Re: Judge: Americans need background checks to date internationally

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Leslie <leslie.sussan () verizon net>
Date: April 10, 2007 9:04:54 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: Judge: Americans need background checks to date  
internationally

The court set out in detail the legislative history of IMBRA (after
describing numerous prior attempts to address abuse of mail order  
brides),
the heart of which is in the following quote:

"IMBRA was reintroduced in the 109th Congress on September 6, 2005,  
by Rep.
Larsen and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and by Sen. Cantwell and Sen. Sam
Brownback (R-KS) on September 7, 2005, in the Senate. By the end of  
December
2005, only four months after reintroduction, IMBRA had 15 co-sponsors  
in the
House. Although refinements were made in the bill between its  
introduction
in the 108th Congress and its reintroduction in the 109th Congress,
including the requirement of additional criminal history disclosures
(additional violent crimes, as well as prostitution and alcohol-related
offenses), the essence of the disclosure requirements imposed on IMBs
remained the same.

"Over late Summer and early Fall 2005, Congress began to consider the
reauthorization of the VAWA, with the House and Senate taking up  
difference
versions of a bill to accomplish that purpose. On July 22, 2005, HR 3402
("Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act") was  
introduced in
the House of Representatives. HR 3402 incorporated provisions from  
IMBRA,
requiring petitioners for fiancée visas to disclose any criminal  
convictions
for domestic violence, sexual assault, or child abuse; placing limits  
on how
many times and how frequently petitioners could sponsor fiancées; and
mandating the creation of a pamphlet on the rights and resources of  
domestic
violence victims. HR 3402 was referred to the Committee on the  
Judiciary,
and reported out of Committee on September 27, 2005. See House Report
109-233, Sections 916(c) and 922. On September 28, 2005, HR 3402  
passed the
House by a vote of 415 to 4.

"On June 8, 2005, S 1197 ("Violence Against Women Act of 2005") was
introduced in the Senate. It was referred to the Committee on the  
Judiciary,
and during Committee consideration on September 8, 2005, IMBRA was
incorporated as Title VIII, Subtitle D. S 1197 was reported out of  
Committee
on September 12, 2005. On October 4, 2005, S 1197 passed the Senate by
unanimous consent. Thereafter, the House and Senate versions of these  
bills
to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act were "conferenced" to
reconcile their differences. On December 16, 2005, IMBRA (as  
incorporated as
Title VIII, Subtitle D of the Department of Justice and Violence Against
Women Reauthorization Act of 2005 (the conferenced version of HR  
3402)) was
passed by the Senate by unanimous consent. The bill passed the House by
voice vote. It was signed into law on January 5, 2006, and became  
Public Law
No. 109-162."

The relevant provisions are codified in the U.S. Code as 8 U.S.C.A. §  
1375a.

My guess is that the person reporting that the law did not exist  
based on a
search of the Thomas database is not familiar with how to locate federal
laws.  You would not find these provisions by doing a search on IMBRA  
or on
the full title as that title does not appear in the Code.  Sometimes  
you can
find a title like that through Popular Name Tables, but you would  
have to
know to look there and, in this case, IMBRA does not appear because  
it was
merely a part of a law with a different name ("Violence Against Women  
Act of
2005") .

Anyhow, for better or worse, the law is real.

Leslie
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
To: <ip () v2 listbox com>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 11:10 AM
Subject: [IP] Re: Judge: Americans need background checks to date
internationally




Begin forwarded message:

From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law"
<froomkin () law miami edu>
Date: April 9, 2007 12:01:17 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: Judge: Americans need background checks to date
internationally
Reply-To: froomkin () law tm

No joke.  See European Connections & Tours, Inc. v. Gonzales
--- F.Supp.2d ----, 2007 WL 949750 (N.D.Ga.,2007)


On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, David Farber wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Brian Randell <Brian.Randell () ncl ac uk>
> Date: April 7, 2007 5:28:28 AM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: [IP] Re: Judge: Americans need background checks to date
> internationally
>
> Dave:
>
> Am I alone on the IP list in wondering whether this whole IMBRA
> business is a hoax?
>
> Certainly my immediate reaction on reading the first post was to
> check whether it was dated 1 April.
>
> And the comments I've received from an American colleague to whom I
> forwarded the post, with my suspicions, were:
>
> > Just to be sure, I checked. It's not in the
> > U.S. Code, either under IMBRA or "International
> > Marriage Broker." But a lot of people are
> > obviously in on this one.
>
> > 90% of proposed bills do not turn into law.
> > Note that a Google search does not bring up any
> > news stories about the law being passed.
> > What I take as definitive for US law is the Library of Congress
> > "Thomas" site:
> > http://www.thomas.gov/
> > You can track all bills in House or Senate for
> > the current session, and the US Code for laws
> > that actually passed in previous sessions.
> > I don't doubt that some of the IMBRA sites have
> > genuinely been taken in by this hoax.
> > But it hasn't made it to
> > www.snopes.com yet.
>
> > I remain convinced it's a well-executed hoax.
>
> Cheers
>
> Brian Randell
>
> PS Or is IMBRA like Mornington Crescent, i.e. a long-running put-
> on, which (almost) everyone plays along with, carefully concealing
> the fact that the whole thing is a giant hoax, so that asking
> whether it's for real merely exposes one's naiveté? (If so let me
> use my nationality and the width of the Atlantic as my excuses! :-)
>
>
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> > From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law"
> > <froomkin () law miami edu>
> > Date: April 4, 2007 5:01:54 PM EDT
> > To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> > Cc: ip () v2 listbox com
> > Subject: Re: [IP] Judge: Americans need background checks to date
> > internationally
> > Reply-To: froomkin () law tm
> > This is totally misleading.  It would of course violate the First
> > Amendment to have a law that stops you or me communicating over
> > the internet, even if it's to date foreigners.
> > What the law actually does is regulate MAIL ORDER BRIDE SERVICES
> > and IMMIGRATION PETITIONS FOR FOREIGN FIANCESS AND SPOUSES.  Not
> > amorous internet users.
> > Repeat: this isn't about internet messages by regular people.
> > It's about (1) sales pitches to foreigners by mail order bride
> > companies and about whether they can disclose US client info to
> > foreign clients without the foreign client's "informed consent" --
> > which is defined to include doing a check for sex offendere
> > convictions of the US client and reporting any found to the
> > foreign client.
> > AND it's about
> > (2) what you have to do to get papers for your foreign spouse/
> > fiance ("IMBRA requires a U.S. petitioner applying to sponsor a
> > foreign fiancée or spouse to report certain arrests and/or
> > criminal convictions for violent crimes, including domestic
> > violence, sexual assault, and child abuse.")
> > So this isn't "a sad day" for the Internet, and you remain free to
> > say "hello" to anyone you like.  But it does mean that it's going
> > to be harder for sex offenders to trick unspecting women into
> > becoming their slaves (because if they come here on a fiance visa,
> > and then divorce in the first 2 years, they get deported -- think
> > of the power that gives the abusing husband....),
> > On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, David Farber wrote:
> > > Begin forwarded message:
> > > From: Richard Forno <rforno () infowarrior org>
> > > Date: April 4, 2007 3:25:35 PM EDT
> > > To: Infowarrior List <infowarrior () attrition org>
> > > Cc: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
> > > Subject: Judge: Americans need background checks to date
> > > internationally
> > > US Judge Affirms IMBRA: Americans Must Have Criminal Checks Before
> > > Contacting Foreigners on Internet
> > > http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/4/prweb515227.htm
> > > A new federal law that makes it a crime for Americans to
> > > communicate with
> > > foreigners on dating websites without criminal background checks
> > > is upheld
> > > by a federal judge.
> > > Washington, DC (PRWEB) April 2, 2007 -- 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, "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. See
> > > http://www.online-dating-rights.com/index.php?
> > > ind=downloads&op=entry_view&id
> > > en=24
> > > Online Dating Rights Director of Public Relations Jim Peterson
> > > said of the
> > > judge's ruling: "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 "America is
> > > the only
> > > country in the world that regulates communication between two
> > > consenting
> > > adults seeking to communicate via internet, with the possible
> > > exceptions of
> > > China and 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
> > > http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0111.html
> > > and by
> > > men's rights supporter David Usher
> > > http://capitolhillcoffeehouse.com/more.php?id=2444_0_1_0_M and by
> > > immigration attorney Gary Bala
> > > http://www.online-dating-rights.com/index.php?
> > > ind=downloads&op=entry_view&id
> > > en=21
> > > 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 website at www.online-dating-rights.com.
> > > 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 if
> > > possible. Contact Mr. Laurent at onlinedatingrights @ yahoo.com
> > > and Mr.
> > > Peterson at veterans @ veteransabroad.com
> > > -------------------------------------------
> > > Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> > > RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/
> > > 247/7492317-93eb57
> > > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
> > --
> > http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
> > A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin () law tm
> > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> > +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>
> --
> School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon
> Tyne,
> NE1 7RU, UK
> EMAIL = Brian.Randell () ncl ac uk   PHONE = +44 191 222 7923
> FAX = +44 191 222 8232  URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/~brian.randell/
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

--
http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin () law tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com





-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com