Gay Marriage immigration

[UK_Fan 192]

I've brought this up before, asking if gay people are eligible for immigration benefits, and ive just seen this article on MSN. worth reading.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/13/12726303-same-sex-couple-fights-to-stop-deportation-gay-marriage-ban

[dandk 72]

I've brought this up before, asking if gay people are eligible for immigration benefits, and ive just seen this article on MSN. worth reading.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/13/12726303-same-sex-couple-fights-to-stop-deportation-gay-marriage-ban

DOMA does not recognize same-sex marriage, so the deportation procedure will prevail.

[AmyWrites 593]

I'd rather there was a way for them to stay legally. I've no problem with immigrants, as long as they are here legally... it's silly that if they are legally married they can't stay together.

[UK_Fan 192]

DOMA does not recognize same-sex marriage, so the deportation procedure will prevail.

after they spend bookoo of money.. can you imagine how much it would cost to sue the DHS??

[MyLittlePony 340]

no such thing.

[X Factor 1,112]

DOMA does not recognize same-sex marriage, so the deportation procedure will prevail.

[Xanax 349]

Maybe one day, but not today unfortunately

[aaron2020 11,651]

DOMA prevents the US government from offering an immigration benefit.

However, it is up to the executive branch to enforce the law. If Obama does not want to enforce the law, then he can. He can't give green cards out to those in gay marriages, but he can decline to deport them once they are here. No one can force the executive branch to seek a deportation.

It's highly unlikely that this woman will get deported. Obama will decline to deport. Under humanitarian rules, she will be given an EAD. She'll lose it if she leaves the US. So no international travel until DOMA is no longer valid law.

[Darnell 8,478]

The rewrite suggested to INA in 2010 changed up the wording considerably,

where 'wife' and 'husband' were replaced with 'spouse' and 'partner'.

There was a huge push then to not only get the wording changed, but also remove the 'male/female as a couple' requirement.

Most of it , this change, died in committee, in both the House and the Senate. I was happy then.

Fast forward to today, and the push to change comes in from different directions.

IMO, legalize gay married in all states, legalize the same-sex immigration stuff, and be done with it.

Or rescind all and make anything and every 'gay' illegal in the USA. IMO, there's way too much waffling going on with the legislators, both state and federal levels. Make it black and white with no fuzzy edges (100 percent legal or 100 percent illegal) and be done with it.

[UK_Fan 192]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/28/14140024-us-immigration-chief-same-sex-ties-are-family-ties?lite&ocid=msnhp

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/28/14140024-us-immigration-chief-same-sex-ties-are-family-ties?lite&ocid=msnhp

I saw this. I'm really beginning to get ticked off at this President trying to rule by decree. The in-country I-601 order was ok because that was just a matter of USCIS policy. The deferred action order was borderline illegal because it essentially dictates to federal agents to use a form of discretion that's supposed to be reserved for the agent to decide how to use.

This order, on the other hand, is blatantly illegal. INA 240 clearly defines the type of relatives that can be used as a "hardship" basis for cancellation of removal - spouses, children, and parents. It doesn't make any provision whatever for long-term partners, whether same or opposite sex. Federal law defines "spouse" as legally married and opposite sex. The President doesn't have to like DOMA. The Justice Department has a legal obligation to defend the law in court, though they have the discretion to choose their battles, so it's not really illegal for them to choose not to defend it. But the President has no authority to authorize something which the law clearly indicates is not authorized. This goes beyond selective enforcement of the law, and enters the territory of an order that directly contravenes the law.

The tides are slowly shifting, and there will eventually be sufficient support in Congress to change the law to permit same-sex spouses to qualify as relatives for hardship waivers. There may even eventually be support to allow long-term partners to qualify as relatives, but it damn well better include opposite-sex partners. Until Congress changes the law then the President is legally bound to operate within it's confines. This order is illegal.