According to Congress at least * 8,000-12,000 foreign women entered the United States each year as a “Mail order bride”. Over a ten year period this means approximately 100,000 women have entered the USA as a result of “mail order bride” arrangements. Only three of those women have been killed by their husband in 10 years. Deplorable nonetheless but in the same 10 year period 14,000 American women citizens have been killed by their husbands or intimate partner.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to calculate the “Intimate Partner Murder Rate” for women who met their husbands through an International marriage agency. Simply divide 3 by 100,000=.003%
The “Intimate partner violence rate” for all marriages throughout the US can be found by dividing 14,000 by 80,000,000 women (married/ living together)=.0175%

Based upon these calculations the murder for these International marriages (Mail order bride arrangements) enjoy a far lower rate of murder compared to all US marriages. This would be expected since the average age of IMB clients is approximately 44 years. Simply because of their age these men are well educated, earn higher salaries than average, have well established careers, and thus they are generally responsible.

The new AODA Lawsuit in Ohio, launched with the critical support of two American women lawyers, argues:

1) The Right to Association (2nd Amendment) and
2) The Right to Privacy (which is not in the Constitution but has tons of precedent)

The new lawsuit even mentions Roe vs Wade as a privacy precedent…among many others.

Also…a case where mentally retarded people were discriminated against because they were “politically unpopular” in a community that did not want a home for them built…was used as an example of IMB customers being persecuted only because they are politically unpopular.

The only thing these lawyers are leaving out, which the EC lawyers also left out, is that half of all foreign women on IMB sites do not have email and, therefore, could not “approve” of criminal background forms and then 300,000 women would have to be deleted from the Internet ASAP if IMBRA ever came into effect (which theoretically could be tomorrow if the Ohio judge doesn’t grant the additional TRO).

Also, neither lawsuit states the obvious: that IMBRA allows men to lie on the background forms…which means that this part of the law would be useless and harmless if it weren’t for the above fact that so many women don’t have email to allow them to quickly approve of the useless forms, 100% of which would state that the male had no criminal background.

The new lawsuit does point out, however, that an IMB customer named Mark Strickland states that foreign women tend to ignore the background forms, even though he has no damaging information on them, and this he believes is a major impediment to free speech.

This plaintiff is correct on this: a submitted form that has no bad information on it…will be ignored because the women will also see no important information such as age, height, job, photo. They won’t understand why all this *relevant* info was not on the form.

So IMBRA will do what it was secretly designed to do: create a barrier between American men and foreign women…a barrier that seems small…but which can make all the difference in the world.

Remember what I said above: No intelligent man with a criminal background would ever tell the truth on an IMBRA form, making the forms useless.

The plaintiffs we have come to know, have filed both the complaint and TRO today in Ohio Court. The TRO is expected to be ruled on this Friday but not certain yet. Aagin, the plaintiffs who filed want to thank you for all your efforts

Confused has stated. “heck you have to share criminal information to get a job”. The truth of the matter is the background clearance (check) required for IMBRA is more comprehensive then getting a Top secret clearance for National Security positions.

IMBRA is too “broad based” unduly infringing upon mens privacy rights. One could argue submission of criminal information is a petty thing… but when your fiancee Visa gets put on “adminstrative review” by USCIS for a year because of a petty crime (including non guilty convictions) 35 years ago it IMBRA unduly burdersome.

If you truly value the intelligence of an immigrant woman, sharing with her information so that she can make an informed choice, up front, is only respectful.

Confused, you are correct. And certainly, we can agree that, just like you, her intelligence will enable her to ask for information that SHE considers important while getting to know more about a man she is interested in. Of course, just like you, one cannot think of every possible thing to ask. Fortunately, when applying for a visa while still in her country, she will be made aware of any and all “bad guy” things. Therefore, out of respect for her, she would be receiving, “up front,” all the information she needs to make an informed decision. If you prefer that the woman’s intelligence be insulted by providing information before saying “hello” in a love letter, PLEASE TELL ME WHY.

Both the proponents of IMBRA and the defendants have been unable to demonstrate any accurate comparison of violence rates for International marriages (through IMB’s) compared to the overall violence rate for US marriages. The proponents and defendants alike have cited an array of confusing and misleading statistical information. For example Layli Miller Muro recently stated on the O’reilly factor she had”no definitive way of knowing” what percentage of the “mail order bride” marriages were involved in abusive situations. The Miller-Muro cited a study stating that “more than 50% of legal Immigrant Service providers were seeing women who were being abused by men they met through Int. marriage brokers”. (This study cited is confusing and destroys any credible accuracy in terms of domestic violence).

To confuse matters even more the defendants memorandum ( dated March 31, 2006) cited the preamble of IMBRA (2003) claiming “49.3 percent of foreign immigrants reported physical abuse by an intimate partner. This is clearly a mistake by the defendant with a misrepresentation of facts. The study cited involved hispanic women in the DC area none of who had met their husbands through a mariage broker.

The defendants and proponents of IMBRA have failed to demonstrate any reliable evidence (statistical or factual) demonstrating a higher rate of violence for International marriages (through IMB’s) versus all marriages in the United States and thus Judge Cooper will likely rule in favor of the Plaintiff.
Furthermore when
IMBRA was passed it did not pass “Constitutional muster” since there was no hearing or statistics presented. Therefore defendants are on the defensive and must prove the law is warranted which they haven’t done.

Obviously when you first meet someone, no matter if on the net or at a local club, it is mostly an attraction you feel towards that person. This draws you in to get to know the person and in turn let them get to know you. If the relationship develops, you both become more open with your personal life. Rarely (unless you are a strange bird), do you at the initial stage of a relationship disclose how many times you have been married, any possible violations in your life that may of happen years ago, etc.

The danger is disclosing such information before you get a chance to know the person, may be used by that person for the wrong reasons. Especially since that information can be so easily scattered by the net (heck, you were upset when someone took something you wrote and you say posted elsewhere).

Ok, maybe my point will fall on death ears, but there is a danger there no matter if you think so or not. Just put yourself in those shoes for a moment.

Ampersand, you said that I should not post things here that I have posted elsewhere, but this is the only place I have posted it. When you said that, I googled my posting and it appears to have also been posted on something called “online dating rights.com“, but I did not put it there. I find it creepy that someone cut a posted my comments on another blog and made it appear as though it was me. It was not. (I’ve seen that site before and the level of dialoge is very immature…I don’t even look at it anymore.)

Thought 1 - has the trend changed? At one time I couldn’t find anything against IMBRA, but now I seem to find it everywhere. This either means people who neverhad anything to say about the feminist movement before have been woken up or people are changing their minds. At face value I was all for IMBRA until I read it. Goodness, it is so anti-male, anti-marriage to foreign ladys and anti-smaller dating sites v.s. larger exempted sites, that one can’t help but to root for IMBRA to go away.

I challenge all those who are pro-imbra and comment on any section of the law that talks about international dating sites and back ground requirements. I won’t list my answers here to keep the post from getting too long, but would gladly answer each one who thinks this law and its articles are good. But first read it and list the article from the law you are for.

Thought 2 - Albert’s post above my post caught my eye. One of the major components of Americans marrying foreign ladys is also U.S. military. By far they are not losers. I have a friend in the U.S. Army who met a Philippine lady during his tour. He left but could not get her off his mind. Bottom line, it was the whole package that attracted him to her. It is one of those things he has a hard time describing, but the gleam in his eye tells the whole story.

Thought 3 - Glad that Ampersand reinstated Broham. The initial ban made me say “what” and my thought was, this site is pro feminist and any one who opposes it is going to be banned. Not sure the politics of the site, to be honest, but in my view it is a great neutral site to post all view. Thanks for having it.

Bob