Why DOMA Must Fall
In 2002, same sex marriage was not yet legal in Massachusetts and any possible legal remedy related to marriage was not available. Genesio Oliveira "Junior" and Tim married March 3, 2005 as his case moved through the system. Despite the marriage, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by President Bill Clinton, prohibited Tim from sponsoring Junior as a permanent resident even though heterosexuals may do so.
The couple has begged for relief and has since exhausted all other potential remedies available to compel the U.S. government to enable Junior to return. Although the U.S. does not recognize the marriage under DOMA, it uses the marriage as a reason not to grant any other visa since the marriage is a reason why Junior might not leave the U.S.
With no resolution in sight, the couple has moved ahead with a head-on DOMA challenge. The aim is to topple that portion of DOMA that prevents Federal recognition of marriage and civil unions in those states where same-sex unions are legal. Before Federal courts may hear the matter, the couple's "I-130 Petition for Alien Relative" must be formally denied. The I-130 Petition is the same method used by heterosexuals to sponsor their spouses.
Alone in the Fight for Basic Fairness?
Here is the long delayed update to the story of my separation from Junior as a result of actions taken by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
First, some background. Junior was never an "illegal alien." Six years ago this year, Junior filed a petition for asylum with what was then the U.S. Immigration and Nationalization Service (INS). He made this filing before the end of the six-month stay authorized by his visa, thus keeping him "in status" in the eyes of immigration law. There are many reasons why the asylum application should have been granted.
As the law allows, Junior received his Social Security number and work authorization while his case made its way through the system. As the Department of Homeland Security was formed and Bush made ideological appointments, the government grew increasingly unfriendly to our cause. Even the U.S. State Department changed its longstanding position on a key issue bolstering the asylum petition.
Finally, during the Justice Department hiring scandal, a conservative ideologue was appointed to hear Junior's case. As the Washington Post reported June 11, last year:
The Bush administration increasingly emphasized partisan political ties over expertise in recent years in selecting the judges who decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of immigrants, despite laws that preclude such considerations...
...another failed tax court nominee, Francis L. Cramer, a former campaign treasurer for Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), was appointed as an immigration judge. Cramer's bid for a seat on the tax court foundered after the American Bar Association's taxation section wrote a rare letter to the Senate Finance Committee, saying: "We are unable to conclude that he is qualified to serve."
Cramer was then hired by the Justice Department's tax division and was briefly lent to the department's Office of Immigration Litigation. Ashcroft approved him as an immigration judge in March 2004. The Government Accountability Office, a legislative watchdog, criticized the appointment, saying, "Converting a Schedule C [political] appointee with less than 6 months of immigration law experience to an immigration judge position raises questions about the fairness of the conversion."
Judge Cramer denied the asylum application and his decision was upheld by a single judge of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Junior was ordered to "voluntarily" depart the U.S. within 60 days and he complied with that order last August.
Since last year, we have exhausted all other potential remedies available to us to compel the U.S. government to enable Junior to return.
I also sadly report that the allies we expected -- GLAD, ACLU, HRC and others -- have not stepped up to the plate.
First Massachusetts, then California; now United Nations
Forcibly separated same-sex Mass. couple accuse U.S. of treaty violation at United Nations
Coco and Oliveira accuse the United States of violating the "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" by failing to grant asylum to Oliveira despite "substantial grounds" to do so and failing to appoint "competent" arbiter to hear the asylum case -- both are required under the convention, ratified by the US in 1994. In the 65-page complaint filed this week with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights at United Nations office at Geneva, Switzerland, the couple argues their case is admissible because the US further "recognized the competence of the committee established under the relevant treaty to consider complaints from individuals."
More information at:
www.reunitethisfamily.com
This full movie can be found there too.
