Brazilian Man Denied Ability to Live with US Partner
Family Fairness discussed in March how same-sex couples were hurt by anti-gay immigration policies. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a gay or lesbian United States citizen is unable to sponsor his or her partner for residency. Hope was on the horizon in May, when the Senate held a hearing on the Uniting American Families Act, a bill designed to give committed same-sex couples the ability to reside together in the country.
Unfortunately, the wheels of progress turn slowly. Last week, a Brazilian man was denied asylum to live in the United States with his Massachusetts partner, despite the couple's Massachusetts marriage license and co-ownership of a home. Because same-sex partners are not eligible for automatic citizenship when one partner is a US citizen, the couple was required to file a special asylum application. Rather than respond to their request, US Attorney General Eric Holder ignored it. The application has now lapsed, and the couple's request effectively denied.
The couple plans to initiate a legal challenge to DOMA for its violation of immigration and humanitarian laws. However, they have already spent approximately $250,000 in legal bills over the course of their forced separation, which has lasted more than two years. Until the passage of the Uniting American Families Act or the repeal of DOMA, this story will repeat. Couples should not be denied their basic human right to be together simply because of the sex of their partner. Shame on Attorney General Holder for dragging his feet on this important issue.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.Senate to hold first ever hearing on anti-gay policies in immigration law
Senator Patrick Leahy has announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee will convene to discuss anti-gay policies in United States immigration law. The subject of the hearing is the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), a bill designed to allow gay and lesbian US citizens to sponsor their partners for residency in the United States. The hearing is scheduled for next Wednesday, June 3rd, and represents the first time Congress has addressed the difficulties binational same-sex couples and their families face.
Immigration Equality, an organization committed to ending discrimination in immigration law, said the following:
The June 3rd hearing will not only be a milestone on our path to victory in Washington, but it will also be a watershed moment for ensuring that our families are part of the national conversation on immigration reform. This will be a powerful moment – and a significant step forward – in our work to educate lawmakers about our relationships and engage Congressional leaders on the issue [. . . .] The hearing is, quite simply, one of the most significant moments ever in our work to secure full equality for lesbian and gay binational couples.
An estimated 36,000 binational families are currently affected by United States policies that prohibit the sponsoring of ones partner in a same-sex relationship, according to Immigration Equality. At present, only 19 counties have laws permitting sponsorship for gay and lesbian couples.
The hearing will take place at 10:00am, and will be broadcast online on the Senate Judiciary Committee website.
Have a question, comment, or response? 2 people do.Why Civil Unions Are Not Enough: Immigration Laws
If you are married in a heterosexual relationship and only one of you is a United States citizen, it is possible to receive special visas to bring your spouse to this country. However, same-sex couples, even those living in states that permit civil unions or marriage, face an uphill battle when trying to permanently bring their partners to the U.S. Because immigration is regulated by the federal government, and because the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions, gay and lesbian foreign nationals have great difficulty obtaining visas to join their partner in this country.
While there may be some headway in overturning DOMA in federal court, it is unclear that this will completely fix the problem. A current attempt is being made to amend immigration laws to include provisions recognizing same-sex relationships. The legislation, called the Uniting American Families Act, was proposed by Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Opponents accuse the act of attempting to federally permit same-sex marriage, but Senator Leahy disagrees, calling his proposal a step toward basic fairness.
The distinction between opposite- and same-sex couples in federal immigration law highlights another inherent human right missing in civil unions when compared to marriage. Because there is no federal recognition of same-sex unions, and because there is not necessarily an international recognition of US-performed civil unions, it is important to push for federal inclusive marriage. Until then, same-sex couples should seek an attorney who specializes in LGBT immigration law who can assist you in bringing your loved one to this country.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.Gay Iranian Teenager Finally Hears Good News, but Shame on the EU
Thankfully, the UK is reconsidering its decision to force a gay teenager back to Iran to be executed. I have been privately critical of both the UK and The Netherlands for their roles in this story, in which Iranian teenager Mehdi Kazemi was forced to travel between the two countries seeking asylum and was repeatedly denied. The British government has a policy not to deport people when it would be unsafe to do so, but ruled that it was not the case here. The Netherlands based on their decision on the European Union's 2003 Dublin Regulation, whereby asylum seekers must apply at the first country through which they enter the EU (in this case, the UK).
Fortunately on Thursday, Britain's Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced that, "in the light of new circumstances since the original decision was made, I have decided that Mr. Kazemi's case should be reconsidered on his return to the U.K. from the Netherlands" where he currently is after having fled from Britain following his first denial of asylum.
While this story will likely have a happy ending, I am still left feeling nervous. While every independent sovereign undoubtedly should have the power to make individual determinations on the matter of immigration and asylum, a world which is increasingly interconnected must operate under a more ubiquitous checks-and-balances system. After all, the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that it is the responsibility of "every individual and every organ of society to promote respect for [human] rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance."
The EU's hyper-bureaucratic structure regarding the aforementioned Dublin Regulation halts any reasonable process of review. Why should The Netherlands be forced to honor an obviously erred decision from the UK? Britain claims that "new circumstances" caused their reversal, but I wonder what was initially unclear about "I will be executed if deported." Kazemi was lucky he was able to buy enough time for Britain to recognize their error. How many gay teenagers have been deported to their deaths because of European bureaucracy? And how many more will have to be before they recognize that the Dublin Regulation needs provisions to allow review in these cases?
Until human rights can be more universally internationally recognized, it is the obligation of other sovereigns to uphold their commitment to "promote respect [...] and freedoms." While the final outcome may be a welcomed relief to Mehdi Kazemi after a lifetime of fear, shame on the UK for initially failing to exercise due care in making their decision, and shame on The Netherlands for bowing to bureaucratic pressures instead of honoring their duty to protect a persecuted teenager. If the rule is unjust, then the rule must be changed.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.