fatman

Subject to an appeal, a californian judge ruled in favour of same sex marriage a couple of days ago, it's very likely that this will become state law in California within the year. I was hoping rather than get into the fors and againsts of gay marriage (which I'm definitely for) I could get info about how this will affect immigration laws. It seems to me if state law is for gay marriage and the constitution does not forbid it then maybe there could be some sort of lengthy legal appeal against the federal restrictions on disallowing same sex couples into the US, provided they live in California. Your point about transgender couples is an interesting one BioMonique. It's hard to get my head around the workings of state and federal law, no wonder there are so many lawyers in the US!!

celine_uk

so what do other people think? should the US government pass some sort of legislation that covers same-sex couples as far as immigration is concerned ? I heard of a bill a few years ago purposing exactly this but that Is all I know

Brit Am

"fatman" <member26141@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected] m...
    >> Federal law supercedes state law. In your scenario, the couple you
    >> descibe wouldn't be allowed to emigrate to the U.S. based on a
    >> marriage visa. If California would allow it, California is still
    >> located inside the U.S. and the feds decide who lives in the US.
    >> It would be the same if a state legalized marijuanna. The feds would
    >> still send in the DEA and arrest people on federal charges.
    >> I did hear that someone who immigrates to Quebec has to get permission
    >> from Canada, and then permission from Quebec as well.
    > But there is no constitutional amendment yet that outright bans gay
    > marriage or specifies marriage is between a man and a woman.

There is in many states' constitutons now. The federal government does not
register marriages, states do, and the counties in those states. There's no
way the Federal government is going to touch such a hot political topic.

It is
    > illegal from an immigration standpoint because of the use of the word
    > 'spouse' in the law. Am I right in thinking federal law says nothing on
    > the issue, it is only the immigration law that forbids it? Do you think
    > the immigration law could be appealed based on the constitution or the
    > declaration of human rights?
    > once again, thanks for your input.
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Brit Am

"celine_uk" <member10014@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected] m...
    >> I imagine rather the use of the clause "between a man and a woman" is
    >> more the case. Although that causes me to wonder whether that would
    >> cover all alternative marriage situations. Would that also preclude
    >> marriage of a transgender?
    > There are no immigration laws in the USA in regard to same-same couples,
    > which is completely unfair and against human rights.

That's crap. It has to do with the American form of government -- States'
rights. Every state in America has its own laws and constitutions.

Lets say an America
    > man falls in love with his British boyfriend, there is no way his
    > partner could even immigrate to the USA based on their partnership but
    > on the other hand an American man could marry a women (a complete
    > stranger) and qualify for a green-card based on their marriage. I wonder
    > if America will ever give immigration rights to same-sex couples? From a
    > young age I remember hearing this "Freedom and equality for all
    > Americans" Hmm I think not
    > (Just to let you guys know, if you marry in Canada the Canadian
    > government now treats same-sex marriage just like straight marriage as
    > far as immigration is concerned)
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

crg

Exactly. There are also laws that state someone can't marry their parent, or sibling. Marrying your sister has genetic, moral and societal implications. The government is in charge of applying rules on society for the general benefit of all. Many societies are based on strong family situations. The people pick the government and expect them to represent their interests. Apparently, the majority isn't interested in same sex marriages for immigration benefits at this time so it's not the law.

Human rights don't allow someone to conduct any behavior they wish just because they want to. People can't smoke in public places anymore. Are no-smoking laws a violation of someone's human right to smoke?

crg

How about two people who pretend to love each other for an immigrant visa? Should they be allowed to come too?

Brit Am

"crg14624" <member20421@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected] m...
    >> so this means that a gay couple, say one was English the other
    >> Californian, will not be able to emigrate to California on a marriage
    >> visa?
    >> Which has precedence, State law or Federal law and could federal law
    >> be challenged on this issue?
    >> Thanks for your input :)
    > Federal law supercedes state law. In your scenario, the couple you
    > descibe wouldn't be allowed to emigrate to the U.S. based on a marriage
    > visa. If California would allow it, California is still located inside
    > the U.S. and the feds decide who lives in the US.

That's correct. Immigration is a Federal issue. Also, in the forseeable
future there won't be an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allowing gay
marriage. If anything quite the opposite. Amendments are rare, and the
people in every state have to vote on it (not the Congress). Indeed, it was
the people of California who voted to ban gay marriage. This 'judge' was
legislating from the bench, and his ruling will not stand, especially if it
goes to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    > It would be the same if a state legalized marijuanna. The feds would
    > still send in the DEA and arrest people on federal charges.
    > I did hear that someone who immigrates to Quebec has to get permission
    > from Canada, and then permission from Quebec as well.
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

fatman

but as I understand it, the constitution as it stands does NOT disallow gay marriage, it makes no statement on it. Marriage is not legally confined between a man and a woman on a federal level unless Bush gets his amendment. I have done more research though and it does appeer that immigration law is what counts and immigration law will not allow a same sex couple to be sponsored for marriage, so even if California does allow gay marriage it will not affect immigration for now. However times are changing, I can see the law being altered within a decade or so.

Brit Am

"fatman" <member26141@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected] m...
    >> "crg14624" <member20421@british_expats.com> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected] m...
    >> >> so this means that a gay couple, say one was English the other
    >> >> Californian, will not be able to emigrate to California on a
    >> >> marriage
    >> >> visa?
    >> >> Which has precedence, State law or Federal law and could federal
    >> >> law
    >> >> be challenged on this issue?
    >> >> Thanks for your input :)
    >> > Federal law supercedes state law. In your scenario, the couple you
    >> > descibe wouldn't be allowed to emigrate to the U.S. based on a
    >> > marriage
    >> > visa. If California would allow it, California is still located
    >> > inside
    >> > the U.S. and the feds decide who lives in the US.
    >> That's correct. Immigration is a Federal issue. Also, in the
    >> forseeable
    >> future there won't be an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allowing
    >> gay
    >> marriage. If anything quite the opposite. Amendments are rare, and
    >> the
    >> people in every state have to vote on it (not the Congress). Indeed,
    >> it was
    >> the people of California who voted to ban gay marriage. This 'judge'
    >> was
    >> legislating from the bench, and his ruling will not stand, especially
    >> if it
    >> goes to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    >> > It would be the same if a state legalized marijuanna. The feds
    >> > would
    >> > still send in the DEA and arrest people on federal charges.
    >> > I did hear that someone who immigrates to Quebec has to get
    >> > permission
    >> > from Canada, and then permission from Quebec as well.
    >> > --
    >> > Posted via http://britishexpats.com
    > but as I understand it, the constitution as it stands does NOT disallow
    > gay marriage, it makes no statement on it. Marriage is not legally
    > confined between a man and a woman on a federal level unless Bush gets
    > his amendment. I have done more research though and it does appeer that
    > immigration law is what counts and immigration law will not allow a same
    > sex couple to be sponsored for marriage, so even if California does
    > allow gay marriage it will not affect immigration for now. However times
    > are changing, I can see the law being altered within a decade or so.

It won't be 'Bush's amendment'. Amendments are not made that way in
America.

    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

crg

This is all about money. The lawyers would love same-sex marriage. Then they can rake in the money from divorces, spousal disability and death benefits, custody disputes and everything that comes with marriages.

The government can limit immigration for things that would be "unconstitutional" in other areas because they are allowed to. For instance, if the spouse has HIV, is a criminal, is disabled, is a communist, doesn't have their vaccinations etc then they can be barred from immigrating. If the US petitioner is poor then they can't bring their spouse. The constitution doesn't apply to those seeking entry or visas because they aren't inside the US. Being homosexual or a cross-dresser was a ground of inadmissibility up until something like 1992. Even though it was rarely enforced, being homosexual technically prevented someone from entering as a tourist.

Canada denies visas to people's special-needs children if they would burden their health system. How's that for human rights?

fatman

entry to the US under a marriage based visa is definitely a privelige rather than a right. You don't have to go that far back in time to when you weren't allowed in for being Chinese and even less further back if you wished to have an interracial marriage, the progression of civil rights is very recent, so 1992 is quite a long way back really. Still, I think the law will change in a decade, maybe under the democrats, as people become more understanding of the difficulties same sex couples face.
The fact that a lot of people can make a lot of money out of it could well prove to be useful.
Canada does deny special needs children entry if they prove a drain on their healthcare, but I think a lot of countries are the same, the US doesn't provide medicaid for any immigrant.

crg

The US doesn't provide medicaid for immigrants? That's a myth, and not true at all. Anyone can drop by an emergency room and be seen. Medicaid may be a federal program, but the states administer it, and spend the money on legal or illegal immigrants. Noone is turned away. The hospitals will stuff a medicaid application in anyone's face that walks in the door no matter what their status is.

The democrats are already trying to get these gains for the left leaning people in the U.S. It doesn't seem like a winning strategy for them so far. They lost both houses of Congress, the Whitehouse, and are clinging to the supreme court. The upper-middle class is migrating out of California. The democrats lost the last election during an unpopular war. They're in trouble.

fatman

The US may provide medicaid for legal immigrants such as myself, but they will then sue the person sponosring that immigrant (usually the spouse) for the money, immigrants have to sign many documents and receive no benefits, basically if you can't support yourself and sponge of the state, then they don't want you here. It is a myth that immigrants receive all these benefits like voting, food stamps, medicaid etc, as they don't.

Ian12

I have not read all of the postings on this because I am tired and at 2.37am Australian time I must get to bed BUT I was issued with a DEFACTO visa five years ago which allowed me to come to Australia as a defacto spouse of my partner. We had to prove that we were in a committed relationship. I cannot get my head around people dragging religion into the debate. Their has been civil marriages for years! I agree, in some senses the US does drag it's feet which is all the more surprising when one considers that the biggest campaings (which we in the rest of the world have all benefitted from) have been brought about by those fighting for Gay rights in the USA. Oh and by the way - as a priest myself- and gay- with two adopted kids - one cat and one long suffering same sex partner - it is not the priest that marries a couple. He officiates! The couple marry one another.

bionomique

Thanks for the correction.