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!

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!!!

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)

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!

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?

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.

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.