The President of the United States, The U.S. Senate and The U.S. House
Re:- Special Visa Process & Moratorium: Same-Sex Partner Sponsorship
Greetings,
Lesbian and Gays can marry, enter into Domestic Partnerships and civil unions, in some States and many places in the World, yet we cannot Stay together in the USA because we are unable to sponsor our spouses/partners for a green card.
While we wait for immigration equality under the US Immigration and Naturalization Act -to sponsor our foreign-born partners, we endure unconscionable and inhumane situations on a day to day, hour by hour basis. Our partners are persecuted at our airports by the profiling of ICE officials and arbitrarily turned away, despite having visas; our relationships are denied through our inability to live together in the US, or we live in fear, hiding or exile. We lose jobs, we lose homes, we lose our time with extended family, we give up our pensions. We are detained and deported.
So at this holiday time, when families are gathering together in happiness and joy, please find a way to remember those Americans. their beloved and children who, because of DOMA, cannot share these days- and all our community can do at this time is beg and pray for something extraordinary, perhaps a miracle. Our exiles and exiles-to-be cannot wait for the impending Immigration Reform battle or for UAFA to garnish more co-sponsors. Our binationals do not want to be the “Public Option” of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
Asking President Obama for a special visa as a stop-gap pending Legislation to remedy an inequitous anomaly in the conflict between State and Federal Law:
1. Ask Congress to formulate a special interim Visa Program for Same-sex Spouses, Domestic Partners, Civil Union Partners, for entry into the USA, and for the ability to remain and work in the USA – possibly subject to renewal and/or- with a path to immigration.
This can be done in a similar manner to the R1 Visa Process. It should however be less complicated and could be set for termination when UAFA or similar legislation is passed, or until DOMA is repealed, that will grant the rights LGBT Americans are now denied.
2. The burden of proof would be similar to that required of a marriage – where, inter alia, the following is required:
a. Proof of certification of marriage, Domestic Partnership, Civil Union contract – from any jurisdiction, anywhere in the world, proving a contractual nexus between the spouses;
or
Intent to enter such certified relationship with proof required wuthin 6 months ( this alternate application is similar to Fiance Visa)
b. Affidavit of suport from American Spouse;
c. The same two year conditional residency as spouses have – where the parties attend an interview tot prove that they have been living together in relationship, to back up the contract in the exact same way as straight Americans are required to do;
d. A Partner with a ten year ban – who was in a same-sex relationship at the time of deportation or voluntary departure– ought to have the right for a case review, to negate the ban and specific criteria for this should be established;
e. Same sex couples ought to have a process to convert Visas to this Visa status, regardless of waivers they may have signed.
f. Visa Program can be subject to a Sunset provision and renewal – to circumvent fear of fraud.
(More detailed draft of legislation for such a VISA is available to anyone interested )
If this was done in the form of a special visa category and did not alter the Immigration and Naturalization Act in any way; it could perhaps work its way through the system quickly and effectively provide rights now denied Americans in same sex contractual and legal relationships. The way such Visa Program would be written will not conflict in any way with DOMA and its furtive restrictions on the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
Mr. President, with great respect, I am mentioning this during the holiday season because this time for many is fraught with sadness, fear and pain. Exiled Americans, who are with their spouses, cannot come home to spend Xmas with extended families and if they do, they have to leave spouses abroad. Tens of thousands of same sex couples are unable to spend these holidays together because they are stuck in different countries. These families cannot wait any longer. Our binational spouses and partners are being turned away at US airports, even as I write these words, at the arbitrary instance of an ICE officer.Jaba Shah, A Binational Xmas Wish in A letter to President Obama, Dec 2009
You should read the whole article. http://lezgetreal.com/?p=24121
I have started a column that I would like to share with readers. It will feature 2 posts per month and is titles UAFA or 1,666 years of stories. It is found on the BLOGsite of Lezgetreal.com and I have produced two stories thus far. The timely XMAS story today is couched in a letter to President Obama wishing him a Happy Holiday Season and asking for a miracle for LGBT couples who cannot be together because of DOMA and US exile.
Since June of this year I have been critical about Immigration Equality’s strategy – in promoting our UAFA through inclusion in Comprehensive Immigration reform (CIR) as a priority strategy. My sense of logic told me that by doing so they would be ’shooting us in the foot’- as they would in effect limit our advocating for UAFA as a stand alone. If you search Melanie Nathan UAFA – on Lezgetreal and on oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress BLOGS, you will see a myriad of my articles fearing the outcome of such strategy.
When I originally discussed this with IE’s Steve Ralls and Julie Kruse, I was told that they were pursuing UAFA as a stand alone as well. However their website seemed to infer that all their eggs were in the CIR basket only. I expressed my concerns and wrote about it. Soon their website changed to seem as if they were in fact advocating for UAFA as an additional endeavor to CIR.
My favorite expression – ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating.’ They were extremely ineffective because hardly any new co-sponsors boarded the ship for UAFA.. I believe that had IE not attempted CIR at all, and stayed on track for UAFA, added co-sponsors for UAFA would have also made it more likely for us to in fact be included in CIR; even though I do not think CIR can work for us for many reasons.
I believe that in truth IE did very little for UAFA since using Shirley Tan’s popularity incorrectly. They have done nothing but take advantage, using the Tans for their purposes and strategy; which I have often opposed. Hours after the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing they had surreptitiously taken Shirley and family to the RFA press announcement. From that moment on, they have used Shirley and Jay to promote their agenda and their cause – it has been more about CIR and less about UAFA. That is when I had my altercation with them. It was when Steve Ralls and Victoria Neilsen again went behind my back and used Shirley and Jay in a fundraising escapade and photo op, rather than genuine advocating for all our cause, UAFA. (no fault of Shirley and Jay Tan Mercado.) By the way Shirley and Jay have made many appearances for UAFA that IE has not been involved in at all.
Now it is as bad as I thought it would be. They have truly screwed us up. Rachel Tiven, in her BLOG has again launched false information by touting hope. What hope? That some Democratic so called friends in congress will have a good night’s sleep and decide we are deserving. See my scathing critique at http://lezgetreal.com/?p=23865
Congresswoman Speier told me that unless we had all our legislation by the Spring, the election year will make it impossible thereafter. Other members of congress and staffers have personally informed me that UAFA should be on its own and that the ONLY thing that will work is if we PUSH our stories on the members of congress, non-stop. But it is hard to fight the strategy that IE has chosen for us, because we have been told wait for CIR and we are still being told the same thing.
I am asking you all to take back our right to our fight. Do not be duped by a small organization that touts itself as pre-eminent! The only pre-eminent people are those of you who are living as binationals – you- in exile, those who are living on borrowed time, in fear, in detention, as the case may be. You have the power in your hands. To write your reps and ask what the hell is happening to UAFA. Now that we have not been included demand UAFA as a stand alone. Even if Tiven and others tell you to hang on still for CIR.
Take back our strategy – the only strategy and realize that now is an opportunity – a small window. Instead of wasting your energy telling Gutierrez you are angry – call your own members of congress and demand that they push for UAFA. Call again and again. Demand UAFA as a stand alone – or believe me you will be in for another ride called “CIR-ala Healthcare Reform debacle” There can be no trust in that so why place energy and resources into it. This is an opportunity because you can now say to your rep:- ” see rep, we were excluded and are not guaranteed of future inclusion, we MUST have our own equality based legislation as a civil and human rights issue, because clearly until such time we do not fill into the CIR mould; even our allies in congress refuse to deem our partners worthy as immigrants, hence we must work the equality angle.”
Out of all the Adversity to LGBT community what could possibly be worse than having to leave your home to be with your life partner? What out of all the LGBT pending legislation could possibly be worse than being denied the reality of your actual relationship. No DADT- no EDNA- No Hate Crime – nothing can be worse than separating our families, albeit those other piece meal Bills are extremely important.
DOMA’s repeal and/or UAFA should be top of the list and only YOU my friends can do it. Take the money you would give to Rachel Tiven and buy a cheap air ticket to DC. Walk the halls and tell your story.- write with pictures, Introduce your self and your plight. You have nothing to fear by doing so. Go and see your rep when they are on home turf. Though I find them to be very welcoming of constituents when you make the trip to DC.
If you have already done that – do it again.
Okay so you see I am angry. When I went on to Immigration Equality’s site to comment on my disapproval I was drawn to a very unusual method of screening comments. I made four comments. Each time, I went back online the comments appeared and were numbered consecutively with others # 49 and 50. It had a time and the date. I made a PDF copy of how the site looked to me. There was nothing saying they were reviewing my comments first. Friends mentioned they had posted too, yet they shared the same number as me. When I went on line again I could only see that I owned numbers 49 and 50, and not the friend. It was odd. What I have since figured out is that IE is deleting my comments, which were critical but benign. At least I think so. I asked for accountability. I also made suggestions. In fact I am attaching the PDF showing my comments evidencing my assertions here. Today when I went back, my posts were not up and I believe despite having seen them in context as if up like attached PDF reflects, I was never up in the first place. Nice honest way of treating us binationals and activists.
Let me know what you think
I have sent this to a select few. Do with it as you please.
Reprint from Lezgetreal -By Melanie Nathan - Maybe I did not get it. But watch the video of Dr. Ruth Jacobs on YouTube to make your own assessment. The first ever Political Proctologist, Dr. Ruth Jacobs speaks about the Anus and the Law…..
I was absolutely flabbergasted when I heard this crazy woman under the guise of Physician; a sad sorry being. How did she get that seat to testify. Oh goodness help us. I sunk into deep despair – yes optimistic me – so depressed to see this video – it hits me like a ten ton truck – the fight – the battle. Is this really happening?
How does one fight prejudice – hate- fear – insanity? Is there a formula? I am not sure if there could be any worse sign of the times than a highly educated professional displaying such ignorance.
However today I awake to the reality of this Dr. Ruth Jacobs - a metaphor for the times – Maine, California, a never to be repealed DADT and DOMA – a few miserable tokenistic crumbs hailed as progress; - and what do we get Ruth Jacobs equating my right to marry to an anus and what should come out and not go in.
Shame America! Shame that you allow such bigotry to taint the true value of this Country and the dream we all share.
Today a Binational married lesbian couple (names private) attended Senator Gillibrand’s meet and greet at the LGBT Center in NYC. They went armed with a letter setting out their dire circumstances, including reference to the unconscionable detention suffered by one of the spouses.
After asking the pertinent question about the passage of Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) and its relationship to comprehensive Immigration reform (CIR) , the Senator spoke specifically of an integrated approach. Privy to this information through my advocacy on behalf of this particular couple I was told- “Meeting with Sen. Gillibrand was great; she’s indeed a great advocate for the LGBT community. She seems a very authentic person, genuine, kind and responsive, sensitive to all matters regarding LGBT issues. The Senator referred to Sen. Schumer who is writing the bill. She also said that CIR and UAFA should be on the table by the end of this year, so it can be passed by spring. She stressed the fact that it is important to have things dealt with before March. They’re going for an integrated approach.”
This may be interpreted to confirm that CIR will in fact include UAFA, when introduced by Senator Schumer. However in August of 2009, when I asked Julie Kruse of Immigration Equality why would we be concerned that an overt champion of UAFA and LGBT issues such as Schumer would fail to include LGBT in CIR, she cautioned that there was no guarantee that Senator Schumer would in fact include UAFA. However it would seem that Senator Gillibrand may now be providing some valuable insight as to what we can expect.
That said, we must take heed of the Senator’s most fervent suggestion. We cannot ignore the overt and bland advice when she told her participants today that she recommends we push, push and push for the legislation now. That we write like we have never written before and specifically that we bombard our representatives, urgently. I know out4Immigration is doing an amazing job in the 34th week of their letter writing campaign, but it is not enough and they cannot do it all. We need to hear from our brothers and sisters in the community who may not be directly impacted by this.
The Senator emphasized the importance of Senator Schumer introducing Immigration reform legislation by year’s end; and the fact that it is imperative that the legislation passes by Spring 2010, the latter in her estimation possibly being a last opportunity.
I challenge every single person reading this, regardless of whether their rep is supportive or not of the Uniting American Families Act, to get 5 members of your community, friends, family to write and simply as follows: “Where do you stand on Uniting American Families Act and will you support it in comprehensive immigration reform. What are you doing to ensure this legislation passes before the Spring.” That’s all you have to do!!!
At the moment though, everybody is focused on DADT (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell) as priority and that seemed to dominate the conversation, especially given that Lt. Dan Choi was there to introduce the Senator.
A community, advocates and activists, thank Senator Gillibrand for holding the meet and greet on this perfect Sunday. In doing so she clearly displays her championship of our equality and that there is a good chance she could step forward to lead the more timid amongst our allies
Updated:
Video with compliments of The New Civil Rights Movement.
Blogged by MELANIE NATHAN, CEO of Private Courts, Inc. Communications, public policy consulting, mediation & private advocacy; motivated by injustice, I blog about family, law, mediation, politics, news and LGBT equality and anything that ‘tickles my fancy.’ Otherwise blogging as O-blog-dee-o-blog-da. Websites and blogs include: http://www.privatecourts.com; http://www.divorcemediators.us; www.lezgetreal.com. Contact Nathan@privatecourts.com
Melanie Nathan’s comment:- While some organizations focus on fundraising and remain furtive in their strategy, citing “we know best” while purporting to advance the cause of binationals in their self appointed autocracy, Out4Immigration remains consistent in its plan – a transparent one- and as always made public here is a note from OUT4Immigration posted by Amos Lim, unpaid volunteer at the helm:-
“Out4Immigration is an all grassroots organization and our letter writing campaign is now in its 34th week. We have had successes in our campaign by getting more cosponsors on board. We are also constantly adapting the campaign from feedbacks that we received from our members and from our allies. There are people who are interested in doing more than just simple cut and paste and after some discussion, we are incorporating those request into our letter writing campaign.
You now have three options in using the names and addresses of the targets we provide:
1) Send the Out4Immigration form letter (posted here) by changing the areas in bold only. If you choose this “form letter” option, you can sign the letter as a member of O4I and use O4I letterhead.
2) Write your own letter to these targets telling your personal story. If you choose to do this, please know that you must do this as an individual, not a member of Out4Immigration, and you cannot use the O4I name, letterhead or any other branding.
3) Send each target a self-made booklet that tells your story, shows pictures of your family, includes letters from your employer or others in the community identifying their support for you and the UAFA. Again, you should send this an individual, although you can use news clippings and links to organizations that advocate for same-sex binational couples like O4I, Marriage Equality, – See our toolkit: http://tinyurl.com/o4i-toolkit1 for more ideas. Obviously, this option will take up more of your time and money — and will have to be sent via snail mail.
Each week we try to provide a general email address that will accept emails from anywhere in the world (not just the representative’s constituents). However, some Reps and Senators have chosen to limit their email and you won’t get through unless you live in their district. That’s why we also provide a fax number and the snail mail address.
Whichever option you choose (and please, choose at least one!) know that you are making a difference — and please don’t give up!”
Please join out4Immigration in its quest to help our gay and lesbian families in exile, in hiding or living in uncertainty. we should not have to choose between our heart or home. Also remember we are all one heart beat away from falling in love with a foreigner.
Breaking – President Clinton retracts on DOMA and its Impact on Immigration Equality
09/26/09-by Melanie Nathan
It was just several months ago that White House officials were promising that President Obama would address immigration reform before the end of the year. It seems as if the LGBT immigration equality leadership has continued to hang its top hat on the passage of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, as being the only way the LGBT community can earn recognition in the immigration system, through the incorporation of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) in the larger reform legislation.
When UAFA was introduced again this year in January by New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler, it was hailed by the organizations and money was raised from our community in the name of this proposed stand-alone legislation. We were all excited and on board for the big push.
However a mere six months later, (4th June 2009 ) even with a majority charged democratic congress we find the very leadership that had touted UAFA as the home run now touting Immigration Reform as the sooner mechanism for UAFA to become law. The idea was that the LGBT community would lend its supporters of UAFA to the BIG immigration reform and then we would benefit from the reciprocity engendered by the larger BILL.
My earlier posts, stemming back to June of this year, will reflect my critique of Immigration Equality’s strategy and fear that we were being sold off and now my fear is further endorsed by one serious and dangerous miscalculation that not even I anticipated at the time.
Unfortunately what they never banked on was the strategy chosen by the White House. Why Health Care reform ahead of immigration reform. Since the commencement of Health Care reform negotiations, town hall meetings, confusion it has become an unanticipated debacle that will no doubt impact any and all attempts at immigration reform which will in turn put our Binational in yet another long haul wait.
To come out and say that UAFA has no traction in Congress and so we must rely on CIR is nothing short of defeatist on the part of those who took our money to fight for UAFA. According to an article written for CNN this week by Ruben Navarrette Jr. Immigration Reform is clearly not top on President Obama’s reform agenda. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/25/navarrette.obama.immigration/index.htm
“One thing that has thrown a wrench into the prospects for health care reform is the Joe Wilsonian concern that illegal immigrants might get free health care as a result of the reform process. Had that issue been addressed beforehand by giving illegal immigrants a path to earned legalization, that controversy might have been defused. Now Obama might walk away with nothing. The political math for both kinds of reform only gets more difficult if Democrats lose seats in the House and Senate in next year’s midterm elections, as is expected to happen.”
Somewhat scathing in his commentaryNavarrette continues “ And the same President who seems to understand that the longer he waits to accomplish health care reform, the more difficult it will be to get, doesn’t seem to understand the same is true with immigration reform.”
The President decided to attempt health care reform before immigration reform. An obvious mistake which our LGBT leadership failed to apprehend when boarding the CIR train- a train not only without cars but also without access to any tracks! They’re well-aware of the resistance out there to giving illegal immigrants a path to earned legalization, which some refer to as amnesty – so now if health care fails or succeeds immigration reform will be hampered undoubtedly by the questions pertaining to immigrants and healthcare.
So unhappily I must report that we, the bi-national community are in dire straits. We have so much going on in D.C. that is positive and encouraging yet at the same time, one track strategy sets us flailing in the wind. The worst thing one can offer a Binational is no hope of being in their homeland safely with their beloved. How many are living as I write with fear of deportation, desperation to return from exile or success in renewing or obtaining a visa, as the case may be!
After spending a week on Capital Hill, I have come to the conclusion that all the strategy in the world will not help those in desperate need now. What has added to the quandary is the introduction of the Respect for Marriage Act which seeks to repeal DOMA. Reading prior posts on this site, you will not its difficult in the eyes of Rep. Barney Frank. However I for one disagree with the Congressman. When speaking with a staffer this week, I was informed that Congressman Frank does not want to entertain a repeal of Doma until ENDA and HATE CRIMES pass. Of course the latter is imperative. But strategy schmategy what could be more important than recognition of our relationships; how can we be expected to have our sexuality recognized when the relationships that provide credence to our sexuality is denied by the law?
So now lets add to this fast developing scenario – one where maybe Binationals can see a glimmer of hope to their ever-fading sun… Since the introduction a mere two weeks ago of the Repeal Act, an architect of DOMA, has spoken against it and fully retracted his support of DOMA expressing his regret and how he felt duped. (See Huffingtom Post Blog )
Last night President Bill Clinton, who horrified us all, by signing the Bill, has now fully retracted his penmanship to DOMA by saying that he fully supports the rights for gay people to marry.
I predict more will come forward and if one looks at the tally, and I can report more later, it is apparent that some who have already in this short spate of time signed on RMA were not signed on to Uniting American Families Act, the immigration legislation. this is the uplift we need. Imagine if our in fact marriages were in fact recognized by the law - hence our relationships – at this level. DADT -ENDA-HATE CRIMES-UAFA- all will be psychologically rolled into this one BIG ENDORSEMENT! I believe mere introduction of the Respect for Marriage Act provides that respite, to some extent; it also gives us a sturdy leg to stand on! The irony of which we cannot but bemuse; in this vein we can say thank you to President Clinton, not for reversing his stand on DOMA but for signing it in the first place. Crazy as this may seem, but without the overt ACT of denying our relationships, we could never have had the opportunity to have and ACT that (in effect) will serve to VALIDATE our relationships and hence our standing in Society.
I have a lot more to say on the subject so consider this Part one of an extensive series yet to come… please keep your eye open for PART TWO…. thanks for reading, mel.
Shirley tan and Jay Mercado with Melanie Nathan and the Twins
When all was lost and there was no “next step” for Shirley Tan, about to be deported within mere weeks, Molly McKay of Marriage Equality called my office to see if I could be of assistance. Unfortunately Shirley’s was a losing case and she was told that there was nothing anyone could do to help her stay in the US with her partner of 23 years and their twin sons. A native of Philippines, Shirley had been unable to receive any help as there were no groups or organizations that could take this to the next level. Most people do not know how to advocate for themselves at the higest of levels and it is probably a service that is unavailable to most.
Having gone through the pain of being a binational myself, I offered to help and had no idea where this would lead, but was willing to stop everything to keep this family together. The saving of Shirley from deportation took a life of its own. I had the idea that we should ask Senator Feinstein for a Private Bill and against all odds and contrary to the recommendation of those who had more experience , we asked Senator Feinstein for a Private Bill.
During this time, and through my advocacy and coordination, Marriage Equality, Love Exiles , Julie Kruse of Immigration Equality , OUT 4 Immigration, GLAAD, People Magazine, all jumped on Board and helped with advocacy and strategy meetings. Great commendation must go to Congresswoman Jackie Speier for her help and to Senator Feinstein’s office and her extraordinary group of Staffers.
SO who would have thought the utterance of my words on the very first day I spoke to the Family when I said “ This case is going to blow the roof off UAFA. If I take it on, and it will be at no charge, will you be willing to stand up for UAFA.”Jay said, “Melanie, if we can keep Shirl here we will do anything,” would lead to this:-
Shirley and Jay have came through on their word a good many times. In June of this year, Shirley testified at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing; the family have been key note speakers at numerous important conferences in both the LGBT community and Asian American communities, culminating in this week in their meeting with White House Staffers, Senator Feinstein and other members of Congress.
This adventure to D.C., now their second was sponsored by Immigration Equality. Who would have imagined where that one call by Molly could lead. It just goes to show what going that extra mile can do. This should be a lesson to all - there is always hope as long as one takes it to the ‘n-th degree.’
So well done Tan Mercado family you have been true to your word and your community.
This is what we need to see more of – We should urge all those who voted for DOMA to now co-sponsor its repeal under the new Respect for Marriage Act introduced this week by Rep. Jerrold Nadler.
Proudly changing my position on DOMA (Rep. Earl Blumenauer By Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) – 09/16/09 10:22 AM ET - referenced from The Huffington Post and The Hill Blogs. “On July 12, 1996, I cast the worst vote of my political career. Having served in public office since 1973, that says something. While I’ve made other mistakes, this was different: it was a deliberate vote that I knew to be poor public policy and was against my values. I’ve been a strong champion of civil rights and protections based on sexual orientation since I chaired the first legislative hearing on anti-discrimination legislation in 1973. Even worse, this vote was cast after careful consideration.”
He goes on —–
“It should have been obvious to me that we would not be able to quell this assault based on sexual orientation. Far from stopping it, this vote fed the bigotry. Once Congress had put its imprimatur on DOMA, it was a logical step for the homophobes and political cynics to intensify their efforts and make permanent a ban on gay marriage in both the U.S. and state constitutions — spawning many state initiatives and intensifying the assault.” …..
Please read the entire post its a worthy read – then look up the vote of your RE P on DOMA and send them a copy or link to this Post – and ask them to Cosponsor Nadler’s RFA – asap – as a matter of correction and redemption. If your Rep voted NO on DOMA – ask them to ensure their support for RFA.
List of commentary on his issue:
Changing Their Tune On DOMA
President Clinton, Bob Barr and seven sitting members of Congress who supported DOMA, now oppose it.
Barr, Clinton, and Blumenauer – Legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which federally restricts marriage to heterosexual couples, was introduced Tuesday in House of Representatives amid a growing chorus of people who have had a change of heart on the matter.
““When the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, gay couples could not marry anywhere in the United States or the world for that matter,” Clinton said in a statement. “Thirteen years later, the fabric of our country has changed, and so should this policy.”
Barr, who was a member of the House at the time, joined Clinton, saying, “This legislation would strengthen the principle that each state is free to set the definition of marriage the citizens of that state have adopted.”
Melanie Nathan
My own comments to other blog comments on this issue:-
Barney Frank has made a big mistake on this one; it is important that REPEAL of DOMA is tackled in every way possible. This is a MUST DO Bill. There is nothing more onerous to civil rights than a piece of legislation that specifically excludes members of our society- so Barney get off your strategy crap and embrace this legislation – NOW. The question this begs “what is the point of State autonomy on marriage if the Federal government fails to recognize it?
What stops us from the fight? I don’t give a farthing about the numbers in Congress – now or then or then or now…. How could anyone think that not standing up for or introducing a Correction BILL such as Nadler’s RFA is negative to the cause. It is severely a MUST DO!! What fight was ever won without taking the ultimate risks, least of all on civil rights issues. I believe Barney may be right that the Courts will ditch DOMA long before RFA passes. But unlike Barney, strategically I think RFA is a must do nonetheless. It’s mere introduction emphasizes the fight and provides legitimacy to the fight by endorsing the fact that equality on a federal level is a civil rights issue.
If the devil did not advocate, success would go unappreciated. My hope is for the success of Mike Honda’s bill on CIR and that it will include the LGBTQ community in every respect of our right for immigration equality. It would be remiss for comprehensive immigration reform to refuse our community and hence any such bill penned by a democratic author must include our community, that is a given. But should it distract us?
Immigration Equality, a leading LGBT organization, performing excellent lobbying work and policy making on behalf of our community, have lobbied on behalf of the preeminent Bill in support of Gay and Lesbian immigration equality, The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA, H.R. 1024, S. 424) and is now also advocating for the support of the Honda legislation. They are extending their support by asking our community to participate in a campaign promoting CIR. In my continuing efforts to advocate for LGBT immigration rights and UAFA and in my representation of Shirley Tan and Jay Mercado, I would be remiss if I did not find my devil to play advocate.
If we expend so much time and our limited lack luster resources on advocating specifically for CIR do we risk being sacrificed as ‘lambs to the slaughter’ only to get dumped at the end of the road when democrats make a deal to garnish the hold out votes of few Republicans for CIR?
Comprehensive Immigration Reform **is controversal in itself- why add us to the mix? There are significant issues which will continue to cause resilience and fragmentation amongst our representatives in Congress including the very friends of immigration reform. Issues such as amnesty and fines will continue to keep this legislation at bay, religious rights will use as as an excuse to dump all and any reform, whether garnished under family reunification or not. If we add LGBT to the mix, that could be the savings account used in a trade-off against these issues. The writing is so on the wall, exemplified by President Obama’s failure to mention UAFA or any immigration reform for LGBT rights today.
I believe we may be selling ourselves short of UAFA’s strong identity for OUR equality – which if pressed may be the very angle that gets us passage of this critical legislation- especially with support of OBAMA and increasing co-sponsorship? While we may not see an early accomplishment of CIR, we stand a chance of progressing to EQUAL RGHTS if equality is the issue.
Obama is all ears if he hears from us in a BIG LOUD WAY – the stories – our time should be spent working on the Obama Administration with the help of our representatives specifically to include UAFA for our immigration reform.
If DOMA is repealed such will in effect beg the very question on the issue of gay marriage in so far as it pertains to immigration reform. If we can marry only in some States how will the repeal of DOMA help us establish immigration rights without UAFA? It is not appropriate to ask our community to marry in a non-domicile State that allows same sex marriage, because there are complications when it comes to jurisdiction in matters of divorce- by virtue of residency requirements and ‘locus standi in judicia. Furtherhow do we know the effect of a repealed DOMA on the wording in any CIR legislation such as RFA as it impacts immigration rights for LGBT partners/spouses? This is a big unknown. Is the New York based organization, Immigration Equality in working with UAFA and becoming strategically involved in RFA, a bet hedging strategy? Is it possible that we may be ’shooting ourselves in the toe’ by setting ourselves as the ‘out’ for legislators who may deem it prudent to ask us to wait for passage of the new bill RFA, and thereby have an excuse to shirk direct support and attention to UAFA. Valuable players who we are still trying to court to co-sponsor UAFA such as Senator Dianne Feinstein should not be provided with this kind of excuse, instead we should be working directly with her staffers to address her concerns, and find solutions for the perceived holes in UAFA – to work to ensure the necessary amendments. What is the meaning of Immigration Equality’s reference that RFA includes UAFA?
I have a gnawing intuition that the current state of the journey to immigration equality is at great risk if we do not keep our focus 100% to UAFA and if we do not push now while the political climate and shift in power is much improved.
I am wondering if there has been any collaboration on the questions and concerns I have raised n this piece, not only on a lobbying level but in the prima facie deliberation between the various organizations involved in the lead on this twofold plan?
If Immigration Equality (.org) is putting its limited resources into this strategy will its lobbying efforts for UAFA suffer? Will the donations to support Immigration Equality (.org) continue if it is assisting CIR rather than maintaining its focus purely on our own community?
While I think it is important to bless HONDA, et al, for ‘ doing the right thing’ with support of CIR legislation and its process, I am not sure that overt lobbying on behalf of CIR by our organizations with our limited resources does anything more than add complexity to the issue and risk the concentrated focus that UAFA requires.
I truly believe we can get UAFA passed and I also believe that the lobbying will require much more in the realm of re-drafts and additional clauses in alliance with the legislators such asSenator Feinstein. We should all gather around a massive and coordinated grass root effort to influence our representatives all around this country, with an enormous marketing plan and talking points, without any variance from our ultimate goal.
For the first time UAFA is receiving main stream attention with articles, news, TV, blogging, social media highlighting stories that many have never been heard. To my way of thinking we are juststarting, given that UAFA was only reintroduced a few months ago. To deviate is risky and a slap in the face to the progress that has been made in such a short space of time.
International press has been following Love Exile Foundation at www.loveexiles.org. The very powerful Marriage Equality group has appointed an Immigration coordinator, Chris Waddling PhD. now forging important alliances. Shirley Tan, a powerful asset to this cause is receiving an increasing amount of attention and has inspired many to step up to the cause. Shirley and her family advocate now for UAFA – they have been the subject of a story in People Magazine, (40 million readers) many newspaper opeds, news, TV, blogs, articles and her testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on UAFA at you tube has received almost 30,000 hits. Time to move forward and add to the momentum.
Resolutions are being authored in State Assemblies around the US in support of UAFA, including the recent one in California (Resolution 15 authored by Rep Kevin de Leon) with a hearing in Sacramento, scheduled for August this year.
This all said, the devil’s advocate says what if…….? In listening and hearing we must wake up and not rest on our laurels, let us look for great leaders and not rely purely on non-profit lobbying. We must take responsibility while holding those whom we support accountable for not only their spending of our donated dollars and time, but also for the decisions they are making.
I look forward to hearing from you all on your thoughts as well as some education if you think I am wrong or misinformed.
Thanks for your continued support –
** WEBSITE OF CONGRESSMAN HONDA Rep. Michael Honda to Announce Key Component of Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Reuniting Families
6/2/2009
WASHINGTON D.C. (Today) – Chairman of the Asian Pacific American Caucus, Rep. Michael Honda, will hold a press conference on Thursday, June 4, at 12:00 p.m. on Cannon Terrace, or in case of rain Cannon House Office Building Room 441, to present key components of a comprehensive immigration package, in preparation for President Obama’s reform agenda. Joining the Congressman will be other Members of Congress and supporting advocacy organizations. Rep Honda will discuss his Reuniting Families Act, to be introduced in Congress this week, and the need to reform America’s family-based immigration system to end lengthy separations of loved ones, promote family stability and foster the economic growth that immigrant families have provided throughout our history. “
10. 41 AM PDT ; Senator Leahy’s office announced today that there will be a hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). Please stay tuned. Scheduled for June 03, 2009 in D.C. Iwill be travelling to DC to attend.
NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing on “The Uniting American Families Act: Addressing Inequality in Federal Immigration Law” for Wednesday, June 3, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building. By order of the Chairman
Please inform your representatives about the hearing. Perhaps bi-national couples should flood their Senators with requests that their stories are told or submitted. Acr Now. If you need help contact me:
HOW YOU CAN HELP:
1. Contribute to Binational Advocacy Fund – see details below
2. Write your Congress person and Senator and tell them you are excited about the UAFA HEARING by Senator Leahy scheduled for June 03, 2009; Cut and Paste or use below as a sample letter;
3. Travel to DC on June 3rd – to support the hearing – contact Immigration equality and ask how you can help once there, or organize as many people as you can to stand outside your Reps office with signs saying
“UAFA is Urgent; Support UAFA Now!” There will be Press and your presence is encouraged. Keep an eye out here and on Immigationequality.org site for any information.
Note: We are working on another case where a binational woman is suffering seriously in detention. If you are able, please contribute to a Fund to Help her and other Bi-Nationals so that the work we do on their behalf can continue to be pro bono. Contributions are used to pay personal advocacy expenses: Private Courts Inc.
Binational Advocacy Fund
PO Box 1108
Woodacre, CA 94973.
Dear Representative/ Senator(inser name)
I am very pleased that Senator Leahy has announced a Judiciary Committee hearing for June 3rd on the issue of Uniting American Families Act, (UAFA, H.R. 1024, S. 424.) I respectfully request that your office do whatever it can to support this hearing and the quest for passage of UAFA, on our behalf, either by obtaining written testimony from our state constitutents currently forced into exile to be with their spouses/ permanent partners as a result of exclusion under the Immigration Laws in our Country; by co-sponsoring the bill and calling on your colleagues to do so too; by contacting Senator leahy to express support and thank hom on behalf of us, your consituents.”
The context: Under current immigration law, committed same-sex foreign partners of US citizens are unable to use the family immigration system – a system that accounts for a majority of the green cards and immigrant visas granted annually by the US. According to the most recent census, approximately 36,000 bi-national, same-sex couples are living in the US. The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) would ensure that the family connections valued under immigration law are extended to lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals.
UAFA would allow lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans and permanent residents to sponsor their foreign-born partners for legal residency in the US. The bill (H.R. 1024), introduced on February 16th, 2009 by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) in the Senate and by Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) in the House, would add “permanent partner” and “permanent partnership” after the words “spouse” and “marriage” in relevant sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Yasmin Nair describes herself as an academic, activist, and writer.” Which, she states, “ simply put, means that she struggles to pay rent while living the glamorous life of a freelance writer. Her work appears in Windy City Times, where she is a book reviewer, columnist, reporter, and photographer.” Uhuh supposedly she “speaks explicitly about and for sex, and identifies herself as a queer lesbian who loves cock. ” (Expression of Gay man or straight woman? I dont know I AM a lesbian – how would I know.)
She titles the BLOG: Uniting American Families Act: Facts, Fiction, Money and Emotions -Posted by: Yasmin @ 4:23 pm and then slaps off sme crap that bears no thesis and no conclusion that remotely relates to the Title, which in my assumption was crafted in the hope that her quest to denounce UAFA, would fit into this unrelated forum .
So anyway this Nair, the activist then expounds the ‘dis-virtues’ of Uniting America Families Act, purports compassion in responses, but fails, even when others beg for answers, to provide alternatives. The narcissistic attempt to thwart this legislation is tainted beyond measure with flaws and contradictory messages. Our Chicago academic cannot make a case for her unfounded notion that UAFA would be bad for us.
She prefaces her blog – “NOTE: The information presented here is based on research, community discussions, and conversations with lawyers. It does not constitute legal advice. If you or someone you know has legal issues like the kind discussed here, please seek the expertise of a qualified attorney. This is the first of a series on immigration reform and its effects on the LGBTQ community. “
Sheez I cant wait for the rest of the series or is it dead in the water Serena what do you think? The only quote I recall in Ms Nair’s post is a one and a half page article in People Magazine – none of the updated quotes or articles are referenced and Ms. Nair attacks Ms. Tan based on this flimsy notation. What about the research she alludes to in her preface? and so she posts:- http://www.queercents.com/2009/05/04/uniting-american-families-act-facts-fiction-and-emotions/ YASMIN NAIR SAYS ON QUEER CENTS BLOG (QUOTE) “Shirley Tan came here in 1986 as a tourist. Then, she overstayed her visa, supposedly after meeting her female partner Jay Mercado who was, like her, originally from the Phillipines. Mercado is currently a citizen, but Tan is still undocumented. They have been domestic partners for a while, according to a People article, and even wed in 2004. Tan gave birth to their twin sons who are both citizens. In 1995, Tan applied for asylum because, in 1979, according to her, a cousin shot her in the head and killed her mother and sister. In 2002, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) served Tan with an order of deportation, but the couple claim to never have received it. Finally, this year, on January 28, ICE agents showed up at the couple’s Pacifica California home and arrested her. Today, after a flurry of press coverage, comes the news that her order of deportation has been stayed through 2010 and a private bill on her behalf has been issued in Congress.
Immigration Equality and other supporters of Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) have made Shirley Tan and her family members the poster children for a piece of legislation that, they claim, would guarantee that binational couples like the Tan-Mercados are able to stay together. Why is this important? Under existing law, in many circumstances, heterosexual married citizens or permanent residents are able to sponsor their partners for immigration….. : AND SHE GOES ON…..
Then she she says she is against UAFA for a number of reasons, QUOTING AGAIN, ”not the least of which is this: even if immigration through marriage/permanent partnership is a solution, who says it’s the ideal solution anyway? And why push for a law that guarantees rights to a privileged few while leaving the plight of others unquestioned? ” Is this , Ms. Nair a GOOD REASON FOR DISCRIMINATION?
Nair goes on to say, ”As an immigration rights activist,( LOL) my concern is with comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). The current immigration crisis has come about because the United States feeds on cheap labor and the exploitation of millions, the very people it chooses to dispose of quickly and crudely via the mechanisms of raids and deportations. It does this because it knows that there is more cheap labor to be had because of the conditions of “free trade” it has created, conditions that guarantee a breakdown in the economies of countries like Mexico. These conditions, in turn, guarantee the flow of people desperate to find a living here.” Ok so I ask Nair, is another reason to deny equality to LGBT through UAFA? AND FURTHER states :- “you know the ones we mean – the day laborers who move from job to job, underpaid and overexploited; the low-paid workers who build suburban houses for us on the cheap as opposed to living in them, and so on.” (What a ridiculous assertion- of course Rachel Tiven is concerned about all immigrants, however it happens that her organization advocates for Lesbians and Gay couples who do not have rights equal to straight couples.)
Ok enough: So I wrote a response:-
Melanie Nathan Says: On the Queer Cents Blog: May 6th, 2009 at 10:49 pm QUOTING Myself ON HER BLOG:
“Share and Enjoy” you say – how can I when you insult my client, and my own right to equality..
“…..and not all straight marriages are automatic routes to citizenship…..” and therefore I presume Jasmin , that you intend that to mean that lesbian and gay couples ought not have an equal opportunity to not have this route marriage…..okay maybe I am stretching what may be unintended interpretation of your statement, but as a blogger and the person who played a pivotal role in obtaining the introduction of Private Bill # 867 for Shirley Tan and her family, kindly allow me to make some corrections to the mistakes and inaccuracies in your reporting:
1. “Phillipines” is spelt ‘Philippines’;
2. “Mercado is currently a citizen, but Tan is still undocumented” –Inaccurate – Tan has always had a valid work permit;
3. Jasmin’s misrepresentation: “1995, Tan applied for asylum because, in 1979, according to her, a cousin shot her in the head and killed her mother and sister.” Shirley Tan came to the USA when the person who shot and beat her to near death and murdered her mother was released from prison due to political connections. She was not safe. We brought the case files, prison record and hospital files from Philippines to prove her story to Senator Feinstein- there is no doubt as to the validity of these facts – you may effectively delete the “according to her.”
4. You say: “ In 2002, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) served Tan with an order of deportation, but the couple claim to never have received it.” I am informing you that in April, prior to receiving the Private Bill, ICE withdrew the deportation order on the basis that Shirley had never been served with the deportation order. That is tantamount to an admission. So her status is legal and not illegal. She was then given a few weeks to voluntarily leave the USA, by May 10th; Dianne Feinstein introduced the PB on 4/22.
5. Then you say: “Today, after a flurry of press coverage, comes the news that her order of deportation has been stayed through 2010” ; There was a great deal more work than mere press coverage; this is from the horses mouth. Personally I worked non-stop for five weeks, ten hours a day exclusively and pro bono on this case. Then almost every LGBT organization with Immigration Equality concerns chipped in their talent and efforts. You have to be quite naïve to think that it was merely press and “abra cadabra shim shalabim” a private bill; pow! You say you research and speak to attorneys etc. You sure did not speak to me; nor did you speak to Shirley – nor did you speak to anyone. You read a one page article in People magazine; well at least that is all you quote.
6. Jasmin, Jasmin, Jasmin – this takes the cake. …. “upstanding suburbanites. Why, she’s even a stay-at-home soccer mom! Rachel Tiven of Immigration Equality drives the nail home in a quote: “They are exactly the kind of people you want living in this country.” Right. The others can just rot in hell” Well that is an inflammatory and insulting statement – Rachel Tiven and others at IE work very hard for equality, whether you agree with the legislative format or not. There are many organizations that work for immigrant rights, it so happens that Immigration Equality, has LGBT immigration equality as their mission statement. The donors and funding for this non-profit expect their money to be used in terms of their mission statement. To think that advocating for one person or a group precludes help or concern for the others is simply a ridiculous notion and in no way helps to support your argument.
7. He rest of what you posit , staring with “This is only my first problem with UAFA – it doesn’t really change the paradigms of immigration. It fixates……” is simply a load of nonsensical hogwash and your entire posting begs the question…. EQUALITY.
8. UAFA simply provides language to correct DOMA, which akin to apartheid serves to institutionalize discrimination. Whether you agree with the legislation or not, you miss the entire point. Equality Under the law. The language of UAFA equates same-sex couples to different-sex couples and that is it. The opportunities for fraud are there whether gay or straight. Fraud comes with huge consequences and many straight people have been deported or fined as a result. To deny legitimate couples their rights simply because others break the law is a disingenuous argument and discriminatory in itself.
9. As far as CIR- Reunification of Families and the Honda initiatives, hopefully this too will include Lesbian and Gay families after all why should we be discriminated against.
10. I too am a binational couple. The consequences of my not being able to sponsor my wife resulted in me having to choose to leave my country with the love of my life (for past eight years) and our 4 year old daughter whom we had together or to stay in the US with my 11 year old child who I share custody of with an ex. What would you have done? . Had I been straight, the passage of the law you deny as relevant would have been MY BEST PATH to her immigration and keeping our family in tact. Fortunately we managed with 12 hours left to illegality, $15,000 in legal fees later, and stress beyond belief to complete our process that kept her here.
PLEASE DO NOT TELL ME or my friend Martha who is living in exile ( loveexiles.org) that you think UAFA is a bad idea. It is irresponsible, unproductive to equality as well as to the fight on behalf of all immigrants, not to mention he lack of merit both de facto and de jure in your argument.
That said I invite you and your readers to my blog (www.oblogdeoblogda.wordpress.com) Read the post on Bill #867, Shirley’s Bill and note that this gay issue provided a forum for Senator Dianne Feinstein’s first ever public mention of the PLIGHT OFF ALL IMMIGRANT CHILDREN AND FAMILIES; she acknowledges in essence the support of Reunification and CIR and it was Shirley Tan and her courage that for the first time shows a marriage, if you will, between the unfairness of all Immigration Law as it pertains to gays and straights.
Because you are ‘ an immigration activist’ I encourage you to seek harmony and unity in your efforts, rather than looking for divisive means to make your point– even if you disagree with the form of legislation please do not put down the courageous fighters amongst us and please do not stand in the way of my right to equality. Melanie Nathan
—————————
Yasmin NAIR responds to Melanie – there are many responses by the way which can be read on the QueerCents Blog.
Yasmin Says:
May 7th, 2009 at 5:26 am John and Mattilda,
Thanks for your comments, and for the tenor of your posts! Let me take this opportunity to thank everyone who has written, even in disagreement, in a tone that’s fitting for public discussion. Many of you who’ve disagreed have still managed to do so in a productive way, and I hope that will continue.
Madison,
With all due respect, I suggest you write your own blog and not use the comments section to do so.
Melanie,
I think it’s hilarious that you correct my spelling of Philippines, but keep referring to me as Jasmin. Multiple times.
I’m really, really glad I’ll never have to call on your services (although I’m not sure you’re her lawyer – a blogger and a person involved in introducing the bill – what does that make you, exactly?) Your inflammatory language and vituperative tone are not helping anyone, and it really doesn’t help your reputation. DOMA is akin to apartheid? I know an entire country, South Africa, that might beg to differ.
As for the facts of the case, um, if you have any issue with what I presented, go talk to the People Magazine reporters.
I cited the article quite emphatically. I’m not sure how to break the news to you but this is …
a BLOG! Part of the blog’s point is to use a case that’s emblematic of the issue at hand and then to discuss the issue.
It’s interesting that you criticize me for not having contacted you — after having just shown that your temperament here shows why that would never be a good idea (and you still haven’t indicated who you are, exactly, ahem) — and then you go on to happily and unethically combine my critique of UAFA with some imagined personal criticism of Shirley Tan.
My point here was to look at the representation of an “ideal/good” family and then ask us to look UAFA more closely. This was not meant to be an airing of your client’s perspectives (and again, in what capacity are you acting on her behalf, exactly?). You need to do that job, not me. And, by the way, you need to do it elsewhere, not here.
Have I already mentioned that your tone is vituperative and quite unlike what someone’s public advocate should adopt? I know dozens of lawyers, and none of them would do what you just did, in the tone you just used. I also know a lot of advocates and publicists, and none of them would do what you just did, in the tone you just adopted. You’re just screaming at me.”
Now I was not the only one who did not agree with her. I think out of 44 responses (excluding her own defensive responses) no one agreed or understood what the heck she was saying.
Anyway Madison, Great Blog too – you did it justice on this one
I started a dialogue with a clearly uninformed OR antigay conservative, challenging he ron her own blog and copying the outcome on mine. Soon we had a floowing on her blog (MICHIGAN REDNECK – self proclaimed) and the result is that she has – somewhat – changed her tone. Time to reach out to those who know less and purport to know more… than whatever… just do it…. start the challenge…… see my chronology by reading the TOPIC -http://oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com/2009/04/25/time-to-talk-not-sure-yet/
Today I was picked up by a BLOGGER that sees Gays and Lesbians as lesser Americans Michigan Redneck II - (yes that is what the blogger calls him/herself) – - or so I presume from the postings.
THIS IS WHAT SHE WROTE ON HER BLOG AND I QUOTE: note her words are in red
THE MICHIGAN REDNECK IS A WOMAN AND THIS IS WHAT SHE SAYS-
Immigration News Daily; Earlier this morning I posted a few articles found in Immigration News Daily. But this one I figure deserves a post of it’s own.
Sometimes I just find things that just make me say, “WTF!”. And I feel like posting on such things, but don’t really know how to make a big wordy post. From now on, I making this a serious when I find issues that make me give the above reaction.
The Feinstein story about the Philippino lesbo got me started on a few searches. I found this one blog by someone who supports the gay agenda who is all excited about the Shirley Bill. This “Although it does not help the myriad (36,000) binationals living in fear or exile” got me to wondering what is binational. So I did a Google Search for binational and some of the things made me say, “WTF, I didn’t know about that.” Like;
Also in the Feinstein/Philippino article was something called UAFA. I wanted to do a Google Search on that too. Here is some of what I came up with. This one really shocked me:- Uniting American Families Act - The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA, H.R. 1024, S. 424) is a U.S. bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents and to penalize immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships.[1][2]
Most of the blogging and MSM news on this issue is gay agenda support. This is an issue that I will be checking up on in the future. Most of the blogging and MSM results have a gay agenda support of it. I am surprised that there is barely any Conservative talk on the bill. When the gay agenda enters into the immigration arena, conservatives leave it alone. But not me. Now that I know about it. I will collect more info and inform y’all.
How could this “She applied for asylum in 1995 because she was afraid of a cousin in the Philippines who had killed her mother and sister and critically wounded her when she was a teenager.” even be considered a valid reason for asylum? This is nothing more than family issues. Applying for asylum should be based on political issues. The United States should not be the World’s policeman. If one of my crazy relatives was trying to kill me and/or other family members no other country would take me in.
What did Feinstein win? I mean seriously is there some contest going on to see who can be the most lefty in politics?
Just one more day and one more reason I’m so glad I don’t live in People’s Republic of California.
Unreal. US Senators are elected to serve American citizens and support our laws. Not give amnesty to illegal lesbian immigrants. I’m gonna be dry heavin over this one for a while.
Melanie responded to the above BLOG as follows. :- Maybe I am naive – but I did take the step of providing my perspective in a reply on the blog and then it went further:-
“Thank you so much for helping us to spread our Gay agenda. It is very kind of you. Yes we do have an agenda indeed and the agenda is quite simple – Equality for all Americans, including people who have loving relationships with someone of the same-sex. Now while you are researching and doing all you can to create your own definition of the gay agenda, I highly recommend doing some serious research that makes sense and you will se that our founding fathers ( and that they were!) were brilliant in their recommendations and dialogues that led to our wonderful and insightful constitution.
In 1790 George Washington declared, “As mankind becomes more liberal, (so I guess he expected and wished for it) they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.”
That said, please do not be afraid of gay people – the Shirley Tan case highlights the importance of family. Her catholic church priest wrote a supporting letter to the Senator, stating what an amazing family this is, how well adjusted the twin boys are, the valuablecontributions they have made to the entire community. This is an example of good family values. These are amazing people entitled to a peacefull and equal life. Americans shouldnot have to leave the USA simply because they happen to love someone of the same sex.
I would like to invite a dialogue with you and help you see that this is really not an important issue for you – but as a lesbian mom it is an important issue for me. I know letting go of this may make your site less worthy if you are unable to continue to assist other conservatives feed into the fear and promote false rhetoric, but truly there are other issues – ones tha do not hurt your fellow Americans. There are issues that you can take up that will remain in keeping of the vision of our founding fathers – PEACE , FREEDOM AND JUSTICE for every single American.
I’m happy to help you with your research on the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). If you’re an American, if you truly believe in American values and the right we all have to the pursuit of “life, liberty and happiness”, then I think you can help us support equal immigration rights for all American citizens. WTF — you say!? American citizens need immigration rights? Well, yes we do. You, for example, live up in Michigan. Near the Canadian border. Probably not too hard to meet an attractive Canadian lassie (or lad) up there and fall in love. Want to get married and live with your Candadian sweetie in your own country. If you’re both of the heterosexual variety, snap, get married (heck, just get engaged to get married) and the US government protects your right to be in America with the one you love. Gay and lesbian American citizens (and yes, gays and lesbians are American citizens — which means, according to our founding documents, we are all created equal — esp. the men : – )) do not have the same rights to sponsor their Canadian partners (or, horrors(!) Mexican partners — or Australian, Romanian, Indian, Japanese, Egyptian…you name it). Even those Americans who have been married in a fair-minded country (or state) that permits same-sex marriage cannot stay in America legally with their foreign partner until we pass the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). Here’s a short list or organizations who will be happy to educate you and your readers further on how you can help: Out4Immigration, Marriage Equality USA, Love Exiles, Immigration Equality, Love Without Borders. You might also want to call Rep. Jerrold Nadler at 202-225-5635 and ask him to give you more information. He is the sponsor of this legislation and has done extensive research on the “gratuitous cruelty” lack of equal immigration laws has inflicted on countless Americans. Sincerely, Kathy Drasky
so it’s a piece of politics that you don’t agree with. that’s allowed, obviously. i just wanted you to know that it’s more than that for some of us. i was born and raised in the u.s. (and still pay taxes from afar…), but because my partner is from paraguay and of the same sex, i can’t sponsor her to come live in my country. so, we live in argentina.
i support UAFA…just because i want to come home. that’s all.
-kathryn griess
April 26, 2009 at 7:16 pm My partner and I- a bi-national same-sex couple, of which one is from a European country- also thought:
WTF, why can’t we stay together in the US, when our American friend can bring his wife from France to live in his home state?
We are married and living together in exile in Europe, as many other couples are, as this country ( as well as over 20 countries worldwide) provides equal immigration rights to straight and gay couples.
The UAFA would merely provide us the same rights as straight couples have. And it would force us to prove our commitment to each other in the same way as straight have to.
Why are you so opposed to this?
We would appreciate it if you could explain your arguments.
April 27, 2009 at 12:19 pm Let me put it in terms you can understand:
WTF You MF, CS,Conservative Right Wing AH.
I am a Viet Nam Vet, Tax Payer, Home Owner, and member in good standing in my community. BUT yet I am not afforded the same protections under the law a you because I AM GAY.
If I were you I could sponsor Australian Bride for a permenant resident card, but because we are of the same sex I am not allowed. As far as the Government is concerned we are total stangers.
The UAFA would simply change the wording of the immigration policy to allow permenant partners to sponsor the same sex partners, we would be held to the same strict regulations as straight couples. There would be no greater chance of fraud than there is with straight couples.
You mentioned “the GAY Agenda” several times, would you like to know what the GAY Agenda is? Really? Are you sure you can handle it?
OK so Here it is plan and simple:
LET US THE F ALONE and let us live our lives in peace, stop dening us our civil rights. Keep your Evangelical Noses out of our business. We will answer to a higher power when we reach the Golden Gates, but we will not answer to you.
April 27, 2009 at 12:39 pm After reading “All You Need to Know About Michigan Redneck” I was surprised to learn you are a self proclaimed “Chick” you write like a Dude.
There may be a “Lesbo’ hiding in there somewhere… :0)
There may be hope for you yet.
Thank you for helping spread the word about the UAFA.
Randy
California
Since I am so thick skinned not only did I allow both your comments to post, you actually gave me a good laugh. And no, I am not laughing at you. I’d like to think I am laughing with you. While I am still trying to gather more info from all sides on the issues I will address the other comments soon. But your’s is light enough that I can comment to you now. Until then, I would please ask that everyone give me time to respond and please don’t jump to conclusions. I stated that I just recently heard about this and want to learn more.
First, I want to thank you for serving this great country, in uniform . As you can tell from the right hand corner, I am a fan of Barry Goldwater. He was more of a fis-con than so-con. I can’t remember the exact quoting or where I read it, but he did say something along the lines of it not mattering if a person in uniform was gay or straight. I am glad to hear you are a good standing member of your community. I think that is good for both gays and straights.
I see you wrote “If I were you I could sponsor Australian Bride for a permenant resident card, but because we are of the same sex I am not allowed” before you read the about me. So obviously I could not have an Australian bride. I am not even a big fan of heteros bringing in foreign spouses. There are cases where it may be valid, but generally it seems like one side or the other can easily take advantage of the other. I despise those stupid mail order bride situations. I will address that later.
As I said, I am still trying to get all views of the UAFA.
Next off, I am not an Evangelical. Christian yes, Evangelical no. Evangelicals scare me. Since you are not a regular reader, I will inform you that I am a Fiscal Conservative. It may surprise you to know that I get irritated with Republicans who only talk of pro-life stands and for a federal amendment stating of marriage between one man and one woman, yet they shimmy around the issues of welfare and immigration. For the record, I am pro-life. I have nothing against gay people. I am accepting of all people.
Why should you be offended by the phrase “gay agenda”? Everyone has an agenda. I am more upset by conservatives not talking on the UAFA agenda. Regardless of whether they support it or not, they should say so. I hate chicken shits and hypocrites.
Lastly, the last comment you entered actually had me laughing. I like to consider myself balanced. I am not the flowery type chick. I do not write flowery words. Too much of a realist. If you notice, the pic included with my comments is of a sewing machine. I write occasional posts about sewing. I don’t think those would be considered writing like a dude. I think modern girls are too sissy. I do not like bimbos or either feminists. Funny how Republicans want women to be old fashioned, yet they would think that someone like Ma Ingalls on Little House would be a feminist. Due to the fact that she didn’t get all primped up. Old fashioned women needed somewhat of a “dude” persona. Men knew that there was a large percentage of leaving the mother of their children a widow. They needed someone who could pull a plow, take care of the farm and support the family should anything happen to him. Sorry, I got off topic.
April 27, 2009 at 2:57 pm I am thrilled at all these postings- I bet this lady had no idea about the world out there. Michigan Redneck now has us “lefty lesbos” explaining our existence because she has never met one before, and on her site at that. I bet all of you picked this up off my blog and I am glad you did. Lets keep the discourse sweet and friendly and lets focus on the edification of conservatives as you have all mostly done. I just want to clarify that I am not ooffended by word GAY AGENDA – I am offended by ignorant defnitions as to what it IS> WE WANT EQUALTY that is our ONLY AGenda.
April 27, 2009 at 3:24 pm Actually “this lady” has met a few lesbians. Don’t know if any of them are/were lefty. After all there is the Log Cabin Republicans . Only knew them as friends of friends. I even had one ask me to dance at a bar. I merely said thanks, but no thanks. I would do the same with a man I was not interested in.
I am a fiscal conservative too. It was one of the hardest choices I have ever made to decide who to vote on for President in the last election. I am however gay and want to be a full citizen (not liberal in my mind, very conservative position). I’d be a Repulican if I weren’t gay.
I believe literally in the words “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Well not as literally as they did pre-1920 when the populous thought men literally meant men and women were not allowed to vote. Also don’t take Creator to mean just the Christian God of Evangelicals and Baptists. My church, Universalist Unitarians has been around since the late 1500’s; this kind group of straight people advocates for gay citizens having equality.
All that said, the real thing is, imagine, how ever it came to be, you and the one you loved most couldn’t be together. Imagine you paid taxes just like the gal next door, and the government took those words above seriously and let her pursue her life, liberty and happiness–she is able to love and choose anyone in the world–she is not limited as a citizen of the USA. But here you are, locked in to living as a proud American without your partner/family in the good ‘ole USA, or leaving and giving everything up….like your medical license in my case.
That’s pretty much what the Uniting American Families ACT is about. Just a simple bill to let a US citizen have the one they love in the same home with them. I don’t really it as a big agenda. It is a pretty simple one that almost anyone can understand if they think about living across an ocean isolated from the one they love the most. I do think it should be done legally and those who sidestepped the rules shouldn’t get special favors. Just asking for equal treatment of my own interests–very conservative thing to do wouldn’t you agree?
Thank you for your level headed comment. I am glad to receive a comment from a gay Conservative. Not that I dislike the comments from the “lefty gays”(paraphrase from Oblog…,)I want to hear from all sides. I brought this subject up to bring it to light and start a dialog. I would love to have this be picked up by Conservatives, both for and against UAFA, whether gay or straight. I have stated on many issues, within the past 2 years that the Republican Party needs to shut up or put up on all issues, social AND fiscal. “Preaching to the choir” has it’s time and place, but those who truly believe what they say would have AND should have the balls to speak out to those who are not part of the choir. While many of the commentors to the UAFA issue probably would not have reason to continue to become regular readers. I would like to invite you to become a regular reader and check my archives. You will notice that I interchange the words Conservative and Republican. There is a reason for this. But sneaky as I am, I leave it up to the reader to figure it out , tee-hee. Oh, where was I? Yeah, I was replying to your comment.
OK, it was hard for me to choose who to vote in the presidential election. Well maybe not. It was not between McAmnesty and Obummer. I ended up voting for Bob Barr (Libertarian). I just could not get distracted by McAmnesty’s shiny objects (read Sarah Palin and “Joe the Plumber”). Those two did not shit roses, like the Evangelicals acted like. Yet, they were not evil like the libs acted like.
I am going to be honest here, I do not know a whole lot about Universalist Unitarians. It gives me another something to search about, argh ! Another honesty, I do believe in equality for everyone. But I dissent on Gay marriage. If someone is gay, that’s fine. Live with whom you want. I just don’t agree with that choice or lifestyle.
I think the laws for hetero international-marriage immigration need to be made stricter, first. I don’t think we should allow situations with some fat, short, old, bald guy sitting at his computer or reading his “bride catalog” wanking off to “Tiana-I coot/hot Russian girl. I wan be bride in America. I cook. I clean. I do what you say. I your girl. You silly boy. You coot.” Let me state that one of my grandmothers was a German “war bride.” God rest her soul. I do not think she was taking advantage of my grandfather. After all, he was a sixth grade graduate from Arkansas. And she was an educated teenager who knew at least three languages, including German. If she were to use a soldier to get to the states, she could have found someone more educated. I do not think my grandfather was trying to take advantage of some Euro-girl. He was very handsome and could have married any Arkansas girl when he arrived back in the states. My grandfather left for the states with his troop without her. She had to come in on a different boat, with other brides. She went through a lot of scrutiny to get on that boat. Again, I got a bit OT.
But under the UAFA what is to stop me from a possible situation where I were to spend maybe a year in Europe, or other continent, and I become friends with a foreign girl. Under said hypothetical situation, I like hanging out with her. The two of us devise a plan to tell U.S. and her country’s officials that we are “partners” and I want her to join me in the U.S. She arrives in the U.S. as my partner. Somewhere along the way one of us meets a man. One of us is attracted to him. Go through courtship. Gets married. Or even under current laws, I meet a man who is simply a platonic friend. We get married in his country of nationality or tell officials we will get married in the U.S. he gets to the U.S. and we divorce and go on our own ways?
Thank you for the links. I have read those. Those are the links on this post.
Regardless of whether or not I end up supporting the UAFA, two VERY important things; I do have empathy for your cause AND most importantly, all of us have a write to our own thoughts and opinions and being able to speak on those.
BTW, I read somewhere about a gay REPUBLICAN candidate running for something or another in Florida or Cali who is fiscally conservative. I want to check out more about him, and possibly post about him. But him being gay is not a reason to support or not support him. It is where he stands on the issues.
April 30, 2009 at 2:06 am Thanks for your receptiveness. My family worked hard to go from working class poor family of the depression to get me into med school and to build something to pass on to our posterity/legacy. Not keen on government taking it away after doing the work.
Responding to your comment about gay marriage and lifestyles, I don’t support a Klu Klux Klan lifestyle, nor being a Communist. I hold our national value of each being able to have equal access despite their choices or circumstances higher than my distaste for those lifestyles (I could go on a long path talking about chosen lifestyle vs. been born this way–lots of prayers and wanting to die because never could convince my sympathetic nervous system that it was a choice). I digress. The idea in the Declaration of Independence, from my study, was government promoting Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness for those from checkered protestant and Catholic backgrounds. This was between colonies that very different beliefs no more than 200 years before our Declaration of Independence was written. It was certainly not written by a group of conservatives. They were overthrowing status quo and moving toward englightment. Away from monarchy, oligarchy and theocracy. But people try to compulsively repeat the past. The King of Romania at the time was at the Center of the Universalist Unitarian group. He was tired of people being killed as heretics because they didn’t believe in the trinity but saw God, son, spirit all as one. Imagine…dying over such a thing today… Guess it still happens in the Middle East.
Allowing Klu Klux Klan members to have their beliefs and practice their rituals is one of my highest values though I vehemently oppose that lifestyle. Conversely limiting others rights and killing people are not acceptable … beliefs and rituals are different matter, they are guaranteed in the Country I support. Now gay marriage. I support that a group of people should be able to declare homosexuality an abomination in their church and refuse to marry anyone they don’t want to. I feel that way about the Klan. But 4 States (Mass., Conn, Iowa, Vermont) and 7 Countries later (Canada, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden), heterosexual marriage still looks pretty much the same.
Look at the science, the most recent UN stats on divorce rates: Canada 2.2/1000 Belgium 2.8/1000 Netherlands 1.9/1000 Spain 1.7/1000 Sweden 2.2 / 1000. US Stats aren’t listed. CDC reports US average is 3.6/1000. Conn. 3.2/1000, Iowa 2.6/1000, Mass. 2.3/1000, Vermont 3.6/1000. Of the 11 provinces (countries and states) that have legal gay marriage, 10 have a lower rate of divorce than the U.S. average and the remaining one ties that average. Don’t forget Galileo was put under house arrest for life because he made the unpopular lifestyle choice of publishing a scientific document showing the Earth wasn’t the center of the solar system.
Regarding your grandmother and grandfather, would you have wanted to limit their freedom to pursue their happiness. Doesn’t sound like handcuffs were on either party. And you are the wonderful outcome of that freedom to choose. They had things to offer each other. I’m not balding but in your example maybe the balding guy has something to offer the Russian bride and vice versa. Maybe their progeny will be more successful than either of ours. Who am I to interfere with their free will to choose?
Regarding the rules of UAFA. I would hope they would be the same as for heterosexual couples. Same timeframes leading to rejection of the greencard if a separation of the permanent relationship resulted–this act would require proof demonstrating that was the nature of the relationship, permananent. And if you want to lengthen those timeframes for all, more power to you. I wouldn’t disagree our citizens shouldn’t be used to get into the country. And I wouldn’t support fraudulent use of immigration. Same monitoring should occur for all.
What else stands in your way of supporting me as your fellow citizen being with the person I love most? And making sure I have a legacy through his progeny. He’s unbearable cute to me. He’s doing very well in his country too. We’ve got other paths to get him here than UAFA because of that. I am cute as well so I’m told. My wisdom, knowledge and family wealth passed to his progeny… Well that is my dream. Sure doesn’t sound worse than supporting the Klan being able to have their lifestyle…which you do I’m counting on.
Thanks for your time in really listening to all of us. That’s true charity/love in my book.
I admit to not having all the answers. I wish I did. I will say I am glad that you found someone you care about. There is no black and white answer to any issue that one can name. The prob is that no one can judge what is another person’s heart, regarding the immigration issue of bringing in a spouse or partner to the U.S. Sometimes it is true love, sometimes not.
I do know for a fact that I do not support gay marriage within the confines of a religious ceremony. As for Civil Unions, I think it should be up to the voters of the ind. states. And whatever the result, no whining.
I am saddened by divorce rates the world over. But that is a whole other can of worms.
As for the KKK, obviously I do not agree with what they stand for. But as you say, they should be allowed to say what they want.
oblogdeeoblogda said
April 28, 2009 at 2:35 am I take umbrage with your rewritten history here MR (I mean Michigan Redneck); Kindly allow me to remind you of the following:
1. Your first post about Shirley Tan led to your acknowledgment and so called research that yielded UAFA to your lexicon;
2. I responded highly offended at your use of words such as “lesbo” and racially charged “Filipino Lesbo;” also your assertion of a Gay agenda as being a negative one;
3. I wrote you a detailed response, despite my busy schedule, inviting you to discuss this with me.
4. I then posted everything you said and I commented on in my oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com blog;
5. You then sent me a comment stating you did not have time to answer me, that you would get to it and that you were too busy;
6. Then suddenly all the good people that came to my Blog, wrote on your Blog too, after visiting mine and being directed to you;
7. You then communicate only with those who can beat your drum –in great detail, I must add, for such a busy gal who has STILL not taken the time to respond to me, Melanie, the one who started the discourse! – Nor have you apologized for your demeaning and offensive remarks – instead in your response to others- you throw out token remarks such as “I was once asked to dance by a woman and… – … which simply exacerbate your original insults!” What are you running away from? You cannot face me with a straight (no pun intended of course) answer?
8. The many gay people who have written so eloquently on your site have been polite and stated their positions and all you can do is go off on crazy irrelevant tangents.
OKAY that all said I now challenge you to answer the following:-
1. Are you sorry that you used the word “lesbo” and do you plan to continue to use that word? I want an apology and a committment that you will stop that disgusting language includingthe “F” word and WTF – I know you have a 1st amendement right, but for as long as you continue to use such language you hate gay people and want to alienate us – especially now that we tell you its offensive to us
2. Are you going to continue to refer to the GAY AGENDA and then pretend to be interested in promoting UAFA?
3. Why the hell cant people fall in love with people from other countries- straight or gay? How do you think you got here? I know you have the word RED in your name – but I did not think you were pure blood native American – maybe I am wrong – only then can you have the chutzpah to be anti spousal immigration.
Lets leave gay marriage for another day and another time.
If you do not take the time to answer me, neither I nor my blogging friends will waste their time coming back to your blog, rest assured an honest discussion involves dealing with the things you need to apologize for… Melanie Nathan
April 28, 2009 at 3:35 am I am just now starting to respond. I really, really am trying to get your comments. There has only person who has responded that is against UAFA. The others support it. And my responding has been going down the line, as opposed to the date I received them. In my responding to them, I am trying to add a bit of humor. You and all the commentors have given me a lot to think about and I thank all of y’all for that. So I just want to lighten the situation. That’s the way I work. Once the situation has been lightened. We both know that if this were another Conservative blog the commentors would be vilified. I am trying to be fair and diplomatic, yet, like Carrie Prejean (Miss California), I can have my own opinion. I will get to addressing exactly what you have addressed soon. And I am sorry that I did not address your comments sooner.
RE: 1.“..so called research…” How do you know if my research is so called or not? Are you or someone you know hacking my computer to see what search results I am Googling?
RE: 2.“I responded highly offended at your use of words such as “lesbo” and racially charged “Filipino Lesbo;”” Perhaps I was a bit hasty in using the word lesbo as shortened form of lesbian. What is wrong with the word Philippino? Isn’t that her nationality?
RE: 3.“I wrote you a detailed response,…”Which I am trying to get to as soon as I can. You do have an advantage over me. You know more about this than I. I should be allowed a little time to learn, via searches, comments and personal contacts.
Answering questions;
RE: 1.I want an apology and a committment that you will stop that disgusting language…” Please do not ask/demand for an apology. I have already changed the words. I honestly did not know that people find “lesbo” offensive. I merely assumed it was short for lesbian. Just like hetero is short for heterosexual. As for “…includingthe “F” word and WTF…as long as you continue to use such language you hate gay people and want to alienate us…” The F word and WTF have nothing to do with whether or not I hate gay people, which I don’t just for the record. If you re-read the intro to this post, I am using it for anything that surprises me, gay or not related. As you can tell, WTF is a new series I am starting. Plus, the first three Google search results have nothing to do with gay. They were things that made me say “WTF” Whoa, I didn’t know that. This can include anything, like something I may read about Elvis, like a famous actress he may have dated or silly name for one of his horses. Just an example I could throw out there.
RE: 2.“Are you going to continue to refer to the GAY AGENDA…” I am going to refer to any agenda I find out about, whether my reaction to it is negative or positive. “…then pretend to be interested in promoting UAFA?” Not once did I pretend to promote anything. I said I wanted to find out about what it was and decide from there.
RE: 3. Instead of just posting your question and then answering I will plain ol’ address that. People from other questions can fall in love. But we can not just let people in willy-nilly. No, I am not FULL Native American, that is correct. I have done research on my family line, other than the previous example I gave, my other ancestors met in this country.
I like you and all, I think your a great person and do a great job forwarding the Conservative message. And please do not think I am chastising you or anything. After all, I did ask for help with a Conservative voice in this issue.
But I will say that this blog is and always has been open to discussions from all sides. I still want to hear from Conservative DEEP THOUGHTS on this specific cause. I hope you are willing to come back once you learn about the UAFA and let everyone know your thoughts, whether pro or con. Everyone needs to think for themselves, regardless of what political side they are on, on any issue.
April 28, 2009 at 12:42 pm Good answer to the the host Michigan Redneck – I appreciate it and your visit to my site – now let us put that behond us and concentrate on a discussion about UAFA and other issues, of American Equality.
Thanks I really appreciate your post, your apology and your willingness to engage and remain open; it takes a strong person to do that! What do you think of Specter? Looks like he is seeing the light too…actually he always has -its just that he has now chosen to move into it!
Or would you prefer me using your first name? I was always raised to more formal names towards people of professions such as law, medical, religion, etc.
That being said, I am quite hungry. Bought a fish, on sale at that, yesterday. I should probably cook it, knowing fish that is on sale . Every time I plan to get up to stick it in the toaster oven, something happens on the internet. Yeah for live feed on Yahoo, NOT! But I will get back to you soon about what you have said, i.e. Specter and other stuff. Maybe I will send an email sometime. I do guard my privacy, and my email addy will let people know my real name. I am the same way with everyone. I have learned my lesson, even in Conservative and/or Republican situations.
I will sometime write a post on the UAFA. Most likely in series’. Sort of like a follow along online diary. Look at me, planned to be quick, oops.
April 29, 2009 at 1:12 am I am and always have been open minded. I do believe in American equality for everyone. I do not think anyone should be considered more or less of American. I think everyone’s voice should be just as loud as the next guy or gal, regardless of ethnicity and/or orientation. But at the same time, if someone disagrees they should be allowed to say so.
What do I think of Specter? Hmm…From what I have been seeing, I think he is correct on the Republican Party moving to the right…on social issues. Wrong on the fiscal issues. I think the Republican Party is moving left and/or silent on fiscal issues. This whole “Compassionate Conservative” irritates me. I was not too keen on George Bush’s Faith Based Initiative. Even if monies do go to Religious Organizations, it is still MY tax dollars. Certain Religious groups may give money to causes that I don’t believe in, like immigration related. I should have the right to give to what Religious Organizations I want. Since I am more pro-adoption than pro-life, meaning that don’t just stop at pro-life, but do something about like helping bio mothers find loving families for the child. Back to Specter. In this current unemployment and economy situation, I am against the H1 and H2 B programs. Specter supports H-2B.
“Looks like he is seeing the light too” Exactly what do you mean by “too”? I have never been much into social issues. I have beliefs, but I separate those between religion and politics. As for other things, I will never been won to the other side.
April 28, 2009 at 12:50 pm Hey this looks like a healthy debate! This is the way I look at it, what you do in your bedroom is only your business and the other adult you get nasty with. However, once it enters into the political arena, Katey bar the door.
If you want to infringe on the rights of others while seeking your own rights, then you have to get ready to rumble! This is exciting to see such a vibrant and interactive discussion here on this great blog.
Michigan Redneck, your a good friend and blogger and I salute you for eliciting a great response. Remember, you do not have to post all comments, but I applaud you for doing just that!
Hey regardless of their Socialist Squirrel status or sexual orientation, it is great to have the discussion. However, when it gets Nuts as Socialist Squirrels often do, you no longer have to respond. Just move on and keep getting out there great content and message you are delivering.
I would take this response as a pat on the back, you are hitting them where their political agenda hits the road. Bravo! Keep getting Grizzly!
One thing that you are finding is that you have felt all alone, but you have not submitted to Grizzly Groundswell blog networks in a while. Of course you are going to feel alone if you do not network with fellow conservatives that give a shit.
That is one things those of the political pro Gay agenda have over us. They move this message and agenda forward in a pack mentality. The Grizzly Groundswell actually has learned from those of our enemies in the political agenda realm.
Hey I am sure on a personal level we are all Americans and I am sure I can stand around my Raku kiln and bullshit with about anyone. But, this is a political agenda, and it deserves opposition because there is no end in sight of the demands this agenda lusts after. It demands rights that erode others liberty. So that is why this is such a flash point issue.
So battle on, but don’t loose your sense of humor. This is all politics and anyone who takes it beyond that will be dealt with in like measure under the rule of law.
Get Grizzly Michigan Redneck, I hope this great opportunity has shown you who your friends are.
…For being a Conservative with a concise voice. Well HoosierArmyMom left a was clear and concise also. I have read your comment fully. As I told Ms. Nathan, I am hungry and trying to cook my fish. As any long level-headed comment deserves a feedback, I will get back with you as soon as I can.
Before I go “Remember, you do not have to post all comments, but I applaud you for doing just that!” Yes, even when I don’t agree, my unspoken rule is that as long as no one is threatening or violent, most all posts are allowed. But I understand if some bloggers opt to be more stricter. Free speech on all sides. Free to choose what gets part of the convo. So long as it is the people who choose, NOT the gubmint!
I hope you don’t think me a Socialist Squirrel, but here goes.
In your love letter above to MR, you did have a few kernels that are worth replying to:
“If you want to infringe on the rights of others while seeking your own rights, then you have to get ready to rumble!”
This is interesting for you to say. It seems, from reading the rest of your post, that you believe that those who are advocating for immigration sponsorship rights for Americans in same-sex relationships are infringing on your rights. If I am wrong in this, I apologize. However, if I am correct, as I think I am, then exactly which rights are we supposedly infringing upon?
I can tell you which rights current laws infringe upon – the rights of my American husband. My American husband cannot sponsor his legally wedded spouse for immigration as you would be able to yours (assuming it was a woman). My American spouse cannot receive Social Security death benefits should I die first (nor me his), as you can should your wife die before you, even though we’ve been paying into the system just as you have. I could go on – there are 1,138 rights in all that we don’t get that you do, but I hope you get my point.
“But, this is a political agenda, and it deserves opposition because there is no end in sight of the demands this agenda lusts after. It demands rights that erode others liberty.”
Again, exactly which of your liberties are being eroded by my American husband having rights that you currently enjoy? Why exactly does this deserve opposition? We’re not looking for what some may call ’special rights’. We’re demanding equal rights. We see our relationships as equal to yours, and demand rights from our government that honor that equality.
I have recently come across, thanks to Melanie Nathan, a fantastic quote, written in a letter from George Washington on March 12, 1790, addressed to “The Roman Catholics of the United States.” In it, he writes:
“As mankind become more liberal, they will be more apt to allow, that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the Community are equally entitled to the protection of the civil Government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations in examples of justice and liberality.”
I suggest you read the whole letter, study its historical context, and can see that we are, in essence, akin to the 1790 Roman Catholics. We are law-abiding, tax-paying, positive forces in our community, just as (I hope) you are in yours. Why, exactly, are we not equally entitled to the protection of the civil government?
I hope I wasn’t too ‘nutty’ for you to be able to reply and offer some examples as I have asked for them. This is a learning experience for me, too, and I look forward to hearing the replies of the apparently more socially conservative who contribute to and enjoy reading this blog.
I would consider myself a fiscal conservative – I don’t want to see the government, big business, or even charitable organizations take my money and waste it. I’d rather they spend it on the things that matter to me, and even on those that don’t, I want to see it spent efficiently and wisely. I don’t like to see people breaking the law, nor do I like to see them no pay for doing so. But this country was founded on a principle of equality for all, and as I believe strongly in this, this tends to override many of my fiscally conservative tendencies. I am what you would probably consider a social liberal, although I consider myself socially moderate at most.
On the Geo Washington quote, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, I think it depends on the definition of Liberal.
“I would consider myself a fiscal conservative – I don’t want to see the government, big business, or even charitable organizations take my money and waste it. I’d rather they spend it on the things that matter to me, and even on those that don’t, I want to see it spent efficiently and wisely. This is exactly why I think political parties need to stay out of social issues. I have nothing against politicians talking about their social views, but it should not be a litmus test. It is also why I, and others, find myself leaning toward the Libertarian Party. They don’t care about social issues. That is up to the church and families. It is like the old school Republican Party.
In terms of your responding to Chad, I think it is good for all of us to be able to have conversations agree or disagree. I think all sides come into the convos with their own condensed views of an issue, along with their own condensed views of what others may or may not think. When a conversation takes place with everyone from all sides, we may or may not change our views, but at least we know where the other side is coming from.
Now we may or may not agree, but this is why I am against the Hate Crimes Bill. I could get into that more on another post, but to summarize, ALL crimes are motivated by hate. It actually patronizes “minorities.” I believe any moron has the right to speak out on their hate. Then others can pick up on this and speak out. That is true power to the people! Oh God, I sound like a Ron Paul-er.
April 29, 2009 at 4:51 pm MR, on the Geo Washington quote, he did say ‘liberal’ (small ‘l’) and ‘liberality’, which some online dictionaries define as “the quality of being broad-minded”. In his day, it was broad-minded to extend equality to Roman Catholics, something that we would say, well, of course! In our day, LGBT’s who are upstanding members of our civic community deserve the right to equality just like the RC’s of the 1790’s did. As society becomes more broad-minded, we will allow equality to more and more whom we realize deserve it.
As to Chad and his like-minded friends, I encourage him in my post to talk about his beliefs and to explain himself as I have done with mine. Talking points and inflammatory rhetoric, which both sides of every issue use, do nothing to advance the discussion. I’d like to hear what exactly his list of supposed lost liberties looks like, especially when put up next to my husband’s list.
A final note: I don’t know that any of us have truly been concise. Mr Everson rambles around how much he misses you on other blogs without offering anything substantive. Your HoosierArmyMom friend is not terribly concise, either. It’s like they are trying to come up with a reason to oppose this legislation that uses facts, rights, etc., and can’t. Like you, I’d like to hear, from either a fiscal conservative or a social conservative, an actual reason why this bill that keeps families together and Americans in their homes and jobs should not become law. Isn’t that the basis of the ‘family values’ folks – to keep families together? and isn’t that the tenet of the fiscal conservatives – to keep Americans in their homes and jobs? How does sending an American into exile do either?
April 28, 2009 at 11:48 pm“Hey this looks like a healthy debate!” Yeah, except I wish some So-cons had come on to defend whatever their positions may be. That is my problem with the So-cons in the Republican Party. They are willing to say one thing within their circles, yet when they are given the chance to speak with another side with another view, poof.
“One thing that you are finding is that you have felt all alone, but you have not submitted to Grizzly Groundswell blog networks in a while. Of course you are going to feel alone if you do not network with fellow conservatives that give a shit.” You are correct there. As you know, I had gone into hiatus, again for a while. Somehow, I have to figure out how to be able to work on my sewing and blogging.
April 28, 2009 at 1:14 pm Thanks for the update on my blog, I will approve it as soon as I can. That said yes e-mail would be great – I am not afraid to have my name out there – I used to be – maybe that is my naivity because I live in a community where there is no prejudice – or at least I like tio think so; maybe it is limited. Here we all champion common causes such as poverty, the environment, fair treatment for all under the law. By the way I also believe that our borders should be strengthened so that illigal immigrants cannot get through so easily.
That said, I do not think children should suffer; once there is a de facto situation – that is if it “IS” then children should come first and all else forgotten. It is not a reward to keep children with their mothers and/or fathers, it is a G-d given right, regardless of borders.
So if two things could happen in conjunction – give children their intact families and allow Americans to live in America including all American kids, regardless of so called “anchor-baby-syndrome” and at the same time firm up borders, then over 100,000 families would be united again and illigal immigration will decrease dramatically.
Especially now with Swine flu – its extra important to protect our borders.
So we think alike – except I do believe in amnesty together with closing borders TIGHT!
April 29, 2009 at 1:39 am“By the way I also believe that our borders should be strengthened so that illigal immigrants cannot get through so easily.” The prob is that neither side wants to get serious about the borders. They both have reasons to be for it, behind closed doors (read ass kiss to lobbyists).
I really do have empathy for the children. Don’t get me wrong. The Libertarian in me says that everything really needs to be thought out. Unfortunately, there are many outside our borders who know our laws and take advantage of it. Of course there are American women who live in trailer parks, going out to the bar, pick up some guy, any guy, get knocked up, check off father unknown, collect welfare. Then repeat for the next three or more generations. I think if we get rid of the welfare system, a lot of probs can be solved. Again, both parties advantage from keeping people on welfare.
“Especially now with Swine flu – its extra important to protect our borders.” Yes, you’re correct! I have not talked about that because so many other bloggers and news sources are talking about that. I try not to repeat something, unless of course it is something that I have strong beliefs on. Other than that, I try to find things others are not talking about, or their is not conservatives talking about it.
“…except I do believe in amnesty together with closing borders” Amen, not that I agree. But at least someone who is pro-amnesty is willing to use that word.
Oh BTW, I see you spell out “G-d” instead of God. Here you are allowed to use any word, just nothing threatening or violent. If that is your personal choice, that is fine. But if you are doing that for my benefit, don’t worry.
April 29, 2009 at 12:01 am I concurr with Chris; and find MR’s point about “poof…. ” interesting;yes, seems away he went! Chris I am so glad you were directed here from my BLOG; and that you are so established in your truth that you are able to come back and revisit the comments. I challenge Mr. Everson to return here and answer the big question : “Again, exactly which of your liberties are being eroded by my American husband having rights that you currently enjoy?” If he fails to answer, it is clearly unanswerable and in that event MR, you will see completely unfounded/
MT thanks for keeping this dialogue alive and allowing the discourse; its unusual and rewarding – that said I hope a lot more join in. But more than anything else I hope Mr. Everson eturns to back up his tstaements and answer these questions, because if he does not you will either be truly lonely or have succeeded in finding some new friends. Melanie.
April 29, 2009 at 2:13 am In Chad’s defense, not that he needs, I do know him via internet and know that he is busy. Not that any of the commentors who have come back aren’t. We all choose when and where we want to respond. That being said, I will say he does think on his own and his views on many issues are well thought out. I think he will be back, in his own time. The ones I was talking about regarding “poof” are regular readers or other conservatives who may have just landed here.
“…either be truly lonely or have succeeded in finding some new friends.” I hope to neither be lonely AND also have some new i-net friends. And I hope that everyone can converse on any issues that I may post on. I hope that everyone can keep it civil, when disagreeing. In girl scouts we used to sing a song about make new friends and keep the old…
MY COMMENTS – Melanie Nathan. (Private Courts, Inc.)
All I can say is wow. I read the wording of the Bill and was astounded by its implications, not just for Shirley Tan but for the entire immigration community, and the Lesbian and Gay, Same-sex couples community. This Bill ties us together as allies with a common cause; our children! This is an opportunity for Gay and straight organizations and concerned citizens to form alliances – to support each other to protect our kids. No child should be separated from a parent and no American child should ever be ordered to depart this Country.
In fact that brings me to the fact that NO AMERICAN should be forced to leave this Country simply because they love another person of the same sex. This is a human rights issue – once a citizen is compelled to exile. At home its an issue of discrimination, of apartheid – its unconscienable to force an American to leave his/her job, home, career, language, family and of course I can go on,.
Please read the wording of this amazing BILL. I take off to Senator Feinstein and note her courage in many aspects of this BILL. Although it does not help the myriad (36,000) binationals living in fear or exile, it places before the congress expressions of dismay, expressions of concern and flagrantly points out the fact that the USA does not have laws to “protect married people.” Even though the Senator falls short of referring to Jay and Shirl as a lesbian couple, she alludes to the fact; after all what other type of couple could possibly be married and not have a right to petition for the non-citizen spouse! Very interesting anomaly. Here maybe for the first time, ever, we have mention in congress, of gay marriage, expressed in legitimate terms!
Then ther is this maybe also rare mention by Senator feinstein of the plght of immigrants in general.
All said and done – this points to the desperate need for the passage of the UAFA – Uniting American Families ACT. It has got to happen. Even though I was the person who initially contacted Senator Feinstein’s office requesting a PB for Shirley Tan, I know that it cannot be done for everyone. The only legitimate floodgate will be UAFA.
Please read the BILL which I have copied below. I will also provide the link so it can be read in its original PDF format. It is absolutely fascinating and I simply cannot say enough in thank yous to the Senator and her extraordinary staff. I will also soon be displaying some of the amazing letters of support.
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 867. A bill for the relief of Shirley
Constantino Tan; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President,
today I am introducing a private relief
bill on behalf of Shirley Constantino Tan. Ms. Tan is a Filipina national living in Pacifica, California. She is the loving mother of 12 year old U.S. citizen twin boys, Jashley and Joreine, and the spouse of Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen. I have decided to introduce a private bill on Ms. Tan’s behalf because I believe her removal from the U.S. would cause undue hardship for her and her family. Without this legislation, ( my notes: because there is no law for same-sex couples – if tere was this would not be the case- we need UAFA) this family will be separated or they will be relocated to a third country where Ms. Tan’s safety and her children’s wellbeing may be at risk. I believe Ms. Tan merits Congress’ special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.
Before coming to the U.S., Ms. Tan experienced tragic hardship in the Philippines after her mother and sister were murdered by her cousin. Ms. Tan was only 14 years old at the time and the violent assault left her with a bullet wound in the head. Although the cousin who committed the murders was eventually prosecuted, he received a short sentence and his impending release from jail in 1990 compelled her to leave the country out of fear for her safety. Ms. Tan legally entered the U.S. on a visitor’s visa in 1989.
Ms. Tan faces deportation today in part because of the negligence demonstrated by her previous counsel. Ms. Tan applied for asylum in 1995. After years of appeals, the attorney received a brief from the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA, outlining the Government’s position on Ms. Tan’s case. The attorney, however, failed to submit a
reply brief in her client’s favor and, in May 2002, the case was dismissed and Ms. Tan was granted an order of voluntary departure from the U.S. Ms. Tan should have received notice of the voluntary removal order from her attorney. However, the attorney had moved offices, did not receive the order, and failed to inform Ms. Tan of the information. As a result, Ms. Tan did not depart the U.S. and the voluntary removal order against her became a deportation order.
The first time that Ms. Tan received notice of the deportation order was on January 28, 2009, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers appeared at her home and took her into custody. In effect, Ms. Tan was denied the opportunity to adequately represent herself in U.S. immigration proceedings as a result of her attorney’s negligence.
Ms. Tan has since filed a complaint against her former attorney with the State Bar of California. A previous complaint has also been filed against the same attorney with the California Bar for similar misconduct. One of the most compelling reasons for permitting Ms. Tan to remain in the U.S. is the impact that her deportation would have on her two U.S. citizen minor children, Jashley and Joreine. These children are currently seventh graders at Cabrillo Elementary School in Pacifica, California, where they have made the honor roll. In letters to me from two teachers at Cabrillo Elementary, Jashley and Joreine were described as ‘‘ideal’’ students—‘‘the kinds of kids that make my job feel easy.’’ One of the teachers described their mother, Ms. Tan, as a highly-involved, ‘‘model’’ parent, one who ‘‘attends every conference, drives on field trips and consistently checks in with her boys’ teachers and the rest of our staff to make sure Jashley and Joreine continue to be successful.’’
However, if Ms. Tan is forced to leave the United States, this family has stated that they would follow her to the Philippines or relocate to a third country to avoid their separation. This means that Jashley and Joreine will have to cut their education short and have to leave the U.S.—their birthplace and the only country they know to be
home.
All too often, young U.S. citizen children like Jashley and Joreine are being put in this position when one or both of their parents may be removed from the United States. A January 2009 report by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found that, over the last 10 years, 108,434 immigrants who were the parents of U.S. citizen children were removed from this country. A separate report completed this year by Dorsey & Whitney LLP to the Urban Institute affirms what many of us know—that the removal or deportation of a parent is deeply traumatic and causes long-lasting harm to U.S. citizen children. For families that have no choice but to leave the United States as a unit in order to stay together, this has life-altering consequences for U.S. citizen children. Besides the fact that these children lose the opportunities that come with being raised in the United States, these children are more prone to anxiety, depression, eating and sleeping disorders, post- traumatic stress disorder, and behavior changes. This is the situation facing the Tan family.
While her marriage was legally performed under California law at the time, Ms. Tan cannot take steps to legally adjust her immigration status…..
Today Senator Feinstein introduced a very rare private bill on behalf of Shirley Tan; Shirley will not have to leave the USA for now and hopefully never. The essence of its introduction is that Tan does not have to leave the USA on May 10th, in terms of the voluntary order issued by DHS. This enables her to stay in the USA, legally, until the private bill passes ( a rare occurrence)- and if it does not come up for a vote then she can stay for the duration of this Congress’s session, which has approximately a year and nine months left. However Shirleys ultimate saviour will be UAFA and nothing else!
This is unbelievably miraculous and indeed an extraordinary measure on behalf of the family. This also gives all our wonderful activists, LGBT organizations, and community supporters an opportunity to hit the streets, the phones, the faxes, the e-mails, the blogs etc. and to fight like crazy for the Uniting American families ACT (UAFA) – in truth the only real long term option for Shirley and the 40,000 other couples/families in this dire situation.
Hence the fight has truly just begun. We now have a face and a family to the desperate situation of all Binational families. With the make-up of this congress perhaps we do not need to hide for fear of the conservative wing Republican sabotage and filibuster.
A great big thanks from the Tan-Mercado family to Rep. Speier and her amazing staff as well as Sen. Feinstein and her staff, all of whom showed extraordinary solicitude and diligence through the process. A special mention to the organizations that provided guidance and support; Marriage Equality, Immigration Equality, Out4 Immigration, Love Exiles and all the Media that remained so patient and supportive.
Senator Boxer is co- sponsoring UAFA and we now hope that Sen. Feinstein will do the same as many many others are in as bad a predicament as Shirley Tan has been.
When I spoke to Jay today she was crying with joy and said the whole family including the boys were absolutely overwhelmed with emotion. The news was conveyed to her directly by Senator Feinstein’s office. It has been a long and arduous process and so a very special thank you goes to Attorney Phyllis Beech, San Francisco and Fresno. I will write more later – but now I have to call and tell everyone the good news.
A great big thanks to all the offers of support and help – please join the fight for UAFA as there are many couples suffering the lack of rights. A special thanks to the straight Felipino Organizations and mainstream Press who came forward and recognized the importance of family and offered all out unconditional help for Shirley and Jay.
A very special thanks to Mike Swift at the Mercury News, San Jose,
2005-2009 – Little did they know….. A visit to the White House and meeting Senator Boxer to detention to Private Bill #867 to testimony at Senate Judiciary Committee to Batman posters signed by Senator Leahy – these young twins now land at the desk of Senator Feinstein – who saved their family 2009.
I am in touch with the litigants who are about to let leash, or so I have been told. Any queries please contact me directly at nathan@privatecourts.com and watch this space for updates.
Universal Life Church MonasteryFights for Minister’s Rights to … The Universal Life Church Monastery (www.TheMonastery.org) has announced a legal defense campaign that will take action in all states that have enacted unconstitutional same-sex sacramental marriage restraints. The Universal Life Church Monastery reports that it has retained two constitutional law firms, which include Arizona-based DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacy, and Seattle-based Carney Badley Spellman. I spoke with George Freeman yesterday and he mentioned that none of the Gay organizations had been contacted with regard to this litigation. I was wondering if any of the activists and representing organzations knew about this and what hey thought about this move. I am curious how it impacts the current endeavors and if this is viewed in a positive light.
On April 10th, Shirley Tan received good news and bad news on her rollercoaster ride to or from permanence in the USA. Shirley received notice from the BIA that a deportation order was re-issued giving her 30 days to voluntarily leave the USA.The good news is the admittance that the prior order was not properly served, thereby endorsing Shirley’s claim that she knew nothing about it.This ‘cleanses’ her status, if you will, as she is now not out of compliance as had been painted by her detention.
The bad news is that she is out of options.Her application to BIA has been turned down and she is ordered to leave. There is no legal procedure to assist her in her desire to remain in the US with her wife and American children. The only way she can stay would be through extraordinary measures.If you support Shirley and her family, please feel free to e-mail Melanie Nathan at nathan@privatecourts.com to express your support.Cards can be sent to Tan-Mercado c/o Melanie Nathan, Private Courts, 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle, Ste 112, Larkspur, CA 94939.
Please call/ write/ e-mail/ fax your congress representatives/ Senators and urge them to read about the hardship to the Mercado Tan family.Ask them to cosponsor the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) and to do what they can to help bi-national couples and their children.In the long term this is the only measure that may allow the Mercado Tan family to live as such in the USA.Be on the alert for more help that we may call for soon.
I had the great pleasure of working with Susan Young to bring the TAN MERCADO immigration matter to PEOPLE MAGAZINE.
I wanted to thank PEOPLE and Susan for doing justice to the Article. The 36,000 afflicted LGBT binational couples need mainstream exposure – hopefully the readers will find the compassion and true value in family by promoting equality and insisting on passage of Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) by congressional reps, Senators. Please call on all Senators to cosponsor UAFA. Thanks to ALL the amazing foot soldiers… See latest PEOPLE MAGAZINE – John Travolta Cover – 4/20/09
MARRIAGE EQUALITY USA, OUT4IMMIGRATION, AND LOVE EXILES REPORT:
SHIRLEY TAN GIVEN DEPORTATION REPRIEVE
Media Contacts:
Molly McKay, Media Director, 510-332-0872, media@marriageequality.org
Chris Waddling, 415-810-7556, binational@marriageequality.org
Amos Lim, amos@out4immigration.org
Martha McDevitt-Pugh, mcdevitt@xs4all.nl
San Francisco, California “This is a good day for this family, but their fight is not over,” said Chris Waddling, Binational Couples Outreach Director for Marriage Equality USA.Shirley Tan, the California mother of two who was to be deported April 3rd has been given a stay of deportation until April 22nd pending the possibility of further action.Thanks to the heroic efforts of her counsel, Melanie Nathan, lawyer Phyllis Beech, Rep. Jackie Speier [CA-12], Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Immigration Equality’s Julie Kruse, Ms Tan, her wife of 23 years, U.S. citizen Jay Mercado, and their two sons will not be saying goodbye to one another just yet.
The right to sponsor Ms Tan has been cruelly denied Ms. Mercado throughout their long relationship.Like some 36,000 binational couples in the U.S. and around the world, had they been in a heterosexual marriage, Ms. Mercado would have sponsored her spouse for permanent residency long ago.However, because all Federal law is written in a way that explicitly excludes same-sex couples from enjoying 1,138 benefits of marriage, Ms. Mercado and Ms. Tan have not been able to enjoy one of these benefits, and have had unfair and unequal treatment under the law as a result.Should Ms. Tan ultimately find herself deported, her family will have to make the difficult decision of whether to stay in the U.S., the children no longer able to be with their own mother, or to leave behind the only life they have known.
Had a law like the Uniting American Families Act (H.R. 1024; S.424), currently in committee in the house and senate, been on the books, this family would be happily living their lives like any other family.Instead, they fear being torn apart because the heads of their household are two people of the same gender. “Passage of the Uniting American Families Act by Congress has got to happen sooner, not later,” said Waddling, “so that good, hardworking American families like the Tan-Mercados are not criminalized simply because their household is headed by two people of the same gender.”The family’s representative, Melanie Nathan, said, “The fight is still on and we should not let our guard down, but right now, we owe a very special thanks to Rep Jackie Speier and her extraordinary staff.”
Marriage Equality USA whole-heartedly supports all efforts to save Ms. Tan from deportation, alleviating her and her family of the egregious errors perpetrated by her previous lawyer, the grave, personal danger she faces in returning to the Philippines, and the hardship that her deportation would place on her, her American partner Jay Mercado, and their two sons.We also urge voters to contact their representatives in Washington to urge them to not only support the Uniting American Families Act, but to push for hearings on it this calendar year, to ensure that no more Americans have to choose between their country and their partners.
Founded in 1998, Marriage Equality USA is a national grassroots organization whose mission is to secure legally recognized civil marriage equality for all, at the federal and state level, without regard to gender identity or sexual orientation. For more information, go to www.marriageequality.org.
This picture was taken before Shirley Tan knew that she was in fact out of legal status in the USA. The family had requested a visit to the White House and were apparently cleared – while there was an deportation order in effect. They had no idea! LESBIAN MOTHER FACES DEPORTATION
IMMIGRATION RIGHTS IN THE USA - Why should our Children Suffer? by Melanie Nathan - breaking news…
Shirley Tan will be deported on April 3rd 2009. The only way she can stay in the country is if a private bill is passed by congress or her case is adjudicated to be reopened, the latter which may not happen in time to prevent the deportation. (see erlier post on 3.27/09) http://oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/family-to-be-torn-apart-due-to-failure-the-us-laws-to-protect-equally/
We now are hoping for the passing of a special private bill by congress. If you are in support of this, and want to help this family, please send a supporting letter via e-mail to Senator Feinstein c/o Melanie Nathan -at
At the request of Mr. LEAHY, the name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr. MERKLEY) was added as a cosponsor of S . 424 , a bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents and to penalize immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships.
PLEASE CONGRESS 36,000 AMERICANS AND THEIR CHILDREN DESPERATELY SEEKING UAFA….
Most Americans have barely any insight into immigration law and its intricacies; the rigidity of certain regulations that serve only to create extraordinary hardship – and the saddest victims are most often our American children – the very souls who we purport to protect through our laws and our Courts.
Much of the anti-gay marriage rhetoric has been guised in fallacious moronic (Mormonic..mmm) talking points, where the proponents insist that gay couples do not need marriage to be equal.This in itself denotes an argument in favor of ‘special rights’ (such as UAFA) and yet the same groups oppose ‘special rights for gays,’ the latter, their coinage!This paradox attempts to negate the de facto existence of gay relationships, regardless of marriage. However gay relationships will always be and hence the de jure must follow.Immigration law must change. Congress must wake up to the reality; it must acknowledge the de facto existence of these emotionally legitimate families, and that we are Americans, for as long as it does not, American citizens and their families are being discriminated against, whichever way the opponents try to spin it.Now is the time for every American to stand up against discrimination and suffering.It is so important to spread these stories to the eyes and ears of those who have no clue. This is not about marriage – of course we want the right to marry and of course we want DOMA to disappear, its about one particular right that bi-national gay families do not have and that is the right of one person in love to petition for the person he/she loves to reside in his/her home country.
These stories, though briefly told reveal a measure of the hardship:- I just received a link from a new friend visiting from Netherlands. We have never met face to face but will on Monday. My new friend is American but has been forced to leave her home because she cannot sponsor her same-sex spouse to live with her in the USA. This is archaic. So many countries regard this as a fundamental abuse of civil rights; personally I regard it as an abhorrent violation of basic human rights.
This is not the first taste of the sordid invalidation by my own Country. My spouse and I have suffered our own immigration hell, and thankfully with the help of an extraordinary attorney, Kip Steinberg, were able to navigate the deep tempestuous sea of immigration laws and regulations; with mere hours from the sun-setting of a law that we had relied on for 5 years to get to the point of completion. With the assistance by our Senator’s office we were able to expedite the application before the law disappeared over its seductive horizon.
Now we must all fight for the others… those who are living the hell and there are many. This month I have encountered two terrible cases- similar to the one in the Article.
In each case the same sex spouse of a US citizen was taken into custody by ICE, for deportation – treated so badly- and their lives altered forever. My friend, a Psychiatrist who was the regional head for the California Penal system, committed suicide- could there be any relationship between that and the fact that deportation of his beloved was imminent?
This week an associate asked for my help with a two mom family- 23 years living together- twin sons, aged 12, born through donor sperm, egg of one mom invitro and carried by the other mom who is now about to be deported – next week.
The family is in agony – they do not know what is going to happen – one son wrote to Senators Boxer and Feinstein stating that he cannot live without his mom.I have not told it all, and it is bad, very bad,If the mother returns to her country of origin, she fears the same fate as her mother and sister, brutally murdered some years ago.This story will be highlighted in the next few weeks, but I cannot now, do to sensitive timing.
Here is a mother of two American children and the California spouse of an American citizen, who is about to be deported because there is no Federal law to protect this family of 23 years. Unlike couples whose marriages are recognized by the Federal law, gay couples are excluded because of DOMA – and UAFA (Uniting American Families Act) is barely hobbling through congress.
LOS ANGELES, CA– Fred Karger, Founder ofCalifornians Against Hatetoday filed a supplement to the complaint against the Utah-based the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) with the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).
In a 9 page letter, Californians Against Hate alleges that the Mormon Church established theNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE(NOM) as itsCalifornia front group in the summer of 2007 for the sole purpose of qualifying and passing Proposition 8 in 2008. Karger alleges that none of the costs associated with secretly establishing NOM was reported by the Mormon Church as required byCalifornia election law.
In official, extensive and detailed Mormon Church documents, one can see how NOM was very likely modeled after the Hawaii front group — “Hawaii’s Future Today” – which the Mormon Church set up to defeat same-sex marriage in Hawaii in 1998. Californians Against Hate submitted these official Church documents along with the complaint to the FPPC today. All the documents as well as the complaint are posted on its new web site: http://www.mormongate.com
Californians Against Hate asks the FPPC to investigate the “obvious underreporting” in the Mormon Church’s January 30, 2009 campaign report.
“I have carefully reviewed the late filing by the Church,” said Karger. “It seems just to be the tip of the iceberg as far as what they spent in support of Prop 8. They have admitted errors publicly in press accounts after their filing.”
“The Church’s report actually raises more questions than it answers. It is particularly odd since they (the Church) announced their active involvement to pass Proposition 8 in a letter from Church President Thomas S. Monson on June 29, 2008 read to all Church members. Now they claim that they did not spend any money in the form of non-monetary contributions until the last two weeks of the election campaign,” Karger stated in his letter to the FPPC.
The complaint outlines an additional 6 specific charges and substantial areas of likely Mormon Church activity that should be investigated as reportable non- monetary expenditures.
Californians Against Hate’s original complaint to the FPPC against the Mormon Church led to the Commission’s ongoing investigation of the Church which was announced on November 21, 2008 (FPPC FILE NO. 08/735). This additional information is to help with that investigation.
Subject: Bring an umbrella! Bring a friend! Bring you: tonight!
We have signs, we have banners and we have a Chuppah!We simply need you!Thousands of people in support of equality are expected to gather together tonight around the state for an Eve of Justice.In San Francisco, Supervisor Bevan Dufty is leading the way.
Tonight we are meeting at Harvey Milk Plaza at Market and Castro Street at 5pm.The march begins at 6pm arriving at Civic Center by 6:30pm with a vigil at 6:45pm.Please join us. Tomorrow morning at 7:30am in San Francisco, in front of the California Supreme Court Building, Rabbi Camille Shira Angel along with many other faith leaders, will lead us in an Interfaith Celebration of Hope and Justice.Thanks to Marriage Equality USA, the Courage Campaign and Equality California, a jumbotron has been set up in Civic Center Plaza to allow an opportunity for thousands of Californians to come together and view the oral arguments at 9am. Join us under the Kol Tzedek Chuppah and we will watch the California Supreme Court oral arguments outside together.Tzedek, Tzedek Tirdof! Justice, Justice you shall pursue! Lisa Finkelstein
Director, LGBT Alliance Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, The Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties
Santa Barbara, CA– Hoping to overturn Proposition 8, the Strategic Alliance for Marriage Equality are holding candlelight vigils on Wednesday evening. …
A candle light vigil will then line the streets of Downtown San Diego Starting at 6pm. To join the event go to San Diego Facebook Event San Francisco: …
Dozens of candlelight vigils up and down the were planned for Wednesday night, including a march from Market and Castro to the State Supreme Court in San…
The Sacramento Bee’s Capital Alert - 7 hours ago
BIRTHDAY: Today’s the day to tell Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, that she doesn’t look a day over 43. FIELD POLL: President Barack Obama is having …
San Diego: Gather at the Hall of Justice, 330 W. Broadway, at 4PM for a downtown vigil. San Francisco: Gather at Market and Castro at 5PM for a vigil that …
… 25 statewide candlelight vigils planned on March 4th, the eve of the California Supreme Court hearing on Prop 8 and San Francisco speakers include Cleve …
A candlelight vigil and march against Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage is scheduled in San Francisco tonight in advance of Thursday’s state Supreme …
A candlelight vigil will then line the streets of Downtown San Diego Starting at 6pm. For more information contact Fernando Lopez, Marriage Equality USA at …
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/
Today was an exciting start to the re-launch of UAFA – Uniting American Families Act; with all that has been written about the separation of couples, American citizens living in exile to be with their loved ones, very few have mentioned our American children who are the most vulnerable their best interests cast aside by the very authorities who purport to be their “upper guarndians.” Imagine being an American child, and unlike children of different-sexy parentsm our American parent cannot petition for your other non American parent to remain in the USA? Its abhorant! Most here in the US have no idea that this is a problem for their fellow citizens, and that it is so prevalent- with 30,ooo or more couples impacted by this failure in the immigration system. http://www.loveexiles.org/
Join the voices for change and justice and tell our stories to your friends. call your reps and have them VOTE the vote for immigration equality. Please contact Senator feinstein and ask where she is on this matter.
Been on my mind for eight years…. Immigration rights for bi-national gay and lesbian permanent partners now seeks refuge in the UAFA – Uniting American Families Act. Nice name…. But that is what it seeks to do… this is a no-brainer. It MUST be done. Please urge your rep to co-sponsor or sign on to it. Details to follow. Its late and I am tired! ttfn…
Oh yes, Mr. President – first day flying Air-force -One. Great speech on separating church and state, using anti hate as theme… nice …. maybe we will be okay. For the first time inn eight years I am willing to acknowledge that we have A PRESIDENT. Every time Bush came on TV I just had to turn it off. He butchered my senses.
UAFA would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act by adding the term “permanent partner” next to “spouse” for immigration to the U.S. Gay and lesbian couples would be subject to the same standards of proof that they are in a committed, life-long relationships and are financially interdependent as opposite-sex couples.
Urge your reps please………………….
Under the current system, thousands of lesbian and gay binational couples are forced into exile abroad, long-distance relationships or separation as a result. Faced with splitting families and taking children from the land of their birth – sometimes separating children from parent -this serves no public policy function and contradicts the central goal of U.S. immigration policy – family unification. UAFA would remedy this injustice.
H.R.2221 Title: To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents and to penalize immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships. Sponsor: Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] (introduced 5/8/2007) Cosponsors (118) Related Bills:S.1328 Latest Major Action: 6/25/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.
On November 19, 2008, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the legal challenges to Proposition 8 and set an expedited schedule. The California Supreme Court must issue its decisions within 90 days of oral argument, which is now set for March 05, 2009.
On January 15, 2009, 43 ‘friend-of-the-court’ briefs urging the Court to invalidate Prop 8 were filed, arguing that Proposition 8 drastically alters the equal protection guarantee in California’s Constitution and that the rights of a minority cannot be eliminated by a simple majority vote.
The numerous supporters represent a broad spectrum of California’s and national civil rights organizations. Included are legal scholars, as well as California legislators, local governments, bar associations, business interests, labor unions, and religious groups.
“In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that laws that treat people differently based on their sexual orientation violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and that same-sex couples have the same fundamental right to marry as other Californians. Proposition 8 eliminated this fundamental right only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group. Proposition 8 passed by a bare majority of 52 percent on November 4.” (quote; Equality California)
The ACLU, NCLR, Lambda Legal, filed this challenge on November 5, representing Equality California, whose members include many same-sex couples who married between June 16 and November 4, 2008, including yours truly; and six same-sex couples who want to marry in California. The California Supreme Court has also agreed to hear two other challenges filed on the same day: one filed by the City and County of San Francisco (joined by Santa Clara County and the City of Los Angeles, and subsequently by Los Angeles County and other local governments); and another filed by a private attorney.
The case is Strauss et al. v. Horton et al. (#S168047).
Legal Challenge: Prop 8; California Supreme Court
Oral Arguments to be heard on March 05, 2009. Good!!!
O-blog-dee-o-blog-da is authored by Melanie Nathan, a citizen, a mother, a wife, a daughter, a sister, a niece, a cousin, a friend, a wise-fool, a volunteer, in the box, out the box, whats the difference its still planet earth, comparative privelege, ever-grateful, trying to feel the pain of others, measured guilt, abhorred by injustice, my glass is half full half the time, too well-read and traveled; lived in Africa, live in USA, mediator, advocate, dreamer, doer, doner, good- better -best, lawyer, CEO, entrepeneur - Vice President of Board – Fair Housing of Marin California; http://www.fairhousingmarin.org ; Volunteer: Superior Court of California / Mediator Panels, Commissioner on Marin County Human Rights Commission. Quote late mother:”the softest part of Melanie – her teeth!”
PRIVATEADVOCACYANDACTION CENTER: Press release quote Equality, USA- Blogging since…. San Francisco, California “This is a good day for this family, but their fight is not over,” said Chris Waddling, Binational Couples Outreach Director for Marriage Equality USA. Shirley Tan, the California mother of two who was to be deported April 3rd has been given a stay of deportation until April 22nd pending the possibility of further action. Thanks to the heroic efforts of her counsel, Melanie Nathan, lawyer Phyllis Beech, Rep. Jackie Speier [CA-12], Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Immigration Equality’s Julie Kruse, Ms Tan, her wife of 23 years, U.S. citizen Jay Mercado, and their two sons will not be saying goodbye to one another just yet.” PRIVATE COURTS, INC. LGBT MEDIATION & LEGAL SERVICES VISUAL CVNathan@privatecourts.com
Advocacy and LGBT Equality Activism - Funding needed for binational advocacy and emergency response; Checks to P.O. Box 1108 Woodacre, CA 94973 payable to Private Courts Inc. (non-tax deductible.)
Sponsorship available- nathan@privatecourts.com
Fair Housing of Marin - http://www.fairhousingmarin.com/
Marin County Human Rights Commission- Sponsorship opportunities for Martin Luther King Award Gala - commissionermn@gmail.com
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Combining artificial sweeteners with the real thing boosts the stomach's secretion of a hormone that makes people feel full and helps control blood sugar, new research shows. Read more...
"The passing of health reform in the Senate is a historic moment for our nation and for all people affected by diabetes," commented George J. Huntley, Chair of the Board, American Diabetes Association. Read more...
A 20-year study that tracked 704 women from before their first pregnancy onward suggests that the first year mothers breastfeed, they reduce their risk of acquiring type 2 diabetes within the next 15 years by 15 percent. Each subsequent year of breastfeeding further reduces the risk by 15 percent. For example, a mother who has two children and breastfeeds ea […]
Denmark-based Novo Nordisk A/S has begun phase 1 testing of an insulin pill that, if successful, could replace injections as the primary means of blood sugar control for millions of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The company has enrolled 80 volunteer German test subjects in the study and expects to have preliminary results by the first half of 2011. […]
Regardless of age, men undergoing prostate cancer treatment via androgen deprivation therapy have an increased risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. A study published in early December by Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston noted that although androgen deprivation therapy has been associated with a higher risk of diabetes and cardiovascular pr […]
FRIDAY, Dec. 18 (HealthDay News) -- Blacks tend to carry around less of a particularly unhealthy type of abdominal fat than whites, even though they suffer more from obesity-linked illness, researchers report. Read more...
REYKJAVIK, Iceland, December 16/PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Scientists at deCODE genetics, Inc. (Nasdaq:DCGN) publish in the journal Nature the discovery of a version of a common single-letter variant in the sequence of the human genome (SNP) with a major impact on susceptibility to type 2 diabetes (T2D). The impact of the T2D variant is not only large, but unu […]
The combination of type 2 diabetes and mild heart disease is a double whammy that in many cases leads to such intrusive therapies as angioplasty* and can result in death from some sort of cardiovascular event. But a five-year university study of 2,368 type 2 patients with moderate heart disease shows that lifestyle changes and non-intrusive treatments can wo […]
Rituxamab, a drug that treats lymphoma and rheumatoid arthritis, may soon be used to help combat the destruction of pancreatic beta cells in newly diagnosed cases of type 1 diabetes. Researchers at Indiana University have found that the drug, originally developed and sold by Genentech as Rituxan, temporarily slows or stops the destruction of the 10 or 20 per […]
All Articles and Posts on this site are owned and are the copyright of Melanie Nathan, All rights reserved. Written permission is required to re-post or use any material. Please feel free to quote or link without permission. Note the name OBLOGDEEOBLOGDA(TM) is a trademark with rights owned by exclusive to Melanie Nathan.
Oblogdee is a labor of love, Sponsor Ads are designed free of charge. Price of placement is based on size and time and proceeds will be used to maintain this site and to fund my advocacy work. Interested? email me at nathan@privatecourts.com
a2a_linkname="Advocacy for Equality";a2a_linkurl="http://www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com";a2a_show_title=1;a2a_color_main="051c29";a2a_color_border="000000";a2a_color_link_text="272321";a2a_color_link_text_hover="e99720";a2a_color_bg="e5d866";a2a_color_arrow_hover="fff";
Flyer with tips to homeowners on how to avoid scammers targeting people having trouble paying their mortgage. Homeowners can call 1-888-995-HOPE for free personalized advice from HUD-certified housing counseling agencies.
A note to Homeowners tips to homeowners on how to avoid scammers targeting people having trouble paying their mortgage. Homeowners can call 1-888-995-HOPE for free personalized advice from HUD-certified housing counseling agencies.
Deceptive Mortgage Ads:
Foreclosure Rescue Scams:
Explains how various foreclosure rescue scams work, and where consumers can find legitimate help.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_a.png?x-id=98d82ac9-113c-4813-818c-6e8fd5937cc7)
By Melanie Nathan - Maybe I did not get it. But watch the video of 
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=6b00eb5b-8ccf-42b9-aa01-adc2f4e4cfed)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ee6eb991-2ee9-43ac-a0ac-2777b6fa7afe)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=6ac7fbb6-3b7c-4217-b51a-c3bb34b4a3c9)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=4a1536b5-5e38-4ee3-ada9-796e63c0d3eb)
If we expend so much time and our limited lack luster resources on advocating specifically for CIR do we risk being sacrificed as ‘lambs to the slaughter’ only to get dumped at the end of the road when democrats make a deal to garnish the hold out votes of few Republicans for CIR? 
If DOMA is repealed such will in effect beg the very question on the issue of gay marriage in so far as it pertains to immigration reform. If we can marry only in some States how will the repeal of DOMA help us establish immigration rights without UAFA? It is not appropriate to ask our community to marry in a non-domicile State that allows same sex marriage, because there are complications when it comes to jurisdiction in matters of divorce- by virtue of residency requirements and ‘locus standi in judicia. Further how do we know the effect of a repealed DOMA on the wording in any CIR legislation such as RFA as it impacts immigration rights for LGBT partners/spouses? This is a big unknown.
Is the New York based organization, 
I am wondering if there has been any collaboration on the questions and concerns I have raised n this piece, not only on a lobbying level but in the prima facie deliberation between the various organizations involved in the lead on this twofold plan? 
International press has been following Love Exile Foundation at 
In listening and hearing we must wake up and not rest on our laurels, let us look for great leaders and not rely purely on non-profit lobbying. We must take responsibility while holding those whom we support accountable for not only their spending of our donated dollars and time, but also for the decisions they are making. 
10. 41 AM PDT ; Senator Leahy’s office announced today that there will be a hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). Please stay tuned. Scheduled for June 03, 2009 in D.C.
NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING
HOW YOU CAN HELP:
. As you can tell from the right hand corner, I am a fan of Barry Goldwater. He was more of a fis-con than so-con. I can’t remember the exact quoting or where I read it, but he did say something along the lines of it not mattering if a person in uniform was gay or straight. I am glad to hear you are a good standing member of your community. I think that is good for both gays and straights.
. Only knew them as friends of friends. I even had one ask me to dance at a bar. I merely said thanks, but no thanks. I would do the same with a man I was not interested in.
MY COMMENTS – Melanie Nathan. (Private Courts, Inc.)
I am in touch with the litigants who are about to let leash, or so I have been told. Any queries please contact me directly at 
On April 10th, Shirley Tan received good news and bad news on her rollercoaster ride to or from permanence in the USA. Shirley received notice from the BIA that a deportation order was re-issued giving her 30 days to voluntarily leave the USA.
I had the great pleasure of working with Susan Young to bring the TAN MERCADO immigration matter to PEOPLE MAGAZINE. 
This picture was taken before Shirley Tan knew that she was in fact out of legal status in the USA. The family had requested a visit to the White House and were apparently cleared – while there was an deportation order in effect. They had no idea! LESBIAN MOTHER FACES DEPORTATION
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/
Been on my mind for eight years…. Immigration rights for bi-national gay and lesbian permanent partners now seeks refuge in the UAFA – Uniting American Families Act. Nice name…. But that is what it seeks to do… this is a no-brainer. It MUST be done. Please urge your rep to co-sponsor or sign on to it. Details to follow. Its late and I am tired! ttfn…
Queercents shuts down new blogger’s first blog to comments….
Have you ever heard of an editor closing the comments down on a Blogger’s post? Serena Editor of QueerCents did just that, and I quote:
“Serena Says: May 7th, 2009 at 12:47 pm Editor’s Note: Due to the nature of many of the comments on this thread, comments have been disabled for this post. For a clarification of our commenting policy, please read our disclaimer and commenting policy. “
The context: Under current immigration law, committed same-sex foreign partners of US citizens are unable to use the family immigration system – a system that accounts for a majority of the green cards and immigrant visas granted annually by the US. According to the most recent census, approximately 36,000 bi-national, same-sex couples are living in the US. The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) would ensure that the family connections valued under immigration law are extended to lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals.
UAFA would allow lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans and permanent residents to sponsor their foreign-born partners for legal residency in the US. The bill (H.R. 1024), introduced on February 16th, 2009 by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) in the Senate and by Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) in the House, would add “permanent partner” and “permanent partnership” after the words “spouse” and “marriage” in relevant sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
She gets her first ever post on QUEERCENTS blown up…… did she think she could hide from the real activists? Her post can be viewed at QUEERCENTS : http://www.queercents.com/2009/05/04/uniting-american-families-act-facts-fiction-and-emotions/ Actually not easy to to find on the Blog site.
She titles the BLOG: Uniting American Families Act: Facts, Fiction, Money and Emotions -Posted by: Yasmin @ 4:23 pm and then slaps off sme crap that bears no thesis and no conclusion that remotely relates to the Title, which in my assumption was crafted in the hope that her quest to denounce UAFA, would fit into this unrelated forum .
So anyway this Nair, the activist then expounds the ‘dis-virtues’ of Uniting America Families Act, purports compassion in responses, but fails, even when others beg for answers, to provide alternatives. The narcissistic attempt to thwart this legislation is tainted beyond measure with flaws and contradictory messages. Our Chicago academic cannot make a case for her unfounded notion that UAFA would be bad for us.
She prefaces her blog – “NOTE: The information presented here is based on research, community discussions, and conversations with lawyers. It does not constitute legal advice. If you or someone you know has legal issues like the kind discussed here, please seek the expertise of a qualified attorney. This is the first of a series on immigration reform and its effects on the LGBTQ community. “
Sheez I cant wait for the rest of the series or is it dead in the water Serena what do you think? The only quote I recall in Ms Nair’s post is a one and a half page article in People Magazine – none of the updated quotes or articles are referenced and Ms. Nair attacks Ms. Tan based on this flimsy notation. What about the research she alludes to in her preface? and so she posts:- http://www.queercents.com/2009/05/04/uniting-american-families-act-facts-fiction-and-emotions/
YASMIN NAIR SAYS ON QUEER CENTS BLOG (QUOTE)
“Shirley Tan came here in 1986 as a tourist. Then, she overstayed her visa, supposedly after meeting her female partner Jay Mercado who was, like her, originally from the Phillipines. Mercado is currently a citizen, but Tan is still undocumented. They have been domestic partners for a while, according to a People article, and even wed in 2004. Tan gave birth to their twin sons who are both citizens. In 1995, Tan applied for asylum because, in 1979, according to her, a cousin shot her in the head and killed her mother and sister. In 2002, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) served Tan with an order of deportation, but the couple claim to never have received it. Finally, this year, on January 28, ICE agents showed up at the couple’s Pacifica California home and arrested her. Today, after a flurry of press coverage, comes the news that her order of deportation has been stayed through 2010 and a private bill on her behalf has been issued in Congress.
Immigration Equality and other supporters of Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) have made Shirley Tan and her family members the poster children for a piece of legislation that, they claim, would guarantee that binational couples like the Tan-Mercados are able to stay together. Why is this important? Under existing law, in many circumstances, heterosexual married citizens or permanent residents are able to sponsor their partners for immigration….. : AND SHE GOES ON…..
Then she she says she is against UAFA for a number of reasons, QUOTING AGAIN, ”not the least of which is this: even if immigration through marriage/permanent partnership is a solution, who says it’s the ideal solution anyway? And why push for a law that guarantees rights to a privileged few while leaving the plight of others unquestioned? ” Is this , Ms. Nair a GOOD REASON FOR DISCRIMINATION?
Nair goes on to say, ”As an immigration rights activist,( LOL) my concern is with comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). The current immigration crisis has come about because the United States feeds on cheap labor and the exploitation of millions, the very people it chooses to dispose of quickly and crudely via the mechanisms of raids and deportations. It does this because it knows that there is more cheap labor to be had because of the conditions of “free trade” it has created, conditions that guarantee a breakdown in the economies of countries like Mexico. These conditions, in turn, guarantee the flow of people desperate to find a living here.” Ok so I ask Nair, is another reason to deny equality to LGBT through UAFA? AND FURTHER states :- “you know the ones we mean – the day laborers who move from job to job, underpaid and overexploited; the low-paid workers who build suburban houses for us on the cheap as opposed to living in them, and so on.” (What a ridiculous assertion- of course Rachel Tiven is concerned about all immigrants, however it happens that her organization advocates for Lesbians and Gay couples who do not have rights equal to straight couples.)
Ok enough: So I wrote a response:-
Melanie Nathan Says: On the Queer Cents Blog:
May 6th, 2009 at 10:49 pm QUOTING Myself ON HER BLOG:
“Share and Enjoy” you say – how can I when you insult my client, and my own right to equality..
“…..and not all straight marriages are automatic routes to citizenship…..” and therefore I presume Jasmin , that you intend that to mean that lesbian and gay couples ought not have an equal opportunity to not have this route marriage…..okay maybe I am stretching what may be unintended interpretation of your statement, but as a blogger and the person who played a pivotal role in obtaining the introduction of Private Bill # 867 for Shirley Tan and her family, kindly allow me to make some corrections to the mistakes and inaccuracies in your reporting:
1. “Phillipines” is spelt ‘Philippines’;
2. “Mercado is currently a citizen, but Tan is still undocumented” –Inaccurate – Tan has always had a valid work permit;
3. Jasmin’s misrepresentation: “1995, Tan applied for asylum because, in 1979, according to her, a cousin shot her in the head and killed her mother and sister.” Shirley Tan came to the USA when the person who shot and beat her to near death and murdered her mother was released from prison due to political connections. She was not safe. We brought the case files, prison record and hospital files from Philippines to prove her story to Senator Feinstein- there is no doubt as to the validity of these facts – you may effectively delete the “according to her.”
4. You say: “ In 2002, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) served Tan with an order of deportation, but the couple claim to never have received it.” I am informing you that in April, prior to receiving the Private Bill, ICE withdrew the deportation order on the basis that Shirley had never been served with the deportation order. That is tantamount to an admission. So her status is legal and not illegal. She was then given a few weeks to voluntarily leave the USA, by May 10th; Dianne Feinstein introduced the PB on 4/22.
5. Then you say: “Today, after a flurry of press coverage, comes the news that her order of deportation has been stayed through 2010” ; There was a great deal more work than mere press coverage; this is from the horses mouth. Personally I worked non-stop for five weeks, ten hours a day exclusively and pro bono on this case. Then almost every LGBT organization with Immigration Equality concerns chipped in their talent and efforts. You have to be quite naïve to think that it was merely press and “abra cadabra shim shalabim” a private bill; pow! You say you research and speak to attorneys etc. You sure did not speak to me; nor did you speak to Shirley – nor did you speak to anyone. You read a one page article in People magazine; well at least that is all you quote.
6. Jasmin, Jasmin, Jasmin – this takes the cake. …. “upstanding suburbanites. Why, she’s even a stay-at-home soccer mom! Rachel Tiven of Immigration Equality drives the nail home in a quote: “They are exactly the kind of people you want living in this country.” Right. The others can just rot in hell” Well that is an inflammatory and insulting statement – Rachel Tiven and others at IE work very hard for equality, whether you agree with the legislative format or not. There are many organizations that work for immigrant rights, it so happens that Immigration Equality, has LGBT immigration equality as their mission statement. The donors and funding for this non-profit expect their money to be used in terms of their mission statement. To think that advocating for one person or a group precludes help or concern for the others is simply a ridiculous notion and in no way helps to support your argument.
7. He rest of what you posit , staring with “This is only my first problem with UAFA – it doesn’t really change the paradigms of immigration. It fixates……” is simply a load of nonsensical hogwash and your entire posting begs the question…. EQUALITY.
8. UAFA simply provides language to correct DOMA, which akin to apartheid serves to institutionalize discrimination. Whether you agree with the legislation or not, you miss the entire point. Equality Under the law. The language of UAFA equates same-sex couples to different-sex couples and that is it. The opportunities for fraud are there whether gay or straight. Fraud comes with huge consequences and many straight people have been deported or fined as a result. To deny legitimate couples their rights simply because others break the law is a disingenuous argument and discriminatory in itself.
9. As far as CIR- Reunification of Families and the Honda initiatives, hopefully this too will include Lesbian and Gay families after all why should we be discriminated against.
10. I too am a binational couple. The consequences of my not being able to sponsor my wife resulted in me having to choose to leave my country with the love of my life (for past eight years) and our 4 year old daughter whom we had together or to stay in the US with my 11 year old child who I share custody of with an ex. What would you have done? . Had I been straight, the passage of the law you deny as relevant would have been MY BEST PATH to her immigration and keeping our family in tact. Fortunately we managed with 12 hours left to illegality, $15,000 in legal fees later, and stress beyond belief to complete our process that kept her here.
PLEASE DO NOT TELL ME or my friend Martha who is living in exile ( loveexiles.org) that you think UAFA is a bad idea. It is irresponsible, unproductive to equality as well as to the fight on behalf of all immigrants, not to mention he lack of merit both de facto and de jure in your argument.
That said I invite you and your readers to my blog (www.oblogdeoblogda.wordpress.com) Read the post on Bill #867, Shirley’s Bill and note that this gay issue provided a forum for Senator Dianne Feinstein’s first ever public mention of the PLIGHT OFF ALL IMMIGRANT CHILDREN AND FAMILIES; she acknowledges in essence the support of Reunification and CIR and it was Shirley Tan and her courage that for the first time shows a marriage, if you will, between the unfairness of all Immigration Law as it pertains to gays and straights.
Because you are ‘ an immigration activist’ I encourage you to seek harmony and unity in your efforts, rather than looking for divisive means to make your point– even if you disagree with the form of legislation please do not put down the courageous fighters amongst us and please do not stand in the way of my right to equality. Melanie Nathan
—————————
Yasmin NAIR responds to Melanie – there are many responses by the way which can be read on the QueerCents Blog.
Yasmin Says:
May 7th, 2009 at 5:26 am John and Mattilda,
Thanks for your comments, and for the tenor of your posts! Let me take this opportunity to thank everyone who has written, even in disagreement, in a tone that’s fitting for public discussion. Many of you who’ve disagreed have still managed to do so in a productive way, and I hope that will continue.
Madison,
With all due respect, I suggest you write your own blog and not use the comments section to do so.
Melanie,
I think it’s hilarious that you correct my spelling of Philippines, but keep referring to me as Jasmin. Multiple times.
I’m really, really glad I’ll never have to call on your services (although I’m not sure you’re her lawyer – a blogger and a person involved in introducing the bill – what does that make you, exactly?) Your inflammatory language and vituperative tone are not helping anyone, and it really doesn’t help your reputation. DOMA is akin to apartheid? I know an entire country, South Africa, that might beg to differ.
As for the facts of the case, um, if you have any issue with what I presented, go talk to the People Magazine reporters.
I cited the article quite emphatically. I’m not sure how to break the news to you but this is …
a BLOG! Part of the blog’s point is to use a case that’s emblematic of the issue at hand and then to discuss the issue.
It’s interesting that you criticize me for not having contacted you — after having just shown that your temperament here shows why that would never be a good idea (and you still haven’t indicated who you are, exactly, ahem) — and then you go on to happily and unethically combine my critique of UAFA with some imagined personal criticism of Shirley Tan.
My point here was to look at the representation of an “ideal/good” family and then ask us to look UAFA more closely. This was not meant to be an airing of your client’s perspectives (and again, in what capacity are you acting on her behalf, exactly?). You need to do that job, not me. And, by the way, you need to do it elsewhere, not here.
Have I already mentioned that your tone is vituperative and quite unlike what someone’s public advocate should adopt? I know dozens of lawyers, and none of them would do what you just did, in the tone you just used. I also know a lot of advocates and publicists, and none of them would do what you just did, in the tone you just adopted. You’re just screaming at me.”
Then when I go back to respond CUT CUT CUT…. no more.
Now I was not the only one who did not agree with her. I think out of 44 responses (excluding her own defensive responses) no one agreed or understood what the heck she was saying.
Anyway Madison, Great Blog too – you did it justice on this one
http://lotusopening.blogspot.com/2009/05/yasmin-nair-eat-this.html
May 8, 2009 Posted by oblogdeeoblogda | GAY AND LESBIAN, Gay immigration, UAFA, Uniting American families Act, immigration equality | 000 bi-national, 2009 at 12:47 pm Editor’s Note: Due to the nature of many of the comments on this thread, 36, ALMOST EVERYTHING, bi-national, Bill 867, CALIFORNIA, CIR, comments have been disabled for this post. For a clarification of our commenting policy, domestic partnership, gay and bisexual Americans, GAY AND LESBIAN, Gay immigration, gay marriage, GLBT marriage, homosexual marriage, ICE, immigrant visas, Immigration and Nationality Act, immigration equality, Immigration, UAFA, UnIting American Families Act, Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Lee Danner, legal residency, Lesbian, LGBT, LGBT marriage, Linkedin, loveexile, Madison Reed, martha mcdevitt-pugh, melanie Nathan, nadler, oblogdeoblogda.wordpress, PEOPLE MAGAZINE, permanent partner, please read our disclaimer and commenting policy. ", private bill, Queer Cents, queercents, Same sex marriage, Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator Dianne Feinstein’s, Senator Patrick Leahy, Senators, serena, Serena Says: May 7th, Shirley Tan, UAFA, Uniting American families Act, US citizens, US. The bill (H.R. 1024) | 5 Comments