by Marc H. Rudov
June 16, 2010
By signing HB65 — International Marriage Brokers Regulation (IMBR) — Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, on May 20, 2010, willfully condoned pernicious gender profiling. The framers of this unconstitutional law, which becomes effective in October, blithely labeled all of Maryland’s male citizens and legal residents as potential abusers of foreign women.
The original intent of HB65’s authors was to “protect” foreign women from untoward behavior of American suitors — without any legal grounds. Motivation? Pressure from feminists.
Imagine electing representatives who actually endeavored to simultaneously strip the rights of American men and grant rights to foreign women. It happened. Furthermore, in writing HB65, they required so-called marriage brokers, such as online dating sites, to be the rights-stripping middlemen.
Unwittingly, Maryland’s legislators, and ultimately its governor, penalized female citizens and legal residents, and endorsed immigration fraud. How? The texts of laws, despite their sexist intentions and titles (e.g., Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA), must be couched in gender-neutral language. Gotcha.
Interestingly, HB65’s chief financial supporters — radical feminists — are equally zealous about Arizona’s new immigration law, SB1070, but as detractors who want to overturn it. What’s the Maryland-Arizona connection? By focusing on foreigners, using “violence against women” as the lever, feminists believe they can socially transform America.
Maryland’s IMBR is modeled after the federal IMBRA (International Marriage Broker Regulation Act), a surreptitious subset of VAWA 2005. Joe Biden, misandrist father of VAWA, saw to it that an immigrating spouse (read “wife”) could become a self-petitioner — for her own immigration — by accusing the American spouse (read “husband”) of domestic violence.
Normally, an American spouse sponsors (petitions on behalf of) his immigrating spouse. To become a self-petitioner, though, thanks to VAWA, the immigrating wife simply accuses her American husband of beating her by filing USCIS Form I-360 at the Vermont office of USCIS. Why Vermont? Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who backed VAWA 1994, commandeered the filing process, as he benefits politically from VAWA funding in his state.
After a wife files Form I-360, her husband is barred from seeing or legally challenging the charges against him — thereby losing his presumption-of-innocence and due-process rights. Meanwhile, her Green Card is almost automatically assured. Whither the Constitution?
The Tables Are Turning
How does VAWA/IMBRA, and soon Maryland’s IMBR (HB65), endorse immigration fraud? Simple. Traditionally, foreign women have deceitfully married naive American men, then falsely accused them of domestic violence to get Green Cards.
Remember that gender-neutral language? The tables are turning.
Now, foreign men are copying their female counterparts by marrying gullible American women, accusing them of domestic violence, and automatically putting themselves on easy paths of American citizenship. That’s right!
It is estimated that, of the 450,000+ immigrant visas issued for marriages to US citizens each year, nearly 30% of them are fraudulent.
The feminists and their sycophants who began a journey to control male dating and marriage activities have, at the end of the day, hurt all Americans, in all 50 states, by abandoning the Constitution and weakening our borders. The cycle of fraud is now complete.
How Did Maryland Go Rogue?
If our Constitution were an indispensable guide to lawmaking, every bill would have to withstand the scrutiny of three screens:
Solve a problem or provide a benefit that affects citizens equally
2. Be based on hard evidence that validates the problem or benefit
3. Have solid legal footing.
We know this doesn’t happen. Otherwise, state and federal lawmakers would be in session for only 30 days per year. Careful analysis shows that HB65 failed all three screens. In fact, its near-unanimous bicameral vote was based purely on ignorance and political correctness.
The principal author of this civil-rights-abridging law, Delegate Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio, vigorously promoted it to her colleagues without understanding its legal basis, origins, or consequences. Nevertheless, she had virtually no trouble eliciting their votes.
Ms. Haddaway-Riccio, in concert with Polaris Project and Tahirih Justice Center, set out to control how Maryland men use the Internet to meet foreign women — an unconstitutional quest for a variety of reasons.
Haddaway-Riccio, in pushing gender-neutral HB65, unwittingly penalized all Maryland citizens and legal residents — male and female — for wanting to pursue relationships with foreign nationals. Big Government control is nefarious at best. It could have been worse.
The initial version of HB65, a hauntingly gross affront to civil rights, unilaterally required Marylanders to furnish their fingerprints, criminal-background records, and marital histories to foreign paramours — in advance of contact. Worse, the foreigners receiving said private info from Americans are not restricted in how they use or disseminate it.
In the end, after howling protests from citizens and corporate purveyors of online-dating sites, the signatories of this intrusive legislation concocted a last-minute patchquilt of unfathomable, face-saving language and “special” exemptions for the likes of eHarmony and Match.com. In other words, they created junk.
Haddaway-Riccio’s entire case is predicated on the wife-abuse “claims” of Nataliya Fox (nee Derkach). The inconvenient truth about Nataliya Fox:
She made her abuse “claims” in Virginia (not Maryland),
2. She never proved abuse, nor was her husband charged
3. The Department of Homeland Security was, at that time, moving to deport her for immigration fraud.
Because most people readily believe wife-abuse claims, Tahirih and Polaris disingenuously use Nataliya Fox as their poster child for battered and trafficked foreign brides, despite no hard evidence to support their case. Those who lobbied Governor O’Malley to veto HB65 made the following arguments, to no avail:
1- Nataliya Fox is a criminal, not a victim. According to public records, Turkey deported her to Ukraine in 1993 for prostitution; in 1995, Ukrainian border officials detained her for narcotics trafficking
2- Maryland regulates marriages by requiring marriage licenses. How or where people meet before dating or getting married is beyond the state’s province. Further, those pursuing romance are not necessarily pursuing marriage. Yet, HB65 asserts control of dating activities, stripping citizens and dating sites of constitutional rights: speech, association, commerce, and equal protection, to name a few
3- Maryland has no constitutional authority to control, regulate, inhibit, or monitor the communication, association, or dating activities of its free citizens and legal residents — within the state or across state/country lines — or to pass laws that create such authority
4- Maryland has no constitutional authority to presume the guilt of its free citizens and legal residents — or to pass laws that create such authority
5- IMBRA (federal version of HB65) unconstitutionally allows every immigrating wife, with the stroke of a pen, to become a self-petitioner by merely “accusing” her American husband of domestic violence. Green Card fraud has become a growing industry as a result; Nataliya Fox was caught engaging in it. HB65 will spike domestic-violence and immigration fraud in Maryland.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
Maryland’s HB65 solves no problem nor provides any benefit to its citizens and legal residents. Conversely, it violates state and federal protections of their civil rights, unnecessarily expands Big Government, wastes their tax dollars, and endorses and encourages immigration fraud — in other words, puts them in grave danger.
People never learn the lesson of Jurassic Park. Marylanders: prepare to be trampled.