# What are the arguments AGAINST the VAWA? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 12, 2012, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-against-the-vawa/618565 "2012-04-12T14:55:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![CC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f1d935/32.png) [@CC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CC)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-against-the-vawa/618565/1 "2012-04-12T14:55:06Z")
I’m posting here because I seek information, not debate. The Violence Against Women Act has not been renewed because of some resistance to it, but I have not been able to determine what that resistance is based in. Can anyone provide a source that I can refer to in order to understand the argument? Or a summary of the position? Thanks, Dopers. xo, C. ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-against-the-vawa/618565/2 "2012-04-12T15:31:49Z")
Did you check wikipedia? > **[Violence Against Women Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act)** > > The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) is a United States federal law (Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, H.R. 3355) signed by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994. The Act provided $1.6 billion toward investigation and the prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress when prosecutors chose not to prosecute cases. The Act also established the Office on Violence A... > [@](#): > > The American Civil Liberties Union had originally expressed concerns about the Act, saying that the increased penalties were rash, the increased pretrial detention was “repugnant” to the US Constitution, the mandatory HIV testing of those only charged but not convicted is an infringement of a citizen’s right to privacy and the edict for automatic payment of full restitution was non-judicious (see their paper: “Analysis of Major Civil Liberties Abuses in the Crime Bill Conference Report as Passed by the House and the Senate”, dated September 29, 1994). However, the ACLU has supported reauthorization of VAWA on the condition that the “unconstitutional DNA provision” be removed.[3] > > The ACLU, in their July 27, 2005 ‘Letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee Regarding the Violence Against Women Act of 2005, S. 1197’ stated that “VAWA is one of the most effective pieces of legislation enacted to end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It has dramatically improved the law enforcement response to violence against women and has provided critical services necessary to support women in their struggle to overcome abusive situations.”[4] > > In 2000 the Supreme Court of the United States held part of VAWA unconstitutional in United States v. Morrison on federalism grounds. Only the civil rights remedy of VAWA was struck down. The provisions providing program funding were unaffected.[5] > > Reauthorization is currently being debated in the Senate. Both parties have submitted their own updated version of the bill, one by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the other by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). With both versions of the bill, the Senate judiciary committee voted along partisan lines for their party’s version of the bill. Totally aside from all that I can offer another problem the legislation posed which was a hot topic on immigration discussion boards was that any woman(I never heard of a husband using it) that came to the USA on a fiancee or spouse visa for the purposes of immigrating and gaining permanent residence could claim the sponsoring US spouse was abusing her and she instantly and without any investigation was granted permanent residency, this was to prevent an abusive spouse from threatening the victim with deportation. From the posts it seemed some men were honestly scammed and once their fiancee reached the US they would almost instantly be claiming abuse under VAWA, I think there were also claims some other scams involved. \*This is what I saw posted and discussed, I have no personal experience. [http://www.immigrationfraudvictims.us/fraud101.html](http://www.immigrationfraudvictims.us/fraud101.html) > [@](#): > > In 1994, Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) which was intended to help address the issue of domestic violence in this country. However, due to the manner in which the law was implemented, it has resulted in an avalanche of false allegations of domestic violence, assault, rape, and other crimes, made by foreign nationals against their US citizen spouses. > > Since 1994, there have been two subsequent Violence Against Women Act additions. One in 2000 and another in 2005. There is more pending legislation intended to solidify the Violence Against Women Act and make it difficult, if not impossible, to overcome allegations of domestic violence, even if the allegations of domestic violence are fabricated and fraudulent. > > The question that is often asked by a citizen victim of VAWA fraud is “Why is this happening to me?” The answer is not complicated nor difficult to understand once you look at it objectively. > > In a cold and calculating move to expedite the process a foreign national goes through to get Permanent Residence (or a “green card”), and in an effort to avoid the possibility of being discovered of having defrauded an unsuspecting American citizen, they routinely and callously falsely accuse their American spouse of domestic violence based crimes such as assault, rape, violation of restraining orders, and other criminal acts. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-against-the-vawa/618565/3 "2012-04-12T16:04:07Z")
I, for one, do not think Congress should be passing bills promoting violence against women! (See also [US v. Morrison](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Morrison)) ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-against-the-vawa/618565/4 "2012-04-12T16:16:51Z")
The current arguments are about three new provisions to the Act which were added this time around. The first provision allows Indian tribes to prosecute domestic violence claims against non tribe members. The second allows more U visas to be issued to illegal immigrants who cooperate with the police in prosecuting domestic violence. The third provision says that abused women shelter can not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference and identity. Republicans want to reauthorize the current bill and Democrats want to add in the controversial amendments. ---
**Author:** ![CC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f1d935/32.png) [@CC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CC)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-against-the-vawa/618565/5 "2012-04-12T16:18:01Z")
Beautiful, **Puddle**. Thank you. Can I assume that the main sticking point for the Republicans is the second one? ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-against-the-vawa/618565/6 "2012-04-12T18:19:36Z")
> [@grude](#): > > Did you check wikipedia? > > [Violence Against Women Act - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act) > > Totally aside from all that I can offer another problem the legislation posed which was a hot topic on immigration discussion boards was that any woman(I never heard of a husband using it) that came to the USA on a fiancee or spouse visa for the purposes of immigrating and gaining permanent residence could claim the sponsoring US spouse was abusing her and she instantly and without any investigation was granted permanent residency, this was to prevent an abusive spouse from threatening the victim with deportation. > > From the posts it seemed some men were honestly scammed and once their fiancee reached the US they would almost instantly be claiming abuse under VAWA, I think there were also claims some other scams involved. > > \*This is what I saw posted and discussed, I have no personal experience. > > [http://www.immigrationfraudvictims.us/fraud101.html](http://www.immigrationfraudvictims.us/fraud101.html) the immigration provisions of the law are, in fact, gender-neutral, and in fact my firm won a green card case under VAWA on behalf of a man who was abused in a number of ways by his US citizen wife. And it’s certainly not automatic. **Eva Luna,** Immigration Paralegal ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-against-the-vawa/618565/7 "2012-04-12T18:57:19Z")
> [@Eva\_Luna](#): > > the immigration provisions of the law are, in fact, gender-neutral, and in fact my firm won a green card case under VAWA on behalf of a man who was abused in a number of ways by his US citizen wife. And it’s certainly not automatic. > > **Eva Luna,** Immigration Paralegal Yea as I said it was other posters on immigration boards telling stories they claimed were true, no clue if they are true and I certainly was not suggesting every case was fraudulent. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-against-the-vawa/618565/8 "2012-04-13T01:18:12Z")
> [@CC](#): > > Beautiful, **Puddle**. Thank you. Can I assume that the main sticking point for the Republicans is the second one? Wouldn’t surprise me if at least some didn’t like the third one. ---
**Author:** ![blindboyard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blindboyard/32/2833_2.png) [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-against-the-vawa/618565/9 "2012-04-13T07:52:03Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Wouldn’t surprise me if at least some didn’t like the third one. Is there a similar provision preventing discrimination on the basis of sex? ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-against-the-vawa/618565/10 "2012-04-13T16:40:47Z")
[Here](http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=38826) are Sen. Grassley’s remarks regarding his opposition to some of the VAWA amendments. The earlier link does not mention the LGBT-related amendment. [Here](http://gaycitynews.com/articles/2012/03/25/gay_city_news/news/doc4f6fb323e9c60614644275.txt) is another link quoting Grassley’s objection to that provision. [Here](http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2012/03/the_new_vawaa_threat_to_college_students.html), a commentator from the CEI discusses his objections. ---
**Author:** ![CC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f1d935/32.png) [@CC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CC)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-against-the-vawa/618565/11 "2012-04-13T16:48:56Z")
Ah, now _this_ is what makes the SDMB really valuable. Thank you, **Tom.**