Integrity Legal

This blogger writes this post in transit between the Vientiane, Laos and Bangkok, Thailand having been retained to assist with Consular Processing at the Post in Laos. It came to this blogger’s attention while physically outside of the US Embassy compound that the Post in Vientiane will be closed on April the 8th for training purposes. This alone would not have concerned this blogger a great deal as United States Missions abroad routinely close local posts in order to use the closure as an opportunity to train personnel. Therefore, those reading this should not necessarily make the assumption that the Post in Vientiane is closing in anticipation of a government shutdown. That said, the forthcoming information, in conjunction with that noted above gave this blogger pause.

Bearing the above paragraph in mind, this blogger was also notified that the US Embassy in Bangkok has been calling prospective visa beneficiaries with upcoming visa interview appointments in order to attempt to reschedule pending visa interviews. It would appear that this is being done in response to the belief that a government shutdown is possibly imminent and should such a shutdown actually occur it would likely result in the closure of the various Immigrant Visa Units and Non-Immigrant Visa Units at US Missions abroad.

In a previous posting on this blog, the administration analyzed the possible ramifications of such a state of affairs and those reading this posting are encouraged to look at that post in order to learn more about this rather serious issue. The previous posting on this issue can be found at: Government Shutdown.

A few notes on the US Embassy in Vientiane, Laos; first, three words accurately describe this Post: courteous, professional, and efficient. The foreign-language officers are extremely helpful and the English-language officer aptly engaged in staying on top of what, to this blogger, appeared to be  substantial caseload and simultaneously dealing with applicants very politely all while checking documents and doing the routine due diligence required of Consular Officers stationed overseas.

At the time of this writing, it remains to be seen whether or not a government shutdown will actually occur, but should the government shutdown, then this could have a substantial impact upon US visa applications for visas such as the CR-1 visa, the K-1 visa, the IR-1 visa, and the K-3 visa. Meanwhile, processing of business visas such as the EB-5 visa and the L-1 visa could also be impacted by a shutdown of the United States government. There is some speculation as to whether or not the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) will shutdown as a result of possible government closure as USCIS is self-funded by petition and application fees (although that agency did receive money from the US government last year in order to cover a funding shortfall).

As this situation evolves, the administration of this blog will attempt to keep readers updated.

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Center for Disease Control and the United States Department of State are likely to begin imposing more stringent regulations upon visa applicants, especially immigrant visa applicants, seeking a travel document for lawful admission to the United States of America. According to research conducted by the administration of this blog as well as credible anecdotal evidence it would appear that those with tuberculosis or those who have previously had tuberculosis are likely to be required to undergo intense screening in order to ascertain whether the applicant has fully recovered from the disease and poses no threat of future contagion.

In the past, tuberculosis has been a significant issue for those within the consular jurisdiction of the US Embassy Thailand as the applicants applying for visas at the US Embassy in Bangkok and the US Consulate Chiang Mai are sometimes found to either have tuberculosis or to have had it previously. The major issue associated with Consular Processing is timing. Even for those who no longer have TB, it could take a matter of weeks or even months to undergo testing necessary to prove that the disease has been treated to such a degree that contagion is no longer an issue.

Meanwhile, there are likely to be rule changes regarding X-rays as well. For example, in the past it was possible to have the required chest X-ray waived for pregnant women. It has come to this blogger’s attention that such waivers are unlikely to continue to be granted. Therefore, those pregnant spouses and fiancees of American Citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents seeking visas such as the K-1 visa, the K-3 visa, the CR-1 visa, or the IR-1 visa are likely to be required to either undergo an X-ray while using a lead screen to shield the fetus or await the birth of the child and then see that the mother undergoes an X-ray post-pregnancy. As to children, it would appear as though child seekers of visas such as the K-2 visa, K-4 visa, or the IR-2 visa may be required to have skin tests to check for illnesses. It may also prove necessary for children to be X-rayed in connection with diseases such as tuberculosis.

Notwithstanding upcoming changes some recent changes to the rules regarding disease and admission to the United States have resulted in more lax requirements for visa applicants. For example, only relatively recently have visa applicants seen the restrictions imposed on those with HIV lifted. Bearing this in mind, the reader should note that the removal of the imposition of inadmissibility upon HIV infected immigrants does not mean that it is necessarily easy to gain admission to the United States for those with HIV as such visa applications are generally subjected to intense scrutiny to ascertain whether the intending immigrant has adequate medical coverage for the duration of their lawful status in the United States. In the past, those infected with HIV needed an I-601 waiver in order to overcome the legal grounds of inadmissibility. As HIV infection is no longer a legal grounds of inadmissibility an I-601 waiver is no longer required under such circumstances.

In a recent episode of Bill Maher’s popular television program Mr. Maher noted the fact that the debate on same sex marriage is being stubbornly maintained despite the continued damage it does to honest American Citizens and their families. He also noted the somewhat hypocritical stature of the current position held by the administration and the Congress regarding the issue of same sex marriage. After watching this program this blogger felt as though Maher had failed to take into consideration the endeavors of some steadfast legislators on behalf of the LGBT community and those same sex bi-national couples who continue to hope for legal change either in the form of judicial or legislative action.

A fascinating article on this issue was posted on an interesting website known as the Business Insider.  To quote directly from the Business Insider website BusinessInsider.com:

In his New Rules segment last night, Bill Maher took Obama and the Democratic party to task for not being able to pass gay marriage in America, even though more than a majority of people support it for the first time.

The administration of this web log highly encourages readers to click on the hyperlinks above to read the Business Insider’s take on these issues as the piece written by the author Steven Loeb is quite enlightening and insightful.The issue of same sex marriage is increasingly in the news as developments on the issue seem to be occurring quite quickly at the time of this writing. One of the reasons for this may stem from a sincere hope that the notion of Equal Protection under the Federal law will be extended to all American Citizens regardless of their sexual orientation and/or preference. Concurrently, there are those who also hope that Federal authorities recognize the Several States’ Right to regulate the marriage of those within their jurisdiction. Furthermore, there are others who hope that some of these issues could be resolved by the United States Supreme Court as there are likely legal implications pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. Putting these issues aside, Mr. Maher went on to note, humorously if somewhat crudely, quoting further from the Business Insider:

…that only 53% of people support it, which means that “47% of Americans are assholes.”

“But still, this is remarkable progress considering that it wasn’t that long ago that just saying the words gay marriage made most Americans throw up in their Cornflakes. So, tonight, I’d like to congratulate the leadership of the Democratic party who really stood up for what was right. I’d like to, but I can’t. Because other than Gavin Newsom, Dennis Kucinich and that Governor of New Jersey… no Democrat would touch this issue with a ten inch pole.”

Although this blogger has often noted the exploits of Representative Dennis Kucinich this monologue by Maher should be noted first for the fact that for all of the hyperbole and some might say profanity: the man is right. Same sex marriage is apparently becoming increasingly popular to a broader sector of the population, even though the cause has seen relatively little support at times from so-called “main stream” sections of either political party. Meanwhile, there are strong legal arguments which can be made against the Federal government’s enforcement of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) as it applies in sovereign US States which recognize, legalize, and/or solemnize same sex marriages. That stated, the Constitutionality of DOMA is questionable in terms understandable by broad sectors of the population as DOMA’s continued withholding of Federal recognition of unions  solemnized and legalized by 6 States and the District of Columbia infringes upon sovereign rights long reserved to the States, most notable among these rights is the right to solemnize and/or legalize marriages within the State’s jurisdiction (as well as annulment and/or divorce) as noted in a recent Massachusetts Federal Court decision.

Putting all of this aside, why no mention of Representative Jerrold Nadler? Why no mention of the other legislators who have championed this cause such as Representative Zoe Lofgren or Senator Kirsten Gillibrand? In the case of Representative Nadler, whom this blogger has followed with keen interest as he appears, at least to this blogger, to be the Federal legislator most active on this issue: here is a Democrat from New York who has continued to be an advocate for same sex bi-national couples as well as the entire LGBT community by actively supporting legislation such as the Respect for Marriage Act, the Uniting American Families Act, and; perhaps, Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation which would include relevant language allowing same sex bi-national couples to receive United States immigration benefits to the same degree as their different-sex counterparts. This blogger is not disagreeing with Mr. Maher’s opinion on the issue of some Democrats apparently refusing to support legislation which would modify or repeal DOMA, but in an attempt to see that some credit is given where due it has been repeatedly noted on this blog that Representative Nadler has remained a champion of legislation which would reform what many feel is a flagrant violation of the civil rights of many Americans as well as the States’ right to make policies regarding the legalization and solemnization of marriages.

It should be noted that this blogger is in no way affiliated with Representative Nadler having never personally dealt with his office nor his staff and this mention is in no way an endorsement of anything other than his position on respecting the civil liberties of all Americans to marry whomever they choose and the State institution of marriage.

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Governor of the State of Utah has signed legislation which would recognize gold and silver as legal tender for intrastate transactions. To quote directly from the Constitutional Tender Blog, but initially found by this blogger on the website DGCMagazine.com:

On Friday, March 25th, Gov. Gary Herbert signed HB 317, the “Utah Legal Tender Act,” into law.

The law recognizes gold and silver coins issued by the federal government as legal currency in the state. The coins do not replace the current paper currency, but may be used and accepted voluntarily as an alternative.

The administration of this blog highly recommends that readers click on the hyperlinks above to read this article in its entirety as it can provide very valuable insight into this evolving issue.

This notion of something akin to an “alternative currency system” has been discussed in the context of State legal tender reform in many American States recently, but there are two notable jurisdictions that have taken proactive steps to enact legislation which would allow usage of gold and silver in an intrastate context. One of these states is Utah while the other is Virginia. It is this blogger’s understanding that as of the time of this writing the State of Virginia has yet to enact similar legislation although it remains to be seen whether such legislation will actually see passage.

One interesting aspect of this issue involves the ramifications for financial institutions in the State of Utah. The aforementioned article went on to point out:

The law exempts the sale of gold and silver coins from the state capital gains tax, since you would simply be exchanging one form of legal tender currency for another. It also calls for a committee to study alternative currencies for the State and a means for Utahans to pay their taxes with gold and silver coins.

Gold and silver coins issued by the federal government are already legal tender, of course, and can be used to purchase items and pay debts owed. However, they could only be used at the face value of the coins — which is ridiculously lower than the value of the precious metal content of the coins. If you were to use them at the actual value of the coins, you would face a capital gains tax on the “profit” you gained over the face value.

Clearly, the provisions of this act could have a significant impact upon the economies of the State of Utah, the United States Federal government, and Greater North America. Bearing this in mind the reader is encouraged to consider the possible reverberations of this legislation in a global context as the promulgation, passage, and enactment of this bill, and possible similar future legislation in other American States; could prove to be tremendous for jurisdictions such as Thailand, China, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The overall long term effect of this legislation remains to be seen, but this is definitely something that could have an impact upon the business environment in the United States and elsewhere.

Those interested in receiving an in-depth legal analysis of the issues associated with legal tender reform in Utah are highly encouraged to contact a licensed attorney in Utah. The administration of this blog reminds readers that it is always prudent to ascertain the credentials of anyone claiming to be a licensed lawyer in any jurisdiction.

For related information please see: Integrity Legal.

While surfing the internet recently this blogger came upon a very interesting posting on the ILW website which discussed the issue of naturalization in the United States and how the naturalization process operates when a prospective United States Citizen who may seek naturalization remains outside of the United States while working for an American company with offices abroad.  To quote directly from an article written by Attorney Cyrus D. Mehta on the website ILW.com:

It is not uncommon for a permanent resident to receive a plum posting for an American corporation overseas or for its subsidiary. This is a frequent occurrence these days in a globalized world, and especially when jobs have become more scarce in the US since the economic downturn. While such an assignment may provide a great boost to the permanent resident’s career, he or she may still wish to preserve the ability to naturalize, but the overseas posting presents a challenge since it may be difficult to maintain continuous residence. One of the key requirements for applying for US citizenship under INA § 316(a) is the need to be physically present for half the time in the US during the qualifying period, which may either be five or three years (if one is married to a US citizen) and to have also resided continuously during this period. The challenges of maintaining residence while on an overseas assignment were addressed in a prior blog, Naturalizing In A Flat World, http://cyrusmehta.blogspot.com/2010/07/naturalizing-in-flat-world.html.

Those reading this blog are well advised to click on the hyperlinks above to read the above cited article in its entirety as the article is very insightful.

Those who are unfamiliar with the overall immigration process should note that visas such as the CR-1 visa and the IR-1 visa (utilized by the immigrant spouses of American Citizens) can place the visa holder on something of a “path to Citizenship”. That being stated, the CR-1 visa only provides the visa holder with conditional lawful permanent residence upon entry as such visas are issued to couples who have been married for less than 2 years at the time of admission to the USA. Meanwhile, the IR-1 visa provides unconditional lawful permanent residence upon admission to the USA and is issued to spouses of American Citizens who have been married for 2 years or more. After remaining in permanent resident status in the USA for 3 years, and maintaining the requisite physical presence required under relevant US law, a permanent resident, married to an American, can file for naturalization to United States Citizenship.

This issue also relates to the K-1 visa (a non-immigrant US fiance visa) because those who enter the United States in K-1 status, get married, and apply for adjustment of status may begin accruing time toward eventual naturalization as soon as the adjustment of status petition is approved. Once an adjustment is approved for a K-1 visa holder, then that individual essentially becomes a CR-1 visa holder with Lawful Permanent Residence. Therefore, the K-1 holder, now permanent resident, must still apply for a lift of conditions before being granted unconditional lawful permanent residence which must precede an eventual naturalization application.

As noted in the article cited above, there may be some US permanent residents who can accrue time toward naturalization while not actually physically in the United States if such an endeavor fits within some of the exceptions present within the statutory framework of relevant US Immigration law. American companies with offices abroad may fit the statutory exception scheme for naturalization notwithstanding foreign residence. However, the unique facts in any case require that those truly interested in this issue must either conduct their own thorough research or retain the assistance of an American attorney as this issue can be highly complex.

Many American companies operating out of the Kingdom of Thailand opt to conduct their affairs pursuant to the privileges accorded to Americans and American companies under the US-Thai Treaty of Amity. So-called “Treaty of Amity Companies” may allow for an American individual or company to own virtually 100% of a Thai enterprise conducting business in Thailand. Amity certification allows American businesses to operate with “National Treatment” and thereby circumvent some of the restrictions placed upon foreign business enterprises pursuant to other relevant Thai law. That said, Amity Treaty certification may not, in and of itself, mean that one working for such a company can accrue time toward naturalization while abroad as such issues are likely best analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

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

This blogger has been an avid follower of American politics since childhood and as a birthday present to himself this blogger will be following the 2012 election in an effort to contribute some worthwhile commentary on the unfolding campaign and the possible ramifications for Thailand, ASEAN, and Greater Asia. To quote directly from a recent posting on the New York Times official website nytimes.com:

The 2012 presidential campaign is finally getting underway, in fits and starts.

But the election season really arrives on May 2, when the Republican candidates gather in Simi Valley, Calif., for a televised debate at the library of their collective hero, Ronald Reagan.

Or, maybe they won’t.

The article cited above went on to note the fact that very few prospective Republican challengers have come forward at this point to “throw their hat in the ring” regarding a run for the United States presidency. Apparently, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has taken appropriate legal measures to fully explore the option of campaigning for the presidency, to quote further from the aforementioned article on the New York Times website:

[T]he April 15 fund-raising reports this year are likely to show almost no official campaign fund-raising, with the exception of Newt Gingrich, who announced the formation of an I.R.S. committee that allows him to start collecting money for a potential campaign.

Readers of this blog may recall that Mr. Gingrich recently made some news when questioning President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder regarding the administration’s position on the issue of enforcement of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). However, it would appear that unlike this blogger, Mr. Gingrich takes exception with Mr. Obama’s position on DOMA not because he is in favor of Americans being able to solemnize a same sex marriage, but because he feels that the Administration’s position on this issue is not in compliance with the United States Constitution as the US President is required to enforce American law.

The most interesting thing that this blogger found noticeable in the above cited article (and this blogger highly encourages readers to click on the links above to read this article in its entirety to gain some perspective on what is shaping up to be an important presidential campaign) was the fact that it made no mention of Representative Ron Paul. Although Dr. Paul has yet to announce his candidacy for the Presidency, and he may not do so, he did win the CPAC straw poll two years running. This accomplishment should not be overlooked as it was a similar victory which saw Mr. Reagan get catapulted to the front of the race for the US Presidency some 30 years ago.

On the American left President Obama is, naturally, the likely choice for the Democratic nomination, but even that should not be viewed as a foregone conclusion especially in light of the fact that some within the Democratic Party have called for a primary challenge against Mr. Obama. To quote directly from a posting on February 2, 2011 from the website Politifi.com:

WASHINGTON – Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) said Thursday that President Barack Obama “absolutely” ought to face a Democratic primary challenge from the left in 2012, predicting it would make him “stronger.” “I think primaries can have the opportunity of raising the issues and make the Democratic Candidate a stronger Candidate,” Kucinich told CSPAN’s Washington Journal.

Some commentators took Mr. Kucinich to mean that he was interested in running for the Presidency as a Democrat, but it would appear, at least for now, that this is not the case. However, the mere fact that the notion has been put forth introduces the possibility that Mr. Obama could face a primary challenge from within his own Party. How he would fare in such circumstances remains to be seen, but this blogger would not rule out the notion of a Democratic challenger while bearing in mind that Mr. Obama is a strong campaigner who would be a formidable opponent, especially in a Democratic primary.

For related information please see: Patriot Act Extension.

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that an attorney formerly associated with the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service (USICE, sometimes referred to by the acronym ICE) has received a criminal conviction which involves public corruption. To quote directly from the New York Paralegal Blog:

LOS ANGELES—A senior attorney with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was sentenced this morning to 212 months in federal prison for taking nearly one-half million dollars in bribes from immigrants who were promised immigration benefits that would allow them to remain in the United States.

ICE Assistant Chief Counsel Constantine Peter Kallas, 40, of Alta Loma, received the 17⅔-year sentence from United States District Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr.
In addition to the prison term, Judge Hatter ordered Kallas to pay $296,865 in restitution after fraudulently receiving worker’s compensation benefits.

“Mr. Kallas has received one of the longest sentences ever seen in a public corruption case,” said United States Attorney André Birotte Jr. “Mr. Kallas took in hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes—money he obtained by exploiting his knowledge of the immigration system. The lengthy sentence reflects the seriousness of the crimes, which were a wholesale violation of the public trust.”

Those interested in reading more are highly encouraged to click on the above hyperlinks to learn more.

It is unfortunate any time there is a situation where a public official is engaged in corruption. The case cited above is notable for the fact that the United States government is clearly not treating such cases as anything less than serious. Corruption is a concern for all polities around the world as corruption can undermine the very fabric of the political system in which it occurs. One of the most important aspects of the United States is the high ethical standard by which public servants must adhere. This blogger has personally found that public servants at the Department of Homeland Security, USCIS, and the US Embassy in Bangkok are all helpful and highly ethical, but not all government employees are up to such standards, as evidenced by the quotation above. However, there is a tendency among the public at large to view innocent and upstanding public servants through the same lens as the former attorney noted above. This would be a mistake, most public servants are ethical hard working people who are simply interested in doing the job they were retained to perform. Casting all public servants in the same light as the former ICE agent noted above would fail to take into account the significant contribution of the public servants currently providing valuable services to the American public.

For related information please see: USICE.

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued instructions to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) to dispense with the hold on deportations of same sex spouses of United States Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents which was announced approximately 2 days ago. To quote directly from an article posted on the Advocate.com entitled Official: No Hold On Gay Immigration Cases:

Wednesday morning USCIS press secretary Christopher S. Bentley told The Advocate that the agency had received legal guidance to lift the hold it had issued Monday. The guidance was issued in the form of written communications from the Office of the General Counsel at Department of Homeland Security (USCIS is a component of DHS).

Those interested in reading more about this information are highly encouraged to click on the hyperlinks immediately preceding the quotation to learn more.

Clearly, officials at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) were attempting to provide some relief to those in the LGBT community in the USA with their same sex bi-national partners who are stuck in the currently limbo-like immigration system, as it pertains to same sex marriages. The question this blogger has is: why all of this bureaucratic runaround? There is a clear venue for resolving this issue: the United States Supreme Court, but it would seem as though the administration would like solve this issue through internal bureaucratic rule making and unilateral executive actions, but this is not the way law is made and this is not the legal way of effecting change in situations such as the one currently facing the LGBT community. Even a Supreme Court decision on this issue is unlikely to be straightforward as there are many aspects of the Full Faith and Credit Clause which come up in the context of interstate recognition of same sex marriage. However, the decision of the Supreme Court, in this blogger’s opinion, on the issue of FEDERAL recognition of same sex marriages legalized and solemnized in the sovereign States is likely to produce an outcome whereby an avenue would be created to allow same sex bi-national couples to receive immigration benefits of the same quality as those granted to different sex bi-national couples.

The announcement from USCIS on Monday about placing a “hold” on deportations of same sex partners of US Citizens and Permanent Residents came as a relief to many in the United States who may only be subject to deportation due to the onerous (and possibly UnConstitutional) provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) since some same sex bi-national couples have legalized and solemnized a valid same sex marriage in one of the 6 States (along with the District of Columbia) that allows same sex marriage. The only thing precluding Federal recognition of same sex marriages performed within the jurisdiction of the sovereign States which recognize such unions is the questionably Constitutional so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) which was promulgated and enacted under the Presidency of William Jefferson Clinton.

In a recent memorandum from the Attorney General (Eric Holder) to the Speaker of the House of Representatives it was noted that the President’s administration has taken the position that same sex married couples ought to be granted the benefit of so-called “strict scrutiny” review from the Supreme Court and that the administration would discontinue in prosecuting DOMA cases against LGBT couples. This blogger has noted that such a position may not be beneficial to the overall cause of equal immigration rights as failure to get a “case or controversy” before the United States Supreme Court could lead to a situation in which this complex legal issue is not adjudicated by the Highest Court in the USA and therefore remains in the “limbo” in which this issue currently continues to languish. The Department of Homeland Security’s announcement further shows that until the provisions of DOMA, which preclude Federal recognition of same sex marriage, are overturned the position of the married LGBT community (at least in the eyes of the law and the immigration authorities) will remain precarious.

One point in the above cited article was of particular interest to this blogger. The following passage was quoted from the aforementioned article:

Bentley declined to release any of the written documents at this time, saying it was privileged communication. He emphasized that the official policy itself within DHS had never changed.

What PRIVILEGE!!!! So now the United States government, in the form of the Department of Homeland Security, invokes privilege (a legal principle generally reserved for individual natural persons when dealing with the US government) to keep their own policy memorandum regarding this issue secret? Why the secrecy? Why all of the pomp and circumstance about how important the administration’s memo was to the LGBT community when in reality it would appear to have done nothing substantive for the cause of LGBT equal rights and might have even placed the LGBT community in a less favorable position compared to their position prior to the administration’s memo to the Speaker of the House? So the Department of Homeland Security is claiming privilege when communicating with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), an American agency under DHS jurisdiction. Does anyone find it strange that the United States government now claims that civilian inter-agency memos regarding official policy which pertains to Americans and their families are privileged? It was this blogger’s belief that the United States governmental authorities are servants of the people and therefore required to provide transparency in their policy making endeavors especially when such policy making can impact a wide spectrum of the United States Citizenry and their families.

Clearly, the struggle to secure equal immigration rights for the LGBT community has yet to be won, but for those interested in this issue it is clear that there may be a long campaign to see equal treatment of same sex bi-national couples under the law of the United States of America. This blogger and this blog will continue to monitor this important and interesting issue.

Another method to gain equal immigration rights for same sex bi-national couples is through passage of legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) which would grant same sex bi-national couples the benefit of applying for an immigrant visa for a “permanent partner” thereby circumventing the immigration restrictions imposed by DOMA. Federal legislators such as Representative Jerrold Nadler have introduced such legislation repeatedly in an effort to provide some kind of relief to those same sex bi-national couples who continue to be denied equal access to family immigration benefits. As of the time of this writing, Mr. Nadler has gone so far as to openly call for a repeal of DOMA and the promulgation of the Respect for Marriage Act a piece of legislation which would restore Federal recognition of State licensed marriage and restore, at least in part, the rights of same sex married couples who merely seek equal protection under the law.

For related information please see: same sex immigration.

ช่วงนี้มีเรื่องราวที่น่าสนใจที่ปรากฏขึ้นคือ กระทรวงความมั่นคงแหห่งมาตุภูมิของหน่วยบริการการเข้าเมืองและพลเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกา (USCIS) ได้ยกเลิกการยับยั้งถ้ามีกระบวนการพิจารณาของคู่เพศเดียวกันของพลเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกาหรือผู้มีถิ่นฐานถาวรในสหรัฐอเมริกา อ้างโดยตรงจากเว็บไซต์ dailynews-update.net:

หน่วยบริการคนเข้าเมืองและพลเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกายืนยันเมื่อวันจันทร์ว่า เป็นสิ่งที่เกิดขึ้นเพียงชั่วคราวในการที่จะชะลอการเนรเทศคู่ของเพศเดียวกันหากมีผลกระทบต่อการตัดสินใจโดยกระทรวงยุติธรรมที่อาจจะปกป้องพพระราชบัญญติคุ้มครองการแต่งงานได้ไม่นาน

คริส เบนลีย์ เลขาธิการสื่อมวลชนของ USCISกล่าวว่า “USCIS มีประเด็นที่จะแนะนำในเรื่องของกรณีที่เกี่ยวข้องในการระงับไว้อย่างชั่วคราวในขณะที่คำแนะนำในขั้นสุดท้ายรอเพื่อที่จะยืนยันในประเด็นที่เกี่ยวกับกฎหมายอื่นๆ”

ผู้เขียนแนะนำว่า ผู้อ่านควรจะศึกษาข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมจากลิงค์ข้างบนเพื่อดูข้อมูลทั้งหมด

มีประเด็นทางกฎหมายหลายๆแง่มุมที่เกิดขึ้นกับประเด็นเรื่องการแต่งงานของเพศเดียวกันและการรับรองของรัฐบาล ผู้ที่ติดตามอ่านบทความอาจจะสังเกตเห็นว่า ผู้เขียนใช้เวลาในการวิจารณ์และติดตามประเด็นต่างๆที่มีการโจมตีสิทธิพลเมืองของอเมริกันและผู้ที่มีถิ่นฐานถาวรและรวมถึงการโจมตีการรับรองของสิทธิพิเศษในการแต่งงาน

การโจมตีสิทธิที่เท่าเทียมกันของการแต่งงานสำหรับกลุ่มเพศที่สาม (LGBT) มีผู้ร่างกฎหมายจำนวนมากสนับสนุนเหตุผลของคู่เพศเดียวกันสองสัญชาติ โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่ง ผู้แทนเจอรัลด์ นาเดลล์ได้แนะนำอีกครั้งเกี่ยวกับร่างพระราชบัญญัติการรวมครอบครัวอเมริกัน (UAFA)ด้วยความพยายามที่จะนำไปสู่การรักษาสิทธิประโยชน์การเข้าเมืองสำหรับคู่เพศเดียวกันสองสัญชาติในแบบเดียวกับทั่ปฏิบัติต่อคู่ต่างเพศ ในขณะเดียวกัน ตามที่กล่าวมาแล้วข้างต้น กลุ่มที่เกี่ยวข้องกับสิทธิที่เท่าเทียมกันของการเข้าเมือง และบทความที่เกี่ยวกับกองทุนความเท่าเทียมกันของการเข้าเมืองได้ประกาศสถานะที่เกี่ยวกับการที่ DHS ออกกรีนการ์ดของคู่เพศเดียวกันที่เป็นต่างชาติและผผู้มีถิ่นฐานถาวรในสหรัฐอเมริกา  การประกาศเช่นนี้มีความสำคัญเพราะเป็นการชี้แจงถึงการขยายระบบเกี่ยวการเมืองละการเข้าเมืองที่เกี่ยวกับความพยายามที่จะจัดการกับประเด็นดังกล่าว เป็นที่เจนว่าการเคลื่อนไหวที่เรียกร้องสิทธิที่เท่าเทียมกันของกลุ่มเพศที่สาม(LGBT)มีพื้นฐานมาจากการศึกษาในประเด็นชีวิตจริงในระบบคนเข้าเมือง

สิ่งที่จะต้องตระหนักถึงในบทความนี้คือ อัยการของรัฐอีริค โฮลเดอร์ได้ส่งข้อความถึงสภาผู้แทนอ้างโดยอ้างว่า ฝ่ายบริหารอาจจะไม่รู้สึกว่า คดีเกี่ยวกับ“พระราชบัญญัติคุ้มครองการแต่งงาน” (DOMA)เป็นเรื่องที่เกี่ยวข้องกับรัฐธรรมนูญ มีผู้ที่ถกเถียงในประเด็นที่ขัดแย้งกับหน้าที่ของฝ่ายบริหารตามกฎหมายสหรัฐอเมริกา สมาชิกสภาคองเกรสบางคน รวมทั้งฝ่ายประธานาธิบดีหวังว่า นิวท์ จิงริชจะออกเสียงในการกล่าวหาถึงประเด็นนี้ ในขณะที่เขียนบทความนี้ เหตุการณ์นี้ยังไม่ได้เกิดขึ้น

ผู้เขียนไม่เห็นด้วยกับคำตัดสินฝ่ายบริหารของสหรัฐอเมริกาที่ไม่ได้ติดตามกรณี DOMA เพราะการทำเช่นนั้นเป็นการขัดขวางอำนาจศาลสูงสุดเนื่องจากเป็นการขาดองค์ประกอบของ “คดีหรือความขัดแย้ง” ผู้เขียนขอแย้งว่า ศาลสูงสุดสหรัฐเป็นผู้มีอำนาจดีที่สุดในประเด็นนี้ในการยืนยันการรับรองการแต่งงานของคู่เพศเดียวกันตามบทบัญญัติที่อยู่ในความศรัทธาและความเชื่อในรัฐธรรมนูญสหรัฐอเมริกา

ประเด็นทั้งหมดของการแต่งงานและการรับรองของรัฐบาลอเมริกาจะยังคงอยู่ในระหว่างการตัดสิน แต่สำหรับผู้ที่ต่อสู้เพื่อสิทธิที่เท่าเทียมของกลุ่มเพศที่สาม (LGBT) คำตัดสินของ USCIS นี้เป็นเรื่องที่ดี

To view this information in English please see: same sex marriage.

This blog routinely posts about issues related to Thailand visas and Thai Permanent Residence in an effort to provide some information on these issues to the general public. It would appear that there is some consternation among foreign nationals in Thailand who are awaiting the adjudication of Thai permanent residence applications at the Ministry of Interior.  To quote directly from a recent opinion piece on the website PhuketGazette.net:

PHUKET: It’s time for the Ministry of Interior (MoI) to set up a special task force to begin fast-tracking the processing of the huge backlog of permanent residency (PR) applications it is now sitting on in silence.

Such a move would have multiple benefits for all parties involved, including, especially, foreign investors (potential and extant) and Thailand’s all-important tourism industry.

For reasons that have apprently never been divulged by the MoI, the stacks of stale PR applications, submitted in good faith and at great expense by law-abiding, long resident “visitors” to Thailand, continue to gather dust at the ministry.[sic]

Those reading this blog are highly encouraged to click upon the hyperlinks above to learn more about this issue.

Clearly, this is a significant issue for foreign nationals in Thailand, especially those who have been in Thailand for a long enough duration so as to be eligible to apply for Thailand Permanent Resident status. Those holding permanent resident status in Thailand are permitted to be placed upon a Tabien Baan (also referred to as a house registration booklet). This should not be confused with a Yellow Tabien Baan or Foreign Tabien Baan which allows foreign nationals, without Permanent Residence status, to obtain a house booklet under certain circumstances.

Unlike the United States Permanent Resident process, the Thai PR process can be quite long and cumbersome. Many have noted that there currently exists a substantial backlog of Thailand Permanent Resident status applications as there have yet to be any new Permanent Residence booklets issued for many years.

Those wishing to obtain Thailand Permanent Residence should note that this status is highly coveted amongst foreign nationals while simultaneously being difficult to obtain. Those seeking permanent residence in Thailand are only eligible after remaining in Thailand on Thai visa extensions for a period not less than 3 years. Also, most permanent residence applicants must also have maintained a Thai work permit for a significant period of time at a salary level which comports with relevant Thai Ministry regulations.

There is a common misconception about Thailand regarding the country’s immigration procedures. Many from so-called “Western” countries do not understand that Thais take immigration issues quite seriously and make rules and regulations which could be described as stringent. This is especially true in matters pertaining to Thai permanent residence as Thai PR applications are capped by a nationality quota and subjected to intense scrutiny by the Royal Thai Immigration Police and the Thai Ministry of Interior. Therefore, those thinking of applying for Thai permanent residence are well advised to conduct research into the issue and, in some cases, retain qualified counsel to assist in such an undertaking.

For related information please see: Thai Visa.