Integrity Legal

The American State Department, as of May 24th, has begun offering benefits to same sex partners of American diplomats and State Department employees. This comes after many years of the US State Department refusing to grant benefits to same sex partners and spouses. The justification that the state department previously used was based upon the Defense of Marriage Act. State Department officials often sighted DOMA claiming that it precluded allowing benefits for same sex partners.

The current move made by the State Department signals a major shift in state department policy on the issue of same sex domestic issues. Of great import is the fact that among other benefits, same sex partners will be issued diplomatic passports along with their diplomat partner or spouse.

In a State Department memo circulated pursuant to this regulatory change Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton hinted that this change was overdue. Secretary Clinton stated, “At bottom, the department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex partners because it is the right thing to do,”

This begs the question that if, at bottom, these benefits ought to be conferred because “it is the right thing to do,” then isn’t granting same sex couple’s US Family Immigration benefits the right thing to do as well? The Uniting of American Families Act is a piece of legislation that would allow US citizens to obtain US visas for their alien same sex partner.

In this situation, the US State Department has disregarded the spirit of the Defense of Marriage Act by conferring these benefits upon same sex partners and will likely prevail in doing so because offering these benefits is a prerogative of the Secretary of State and under the bailiwick of the executive branch of the United States government (Under the doctrine of Separation of Powers, there are certain areas in which each branch of government cannot be challenged by another branch).

The UAFA also subtly avoids the restrictions imposed by the Defense of Marriage Act by creating a new category of US Visa under the United States Immigration an Nationality Act. This new visa category would allow an alien to obtain a US visa based upon family relationship if the meet the definition of “permanent partner.”

As we have previously stated on this blog, the US Immigration implictions of the enactment of the Uniting of American Families Act would be a watershed for Same Sex immigration rights as well as a very interesting case study in conflict of laws.

For more information on US Immigration from Thailand Please see:

K1 Visa Thailand

Fiance Visa Thailand

K3 Visa Thailand

(Please note that the information contained herein is for educational purposes only and should not be used as a substitute for legal advice. No lawyer client relationship is formed between author and reader).

Tags: gay visa, lgbt visa, permanent partner visa, same sex visa, uafa, Uniting American Families Act
Posted in General Legal Information, Legal Opinion, Miscellaneous, Upcoming Legislation, US Visa and Immigration | No Comments »

The US-Thai Treaty of Amity is an agreement between the Kingdom of Thailand and the United States of America that provides benefits for Thai investors and businessmen in the USA and also provides economic benefits to Americans in Thailand. The most important benefit conferred by the Treaty of Amity is the right of Americans to form a Treaty of Amity Company. A Treaty of Amity Company is a corporate structure similar to a Thai limited company.

The major difference between a Thai limited company and an Amity Treaty company is the fact that an Amity Company can be one hundred percent owned by non-Thais provided the owners are American Citizens. Under Thai law there must be at least three shareholders, but one shareholder could virtually own the Amity Company outright by owning 99% of the shares in the company.  

The content written heretofore begs the question: why is American ownership such a big deal? For those unfamiliar with the Thai legal system, a statute known as the foreign business act stipulates that a Thai company must either be majority Thai owned or an application for a foreign business license will be necessary. Foreign business licenses are somewhat difficult to obtain. That being said, the Amity Treaty preceeds the Foreign Business act and its provisions supercede the foreign business act.

A major issue regarding the Treaty is the fact that it only applies to Americans. No other group of foreign nationals is accorded the same level of economic protection as that conferred upon Americans doing business in Thailand under the Thailand Treaty of Amity. As a result, many prospective business owners from nations other than the USA often ask if it is possible to utilize nominee American shareholders in a Thai company in order to meet the technical requirements of the US-Thai Treaty of Amity.

In theory, such a scenario was once possible. However, amendments to the foreign business act have made nominee shareholders expressly illegal. Also, the Foreign Business Office of Thailand has determined that only an American or a Thai is allowed to be the Managing Director of a company with protection under the US-Thai Amity Treaty.  The upshot of both of these rules is that, as a practical and legal matter, only Americans or Thais can own a majority position of a Thai company with Treaty benefits.

For more details about US-Thai Economic Relations please see: Amity Treaty Thailand

(Nothing herein is meant to act as in the place of competent legal advice from a licensed attorney. No Attorney-Client relationship shall be formed between the writer and any reader of this piece.)

Tags: Amity Company, Amity Treaty Company, Foreign Business Act, Foreign Business License, Thai LLC, Thailand limited company, US-Thai Treaty of Amity
Posted in Legal Opinion, Thailand Business | No Comments »

On weekends, we try (sometimes successfully) to add a bit of character to this blog by discussing things of a more general interest than Thailand Law or issues from the perspective of a US Immigration lawyer in Thailand. This post looks at legal history from jurisprudence promulgated as far back as ancient Mesopotamia to laws still on the books today.

The Code of Hammurabi

Hammurabi’s code acts as an early example of legal codes enacted in modern day Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Hammurabi’s code was somewhat draconian by today’s standards, but it is important because it is one of the first recorded systems of law in the world. Hammurabi was a King in ancient Babylon who decided that Babylonians needed some form of law in order to form a more efficient society.

This code is interesting because the code’s legitimacy is based upon Hammurabi’s assertion that he was spoken to by the gods and ordered to create a system of laws in his realm. In a preface to his legal code he states: “Anu and Bel called by name: me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land.^“

The code of Hammurabi is especially notable for its “eye for an eye” method of dispensing justice. An example of this tit for tat legal reasoning can be seen in may sections of the code including this one:

“If a Builder build a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.”

I would not have been a carpenter or contractor in Hammurabi’s Babylon, the liability implications would have been too steep.

Roman Law

Of all the inheritances the Romans bequeathed on modern civilization, Roman law may be the bequest that has had the most impact down to the present day. Many of the Latin terms used in many countries to this day have their roots in Roman jurisprudence. From a practical standpoint, Roman law held firm sway over modern day western Europe until the end of the Emperor Justinian’s reign in roughly 530 AD. However, Roman law still had an indirect impact upon western Europe trough the Byzantine Empire, which continued the Roman legal tradition (albeit in the Greek language) until the mid 1400′s when Constantinople was finally sacked by the Ottoman Turks. Terms such as stare decisis and habeus corpus are still widely used in legal texts around the globe.

Common Law

The common law is the system of law used in England and spread throughout the world as the English commenced rapid and expansive colonization during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. One of the major legal documents of the common law system is the Magna Carta imposed upon King John of England by his own Barons in an effort to curtail the powers of the Throne. The common law is distinguishable from the civil law system by the fact that the common law places a great deal of weight behind the previous decisions of judges. Whereas Civil law countries seem to place more weight behind the findings of legal scholars.

The common law is currently practiced and enforced in the following countries: United Kingdom, United States, Hong Kong, India^, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and Pakistan (to name only some).

Napoleonic Code

The Napoleonic code was created and enacted at the behest of Emperor Napoleon I of France. It is often heralded as one of the greatest legal achievements in history because the code went far in instilling a tradition of the rule of law on the continent of Europe (with reverberations throughout the whole world as a result of colonization). Before the French Revolution the legal system of France was based upon a patchwork system of local customs and special privileges based upon prior royal decrees and dispensations. The system was very inefficient and confusing to the common people. The legal system of the ancien regime was also manipulated by the upper classes for their own benefit often at the expense of the lower and middle class. The Napoleonic Code represented a codified system of laws applicable to everyone equally (except for maybe Napoleon himself). It spread throughout Europe following in the wake of the Emperor’s successes on the battlefield and as a result the Napoleonic Code would undergird Continental jurisprudence long after French Armies returned to France.

An interesting side note regarding the Napoleonic Code involves the State of Louisiana. Although it is part of the United States, Louisiana has a French and Spanish legal tradition due to the fact that it was once a colonial possession of both Spain and France. Louisiana law is based heavily upon Roman legal tradition, but it was also influenced by the Napoleonic legal tradition. To this day, Louisiana has a very different legal system than any of the other 49 US states and as a result the Louisiana bar examination is one of the more difficult in America.

Thanks for Reading!

Please see:

K1 Visa Thailand or

Fiance Visa Thailand for information about US Immigration options for Thai Nationals

(Please note that nothing contained in this article creates a lawyer-client relationship between reader and author. Also, nothing contained herein should be used in substitute for legal advice from a competent lawyer.)

Tags: Common Law, Hammurabis code, Jurisprudence, Law, Legal History, Napoleonic Code, Roman law, Sharia Law
Posted in General Legal Information, Legal Opinion, Miscellaneous | 3 Comments »

Comprehensive Immigration Reform has been a major issue in Washington throughout this current congressional term. However, another issue that has been gaining support in both Houses of Congress is the Uniting American Families Act, which would amend current US Immigration law to allow same sex couples US Immigration benefits.

Although there is a great deal of controversy surrounding Comprehensive Immigration reform, the UAFA is gaining momentum and may be passed sooner rather than later.

Currently the following anglophone nations allow same sex immigration based upon family relationships: Australia, Canada,  New Zealand, South Africa, and the United Kingdom.  By passing the Uniting American Families Act, the US Congress would bring America into this community of nations with a similar legal tradition who have opted not to discriminate against same-sex families for immigration purposes.

A major obstacle with regard to US Immigration for same sex couples is the Defense of Marriage Act which defined marriage as a union between a man and woman. The UAFA makes no claim to change the definition of marriage, nor does it attempt to legalize the couple’s relationship in some sort of quasi marriage or civil union. Instead, the UAFA only creates new right and entitlements with regard to US Immigration. The UAFA’s language is somewhat sublime in that it bypasses a conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act by creating the term “permanent partner,” therefore not placing the two laws at odds with one another. By simply creating a new definition a conflict of laws is avoided and, in turn, a great deal less political controversy results.

The Uniting American Families Act (S. 1328/H.R. 2221) would alter the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize visas for same sex partners of lawful permanent residents and U.S. citizens. The act would regularize immigration status for same sex couples by adopting and placing the phrase “permanent partners” in the statutory definition of those entitled to US Family Immigration benefits.

As stated previously on this blog, we at Integrity Legal feel that this bill would bring US Immigration Law and policy into the 21st century by making US Immigration options open to US families of all types. The law would also create a many criminal and civil penalties for those who would use this legislation as a means of fraudulently obtaining US Visas.

Current President, Barack Obama has in the past described US Immigration rights for gay couples as being, “a moral imperative” this phrase succinctly sums up this issue.

For more on US Immigration generally please see:

K-1 Visa

US Visa Thailand

k3 Visa

(Note: Nothing contained herein should be construed as legal advice or as forming an attorney-client relationship, all legal advice should be obtained from a competent licensed attorney.)

Tags: same sex visa, uafa, US Immigration Law, US Immigration Policy, US Visa, us visa for gay couples
Posted in Legal Opinion, US Visa and Immigration | 3 Comments »

So I have been an avid user of Digg for the past year or so. I have read some of the horror stories of people who have been going about their days minding their own business on Digg only to suddenly find themselves booted from the community. I was one of those people thinking, “that can’t happen to me, right?” Wrong! Admittedly I have used Digg to promote some (I stress some) of my own stuff.  However, I have never spammed the system with outright promotional content and I feel that most of the submissions that were my own were the best stuff I’ve written. On other social media, people would seem to agree because some of my stuff has gotten widespread exposure.

And Along Came the Diggbar…

I don’t like to “game” the digg system in the sense that I do not go out of my way to submit things through other people (unless they truly find it interesting and want to submit my material). All of this is irrelevant because I think that ultimately I was banned not for my submission activities, but instead for using the diggbar!

Let me explain, after I learned I was banned I emailed Digg asking the reason for my unceremonious expulsion. The Digg staff replied with the following message:

Your account was reported to us as being in violation of our Terms of
Service (http://digg.com/tos) for altering blocked sites from been
submitted to Digg to evade the url block. We must be vigilant in
protecting against activities that compromise the Digg community, this
decision is final and irreversible.

Now I don’t know if others understand this message, but I do not. I have never altered any site urls in order to submit to Digg. Over promoting my stuff: At times. Auto Digging the occasional piece: I must say that I have been guilty of this from time to time. Asking others to “Digg my stuff.” Sure, but never have I altered URLs (I am frankly not tech savvy enough to even know how to go about altering a URL other than the URL compression services and in this case I’ve never used them with relation to Digg). This leaves me with only one conclusion, I was banned for using the Diggbar because it altered my URL.

On other social media sites I have submitted the Diggbar condensed URL, mostly in an effort to get traffic to the Diggbar framed site as a method of facilitating further Digging. This is the only way in which I “altered sites.” Therefore the only conclusion that I can  come to for my banning is simply using the Diggbar.

Terms of Service and the Diggbar

I have a real problem with the Diggbar from the standpoint of Digg’s Terms of Service. When I signed up for Digg, there was no Diggbar and therefore I think it smacks of a lack of equity that Digg can change there services at will, but if the user steps out of line, even slightly, we are banned. Digg’s ability to materially alter the conditions of their TOS can be found in Section 2 of Digg’s Terms of Service:

MODIFICATIONS OF TERMS OF USE

Digg reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to modify or replace the Terms of Use at any time. If the alterations constitute a material change to the Terms of Use, Digg will notify you by posting an announcement on the Site. What constitutes a “material change” will be determined at Digg’s sole discretion, in good faith and using common sense and reasonable judgment. You shall be responsible for reviewing and becoming familiar with any such modifications. Use of the Services by you following such notification constitutes your acceptance of the terms and conditions of the Terms of Use as modified.

But what are you gonna do?…

There isn’t really much one can do about this from a legal standpoint, but it just seems unconscionable that Digg has such unfettered power and the user is so completely at their mercy. In the real world a service contract such as this would be unlikely to hold up under judicial scrutiny, but what can one do: sue Digg? Not likely, one must show damages in order to have a cause of action and since it violates the terms of use to profit from Digg (section 5 pretty well covers all profit earning endeavors) one is kind of trapped in a paradox: either no damages and no cause of action, or admit to making money off of Digg and thus be banned for violating another section of the TOS.  A true Catch 22.

Thanks for reading my rant I hope it makes some sense.

For information about my day job please see US Visa Thailand

Tags: Dig Terms of Service, Digg, Digg TOS, DiggBar, TOS
Posted in Legal Opinion, Miscellaneous | 1 Comment »

The Path to Citizenship for Undocumented Aliens

Earlier this month President Barack Obama spoke with the President of Mexico about the issue of providing a path to citizenship for undocumented aliens in the United States. The call for comprehensive immigration reform has been brought up a great deal during the new President’s fledgling term. It is an issue that ignites passions on both sides of the aisle particularly in an economy environment in a state of decline. There is something to be said for the idea that an amnesty needs to be called to get undocumented aliens “out of the shadows,” even if a recession is threatening the jobs of American Citizens. The other side of the coin is the idea that illegal immigrants are exactly what their name implies: “illegal,” and should not in the end be rewarded for circumventing or outright violating Immigration regulations.

Many believe that the notion of America as a nation of immigrants and a melting pot of different cultures should compel the US government to make some sort of provision for granting some sort of legal status to currently undocumented aliens. Admittedly, this argument holds some merit particularly where the undocumented alien is working in the US and is not a burden to the state.

Family Immigration and Visas for Same Sex Couples

Concurrently with Comprehensive Immigration Reform there is another bill in the US Congress seeking to give another form of prospective Immigrants legal status in the United States that they do not currently retain. The Uniting of American Families Act (UAFA) seeks to add the term “permanent partner,” to the list of those eligible for US Family Immigration Benefits under US Immigration regulations.

Under the Defense of Marriage Act a marriage is recognized as a legal union between a man and a woman. Therefore, this act effectively bars same sex couples from receiving US federal recognition for a marriage (including in US states where same sex marriages and civil unions are legal). The upshot of this legislation is that it precludes same sex couples from obtaining US Immigration benefits if one of the partners is a foreign national.  The addition of  the new term “permanent partner,”  to the American Immigration and Nationality Act would allow same sex marriage and family visas without creating a legal conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act.

A New Category of Visa to be created under the UAFA?

Some lawyers and legal scholars have speculated as to what type of family visa a permanent partner would be entitled to. The term itself would seem to rule out the K1 visa because it is a fiancee visa and the use of the word “permanent” contradicts the idea of a fiance visa. At the same time, because the term specifically does not connote “marriage,” it would seem likely that a us marriage visa would be out of the question. Therefore, a “permanent partner” visa will likely be a separate category unto itself that is distinct from other family visa categories. It remains to be seen what the burden of proof will be for obtaining a “permanent partner” visa, but the fact that marriage will not be a legally recognized element for proving the relationship (at least with the Defense of Marriage Act on the books), it is likely that a large amount of evidence will be needed to prove up the bona fides of a permanent partnership.

Both Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the UAFA are necessary steps to dealing with the practical effect of immigration regulations that cause certain groups to “fall through the cracks,” of American Immigration law. However the debate on these issues is resolved, a modicum of uniformity and resolution of these matters is necessary.

Thanks for reading,

For more information about US Immigration please see:

US Visa Thailand

Tags: American Visa Thailand, gay marriage visa, gay us immigration, gay us visa, path to citizenship, Same Sex Marriage, same sex visa, uafa, uniting of american families act
Posted in Legal Opinion, Miscellaneous | 4 Comments »

During the week, this blog is dedicated to providing legal information about both Thailand and the USA. However, on the weekend we like to write something that feels a little less like work. The following list is composed of laws that have been controversial over the years. It should be noted that many of these laws have had positive side effects, but overall, I felt that whatever benefit they conferred was outweighed by the harm they caused. Either that or I was trying to be funny (and probably failed), that being said, judge the following US Laws for yourself…

5. The Federal Income Tax Amendment

The next time you are frustrated at filling out your tax forms, just thank the American people at the turn of the century for voting in the Federal Income Tax Amendment.

Who enjoys paying their income tax? Well at one time in the United States federal income tax was unconstitutional. At some point around the 1900s some brilliant politicians decided that it was time this was remedied and put forward the 16^th Amendment to the US Constitution, also known as the Federal Income Tax Amendment. This Amendment made it legal to levy a direct federal income tax upon the American Citizenry. The pertinent language in the Amendment reads:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Keep in mind the next time you pay your taxes that apparently at one point in America this seemed like a good idea. (In its defense, the Federal Income tax has decreased the massive disparities between rich and poor that caused much upheaval in the Early 20th Century, so it has had some positive effect, I just hate paying taxes).

4. The Smoot Hawley Tariff

In 1929, the prevailing wisdom regarding economic stimulus was something akin to an ostrich firmly planting its head in the sand. Apparently, the idea was that if the US raised its tariffs, then all other nations would simply be content to have no foothold in the American market, but not petition their own governments to enact the same tariffs in their countries. As it turned out, this economic reasoning was a tad shortsighted, to say the least.

Smoot and Hawley: An Economically Deadly Combination

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Bill was signed into law on June 17, 1930. Its purpose was to raise US Tariffs on over 20,000 imports to unprecedented heights. At the time, more than 1,000 economists signed a petition denouncing the Tariff and, subsequent to the Bill’s passage, many European countries responded by drastically hiking tariffs on products manufactured in the USA, as a result, American imports and exports declined by nearly more than 50%. Contemporary economists argue that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was the driving force behind the steep decline in U.S. trade and one of the main precursors to the Great Depression.

3. The Alien and Sedition Acts

The Patriot act of its time, the Alien & Sedition Acts were actually enacted by the original Patriots in an effort to stifle domestic opponents to the sitting Administration. John Adams signed the bill into law at the behest of is Federalist comrades (keep this in mind when fawning over the late second President in the form of Paul Giamatti).

These acts were promulgated at a time in America when the ruling party was embroiled in a Quasi-war and felt the need to repress dissension among both Americans and “undesirable aliens.” Sound familiar? The most repugnant portion of the legislation made it a criminal offense to publish “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” against the government, its agents, or officials.

Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence (and all around pimp), passionately opposed the Act and even wrote state nullification legislation rejecting the bill as unconstitutional. The Act never was reviewed by the Supreme Court, but many legal scholars believe that it never would have withstood constitutional scrutiny.

TJ Keeping It Real

2. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution

Lyndon Johnson was a master at manipulating the American legislative process for his own ends and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was possibly his masterpiece of political subterfuge. Framed as a seemingly limited and innocuous joint congressional resolution, the enactment gave the President the authority “to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.”

This Resolution was used as the legal reasoning behind the Administration’s use of armed force in Vietnam without an overt declaration of war by the US Congress.

Not His Most Statesmanlike Moment

In one of the few prescient quotes from an American politician, Senator Wayne Morse exclaimed, “I believe this resolution to be a historic mistake.” His feelings were vindicated, but only after thousands of lives were lost and American international credibility was drastically tarnished.

1. The Patriot Act

Quite possibly the single most despised piece of modern legislation since the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, this law basically allows the US government to do whatever they want with regard to citizens and foreign nationals. An excerpt from Wikipedia sums it up nicely (if somewhat dispassionately):

“The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.”

So Orwellian

This law was passed by some of the widest margins in history and has subsequently become almost universally reviled proving once again that when unrestrained and fueled by fear a government can make some pretty rash and poor decisions. Hopefully, this act will one day be repealed and stand as a reminder that repressive and tyrannical laws are seldom the answer to safety issues.

Thanks for reading.

If you would like to read more about our primary specialty (US Immigration from Thailand) please see: US Visa Thailand.

Tags: Patriot Act, US Law, Worst American Laws, Worst US Laws
Posted in Legal Opinion | 11 Comments »