Nosey question
#1
Go RedSox!
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 681
Nosey question
Though not exactly a 'feminist' I do believe in equal rights for women of course. I was interested to note that until I think 1974 or some ridiculously recent date, British women could not sponsor a fiancé or husband to live in the UK. I'm curious as to whether the same was once true in the US, (ie only men could sponsor a fianceé or wife) and if so when the rule changed.
#2
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: Nosey question
Originally posted by MrsLondon
Though not exactly a 'feminist' I do believe in equal rights for women of course. I was interested to note that until I think 1974 or some ridiculously recent date, British women could not sponsor a fiancé or husband to live in the UK. I'm curious as to whether the same was once true in the US, (ie only men could sponsor a fianceé or wife) and if so when the rule changed.
Though not exactly a 'feminist' I do believe in equal rights for women of course. I was interested to note that until I think 1974 or some ridiculously recent date, British women could not sponsor a fiancé or husband to live in the UK. I'm curious as to whether the same was once true in the US, (ie only men could sponsor a fianceé or wife) and if so when the rule changed.
With one exception that I'm aware of, the current US immigration laws are gender neutral. The one exception that I'm aware of deals with the relationship between men and their illegitimate children -- and that was eased up in the 1986 IRCA legislation.
And don't be fooled by titiles of legislation -- the Violence Against Women Act is also gender neutral. In fact, the mother case from the Supremes about marriage fraud, Lutwak v. US, involved the marriages of alien men under the WWII era "War Brides Act."
Under pre-1934, US Citizen fathers could pass down citizenship to their foreign born children, but not USC mothers. Given the cross-border migration patterns prevelant at the time,this affect many Canadians. In the early 19-ninetlies, there were several court cases which found the 1870-1934 law to be unconsitutional under equal protection analysis. [BTW, immigration is about the only area where laws fail under the deferential "rational basis" test, but I digress]. These cases never went up to the Supremes because Congress later amended the previously repealed law. [I know that sounds weird -- but basically, Congress adopted the courts' interpretation of the prior law].