|
February 04, 2005
 Fiancée
Visas Bad For America
By
Joe Guzzardi
My
recent column calling for an end to the
fiancée visa drew heavy fire from readers who
described themselves as happily married to Russian or
Asian women they met through Internet bridal agencies.
One irate reader wrote:
"It
galls me that you would restrict the rights of citizens
because you saw a few cases of
illegal fraud in this area. American citizens should
be able to marry who they want."
Another reader demanded to know what
entitles me to push for legislation that would restrict
the rights of American citizens.
"Who are you and what gives you
the right?" he asked.
Those are two entirely reasonable
questions.
And here are the answers:
I am:
1.
A person who has
studied the complexity and
inequity of immigration law for nearly twenty
years. I see that, even if a certain non-immigrant visa—
in this case the K-1— is convenient for a tiny segment of
the population, it should also serve the common good. If
it does not, it should be either eliminated or
restricted.
2.
An avid student of
census statistics. According to 2003 Census
figures, the U.S. is home to more than 46 million women
over 19 who are single, widowed or divorced. That is a
powerful number of women.
3.
A single man who occasionally navigates the cold
and murky water where men interact with women. My female
acquaintances in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, New
York, Washington D.C. and Miami unanimously agree that
straight, unmarried men are in high demand.
Furthermore, my friends advise, if those bachelors are
professionals or on the ball in any other way, their
desirability increases.
4.
A teacher who has directly observed five marriages
between American citizens and fiancée visa brides. The tally:
two ended in divorce; one in suicide. The two other
couples have been married less than two years…although
one woman recently said, "I’m bored."
Those who defend the fiancée visa
have one basic premise: that there are simply not enough
suitable women in the US worthy of their hand.
Their argument is ludicrous on the
face of it. See points #2 and #3 above.
But let’s go further.
Assume that I am suddenly
overwhelmed with the urge to marry. And let’s also assume
that no matter which traditional avenues I pursue, I
can’t find a worthy woman.
I could pay $3,500 to a "romance
tour company" like
Love Me.Com and travel to Odessa in the Ukraine, a
distance of approximately 6,000 miles from my Lodi, CA.
home.
Or if I am not quite ready to embark
on that journey, I could go online at the
San Francisco Chronicle personals , enter that I
am a man seeking a woman and am willing to travel up to
250 miles within California to meet her. (If I am
prepared to fly 6,000 miles to meet a woman, I sure as
heck should be okay with driving 250 miles).
More than 10 pages of candidates pop
up on the Chronicle. Given that every major city has
personal ads in the daily and weekly newspapers and that
new prospects add their names each day, there is
obviously no shortage of women looking for husbands.
Suppose, too, that like my angry
correspondent, I have special requirements. As he noted:
"I spent 18 years looking for a
conservative Christian lady in America without success.
Oh, I could have married many times but not one had the
good heart I was seeking."
A Google search for
"Christian singles" returned hundreds of sites:
Christian dating, Christian mingling, Christian chat
rooms, Christian cafes and Christian magazines.
Perhaps a Christian man in search of
a Christian woman could come up empty. But the odds
heavily favor his success…if he is sincere about seeking
a mate.
Finally, let’s assume that in my
hypothetical search I have to satisfy a particular sexual
quirk. Even that is no deterrent: see "Alternative
Lifestyle Dating" for examples.
In 1997, when matchmaking for profit
on the Internet was in its infancy, "60 Minutes" did an
expose titled, "Here Come the Brides: Mail-Order
Brides a Booming Business."
Lesley Stahl interviewed Bob
Burrows, the president of
Cherry Blossoms, the world’s largest Internet bridal
agency.
Burrows told Stahl that most of his
customers find American women
"…Less appreciative
and too competitive."
To find out how the international
bridal game really works, "60 Minutes" sent its
cameraman Rick Weiss to the Philippines to go undercover.
Weiss first went to an introductory
party hosted by Asian Rose president Mike Tesatorri.
Throughout the introductions, Tesatorri referred to the
women as "babes" and to one as "a real smart
chickie."
Recalled Weiss:
"We went
to a gigantic department store in the middle of a huge
sale. Instead of, like, meeting a woman, you would meet
the whole counter. And they'd all come up and shake your
hand."
"60 Minutes" also discovered other
unsavory aspects of the Internet marriage scam.
Among them:
- Families often encourage women to
put their names on the Internet. They hope that when a
marriage takes place, the bride will send money home.
- No background checks are
performed on the prospective grooms. Stahl asked
Burrows, "A serial murderer could write you but there
would be no screening?" Replied Burrows, "No."
- Multiple examples of abusive
marriages that included wife beating, forced
prostitution and murder.
Dan Stein, Executive Director for
the Federation for American Immigration Reform,
succinctly expressed my sentiments when he told Stahl
that the fiancée visa business was nothing more than an
"international meat market" that has "immigration as the
goal of these marriages and not wedded bliss."
Let’s summarize the worthiness of
the fiancée visa by evaluating who wins and who loses:
WINNERS:
- The brides who jump to the head
of the immigration line. Good-bye, Philippines; hello
America.
- The websites that promote
Internet marriage. When Stahl reported eight years ago,
she said that there were "as many as 200 companies
ready to help…" Today, there are a minimum of 2,000
- The immigration lawyers who
charge $300 an hour.
- Joe Blow in Kansas. All he has to
do is say the word and his fantasy woman might be
sharing his bed – until he tires of her (or she of
him).
LOSERS
- America. Already overcrowded, the
US is now obliged to accept more people, often of very
alien backgrounds—young women of childbearing age, by
the way— for the sole purpose of satisfying the whims
of selfish, single men.
- America’s Women. Raised in a long
tradition of spirited independence, they find
themselves displaced by females more subservient – even
servile - and exploitable. (Many American men (possibly
excluding the fathers of daughters)
might applaud. The fact remains U.S. women lose.)
- The American tradition of
marriage. Free choice in matrimony, an old and
distinctively European custom, involves a completely
different set of mutual commitments and obligations
than an arranged marriage, or leasing a car. Different
behavior patterns are entailed. This is no small
change.
If the U.S. is serious about
reforming immigration, why not start with the policies
that are the most obviously unnecessary? At the top of
that list is the fiancée visa.
And as for the grousing bachelors,
they can all try a little harder to find – and give -
happiness right here in the United States where women of
all ages, ethnicities and religions are eagerly awaiting
courtship.
Joe Guzzardi [email
him], an instructor in English at the Lodi
Adult School, has been writing a weekly newspaper column
since 1988. This column is exclusive to VDARE.COM. |
