A few minutes ago I was on WBAL Radio (the Shari Elliker show) talking about legislation I am sponsoring next session on International Marriage Brokers. I have to admit that I was really surprised by the reaction of the show’s host and the show’s callers who felt that Maryland legislators should not worry with this issue. Perhaps I didn’t present my case very well, but I maintain my position that it is important to protect families from domestic violence whether they are foreign or not. I also feel that protecting Maryland citizens should remain a priority, even in tough budget times.
The fact of the matter is that International Marriage Brokers bring tens of thousands of women into this country every year promising them the American dream. In some cases it turns out to be a nightmare instead. Not in Maryland you say? Just ask Natalyia Fox who was brought to the US by Encounters International in Bethesda, Maryland and matched with a man who had a known history of violence. In one incident, her husband assaulted her for two hours because she asked him to help with their new born baby. When she asked Encounters International for help, they did nothing. They actually told her that this was normal behavior in American culture and that she should learn to deal with it or get deported.
Furthermore, these web sites treat women like commodities and use gender and ethnic stereotypes to promote their “services”. One web site goes so far as to say that “a Russian woman will rarely leave a husband (really BAD) husband because of the fear that she won’t find another one”. I don’t know about you, but this is not the “Maryland with Pride” I had in mind. My legislation would not eliminate or shut these businesses down, but would simply provide guidelines for how they operate in our State.
Failures at the federal level to implement and enforce the current federal law have left it up to the States to take leadership and to find a better way. I hope that Maryland can be one of those states in the upcoming session.
Filed in: Uncategorized.
Marc H. Rudov, globally known author, radio/TV personality, and men’s rights advocate, opined thusly: “The US Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, confers upon American citizens certain protections from tyranny: presumption of innocence, due process, equal protection, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and protection from self-incrimination. Not only does Maryland’s HB65 deny Americans all such protections, it unilaterally transfers them to foreigners. What would George Washington say? The sole purpose of Maryland’s nonsense is to help radical feminists bash men who prefer non-American women. The solution is to kill these bills, period. Not dilution, not modification, not amendment. Just kill them altogether.”
Unfortunately, it appears that the members of the Maryland Legislature have overlooked what is in this legislation. You are creating new law that is based on a faulty and defective foundation! Delegate Haddaway’s FAQ sheet is riddled with partial, twisted, misrepresented facts that in some cases are simply not true!
If IMBRA was a fair law it would require that the foreign women would also have to fill out a background questionnaire and have a certification of criminal records check from their home country. IMBRA exposes the American citizen to many forms of abuse from the foreign person contact! It certainly is an abuse to an American’s right of equal protection under law!
If one type of introduction service is regulated, then all types should be regulated. If a government wants to regulate the personal rights of its citizens it should be applied equally to all it’s people. If you want to provide equal protection to all citizens, then the law must apply equally to all participants involved with all companies and aspects of online communication!
Therefore, any law that tries to regulate the ability to communicate, rights of assembly, and equal protection to any US resident should not be allowed, because of our constitutional rights!
Ms. Haddaway says: “Just ask Natalyia Fox who was brought to the US by Encounters International in Bethesda, Maryland and matched with a man who had a known history of violence. In one incident, her husband assaulted her for two hours because she asked him to help with their new born baby.”
But according to court records Natalyia Fox WAS NOT brought to the US by Encounters International but rather she came on a fiance visa to a man SHE MET FOR ONE NIGHT. And she lived in Virginia, not Maryland. And according to the medical report, her injuries from her husband’s alleged assault caused the doctor to prescribe her TWO ASPIRIN. And the husband was not charged with an assault.
So Ms. Haddaway is basing the need for this law on an introduction that did not occur and on a serious injury that did not occur in another state!!!
I”m a Maryland man who has gone out for dinner – a date with romantic possibilities! …With a non U.S. citizen woman, who lived abroad, that I had met over the internet – terrible bad me. If I had done this through a paid service, and if this law were in effect, it would have been against the law. As it so happens I was going to that city – Buenos Aires – for other reasons than to meet people for dinner; and a common love of dancing enabled the introductions.
Not only that, but I’ve even dated a *Canadian* that I met online .
How hard do you think it is for those who wish to date internationally to set up free services as opposed to paid services – thus avoiding the particulars of the language in your bill? Do you have another bill in the wings, waiting to fix that little oversight? What kind of cost do you think is involved in setting up a website, and how will you regulate that website if it is hosted in another State or Country? How will you regulate introductions that are ‘themed’ around common interests? Think, please; that is what you are in office for. You are not in office to morally preen about your good intentions; you are in office to pursue the common good within the scope of your responsibilities.
I suggest, Madam Representative, that you remember that the first task of Government is to protect its citizens. If you take a hour or so to poke around vdare.com you will find some evidence to cause you to reflect that American men are at least as at great a risk — if not potentially greater — from these arrangements as non-citizen foreign women are.
If I were adopting a child from another country, I would have to go through various screenings, because the child is not an *adult.* The Canadian citizen (and the Argentine) and I reached an *adult* conclusion that we would not pursue a relationship. Neither she nor I had to go through a screening process because *adults* who take responsibility for their actions do not need the over-weening protection of a well intentioned nanny state.
I further presume to suggest to you that you take many of the claims of those working to prevent “human trafficking” with a large grain of salt, as these numbers don’t add up and the statistical methodology used to generate those numbers is not open-sourced. I am comfortable saying some of the claims are demonstrably false.
Kind regards all the same.
- A Maryland Citizen (**a citizen** not a subject)
If delegate Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio spent nearly as much time reading/studying the Constitution of The United States of America as she obviously has spent listening to (and spreading) false propaganda, she would understand that what she is proposing is simply \unconstitutional\!!! There is far more domestic violence in domestic marriages! Start focusing on the majority, and stop attacking the minority!
By the way, there ARE IS NO SUCH THING as \Marriage Brokers\ (International or otherwise) only \matchmaking & social networking\ sites that allow (and charge for) \correspondence\ between interested and consenting parties from around the world! In fact, it is quite a lengthy (and difficult) process to actually meet and obtain a fiancé visa for a foreign prospective partner! You can’t just \hook-up\ at a local Starbucks! Idiot!
Furthermore, the largest \niche market\ site (now classified as International Marriage Brokers) promoting \foreign matchmaking\ may have as many as 20,000 foreign ladies listed on it (Max), whereas Match.com has over 180,000 Russian Women’s Profiles alone! Who’s the real \International Marriage Broker\ anyway? Wake up Jeannie!
Do you choose not to do research or are you simply choosing to ignore it?
If one person breaks their leg snowboarding, does that mean it should be illegal for anyone to snowboard? According to the logic of your bill, it does.
Not only does research show the divorce rate of international marriages is significantly less than domestic marriages, but the existence of domestic violence within international marriages is also less than domestic marriages. You are just putting the spotlight on isolated incidents of domestic violence between international couples in order to push forward a femenist agenda actually meant to stop the “threat” of foreign women coming to this country.
What about the women being abused in domestic marriages, right here in the US? If you cared primarily about cutting down domestic violence, you would be focusing on the MORE SERIOUS issue of violence in DOMESTIC marriages.
According to your logic, your bill HB65, and the supporters of that bill, every time a man wants to introduce himself to a woman he should be required to provide her with a criminal background check including fingerprints, no matter where he is from or is currently located.
Since the violence and divorce rates are much higher in DOMESTIC MARRIAGES, doesn’t that mean we should do background checks on ANY MAN who wants to meet ANY WOMAN, ANY TIME, ANYWHERE?
How appalling is it that a Republican the party that claims to champion personal freedom and Liberty is calling American Men abusers and criminals. This is Feminist Fascism per se. Championed by the NOW Legal Foundation and its allies. The truth is much uglier, the real motive is to hold American Men captive. To infringe on their Natural Rights of Free Speech and Association and to control their dating choices. This is Fascism with a Republican Feminist face.
Feminists are horrified that American Men are expatriating, dating Foreign Women and striking marriage. This is not going to stop the stampede of America Men who are bailing on Feminists.
The only way I will take this lady or this type of legislation seriously is when they make it applicable to both sexes. I think women should have to disclose not only their criminal histories but their family law histories. How many times have they had an “opps” and then collected child support. How many times have the alleged DV or rape or the real bomb — oh my boyfriend (or husband) touched my child? How many men has the woman destroyed? I want to know even if she was successful or not with her allegations. I want to avoid these women are at least give more thought before getting close to them.
I think the commentators are taking the wrong approach by presenting facts that he assumptions underlying the bill are wrong. The more powerful approach is to point out that the bill is hateful and disriminatory towards men. If women were required to comply also, this would stop immediately. I suppose the problem with my thoughts is that women really don’t date foreigners — foreigners have no interest in them.
To state and federal legislators everywhere: Learn from this Maryland debacle; find another issue when pandering for votes. This one will bury you. Don’t risk your reputations by taking sides against your constituents, by voicing support for something you know very little about and especially for feminists who have nothing to lose by claiming they got your backs when you stick out your necks. Do your homework. The controversy at the federal level has been raging for more than five years. That conflict may work for feminists, but it will not work for you. The Tahirih organization, the National Organization for Women and others will drag you down and spit you out. They are guided by greed, fear of disempowerment, a host of insecurities and their own trite self serving agenda. Be wary when they hand you a toxic pre packaged model state law. Just. Say No.
There are currently 36 women Delegates of the Maryland General Assembly sponsoring a law(HB 65)that would require Maryland men to provide personal and criminal history information for the benefit of a foreign non citizen who could use that information to commit crimes against the very citizen that members of the General Assembly are supposed to represent. Just how out of touch with reality are the 36 Delegates who sponsored this bill?
Delegate Haddaway-Riccio,
Thank you for the very informative post. I knew problems existed within this industry but did not realize it was to the degree you indicated. Good luck with your legislation and let me know if there is anything I can do to assist you.
Dereck Davis
http://www.onlinedatingrights.com must be stopped!
“Failures at the federal level to implement and enforce the current federal law have left it up to the States to take leadership and to find a better way.”
What federal laws are you referring too?
Spewing outrageous fabrications Delegate Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio completely mischaracterizes the International Matchmaking Industry.
Haddaway is a sponsor of HB(65)an intensively controversial bill that(if passed) would shockingly require Maryland men to submit their police records and fingerprints to the criminal repository before they can initiate communication with a foreign woman if they use the services of an “International Marriage Broker”.
http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/bills/hb/hb0065f.pdf
HB 65, a law to regulate “Marriage Brokers” is nothing more than legalized misandry that is littered with false, misleading and inaccurate language. Nobody is being traded or sold as the title of the law suggests. These are merely for -profit companies , no different than personal ads that provides names, addresses and telephone numbers so that a Maryland citizen can initiate communication (as in saying “hello”)with a foreigner.
Haddaway suggests that “Marriage Brokers” bring in ten’s of thousands of foreign women”. The latest estimates reveal there are between 11,000-16,000 foreign women annually, that enter into the country in this manner, not tens of thousands.
The bill states that it would regulate for- profit enterprises including those that offer matrimonial services. But the criminal history disclosure are provided before the couple has even met. How can you regulate matrimonial services if a relationship doesn’t exist?
Jeannie tries to demonize American men who date foreign women by suggesting there is an epidemic of violence suggesting that “some cases” turn into violent nightmares. Of course she fails to substantiate her claims with any evidence, other than one single case. In 1999 the INS did a study of matchmaking couples and found a 1% abuse rate compared to an abuse rate of 7% for all US couples.
Regardless, 99% of these romance letters that Jeannie wants to regulate will never result in marriage, so in effect HB 65 would regulate friendship.
So in the final analysis, HB 65 is a law that regulates COMMUNICATION- not Marriage Brokers. Writing a letter- including a romance letter is a legitimate activity and the Maryland government has no right to enact laws that place restrictions on communication and relationships occurring over International boundaries because of jealous feminists aligned to the National Organization of Women cartel.
Return this romance law to the sender!
Delegate Jeannie Haddaway worries that she didn’t present her case well. It is not possible to present her position well because it is founded on false facts, sophistry, sensationalism and sexism against men. Let’s review her position and statement above.
“The fact of the matter is that International Marriage Brokers bring in tens of thousands of women into this country every year promising them the American dream.” First, a dating site is not a “marriage broker,” and that is what Ms. Haddaway is referring to, dating sites. I am certain that she never refers to dating sites where Americans meet Americans as marriage brokers, but she reserves this appellation for dating sites where foreign women are involved. The implication is that foreign women do not date and have lots of pre-marital sex partners like American women, they just marry right off the bat because they are (pick one or more) all a) desperate, b) starving, c) helpless, d) submissive.
Also, Ms. Haddaway didn’t say it here but I would bet she calls a foreign woman who meets an American man via internet a “mail order bride,” as this is the favorite method the knee-jerk feminists use to denigrate any woman who is not American and who meets a man online. Of course an American woman who meets an American man online is never called a “mail order bride,” as this is reserved for use for foreign women to show their lowly status vis a vis American women.
Second, stating that the marriage brokers “bring in” these women is horribly racist and xenophobic, as it suggests that foreign women are lured like fish by these dating sites that they cannot resist because…
Third, the sites are “promising them the American dream,” which of course we all know is sooooo irresistible to foreign women that they will follow the dictates of these dating sites like lemmings to their doom, i.e. to marriages with American men, which we all know is a very dangerous activity…because Maryland Delegates have now so determined.
“Just ask Natalia Fox…who was assaulted…” Oh, please. Enough. The reports of this case get worse each time some lawmaker tells it, and I will bet real money that none of them ever read the trial transcripts or other documents in the case. I did, and it was a sham trial, and the woman somehow married a man TO WHOM SHE WAS NOT ENGAGED VIA HER FIANCE VISA, a complete violation of federal law. But details aside, this is a classic case of mispresenting the problem. Instead of using statistics, like the 1999 INS study showing the rate of domestic abuse in international marriages where the couple met through the internet is 1/7 the abuse rate in domestic marriages, Ms. Haddaway wants to fool people into believing that this is a serious problem, when in fact it is not, it is to the contrary.
“Furthermore, these web sites treat women like commodities…” Another logical fallacy. SUV ads show the vehicles driving across rugged terrain, up mountain slopes, across fast-moving streams. But people don’t use SUVs that way, they really don’t. And all of us, including Ms. Haddaway, know the difference between these ads and reality, which is where you drive the SUV with care and only on roads and parking lots and not the way they show in the ads. But when it comes to international dating sites, Ms. Haddaway loses her ordinary good sense and really believes everything the ads say. And she believes that all the American men who read the ads are all complete idiots and are mesmerized into actually thinking that they can get some slave-like woman from one of these ads. She really does.
“My legislation would not eliminate or shut these businesses down…” but it would brand all American men as dangerous weapons and violate the most basic of all our Constitutional rights by requiring them to get criminal background searches performed on them if they want to communicate with adults in other countries.
Ms. Haddaway has clearly gotten her information only from special interest groups whose very existence depends on more federal/state/foundation/corporation money that they can only get if they continue to make people believe that a problem exists when no problem exists. She has not contacted the other side, or I would know as I administer the oldest informational site on this issue. She has never contacted or read any of the exhaustive studies or books by university anthropology professors (all women, by the way) who have interviewed hundreds of American men, foreign women, dating site owners, womens’ group leaders, government officials and determined that the above-average educated, higher-income men who marry foreign women they meet through the internet treat them very well, that the women are capable and have agency and make their own choices, and that these marriages TURN OUT BETTER THAN AVERAGE DOMESTIC MARRIAGES.
http://www.onlinedatingrights.com
There are Maryland men with documented criminal histories who are members of Match.com. Should they be fingerprinted before any woman, foreign or domestic, is permitted to have communication with them?
Just ask Jana Claudia Menendez who was matched by Match.com with a man who had a known history of violence. In one incident he killed her. In Peru.