
Integrity Legal
- Legal Blog
- Integrity Legal Home
- Thai Visa
- Company in Thailand
- Real Estate Thailand
- US Visa
- Contact Us
Posts Tagged ‘uafa’
21st December 2010
DREAM Act Derailed While UAFA Seems To Languish
Posted by : admin
This blog was not very adept at staying on top of the issues surrounding the so-called DREAM Act which would have made a great deal of progress in dealing with issues pertaining to the children of undocumented immigrants wishing to regularize their status in the United States. Recently, it was reported the the DREAM Act legislation was effectively derailed through use of cloture in the United States Senate. The American Immigration Lawyers Association has been working diligently to try to assist in this bill’s passage, but to no avail. To quote directly from the website of AILA:
WASHINGTON, DC – The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) is disappointed that, after successful passage in the House, the Senate failed to advance the bipartisan DREAM Act this morning. The legislation did not garner enough votes to overcome a procedural hurdle, even though with 55 votes it had the support of a majority of the chamber’s lawmakers.
“It was with a heavy heart that I watched the DREAM Act deferred to yet another Congress. After the historic House victory and the tremendous outpouring of grassroots support for this legislation that would help deserving young people, today’s failed cloture vote is a wrong-headed dénouement,” said AILA President David Leopold who watched the legislative proceedings from Capitol Hill.
“It was sad to see some U.S. Senators putting politics before principles to vote no on cloture, thereby attaching their names to the wrong side of history. The DREAM Act did not pass today, but inevitably it will be law.”
The DREAM Act’s failure is disappointing for many, but there are those who still believe that the most pressing issue in the realm of United States Immigration is that of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). Passage of this legislation would alleviate the current restrictions placed upon same sex or LGBT bi-national couples who wish to be reunited in the USA. Under the provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) same sex couples, even those lawfully married in a jurisdiction within the United States of America, cannot obtain the same family based visa benefits compared to their different sex counterparts. There are many who seem to feel somewhat frustrated by the fact that other legislation such as the DREAM Act has gained traction on Capitol Hill while legislation such as UAFA, or legislation which includes UAFA-like language, has not garnered such substantial support. To quote from a posting posted prior to the DREAM Act’s Senate vote by Melanie Nathan on the Lezgetreal.com blog:
The US has yet to enact laws that will prevent gay and lesbian couples from having to exile to stay with foreign partners or from partners facing deportation. The discrimination in the USA is based on the fact that same-sex partners are specifically excluded from Federal rights – such as the right to sponsor a spouse for a green card, because of the Defense of Marriage Act. (DOMA)
There are some who would argue that DOMA violates the notions of state sovereignty and individual civil liberties enshrined in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights by depriving US Immigration benefits to LGBT couples while granting them to different sex couples. Bearing this in mind, it ought to be noted that the States’ Rights arguments in favor of overturning DOMA became much more potent after some American States began recognizing and solemnizing same sex unions. There are some who feel that the final decision in this matter may ultimately be made by the US Supreme Court as cases are currently proceeding through the US judicial system which could overturn DOMA. It still remains to be seen whether DOMA will remain in force, be circumvented through use of UAFA, or be overturned by the US Courts. In any case, there are many who hope that some sort of solution arrives soon as many bi-national families remain separated as a result of DOMA’s continued enforcement.
For related information please see: LGBT Visa.
5th November 2010
As the recent mid-term elections dealt something of a blow to the Democrats in the United States Senate and a significant setback for said party in the United States House of Representatives many are pondering the future of legislation such as UAFA (Uniting American Families Act). Those unfamiliar with LGBT Immigration issues should note that under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), same-sex bi-national couples are not permitted equal access to US family visa benefits even in cases where the same sex couple has legally solemnized a marriage within a jurisdiction of the USA. Due to the fact that bi-national LGBT couples still cannot receive equal immigration rights compared to their different-sex counterparts many couples are left separated from their loved one(s), sometimes by great distances. Other websites are noticeably vocal about their opinions regarding the future of UAFA, the past strategies utilized by LGBT Immigration Rights activists, and the future tactics that may be employed in the quest to see bi-national same-sex couples receive the same immigration benefits as different-sex couples. To quote directly from the website lezgetreal.com:
The Uniting American Families Act was introduced into Congress during January of 2009, by Rep. Jerold Nadler, D, NY. Since that time there have been more co-sponsors than any other LGBT equality legislation on record. Yet instead of pursuing UAFA as a stand alone Bill – with the fervor and impetus provided by the June 03, 2009 hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Rachel Tiven, of Immigration Equality turned its limited resources to Immigration Reform and has spent the past 18 months chasing Comprehensive Immigration Reform for the longest time when it did not even exist. Now we have been included in the Menendez Senate version – but so what? Who in heavens name imagines Immigration Reform with Amnesty in it passing through the new Congress? And it is way to complicated and far behind to get through during the lame duck. I assure you of that!
The aforementioned website is often quite vocal in its support for LGBT Immigration rights. It would seem that some feel as though UAFA should not necessarily be pursued within the context of a broader Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill. This is likely due to the fact that Immigration reform remains a very controversial issue and some LGBT-rights advocates feel that pursuing a unilateral strategy of seeking equal equal rights for same-sex bi-national couples outside of Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) would be more effective than trying to pass CIR with UAFA-like language included since CIR may not pass at all. Bearing this in mind the reader should note that the website ImmigrationEquality.org made a clarification regarding their overall strategy for securing equal rights for same sex bi-national couples:
Our philosophy has always been the same. We will pursue every available option for ending discrimination against our families. When we opened our Washington, D.C., office last year, we were clear: When it comes to passing UAFA, we mean business. Since then, our policy team has been working around the clock on a strategy that builds support for UAFA either as a stand-alone bill, or as part of comprehensive immigration reform. If Congress tackles comprehensive legislation – and it offers the first opportunity to win – we want to be part of that bill. And if the political reality becomes one that presents an opportunity to pass UAFA on its own, we want to be prepared to seize that opportunity as well.
It will be interesting to see what will happen to UAFA in the upcoming “lame duck” legislative session. There are some who would argue that a “lame duck” Democratic Congressional session is the perfect environment for pursuing UAFA as a stand alone piece of legislation since there are presumably still many supporters of such a policy on Capitol Hill who may have little to lose politically by supporting such legislation. As the future of UAFA has yet to be determined, but the plight of many same-sex bi-national couples remains untenable under the current circumstances.
It should also be noted that the US Congress is not the only forum in which this issue may ultimately be decided as the US Courts, and possibly the United States Supreme Court may be the body that ends up adjudicating this issue since the lower Courts’ hearing of cases challenging the Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
For related information please see: Same Sex Visa or K1 visa.
13th October 2010
ประเด็นเรื่องการปฏิรูปการเข้าเมือง (CIR) เป็นเรื่องที่ได้รับการกล่าวถึงในบล็อกนี้อยู่หลายครั้งซึ่งเป็นประเด็นที่สำคัญของช่วงการร่างกฎหมายที่กำลังจะมาถึงนี้ บางคนได้รับผลกระทบจากการอนุมัติเป็นกฎหมายตามระบบของการเข้าเมืองอเมริกัน สิ่งที่พึงระลึกถึงคือ ผู้เขียนพบคำถามและคำตอบที่น่าสนใจระหว่างสมาชิกของสื่อมวลชนอเมริกันและประธานาธิบดี บารัค โอบามา สิ่งที่อ้างถึงข้างล่างนี้คัดลอกมาจากบันทึกการถามตอบ (Q&A) ซึ่งโพสต์ในเว็บไซต์สมาคมทนายความคนเข้าเมืองอเมริกัน
อ้างตามบันทึกดังนี้ :
ก่อนที่ผมจะเป็นผู้สมัครประธานาธิบดี แต่อยู่ในขณะที่ผมเป็นวุฒิสมาชิกและเมื่อสมัครเพื่อรับตำแหน่งเป็นวุฒิสมาชิก ผมมักกล่าวอยู่เสมอว่า พวกเราต้องก้าวไปสู่การปฏิรูปการเข้าเมือง
บิล ริชาร์ดสันและผมได้พูดคุยกันหลายครั้งเกี่ยวกับเรื่องนี้ นี่คือชาติของผู้อพยพซึ่งถูกสร้างโดยผู้อพยพ ผู้อพยพจากทั่วทุกมุมโลกนั้นนำความสามารถ การขับเคลื่อน พลังมาสู่ดินแดนแห่งโอกาสนี้ และเรายังเป็นชาติที่มีกฎระเบียบที่จะทำให้ระบบเข้าเมืองนั้นเป็นไปตามขั้นตอนและเป็นไปอย่างถูกต้องยุติธรรม และผมคิดว่า ชาวอเมริกันตระหนักถึงเรื่องนี้ที่จะทำให้ระบบการเข้าเมืองและการรักษาความมั่นคงในดินแดนที่มีคนเข้ามาและออกไปตามความปรารถนา รวมความไปถึงคนพื้นเมืองที่รอคอยอยู่ในเม็กซิโก หรือไนโรบี เคนยา หรือวอร์ซอว์ โปแลนด์ ถ้าคนเหล่านั้นกรอกแบบฟอร์มและทำทุกอย่างเป็นไปตามกฎหมาย ใช้เวลา ห้าปี หกปี หรือ สิบปีก่อนที่พวกเขาจะเข้ามาที่นี้และทำให้เป็นไปตามกฎหมาย มันเป็นการไม่ยุติธรรมที่คนพื้นเมืองจะเข้ามาและเพิกเฉยต่อกฎระเบียบบ้านเมือง
ผมคิดว่า เป็นสิ่งที่สำคัญสำหรับพวกเราที่จะเป็นประเทศชาติที่รักษากฎระเบียบและยึดมั่นในประเพณีคนเข้าเมืองของพวกเรา ปกป้องเขตแดนของเรากันเถอะ มาทำให้ระบบคนเข้าเมืองที่ถูกกฎหมายนั้นมีความเป็นธรรมและมีประสิทธิภาพมากขึ้น หากเวลาที่ใช้ในการรอคอยนั้นลดลง คนส่วนมากมีแนวโน้มที่จะเข้ามาในเส้นทางที่ถูกกฎหมายมากกว่าเส้นทางที่ผิดกฎหมาย มาทำให้แน่ใจกันเถอะว่า พวกเราได้จัดการกับนายจ้างที่เอาผลประโยชน์จากแรงงานที่ไม่มีเอกสารในการไม่จ่ายค่าล่วงเวลา หรือไม่จ่ายค่าแรงขั้นต่ำหรือไม่ให้ลูกจ้างพักเข้าห้องน้ำ มาทำให้แน่ใจว่า เราได้จัดการให้นายจ้างปฏิบัติอย่างเป็นธรรม มาเตรียมวิธีการที่จะทำให้พลเมืองที่อยู่ที่นี่มีความเข้าใจที่ว่า หากพวกเขาละเมิดกฎหมาย เขาต้องจ่ายค่าปรับและจ่ายภาษีย้อนหลัง ผมคิดว่า การเรียนรู้ภาษาอังกฤษจะช่วยทำให้ไม่มีประวัติคดีอาญา แม้จะมีช่องทางที่ช่วยหลีกเลี่ยง แต่การที่จะไปสู่วิธีการตามกฎหมายนั้นเป็นสิ่งที่ถูกต้องที่ควรกระทำ
เป็นที่น่าเสียดาย ปัจจุบันมีการปลุกปั่น คนพื้นเมืองจำนวนมากคิดว่าเป็นวิธีที่ง่ายที่จะทำคะแนนทางการเมืองโดยพยายามที่จะเป็นพวกเขาและพวกเรา แทนที่จะเป็นแค่พวกเรา และผมมีประเด็นทางการเมืองที่น่าสงสัยว่า เป็นการแบ่งแยกแทนที่จะรวมกลุ่มกัน ผมคิดว่า เป็นเวลาที่จะร่วมมือกัน และผมคิดว่า ผู้อพยพเป็นทรัพยากรที่สำคัญทางเศรษฐกิจในการที่จะสร้างความเข้มแข็งแก่ประเทศ เป็นประโยชน์อย่างยิ่งที่พวกเรามีประชากรที่เยาว์วัยกว่ายุโรป หรือญี่ปุ่น เพราะพวกเราต้อนรับผู้อพยพ และนั่นหมายถึงเศรษฐกิจมีความสำคัญมากขึ้นและเรามีคนมากขึ้นในการที่จะทำงานและเริ่มต้นทำธุรกิจและสนับสนุนพวกเราในเวลาที่พวกเราปลดเกษียณ และทำให้ระบบประกันสังคมมีเงินที่เพียงพอ ทั้งหมดที่กล่าวมานี้เป็นสิ่งที่สำคัญ
นี่เป็นเรื่องที่สำคัญ ตามความเป็นจริงแล้ว ปัญหาที่เกิดขึ้นอยู่ในปัจจุบัน และผมก็ไม่ต้องการเป็นเหมือนเกาะติดเบสบอลโดยวอชิงตัน แต่โดยหลักแล้วกฎของวุฒิสภาสหรัฐนั้นมีการเปลี่ยนแปลงอยู่เสมอ ถ้าไม่มีเสียงสนับสนุน 60 เสียง กฎหมายนั้นก็จะไม่ผ่านวุฒิสภาสหรัฐ หลายปีที่ผ่านมาวุฒิสมาชิกของรีพลับบลิกัน 11 คนที่จะลงคะแนนให้กับการปฏิรูปการเข้าเมือง รวมทั้งจอห์น แมคเคลน พวกเขากลับความเห็นของพวกเขา และในวุฒิสภาไม่ได้รับคะแนนเสียงจากเดโมแครต 60 เสียง
และพวกเรากำลังจะต้องอยู่บนพื้นฐานของสองขั้วพรรคการเมือง และความหวังของผมคือ รีพลับบลิกันผู้ที่บอกปฏิเสธ ผมคิดว่า การใช้วาทศิลป์ท่ามกลางสถานการณ์ ในการที่จะให้พวกเขากลับมาและพูดว่า ทำงานด้วยกันเพื่อจะแก้ปัญหาแทนที่พยายามจะทำคะแนนทางการเมือง โอเค?
สิ่งที่ต้องตระหนักถึงในการยื่นคำขอวีซ่านอกสหรัฐอเมริกา ซึ่งดูเหมือนจะเป็นการไม่เสมอภาคที่จะมีการนิรโทษกรรมแก่ชาวต่างชาติที่ไม่มีเอกสารในสหรัฐอเมริกา มุมมองของผู้อพยพนั้นอาจจะมองว่าไม่เป็นธรรมที่จะอนุญาตให้ผู้ที่ละเมิดกฎมีสิทธิได้รับสิทธิประโยชน์ในขณะที่รอการดำเนินการวีซ่าจากหลายหน่วยงานและกระทรวงต่างๆซึ่งไม่เกี่ยวกับการปฏิบัติที่เป็นพิเศษ พวกเขาต้องยึดตามกฎหมายคนเข้าเมืองอย่างเคร่งครัด ระบบในปัจจุบันจำเป็นต้องมีการปฏิรูป ประธานาธิบดีได้บอกเป็นนัยๆ ปัญหานี้มีหลายแง่มุมและไม่สามารถแก้ได้อย่างรวดเร็วและง่ายดายซึ่งเป็นสิ่งที่หลายๆคนและองค์กรอื่นๆตระหนักถึงการเปลี่ยนแปลงกฎหมาย กฎระเบียบและนโยบายของคนเข้าเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกา หวังเป็นอย่างยิ่งว่า กรอบการทำงานนี้จะสามารถจัดการกับชาวววต่างชาติที่ไม่มีเอกสาร ในขณะเดียวกันยังคงต้องรักษาความเสมอภาคของผู้ที่เลื่อกที่จะไม่เดินทางเข้ามายังสสหรัฐอเมริกาโดยไม่มีเอกสารที่ถูกต้อง
ในขณะเดียวกัน หลายๆคนหวังว่า กระบวนการตราการปฏิรูปการเข้าเมืองจะสามารถจัดการกับคู่เพศเดียวกันที่เป็นคู่ของคนสองเชื้อชาติให้สามารถใช้สิทธิประโยชน์เรื่องการเข้าเมืองได้อย่างเท่าเทียมกันกับคู่ต่างเพศ ในอดีตการร่างกฎหมาย อย่างเช่น พระราชบัญญัติการรวมกลุ่มของครอบครัวอเมริกัน (UAFA) ซึ่งถูกตราขึ้นเพื่อลดข้อจำกัดของบทบัญญัติในพระราชบัญญัติคุ้มครองการแต่งงาน (DOMA) แต่การตรากฎหมายดังกล่าวนั้นยังต้องผ่านสภาคองเกรสของสหรัฐอเมริกา เมื่อเร็วๆนี้มีการเสนอร่างพระราชบัญญัติในวุฒิสภาสหรัฐเพื่อจะจัดการกับประเด็นเรื่องการปฏิรูปการเข้าเมือง (CIR) และแก้ไขเรื่องการแบ่งแยกความแตกต่างของคู่เพศเดียวกัน(LGBT)โดยDOMA ยังคงเห็นได้ว่า การออกกฎหมายจะสามารถแก้ปัญหาความไม่เสมอภาคโดยการมีกฎหมายที่เหมาะสมกับเรื่องคนเข้าเมือง
To view this post in English please see: CIR.
11th October 2010
The issue of Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) is frequently discussed on this blog as it could be one of the most significant issues of the forthcoming legislative sessions as so many individuals could be impacted by changes to the laws upon which the American Immigration system is based. With that in mind, this author discovered an interesting question and answer session between members of the American press and President Barack Obama. The following is a direct quotation from the transcript of this Q & A session as posted upon the American Immigration Lawyers Association website. To quote the transcript and the President directly:
I have consistently, even before I was a presidential candidate, but when I was a U.S. senator and when I was running for U.S. senator, said that we have to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform.
Bill Richardson and I have had a lot of conversations about this. This is a nation of immigrants. It was built on immigrants — immigrants from every corner of the globe who brought their talent and their drive and their energy to these shores because this was the land of opportunity. Now, we’re also a nation of laws so we’ve got to make sure that our immigration system is orderly and fair. And so I think Americans have a legitimate concern if the way we’ve set up our immigration system and the way we are securing our borders is such where people just kind of come and go as they please, well, that means that folks who are waiting, whether it’s in Mexico City or in Nairobi, Kenya, or in Warsaw, Poland — if they’re waiting there filling out their forms and doing everything legally and properly and it takes them five years or six years or 10 years before they’re finally here and made legal, well, it’s not fair to them if folks can just come and ignore those laws.
So what we — I think is so important to do is for us to both be a nation of laws and affirm our immigrant traditions. And I think we can do that. So what I’ve said is, look, yes, let’s secure our borders; yes, let’s make sure that the legal immigration system is more fair and efficient than it is right now because if the waiting times were lessened then a lot of people would be more prone to go through a legal route than through an illegal route; let’s make sure that we’re cracking down on employers who are taking advantage of undocumented workers to not pay them overtime or not pay them minimum wage or not give them bathroom breaks; let’s make sure that we’re cracking down on employers to treat all workers fairly. And let’s provide a pathway to citizenship for those who are already here, understanding that they broke the law, so they’re going to have to pay a fine and pay back taxes and I think learn English, make sure that they don’t have a criminal record. There are some hoops that they’re going to have to jump through, but giving them a pathway is the right thing to do.
Now, unfortunately, right now this is getting demagogued. A lot of folks think it’s an easy way to score political points is by trying to act as if there’s a “them” and an “us,” instead of just an “us.” And I’m always suspicious of politics that is dividing people instead of bringing them together. I think now is the time for us to come together. And I think that economically, immigrants can actually be a huge source of strength to the country. It’s one of our big advantages is we’ve got a younger population than Europe, for example, or Japan, because we welcome immigrants and they generally don’t. And that means that our economy is more vital and we’ve got more people in the workforce who are going to be out there working and starting businesses and supporting us when we’re retired, and making sure Social Security is solvent. All those things are important.
So this is a priority that I continue to have. Frankly, the problem I’ve had right now is that — and I don’t want to get into sort of inside baseball by Washington. But basically the rules in the United States Senate have evolved so that if you don’t have 60 votes, you can’t get anything through the United States Senate right now. And several years ago, we had 11 Republican senators who were willing to vote for comprehensive immigration reform, including John McCain. They’ve all reversed themselves. I can’t get any of them to cooperate. And I don’t have 60 Democrats in the Senate.
And so we’re going to have to do this on a bipartisan basis. And my hope is, is that the Republicans who have said no and have seen their party I think use some unfortunate rhetoric around this issue, my hope is, is that they come back and say, you know, this is something that we can work on together to solve a problem instead of trying to score political points. Okay?
One major concern voiced by those making visa petitions and applications outside of the United States is that of the seeming inequities posed by the possibility of some sort of an amnesty for undocumented aliens currently in the United States. Many prospective immigrants feel that it is somewhat unjust to allow those who broke immigration rules at the outset to be granted a benefit while those waiting for their visa petition or application to process through various agencies and Departments are not accorded any special treatment while they assiduously obey relevant American Immigration laws. When one ponders this situation it would seem rather obvious that the current system is in need of reform, but as the President’s remarks imply, the problem is multi-faceted and cannot be solved quickly or easily as so many individuals and organizations have considerable interests which could be effected by a change to current US Immigration laws, regulations, and policies. Hopefully, some sort of framework can be devised which will deal with the plight of undocumented aliens while maintaining some sort of equitable position for those who chose not to travel to the USA without proper documentation.
Meanwhile, there are many who hope that any Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation will address the issues associated with same-sex bi-national couples who wish to enjoy immigration benefits equal to those of their different-sex counterparts. In the past, legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) was introduced in an effort to remedy the current restrictions imposed by provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but such legislation has yet to be passed by the American Congress. It was recently announced that a bill proposed in the US Senate would address CIR issues and includes language designed to redress the discrimination imposed upon LGBT couples by DOMA. Although it remains to be seen how this issue will be resolved many are hopeful that Comprehensive Immigration Reform will redress many of the inequities arising from the current state of US law pertaining to immigration.
For related information please see: Comprehensive Immigration Reform or Same Sex Bi-National Visa.
1st October 2010
New American Immigration Reform Bill May be “LGBT-Inclusive”
Posted by : admin
Those who follow this blog frequently may take note of the fact that the administration carefully follows the issues associated with LGBT Immigration rights in the United States of America. In a recent posting by Melanie Nathan on the website LezGetReal.com it was noted that LGBT immigration legislation may be introduced in the US Congress quite soon:
Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey is expected to introduce comprehensive immigration legislation before the Senate adjourns this week for the midterm recess, according to Politico, and a source tells The Advocate that the legislation will be LGBT-inclusive.
In the past, there have been other attempts by Federal legislators to rectify the current legal restrictions placed on LGBT bi-national couples when it comes to the issue of obtaining US Immigration benefits. To continue to quote directly from LezGetReal.com:
There are an estimated 36,000 (minimum the number since the determination in the year 2000 – also not taking account of social media and current increase in internet meeting) Gays and Lesbians who are either American citizens or residents (all referred to as Americans for the purpose of this article,) who are in love and relationship with a foreigner. Gay and lesbians are denied equality under the Federal Immigration laws of this Country, to sponsor same-sex partners or State recognized spouses for immigration (greencards) to the USA.
LGBT couples (and the appellation LGBT includes Bi-sexual and Transgender couples and individuals as well as Lesbian or Gay couples and individuals) are currently barred from receiving the same family based immigration benefits as different-sex couples. This restriction is imposed pursuant to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA prevents same sex couples (even those lawfully married under state law) from receiving recognition of their marriage in the eyes of the Federal government (and the benefits which may arise therefrom, including immigration benefits such as the K3 visa, CR1 visa, or IR1 visa or in cases where a couple intends to enter into a marriage in the USA: a K1 visa). There are those who argue that application of DOMA violates the doctrine of States’ Rights. At the same time, others point to the violation of the civil rights of the American Citizen (or Lawful Permanent Resident) petitioners whose Constitutional rights may be being violated through continued enforcement of DOMA. That said, the issue remains a highly charged political matter, to quote further from the aforementioned website:
So here we are – a Congress that may well go into lame duck, a Congress that failed to repeal DADT, that showed no compassion for the children of the immigrant DREAM ACT – and a UAFA barely in the conscience of leadership, unknown to mainstream America and also barely in the minds of our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers. The question is are we going to be in the Menendez Bill as a pawn, a promise or yet another wedge that will render Immigration Reform impossible in this political climate.
Remember it IS the American who lacks the Equality – and is being discriminated against. ALL Americans in committed relationships, except gays and lesbians, have the right to remain in the USA with the person whom they love.
It is not the immigrant per se, who has the right, as immigration is a privilege afforded a foreigner; it is the American who has the right and it is indeed a Civil Right and a Human Rights issue.
The UAFA noted above is an acronym for the Uniting American Families Act, a bill that has, in different forms, been floating around the US Congress for some time. One of the major proponents of this legislation is Representative Jerrold Nadler who has repeatedly supported and introduced legislation which would give equal immigration rights to LGBT couples. It is interesting that the above cited piece brings up the issue of the American Citizen’s rights with regard to US Immigration matters. Although foreign nationals do not necessarily have the same rights under the US Constitution as Citizens there is no doubt that Americans are protected by the provisions of the Constitution. It is this authors opinion that this situation may very well be ultimately decided by the US Courts rather than the US legislature as there are currently two cases pending in two different circuits which could result in the full or partial repeal of DOMA. With regard to immigration, DOMA compels the US Federal government to restrict US family immigration benefits to different-sex couples. Notwithstanding that jurisdictions such as Massachusetts allow same sex marriage. Therefore, the Federal government may be in violation of the “Full Faith and Credit” Clause of the US Constitution by failing to provide equal immigration benefits to same sex couples married in a jurisdiction in the US where such unions are lawful.
Whether the issue of LGBT immigration rights will ultimately be resolved in the US Courts or the US Congress remains to be seen, but one thing is for sure: the issue has many implications from both a legal and political perspective.
For related information please see: Same Sex Visa.
31st July 2010
Fate of DOMA and LGBT Immigration Rights Still Uncertain
Posted by : admin
In recent postings on this blog this author has discussed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the ongoing US Court proceedings that are aimed at overturning this legislation in order to accord same-sex bi-national couples with privileges equal to their different-sex counterparts. Recently, a Court in Massachusetts found that the provisions of DOMA run contrary to the United States Constitution. As a result, this decision could greatly modify the framework by which Immigration petitions are adjudicated. Apparently, the Court wishes to delay radical modification of US Immigration law and procedure until such time as all issues can be addressed in an appellate proceeding. It would appear that many same-sex bi-national couples are waiting with baited breathe to see the practical implications of the recent Court decision overturning certain aspects of DOMA. However, there is some delay as the Immigration Equality blog explains. To quote directly from the Immigration Equality blog as of July 27, 2010:
Many of you have had questions about the status of the DOMA case. Just like you, we are waiting for the court to issue an order which should be happening any day now. Once the order is issued, there will be an automatic 14 day stay. We are almost certain that during that 14 day period, the government will file an appeal and we are almost certain that the stay will remain in effect during the course of the appeal. But we will keep you updated as soon as we learn of any further developments.
Those reading this post are probably curious about the practical ramifications of the “stay” of this decision. The “stay” means that the current mechanism for adjudicating US Immigration petitions will remain in place, at least for now. Therefore, those Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents with a same sex loved one living abroad will still be unable to petition and apply for same sex family visa benefits pursuant to the provisions of DOMA. Many feel, and this author concurs, that the American appellate courts, including the United States Supreme Court, are likely to find DOMA unconstitutional pursuant to American legal doctrines such as “Full Faith and Credit” and “States’ Rights“. However, as the issue remains unresolved it is unwise for anyone to make any irrevocable decisions regarding US LGBT Immigration until a final judgment is handed down without reservation.
It should be noted that judicial intervention is not the only method available for those wishing to see same sex visa benefits accorded in the same manner for those in a same sex marriage or relationship as those in a different sex marriage or relationship. The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) would provide a statutory framework whereby same sex “permanent partners” could be granted the same Immigration benefits as those in a different-sex marriage or relationship. Although UAFA-like legislation has seen unfailing support from legislators such as Jerry Nadler, many feel that the issue of LGBT Immigration rights will ultimately be adjudicated by the US Courts.
23rd July 2010
This blog routinely posts information regarding LGBT Immigration and announcements regarding the campaign for equal immigration rights for same-sex bi-national couples. In a recent blog posting on the Stonewall Democrats blog, it was announced that members of the United States House of Representatives are continuing to call for equal immigration rights for same-sex as well as different-sex couples. To quote directly from the blog:
Supporters of immigration and LGBT rights are renewing their calls on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation this year that includes protections for bi-national same-sex couples. At a press conference Thursday on Capitol Hill, several U.S. House members emphasized the importance of passing legislation to make the nation’s immigration laws more fair and enable LGBT Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States. The strengthened call for passing comprehensive immigration reform comes as limited time remains in the legislative calendar for this Congress, raising questions about whether lawmakers will be able to address major legislation such as immigration reform this year. Same-sex partners currently have no recourse under any portion of family law in the U.S. immigration code. The policy threatens to keep an estimated 36,000 bi-national same-sex couples from remaining together in the United States. Among those who spoke in favor of passing immigration reform inclusive of this language is Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who sponsors the Uniting American Families Act, a standalone bill that would address the situation for LGBT families. Nadler said passing immigration reform that includes protections for the LGBT community is “absolutely essential.” “In particular, binational LGBT couples must be granted the right to sponsor their permanent partners for immigration, just as other committed and straight married couples can,” he said. Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.), the sponsor of another UAFA-inclusive bill known as the Reuniting Familes Act, also addressed the importance of passing such legislation. Honda said “ending discrimination” against bi-national same-sex couples is “in line with American values and is good for our economy.”
Frequent readers of the blog will recall the the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) is considered to be a key piece of legislation for those Americans seeking immigration benefits for their same sex foreign partner.
It should be noted that many States in the USA have either promulgated legislation legalizing same sex marriage or creating civil unions for same sex partners. However, notwithstanding the fact that same sex marriages may be solemnized and recognized by a State, the Federal government, based upon legislation such as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), refuses to recognize these marriages for purposes of awarding immigration benefits. Therefore, as of the time of this writing, there is no “Same Sex Visa” accorded to LGBT bi-national couples. However, there are currently cases pending in the US Courts which may overturn this practice as many feel that this type of discrimination violates States’ Rights as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. However, the ultimate adjudication of these issues may have to be addressed by the United States Supreme Court if legislation is not promulgated which would grant equal immigration benefits to the same sex partner of a US Citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident.
For further details about US visas for different-sex couples please see: K1 visa.
12th July 2010
This blog frequently discusses issues that are relevant to those who are in same-sex or LGBT relationships seeking United States immigration benefits for their loved ones overseas. In a posting on the blog Immigration Equality the recently handed down decision in a Massachusetts Court case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was discussed. The following is a direct quote from the July 9th posting:
Yesterday a Massachusetts federal district court judge sided with the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders and with the state of Massachusetts and found that it is unconstitutional for the U.S. federal government to refuse to recognize same sex marriages that are validly entered into in the couple’s state. This is a huge victory and we should all take a moment to celebrate! But, this battle is far from over.
Apparently, this ruling will not have a practical impact in the short term as the Court opted to “stay” the decision until the appeal process is exhausted. The report went on to analyze the possible outcome should the United States Judicial Branch ultimately find that DOMA is unconstitutional:
If, eventually, the Supreme Court upholds the ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional, same sex couples that are validly married, would be able to receive federal benefits, including immigration, based on their marriage. Basically, this would mean that binational couples who live in the handful of states that allow same sex marriage could get immigration benefits, and couples who live in states with mini-DOMAs could not.
Many feel that the main issue in this case is that of States’ Rights. Presently, the United States government does not recognize the legality of a same sex marriage even where such a marriage was validly solemnized pursuant to the laws of a sovereign US state. This tension between the Federal and State power is often an issue in matters involving conflicting state and federal regulations. That said, where such conflict has an adverse impact upon individual rights, equal protection under the law, substantive due process, and Federal benefits, then the issue may be ripe for judicial review.
As the Immigration Equality blog accurately noted, this decision does not mark the end of the pursuit for those seeking equal US immigration rights as, at the time of this writing, those seeking a US family visa based upon an LGBT relationship (sometimes referred to as a same sex visa) still cannot obtain visa benefits notwithstanding the recently promulgated decision.
Although a judicially created solution for same sex couples may not be available for a relatively long period of time, the passage of legislation similar to the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) either within the provisions of a Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill or as stand alone legislation could create a new family based visa category for “Permanent Partners” of US Citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents.
For those interested in learning more about US Immigration issues for same sex couples in Thai please see: LGBT immigration.
8th June 2010
Same Sex Visa: DOMA Repeal, UAFA, and Other Legal Issues
Posted by : admin
A frequent topic on this blog is same sex marriage and the intersection of that issue with US Immigration law. Currently, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) effectively prevents Federal recognition of Same Sex Marriages when adjudicating US Immigration petitions. Therefore, different sex couples who are validly married in a jurisdiction in the United States can petition for Immigration benefits if one of the partners is foreign national. This is not the case for same sex couples as same sex partners are currently barred from obtaining US Immigration benefits based upon a bona fide same sex marriage. This issue is being widely discussed in US Immigration circles. An example of this discussion can be found in the most recent edition of The Voice, a publication promulgated by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). The following is an excerpt from a recent article discussing LGBT immigration issues:
“At present, gay and lesbian marriages are recognized in 10 countries. The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, and Sweden recognize marriage equality uniformly throughout their territories.5 Same-sex marriages
also are recognized in some parts of Argentina and Mexico.6 However, DOMA closes the door to same-sex marriage recognition under any federal law, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). So for those couples who have united legally in one of the many countries stated above, DOMA would keep federal immigration laws from legally recognizing those unions upon their immigration to the United States.
Many courts have found that the language of DOMA is clear and unambiguous. But can DOMA be struck down? In addition to suits filed in Massachusetts,8 at least one other high-profile case in California, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, D.Ct.N.D.Cal. case 3:2009cv02292 (filed May 22, 2009), is currently challenging the constitutionality of discrimination against same-sex marriages more generally. If such a case were successful, it might lead courts to strike down DOMA and all anti-gay state marriage amendments, presumably resulting in the clear recognition of all bona fide same sex marriages in the United States.”
Although there are many legal obstacles in the path of equal Immigration rights for same sex couples, there may be a light at the end of the tunnel as a repeal of DOMA would create an opening that could be exploited by advocates for same ex immigration. To quote the aforementioned article:
“In a world without DOMA, U.S. immigration law would clearly recognize the same-sex marriage of a couple residing in a U.S. state that recognizes the marriage. It is also highly likely that the marriages would be recognized for residents of other states with no laws prohibiting same-sex marriage.”
Although repeal of DOMA may not be a perfect legal solution from an Immigration standpoint, a repeal of DOMA in conjunction with the adoption of a statute such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) would likely be an optimal solution to the current legal impasse.
For more information please see: Same Sex Visa.
29th May 2010
For those who read this blog on a regular basis a common theme is that of LGBT immigration rights. US Immigration law, under current regulations including the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), dictates that Same-Sex Bi-National Couples are legally precluded from receiving US Immigration benefits based upon a legally solemnized same sex marriage, civil partnership, or civil union. That said, in recent years, Congressional Representatives such as Jerry Nadler have introduced legislation, often referred to as the Uniting American Families Act or simply UAFA, that would provide a means of applying for Immigration benefits for same-sex “permanent partners.” In previous blog posts, this author has discussed Comprehensive Immigration Reform and how changes in American Immigration law may, or may not, change the current rules in order to allow bi-national same sex partners to apply for family immigration benefits. In a previous blog post, we discussed recently proposed Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation introduced by Illinois Representative Luis Gutierrez and how said draft legislation did not include provisions for same sex immigration benefits. On that note, the following was posted on the WashingtonBlade.com:
An influential pro-immigrant U.S. House member has endorsed including protections for LGBT bi-national couples as part of comprehensive immigration reform legislation. In a statement Thursday, Rep. Luiz Gutierrez (D-Ill.) said inclusion of language allowing LGBT Americans to sponsor foreign partners for residency in the United States is an important part of a broader reform bill. “Our efforts to fix our broken immigration system and protect basic civil rights are not truly comprehensive if we exclude same-sex couples,” he said. Standalone legislation that would enable an estimated 36,000 bi-national same-sex couples to stay together in the United States is known as the Uniting American Families Act. Proponents of the legislation have been seeking inclusion of UAFA as part of upcoming comprehensive immigration reform legislation in Congress. Gutierrez is schueduled to announce officially his support for inclusion of UAFA on Monday at a press conference in Chicago, Ill. Joining him at the conference will be Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and gay Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), who also support inclusion of LGBT couples in immigration reform. Late last year, Gutierrez introduced his own version of comprehensive immigration reform legislation that was seen an alternative to the working bill expected later. However, even though Gutierrez is a co-sponsor of UAFA, the legislation didn’t include UAFA-like language. According to the statement from Gutierrez’ office, the lawmaker’s recent announcement means he’s “recommitting himself” to inclusion of specific UAFA-like language as part of comprehensive reform…
In the previous post in which this proposed Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) legislation was discussed this author found it unfortunate that LGBT Immigration issues were not mentioned in the provisions of the draft legislation. That said, this author is happy to see that the issue of Same-Sex and LGBT Immigration rights is being discussed within the context of CIR. Should it come to pass, Comprehensive Immigration Reform will likely represent one of the most important changes to Federal Immigration law in, at least, the past 25 years. With this in mind, the fact that LGBT Immigration is currently being discussed within the context of CIR at least hints at the possibility that US Immigration law will be modified in order to grant benefits to those couples who, at the time of this writing, cannot be re-united in the United States in the same manner as so-called “different-sex” couples.
For further related information please see: US Visa Thailand, K1 visa, same sex visa or same sex marriage.
The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisement. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience. The information presented on this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.