Feminists’ success destroying marriage in America, and exporting it to many foreign nations via the United Nations under the guise of “Democracy” is now legendary. Feminist victim-politics – in which demands for “equal rights” mask powerful agenda mandating unequal wrongs – must be ended.
A substantial number of moderate and conservative women’s organizations now oppose the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Not only did the outgoing Congress ignore the will of the people in reauthorizing VAWA last year, it added a dangerous anti-marriage known as IMBRA – the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act – a new and alarming legal construct to arbitrarily interfere with our constitutional right to free association.
IMBRA is a brute blockade making it impossible for foreign women to meet American men for marriage. American men must provide hardcopy about their criminal, family court orders, and arrest records to marriage introduction services, which must then show it to the woman and get her signature, before sharing contact information.
Since few foreign women are within visiting distance of the introduction service, and where less than half have access to the internet, they are effectively denied the possibility of marrying-up in the world. American men cannot freely meet or marry a nice woman who truly understands the value of marriage, and does not see men as just another sexual conquest leading to alimony and a huge child support order.
Feminists abhor American men having a way to find a marriage partner worth taking a risk on. Most American men who look overseas for marriage do so because in many foreign countries, women truly understand the purpose and value of marriage and having a husband. These women were not raised into a cult believing marriage is a war for domination and submission. They do not see marriage as being a trap hindering post-Kinsey sexual freedoms such as single-mother stripping and looting of Duke University students, or prostitution so staunchly defended by the National Organization for Women.
Having spent some time working in Korea, China, and Singapore I can testify to the vast attitudinal differences towards marriage between foreign women in these countries and their brainwashed American counterparts.
The first tip-off that IMBRA is a feminist social cartel: IMBRA does not provide information to American women because matchmaking services with more than 50% of female American clients are exempt.
IMBRA was invented by feminists on the fabrication that violent abusive American men like to wed foreign women because they are easier to abuse for lack of social protections and supports. Never mind that, as part of the immigration process, all potential foreign brides receive a nice pile of contact information for embassies, hotlines and women’s abuse centers which also contains embedded agitprop about how nasty American men are.
There is not one whit of scientific evidence suggesting that foreign brides are abused to any notable degree. Feminists have a very small number of cases cited as mass gospel, inflated by hubristic rumor-mill anecdote to paint an image tantamount to Edvard Munch’s “The Shriek”.
Here is the truth of the matter: the only scientific study done on marriages involving foreign brides was published by the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1999, written by Dr. Robert Scholes. It found that between 4000 and 6000 international marriages occur as a result of international matchmaking agencies each year. Divorce rates are miniscule: 80% of these marriages “survive over the years”, compared to less than 50% of marriages with American women. Despite a lack of scientific evidence of abuse rates in these marriages, the report is laden with imaginary feminist pontifications.
Feminists also claim that international matchmaking somehow constitutes sex trafficking, despite the fact that there is no evidence that organized sex traffickers use these services. Feminists consider all marriages with foreign women to be “servile” sex trafficking and inherently abusive and provide no science to support the notion:
One major promoter of IMBRA is the Tahirih Justice Center. Tahirih receives federal VAWA grants, spending some of it on helping abused women, but apparently spending greatly on paid lobbyists and “Public Policy Advocacy” not itemized in its annual report. This is the traditional alarmist self-aggrandizing fundraising technique used by radical women’s advocates.
Where the Constitution guarantees the right of free association, and where Newt Gingrich and many others oppose speech censorship in the name of national security, I maintain that IMBRA is invalid. American men do have an unfettered right to “say hello” (which is exactly what International matchmaking services do).
The danger of IMBRA to free speech cannot be understated. If IMBRA stands court tests, virtually any speech can be blocked on the internet for any manufactured reason whatsoever. Speak now, before the liberal elite holds your speech for you.
————————————————-
David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network
————————————————-
amfortas said,
Maybe these feminists are scared of competition. There are already legions of women, home-grown ones at that, who declare undying lust for convicted murderers who are incarcerated servinge sentences of a different sort.
Feminist women don’t have a great track record with evidence as it is. They prefer to make things up or distort what there is.
Then there are all the false convictions. There was a news snippet here (in Oz) this evening showing Hilary doing a rant. She said that she would not be making decisions based on intelligence that later proved to be wrong!!!!! Er, Durrrr. So, she knew all about Bill before she married him???? She is not going to make decisions at all?? She’ll make decisions without any intelligence??? She’ll make unintelligent decsions??? The mind boggles.
What hope have foreign women got with feminist loonies like Hilary to compete with.
February 15, 2007 at 2:38 am
mdkn said,
Someone please confirm.
I am not familiar with the best ways to approach marriage to a foreign woman. Say a Canadian for instance. Would it be better to marry in Canada and then do the paper work for moving to the USA ?
Is there a web site I can check out ?
I for one have been dating an Asian woman and will never date another American woman again.
My God what a differance!
February 15, 2007 at 5:39 am
DcFather said,
Like any good racketeering scam, they are always looking to expand their cartel, and like monopoly American steel and auto manufacturers of days gone by, they don’t want any foreign competition. It’s taken decades to corrupt her morals and convince the American female she is a victim in all things, and get her primed to cash in her marriage at a nearby family court. The last thing the feminist/Congressional cartel needs is normal decent unbrainwashed women who value marriage and family coming here in droves from foreign lands looking for a better life.
So we have IMBRA, an attempt to shut down foreign competition, preserve the taxpayer funded feminist/Congressional boondoggle, and protect the divorce industry, by leveraging the existing gains they’ve managed with the presumption of guilt for males. Fathers are already denied fundamental rights of free association with their own children, so denying the same with foreign women should be easy for them. For them, its better to let the foreign women starve to death or struggle to survive as a prostitute than to let her come here, marry, raise a family, and increase the competition for the growing ranks of divorce and child support whores playing the feminist victim card. At a minimum, they’d like to reprogram her family values with feminist victimology and entitlement indoctrination, before she gets a chance to find out for herself that American men aren’t a bunch of stereotypical wife-beating child-abusing dominating and controlling villains that billions in taxes have gone to ugly hate-filled neo-Marxist lesbians to promote.
February 15, 2007 at 6:23 am
roger said,
confirmed. you can marry a woman in her home country.
February 15, 2007 at 9:05 am
Denis said,
February 15, 2007 at 10:14 am
conservativation said,
February 15, 2007 at 10:29 am
mirwalk said,
February 15, 2007 at 10:51 am
Denis said,
February 15, 2007 at 11:04 am
fourthwire said,
As typical for your written pieces about men’s rights, you provide identification of at least some of our foes - in this case the Tahirih Justice Center.
And you also point out that IMBRA was passed after lobbying by feminist groups who were in turn supported by taxpayers’ funds.
And so once again, men are forced to fund the destruction of their own civil, social, and legal rights in favor of feminists’ wishes.
Having spent a fair number of years overseas myself, I concur with the vast attitudinal differences towards marriage between foreign women in many nations and their feminist-brainwashed American counterparts.
Women from Vietnam, the Philippines, and some South- and Central-American nations are also usually typically better marriage material than the majority of their American counterparts, having been raised to value men, children, families, and themselves to a far greater extent than one sees in most Western nations.
A point that I find particularly abbhorent concerns the feminist-inspired “agitprop” material that you mention: using American embassies to spread misandrist imagery of American men through the feminist-written materials delivered to prospective foreign brides.
One can only wonder at the irony of the relatively smaller number of foreign men marrying American women not receiving warnings through our embassies, informing them of American women’s tendencies toward paternity fraud, reproductive rape, and instigating domestic violence themselves.
IMBRA’s backers in Congress must be voted out of office, and IMBRA itself overthrown at the earliest possible opportunity. But first, as you point out, it must be thrown out by the courts.
I hope that IMBRA will receive its own version of “Roe-versus-Wade-for-men”, but with greater success.
And truth be told, if I ever were to marry, I would likely choose to marry a woman born and raised outside of the U.S. simply because such women usually make better wives than most American entitlement princesses, in my opinion.
Do you know of any Web sites dedicated to educating the public and overthrowing IMBRA?
Please write more on this topic, Dave Usher.
February 15, 2007 at 11:42 am
MartianBachelor said,
> marriages “survive over the years”, compared to
> less than 50% of marriages with American women.
This could be a bit misleading because the divorce rate, for U.S. women at least, is highly dependent on the age of the woman. For women aged 16-20 it’s in the 55-60% range; for women over the age of 25 it’s actually less than 25%. The widely quoted “nearly 50% divorce rate” is an average over all ages, and is thus skewed by the high instability of marriages involving the very youngest cadre. (Technically, these stats are based on a marriage lasting 15 years or more.)
The 80% “success” figure for foreign brides implies a divorce rate of 20%, which I don’t think is substantially lower than a 25% rate given the poor quality of the data, and the apples/oranges nature of the comparison. I don’t know what the typical age is of a foreign bride, but am guessing it’s closer to 25 or higher than it is to 20 or lower, if only because the general impression is that the males looking for mates overseas are quite a bit older than the age (about 27) at which men first marry. Clearly, it would be nice to have better data to make the case than foreign women are more immune to the divorce disease american women have.
I bring this up because so many have contended that once a foreign woman is brought here she catches this disease and is little different in the end from her domestically produced competitors — a stance which makes some sense, as they’re all working under the same crummy divorce laws.
With that said, I’d like to see the law emphasize more the consumer protection aspects of the situation, with the U.S. man being the “consumer” here of these services. Such concerns never seem to be raised.
Amfortas, you raise an interesting issue when you talk about domestic women’s interest in the criminal class. If we’re not doing anything to ‘protect’ these women, why should we care one whit about foreign women? Also, if foreign women could somehow be induced to show similar levels of interest in our long-term incarcerated, then perhaps we could export these guys as the fine husband material they no doubt are (they must be if U.S. women want them…) and reduce expenses in the prison and parole monitoring system. I could even see sending them along with a dowry, kind of like the severance bonuses used by companies to induce workers to take themselves off payrolls. If we produce some of the best bad boys on the planet, why should we not share them with the rest of the world? Just a crazy thought…
February 15, 2007 at 12:21 pm
mruffolo said,
There’s a reason American feminists are threatened by foreign women.
“Every foreign girl I’ve met was superior in every conceivable way to any other girl I’ve known, from attractiveness to personality.”
“I have a foreign Latino girl and she blows away American women. This web site is 100% true; I can speak from experience of living with my girl for a month. I could never go back to American trash women. I also use to think web sites like that were stupid until I had the experience for myself. It has changed my life for the better, made me look at American women in a different light.”
“I cannot date white American women anymore. I was in the navy and I have seen the light. Women from other countries just look better and treat you better too! I didn’t pay for shit when I was overseas and I pay up the wazoo here. Any rational person can figure it out from here.”
“American women are high-maintenance prim donnas with attitudes. I’d take a foreign born Russian or Latina woman any day. They are much nicer and normally MUCH SMARTER than most American women - plus they don’t watch Rosie and Ricci Lake - they go to the library or perform outside activities.”
http://nomarriage.com/why_foreign_women_are_better.html
From personal experience, my Peruvian girlfriend is traditional. Her focus is on family. She is sincere, dedicated, romantic and hard working. Though she is 33, she acts mature.
She says that it is an honor for her to serve others.
She is not materialistic, selfish, and liberal.
February 15, 2007 at 1:17 pm
chas said,
February 15, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Mamonaku187 said,
I am a very long time lurker,first time poster.
I wanted to thank all of you guys for educating me on a great many issues, as well as for the unique and relevant discussions I have often read on these pages.
So, let me share my experience…
My wife is Japanese. We met here in the US of A, and we got married in Kyoto, Jp in June of 2006.
When we were applying for the various papers one needs from the US Embassy, there was no discussion of IMBRA in the slightest.
In fact, the consulate officer told me that we were not required to inform the U.S. Government about our marriage until of course
a) Tax time comes around and we file Married
b) I petition the Feds for her K-3 spouse visa.
And so, I’ve been going through the motions since July, and I’m about 6 months and $1800.00 into the process.
My attorney did in fact submit a criminal history form on me, but it was a painless procedure.
I suspect that once you marry the foreign national in her country (or here in the states for that matter), the only thing that feminasties can do is inform her of the myriad number of “Domestic Violence” programs she is entitled to, as well as the Affidavid of Support that I had to sign that says that I have to support her for two years, even if we get divorced.
Which is a given in any case.
In summary:
For those wishing to go foreign, I would recommend cultivating Male contacts from the country of your choice.
After a time, when you and your foreign buddy are on really good terms, he can introduce you to his native country woman whom he knows is a good fit for you.
This is important, because the native guys know the lay of the land, and which girls to avoid.
After that, it takes some travel to your target country, some timely introductions by trusted third parties, and you are all set!
IMBRA, while blatently sexist and unconstitutional on its face, is not all powerful.
It can be easily surmounted, with patience and planning.
Thanks for reading these words, and thanks again to all the men (and women) who contribute their efforts to the cause of Mens Rights!
Peace.
February 15, 2007 at 5:43 pm
fourthwire said,
At this time, IMBRA has no jurisdiction over individuals who met privately, without the use of marriage introduction services.
Perhaps feminists will try to address ALL American men who attempt to marry foreign nationals in a future version of IMBRA.
And make no mistake: IMBRA is an assault on men’s rights, as Dave Usher’s writing has clearly pointed out.
IMBRA serves to sow suspicions among foreign women who are looking to “marry up” through a cost-effective means of contact: marriage introduction services.
And the feminists have driven the price of that contact up through their rancid piece of misandry.
“IMBRA, while blatently sexist and unconstitutional on its face, is not all powerful.
It can be easily surmounted, with patience and planning.”
IMBRA should not be “surmounted”, however easy you seem to believe to be the case.
It should be overthrown as a truly unconstitutional, sexist infringement on men’s rights by feminists, working through their stooges in Congress.
There’s no reason for men to tolerate such sexist and blatant misandry, pure and simple.
Peace.
February 15, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Tristan said,
Features include forums, downloads of all critical documents such as the text of the law, feminist papers supporting and opposing the law, the seminal INS study referred to by Dave Usher and the court cases, including a TRO against the government issued by a federal judge in Georgia.
You can see these at http://www.online-dating-rights.com
February 15, 2007 at 6:32 pm
fourthwire said,
I have registered on your site, and browsed through the home page.
So the feminists at Tahirih “justice” Center were provided with nearly a quarter million dollars of taxpayers’ money to incite distrust and misandry toward American men.
Yet your organization has to ask for donations.
Count me in - it’s time to defang some of the poisonous reptiles in charge of that sordid bit of hatred for every American born with a penis.
February 15, 2007 at 6:47 pm
mruffolo said,
http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2004/Jul/15-596569.html
Same feminist message of woman victim, man oppressor.
February 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
MartianBachelor said,
For those benefits they’re willing and wanting to immigrate alone, just like any strong, independent woman would do. It’s their choice, which feminists here seem to want to deny them.
February 15, 2007 at 8:31 pm
flusman007 said,
Layli Miller- Muro of the corrupt Tahirih Justice Center (main proponent of the law) recently stated the law “enjoyed wide bi-partisan support”.
This is an outright lie. The law first introduced in 2003 was a “dud” with no support from legislators viewing it as unconstitutional. The proponents deceptively attached it to another large bill when no one looking being passed without any debate by an unrecorded and undemocratic voice vote that Stalin would have heartily applauded.
When was the last time Congress agreed on anything! Most legislators failed to read the law. When it was explained to them (later) many were embarrassed that the radical feminist pulled a “fast one” forcing their radical views on a free society.
The last time background checks were required in order for two people to get married occurred in 1938 in Germany and we all know what happened after that. This law sets a dangerous precedent for more government intervention into our personal love lives. I suspect they will try to get mandatory background checks to regulate all US marriages next! Welcome to the Tahirih Justice Centers’ brave new (corrupt) world.
February 15, 2007 at 8:40 pm
MartianBachelor said,
As it turns out, by coincidence about a week ago I was at a site which gave step-by-step instructions on how a U.S. citizen in Japan would go about marrying a Japanese national. (My research was prompted by an unrelated article which had me curious about how their marriage laws might differ from ours.) Net: the process is amazingly easy, and of course all you said is correct. International law requires the U.S. and any other county to recognize the marriage.
Obviously the difficult part for someone over here who has no contacts over there is making first contact, which is where these brokers and matchmaking services come in.
Harper’s magazine did a first person report about six months ago with an undercover reporter going on one of the ‘wife hunting’ tours in Russia (if I recall correctly) put on by one of these agencies. The portrayal of the other men on the tour was pretty much that they were all pathetic fat bald middle-aged losers (though some did have a few bucks), and the impression of the women they had lined up for introductions was not one to make you think they were the very good and wholesome gals suitable for bringing home to mom and dad. I don’t think IMBRA was raised at all. Maybe the reporter just picked the wrong outfit to get involved with, though it still sounded like it would have been more fun than going on a cruise ship with a bunch of boring retired couples.
February 15, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Mamonaku187 said,
“IMBRA should not be “surmounted”, however easy you seem to believe to be the case.
It should be overthrown as a truly unconstitutional, sexist infringement on men’s rights by feminists, working through their stooges in Congress.
There’s no reason for men to tolerate such sexist and blatant misandry, pure and simple.”
/1000% Agreed that we should not tolerate this law.
On my humble blog, I picked apart a recent article that some feminasty wrote lauding IMBRA, and I proceeded to email my thoughts to the author directly.
I have my online activism that I engage in, but we also live in the real world.
We as men have to be like water. If our way is obstructed, we have to be flexible and seek another way around it.
Martin said,
“P.S. - good to see you here Mamonaku187 - glad that you seem to be doing fine.”
Hey whats going on friend!!
The last time we met, we were flaming feminists to Hell on Forbes.Com!!
Good to meet up with ya again.
I think this needs to be repeated… while we wage our War on Feminism, we also have to realize that our personal happiness also matters.
In this case, law or no law, no 35 year old feminist lesbian with two cats and no hope for the future is going to dictate to me how to run my personal life.
As Sun Tzu wrote;
“All warfare is based on deception.
Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable;
when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when
we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are
far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
20. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him.
If he is in superior strength, evade him.”
February 15, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Roger Knight said,
“The proponents deceptively attached it to another large bill when no one looking being passed without any debate by an unrecorded and undemocratic voice vote that Stalin would have heartily applauded.”
This is one of the most frustrating things about Congress. Its members “fall” for this old parliamentary trick that has been going on since the First Congress, and then pretend they did not “read” or “know about” the offensive provisions added as a rider when an angry constituent calls him on it. This is why the Republicans have an angry base.
February 16, 2007 at 12:55 am
amfortas said,
February 16, 2007 at 5:09 am
VeteransAbroad said,
We need full-time people with focused marketing and sales ability. Anyone who has a blog needs to be cross-posting what they see on other blogs in order to get critical mass on any one subject.
It is a frigging mistake to think that you should only post original content on your own blogs and it is a mistake, when someone says please write to this person at the UN or this person at the Vatican, that other men will pull their weight so you won’t have to do anything.
The strongest organization that I have seen is RADAR where Dave Usher is a powerful influence. RADAR got Kofi Annan’s ultra-feminist Report on Violence Against Women downgraded to just “noted” rather than “welcomed” by the UN Member States.
This is important because, where we have already lost the US Government to radical feminists in both political parties (see http://www.online-dating-rights.com/forum/index.php?topic=559.0 for proof of this), we can still save the world if other governments are made aware of the problem.
On January 26th, Tahirih made a vicious attack on American men by contacting and convincing Susie Hodges of Vatican Radio to do a broadcast condemning all American men who would consider marrying a woman from another country.
Here is the link:
http://www.online-dating-rights.com/forum/index.php?topic=678.0
This was one-sided and an Australian woman named Catherine at Vatican Radio was appalled at how Susie had done such a biased report.
Note that they took the broadcast down but then put it back up again when an American left wing gay male manager in the English Section of Vatican Radio decided that “we stand by our story”.
You can complain politely via sedoc@vatiradio.va addressing Mr. Peter Cocco and Father Andrej Koprowski.
The problem is that the 45 year old woman with two cats is an efficient marketing machine while all we do is tell each other that we won’t let her rule our lives.
——————-
On some other topics raised above, these women are not desperate, at least in East Europe. To get the best, you have to be one of the best and it will not matter that you paid $3000 to go on a tour or not. All kinds of women will go to a tour social because of the free gourmet food and caviar and champagne. If New York City career women were offered a Smorgasbord at the Hyatt Grand Central at 5:30PM on a business day, they would go and find it amusing if a few rich Chinese businessmen had paid for the event in order to say hi to them. The Harper journalist, if he had been single, would have written a different article.
I once ate at the bar downstairs from one of those social events (not knowing the event was going on) and met a great woman as she and her friend were leaving after getting a great gourmet meal. I do not recommend doing that on purpose because good companies like AFA deserve your support.
February 16, 2007 at 6:17 am
VeteransAbroad said,
February 16, 2007 at 6:31 am
VeteransAbroad said,
Instead of envisioning the cats, watch this video and come to the realization that the only way to counter this sort of esprit de corps is to get some sort organization going.
Our enemy’s world-wide power now exceeds the power presented in this film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1K6POZ_aK4&mode=related&search=
In particular, we need financing in the millions for a real organization that will then ask the federal government to finance us as well while cutting off the financing for the radfems (or at least replacing the directors of “women’s shelters” with politically neutral administrators).
Try to get the email addresses of Paul McCartney and Michael Jordan and any other rich man who has been or is now being destroyed by feminists.
February 16, 2007 at 7:10 am
donnieboy57 said,
i’ll beleive it when i see it.
February 25, 2007 at 8:55 am
albert1964 said,
There is no shred of evidence demonstrating a higher rate of violence in cross-cultural marriages facilitated by the IMBs. In fact, Tahirih Justice Center (the main proponent of IMBRA) even states, “It is important to note that there are no national statistics reflecting what the prevalence of abuse is in the “brokered” marriages, specifically.” http://tahirih.org/legal/docs/Top10IMBRAFAQs(Final).pdf
With no scientific evidence of higher prevalence of abuse to support its claims, Tahirih Justice Center has been forced to manipulate facts and create hysteria to maintain support for IMBRA. One example that comes to mind is the case of David Dickerson, who was the victim of fabricated claims of rape and abuse alleged by his immigrant Latvian wife. http://wbal.com/news/story.asp?articleid=47814 When the news broke, Layli Miller-Muro, the executive director of Tahirih Justice Center, promptly appeared in this case and raised hysteria about immigrant women abuse (”30 to 50 percent are abused…” - clearly, a fabricated data). Here is the Tahirih hysteria for your viewing. http://video.wjla.com/wjla/candidate0725.wmv
The WJLA video (Baltimore) has become rather well-known - it was meant to serve as a propaganda piece for Tahirih, but clearly it backfired and is now the source of considerable embarrassment for this radical feminist organization.
February 25, 2007 at 11:44 pm
albert1964 said,
February 25, 2007 at 11:47 pm
steven deluca said,
March 7, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Tyranny « Egghead’s Observations said,
April 25, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Egghead’s Observations » Blog Archive » Tyranny said,
June 25, 2007 at 9:04 pm