The Obama administration just announced a process which will review all 300,000 current deportation cases on “a case-by-case basis” to focus government resources on high-priority cases—such as repeat immigration violators and those who present a threat to public safety and national security—rather than LGBT families and bi-national same-sex couples. A senior administration official said that the goal is to “keep folks who are low priority cases out of the deportation process to begin with” so that we are “not clogging the system with folks who are not maximum priorities.”
But that doesn’t get legally married foreigners like Anthony John Makk and Takako Ueda out of the forest yet. But if you remember, Henry Velandia and Josh Vandiver avoided being torn apart when Immigration and Customs Enforcement decided their case was “not an enforcement priority.” Does that mean that other same-sex bi-national couples could soon get deemed “non-priority” and allowed to stay here as well? Interesting…
Cam
Keep up the pressure. This is how we get our “Friends” to work for us.
Good for the administration for taking this step. But I wish they would stop all the B.S. double speak. Just come out and say it, but they still talk like they think the entire democratic party hates gays. This isn’t 1950.
Hue-Man
Add Heffernon to the list. CBC TV National highlighted their situation this past week (sorry no link). Heffernon, Canadian, married to an American and they look after (in the U.S. midwest) the husband’s (American) mother who is very ill. The Canadian was stopped on entering the U.S. and banned for 5 years from re-entering the U.S. Only option: abandon Mom, close their U.S. business, walk away from their underwater mortgage, and move to Canada (his entry is automatic since Canada recognizes their marriage). Mom joins the 13 year Canadian waiting list for family re-unification. Can we now refer to DOMA for what it really is? The Destruction of Marriage Act. [I know there are heart-breaking situations involving undocumented U.S. residents and I am sensitive to their situation. But this borders on the vindictive.]
James
And yet most gays will still talk shit about Obama.
Cam
@James: said..
“And yet most gays will still talk shit about Obama.”
___________________-
Don’t even start. The fact is, he has had to be pressured into doing anything. I’m happy that we have made the strides we have, however, that doesn’t mean I have to stand up and cheer the person who had to be forced into doing it.
Is he better than the idiots in the other party? Damn right. Is he perfect? No way.
James
That maybe true but with all the bitching in 2012 your going to have one of the idiots in the other party.What will you do then?
CJ
I welcome any advancement – certainly. I also recognized that Obama and the Democrats WASTED two years when they could have addressed inequality via LAW. It’s all fine and dandy for Obama to change some administrative procedures. But, these same administrative procedures can be instantaneously reversed the second a new president is elected. So, although we are making progress in various areas, only advances like repealing DADT really carry serious weight. All of the other administrative changes (whether through deportation, the state department or hospital visitation rights) can vanish if the next president doesn’t support them. So, we need LAWS changed, not just administrative changes that give marginal benefits – for a limited time. That being said, the LGBT community will NOT get any additional rights via law between now and the election. Our two years of opportunity is over. Now, we can only rely upon individuals states and the court system. As we all know, there is a 50/50 chance that Obama will be replaced. And, if he’s replaced it will NOT be by someone who will continue these administrative changes. Do you really think Bachman or Perry will give ANY protections or rights to the LGBT community? Possibly Romney will let things “slide” and not pull back. But, that’s not guaranteed. Keep in mind, if Obama IS re-elected, we’ll still likely have a divided congress. Thus, any new LGBT rights will only be administrative (not laws). Lawsuits against DOMA and Prop 8 (examples) are where true “victory” will come from. But, to be safe, Obama needs to replace Ginsberg NOW vs. waiting. She’s the oldest justice and at least she and one other justice will need to retired within the next 5 years. So, he’ll replace them OR someone like Perry will.
Thomas
Our rights are still not enshrined in law. Until then, by any means necessary.
Cam
@James: said…
“That maybe true but with all the bitching in 2012 your going to have one of the idiots in the other party.What will you do then?”
__________________________________-
No, your attitude is why nothing got done for the last 10 years. Just because somebody doesn’t state that gays should be jailed, all the gays are supposed to bow down and thank him for it.
NO other group allows politicians to do this to them. Minorities, women, lobbyists, foreign govts. EVERYBODY else is allowed to speak up when they are disssastisfied with how their politicians are behaving. And yet gays are suppsed to sit down, shut up and never complain just because somebody pats us on the head and smiles at us.
Give me a break, that is political naivity at it’s worst.
slanty
@Cam: I get your point, but foreign governments have to shove it all the time…
Riker
@CJ: Erm, you do know that Obama can’t just replace a Supreme Court justice, right? They need to retire voluntarily. The only other way to remove them is impeachment, and a Supreme Court justice hasn’t been impeached since Samuel Chase in 1804, who was acquitted of the charges against him.
Cam
@slanty: said..
” I get your point, but foreign governments have to shove it all the time…”
_______________
Yes, but they will still raise their voices and complain.
Wannabegay
Don’t worry, in 2012 we will have a gay in the white house: Rick perry! Too bad he’s a closet case an likes to deport immigrants.
ewe
Will the Bummer completely evolve by the election date and declare gay people equal citizens in ALL ways to straight people? Just wondering.
ewe
once upon a time all the homeless were nowhere to be seen in Manhattan while Guiliani was NY mayor. They went somewhere because now they are back and where they were sent was into the court system. The point to this little tale is DO NOT BE ENCOURAGED WITH MERE LITIGATION. It can come back to bite you in the ass with the same veracity it always had and with regard to gay rights that may mean ZILCH. This is not concrete. This is not law. This is propaganda folks. I am skeptical and do not believe the Bummer has evolved quite yet. Speaking of propaganda, don’t forget how our first black president Bill Clinton fucked the poor and da gayz with blind support from both groups.
ewe
Being in limbo is like a seesaw. It goes up and it goes down and then when the Bummer decides he doesn’t want to play after he gets your vote it will go nowhere. There are so many things gay related that are being put on the back burner as a way to placate gay rights. In the long run it don’t mean shit. It may be different but it still don’t mean shit.
The crustybastard
But he’ll continue to enforce an unconstitutional law…
The Artist
Why is it that Americans always want a quick fix! It is always the NOW factor! Things take time. If your impatient, vote Obama out, then slide right back into the dark age. Have you seen/heard the crap coming out of the current list of characters. Remember Obama will be part of the “haves,” especially when he leaves office. Why should he give a crap.
Check it out http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
PEACELUVNBWILD!
Cam
@The Artist: said… “Why is it that Americans always want a quick fix! It is always the NOW factor!”
___________________________
Oh yeah, because the decades that this has been going on is sure asking for a Quick Fix.
The Artist
@Cam: DECADES!
robert in nyc
Queerty got this dead wrong. The new rules, according to Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security Chief, will cover same-sex couples.
ewe
@robert in nyc: rules? could you please clarify what you mean by that word. Rules are the same for same sex couple as straight couples and now done on a case by case basis? So what does that mean if there is no legal standing between two people?
ewe
The Bummer seems to throw things out there into the ether much like a kid blows bubbles. Does any of it materialize or transpire into something substantial?
ewe
@James: I just ate lunch. Would you like the crumbs that are left over James?
slanty
@robert in nyc: Perhaps the article will be updated to reflect that.