|
Greetings! Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Associates is committed to providing you with this newsletter to keep you up to date with information regarding immigration law and other issues that affect you! Read on for our March/April 2013
e-newsletter edition!
|
|
RECENT SUCCESSES
BOILA is extremely happy to share that Ms. C, a citizen of Bolivia, was granted asylum by the Arlington Immigration Court. Ms. C is a long time client of BOILA's who had been struggling to obtain refugee status for roughly a decade. She was a victim of severe domestic violence and abuse at the hands of her former husband, who was an elected official within the Bolivian government. When she first applied for asylum, victims of domestic violence were not a recognized social group under the immigration laws. After her case was remanded by the BIA, in March of 2013 BOILA was able to successfully present her eligibility for asylum. BOILA is pleased she can now move forward with her life.
Mr. A, a citizen of Cameroon, was granted asylum by the Baltimore Immigration Court. Mr. A is a member of the SCNC and he and his family have a history of being targeted by the Cameroonian government for their political beliefs and affiliations. BOILA was able to get his prior order of removal vacated and his proceedings reopened. Based on evidence that he would face future persecution if deported, he was granted asylum.
Mr. B, a citizen of Equatorial Guinea, was also granted asylum by the Baltimore Immigration Court. Mr. B is a member of the CPDS, an opposition party in Equatorial Guinea, and he was arrested and detained on three separate occasions because of his nonviolent political activities. Based on his past arrests and ongoing abuses in his native country, he and his wife were granted asylum in the United States.
Ms. K, a citizen of Cameroon, was granted asylum by the Baltimore Immigration Court. Ms. K had been previously ordered deported and had her proceedings reopened based on changed country conditions in her native country. Specifically, because of her involvement with an opposition party, the UDC, while living in the United States, her family members in Cameroon were targeted. BOILA successfully assisted Ms. K in presenting such evidence to the court, allowing her to no longer fear for her own safety.
Mr. D, a citizen of Senegal, was granted Cancellation of Removal by the Arlington Immigration Court. Mr. D was previously a lawful permanent resident but DHS sought to revoke his green card and placed him into removal proceedings based on roughly 26 separate criminal charges. BOILA successfully presented the wealth of equities in his favor, including the facts that he had lived in the US for roughly 23 years and was married to a US citizen, with whom he had three US citizen children. After the presentation of legal arguments and substantial evidence, BOILA convinced the court that Mr. D was entitled to a favorable exercise of discretion.
Ms. F, a citizen of Indonesia, had her removal proceedings reopened by the Board of Immigration Appeals. BOILA assisted Ms. F in the preparation of a motion to reopen her case based on her marriage to her US citizen husband and the hardship he would endure if she were to be deported to Indonesia. BOILA was able to negotiate with DHS and gain their consent to join in the motion to reopen her case. Based on the joint motion, the BIA terminated her order of removal and she will now be able to seek her green card through her husband. BOILA is happy for Ms. F and her husband, who no longer need to fear they will be indefinitely separated from each other.
Ms. T, a citizen of Kenya, had her I-360 petition approved by USCIS based on a wealth of evidence that she was a victim of domestic violence and emotional cruelty at the hands of her US citizen husband. Ms. T is now able to apply for her green card. This good news came within the same month as the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which will continue to allow individuals such as Ms. T the right to remain in the U.S. if they are victims of domestic violence at the hands of their US citizen spouses.
After much effort, Mr. A, a citizen of Ethiopia, was finally granted permanent residency in the US after previously receiving an approved I-130 petition, filed on his behalf by his US citizen wife. Last year, BOILA was glad to assist Mr. A in getting his removal proceedings reopened and terminated based on evidence that his wife would suffer extreme hardship in the event of his removal. BOILA had also helped Mr. A get released from detention. BOILA wishes him and his family the very best now that he is finally able to put his immigration difficulties behind him.
Mr. A, a citizen of France, was granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), as BOILA successfully established that he entered the U.S. when he was just 15 years old, continuously resided in the U.S. since his arrival, graduated from high school here in the U.S. and met all other necessary requirements. Mr. A's case warranted a favorable exercise of discretion and BOILA believes he will continue to make a positive impact on this country through his continued residency.
Mr. C, a citizen of Nigeria, had his I-751 petition approved, thereby granting him permanent residency in the U.S. BOILA was happy to have helped him demonstrate that he married his former US citizen wife in good faith and that he was deserving of permanent residency in the US.
Mr. T, a native of Cameroon, was granted permanent residency in the U.S., after USCIS approved his I-751 petition. BOILA assisted Mr. T and his US citizen wife in removing the condition on his lawful residency through the submission of evidence of the ongoing validity of their marriage.
Ms. J, a citizen of Cameroon, had her I-130 petition approved by USCIS based on her marriage to her US citizen husband. Based on the approval, BOILA is now able to assist Ms. J in her efforts to reopen her removal order in hopes that she can remain united with her husband.
Mrs. M, a citizen of the Ivory Coast, had her green card application approved alongside the approval of an I-130 petition, filed on her behalf by her US citizen husband. BOILA was pleased to help in the couple's efforts to have their petitions expedited on account of the fact that Mrs. M's husband is serving on active duty with the U.S. Navy.
Ms. W, a naturalized US citizen originally from Pakistan, had her I-130 petition approved. She filed the petition on behalf of her husband, who is a citizen of Pakistan. BOILA is now able to assist Ms. W in her efforts to have her husband join her in the United States.
BOILA successfully assisted Mr. A, a US citizen, file I-130 and I-485 applications on behalf of his wife and two young daughters, all of whom are citizens of Saudi Arabia. Mrs. A and her two young daughters are now lawful permanent residents in the US.
Mr. A, a citizen of the Ivory Coast, received his permanent residency through his prior grant of asylum.
Mr. B, a citizen of Canada received his conditional permanent residency through his US citizen wife. With BOILA's help, the couple submitted substantial evidence of the validity of their marriage.
Mr. O, a citizen of Cameroon, was granted permanent residency through an approved I-130 petition, filed on his behalf by his US citizen wife. BOILA wishes them a happy life together.
Mrs. H, a citizen of Jamaica, received her green card through an approved I-130 petition, filed on her behalf by her US citizen daughter.
Ms. N, a citizen of the Ivory Coast, is now the recipient of an approved I-130 application, filed on her behalf by her US citizen husband. BOILA is now able to move forward with trying to reopen her prior order of removal, so that she may be able to remain in the US with her husband and 3 US citizen children.
Finally, BOILA is pleased to announce that three of our clients were recently naturalized and became US citizens. BOILA congratulates Ms. I (a native of Cameroon), Mr. I (a native of Sierra Leone) and Mr. W (a native of Togo) on their US citizenship and is pleased to have had the opportunity to help them in their immigration matters.
|
SAME-SEX SPOUSES' RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION
Recent polls and statements by political leaders including President Obama demonstrate a growing trend in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. As of this writing, same-sex marriages are nationally recognized in 13 countries worldwide. Nine states and the District of Columbia allow gay marriage. Nevertheless, current laws in the majority of U.S. states and at the federal level continue to deny same-sex married couples a wide range of rights and privileges enjoyed by couples in 'traditional' opposite-sex marriages. In this context, this week the United States Supreme Court heard two cases challenging the constitutionality of state and federal prohibitions on recognizing same-sex marriage, the outcomes of which will have major implications for bi-national same-sex spouses.
On March 26, the Court heard oral arguments in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges California's Proposition 8. In 2008, California voters' passage of Proposition 8 overturned a State Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage and briefly allowing same-sex couples to marry in California. Later federal rulings overturned Proposition 8, but same-sex marriages have so far not been reinstated, pending a decision by the nation's highest court. The Supreme Court could rule that same-sex couples have a right to marriage equal to that of opposite-sex couples, thus potentially overturning anti-same-sex-marriage laws in every state across the country. This approach, if taken, would be a huge success for marriage equality, thereby creating uniformity amongst states in granting same-sex couples equal rights under the law. However, the Court could also issue a more narrow ruling limiting the right to marry only to California, or more broadly to states including California that allow civil unions granting every right conferred by marriage without the title itself. Alternately, the court could deny standing to Proposition 8's proponents (California's governor declined to appeal the lower court ruling) on the grounds that they are not directly harmed by the legalization of same-sex marriage and therefore are ineligible to bring the case to begin with, in which case same-sex marriage could be legalized in California but would not be extended to any other state. Lastly, the court could deem Proposition 8 legal, thereby reinstating the law's ban on same-sex marriage in California.
On March 27, the Court heard the second of the two marriage equality cases. United States v. Windsor was brought as a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, who recently argued in a Washington Post op-ed that he now believes the law is unconstitutional and should be struck down. The main argument against DOMA in the
Windsor case is that the federal government is denying same-sex couples equal protection under the law by its failure to grant federal recognition and benefits to same-sex spouses who were wed in states where same-sex marriage is legal. Just as California's governor has opted not to defend Proposition 8, the Obama Administration has stated that it believes DOMA (and Proposition 8) unconstitutional and has opted not to defend the law, but nevertheless requested that the issue was important enough that the Supreme Court should review the case. As a result there is a question of standing in United States v. Windsor as well, but most observers believe that the Court will make a ruling one way or the other in this case.
According to the gay rights organization Immigration Equality, current regulations under DOMA mean that more than 1,100 federal programs and benefits are unavailable to married same-sex couples in the United States. The most important issue at stake from an immigration standpoint, however, is that citizenship rights cannot currently be extended to a non-citizen by virtue of his/her marriage to a same-sex American spouse. In effect, U.S. citizens with same-sex partners have been denied the right of petitioning for their spouses and have been largely powerless when their spouses face deportation. Such citizens have had to choose between remaining in the States without their husband or wife or leaving the U.S. in order to stay together. Should the Court strike down the section of DOMA currently under review, Americans in same-sex marriages with non-citizens would for the first time be able to sponsor their husbands and wives for legal status and eventual American citizenship. A narrow ruling by the Supreme Court striking down DOMA would allow same-sex marriage only in those states where courts have also deemed its prohibition unconstitutional, but a broader decision could void the unjust effects of DOMA countrywide.
Assuming the justices grant standing in either Hollingsworth v. Perry or United States v. Windsor, the ideologically divided court's deciding vote in both cases is expected to rest with Justice Anthony Kennedy. The outcome of the cases will not be known until the Court's decisions are released (likely sometime in June). However, media reports based on this week's proceedings have suggested that Kennedy, along with the Court's 'liberal wing,' appears ready to strike down the portion of DOMA currently being challenged, ruling it unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. I remain hopeful that the day will soon come when U.S. citizens in same-sex partnerships will be allowed equal rights under federal law and finally be able to petition for their non-citizen husbands and wives. It has been long overdue, but until DOMA's ban is overturned, family-based immigration laws will continue to be unjustly denied to U.S. citizens in same-sex partnerships.
image source
|
WITCH BURNINGS: VERY MUCH A CURRENT PRACTICE AND GROUNDS FOR ASYLUM
When one sees the words "witch burnings," it is typically in a novel or a history book about the Dark Ages or 17th century Salem. In such settings, it is easy to imagine angry mobs gathered in the heart of town, burning a witch at the stake. However, the reality is that witch burnings are an ongoing practice. Just this past Monday, an accused witch was burned in a rural area of Papua New Guinea, where many of the locals blame unexplained hardship and troubles on witchcraft.
According to Tia Belau[1], the Palauan national newspaper, "A mob stripped, tortured, and bound a woman accused of witchcraft, then burned her alive in front of hundreds of horrified witnesses in a Papua New Guinea town. [...] Kepari Leniata, a 20-year-old mother, had been accused of sorcery by relatives of a 6-year-old boy who died in a hospital on Tuesday. She was tortured with a hot iron rod, bound, doused in gasoline, and then set alight on a pile of car tires and trash...." Onlookers and the few police officers that were present were reported to have been shocked by the event unfolding before their eyes, but were powerless to stop it.
Papua New Guinea is one of many countries where witches continue to be hunted. The unfortunate souls who are singled out as witches are very often mercilessly persecuted for the rest of their lives. This persecution serves as grounds for accused witches to apply for asylum. In order to be eligible for asylum, one must prove that they cannot live in their country of nationality due to persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. In cases where individual are labeled as witches, they become part of that social group, and are persecuted because of it. The lawyers at BOILA have tried two such cases - one before the Asylum Office, and one before the Immigration Court. In both cases the accused witches were from Cameroon, and both were granted asylum in the United States. While they can spend the rest of their lives free from fear of persecution, many individuals remain whose lives will end as abruptly and violently as Kepari Leniata's did.
[1] Tia Belau, Accused witch burned alive in Papua New Guinea. Volume 22, Issue 12. February 11, 2013. | image source
|
ˇBIENVENIDOS A COLOMBIA! (WELCOME TO COLOMBIA!)
Special Feature by: Maureen Johnson
As many BOILA clients know, I recently moved to Colombia, South America, in order to study Spanish. As an immigration attorney in the U.S., I have a great deal of experience with the U.S. immigration system. Moving abroad has given me the opportunity to gain insight into another country's immigration processes and procedures, further convincing me of just how complicated and inefficient the U.S. can be when it comes to welcoming foreign residents. This piece aims to compare and contrast the process of visiting the U.S. versus that of visiting Colombia.
As a citizen of the U.S., I did not need to obtain a visa before travelling to Colombia. Visa requirements for U.S. citizens vary greatly from country to country, but as of this writing, U.S. citizens can travel to approximately 166 countries in the world without first obtaining a visa. In the case of Colombia, simply by presenting a U.S. passport upon entry at the airport, an American visitor is issued a tourist "visa," and generally is automatically given 60-90 days to stay in the country. The only question asked was what my occupation was in the United States. The immigration official then stated, "Bienveniedos" (welcome) and stamped my passport, allowing me to remain in Colombia for 90 days. Aside from a customs form reporting the contents of my suitcase and declaring that I was not carrying more than $10,000 in cash, no other information or paperwork was requested.
This process is signficantly different from that required for most individuals who wish to enter the U.S. as tourists. Foreign nationals from only 37 countries in the world can enter the U.S. without first obtaining a visa. For the 37 countries whose citizens are allowed to enter the U.S. through the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), travelers are required to first obtain travel authorization through an online verification system, which requires persons to provide biographic information as well as answer a number of eligibility-related questions. There is a $14 processing fee and not every application is approved automatically. If a foreign national is denied entry under the VWP or is from one of the many countries that does not participate in the VWP, the process of obtaining a tourist visa (known as a B-1 or B-2 visa) can be very long and difficult, and in some cases, impossible.
To enter the U.S. on a visitor visa, most foreign nationals must submit a detailed application and attend an interview at the U.S. embassy or consulate in their country of residence. The process can take anywhere from a few weeks to many months. Applicants must prove their intent to return to their country (through proof of property ownership, employment, or significant family ties), and establish that they have sufficient income to support themselves while they visit the U.S. For some people, especially those with insufficient income or without employment, it is extremely difficult to obtain a visitor visa. For a person (such as myself) who is not married and does not own any property, it can be very difficult to obtain a visa to visit the U.S. In Fiscal Year 2012 alone, over two million nonimmigrant visas were denied by the U.S. government (Source: U.S. Department of State preliminary statistics for FY 2012).
After I entered Colombia as a tourist, I began the process of looking for a school to enroll in Spanish classes. After I decided which university I wanted to attend, the process of obtaining a student visa was extremely simple and easy. I enrolled in courses at the university and paid my registration fees, and the school provided me with a letter of acceptance and confirmation of enrollment. The visa application itself was two pages long and required me to only provide biographical information as well as information regarding the university I would be attending. The only documents required were (1) the application; (2) the registration and acceptance letter; (3) a statement declaring responsibility (including cost) for my studies and stay in Colombia and promising to leave the country once my studies are completed; (4) a copy of my passport; (5) passport photographs; and (6) a bank statement. The documentation was presented on my behalf to the Ministy of Immigration in Bogotá and upon review of the application, a visa was immediately approved.
While applying for a F-1 student visa to attend school in the U.S. requires foreign nationals to provide similar documentation to that which I had to provide, the process to obtain a student visa in the U.S. is much more rigorous. Upon acceptance and registration at a school or university, a foreign national must first submit the documentation to the American embassy or consulate in his or her country of origin, then await a visa interview. In contrast to the immediate approval of my student visa upon presentation of the necessary documents, it can take anywhere from one to ten weeks for a F-1 applicant to receive a decision as to whether his or her student visa is approved.
Despite the ease of its immigration procedures, Colombian law requires each national and every foreigner staying on a visa longer than three months to obtain a cedula (national identification or residency card), which they are required to have on their person at all times. In my case, after the visa was approved, I went to the Medellin office of Migración Colombia (Colombia Migration) to apply for my cedula de extranjera (cedula for foreigners). Although some additional documentation (including proof of blood type) was required, the process was relatively simple. No appointment was needed, I waited only about 30 minutes, and so long as I am a student, I can remain living in Colombia.
The difference in sheer number of individuals seeking to enter the United States makes a direct comparison with the process in Colombia somewhat difficult. Nevertheless, having worked with the U.S. immigration system for the last 6 years, I was pleasantly surprised to learn how simple and straightforward the process was for me to legalize my status in Colombia. The few immigration officials with whom I have interacted have been both pleasant and welcoming, and I look forward to learning and sharing more about my experiences over the coming months.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AILA Member Since 1992
|
|
| |
Family Category Processing Times:
1st: 02/15/06
2A: 11/22/10
2B: 03/01/05
3rd: 07/15/02
4th: 04/22/01
Employment Category Processing Times:
1st: Current
2nd: Current
3rd: 05/01/07
Unskilled: 05/01/07
4th: Current
Religious: Current
5th: Current
Targeted Employment Areas/Regional Centers:
Current
5th Pilot Programs: Current |
NEW I-9 EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION FORM IMPLEMENTED
| |
Starting March 8, 2013, the new I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification Form went into effect. We would like to remind all employers that earlier versions of the form are now invalid. As of the 8th of March, employers who fail to use the newly revised form are subject to all applicable penalties under section 274A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a. However the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) does recognize that additional time must be allocated to employers, as not everyone will be able to update their business processes immediately. This is especially true in cases where employers use electronic systems for forms, as the electronic systems may not update the forms immediately. For these reasons, USCIS is allowing for a 60-day grace period, during which employers might not be penalized for failing to use the correct version of the form.
The revision to the I-9 are meant to minimize errors during the process of completing the form. There are three main revisions:
1. Data fields were added, such as the employee's foreign passport information, telephone number, and email address.
2. The layout of the form has been expanded from one page to two pages, excluding instructions.
3. The instructions have been improved in order to simplify the process of filling out the form.
It is to be noted that employers do not need to fill out a new I-9 for existing employees who still have a properly completed I-9 on file. Only in the case of re-verification are employers obligated to have their existing employees fill out a new I-9. Otherwise, unnecessary verification may result in a violation of the anti-discrimination provision 1324b.
For more information regarding the new I-9 Form, please click here. |
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT OF IMMIGRANT DETAINEES
| |
Solitary confinement is one of the most severe punishments that can be levied against a prisoner or detainee. Yet "any given day," according to a recent article in the New York Times, approximately 300 immigrants are held in solitary confinement at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centers across the country. Of those held in solitary, the
Times continues, "
Nearly half are isolated for 15 days or more, the point at which psychiatric experts say they are at risk for severe mental harm, with about 35 detainees kept for more than 75 days." (Emphasis added.) While the conditions of confinement vary, detainees facing solitary confinement have reported to being locked up alone for 22-23 hours a day, in windowless 6-foot-by-13-foot cells. The reasons given for detainees' isolation range from a belief that they pose a threat to other detainees, to minor "disciplinary infractions," to protection from potential violence by other inmates.
Based on oral accounts from prisoners, it seems that in many cases the practice of solitary confinement is unwarranted, excessive, and may amount to torture. Because of the lack of a independent, transparent monitoring system for the detention of immigrants, there are serious questions regarding accountability for detainee abuse. The reported effects of solitary confinement include: post-traumatic stress disorder, paranoia, depression, difficulty sleeping, and nightmares. In addition, according to the Times, detainees in solitary often suffer mental breakdowns that can include self-mutilation and even suicide as a result of prisoners' deprivation of meaningful human contacts with others. Such conditions are likely to be especially traumatic for immigrants, especially victims of human trafficking and detainee asylum-seekers who have already suffered or fear future torture from authorities in their countries of origin. The immigrant population is in many ways the most vulnerable to abuse, especially because they often have family members who are illegal and afraid to complain or seek assistance. Moreover, unlike criminal detainees, immigrants do not have a right to free legal counsel, and many detainees cannot afford legal assistance.
According to a September 2012 report by the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) and Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), part of the problem with respect to immigrant detainees stems from the fact that, "Most immigration detention centers are not dedicated facilities, meaning they hold both immigrants and criminally sentenced individuals," leading detention center officials to rely on "local correctional policies" regardless of whether a detainee is considered dangerous or has been accused of any crime. Describing the use of solitary confinement as "often arbitrarily applied, significantly overused, harmful to detainees' health, and inadequately monitored," the NIJC and PHR report note that detainees frequently have little to no access to legal counsel or their families and often do not speak English, leaving them few if any means by which to appeal their treatment.
Because many immigrant detainees are being held under administrative and not criminal justifications, it is reasonable to question the need for many immigrant detainees to be held in detention centers at all. Because such immigrants are being held under civil and not criminal charges, they are not supposed to be punished, yet they languish in prisons for indefinite amounts of time, isolated from family members or legal counsel. The "supervised" release of hundreds of "low-risk" immigrant detainees due to budget cutbacks resulting from the federal sequester, for example, has raised the question in some quarters of whether those individuals' detentions were necessary or justified to begin with. In this context, the widespread use of detention is itself frequently unnecessary, inhumane, and expensive, especially because of the availability of other reliable, affordable, and compassionate alternatives. Key recommendations of the NIJC-PHR report, for example, include a call on Congress to prohibit solitary confinement of immigrant detainees as well as "end" or strictly curtail "mandatory detention laws."
As the Obama administration has increased enforcement, the immigration detention population has swelled; it has increased by nearly 85 percent since 2005. Once detained, there is no set date of release and detainees are transferred across state lines, often leaving family members without access to their loved ones.
Encouragingly, the renewed focus on solitary confinement has drawn the attention of Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano, who affirmed earlier this week that "solitary confinement should be the exception, not the rule" and stated that she planned to undertake a review of the process. As of today, it remains unclear when such a review will take place or when any changes will be made in the existing scheme of solitary confinement and detention of immigrants. While Congress has legitimate goals of increasing enforcement of its immigration laws, such prioritizes should no longer curtail the rights of illegal immigrants facing detention.
|
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT (VAWA) REAUTHORIZED BUT DEBATE OVER IMMIGRATION REFORM AND SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS FAR FROM OVER
| |
MAR. 8 - The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), drafted by then Senator Joe Biden with Senator Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) passed last Thursday in Congress following a 2012 stalemate on reauthorization. Although focused on domestic violence, VAWA will likely spark further debates on same sex marriage and immigration reform.
Three main provisions at issue were domestic violence on tribal lands, protection extended to LGBTQ abuse victims, and providing temporary visas to undocumented battered women.
There is currently a gap between federal law and Indian law which VAWA hopes to bridge. Namely, prior to the reauthorization, a Native woman facing domestic violence by a non-Native man, had no remedy against him since Indian law only carried jurisdiction over Indian men in domestic violence cases. However, the new VAWA provisions implement concurrent jurisdiction.
According to the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, Tribal courts will now have jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants with "sufficient ties to the Indian tribe." This means that if the victim of domestic violence resides on Indian land, works for the Indian country, or is the spouse or intimate partner of an Indian, that tribe has jurisdiction to prosecute domestic and dating violence.
The second issue which VAWA faced in Congress is the provision extending protection to LGBTQ abuse victims. As the previous Act stipulated, VAWA was intended to protect women, and opponents contended that by stretching VAWA to include the LGBTQ community, already vulnerable shelters working on shoestring budgets open themselves up to litigation and the government to further debate on same-sex issues.
Something is to be said for broadening definitions to reach across and protect others that were not within VAWA as it stood previously. True, VAWA was intended to protect women against abuse, but what of a gay man abused by his partner and shows up at the door of a women's shelter rather than a men's shelter where he feels unsafe (and rightly so after a violent experience with a man) invoking the protection of VAWA? Or a woman in an ongoing emotionally abusive relationship that wants justice as per the new definition of abuse? Or as the ACLU initially pointed out, what of harsh sentences, including mandatory HIV testing of men charged, but not convicted, under the Act?
These were expected to be a major issue of opposition for Conservatives who opposed VAWA in 2012. Surprisingly, VAWA passed despite Conservative opposition in the run up to the upcoming seminal same sex Supreme Court case on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
"Today is about all the Americans who face discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity when they seek help," President Obama said to a cheering crowd at the signing.
It's hard to say whether this will impact the way that Americans view sexual identity and same sex marriage - but there's no denying the present shift in US opinion - or perhaps the present shift in US political opinion surrounding sexuality.
The issue of immigration however, seems much more layered and multifaceted in comparison. Not only dealing with the issue of violence against undocumented women, but the immigration debate, including accountability of employers, employment exploitation, and sexual exploitation.
On the one hand, you have a situation where women are not legally allowed to be here in the first place - thus flouting US law. On the other hand, the injustices of ongoing abuse arguably outweigh her legal status to reside and work here.
Although VAWA won't be able to please both sides of this heated debate, as with any legislation, it needs to cater to the evolution of an ever-changing society while still within Constitutional bounds.
"Today's signing of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization into law gives women and all victims of domestic violence across America the peace of mind that their government will not abandon them in their time of need," said one of the original authors of the bill, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D., NY).
However, one can't deny how contradictory the Violence Against Women Act affords umbrella protections to both marginalized men and women, but fails to recognize these individuals and families under the color of law. LGBTQ couples are protected from violence even though federal law fails to recognize their relationships, and illegal immigrants can in theory voice their victimization from abusers, yet continue to be rounded up and ripped from their families for crossing the wrong border at the wrong time. Whether Congress intended to lay the foundations for support of immigration reform and same sex marriage or not, it seems that VAWA may be the gateway to both.
image source
|
|
|
