Amsterdam. We spoke with our lawyer this week, after receiving the letter from the US immigration authorities telling Martha that her spouse was a woman and therefore our petition for a green card would be denied.
There are so many interesting inconsistencies in the letter that and it is clear the law simply has to change. For starters, the letter acknowledges that Martha has a spouse. It also acknowledges that that would not be a problem for the immigration authorities, were it not that DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) specifically prescribes that only people of an opposite sex to each other can be seen as spouses.
We talked with our lawyer, Lavi Soloway, and we agreed we will appeal the decision to deny our petition. We are deeply concerned that the United States government is willing to deny two people who love each other and who are legally married to each other from being part of the great project that the founders of the USA embarked on and on which the Constitution is founded. The decision is bad for us and thousands like us - people who want to participate in civil life in the same way as our siblings can. It is also just not a good basis for establishing community. It is an appalling message to all citizens that the people who are welcome to immigrate are diverse, but not if they are in love with and married to a US citizen of the same sex. The message goes even further and says "we prefer losing the US citizen than acknowledging the marriage".
That just doesn't fit with how people think about marriage these days. And any representative of the people must speak out and be part of the movement to change the law that keeps US citizens outside the country they were born in, simply to be with their spouse.
Our lawyer wants us to have the opportunity to speak with the authorities and at least put our request for a green card into process.
What can other people do? They can let their elected representative know that bills that will allow, when passed, love exiles to return home must be supported and pushed through congress.
Laws are an instrument to us getting our rights. They are not the be all and end all. To be equal we have to live in equality. So besides changing laws, we need to be visible in our communities, making our issues a shared concern. So that is the second thing people can do: talk about this issue. Let people know how it affects you and your family. Great the environment of support and caring that we want for all of us.
I loved the words Obama spoke at the inauguration, repeatedly: We the people. Nothing will change without us changing it. Moaning and feeling sad and cut out won't help. What will help is causing the change you want to happen. It is up to we the people to do that.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Monday, January 21, 2013
DOMA is a Truly Nasty Law
I woke up this morning thinking about DOMA. A truly nasty law. A law made to exclude some people from the opportunity to experience ever having their full rights as citizens. A law made to ensure that even if US citizens could find equality elsewhere in the world, they cannot have it in the United States.
Martha and I are first class citizens in the Netherlands. She is a US citizen and I am Australian. We live in the Netherlands. We both took on the Dutch nationality, in additional to our nationality by birth. Martha and I want to be able to live in her country of birth, care for her aging mother, be with family and have careers in the US. Normal things for any binational couple to want. We can't have them. DOMA stops us.
In the letter denying our Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130), sent earlier this month, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Sevices write to Martha:
"Through your petition, you are seeking to classify the beneficiary [that's me, Lin] as immediate relative spouse of a United States citizen pursuant to section 201(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the INA) as amended.
"This Petition for Alien Relative (I-130), filed on November 7, 2012, seeks to classify the beneficiary as the spouse of a United States citizen....The petition will be denied.
"Both you and the beneficiary are female. You married on [here they give the wrong date, Lin] in Amsterdam, Netherlands. The INA does not specifically define the term "spouse" with respect to gender, but Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) states for purposes of eligibility for federal benefits, "marriage" means "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and the word "spouse" refers "only to the person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." 1 U.S.C para 7. The DOMA applies as a matter of federal law whether or not your marriage is recognized under state law. Your spouse is not a person of the opposite sex. Therefore, under the DOMA your petition must be denied. We do not consider it necesary to determine whether your marriage is lawful under state law, or whether the beneficiary would be a spouse under the INA absent the DOMA, as these questions are not material to the appropriate disposition of the petition under the clearly applicable and controlling Federal statute."
The letter concludes by informing us of the possibilities of appeal.
It all feels sloppy and not right.
Our names were misspelled, our date of marriage wrong. The fact that there is a great deal of attention paid to state law infers that there is a form letter being used, dealing with petitioners married in the United States. We have a legal marriage in the Netherlands. We are not terribly interested in whether or not state laws apply.
Has some bureaucrat pulled out a template and filled in, between sedatives, the bits of information they felt like putting in there?
Are they unaware of the current controversy at the heart of which is DOMA?
Edie Windsor married the love of her life and when she died, 40 years later, Edie was left with a huge tax bill, because her marriage wasn't recognized. Their Canadian marriage was recognized by New York State, where Edie lives. On hearing of this the President, Barack Obama, declared his administration would not defend DOMA. In the Huffington Post article on this decision, you can read his entire statement. It begins with: "After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), 1 U.S.C. § 7, as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment."
We called friends in the USA yesterday and they told us that when they filed Petition, they were invited with their attorney to a meeting with a local official who asked a lot of questions to ascertain the validity of the petition. Their Petition has not yet been denied. We were not invited for any such conversation. We were summarily dismissed on grounds that even the President of the United States finds a violation of the Constitution.
Martha is living in exile in the Netherlands because she cannot sponsor me to live with her in the United States. She moved here 13 years ago, choosing to live with the love of her life rather than living without me and staying in the country of her birth. Now that our Petition has been denied I can't help but feel she is being sent into exile again.
Martha and I are first class citizens in the Netherlands. She is a US citizen and I am Australian. We live in the Netherlands. We both took on the Dutch nationality, in additional to our nationality by birth. Martha and I want to be able to live in her country of birth, care for her aging mother, be with family and have careers in the US. Normal things for any binational couple to want. We can't have them. DOMA stops us.
In the letter denying our Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130), sent earlier this month, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Sevices write to Martha:
"Through your petition, you are seeking to classify the beneficiary [that's me, Lin] as immediate relative spouse of a United States citizen pursuant to section 201(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the INA) as amended.
"This Petition for Alien Relative (I-130), filed on November 7, 2012, seeks to classify the beneficiary as the spouse of a United States citizen....The petition will be denied.
"Both you and the beneficiary are female. You married on [here they give the wrong date, Lin] in Amsterdam, Netherlands. The INA does not specifically define the term "spouse" with respect to gender, but Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) states for purposes of eligibility for federal benefits, "marriage" means "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and the word "spouse" refers "only to the person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." 1 U.S.C para 7. The DOMA applies as a matter of federal law whether or not your marriage is recognized under state law. Your spouse is not a person of the opposite sex. Therefore, under the DOMA your petition must be denied. We do not consider it necesary to determine whether your marriage is lawful under state law, or whether the beneficiary would be a spouse under the INA absent the DOMA, as these questions are not material to the appropriate disposition of the petition under the clearly applicable and controlling Federal statute."
The letter concludes by informing us of the possibilities of appeal.
It all feels sloppy and not right.
Our names were misspelled, our date of marriage wrong. The fact that there is a great deal of attention paid to state law infers that there is a form letter being used, dealing with petitioners married in the United States. We have a legal marriage in the Netherlands. We are not terribly interested in whether or not state laws apply.
Has some bureaucrat pulled out a template and filled in, between sedatives, the bits of information they felt like putting in there?
Are they unaware of the current controversy at the heart of which is DOMA?
Edie Windsor married the love of her life and when she died, 40 years later, Edie was left with a huge tax bill, because her marriage wasn't recognized. Their Canadian marriage was recognized by New York State, where Edie lives. On hearing of this the President, Barack Obama, declared his administration would not defend DOMA. In the Huffington Post article on this decision, you can read his entire statement. It begins with: "After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), 1 U.S.C. § 7, as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment."
We called friends in the USA yesterday and they told us that when they filed Petition, they were invited with their attorney to a meeting with a local official who asked a lot of questions to ascertain the validity of the petition. Their Petition has not yet been denied. We were not invited for any such conversation. We were summarily dismissed on grounds that even the President of the United States finds a violation of the Constitution.
Martha is living in exile in the Netherlands because she cannot sponsor me to live with her in the United States. She moved here 13 years ago, choosing to live with the love of her life rather than living without me and staying in the country of her birth. Now that our Petition has been denied I can't help but feel she is being sent into exile again.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Green Card Denied
Amsterdam, 20 January 2013
On November 7, 2013, the day after President Obama was re-elected, our lawyer submitted our application for an I-130 visa.
On Friday 18 of January we received the message that it had taken the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services just 4 weeks to determine that Martha and I, as two women, were not married in the way that U.S. immigration law understands marriage and that the green card is denied.
Come on!
Can you seriously say that our marriage of nearly 12 years, performed in the Netherlands in May 2001, is not really a marriage.
That is absurd.
Marriage is a blessing in my life. I love being married to Martha. I love knowing that we will share our lives, forever, and that people will always support us in keeping our love alive.
How incongruous that the United States law does not respect Martha, while Dutch law does.
On November 7, 2013, the day after President Obama was re-elected, our lawyer submitted our application for an I-130 visa.
On Friday 18 of January we received the message that it had taken the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services just 4 weeks to determine that Martha and I, as two women, were not married in the way that U.S. immigration law understands marriage and that the green card is denied.
Come on!
Can you seriously say that our marriage of nearly 12 years, performed in the Netherlands in May 2001, is not really a marriage.
That is absurd.
Marriage is a blessing in my life. I love being married to Martha. I love knowing that we will share our lives, forever, and that people will always support us in keeping our love alive.
How incongruous that the United States law does not respect Martha, while Dutch law does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)