But, in United States, the tone is not as accepting. In fact, some observers have gone so far as to warn gay foreigners with non-immigrant visas in same sex relationships, that they should avoid local domestic partner registrations, civil unions, commitment ceremonies or any other public acknowledgement of a coupling, because this would signal immigration officials that the foreign partner is planning, or desires to, stay in the country, which is grounds for deportation.
The current UAFA legislation introduced this past May 8, does not have any status outside of immigration laws. It would not create any kind of relationship recognition separate from the immigration benefits. In other words, the policy is not a step towards gay marriage, a fear expressed by those who oppose any legal sanctioning of gay couples.
As filmmaker Sebastian Cordoba points out, of those countries that do recognize same sex partners for immigration purposes, only three have legally sanctioned gay marriage.
One of the couple’s highlighted in Cordoba’s film are Mark and Fred of Harrisburg, New Jersey. Fred, a native of France, has been able to stay in the United States through work and student visas. But, when Fred’s last work visa came to an end, the couple, who have two children, faced tough choices, they would have to find an employer that would be willing to go through the process of sponsoring Fred, or the couple would be forced to move to France.
After a great deal of contemplation, the couple is planning on moving to France this summer.
“We don’t want to move to France, we do much better here in Harrisburg if we’re both working” and if we do move, “I won’t be able to work” which Mark worries will put a real financial strain on the family of four.
Mark, who’s been a registered Republican most of his life, often finds himself discussing his situation with conservatives. He says that he just deals with the facts based on tax and laws.
“I don’t go into the emotions” he said noting his argument doesn’t go near gay marriage or other hot button social issues. He speaks of the contribution Fred makes as an educator, teaching people a new language, and the fact that they both contribute to their community, pointing out that most of his friends and neighbors are heterosexual and don’t understand why the couple has to leave in order to obtain some sense of normalcy.
“Fred can’t work, even though he has his doctorate in education” noted Mark of his highly skilled partner who he can’t sponsor for a green card.
But, then, during the same conversation, basic human emotion seeps in, as Mark shares the pain and fear of what could happen to the couple and all they’ve tried to accomplish together “all I’m talking about is two people staying together, all we want is to just stay together” he said as his voice cracked.
“One of the rights of Americans is to pursue happiness” said Mark
“I don’t even have a chance to pursue it, if my partner and family is taken away from me, one of my fundamental rights is gone” he said of the current immigration laws that do not allow him to continue living life in the United States with his partner of 15 years.
And, Mark says he is concerned about his children, ages 3 and 6, who are used to life in small-town United States, and how the cultural adjustment to France will affect them.
Regardless, he says he’s exhausted from worrying about it all and has given up on the struggle to try and stay in the United States legally.
“The life if the fight is gone, which is sad for me” he said with a sigh.
Back in 1996 when the Senate approved and then President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA, marriage for all purposes of the federal government was defined as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.
A consequence of DOMA’s quick passage was the foreclosure of any possibility that foreign, permanent same sex partners of U.S. citizens could be recognized as “spouses” under current immigration laws.
The current legislation proposed by Congressman Nadler in the House (HR-3006) and Senator Patrick Leahy in the Senate (S-1278), would add “permanent partner” to sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act where “spouse” now appears.
On background, some political observers expressed some doubt that the law would see passage while the current administration is in office. But, they noted that with Democratic majorities in both houses, as well as increased public awareness of the often cruel outcomes that immigration policy bias has imposed, there was still hope.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
