No announcement yet.

Blogging: Violence Against Women Act (WAWA) Reauthorized But the Debate Over Immigration and Same Sex Marriage is Far from Over by Danielle L. C. Beach


  • Blogging: Violence Against Women Act (WAWA) Reauthorized But the Debate Over Immigration and Same Sex Marriage is Far from Over by Danielle L. C. Beach-Oswald

    Bloggings on Immigration Law

    by Danielle Beach-Oswald

    Bloggings: Violence Against Women Act (Vawa) Reauthorized But The Debate Over Immigration Reform And Same Sex Marriage Is Far From Over, by: Danielle L. C. Beach-Oswald

    MAR. 8 – The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), drafted by then Senator Joe Biden with Senator Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) passed last Thursday in Congress following a 2012 stalemate on reauthorization.  Although focused on domestic violence, VAWA will likely spark further debates on same sex marriage and immigration reform.

    Three main provisions at issue were domestic violence on tribal lands, protection extended to LGBTQ abuse victims, and providing temporary visas to undocumented battered women.

    There is currently a gap between federal law and Indian law which VAWA hopes to bridge.  Namely, prior to the reauthorization, a Native woman facing domestic violence by a non-Native man, had no remedy against him since Indian law only carried jurisdiction over Indian men in domestic violence cases.  However, the new VAWA provisions implement concurrent jurisdiction.

    According to the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, Tribal courts will now have jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants with "sufficient ties to the Indian tribe."  This means that if the victim of domestic violence resides on Indian land, works for the Indian country, or is the spouse or intimate partner of an Indian, that tribe has jurisdiction to prosecute domestic and dating violence.

    The second issue which VAWA faced in Congress is the provision extending protection to LGBTQ abuse victims.  As the previous Act stipulated, VAWA was intended to protect women, and opponents contended that by stretching VAWA to include the LGBTQ community, already vulnerable shelters working on shoestring budgets open themselves up to litigation and the government to further debate on same-sex issues. 

    Something is to be said for broadening definitions to reach across and protect others that were not within VAWA as it stood previously.  True, VAWA was intended to protect women against abuse, but what of a gay man abused by his partner and shows up at the door of a women's shelter rather than a men's shelter where he feels unsafe (and rightly so after a violent experience with a man) invoking the protection of VAWA?  Or a woman in an ongoing emotionally abusive relationship that wants justice as per the new definition of abuse?  Or as the ACLU initially pointed out, what of harsh sentences, including mandatory HIV testing of men charged, but not convicted, under the Act?

    These were expected to be a major issue of opposition for Conservatives who opposed VAWA in 2012.  Surprisingly, VAWA passed despite Conservative opposition in the run up to the upcoming seminal same sex Supreme Court case on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

    “Today is about all the Americans who face discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity when they seek help,” President Obama said to a cheering crowd at the signing.

    It's hard to say whether this will impact the way that Americans view sexual identity and same sex marriage – but there's no denying the present shift in US opinion – or perhaps the present shift in US political opinion surrounding sexuality.

    The issue of immigration however, seems much more layered and multifaceted in comparison.  Not only dealing with the issue of violence against undocumented women, but the immigration debate, including accountability of employers, employment exploitation, and sexual exploitation.

    On the one hand, you have a situation where women are not legally allowed to be here in the first place – thus flouting US law.  On the other hand, the injustices of ongoing abuse arguably outweigh her legal status to reside and work here.

    Although VAWA won't be able to please both sides of this heated debate, as with any legislation, it needs to cater to the evolution of an ever-changing society while still within Constitutional bounds.
    “Today’s signing of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization into law gives women and all victims of domestic violence across America the peace of mind that their government will not abandon them in their time of need," said one of the original authors of the bill, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D., NY).

    However, one can't deny how contradictory the Violence Against Women Act affords umbrella protections to both marginalized men and women, but fails to recognize these individuals and families under the color of law.  LGBTQ couples are protected from violence even though federal law fails to recognize their relationships, and illegal immigrants can in theory voice their victimization from abusers, yet continue to be rounded up and ripped from their families for crossing the wrong border at the wrong time.  Whether Congress intended to lay the foundations for support of immigration reform and same sex marriage or not, it seems that VAWA may be the gateway to both.

    image source

    About The Author

    Danielle Beach-Oswald is the current President and Managing Partner of Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Associates in Washington, DC. Ms. Beach utilizes her 19 years of experience in immigration law to help individuals immigrate to the United States for humanitarian reasons. Born in Brussels, Belgium, Ms. Beach has lived in England, Belgium, Italy and Ivory Coast and has traveled extensively to many countries. Ms. Beach advocates for clients from around the world who seek freedom from torture in their country, or who are victims of domestic violence and trafficking. She has also represented her clients at U.S. Consulates in Romania, China, Canada, Mexico, and several African countries. With her extensive experience in family-based and employment-based immigration law Ms. Beach not only assists her clients in obtaining a better standard of living in the United States, she also helps employers obtain professional visas, and petitions for family members. She also handles many complex naturalization issues. Ms. Beach has unique expertise representing clients in immigration matters pending before the Federal District Courts, Circuit Courts, Board of Immigration Appeals and Immigration Courts. She has won over 400 humanitarian cases in the United States. Her firm's website is

    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.
      Posting comments is disabled.





    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles


    • Article: Birthright Citizenship Is Not A Legal Assumption; It
      Last week on Fox News, Tucker Carlson said,
      08-21-2018, 01:24 PM
    • Blogging: Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation.. By Roger Algase
      Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation. Trashing Immigrant Rights Endangers Freedom of All Americans.

      CNN reports on August 21 that 175 former US officials have denounced Donald Trump for revoking the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan for speaking out in opposition to Trump.

      Presidential use of "national security"
      08-21-2018, 12:54 PM
    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko

      If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

      08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
    • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
      Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
      08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
    • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
      Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
      08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
    • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.

      Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence


      On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families).

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM