On April 14, 2011, I held my newborn nephew, Wee Man, tight against my chest as he dozed in a state we all refer to as “drunk baby.” With his right eye closed and his left eye rolled back in pure post-feed ecstasy, he cooed rhythmically as I stroked his back and drank in his pure baby smell. In that moment I was so overwhelmed with gratitude at the time I had gotten to spend with him and the rest of my family over the previous two weeks. Sitting in that rocking chair and looking around at my Mom, Grandma, sister-in-law and C all together, my eyes started to fill with tears. I got up and went into my Grandma’s room with Wee Man and wept uncontrollably. I wasn’t ready to say goodbye again.
Although in reality I am only ever a day’s travel away from my family, the distance never feels as vast as when I turn that first corner away from my Mom’s house and watch their waving arms disappear from view. I think this is because I’m never sure what I will be facing when I return. When I kiss my family goodbye, there is a part of me that knows there is a chance I will never see them again. That may seem ridiculous, but it was underlined by my Mom’s accident in 2009. Also, my Grandmother is 92 and even though she is still in remarkable health, I have to accept the fact that even she cannot live forever.
This goodbye drove home a new realisation to me. Wee Man had already changed so much in the 14 days since I had met him and I was distinctly aware of everything I was going to miss between that day and my next arrival. I reflected back on how much I hadn’t experienced in my grandmother’s mother’s and brother’s day-to-day lives and, equally, how much I have not been able to share with them over the previous 8 years and I immediately began to mourn all the time I would not be able to spend with this newest addition to our family.
As if sensing my distress, Wee Man stirred and started to fuss as C came in to comfort me. She has seen me fall to bits like this on two previous visits and knows that there is no stopping it. She lovingly and patiently watched me express my overwhelming frustration and sadness for a third time, even though I know it broke her heart to watch me cry from all the way from my Grandmother’s bedroom to O’hare airport.
I know the same limitations on the amount of quality time I spend with my family would apply to any situation where I didn’t live within easy access and I accept that I made the decision to move away from them in the first place. At the same time, life circumstances change and we should all be able to make choices in response to those changes. The existing legislative framework set out by the US federal government does not give me a choice; it gives me an ultimatum. There is no situation that allows me to live with C and be near my family.
Ironically, as I said yet another goodbye to my family in Illinois, the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) was being re-introduced to Congress by Representative Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). It would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to introduce ‘permanent partner’ as a new sponsorship category, defining ‘permanent partner’ as an individual 18 years or older who:
a) Is in a committed, intimate relationship with another individual 18 years or older in which both parties intend a lifelong commitment;
b) Is financially interdependent with that other individual;
c) Is not married to or in a permanent partnership with anyone else;
d) Is unable to contract with that other individual a marriage cognizable under the Immigration and Nationality Act; and
e) Is not a first, second or third degree blood relative of that individual.
As far as I can tell, point d above means that UAFA would only benefit US citizens and permanent residents looking to sponsor their same-sex partner for immigration. This recognises that heterosexual couples have the choice to enter into marriage if they need to for immigration purposes. In effect, UAFA seeks to add the words “or permanent partner” after every reference to “spouse” throughout the entire Immigration and Nationality Act to ensure immigration equality for all, regardless of sexuality.
As it currently stands, there are no Republicans supporting UAFA in either the House or the Senate, and Democrats seem to be divided on the issue as well. So what exactly is the contention? Rep Nadler pointed out opponents’ two main arguments on MSNBC recently, namely:
1. Passing UAFA would lead to rampant cases of fraud. Fraud is already a serious concern under the existing system. It is relatively easy for one man and one woman to get a marriage certificate as no one checks to make sure they are a genuine couple when they legally register their union. That places the responsibility on the immigration assessment process to ensure the truthfulness of applicants seeking to settle in the USA as the spouse of a citizen or permanent resident. UAFA opponents feel that introducing ‘permanent partner’ as a new sponsorship category will make it even easier for people to cheat the system. In my opinion, the problem of fraud is an issue to be addressed as part of the wider immigration reforms and it should not be used block immigration equality.
2. UAFA is a backdoor route to federal support for gay marriage. By specifying an age of consent, exclusivity in the relationship and genetic distance the qualifying criteria by which UAFA defines ‘permanent partner’ closely reflect that required for a man and a woman to enter into marriage (I discussed this in Go Forth and Multiply). However, apart from immigration sponsorship, UAFA does not extend any of the benefits, rights and responsibility associated with marriage to permanent partners. In fact, of the 19 countries that do recognise immigration rights for same-sex couples, only 5 have equalised marriage benefits. I have a feeling this is one of those ‘slippery slope’ arguments that those opposed to the so-called gay agenda makes against any proposal that would grant equal rights to homosexuals.
UAFA has been introduced in some form to every consecutive Congress since 2000 but it has always died in committee. The closest it ever came to being seriously considered was in 2009, when Senator Leahy, who is chairman of the Judiciary committee, bypassed the normal subcommittee and held a hearing to discuss it. You can watch the entire 2009 UAFA hearing here if you have a couple of hours to burn. Watching it this afternoon I was surprised and disappointed that I was watching a conversation from 3 years ago. The testimony statements from those affected by the discrimination are incredibly moving and still relevant, and the arguments given in opposition are exactly the same as those being put forward today.
The 2011 version of UAFA is almost word-for-word identical to the previous versions that have been introduced and it has clearly hit a political stalemate. Re-introducing the same proposal over and over again in this way means progress depends on a significant change to the hearts and minds of many politicians. Despite some significant steps forward in the LGBT movement, like the repeal of DADT, even Rep Nadler and Senator Leahy, who are sponsoring UAFA, aren’t hopeful that it will pass this year.
The only way to affect a political change is to throw a lot of money at politicians or to amass a significant amount of public support for a cause. Unfortunately, there is relatively little awareness of the immigration equality cause simply because there is no reason for anyone to consider it unless they are affected. Due to the very nature of this issue, visibility is not a strong point. Consider the following situations:
1. If the couple are living together in the US, the non-citizen/resident may not want to draw any attention to their relationship or their immigration status because:
· They could face problems in obtaining, maintaining or renewing a temporary visa for other reasons (e.g. work or study) if their relationship was made public; or
· They are in the country illegally.
2. If the non-citizen/resident is frequently travelling to and from the US, they may not want to draw any attention to their relationship because:
· They could be refused a tourist visa and entry to the US as a result of having ‘immigration intent’.
3. Those of us living together in other countries are significantly limited in our ability to represent ourselves to American society in any capacity.
That is why it is so important for people, like me, who are affected by it to share our stories, and for those who are sympathetic to our situation, like you, to talk about it with others. I will talk more about this in future posts, but C and I are at a crossroads in our own lives and are considering where in this world we want to live over the coming years. I would love to have the choice to move close to my family, but the reality is we will end up settling in a country where neither of us has any family or historical ties. There are a number of countries that recognise their economy and society would benefit from the skills and experience we have worked hard to attain and would gladly welcome us as a couple.
Even if this isn’t the year for immigration equality, we can collectively make a difference over time, and I would love to think that I may have a choice to permanently return to the country of my birth sometime before I die.
(If you’d like to do something worthwhile, the people at Immigration Equality have made it easy for you to email your representatives, share your story or let your friends know about these issues through their Action Fund.)
No comments:
Post a Comment