Married spouse is being evicted from US
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Married spouse is being evicted from US

  1. #1
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,603

    Default Married spouse is being evicted from US

    Citing the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Obama administration has determined is unconstitutional and will not be defended in court, the immigration department has said the legal spouse of a U.S. citizen needs to leave the country.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BAO71KKPEC.DTL
    70% of the U.S. population now lives in a state where same-sex marriage is legal. At 36 and counting!

  2. #2
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,731

    Default

    Actually they have said no such thing. They are filing this stuff to challenge the law and he is no danger of being deported. It is all for publicity.


    The couple has not lost its battle, as the administrative decision is just that – an agency decision – and can be appealed to a point where an adversarial process could allow discretion more easily to be employed. And, though the article states that the Obama administration ''ordered the expulsion of a man who is the primary caregiver to his AIDS-afflicted spouse,'' there was no removal order issued in the case and, therefore, no immediate threat of deportation.
    http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=6486
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  3. #3
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,603

    Default

    From the article you posted:
    Accordingly, the U.S. CIS, as is the case in any such denial, stated, ''You are required to depart the United States within thirty (30) days from the date of this decision, or be subject to removal proceedings.''

    How is that not ejecting him from the country? Mr. Makk's options are leave while he's still in legal status, or face deportation by staying. And if deportation hearings are started, he can *never* get back in the U.S. legally, so he's stated that's not really an option. He's being forced to leave despite being legally married to a U.S. citizen who requires his full-time care, despite owning numerous rental properties, despite running a business here. All things that would keep him here if he were married to a woman.

    Also from that article:
    What's more, almost all have ended with a delay or cancellation of the pending removal order.

    Notice that it doesn't say, these spouses were awarded permanent resident status? Delaying or cancelling a removal order does nothing to ensure that you can stay in the country. Only a green card does that, and so far, not a single gay married person has been awarded a green card, at least that's what the gay community here is saying.
    Last edited by Spacers; 08-10-2011 at 01:19 PM.
    70% of the U.S. population now lives in a state where same-sex marriage is legal. At 36 and counting!

  4. #4
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacers View Post
    Notice that it doesn't say, these spouses were awarded permanent resident status? Delaying or cancelling a removal order does nothing to ensure that you can stay in the country. Only a green card does that, and so far, not a single gay married person has been awarded a green card, at least that's what the gay community here is saying.
    Whether they like it or not it is still law that marriage is between a man and a woman and Federal procedures have to abide accordingly. You and I both know that this man will never be deported. They knew when they filed that it would not be approved, the most that they hoped for was that it would be put on hold.

    For same-sex couples, those petitions and applications have previously been denied. For a while after the Feb. 23 letter was issued by Holder, the hope of some advocates was that a blanket abeyance policy – putting I-130 petitions on hold while courts and the Congress address DOMA – would be put in place to keep any couples from being separated by deportation. But U.S. Customs and Immigration Services, under the Department of Homeland Security, announced on March 30 that it was unwilling to issue any such blanket abeyance policy.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  5. #5
    Posting Addict Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,770

    Default

    From the quote you posted, Gloria, it sounds like this man is in immenent danger of being deported. How tragic.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  6. #6
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,603

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    Whether they like it or not it is still law that marriage is between a man and a woman and Federal procedures have to abide accordingly. You and I both know that this man will never be deported. They knew when they filed that it would not be approved, the most that they hoped for was that it would be put on hold.
    It's not the law in six states. And the Federal law until DOMA was that Federal protection applied to any marriage that was legal in any state, and that every state had to recognize any marriage that was performed legally in any other state. But for DOMA, this man would not be kicked out the country, and DOMA has been declared unconstitutional, and yet it's still being applied here. Why?
    70% of the U.S. population now lives in a state where same-sex marriage is legal. At 36 and counting!

  7. #7
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacers View Post
    It's not the law in six states. And the Federal law until DOMA was that Federal protection applied to any marriage that was legal in any state, and that every state had to recognize any marriage that was performed legally in any other state. But for DOMA, this man would not be kicked out the country, and DOMA has been declared unconstitutional, and yet it's still being applied here. Why?
    DOMA has not been declared unconstitutional by anyone but Obama. I don't think he has the power to make that declaration.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  8. #8
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,731

    Default

    In fact some say it is a violation of Obama's consitutional oath to uphold the law, and I agree with them.

    President Obama's decision this week to ease enforcement of the federal Defense of Marriage Act was a violation of his oath of office and has sparked a constitutional crisis, Newt Gingrich said Friday.

    In an interview with Newsmax.TV, the former House speaker accused Obama of acting like a "one-person Supreme Court" and called on Republicans to confront the president over his "arbitrary" suspension of the law.

    The Obama administration questions Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage for federal purposes as only between one man and one woman. According to Attorney General Eric Holder, President Obama has determined that Section 3 "as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment."

    Gingrich asked his interviewer to "Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone's right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed," Gingrich said. "The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment."

    Gingrich did not call for Obama's impeachment.

    On Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced DOMA will no longer be defended in court by Justice Department attorneys. The law, signed by Bill Clinton in 1996, banned recognition of same-sex marriage.

    The White House decision to forego a legal defense of the law sets a "very dangerous precedent," Gingrich said.

    "I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job," he said.
    http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02...onstitutional/
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  9. #9
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal View Post
    From the quote you posted, Gloria, it sounds like this man is in immenent danger of being deported. How tragic.
    Not really. What this means is that ICE can decide if they think he is a priority for removal. Which of course they aren't going to do. It is all a political game.


    In other words, if the decision is not reversed when Immigration Equality's lawyer files a motion in the next weeks for the U.S. CIS to reconsider the denial and if Makk does not leave, he could face removal proceedings.

    At that point, ICE – the immigration enforcement arm within DHS – would become involved because ICE acts in the prosecutorial role in removal proceedings. According to a June memorandum from ICE Director John Morton directed to all ICE officers, agents and attorneys, ICE ''must regularly exercise 'prosecutorial discretion''' when it comes to enforcement of its removal powers and the limited resources of the agency should lead ICE to focus on ''the agency's enforcement priorities.'' Among the reasons cited in the memo for discretion are several that, but for DOMA, would appear to apply to Makk's circumstances. So, it is entirely possible that Makk would not be seen as an enforcement priority and would not face removal proceedings.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  10. #10
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    In fact some say it is a violation of Obama's consitutional oath to uphold the law, and I agree with them.



    http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02...onstitutional/
    Well technically his oath says he will uphold the constitution. Since DOMA is clearly a violation of article 4 section 1 he is upholding the constitution by not defending it in court.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions