Question about the new law

[bly 0]

If you have a history of abusing women, being convicted of spousal abuse, stalking, or are a registered sex offender....I could see why you would be against this law. But if you fall into none of these catagories, then why are you really concerned, and it would also make your potential spouse feel alot more safer with you.

This law goes so far past the line for me.

It halts freedom of speech. It makes it illegal to ** communicate ** with a foreign woman prior to releasing incredible personal information about myself. You do not have to be convicted, a single arrest for one of the listed offenses MUST be reported, even if the arrest was bogus and the charges dismissed. Are we not innocent until proven guilty?

Since when did I have to disclose the number of children I have and their ages in order to say "Hello" to a woman via an IMB? Well if this law goes into affect I will be required to give this information. Information about my children and martial history is needed why?

Further more, would you really want your entire history including information about your children divulged to a FOREIGN company just so you can communicate with their listed members? The foreign company isn't bound by any laws to keep this information confidential, but we are required to give it in order to use their services.

If you want to require this kind of disclosure do it at the visa level. This way all information would stay within the hands of USA personal at the consulate. Treat all visa applicants the same regardless of how they met.

I am so opposed to this law because it singles out and targets one specific form of communication which is done via an IMB.

Would you be ok with a law that says you must disclose your entire criminal (convicted or not), child, and marital history BEFORE you were allowed to say hello to a woman in a bar? I fail to see the difference in saying hello in a bar or hello via IMB email. A nice young woman was tragically killed last week in NYC after leaving a bar, so if you follow the logic of the IMBRA we need to protect all women, so the next step is to mandate full disclosures at the local bar before communication is permitted. I firmly believe we all have freedom of speech, we are allowed to say hello to any one in any way we choose without our govt intruding in our lives or mandating what we must disclose about ourselves in order to speak to whom we choose.

If this law was allowed to stand, it is the beginning of the end.

The law has good intentions, but they are thoroughly misplaced.

[bly 0]

If you have a history of abusing women, being convicted of spousal abuse, stalking, or are a registered sex offender....I could see why you would be against this law. But if you fall into none of these catagories, then why are you really concerned, and it would also make your potential spouse feel alot more safer with you.

Have to agree. Being pretty conservative myself, and one that cannot stand big bro watching over our shoulders, yet I think if someone is an abuser then this will make it a little harder for them. I have seen abuse and it sucks even for us savy Americans. I can only imagine the hell it would be for someone to come here unknowingly only to find out what a mistake that she (or he) made. And not having (or not knowing) the resources to leave especially when the alternative is flying back home perhaps to nothing after the she/he has uprooted all and given up all. Perhaps not the perfect law but it is a start in the right direction that probably needs to be addressed.

I agree with the idea that being abused is horrible and we need to try to find a way to prevent it, but once the govt can tell us who and how we can communicate, life as we know it today is over.

This all started because 2 young women were tragically killed. It is truly regretful that this happened.

There was a tragic rape and murder of a nice young NYC woman a week or 2 ago. Should we protect all women going to bars by requiring men to fill detailed information about them selves prior to entering a bar? Would this not protect more women?

Would you like to fill out a form of that states your entire criminal, marital, and child history, give that to anyone you are interested in, just to say “Hello”.

How is saying hello via email in different? It’s not.

There is a prejudice against any man meeting a woman via an IMB. We are treated as we are criminals and must prove otherwise and I take huge offense to it.

Again, you can accomplish the same goals be requiring this information to be divulged before a VISA to the USA is issued. It should NOT be required to say “Hello”

[isleta521 5]

I see your point Bly. Like i said it is not a perfect law. Perhaps the law is only written to save a few nickles. Have the agency keep track of the records and if there is a problem then the gov does an audit. All I can say is it is impossible to go through life without disclosing your "history". Dont like it but that is just the way it is. And unfortunately, post 911 is just going to make it all that much harder for everything else. I will say one thing. People do prey on other people and I can see where this is somewhat relavent.

[bly 0]

I see your point Bly. Like i said it is not a perfect law. Perhaps the law is only written to save a few nickles. Have the agency keep track of the records and if there is a problem then the gov does an audit. All I can say is it is impossible to go through life without disclosing your "history". Dont like it but that is just the way it is. And unfortunately, post 911 is just going to make it all that much harder for everything else. I will say one thing. People do prey on other people and I can see where this is somewhat relavent.

I don't see how you can say it's impossible to go through your life without disclosing your history. You can easily get married to a USC without ever disclosing if you were previously married or arrested. People hide their past all the time. I'm not saying its right, it's just very easy and happens every day.

While I have nothing to hide and my fiancée knows everything about me, I was able to tell her myself, not mandated by the govt prior to ever saying hello.

The law will get tossed, I have no doubt…. The justice dept is already prohibited from enforcing it until it plays out in the courts.

[buckeye1971 0]

EUROPEAN CONNECTIONS, Plaintiff,

v.

ALBERTO GONZALES in his

Official capacity as Attorney General of The United States and

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants.

COMES NOW, plaintiff, European Connections, Inc., who respectfully shows:

1. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to prevent the Attorney General of the United States from enforcing the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (hereafter, "the Act"), as violative of the First and Fifth Amendments.

2. Enforcement of the Act will greatly impact plaintiff's business, perhaps forcing a legitimate company out of business because of the burdens imposed by the Act.

3.The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2).

4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391©.

5. Plaintiff is a company defined as an international marriage broker by the Act.

6.Defendant Alberto Gonzales is the present Attorney General of the United States and is sued in his official capacity. The United States of America is a sovereign nation responsible for enacting and enforcing the Act and any regulations to be adopted under the authority of that Act. Each defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.

7.The Act provides in pertinent part that before plaintiff can contact foreign clients that it must collect information from the United State citizen, much of which is of an intrusive and personal nature.

8.The Act provides numerous exceptions to such requirements based on whether the so called marriage brokers are culturally or religiously based, profit or nonprofit, the nature of its charges and whether international brokering is more than 50% of the broker's business.

9. The Act is unconstitutional on its face under the First Amendment because it is a prior restraint which is not narrowly tailored.

10. The Act is unconstitutional on its face under the First Amendment because it is content based and the government cannot justify the restriction.

11. The Act is unconstitutional on its face under the Fifth Amendment because it denies equal protection and applies arbitrarily and in an inconsistent manner.

12. The Act is unconstitutional on its face under the First Amendment because it does not directly advance the government's asserted interest and is more extensive than is necessary to serve the interest.

13. Section 833(e)(2)(B) of the Act is content based and overbroad; it is not narrowly tailored to meet the asserted governmental interest.

14. The Act becomes effective _______________. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury without adequate remedy at law if the Act is enforced against it.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays:

1) For a Temporary Restraining Order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction enjoining defendants from enforcing the International Marriage Brokers Regulation Act of 2005 against plaintiff or its clients;

2) Costs; and

3) For such other and further relief as is just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________

Ralph Goldberg

Bar No. 299475

Attorney for Plaintiff

March 20 is next Ruling in the courts

[meddykomp 0]

Bly I can see your point about when information is disclosed, however I am completely for the disclosure prior to the intended fiance coming to the US. To be honest I would go as far as to support requiring this type of disclosure before issuance of a marriage license regardless of whether the couple are both USC or one is not. Of course, I have had the unfortunate experience of seeing a loved one with her brains spilling out of her head and her face beyond recognition because she decided to marry someone that she thought she could trust ... if only she had known about his previous arrest for domestic violence .. it might have made a difference.

[isleta521 5]

I see your point Bly. Like i said it is not a perfect law. Perhaps the law is only written to save a few nickles. Have the agency keep track of the records and if there is a problem then the gov does an audit. All I can say is it is impossible to go through life without disclosing your "history". Dont like it but that is just the way it is. And unfortunately, post 911 is just going to make it all that much harder for everything else. I will say one thing. People do prey on other people and I can see where this is somewhat relavent.

I don't see how you can say it's impossible to go through your life without disclosing your history. You can easily get married to a USC without ever disclosing if you were previously married or arrested. People hide their past all the time. I'm not saying its right, it's just very easy and happens every day.

While I have nothing to hide and my fiancée knows everything about me, I was able to tell her myself, not mandated by the govt prior to ever saying hello.

The law will get tossed, I have no doubt…. The justice dept is already prohibited from enforcing it until it plays out in the courts.

So Bly:

you have a heart of Gold and your house is made of glass. Very good! Not only that, I very much believe you. But what about the sick f@k out there that does what he does best??

By the way it is impossible not to go through your life without disclosing your history. Unless you do not have a credit card, bank account, loan, gov job, many civ jobs, cell Phone, or even a drver liscense. All needed is your ss number or drver licn no. You would be surprised!!

You are right . the law will prob get tossed but it may come back rewritten and maybe with bigbro not so intrusive (hopefully) and with the intentions of protecting the immigrant- we will have to see.

[cohibakid 0]

Lets face it, in the US you are guilty until proven innocent and whatever your arrest record is for sticks with you for life. An arrest is not neccesarily a conviction but it is looked at as the same by most government agencies. Commonly, we see many zealous prosecuters looking for convictions. I'm sure all of us know someone who has been arrested for something they did not even remotely do. We see it often in domestic abuse cases, and even more so when the parties are going through a divorce and custody of children is at issue. To paint one party as an abuser only serves to bolster the other parties custody rights. It is important to protect all individuals from potential abuse but is equally important to protect ones freedom from false accusations which may under the legal system have caused them to be labeled as something they are not. Once you have any arrest record for a false domestic abuse claim it follows you for life and any subsequent false abuse charges will be hard to defend. It is common practice for police officers to arrest one of the parties whenever a domestic abuse accusation is made, statistically the male gender.

Edited March 15, 2006 by cohibakid