Posted on 05/08/2011 8:58:37 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A gay Venezuelan man married to an American man will temporarily not be deported after an immigration judge ruled Friday to suspend his deportation based on the recent intervention of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. in a similar same-sex marriage immigration case.
Judge Alberto J. Riefkohl of Newark, N.J. suspended the deportation of Venezuelan salsa dancer, Henry Velandia, married to Princeton graduate student, Josh Vandiver, because Holder on Thursday intervened and suspended the deportation of a man from Ireland who is joined in a civil union with a U.S. citizen.
Holder suspended the deportation of Irishman Paul Wilson Dorman and sent his case back to the immigration appeals court, asking it to consider several possible grounds on which the Irishman might qualify for legal residency.
Both Dorman, who is joined to a U.S. citizen through a civil union, and Valandia were denied legal residency because of the Defense of Marriage of Act defines marriage as between a man and a woman and therefore does not recognize same-sex marriage.
Judge Riefkohl said he chose to delay Velandia's deportation to December, at the earliest, to allow time for the attorney general and the appeals court to work out a similar deal for the Venezuelan.
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith (R-Texas), criticized Attorney General Eric Holder of having “instructed an immigration court to ignore DOMA in future rulings,” according to The New York Times.
In February, President Barack Obama issued an executive order to the Department of Justice to cease defending the 1996 law signed by President Bill Clinton.
While the DOJ cannot defend the constitutionality of DOMA in court, it still must obey the federal law. Moreover, DOMA has not been struck down either legislatively or in the courts and therefore is still a federal law that must be enforced. But in March, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services wrongly issued a temporary suspension on deportation cases of gay foreigners joined in same-sex marriages to American citizens.
"USCIS has issued guidance to the field, asking that related cases be held in abeyance, while awaiting final guidance related to distinct legal issues,” said Christopher S. Bentley, the Department of Homeland Security's spokesman, in a statement.
But Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, denounced the USCIS's decision.
"[DOMA] governs the definition of marriage from a federal standpoint under the federal laws for every federal agency including the immigration services. They must abide by that federal law," he insisted. "No federal agency can act contrary to that law."
Bentley later told The Christian Post that the agency lifted the abeyance and would continue with deportation proceedings for gay foreign nationals regardless if they are in a same-sex union. The agency also criticized media outlets' assertion that married gay foreigners could now apply for green cards as untrue.
American Immigration Lawyers Association told CP that it too would not counsel gay foreign nationals joined to a same-sex citizen to apply for a green card. AILA spokeswoman Jenny Levy said gay foreign nationals who apply should not expect approval for their green card applications.
Stay with him for a while after your papers are processed and then "divorce" him after your green card is approved.
FAST, EASY and SUPPORTED by Uncle Sam's current policies.
Just doing the gay exotic dancing that Americans won't do.
Isn’t Eric Holder obligated to uphold the law?
I know that the liberal view is that homosexual marriage should be the law of the land.
The federal law on the subject defines marriage as 1 man and 1 woman. Why is Eric Holder not compelled to follow this law, as he considers immigrant spouse issues?????
Why is it that liberal feelings on this subject override what the laws clearly state? And how can any of us have enduring respect for the rule of law, when we see here that a law can be ignored if it conflicts with liberal ideology on a particular subject?
These are questions worth asking. I know impeachment of Eric Holder is not going to happen. But, I sure wish the political will was there to do something. How can the attorney general openly flout the law. He’s supposed to uphold and apply the law, not apply the law as he wishes it were.
Or, if liberals feel so strongly about homosexual marriage, why didn’t they repeal the Defense of Marriage Act last year, when they had comfortable Democrat majorites in Congress??????
Why is marriage law going to be defined based on the courts and illegal interpretations of our laws, thereby setting legal precedents in violation of said law?
Well,,, for the third time;
“Would you like some salsa on your tossed salad?”
special treatment for special people?
With this development, I actually expect a huge spike in same-sex marriage immigration applications in the near future as more and more aliens find out about this policy.
Not sure if this will make America a “gayer” country, but it sure will excacerbate our already uncontrollable immigration problems and make it even worse.
RE: The federal law on the subject defines marriage as 1 man and 1 woman
But not in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire. The District of Columbia also now recognizes gay marriages as of March 3, 2010.
Which takes precedence, State laws or Federal laws?
For instance, if a “gay” illegal (note the quotes) “marries” someone in John Kerry’s state, is he/she not considered “married” by the Federal Government and therefore entitled to stay here permanently?
It is my understanding that federal laws trump state laws, just in general terms.
In the case of marriage, the liberal view is that state laws trump the federal law, as we see in this case.
Under federal law, the federal government specifically does not recognize same-sex marriages from those states in which it is legal.
Since immigration matters are a federal concern, it seems that federal marriage law should be applied. But, what do I know, I’m not liberal, and don’t have the nuanced liberal understanding of how things should be.
Speaking of immigration, in the Arizona case, the liberal view is that a state has no right to deal with that subject, because immigration should be a federal, not a state matter.
It’s interesting how laws and interpretations of laws can be twisted, depending on the liberal view of a particular issue.
According to the Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex couples married in places which allow same, are not considered married by the federal government. Or at least were not until Eric Holder and liberals decided that they should be so considered.
RE: the happy couple
Is it really them as refered to in this article? Where did you get that picture?
See the NY Times article from yesterday Here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.