Online Dating Rights. Mail Order Brides
PragueVietnamMoscowGuatemala

FOUR REASONS American men seek romance abroad: Prague, Ha Long Bay, Red Square, small villages in Latin America. Somehow meeting a Czech, Vietnamese, Russian or Peruvian/Colombian/Brazilian woman for a date at one of these exotic places is incomparably more exciting than meeting a hometown girl at the local coffeeshop. Opponents of a man's right to meet foreign women online never stop to consider how enjoyable it is to travel/work/live abroad and learn new cultures and languages while seeking a marriage partner.
Online Dating Rights
May 27, 2017, 10:43:18 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: US embassy in Romania run amuck! Mail Order Bride Visas denied  (Read 9932 times)
bugman7
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 313




Ignore
« on: September 19, 2010, 10:45:45 AM »

 Now that the Tahirih's Justice Center's bizarre mission to stop International romance by preventing communication across International boundaries has failed, a new shocking strategy has evolved. There are staff members at the US embassy in Romania who are violating US Immigration law by demanding that K-1 and K-3 Visa petitioners prove the marriage is not a sham. In the process Fiance and Spousal Visas (particularly "mail oder brides")are being systematically denied, much to the delight of the Advocacy groups who successfully have advocated for their own self serving immigration policies with DHS and State Department.

The information has been relayed to myself by a friend of mine who is US citizen. He previously met a Romanian woman through the Internet. Two times he applied for a tourist Visa for his girlfriend but was denied on both occasions. Then he eventually married her and filed a  K-3 Visa, that allows US citizens to sponsor a spouse for US resident status.

After waiting 30 days he began the K-3 process, but the US embassy in Romania indicated they would deny the visa and "she probably married him to get a green card and would have to wait a long time". The sponsor was informed by embassy staff it was up to him to prove their marriage was not a sham. Needless to say my friend is furious especially since his wife is a kind, caring person, who has never asked him for a dime!

Apparently the US Embassy employees in Bucharest, Romania are not processing the K-3 visas according  immigration law. The law states that "the sponsor and fiance must have a sincere relationship" but it does NOT request the couple prove their relationship is NOT a sham.

Under normal circumstances US citizens cannot sue government employees while carrying out their duties. However if they are carrying out their responsibilities in a negligent manner in violation of the law they can be sued.

I would urge all US citizens who are unfairly denied K-1 and K-3 Visas to file tort claims against state department employees who are negligent in their duties by denying Fiance and spousal Visas for no apparent good reason other than their own misguided and wrong interpretation of the law.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-717.pdf
« Last Edit: September 19, 2010, 11:16:50 AM by bugman7 » Logged
Delphi_Programmer
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 613




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2010, 08:17:41 AM »

Our civil rights laws should prevent this from happening.  Obviously the visa denial process is being driven by prejudices against so-called "mail order bride" marriages and the stereotypical demographic differences that they entail, such as age or other differences.

Our employment laws clearly state that someone cannot be refused, denied or limited opportunities for employment or continued employment based on race, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation.  More generally, laws against any kind of discrimination of these things should protect us from unlawful denial of our basic human rights, one of which is to find romantic companionship.

If two people are LEGALLY allowed to marry according to our domestic marriage laws, they should be ENTITLED to their freedom to have that marriage.  If you are not breaking the law you should not be punished.  It is not against the law to marry someone from Romania, therefore, to deny you simply because of someone's perceived suspicion of criminal intent is wrong.  For one thing, it violates their right to due process.  Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?  If someone is willing to stick his neck out for someone who "fits a stereotype" of someone who might want to marry "for a green card", it should be his choice and his responsibility to take that calculated risk.  There are financial penalties for getting it wrong that will discourage him from taking unreasonable risks.

By the same logic, what's to stop government from denying marriage licenses to people who marry across large financial disparities?  After all, she's clearly marrying him "for his money", and will not love him.  Furthermore, we want to curb the problem of broken families and fatherless/motherless children, don't we? It's "for the greater good" that we stop these loveless marriages from happening and victimizing our children. This line of reasoning can go on and on.  It's time to put a stop to it.

How can a government official prove that a marriage is not "for love"?  How can two people prove that their marriage IS "for love"?  Stick to the basic law and stop trying to socially engineer society.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good  of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." -- C.S. Lewis
« Last Edit: September 24, 2010, 08:30:50 AM by Delphi_Programmer » Logged

Get government out of the Personals Ads and out of our personal lives.
Taylor
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 315




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2010, 03:16:08 PM »

Our civil rights laws should prevent this from happening.  Obviously the visa denial process is being driven by prejudices against so-called "mail order bride" marriages and the stereotypical demographic differences that they entail, such as age or other differences.

Our employment laws clearly state that someone cannot be refused, denied or limited opportunities for employment or continued employment based on race, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation.  More generally, laws against any kind of discrimination of these things should protect us from unlawful denial of our basic human rights, one of which is to find romantic companionship.

If two people are LEGALLY allowed to marry according to our domestic marriage laws, they should be ENTITLED to their freedom to have that marriage.  If you are not breaking the law you should not be punished.  It is not against the law to marry someone from Romania, therefore, to deny you simply because of someone's perceived suspicion of criminal intent is wrong.  For one thing, it violates their right to due process.  Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?  If someone is willing to stick his neck out for someone who "fits a stereotype" of someone who might want to marry "for a green card", it should be his choice and his responsibility to take that calculated risk.  There are financial penalties for getting it wrong that will discourage him from taking unreasonable risks.

By the same logic, what's to stop government from denying marriage licenses to people who marry across large financial disparities?  After all, she's clearly marrying him "for his money", and will not love him.  Furthermore, we want to curb the problem of broken families and fatherless/motherless children, don't we? It's "for the greater good" that we stop these loveless marriages from happening and victimizing our children. This line of reasoning can go on and on.  It's time to put a stop to it.

How can a government official prove that a marriage is not "for love"?  How can two people prove that their marriage IS "for love"?  Stick to the basic law and stop trying to socially engineer society.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good  of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." -- C.S. Lewis

The government has control over immigration.  You can marry anyone, you cannot however, be guaranteed a K-visa for that person.  The constitution doesn’t guarantee the right to immigration and citizenship based upon marriage as far as I understand it.

I understand the point you are making based upon fairness.  The visa denials seem absurd considering the fact that our government doesn’t appear to want to do anything about illegal immigration (e.g. the Obama administration suing Arizona over its immigration law).

If you marry a woman from a foreign country, I don’t believe that our government is obligated to give that woman a visa and subsequent citizenship.
Logged
Delphi_Programmer
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 613




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2010, 04:39:15 PM »

The Declaration of Independence, on which the spirit of our Constitution is based, says that you have a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".  Finding a suitable life partner is fundamental to our happiness as human beings.

The point is that arbitrarily denying someone the right to be with a loved one is fundamentally wrong.  There is no valid reason to deny someone the right to a marriage just because the demographic or nature of the marriage offends someone (and, by the way, a marriage is fundamentally and Biblically defined as two people living together -- so if you marry a foreigner then immigration is a part of that process). Also, there are marriage laws that criminalize abandonment.  If you marry someone and vanish you are criminally liable.  Does this make it against the law to marry a foreigner at all, since immigration might force you to abandon her by denying the visa?  Also, what if she conceives your child while you're over there?  That means that, by denying her visa, they've forced you to abandon not only a wife but a child.

Saying you can marry anyone but government isn't obligated to let you be with her is like saying you have a right to get a job but government isn't obligated to let you go to work.

I want to draw a distinction between self-initiated immigration, where a foreigner just up and "comes here", and American sponsored immigration where a U.S. citizens requests that a foreigner come here for a legitimate purpose (which includes marriage).  Think of the analogy of a stranger who just walks into your house vs. you inviting someone into your house.  As a U.S. citizen, this country is as much "my house" as it is yours.  If I want to invite someone in, I should have a right to, unless it demonstrably threatens yours or someone's safety or well being.  Saying that she "probably married you to get a green card" does not fit that bill.

Driving is not a right either, but we do have a right to be fairly and equitably considered for driving privileges, and denied only if there is a valid reason to; for example, if you pose a threat to someone's life or safety on the road.  If someone is denied a driver's license because "he's black", then "driving is a privilege and not a right" is not a valid argument.

I'm not a law scholar, so I don't know all of the legal ins and outs.  I just know that government telling me whom I can and can't be with, when it is otherwise legal for me to do so, is just wrong.  It violates my whole sense of what a free country is all about.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 05:09:07 PM by Delphi_Programmer » Logged

Get government out of the Personals Ads and out of our personal lives.
Taylor
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 315




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2010, 06:27:29 PM »

The Declaration of Independence, on which the spirit of our Constitution is based, says that you have a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".  Finding a suitable life partner is fundamental to our happiness as human beings.

The point is that arbitrarily denying someone the right to be with a loved one is fundamentally wrong.  There is no valid reason to deny someone the right to a marriage just because the demographic or nature of the marriage offends someone (and, by the way, a marriage is fundamentally and Biblically defined as two people living together -- so if you marry a foreigner then immigration is a part of that process). Also, there are marriage laws that criminalize abandonment.  If you marry someone and vanish you are criminally liable.  Does this make it against the law to marry a foreigner at all, since immigration might force you to abandon her by denying the visa?  Also, what if she conceives your child while you're over there?  That means that, by denying her visa, they've forced you to abandon not only a wife but a child.

Saying you can marry anyone but government isn't obligated to let you be with her is like saying you have a right to get a job but government isn't obligated to let you go to work.

I want to draw a distinction between self-initiated immigration, where a foreigner just up and "comes here", and American sponsored immigration where a U.S. citizens requests that a foreigner come here for a legitimate purpose (which includes marriage).  Think of the analogy of a stranger who just walks into your house vs. you inviting someone into your house.  As a U.S. citizen, this country is as much "my house" as it is yours.  If I want to invite someone in, I should have a right to, unless it demonstrably threatens yours or someone's safety or well being.  Saying that she "probably married you to get a green card" does not fit that bill.

Driving is not a right either, but we do have a right to be fairly and equitably considered for driving privileges, and denied only if there is a valid reason to; for example, if you pose a threat to someone's life or safety on the road.  If someone is denied a driver's license because "he's black", then "driving is a privilege and not a right" is not a valid argument.

I'm not a law scholar, so I don't know all of the legal ins and outs.  I just know that government telling me whom I can and can't be with, when it is otherwise legal for me to do so, is just wrong.  It violates my whole sense of what a free country is all about.

I am not disagreeing with your argument.  I actually agree with you on moral grounds.  I am simply saying that legally I don’t think that the argument would prevail in the courts. 

A child born in a foreign country does not have the right to American citizenship, even if one of the parents is an American.  A child born in the United States to illegal aliens does have a right to citizenship under our Constitution.  That may not be fair, but it is the law.

The Constitution only applies to people in the United States of America.  That is why the government cannot force International Matchmaking Agencies to perform background checks on foreigners who join the agencies.  They can however do this to American citizens provided that it treats all Americans fairly (IMBRA obviously fails the test on this point).

The rights granted by the U.S. Constitution only apply to American citizens.  A “mail-order bride” who lives in a foreign country isn’t an American citizen.  The government isn’t obligated to treat them fairly as far as I understand things.
Logged
Taylor
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 315




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2010, 06:34:35 PM »


Saying you can marry anyone but government isn't obligated to let you be with her is like saying you have a right to get a job but government isn't obligated to let you go to work.


The government isn’t obligated to provide employment for people who cannot find a job.  There is no legal basis for wealth redistribution (welfare) policies in the U.S. Constitution.
Logged
bronxman
OPG
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1003




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2010, 06:44:52 PM »

Quote
The rights granted by the U.S. Constitution only apply to American citizens.  A “mail-order bride” who lives in a foreign country isn’t an American citizen.  The government isn’t obligated to treat them fairly as far as I understand things.

Clearly, the feminist-guided government is not treating foreign women fairly.  If she uses certain arbitrarily selected dating services, excluding Match.com International et al, she is forced to read and sign documents in order to communicate with an American man.
Logged
Taylor
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 315




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2010, 07:12:01 PM »

Quote
The rights granted by the U.S. Constitution only apply to American citizens.  A “mail-order bride” who lives in a foreign country isn’t an American citizen.  The government isn’t obligated to treat them fairly as far as I understand things.

Clearly, the feminist-guided government is not treating foreign women fairly.  If she uses certain arbitrarily selected dating services, excluding Match.com International et al, she is forced to read and sign documents in order to communicate with an American man.
I think the fact that those agencies are excluded is unconstitutional.  IMBRA doesn’t treat Americans fairly.  If you use an International Matchmaking Agency you are treated one way, and if you use an introduction agency whose primary business is domestic matchmaking, you get treated differently.  This is true even if most foreign women are in the exempted agencies and the purpose of the American citizen is to marry a foreign woman while using the largely domestic dating site.

Logged
Delphi_Programmer
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 613




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2010, 06:35:52 AM »

1. Thomas Rose said in May 2006, "There is no constitutional liberty interest in [American men] contacting foreign women".  He was talking about communication, not marriage, and implying that our free speech rights stop at the border.

3. Countless others have claimed that the constitution provides no right to marry foreigners.

3. It's meaningless to say that someone has the right to marry but government has no obligation to let them be together.  Living together and functioning as a husband and wife unit is an integral part of marriage and cannot be separated.  You're either entitled to all of it or none of it.

4. In fact, there is no constitutional right of free association at all.  The right of association is implied from the right of free assembly, which refers specifically to political assembly.  The interpretation is that, if people are free to assemble politically, then they are also free to associate, do business, marry or interact in other ways without government intrusion.

The framers of the constitution didn't spell out every right explicitly.  They laid out general principals that are used for interpretation.  They were smart enough to know that society would change and that specific laws would one day no longer be applicable.  In 1781 the idea that someone living in the U.S. could meet someone living in the Philippines for marriage was inconceivable.  It took a year to travel around the earth by sailboat, and many people died trying.  There was no way to communicate or easily travel across that large a distance, so human interaction in that venue was simply not addressed.

In spirit, the constitution is based on the creed in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights, which include the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Those aren't just hollow words, and just because they're not in the constitution itself doesn't mean they can be ignored.  In general, we have a right to live our life freely without government intruding as long as we abide by the law.

I refer again to driving.  We consider driving to be a privilege and not a right.  However, there are objective means and measures used to determine whether to grant that privilege.  We don't simply deny a driver's license to someone because of his social status or factors that may make him a slightly higher risk driver.  We do deny driving privileges to someone who is impaired in ways that make him a danger on the road, or to repeat offenders of egregious traffic offenses, such as DUI, that make them a danger.  There is a standard rule applied equally to everyone.

If we look at marriage immigration the same way, as a privilege and not a right, do we use objective means to determine whether to grant that privilege?  Are the rules and measures applied equally across the board?  Are those who are denied breaking any explicitly spelled out rule?  Are they violating the law in any way?  Can someone demonstrate that their marriage will cause harm or danger to anyone?  Are all people who seek marriages similar to theirs treated equally?

We have a precedent for allowing American citizens to sponsor foreigners for marriage.  Just because it may not be considered a right, per se, doesn't mean that it can be arbitrarily denied just because someone is offended by it.  Just as driving cannot be arbitrarily denied for the same reason.

I believe there is a case against this embassy, if indeed what Bugman is saying is true.  Someone needs to speak out against people who are abusing power just to advance their own self-serving agenda.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2010, 07:02:02 AM by Delphi_Programmer » Logged

Get government out of the Personals Ads and out of our personal lives.
Delphi_Programmer
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 613




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2010, 06:49:57 AM »

Quote from: Taylor
The rights granted by the U.S. Constitution only apply to American citizens.  A “mail-order bride” who lives in a foreign country isn’t an American citizen.  The government isn’t obligated to treat them fairly as far as I understand things.
I understand where you're coming from and agree with what you're saying.  However, the water is muddied a little in the case of mail order brides.  If you think of a married couple as a single unit (husband and wife are one flesh), then government's treatment of the foreign bride is the same as their treatment of the U.S. husband.  They cannot deny her without also denying him.

Again, we wrestle with rights vs. privileges.  There is precedent for allowing Americans to sponsor foreign spouses.   There is nothing spelled out, aside from IMBRA, which puts terms and conditions on how they met. In the case of this embassy, they don't appear to even be using IMBRA as a guide.  It sounds like they're denying visas to everyone who met through a "mail order bride" service", regardless of whether they complied with the disclosure and consent rule or not.  Given this alone, I believe there is a case against them.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2010, 07:21:14 AM by Delphi_Programmer » Logged

Get government out of the Personals Ads and out of our personal lives.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!


Google visited last this page March 26, 2017, 12:41:04 PM

MKPortal ©2003-2006 mkportal.it