Integrity Legal

This posting discusses the issues associated with retaining an American attorney to assist with the K-1 visa process. Those thinking about retaining assistance in the K-1 visa process are well advised to conduct thorough research prior to making any irrevocable decisions.

The K-1 visa is a non-immigrant US fiance visa which was intended to be used solely by the foreign fiances of American Citizens. The K-1 visa allows the foreign fiancee of an American Citizen to enter the United States for a period of 90 days of the purpose of marriage. Those who do not marry their American fiance after 90 days in the USA will be required to depart from the USA. Readers should bear in mind that the entrant to the United States on a K-1 visa who marries their loved one must undergo the adjustment of status process in order to gain lawful permanent residence in the U.S.A.

The purpose of this article is to provide insight to Americans about the perils of dealing with non-licensed individuals who purport to be qualified to practice United States Immigration law (or any American law, for that matter) . Pursuant to 8 CFR 292.1 only a qualified lawyer licensed to practice law in at least one U.S. State or Federal jurisdiction is entitled to engage in the receiving of client fees in connection with the practice of United States immigration law. Therefore, those not so qualified must either fit within a narrow exception to the aforementioned rule lest their behavior be deemed to be illegal. It should be noted that attorney-client confidentiality is a significant issue which should be considered when ascertaining the credentials of those claiming qualification in United States immigration matters abroad as there are many so-called “visa agents” or “immigration consultants” claiming qualification to provide services in connection with U.S. immigration. Attorney-client privilege is not extended to those not qualified as an American attorney and therefore discussions with unqualified individuals are likely not privileged communications. Meanwhile, some individuals brazenly, albeit falsely, portray themselves as American attorneys when, in fact, this is simply not the case.

For all of the reasons outlined above it should be noted that only a competent licensed attorney from the United States should be retained to assist prospective clients. Readers should understand that this message is not conveyed as an advertisement of this particular blogger’s services, as this is not this blogger’s intention in creating this posting. Instead, this post should be viewed as a reminder to readers that this decision should be made by prospective clients after serious contemplation and thorough research of all possible candidates for an attorney position. Attorney-Client relationships are not “one size fits-all” and neither is quality legal service. Therefore, the public should conduct research before coming to an informed decision about hiring an attorney.

For related information please see: K1 Visa Thailand or K1 Visa Cambodia.

I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

–Thomas Jefferson (3rd President of the United States of America, First Secretary of State [Washington Administration])

Gay rights are human rights.

– Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (Former First Lady of the United States)

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

– 9th Amendment of the United States Constitution, quoted from Wikipedia

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

– 10 Amendment of the United States Constitution, quoted from Wikipedia

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond located in the sovereign Commonwealth of Virginia has taken political criticism for flying a rainbow flag (traditionally viewed as a flag denoting support for the LGBT community and, for some, their struggle for equal protection under United States law and/or equal recognition of same sex marriage solemnized and/or legalized in one of the sovereign American States, the District of Columbia, or the Federal territories, if applicable). To quote directly from an article by Olympia Meola posted on the official website of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, TimesDispatch.com:

Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, is asking the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank to remove the rainbow flag flying below the American flag outside of the building, calling its presence “a serious deficiency of judgment by your organization, one not limited to social issues.” In a letter to Richmond Fed President Jeffrey M. Lacker, Marshall says the homosexual behavior “celebrated” by the bank “undermines the American economy…”

The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to read this story in detail in order to gain further insight into this developing situation.

This blogger must pause this analysis for a moment of personal observation. It is intriguing that Delegate Marshall would seem to be trying to scapegoat some of the blame for recent economic events upon the LGBT, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (transsexual, or “third sex“), community. This blogger must retort: how could the LGBT community “undermine” America’s economy? Explain this? Especially since a great deal of economic activity that produces revenue in America comes from married couples trying to make a living, build a home, and start a family. Is it in dispute that marriage and family generate economic benefits for America? If it is not, then the only way the LGBT community could be at fault for some hypothetical economic downturn would seem to arise from the fact that they have not started families (and therefore not generated the concomitant economic activity derived therefrom) due to the fact that they cannot gain the same legal recognition of their relationships in the same way that those in different-sex relationships are able to. This is especially true in the context of same sex bi-national couples as some of these relationships are separated by thousands of miles and jurisdictional boundaries due to the fact that federal enforcement of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) does not allow a same sex bi-national couple to petition for the same US visa benefits (such as the CR1 visa or the IR1 Visa, not to mention the K1 visa which is a US fiance visa) in the same manner as a different sex couple. There are currently American federal legislators such as Representative Mike Honda and Representative Jerrold Nadler who have introduced legislation, such as the Reuniting Families Act, the Uniting American Families Act, and the Respect for Marriage Act; which would, to one degree or another, at least end the current discrimination that the bi-national LGBT community faces when trying to reunite with family in the United States of America. Apparently this Federal Reserve Bank was flying this flag pursuant to a request from another organization which appears dedicated to the cause of LGBT equality:

The flag is being flown at the request of PRISM, a Richmond Fed group representing gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees and allies.

This PRISM organization should be commended for their efforts on behalf of the LGBT community, but this blogger must say that he would like to see legislation passed which provides tangible benefits to the LGBT community rather than a gesture from a private corporation which, at least ostensibly, has no role in deciding American policy toward legal recognition of LGBT relationships. Others echoed some of these sentiments, but for what are, in this blogger’s personal opinion, the wrong reasons:

Its presence also prompted mention from Victoria Cobb, president of The Family Foundation in an email release on Wednesday. Although the Federal Reserve is a private entity, it is disappointing to see it participate in this celebration,” she said.

This blogger is always a bit skeptical when a group uses the term “family” when describing themselves as it is usually an indicator that such an organization has its own idea about what the definition of “family” actually is. Concurrently, such organizations are sometimes known to attempt to foist their own paradigm or definition of family upon others who may not necessarily share the same view. Therefore, readers are asked to always conduct their own research on all aspects of such issues in order to form their own well informed opinions.

This blogger must confess that this recent display of support for LGBT equality by the Fed seems a bit disingenuous considering the timing and circumstances. It has recently been reported on some mainstream and alternative media outlets that there are currently worries growing about the state of the American economy. Meanwhile it recently came to this blogger’s attention that the government of China is reported to have diminished their position in United States Treasuries. To quote directly from an article written by Terence P. Jeffrey and posted to the website CNSNews.com:

(CNSNews.com) – China has dropped 97 percent of its holdings in U.S. Treasury bills, decreasing its ownership of the short-term U.S. government securities from a peak of $210.4 billion in May 2009 to $5.69 billion in March 2011, the most recent month reported by the U.S. Treasury. Treasury bills are securities that mature in one year or less that are sold by the U.S. Treasury Department to fund the nation’s debt. Mainland Chinese holdings of U.S. Treasury bills are reported in column 9 of the Treasury report linked here…

Readers are strongly encouraged to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to read this article in full and learn more. This situation is only brought up in the context of this posting to elucidate the fact that the Fed is currently in something of a “pickle”. This news comes upon the heels of recent announcements (noted in a previous posting on this blog) that the USA and China are set to be engaging in cooperative efforts in the context of relations with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Clearly, current American relations with China and countries in Southeast Asia are multi-facted and complex so those interested in such topics are encouraged to conduct thorough research before forming opinions on issues associated with American, Chinese, and ASEAN economic policies and relations.

It was recently reported on the website Law.com that the Federal Reserve has come under intense scrutiny from legislators such as Representative Ron Paul for current policies supposedly being maintained by the Fed. To quote directly from an insightful article written by Shannon Green and posted on the website Law.com:

The Congressman criticized the Fed for its reluctance to disclose to the public when banks are unhealthy. Paul said the Fed’s practices of protecting banks’ privacy appears to be at odds with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which is pushing companies to reveal more information.

Readers are strongly encouraged to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to read this article in full to gain more context.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with positions held by the various members of House of Representatives is not really relevant to the issue of the Fed’s decision to hoist this particular flag at this particular time. Although it is certainly a commendable gesture, this blogger’s response, with all due respect, must be: why so late, and why now? If the Fed is raising the Rainbow flag because they genuinely support LGBT Equality, then great; but if this institution is simply raising this flag because of political expediency or to score some sort of “political points”, then one must ask: why? Hopefully the LGBT community will see their equal rights fully vested soon and this valid grievance will be redressed. In the meantime, this blogger hopes that the American economy will rebound from any relative downturn to find itself more vibrant and dynamic than ever, but some developments take time. For those personally impacted by the current state of affairs: it is hoped that change will come sooner rather than later.

Readers should note that in the context of same sex marriage this blogger feels that fundamentally the issue of LGBT equality is an individual rights issue as the right to enter into a consensual relationship with whomever one wishes is an inalienable natural right reserved to the People notwithstanding the Constitution, but nevertheless enshrined within the provisions of the 9th and 10th Amendments noted above. The implied right of “free association” has also long been held to provide Constitutional protection for Americans wishing to form intimate associations with others. Concurrently, this blogger feels that where sovereign States have heeded the call of their citizenry to provide government licensure of same sex marriages or marital unions, then that licensure acts as an imprimatur of sovereign recognition which, in this blogger’s opinion, cannot be negated by the federal government and must be accorded Full Faith and Credit by sister States within the Union. Those unfamiliar with the Full Faith and Credit Clause should note that Congress can make rules regarding the effect of State law upon other States, but, in this blogger’s opinion, such law cannot be made to render the States’ laws ineffective, which is the current result of the federal government’s application of some, or all, depending upon circumstance; of the provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act“. This blogger must point out that although same sex couples ought to be able to get Full Faith and Credit for those marriages solemnized and/or legalized in one of the sovereign States of the United States of America, they may not necessarily see States which do not permit same sex marriage in an intrastate context engaging in the legal procedure of divorcing same sex couples as this blogger believes that one must utilize a “horizontal vs. vertical” analysis of the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the context of same sex marriage since there is both an intrastate and interstate component to such an analysis. Such an analysis could, at times, result in a situation where a State Court permits recognition of the fact that a same sex marriage exists in another State jurisdiction, but the Full Faith and Credit Clause’s provisions may not necessarily be interpreted to mean that States should be compelled to grant same sex divorces if the public policy of the State in question does not permit State sanctioned legalization or solemnization of such unions in the first place.

On a side note, this blogger just thought of an interesting hypothetical: could a federal Court with concurrent federal jurisdiction over State territory grant divorces for same sex couples who were married in another State jurisdiction (which allows same sex marriage) if the underlying State’s public policy runs counter to the notion of granting recognition for such unions? It would currently seem that pursuant to the Erie Doctrine the US Courts under such circumstances may be prohibited from undertaking certain functions pertaining to same sex marriages if the underlying State’s law does not recognize such unions. That stated, as of the time of this writing any such analysis remains mere speculation as a broadly binding legal opinion on these issue has yet to be handed down.

Readers interested in learning more about the struggle for LGBT Equality are encouraged to check out UnitingAmericanFamilies.Net, Lez Get Real, and/or the Immigration Equality Action Fund Blog.

For further related information please see: Rainbow Flag or US Company Registration.

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the United States Embassy in Kabul is taking measures to re-institute a policy which would allow for visa interviews to take place on the premises of the Post in Afghanistan. Readers are reminded that such interviews have not been conducted at that location in approximately 20 years. To quote directly from a Department of State announcement as posted upon the official website of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):

As of June 1, for the first time in 20 years, immigrant visa applicants will again have scheduled As of June 1, for the first time in 20 years, immigrant visa applicants will again have scheduled interviews in Kabul. U.S. Embassy Islamabad was previously the closest U.S. Embassy or Consulate where immigrant visa applicants could be interviewed.

Applicants for petition-based visas, which are mostly temporary work visas, can also now interview in Kabul. For the last two years, applicants for visitor, student and most other temporary visas could apply in Kabul, but not applicants for visas that if approved allow someone to move to the U.S. or to work there. Applicants for non-immigrant petition-based visas like temporary workers (H) can schedule their own appointments using the existing online system on the Embassy’s web site. All of these categories of visas involve a multi-step process that usually starts with a petition that a U.S. relative or employer files with immigration authorities. It is important to note that prior to the interview, the National Visa Center conducts almost all pre-interview processing of petitions that the immigration service approves in the United States. The National Visa Center will also schedule appointments when approved immigrant visa petitions become current.

All of these categories of visas involve a multi-step process that usually starts with a petition that a U.S. relative or employer files with immigration authorities. It is important to note that prior to the interview, the National Visa Center conducts almost all pre-interview processing of petitions that the immigration service approves in the United States. The National Visa Center will also schedule appointments when approved immigrant visa petitions become current…

It should be noted that those seeking immigrant visas to the United States of America must generally first receive an approved immigration petition from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). Upon receiving such approval a case file will usually be sent to the National Visa Center which acts as a sort of clearinghouse for visa application files so as to insure that the case file arrives at the US Mission with appropriate jurisdiction. Prospective visa seekers should note that estimated processing times for USCIS adjudication do not take into account Consular Processing at an appropriate US Embassy or US Consulate abroad.

For related information please see: American visa.

Frequent readers of this web log may have taken note of the fact that the administration routinely posts the holiday closing schedules of the various US Missions in Asia as a courtesy to the public-at-large. To quote directly from the official website of the United States Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan:

DATE                                 DAY                           HOLIDAY

January 2*                 (US)  Sunday  New Year’s Day
January 16*               (US)  Sunday  Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
February 15              (AF)  Tuesday  Liberation Day
February 16**           (AF)  Wednesday  Prophet’s Birthday
February 20*              (US)  Sunday  President’s Day
March 21                   (AF)  Monday  Nawrooz (Afghan New Year – 1390)
April 28                      (AF)  Thursday   Victory Day
May 29*                    (US)  Sunday  Memorial Day
July 3*                      (US)  Sunday  Independence Day
August 1**                (AF)  Monday  First Day or Ramadan
August 18***             (AF)  Thursday  Independence Day
Aug 31 – Sept 2**      (AF)  Wednesday – Friday Eid ul-Fitr
September 4*             (US)  Sunday  Labor Day
September 8***          (AF)  Thursday  Martyrdom of National Hero Day
October 9*                 (US)  Sunday  Columbus Day
November 6-8**          (AF)  Sunday – Tuesday Eid-e Qurban
November 10*             (US)  Thursday  Veteran’s Day
November 24               (US)  Thursday  Thanksgiving Day
December 6**             (AF)  Tuesday  10th of Muharram (Ashura)
December 25               (US)  Sunday  Christmas Day

Notes:

*    American holidays marked with an asterisk (*) are observed on a different day than in the US.

**  Afghan holidays marked with double asterisks (**) are based on the Islamic Calendar and depend on sightings of the moon.  As a holiday approaches, adjustments to this schedule may be made based on local practice and Afghan government announcements.

*** Afghan holidays marked with triple asterisks (***) are observed one day earlier.

Those wishing to visit the official homepage of the United States Embassy in Kabul are encouraged to click HERE.

It may sometimes prove necessary for an American Resident Abroad or an American traveling abroad to acquire documentation (US Passport, Consular Report of Birth Abroad, Notarized affidavit, etc.) which can only be obtained from an American Citizen Services section of a US Embassy or US Consulate overseas. Americans seeking such documentation are well advised to contact an American Citizen Services Section with appropriate Consular jurisdiction.

Those seeking an American non-immigrant visa (such as a B-1 visa, B-2 visa, J-1 visa, or F-1 visa) are likely to see their visa application processed at a non-immigrant visa section of a US Embassy, US Consulate, or American Institute abroad. Meanwhile, those seeking an immigrant visa such as a CR-1 visa or IR-1 visa (for purposes of Consular Processing, the K-1 visa; although a non-immigrant US fiance visa, is treated in much the same way as immigrant visa categories for processing purposes) are likely to see their visa application processed by an Immigrant Visa Unit abroad. Immigrant visas such as those noted above are likely to only be granted pursuant to an initial adjudication of an immigration petition at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS).

Those seeking visas such as the EB-5 visa or the L-1 visa are well advised to take note of the fact that it is unlikely that a visa application will be adjudicated by a US Post abroad until after an initial immigration petition is approved by USCIS.

For related information please see: Legal.

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has expressed some concern about the possibility of the Union of Myanmar (also sometimes colloquially referred to as Burma) becoming Chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). In order to provide further insight it may be best to quote directly from the website of Channel News Asia, ChannelNewsAsia.com:

SINGAPORE: German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Thursday urged ASEAN to openly discuss Myanmar’s political and human rights problems before the country takes its turn as chair of the regional bloc. “Looking at the discussion about Myanmar and its interest in taking over the presidency of ASEAN, I am a little bit concerned,” she told a forum in Singapore, a founding member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Merkel told an audience of government officials, foreign diplomats and academics that “the present leadership of Myanmar has not really proved that they are serious about embarking on the road of democracy…”

The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks above to learn more on this topic.

The Union of Myanmar has been in the news a great deal recently as that country recently held elections ushering in something of a new era in Myanmar’s politics although there are some who argue that there has been little real change resulting from the aforementioned elections. That stated, it is this blogger’s personal opinion that any progress under the circumstances would be a good thing. Frequent readers of this blog may note that Myanmar was recently rumored to be pondering the opening of a stock exchange although that has yet to see fruition.

Meanwhile, the United States and China appear poised for cooperation in matters pertaining to ASEAN as a recent article on the Voice of America website pointed out. To quote directly from the aforementioned article:

A top State Department official says that as the United States works to deepen its engagement in Southeast Asia, working closely together with China is a key part of that effort. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell says that one of the the most important things that the United States is seeking to do this year, both at the ASEAN regional forum and the East Asia Summit, is show the United States deep commitment to working with China…As the United States works to find common ground with China, the world’s second largest economy and a rising Asia-Pacific military power, Campbell says Washington will be seeking to highlight areas of common pursuit with Beijing and find specific projects the two countries can work with each other in the region…

This blogger encourages readers to click on the hyperlinks noted above to find out more.

It is good to see that American officials are making an effort to become more engaged in the ASEAN region especially with the cooperation of the Chinese since combined efforts could yield significant benefits in the form of better diplomatic and trade relations for all concerned. In a previous posting it was noted that Chinese officials plan to incorporate a high speed rail link into the current rail system employed in the Kingdom of Thailand so that there would be a contiguous rail link between Thailand, Laos, and Greater China. In addition, it was also announced that Bangkok will likely soon see a Chinese Trade Complex which is to be designed to provide a platform for the trade of goods in Thailand. How all of these developments will ultimately play out remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: there is room for optimism in a current analysis of ASEAN developments.

For related information please see: US-Thai Treaty of Amity.

เมื่อเร็วๆนี้มีสิ่งที่เป็นที่น่าสนใจคือ ตำแหน่งรีพลับลิกันที่เกี่ยวกับการแต่งงานเพศเดียวกันในเมืองโคลัมเบีย (วอชิงตัน ดี.ซี.) เป็นที่น่าจับตามองของทั้งสื่อและผู้สังเกตการณ์ทางการเมือง อ้างโดยตรงจากบทความที่เขียนโดยเบน เพิร์ซชิ่งและเขียนในเว็บไซต์ของวอชิงตันโพสต์ ในวอชิงตัน ดอทคอม

ความพยายามที่ผ่านมา รีพลับลิกันอาจไม่ได้รับข้อแก้ตัวในปีนี้ในกฎหมายแต่งงานเพศเดียวกันของรัฐ ไม่มีพระราชบัญญัติที่ถูกยก และผู้ร่างกฎหมายที่ได้รับการสนับสนุนจากเพื่อนร่วมงานสำหรับมาตรการบางอย่าง

สำหรับผู้ที่ไม่คุ้นเคยกับรัฐธรรมนูญสหรัฐอเมริกา พึงระลึกถึงข้อเท็จจริงว่า สภาคองเกรสสหรัฐอเมริกานั้นรับผิดชอบในการบริหารเมืองหลักของสหรัฐอเมริกา ขอบเขตของอำนาจนั้นขยายไปในบริบทของรัฐเอกราชที่จะมีมุมมองในประเด็นระหว่างรัฐ แต่อย่างไรก็ตามรัฐของโคลัมเบียนั้นโดยลักษณะธรรมชาติแล้วแตกต่างจากรัฐเอกราชที่มีกฎเกณฑ์ทางกฎหมายและการวิเคราะห์ที่นำมาใช้ระหว่างรัฐที่แตกต่างกันอาจจะใช้กับรัฐที่แตกต่างกัน อ้างเพิ่มเติมจากบทความที่กล่าวถึง

ประธานการปฏิรูปรัฐบาลและสภา  แดร์แรล อิสซา (อาร์-แคลิฟ) กล่าวว่า เขารู้ว่าไม่มีการรณรงค์การยกเลิกกฎหมาย “กรรมการไม่มีความตั้งใจในการที่จะพลิกการแต่งงานของคู่เกย์” อิสซ่ากล่าวในเดือนนี้ แม้ว่าต่อมาเขาจะชี้แจงเพื่อตัวเองและไม่ได้เพื่อผู้ร่างกฎหมายแต่ละคน ผู้แทน เทรย์ โกว์ดี้ (อาร์-เอส.ซี.) ขณะนี้ดำรงตำแหน่งประธานของคณะกรรมการย่อย ตอบคล้ายๆกันเมื่อวันอังคารที่ผ่านมา เขากล่าวในการสนับสนุนพระราชบัญญัติที่จะกลับกฎหมายการแต่งงานของเพศเดียวกันถ้ามีการเสนอกฎหมาย แต่ไม่มีผลประโยชน์ใดๆกับความพยายามดังกล่าว “ข้าพเจ้าไม่ได้รับเลือกเป็นผู้ว่าการรัฐดี.ซี. และไม่ได้ปรารถนาที่จะเป็น” กาวด์ดี้กล่าว ซึ่งสะท้อนเสียงวิจารณ์ในประเด็นท้องถิ่น ข้อเท็จจริงที่ว่า ไม่มมีรีพลับบลิกันที่จะนำเสนอพระราชบัญญัติในปีนี้ที่จะส่งสัญญาณว่าใช้แผนที่จะใช้เทคนิคที่แตกต่าง

ผู้เขียนบล็อกแนะนำเป็นอย่างยิ่งว่า ผู้อ่านควรคลิกไปยังลิงค์ที่เกี่ยวข้องเพื่อที่จะดูบทความทั้งหมด

ผู้สังเกตการณ์กล่าวข้างต้นว่า หลักสำคัญของการวิเคราะห์ใดๆในประเด็นที่โจมตีกลุ่มเพศที่สามด้วยความหวังที่จะผ่านร่างกฎหมาย  เช่นพระราชบัญญัติการรวมครอบครัวอเมริกัน (UAFA) พระราชบัญญัติการคุ้มครองสิทธิการแต่งงาน หรือพระราชบัญญัติการรวมตัวกันใหม่ของครอบครัว จากการสนับสนุนของสองฝ่ายนั้นเป็นเรื่องที่สำคัญ อ้างต่อว่า สิ่งที่ปรากฏว่า ยังคงมีนโยบายที่คงอยู่และสอดคล้องต่อกลุ่มของเพศที่สาม ปัจจุบันนี้มีสัญญาณที่บอกว่า “เป็นมิตร” กับสิทธิโดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งสิทธิของรัฐที่จะยกการประเด็นตามรัฐธรรมนูญในการยื่นพระราชบัญญัติคุ้มครองการแต่งงาน (DOMA)

ในปัจจุบันนี้ รัฐอิสระในสหรัฐอเมริกา เช่น คอมมอนเวลท์ของแมสซาชูเสสมีการเรียกร้องของประชาชนให้มีการวางมาตรการให้เป็นไปตามกฎหมายและปฏิบัติตามกฎหมายและ หรือ รับรองการแต่งงานหรือสถานะของเพศเดียวกัน ไม่ว่าอย่างไรก็ตาม ข้อเท็จจริง รัฐบาลกลางของสหรัฐอเมริกาจะไม่ได้ให้สิทธิส่วนกลาง  (เช่น สิทธิประโยชน์การเข้าเมือง) แม้ว่ผู้ที่แต่งงานในเขตรัฐอิสระในสหรัฐอเมริกา

ในความเห็นของผู้เขียน ประเด็นเรื่องการแต่งงานของเพศเดียวกันในสหรัฐอเมริกาอาจจะได้รับการคลี่คลายโดยศาลสหรัฐ โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งหากเป็นคดีที่ตัดสินโดยศาลสูงสุดของสหรัฐอเมริกา บทความนี้ให้ข้อคิดเห็นหลังจากประเด็นที่เกี่ยวข้องกับความเชื่อถือและความสุจริต และหลักพื้นฐานความเชื่อถือและความสุจริตของรัฐธรรมนูญสหรัฐอเมริกา สิ่งที่พึงระลึกถึงคือ ผู้อ่านพึงเข้าใจว่า ประเด็นเหล่านี้ได้รับผลลัพธ์เต็มรูปแบบแล้ว

ในขณะเดียวกันเป็นสิ่งที่ปรากฏว่า นักเคลื่อนไหวในกลุ่มของเพศที่สามนานาชาติได้ดำเนินการที่จะให้สิทธิที่เท่าเทียมกันในส่วนอื่นๆของโลกในฐานะของหนังสือพิมพ์เดอะเนชั่นที่ตีพิมพ์ในประเทศไทยรายงานว่า นักเคลื่อนไหวเพศที่สาม กำลังหาเสียงสนับสนุนทางการเมืองในประเด็นที่เกี่ยวกับการแต่งงานของเพศเดียวกันในการจัดการเลือกตั้งในประเทศไทย อ้างโดยตรงจากเว็บไซต์ที่เป็นทางการของเนชั่น เนชั่นมัลติมีเดีย ดอทคอม:

นักเคลื่อนไหวที่เรียกว่า “เพศที่สาม” เช่น เกย์ เลสเบี้ยน และการแปลงเพศ ได้มีการเคลื่อนไหวทางการเมืองเพื่อที่จะผ่านกฎหมายการแต่งงานเพศเดียวกัน นที ธีระโรจนพงศ์ ประธานของกลุ่มความหลากหลายทางเพศ และกลุ่มการเมืองเกย์ของประเทศไทย และนักร้องที่แปลงเพศแล้วที่เป็นที่รู้จักคือ จิม ซาร่าห์ (สุจินรัตน์ ประชาไทย)กล่าวเมื่อวานนี้ว่า เขาไปยังพรรคประชาธิปัตย์และเพื่อไทยวันนี้เพื่อที่จะถามถึงงสิทธิของเพศที่สามหากพรรคจะเป็นผู้นำในรัฐบาลต่อไป กลุ่มของพวกเขากำลังหาพันธะสัญญาจากหลายๆฝ่ายและเขาควรจะได้รับการสัญญาตามที่เขาสนับสนุนหลายๆฝ่าย

ผู้เขียนเว็บบล็อกนี้ขอแนะนำให้ผู้อ่านคลิกในลิงค์ข้างบนเพื่อหาข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมจากมุมมองและบความที่กล่าวถึงข้างต้น

ผู้อ่านควรตระหนักถึงข้อเท็จจริงที่ว่า ประเทศไทยเป็นประเทศหนึ่งที่มีการกล่าวถึงประเด็นเรื่องกลุ่มเพศที่สาม (LGBT) วัตถุประสงค์เพื่อการท่องเที่ยวและการพักผ่อน ประเทศไทยเป็นจุดหมายของนักเดินทางที่ทั้งกลุ่มเพศที่สามและคู่ของพวกเขา ตามที่อ้างถึง ภายใต้กฎหมายไทยยังไม่มีกการรอรับการแต่งงานของคู่เพศเดียวกัน ดังนั้นเป็นไปไม่ได้ที่คู่เพศเดียวกันจะจดทะเบียนสมรสที่อำเภอ (สำนักงานเขต)ในแบบเดียวกับที่คู่ต่างเพศมีสิทธิ ตามที่กล่าวมาแล้ว สส.ของประเทศไทยอาจจะนำเอาประเด็นนี้ทำให้เกิดการเปลี่ยนแปลงในประเด็นดังกล่าว ประเด็นนี้จะมีการนำไปเสนอในการเลือกตั้งอย่างไร เป็นสิ่งที่แสดงถึงความน่าสนใจของมัน

ในการวิเคราะห์ประเด็นการเข้าเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกาในบริบทของไทยพึงระลึกถึงว่า ถ้าประเทศไทยเริ่มที่จะอนุญาตให้มีการจดทะเบียนสมรสของคู่เพศเดียวกันและสหรัฐอเมริกาผ่านการร่างกฎหมายตามที่กล่าวมาข้างต้น UAFA ซึ่งในอนาคตข้างหน้า คู่เพศเดียวกันท่เป็นชาวไทย อเมริกันสามารถที่จะจดทะเบียนสมรสในประเทศไทยและใช้สิทธิประโยชน์ในเรื่องการเข้าเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกาเช่น วีซ่า เค-3, วีซ่าซีอาร์-1, หรือวีซ่าไออาร์1 ตามที่กล่าวมาแล้วนั้นต้องงอาศัยกระบวนการตามกฎหมายและนโยบายในปัจจุบัน

To view this post in English please see: legal.

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the administration of President Barack H. Obama is poised to take a more commonsensical approach to issues pertaining to United States Immigration. In order to shed further light upon this issue it may be best to quote directly from an article entitled New Common-Sense Immigration Reforms to Strengthen Our Economy written by Aneesh Chopra & Alejandro Mayorkas and posted on the White House blog at WhiteHouse.gov:

President Obama recently reaffirmed the urgent need to fix our broken immigration system, so that America can compete and win in the 21st century.  Immigrants make extraordinary contributions to our economic well-being, as demonstrated in study after study. For evidence, you can turn to recent analyses from the Treasury Department, the bipartisan Partnership for a New American Economy, or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Or simply visit Silicon Valley.  Aneesh participated in a roundtable yesterday hosted by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group where nearly half of the executives in the room were immigrants. They were unanimous in their call for action in the high skilled area — a top priority for the group, along with a new service campaign to connect the  best and brightest in the Valley with  kids in need.  But they were also frustrated with our inability as a country to tackle these issues as it has been several years since they began such conversations.

Aneesh did review the White House’s Blueprint for Building a 21st Century Immigration System, reinforcing what they already knew — that our economic competitiveness would be strengthened by a legal immigration system that reflects our values and meets our diverse needs…

The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers to click on the hyperlinks noted above to read further from this insightful piece.

This blogger is personally anxious to see a new common sense strategy employed in the administration of America’s immigration system. In a previous posting on this blog it was noted that the Obama administration in conjunction with Senator Amy Klobucher have taken steps to move forward on legislation designed to reform certain aspects of the American visa system. This initiative appears to be undertaken in an effort to generate further revenue for America in the form of tourist dollars. Furthermore, there are some who would argue that a reform of the immigration system would result in an increase in foreign direct investment in the USA as foreign nationals travel to America on visas such as the E-2 visa or the EB-5 visa in order to engage in trade or start a business.

Credit where credit is due: the administration appears serious about making positive changes to the US visa process and for this reason their efforts to that end should be admired. However, not everyone is enthusiastic about every aspect of the Obama administration’s policies and procedures as was recently discovered by this blogger while surfing the internet for information regarding the recent Patriot Act Extension. It would appear as though the issue of the Patriot Act’s extension is not the salient point for some as the President’s method of “signing” the recent legislation has been called into question. To quote directly from an article written by Benjy Sarlin posted on the website TalkingPointsMemo.com:

President Obama’s use of a mechanical “autopen” to sign the new PATRIOT Act extension from abroad has at least one Republican lawmaker worried about a “dangerous precedent.” According to Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA), using a machine to sign legislation could one day bring about a dystopia in which robotic writing utensils are used to enact all manner of phony legislation.

“I thought it was a joke at first, but the President did, in fact, authorize an autopen to sign the Patriot Act extension into law,” Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA) said in a statement. “Consider the dangerous precedent this sets. Any number of circumstances could arise in the future where the public could question whether or not the president authorized the use of an autopen. For example, if the president is hospitalized and not fully alert, can a group of aggressive Cabinet members interpret a wink or a squeeze of the hand as approval of an autopen signing? I am very concerned about what this means for future presidential orders, whether they be signing bills into law, military orders, or executive orders.”

The administration of this web log recommends that readers click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to read this interesting posting in its entirety.

Representative Tom Graves is not the only one with concerns regarding this method of enacting legislation via “autopen” as those who subscribe to a so-called “formalist” or plain language interpretation of the United States Constitution (which this blogger has been known to agree with on certain issues) seem to have taken some offense to the notion of being able to sign legislation, especially legislation as important as the Patriot Act extension, into law through usage of an “autopen” especially in light of a plain language interpretation of the U.S. Constitution itself. To further elucidate this point it may be best to quote directly from a very astute comment on the CBSnews.com website attributed to Bojax39 on May 31, 2011:

Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel: “…we conclude that the President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law. Rather, the President may sign a bill within the meaning of Article I, Section 7 by directing a subordinate to affix the President’s signature to such a bill, for example by autopen.”Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution: “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approves he shall sign it…” Now how the name of chicanery did the OLC “conclude” that? Just where does the Constitution say it’s okay for a machine to sign laws? What happens years from now when the government wants to prove to the people that it’s had the power to do some legal trickery for years? Drag out a former president’s autopen program to retroactively sign an empowering bit of “legislation”, wait for the ink to dry and tell us the law is really decades old?..

The administration of this blog again strongly recommends that readers click upon the hyperlinks noted above to read this comment fully. That stated, one is always encouraged to take some opinions posted on the internet with a proverbial “grain of salt,” but under the circumstances the points raised in the citation above are valid.

Clearly, there is room for debate as to the legitimacy of “autopen” usage in the adoption of legislation. In fact, there could be an argument that failure to fully adhere to Article 1 Section 7 noted above creates an implication that the extension of the Patriot Act fails to conform to notions of due process of law under the American Constitution. How this issue will play out in the months and days ahead remains to be seen, but it seems likely that further discussion of “autopen” usage may arise in the future.

For related information please see: Legal.

In a previous posting on this blog the discussion centered upon the EB-3 visa. To remain on a similar topic, the Employment Based visa preference category 4 is another type of travel document which is somewhat similar to other employment based visas although some of the criteria are different. To quote directly from the official website of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), USCIS.gov:

Employment-Based Immigration: Fourth Preference EB-4

You may be eligible for an employment-based, fourth preference visa if you are a special immigrant. The following special immigrants are eligible for the fourth preference visa:

• Religious Workers
• Broadcasters
• Iraqi/Afghan Translators
• Iraqis Who Have Assisted the United States
• International Organization Employees
• Physicians
• Armed Forces Members
• Panama Canal Zone Employees
• Retired NATO-6 employees
• Spouses and Children of Deceased NATO-6 employees

Petitioning for an Employment-Based Fourth Preference Immigrant

To petition for an employment-based fourth preference immigrant, your employer must file a Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant. However, there are certain situations where you, the employee, may self-petition on your own behalf. Please review the form instructions to see if you are eligible to self petition and what required supporting evidence needs to be included.

Readers are asked to remember that the above citation is not a satisfactory substitute for a full analysis of issues associated with the EB-4 visa especially as each individual immigration case is adjudicated pursuant to the unique factual circumstances present in the given situation.

This blogger has found that some of those who research this area confuse the EB-4 visa with the E-1 visa or the E-2 visa. In some cases, this category gets confused with the EB-5 visa. Regardless, the EB-4 visa is a stand alone visa category which provides the benefit of lawful permanent residence to the bearer upon lawful admission to the United States of America. Clearly, the criteria for EB-4 visa issuance are less stringent than, say, the EB-1 visa; but this visa category is still heavily scrutinized by adjudicators and for this reason prospective EB-4 visa seekers should be prepared to undergo such an adjudication by USCIS.

Concurrently, it should also be noted that those foreign nationals seeking an EB-4 visa abroad are likely required to undergo Consular Processing at a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad in order to ultimately hope to receive a visa. Consular Officers at US Missions abroad are tasked with the responsibility of adjudicating visa applications for those foreign nationals wishing to travel to the United States of America.

For related information please see: US Visa Thailand.

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Republican position regarding same sex marriage in the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.) is being analyzed by both media and political observers. To quote directly from a recent article written by Ben Pershing and posted on the website of the Washington Post, WashingtonPost.com:

[D]espite past efforts, Republicans have not mounted an assault this year on the District’s same-sex marriage law: No bill has been introduced to overturn it, nor has any lawmaker publicly sought support from colleagues for such a measure.

Those unfamiliar with the United States Constitution are wise to take note of the fact that the United States Congress is responsible for administering the American capitol city. The scope of such jurisdiction extends to matters which in the context of a sovereign State could be viewed as intrastate issues. However, as the District of Columbia is substantially different in nature from sovereign States the same legal rules and analysis that applies to States may not apply to the District. To quote further from the aforementioned article:

House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said he knew of no campaign to repeal the law. “My committee has no intention at this time of overturning gay marriage,” Issa said this month, although he later clarified that he was speaking for himself as chairman and not for individual lawmakers. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), now chairman of the D.C. oversight subcommittee, responded similarly Tuesday. He said that he would support a bill to overturn the same-sex marriage law if one were introduced but that he had no interest in spearheading such an effort. “I was not elected to be D.C. mayor, and I don’t aspire to be,” Gowdy said, echoing a previous comment by him on local issues. The fact that no Republican has introduced a bill this year could be a sign that the majority plans to use a different tactic…

The administration of this weblog strongly encourages readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks above to view this article in its entirety.

The observations noted above go to the heart of any analysis of the current struggle for the LGBT community to gain at least some modicum of equal protection pursuant to United States law. In a previous posting on this blog it was noted that in order for the LGBT community to hope to see passage of legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), the Respect for Marriage Act, or the Reuniting Families Act broad based bipartisan support may prove crucial. That stated, it would appear that where once there was stiff resistance toward a compassionate or tolerant policy towards the LGBT community, now there are signs of something of a “thaw” on the right especially as States’ Rights issues have been raised regarding the Constitutionality of the current application of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA).

Currently, sovereign American States such as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have heeded the call of their Citizenry and taken measures to legalize, solemnize, and/or recognize same sex marriages or marital unions. Notwithstanding this fact, the United States federal government still will not accord federal benefits (including immigration benefits) even to those legally married in a sovereign American jurisdiction.

It is this blogger’s opinion that the issue of same sex marriage in the United States may ultimately be resolved by activity emanating from US Courts, especially if a case on point is heard by the United States Supreme Court. This blogger forms this opinion after contemplating the issues associated with Full Faith and Credit and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. Bearing this in mind, the reader is urged to remember that these issues have yet to see full resolution.

Meanwhile, it would appear that activists in the international LGBT community are taking steps to secure further equality in other parts of the world as The Nation newspaper’s print edition in Thailand reports that LGBT activists are seeking political support for the cause of same-sex marriage in the lead up to Thai elections. To quote directly from the Nation’s official website, NationMultimedia.com:

Rights activists for the so-called “third sex” – gays, lesbians and transsexuals – have urged political parties to allow a same-sex marriage law. Natee Teerarojjanapongs, president of the Sexual Diversity Group and the Gay Political Group of Thailand, and transsexual singer known as Jim Sarah (Sujinrat Prachathai) said yesterday they would visit the Democrat and Pheu Thai parties today to submit a letter asking them to issue such a law for the “third gender” if they lead the next government…Their groups will seek commitments from the parties and say they will reward promises of action by campaigning for votes among their supporters…

The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers to click upon the hyperlinks noted above to learn more from this insightful and well written article.

Readers should be aware of the fact that the Kingdom of Thailand is one of the most tolerant jurisdictions on the face of the Earth when it comes to matters pertaining to LGBT issues. As a tourist and recreational destination, Thailand ranks among the top tier of destinations frequented by the LGBT individuals and couples as Thailand boasts a vibrant LGBT community. That stated, under Thai law in its current form same sex marriage is not recognized. Therefore, it is not possible for a same sex couple to register a Thai marriage at, say, an Amphur Office (Civil Registrar Office), in the same manner as a different-sex couple. As noted above, Thai advocates may be taking measures in the near term to change this state of affairs. How this issue will play out in the run up to a Thai election remains to be seen, but it may prove interesting.

In analyzing United States immigration in a Thai context the reader should note that if Thailand began allowing registration of same sex marriage and the United States passed legislation such as the aforementioned UAFA it is conceivable in the future that a same sex bi-national Thai-American couple could register their marriage in Thailand and thereby use that marriage as a basis for seeking American immigration benefits such as a K3 visa, CR1 visa, or an IR1 visa. That stated, such a scenario would require a departure from current law and policy.

For related information please see: US Visa Thailand or K1 Visa Thailand.

In a previous posting this blogger discussed issues associated with the EB-2 visa. On the same note, the following posting is a brief discussion of the Employment Based visa in the preference category 3. Readers should take note of the fact that Employment Based visa categories, classified as EB, are substantially different from the E-1 visa and the E-2 visa which are Treaty Trader and Treaty Investor visas, respectively, and somewhat dissimilar from employment based visas.  To quote directly from the official USCIS website, USCIS.gov:

The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers to keep in mind that the chart above is not an exhaustive explanation of the criteria associated with EB-3 visa issuance, but should merely be viewed as a brief overview of eligibility criteria for those thinking about petitioning for EB-3 visa benefits. The criteria for EB-3 visa issuance differ from the EB-1 visa and EB-2 visa criteria by some degree especially in the case of the EB-1 visa as that visa category is generally reserved for extraordinary recipients.

Those pondering petitioning for United States immigration benefits such as the EB-3 visa should bear in mind that the petition adjudication process is not necessarily the only phase of what could be a longer overall process if the proposed beneficiary resides outside of the United States and therefore must submit a US visa application and undergo Consular Processing at a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad.

For related information please see: American Embassy.