IMBRA O.K. Under U.S. Constitution

[njboy70 0]

Today, in a 40 page written opinion, which you can find at http://www.usaimmigrationattorney.com/Judg...perDecision.pdf

a federal judge in Atlanta, Georgia upheld the constitutionality of IMBRA in a challenge brought by a international marriage broker, European Connections and Tours. Judge Cooper is the second federal judge to deny relief to individuals and agencies who claimed that IMBRA violates their free speech rights and also that it violates the equal protection guarantees of the constitution.

Bottom line, two federal courts have now held that IMBRA is NOT unconstitutional.

[Turboguy 6]

That is a real bummer. Of course they were challenged on the basis that it was unfair to the American agencies to have to compete with foreign ones who they are now at a disadvantage to and there could be other basis to challenge it. It has never been challenged as it pertains to K-1's. Of course most of us could not afford to challenge it.

[1HappyGuy 45]

The challenge by European Connections wasn't just about the foreign agencies not complying with IMBRA. It was also about American introduction services not being held to the same standards. If foreign women (remember this is a part of VAWA) are to be informed about prior convictions of abuse, sexual assault, etc. why then shouldn't the American introduction services have to uphold the same standards? Do we think that the American woman is so asute that she will not be taken in by an abuser online?

When we hear about all of the children that are drawn into elaborate scandals online, it really makes you wonder why the introduction services are not also being more closely screened.

That was one of European Connections case points, but apparently the judge didn't feel that was worth extending the law towards those online services.

[njboy70 0]

Here's a press release:

Constitutionality of International Marriage Broker Regulation Act is Upheld

Falls Church, VA. March 27, 2007 – On Monday March 26th 2007, in an important legal

decision, Judge Clarence Cooper (from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Georgia in Atlanta) rejected an international marriage broker’s claim that the

2005 International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) is unconstitutional. IMBRA is

a new law designed to provide greater protection for foreign women who marry men

through what are commonly known as “mail order bride” agencies. Layli Miller-Muro, the

Executive Director of the Tahirih Justice Center noted, “This decision sends an important

message to the international marriage broker (“IMB”) industry, which has worked to resist

and evade its regulation, that it can no longer keep foreign women from poorer countries

ignorant of the violent histories of the men who use their services and the legal rights

available to women living in the United States.”

The lawsuit defeated in Monday’s decision was brought by a leading international marriage

broker, European Connections (“EC”). EC alleged that the law’s requirement that IMBs

provide information to foreign women about their legal rights and the criminal

backgrounds of their prospective American husbands infringed upon their constitutional

rights. In a detailed 40-page decision, Judge Clarence Cooper found that “The rates of

domestic violence against immigrant women are much higher than those of the U.S.

population” and that “IMBRA is highly likely to reduce domestic abuse – and may actually

save lives.” When considering EC’s arguments that the implementation of IMBRA would

cost them money, the judge noted that “the Court is confronted with the classic ‘bloodversus-

money’ analysis, and the safety of foreign women coming to the United States is

clearly the more vital interest.”

The lawsuit was an attempt to resist the regulation of the IMB industry, which derives its

profits from pairing foreign women from poorer countries with American men. The

requirements imposed by IMBRA seek to ensure that women who speak limited English,

have no social ties in the U.S., and are unfamiliar with U.S. laws are given sufficient

information to decide whether to enter into a relationship and know where to find help if

the relationship turns abusive. IMBRA was passed in 2005 with wide bi-partisan support as

a part of the Violence Against Women Act, after over a decade of examination by

Congress of the special vulnerabilities of immigrant women to abuse and recent attention

to concerns about abuse through the IMB industry.

Another lawsuit, brought in Ohio by a consortium of IMBs, made similar constitutional

arguments and was dismissed in January 2007. The United States Attorney’s Office and the

Tahirih Justice Center defended both cases. The Tahirih Justice Center was represented on

pro bono basis by the law firms of Arnold & Porter (Washington, DC) and Jones Day

(Atlanta, GA). Lead attorney and partner at Arnold & Porter Randy Miller noted, “This is

an important victory that decisively protects a historic law designed to protect extremely

vulnerable foreign women coming to the United States from developing countries to marry

American men through these agencies.”

Available for Interview

European Connections matched a young Siberian woman named Katerina with an American man named Frank

Sheridan who soon after her arrival in the U.S. kept her a virtual prisoner in his home, taking away her

identification documents and cutting all the phone lines to the house. During one violent rage, he beat Katerina

and dragged her around the house by her legs. When she told him she was leaving him and going back home to

Russia, Frank stabbed himself and then accused her of doing it to get her thrown in jail, only agreeing to post bail if

she promised to return to him and be a dutiful wife. Katerina fled instead to a domestic violence shelter where

she remained for nine months, and endured more than two years of harassment and threats. While investigating

Frank for aggravated stalking, the police discovered he was in Russia looking for a new bride. Later, when a

sheriff’s deputy came to Frank’s house to arrest him for another stalking-related crime, Frank opened fire,

shooting the deputy in the face, chest, leg and back. The deputy returned fire and, after 25 rounds of gunfire,

Frank was dead and Katerina’s nightmare was finally over.

Katerina’s saga unfortunately is not unusual. The Court’s decision on Monday notes that many other “mail order

brides” in the U.S. have suffered similar abuse at the hands of their American husbands, and that the

“perpetrators of these crimes were often involved with multiple foreign women and were seeking to become

involved with other foreign women at or around the time they committed the crimes.”

Katerina is willing to talk to press about her experience and feelings about the legal decision against European

Connections.

[rebeccajo 14]

Little about immigration (if anything) is protected by constitutional rights.

Why then should IMBRA requirements be unconstitutional?

[Hornet 2]

Screw the Govt!!!! They take our freedoms away left and right!! and people do NOTHING!

I say KILL BIG BROTHER!!!

That's what the Declaration of Independence states!

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

I'm a Marine and we swear to protect the Constitution! NOT the Government

[akdiver 3]

Oh come on. We haven't used the U.S. Constitution in YEARS! Get with the program man.

[Nancy2015 2]

Why is everybody so against IMBRA? I've always thought it was great, because whatever protects immigrants is always a good thing. Immigrants are vulnerable as it is, and their rights are limited, especially rights of marriage-based immigrants. Being in an abusive relationship is bad enough, but being in an abusive relationship with a conditional green card or - better yet - without one, is even worse.

Now don't let loose your dogs on me - I am not familiar with IMBRA that well. But if it helps a potential immigrant find out anything about the USC that raises red flags, it's great.

[kerewin21 2]

Oh come on. We haven't used the U.S. Constitution in YEARS! Get with the program man.

LOL

[Turboguy 6]

I am all in favor of protecting immigrants but totally opposed to IMBRA. Mostly because it infringes on our rights. First off, I don't think the government has a right to tell us who and when we can marry. I think from an agency point of view I don't think it is fair to put regualtions on US based agencies that are very ackawrd and restrictive but with agenies based outside the US it is business as usual.

It does not probibit those with records of abuse from doing a K-1. They just make sure the fiancee knows about the persons record. I think it is unfair to make those of us who seek a foreign wife to follow stricter regulations when we want to meet a woman. The women that come her on a K-1 often come from countries where the chance of abuse is much higher. The abusive men will abuse American women if they can't find a foreign one to abuse. I don't see it solving any problems. Studys of domestic abuse with foreign women have found there is less abuse than in marriages with American women anyway. No matter what they do, they will never stop it totally.

I think a smarter choice would have been to require a criminal background check on the petitioner in all K-1 cases when the visa is applied for not when they want to meet a woman also. The foreign beneficiary already has to do that. I have no problem with both doing it. Then all successful K-1 pettioners should have to attend several classes where the help available to them is fully explained. Then up the fee's, which they are doing anyway, and build a better support system in the USA for the women who do find themselves in an abusive realtionship.

[Turboguy 6]

One other thing, there are teeth built into IMBRA which are not being used yet so we may see worse in the days to come. They have the right to deny visas to anyone who used an IMB who did not comply with the regualtions and if the regualtions were strictly enforced it would be far more burdensome than it is now.

[1HappyGuy 45]

One thing you should understand about IMBRA is that when congress tried to pass legislation just on this, it was handily defeated. So, they added it to the Violence Against Women Act of 2005. The idea of IMBRA is not by itself a bad thing. But the interpretations made by USCIS is not following the law as written. Also, if this is such a good idea to protect women, then why aren't domestic introduction agencies required to follow it. Aren't men that abuse women just as likely to do this with an American woman as with a foreigner.

Of course, this Tahirih Justice Center, has taken a very strict stance in this case. I would say that in their opinion, all men are abusive to women. I'm not trying to make light of abuse, but TJC has some very strange concepts of why men look towards foreign women as spouses. They probably would never think that some men are just looking for a woman that doesn't have the same attitudes as American women.

That case they described in the press release is by far one of the most extreme I've ever heard of. But, would it be better or worse if the woman involved was American born?

[MidnightinMoscow 0]

Here is the competing Press Release. It seems we are having dueling Press Releases.

Note that the plaintiff lawyers in both the Georgia and Ohio cases were incompetent. The EC lawyer said accidentally that interfering with the hello process was OK but the law was just "overbroad". That is like throwing an interception pass on your own 10 yard line. The AODA lawyer was just as bad. She said "We recognize that the Supreme Court has never recognized a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner for a relationship...but please grant heterosexual men such a right based on the trend in granting privacy rights for instance to women on abortion and to gay men on gay sex". She knew she was talking to a Republican judge and said that. If she was even mentally on the side of her own clients, she failed to reassert that the Right to Assemble clearly covered this issue from day 1 of the republic and she did not consider the 9th Amendment, that says that you cannot take a right away that everyone thought they had, simply because the Consitution and the Supreme Court never specifically said it was OK. The 9th Amendment says that, although breathing and eating and mating are not covered specifically by the Constitution as rights, they are covered anyway. So, with friends like that, nobody even needed the enemy. The Tahirih Justice Center could have just stayed home and won both cases because the lawyers for the small dating agencies were out of their element. And they were out of their element because they never consulted with the actual men and women who date foreigners.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 30, 2007

US Judge Affirms IMBRA: Americans Must Have Criminal Checks Before Contacting Foreigners on Internet

A new federal law that makes it a crime for Americans to communicate with foreigners on dating websites is upheld by a federal judge.

On March 26, 2007 a new federal law restricting Americans from contacting foreigners through internet dating sites was upheld by a federal court after a Constitutional challenge by an internet dating company. In European Connections v. Alberto Gonzales, 1:06-CV-0426-CC, Judge Clarence Cooper of the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed a lawsuit by European Connections which claimed that the law violated the right to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The plaintiff had failed to challenge the law based on the First Amendment right to assemble.

According to Tristan Laurent, President of the advocacy group Online Dating Rights at www.online-dating-rights.com, “We will now have to take legal action from the point of view of the users of online dating sites. The whole idea that it is now a crime for American men to send emails to women in other countries is so preposterous it is beyond belief. The judge’s ruling that there is no Constitutional violation in forcing Americans to divulge all sorts of highly personal information to a complete stranger or scammer abroad before the American can even say hello or know to whom he is writing is only exceeded in foolishness by Congress in making the law."

The law was originally called the International Matchmaker Regulation Act, but it did not pass Congress in previous years by that name and it was later named the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) before it passed on December 17th, 2005. The law, which was attached to the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was apparently not debated in public and Mr. Laurent says that no dating company or dating site user was invited to a closed-door Senate hearing in July 2004.

IMBRA makes it a felony for an internet dating company, that primarily focuses on introducing Americans to foreigners, to allow any American to communicate with any person of foreign nationality without first subjecting that American to a criminal background check, a sex offender check and without first having the American certify any previous convictions or arrests, any previous marriages or divorces any children and all states of residence since 18. Match.com is excluded from the law, and the judge found that this exception posed no challenge to the Fifth Amendment equal protection clause because American women are supposedly not abused by American men that they meet on the internet, and thus are not in need of protection.

The law was sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-KS and Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-WA and was championed by key women's groups. The law was passed after these groups made claims that foreign women who marry American men are subjected to higher rates of abuse than are American women. However, the only study that addresses this issue was done by the INS in 1999 and it found that the rate of abuse in such international marriages is one-seventh the rate of abuse in domestic marriages. You can read the study in its entirety by clicking HERE.

Online Dating Rights Director of Public Relations Jim Peterson said of the judge’s ruling that, “It is a sad day for freedom in our country when an American has to have a criminal background check before he can say ‘Hello” to a foreigner through the internet.” He also said that: “ is the only country in the world that regulates communication between two consenting adults seeking to communicate via internet, with the possible exceptions of North Korea. Without new email technology, IMBRA could not have been even feasible because people generally sent paper letters to each other's home addresses just a few years ago. Is it right for the US government to make a form of communication illegal when it was the only form of communication possible just a few years ago?”.

The law has been attacked in a bipartisan fashion by prominent feminist Wendy McElroy at http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/edi.../2006/0111.html and by men’s rights supporter David Usher (link HERE) and by immigration attorney Gary Bala (link HERE). Mr. Laurent says that his organization has undertaken a fundraising drive to raise $100,000 for a class-action suit against the government on behalf of all the men who can no longer contact women in Canada, England, Germany, Russia and the Philippines due to this law. Contributors are asked to visit the Online Dating Rights website.

Both Mr. Laurent and Mr. Peterson are available for media interviews but since both have to work for a living and do not receive federal taxpayer funding, arrangements for telephone interviews should be made by email. Contact Mr. Laurent at onlinedatingrights@yahoo.com and Mr. Peterson at veterans@veteransabroad.com

Edited April 2, 2007 by MidnightinMoscow

[MidnightinMoscow 0]

Note that the AODA case was simply dropped by the plaintiffs when the dating website owners noticed that the judge agreed with their own lawyer's bizarre statement about the Supreme Court never holding that there was a fundamental liberty interest in meeting foreigners.

The European Connections case is the only IMBRA case that exists and it was lost at the district level. Judge Clarence Cooper made a number of key errors, as he basically copied his entire decision off the Tahirih website (he was probably told he would be nominated for the Supreme Court by Hillary if he did this). Here is one example of a key error: He said that Match.com was not similar to EC because Match.com charged women members the same as male members. Everybody knows that young attractive American women use Match.com for free because it is the person who does the approaching who always pays.

So, in other words, Judge Clarence Cooper was saying that Match.com can now be regulated if it can be shown that men and women are NOT made to pay equally for the service. That can easily be done.

If you read his decision, you will see a dozen such remarks that show that no thought or effort was made in the decision except to find precedents to prove that the 5th Amendment (equal treatment under the law) isn't something judges care about and to find precedent (easily found) for saying that Congress doesn't have to prove they were acting on legitimate information (the plaintiff has to prove this).

And everyone knows that most court decisions are investigated and written by young court clerks. Judge Cooper probably just signed this one.

In 1907, the Expatriation Act was the same as IMBRA but only in reverse. Then, a male dominated Congress decided to stop American women from dating and marrying European aristocracy, so they said a woman would lose her American citizenship if she married a foreigner. Back then, the Austro-Hungarian empire was the superpower and Vienna and London housed the halls of power. American women gravitated toward the men in the superpowers. American men did not like this.

The courts consistently upheld the Expatriation Act and it was only repealed in Congress in 1932 after the Austro-Hungarian empire completely collapsed and Vienna turned into a second-class city.

Edited April 2, 2007 by MidnightinMoscow

[BJZags 17]

Judge Cooper in his opinion relied heavily, even totally, on the data submitted by the defendants. Either: European Connections chose to present no dispositive date; there is no "positive results" from "mail-order bride" situations; or Judge Cooper chose to ignore the plaintiff's data when he crafted his opinion.

Also, in a very brief survey of the law journal articles on the topic, I was able to find over 20 articles focusing on the negative treatment and abuses suffered by foreign brides, and NOT ONE written in a more positive light. I'm not sure why this is, but it sounds like an opportunity for me or someone else to write an article arguing the other side.