Obama Administration Directs U. S. Immigration To Consider Same Sex Relationships As Family

[Jingthing]

http://www.huffingto..._n_1924763.html

SAN FRANCISCO, Sept 28 (Reuters) - The Obama administration has directed immigration officials to recognize same-sex partners as family members in deportation cases, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said on Friday.

This is another baby step for this issue: keeping gay couples that include an American and a foreign national together in America if they wish.

Reading between the lines, it appears clear that illegal immigrants in these relationships aren't guaranteed not be deported but that the relationships will be considered in their cases.

So it is a first step but it highlights again one of the important aspects of why same sex marriage legalization is important to so many.

Another remarkable aspect of this case is that Obama now is showing a clear pattern of doing everything he can OUTSIDE the legislative (and judicial) system. Yes as president he has that power for now but of course it is controversial. There is no way this small change even in immigration policy could be passed through the current U.S. house and senate. Of course it is no wonder why Obama will continue to get the vast majority of the gay American vote.

Of course it goes without saying if Romney is elected, that he would probably very quickly abolish this immigration directive. But even if that happens, at least he would have to pay a political price as appearing to be a big Meanie breaking up families.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

Interestingly, this directive seems to cover same-sex relationships which haven't been made official as well as those covered by a civil relationship/marriage contract. That surprises me. In theory, someone could come to Pattaya, pick up a boy, go back to the States, tell a few lies, and whistle through immigration. I can't believe this was what was intended!

[Jingthing]

I doubt the enforcement will in actuality be that liberal. I assume same sex couples would have to show evidence and documentation of their relationship and longevity would show more credibility. As far as not needing a state marriage or civil partnership document, that is a very fair because such documents would only be available in a small number of U.S. states.

U.S. immigration doesn't like to separate families. But that doesn't mean that they don't separate families. They do. Everyday.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

I doubt the enforcement will in actuality be that liberal. I assume same sex couples would have to show evidence and documentation of their relationship and longevity would show more credibility. As far as not needing a state marriage or civil partnership document, that is a very fair because such documents would only be available in a small number of U.S. states.

U.S. immigration doesn't like to separate families. But that doesn't mean that they don't separate families. They do. Everyday.

I tend to think of immigration as something which largely affects people coming into the country from outside, and therefore the current US law wouldn't affect them. Maybe I'm wrong.

But I also wonder if it is a directive which sounds liberal, but may in practice mean very little.

[Jingthing]

I doubt the enforcement will in actuality be that liberal. I assume same sex couples would have to show evidence and documentation of their relationship and longevity would show more credibility. As far as not needing a state marriage or civil partnership document, that is a very fair because such documents would only be available in a small number of U.S. states.

U.S. immigration doesn't like to separate families. But that doesn't mean that they don't separate families. They do. Everyday.

I tend to think of immigration as something which largely affects people coming into the country from outside, and therefore the current US law wouldn't affect them. Maybe I'm wrong.

But I also wonder if it is a directive which sounds liberal, but may in practice mean very little.

What it means is that the INS is ordered to view gay couples the same as heterosexual families. That doesn't mean that all illegal immigrants connected to an American are necessarily going to be allowed to stay. You might be right in that it won't mean that much, but I think this is the most Obama can do without legalized federal same sex marriage. A straight American can "import" a Thai spouse by going through legal processes. I also seriously doubt it will now be easy or practical for a gay American to "import" a Thai same sex spouse under this new enforcement. On the other hand, this new reality might push some interesting legal challenges. Like I said before, it's a baby step. Edited September 29, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

I tend to think of immigration as something which largely affects people coming into the country from outside, and therefore the current US law wouldn't affect them. Maybe I'm wrong.

But I also wonder if it is a directive which sounds liberal, but may in practice mean very little.

Looking at it without the pro-Obama electioneering spin this does not appear to be particularly new:

Homeland Security officials have long said that gay partners will be considered family members under the prosecutorial discretion policy. Under that policy, Obama administration officials say they are focusing enforcement resources on deporting convicts and foreigners who pose threats to national security.

“This written guidance will simply reiterate existing policy,” said Peter Boogaard, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security. .....

Under prosecutorial discretion, many thousands of deportation cases have been closed, allowing the immigrants to remain in the United States indefinitely. But they do not gain any legal status.

Ms. Napolitano’s clarification does not have any impact on the more difficult issue of allowing immigrants in same-sex marriages with American citizens to obtain permanent resident visas, known as green cards. Under current law, same-sex immigrant spouses cannot apply for those visas and they can face deportation.

It doesn't make it any easier for your same-sex partner get in, for you to "come to Pattaya, pick up a boy, go back to the States, tell a few lies, and whistle through immigration." What it does is give the INS and DHS more discretion in dropping deportation cases against those illegal immigrants who are already in who have subsequently formed a long-term relationship with an American; it doesn't give anyone any formal right to remain.

What I find peculiar (if not rather frightening) about this whole business of presidential power is how little it has to do with genuine democracy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/us/homeland-security-puts-it-in-writing-on-immigration-policy-and-gay-couples.html

[tombkk]

This is an election year in the US, after all. Glad to hear that being on the side of the gay family is considered by the campaign manager as one gaining votes in that country.

What's the name of the campaign manager anyway? I'll like to google up some background information on him or her.

[Jingthing]

I agree that any enforcement changes are likely targeted at couples ALREADY residing in the USA where it is discovered that the foreign partner has an immigration issue. I also don't think that means even they are necessarily safe or guaranteed a happy resolution.

As far as the politics goes, Obama of course has the gay vote locked up as would any democrat, but moves towards fairness like this also stimulate the liberal base which cares about civil rights for all to feel better about Obama and be more likely to actually get their ass to the polls. In the swing states anyway. The ones that count.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Jingthing