Obama and Clinton on UAFA - Having It Both Ways With The Gays

Immigration Equality and Citizen Crain, two blogs I like, are having a discussion on the lack of support for the Uniting American Families Act (the bill that would allow gays to sponsor their partners for immigration purposes in the US) from the two frontrunners in the Democratic presidential nomination: Obama and Clinton.  As I see it, the discussion would be more interesting if the issue were harder, but the issue is not hard at all.

Here's the deal: Obama and Clinton say they are withholding support for UAFA because of a concern for immigration fraud.  Obama's camp claims that:

"He [Obama] wants to make sure that immigration is possible for a partner in committed relationships, but he also wants to make sure there is a good mechanism for determining who qualifies for that status. He would like to see the Act [UAFA] get more specific with regards to defining ‘financial interdependence’ and the documentation required as proof in order to establish relationships — which could very well happen once the bill reaches the Senate floor."

As I see it, it is easy to side with Immigration Equality on this matter.  They put it nicely:

"For our part, this is nothing new from the Obama camp and a continued attempt to have it both ways. The fraud protections in the UAFA are exactly the same as they are for married (opposite-sex) couples. I perhaps haven’t pushed this point hard enough in previous exchanges, but the fraud protections in the UAFA are not the problem. The problem is that politicians do not understand LGBT relationships and do not consider them bona fide. Whether it is because a marriage certificate cannot be issued, or some deeper discomfort with LGBT marriages we do not know, but to deny LGBT couples a marriage certificate and then say that because there is no marriage certificate you must be subjected to more intense scrutiny is discriminatory, and wrong. Let’s not forget that Obama does not support gay marriage while at the same time claims civil unions extend exactly the same rights as does a marriage certificate.

The fraud protections in the UAFA are no more loose or no more strict that current fraud provisions for opposite-sex couples. It is unfortunate that Sen. Obama, the child of a binational couple whose marriage was once as frowned upon as LGBT relationships does not see this double standard for what it is. We are continuing to work with the Obama camp to bring them onto the UAFA but we will not let them off the hook so easily."

What do you think?

Comments

[Rich]

great post. but the white type on black background gave me a worse headache than flip-flopping politicians could ever give me.

[Angie]

As a person currently in this situation, I want the right to apply as common law partners here in the US. My partner and I have very limited options as the law stands right now. She lives in El Salvador and I've recently moved back to the US.

We lived together for a year and a half, shared our living expenses and our lives. I would have no problem providing evidence like that required by Canada for Common Law Partners.

I am embarrassed for our Country and our Politicians who boast that the US is a country that provides the opportunity of Freedom and Equality for all.

[XoX]

Out of all the candidates, only Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel support same-sex marriage. Moreover, Kucinich (a Representative of Ohio) supports the Permanent Partner Immigration Act way back in 2003 and also currently, he supports the UAFA.

It is sad that some in the LGBT supports the Clinton & Obama camp when there are candidates out there need not to be pressed upon to hold what the LGBT community is fighting for. And I would urge the LGBT to stand up for themselves by supporting Dennis Kucinich. I believe that same-sex marriage and/or equality issues are not the only issues that matter to the LGBT community. However, when you do your research about the candidate that is most deserving of your vote because your conscience says so, you would vote for Dennis Kucinich. If none of you know (because the mainstream media like NBC is hurting his campaign), Dennis Kucinich is the only one running for President who voted against the war in Iraq since it began, who voted against the Patriot Act, who will provide a single-payer "not for profit" healthcare, who will bring back jobs here at home by withdrawal from NAFTA & WTO, who promotes nuclear disarmament and start to projects of generating alternative energies such as solar and wind, etc. Not only that, only Dennis Kucinich is courageous to stand up for the people and the U.S. Constitution and called for the impeachment of the Vice President then the President.

If you want to learn more about Dennis Kucinich, kindly visit www.Dennis4President.com. And remember, how can you get what you want when you don't vote for it or fight for it. Thank you.

[obamatiser]

I'm an Obama for America volunteer and I keep pressing them to take a stronger stand on LGBT issues. They always defer to some "specialist in manchester" From canvasing most people care more about the war, housing and other issues and gay issues are not hot right now. I wish one of them would step up and win it by taking a stand.

[Inaudible Nonsense]

Personally, I think the higher standard will come into play naturally during the review process. It already does when we bring our partners across international borders. When they don't have that piece of paper (the marriage certificate) they will have to spend extra time going over the evidence of our relationships. Frankly they should be going over the same type of documents for opposite sex couples to prevent fraud there as well -- but that magic piece of paper removes a lot of questions. Actually, straight couples have a fiance visa -- so they don't even have to have that piece of paper, although the expectation is that they will eventually of course.

[BOSSY]

Bossy thinks you should stop by her place where she always lurves her gays:

http://www.iambossy.com/i_am_bossy/2007/10/shout-out-to-bo.html

[Queer Beacon]

Hey Chris! Thanks for the detailed comment!

I actually don't see why the discussion has to involve UAFA being (or not) about gay marriage.

The fact is: gays can't really marry in the US right now (MA makes a nice effort, but MA marriage is not actual marriage yet due to the Clinton-DOMA). So, if UAFA is all we can get on the immigration front, lawmakers and politicians behind the bill need to account for that fact (no marriage for the gays) and should just look into whatever we the gays can offer as evidence of strong/permanent commitment.

The Brazilian government accepts many documents, including joint declarations of mutual support before a notary public, domestic partnership certificates, etc. The document basically just needs to be public...that should be enough. I think it is not reasonable to require one year of cohabitation.

Moreover, I have a strong feeling that gays would be less likely to engage in fraud (just a hunch). It is still a problem for many gays to admit they are gay before the government. To assume gays would defraud the immigration agency further (or more than straights) adds insult to our long standing (and painful) injury.

Adding even more insult to our injury: it is the straight people who may use UAFA to defraud. If there's any truth in that assumption, should the gays pay the price of the added defrauding possibility to be (potentially) perpetrated by the straight people?

[Citizen Crain]

We're mutual blog-fans, as you know, but I'll have to disagree with you on this one, as much as the issue hits home for me personally -- as it does for you.

It's not Obama and Clinton trying to have it both ways, it's Immigration Equality. IE insists that UAFA is NOT about gay marriage and then argues it's unfair to bar gays from marrying while asking them to meet a higher immigration fraud standard because they're unmarried. I agree 100% with the point, but you can't make that point and then claim UAFA isn't about gay marriage.

If UAFA really is a transitional measure until gays can marry in the U.S., then we have to accept that being unmarried means you have to meet a higher fraud threshold than married couples. Canada and the U.K. and other gay-friendly countries have all concluded this and it's STILL the law in Canada for unmarried couples (common-law spouses).

It's not unreasonable to add a one-year cohabitation requirement to UAFA as a way of discouraging fraudulent use of immigration laws. We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good; not when passing a tougher UAFA would help so many thousands of binational gay couples.

Otherwise, UAFA is a joke and we should just wait for gay marriage because UAFA as written is probably even LESS likely to pass than for DOMA to be repealed and for marriage to be opened as the avenue for sponsoring non-American partners for citizenship.