Gays Excluded From Immigration Bill

[mitchtv]

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2009/12/21/Gays_Excluded_from_House_Immigration_Bill/
...Andrew Harmon



The leading gay immigration rights group expressed disappointment on Monday for being excluded from a House immigration bill, but expressed hope that a Senate omnibus bill would include protections for same-sex couples and their families.

Introduced last week by Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat, the bill provides a path to citizenship for the undocumented and includes provisions granting citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. Though the bill is titled “ A.S.A.P.,” legislative sources say the bill is not comprehensive, but rather will inform an omnibus bill yet to be unveiled.

“We pushed very hard to be included in the bill, and we’re disappointed that didn’t include us,” Immigration Equality spokesman Steve Ralls said. “However, when we learned that the bill would not be inclusive, we reached out to the congressman and his constituency in Chicago. gave both and his constituency the assurance that he will absolutely push for inclusion in larger CIR bill.”

Current federal legislation already exists that specifically addresses LGBT immigration rights: the Uniting American Families Act has been introduced in both houses of Congress, by Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York and Vermont senator Patrick Leahy. A larger House bill, known as the Reuniting Families Act, also contains UAFA provisions. more >>>

[TheWraith]

1. For those not in the know...

Currently US immigration law only allows someone to sponsor their partner for citizenship if the couple is married. No marriage = no means for citizenship. The proposal is to expand immigration sponsorship to all "domestic partners," including unmarried straight couples.

[Siyahamba]

3. And because marriage is under federal jurisdiction...

The federal government doesn't recognize same-sex marriages for any purpose. Doesn't matter if a same-sex couple got married in a state or a country that recognizes it, they won't be recognized for immigration.

[TheWraith]

4. Right. Should have noted that.

I had assumed everyone would be on the same page about that, but I shouldn't, not when offering clarification.

[Siyahamba]

5. No problem.

But a lot of people aren't aware, even in the LGBT community. One of the first things most people I talk to about it say is something along the lines of "Why not get married in Massachusetts/Canada?"

[TheWraith]

6. Well, it's understandable, it conflicts with their civics classes...

Specifically the full faith and credit clause of the constitution.

[mitchtv]

2. I hope he doesn't expect us to support amnesty for

undocumenteds when we can't sponsor our own partners=

[whitewolfofarizona]

7. Thank You, Mitchtv!

There seems to be all kinds of sympathy for undocumenteds but none for our people who cannot enter legally to be with their spouses.

[mitchtv]

8. They tell us the Uniting American Families Act

will take care of it. what do you think the odds are for that one?

Welcome to the vestigial LGBT group here in DU

[Siyahamba]

9. Odds are not good, honestly

It was originally introduced in Congress in 2000 as the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, and has been reintroduced in each Congress since then. There was hope with this current Congress, but they won't even repeal DADT. Binational same-sex couples are very low on the priority list of most unless they're directly affected by the situation, so barring a miracle, it won't even come up for a vote.