No announcement yet.

Blogging: Will There Be A Marriage Between Immigration Reform and Equality for Same Sex Couples? By Roger Algase


  • Blogging: Will There Be A Marriage Between Immigration Reform and Equality for Same Sex Couples? By Roger Algase

    Will There Be A Marriage Between Immigration Reform and Equality for Same Sex Couples?

    by Roger Algase

    The last 10 days of September, 1996 were not good ones for tolerance, equality or human rights in America. On September 21, 1996, President Clinton signed DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies immigration rights, along with a host of other federal benefits, to same sex married couples.

    And on September 30. 1996, President Clinton signed IIRIRA, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, with its full array of harsh penalties against unauthorized immigrants and immigrants convicted of minor crimes, as well as its imposition of additional barriers to legal status for immigrants trying to play by the rules.

    The timing of these two laws was no coincidence. They were both passed by a Republican-controlled Congress barely over a month before that year's presidential election, and were designed to appeal to anti-Latino and anti-gay prejudice among significant parts of the electorate. President Clinton had good reason to worry about his reelection chances if he vetoed either of these bills.

    Now, almost a generation later, America is a more diverse country ethnically and it is also more accepting of same sex marriages, which, unlike in 1996, are now legal in some states. The Constitutionality of DOMA will come up for oral argument in the Supreme Court on March 26.

    At the same time, the main intention of IIRIRA, which was to slow down or reverse Latino and other minority immigration to the US, is likely to be thrown out as up to 11 million unauthorized immigrants are granted some form of legal status in one or another of the immigration reform packages now under consideration by Congress.

    Not only has former president Clinton renounced his support of DOMA and come out in favor of immigration reform, but so have many leading Republicans in the wake of last November's election. But will both of these great moral issues be resolved in a final version of Comprehensive Immigration Reform that includes green cards and other immigration rights for partners in same sex marriages?

    Or will the strategy of divide and conquer result in a trade-off in which increased tolerance toward non-white immigrants in the form of legalization will be achieved only at the price of perpetuation of bigotry against same sex couples (assuming that anti-gay "conservative" Justices in the Supreme Court prevail and DOMA is upheld)?

    One key to answering this may be in the attitudes toward same sex marriages in the Latino communities themselves. Most Latinos, obviously, are in favor of immigrant rights. But some Latino evangelicals are more conservative on "social" issues and support "traditional family values", i.e. opposition to same sex marriages, according to a March 14 article in The Christian Post entitled: Hispanic Community Conflicted Over Gay Rights in Immigration Reform.

    Ironically, even if some Latinos can be persuaded to uphold continued bigotry against GLBT people in the name of "family values", they may find their own access to family reunification visas sharply reduced in an immigration reform package which upholds this form of bigotry against Latinos in the name of the critically important goal of promoting high tech immigration.

    Why does the worthy objective of attracting more skilled workers have to be achieved at the price of breaking up Latino and other minority families? And will there be a marriage between supporters of same sex equality and supporters of immigrant rights in opposition to continuation of legalized bigotry against both communities? That would be the best hope for real immigration reform, which is part of the ongoing effort to eliminate hate and prejudice against all minorities from American society.

    About The Author

    Roger Algase is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He has been practicing business immigration law in New York City for more than 20 years.

    The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone and should not be imputed to ILW.COM.
      Posting comments is disabled.





    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles


    • Birthright Citizenship Is Not A Legal Assumption; It's the Law by Kristie De Pena

      08-21-2018, 03:12 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