Integrity Legal

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that a Congressman from the sovereign State of California has recently introduced legislation which is designed to improve the current American immigration system. It would appear that one of the proposed improvements would also provide immigration benefits to same sex bi-national couples. To quote directly from the Washington Blade at WashingtonBlade.com:

A U.S. House member from California on Thursday introduced family immigration legislation that includes language allowing gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States. Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) introduced the Reuniting Families Act, which has a provision that would protect bi-national same-sex couples as one of its six prongs to keep families together in the country.

Readers of this web log are strongly encouraged to click upon the hyperlinks above to find out further details on this unfolding story.

This blogger personally found it interesting that this bill would also address grievances held by Lawful Permanent Residents (Green Card holders) and their families. To quote further from the aforementioned article:

In addition to including UAFA-like language, Honda’s legislation would help shorten the wait times that can keep legal immigrants and their overseas loved ones separated for years. The bill would classify spouses and children of permanent U.S. residents as “immediate relatives” and exempt them from numerical caps on immigration.

It is genuinely unfortunate that some find themselves caught up in the immigration process for substantial periods of time awaiting adjudication of their immigration and visa matters.

Those unfamiliar with the provisions of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), as recently re-introduced in the Federal legislature by Representative Jerrold Nadler, should note that this legislation would circumvent the current provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) which currently separates a large number of bi-national couples since the federal government will not recognize same sex unions for purposes of distributing federal benefits. Upon enactment of legislation similar to that noted above, same sex bi-national couples could be eligible to receive American immigration benefits in the form of travel documents such as the K-1 visa (US fiance visa) or the CR-1 visa (US Marriage Visa). Currently same-sex couples cannot obtain these immigration benefits in the same manner as their different-sex counter parts. This is true in spite of the fact that multiple sovereign American States currently solemnize, legalize, and/or recognize same sex marriage or marital unions. As can be gathered from previous postings on this blog, this state of affairs is questionably Constitutional and for that reason there are currently cases arising in the State of California and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts which would overturn at least portions of DOMA.

It is heartening to see more legislators joining the struggle for further equality in America. Readers and proponents of this legislation can, at this time, only hope that further action will be taken in Washington D.C. to see that the current valid grievances of the LGBT community are redressed.

For those interested in learning more about this legislation please check out the official website of Representative Mike Honda.

It recently came to the attention of this blogger that legislation has been introduced in the jurisdiction of the sovereign State of South Carolina which would incorporate provisions for “sound money” or “legal tender reform” therein.  To quote directly from the website of Midlands Connect at MidlandsConnect.com:

COLUMBIA (WACH) — South Carolina lawmakers are proposing a bill that would give the state another form of legal tender. Sen. David Thomas, a Republican from Greenville, wants to make gold and silver coins another option in the Palmetto State.  Lawmakers are calling it the Sound Money Legislation. “I’m no financial expert but am I smart enough to know that you can’t keep printing money when it has no backing,” says SC Republican Representative Mac Toole. Thomas also wants a special joint committee to study the need and process for establishing an alternate currency.  Read the entire bill here.

The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers to click on the hyperlinks above to gain further insight on this developing story.

Readers of this blog may be aware that the sovereign Commonwealth of Virginia appears to have a similar bill in her legislature while the Governor of the sovereign State of Utah recently was reported to have signed similar “sound money” legislation thereby apparently enacting legal tender reform in that State.

Meanwhile, the issues associated with States’ Rights are coming to a head in the context of the sovereign State of Arizona as that jurisdiction may see a bill brought to the State legislature which would divide the State into two separate sovereign States. To quote directly from what appears to be a Reuters story posted on Yahoo News Canada:

TUCSON, Arizona (Reuters) – A long-simmering movement by liberal stalwarts in southern Arizona to break away from the rest of the largely conservative state is at a boiling point as secession backers press to bring their longshot ambition to the forefront of Arizona politics. A group of lawyers from the Democratic stronghold of Tucson and surrounding Pima County have launched a petition drive seeking support for a November 2012 ballot question on whether the 48th state should be divided in two.

Readers of this blog are asked to click upon the hyperlinks above to learn more about this interesting state of affairs.

Under American law it is generally considered possible in an intraState context to see a State legally and peaceably subdivide herself. This is not a common occurrence within the American political system and the ramifications on a geopolitical level could be tremendous. At the same time, such a subdivision could have an important impact upon American national politics as the addition of a new American State to the United States of America would mean that the United States House of Representatives and and the United States Senate could see new membership traveling to those hallowed halls from a newly created “Baja Arizona” (the current label apparently being applied to the as-yet unborn State).

How all of these issues will play out over the course of the coming weeks and months remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: it is an interesting time to be an American.

For related information please see: Full Faith and Credit Clause.

ในราชอาณาจักรไทย การให้บริการทางกฎหมายนั้นมีความจำเป็นต้องใช้บริการทนายความรับรองลายมือชื่อ แตกต่างจากประเทศอื่นๆหลายประเทศคือ การที่จะให้บริการการรับรองลายมือชื่อในประเทศไทยนั้นจะต้องเป็นทนายความผู้ได้รับใบอนุญาตว่าความก่อน

การให้บริการการรับรองลายมือชื่อนั้นเกี่ยวข้องกับผลประโยชน์ทางกฎหมายในประเทศไทย อาจจะไม่จำเป็นสำหรับบริษัทจำกัดที่จดทะเบียนในไทย หรือ ทรัพย์สินในไทย แต่ในเรื่องการเข้าเมืองแล้วการรับรองลายมือชื่อมีความจำเป็นมาก  ในขณะเดียวกัน การรับรองเอกสารนั้นเป็นสิ่งที่จำเป็นสำหรับคนอเมริกันที่อาศัยอยู่ต่างประเทศ ในประเทศไทย

บางสถานการณ์ อาจเป็นเรื่องที่จำเป็นที่จะได้รับบริการรับรองลายมือชื่อจากการรับรองลายมือชื่ออเมริกันในต่างประเทศ ในกรณีดังกล่าว มีวิธีที่จะทำการรับรองลายมือชื่อได้โดยการติดต่อ หน่วยบริการพลเมืองอเมริกันของสถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกา หรือสถานกงสุลสหรัฐอเมริกา และขอรับบริการการรับรองลายมือชื่อจากเจ้าหน้าที่กงสุล การที่จะเลือกใช้บริการของการรับรองของอเมริกัน หรือแบบไทยนั้นขึ้นอยู่กับข้อเท็จจริงของพฤติการณ์นั้น ไม่ว่าทนายความอเมริกัน หรือทนายความไทยนั้นสามารถที่จะรองรับความต้องการของผู้ที่ยังไม่มีความแน่นอนว่า จำเป็นจะต้องใช้บริการการรับรองลายมือชื่อประเภทใด

บริษัท อินทิกริตี้ ลีเกิ้ล (ประเทศไทย) จำกัด ภูมิใจที่จะให้บริการการรับรองลายมือชื่อโดยคิดค่าธรรมเนียมเพียง 200 บาทและภาษีมูลค่าเพิ่ม 7% ค่าบริการโนตารีนั้นอินทิกริตี้ ลีเกิ้ลไม่คิดค่าธรรมเนียมสูงมากเพื่อให้ประชาชนทั่วไปสามารถเข้าถึงบริการนี้ได้ ผู้ดูแลบล็อกนี้และทีมงานอินทิกริตี้ ลีเกิ้ลมีความตั้งใจที่จะให้บริการแก่ประชาชนในราคาที่สมเหตุสมผล

ผู้ที่จะใช้บริการการรับรองลายมือชื่อควรจะได้รับคำแนะนำที่จะต้องคำนึงถึงในบริบทของการรับรองลายมือชื่อของอเมริกันซึ่งไม่มีสิทธิที่จะปฏิบัติหน้าที่ทางกฎหมายเว้นเสียแต่ว่าจะได้รับอนุญาตเป็นพิเศษ บางครั้งมีการใช้คำที่คล้ายๆกัน เช่น โนตาริโอ หรือ เนตตาริโอ (ในนามของบุคคลทางอินเตอร์เน็ตและเว็บไซต์) บางครั้งก็ผ่านการเป็นทนายความและนำชื่อโนตารีมาใช้ในทางที่ผิด หากต้องการคำแนะนำทางกฎหมายนั้นจำเป็นที่จะต้องอาศัยความเชี่ยวชาญจากผู้ที่มีประสบการณ์ทางกฎหมาย ในบริบทของการเข้าเมืองอเมริกันควรที่จะทำความเข้าใจว่า การปฏิบัติงานทางกฎหมายคนเข้าเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกานั้นได้รับอนุญาตให้มีเขตอำนาจในรัฐหนึ่งรัฐตามกฎระเบียบของรัฐบาลกลาง

ผู้ที่มีความประสงค์ที่จะใช้บริการการรับรองลายมือชื่อของไทยจากอินทิกริตี้ ลีเกิ้ล กรุณา ติดต่อเรา

สำหรับข้อมูลเพิ่มเติม กรุณาคลิกที่: กฎหมาย

To view this posting in English please see: Thai Notary.

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the United States Navy, that indomitable symbol of America’s prowess on the high seas, has taken steps to begin solemnizing marital unions between those of the same gender. To quote directly from the Huffington Post:

WASHINGTON — Navy chaplains will be trained about their ability to perform same-sex civil marriage ceremonies under new guidance that would take effect if the Defense Department moves to recognize openly gay military service. Navy officials said Monday that they updated the training after questions came up about civil ceremonies for gay couples. Military training to apply the new law allowing gays to serve openly began earlier this year, and is expected to be complete by mid-summer.

For those who are unfamiliar with this topic it should be noted that the relatively recent repeal of the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy has resulted in the need for measures to integrate members of the LGBT community into the American armed forces. One component of such an integration is that same sex couples be permitted to marry, especially in State jurisdictions which explicitly allow such unions. However, this issue is not exactly “cut and dried,” to quote further from the aforementioned article:

The Navy ceremonies would be allowed at military facilities such as chapel and catering centers, but only in states that already recognize same-sex unions. And, even if a marriage is performed, same-sex partners would not get any health, housing or other benefits that are provided to married couples involving a man and woman.

The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers to click on the hyperlinks noted above to read this story in detail and learn more about these issues.

Clearly, there exists a States’ Rights component to the analysis of same sex marriage especially in light of the fact that 6 sovereign States and the District of Columbia have begun legalizing and solemnizing same sex marital unions within their respective jurisdictions. However, the final sentence of the above quotation should be concerning to same sex bi-national couples and the LGBT community as a whole. Although it is certainly positive that the American Navy is taking steps to begin solemnizing same sex unions while the overall legal stature of such unions is being determined, same sex couples are likely to continue to find themselves the victim of discrimination and double standards within the current American legal system.

Presently, there are cases in the judicial system which address these issues, but they have yet to take legal effect. Meanwhile, legislators such as Representative Jerrold Nadler have supported legislation such as the Respect for Marriage Act and the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) which would deal with the American government’s current discrimination against the LGBT community. Until such time as federal legislation is passed to repeal the provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA), or judicial action is taken to overturn this legislation, it would appear likely that same sex couples will continue to be the object of discrimination notwithstanding the fact that such discrimination (regardless of whether it is being carried out under the “color of law”) violates Americans’ natural rights pursuant to ancient notions such as Magna Carta and the specific provisions protecting free association within the language of the U.S. Constitution. Meanwhile, there is a strong argument that the federal government’s current failure to recognize same sex marriages solemnized and/or legalized within the jurisdiction of a sovereign American State violates the 10th Amendment of the Constitution since the provisions thereof reserve certain rights to the American States and People, respectively.  Licensure of marriage in an intrastate context has long been viewed by many Constitutional scholars as an exclusively State prerogative.

For related information please see: LGBT Immigration.

In the Kingdom of Thailand there are often legal matters which require the services of a Thai notarial attorney. Unlike other countries, the Kingdom of Thailand requires that notaries be licensed Thai attorneys prior to becoming licensed to provide notarial services.

Notarial services can be of interest to those with legal matters pending in Thailand. This is not simply the case in the context of Thai limited companies or Thai property, but immigration matters may require the services of a Thai notary. Meanwhile, it is sometimes necessary for Americans resident abroad in Thailand to have documentation pertaining to American legal matters properly notarized.

Under certain circumstances, it may be necessary to obtain notarial services from an American notary abroad. If this is the case, then virtually the only method of obtaining such a notarization may be through contacting of an American Citizen Services section of a US Embassy or US Consulate and requesting notarial services from a Consular officer. Determining whether one needs to acquire an American notarization or a Thai notarization can depend upon the unique factual circumstances of one’s situation. That stated, insight from either an American attorney or a Thai attorney on such matters could prove enlightening for those who are unsure about what type of notarization they need.

Integrity Legal (Thailand) Co. Ltd. is proud to announce that we are offering Thai notarization services for a fee of 200 Thai baht plus 7% Value Added Tax (VAT). The price of this notarization fee has been consciously set low by Integrity Legal as a courtesy to the public-at-large. The administration of this web log and the staff of Integrity Legal sincerely hope that by providing this service to the public at a reasonable rate it will be beneficial for all concerned.

Those thinking of acquiring notarial services are well advised to be aware of the fact that in an American context notaries generally are not entitled to practice law unless they have a specific license to do so. It is unfortunate that some operators described as “notarios” or “netarios” (alluding to such individuals on the internet and World Wide Web) sometimes pass themselves off as attorneys and thereby give the position of notary a bad name. When seeking legal advice it is always prudent to check the credentials of anyone claiming expertise in law. In an American immigration context, the public should make certain that anyone practicing United States immigration law is licensed to practice law in at least one State or relevant jurisdiction pursuant to federal regulation.

Those wishing to acquire a Thai notarization from Integrity Legal are encouraged to Contact Us.

For related information please see: Legal.

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the issue of inflation has been on the minds of policymakers in some of the member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Officials is Laos and Cambodia were recently noted by media outlets in those jurisdictions to have commented upon this issue. To quote directly from the official website of the Vientiane Times, VientianeTimes.org.la:

The government is concerned about rising inflation in Laos, triggered by the high price of oil and food, which is expected to impact on the economy and poverty reduction efforts. Deputy Minister of Planning and Investment Dr Bounthavy Sisouphanthong said on Thursday the government is studying measures it can take to minimise the impacts on the economy and livelihoods of local people… Dr Liber warned that the government needs to respond to the situation quickly, as rising inflation will cause more serious impacts on the economy and efforts to reduce poverty levels. The government cabinet’s monthly meeting was held in Vientiane on April 25-26 and assigned the relevant sectors to study measures to minimise the impacts of rising fuel prices on the economy.

The administration of this web log asks readers to click upon the hyperlinks noted above to read further from this interesting article. Clearly, Lao officials are aware that inflation may become an acutely pressing issue at some point, but it would seem, at least for now, that measures are being considered to respond to issues pertaining to inflation in Laos.

Meanwhile, Laos is not the only ASEAN member nation whose officials are analyzing the issue of inflation. It would seem as though authorities in the Kingdom of Cambodia are also concerned about the possibility of inflation. To quote directly from the official website of the Phnom Penh Post, PhnomPenhPost.com:

Cambodia should expect price inflation of 6 percent this year, according to a United Nations report released yesterday, which government officials said was a tolerable level…Minister of Economy and Finance Deputy Secretary General Ros Seilava said at the report’s release in Phnom Penh that 6 percent inflation for 2011 was a manageable level. “A six to seven percent increase in inflation is expected this year, however to a certain level, this could be tolerated,” he said.

Again, the administration encourages readers to click upon the hyperlinks noted above to gain further perspective and insight into this issue in a Cambodian context from a well written and informative posting.

It would seem apparent that issues associated with inflation are likely to be of possible concern for those conducting business in Cambodia or business in Laos going forward. The same may also be true for those conducting business in the neighboring Kingdom of Thailand. In any case, inflation is an important economic issue that must be discussed. It is certainly a positive sign that officials in Laos and Cambodia are aware of these issues, but the ramifications of possible future inflation have yet to be fully realized. Issues associated with inflation are a cause for concern in countries such as the United States, but in the context of so-called “developing nations” this issue can be extremely important. Therefore, those interested in the issue of inflation in a Southeast Asian context may be prudent to continue following this developing story.

For related information please see: Thailand business.

It is unfortunate that there is a seeming trend within the zeitgeist of the American collective consciousness to immediately associate the term “States’ Rights” with notions of slavery, discrimination, and, in a sense, political corruption. It is this author’s opinion that much of the animosity surrounding the term “States’ Rights” is derived from some egregiously wrongheaded positions held by bigoted and xenophobic American politicians in years past. This trend is unfortunate because it is this author’s opinion that the very diversity of jurisprudence in an intrastate and interstate jurisdictional context within the American Union (by this term, this author refers to the United States of America as enshrined in the United States Constitution and the amendments thereto in conjunction with the 50 several sovereign United States each having their own State Constitution) is the very sinew which reinforces America’s economic strength on the global stage. Others associate the term “States’ Rights” with secessionist movements in years past. To be clear, this author has always believed that America’s strength is in the Rights of the Several States WITHIN THE UNION! American Founder Benjamin Franklin once famously stated: “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately”. This statement is no less true now than at the time it was uttered. America’s strength lies in her simultaneous interstate and intrastate diversity buttressed by a virtually monolithic national government in matters pertaining to foreign affairs and national defense. It is something of a paradox that is both vexing to outsiders and the source of America’s ability to remain fluid in both a political and economic sense. In short: this duality is the secret to America’s historical success.

Full Faith and Credit: The Clause That Binds The American Republic

The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution could be viewed non-literally as the mortar securing the bricks which maintain the indomitable structure acting as a repository for the ideals of the American republic. Around the Full Faith and Credit Clause the Union of American jurisprudence is maintained. Therefore, analysis of said Clause is important for our purposes. This author has come to find much insight in studying the thoughts of Justice Robert H. Jackson on this issue, to quote directly from Justice Jackson:

“By other articles of the Constitution our forefathers created a political union among otherwise independent and sovereign states. By other provisions, too, they sought to integrate the economic life of the country. By the full faith and credit clause they sought to federalize the separate and independent state legal systems by the overriding principle of reciprocal recognition of public acts, records, and judicial proceedings. It was placed foremost among those measures which would guard the new political and economic union against the disintegrating influence of provincialism in jurisprudence, but without aggrandizement of federal power at the expense of the states.”

This author has often found that Justice Jackson is a unique resource on these issues as he understood the fundamentals of American law through long practice and study of New York law and later study of Federal law in his capacity as a Supreme Court Justice. Concurrently, Justice Jackson also was a trailblazer in matters pertaining to international law especially in his capacity as prosecutor during the Nuremberg trials. Therefore, this author finds Justice Jackson’s epitaph to be one of the most fitting: “He kept the ancient landmarks and built the new.” Such a notion should be palpable as America looks across the horizon of the 21^st century.

Legal Diversity in an American Context

The motto on the Seal of the United States is “E Pluribus Unum”. This phrase is Latin and translates to English as “Out of Many, One”. Many Americans have long associated this phrase with the notion of the American “melting pot,” a phrase which alludes to the fact that America is a racially, ethnically, ideologically, and religiously diverse nation. This is very true and this fact has been one of the cornerstones of America’s relative economic success since her founding. However, rather few take note of the fact that from the perspective of an attorney this phrase could also allude to the notion of a legally stratified republic in a geographic sense as each sovereign American State has her own jurisprudence which operates simultaneously with much of that of the United States federal government. Under some circumstances, the federal government’s authority may override that of the States, but such circumstances, in this author’s opinion, are likely to be of less concern moving forward in light of the fact that the internet and World Wide Web have integrated the global economic platform to the point that true “Long Tail” economics is creating novelty and comparative advantage for the 50 states in both an interstate context as well as an intrastate context. This is also true in a global context as businesses located in the 50 States are likely to continue to do business in increasingly creative ways both domestically and internationally. The author does not mean to imply that there will be less Federal oversight in the future as there will likely be regulations and scrutiny emanating from federal authorities, but America is incredibly flexible when it suits her interests and as the business environment in America evolves so too does it seem likely that State and Federal regulatory schemes will evolve as well. This current state of affairs is likely to be the precursor to future economic dynamism in the relatively long term and could be the key to economic success in the short term as well.

Meanwhile, an understanding of States’ Rights, in conjunction with an understanding of the enumerated powers of the United States Federal government can provide a sort of framework for thinking about the opportunities which can be exploited by Americans in an increasingly economically integrated global marketplace of not only goods, services, and commodities; but ideas as well. For example, the State of North Dakota and the State of Utah have made interesting decisions regarding intrastate monetary and financial policy. North Dakota has opted for a sort of miniaturized Federal Reserve in that State in the form of the Bank of North Dakota, which is considered by some to be a departure from “mainstream” thinking regarding State finances. Also, the State of Utah has recently enacted a legal tender reform bill which appears to recognize gold and silver coinage minted by the federal government as legal tender within that jurisdiction. This legislation also appears to have changed the way in which the exchange of gold and silver coins are taxed in an intrastate context as the bill apparently repeals state taxation of such coinage. Those interested in further information on these issues are well advised to contact an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Utah (and/or North Dakota, for that matter), as further commentary by this author on that subject would simply be an exercise in speculation. What is clear merely from the information noted above: American States are becoming increasingly creative and dynamic in terms of intrastate activity and this relatively new dynamism may be the driving force behind an eventually resurgent American economy.

America: A Nation of Webmasters

The Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte once snidely declared: “L’Angleterre est une nation de boutiquiers.” This statement could be roughly translated to state that: “England is a nation of shopkeepers”. Unfortunately for Napoleon that nation of shopkeepers went on the defeat his Grand Army at the Battle of Waterloo and thereafter administer an Empire upon which the sun never set. This historical factoid is important for the reader to understand because it elucidates an analogy in a modern context. Namely, the United States of America, due to the rise of e-commerce, appears set upon the path to becoming a nation of e-shopkeepers. These e-shopkeepers, e-commerce businesses, and webmasters are increasingly coming to form a major component of the American economy at a time when some areas of the economy are showing signs of stagnation. Bearing this in mind, the reader is encouraged to note a quotation from Sir Winston Churchill: “Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon.” The reader is encouraged to note the fact that Churchill was a British-American and quite proud to be so. Churchill understood that strong nations are built upon the foundation of a vibrant free market as well as a thriving business environment and he knew this from long study of American, British, and world history. In this author’s opinion, the wagon of America will continue to be drawn by the forces of her citizenry’s entrepreneurialism, but much of the commerce which emanates from the United States in the future will be on platforms which exist in cyberspace. Therefore, such commerce will not have all of the same attributes as that of years past.

America, China, Thailand, ASEAN, and Greater Asia

As the 21^st century rolls on it seems likely that America will be increasingly engaged with Asia in both a diplomatic context as well as a commercial context. This commercial engagement is increasingly likely to occur across the spectrum of business as American companies large and small trade goods, services, and intellectual property with jurisdictions in Asia. While most Americans are aware of the growing economic might of Greater China comparatively few are aware of increasingly vibrant economies of countries such as the Kingdom of Thailand and the Kingdom of Cambodia. Meanwhile, the somewhat young Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) would seem to be on track toward creating economic efficiencies across Southeast Asia to the apparent benefit of all concerned. In this author’s opinion, Americans would be wise to remain mindful of the East Asian and Southeast Asian markets as there appears virtually no limit to the economic potential inherent in some of these economies. Hopefully, through skillful statesmanship, keen understanding of relevant law, and shrewd business acumen America and the American people can benefit from economic developments in Asia and throughout the world.

For related information please see: Full Faith and Credit Clause or ecommerce.

It recently came to this blogger’s attention, via the website MetroWeekly.com, that the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, has vacated a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals which applied controversial section 3 of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) in a recent case. To quote directly from a PDF copy of AG Holder’s order as posted to the aforementioned website:

Pursuant to my authority set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i), I order that the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) in this case applying Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, be vacated, and that this matter be referred to me for review.

In the exercise of my review authority under that regulation, and upon consideration of the record in this case, I direct that the order of the Board be vacated and that this matter be remanded to the Board to make such findings as may be necessary to determine whether and how the constitutionality of DOMA is presented in this case, including, but not limited to: 1) whether respondent’s same-sex partnership or civil union qualifies him to be considered a “spouse” under New Jersey law; 2) whether, absent the requirements of DOMA, respondent’s same-sex partnership or civil union would qualify him to be considered a “spouse” under the Immigration and Nationality Act; 3) what, if any, impact the timing of respondent’s civil union should have on his request for that discretionary relief; and 4) whether, if he had a “qualifying relative,” the respondent would be able to satisfy the exceptional and unusual hardship requirement for cancellation of removal.

Those reading this posting are encouraged to read the article on Metroweekly.com posted by Chris Geidner regarding these issues as this blogger found that posting to be very insightful.

For those who are not familiar with this issue it should be noted that the current provisions of DOMA preclude accordance of federal benefits to those who have entered into a same sex relationship. This preclusion even overrides State prerogatives regarding marriage as, in an immigration context, the language of DOMA precludes recognition of even a same sex marriage solemnized and/or legalized in a sovereign American State. Currently, there is some legislation, such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) or the Respect for Marriage Act, pending before the American Federal legislature which would seek to remove the current restrictions being imposed upon the LGBT community.

It remains to be seen whether same sex visa benefits will be accorded the same sex partners engaged in a bi-national relationship, but one thing is clear: there is momentum gathering behind the cause of LGBT equal rights as American authorities would seem to be taking notice of the legitimate grievances of those who have, for too long, been denied their rights to equal protection under the law. Meanwhile, this blogger finds it likely that there will eventually be some sort of decision regarding the accordance of Full Faith and Credit to those legal marriages solemnized and/or legalized by those States which currently license such unions. As of the time of this writing, however, such remedies remain to be seen and the assurances that they will manifest themselves sometime in the future is likely cold comfort to those who are separated from their loved ones now.

For related information please see: Full Faith and Credit Clause.

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) has recently updated some of the information with regard to that agency’s official fact sheet pertaining to I-864 affidavits of support. To quote directly from the official website of USCIS:

In determining inadmissibility, USCIS defines “public charge”as an individual who is likely to become “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance, or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” See “Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). In determining whether an alien meets this definition for public charge inadmissibility, a number of factors are considered, including age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education, and skills. No single factor, other than the lack of an affidavit of support, if required, will determine whether an individual is a public charge.

Those reading this blog are encouraged to click on the hyperlinks above to read more and gain insight into the issues associated with the I-864 affidavit of support.

It should be noted that the issues associated with the I-864 affidavit of support are significant and should not be overlooked by those seeking immigration benefits. Furthermore, the issues associated with the I-864 affidavit of support pertain not only to USCIS in the United States, but also impact the Consular processing phase of U.S. Immigration process for those who are seeking United States immigrant visas, such as the IR-1 visa and the CR-1 visa, abroad. Meanwhile, seekers of visas such as the K-1 visa (for fiancees of US Citizens) must submit a similar document to a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad in the form of an I-134 affidavit of support. Bearing this in mind, the reader should take note of the fact that the issues surrounding the I-864 affidavit of support are likely to come to the forefront for K-1 visa holders when they eventually apply for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence.

There was an interesting notation on the aforementioned website:

Note: In general, lawful permanent residents who currently possess a “green card” cannot be denied U.S. citizenship for lawfully receiving any public benefits for which they are eligible.

The reader is encouraged to bear in mind the fact that the above quotation is speaking in generalities, but the issue of naturalization in the context of the affidavit of support may be of interest to Americans thinking about bringing a loved one to the USA. The reason that Americans may find the issue of naturalization interesting when discussing family immigration stems from the fact that upon a foreign spouse’s naturalization to US Citizenship, the encumbrances placed upon the American Citizen within the provisions of the affidavit of support are extinguished as upon becoming a United States Citizen a previous foreign national becomes eligible in their own right for government benefits (where applicable). Therefore, the previous sponsor(s) are no long liable to the United States government should the newly-naturalized citizen take government benefits.

For related information please see: Certificate of Citizenship or Child Citizenship Act.

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that an official within China’s foreign exchange authority was noted for comments made regarding the currencies of the so-called BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and their future relationship to the so-called SDR or Special Drawing Right.  To quote directly from the Reuters Africa section of the official website of the Reuters news service, Reuters.com:

SHANGHAI May 5 (Reuters) – The IMF should consider including currencies of the BRICS countries and other emerging economies when it next reviews its Special Drawing Right (SDR) system by 2015, the head of China’s foreign exchange authority said in remarks published on Thursday.

Yi Gang, who is also a deputy governor of the People’s Bank of China (PBOC), called on the International Monetary Fund to kick off a research of a “shadow SDR” this year, the semi-official China Business News reported.

The administration of this blog strongly encourages readers to click upon the hyperlinks above to read this story in detail as doing so would likely add perspective on an insightful article.

Clearly issues related to the relationship of currencies of developing countries, rising economies, and those of developed countries are being considered of increasing importance to policymakers the world over. This is especially true in the context of East Asia while Southeast Asian nations seem to have different issues to ponder regarding currency.  As the constituent economies and jurisdictions comprising the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) continue to thrive economically, the question of a single currency seems to persistently manifest itself at the foreground of analysis pertaining to the long term outlook for the ASEAN region. To quote directly from the website of The Jakarta Post, TheJakartaPost.com:

Indonesia and its neighbors in the ASEAN region have been weighing the possibility of having a single currency such as the euro for years.

Some ASEAN representatives and economic ministers believed that the implementation of a single currency in ASEAN could take the economic community in the region to the next level, as it would enhance economic development in the area and forge stronger ties among ASEAN countries.

But currently, Europe’s crisis is a lesson to learn for Indonesia and ASEAN on the risks and to realize that the potential economic losses if the single currency policy fails is indeed massive.

The administration again encourages readers to click on the hyperlinks above to read this intriguing story in detail.

It would appear as though recent developments in Europe have been a cause of concern for those analyzing the issues associated with a single ASEAN currency, as they probably should be since the decision to implement a single currency for multiple jurisdictions is a serious undertaking that would likely require a great deal of logistical as well as financial investment. While exploring The Jakarta Post website this blogger also came upon an interesting letter posted on that site. To quote directly from the posting Letter: On ASEAN Currency at TheJakartaPost.com:

I hardly see a future for a single ASEAN currency. What is lacking in ASEAN is unity. ASEAN is mainly focused on an economic agenda while the European Union (EU) has adopted extensive and expensive integration programs not only on an economic scale but also on a social, cultural and demographic platform.

Again, readers are strongly encouraged to click upon the hyperlink above to read this letter in detail. Some could argue that one of the strengths of the ASEAN community in her current form arises from the fact that there is not a single currency since some could argue that it would be extremely difficult to integrate the, sometimes radically, different economies of the ASEAN region via currency unification. Therefore, this reasoning posits, the creation of a relatively unified market platform in combination with multiple currencies operates as a sort of “best of both worlds” scenario under the current prevailing circumstances. That stated, anything further than simple analysis of the current factual circumstances pertaining to this issue would arguably be an exercise in mere speculation.

It is this blogger’s personal opinion that the issues above are likely to be debated for some time to come while it is hoped that business in China, business in ASEAN, business in Thailand, and business in the United States of America will continue to show growth in coming years.

For related information please see: US Company Registration or Thailand Company Registration.