Bill Proposes Immigration Rights for Gay Couples - NYTimes.comJune 3, 2009
By JULIA PRESTON
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Democrat from Vermont who is the powerful chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is adding another controversial ingredient to the volatile mix of an immigration debate that President Obama has said he hopes to spur in Congress before the end of the year.
Mr. Leahy has offered a bill that would allow American citizens and legal immigrants to seek residency in the United States for their same-sex partners, just as spouses now petition for foreign-born husbands and wives.
The senator has said the bill should be part of any broad immigration legislation that Congress considers. To highlight his initiative, known as the Uniting American Families Act, Mr. Leahy is holding a hearing on Wednesday to discuss it in the full Judiciary Committee, bypassing the usual subcommittee hearings.
Also this week, immigrant advocacy groups and labor organizations are opening a nationwide campaign to hold President Obama to his recent pledge to initiate a Congressional debate on immigration legislation later this year.
Small-scale rallies took place on Monday in Los Angeles and some 40 other locations, and immigration groups are converging on Washington on Wednesday for three days of strategy meetings.
The Obama administration, juggling an array of huge and pressing issues on the economy and health care reform, has encouraged the mobilization of immigration advocates, especially Latino groups, while avoiding any legislative battles for now on the prickly topic of immigration. President Obama has invited a bipartisan group of lawmakers to the White House next Monday to “launch a policy conversation” about immigration, an administration official said.
The president wants to “identify areas of agreement, and areas where we still have work to do,” said the official, who would only speak on background because the final plans for the meeting were not settled.
The most contentious part of the immigration legislation that the administration supports, which is known as comprehensive immigration reform, is a program to give legal status to more than 11 million illegal immigrants living in the country. But current proposals also include a variety of measures intended, like Senator Leahy’s, to expand or streamline the legal immigration system.
Mr. Leahy’s proposal for same-sex immigration benefits was not included in the immigration legislation that the Bush administration brought forward in 2007, which failed after a firestorm of opposition, mainly from Republican voters.
Groups backing the overhaul this year have cobbled together a wide-ranging but fragile coalition that includes Latino and black groups, Roman Catholic and evangelical Christian churches, farm workers and commercial farmers, and some employer groups. In contrast to 2007, organized labor is united this time around in supporting the overhaul.
The political fault lines opened by Senator Leahy’s same-sex bill quickly became apparent this week. In a letter sent Tuesday, Bishop John C. Wester of Salt Lake City, the chairman of the Catholic bishops’ Committee on Migration, wrote that the Uniting American Families Act would “erode the institution of marriage and family,” by taking a position “that is contrary to the very nature of marriage which pre-dates the Church and the State.”
Bishop Wester addressed his letter to Representative Michael M. Honda, a California Democrat who has said he will introduce an immigration bill containing similar same-sex provisions in the House this week.
J. Kevin Appleby, the immigration policy director for the bishops’ conference, said, “The last thing the national immigration debate needs is another politically divisive issue added to the mix.”
But Senator Leahy said the bill would eliminate discrimination in immigration law against gay and lesbian couples.
Under family unification provisions in immigration law, American citizens and legal residents can petition for residency for their spouses. There is no numerical limit on permanent residence visas, known as green cards, for spouses of American citizens, and this is one of the main channels for legal immigration to the United States. Same-sex couples, though, cannot petition for partners, and many face the prospect of an immigrant partner’s deportation.
Senator Leahy’s bill would add the term “permanent partner” to sections of current immigration law that refer to married couples, and would provide a legal definition of those terms.
“I just think it’s a matter of fairness,” he said Tuesday in an interview, noting that a number of American allies, including Canada, France and Germany, recognize same-sex couples in immigration law.
The Judiciary Committee is to hear testimony on Wednesday from Shirley Tan, 43, the mother of twin 12-year-old boys who are United States citizens because they were born here. Ms. Tan has raised them with her partner of 20 years, Jay Mercado, who like Ms. Tan is from the Philippines. Although Ms. Mercado became a naturalized American citizen in 1998, she has not been able to gain legal immigration status for Ms. Tan.
Ms. Tan said she came to this country fleeing a cousin who was released from prison in the Philippines after he served 10 years for the murders of her mother and her sister. Ms. Tan said she had been severely injured in the 1979 attack by the cousin.
She applied for political asylum in the United States, she said, but did not receive notice when it was denied years later. She remained here with a provisional legal status until last Jan. 28, when federal immigration agents carrying a deportation order came to the home she shares with Ms. Mercado, 48, in Pacifica, Calif.
Since her arrest, Ms. Tan has been able to remain legally in the country because of a private bill introduced on her behalf by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California.
Ms. Tan said she feared returning to live in the Philippines, in part because of concern that she and Ms. Mercado would face anti-gay discrimination there.
“People are cruel,” she said. “I don’t know if I can expose my boys to narrow-minded people.”
Opponents of the Leahy bill argue that it would foster immigration fraud because it would be difficult for immigration officers to determine whether same-sex couples had an established relationship.
Supporters said the bill would assist about 36,000 same-sex couples nationwide. Rachel B. Tiven, the executive director of Immigration Equality, a group that advocates for gay rights legislation, said the bill had improved chances this year because of recent same-sex marriage victories in Iowa, Maine and Vermont.
American Civil Liberties Union : Immigration Law Denies Equal Protection For Same-Sex Life PartnersImmigration Law Denies Equal Protection For Same-Sex Life Partners (6/2/2009)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312; media@dcaclu.org
WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing tomorrow on a bill that modifies U.S. immigration law to provide equal protection to same-sex life partners of citizens and permanent legal residents. As part of the hearing, entitled “The United American Families Act: Addressing Inequality in Federal Immigration Law,” the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to lawmakers urging the Committee to pass S. 424, “Uniting American Families Act.”
Currently, same-sex partners of U.S. citizens and permanent residents are denied the same rights as married heterosexual couples. Consequently, gay citizens and permanent residents are barred from activities such as sponsoring their foreign partners for permanent residency. U.S. immigration law lags behind the immigration laws of many other democracies that permit equal sponsorship protections including Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.
The following can be attributed to Joanne Lin, ACLU Legislative Counsel:
“U.S. immigration policies lag behind other democracies in extending fair treatment of gay couples. Right now, 18 other countries provide equal protection to partners of gay and lesbian citizens.
“As a result of discriminatory U.S. immigration laws, American families, including U.S. citizen children, are being torn apart permanently. The Uniting American Families Act will fix this patently discriminatory injustice.”
AlterNet: Same-Sex Marriage Meets the Immigration Debate
By Valeria Fernández, Feet in 2 Worlds
Posted on May 26, 2009, Printed on May 27, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/140255/
PHOENIX, Ariz. — David used to be one of those people who say: “Get out of our country if you don’t belong here.” That was until he fell in love with an undocumented immigrant.
After seven years of living together, David, an American citizen, worries about his same-sex partner’s ability to remain in the country. Guille, 38, came to the U.S. over nine years ago from Colombia, and his tourist visa has expired.
While federal immigration laws allow heterosexual residents to sponsor their spouses to immigrate to the country, gay and lesbian couples are not afforded the same benefit.
“My rights are being denied because Guille is a ‘boy,’” said David, 48, who asked for both of their last names to be withheld because of his partner’s immigration status.
A bill introduced in Congress last February might open up new options for couples like David and Guille.
The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) would allow U.S. citizens to sponsor their same-sex partners to immigrate legally to the country in the same way heterosexuals sponsor their spouses. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and Immigration Equality are supporting the bill submitted by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D.-N.Y.) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.).
UAFA would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to add definitions for “permanent partner” and “permanent partnership” that would include same sex-couples in a committed relationship.
The bill provides same-sex partners the same benefits as heterosexual couples. It also includes provisions to deter fraudulent partnerships, which could be punished with prison sentences of up to five years and a $250,000 fine.
For supporters of the bill, it boils down to family unity.
“This is about whether they can be a couple at all,” said Immigration Equality executive director Rachel B. Tiven. “To say to someone ‘you can’t be a couple, you can’t be a family because you’re gay’ is just cruel.”
The absence of provisions in federal law that contemplate same-sex couples have forced many to make difficult choices, Tiven said.
A recent news story about a lesbian couple –Jay Mercado, an American woman, and Shirley Tan, her partner from the Philippines– illustrates the challenges. Despite having lived together for over 23 years and getting married in San Francisco, the government tried to deport Tan denying her claim for asylum. Eventually, Tan got to stay thanks to a private bill submitted by a California lawmaker.
More than 36,000 gay and lesbian Americans could benefit from this change in the law, according to the 2000 Census and research conducted for Immigration Equality by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. UAFA would not change the situation for people who entered the country illegally, but could benefit those like Guille with an expired visa.
“It’s been a struggle, once your visa expires you have nothing,” said Guille, 38, who drives around town with an outdated Florida driver’s license. David often worries about Guille, especially in Phoenix where there is an intense crackdown on illegal immigration by the local sheriff’s office.
Advocates recognize that with the economy being a priority, the the bill’s chances this year are slim. But some are hopeful that there’ll be support from the Obama’s administration.
In a March 26th article published in Bay Windows, a statement by White House spokesman Shin Inouye offers hope. “The president thinks Americans with partners from other countries should not be faced with a painful choice between staying with their partner or staying in their country. We will work closely with Congress to craft comprehensive immigration reform legislation,” Inouye said.
Couples like Guille and David have a different perspective when it comes to UAFA.
“You’re mixing groups of people that some in the U.S. don’t want to give rights too,” said David. He believes any type of immigration reform should be part of a larger comprehensive approach that focuses on the economic benefits and contributions of immigrants.
“It needs to be done in a way that does not allow extremists to preach against it,” he added. “I think this bill needs to be more educational than anything else.”
Tiven remains positive. Since the bill was introduced it has picked up support from 100 cosponsors in the House and twenty in the Senate.
“Ultimately we want it to pass, we want total equality for gay and lesbians couples,” Tiven said. “We’ll work hard on any solution. Whether is as a stand-alone bill or part of comprehensive immigration reform.”
Some believe the bill has a better chance of passing on its own than as part of a larger comprehensive immigration package.
“The issue of illegal immigration and those who are illegally in the country is too politically charged,” said Linda Elliot, co-chair of the Public Policy Committee at the Human Rights Campaign. “We have to do this in steps.”
Elliot believes it would be easier to gather public support for a bill that addresses committed couples trying to stay together by finding a way to migrate legally into the U.S.
Currently, at least twenty countries including Canada, the United Kingdom and Israel allow citizens and legal residents to sponsor their same sex partners for legal immigration.
© 2009 Feet in 2 Worlds All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/140255/
AlterNet: Same-Sex Marriage Meets the Immigration Debate
By Valeria Fernández, Feet in 2 Worlds
Posted on May 26, 2009, Printed on May 27, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/140255/
PHOENIX, Ariz. — David used to be one of those people who say: “Get out of our country if you don’t belong here.” That was until he fell in love with an undocumented immigrant.
After seven years of living together, David, an American citizen, worries about his same-sex partner’s ability to remain in the country. Guille, 38, came to the U.S. over nine years ago from Colombia, and his tourist visa has expired.
While federal immigration laws allow heterosexual residents to sponsor their spouses to immigrate to the country, gay and lesbian couples are not afforded the same benefit.
“My rights are being denied because Guille is a ‘boy,’” said David, 48, who asked for both of their last names to be withheld because of his partner’s immigration status.
A bill introduced in Congress last February might open up new options for couples like David and Guille.
The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) would allow U.S. citizens to sponsor their same-sex partners to immigrate legally to the country in the same way heterosexuals sponsor their spouses. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and Immigration Equality are supporting the bill submitted by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D.-N.Y.) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.).
UAFA would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to add definitions for “permanent partner” and “permanent partnership” that would include same sex-couples in a committed relationship.
The bill provides same-sex partners the same benefits as heterosexual couples. It also includes provisions to deter fraudulent partnerships, which could be punished with prison sentences of up to five years and a $250,000 fine.
For supporters of the bill, it boils down to family unity.
“This is about whether they can be a couple at all,” said Immigration Equality executive director Rachel B. Tiven. “To say to someone ‘you can’t be a couple, you can’t be a family because you’re gay’ is just cruel.”
The absence of provisions in federal law that contemplate same-sex couples have forced many to make difficult choices, Tiven said.
A recent news story about a lesbian couple –Jay Mercado, an American woman, and Shirley Tan, her partner from the Philippines– illustrates the challenges. Despite having lived together for over 23 years and getting married in San Francisco, the government tried to deport Tan denying her claim for asylum. Eventually, Tan got to stay thanks to a private bill submitted by a California lawmaker.
More than 36,000 gay and lesbian Americans could benefit from this change in the law, according to the 2000 Census and research conducted for Immigration Equality by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. UAFA would not change the situation for people who entered the country illegally, but could benefit those like Guille with an expired visa.
“It’s been a struggle, once your visa expires you have nothing,” said Guille, 38, who drives around town with an outdated Florida driver’s license. David often worries about Guille, especially in Phoenix where there is an intense crackdown on illegal immigration by the local sheriff’s office.
Advocates recognize that with the economy being a priority, the the bill’s chances this year are slim. But some are hopeful that there’ll be support from the Obama’s administration.
In a March 26th article published in Bay Windows, a statement by White House spokesman Shin Inouye offers hope. “The president thinks Americans with partners from other countries should not be faced with a painful choice between staying with their partner or staying in their country. We will work closely with Congress to craft comprehensive immigration reform legislation,” Inouye said.
Couples like Guille and David have a different perspective when it comes to UAFA.
“You’re mixing groups of people that some in the U.S. don’t want to give rights too,” said David. He believes any type of immigration reform should be part of a larger comprehensive approach that focuses on the economic benefits and contributions of immigrants.
“It needs to be done in a way that does not allow extremists to preach against it,” he added. “I think this bill needs to be more educational than anything else.”
Tiven remains positive. Since the bill was introduced it has picked up support from 100 cosponsors in the House and twenty in the Senate.
“Ultimately we want it to pass, we want total equality for gay and lesbians couples,” Tiven said. “We’ll work hard on any solution. Whether is as a stand-alone bill or part of comprehensive immigration reform.”
Some believe the bill has a better chance of passing on its own than as part of a larger comprehensive immigration package.
“The issue of illegal immigration and those who are illegally in the country is too politically charged,” said Linda Elliot, co-chair of the Public Policy Committee at the Human Rights Campaign. “We have to do this in steps.”
Elliot believes it would be easier to gather public support for a bill that addresses committed couples trying to stay together by finding a way to migrate legally into the U.S.
Currently, at least twenty countries including Canada, the United Kingdom and Israel allow citizens and legal residents to sponsor their same sex partners for legal immigration.
© 2009 Feet in 2 Worlds All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/140255/
ASGI18.05.2009
Chiarimenti del Ministero dell'Interno a una richiesta della Questura di Mantova .
Applicazione dell'art. 19, comma 1 D.lgs. n. 286/98 (inespellibilità dello straniero che possa essere soggetto a persecuzione nel paese di origine ovvero a trattamenti inumani e degradanti e conseguente rilascio del permesso di soggiorno per motivi umanitari). Timore di persecuzione per motivi di orientamento sessuale. Omossessualità.
Il Ministero dell'Interno ha risposto ad un quesito sottopostogli dalla questura di Mantova in relazione alla possibilità di rilasciare un permesso di soggiorno per motivi umanitari ad uno straniero che sia stato assolto dal Tribunale di Mantova in quanto la sua omosessualità ed il conseguente timore di persecuzione nel paese di origine costituiva un giustificato motivo per non ottemperare all'ordine del questore di lasciare il territorio nazionale entro 5 giorni. Il Ministero dell'Interno ha espresso parere negativo sostenendo che sulla base della giurisprudenza di Cassazione, la condizione di inespellibilità può sussistere solo nei casi in cui la legislazione dello Stato di origine dello straniero "preveda come reato il fatto in sé dell'omosessualità" e non "soltanto l'ostentazione delle pratiche omosessuali" (sentenza n. 16417 dd. 25 luglio 2007 e n. 2907 dd 18 gennaio 2008).
Ministero dell'Interno - Dipartimento Pubblica Sicurezza - Direzione centrale immigrazione e polizia di frontiera . Parere in risposta a quesito della questura di Mantova, 6 aprile 2009
Posts
