Don't worry Satah. We won't waste our time unless said couple is also on welfare and having an abortion paid for by Obamacare.

Upon hearing this news, Tony Perkins head exploded.

Which one?

Tony Perkins looks very feminine to me; most be a latent homosexual.

Yeah and look what Mitt's father became. Goes to show you can achieve anything in this country which is what makes it great.

BobHolly:

By LEAPS and BOUNDS the funniest post of the year......classic.

I am not sure what you mean by greater privileges but don't you think this perception could be changed if the same rights and privileges afford to straight couples was also afforded to gay couples?

Should be a huge boon for the Obama campaign...lol.

Did any body think that Janet N would make a ruling other wise I mean look at him ;-}

. It's like two for the price of one

Good one Sarah

Since they are talking about deportation I would assume they are talking about "illegal" immigration, correct?

If so, why are we even worried about illegal immigration. Janet N. just needs to follow the federal immigration laws which is that illegals are here, duh, illegally, and should be deported. It's very simple.

Homosexual couples NEVER have more rights than I do in my marriage. My gay coworker has to pay income tax on his spousal benefits. In Utah, he can be fired for his sexual orientation (without penalty) and he up until recently could be discriminated against for housing. Meanwhile I just waltz in, fill out the insurance forms and my husband is covered, pre-tax even. My co-worker is happy to have found a tolerant company, but there are many here that are not. No inheritance, higher taxes, discrimination, and degradation. No, they do not have it better...and until they have it equal, they are allowed to complain.

JoAnn,

No, many of these deported "spouses" came here legally and their visas have run out. They are challenging to be allowed to stay in the country and were initially denied because they did not have a "familial relationship" with a US citizen. Not every immigrant came here illegally that has faced a deportation order. Some were asylum seekers that missed the deadline to file their permanent residency status. Others came on student visas and fell in love...you know, like people in college do...

Just because you are in front of an ICE judge, doesn't mean that you came here illegally. It can mean your original visa expired and you're challenging the decision not to renew.

Wow, not a single post worthy of collapse....

I commend everyone! :)

Have a great weekend!

Jo -Ann said:

Since they are talking about deportation I would assume they are talking about "illegal" immigration, correct?

No.

If someone came here on a visa and fell in love with someone of the same gender, maybe even if their state allows same-sex marriage and they got married, then the person who was here on a visa that is expiring/has expired can claim close family ties in order to request a stay of deportation until a judge can review the case. Also, this is not just about deportation. If a US citizen meets a non citizen of the same gender overseas and wants to bring that person to the us, formerly because they were the same gender it would not be considered a close family tie and the overseas person could not immigrate. With this pronouncement it qualifies.

Used to be, in order to immigrate, you showed up at Ellis Island and applied with a list of your skills and what you could contribute. If you knew someone who was already here, that helped; but it was not necessary.

In today's immigration system, you can no longer apply to come in your own merit; you have to have an employer or school or a family member sponsor you in. If you don't know anyone here you can't immigrate. That's the reason for this whole 'anchor baby' fiasco--people who want to come here but don't know anyone here sneak over the border, have a child on american soil making them automatic citizens, and when that child grows up they can sponsor their parent(s) in.

Instead of passing new laws and policy changes to even the playing field for everyone, let's go back to what worked. Everybody gets considered according to what you can contribute, not because of who you know. And if you think about it, the current problems we have with Immigration stem from this particular rule--it takes longer to bring someone in as a family member because background checks have to include how the immigrant is related to the sponsor, that has to be verified,either through us system or another country, and in some war-torn countries or countries without a lo of freedom of information, that can hold a person up years, even decades.

It's not a complete fix to ALL of Immigration problems, but it would be a start.

This shows the real problems that are caused by DOMA. We have a tradition of allowing people who are genuinely in love to keep their partners with them and to bring their spouses to America. Vietnam vets come to mind. It's just not right to put someone through the heart break of losing a loved one because a border separates them.

In short order, this debate is bound to descend into a God vs. no-God argument, so let me say one thing. It's almost certain that any two people are going to disagree on religious issues. Is there a God? Is Mary devine? Does the wine transform into real blood during communion? We don't ban pentecostals for gyrating in church. Neither should we ban the union of two gay people because a lot of religious folks believe it's a "sin" to love someone of the same gender. It's a private issue that should be left up to their own faith or lack thereof.

bubba-1946427

Did any body think that Janet N would make a ruling other wise I mean look at him ;-}

So wrong...............yet so funny!

Raging Capitalist - there are so many instances in government and the private sector, (via government laws, HR departments of large corporations wanting to look good etc) where the same sex couple has greater rights and privaledges.

Please name one.

Large corporations will often provide compensatory compensation for the extra federal tax gay couples pay on spousal healthcare benefits, but that's simply to try to compensate for an existing inequity caused by DOMA.

I guess this explains why my son was kissing the gardener.

Close family ties to the United States are a factor considered by authorities in deportation cases, and gay and lesbian advocates have long argued for same-sex couples to have the same immigration rights as opposite-sex couples.

There's the problem, why are they giving allowances for "close family ties?" Just another reason to abuse the system. If you come to America legally, then you know the rules, like, not letting your visa expire. Don't be lazy about the status of your visa and then try to find an excuse to stay when they catch you. Gay, straight, doesn't matter, especially if you are Illegal in the first place. Illegals should be deported as soon as it is determined they are here illegally. BTW - in many states, Gay couples are not considered "family." Why should those being deported have that for an excuse when Americans don't? Yet another instance where non-Americans receive benefits Americans don't. Why should non-Americans have more benefits than Americans.....(they shouldn't.) With events like this we totally understand why this country's govt. is out of control and things are so screwed up.

What!!! We are now choosing between our country and a flipping relationship and our country loses. Flip all you all nitwits. You have just said everything I need to hear. If you do not love this country and her laws, change them, but do it the way you are supposed to not by some single person put in charge of a regulatory organization but by the way of the Constitution. I guess you liberal nutjobs have ignored the laws for so long you think you are making them. Oops I forgot you have judges for that.

nyc guy:

Janet "Butch" Napolitano was not hired to determine the immigration rights of homosexual illegal aliens

Actually, as the head of Homeland Security and therefore head of ICE, it is her job to determine the rights of aliens,whether legal or illegal, gay, lesbian, or straight.

Actually, as Homeland Security now owns the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, she determines YOUR rights too...

Yes America, another reason to vote for the Republicans in November!!! I love it !

Eight-four members of Congress signed a joint letter to Napolitano on July 31 asking for her to put into writing an order to prevent the deportation and separation of immigrants from their American citizen same-sex partners.

Great.....Next will be an Executive Order for "forgiveness" of ALL student loan debt IF a student joins the Americorps for at least ONE year immediately after graduation from college.

Anything to get those votes since Mr. Obama needs them.

Sounds like Progressive rationalization to me.

willowbrook said;

If you come to America legally, then you know the rules, like, not letting your visa expire. Don't be lazy about the status of your visa and then try to find an excuse to stay when they catch you. Gay, straight, doesn't matter, especially if you are Illegal in the first place.

Per my post above at 1.18:

If someone came here on a visa and fell in love with someone of the same gender, maybe even if their state allows same-sex marriage and they got married, then the person who was here on a visa that is expiring/has expired can claim close family ties in order to request a stay of deportation until a judge can review the case.

Also, this is not just about deportation. If a US citizen meets a non citizen of the same gender overseas and wants to bring that person to the us, formerly because they were the same gender it would not be considered a close family tie and the overseas person could not immigrate. With this pronouncement it qualifies.

There's the problem, why are they giving allowances for "close family ties?" Just another reason to abuse the system.

No, because that's how the system currently works.

Used to be, in order to immigrate, you showed up at Ellis Island and applied with a list of your skills and what you could contribute. If you knew someone who was already here, that helped; but it was not necessary.

In today's immigration system, you can no longer apply to come in your own merit; you have to have an employer or school or a family member sponsor you in. If you don't know anyone here you can't immigrate.

Instead of passing new laws and policy changes to even the playing field for everyone, let's go back to what worked. Everybody gets considered according to what you can contribute, not because of who you know.

SpyderGirl said: "Just because you are in front of an ICE judge, doesn't mean that you came here illegally. It can mean your original visa expired and you're challenging the decision not to renew."

Uh you are suppose to leave before the visa expires --- if you're here without a visa you're illegal and that's how it works in other countries as well. "Challenging the decision not to renew" --- it's the law to renew or get out. Geez do you liberals have no end to your pandering?

First illegals are stealing US resources from the American poor. Now perverts will party with those resources. I see a future of barking in hell for all those who help these rats steal from Americans.

How did 90% of Mexico suddenly turn into sodomites?

And they were doing so good at pretending to be loyal Catholics. I guess they only do that on Good Friday when the cameras are rolling.

Dottie said:

Uh you are suppose to leave before the visa expires --- if you're here without a visa you're illegal

No, you're not. You can be here legally after a visa expires if you have applied for a green card, permanent residency or citizenship. Such paperwork can take up to 20 years to process dependingon what country you'e from and what the applicant quotas are from that country. if you have 'close family ties' it can also speed up the process.

spydergirl said;

"Just because you are in front of an ICE judge, doesn't mean that you came here illegally'

Exactly. People also come here seeking asylum from persecution in their home countries oftentimes with nothing more than the clothes they are wearing.

There are also children who were adopted here by us citizens but the adoption agency was crooked and pocketed the money while providing falsified papers to the parents; it is neither the fault of the parents nor the fault of the child/infant.

There are also children who were kidnapped from different countries and trafficked here so some USC can make child porn;

And people like me, who was adopted legally as an infant but USCIS lost my adoption paper 18 years later and since I was never told I was adopted before my parents died in a car crash, I could not provide them with another copy of the adoption paper. The judge decided they could not deport me; since I was abandoned as an infant at the international orphanage with no birth certificate, there was no 'home country' to deport me to--and so the judge simply told me I'd remain in deportation until I gave them a copy of my adoption paper (it took three years to find it.)

Now will they consider unmarried heterosexual couples to also have close family ties? Just wondering as, as it stands, you usually have to marry to be able to bring your foreign partner to America, yet in most States gay marriage is not legal.

Others came on student visas and fell in love...you know, like people in college do...

@SpyderGirl, now I understand. Thanks.

Okay, but people need to realize just because someone is here on a visa (here legally) and gets married to a US citizen does not guarantee temporary or permanent citizenship.

It happened to my brother-in-law. He married a woman from another country and she had to follow every rule. If not, then she was threatened with deportation even though she married my brother-in-law, who is a naturally born US citizen. Immigration didn't care if they were married.

Fortunately, the United Nations calls what they are doing "HUMAN TRAFFICKING". They are trying to make a profit at the expense of poor Americans.

Dotties girl, do you conservatives have no end to your ignorance? The quote you cited indicates that sometimes they find themselves before a judge WHILE THEY'RE STILL HERE LEGALLY and are challenging a non-renewal decision.

We can all agree that same sex partners should not be treated disparately. What is UNACCEPTABLE is granting rewards and special treatment to ANY (whether heterosexual, same-sex, or otherwise) ILLEGAL FOREIGN NATIONAL who selfishly broke our immigration laws and who now seeks to be granted better treatment than those who have dutifully played by our immigration rules (the MOST-GENEROUS-IMMIGRATION-RULES IN THE WORLD)!

A GOVERNMENT WHICH REFUSES TO ENFORCE ITS OWN LAWS IS INTOLERABLE!

Amanda

"Actually, as the head of Homeland Security and therefore head of ICE, it is her job to determine the rights of aliens,whether legal or illegal, gay, lesbian, or straight."

Wrong, her job is to enforce the laws as written. It is the legislative branch of government that writes the laws. It's the Judaical branch that determines whether a law violates someones rights. It is janets job to enforce the law as written.

Angelica said:

What is UNACCEPTABLE is granting rewards and special treatment to ANY (whether heterosexual, same-sex, or otherwise) ILLEGAL FOREIGN NATIONAL who selfishly broke our immigration laws

This is not granting special treatment to illegals. This is going to give gays and lesbians the same rights that straight citizen and non-citizens, legal and illegal, get. Please see my post above at 1.18.

Incorrect Amanda--- It is an effort to grant executive level amnesty for immigration lawbreaking to both heterosexual and same-sex couples! In both instances, this is an outrageous and improper policy. Same sex couples should, of course, be treated the same, but NO ONE should be receiving Obama's unilateral grant of amnesty and special treatment for ANYONE WHO BROKE OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS! If you are properly in deportation proceedings (and thus, are subject to being deported), YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE HERE, and your presence is offensive to lawabiding Americans and LEGAL immigrants (both gay and straight)!

Johnny On The Spot said:

Wrong, her job is to enforce the laws as written. It is the legislative branch of government that writes the laws. It's the Judaical branch that determines whether a law violates someones rights. It is Janet's job to enforce the law as written.

See, that's what's frustrating about Homeland Security--since they also own the Office of Policy and the Office of Legislative Affairs, right now the line between what Homeland Security has the power to do or not is fuzzy and undefined, and that's troubling in an agency that has gone from a $49 million operating budget in 2002 to $98 billion in 2011.

It's also disturbing that John Boehner recently petitioned the president to give his 33-member Homeland Security Oversight Committee sole and exclusive oversight of the Homeland Security juggernaut, including budget and spending allowances. granting his petition will mean that if anyone has any questions, the answers will only be coming from the Speaker of the House--who is third in line should the President and Vice-President die.

JohnnyOnTheSpot-3794903 - Wrong, her job is to enforce the laws as written. It is the legislative branch of government that writes the laws. It's the Judaical branch that determines whether a law violates someones rights. It is janets job to enforce the law as written.

And since both DOMA and immigration law are silent in this area, it's quite proper for the administration to set policy.

Furthermore, the administration sets policy regarding the priority of deportation actions. Since they know that DOMA will be history in 9 months, there's no reason to pursue these cases.

Angelica:

This is not amnesty. Did you go up and read the aforementioned post?

If a US citizen meets a non citizen of the same gender overseas gets married in a country that recognizes same sex marriage and wants to bring that person to the us, formerly, because they were the same gender it would not be considered a close family tie and the overseas person could not immigrate. With this pronouncement it qualifies.

But then they still have to pay all the fees, pass all the background checks and wait the sometimes-two-decades long period in order to get papers. And if they don't pass that background check,they aren't allowed in whether they are gay or straight.

It would be much, MUCH simpler to just take away the requirement that 'you can only immigrate if you know someone already here' and let each person apply to come based on their skills and how they can contribute to our society, the way it was when my husband's grandparents came in at Ellis Island after WWI.

Amanda--- I am commenting on the article which describes circumstances where partners are in "deportation proceedings", which means that they are alleged to be violating our immigration laws. However, I completely agree that there should be the same standards for bringing a same-sex partner here as a heterosexual partner--- CONVERSELY NO ONE SHOULD BE REWARDED FOR VIOLATING OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS (Obama's policies in this regard pertain to rewarding and granting special treatment to the immigration lawbreakers--- whoever they may be--- it is to this policy that I object!!!

Amanda,

Let me save you some time and trouble. Angelica's a troll for some anti-immigration organization. If you go to her page, you'll see it, clear as day.

Sarah, In regard to post 1.1, Barack Obama was anti-gay and running illegals out of this country at a rate never before seen! Then he flip-flopped,or as they spin it, had a "revelation", now it's fine to be gay and all you illegal's of a certain age can stay!? And this all came about in the last few months. Which is nothing more than Bill Daley to say," look this election is going to be close Barack,your job numbers suck and we need some votes"! So get your a$$ out there and start pandering votes or we're both going back to Chi-town! Sarah, I'm Republican and I say live how you want to live sister. This isn't a win for the right wing,it's another uncalculated White House clusterf*ck! Peace

Let me save all of you some time-- Sarah's a consistent liar whose posts are frequently collapsed because of her blatant lies, subterfuge, and warped perspective, all of which are evident.

As evidence, I haven't said anything about being against "immigration" and I certainly do not work or represent any group concerning immigration! As much as Sarah is on here posting her nauseating anti-rule-of-law open-borders agenda, I am here (as a person in private practice and a life-long liberal Democrat) advocating for the enforcement of our most-generous-in-the-world immigration laws--- a subject matter that I feel passionately about given that devastating impact upon American citizens and our work opportunities.

Neither Sarah nor anyone else has EVER heard me say one thing about being against "immigration". Rather, I am against ILLEGAL immigration-- Sarah fails to apprehend the vast difference and is unable to comment on someone else's views without distorting them completely.

Uh oh, somebody got a little defensive.

Amanda,

You know, I ask her every time to show where I've lied, and she never does. I think she's confused lying with disagreeing.

Anyway, this is what's going to happen...

She'll continue to post these wordy, overly dramatic, anti-immigrant posts.

She'll accuse you of lying and being unamerican.

When asked to provide proof of what she accuses of, she'll resort to insults.

She'll post an editorial from the Miami Herald that's about two or three years old, and is well an editorial.

She'll ignore any questions you ask her.

She'll claim she voted for Obama and is a liberal.

She'll claim she once worked for the ACLU.

It's pretty much text book Karl Rove tactics. Seriously, I encourage you to go to her page and read her posts.

If you are a man against gayness or simply not inclined towards the same sex as you, all you have to do is not suck cock or take it in the ass and you're safe. Same sort of advice for women. SIMPLE!

P.S. She's exceptionally good at twisting words, being obtuse and purposely misinterpreting things. Have fun and good luck!

Angelica,

You have a great evening now!

The problem with this ruling by Napolitano is that it is not legal. Aside from ignoring DOMA, which like it or not is still the law, she is granting special privileges to gays and lesbians. For a heterosexual to bring their significant other to the US under the close family ties rule they need to married, not just together for a few years. This is saying that gays and lesbians are subject to different rules. If they are not a legal couple in any sense then they do not qualify to come here under this rule as it has been applied for decades. If she is going to change the rule for gays and lesbians then a heterosexual couple that is not married but have been together for a while can claim they deserve equal treatment. Imagine the mess that will start. Also, how are you supposed to know whether these "couples" have been together for a certain period of time or not when there is no legal documentation, like a marriage certificate, to prove it. They can simply claim they have been together for years and you have nothing but their word to go by. This is bull@!$%# and just one more example of this administration deciding which laws they will and will not enforce based on the agenda of the administration, not the content of the governing federal laws. The immigration enforcement people go to great lengths to keep people from scamming the system with "green card marriages." This policy is going to open up the system to a whole new level of scams with people claiming to be gay or lesbian couples just so someone can get a visa to remain in the US. They will not even have to take the legal risk of going through a sham marriage, all they have to do is lie on their application and say they are a couple. At a minimum, they should be forcing these "couples" to be in some type of legally binding union before they are considered to be in a close family relationship under this rule. Otherwise you have two different requirements for heterosexuals versus gays and lesbians, which is what this whole directive was supposed to be doing away with.

JS,

At a minimum, they should be forcing these "couples" to be in some type of legally binding union before they are considered to be in a close family relationship under this rule

The problem is, though, that gay people aren't legally recognized in every state, as being in binding unions. Even civil unions. So, how do you suppose we fix that?

That's just one of the reasons, the "Gay marriage should be left up to the states or popular vote" arguments fail. Well that, and the whole we're a REPUBLIC thing.

Sarah thats not our problem. I have to agree with Angelica. As far as immigration goes I'm with Angelica I'm not against immigration just illegal immigration. Do you think your pro homo agenda can grasp that concept? Or are you busy grasping something anatomical?

BeeCee,

pro homo agenda

Um, you mean equal rights?

can grasp that concept?

Can I grasp irrational fear and willful ignorance? Nope.

Or are you busy grasping something anatomical?

As well as completely discrediting anything you have to say, this statement is illogical. Don't you think, if I was, I'd be having a hard time typing right now?

For the truth about undocumented workers, check these sites out...

http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/immigration-myths-and-facts

http://www.energyofanation.org/sites/25e1f498-741c-478a-8a08-aa486d8533a5/uploads/undocumented_immigrants_3.pdf

http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org/illegal-immigration-pros-tax-paying-illegal-workers-contribute-to-the-economy/

Anyway, this is what's going to happen...

She'll continue to post these wordy, overly dramatic, anti-immigrant posts.

She'll accuse you of lying and being unamerican.

When asked to provide proof of what she accuses of, she'll resort to insults.

She'll post an editorial from the Miami Herald that's about two or three years old, and is well an editorial.

She'll ignore any questions you ask her.

She'll claim she voted for Obama and is a liberal.

She'll claim she once worked for the ACLU.

It's pretty much text book Karl Rove tactics. Seriously, I encourage you to go to her page and read her posts.

Game... set... match.

The entire point of protecting illegals who were married to citizens was to avoid ripping apart families, especially because there might be children involved. The U.S. didn't want to penalize people who fell in love with, and married, an illegal alien, particularly if they didn't know their partner was illegally here. There are plenty of states where gay marriage is legal, now, and I would expect a truly committed gay couple, where one is an illegal immigrant, can make the trek out to such a state and get married. "I met Johnnie in a gay dance club and he wants me to stick around" should definitely not suffice. If illegal immigrants were in Mexico, as they should be, no relationships would arise to defend. I suspect, however, that the government is hoping this decision will force people to decide to approve gay marriage, in hopes that the marriage will stand as a barrier against every illegal just temporarily hooking up with some gay citizen (or even one who pretends to be gay). I hope it works, since I am tired of our American theocracy, but as it sounds right now, this loophole for illegals is so wide as to be absurd.

Bee-Cee-- Don't bother trying to explain to the promoters of lies and the intellectually dishonest the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration. Sarah's only apparent strategy is to disseminate false statements about those with whom she disagrees, so you have to recognize a deliberate liar when you are confronted by such misrepresntations.

Sarah doesn't know me at all, and it's laughable that she has the gall to make statements about which organizations I associate with, my political party affiliation, etc. (and please note that I have never asserted these same things about her). For the record--- you are in good company--- I am a professional, a registered Democrat, and I will not be voting for Obama this time because I am opposed to his pro-rewards for ILLEGAL immigration agenda. I never said that I "worked for"/was employed by the ACLU, but I did sit for over 7 years on the local chapter ACLU board in a large metropolitan area until 2011-- wherein the ACLU changed its policies (from merely due process issues in the immigration context) and began promoting an open borders agenda and rewards for ILLEGAL immigration-- which has absolutely nothing to do with any true civil liberties platform.

Contrary to Sarah's noxious misrepresentations, it is Entirely UNTRUE that Democrats are largely in favor of granting rewards for immigration lawbreaking! I agree with the thousands of registered Democrats in the Democratic State of Maryland who opposed taxpayer subsidized college education for ILLEGALS and stopped Governor O'Malley's bill from becoming law in July 2011. That bill will now be put before the voters of Maryland in Election 2012, and the polls say that it will not become law--- The reason for this is that most Democrats also oppose ILLEGAL immigration!

I am a professional, a registered Democrat, and I will not be voting for Obama this time because I am opposed to his pro-rewards for ILLEGAL immigration agenda.

So you will be voting for Romney, who has the exact same "agenda", to prove how much you don't like Obama's agenda?

Wow... way to prove how "intellectual" you are. You don't like one supposed "agenda", so you will vote for the other guy with the same "agenda".

It's funny... when it comes to immigration, both parties like to talk a big game, but they never do anything different. Yet here you are, falling for the typical talking points. How "intellectual" of you.

mguy--- I didn't say I was voting for Romney--- I said I would not vote for Obama! You made a false assumption. However, their agendas are NOT equivalent--- Obama has pledged to subvert the law, while Romney (at least during the primary) has pledged to enforce the law. I recognize that the pro-Republican Chamber of Commerce loves and promotes immigration lawbreaking! I certainly don't think either party at this juncture has American workers' best interests at heart. The Democratic party certainly used to represent American workers' interests, but in promoting de facto amnesty for MILLIONS of immigrtion lawbreakers, they have sold them out big time (and you'll note the DEmocratic party's pro-rewards and special treatment for immigration lawbreaking agenda is an ENTIRELY NEW AGENDA!!!--- it's with this that I part ways!!!)

And to your last question--- very intellectual!

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you...

Exhibit A. Post #1.59..

But don't take my word for it, check out her page, folks.

What I don't get, is why she feels the need to write 3 paragraphs, for what can essentially boils down to, "Go @!$%# yourself"??? You'd figure if she was THAT intellectual, she'd be able to say it in less then 300 words.

Mguy,

I told you so. :)

The lady doth protest too much.

mguy--- And --- please note-- that it was the pro-Republican Chamber of Commerce (in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 131 S.Ct. 1968 (2011)) that challenged Arizona's law that businsses which hire ILLEGALS and do not utilize E-Verify should have their licenses revoked. The Chamber of Commerce LOST! The Supreme Court decided in Arizona's favor (this was the first Arizona case that was decided in 2011). The reality is that both parties have sold out the American worker--- it's just that the Democratic leadership (as opposed to Democratic voters) have made it a recent party platform to oppose enforcement of our immigration laws!

"The power of an administrative officer or board to administer a federal statute and to prescribe rules and regulations to that end is not the power to make law—for no such power can be delegated by Congress—but the power to adopt regulations to carry into effect the will of Congress as expressed by the statute. A regulation which does not do this, but operates to create a rule out of harmony with the statute, is a mere nullity." Manhattan General Equipment Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 297 U.S. 129, 134 (1936)

This principle applies as well to agency issuances that do not even rise to the level of legislative regulations; and, therefore, it may be that DHS's memo, albeit published in accordance with the requirements of the Immigration Act, cannot enchance DHS's status to that of Congress so as to permit it to create substantive rights in violation of a statute. such as DOMA. Hamlet v. United States 63 F.3d 1097, 1104–05 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1155 (1996).

@BeeCee-3234866

Sarah thats not our problem. I have to agree with Angelica. As far as immigration goes I'm with Angelica I'm not against immigration just illegal immigration. Do you think your pro homo agenda can grasp that concept? Or are you busy grasping something anatomical?

You made yourself look like a complete idiot with that comment. Well done.

Dear BobHolly:

Yes, you at the top. Thanks for the chuckle.

Regards,

Jerry

I read enough comments here to know that reading any more of them may well cause irreparable brain damage from banging my head on the desk! I didn't really WANT to comment but some of the stupidity and ignorance in these comments FORCED me!

Firstly, gay unions/marriages is a CIVIL RIGHTS issue. The institution of marriage is a man-made one that has been "used" by civilizations the world over for centuries mostly to forge alliances/allegiances and ties for power, money, protection and political advantages. Later, marriage became a "sanctified" religious creature to much of the world, though as we can see by divorce rates..marriage isn't always held in such high regard AFTER the vows.

That said, in the USA, married couples (whether it be a civil ceremony or a religious one) are entitled to certain privileges provided that the "marriage" fits an out-dated general description of marriage ie: a hetero couple. But it wasn't that long ago that marriage between a white man and black woman (or vice versa) wasn't legal and/or recognized.

My first point is: People should have EQUAL RIGHTS under the laws and constitution of this nation.Period. Not just those who see themselves as "more equal" than others.

My final point is the one that TRULY has me head-banging; not ALL "immigrants" are MEXICAN!

There are approximately 196 countries in the world and all some of the right-wing nut-jobs on here can focus on is Mexico. Is that just because it's the only country that you are aware of at our BORDER? Think again swifties...Canada is also a "foreign" country on our border to the north, never-mind the fact that people actually come HERE with things such as PASSPORTS and VISAS from MANY other countries. Air travel is just amazing these days...much faster than covered wagons. Some of you should try it!

So as some of the more intelligent folks here have stated, IF an American fell in love with a person from another country (whether on USA soil or foreign soil) s* it happens! The MAIN (and really ONLY) problem with same-sex couples is that their unions are not Federally recognized...YET. So they find themselves in a genuine catch-22.

People want to whine about them NOT being married or legally bound and therefore not "eligible" to claim that relationship for legal status in one breath..then want to DENY them that right in the next! Common sense, it would appear, is a misnomer of the first order...**sigh**

Bottom line...Unless you can truly claim to be of direct Native American descent we are ALL descendants of immigrants or immigrants ourselves. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" people.

Think again swifties...Canada is also a "foreign" country on our border to the north, never-mind the fact that people actually come HERE with things such as PASSPORTS and VISAS from MANY other countries.

Just to add to that, queenrosered, Canada also has a treaty with the USA whereby we agree to acknowledge the legal marriages from each others country. DOMA is messing with those treaty agreements. Correct me if I am wrong but don't treaties have Constitutional standing?

As a Canadian whose partner is a USA citizen, still residing there, we couldn't even hope to have my daughter and I move to live with her (after we do get married) like a heterosexual married couple could.

Why should my 10 yr old have her family ripped apart at the end of a visa term when it wouldn't likely happen to an opposite gender married couple? Or worse still, my 10 yr old never gets to have that stable family environment at all simply because we can't move to live with her after legally becoming a family in Canada or from one of the States where it is legal.

From my perspective, why do heterosexual married couples get 'special rights' for immigration in your country?

queenrosered

My final point is the one that TRULY has me head-banging; not ALL "immigrants" are MEXICAN!

Mexicans are less than 2% of the world's population yet they make up over 60% of illegals caught by US Immigration and over 90% of those caught are LATIN AMERICANS.

Not every German was a Nazi but we had to bomb Germany into bits in order to free the world from evil.

Mexico did not send even one single Mexican soldier to fight against Nazi Germany during WW2 even though they declared war against Germany.

Mexico did not send even one single Mexican soldier to fight against Nazi Germany during WW2 even though they declared war against Germany.

What on earth, does that have to do with anything?

Mexicans are less than 2% of the world's population yet they make up over 60% of illegals caught by US Immigration and over 90% of those caught are LATIN AMERICANS.

Okay, but this issue is about ALL immigration.

It's about time that US citizens get the same rights as others.

as in deportation?

Illegal immigrant gays if I may use that term for a moment have more family rights than US gays right now! They have just been given family status, you don't have that in most cases in jobs or marriage! Think about what they have just done here!

Bubba....I think you are right. It seems that Napalitano doesn't seem to understand immigration law at all and is willing to bend over backwards to win votes for the President.

GBLT Immigrants are being granted seriously "special" status beyond what the US GBLT community is afforded and beyond what hetro-immigrant partnerships are afforded. In order for an immigrant employee of a Company in the United States to bring their opposite sex partner to the US they must be legally married in a civil or religious proceeding. If they do not provide a marriage certificate the partner cannot legally come to this country unless they immigrate another way via employment visa, a student visa etc. If an American citizen wishes to marry a person of foreign citizenship they can't just automatically assume their fiance or spouse can legally immigrate. There is a process and marriage is not an automatic road to residency.

We owe it to American citizens to resolve the differences in straight v GBLT rights, responsibilities and privileges before we go making a special circumstance for those who have no skin in the US game.

txmom32, in many of these cases, the same-sex partners were married abroad in countries that recognize same-sex marriage.

Misscreant: Who cares? This country doesn't recognize their status just as we don't care whether or not a person is considered royalty in their home country. Foreign laws have no bearing in the US.

We could set up a marriage chapel in immigration offices and make the ground it stands on officially a part of massachusetts, thereby allowing a immigrant and a US national to be married within US borders no matter how deep into gay hating, bible thumping, made-in-china US flag waving territory you are.

I personally have suffered the BRUNT of your hate..since most of you are radical christian right.. and you actually proclaim to be christians..

I am older and the christian right has seen to it that the remainder of my life will be a friggin mess..

2 months ago I put my partner of 29 years in the hospital slowly he deteriated and ended up in ICU.. we had all the legal papers necesarry to allow me to visit and make decisions for him.. but since this hospital was associated with a church I was prevented from visiting him, they chose to ignore all the legal papers I had..

He passed and I had been blocked from his bedside.. the pain and agony continue.. the hate is subsiding

since most of you are radical christian right.. and you actually proclaim to be christians..

Its the sin that I hate, not the sinner. Unlike your rant that proclaims the christian right has somehow prevented you from caring for your friend. What hospital would prevent you from visitation?

I smell a bogus story. Its just like the left to always look for blame. You can never take responsibility for your actions.

Maybe it's Bush's fault.

Sorry for your loss max. If that hospital takes any government money they have totally broken the law and you should sue the hell out of them.

Misscreant...I don't disagree that it is a possibility but, it is not recognized in the United States at this time. For any other immigrant to legally come here with a partner or as a partner they must be legally married by United States Standards, pass the background checks and come under the terms of a visa. Many of these couples do not care for the whole convention of "Marriage" or "Civil Partnership" and yet if they wish to Immigrate to the US they must meed the Federal definition of a family. That is seriously a breech of civil rights to a hetro-couple who are in a partnership without civic or religious convention to be denied family status when Napalitano, without consideration of Congress, can dictate that a GLBT couple can skate by. Keeping in mind that Napalitano was an appointment she was not elected to represent anyone, especially those who are looking for entry into our country.

Crinpbyl...I suppose as a simple solution that would still not necessarily work as they would not qualify for a visa and just because a US citizen marries a foreign national it does not afford the foreign national automatic residency. Also the US Government couldn't possibly care less what Massachusetts considered a legal marriage/union if it does not comply with Federal standards. The US Government not the Common Wealth of Mass determines immigration policy and immigrants must stand to the US standard and not that of an individual state. I suppose for tourists a Mass wedding certificate could be a real fun novelty item. But then it also lends itself to ridicule when a woman cross dresses as a man and a man as a woman so that they can be considered as a trans gender couple.

Txmom, an immigrant can also come here on a K-1 Fiancee Visa, and then get married within 90 days.

Johnny-3647544 - Its the sin that I hate, not the sinner.

Right.....you don't hate gays, you just think they should be 2nd-class citizens who are denied the legal rights you enjoy.

What hospital would prevent you from visitation?

It's happened frequently, but federal policy changed under Obama in an attempt to prevent that sort of abuse. If the hospital receives any federal funds (Medicare/Medicaid, etc) it would be illegal today. I suggest you learn about what happened to Lisa Pond and her family:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/health/19well.html

Johnny----- I hate to inform you that post is 100% true.. the hospital is in Lansdowne PA, and is a Catholic hospital. a priest came to me and informed me that since I was not a member of his immediate family I was not allowed to visit nor make medical decisions. for my PARTNER I ask you why increase the highest level of pain I have ever know in my life.. so as of today I am sitting on the lawsuit.. so one day I want to see this happen to a str8 couple.. because IT hurts.

as I stated above I am bound by law to take care of all those other things, and I have no benefits .. my partner passed with me 25' away and unable to hold him or tell him how much I loved him

Max, as Mike already noted you should definitely sue if that happened after Obama changed HHS policy on April 15th 2010. At the very least, let HHS know what happened so they can take action, and file a complaint with your state's hospital licensing board. The hospital can and should lose all Medicare/Medicaid funding.

My condolences - that sort of @!$%# shouldn't happen to anyone.

Well it could and does happen to straight couples who are not married.

And you have equal rights. You are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex just like the rest of us.

Marriage is from God. It started with God. Marriage is a covenant between God, a man, and a woman. Want a same sex union it will never be a marriage because God won't be included.

Marriage has nothing to do with the location when you say the vows. Nothing says a preacher has to perform the ceremony.

It is not about hating homosexuals. Actually I pray for them and pity them that they are bound by this sin.

I know many claim they are born that way and can't help it. But that has never been proven. In fact the only thing that is proven is that it is not genetic. If it were then identical twins would always either both be straight or both be gay. That is not the case. So it is not genetic.

Really you think identical twins are exactly genetically equal? They are not exact close but not exact. I' m sorry i know you really want to believe that but the science says different.

Tether - And you have equal rights. You are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex just like the rest of us.

That's the bigot logic which SCOTUS laughed out of court in 1967, when they easily recognized odious bigotry masking as equality.

No wonder you nuts keep losing in court.

skrekk...now truly how offensive must you be in a civil conversation? The problem is not the issue the problem is that the issued is not recognized by law. Another problem is that Napalitano has no authority of a elected official to write law. She also does not have reasonable authority to pick and choose which laws she will enforce. In short she cannot offer the immigrant partner special circumstance to become a citizen all she is doing is what Obama did for children of illegal immigrants and give another special interest group some unofficial pass on deportation. Just because she waives her agents off does not mean that they are going to become legal residents or citizens.

I'm neither greedy nor a bigot. I would prefer there to be an honest discussion and meaningful legislation to offer legal recourse to same sex partnerships as are enjoyed by heterosexual partnerships. I see no reason why the Federal Government or a State Government need involve themselves in who anyone chooses as a partner. When two people choose to combine their households and assets and debts and in this case a visa to live in this country there needs to be a reasonable legal avenue to sort the civic issues. The last thing the Federal Government, State Government or local government really needs to concern themselves with is matching penises to vaginae.

Perhaps you have a chip on your shoulder that prevents you from rational discussion.

Maxgiver...I can't imagine the pain that you are suffering. I would also believe that you would have a very successful legal argument to prevent this miscarriage of justice from occurring to others. If, as you said, your partner had taken the legal steps to appoint you responsible for his health and care decisions than the hospital should have no concern as to why he made you responsible and your personal relationship should have had no bearing upon his patient rights. Unless his relatives caused a problem and even then it should not have affected his wishes for you being there and you making care decisions for him.

A few years back my boss had a stroke and ended up in the hospital. Fortunately, his brother (only relation) was a lovely inclusive man and made sure that my bosses partner was a part of decisions made and had full access to my boss. This made all of the difference in the world for a full recovery. When he was back on his feet he and his partner went through the same legals steps of powers of attorney, legal rights and distribution of assets. They did this because his partners family was not so accepting. Unfortunately, within a year of my bosses recovery his partner fell ill. Once the family of his partner saw to what length these two men would go for each other they rethought their perspective and my boss was able to return the love, patients and care that was show to him by his partner. Sadly his partner passed and he was alone for the first time in many years. Because their families, who at their core were good people, they were able to live and love as anyone should without complication or distration.

Gary Clark...yes, the visa is applied for and the immigrant fiance goes through the process of background checks etc. The citizen fiance must agree to some benchmarks and it is not necessarily a done. If the marriage does not last then the citizen fiance can be on the hook for several years of support.

Unfortunately, there are many people who marry foreign nationals and just assume that the foreign spouse will be welcomed in the US. Often the foreign national spouse is denied because they were a felon or had an issue with law, drugs or authority and are declined. This is why we have a K-1. It is possible that details between fiances might not have been fully disclosed and it assures that a US citizen that is swearing to be financially responsible for the foreign national knows what they are taking on. So perhaps by just turning a blind eye to international GBLT partnerships Napalitano is really putting the US citizen in a precarious place with regard to promises made.

The best one can say to an hetero or GLBT couple is be open to living in the country where your intended is from because you may not be able to share a life together here.

Tether...

And you have equal rights. You are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex just like the rest of us.

I get that Marriage is a convent in the Church. I personally, believe that it is the business of the church family and the pastor, Minister or Priest to bless a union. It is very possible that there are faith families around the country and around the world that would bless a same sex covenant as they do a covenant between a man and a woman.

What we are talking about in this article has nothing to do with Faith or with God it has to do with Immigration Law which is a Federal Civic Function. Currently, our Federal Government does not sanction a same sex Union, Marriage, Partnership as a definition of family. This is a Civic debate that needs to be settled. Having a Marriage license from a State is not all that..it doesn't automatically give a husband or wife free range to do and say what they want over their spouse, heath, finances. It really is quite a sham perpetrated by States, Governments, Hospitals, Insurance, Banks etc. It is necessary to have a meaningful conversation about how and what is considered access when two families join a household. Truly that has zero to do with a faith based promise between two people...it is a legal and binding contract.

the whole "you are free to do what I say as I say...BS..that is sort of the whole premise of arranged marriages and well just because they can be arranged does not make it a really good idea or one that should be imposed on another person. No two people should be shaped into a life that is absent of love and respect.

txmom32...now truly how offensive must you be in a civil conversation?

Just enough so that you realize how offensive it is that you seek to treat your fellow American as a 2nd-class citizen. And even more offensive that you think you deserve special legal rights.

The problem is not the issue the problem is that the issued is not recognized by law. Another problem is that Napalitano has no authority of a elected official to write law.

Clearly you don't understand the issue at all. Not only is the administration free to set enforcement priorities, but both DOMA and immigration law are silent on this particular issue. That means the administration sets the policy in absence of contrary federal law.

I'm neither greedy nor a bigot.

So you support marriage equality?

Our ship is sinking! We need to figure out how to get more people aboard!

Go USA-851295

Misscreant: Who cares? This country doesn't recognize their status just as we don't care whether or not a person is considered royalty in their home country. Foreign laws have no bearing in the US.

Foreign marriage laws could have a bearing on your country...particularly when they are attached to treaties with those countries. You may be going against your Constitution by not recognizing them.

skrekk..You are just full of hot air and BS. The administration is not prioritizing it is openly altering the term "Family" for GLBT ties only, without consideration for US law. Immigration law is not "silent" on this issue it is very clear on the definition of "Family" and of who is considered a spouse.

If, and I don't believe that this administration does, they wish to redefine the term "spouse" it sould be accepted that any spouse is not required to have a traditional or conventional civil partnership. This administration is not doing that they are instead choosing a protected class.

TX,

Then you have two options for equality...

1. We can repeal DOMA, and keep the current immigration law.

2. We can keep DOMA, and implement this.

Otherwise, gay people will not have the same option in regards to immigration, that straight people do.

txmom32 - The administration is not prioritizing it is openly altering the term "Family" for GLBT ties only, without consideration for US law

So the administration isn't doing exactly what it said it was doing (and had already done in regards to students)? Nor was it doing that in response to a request from 84 House Democrats to clarify immigration policy?

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/09/28/dhs-to-spell-out-lgbt-protections-in-guidance-to-immigration-officials/

Clearly, you have a goal to harm gays and their families.

Immigration law is not "silent" on this issue it is very clear on the definition of "Family" and of who is considered a spouse.

Strange.....it seems that immigration law was in fact silent on this particular issue, which gave the administration room to create policy.

Looks like you bigots lose again! And in 9 months you'll have completely lost on this issue since DOMA will be gone.

TX,

Then you have two options for equality...

1. We can repeal DOMA, and keep the current immigration law.

2. We can keep DOMA, and implement this.

Otherwise, gay people will not have the same option in regards to immigration, that straight people do.

Yes Repeal DOMA. Let the United States of America redefine the term "Family" to include civil partnerships where Federal Acknowledgement need apply. This would include GBLT and Straight Unions. With this change we could include same sex couples and straight couples who have made a commitment to share households. By doing this the Federal Government, for its limited responsibilities, can deal with issues like immigration of same sex couples for Tax and Federal requirements where family is concerned.

But this legislation would not encroach upon individual Sates to alter their terms for family or Civil Union. States would retain the autonomy to issue a licence based on the will of their Citizens.

This effort could get the term "marriage" out of the Government lexicon.

skrekk...I just don't know what it will take to get you to understand a really simple concept.

So the administration isn't doing exactly what it said it was doing (and had already done in regards to students)?

No the Obama is not doing what he said he would do within the powers of the President he has overstepped his authority and directed his underlings to do the same thing. By offering legitimate employment to illegal immigrant students he is taking jobs away from citizen students who need them to pay for their own education. By offering anything to the children of illegal immigrant criminals he is encouraging more to come. We should have learned that lesson with Regan's amnesty. As for including another special class, GLBT couples, who are being singled out for favor it is not his job or Napolitano's job or Holder's job to openly announce which laws they will or will not enforce.

Nor was it doing that in response to a request from 84 House Democrats to clarify immigration policy?

How interesting that 84 legislators, you know the people who make the laws, are going to the President to clarify what the laws they make say. It seems that when they can't do their job they are content to pass along their failure to a cabinet member using "Policy" to bypass congress and the law.

So exactly what is Napolitano's definition of long term partners? Shouldn't that apply to equally to opposite sex partners as well? Not that the civil term "Partner" not the faith terms "wife" or "husband" is used.

Clearly, you have a goal to harm gays and their families.

I don't wish to harm anyone GBLT or other. The only reasonable path forward is to assure that all partnerships are protected under "Federal" Law to assure "Civil" integrity to all. This allows for families to remain in tact when seeking entry into the United States. It allows for all Partnerships to be considered with regard to the financial interests of both Partners. It will allow for access to benefits for an unemployed partner in a one income family.

Strange.....it seems that immigration law was in fact silent on this particular issue, which gave the administration room to create policy.

The did not have room to create a policy it is very clear in the requirements for Green Card immigrants who Constitutes family..they spell it out using the term Spouse as being a Husband or Wife. This is why we need to address the issue of and alter the definition through federal law and include "Civil Partners" to include: man and woman, man and man or woman and woman. By addressing this through Federal channels it will correct a great many rights and responsibilities to include all families who join households.

From the reference below:

The definition is:

You May Petition For The Following Family Members:

Spouse (husband or wife)

• Unmarried children under 21
• Unmarried son or daughter of any age

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=75783e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=75783e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD

And you have equal rights. You are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex just like the rest of us.

"You are free to marry anyone of the same race just like the rest of us."

Match point.

Marriage is from God. It started with God. Marriage is a covenant between God, a man, and a woman. Want a same sex union it will never be a marriage because God won't be included.

Marriage is a civil institute that predates the Abrahamic Religions (which are dated back to only 6000BCE). "Holy matrimony" is the only thing you can even try to claim, and most other religions will fight you for it.

End.

Right. DHS can only affect its policy, not legislation.

That doesn't stop them from trying to go around the Constitution at any angle they can.

Jersey Girl, it looks like the courts are against you on this one. Bigots like you have essentially already lost on this issue since DOMA will be history by June.

How exactly does this go around the Constitution? Check out the 14th Amendment.

JERSY GIRL 1

Do you really advocate families being split up and children being torn from their family home? You are OK with this?

DOMA is public law but not Constitutional law. In fact, DOMA is very likely to be found unconstitutional later this year. Expect marriage equality to be the law of the land within 3 years. Don't you just love progress?

This is another case of them doing what they want when they want to for a vote! Jersy Girl 1 Send the whole family back that is the ONLY answer, if they are here illegaly, if not then they can stay or they can go!!!!!!!!!!!

You have to remember that Mormons are against DOMA since it specifies one man and ONE woman. Remember that not only was Romney's father, George, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, he had no fewer than SIX grandmothers since his grandfather had five wives. That's a whole mess of garishly-colored ill-fitting sweaters on Christmas. (Mormons do celebrate Christmas, don't they. They disagree on so many bits with Christians that it's hard to remember.)

The law preventing recognition of marriage equality at the federal will be struck down, there will be federal recognition of Marriage in states where it is legal, while the hold out states will have to defend their amendments regarding marriage and defend them in courts of law until one by one they too will have to adhere to marriage equality for all.

Ambrose Bierce defined "democracy" as "four wolves and a lamb voting on whay to have for dinner." He nailed it.

Sorry Jersy Girl I should have stated that to Krestow the bleeding heart!

Thanks for the compliment bubba much appreciated rather have a bleeding heart than a stone for a heart. You what they say you can't get blood from a stone.

The 14th Amendment should have had an expiration date because it has been misinterpreted and abused by the liberals.

Yes, check out the 14th amendment and see the history behind why it was created. The constitutionally ignorant are destroying the foundation of the U.S. because they refuse to read it.

ComradeChaos - The 14th Amendment should have had an expiration date because it has been misinterpreted and abused by the liberals.

Yep, freedom and equality has always threatened people like you, as you seem to have a deep psychological need to treat minorities as 2nd-class citizens.

Chris, you bring up polygamy. Interestingly, I read something lately that I had never thought of before: when polygamy was the norm, nations and tribes were warring constantly. Polygamy arose because most of the men would go off and get killed, and you'd have huge numbers of women left with no opportunity for partners and no means of support (back when they were considered subservient and the husband was expected to provide for them). Polygamy arose as a solution to this problem, and I can see the logic of it. However, that no longer applies.

Nowadays, I think people are opposed to polygamy because heterosexual males don't want their wealthy, attractive neighbors "buying up" all the available women.

@Chris, I think you are mistaken about George Romney. Yes he was born in Mexico, but to US citizen parents (who emigrated by never relinquished their US Citizenship). So no, he wasn't an illegal immigrant, he was a citizen from birth.

"That doesn't stop them from trying to go around the Constitution at any angle they can."

LOL. 2001 to 2009; that's all you need to know.

@skekk - please, you should really exit the pool during Adult Swim, your diminished intelligence only embarrasses you.

...my want is to treat non-citizens as such, regardless of their country of origin, scooter.

Chris-749391 wrote the following:

Remember that not only was Romney's father, George, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, he had no fewer than SIX grandmothers since his grandfather had five wives.

I don't know if you are just misinformed or if you like spreading fallacies about George Romney supposedly being an illegal immigrant, but I figure I will take the opportunity to correct you so other readers don't end up believing something that just isn't true.

Even though he wasn't born in a United States territory or state, George Romney was given citizenship at birth because he was born to American citizens, essentially granting him the status of a natural-born citizen.

Source: Khan, Huma. (2012, January 27).How Mitt Romney's Mexican-Born Father Was Eligible to be President." ABC News. Retrieved September 9, 2012, from

Sorry Liz, we are going to need to see George Romney's long form birth certifcate and that of both his parents to prove your theory.

ComradeChaos ...my want is to treat non-citizens as such, regardless of their country of origin, scooter.

Strange.....it seems you want special rights for straights and their foreign spouses, and you want to deny those rights to gay Americans and their foreign spouses.

Sounds like you've got a double standard.

Comrade Chaos said;

The 14th Amendment should have had an expiration date because it has been misinterpreted and abused by the liberals.

Yes, check out the 14th amendment and see the history behind why it was created. The constitutionally ignorant are destroying the foundation of the U.S. because they refuse to read it.

There's nothing wrong with the 14th amendment. Back when my husband's (Polish) paternal grandparents were coming into America through Ellis Island right after WWI, they applied with a list of skills and were evaluated and allowed in according to what they could contribute to society. If you knew someone who was already here, that helped; but it was not necessary.

In today's immigration system, you can no longer apply to come in your own merit; you have to have an employer, school, or a family member sponsor you in. If you don't know anyone here you can't immigrate.

That's the reason for this whole 'anchor baby' fiasco--people who want to come here but don't know anyone here sneak over the border, have a child on american soil making them automatic citizens, and when that child grows up they can sponsor their parent(s) in.

The solution to this particular problem is not to get rid of the 14th Amendment 'jus soli' law (any person born on American soil is a citizen) but just change the immigration law to where it was before--you can apply to come based on what you can contribute, not just on who you know.

Let's go back to what worked. Everybody gets considered according to what you can contribute, not because of who you know. Wouldn't require any constitutional amendments, solves the problem of how to define 'close family ties' and takes away the need to have 'anchor babies'.

ComradeChaos

Absolutely they are being treated as foreign but as with every American Citizen who meets a foreigner there is a certain understanding that you have a chance, maybe even a right to have that partner apply and have that considered to stay in the country. Notice I did not say the foreign partner has a right to stay, just the opportunity for that to be considered. That is what all of this is about.

PS Amanda-2017567

The Anchor baby concept is a total myth.

If you have a baby in the US and you are not a US citizen or here Illegally, the baby has citizenship by right of birth but the parents do not have any special rights or consideration regardless of whether they are in the US legally or Illegally.

Really, Quote the Law Krestov!! Proof! Don't just give the amendment Quote the law!! Back it up.

bubba-1946427

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/I/1151

Enjoy. There are the list of how people can become citizens also its in legal language so go for it. The over riding point of it is this, your child does not give you the right to gain citizenship. If you are here illegally there is not way to gain citizenship.

Krestov said:

If you have a baby in the US and you are not a US citizen or here Illegally, the baby has citizenship by right of birth but the parents do not have any special rights or consideration regardless of whether they are in the US legally or Illegally.

With the law being that you have to know someone who is already here in order to emigrate, people slip over the border and have a baby on US soil. By living here and raising the child until the child is grown, then slipping back across the border while your child sponsors you in, they can then come in legally. You still have to pass the background checks and pay all the fees, but so long as you can do that, you can get things sped up a bit--for Mexicans applying to come in right now the wait is about 16 years.

And as I stated in my post, we can eliminate that debate by eliminating the 'you have to know someone is already here' requirement and go back to the way it was.

The law clearly stimulates you must have been in the US legally. Simple "slipping" in to have a child wont work becasue if you came in illegally and then left the paper trail no longer exist. To prove your child was born in the US you have to have the papers. Also that "child" could not sponsor the parent's until the child in 21.

This is typical creating a problem where none really exists. The illegal immigrants we have did not go via this route, I can bet the system you are describing accounts for a timy part of a percent.

This "problem" of "anchor" babies is a politically created non-problem. It is rather like changing the way people vote becasue of rampant voter fraud. Like in Ohio where in the last 20 years there has been zero recorded insistence of voter fraud.

These "anchor" babies are not the issue, its all a smoke screen. The issue is people coming in illegally and staying.

Me-2:

I'm prone to think that they ought to but there is the minor difference between to two situations: opposite sex couples have the option to marry and may choose not to do so, same sex couples, in most states, do not have that choice.

They ought to have that choice.

They may have a common law marriage, or qualify for one. Check the state's laws for that.

Yes.

Exactly, so why should it be different for Gays?

JERSY GIRL 1 - so why should it be different for Gays?

Ummmm.....because DOMA causes the feds not to recognize the lawful marriages of gay folks?

I think that all common law marriages should be recognized. You know like the majority of other western countries in the world.

Possibly, but your brother has an option the same-sex couples don't. He can legally wed his girlfriend right away and secure her status. Whereas, because of DOMA, even if a Gay Couple marries in a state where it's legal, that marriage is not recognized by federal immigration officials. If DOMA was gone, then the couples in the 6ish states where its legal to have a homosexual marriage would be okay. Heterosexual couples skirt this law all the time. Sometimes, marriages of convenience arise (although their illegal) to get someone their citizenship.

For your scenario, Me, if one were not a citizen, they would just need to do what the illegal aliens do to stay in the US; squat and squirt out an anchor baby.

they would be considered as singles with none of the benefits ...except in the hospital..

Well, in this case it might not be covered by the law per se but by policy. As for the law. SCOTUS will fix that soon.

How is this going around any current laws? Nowhere in the immigration laws does it say that same-sex partnerships were not to be considered as "family ties."

I don't think anything of this sort has been put to vote in the past anyway, so...?

I think the law you are looking for is the Defense of Marriage Act. Whether you agree with it or not it is, for now at least, the law.

DOMA is irrelevant to the issue of factors related to immigration proceedings.

What consitutes "marriage" is currently ingrained in DOMA. What constitues a "family tie" is not.

Point taken.

The simple solution is to make everyone equal and extend equal rights to all Americans. Then no one needs to have "special" rights in order to skirt around inequality. In my company, gay people get domestic partner benefits for medical insurance. Straight couples do not. It's not equal because marriage laws are not equal. This is why so many corporations support gay rights - so they can treat all their employees fairly and not have to deal with the BS when someone calls out "special rights."

Justice,

Thank you for some common sense. Seems like we've all lost it while trying to be oh so politically correct, and protective of OTHER people's rights instead of the rights of our very own citizens.

And I'm sure "His Highness Obama" appreciates your crowning of him, but please make sure he gets his OFFICIAL Coronation. What would all the libs do if they couldn't bow and follow their shepherd?

GreenEyedLadyinTexas - Seems like we've all lost it while trying to be oh so politically correct, and protective of OTHER people's rights instead of the rights of our very own citizens.

Ummm.....the person whose rights are being protected is the American citizen with a foreign spouse.

Apparently you think those rights should be denied when that citizen is gay.

BUSH took us thru that grass a hundred times.. and folks just believed him.. so here those of us in the quandry still wait.. so you folks continue to be hypocrites, dumba$$, bigots, and more, with no respect for your fellow humans

There is nothing wrong with his comment. It's completely accurate and it does not say anything negative about the ruling. It merely says that this administration has a tendency to arrogantly disregard the people of this country when it comes to laws and just has a "As I say, so shall it be" attitude.

That's the truth, regardless of your snippy little childish one liner. And it's scarey as hell in a Democratic Republic.

Scremin: Please do NOT be afraid of Democrats. We love this country as much as ya'll do. I'm hoping that we can ALL work together for the good of WE THE PEOPLE. The 1% and the 99%. I have nothing but respect for people who have been successful in business honestly. (Oprah, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates etc). I also believe VERY strongly in supporting small local business- AND I believe in personal responsibility......

Laws are not made "By the people." Laws are made FOR the people, because they cannot be trusted to act decently on their own. Don't forget that point.

No, but she has ICE in her domain and can set policy and practice for them. Laws can be made by congress and policies set by the different departments but the executive branch apparently can choose which ones to enforce and which ones to ignore.

Is the Homeland Security Director really in charge of US Immigration policy?

"On March 1, 2003, DHS absorbed the Immigration and Naturalization Service and assumed its duties. In doing so, it divided the enforcement and services functions into two separate and new agencies: Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Citizenship and Immigration Services. The investigative divisions and intelligence gathering units of the INS and Customs Service were merged forming Homeland Security Investigations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security

PD, yes. That is entirely the purview of the executive branch. That is also why the Legislative Branch (which is the check for the executive branch) has tools to remove the leader(s) of the executive branch. If they started trying to work as three separate and equal branches, instead of "buddies" trying to act like highschool teenagers with backstabbing, malignment and sniping then some things might get done.

aardvark, you mean like Congress not high school. They would be designated Bullies in HS and kicked out and then couldn't even join Homeland Security

... What? What does that have to do with anything? This isn't gay marriages being recognized if you got married in a country where it's legal. It means that two people who are in love but of the same gender can stay together without the fear of one of the two being deported. They didn't even change the definition of close family ties, it was never defined to begin with. It simply now includes same-sex relationships, not poly-amorous relations.

Be carefull expressing your emotion about the department head who can have you arrested.

What's wrong with the poll? It asked you who you want to vote for at this moment, then asked you the likelihood of voting for that person as well as the likelihood of voting for the opposition.

If you would vote for Romney today, but you're only kind of interested in him, and you would possibly consider voting for Obama, then that's a much different type of response than someone who would vote for Romney today, is very much set in that decision, and would never vote for Obama under any circumstances. The poll is attempting to measure not just a snapshot of what the election would be like if it was held today (which would be a pretty useless measure), but also what the likelihood is of those numbers fluctuating. It's actually far more scientific than just asking who you want.

Though it is a bit rude for it to just disconnect, but I think I've only ever had one (MAYBE two) of those phone surveys that was actually constructed with any thought for courtesy involved.

Actually, based on what you described, I don't think it is possible to tell which (if either) party was responsible for the poll. It asked the same questions concerning both candidates, so where is the bias?

I hit one and it disconnected me.

Maybe you were disconnected because that was the last question. Were you planning on having a chat with the robo-caller?

At the same time, gay Americans have been fighting to keep their immigrant partners here. So this IS a victory of gay Americans.

This is funny stuff... Keeping their gay partners here...Oh hoooray!!!!!

And what, Mike, precisely, does your comment have to do with this story?

Rick...its mathematical code talk to the gays in this thread... shhhhh

Homophobic much?

I doubt he's afraid. Just mean.

It's getting better since we've had Obama in. Who needs 4 years of failed economic policy of trickle down economics.

Seriously? I'm still making the same money I was 4 years ago and yet almost everything has gone up in price. I realize that's contrary to what NBC News keeps telling you about how much better off everyone is now.....

i will be honest, i'm making more money too than i was 4 years ago :)

Bobaboey, because you can't do your job better to earn a raise doesn't mean the administration has failed you. It means you have failed your boss. That's how personal responsibility works.

During Bush we had to halt raises, cut budgets due to our clients not spending money and do away with company extras and perks. Now I'm making more than I ever have in my life.

Bobaboey, because you can't do your job better to earn a raise doesn't mean the administration has failed you. It means you have failed your boss. That's how personal responsibility works.

Well, I guess I haven't failed my boss as badly as the thousands of people my Co. has laid off since 2008. And aardvark1234, since I'm a failure, I'm sure all the unemployed people on here will appreciate you indirectly calling them failures as well. Since they must have failed their boss even more than I have. :)

aardvark, you're missing the point, it doesnt matter if you do your job better , under the current administration you get a raise anyway , because everyone "deserves" everything that everyone else has. just like in school, no one loses everyone is a winner as we slide into mediocrity

um Dan0, i have a lot of fellow co-workers here who wish to get hired wherever it is you work... the only ones of us that have gotten raises in the past 4 years are the ones who do their jobs better as per evaluation etc... those who didn't do well on evaluations didn't get raises and sometimes got fired depending how bad the evaluation was...

its that whole "personal responsibility" thing again.. because around here not everyone "deserves" everything that everyone else has, you earn it

Phoenyx13, I wish to immigrate to whatever country you think you're living in. :)

i live in the United States on the planet Earth.. you should try it sometime, you just might like it !

and you may think its a fantasy, but its my reality and the company i work for.. if you don't like it, find a new job is my only advice

its that whole "personal responsibility" thing again.. because around here not everyone "deserves" everything that everyone else has, you earn it

Phoenyx13, you're just all over the spectrum. What is this crap? You are obviously a liberal and you want to talk sh!t about "taking responsibility"? You cant even accept that you were born, male, female, you have to "come out" claiming that God made an mistake.

4 more years of this illegal radical socialist and we will have caught up with Europe.

And that, is not a good thing.

BTW, PLORK, you made out of bed today I see.

Johnny,

what in the world are you talking about ? i have no problems accepting my own gender and sexual orientation. Are either of them relevant to the conversation - NO !

i don't claim anything to God one way or another.. so do yourself a favor - go sit in the corner until you can play nicely with others and be respectful like adults are supposed to be, got it ?

if you can't get better pay at your job, do something about it (ie change jobs) or sit down and shut up and stop whining and complaining about it.

got it ?

I guess life really is rosier looking through gay colored glasses!

Bob,

Wages have been stagnant for over 30 years.

I am sorry for the typo

So we've now established that you support Jim Crow laws and think your relationship deserves special recognition so that you can feel superior to people you think should be 2nd-class citizens.

Are whites-only drinking fountains a good idea too? Maybe we can also call mixed-race marriages something other than "marriage"? Can we have separate mortgage contracts for gays and Jews, so that the rest of us don't have to be sullied by using the same legal contract they use?

Keep religion out of it, and be fair to everyone.

So how many cows did you pay for your wife then? You know, traditional marriage and all. Was she a virgin? if not, you're gonna have to kill her! Are you both the same sect of christianity, if not, your screwed. and who's tradition, american indians married gay people, do their traditions not count?

ROBERT F>>> I do not believe you don't care about what goes on in other peoples bedrooms.. and your concern amuses me..

one would believe that you are a so called christian , wel hypocrite, bigot, hater are really better words for you and folks like you..

with your position in this matter help me.. since no one recognizes ME as a human, person.. just a gay man.. so since I actually do pay taxes , and don't cheat like you and Romney.. I am going to stop paying them this sounds like a plan to me.. all LGBT folks should stop paying taxes move money to a tax free place.. and get welfare, food stamps, medicaid..

Republicans complaining about "fairness" to raise special interest monies.

Janet is a man

Says Toto, who oddly looks lile a man in his neighborhood that can be found on the sex offenders registry.

...Only if you think bankrupting America, morally and fiscally, is "the right direction".

but getagrip, we didn't vote in Romney as president yet, so you will have to wait for that comment to be used in an argument

that is, *if* Romney gets voted in for president.. i really don't see the liklihood of that being very high :)

@Phoen: ...You sound confused.

you are right getagrip - i was confused by your comment since Romney obviously isn't the president

maybe you are the one confused ?

DOMA passed with an overwhelming veto-proof majority in the Republican-controlled Congress, so with election year politics Clinton thought that signing it was harmless since no state recognized same-sex marriage at the time.

Both Clinton and the Republican author of DOMA have since apologized for what they did.