AMERICAN EXILE

US GLBT IMMIGRATION POLICY

2006-07-27T08:05:00.000-04:00

This cartoon sadly portrays the USA stance on GLBT immigration policy. How sad to deny so many couples the chance to remain together in the US that they are forced to live elsewhere. Yes we must not be real citizens. If we were, we would be entitled to ALL the same rights and privileges.

GAY CONGRESSMAN HAS NO BACKBONE

2006-07-13T07:45:00.000-04:00

I received this article from membership in another immigration group:

Hello all,
Below are two articles, from the NY Blade and the Washington Blade,regarding retiring gay Arizona Republican U.S. Representative Jim Kolbe'sunwillingness to help usher the Uniting American Families Act forward,despite the fact that he has a foreign partner here on a temporary workvisa.-Leslie
http://www.newyorkblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=7906 http://www.washblade.com/blog/index.cfm?type=blog&start=7/6/06&end=7/7/06#7908 http://www.newyorkblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=7906

When you read the article, Jim Kolbe seems to think that adding the issues of binational couples to the immigration debate would add "baggage".

Wow now we are baggage!!

This is one of the reasons why the UAFA is having problems. This guy has no backbone! Go visit his website: "he is proudly representing Arizona".

How is this guy able to sleep at night knowing that he might be able to make a difference in struggling couple's lives and he does nothing? How does he live with himself as a gay man?

LA TIME STORY ON BINATIONAL COUPLES

2006-06-15T02:15:00.000-04:00

The following is an excerpt from the LA Times story on binational couples and his comment on the proposed UAFA:

But Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, finds the legislation problematic for a number of reasons. FAIR is wary of any proposal that would open the doors to more immigrants. And Stein worries that an immigration rights law for gay partners would flood the system with fraudulent applications."You're dealing with a rampant marriage fraud problem now for heterosexual couples," he said.

First Mr. Stein is worried that the UAFA would opent doors to more immigrants. But it is ok that the door is open to heterosexuals but it is ok that the door is shut in the face of gay and lesbian citizens and their families.

Then he is worried about fraudulent applications. Well Mr. Stein wake up the US immigration system is already fradulent as it is denying decent citizens equal rights and protections simply because they are gay or lesbian and is that FAIR? May Mr. Stein you should learn the meaning of fair before you open your mouth.

2006-06-12T06:33:00.000-04:00

The following is an excerpt from an online new article:

Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, asserted that Canada has ``a disproportionate number of al-Qaida. ... because of their very liberal immigration laws (and) because of how political asylum is granted so easily.'' And Rep. John Hostettler of Indiana said many Canadian immigrants don't share ``traditional Canadian values.''

I guess Mr. King has a problem with Canada's fair and compassionate immigration system. I would like to ask him why an American citizen would have to flee to Canada in the first place to be able to remain with their spouse. Well we know the answer to that would be the "one man one woman" thing.

I would also like to ask him why it takes almost 14 years for an approved asylum claimant to get any status in the US.

I would suggest that Mr. King worry about fixing the immigration problems of the US and butt out of the system here.

BUSH PUSHING GAY MARRIAGE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

2006-06-05T22:33:00.000-04:00

The elected thief AKA as Bush held a press conference today in hopes of convincing Congress and the Senate to pass the gay marriage ban to the US Constitution.
America blog requested constituents to call in to their elected members to question supporters of the amendment to answer questions regarding their own morality.
I think this is a great idea as if these "moral police" want to know what we are doing in our bedrooms then it is only fair that we know what they doing.
These facist dictators are purposing again to write discrimination into the Constitution. Let's hope they fail again and I pray they fail in 2006!!!!!

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH AND IE LAUNCH REPORT ON BINATIONAL COUPLES

2006-05-07T08:59:00.000-04:00

On May 2, 2006, Human Rights Watch and Immigration Equality lauched the first ever report on binational couples and the discriminatory treatment imposed on same-sex couples in the US.
I would also say that immigration laws in the US are not only discriminatory but border on persecution of US citizens.
Here is the link for the report:
http://www.immigrationequality.org/familyunvalued.php

UAFA SENATE SPONSOR VOTED FOR DOMA

2006-05-01T08:39:00.000-04:00

When I first began this immigration nightmare, I was of course one of those ignorant Americans. As time went by and I began to learn how unfair the system was I began to do some research. I have now discovered that the primary sponsor in the Senate for the Uniting American Families Act (Sen. Leahy) also voted for the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.So let's examine this. The unconstitutional DOMA was passed so that if gays or lesbians were married in one state that other states would not have to recognize that marriage and defined marriage under federal law as of course "one man, and one woman". This is the main reason that binational couples are suffering today. Then fast forward. The kind senator introduces the UAFA so that partners are recognized under immigration law.Does this make fucking sense? In one instance he enshrines the discrimination and in another he tries to rectify it. How can someone justify such a vote? I can only theorize that UAFA does not specify marriage so that is why he introduced it. I guess as long as there are no marriages they figure give the gays a little something.

10 QUESTIONS REGARDING US IMMIGRATION POLICY

2006-03-23T23:41:00.000-05:00

After seeing a post on questions they would like to ask President [sic] Bush, I decided to put up some questions that I would like to ask him in regards to our immigration policies:

1. Mr. Bush why are only heterosexuals allowed to sponsor their spouses or loved ones under our immigration laws? Do you think that only heterosexuals can have a loving and caring relationship? Why does our sexual orientation automatically disqualify us for equal treatment and benefits enjoyed by other citizens?

2. Mr. Bush what is the purpose of offering asylum to people fleeing persecution if the government then makes these people jump through hoops like dogs just so they can get protection?

3. Mr. Bush what is the purpose of the so called "one-year deadline"? And why does the government say that there are exceptions when there are esentially no exceptions?

4. Mr. Bush why is it that if a person is so lucky to be granted asylum, then it takes up to 14 years to get any type of permanent status? How long does one need to wait?

5. Mr. Bush why are the American partners of gays and lesbians considered insignificant in asylum claims? Is it because we are not the ones who should worry about being deported or is because you and the Republican party think that we really don't count as human beings at all?

6. Mr. Bush why is that even when a gay or lesbian couple get married and that marriage is legally recognized elsewhere the USA will not even consider it? Oh that would be because of DOMA. You remember that law passed by a majority of Republicans and unfortunately signed by Clinton.

7. Mr. Bush how do you sleep at night knowing that American citizens are living in exile due to our sick immigration policies supported by you and your so called "compassionate conservatives"?

8. Mr. Bush why are the Republicans hijacking the UAFA (Uniting American Families Act) and bottling it up in committees so it has no chance of being able to help remedy a tremendous failure and injustice in our immigration policy?

9. Mr. Bush how would you feel if one of your family members had to live in exile and the only reason was the person they loved? What would Dick Cheney do if his lesbian daughter fell in love with a foreign partner? Would Mary get special treatment or would she have to live in exile too?

10. And finally Mr. Bush how can you even profess to call yourself compassionate when you are aware that this sick injustice in being perpetrated against United States citizens. Shouldn't you be ashamed?

OUR FIRST ANNIVERSARY IN CANADA

2006-03-18T23:49:00.000-05:00

March 19th is me and my partner's first year of being married in Canada.
What a happy day! It's a shame that we can't be home celebrating. I long for the day when we will finally be recognized.

DEMOCRATS ABROAD SUPPORT UAFA

2006-03-13T09:20:00.000-05:00

On March 4, 2006 Democrats Abroad passed a resolution supporting the Uniting American Families Act saying that the bill is currently awaiting action.
This a total lie--awaiting action that is.
In realty the bill is waiting to die--that is why it is being held up. Most of our do-nothing congress care nothing about their citizens who are unable to come home and bring their families with them. I wonder how they are able to sleep at night knowing their citizens are being exiled to other countries and unable to come home. I also wonder why the American media can be silent when thousands of citizens are unable to be reunited with their families without having to leave their loved ones behind.

2006-01-26T07:37:00.000-05:00

You have a Type A personality so big it makes other Type A's shrink away in shame.You never shy away from adversity - and you love to tackle impossible problems.Failure is not an option for you, and more than a few people are put off by your ego.You tend to be controlling, and you hate leaving anything up to chance.
Your strength: Your bold approach to life
Your weakness: You don't accept help
Your power color: Bronze
Your power symbol: Pyramid
Your power month: October What'>http://www.blogthings.com/whatdoesyourbirthdatemeanquiz/">What

LINK FOR BUSH STUMBLE ON BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN

2006-01-25T07:12:00.000-05:00

Here is the link for the Bush gaf: http://365gay.com/Newscon06/01/012306Bush.htm

BUSH STUMBLES ON BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN

2006-01-24T09:22:00.000-05:00

And here is something you will not find in the mainstream news--George W. Bush was asked by a student at Kansas University what he thought of the gay movie Brokeback Mountain.

Yes a student actually told Bush that Brokeback Mountain was a great movie and asked him what he thought of it. Bush response incorporated a bunch of "ummms" and he said that he was sure it was. And of course that was the extent of the presidential bigots comments. Kudos to the student who had enough balls to throw that question to the presidential moron! I'll bet they rushed that person out of there fast. This story was on our local radio station in Toronto, Canada.

HARPER FORMS A MINORITY GOVERNMENT

2006-01-24T09:13:00.000-05:00

Yes the unthinkable has happened for Canada--a Stephen Harper government and same-sex couples beware! If you have not already tied the knot, you had better get it done soon. Though he has promised to leave valid all the marriages that have already been performed, he has promised a "free vote" on the same-sex marriage law that was approved last summer.

I am still wondering what a free vote is. We will just have to wait and see how this plays out. Thank God for only a minority!

HARPER PROMISES FREE VOTE ON MARRIAGE

2006-01-17T08:56:00.000-05:00

Potential PM elect, Stephen Harper is promising a "free vote" on gay marriage. Despite this promise, he also promised to leave valid the over 3,000 marriages already performed. My question--How are you going to leave marriages already performed alone yet deny the same opportunity to other couples who wish to get married?

The answer: He is going to try to get rid of all of them.

The funny thing is I thought there was already a vote on this issue. I think they now want to try to vote again to get a different result. This is a perfect example of a conservative no matter what country they are in. God help Canada if this guy wins!

ANTI-IMMIGRATION FANATICS PASS HR4437

2005-12-17T23:55:00.000-05:00

ONLY 17 REPUBLICANS HAD THE BALLS TO STAND UP AND SAY NO TO THE FASCIST IMMIGRATION BILL H.R. 4437 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE YESTERDAY. SADLY THIS SPEAKS VOLUMES OF OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS. APPARENTLY AMERICANS NO LONGER WELCOME THE POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS IMMIGRANTS MAKE TO THE UNITED STATES. THE REAL AGENDA BEHIND THIS BILL IS NOT ENFORCEMENT--IT IS TO GET PEOPLE OUT PERIOD!I CALLED AND EMAILED MY REPRESENTATIVE DAVID WU OF OREGON--THAT IS WHERE I CAME FROM BEFORE I HAD TO BE EXILED FROM THE UNITED STATES--HE DID HAVE THE COMMON SENSE TO VOTE NO.WELL AMERICA PUT BUSH AND HIS FASCISTS INTO THE WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS SO I GUESS THEY DESERVE WHAT THEY GET. IT IS JUST UNFORTUNATE THAT POTENTIAL IMMIGRANTS HAVE TO SUFFER FOR THEIR BAD JUDGEMENT.THIS BILL WILL HAVE DISASTOROUS EFFECTS ON IMMIGRATION. THANK YOU GEORGE BUSH FOR MAKING THIS SUCH A HOLIDAY OF LOVE AND PEACE. YOUR EXAMPLE OF COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM IS SO OVERWHELMING AND TOUCHING.

HR 44437

2005-12-11T08:14:00.000-05:00

Example of more compassionate conservative legislation from south of the border. The simplified meaning of this bill is: Get Out! We don't care what your situation is. > NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT ACTION ALERT: > OPPOSE SENSENBRENNER'S BORDER PROTECTION BILL! > > What is the "Border Protection" Bill? > > House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) introduced > the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control > Act of 2005 (H.R. 4437), an enforcement-only bill that threatens > asylum-seekers, noncitizens, and their families. Before 9/11, many in > Congress agreed that Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant > Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) was so harsh, they were ready to > "Fix '96." This will goes further than the worst, most onerous > provisions in IIRIRA. > > Status: In TWO DAYS the House Judiciary Committee will review this bill. > The bill will reach the House floor for votes NEXT WEEK. House > leadership is on a mission to pass this enforcement-only legislation > before the December 17th adjournment. This misguided and harmful > proposal is going to move rapidly through the House and WE NEED TO ACT > NOW to prevent its final passage! > > What you need to do: > > Please call your Senator and House Representative TODAY. > The message: Oppose H.R. 4437. This enforcement-only bill is > anti-immigrant, unfair, and unjust. - I urge you to oppose H.R. 4437 > during tomorrow's mark up in the Judiciary Committee, and in particular > to oppose Titles II ("Combatting Alien Smuggling and Illegal Entry and > Presence"), IV ("Detention and Removal"), VI ("Terrorist and Criminal > Aliens"), and VIII ("Immigration Litigation Abuse Reduction"). > > House Switchboard: 202-225-3121 > Senate Switchboard: 202-224-3121 > > What does the Border Protection Bill do? (A summary of the bill is > attached to this email.) The bill proposes several draconian measures, > only some of which are listed below. If passed, it would: > > * Expand expedited removal to the interior, denying removal hearings for > noncitizens. > * Make unlawful presence in the United States a crime. > * Deny automatic review in the Circuit Courts, requiring that a single > Circuit Court judge first grant permission before the appeal can be > filed. > * Make the 3- and 10-year unlawful presence bar apply to everyone, not > only people who leave the U.S. This would have disastrous consequences > for people applying for green cards in the U.S. > * Deny voluntary departure to individuals who want to appeal to the BIA. > This would force any asylum seeker to give up her appeal if she wants > voluntary departure. > * Greatly expand the aggravated felony definition to include a broader > array of smuggling offenses. > * Bar asylees and refugees with aggravated felonies from becoming lawful > permanent residents. > * Overturns the Supreme Court's ruling in Leocal by making any > noncitizen convicted of three drunk driving convictions deportable. > * Expand several aggravated felony categories. > > For more information, contact Paromita Shah at > paromita@nationalimmigrationproject.org or 617-227-9727.

RADICAL ANTI-IMMIGRATION WEBSITE

2005-11-27T09:48:00.000-05:00

I discovered this web site through a search for immigration blogs. These are the types of people immigrants are up against! They are not for true freedom. Their true goal is to get immigrants the fuck out of the USA at all costs--and no matter the cost. They don't want any immigrants to have a chance at freedom or a better life. The folks that run this website are sick, twisted individuals at best. Enjoy the discusting read:

The deportation process for illegal aliens and criminal alien residents is designed for failure:
EOIR litigation bureaucracy is the problem, not the solution
The Executive Office for Immigration Review -- a federal agency made up of the U.S. Immigration Court system and its appellate body, the Board of Immigration Appeals -- is the centerpiece of a largely unknown permanent amnesty for illegal aliens and criminal alien residents within the U.S. Department of Justice.
With the complicity of the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, the EOIR litigation bureaucracy forms the hidden piece of the puzzle of institutionalized mass immigration in the federal government.
Deportation of foreign nationals in the United States is largely voluntary.
The lengthy EOIR system of hearings and appeals enables illegal aliens and criminal alien residents to remain in the United States both legally and illegally.
EOIR and the INS enable the vast majority of detained aliens facing deportation to be released back to the streets on an immigration bond or paroled out of federal custody during the EOIR hearing process, giving every non-detained illegal alien and criminal alien the option of disappearing back into the United States regardless of the outcome of their Immigration Court hearings.
The lack of physical security on the land border exposes the EOIR process for the charade that it is -- deported aliens just walk back in.
EOIR makes a federal case out of every illegal alien and criminal alien resident in the United States
After reviewing Immigration Court decisions at the Board of Immigration Appeals (its appellate body) the EOIR system also offers federal circuit appellate court review for the deportation of every illegal alien and every criminal alien resident in the United States.
EOIR hearings and appeals are never really over until the alien wins.
Considering the laundry list of relief from deportation available in Immigration Court, EOIR removal proceedings are really "get to stay" proceedings.
EOIR is a permanent amnesty by stealth.
EOIR routinely grants "green cards" (lawful permanent resident status) to illegal aliens, and allows convicted criminal aliens to remain in the United States.
EOIR simply is not designed for detaining and deporting aliens.
EOIR is the four-letter word of immigration policy
EOIR is entirely unknown in the major media.
EOIR litigation is the livelihood of thousands of immigration lawyers, whose interests are represented by their lobbying group -- the American Immigration Lawyers Association -- AILA.
The country's over 200 EOIR immigration judges earn from $109,587 to $142,500 per year.
EOIR bureaucracy unnecessarily formalizes simple review processes that already are entrusted to lesser-paid federal employees including consular officers, adjudications officers, immigration inspectors, special agents, immigration agents, deportation officers and asylum officers all over the country and the world.
The EOIR bureaucracy must be abolished
The EOIR's redundant functions should be parceled out to federal law enforcement personnel already in the Department of Homeland Security who can do the job of deporting illegal aliens and criminal alien residents.
The EOIR litigation bureaucracy is the antithesis of real homeland security.
As a deportation system, EOIR is designed for failure. But as institutionalized mass immigration, EOIR is a raging success!

BUSH PRESSES FOR FREEDOMS

2005-11-15T23:59:00.000-05:00

Bush was in China pressing the government for more political freedoms. Now is this a joke or what! Bush pressing for more freedom-- a President who stole an election and wants a Constitutional amendment to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
By saying that China is putting more state control over citizens lives is a joke from this idiot--isn't this is what is he proposing with this amendment?

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INTERVIEW

2005-11-03T05:29:00.000-05:00

My partner and I recently had the great opportunity to take part in an interview with Human Rights Watch on the effects of U.S. Immigration laws on bi-national couples. The interview is going to be used to compile a report which is to be submitted on February 14th, 2006.

We talked for about an hour and a half and told our complete story of how we were forced to leave the United States in order to remain a couple. I was asked how I felt about the way I was treated under immigration rules as a U.S. citizen.

I will give a few examples of things I was told in the U.S. regarding immigration law:
One attorney told me and I quote, "The INS is not your friend. They will lie, cheat, or steal to get you out because that is their job."
My partner's first attorney said that I did not have to worry because it was her that was the one who would be deported.
Even though we were a couple, I would not even be able to contribute anything in her proceeding because I was "insignificant".

Ok so now I will answer the question above. First of all, I would agree that the borders do need to be protected but to be able to lie, cheat, or steal to meet that objective is outrageous. So what happened to "liberty and justice for all?" Well apparently under U.S. immigration law, there is none.

Secondly, the first attorney apparently did not get it that we were a couple. Would he have told that to a heterosexual couple? I doubt it very seriously. Of course I would have to worry because we are a couple and when you truly love someone it is forever.

Finally, this is the real reason same-sex binational couples are persecuted under U.S. immigration law--the U.S. partner is "insignificant". This statement is just too much for words.

So how do you think I answered the question of what I thought about how I was treated under U.S. immigration rules?

CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS?

2005-07-30T19:49:00.000-04:00

I found this interesting story on www.immigrationequality.us. Please read about Jeremy and Shane below. Can you believe this shit? Why is a U.S. citizen being questioned in his own home about his banking and employment information? And when he flies back home to his own country, why is he is being pulled into a seperate room and being questioned? This is outrageous.

Bill to unite gay couples split by nationality Measure would allow U.S. citizens to sponsor partners
By ELIZABETH WEILL-GREENBERG Friday, July 01, 2005
Joanne, an illegal immigrant from Poland, fell in love with an American woman in 2003 when she was 21. When her family found out she was a lesbian, they threatened to have her deported.
The threat was made more frightening because American citizens and permanent residents cannot sponsor their same-sex partners for immigration benefits the way that straight married couples can. The Defense of Marriage Act prohibits gay couples from receiving the federal benefits of marriage, including immigration rights, even if they are legally married in Massachusetts, Canada or elsewhere.
But Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) recently introduced the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), formerly the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, to allow same-sex “permanent partners” to stay together.
Leahy and Nadler were not available for comment this week.
The bill would create the new “permanent partner” category for immigration purposes only. Same-sex couples would be subject to the same evaluations that straight couples go through to verify authenticity of a relationship.
The current immigration restrictions have forced many “bi-national” gay couples — where the partners are from different countries — to move outside the United States to one of the 16 countries that provide immigration benefits for same-sex couples.
Gay citizens of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the United Kingdom can sponsor their same-sex partner for citizenship.
But Joanne and her partner want to stay in the United States. After her family’s threat, they moved together to California, then back to New York, where they settled in Harlem. Joanne spoke to the Blade on the condition that her real name not be used.
Living in the shadowsJoanne’s status puts her at risk, like so many illegal immigrants, of exploitation and limited employment options. Employers won’t sponsor her because she doesn’t have enough years of training or education, she said.
When Joanne worked at a laundromat in New York for $6 an hour, her boss withheld a week’s pay when she told him she was quitting. She couldn’t protest because of the familiar threat of deportation.
“I basically don’t exist in this country,” she said.
For lower-income people like Joanne, the immigration restrictions on gays hit hardest, according to Adam Francoeur, program coordinator for Immigration Equality, a group that advocates on behalf of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered immigrants.
There are two ways to access the immigration system, through family or employment, he said. The family option is largely unavailable to same-sex couples, so that leaves them with employment, which carries training and education requirements, Francoeur explained.
“An immigration system without the family unification option can extremely favor higher income individuals,” he said.
Victoria Neilson, legal director of Immigration Equality, said the current laws rip families apart for no reason other than their sexual orientation. In fact, she said, having an American partner can be reason to deny a visa because foreign visitors have to show they do not intend to stay in the U.S. permanently.“It has a devastating impact on families,” she said.
The bill’s chances of passage are unlikely, its supporters say. It has been introduced every year since 2000 and has never come to a vote, although Francoeur said it enjoys bipartisan support.
Those who oppose the bill often say it is a backdoor to gay marriage, he said. Focus on the Family, a conservative group that usually opposes any pro-gay bills, was not available for comment.
Others have criticized the measure because they claim it would open the floodgates and allow too many people entry to the country, Francoeur said. There are about 36,000 bi-national gay couples living in the U.S. according to a 2000 census, he said.
Jack Martin, spokesperson for the conservative group Federation for American Immigration Reform, said his group would lean against the legislation if it increased the number of immigrants in the U.S.
“Current immigration is too large, therefore any change that would have the effect of increasing immigration we would probably oppose,” he said. “We haven’t taken any specific position with regard to the specific bill.”
‘Two tough hurdles’In today’s conservative Congress, the UAFA has the double obstacle of being pro-immigrant and pro-gay.
“It’s a pretty anti-immigrant Congress [and] a pretty anti-LGBT Congress,” Neilson said. “Two tough hurdles to overcome.”
The post-9/11 crackdown on immigrants has made it harder for bi-national same-sex couples. While some laws have stayed the same on paper, student and work visas of the type many gay couples use to stay together are now the subject of much closer scrutiny, said Francoeur. Also, employers are more reticent to sponsor foreign nationals.
“Extra scrutiny often leads to denial,” Francoeur said.
That is just what happened when Shane, a British citizen, tried to visit his partner, Jeremy, an American citizen, in Georgia. Shane spoke on the condition that the Blade not use his or his partner’s real name.
Frustrated by U.S. immigration rules, Shane and Jeremy moved to Britain in 2004 where they can establish permanent residency. After a same-sex couple lives together for two years, a British citizen can sponsor his partner, Shane said.
When they lived together in the U.S., Shane could only visit for 90 days at a time.
“For two years, I lived as a third-class citizen,” he said. “I could be taken away from [Jeremy] at any stage.”
Earlier this month on Jeremy’s trip to the U.S., he asked Shane to come visit him. Shane flew in to Atlanta and, to his shock, was denied entry. He was told that on a previous visit he overstayed by one day but was not provided more details, Shane said.
He had the choice between being held in a detention center until a flight was available or buying a $5,000 first-class ticket home, he said.
“I was searched, detained, fingerprinted, photographed, had my passport marked, and returned on the next flight back to the United Kingdom,” Shane wrote in a letter to an Atlanta newspaper.
The following day, two U.S. federal marshals went to Jeremy’s home, interviewed him and requested his banking and employment information, according to Shane. The next time Jeremy flew into the U.S., he was pulled into a second room and asked if he had “anti-American sentiments,” Shane said.
When asked how his experiences have influenced his opinion of the U.S., he said, “I’ve been really careful not to bash the country because my partner is American.”
However, he added, “It astonishes me the way America acts like the freest country. … We’ve struggled very hard just to stay together.”
Elizabeth Weill-Greenberg can be reached at eweill-greenberg@washblade.com.

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BILL GETS ROYAL ASSENT--BECOMES LAW ACROSS COUNTRY

2005-07-21T23:31:00.000-04:00

I am proud to be able to say I am here to see this day! What a great day for Canadians. I still wonder where is the USA? Will they ever give their gay and lesbian citizens the same equality? Only time will tell.

Last Updated: Wednesday, July 20, 06:12 PM EDT
Same-sex marriage bill gets royal assent, becomes law across country
OTTAWA (CP) - Same-sex supporters are rejoicing as the final piece falls into place making gay marriage the law of the land.
Bill C-38, the controversial legislation legalizing gay and lesbian weddings, has been given royal assent, and is now law. Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin gave the Queen's consent to the bill on behalf of Gov. Gen. Adrienne Clarkson, who is off-duty recovering from surgery.
Alex Munter with the group Canadians For Equal Marriage says he feels enormous pride at living in a country that puts equality and human rights at the centre of its law.
The Conservatives fought the legislation to the bitter end and still say they will bring it back to the Commons for another vote if they form government.
But Munter warns they would be punished by voters if they did.
The Canadian Press, 2005

WHERE IS THE JUSTICE?

2005-07-17T11:05:00.000-04:00

Marriage With Transsexual Upheld Under US Immigration Law
by Cyrus D. Mehta and Elizabeth T. Reichard The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has held that a marriage, where one of the parties is a postoperative transsexual, will be recognized for immigration purposes. In Matter of Lovo, 23 I&N Dec. 746 (BIA 2005), the BIA reversed the decision of the Nebraska Service Center (NSC) denying an I-130 petition that was filed by a US citizen spouse on behalf of a native and citizen of El Salvador. The petitioning spouse, a US citizen, was born in North Carolina and was a male at the time of birth. On September 14, 2001, the US citizen spouse underwent a surgery that changed her sex from male to female. She then married a citizen of El Salvador on September 1, 2002, in the state of North Carolina. North Carolina issued her a birth certificate reflecting her sex as a female and also recognized the marriage. She was also issued a driver’s license listing her current name and indicating that she was a female. The petitioner filed an I-130 petition to sponsor her El Salvadorian spouse for permanent residence. On August 3, 2004, the NSC issued a denial. The NSC denied the petition on grounds that there was no legal basis to recognize a change of sex so that a marriage between two persons born of the same sex can be recognized and that this marriage was considered valid for immigration purposes, even though it may have been recognized in the state of North Carolina. The BIA reversed the NSC’s decision by adopting a two-prong analysis to determine the validity of the marriage. First, whether the marriage was valid under the state law; and then whether the marriage qualifies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The BIA examined that § 130A-118 of the General Statutes of North Carolina authorizes issuance of a new birth certificate when a individual has undergone sex reassignment surgery. Although another statute of North Carolina only authorizes a marriage between a male and a female, and not between the same sex, the fact that North Carolina recognized the petitioner’s change of sex from male to female, the BIA concluded that the marriage was valid under the laws of North Carolina. The BIA then analyzed whether the marriage was recognized under the INA. Although the Act has not defined the word “spouse,” the BIA referred to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was silent on the issue of how to define a marriage between two spouses where one is a transsexual. The DOMA was only explicit with regard to not giving federal recognition to a marriage between parties of the same sex. Indeed, the BIA noted that the failure of the DOMA to address this issue was the basis of the NSC director’s erroneous decision to deny the I-130 petition. The NSC director found that because Congress had not addressed the issue whether sex reassignment surgery serves to change an individual’s sex, there was no legal basis on which to recognize a change of sex for immigration purposes. The BIA then examined the legislative history of DOMA and did not find any evidence of the DOMA being enacted to invalidate a marriage involving a transsexual. The legislative history of DOMA did not mention the case of M.T. v. J.T., 355 A.2d 204 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1976) in the state of New Jersey involving the recognition of a marriage where one of the spouses was a transsexual. Thus, the BIA opined that Congress only intended to restrict marriages between persons of the same sex and there was no indication that the DOMA was meant to apply to a marriage involving a post-operative transsexual where the marriage is considered by the State. The BIA’s decision is an important one and goes a long way in recognizing marriages where one of the parties is a postoperative transsexual. In an earlier article (Mehta, The Status of Transsexuals Under U.S. Immigration Law,) we had criticized the US policy that was enunciated in a memorandum by William R. Yates on April 16, 2004. The Yates memo stated that the CIS shall not recognize the marriage, or intended marriage, between two individuals where one or both of the parties claim to have changed their sex. Indeed, the BIA decision rejects the Yates memo and shares some of the reasoning in our earlier article, especially with regard to the anomalous outcome that would result if such a marriage was not recognized for immigration purposes. We argued: Suppose a person born a woman goes through a sex reassignment surgery and becomes a man, and the state recognizes this gender change and provide a new birth certificate. If this individual were being sponsored under the employment-based immigrant category, CIS would have no problem in issuing a green card to this individual recognizing him as a man. If this man subsequently wishes to marry a foreign national woman and the state allows him to do so, CIS will not recognize such a marriage for purposes of conferring an immigration benefit to his foreign national spouse. CIS, for this purpose, would presumably still consider this individual to be a woman. Suppose this man (who was originally a woman and is still considered a woman by the CIS) wishes to marry another man, and this marriage takes place in Massachusetts that recognizes same-sex marriages. The CIS has previously articulated that it will not recognize same-sex marriage for immigration purposes; although in this example, the CIS should technically recognize the marriage because it considers this individual still a woman and not a man! Id. In light of this argument, Footnote 5 of the BIA’s decision is worth noting: “For example, the marriage of a postoperative male-to-female transsexual to a female in a State that recognizes marriages between opposite-sex and same-sex couples would be considered valid, not only under State law, but also under Federal law, because, under the DHS’s interpretation, the postoperative transsexual would still be considered a male, despite having the external genitalia of a female.” We welcome this decision as it will enable spouses to apply for permanent residency where one is a postoperative transsexual. We find the BIA’s reasoning consistent and appreciate that it acknowledges the contradictory analysis proffered by the Nebraska Service Center and William R. Yates. It sets forth a clear rule that defies neither state law nor federal law. As such, we are pleased that there is now a venue available so that a group of people – who have taken the steps to become their true sex – can obtain the immigration benefits available to others who enter into lawful marriages.

Where is the justice? Is this story to be believed? What impression do we get from this story? That a gay or lesbian citizen has to actually go through surgery to change their bodies to sponsor a partner or spouse. This is the heartless cruelty of the U.S. government in action. Many same-sex couples have been married legally elsewhere (mostly Massachusetts and Canada) and even though their marriage is recognized by their location, immigration officials will still deny them the right to sponsor their spouse. Yet here we have someone who has changed their sex and gained the right of sponsorship. Are the rights of transsexuals more important than gay or lesbians' rights? Is the concept of "one man, one woman" so important that a sex change is necessary to achieve equal treatment under immigration policy?

THE SOLUTION FOR BINATIONAL COUPLES: THE UNITING AMERICAN FAMILIES ACT (UAFA)

2005-07-16T10:44:00.000-04:00

The Solution: The U.S. Congress recently re-introduced a bill that would grant immigration benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian U.S. citizens.

What it is and what does it do: The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) formerly known the The Permanent Partners Immigration Act (PPIA) has been introduced every year since 2000. It would change the immigration law by inserting "permanent partner" in addition to "spouse". It is amazing at how only two words added to the immigration law would be able to change the lives of binational couples who are presently suffering under the cruel and heartless policies of the U.S. immigration policy.

Problem #1 We don't have to be geniuses to figure out that a bill like this will not pass with a Republican Congress and President even though they claim to be "compassionate". While there is nothing compassionate about separating families, these folks would not know what compassion was if it bit them in the ass. Apparently the goal is to get enough sponsors on the bill and when the time is right to get it passed.

Problem #2 It's called visibility stupid! The problem is nobody knows just how cruel and heartless the INS (excuse me, the Department of Homeland Security, or whatever name they are hiding behind these days) is. So if nobody knows what is going on, then they definitely don't know about any solutions. The key to getting this passed is letting people know about both the problem and the solution thus exerting pressure for change.

How can this change come about: Our stories need to be in the national spotlight and be treated as important as Karl Rove's email. The truth about how U.S. citizens are being forced to choose their country or their love needs to be exposed. Then change needs to be demanded. Only then will the cruelty end!

THE FOLLY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

2005-07-10T12:41:00.000-04:00

As gays and lesbians in Massachusetts achieved a small victory in the fight to gain equal rights, President Bush wasted no time in denouncing the ruling as the work of "activist judges" and renewed the call for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. This is the response of the leader of the free world. The call for a constitutional amendment has now led to a wave of anti-gay and unconstitutional amendments to state constitutions all over the U.S.

This call to slam the door in the faces of ordinary gay and lesbian American citizens is in fact an assult by right-wing and religious fanatics who want to take away our rights any way they can. And in fact the only way to achieve this goal-- is to change the U.S. Constitution.
Make no mistake about it these fanantics are not our friends and neither is President Bush. In fact, the judges who are ruling in favor of gay marriage are ruling based on state law and the U.S. Constitution in which gay citizens are clearly protected by the equal proctection clause.
So in effect what is Bush and all those like him saying--that one way or another even if it takes changing the U.S. Constitution they will deny gay Americans the rights they are clearly entitled to.
And lets not forget the previous resident of the White House and the signing of the DOMA-- a total farse in itself. After all what are we protecting marriage from--other citizens who only want to share the same loving committment as other citizens. So what these people are really saying is that "freedom and justice for all", does not include gay or lesbian citizens. It is the perfect example of American hypocracy. Aaah, democracy in action.

Even the vice-president's daughter who is a lesbian is being put into the closet like a dirty secret. So what does this say for the character of our highest leaders. How can our country and leaders expect loyalty and respect while at the same time they are fighting to deny the basic principal of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" which is enshrined in the Constitution?

WHERE IS THE USA?

2005-07-09T09:04:00.000-04:00

Many industrialized countries recognize same-sex relationships for immigration purposes. These include: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Isreal, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, and the UK. My question is where is the USA--the leader of freedom? As these other countries recognize that their citizens hold value and worth, the U.S. continues to close the door on its own citizens. I have even heard that some gays and lesbians believe it is ok to close the door on its own. Well they had better realize that they can't be clamoring for their relationships to be recognized while some of their own are being denied the same recognition. Rights granted to some but not all is not true freedom! The climate in the U.S. today is to shut down the border--even if hurts some of its own.

New Blog For Binational Couples

2005-07-08T22:42:00.000-04:00

I am new to blogs but I am going to give it a go. This blog is for same-sex binational couples where one partner is a United States citizen and the other partner is a foreign national. Binational couples in the U.S. are estimated to be over 35, 000. Immigration law in the U.S. does not offer any choices for same-sex couples. U.S. citizens are indeed being persecuted for who they choose to love. They government is forcing citizens to choose between their life partners and their country. This a forum for other binational couples to unite and share their views, frustration and stories.
cy