BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Martha M. Escutia, Chair
2003-2004 Regular Session
AJR 60 A
Assembly Member Lieber J
As Amended June 24, 2004 R
Hearing Date: August 10, 2004
Resolution 6
KH 0
SUBJECT
Immigration: Same-sex Partners
DESCRIPTION
This resolution would urge the President and Congress of
the United States to adopt the Federal Permanent Partners
Immigration Act of 2003 (PPIA), which would add the phrase
"or permanent partner" to sections of immigration law that
provide immigration rights to spouses of U.S. citizens and
permanent residents, thereby allowing gay and lesbian
citizens to sponsor their partners for U.S. residency.
BACKGROUND
According to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services (BCIS), formally known as the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS), same-sex partners of U.S.
citizens or permanent residents are not considered to be
family and cannot be sponsored by their partners for
family-based immigration.
Sixteen other countries (Australia, Belgium, Brazil,
Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel,
the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden,
and the United Kingdom) currently recognize same-sex
partnerships for immigration purposes.
The federal PPIA would add the term "permanent partner" to
the list of definitions within the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) and would enable U.S. citizens and
(more)
AJR 60 (Lieber)
Page 2
permanent residents to sponsor their permanent partners for
family-based immigration, as can be done for a spouse. A
permanent partner would be defined in the PPIA as an
individual 18 years of age or older who: is in a committed,
intimate relationship with another individual 18 years of
age or older in which both parties intend a lifelong
commitment; is financially interdependent with that other
individual; is not married to or in a permanent partnership
with anyone other than that other individual; is unable to
contract with that other individual a marriage cognizable
under the Immigration and Nationality Act; and is not a
first, second, or third degree blood relation of that other
individual.
(This analysis reflects author's amendments to be offered
in Committee.)
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
This resolution would make various findings, including:
1) Approximately 65 percent of the one million green
cards and immigrant visas issued each year go to
family members of United States citizens and legal
permanent residents;
2) According to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services (BCIS), formally known as the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS), the current definition
of family excludes same-sex partners;
3) The principle of family unification is an unassailable
characteristic of our immigration system under which
legal permanent residents and United States citizens
should be able to sponsor their loved ones for
immigration status;
4) The intent of the Permanent Partners Immigration Act
of 2003 is to recognize the reality that same-sex
couples are deserving of the same basic immigration
benefits as heterosexuals and to allow gay or lesbian
citizens to sponsor their partners to become United
States residents, and although there are a relatively
low number of binational same-sex couples, they are
severely harmed by discrimination and a lack of
protection under current immigration law; and
5) The Permanent Partners Immigration Act of 2003 is an
appropriate next step towards establishing equality in
AJR 60 (Lieber)
Page 3
immigration standards for same-sex partners.
This resolution would resolve that the Legislature urges
the President and Congress of the United States to adopt
the PPIA.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the resolution
In support of this resolution, the author states:
Gay and lesbian U.S. citizens are prohibited from
petitioning to sponsor a same-sex partner for
immigration purposes, forcing thousands of couples to
live apart or to migrate to one of the 16 countries
with more hospitable immigration laws. Assembly Joint
Resolution 60 declares the California Legislature's
support for the Federal Permanent Partners Immigration
Act (PPIA) currently under consideration in the U.S.
Senate (S. 1510) and House of Representatives (H.R.
832). The PPIA would allow U.S. citizens and legal
permanent residents the ability to sponsor a same-sex
foreign partner for immigration to the United States.
. . . U.S. immigration is largely based on the
principle of family unification, which allows U.S.
citizens and legal permanent residents to sponsor
their spouses (and other immediate family members) for
immigration purposes. Same-sex partners of U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents, however, are
not considered to be family, and thus cannot be
sponsored by their partners for family-based
immigration. Because of this inhumane policy,
thousands of same-sex binational couples are kept
apart, torn apart, or forced to stay together
illegally, with one partner in constant fear of
deportation.
The Permanent Partners Immigration Act of 2003 was
introduced in the 108th Congress by Congressman Jerrold
Nadler (D-NY). The bill currently has 123 cosponsors in
the House, and it has also been introduced in the Senate
by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) with 11 cosponsors.
The author and supporters state, and the resolution would
AJR 60 (Lieber)
Page 4
find, that the United States is behind other democracies
in extending fair treatment in immigration policies to
same-sex partners, and the PPIA would bring United States
immigration law in line with 16 other countries that
currently recognize same-sex partnerships for immigration
purposes.
In response to concerns that passage of the PPIA would
cause an influx of applications for permanent residency
in the United States, the author and supporters state,
and the resolution would find, that statistically, there
are a relatively low number of binational same-sex
couples, but that they are severely harmed by
discrimination and a lack of protection under current
immigration law.
In response to concerns that passage of the PPIA would
invite fraud in immigration, the author and supporters
state, and the resolution would find, that data compiled
over two decades documents that there has not been a
single case of fraud perpetrated by a person or
partnership in any domestic partners benefit plan in the
United States since those benefit plans began in l982.
The author and supporters also point out that the PPIA
would provide the same restrictions, enforcement
standards and penalties for fraud by same-sex partners as
for fraud by married couples.
In response to the argument that the people of the State
of California overwhelmingly stated their opposition to
same-sex marriage or the provision of marriage rights to
same-sex couples through the passage of Proposition 22
(Family Code Sec. 308.5 stating "Only marriage between a
man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"),
supporters state that the PPIA does not create a marriage
or grant marriage rights to any same-sex couple.
Specifically, "the PPIA does not confer upon same-sex
couples the 1,138 federal rights and 200-300 state
benefits that married couples currently enjoy. The PPIA
would simply extend to same-sex couples access to the
same immigration benefits currently enjoyed by legal
spouses."
2.Opponents argue the PPIA and this resolution are
inappropriate
AJR 60 (Lieber)
Page 5
In opposition, Responsible Citizens, Inc. states that
this resolution would ask the President and Congress "to
equalize gay and lesbian unions with marriage by adding
'permanent partners' to immigration laws" and argues that
"[t]here is no compelling national interest to be served
by this measure."
Also in opposition, the Campaign for California Families
states that this resolution "attacks the respect for
marriage and family found in our current immigration
laws. If adopted, this joint resolution encourages the
President and Congress to downgrade marriage by awarding
homosexual sex partners immigrant status on the exact
same level as a married husband and wife. Our federal
and state government should be urged to protect marriage
and family, not redefine and undermine the uniqueness of
marriage for a man and a woman in United States
immigration policies."
3.Author's amendments
The author will offer the following amendments in
Committee:
a. On page 2, line 14, strike out "120" and insert
"123"
b. On page 3, line 10, strike out "15" and insert
"16.
c. On page 3, line 12, strike out ", including,
but not limited to," and insert ":"
d. On page 3, line 13, after "Belgium," insert
"Brazil,"
Support: AIDS Legal Referral Panel; AIDS Project Los
Angeles (APLA); Anti-Defamation League; Asian
Americans for Civil Rights and Equality; Asian
Pacific American Legal Center of Southern
California; Attorney General Bill Lockyer;
California Faculty Association; California National
Organization for Women; California Nurses
Association; City of Los Angeles; Congress of
California Seniors; Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic
Club; El Cerrito Democratic Club; Equal Rights
Advocates; First Presbyterian Church of Baldwin
AJR 60 (Lieber)
Page 6
Park; Gay & Lesbian Center, Los Angeles; Gray
Panthers; Immigration Equality; KOL AMI
Congregation, West Hollywood; La Mesa Community
Church; Lambda Legal; Lambda Letters Project; Legal
Aid Society; Love Sees No Borders; Metropolitan
Community Church of Los Angeles; Metropolitan
Community Church of San Francisco; Mexican American
Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF);
National Center for Lesbian Rights; Older Women's
League of California; Our Family Coalition; Out and
Equal Workplace Advocates; People For the American
Way; PFLAG-Ventura County Chapter; Pioneer
Congregational Church, Sacramento; Pride at Work,
Southern California Regional Chapter; Sacramento
City Council Member Dave Jones, District 6; San
Diego Democratic Club; San Francisco AIDS
Foundation; San Francisco Lesbian Gay Bisexual
Transgender Community Center; Services, Immigrant
Rights and Education Network (SIREN); Stonewall
Democratic Club of Greater Sacramento; Transgender
Law Center; Wesley United Methodist Church, Fresno;
West Hollywood Presbyterian Church; numerous
individuals
Opposition: Campaign for California Families; Responsible
Citizens, Inc.
HISTORY
Source: Equality California
Related Pending Legislation: None Known
Prior Legislation: None Known
Prior Vote: Assembly Judiciary Committee 8-3
Assembly Floor 42-31
**************