No announcement yet.


  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts



  • #2


    • #3
      which country are u from ?
      For me there is nothing to do but wait until the PPIA passes !!!!!!! Let's hope it will be for january........
      Love and compation, you are not alone.


      • #4
        julie, i am russian. my interview is on the 7 january.
        u can e mail me at


        • #5
          Just being gay or lesbian does not qualify you for asylum. You must be able to prove that you were persecuted because of your sexual orientation or that you have a reasonable fear that you would be persecuted if you were returned to your home country. You should apply for asylum only if you have a viable claim.

          To determine whether or not you may have a strong application for asylum, you must contact an attorney as soon as possible.

          Before applying for asylum you should discuss with an attorney whether or not to file an application and what are the consequences of filing an application for asylum. For example, the filing of an administrative application for asylum by an immigrant who is out of status may result in the immigrant being placed in deportation proceedings.

          (NEW YORK June 26, 1997) -- A San Francisco federal appeals court this week gave new hope to a Russian lesbian and other gay people seeking political asylum, sending the case of Alla Pitcherskaia back to the Bureau of Immigration Appeals, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund said Thursday.

          The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the highest court ever to rule on a gay asylum case, said that lesbians and gay men who suffer violence in their homelands need not prove the malicious intent of persecutors claiming that they act only to "cure" gay people such as with forced psychiatric hospitalization, electroshock therapy, or drugs.

          "The court recognized the cruelty and discrimination in government anti-gay persecution, regardless of the excuses that governments may give," said Lambda Staff Attorney Suzanne B. Goldberg, who argued on Pitcherskaia's behalf before the appeals court.

          Lambda Legal Director Beatrice Dohrn added, "This decision not only puts Alla's case in a new light, it allows other lesbian and gay asylum seekers, who are often persecuted in their homelands under the guise of dubious 'treatments,' to hope for safety here."

          The 35-year-old Pitcherskaia, who now lives in San Francisco, is seeking political asylum in the United States in In Re Pitcherskaia. She was beaten, harassed, and forcibly detained by both the Russian police and organized crime members for being a lesbian and advocate for lesbian and gay civil rights.

          As Goldberg told the court at a December 11, 1996, hearing, if returned to Russia, Pitcherskaia faces so-called 'treatments' others have suffered for their sexual orientation. Since her absence from Russia, her business has also been destroyed and a co-worker murdered. The court's unanimous decision, issued Tuesday and written by Judge Betty B. Fletcher, said, "That a persecutor believes that the harm is 'good for' the victim does not make it any less painful to the victim or remove the conduct from the statutory definition of persecution. Human rights laws cannot be sidestepped simply by couching torture in benevolent terms such as 'curing' or 'treating' the victim."

          The federal appeals court's decision finds a 1995 U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejection of Pitcherskaia's application for political asylum erroneous based on its emphasis on the intent of her persecutors; the court remanded her case for reconsideration. San Francisco attorney Ignatius Bau, who is co-counsel with Lambda in the case, said, "This ruling marks the first time a federal appeals court has ruled on political asylum for someone facing anti-gay persecution in her home country. It represents a critical step in acknowledging that the persecution of lesbians and gay men around the world is a fundamental consideration when reviewing applications for political asylum. "

          Targeted by the Russian police since her youth for being a lesbian, the only criminal charge ever brought against Pitcherskaia, even after years of arrests and beatings at their hands, was "hooliganism." This charge is often used against lesbians and gays and allows police to arrest and detain persons for up to 15 days without trial and for up to 5 years following a conviction.

          Pitcherskaia was expelled from medical college for being in a lesbian relationship; she repeatedly lost jobs because the police would come to her places of employment to harass her. After trying to start her own business with gay co-workers, she was targeted by Russian organized crime. Pitcherskaia was kidnaped and assaulted, her friends were beaten, her car was burned, and her apartment was burglarized. When she asked police for help, they refused to send their officers to defend "perverts." After Pitcherskaia left her home country in 1992, the Russian Mafia destroyed her business and killed one of her co-workers. She applied for asylum after being advised by her mother that the Mafia was still looking for her and that it was not safe to return.

          Lambda also is supporting the asylum claim of a Brazilian gay man seeking to escape paramilitary death squads which target gay men (Matter of Tenorio) and the asylum claim of a Honduran lesbian brutally gang-raped because of her sexual orientation who fears further attack (Matter of Yanez-Flores).

          Hope that helps.


          • #6
            i have to say that i feel very discriminatet just because of the way i love. i came here a few years ago and fell in love with a women. i did not want her to leave her family so i decided to overstay my visa and try to find another way to live with her. i do not regert of staying with her because i love her with all my heart. i just wish there would be a law that same sexcouples can get marride and have the same rights as straight couples.i wish all same sexcouples good luck!!


            • #7
              discrimination is a naturally-occurring human behavior. the minority (in this case you) will always be singled out by the majority (me). its a fact that such behavior will be recognized (discriminated) because it is not of the majority. the majority views the minority as freaks. if you are a woman, and you like to be intimate with the vagina of other women, you are viewed as a freak by the majority. the majority, by definition, has voting power over the minority. thus, you will not get your way. i suggest that you buy a house plant and eat alot of chocolate.


              • #8
                I found an execellent article related to the issues discussed here:



                • #9
                  as an undergrad, i minored in sociology. one thing i learned about sociologists - they can convince themselves (and often others) of almost anything, based on scewed data. if i want to prove something radical, i would search out a radical pool to collect my sample in. sample 1,500 men in san francisco and im certain at least 50% will claim to take it in the 'ol ****er. but, i am certain - without a shadow of a doubt - 50% of american men are not fags. you are wrong. and, i find my own personal satisfaction in knowing: deep down inside, you know you're statistical study is NOT representative of the larger population. i can prove that there is a positive statistical correlation between eating mcdonalds apple pies and trips through a mcdonalds drive thru. go play your statistical hocus pocus elsewhere.


                  • #10
                    whatever, I think you are gay!


                    • #11
                      I agree with you, B-Sex...I'd like to add also that the open presence of homosexuals is considered intolerable within the already extremely homoerotic context of our society's life because it undermines what we might call the "heterosexual alibi," the security "straight" men can feel despite the constant homoeroticism of their lives because of the belief that gay men are fundamentally and identifiably different from themselves.

                      Without that alibi to protect them, the obvious pleasure many straight men get from homoerotic situations (if you doubt this, spend some time in a gym) begins to look too much like what it actually is -- a covert and sublimated way of gratifying forbidden "homosexual" desires. Straight men spend so much time nervously identifying and parodying "gay" mannerisms in order to reassure themselves and others that they couldn't possibly be gay themselves, since they don't act like that. The heterosexual alibi is perpetuated by any and every insistence that there is an objectively measurable difference between "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals" that goes beyond the specifics of their genital relations -- which also means that it's not just straight people who buy into the heterosexual alibi.

                      Without the heterosexual alibi of the essential difference between straight and gay, heterosexuals are faced with the reality that there are people who seem just like themselves, but who not only openly admit to forbidden homosexual attractions, but even go so far as to act on them with pleasure and satisfaction! If you were someone who had invested a lot of energy in the psychological work of repressing and denying your own homosexual attractions -- with all the necessary frustration and unpleasure that entails, you'd probably find the presence of open homosexuals intolerable, too. Who wants to find out that all that hard work wasn't necessary? And if you couldn't get rid of them, you might find a safe outlet for your own frustration -- sorry, I mean confusion -- in tormenting them, "proving" your own essential difference even as you unconsciously mirror their interest in homosexual arousal.

                      So finally my point is simply that the opposition to open gays in our society is really about trying to preserve the heterosexual alibi. When there are gay men in the locker rooms, so to speak, behaving pretty much just like the straight men do, then suddenly all that innocent, playful homoeroticism -- that "typical guy behavior" -- might not look so innocent any more, simply because we can recognize its erotic dimensions. And now it's time to confront the fact that the only reason there is any problem here at all is because of the entrenched belief that homosexual desires are unnatural and bad (the more liberal version being that the desires are bad but OK, so long as you don't act on them, but it amounts to the same thing). If we accepted homosexual desire as a normal component of human sexuality that varies in strength in each individual -- which is what experience as opposed to ideology tells us -- then same-sex attractions wouldn't be a problem, and neither would gays in the military.

                      Unfortunately, it is not just homophobic straights who seek to preserve and strengthen the heterosexual alibi. The ways in which gay people commonly understand and define their own "sexual identities" are also often deeply complicit with the heterosexual alibi. Partly the insistence upon the essential difference of gay identity has been useful for both the political and psychological survival. If gays are indistinguishable from straights in everything but their sexual practices, then we are invisible, and invisibility leads to isolation, fear and weakness. Adoption of a number of common "markers" of gayness -- in the ways we dress, talk, consume, etc. -- helps us find each other and thus support each other. However, it looks like gay people are perhaps even more likely than straights to forget that these markers have been attached to their sexual orientation and are not, therefore, necessary functions of their homosexuality. In other words, people tend to act as though they believe, in accord with the heterosexual alibi, that there is an essential and thus absolute difference between gay and straight, which manifests itself in more than just our choice of sexual partners.

                      The most widely-publicized study has been the "gay brain" research conducted by Simon LeVay at the Salk Institute. LeVay claims to have found a meaningful difference in the size of the hypothalamus in gay men and straight men. I am not going to go into the details of his work, or the numerous objections that have been raised about his very questionable methodology -- all that has been detailed elsewhere. What I am interested in here are the underlying motivations for his research, which are shared by others seeking to prove that homosexuality is biologically-determined. LeVay, like many others who are committed to this theory, is himself gay. The interest in establishing a biological basis for homosexuality, according to public statements from LeVay and his supporters, comes from the wish to help gay people by showing the world that they can't help being gay, that it's part of their biological make-up and thus "out of their control."

                      While one may be sympathetic to the idea that if the straight world would just accept that gays do not "choose" to be attracted strongly and primarily to individuals of their own sex, then they stand a better chance of gaining acceptance and toleration, I find the implications of this reasoning to be dangerously self-defeating for gay people. For in defending their sexuality by saying that "they have no choice," aren't gays implying that if they did have a choice, they both shouldn't and wouldn't choose to be gay? That therefore, in some deep sense, it really is "better" to be straight, and abnormal to be gay?

                      I think that gay people would better serve their interests by insisting, firmly and unequivocally, that there is simply nothing wrong with homosexuality and that therefore all questions of where it comes from are irrelevant.

                      The position that gays have "no choice" about their sexual desires is objectionable not least because it is an extension of the victim-oriented logic that currently dominates "progressive" or "liberal" thinking. To say that gay people do not choose their sexual preferences is to make them into victims of their desires; and however titillating it may be to think of themselves as thralls to their passions, it is hardly a responsible position to take. As victims of repression and oppression, gay people have an obvious stake in expanding their human sexual freedom, not further restricting it by building limitations into their biology.

                      And it is also the case that arguments which seek to establish a biological basis for sexual preference are fully complicit with the heterosexual alibi, since both are efforts to establish some absolute difference between gay and straight. The theory that one is biologically constituted as either heterosexual or homosexual -- that the two are mutually exclusive rather than complementary -- is just as likely in practical terms to make it easier for straight people to dismiss their "confusions" and to consolidate their homoerotic-homophobic identities as it is likely to make them more sympathetic to gays.


                      Since the basis of sympathy is some sort of identification, a recognition of one's self in another, I think the cause of liberating themselves as gay people would be better served by liberating the gay potential in everyone (as well as the straight potential in themselves).


                      Only then would "straight" people come to realize that in attacking us they are attacking something within themselves.


                      We are all, as human beings, potential bisexuals who have been taught, through an elaborate system of social rewards and punishments, to see ourselves as "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals." The fact that bisexuals are in a very real sense the most invisible "sexual identity" makes perfect sense in these terms: the existence of functionally bisexual individuals radically undermines any belief in the exclusivity of heterosexual and homosexual attractions. What we know about how human beings actually experience their sexual desires supports the position that bisexuality is the norm, while both hetero- and homosexuality are learned restrictions of that potential.

                      This does not mean that when either gay or straight people say that they feel like they are "really" heterosexual or homosexual that they are being untruthful. It just means that they have so successfully conformed to dominant ideas of sexual identity that whatever bisexual potential they once had has atrophied, even to the point of its effective extinction. In other words, just because our identities are socially constructed doesn't mean that they aren't, in a very real way, "authentic." However, just because your own sexuality has been crippled by your socialization doesn't mean you want to promote your limitations as the "natural" standard for others, such as the future generations of humanity. You know that it feels like you have no choice in your sexual orientation toward men/women; but you also know that you are capable of attractions to women/men that, if they had been handled differently earlier in your development, might have led to your being bisexual rather than homo/hetero-sexual (I doubt you could ever have been "straight"/"gay").

                      What we are talking about is a fully human sexuality, rather than the pre-human "sexual identities" that now afflict us. The people we now call "homosexuals" are most likely, seen in this light, that relatively small minority of individuals whose homosexual attractions are so much stronger than our heterosexual attractions as to render those latter feelings almost invisible. In that sense we "have no choice." Similarly, we would expect to find a comparable minority of people for whom the opposite is true, who "have no choice" but to be heterosexual. But I think that in a fully human society, the overwhelming majority of people would fall somewhere in the middle, more or less indifferent to the biological sex of their partners, attracted instead to the qualities of individuals as humans and not as sexes. Of course there would be varying degrees of bisexuality, with some people tending to choose one sex rather than the other. But the important point here is that it would be a choice, and thus an affirmation of our freedom -- and freedom to choose is what makes us human.


                      • #12
                        A friend of mine was fortunate enough to have a same-sex analyst who was not in the least bit offended by his homoerotic imagery, which came up constantly during the analysis. His encounter with what he would have to call his "psychical homosexuality" played a huge part in his own development, and yet he remained, despite this, basically heterosexual in his orientation.

                        Sexuality strikes him ever since as polymorphous, complex, and not at all concerned with our day-world classifications and fixed categories, much less our prejudices. In his own analysis, the more deeply he looked into his own sexuality, the more fluid, wild, and disturbingly complex it became. The pain released by this personal crisis was incredible, but the transference to the analyst served to contain and hold the pain.

                        He went into analysis a committed heterosexual, during analysis was virtually flooded with his own repressed homosexual feeling, and after analysis accepted his own sexual complexity, and felt sceptical about all fixed classifications. Pure Freud. In fact, it was Freud who originally suggested that the resistance to psychoanalysis, especially in men, is a fear of being exposed to their repressed homosexuality. All human beings are capable of making a homosexual object-choice and have in fact made one in their unconscious! It is fun to read the conservative, right-wing Freudians, who pretend that Freud never said this. Reuben Fine, for instance, writes: "We can give no validity to Freud's alleged statement about human bisexuality, which is a common misquotation from, and misunderstanding of, Freud". (!)

                        My friend's experience in analysis is not unique. We don't just "meet the shadow", or "encounter anima/animus", or see images of the mandala - all the classical features of the Jungian experience - but we also dream of passionate encounters with same-sex lovers. In his case, he felt this was partly connected with the psyche trying to repair a faulty connection to his father, and, through that faulty link, to all men, and to the male body. Hence, "homoerotic desire and the fathering spirit".

                        But in his dreams themselves, homophobia was strongly activated. Either some resistance in the dream ego, or an "external" superego figure, often tried to stop the sexual encounter with a same-sex partner. This gave him an insight into how homophobia can be injurious to the soul, and how it can block or repress one's own masculine development.

                        I do believe gay men have a great deal to teach heterosexual men about initiation and mourning the loss of power in the culture. Gay community is the story of what men gain by sacrificing the power conferred by gender when they come out of the closet. This is not an imagined or remembered experience but the pivotal real-life experience of every out gay man -- a usually terrifying sacrifice of conventional values and power. I honestly believe this threatens most heterosexual men (and the institutions they control), although it usually gets expressed simplistically in statements about envy or contempt of our sexual freedom.

                        The so-called straight men say they have no models for going "beyond the hero" and the conventional male warrior, forgetting or repressing the model that is right under their noses and represented for them in the gay community -- the man who has renounced, by whatever process and for various reasons, the "patriarchal dividend" i.e. the 'payoff' for being part of the patriarchy.

                        * * *

                        Straight men have much to learn from their homosexual counterparts about handling, containing, and transforming the pain that results from their "falling out" of unconscious identity with the patriarchy.

                        * * *

                        The patriarchy will die hard, and slowly, and there are not too many prizes for those who want to attempt a post-patriarchal consciousness. But forget about the prizes, and let's get on with the work


                        • #13
                          Wow, not sure what to say here...I guess being homosexual is being described here in a way as to make people who don't do it look stupid...


                          • #14
                            As an American gay man I'm proud to announce that:

                            $ 13% of American women have reached ****** from at least one homosexual experience.

                            $ 28% of American women have been conscious of a specifically erotic response to another female.

                            $ 4% of American males are exclusively homosexual for their entire lives.

                            $ 10% of American males are exclusively homosexual for 3 or more consecutive years during post-adolescence (18 to 65).

                            $ 18% of American males have at least as much homosexual experience as heterosexual experience for 3 or more years During post-adolescence.

                            $ 30% of American males have reached an ****** by having fellatio performed on them by another male.

                            $ 50% of American males have some homosexual experience leading to ****** after adolescence.

                            $ 60% of American males are sexually attracted to another male at least once during post-adolescence.




                            • #15
                              whatever is extremely prejudiced and I suspect s/he is repressed lesbian/gay because precisely these people exhibit extreme levels of homophobia.

                              whatever, hun, don't you see how beautifully a poster on the top of yourself has described why supposedly gay sex is not normal? I'm repeating it:

                              Gays/lesbians are not oppressed on a whim, but because of the specific need of capitalism for the *nuclear family.* This kind of family, as the primary - and inexpensive - creator of submissive people (growing up within the authoritarian family gets children used to, and "respectful" of, hierarchy and subordination) fulfils an important need for capitalism. Alternative sexuality represents a threat to the family model because they provide a different role model for people. This means that homosexual-practising people are going to be in the front line of attack whenever capitalism wants to reinforce "family values" (i.e. submission to authority, "tradition", "morality" and so on).


                              Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                              Home Page

                              Immigration Daily


                              Processing times

                              Immigration forms

                              Discussion board



                              Twitter feed

                              Immigrant Nation


                              CLE Workshops

                              Immigration books

                              Advertise on ILW



                              About ILW.COM

                              Connect to us



                              Immigration Daily