Go Back  British Expats > Living & Moving Abroad > USA
Reload this Page >

United States v. Windsor

United States v. Windsor

Old Jun 26th 2013, 3:19 pm
  #1  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,154
hungryhorace has a reputation beyond reputehungryhorace has a reputation beyond reputehungryhorace has a reputation beyond reputehungryhorace has a reputation beyond reputehungryhorace has a reputation beyond reputehungryhorace has a reputation beyond reputehungryhorace has a reputation beyond reputehungryhorace has a reputation beyond reputehungryhorace has a reputation beyond reputehungryhorace has a reputation beyond reputehungryhorace has a reputation beyond repute
Default United States v. Windsor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2-307_g2bh.pdf

I am informed that this case now changes federal immigration law with regards to the US not recognizing same sex marriages for immigration purposes.

Has formal guidance yet been issued? Does anyone know?
hungryhorace is offline  
Old Jun 26th 2013, 3:25 pm
  #2  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
sir_eccles's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 8,106
sir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: United States v. Windsor

I haven't read the ruling yet but "ding dong the DOMA is dead"
sir_eccles is offline  
Old Jun 26th 2013, 3:30 pm
  #3  
Often not so civil...
 
civilservant's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: The Boonies, GA
Posts: 6,999
civilservant has a reputation beyond reputecivilservant has a reputation beyond reputecivilservant has a reputation beyond reputecivilservant has a reputation beyond reputecivilservant has a reputation beyond reputecivilservant has a reputation beyond reputecivilservant has a reputation beyond reputecivilservant has a reputation beyond reputecivilservant has a reputation beyond reputecivilservant has a reputation beyond reputecivilservant has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: United States v. Windsor

In itself I do not believe it does, however it certainly clears the way for it to be introduced in CIR.

The problem, thinking longer term, is that the GOP may seek to kill the bill if those changes are introduced.

I wait to be leapt upon

Last edited by civilservant; Jun 26th 2013 at 3:43 pm.
civilservant is offline  
Old Jun 26th 2013, 3:35 pm
  #4  
Senior Moment
 
Sarah's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,005
Sarah has a reputation beyond reputeSarah has a reputation beyond reputeSarah has a reputation beyond reputeSarah has a reputation beyond reputeSarah has a reputation beyond reputeSarah has a reputation beyond reputeSarah has a reputation beyond reputeSarah has a reputation beyond reputeSarah has a reputation beyond reputeSarah has a reputation beyond reputeSarah has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: United States v. Windsor

I have a sister in law who is very much in love with her foreign born girlfriend. I really, really hope they can get married and her gf can get on the road to citizenship soon.
Sarah is offline  
Old Jun 26th 2013, 3:55 pm
  #5  
 
lansbury's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 9,283
lansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: United States v. Windsor

Originally Posted by civilservant View Post
In itself I do not believe it does,
Effectively it does. DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional and therefore can no longer be enforced.

How long it takes for the effect of the ruling to become part of USCIS working practice is another matter. But in theory a married gay couple could file the I-130 today and the Supreme Court ruling means it should be treated on equal terms as any other.
lansbury is offline  
Old Jun 26th 2013, 4:22 pm
  #6  
Mouthy Yank
 
Speedwell's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,229
Speedwell has a reputation beyond reputeSpeedwell has a reputation beyond reputeSpeedwell has a reputation beyond reputeSpeedwell has a reputation beyond reputeSpeedwell has a reputation beyond reputeSpeedwell has a reputation beyond reputeSpeedwell has a reputation beyond reputeSpeedwell has a reputation beyond reputeSpeedwell has a reputation beyond reputeSpeedwell has a reputation beyond reputeSpeedwell has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: United States v. Windsor

Originally Posted by lansbury View Post
But in theory a married gay couple could file the I-130 today and the Supreme Court ruling means it should be treated on equal terms as any other.
In theory, until some bigot adjudicator decides to refuse anyway, and is disciplined, and subsequently sues the USCIS for being "forced" to "sanction" gay marriages "against their religion" by approving properly filed same-sex petitions.
Speedwell is offline  
Old Jun 26th 2013, 4:26 pm
  #7  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
sir_eccles's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 8,106
sir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: United States v. Windsor

Originally Posted by Speedwell View Post
In theory, until some bigot adjudicator decides to refuse anyway, and is disciplined, and subsequently sues the USCIS for being "forced" to "sanction" gay marriages "against their religion" by approving properly filed same-sex petitions.
Sad to say that is probably what will happen. Along with Civilservant's prediction about CIR too. I hate being a pessimist.

I'm not sure how well supported the statistic is but I read somewhere this morning that there are estimates of around 36,000 same sex couples waiting to file. I don't know if that is high or low really.
sir_eccles is offline  
Old Jun 26th 2013, 5:13 pm
  #8  
 
lansbury's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 9,283
lansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: United States v. Windsor

Originally Posted by Speedwell View Post
In theory, until some bigot adjudicator decides to refuse anyway, and is disciplined, and subsequently sues the USCIS for being "forced" to "sanction" gay marriages "against their religion" by approving properly filed same-sex petitions.
That really is not going to change the effect of the court ruling. DOMA has been struck down, and as of the time of the SCOTUS ruling in law ceased to exist. What anyone person may and may not decide to do doesn't change the fact that DOMA no longer can guide USCIS decisions. But we can all dream up imaginary situations to enable us to call people names.
lansbury is offline  
Old Jun 26th 2013, 5:23 pm
  #9  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
sir_eccles's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 8,106
sir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: United States v. Windsor

Originally Posted by lansbury View Post
That really is not going to change the effect of the court ruling. DOMA has been struck down, and as of the time of the SCOTUS ruling in law ceased to exist. What anyone person may and may not decide to do doesn't change the fact that DOMA no longer can guide USCIS decisions. But we can all dream up imaginary situations to enable us to call people names.
I think his point is that while you are right, someone has to go first and we won't really know what will happen until that first petition gets filed and reaches someone's desk.

While in a rational world one would hope nothing significant happens, we know that the USCIS has been and can be discriminatory asking more questions of "unusual couples" (e.g. couples of large age differences, race, religions).
sir_eccles is offline  
Old Jun 26th 2013, 5:37 pm
  #10  
 
lansbury's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 9,283
lansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: United States v. Windsor

Originally Posted by sir_eccles View Post
I think his point is that while you are right, someone has to go first and we won't really know what will happen until that first petition gets filed and reaches someone's desk.

While in a rational world one would hope nothing significant happens, we know that the USCIS has been and can be discriminatory asking more questions of "unusual couples" (e.g. couples of large age differences, race, religions).
Yep someone always has to be first. But it is just as likely as the scenario suggested that USCIS treat the first ones with kid gloves and make sure they leave no room for criticism. But we can all dream up likely outcomes to fit our own views, none of which are any more likely than any other.
lansbury is offline  
Old Jun 26th 2013, 5:45 pm
  #11  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
sir_eccles's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 8,106
sir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: United States v. Windsor

Originally Posted by lansbury View Post
Yep someone always has to be first. But it is just as likely as the scenario suggested that USCIS treat the first ones with kid gloves and make sure they leave no room for criticism. But we can all dream up likely outcomes to fit our own views, none of which are any more likely than any other.
Oh yes, they'll know all eyes will be watching.

One thing I've seen mentioned elsewhere which I thought interesting though I don't know if it applies to USCIS is that some agencies (apparently IRS and SSN) only care where a couple is living now rather than where the marriage took place. So if they move to live in a state that does not recognize same sex marriages then tough. I would have thought as USCIS recognize marriages from overseas (with certain provisos) then it wouldn't matter if the same sex couple now lived in a state that didn't.
sir_eccles is offline  
Old Jun 26th 2013, 6:38 pm
  #12  
Just Joined
 
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 1
bwatson is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: United States v. Windsor

My spouse and I are contemplating being one of the first to attempt this. We are Canadian citizens and have been married for 3 years, together for 8. I have sponsorship for a TN VISA, and my partner WAS going to get a B2-Cohabitating, but now the TD VISA seems much more appropriate. Also the B2 requires a waiting & processing time while the TD can be acquired at the port of entry (no time apart, yay!!)

We are worried though that they may somehow reject us with prejudice and are considering just sticking to the B2 to keep things simple. What do you guys think?
bwatson is offline  
Old Jun 26th 2013, 6:43 pm
  #13  
Often not so civil...
 
civilservant's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: The Boonies, GA
Posts: 6,999
civilservant has a reputation beyond reputecivilservant has a reputation beyond reputecivilservant has a reputation beyond reputecivilservant has a reputation beyond reputecivilservant has a reputation beyond reputecivilservant has a reputation beyond reputecivilservant has a reputation beyond reputecivilservant has a reputation beyond reputecivilservant has a reputation beyond reputecivilservant has a reputation beyond reputecivilservant has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: United States v. Windsor

I, personally, wouldn't go out of my way to be the first to try anything. You pay your money and you take your chance.
civilservant is offline  
Old Jun 26th 2013, 6:47 pm
  #14  
BE Enthusiast
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 927
henryh has a reputation beyond reputehenryh has a reputation beyond reputehenryh has a reputation beyond reputehenryh has a reputation beyond reputehenryh has a reputation beyond reputehenryh has a reputation beyond reputehenryh has a reputation beyond reputehenryh has a reputation beyond reputehenryh has a reputation beyond reputehenryh has a reputation beyond reputehenryh has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: United States v. Windsor

Go for it.
henryh is offline  
Old Jun 26th 2013, 8:27 pm
  #15  
 
lansbury's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 9,283
lansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: United States v. Windsor

Originally Posted by bwatson View Post
My spouse and I are contemplating being one of the first to attempt this. We are Canadian citizens and have been married for 3 years, together for 8. I have sponsorship for a TN VISA, and my partner WAS going to get a B2-Cohabitating, but now the TD VISA seems much more appropriate. Also the B2 requires a waiting & processing time while the TD can be acquired at the port of entry (no time apart, yay!!)

We are worried though that they may somehow reject us with prejudice and are considering just sticking to the B2 to keep things simple. What do you guys think?
If you don't apply and try you definitely will not get it. Nothing is ever gained by doing nothing.
lansbury is offline  

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.