Posted: August 15th, 2008, 7:28 am
MoscowSummerNights,
I decided to reply to this in the forum for everyone's benefit.
I should warn you that I am a skeptic by nature. Winston, doesn't seem to have the critical thinking skills needed to evaluate a letter like the one you sent out, but I do. So you can fool Winston since he just cuts and pastes things that might support his agenda. And I have reason to believe that you simply copied and paste the infor about IMBRA from an anti-feminist site.
So you might be able to fool Winston and some of the other imbittered men here, but you can't fool me.
For the record, I am a man about Winston's age who is planning to bring a Russian fiancee into the USA on a K1 visa. My I129F has been approved a few weeks ago. IMBRA isn't imposing much of a burden on this process. You simply need to make sure that the sites you are visiting are in compliance with IMBRA. And all the legitimate sites have talked about it.
Now this letter has been mass mailed to Winston's list, my comments are in bold.
[snip]
Paranoia about violence or stalking from men who are interested in them is a particularly American psychosis that caused the IMBRA law that I will describe below (IMBRA forces American paranoia onto foreign women who date men via the Internet whether they want to be paranoid or not).
It was several highly publicized incidents such as the cases of Anastasia King and Olga Conroy that illustrated a need for a law like IMBRA. President Bush has also taken a very agressive stand against human trafficing, and there also countless incedents of foreign brides being abused or abandoned once in the US which creates a social burden on the American tax payer.
It was recognized that there was a need for a law like IMBRA.
[SNIP]
About IMBRA: Your members should Google the subject because there is a lot to read.
It is a law that older American women wanted to have who were furious that men their own age might try to find younger women elsewhere. They were furious that men might find a way around the paranoia fencing and the arbitary "I may have given you my email address but I don't want to write to you" syndrome.
I hate to burst your bubble, but American women don't really care. If they didn't care to talk to you or date you, then why would they care who you date or marry? And in some circles, they'll even say "whatever makes you happy" or something similar. They're aren't really fuming about guys going overseas to find a wife or have a good time.
But most people, men or women, will object to predatory males taking advantage of a woman's ignorance and bring her to the US in a potentially dangerous situation. In my line of work, such women are classified as " a vulnerable population". This means that somebody needs to explain to them their rights, risks and benifits to a particular course of action. It is impossible to overstate the legal precedence for these types of laws. And this is what IMBRA is designed to do: to inform a vulnerable populations.
IMBRA is a law that was secretly passed by the US Congress at the last second before Christmas vacation in 2005 and deep inside a secretly altered VAWA text that was itself buried deep inside the Justice Dept Budget Reauthorization Act that needed to pass to keep the FBI funded over Christmas vacation.
IMBRA was not passed in secret. There were many people in the Mail Order Bride industry who were aware of this for some time. There were even efforts to petition law makers so that the bill wouldn't get passed. All acts of Congress are documented in public forum.
IMBRA states that:
1) It is illegal for a dating website that serves mostly white males (ethnic dating sites are exempt) to have more than 50% foreign women without being called a "Marriage Broker" and complying with "Marriage Broker Regulations".
It's not illegal per se. This is more about establishing deffinitions of what it means to be a marriage broker. Were it not for these types of deffinitions, the law would have been struck down in court as being too vague. This is also in an effort to prevent some marriage brokers from trying to avoid the law by declaring themselves a dating site like match.com or eharmony.
2) These socalled "Marriage Brokers" (any dating site with less than 50% American women on them) are under government mandate to force all American men (but not foreign men) to undergo background checks before being allowed to come into contact in any form with a foreign woman.
Let's get real. I had to fill out a quick form on the internet about my background. Before I woman corresponds with me, she must click on a button that she has read it. We aren't talking about an insurmountable barrier to communication here.
Another part of the law forces background checks on any American who wants to get a marriage or fiance visa for any foreigner but I will not discuss the anti-constitutionality of that part of the law here.
There's nothing unconstitutional about this. IMBRA merely makes sure that the woman is adaquately informed about the man's background. The woman can still choose whether or not to marry the guy.
3) In terms of regulating the actual hello process, the US govenment mandated background checks include not only running the man's name through the sex offender database (he can provide a fake name under the current version of the law but the next version will soon be secretly passed forcing all men to positively identify themselves before being allowed to communicate with all women), but also include a voluntary form where the man lists whether he was ever arrested for anything (regardless of conviction). This includes any fake restraining orders and any DUIs or arrests for protesting the war or whatever. The man must also state his marital status and the ages of any children he might have (of course, men can and should lie on this form while they still can if they do not want certain information to be given out to strangers).
This is plain creepy. This statement, carries a strong implication that a man should lie or falsify information for the purpose of committing fraud. And it's not like we're talking about giving out social security numbers or credit card information to strangers either. It's about providing enough information for somebody to make an informed decision.
4) The worst part of IMBRA is the part that says that each individual foreign woman must sign in writing that she read the background forms of each man who tries to communicate...and she must make her decision on whether to communicate with the man BEFORE she can read the message that he wrote to her.
Yeah, so?. I don't see a problem here.
5) This means that she can read that he was arrested for DUI 10 years ago and then must base her decision on whether her contact info should be given out to him ONLY BASED ON THAT INFO before she is allowed to see his initial message to her where he might explain the DUI situation (again, I recommend that all men lie on the background form while they still can...but technology is making it so the US government will get better and better at creating reports for women to read that tell her everything about a man's life).
...And here it comes. We have a person that is advising potential participants in a court challenge to lie on the forms. The courts tend to look down on that type of thing.
6) Even for those of us 85% of men who have nothing at all to hide (including zero children whose ages we have to report on), this mandate that the women must read our backgrounds before being allowed to hear any message from us...forces all foreign women to only meet American males via Web-based EMail and not by having him call her cell phone or send her a telegram or postal letter (or just show up which I have done often in the past when there was no time to send a postal letter because my plane was leaving the next day and I only had a woman's address).
Actually, there is nothing in IMBRA that says you couldn't meet somebody overseas without using the internet. It's entirely possible that you can be on holiday and meet somebody this way. But if you are meeting through a marriage broker, that broker must comply with IMBRA. But in any case, you still need to have your background and eligability checked in order to submit the I-129F.
7) This is because a woman cannot realistically sign in writing that she read your background if you are calling her initially on the phone or sending snail mail. Theoretically, a dating site can send a paper letter to Manila or St. Petersburg and have a woman sign an affidavit that they can give out her personal contact info to the man whom she knows nothing about except that he had a restraining order from a previous divorce...but that would take more than a month to complete...so IMBRA basically forces all dating websites NOT to give out personal contact information at all and just force all women and men to get to know each other via the double-blind webmail systems that paranoid Americans mostly use.
Like I said, this isn't an insurmountable barrier. Before she reads a man's letter, she just needs to click on a web page that says she has read about the man's background. If a man has such a checkered past that she would actually be discouraged from communicating, then I'd say the man has bigger problems than with IMBRA.
Thus IMBRA forces American paranoia on foreign women, saying that foreign women are like children and should be forced not to broadcast their personal contact information to strangers.
First, not broadcasting personal information to strangers on the internet, is simply common sense.
Second, the ladies have a prefered way of contact anyways.
Third, foreign women (along with children) are considered "vulnerable populations" and need to have their rights, the risks and the benefits explained to them.
IMBRA violates the Right to Assemble. It is a gateway law to establish in the Supreme Court what a Republican judge said about it in 2006 "There is no fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner".
I always get a kick out of people who think they know their rights when they really don't.
The freedom to assemble has not been violated with IMBRA. IMBRA simply mandates disclosure. They still leave the choice up to the individuals involved.
The book "1984" is about how a government interferes in the relationship between a man and a woman by "disclosing information" to the woman about the man.
Ah yes. Let's see, a man can fly to her country and learn all about her and where she lives and who she associates with, where her job is, how much she makes, who her friends are, etc, etc. While the man can lie or hide his background so that she has no idea what she's getting into until she comes to the US.
So a law calls for a level playing field and you think the government is turning into a totalletarian state like in 1984?????
IMBRA is based on the feminist theory that men who date foreign women are very dangerous...and this forces the government to take action to regulate us.
Some men are dangerous. IMBRA can act as a pretty effective filter to make sure they can't take advantage of people. Other men really don't have anything to worry about.
It is, of course, politically motivated. Not only are men who date foreign women proven to be 7 times less likely to ever commit domestic violence.
That's great news! So IMBRA shouldn't really be a problem then.
There are other groups where people who meet each other are statistically much more dangerous to each other. The Congress would never regulate Gay.com where older men with HIV try to get younger men to meet them for sex. Congress would never mandate that men need to show their HIV status to other men before being allowed to communicate. This is because gays have political power in the USA and hetero males have ZERO power.
Red herring. Congress isn't regulating match.com either. This has nothing to do with gay and straight. It has to do with the foreign bride industry.
By the way, Marc Rudov may have written about all this (Google his article on IMBRA) but he will NOT mention this on TV because he believes that no American males would care about this issue and he feels that the American public including most American males look down on males who leave the country as being "sex tourists".
He's right. Most of us really don't care. The only men that need to worry about IMBRA are the ones that IMBRA was designed to protect foriegn women from.
Marc Rudov also refuses to discuss the paranoia issue Winston describes. He doesn't want to look like he might have trouble getting or keeping a date...he prefers to say that he rejects women when they expect him to pay for dinner.
Yeah, when you have a bunch of embittered anti-feminist men to do the griping for you, why put yourself on the line.
My website is http://www.veteransabroad.com. There is another site called http://www.onlinedatingrights.com that has a very good archive including 800 posts from me...but the current moderator is blocking all attempts to get the first real challenge going from American citizens (some dating site owners incompetently challenged IMBRA by using feminist lawyers who sabotaged their clients' cause).
It should make you wonder about the validity of a law that has survived legal challenges, but most people opt for the conspiracy theory instead. Makes you wonder.
In the end, many in the so-called "Men's Rights Movement" (MRM) are not goal-oriented and not really doing anything to try to get court action against laws like this ASAP. Read http://www.mensnewsdaily.com to see a bunch of guys blindly routing for John McCain while complaining about feminism but not trying to get any court action going at all.
Well, in order to have a legal case, you need to come up with a few men who have actually had their petitions for fiancee visa's denied because of IMBRA. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't one. Griping isn't enough to file a legal challenge. You need facts, not conspiracy theories.
You might ask "what can we do"?
We could do the following:
1) We can organize maybe on this site where we can raise $25,000 for a lawyered challenge inside the US.
I'm not going to support you, but I won't stand in your way either. But just some advice: You don't really want to fish around these parts for money or guys that have a gripe with IMBRA. The site features content and men that the authors of IMBRA were probably thinking of when they passed the law. You might end up undermining yourself.
2) A single American citizen can do a Per Se Challenge in a federal courthouse which would probably involve at least one trip back to the USA to physically deposit a challenge or to be physically present at a trial which would include a Deputy Attorney General and the lawyers for a feminist organization called the Tahirih Justice Center (see http://www.tahirih.org).
And who would pay the court costs? They could easily be half a year of Winston's income.
I guarantee that any American citizen can get a restraining order on IMBRA within 3 days if they simply walked into a courthouse and asked.
I think you mean an injunction and not a restraining order. The fact that you can't even get legal terms right doesn't really raise confidence of who you are trying to represent.
BUT NOBODY HAS ASKED.
This is because:
1) American males are mostly wimps with zero self confidence and zero goal orientation.
...or nobody has ever had their visa application denied because of IMBRA. Let's get real here. Woman in the FSU are pretty smart at least. Most men that would have been stopped by IMBRA are going to get rejected by the girls anyways. Even before IMBRA many men weren't getting to the point of applying for the K1 visa. Many men come to the International Bride Industry in the hopes that it's easier to get a woman overseas than having to deal with those "feminist bitches". They quickly figure out that it is an expensive and time consuming process and end up washing out.
Let's also remember one thing. These women aren't in a vaccum. They have a grapevine and I marvel at how fast information is shared among Russian women. They have their own black lists. They advise each other on where the best jobs are in the west or what the laws are. Where to buy food, everything! Don't think for a moment that you can fool any of these girls.
The concept that foreign bride seekers are losers isn't just among feminists. I know that the Russian girls have this idea also. You see, the type of man that would have a problem with IMBRA will likely exihibit other qualities that would turn off these women.
2) Some of us are corporate execs who cannot lend our real names to the fight and should not have to because there should be plenty of retired guys, those who don't care how their real name bounces around the Internet or those with common names where their challenge won't be the first thing people see on Google checks.
The corporate execs aren't going to be worried about IMBRA either. You're making up a lot of excuses as to why men aren't stepping forward to combat such a great injustice. Maybe you should ask yourself why most men don't see a problem.
Seriously, just one guy in the USA right now could read this and immediately Email me because he is perfectly ready to walk into a federal courthouse TOMORROW and lay down a 12 point complaint about how at least the part of IMBRA that blocks non-email communication with foreign women (until she signs something in writing) needs to be restrained and overturned.
Sounds pretty easy. Makes you wonder why nobody is doing it, doesn't it?
I guarantee that this law can be overturned immediately if we had just one male anywhere who was willing to use his real name and walk into a courthouse.
Now, your just talking crazy. Legal challenges are very exhaustive and time consuming. I suspect that you are just raising false hope.
I decided to reply to this in the forum for everyone's benefit.
I should warn you that I am a skeptic by nature. Winston, doesn't seem to have the critical thinking skills needed to evaluate a letter like the one you sent out, but I do. So you can fool Winston since he just cuts and pastes things that might support his agenda. And I have reason to believe that you simply copied and paste the infor about IMBRA from an anti-feminist site.
So you might be able to fool Winston and some of the other imbittered men here, but you can't fool me.
For the record, I am a man about Winston's age who is planning to bring a Russian fiancee into the USA on a K1 visa. My I129F has been approved a few weeks ago. IMBRA isn't imposing much of a burden on this process. You simply need to make sure that the sites you are visiting are in compliance with IMBRA. And all the legitimate sites have talked about it.
Now this letter has been mass mailed to Winston's list, my comments are in bold.
[snip]
Paranoia about violence or stalking from men who are interested in them is a particularly American psychosis that caused the IMBRA law that I will describe below (IMBRA forces American paranoia onto foreign women who date men via the Internet whether they want to be paranoid or not).
It was several highly publicized incidents such as the cases of Anastasia King and Olga Conroy that illustrated a need for a law like IMBRA. President Bush has also taken a very agressive stand against human trafficing, and there also countless incedents of foreign brides being abused or abandoned once in the US which creates a social burden on the American tax payer.
It was recognized that there was a need for a law like IMBRA.
[SNIP]
About IMBRA: Your members should Google the subject because there is a lot to read.
It is a law that older American women wanted to have who were furious that men their own age might try to find younger women elsewhere. They were furious that men might find a way around the paranoia fencing and the arbitary "I may have given you my email address but I don't want to write to you" syndrome.
I hate to burst your bubble, but American women don't really care. If they didn't care to talk to you or date you, then why would they care who you date or marry? And in some circles, they'll even say "whatever makes you happy" or something similar. They're aren't really fuming about guys going overseas to find a wife or have a good time.
But most people, men or women, will object to predatory males taking advantage of a woman's ignorance and bring her to the US in a potentially dangerous situation. In my line of work, such women are classified as " a vulnerable population". This means that somebody needs to explain to them their rights, risks and benifits to a particular course of action. It is impossible to overstate the legal precedence for these types of laws. And this is what IMBRA is designed to do: to inform a vulnerable populations.
IMBRA is a law that was secretly passed by the US Congress at the last second before Christmas vacation in 2005 and deep inside a secretly altered VAWA text that was itself buried deep inside the Justice Dept Budget Reauthorization Act that needed to pass to keep the FBI funded over Christmas vacation.
IMBRA was not passed in secret. There were many people in the Mail Order Bride industry who were aware of this for some time. There were even efforts to petition law makers so that the bill wouldn't get passed. All acts of Congress are documented in public forum.
IMBRA states that:
1) It is illegal for a dating website that serves mostly white males (ethnic dating sites are exempt) to have more than 50% foreign women without being called a "Marriage Broker" and complying with "Marriage Broker Regulations".
It's not illegal per se. This is more about establishing deffinitions of what it means to be a marriage broker. Were it not for these types of deffinitions, the law would have been struck down in court as being too vague. This is also in an effort to prevent some marriage brokers from trying to avoid the law by declaring themselves a dating site like match.com or eharmony.
2) These socalled "Marriage Brokers" (any dating site with less than 50% American women on them) are under government mandate to force all American men (but not foreign men) to undergo background checks before being allowed to come into contact in any form with a foreign woman.
Let's get real. I had to fill out a quick form on the internet about my background. Before I woman corresponds with me, she must click on a button that she has read it. We aren't talking about an insurmountable barrier to communication here.
Another part of the law forces background checks on any American who wants to get a marriage or fiance visa for any foreigner but I will not discuss the anti-constitutionality of that part of the law here.
There's nothing unconstitutional about this. IMBRA merely makes sure that the woman is adaquately informed about the man's background. The woman can still choose whether or not to marry the guy.
3) In terms of regulating the actual hello process, the US govenment mandated background checks include not only running the man's name through the sex offender database (he can provide a fake name under the current version of the law but the next version will soon be secretly passed forcing all men to positively identify themselves before being allowed to communicate with all women), but also include a voluntary form where the man lists whether he was ever arrested for anything (regardless of conviction). This includes any fake restraining orders and any DUIs or arrests for protesting the war or whatever. The man must also state his marital status and the ages of any children he might have (of course, men can and should lie on this form while they still can if they do not want certain information to be given out to strangers).
This is plain creepy. This statement, carries a strong implication that a man should lie or falsify information for the purpose of committing fraud. And it's not like we're talking about giving out social security numbers or credit card information to strangers either. It's about providing enough information for somebody to make an informed decision.
4) The worst part of IMBRA is the part that says that each individual foreign woman must sign in writing that she read the background forms of each man who tries to communicate...and she must make her decision on whether to communicate with the man BEFORE she can read the message that he wrote to her.
Yeah, so?. I don't see a problem here.
5) This means that she can read that he was arrested for DUI 10 years ago and then must base her decision on whether her contact info should be given out to him ONLY BASED ON THAT INFO before she is allowed to see his initial message to her where he might explain the DUI situation (again, I recommend that all men lie on the background form while they still can...but technology is making it so the US government will get better and better at creating reports for women to read that tell her everything about a man's life).
...And here it comes. We have a person that is advising potential participants in a court challenge to lie on the forms. The courts tend to look down on that type of thing.
6) Even for those of us 85% of men who have nothing at all to hide (including zero children whose ages we have to report on), this mandate that the women must read our backgrounds before being allowed to hear any message from us...forces all foreign women to only meet American males via Web-based EMail and not by having him call her cell phone or send her a telegram or postal letter (or just show up which I have done often in the past when there was no time to send a postal letter because my plane was leaving the next day and I only had a woman's address).
Actually, there is nothing in IMBRA that says you couldn't meet somebody overseas without using the internet. It's entirely possible that you can be on holiday and meet somebody this way. But if you are meeting through a marriage broker, that broker must comply with IMBRA. But in any case, you still need to have your background and eligability checked in order to submit the I-129F.
7) This is because a woman cannot realistically sign in writing that she read your background if you are calling her initially on the phone or sending snail mail. Theoretically, a dating site can send a paper letter to Manila or St. Petersburg and have a woman sign an affidavit that they can give out her personal contact info to the man whom she knows nothing about except that he had a restraining order from a previous divorce...but that would take more than a month to complete...so IMBRA basically forces all dating websites NOT to give out personal contact information at all and just force all women and men to get to know each other via the double-blind webmail systems that paranoid Americans mostly use.
Like I said, this isn't an insurmountable barrier. Before she reads a man's letter, she just needs to click on a web page that says she has read about the man's background. If a man has such a checkered past that she would actually be discouraged from communicating, then I'd say the man has bigger problems than with IMBRA.
Thus IMBRA forces American paranoia on foreign women, saying that foreign women are like children and should be forced not to broadcast their personal contact information to strangers.
First, not broadcasting personal information to strangers on the internet, is simply common sense.
Second, the ladies have a prefered way of contact anyways.
Third, foreign women (along with children) are considered "vulnerable populations" and need to have their rights, the risks and the benefits explained to them.
IMBRA violates the Right to Assemble. It is a gateway law to establish in the Supreme Court what a Republican judge said about it in 2006 "There is no fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner".
I always get a kick out of people who think they know their rights when they really don't.
The freedom to assemble has not been violated with IMBRA. IMBRA simply mandates disclosure. They still leave the choice up to the individuals involved.
The book "1984" is about how a government interferes in the relationship between a man and a woman by "disclosing information" to the woman about the man.
Ah yes. Let's see, a man can fly to her country and learn all about her and where she lives and who she associates with, where her job is, how much she makes, who her friends are, etc, etc. While the man can lie or hide his background so that she has no idea what she's getting into until she comes to the US.
So a law calls for a level playing field and you think the government is turning into a totalletarian state like in 1984?????
IMBRA is based on the feminist theory that men who date foreign women are very dangerous...and this forces the government to take action to regulate us.
Some men are dangerous. IMBRA can act as a pretty effective filter to make sure they can't take advantage of people. Other men really don't have anything to worry about.
It is, of course, politically motivated. Not only are men who date foreign women proven to be 7 times less likely to ever commit domestic violence.
That's great news! So IMBRA shouldn't really be a problem then.
There are other groups where people who meet each other are statistically much more dangerous to each other. The Congress would never regulate Gay.com where older men with HIV try to get younger men to meet them for sex. Congress would never mandate that men need to show their HIV status to other men before being allowed to communicate. This is because gays have political power in the USA and hetero males have ZERO power.
Red herring. Congress isn't regulating match.com either. This has nothing to do with gay and straight. It has to do with the foreign bride industry.
By the way, Marc Rudov may have written about all this (Google his article on IMBRA) but he will NOT mention this on TV because he believes that no American males would care about this issue and he feels that the American public including most American males look down on males who leave the country as being "sex tourists".
He's right. Most of us really don't care. The only men that need to worry about IMBRA are the ones that IMBRA was designed to protect foriegn women from.
Marc Rudov also refuses to discuss the paranoia issue Winston describes. He doesn't want to look like he might have trouble getting or keeping a date...he prefers to say that he rejects women when they expect him to pay for dinner.
Yeah, when you have a bunch of embittered anti-feminist men to do the griping for you, why put yourself on the line.
My website is http://www.veteransabroad.com. There is another site called http://www.onlinedatingrights.com that has a very good archive including 800 posts from me...but the current moderator is blocking all attempts to get the first real challenge going from American citizens (some dating site owners incompetently challenged IMBRA by using feminist lawyers who sabotaged their clients' cause).
It should make you wonder about the validity of a law that has survived legal challenges, but most people opt for the conspiracy theory instead. Makes you wonder.
In the end, many in the so-called "Men's Rights Movement" (MRM) are not goal-oriented and not really doing anything to try to get court action against laws like this ASAP. Read http://www.mensnewsdaily.com to see a bunch of guys blindly routing for John McCain while complaining about feminism but not trying to get any court action going at all.
Well, in order to have a legal case, you need to come up with a few men who have actually had their petitions for fiancee visa's denied because of IMBRA. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't one. Griping isn't enough to file a legal challenge. You need facts, not conspiracy theories.
You might ask "what can we do"?
We could do the following:
1) We can organize maybe on this site where we can raise $25,000 for a lawyered challenge inside the US.
I'm not going to support you, but I won't stand in your way either. But just some advice: You don't really want to fish around these parts for money or guys that have a gripe with IMBRA. The site features content and men that the authors of IMBRA were probably thinking of when they passed the law. You might end up undermining yourself.
2) A single American citizen can do a Per Se Challenge in a federal courthouse which would probably involve at least one trip back to the USA to physically deposit a challenge or to be physically present at a trial which would include a Deputy Attorney General and the lawyers for a feminist organization called the Tahirih Justice Center (see http://www.tahirih.org).
And who would pay the court costs? They could easily be half a year of Winston's income.
I guarantee that any American citizen can get a restraining order on IMBRA within 3 days if they simply walked into a courthouse and asked.
I think you mean an injunction and not a restraining order. The fact that you can't even get legal terms right doesn't really raise confidence of who you are trying to represent.
BUT NOBODY HAS ASKED.
This is because:
1) American males are mostly wimps with zero self confidence and zero goal orientation.
...or nobody has ever had their visa application denied because of IMBRA. Let's get real here. Woman in the FSU are pretty smart at least. Most men that would have been stopped by IMBRA are going to get rejected by the girls anyways. Even before IMBRA many men weren't getting to the point of applying for the K1 visa. Many men come to the International Bride Industry in the hopes that it's easier to get a woman overseas than having to deal with those "feminist bitches". They quickly figure out that it is an expensive and time consuming process and end up washing out.
Let's also remember one thing. These women aren't in a vaccum. They have a grapevine and I marvel at how fast information is shared among Russian women. They have their own black lists. They advise each other on where the best jobs are in the west or what the laws are. Where to buy food, everything! Don't think for a moment that you can fool any of these girls.
The concept that foreign bride seekers are losers isn't just among feminists. I know that the Russian girls have this idea also. You see, the type of man that would have a problem with IMBRA will likely exihibit other qualities that would turn off these women.
2) Some of us are corporate execs who cannot lend our real names to the fight and should not have to because there should be plenty of retired guys, those who don't care how their real name bounces around the Internet or those with common names where their challenge won't be the first thing people see on Google checks.
The corporate execs aren't going to be worried about IMBRA either. You're making up a lot of excuses as to why men aren't stepping forward to combat such a great injustice. Maybe you should ask yourself why most men don't see a problem.
Seriously, just one guy in the USA right now could read this and immediately Email me because he is perfectly ready to walk into a federal courthouse TOMORROW and lay down a 12 point complaint about how at least the part of IMBRA that blocks non-email communication with foreign women (until she signs something in writing) needs to be restrained and overturned.
Sounds pretty easy. Makes you wonder why nobody is doing it, doesn't it?
I guarantee that this law can be overturned immediately if we had just one male anywhere who was willing to use his real name and walk into a courthouse.
Now, your just talking crazy. Legal challenges are very exhaustive and time consuming. I suspect that you are just raising false hope.