June 02, 2007

Hillary, Obama waffle on UAFA

Posted by: Chris

UPDATE: Obviously, this post was almost immediately "scooped" by the very happy news from HRC that all seven Democratic presidential candidates support UAFA.  Still, I think this post offers some useful background about Obama and Clinton, especially on how Hillary thought at one point UAFA might be included in comprehensive immigration reform.

Digging for clues on how Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama really feel about DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, I also came across a couple of hints on their view about UAFA, the Uniting American Families Act.   The evidence is all encouraging but it's also inconclusive, which leads me to wonder: Why waffle on UAFA?  (Sorry, it just rhymes so well.)

I found this interview with Windy City Times editor Tracy Baim in February 2004 which Obama, then a candidate for the U.S. Senate, came out instinctively against the ban on travel visas for those who have HIV and asked for more time to study the issue of binational couples:

WCT: On immigration—there is an HIV ban, and there is no ability for gays to marry and thus have their partners stay in the U.S.
 
Obama: I haven’t studied either of those issues carefully. I would object instinctively to a ban on visitors with HIV. I think that that’s a remnant of initial fears about HIV transmission that were inaccurate. I would want to examine the immigration law in the broader context of the immigration policy.

The only other hint I could find was in a press release from Love Exiles, a grassroots group of Americans who (like me) are living "in exile" abroad because the law does not allow them to sponsor their non-American parters to live in the U.S.  That's the problem for which UAFA is the cure. The press release recounts who Love Exile member Robert Bragar, a New York lawyer living in exile with his Dutch partner, asked Obama about the issue at a Democratic Party function in Washington, D.C., back in February 2006. Obama is paraphrased as telling Bragar that the U.S. sounds unfair.

Three years since Baim raised the issue and more than a year since Bragar raised it again, Obama still hasn't cosponsored UAFA or taken a position on the legislation.

As far as Hillary, there's a tidbit in this Gay City News story that had clues about her ongoing support for DOMA.  Employing pretty classic Hillary-speak, she sounds like she favors immigration rights for gay couples, and even favors including the measure as part of a more comprehensive immigration reform effort:

Asked about a measure authored by West Side Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler that would allow immigrant partners of Americans to gain citizenship just as foreign-born married spouses can, Clinton said movement on that awaits a comprehensive solution to the immigration issue that moves beyond the current Republican emphasis on penalties and border fences. With a Democratic Congress, Clinton said, much more is possible "and I think that will be included in it."

That attempt at comprehenstive immigration reform, by the GOP-led Congress, failed. Clinton has been silent on UAFA during the current go-round on immigration, still hasn't signed on as a co-sponsor and she didn't even address the issue in her gay issues position paper.

And it's clear the UAFA silence is intentional. Lavi Soloway, a gay New York-based Canadian immigration rights experts wrote in his blog in February that "the Hillary staff has had one excuse after another" since being asked to sign on for UAFA, and its predecessor the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, since she first came to the Senate.

It's long past time for both Clinton and Obama to clear up the confusion and show the leadership they talk so much about. John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd are on board in favor of UAFA.  Senators?

For a comprehensive look at gay issues in the presidential campaign, click here for the Gay News Watch summary.

Tags: Barack Obama, gay binational couples, gay immigration rights, Hillary Clinton, PPIA, UAFA