Same-sex couple forced apart

[Peter&Jaime 1]

Hey friends,

I saw this on cnn today and wanted to share it with everyone. Here is a couple that is permanently separated by immigration:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?JSONLINK=/video/...immigration.cnn

Very sad!

[^KK^ 3]

oh my

[Chica Yeyé 41]

sad indeed

[sara..... 371]

i dont know maybe im just having a bad day, but after listening to that at least they can be together a few months out of the year, while people like me and perviz are still hung up in that black hole called csc and have not been able to see each other for over two years in person, im having problems feeling any pity for that couple

just my opinion

sara

[Ed+Cindy 1]

I know a gay American (a brother of a friend of mine) that immigrated to Canada to sponsor his partner. They now live in Canada.

Unfortunately, as part of the article might state, for immigration to allow it, pretty much all the government would need to allow same-sex marriages. How can you sponsor someone when you can't 'marry' them in your state.

Also, unfortunate for these people that this issue is so far on the bottom of the list that it will never be tackled. Its even a lower priority that general family-based immigration, which is pretty low to lawmakers.

Sara- I have little pity too, as they both have the freedom and ability to see each other. They can even immigrate to a country other than the US to live forever.

Edited June 3, 2009 by Ed+Cindy

[sara..... 371]

i think at some point in time there will be a special visa for people that have same sex relationships but not to marry each other, i think it will be really something that means they have to meet more qualifications than any of us do as in proving they have been together for x amount of years and financial hardship or even danger to them in their own country.

sara

[Susita 175]

Unlike some of you, I do have pity for them.

My husband and I were separated for a large chunk of time but fortunately after all of that, the whole process is over and we won't ever be separated again.

These two don't have the same luck.

I hope they pass that bill.

[Hannah+Vito 0]

what about the UK gov? UK has had civil partnerships for enough time now that we have already had a celebrity civil partnership divorce!! Is it not possible to petition your same sex partner to UK? Is their situation as dire as it seems to be portrayed?

Not that i don't believe everyone should have the same rights, just the video got me questioning why they are concentrating on the USA?

[milimelo 4,481]

Today's NYTimes has this story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/us/polit...l?th&emc=th

Bill Proposes Immigration Rights for Gay Couples

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.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

I don't think allowing immigration benefits for same sex partners is going to "foster immigration fraud" (as the article claims opponents of the Leahy bill are saying), any more than immigration benefits for opposite sex partners. The only difference it will make is that an immigration fraudster would be able to select pretty much ANY US citizen as their unsuspecting sponsor, rather than only opposite sex US citizens.

There are a few wrinkles that would have to be ironed out, though.

Marriage is controlled by the states - not the federal government. As of today, there are only six states that allow same sex marriage (New Hampshire legalized same sex marriage today). That leaves 44 states where it is still illegal. Some of those states will NEVER legalize same sex marriage unless the federal government decides to force the issue. With the majority of states still opposed, I don't see that happening very soon, but maybe eventually.

In the meantime, there aren't a lot of options the government could implement.

Should they allow same sex beneficiaries only if the sponsor lives in a state where same sex marriage is legal? That's sure to get challenged under the equal protection clause.

Should there be a federal equivalent to "civil unions" that they could apply for? If so, shouldn't the same sort of "civil union" visas be offered to opposite sex couples?

Should they just ignore the whole marriage concept, and just say "If you're willing to sponsor them, and they meet all of the other requirements, they can come"? In that case, they'd have to do away with all of the proof of relationship requirements for all other fiancee/spousal visas.

As long as we're talking about government regulating marriage, what about the 1/5 of the world's population who are Muslims? Their religion permits a man to legally have up to four wives. The US government currently only recognizes the first marriage. Don't they have an legitimate claim to equal protection under the law? This one is already being challenged in a few European countries.

I'm not offering any answers to these questions because I don't have any. This is a huge can of worms that we are only beginning to crack open and peek into.

[Anh map 2,098]

This is a political "third rail" issue that no one is going to want to get too close to for a while. The first steps are going to be with regard to illegal immigration in the work force.

We family immigration travelers will continue to languish in the backwater of the immigration debate for a while longer.

[Cuchita 1]

Oh ####### I can't open the video from work!, so question: would you petition for a friend (best friend of all) of your same sex to come to US to live and pretend you are gay so she/he gets here permanently if same sex petitons were allowed?

[Peter&Jaime 1]

I found an update on this story this afternoon. Please see below:

Video (longer then the first):

http://www.cnn.com/video/?JSONLINK=/video/...on.same.sex.cnn

News Story-

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/03/sam...iref=newssearch

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

I found an update on this story this afternoon. Please see below:

Video (longer then the first):

http://www.cnn.com/video/?JSONLINK=/video/...on.same.sex.cnn

News Story-

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/03/sam...iref=newssearch

Good article, but CNN should probably research the topic a little better before choosing who to interview.

It's a little disingenuous for CNN to imply that the only thing keeping "Jared" from legally being with his partner in the US is the immigration laws. "Jared" would not be able to get a fiance or spousal visa even if he was heterosexual. He's HIV positive. He's also been in the US illegally for 13 years. Even if the immigration laws allowed fiance or spousal visas for same sex couples back in 1996, when he was originally ordered to leave the US, he still wouldn't have qualified because of his infection. A heterosexual alien would have been denied for the same reason.

Sorry, but I'll save my sympathy for people who are negatively affected by the law, but still choose to obey it.

[pushbrk 12,897]

Hey friends,

I saw this on cnn today and wanted to share it with everyone. Here is a couple that is permanently separated by immigration:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?JSONLINK=/video/...immigration.cnn

Very sad!

No matter how you feel about the issue, the thread title is simply not true. The couple is not "forced apart". One desired option among several, is simply not a legal option for being together. They can be together in other places or under other circumstances but not through the US spouse or fiance visa process.

By your title's logic, most of us have been "forced apart" for the duration of the immigration process.

Such exaggerations hurt rather than help any cause.