Letters to the Editor
-
Color me unsurprised.
"While a spouse in a heterosexual union can sponser his or her foreign-born partner, the same does not hold true for lesbian and gay couples, even if the couples have had a marriage ceremony or are in a civil union, and even if they have children."
Considering that we can't marry here and many states have made express laws to ignore any legal arrangements we've made, I can't say that I'm especially shocked.
If foreign marriages/partnerships _were_ recognized here, then either I or my partner would be emigrating post-haste.
-
HRW report
Cheers to Broadsheet for highlighting this under-reported issue!
Readers who click through to the enews piece will find a link to Human Rights Watch's report, Family Unvalued, on same-sex immigration reform: http://hrw.org/reports/2006/us0506/
Additionally, the Alternatives to Marriage Project - on whose board I serve - is interested in seeing immigration reform that would not require civil marriage. A marriage ceremony in itself does not authenticate a relationship in the eyes of immigration authorities. Couples are required to submit evidence and undergo questioning about their lives together in order to emigrate. As such, the requirement of civil marriage could be dropped altogether. AtMP believes that families come in all shapes and sizes and that the state does not have a place in saying there is only one kind of valid relationship, recognized through marriage. You can learn more about AtMP at www.unmarried.org.
- Jen Gaboury
-
re: AtMP believes that families come in all shapes and sizes and that the state does not have a place in saying there is only one kind of valid relationship, recognized through marriage.
Unless, of course, someone is trying to gain access to a green card based on that relationship - then the state has every reason to dictate the terms...
-
The state's cookie cutter
To Jeffrey:
Yes, the state has the authority to dictate the terms of immigration. But why does that make (heterosexual) civil marriage the only kind of intimate relationship it will recognize? - Jen Gaboury
-
Regardless of who they would marry, gay Americans are denied all immigration sponsorship privileges
Immigration is one area where Gay American Taxpayers face a particularly egregious violation of our constitutional equal protection guarantees. Consider this: I cannot sponsor a partner of the same sex, because it is not permitted under the current law. But neither can I sponsor a partner of the opposite sex (through marriage), because the policy requires that we prove we've consummated our marriage sexually, and any evidence of my homosexuality would be used as evidence against my claims in that regard. Simply put, a gay or lesbian American cannot, without committing fraud, avail themselves of the right to sponsor any foreigner -- of either sex -- for legal immigration into this country.
And it is outrageous that the specter of increased immigration fraud is being used to justify refusing changes to the laws in this area. What percentage of the already existing amount of immigration fraud is caused by gay and lesbian foreign nationals entering into "sham marriages" with willing (or paid) American beards merely as a way of getting around the injustices described above? If anything, legalizing the immigration of same-sex partners would cause an immediate decrease in the number of fraudulent applications for immigration through marriage.
-
hypocricy
Immigration "reform" actually means getting cheap labor into the country and getting more Hispanics into the country so that Democrats can win elections and Hispanic politicos can have a bigger voting base. It does not really mean reform in a way that would help working people or poor peolple, or stabilize the population to ward off environmental degradation.