Immigration (Gay vs. Straight)
On a couple of my posts here and here I have upset some gays and lesbians. Considering that this may be the first time they have landed on this blog, they do not understand that I am anti-illegal immigrant whether the persons be gay or straight. I want to have time to address all these comments. Right now I will quickly make this post to let y’all know my condensed positions.
I am upset about the lax laws in this country. I am upset at the Republican officials who don’t talk enough about illegal immigration. According to the comments that I have received, I get the impression that laws for gays and lesbians are stricter than for heteros, or at least from their perspective. I want to see all the immigration laws stricter for everyone. I am against people using their children as anchor babies. I am ticked off that Republicans talk about wanting a constitutional amendment defining marriage, yet they stay strangely silent regarding the UAFA Bill. I have my own thoughts as to why this may be. I just don’t have time to address this. I am not saying that I am for gay marriage, so Conservatives please don’t jeer and liberals please don’t cheer. I will address comments soon.
22 Comments »
Leave a Reply
-
You Said It!
WakeUp on 80% of Poll Respondents Suppor… WakeUp on 80% of Poll Respondents Suppor… Mary Green on 80% of Poll Respondents Suppor… michiganredneck on Ron Paul is Pro-Life due to… ttt on Ron Paul is Pro-Life due to…
We appreciate your interest in the UAFA.
Let me clarify:
The UAFA has nothing to do with illegal immigration- it is about ‘family reunification’ of an American citizen and her or his foreign born partner.
This concept of family reunification was not created by us.
The vast majority of us is actually law abiding, many of us having left the US to avoid breaking the law, leaving behind careers, families, homes- Americans forced to live in exile and, as I wrote before, living in countries that do provide the same immigration rights to gay and straight couples- and I’m talking about countries with a high number of immigrants already- like Canada, Germany, UK…
You write that the law for gay and lesbians is stricter. But the truth is that the law totally excludes us- there is no legal way for a gay American to sponsor their foreign partner based on family reunification. This is only possible for straight couples.
Best wishes,
Lee Danner
Hi Lee,
Thank you for mature and level headed comment. Basically in my comment #3. I have stated why I am trying to research on this issue. But to specifically address “The UAFA has nothing to do with illegal immigration- it is about ‘family reunification’ of an American citizen and her or his foreign born partner.” I never said that the UAFA was about illegal aliens, per say. But, Shirley Tan, the topic that got the ball rolling in my research is an illegal alien. Has been for about twenty years. Her and her partner brought the children (can’t remember the exact details her attorney wrote me) into their lives, knowing full well that Ms. Tan was/is an illegal alien. First things first. Regardless of what anyone thinks about gays and lesbians raising children as same-sex couples, the point is persons in this country wanting to have children need to be legal citizens first. Then work from there. I do not have sympathy for people, gay or straight, conceiving children then crying “what about my kids” when immigration comes knocking at the door.
Now that I am starting to address comments, I will say that on another post regarding the issue that I am against gay marriage, but will not stand in the way if someone wants to live with someone of the same sex. The current immigration laws are for spouses of citizens. While I have empathy, that is just the way it is.
“Shirley Tan… is an illegal alien. Has been for about twenty years. Her and her partner brought the children (can’t remember the exact details her attorney wrote me) into their lives, knowing full well that Ms. Tan was/is an illegal alien.”
First off, Ms. Tan’s asylum case was being reviewed when they had their children. She also entered the US legally. She applied for asylum and was awaiting notification of an appeal. Her lawyer was negligent in 2002 and did not inform Ms. Tan of the decision, taking away any further legal avenues for her and causing her to be illegal.
The children, while born of Ms. Tan, are biologically Ms. Mercado’s. They had the children during the appeals process, and during a time in which Ms. Tan was still technically legal. She did not have the children to use them later to remain in the country.
As to people only having children after they’re legal citizens, well, if you are a mother, you probably know the ache of desire for motherhood and know that that cannot be stopped. This couple, along with thousands of other same-sex parents, can put their lives on hold for only so long.
As for immigration law only being for spouses and citizens, my legally married (in California, Iowa, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, DC, Canada, Spain, South Africa….) spouse is a US citizen, but cannot sponsor me for immigration because we’re gay. Our civil marriage is as real as any, and possibly even more so for having had to fight so hard for it.
I do hope that you learn more about UAFA. If you’d like we can continue this discussion on- or off-line.
Cris,
You have no idea how much I appreciate you and others coming to my blog to help me “fill in the blanks” so to speak. If you have fiscally conservative leanings, I invite you to stay on reading issues that I talk about that have nothing to do with the current convo. Or come back to read my music or entertainment posts.
“Her lawyer was negligent in 2002 and did not inform Ms. Tan of the decision, taking away any further legal avenues for her and causing her to be illegal.” I do recall her current attorney letting me know of that. I think it is horrible that someone can try to get away with that. Hopefully, he or she will get their due punishment.
Perhaps I will contact you sometime, to learn more about this. If anyone can win me over to a cause, they really, no make that caps, REALLY have an ally.
P.S.
On a bit of a blogging note, please, if referencing or talking about a fact that you have already been informed about, such as details about the family, don’t just blow it off and say that you can’t remember what you were told. If you are actually researching this issue, the I hope you’ll keep your research and facts close at hand and not perform this kind of sloppy blogging in the future.
I admit you are more than correct on that. It was sloppy. Sorry.
I am not an illegal immigrant, and neither is my partner. I am a bisexual male living in San Francisco. My boyfriend is a Philippine citizen, who cannot even visit the USA legally. Neither of us has any interest in breaking immigration laws, that’s why we want the UAFA passed. You should be careful in how you use the term “illegal.” One thing is certain – the USA is not going to stop all immigration cold. Therefore the way immigration is permitted or not should be rational and fair. Today it is neither rational nor fair, in many ways, and UAFA would correct one of those ways.
Hi Barry,
Thank you for your comment. Please read my comment to Lee and comment #3. As to you specific, I am glad that you are obeying the law.
Most of us ARE obeying the law. For many of us, that means leaving the U.S. or being separated from our love. Does this seem right to you?
Basically this started out with me reading about the Shirley Tan case and Dianne Feinstien’s support of it. I have stated already that I do not know too much about the UAFA Bill. I am willing to learn about it. I have not stated that I lean one way or the other about it. That is why I just copy/pasted on it, and linked to more info. I prefer to learn about an issue, and decide from there. I posted the neutral post in order to let people know about it and they could come to their own conclusions and also to start a dialoug (I know that spelling ain’t right) from all sides.
The thing that gets me is that conservative politicians and conservative bloggers are not talking about it. Of course I would never believe something just because conservatives believe it. I am only looking for both sides of the issue. If a majority of conservatives are for it, they should just man up and say why. If they are against it, they should man up and say why. As always, I welcome comments from all sides of the political spectrum and all sides of the issues. As long as no one endorses violence, comments are always allowed.
If immigration reform is to be debated effectively, conservatives and progressives need to begin a dialogue about the various aspects of it so that we can understand each others positions. In 2008, 76000 men and women attained permanent residency in the US thanks to the family reunification aspect of immigration law. These couples were rigorously screened by ICE. Same-sex couples do not have this opportunity because the US does not recognize same-sex marriages performed within or outside US borders. This forces Americans in same-sex binational couples to leave family, jobs, and lives. We all fall in love with someone if we’re lucky. The US government says that one kind of civil marriage is worth more than another. All we ask is that the law be equally applied to all married couples.
Also, we ask that words like “lesbo” (from your WTF post) not be used. They are not neutral, and only agitate and show that the person using the word may not be quite so open to a respectful dialogue.
Hi Chris,
“If immigration reform is to be debated effectively, conservatives and progressives need to begin a dialogue about the various aspects of it so that we can understand each others positions.” You are so correct on that. But at the same time it needs to be concise and mature. No one can force another to change another’s minds. There needs to be talk and take it from there. Each side can see each others’ points of views and research and come to their own conclusions. No one, gay, straight, conservative, liberal, democrat, republican is evil for his or thoughts.
Oh I forgot to say that I did change the wording. Not because of some PC forcing, but I will not argue over silly words. If for some reason this stops anyone for talking, then whatever.
I do not believe that any exception to current immigration law is warranted for sexual orientation. Homosexuality is a choice of lifestyle, and is not grounds for any such legal decisionmaking. If there were a “homosexual” gene, they would have found it by now, or at least some evidence of it, with all the millions of dollars being spent to find it. They have not, because it does not exist. A gay relationship does not a family make.
Hi Tom,
Thank you for your comment from another point of view. It is very welcome. Please ask any of your Conservative/Republican contacts to research this issue and form their own conclusions. And I welcome comments from all sides. After all, this is a Conservative blog
.
Tom, I respectfully and scientifically disagree with you. There are what we could call ‘same-sex attracted’ members of every mammalian species on the planet. You may recall a recent article regarding a same-sex attracted pachyderm in a Polish zoo, or read of several instances of other primates besides humans exhibiting same-sex attraction.
Homosexuality is not a choice. I did not wake up after a hard night of hetero-sex or of not being able to find a woman and decide that I’d like to try men. My attraction to my husband is as natural and developed to me as your attraction to women is to you. I do not feel the same attraction to women that you do, but I understand that we are each attracted to a type or gender of person, and that’s all there is to it.
Hello all. Before everyone gets up in the air with Michigan here, you need to understand that the “system is broken”. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. Lawmakers on both sides of the isle have ignored the situation or mixed personal agendas into the equation and what we have is a situation where nobody wins. In Barry’s case, he has a partner that would be a loyal hardworking citizen, but no one has done anything to make it an organized process or path to citizenship for him. Over the years, many individuals gained citizenship by marrying their foreign born partner. I have known many English war brides over the years from WWII. So my point is this.
**We need a well defined path to citizenship that works at least as well as Ellis Island did for our ancestors.
**People need to be required to “Earn the privledge” by securing work, learning our language (classes in our language and culture should be part of the program), and assimilating into our culture much the same as our ancestors did.
**All government does is give handouts and create sanctuary cities which only enhances the problems. How???
1. It says breaking our laws is AOK. We now have some of the most violent street gangs from South America raging in our cities that give them sanctuary. Not something that makes the streets safe for those families looking to make a better life!
2. Unscreened and undocumented people have brought in diseases that were thought to be eradicated in the US, but are now reemerging such as Tuberculosis, Whooping Cough, Small Pox, etc. Ellis Island handled people with communicable diseases by isolating them, if they could be made well, letting them in and if they couldn’t sending them back. That is why there weren’t diseases running rampant where they settled in, mostly in large cities.
**All who desire to be US Citizens willing to do military service should be allowed in along with their families (ie. Parents, mate, children). Military service should have it’s rewards and I think that would be a great way to bring families in legally and allow them to have proper support in their new country.
And unlike some conservatives, who have a right to their opinions just like anyone else, I do see the need to apply special status to a gay partner. Heterosexuals have marriage and gays do not. It is my personal opinion and feeling that a legal social status should be given to gays whereby they can form a binding partnership recognized legally, just don’t call it marriage. Marriage in the Bible is between a man and a woman. I think if you call it something else under law and give gay couples the tax breaks and in this case the right to citizenship, etc, it would not offend anyone and it would work.
This of course is my opinion that the majority of Americans who believe in the Bible hold. I think we can come to the table on all these issues and solve them rationally and intelligently. But when the gay extremists in San Francisco invade church services and disrespect people on the other side of the argument they don’t do their community any favors. People should be able to agree to disagree on lifestyle choices and move on to insure that all have their Constitutional liberties regardless. This is just my personal opinion of course.
One thing I will say to MichiganRN… use the delete button. Some of your comments here make reasonable points, but others are just making blanket accusations with no substance. No one has time to respond to people who aren’t going to change their “demands” and “accusations” in lieu of respectful debate.
Feel free to email me, I stand in support mi amigo!
Hi Hoosier,
Thank you for your level headed comment. Thank you for stating a bit more concise what I have been trying to stay. I admit to getting off track and forgetting what I was talking about in the first place.
I really appreciate this dialogue; and the fact that Michigan R is so willing to allow the space for liberal ideas and comments. I want to re-iterate that UAFA is not a cause – per se- it is legislation that makes up for discrimination. The larger issue, beyond UAFA, is DOMA and it needs to be repealed. Hopefully this can all happen during this session…especialy now that Specter and maybe others will switch.
ALso I want to say that the Republicans are not saying much about UAFA because the gay activists have been terrified to alert them to it until there are more co-sponsors – my personal opinion!
I believe that the Republicans pander strongly to their right wing and evangelical base – the reason centrist like Specter will leave. Because of this pandering they will not even look at the importance of family reunification and instead will allow the anti-gay sentiment to dictate their responses to UAFA. http://www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com
Chris, I stand by what I said, that homosexual behavior is a choice. We are not animals, and your analogies to “other species” have no relevance. EVERYTHING humans do has an element of free choice involved. That is one of the things that differentiates us from animals.
I understand this might stray a bit from the topic of UAFA, but I personally don’t think homosexuality is a choice. It’s a tough question, but saying it’s a choice makes it too easy.
One reasoning for it not being a choice is that LGBT youth is four times more likely to commit suicide (or try). If it were a choice this number would never exist. Part of the answer to a higher likelihood to attempted suicide is probably family and social acceptance, but that raises the question; why would gay youth remain homosexual if all they had to do is “switch over” to heterosexuality?? Why would they struggle through all that hardship if it destroys their wellbeing??
Also, many less fortunate people who live in countries where homosexuality is punishable with death would never put themselves at such great risk if it was a choice.
To keep this in line with the topic of UAFA I must say that this bill would never exist if it was a choice. Why go through years if struggle of introducing (and re-introducing) this bill when gay people could “chose” a straight relationship?
One thing I know is that I didn’t chose to be gay, just as many of my friends didn’t chose to be straight.