Queers and Immigration

[Greyson]

Yesterday the Senate and President made public their proposed immigration reform. They are two separate proposals. I want to alert our community to the fact that the Senate Proposal does not include visas and permanent residency (Green Card) for Same Sex Couples. President Obama's proposal does include Same Sex Couples.

It is my hope, each of us will contact our US Senators and ask why this is the case and recommend it be included in the Senate recommendations for Immigration reform.

__________________________________________________ ___________

Similarities and differences between Obama, Senate proposals

January 30, 2013 by swyatt11


SAME-SEX COUPLES
Senate:

— Does not include a provision allowing sponsorship of a same-sex partner.

Obama:

— Allows U.S. citizens and permanent residents to sponsor a visa for a same-sex partner.


http://21border.com/2013/01/30/simil...ls/#more-3051"

[Sparkle]

Thank you for posting this Greyson.

I've been watching it closely as well.

Sometimes it's hard for me to believe it was 15+years ago that I started my own battle with and tangled path through the minefield that is queer immigration.

I have been, again, blown away by the President's inclusion of us in his proposed reform policy and in his public words.

I have also been overwhelmed by the vitriol backlash of the GOP aimed directly at Bi-National Queer families. And their outright stated refusal to see us included in any reform.

This spring is shaping up to a helluva a time for Queer Rights.

There is a lot on the line.

And I'm anxious about it.

[Greyson]

LGBT Americans Have Dreams Too

Jan 30 2013


However, the Republicans who want to embrace the Hispanic vote are not ready to allow LGBT Americans to be part of the 'dream'. Binational LGBT couple have been forced to flee America, been torn apart as one partner is sent home and they constantly live in fear of being discovered. Even with marriage in some states, DOMA makes it impossible for LGBT binational couples to have the same rights as other Americans.

Republican Senator John McCain said it just isn't a priority to include LGBT Americans in immigration reform. Republican Lindsay Graham says if LGBT Americans are included the entire reform package will be placed in jeopardy. Nothing like some good old divisive politics of pitting the oppression of one group against the oppression of another group.

Read the rest at link below:


http://www.davidmixner.com/2013/01/l...dMixner.com%29

[Greyson]

Gay, Latino groups forge immigration alliance

By LISA LEFF
Saturday, Feb. 2, 2013


Aldana, 26, is torn. He encourages Hispanic groups to include gay rights in their struggle, but reminds gay activists that immigration rights go far beyond just fighting for legal residency for foreigners in same-sex marriages.
"The reality is that immigration is not just about married couples. That's a middle-class concern. It's a privilege I support, but it's not something that will benefit all our immigrant communities," Aldana said.

"If I were a Democratic Senate aide and this (issue) was a discussion in our staff meeting, I would tell our member that this is something you better be prepared to give up," Gilliam said. "We are talking politics. We are not talking about what the right thing to do is."

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/02/516...#disqus_thread__________________________________________________ ___________

Aldana is Mexican and Gay and an activist. I strongly disagree with the statement "The reality is that immigration is not just about married couples. That's a middle-class concern."

Currently legal immigration in the USA is done under two platforms. Either under Family or Job related. How can "family" be just a middle class concern? Many immigrants that are not educated in the techie and science jobs which legally allow for immigration do not immigrate to the USA under some sort of Work related Visa. They come under the auspices of "Family."

Except for short term Argicultural work programs there is no other "legal" hope for immigration besides Family.

I would like to see this latest round of proposed Immigration Reform include LGBTQ families. I do not think comprehensive Immigration Reform should be hindered by including LGBTQ but of course this is another political point. When the USA under President Reagan granted Amnesty and paved the way for legalization, LGBTQ Families, Same Sex couples were not included.

The US Senate and Congress will be the ones to short change LGBTQ people, again.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/02/516...#storylink=cpy

[LeftWriteFemme]

With No Shortcut to a Green Card, Gay Couples Leave U.S.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/us...e-us.html?_r=0

[Sparkle]

This is a good article and I'm really-really glad there is a wave of new press articles being done on Queer Immigration; but I have to say the title of the article irks me. And while I'm very pleased the NYT wrote/published this piece I feel they should have shown more care, the title suggests that the writer did not understand the issue.

Using the term "shortcut" in the title makes it sound as though the legal immigration issues queer binational couples face are merely irritating or perhaps tiresome, "Oh dear, darling, I guess we'll have to take the long way 'round since they've blocked off that avenue".

But the truth is, our complete lack of legal rights has nothing to do with "shortcuts", there are no legal protections or legal options in the United States that allow a foreign national partner to remain in the country based upon their relationship, none. zero. And there never have been any.

And the idea that there are "shortcuts" to green cards for anyone (queer or otherwise) is also laughable in this climate of rampant xenophobia and locked down borders.

[Kätzchen]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

This is a good article and I'm really-really glad there is a wave of new press articles being done on Queer Immigration; but I have to say the title of the article irks me. And while I'm very pleased the NYT wrote/published this piece I feel they should have shown more care, the title suggests that the writer did not understand the issue.

Using the term "shortcut" in the title makes it sound as though the legal immigration issues queer binational couples face are merely irritating or perhaps tiresome, "Oh dear, darling, I guess we'll have to take the long way 'round since they've blocked off that avenue".

But the truth is, our complete lack of legal rights has nothing to do with "shortcuts", there are no legal protections or legal options in the United States that allow a foreign national partner to remain in the country based upon their relationship, none. zero. And there never have been any.

And the idea that there are "shortcuts" to green cards for anyone (queer or otherwise) is also laughable in this climate of rampant xenophobia and locked down borders.

For a long time now, my regard for The New York Times continues to fall in terms of whether it's a good thing to regard their news agency's brand of politics: For example, Immigration law and policy. I share the sentiment you express about far reaching implications of the title and content of this particular article. When I see a long revered newspaper allowing and appropriating this kind of journalistic think-tank, especially when it seems that agency watchdog groups are not holding them accountable for 'news' which expresses this type of prejudicial bias, I find myself wondering how deep the climate of xenophobic sentiment is shared among agencies who partner with national sources of media (such as the NYT) and what it takes to hold them to a higher standard of journalism.