Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
That VERY IMPORTANT question was already asked in post #4, but nr_c still hasn't answered it.
Can my same-sex partner obtain a green card through marriage due to a "notice of approval"?
- Thread starter nr_c
- Start date
That VERY IMPORTANT question was already asked in post #4, but nr_c still hasn't answered it.
His parents became U.S. citizens after he was born.
According to the newsreports, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110223...Ec2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDZ292dGRyb3BzZGVm
the Obama administration has decided to drop its defense of DOMA in federal courts. While there are other parties that, presumably, will continue to defend DOMA in the pending federal court cases, this development does somewhat increase the likelihood that DOMA will be found to be unconstitutional by the federal courts and eventually struck down. So it may indeed be a good idea for you and your partner to get officially married in one of the states that allows it.
Whether they get married in any state that allows and issues a marriage certificate it is not the bone of contention because those only apply at the state level and not recognized by federal law per the US constitution and for immigration benefits. The issue of same sex marriages and immigration benefits will require a constitutional ammendment which I believe will be a long and tough fight in Congress ages to come after ALL states are on board with recognizing same sex marriage and someone is bold enough to bring it up as a federal issue. But for now, you are going to have to be straight in the federal eyes to get any immigration benefits or go naturalize in european countries that do give immigration benefits for such.
Last edited by a moderator:
The very point of the several pending federal lawsuits against DOMA is that DOMA violates the U.S. Constitution by making the federal government refuse to recognize legally valid state marriages. If those lawsuits succeed, DOMA would be thrown out as unconstitutional and the federal goverment would be able, if it chooses to, recognize the same-sex marriages conducted by the states - if that happens, it would not require any constitutional amendments at all.
I don't think it would be that easy, I believe congress or at least Republicans will want to subject it to congressional votes which they will block or at least try to.
The issues of constitutionality of various laws are decided by the courts, not by the Congress. If the Supreme Court declares a particular law unconstitutional (which is of course a very big "if", particularly in this case), the Congress would not be able to override it.
I get your point, but DOMA is one thing and as you earlier mentioned even if it gets struck down by the supreme court, it does not mean automatic recognition for immigration pruposes, that is what Republicans may try to find a way to vote on immigration benefits and since such immigration/citizenship benefits are also tied to the 14th amendment (if I remember the exact ammendment correctly) I am unsure what they will try to do, but there will sure be much minute readings/interpretations/ramblings/votes and other legal/congressional jargon to prevent immigration benefits to same sex marriages.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
No, but if one got married in a state that recognized same-sex marriage, one could file an I-130 based on that and appeal when denied.
The 14th amendment says nothing about immigration benefits.
Well, here's the Library of Congress link for the 14th amendment that talks about citizenship for those born or naturalized in the US, so yes it does mention mention immigration benefits, keywords = "citizenship", "born", and "naturalized" (at least the "naturalized" keyword applies to anyone trying to acquire immigration benefits, be he/she gay or straight but as of now it is for straight people) but as with many of these laws I am sure there are tons of ways it can be argued or be deemed applicable/inapplicable in the current context and/or issue at hand on this thread;
http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html
Last edited by a moderator:
My understanding is that the currently pending lawsuits against DOMA are based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment rather than on the part dealing with citizenship. There is also a possible argument based on the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV of the Constitution, but I don't think that the current lawsuits are using it.
I myself, as much as anyone here and in general, will like to see the outcome of the current DOMA situation and what else comes if any as well as any immigration applicability or lack thereof.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
No. Naturalized means a very specific thing - granted citizenship after birth.
DOMA is likely to fall under the equal protection clause of the amendment, but that's not specifically immigration-related.
I am unsure what you mean by this response but I will add that back when the amendment was written there was no process of naturalization as there is today. However, in today's world "naturalization" as used in the 14th amendment is what we are all seeking to do now, be it throguh H1B, marriage, etc so the "naturalization" wording in this amendment directly applies to us all and at the moment does not cover same sex marriages. So whoever says the 14th amendment mentions nothing about immigration benefits is wrong.
This is my same point here, however we also know that pro-gay groups will want to extend this "equal protection" to immigration benefits as well and we also know that some, (including Republicans), will try to find a way to block such benefits.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
You are seeking immigration, not naturalization. Naturalization has not changed in meaning in the past 150 years since the 14th amendment was written.
We're not in disagreement, by the way, that the 14th amendment protects same-sex immigration - only that it stems from the equal protection clause.
If DOMA gets overturned (which I expect it will, just not right away) it would take a new Act of Congress to do so. Considering the composition of the Senate and the White House, that's exceptionally unlikely.
Al Southner
Registered Users (C)
TRC,
What you outlined above is outrageous and offers people false sense of hope of an impossible task. The "federal" immigration laws are enforced and written from the federal sense and from the viewpoint that US Congress shall make laws of the Unites States of America. There is a reason every state has a legislature, to focus on laws which are applicable to the situation of that state, but they are also bound by certain federal laws, especially on issues that deals with sovereignty and foreign policy pursuits. Marriage has always been relegated to states, but within a certain framework. For example, Maryland recognize DC marriages, vice versa. The idea that someone would file for an immigration benefit for same-sex marriage on an issues which the federal laws supersede the state laws, is like a a tail wagging the dog. There is no case law which will even sustain an appeal of such a denial, and it will only cause problems for the same-sex unions.
SEE: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-223.html
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Letter from the Attorney General to Congress on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act
WASHINGTON – The Attorney General sent the following letter today to Congressional leadership to inform them of the Department’s course of action in two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as only between a man and a woman. A copy of the letter is also attached.
Read more at link above. This letter does not address immigration but it is a sign of change.........
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Letter from the Attorney General to Congress on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act
WASHINGTON – The Attorney General sent the following letter today to Congressional leadership to inform them of the Department’s course of action in two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as only between a man and a woman. A copy of the letter is also attached.
Read more at link above. This letter does not address immigration but it is a sign of change.........
Marriage is union of one man and one woman, then why allow this "one" man and "one" woman to divorce?. but what defines this "one man" and "one woman"? is it physical appearance or is it state of mind? if it is physical appearance, then what are standards to apply to be "qualified" as one or the other? and at what point does word discriminatin kicks in? does congress (House and/or senate) has over arching authority in qualifying humans into men and women? (or is it even constitutional?)
I am not a democrat nor a republican but, shouldn't two people decide who they should get married to? instead of government deciding for people?
There is no merit to DOMA to begin with, which was ruled unconsitutional earlier.
I am not a democrat nor a republican but, shouldn't two people decide who they should get married to? instead of government deciding for people?
There is no merit to DOMA to begin with, which was ruled unconsitutional earlier.
Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you see it, the government has to make certain decisions by way of law otherwise there will be chaos, underdeveloped/third world countries are good examples of where governments have no grip on their jurisdiction. You might as well say the government should not interfere if we decide to murder anyone we desire, use/sell drugs however we like, or get married to our dog (perhaps this one might be next up for equal protection). Forget about beating around the bush, we all know what a man and a woman are and I am sure you yourself make conscious decisions to sleep with one over the other regardless of what side of the political isle you are. I am simply disputing your assertion that government has no say in what citizens do, that is not how a country is run and if you want that there are countries with lack of government oversight on most things that will welcome you to reside there where everyone can abuse anything and get away with it. Otherwise, please appreciate the US government for trying to make life easier for its inhabitants, it takes a lot to even TRY to do that and especially come up with laws over time after some loopholes are violated by humans that we are.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jayoa, not to argue but you seem to be confused between civil law and criminal law. I hope marrying someone is not criminal, 
, as marriage is intended to be civil (law that is).
India (yes, a developing, third world country) allows same sex marriage (Indian supreme court ruled that anyone human being can marry another human being). So, let's not lose focus and let's not start debating whether marrying a dog is next. Again, not to confuse with civil Vs criminal law; murder is criminal and marriage is civil.
We all know how a man looks like and a women looks like; but, justice is based on law, my question was; does law know how to define a man and a women; if law does not, then who defines what a man is and what a woman is?
Every country has constitution, and laws (yes both criminal and civil) defined and established. It's the society that dictates extent of law to be followed.
So, "we the people" determine how we want to live.
, as marriage is intended to be civil (law that is).India (yes, a developing, third world country) allows same sex marriage (Indian supreme court ruled that anyone human being can marry another human being). So, let's not lose focus and let's not start debating whether marrying a dog is next. Again, not to confuse with civil Vs criminal law; murder is criminal and marriage is civil.
We all know how a man looks like and a women looks like; but, justice is based on law, my question was; does law know how to define a man and a women; if law does not, then who defines what a man is and what a woman is?
Every country has constitution, and laws (yes both criminal and civil) defined and established. It's the society that dictates extent of law to be followed.
So, "we the people" determine how we want to live.