Queers and Immigration

[nycfem]

Not sure if a specific thread has been started about this (couldn't find one), so I thought I'd start one. I'm wondering how many of us out there have been personally affected by the lack of federal rights for marriage between same sex couples in regard to immigration. I thought we could tell our stories here, as I think it's important for us all to share. I know for myself that until this injustice touched my life in a personal way I didn't fully understand just how "not easy" this situation can be.

While I haven't been in a relationship with a significant other in which this was an issue, I lived through a hard seven years with my younger brother (my only sibling), Dave, and his partner, Jan (a man), as they went through this.

Dave and Jan met about fifteen years ago and fell deeply in love. Jan was traveling (staying in hostels) from his home in rural South Africa and answered a personal ad Dave had placed asking for some hot, safe sex with no strings attached. Of course, they just about instantly fell for each other in that "soul mate" way that neither of them had experienced before! They were inseparable, and our family, myself included, also became very attached to Jan, seeing that he was clearly going to be part of our family forever.

And then there was their greatest problem, how to be together. Jan, son of a preacher and not out with his family, felt very uncomfortable with doing anything dishonest but eventually they decided that their only realistic option for Jan to stay in New York was for him to marry a woman. Luckily a close lesbian friend agreed. She did so for a price, and that was understandable, not only was she putting herself at risk and complicating her life for many years to come but there is a lot of work involved to demonstrate when immigrating that a marriage is real. We quizzed them for hours on each other, and it was always upsetting when they missed what felt like an obvious question. Documents had to show them living together, mail had to go to the same address- the work sometimes felt endless and went on for years! Then they had to stay married for more years than they cared to before they could divorce, with Jan a citizen. Add to this that every time Jan traveled home to visit his family with whom he remained close, he risked not being able to leave and return to America. I, and my family, were constantly on edge, worrying about Jan as well as in knowing that Dave would move to South Africa in a heartbeat if things didn't work out here.

Luckily everything did ultimately work out, but whenever I see any couple going through this, I am moved in knowing how much heartache is involved in these unjust situations. About five years ago, when marriage became legal in South Africa, Dave and Jan, while planning to continue living in NYC, decided to have a legal marriage ceremony in South Africa. By this point Jan had come out to his family, and his father was planning to perform the ceremony. Sadly they were again thrown into a legal bind when they found out that though marriage had been legalized, queer couples who tried to marry were being blocked by government officials, who would simply not process the papers, making up excuse after excuse. Even with the pull of Jan's father, they were not able to legally marry, as was occurring for many other queer couples in South Africa. Jan's father performed the ceremony, but it was not legal. A few years ago, they married in Connecticut and life has become a lot easier for them, but I remember back in the day when it was not. I am curious to hear others' experiences.

[Greyson]

I was once in a Bi-National relationship. It was for me, heart wrenching. It changed my perspective of what being an American citizen and Queer really means.

Last week at the BV conference there was a workshop addressing this very subject. The panel consisted of four women identified lesbians. Each couple on the panel consisted of one American and one from a European country, Netherlands and England.

All of the women were over 50. One couple lived in the Netherlands and the other couple here in the SF Bay Area. The couple that lives here in the States recently wrote and published their story in a book.

Fighting for My Wife, Fighting for My Life - Judy Rickard

There were people in the audience still in Bi-National relationships and people who were now no longer in the relationship that was an immigration hell.

[Sparkle]

I am a US citizen and I was personally impacted by (the lack of) immigration provisions for LGBT citizens in the United States.

1996 - I met my former partner, a UK citizen, while she was in the US on a work visa. By the time her work visa expired we were very much in love and very shocked to discover that there was no way to extend her visa and no way for her to remain the US (legally).

In 1997 the Labour Party, under Tony Blair's leadership, created an "exception" to the immigration rules that allowed bi-national same-sex couples to apply for residency on the basis of their "relationship akin to marriage". It became clear (for us) that moving to the UK was our only option for remaining together.

However, in 1997 the requirements for temporary residency were very strict and not attainable for most of us. Couples had to demonstrate that they had been in a relationship "akin to marriage" for a minimum of four years; to prove your that you had to demonstrate "continual cohabitation" at the same address for minimally 3years and 8months of those 4years, joint financial accounts, leases, loans, utility bills etc. But it was a catch-22, because of restrictive immigration policies and the lack of provisions for LGBT people the world round and the scarcity of long term visas --- meeting this requirement was nigh on impossible for the majority of couples applying; nobody could legally sustain that period of physical togetherness. And very, very, very few applications were being approved.

When I moved to the UK, I did so knowing full well I would not be able to submit a successful residency application. I was admitted to the country as a tourist and before my visa expired I submitted an application for residency. The Home Office (IND) was in the midst of the most incredible backlog of visa applications and the average processing "wait time" was 18-24months!!! The advice from leading lawyers in the field was that I should submit my application because Stonewall was lobbying the government to lower the requirements to an attainable level and the lawyers *hoped* that would be achieved by the time my application was processed. And, they reasoned, if it wasn't lowered I would be so near to meeting the requirements that though my application may be denied, I could win my case in appeal (some 24-36months beyond that).

It was a huge gamble. With no guarantees. And now real end in sight.

When I submitted my application, I relinquished my passport to the longest queue in Great Britain, with zero assurance of success. I could not leave the UK without withdrawing my application and I could not work (legally) because I was subject to the restrictions of my original tourist visa which forbids employment.

Those two years were some of the longest and most challenging of my life. I had occasional cash-in-hand jobs, but my partner carried the burden of supporting us financially. During that time, I worked full time as an unpaid volunteer at Stonewall Lobby Group, the largest LGBT lobby group in Europe. I helped to manage the immigration information and support team, we ran an information/helpline, legal referral and advice line and monthly meetings for LGBT bi-national couples and LGBT asylum seekers. I feel deeply honoured to have been witness to so many courageous people's stories, and sometimes legal triumphs. Working at Stonewall saved my sanity and my sense of self-worth during those two years.

And working in the Stonewall office as the proverbial walls came tumbling down and queers were granted rights, piece meal, was simply amazing. I was in the office when the ban on gays in the military was lifted, when gay adoption was approved, when Section 28 was repealed, when the workplace diversity and equality policies were first drafted and adopted by the government...it was truly extraordinary.

And my lawyers were correct, the government did lower the requirements for same-sex immigration from 4-years continued cohabitation to 2-years, which we then squarely met. In the late Spring of 2000, after my Minister of Parliament (MP) intervened, I was returned my passport with the magic stamp and I was granted the right to work. I still remember how completely and utterly dumb with shock I was after I got the call. I didn't even laugh or weep until the next day.

I received my permanent residency in 2002 and I continued to live in London until late 2004, though my relationship ended two years before. Between 2001-2004 I sat on the Board for the immigration group, which by then had separated from Stonewall Lobby Group to become its own entity known now as the UKLGIG, United Kingdom Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group. During that period we spent a lot of time working to secure funding for LGBT asylum projects, an issue that continues to be very important to me.

As others have said, being a part of a bi-national couple is a deeply heart wrenching and unbelievably challenging set of experiences.

Ultimately, the stress of the process and the weight of the constant struggle did alter our relationship in ways that undid us, and (after all we'd been through together) it was incredibly difficult and painful for us to admit it wasn't working anymore. But I don't regret a minute of it!!! We were madly in love and we were willing to sacrifice everything to remain together.

And given the opportunity - I'd not do a thing differently.

I'm very grateful for having had the ability to go through the process; privilege (race, class, age, nationality, education, gender, gender presentation) played no small role in my ability to pursue that course of action. So many couples can't do what I did, for a million real and valid reasons.

The experience provided me with the most poignant and deeply felt understanding of the phrase "the personal is political"

And the cherry on top was that I met some of the most extraordinary human beings in the world because of that journey, and I am so grateful for the ways in which their lives and stories and love - touched and changed mine.

[Linus]

As someone who is going through this right now, it is a challenge. I'm lucky that I have work sponsorship for immigration (the company approached me a few months ago inquiring if I wanted a green card --- what do you think my response was?! HELL YA!) I could get my gender changed on my I.D. but it has already been a long ordeal to just do name and doing the rest all over again? Sigh. K has said that for all intents and purposes I am a "M" so why not but to me, it's just a letter on a piece of paper that doesn't truly define me as I am. I recognize my past and don't want to make it go away so easily.

Anyways, it's been an interesting process at doing this while go through a L1-B and H1-B visas and now the green card option.

[suebee]

My partner and I are extremely lucky in that we live in towns on opposite sides of the U.S/Canada border. While we're restricted in how many nights we can spend "across the river", we can see each other every day. We were sorely disappointed a couple of years ago when the Maine electorate voted to repeal the then recently-passed marriage equality bill. But in the end, DOMA would have - and still does preclude any possibility of us being together in the States. Luckily Canada recognized marriage equality an number of years ago, and we are planning to get married later this year. I don't even want to think about the heartbreak we'd be living if we didn't have that option. My heart goes out to those who are living through it. It's incredible that my partner, a U.S. citizen, literally has to choose between love and country. Absolutely incredible.

Sue

[Greyson]

I was talking to a Queer Canadian friend about one month ago who is married to a Queer American. I told her I thought that some things were changing, slowly. I also told her that I think there is quite a bit of discretion given to the immigration officials in making the decision to deport or not. In other words, if you live in a conservative part of the States, it is even more difficult to get through the Immigration quagmire.

__________________________________________________ ______________


Deportation tide changing for gay couples

By Matt O'Brien
Contra Costa Times
08/26/2011


OAKLAND -- When a judge last week closed a deportation case against Filipino immigrant Raul Sinense, he and his husband, Peter Gee, celebrated by having coffee together on Berkeley's Solano Avenue.

The low-key celebration suited the low-key couple, who married on a Big Sur beach during the six-month window in 2008 when same-sex marriage was legal in California.

The occasion, however, also marked a turning point: The Oakland pair is one of just three gay couples nationwide to benefit from a new Obama administration policy that orders immigration officials to reconsider deporting illegal immigrants who have strong community and family ties.

"This is a really pivotal case," Gee said. "It seems like the tide is changing in the U.S. toward inclusion, toward equality, toward human."

Immigration Judge Tue Phan-Quang ordered the case against Sinense closed on Aug. 16 because the immigration service said a few days earlier it was no longer seeking to deport Sinense to the Philippines. The problems are not over for Sinense -- his case is not decisively terminated, just on indefinite hold -- but the action means the couple won't be separated and Sinense can reapply for a work permit.

"San Francisco right now is really the center of this policy shift," said Camiel Becker, the couple's lawyer. "We have judges who don't want to deport people if they're in a same-sex marriage. It's not just by chance. The trial attorneys and the judges understand this is a human right. If we were in the Harlingen, Texas, court, this would not be happening. This is all discretionary."

A June 17 memorandum from John Morton, the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was the first sign of major changes happening within the nation's complicated immigration enforcement apparatus, which deported a record 393,000 people last year.

Morton listed new guidelines for agents to use "prosecutorial discretion" when deciding whom to deport, and said special consideration should be made for students and other upstanding immigrants, especially when their removal from the country would split a family apart. For much of the summer, however, lawyers across the country remained unclear about whether the agency would show same-sex spouses the same discretion it shows opposite-sex spouses and other immediate family members.

Six states allow same-sex marriages but the federal government does not recognize them.

On June 29, a federal immigration judge in New Jersey was the first to halt the deportation of a gay spouse, a Venezuelan man who had married a U.S. citizen in Connecticut.

On July 13, San Francisco-based immigration Judge Marilyn Teeter halted the deportation of another Venezuelan man, Alex Benshimol, who had married his Southern California partner in Connecticut. Teeter gave immigration officials two months to contest her decision.

The answer came Aug. 11, when Aaron Keesler, a lawyer for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, wrote back that the agency was dropping its case against Benshimol.

On the same day, Keesler said the deportation case against Sinense was being dropped, and a judge formally closed that case Aug. 16.

That made Sinense, 46, and Gee, 49, one of the first three binational gay couples to be spared from separation as a result of the new policy.

"I see myself growing old with Peter," Sinense said. "It would have been difficult starting my whole life over again."

White House officials and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano made the new discretionary policy more explicit Aug. 18 when they announced they would begin a case-by-case review of the nation's 300,000 pending deportation cases and close those against many illegal immigrants who are not criminals or repeat violators of immigration laws. The White House also made clear, for the first time, that same-sex marriages would be treated as a family tie.

Gee said the reprieve brought closure to a difficult time for the couple, who moved to East Oakland from Southern California less than two years ago.

"We were so naive about the whole process, what the options were, what to do," Gee said. "We don't have O.J. Simpson's legal budget."

Sinense has lived in California for about 15 years and had been working to get a green card. An insurance company agreed to sponsor him for an employment-based visa, he said, and he was able to get a legal work permit as he waded through the application process. In the meantime, he also met Gee, a native Californian and professional artist, and fell in love.

At their wedding ceremony in 2008, Sinense told guests of Gee's "gentle aura." Gee described how he was immediately connected by Sinense's smile that put him at ease, and talked of their journey into a "most ordinary and simple life" together.

They learned the next year that it wouldn't be so simple. The work visa plans fell through in the recession and Sinense received a deportation notice in 2009. They talked about what would happen if Sinense was forced to leave.

For Becker, their lawyer, keeping the couple together wasn't just a matter of legal prowess. It was also personal.

A decade ago, Becker fell in love with a Salvadoran man while he was working in El Salvador. The pair wanted to move together to the United States, but the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which bans same-sex marriage, made it impossible for Becker to apply for a green card on his partner's behalf, as he could have done if he married a Salvadoran woman. The same law made it impossible for Gee to apply for a green card for Sinense, though their marriage is considered legally valid in California.

Becker wrote about his experience last year in an essay for a local news outlet. Gee and Sinense read that essay and, after having contacted dozens of lawyers, decided it was Becker they wanted helping them.

Months after he took on their case, Becker began to sense that the Defense of Marriage Act was cracking when the Justice Department announced in February that it would stop defending it because it considered the act unconstitutional.

"At that point, I felt there was no way I was going to let Raul be deported. I just wasn't going to let that happen," Becker said.

He argued in court that the Constitution requires the couple's same-sex marriage license to be recognized under immigration law. He encouraged Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, a friend of the couple, to write a letter on their behalf, which she did.

Gee and Sinense said they began to see their legal battle as a civil rights cause.

"I just see it as a right and I feel like it's happening, it's going to happen, it has to happen," Gee said.


http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_18765725