« Dems back federal rights for gays | Main | Having it both ways on immigration »
June 03, 2007
Hillary, Obama hedge on UAFA
Posted by: Chris
Well, the bloom came off the rose pretty quickly for those of us in binational relationships. The Human Rights Campaign "report card" on the Democratic presidential candidates indicates that both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama "support" immigration rights for gay couples.
But the actual HRC questionnaire responses show both candidates hedging their support, raising concerns about immigration fraud. Clinton, in particular, said she did not believe the already overburdened U.S. immigration agency could handle scrutinizing the additional applications they would receive. The other five Democratic presidential candidates, including John Edwards, have offered their unconditional support.
More details here, in a special report I wrote for Gay News Watch.
My reaction to the Clinton-Obama hedge is mixed. Obviously, concerns about immigration fraud are serious and should be taken as such. The Uniting American Families Act, which extends to gay Americans the same right to sponsor non-Americans for citizenship, would put binational gay couples through the same scrutinization as straight Americans.
Still, it's reasonable to put unmarried couples through greater scrutiny than married couples because the act of marrying, with its accompanying responsibilities and commitments, is pretty clear evidence of the couple's legitimacy and credibility. Of course, there are limited jurisdictions worldwide where gays can marry, and even once married their responsibilities are subject to how they'd be treated where they divorce. It's one thing to marry in Massachusetts or Canada, for example, but if most other U.S. states won't recognize the marriage, then it's not as risky and serious a step for the couple.
Other countries have addressed this issue by requiring additional evidence of commitment and mutual interest of unmarried couples. Both the U.K. and Canada require cohabitation for at least one year. That can be a huge hurdle for gay couples, since only 20 countries worldwide allow gays to sponsor a partner for a residence visa. Perhaps a requirement like that would satisfy Clinton and Obama.
It's disheartening to see Clinton, who counts many prominent lesbians and gay men as supporters, put a price tag on our equality. That's the effect of withholding her support for UAFA because she's concerned about whether the Citizenship & Immigration Services could handle the burden of scrutinizing visa applications from gay binational couples. If she believes gay couples should be treated equally, then the question of burden should be applied to gay and straight couples equally. Unless she favors withholding sponsorship rights for straight couples, money shouldn't be a reason for withholding similar rights for gay couples.
I also can't help but wonder whether the risk of fraud is actually greater for gay couples. The vast majority of heterosexuals worldwide wouldn't dream of faking a gay relationship for immigration purposes. And even a small amount of scrutiny would pierce the veil of most.
It was encouraging to see all seven Democratic presidential candidates support UAFA, but to take Clinton and Obama seriously when they say they support immigration rights for gay binational couples "in principle," they should make clear what more they would require.
- Clinton's HRC questionnaire is available here.
- Obama's HRC questionnaire is available here.
For a comprehensive look at gay immigration rights, click here for the Gay News Watch summary.
For a comprehensive look at gay issues in the U.S. presidential race, click here for the Gay News Watch summary.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200df351cef738833
Comments
-
Burden or not, this is not a reason to continue a discriminatory policy.
-
Clinton's reponse is particularly troubling because it reminds me of the one bigots used to use against equal health care benefits for gay couples: we can't do it, it will cost too much, break the budget, etc. (BTW, these arguments NEVER panned out.)
What part of EQUAL does Hillary not understand. It's also similar to (during desegregation) when blacks got equal rights "we can't allow blacks into our schools just yet because it will overburden the classrooms....." give me a break.
Hillary's is a definite positioning to make her look like she is a 100% candidate, but really is NOT. (Was she warned that the other candidates were supporting UAFA and that she had better check that box too to look good?)
IT IS TIME FOR THE RESPONSIBLE GAY GROUPS TO CONFRONT HER ON THIS WITH THE ABOVE EXAMPLES or to ask her what her plan might be to avoid fraud and/or overburdening of the system without simply shutting the door on this gay right she supports "in principle."
After all EQUAL IS EQUAL and we have to not let her get away with this type of 1990's thinking.
-
Obviously, concerns about immigration fraud are serious and should be taken as such.
=========
Is there much evidence that they have been?Historically, I haven't been close to this issue, but even I know enough to recall that enforcement and fraud prevention were among the first 'issues' raised by critics, long before Hillary became a public figure on the issue.
It's annoying, because it harkens back to those who didn't do their homework and suggested that repealing the ban on gays in the military would be just like Truman's Exec Order. Well, it turned out that more was required. Here's hoping that this issue doesn't turn out the same - that there is a fully thought out set of goals. For instance, Andrew Sullivan is pointing out on his blog today that DOMA has provisions forbidding the recognition of 'civil unions'. Is that germane? If so, how? I hope that these bills amount to solid legislation, in terms of well briefed legal opinions. In other words, that they aren't just 'aspirational' bills or 'sense of the Congress' type formats ...
Does one find these concerns rebutted anywhere? I couldn't even find the quote from Immigration Equality that you use in the post above...
A while back, when I looked into who was sponsoring the bill in the House, I couldn't find any Jerry Nadler comments that amounted to, "We've looked at the enforcement issues and this is what we've come up with ...".
What's more, there is an education hurdle among the general electorate. How many people know that there are 'processing centers' for immigration versus how many who imagine that it is something like applying for a passport, that involves showing various forms of 'ID'? I, for one, wasn’t aware that married couples needed to show too much more than their marriage license for the purposes of immigration. It is in the confusion about how things function that good intentions can get tripped up by foes, and one reason why 'general education' on how 'gay immigration' would work administratively is ... a 'gay issue', arguably.
-
Goodness, as a taxpaying citizen, who often pays higher taxes than an equivalent heterosexual married man, far be it from me to *inconvenience* the poor, overloaded federal bureaucracy by demanding equal rights.
Good for Mrs. Clinton for standing up for what really matters -- bureaucratic convenience and the incompetence of America's non-computerized immigration directorate -- rather than for the pesky rights of everyday citizens.
Taking my tongue out of my cheek for a (rare) moment, it's interesting to note that while Obama and Clinton express "reservations" about the potential for "fraud" in a small percentage of a few thousand same-sex applications, they have no qualms whatsoever supporting the pending immigration bill that would grant legal residency to up to 30 million Mexican citizens who entered the country fraudulently.
The Democrats doth speaketh with forked tongues. The reality is that on immigration, just like on military service issues, they cannot be depended on to stand for anything. We'd be better off casting our votes for candidates who don't waver on basic principles, or put the convenience of government bureaucracies over the concerns of taxpayers.
Maureen on Jun 3, 2007 8:03:23 PM:
Clinton's remark about the burden on the immigration agency is laughable. White straight men are sending off for brides from Russia and the Pacific Rim, and she's worried about the gay influx. Have you, Chris, made finding a foreign partner such an irresistible idea that every gay person in America is going to leave the country to seek one? Never mind the immigration paperwork, if that's the case, the airlines and cruise ships won't be able to handle all of you.
She's in a very bad position, and if she doesn't get a backbone soon and firm up her stance on this issue, she may as well cut her losses and start begging for the VP job or a spot in the administration. I believe Obama can withstand this early hedging; I don't think she can.