BILL ANALYSIS
AJR 15
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AJR 15 (De Leon)
As Amended August 25, 2009
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 7-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Feuer, Brownley, Evans, | | |
| |Jones, Krekorian, | | |
| |Huffman, Monning | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Tran, Knight, Miller | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Urges the United States (U.S.) Congress to pass, and
the President to sign, the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA),
legislation that would remove a number of legal barriers to
immigration by permanent same-sex partners of U.S. citizens.
Specifically, this resolution :
1)Asserts that the principle of family unification is an
unassailable characteristic of our immigration system under
which legal permanent residents and U.S. citizens should be
able to sponsor their loved ones for immigration status.
2)States that federal law does not currently recognize permanent
same-sex partners as family members for immigration purposes,
including same-sex partners that are married or recognized as
married in other states, resulting in thousands of U.S.
citizens being forced overseas to be with foreign-born
partners, causing them unnecessary hardship and separation
from U.S. family members and careers.
3)States that UAFA, introduced in Congress by Senator Patrick
Leahy and Representative Jerrold Nadler, seeks to amend the
Immigration and Nationality Act to allow U.S. citizens and
legal permanent residents to sponsor same-sex partners for
immigration. Further notes that the Act has 115 cosponsors in
the U.S. House of Representatives and 20 cosponsors in the
U.S. Senate.
4)States that the Reuniting Families Act (RFA), introduced in
AJR 15
Page 2
Congress by Representative Mike Honda, incorporates the UAFA
as part of a broad family immigration bill that will overcome
many barriers to family reunification in current immigration
law.
5)Recites the definition of "permanent partner" as specified by
the UAFA.
6)Asserts that binational same-sex partners, while relatively
low in number, are severely harmed by discrimination and the
lack of protection under current immigration law, and that
data does not indicate any fraud perpetuated by persons or
partnerships in domestic partners benefit plans in the U.S.
since such benefit plans began in 1982.
7)States that the UAFA would bring federal immigration law in
line with 17 other countries that currently recognize same-sex
partnerships for immigration purposes.
8)Memorializes the Legislature to urge Congress to include the
Reuniting Families Act and the Uniting American Families Act
in comprehensive immigration reform, or alternatively, to
pass, and the President to sign, the UAFA as stand-alone
legislation at the earliest possible date to remove legal
barriers to immigration by permanent same-sex partners.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : This resolution urges Congress to support the removal
of legal barriers to immigration that affect permanent same-sex
partners in bi-national relationships. Specifically, the
resolution calls on Congress either to include the RFA, which
incorporates the UAFA, in comprehensive immigration reform, or
to pass the UAFA on its own as stand-alone legislation. In
support of the resolution, the author writes:
The federal Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) would
amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to add
same-sex "permanent partners" to the list of family
members that a U.S. citizen or legal resident could
sponsor for immigration.
Since current law does not allow gay and lesbian
Americans and permanent residents to sponsor their
AJR 15
Page 3
foreign-born partners for legal residency, they cannot
access the family immigration system for green cards
and immigrant visas. Because of this inequity,
thousands of lesbian and gay bi-national couples are
kept apart, torn apart, or forced to stay together
illegally, with one partner living in constant fear of
deportation.
On February 12, 2009, the UAFA was introduced in the 111th
Congress by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in the Senate (S. 424)
and Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) in the House. (H.R.
1024.) At the time of this analysis, the measure has 115
co-sponsors in the House, and 20 cosponsors in the Senate. In
addition, on June 4, 2009, Representative Mike Honda (D-CA)
introduced RFA (H.R. 2709), which includes UAFA as one component
of a larger immigration reform package.
The UAFA would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
to add, where appropriate, the phrase "or permanent partner" in
sections that specify immigration rules and policies regarding
sponsorship of non-citizen family members by U.S. citizens.
The UAFA defines "permanent partner" as an individual 18 years
of age or older who: a) is in a committed, intimate
relationship with another individual 18 years of age or older in
which both parties intend a lifelong commitment; b) is
financially interdependent with that other individual; c) is not
married to or in a permanent partnership with anyone other than
that other individual; d) is unable to contract with that other
individual a marriage cognizable under the INA; and, e) is not a
first, second, or third degree blood relation of that other
individual.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. 7, provides that,
in determining the meaning of any Act of Congress or federal
rule or regulation, the word "marriage" shall mean only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife and the
word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is
a husband or a wife. The UAFA does not appear to violate or
even implicate these provisions of DOMA because it does not
include same-sex partners in the definition of "spouse" and does
not alter the definition of marriage under DOMA. Instead, the
UAFA creates another class of persons, designated as "permanent
partners," who are eligible for sponsorship under federal
AJR 15
Page 4
immigration laws. Therefore, in urging Congress to pass the
UAFA, the California Legislature would not be urging the
adoption of legislation that conflicts with existing federal law
on same-sex marriage under DOMA.
According to supporters of the resolution, the United States is
behind other democracies in extending fair treatment in
immigration policies to same-sex partners in binational
relationships, and the UAFA would bring U.S. immigration law in
line with at least 19 other countries that currently recognize
same-sex partnerships for immigration purposes, including, but
not limited to, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark,
Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, New
Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
To profile those most affected by the current U.S. immigration
policy, supporters cite figures from the most recent U.S. Census
showing that there are nearly 36,000 gay and lesbian Americans
in bi-national relationships, with a median age of 38 years old,
and that 47% of bi-national couples are raising children. These
demographic data, supporters contend, show that these are
mature, committed relationships that are jeopardized by current
policy that prohibits the sponsorship of the non-citizen partner
by the partner who is a U.S. citizen.
Supporters further contend that the UAFA, consistent with basic
principles of U.S. immigration law, contains strong prohibitions
and deterrents against immigration fraud. These supporters note
that UAFA requires same-sex couples to provide the same proof of
their relationship as opposite-sex married couples must provide
to sponsor their partner, including submitting an Affidavit of
Support on behalf of his or her partner, and documentation of
jointly owned property, shared child custody, joint bank
accounts and credit cards, and shared insurance policies.
In addition, to alleviate concerns that people will claim
permanent partner status under the UAFA in order to gain access
to government benefits, supporters also cite at least one
research study published in 2001 that concluded that there had
not been a single case of documented fraud perpetrated by a
person or partnership in any domestic partners benefit plan in
the United States since those benefit plans began in l982.
AJR 15
Page 5
The Assembly Judiciary Committee received a number of letters
from private individuals urging support for this resolution.
Many of these citizens describe, often rather eloquently, their
personal experiences in entering a committed relationship with a
same-sex partner from another nation who, because of current
U.S. immigration law, they could not sponsor for immigration to
this country. In all of these cases, the writers report either
being forced to live apart in separate countries or facing that
prospect imminently while immigration proceedings are pending.
The resolution is opposed by Capitol Resource Family Impact
(CRFI), which identifies itself as "California's leading
pro-family public policy organization." CRFI believes that the
UAFA undermines the federal Defense of Marriage Act protecting
traditional marriage by seeking to make an exception to the rule
that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.
Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0002389