About a decade ago, while living in Central America, I met and began dating a Salvadoran man named Uvaldo. Over time, we fell in love, met each other's families, and eventually talked about creating a life together. We discussed marriage and adopting children �" almost always in the hypothetical. We wanted to be together, but I knew that living together as a biracial same-sex couple in El Salvador would be dangerous and difficult. Uvaldo knew how important it was for me to return to the U.S. to finish my studies and pursue a career as a lawyer. He was willing to come with me if it meant that we could be together.
In the blindness of our young love, I somehow thought it would be that simple. After all, my straight friends had foreign spouses who had no problems immigrating to the U.S. after they filed the necessary paperwork. I then learned about our utter lack of options under U.S. immigration law. My optimism �" along with my hope of staying together with Uvaldo �" quickly vanished. Because we were both men, I was prohibited from sponsoring him for permanent residency. Ironically, we learned he probably could not even get a tourist visa, especially if the U.S. Embassy learned he was coming to stay with his same-sex partner in the U.S. The only readily apparent options were for me to stay and live in El Salvador with him or for him to enter the U.S. without permission and live as an undocumented immigrant. I was not willing to permanently relocate to El Salvador and we were not willing to violate the law or have him risk his life to enter the U.S. without permission. In the end, we broke up.
I like to think that my experience of having U.S. immigration laws keep me from being with Uvaldo makes me a stronger advocate and a better immigration lawyer. Admittedly, I was probably too young and inexperienced to make that cross-cultural relationship survive. Nonetheless, it upsets me knowing that solely because we were gay, the government held our relationship to a different standard and effectively made this very personal decision for us.
Despite significant advancements in civil rights for same-sex couples in certain states, the federal government is still involved in the business of keeping same-sex couples from different countries apart. Discriminatory immigration laws force an estimated 36,000 gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples to face the same barrier Uvaldo and I faced in El Salvador. While heterosexual U.S. citizens can sponsor their foreign national fiancees or spouses for permanent residency, LGBT citizens are prohibited from doing so. These discriminatory immigration restrictions destroy relationships, tear LGBT families apart, and keep many others in fear of deportation.
Appreciation for this injustice �" and momentum to reform our discriminatory immigration laws �" is at an all-time high. On February 9, 60 members of Congress wrote a letter urging President Barack Obama and congressional leaders to include protections for same-sex couples in any immigration reform bill. The letter calls for Congress to reform immigration laws to allow LGBT families to stay together. The authors insist that no American "should be forced to choose between the person they love and the country they call home."
Importantly, the letter explicitly calls for passage of the Uniting American Families Act. Introduced in February 2009, UAFA currently has 23 co-sponsors in the Senate and 119 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives. If passed �" either as part of a comprehensive immigration bill or on its own �" UAFA would lang=EN permit U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to sponsor their "permanent partners" for permanent resident status in the U.S. The proposed bill would also recognize immigration benefits for children and step-children of same-sex couples. UAFA could give same-sex couples the same rights and benefits under immigration law that heterosexual couples now enjoy. It would put an end to the government's role in keeping same-sex couples apart.
Despite increased momentum, much resistance remains. Some are concerned that adding protections for LGBT couples into any immigration reform bill will detract votes from more conservative members of Congress who could otherwise be persuaded to support immigration reform. Others flatly oppose any legislation that expands rights for LGBT Americans. LGBT rights advocates are rightly standing up to this resistance and insisting that Congress include LGBT protections in any immigration reform bill. "In truth," progressive members of Congress argue, "no immigration reform bill can be called 'comprehensive' unless it includes all Americans, including those who are LGBT." If LGBT protections are not included now in a comprehensive immigration bill they may not pass for a very long time. The time has come to put an end to government-imposed separation of LGBT family members. Regardless of our sexual orientation, we should all enjoy the right to be with the person we love.
Camiel Becker is an immigration lawyer in San Francisco. As a U.S. Fulbright scholar, he conducted post-graduate research on gangs and street children in El Salvador. For more information about Mr. Becker, please visit www.beckerimmigration.com. He can be reached at [email protected] or (415) 863-3910.