"Mail-order brides in an Internet age"

[garya505 2]

I figured since I was one of the "men portrayed" in the article she is quoting, I'd send her a thank you email. It's WAY too long to print here but here's an excerpt:

The last time I checked, this is a free country. I should be able to date and meet any woman I choose, from anywhere in the world. There is a system of background checks to exclude terrorists and wildly inappropriate relationships from going forward. I love Yesenia with all my heart and intend to do my very best for her. I don’t think you have any reason to challenge my right to do so. Can you honestly tell me that if you met an intelligent, handsome man from say Italy, or even Colombia and fell in love, you’d be ok if our government said you didn’t have the right to do so, or is it just men you feel should be punished and regulated? Also, in your choice to quote the statistics about abuse, did you do your own research or is the New York Times the authority on that? Trust me; they couldn’t even quote a simple guy like me correctly. Did you happen to notice that the rise in reported cases matched the rise in visas being issued so they are actually the same ratio? I’ll admit the ratio is high and I don’t like it. I don’t think women should ever be abused. I can’t speak for those men. I can only speak for myself. That being said, I don’t need you or the New York Times to do it for me.

Hope you are all doing well!

AW

[PlatyPius 5]

What she fails to realize is that there is probably an almost equal number of US women who ARE engaged/married to a person from another country. True, I suspect that men outnumber them, but it isn't as one-sided as she makes it seem.

My reply to her kinda went off in a direction I didn't mean for it to..... my frustration with past dating experiences here kinda came out. But, for ME, what I said is true. I found no one here who was really even worth my time. Seems all the women (hell, and men too. LOL) I've met in this area are moronic, prejudiced, uninspiring, superficial fad-fodder. Obviously, there are many that I've never met.... Bailey96 lives very near me, and I wouldn't describe her that way.

My comment posted to the article:

*************************************************

The Reason I'm Not Marrying an American Woman

Submitted by Larry (not verified) on Fri, 10/20/2006 - 20:13.

Bonnie has shown one of the reasons I never married an American woman; poor logic and giant leaps to unfounded conclusions.

To contradict almost everything she wrote:

1) My fiancee speaks better English than I do; she's British.

2) My fiancee makes more money than I do.

3) My fiancee is at the very least as well educated as I am, if not better.

4) My fiancee is by no means "submissive".

I did not go seeking a fiancee in a foreign country; it just happened. I had planned to live out my life single and care-free, as I had yet, in 38 years, to meet a compatible female here. Meeting my fiancee by chance on a message board changed all that.

People like you (Bonnie), who find marrying a foreign person to be a "bizarre act", are the reason I had given up on finding love in the US - prejudiced and mentally deficient.

I love my witty, beautiful, intelligent, non-prejudiced British fiancee. Guess I'll have to trade her in on a new model though, since she isn't submissive and stupid, eh?

*************************************************

[BPM-MVS 0]

I find the original post Pure Ignorance. A Man hating Feminist point of view and no one should question her as her point is fact and not opinion. Again, Pure Ignorance!

Yes I find it intolerable to listen to her thinking that all foreign marriages consist of daily beatings with an evential death to the Woman. AGAIN PURE IGNORANCE!

Last I will say, I take offense as any person meeting and filing a petition to bring their Fiance to the US is considered a MAIL ORDER BRIDE. I like most others had never looked through a catalog and "ordered" the Bride I wanted. Unlike this original Author who I'm sure has ordered many people and family around. I would also bet money she has mail ordered many luxerious goods of clothing and such from poor countries to try to make her look good. I got news! You can put a Pig in a dress but that don't make the Pig a lady

[1HappyGuy 45]

Thanks for the article and email address of this writer. I couldn't stop myself and I sent her a scathing letter. I found her article to be full of the same prejudices I met from local women I know, when I told them about my fiancee. The bull*/$% in this article is indicative of the attitudes of many people not just women. We in America have such a distorted view of the world that we think anyone living in another country would do anything to live here. I wonder if this writer is a divorcee, never married, or hetero sexually challenged person or just as someone else suggested, a male basher.

It is precisely this type of attitude that created the IMBRA law. If this law is so great, then lets make sure everyone, male or female, must disclose their past before they can write to anyone on the internet. Sounds pretty unworkable in that context.

Sorry, I'm still upset.

[poppscc 0]

delutional women like her are the reason why men seek other options. This article was pretty funny.

someone is bitter

She's just another ignorant, prejudiced, and misguided male-basher using distorted facts and invalid assumptions to sell newspapers.

not to mention Arrogant

Edited October 26, 2006 by poppscc

[kirk and Jenny 0]

She's just another ignorant, prejudiced, and misguided male-basher using distorted facts and invalid assumptions to sell newspapers.

Love it; BONNIE ERBE you ignorant sl*t. Basically she is saying that we should make this illegal so women with bow wow personalities like me can force men to marry me people like me. But no, that violates the "Invloluntary Servitude Clause " of the constitution, and to call her a bow wow is an insult to good dogs everywhere.

[Satellite 1]

I don’t think you have any reason to challenge my right to do so.

Last time I checked, an immigration benefit is a privilege and not a right. Therefore, taking it to its logical extreme, you cannot have a right to marry if that means your right to marry will abridge US sovereignty in terms of letting someone in that the US government feels should not be here. Similarily a corporation does not have the right to sponsor any immigrant worker it needs. (Corporations are deemed persons under the 5th and 14th Amendments).

We can argue day and night about how we will determine who is eligible to come and who is not. That is not the issue. But once that determination is made, your right to marry cannot trump US sovereignty. Thus, if one of the criteria for not letting someone in is done for the benefit of the foreigner, i.e. to make sure they don't enter a relationship with a US citizens who has "abused" the immigration "privileges" with too many K visas or has a criminal background, then so be it. Not happy with that, you can vote your congressmen out of office.

Thus the US government must distinguish between your rights as USC and immigration benefits which is purely under congressional discretion. In case you wanted to challenge the law on equal protection grounds it will be looked under a rational basis which the government easily passed with IMBRA. Immigrants are not a suspect class or insular / distinct minorities. And by disconnecting your rights from the immigrant's rights you have no fundamental right to marry claim. Because technically the government isn't telling you, you can't marry this foreigner. It simply says "that this type of foreigner" cannot enter the US.

Famous Quote on this issue:

"Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is the due process as far as the alien denied entry is concerned.”

Shaughnessy v. United States Ex Rel. Mezei (1953).

[garya505 2]

I don’t think you have any reason to challenge my right to do so.

Last time I checked, an immigration benefit is a privilege and not a right. Therefore, taking it to its logical extreme, you cannot have a right to marry if that means your right to marry will abridge US sovereignty in terms of letting someone in that the US government feels should not be here. Similarily a corporation does not have the right to sponsor any immigrant worker it needs. (Corporations are deemed persons under the 5th and 14th Amendments).

We can argue day and night about how we will determine who is eligible to come and who is not. That is not the issue. But once that determination is made, your right to marry cannot trump US sovereignty. Thus, if one of the criteria for not letting someone in is done for the benefit of the foreigner, i.e. to make sure they don't enter a relationship with a US citizens who has "abused" the immigration "privileges" with too many K visas or has a criminal background, then so be it. Not happy with that, you can vote your congressmen out of office.

Thus the US government must distinguish between your rights as USC and immigration benefits which is purely under congressional discretion. In case you wanted to challenge the law on equal protection grounds it will be looked under a rational basis which the government easily passed with IMBRA. Immigrants are not a suspect class or insular / distinct minorities. And by disconnecting your rights from the immigrant's rights you have no fundamental right to marry claim. Because technically the government isn't telling you, you can't marry this foreigner. It simply says "that this type of foreigner" cannot enter the US.

Famous Quote on this issue:

"Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is the due process as far as the alien denied entry is concerned.”

Shaughnessy v. United States Ex Rel. Mezei (1953).

Actually IMBRA was not easily passed. It failed at least once to pass on it's own merits, and only passed because they attached it to the VAWA legislation which was guaranteed to pass.

[Satellite 1]

Actually IMBRA was not easily passed. It failed at least once to pass on it's own merits, and only passed because they attached it to the VAWA legislation which was guaranteed to pass.

I was giving my opinion on what a court would do in terms of evaluating IMBRA on a rational basis scrutiny. I was not commenting about the committee notes or legislative history of IMBRA itself. Sorry for the confusion. Edited November 3, 2006 by Satellite

[AKW65 0]

I don’t think you have any reason to challenge my right to do so.

Last time I checked, an immigration benefit is a privilege and not a right. Therefore, taking it to its logical extreme, you cannot have a right to marry if that means your right to marry will abridge US sovereignty in terms of letting someone in that the US government feels should not be here. Similarily a corporation does not have the right to sponsor any immigrant worker it needs. (Corporations are deemed persons under the 5th and 14th Amendments).

We can argue day and night about how we will determine who is eligible to come and who is not. That is not the issue. But once that determination is made, your right to marry cannot trump US sovereignty. Thus, if one of the criteria for not letting someone in is done for the benefit of the foreigner, i.e. to make sure they don't enter a relationship with a US citizens who has "abused" the immigration "privileges" with too many K visas or has a criminal background, then so be it. Not happy with that, you can vote your congressmen out of office.

Thus the US government must distinguish between your rights as USC and immigration benefits which is purely under congressional discretion. In case you wanted to challenge the law on equal protection grounds it will be looked under a rational basis which the government easily passed with IMBRA. Immigrants are not a suspect class or insular / distinct minorities. And by disconnecting your rights from the immigrant's rights you have no fundamental right to marry claim. Because technically the government isn't telling you, you can't marry this foreigner. It simply says "that this type of foreigner" cannot enter the US.

Famous Quote on this issue:

"Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is the due process as far as the alien denied entry is concerned.”

Shaughnessy v. United States Ex Rel. Mezei (1953).

You must be a lawyer? I don't agree with you. My opinion is that the law allows me to marry a foreign woman of my choosing, period. There is a legal process in place, I'm following it. How is that not my right? IF that legal process were to fail and she were to be denied entrance, I'm free to leave and move somewhere else to be with her. THAT is MY RIGHT. So your saying my relationship (or all of the relationships on this site) is a challenge to US sovereignty is not valid. There is no law (yet) that says it is illegal to meet a foreign person on the internet or ask a foreign person to marry you!

My comment to the article was about the fact that meeting someone through a foreign website is very similar to meeting someone on eharmony or yahoo personals, etc. If I have the right to do that, I don't understand why that right is altered simply by a change in geographical location outside the borders of the U.S. Love knows no bounds and some rights are God Given.

[BJZags 17]

My comment to the article was about the fact that meeting someone through a foreign website is very similar to meeting someone on eharmony or yahoo personals, etc.

Actually meeting on a foreign website is VERY different than meeting someone on eHarmony. Because of the male/female height formula factored into their "compatibility" test, I would not have met someone like my fiancee. According to eHarmony, a woman would have NO interest in meeting a shorter man, so I would not have met Jenalyn if she were an American girl on eHarmony or PerfectMatch. Shedding these superficial leanings of American people is one of the benefits of dating and marrying a foreigner. Its too bad the NY Times article couldn't have commented on this as well.

[Ladylethal 12]

These type of articles are getting so tiresome, really.

[slim 1,519]

I actually feel sorry for the American women who envy these foreign women for "stealing" all their men away. These are the same women who look at the Victoria's Secret models and say "well, that's just not possible for a NORMAL wowan to do." And that's where the problem lies. "Normal" for American women has become; at least 20 lbs overweight, unhappy, and unmotivated to change their status quo.

To all the women who are about to jump on me.... wait, remember, you aren't "normal", you have a foreign husband/fiance. Therefore, you're just as bad as all of us men who are "mail ordering" a bride.

[rebeccajo 14]

Love knows no bounds and some rights are God Given.

Your 'rights' are spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

They were given to you by our founding fathers, not God. And there's nothing in there about 'love' either.

Don't confuse spiritualism with the law.

Edited November 6, 2006 by rebeccajo

[Satellite 1]

My opinion is that the law allows me to marry a foreign woman of my choosing, period.

That is correct. You can marry this foreign woman in the US or abroad. However, as the law is currently written you can only assert a privilege in terms of asking the US government for permission to sponsor your spouse to either come into the US (K3 / CR1) or come into the US to marry you (K1).

There is a legal process in place, I'm following it. How is that not my right?

You have every right to seek an immigration benefit if you and your sponsored alien spouse / fiance, etc. qualify for it. However, if IMBRA disqualifies either you from sponsoring the alien or the alien from coming here, then at best you have a right to appeal as designated by congress. Keep in mind, that allowing your appeal is completely in the hands of congess, because on such issues as immigration, congress has gone as far jurisdiction stripping of the courts to prevent the courts from hearing certain issues.

If that legal process were to fail and she were to be denied entrance, I'm free to leave and move somewhere else to be with her.

Yes, as far as I am aware, the US government does not prevent its citizens from leaving the US.

So your saying my relationship (or all of the relationships on this site) is a challenge to US sovereignty is not valid.

Absolutely not. All I was saying, that in general, if the US government chooses to prevent a foreign alien from entering the US, the USC cannot exert his right to marry as basis for overturning that decision. He can argue that of course, but based on current precedent, the USC is not likely to succeed on that argument. And one of the strongest reasons given against allowing the USC to assert his right to marry, is that in some situations US sovereignty will trump this right.

I am undecided as to whether that is right or wrong, I am simply explaining what the law currently says. I am not a lawyer, just a law student with an opinion