Online Dating Rights. Mail Order Brides

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
February 23, 2018, 03:33:02 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Six internet articles published simultaneously attacking IMBRA!  (Read 93482 times)
Hero Member
Posts: 1003

« on: February 15, 2007, 07:27:06 PM »

If IMBRA stands court tests, virtually any speech can be blocked on the internet for any manufactured reason whatsoever.

ADMIN NOTE: The article is published at the following six places:

 by David R. Usher
IMBRA: End the Destruction Of Marriage
February 15, 2007 01:47 PM EST

Feminists’ success destroying marriage in America, and exporting it to many foreign nations via the United Nations under the guise of “Democracy” is now legendary. Feminist victim-politics – in which demands for “equal rights” mask powerful agenda mandating unequal wrongs – must be ended.

A substantial number of moderate and conservative women’s organizations now oppose the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Not only did the outgoing Congress ignore the will of the people in reauthorizing VAWA last year, it added a dangerous anti-marriage known as IMBRA – the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act – a new and alarming legal construct to arbitrarily interfere with our constitutional right to free association.

IMBRA is a brute blockade making it impossible for foreign women to meet American men for marriage. American men must provide hardcopy about their criminal, family court orders, and arrest records to marriage introduction services, which must then show it to the woman and get her signature, before sharing contact information.

Since few foreign women are within visiting distance of the introduction service, and where less than half have access to the internet, they are effectively denied the possibility of marrying-up in the world. American men cannot freely meet or marry a nice woman who truly understands the value of marriage, and does not see men as just another sexual conquest leading to alimony and a huge child support order.

Feminists abhor American men having a way to find a marriage partner worth taking a risk on. Most American men who look overseas for marriage do so because in many foreign countries, women truly understand the purpose and value of marriage and having a husband. These women were not raised into a cult believing marriage is a war for domination and submission. They do not see marriage as being a trap hindering post-Kinsey sexual freedoms such as single-mother stripping and looting of Duke University students, or prostitution so staunchly defended by the National Organization for Women.

Having spent some time working in Korea, China, and Singapore I can testify to the vast attitudinal differences towards marriage between foreign women in these countries and their brainwashed American counterparts.

The first tip-off that IMBRA is a feminist social cartel: IMBRA does not provide information to American women because matchmaking services with more than 50% of female American clients are exempt.

IMBRA was invented by feminists on the fabrication that violent abusive American men like to wed foreign women because they are easier to abuse for lack of social protections and supports. Never mind that, as part of the immigration process, all potential foreign brides receive a nice pile of contact information for embassies, hotlines and women’s abuse centers which also contains embedded agitprop about how nasty American men are.

There is not one whit of scientific evidence suggesting that foreign brides are abused to any notable degree. Feminists have a very small number of cases cited as mass gospel, inflated by hubristic rumor-mill anecdote to paint an image tantamount to Edvard Munch’s “The Shriek”.

Here is the truth of the matter: the only scientific study done on marriages involving foreign brides was published by the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1999, written by Dr. Robert Scholes. It found that between 4000 and 6000 international marriages occur as a result of international matchmaking agencies each year. Divorce rates are miniscule: 80% of these marriages “survive over the years”, compared to less than 50% of marriages with American women. Despite a lack of scientific evidence of abuse rates in these marriages, the report is laden with imaginary feminist pontifications.

Feminists also claim that international matchmaking somehow constitutes sex trafficking, despite the fact that there is no evidence that organized sex traffickers use these services. Feminists consider all marriages with foreign women to be “servile” sex trafficking and inherently abusive and provide no science to support the notion:

“Bringing a woman to the U.S. is not always considered to be sex trafficking. Some of the men treat their wives well and are looking for companionship, not just a housekeeper who provides sex”.

One major promoter of IMBRA is the Tahirih Justice Center. Tahirih receives federal VAWA grants, spending some of it on helping abused women, but apparently spending greatly on paid lobbyists and “Public Policy Advocacy” not itemized in its annual report. This is the traditional alarmist self-aggrandizing fundraising technique used by radical women’s advocates.

Where the Constitution guarantees the right of free association, and where Newt Gingrich and many others oppose speech censorship in the name of national security, I maintain that IMBRA is invalid. American men do have an unfettered right to “say hello” (which is exactly what International matchmaking services do).

The danger of IMBRA to free speech cannot be understated. If IMBRA stands court tests, virtually any speech can be blocked on the internet for any manufactured reason whatsoever. Speak now, before the liberal elite holds your speech for you.">David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network

« Last Edit: February 16, 2007, 07:23:48 AM by tristan » Logged
Sr. Member
Posts: 313

« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2007, 08:11:58 PM »

If IMBRA stands court tests, virtually any speech can be blocked on the internet for any manufactured reason whatsoever[quote].

Todays feminists are radical feminists that have tremendous amounts of money. In America if you have money you can buy your freedom or you can destroy the civil liberties and freedom of unpopular political groups such as marriage agency (dating clients).
The Tahirih Justice Center made $3.5 Million dollars last year and they use that money in order to manipulate politicans and the public in order to manufacture a false and misleading perception.  The more they exaggerate the more money they receive for their manufactured problem.

The press is (in case you haven't noticed) is far too liberal to dare question the outrageous deception and misleading statistics that the radical feminists pass off as gospel truth to manufacture problems. Dave Usher in my opinion is a hero who speaks the honest truth a departure from the liberal news articles of the past including a New York Times story (October 2006) more interested in slandering a decent honest hard working man, Mr. Weaver who probably represents the typical marriage agency client- not the type of person that Layli Miller- Muro would like to depict as a an abuser.

The fact that Eduardo Porter, a NY Times editor apologized is confirmation the NY Times committed journalistic atrocity to "smear" Mr. Weaver.
(scroll down to Oct. 17,2006 5:16 pm)
The New York Times should have shown the misleading and dishonest statistics used by the Tahirih Justice Center and other radical groups to manufacture a perceived epidemic of abuse in International marriages (via the Internet) minuscule compared to the 17,000 American women slaughtered in American to American relationships that are completely unregulated- and never will be for obvious reasons. American men and women don't want to live in a police state and would prefer by democratic and human rights principles NOT to have background checks before they can get married or communicate. And as for Ms. Layli Miller-Muro you can bet her marriage wasn't regulated.

Meanwhile the only entities I can see that are getting raped and abused are not foreign women but the American taxpayers who are paying for the manufacture of grossly exaggerated Abuse Statistics being generated by the National Organization of Women, Equality Now, Legal Momentum and the Tahirih Justice Center.

Welcome to Tahirih's brave new world of manipulation and hysteria.  I wonder what will happen later. Once they are forced to admit that American women are worse off than foreign women perhaps Congress will give them carte blance authority to pass additional laws requiring criminal disclosure for all internet dating. Then perhaps the government will censor and regulate all potential love letters for another absurd manufactured reason ... perhaps to insure the purity of foreign brides to protect their virginity from "sex starved agressive American males". Then after that who knows what kind of absurd manufactured reason they may come up with to force their radical ideas upon a free society allowing  the government to scrutinize the love lives of innocent law abiding couples.

Dave Root
« Last Edit: February 17, 2007, 09:43:54 AM by bugman7, Reason: beter » Logged
Sr. Member
Posts: 315

« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2007, 01:07:39 PM »

I actually think that background checks would be a good idea for Americans at the point of petitioning for a marriage license.  People who get married have the right to know something about the person that they are going to marry.  I support background checks on people when they petition for fiancé(e) visas.  Remember, background checks are common in our society.

I seriously doubt that the feminist lobby will ever promote background checks for domestic relationships.  It is difficult enough for American women to get American men to marry them.  Imposing background checks domestically would make it harder for American women to acquire husbands.  There is an old saying that men lie like crazy to get sex, and women lie like crazy to get married.  I think that we all know what that adage is implying about our society.

IMBRA regulates how people communicate.  It requires that men undergo mandatory background checks before they can communicate with a foreign woman.  A relationship doesn’t even exist.  Due to this fact, the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act restricts free speech.  One can only engage in free speech if certain provisions are followed.  It establishes a dangerous legal precedent that the government has the right to regulate how people communicate with one another.  That is why it is unconstitutional.

The feminist lobby has not provided convincing statistical evidence to justify why these restrictions are necessary.  It is the government’s responsibility to justify why it is denying Americans their basic constitutional rights.  In the case of IMBRA, the government (actually Tahirih’s attorneys) has failed to do this in my opinion. 

IMBRA denies equal protection under the law.  There is no evidence that the level of domestic abuse is worse in “web-order bride” marriages as opposed to domestic marriages.  Thus, the government has no right to differentiate the two forms of dating.  IMBRA denies American women the protections that are being afforded to foreign women.  The law does not provide equal protection under the law.  It is the government’s (Tahirih’s) responsibility to justify why foreign women deserve more protection.  I believe that they have failed to do this.

The most effective way to destroy this law is to try to impose it domestically.  Most Americans (men and women) would see how nonsensical the law is.  It would be practically impossible to have a domestic “marriage broker” industry with a law like IMBRA.  American women would want to get rid of it, because it would have a “chilling” effect on communication.  No person wants the type of information, which IMBRA requires to be disclosed, when a relationship doesn’t even exist.

Hero Member
Posts: 1204

This is a subway in Russia. Poor country?


« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2007, 06:48:42 PM »

Just learned that one of the major dating sites that I thought was British owned and defying IMBRA, is really American owned and now doing 5 day background checks on American men WHILE DOING NO BACKGROUND CHECK AT ALL ON FOREIGN MEN WHO USE THE SERVICE.

This is a second front on which we are being denied equal rights.

They say that IMBRA does not regulate the foreign men who use an American owned international dating site.

Honest journalists will see the Tahirih Justice Center as a front for the NOW that appeals to conservative "Security Moms". and Yahoo and MySpace are actually working for total Internet regulation because they don't want clients to be anonymous and they want small dating sites/forums dead.
Full Member
Posts: 134

« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2007, 07:19:34 PM »

There is an old saying that men lie like crazy to get sex, and women lie like crazy to get married.  I think that we all know what that adage is implying about our society.

Oh boy, ain't that the truth, Vet.  If I'd known all the issues with my ex before I married her, I wouldn't have said "I do".  The problem with background investigations is certain things won't show up- e.g. medical history.  That is something that is quite possibly protected under the Heath Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.  Had I been able to look into my ex's medical and financial history, I'd have seen her history of self-injury, spending to excess (as a coping mechanism), and treatment for Borderline Personality Disorder, as well as her history of Bipolar Disorder.  I would have definitely backed off at that point, not gotten married, and would have been better off for it. (As it was, she still fought me tooth and nail over the divorce out of spite.)

Of course, she lied to me from day one, and I fell for it, hook line and sinker.  Angry

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke, Irish philosopher & statesman
Posts: 25


« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2007, 09:23:56 PM »

Taylor, are you aware that prior to IMBRA, background checks were already done at 3 points?: Immigration Office, National Visa Center, and Embassy.

But now under this draconion law, irrelevant DUI's from many years ago, fraudulent protection orders from divorces, and any arrests not leading to conviction, all must be disclosed at the visa petition stage.  The hell with that!  The additional background checks are a bad idea.   

Due to cultural differences, a DUI could be misunderstood by the fiancee that the American man is an alcoholic, even though the DUI was 20 years ago, and he has not had a drink since then.  Some segments of foreign cultures do not drink any alcohol, so after hearing about a DUI, the fiancee may want to break-off the engagement, which is what the feminists want.     

Also, about 90% of all divorces in America involve fraudulent protection orders.  When a woman goes to file for divorce, her lawyer will automatically file an order of protection, or have her go to the police and have the man removed from the house so that she can live there.  If she does not do that, she will have to find a place to live.  So most men who are divorced have an order filed against them no matter if they deserved it or not.  Lawyers like to do this because if the man and the woman can not talk to each other, all communication goes through the lawyers which means they can make more money.  The protection order could be misconstrued by the foreign fiancee, and she could think that the American is a violent abuser and/or wife beater.         

Taylor, why should any arrests not leading to conviction be disclosed to the fiancee?  If there is no conviction, than you are innocent.  So why should anyone have to bring it up?

When you stated that "background checks are common in our society", you sound just like Jeanne Smoot of the Tahirih Justice Center.  Are those common background checks that you are referring to a Federal law?  When someone goes to apply for a loan, a job, or an apartment, there is no law that says a background check is required.  The background check is a voluntary decision made by the employer, loan company, or property owner.     

For these reasons, ALL of IMBRA needs to be repealed or declared 'null and void' by the courts--not just the communication part.  The communication part is easy to circumvent (just use a foreign agency).  And soon Judge Cooper will be issuing a Permanent Injunction because regulating communication between consenting adults is unconstitutional, which is why we need to fight the additional disclosures at the visa petition stage.   

This law was intended to punish introduction agencies and their clients.  Most couples do not use agencies, but because the government has no way of knowing how a couple actually met (it's none of their business anyways), the feminists wrote their asinine law to crack down on all visa petitioners no matter how they actually met.  That's absurd. 

Did you know that Timothy Blackwell had a clean record?  Therefore, any background check done on him so his fiancee could make an "informed decision" (as the Tahirih Justice Center states) would have made no difference.   
Hero Member
Posts: 1204

This is a subway in Russia. Poor country?


« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2007, 04:09:39 AM »

If we let the feminists establish that "foreign-born women are vulnerable in a strange country"...we will be cooked in a million other lawsuits.

Look at the comments section of MSNBC's "To Catch a Predator" to see how the fans in the Roman Coliseum are now shouting that men who date "vulnerable college students" (who are 18+) need to be exposed on TV and taken down by SWAT teams.

The whole "they are vulnerable" routine needs to be struck down root and branch, because once it starts it will never end.

Victim politics includes everyone but the white heterosexual male.

Where is the part about us being vulnerable in a country where the police will arrest foreign men for walking on the grass or touching a monument in order to get a bribe for their release? For more than 10 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, that was normal in the FSU. You saw a policeman, you mentally got ready to fork over $20 worth of rubles. You saw bad guys following you on the sidewalk and you walked out into the street.

You go to a foreign country and you learn to adapt. Period.

We've gone 6000 years of recorded history without needing the new laws of the radical feminists and security moms. We've got old laws that can be enforced. Period.

My prediction is that Judge Cooper will rule only on what EC asked for but he will suggest that the entire law has no basis. This will be the volleyball setup for another lawsuit to spike the ball.

Which means we need more client volunteers to sue the government on the entire law, which should be an easy 5th Amendment win.

Volunteers anyone? Yes. I mean you the reader. If you cannot sue the government, at least please donate $50-100.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2007, 04:27:39 AM by VeteransAbroad » Logged

Honest journalists will see the Tahirih Justice Center as a front for the NOW that appeals to conservative "Security Moms". and Yahoo and MySpace are actually working for total Internet regulation because they don't want clients to be anonymous and they want small dating sites/forums dead.
Jr. Member
Posts: 68


« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2007, 03:05:23 PM »

IMBRA was invented by feminists on the fabrication that violent abusive American men like to wed foreign women because they are easier to abuse for lack of social protections and supports

This is an accurate statement, as there is no shred of evidence demonstrating a higher rate of violence in cross-cultural marriages facilitated by the IMBs.  In fact, Tahirih Justice Center (the main proponent of IMBRA) even states, "It is important to note that there are no national statistics reflecting what the prevalence of abuse is in the "brokered" marriages, specifically."

With no scientific evidence of higher prevalence of abuse to support its claims, Tahirih Justice Center has been forced to  manipulate facts and create hysteria to maintain support for IMBRA.  One example that comes to mind is the case of David Dickerson, who was the victim of fabricated claims of rape and abuse alleged by his immigrant Latvian wife. When the news broke, Layli Miller-Muro, the executive director of Tahirih Justice Center, promptly appeared in this case and raised hysteria about immigrant women abuse ("30 to 50 percent are abused..." - clearly, a fabricated data).  Here is the Tahirih hysteria for your viewing.

The WJLA video (Baltimore) has become rather well-known -  it was meant to serve as a propaganda piece for Tahirih, but clearly it backfired and is now the source of considerable embarrassment for this radical feminist organization. 

« Last Edit: February 19, 2007, 10:48:54 AM by Lestat » Logged

Visit my Blog, Thoughts On IMBRA And Foreign Women at: ?

Subscribe to my IMBRA blog -- RSS Link is:

IMBRA is a scornful feminist response to international romance
Pages: [1]
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 February 20, 2018, 11:20:31 AM

MKPortal ©2003-2006