... so it probably doesn't intersect with the real world.
Today's unsigned editorial applauds proposed federal legislation to protect mail-order brides:
Sen. Maria Cantwell and Rep. Rick Larsen have introduced a bill to create common-sense regulations protecting the women. The International Marriage Broker Regulation Act would reduce the chances of other women falling victim to violent, abusive husbands like the men who killed Susana Blackwell and Anastasia Soloveva King.Okay, slow down.The Washington Democrats' proposal requires that prospective brides receive information about the men's criminal records, any court protective orders and legal rights in the United States.
First, there are believed to be between 4,000 and 6,000 mail-order brides who come to this country every year. "Believed" is the operative word, because nobody really knows. Furthermore, nobody really knows whether or not mail-order brides are more or less likely to become victims of domestic violence than any other American wives, and nobody really knows what percentage of mail-order brides are satisfied in their marriages, or what percentage feel that their lives are better off than they would have been had they stayed in their home countries. On the other hand, one can find many news stories about the horrible deaths of Susana Blackwell and Anastasia King. But I haven't found any other news reports about any other mail-order brides who were killed by their husbands. So out of, say, 30,000 to 50,000 mail-order brides since 1995 (when Susana Blackwell was murdered) I have found reports of exactly two who were murdered by their husbands. These two cases are terribly sad, but not exactly indications of an epidemic of mail-order uxoricide.
Still, if there is a problem, why not try to prevent it? So does the proposed legislation offer the protections that the P-I claims that it does, e.g. that the law require
prospective brides receive information about the men's criminal records, any court protective ordersNo, it does not. It does require that the prospective husband be subject to a criminal background check as part of the prospective bride's visa application process. It also requires the prospective husband to self-report additional information about his background (including prior marriages and any court protective orders). But there is no requirement that either the marriage broker or the government verify that the information reported by the prospective husband is accurate..
Okay, so the law isn't perfect, but at least it requires a criminal background check. And disclosing the prior criminal records of Indle King and Timothy Blackwell to their prospective brides might have saved those women's lives, might it not? No, because as far as I can tell, neither man had a criminal record before he murdered his wife.
So, we have yet another example of what seems to be a typical pattern: A tiny number of tragic cases are fantasized into a widespread problem that demands a legislative solution. Legislators rise to the occasion and propose a feel-good law that creates expense and inconvenience for a few, but doesn't really do anything to fix the bigger problem, assuming a bigger problem even exists. And in any event, the law, had it been in place, wouldn't have even averted the tragedies that it was supposedly designed to prevent. For some reason, politicians, activists and newspaper editors seem to love this sort of thing. God only knows why.
[I have calls into the offices of both Senator Maria Cantwell and Rep. Rick Larsen on this issue. I will give their staffers an opportunity to respond to this posting and I will gladly update or correct any of the above factual assertions per any new information that they can provide].
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 31, 2003 04:00 PMOf course, it might be useful for the mail order bride to also have to reveal any previous marriages, children, legal issues, etc.
It is incredibly naieve to think it's only the American men who might have problems. I would guess 50% of the time both parties in a mail order bride situation have issues.
The man may simply be a shy, fat slob. The woman who is willing to marry a foreigner and move to the US may have much bigger issues she is fleeing.
Posted by: Aaron on July 31, 2003 07:50 PMSuch as despair at her economic straits in Belarus or Moldova? ;-)
See also here.
Posted by: Former Belgian on August 1, 2003 01:25 AMObviously, Sharkansky is in favor of beating mail-order wives.
Why else would anyone be against thoughtful legislation like this?
If only it made ordering a mail-order bride a felony for people who had criminal records....then it would indeed be a perfect, not-soft-on-crime law.
Posted by: Brian J. on August 1, 2003 07:39 AMDang it, this state already suffers under a surfeit of Democratic legislators. Democrats are alway posing and posturing about equality. Why is it, then, that they do not extent this 'criminal background check' not only to the bridal furriners, but to EVERY PARTY to a proposed marriage license, thereby extending equal protection under the law to all prospective marriage partners?
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on August 1, 2003 08:09 AMINTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER REGULATION ACT
IMBRA expressly exempts sites such as Match.com. Why? Because the writers of the law are a bunch of meek and feeble lawmakers not willing to really stand up for what they believe in. They prefer to bully the mostly indefensible smaller sites and avoid an obvious well-funded confrontation from the larger ones. Well, they are in for a little surprise - when this law is challenged in court, the plaintiffs will successfully argue that ALL firms that provide information necessary to contact foreigners must follow the law. Then, Match, FriendFinder, Kiss, MSN, and others will torch their little experiment.
This bill is viewed by Russian/FSU marriage brokers as designed to close them down. The bill misses the main issue in relation to internet marriage brokers and personals websites. The issue being fraud. Internet scams on U.S. males are rife on these websites. Scams are of two kinds, the visa/ticket scam and the heartless immigration scam. Only the second kind is covered by this bill.
1)Why is the bill only a feminist measure? It should cover both parties in the virtual relationship. Identity fraud is rife among female clients of Russian internet marriage brokers (IMBs). www.womenrussia.com/blacklist.htm
The bill should force IMBs to display clear on-screen warnings before customers sign up.
2)To have a proper code of conduct
3)Offer compensation to the victims of internet scammers operating on marriage brokers' websites.
MATCH.COM MOUNTS FIGHT AGAINST MARRIAGE BROKER REGULATION ACT AND PENPAL POLICE
On behalf of dozens of organizations, Jeanne L. Smoot of the Tahirih Justice Center (www.Tahirih.org) is submitting a letter to Congress in support of the proposed law that regulates "international marriage brokers." The following is a portion of that letter:
"...abuse is a tragic fact in many relationships brokered by IMB's. It is particulary disturbing that many IMB's explicitly market their services to men seeking domineering relationships with women whom they perceive to be docile and powerless. Some IMB's also systematically ignore the violent histories of their clients, and repeatedly pair violent men with foreign women recruits."
Jeanne L. Smoot
jeanne@tahirih.org
703-575-0070
There is no to very little evidence that supports anything stated above. Yet, this law is being rifled through Congress as if these are facts.
Therefore, without any sound basis, you will be required to submit a marital history and a criminal background check and receive a signed release from a woman you wish to contact JUST TO WRITE A LETTER TO A FOREIGN WOMAN.
JUST TO WRITE A LETTER TO A FOREIGN WOMAN!!
**TIME TO FIGHT THIS PMS-CHARGED LAW**
Perhaps you could comment on the viability of the following strategies:
1 - argue for the elimination of the provision of the law that excludes the larger dating sites such as Match and FriendFinder. The lawmakers' reason for the exclusion: larger sites cater to both American and foreign women and all members pay equal fees (so nobody is being "bought"). The latter is untrue as anyone can join for free and only paying members are able to make the initial contact. Fact-there are more foreign women on these sites than on all IMO sites combined. By forcing the law on the larger firms, which the lawmakers now have a weak argument for avoiding, an entire legal army will be available to fight the law.
2 - declare the law unconstitutional. Since when are Americans required to provide all sorts of documents just to write a letter to someone? Regarding the one visa application per year-this is a restriction on the right to marry. What if the woman finds a boyfriend at home and then cancels after one month? Now the man has to wait an entire year before being able to proceed with marriage to another.
3 - argue that the federal legislature is the wrong venue for regulating small private companies. That is the role of the states. Moreover, criminal background checks and the verification thereof would be unreliable in the hands of small inexperienced companies in the business of matchmaking.
Your opinions regarding the above is appreciated as well as any other suggestions you may have.