Gay marriage and marriage based visa's
Mar 17th 2005, 4:30 pm
#31
Concierge
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,388
Re: Gay marriage and marriage based visa's
Originally Posted by celine_uk
I would permit 2 people in a long term relationship to immigrate, just like the rest of the world does, its called common law partnership, Canada allows un-married couples of one year or more who can prove and document their relationship to immigrate as a couple, England 2 years, whether they are same-sex or not, and many other western countries have similar immigration laws, you comment on same- sex marriage -we are not talking about someone marrying 6 people here, we are talking about 2 people who love each other nothing more nothing less and they just have happen to be of the same sex
I must question why you are holding Canada's immigration policies up to those of us in the US as a shining example of fairness and equality? Just because the Canadian government has deemed through their federal court system to recognize the marriage between same sex gender partners as a valid civil union does not mean the US government has to follow suit. Nor that we have to pass regulations that view the roommate status of two people of the opposite sex to be a civil marital union. There is much wrong with the Canadian government's immigration policy on who they will and will not accept regardless of their marital status or sexual preference.
That aside the US is not the UK nor is it Canada. These two governments are greatly similar while the US government is vastly different. One day in the distant future state law will change in regards to allowing and recognizing same sex marriages. Until that day dawns, the federal government will not allow same sex couples to migrate to the US based on marriage.
As for roommates declaring themselves common law, I, personally, hope this is never recognized on either a state or federal level. Until and unless a couple is willing to proclaim their union in a civil marriage then their relationship is just that ... roommates. Many states have had common law laws on the books and have repealed them in recent years. I'm all for living together but until and unless the partners are willing to partake and proclaim their relationship before a magistrate of the state, then they should not benefit from a union that state law says must be legalized by state ceremony.
Mar 17th 2005, 4:38 pm
#32
Concierge
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,388
Re: Gay marriage and marriage based visa's
Originally Posted by fatman
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.
Canada denied me my visa as a wife of a Canadian citizen because I had breast cancer 7 years earlier.
As for the US after the fifth year of PR status a PR can get medicaid, no problem. Welfare and medcaid are available to abused spouses under the VAWA and to refugee and aslyum seekers. No problem.
Mar 17th 2005, 5:18 pm
#33
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 642
Re: Gay marriage and marriage based visa's
this info was taken from http://www.aclu.org
The U.S. lags behind other democracies in extending fair treatment in immigration policies to gay couples.
Thirteen other countries currently allow the gay partners of their citizens to become permanent residents, including Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the United Kingdom. But immigration law here in the United States is so bad that San Francisco took the dramatic step of proclaiming itself a "City of Refuge" for dual-passport gay couples. In the spring of 2000, city supervisors voted to instruct city workers not to alert immigration officials to partnered gay and lesbian foreigners living on expired visas. While San Francisco has taken a compassionate approach, U.S. immigration law must be changed to make such subterfuge unnecessary.
,
Urge Congress to Allow Gay Couples to Stay in Committed Relationships
Imagine you have fallen in love and want to spend the rest of your life with a person from a foreign country. If you are a heterosexual American, your partner can gain permanent resident status -- and eventually citizenship -- by marrying you. But if you are gay or lesbian, you cannot sponsor your partner for citizenship because immigration laws do not recognize same-sex couples.
In fact, under no circumstances can a U.S. citizen use a committed relationship as a basis for sponsoring a partner of the same sex from a foreign country, no matter how long the couple has been together or how committed their relationship. "Dual passport" gay or lesbian couples must either go to another country to live together or live apart and struggle to maintain their relationships through expensive phone calls and infrequent visits. Very wealthy gays and lesbians and those with specialized job skills can petition the INS for legal resident status, just like heterosexual individuals. But, unlike with heterosexual couples, the most important person in the prospective immigrant's life doesn't count.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, introduced legislation in the last Congress to remedy this problem. The "Permanent Partner Immigration Act," H.R. 690 would add the term "permanent partner" to sections of immigration law that provide immigration rights to legally married couples. By doing so, the bill would allow gay or lesbian citizens to sponsor their partners to become U.S. residents without relying on state or federal recognition of gay marriage.
13 other countries have gay immigration........
The U.S. lags behind other democracies in extending fair treatment in immigration policies to gay couples.
Thirteen other countries currently allow the gay partners of their citizens to become permanent residents, including Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the United Kingdom. But immigration law here in the United States is so bad that San Francisco took the dramatic step of proclaiming itself a "City of Refuge" for dual-passport gay couples. In the spring of 2000, city supervisors voted to instruct city workers not to alert immigration officials to partnered gay and lesbian foreigners living on expired visas. While San Francisco has taken a compassionate approach, U.S. immigration law must be changed to make such subterfuge unnecessary.
,
Urge Congress to Allow Gay Couples to Stay in Committed Relationships
Imagine you have fallen in love and want to spend the rest of your life with a person from a foreign country. If you are a heterosexual American, your partner can gain permanent resident status -- and eventually citizenship -- by marrying you. But if you are gay or lesbian, you cannot sponsor your partner for citizenship because immigration laws do not recognize same-sex couples.
In fact, under no circumstances can a U.S. citizen use a committed relationship as a basis for sponsoring a partner of the same sex from a foreign country, no matter how long the couple has been together or how committed their relationship. "Dual passport" gay or lesbian couples must either go to another country to live together or live apart and struggle to maintain their relationships through expensive phone calls and infrequent visits. Very wealthy gays and lesbians and those with specialized job skills can petition the INS for legal resident status, just like heterosexual individuals. But, unlike with heterosexual couples, the most important person in the prospective immigrant's life doesn't count.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, introduced legislation in the last Congress to remedy this problem. The "Permanent Partner Immigration Act," H.R. 690 would add the term "permanent partner" to sections of immigration law that provide immigration rights to legally married couples. By doing so, the bill would allow gay or lesbian citizens to sponsor their partners to become U.S. residents without relying on state or federal recognition of gay marriage.
13 other countries have gay immigration........
Mar 17th 2005, 5:26 pm
#34
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 642
Re: Gay marriage and marriage based visa's
If common law isn’t enough for immigration purposes in the USA, then same-sex couples should be given the right to a 'state ceremony' that would solve everything.
Originally Posted by Rete
I must question why you are holding Canada's immigration policies up to those of us in the US as a shining example of fairness and equality? Just because the Canadian government has deemed through their federal court system to recognize the marriage between same sex gender partners as a valid civil union does not mean the US government has to follow suit. Nor that we have to pass regulations that view the roommate status of two people of the opposite sex to be a civil marital union. There is much wrong with the Canadian government's immigration policy on who they will and will not accept regardless of their marital status or sexual preference.
That aside the US is not the UK nor is it Canada. These two governments are greatly similar while the US government is vastly different. One day in the distant future state law will change in regards to allowing and recognizing same sex marriages. Until that day dawns, the federal government will not allow same sex couples to migrate to the US based on marriage.
As for roommates declaring themselves common law, I, personally, hope this is never recognized on either a state or federal level. Until and unless a couple is willing to proclaim their union in a civil marriage then their relationship is just that ... roommates. Many states have had common law laws on the books and have repealed them in recent years. I'm all for living together but until and unless the partners are willing to partake and proclaim their relationship before a magistrate of the state, then they should not benefit from a union that state law says must be legalized by state ceremony.
That aside the US is not the UK nor is it Canada. These two governments are greatly similar while the US government is vastly different. One day in the distant future state law will change in regards to allowing and recognizing same sex marriages. Until that day dawns, the federal government will not allow same sex couples to migrate to the US based on marriage.
As for roommates declaring themselves common law, I, personally, hope this is never recognized on either a state or federal level. Until and unless a couple is willing to proclaim their union in a civil marriage then their relationship is just that ... roommates. Many states have had common law laws on the books and have repealed them in recent years. I'm all for living together but until and unless the partners are willing to partake and proclaim their relationship before a magistrate of the state, then they should not benefit from a union that state law says must be legalized by state ceremony.
Mar 17th 2005, 5:29 pm
#35
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 68,280
Re: Gay marriage and marriage based visa's
Originally Posted by celine_uk
remedy this problem. The "Permanent Partner Immigration Act," H.R. 690 would add the term "permanent partner" to sections of immigration law that provide immigration rights to legally married couples.....
Mar 17th 2005, 5:40 pm
#36
Concierge
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,388
Re: Gay marriage and marriage based visa's
Personally, I think as an American that the American Civil Liberties Union is the biggest racist organization in the country. Just as the NAACP is.
And please, do not misunderstand me. I'm all for marriage being allowed and legalized for same sex partners. If a couple loves each other enough to want to live together in a union where they will share their emotional, physical, financial and social lives, then they should be allowed to. If someone does not agree with that, then they are free NOT to marry someone of the same sex that they are in love with ;-)
However, until the US Federal and State Governments can once again separate church from state this is not going to happen. It comes to the church saying this type of marriage is morally wrong and the politicans staying alongside those that "principles" that sway their voters.
And please, do not misunderstand me. I'm all for marriage being allowed and legalized for same sex partners. If a couple loves each other enough to want to live together in a union where they will share their emotional, physical, financial and social lives, then they should be allowed to. If someone does not agree with that, then they are free NOT to marry someone of the same sex that they are in love with ;-)
However, until the US Federal and State Governments can once again separate church from state this is not going to happen. It comes to the church saying this type of marriage is morally wrong and the politicans staying alongside those that "principles" that sway their voters.
Originally Posted by celine_uk
this info was taken from http://www.aclu.org
The U.S. lags behind other democracies in extending fair treatment in immigration policies to gay couples.
Thirteen other countries currently allow the gay partners of their citizens to become permanent residents, including Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the United Kingdom. But immigration law here in the United States is so bad that San Francisco took the dramatic step of proclaiming itself a "City of Refuge" for dual-passport gay couples. In the spring of 2000, city supervisors voted to instruct city workers not to alert immigration officials to partnered gay and lesbian foreigners living on expired visas. While San Francisco has taken a compassionate approach, U.S. immigration law must be changed to make such subterfuge unnecessary.
,
Urge Congress to Allow Gay Couples to Stay in Committed Relationships
Imagine you have fallen in love and want to spend the rest of your life with a person from a foreign country. If you are a heterosexual American, your partner can gain permanent resident status -- and eventually citizenship -- by marrying you. But if you are gay or lesbian, you cannot sponsor your partner for citizenship because immigration laws do not recognize same-sex couples.
In fact, under no circumstances can a U.S. citizen use a committed relationship as a basis for sponsoring a partner of the same sex from a foreign country, no matter how long the couple has been together or how committed their relationship. "Dual passport" gay or lesbian couples must either go to another country to live together or live apart and struggle to maintain their relationships through expensive phone calls and infrequent visits. Very wealthy gays and lesbians and those with specialized job skills can petition the INS for legal resident status, just like heterosexual individuals. But, unlike with heterosexual couples, the most important person in the prospective immigrant's life doesn't count.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, introduced legislation in the last Congress to remedy this problem. The "Permanent Partner Immigration Act," H.R. 690 would add the term "permanent partner" to sections of immigration law that provide immigration rights to legally married couples. By doing so, the bill would allow gay or lesbian citizens to sponsor their partners to become U.S. residents without relying on state or federal recognition of gay marriage.
13 other countries have gay immigration........
The U.S. lags behind other democracies in extending fair treatment in immigration policies to gay couples.
Thirteen other countries currently allow the gay partners of their citizens to become permanent residents, including Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the United Kingdom. But immigration law here in the United States is so bad that San Francisco took the dramatic step of proclaiming itself a "City of Refuge" for dual-passport gay couples. In the spring of 2000, city supervisors voted to instruct city workers not to alert immigration officials to partnered gay and lesbian foreigners living on expired visas. While San Francisco has taken a compassionate approach, U.S. immigration law must be changed to make such subterfuge unnecessary.
,
Urge Congress to Allow Gay Couples to Stay in Committed Relationships
Imagine you have fallen in love and want to spend the rest of your life with a person from a foreign country. If you are a heterosexual American, your partner can gain permanent resident status -- and eventually citizenship -- by marrying you. But if you are gay or lesbian, you cannot sponsor your partner for citizenship because immigration laws do not recognize same-sex couples.
In fact, under no circumstances can a U.S. citizen use a committed relationship as a basis for sponsoring a partner of the same sex from a foreign country, no matter how long the couple has been together or how committed their relationship. "Dual passport" gay or lesbian couples must either go to another country to live together or live apart and struggle to maintain their relationships through expensive phone calls and infrequent visits. Very wealthy gays and lesbians and those with specialized job skills can petition the INS for legal resident status, just like heterosexual individuals. But, unlike with heterosexual couples, the most important person in the prospective immigrant's life doesn't count.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, introduced legislation in the last Congress to remedy this problem. The "Permanent Partner Immigration Act," H.R. 690 would add the term "permanent partner" to sections of immigration law that provide immigration rights to legally married couples. By doing so, the bill would allow gay or lesbian citizens to sponsor their partners to become U.S. residents without relying on state or federal recognition of gay marriage.
13 other countries have gay immigration........
Last edited by Rete; Mar 17th 2005 at 5:46 pm.
Mar 17th 2005, 7:04 pm
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gay marriage and marriage based visa's
fatman wrote:
> But there is no constitutional amendment yet that outright bans gay
> marriage or specifies marriage is between a man and a woman. 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?
No.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act (signed into law by Clinton in
1996) is the applicable law:
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
`spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband
or a wife."
The federal government will not recognize a same-sex marriage performed
in California. In fact, they have refused to recognize those already
performed in Massachusetts.
Josh Rosenbluth
> But there is no constitutional amendment yet that outright bans gay
> marriage or specifies marriage is between a man and a woman. 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?
No.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act (signed into law by Clinton in
1996) is the applicable law:
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
`spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband
or a wife."
The federal government will not recognize a same-sex marriage performed
in California. In fact, they have refused to recognize those already
performed in Massachusetts.
Josh Rosenbluth
Mar 17th 2005, 7:17 pm
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gay marriage and marriage based visa's
Ian12 wrote:
> > If a priest will not marry a heterosexual couple because he thinks
> > they are not ideal for marriage, and he won't marry a same sex
couple
> > either, there is no inequity. What you are meaning it that you
think
> > that immigration should permit same-sex couples to immigrate
without a
> > marriage, because their marriage is not legally permitted, correct?
> > But in so far as equal rights are concerned, where would you draw
the
> > line? Would we then permit a US citizen to petition for his five
> > wives to come to America too?
> 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.
Last time I looked the following countries recognized same-sex partners
for immigration purposes:
Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland,
Israel,
the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the U.K.
Not the USA.
Josh Rosenbluth
> > If a priest will not marry a heterosexual couple because he thinks
> > they are not ideal for marriage, and he won't marry a same sex
couple
> > either, there is no inequity. What you are meaning it that you
think
> > that immigration should permit same-sex couples to immigrate
without a
> > marriage, because their marriage is not legally permitted, correct?
> > But in so far as equal rights are concerned, where would you draw
the
> > line? Would we then permit a US citizen to petition for his five
> > wives to come to America too?
> 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.
Last time I looked the following countries recognized same-sex partners
for immigration purposes:
Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland,
Israel,
the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the U.K.
Not the USA.
Josh Rosenbluth
Mar 17th 2005, 8:40 pm
#39
The fattest member
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 496
Re: Gay marriage and marriage based visa's
Originally Posted by jrosenbluth
fatman wrote:
> But there is no constitutional amendment yet that outright bans gay
> marriage or specifies marriage is between a man and a woman. 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?
No.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act (signed into law by Clinton in
1996) is the applicable law:
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
`spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband
or a wife."
The federal government will not recognize a same-sex marriage performed
in California. In fact, they have refused to recognize those already
performed in Massachusetts.
Josh Rosenbluth
> But there is no constitutional amendment yet that outright bans gay
> marriage or specifies marriage is between a man and a woman. 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?
No.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act (signed into law by Clinton in
1996) is the applicable law:
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
`spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband
or a wife."
The federal government will not recognize a same-sex marriage performed
in California. In fact, they have refused to recognize those already
performed in Massachusetts.
Josh Rosenbluth
Mar 17th 2005, 8:41 pm
#40
The fattest member
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 496
Re: Gay marriage and marriage based visa's
Originally Posted by Rete
Personally, I think as an American that the American Civil Liberties Union is the biggest racist organization in the country. Just as the NAACP is.
Mar 17th 2005, 8:47 pm
#41
Homebody
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: HOME
Posts: 23,181
Re: Gay marriage and marriage based visa's
Originally Posted by Rete
Personally, I think as an American that the American Civil Liberties Union is the biggest racist organization in the country. Just as the NAACP is.
Why?
Yours, flabbergasted,
Mar 17th 2005, 9:08 pm
#42
American Expat
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,598
Re: Gay marriage and marriage based visa's
Originally Posted by 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.
The myth is that they can't and aren't using these publicly funded assistance programs, public schools, and medical treatment. Tourists come on B2 visas to have children here for free. Check out birthinusa.com. If you could read Korean, you'd see that it's a how-to web site to come to the US and use the free medical to have their baby. Who do you think is paying for these births?
Mar 17th 2005, 9:16 pm
#43
American Expat
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,598
Re: Gay marriage and marriage based visa's
Originally Posted by celine_uk
this info was taken from http://www.aclu.org
The U.S. lags behind other democracies in extending fair treatment in immigration policies to gay couples.
Thirteen other countries currently allow the gay partners of their citizens to become permanent residents, including Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the United Kingdom. But immigration law here in the United States is so bad that San Francisco took the dramatic step of proclaiming itself a "City of Refuge" for dual-passport gay couples. In the spring of 2000, city supervisors voted to instruct city workers not to alert immigration officials to partnered gay and lesbian foreigners living on expired visas. While San Francisco has taken a compassionate approach, U.S. immigration law must be changed to make such subterfuge unnecessary.
,
Urge Congress to Allow Gay Couples to Stay in Committed Relationships
Imagine you have fallen in love and want to spend the rest of your life with a person from a foreign country. If you are a heterosexual American, your partner can gain permanent resident status -- and eventually citizenship -- by marrying you. But if you are gay or lesbian, you cannot sponsor your partner for citizenship because immigration laws do not recognize same-sex couples.
In fact, under no circumstances can a U.S. citizen use a committed relationship as a basis for sponsoring a partner of the same sex from a foreign country, no matter how long the couple has been together or how committed their relationship. "Dual passport" gay or lesbian couples must either go to another country to live together or live apart and struggle to maintain their relationships through expensive phone calls and infrequent visits. Very wealthy gays and lesbians and those with specialized job skills can petition the INS for legal resident status, just like heterosexual individuals. But, unlike with heterosexual couples, the most important person in the prospective immigrant's life doesn't count.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, introduced legislation in the last Congress to remedy this problem. The "Permanent Partner Immigration Act," H.R. 690 would add the term "permanent partner" to sections of immigration law that provide immigration rights to legally married couples. By doing so, the bill would allow gay or lesbian citizens to sponsor their partners to become U.S. residents without relying on state or federal recognition of gay marriage.
13 other countries have gay immigration........
The U.S. lags behind other democracies in extending fair treatment in immigration policies to gay couples.
Thirteen other countries currently allow the gay partners of their citizens to become permanent residents, including Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the United Kingdom. But immigration law here in the United States is so bad that San Francisco took the dramatic step of proclaiming itself a "City of Refuge" for dual-passport gay couples. In the spring of 2000, city supervisors voted to instruct city workers not to alert immigration officials to partnered gay and lesbian foreigners living on expired visas. While San Francisco has taken a compassionate approach, U.S. immigration law must be changed to make such subterfuge unnecessary.
,
Urge Congress to Allow Gay Couples to Stay in Committed Relationships
Imagine you have fallen in love and want to spend the rest of your life with a person from a foreign country. If you are a heterosexual American, your partner can gain permanent resident status -- and eventually citizenship -- by marrying you. But if you are gay or lesbian, you cannot sponsor your partner for citizenship because immigration laws do not recognize same-sex couples.
In fact, under no circumstances can a U.S. citizen use a committed relationship as a basis for sponsoring a partner of the same sex from a foreign country, no matter how long the couple has been together or how committed their relationship. "Dual passport" gay or lesbian couples must either go to another country to live together or live apart and struggle to maintain their relationships through expensive phone calls and infrequent visits. Very wealthy gays and lesbians and those with specialized job skills can petition the INS for legal resident status, just like heterosexual individuals. But, unlike with heterosexual couples, the most important person in the prospective immigrant's life doesn't count.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, introduced legislation in the last Congress to remedy this problem. The "Permanent Partner Immigration Act," H.R. 690 would add the term "permanent partner" to sections of immigration law that provide immigration rights to legally married couples. By doing so, the bill would allow gay or lesbian citizens to sponsor their partners to become U.S. residents without relying on state or federal recognition of gay marriage.
13 other countries have gay immigration........
Mar 17th 2005, 10:21 pm
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gay marriage and marriage based visa's
"crg14624" <member20421@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected] m...
>> 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.
> 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.
You're quite right about that. Just about everything the government does is
nothing but a money issue, and who gets it.
> 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?
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
news:[email protected] m...
>> 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.
> 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.
You're quite right about that. Just about everything the government does is
nothing but a money issue, and who gets it.
> 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?
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Mar 17th 2005, 10:23 pm
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gay marriage and marriage based visa's
"fatman" <member26141@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected] m...
>> 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?
> 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.
The U.S. provides medicaid if the immigrant became a citizen. I don't see
why Canada denies entry to special needs children when on the other hand
they would let in any terrorist who claims he would be 'harrassed back home'
or what ever -- even without papers or a passport.
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
news:[email protected] m...
>> 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?
> 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.
The U.S. provides medicaid if the immigrant became a citizen. I don't see
why Canada denies entry to special needs children when on the other hand
they would let in any terrorist who claims he would be 'harrassed back home'
or what ever -- even without papers or a passport.
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com