U.S. immigration laws have physically separated thousands of gay Americans from their non-American partners and Congress should act so they can legally reunite, according to a new report.

The report—"Family, Unvalued" released May 2—evaluates how U.S. immigration policies affect gay Americans and their families. It also criticizes U.S. officials for not offering gay foreigners an opportunity to live permanently with their partner in the United States.

"We want people to understand that this isn’t an accident or an oversight of the immigration law," said Rachel B. Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality. "It’s not a benign neglect. It’s really a nasty and pointed exclusion."

The 191-page report was prepared by Immigration Equality, a New York organization that seeks equality for gay and HIV-positive immigrants, and Human Rights Watch.

"Family reunification is an express and central goal of U.S. immigration policy and has been for more than 50 years," the report says. "But, lesbian and gay people’s families do not count. Their partners are excluded from the definition of spouse."

Tiven said the report was written to unveil how difficult life is for the nation’s many binational gay couples, the term used for a relationship involving partners with citizenship from two different countries.

"This is not a minor inconvenience," she said. "This is really a life-altering situation for the couples that are trapped in it."

According to the 2000 Census, there are about 36,000 gay couples with one U.S. citizen and one foreign national. This represents about 6 percent of all gay couples in the country.

"Family, Unvalued" urges Congress to pass the Uniting American Families Act, a proposal that would allow binational gay couples to permanently live together in the United States.

"The United States urgently needs to enact comprehensive immigration reform," the report says, "ensuring adequate and fair avenues for immigrants to enter the United States both temporarily and permanently and offering reasonable roads to legal status for undocumented immigrants already living and working in the country."

"Family, Unvalued" is considered the first comprehensive report on this topic. It will be cited as proof of the discrimination decried by organizations like the Love Exiles Foundation, a group for gay Americans living "in exile" abroad because they cannot bring their partners to live with them in the U.S.

Love Exiles spokesman Bob Bragar said the report "well captures that richness of the lives of U.S. citizens who love someone from another country."

107 sponsors, no action

UAFA is not part of the immigration reforms now being debated by Congress.

Although there is support for UAFA from at least some members from both parties, no Democratic or Republican leaders have indicated any strong interest in discussing it.

Introduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), UAFA has 11 Senate sponsors and 96 House sponsors.

Nadler’s press secretary, Reid Cherlin, said the UAFA goes "part and parcel" with the ongoing immigration discussion. But it’s unlikely the gay-positive bill will be part of any reform passed by Congress.

"We’re fairly sure the Republican majority has no intention to bring a bill like this up for a hearing," he said, "much less a vote."

Leahy’s press secretary, David Carle, last month said he’s seen no signal that UAFA will become incorporated into pending immigration reform.

Calls to majority leaders Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) were not returned. Neither are sponsoring UAFA legislation.

Cherlin said Nadler welcomed the attention that "Family, Unvalued" brings to binational gay couples, and UAFA.

"We’re not going to score a win until it’s law," he said, "but every instance of mounting public pressure is a success."

Tiven added that as public pressure mounts, more lawmakers are swayed. She noted that Congressman Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) recently became the third House Republican to sponsor UAFA.

Little push by immigrant groups?

But some political observers said such efforts have stirred resentment.

Glenn Magpantay, a gay staff attorney for the Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund in New York, said some immigrant advocates have quietly criticized UAFA proponents for "jumping on the bandwagon at the last minute, and not having done the real alliance building work that came before."

He said these advocates are consequently reluctant to include the UAFA in their agenda.

"I don’t think we’ve made the case for it," Magpanty said, "and I don’t think that we’ve even shown demonstratively the gay community’s support for immigrants’ rights overall."

Although many gays support comprehensive immigration reform and have participated in some of the recent protests, Magpantay said the "gay community" has not mobilized to support immigrants.

"It seems like the gay community is not engaged," he said. "We should be fighting for the decriminalization of people. We did that with sodomy laws, why not now with undocumented workers?"

The apparent rift between gay and immigrant advocates was highlighted last month in a commentary by black lesbian activist and writer Jasmyne Cannick for the Advocate, a national gay magazine.

In it, Cannick said Congress should provide equal rights to gay U.S. citizens before "extending rights to people who have entered this country illegally."

"It’s a slap in the face to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people," wrote Cannick, "to take up the debate on whether to give people who are in this country illegally additional rights when we haven’t even given the people who are here legally all of their rights."

Several people asked to comment on Cannick’s commentary declined to speak on the record, saying her statements were inflammatory.

But a response signed by 55 activists—including some who work with the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, and the National Latino Coalition for Justice—rebuked Cannick’s commentary.

"We reject any attempts to pit the struggle of multiple communities against each other and firmly believe that rights are not in limited supply," their response reads.

UAFA faces uphill battle

UAFA supporters concede that without broader support from advocates and congressmen, efforts to pass the legislation are an uphill battle.

Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, said many groups pushing for immigration reform consider the UAFA a lower priority because the proposal isn’t politically feasible now.

Because pending reforms don’t include UAFA, she said the act would have to be offered as an amendment. Since each political party likely will be limited in the number of amendments they can offer, only the most viable will be presented.

Kelley said additional support could be garnered beyond the announced 11 Senate sponsors and 96 House sponsors, but UAFA probably doesn’t have enough votes to pass.

"I think it’s going to be a tough thing to get passed in this Congress," she said. "There’s a whole host of still-need-to-fix-it topics. … This is one of the tougher ones."

Tiven said UAFA supporters also face another numerical disadvantage: The number of people who benefit is relatively small.

"When the mainstream immigration groups are trying to get Congress to act on things that would affect 11 million people, this is a small slice by comparison," she said, "and that certainly is a factor."

Wednesday, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee wrote President Bush, requesting a White House bipartisan and bicameral immigration summit.

"The nation you lead has arrived at a critical moment in history. Hanging in the balance is whether the United States will continue into the 21st century a confident, unified forward looking nation proud of it ancient heritage as the global beacon of immigrants everywhere or renounce this heritage and attempt to seek refuge from the world behind barricades to be erected on it southern borders," wrote Congresswoman Jackson Lee, a democrat from Houston.

In her letter, Congresswoman Jackson Lee brought to the president''''''''''''''''s attention key provisions of the "Border protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005," H.R. 4437. Jackson Lee said in a statement that the some of the bill''''''''''''''''s provisions are unacceptable to a large majority of House Republicans and Democrats, and, judging by the public demonstrations presented over the past several weeks, to large segments of the American people.

The statement called the bill''''''''''''''''s section 203, which makes illegal entry into the United States a felony, "especially odious."

© Copyright 2006 Window Media LLC | User Agreement and Privacy Policy

Southern Voice | Express Gay News | David Atlanta | The 411 Mag | Genre Magazine