Is there a lawyer in the house?

jackhammer91406 · October 11, 2004

I don't recall this topic being brought up before, and if it has been, please excuse this repeat.

We all know that for years, people visiting from other countries have married American citizens in order to stay in the country legally once their visas expired. In light of gay marriage, is there any prevailing opinion as to whether this practice would work?

I am not curious from a moral point of view, but more as a practicality.

Would especially like to hear from anyone who works in immigration cases.

Thanks for your help

+ *Lucky* · October 11, 2004

The federal government doesn't recognize gay marriage. Gays can get asylum if they show a reasonable fear of persecution though.

trilingual · October 11, 2004

Gays have won asylum in the U.S., but it's not easy, and the asylum procedures are being made harder and harder following the 9/11 hysteria. It's not a procedure I'd rely on for getting a visa!

As gay marriage spreads gay spouses will enjoy the same rights under federal immigration law as do all other spouses. It may take some more court battles, or the repeal of DOMA, or bothy, but U.S. Supreme Court precedents in cases like Romer make it extremely unlikely that the Court would allow gays to be treated unequally under the Constitution by denying their spouses the same rights heterosexual spouses enjoy.

Stay tuned. . .

flguy · October 11, 2004

I didn't think marriage to an American Citizen guaranteed the spouse to be able to stay in the US any longer? I was under the impression they stopped that quite some time ago.

+ *bigjoey* · October 11, 2004

what happens when an arab muslim with 9 wives marries an american for wife number 10? does the arab man get US citizenship? if so, what of the other wives?

Ignoto · October 11, 2004

>I didn't think marriage to an American Citizen guaranteed the

>spouse to be able to stay in the US any longer? I was under

>the impression they stopped that quite some time ago.

The immigration gestapo tries its best to weed out those who contemplate a "marriage of convenience" to get past quotas, but there are still preferences for straight spouses. I think lesbians should be more willing to volunteer for marriages so that gay American men can live with their foreign-born partners, but now with all the gay marriage possibilities, the women seem to be more concerned about marrying their own kind.

Here is some stuff from a US government website:

==If your fiancé(e) is not a citizen of the United States and you plan to get married in the United States, then you must file a petition with USCIS on behalf of your fiancé(e). After the petition is approved, your fiancé(e) must obtain a visa issued at a U.S. Embassy or consulate abroad. The marriage must take place within 90 days of your fiancé(e) entering the United States. If the marriage does not take place within 90 days or your fiancé(e) marries someone other than you (the U.S. citizen filing USCIS Form I-129F - Petition for Alien Fiancé), your fiancé(e) will be required to leave the United States. Until the marriage takes place, your fiancé(e) is considered a nonimmigrant. A nonimmigrant is a foreign national seeking to temporarily enter the United States for a specific purpose. A fiancé(e) may not obtain an extension of the 90-day original nonimmigrant admission.

If your fiancé(e) intends to live and work permanently in the United States, your fiancé(e) should apply to become a permanent resident after your marriage. (If your fiancé(e) does not intend to become a permanent resident after your marriage, your fiancé(e)/new spouse must leave the country within the 90-day original nonimmigrant admission.) For more information, please see How Do I Become a Legal Permanent Resident While in the United States?. Please note, your fiancé(e) will initially receive conditional permanent residence status for two years. Conditional permanent residency is granted when the marriage creating the relationship is less than two years old at the time of adjustment to permanent residence status. For more information, please see How Do I Remove the Conditions on Permanent Residence Based on Marriage?==

http://uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/fiance.htm

Doug69 · October 11, 2004

>We all know that for years, people visiting from other

>countries have married American citizens in order to stay in

>the country legally once their visas expired. In light of gay

>marriage, is there any prevailing opinion as to whether this

>practice would work?

The answer to this question is, unfortunately, clear and indisputable. One of the primary evils of the Defense of Marriage Act - signed into law by Bill Clinton with the support of most Senate Democrats - is that it defines "marriage" for purposes of ALL FEDERAL BENEFITS (which include immigration rights) as "a union between a man and a woman."

Thus, EVEN IF gay marriage becomes legal in more and more states, DOMA precludes recognition by the Federal Government of any marriage that is not between a man and a woman, even if that marriage is recognized as valid by an individual state or states.

That's just one of many reasons why DOMA is such a profoundly un-conservative and repugnant piece of legisltation; it federalized something that has long been reserved to the states: the right to define "marriage."

The primary - but by no means only - harm from this is that couples who are comprised of one foreigner and one U.S. citizen can't obtain the same immigration rights which straight couples can obtain EVEN IF they live in a state where same-sex marriage is legal.

Ignoto · October 11, 2004

Crackers, and cheese

Here is a list of the cracker Republicans (and one cheesehead) who introduced DOMA eight years ago as part of election-year politics to defeat Democrats who, like Doug, see more important reasons than gay rights to lose an election.

REPS. BOB BARR (GA), STEVE LARGENT (OK), JIM SENSENBRENNER (WI), SUE

MYRICK (NC), ED BRYANT (TN), BILL EMERSON (MO), HAROLD VOLKMER (MO), IKE SKELTON (MO)

DOMA actually made some progress in gay rights because it recognized the right of any state to allow gay marriage, and for any other state to choose to recognize it. Freedom of choice used to be something that Republicans endorsed, but of course this year the Bush administration tried to change the Constitution to prevent such choice.

The blood-on-their-hands Bush administration, of course, still endorses sending troops to die in countries that defend polygamy.

jackhammer91406 · October 11, 2004

OK, thanks for your replies. Clearly marrying this guy is not going to work.

Are there some knowledgeable people familiar with immigration rules who can help me? This man is the best worker I have ever had. His 6 month visit has elapsed and his application for an extension was declined. He does not want to stay here if it isn't legal. Does he have options with regards to work permits, green cards , etc? What are the chances of his going back to Brazil and not being allowed to return. His visa is still current for 4 1/2 more years.

Any advice tells me more than I now know. thanks

woodlawn · October 11, 2004

> Does he have options with regards to work

>permits, green cards , etc? What are the chances of his going

>back to Brazil and not being allowed to return. His visa is

>still current for 4 1/2 more years.

>Any advice tells me more than I now know. thanks

No one can answer your question without knowing what type of visa your friend used to enter this country and what the status of that visa is at present. All anyone can tell you for certain is that if the visa will expire soon you should get your friend to an immigration lawyer at once to see if he has any options, because if you wait until he is out-of-status (meaning that he no longer conforms to the terms of the visa) anything you try will have a much smaller chance of success. If you care what happens to him, don't procrastinate but get him to a lawyer now.

October 11, 2004

RE: Crackers, and cheese

< Democrats who, like Doug

Doug? Do you mean Doug69? He's a Democrat? x( We'll have to invite him to the next Jefferson-Jackson Dinner. :+

Ignoto · October 12, 2004

> His 6 month visit has elapsed and his application

>for an extension was declined. He does not want to stay here

>if it isn't legal. Does he have options with regards to work

>permits, green cards , etc? What are the chances of his going

>back to Brazil and not being allowed to return. His visa is

>still current for 4 1/2 more years.

I suspect what you mean is that his passport (issued by the Brazilian government) is valid for 4 1/2 more years, but his tourist visa (issued by the U.S. government) has expired. He can return to Brazil and apply for another tourist visa, but our consular officials will wonder what he has been doing for employment for the last six months (since working in the U.S. was illegal). Odd, that he has problems with staying illegally, but not working illegally. Millions of Latin Americans seem to be getting away with it.

One option might be a student visa, if he can pass the TOEFL (English test) and show he has about $20,000 in a bank account. There's no rule he has to spend that much, although tuition would be a significant expense.

woodlawn · October 12, 2004

>> His 6 month visit has elapsed and his application

>>for an extension was declined. He does not want to stay

>here

>>if it isn't legal. Does he have options with regards to

>work

>>permits, green cards , etc? What are the chances of his

>going

>>back to Brazil and not being allowed to return. His visa is

>>still current for 4 1/2 more years.

>I suspect what you mean is that his passport (issued by the

>Brazilian government) is valid for 4 1/2 more years, but his

>tourist visa (issued by the U.S. government) has expired. He

>can return to Brazil and apply for another tourist visa, but

>our consular officials will wonder what he has been doing for

>employment for the last six months (since working in the U.S.

>was illegal). Odd, that he has problems with staying

>illegally, but not working illegally. Millions of Latin

>Americans seem to be getting away with it.

Frankly, I didn't understand from jackhammer's post that his friend was here on a tourist visa, since as you point out it would be illegal for him to work while here on such a visa. I think that just illustrates my point that this is a waste of time -- jackhammer doesn't even know how to describe the situation in such a way that an attorney would be able to answer the question. He should stop screwing around with the matter and get his friend (along with his documents) in front of someone who can actually sort it out.

jackhammer91406 · October 12, 2004

Woodlawn,

you're right of course. My bad for not explaining it very well. We have made an appointment with an attorney for this Wednesday.