PRLog – June 29, 2015 – FREDERICK, Md. — Many American nationals are being deceived by foreigners whose only agenda is to gain citizenship into the United States. These criminals scam the blissfully unaware into marriage, deviously planning to accuse them of domestic violence as soon as the words “I do” are spoken. Some may think this form of immigration marriage fraud is an impossible scenario in a land that enacts notorious laws to protect its people against foreign intrusion, such as the controversial Patriot Act. Nevertheless, a loophole in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) lets any spouse of a US citizen or permanent resident file a claim of domestic abuse without the knowledge of the accused, which in turn gives them the ability to sponsor themselves to gain permanent residency. Michael Parrotte of the Victims of Immigration Fraud Organization and his team are committed to educating the public about this piece of pernicious feminist legislation that so many foreigners are exploiting.
These domestic violence charges, which can go unknown for months or years, can be filed through a document called Form I-360. If these allegations are made at an institution unrelated to the criminal justice system, such as a women’s shelter or a church, they will not be investigated; rather, they are sent to the Vermont Service Center, the only jurisdiction of the USCIS that handles VAWA claims. For Senator Patrick Leahy The Vermont Service center represents Pork Barrel politics at its worst. Considering every single case pertaining to this dilemma is processed in this one Kangaroo Court system, the Vermont Service Center just expedites the citizenship application of the “harmed” without ever meeting them in person.
Sickeningly, this is not where the horror stops for the American citizen that has been falsely accused. As if having experienced the emotional toll brought on by losing their perceived one true love was not enough, the detrimental effects of this crime continue. Claims against the “abuser” can result in: thousands of dollars spent in attempt of defending themselves, loss of their job, loss of benefits and savings, and, oftentimes, their child. Furthermore, since the “battered” spouse may be eligible for welfare benefits, the accused can be ordered to pay these aids due to the Affidavit of Support under Section 213A of the I-864 Act.
To put all of this into perspective, there are close to a million false domestic abuse accusations each year in the US, and it is estimated that tens of thousands of these are done against US citizens and permanent residents by their non-citizen spouses in order to gain access to the United States. This immigration marriage fraud does not only cost the accused their hard earned money, but the general taxpayer as well! The “abused” is legally allowed a plethora of free services, such as representation by a lawyer, testimonies by expert witnesses, and other amenities to support their falsified case. Most significantly, the mental cruelty and the individual experiences of the accused can stay with them and their families for years, if not for the rest of their lives. “Until death do us part!” is really “As soon as I get my Green card I am gone”
– Michael Cutler, former Senior Special Agent at the INS
An individual will be charged with marriage fraud if they entered into a marriage for the purpose of evading U.S. immigration law. This felony offense carries a prison sentence of up to five years and a fine of up to $250,000, and applies to both foreign nationals and U.S. citizens who perpetrate this crime.
Michael Parrotte (http://www.parrotte.net/): Our goals at Victims of Immigration Fraud are simple, yet challenging. We want to give guidance to those men and women that have been victimized by deceptive foreign spouses, a broken immigration system, and an unfair judicial system. We also hope to prevent other American men and women from having to experience these injustices. We seek to redress the wrongdoings that have been produced by unfair application of VAWA laws and the injustices of the judicial system. We can be reached via our website www.voif.org, and via email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Victims of Immigration Fraud
Today, you may have heard something about a tax on driving in Maryland.
While the idea is another in a long line of bad policy prescriptions emanating from the Maryland Democratic machine, one we reported on over a year ago, a certain candidate running in the Maryland Republican gubernatorial primary is an enabler of the proposal.
Yesterday, WBAL Television reported about the possibility of a vehicle miles travelled tax for Maryland motorists.
Supporters of the proposal call it a Vehicle Miles Traveled tax, or VMT. As proposed in the state’s transportation master plan, it would be in addition to and would not replace the state gas tax…
Maryland’s master transportation plan contains an option for a VMT tax. It was inspired by the desire to cut emissions and by diminishing gas tax revenues.
That “desire to cut emissions” is expressed in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act of 2009, one of Governor O’Malley’s signature pieces of environmental legislation. The law commits the state to reducing GHG emissions to 25 percent of 2006 levels by 2020. The law tasked the Maryland Department of the Environment with working with other state agencies to devise an implementation plan.
In its 2012 Climate Action Plan Draft Implementation Plan, the Maryland Department of Transportation put fort the option of establishing:
a Maryland motor fuel taxes or VMT fees – There are two primary options for consideration: (1) an increase in the per gallon motor fuel tax consistent with alternatives under consideration by the Blue Ribbon Commission on Maryland Transportation Funding, and (2) establish a GHG emission-based road user fee (or VMT fee) statewide by 2020 in addition to existing motor fuel taxes. Both options would create additional revenue that could be used to fund transportation improvements and systems operations to help meet Maryland GHG reduction goals [emphasis mine].
In addition to a VMT, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act put on the table a menu of taxes, fees, and mandates—a environmental statist’s policy version of a wet dream.
What does this have to do with the Maryland Republican gubernatorial primary?
Well… it turns out one member of the “conservative team Maryland needs” or “the conservative’s choice” ticket or something—Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio voted for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act. She joined her other house colleagues in the gubernatorial race, Democrats Heather Mizeur and Jolene Ivey, in assisting the O’Malley administration in saddling taxpayers and our economy with ruinous environmental policies.
Here’s a finding from the Department of Legislative Services analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act:
In Maryland, the manufacturing sector will likely experience a greater amount of employment and output losses relative to the rest of the economy as a result of GHG reduction policies. However, policies that attempt to mitigate these losses and exempt the manufacturing sector will only increase the total cost of GHG mitigation and shift the burden to other economic sectors. Ultimately, the cost of GHG mitigation policies, even those imposed on businesses, will be borne by individuals [emphasis mine].
It should also be noted that Haddaway-Riccio was a sponsor of legislation in 2010, which gave generous taxpayer subsidies to green energy rent seekers—$14.9 million to be exact, going by the math in the fiscal policy note.
The conservative choice indeed!
Now this brings us to our friend Michael Swartz, who, in his endorsement of David Craig, wrote that picking Haddaway-Riccio “sealed it” and made “the difference” in his endorsement.
This is curious given Swartz is such a critic (and rightfully so) of the very policies Haddwway-Riccio not only voted for, but sponsored.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
- 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.
- She made her abuse “claims” in Virginia (not Maryland), in 2000
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
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.
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.
Marc H. Rudov, The NoNonsense Man®, is a globally known radio/TV personality, relationship coach, speaker, and author of 125+ articles and Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727), The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719), and a forthcoming book for women. The 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men’s “Award for Excellence in Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,”
Maryland businessman Michael Parrotte was outraged to learn that, in January 2010, his state, in pursuit of big-government control, had trampled the US Constitution with Senate Bill 129 and House Bill 65. He discovered that these unconstitutional twins, birthed by feminists, were intended to restrict “romantic” contact between Maryland men and foreign women. Ironically, by couching the misandrist legislation in gender-neutral language, Maryland lawmakers stomped on all American women in Maryland who date foreign men. Parrotte provides details at http://Maryland-Dating-Law.com.
Buckeystown, Maryland — Maryland businessman Michael Parrotte was outraged to learn that, in January 2010, his state, in pursuit of big-government control, had trampled the US Constitution with Senate Bill 129 and House Bill 65. He discovered that these unconstitutional twins, birthed by feminists, were intended to restrict “romantic” contact between Maryland men and foreign women. Ironically, by couching the misandrist legislation in gender-neutral language, Maryland lawmakers stomped on all American women in Maryland who date foreign men. Parrotte provides details at http://Maryland-Dating-Law.com.
The Maryland bills, as originally proposed, would have required each American citizen, before beginning any communication with potential foreign paramours — even anonymous communication through a dating Website — to provide them fingerprints, criminal and sex-offender records, and a complete marital history. Not only are foreigners, even those located in the US, not required to reciprocate their personal info to Americans, they are free to disseminate and publicize the Americans’ information on the Internet.
According to Michael Parrotte, the Maryland businessman trying to defeat these bills: “I can’t believe this pernicious government intrusion into private lives and total disregard for American rights. When will it end? This is yet another example of politicians buckling to radical feminists. Our lawmakers were so politically correct that they unwittingly rushed through an unconstitutional monster that will equally punish women. And, when women learn of this, these politicians will become unemployed in the next election.”
The bill’s chief author, Delegate Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio (R), ostensibly modeled it after the federal International Marriage Broker Act of 2005 (IMBRA), which, according to many, is unconstitutional. Apparently, IMBRA isn’t invasive enough — its background-info requirement isn’t triggered until the foreigner invokes it. HB65’s requirement for personal information from Americans, on the other hand, is always active.
Senator Alex X. Mooney (R), who was instrumental in delaying the passage of SB129, is curiously in support of unilateral protections for foreigners. In a letter to Michael Parrotte, he wrote: “I was not prepared to support or offer an amendment to require foreign countries to provide similar records when contacting a United States citizen through these services.”
Marc H. Rudov, globally known author, radio/TV personality, and men’s rights advocate, opined thusly: “The US Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, confers upon American citizens certain protections from tyranny: presumption of innocence, due process, equal protection, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and protection from self-incrimination. Not only does Maryland’s HB65 deny Americans all such protections, it unilaterally transfers them to foreigners. What would George Washington say? The sole purpose of Maryland’s nonsense is to help radical feminists bash men who prefer non-American women. The solution is to kill these bills, period. Not dilution, not modification, not amendment. Just kill them altogether.”
For more information about killing Maryland’s SB129 and HB65, go to http://Maryland-Dating-Law.com.