The International Marriage Broker Act and U Visas

Last week, as many of you know, VAWA was reauthorized (with no time to spare). What many of you may not know, however, is that the International Marriage Broker Act [pdf file] has been attached to VAWA. Some of you may remember that I first wrote about this Act back in 2003, when it was first introduced by Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Representative Rick Larsen (D-WA).

The IMBA will now help foreign brides (aka mail-order brides) gain a bit of control over their future. This law does not ban the existence of these mail-order bride agencies. What it does is help to ensure that such transactions will be somewhat safer for the women involved. In essence, the new law requires (from The National Immigration Project [pdf file]:

• Requires U.S. citizen filing K petitions to disclose criminal background information. Mandates that U.S. citizens filing K visa petitions disclose criminal background information to international marriage brokers and to DHS/CIS. Relevant crimes include domestic abuse crimes, other violent crimes, and multiple convictions for substance and/or alcohol abuse. DHS will be required to transmit this criminal history information, along with results of any database search, to the foreign fiance or spouse [Section 832(a)].
  
  
• Prevents abusive U.S. citizens from sponsoring multiple foreign fiances and/or spouses. DOS cannot issue a K visa (unless DHS grants a waiver or the domestic violence victim exception applies) if the U.S. citizen has previously filed two K visa petitions, and less than two years have passed since the date of filing of the most recent K visa petition. DHS can waive this bar, but not when the U.S. citizen has a history of committing domestic abuse or other violent crimes [Section 832].
  
  
• Government tracking of serial K visas. Creates government database to track serial K petitions filed by same U.S. citizen petitioner and to notify foreign fiance or spouse of prior K petitions. Notification requirement triggered after petitioner has filed three K petitions within the past 10 years [Section 832].
  
  
• Domestic abuse pamphlet to be distributed to all foreign fiances and spouses. DOS, DHS, and DOJ shall create pamphlet on domestic abuse laws and resources for immigrant victims in the U.S. The pamphlet must be sent to all foreign fiances and spouses. DHS shall also send results from any criminal background checks conducted in the course of adjudicating the K visa petition, along with the petitioner'’s disclosure of any criminal history. U.S. consular officers shall orally inform foreign fiances/spouses of the petitioner's criminal history. DOS and DHS cannot disclose locational or personal information about prior victims of the U.S. citizen petitioner.
  
  
• International Marriage Broker (IMB) Duties. IMBs are prohibited from sharing any information on minors with any person or entity. IMBs cannot give U.S. clients information on a foreign national until the IMBs have searched sex offender registries, collected criminal and family background information, provided background information to the foreign national, given the domestic abuse pamphlet, and received written consent from the foreign national to share her contact information. Violation of these requirements can result in civil penalty up to $25,000.

This law is most definitely a step in the right direction, and will certainly help prevent some of the more serious atrocities some of these foreign brides might otherwise experience. However, as I wrote in my previous post on this subject, it will not prevent or stop all abuse against foreign brides. Many men (and international marriage brokers) will, no doubt, find ways around the law. And, not all abusive men will necessarily have a criminal record. And, or course, some women may still believe his claims that he has changed, or that the charges were due to lies (after all, why should we believe that women from the former Soviet Union or SE Asia are all that different in their desire to believe men who say they love them than American women are?).

Fortunately, there are some other legal recourses that these women can access should the need arise. Immigrant women who are married to an American citizen and experience domestic violence in that marriage can self-petition for legal status through VAWA.

The enactment of VAWA in 1994 has helped thousands of immigrant women (not only mail-order brides) who were experiencing domestic violence. Unfortunately, there were still thousands more women who were not eligible to access these benefits. Women who were not married to their abusers and/or women whose abusers were not US citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) did not qualify for VAWA.

In 2000, it seemed as though there was hope for these women, though. That was the year the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 created two new nonimmigrant visas for noncitizen victims of crimes.

T visas are available to individuals who are victims of "a severe form of trafficking in persons." This includes sex trafficking of persons under 18 years of age, or recruiting or obtaining persons for labor or services through the use of force, fraud, or coercion "for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery." Those who qualify for T visas may have nearly all grounds of inadmissibility may be waived, and can adjust to LPR status (Legal Permanent Resident)after three years. The original law stated that an applicant for a T visa willing to assist in every reasonable way in the investigation and prosecution of trafficking perpetrators (although neither actual cooperation nor even the existence of an investigation is required; the victim must merely show willingness to cooperate). However, the latest version of VAWA allows "trafficking victims whose physical or psychological trauma impedes their ability to cooperate with law enforcement to seek a waiver of this requirement." [Section 801(a)(3)].

U visas are available to immigrants who are either victims of or who possess information concerning one of the following forms of criminal activity: rape, torture, trafficking, incest, domestic violence, sexual assault, abusive sexual contact, prostitution, sexual exploitation, female genital mutilation, hostage holding, peonage, involuntary servitude, slave trade, kidnapping, abduction, unlawful criminal restraint, false imprisonment, blackmail, extortion, manslaughter, murder, felonious assault, witness tampering, obstruction of justice, perjury, or attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit one of these offenses. The applicant does not have to be married or related to the person committing or soliciting the crime.

However, in the 5 years since The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Act was passed (and U visas were created), the US Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS, formerly known as INS) has yet to publish regulations governing these visas. Which means that no one can actually apply (let alone receive) a U visa yet. CIS has implemented U visa interim relief, which allows an immigrant crime victim to be granted temporary legal status for one year (applicants can reapply on a yearly basis until the regulations have been published, although, there is no guarantee that their applications will be accepted every year).

In October 2005, lawyers for the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law in Los Angeles filed a federal lawsuit in October on behalf of nine illegal immigrants who were victims of violent crimes, demanding that regulations for the U visas be put in place.

"It was filed because the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is failing to provide victims of crime and people who are cooperating with law enforcement investigations with the immigration benefits Congress five years ago said they should have," Carlos Holguin, general counsel for the center, said of the lawsuit.

"What they give is deferred action, a work permit which is not the same as a U visa, which leads to permanent status," he said. "We've yet to get an explanation as to why they've failed to implement a law that's 5 years old.

Things are getting better for immigrant women who are victims of domestic violence. But there's still a long way to go.

Lousiana DV Shelters Need Your Help

We have all been hearing about the great number of tragedies going on in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Unfortunately, on-going tragedies like rape and domestic violence do not take a break during natural disasters, and, in fact, can be made worse in some situations. But the natural disaster may make it harder to help those victims. Due to the hurricane, a number of DV shelters and non-residential programs in Louisiana have been closed, and a couple may have been destroyed. The Louisiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence (LADVC) is asking for your help.

Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AUGUST 31, 2005

Louisiana Domestic Violence Victim's Hurricane Relief Fund

The Louisiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence (LCADV), a private 501c3, not-for-profit organization incorporated in 1982, is establishing a Louisiana Domestic Violence Victim's Hurricane Relief Fund to assist victims of domestic violence and child victimization who are displaced and affected by Hurricane Katrina.

LCADV is a network of 20 domestic violence programs/shelters throughout the state. Four of our shelters and two nonresidential programs are completely closed at the time and two or three may be completely destroyed. Sad to say, domestic violence and child victimization are social problems that do not stop during this natural disaster we are experiencing and with cessation of all direct services in the gulf coast region, the increased need for relocation and basic monetary assistance is essential for these women and children.

LCADV is accepting donations that are specifically earmarked to assist battered survivors and their children who have been directly affected/displaced by the hurricane. The donations will be used to assist battered victims from the following parishes in Louisiana: Orleans, Jefferson, St. Tammany, St. Bernard, and Plaquemines.

The donations will be used for the following purposes:

1. Relocation of domestic violence victims.
2. Purchasing of basic needs, i.e. baby formula, diapers, food, clothing, etc. that could not be met elsewhere.
3. Deposits on houses, electric bills,
4. Car repair, gas, public transportation
5. Medical/prescription needs,
6. Other basic, life sustaining needs

All donations go directly to victims of domestic violence affected by this hurricane and will not be used for any administrative or other purposes.

The Louisiana Domestic Violence Hurricane Relief Fund Account is setup with AmSouth Bank which is located in the following states: Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee. If you live in one of these states you could make a donation at the local AmSouth Bank Branch to the LCADV Domestic Violence Hurricane Relief Fund Account number: 0020085338. Donations from other states can be made through wire transfer to this account.

If you would like to make a donation using MasterCard or Visa, you may contact the Louisiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence office at 225-752-1296 with your credit card information. Donations may also be electronically deposited into our account by faxing a voided check with the amount of the donation to (225)751-8927. LCADV will setup an electronic deposit and you will receive confirmation of your donation with the tax-deductible receipt.

Abortion on TV

33 years ago, a strong, determined, and independent female character on TV had an abortion -- with no regrets, no devestating consequences. Maude (and the writers, directors and producers of the show) were definitely ahead of the times -- remember, this episode aired in November 1972, 2 months before the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade (Maude lived in NY, where abortion was already legal).

33 years later, it still seems as though those writers, directors, actors, (and characters) are still "ahead of the times." It took 32 years before another character on network television even had an abortion (all the other "accidental" pregnancies ending in adoption, deciding to keep the baby, or the "lucky break" miscarriage) -- but even then, they had to tack on some corny "confession" scene for the doctor.

I remember when that episode of Everwood aired. I had never watched Everwood, but even I knew what happened. Everyone seemed to be talking about it.

Which makes it even more surprising that I have seen so little mention of the recent "abortion episode" of Jack and Bobby. In fact, I only found out about it on "accident" -- I was watching a tape, which ended about 10 minutes before Jack & Bobby ended, so I was able to see the last 10 minutes of the episode. I figured out what was going on fairly quickly, and was intrigued. So, I watched the rest of the episode. Sure enough, the girl (who I later found out is named Missy) went to Jack's & Bobby's mom for help (apparently, her parents had kicked her out of the house for getting pregnant). The mom takes Missy to the clinic and waits for her until after the abortion, and they walk out together -- end of episode.

I sat there thinking, huh, wow. But then...(and you knew it couldn't last long, right?) I see the previews for the next week's episode. Seems that a bunch of the characters (high school students) all go out partying after prom, and [dum dum DUUUMMMM] one of them will die.

I knew it, I just knew it, right then and there that the girl who got the abortion was being killed off.

I didn't tune in to witness it, but I kept an eye out on various websites, and sure enough, Missy is killed in a drunk driving accident.

When will these TV characters ever learn -- in this day and age of right-wing conservative thinking, if you do something like get an abortion, you will suffer the consequences -- like being killed off by the writers.

On Roosters and DV

Sheelzebub and Pseudo-Adrienne have already written about the hullaballoo over the South Carolina Senate's decision to make cockfighting a felony while once again tabeling a bill to protect DV victims (and the resulting altercation between SC State Rep. John Graham Altman III and reporter Kara Gormley). I could go on and on about how horrifying and disgusting I find the whole matter. I could go on and on about how Rep. Altman's views on DV are so distorted and based in mythology that he is a harm to women everywhere. I could, but I won't, because, frankly, Sheelzebub and Pseudo-Adrienne already did that and said everything I would have said.

But perhaps we can look beyond the blatant sexism and victim-blaming that is so evident in this whole issue (after all, Sheelzebub and Pseudo-Adrienne have both covered that ground quite well). Let's examine why the legislature felt it so important to make cockfighting a crime. Is it because they felt the urgent need to protect all these roosters? Somehow I doubt it -- after all, it was specifically targetted at cockfighting, not dog fighting or any of the other brutal-to-animals acts that are going on. So, why cockfighting? My guess? It's not the roosters they're concerned about, and it has nothing to do with "protection" of anyone (or anything).

To see why this law was deemed so important for the legislature to deal with, one only needs to ask, "Who is it that generally participates in cockfighting?" (and I do mean besides the roosters). The answer: Latinos.

I'm sure that has nothing to with the need to change this law, though. Nothing at all. Just as I'm sure that there really is no connection between this and their tabeling of the DV legislation. Uh huh.

I am no longer a wanted woman

It's all done and over with. Finally!

I have to say, despite the fact that I had to go all the way out there to take care of this (something I still find utterly ridiculous), everyone involved (directly and indirectly) was extremely kind and accomodating, and I am very grateful for that.

I arrived in Manchester on Sunday afternoon, and had to take a cab to Salem (because there are no buses or trains going there). After checking into my hotel, I spent a relaxing evening watching TV and reading and preparing for the next day -- while I knew everything was pretty much all set, I was still a bit stressed and a little scared about the whole thing.

It turns out that my hotel was just about a half a block from the restaurant where all this started. I was sorely tempted to treat myself to dinner there -- but I just couldn't bring myself to actually do that.

The next morning, I walked the 1/2 mile to the police station and explained why I was there. Of course, no one had prepared any of the officers for this, so they had no idea what I was talking about. But, they got the paperwork and brought me back to the booking room -- which smelled disgustingly like fish. Now, as just about anyone who has ever gone out to dinner with me knows, the smell of fish is just about the worst smell in the world to me. The smell alone is enough for my gag reflex to go into full operation, and it took nearly all of my willpower just to not throw up all over the officer. I swear, if I had a mind for conspiracy theories, I'd think this was intentional torture.

The booking took about an hour -- I had to get mug shots and have my fingerprints taken and entered into AFIS, which was a pain in the ass in itself -- it took an average of 4 tries for each finger just to get the computer to accept them.

The officer then took me over to the court. He explained that after booking me, he couldn't actually release me without bail (which would have been $500), so he had to take me himself. Frankly, I was fine with that, after all, I didn't have a car so getting a ride was actually helpful. He kept saying to me that while he would have to make me sit in the back, he wouldn't handcuff me. Believe me, I was grateful for this, but he kept pointing it out to me so many times I began to think he wanted some special thanks for this (not that kind of "special thanks"...get your head out of the gutter).

Anyway, so we pull up in front of the court house, and the prosecutors (there were 2 of them) came over to the car. Apparently they had called over to dispatch and told them to tell the officer to stop booking me and bring me over to court (he could finish booking me after court) because the judge was about to hear a long trial. Unfortunately, the message was not passed along to the officer, and we got there after the long trial started. The cop asked him what he should do, and the prosecutor said, "bring her back at 1:30." The cop pointed out that that was 2 1/2 hours away, and what was he supposed to do, "make her sit in a jail cell for that time...that doesn't seem right."

So the prosecutors went inside to check on something, and then came out and said I could wait in the court house (they would wait with me). I had to sit in the back row of the courtroom during the trial that was going on. At first, I thought that all sounded like hell. But, it turned out that it was rather interesting. It turns out that, coincidentally, it was a Domestic Violence case being heard. It was just a procedural hearing, so the victim wasn't there, and we didn't hear from the defendant. But listening to the defense attorney was extremely interesting (in a humorous and infuriating way). I won't go into details about the case here (for the sake of confidentiality -- I know I wasn't sworn to confidentiality, but I still feel the need to do so), but I will say that I have to say, the defendant and his attorney both had gumption -- they tried every trick in the book, and a few I don't think most rational people would ever have thought of. Of course, the tricks didn't work, but it was amazing to watch them try.

The hearing took about an hour, after which I was called up in front of the judge. He read the charges and noted that I was pleading guilty. He confirmed that I was aware of my rights and what I was doing, and asked the prosecutors what they were asking for. They said a $200 fine (which we had agreed to on the phone) and restitution to the restaurant (which we had not agreed to on the phone). I thought (and still think) that it's somewhat unfair that I have to pay the full restitution for the unpaid bill (which came to $73.37) seeing as how there were 4 of us, and why should I have to pay for everyone else. But whatever, I wasn't going to fight it.

So, after that, I had to pay the fine and the court costs and then we agreed that I would go pay restitution to the restaurant and bring the receipt back to the court and then everything would be done. The problem, of course, was that I had no ride to do this. I didn't really think about it at the time, because I figured that I'd just call a cab and have the cab drive me around. It wasn't until I was ready to go that I found out that there aren't actually any cabs in this town.

I went to the security guard, thinking he might know of a cab company in the area that wasn't in the phone book or something. He didn't (although he also tried calling the cabs listed in the phone book, but got the same disconnected numbers I did). He called the cops and told them that they should have someone drive me around on these errands. I thought it was great that he was trying to do this for me, but I could understand the dispatchers point about the cops being rather busy. Then the court clerk overheard and said that if I had the cash for the restitution, she'd just give me a receipt saying I had paid it and would take the cash over there herself when she got off of work. I was amazed at the generosity and concern of these people, but unfortunatley, I didn't have that much cash on me. At that time, a woman asked me if I knew how to drive. I said I did, but I was worried she would offer me her car to do all this stuff -- which is incredibly nice, but I wasn't sure I'd feel comfortable with that. But, it turns out that she just needed me to move her car to the back of the court house, and in exchange she would drive me around. (Another guy standing there also offered, but I decided to take the woman's offer, because she also needed the help). She explained that there were some people outside that she didn't want to see her car.

So, she gave me her keys, described her car and told me to meet her around back. When I went outside, sure enough, there were 2 women sitting right by her car. And, as it happened, I recognized the women as the attorney and the sister of the defendant in the DV case I had just sat through. Now, they were sitting at the only picnic table in the area, so while it does seem strange that they were hanging around for so long (and the defendant wasn't even there), I don't think they were actually staking out this woman's car. Nonetheless, I can understand her concern and her desire not to let them know what her car looks like. She did make sure that I wasn't there for stealing cars before she gave me her keys. :p

After I pulled around to the back and got into the passenger side, she said, "this probably all seems strange, but you see, I work in the Domestic Violence field..." I said, "so do I!" I told her that I had also sat through the hearing, and recognized the women sitting out front and completely understood why she didn't want them to see her car. We had a nice chat about our work and the case that was going on. She dropped me off at the restaurant and said she was going to KMart (in the same plaza) to buy mulch and would meet me out front.

I went in to the restaurant and asked to speak to the manager. When the manager came, I explained the situation and gave him a copy of the court paperwork. Yes, I felt very stupid standing there saying, "Yeah, uh, I have to pay restitution for an unpaid tab from 14 years ago." He was cool about it, though, and after making a phone call (probably trying to figure out how to ring this up), he rang me up and gave me a receipt.

I got out of the restaurant just as the DV woman (for lack of a better name) was pulling up -- good timing! She dropped me off at the court house (the 2 women were still there!). I went in and finalized the paperwork. The court clerk offered to fax the paperwork up to Concord, NH for me, so that I could get the ball rolling on removing the suspension from my NH driving record (still think it's unfair that they can suspend a license that I never had in a state I never lived in -- but, oh well). I then walked back to the police station to drop off the receipt there for the prosecutor. (It wasn't really a long walk -- probably about a mile -- I just hadn't wanted to do that 3 times on a time limit in 80 degree weather.)

I still had plenty of time. In fact, it was still so early that I could easily have made it back up to Manchester for my flight out -- if only I hadn't decided to give myself an extra day in case anything went wrong. Dammit. So now I had well over 24 hours to kill. Since I hadn't eaten all day, I went out for lunch. And yes, I did pay. :p I hung out in Barnes & Noble for a while, and then hung out in my hotel room for a while.

The next morning, I left the hotel at 11:00 (check out time) and lugged all my stuff around with me -- going to breakfast, hanging out at Barnes & Noble until 3:00 when my cab came to take me back to Manchester and the airport. I was still at the airport about 2 hours before my flight time. Of course, I had a long layover in Minneapolis, which was made even longer because the flight was late. Which meant I didn't get into Portland until about 11:30. By the time I got home and unwound and got to sleep, it was about 1:00 am -- which meant I had exactly 4 1/2 hours to sleep before I had to get up for work. (Needless to say, I was way too tired yesterday to even attempt to write this update.)

Now that I have all this stress out of the way, I should be able to get back to more regular blogging -- at least, that's my intent. We'll see.

I will say, though, that I learned a valuable lesson. Don't let your legal cases get dragged out like this. Make damn sure that everything is taken care of -- especially if you ever plan to move to the other side of the country. Not only does it cost way too much money to take care of it all (all in all, after plane tickets, taxis, hotel, fines, etc, I spent about $1,000 getting this taken care of), but you never know the kinds of technological advances that will be made in the intervening years. Had I taken care of this back in 1991, it would not be in the computer -- it would be stuck in the basement archives. Also, back then they didn't have the whole computerized fingerprinting thing -- it was the old-style ink and paper. Now my fingerprints are on file in AFIS. Oh, well, what's done is done.

An Update

I know it's been a while since I've really done any blogging. I've been sick with a cold for a week, and before that, well, I just wasn't much up for being on the computer. Anyway, I figured I'd at least let you all know what's been going on.

Regarding the mice: We've had an exterminator in, and he laid a bunch of poison out in the walls and crawlspaces. Since then, we haven't seen any (or many) mice, and the exterminator said (just yesterday) that he didn't even see any sign of activity in the crawlspaces off my room. So yay!!

Regarding my legal issues (that I wrote about here): The NH prosecutor finally got back to me after I sent the letter to him. He was actually quite nice and cool about the whole thing (with the exception of making me go all the way out there, he wouldn't budge on that). So, we've set up a date (April 18) for me to turn myself into the police. I'll be going to court that afternoon. The prosecutor is going to ask for a much smaller fine than I was expecting (only $200 instead of the minimum $500 I was expecting).

I will be flying into Manchester on Sunday, taking a cab to Salem (since, as it turns out, there are no busses or trains that go anywhere near Salem -- and the private transportation services are, according to one place I checked out -- more expensive than a cab). I'll be flying back to Portland on Tuesday, a free woman at last.

R.I.P. Andrea Dworkin

Andrea Dworkin died Saturday at the age of 58 in her sleep. A brilliant writer and a passionate feminist. She will be sorely missed.

At her partner John Stoltenberg's request, donations in honor of Andrea Dworkin's life and work can be made to:

The Schlesinger Library
The Andrea Dworkin Fund
Radcliffe Institute
10 Garden Street
Cambridge, MA 02138-3600

or to the domestic-violence shelter or rape-crisis center of your choice.

(Contributions to The Schlesinger Library designated for The Andrea Dworkin Fund will go toward processing the Andrea Dworkin papers and creating an on-line searchable guide.)