Same-sex couples seek immigration benefit

Status
Not open for further replies.

varayoc

Registered Users (C)
Same-sex couples seek immigration benefit

By KEVIN FREKING
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Judy Rickard took an early retirement and a reduced pension so she could be assured of more time with her partner, a British citizen whose stays in the U.S. are limited to six months.

Rickard, 61, would have preferred to keep working at San Jose State University and sponsor her partner, Karin Bogliolo, for residency in the United States, just as heterosexual couples can. But U.S. law does not allow for that.

"If you're going to have a system that's designed to keep families together, it should focus on keeping families together," Rickard said.

That could soon change, as more than 100 lawmakers in the House and about 20 in the Senate have signed onto bills that would add the United States to the 19 countries that already recognize same-sex couples for immigration purposes.

Gay rights groups are encouraged that President Barack Obama has signaled that he would like to include couples like Rickard and Bogliolo in the bills.

"In many ways, the stars are aligning to move this forward as part of a comprehensive bill," said Steve Ralls, communications director for the advocacy group Immigration Equality. "That's an opportunity we didn't have years ago."

The provisions concerning same-sex couples are part of legislation that would increase the number of visas provided to family members of people already in the United States legally.

The long-standing fight over the country's estimated 36,000 same sex couples of two nationalities is a small but emotional part of the debate over immigration reform. But including same-sex couples in the mix could make it harder to pass an immigration overhaul.

A key ally in past immigration fights, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said it would not support a measure that has a same-sex provision.

Writing to Rep. Mike Honda, D-Calif., the organization said the provision would "erode the institution of marriage and family by according marriage-like immigration benefits to same sex relationships."

Other groups say that it is often difficult to verify the validity of same-sex relationships if one of the partners comes from a country that does not recognize or document same-sex unions.

Honda, lead author of the "Reuniting Families Act," credited Rickard, one of his constituents, for bringing the issue to his attention. Honda said his Japanese heritage contributed to his taking a closer look at protecting same-sex couples through an overhaul of the nation's immigration law.

Japanese-Americans were sent to internment camps during the fallout from Pearl Harbor and redefined as persons of enemy alien ancestry, Honda said.

"The lack of political leadership played a big part in what happened to us," Honda said. "And that's true in almost every civil rights case."

Another California resident, Shirley Tan, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month in favor of a comparable bill.

Tan has been in California since arriving on a visitor's visa in 1989. She applied for asylum in 1995 because she was afraid of a cousin in the Philippines who had killed her mother and sister and critically wounded her.

She was unaware the petition had been denied until federal agents took her away in handcuffs at the end of January. Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California has since sponsored a bill that allows Tan to stay in the U.S. until the current session of Congress ends in late 2010.

"I have a partner who is a U.S. citizen, and two beautiful children who are also U.S. citizens, but not one of them can petition for me to remain in the United States with them," Tan said.

The NAACP and the American Bar Association also spoke in favor of including "permanent partners" as part of an immigration bill, saying that current law amounts to discrimination.

Permanent partner is defined in proposed legislation as an individual 18 or older who is "in a committed, intimate relationship with another individual 18 or older in which both individuals intend a lifelong commitment."

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said he doubted the legislation would pass this Congress. He said it amounts to a redefinition of marriage and would give people more opportunities to come into the United States fraudulently.

"It seems we would be creating a special preference and benefit for a category of immigrants based on a relationship that's not recognized by federal law and overwhelmingly by most states," Sessions said.

Rickard said she may reluctantly move to Great Britain or another country when her partner's current travel visa expires in November. Bogliolo, however, said she would prefer to live in the U.S. for her partner's sake.

"Judy has elderly parents and family here and she's also lived here all her life whereas I've lived in many different countries," Bogliolo said. "I think Judy would find it very difficult after a whole life in San Jose to move over to Europe, so I decided if at all possible that I would move over here."

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our
 
Before they were to fix immigration for same-sex couples..how about fixing it for:

-LPR spouses separated by the quota system
-US Citizen spouses if their spouse dies
-Illegal aliens who are trying to be legal

Maybe then we can talk about same-sex couples..but I dont think it will ever pass!
 
I am not opposed to it but have one question: How will they be able to verify that partners are "in a committed, intimate relationship with another" without supporting evidence like marriage certificates?
If not, then shouldn't boyfriend/girlfriend commited relationships also qualify for these immigration benefits....? That's a recipee for disaster.

I don't think this would pass into law either. Too early.
 
Before they were to fix immigration for same-sex couples..how about fixing it for:

-LPR spouses separated by the quota system
-US Citizen spouses if their spouse dies
-Illegal aliens who are trying to be legal

Maybe then we can talk about same-sex couples..but I dont think it will ever pass!

They should work on ALL of them, not just these three first.
 
thank u cafeconleche. this issue is as important as the other three, if not more. all of them need to be resolved and there is absolutely no priority of those three over the same sex immigration benefit issue. people need to learn to be tolerant and it is a shame that some people are so insensitive toward such issue, even though they have been through a lot and have claimed their asylum status based on all of that.
 
varayoc, that was a long post


They should work on ALL of them, not just these three first.

I think there are certain priorities to be considered, issues listed by wantmygcnow are more important and more "productive" to society

of course when I say "more", I compare it the same sex couples


wow im glad "varayoc" posted this thread! the true face of some of the members of this forum can be seen now!

yeah... but a man has to say what he beleives in... better than being hypocrite
 
varayoc, that was a long post

I think there are certain priorities to be considered, issues listed by wantmygcnow are more important and more "productive" to society

of course when I say "more", I compare it the same sex couples

Only if you think gay marriages are second-class citizens or don't give a crap about their rights. A foreigner could marry a USC of the same sex in several states now and it would be fully recognized under state law, but would be denied ANY family-based immigration benefit. Shameful. Let's hope Obama has the courage to push for reform. But it is up to Congress to act in the end.
 
Only if you think gay marriages are second-class citizens

Not at all... gay marriages are not second-class citizens, marriage is not a human being, it is an act itself.
So it will be more precise to say gay marriages are second-class acts.

And you missed my point in my previous post, I "compared" and didn't devalue.
If you just weigh issues according to the importance, you would find that it is true there are more important issues than gay immigration, for example the issues that wantmygcnow proposed.
Before they were to fix immigration for same-sex couples..how about fixing it for:

-LPR spouses separated by the quota system
-US Citizen spouses if their spouse dies
-Illegal aliens who are trying to be legal

Maybe then we can talk about same-sex couples..but I don’t think it will ever pass!

I don't want to go through the ethical and religious clash with same-sex marriage ... but if we were to discuss it logically, numbers are the judge here. How many same-sex couples immigration cases compared to illegal aliens who are trying to be legal ?

This is how things weighed... according to the importance
 
raziel, i understand what u are trying to convey here in terms of priority, but the truth is, and i can assure u that, if it was possible to start a same sex immigration line, uscis will be overwhelmed! there are no cases, because there is nothing in the law that allows those cases to exist to begin with. so gays wouldn't even think about benefiting from it, because it is not even an option for them. those three issues, are small bits and parts of a huge immigration benefit category system, especially the first two that are part of the category: opposite sex immigration benefit. people need to understand that lack of existence of same sex immigration benefit within uscis, is like a huge hole, a big chunk of a puzzle missing! this issue is extremely serious and here is the reason: the refugee settlement system (inc. asylum benefits), is established to protect human rights. with same sex immigration benefit missing in a government sector such as uscis thats is claiming to protect human rights through the refugee settlement system, this entire government sector can be considered hypocritical, as same sex rights, are nothing but human rights.
 
Completely in agreement tributelink. Isn't amazing that the same peolple that cry discrimination is the first people to discriminate given the chance? I'm in commited realtionship for the past 18 years with a USC and had no chance to adjust my status in that way...
 
Immigration Benefits for gay couples

As a gay asylee in this country I would like to weigh in on this discussion. I find it interesting that same-sex relationships are recognized at the state department level of the federal government while at the same time denying other same sex couples other federal benefits (immigration). Also whatever happens to the idea of comprehensive reform - doesnt that not mean all aspects including gay immigration. Also if the federal government is recognizing the gay partners of diplomats how can it really not recognize the gay families of other Americans? I also believe that if you give gays the right to file for their gay family it could decrease the number of gay asylum cases thus making space available for other more needy asylees.
 
As a gay asylee in this country I would like to weigh in on this discussion. I find it interesting that same-sex relationships are recognized at the state department level of the federal government while at the same time denying other same sex couples other federal benefits (immigration). Also whatever happens to the idea of comprehensive reform - doesnt that not mean all aspects including gay immigration. Also if the federal government is recognizing the gay partners of diplomats how can it really not recognize the gay families of other Americans? I also believe that if you give gays the right to file for their gay family it could decrease the number of gay asylum cases thus making space available for other more needy asylees.

USCIS is not limited to how many asylees are given asylum each year so the argument you are making in your last sentence does not hold.
 
Maybe you are missing the point I am making. it is not that USCIS has quotas for asylees, rather the point I am making is that if gay asylees had the option to file for their partners like other family members can do then those people would not need to be applying for asylum.
 
Before they were to fix immigration for same-sex couples..how about fixing it for:

-LPR spouses separated by the quota system
-US Citizen spouses if their spouse dies
-Illegal aliens who are trying to be legal

Maybe then we can talk about same-sex couples..but I dont think it will ever pass!

So wantmygcnow, you think your relationship to your wife is more important and takes precedence over someone in a committed relationship with a person of the same sex? Look up the word bigot and see if that makes any sense. Also, you seem to think that illegal aliens also take precedence over the same situation? Is this still your opinion?? I really would like to know...

Varayoc, thank you for posting. I wish you and your partner, the very best! Tributeblinky is absolutely right in assessing that the true nature of a lot of people comes out when it comes to this issue.

As others have pointed out, I find it extremely amusing as well as disturbing that people who claim persecution by applying for asylum in the US because they want to have equal rights. When they are given those rights in the US, they are so QUICK to put down others and want to prevent them from having the same rights. The US really does NOT need more people like them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So wantmygcnow, you think your relationship to your wife is more important and takes precedence over someone in a committed relationship with a person of the same sex? Look up the word bigot and see if that makes any sense. Also, you seem to think that illegal aliens also take precedence over the same situation? Is this still your opinion?? I really would like to know...

Varayoc, thank you for posting. I wish you and your partner, the very best! Tributeblinky is absolutely right in assessing that the true nature of a lot of people comes out when it comes to this issue.

As others have pointed out, I find it extremely amusing as well as disturbing that people who claim persecution by applying for asylum in the US because they want to have equal rights. When they are given those rights in the US, they are so QUICK to put down others and want to prevent them from having the same rights. The US really does NOT need more people like them.

I am extremely sorry if I have offended anyone. My point was not to degrade any of the same-sex couples..but the point was that in the past 3 of the 4 years, immigration debate has come up and no mention has been made of same-sex couples...So IN MY opinion, before any congressmen would help same-sex couples, they would fix what they have been trying to fix 3 of the past 4 years which is illegal immigration and how to make the illegals legals.

No i am not saying one takes precedence over others but every person has his/her own stake in the debate. Some with illegal family members want to get them in legal stastus..some others! So please dont take me wrong in any way.
 
So wantmygcnow, you think your relationship to your wife is more important and takes precedence over someone in a committed relationship with a person of the same sex?

Assylee, don't you think that heterosexual relations are more important than homosexual ones? next generations are produced with hetero-marriages not with same sex relations... so who is "more important"? please keep in mind I'm not excluding same sex couples.

Look up the word bigot

you think Obama would be a president now if he was gay?

they are so QUICK to put down others and want to prevent them from having the same rights. The US really does NOT need more people like them.

:confused::confused:
 
Heterosexuals are more important because they reproduce? Are you serious? How threatened are you? Are you afraid that, if gay people get more rights, the human race will die out? And you think that a gay person not being able to be elected president supports your view to pay more attention to straight immigration? I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. I'm not sure I blame you for thinking this way since, in general, there is a huge bias against gay people in most communities, but I encourage you to research gay-rights a bit more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Assylee, don't you think that heterosexual relations are more important than homosexual ones? next generations are produced with hetero-marriages not with same sex relations... so who is "more important"? please keep in mind I'm not excluding same sex couples.



you think Obama would be a president now if he was gay?



:confused::confused:

NO!!! I don't think that heterosexual relations are more important than homosexual ones. I have never given one importance more than the other. Your argument is ridiculous. If you think that immigration policy is solely based upon the concept of procreation and to produce "next generations" then with that thinking, binational opposite sex couples should be FORCED to produce a child before USCIS approves their petitions.

Your Obama comment makes ZERO sense. Being a bigot does not solely pertain to race.
 
Heterosexuals are more important because they reproduce? Are you serious? How threatened are you? Are you afraid that, if gay people get more rights, the human race will die out?

not die out but taking care of next generations is more important to society.
Society has an important role in the advancement of a nation, just like economy or politics

And you think that a gay person not being able to be elected president supports your view to pay more attention to straight immigration? Un-freaking-believable!

I never said so, this was my comment on the word "bigot" that Assylee mentioned, pay attention to the post.


NO!!! I don't think that heterosexual relations are more important than homosexual ones. I have never given one importance more than the other.

Ok, that is your opinion

Your Obama comment makes ZERO sense. Being a bigot does not solely pertain to race.

race? I don't get you, being gay has nothing to do with race !! I didn't talk about his race.

If you think that immigration policy is solely based upon the concept of procreation and to produce "next generations" then with that thinking, binational opposite sex couples should be FORCED to produce a child before USCIS approves their petitions.

:D:D at least they have a chance of reproducing ;)

Your argument is ridiculous.

I rest my case
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top