something right away, and since John had vacation

time, he came down to meet me in April. He spoke a little Spanish, and

I speak English quite well. He met my whole family and they really liked

him. John returned in July and spent a month with me. To make a long

story short, we fell in love and agreed to marry.

When John began to prepare the necessary paperwork to get me a fianc6

visa, we found out that the United States Government will never let me enter

the country because we met through the internet and John did not have a

criminal background check done, a sex offender search done, he didn’t prepare

a statement listing his divorce and child’s age and he didn’t have all this

translated into Spanish (even though I am fluent in English) and I didn’t sign

a release giving the dating service permission for him to write to me. All

this is required to comply with the Internet Dating Regulation Act that Tahirih

Justice Center helped make and is so proud of.

This law will prevent me forever from marrying and living in the US

with my fiance and it will ensure that my future lies only with three-timing,

abusive Colombian men. Even worse, I know that you need trained nurses

in your country and I am a trained nurse. And a bilingual one at that!

It is impossible for me to understand the reason your country would pass

a law to prevent people like us from marrying. I am sure mat this law has

brought sadness to many people and is hurting your country. Tahirih claims

that they are for justice. Do they know what that word means?

 

 

 

 

 

THE TRUTH ACCORDING TO TAHIRIH

Tahirih staff is having nightmares now that responsible people are seriously questioning

their distorted view of reality, so on 9/25 they put a FAQ about IMBRA on its

web site. Let’s review this FAQ and some of its factual claims and supporting data.

FAQ #1. HOW BIG IS THE 1MB INDUSTRY?

TJC claims that 1/3 to 1/2 of all international marriages are via dating services but

fOOtnOteS 5 and 6 in small font becauseTahirih doesnt really want you to read them even though this is on the

internet where large print is free explain how they manipulated statistics for this and how they

made their estimates by counting websites on the internet!!! Please note: This quality

of research is paid for by taxpayer dollars and contributions from the uninformed.

FAQ #2 HOW WIDESPREAD IS THE PROBLEM OF ABUSE?

Tahirih writes, “Study results indicate that immigrant victims suffer more severe

abuse, more often, and that abuse rates in marriages between US citizens and foreign

women are approximately three times higher than in the general US population.

But if you read footnote 8, you will see that the study that purportedly supports this

fact did not analyze couples who met through the internet!!! Later in FAQ #2 Tahirih

writes, in a complete contradiction, “It is important to note that there are no national

statistics reflecting what the prevalence of abuse is in “brokered” marriages, specifically.”

If this is not fraud then the word has no meaning, (continued on other page)

FAQ #2 (cont) In footnote 8, Tahirih writes, “it is reasonable to expect that abuse

rates in marriages between US citizens and immigrant women generally would

be indicative of abuse rates in marriages between US citizens/IMB clients and

immigrant women/IMB recruits specifically.” This statement is significant because

it repudiates Tahirih’s main argument for the law, that the women who men

meet via internet are the most vulnerable with the highest rates of abuse.

FAQ #4 HOW DOES IMBRA AFFECT FIANCE/SPOUSAL VISAS?

Tahirih says that the vast majority of couples applying for these visas will notice

only minimal changes, YET DHS CANCELLED 10.000 VISAS IN JUNE and now

all international couples have an uphill battle convincing consular officials that

they did not meet on the internet. Some of them are unsuccessful and their visas

are denied. Visaioumey.com forum chronicles these heartbreaking stories.

FAQ #7 Tahirih loves to give examples of a few dating services that use advertising

hype to get men to join and they falsely suggest that ALL dating services

operate this way. Tahirih emphasizes and repeats that American men think they

are “purchasing” a woman over the internet. Naturally they give no footnotes for

this. So how do they know it? What century does Tahirih staff really live in?

FAQ #10 Tahirih fails to inform that the TRO issued by the GA federal court

indicated this law will be thrown out for violating freedom of speech, freedom of

association, equal protection and right of privacy. These are not trivial issues.

Tahirih fails to inform that they prompted the OH federal judge to deny plaintiffs

TRO request stating that there is no “fundamental liberty interest in Americans

meeting foreigners…” So.Tahirih is named after a Persian, belongs to a nation of

immigrants and they will prevent Americans from meeting foreigners.

FOR MORE INFORMATION don’t trust this fiver.just google IMBRA to pick up links to the details of this unjust, unfair

and unconstitutional law, the opposition to it and the campaign

of distortion, deception and exaggeration waged by Tahirih to get it

through Congress and then to hide the ugly details from the public.

Read about principal sponsor Sen Maria CantwelPs campaign of lies

and deceit. Also see www.jewlicious.com/?p=2475 for a sample of

the Hezbollah Dating Service that Tahirih/Cantwell/Brownback have

exempted from IMBRA because it is a religious dating company.

What’s Next? My guess is that Tahirih will continue to lobbyCongress and the states to require criminal disclosures for ALL

internet dating. Once they are forced to admit US women are worse

off than foreigners, what excuse will they have not to protect them

from American men? Welcome to the Tahirih’s Brave New World

By the way, if Tahirih is willing to deceive its supporters and the

public this much with regard to IMBRA, I wonder how much they

are deceiving them with respect to their other campaigns.

 

end of flyer

 

TAHIRIH JUSTICE CENTER – GUILTY OF GENOCIDE AND TERRORISM?

 The TJC has worked to ensure that thousands of women are murdered each year.  By putting restrictions on foreign women to marry American men, the TJC is essentially cooperating in the mass murder of thousands of women each and every year. Yet, TJC claims that it supports women through such laws as IMBRA which was in response to 3 immigrant women killed over a 20 year span.  How can TJC justify the slaughter of thousands of women through IMBRA?

   This is an evolving article that will discuss what TJC is really about and why it needs to be investigated and eventually charged with mass murder and terrorism.

  The roots of Tahirih are in Feminism and Islamic law; the two greatest evils ever known to the world.  Islamic law is known to extremely strict when it comes to punishing women for any kind of act that is outside the Islamic religion. Women are often beaten or killed and this is sanctioned by Islam.  Furthermore, it is not uncommon for Islamic men to be allowed to have multiple wives.  Yet, TJC does not criticize the Moslem religion and embraces all of its ideas.

  3000 people were killed on 9/11.  To date, not one Moslem organization, including TJC, has criticized the 9/11 attacks.  The police department of Brooklyn had to be called in to break up celebrations in Moslem neighborhood and protect outraged Americans from attacking them.  TJC has gone ballistic over 3 murders of women over a 20 year span but has remained silent on 9/11.

 

TAHIRIH JUSTICE CENTER LIES

* AMERICAN MEN ARE ABUSERS

* 50 % OF ABUSE CASES IN WOMEN’S SHELTERS ARE MAIL ORDER BRIDES

* MAIL ORDER BRIDES ARE MORE SUBJECT TO ABUSE THAN WOMEN IN GENERAL

 

THE TRUTH

* American men are far less violent than Russian men; the Tahirih Justice Center is sentencing thousands of Russian women to death

* In a telephone survey, conducted by Tahirih, 50 % of centers they contacted said they saw an increase in the level of foreign women coming in for counseling, NOT 50 % MORE FOREIGN WOMEN ! And NO ONE said that these are Mail Order Brides.

* Foreign women from Latin America are more likely to be abused than European and Asian women and European and Asian women are LESS likely to be abused than American women ! The Latin American women are far more likely to have entered into the U.S. illegally and the European and Asian women are far more likely to be Mail Order Brides; In either case; only 1 % of all foreign wives are Mail Order Brides.

* Tahirih says that 50 % of American women are abused during the course of their lifetime and 60 % of Foreign women are abused during their lifetime; INTENTIONALLY DISTORTING the abuse that occured in their homeland and making it sound like it happened in the U.S.

* Claiming abuse will get a woman a green card faster than remaining married and this distorts the picture; Tahirih uses numbers from women’s shelters and advocacy groups, not from police records

* A woman dies from domestic violence every 40 minutes in Russia. And every day around 36,000

women in Russia are beaten by their husbands or partners (Amnesty International).

* Each year in Russia, about 14,000 women die at the hands of their husbands or intimate partners. In the

United States, by comparison, this number stands at about 1,200, according to the 2001 Bureau of

Justice Statistics Report. Russia’s population is 144 million; the U.S. population is 293 million.

* Russian women are 2.5 times more likely to be murdered by their partners than American women.

(UNICEF International Child Development Centre).