# Any GBLT expats?



## Guest (Jul 15, 2008)

*Any GLBT expats?*

Hi, couple from Austin, TX and Turin, Italy here.  We would like to hear from other GLBT couples who already experienced the US Immigration process or are dealing with it right now, like we are. Are you simply waiting for the U.A.F.A. to pass in Washington or did you find a path to the right visa with a green card to follow? Looking forward to read your (hopefully inspirational) stories. Thanks!


----------



## Fatbrit (May 8, 2008)

From_Turin_To_Austin said:


> Hi, couple from Austin, TX and Turin, Italy here.  We would like to hear from other GLBT couples who already experienced the US Immigration process or are dealing with it right now, like we are. Are you simply waiting for the U.A.F.A. to pass in Washington or did you find a path to the right visa with a green card to follow? Looking forward to read your (hopefully inspirational) stories. Thanks!


Not GLBT but can tell you you've got access to any of the other routes into the US apart from the spousal one. It's usually a lot easier to head towards making a home in Europe. No idea about Italian rules (although I lived in Pinerolo for 18 months a long time ago!), but in places such as the UK you would have no problems immigration-wise.

Really think that waiting for middle America to accept the idea and pass appropriate legislation will take more than a generation. Don't forget it's taken 2 generations since the Civil Rights Movement to get a presidential candidate who isn't a crusty, old, white guy. I really think he only got it because he has sticky-out ears like Nixon, though.

So if family's out, you've got work, money or some of the miscellaneous ones left. Diversity visa should be opening up in a few months -- if you qualify. You want any more help, you'll have to bring something to the table as I'm not playing 101 questions to tease it out of you.


----------



## Tiffani (Dec 4, 2007)

Hi there. My boyfriend is also from near Torino  

Unfortunately, the US doesn't recognise same-sex marriages for immigration purposes yet. The tide is turning, however, and it's a matter of time before it ends up sitting at the Supreme Court to decide how the entire country is going to view same-sex spousal equivalency. How long that takes is another matter, though. 

I'm not sure I agree with FatBrit that it will take another generation to change the legislation (although it undoubtedly will take that long for the attitude of the American people at large to change)... despite Justice Scalia's -- I think it was Scalia, anyway -- recent comments to the contrary, sometimes it IS the job of the Supreme Court to be the moral guide of the country. 

But you are looking at several years before all of this is enforced, so it's better to look for a different route. There's always the Diversity Visa Lottery, or perhaps a working visa if your partner is able to find a US sponsor. 

Good luck!


----------



## Fatbrit (May 8, 2008)

Tiffani said:


> I'm not sure I agree with FatBrit that it will take another generation to change the legislation (although it undoubtedly will take that long for the attitude of the American people at large to change)... despite Justice Scalia's -- I think it was Scalia, anyway -- recent comments to the contrary, sometimes it IS the job of the Supreme Court to be the moral guide of the country.



USSC is one vote away from becoming another arm of the United Corporations of America! Decisions are now split 4-4 with Kennedy holding the swing vote.


----------



## Tiffani (Dec 4, 2007)

Fatbrit said:


> USSC is one vote away from becoming another arm of the United Corporations of America! Decisions are now split 4-4 with Kennedy holding the swing vote.


 that's disheartening


----------



## Fatbrit (May 8, 2008)

Tiffani said:


> that's disheartening


Dunno -- it was about the last hope through the dark days of the last 7 plus years of our regime. Hell, they've even restored habeas corpus! So it did work as the framer's intended: three separate but equal branches of government.

And the light will soon be shining again come January.


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2008)

Wow.. we are all paesani then. I am from Ivrea: pretty much the same distance from Pinerolo to Turin, but to the north of Turin. What town is your bf from Tiffani?

Well, I know same-sex couples don't qualify for any particular visa and are not even taken into consideration by the law. Except when a foreign is coming to the USA on a work visa and the same-sex partner wants to come along. But in this case both are foreigners. Instead, the foreign half of a binational same-sex couple can only rely on traditional paths, that have nothing to do with the relationship with the US citizen.

I agree with Tiffani and hope to see some major change in the near future. First of all there's the same-sex marriage situation. If it can survive the November ballot in CA, then there is a real good chance that someone is going to have to put hands at the situation at the Federal level. That is even more likely to happen in the next few days if MA is going to struck down the 1913 piece of legislation that makes it impossible for non-resident same-sex couples to get married in MA. That would really open the floodgates, I think, creating two hubs for same-sex couples. I have little doubt it would contribute to accellerate the already mounting chaos regarding the exact legal consequences that these weddings have in other states. I hope the increasing legislative chaos that will result is going to push the political forces to face the issue and create a system of Federal rules (hopefully embracing the need for equality). A recognition at that level would impact immigration law as well. Now, honestly am not sure if the US Supreme Court would even intervene on the issue... much less in which way. Like Fatbrit said, there is such a tight balance among the judges right now. I guess I should do a little research on the matter.
But apart from the same-sex marriage there is also another front, targeting more directly the issue of glbt binational couples through the promotion of the Uniting American Families Act, which would allow foreign gay and lesbian partners of US citizens to have a place in the immigration process, just like it already happens with foreign heterosexual parners of US citizens. It's basically stuck, but media don't talk about it cos the spotlights are all on the marriage issue. Well, actually Republicans have raised a wall to sink the measure in the Congress... using pretty cheap arguments too. Bottom line: even most of the US GLBT people know nothing about it. And that's a shame.

I think a lot will depend on who's going to be the next President of the USA. So will have to wait and see what happens in November. I'm already keeping my fingers crossed now. I was in TX when Bush got his second term, so I think this time I will wait in Italy: yeah, a little superstition! lol 
After all my partner and I have already been waiting five years, so I guess I could wait a few more months. 

Anyway, when I posted my message I was hoping other couples had been through the same experience and were willing to share, that's all.

BTW residing in Europe is not so easy because of the language barrier. UK maybe... but the weather?!?! LOL. Have thought about Canada, instead. I know I'd like it better than the USA, but my partner is very attached to his country and would rather not (be forced to) live in exile.


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2008)

Fatbrit said:


> And the light will soon be shining again come January.


It better be!!!


----------



## Tiffani (Dec 4, 2007)

well I'll be... Edoardo is from Ivrea as well! that's so weird  I loved Ivrea when I went there last year to meet his family; it's one of the most picturesque places I have ever been. 

I wasn't aware that foreign heterosexual partners of American citizens had recourse for immigration based on that (apart from the K Fiance visa which requires marriage within a few months of arrival). When I moved to Australia with my partner, we were considered to be in a "de facto" marriage because we'd been shackin' up for a couple of years  But I don't think that America recognises that as valid. 

On the other hand, it looks like you've been doing a lot more research into this than I have, so I would hope that you're right. 

I'm not sure that the new President will make a big difference, at least in the short-term. If the next Congress is largely Democratic and Obama wins, things will look much more positive for these kinds of issues but I don't think they'll be at the top of the priority list for the new executive or the new legislative.

I hope you can find a solution anyway, either in the short or the long-term. Good luck!


----------



## Tiffani (Dec 4, 2007)

Fatbrit said:


> And the light will soon be shining again come January.


I sincerely hope so!


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2008)

Tiffani said:


> well I'll be... Edoardo is from Ivrea as well! that's so weird  I loved Ivrea when I went there last year to meet his family; it's one of the most picturesque places I have ever been


 OMG!!! Sure is a small world. At least smaller than one would think. lol Yeah, my partner too liked Ivrea. Not as much as Venice, though, but I explained to him that Ivrea too gets "nice canals": occasionally, when the river floods.  He only has a problem with all these people speaking Italian. 

You're right: within the family-based paths, the fiance visa is the only one to consider binational (heterosexual) couples that aren't married. And yes, shortly after their arrival in the USA, they must get married (within 90 days), otherwise the visa holder must leave the country. But like this path shows, what's really important is the relationship, not the marriage itself. Even the latter one doesn't guarantee a visa. Marriage sure is a requirement in the process... although it's because it is the most effective way to demonstrate a genuine and strong bond between the two. 
The different role played by their relationship is the discrimination glbt binational couples face every day: for immigration purposes, only heterosexual relationships qualify (whether it's a IR1 visa or a K1). Binational same-sex relationships in particular are even ground for denial of entry/deportation, and that is why no one in his right mind would ever mention such relationship to the INS officer when entering the USA and much less would get married in CA or MA after the recent twists. 
So when it comes to glbt couples a fair substitution for the marriage requirement could be a registry for civil unions or domestic partnerships.. unless same-sex marriage gets a boost.

Anyway... it won't happen overnight, but I'm sure we're closer that we think.  And thank you for the moral support!!!!


----------



## Fatbrit (May 8, 2008)

From_Turin_To_Austin said:


> Binational same-sex relationships in particular are even ground for denial of entry/deportation,


Hmmm! Not sure I agree that the discrimination occurs here but rather at the lack of legislative provision of visas.

Any familial relationships are grounds for denial since the onus is on the applicant to show they intend to return home. So if you're entering regularly for long periods, you are going to come under suspicion. And since there is no judicial review for such applicants, you are really at the whim of the officer at the port of entry.

However, I suppose it could be argued that there is an inherent prejudice against the GLBT community in any paramilitary-type organization.

In the old days, of course, they still had the wondrous DSM III to exclude on medical grounds!


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2008)

Fatbrit said:


> Hmmm! Not sure I agree that the discrimination occurs here but rather at the lack of legislative provision of visas


Well... when I talk about relationships I'm stricktly referring to couples. 
I mean of course a non-US citizien who is often entering the USA to visit a relative could raise a few eyebrows. But that happens whether the person is gay or heterosexual: in this situation the rule is the same regardless of sexual orientation.
Much different is the situation when it comes to couples: same-sex couples do face a discrimination compared to heterosexual ones. 
Sure, anytime someone enters the USA the sentimental relationship with a US citizen could become a problem. Although in real life the officers at any port of entry are not as strict as it's usually said. If one doesn't visit too often (and without breaks in between), it's hard to picture the officer wanting to find out more than the basic questions on the nature of the trip. So a simple B1 visa or even the 3 month visa waiver provides enough options, as this is no real immigration matter. At least not yet. 

But what if things get serious and the desire to immigrate to live together arise? This is when things differ. It sure isn't a problem for heterosexual couples since they can easily access to at least three paths to a safe immigration process (IR, CR, K)? But how about same-sex couples?
I mean, any Immigration system has to draw the line somewhere and for the US that line is represented by the risk of letting someone in when there is a concrete chance the individual may not be willing to get out. But if the US offers the alternative to move permanently only to foreign nationals who are in a heterosexual relationship with US citizens, then they are discriminating against the same-sex couples who find themselves in the same situation of heterosexual couples but aren't given the same options. It is clearly like saying that some US citizens are second class because of their sexual orientation. And that's where they should intervene: either by allowing same sex couples to get married or by simply introducing a G-L visa. lol


----------



## Fatbrit (May 8, 2008)

From_Turin_To_Austin said:


> Well... when I talk about relationships I'm stricktly referring to couples.
> I mean of course a non-US citizien who is often entering the USA to visit a relative could raise a few eyebrows. But that happens whether the person is gay or heterosexual: in this situation the rule is the same regardless of sexual orientation.
> Much different is the situation when it comes to couples: same-sex couples do face a discrimination compared to heterosexual ones.
> Sure, anytime someone enters the USA the sentimental relationship with a US citizen could become a problem. Although in real life the officers at any port of entry are not as strict as it's usually said. If one doesn't visit too often (and without breaks in between), it's hard to picture the officer wanting to find out more than the basic questions on the nature of the trip. So a simple B1 visa or even the 3 month visa waiver provides enough options, as this is no real immigration matter. At least not yet.
> ...


So I'm in agreement with you there.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2008)

Yeah, sorry: I had to elaborate my thoughts a little better. 
BTW if you don't mind my curiosity, what were you doing in Pinerolo?


----------



## Tiffani (Dec 4, 2007)

agree with you on those points. The problem is that Bush is saying that it's a state's right (which I suppose it is), but eventually the US government is going to have to make the call because states rights don't extend to immigration policy. So it's very messy... how long will the US govt wait before making changes to immigration policy? How many states will have to permit same-sex marriage or adopt spousal equivalency programs before the US govt follows suit? Will it only have to be the big states? or a majority? who knows! It will be interesting to see how it plays out, though. 

Nobody wants to mess with states rights too much; that's part of what got us into the Civil War.


----------



## Fatbrit (May 8, 2008)

From_Turin_To_Austin said:


> BTW if you don't mind my curiosity, what were you doing in Pinerolo?


Taught English.


----------



## Fatbrit (May 8, 2008)

Tiffani said:


> agree with you on those points. The problem is that Bush is saying that it's a state's right (which I suppose it is), but eventually the US government is going to have to make the call because states rights don't extend to immigration policy. So it's very messy... how long will the US govt wait before making changes to immigration policy? How many states will have to permit same-sex marriage or adopt spousal equivalency programs before the US govt follows suit? Will it only have to be the big states? or a majority? who knows! It will be interesting to see how it plays out, though.
> 
> Nobody wants to mess with states rights too much; that's part of what got us into the Civil War.


I think it's more to do with using homophobia as a political weapon than a states' rights issue. We need to wait for middle America to realize that they are puppets in a game that really doesn't benefit them before we will see change.


----------



## Tiffani (Dec 4, 2007)

Fatbrit said:


> I think it's more to do with using homophobia as a political weapon than a states' rights issue. We need to wait for middle America to realize that they are puppets in a game that really doesn't benefit them before we will see change.


oh no doubt! I think that most people just don't really care anymore (maybe it's just the circles I run in though). When gas prices have gone through the roof -- still laughably cheap compared to Europe and Oz -- the housing market is collapsing and looks to be taking the mortgage industry down with it, the economy is tanking, the war is p***ing everybody off, and corruption-at-the-top allegations have become regular CNN fodder, very few people are losing sleep over whether gays can marry. So in that sense, this may be a great time for the GLBT lobby to take advantage of this timing when there are so many bigger problems for Middle America than who can marry whom. Interesting, though, how it always becomes an issue during election years -- makes you wonder who's screaming louder: the liberal advocates, or the fear-mongering conservatives...

It worked in 2004; doubt seriously if it'll work this year. The "if it's not hurting anybody, then who cares?" Center may be the loudest voice of all.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2008)

From_Turin_To_Austin said:


> First of all there's the same-sex marriage situation. If it can survive the November ballot in CA, then there is a real good chance that someone is going to have to put hands at the situation at the Federal level. That is even more likely to happen in the next few days if MA is going to struck down the 1913 piece of legislation that makes it impossible for non-resident same-sex couples to get married in MA. That would really open the floodgates, I think, creating two hubs for same-sex couples. I have little doubt it would contribute to accellerate the already mounting chaos regarding the exact legal consequences that these weddings have in other states.


Well, they MA lawmakers did repeal the lousy piece of law originally introduced in 1913 to ban multiracial weddings and that Republicans were now using to prevent out-of-state glbt couples from getting married in MA. One baby step towards a nationwide change.. hopefully. [the smiley with crossed fingers goes here!!]

Also, the US Senate has been approved the long-overdue bill to lift the ban on HIV+ travel/immigration. That's the end of another discriminatory policy.


----------



## Tiffani (Dec 4, 2007)

good stuff! baby steps, as you say


----------

