Carey Roberts described it in a recent article:
A little background: It’s no secret that conditions in post-socialist Russia are grim. Author Sonya Luehrmann recounts how women desperately search to find a husband “to put one’s personal life in order, to settle down with a stable family.”
And here in the United States, some men find American ladies to be a little too, shall we say, high-maintenance for their tastes.
Before long over 200 match-making services around the world had sprouted up like a clutch of springtime tulips.
But feminists are rankled by any hint that their nostrum for female liberation may be curtailing American women’s marriage prospects. Worse, some of these foreign women actually aspire to be mothers and homemakers. Imagine that!
So the Sourpuss Sisters conspired to put the kibosh on the operation. Reference
In an echo of Hitler's 1935 Racial Purity Law, which forbade sex between Germans and Jews, feminist TV host and columnist, Bonnie Erbe, is calling for a ban on American men taking foreign brides.
Realising that the term "racially inferior" can't be used these days, Erbe justifies her extreme views by labelling foreign brides as "less well educated" and poses the question "Do we really want another 40,000 plus people entering the United States per year?"
Unlike Bonnie Erbe, most feminists were not prepared to risk being labelled as Politically Incorrect by criticising immigration or immigrants, so instead they resorted to their favourite strategy of portraying women as victims:
It was Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington who quarterbacked the legislative strategy. First she brandished the notion of “mail-order brides,” casting foreign women as victims of predatory males. Then she dubbed international dating services as “marriage brokers,” conjuring up the image of a rogue operation trading lives for dollars.
On July 13, 2004 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee scheduled a hearing to air the issue. No dating services or happily-betrothed foreign women were invited to testify — their comments would not likely fit the script. (My emphasis)
During her testimony, Cantwell made the startling claim that match-making services serve as a nefarious front for international human trafficking. She concluded, “there is a growing epidemic of domestic abuse among couples who meet via international marriage brokers.” As proof of that “epidemic,” she highlighted the cases of three abused women.
But it turns out that Senator Cantwell’s supposition that dating services drag women into a life of sex slavery and indentured servitude was nothing more than a feminist tall-tale”. Reference
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. Reference
“The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service report revealed [that] “less than 1 percent of the abuse cases now being brought to the attention of the INS can be attributed to the mail-order bride industry.” Reference
A second analysis soberly concluded that foreign brides are “dramatically less likely to be involved in domestic violence as calculated by the Intimate Partner Murder Rate.” Reference
And earlier this week the Washington Post reported that early estimates of up to 100,000 human trafficking victims being secreted into the United States each year were grossly exaggerated. Despite more than $150 million of taxpayer dollars diverted to a massive search and rescue effort, it turns out the actual number of trafficking victims is closer to 200 annually. Reference
The bill's feminist proponents had it enacted through trickery.
It was sneakily appended to the uncontroversial Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 and passed by an undemocratic "voice vote" by the Senate on Friday, December 16 and the House on Saturday, December 17, when lawmakers were impatient to return home for the holidays. No hearings or witness testimony took place. Reference
The poor boy (an expat living in Bangkok) has obviously been away too long if he thinks VAWA is uncontroversial.
IMBRA requires any man who wishes to go through an international dating company to submit to an extensive background check.
These are the disclosure requirements that even Ms Erbe describes as "horrifically burdensome."
- Every state of residence since the age of 18;
- Current or previous marriages as well as how and when they terminated;
- Information on children under 18;
- Any arrest or conviction related to controlled substances, alcohol or prostitution, making no distinction on arrests not leading to conviction;
- Any court orders, including temporary restraining orders (which are notoriously easy to obtain);
- Any arrest or conviction for crimes ranging from "homicide" to "child neglect";
- Any arrest or conviction for "similar activity in violation of Federal, State or local criminal law" (without specifying what "similar" means).
The one thing that both supporters and opponents of the IMBRA bill can agree on is that these rules weren't drawn up to regulate foreign dating sites. They are intended to drive them out of business. Reference
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.
Why not? Are American women not deserving of the same protection? It is not about that, because it is not about protecting women at all. IMBRA was designed as a barrier to marriage, but only for American men, and only for marriage to foreign women. American women's freedom to seek out more victims for divorce, alimony and child-support payments must not be hindered.
In order to create IMBRA, the feminist lobby deployed the myth of the ‘people-trafficked prostitute’, which is a modern manifestation of the myth of the White Slave Trade:
The campaign against 'trafficking in women' has gained increasing momentum world-wide, but in particular among feminists in Europe and the United States, in the last two decades. This current campaign is not the first time that the international community has become concerned with the fate of young women abroad. Modern concerns with prostitution and 'trafficking in women' have a historical precedent in the anti-white-slavery campaigns that occurred at the turn of the century. Feminist organisations played key roles in both past and present campaigns. While current concerns are focused on the exploitation of third world/non-western women by both non-western and western men, concerns then were with the abduction of European women for prostitution in South America, Africa or 'the Orient' by non-western men or other subalterns. Yet, though the geographical direction of the traffic has switched, much of the rhetoric accompanying the campaigns sounds almost completely the same. Then as now, the paradigmatic image is that of a young and naive innocent lured or deceived by evil traffickers into a life of sordid horror from which escape is nearly impossible.
The mythical nature of this paradigm of the 'white slave' has been demonstrated by historians. Similarly, recent research indicates that today's stereotypical 'trafficking victim' bears as little resemblance to women migrating for work in the sex industry as did her historical counterpart, the 'white slave'. The majority of 'trafficking victims' are aware that the jobs offered them are in the sex industry, but are lied to about the conditions they will work under. Reference
Yet the US feminist lobby, in enacting IMBRA, has deployed this favourite cultural myth, not to combat prostitution, but to combat marriage. The facts show that marriages to foreign women are less likely to be abusive, and less likely to end in divorce.
IMBRA has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting women; it is another weapon in the feminist war against marriage. Some of them just oppose marriage in principle; others don’t like the foreign competition.
As I said elsewhere, the feminist movement can be regarded as a powerful trade organization, like a union. It attempts to set the price of access to women. It keeps trying to force the price ever-higher while women are expected to deliver less and less. That is why they object so strongly to any kind of commercial sex; it undercuts middle-class women. This is the reason behind all the anti-porn and anti-prostitution propaganda from the feminist movement. It is presented as being designed to protect women, but it is nothing to do with that.
When trade unions realise that their own jobs are being threatened by 'cheap foreign imports', they demand that the market is rigged in order to artificially protect them. The same thing is happening here. What feminists are engaging in is protectionism. It is about protecting Western middle-class women’s monopoly over the price of sex.
IMBRA is a major piece of legislation designed to enforce this protectionism. It is perfectly acceptable for American women to seek out foreign husbands; it is just American men who must be prevented.
When men seek foreign brides, it is abusive sex-trafficking in 'mail-order brides'; when women do it, they are innocently seeking love and marriage. What a con. Once again we see rank double standards at work, based on nothing more than selfishness, implemented by means of lies, distortion and moral panic. The usual feminist recipe.
Like most American women, Erbe dismisses a wife who acts in an openly kind or caring way towards her husband as a "submissive" doormat. No wonder the divorce rate is going through the roof. If these women get outsourced, they only have themselves to blame. Reference
As Usher argues, the implications go further than just marriage:
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.