• Gay BlogAds


  • Gay News Watch


  • Chris Tweets



  • « Hillary's election spin-control | Main | Hillary's last day in the lead »

    February 11, 2008

    Is Hillary 'frauding' us on UAFA again?

    Posted by: Andoni

    As someone who has a vested interest in seeing the Uniting American Families Act passed, I am in constant communication with the various gay and Hispanic organizations who wish to see immigration reform. I was shocked to read in the Washington Blade today that Senator Hillary Clinton said the following about UAFA:

    “I’m supportive of it and the strategy was to do it as part of comprehensive immigration reform,” she said. “We still need to do comprehensive immigration reform … that is my preference.”

    Chris asked earlier today whether Hillary knew that UAFA was not part of the comprehensive immigration reform  legislation that failed last year -- this would be really bad if she didn't know -- or whether she is tipping her hand about a new strategy going forward.

    In her Human Rights Campaign, questionnaire, Senator Clinton said she supports UAFA but has concerns over the possible fraud in same sex immigration. Since that survey was published I know that dozens of people have contacted her office and presented her with evidence that fraud will not be a problem.

    Has she changed her mind now? If she has, why doesn't she simply say that she now supports UAFA without reservation and sign on as a co-sponsor instead of opening up a new option and say she wants it part of comprehensive immigration reform? Adding UAFA to CIR does make the most sense, but there is a problem -- the Hispanic organizations don't want it there.  And it is the Hispanic lobby that controls the CIR legislation in Congress.

    So here we have Senator Clinton seemingly removing one obstacle (fraud) from fully embracing UAFA, but sticking UAFA somewhere else where there are more obstacles from the Hispanic community.

    Could it be that we are being played? Once again she'll get credit for saying she supports UAFA, just as she did in the HRC questionnaire, but at that time she didn't co-sponsor because of her concerns about fraud. Those concerns have apparently been sufficiently countered since she didn't raise them again. Now she supports UAFA but as part of CIR, which she should know is resisted by the lobby that controls CIR. Is her stating that she prefers to put UAFA in CIR the new "fraud?" That is, is that going to be the excuse for why she doesn't co-sponsor?

    Reasonable people can disagree on what Senator Clinton's motives are for this switch. But there is one true way to find out if indeed she does support our community on this issue as she says she does. The way we find out is to put a pen in her hand and ask her sign as a co-sponsor.

    If she signs, she's sincere. If she doesn't we should realize that we are once again being de-"frauded."

    |

    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200e550426b138834

    Comments

    1. SteveW on Feb 12, 2008 9:32:16 AM:

      If I am reading the info on Congress' website correctly, neither Clinton nor Obama has cosponsored the UAFA (bill no. S.1328), which was introduced last May.

      Also, I don't understand why there is greater potential for fraud in gay relationships than in straight relationships. (She's talking about something like the time Jack married Roasario so she could stay in the country on Will and Grace, right?)

    1. Kevin on Feb 12, 2008 2:11:12 PM:

      There is a very good and simple reason for all this: Hillary doesn't really understand gay ANYTHING beyond fundraising and pandering. When it comes to really tackling the issues that affect our lives, she hasn't got a clue, nor is she anxious to get one. Watch her carry on and on and on about the minute details of health care reform for children, for low-income families, for seniors, and you'll see that she does have her priorities. Gays are not part of them at all. We never were, and we never will be.

    1. Double T on Feb 12, 2008 7:39:06 PM:

      Andoni,

      Love most of your choice of articles, keep up the good work.

      Please educate me on the subject of gay immigration. It does not seem (to me) to affect enough lives to be worth the political capital that would be needed to achieve this victory.

      Wouldn’t a better course of action be, to force “some” issue before the Supreme Court to once and for all address the form of apartheid that Gay Americans are living under. Is not the answer to remove the label GAY before my name before deciding how the rule of law is to be applied.

      I see any other method to be half-steps in addressing this problem. One set of laws for Straight Americans another set of laws for Gay Americans. Has no one learned that “Separate, but Equal” is code for “screw you, you’re not my equal”.

    1. Brian Miller on Feb 14, 2008 7:25:23 PM:

      Please educate me on the subject of gay immigration. It does not seem (to me) to affect enough lives to be worth the political capital that would be needed to achieve this victory.

      Only because of a lack of courage and imagination on the part of gay politicos.

      LGBTQ Americans have given billions of dollars in political contributions and millions of votes over the last 20 years -- yet have no federal legislation to show for it other than DOMA and the anti-gay military ban.

      Yet our "leadership" keeps insisting we support the Clintons, Obamas and McCains of the world who have done nothing to change that trend.

      Failure of imagination.

    1. Mike on Aug 11, 2008 6:48:15 AM:

      Hello Everyone

      There a number of bi-national couples in the same situation.
      Like you Chris, we are forced to live in a 3rd country - as neither the USA nor Mexico recognize our partnership's immigration rights.

      Curiously, a foreign-born worker, who is sponsored by a Multinational Corporation, can bring his or her same-sex partner without any difficulties. The partner gets a Visa which allows staying in the US for a year, is reneawal, although it does not allow the partner to work.

      The question is: While the Constitution grants Congress to set immigration policy, it also grants each citizen a set of rights - and one would assume that those rights should be superceded by those granted to a foreigner.

      In our case, a foreigner same sex couple is allowed to live in the US while one of the partners works.

      Why couldn't a US citizen sponsor the partner to come into the US with a similar type of Visa ? While ideally one will like to have a full set of rights - having the flexibility to come in and stay maybe enough for some of us - and demonstrate to other Americans, that there is NO Fraud, that we are normal couples in love, ect...

      Is there a case from a legal perspective ?

      Your opinion ?

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    © Citizen Crain - All Rights Reserved | Design by E.Webscapes Design Studio | Powered by: TypePad