Committed gay partners, including those legally married in U.S. states that recognize their unions or in foreign countries that do, are tragically denied permanent residency in the U.S., causing the couple to relocate outside the country or resulting in painful separations. The primary culprit is the Defense of Marriage Act, whose constitutionality is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. DOMA forbids the federal government from recognizing gay legal unions.
Congress is now formulating an immigration reform bill, and LGBT political groups are making a concerted effort to include within it the Uniting American Families Act, which would let permanent partners of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents obtain permanent resident status. President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders have announced their support for including the measure in the broader bill. Republicans pushing for immigration reform, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), have said that gay inclusion would be a deal killer.
Responded Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin, quoted in the Washington Blade, “The LGBT community will not stand for Congress placing the blame of their own dysfunction on our shoulders.”
IGF’s own Jonathan Rauch penned an impassioned commentary at the liberal Daily Beast saying “Really? Republicans will deep-six the entire effort and demolish themselves with Latino voters, business interests, and young people to prevent gay people from having someone to take care of them?” Jonathan rightly explains that
From a conservative point of view—indeed, from a social conservative point of view—keeping same-sex life partners out of the country makes even less sense substantively than it does politically. It betrays rather than upholds conservative values.
I agree with that point (though I’m not sure the Daily Beast site is the place to reach conservatives with conservative arguments). And yet…something isn’t quite right here. If the Supreme Court strikes down the DOMA section that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages, then gay couples married in states or countries that recognized their unions would presumably have their relationships recognized by the federal government and its immigration enforcement authorities on a par with heterosexual marriages.
The Supreme Court’s decision will be handed down next month. So, why go to the mat demanding inclusion of “permanent partner” residency, which includes those couples not married in states that recognize same-sex marriages or in foreign nations that do— a more liberal and problematic standard than spousal residency?
There is a view among conservatives that Obama and the Democrats wouldn’t mind seeing the immigration bill “deep-sixed” because they see its passage or not as a win-win: If it becomes law, they’ll take credit; if it fails, they’ll blame Republicans and use the issue to galvanize Latino and other pro-reform voters in the party’s campaign to re-take the House in 2014.
I support legal equality for gay spouses in immigration and other areas. But I also expect the federal ban on recognizing same-sex marriages will fall, and I know that getting any immigration bill through the GOP House is going to be problematic at best.
And, in the end, I don’t trust the Democratic coalition that’s insisting on a provision in the immigration bill that Republicans are just not going to accept, because I believe the party’s strategists would be just fine with a failed outcome.
More. For what it’s worth, the Washington Post editorializes:
With anti-reform forces preparing their assault, it’s critical that the pro-reform camp doesn’t provide them with ammunition. … Civil rights groups, in particular, will insist on amending the bill to provide visas for the foreign same-sex spouses of American citizens. … [Americans] overwhelmingly favor legalization and a path to citizenship. That, and Republican alarm at losing the Latino vote, have generated fresh momentum to fix the nation’s broken immigration system. Those who favor a fix should be wary of asking too much and, in the process, sapping that momentum.
Furthermore. The Washington Times reports:
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee introduced amendments Tuesday to grant gay couples the same immigration rights as other married couples, setting up a key hurdle for the immigration bill. …
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, the committee chairman, introduced two different versions: One would apply to “permanent partners,” which critics said could invite widespread fraud. The other would only apply to same-sex couples who are legally married, which given the laws in various states would dramatically limit who could qualify.
Actually, if the Supreme Court does the right thing, I think it would be wrong to assume that federal rights such as spousal residency would disappear if a legally married same-sex couple moves to a state that doesn’t recognizes same-sex marriage.
19 Comments for “The Gay Partners’ Immigration Conundrum”
posted by Houndentenor on
More conspiracy theory nonsense. Republicans aren’t willing to offer any rights to same sex couples. That’s the real bottom line. We’ll probably get cut from the bill and then you’ll use that as evidence that Democrats aren’t really for gay rights. Or if they do insist on inclusion you’ll claim they did that that just to torpedo the bill for political purposes. So either way you’ll find hints of a conspiracy. Anything to avoid holding Republicans responsible for pandering to the religious right.
Also, the Daily Beast includes conservative as well as liberal bloggers. David Frum is a regular contributor. I guess because he’s not a hard line orthodox conservative he doesn’t count? the same for former Daily Beaster Andrew Sullivan too? I suspect Rauch took his piece to whoever would publish it. There aren’t that many options for pro-gay conservative media. Do you really think World News Daily or NewsMax was going to put that article on their website?
posted by Houndentenor on
btw, David Frum has been posting excerpts from Jonathan Rauch’s new book on his website.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The fight is an example of political pressure from the base, in each instance.
President Obama and Congressional Democrats are pushing for inclusion of equal treatment of multinational gay and lesbian couples because the Democratic base won’t stand for it if it doesn’t; the “Republican Four” and Congressional Republicans are saying that it will kill the bill because their base would eat them alive if they give an inch.
We’ll see a lot more of this over the next couple years, after SCOTUS rules Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional, with Republicans introducing all sorts of “pander to the base” bills trying to create exceptions and exemptions relating to federal recognition of same-sex marriages, just as we’ve seen an endless string of “pander to the base” amendments to defense appropriation bills trying to chip away at equal treatment of gays and lesbians in the military.
You don’t need to read paranoia into any of this, although I realize that paranoia is the foundation of StephenWorld, so it is inevitable that you will. Its just politics, Stephen, each side trying to keep the base intact.
In the end, the sausage will get made, because Hispanics are not going to tolerate anything else, and Hispanics are a critical voting block.
posted by Walker on
Do you seriously think WorldNutDaily is where a serious writer would go to reach conservatives? Ever heard of the Wall Street Journal? Or National Review or the Daily Caller? All of which have run arguments for gay marriage (without endorsing it themselves). Nothing wrong with the Daily Beast, but of course it’s true that if you’re trying to persuade conservatives, you might go where they are.
posted by Houndentenor on
Sorry. I mentioned the two online publications that my right-wing relatives are always using as a source of “information.” Not one of them reads the Wall Street Journal or the National Review. But I live in Texas and am surrounded by Teavangelicals. That’s probably not Rauch’s target audience either.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Supreme Court’s decision will be handed down next month. So, why go to the mat demanding inclusion of “permanent partner” residency, which includes those couples not married either in states that recognize same-sex marriages or in foreign nations that do— a more liberal and problematic standard than spousal residency?
For two reasons:
(1) Although it is likely that Section 3 of DOMA is toast, it remains possible that SCOTUS will find a way to uphold the law. In that case, the bill’s language will apply to legally married couples.
(2) Even if DOMA is declared unconstitutional, the simple reason that same-sex marriage is not recognized in 39 of the 50 states, and banned by state constitutional amendment in 30 of those, amendments which will take a decade to remove.
So the language doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out. All the “permanent partner” language is trying to accomplish is to protect gay and lesbian couples who are married (if DOMA is upheld) and/or “married in all but name” (whether or not DOMA is upheld) until the day when marriage equality is a nationwide fact on the ground.
Under the Act, a couple must meet five conditions in order to be considered “permanent partners”:
Note the word “unable” in Section D. That’s what it is all about.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
For those interested, the Wisconsin Gazette has an article this morning that gives a state-level view of the Republican Party’s conundrum about “inclusive” politics — the Priebus report versus the social conservatives. The interplay between Scott Fitzgerald (a hard-core social conservative), Robin Vos (a social conservative, but one for whom the issues are not his highest priority) and Reince Priebus, a political operative, is fascinating.
posted by Doug on
I know this is a gigantic conspiracy by Democrats, Stephen, but why don’t you have any quotes for LRC and GoProud in support of LGBT in Immigration reform? Why is it only the Democratic LGBT folks that is fighting for LBGT Immigration reform.
Why doesn’t your Mayoral candidate DeMoai show some leadership on this issue since he is running in San Diego which is right on the border with Mexico?
Stephen, where are all the gay Republicans showing leadership on Immigration Reform that includes the LGBT community?
posted by Jorge on
This isn’t Democrats vs. Republicans. This is Democrats vs. Democrats. The Gang of Eight chose not to include gay rights in the immigration bill, and they made that choice for a reason. The gay lobby was not powerful enough to override that choice at the time and is now trying to make up for its lack of power with a temper tantrum in hopes that, by killing the bill (because that will probably be the result), it will show that it has enough power to be included in the next one.
What the gay community should do is gague how much support this idea has, take the campaign to the people to build up support, and take the campaign to the government. It should be relentless, but it should be relentless at a slow and measured pace, so that if it fails, things will be better than they were when they started.
I do not think it is ethical for the gay lobby to place their own disfunction and lack of power ahead of the best interests of this country. And I do think the Gang of Eight should permit it to.
posted by Jorge on
>>And I do not think the Gang of Eight should permit it to.
posted by Houndentenor on
If the “gay lobby” doesn’t have the clout to get an immigration bill with same sex partner recognition included through Congress, then how would they have the clout to get the amendment added in the first place? Your assertions make no sense. In spite of claims by Scalia and other right-wing nutjobs, the “gay lobby” doesn’t really have that much power or we’d have had ENDA passed 20 years ago. And if you mean HRC, that’s hilarious. HRC has never successful gotten anything through Congress. Ever. The very idea that this is some grand plot is nonsense. Gays don’t have that much influence and the Democrats have never been organized enough to pull of any grand scheme.
posted by Jorge on
If the “gay lobby” doesn’t have the clout to get an immigration bill with same sex partner recognition included through Congress, then how would they have the clout to get the amendment added in the first place?
The same way poison pills happen.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Jorge, it seems to me that we have an obligation to push for equality, whether or not we expect to win a particular battle. If we don’t force the discussion, nobody else will, and that’s a fact.
I’m under no illusion that the amendment will pass the Senate — Republican Senators/Congressmen cannot vote for any form of marriage/relationship equality and expect to make it through the next Republican primary in most states –but we would never have gotten anywhere on equality if we’d shut up and sat down every time politicians told us to sit down and be shut up “for the good of the country”.
We’ve made the gains we’ve made because we pushed for them, often against long odds, and we shouldn’t wimp out now.
posted by Don on
maybe i’m oversimplifying, but i’m thinking we’re getting played. republicans don’t want to pass an immigration bill. well, they do. but they have a base that will barbecue them if they do. so I think they want gay attached, and then kill it so nothing happens.
having seen a lot of sausage being made over the years, that’s where my instincts tell me this is going. divide and conquer – gays v. latinos. spur resentment for a few decades by pitting two liberal groups against one another and voila! republican victory!
posted by Houndentenor on
I think this issue has coalitions that cross party lines. It’s so rare that we find any issue where that is still true that no one knows how to form a coalition to pass a bill where parts of each party are on either side. Big business loves the cheap labor and free pass on workplace safety offered by illegal immigrants. Meanwhile the unions realize this undercuts worker pay. Add to that liberals who see the current system as being inhumane and racists who just don’t want any more brown people entering the country. A bill passed could be done across party lines and cut out parts of both parties that aren’t willing to join the coalition. I don’t see that happening in the current political climate, nor do I think that anyone in power really wants to take on big business by actually enforcing the current laws much less any new ones.
posted by Mark F. on
I support the Amendment, but if DOMA is repealed all multi-national couples would have the option to move to a state that allowed SSM even if the Amendment is not in the final bill. Not ideal, but it would be a big improvement over today.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
More
First, with respect to the Washington Post editorial, President Obama’s cautionary remarks (the perfect is often the enemy of the good) are well taken, but — and this is a big “but” — there is a value to keeping the “equal means equal” discussion alive, well and kicking whatever our realistic assessment of the chances of achieving “equal means equal” in any particular legislation. I am not ignorant enough to believe that the administration (or Senator Leahy, for that matter) will be fool enough to insist upon “equal means equal” in the final analysis, at the cost of losing immigration reform entirely.
Senator Leahy’s amendments are designed as a marker, allowing him to introduce an amendment on the floor of the Senate, an amendment that will not obtain the required 60% for passage. The strategy will keep “equal means equal” in the discussion, but not imperil immigration reform.
In the end, “equal means equal” will be sacrificed for the “greater good” of immigration reform in this instance, and everybody knows it. But it we sat back and did not push for “equal means equal”, or worse still, abandoned “equal means equal” as our guiding principle and insistent demand whenever politicians were discomfited, how would that advance our cause?
Furthermore
Second, with respect to your apparent belief that repeal of Section 3 of DOMA will level the playing field with respect to federal recognition of same-sex marriage, I would gently remind you that although a growing number of states recognize marriage equality, those states comprise only about 20% of the national population, and that about 80% of the national population (and, presumably about 80% of gays and lesbians) live in states where marriage equality is banned. After we pick up Minnesota, Illnois and California (likely in that order), we will still have roughly a 25-75 split, not in our favor. The low hanging fruit will have largely been picked by that point, and we will be in for a long slog through the purple and red states.
It is not at all clear that same-sex marriages will be portable for federal purposes — we will see a lot of litigation before that issue is decided — and, in any event, Section 3 repeal will not change the situation of gays and lesbians resident in anti-marriage states, like Wisconsin.
I recognize your thinking, Stephen. You believe, as I do, that immigration reform is important enough to the nation as a whole that we — meaning LGBT folks — are going to have to swallow “equal means equal” on this issue in order to get immigration reform. Where we differ, and it is an important difference, is that you seem to believe we should not push, and I think we should even though I know that pushing entails risks and is unlikely to succeed.
We face a similar situation in Wisconsin right now. In a matter of weeks, with any luck, Wisconsin may be surrounded by marriage equality states (Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota). At that point, the pressure for marriage equality is going to build in Wisconsin.
The “moderate” LGBT voices in the state will urge patience, recognition that marriage equality will not come to Wisconsin for 6-8, and more likely 10, years because of the hard-core opposition of the Republican Party and the redistricting lock that the party has on both houses of the legislature through 2020. I’ve been in conversation with them, and I know this for a fact.
In their view, we should be focusing on things we can achieve — city-by-city partner benefit ordinances and so on — while letting marriage equality sleep until we have a realistic shot at it.
My view is directly opposite. I think that we should push at all levels, as strong and as hard as we can, constantly and insistently, regardless of a recognition that marriage equality in Wisconsin is almost certainly going to have to wait until 2020-2025, when SCOTUS issues a Loving decision. Just because we can’t get equality doesn’t mean what we shouldn’t work for equality.
If we don’t fight for ourselves, there won’t be anyone fighting for us.
posted by Mark F. on
Tom,
As I noted above, multi-national same sex couples would have the option of moving to a state that allowed SSM if DOMA is repealed and SSM marriage is not potable. Not a great situation for many people, but often workable and preferable to being split up.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Well, sure. The same is true of US nationals who live in anti-equality states like California. But it doesn’t seem to me to be a reason to back off on the fight for equality.